Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Tax Research UK Blog is written by Richard Murphy unless otherwise stated and published by Tax Research LLP under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Design by Andy Moyle
Thanks, for posting this Ruml paper. I first saw it on Huffington Post where Warren Mosler http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/taxes-for-revenue-are-obs_b_542134.html
How does this extremely essential information become a part of common knowledge, as common as the need to reduce unemployment? Everyone is familiar with the latter while few are aware that monetarily sovereign (MS) governments, of which there are many, need not tax or borrow or enforce austerity to fund the federal government.
Here, in the U.S., broader public understanding of MS would likely eliminate the nonsense over debt ceilings and prohibition on Treasury issuing overdrafts both holdovers from the gold standard regime. It could also incite revolution, since our leaders have lied to us about taxation and deficit spending.
Globally, MS nations would as Ruml asserts, be free from financial markets to attack, alleviate poverty without costing citizens through taxation or austerity.
I fear the banks would stifle widespread distribution of the implications of MS. They would be the biggest losers and may be forced into just simply being savings banks and clearinghouses, not gamblers WOPM.
What if an international coalition of Economists penned a letter to MS nations based on the fundamental implications of MS for this planet’ alleviation of poverty and other economic and social dysfunction? Would that be something you would be willing to pursue?
Again thank you for your concern,
Robert