The 'extreme left' meets the populist Right....and both men say they "have much in agreement".....

Obviously Trump has been chastened by recent subnational election results;  after the meeting in the WH,  Trump is now saying he has much in common with  "communist" Mamdani, highlighting concerns with crime, high cost of living, and high rents in New York.

A case of dysfunctional Neoclassical orthodoxy bringing together two political opponents who "love New York".

It will be fascinating to see if Mamdani can tax the rich  - when the NY state governor herself has already ruled that out*** -  or whether Trump can ease the economic pressures on ordinary New Yorkers in some other way.

***(report from the Guardian)
“The things that Mamdani promised will likely get a haircut,” and the governor’s stated opposition to tax increases may just face reality – she probably can’t get the things she wants on the spending side without some flexibility on the tax side.”

No kidding - Neoclassical orthodoxy has crippled politicians' ability to think; being a Democrat she is prepared to look at free universal child care, but doesn't want to increase taxes.

Like Albo and Chalmers in Oz, who are engaged in a race to the bottom with the Conservative opposition regarding lower taxes, and are now even abandoning their commitment to funding public hospitals - telling the state premiers to raise their own money.

Deplorble. 

IMHO Modern Monetary system as well as Global Debt belong to the field of behavioral psychology based on physiology of signal system, like Pavlov's dog conditioning but  one level higher.

Jasin wrote on Nov 20^th, 2025 at 4:36pm:



Asimov wasn't an economist, whereas Musk is - though still deluded by Neoclassical economics with its concomitant government 'peny pinching'  (hence Musk's awful DOGE).

But Musk (30 years afer Asimov's death)  IS capable of  seeing beyond the current Neoclassical orthodoxy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYONBTlTXrg

Elon Musk Says AI Will Make Work and Money Useless

It's telling that the audience applauses when Musk says "AI...will make money useless"  (....are we all getting tired of the egregious poverty and growing inequailty associated with 'invisible-hand', market-based distribution of money?)

Also interesting:  this particular video is apparently examining  Musk's musings from a biblical perspective (wherein it is said 'love of money is the root of all evil'); though I didn't listen beyond Musk's opening remarks because my interest in this thread concerns  alternative money systems, not theology. 

So - Asimov might have 'proved' robots won't work for humanity  (I disagree,   carpet cleaning robots already exist - depends on how you define 'work for humanity' - the sky's the limit), but his understanding of money - beyond having to balance his own household budget,  was likely as limited  as most of the population.  

From Prof. Steve Keen,  anti-Neoclassical economics crusader:

https://profstevekeen.substack.com/p/privatising-the-planet?utm_campaign=email-p...

Privatising the planet

Utilities, health, media - there's a rush to take everything out of state hands. But could corporate-run towns be the final act, privatising democracy.?

How far are we willing to go in accepting the corporate takeover of just about everything? In Britain public utilities were sold off, so companies could profit from selling resources whilst minimising maintenance of facilities. Phil asks the question how Britain’s water infrastructure is in such a state of repair in an industry that makes £13 billion per year. Then there’s the moves to strangle publicly funded media and privatise the funding of health. But it gets worse. Britain’s freeports are local areas run jointly by local authorities of local business. Democracy has become just another seat at the table. And there’s a proposal from one consortium for a new town in Britain that is run by a corporation where residents sign a contract for services. No local democracy. Such towns already exist in many parts of the world. Is that the conclusion - we privatise everything and we are all at the whim of big business. Elon Musk is already working on how to create your artificial best friend.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2025 at 11:38am:



How about if the RBA refuses to print money to buy Govt. bonds?

They talk about inflation but they caused it.   

TGD,
Quote:



It's not free -
printed money is a form of tax as it destroys savings by inflation.

Money is taken out of banks -
people end up putting their life savings into shares that could tank at any time
just to make enough money to cover inflation.
I knew someone who lost 90% of their life savings in the 1987 stock market crash.
I knew another one who lost their house in the 2,000 tech bubble.
I lost over $24,000 on shares in my Super from the 2008 GFC.
I heard that most amateur day traders lose their arse on shares yet
the Govt. is there taxing any profits if you do make a gain.

It's all a rip off and if the RBA stopped printing money,
people could leave their money safely in the bank and earn interest above inflation.
BTW - any interest you earn in the bank is taxed regardless of inflation.

Bobby. wrote Yesterday at 3:06pm:


You are not reading the posts to which you imagine you are replying.

Lesson #1:

Money is created ex nihilo, ie, it's free for a legal currency-issuer. 

Quote:


Lesson #2:

Banks are authorized to create money ex nihilo, which they do when they create deposits for credit-worthy customers.

If you think banks have to lend money from customers' savings/deposts, you need to answer: from where do the customers get their money?

Wages? And where do their employers get the money? 

Sales? But sales depend on consumers who have money.....

Quote:


You would still have the banks printing money - which is how most new money is created in the economy

Quote:


I have already noted an alternative: government management of resources, with a zero interest rate policy at the central bank, instead of the central bank setting interest rates. (Private banks could set their own interests rates on savings and loans, via competition.    

Quote:


You want to increase your wealth (via interest on savings which is higher than the inflation rate) simply because you have the capacity to save?

Business of course wants you to spend your money NOW, not save it.

I'm satisfied  if my savings can be expected to buy certain goodies in a decade's time, eg plane tickets, hotel rooms, etc. 

...while saving a proportion of my wages through exercise of frugality.

Earning interest on the backs of borrowers used to called 'usury', when banks did it.....i