Yes, printing more money for hospitals would liquefy the whole economy into jello.
The value of money floats on the market - supply and demand.
On the supply side the government creates money when it funds programs and destroys money when it collects taxes. Importantly, taxes don't fund programs. Programs are funded by fiat and taxes are a way to reduce the supply of money in the economy.
On the demand side, funding programs creates economic growth and taxes must be paid in the currency being printed. Printing money doesn't create "national debt" or whatever, it creates jobs and investment and growth by funding essential services.
Taxation acts on both the supply and demand side of the problem. The way to control inflation is taxation, not austerity. Austerity, in fact, can make inflation worse because it shrinks the economy and reduces demand for dollars i.e. stagflation.
Printing money for the hospitals would be immensely positive. It would create economic growth by giving people longer and more productive lives (which means economic productivity), on top of employing more hospital staff and creating demand for more pharmaceuticals and equipment, which in turn creates jobs for pharmacists and equipment manufacturers, etc etc.
Someone lied to you when they told you we can't afford to fund the hospitals.
Now, money doesn’t explain everything of course – perhaps there are some racially-linked diseases that are underfunded, and here “TPOASIWID” serves an explanation, but a rather bad one because it doesn’t actually explain anything.
...
“The purpose of the hospital is to have institutional racism” doesn’t make sense at all – it’s the purpose of institutional racism to infect the hospital, and the purpose of leftists to purge institutional racism.
The purpose of hospitals in Canada is to have institutional racism. That doesn't mean that the concept of hospitals is racist and I think we can be a little more granular than defining all hospitals as racist.
It’s a brazen assertion that whoever is running the world is doing things exactly right and simply can’t fail.
Yet you do the opposite, you're making the credulous assertion that whoever is running the hospitals is trying their best and they aren't intentionally killing people. You do it again here:
But TPOASIWID just leads one to conspiracy theories: since the War on Drugs basically just got a lot of black people thrown in jail, then surely all those people who claim to hate drugs must actually just hate black people, and not drugs at all!
"Whoever is running this War on Drugs is simply doing their best to stop drugs and they aren't intentionally filling the prisons with Black people. They certainly aren't running drugs and guns for cartels to fund CIA off-the-books operations in Latin America!"
You're very trusting of the people in charge and this is why TPOASIWID is so useful - it makes me skeptical of powerful people. At the very least it should be one of the ways you approach systems when you try to understand them, even if it isn't the only one. I certainly don't assume the people in charge are perfect and that everything is going Just As Planned!
My Occam's Razor is, "problems are hard." Besides, if you believe the US empire is failing overall, that doesn't seem compatible with every individual system within it operating as intended despite appearing to be failing by all observable metrics.
You can't print money to pay for everything. Who's going to accept that money in exchange for goods and services? Aquaman? If somebody told you that the government can print money forever, they were lying (or at least had never heard of Zimbabwe).
Perhaps we can split "purpose" into "intended purpose" and "emergent purpose," that is, the purpose that can be derived retroarctively from observing its function and modelling the system as an agent unto itself. For instance, I think you're conflating the intended purpose of the War on Drugs with its emergent purpose -- can you really deny that it was created with the intention of obliterating drugs? Seems conspiratorial to me, given the breadth of support the program had. But I could say that its emergent purpose became incarcerating black people due to flawed design and lack of oversight. And of course, this flawed design and lack of oversight was permitted to exist due to institutional racism in the meta layer (society and the government overall).
Listen to what Nixon, the guy who launched the war on drugs, said:
[Editors note: the removed word is the n word obviously] You start out in 1954 by saying, “removed, removed, removed.” By 1968 you can’t say “removed”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “removed, removed.”
You expect me to believe this racist piece of shit wasn't just looking for a way to terrorize and imprison Black people? I'm supposed to believe that it was just a coincidence, or something that emerged later?
I can't buy that. He knew what he was doing.
As to printing money, Zimbabwe had a lot of other problems besides printing too much money. It was a young post-colonial nation that was struggling to break away from dependency on the colonial metropoles, they had massive crop failure, and colonial banks wouldn't lend them money. Their inflation has a lot of causes beyond just too much money printing.
Printing money just increases liquidity and velocity of money, it doesn't actually increase the amount of wealth a society has. Canada wouldn't become richer just because it printed more money, it would just be a redistribution of wealth.
But Canada is not Zimbabwe. It could certainly stand to print a little bit more money for the hospitals, and redistributing wealth to the hospitals would create economic value and actually benefit society. People living longer and healthier lives creates more demand for money, which in turn counters inflation.
I'm saying WoD failed to stop drugs. Failed, as in, was supposed to and didn't. Was there a secondary purpose of incarcerating black people? Sure, could be. Is it racist to want to get rid of drugs? Nah.
Redistributing wealth by printing money is pretty stupid. The wealthy don't have money, because there are better investments. This is all based on the myth that inflation is necessary for society to function; that you need to push people to get rid of their money. Japan went like 20 years without inflation -- not saying they don't have problems, but to my eyes none of those problems are caused by a lack of inflation, and the typical person did not complain that inflation was too low. Redistributing wealth by taxing the rich is based.
I'm saying evil pieces of shit like Nixon did not care about drugs. They don't care about addiction, or overdoses, or any of that shit.
Do you think he was just a good boy trying his best to help people?
Why do you think he was the one the launch the war on drugs? Why him?
The wealthy don’t have money, because there are better investments
Their investments are still denominated in the currency, and by controlling the currency they trade in you can control their assets.
It's always the richest people in society that push for austerity and cuts to government services and lower taxes. You think this is a coincidence? They very much do care about their money, even if they have properties and stocks and other instruments.
The value of money floats on the market - supply and demand.
On the supply side the government creates money when it funds programs and destroys money when it collects taxes. Importantly, taxes don't fund programs. Programs are funded by fiat and taxes are a way to reduce the supply of money in the economy.
On the demand side, funding programs creates economic growth and taxes must be paid in the currency being printed. Printing money doesn't create "national debt" or whatever, it creates jobs and investment and growth by funding essential services.
Taxation acts on both the supply and demand side of the problem. The way to control inflation is taxation, not austerity. Austerity, in fact, can make inflation worse because it shrinks the economy and reduces demand for dollars i.e. stagflation.
Printing money for the hospitals would be immensely positive. It would create economic growth by giving people longer and more productive lives (which means economic productivity), on top of employing more hospital staff and creating demand for more pharmaceuticals and equipment, which in turn creates jobs for pharmacists and equipment manufacturers, etc etc.
Someone lied to you when they told you we can't afford to fund the hospitals.
The purpose of hospitals in Canada is to have institutional racism. That doesn't mean that the concept of hospitals is racist and I think we can be a little more granular than defining all hospitals as racist.
Yet you do the opposite, you're making the credulous assertion that whoever is running the hospitals is trying their best and they aren't intentionally killing people. You do it again here:
"Whoever is running this War on Drugs is simply doing their best to stop drugs and they aren't intentionally filling the prisons with Black people. They certainly aren't running drugs and guns for cartels to fund CIA off-the-books operations in Latin America!"
You're very trusting of the people in charge and this is why TPOASIWID is so useful - it makes me skeptical of powerful people. At the very least it should be one of the ways you approach systems when you try to understand them, even if it isn't the only one. I certainly don't assume the people in charge are perfect and that everything is going Just As Planned!
Can you think of any system that is failing in its purpose?
The US empire is collapsing. I really doubt they actually want the empire to fall and for us to enter the Chinese century.
I start from TPOASIWID and then try to disprove it by methodically examining the system. Basically, it's my Occam's Razor.
My Occam's Razor is, "problems are hard." Besides, if you believe the US empire is failing overall, that doesn't seem compatible with every individual system within it operating as intended despite appearing to be failing by all observable metrics.
You can't print money to pay for everything. Who's going to accept that money in exchange for goods and services? Aquaman? If somebody told you that the government can print money forever, they were lying (or at least had never heard of Zimbabwe).
Perhaps we can split "purpose" into "intended purpose" and "emergent purpose," that is, the purpose that can be derived retroarctively from observing its function and modelling the system as an agent unto itself. For instance, I think you're conflating the intended purpose of the War on Drugs with its emergent purpose -- can you really deny that it was created with the intention of obliterating drugs? Seems conspiratorial to me, given the breadth of support the program had. But I could say that its emergent purpose became incarcerating black people due to flawed design and lack of oversight. And of course, this flawed design and lack of oversight was permitted to exist due to institutional racism in the meta layer (society and the government overall).
Listen to what Nixon, the guy who launched the war on drugs, said:
You expect me to believe this racist piece of shit wasn't just looking for a way to terrorize and imprison Black people? I'm supposed to believe that it was just a coincidence, or something that emerged later?
I can't buy that. He knew what he was doing.
As to printing money, Zimbabwe had a lot of other problems besides printing too much money. It was a young post-colonial nation that was struggling to break away from dependency on the colonial metropoles, they had massive crop failure, and colonial banks wouldn't lend them money. Their inflation has a lot of causes beyond just too much money printing.
Printing money just increases liquidity and velocity of money, it doesn't actually increase the amount of wealth a society has. Canada wouldn't become richer just because it printed more money, it would just be a redistribution of wealth.
But Canada is not Zimbabwe. It could certainly stand to print a little bit more money for the hospitals, and redistributing wealth to the hospitals would create economic value and actually benefit society. People living longer and healthier lives creates more demand for money, which in turn counters inflation.
Modern Monetary Theory.
I'm saying WoD failed to stop drugs. Failed, as in, was supposed to and didn't. Was there a secondary purpose of incarcerating black people? Sure, could be. Is it racist to want to get rid of drugs? Nah.
Redistributing wealth by printing money is pretty stupid. The wealthy don't have money, because there are better investments. This is all based on the myth that inflation is necessary for society to function; that you need to push people to get rid of their money. Japan went like 20 years without inflation -- not saying they don't have problems, but to my eyes none of those problems are caused by a lack of inflation, and the typical person did not complain that inflation was too low. Redistributing wealth by taxing the rich is based.
I'm saying evil pieces of shit like Nixon did not care about drugs. They don't care about addiction, or overdoses, or any of that shit.
Do you think he was just a good boy trying his best to help people?
Why do you think he was the one the launch the war on drugs? Why him?
Their investments are still denominated in the currency, and by controlling the currency they trade in you can control their assets.
It's always the richest people in society that push for austerity and cuts to government services and lower taxes. You think this is a coincidence? They very much do care about their money, even if they have properties and stocks and other instruments.
Right, they're asking to cut taxes because the purpose of taxes is to redistribute wealth.