more money, less value ... prices of goods and services adjust, eventually ... key is to be first in line where they are handing out the money, you know you are there when you bump into the politicians
Like most things, people tend to dismiss things that are different from what they know by trying to frame the new in a way that over-simplifies the approach. MMT is not a "I can't be overdrawn because I still have checks" approach to finance.
Currency in a construct to represent value. As our economy grows so does the relative value. If there wasn't a way to introduce currency into the economy to represent the growth that has taken place, we would have whatever amount of currency that we started out with 240 years ago. How else is the growth represented.
I think this interview does a pretty good job of explaining MMT from a proponents perspective:
@TaLoN132 imagine you had theme park with your own currency. Call it M dollars. You pay your employees in M dollars and pay your bills in M dollars. Because people like to frequent your theme park people accept M dollars. Now imagine whenever had to pay new bills or employees you just printed more M dollars. Sounds good until the demand for M dollars falls. M Dollars start depreciating. It’s not like $1 to 1000 M dollars. So you need to print more. That’s MMT
The fact that economists treat it the same as climate change denial in the science field is a pretty good idea to me, as a layperson, to take the approach of "Well since I'm not an economist, I'll side with the economists."
I think this would lead to the government stacking up assets it just prints money to buy in the short term, which literally screws everyone else out of their investments if governments can do this.
I don't mind someone disagreeing... I try to approach any decision I make by understanding both sides as completely as possible. That's what I valued in so many of Robert's shows when I first started watching him. He laid out both sides (or tried to given constraints) and then explained his viewpoint. I don't care that his conclusions match mine... I think laying out both sides helps people to understand that both sides of an issue can be reached by reasonable people. When only one side or viewpoint is represented, it makes those on the that side feel emboldened and the people on the other side feel diminished. It's what I hate about echo chambers and I don't need any more of them.
I think that SCOTUS denying on standing had a chilling effect in the legal community. Normally I would agree but there isn’t a lot of legal support for there being an argument for them to hear the case. Just my opinion
The Fed has gone AWOL last 3 chairman’s have been elitist imo. They aren’t even suppose to prop the market up. It’s not even an original mandate. But nobody cares 😂
That's not what MMT is, though... That assumes that there is no relative change in value. Our economy is growing... currency is the way we represent value. The currency equivalent to the growth has to be represented somehow. Doesn't it? We kind of do that already with the way banks are lent money, right?
That not even how it works now. We guess and target real price levels. It’s debatable if that is the right policy. Now you want to take that guess and print it up and PRAY that when a crisis occurs the government just says “we won’t abuse this power”.
They already made that promise and failed with the Fed. They said we will never violate moral hazard. Now go look at what Kashkari says earlier this year. So I don’t buy it man. I don’t have faith in your plan 😂 sorry man.
I don't think so... It only had an effect on those that wanted relief. What relief were they going to provide on the Act 77 case? SCOTUS willfully passed on the case before the election with a 4-4 split vote - if they felt it merited their involvement, they would have done it then.
Not only that Texas was guilty of the exact thing that they accused the other 4 states of doing. The TX governor extended the early voting window without legislative approval.
It's not my plan... I think it is a model that better represents what is actually occurring. I am not an economist. I just take a common sense approach to things and I thought that this theory addressed reality better than the conventional way it is expressed.
Also this is exactly what it will be. And if you used your printed dollars to match what the estimate of real price levels were to buy goods and services 🧐 yeah that doesn’t make any sense. So nominal price levels are the same as the year before. That sounds like you just got rid of any inflation. Well what are you going to do about all the economic principles that relied on inflation to work. Like wage stickiness. So now people are going to get actual wage decreases. Nothing sounds good about this plan.
I'm not sure what you mean by that... I have only just started looking into this theory. I just think it might have merit and I am going to look into it more. I had questions and I have tried to look into both sides. It will take some time for me to have a fully formed opinion about it.
Now, I'm not sure if they're advocating for printing physical currency, but if they are (this would be the 'stealthy' approach) then inflation would skyrocket.
