"Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Steve3007 »

Wossname wrote:I agree human labour creates wealth by adding value to the environment and helping to provide the goods and services we want or need.
Yes, and my (limited) understanding of most economic theories is that the "raw" environment is the baseline - the datum line - for value. Human activity adds (or sometimes possibly subtracts?) value, to varying degrees. As I understand it, it's this "value-added" that is deemed to count economically. And, as discussed below, value is subjective and exists in minds (I propose).
But, as you acknowledge, the value we give that labour varies, ...
Yes, money allows us to quantify the variable value we put on different types of human labour. What that value actually turns out to be is determined by the extent to which the products of a given type of labour are valued by various people.
...and we must not confuse wealth and money.
I agree. Money is a means of exchange (I've proposed ...of human labour. You think it's more things too.). Wealth is an accumulation of products of human labour which people consider to have value. Many things tend to be almost universally valued, sometimes leading to the mistaken impression that value is an objectively, extra-mentally existing property, but the value that any one person places on anything is ultimately personal and subjective. At least, that's my understanding.
You can spend hours growing carrots or whittling a stick and then flog either for a few pence. You can by chance dig up a diamond in a few seconds and flog it for thousands. You can make millions as an investment banker speculating in the markets and create nothing of any value in the process.
To my mind, these are all examples of the fact that value is subjective as I said above. There are some products of human labour that a large proportion of the population tend to value and some things that are valued only by a few, or perhaps just one. Some particular thing might be highly valued by one person but not valued at all by another. There may be reasons why whole collections of people suddenly increase or decrease the value that they place on some particular product of human effort. Houses or bitcoin, for example.

So, to my mind, what you've illustrated above is the highly variable value that various people place on the fruits of various human efforts. In the last example, you offered your opinion of the low value you place on the efforts of investment bankers. Obviously some people must disagree with you or those investment bankers wouldn't be able to sell their services.

I guess the reasons to value or not to value the act of investing money, and the extent to which investment banks are either blood-sucking parasites or vital facilitators of the movement of money to where it can do most good (or somewhere in between), is a whole subject in itself.
I am not sure your attempt to link money directly to human effort works for me. I prefer the accepted descriptions of its use, i.e. a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value.
Well, taking those three in turn:

"Medium of exchange" is what I'm calling it too. But I've proposed that everything being exchanged ultimately boils down to the exchange of human effort. Maybe I'm wrong. It's just an idea to think about.

"Unit of account", by, itself, sounds a bit vague and tautological to me.

"Store of value" seems, at first sight, to be confusing money and wealth.
Of course a difficulty is separating how it is used from what it is. There is a risk of blurring boundaries
I suppose it depends whether you take a generally instrumentalist view of defining things. If you do, them you could argue that the way a tool is used is synonymous with what it is. It could be argued that, since money is an entirely abstract concept and therefore has no material physical properties, it has to be entirely defined in terms of the way that it is used.
You say it is something which represents human labour or activity. I say it represents a credit-debit relationship. So care must be taken in our use of language or we invite confusion.
Yes, you've said many times that it represents a credit-debit relationship. I agree, but I just don't find it a very instrumentally useful definition by itself because it says nothing of the activities in the physical world that the abstract concept of money facilitates. It stays in the abstract realm.
I am not trying to annoy.
I realize that. I am not annoyed! :D (Here's a smiley face to prove it!)
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Steve3007 »

Wossname wrote:As to the household budget analogy. I seem to recall Sajid Javid in his brief sojourn as chancellor speaking of how he learned the importance of budgeting from watching his bus driver father when he would bring his wages home each week. The purpose of the analogy is quite clear I think.
Yes, I remember that too. I presume it had various purposes. I presume one of them was the purpose that politicians usually have when they tell us about their humble origins. I'm just like you guys. We're all in this together. etc.

(I'm not saying that in a cynical way, as in "bloody patronizing politicians". I can see the reasoning as to why they do that. I'd probably do something similar myself if I were them.)
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: May 10th, 2020, 4:39 am
Wossname wrote:As to the household budget analogy. I seem to recall Sajid Javid in his brief sojourn as chancellor speaking of how he learned the importance of budgeting from watching his bus driver father when he would bring his wages home each week. The purpose of the analogy is quite clear I think.
Yes, I remember that too. I presume it had various purposes. I presume one of them was the purpose that politicians usually have when they tell us about their humble origins. I'm just like you guys. We're all in this together. etc.

(I'm not saying that in a cynical way, as in "bloody patronizing politicians". I can see the reasoning as to why they do that. I'd probably do something similar myself if I were them.)
It is far more than personal politicing.
The myth of the national economy qua household economy has been used since Thatcher/Regean to ramp up inequality, put downwards pressure on wages, destroy the power of the unions, bring an end to employment contracts, and use it as a cover to for many nefarious activities.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Wossname »

Steve3007 wrote: May 10th, 2020, 4:17 am Steve3007 » Today, 9:17 am

Yes, you've said many times that it represents a credit-debit relationship. I agree, but I just don't find it a very instrumentally useful definition by itself because it says nothing of the activities in the physical world that the abstract concept of money facilitates. It stays in the abstract realm.

I am not sure what you mean here. Money is portable, divisible, it has a common value, it lets you record precisely who owes what to whom (unit of account), and facilitates all those little and not so little everyday transactions that contribute to increasing wealth in the economy. Abstract? Well it is a way of making promises concrete, and so I see it as highly practical, and nothing I have said detracts from that.

Steve, my aim in this thread, following gad-fly’s posting and questions, has been to set out the theory (MMT) and to help anyone interested to understand it. To that end, I have done my best to explain and to answer questions and provide helpful links.

If the theory is right, (and, with respect, I have heard no convincing criticism of it), it explains why years of highly damaging austerity have been unnecessary. If enough people understand that, I hope (and I think many of those contributing all those free links hope), it might help spare us in future. I will keep arguing the case because I believe going back to the old politics post pandemic would be a disaster for us all. (It has been a disaster already, and I agree with everything Sculptor1 has said on this).

You have your views, I have not persuaded you, and so it seems we must respectfully agree to disagree. It is right that we each make up our own minds, (and everyone on this forum, I hope and expect, understands and respects that that is how it should be). From your POV you have not persuaded me either.

If there is anything further that you think I can help you with on this, ask and I will try to do so.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Steve3007 »

Wossname wrote:You have your views, I have not persuaded you, and so it seems we must respectfully agree to disagree.
Having actually read what's been said in our conversations, what is it that you think we disagree about?

Before saying the above, you said some stuff about the damage caused by austerity. Is that one of the things you think we've disagreed about here?

As I talked about in a post in another topic that was closely related to this one, it seems to me that many people, when they have a particular political view to put forward, see opposition to that view in the things that other people say even when it's not present. And they don't see much point in a conversation that doesn't include that opposition. My interest in all of this was simply to explore the concept of money and what it means. I happen to agree with you about the post-2008 austerity measures, but that's incidental. I'm not really interested in political arguments, except in a philosophical sense: i.e. attempting to objectively analyze why people take the political positions that they take.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion but this:
Steve, my aim in this thread, following gad-fly’s posting and questions, has been to set out the theory (MMT) and to help anyone interested to understand it. To that end, I have done my best to explain and to answer questions and provide helpful links.
suggests to me that you think it's run its course. So let's leave it there for now.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Steve3007 »

Let's see if Boris is going to let us all out to play.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Wossname »

Steve3007 wrote: May 10th, 2020, 2:00 pm Steve3007 » Yesterday, 7:00 pm

Wossname wrote:
You have your views, I have not persuaded you, and so it seems we must respectfully agree to disagree.
Having actually read what's been said in our conversations, what is it that you think we disagree about?

Do you think we are not so far apart then? I’m not so sure, and since you asked:

I hadn’t thought we agreed about what money represents (though we do both accept that money promotes wealth creation by being a medium of exchange). Where we began is with the view from MMT that money is a tax credit, paying tax destroys money, and taxes don’t pay for public services. I had not picked up that you now agree with this.


Steve3007 wrote: May 10th, 2020, 2:00 pm Steve3007 » Yesterday, 7:00 pm

Before saying the above, you said some stuff about the damage caused by austerity. Is that one of the things you think we've disagreed about here?

I reserved judgement on your beliefs about austerity. I wondered, since your interpretation of the household budget analogy seemed odd to me. I think the meaning of the analogy is fairly obvious, so we may disagree about that. I just wanted to point out that the common interpretation, (perhaps not your interpretation), reflects a mistaken view of how the economy works. I think that years of politicians expressing their regret at the economic need for austerity does need challenging.

Steve3007 wrote: May 10th, 2020, 2:00 pm Steve3007 » Yesterday, 7:00 pm


As I talked about in a post in another topic that was closely related to this one, it seems to me that many people, when they have a particular political view to put forward, see opposition to that view in the things that other people say even when it's not present. And they don't see much point in a conversation that doesn't include that opposition. My interest in all of this was simply to explore the concept of money and what it means. I happen to agree with you about the post-2008 austerity measures, but that's incidental. I'm not really interested in political arguments, except in a philosophical sense: i.e. attempting to objectively analyze why people take the political positions that they take.

I am not sure what is implied here. If it is that I am just picking argument for its own sake then that is not how I see it. And I quite like it when people agree with me. It strokes my ego and I find the whole experience more, well, agreeable.

As to politics, MMT does have a bearing on the way we consider what has been happening over the past years. And this politics section of the forum is littered with people referring to the government’s need to pay for things through taxation. I have not really sought to promote any political view beyond challenging that particular view and present argument to support my case.

FYI many proponents of MMT go on to argue that a government should, ideally seek to encourage full employment. I have avoided getting into such arguments. The part that I wanted to explain is the description of money creation and destruction. In point of fact, governments of the left or right can use this understanding of the economy to pursue whatever agenda they see fit. I do think that people should be aware that the economy does not operate in the way that it is often described. Beyond that, at least for me in this debate, peoples’ politics are their own affair.


Steve3007 wrote: May 10th, 2020, 2:00 pm Steve3007 » Yesterday, 7:00 pm

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion but this:
Steve, my aim in this thread, following gad-fly’s posting and questions, has been to set out the theory (MMT) and to help anyone interested to understand it. To that end, I have done my best to explain and to answer questions and provide helpful links.
suggests to me that you think it's run its course. So let's leave it there for now.

Be clear I am not shutting down debate, and I have said I will respond to questions. I just don’t really know if I have much more useful to say. I have explained the theory as clearly as I know how. I feared we were in in a loop, with you arguing that money represents the exchange of labour, me saying that’s not how I see it, you saying well that is how you see it, and this “Oh yes it is”, “Oh no it isn’t” is a well-trodden route in philosophy discussions, and one, I think you will agree, that is more suited to pantomime than productive discourse. Fearing we were at or near that point it seemed reasonable that we should agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

If you think we are fairly close in our views, well, good.

Steve3007 wrote: May 10th, 2020, 2:01 pm Steve3007 » Yesterday, 7:01 pm

Let's see if Boris is going to let us all out to play.

As to Boris, I listened, and I think I am allowed out more, though not to do anything much apart from sit in these untimely northerlies. This is still a confusing time for individuals and businesses alike. Not much seems certain apart from the fact that we are living in a more dangerous world. But confusion and uncertainty are not that rare for me. You may have gathered. I had not thought pubs were likely to reopen much before Christmas, so I am cheered by the possibility that they may open in July. Hours of beer inspired insight keenly applied to solving the world’s problems of a Friday night was a genuine source of pleasure. I look forward to the day when my inebriated friends can once again, with all due respect (just about none), scorn and deride my belief in a magic money tree.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Sculptor1 »

Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Wossname »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 15th, 2020, 4:59 pm Sculptor1 » Yesterday, 9:59 pm

Here's Something of relevance.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/202 ... Gwd-XhjNnQ

Tar Sculptor1.

Professor Murphy is always worth reading.

I am sure you realise, but for any who don't, the responses underneath his blogs are often worth reading too.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Steve3007 »

Wossname wrote:Do you think we are not so far apart then?
As far as I recall from our entire conversation, the only thing we've ever disagreed about is whether the two separate acts of deleting and creating an amount of fiat money can reasonably be interpreted as the act of moving that amount of money from one place to another. You say no. I say yes: it seems me that when talking about abstract concepts like fiat money (as opposed to material objects like dollar bills, blocks of wood, human bodies etc) this interpretation is valid. Hence the topic I subsequently created on that subject to try to explore it further (with limited success so far).

If you think that we've disagreed about more than that, as I've said, I think that's because of the nature of the conversation about MMT that you were hoping to have. I think you were looking for a practical political discussion about the politics of austerity, in the light of MMT, not an esoteric philosophical discussion about the respective natures of abstract and real entities.

In my experience, if people are strongly motivated to look for something, they generally find it, whether it's present or not. Hence the bashing I got from you and Sculptor1 about a political position that you both imagined me to be assuming. (i..e you both imagined me to be defending the politics of austerity.)
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Steve3007 »

Wossname wrote:I am not sure what is implied here.
Nothing is implied.
If it is that I am just picking argument for its own sake then that is not how I see it.
No, that is not implied.

I think another thing that people frequently do is to think that value judgments are implied by objective propositions. As I said, I think you simply wanted to have a particular kind of conversation. Making that observation does not constitute saying "you are wrong to want to have a particular kind of conversation". Obviously you're free to attempt to have any kind of conversation that you want.


Here's a more extreme recent example of the phenomenon of "value judgments imagined to be implied by objective propositions" (a part of a discussion on a different topic) to make the point:

viewtopic.php?p=357722#p357722
Steve3007 wrote:Faith covers such things as belief in God.
NukeBan wrote:Ah, only other people suffer from faith, how convenient.
So the use of "belief in God" as en example of the way that the word "faith" tends to be used in everyday speech was assumed to implicitly contain negative value judgments about people of faith, and that assumption was expressed using the mechanism of sarcasm.

Obviously I'm not implying equality between you, personally, and that other poster. I'm just observing what appear to be patterns in the ways that people interpret, and see implications in, others people's words. I'm sure I do it myself too.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: May 16th, 2020, 6:47 am
Wossname wrote:Do you think we are not so far apart then?
As far as I recall from our entire conversation, the only thing we've ever disagreed about is whether the two separate acts of deleting and creating an amount of fiat money can reasonably be interpreted as the act of moving that amount of money from one place to another. You say no. I say yes: it seems me that when talking about abstract concepts like fiat money (as opposed to material objects like dollar bills, blocks of wood, human bodies etc) this interpretation is valid. Hence the topic I subsequently created on that subject to try to explore it further (with limited success so far).

If you think that we've disagreed about more than that, as I've said, I think that's because of the nature of the conversation about MMT that you were hoping to have. I think you were looking for a practical political discussion about the politics of austerity, in the light of MMT, not an esoteric philosophical discussion about the respective natures of abstract and real entities.

In my experience, if people are strongly motivated to look for something, they generally find it, whether it's present or not. Hence the bashing I got from you and Sculptor1 about a political position that you both imagined me to be assuming. (i..e you both imagined me to be defending the politics of austerity.)
You were supporting a set of assumptions that leads to the politics of austerity. Many people do. You may well think austerity is a bad idea, as do many, but as you have taken on the "national economy AS household myth" you are bound to think that the deficit is an important economic indicator, when it is in fact of little importance. If you are convinced by the myth that you cannot spend unless you tax, then you are unwittingly accepting austerity. This means that you, as with most of us carry on board contradictions.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Steve3007 »

Steve3007 wrote:If a government wishes to keep the same quantity of money in the economy from an earlier time period to a later one - i.e. it wishes to enforce a conservation principle on the total amount of money in the economy, then it does this thing that we can call moving money. So, in that sense, money collected via taxation is spent on public services. Whether we refer to that process as deleting money from one place and creating money in a different place doesn't alter that.

Obviously government can also choose to delete more money than they create or vice versa.
Steve3007 wrote:There seems to be a strange misconception that the above implies that taxation doesn't pay for public services. Obviously taxation does pay for public services. Clearly governments can also create new money (just as they created all the existing money) but that doesn't alter the fact that taxation pays for public services. i.e. the government moves money from taxpayers to public sector wages.
Steve3007 wrote:The main difference is that, legally, the government can create new money and you can't (and the government can also legally take money from other people). So the government can either pay your housemaid by creating new money or by taking money (that it created earlier) from someone else (or a combination of the two). The latter case is called taxation. In that case, the mechanism by which they do this is to "delete" money paid as taxes and create an equal amount of new money for the housemaid. i.e. (in computer terms) cut-and-paste. As with cut-and-paste, this process of deleting money in one place and creating it somewhere else is the same as moving that money from one place to another.
Steve3007 wrote:Governments are allowed to cut without pasting. Governments are allowed to paste without cutting. Players in the economy are legally required to match each cut with an equal paste.
Steve3007 wrote:Okay. So if a quantity X of money is deleted/cut from my account and created/pasted to Tesco's account, we can describe that as the movement of money, yes?
Wossname wrote:We can indeed.
We all use the government's IOUs.
Sculptor1 wrote:Take away the one simple fact that there is no necessary relationship between tax and spend.
Steve3007 wrote:I didn't ever say that there was such a necessary relationship and I've no idea why you think that I did.

