• 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!

MMT ( Modern Monetary Theory)

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,397
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I got a radical friend who is way to the left of me and she is trying to make me an MMT convert.

I'm a liberal, but I usually shun pop economic ideas as intellectual wishy washy stuff. It seems to me that MMTers are a bit of a fringe group, not in the mainstream of progressive economic thinking, and Krugman is not a fan.

Anyway, I tried listening to a couple of its leaders talk about it on YouTube, and Im not that impressed, as I've
been studying economics, though as a layman, for some time, since the 70s, and a few items of concern counter my own research on the subject, and most of it doesn't really seem to be that new. One thing they say that strike me as odd is this:

The are saying that the gov controls inflation by taxation, and when you pay income taxes, the gov doesn't spend it, it "deletes" it by keystroke, taking money out of circulation, and this draining of the growing money supply is how they control inflation. So where do they get the money they need to pay bills? "By keystroke' they say, they just create it ( and some printing, too ). So, they spend this "fiat" money, and drain the economy via taxation, to shrink the money supply.

This is bizarre, though not totally implausible, but I have been taught for most of my life that the Fed Reserve controls
inflation via the discount rate ( now called the fed fund rate, the rate it charges banks for short term loans ) and this
is what causes interest rates to go up, or down. So, a rate near zero is like pushing pedal to the medal, as it causes cheap money, and banks can loan out tons of money ( 9 bucks for very buck deposited with the fed under the "fractional reserve" system at low interest rates to institutions, which, in turn, creates big incentive to borrow from banks )
and thus they create money, grow the money supply, and this causes inflation. If they up the rate, less money goes out, as and if less money is created than GNP it puts a lid on inflation, or something like this. Economics is not an easy subject, not for me, anyway, I've been struggling with it for a long time.

Another term for inflating the economy is called "Quantative Easing" or QE. MMTers say that QE doesn't cause inflation ( but history shows that it does, overall ).

Anyone know about this or have anything to say about MMT ?
 
MMT is not some radical theory, it's just how the money system operates. It's only the fiscal actions that some people prescribe based on their understanding of MMT that are controversial.
 
"The are saying that the gov controls inflation by taxation,"

What the government does on purpose is a matter of policy, and policy is determined by what they believe, not what they know or understand. That's why you still see politicians pushing for supply-side, trickle-down policies that absolutely do not work. The government doesn't control inflation on purpose by taxation, but they should. The government thinks that they are controlling inflation by keeping about 5% of the labor force unemployed. And they tinker with interest rates, hoping that it makes a difference in how much lending activity there is (it doesn't do much, though).

A whole lot of mainstream monetary policy is still based on monetarism. They are still very concerned about how many dollars are in the economy, what the debt-to-GDP ratio is, etc., even though there isn't much of a history of success with these policies. Monetarists thought that inflation would explode because of the huge increase in the monetary base (QE), and for the past 9.5 years, they have been inventing excuses as to why that didn't happen. They aren't changing their main theories, though. It would be too embarrassing.

MMT believes that inflation is a matter of demand outstripping supply (while recognizing that the economy can increase to meet increased demand, up to a point). The number of dollars in existence really has no relation to inflation (just try to find a correlation!). $500 billion in the hands of the rich doesn't spur much consumption (it certainly doesn't spur investment); $500 billion in the hands of the lower end, though, would result in about $499 billion being spent, and boosting aggregate demand. Same number of dollars, much different result.

"when you pay income taxes, the gov doesn't spend it, it "deletes" it by keystroke, taking money out of circulation,"

This is just accounting. When you repay a loan, your bank doesn't collect a pile of paper money to lend out to the next borrower, they mark down your account (a bank liability), and they mark down your promissory note (a bank asset). It's all a matter of assets and liabilities on bank ledgers. You borrow, and money (credit) is created; you pay off your loan, and money is extinguished. When the government deficit spends, money (base money) is created; when the government taxes, that base money is extinguished. Like banks, the government doesn't pile up paper money to spend later. Their spending is also done on ledgers. Your taxes are recorded, and the numbers are added to Treasury's account at the Fed, but at the same time, Fed liabilities are being extinguished. MMTers understand accounting very well.

You have the Fed's mechanism for controlling the overnight rate about half right. You have bank lending 100% wrong. You have the reasons for inflation wrong. But you are certainly not alone. Most people have this stuff completely wrong (who studies this, anyway?), yet they are still all over the internet, screaming their crap to anybody who will listen. You might even run into a few here on DP. ;)

I'll answer as many questions as you have, or I'll point you to answers that I have already written, but I'm not on DP much anymore, so I might take a while to respond. Keep learning!
 
