Murphy and Newman Do a Postgame Analysis of ZeroHedge MMT Debate

[@MengerMania]

Remember Bastiat and the broken window. For an investor to buy a government bond, they must not buy any other asset. Stephanie Kelton has hidden the redistributive damage of government "spending" behind this accounting subterfuge. MMT falls apart on the basis of these facts: 1) Subjective Value -- government cannot calculate. 2) Money acts as a medium of INDIRECT exchange. Changing the quantity distorts prices and causes misallocation of resources. (See 1) 3) Government does not issue "money." It charters "money" issuers i.e. banks. Please stop discussing and debating MMT as if it were a legitimate theory. Science gave up alchemy centuries ago. MMT amounts to economic alchemy.

[@sebastianchmielewski6281]

@@MengerMania Marx’s and Engels worshippers like this theory

[@reaganlecroy7773]

When MMT supports current policy agendas, it needs to be discredited in the public forum.

[@MengerMania]

@@reaganlecroy7773 That's not what I meant.

[@edwardx.winston5744]

The MMTer’s commitment re: the benefits of central planning was startlingly naive and unsettling. Why does this current generation love big government with such breathless devotion?

[@stanleyshannon4408]

Current generation? I grew up in the 50s and 60s when saying anything negative about FDR could earn you a hard slap from your greatest generation dad.

[@ye333]

Life has been too comfortable and responsibilities have been taken away from their shoulders one by one. When you live like a child, you accept there is a parent and hope for the parent to be capable.

[@Richard-ki4nkgm]

Because we have been living in a system of massive control and gov intervention for over 100 years, much of the systems of further intervention, such as MMT, have the huge advantage seeming to be beneficial and successful.....that is to the uninformed. It doesn't seem to work to implement a single free market policy while it's being sabotaged and surrounded by intervention elsewhere.

[@edwardx.winston5744]

@ fair point.

[@SuperBoyboys]

I'm 22, I can say not everyone in my age range is so unthinkingly faithful in govt. 🙏

[@zastorlexa9800]

Great discussion. Always enjoy Bob and Jonathan discussing MMT. It would be interesting to see both of you debating Stephanie & Warren in a video. Thank you for posting.

[@snex000]

The first clip is 2 minutes long and I can't figure out what the guy is even trying to say.

[@ancapine]

i thought it was just me

[@johnrako]

I’m not an economist. So correct me if I misunderstand. How are the advocates for MMT any different than the butcher who calibrates his scale to read 16 oz for a 10 oz steak? They are not. Like the butcher, IMO, the MMT advocate belongs in prison. As Friedman said, how can you expect to increase goods and services by printing little pieces of paper. A ship crashes on a desert island and the castaways decide they can feed, clothe and shelter themselves by forming a government and creating a fiat currency. Sorry. I’ll take my chances with the high school dropout who knows how to find water and snare animals

[@sebastianchmielewski6281]

They promise to give you something valuable (public services) or at least not shooting at you if you use this printed money and not seashells or bitcoins

[@cas343]

>I have paint, you have a fence you need painted. >You have an oven and flour, I need some bread. >Option A) Just print some money so you can trade. >Option B) No sorry go fish. Just sit around forever. Libertarians choose Option B.

[@Zevzs727]

​@@cas343 You missed the mark hard. There already is a medium through which you can conduct trade and in your example barter would suffice. There are 0 libertarians that are opposed to trade what are you even saying? To transform your scenario so it's relevant Lets say last month you where trading 2 bread pieces to get your fence painted this month because of some circumstance you are willing to only give a single bread or the painter demands 3 witch effectively is the same. Option A give create an artificial fake extra bread that's written on piece of paper and use that Option B don't engage in the trade as none of the belligerents find it beneficial Libertarians choose Option B.

[@cas343]

@Zevzs727 Austrians don't acknowledge that it's possible for there to be a shortage of money that could prevent economic activity from taking place in the real world. I intentionally left barter out and that's why you immediately changed the example lol.

[@sebastianchmielewski6281]

@ shortage of money is impossible, price now is 1 cent, tomorrow 0,5 cent, next day 0,01 cent etc.

[@RichardCypher1971]

Section II of The Use of Knowledge in Society seems like the perfect thing to respond with when he tries to say we are both doing "central planning" by designing economic policy. Also, my off the cuff thought was that he was pretending that differences in degree of central planning were tantamount to a difference in kind which is how he can claim he's not advocating for Soviet style planning. But of course as Hayek puts it, "The answer to this question is closely connected with that other question which arises here, that of who is to do the planning. It is about this question that all the dispute about “economic planning” centers. This is not a dispute about whether planning is to be done or not. It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally, by one authority for the whole economic system, or is to be divided among many individuals."

[@lucassantanna7792]

I tried paying attention to Nathan responses, but he mumbles so much and speaks so unclearly that I just shut off. I wondered if the topic was off my league of economic understanding, but when Bob responded I understood all the sentences. I guess when your theory is based on paper thin fallacies, incoherent barely-understandable speech is a good resource rhetoric resource to confuse the opposition.

[@themainsourceofpain2189]

Look, we long ago passed the point where there was anything to be gained by debating these people(the MMTers and other various statists). The Mises Institute and the Lew Rockwell crowd and Tom Woods and Jeff Deist and the fine gentleman in this video…you’ve all done a fabulous job of explaining how economics works and making the case for freedom and free markets and sound money. The information is out there and readily available to all those inclined to seek it. Engaging these people intellectually is a waste of time, because they’re not interested in seeking the truth. They are just trying to justify their institutional power and influence post hoc. Look at the people you debated. It’s obvious that they subscribe to MMT for purely ideological reasons. Even if they understand that it will negatively affect them in the long run, they don’t care. They know it will destroy everything good, as well. And they would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. We know what’s right. Let’s embrace it…and forget these people.

[@Richard-ki4nkgm]

Because we have been living in a system of massive control and gov intervention for over 100 years, much of the systems of further intervention, such as MMT, have the huge advantage seeming to be beneficial and successful.....that is to the uninformed. It doesn't seem to work to implement a single free market policy while it's being sabotaged and surrounded by intervention elsewhere.

[@ye333]

Whats modern in mmt is the particular type of hubris.

[@tomaspecl1082]

Isn't expansionist austerity something similar to what is happening in Argentina?

[@nobodyhere7]

Could someone please explain to a slow witted country boy how this debate changes if the US dollar loses its global reserve currency status??

[@Wonderwall627]

The biggest change is the force of MMTers will be more by direct force than global pressure.

[@bodhisattvaFM]

20:00 You're still tripping on MMT's neutral deficit accounting and this description marginalizes them to household budget scolds. The "households" in question are corporations, banks, state governments and any entity that has monies legislated directly to it by the federal government. The accounting here is that federal "loss" is gain to states and private entities, 1 to 1. Whether any of that gets to workers or households is a matter of policy beyond MMT currency view. Okay, MMT is an anti-austerity movement that grew up around a very promising but incomplete economic theory. They're not economists, and to the extent they are they're the economists of an economy that does not yet exist - the one that's eliminated all financially induced economic scarcity from the planet. So you can only push them in debate so hard. The challenge is not to project old crticisms of Marx and Keynes and really listen to them so MMT can be interpreted in a way that includes more freedom and rigor in the mix. MMT should be patiently interpreted not scapegoated for not explaining the old industrial economy. Besides, why is it hubris to calculate an economy's true inflationary resistance and why is utterly refusing to do so the only thing Austrians and MMTet's absolutely agree on? 😂

[@oColt45o]

You are talking around the point here, bud. Economists of an economy that doesn't exist? What are you even talking about? The economy these rubes (MMTers) are looking to run is a technocratic one, one that should be resisted at every step. That economy only exists with fiat funny money printing. This shouldn't be hard to grasp.

[@oColt45o]

Explain how a household budget should be ran differently than a corporate one... pretty sure debt and ability to pay debts are the same in both cases.

[@cas343]

​@@oColt45oGovernments can create money.

[@Richard-ki4nkgm]

Because we have been living in a system of massive control and gov intervention for over 100 years, much of the systems of further intervention, such as MMT, have the huge advantage seeming to be beneficial and successful.....that is to the uninformed. It doesn't seem to work to implement a single free market policy while it's being sabotaged and surrounded by intervention elsewhere.

[@oColt45o]

@@cas343 Yeah but thats the whole problem hear bucko.