Warren Mosler: What Modern Monetary Theory Tells Us About Economic Policy

Welcome to our new video series called "New Economic Thinking." The series will feature dozens of conversations with leading economists on the most important issues facing economics and the global economy today.
This episode features Warren Mosler, president of the financial services firm Valance Company and one of the founders of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), speaking about what MMT tells us about economic policy. He explains not only what policy makers can do but also what they should do in the current economic environment. How can MMT help get the economy back on track? Watch the interview to find out!

[@robertomartinez7268]

Excellent talk full of insights! Thank you!

[@bms-xs5zp]

An excellent video. Mosler makes good points around how focussing on reducing the public deficit and the public debt is misguided. as government can spend without such limits, if it really wishes to. The real question to my mind is - what the government then chooses to spend on, and what the government chooses to invest in. What has happened of course is that powerful industry lobbyists has pushed government spending on big corporations, the richest 1% in society, and mal-investment in grandiose schemes and wars.

[@GenghisVern]

Historically in the US, we've been under a monetarist "supply-side" regime for half a century. Massive deficits were incurred under GOP presidencies from Reagan onward, followed by periods of austerity (deficit reduction) under DP presidencies. Supply-side deficits are achieved by tax cuts for the rich, direct subsidies to the financial sector, and a general policy of privatization. FDR through JFK, even Eisenhower, they understood the need for federal deficits, and to direct them toward "public purpose". That's all changed since the "Reagan revolution", and wage-productivity has flatlined ever since.

[@jamesbuchanan3888]

IMO concerns about deficits are not misguided. Inflation has Cantillon effects which punish savers. Savings are a cushion against the unforseen problems of the future. Cantillon effects reward those who spend NOW because they spend before the inflationary effects have eroded purchasing power. This shifts resources from conservative savers into profligate spenders. Why is this a good thing? Someone try to answer this question. Also - Can anyone point to a time when deficit spending was not used in a way that benefitted an already wealthy class of people? Sure some programs had great propaganda, but who got wealthy from them?

[@saturngenesis1306]

@@GenghisVern He 'understood the need' for, well, Hamiltonian programs to cushion industrial cartels with long planning horizons, vulnerable to vagrancy & chronic 'underconsumption.' Their excess output is shattered to pieces, poured into the stratosphere, sinked in the depths of the sea. Yet we're outwitted into believing the opaque bullshit of the state that casts 'corporate welfare' as public-spirited populism, a kind of impetus for positive change. A tumefied national government with a gluttonous appetite for 'public purposes' is a serviceable tool for, ahem, you know who: cronies robbing wealth for institutional parasites, ensconced in seats of power, regularly cozen the public out of billions & 'investing' from the virtual cloth of spending what they routinely don't earn.

[@saturngenesis1306]

@@jamesbuchanan3888 Precisely so. The corporate media brume around the Fed is so thick & opaque that its self-serving functions remain largely shrouded. It all sounds innocuous enough, but it's a veiled tax diluting the money in your wallet, relieving their books of the debt that only an institution financed by brazen theft would buy. Not to mention, it's never for poor, laboring beggars that 'public servants' sought to swell the state. Notwithstanding the tough talk for the hapless wage earners, 'deficit-spending' is a relentless parade of labor-harnessing pretenses that defraud a society of wealth. Although some stand to benefit considerably from the racket, the windfalls of the proposal will never reach the workers identified with such empathy in their eloquent orations. On balance the cronies will reap the windfall of our contemporary patronage.

[@GenghisVern]

@@saturngenesis1306 The shift from demand to supply side is what changed back in the 60s. It never trickles down. Austrian economics needs to be confronted. My 3-point fiscal policy is (1) to raise standard deduction to 100k, (2) to replace consumption taxes through federal grants to state/local budgets, and (3) to lift the burden of health insurance, pensions and education from the private sector. This would greatly improve our market economy. Republicans, from Lincoln to Eisenhower, had their problems with corruption in both private and public institutions. However, the private sector has largely produced and distributed the vast majority of goods and services that satisfy our needs and wants in a relatively free market. This is not "socialism". The above recommendation is a demand-side alternative to monetarism.

[@Kevin-fn1rn]

worked super well for Zimbabwe and weimar germany!

[@withoutlimits16]

Bruh this guy is 68...looks like he's 40

[@sigmachad96]

One of the things I love about MMT is that actually it's blissfully simple and easy to understand. It's not intuitive, but it's simple once you understand it. The reason economics seems so dense and complicated appears to me to be because it's essentially corrupted by misinformation due to its intensely political nature. Take QE as an example of something that's so complex it's virtually impossible for most people to understand; coincidentally, it's totally ineffective. Basic MMT could be taught in high schools.

[@joebhed1]

+Nicki Minaj As Ignorance is Bliss, So, MMT is Blissfully Simple indeed. Not intuitive, indeed. Today, deeply in NEED of a Mid-Course correction, so that all the good people who actually believe this stuff will someday have someplace to come home to. The NEED Act. www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

[@SquatFull]

It appears you are a victim of your own comment . MMT is a fractional reserve monetary system in which the federal executive and congressional branches have control of the central bank. Nothing more.

[@zackeryzackery9381]

Theo, MMT is garbage. It doesn't build on basic economic fundamentals.

[@SquatFull]

@@zackeryzackery9381 MMT is based on the misapplication of basic economic equations. Ask a MMT supporter if taxes do not pay for government expenditures, then if there is no inflation there is no need for income taxes.

[@zackeryzackery9381]

No it should not be taught in schools because it is garbage. The idea that debt doesn't matter and that governments can print endless money is typical fairlyland leftist garbage. We should move back to a gold standard. The fiat currency situation we are in now put us in the position we are in now, trillions of dollars in debt. We are not far off from having to pay the piper for our excesses.

[@MattJunior10]

MMT is the future of macroeconomics. I used to subscribe to neo-classical economics when it came to macro, but now it is so clear to me that this is an outdated way of thinking. I have been a member of a conservative political party since I was 15, so my journey with MMT has definitely been a struggle. What we need to convince people of is that believing in MMT doesn't make you left/right wing, it is simply macroeconomic reality. What makes someone left/right wing is how they think government should use its fiscal power, i.e. its spending decisions. This is essentially where I am with MMT.

[@NathanRyanAllen]

paulcmnt left wing approach... except every Presidential admin, GOP or Democrat, spends spends spends out the wazoo

[@alanhehe4508]

Yes, including the word "theory " in it was a mistake, imo, as in its essence, MMT is just an explanation of how a fiat currency gets its value from the tax liability. Only its possible applications are theoretical. And that's what most critics attack, it's possible applications, not the explanation in itself.

[@eighteenin78]

Interesting. I never thought about it that way,

[@joefirestonephd]

Secondly, he's explained many times how interest on the debt can be driven down to as close to zero as we desire. Third, the original discussions on Platinum Coin Seigniorage occurred in comment threads at his site. And one of the most important discussion threads on the subject also occurred there with Warren asserting that PCS would work in lieu of debt issuance if the Government wanted to use it.

[@DuderScooter]

Watching this interview to infer what he’ll likely think once the economy crashes again after practicing his theories over and over again.

[@lukejolley8354]

How do you get these ideas out? Keep putting them up on KZbin so that voters know

[@etbadaboum]

Fascinating. What does MMT say about international currency management and free trade?

[@IanPunter]

and the petrodollar?

[@IanPunter]

and what about the insanely reckless financial engineering of deriveatives involving hundreds of TRILLIONS that blew up in 2008?

[@DavidByrne85]

Hi Wilhelm, would you mind you expanding on this a little please? This sounds in line with what Mosler claims (that taxes can only be paid out CB held reserves which can ultimately only come from govt) but I've never gotten to the meaning of the claim and how it fits with endogenous money. CB reserves can't be put aside from endogenously created deposits? Any articles/vids explaining the mechanics of this would be gleefully received.

[@vedigregorian4382]

Absolutely Keynes

[@gg_rider]

clarification of "they" @4:45, when *US Treasury* spends, as per budget of Congress and spending bills, or automated programs established by Congress, or Defense Dept or other dept based on allocations by Congress, then the Fed marks up accounts. Fed alone cannot mark up private accounts, except upon orders from Treasury & Congress. Fed can't just "pour" money into the private sector. Fed can't "force" banks to lend, or "push" lending via reserves. Treasury alone can write checks or order payments, but Treasury doesn't mark up checking accounts. Adding sums to private sector bank accounts is the Fed's job --- back room ops on banks' reserve accounts).

[@swordscythe]

Love how there's a copy of Debunking Economics behind the interviewer in the bookshelf :D @ProfSteveKeen

[@Achrononmaster]

Government job guarantee is spot on. It is almost criminal for a government to allow any unemployment, not only criminal but incredibly wasteful. But having a "buffer stock" of labour ready for the private sector to hire is all well and good, until you take into account capitalist enterprises ruthlessly exploit labour. So what Mosler's policy needs to become truly ethical is worker cooperatives, where productivity surplus is shared, not hoarded by the very few wealthy capitalists who are themselves performing no useful work.

[@WilhelmDrake]

Robert Mews "It matters when one sector of an any organisation has the ability to increase spending when others do not results in power transfer from that sector to the otehr but not necessarily any greater wealth creation". How is this a refutation of the MMT description?

[@richardmillar2412]

It's not a refutation, but another Strawman that this idiot Rob is constructing!!

[@WilhelmDrake]

Robert Mews "It matters when one sector of an any organisation has the ability to increase spending when others do not results in power transfer from that sector to the otehr but not necessarily any greater wealth creation". Spending in what?

[@evelknee]

Where does the initial dollar come from? Who coined it, who sets the value of that dollar? The government must make the dollar first and spend it before it can take any of it back in taxes. The government has a monopoly on our money, and is the only source of it.

[@freedomwatch3991]

The government doesn't do anything. Federal reserve does that.

[@timothydakyel7341]

A q 03

[@unbrnwsh]

Mosler makes so much sense. If governments listen to him we can eliminate Greek, Porto Rico and other national crises and bring hope and livable conditions to working and retired people. It is a pity that governments listen only to orthodox economists that had brought poverty and inequality to this world. Hope someone would tell Mosler to speak bit louder. We can hear the host well but can hardly hear Mosler.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

+Andrew Weeraratne You have to be joking. If Mosler's ideas were implemented then government politicians would take no responsibility for any blow outs in spending. Their spending is not the spending people decide. It is purely their response to what they think will get them re elected. That is almost never an accurate reflection of what is needed and what people's choices could be if they had the ability to make choices ona range of things. They only get one choice in a three year period to have a choice by voting for their representative. Not individual choices in arrange of products to suit their needs. Why can't you understand that government's pending is politician's spending and they have no idea what to put the money into that will produce growth. Why can't you see that the MMT idea is that government spends the newly printed money and it competes against money people have to earn by doing useful work . The whole MMT idea is based on ignorant people believing that only government creates wealth by printing money which is clearly absurd and totally irrational since it is useful work that puts value into a currency not a printing press or a computer keyboard stroke in a ledger like they say it is. Ask yourself - Does anything you own or buy or have had result from a person in government putting unmbers into a ledger? Does you food come from a ledger number? Does your car come from it? Does your fuel come from it? Does your footwear or clothing come from it? Does your medical attention come from a currency stroke on a keyboard? What about that bridge you crossed, or that home you live in? No it doesn't. They all come from someone doing useful skilled work. MMT ignores this purely to deceive people. All MMT is about is transferring wealth from people to politicians and having more power for politicians. They even lie about the scenario that government needs to spend money into the economy. It doesn't since it could just give the newly printed money to the taxpayers if it wanted to. But they don't say this because it would transfer power back to the people where it should belong. .

[@unbrnwsh]

Rob Mews Keynes must have been one of the smartest persons lived on earth and with his ability to empathize with the suffering of working people he came up with a simple commonsense way to eliminate poverty and empower the working people. Unfortunately the rightwing economists who work for the .01% did not allow Keynesian to be implemented. Mosler and his Modern Monitory Theory (MMT) guys have perfected some weaknesses of Keynes. Thus if the governments implemented MMT economic theory we finally may be able to eliminate poverty, at least the poverty among the working population. All you got to do is to listen to their You Tube Videos and read the books they have written to understand this. You cannot hear them on our Corporate Media since the .01% that own the media wish to keep the population confused with slogans. An ignorant population is the only hope they have to keep the scam they are running going on forever. Just because there is enough money to address all our problems the system should not allow the politicians to spend on their pet projects (in fact that is what they are doing under our current system). That is a ridiculous argument. The system has to have control as to how the money is spent. Government has to spend money to create jobs. Mosler suggests that the government employs all unemployed people willing to work for a livable wage until they find suitable employment. That would eliminate most of the welfare and unemployment benefits. Also this working population will create so much demand for goods and services it would have an amazing multiplier effect. The money created by the government should not be handed out (as it is now being done by the FED to the bankers or by the Treasury as corporate welfare) but use it to create employment. In fact FDR used the government to create employment to get us out of the depression the rightwing economists gave us. Our services and goods don’t come from numbers put on a ledger but by people providing services and the government could pay these people to do such work when the corporate sector does not step up to the plate due to many convenient reasons I don’t have the time to go into at this time. MMT is not about transferring wealth, it is about creating wealth in the hands of working population as of now have no chance of creating wealth for themselves.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

+Andrew Weeraratne The fact that Keynes assumed money was something that is actually worth something does not not make him smart at all. It makes him rather silly. His basic assumption on macro economics is based on money having an intrinsic value which it doesn't as well as many other poorly thought out asumptions which are simply false. His theory was dramatically disproved by what happened after WW2 when just prior to the end of WW2 the USA which had been operating on a massive deficit then changed their budget to reduce government spending to nearly half and despite the predictions of Keynsinas that the economy would tank it actually boomed with a drastic reduction in unemployment and rising growth. That alone should have given a strong signal to any economists who had been pushing the Keynsian theory. They should have realised something was drastically wrong with Keynsian economics and started looking for what was wrong with his assumptions. Some did and they advanced their understanding but many didn't and still keep pushing Keynes's theory. You say that Government has to spend to create jobs, but the evidence is otherwise since the history itself strongly indicates this is not true. There is no accurate or more efficient relationship between government spending and creating effective jobs. In fact the oposite is likely to be the case. How does a politician know what people want and are willing to decide between when choosing one thing over another to fit their needs. They don't and the history of them getting things wrong is well known. True that government can create jobs but that is no panacea for what an efficient economy needs. The jobs they create may be in supplying goods and services that do not fit what people want or need. This is very evident in those economies in which politicians have a large influence over allocation of spending and create a power down structure to allocate resources. This results ina very inaccurate way of doing things. A great illustration of this in the 20th century was the USSR where there were massive shortages and surpluses and governments set prices for all goods and services. It all resulted in huge waste and manufacture of poor quality goods for their own economy and a very small export industry simply because the quality of their produce was mostly low and their prices way above what the western world could offer. Few people bough goods from the USSR simply for these reasons. You just have to ask yourself a few questions before embarking on an assumption that governments (run by politicians) somehow know what people need and what is the correct or accurate allocation of resources in any economy. How does a politician know what people need or want or what choice is best for a whole range of people with different needs? They can't possibly know even if they actually care to. The people only have a single choice in every 3 years or so to allocate their preferences by voting the politicians in or out! Your dream about eliminating poverty by government creating more money and spending it to compete with other people's money is one of the central dreams of the Marxist idea that someone in a government somehow has a brilliant knowledge and will which can overcome the central problem of wealth creation. It is a belief that this 'someone' or group or people automatically knows how to allocate e resources in an economy to overcome the problem of scarcity . No such group existed or exists. Your belief that FDR got the economy out of depression is Totally incorrect - Just look at what happened when the centralist policies of FDR and the previous president were put in place. Unemployment rose when it had been falling the previous year. It rose to nearly 20% and then dipped a little then rose again to double digit figures. Then only the fact that over 13 million of the able bodied workforce was drafted and a shortage was thus created did the unemployment figures go substantially down. Things virtually stayed that way a until 1945 or after. In the meantime the wealth of the average person in the USA dropped. You say 'Our services and goods don’t come from numbers put on a ledger but by people providing services and the government could pay these people to do such work when the corporate sector does not step up to the plate due to many convenient reasons I don’t have the time to go into at this time. MMT is not about transferring wealth, it is about creating wealth in the hands of working population as of now have no chance of creating wealth for themselves.' The assumption that government 'creates wealth' by knowing firstly what people want is just not correct and has led to many misappropriations of resorces. Your numbers put on a leger ois about accountability and it appears from waht you say that this is the very thing you are not addressing dspite saying that government should address needs. How would government account for goods and allocate them without controls of a ledger or similarr? By voodoo?

[@unbrnwsh]

Rob Mews I appreciate your time taken to write that and your convictions. You really should look at the facts you have started before blindly believing them. Keynes is not what you would like to believe and so easily dismiss. Read some books on his theory, his writing with an open mind and you will see. It makes no sense for me to try to convince you that. The mistake FDR made at the early stage was not making enough government spending. He was trying to balance the budget in his early days. The depression was cured due to the war-expenditure and the effect would have been the same if it was peace time expenditure. What Soviet Union had was a dictatorship. Not the sort of government MMT or Keynes advocated. Not even a society Marx advocated. What we want is true free enterprise system with no welfare for anyone, especially for those most powerful and super greedy guys who intimidate everyone to have an unfair advantage and use governments to get billions in welfare for themselves as it is today in the USA. We want government to spend money to provide employment (note: with livable wages--not Walmart wages) not as the first option but only as a last resort. That would eliminate having to give welfare, unemployment benefit and then create the multiplier effect to get the production going. That does not have to be a permanent thing but only till we reach full employment levels. They should not be operated by politicians but by civil servants. Politicians should not be even allowed in those offices. The government should provide the opportunity for small businessmen to start businesses and provide guidance as to how to do that right. Our SEC (created by FDR) for that matter is doing a great job. We need more such organizations working with people to increase that activity. Throughout history a small percentage of people have lived ultra luxury lives while the majority have been living in poverty. There is no need for that anymore since we have the answers as to how to solve it through economic policies. This is what MMT advocate. You should take the time to read the books MMT guys have written. I read some of them and even have spoken with politicians of various nations as to how and why they should implement MMT theory. I hope they would. I feel that is the most simple solution. I hope we can try this with one nation and show the results to the world.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

+Andrew Weeraratne I disagree that the war ended the depression. A depression is a real fall in the standard of living compared with what had occurred before. The facts are that the depression continued throughout the war. The belief that it didn't may lie in the figures which show some nominal increase in earnings overall but that makes no sense when the inflation effect is taken into consideration. The buying capacity of people in WW2 was very low on a real value basis. Part of this was the drop in available goods and services due to the effort put in to support military activity. Many US military personnel had little opportunity to purchase goods and services if they were in combat areas or support in the Pacific or Europe. That accounts for a lot of money that simply was not spent by them and much of this was supporting the economy back home. The other aspect was the US had a big windfall from the opening of markets and the injection of billions of dollars of foreign currency and assets from the allies in Europe on a lend lease basis. Added to this was the huge dedt burden of the war which had produced a lot of destruction which in no way puts value into the rest of the economy but sucks real resources from it and destroys them. The Vietnam war did the same and caused the government to try to hide the cost by running deficit budgets. These were aided by Nixon's drop of the gold standard to fund it through other than disclosing the cost which would have needed a very politically unpopular tax increase. That is purely why he could deficit budget and hide the cost. The gold standard prohibited him from doing so. If the US had managed to avoid the European conflict and the Pacific it would have been immensely better off in financial terms. As would the general population which would have mised most of the burden of ectra workload particularly the women who bore a lot of the effort of having work and home duties as well. The effect allowed US companies to obtain footholds in Europe after the war which they otherwise would have been excluded from or had previously found difficult to get established in. The added effect is a huge number of women were employed in the work force to perform jobs the missing men had previously done. The lifestyle was impacted by this imposition of work which had previously not existed. Little or no account is taken in the figures of GDP of this huge contribution since it had previously not existed. Like comparison of the economic situation before and after the war is very skewed when the figures are distorted by neglect of this. You say politicians should not be allowed into the offices of public servants but public servants don't know waht values to put on things. they are driven by politically imposed laws which they are obliged to follow. They have no other option since their portfolio obliges them to do so whether they like it or not . You must realise tat the asserted belief of Mosler that tax revenues are automatically destroyed when they are collected is pure fallacy. They are not since they form part of the remuneration paid by government to fund projects and government employees' salaries. They are the largest part by far. No such nonsense destruction takes place. If it were so then the deficit in the budget would be the total of expenditure. It is nowhere near that. . I agree that Marx had never envisaged what would happen to his idealist society of equality portrayed by him in his writings but that only illustrates the folly of it all. It really is a fairy story based on ignorance of the human condition. It also is a warning to others not to follow such a path given the hindsight of this. Keynes beliefs are likewise based on ignorance and a lot of arrogance. That arrogance shines through in his foolish belief in genetic superiority which any informed person even in his day would have to have severe doubts about if they had read a little history. Of course Keynes was in his belief a member of the superior race. Keynes beliefs are very much based on one sided view of accounting and finance. He argues essentially from the perspective of credit accumulator or manufacturer. This is because he sees credit without the balance of debits. He is not alone in this by any means. MMT is essentially the same. It cannot address debits since it is all one sided when it mentions money. If one addresses the ideas from a debits side or financial balance then the whole theory disintegrates into an authoritarian regime pushing political power rather than creativity and sound business or accountability to the public.. . It is what Mosler admitted is monopolistic ' force' rather than anything else. Ironic since he decries anyone having a monopoly and points out the negative aspect of it except for politicians. MMT is just what dictatorial politicians want like what they wanted with Marxism which fooled a lot of people for a long enough time to allow the communist dictators to take over. !! There will be no free enterprise with an all power or more powerful government running things. That belief flies in the face of what Mosler is advocating. He is for more government power based on more force not freedom of choice but huge monoploy power by politicians. This is all done without realising that credit is only really a debit from another perspective. That understanding is totally missing from his view of economics.

[@genecat]

23:45 MMT is probably more understandable to younger students perhaps as early as 2nd or 3rd-grade elementary school (before the wrong ideas of money have a chance) and once ingrained, further applications of government spending and taxes could easily start as early as the 4th or 5th grades. Government taxation (coercion) is not unlike parental authority and monetary operations are a natural analog to games with scorekeeping. Kids would soak this stuff up effortlessly.

[@genecat]

@Brady Fox taxes are not voluntary.

[@jakenicholaides3214]

Pay up or be punished. Coercion.

