Modern Monetary Theory

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:17 am

Elvis » Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:17 pm wrote:At the 19:22 mark Saylor argues that bitcoin is an asset, not a currency; casting it such light to deter regulation.

Michael Saylor: Bitcoin has no existential threats


Well you're right, my mistake. Better to think of Bitcoin as a monetary network upon which currency applications can be built, rather than a currency in itself.
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby Monk » Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:59 am

The liquidity pyramid from Mayer:

https://twitter.com/tracemayer/status/1 ... 3370460160

That is, something like a derivatives market with a notional value of around $1.6 quadrillion, and more.
User avatar
Monk
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:11 am

dada » Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:49 pm wrote:Also, the hungry sick and homeless tell me to remind you about the slaves and the sweatshop workers that are working around the clock to keep mass production economy running smoothly. They're also allies in poverty, and deserve at least a brief mention.

"It isn't fun to be hungry, sick or homeless." It just doesn't sound like language that will get anyone inspired. More geared to social media, not for generating electricity.

Just to bring it into the conversation that was happening above using Ben Franklin's marvelous metaphorical inventions.


Thank you dada, your points are made. If you don't mind I've received requests to get this thread back to its issues, however inadequate it may be as a description of totality. Your request for a thread exit ticket is accepted.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:25 am

Elvis » Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:17 pm wrote:The attempted experiment in El Salvadore will be interesting (I like Jack's take on that, in the bitcoin thread I think).


Thanks and you mean above, p. 34, starting from AOC's post at
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41320&start=495#p695437
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby dada » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:18 am

Of course. How very Democratic, and democratic party. The posture of integrity. Like a Mickey Mouse Theory club, for the modern mouseketeer with elite aspirations. But I'll hold my tongue, stop "picking on" the poor cherished theory.

I think it's kind of a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. Could use a lot more mixing in with other ideas, clearly needs more Marx. Just my opinion though, as a simple lover of the impovershed.

So yes, don't worry, I'll leave the party tent now, never to return.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby Elvis » Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:47 pm

Inflation is in the news, and Lawrence Summers, now out in the cold, keeps tapping on the window in comical efforts to remain relevant; let's have a closer look at both.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... th-2021-06

The Deeper Anxieties of the Inflation Hawks
Jun 3, 2021
James K. Galbraith

Following an increase in consumer prices during the first quarter of the year, commentators who were already wringing their hands about inflation have now doubled down on their position. But the economic arguments used to justify such fears simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

AUSTIN – In a recent commentary for The Washington Post, former US Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence H. Summers stated that “the consumer price index rose at a 7.5 percent annual rate” in the first quarter of 2021. I could not reproduce this number from the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-U website, which reports a year-on-year increase (April 2020-April 2021) of 4.2%, driven largely by a sharp 49.6% rebound in gasoline prices from their pandemic crash. When food and energy prices are excluded, the inflation rate over the past year comes to just 3%.

Odder still is Summers’s rationale for projecting future inflation risks:

“Inflationary pressures are mounting from the boost in demand created by the $2 trillion-plus in savings that Americans have accumulated during the pandemic; from large-scale Federal Reserve debt purchases, along with Fed forecasts of essentially zero interest rates into 2024; from roughly $3 trillion in fiscal stimulus passed by Congress; and from soaring stock and real estate prices.”

This is odd logic, beginning with the conjecture that savings cause inflation. John Maynard Keynes argued the reverse: excess savings are withheld from demand, causing unemployment. And Summers’s own neoclassical school normally holds that high savings are a good thing, because they sustain low interest rates and lead to more business investment. So far as I know, no economist has ever before suggested that savings, as such, cause inflation.

Likewise, while it’s true that when the Fed buys up unwanted private debts, mostly from banks, the sellers get cash, shielding them from losses they might otherwise have suffered, this protection has no direct connection to their lending habits. As the economist Hyman Minsky pointed out, banks make loans when they have creditworthy customers. They neither lend their reserves, nor do they need reserves in order to lend.

Next is the claim that the Fed’s forecasts of future low interest rates are inflationary. Actually, the Fed’s interest-rate forecast is contingent on its inflation forecast, and its current position is that it expects price pressures to be transitory, and will react by raising rates if that turns out to be wrong. If the Fed agreed with Summers about future inflation, it would have said so in its inflation forecast; the interest-rate forecast has no independent role.

Summers then points to the $3 trillion of fiscal stimulus already enacted. But some $2 trillion of this is stored in private savings for now, so this point is redundant with the first one. Finally, he mentions “soaring stock and real estate prices.” Yet we heard no such warnings from him in the late 1990s, when he was Treasury secretary during a massive stock boom. And rightly so: the boom did not cause an increase in inflation.

What is really at work here? Summers may simply be attempting to revive the old Phillips curve concept, which states that, as unemployment falls, wages – and therefore prices – rise. But if this pattern ever existed, it disappeared 50 years ago, and even the slowest-thinking economists largely abandoned the Phillips curve by the mid-1990s. Since then, almost all new US jobs have been created in the services sectors, where “tight” labor markets have little effect on wages and none on consumer prices.

Moreover, today’s US labor markets aren’t even close to tight. The ratio of employment to population is still at least four percentage points below where it was a year ago, and it seems to be flattening after a sharp rebound. That means there are still about five million people who were working in 2019 but are not working today. The reasons are unknown. Perhaps employers haven’t wanted them back, or the jobs on offer aren’t very good. Maybe they will return later – this year or beyond – when the buffer provided by all those savings runs low.

What, then, is driving Summers’s inflation fear? When an economist of his stature makes such specious claims, one can only wonder if there isn’t something else on his mind.

To be sure, there are some actual price risks. A big one is financial speculation – in oil, metals, timber for home construction, and so forth. It is not uncommon for financial players to bid up prices by taking these goods off the market early in a boom. (The Chinese know this and are duly cracking down on the hoarding of copper and other metals.)

Another risk would emerge if the Fed took the advice of inflation hawks. For most businesses, interest is a cost like any other, and an increase in that cost would be passed through, in part, to consumer prices. It is interesting that Summers doesn’t mention either of these, which could be mitigated with tough financial-sector regulation – and, of course, by not raising interest rates.

But deeper worries may be lurking beneath the surface of Summers’s essay. One concerns that $2 trillion in savings. Through direct payments and expanded unemployment insurance, a fair amount of that sum went to working-class households – the first big chunk of change for many such families in decades. Having some cash could make them less likely to borrow – and thus less dependent on banks. Workers might even hold out for higher wages, creating the “labor shortage” of which Summers speaks (at least temporarily). More generally, when people have a bit of a financial cushion, they are harder to boss around.

A second source of anxiety may be spotted in Summers’s call for “clear statements that the United States desires a strong dollar.” This is the secret angst of the hard-money men, an insecure lot who fret that their position on the global totem pole might not be entirely secure. Perhaps they are right. Today’s dollar-centered world reflects the power alignments of the period between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War in 1989. US power has since eroded, opening the possibility that the world’s monetary system could one day flip.

That may not happen anytime soon. But if and when the moment comes, it will follow from decades of decline, from better strategies pursued elsewhere, from the self-inflicted wounds of the Reagan, Clinton, and Bush eras, from the sacrifice of America’s industrial base in the 1980s, from the fragility of the global order that emerged in the 1990s, and from the military overreach of the 2000s. Against all that, a few “clear statements” won’t mean much.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Bitcoin Cross-post

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 12, 2021 4:00 pm

Went from here to Bitcoin thread, continued there...

Draft Wikipedia Entry for Bitcoin

JackRiddler » Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:59 pm wrote:Bitcoin is a massive multi-player online game masquerading as a lucrative asset bubble masquerading as a new global currency system. The game simulates the mining of precious metals. The objective is to discover hidden electronic tokens, which are called coins. The rules require players to apply computer processing power, using the Bitcoin software, toward finding solutions to a complex online math problem. Solutions to the problem are discovered at indeterminate intervals. Tokens are allocated to individual players whose software is first to discover each in a sequence of millions of solutions to the problem. From the point of view of the players, allocation of tokens is essentially random. Outcomes can be affected only by marshalling additional processing power, i.e., running the program on more machines so as to raise the chances of discovering tokens. Committed players buy or build server farms for the purpose of prospecting for bitcoins. Continuation of the game has required an ever-increasing supply of power on a global scale, thus also competing with real-world mining in terms of the overall consumption of energy and resources, and resulting damage to the ecological carrying capacity for human life on earth. The overall supply of tokens that can be discovered is capped at 21 million, and thus exhaustible, and discovery of tokens becomes more difficult over time, all of which again simulates real-world mining for precious metals. The cap presumably would have a radically deflationary effect on bitcoin as a currency, were it actually in use as a currency; although the argument is made that the bitcoin-currency will be infinitely divisible to counteract this. Correspondingly this same imposed scarcity of the virtual token so far has had an inflationary effect on the price for converting bitcoin to conventional currencies, which appears to be the true intent, given the effects: The price for conversion of bitcoin into conventional currencies has skyrocketed and proven to be extremely volatile. Subsidiary markets have been set up to allow speculation on futures.

Created and programmed by an unknown and anonymous entity that published an accompanying manifesto, the game has enlisted millions of players hoping to become rich, or who wish to transfer wealth and enact payments without detection. Other than the promise of material reward, participation is otherwise driven by players' faith in a crude libertarian salvation ideology, in which Bitcoin is supposed to become the new dominant planetary currency. Enthusiasts describe this activity as promising human liberation from the bondage of existing monetary systems and their ruling oligarchies. In place of the oligarchs who randomly inherited wealth, or who lucked and clawed their way into monopoly control of given revenue streams, or who are licensed to create money by lending it at interest, Bitcoin's new elite would arise among those who randomly won sufficient allocations of virtual tokens in the MMPOG or who could otherwise command the flow of Bitcoin wealth independently of any form of regulation, taxation, or capital controls, other than those set by the programmed rules of the game. Players tend to look down upon those who don't get the point of all this, or who fail to see how the hoped-for advent of the Bitcoin system as a new global currency with attendant systems of capital allocation and economics, and with the winning players as the new oligarchy, would constitute an improvement over the existing systems of capital allocation and labor exploitation, as bad as these have proven to be. On the contrary, the Bitcoin MMPOG appears as a fantasy of total neoliberalism, capital without frontiers. For the same reason (among many other reasons) the full Bitcoin utopia is bound to remain a dream, as it would intensify all of the same crisis manifestations that unregulated capitalism already causes.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Adam Tooze: Counting Inflation

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:55 am

Chartbook Newsletter #22
How do you count inflation? Tracking Weimar's hyperinflation.

Adam Tooze
Jun 12
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartb ... sletter-22

“We are inside.” - Mark Hulliung, Sartre and Clio. Encounters with History (2013), p. 10.

The threat of inflation makes daily headlines right now. In most advanced economies, only people over the age of 40 have any personal experience of serious inflation. But scary historical episodes are easily to hand. The 1970s ghost through policy-talk.

Whether or not such historical clichés are at all relevant to our current moment, is one line of debate. I am on the skeptical side of the fence. Fifty years on from the last great inflation in the West, the political economy, has radically changed. The bargaining power of labour is far weaker. Today, the risk of a wage-price spiral seems slim. The global headwinds that dampen inflationary risks continue to be strong. Indeed, so stark are these differences that it seems surprising that simple historical analogies are taken seriously at all. What is truly intriguing, however, is a deeper and more basic question. If there are underlying changes in the regime of price-setting, is our current system of inflation measurement set up to give us a good handle on 21st-century price dynamics? How do you deal with a shock like 2020? In its aftermath, how do you recognize inflation when it does arrive?

The simple answer is that inflation is happening when prices go up. Tbe tricky thing is that not all prices go up at the same rate. Some go up, others go down. And the prices that do go up, go up for very particular reasons. If microchip prices surge because of drought in Taiwan, can we speak of inflation? What, if a spike in demand for lumber in North America drives plywood prices sky high? Is that inflation? Or will it simply compress the price of other construction materials, as budgets have to be cut?

In discussing inflation, economics abstracts from idiosyncratic shocks. Inflation is defined as a general upward pressure on all prices, independent of idiosyncratic supply shocks. Inflation, in this sense, is a macroeconomic, aggregate concept.

The truly common denominator of economic activity in market societies is money. Goods exchange for money. So, as a pressure acting on the prices of all goods, it is with regard to money that inflation is defined. Indeed, as Rebecca L. Sprang reminded us in a typically brilliant op ed, when the term “inflation” began to be used in an economic context in the 1860s and 1870s it referred first and foremost to the expansion in the currency, not the price changes that might result from that monetary expansion. It was the currency that was inflating, not prices.

Milton Friedman drove home this essential connection with his famous remark that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Read as a causal statement this rapidly unleashes fierce argument. What is less contentious is the interpretation of Friedman as laying out a definitional tautology. Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon because money is the denominator against which we judge a general movement of the price of “all goods”, as opposed to a relative movement in prices between goods. Inflation and deflation are shifts in the terms of trade between goods in general and money.

How do you measure a shift in the terms of trade between money and goods in general? One classic shortcut is to track the fluctuation in value of one currency against another, which by way of purchasing power parity ought to be governed by how many goods each currency buys. This, however, is no more than a shortcut and an imprecise one at that. Exchange rates are moved by a variety of forces other than purchase power parity.

To measure the movement of the terms of trade between money and goods directly we need some kind of statistical indicator of the general price level. How you construct that indicator will define how you see inflation and your ability to track it. There are narrow indicators based on consumption baskets for consumers. Measures of inflation based on raw materials or producer prices. Measure of inflation that apply to GDP as a whole, so-called GDP deflators. Thanks to digital technology which reduces the cost of calculation to close to zero, the WSJ now even offers personalized inflation numbers.

Inflation can thus be defined as a shift in the terms of trade between (1) money and (2) goods, as experienced (3) by a particular group of people and (4) captured by a particular statistical apparatus.

Picking a statistical indicator is not just a matter of design - choice of basket etc. Statistical indicators have to be produced. Their production involves capital and labour. It involves technology. Mobilizing those resources and putting them to work involves the exercise of power. To extract the raw material of data involves the exercise of authority, by way of law or other types of persuasion or coercion.


Data are business. Data are political. And that is particularly pertinent in the case of inflation, because inflations are contentious. They generate winners and losers. That is why we care about inflation. Winners may not want to have their gains documented. Losers will want to documenting their losses so as to seek redress. Inflation numbers are not merely descriptive. They are part of the political economy of the process they describe. When it comes to inflation there are, as Harold Garfinkel the great ethnomethodologist might have put it, good reasons for bad data.

Thinking of economic statistics as forms of knowledge it is important not to mistake them for something they are not. They are not a radar gun pointed at a speeding car from the side of the road by uniformed police officer. They are more like an improvised speedometer attached to the inside of a ramshackle Max-Max vehicle. There is no fixed outside that any of us can access. You cant “get off” economic history or “outside it”. And inside the vehicle there is no undisputed authority. Who gets to attach the speedometer, is part of the battle to decide who is in charge. Not only are statistics on “the inside”, we were already in motion when we started rigging them up. We attached the speedometer to the wheels as they were already turning. We are always in medias res.

Inflation statistics are relatively recent. Through historical research we can retrospectively construct data that go back in a continuous series to the medieval period, to the origins of capitalism and the emergence of regularized trade in labour, land and other commodities. But, as a real time indicator, an accompaniment to economic and political events, delivered by authoritative agencies, inflation numbers are only a little more than a hundred fifty years old. They are part of the process through which the modern state and the modern economy were coproduced in the transition from the late 19th to the twentieth centuries.

The first hyperinflations of the early 20th century, in central Europe after World War I, were crash tests of the politics of economic measurement. The inflations resulted from radical social and political conflict that was carried into the finances of the state and out from there into the monetary system. The numbers that described the resulting inflations were themselves products of that struggle. Nowhere is this more true than in the Weimar Republic, the classic hyperinflation.

more
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartb ... sletter-22

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby Elvis » Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:34 pm

A lot of forks dropped when U.S. House Budget Committee chair John Yarmuth made these remarks on national television, unprecedented in our era from a senior U.S. official. In less than 30 seconds Yarmoth comfortably relates the tenets of MMT to explain why the US can "afford" an infrastructure bill, and he even goes on to recommend Stephanie Kelton's Deficit Myth book(!).

Yarmuth—who admitted a few years ago in a committee hearing that his economics education was thin and he was "learning on the job"—has done his homework and shows complete confidence in saying what no chairman before him would (publicly) say.

This is like a dam breaking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvlpF6FZkLI
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby Agent Orange Cooper » Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:48 pm

Government officials love MMT (endless money printing). How's this a surprise?
User avatar
Agent Orange Cooper
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:17 pm

Agent Orange Cooper » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:48 pm wrote:Government officials love MMT (endless money printing). How's this a surprise?


As long as it sustains their cartoon model of reality, libertarian ideologues believe made-up bullshit, such as the above, completely ahistorical falsehood. No surprise. They don't know and have contempt for history, including economic history, and no interest in recognizing it when it happens, let alone learning any of it. No surprise. They rely on crude and essentially meaningless categories, especially in describing their imaginary villains, like 'government officials'. No surprise. They think intentionally deflationary economics and privatized money in the hands of an unaccountable neo-feudal elite represent freedom. They worship neo-feudal lords as heroes. They think democracy is tyranny; they think even the potential for democracy is tyranny -- an idea that, at least, has an intellectual pedigree. Like everyone else they necessarily live off the commons, but they believe they gave birth to themselves. They avoid engaging or even acknowledging criticism of their bizarre views, for self-evident reasons. To paraphrase what one said here recently, he'd rather argue against idiots than people who know more than he does. A risk that, I suppose, I have now myself entered upon.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby drstrangelove » Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:48 pm

Been doing research on the bank for international settlements and it looks like modern monetary theory was actually the policy of the Basel I accords written up in 1988 and adopted by the G10 economies during the early 90s, which is when this theory started to become popular.

Basel II from 2004 is how they write off the debt. S&P and Moody's are given a global credit rating duopoly and in exchange they rate non-performing loans as performing ones so they can be sold onto mutual funds made up of middle class savings. Then the market collapses like '08, the mutual funds take a hit and effectively pay off some the debt with working class savings. The banks also take a hit but are bailed out with more debt which is then sold once again to the mutual funds thanks to the ratings agencies. The boom is cheap credit for the wealthy laundered through blown up markets. The bust is wiped out pensions.

mmt is an elaborate cover story for the greatest transfer of wealth in all of history. Look inside the stimulus bills, the money being created isn't being spread, the debts used to create it are. who's taking out these zero interest loans hmmm?

can't wait for Basel III :thumbsup001:
User avatar
drstrangelove
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat May 22, 2021 10:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Jun 20, 2021 6:28 pm

drstrangelove » Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:48 pm wrote:mmt is an elaborate cover story for the greatest transfer of wealth in all of history. Look inside the stimulus bills, the money being created isn't being spread, the debts used to create it are. who's taking out these zero interest loans hmmm?


MMT, if you bothered to read any, and insofar as it is often activist rather than descriptive, is anti-monetarist -- against 'the money being created isn't being spread'. It is pro-fiscal, it is for using the evident power of money creation to spread it, rather than concentrate it as has been the case. People like Rohan Grey or Galbraith are explicit that the money being created until now is being created on the monetary side, at the top, for the benefit of the banks and the already-concentrated wealth, and condemn this, and call for spending into the economy from the bottom.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Elvis...

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Jun 20, 2021 6:31 pm

Did you catch this? From 2008?

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_08_1.pdf
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Modern Monetary Theory

Postby drstrangelove » Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:29 pm

But the banking institution controls the political one. mmt cannot be reformed until there is political reform. there cannot be political reform so long as there is a banking institution. i fail to see how mmt manages to overcome this. seems to me like the ideal of the benevolent dictator. No point advocating for a system when the wrong people are in power to misuse it.

All this assuming mmt isn't the elaborate cover i believe it is.
User avatar
drstrangelove
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat May 22, 2021 10:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests