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

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

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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
      11 months 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
        0
        ·
        11 months 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.