• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debunking MMT

Moderate Right said:
I fall to the right on economic theory, generally speaking, but I'm not a 100% supply sider. I think all economic theories have their merits and their flaws. However, it is crazy to believe that the national debt does not matter because it is not real debt and, in fact, that we should just spend, spend, spend, into oblivion because we can always grow the economy faster than the debt grows and we can just print money whenever we want.
Click to expand...

What makes you think MMT advocates propose unlimited spending?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
BECAUSE THIS IS A DEBATE BOARD, AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ONE OF THE DEBATERS, THAT'S WHY! Learn the subject, or STFU, because if you don't understand what you are debating about, you are no more than a glorified pointer.
Click to expand...

Moderate right, if you read his posts, resorts to not actually debating the merits of MMT, simply resorting to personal attacks.
 
David_N said:
What makes you think MMT advocates propose unlimited spending?
Click to expand...

Don't entertain his idiocy unless and until he READS AND UNDERSTANDS HIS OWN LINKS, and PUTS THE ARGUMENTS IN HIS OWN WORDS.

He had a chance to debunk MMT in the last thread, and he wasn't up to the task. Even after decades of studying economics. :lamo
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Don't entertain his idiocy unless and until he READS AND UNDERSTANDS HIS OWN LINKS, and PUTS THE ARGUMENTS IN HIS OWN WORDS.

He had a chance to debunk MMT in the last thread, and he wasn't up to the task. Even after decades of studying economics. :lamo
Click to expand...

Good point. For fun though, I may go through those links one by one and comment on various parts of them to save for later.
 
DA60 said:
MMT is yet another variation on Moocher's Paradise.

The notion that you can get something for nothing if you just throw enough big brains at it.

Sorry folks, there are a few constants in the universe...and on of them is you generally do not get something for nothing.
Click to expand...

No, that has nothing to do with it. Refer to post #16, I am not a MMT supporter so appreciate this as such.

MMT is just a variation of modern economics when considering the principles of monetary policy for strict Fiat Money systems. It becomes political when we consider alternate theories which are also based on Fiat Money systems (like "modern-Keynesian" as an example) or completely opposition economic theory from various right leaning groups.

Trying to put economic theory into the political category of "something for nothing" misses the point, and in a way confirms a lack of interest in really discussing MMT on your part.
 
I'm proving to you that experts in the field who know far more than the few of you added together debunk MMT. None of you have any comeback for that except to divert attention from those really in the know to me, who you think will be easier to attack to prove your point. You're really skating on thin ice when you have to resort to trying to prove your point by attacking me because you have no argument against the links I provided. It also proves that your minds are totally closed except to your own (very much in the minority) point of view. I have to admit that I'm surprised that you didn't try to rebut the links I posted but I guess it is because your only chance for winning the argument is to try winning against me, knowing that you can't win against the links I provided from experts in the field. Maybe we should let others reading the thread decide if MMT has merit or if the links I provided prove what a bunch of hogwash it really is.
 
Moderate Right said:
Why on Earth should I put them in my own words? You won't even listen to people who are far more expert than both of us added together. Maybe since you can't rebut the experts I posted you are hoping it will be easier to rebut me. Why can't you just admit that you believe in something that most all economists think is bunk?
Click to expand...

Because economics means understanding the causation principles behind any set of theories and models, even if you do not agree with them.

I keep using this example. "Modern-Keynesian" theories are not all that far removed from MMT, but there are a few solid differences. As such, someone who subscribes to either one can be hyper critical of the other because of slight differences within these theories on what from a macro level point of view impacts something else.

If you can do this by understanding why some are critical of MMT then you bring something to the table. As I have, when I mention MMT removing investor sentiment from monetary policy decision. Not everyone is going to agree with me, but one of the reasons that John is critical of you is being able to do something similar where you put MMT to the test. And then amply theorize why MMT may be flawed.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Because economics means understanding the causation principles behind any set of theories and models, even if you do not agree with them.

I keep using this example. "Modern-Keynesian" theories are not all that far removed from MMT, but there are a few solid differences. As such, someone who subscribes to either one can be hyper critical of the other because of slight differences within these theories on what from a macro level point of view impacts something else.

If you can do this by understanding why some are critical of MMT then you bring something to the table. As I have, when I mention MMT removing investor sentiment from monetary policy decision. Not everyone is going to agree with me, but one of the reasons that John is critical of you is being able to do something similar where you put MMT to the test. And then amply theorize why MMT may be flawed.
Click to expand...