[@georgeemil3618]

I have finished reading Stephanie Kelton's book, the Deficit Myth. I have not finished watching this video as I write the question, how would our country's financial and economic situation be today if the currency were still based on the gold standard?

[@webfreakz]

All the gold would be in France (because of the Vietnam war) and in China (because of the trade deficit). The US would be broke and would have to borrow internationally to continue and become like Argentina.

[@georgeemil3618]

@@webfreakz Countries with their own gold mines could just dig for more gold and turn them into bullions for their reserves, no?

[@webfreakz]

@@georgeemil3618 basically yes.. even crazier is if they start mining gold on asteroids lol . Anyway, that's why it's good that we don't have a gold standard anymore. The money / banking system is corrupt in many ways but that one overnight move by Nixon in 1971 was a good one as far as I can understand things.

[@crackinthekraken]

We would have fewer, smaller wars and a lower wealth disparity, imo.

[@larrynko63]

@@webfreakz Too bad you don't understand much.

[@jwkelley]

When he is talking about the collapses related to policy decisions and stimulus. Wouldn't continued stimulus just inflate the structural problems of the bubble even more?

[@mikepelosi957]

This is a great video. I think people are nitpicking some of the language in a 26 minute video. However, I think MMT should be explained in greater than one sentence. He also draws a great comparison between political staffers and actual workers who are elbow deep in the thick of it. His points on the jobs program is common sense, and is certainly an intersection of political economy which is a completely different issue. Ultimately, Warren believes in lower taxes and greater government deficit spending. And , like quite a few economists at the time, he saw the stimulus and the tax structure as inefficient during 2008.

[@DavidByrne85]

OK, thanks very much Wilhelm. Does that mean deposits created by loans cannot be set aside as reserves? Or am I misunderstanding you? Also how does this square with the '97% endogenous' account of money creation? Given how much government taxes out of total spending/income the idea that it can only tax back its own money seems incompatible with that.....(obviously im missing something). Sorry for all the questions. A referral to some literature might be the best way to get rid of me :)

[@xanderpierson6285]

This made MMT fully click for me

[@JP-JustSayin]

I know this video is old but it reminds me of a song that is even older ... "Everything you know is wrong "

[@joefirestonephd]

John, Warren may not have covered debt service in this conversation. But he has covered it often in other things. First, he knows that debt service can be paid for through further sale of debt instruments.

[@relinquis]

interesting that his prescriptions for how to deal with the initial recession in 2008 is a fiscal stimulus and larger deficit, basically the same conclusion that Krugman came to at the time and that Keynes came to almost a century ago.

[@voxelverse]

The biggest difference is that he declares that dollars have no value at all to the US government.

[@Jesus-kt5dc]

@@voxelverse *That's because congress is the God of money.*

[@gp-xe6mu]

Stimulus during a recession is like giving crack to a crack addict

[@sebastianholzl4668]

​@@gp-xe6mu elaborate

[@gp-xe6mu]

@@sebastianholzl4668 the idea that made up money from the printing press creates any sort of wealth for an economy or can help it out of a slump is absurd, paper money is nothing but paper, money is a tool for exchanging consumer goods, however if no consumer goods are being are being created for this money then what have we really achieved? Just take a look at the past 12 years, trillions of dollars and quadraupling the money supply has done absolutely nothing for the economy apart from produce a massively over inflated financial market where risky assets are no longer risky because they are completely backstopped by central banks.

[@AdamGeest]

Can anybody recommend a textbook on related content? Money/Banking/Our financial system 101?

[@nphan3940]

Stephanie kelton book

[@arizonaaz996]

WOW!

[@KeeganIdler]

The government demands payment on percentage. Therefore, no matter how strict or loose the monetary policy, payment should be just as arduous in the long term. It will be slightly less arduous because some of your purchasing power is stolen without your knowledge through inflation, but issuing more or less money doesn't allow people to pay their taxes easier. Besides which, even if it were true, it would be easier to just not tax as much, than to wreck havok on prices through monetary policy

[@dudeman209]

If loans always create deposits, then loans would always equal deposits. Just look at the latest H.8 by the Fed, you'll see that the amount of deposits exceed the amount of loans by around $2 trillion. Loans and deposits tracked 1:1 until right around 2008, when QE began.

[@Jmriccitelli]

Can someone please explain something to me? Warren says is this interview and other interviews that the Federal Reserve can credit any accounts and create money like a scorekeeper. So, if the Fed can do this, why does the treasury sell bonds? Wouldn't the treasury just produce the money out of thin air from the Fed and not have to pay interest to the bond holder, like China or anyone else? Why is their any debt at all in the Federal government if the Fed can simply create money and then retrieve it with taxes? I am very confused. Thank you

[@ddicin7759]

a) to establish a risk free interest rate. The financial shysters need that to build the financial instruments to sell to the public. b) to give the public an asset class that is risk free and totally secure, done as a service to the public c) as a payoff/subsidy to the banking industry, which can earn a return on the Reserves they hold at the Fed. d) controlling the interest rate. Many other economists think that issuing treasuries isn't necesary

[@heavenlymonkey]

The most important part is not being discussed: the credit based monetary system. There is a very simple solution to our economic crisis, which in fact is worse today than it was 10 years ago. Watch the documentary 'The money masters' on KZbin to learn about the privatization of the money supply. There are two easy steps: end money creation by banks (going to full reserve banking) and restore the power to create money to the government (eliminating government debt - to be clear now the government only has the power to print bonds). Now there's a very long history to origin of our current monetary system - which is explored in the documentary 'The money masters' - and it isn't pretty.

[@8301TheJMan]

Oh okay, i totally get what you are saying now. Yes yes bro, you are entirely correct. People like me who have spent almost 10 yrs in college studying wit an MA in poli-sci, MA in history, specifically the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe, a BA in economics just last year and plus i minored while working on my political and history degrees, in theological study of comparative religions. And it is so fuckin easy to forget that most people have no clue what Mosler said here.

[@computertooter]

All the times I've listen to this video I never caught him calling Mosler a "mini celebrity. I don't believe he is that short....

[@CosmosPrivateer]

Is it possible that the original concept of our way of money creation was a good idea it's just that along the way they forgot how to maintain it? We know none of the politicians understand it.

[@8301TheJMan]

Yay Serban, man I see you like me watch literally every youtube video on modern Money Theory, lol. Mosler actually isn't my favorite. I definitely like Stephanie and Randal Wray the most. But, Mosler still is pretty good

[@johnoconnell9741]

You don't necessarily need a tax cut to go with the transition job. The salaries for the transition job will create demand, and sales, and cause the private sector to hire. Only if, after that, there are "too many" transition workers would you consider a tax cut. (Although eliminating FICA is always a good idea. Taxing employment is just wrong in every way.)

[@marciamartins1992]

They forgot to tell you that companies get tax breaks for those transition jobs. Transition jobs need to be subsided by the family....holly crap, those tax forms, they create jobs for people with the patience to fill it out.

[@johnoconnell9741]

@@marciamartins1992 The employer is not a company. It is a local government or charitable organization. There are no extra tax forms involved, and no families involved (the worker need not have a family).

[@JesseMaurais]

The interest rates are as much a problem for servicing the debt as is the debt: which is to say that they are not a problem at all. "Financing" of the debt is, for the sole issuer of the currency in which it is denominated, only a means by which to control the increase in the monetary base. Moreover, when a central bank issues money for purchasing securities, they swap a form of increasing money for a fixed one, so there is no inflation. You should judge MMT by its own merit, not your prejudice.

[@jwkelley]

Policies like the one above done without addressing the lending issues would cause a greater bubble collapses down the road. You give the poor more money to give to the rich people who will inflate housing prices even more.

[@CosmosPrivateer]

Common Sense can be tricky. I think I'll buy Warren's book.

[@Achrononmaster]

Why? He deliberately offers it for free: www.moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf Mosler does not need any money.

[@Remindor]

@@Achrononmaster If you're not paying for the product, you're the product.

[@borkborkbork]

@@Remindor Did you just read that somewhere only to repeat that everywhere ad nauseam? It's literally just a pdf download.

[@Remindor]

​@@borkborkbork I can see why it would seem that way but I'm repeating it here for a good reason. There is a strong financial incentive behind those pushing MMT in government. Mosler stands to earn a lot more money as a future financial executive or lobbyist than he would earn from any possible proceeds he would derive from sale of any book. If MMT is implemented, the corporations which benefit from MMT will shower Mosler with money. He won't care about book sales. Heck, they probably pay him to write the book in the first place.

[@borkborkbork]

@@Remindor okay fair enough I apologise for the snipe

[@willfleming9045]

The US and other sovereign floating currency-issuing countries don't "actually" need to issue debt to spend. Issuing treasuries is a self-imposed constraint. However the Fed has control over the rates at which the debt is issued so it is fundamentally a different sort of credit. It is a net financial asset contribution to the private sector, not a liability that needs more financing.

[@NormBa]

I am astonished (if not outright skeptical) that the FOMC members are 'clueless' on the securities vs. reserve account issue.

[@jank3441]

A couple of things you have to ask yourselves is why MMT may not be practical for us, since if no answer can be found, it is a sound path to embark on. MMT's core fundamentals derive in part from Keynes' theories, which many would argue were an ideal set of monetary & fiscal policies that could help revive economies that collapsed due to a decrease in aggregate demand. However, Keynes himself argued that his theories where to be applied only under specific circumstances where AD fell and AS (aggregate supply remained constant) in which case the Government should increase their spending and create a fiscal deficit to consume the extra surplus in supply that would remain available in the economy in order to cut the bottom & later on the top from the business cycle. In order to do this, Keynes argued that governments should run a fiscal surplus during the boom years, reducing the monetary supply in the economy that had been introduced during the bust period. This is of course a huge oversimplification of his theories, however, few economists outside of the classical schools of economic thought found much issue in these recommendations, for which they were implemented by governments all over the world. The issue of course was that economic assumes that people are rational, at least to some extent, and that politicians want the best for their country, but as we all know, it is not from the goodness of the butcher's heart that we get meat to eat for dinner, it is due to their own self-interest. This meant that nations all over the world took Keynes idea's and kept only the part that was politically profitable, at the end of the day, who cared about the business cycle when elections creeped up in the corner, right? This has led nations all over the world to create huge fiscal deficits that they will never pay off. This has created different consequences for different nations since each situation is different. For those that borrowed in other country's currencies, the risk of default grew exponentially, causing many economical collapse along the years. For others, welfare states where implemented with the best of intentions to ensure that the people found themselves better off regardless of their faith, & slowly but surely these nation's cultures and motivations to continue innovating, continue growing (in terms of REAL GDP) and continue prioritizing their liberties over their paper money has subsided. Now, where could MMT fail in the US? Let me start off by being clear, I am not sure whether it would work or not work, I am not sure whether it is desireable or not desireable, frankly, each individual's morality & ideology will lead them to a different conclusion, but I am sure that it is essential to question any theory or economical current that one seeks to adopt BEFORE doing so. Firstly, for MMT to work the Federal Reserve would need to be politically independent in order to act in response to the levels of inflation and not to the demands of a president or congress seeking re-election. We know that on paper they indeed find themselves in this position, however, just a quick look at present times and at what has been historically done to Keynes' ideas can tell you that this is largely an idealistic utopian belief. Secondly, The Federal reserve would need to have real time, exactly precise data on what the current monetary supply IN CIRCULATION is, the actual rate of price inflation in EACH AND EVERY INDUSTRY AND REGION since bubbles can form in all asset classes as well as all cities in the country, and one number reflecting all states and cities would not accurately do justice to the real situation on the ground. It would also have to find a way to inject or retrieve money from certain sectors of the economy and certain regions of the country without necessarily impacting all others, which would prove excruciatingly difficult in this era of special interests. Thirdly, the individuals at the federal reserve would not only have to have even more power than they currently do, they should be expected to exercise this power absolutely perfectly, making all the right decisions at the exact right time with no margin of error whatsoever. Fourthly, the currency value of the currency in foreign exchange markets would be expected to be analysed and controlled heavily to ensure that the country's exports remain competitive in the global outlook to ensure that more productive, supply generating companies and jobs are not lost as a result of government intervention, which would be considerably difficult since our currency follows the laws of supply and demand similarly to all other goods and services. Even more points: Unelected officials will be given the remote control to our economy not only with the ability to create money like they currently do, but with the ability to decide or directly guide the taxation imposed upon the population regardless of the will of the people, since imposing taxes is vital in MMT's regulation of Inflation. - In the event of that a given good's supply is reduced substantially, say Cars, the Fed would have to ensure that none of the money being introduced in the economy be directed towards the purchase of cars, since doing so would inherently become inflationary quite rapidly, for which they would have to greatly reduce the freedom independent adults have on what they want to do with the product of their work, going far beyond what we now consider the role of a government that believes in democracy and the will of the people. - In the event that a mistake is made and inflation arises, taxation will have to be increased to levels much higher than what we currently consider reasonable, which will decrease motivation of production in the private sector thereby reducing aggregate supply of goods and reducing the amounts of goods available in the economy for money to purchase, creating more unemployment and either worsening inflation if people are subsequently employed by the job guarantee that MMT's superstars prescribe only to bid up the prices of these goods which are collapsing in supply, or creating mass suffering amongst people who have no job, have no money, have high demand for money since their tax obligations are high and are forced to see prices rise around them. Many more things can be said about the theory but I've gotten quite tired as is. Again, I do not claim that these points are inherently valid or that MMTers cannot provide me an answer for them, as a matter of fact, that is exactly what I hope will happen as the reason I post this comment is to get some insight as to how you would combat these issues if MMT were to be implemented. Personally I find many elements of MMT really insightful and extremely useful, whereas I struggle to grasp other elements of the theory like any other theory out there. Apart from the Job Guarrantee, I attempted to leave out policy prescriptions since they are for the most part absolutely appalling from my point of view, and it serves no purpose discussing them until we have reached a consensus on how MMT would actually work. Whoever you are, & I plan to comment this on multiple videos to get more insight, I highly encourage to write your thoughts and comments on what I have just laid out, as well as any concern or alternative you have for the theory, please keep comments civil so we can learn and grow together, thank you!

[@zeke2408]

Uff.

[@billmitchell2080]

The thing I find interesting, the MMT economist's don't finger point regarding the unseamly things that go on to bring about these crisis's. I would like to know what they think about the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

[@A.I.MONEYBOTS]

Cash grab for the crooks.

[@alanhehe4508]

I'm very grateful to the few spreading the truth about how the monetary system really works. The lie around Federal taxes and Federal spending has to be the biggest, and most successful, bit of indoctrination ever sold to the public. However, as, imo, the important part of MMT is its explanation of how a fiat currency gets its value from the tax liability, including the word ",theory ' in it was a huge mistake, as people dismiss it as another "conspiracy theory. ", It should have been titled something like Modern Monetary Mechanic's, even if the Fed issued a paper by the same name. It's astonishing to me how people struggle with this truth. It's so obvious to me.

[@shabanamahfooz7380]

Great

[@eighteenin78]

Ok. This is what I mean. "It is constraining and would make it so we were constantly battling deflation." This is something a lot of YT commentators don't seem to understand on here. It is not an easy concept to wrap one's head around.

[@jakenicholaides3214]

Wrong supply and demand determines the price naturally. Easy credit gives you bad debts. We have artificial economics.

[@eighteenin78]

IMHO, One of the reasons the economy is moribund currently is that it seems to be unable to produce new wealth. As far as inflationary pressures, I agree they are negative (we are light years away from cross sector inflation yes, but maybe not for essentials.) Seems trickle down theory is not working since the lower 50% would seem to be completely superfluous in the current international economic and trade paradigm. (I.e. there seems to be nothing worthwhile for them to do.)

[@8301TheJMan]

No actually it's quite literally the opposite of being uninformed, it's actually very much a well informed opinion. Then to say central bankers are "throwing fresh currency on the economy" just doesn't portray the economic reality in the US. Economies are run by spending/buying things, it always has been. Right now our economy is lightyears away from inflation currently, then u add the fact our economy is barely moving because no one's spending-the Gov needs to do alot more spending and quickly!

[@karlalbert4969]

The best way to get rid of the curse of currencies, including the dollar, disasters, collapses, monopoly ogress, crises and wars Scientific and technical development in general opens horizons that did not exist in areas that no one has addressed before, as it develops work and elevates it My humble opinion is that the economic system and the mechanisms of its employment and directing this development and the speed of its response to it is the key I want to repeat my presentation under my main name in the civilized dialogue website and its basis The best benefit we can get through artificial intelligence to calculate the value through one measurement knowledge of scientists for the value just like the units of measurement in the ISO system such as meters, joules, lots, pascals, volts, amperes and bits..... And blockchain technology to manage its circulation and get rid of the concept of currency To get rid of the curse of coins

[@danielbtwd]

The issue with mmt is that it demonstrates that our perception of value is to a degree subjective. Especially if you are not the one doing the work. On the other hand money is printed. Taxation is just a means to give an air of ligitimacy to the international money printing cartel. This would be ok perhaps if the government created the money but not paying interest to a private international money printing cartel. Also the principal of growth in real terms is nothing more than inflation which at the end of the day screws the lowest common denominator.

[@marciamartins1992]

Yes it's an oroboros, I resent being called lowest common denominator....I prefer resident Alien to that.

[@thomasd2444]

22:41 - 23:07 - 23:25 - 23:36 - 23:54 - 24:00 - 24:17 - 24:29 - 24:52 -

[@justshowingoff]

Great talk but I'm just wondering what these relatively low wage and guaranteed transitional jobs would be that wouldn't affect the existing public sector or private sector job market. Build a new road in the desert then dig it up again when they've finished? You could just end up with dirt cheap public sector labour if it's not carefully implemented

[@coreyworthingtonii9230]

I imagine it more like, if there isn’t private sector demand for labour, then the government can use that labour for other useful things that the private sector hasn’t prioritised. For example, build that road in the desert, yes. But don’t dig it up and do it again; go and make another road through a different part of the desert. There isn’t a lack of work to be done. These people could be hired as road repair workers (laying asphalt) or if they’re college educated for example, they could be used in elementary school classrooms as teacher’s aides. Something like that where there never seems to be enough people for these things to all get done.

[@rutessian]

@@coreyworthingtonii9230 That's how China ended up with large cities inhabited by no one.

[@kingofthepaupers]

Tadit Anderson: Try reading a few books describing reserve accounting and macroeconmics. describing sectoral dynamics.Having a keyboard doesn't qualify anyone to make a recommendation on something that they clearly don't want to understand. Jct: All I said was he didn't take the debt service into account, the main problem. Google bankmath to see I agree with government funding if it issues the money interest-free rather than banks and borrow in our name and tax us to pay interest.

[@iFreeThink]

Not even studying for exams. Confused - as someone who still wants to take exams.

[@elmoswansong]

Interesting point About Japan and germany trading real goods and services for fictional paper. Isn t it why Japanees firms bought us firms like CBS. To trade in paper for real goods and services. ?

[@freesyddotcom]

What does China have besides numbers on a spreadsheet? How about all the factories and skilled labour that produce all the goods.

[@juhanleemet]

yeah, China is growing their economy, while the US is not

[@gantchogantchev9385]

yes the economy can introduce the gold price but have to release the grip on gold price and thats not suitable for big Gov

[@user-rd7me4sn5k]

Watched

[@Howtowithpaulaandjohn]

Do you think this MMT will work if you explain to the public that the government has endless money? Not just KZbin watchers, but everyone. What would be the reaction to finding out the truth that people don't really have to go hungry or be homeless, but the government lets it happen by not providing a UBI?

[@marciamartins1992]

I think a lot of people are still confusing the old system (gold standard) with the new mmt. Otherwise meritocracy would go out the window. Lol I think that's why he's whispering. And it makes me think of that song by Sting....they would not teach me up in college.

[@Howtowithpaulaandjohn]

@@MrRhetorikill not really , it’s just another type of welfare like food stamps and Medicaid . UBI won’t make anyone very comfortable, but they won’t be reduced to crime , prostitution, selling drugs or scamming to survive.

[@WillSmithSlap]

Mr. Mosler is a genius to think through the system so clearly. It is very hard to argue against his reasoning.

[@robertbrandywine]

He's thought about these issues, and discussed them so many times I don't think he is the best interviewee.

[@howardhill3395]

Practically speaking, what is a "transition job". Who would be paying the workers. Please give an example.

[@marciamartins1992]

An assistant manager at Dollar store, it pays $12 an hour, cashiers get 10 if lucky, t's a revolving door of workers. The owners get a tax right off for each employee that stays 120 hours or more.

[@marciamartins1992]

Oh they hire anyone off the streets....they are usually lied to about the working conditions...and are only part time no benefits.

[@OakhillSailor]

If we remove the FICA taxes as he says to help sales, then people will get in to more debt above their income in that situation too. SO when does this stop:? You can cut taxes to 0 but ppl will generally be in debt even after paying taxes. So what when is the end ..?

[@planckbrandt]

He never talks about all the interest accruing on all this debt. His book 7 deadly sins mentions interest due on Federal debt exactly once. It says + interest as if the interest paid on the principal is an insignificant amount. But, in actual fact, the interest paid on public debt dwarfs the original amount of the principal. MMT makes arguments for unlimited debt, but never says anything about the compounding interest due on all of this debt that dwarfs it.

[@planckbrandt]

I just don't understand. MMT people never talk about all the interest due on all this debt. The interest due compounds exponentially. The total interest paid on years and years of outstanding debt dwarfs the actual principal borrowed in the first place. Compound interest is one of the reasons why we have wealth inequality, a growing disparity, and an increasingly powerful rentier class lording it over us. The public debt transfers a lot of wealth from the citizens to the real few who really control those Treasury Bonds. Why not just spend the money into the economy debt free?

[@survivalpodcasting]

Because to believe this bullshit you must ignore mathematics. The interest won't let you ignore the math. Great poit there Planck Brandt

[@SchrodingersCat8813]

Planck Brandt I have to admit, I don't think Mosler is the best at conveying these thoughts despite being a founding figure of it. What he left out in all this is many supporters believe a job program would actually help government debt, since it would boost GDP and more people would pay/pay more in taxes. Mosler said he'd leave other programs in place, but others have said they'd like to reduce other welfare programs, so gov spending may largely shift from that to a jobs program, which is of course better than welfare. Anyway I am not 100% sure but I believe many MMTers have said: 1: For currency issuers, unlike users, gov debt doesn't necessarily equate to higher int rates as the textbooks say, and in reality despite higher debt int rates have fallen and stay very low...this is not ideology, you can look it up yourself. 2: Boosted GDP, changing other gov spending and etc would keep deficits in check and probably reduce the gov debt and my two cents: I thought a good chunk of the gov debt was owed to itself...right in econ class, and I go to a mainstream normal institution, we saw the chart excluding gov debt owed to the gov and it was 70% I believe opposed to 100 so all this combined, maybe makes the issue not nearly as disastrous as it seems?

[@MFM230]

I agree. What about the slippery slope aspect of debt, as for example, the housing bubble of 2008. What if people (fraudulently) were encouraged to purchase homes well beyond their ability to afford? Is the answer a debt giveaway so that the government helps them make their payments? Do they go out and buy even bigger houses on the credit of the U.S. government, who is the American people? Do they stop repairing those huge houses, such that they actually deteriorate? (I know of an order of women religious who built half of a monastery then ran out of money, and it deteriorated for decades). Also, Warren talks glibly about inflation, which is a tax of sorts. He leaves many questions unanswered.

[@ryanbeck7166]

Huh? Most MMTers discuss the effects of the interest payments on a mounting debt. What they suggest is, stop selling bonds altogether. No more debt, once the existing bonds mature. You should watch videos with L Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, Bill Mitchell, Ellis Winningham, and also other videos with Mosler. The topic is discussed by all of them.

[@ryanbeck7166]

Jack Spirko Wrong. Alot of the MMTers are very knowledgeable in mathematics, econometrics, and statistical analysis. It doesn't take an advanced mathematical degree to understand the economic reality of MMT.

[@tripletwentyy]

10 years in college isn't always a good thing

[@stevenyourke7901]

After 20 years, they put you on the day shift! Bob Dylan.

[@marciamartins1992]

Unless you're living on the student loan because you have to subsidize your transition job. Lol.

[@SHPNGGUY736]

He is proposing FDR policy!!

[@dudeman209]

I'm very well aware of how the monetary system works. I know that banks don't lend from reserves, that's not what my statement was about. However, loan growth is not equal to deposit growth in this interest rate environment.

[@ElegantHipster]

These are two wild and crazy guys

[@charlottemarceau8062]

I think emptying everyone from the fast good industry would be no bad thing, let the government employ them doing literally anything else..

[@StrafingMoose]

Unless I understand "issuer" incorrectly, right off the bat Mosler's wrong. Private banks issue plenty of (electronic) dollars and the government accepts to be paid with those as well. And the government does not need to spend one dollar itself for money to circulate. Primary dealers borrow at the Fed window, they fractionally make loans on what the Fed provided to them and money starts to circulate... Unless I got this completely wrong...

[@zeidae]

That fraction is ultimately set by policy lol. and it defines the upper limit of additional credit that primary dealers can create on top of the base created by the government. so in that sense, the government is the ultimate issuer of $$.

[@relobmit]

If the FED creates $20 trillion of new electronic money and uses all of it to buy treasury securities then obviously the price of those securities will go up. So surely it IS printing money. Holders of those securities will get richer!

[@barbstoll3299]

7:45. im a economic idiot. But is this like the Milton Friedman tax also similar to a Basic income. But a basic wage everyone gets one amount no matter who they are. bringing many people out of poverty. See. Guy Standing. the "Precraiate"

[@CarrotCakeMake]

A counterfeiter has to issue money before he can collect it, so there it really isn't a problem. Counterfeit money isn't moral or immoral, it just is.

[@andrewgeissinger5242]

It's a form of fraud, so yes, it is immoral.

[@thomasd2444]

00:00 - 05:00 - 10:00 - 15:00 - 18:00 - Just look at the details of what actually happens when you do quantitative easing

[@cubsfan111800]

Its not necessary for the Govt to issue securities. The Fed will not bounce Congressional checks unless Congress forces is to. Or you could have the Fed keep buying all the Treasuries, doesn't matter. In either scenario, the Govt's ability to mark up or down dollar balances at the Fed is unchanged. Issuing securities and paying interest to bond holders is 100% a political decision and has nothing to do whatsoever with funding the dollar issuer, aka Congress

[@soulfuzz368]

It tells us that we can have whatever our hearts desire. What could go wrong?

[@hosseinkazemi7492]

Not really. The government cannot give everyone a pony. There is a real limit on what an economy can produce.

[@soulfuzz368]

Hossein Kazemi why couldn’t everyone have a pony?

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@@soulfuzz368 Because money is just a way of tracking resources. Not creating value. No amount of money can create new ponies.

[@soulfuzz368]

Antediluvian Atheist that is a very unhelpful way to word that but I think I understand. Either way, some combination of bribery and coercion gets people to make things. If the pentagon made horse breeding its main objective, they could have more horses than they could manage.

[@Achrononmaster]

@@soulfuzz368 That's one warped way of thinking. Another is that of a reciprocal obligation. The coercion is not severe if governments acknowledge tax puts people into unemployment, because then they can fix the mistake by either raising spending, lowering tax, or buffering employment with a job guarantee. (Really, the job guarantee should be permanent policy as a moral principle, since the tax creates unemployment, it is the tax collectors obligation to fix that --- since not everyone wants to work in the public sector.) Think of getting money for whatever you need from a private bank. They will lend you anything they think you can repay +interest. But the government merely offers public sector jobs and other benefits, in return for a tax liability. That's very different to bank credit, since the government never needs to take back every dollar they spend, and does not need to charge interest. It asks for a small percent back in tax. So it is a lot better than private money-things which carry 100% debt (like bitcoin). When you spend bitcoin it is gone, you don't get to keep a percentage.

[@Herbwise]

The issuer of a currency comes before tax collectors. The chicken came before the egg which it issued although a case could be made that the egg issued the chick which transformed into the chicken. But the private banking sector issues credit or debt and collects back interest on that debt. While not fiat currency it functions as fiat currency. I can borrow from the banks to pay my taxes. I then owe the banks interest -- an added liability -- but my liability to the government is now a credit/asset with it. Still trying to figure out how that sequence plays into the theory. Seems there is another scorekeeper for money.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Wrong - You don't seem to be a Wiseman at all with that comment. Debt is created when new money is created. The public are the only ones who pay for that and they must payout on the maturity of the debt through tax collections from the private sector. Government cannot ever pay it's own debt but can participate in creating it as it does with budget deficits. You like government you cannot pay your own debt unless you work for someone else to do so and that requires you tor save by spending less than you earn.

[@UnhingedBecauseLucid]

I suspect Mosler (and MMT) is mostly correct. I say mostly because: 24:52 - 25:20 Malthus's ghost (and a few scientists...) would argue that it doesn't matter anymore, it's too late now... I wonder when will INET address this issue...this Economics's blind spot... head on...

[@talkingcloud740]

We need a very large deficit that just keeps getting larger!

[@OakhillSailor]

Not necessarily. We tax to reduce income therefore take a certain amount of demand off the economy. It's like a thermostat.

[@grantbeerling4396]

It's the resource, employment to do stuff for the betterment of society. The deficit is the tool, tax is the cooling element for inflation.

[@zackeryzackery9381]

@@grantbeerling4396 BS. Printing money has a consequence. It dilutes the money supply and causes inflation.

[@grantbeerling4396]

@@zackeryzackery9381 thanks for the reply, I suspect you may need to do some more research as to what Warren is saying, and therefore understand. It take a lot to grasp MMT intially as all the knee jerk responses come to mind, only when you study it, you quickly realise they have been answered, otherwise MMT has no value as tool to explain FIAT currencies.Ultimately it's about the resource and how we use resource, that's you, me, others and natural resources, money is the key to get us to work to unlock said resource. Money in it's self is not the resource Watch this and have Greenspan answer your question, under oath.... kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5PEfJqsbL-fa8k

[@grantbeerling4396]

@1bikesale yawn.....

