4 ms·

The US Government started printing money as you say for government projects as early as 1930, 12 years before the war. Hoover dam for example. So are you saying

The US Government started printing money as you say for government projects as early as 1930, 12 years before the war. Hoover dam for example. So are you saying it takes 12+ years for your theory to work? Also, how many millions more have died due to over-printing of money? MMT is a disaster waiting to happen because at the end of the day Credit=Trust and you can only borrow so much before you lose that trust. Trust is everything and debt is an incursion.

graycat 7y ago
They printed money starting in 1930? Yup, the dam. But they didn't print enough. And Bernanke didn't print enough fast enough -- we were in the Great Depression for about 12 years and nearly that long in the Great Recession. Bummer. You are correct about the threat of inflation. But we know how to stop inflation: Reduce the money supply, e.g., by raising interest rates. Then the member banks will return their loans from the Fed. So MMT stands for <i>modern monetary theory</i>? Uh, I tend to avoid any theories from economists and stay with simple observations.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  If you look at debt between 1920 and 1945 you see that between 1940 and 1945 the war economy resulted in private and corporate debt replaced almost entirely by Federal government debt. After 2008 the Chinese government dealt with falling demand and exports by building 10,000km of high speed rail network. In either case despite dire predictions of economists the sky didn't fall in. Also riddle this: The US spent about 2% of gdp to send a dozen men to the moon. And the sky didn't fall in either. The US can certainly spend a couple of single digits worth of GDP on renewables without everything falling apart.
  - blackflame7000 7y ago
    > Also riddle this: The US spent about 2% of gdp to send a dozen men to the moon. And the sky didn't fall in either. The sky fell in on the Soviet Union. The main difference was the Marshall plan and the fact that the US was financing the rebuilding of Europe
  - graycat 7y ago
    > The US can certainly spend a couple of single digits worth of GDP on renewables without everything falling apart. Yup, not everything would "fall apart". Yup. But 50 projects each taking just 2% of GDP would take 100% of GDP! 2% of GDP is a lot, e.g., what the NATO countries are supposed to have been spending on defense but long didn't. Let's see: IIRC Trump is spending about $807 billion a year on defense, and just now from Google the US GDP per year is about $19.39 T. Sooooo, 100 * 807 / 19,390 = 4.162 says that we are spending just over 4% of GDP on defense. So, a "couple of single digits", i.e., if I read you correctly, would be 2% of GDP and about half of defense -- definitely not small potatoes. I have a friend with a lot of money in a family with a lot of money. Whenever anyone asks him to spend some of his money, his first question is "Why should I?". Without a good answer, he doesn't.

graycat 7y ago

They printed money starting in 1930? Yup, the dam. But they didn't print enough. And Bernanke didn't print enough fast enough -- we were in the Great Depression for about 12 years and nearly that long in the Great Recession. Bummer. You are correct about the threat of inflation. But we know how to stop inflation: Reduce the money supply, e.g., by raising interest rates. Then the member banks will return their loans from the Fed. So MMT stands for <i>modern monetary theory</i>? Uh, I tend to avoid any theories from economists and stay with simple observations.

Gibbon1 7y ago
If you look at debt between 1920 and 1945 you see that between 1940 and 1945 the war economy resulted in private and corporate debt replaced almost entirely by Federal government debt. After 2008 the Chinese government dealt with falling demand and exports by building 10,000km of high speed rail network. In either case despite dire predictions of economists the sky didn't fall in. Also riddle this: The US spent about 2% of gdp to send a dozen men to the moon. And the sky didn't fall in either. The US can certainly spend a couple of single digits worth of GDP on renewables without everything falling apart.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  > Also riddle this: The US spent about 2% of gdp to send a dozen men to the moon. And the sky didn't fall in either. The sky fell in on the Soviet Union. The main difference was the Marshall plan and the fact that the US was financing the rebuilding of Europe
- graycat 7y ago
  > The US can certainly spend a couple of single digits worth of GDP on renewables without everything falling apart. Yup, not everything would "fall apart". Yup. But 50 projects each taking just 2% of GDP would take 100% of GDP! 2% of GDP is a lot, e.g., what the NATO countries are supposed to have been spending on defense but long didn't. Let's see: IIRC Trump is spending about $807 billion a year on defense, and just now from Google the US GDP per year is about $19.39 T. Sooooo, 100 * 807 / 19,390 = 4.162 says that we are spending just over 4% of GDP on defense. So, a "couple of single digits", i.e., if I read you correctly, would be 2% of GDP and about half of defense -- definitely not small potatoes. I have a friend with a lot of money in a family with a lot of money. Whenever anyone asks him to spend some of his money, his first question is "Why should I?". Without a good answer, he doesn't.