volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@mempko

No, the Treasury mints money without a debt obligation.

Congress is free to authorize the minting of money whenever it wants without borrowing from anyone to fund that.

Such facts disprove the "all money is debt" claim.

As for the $5, Why do you care where it came from when I buy the hamburger from you? Heck, I could have even minted the $5 myself, and so long as my forgery was perfect it would have the same value to you.

And this perfectly illustrates the folly of going down those practically irrelevant rabbit holes.

On a related note, it doesn't matter how many books a person may write, if his argument is so clearly false then it's false no matter the messenger's history.

@mempko

Here's another way to respond:
If I give you a million dollar check but with the stipulation that you cannot cash it, are you really rich?

Technically, accounting-wise, you have that money, but practically, no, you're no better off.

Graeber's graphs are counting exactly that situation, counting the private sector as richer based on money locked up in loans to the federal government.

If government paid off those loans instead of revolving it into new loans then the private sector would ACTUALLY be richer, able to use that capital to invest in machinery, hiring, and all sorts of other things.

His argument miscounts unspendable paper wealth and so is misleading.

@black_intellect

> "The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case prohibited the government from restricting political campaign spending by companies, nonprofit organizations and unions."

Well, I appreciate that at least this article didn't portray CU as being just about rich people, pointing out that nonprofits and unions have their speech protected by the ruling as well.

@mastobit @darnell

Robert Reich really went off the deep end a few years back, to the point where he is not particularly reliable at all these days.

In this video he's saying a lot of thing that are flat out wrong compared to US law.

The US is legally barred from defaulting. Such a choice would run contrary to the Constitution, and any debtor would have the right to receive payment ahead of other expenditures.

What Reich says here is easily debunkable by reference to the laws of the country.

We really need to call out the guy more, since he's so consistently spreading false information these days.

@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr

I'd reference this website.

They literally wrote the book outlining the plan. I have a copy of the actual book around here somewhere. I probably picked it up decades ago.

For example:
> "In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free."

https://fairtax.org/faq

@mempko

The video is based on some accounting hoops that don't have real world meaning, and it also gets some of its facts wrong about what money is and how it works.

Mainly, if I trade $5 to you for a hamburger, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether I'm trading you $5 in $1 coins or a Federal Reserve Note even though those would be treated differently in his accounting.

Because his description of money is unrealistic, even if technically correct as for legal abstraction.

The "all money is debt!" argument is not only factually wrong, but also irrelevant to how money is used in the real world.

@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr

If this is a reference to the FairTax, since I see that popping up today, the plan would write the poor checks to offset the tax burdens.

The FairTax was specifically designed to be progressive, to make sure it this payment prevents it from hitting the economically vulnerable.

@mastobit @darnell

Not quite.

It's money that Congress *authorized* the Executive Branch to spend if possible, based on projections of tax collections vs project costs throughout the following year or so.

It was not money we agreed to spend as that's an executive branch action that happens over time.

It's really important to realize this difference as it's at the crux of the debt ceiling debate.

Congress authorized the spending of money that didn't exist, which constrains the budget. It didn't and couldn't have agreed to spend that money. Because, again, it didn't exist.

@aevisia

Not directly to the protocol, but end clients are all free to add whatever "pay me" buttons they'd like.

@jchyip

Well, when investors know that the CEO is factually incorrect, it ends up being nothing but advertising for the investment.

@SAWYNNE1

If you didn't hear Republicans having issues with the Trump deficits then I don't think you heard from many Republicans.

I heard at TON of Republicans yelling about it.

Anyway, it is new funding.

That legislation passed without funding the spending it authorized doesn't change that this is about raising more money, more debt, for those programs.

And without funding there is no spending, so yes, it is also new spending.

@Ciantic

I don't see an answer to "how" in that :)

I'm kidding, well half kidding.

From my perspective, it's not a problem that can or should be solved at the protocol level. Yeah, I agree that it requires human labor, and I'd put it as a social problem that requires a social, not technical, solution.

Me, I'm often drawn toward solutions that are fully decentralized, empowering end users to shape their experiences, especially by using web of trust type techniques to avoid interactions that they'd rather not get into.

And that probably wouldn't integrate down into the protocol

@mempko

No, the US Constitution assigns authority to borrow to Congress, as we want to be really sure that there's general consensus among the population before we're all obligated for generations to work to pay off those debts.

The debt ceiling is merely the total amount of borrowing that Congress has authorized.

It wasn't self imposed, but was built directly into the framework of the US government because that borrowing was seen as such a critical thing to include in the checks and balances.

@craigpc

For what it's worth, I originally heard the FairTax promoted by libertarian types who had very strong disagreements with Republicans, and who were frustrated that Republicans didn't support the plan back then, as they were the party in charge. I suppose it was in the '90s?

@charvaka

As you said, the Fed controls the money supply, and as an independent entity, it has effective unilateral control over that, by definition.

Anyway, the debt ceiling is a legislative branch check on executive branch behavior.
Anything that would undermine the debt ceiling short circuits that check.

We shouldn't want the executive branch to have unlimited ability to borrow on the credit of the US, which is exactly why that issue was constitutionally divided between the two branches.

@ryanderous

The BIG reason to be skeptical is to realize that presidents have every incentive to spin up fears, to get the public to pressure Congress to give them more money.

In this case the Treasury has plenty of ongoing income to service debts so there is absolutely no legal chance for the US to default.

Presidents like to put out that fear because it serves their strategic interests, but it's simply not true.

@SAWYNNE1

Democrats had every chance to authorize borrowing to pay for their spending packages, but they didn't.

It's worth holding them accountable for bragging about programs that they left without funding, for putting us in this situation, and hoping that Republicans would fix their mess.