@@Jesus-kt5dc Paul Volker under Reagan reeled in inflation and printing so hard they had to go into a mini recession but it worked... Bush and Trump yeah both big printers low economic IQ
@@billv7356 *Wrong. Paul Volker actually prolonged the inflation. When you increase interest rates you're actually increasing the amount of money in the economy. What actually stopped the recession and inflation was Jimmy Carter deregulated the natural gas industry which then made us less dependent on oil as an energy source. Remember the oil embargo?*
PROBLEM! Everything I have seen on MMT equates Federal Reserve (or any Central Bank) with Government, but it's not. The Fed is privately owned and if that issues money and lends it to government MMT is flawed. Can anyone answer this?
I think MMTers say they want the Federal Reserve (Lender) and Government (Spender) to be combined. I think they also say our current system is separation of money powers in name only, which I’m inclined to agree with. The Fed is both private and public, and it’s not like they have any competition. They could also point to the Treasury literally printing dollars and collecting taxes.
If you want to understand banking and why central banks are *SO* dangerous, read Prof. Richard Werner. Especially the new edition of his book "Princes of the Yen".
As much as the Star Trek universe pretended to have no constraints, there were still those commodities that were fought over, stolen, and the like. Dilithium crystals were needed to make everything else work. Anti-Matter "fuel." Somewhat interchangeable pieces of technology, such as M-AM injectors, were also not available whenever wanted at no cost ... somehow the replicators really weren't able to create *anything* they wanted and needed. :)
good thing star war is a real thing, and not just a fake tv show from the 70s or whatever. yea cool, in real life people do swordfights with laser swords to save a princess, and every single time the twist is that anybody who’s NOT related to somebody else is - get this - related _to each other!_ (I’ve never actually watched the shows, that’s just the vibe I get, haha)
@@EvansEasyJapanese Bigger replicators are needed to create smaller replicators. And you might only be able to make them a certain size. I dunno. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
People always say we'll have to "raise taxes" as if the government can magically raise revenues by legislating higher marginal rates. The reality is that people change their behaviors in response to incentives. The statistics show that for the last century, regardless of what the tax rate was, the government has consistently earned (i.e. taken) roughly 17% of GDP in tax revenues.
Using debt to create economic activity is simply borrowing from the future. Doesn't matter if it's an individual, a family, a company, or a government. There will eventually be a period of deleveraging, whether it is voluntary or forced.
When it's government borrowing, it's much more likely to be malinvested. "You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. You can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”" -- Milton Friedman
The most interesting phrase this guy says is "as good as gold" at 09:35. The second most interesting thing he says is at 15:01 "MMTers live much closer to reality". As not in reality.
The obvious issue with "the government has to spend money before it can tax it", is the existence of conquest. The romans did not have to print money before they could tax the Egyptians, they just took the existing stock of precious goods. In a more abstract example, suppose someone tells their soldiers "if you help me 'tax' city X of 20% of their gold supply, you can have half the plunder'.
I think the real issue is “interest” paid by the state to a private organization. And then the interest being passed on to the people. And THEN taxes paid from the people BACK TO those central and the reserve Should be the other way around
dang dude you def know what you’re talking about , and not just saying a variation on the one joke everyone who has no idea what they’re talking about says. nicee
He also misrepresents the Job Guarantee. First the government does NOT organize it and and the purpose of the JG is to operate during downturns The federal govt funds locally created jobs to meet local needs and that is done instead of NAIRU the primary cause of unemployment recently.
Because it obviously will immediately compete with many millions of jobs on total income alone, it would be obvious on day one that it isn't "for downturns". Keynes claimed deficits were for downturns too. smh You say the federal gov't only funds locally created jobs....... as if that is remotely possible to take place without massive fraud and massive waste. It would be cronyism on steroids. You get points for being honest. You lose those points and more for being ignorant to the catastrophic defects.
Tally sticks came about due to a critical shortage of gold and silver for printing coinage. The Crown had several periods in which it was incapable of producing enough currency to meet the demands of a growing nation. Now, the question that one might ask is; why did the crown have a shortage of gold and silver for minting? Also, were tally sticks money or currency? Quite obviously they were a medium of exchange, but not a store of wealth. They represent money, but are not money.
Isn't it the case 22:20 that you would have the have the system of exchange FIRST before you could have something like the claim against the wheat in his illustration?
He misrepresents MMT on Zimbabwe. Whereas the country had been able to provision itself before Mugabe, after he took power he turned the land over to his troops who were unable to provision the country with food and export their surpluses to allow it to purchase other goods on the international market.
Not to mention what happens when there is hyperinflation. If money loses half its value every day I want to spend it as soon as possible and I'm going to want to be paid frequently and on time. Some things become impossible and a lot of time is spent battling inflation that could have been spent doing something productive,
MMT sounds like old USSR. Jobs were guaranteed, if you don't want it, like his grandmother, we will force you. Goods started getting crappy, and turning to chronic shortages (just look around). Bid Mac should be named Mini Mick. The common phrase was "If they think they are paying us, let them think we work for them". Never thought, good old USA will follow this path.
The remarks against mmt sounds quite weak: - the "contradiction" in definitions of money are literally, not meaningful, - ok, not all job resources are idle and what then? - ok, you need not only people job resource but other resources. Why speaker define these additional resources as scarcely resources which additional consumption will cause the inflation? These additional resources might me vast as well...
Unless there is room for productivity increases. In that case, prices may momentarily rise (transitory inflation) but that price rise will lead to increased production as producers move to capitalize on those higher prices.
@@camerondye6108 but then producers will be competing for resources at the same time, coordinated by the general rise in prices which will drive up the prices of the resources needed to expand production. The inflation won't be so transitory. Business people aren't entirely ignorant of monetary policies. The failure of Keynesian spending has been demonstrated several times. Jimmy Carter's "stagflation" among them. The problem is always that politicians will always spend more and borrow more until interest payments on the debt and entitlements will consume the budget. How will the government default on the debt?
@@camerondye6108 - Inflation has nothing to do with rising prices. Rising prices are the result of inflation, which is an expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve.
Comments around 8 minute miss the mark. Gov introducing state money isn’t about “smoothing the monetary system”, the point is to provision public goods. Th
MMT in short: Gov spending creates new money and taxation destroys money. Budget deficits create treasury savings. The Fed sets the interest rate of those savings. The analogy is the same with normal banking: bank credit creates bank deposits and the bank sets the rates of those deposits.
Both MMT and the Austrians are wrong about how money is truly created, and therefore their analyses are flawed. MMT believes that "only government and its agents" create "that which the government receives as taxes" (money). The Austrians, on the other hand believe the government first creates money, which is then "leveraged-up" (increased) by commercial banks via fractional-reserve lending (the money multiplier effect). Both are wrong. The truth is that ALL money is created out of thin air when private commercial banks issue loans without any need for reserves and deposits. Here's how it works: first a borrower signs a promissory note, which is a promise to repay the loan PLUS INTEREST. The banks then takes this note as collateral, and simply creates new money out of thin air in their computer which is lent to the borrower. When the borrower repays the principal, this money is "extinguished," meaning it ceases to exist. But the interest collected by the banks continues to exist. Works the same way for government. The government first issues a promise to repay a loan plus interest (bills, notes, bonds, etc.). These securities are sold at auction at the Federal Reserve. The vast majority are "bought" (monetized) by huge financial giants called "primary dealers" (aka "bond dealers").The banks take these "government securities" (promises to repay plus interest) as collateral, and give the government new money that was created in the bank's computer. The government issues no debt-free money into circulation. The Federal Reserve corporations are privately-owned by commercial banks. The Fed corporations that create money out of thin air are not agencies of the government. 97% of all money exists only in the computers of private banks.
@Wide Hotep , nope: the mmt description is correct: a simple fact proves it: treasuries are paid with central bank money and the creation of it is the sole monopoly of the central bank itself . So the whole borrowing logic is completely misleading. Gov "borrowing" simply does not exist at all, because it is actually a treasury savings operation executed by the banks and funds. Technically it is account transfer from excess reserve accounts to treasury savings accounts. In a fiat-system treasuries a completely unnecessary and they are only used to maintain the illusion of gov dependency of the private bond markets. Interest payments are a voluntary transfer of money from the state to the wealthy people and should be abolished alltogether. All afore mentioned information can be found in any mmt material. A layman's version of mmt description can be found in Stephanie Kelton's book "The deficit myth".
@@widehotep9257 MMT considers commercial banks to be 'agents' of the government, so your description is consistent with MMT. The weakness of MMT is an overreliance on government spending. As you correctly highlighted, 'normally' 97% of our money is created by commercial banks.
@@jarirutanen8762 The vast majority of money is created out of thin air by private banks when they issue loans. These private banks are licensed by the government, but ARE NOT agencies of the US Governments, and so therefore MMT is wrong from the start! The treasury does not issue any debt-free money directly into circulation. The treasury gets most revenue from taxation, and deficits are funded by borrowing. The majority of borrowing happens by issuing debt instruments (bonds, notes, bills, etc.). These debt instruments are promises to repay loans PLUS interest. All of these debt securities are sold at auctions AT the Federal reserve. The vast majority are purchased by private bond dealers. The "money" being loaned to the government is created out of thin air as numbers in the computers of private banks! Less than 10% of government securities are purchased/held by the Federal Reserve Corporations. And the FED and US Courts openly admit that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by private banks, and is NOT an agency of the US Government! So MMT is wrong again by pretending the Fed is a government agency. US Government paid over $550 billion in interest payments in 2020 on "publicly held" debt (publicly held means held by outside of government and outside of the Federal Reserve). Again, the MMT crowd is wrong, because they wrongly state the government is not borrowing any money!
@elmartillogrande Printing dollars in the real world: It takes about $10 to buy the same goods and services that $1 purchased 50 years ago (yes, I am that old). The FED devalues their dollar by design and that takes a heavy toll on seniors living on a fixed income and everyone with a savings account. Your savings may show more dollars next year but it will purchase far less. At the moment the FED is grossly understating inflation to service interest on a corrupt set of books. Impressive system? I think not. What part do I have wrong?
As for figuring out what a government's IOU is initially worth you have to bear in mind that money is a unit of measure. As a unit of measure it represents work which is the value of effort over time. That's the point when things become relative. In you example if how many apples is an IOU worth the government has already decided that a guard's effort over time is an IOU an hour. The purveyor of an apple cart has a notion of how much effort over time it took to bring a given number of apples to market. This is the base point of exchange and where haggling starts given said purveyor of apples already knows how's many apples they are willing to give for something like a chicken. Haggling was the nature of business in the anqrchocpaitalist barter trade system they have just started to step away from and more haggling would be involved than what we are used to today.
Ya reckon? Hindsight has ALREADY shown us that the "transitory"inflation call from both Powell and Yellen was incorrect. MMT can never work due to the fact of its reliance upon the most inefficient central mechanism for its success, the state.
MMT nor the Austrians address who creates most of the money we use. Neither does Paul Krugman, Yet between 2007 to 2014 commercial banks foreclosed on 10 million homes. Where did the Commercial Banks get the resources to stay solvent and own ten million homes?
Presently we have all sorts of authority money including individual business money like vouchers. Almost Every country except the EEC and few others have State Authority money.. So it is in concept no different than any private person's own money they may care to create. The explanation about the State having to spend first to get the money into the economy is an interesting one. Never the less an easily questioned one since the situation was there is no existence of anything priced in the State Authority money at that time in the rest of the economy and no money can ever price itself since "price" relates to an exchange value for real goods and services. This is consistent with the explanation of value given in the lecture. Taxes too can never be relied on to put any value (purchasing power) into the State Authority's money and the evidence is all of the economies where despite taxes hyperinflation left the money in a condition of being worthless and even their own governments abandoned it demanding payment in another money. The evidence in the real world is when taxes go up in a country the exchange rate is adversely affected.
Things are getting too expensive for people to buy Therefore let's tax those people more so they have less money to buy things How do they possibly make peace with this contradiction?
MMT says we shouldn't ask how can we pay for something. Lucas agrees. Some MMTers advocate for job guarantee. Here Lucas says that 1) some idle people should be there to be just available when needed. He didn't say how those people can survive when they are idle. 2) Lucas gives example of his grandmother as a form of preferred idleness. But MMTers talk about real unemployment, not about grandma type of people. So, I don't see Lucas has any strong argument against MMT.
Even your Englehart IOU is measured in terms of the government created fiat currency. And MMT states clearly that the payment of taxes is what makes the currency have value. Credit is measured by currencies.
Too much focus on money as a means of exchange or claim on future resources. Value is ALWAYS a social construct. So money is a measure of value including the abstract concept of credit. The price is measured by money. Money is like the points in a sports match or inches by a builder. They are neither the match nor the structure being built. Both may have a price measured by money
You saw that around the 18 minute mark. Sectors that are not productive and competing for resources. Starts arguing the gov't create sectors, like the elder care. But there are places that do that. Its not highly paid because its not really in high demand.
this is the same point I raised when I was debating with some MMT guy, that "you can't provide employment without having resources for those people to work upon and if you bring them resources then that will cause reduction of that resource where it was previously being used." The physical world doesn't work like fiat money. The only solution to the unemployment problem is the virtual world, where people build things and the government pays them to build in that world a minimum wage and those people just forever eat and keep working in that virtual world until they die.
That doesn't make sense. Of course you can provide employment if there is unused resources like idle labor ie unemployed people. Unemployed resources by definition are not being used.
@@ChitranjanBaghiofficial in their own neighborhoods and communities. For example I was taking care of my father with Alzheimers a few years ago, a FJG could have provided me with paid employment to take care of my own father. What resources am I using? My own labor.
@@henrygustav7948 ok, so FJG would have provided service but she needs to be ideal first, and why she is ideal because there are not that many patients. even for her to provide service there has to be a need for that service. think of like this way, if there are 100 chairs getting build and it takes 4 people, so this manufacturer require 400 people. but say there are 600 people to provide employment, well there has be wood and other materials upon which those extra 200 will work.
@@ChitranjanBaghiofficial are you saying there is no need to decentralize our food production? no need for elder and childcare? no need for neighborhood cleanup? How about safe injection sites to help people addicted to drugs? mentoring children? The fact is there is much neglect in the US and much work to do. How about socializing with seniors who have no families and friends? What resources does that use? I believe your problem is a lack of imagination. There is plenty of work to do, it is just that the majority of people like us have been conditioned to believe that important work usually has to do with a business that is making profits. Right now there is a skills mismatch and low wage job offerings resulting in employers not being able to find workers, which causes bottlenecks in the economy. Employers like to hire people already employed because they are seen as responsible, there is a history of employment there which shows they are a good worker. A Fjg would keep the supply of labor more fluid as people shift between the public sector and for profit private sector. It keeps people employed, keeps skills intact, stabilizes peoples lives as they always have something to fall back on should they lose their private sector job.
There's another path, deflate the money in the system by destroying more than the federal bank produces. This of course means the government is forced to spend less and is forced to give power back to private interests. So far I'm less than impressed with the Austrian School.
When individual states allow bitcoins to be used to pay taxes that is NOT different from the Englehardt iou. You have NOT distinguished between household budgets and economies that can accept cigarettes and bitcoins for payments. Try paying the federal govt with cigarettes or bitcoin. If the govt accepts bitcoins for taxes its value will still be measured in fiat dollars.
Something he gets wrong about the Fed jobs guarantee, it aims for people to share in resources not use up more resources, gets us to used idle labor. For example, community gardens, tool lending libraries, having the jobs in peoples own communities and neighborhoods cuts down on commutes and therefore wastes less fossil fuel resources. Fjg increases supply of real goods therefore keeping prices down not up, giving people childcare through a Fjg lowers costs of childcare not increases them, no tax increases necessary.
That's making the assumption idle labor wants to watch shitty children for miniscule wages. I wouldn't watch my own shitty kids for minimum wage. That's why I work. This also assumes a bunch of other things.
@@henrygustav7948 no, I am not making any assumptions, some may, some may not, but the hubris to think that the state will correctly allocate idle hands is central planning at its finest. Just because they are working doesn't mean they are productive. And as good as the state is at wasting resources, I bet they'd make some pretty wasteful decisions there too. There is a reason the state sucks at everything, because they have no incentives/disincentives to be better. So to expect them to know where labor resources to be allocated and where they shouldn't is naïve. The better question is, what makes you think that those people should be working? Is a job now a "yuman" right? Should I get robbed of my wages so someone can have a companion?
@@tricksyhobbitses1695 Actually you are making assumptions, you assume its the state doing the central planning its not. Its local cities and municipalities, non profit organizations. Unemployment is an actual waste of labor resources. "but the hubris to think that the state will correctly allocate idle hands is central planning at its finest." The hubris is in not understanding our economic system and choosing not to learn about it. The State keeps a percentage of the eligible work force unemployed on purpose in order to control inflation through policy guides like Nairu and the philips curve, models which they now say do not work. For profit private sector can never hire 100% of the workforce because they run on profits and see labor as a cost. The only entity which can hire up all the unemployed who wish to work is the federal govt. Private for profit businesses also suck at many many things, the Pandemic has revealed alot of that from shortages of masks to shortages of respirators to food lines across the US. The pandemic revealed just how weak our supply chains are, revealed the amount of wasteful unnecessary jobs that exist in the private sector. You want to talk about wasting resources? Look at the worlds richest man and his cowboy hat and dick rocket. Look at our healthcare sector where millions of people are employed as a way to deny people healthcare. If you want to talk about waste and inefficiency, don't just talk about the Federal govt only, talk about the private sector as well if you don't want to seem biased with an agenda. "The better question is, what makes you think that those people should be working? Is a job now a "yuman" right? Should I get robbed of my wages so someone can have a companion?" Great question, and I will answer it with another question. Why do people work for little green pieces of paper? Why do you trade your labor and goods for these otherwise worthless pieces of paper? Its because the state, ie the Federal govt which demands these pieces of paper back in payment of taxes. Taxes create unemployment, unemployment is a condition in which you are looking for work or some other means to attain what only the Federal govt can create. You try to create it and you goto jail for counterfeiting. There is no money or unemployment that exists in nature, dogs don't run around looking for work. This is how a Govt provisions itself with labor and goods from the private sector, by taxing us in money that only it can create bringing private resources into public use. This is how we have a military, dept of education, a justice system, markets and networks of people who buy/sell goods to earn dollars. Also how on earth is anyone robbing your wages? If anything your wages will go UP with a Federal jobs guarantee because it provides people who previously had no income, WITH INCOME. Guess what? Those people with income buy stuff, and ones spending is another's income. If you have alot of people spending more guess what? YOU get more income. Do you understand how an economy works? You get MORE in wages, you don't get robbed OF your wages.
This is complex only because we want to represent currency as money. Currency is a medium of economic exchange but may not be money. Money is a medium of exchange AND a store of value. Anything that can be inflated can not, by definition, be money.
so the dude lists all problems of money and basically spends 30min building the case for bitcoin and doesn't mention it instead he looks for answers in his ancient book
I'm confused, he defines mmt as applying to the US dollar and some other sovereign currencies, and then tries to disprove it using commodity trading like cigarette as money. Wouldn't mmt'ers just say that it doesnt apply to those markets?
I feel like using taxes as a policy tool instead of a revenue raising tool is too clever by half. Taxes should be raised to meet gov't expenses, and if there is some left over at the end of the period it should be dispersed back to the tax payers, and perhaps then revised so that less unnecessary revenue is collected in the future. But what do I know, I'm just some asshole in the youtube comments.
@ 41:35 is the mask off moment. "Yes, Marx was right in Chapter 25, Section 3. Capitalism both produces and requires a reserve industrial army of disposable, immiserated, and desperate surplus workers -- a 'mass of human material always ready for exploitation.' "
Kind of funny to hear somebody quoting Marx talking about capitalism producing disposable, miserable, and desperate workers. Are you going to completely ignore the spectacular failure of Marxism in the 20th century, producing immense suffering, misery, and death among the masses?
In general, the only workers I've found to be immiserated and desperate were the lazy ones who constantly complain and can't keep a job. Exploitation in a capitalist system is a nonsensical term. Only slaves are exploited.
the most miserable people in the USA are jobless losers that still live in mommy's basement. The next more miserable are those that chose to screw off for their entire educational years and get stuck - at best- working at walmart. The "exploited" are those that were too lazy and too stupid to do anything about it. they're ants by choice.
I mean the last comment on MMT being socialism is just such a cheap shot. they might suggest raising taxies but they did not say for firms or consumers. he did start with calling out mainstream econ attack them on a strew man, well, he end up doing one himself
He didnt say that mmt is socialism. He said that the mmt response to rising prices is to raise taxes. That could result in the private sector failing to compete with the state for resources. This in turn can lead to the state stepping in, which leads to a more centrally planned economy = socialism.
@@thelizardking3036 ....u tell everyone these guys r not jerks, but what they suggest to do is a jerk move. question: are those guys jerks by that account? is the person who issue that statement saying they r jerks in another way?----of course!
A failure of the Austrians/Mises people is their reliance on oversimplified examples to illustrate their concepts. How do we argue against MMT when the world doesn’t have a hypothetical Soldier-IOU-Apple economy? It doesn’t matter if you or I don’t like planned economies, the question is does it work? Is it sustainable? If not then why? If I say to an average voter that I want a market economy instead, how do I convince them that it is better than MMT and that an Austrian system will lead to more prosperity?
Nice try Lucus, I see from comparing this class to the one you gave two years, that you took some time to actually read up on MMT. The last class was so wrong about it that it was laughable. A general criticism of this class is that it was not much better than banter. You attempt to describe MMT principles fairly accurately and actually agree with much of it. But then you spend far too much time talking about the history of money, which beyond its general interest to people is irrelevant to our current fiat system. I understand that because this is what you were taught to do by long-deceased macroeconomists. That is always a concentration with people trying to appeal to a view of history that might suit their argument, but for the most part even on that subject, you offered little argument. It is difficult to disprove the tenets of MMT because all it is is an explanation of what actually takes place in those sovereign countries that you noted. Here are a few areas you did get wrong. Your explanation of Weimar and Zimbabwe's hyper-inflation was inaccurate, particularly Zimbabwe's. But even more egregious, was your attempt to explain stagflation without ever mentioning the OPEC oil embargo. Then you finish with the piece-de-resistance in ignorant criticism by saying that the MMT answer to the threat of inflation was increasing taxes. That my friend is not true. The whole idea of a guaranteed jobs program is to fill the gaps in employment. It specifically says that the government should provide jobs to anyone who wants to work, it says nothing about your 90-year-old grandma. The program would grow and contract with the economy at a given time. So the real answer to the question of what would an MMTer do when the economy heats up is cut government spending. And finally to suggest that MMT will lead us to socialism is also a ridiculous statement that Austrians have been using since FDR. I think MMT is an outgrowth of Keynesian economics because it favors fiscal over monetary policy to control the business cycle. The difference is that with MMT, the business cycle as we have come to define it would be obsolete.
A guy, who met a guy, who read a book.... Mises institute should not get so so third grade institute.. It is a shame that you can NOT afford any of the quoted outhors..... rather you have subsitutes, third grade subsitutes.. This guy fails to distinguish MONEY and CURRENCY...for example..
It seems like every few years a group of intellectuals come out with a new version of "we are smart enough to control the lives of millions"
*Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, and Donald Trump all MMTers. So nothing new.*
@@Jesus-kt5dc Paul Volker under Reagan reeled in inflation and printing so hard they had to go into a mini recession but it worked... Bush and Trump yeah both big printers low economic IQ
@@billv7356 *Wrong. Paul Volker actually prolonged the inflation. When you increase interest rates you're actually increasing the amount of money in the economy. What actually stopped the recession and inflation was Jimmy Carter deregulated the natural gas industry which then made us less dependent on oil as an energy source. Remember the oil embargo?*
@@Jesus-kt5dc they are not economists. The ones who you want to point the finger at are the fed.
@@Jesus-kt5dc go back home jesus your drunk.
Lucas' lectures are my favorite. Highlight of my Mises U week
right
PROBLEM! Everything I have seen on MMT equates Federal Reserve (or any Central Bank) with Government, but it's not. The Fed is privately owned and if that issues money and lends it to government MMT is flawed. Can anyone answer this?
I think MMTers say they want the Federal Reserve (Lender) and Government (Spender) to be combined. I think they also say our current system is separation of money powers in name only, which I’m inclined to agree with. The Fed is both private and public, and it’s not like they have any competition. They could also point to the Treasury literally printing dollars and collecting taxes.
If you want to understand banking and why central banks are *SO* dangerous,
read Prof. Richard Werner. Especially the new edition of his book "Princes of the Yen".
As much as the Star Trek universe pretended to have no constraints, there were still those commodities that were fought over, stolen, and the like. Dilithium crystals were needed to make everything else work. Anti-Matter "fuel." Somewhat interchangeable pieces of technology, such as M-AM injectors, were also not available whenever wanted at no cost ... somehow the replicators really weren't able to create *anything* they wanted and needed.
:)
A Trekie after my heart
I never understood why they didn't just have the replicators create more spaceships that could be deployed en masse to defend the ship.
good thing star war is a real thing, and not just a fake tv show from the 70s or whatever. yea cool, in real life people do swordfights with laser swords to save a princess, and every single time the twist is that anybody who’s NOT related to somebody else is - get this - related _to each other!_
(I’ve never actually watched the shows, that’s just the vibe I get, haha)
@@EvansEasyJapanese Bigger replicators are needed to create smaller replicators. And you might only be able to make them a certain size. I dunno. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
People always say we'll have to "raise taxes" as if the government can magically raise revenues by legislating higher marginal rates. The reality is that people change their behaviors in response to incentives. The statistics show that for the last century, regardless of what the tax rate was, the government has consistently earned (i.e. taken) roughly 17% of GDP in tax revenues.
The problem is that that’s not true whatsoever when looking at different countries
@@tylerberks2756 Are you implying that people from other counties are too dumb to adjust their behaviors?
@Eat Shnitzel Even if that results in less overall tax revenue?
@Eat Shnitzel It won't. It will result in something like 17% of GDP taken in tax revenues. Just that who pays how much is shifted around.
@Eat Shnitzel I was replying to TXLionHeart
Using debt to create economic activity is simply borrowing from the future. Doesn't matter if it's an individual, a family, a company, or a government. There will eventually be a period of deleveraging, whether it is voluntary or forced.
Why is deleveraging inevitable?
When it's government borrowing, it's much more likely to be malinvested.
"You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
You can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.
I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!
I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”"
-- Milton Friedman
@@darylfoster6133 haha nice! that Milton guy probally _killed_ in the Borscht Belt, huh?
@@darylfoster6133 Holy shit, Friedman was a plain asshole.
Idk how it took me a year to find this video but I’m glad I did
The most interesting phrase this guy says is "as good as gold" at 09:35.
The second most interesting thing he says is at 15:01 "MMTers live much closer to reality". As not in reality.
The obvious issue with "the government has to spend money before it can tax it", is the existence of conquest. The romans did not have to print money before they could tax the Egyptians, they just took the existing stock of precious goods.
In a more abstract example, suppose someone tells their soldiers "if you help me 'tax' city X of 20% of their gold supply, you can have half the plunder'.
I think the real issue is “interest” paid by the state to a private organization. And then the interest being passed on to the people. And THEN taxes paid from the people BACK TO those central and the reserve
Should be the other way around
Excellent lecture. Well done.
MMT = our operational economic reality. It’s not a debate but what we all need to learn.
Lmao
yes we do
Hahahah
When you say an IOU is money I can't help but think of Harry Dun and Loyd Christmas in Dumb and Dumber and they're suitcases of IOUs.
there’ *
Modern monetary theory "Print money and pray it doesn't crash the system"
dang dude you def know what you’re talking about , and not just saying a variation on the one joke everyone who has no idea what they’re talking about says. nicee
I love this guy's style. He is gracious with his interpretation, yet still argues very effectively.
He also misrepresents the Job Guarantee. First the government does NOT organize it and and the purpose of the JG is to operate during downturns The federal govt funds locally created jobs to meet local needs and that is done instead of NAIRU the primary cause of unemployment recently.
you really went on quite a tear yelling at this video, huh? impressive!
Because it obviously will immediately compete with many millions of jobs on total income alone, it would be obvious on day one that it isn't "for downturns". Keynes claimed deficits were for downturns too. smh
You say the federal gov't only funds locally created jobs....... as if that is remotely possible to take place without massive fraud and massive waste. It would be cronyism on steroids.
You get points for being honest. You lose those points and more for being ignorant to the catastrophic defects.
I clicked this because of the fancy outfit and name, his elocution did not disappoint
Tally sticks came about due to a critical shortage of gold and silver for printing coinage. The Crown had several periods in which it was incapable of producing enough currency to meet the demands of a growing nation. Now, the question that one might ask is; why did the crown have a shortage of gold and silver for minting? Also, were tally sticks money or currency? Quite obviously they were a medium of exchange, but not a store of wealth. They represent money, but are not money.
Isn't it the case 22:20 that you would have the have the system of exchange FIRST before you could have something like the claim against the wheat in his illustration?
I’ve discovered a new diet it’s called modem cookie theory or MCT. Basically you can eat all the cookies you want and won’t get fat.
“ok”
Circular reasoning is an art.
Excellent!
He misrepresents MMT on Zimbabwe. Whereas the country had been able to provision itself before Mugabe, after he took power he turned the land over to his troops who were unable to provision the country with food and export their surpluses to allow it to purchase other goods on the international market.
Not to mention what happens when there is hyperinflation. If money loses half its value every day I want to spend it as soon as possible and I'm going to want to be paid frequently and on time. Some things become impossible and a lot of time is spent battling inflation that could have been spent doing something productive,
MMT sounds like old USSR. Jobs were guaranteed, if you don't want it, like his grandmother, we will force you. Goods started getting crappy, and turning to chronic shortages (just look around). Bid Mac should be named Mini Mick. The common phrase was "If they think they are paying us, let them think we work for them". Never thought, good old USA will follow this path.
The remarks against mmt sounds quite weak:
- the "contradiction" in definitions of money are literally, not meaningful,
- ok, not all job resources are idle and what then?
- ok, you need not only people job resource but other resources. Why speaker define these additional resources as scarcely resources which additional consumption will cause the inflation? These additional resources might me vast as well...
It’s all fun and games until the structural inflation shows up.
Oooooopsy.
You definitely read debt by david graeber and I appreciate you dude. lol I'm trying my best to read it!
Its a great book. So is the history of everything. Both great
@@recongraves Finished both of them recently and absolutely fantastic!
Whatever you do, don't show this to Adam Friended.
Five people a day send me this video. Please, make it stop.
@@Adam-Friended is it a good understanding/ critique or does it sin(miss the mark)?
Oh. I thought it was magic money theory.
Mugabe Monetary Theory
excellent.
I graduated from Grove City College in 1998.
According the supply v demand, increasing demand drives prices higher.
Unless there is room for productivity increases. In that case, prices may momentarily rise (transitory inflation) but that price rise will lead to increased production as producers move to capitalize on those higher prices.
@@camerondye6108 but then producers will be competing for resources at the same time, coordinated by the general rise in prices which will drive up the prices of the resources needed to expand production. The inflation won't be so transitory.
Business people aren't entirely ignorant of monetary policies.
The failure of Keynesian spending has been demonstrated several times. Jimmy Carter's "stagflation" among them.
The problem is always that politicians will always spend more and borrow more until interest payments on the debt and entitlements will consume the budget.
How will the government default on the debt?
@@camerondye6108 - Inflation has nothing to do with rising prices. Rising prices are the result of inflation, which is an expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve.
Comments around 8 minute miss the mark. Gov introducing state money isn’t about “smoothing the monetary system”, the point is to provision public goods. Th
Provision public goods is a really nice way of saying, this is how I’m going to steal your stuff and use it the way I think it should be used
Central planning never works
MMT in short: Gov spending creates new money and taxation destroys money. Budget deficits create treasury savings. The Fed sets the interest rate of those savings. The analogy is the same with normal banking: bank credit creates bank deposits and the bank sets the rates of those deposits.
*With one major difference. Any dollars created by government you get to keep after taxes. Dollars from banks must be paid back, plus interest.*
Both MMT and the Austrians are wrong about how money is truly created, and therefore their analyses are flawed. MMT believes that "only government and its agents" create "that which the government receives as taxes" (money). The Austrians, on the other hand believe the government first creates money, which is then "leveraged-up" (increased) by commercial banks via fractional-reserve lending (the money multiplier effect). Both are wrong.
The truth is that ALL money is created out of thin air when private commercial banks issue loans without any need for reserves and deposits.
Here's how it works: first a borrower signs a promissory note, which is a promise to repay the loan PLUS INTEREST. The banks then takes this note as collateral, and simply creates new money out of thin air in their computer which is lent to the borrower. When the borrower repays the principal, this money is "extinguished," meaning it ceases to exist. But the interest collected by the banks continues to exist.
Works the same way for government. The government first issues a promise to repay a loan plus interest (bills, notes, bonds, etc.). These securities are sold at auction at the Federal Reserve. The vast majority are "bought" (monetized) by huge financial giants called "primary dealers" (aka "bond dealers").The banks take these "government securities" (promises to repay plus interest) as collateral, and give the government new money that was created in the bank's computer.
The government issues no debt-free money into circulation. The Federal Reserve corporations are privately-owned by commercial banks. The Fed corporations that create money out of thin air are not agencies of the government.
97% of all money exists only in the computers of private banks.
@Wide Hotep , nope: the mmt description is correct: a simple fact proves it: treasuries are paid
with central bank money and the creation of it is the sole monopoly of the central bank itself . So
the whole borrowing logic is completely misleading. Gov "borrowing" simply does not exist at all,
because it is actually a treasury savings operation executed by the banks and funds. Technically
it is account transfer from excess reserve accounts to treasury savings accounts. In a
fiat-system treasuries a completely unnecessary and they are only used to maintain the illusion
of gov dependency of the private bond markets. Interest payments are a voluntary transfer of
money from the state to the wealthy people and should be abolished alltogether. All afore
mentioned information can be found in any mmt material. A layman's version of mmt description
can be found in Stephanie Kelton's book "The deficit myth".
@@widehotep9257 MMT considers commercial banks to be 'agents' of the government, so your description is consistent with MMT. The weakness of MMT is an overreliance on government spending. As you correctly highlighted, 'normally' 97% of our money is created by commercial banks.
@@jarirutanen8762 The vast majority of money is created out of thin air by private banks when they issue loans. These private banks are licensed by the government, but ARE NOT agencies of the US Governments, and so therefore MMT is wrong from the start!
The treasury does not issue any debt-free money directly into circulation. The treasury gets most revenue from taxation, and deficits are funded by borrowing. The majority of borrowing happens by issuing debt instruments (bonds, notes, bills, etc.). These debt instruments are promises to repay loans PLUS interest. All of these debt securities are sold at auctions AT the Federal reserve. The vast majority are purchased by private bond dealers. The "money" being loaned to the government is created out of thin air as numbers in the computers of private banks!
Less than 10% of government securities are purchased/held by the Federal Reserve Corporations. And the FED and US Courts openly admit that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by private banks, and is NOT an agency of the US Government! So MMT is wrong again by pretending the Fed is a government agency.
US Government paid over $550 billion in interest payments in 2020 on "publicly held" debt (publicly held means held by outside of government and outside of the Federal Reserve). Again, the MMT crowd is wrong, because they wrongly state the government is not borrowing any money!
MMT? Send everyone a check for $1 million, let me know how that works out.
Geee don't worry... Their theories in practice will very soon bring those checks in millions, billions, trillions as hyperinflation kicks in 🤣🤣🤣💩
@elmartillogrande Printing dollars in the real world: It takes about $10 to buy the same goods and services that $1 purchased 50 years ago (yes, I am that old). The FED devalues their dollar by design and that takes a heavy toll on seniors living on a fixed income and everyone with a savings account. Your savings may show more dollars next year but it will purchase far less. At the moment the FED is grossly understating inflation to service interest on a corrupt set of books. Impressive system? I think not. What part do I have wrong?
I say do it
@elmartillogrande you youngsters think those in power have your best interest in mind
Thanks
As for figuring out what a government's IOU is initially worth you have to bear in mind that money is a unit of measure. As a unit of measure it represents work which is the value of effort over time. That's the point when things become relative. In you example if how many apples is an IOU worth the government has already decided that a guard's effort over time is an IOU an hour. The purveyor of an apple cart has a notion of how much effort over time it took to bring a given number of apples to market. This is the base point of exchange and where haggling starts given said purveyor of apples already knows how's many apples they are willing to give for something like a chicken. Haggling was the nature of business in the anqrchocpaitalist barter trade system they have just started to step away from and more haggling would be involved than what we are used to today.
This guy has some pretty good points 👏👏👏👏
Ya reckon? Hindsight has ALREADY shown us that the "transitory"inflation call from both Powell and Yellen was incorrect. MMT can never work due to the fact of its reliance upon the most inefficient central mechanism for its success, the state.
MMT nor the Austrians address who creates most of the money we use. Neither does Paul Krugman, Yet between 2007 to 2014 commercial banks foreclosed on 10 million homes. Where did the Commercial Banks get the resources to stay solvent and own ten million homes?
Presently we have all sorts of authority money including individual business money like vouchers. Almost Every country except the EEC and few others have State Authority money.. So it is in concept no different than any private person's own money they may care to create.
The explanation about the State having to spend first to get the money into the economy is an interesting one.
Never the less an easily questioned one since the situation was there is no existence of anything priced in the State Authority money at that time in the rest of the economy and no money can ever price itself since "price" relates to an exchange value for real goods and services.
This is consistent with the explanation of value given in the lecture.
Taxes too can never be relied on to put any value (purchasing power) into the State Authority's money and the evidence is all of the economies where despite taxes hyperinflation left the money in a condition of being worthless and even their own governments abandoned it demanding payment in another money. The evidence in the real world is when taxes go up in a country the exchange rate is adversely affected.
If MMT was correct, Rome would still be around.
Very interesting
Things are getting too expensive for people to buy
Therefore let's tax those people more so they have less money to buy things
How do they possibly make peace with this contradiction?
MMT says we shouldn't ask how can we pay for something. Lucas agrees. Some MMTers advocate for job guarantee. Here Lucas says that 1) some idle people should be there to be just available when needed. He didn't say how those people can survive when they are idle. 2) Lucas gives example of his grandmother as a form of preferred idleness. But MMTers talk about real unemployment, not about grandma type of people. So, I don't see Lucas has any strong argument against MMT.
Change value to usefulness.
Money is a measurement of usefulness to someone else, utilitarian theory or somethin
Even your Englehart IOU is measured in terms of the government created fiat currency. And MMT states clearly that the payment of taxes is what makes the currency have value. Credit is measured by currencies.
Too much focus on money as a means of exchange or claim on future resources. Value is ALWAYS a social construct. So money is a measure of value including the abstract concept of credit. The price is measured by money. Money is like the points in a sports match or inches by a builder. They are neither the match nor the structure being built. Both may have a price measured by money
You saw that around the 18 minute mark. Sectors that are not productive and competing for resources. Starts arguing the gov't create sectors, like the elder care. But there are places that do that. Its not highly paid because its not really in high demand.
I don't understand the conclusion.
seems like the talk ended short!
I don't "buy" it. Its a perspective that doesn't cover all transactions, so its not true.
Right?
What I got out of this lecture:
I am stupid!
Great lecture
right
MMT: = "It does grow on trees".
Yo anyone from the Austrian economics discord server out here??
Hell yeah
Tldr. Money printer go BRRRRRRRR
anyone that doesn't think commodities are real moneys needs to play Path of Exile
9:42
Modern Monetary Trickery
MMT Santa clause economics
Since when did it become ok to start living life and creating policies according to theories instead of facts...
Printing.
this is the same point I raised when I was debating with some MMT guy, that "you can't provide employment without having resources for those people to work upon and if you bring them resources then that will cause reduction of that resource where it was previously being used." The physical world doesn't work like fiat money. The only solution to the unemployment problem is the virtual world, where people build things and the government pays them to build in that world a minimum wage and those people just forever eat and keep working in that virtual world until they die.
That doesn't make sense. Of course you can provide employment if there is unused resources like idle labor ie unemployed people. Unemployed resources by definition are not being used.
@@henrygustav7948 where will those unemployed people work and upon which resources?
@@ChitranjanBaghiofficial in their own neighborhoods and communities. For example I was taking care of my father with Alzheimers a few years ago, a FJG could have provided me with paid employment to take care of my own father. What resources am I using? My own labor.
@@henrygustav7948 ok, so FJG would have provided service but she needs to be ideal first, and why she is ideal because there are not that many patients. even for her to provide service there has to be a need for that service.
think of like this way, if there are 100 chairs getting build and it takes 4 people, so this manufacturer require 400 people. but say there are 600 people to provide employment, well there has be wood and other materials upon which those extra 200 will work.
@@ChitranjanBaghiofficial are you saying there is no need to decentralize our food production? no need for elder and childcare? no need for neighborhood cleanup? How about safe injection sites to help people addicted to drugs? mentoring children? The fact is there is much neglect in the US and much work to do. How about socializing with seniors who have no families and friends? What resources does that use? I believe your problem is a lack of imagination. There is plenty of work to do, it is just that the majority of people like us have been conditioned to believe that important work usually has to do with a business that is making profits.
Right now there is a skills mismatch and low wage job offerings resulting in employers not being able to find workers, which causes bottlenecks in the economy. Employers like to hire people already employed because they are seen as responsible, there is a history of employment there which shows they are a good worker. A Fjg would keep the supply of labor more fluid as people shift between the public sector and for profit private sector. It keeps people employed, keeps skills intact, stabilizes peoples lives as they always have something to fall back on should they lose their private sector job.
There's another path, deflate the money in the system by destroying more than the federal bank produces. This of course means the government is forced to spend less and is forced to give power back to private interests.
So far I'm less than impressed with the Austrian School.
He has missed the Vietnam war that ended in 1975. It was taking huge amounts of resources but when it suddenly ended how did that impact?
When individual states allow bitcoins to be used to pay taxes that is NOT different from the Englehardt iou. You have NOT distinguished between household budgets and economies that can accept cigarettes and bitcoins for payments. Try paying the federal govt with cigarettes or bitcoin. If the govt accepts bitcoins for taxes its value will still be measured in fiat dollars.
Oh Henry, ya don't say.... taxes can be paid in Tally Sticks eh? ......
*plants hickory tree in yard*
Comment for traction
whisky was money in early America
In Roman times, salt was money. I believe that the word "salary" derives from salt.
This chap is the epitome of all that is broken with our system. Classic desperation
Keep these people away from ya finances
Money is not debt. Money is bitcoin. Debt is just debt.
Gold is money, everything else is credit.
I came up with Modern Libertarian Theory. You make the government who follows socialism policy but manage it well.
Something he gets wrong about the Fed jobs guarantee, it aims for people to share in resources not use up more resources, gets us to used idle labor. For example, community gardens, tool lending libraries, having the jobs in peoples own communities and neighborhoods cuts down on commutes and therefore wastes less fossil fuel resources. Fjg increases supply of real goods therefore keeping prices down not up, giving people childcare through a Fjg lowers costs of childcare not increases them, no tax increases necessary.
That's making the assumption idle labor wants to watch shitty children for miniscule wages. I wouldn't watch my own shitty kids for minimum wage. That's why I work. This also assumes a bunch of other things.
@@tricksyhobbitses1695 You are assuming that what? Idle labor doesn't want to get paid for watching kids? That imo is an even bigger assumption.
@@henrygustav7948 the worse assumption is that people would want their kids looked after by those who's only societal asset is their uselessness.
@@henrygustav7948 no, I am not making any assumptions, some may, some may not, but the hubris to think that the state will correctly allocate idle hands is central planning at its finest. Just because they are working doesn't mean they are productive. And as good as the state is at wasting resources, I bet they'd make some pretty wasteful decisions there too. There is a reason the state sucks at everything, because they have no incentives/disincentives to be better. So to expect them to know where labor resources to be allocated and where they shouldn't is naïve. The better question is, what makes you think that those people should be working? Is a job now a "yuman" right? Should I get robbed of my wages so someone can have a companion?
@@tricksyhobbitses1695 Actually you are making assumptions, you assume its the state doing the central planning its not. Its local cities and municipalities, non profit organizations. Unemployment is an actual waste of labor resources.
"but the hubris to think that the state will correctly allocate idle hands is central planning at its finest."
The hubris is in not understanding our economic system and choosing not to learn about it. The State keeps a percentage of the eligible work force unemployed on purpose in order to control inflation through policy guides like Nairu and the philips curve, models which they now say do not work. For profit private sector can never hire 100% of the workforce because they run on profits and see labor as a cost. The only entity which can hire up all the unemployed who wish to work is the federal govt. Private for profit businesses also suck at many many things, the Pandemic has revealed alot of that from shortages of masks to shortages of respirators to food lines across the US. The pandemic revealed just how weak our supply chains are, revealed the amount of wasteful unnecessary jobs that exist in the private sector. You want to talk about wasting resources? Look at the worlds richest man and his cowboy hat and dick rocket. Look at our healthcare sector where millions of people are employed as a way to deny people healthcare. If you want to talk about waste and inefficiency, don't just talk about the Federal govt only, talk about the private sector as well if you don't want to seem biased with an agenda.
"The better question is, what makes you think that those people should be working? Is a job now a "yuman" right? Should I get robbed of my wages so someone can have a companion?"
Great question, and I will answer it with another question. Why do people work for little green pieces of paper? Why do you trade your labor and goods for these otherwise worthless pieces of paper? Its because the state, ie the Federal govt which demands these pieces of paper back in payment of taxes. Taxes create unemployment, unemployment is a condition in which you are looking for work or some other means to attain what only the Federal govt can create. You try to create it and you goto jail for counterfeiting. There is no money or unemployment that exists in nature, dogs don't run around looking for work. This is how a Govt provisions itself with labor and goods from the private sector, by taxing us in money that only it can create bringing private resources into public use. This is how we have a military, dept of education, a justice system, markets and networks of people who buy/sell goods to earn dollars. Also how on earth is anyone robbing your wages? If anything your wages will go UP with a Federal jobs guarantee because it provides people who previously had no income, WITH INCOME. Guess what? Those people with income buy stuff, and ones spending is another's income. If you have alot of people spending more guess what? YOU get more income. Do you understand how an economy works? You get MORE in wages, you don't get robbed OF your wages.
