Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Sep 14, 2019.
I'm not sure what data you are using to arrive at your conclusion.
All data shows the same. World economies are a disaster. Theres nothing positive.
You only have to use your common sense to realize that it will not be possible for the world economies to recover from the current devastations
and bounce back to the pre COVID 19 conditions, shiney old boy.
The rot of course started well before the virus was released to cover up the world wide economic mismanagement by the puppets in power
and the puppet masters pulling their strings.
Half the small businesses are already dead or will be once the government support stops, and a lot the other half will struggle to stay afloat as well.
So it is going to be a bleak future going forward from now on, and you wont be able to rely on the government welfare tit to nourish you for much
longer either, that is going to run dry well before the end of this decade.
I am already resigned to the fact that there wont be the old age pension for me when the time comes for me to qualify for it.
No he thinks mmt is different than what we have. It's the same shitty shit we already have, with a cool retro name.
Endless dollar printing is all the same.
Trying to make sense of it is fruitless. With gold prices shooting upwards it tells you all you need to know. Everything the keynsian socialists do will fail.
Pensions could be around forever but the question is, what will it buy once they take all our purchasing power.
Yes what the gold price tells us is that we all need to be our own central reserve bank, with adequate reserves of precious metals
gathered during the good years to tide us through the difficult years that are about to hit us, and not relying on our corrupt governments
and their handouts to keep us alive ( those will come with a terrible personal cost in the future )
And you might be right, some sort of government pension assistance might still be around but it will be like in my Eastern European
homeland where the poor pensioners get about $100 per month, just enough to keep them from starving to death.
It is better to die standing than live kneeling.
So you've changed your mind and you do think that there will be aged welfare in the future? That's good, it shows a recognition that the agenda in governments has turned, even if slightly. I used to think the same, that revenue constraints would force governments to slowly abandon age-criteria welfare, but that clearly is false. We're heading into a future of big government with an endless capacity to fund policies.
Is all the same as what? When? You're still confused between what the system is ie MMT v how governments/central banks go about implementing political policy within that system. The first part won''t change, but the second part is likely to change and we've already seen the evidence of that to a very small degree.
And then there's always Japan.
Youre the only confusing part I dont understand. You think its different somehow.
Nothing has changed.
Since when? Name a date.
From my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) many pension schemes in the US are run at a State rather than Federal level. As States are currency users but not not issuers, would States that are on the verge of bankruptcy, be shit out of luck - or more importantly their constituents be shit out of luck?
This is currently being addressed in the US and Australia (and most likely everywhere else). States will have access to more or less unlimited funding in order to maintain stability. Just like how the EU provided funding to Greece in order to maintain stability.
The RBA has openly talked about providing funding to states.
@Davros10, you’re correct. And as @leo25 alluded to is that we’re most likely to see an increasingly irrelevant political class at the State level with the Feds calling the shots on a wider scale.
I’m not happy with it as I favour decentralisation. But the outcomes at least are likely to better than they have been in the last 20 years as the budget focus will probably shift from surpluses to deficits.
May be the future will bring more clarification on this. I hope.
I've been quoting a bit from this publication I know:
And we have the RBA Governor still on script, where he has been for months and months, pressuring the parliament into taking the responsibility for action rather than relying on central banks.
Philip Lowe refers to MMT as "financial trickery" and gets a pat on the back by Tim Wilson:
"Mr BANDT: Do you think enough is being borrowed and invested at the moment to get us back to full employment?
Mr Lowe : That is the critical issue: how much fiscal stimulus do we need to get the country back to full employment? The federal government has had a very large fiscal stimulus—roughly seven or eight per cent of GDP—and we have had another couple of per cent from the states and territories. What the governments are going to have to grapple with over coming months and perhaps years is whether they need to keep that fiscal stimulus going and whether they can add directly to aggregate demand. We are seeing in a number of countries now—New Zealand is an example of this and Germany to some extent—governments deciding that, in the recovery phase, because of some of the issues I've been talking about, they're going to need to add to aggregate demand directly themselves through their own spending. Transportation infrastructure, energy, health, education—there are a whole bunch of areas where governments could decide to add directly to aggregate demand, and that would create jobs and help in the recovery. How much of that we should have is a debate we should have in Australia at the moment. That's the right question to be focusing on, rather than trying to come up with some trickery in financing, which is what I view this kind of modern monetary theory as. The question, really, is the fiscal one, and that's the one we should be discussing. The financing thing is going to take care of itself; I think it's neither here nor there, really. We should focus on how much fiscal support we are going to need to get people back into jobs, and that's an issue for the parliament.
Mr BANDT: Thank you.
CHAIR: 'Financial trickery', a phrase I am quite happy to see taken on board!"
"CHAIR: Just quickly going back to what you called the 'financial trickery of modern monetary theory'—and I very much welcomed the comments you made in your opening statement which clarified that rather than having to go through a long line of questioning—I draw your attention to the paper that was done by Saunders and Tulip. We discussed this at our hearing last August. It shows that one of the key reasons for house price increases has been inflation and ultimately the absorption of inflation in comparison to consumer products, which sit mobile in a global pricing environment. Is one of the potential very serious impacts if we go down the modern monetary theory pathway that there would be inflation but it would be absorbed in asset prices, not in consumer goods, and would therefore be hidden?
Mr Lowe : That's certainly conceptually possible. Monetary financing of the budget deficit can lead to inflation, and that has all sorts of problems. It's not guaranteed that we end up in the high-inflation situation for monetary financing, but it's certainly possible. As I said in response to Mr Bandt's questions, modern monetary theory, for me, is as much about fiscal policy. We call it 'modern monetary theory' but it's about fiscal policy because the very first proposition is that the government should keep spending to achieve its objectives. The second proposition is that it shouldn't worry about financing."
And Bill Mitchell responds in his blog:
"Last week, the Reserve Bank of Australia governor, Philip Lowe, confirmed that the claim that the central bank is independent of the political process is a pretense. The Governor was adopting a political role and made several statements that cannot be analytically supported nor supported by the evidence available over many decades. He is insistent on disabusing the public debate of any positive discussion about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which, of course, I find interesting in itself. More and more people are starting to understanding the basics of MMT and are realising that that understanding opens up a whole new policy debate, that is largely shut down by the mainstream fictions about the capacities of the currency-issuing government and the consequences of different policy choices. People are realising that with more than 2.4 million Australian workers currently without enough work (more than a million officially unemployed) that the Australian government is lagging behind in its fiscal response. They are further realising that the government is behaving conservatively because it still thinks it can get back to surplus before long and so doesn’t want to ‘borrow’ too much (whatever that means). An MMT understanding tells us that the government can create as many jobs as are necessary to achieve full employment and the central bank can just facilitate the fiscal spending without the need for government to borrow at all. They are asking questions daily now: why isn’t the RBA helping in this way. The denial from the RBA politicians (the Governor, for example) are pathetic to say the least."
Philip Lowe need to stop with all the BS talk. It’s like a kid finding out Santa is not real, but the parent keeps telling the kid Santa is real.
Smoke and mirrors. The RBA Governor could never entertain the idea that CBs just finance government business. For if he was to admit that governments do not need to issue bonds on the primary market in order to raise funds then he'd be inundated with endless wailing by his banker mates.
Bonds are a scam.
I found an old central banker training video on how to make a simple action look complicated. The only issue is once enough people understand what's really happening, the illusion is lost forever.
I have friends in the US telling me that Wells Fargo, US Bank, Bank of America & Chase.....Majority all down atm
Separate names with a comma.