Many conversations in this place quickly become impossible for the simple reason that people aren't willing to take what others say at face value, establish whether or not they agree, and then move on to the next thing, building on what has been established....
Sculptor1 wrote:You were supporting a set of assumptions that leads to the politics of austerity. ... If you are convinced by the myth that you cannot spend unless you tax, then you are unwittingly accepting austerity.
Steve3007 wrote:As I talked about in a post in another topic that was closely related to this one, it seems to me that many people, when they have a particular political view to put forward, see opposition to that view in the things that other people say even when it's not present.
Steve3007 wrote:In my experience, if people are strongly motivated to look for something, they generally find it, whether it's present or not.
Words, words, words. All ignored. All a waste of time, I guess.
gad-fly
Posts: 1133
Joined: October 23rd, 2019, 4:48 pm

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by gad-fly »

Steve3007 wrote: May 16th, 2020, 9:17 am
Steve3007 wrote:If a government wishes to keep the same quantity of money in the economy from an earlier time period to a later one - i.e. it wishes to enforce a conservation principle on the total amount of money in the economy, then it does this thing that we can call moving money. So, in that sense, money collected via taxation is spent on public services. Whether we refer to that process as deleting money from one place and creating money in a different place doesn't alter that.
The theory of Money Supply can be found in most economic textbooks. Government's role in money supply cannot be independent of that played by the economy. If government collects $X and spend $Y, then money supply is reduced by $(X - Y), which can be described as deleted, removed, or destroyed.
If it collects X and spends X, money supply is not affected. It is a moot point whether X has been destroyed and recreated.

If Y exceeds X, it ha increased money supply by creating new money. Whatever its intention is a different issue.

I hope we can now focus on taxation.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: "Modern Money Basics" in Modern Money Theory (M.M.T.)x

Post by Wossname »

Steve3007 wrote: May 16th, 2020, 6:47 am y Steve3007 » Today, 11:47 am

As far as I recall from our entire conversation, the only thing we've ever disagreed about is whether the two separate acts of deleting and creating an amount of fiat money can reasonably be interpreted as the act of moving that amount of money from one place to another. You say no. I say yes: it seems me that when talking about abstract concepts like fiat money (as opposed to material objects like dollar bills, blocks of wood, human bodies etc) this interpretation is valid. Hence the topic I subsequently created on that subject to try to explore it further (with limited success so far).

If you think that we've disagreed about more than that, as I've said, I think that's because of the nature of the conversation about MMT that you were hoping to have. I think you were looking for a practical political discussion about the politics of austerity, in the light of MMT, not an esoteric philosophical discussion about the respective natures of abstract and real entities.


Steve I was just responding to the OP which wanted to discuss or understand MMT.

I’ve not really done much more than that.

I think we became involved in the discussion initially on the thread “where does money come from?” which was, again, instituted in response to a request from gad-fly to discuss MMT. I let you know (on another thread, forget which) that according to the theory taxes do not pay for public services and since you seemed interested, I offered to explain or discuss it. That is all I was hoping for really.

Steve3007 wrote: May 16th, 2020, 7:20 am Steve3007 » Today, 12:20 pm


I think another thing that people frequently do is to think that value judgments are implied by objective propositions. As I said, I think you simply wanted to have a particular kind of conversation.


Not sure who is making the value judgement. Don’t know why you keep insisting I’m pushing a political agenda. MMT has clear consequences for the economy. That is just a consequence of the theory. It reveals austerity is based on a lie. You can accept that or not, it is your privilege, but that is all I wished to draw attention to (since many do not realise it and it is how we were drawn into the discussion in the first place). I had no further conversation on the matter in mind. Your political beliefs are your own affair. I’ve never asked you for them or questioned them as far as I know. I have just responded to your questions.

Steve3007 wrote: May 16th, 2020, 6:47 am Steve3007 » Today, 11:47 am

In my experience, if people are strongly motivated to look for something, they generally find it, whether it's present or not.

As to movement or deletion, I have noted the other thread and the reason for it. Talking of people being strongly motivated to look for something to support their view, are you sure this is not you here?

Simply put, if money is an IOU then when you hand it in (pay tax) it is cashed. It is not passed to someone else. Who passes on a spent IOU? Nor is there any need to do so. The government can write as many IOUs as it wants. Whenever it wants. This explanation has been offered to you a number of times and on different links (if you visited them). But you are at liberty to think of these matters as you please, and if you are at odds with various economics professors that does not in itself make you wrong, but it may limit my confidence in your view.


Steve3007 wrote: May 16th, 2020, 9:17 am Steve3007 » Today, 2:17 pm

Words, words, words. All ignored. All a waste of time, I guess.


I have tried to explain MMT, which I happen to agree with (and so for transparency should admit to), but I have no skin in this game. I was trying to help you understand a theory is all. I really don’t mind if you do or don’t accept the theory I have tried to explain. I have explained it at some length. You must make what you will of it. If my words have all been wasted, you are welcome I’m sure.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021