What are your thoughts about Modern Monetary Theory? Is it superior to neoclassical and Keynesian economics? What about other heterodox economics like Austrian economics?
Also general MMT discussion thread.
Links:
huffingtonpost.com
hereticaldruthers.wordpress.com
truth-out.org
neweconomicperspectives.org
Other urls found in this thread:
nytimes.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
if you think Sup Forumstards have even a rudimentary understanding of economics you're dumb. All they can do is shout about jews and niggers ad infinitum.
The Sumerians created Single Entry Accounting.
The Venetians created Double Entry Accounting.
Satoshi Nakamoto created Triple Entry Accounting.
/thread
Most of them are Austrians so I guess you're right.
But in all seriousness there are some Sup Forumstards that are bretty smart when it comes to economics.
Denounce the FRB, or begone, thot.
Like your comment has any substance, imagine being so asshurt and enraged you come to a board to shout at how angry and frustrated it makes you.
For the record fractional banking is killing the west and is the primary reason why it will remain stagnant and infertile.
is she mexican
>FRB
Daily reminder that MMT is not an ideology like Austrian Economics but rather a simple view of how modern economies with fiat money operates
Can you comprehend how fucked over people get when piggy bankster makes a data entry to the tune of 100 billion dollars into his Jewish collegues account which is then reinvested into home loans and stocks. The inflationary pressure on wages alone is enough to crush the life out of everyone who does not owe him a debt on their inflated assets.
How can people understand this yet do nothing about it? I have no hope for the west personally this more than anything black pilled me hard.
>Simon Wren-Lewis
Although MMT has been around for some time, it recently held its first international conference and has in the last few years attracted a devoted band of followers online. According to this article, it has ‘rock star appeal’. In this post I just want to concentrate on the core of MMT which involves fiscal policy, and not talk about other ideas like job guarantees.
There are short and simple explainers around (e.g. here), but what these and MMT follows are typically not so good at is in explaining exactly why and how they differ from mainstream macroeconomics. To understand this, we need to go back to the 1960s and 70s. Then there was a debate between two groups in macro over whether it was better to use monetary policy or fiscal policy as an instrument for stabilising the economy. I prefer to call these two groups Monetarists and Fiscalists, because both sides used the same theoretical framework, which was Keynesian.
To cut a long story short the monetarist won that argument, although not quite in the way they intended. Instead of central banks controlling the economy in a hands off way using the money supply, they instead actively used interest rate changes to control output and inflation. Fiscal policy was increasingly seen as about controlling the level of government debt. I have called this the Consensus Assignment, because it became a consensus and because I don’t think there is another name for it.
The one or two decades before the financial crisis were the golden years for the Consensus Assignment, in the sense that monetary policy did seem to be relatively successful at controlling inflation and dampening the business cycle. However many governments were less successful at controlling government debt, and this failure was termed ‘deficit bias’.
MMT is essentially different because it rejects the Consensus Assignment. It regards monetary policy as an unreliable instrument for controlling the economy, and MMT prefers to use fiscal policy instead. They are, to use my previous terminology, fiscalists.
If you are always using government spending or taxes to control the economy, you are right not to worry about the budget deficit: it is whatever it needs to be to get inflation to target. Whether you finance those deficits by creating money or selling bonds is also a secondary concern - it just influences what the interest rate is, which has an uncertain impact on activity. For this reason you do not need to worry about who will buy your debt, because you can create money instead.
The GFC exposed the Achilles Heel in the Consensus Assignment, because interest rates hit their lower bound and could no longer be moved to stimulate demand. Alternative measures like QE really were as unreliable as MMT thinks all monetary policy is. What governments started to do was use fiscal policy instead of monetary policy to support the economy, but then austerity happened in 2010 for all the reasons I explore at length here.
Now we can see why MMT is so popular. Austerity is about governments pretending the Consensus Assignment still works when it does not, because interest rates are at their lower bound. We are in an MMT world, where we should be using fiscal policy and not worrying about the deficit, but policymakers don’t understand that. I think most mainstream macroeconomists do understand this, but we are not often heard. The ground was therefore ripe for MMT.
Policymakers following austerity when they clearly should not annoys me a great deal, and I am very happy to join common cause with MMT on this. By compariso...See full post
n, the things that annoy me about MMT are trivial, like a failure to use equations and their wordplay. You will hear from MMTers that taxes do not finance government spending, or that spending comes first, but you will hardly ever see the government’s budget constraint which makes all such semantics seem silly.
MMT is particularly attractive because it does away with the perennial ‘where is the money going to come from’ question. Instead it replaces this question with another: ‘will this extra spending raise inflation above target’. As long as inflation is below target that does not appear to be a constraint. In the US right now interest rates are no longer at their lower bound, but inflation is below target, so it appears to MMTers that the government should not worry about how extra spending is paid for.
Underrated.
Of course having a fiscal authority following MMT and a central bank following the Consensus Assignment once rates are above their lower bound could be a recipe for confusion, unless you believe what happens to interest rates is unimportant. I personally think we have strong econometric evidence that changes in interest rates do matter, so once we are off the lower bound should we be fiscalists like MMT or should we return to the Consensus Assignment? That is a question for another day.
fiat and voodoo money is still retarded.
...
Who is this demon demon
>being this fucking retarded
>Forcing citizens to pay taxes in a fiat currency under the threat of fine or imprisonments isn't retarded.
"modern monetary theory" = the government can print as much money as it wants for whatever bullshit it wants
it's adds nothing new, they just parrot stuff that was known since forever but give it a leftist slant to hide the evils of the gov freely printing fiat
I tried to get an econ degree but gave up when I realized it's all bullshit that has no bearing with reality, except for "heterodox" schools that prestigious universities ignore cause they're full of kikes. for example I like steve keen because it seems not to be based on the same inane assumptions that either neoclassical or austrian, even though it has some roots on keynesian and marxist that have important amounts of bullshit.
tldr. all economic theories are stupid in one way or another.
the real redpill is probably free market + fixed money supply + protectionism + limited and regulated finance sector + jews are banned from finance
The current monetary theories are fucking retarded. Anyone remember back in 2002 when the dotcom bubbles were bursting and the Paul Krugman called for the creation of a housing bubble? And then Alan Greenspan did exactly that? Also, remember how all the Austrian Economists saw a crash coming and were ignored? And then the idiots who caused it claimed it was impossible to predict? I remember. Let me show you evidence of the first step of this whole fiasco:
nytimes.com
>Pegging money to a commodity or using a fixed exchange rate that limits domestic policy, make it very hard to control the supply of the said asset and puts a constraint whenever the money supply needs to be expanded to prevent deflationary effects
>Hates MMT but likes Steve Keen
youtube.com
Austrian economics all the way. The rest is a more or less well disguised plot to take away your money by inflating it.
Maybe consumers should get a real job making goods instead of selling houses to each other if you are so worried about deflationary pressure. Productive are taxed by fiat parasites.
forgot pic
Proponents of MMT have literally argued the same thing you are arguing for. They don't see government debt and fiscal deficit as an indicator of a healthy economy but rather full employment, good wages, quality of work and life, etc.
Literally every economic group except the Keynesians and some Neoclassicals predicted the Housing Bubble Crash
Nice one!
Why has monetary theory failed to predict international trade deficits? We should see naturally balancing trade deficits with other countries as they gain more of our currency, yet the United States has maintained a trillion dollar trade deficit for many years.
I have never heard a reasonable explanation from the monitary policy guys why this is happening.
I lean Austrian. But more generally, the only economists I like are John F. Nash, John von Neumann, Oskar Morganstern, Daniel Kahneman, and Amos Tversky.
I'm aware that a few of these people are jews... In my estimation, Kahneman is a good jew, since he sees people for what/who they are... and he's not an archetypal narcissistic greed-goblin.
My undergrad is in economics
Separate trade from theft
Outside of microeconomics, econ is somewhat unimportant. If your military is strong on the geopolitical stage, and your civic institutions are reasonably stable, you can pretty much print as much money as you want.