- 28 Nov 2022 13:31
#15257111
The U.S. has been underwriting finance for the last *two decades*, since actual healthy national GDP growth has been lacking over that period.
If the finance is simply for *rentier*-type asset acquisitions, then what's the point? It's a free give-away of public funds to *non-productive* investments, like cryptocurrencies for example.
It's not even the use of public funds, borrowing, or finance -- normally politically objectionable -- but rather it's that:
---
Truth To Power wrote:
Maybe they don't understand how under the debt money system of finance capitalism, lower interest rates create inflation that favors those who are rich enough to be able to borrow billions to finance asset acquisitions.
The U.S. has been underwriting finance for the last *two decades*, since actual healthy national GDP growth has been lacking over that period.
If the finance is simply for *rentier*-type asset acquisitions, then what's the point? It's a free give-away of public funds to *non-productive* investments, like cryptocurrencies for example.
It's not even the use of public funds, borrowing, or finance -- normally politically objectionable -- but rather it's that:
---
Potemkin wrote:
[M]y understanding is that MMT claims that printing more money will not cause significant inflation if and only if that extra money supply is used to activate idle productive forces and labour power. So long as the extra money expands the economy, there’s no problem. If there are no or few idle productive forces or labour power in the economy, then obviously printing more money will just cause inflation. This means that, in a recession (when, by definition, there are idle productive forces and labour power), printing more money is generally a good idea, but doing so when the economy is booming is extremely inadvisable (not to mention unnecessary). None of this should be controversial; it’s basically just leftover Keynesianism taken out of the fridge and reheated in a pan.
viewtopic.php?p=15256668#p15256668