Modern Monetary Theory - How the US Government really pays for things

The US government does not control money creation. The FED does it and it is by law independent. The FED's mandate is ""to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/mishkin20070410a.htm

I don't see where you got that the government is not operationally constrained in general. What you say is correct only during periods of price stability or danger of deflation when the objective of the FED happen to match the needs of the government but it is not a general rule and I do not know where you got that. During periods of inflation for example, the governemnt may be operational constrained by tax revenue alone because the FED will refuse to print money and resort to a restrictive policy. High interest rates may make the issuance of government bonds prohibitive and tax revenue may end up being the only source of funds.

Price stability and danger of deflation are two main reasons of the tax cuts now for the next two years. The FED is accomodating this policy. Surely they expect increased inflation after two years and taxes will go up.

The Fed isn't even remotely as powerful as you think. Primary dealers run the show. Seriously, they asked us daily what we wanted. Not the other way around.

Credit is created by banks, hence 97% of our money supply is credit.
The Fed merely functions as the physical currency creator, and wink wink "regulator."

It's role for the government is to protect the primary dealers, because who'd think that banks with the power of money could be inimical to the common people's interests?
The beneficial pact for our government is they get to borrow whenever they want in exchange for keeping the system whole.
It's really that simple.
 
The fifth video in post 102 above is excellent!

https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/the-limits-of-made-in-america-economics.311526/page-5

perhaps some things need to do concurrently.

1. remove the current budget ceiling in order to use unlimited money that the government wants.

2. use the unlimited money budget to build unlimited infrastructure projects, especially setting up several "trust funds - investing in stocks market" for various objectives, including medical, social security, productivity development, green technology, etc., in order to attain a better than full employment economy within a shortest period of time.

3. spend unlimited money in international development aids for unlimited number of American citizens having US-tax-free status while working overseas countries that were once invaded by the US, as well as some other developing Africa countries that would be most suitable for the Americans of Africa origin.

4. allow unlimited number of wealthy and educated immigrants from overseas, disregarding any race or faith background, to bring in money to buy brand-new houses that are recently built or being built.

5. ...

Never too late!!! LOL
 


Here’s a Solution for the Annual Debt Ceiling Crisis: Get Rid of It

June 21, 2017
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/06/21/Here-s-Solution-Annual-Debt-Ceiling-Crisis-Get-Rid-it

Lifting the debt ceiling has been a politically onerous task dating back to the 1950s because neither party wants to be perceived by voters as accommodating runaway government spending. That’s ironic because the debt ceiling law has nothing to do with increased spending. Rather, it authorizes the Treasury to borrow money to cover spending already authorized by Congress and the President.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you, "Lunkhead", read Randall Wray's book "Understanding Modern Money" and decide for yourself. That's a rhetorical question. I know already the answer: Because you can't; it is too deep for you. There is an entire chapter in Wray's book on debasement of money, but you'd have to read the preceding chapters to be capable of absorbing it.


You mean nobody could possibly understand mmt unless they read a certain person's book?

You'll go to any length necessary to affirm your belief that gov't should have an unlimited power to spend as much as it would like. And this is what this is all about. Nothing less. And that is something that gives you a Chris Mathews tingle down your leg. And you are as dishonest as you are haughty in refusing to admit it.
 
There is an entire chapter in Wray's book on debasement of money, .


Right here is page 46 of wray's book.

https://books.google.com/books?id=V... nothing more than evidence of debt.”&f=false

Scroll down one page to page 47 to find the pertinent sentence, where Wray specifically states that, just as the previous article I linked to stated, Wray denies that gov'ts debased metal coins by decreasing the metal content. He "substantiates" this assertion by claiming 'it would make no sense' for them to debase the coins in this manner.

So there you have it. That historical gov'ts debased their coins by reducing the gold and silver content is not denied by any reputable historians or economists. And Randall Wray is most definitely not a reputable economist. He's a quack and a charlatan. I'm not surprised that you would gravitate toward him like a moth to a lightbulb.
 
You mean nobody could possibly understand mmt unless they read a certain person's book?
Of course I don't mean that. Only a numbskull would think that. There is a entire large body of literature on mmt starting with Keynes on through Minsky and up to and including the present. You have a wide range of literature to select from; take your pick. But please stop acting like a numbskull in the meantime.
 
And Randall Wray is most definitely not a reputable economist.
That's an absurd statement. Why don't you back it up with something other than your personal opinion.

Excerpted from Wikipedia:
Larry Randall Wray (born June 19, 1953) is professor of Economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City in Kansas City, Missouri, USA, whose faculty he joined in August 1999.[1] Before UMKC, he served as a visiting professor at the University of Rome, Italy, the University of Paris, France, and the UNAM, in Mexico City. From 1994 to 1995 he was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Bologna. From 2015 is a Visiting professor at the University of Bergamo.


He is also Research Director, of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, NY.


Wray is a past president of the Association for Institutionalist Thought and served on the board of directors of the Association for Evolutionary Economics. He has served, along with fellow Post-Keynesian William Mitchell of the Charles Darwin University, Australia, as co-editor of the International Journal of Environment, Workplace, and Employment.

A student of Hyman P. Minsky while at Washington University in St. Louis, Wray has focused on monetary theory and policy, macroeconomics, financial instability, and employment policy. He is a prominent proponent of Modern Monetary Theory in macroeconomics.[3]


Wray has published widely in journals and is the author of Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability (Elgar, 1998) and Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies (Elgar 1990). He is the editor of Credit and State Theories of Money (Edward Elgar 2004) and the co-editor of Contemporary Post-Keynesian Analysis00 (Edward Elgar 2005), Money, Financial Instability and Stabilization Policy (Edward Elgar 2006), and Keynes for the twenty-first century: The Continuing Relevance of The General Theory, Palgrave, 2008.


Wray is also the author of numerous scholarly articles in edited books and academic journals, including the Journal of Economic Issues, the Cambridge Journal of Economics, the Review of Political Economy, the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, the Economic and Labour Relations Review, the French journal Economie Appliquée, and the Eastern Economic Journal.[1]
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=V... nothing more than evidence of debt.”&f=false

Scroll down one page to page 47 to find the pertinent sentence, where Wray specifically states that, just as the previous article I linked to stated, Wray denies that gov'ts debased metal coins by decreasing the metal content. He "substantiates" this assertion by claiming 'it would make no sense' for them to debase the coins in this manner.

:rolleyes:
Why don't you copy and quote the whole paragraph, "Donald".
 
Back
Top