OscarLevant said:
I got a radical friend who is way to the left of me and she is trying to make me an MMT convert.

I'm a liberal, but I usually shun pop economic ideas as intellectual wishy washy stuff. It seems to me that MMTers are a bit of a fringe group, not in the mainstream of progressive economic thinking, and Krugman is not a fan.

Anyway, I tried listening to a couple of its leaders talk about it on YouTube, and Im not that impressed, as I've
been studying economics, though as a layman, for some time, since the 70s, and a few items of concern counter my own research on the subject, and most of it doesn't really seem to be that new. One thing they say that strike me as odd is this:

The are saying that the gov controls inflation by taxation, and when you pay income taxes, the gov doesn't spend it, it "deletes" it by keystroke, taking money out of circulation, and this draining of the growing money supply is how they control inflation. So where do they get the money they need to pay bills? "By keystroke' they say, they just create it ( and some printing, too ). So, they spend this "fiat" money, and drain the economy via taxation, to shrink the money supply.

This is bizarre, though not totally implausible, but I have been taught for most of my life that the Fed Reserve controls
inflation via the discount rate ( now called the fed fund rate, the rate it charges banks for short term loans ) and this
is what causes interest rates to go up, or down. So, a rate near zero is like pushing pedal to the medal, as it causes cheap money, and banks can loan out tons of money ( 9 bucks for very buck deposited with the fed under the "fractional reserve" system at low interest rates to institutions, which, in turn, creates big incentive to borrow from banks )
and thus they create money, grow the money supply, and this causes inflation. If they up the rate, less money goes out, as and if less money is created than GNP it puts a lid on inflation, or something like this. Economics is not an easy subject, not for me, anyway, I've been struggling with it for a long time.

Another term for inflating the economy is called "Quantative Easing" or QE. MMTers say that QE doesn't cause inflation ( but history shows that it does, overall ).

Anyone know about this or have anything to say about MMT ?
Click to expand...

Oscar, you are right. MMT is nonsense from a cult following. JohnfromCleveland is a cult follower. And, these people give you the line of crap that it is merely a description of how things work and then go on to spew all of their nonsense. It's like a bait and switch. Don't fall for it.
 
Brad Delong is one of my favorite economists.

"The true knowledge is, I think, to maintain a proper balance between these two perspectives--the government-can-never-run-out-of-money perspective and the government's-books-must-balance perspective--and to understand how they complement each other.

From Paul's perspective, the Austerians who shriek about how the US is about to become Greece have no understanding of how the money systems and government debt actually work in the real world.

But, also, from our perspective, the MMT folks are under strong suspicion of heresy for failing to acknowledge that the resources the government deploys cannot always be manufactured out of thin air, but (sometimes) involve real allocations of scarce resources to alternative uses."


Is There Still a Demand for Even More Modern Monetary Theory Weblogging?
 
late said:
Brad Delong is one of my favorite economists.

"The true knowledge is, I think, to maintain a proper balance between these two perspectives--the government-can-never-run-out-of-money perspective and the government's-books-must-balance perspective--and to understand how they complement each other.

From Paul's perspective, the Austerians who shriek about how the US is about to become Greece have no understanding of how the money systems and government debt actually work in the real world.

But, also, from our perspective, the MMT folks are under strong suspicion of heresy for failing to acknowledge that the resources the government deploys cannot always be manufactured out of thin air, but (sometimes) involve real allocations of scarce resources to alternative uses."


Is There Still a Demand for Even More Modern Monetary Theory Weblogging?
Click to expand...

Here is where DeLong gets it (MMT) wrong:

"Cutting spending in the future when you would not otherwise have done so is paying for today’s tax cuts. Raising taxes in the future when you would not otherwise have done is is paying for today’s tax cuts."

DeLong thinks that the resources we use up today (things we spend on to boost the economy) are finite over time, and we are essentially using up limited resources. At what point in history can you point to an economy that burned so many resources that it "ran out," or even ran short?

When we talk about idle resources, we are talking (mostly) about labor. Put labor to work, and the private sector will grow the food and build the houses and cars to meet the increased demand. We aren't talking about cutting down every tree in the country to make toothpicks. We are talking about an advanced and diverse economy.

If taxes need to be raised at some point in the future, it will be because conditions in the future are causing inflation, not because of anything we are doing in the present. Just like our present conditions are not the product of government spending 20 years ago.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
"The are saying that the gov controls inflation by taxation,"

What the government does on purpose is a matter of policy, and policy is determined by what they believe, not what they know or understand. That's why you still see politicians pushing for supply-side, trickle-down policies that absolutely do not work. The government doesn't control inflation on purpose by taxation, but they should. The government thinks that they are controlling inflation by keeping about 5% of the labor force unemployed. And they tinker with interest rates, hoping that it makes a difference in how much lending activity there is (it doesn't do much, though).

A whole lot of mainstream monetary policy is still based on monetarism. They are still very concerned about how many dollars are in the economy, what the debt-to-GDP ratio is, etc., even though there isn't much of a history of success with these policies. Monetarists thought that inflation would explode because of the huge increase in the monetary base (QE), and for the past 9.5 years, they have been inventing excuses as to why that didn't happen. They aren't changing their main theories, though. It would be too embarrassing.

MMT believes that inflation is a matter of demand outstripping supply (while recognizing that the economy can increase to meet increased demand, up to a point). The number of dollars in existence really has no relation to inflation (just try to find a correlation!). $500 billion in the hands of the rich doesn't spur much consumption (it certainly doesn't spur investment); $500 billion in the hands of the lower end, though, would result in about $499 billion being spent, and boosting aggregate demand. Same number of dollars, much different result.

"when you pay income taxes, the gov doesn't spend it, it "deletes" it by keystroke, taking money out of circulation,"

This is just accounting. When you repay a loan, your bank doesn't collect a pile of paper money to lend out to the next borrower, they mark down your account (a bank liability), and they mark down your promissory note (a bank asset). It's all a matter of assets and liabilities on bank ledgers. You borrow, and money (credit) is created; you pay off your loan, and money is extinguished. When the government deficit spends, money (base money) is created; when the government taxes, that base money is extinguished. Like banks, the government doesn't pile up paper money to spend later. Their spending is also done on ledgers. Your taxes are recorded, and the numbers are added to Treasury's account at the Fed, but at the same time, Fed liabilities are being extinguished. MMTers understand accounting very well.

You have the Fed's mechanism for controlling the overnight rate about half right. You have bank lending 100% wrong. You have the reasons for inflation wrong. But you are certainly not alone. Most people have this stuff completely wrong (who studies this, anyway?), yet they are still all over the internet, screaming their crap to anybody who will listen. You might even run into a few here on DP. ;)

I'll answer as many questions as you have, or I'll point you to answers that I have already written, but I'm not on DP much anymore, so I might take a while to respond. Keep learning!
Click to expand...


What are the sources of your knowledge?
 
OscarLevant said:
I got a radical friend who is way to the left of me and she is trying to make me an MMT convert.

I'm a liberal, but I usually shun pop economic ideas as intellectual wishy washy stuff. It seems to me that MMTers are a bit of a fringe group, not in the mainstream of progressive economic thinking, and Krugman is not a fan.

Anyway, I tried listening to a couple of its leaders talk about it on YouTube, and Im not that impressed, as I've
been studying economics, though as a layman, for some time, since the 70s, and a few items of concern counter my own research on the subject, and most of it doesn't really seem to be that new. One thing they say that strike me as odd is this:

The are saying that the gov controls inflation by taxation, and when you pay income taxes, the gov doesn't spend it, it "deletes" it by keystroke, taking money out of circulation, and this draining of the growing money supply is how they control inflation. So where do they get the money they need to pay bills? "By keystroke' they say, they just create it ( and some printing, too ). So, they spend this "fiat" money, and drain the economy via taxation, to shrink the money supply.

This is bizarre, though not totally implausible, but I have been taught for most of my life that the Fed Reserve controls
inflation via the discount rate ( now called the fed fund rate, the rate it charges banks for short term loans ) and this
is what causes interest rates to go up, or down. So, a rate near zero is like pushing pedal to the medal, as it causes cheap money, and banks can loan out tons of money ( 9 bucks for very buck deposited with the fed under the "fractional reserve" system at low interest rates to institutions, which, in turn, creates big incentive to borrow from banks )
and thus they create money, grow the money supply, and this causes inflation. If they up the rate, less money goes out, as and if less money is created than GNP it puts a lid on inflation, or something like this. Economics is not an easy subject, not for me, anyway, I've been struggling with it for a long time.

Another term for inflating the economy is called "Quantative Easing" or QE. MMTers say that QE doesn't cause inflation ( but history shows that it does, overall ).

Anyone know about this or have anything to say about MMT ?
Click to expand...

