Why can't the "Left" appeal to the Extreme Left in the way the "Right" courts the Extreme Right?

[Farm Boy]

It is hilarious. I'm familiar with the situation.

There's a more equal than others thing going on. But by all means it's a good, use it to do some good. Right? Some for you, some for others. Even if it's just more available energy. That would be a win, at the discussed scale.

 

[El_Machinae]

We would never argue deflation aka unemployment is income (aka, opposite of a tax). And would never argue reducing interest rates is a tax. So on those two axes it's very hard to justify inflation as a tax, and reducing future deflationary pressure as a tax.

Government-induced deflation is definitely going to be a transfer of wealth born by one group to assist another. (Also deflation is not the same thing as unemployment, they're just linked events)
A tax reduces someone's ability to consume, so that the government can re-task assets to do something else it wants. We have to be careful to not respond with "oh, be grateful it's not worse". Like, if we didn't pay taxes to fund courts, people's wealth would be lower .... but we still both tax and fund courts.
Debt forgiveness requires that the asset holder lose paper-wealth, or else you're not doing accounting. And everyone who's seeing their prices increase faster than incomes (or anyone who trusted their savings with government-backed bonds and fiat) is seeing a reduction in their ability to consume.

It would be really weird if we didn't conceptually view government-induced inflation as a tax. Like, it's a tax if the government takes away some of your fiat to reduce your consumption, but isn't if they devalue your fiat for some other national purpose? It then allows the conversation to become a pedantic bait-and-switch. Someone pays for the debt-forgiveness, it's impossible not to.

Remember, you can offset inflation by just directly taxing fiat away from people. That's forcing one group to pay for whatever we're trying to make. The opposite of that, not taxing them to control inflation, is forcing someone else to pay. Post-crisis inflation heavily represents the government's inability to tax, so a bait-and-switch is done and I don't think pedantically calling it 'not a tax' is fair.

 

[Lexicus]

Government-induced deflation is definitely going to be a transfer of wealth born by one group to assist another. (Also deflation is not the same thing as unemployment, they're just linked events)
A tax reduces someone's ability to consume, so that the government can re-task assets to do something else it wants. We have to be careful to not respond with "oh, be grateful it's not worse". Like, if we didn't pay taxes to fund courts, people's wealth would be lower .... but we still both tax and fund courts.
Debt forgiveness requires that the asset holder lose paper-wealth, or else you're not doing accounting. And everyone who's seeing their prices increase faster than incomes (or anyone who trusted their savings with government-backed bonds and fiat) is seeing a reduction in their ability to consume.

It would be really weird if we didn't conceptually view government-induced inflation as a tax. Like, it's a tax if the government takes away some of your fiat to reduce your consumption, but isn't if they devalue your fiat for some other national purpose? It then allows the conversation to become a pedantic bait-and-switch. Someone pays for the debt-forgiveness, it's impossible not to.

Remember, you can offset inflation by just directly taxing fiat away from people. That's forcing one group to pay for whatever we're trying to make. The opposite of that, not taxing them to control inflation, is forcing someone else to pay. Post-crisis inflation heavily represents the government's inability to tax, so a bait-and-switch is done and I don't think pedantically calling it 'not a tax' is fair.

All spending contributes to inflation, not just government spending. It would be kinda bizarre to say that any time anyone spends money it "taxes" everyone else by reducing the value of their money. Very zero-sum.

 

[El_Machinae]

All spending contributes to inflation, not just government spending. It would be kinda bizarre to say that any time anyone spends money it "taxes" everyone else by reducing the value of their money. Very zero-sum.

Um, duh. But when government does it, we use a different word for the wealth transfer.
When a restaurant charges me at the end of a meal, we don't call it a 'tax'. But when the government charges me at the end of an income year, we do. Store mark-up on my cigarettes isn't tax, but the added tax is.

It's this bizarro world where government taking away people's wealth along one dimension is a 'tax' and if they do it in a different way, it isn't. Then we can just transfer wealth away from people willy-nilly and be all pedantic when they think something negative is happening to them.

But, fine, government eroding purchasing power from people who trusted its fiat in order to enact some other national goal isn't a tax. It's just magically something else.

 

[Hygro]

Government-induced deflation is definitely going to be a transfer of wealth born by one group to assist another. (Also deflation is not the same thing as unemployment, they're just linked events)
A tax reduces someone's ability to consume, so that the government can re-task assets to do something else it wants. We have to be careful to not respond with "oh, be grateful it's not worse". Like, if we didn't pay taxes to fund courts, people's wealth would be lower .... but we still both tax and fund courts.
Debt forgiveness requires that the asset holder lose paper-wealth, or else you're not doing accounting. And everyone who's seeing their prices increase faster than incomes (or anyone who trusted their savings with government-backed bonds and fiat) is seeing a reduction in their ability to consume.

It would be really weird if we didn't conceptually view government-induced inflation as a tax. Like, it's a tax if the government takes away some of your fiat to reduce your consumption, but isn't if they devalue your fiat for some other national purpose? It then allows the conversation to become a pedantic bait-and-switch. Someone pays for the debt-forgiveness, it's impossible not to.

Remember, you can offset inflation by just directly taxing fiat away from people. That's forcing one group to pay for whatever we're trying to make. The opposite of that, not taxing them to control inflation, is forcing someone else to pay. Post-crisis inflation heavily represents the government's inability to tax, so a bait-and-switch is done and I don't think pedantically calling it 'not a tax' is fair.

So when the government taxes it’s a tax, but when they spend, it’s also a tax! Got it. But as long as the government is the one doing it.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's political, remember?

Currency, decoupled from physical backing, is entirely a political abstraction.

 

[Lexicus]

It's this bizarro world where government taking away people's wealth along one dimension is a 'tax' and if they do it in a different way, it isn't. Then we can just transfer wealth away from people willy-nilly and be all pedantic when they think something negative is happening to them.

But, fine, government eroding purchasing power from people who trusted its fiat in order to enact some other national goal isn't a tax. It's just magically something else.

So, when Elon Musk spends a jillion dollars on a rocket to Mars, is he levying some kind of feudal tribute on me because his spending erodes the buying power of my dollars, all other things equal?

 

[Farm Boy]

The spending of the super-rich doesn't redirect the economy towards goods and services and IPs that the super rich purchase? Or do we only notice it when it's the literal manor-houses you actually personally pay rent upon in order to go work for him? Do we need it to be growing wheat, too?

Edit: We know that super-heavy capital holders could corner the market on say, Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice*. They have the resources. We let them have those resources. Why don't they?

*Hey, it's a funny movie.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So, when Elon Musk spends a jillion dollars on a rocket to Mars, is he levying some kind of feudal tribute on me because his spending erodes the buying power of my dollars, all other things equal?

Lmao he (and other billionaires) did pretty much spend a kajillion dollars to build rocket(s) plural... to fly to space... just because... they were bored or whatever

It was their money to spend so, whatever, I guess... but it does seem a little absurd to me, the more I think about it. But again, it's their money not mine.

 

[Farm Boy]

Last one blew up like a Vanguard.

I wouldn't pretend we didn't pay for them both. Not at that level of funding.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Because right-wingers are more likely to vote strategically, whereas left-wingers are more likely to vote based on ideological purity...look at how, in the US, lots of (radical left wing) Bernie Sanders's supporters refused to vote for Hillary, compared to the fact that there were far fewer supporters of other Republicans who didn't hold their nose and vote for Donald Trump. Yes, Never Trump was a thing, but although it had some prominent members, most Republican voters didn't join it.

 

[GenMarshall]

Because right-wingers are more likely to vote strategically, whereas left-wingers are more likely to vote based on ideological purity...look at how, in the US, lots of (radical left wing) Bernie Sanders's supporters refused to vote for Hillary, compared to the fact that there were far fewer supporters of other Republicans who didn't hold their nose and vote for Donald Trump. Yes, Never Trump was a thing, but although it had some prominent members, most Republican voters didn't join it.

I remember before I fell into the anti-SJW rabbit hole. I voted for a third party, I don't remember who but I think it was Gary Johnson. I didn't like Hillary and I didn't like Trump at the time (I thought he was a joke candidate and was too outlandish for me. I guess I was one of the liberals who were triggered by his racist and sexist screeds before Gamergate sunken it's claws into me). I initially was hoping that Bernie Sanders would have gotten the primary, but was disappointed that Hillary got the nomination (I did not liked Hillary due to her handling of Benghazi and a creation of a Clinton dynasty).

 

[Farm Boy]

That might be partially because they aren't as inclined to think their one three hundred millionth share is so important. It's other stuff that's important.

 

[Uncle Paul]

That might be partially because they aren't as inclined to think their one three hundred millionth share is so important. It's other stuff that's important.

Most general elections change nothing. Look at South Africa - the ANC has won every single general election since 1994.

 

[Lexicus]

The spending of the super-rich doesn't redirect the economy towards goods and services and IPs that the super rich purchase? Or do we only notice it when it's the literal manor-houses you actually personally pay rent upon in order to go work for him? Do we need it to be growing wheat, too?

Ah, but saying that the spending of the rich creates real outcomes that I don't like is a different argument from saying that their spending "taxes me" just by happening. Similarly, I'd rather people just argue they don't think the government should spend on x y and z and explain why they think that rather than hiding behind the smokescreen of "well its spending always taxes me just by happening, so I might support the government spending on this thing, but, alas..."

 

[Farm Boy]

Correct, Lex. Which is why, after years of people whingeing about the farm program paying rich farmers along with being majority food stamps, I am pointing out the general effects of this particular lardpork for the richest in the country so they can buy houses*-- not being ungrateful if you happened to collect 10 thousand USD free. At which point, I would say do some good for you, and do some good for others. Even if it's just freed up energy.

*and managing to not actually do anything about the costs moving forward, so F.U. if you're trying to save for your kids. Professors have needs. Like more houses.

 

[Lexicus]

Correct, Lex. Which is why, after years of people whingeing about the farm program paying rich farmers along with being majority food stamps, I am pointing out the general effects of this particular lardpork for the richest in the country so they can buy houses*-- not being ungrateful if you happened to collect 10 thousand USD free. At which point, I would say do some good for you, and do some good for others. Even if it's just freed up energy.

*and managing to not actually do anything about the costs moving forward, so F.U. if you're trying to save for your kids. Professors have needs. Like more houses.

"The richest in the country" pay for elite education out of pocket, they don't need to take on debt.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yet they do. If you care about the house buying cohort instead of cutting it down to those over the cutoff for collecting this in the first place. D.C. still won. Again. They better get more senators because of sympathetic anecdote.

 

[Lexicus]

Yet they do.

No, they don't. Like, the idea that Bezos' kids are taking on debt to go to school is literally insane.

 

[Kyriakos]

Universities - or at least a fair number of them - should not have any tuition fees (or students should only be eligible to pay fees if their families/they earn more than a higher-than-average amount each year).
Simply cancelling debt once isn't a solution, because you will have to rely on future presidents doing it too.
In that sense, this is systemically more of a ploy, but still welcome for those it helps.