Its about feeling better, superior if you will, to other people. For a lot of people (including liberals) it is much better to have things go your way rather than the others' way just because you want to be right; you want the upper hand, the moral high ground. You can tell conservatives or libertarians about how MMT can lead to lower taxes and they will still find some shit to gripe about. Hell, even liberals I've talked to bring up the inflation boogeyman. The passion and drive you guys at the Real Progressives have is admirable. I personally have pretty much given up on trying to talk to people about monetary sovereignty and how federal finances≠finances of the rest of us. I still leave a comment on videos that equate federal finances to the finances of everyone else, but I either get ignored or they insult me like I insulted their mom.
Not educated enough to concur or not. But have you taken into account we have national shortages in doctors, specialists, nurses, -all providers. We need to hire big time (!) if we don't want our stretched-thin system totally overwhelmed with aging baby boomers.
Question: if there is a public option for health insurance, would employers "guide" their employees to that option? We keep hearing that "Medicare for All means the end of private employer insurance," would private empoloyers see the public option as the opportunity to get out of the insurance business ?
All you need to do is look to countries that have public health care. The answer is there. I think the main problem of libertarians and right wingers is that they are both very confident of and very disparaging of private enterprise. If health insurance is no longer a viable business opportunity, what makes these libertarians (who believe in the might of private enterprise) believe that businesses would continue to offer health insurance at a loss? Wouldn't these geniuses of opportunity find another outlet for their intellect and put their capital there? Libertarians and right wingers cannot insist on the superiority of private enterprise compared to government and at the same time lament that government regulation designed to help the most disadvantaged of the population would destroy insurance companies. These insurance companies are huge. The lesson of the financial crisis of 2008 is that these companies actually destroyed themselves and had to beg for socialist stimulus from the government instead of the government destroying them.
Medicare for All can be done with a marginal tax increase. Every worker pays 1.45% now, and their employer matches 1.45%. Bump this to 3% employee / 3% employer & you have more than enough.
James A. Robichaux the government can run deficits indefinitely. Mosler is correct in that regard. We could simply reallocate existing spending, increase taxes or simply run deficits. I’m in favor of the quickest method of financing it, which is via deficit spending. All I was writing is that it’s easy to find funding when taking out the fact private premium and deductibles go away. The average family pays $12k a year now through payroll tax, premiums, deductibles & copays. It’s been report M4A would net save the average family $6k a year and streamline how we provide care. It’s a better system and I’m all for it.
@@biggiescooby5836 You need to learn more on MMT you are missing the point especially when it comes to Resources, once you understand that, MONEY is not the issue, IT NEVER IS.
yes, Myrna Jordan. The public debt goes up. It is higher now than in 1980 or 1990 or 2000. In 2030 2040 2050 it will be higher. The more money people HAVE or OWN, the higher the public debt must be. That is true, in the current fiscal system without radical and largely pointless structural changes in how the Treasury & Fed & global corporate banks function. For capitalism to function, overall private sector income, savings, gains, bottom line, must grow. It cannot shrink. Shrink = mass bankruptcy and failure. So we all want and need the total money supply to grow because we want all private income to grow. Ideologically, we want our money to both grow AND shrink at the same time. The so-called "national debt" *is* precisely that private income and private savings. Same dollars, parallel accounting. Our net private savings is stored by banks and firms mostly in Treasury Securities. Hedge fund managers, when risk-averse, hold "cash". They ain't layin in bed on a pile of twenties and hunnerts like a gangsta rap video. They park their cash in United States Treasury Securities. The shorter the Term, the more these papers are exactly like Reserves or plain old dollah bills. Treasury liabilities *ARE* private assets.
Highly recommend this gentleman's free online book : Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. About 100 PP and pretty easy to read.
fascinating that someone clicked the down thumb... proof that there are people in America that have no interest in saving lives.
Its about feeling better, superior if you will, to other people. For a lot of people (including liberals) it is much better to have things go your way rather than the others' way just because you want to be right; you want the upper hand, the moral high ground.
You can tell conservatives or libertarians about how MMT can lead to lower taxes and they will still find some shit to gripe about. Hell, even liberals I've talked to bring up the inflation boogeyman.
The passion and drive you guys at the Real Progressives have is admirable. I personally have pretty much given up on trying to talk to people about monetary sovereignty and how federal finances≠finances of the rest of us. I still leave a comment on videos that equate federal finances to the finances of everyone else, but I either get ignored or they insult me like I insulted their mom.
Larue77 Wait I don’t get it why do you support increase the tax back to what they would’ve been paying? Just because?
In 1972, I made $12,000. Now I make $19,000 SSDI
Not educated enough to concur or not. But have you taken into account we have national shortages in doctors, specialists, nurses, -all providers. We need to hire big time (!) if we don't want our stretched-thin system totally overwhelmed with aging baby boomers.
Question: if there is a public option for health insurance, would employers "guide" their employees to that option? We keep hearing that "Medicare for All means the end of private employer insurance," would private empoloyers see the public option as the opportunity to get out of the insurance business ?
All you need to do is look to countries that have public health care. The answer is there. I think the main problem of libertarians and right wingers is that they are both very confident of and very disparaging of private enterprise. If health insurance is no longer a viable business opportunity, what makes these libertarians (who believe in the might of private enterprise) believe that businesses would continue to offer health insurance at a loss? Wouldn't these geniuses of opportunity find another outlet for their intellect and put their capital there?
Libertarians and right wingers cannot insist on the superiority of private enterprise compared to government and at the same time lament that government regulation designed to help the most disadvantaged of the population would destroy insurance companies. These insurance companies are huge. The lesson of the financial crisis of 2008 is that these companies actually destroyed themselves and had to beg for socialist stimulus from the government instead of the government destroying them.
I agree with Mosler on MMM. Not so much on universal healthcare.
Medicare for All can be done with a marginal tax increase. Every worker pays 1.45% now, and their employer matches 1.45%. Bump this to 3% employee / 3% employer & you have more than enough.
but why, though? As Mosler says, there is no need for a tax increase.
James A. Robichaux the government can run deficits indefinitely. Mosler is correct in that regard. We could simply reallocate existing spending, increase taxes or simply run deficits. I’m in favor of the quickest method of financing it, which is via deficit spending. All I was writing is that it’s easy to find funding when taking out the fact private premium and deductibles go away. The average family pays $12k a year now through payroll tax, premiums, deductibles & copays. It’s been report M4A would net save the average family $6k a year and streamline how we provide care. It’s a better system and I’m all for it.
@@biggiescooby5836 You need to learn more on MMT you are missing the point especially when it comes to Resources, once you understand that, MONEY is not the issue, IT NEVER IS.
yes, Myrna Jordan. The public debt goes up. It is higher now than in 1980 or 1990 or 2000. In 2030 2040 2050 it will be higher.
The more money people HAVE or OWN, the higher the public debt must be. That is true, in the current fiscal system without radical and largely pointless structural changes in how the Treasury & Fed & global corporate banks function.
For capitalism to function, overall private sector income, savings, gains, bottom line, must grow. It cannot shrink. Shrink = mass bankruptcy and failure.
So we all want and need the total money supply to grow because we want all private income to grow.
Ideologically, we want our money to both grow AND shrink at the same time.
The so-called "national debt" *is* precisely that private income and private savings. Same dollars, parallel accounting.
Our net private savings is stored by banks and firms mostly in Treasury Securities.
Hedge fund managers, when risk-averse, hold "cash".
They ain't layin in bed on a pile of twenties and hunnerts like a gangsta rap video. They park their cash in United States Treasury Securities.
The shorter the Term, the more these papers are exactly like Reserves or plain old dollah bills.
Treasury liabilities *ARE* private assets.