[Steve_American]

Neo-liberalism took over in 1981 with Reagan being President. Clinton came on board, and it has held sway ever since. Now even the MSM refuses to give alternate economic theories a fair hearing.
. . A key assumption of neo-liberalism was/is trickle down economics, which is the idea that giving more income to the rich will let/cause them to share it with the masses. It is obvious that this has not happened.
. . QE was a way for the Fed to pump money into the economy, but it could only go to the rich. The system doesn't let the Fed give money to the masses. The rich used the QE money to bid up the prices of real estate and corp stock. The US has seen huge bubbles in these 2 parts of the economy. Meanwhile, real wages have been flat or even falling if a more accurate CPI had been used.

MMT is 1st and foremost a way or a lens to see how the economy really works.
. . It is not based on false assumptions. It sees as true [for "fiat nations" that have their own fiat currency, and that float that currency, and have little debt in any other currency] => no fiat Gov. can run out of money [they issue/create it at will], the size of the Gov. deficit should not be the target, the target should be a good economy, a good economy has full employment and low inflation, bond sales by non EU nations are optional, bonds are a guaranteed income program for the rich, the nation's central bank can always control the interest rate that it pays on the bonds it sells, and fiat nations can always buy any real thing and all labor that is for sale in its currency.
. . MMT sees as false => the Gov. of fiat nations needs to get money to spend by taxing or borrowing it away from someone who has money, fiat nations can be unable to pay their debts, banks lend their depositors' money [so Gov. bond sales are not competing with corp. borrowers for money, and so Gov. bond sales don't crowd out money for corp. investment], the Phillips curve means that low unemployment must lead to high inflation, giving after tax income to the rich will always result in the rich spending it so that the masses benefit [this could happen, but it never has], that a nation must rely on corps to make all the investments needed to control inflation when there is full employment [the Gov. can build factories itself if the rich go on an "investment strike"], that the current US Market is close to the "Perfect Market" (which is defined as a Market with no players with monopoly pricing power) [so the part of the econ. theory that deals with a perfect market has no business being applied to the current US economy/market], and that it is even possible to define just what the NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) level is at any time,

So, some conclusions that MMT draws from all the above and other additional parts of MMT are =>
1] There is no fixed debt to GDP ratio that is going to be a problem. You see in 2008 GFC, nations in the EU saw their tax revenues and GDP fall as their spending increased. Therefore, their tax revenues minus spending = deficits increased which increased their total debt. At the same time as their GDP was falling. Therefore, the ratio increased, because both the debt =numerator was increasing and their GDP = denominator was decreasing. This didn't really reflect any real problem in the economy. It was just a number. Today the ratio for Japan is almost 300% and Japan still is having no problems except that the yen has fallen, but it may have stabilized. However, in the EU & EZ this caused a crisis. Nations like Ireland that had been doing fine suddenly had that ratio too high. Because Ireland doesn't issue the euro it had to pay high interest rates to borrow to cover the deficit. In the end and ever since the ECB stepped in and has been buying the bonds of nations so they can sell bonds at a reasonable interest rate. This is a violation of the official rules. MMTers predicted this would happen during the 1st crisis in about 2001.

2] Neo-liberalism is worried about Gov. deb and Gov. deficits. It is NOT worried about private debt levels anywhere near as much. So MS econ didn't see the GFC/2008 coming, while MMTers did see it coming. MMTers see that Gov. debt is not really a debt, because it can be paid at will and also, because it is a fact that having a Gov. surplus that totals $25 trillion spread out over even 100 years would cause the US economy to crash after the 1st few trillion had been taxed away and paid to some bond holders. The crash would end the surplus, but if it continued, the depression would get worse every year, until the Gov. reversed course and spent like crazy. This is the lesion of the early Great Depression. Hoover, kept his surplus going and then FDR started the huge deficit spending that helped a lot. I and anyone with a brain can see that since WWII spending ended the depression in 1940, that it could have been ended by the end of 1936 if WWII spending levels had been spent starting in 1933.

3] After WWII the huge US national debt was not reduced in any decade, i.e. at the end of any decade the total debt was lager than at its start. The graphs you see are of debt/GDP vs time, not debt vs time. The huge growing US national debt didn't hurt the US economy until at least 1971. And even then it is hard to prove that it had any effect. Many assert it, but none prove it.
.

[Puffer Fish]

Is there some other way to give this "wealth" to the masses, that doesn't involve MMT ?

MMT seems to promise all sorts of whimsical fantastic stuff, but I'd like to actually see and understand the mechanism of how exactly it alleges to be able to do this.

Because right now, it just seems like snake oil.

[Puffer Fish]

So, some conclusions that MMT draws from all the above and other additional parts of MMT are =>
1] There is no fixed debt to GDP ratio that is going to be a problem. You see in 2008 GFC, nations in the EU saw their tax revenues and GDP fall as their spending increased. Therefore, their tax revenues minus spending = deficits increased which increased their total debt. At the same time as their GDP was falling. Therefore, the ratio increased, because both the debt =numerator was increasing and their GDP = denominator was decreasing. This didn't really reflect any real problem in the economy. It was just a number. Today the ratio for Japan is almost 300% and Japan still is having no problems except that the yen has fallen, but it may have stabilized.

I would argue that, at some point, continuing to borrow more money just automatically translates into inflation.
Borrowing becomes economically equivalent to printing more money.

Maybe not completely but partially.

However, in the EU & EZ this caused a crisis. Nations like Ireland that had been doing fine suddenly had that ratio too high. Because Ireland doesn't issue the euro it had to pay high interest rates to borrow to cover the deficit. In the end and ever since the ECB stepped in and has been buying the bonds of nations so they can sell bonds at a reasonable interest rate.

If they didn't pay that interest, it would have caused inflation, the only other alternative.

You can't just borrow money without there being a cost. (Something you don't seem to understand) That cost is either an interest rate, or inflation (inflationary pressure).

[Puffer Fish]

MMTers see that Gov. debt is not really a debt, because it can be paid at will

Are you considering at all how government printing money to pay off its debt would affect the country's credit rating for the future?

The country might never be able to truly borrow actual wealth again (or might have to pay very high interest rates to do so).

Printing more money is just a paper game.

[Steve_American]

Is there some other way to give this "wealth" to the masses, that doesn't involve MMT ?

MMT seems to promise all sorts of whimsical fantastic stuff, but I'd like to actually see and understand the mechanism of how exactly it alleges to be able to do this.

Because right now, it just seems like snake oil.

The problem between you and me is that economics is not a hard science. As fone by MainStream economists it ism't based on using tools to look closely at reality and then form hypoyhises and try to falisfy them. Instead, it is based on asssumptopns and conclusions that follow from those assumptions.
. . . MMT asserts that it has looked at how the economy really works, but MMT's version of economics is still not a hard science.

So, our problem is that you believe in MS econ even though you must know that some of its assumptions are false and the in logic 1 false premise makes all conclusions that are based on that premise invalid or unproved. So, to me your views of economics seem like snake oil; and to you, my views on economics seem like snake oil.

One way MMT will give income to the masses is with its Federal/local Job guarantee Program. I have described it several times before. Do you understanf the MMT JGP? If not then you have been ignoring the details of my posts.
. . As I understand it, the JGP will "offer" a job to any one who wants one. This job will always pay the same wage. This wage will be "sociallt inclusive", meaning enough to live a fairly normal life, to buy things in the local economy to stimulate local businesses. It is not to be just enough to survive.
. . Pbvious;y, this will raise the minimum private sector wage to be this much or more.
. . MMTers assert that the JGP will act like unemployment payments to keep the economy stablized without causing high inflation.
.

[Steve_American]

Are you considering at all how government printing money to pay off its debt would affect the country's credit rating for the future?

The country might never be able to truly borrow actual wealth again (or might have to pay very high interest rates to do so).

Printing more money is just a paper game.

First, "printing money" is not how the Gov. would pay off its debt. Trillions of dollars of debt would require billions of $100 bills, and shipping them would be a nightmare. The Gov. would create "electronic dollars" by crediting bank accounts.

2nd, I always say that doing that would be bad for the economy. So what? Trying to pay th nationaal debt the old fassioned way by raising taxes or cutting spending to have a real surplus every year until the debt was all paid off would be far worse for the economy.

The US has been trapped by the actions of Reagan who tripled or quadripled the debt over his 8 years. Ever since then, *paying off* the debt with a surplus would always push the economy into the worst depression ever.

This is another reason that the US national debt is not a debt; because it can never be ended or paid off.

Again, I'll repeat, MMTers assert that selling bonds is entirely voluntary. The US (and all other nations that neet the 3 tests of being a full fiet currency nation), choose to sell bonds. These bonds are "just a way for the Gov. to give free risk free income to the rich," according to MMTers.
. . For example, the Gov. could directly sell special bonds to the Fed that pay no interest and mature in 1000 years. This way we can keep track of "how much money the US has spent into the economy and not taxed back yet," as Stephanie Kelton describes the national debt (her words).

Please, in the future add a nodifier to "inflation" every time you use that word. The Fed and all other central bank target 2% inflation. This means the inflation is seen as good thing by all MS economists as long as it is "not high" or "not hyper". Just saying the MMT's actions will cause inflation is obviously true, but then, the Fed's actions also will cause inflation. The objection to MMT's actions falls flat becaause 2% inflation is a good thing.

You are aware that all through the 90s until the GFC/2008 there was no high inflation and the debt grew massively. Nobody here has either denied this fact or explained why for 18 years the massive increase in the money supply from US Gov. deficit spending never caused high inflation. Nor has anyone here done the same for why Japan has had massive gov. deficit spending since 1992 and for 31 years has not had any economic problems, except slow growth. BTW, MMTers might attribite the slow growth to the deficits not being large enough to cause more GDP growth. [This is just like my personal view that in the 30s the depression didn't end until 1939 or 40 when WWII started and the UK and Fr. started buying stuff in the US for the war and the US stepped up its deficit spending to prepare for war.]
. . So, your assertions that high gov. deficit spending will *always* cause high inflation is proved false by historical examples. Please respond to this conclusion.
.

[Steve_American]

I would argue that, at some point, continuing to borrow more money just automatically translates into inflation.
Borrowing becomes economically equivalent to printing more money.

Maybe not completely but partially.


If they [the EU nations] didn't pay that interest, it would have caused inflation, the only other alternative.

You can't just borrow money without there being a cost. (Something you don't seem to understand) That cost is either an interest rate, or inflation (inflationary pressure).

No, not inflation. If they refused to sell the bonds at a high enough interest rate, then they would have had to default on part of their debt.

You seem to think that this level of borrowing or debt is close.

You are *just* saying your gut feeling tells you this.
Gut feelings are not ecidence.

I could say that my gut feeling is that it is not close, that the magic debt ratio the triggers a terrible result is 1000% of GDP. [Even if I did agree that there is such a level.]
Why is your gut feeling better than mine?

IMHO, AFAIK, way back in 1985 every economist would have said that this level had to be less the 250% of GDP, but Japan is above that now. This was their unanimus gut feelung.
Again,their assertion was disproved by the historical example.

Like I explained to someobe earlier. Under the gold standard we didn't have "sound money". This was because banks lent newly created dollars. This added to the money supply. But, the people can't keep borrowing. Somedaay they can't make the payments on what they owe. This is what caused most recessions in the past. Back then banks also created bank notes, that were not backed by gold. This was also a form of "unsound money".
. . I assert that MMTs fiat dollars are more sound than any previous form of paper money; and importantly that economies needed the money supply to grow as burning fossil fuels let their population rapidly grow. The gold supply could not grow fast enough. They had to resort to paper money. They had to ressort to unsound money. We have finally found the way to make paper money the most sound it has ever been. MMT explains how it works. The Repuds are lying to the nation for some reason.

MMT explains that the difference between the people borrowing from banks and the Gov. selling bonds to deficit spend is that 1st the Gov. spends dollars into the economy where it is in the banking system; and a week later, the Gov. sells the bonds to fund the deficit spending it spent a week ago. So, the Gov. put the money into the economy so that it can always borrow it back. The money in the economy is always enough to be able to buy the bonds. But, I'm 90% sure you can't grok this with or in your gut.

.

[late]

The economist that was the Koch guru was a complete nutter. He wanted to bring back slavery.

He wasn't neo-liberal. Guys like Friedman didn't want to see big increases in the money supply, or debt, and both happened.

He also wouldn't have wanted to see massive increases in tax cheating among the rich, but that also happened.

Republicans stopped serving their people, which is why they needed crazy wedge issues to distract them. Since then, they've slowly gotten crazier and crazier, and ever more corrupt.