Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> MMT says that the only constraint on spending is inflation, but also turns around and says that you can always print more money. That’s a contradiction.

The article follows that up by saying:

>> As long as there are enough workers and equipment to meet growing demand without igniting inflation, the government can spend what it needs to maintain employment

and later on:

>> To stabilize employment, MMT would add a federally funded, locally administered job guarantee. Government would employ more people in slumps than in booms.

So I think the idea is that MMT recognizes that inflation would indeed occur if you kept printing money without a demand for that money, which they say will be supplied by government-sponsored full employment.

What I don't understand is: is there a situation in which full employment has already been achieved and the government just keeps printing money for new initiatives, and we're back to inflation?




> So I think the idea is that MMT recognizes that inflation would indeed occur if you kept printing money without a demand for that money, which they say will be supplied by government-sponsored full employment.

Nope, it's when too much money chases too few goods and services. Inflation is everywhere and always a dynamic process. The federal reserve can print 100 trillion dollars and credit it to their own account and it won't affect inflation at all until they start spending it or transferring it to parties that will.


Job guarantee is a stupid idea. Some people create more value by not working than by working.

Imagine you're trying to make a meal and some incompetent dummies want to do some work in the kitchen. It might turn out that someone competent does better work when dummies are not interfering with his work and instead are watching TV. It's called "Too many chefs in the kitchen". Full employment and job creation are not necessarily good for the economy.


It appears that MMT is meant to be a macroeconomic theory. I'm not here to defend it. But I would wager that an MMT advocate would claim to possess evidence that in the aggregate, a jobs guarantee would create more value than it would destroy because the pattern you describe does not apply to most people.

Again, I am not here to defend this theory. In fact, I have witnessed your anecdote myself and agree with the premise, at least on a micro scale.


>Some people create more value by not working than by working.

Are you trying to describe unsuccessful startup founders?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: