|
One issue is that the US could very well sustain deficits either from bonds or simply printing (ie increasing the money supply) more than any other economy on earth because we are the largest reserve currency. Other countries NEED to purchase dollars which essentially subsidizing their relative worth. It doesn't matter that a country is sovereign or not (it helps obviously) but that other countries are willing to absorb their currency in exchange. Also, the reason the Yen hasn't inflated out of sign, is the nature of its debt. The vast majority of its debt is domestic, and help either by government or semi-government institutions (the Japanese Postal Savings bank) or corporations that have close links to the government. Therefore, it can spend because that debt is extremely stable and not lose Yen doesn't lose its reserve status. It is why MMT may work in the US, but probably wouldn't work in, for example, Belarus without very high inflation. The demand for Belarussian Rubles is quite weak (in comparison to the US dollar) and Belarus needs to exchange in trade for imports (since autarky would absolutely not work). In contrast, the US probably could absorb that type of hit without the USD losing reserve status. Furthermore, Belarus doesn't have enough local demand for its own debt to subsidize increases to its money supply. Essentially, it is a very conditional idea, although this is a forum dominated by Americans, so I guess it is a bit understandable.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 02:16 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:26 |
Xae posted:Because MMT is a joke. The claim isn't exclusive to Neo-Chartalism, it's part of Chartalism itself. You'll note it's not that a currency's value need not be wholly based on the power of the state, and that a currency's value is not necessarily limited being valuable only due to taxation, though it is the obvious example: quote:At issue is the nature of money and the inspiration for its use. The Metallists argue that money evolved as a means of reducing some of the inefficiencies of barter. Precious metals, they maintain, were collectively settled upon as a convenient medium of exchange, and money's value derived from its precious metal content. In contrast, the Chartalists argue that the use of money is based primarily on the power of the State and that its value derives from its usefulness in settling certain obligations to the State (in particular, tax liabilities). Source
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 02:30 |
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:1. The original request was regarding empirical evidence of "an empirically established method for predicting the effects of inflation," or, in your words: quote:E: I went back and looked again at the original request on page 1. The poster seemed interested in ensuring no inflation occurs. That's also not a realistic benchmark, since the US has an inflation target and too low inflation puts the country at economic risk. quote:MMT isn't doing away with the limitation you describe. There's no limitation to do away with. If we agree the U.S. has the authority to create money, then it logically follows they don't need to borrow or tax it from anyone if they don't want to. In fact, they had to create and distribute money in the first place for there to be anything to tax or borrow against. The US chooses to issue debt and extract taxes. These options are and will remain policy tools. quote:
quote:Inflation is not a constraint. It's a response. There may be a point at which it would be more advisable to not spend money in favor of limiting inflation, but that doesn't mean policymakers would *have to.* Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Feb 2, 2019 |
# ? Feb 2, 2019 02:46 |
|
Dr Pepper posted:Name one. Any of the crypto currencies. Debased coins during the western Roman empire. Cigarettes in prison. Somali Schilling after the central governments collapse.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 02:47 |
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Did you actually read my post or just skip to the part that let you say "GOTCHA!"?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 02:49 |
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:I mean, you say this, but Obama, for example, is on record saying, "Well, we're out of money now." Elected officials trot out lacking of funding as being a reason for enacting (or not enacting) legislation. I think there's reason to believe people don't understand the system, or are at the very least willfully obscuring how it works. And? Seems like the exact thing you'd say if you needed to crank up the free money machine.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 03:09 |
Dead Reckoning posted:The question isn't whether the act of the government handing someone $10,000 for a widget causes inflation, the question is whether it is (more) inflationary when the government gets that $10,000 by printing more money versus by taking that $10,000 out of the economy somewhere else via taxation. Printing the money is more inflationary. quote:You're not understanding the question then. By my understanding, the whole reason that "defects don't matter" according to MMT is because government spending is constrained by the need to avoid overinflation, rather than a fixed quantity of dollars. Stephanie Kelton explains it that way. If you're right, and government spending doesn't cause inflation even when you're printing money to do it, then MMT makes no sense because there is no constraint on the government printing eleventy trillion dollars to do everything at once. Spending would not be constrained by a fixed pool of dollars nor by the need to avoid inflation. I bolded the part where you misrepresent my position, again. At no point have I claimed government spending doesn't cause inflation under any circumstances. Additional government spending carries inflationary risk. quote:You are correct that our government currently has all these tools. Policymakers decided to insulate the part of the government with the ability to print money and set monetary policy from the part of the government that spends money, sets taxes, is susceptible to public pressure, and frequently needs to seek reelection. Do you have any thoughts on why our government might have been deliberately set up this way? The Treasury is dependent on Congress to raise the debt ceiling and authorize spending. The people who are most vulnerable to public pressure are the ones directing people to work the levers, here. From the Congressional Research Service: quote:The total amount of debt issued over the fiscal year depends in large part on the decisions made by Congress and the priorities it chooses in its annual budget and appropriations process. Recently, Treasury has issued increasing amounts of debt as a result of the government response to the most recent economic downturn, along with other budgetary initiatives. quote:Do you think that risk can be quantified in any rigorous way? Do you think that whether the money was printed without balance or counterbalanced by taxation changes the degree of inflationary risk? Probably. Yes, spending not balanced by tax revenues increases the risk. quote:Yes, policymakers allowing inflation to go unchecked (because it represents an abstract, collective risk) rather than increasing taxes or cutting spending (which is a specific risk to their reelection chances) is indeed a huge problem with the proposal to allow congress to print money. There is no proposal, here. Congress authorizes the creation of money. You just described the status quo.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 03:49 |
|
Xae posted:Any of the crypto currencies. I knew you'd bring up bitcoin. Good to see you didn't disappoint me with your nonsense. Roman coins had value because they were made of gold, Cigarettes is part of a barter economy. The Somali currency was used for taxes before the government collapsed.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 04:02 |
|
Dr Pepper posted:I knew you'd bring up bitcoin. Good to see you didn't disappoint me with your nonsense. The fact that crypto currencies are dumb doesn't change the fact that that they are used as a currency. The Somali shilling was used after it was no longer good for taxes. Cigarettes filled all 3 fundamental functions of currency in prison economies. They were only considered barter because cigarettes were not officially recognized as a currency. Just for pedantry Roman coins weren't gold based, they were silver. Regardless when the economic problems started they began to debase the currency and use lower and lower amounts of silver. You were able to trade the new coins for almost anything, but you couldn't pay your taxes with them. You asked for 1, I gave multiple. The entire basis of Neo-Chartalism has been proven false, for decades. No amount of goal post shifting from you will change that. People adhere to it because it gives them an answer they want to hear.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 04:29 |
|
Xae posted:You asked for 1, I gave multiple. No you didn't, in fact your examples are hilariously bad. No Bitcoin and it's other scam knock offs is not a currency and you know it. This alone shows you know less than nothing. Also, lol at bringing up roman coins when talking about modern economic theory. All modern currencies only have value because people treat them like they do, and the reason people use them over fake currencies like bitcoin is that you can't pay taxes with bitcoin or cigarettes or old roman coins and you'd be laughed out of the post office if you tried. Dr Pepper fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Feb 2, 2019 |
# ? Feb 2, 2019 04:44 |
|
Dr Pepper posted:All modern currencies only have value because people treat them like they do... You just completely disagreed with your original point. But your statement is correct, the fact that money can be traded for almost any good or service is why it has value. It is not directly based on taxation, except as taxes can be considered a service or good being purchased. But as the examples I provided earlier show taxes are a small part of the total goods and services in an economy and therefore taxation is not the primary cause of value. I expected another huge goal post shift, I was not expecting one this stupid.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 04:55 |
|
Xae posted:You just completely disagreed with your original point. The reason modern currencies are accepted as valuable is because people can pay their taxes on them. It's not the state looking at a random currency and going "Oh look this currency is valuable pay taxes with it" it's the state saying "We will pay out bonds in this and accept taxes with this" and the people going "oh it has value." It's entirely arbitrary but it's how the world works today.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 05:02 |
|
Dr Pepper posted:No I haven't. You're confusing cause and effect. You changed the post and cleared it up while I typing it up. Its still wrong though. https://www.marketplace.org/2016/08/22/economy/why-ramen-noodles-are-replacing-cigarettes-prison-currency-0 https://www.wifa.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/user_upload/itvwl-vwl/ERS-Dateien/ERS-Paper_White.pdf The ability to pay taxes is not what gives currencies value. The ability to purchase goods and services is.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 05:11 |
|
Granted, taxes mean a currency has some type of minimal value but it doesn’t obviously mean it retains its full value. This is fairly obvious looking at any floating currency. Also, a moderate about of inflation backed by growth is usually fine and for the US the risk is minimal considering the strength of the USD. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 2, 2019 |
# ? Feb 2, 2019 05:15 |
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, taxes mean a currency has some type of minimal value but it doesn’t obviously mean it retains its full value. This is fairly obvious looking at any floating currency. The IRS assesses income tax on an individual's entire income, not just the income denominated in USD. If you were paid entirely in bitcoin, you would still owe income tax at an exchange rate chosen by the IRS. So yes, taxes mean that all economic activity in the US happens in USD or can be convertible to USD. That counts as 'full value' to me. Floating currencies don't really factor into this because the income is reported at the time the transaction takes place.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 05:37 |
|
Also, you're legally required to accept us dollars as repayment for debt in the United states, that's its other intrinsic value.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 06:25 |
|
MEDICARE 4 ALL. Tax 5mil+incomes at 91% max. Also trumps 2020.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 07:05 |
|
Family Values posted:The IRS assesses income tax on an individual's entire income, not just the income denominated in USD. If you were paid entirely in bitcoin, you would still owe income tax at an exchange rate chosen by the IRS. So yes, taxes mean that all economic activity in the US happens in USD or can be convertible to USD. That counts as 'full value' to me. It doesn’t mean the USD is going to retain its value versus convertible assets. This is important because trade exists. You can say there will be always be “full value” expect when you can’t import anything. It is why the Soviets continually needed hard currency to offset imports.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 07:14 |
|
Xae posted:Because MMT is a joke. Oh, poo poo. You're right, theory disproved! quote:Some money derives value because it is used for taxation. Phew. Close one, gang, but crisis averted.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 08:52 |
|
Ardennes posted:One issue is that the US could very well sustain deficits either from bonds or simply printing (ie increasing the money supply) more than any other economy on earth because we are the largest reserve currency. Other countries NEED to purchase dollars which essentially subsidizing their relative worth. It doesn't matter that a country is sovereign or not (it helps obviously) but that other countries are willing to absorb their currency in exchange. the key problem is that the USD might lose its reserve status within the next few decades as is, this trend speeds up if monetizing the federal budget on a structural basis creates expectations of currency volatility
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 09:19 |
|
Typo posted:the key problem is that the USD might lose its reserve status within the next few decades as is, this trend speeds up if monetizing the federal budget creates expectations of currency volatility You can also say that a culmitative lack of spending has its own negative effects and if anything it is up for the US to use its resources in a more productive manner. The question is how you do it in a controlled manner and direct it to the right investments.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 09:23 |
|
Gnumonic posted:There are two sorts of claims floating around in this thread, both by people who support and oppose MMT: I also don’t get how the theory is really that useful, except as a way to promote government spending if you don’t think about it too much. It seems to make similar kinds of predictions as the government budgeting type of thinking, except it involves a nebulous quantity (inflation risk). Theory accuracy is not that useful if in order to take advantage of the theory’s improved accuracy, you need inputs to the theory which are not easy to estimate or obtain.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 19:29 |
|
