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

"A credentialed economist should put a stake through the heart of the heart of MMT" -- yet somehow all the critiques made by credentialed economists have been based on misunderstanding MMT.

"The financial statement of the economy has to balance." The heart of MMT is that the imbalance between money coming in to a powerful central government and money going out is the primary contributor to growth (or contraction) of the economy as a whole. When it is balanced, the economy is neither growing nor contracting. When the government increases the public debt in a sustainable manner (i.e. people are willing to buy all the Treasury bonds being offered) the economy improves.

"This is merely a backdoor way of transferring assets in a deeply unaccountable way." It's not backdoor and it's not unaccountable; it's tax policy.




It's tax policy that is designed to be non-transparent. When the government collects $20 dollars from my income I know exactly what kind of value is being collected. When the government prints $20 it's not transparent what kind of value is being redirected to the government.


> The heart of MMT is that the imbalance between money coming in to a powerful central government and money going out is the primary contributor to growth (or contraction) of the economy as a whole.

Only if our measures of economic strength are fundamentally measuring how much money is in it. If what is important is prudent use of resources then there is scant evidence that that is a good idea. And the reason we have an economy is to work out what 'prudent use of resources' means in practice. Governments have no advantage over private individuals in husbanding resources over the generations (look at how many governments make a pigs ear out of setting up pension, retirement systems and infrastructure spending).

Strategically, MMT theories that I've read seem to say that government is a positive, but if we can't be sure who is paying for it maybe nobody is, so the net impact is probably also positive.

That is clearly crazy, but also looks uncomfortably like an honest take on what a lot of governments do in practice. When the government takes on debt, it isn't obvious who is paying for it - the lender thinks they have an asset, so it isn't them. Identifying which taxpayers will pay the money back is as hard as unwinding who money printing is actually hurting.




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

Search: