• unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      All money is free. It is not taken from some limited store, but rather created by government, freely.

      The value, stability, and legitimacy of money is sustained by the supremacy of state power. By such power, the government both determines the supply and shapes the distribution of money, and is assured never to be insolvent.

      No distribution of money is natural or naturally superior.

      Money is a social construct directed by political will.

      Price inflation currently occurring is largely due to the political choice to distribute money to corporations.

      That is, as a consequence of particular political choices, the already imbalanced distribution has become even more unfavorable toward workers.

      If the political will were rather toward distributing money to workers, then prices may follow a pattern of gradual inflation, but as long as workers’ income keeps pace, workers would not be harmed by it even in the slightly.

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Money is not free. The cost of new money is devaluation of old money.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Devaluation is not a cost.

          It is, however, a consequence of expanding the money supply.

          In turn, however, expansion of supply is not a threat, because of the various capacities for the government to withdraw money, as through taxation, or central bank policy.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      You do seem offended. Whatever are you talking about?

      I don’t see your point other than an explicit joy in the suffering of others. Do I have that right? You think people should go hungry for your personal pleasure?

      • nawapad@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        They must be having a miserable time to get so much out of other people suffering, but that’s in line with most reactionary asses I’ve met.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I recommend you read about Modern Monetary Theory. The US has Monetary Sovereignty in a fiat currency, and therefore is not limited by taxation when it comes to federal funding. Instead, the US is limited by the real economy, which is worth trillions of dollars more than the federal budget. If the federal government stopped with the federal budget and just spent on the real economy, it wouldn’t impact inflation in any way. We do this already with the military, like outspending the USSR on military tech for a decade, sending hundreds of billions of dollars worth of equipment to Ukraine, and spending billions to support Israel’s genocide.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m guessing facts won’t work here. The “consequences” he’s laughing about are a consistent >100% ROI on welfare. He’s laughing because he’s proud conservatives are hurting the economy (and even their own bank accounts!) by hurting the poor, either out of willful ignorance or willful malice.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Reactionaries are not hurting the economy.

          They are hurting the working class, including themselves, while helping the oligarchs.

          Why, you may ask, do they hurt themselves, and help the oligarchs?

          The reason is that they always do what the man on the television screen tells them.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Reactionaries are not hurting the economy.

            Weakening welfare hurts the economy. That’s what he’s laughing about. Welfare has always been the biggest no-brainer in economic theory. It always makes the country more than you spend. Even the wealthy.

            Why, you may ask, do they hurt themselves, and help the oligarchs? The reason is that they always do what the man on the television screen tells them.

            Do you know many conservatives, for real? I’m not talking Trump-heads. I’m talking actual conservatives. There’s this underlying attitude that the world is a “free” place where you work hard and earn your way to betterment. You hear it in the voices of the older generation, but also the newer generation, when they talk about things like “work ethic”, or someone being “too proud to beg” when there’s a disaster and family or friends try to offer help. Have you never heard anyone say “I don’t want nothin for free”, or tell their boss “I don’t need that kinda money, just pay me ____ and I’ll be happy”? I’ve seen and heard all those things.

            One way to look at conservativism is that it’s means based, where the Left is more ends based. A conservative cares more about “doing the right thing” than “making the world a better place”, They see the government’s place as “enforcing peace” and nothing else, so social programs seem like a giant mandated charity to them.

            Conservatives rarely oppose welfare because they think it doesn’t work. They oppose welfare because they think it’s wrong whether it works or not. And that’s not a talking head telling them that, it’s decades of growing up surrounded by that same hierarchical mindset.

            Like John F Kennedy said “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You. Ask what you can do for your country”. There’s people who take that to heart and feel it’s not the country’s job to make their life a better place. And will allow themselves to sink into poverty holding on to that belief.

            They’re horribly wrong, but if you don’t understand why they feel that way, it’s hard to help move the country forward.

              • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                There is no “The Economy”.

                There really is. Even without capitalism, the median buying power of an individual will always be a thing.

                Weakening welfare hurts workers.

                Obviously. It hurts everyone, so of course it hurts workers.

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No. Weakening welfare helps the oligarchs.

                  Notice how they keep doing it.

                  Workers and oligarchs have mutually antagonist interests.

                  “The Economy” is a construct that obfuscates the class antagonism.

                  • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No. Weakening welfare helps the oligarchs.

                    Actually, it doesn’t. Strong welfare has created wealth for companies like Walmart. Regardless of intent, almost every law makes the Oligarchs richer.

                    Notice how they keep doing it.

                    Conservatives keep doing it. The Conservatives cater to the wealthy, but it isn’t just the wealthy that guide the party’s direction . The Fortune 500 find limited benefit shrinking welfare, but rich individuals (not super-wealthy) would rather an extra couple grand in their tax return, and conservative people hate the idea of someone getting something for nothing.

                    Workers and oligarchs have mutually antagonist interests.

                    There’s more than 2 categories of people in the world. It’s not oligarchs voting against welfare. And most people voting against welfare come from a line of thought that predates Oligarchy in the US.

                    “The Economy” is a construct that obfuscates the class antagonism.

                    Calling something fiction doesn’t make it so.