[Crantag]

As I've said before, MMT is inherently an imperialistic American nationalist ethos, which is based on probably faulty assumptions.

The idea is the US can print as much money as it wants, and spend it as it likes.

It is probably faulty because this regime is, in my view, not likely to last forever, and there are already pretty serious moves against it.

[ckaihatsu]

heat pumps

Why Heat Pumps are Essential for the Future - Explained

[Steve_American]

As I've said before, MMT is inherently an imperialistic American nationalist ethos, which is based on probably faulty assumptions.

The idea is the US can print as much money as it wants, and spend it as it likes.

It is probably faulty because this regime is, in my view, not likely to last forever, and there are already pretty serious moves against it.

The group of a half dozen founders of MMT includes at least 2 non-Americans. Prof. Mitchell is Australian.

I'm not aware of even one faulty assumption. Partly this is because MMT does assert that it has proven that the Market will always set the perfect price, and other such nonsense.

MMTers do assert that the US and other nations can create, or as you say a little incorrectly "print", more money than it does now. The limit, and there is said to be a limit, is reached when the economy is fully utilizing all the labor and other resources that it has available.

What do you mean by "this regime"? I can't respond to this until I know what you mean.
, , , If you mean that the US will not have the world's reserve currency someday or that the US will disappear someday, then I and all MMTers would agree with both statements. But, so what? MMT is about now, not about 100 to 200 years from now. Besides, IMHO, climate change will change the world before 100 years from now in such massive ways that all current economic theories will be thrown out and replaced.

.

[Crantag]

The group of a half dozen founders of MMT includes at least 2 non-Americans. Prof. Mitchell is Australian.

I'm not aware of even one faulty assumption. Partly this is because MMT does assert that it has proven that the Market will always set the perfect price, and other such nonsense.

MMTers do assert that the US and other nations can create, or as you say a little incorrectly "print", more money than it does now. The limit, and there is said to be a limit, is reached when the economy is fully utilizing all the labor and other resources that it has available.

What do you mean by "this regime"? I can't respond to this until I know what you mean.
, , , If you mean that the US will not have the world's reserve currency someday or that the US will disappear someday, then I and all MMTers would agree with both statements. But, so what? MMT is about now, not about 100 to 200 years from now. Besides, IMHO, climate change will change the world before 100 years from now in such massive ways that all current economic theories will be thrown out and replaced.

.

E.g. the US dollar as global reserve currency regime.

[ckaihatsu]

The Second Cold War,[1][2] Cold War II,[3][4] or the New Cold War[5][6][7] are terms that refer to heightened political, social, ideological, informational, and military tensions in the 21st century between the United States and China. It is also used to describe such tensions between the United States and Russia, the primary successor state of the former Soviet Union, which was one of the major parties of the original Cold War until its dissolution in 1991. Some commentators have used the term as a comparison to the original Cold War. Some other commentators have either doubted that tension would lead to another "cold war" or have discouraged using the term to refer to either or both tensions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Cold_War

[Steve_American]

E.g. the US dollar as global reserve currency regime.

Japan says it's not using MMT.

Japan has a debt /GDP ratio of over 250% and over 40% of its debt is owned/held by its central bank, BoJ.

It seems like having the world's reserve currency is not necessary.

To be honest, maybe having a large trade surplus is another way to use MMT without the reserve currency.

OTOH, MMTers have published peer reviewed papers explaining why any advanced nation using its own currency, floating it, and having no debts in a foreign currency can also have a debt/GDP ratio over 200%.

Bill Mitchell, an MMTer, has published peer reviewed papers explaining why most developing nations using its own currency, floating it, and having no debts in a foreign currency can also use MMT to increase deficit spending. They do have a harder time of it, IIRC.

[ckaihatsu]

E.g. the US dollar as global reserve currency regime.

The US Military is EVERYWHERE

[Crantag]

Japan says it's not using MMT.

Japan has a debt /GDP ratio of over 250% and over 40% of its debt is owned/held by its central bank, BoJ.

It seems like having the world's reserve currency is not necessary.

To be honest, maybe having a large trade surplus is another way to use MMT without the reserve currency.

OTOH, MMTers have published peer reviewed papers explaining why any advanced nation using its own currency, floating it, and having no debts in a foreign currency can also have a debt/GDP ratio over 200%.

Bill Mitchell, an MMTer, has published peer reviewed papers explaining why most developing nations using its own currency, floating it, and having no debts in a foreign currency can also use MMT to increase deficit spending. They do have a harder time of it, IIRC.

You are attempting distraction now.

I gave you clarification because you asked, and gave my main points in my former post.

You are no economics scholar, but rather a parrot.

I gave my views formerly, and stated them plainly, but clarified the term which, as a layman, you didn't understand. I'm not here to continue to tell you how wrong I think your idols are.

If you want to detailed respond to something I'd refer you to my first post.

[Crantag]

The US Military is EVERYWHERE

I can't watch the whole video but I watched a couple minutes and think I got the jist. I just find this guy really annoying. You've posted him before. He has good info but his style is annoying as fuck.

Yeah the US military basically props up dollar hegemony. Absolutely.

[ckaihatsu]

I can't watch the whole video but I watched a couple minutes and think I got the jist. I just find this guy really annoying. You've posted him before. He has good info but his style is annoying as fuck.

Yeah the US military basically props up dollar hegemony. Absolutely.

Yup. Here's more:

The history of dollar hegemony

The core advantage of the US economy, the source of its financial dominance, is the peculiar role of the US currency. It is because the dollar has been for decades the world’s reserve currency that the US is able to maintain its twin deficits (fiscal and trade) and depend on the world’s generosity. It needs capital inflows of almost $4 billion from the rest of the world every working day to keep up its level of spending.(5) Its military superiority is one reason why it is unlikely ever to face an embargo, but more importantly, it has been able to live beyond its means because of US dollar hegemony.

The dollar mechanism has been described extensively elsewhere,(6) this is merely a summary. The strength of the US economy after World War II enabled the US dollar, backed by gold, to become the world’s reserve currency. When the US abandoned the gold standard in 1971, the dollar remained supreme, and its position was further boosted in 1974 when the US came to an agreement with Saudi Arabia that the oil trade would be denominated in dollars.(7) Most countries in the world import oil, and it made sense for them to accumulate dollars in order to guard against oil shocks. Third World countries had even more reason to hoard dollars so as to protect their fragile economies and currencies from sudden collapse. With everyone clamouring for dollars, all the US had to do was print fiat dollars and other countries would accept them in payment for their exports. These dollars then flowed back into the US to be invested in Treasury Bonds and similar instruments, offsetting the outflow. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, headquartered in Washington, reinforced dollar hegemony.

https://countercurrents.org/hensman171107.htm

[Steve_American]

The founding MMTer, Warren Mosler, asserts the all the appointees at the US Fed do NOT understand how the financial system works, BUT all of the staffers at the Fed do understand how the financial the system works. He say it at the 20 min. mark in the below video.

Then Mosler continues and talks about what happens if China starts selling its US Bonds. He says it is no big deal.

The 1st part is not that interesting because it is about how MMTers met and the early days of MMT over 2 decades ago.
.

[Steve_American]

You are attempting distraction now.

I gave you clarification because you asked, and gave my main points in my former post.

You are no economics scholar, but rather a parrot.

I gave my views formerly, and stated them plainly, but clarified the term which, as a layman, you didn't understand. I'm not here to continue to tell you how wrong I think your idols are.

If you want to detailed respond to something I'd refer you to my first post.

I looked at every post of your in this thread, and I don't see what you are referring to.

I don't know how to find your "first post".

I gave an example and referred you to the MMTers published papers.

How is that a "distraction"?

I find you refusal to engage with me to be somewhat like Blutosays. He just makes assertions with no back up and expects me to be convinced. You also make assertions with no back up. Why should I change my mind based on your unsupported assertions?
.

[Crantag]

I looked at every post of your in this thread, and I don't see what you are referring to.

I don't know how to find your "first post".

I gave an example and referred you to the MMTers published papers.

How is that a "distraction"?

I find you refusal to engage with me to be somewhat like Blutosays. He just makes assertions with no back up and expects me to be convinced. You also make assertions with no back up. Why should I change my mind based on your unsupported assertions?
.

I'll say my piece and when you respond I'll respond to what I consider worthy of response. I think the 'MMTers' are real economists and all, but I tend to disagree with them for the reasons I state.

The thing I find erroneous of your approach is you think you understand economics, but your entire body of knowledge is based on MMT blogs and videos.

I'm a Marxist (you've accused me of being mainstream on the basis I don't agree with MMT) but I've studied various schools.

I am pretty sure you are even ignorant of any certain parallels between MMT and Keynesianism.

For example, it was Keynes who said 'in the long run we're all dead.' (See your initial reply to my initial post for the paraphrase you offered, which I doubt you knew it came from Keynes. And that's not stating that I agree, I mostly don't agree with such notions. I don't agree that, hey we all gonna die, live it up and fuck the future generations. Seems like not ideal to me.)

[Steve_American]

I'll say my piece and when you respond I'll respond to what I consider worthy of response. I think the 'MMTers' are real economists and all, but I tend to disagree with them for the reasons I state.

The thing I find erroneous of your approach is you think you understand economics, but your entire body of knowledge is based on MMT blogs and videos.

I'm a Marxist (you've accused me of being mainstream on the basis I don't agree with MMT) but I've studied various schools.

I am pretty sure you are even ignorant of any certain parallels between MMT and Keynesianism.

For example, it was Keynes who said 'in the long run we're all dead.' (See your initial reply to my initial post for the paraphrase you offered, which I doubt you knew it came from Keynes. And that's not stating that I agree, I mostly don't agree with such notions. I don't agree that, hey we all gonna die, live it up and fuck the future generations. Seems like not ideal to me.)

You're wrong, I did and do know that "In the long run , we are all dead," was said by Keynes. I do know about the parallels between MMT and Keynesianism. However, current Neo-Keynesianism has deviated from his writings a lot on key points. MMTers think they went backwards. That is Keynes was right-ish, and Noe-Keynesians moved away from the right parts and so are further from correct than Keynes was.

You say above that you'll state some reasons where you think MMT is wrong. But, I see very little of that here.

I must agree that most of my knowledge about economics comes from MMTers. So what? Why is this a bad thing? It is clear the me that most economic theory is not based on reality. There were 2 studies done about a decade apart in which econ. grad students were asked questions. One question was about how important they thought it was to study economic reality, and only about 10% thought it was important all all. Then MMTers told me that econ. is taught as being like plane geometry, where everything is proven from assumptions and nothing is proven by any looking at reality, i.e. historical econ. data. But, many of the assumptions in the proofs are false. It is explained that they are close to correct and that it is OK if the are false for that reason. Maybe they thought that was correct in 1970 when they formalized the theory. However, by 1980, Chaos Theory had been accepted in Mathematics. Chaos Theory showed that small errors can grow over time to swamp everything else. This is why the weather can never be predicted exactly even for 1 day ahead.
. . . In deductive logic, the 1st law, is that one can't have even 1 false premise in the proof, that assumed to be true. Yet, mainstream econ. has several false assumptions.

You assert 2 things. 1] I don't know much about all theories of econ. 2] That you are Marxist.
It is true, that I don't know much about current Marxian theory. It follows that I don't know what you believe.
. . . For example, take the Phillips curve. I'm very sure, but not 100% sure, that Marx said nothing about it. So, do you use the Phillips curve? If yes, why? If no, what is you relation between unemployment and inflation? Or, what causes inflation?

Anyway, you asserted that the fact that the $us is the reserve currency has a a lot to do with how it is that from 2000 to 2019 inflation in consumer goods (not incl. houses) was very low, despite the also fact that US Gov. deficits were very high. And also asserted that there are signs that the reserve currency status of the $us may end soon. And, this seemed like your reason that you think that MMTers are idiots and fools.
. .. What is the Marxian reason that is the basis for that prediction?

I say now that I ignorant prediction is that.
1] The Chinese yuan is not ever going to be the reserve currency because no one trusts the CCP not to just take their money.
2] The euro also can't be the reserve currency for 2 reasons.
. . a] The EU/ECB has already taken people's euros during the Cypress banking crisis.
. . b] The EU's rules keep nations from issuing much new debt. This because their GDP is not growing very fast and they are maxed out under the rules at 60% of GDP of debt. (Now the rules are relaxed, but the ECB is making noises that this may end soon.) Other nations like Germany don't issue much debt in any case or have a surplus. This is important because, IMO, the world's reserve currency needs new bonds being sold every month in huge amounts to store the savings of foreign holders of $ or euros at some positive interest rate.
3] Japan's yen can be the reserve currency because it economy is too small to produce the necessary bonds for foreigners to buy and it has a trade surplus, so how do foreigners get yen to buy Japanese bonds.

So, Crantag, what nation is going to replace the US soon.

.

[Negotiator]

They couldnt sustain the gold standard in the early 1970s, because Germany alone would this way own more money that there was actually in existence.

So they went for the petrol dollar instead.

In the end it doesnt really matter too much. The value of any currency, no matter if backed by gold, or being a fiat currency, etc, is in the end always based on:

1. There are natural resources

2. People work and produce

Or, even shorter, there are real values.

Thats all. And you have to be able to trade these real values for an universal value. Thats money. The existence of real values is what makes money necessary and what allows money to have a value, because money in itself has no actual value.

The part of basing your currency on gold, or debt (fiat money), or making sure that Saudi Arabia sells their oil only for US dollar is there to make sure that money indeed has a perceived value and is thus accepted as the universal value to base all trade on.

So, Crantag, what nation is going to replace the US soon.

NO nation.

Putting a currency under the double strain of being both a nations currency as well as a currency for the whole planet always was a bad idea and would always in the end blow up in that nations face.

Thus, Bancor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor