pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 27 Jul \ parent \ on: Monetary inflation is NOT taxation econ
Potatoes are consumed once. Potatoes are perishable.
Growing excessive potatoes does not cause monetary expansion.
Excess potatoes affects no price other than that of potatoes.
It’s like dollars and potatoes — different things.
Excess potatoes affects no price other than that of potatoes.
Excess potatoes affects the price of literally everything expressed in potatoes.
It's just that not many people choose to use potatoes as money. Most people choose to instead use a particular other thing equally unfit for the purpose.
Perishability is not that relevant here. Real estate is also used as a SoV and it doesn't last forever.
reply
How about mining gold on a gold standard? Is mining gold taxation somehow?
reply
Closer, in that if a gold standard of money existed, the government mining more gold would be similar to a stealth tax in practice (with an expansion of the monetary base), but not a tax, because of the lack of exclusive production rights.
Except the US -- where it was illegal in 1933-74 to own gold, other places in the world could dig it up any time, this was not coercive, and did not 'tax' other gold standard countries.
Potatoes or any other non monetary instrument can be produced by anyone.
Fiat money can only be produced by an organization with a monopoly on violence. Potatoes and gold can be mined by private corporations, and their production is not a tax.
Ultimately the purpose of a tax is to offset monetary creation by the state. if the debt cannot be settled by a direct tax, the state will settle the debt by debasement.
reply
Obviously, I disapprove of the state's monopoly on violence, so we can leave that aside.
There's no plausible argument that you have a property right in the purchasing power of your monetary savings. Purchasing power is based on the subjective valuation of sellers and you have no claim over that. All you can have a property right to is the units of money in your possession.
Since you have no right to purchasing power, you aren't being expropriated when your purchasing power is reduced via inflation.
Where your rights are being violated is in not being allowed to produce your own money. When the state enriches itself through inflation, it's really rent seeking off of that abridgement of your rights.
reply
I disagree with that core premise that you do not own the PP, that it isn’t a core part of a modern advanced economy.
This is like one of the most important things that a stable society is said to provide, without it, commerce degrades to subsistence barter.
One cannot have an advanced economy without stability in at least one of your trade instruments.
I think it’s all about life, and time. Too many potatoes rarely ever eat into the stored value of a societies savings.
reply
Just because it's important doesn't mean you can own it. Other people are fundamental to an advanced economy, too, it doesn't imply that you can own them.
You didn't contend with my point. Purchasing power consists of thoughts in other peoples minds. What is your argument for being able to own other people's thoughts?
reply