4 ms·

Isn't it pretty obvious at this point? The NYT likes MMT because MMT is commonly used as a justification for massive deficit spending (even if technically MMT d

Isn't it pretty obvious at this point? The NYT likes MMT because MMT is commonly used as a justification for massive deficit spending (even if technically MMT doesn't advocate for this under certain conditions). The NYT wants deficit spending because they want to ram through a bunch of progressive grab-bag social programs, all to achieve racial harmony, or a permanent underclass, or equity or something. All the NYT does at this point is put out blatant spin articles to try and gaslight you into supporting the equity agenda. I respect Noah Smith but I think responding to the NYT is at this point beneath him.

dctoedt 5y ago
You really ought to read Stephanie Kelton's very-accessible book, The Deficit Myth. What we call "money" is, at bottom, simply a set of widely-distributed tokens that we use in lieu of centralized bookkeeping. When you accept any kind of money, including gold, in return for goods given or services rendered, you're trusting that you can in turn use the money in the future to acquire goods or services yourself, in a quantity you find acceptable. As long as price increases remain "reasonable" (EDIT: for whatever value of reasonable is politically feasible), it really doesn't matter how much money is in the system. The central thesis of MMT, as I understand it, is something like this: 1) The economy will often have greater capacity to produce goods and services than it is currently doing (i.e., additional supply could exist). 2) Society will often have people willing to buy additional goods and services if produced and they had the money (i.e., additional demand could exist). 3) When both additional supply and additional demand could exist, it makes sense for the government to "print money" and put it in the hands of the people who would spend it if they had it; that way, those people can buy additionally-produced goods and services and so keep more workers and assets productively employed. 4) Ideally, this will also increase our productive capacity still further, in a virtuous cycle. Chapter 3 of The Deficit Myth is online at https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-deficit-myth https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-deficit-myth — excerpt: "When I arrived in Washington in 2015, I was the only staffer on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee who looked at the world through the lens of a currency issuer. I knew the federal government wasn’t like a household or a private business. I knew Uncle Sam could never run out of money. I knew that inflation, rather than insolvency, was the relevant punishment for overspending. I also knew I was alone in this thinking." (Emphasis added.) Kelton also has a piece at https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/its-oooooooooooooo-big?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cta https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/its-oooooooooooooo-bi...
- TheGigaChad 5y ago
- legitster 5y ago
  This is all well and good, but it largely describes standard economic models - that reasonable inflation is generally good. MMT's only unique proposition was that the upper bound of money creation was much higher than previously thought. MMT kind of promised an infinite money glitch hack of the economy, and the reality has been closer to a bit of loose change. Also, Kelton et al have severely underrated how much people hate inflation. So it's well enough to say we can pay for a ton of government programs with a bit of inflation, but people are going to hate, hate, hate it.
  - dctoedt 5y ago
    > Kelton et al have severely underrated how much people hate inflation. And right-wing media had nothing to do with that, of course.
    - uejfiweun 5y ago
      I don't really think it's fair to just say right wing media is the only reason people hate inflation. I certainly hate it, because well for one, the CPI is bullshit and doesn't include key items such as college tuition and housing prices. It's a common refrain in my generation that nobody will be able to afford a house, and you hear it on the right and the left.
      - dctoedt 5y ago
        > I don't really think it's fair to just say right wing media is the only reason people hate inflation. Agreed (and that's not what I said).
    - legitster 5y ago
      Uh... I don't think inflation is any more popular in progressive circles. Or countries without conservative media.
kunai 5y ago
Is the polemical tone really necessary here? You can disagree with MMT without resorting to vitriol and accusations of the Times wanting an "equity agenda." Whatever that means.
- tharne 5y ago
  > Is the polemical tone really necessary here? You can disagree with MMT without resorting to vitriol and accusations of the Times wanting an "equity agenda." Whatever that means. It is necessary. MMT an immoral economic theory used to justify a very specific set of policies that would not otherwise be feasible. You'd have a very difficult time selling an enormous expansion of the state if individual citizens had to directly foot the bill through taxes, so instead you convince them that you can just print the money at no cost to anyone, the ultimate free lunch. MMT is by its very nature political since it involves transferring a large amount of wealth from individuals to the state (and bankers) via inflation, which is an inherently political decision.

dctoedt 5y ago

You really ought to read Stephanie Kelton's very-accessible book, The Deficit Myth. What we call "money" is, at bottom, simply a set of widely-distributed tokens that we use in lieu of centralized bookkeeping. When you accept any kind of money, including gold, in return for goods given or services rendered, you're trusting that you can in turn use the money in the future to acquire goods or services yourself, in a quantity you find acceptable. As long as price increases remain "reasonable" (EDIT: for whatever value of reasonable is politically feasible), it really doesn't matter how much money is in the system. The central thesis of MMT, as I understand it, is something like this: 1) The economy will often have greater capacity to produce goods and services than it is currently doing (i.e., additional supply could exist). 2) Society will often have people willing to buy additional goods and services if produced and they had the money (i.e., additional demand could exist). 3) When both additional supply and additional demand could exist, it makes sense for the government to "print money" and put it in the hands of the people who would spend it if they had it; that way, those people can buy additionally-produced goods and services and so keep more workers and assets productively employed. 4) Ideally, this will also increase our productive capacity still further, in a virtuous cycle. Chapter 3 of The Deficit Myth is online at https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-deficit-myth https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-deficit-myth — excerpt: "When I arrived in Washington in 2015, I was the only staffer on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee who looked at the world through the lens of a currency issuer. I knew the federal government wasn’t like a household or a private business. I knew Uncle Sam could never run out of money. I knew that inflation, rather than insolvency, was the relevant punishment for overspending. I also knew I was alone in this thinking." (Emphasis added.) Kelton also has a piece at https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/its-oooooooooooooo-big?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cta https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/its-oooooooooooooo-bi...

TheGigaChad 5y ago
legitster 5y ago
This is all well and good, but it largely describes standard economic models - that reasonable inflation is generally good. MMT's only unique proposition was that the upper bound of money creation was much higher than previously thought. MMT kind of promised an infinite money glitch hack of the economy, and the reality has been closer to a bit of loose change. Also, Kelton et al have severely underrated how much people hate inflation. So it's well enough to say we can pay for a ton of government programs with a bit of inflation, but people are going to hate, hate, hate it.
- dctoedt 5y ago
  > Kelton et al have severely underrated how much people hate inflation. And right-wing media had nothing to do with that, of course.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    I don't really think it's fair to just say right wing media is the only reason people hate inflation. I certainly hate it, because well for one, the CPI is bullshit and doesn't include key items such as college tuition and housing prices. It's a common refrain in my generation that nobody will be able to afford a house, and you hear it on the right and the left.
    - dctoedt 5y ago
      > I don't really think it's fair to just say right wing media is the only reason people hate inflation. Agreed (and that's not what I said).
  - legitster 5y ago
    Uh... I don't think inflation is any more popular in progressive circles. Or countries without conservative media.

kunai 5y ago

Is the polemical tone really necessary here? You can disagree with MMT without resorting to vitriol and accusations of the Times wanting an "equity agenda." Whatever that means.

tharne 5y ago
> Is the polemical tone really necessary here? You can disagree with MMT without resorting to vitriol and accusations of the Times wanting an "equity agenda." Whatever that means. It is necessary. MMT an immoral economic theory used to justify a very specific set of policies that would not otherwise be feasible. You'd have a very difficult time selling an enormous expansion of the state if individual citizens had to directly foot the bill through taxes, so instead you convince them that you can just print the money at no cost to anyone, the ultimate free lunch. MMT is by its very nature political since it involves transferring a large amount of wealth from individuals to the state (and bankers) via inflation, which is an inherently political decision.