The value of this debate is that it strips away a false economic restraint on what are really political choices. Is underemployment of labor and resources to be tolerated? How much do we prioritize social goals (energy transition, full employment, healthcare for all) over private desires? How large a role do we want to make for government action in the economy? How much price and wage inflation are we happy to live with?

@lopezjraul

3 жыл бұрын

If MMT is correct. Has that been sufficiently demonstrated yet?

@DaveE99

3 жыл бұрын

It’s technically how we already operate and I know they have demonstrated that after every period where the goverment operates a surplus from its side, a depression has followed in history. And this has happened like 7 times so.

@ThomasBomb45

2 жыл бұрын

@@DaveE99 That doesn't demonstrate causality though. That raises new questions. Did the government spending cause the depression? Or did the expectation of a future depression drive government spending? If the government spending caused the depression, could different spending have prevented the recession? Or, was it not the deficit spending that caused the recession but reactionary austerity measures that caused the depression?

@trixn4285

Жыл бұрын

​@@ThomasBomb45 Spending doesn't cause depressions, quite the opposite. Austerity causes depressions because it strips away income from the private sector. On the other hand a lot of spending can cause inflation and that is something MMTers are well aware of. Technically speaking the limit of government spending is not some arbitrary debt limit but demand-pull inflation. The goal of a government budget is to keep the economy as close to full capacity as possible without causing too much inflation (a little bit of inflation is actually desirable). Everything else would be a waste of workforce and resources, especially labor, that can not be compensated for in the future. Every unemployed person is a waste of economic potential, not even considering the personal hardships it produces.

Great to see TRN talking about #MMT. Keep it going.

@d.a.n.3086

8 ай бұрын

LMAO the Magic Money Tree

MMT is an operational fact. The inflation threshold is real resource production limit. MFA is a service and is only limited by skilled staffing. Health care industry will grow as it currently suffers from suppressed demand.

@neilanderson891

3 жыл бұрын

MMT is not an operational fact. All financial theories must have at least a few things in common with the system being used. MMT folks are lying to the public by a repeated failure to disclose that MMT is incompatible with a Central Bank. And failing to disclose at least two other facts. And they are stretching other "facts" to bolster their argument that MMT is a "valid" foundation for a "new" monetary regime. Therefore, MMT is not modern at all, in fact, it is "Medieval". And a "theory" isn't a "Theory" until proven consistent with the underlying axioms of the system in which it is embedded. So, MMT should actually be known as the Medieval Monetary Conjecture (MMC) Don't take my word for it, look up the comment on MMT by Larry Summers (Chief Economist of the Clinton Administration), oh, just let me tell you that Summers said this --> "... it's garbage"

@lopezjraul

3 жыл бұрын

Would you point to evidence that it is a proven scientific theory of sorts? I am new to this topic and want to see said facts for what they are. Thanks

@neilanderson891

3 жыл бұрын

@@lopezjraul Either you're writing to the wrong person, or you have inadvertently asked the wrong question. Please try again if you are addressing a question to me.

@nathanscottshoemaker2554

3 жыл бұрын

Raul Joey Lopez #MMT.

@nathanscottshoemaker2554

3 жыл бұрын

Dollars enter the economy as an emanation of statute from congress, they are not a scarce commodity that its monopoly issuer is in want/need of.

"We do live in a planned economy. The question is who is doing the planning." -- L. Randall Wray Echoing Michael Hudson, perhaps

Price controls for inflation?? Yea That had a great history of success...

Does the Petro dollar under pin our ability to just create money by writing it into existence? And isn't the Petro dollar partly what's keeping us at war and dependent on the fossil fuel economy?

@alan2102X

5 жыл бұрын

Answer: yes. Almost. It does not underpin our ability to print money, but it does underpin the strength of the dollar, i.e. its purchasing power. So, you could say, effectively (if not quite technically), it does underpin our ability to print money. For some reason, the MMT people never respond (AFAIK) to this issue -- the basis of the extraordinary strength of the U.S. dollar, which has been called "exorbitant privilege" (google for).

@takehe68

5 жыл бұрын

No. The petrodollar is pretty irrelevant. The term arose in the 1970's to describe the huge surplus of dollars accumulated by oil exporting plutocrats such as the Saudi princes. They stored these dollars mostly in US banks which added to the power of these banks which were already being freed from many of the political and regulatory restraints placed on them in FDR's time. Yes, the fact that wealthy foreigners often choose to hold wealth in US dollars strengthens those dollars but does not affect the essentials of how money is created at all.

@thadtheman3751

6 ай бұрын

Not the Petro dollar but the dollar as a reserve currency. Let's say that India wanted to buy tanks from Germany ( just an example ) they would pay in a reserve currency -- mainly dollars. That means that countries companies, and rich people keep dollars. That means that all those excessive dollars are sort of being stored away. In this way the effective supply of dollars is much lower then the actually supply and it keeps inflation in check. As for the fossil fuel economy do you know the reason. Ford to use gas for his car? Three reasons: it burners better then alcohol, it's cheaper then alcohol, and it's lying around in plentiful quantities as a waste product of our organic chemical industry. You know,, the industry that makes things like resins and plastics, dyes, synthetic fibers etc. Whether you use "fossil fuels" or not you will still be making them in tons. The only difference is that you will be forced to find some way of disposing them.

Thank you for hosting this series on MMT. Already in the first two parts we have dispensed with the canard that every dollar the govt spends must either be found by taxing or borrowing from the private sector. We can look past the false scarcity of money toward the real scarcity/abundance of resources, human abilities and ecological systems. I look forward to more insights and a panel discussion has great potential.

@christianosfandango1

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Tim! I co-host a podcast about Modern Monetary Theory in case you’re interested. www.pileusmmt.libsyn.com All the best!

Randy nailed it: "Net impact." Let me add that resources also include raw and finished materials. Anyway, the fact that GDP will go up offsets price-inflation pressures. Excellent.

Bravo Paul for covering this fabulous instrument of finance! We desperately need to get off the old grind. People's labor, skill and intellect are resources. If Wallstreet can gamble on "futures", the Treasury can invest in our infrastructure, jobs, Sustainable Energy, GND---constructive, less pollutive operations.

So good to listen to lucid, rational discourse on fundamental processes and needs greatly affecting our nation. Mr. Wray's conceptual model is worth digging into, hearing the pros and cons, and if I am not overstating it, or stealing his thunder, to have it recognized just as America faced her industrial challenges during and after WWII. Hopefully we will have learned some lessons along the way, and will not repeat the mistakes that have plagues us since. If we can see this project's requirements, planning, execution, and governance, not from ideological and divisive perspective but a from a unifying and edifying one, we just might make it work.

His opening statement proves it all: ".....what is clear that the government spends money when it needs it." A fact which the American people chose to ignore.

I highly recommend Michael Hudson and Steve Keen.

This debate series is a great idea.

I'm assuming Jay is well intentioned, but perhaps not quite as informed on what MMT is. Throughout the conversation he continues to conflate specific left-leaning policy recommendations with MMT. The only policy recommendation I get from MMT is the Job Guarantee. The main point of MMT boiled down to 1 sentence is: We can afford to enact whatever policies we want so long as we have the real (as opposed to purely fiscal) resources to accomplish them.

@AndrewPalmerJazz

4 жыл бұрын

It's not Jay. Anyone listening to Randall will take away that he wants to talk about left-leaning (actually radical left) policy recommendations.

@trixn4285

2 жыл бұрын

Keynes already said it like that: "Anything we can actually do, we can afford".

Conflating MMT with job guarantees and living wages and green new deals does not illuminate the theory. MMT does not imply any particular state spending program and does not imply that any level of state spending is possible or desirable.

Truly fantastic content. Thank you

Need to be clear: Real Resources are PEOPLE and DIRT. And we have plenty of both. If we run out of people and the govt has to continue to resource GND, M4A, etc, then govt hires away from private sector, inflation will perk up and some taxes should automatically kick in. So the Job Guarantee law has to include automatic across-the-board tax increases that kick in when certain monthly wage inflation target are hit. These can include: a) Income Taxes, b) Sales / VAT Taxes c) Asset Value Taxes (or Wealth Taxes) That'll cool things off pronto. The taxes can be inserted into the Job Guarantee law so they kick in automatically if monthly inflation exceeds a certain level for say 6 months in a row.

@FranciscoFlores-dq4rd

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks Jay. I'm a big fan of Randy as well as Stephanie Kelton, Bill Mitchell, and Warren Mosler. But MMT folks can be very bad in selling MMT. You asked a simple question over and over and did NOT get a straight answer. This kind of elusiveness induces alot of unnecessary pushback. You got the same treatment from Stephanie Kelton a couple of years ago (I think with Bill Black). You asked, I think, the inflation question and didn't get a satisfactory answer. I distilled MMT to a short blurb which I think explains MMT for humans: mmt-inbulletpoints.blogspot.com/2017/09/im-just-responding-to-various-economic.html

As long as the money that is created is used to bring about the production of public goods and create employment and in the process create a sustainable (constructive purposes) basis for an economy, that will alright.

Reduce the military budget & reallocate that money.

@Shane-The-Pain

5 жыл бұрын

YES! That's the EASIEST WAY to get a huge chuck of funding. Garage Sale, US Gov style.

@alan2102X

5 жыл бұрын

The worst thing about MMT is that it says, effectively, "we can print scads of cash to buy both guns AND butter. No need to compromise anywhere". But, morally, that's not acceptable.

@dannywindham3295

5 жыл бұрын

Leticia Cortez the truth is my federal taxes your federal taxes and nobody else is federal taxes are funding the government. That's not the purpose of taxes on a federal level.

@ThrashRebel

5 жыл бұрын

Danny Windham, um, yes, the taxes are. I served on active duty & then I worked as a government civilian. We got paid via taxpayer dollars. Our active duty housing allowances, education funding, health insurance (Tricare) & our GI Bills are just a few of the many things are funded with taxpayer dollars. How do you think ANY government (state or federal) can operate without tax funds? Please, tell us what YOU believe funds our government agencies.

@joefirestonephd

5 жыл бұрын

@@alan2102X You're exaggerating. This part: " "we can print scads of cash to buy both guns AND butter. . . ." is correct. "No need to compromise anywhere" is not. Whether or not there's a need to trade-off or prioritize depends on the likely consequences of spending. If spending exceeds full employment, then MMT predicts inflation will occur. That's undesirable, and MMT economists have always been strict about the need to avoid inflation. That's why the MMT Center at UMKC is called the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability. In addition, it's perfectly consistent with MMT to advocate for cutting defense spending by 50%. That will cause a short fall in aggregate demand. But that just means that MMT economists would advocate for increased deficit spending to make use of the increased policy space. MMT writers often talk about "the public purpose." I think most of us would agree that all government spending, including government spending ought to be in line with public purpose. So any cuts in military spending would be done because the current level isn't in accord with public purpose and new spending appropriated to replace it would be in line with a public purpose standard.

In the interview, you consider generating government resources from money creation and taxation. I am wondering if Randall could comment on what seems to have have been a very common method of generating government resources - borrowing money through the sale of bonds. It seems that not taxing the rich thus provides a money making opportunity for them.

Well comrade, thanks for the interview

you could have stopped this discussion a couple minutes in, when you got to the part about 5-6 familes owning most of the country's resources. until we can offer them even more money to turn their efforts to green tech, it's not gonna happen- not on the huge scale of the current petroleum and coal mega-corporations. BUT: do you have $500 and a desire to cut through the political nightmare of trying to figure out how to make sure corporations can make obscene profits off of us, and keep us beholden to them, before we can go green? a single ~$120, 100 watt solar panel, a ~$100 charge controller, and a couple hundred bucks for a battery, plus some wires. with this, the southwestern sunshine has been powering my small 12 volt refrigerator, lights, fans, small 110 power tools and kitchen appliances, my sewing machine, and recharging all my devices for a couple years now in my off-grid mobile tiny house. i don't have an electric bill. in my small way, i'm not feeding that particular corporate energy monster. point is, moving to green tech will take a massive grass-roots effort to break away from the corporate teat, until a point is reached where they will have no choice. because as long as they have a choice, they will choose to ride this money-making bonanza all the way to zero oil. there is no energy sector incentive to go green. going green for them would be like big pharma backing the legalization of pot. we can all grow our own pot, and we can all make our own power- IF we so choose. no profit for the giants in that. the sun and wind and thermal are elements that corporate energy giants cannot monopolize. the biggest obstacle to going green is convincing people that life is better when it stops revolving around consumerism. convincing them to substitute the satisfaction of making your own electricity for the compulsion to buy more and more unnessesary disposable junk. convincing them to put human relations over consumerism; to show them that the more you scale down 'stuff', the more you enlarge and make more genuine your real life. corporations and government are not going to solve this one, people. and if they do go half-azzed psuedo-green, it will be when they find a way that profits them even more, and costs us even more. mega-corporations simply shifting to cleaner sources to fuel our current out-of-control and continually escalating consumerism is like using a squirt gun to fight a forest fire.

@joefirestonephd

5 жыл бұрын

You missed one of the important points of the video. The Government can create money. Since it can it can pay for the development for all the Green Tech necessary to get us out of this crisis. It doesn't need the help of those 5 or 6 families at all.

This is a very topical and interesting discussion. Thank you for hosting it. Inflationary credit is the complete power to control the economy that we give to big banks. They use that power more or less intelligently from their perspective, which means using it to absorb an ever increasing portion of the profit from the rest of the economy. They used to acquire their power by risking their capital, but now their risks are underwritten by the government, and they amount to the most glorified form of rent-seeking. The government could co-opt that immense power of inflation credit to use it much more productively to benefit more people much more and solve problems like the climate catastrophe. But if the markets don't like what the government is doing, it's how governments can collapse their economies. That's why I think it would be worth discussing how Keynesian ideas like MMT have failed in addition to examples of where they have succeeded.

@joefirestonephd

5 жыл бұрын

MMT build on Keynes among others. But it is not Keynesian. For example, Keynesian approaches advocate for balanced budgets over some finite period of time. But MMT advocates for full employment budgets with price stability. For some nations that may require deficit spending year after year after year. From the MMT point of view that is perfectly alright as long as full employment and price stability are maintained.

The mechanisms involved in creating sovereign money should be explained at some point in this interview. Is there a need to create a double entry on an account sheet to create the new money, or is it truly sovereign and considered to be equity that exists on its own?

There is no reason for the Fed. The US Treasury is the institution that should create money when it is needed for desired projects.

@dannywindham3295

5 жыл бұрын

Kenneth Pola the FED doesn't create the money. Article 1 Section 8 of The Constitution Congress has the power of the purse. Congress decides on the budget. Not the Federal Reserve. The Fed is not a private bank the Fed is an agency of the US government. It is only independent in the sense that it is free to conduct monetary policy. Independent of Congress Congress is responsible for fiscal policy.

@neilanderson891

3 жыл бұрын

@@dannywindham3295 The Fed issues new "Federal Reserve Notes" (FRNs) into circulation ... FRNs are not "money" until they are in circulation.

We don’t have capitalism we have creditism. When you don’t have sound money you don’t have capitalism.

Great to see TRNN / Paul Jay cover Modern Monetary Theory. It's of the utmost importance.

Hope to see hudson on this series

@marciukspuks5353

5 жыл бұрын

hudson is a bit convoluted on this subject. he more obfuscates than illuminates. i think he is a better historian than economist.

Damn! Love it when the ideology gets out in front of the science. Probably be easier to not just destroy everything for a shot at a utopian society

All of this sounds great. But I think the real change has to come from people's change of consciousness or way of thinking. To focus on what's really important.

