Consider three primary world views: 1) Conservative defense of low taxes & low spending, 2) Supporting a more active deficit-financed fiscal policy & 3) Supporting a more-active tax-funded fiscal policy. https://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-investors-political-left-agree-inflation-debt-mmt-economy-2020-11

It’s interesting to me how rarely (3) is discussed. MMT has correctly convinced everyone (2) is possible, which makes (1) look absurd. But what about (3)?

In practice, US govt spending is sterilized with bond issuance, so while the bonds aren’t technically funding the spending, the distinction is somewhat academic.

So when inequality is high, in practice spending going to the lower classes is offset by either taking money from the upper class by borrowing from them (USTs) or by just taking the money (taxes).

Given the importance of monopoly power & rent-seeking in driving upper class income, I personally don’t view much of that income as “earned.” This is why I prefer 3 over 2. But I can see why most young finance types prefer 2.

This is also why I think advocates of 2 aren’t really as left-wing as everyone seems to think. They’re obviously left of 1, but also clearly to the right of 3.

My long-held view is that the way to defeat a Georgist style just-take-the-rents economic policy isn’t by explaining why it’s wrong. That would be hard. Much better to just pretend 1 & 2 are the only options. Because 1 is obviously insane.

Hey upper class, would you rather we borrow from you or just take your money? Oh, borrow? Wow, look at how left-wing these guys are!

The idea that early-cycle government spending should be deficit-financed, rather than funded by taxes on upper-income rents, is a transparently conservative argument.