You should stop now. Stop polluting these threads with nonsense. In the meantime study economics and read the MMT economists. Read both William Mitchell and Randall Wray.
start with this:
How does the fed add liquidity to the economy?
- Thread starter RGLD
- Start date
start with this:
M
morganist
Yeah the problem we had with that is that everyone was searching for Morganist Economics. If you want to see references of my work then you have to search my economist name, which is Peter James Rhys Morgan, although sometimes it is Peter Morgan, which then causes another problem because there is another well known economist perhaps more than one with the name Peter Morgan.
I don't know how many are referenced as Peter Morgan for my work because sometimes I use that too, but you can search for Peter James Rhys Morgan to get the references used. I also think I can do a bit better than being cited in a paper. I wrote a book that is included in the EUI Euro Information and Resources Bibliography. See below.
The Euro: information resources and bibliography
And
It is also referenced on by the European University Institute's Bibliography of the Global Financial/Economic Crisis
38th edition, May 2018
Compiled by Thomas Bourke.
The reference is on page 33.
In addition to that my book Modern Applied Macroeconomics has been used, reviewed, approved and authorised by the British government, parliament, the department of work and pensions, the treasury, the Bank of England to be allowed to be commercially published globally. I also have a letter in it from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer thanking me for the work and stating his intension to use it, which he subsequently did.
Before you trash that I would like to point out that to include the letter in the book I have had to get initial and continual permission from the head of every government department unit, parliament, the treasury, the Bank of England and direct permission from the politician's whose letter I have included in the book.
The work and book had to go then go through a process or review, permit and approval to be authorised on a data by data inclusion basis and data amendment for authorisation for commercial global publication. Then I had to conform to the correct and appropriate declarations for legal compliance for the commercial global publication to be permitted under governmental, parliamentary, individual politicians, treasury and Bank of England compliance.
I also had to conform to the global copyright laws and to include the correct and appropriate copyright requirements throughout the book and then fill in tax documentation and follow ISBN declaration and pricing procedures to publish the book commercially and internationally. The global copyright laws are much tighter than domestic laws and have just become tighter.
In addition to this the book has been used, reviewed, approved, correctly declared and authorised by the British government, parliament, the politician's whose letter is enclosed and any other institution that permitted the commercial publication of the book. JUST TO BE ABLE TO PUBLISH THE BOOK COMMERIALLY GLOBALLY AND TO INCLUDE ITS CONTENTS IS A HIGH LEVEL OF RECOGNITION AND APPROVAL.
It took about six months to get the permission to publish the book commercially. At times I didn't think I would be able to get all of the permissions to publish it at least globally, but I got it in the end. The amount of letter, emails, meeting and compliance to standards I had to do you would be shocked by. Publishing is an industry in itself and to be able to publish to this level it requires a lot of consent and work too.
I hope someone else on the forum can confirm how much approval and work it takes to get a book like this published and that they appreciate that the book has been used, reviewed and approved to be able to comply to the huge array of permissions and standards required to commercially globally publish. This is the evidence you should require for legitimacy of an active economist who can influence a government and its policy.
M
morganist
I get the impression you see MMT as the only correct economic school of thought and that all others are wrong. Is this correct?
You're not wrong. Piezoe is a well known Fed apologist on this site and has supported every act they have performed. Also supported bailouts in 2008, etc.
Oh, and he calls himself a Libertarian. That's the best part.
M
morganist
You're seeing it as selling licenses as opposed to being involved in the new product development process. For example developing a new formula or working with a someone who has developed a new formula or technique that can save billions, then getting in to use. The whole patenting, regulating and legality of the product development process to get the product to the market then getting a cut of the profits for its efforts. Many of these products or governmental and involve governmental efficiencies that other governments can benefit from around the world.
As a student of economics since ~2005, and of MMT since ~2009, I have no choice other than to recognize the MMT economists as being correct. Your personal "school of thought is wrong. MMT is not a school of thought, any more than acceptance of the natural laws of science should be termed a school of thought. To say something is a school of thought is to say there is valid alternative thought, but, just as with the natural laws, there exists no valid alternative to MMT, not yet anyway. MMT applies to modern democratic nations that issue their own fiat currency. MMT itself has been proved correct and is the product of 75 years of economic research. Opinions vary regrading what the application and consequences of MMT should and will be. Modern Money Theory itself -- some say Modern Monetary Theory -- is open to question as all theories are. Until someone knowledgeable shows it to be incorrect, however, it will stand as correct.
It is easy to confuse MMT itself with its application in real economies. The latter is open to question of course, but the theory, for now, stands as correct. It is not an hypothesis but a theory that governments that issue fiat money "money finance" their operations, i.e., they don't go out and borrow money and then spend it. They create money as they need it, spend it into the economy, and then later remove excess money from the economy, as required, by selling bonds. Understanding of this is fundamental to MMT, but this meager understanding only scratches the surface.
The most incorrect thinking possible is that government finances are just like personal finances and should have exactly the same constraints. Personal finances are all the ordinary citizen is familiar with, and they are naturally baffled by a government that creates trillions out of thin air. Of course they will conclude this to be dangerous. They will extrapolate in their minds to the accumulation of great debt that can never be repaid; debt that will result ultimately in the nation's ruin. (Note that the specific amount of sudden money creation by governments is not a fundamental or inviolate part of MMT; that governments can do this is fundamental to MMT. Beware of confusing theory with practice.
I guess this is, according to you, a first for me, but I am critical of the very low rates the Fed has chosen to go to in the face of the Pandemic. I think they are too low. I would have retained them at 25 to 50 basis points higher for the time being. Then I would rely on Congressionally approved relief packages to aid those in the most dire straits. An alternative that I might have preferred would have been to dish out relief through employers allowing them to retain their employees on their books. So shut down employers could meet their fixed costs, I would have preferred, I think, interest and possibly partial or whole principle forgiveness, be qualified for after the pandemic has passed when their is ample time for review of applications. In the meantime the underwriting for short term loans to distressed businesses could be handled by banks, as it is now, using federal guidelines appropriate to the pandemic. Keeping businesses well informed of what the government is doing is essential. Very hard to pull any of this off well with a divided government.
By the way I was extremely critical of Greenspan's final rate reduction (i think it was in Nov.) going into the Bush re-election campaign. There was no justification, other than blatant political partisanship, when the S&P was already signaling we were on a path to full recovery. I was also aghast at Greenspan doing nothing to shut down the liar loans when he had them repeatedly called to his attention. He later explained this as his belief that bankers would not act against their own self-interests. I still believe, however, that it had to do with an incorrect and steadfast belief that markets out of whack will harmlessly self correct if left alone.* (Its an old fashioned belief, and quite incorrect, in the "invisible hand" which supposedly will cause markets to spontaneously move back toward equilibrium if only you're patient enough and do absolutely nothing. But in reality, it is more like an invisible foot I would say, sticking out for markets to trip over.) I was also critical of Bernanke not acting sooner after he took over the fed. Instead he waited until the crisis was full blown. I've read Greenspan's memoir, now i'm waiting to Bernanke's to find out what his excuse is. Possibly rather bad communication between the old guard, Greenspan, and the new, Bernanke, I would think. Had Greenspan been forthright about passing on all his information to the other Governors?)
I haven't forgotten I owe you post, Have started on it, but other more pressing things took my attention away.
_________________
*he was a devotee of that nut, Ayn Rand. Hung out with her as a young man.
Last edited:
The problem with MMT is that as it is based on the DOMESTIC economy only. In the case of the US, a non-trivial percentage of the trillions worth of national debt is held by foreigners. Furthermore, more than 50% of US currency is held and circulates outside of the US. Then there is the requirement of the need and usage of USD due to being the world's reserve currency, with a necessary floating exchange rate. And is it forgetfulness not to mention interest rates somewhere in the discussion, domestic and foreign? Bottomline, the need and demand for USD is global, not domestic only!
Printing and borrowing (US)money from yourself for yourself(domestic use only), which is what MMT is, will cause collapse of global economies, not only the US.
Perhaps multi-classes of currency has merit. One domestic, one International.
It's NOT. Start over, Spend two years, at least, studying MMT. Then get back to us when you are ready to discuss knowledgeably. Read Randall wrays book, the new one is expensive, but best, or buy the 1995 edition of Modern Money Theory by Wray, which is easily affordable and read it cover to cover at least twice. Then read William Mitchell. Or reverse the order, whichever writing style you prefer. Read and study. Don't come back to us with anything related to MMT until you do.
After you go through these guys read Minsky's, "John Maynard Keynes" , then read Capital in the 21st Century, then read Quiggin's "Zombie Economics".
Then, you might be able to contribute something worthwhile.
Last edited: