American debt

[zghorner]

I am not certain I would agree. The empirical evidence to refute MMT's claims may not be limited, as claimed above, rather it might be non-existent. This could explain why you haven't sited any evidence that would refute the basic tenets of MMT economics.

What about our governments past would not have you at least a little worried about this?

MMT's primary means of controlling inflation is via taxes...how much taxes exactly are we talking? When they start another war and spend billions upon billions to fund it they will raise taxes? You think they will just tax the rich? Big corporations and industries funding the politicians with lobbying aka bribery?

The government will continue to spend out the ass...they MIGHT attempt to tax the rich and the rich will simply leave the country to a more favorable condition and be gladly welcomed with open arms...and as per usual the working class will be left holding the bill.

OR...they print more money and inflation skyrockets...

I'm not 100% against mmt but I'm still not quite so sure it is the way.

 

[piezoe]

With regard to the historical origins of MMT, the name Modern Money Theory has only been used for the past 3 decades or so. The name MMT it is often attributed to Warren Mosler, who called it "Modern Monetary Theory". However the money aspects of it were fully understood by the 1980s at the latest. Important contributions to the fully developed theory came sporadically throughout the 20th Century.

Read it again.

Its not what I have cited (note spelling) or not cited.

No consensus is no consensus.

Thank you for correcting my ridiculous spelling. We are talking past each other. I referred to a lack of refuting evidence. You are citing a lack of supporting consensus. But consensus or it's lack is not the same as evidence. There is a surfeit of refutation but a lack of evidence to support it.

 

[SunTrader]

With regard to the historical origins of MMT, the name Modern Money Theory has only been used for the past 3 decades or so. The name MMT it is often attributed to Warren Mosler, who called it "Modern Monetary Theory". However the money aspects of it were fully understood by the 1980s at the latest. Important contributions to the fully developed theory came sporadically throughout the 20th Century.



Thank you for correcting my ridiculous spelling. We are talking past each other. I referred to a lack of refuting evidence. You are citing a lack of supporting consensus. But consensus or it's lack is not the same as evidence. There is a surfeit of refutation but a lack of evidence to support it.

Theories whatever their label are just that. And they come and go.

Lack of consensus speaks for itself.

BTW you "owe" a reply to zghorner (above). Let's see you try to wiggle out of that one too.

 

[2rosy]

If I can interject and explain things to the deplorables. Piezoe is coming at the monetary system like art. In a modern way. While the peasants arre still thinking classically. In a classic sense you use common sense and see things as they are. In a modern sense it's more abstract and interpretive. Like comparing Michelangelo to garbage stapled to a board. You need to open your aperture to let the light in

 

[Kevin Schmit]

Piezoe, has MMT postulated any actual formal models of the economy? You know, like DSGE or even IS-LM type models? A quick search doesn't turn any up.

Perhaps you could link to a description of one?

 

[SunTrader]

The early internet "bubbled over" in the late 90's, but at the time thought of by the modernists as a new paradigm. How'd that work out for hundreds of companies?

Seems having a in the green balance sheet still matters. Always will.

At some point the bill always comes due.

And that is whether MMT, Keynesian, Austrian School or any other method is in use.

Common sense says 1 + 1 still equals 2, no matter how much you print out of thin air.

 

[newwurldmn]

The early internet "bubbled over" in the late 90's, but at the time thought of by the modernists as a new paradigm. How'd that work out for hundreds of companies?

Seems having a in the green balance sheet still matters. Always will.

At some point the bill always comes due.

And that is whether MMT, Keynesian, Austrian School or any other method is in use.

Common sense says 1 + 1 still equals 2, no matter how much you print out of thin air.

not great for many companies.

then there’s Amazon and a few others.

That’s how disruptions work. DCF weighted at the terminal value. Most don’t get to the terminal value.

 

[SunTrader]

not great for many companies.

then there’s Amazon and a few others.

That’s how disruptions work. DCF weighted at the terminal value. Most don’t get to the terminal value.

Amazon depending on one's viewpoint either got lucky or smart with AWS. If not they may, repeat may, have been just another Pets.com.

 

[piezoe]

Theories whatever their label are just that. And they come and go.

Lack of consensus speaks for itself.

BTW you "owe" a reply to zghorner (above). Let's see you try to wiggle out of that one too.

yes, thank you. I have intended to reply to ZG. Just didn't have time yesterday.

 

[piezoe]

Piezoe, has MMT postulated any actual formal models of the economy? You know, like DSGE or even IS-LM type models? A quick search doesn't turn any up.

Perhaps you could link to a description of one?

Let me get back to you on this.