If he doesn’t pay his legal taxes they do for he would be breaking the law.
Because I don’t give a dissertation every time someone basically asks the same questions numerous times by different people does not mean they have not been addressed.
I answered your questions with questions because the answer is so obvious that it pains me to think of it.
So give it a basic examination and show me how it falls apart.
How about politicians are helping people to suffer in this country and MMT is the way out. What saving American lives and alleviating the suffering done to many of our citizens isn’t compelling enough for you?
Yeah, why does he?
Why do they?
Then thank all those awesome American capitalist companies for raising their prices and using inflation as an excuse.
you’re still just saying the reason you’re right is because you’re right. Obviously any of us would be on board with this IF you were able to prove it to be definitively true.
The way you’re presenting your argument is like this:
You make X claim, and you say that Y results will follow. I ask you to prove how X will yield Y results, and why I should be convinced that Y follows X. Instead of proving X claim produces Y results, you just talk about how great the Y result is and that everyone should want Y, without proving how X actually gets you there in the first place. All the ‘arguments’ you’ve made are so elementary and without foundation. You keep saying ‘printing money doesn’t cause inflation’, but you’re neglecting the complexities of how to actually prove that.
I still don’t understand why it’s so hard for you to present some sort of written article that backs up your claims. Do you just not read? If you don’t want to make the argument yourself, fair. But my God. If this is such a good idea, surely you should have dozens of articles I could sift through to be convinced. You’ve shared literally zero. That in itself is cause for concern, particularly when your opposition in this debate presented several in the first 10 posts of this thread. Your opposition has presented compelling arguments that printing money DOES result in inflation, and they have talked about the downsides of doing so. You haven’t exactly done much to refute their claims, other than saying ‘no i’m right bwahahaha’. It’s so juvenile.
1 Like
You didn’t answer my questions except with more questions. Give me the main points of MMT and then address how I did/didn’t present a differing opinion. That’s how you have a conversation. Not “x is better because it’s obvious and it’s obvious because I want to believe this way and anyone who doesn’t clearly doesn’t know as much as I do and is mainstream brainwashed rube”.
Won’t go further than that since @flipcollar already gave the response I would have.
Because the status quo is pretty good. Push it further into the crapper and let’s see how long that lasts.
This is what the age of social media has boiled many conversations down to. And it’s happened so quickly. Go look at the debates of John McCain versus Obama compared to Trump vs Hillary. The contrast is shocking.
Are you saying that the 100 billion sent to Ukraine for killing people is causing inflation?
More than a dozen articles: https://neweconomicperspectives.org/ Written almost exclusively by the face of MMT Stephanie Kelton
You may have presented a differing opinion, but it’s one from the mainstream. You believe the government needs revenue to function. So it’s(the Fed.) budget works like a personal budget. And your arguments follow. If your premise is wrong-which it is-then everything that follows is also wrong.
Never said this.
Revenue from taxes and other sources can balance a budget and the government doesn’t need to go into further debt to do this. The last time this occurred was under Clinton (long after the gold standard was gone) during the 90s. An era in which most would say was quite prosperous.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/federal-budget-receipts-and-outlays
I don’t care about the debt as of course some is going to be carried. I care about not adding to it and causing inflation. All of which printing money (along with other factors) has done. I focus on printing money in my response because the absolute tenant of MMT is that currency issuers can issue as much as they want without a negative effect. That is the argument that myself and other posters here don’t buy. But you can’t see that because to you MMT is the “right” choice. However you can’t provide evidence it’s right, just a lot of opinion pieces.
So because something is mainstream it’s inherently wrong?
Sounds like those flat earthers again.
I like the critiques of her books by non-communist economists:
Stanford University economist John H. Cochrane gave the book a negative review,[25] saying that her “implications don’t lead to her desired conclusions … her logic, facts and language turn into pretzels”. Cochrane asserted that Kelton’s analysis of inflation was biased,[25] and that the book cited “no articles in major peer-reviewed journals, monographs with explicit models and evidence, or any of the other trappings of economic discourse”.[25]
New York University economist Alberto Bisin also panned the book, writing, “it’s not that the public-spending agenda proposed in the book wouldn’t be worthwhile, or that monetization is never a useful tool of monetary policy. … These are all issues currently studied and debated in (mainstream) academic and policy circles. But MMT, as exposed in the book, appears to be a very poor attempt at supporting this political agenda, with no coherent theoretical support.”[26]
1 Like
This is a big no-no amongst almost all genres of non-fiction.
Therefore her book is nothing more than an Op-Ed on how she wants things to work.
I wonder if she initially tried to publish her ideas in peer reviewed journals and got rejected…
And what happened next?
Who says this?
Have you read it? Probably not. So how do you know?
And who do you think owns/decides what is in peer reviewed journals?
It’s much easier to issue complaints when the author is not there to push back. A debate would help settle this. However I doubt either of these 2 economists would agree to it. Out of fear.
Most of the time. It gives things out from the owners POV, not those who are negatively affected.
The government doesn’t need revenue. Just look at the recent Ukraine example.