What is controversial about "MMT"... is the way that its used for justifications of spending without worry about debt or deficits.

MMT is really nothing new or modern. economists understand how our money system works now that we are fully off a gold standard.

the government does control inflation through taxation.. and the fed does through the discount rate.. among other things.

Its not one or the other.
 
jaeger19 said:
economists understand how our money system works now that we are fully off a gold standard.
Click to expand...

I would put that number at way less than half, actually. The number that understand money creation alone is probably less than half.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I would put that number at way less than half, actually. The number that understand money creation alone is probably less than half.
Click to expand...

And that's simply delusions of grandeur. MMT is nothing new. Its absurd to think that less than half of economists.. don't understand how money is created and managed in a post gold standard world.

No John.. economists understand our monetary system.

The reason you claim that "less than half" of economists don't understand money creation is because the majority of economists don't buy into to the radical monetary policies that "MMTer's".. subscribe to.
 
jaeger19 said:
And that's simply delusions of grandeur. MMT is nothing new. Its absurd to think that less than half of economists.. don't understand how money is created and managed in a post gold standard world.

No John.. economists understand our monetary system.

The reason you claim that "less than half" of economists don't understand money creation is because the majority of economists don't buy into to the radical monetary policies that "MMTer's".. subscribe to.
Click to expand...

No, the reason I made that claim is because I actually read what economists are saying. And there are still a ton of them that think banks are merely financial intermediaries, and there are still a ton of them that insist we are on a fractional reserve system.

I suppose you are now going to claim that you, too, keep up with the economics literature, in addition to your many other areas of expertise. Save your breath.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
DeLong thinks that the resources we use up today (things we spend on to boost the economy) are finite over time, and we are essentially using up limited resources.
Click to expand...

At any given moment, you have a finite amount of lots of things. In this country, a lot of our best and brightest go work for defense. In Japan, they go work for Honda or Toyota.

Back in the day, titanium had a nickname, "unobtanium", because the government hogged most of it.

We weren't using those resources up, but they also weren't being used in ways that helped grow the economy.

I am in no way a MMT expert, but what I have learned is pretty much from letting it soak through the concrete (slowly) over time.
 
OscarLevant said:
What are the sources of your knowledge?
Click to expand...

his own mind. he is his own authority in the matter.
this forum has been free of his nonsense for a while.

I guess it is time he brings it back.
no country on earth practices what he spews
the ones that have found finanical collapse and economic ruin.
 
late said:
At any given moment, you have a finite amount of lots of things.
Click to expand...

Yes, but are they really limiting factors in our economy, in any realistic scenario?

Classical economics treats them as such. The thinking being, "resources are finite, so an increase in demand for resources in general will lead to inflation." Which is the reasoning behind NAIRU, and it's hogwash. By that reasoning, any economic activity is inflationary.

Both common sense and simple observation tell us that competition keeps prices low even in the face of increasing demand; if there is enough flour, energy, and bakers, then you can bake more bread to meet higher demand. Unlimited bread? Of course not, but unrealistic assumptions like that are commonly used to argue against things like government stimulus and full employment programs.

If the bottom 5% (or 10%, or whatever the true number is) were given jobs, even make-work jobs, what would we run short of? Food, housing, energy, cars, etc. - we already produce more than enough of that stuff to take care of everybody. I doubt that there would be one iota of inflation caused by a job guarantee. And if there was, it would come in the form of higher wages, which is a good thing for the vast majority of the country. Keeping 5% unemployed doesn't keep inflation at bay, it merely keeps ownership on top and in control. Mainstream economics and their ridiculous theories (and terrible track record) is built around protecting ownership.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Mainstream economics and their ridiculous theories (and terrible track record) is built around protecting ownership.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by mainstream.

Stiglitz doesn't think that way. A lot of macroeconomists would take issue with that characterisation.
 
late said:
Depends on what you mean by mainstream.

Stiglitz doesn't think that way. A lot of macroeconomists would take issue with that characterisation.
Click to expand...

