7 ms·

Don't those heterodox ideas about debt predict these increasing prices?

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
The heterodox ideas do, yes. MMT does not. We don't know who is correct. We do know that one POV is massively favored by those who would like to use the national debt as a reason to impose austerity policies on the US economy.
- drivebyhooting 2y ago
  You use the word heterodox as a thought preventing insult. On the one hand we have a simple model that 1+1=2. On the other we have someone else proclaimed correct saying it’s not so. But it’s too complex for me to understand.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    > But it’s too complex for me to understand. I'm not here to solve your problems. The fact that you think that all economies can be reduced to something as simple as "1 + 1 = 2" is one of your problems. Good luck.
    - drivebyhooting 2y ago
      Arrogance won’t solve any problems nor convince those who disagree with you. You could start by stating your assumptions and basic axioms. Rather than asserting your conclusions and name calling things heterodox.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        heterodox is a common term in the economics world. imagine it says "mainstream" if you prefer. > You could start by stating your assumptions and basic axioms. I'm not here to write a text book on economics. I'm here to point out that "debt is bad, we can never carry on like this" is a belief, not a statement of fact.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        "Orthodox" is the word you're looking for. "Heterodox" means not mainstream. MMT is heterodox.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Ah, thanks for a vitally important contribution to the thread. Error noted, and maybe I will remember it next time!
        absolutelastone 2y ago
        How about "commonsense" instead? Everything in macroeconomics is a belief, because it is clearly far from a hard science. Common sense always applies to some degree when it is based on logic. Also my belief is that a system where there is no limits on government spending and debt seems obviously unstable and likely to become infinitely corrupt.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Common sense is a very poor guide to many aspects of the world. It's not true of physics, or biology, or astrophysics, and even areas of math are very, very far from common sense. Human cognitive biases make "common sense" as both a predictor how people will behave and as a basis for understanding the world a remarkably poor choice. And yes, economics is far from a hard science and most macro is driven by some combination of personal experience and political ideology. But that doesn't mean that "non-common-sense" ideas about macro are wrong, anymore than it means that extrapolating from the "common sense" of personal experience (i.e. no limits on your own spending and debt will lead to bankruptcy) is right.
        absolutelastone 2y ago
        I said common sense "based on logic" specifically to sidestep this popular argument about the evils of common sense. Such common sense includes statements like "if something can't go on forever it won't". I guess you disagree with this statement? But no I don't agree with your claim. Common sense is an excellent guide and a major reason why evolution gave us large brains. And that includes the hard sciences, only failing in very specialized niches that often took centuries to find after almost everything else was well-explained by intuitive theories. Biology is not a hard science.
- mindslight 2y ago
  What you're calling "heterodox" is obviously wrong, as there has been massive monetary expansion over the past several decades with relatively tame price inflation. The main thing MMT changes is allowing the legislative government to spend the newly-created money for deliberate goals, rather than it just being handed over to the financial industry. Given the massive price inflation we have experienced in housing, education, vehicles, etc - everywhere the new money has been able to go from the financial industry to consumers (to bring up average price inflation as per the overt policy) - I'd say that spreading the new money around more is a no-brainer. Experimenting with a different approach might be understandable if the austerity wasn't aimed directly at killing the global goodwill that makes such monetary inflation possible - USD's status as the world reserve currency. As it stands, I don't know things would look any different if our country was being controlled by a hostile foreign power intent on destroying us.

The heterodox ideas do, yes. MMT does not. We don't know who is correct. We do know that one POV is massively favored by those who would like to use the national debt as a reason to impose austerity policies on the US economy.

drivebyhooting 2y ago
You use the word heterodox as a thought preventing insult. On the one hand we have a simple model that 1+1=2. On the other we have someone else proclaimed correct saying it’s not so. But it’s too complex for me to understand.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > But it’s too complex for me to understand. I'm not here to solve your problems. The fact that you think that all economies can be reduced to something as simple as "1 + 1 = 2" is one of your problems. Good luck.
  - drivebyhooting 2y ago
    Arrogance won’t solve any problems nor convince those who disagree with you. You could start by stating your assumptions and basic axioms. Rather than asserting your conclusions and name calling things heterodox.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      heterodox is a common term in the economics world. imagine it says "mainstream" if you prefer. > You could start by stating your assumptions and basic axioms. I'm not here to write a text book on economics. I'm here to point out that "debt is bad, we can never carry on like this" is a belief, not a statement of fact.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        "Orthodox" is the word you're looking for. "Heterodox" means not mainstream. MMT is heterodox.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Ah, thanks for a vitally important contribution to the thread. Error noted, and maybe I will remember it next time!
      - absolutelastone 2y ago
        How about "commonsense" instead? Everything in macroeconomics is a belief, because it is clearly far from a hard science. Common sense always applies to some degree when it is based on logic. Also my belief is that a system where there is no limits on government spending and debt seems obviously unstable and likely to become infinitely corrupt.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Common sense is a very poor guide to many aspects of the world. It's not true of physics, or biology, or astrophysics, and even areas of math are very, very far from common sense. Human cognitive biases make "common sense" as both a predictor how people will behave and as a basis for understanding the world a remarkably poor choice. And yes, economics is far from a hard science and most macro is driven by some combination of personal experience and political ideology. But that doesn't mean that "non-common-sense" ideas about macro are wrong, anymore than it means that extrapolating from the "common sense" of personal experience (i.e. no limits on your own spending and debt will lead to bankruptcy) is right.
        absolutelastone 2y ago
        I said common sense "based on logic" specifically to sidestep this popular argument about the evils of common sense. Such common sense includes statements like "if something can't go on forever it won't". I guess you disagree with this statement? But no I don't agree with your claim. Common sense is an excellent guide and a major reason why evolution gave us large brains. And that includes the hard sciences, only failing in very specialized niches that often took centuries to find after almost everything else was well-explained by intuitive theories. Biology is not a hard science.
mindslight 2y ago
What you're calling "heterodox" is obviously wrong, as there has been massive monetary expansion over the past several decades with relatively tame price inflation. The main thing MMT changes is allowing the legislative government to spend the newly-created money for deliberate goals, rather than it just being handed over to the financial industry. Given the massive price inflation we have experienced in housing, education, vehicles, etc - everywhere the new money has been able to go from the financial industry to consumers (to bring up average price inflation as per the overt policy) - I'd say that spreading the new money around more is a no-brainer. Experimenting with a different approach might be understandable if the austerity wasn't aimed directly at killing the global goodwill that makes such monetary inflation possible - USD's status as the world reserve currency. As it stands, I don't know things would look any different if our country was being controlled by a hostile foreign power intent on destroying us.