silence_kit posted:I also don’t get how the theory is really that useful, except as a way to promote government spending if you don’t think about it too much. It seems to make similar kinds of predictions as the government budgeting type of thinking, except it involves a nebulous quantity (inflation risk). Inflation risk is exactly the argument against deficit spending made by austrians, gold bugs, and assorted other econ kooks that hold sway over the political right, so actually a theory that better explains and predicts it is useful.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 19:41 |
|
silence_kit posted:I also don’t get how the theory is really that useful, except as a way to promote government spending if you don’t think about it too much. It seems to make similar kinds of predictions as the government budgeting type of thinking, except it involves a nebulous quantity (inflation risk). More precisely, I'd say orthodox theory allows for controlled spending if you don't think about it too much. Our level of deficit spending would suggest a 5 cent annual rate of inflation. We're actually about a 2 cent. This means of the trillion we're "over budget" about 600 billion is actually NECESSARY just to keep up with economic growth. Orthodox theory would suggest zero deficit is ideal but if we did that we'd have economic growth without necessary cash increase- or our money would DEFLATE. If we spent a trillion dollars on some theorhetical program that led to 2 trillion in economic growth, assuming we taxed it we'd deflate by a horrific amount. Paying for successful programs DAMAGES the economy.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 19:51 |
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:I bolded the part where you misrepresent my position, again. At no point have I claimed government spending doesn't cause inflation under any circumstances. Additional government spending carries inflationary risk. LuciferMorningstar posted:The article I linked previously was a summary of a lengthier article (full text here). Relevant text from summary: LuciferMorningstar posted:The Treasury is dependent on Congress to raise the debt ceiling and authorize spending. The people who are most vulnerable to public pressure are the ones directing people to work the levers, here. From the Congressional Research Service: LuciferMorningstar posted:There is no proposal, here. Congress authorizes the creation of money. You just described the status quo. theblackw0lf posted:This also means that, and one reason I've become so enthused about it, that there’s little reason, economically speaking, why we can’t have an extremely generous M4A program, free college, GND, etc.. We can create ambitious programs, and not tie ourselves into knots figuring out how we’re going to pay for all of it. In fact it was learning about MMT that led me to embrace Bernie's generous M4A program. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Feb 2, 2019 |
# ? Feb 2, 2019 19:59 |
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Our level of deficit spending would suggest a 5 cent annual rate of inflation. where are you getting this from?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 19:59 |
|
also isn't MMT just the same idea advocated by Social Credit Parties (who ran on printing money and give it to people/pay for programs) from the mid 20th century given a fancier name?
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 20:02 |
Dead Reckoning posted:So what did you mean by this then? I already addressed this: LuciferMorningstar posted:Overall, the evidence suggests government spending hasn't been linked to inflation. That does not mean government spending can never create inflation, though, which is one of the things you keep trying to claim. The evidence also suggests military spending is a policy area that tends to increase inflation, but other types of government spending may not. Again, this is based on things that have actually happened, and it's possible no country has yet met a condition where general government spending does drive inflation. I bolded the relevant bits for your convenience. quote:Not the department that physically prints the bills, dingus, the one that controls the money supply. The Federal Reserve is run by political appointees and supposed to be insulated from political pressure. Why do you think that is? 1. Are you arguing there's an important distinction between physically printed money and money created via computer? 2. Congress still authorizes spending. When they authorize spending above tax revenues, they increase the deficit, prompting the Treasury to add money to the economy that wasn't there before. Congress maintains root control of the money supply. quote:If MMT doesn't suggest any structural changes to the way we run our government, then why does it matter outside an academic context? Also, does this mean you think the OP was wrong when they said: I agree it's largely academic until voters either (a) electorally punish officials who don't use/abuse the expanded policy space, or (b) electorally reward officials who do use the space effectively. Yes, I think the OP was wrong with their original claim. "Economically speaking," it's entirely possible some programs could create issues. Note I'm not saying we necessarily should or shouldn't pursue any individual program.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 20:37 |
Typo posted:where are you getting this from? AFAIK, he's making it up based on whatever math he did. You'll note he says there's $20 trillion in circulating currency. Per the St. Louis Fed, that's not true.
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2019 20:39 |
|
Xae posted:Any of the crypto currencies. Lmfao
|
# ? Feb 6, 2019 02:52 |
|
Just came across this fantastic resource database for MMT https://gimms.org.uk/tools-and-resources/
|
# ? Feb 7, 2019 04:59 |
|
Stephanie Kelton has a great twitter thread on whether we can "afford" a GND, that also does a good job summing up MMT https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1093575469440618496 Click for rest of thread Or read it here https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1093575469440618496.html
|
# ? Feb 7, 2019 20:16 |
|
In this Green New Deal write-up by two economists, one who is an AOC adviser, there's an interesting section talking about the financing of it, which explains the MMT perspective of how government finances programs, and also touches on how they will deal any inflation that's created. So this addresses several posts I've seen on this thread https://newconsensus.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/new_consensus_gnd_14_pager.pdf quote:The Green New Deal will be financed in the way all federal projects over the past century have been financed: Congress will authorize necessary expenditures — direct spending, loans, loan guarantees, joint ventures, etc. — and the Treasury Department will then simply spend as instructed.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2019 22:43 |
|
Ok so ignoring the usual gang of libertarians making GBS threads up the thread, can you guys help me with some basic macroeconomic theory to help me get my head around this? I'm on board with the idea that a currency is made to be worth something through a government's demand that it's citizens pay tax with that currency, and that this demand is backed up by force. Then, the government prints money and pays it to people to do stuff. Where I get lost is how economic activity creates demand for more money, and how a government can spend (for example) $1 million and generate $1.5 million of "economic activity". How does this work? I know that you can't really apply macro economics to micro scales but let's try it anyway. The government puts out a contract to build a toaster factory for $1000. Jane Entrepreneur thinks "wow that's enough to pay my taxes for years!" and takes the contract. She then spends say, $600 of that paying other people to bring her the building supplies and build it. She now sits on the remaining $400 to pay her taxes. But now, a toaster factory exists, and people want toasters. It costs $1 to get the materials and build a toaster, and Jane charges $2 for a toaster. Money is now worth more because people want(have) to pay their taxes with it, but also now want to buy toasters with it, and this offsets money being worth less at the beginning when the government created $1000 out of thin air. Is this right? I'm struggling to understand how economic activity increases demand for money and I'd appreciate a better example. Is it as simple as "more poo poo to buy that people want" Funnily enough the other parts of MMT seem clearer than the classical model. Money being worth something because society says it is seems far more realistic than ~inherent values~ of poo poo -- edit -- Ok i did some googling and I think I get it now. Deflation can be caused by an increase in supply without a corresponding increase in demand. When we built a toaster factory, we increased the supply of toasters without increasing demand, so the value of toasters went down. If you can only buy toasters (because they're a stand in for all consumer goods and services in this example), then you can buy more with your money. So, if you like, rather than the value of toasters decreasing the value of money increased, ie deflationary pressure. And thus, economic activity has increased the demand for money. Splode fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Feb 12, 2019 |
# ? Feb 12, 2019 08:18 |
|
Essentially the value of an economy is the rate at which it produces goods and services/some nebulous concept of how valuable the goods and services are (the free market demand for them, if you will). There are four ways that come to mind in which an economy can grow- increased efficiency (making use of unused labor or supplies), increasing the labor pool (immigration or birth), increasing resources (discovering new metal veins, new ways of recycling, etc.) and technological improvements. I'm gonna simplify your toaster example a bit since you have a lot of unnecessary variables. If we assume there's a number of people unemployed who could be working on toasters and a stockpile of unused metal with which to build toasters, that's market inefficiency. If the government funnels a grand into toaster production and we produce $1000 worth of toasters then we've just expanded the economy $1000. As for how the inflation comes into play, imagine some capitalist decided to invest in toaster production on his own. He invests $1000 and gets $1000 worth of toasters. However, while he may have expanded the economy, there is a cost in the capital he spends. Presumably that $1000 dollars would have been spent on some other good or service which is now unsold, meaning the sellers of those goods and services have less money to purchase toasters. Money has become more scarce than the goods and services being produced and goods and services must lower in price to accommodate this. (Note: this is clearly oversimplified. The wealthy in this country are hoarding ludicrous amounts of wealth and it is very unlikely them investing in labor would in anyway reduce their rate of consumption.) However, this example assumes we have unused labor and resources and that toasters would be the most efficient use for them. I sincerely doubt that. I think education would make for a better example. Imagine a kid who just graduated highschool. With a $1000 