Falls ihr es noch nie gehört habt: Lernt, was der Cantillon-Effekt bedeutet. Neues Geld landet nicht gleichmäßig bei allen. Wer es zuerst bekommt (Staat, Banken, Großkonzerne), kauft Dinge, bevor die Preise steigen. Wer es zuletzt bekommt (Arbeitnehmer, Sparer), zahlt schon die höheren Preise. Deshalb: – steigen Immobilien und Aktien schneller als Löhne – wird Wohneigentum für viele unbezahlbar – profitiert, wer Vermögen besitzt, und verliert, wer nur Einkommen hat – geht die Schere zwischen Arm und Reich immer weiter auf – fühlt sich das Leben an wie ein Hamsterrad, in dem man trotz Arbeit nicht vorankommt Je mehr Geld ins System kommt, desto unfairer wird es verteilt. Das Problem ist nicht der Kapitalismus, sondern unser Geldsystem.

The entire Financial Times editorial board has published a piece urging Lula to cut government spending and appoint a finance minister who enjoys the confidence of investors. I get the impression that the FT editorial board has never opened an economics book other than some outdated introductory macroeconomics textbook, perhaps something by Mankiw. Otherwise, it's hard to explain such astonishing arrogance and economic ignorance. Lula and the Brazilian people have absolutely no reason to bow to the demands of financial markets. Brazil is Latin America's largest economy, a major regional power, and a country with a high degree of monetary sovereignty. Around 97% of the central government's debt is denominated in its own currency, the Brazilian real. The relationship between the state and financial markets is therefore nothing like the FT portrays it. Brazil is not dependent on financial markets. On the contrary, financial markets depend on government spending, which creates financial assets for the private sector, while government debt denominated in the national currency is one of the instruments through which those assets are held. What Brazil needs is not capitulation to financial markets, but an independent economic policy focused on expanding production, creating jobs, and improving people's living standards. Armed with the insights of heterodox economic theory, Brazil has the potential to show the world what a genuine economic miracle looks like. ft.com/content/79785581-88c2…

MMT tells you a monetarily sovereign nation can issue all the currency/debt it wants and nothing will happen, claiming that currency and market volatility can easily be eliminated by cancelling the capital account. This nonsense can only be promoted by someone that does not understand that the currency collapse and creditworthiness slump are driven by domestic citizens and savers rejecting the local currency; it is not an evil conspiracy of foreign investors. Furthermore, no nation is monetarily sovereign. It always depends on demand. Try to force use or restrict flow, and the currency is worth nothing. And local citizens are the first to reject an increasingly worthless currency issued by an irresponsible government. You are welcome

Capitalism didn't create your need to work to survive. Nature did. An employer doesn't impose that necessity upon you. He offers you an opportunity to satisfy it through voluntary exchange. Socialism doesn't eliminate the necessity of work. It merely transfers authority over production to politicians or the collective. Under capitalism, you're free to change employers, negotiate wages, work for yourself, or establish a cooperative. None guarantees success, but the freedom exists. And here's where your moral superiority becomes particularly ridiculous. You condemn people for offering employment on terms others are free to reject, yet consider yourself morally entitled to dictate how they must use their property, run their businesses, and compensate others. You call voluntary agreements exploitation while presenting coercion as compassion. Your objection isn't that people are being forced to serve others. It's that they aren't being forced to serve others on your terms. And somehow, you've convinced yourself that makes you the moral one.