One of the big issues in the discussion is inflation. But I didn't hear anyone mention that if there were using lawful money then there would not be much inflation. However, the problem with that is it is harder to hold down those you want to depress financially! "The eyes" when you rearrange the letters "They see"

The right question to ask but not asked is: "What is the legitimate source of public revenue?" The answer comes from the writings of the 17th and 18th century writers on political economy, from Cantillon to Smith to Turgot to Ricardo to Mill to Marx and, finally, to George. Societies must collect rent from all of its sources. This change in public policy is independent of MMT reforms but would work in the direction, whereas most tax revenue relied on today has negative consequences for implementation of the "Green New Deal."

Fundamentally disagree that a planned economy type solution is required to bring about the renewable electric power and transportation that is required. Ironically, the market is bringing that about at break neck speed. Government just needs to end its subsidies for coal and the indemnification of nuclear power plants via the Price Anderson Act.

@oswarz

5 жыл бұрын

You REALLY believe this economy isn't planned? Bringing transition about at break-neck speed? Where? The sacred "market" give me a break.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

@@oswarz That was precisely his point; decisions in global markets are no less distilled for elites than in the dreaded planned economy. It's not so much as an inherent 'free-market' failure, as the construction & imposition, by treacherous financiers, of a deceptive, fraudulent market, indemnifying industrial polluters against liability (e.g., the Price Anderson Act, for instance).

I think Steve Keen would be a good person to have on to discuss MMT about some of its strengths and weaknesses.

@RussCR5187

5 жыл бұрын

I agree, but he is sometimes hard for "ordinary folks" to understand.

government / public sector workers as a voting block and as a group tend to build systems that fail. in my town for example, the build buildings that fall apart, roofs that leak. swimming pools that fail, heating systems that fail, foundations that settle and crack. they have committees and study groups. they hold meetings. they have unions that demand resources well beyond what the tax payer can support. who will run MMT? why wouldn't it just create more of what government already creates now? it frustrates me that people that work half as hard as me make twice as much and have the job of telling me what i can and can't do and how much of my effort they want to harvest for their own ends. if we are going to explore MMT. lets talk about ending taxation. why tax people? why tax earnings that are spent? if i put my income back into the economy, how is taxing it productive if we have MMT?

@robertjenkins6132

5 жыл бұрын

Your money has value because of taxes. 0 taxes = worthless dollars. FDR's jobs programs produced many public works that still stand today. The private sector is certainly capable of producing failed projects. Look at IBM's commercial weather website - a bloated, slow-loading P.O.S.

I like how he points out , “capitalist wheather MMT is inflationary or not, they don’t like full employment because it removes their leverage over people”

*MODERN MONEY.*

Question to Panel: What is the relationship between a Sovereign government (USA, Canada) "creating money" to pay for a planned project and taxation? (example: creating money to increase the military budget by X billion dollars). When people say, "How are you going to pay for that?" they always mean by collecting enough taxes to pay for the project (example: collecting X billion in taxes to pay for the military budget increase). My understanding is that taxation is NOT the source of the money that is used to pay for government projects (like increasing the military budget by X billion dollars). If I am correct, why are taxes collected if not to pay for things?

@christianosfandango1

5 жыл бұрын

Hi David! As I understand MMT, taxes create a demand for the currency - because the government needs to provision itself, it has to have you need its money and then it can spend as much into existence as it needs to provision itself. The first minute of this video is a great explanation of how this works: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pm2szNqFnZfAps4.html Once a nation has its own sovereign, tax driven currency, it uses taxes to do other things - regulate aggregate demand and incentivise or discourage certain behaviours. If you prefer, here’s a quick read describing MMT: ‪theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-modern-monetary-theory-72095‬ I also co-host a podcast about Modern Monetary Theory if you get time. www.pileusmmt.libsyn.com All the best!

What happened to the first question of the interview? He asked him to explain MMT and he talks about the green new deal??

@joefirestonephd

5 жыл бұрын

Paul Jay drove the interview. He oriented it towards the GND; Randy was just responding to his framing of MMT relative to the GND.

Rationing and price control… yikes. Good luck with MMT America

So refreshing to hear an un-biased news network.

MMT should be connected to UBI. Job guarantees alone will be abused as workfare, forcing people to work however corruptible bureaucracies think they should work. UBI is much more empowering for people who can get together and challenge established power easier - be it by starting a cooperative, participating politically or expressing themselves without fear. Then we don’t end up with the silliness of me caring for your child and you caring for mine because it’s ‘better’ for GDP and taxable activity. Everything is not more efficient run from bureaucracies. Then government programs can be focused on the really big, visionary stuff, and people will join at their free will.

@robertjenkins6132

5 жыл бұрын

Agree: a job should *not* be required for food, shelter, basic survival. UBI is for basic necessities. The paycheck from a job (JG or private sector) can be used to purchase luxury items.

MMT could be a good transitionary economics, but mostly its proponents are just proposing another form of capitalism that doesn't take into account finite resources, automation, or alternative societal models.

@oswarz

5 жыл бұрын

Our current capitalism doesn't take into account finite resources (the last troufula tree) automation (hooray, no employees) alternative societal models (crush 'em!). We pay for wars don't we? Where does the money come from, nobody asks: out of thin air. Oh, but M4All or Green New Deal: How will we pay for it? Same way we do wars. (we are a death and destruction focused society)

@yarweiss

5 жыл бұрын

@@oswarz - The OP didnt suggest any of that isn't true, only that it still isn't addressed by MMT.

@Nine-Signs

5 жыл бұрын

Here was my comment David, we think alike. "Yey a method to keep capitalism going, a system that is fundamentally anti democratic and incompatible with what physics requires for humanity to have a hope in he'll of solving climate change. Yey mmt... (waves satirical pompoms) Wake up folks. This is a sticking plaster harking back to the days of keynesian capitalism. This road leads to our extinction just as much as our current one does. Only on steroids if it comes with basic income which spikes consumption. The policy preference of billionaires. Mmt is a tool. Of the more enlightened sections of the top 10% who would like to keep capitalism going regardless of the fact that it is not compatible with what physics demands of humanity for it to have a future. So are reverting to keynesian economics with a re brand in order to do so."

@joefirestonephd

5 жыл бұрын

MMT does not assume a capitalist system. It is perfectly compatible with Democratic Socialism as it is formulated today. If you proposed nationalizing all private banks in the United States tomorrow and placing the Federal Reserve System under the Treasury Department that would not be inconsistent with MMT. Some MMTers may oppose that on grounds that it won't accomplish what you want it to accomplish. But, I think all would all agree that there is nothing in MMT that, in prinicple, prevents that.

@locuus7

5 жыл бұрын

@@joefirestonephd I understand that, thus my comment that I think it would be a good transitionary economics. What I've taken issue with is how many of its proponents have failed to elucidate its possibilities to deal with issues beyond just full employment. I've watched a large number now of MMT economists and I can count on one hand those who have proposed anything at all in the realm of it being used as an alternative to current neoliberal thinking

I relistened to this debate and the difference in opinion seems to be the 93trillion USD cost of the Green New Deal....did anyone hear the debate move past this point? it seems to me that the next logical discussion needs to include more granularity on how we model this prediction before we move this debate further. great discussion as always RNN!

Can u ask Randall Wray about his underlying assumption of a "sovereign" currency? Without US hegemonic control of the world reserve currency, and the strong dollar that allows us to run continuous trade deficits, how would that effect his theories?

@alan2102X

5 жыл бұрын

THAT is the million-dollar question (haha) that MMT advocates never really grapple with, in my experience.

Of all the MMT proponents, I find Randall to be the most politicized and gives the theory itself a bad name. He is a proponent of massive government control and central planning. This is not MMT. MMT can be done through tax cuts and privatization as well, his version of MMT is an ideological extremism. MMT, devoid of his political bias, has a lot of merit. The issue with his idea is centrally planned economies have been shown to be far less efficient allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. Inefficient use of resources is the primary cause of decrease in production and in turn, inflation.

@trixn4285

Жыл бұрын

Wray does not in ANY way promote central planning (in the sense that you suggest) and I've seen nearly every talk of him and ready his books. Nowhere is anything near to what you claim to be found in his work. This strawman is so boring, can't you come up with something better? EVERY company does some centralized planning, right? Why would anybody think that at the very top of the economy there should be no planning whatsoever? This is ridiculous bollocks. We are not talking about some soviet style production quotas of shoes and micro-chips. Of course that is complete non-sense, no MMTer even remotely promotes that. But a national industrial strategy is quite necessary and of course some national infrastructure has to be planned. If you want to see HOW successful that is, look at China. Also a huge reason why the US today is the most powerful economy is because of the new deal which was a massive public spending program to build infrastructure (which is eroding more and more in the present). _"He is a proponent of massive government control and central planning"_ No he's not. He's a proponent of eliminating unemployment that the private sector is not able to eliminate on its own. Because full employment is not something that comes naturally. You should read some Keynes to find out why that is. _"MMT can be done through tax cuts and privatization as well"_ MMT can not be done at all. MMT is a descriptive theory of how a fiat monetary system, as most countries have it, works.

Only in America do we stamp our God..."In God We Trust". Only in America are we slaves to be free...

1. Get Mark Blyth on the history of full employment caused its own problems that set the stage for neoliberalism.

Professor Wray is certainly mistaken when his says "the invisible hand" caused our major problems. Adam Smith warned that the enemy of efficient allocation of resources is monopoly privilege. Our systems of law and taxation in the United States have from the very beginning resulted in the redistribution of wealth from actual producers to non-producing rentier interests. Corruption has resulted in huge rewards to rent-seeking activity. The real solution to the problems raised her can be found in a reading of Henry George's works. Is there also a need to transfer money creation directly to government and away from central banks? Yes, it makes no sense for government to have to borrow from the central bank at interest when the central bank simply creates the monetary units out of thin air.

“We do live in a planned economy, it just depends on who is doing the planning.”

Government can employ the productive capacity of factories and people in the market, write contracts to buy windmills etc from them, and the owners of those resources will employ them wherever they are productive. There is no need for the government to own or operate factories etc.

MMT IS FACT ! There is no debate !

@elliotthovanetz1945

8 ай бұрын

Yep, a fact into inflationary oblivion

Planned economy worked very well in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc.

At last, something worth watching, something constructive. I want to add to this; right now all I can think of is a recent report on the city of Los Angeles, its wide ranging effort to face up to what global warming has done and will do to southern California. LA has a fine can-do spirit; watching LA at work on this may be encouraging and might be educational too.

In other words, the actual economy is behind the money, it’s the people. And while I do think this makes a good case for AI, automation. And then we can just use MMT to keep us busy.

I wish Randall pushed back more on full employment causes inflation because by itself it doesn't.

@tomcop668

5 жыл бұрын

@KELLI2L2 There is no government debt. The government creates the money. Automation is nothing more than the industrial revolution. Anything can be a job.

@neilanderson891

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomcop668 Anything can be a job? Obviously you're not an employer.

@tomcop668

3 жыл бұрын

@@neilanderson891 There are plenty of things that need to be done that do not create a profit. That's what a Job Guarantee would provide. It worked before with FDR's policies.

@neilanderson891

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomcop668 Plenty of things that "need to be done" don't create a profit? Yes sir, but that's the basic characteristic of all jobs ... That's why you pay to get it done. And the amount you pay comes out of the employer's profit. HELLO?? Obviously, you have never been an employer. That's what the job guarantee would "provide"? Do you mean "provide" the job ... or "provide" the money? If you passed Econ 101, you'd know that Keynes advocated the government burying money in holes, and then letting folks dig-up the money. But where's that "something" of value? If you can think of something better than "re-digging holes" (which should be easy), then why isn't someone in private industry already doing it? Could it be that minimum wage gets in the way?

@tomcop668

3 жыл бұрын

@@neilanderson891 For example, Libraries don't make a profit yet they employ Librarians. You don't understand what the Job Guarantee is.

Where there isn't a Will there isn't a way.

What are other countries doing? Yes, the Paris Accord was signed by most. But that is not near as radical as the Green Deal. If the US did have a Green Deal how would it effect imports and exports? How would it affect the world economy? Or how would it attempt to affect the world economy? It seems to me that the US could not go it alone. So other countries would have to follow along. Which would require international laws which seems to be what the US is currently drifting away from.

With strict wealth caps and yearly income limits, taxes become obsolete. Any individual household who makes above that limit, there can be a mechanism in place where it automatically gets deposited into an account from which then is distributed to either it's local state or the federal government or some previously vetted legitimate private charities that the person has chosen. That's one way of doing it. Just literally have income limits at the top, that solves everything. I always thought it was beyond ridiculous that people thought we could have a totally unregulated free-for-all casino-style unicorn and fairies private market where infinite amounts of wealth could be accumulated and this wouldn't create any problems for anyone else. Once you start controlling by law the greed of the private market EVERYTHING works itself out. People can't afford the rent because there's no rent control. Solution: institute rent control. Voila! Wow that was hard. Increase welfare, increase price controls, and so on. Institute laws that mandate any unsold inventory of both food and goods if it cannot be resold must be simply distributed amongst its local community. That way we solve the grossness of the extreme amoral waste in this country. The only people who stand to lose under this plan are the very selfish and the extremely wealthy. Well boo hoo!! I'm going to fall into a deep manic depression for the poor ultra-rich and all the corporations out there. Fuck them. They're lucky we're not bringing out the guillotines.

I know it’s conservatives that for what ever reasons become against this, but think, you could use MMT to build a shipping moat between Mexico and the US. It cost 500 trillion, but it at least earn us money more in long run than a wall would and would give you way more control than ever.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

Aren't freight & transportation subsidies the biggest boon to Big Business, especially national-scale manufacturers?

Critical topic of discussion.

This is not news. This is giving time to their agendas.

@nonyabizness.original

5 жыл бұрын

read the title of the video, and maybe then look up the word DEBATE.

MMT is an acronym being used to mean Modern Money Theory. But this meaning of the MMT acronym ignores the mind of the man who actually recognized and accurately described to everyone what money truly is and how money truly works in any society. Therefore, the acronym MMT should mean Mosler's Money Theory which credits the man - Warren Mosler - who GAVE THE WORLD a clear and accurate understanding of money. In fact, there is no one in the MMT field who does not credit this man as MMT's founder.

@Rob-fx2dw

2 жыл бұрын

What ? It is a failed idea proven so by it's failures in the past. It fails because it ignores historical fact and present facts including how money is created today in almost all of the countries in the world. MMT claims the government makes the money and issues instead of the fact that government gets it money from either borrowing it or taxing the private sector. Theer description contradicts the facts as explained by The Central banks including the US Federal reserve, The Bank of England and the Bank of Canada. Those institutions who actually do the money creation and lending on a daily basis. Now who would you believe if there is some controversy ? - The people who actually do the job in a range of countries or some economist pushing his or her own theory that defies historical facts and present facts and is tied up with political ambitions ? It si no brainer who is correct particularly given the other contradictory statements MMT economist make. Like pretending government is an issuer of money and not a user despite the fact they also claim Taxes are to provision government (Mosler himself) but later say taxes are no required and taxes are destroyed after collection (Mosler again.)

Yes. Economics has always been about RESOURCES and use of energy. Money is not a resource. Water supply, electricity supply, labour, IT, these are resources. They do not run on money, they run on energy like sunlight, chemicals like food, and computer processing power. Money is merely one way in which resources are allocated. It is not really a theory, it should be called Modern Monetary Dynamics. Prof Steve Keen's models based on money circuit dynamics predicts qualitatively things like debt deflation crises such as the Great Depression and the 2008 Greta Recession --- predicts them in the sense of showing the key indicators leading up to a Minsky instability.

@casiandsouza7031

5 жыл бұрын

Money is a token for a resource and can be dispensed in anticipation.

The new funding of new production jobs under the New Green Deal will generate new Sales Tax, Income Tax ... which will flow back to government. Why not show these incomes and balance them with the government fainancing of the NGD? I never heard or read about any incomes generated by the NGD.

'Shut down the fossil fuel companies.' Okay Einstein, then we'll just all starve and freeze then. Good solution!

I didn't hear anything out of Randall's mouth that I disagreed with

Paul great job, Randall terrible job, he has no clue, he would like to make a change but not to touch so many correlated systems, like resourcing. It is ridiculous and it only shows how those people at universities have no knowledge, they are completely ignorant and purpose to them selves. He didn't explained or answered any of Paul's great questions. I agree only that oligarchy is functioning thanks to public money, all great corporations are subsidized by public money.

As for tax just eliminate any and all loopholes and deductions. Freaking make it straight forward and fair for everyone. That goes for corporations and private individuals.

MMT was not explained. Where does the money come from? Just print it?

So does MMT = Create the money from nothing, or not? Dear Sweet Digital Jesus, grant me the patience for yet another long description of what everyone says is a simple concept.

@jazzypoo7960

5 жыл бұрын

The government already creates money from nothing. It's who is running the government that determines what it is spent on.

@jonh9529

5 жыл бұрын

I'll say "Yes" to keep it straight forward. The private Banks have been doing it though, not the Federal government (from my understanding). I'll follow with this quote: "To understand where MMT is coming from, it's useful to start with two recent occasions when chairmen of the US Federal Reserve admitted that the government can print all the money it needs, and nothing bad happens." ---www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-explained-aoc-2019-3 (more from that article) "Japan, for instance, is currently running a government debt of close to 240% of GDP and has not experienced runaway inflation. The deficit implies that the government has spent a sum vastly greater than the entire value of the Japanese economy, but has not been able to take in enough tax revenue to cover that expenditure, and is thus floating it with debt. The inflation rate in Japan is currently -0.29%. That's negative inflation. " I won't be able to clarify or explain beyond that. I'm lower than amateur on this topic. Check this out for the concepts and steps (broken down) for transitioning to MMT. greensformonetaryreform.org/problem.shtml Edit: I haven't read through this one yet: www.monetaryalliance.org/dev/how-money-works/

@Shane-The-Pain

5 жыл бұрын

@@jonh9529 thank you for the short answer. I'll check that second link.

What does he mean by "resources"? He refers to this term without explanation wrt money, natural/raw materials, and manpower. Really confusing if you really think about it.

@robertjenkins6132

5 жыл бұрын

He is referring to *real* resources, not financial/money. Examples: labor, real capital (factories, etc.), farms, inventories, infrastructure, natural resources (preferably renewable) that have already been extracted/harnessed, etc.... He is saying that the USA has the real resources to accomplish its goals with respect to the Green New Deal, and money is merely a tool to mobilize real resources. At the macro level, the limiting factor is real resources, not money (as the State can always spend more of its currency into existence in order to mobilize idle real resources).

Thanks to Paul Jay and The Real News Network for doing this series on Modern Monetary Theory. Unfortunately, though, you chose the wrong person to open up the "debate." Professor Wray is a super-accomplished academic, and I presume he is a good instructor in the classroom. However, he is an ineffective communicator for popularizing MMT to the public. His expertise is financial structures and functions, not monetary theory. This was demonstrated in this interview by his getting caught up in Paul's opening remarks about MMT having increased relevance today in the context of the Green New Deal proposals. Prof. Wray immediately jumped into the weeds of financial analysis, and while this may have worked in the classroom, it only seemed to confuse Paul and I presume most listeners. When MMT is being discussed to the general public the very first thing that needs to be presented is that MMT is a wholly different paradigm of what money is from the current Neo-Liberal Monetary Theory (NLMT). If there is a debate between NLMT and MMT, then the debate is "won" or "lost" depending on the paradigm being used. If MMT is evaluated from within the NLMT paradigm it will fail. If NLMT is evaluated from within the MMT paradigm it will fail. So, the first order of discussion is to determine which paradigm is most effective for which results. For having war paid by loans and making financial institutions and corporate overlords wealthy, then the paradigm of NLMT is more effective. For a populist agenda of making life better for the many and not the few, then the MMT paradigm is most effective. But if we don't understand that there are two distinctly different paradigms being applied, then MMT will appear goofy, if not delusional, when measured solely and strictly from within the Neo-Liberal ideology.

@GregoryWonderwheel

5 жыл бұрын

Part 2: Okay, so what is the difference in the paradigms? We should start with the foundation question of "What is money?" The two paradigms answer this differently; one sasys "Money is wealth." and the other says "Money is debt." Neo-Liberal Monetary Theory (NLMT), which is the monetary theory of capitalism and it's neo-liberal ideology, says: "Money is wealth." This is the paradigm that we are brainwashed to accept as if it came down from God on graven tablets. We see this paradigm in Paul's questions about who owns the "resources" and his equation of owning money as the main resource. The Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) paradigm says: "Money is debt." In this monetary theory money is not wealth because it is debt. In a "money is debt" paradigm we understand that it is the natural flow of debt, i.e., money, without any restraints or regulations to flow down into the fewest pockets to amass in greater and greater amounts. This is going back thousands of years, the periodic jubilee debt relief was recognized as essential to prevent the economy.as the flow of debt from flowing into the hands of the few and strangling the many. The recognition of "Money is debt" has many examples. Money is created when a loan is made by the bank. We aren't borrowing actual goods or services from the bank, but the bank is allowed to literally create the money by the keystrokes that create the account. Historically, when we bartered a sack of potatoes for a chicken, there was no money involved. But if I have a sack of potatoes and you don't have a chicken, then I may give you the sack for your promise to bring me a chicken, which is your debt. Then money was invented to keep track of debts and to make all debts fungible. So when I give you some goods, like a sack of potatoes, and you give me some money, you have given me a pieces of paper that value the amount of debt you owe me for the goods. I can then take that paper debt receipt (i.e.,what we call money) and give it to someone else for the chicken I wanted to pay your debt for the potatoes.

@GregoryWonderwheel

5 жыл бұрын

Part 3: So all of Paul's questions about taxes and government spending were stated from within the NLMT paradigm and Professor Wray forgot to tell Paul that the MMT answers those questions from the standpoint of a different paradigm. Once we realize that the two paradigms have different answers to the question "What is money?" we should be able to understand that the answer to such questions like "How does money work?" "How does the sovereign government get money?" "What are taxes?" will be entirely different according to the two theories. Paul kept asking about having to raise taxes to get money for the government, and Prof. Wray forgot to tell Paul that he was asking the wrong question, because Prof. Wray seemed to think he could just say that the government can finance the costs. So how do the two paradigms answer the question "What are taxes?" Neo-Liberal Monetary Theory (NLMT) says: "Taxes are government income in the flow of money." This paradigm says the sovereign government is just like any other enterprise that has income and expenses. This paradigm says that private enterprises can create money as easily as the sovereign government, and in addition, the private enterprise is then allowed to create private money as debt and loan it to the government and demand interest to be paid on the private debt extended to the sovereign government. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) says: "Taxes are the pressure relief valve for the overheated flow of money." This paradigm says that the sovereign government is not like any other enterprise because all money originally flows from the sovereign government. Thus it is patently absurd within this paradigm for the sovereign government to "borrow" money from private money creators because the government can just create more money without having to borrow from private money creators. In this way the sovereign government never has to pay interest on private borrowing and therefore does not make the private lenders obscenely wealthy by the interest on the public debt. In MMT, money is created by the sovereign government and it then flows into the economy along the currents of the goods and services that the government is purchasing and thus paying for with the debt created, i.e. the new money. That money then flows through the economy. There is no need for taxes to go to the sovereign government as long as the money is flowing without friction. Thus the federal government does not need to charge anyone taxes unless there is a specific reason to do so.

@GregoryWonderwheel

5 жыл бұрын

Part 4: What are some of the reasons to have taxes? The neoliberal paradigm of NLMT says the government must use taxes to account for spending, and therefore must either raise taxes or borrow from private lenders (or other nations) to increase spending without a deficit. MMT says taxes are not "income" on an accounting sheet, therefore taxes don't need to be raised to increase revenues to the sovereign government. MMT says that taxes should be used for two primary purposes: to reduce overall inflation in an overheated economy, and to reduce the specific moral and economic strains of wealth inequality. An alternative to increased taxes is to hold periodic jubilee tax relief for the least wealthy and cancel their debts to the more wealthy. From the MMT paradigm, the government spends money and doesn't need to take in money as taxes. Thus in MMT taxes are only used to take money out of the flow of money at the various pressure points where the flow of money is being dammed or flooded and taking money out of circulation by taxation will rectify the problem. I hope this helps people understand that the "debate" is not about "financing" in particular, but is about the foundational paradigm of what money is believed to be.

Why must resources be shifted? Just print more dollars.

feeling bad for Paul Jay. 10 minutes into the interview and Wray still can't answer the question he'd been asked multiple times. I still have no idea what MMT is. Paul Jay should have kept asking Wray to just explain MMT.

@christianosfandango1

5 жыл бұрын

‪Hi Andrey! ‬ ‪Here’s a great, quick read describing Modern Monetary Theory: theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-modern-monetary-theory-72095‬ And we do a whole podcast series about it if you have the time. www.pileusmmt.libsyn.com All the best!

#MMT

CryptoCurrencies are derived from the BlockChain. Initiate this Basic Universal Income while ALL nations & assets are integrated into the BlockChain.

And the award for most dodged questions goes to... That guy! Also can anyone define what "destructive" employment means?

@jordirossy

4 жыл бұрын

Of course... Employment that destructs the planet. Fossil fuels, plastic, weapons etc. Kind of obvious...

Now imagine if wages were brought up to where they SHOULD have been years ago, $25 or even $40 an hour with a small business exception of $15-25 an hour. Many things would change for the positive. Time got redistribution DOWNWARDS. Let's take it BACK PEOPLE.

@elliotthovanetz1945

8 ай бұрын

Yep, we would have very high inflationary pressures indeed! Gonna need those wages when a Big Mac costs $25

@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes

8 ай бұрын

@@elliotthovanetz1945 dumb.

Does this spending take into account that it pays workers whom will pay a certain percentage back via taxes. Lifting people out of poverty means more people reaching higher tax brackets and less who qualify for government help. The inflation would only happen in markets that have high demand and low supply, why deflation will happen in some markets that find lower cost in higher demand generated by greater consumption because people have more available funds. Which means even more tax collection.

@henrygustav7948

2 жыл бұрын

Its a choice isn't it? We can eliminate fica taxes so that those workers keep what they earn, that is a political choice. Federal governement spending does not have to mean more taxes will be levied.

@Fastlan3

Жыл бұрын

@@henrygustav7948 yes it does, as spending and not taxing are equivalent in regards to our monetary system. Fica is just another monopoly tax to help ensure the value of dollar. It is inherently unbalanced though, given most wealthy individuals do not pay more, or any... due to their wealth not being generated by paychecks, but dividends and royalties, plus inheritance.

@henrygustav7948

Жыл бұрын

@@Fastlan3 Fica can be eliminated and the Federal govt can still spend. People should understand actual purpose of taxes first in order to understand that no taxes need to be raised for many Govt spending programs.

@Fastlan3

Жыл бұрын

@@henrygustav7948 FICA can be eliminated. But such would be dangerous as this is an insurance policy, a highly successful one at that. People need accountability, and just because things can be done, doesn't mean they should. To recognize the government could simply cover all retirement cost (plus some) because of a monetary monopoly isn't really a solution... We are enduring horrendous international ties because resource control is paramount, money is just a past measuring tool of previous work owing to it value in exchange for another resource. Spending it without work lowers the value of all work done to obtain that money. MMT has to be understood and utilized appropriately, and it shouldn't be abused. To care for our citizens will undoubtedly cost resources from others countries, this is a debt that must be negotiated and settled. MMT doesn't give inconsequential spending, it provides wide breathing room in reaching solvency in regards to resource acquisitions. And countries operating under other monetary systems are only obliged to accept what balances their responsibilities. Our biggest problem is a distribution of profit to those actually expending the energy to produce said profits. This isn't remotely solved by elimination of FICA, at least until the wealthiest return an enormous amount of the pool of money back to the government from which it originated and that must secure future acquisitions of resources not within the governments ownership.

5:55 thats because they worked to make a claim of ownership and somehow are systematically excluding people from the benefits of ownership which causes wealth inequality, even money is just another form of claimed ownership of loan products or payment instruments some loan products or payment instruments are exclusively manufactured and other loan products or payment instruments are not exclusive, economics is just a problem for socio-economist, monetary economist and business minded people

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

It's all completely manufactured by the constraints of Capitalism, the vast potential supply-side strangled by controlling interests.

Capitalism should NOT be running the government. ....only the citizens should be running the government. Transitioning parts of the military over to a federal job program is a way to establish the training necessary to employ people who are not employed now....from destructive to constructive work for our country. Not all soldiers fight.....we have soldiers who can help with the federal job program.

@RussCR5187

5 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, the military can now also be used as a civil police force in-country against US citizens, thanks to Obama.

Help ! :) to understand the name...here: 10:12 Now.. ?????????? maybe others but I heard it from him, he suggested, I don't know where he stands on the whole MMT.."

There's only one person that can pay for this country and that is me

Check out the “Electric Theory” & don’t settle for “dark/Black” matter. Forget “old gravity” theory, the Universe is of plasma physics.

Just support new technology Wave technology

I've got to disagree with your guest; there is an invisible hand and it is what Marx calls the "Natural laws of reproduction of Capital." Money is a utility that ensures the smooth velocity of the production and reproduction of Capital. Law #1 Capitalism requires growth and money assists in that growth. Money must be accumulated to support a growing Capitalism but accumulated Capital can be used in non-productive ways such as Finance. Law #2 Capitalism is a contradiction which can lead to crisis. Private property motivates the Capitalist but private property leads to waste and over-production. Law #3 Health care for all takes a back seat to for profit Agriculture and Health care. We're going into a Depression and the only way to recover from it will require a massive expenditure of Capital. To combat our climate emergency we will have to use a three legged stool approach of limiting CO2, the extraction of CO2 and redefining our relation with the free gifts of nature; a Green post-Capitalism new deal.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

Even half-trillion-dollar deficits can't utilize full-capacity. Capitalism is a human bloated by constipation & edema; don't give it a new lease on life, simply allow radical deflation to happen & flush out artificial scarcity rents.

If the profit produced by the workers energy was more appropriately distributed to the workers, market inflation and taxes (both would increase) would sit better with the normal consumers / earner and government (spending). The high concentrations of wealth are like blood clots in the economic flow and appropriation of money. Until we fix this, we are doomed. In some fashion or another successful companies must pay their employees more. The company's net profit adjusted against company's debt should be distributed as bonuses to all employees -- there could be employee investment requirements, either time at company and/or purchase of shares. Employees could opt for extra earnings via company reinvestment. Company taxes will increase or lower according to the degree of profit distributed to all employees.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

Capital would still be submerged in plenty of inflated sinkholes, and labour would still be poorly compensated in relation to the wealth it creates. Simply allow radical deflation to happen & flush out artificial scarcity rents.

@Fastlan3

Жыл бұрын

@@saturngenesis1306 I think we're both not gonna get what we think should happen, unfortunately.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

@@Fastlan3 I'd disagree. Effectively aggregating the web of knowledge endogenous to a firm largely relies on, well, what you mentioned; vesting the basic incidents of residual claimancy in the internal stakeholders (e.g., the 'actual workers'). The sterile, monolithic bureaucracies & hierarchical mammoths epitomizing Capitalism are quite numb to change, akin to state-agencies, run through gradations of authority & arbitrary administrative processes. The terminal crisis is already at death's door; they're obsolete & hollowed out by the imploding cost of physical capital, leaving streamlined cooperatives in their place.