scholarship he'll go to school for four years and learn some trade. Otherwise, he'll bum around for 4 years before joining the workforce. If we let him bum around, he'll work for $20k a year at McDonald's, if he goes to school he'll get some tech job for $40k a year. Presumably, those amounts roughly correlate to the value of goods he would put into the economy - at McDonald's he'll produce something like $25k worth of hamburgers a year and at the tech company he'll produce $45k a year worth of some tech product. So, for a thousand dollars, you've increased your labor pool by about $20k. But, again, without the influx of currency to match someone, somewhere, is selling less of their product or service, and is pressured to reduce prices. Further, without even considering economic expansion, the increased income means paying more in income taxes. It won't take long for that $40k income earner to have payed a thousand more in taxes than a $20k earner. At that point, the government is removing more currency than it put in, so straight out deflation.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2019 19:55 |
|
Splode posted:Where I get lost is how economic activity creates demand for more money, and how a government can spend (for example) $1 million and generate $1.5 million of "economic activity". How does this work? In addition to the very nice effort post above; The gov't spends $1 million, let's say they just hand it to poor people. The poor people then buy goods and services with that $1 million. Then the people who sold those goods and services take that $1 million and pay for their expenses and then take profits to do other stuff with. Part of those expenses are purchasing raw materials and paying for labor. The workers spend their wages on goods and services, the people who sold the raw materials pay for their operating costs and have a profit. And so on. At every step of the money exchanging hands, there is 'economic activity' and thus that original $1 million is exchanged and counted quite a few times as it moves through the economy. Or a little more esoteric and specific but - At some point some of that money is going to make its way to a bank reserve. Whether someone puts it in their savings/checking account, buys good/services from people who have loans to pay back, whatever. Say $100k makes it to bank reserves. The banks can generate another $1m out of thin air thanks to fractional reserve banking. They only need to actually have 10% of the loan amount on hand - meaning they can loan out $1m and just hold that $100k as the reserve amount backing those loans. Loans that go to new businesses, people renovating their homes, people buying cars/homes, etc. The more money the gov't injects into the economy, the more banks are able to issue loans and thus multiply the amount of money in the economy even more. Free market people will argue here that for every $1 the gov't spends, it crowds out $1 of private investment and because gov't is less efficient ultimately it is better if private investment handles what needs to be done. This is erroneous for quite a few reasons but suffice to say they like to pretend like this applies in 100% of cases when it doesn't at all. There are quite a few cases where nothing would happen without gov't action and thus gov't spending in those cases is nothing but stimulative. Now where it gets messy is calculating the results of specific gov't spending. Food stamps tend to result in more economic activity than defense spending, for example. Gov't subsidies to rich people (Bush tax cuts) tend to be a negative multiplier - thus generating less than a dollar of economic activity per dollar spent (likely because many already wealthy people just stick their cash in overseas accounts where it is effectively black holed from the regular economy). This is a good link I think: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiscal-multiplier.asp quote:By far the most effective policy options, according to this analysis, are temporarily increasing food stamps (1.73) and extending unemployment insurance benefits (1.64). Both of these policies target groups with low incomes and, as a result, high marginal propensities to consume. Permanent tax cuts benefiting mostly higher-income households, by contrast, have fiscal multipliers below 1: for every dollar "spent" (given up in tax revenue), only a few cents are added to real GDP. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Feb 14, 2019 |
# ? Feb 14, 2019 20:20 |
|
Ah, that all makes sense, thanks you two!
|
# ? Feb 14, 2019 21:23 |
|
theblackw0lf posted:In this Green New Deal write-up by two economists, one who is an AOC adviser, there's an interesting section talking about the financing of it, which explains the MMT perspective of how government finances programs, and also touches on how they will deal any inflation that's created. So this addresses several posts I've seen on this thread Also, what is your response to LuciferMorningstar's assertion that your original claim that MMT let us spend freely on social programs is wrong? LuciferMorningstar posted:Yes, I think the OP was wrong with their original claim.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2019 00:49 |
|
I've never really understood why people have such trouble understanding MMT. Nobody I've talked to gets it but "central bank makes money at will" seems intuitive to me
|
# ? Feb 15, 2019 15:45 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:26 |
|
I think everyone understands the theory, the question is whether that theory tells us anything useful about how we should run our government. Because same people are saying, "well, it's really just a more accurate way to model what already happens", and others are saying, "Actually, it lets us spend whatever we want on democratic policy priorities without raising taxes."
|
# ? Feb 15, 2019 17:59 |