4 ms·

I don't think you're right here: according to MMT, removing money supply (I.E paying back debt and raising taxes) is deflationary,although raising taxes is pref

by orwin 2y ago

I don't think you're right here: according to MMT, removing money supply (I.E paying back debt and raising taxes) is deflationary,although raising taxes is preferred. I don't understand why strawmaning their positions is constructive (is it still strawmaning if you're saying the complete opposite). You can't make a good criticism of MMT while lying about their ideas. I personally would prefer if MMT didn't exist. Or rather, I don't know. I had a marxist/neo-marxist critique of MMT, but I'm post-marxist now (for the dumbest Canadian psychoanalyst fans: it isn't the same thing, even though your idol seems to think it is).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> don't think you're right here I am, but in a fun way. > removing money supply (I.E paying back debt and raising taxes) is deflationary Government paying debt is inflationary (in its own currency). Lender had a debt and not money. Now they have a money and not debt. More MMT ignores money stocks on the government side; we went from investor had paper asset to investor has money. The system has more money than before. This, by the way, is how monetary policy works. The Fed buys bonds (and sells cash) when it wants to boost liquidity. It sells bonds (and buys cash) when it wants to drain it. The Fed has an infinite pool of notes, the Treasury of debt. MMT conceptually fuses these in an academically interesting and politically useless way.