I like Stiglitz, and Krugman, because I think their hearts are in the right place. But they still hold on to some misconceptions that hurt the cause, and since they are famous, their ideas carry a lot of weight. So even Democrats/liberals/progressives follow their lead and worry too much about debt and deficits and inflation, and not nearly enough about lowering unemployment, or spending on government programs that benefit the poor, like universal healthcare. And that (unwarranted) concern about the deficit is the mainstream position. That worry is what keeps the government from spending on behalf of the poor. It's also what keeps inflation policy centered around keeping enough people unemployed so that wages won't be a driver of inflation.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I like Stiglitz, and Krugman, because I think their hearts are in the right place. But they still hold on to some misconceptions that hurt the cause, and since they are famous, their ideas carry a lot of weight. So even Democrats/liberals/progressives follow their lead and worry too much about debt and deficits and inflation, and not nearly enough about lowering unemployment, or spending on government programs that benefit the poor, like universal healthcare. And that (unwarranted) concern about the deficit is the mainstream position. That worry is what keeps the government from spending on behalf of the poor. It's also what keeps inflation policy centered around keeping enough people unemployed so that wages won't be a driver of inflation.
Click to expand...

I think guys like Stiglitz and Krugman are Democratic Party cheerleaders first, economists 2nd, at least that's how a lot of their non-academic stuff reads to me.

Even though Krugman doesn't try too hard to appeal to people with zero grasp of economics, the attempt to influence ignorant people politically usually requires stooping to that level to some degree. For example, if you're talking to a room full of life-long straight-Republican-ticket-voting simpletons who don't understand anything about economics, and are convinced the national debt is so high that we're going to default on it so we therefore need to pay it off by cutting government spending, the best anyone is going to do speaking their language is pointing to Republican Presidents and calling them hypocrites on deficits and debt. You'll never even get to chapter 1 page 1 of MMT (so to speak) with people like that.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I think guys like Stiglitz and Krugman are Democratic Party cheerleaders first, economists 2nd, at least that's how a lot of their non-academic stuff reads to me.

Even though Krugman doesn't try too hard to appeal to people with zero grasp of economics, the attempt to influence ignorant people politically usually requires stooping to that level to some degree. For example, if you're talking to a room full of life-long straight-Republican-ticket-voting simpletons who don't understand anything about economics, and are convinced the national debt is so high that we're going to default on it so we therefore need to pay it off by cutting government spending, the best anyone is going to do speaking their language is pointing to Republican Presidents and calling them hypocrites on deficits and debt. You'll never even get to chapter 1 page 1 of MMT (so to speak) with people like that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The people I can normally get to listen are either politically progressive, or conservatives that have already started to see the problems with their own economic thinking and are looking for answers.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Agreed. The people I can normally get to listen are either politically progressive, or conservatives that have already started to see the problems with their own economic thinking and are looking for answers.
Click to expand...

Something I'm not sure if you notice or if it's just me, but I have detected a distinct anti-welfare attitude welling up out of some otherwise self-proclaimed left wingers. In other words, I see them basically weaponizing social welfare as corporate welfare, as if all social spending is something government resentfully does only because corporate America is so nastily failing and neglecting the welfare of the nation's needy, as if that were ever the private sector's goal or responsibility. I can't make sense of this. First, if the left wing is going to join the right wing's chorus of demonizing transfer payments, then the future of social welfare looks really bleak. Secondly, I've personally seen a lot of people in my community who are just basically unemployable, for whatever combination of mental, intellectual, substance-related or other reasons. It's just obvious there are a certain number of people out there whose labor should not be bought. So it's hard to expect that the right type of policy will result in their needs being met through the sale of their own labor. I also don't see how in 30 years when there are 5 billion working age adults worldwide that we're going to need that many human workers. Those are just some things that have had me questioning the orthodoxy and mantra of both sides over the last few years, and have had me contemplating MMT concepts a little differently as time goes on.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
No, the reason I made that claim is because I actually read what economists are saying. And there are still a ton of them that think banks are merely financial intermediaries, and there are still a ton of them that insist we are on a fractional reserve system.

I suppose you are now going to claim that you, too, keep up with the economics literature, in addition to your many other areas of expertise. Save your breath.
Click to expand...

The fact is.. that the claim you make.. that half of PHD economists , don't understand money creation in post gold standard.. is an unbelievable claim.

You want us to believe.. that you.. who has no formal economics education... who does not do economic research.. is current on what HALF of economists understand about monetary policy?

Come now. What has really happened is that 1. Your reading is very biased.. and only centers around those economists that support the spending policies that certain MMT support. And your "reading of what economists are saying".. is only through those economists that are trying to find support for those policies.

2. You dismiss anyone not supporting the monetary policy that you like.. as "not understanding how money is created".

You are the one that should save their breath. You are the one that thinks they know the educated minds of half of the economists of the world. Think about it.
 
jaeger19 said:
The fact is.. that the claim you make.. that half of PHD economists , don't understand money creation in post gold standard.. is an unbelievable claim.

You want us to believe.. that you.. who has no formal economics education... who does not do economic research.. is current on what HALF of economists understand about monetary policy?

Come now. What has really happened is that 1. Your reading is very biased.. and only centers around those economists that support the spending policies that certain MMT support. And your "reading of what economists are saying".. is only through those economists that are trying to find support for those policies.

2. You dismiss anyone not supporting the monetary policy that you like.. as "not understanding how money is created".

You are the one that should save their breath. You are the one that thinks they know the educated minds of half of the economists of the world. Think about it.
Click to expand...

"First of all, you never have to default because you print the money." - Donald Trump
"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." - Dick Cheney
 
jaeger19 said:
The fact is.. that the claim you make.. that half of PHD economists , don't understand money creation in post gold standard.. is an unbelievable claim.

You want us to believe.. that you.. who has no formal economics education... who does not do economic research.. is current on what HALF of economists understand about monetary policy?

Come now. What has really happened is that 1. Your reading is very biased.. and only centers around those economists that support the spending policies that certain MMT support. And your "reading of what economists are saying".. is only through those economists that are trying to find support for those policies.
Click to expand...

If that were really the case, then I wouldn't be reading so much by economists that still believe in the financial intermediary theory of banking, would I? If I completely immersed myself only in MMT economists, I would think that everybody was on the same page, wouldn't I? Do you even read my posts before responding?

jaeger19 said:
2. You dismiss anyone not supporting the monetary policy that you like.. as "not understanding how money is created".
Click to expand...

I dismiss anyone that doesn't understand how banking actually works. That much isn't theory - there are operational realities to some things that can be determined with certainty. Banking is one of those things. That doesn't mean that all economists have learned those operational realities, though. Are all doctors equally competent? Didn't think so.

jaeger19 said:
You are the one that should save their breath. You are the one that thinks they know the educated minds of half of the economists of the world. Think about it.
Click to expand...

And who are you to judge what anybody else knows, outside of your own areas of expertise (and economics is not one of them)? Think about it.

I don't have to "know their minds." I can read what they have written.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
If that were really the case, then I wouldn't be reading so much by economists that still believe in the financial intermediary theory of banking, would I? If I completely immersed myself only in MMT economists, I would think that everybody was on the same page, wouldn't I?
.
Click to expand...

Actually.. Its exactly why you erroneously think that "over half of economists " don't understand money creation. You have immersed yourself in MMT economists. And no.. that DOES NOT.. make you think everyone was on the same page. On the contrary... "MMT theorists".. are trying to portray their writing and theory as unique.. as innovative.. as if its something special. And to do that.. they try to contrast their writing and theory in contrast to other economists. Which invariably means that they cherry pick for economists that disagree with them, or they take other economists writings out of context, or a myriad of things they do to make it appear that somehow.. no other economists know how money is created.

I dismiss anyone that doesn't understand how banking actually works.
Click to expand...

The problem.. is that your criteria for what "doesn't understand how banking works".. is whether they agree with your monetary policy or not. NOT on whether they actually understand how banking works.

Are all doctors equally competent? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Well.. actually when it comes to understanding banking and money creation... you pretty much are describing basic physiology, and anatomy to a physician. Which yes.. every doctor has to know.. and is pretty much a requirement of the job.

So you claiming that 50% of economists don't understanding banking and money creation.. is like stating that 50% of physicians have no clue about anatomy and physiology of the human body.

And who are you to judge what anybody else knows, outside of your own areas of expertise (and economics is not one of them)?
Click to expand...

Actually I have degrees in economics and business. and have taught at the university level.

and you are not reading ALL that they have written.. and you have not read all the works of 50% of the worlds economists. I can pretty much guarantee that.
 
jaeger19 said:
The problem.. is that your criteria for what "doesn't understand how banking works".. is whether they agree with your monetary policy or not. NOT on whether they actually understand how banking works.
Click to expand...

No, it has nothing to do with monetary policy. It has to do with getting the mechanics of banking and federal finance correct. Which many still don't.

jaeger19 said:
So you claiming that 50% of economists don't understanding banking and money creation.. is like stating that 50% of physicians have no clue about anatomy and physiology of the human body.
Click to expand...

Except that "How banks work" is not a required class in economics. So, yeah, a whole bunch of economists, even with advanced degrees, still have no idea how that all works.

jaeger19 said:
Actually I have degrees in economics and business.
Click to expand...

It's probably too late to demand your money back. Too bad, such a waste.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom