Timeline for Does Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) provide a useful insight into how to manage the economy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2021 at 10:53 | comment | added | trixn | @Slarty Proponents of MMT are fully aware of inflationary risks and pretty verbosely state that the true constraints on government spending are not arbitrary debt limits but real resources available for sale. If government overspends, sure, there will be inflation. This is the whole point they make. Don't focus on the money, it's a tool. Focus on the real resources. If there is unused production capacity and a significant amount of unemployment this indicates spending is to low. Also many MMT proponents propose pretty concrete automatic stabilisers like a job guarantee. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 21:27 | comment | added | 1muflon1♦ | @user253751 those poll questions are literally based of the referenced article written by Kelton for the Bloomberg and that other MMTer - as far as I can see almost any proponent of MMT claims something different and not consistent with other MMT proposals but the questions were definitely not loaded | |
| May 4, 2021 at 20:27 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | They are saying debt and deficit do not matter, but they aren't saying money supply doesn't matter, are they? And they are saying spending creates money supply. So, that's very different from being able to spend infinite quantities of money. It seems like the survey questions were loaded questions with respect to MMT | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 14:33 | comment | added | Slarty | MMT seems at best ill defined and contentious. If sufficient money was printed and circulated widely enough it would cause inflation. If everyone in the UK were given £1,000,000 to spend how could that fail to have an inflationary effect? But the more important question is whether the Governments deficit matters. Here I am less certain. When I hear people say there is no magic money tree, it seems to me that they are being simplistic. There is, the only danger being that nobody knows quite how hard you can shake it before it comes up by the roots destroying the currency in the process. | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 2:35 | comment | added | Brian Romanchuk | I missed the textbook citation, sorry. However, the cited text had almost no MMT content to it. This was exactly the situation with the Mankiw article, which only had a fe out of context quotes from the text | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 2:28 | comment | added | 1muflon1♦ | @BrianRomanchuk 1. I would not call peer reviewed research published in AEA Papers and Proceedings as well as leading peer reviewed macroeconomic textbooks cited in the answer above an 'opinion' but to each according to their own. 2. I literary cited Mitchell, Wray, and Watts: Macroeconomics... who literally claim that their book is advocating MMT... if you don't consider that MMT literature then fine but then I wonder what counts as MMT literature to begin with | |
| Feb 20, 2021 at 23:59 | history | edited | 1muflon1♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2021 at 23:53 | history | edited | 1muflon1♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 480 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2021 at 23:47 | history | answered | 1muflon1♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |