r/mmt_economics

Very little in this world is more infuriating to me than the very high propensity of what passes for the Left here, which is the best political home available to me, to sabotage itself and its own purported goals by actively advancing the Right's agenda, ideology, and lies. Granted, the center-Right liberals who portray themselves as center-Left are even more egregious, but the movements that seem to widely be considered the Left are hardly innocent.

One of the most common ways this manifests is in messaging about not letting "our tax money" go to bad purposes such as genocide in Palestine, imperialist wars of aggression in Iran and elsewhere around the world, or ICE terrorism against our communities or wanting "our tax money" to go to something good such as healthcare, education, housing, projects to help address climate collapse, social programs, childcare, etc. I have attended countless actions that included this within the messaging, have even been arrested at some such actions, and have canvassed for, phonebanked for, lobbied for, or otherwise supported several campaigns that use messaging spreading these lies, including canvassing or otherwise volunteering for candidates whose official messaging includes these lies, and though I have brought up my concerns about the messaging, people have often been defensive, even insinuating that I am not a real leftist or progressive because of my criticism. When they are willing to talk with me in good faith, it is pretty simple and straightforward to prove to them that there is absolutely no way "taxpayer money" could ever possibly exist at any point in world history; I also find it helpful to point out that we should be opposing, for example, genocide in Palestine, imperialist wars of aggression in Iran and elsewhere around the world, and ICE terrorism against our communities because they wipe out entire peoples, violate other countries' sovereignty, and endanger our neighbors, especially the most vulnerable, all through large-scale murder, kidnapping, and other violence, all to benefit those who are already most powerful and privileged, all carried out by or actively supported and made possible by our government that nominally represents, serves, and is accountable to us, not because we don't like that way of using "our tax money", which would only serve to redirect the blame from those who are actually carrying out or enabling such atrocities or who are aligned with or supporting such decision-makers to those of us who pay taxes as required by law. Still, I have yet to see any serious rejection of these lies; instead, people seem to be doubling down on them even further.

Another way this manifests is in demands to tax the rich. It is a very simple accounting identity that either increasing taxes at all or decreasing public spending at all results in a smaller non-government sector surplus, forcing us to rely more on bank-issued horizontal money to compensate for the reduced net amount of government-issued vertical money coming into existence, so that we go deeper into debt to the banks issuing that money, which only benefits Wall Street and the billionaires in charge of it while harming the rest of us, especially the working class, also potentially leading to a recession or depression that would be even more beneficial to those at the very top and even more harmful to everyone else. Somehow, people seem to be even less willing to hear the truth when it is at odds with their support for taxing the rich than when it is at odds with their opposition to using "our tax money" for something harmful; they make all sorts of excuses, often relying on doubling down even further on the lie of the existence of "taxpayer money". I have attended countless actions that included taxing the rich among their objectives or even as the leading demand, have even been arrested at some such actions, and have canvassed for, phonebanked for, lobbied for, or otherwise supported campaigns that seek to tax the rich, including canvassing or otherwise volunteering for candidates whose platforms include higher taxes on the rich.

I can understand the allure of taxing the rich, which may at first appear to be the simplest and most immediate way to reduce the obscene wealth that those very few at the top have, at least when ignoring the actual macroeconomic impacts that could not be any closer to the exact opposite of that. It also seems that taxes on the rich would tend to be less harmful macroeconomically for the same reason they would not be effective as inflation-fighting measures: they would skim a little bit off of the vast fortunes of those who would have no trouble affording them without adjusting their spending patterns at all or taking on any more debt outside of their routine borrowing against their vast stock portfolios as their means of accessing liquidity when their wealth is in such an illiquid form. Still, there is no justification for supporting a policy that at best would only be mildly harmful, would still carry high costs of implementation no matter what that would waste a lot of resources, would yield absolutely no benefit whatsoever, and would uphold a lot of very harmful narratives.

I also understand that these lies are so pervasive the vast majority of people are very thoroughly indoctrinated, with a lot of difficulty in unlearning them. It took me a semester as Stephanie Kelton's PhD student, between high school and undergrad, to fully reject taxpayerism. This reminds me of how most of us have probably gone through a "yeah, there are problems with how Israel is currently run and what it is currently doing, but how are Jews supposed to be safe if we don't have our own adequately secure country where we're the majority" phase and I still wasn't fully supportive of Palestinian resistance until the past couple years. It shouldn't be so hard, though, to get those who self-identify as the Left to stop spreading the Right's lies and advocating for policies grounded in those lies that serve primarily to advance the Right's agenda.

The main reason I am bringing this up now is that it is May Day and I will be attending the main action in New York, organized primarily by Sunrise. The first of this action's demands, before "No ICE, No War: No private army serving authoritarian power" and "Expand democracy: Hands off our vote", is "Tax the rich: Our famlies, not their fortunes, come first"; I have been raising objections to that ever since I first saw it significantly over a month ago, but those within Sunrise who are responsible for this action have been ignoring my concerns all along, making excuses such as that the messaging was already agreed on. So yes, Sunrise is now suddenly fighting for the opposite of everything the Green New Deal has always been ever since we and our partners began formulating it around 2016-2018 and everything for which our movement has always stood ever since we launched in 2017 after frontloading starting in 2016. We used to hold trainings on non-fiction macroeconomics for our members, led by other members, but apparently we have now fully embraced taxpayerism. I remember that Sunrise played a central role in helping me unlearn the Right-wing taxpayerist lies into which I, like nearly everyone else, had been indoctrinated, but apparently those within our movement who are responsible for this action remain fully indoctrinated. I am really not sure what I should do, because obviously I want to continue aligning with movements that are likely some of the best paths to a livable future that are available to us and to support a Workers Over Billionaires action for May Day, but everyone who could address those serious problems with that action has been consistently ignoring me or blowing me off.

This is similar to how Congressional candidates with Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress have often been guilty of both of the above examples, namely saying that the government should stop using "our tax money" for harmful purposes and that it should tax the rich, even though they hold trainings on non-fiction macroeconomics for their candidates and campaign staff or at least held such trainings a few election cycles ago; they and their candidates/campaigns also played a central role in helping me unlearn taxpayerist lies. I'll have to see what responses I get when I try to start conversations in those circles as we continue through primary season.

Can anyone give me advice over the next few hours before this action starts as to what I should do about this issue?

I am going to be attending a screening of a documentary about the daily hour-long news program Democracy Now (Steal This Story Please), and hope to ask the anchors of the show, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonsalez, a question about how they cover macroeconomics on their show during a q&a session afterwards. What should I ask them?

Two-Pool Demurrage Bond Model

Setup

A lender deposits principal P_0 into a term contract. Over time, two balances evolve:

· Principal pool P_t – depreciates at rate d per period (the demurrage / holding tax).
· Return pool R_t – accumulates returns, then also depreciates at rate d.

The return is calculated on the combined total (P_t + R_t), added to R_t, and only then does the depreciation hit both pools.

Period‑by‑period dynamics

```
P_t = (1-d) * P_{t-1}

R_t = (1-d) * [ R_{t-1} + r * (P_{t-1} + R_{t-1}) ]
```

Where:

· P_0 = initial principal
· d = demurrage rate (e.g. 0.03 for 3%)
· r = nominal return rate applied to the total balance (P + R)
· t = time in periods (e.g. years)

Closed‑form solution

Because P_t = P_0 * (1-d)^t, the return pool has a tidy closed form:

R_t = P_0 * (1-d)^t * [ (1+r)^t – 1 ]

And the total value:

V_t = P_t + R_t = P_0 * [ (1-d)(1+r) ]^t

Key properties economists will spot immediately

Property Formula
Breakeven return rate r* = d / (1-d)
Effective CAGR g = (1-d)(1+r) – 1 = r – d – r*d
Principal share of total P_t / V_t = (1+r)^{-t}
Return pool share of total R_t / V_t = 1 – (1+r)^{-t}

At maturity (when P_t → 0), the lender essentially receives R_t.

Numerical example

Parameter Value
Principal P_0 $1,000
Demurrage d 3% per year
Nominal return r 5% per year
Term T 33 years

Results:

· P_33 = $366
· R_33 = $1,465
· Maturity payout = $1,831 (1.83× principal)
· Effective CAGR = 1.85% per year

If r = 3.093%, the payout equals exactly $1,000 (breakeven). Any r below that means the lender loses nominal principal.

One‑line framing

"This is a zero-interest lending policy where the demurrage tax applies to both principal and reinvested returns, but returns are calculated on the growing total balance. It forces money into circulation while allowing lenders to preserve purchasing power through a compounded return pool that replaces the depreciated principal at maturity

Do you foresee a situation where societies/countries become 100% cashless? If yes, what timeline would you give it?

Also, do you think we’ll reach a point where digital currencies no longer need any physical backing at all — similar to when the U.S. dollar detached from gold in the Nixon Shock?

Curious to hear different perspectives on where money is actually headed.

This is gonna be a long one but I could really need the help of this community.

The setting:

I am working on developping a theoretical framework to assess the utility of Peatland-PV in Germany from a Macro-economic perspective.

Peatland-PV is the concept of rewetting peatlands which are currently drained and used for agriculture and placing PV on the rewetted surface.

From a macro-economic perspective, this creates benefits such as reduced GHG-emissions, which can be quantified through the social cost of carbon, increased biodiversity (incredibly difficult to quantify) and obviously the generated electricity (among others).

Most people would agree (I assume), that the CAPEX and OPEX of a Peatland-PV Project are to be considered as costs (from a macroeconomic perspective), as they quantify the resources needed to realize the project (labour and material resources). Added to these should be the integration costs of PV (System LCOE), transaction costs as well as opportunity costs (as the surface can't be used for agriculture anymore after rewetting).

Then comes the controversial part: Most people would probably assume that subsidies are a cost factor and taxes income (hence a benefit) from a societal point of view.

This view is, in my opinion, wrong: The subsidy does not represent a real consumption of resources, it merely prioritizes the allocation of real resources to the Peatland-PV project. The actual societal cost (use of resources) is entirely quantified through the CAPEX and OPEX of the project (and other costs discussed earlier). I understand though, how, if you assume that a governement can only spend money it has first earned through taxes, the prior assumption makes sense (in other words: if the government budget is considered a limited resource, considering a subsidy/expense as a societal cost does make sense. That assumption is false though, as real resources are scarce, not money).

Now the "problem" I'm facing is that I need existing literature/theory/models to justify why I don't consider subsidies and taxes in the analysis (calculating tax revenue would also be incredibly time-consuming) which is quite contrary to common economic thinking. I can't really find any literature on this specific question.

Am I right in my assumption, that in conventional macroeconomic analyses, taxes and government expenditures are considered?

Is there a way to justify not considering taxes/subsidies without arguing from a MMT-perspective?

Do you know existing theoretical frameworks or literature on similar analyses?

I'm grateful for any thoughts and potential literature recommendations.

Thanks in advance!