@Fastlan3

Жыл бұрын

@@saturngenesis1306 perhaps I am ignorant. But my intuition says such isn't remotely possible, there are too many structural hurdles impeding proper consequences. Good luck though 👍 I would agree that at some point what you say will likely play out after much destruction to current financial structures. But our world will likely be far past it's optimal time for such transition. And it won't be co-ops, but a feudal system of control with some forms are anarcho-communism in regions.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

@@Fastlan3 Fair enough, but it's precisely the enforcement of these iniquitous 'hurdles' that prolongs their feeble grip on life; they retain control only through sanctioned rents as a legal bulwark to proprietary design. So, it's not a finite goal, but an unending vector pointed towards, well, ongoing exhaustion, hollowing out & retreat of obsolete hubs, filling the void left as state & corporation erode. And, all these 'hurdles' are, piecemeal, fizzling out, in permanent retrenchment, while amateur, cooperative ventures with fairly inexpensive, ephemeral micro-manufacturing hardware & off-the-shelf components (whenever possible) are ripe to crystallize around local bases.

Green New Deal was dead on arrival. Tulsi Gabbard's OFF (Off Fossil Fuels) legislation is far more comprehensive and has a much more solid roll out. But... yeah, AOC said something so let's all talk about how neat and hip she is instead.

@joefirestonephd

5 жыл бұрын

Ocasio's Green New Deal is a Congressional Resolution; it is a commitment by the House to develop the legislation necessary to implement a GND sufficient to avert the climate catastrophe projected in the IPCC report. That legislation might well include Tulsi's Off Fossil Fuels Act as well as other legislation needed for a just transition to a Green Economy. Tulsi's Act was going nowhere. The GND Resolution was also rejected by Pelosi, but it is part of a movement that can create readiness to pass GND legislation immediately if progressives take over Congress in 2021. So, I don't see why the two are competitive and I don't think it is in our interest to view them that way.

#MMT supporters claim that funding is infinite. The skeptics problem with that is that we have already funded way too many programs. The Fed Debt to GDP is 125% and now petrodollar hegemony is threatened. Our infinite money printing and therefore infinite funding ability is supported by pillars like the petrodollar and U.S. Treasury market. These are both currently under seige. The petrodollar via Russia, China, India, and the Saudis by using their new oil funding system. And treasuries are threatened by inflation.

@trixn4285

Жыл бұрын

Funding is infinite but real resources aren't. That is the point. If the economy runs well below capacity there is a lot of slack to spend more. Of course spending needs to be directed to mobilize unused capacity. And the dollar is not threatened by US government spending at all. There is so much demand in the world to accumulate dollars to save that there is a lot of slack there as well. And what is the worst thing that could happen with all those saved dollar? They could be spent them in the US to buy more goods and services.

Price control and wage control has never worked. Because of the nature of humans

@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes

Жыл бұрын

I couldn't disagree more and I will be fighting in my lifetime if I'm ever in a position to affect public policy for strong price controls, rent controls, and wage controls. Keep on worshiping the market but an unregulated market only harms society and leaves up to half of that society in some level of poverty or without one or more basic needs met. We could see this literally right now I mean right f-ing now. You could see it if you were able to see it but your bias prevents you from recognizing it.

@barryweiss9977

Жыл бұрын

@@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes half the population is not in poverty. Everything you advocate for is exactly Communism. But please keep fighting. It's better you waste your life on that and get nowhere than involve yourself in something more productive and screw it all up.

@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes

Жыл бұрын

@@barryweiss9977 well I suppose that's your belief isn't it? You'll pardon me if I don't share it.

@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes

Жыл бұрын

Are you the Bari Weiss from the podcast?

@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't say communism exactly but socialism yes. Of course it is. I don't believe in an entirely free market that's madness. But you do you, Barry. Your response is not atypical.

We have capitalism with some socialism for the poor. We happen to be a rich nation. Why would we want to change it?

@RussCR5187

5 жыл бұрын

The top 1% or so are obscenely rich while the vast majority struggle mightily. That calls for change.

The essence of MMt's economic argument that federal government politicians should have "Policy Space" to spend in excess of it's income for what it considers is better for the economy. The same in their minds great theory that talks about the evil of inequality but when it comes to the reality only politicians should have "Policy Space" when everyone else like the average person and those on less than average incomes should be restrained and have no "Policy Space" to spend more than it's income. Not you, not anyone else but politicians.

@trixn4285

Жыл бұрын

_"only politicians should have "Policy Space" when everyone else like the average person and those on less than average incomes should be restrained and have no "Policy Space" to spend more than it's income"_ Another Display of Rob not understanding balance sheets and T-accounts at all. If "the average person" wants to save money somebody else NECESSARILY has to go into debt. This is an unavoidable accounting truth. The income of A is the spending of B. If somebody has a surplus somebody else MUST have a deficit. You do not understand money and debt at all Rob. Just quit your trolling as you are only embarrassing yourself. Also taxes are not income for the government. Another point that you do not seem to grasp. Income can only be something that you can not produce infinitely yourself. The goal of a government budget is to keep the capacity of the economy as fully utilized as possible. That is something that does not happen by itself. Go read some Keynes.

@Rob-fx2dw

Жыл бұрын

@@trixn4285 You are totally wrong. You are stuck in MMT land which is somewhere from well outside the land of reality . You don't know how money is created in the modern economy wheer fiat credit money is the only sovereign money be creted by the reserve bank or a private bank. There is no need for anyone to go onto debt for someone else to spend more than they earn in the private sector. I can go to my bank like I have in to secure a loan like I have done in the past and ask for a $100,000 loan without anyone else going into debt. The bank then creates $100,000 and places it into my account after signing up of the mortgage. Nobody else is in debt at all.

@Rob-fx2dw

Жыл бұрын

@@trixn4285 You ned to get out of MMT fantasy land and read some genuine decription of how money operates in the modern economy. Try the description of the operations of the reserve Bank of Canada money creation which is avilable on this site and spells it out in simple terms that even not so financially clever people can understand - it says "This paper explores the operational and legal aspects of how the Bank of Canada creates money by buying newly issued federal government bonds and Treasury bills.1 It also discusses how private commercial banks create money." AND " As the Bank of Canada explains, its purchases of Government of Canada securities are not a way of financing the government’s spending and debt at no cost; the federal government has to repay the securities when they become due." It aslo describes how money is created in the private sector by banks. "Private commercial banks also create money when they purchase newly issued government securities as primary dealers at auctions. They do so by making digital accounting entries on their own balance sheets: the asset side is augmented to reflect the purchase of new securities, and the liability side is augmented to reflect a new deposit in the federal government’s account with the bank. However, it is important to note that the majority of money in the Canadian economy is created within the private banking system every time banks extend new loans like mortgages, consumer loans and business loans. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money (see Appendix, Table 2).".

@trixn4285

Жыл бұрын

@@Rob-fx2dw _" I can go to my bank like I have in to secure a loan like I have done in the past and ask for a $100,000 loan without anyone else going into debt. The bank then creates $100,000 and places it into my account after signing up of the mortgage. Nobody else is in debt at all."_ It only gets worse and worse Rob. Don't you realize that the moment you get a loan YOU are in debt? Are you aware that you have to repay the loan? The person you pay with that money will have a surplus and you have a deficit. You spent more than your income and the other person spent less than his income (in other terms saved). You have net debt the other person as net savings. This is how accounting and balance sheets work. And you do not understand it. You're problem is that you do not understand t-accounts and balance sheets AT ALL. You are completely clueless and you demonstrate that in all your comments you write. And there is no such thing as MMT land. MMT actually IS the description of what you said about how money is created. You simply do not understand the implications of that and what it means in a balance sheet. If you take a loan you are in debt. Of course (not considering interest on the loan) if you take a loan and leave the money in your account you owe $100.000 and at the same time you have $100.000 on your bank account. But obviously you take a loan to pay someone. So after you paid someone you still owe the bank $100.000 and have nothing in your account anymore and the person you paid now has $100.000 in his account and does not owe the bank. This leaves you with $100.000 of debt and the other person with $100.000 of net financial assets (savings). What is so hard for you to understand about that? Sure, on the balance sheet of the bank this is a simple balance sheet extension. But on your own balance sheet after your spent the money you are left with only liabilities and no assets while the person who received the money now has the assets and no liabilities (assuming this person has not taken a loan himself).

@Rob-fx2dw

Жыл бұрын

@@trixn4285 Firstly Try telling the bank of England that they don't know what they are talking about when they describe the process of money creation and it's lending to the government which is an operation they do every working day and have done for many many years. Secondly try telling the Bank of Canada that their description of their own money creation process as provided by the library of their parliament is wrong and they don't know what they are talking about. Thirdly you told me "Don't you realize that the moment you get a loan YOU are in debt? ". Of course you are but nobody else is ! It is just as what happens when the government sells Treasury securities to the reserve bank to get money to fund budget deficits. It is amazing you don't understand that process. You say "You spent more than your income and the other person spent less than his income (in other terms saved).". It is good that you understand at least the idea that savings must come before spending to invest in someone else's needs and that concept is what MMT denies. Nobody else in in debt and that process reflects what the reserve bank does when it creates new money in the fiat money system we have today where in the description of the Bank of Canada's operations "The creation of money by the Bank of Canada through the purchase of assets like Government of Canada securities has fundamentally the same financial impact as the Bank making loans to the federal government, " and "As the Bank of Canada explains, its purchases of Government of Canada securities are not a way of financing the government’s spending and debt at no cost; the federal government has to repay the securities when they become due.". The repayment (via a taxation payment) of that debt created by the initial lending to government in exchange for a treasury security is wiped out just as it is wiped out when a private bank loan is made and paid back for any person.

oh-ka-see-oh cortez. you should be able to say it right.

No, we live in a mixed market economy. How long until we get to full Soviet style planned economy i don't know. Then of course that will collapse. This guy has s*** for brains

Randall Wray!!!!!!!!! Dr Stephanie Kelton! !!!!! Join real progressive and #LearnMMT! !!!!! Thank you Real news!!!!

Very interesting, the host uses the term of "right" and "left" economists.Unfortunately this is todays reality; most economists are political economists but not scientists anymore. Mr. Wray just states his own political view, which he doesn't recognize (or wants to recognize) as such of course. And he hides this political view as economic facts by using the term MMT. Mr. Wray thinks that he is a scientist but the truth is he is a politician. If you ignor all the political nonsense and financial theory he talks all day long, his thoughts on monetary theory boil down to the quantity theory of money and that the government (which he defines in a very generous way) is the sole issuer of money e. g. should be the central planner - but this is hardly new or modern.

@trixn4285

2 жыл бұрын

_"his thoughts on monetary theory boil down to the quantity theory of money"_ All MMTers reject the quantity theory of money as nonsense including Wray. So how can it possibly boil down to that? _"and that the government [...]. should be the central planner"_ Also very wrong. MMT does not advocate for central planning at all. The government should invest strategically and long term where the market can't do it because it's too expensive or too risky for private companies. The government is the only entity that is able to do this because is has a much greater fiscal capacity than any company and doesn't need to make a profit. Almost everything that big companies today sell has been largely funded by government basic research. For example all key technologies in the iPhone wouldn't exist without massive spending in scientific research by the government. The whole US wealth is largely based on huge investments in infrastructure. The market is still the tool to do all the allocation in general. No MMTer denies that. Why is it that you can't think of anything in between total central planning and total libertarian free markets without any government intervention? Both of these extremes are silly. The reasonable path is somewhere in between.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

@@trixn4285 I think YOU'RE quite 'unreasonable' for blindly designating as 'reasonable' a system that's constantly & precariously balanced on a razor's edge. The State is a disease living on the weakened remains of peaceful society, with its cherished 'efficiency' only in, well, coercive exaction & widespread corruption & insolvency on a large, organized & legitimized scale.

@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipes

Жыл бұрын

@@saturngenesis1306 well that's your opinion. I don't see it that way. There can be a positive use for an organized government. It's that simple.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

@@YourCapyBro_windows95_3DPipesI don't 'see it that way' either. The State is neither omniscient nor unsusceptible to the temptation to use its authority in the service of private ends, as brandishing the power to despoil society of its natural wealth proves alluring. The State neither works for you nor feels that it owes you anything; it serves its own institutional interests. It don't even recognize you as a coequal, worthy of respect in the exchange of reciprocal promises.

I like the theory but the folks that have gotten uber wealthy in today's economy and own much of private industry will resist any changes.

@RussCR5187

5 жыл бұрын

True. They will resist for all their worth (so to speak). Time for massive acts of non-violent civil disobedience, as with Extinction Rebellion in London.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

@@RussCR5187 And it'll all be futile & obsolete. Don't flush your effort down the toilet. They wield weapons far more potent.

@RussCR5187

Жыл бұрын

@@saturngenesis1306 History shows that nonviolent resistance is the most successful approach. Some will have to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in standing up for what's right. That is what recruits bystanders to join in. More and more are arrested but replaced with new recruits until the jails are full, the courts are full, the concentration camps are full, and -- finally -- the military and the police realize that harming their brothers and sisters is not what they signed up for. Then it's all over for the ruling elite. It has happened before. It's now the only viable option for us.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

@@RussCR5187 'History' shows that 'the military & police,' as cogs in a vast, repressive system, are an incorrigible evil that can't be adjusted, corrected or reformed; their criminal nature is immanent in the role itself. Just as the 'ruling elite' can't, through any supposed overhaul, be set right & its natural propensities counteracted by 'nonviolent resistance,' the Fascist State as it is can't be repaired.

@saturngenesis1306

Жыл бұрын

Frankly, grow up. It'll be yet another pretext to ramp up the penalties for traditional civil disobedience, or else furtive, domestic MILITARY interventions against civil society.

That has got to be the worst explanation of MMT I have yet heard. Unclear. Incoherent. Does not contrast it with market fundamentalism. wanders of into detail before giving anyone a framework. Hopeless. Get Bill Mitchell. He know how to explain this.

@joefirestonephd

5 жыл бұрын

What did you find incoherent? Please keep in mind that Randy was replying specifically to Paul Jay's questions; he was not providing a general presentation about MMT. Randy's Modern Money Theory is a excellent treatment of MMT; and he, along with Bill and Martin Watts are co-authors of the authoritative text on MMT: Macroeconomics See: www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/macroeconomics-william-mitchell/?sf1=barcode&st1=9781137610669

This guy's ideas are truly scary.

@joefirestonephd

5 жыл бұрын

In what way?

@JasonPettigrewace2354

5 жыл бұрын

@@joefirestonephd these ideas are what destroy countries economies. They cause nothing but poverty. Not right away. But it will happen. The only question is how long it will take.

@robertjenkins6132

5 жыл бұрын

​@@JasonPettigrewace2354 Deficit spending for WWII is what brought us out of the poverty of the Great Depression. Deficit spending is quite normal and it has been done all over the world for at least the past century or more - by the US, Japan, the UK, etc. The EU countries limited their ability to deficit spend by adopting the Euro, and this limitation has made their situation worse - not better.

@JasonPettigrewace2354

5 жыл бұрын

@@robertjenkins6132 like I said. In a limited span it can work. Do that indefinitely forever and see what happens. During war times is acceptable to most people. It's an extreme situation. Let me ask.....what did you think when the banks were bailed out? My guess is not happy. Imagine that happens with every industry and every business that the government controls. And it keeps doing it to accommodate the increasing demand. During WW2 you also have to consider the massive differences between then and now. If there was a war today that this needed to happen, it would cost A LOT more. Scale is completely different. There are way more examples of the negative impact this practice has than positive. In every discussion I've ever had, the only time I can think of anyone bringing up that had a positive effect was during WW2. How many others are there? And does it outweigh the negative?

@soapbxprod

3 жыл бұрын

@@robertjenkins6132 That is simply not factual. If you're convinced that the worst war in human history ended the Great Depression, you're simply nuts. Life during the war was awful for everyone. FDR's imbecilic meddling in the economy perpetuated the Great Depression for 10 years. Go to misesmedia and learn something!