If you believe in GW; then you should embrace MMT as a key tool to attain your end goal. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Everything from personal credit card debt to government borrowing debt.

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

#14922977
The original title for this was --- How the debate over GW or CC is like the debate here between MMT & MSE economics.
So, my final point [the one in the title] is at the bottom because it came to me at that point in the writing.

I see some parallels with these 2 debates, i.e., GW vs not-GW and MSE vs MMT.

The GW or CC [Global warming or climate change] debate features 2 theories.
1] GW theory says CO2 pollution will warm the planet and change the climate in bad ways for human civilization.
2] The other side of the debate also has a theory. We don't hear anything about it but it's there.
. . . It says the impact of humans on a planet wide scale is so small that we can assume that humans are not going to change the planet. If the planet changes it must be some other cause like the sun getting hotter, or undersea volcanoes, or something.

These 2 theories result in different policy recommendations.
1] Change the current habits and actions of humans to reduce the amount of CO2 released and invent new tech to help us do that.
2] Carry on with the current policies and habits.

These 2 recommendations impact people now and in the future.
1] Changing things will hurt some people and help others.
2] Not changing hurts different people and helps different people.

OTOH, we have MSE vs MMT [Main stream economics vs Modern monetary theory].
These 2 sides have different theories backing them up.
1] MSE is the dominate theory of economics currently. This has not always been so.
. . . . As the current dominate theory MSE has a lot of elaboration.
2] MMT is newer. It also has a lot of elaboration.

These 2 theories result in different policy recommendations.
1] Carry on with the current policies and habits even though they are causing much hardship now because if we don't there will be huge bad consequences down the road.
2] Change the current habits and actions of humans [especially their governments] to worry more about the people alive today and less about scary predictions that our theory says will definitely not happen as the other side says.

These 2 recommendations impact people now and in the future.
1] Not changing is hurting the mass of people now. We must continue to do this because of the high risk of hyperinflation or the collapse of the banking system or something if we do as MMT says.
2] Changing things will help a lot of people because austerity is literally killing them now but it will hurt the rich people who are not damaged by austerity. The risk MSE worries about is just scary stories told about hyperinflation or the collapse of the banking system or something. MMT says that there will be no hyperinflation and the US can always pay its national debts as long as it only borrows dollars; it also says that deficit spending doesn't suck up the savings of the people so corporate lending must stop; deficit spending has the opposite effect, it adds to the public's savings .

So what we see here is kind of strange.
The current majority in Congress are against GW and for MSE. In the 1st case they dismiss the scary stories about how if we don't act now and sharply change things really bad things will happen down the road. In the 2nd case they stress the scary stories that if we do act now and sharply change things really bad things will happen down the road.
. . . What is different in the 2 cases is --- in the 1st case change will force the rich to adjust their actions now so they can continue to make money [with the new tech, etc.] and in the 2nd case change will help the mass of the people who are angry and suffering now to live better lives and to some extent hurt the rich's goal of sucking up more and more of the world's wealth.

I favor helping the mass of the people over helping the rich suck up more of the world's wealth. At this point the rich getting richer has zero effect on their living standard because they can't spend any more (than half a million dollars) a day in anyway that actually makes their lives "better".

I also claim that changing to MMT would help humanity save the world from GW.
This is because it ends all arguments about can the nation financially afford the proposed action; i.e. where will the money to do this come from? Arguments like, will not the taxpayers object to the higher taxes to pay for all the new programs that will be needed to change the world, to build the new tech, etc., etc., etc.?
. . . And not just the USA nation; this can apply to every nation. Except those that use the euro. They would have to make major changes in how they do things financially; or abandon the euro. Also, the few nations that use the US$.

So, I call on all of you here who want the world to embrace the fight to save the world from GW to embrace MMT as a key tool to help you attain your end goal.

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspirac[…]

Candace Owens

She has shown to many Americans what Zionism is s[…]

Both of them have actually my interest at heart. […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

As predicted, the hasbara troll couldn't quote me […]