CM,

You suspect wrong, I got it from the 'Book of Reality' I'm telling you what is so. If there is a philosophy that agrees with me then so be it. You like to label others with tags like "Communist". In the past you've branded me as such. If you disagree with what I say;

The Reserve Bank through its Board has one overriding responsibility, and that is to ensure monetary policy acts in a way to return the maximum profits possible to Capitalism.

If you disagree with that statement tell me that's not so, and you believe the overriding function of the Reserve Bank Board is something else? I don't want your economics theories, I just want facts, I'm all ears, fire away!

Maybe you believe the 'Million Dollar Man' and his bunch of cronies are really concerned about the "little people" the ones I called workers.

http://developingeconomics.org/2021/03/17/monetary-policy-is-ultimately-based-on-a-theory-of-money-a-marxist-critique-of-mmt/

Theories of money

Regarding the ontology of money, for neo-Chartalists, money is a unit of account legally determined by public authorities to measure mutual debt obligations within a community (Tcherneva, 2016). Following Keynes’ famous remark, MMT understands “modern money” as essentially the same “…for some four thousand years at least.” (Keynes 1930:4, quoted in Wray, 2014:15). For us, this approach erases the historical specificity of money, and therefore of capitalism.

In contrast, Marxists consider that the full development of money occurs only under capitalist conditions. Marx (1976) certainly acknowledged the fact that money emerged in pre-capitalist societies. But money did so at the point of mercantile contact between societies, as an external imposition and not as an internal result of the social relationships proper to those societies. Unlike capitalism, these internal relations were organized on the basis of direct personal dependence bonds (Marx, 1986). The products of labor did not take the form of commodities systematically and regularly, while social reproduction did not depend on generalized mercantile exchange, and thus on money.

Paul1405 said "Maybe you believe the 'Million Dollar Man' and his bunch of cronies are really concerned about the "little people" the ones I called workers."

Answer- As others have said Communists don't love the "little people" they hate the rich- all in the name of love and equality. If you care about the "little people" you should want "little communities" as Alexis de Tocqueville talked about in his book- but Paul1405 doesn't seem to (care about little people)- and Paul1405 doesn't seem to (care about little communities). Of course little communities occasionally need to interact with the world- on their terms of course- and this is where hierarchy applies. There needs to be a balance between security and risk between stability and change- of course there are always those who want to interfere with others lives- like the communists- justifying ideological bigoted genocide under the auspices of a "just war" against "false consciousness".

Where my bias ends your bias doesn't begin.

CM,

I asked for your opinion and I got drivel. I don't much care what Mr Tocqueville writes in his book. I don't care if Mr Kaynes made famous remarks in the year dot. No, I care about people and what is so, and what affects them, and what can done to make their lives better, be it Capitalism then its good, be it Communism then it is also good.

You say I hate rich people, not so I hate no one. I judge you to hate 1.4 billion Chinese people for no other reason than they want a better life for themselves, but not under your accepted conditions. So who is the real hater?

BTW, if you are going to bore me with your drivel then please keep it short, it saves you time writing it, and more importantly it saves me time reading it.

There is such a thing as cause and effect. Communist causes lead to certain effects and it's not making peoples lives better.
100 million dead under Communism and we still haven't been able to dig up the graves in 100 years- so the figures are probably much higher.

No political system is perfect- but Locke was wrong- a world wide Liberal Democratic order won't be fair or equal- that doesn't mean that democratic principles are always wrong- balance and context is important. Governmental structures high in the hierarchy need to be limited in scope by the borders of the structures below and by principles that recognize the dangers of too much scope. Humans have never lived at the scale of today- it is new- and we will fail- but more so if we fail to recognize our mistakes