********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.

It sometimes feels as if people here are determined to make the worst possible 
interpretations of comments. It was a straight question, asked precisely out of 
curiosity, not the lack of it. I’m not dismissing the general importance of 
understanding money, but the text left me wondering what difference it makes to 
someone in an electoral campaign if s/he has to argue that we need to raise 
taxes to avoid inflation rather than to pay for progressive policies as such? 

> 14 feb. 2020 kl. 13:19 skrev MM <marxmai...@gmail.com>:
>> On Feb 14, 2020, at 4:01 AM, Daniel Lindvall <daniel.lindv...@filmint.nu 
>> <mailto:daniel.lindv...@filmint.nu>> wrote:
>> But, if you have to rise taxes, not to fund the spending as such, but to 
>> offset inflation, how much difference does it really make?
>> Kavanagh: ”…surtaxing the rich does not transfer funds directly to pay for 
>> another activity like healthcare, but it does help configure the money 
>> supply on a macro level to enable more social spending. It averts the 
>> inflation that would occur if both a lot of spending on healthcare andthe 
>> infinite appropriation of money by individuals were tolerated. Taxes don’t 
>> raise funds; they do help control the money supply.”
> If you can read that piece and be left with that question, and without any 
> curiosity to pursue any of the ideas mentioned in it, there’s nothing 
> whatsoever I can do to help you. 

Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 

Reply via email to