"§3101. Public debt limit
(a) In this section, the current redemption value of an obligation issued on a discount basis and redeemable before maturity at the option of its holder is deemed to be the face amount of the obligation." (1/6)
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req… "(b) The face amount of obligations issued under this chapter and the face amount of obligations whose principal and interest are guaranteed by the United States Government (except guaranteed obligations held by the Secretary of the Treasury) may not be more than" (2/6)

Thread!
The US Government (the Federal Government) pays for EVERYTHING, both those 'things' you approve of and those things you disapprove of, whether it uses accounting schemes and vehicles like "Trust Funds" or not, **exactly** the same way. (1/9) That way never involves using your (federal) tax dollars OR your or someone else's dollars which you 'surrendered' to purchase Treasury Bonds.
It issues U.S. Dollars by FIAT. It is the ONLY entity with the right to do so. No, banks do not do that on their own authority. (2/9)

Define "the functions of A for B" as A's observable objective consequences which contribute positively to the adjustment or adaptation of B. (1) Define "the manifest functions of A for B" as A's observable objective consequences which contribute positively to the adjustment or adaptation of B which are/were *intended and recognized* by participants in A. (2)

Income and wealth taxes *always and everywhere* reduce the purchasing power, the power to command vendible items, of those whose income and wealth are being taxed. Nothing else about them is as true and relevant as that. What, if anything, can be, or is, or may be "done with" the proceeds from those taxes is irrelevant. Taxes are always and everywhere compulsory nonreciprocal exactions/obligations. Whether those taxed "approve" or "are ok with" them is immaterial.

Even if it can be shown to be the case that capitalists would be better off if THEIR combined workers were sufficiently well-off to purchase all/more of their offerings at steady or increasing profits, it would STILL not follow that . . . (1/2) ... it would be or is in their INDIVIDUAL interest for THEIR workers to be thus sufficiently well off, EVEN if it's not primarily out of what THEY pay them. (2/2)

Tell me you didn't read and certainly did not understand a book without telling me: "When it was originally published, The Division of Labor in Society was an entirely original work on the nature of labor and production as they were being shaped by the industrial revolution." "an entirely original work *on the nature of labor and production* as they were being shaped by the industrial revolution". Completely, comprehensively false. Not even remotely close to accurate.

One of the points Michael Heinrich makes often in his public lectures is that "class consciousness" and "class-based personal and collective identity" do not, in the least, entail REVOLUTIONARY or "radical" thinking, acting, etc. 'Proletarian' so-called "class-consciousness" need not, in the least, be "revolutionary" or "radical" or "critical of the existing class structure and property relations". The *presence* of proletarian class-consciousness is a NECESSARY condition for overcoming capitalism.

It's the day before the first US Dollars enter circulation, qua means of final payment of all debts, private and public, within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. 'Tomorrow', there will be actual US Dollars around in addition to accounts being able to be kept in U.S. Dollars, transactions (present or 'futures') undertaken in and through U.S. Dollars, etc..

There are existing statutes, perfectly Constitutional, whereby the US Congress limits the Executive in *how* (not whether) to effect its spending and taxing will, its Power of the Purse. One such is the limitation on the total amount of outstanding US Treasury Notes (Greenbacks). Another concerns limitations on the denomination of metallic coins, *excluding* platinum (and palladium?).

No matter how "well-paid" one is as a waged/salaried worker, no matter how safe & pleasant the working conditions and work-place may be, no matter how much autonomy and discretion as to the pace, direction, etc. of one's waged/salaried work one is allowed by one's employer ... ... no matter how "important" and "strategic" one waged/salaried work contributions and output are treated and experienced as being, waged/salaried work and workers are DEPENDENT on the will of employers (who may be/are themselves in part subject to the will of still others).

"If we are able to study subjectivity and identity as media and outcome of these forces, we might, however, better trace the lines of constitutive instability that shadow and subtend the reduction and abstraction of social relations into the economics of wage-effort bargaining." If your reaction to the above is "wha?", you're not alone, and it's "not you". Gobbledygook of the highest order, right there!

"[Τ]he financial relationships reflected on balance
sheets and the real activities of production and consumption compose two separate systems, governed by two distinct sets of relationships." "Explanations that reduce debt to the financial counterpart to some real phenomena ignore the specifically financial factors governing the evolution of debt. "

"If ever there was demonstration as to *the political futility of MMT*"
The "political futility" of a neochartalist theory of modern money and monetary economies, folks! #smh

https://twitter.com/meadwaj/status/1434496224636411907

It's almost unimaginable that a person allegedly desirous of political actions resulting in improvements in the material and symbolic well-being of "the many" AND their autonomy (capacity for self-government) would ...

(1) The U.S. Govt issues, on its own authority, U.S. Dollars (in every possible form, paper, coin, electronic). (2) It does not promise that it will exchange said U.S. Dollars for anything else, including foreign currencies, precious metals, agricultural commodities, oil, coal, anything at a fixed price.

MMT correctly warns against treating fiat, unpegged, currency-issuing governments as if they are individuals, households, businesses, local governments and other currency USERS. Fair enough. (1) Still, a proper 'analogy' of the position such governments find themselves in at the individual level is, I claim, desirable and useful. (2)