John is attacking me because he cannot rebut the links I provided from experts who say that MMT is a crock. It really doesn't make a difference what I know or understand, the experts themselves say that MMT is a crock. Your only defense seems to be that you think if I understood economics more than I do now then I would realize why these experts are wrong in debunking MMT. What a ridiculous argument.
 
Moderate Right said:
John is attacking me because he cannot rebut the links I provided from experts who say that MMT is a crock. It really doesn't make a difference what I know or understand, the experts themselves say that MMT is a crock. Your only defense seems to be that you think if I understood economics more than I do now then I would realize why these experts are wrong in debunking MMT. What a ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

No, I am not asking you to prove the "experts" from your links as being wrong. I am asking you to put forth something plausible as to why MMT has flaws, which is what I did.

John and I disagree on those points as well, but it is far more civil... I suspect because we are speaking to each other in terms of economics for these subjects, not just the political implications of them.
 
OrphanSlug said:
No, I am not asking you to prove the "experts" from your links as being wrong. I am asking you to put forth something plausible as to why MMT has flaws, which is what I did.

John and I disagree on those points as well, but it is far more civil... I suspect because we are speaking to each other in terms of economics for these subjects, not just the political implications of them.
Click to expand...

???????????????????? Why do I have to prove MMT has flaws when I presented evidence from several experts (who know more than all of us combined) as to why MMT has flaws? As I said, John and you others can't come up with a rebuttal to the experts so the only way you can try proving your point is to debate someone who doesn't have as much knowledge as the experts that I presented. I yield the floor to the experts who know more than I do but not to a bunch of hobbiests that think they know more than the experts do. The experts I presented already debated their side of how MMT is flawed (and who I happen to agree with, by the way). If you want any credibility at all you guys need to rebut those experts instead of trying to divert the argument to someone who you think will be easier to beat than the experts. That's really a lame strategy but I guess the only one you think you can win on because it is harder for you to argue that the experts are old school and not up on current economic theories, especially when they have thoroughly analyzed MMT and already shown how much it is flawed.
 
Moderate Right said:
???????????????????? Why do I have to prove MMT has flaws when I presented evidence from several experts (who know more than all of us combined) as to why MMT has flaws? As I said, John and you others can't come up with a rebuttal to the experts so the only way you can try proving your point is to debate someone who doesn't have as much knowledge as the experts that I presented. I yield the floor to the experts who know more than I do but not to a bunch of hobbiests that think they know more than the experts do. The experts I presented already debated their side of how MMT is flawed (and who I happen to agree with, by the way). If you want any credibility at all you guys need to rebut those experts instead of trying to divert the argument to someone who you think will be easier to beat than the experts. That's really a lame strategy but I guess the only one you think you can win on because it is harder for you to argue that the experts are old school and not up on current economic theories, especially when they have thoroughly analyzed MMT and already shown how much it is flawed.
Click to expand...

Calm down... it'll be okay. We are just asking you to engage in the conversation a little more, that is all.

For MMT I am on your side of the fence about this, for the most part.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Calm down... it'll be okay. We are just asking you to engage in the conversation a little more, that is all.

For MMT I am on your side of the fence about this, for the most part.
Click to expand...

I just ask that you don't present an argument for him. Make him do the work, for once.


**********

MR, if you ever do post a response, know that I'll be checking it for plagiarism. Advance warning.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I just ask that you don't present an argument for him. Make him do the work, for once.


**********

MR, if you ever do post a response, know that I'll be checking it for plagiarism. Advance warning.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of designing his argument for him, only trying to encourage him (and anyone else) to talk about this in terms of economics.

We could all lessen the political aspect, and talk about the academia here in terms of these theories, equations, indicators, and models.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Calm down... it'll be okay. We are just asking you to engage in the conversation a little more, that is all.

For MMT I am on your side of the fence about this, for the most part.
Click to expand...

I've had conversation after conversation after conversation on this topic as well as many others have had, with many posts in many threads. John and the others belittle anyone who do not ascribe to their beliefs, including experts, who are quickly dismissed as still believing in the gold standard and not up on modern economics, even though that usually isn't even the case. Not many anywhere believe in the gold standard either, except for a different radical fringe. The facts are that the MMT group is a minority fringe group with radical viewpoints and most leading economic experts dismiss MMT as fatally flawed. Whatever the MMT group wants to argue, it is not accepted as realistic economic theory except by those who believe in it hook, line, and sinker and they will defend it til death.

The truth is money does not grow on trees and it never will but for those that want to live in the delusional world of not having to worry about debt or budget deficits because we can always print money then, hey, this a free country. When close to zero presidents, senators, congressman, and all of their economic advisers don't believe in this bunk then all you are left with is trying to prove your point on a political debate forum where you don't have to go up against experts debunking you. What they actually want to accomplish with this, other than stoking their own egos, is beyond me. This thread was intended on showing that the economic experts in the know, and not hobbiests such as myself and John both, debunk MMT outright. There is nothing I can add to the argument of those who know much more than John and I and the others will ever know, added together.
 
Moderate Right said:
I've had conversation after conversation after conversation on this topic as well as many others have had, with many posts in many threads. John and the others belittle anyone who do not ascribe to their beliefs, including experts, who are quickly dismissed as still believing in the gold standard and not up on modern economics, even though that usually isn't even the case. Not many anywhere believe in the gold standard either, except for a different radical fringe. The facts are that the MMT group is a minority fringe group with radical viewpoints and most leading economic experts dismiss MMT as fatally flawed. Whatever the MMT group wants to argue, it is not accepted as realistic economic theory except by those who believe in it hook, line, and sinker and they will defend it til death.

The truth is money does not grow on trees and it never will but for those that want to live in the delusional world of not having to worry about debt or budget deficits because we can always print money then, hey, this a free country. When close to zero presidents, senators, congressman, and all of their economic advisers don't believe in this bunk then all you are left with is trying to prove your point on a political debate forum where you don't have to go up against experts debunking you. What they actually want to accomplish with this, other than stoking their own egos, is beyond me. This thread was intended on showing that the economic experts in the know, and not hobbiests such as myself and John both, debunk MMT outright. There is nothing I can add to the argument of those who know much more than John and I and the others will ever know, added together.
Click to expand...

I get the frustration, any argument within an academia can get that way.

The problem is while I agree that MMT is not practical, neither is belief in the gold standard. It is easy to point out why. It effectively prevents a central bank / government from handling economic faults in a recession as it restricts monetary policy to how much Gold we have. The secondary impact is how GDP calculation ends up handled as trade balance ends up linked to how much Gold we have, and can acquire somehow. It creates an economic model where growth ends up finite to Gold. At the end of last year currency in circulation was roughly $1.4 Trillion ('ish,) yet our economy for 2015 was $17.9 Trillion ('ish.) So for that one point in time at the end of last year actual currency in circulation ended up accounting for all of 7.8% of our total economy. The rest is electronic, literally over 90% of the money out there in our economy is not in currency form.

Trying to establish the Gold Standard now would be like dropping a bomb on the banking system and the NYSE, we agree on that point.

However, while currency in circulation does "not grow on tress" through monetary policy and central banking / banking mechanisms we do end up with effectively money created out of thin air just about all the time. All modern monetary policies in consideration of Fiat Money systems look at policy decisions based on economic conditions, in a sense MMT is right on the one point where funding the government is a secondary consideration where the economic cycle (our economic health) is primary.

It is very possible that we can run deficits indefinitely assuming that the economy is growing at a rate greater than our additions to debt. Trend line analysis of Total Debt to GDP and deficits to GDP (that inherently links economic / monetary policy to GDP... our economic condition.) Some within MMT may suggest breaking the policy of bond issuance, or breaking the association of monetary policy to investor sentiment. But MMT is not a blind call for just printing our way out of every problem. Even MMT sees resource constraints.

MMT has plenty of practical implementation problems, we also agree on that point. But how we operate within our Fiat Money system means consideration of all potential theories on economic causation and behavior observations as to apply the best possible policy going forward. "Modern Keynesian" theories have plenty of merit, and there are a few items within MMT that are also worthy of merit. What does not have much merit, and is easy to debunk, is supply side economics (i.e. the association of those theories to "Reaganomics" and "Trickle down economics" in political and economic terms.)

We can go down that road if you would like, but it might be more wise to keep on MMT and talk about what those links really tell *you.* Let's debate the academia. Else, why are we here?
 
OrphanSlug said:
I get the frustration, any argument within an academia can get that way.