[@sukhhayre]

To believe that this has not been understood since the time of Keynes is naive at best. The reality is, it was just not pragmatic to implement these ideas until such time that all the benefits of hegemony, and being a printer of the world's reserve currency, had come to an end. Until then, neoliberalism was the most pragmatic option to convince the citizens of the developed world to desire (Reagan and Thatcher's winning pitch to the people). Those responsible for manufacturing the needed consent fully understood this reality. The last kick at the can for the developed world was going to be the China-driven globalization that began in the 80s. The U.S. has ridden this wave about as brilliantly as it possibly could have (the central bank, and the fiscal policies implemented, regardless of which party was in power, as hard as it is to believe, did an amazing job, for Americans, even though it may not feel like it right now). When globalization comes to an end (no longer a win-win for the U.S. and China), these are going to be the policies implemented by developed-world countries. Some are already more along the path than others. The relationship that existed between the developed world and China will now exist between China and the developing world (especially Africa).

[@WorldReserveCurrency]

Alright, fine. Then the fed didn't print money. They assisted in the transaction of our government taking on more debt through treasuries which were converted to currency. So we are debt laden and regardless of who added to the money supply.... net result is the same to the common person. Inflation. Printing money is a semantics that differs only on whether or not we have the ability to pay off that debt. If we decide to default then in hindsight that was the use of printed money is it not?

[@chrisj.h.2103]

I just don't understand how you guys can inflate so much without causing some disruption to world trade and it doesn't seem like your addressing world trade. Yes your right about the banks, but I wish you would talk more about what your policies will do when it comes to trade and consumer prices.

[@eighteenin78]

Or it's a sign aggregate household demand is curtailed due to being maxed out, & private sector sees no fin'l. return in new ventures, so they don't employ or simply lay off. There's something to be said for NOT trying to overstimulate the economy & letting it exhale (sustained an. growth of 3 - 4% a year isn't always possible.) Besides none of this monetary policy talk addresses the upheaval when an entire economy is dismantled as relative to the rest of the world Americans have been overpaid,

[@hunglukenguyen]

"mortgage is predicated on income" ==> true but income had shrink compared to mortgage, this professor does not want to talk about that sustainability, his theory cannot fix high price of home

[@iancolquhoun4200]

The objection to MMT seems to be an apparent large and growing federal deficit, I see a solution in the accounting of this, the money and credit in the economy should be treated as an asset and credited against federal government spending to balance the books, any discrepancy will highlight transactions conducted in "other" currencies and private credit created by private bank lending.

[@talkingcloud740]

Ian Colquhoun Why not have a shadow entry created at the bank ledger so that in the event of a weakening economy they can dissolve their deficit with the shadow entry?. At the moment there are only two entries. loan amount and loan paid back by debtor, seems obvious to me that the bank might need an indemnity column to correctly balance its books. you could do the same with the countries deficit! come to that.

[@joebhed1]

+Ian Colquhoun No, actually the objection to MMT is its false foundation. NO government ..... creates new money when it spends, but it SHOULD ... and MMT's assertion that it does, PREVENTS the movement to reform money. The size of the deficit MUST be as Post-Keynesians describe - to fill the gap between output and potential output in the national economy. THE issue is how to fund the deficit. MMT says BORROW it. Reformers say - create it from the money power.

[@iancolquhoun4200]

+joe bongiovanni , no where does MMT suggest the government borrow money, it asserts that all soverign government spending creates new money with no need to borrow or tax to fund spending, therefore there is no fiscal restraint to spending, only spending in excess of economic activity could lead to inflation.

[@neilanderson891]

@@iancolquhoun4200 - Above, you said, "no where does MMT suggest the government borrow money". That's wrong. MMT prescribes 2 alternatives for Uncle Sam to fight inflation: (A.) Take dollars out-of-circulation via taxes, to reduce the money supply, or - (B.) Borrow dollars out-of-circulation, to reduce the money supply. Unfortunately, in either case, the proceeds cannot be spent, as that would put the proceeds back into circulation. MMT proponents have gone to great lengths to avoid admitting that their 2 prescriptions for fighting inflation are due an incompatibility with a central bank. Do you know how central banks increase or decrease the money supply?

[@joyjayant]

Liberated from the gold standard!!!

[@SHPNGGUY736]

We could have all Sanders policies and a National Flat Income Tax on all forms of income structured to be Progressive. Get rid of the payroll tax we dont need it to fund SS or Medicare. Triple SS benefits, give us National Medicare For All and Free Education. I am for a Federal Jobs Guarantee as a permenant program to make sure everybody that want work can find it. It should also be used hold the private sector accountable towards their employees regarding how much they pay them.

[@NoExitLoveNow]

Love Mosler and MMT. He is wrong about though about world population going down (very wrong). Per Scientific American: Earth's human population is expected to coast upward to 9.6 billion by 2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100, up from 7.2 billion people alive today, a United Nations agency has projected.

[@secienaa6012]

I personally think that the current form of #Bitcoin is still bearish and drama of #FTX . I judge that 11000 is the turning point, so you can wait a little longer. btw, #defiwarrior will launch #themera mainnet later this month

[@matthewmorgan9269]

.... 10 years later. The monetary system is killing us.

[@00bikeboy]

MMT appears to be a useful framework but unless it incorporates environmental sustainability it will be incomplete.

[@chino313]

MMT is just a lens to macroeconomic operations. Real environmental change must come from the govt implementing policy making full use of the economic system s capability.

[@Achrononmaster]

A government guaranteed job at $20/hour would not necessarily empty out the fast food and Walmart labour, it would just force them to pay a higher wage. I don't see much of a downside to that, other than the shock, crying and tears of the rich. The real problem are small businesses. So to support small businesses you just given them negative taxation --- algorithmically indexed to their per worker profits, so the small business owners can take home minimum $20/hour themselves. If it inflates prices just tax the One Percent and the cloistered Upper Class to cool things off. But I'd bet it would not cause inflation, because the higher wages would just be soaked up into the real productive economy in ordinary spending, meaning producers would not need to raise prices much, since by shear additional volume of demand they would meet their margins. Econs just don't get it. People in the rust-belt are suffering so bad, give them higher wages and they'd spend it all immediately to pay off debts and then put bread and broccoli on the table. The risk of inflation is extraordinarily low, at an all time low I'd guess. There is so much economic anxiety, misery and suffering to be undone, it will take a generation or more to get back to any remote risk of inflation. But after the oil shocks of the 70's we now know how to avoid inflation, just tax the shit out of the ultra-wealthy elites. They are the F-kers who cause inflation in the first place.

[@andrewgeissinger5242]

Inflation is caused by expanding the money supply too much.

[@andrewgeissinger5242]

And now that we're in the year 2023 with significant inflation instead of 2018 or 2019 when you wrote that stupid statement, we can all see that you don't know anything about economics.

[@iancolquhoun4200]

MMT has not been challenged or refuted, just ignored, where to from here?

[@clapcast]

once i get my degree in economics ill just become prez and implement this.

[@willconnell2494]

MyNameIsPhill

[@willconnell2494]

MyNameIsPhill good luck

[@clapcast]

@@willconnell2494 thank you sir

[@soulfuzz368]

Ian Colquhoun it has many time. Do a few searches and you can find really good criticisms.

[@iFreeThink]

Yes. Report what I don't like. But they're not doing any of that.

[@robertbrandywine]

I like that score keeper analogy; it's funny.

[@ricerealtor980]

a scorekeeper and two players is a three body problem

[@bargdaffy1535]

13:50 Wait, I have to take a bath everyday? Screw that...