You’ve mentioned parallel/local currencies, so I’d like to outline a class of parallel money (https://t.co/QlwPt624f2) as measurable obligations (IOU). Any such money (local or not) is interest-free, non-taxable, has no option for savings/investments, circulates beyond banking sector and is supported by an information system which creates some money (when new obligation is posted to the system) and destroys it (when an existing obligation is somehow paid or reduced in a cycle of obligations stored by the system). That money may be used as inexpensive (in terms of maintenance and electricity consumption) temporary tool in an economy until The Hard Problem of MMT (as you described at https://smithwillsuffice.github.io/ohanga-pai/questions/021_powerplays/#the-hard-problem-of-mmt) is resolved.
On the other hand, a government may encourage economic agents to use specific parallel money denominated in the official currency unit--in addition to credit and fiat money--to lessen the need for both of them to the amount of obligations reduced by the system itself.
An important note here: the current status of the aforementioned system is a sort of beta version.
1. When the currency is "destroyed" that *is* a tax by any other name, so probably best not to say it is "nontaxable".
2. The government never "reuses" currency, that concept is inapplicable for a monopoly issuer. If there is an unemployed resource just employ them for public purpose! It won't cause inflation because by definition the private sector bid was zero.
3. The issue ahead I see is lowering rate of energy consumption. I think carbon/energy credits is what will inevitably be used. It introduces a slight micro-inefficiency, since the rationing systems are never completely market driven, but I think with secondary markets where people not using their annual credits can sell them will be sufficient. The key is no austerity, no worker suffers loss of income nor livelihood as a result of proper working class focused sustainable development (regrowth, not degrowth).
4. I see parallel/local currencies as driving full employment when the government leaves a spending gap open. But totally unnecessary if the central government is wise, pro-working class, and MMT informed!
I read the 'Brick by BRICS' podcast in transcript- as I can read a thing about twice as fast as I can listen to it. It's pretty easy to digest. On the other hand I always struggle a bit reading your stuff- no offense intended, I think it's a cultural thing- you are young with a fast brain and I am an old plodder. I'm only really competent to read and write polemic style. At risk of doing a thing that I think you said you're not interested in- Realpolitik- I'm going to make a point.
The USA has mashed up the business of being the global reserve currency with its geopolitical interests on the basis that it can enforce it's economic position by military means. On the presumption that Russia was the 'soft underbelly' of the BRICS partnership- a wheezing old cripple of a country- it engineered a war between that ancient country with a history of defeating enemies at apparently impossible odds and a young country (actually only half a country, since 40% of the population are ethnically and culturally Russian) with a supremely naive political class. Naive because they have no history of statesmanship in the world, being simply an insertion-by-coup of ambitious American proxies. No other border-state polity could / would have been naive enough to take on this doomed task. Indeed in recent weeks Georgia has declined to be America's next cannon fodder and also declined (despite the allure of dancing-girl carnival protesters) to be 'regime changed' to a government more inclined to do so.
300bn USD of stolen (don't tell me 'frozen') assets says the USA isn't a 'fit and proper' custodian of the global reserve currency. Did you know that George Washington held Bank of England stock from 1759-1786, basically hedge-profiteering from investment in the British side of the war (only an American could eh?) My point being that the BoE didn't seize / confiscate his asset. USA is mired in quicksand and every squirm they make in attempt to extract themselves hastens their drowning.
Economics is Political. Global economics is Geopolitical. Interest rate risks etc. are small biccies by comparison.
Bijou, I admire your dedication!
You’ve mentioned parallel/local currencies, so I’d like to outline a class of parallel money (https://t.co/QlwPt624f2) as measurable obligations (IOU). Any such money (local or not) is interest-free, non-taxable, has no option for savings/investments, circulates beyond banking sector and is supported by an information system which creates some money (when new obligation is posted to the system) and destroys it (when an existing obligation is somehow paid or reduced in a cycle of obligations stored by the system). That money may be used as inexpensive (in terms of maintenance and electricity consumption) temporary tool in an economy until The Hard Problem of MMT (as you described at https://smithwillsuffice.github.io/ohanga-pai/questions/021_powerplays/#the-hard-problem-of-mmt) is resolved.
On the other hand, a government may encourage economic agents to use specific parallel money denominated in the official currency unit--in addition to credit and fiat money--to lessen the need for both of them to the amount of obligations reduced by the system itself.
An important note here: the current status of the aforementioned system is a sort of beta version.
Couple of things.
1. When the currency is "destroyed" that *is* a tax by any other name, so probably best not to say it is "nontaxable".
2. The government never "reuses" currency, that concept is inapplicable for a monopoly issuer. If there is an unemployed resource just employ them for public purpose! It won't cause inflation because by definition the private sector bid was zero.
3. The issue ahead I see is lowering rate of energy consumption. I think carbon/energy credits is what will inevitably be used. It introduces a slight micro-inefficiency, since the rationing systems are never completely market driven, but I think with secondary markets where people not using their annual credits can sell them will be sufficient. The key is no austerity, no worker suffers loss of income nor livelihood as a result of proper working class focused sustainable development (regrowth, not degrowth).
4. I see parallel/local currencies as driving full employment when the government leaves a spending gap open. But totally unnecessary if the central government is wise, pro-working class, and MMT informed!
I read the 'Brick by BRICS' podcast in transcript- as I can read a thing about twice as fast as I can listen to it. It's pretty easy to digest. On the other hand I always struggle a bit reading your stuff- no offense intended, I think it's a cultural thing- you are young with a fast brain and I am an old plodder. I'm only really competent to read and write polemic style. At risk of doing a thing that I think you said you're not interested in- Realpolitik- I'm going to make a point.
The USA has mashed up the business of being the global reserve currency with its geopolitical interests on the basis that it can enforce it's economic position by military means. On the presumption that Russia was the 'soft underbelly' of the BRICS partnership- a wheezing old cripple of a country- it engineered a war between that ancient country with a history of defeating enemies at apparently impossible odds and a young country (actually only half a country, since 40% of the population are ethnically and culturally Russian) with a supremely naive political class. Naive because they have no history of statesmanship in the world, being simply an insertion-by-coup of ambitious American proxies. No other border-state polity could / would have been naive enough to take on this doomed task. Indeed in recent weeks Georgia has declined to be America's next cannon fodder and also declined (despite the allure of dancing-girl carnival protesters) to be 'regime changed' to a government more inclined to do so.
300bn USD of stolen (don't tell me 'frozen') assets says the USA isn't a 'fit and proper' custodian of the global reserve currency. Did you know that George Washington held Bank of England stock from 1759-1786, basically hedge-profiteering from investment in the British side of the war (only an American could eh?) My point being that the BoE didn't seize / confiscate his asset. USA is mired in quicksand and every squirm they make in attempt to extract themselves hastens their drowning.
Economics is Political. Global economics is Geopolitical. Interest rate risks etc. are small biccies by comparison.