So you disagree that the government of a sovereign nation that has a monopoly on the issuance of a floating currency is self-funding?
No this whole thread is a 49 page waste of time and brain energy. You can learn everything you need to know about MMT by watching it fail. None of it is sensible and it's not how money works which is why it's a fail.
Well at least real money is not a failure despite all the adverse publicity and brainwashing of the masses and neverending manipulation
Even with derivatives and manipulation and repo markets they still can't make it work. They can't even print enough to make it work. It's a fools errand.
For the time constrained or less than curious TLDR: any perceived failures in the system is not evidence of any failure of MMT as governments do not make policy decisions based upon a MMT framework. The dragged out version: You didn't answer my question. No offence intended but your repeated insistence that MMT is failing indicates you don't understand what MMT is. This is an example of what I was talking about regarding your confusion and misunderstanding. Derivatives are financial securities. They get used as tools of monetary policy by economists but don't have their origins in MMT. The repo market involves buying/selling of financial securities. It gets used as a tool of monetary policy by economists in order to add or drain banking liquidity and in attempts to influence trading in the federal funds market. Depending upon what outcomes you'd like it to achieve it either works very well, or it doesn't. Either way, it's not a concept that originated with MMT but has its roots in Friedman's Monetarism, though it's morphed on from then. When you talk about "printing" it's important to distinguish between QE which is a tool of monetary policy involving the exchange of financial assets (usually government securities and reserves), and Treasury stimulus/spending which is a tool of fiscal policy involving the injection or withdrawal of money into and out of the real economy. QE did not originate in MMT, whereas MMT does devote a great deal of effort into explaining the origins of money in modern economies and the implications for fiscal policy. A tool will only fail when there is an intention to use it. MMT is not failing because governments basically aren't employing it.
Your unicorn isn't rare and it's already failed. Mmt is in the news everyday here in the states and they are starting to realize debts and deficit spending actually do matter in reality. It's all nonsensical braindead dribble and dreaming.
I'll post this once again: Not a single MM theorist would argue that the economic effects of deficit spending don't matter.
Mmts entire mantra is that debt doesn't matter. What do you mean? There isn't even a mathematical formula for mmt because it's so rediculous. The exact situation we are in now is all mmt.
Johnny Boy, you said this whole thread of 49 pages was a waste of time and brain energy. And yet here you are again still typing away as if you had nothing better to do with your time and energy Go and pan for gold in them there hills young man, there is colour to be found That will be more productive to you and less frustrating than trying to talk some sense into old shiney on here.
Read what I wrote: I didn't say anything about debt. Now when it comes to debt my understanding is that MM theorists argue that public debt is simply money that the government has spent but has not yet collected back in taxes. I'm yet to see a rational argument as to why government debt is bad. Now it is possible that ever increasing debt is not good, again, I've not read any compelling argument why that is the case (it just seems a accepted view held by mainstream economics), because put simply the government can always pay its debts. The big point that MM theorists make is that they don't advocate for government to be the major driving force of growth, they advocate for the government to support the private sector in being the major driving force of growth. A concept which is either conveniently ignored or just overlooked by critics. There's no single mathematical formula that defines any economic theory. However, scholarly works of MMT are full of formulae, if that's your thing. Here you go, knock yourself out: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?
Really stupid comment (channelling my best Eddie Jones there ) because it's not true yet you keep repeating it. The past 100 years has seen 2 shifts in politico-economic paradigms. Up until the 1970's Keyenesian economic theory was dominant, with it's focus largely on achieving full employment to drive growth. From the 1980's neo-liberalism has been the dominant paradigm with it's focus on controlling inflation by keeping a portion of the population unemployed. If you're looking for someone to blame and you keep pointing your finger at MMT then you're simply poking holes in the air. MMT has more in common with Keynesian economic theory than the broader neo-liberal schools such as monetarism, Austrian, or NK-DSGE which dominate today's macroeconomic world.
What I like about MMT is that it advocates shifting government policy away from its reliance on monetary tools to fiscal, especially as fiscal policy comes with greater accountability from an electorate's point of view.
Now I understand why you'd fall for something like this. You still think voting matters or they care what the electorate thinks! Hehe they dont! Wishful thinking with mmt or your govt is on the same level I'd guess. Question everything! It's all idealist principles with little to no realism. More clown world fodder.
I don't think it's a waste but you're trying to make water flow uphill. No matter how much you confuse yourself or talk in circles some things just don't agree with natural law.
Even though there are many video here with Warren Mosler, I find his newer talks worth an update as his talks become more detailed and refined over time.
Always good to revisit Mosler, kind of like getting a car serviced to ensure it runs properly, but in this case it's about refreshing knowledge and making sure my understanding is still on the right track. I liked his his comment around MMT's contribution to economics ie the government spends first and collects taxes afterwards. His explanation is that the government firstly imposes a tax liability (he used a "hut" tax* as the example), this creates unemployment, the government employs people, they get paid an income which they can then use to meet their tax liability. * pay your "hut" tax or the government burn your hut down. He also said it could be a "head" tax, pay your "head" tax or the government will chop your head off. Lol.
