Timeline for Does Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) provide a useful insight into how to manage the economy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2021 at 12:16 | comment | added | Slarty | @trixn I very much hope you are right | |
| Oct 4, 2021 at 12:11 | comment | added | trixn | @Slarty I'd argue that the system is pretty much destabilised in its current state and austerity makes it progressively worse. The government deficit spending for actual real benefits isn't going to destabilise the economy, the opposite is the case. We have numerous historical examples of that. E.g. think about how the USA ended the economic crisis in the 30s. War production was a massive case of deficit spending and the result was prosperity, not poverty. Ever period in which the US government had a surplus (7 times in total) was followed by recessions. The inflation fear is over the top. | |
| Oct 4, 2021 at 11:49 | comment | added | Slarty | @trixn it seems that MMT basically holds to the same framework as other theories, but just claims there's more "wriggle room". My concern is that its not addressing the right issue. The focus seems to be on how far can the government push things. My concern is stability and the possibility that rapid changes might destabilise the whole system and peoples trust in money. | |
| May 7, 2021 at 17:01 | comment | added | trixn | @Slarty From what I understand the limits of spending are the real economic capacities. If demand increases beyond what can be "produced" in the mid-term as a result of the government spending too much there will be inflation. MMT doesn't claim there aren't limits of spending without risking inflation but that the limits are in actual real world capacities rather than an arbitrary budget. There are different indicators of when the capacity is close to being used fully, one of them is full employment. If there is no more "workforce reserve" you are likely at capacity soon. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 10:37 | comment | added | Brian Romanchuk | The usual equation is MV=PQ, which means that you are missing velocity. The standard heterodox argument is that velocity is not stable, so the MV=PQ relationship gives no useful information. | |
| May 4, 2021 at 20:34 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | Does MMT not still agree that price level = money supply / output, but disagree that printing money doesn't change the output? | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 15:36 | history | edited | Brian Romanchuk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 10 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2021 at 15:22 | history | edited | Brian Romanchuk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added quotation.
|
| Feb 21, 2021 at 15:13 | history | edited | Brian Romanchuk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 789 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2021 at 15:03 | comment | added | Brian Romanchuk | That’s fiscal policy, not just a change in money supply. As seen in QE, central banks can replace bonds with money, and there are very few visible effects. I.e., handing out one trillion dollars to households is different than the central bank buying one trillion in bonds. This is why MMT economists do not frame this as “printing money,” that is largely an invention of MMT critics. | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 14:42 | comment | added | Slarty | I can't see how sufficient money could fail to be inflationary regardless of the productive resource in existence or lack of it. In the extreme, if the Government credited everyone's bank account with a million pounds surely there would be an increase in inflation? Does MMT assume that even in this circumstance that there would be no inflation? Or is there a tacit assumption about reasonable limits? | |
| Feb 21, 2021 at 2:25 | history | answered | Brian Romanchuk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |