The most common progressive-liberal narrative about taxation actually exists wholly within a conservative-libertarian framework and is paralytically myopic, and the consequences are deadly.
I’m a big fan of the “fallacy of consumability” of money, as you call it. A poor person’s food stamps allow him to buy food from the merchant who in turn can hire workers etc. And I’ve read Graeber and understand the history. And I’ve read Prof Kelton and agree that we can (should) fund needed social programs without a wrong-headed “fund it first” mentality. So overall, I’m supportive of these arguments. However, I have three suggestions for powerful follow-on essays:
(1) Short simple stories that illustrate the point: Darn right that Violette is an effective story-teller. I had hoped to see her same powerful post later in the essay with the couple suggested edits that preserve its strength while avoiding the Thatcher Trap.
(2) Address the evidence of one’s own eyes regarding reallocation of societal resources. There is a positive sum outcome to be had by funding social programs, yes! And yes we can afford that better future. But didn’t I “get to keep my paycheck” under one administration and “had to cough up hard-earned dollars to the public coffers” under another administration? This is too powerful of a first-hand experience to address without simple, clear, and true narratives. It seems to me that there really is some reallocation going on within a broader positive sum context. That reallocation needs to be addressed more directly. I either send in that tax check or buy a car — those are not identical situations. I’d love to see this personal-level point addressed - within a powerful narrative frame.
(3) I think the reader does ultimately require a healthy morality no matter how persuasive the economics. There’s a reason eugenics and libertarianism have strong linkages. How many people, and which people, should society help boost? I’d suggest a thought experiment. Suppose the US could safely support one billion people in 5 years; would you support that? Now suppose the US were to have 10% of its population wiped out (not you, dear reader) and all their property were auctioned off. Would this be a +/- or neutral? Many (most) people would say no to the billion, which I think is morally reasonable. Only a monster would find the second scenario interesting. But that same mindset lurks in the mind of many who hear that food stamps story and wonder, Did we really need that guy in the boat? The morality question is there, and if we look away because it is so ugly (focusing instead only on the academic side), we let it fester too.
Lastly, credit to you and to Violette for passionately working to usher in a better world.
I’m a big fan of the “fallacy of consumability” of money, as you call it. A poor person’s food stamps allow him to buy food from the merchant who in turn can hire workers etc. And I’ve read Graeber and understand the history. And I’ve read Prof Kelton and agree that we can (should) fund needed social programs without a wrong-headed “fund it first” mentality. So overall, I’m supportive of these arguments. However, I have three suggestions for powerful follow-on essays:
(1) Short simple stories that illustrate the point: Darn right that Violette is an effective story-teller. I had hoped to see her same powerful post later in the essay with the couple suggested edits that preserve its strength while avoiding the Thatcher Trap.
(2) Address the evidence of one’s own eyes regarding reallocation of societal resources. There is a positive sum outcome to be had by funding social programs, yes! And yes we can afford that better future. But didn’t I “get to keep my paycheck” under one administration and “had to cough up hard-earned dollars to the public coffers” under another administration? This is too powerful of a first-hand experience to address without simple, clear, and true narratives. It seems to me that there really is some reallocation going on within a broader positive sum context. That reallocation needs to be addressed more directly. I either send in that tax check or buy a car — those are not identical situations. I’d love to see this personal-level point addressed - within a powerful narrative frame.
(3) I think the reader does ultimately require a healthy morality no matter how persuasive the economics. There’s a reason eugenics and libertarianism have strong linkages. How many people, and which people, should society help boost? I’d suggest a thought experiment. Suppose the US could safely support one billion people in 5 years; would you support that? Now suppose the US were to have 10% of its population wiped out (not you, dear reader) and all their property were auctioned off. Would this be a +/- or neutral? Many (most) people would say no to the billion, which I think is morally reasonable. Only a monster would find the second scenario interesting. But that same mindset lurks in the mind of many who hear that food stamps story and wonder, Did we really need that guy in the boat? The morality question is there, and if we look away because it is so ugly (focusing instead only on the academic side), we let it fester too.
Lastly, credit to you and to Violette for passionately working to usher in a better world.