U go to college and end in debt just to get those free information on RUclips
MMT is the governmental devaluation of the time and effort of the worker similar to Louis XVI devaluation of the Franc.
When fiat money was tied to gold, that was ended during wars. And its value was measured by a fiat currency.
This is complex only because we want to represent currency as money. Currency is a medium of economic exchange but may not be money. Money is a medium of exchange AND a store of value. Anything that can be inflated can not, by definition, be money.
@@CB-vt3mx That is debatable. Exchange rates belie that comment.
If that is meant as some sort of argument against gold being money, then that's obviously a question-begging argument.
If I understand right MMT considers money debt to the state? F that!!!
How?
so the dude lists all problems of money and basically spends 30min building the case for bitcoin and doesn't mention it instead he looks for answers in his ancient book
I'm confused, he defines mmt as applying to the US dollar and some other sovereign currencies, and then tries to disprove it using commodity trading like cigarette as money. Wouldn't mmt'ers just say that it doesnt apply to those markets?
The Weimar Republic mean anything to anyone?
If MMT works then there’s no need for taxation.
digital money aka Bitcoin
Lucas should publish in better journals to be more credible
I feel like using taxes as a policy tool instead of a revenue raising tool is too clever by half. Taxes should be raised to meet gov't expenses, and if there is some left over at the end of the period it should be dispersed back to the tax payers, and perhaps then revised so that less unnecessary revenue is collected in the future. But what do I know, I'm just some asshole in the youtube comments.
@ 41:35 is the mask off moment. "Yes, Marx was right in Chapter 25, Section 3. Capitalism both produces and requires a reserve industrial army of disposable, immiserated, and desperate surplus workers -- a 'mass of human material always ready for exploitation.' "
Kind of funny to hear somebody quoting Marx talking about capitalism producing disposable, miserable, and desperate workers. Are you going to completely ignore the spectacular failure of Marxism in the 20th century, producing immense suffering, misery, and death among the masses?
@@chrimony well in all fairness rfweber didn’t say capitalism was worse than communism. Just that Marx was right. Clearly Marx’s solution was wrong.
In general, the only workers I've found to be immiserated and desperate were the lazy ones who constantly complain and can't keep a job. Exploitation in a capitalist system is a nonsensical term. Only slaves are exploited.
the most miserable people in the USA are jobless losers that still live in mommy's basement. The next more miserable are those that chose to screw off for their entire educational years and get stuck - at best- working at walmart. The "exploited" are those that were too lazy and too stupid to do anything about it. they're ants by choice.
I mean the last comment on MMT being socialism is just such a cheap shot. they might suggest raising taxies but they did not say for firms or consumers. he did start with calling out mainstream econ attack them on a strew man, well, he end up doing one himself
He didnt say that mmt is socialism. He said that the mmt response to rising prices is to raise taxes. That could result in the private sector failing to compete with the state for resources. This in turn can lead to the state stepping in, which leads to a more centrally planned economy = socialism.
@@thelizardking3036 there u go, socialism labeling. he literally said it on tape.
@@liyexiang666 He didn’t label mmt as socialism. He said implementing it could lead to socialism a couple steps down the road.
@@thelizardking3036 ....u tell everyone these guys r not jerks, but what they suggest to do is a jerk move. question: are those guys jerks by that account? is the person who issue that statement saying they r jerks in another way?----of course!
@@thelizardking3036 in fact, he did not even tell people mmt r not jerks. he just tell them they suggest a jerk move which is what jerk would do
ok sure. so im gonna take financial advice from a guy with a shitty van who can’t even garden?? yea right, josé
You need more than financial advice because you mistake financial advice for advice on the operation of economies of the world.
A failure of the Austrians/Mises people is their reliance on oversimplified examples to illustrate their concepts. How do we argue against MMT when the world doesn’t have a hypothetical Soldier-IOU-Apple economy? It doesn’t matter if you or I don’t like planned economies, the question is does it work? Is it sustainable? If not then why? If I say to an average voter that I want a market economy instead, how do I convince them that it is better than MMT and that an Austrian system will lead to more prosperity?
"The Deficit Myth" does not mean deficits are a myth, it means there are myths surrounding what a deficit means.
Then the title is still a bad one. 'The myths of Deficits' see how that's a better one for your excuse.
@@Cpruett In that case, perhaps we should rename films such as The Identify of Bourne, The Experiment of Philadelphia, The Prophecy of Celastine ;-)
right
you have something on your chin......? if you need your notes that bad, its not that good of theory
Right…
Not an argument :)
@@jacywilson right
@@ouss once you hear it, it’s all I hear
@@Whodidthis12345 I know right
@@jacywilson You are in fact in the “comments” section
1 hour to say basically nothing. Everyday people aren't fooled by hollow economic jargon.
Adolf hair style is not an accident...
It's the expression of the sub/unconscious...
Same 💩 in different package
Peter Schiff would own Lucas.
MMT = Punish people who Save for a rainy day . Reward Gamblers .
Nice try Lucus, I see from comparing this class to the one you gave two years, that you took some time to actually read up on MMT. The last class was so wrong about it that it was laughable. A general criticism of this class is that it was not much better than banter. You attempt to describe MMT principles fairly accurately and actually agree with much of it. But then you spend far too much time talking about the history of money, which beyond its general interest to people is irrelevant to our current fiat system. I understand that because this is what you were taught to do by long-deceased macroeconomists. That is always a concentration with people trying to appeal to a view of history that might suit their argument, but for the most part even on that subject, you offered little argument. It is difficult to disprove the tenets of MMT because all it is is an explanation of what actually takes place in those sovereign countries that you noted. Here are a few areas you did get wrong. Your explanation of Weimar and Zimbabwe's hyper-inflation was inaccurate, particularly Zimbabwe's. But even more egregious, was your attempt to explain stagflation without ever mentioning the OPEC oil embargo. Then you finish with the piece-de-resistance in ignorant criticism by saying that the MMT answer to the threat of inflation was increasing taxes. That my friend is not true. The whole idea of a guaranteed jobs program is to fill the gaps in employment. It specifically says that the government should provide jobs to anyone who wants to work, it says nothing about your 90-year-old grandma. The program would grow and contract with the economy at a given time. So the real answer to the question of what would an MMTer do when the economy heats up is cut government spending. And finally to suggest that MMT will lead us to socialism is also a ridiculous statement that Austrians have been using since FDR. I think MMT is an outgrowth of Keynesian economics because it favors fiscal over monetary policy to control the business cycle. The difference is that with MMT, the business cycle as we have come to define it would be obsolete.
A guy, who met a guy, who read a book.... Mises institute should not get so so third grade institute..
It is a shame that you can NOT afford any of the quoted outhors..... rather you have subsitutes, third grade subsitutes..
This guy fails to distinguish MONEY and CURRENCY...for example..