The problem is while I agree that MMT is not practical, neither is belief in the gold standard. It is easy to point out why. It effectively prevents a central bank / government from handling economic faults in a recession as it restricts monetary policy to how much Gold we have. The secondary impact is how GDP calculation ends up handled as trade balance ends up linked to how much Gold we have, and can acquire somehow. It creates an economic model where growth ends up finite to Gold. At the end of last year currency in circulation was roughly $1.4 Trillion ('ish,) yet our economy for 2015 was $17.9 Trillion ('ish.) So for that one point in time at the end of last year actual currency in circulation ended up accounting for all of 7.8% of our total economy. The rest is electronic, literally over 90% of the money out there in our economy is not in currency form.

Trying to establish the Gold Standard now would be like dropping a bomb on the banking system and the NYSE, we agree on that point.

However, while currency in circulation does "not grow on tress" through monetary policy and central banking / banking mechanisms we do end up with effectively money created out of thin air just about all the time. All modern monetary policies in consideration of Fiat Money systems look at policy decisions based on economic conditions, in a sense MMT is right on the one point where funding the government is a secondary consideration where the economic cycle (our economic health) is primary.

It is very possible that we can run deficits indefinitely assuming that the economy is growing at a rate greater than our additions to debt. Trend line analysis of Total Debt to GDP and deficits to GDP (that inherently links economic / monetary policy to GDP... our economic condition.) Some within MMT may suggest breaking the policy of bond issuance, or breaking the association of monetary policy to investor sentiment. But MMT is not a blind call for just printing our way out of every problem. Even MMT sees resource constraints.

MMT has plenty of practical implementation problems, we also agree on that point. But how we operate within our Fiat Money system means consideration of all potential theories on economic causation and behavior observations as to apply the best possible policy going forward. "Modern Keynesian" theories have plenty of merit, and there are a few items within MMT that are also worthy of merit. What does not have much merit, and is easy to debunk, is supply side economics (i.e. the association of those theories to "Reaganomics" and "Trickle down economics" in political and economic terms.)

We can go down that road if you would like, but it might be more wise to keep on MMT and talk about what those links really tell *you.* Let's debate the academia. Else, why are we here?
Click to expand...

I don't believe in any one economic theory. I'm not so sure it is possible for any economic theory to ever be right all the time since variables are always present as the world constantly changes. One could argue that one economic theory was correct during one time period while another theory is correct during a different time period and that doesn't even take into account that one theory might be best for one part of the world while another makes more sense for another part of the world. Maybe this is my biggest gripe with MMT in that a lot of it makes sense, but only to a point, and then it veers wildly off course. The fact that quick analysis shows that MMT makes sense may be what makes it so seductive to the believers, because they believe it is always going to be correct, in the past, in the present, and in the future. As you said, It is very possible that we can run deficits indefinitely assuming that the economy is growing at a rate greater than our additions to debt but that word "assuming" is the kicker. Any number of things could happen and MMT could blow up in our faces and yet the MMT'rs seem to believe if that ever happens the answer is to double down on MMT and throw more gas on the fire. While I lean to the right in economic theory I realize that Supply Side has as many holes in it as Swiss cheese so I have no interest in debating it. Maybe the Gold Standard was a great economic policy at one time but I certainly agree that it is not now. There are very few Gold Standard believers left and for good reason. There's also a good reason why MMT believers are a cult minority. The last link I provided gives a 74 page detailed critique of MMT by someone who knows far more than me.

http://z822j1x8tde3wuovlgo7ue15.wpe...nt/uploads/2015/06/Modern-Monetary-Theory.pdf
 
Moderate Right said:
The last link I provided gives a 74 page detailed critique of MMT by someone who knows far more than me.

http://z822j1x8tde3wuovlgo7ue15.wpe...nt/uploads/2015/06/Modern-Monetary-Theory.pdf
Click to expand...

Did you read it and understand it? If so, put it in your own words. If not, what is your purpose on a debate board? We all know that links exist; everybody here knows how to use Google.

BTW - if you knew the author, you would know that Cullen is also an MMT guy. But you didn't actually read any of these links, did you?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Did you read it and understand it? If so, put it in your own words. If not, what is your purpose on a debate board? We all know that links exist; everybody here knows how to use Google.

BTW - if you knew the author, you would know that Cullen is also an MMT guy. But you didn't actually read any of these links, did you?
Click to expand...

Oh please Mr. guy who posts many links, graphs, stats, and charts to back up his wild claims but doesn't allow anyone with opposing viewpoints to do the same. Did you read it and understand it? Apparently not because if you understood it you wouldn't be asking me to put it in my own simpler words. How do you expect my words to be any better than those of a financial guru? It must have been over your head. Of course anything debunking MMT is over your head. Now I'm trying to figure out, is Cullen O. Roche a past MMT'r who is now criticizing MMT or did I misinterpret the whole thing (which I did read) and the 74 page paper was actually in favor of MMT, not debunking it? Who better to debunk MMT than someone like O.Roche, who knows it inside and out, or are you going to claim that he is an old fuddy duddy still believing in the gold standard?
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
Oh please Mr. guy who posts many links, graphs, stats, and charts to back up his wild claims but doesn't allow anyone with opposing viewpoints to do the same. Did you read it and understand it? Apparently not because if you understood it you wouldn't be asking me to put it in my own simpler words. How do you expect my words to be any better than those of a financial guru? It must have been over your head. Of course anything debunking MMT is over your head. Now I'm trying to figure out, is Cullen O. Roche a past MMT'r who is now criticizing MMT or did I misinterpret the whole thing (which I did read) and the 74 page paper was actually in favor of MMT, not debunking it? Who better to debunk MMT than someone like O.Roche, who knows it inside and out?
Click to expand...

I read your first link.

I don't think it said what you think it said. I doubt you understood it completely based on your criticisms here. The paper did say a LOT of things in favor of MMT. It didn't debunk what you wanted it to debunk- namely, that public debt is not a catastrophic issue or that there is imminent risk inherent to budget deficits.
 
Absentglare said:
I read your first link.

I don't think it said what you think it said. I doubt you understood it completely based on your criticisms here. The paper did say a LOT of things in favor of MMT. It didn't debunk what you wanted it to debunk- namely, that public debt is not a catastrophic issue or that there is imminent risk inherent to budget deficits.
Click to expand...

Recently we've been talking about this link: http://z822j1x8tde3wuovlgo7ue15.wpe...nt/uploads/2015/06/Modern-Monetary-Theory.pdf

Most of the links given try to give people an understanding of MMT before they explain why it is bunk. That's why it appeared to you as if they were commending MMT at first but then you apparently didn't read further down where they debunked it. You're throwing up smokescreens on purpose now to distract from the fact that MMT is debunked.
 
Absentglare said:
I read your first link.

I don't think it said what you think it said. I doubt you understood it completely based on your criticisms here. The paper did say a LOT of things in favor of MMT. It didn't debunk what you wanted it to debunk- namely, that public debt is not a catastrophic issue or that there is imminent risk inherent to budget deficits.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about that last link, Cullen Roche was a full MMT adherent, and he completely agrees with the mechanics. But he emphasizes horizontal money, and thinks that is where we should be concentrating. A few years back, I guess he had an unpleasant exchange with Randy Wray, and he split off from the group. That's when he coined the term "MMR," or Modern Monetary Realism, which just puts more of an emphasis on bank money. Cullen is a sharp guy, but I think a lot of his criticisms stem from hurt feelings.
 
Moderate Right said:
Recently we've been talking about this link: http://z822j1x8tde3wuovlgo7ue15.wpe...nt/uploads/2015/06/Modern-Monetary-Theory.pdf

Most of the links given try to give people an understanding of MMT before they explain why it is bunk. That's why it appeared to you as if they were commending MMT at first but then you apparently didn't read further down where they debunked it. You're throwing up smokescreens on purpose now to distract from the fact that MMT is debunked.
Click to expand...

How would you even know if it is debunked or not? You don't understand the first thing from any of those papers, OR ELSE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF THE CRITICISMS YOURSELF, instead of just pointing to them and telling us that they exist.

I'm not going to let you get away with not learning the stuff that you claim to be debating. What you are doing now is not debating. So instead of wasting more time trying to defend your practice of barfing up links and insisting that everybody else do the work, why don't you, instead, HIT THE BOOKS YOURSELF?
 
Moderate Right said:
Recently we've been talking about this link: http://z822j1x8tde3wuovlgo7ue15.wpe...nt/uploads/2015/06/Modern-Monetary-Theory.pdf

Most of the links given try to give people an understanding of MMT before they explain why it is bunk. That's why it appeared to you as if they were commending MMT at first but then you apparently didn't read further down where they debunked it. You're throwing up smokescreens on purpose now to distract from the fact that MMT is debunked.
Click to expand...

And, again; you fail to understand, acknowledge, or articulate the difference between a criticism and actually debunking a theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom