[Steve_American]

I think that here "ABC" means Aust. Broadcasting Comp.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-02/ ... t/11729726

After more than four decades of dominance, free market capitalism [aka Neo-Liberalism] is facing a challenge.

Its rival, the blandly named modern monetary theory (MMT), has entered the ring promising to return economic planning to a less ideological footing.

It's also keen to strike a blow against the "surplus fetish" that many economists now blame for declining public services and growing inequality.

The rise of MMT has received little attention in Australia, but it's increasingly gaining exposure in the United States ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

[Deutschmania]

Modern monetary theory is not the only alternative to neo-liberal capitalism . To present it as such constructs a false dictonomy . For not all on the left are on board with MMT . http://lefthooknews.com/posts/modern-monetary-theory-is-a-lie-that-could-destroy-the-progressive-movement I for one am not . Which is also why , this time around , I do not support Bernie Sanders , in the primary election .

[ThirdTerm]

While most economists still dismiss MMT as a crank theory, modern monetary theory (MMT) is nothing new or modern. It was tried in Weimar Germany and Edo Japan, which resulted in uncontrollable hyperinflation. In both cases, they needed to start fresh by overthrowing old governments, with Nazy Germany and Meiji Japan, respectively. Under new systems, they could cancel out existing government debts and obligations. The proponents of MMT argue that the government can print money as much as it needs to fund government-related activities or projects without worrying about inflation or debts. The Mugabe government was also printing money to finance military involvement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2000. With Mugabe's excessive money creation, the inflation rate in Zimbabwe reached 1.5 million percent.

The central idea of MMT is that governments with a fiat currency system can and should print (or create with a few keystrokes in today's digital age) as much money as they need to spend because they cannot go broke or be insolvent unless a political decision to do so is taken.

Traditional thinking says such spending would be fiscally irresponsible as the debt would balloon and inflation would skyrocket.

But according to MMT, a large government debt isn't the precursor to collapse we have been led to believe it is, countries like the U.S. can sustain much greater deficits without cause for concern, and in fact a small deficit or surplus can be extremely harmful and cause a recession since deficit spending is what builds people's savings.

https://www.investopedia.com/modern-mon ... mt-4588060

[Steve_American]

While most economists still dismiss MMT as a crank theory, modern monetary theory (MMT) is nothing new or modern. It was tried in Weimar Germany and Edo Japan, which resulted in uncontrollable hyperinflation. In both cases, they needed to start fresh by overthrowing old governments, with Nazy Germany and Meiji Japan, respectively. Under new systems, they could cancel out existing government debts and obligations. The proponents of MMT argue that the government can print money as much as it needs to fund government-related activities or projects without worrying about inflation or debts. The Mugabe government was also printing money to finance military involvement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2000. With Mugabe's excessive money creation, the inflation rate in Zimbabwe reached 1.5 million percent.

I don't know about Edo Japan, but for the Wiemar Republic you are plain wrong. Germany lost WWI and the treaty functionally created a huge foreign debt that Ger. hhad to make payment on. MMT excludes nations with foreign debt from their list of nations that can deficit spend without worrying.
. . MMT also says that nations with a fiat currency, no foreign debt, and float the currency are CONSTRAINED by what resources & labor the nation can produce or buy. However, such fiat nations are NOT constrained by financial considerations. So, such nations can NOT 'print' or issue currency up to what it "needs" to spend. They are constrained by real things and workers who can work.
. . Zimbabwe crashed its food production. So, it had to try to buy foreign food. The problem was much more the "too little stuff" and not so much the "too much money".

ThirdTerm quoted this: The central idea of MMT is that governments with a fiat currency system can and should print (or create with a few keystrokes in today's digital age) as much money as they need to spend because they cannot go broke or be insolvent unless a political decision to do so is taken.

Traditional thinking says such spending would be fiscally irresponsible as the debt would balloon and inflation would skyrocket.

But according to MMT, a large government debt isn't the precursor to collapse we have been led to believe it is, countries like the U.S. can sustain much greater deficits without cause for concern, and in fact a small deficit or surplus can be extremely harmful and cause a recession since deficit spending is what builds people's savings.

https://www.investopedia.com/modern-mon ... mt-4588060

Like I said above. "Need" is not what MMTers say.

So, this whole post is in error about what MMT actually says. And it doesn't matter what some secondary source says. What matters is what MMTers actually say. It isn't hard to find an MMTer to read. I have provided you-all with several links Dr. Bill Mitchell's blog which has hundreds of articles to read. I have earlier provided you-all with YouTube links to videos by MMTers if you choose not to read.
. . so, don't believe this post, it is wrong, and easy to prove wrong.

[late]

Le ancien regime...

Why are you guys arguing about an antique??

[Steve_American]

Modern monetary theory is not the only alternative to neo-liberal capitalism . To present it as such constructs a false dictonomy . For not all on the left are on board with MMT . http://lefthooknews.com/posts/modern-monetary-theory-is-a-lie-that-could-destroy-the-progressive-movement I for one am not . Which is also why , this time around , I do not support Bernie Sanders , in the primary election .

OK, you claim there is a 3rd contender. Not MMT and not Neo-Liberalism.
Please name it and provide one or 2 links to something about it.
If you can't or don't name it then we-all should ignore you.
OTOH, I suppose that full on Socialism or Communism are such contenders.
Problem is they both want to take factories, etc. from their owners and not pay them. So, they are not what I want.
MMT doesn't want to do that. So, MMT is something that I do want people to understand.
Note: MMTers say that there is only one policy that they must have. It is the Job Guarantee program to replace unemployment as the way to control inflation. MMTers say it is economically better to pay them to do something useful than to pay them much less to do nothing. Everything else they say is just how to do what you choose to do using other criteria to decide what to do.

[Deutschmania]

OK, you claim there is a 3rd contender. Not MMT and not Neo-Liberalism.
Please name it and provide one or 2 links to something about it.
If you can't or don't name it then we-all should ignore you.
OTOH, I suppose that full on Socialism or Communism are such contenders.
Problem is they both want to take factories, etc. from their owners and not pay them. So, they are not what I want.
MMT doesn't want to do that. So, MMT is something that I do want people to understand.
Note: MMTers say that there is only one policy that they must have. It is the Job Guarantee program to replace unemployment as the way to control inflation. MMTers say it is economically better to pay them to do something useful than to pay them much less to do nothing. Everything else they say is just how to do what you choose to do using other criteria to decide what to do.

There are basically two alternative options , the way I see it . One would be to follow the moderate center-right course of Modern Republicanism , the second would be to follow the more radical center-left approach of liberal socialism . Both retains a market based economy , and stands in contrast to the bureaucratic collectivism of the managerial state . Personally , in real life , I am inclined to support communitarianism , as expressed by both Blue Labour , as well as the Big Society .

[Steve_American]

There are basically two alternative options , the way I see it . One would be to follow the moderate center-right course of Modern Republicanism , the second would be to follow the more radical center-left approach of liberal socialism . Both retains a market based economy , and stands in contrast to the bureaucratic collectivism of the managerial state . Personally , in real life , I am inclined to support communitarianism , as expressed by both Blue Labour , as well as the Big Society .

Thank you for the helpful links.
I had no idea what you were talking about.
My MMTer Profs tell me that both Labour and Conservative Parties are Neo-liberal to the core now and have been since PM Blair at least.
So, it seems to me that those articles are at best wrong and at worst disinformation.
I saw a comment on Bill Mitchell's MMT blog where it was claimed that a newspaper editor in Finland denied being a Neo-liberal because the things he believes {TIMA, banks loan their depositor's money, and all gov. are like a household} are obviously just the way things are.

[Deutschmania]

Thank you for the helpful links.
I had no idea what you were talking about.
My MMTer Profs tell me that both Labour and Conservative Parties are Neo-liberal to the core now and have been since PM Blair at least.
So, it seems to me that those articles are at best wrong and at worst disinformation.
I saw a comment on Bill Mitchell's MMT blog where it was claimed that a newspaper editor in Finland denied being a Neo-liberal because the things he believes {TIMA, banks loan their depositor's money, and all gov. are like a household} are obviously just the way things are.

I suppose that now of days the term "neo-liberal" has been reduced to being a loaded term , which political cults might use to shut down discussion of dissenting opinion .