MMT vs. Austrian School Debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2013
- MODERN MONETARY THEORY VS. THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL:
MACROECONOMIC DEBATES AMONG THE HETERODOXY
For discussion on this video, see here: www.modernmoneynetwork.org/1/p...
A public debate on macroeconomic theory and policy with leading thinkers from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and the Austrian School. Warren Mosler represents MMT, Robert Murphy, Ph.D, represents the Austrian School, and John Carney moderates.
www.modernmoneynetwork.org/mmt...
DEBATERS
WARREN MOSLER is an early developer of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the President of Valance Co, Inc., and Senior Financial Advisor to Senator Ronald E. Russell, President of the 29th Legislature of the U.S. Virgin Islands. He is the founder and current manager of the III Funds, which peaked at over $5 billion AUM in 2007 and currently manages about $1.5 billion, as well as the Founder and President of Mosler Automotive, which manufactures the MT900 sports car in Riviera Beach, Florida. Mr. Mosler has written a number of academic papers on issues relating to macroeconomics and monetary policy, and is the author of Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy (2010). He maintains a personal blog, The Center of the Universe (moslereconomics.com), and can be followed on Twitter at moslereconomics.com.
ROBERT MURPHY, Ph.D, is a Senior Economist with the Institute for Energy Research and an Associated Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, where he teaches at the Mises Academy. He is also an adjunct scholar at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. From 2003 until 2006, Murphy was Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College in Michigan, U.S. From 2006 until early 2007, he was employed as a research and portfolio analyst with Laffer Associates, an economic and investment consultancy in New York. He runs the blog Free Advice (consultingbyrpm.com/blog) and writes a column for Townhall.com and has also written for LewRockwell.com. He is the author of a number of books including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and Lessons for the Young Economist.
MODERATOR
JOHN CARNEY is a senior editor at CNBC.com, covering Wall Street, hedge funds, financial regulation and other business news. Prior to joining CNBC.com, Carney was the editor of Business Insider's Clusterstock.com and DealBreaker.com. He has also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New York Sun, Page Six Magazine, Gawker, TheAtlantic.com, The Daily Beast, Time Out New York, Fortune and New York magazine. Carney practiced corporate law at firms such as Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Latham & Watkins, primarily representing banks, hedge funds and private equity firms. He received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania.
Mike Norman is now complaining about disrespect when he laughed at Peter Schiff when he forecasted the financial crisis back in 2007.
Haha true although the MMT people did predict it though.
Schiff predicts a crash every week
That's Modern Moron Theory for you
The only disrespect I saw was from the guy who claimed he saw disrespect.
Murphy is more extreme and emotional than Mosler, & it comes off as disrespectful when he compares Warren to criminals. He blames warren for the system but Mosler is like the rest of us, trying to find solutions in modern life. Murphy is whining about how the system should be but never gives any solutions.
@@seanmcconnell2345 What do you want a strategy guide? Implement his policies, that's the solution.
kjnkjnbkjbjn jhbjknnhbkjnjkh he mentions policies? Austrian policy was made on sound money. Fiat is hot potato, spending the $ wisely is better than saving money for a government.
@@senorshorty16 Right, I was talking about Murphy.
@@seanmcconnell2345 I know I am a year late. Whining you say without any solutions. Be fair. He did say the solutions were to have the govt out of the banking system, stop the artificial control of interest rate and give currency back to the people (stop the monopoly of govt fiat money). So take your pick. Or maybe you just wanted to condescend him? If so then bravo you did it, hope you felt good ;)
Edit: You have to distinguish being offensive from being disrespectful. Offensive statements can be posed respectfully. He was saying that the proposal was as absurd as someone robbing for those reasons. He may have come off as offensive but it is a bit of a stretch to say disrespectful. I may say Steph is the best player ever, it might be offensive to LeBron fans but not disrespectful.
"I think you're too condescending, Murphy! [proceeds to be condescending"
Bob murphs snark is off the clock
@@AnarchyEnsues Bob Murphy is a genuine American hero
@@bobdole57 dude, all he does is repeat Jewish economics like thomas sowell... Not really revolutionary.
@@AnarchyEnsues "jewish economics" That's funny considering he's catholic and people call Hans Hoppe a nazi. Nice try though. "Jewish economics" doesn't sound racist at all...
@bobdole57 dude, its the root of Austrian economics/anarcho capitalism. Its an economic/political system moulded around idealism fantasy idea of removing the state.
A philosophy designed to waste your time with intellectual excerices while people implementing their economic/political agenda take everything for themselves .
Once you realise that hebrew capitalism is enforcing tyranny on the people via their ownership of the media and controlling a super majority of all political campaign money, things like never ending war in the middle east make more sense.
So hilarious with that guy who slams Murphy for being condescending - then proceeds to ask extremely condescending question.
ok, but that's a perfect response to an idiot who is condescending. Don't condescend if you don't know what you're talking about.
Communism and hypocrisy go hand in hand
Lol nice Necro on this thread. I think that guy was a proto SJW. Today we would not even be surprised by such antics.
When you have more hair, these things don't matter.
@@shivan2418 its youtube. Go cry about necroing a thread on reddit
I respect Warren Mosler in this debate for his candor about how the current system works. He admits, that the whole system is based on compulsion, monopoly, violence and political control. He admits that this is how it is and I'm just explaining how the game works.
That's how stupid the MMT economics is when it promotes more compulsion and monopolistic power over people by politicians.
It claims to be theory but the tests applied to it show the failures that render it is based on false asumptions. He is not honest when challenged about his theory where it is shown to be faulted so badly that it is in tatters.
Would you rather live in a system where a collective entity has a monopoly on violence but is bound by constitutional law and democracy? Or a system where violence is decentralized and anyone can attack anyone at any time with no fear of state authority?
@@camerondye6108 I prefer a dictatorship of the proletariat
@@Rob-fx2dw you are coping hard dude. MMT has been doing nothing but racking up wins and the detractors other than myself have nothing in the way of a real argument to offer.
@@steviewonder417 The whole of MMT is a myth that appeals to wishful thinking people who are incapable of doing a hard analysis of facts or even initially determining fact from fiction. It is full of contradiction within it's own narrative. e.g. taxes are unnecessary then taxes reduce inflation, then taxes put value into money.
Lmao, moderator SLAUGHTERED the definition of insanity.
Did he have his breakfast at a tavern? That was pathetic for a moderator.
lol 😂
@@KrustyOhh he literally interrupts the flow of conversation to haltingly repeat the previous speaker's eloquent question
insanity is when you do something twice.
8:40
"Give 40% of the campaign funding raised to the opposition..."
So, all of them or just the candidates deemed VIABLE by some nonprofit, for profit, or govt? Would it be split 5+ ways for a district (rep, dem, lib, socialist, green, or other parties) election? Would it be done for primaries, funding the same party candidates (20+) as well as the opposition candidates (also 20+)?
- So you see the government is like a cheater?
- Yes.
- And you don't see anything wrong with that?
- No, that's just the system we live in.
- OK, so when the government does it, it's not cheating, but any other group does it, it's cheating?
- Well, yes they make the rules.
- Why is it OK for them to make rules that benefit themselves, at the expense of the citizens?
- Because they got the guns, and are not afraid to use them.
- And you don't see anything wrong with that?
- No, that's just the system we live in.
Diogo V. Kersting you don’t understand the role of sovereignty in society. Imagine a contract between individual priority owners that sets rules for how the properties look so as to collectively raise the aloe of everyone’s property. Is that sovereignty? Is it evil somehow? This isn’t even how the real world works but any Austrian would have to admit it is social contract theory and there’re voluntary and not evil by Austrian standards. Anarchy really is fake and gay.
@@steviewonder417Sovereignty??? Do you think certain individuals have a 'moral' right to aggress (use force, fraud, or extortion) against others? If your answer is 'No', then you are an 'Anarchist' or a 'Voluntaryist' and a 'moral' human being. If your answer is 'Yes', then you are a 'statist thug'! Make the correct choice, please!
You are so stupid. It's like saying the referee in a game is a cheater.
Yeah, a corrupt referee with guns which won't allow me to not-associate.
@@DiogoVKersting Not associating is not playing the game. If you want that, go live in the forest.
As a hard-core Austrian, I think this debate was FANTASTIC. I also think Austrians need to address MMT better than they have so far - AND I think this is one of the best conversations I've seen between the two schools. Thanks!
udical-troll, you're a perfect rep for MMT. Tbanks for setting the example.
+udical out!
People like you drive people away from your goal. Thanks for the conversion.
Bob is pretty weak here. All he need to stress the flaw of MMT is that in Molster's example of Subway coins. Well Subway can issue as many coins as they want, but they have to have product when the customers who bought those coins wanna exchange coins for their product.
As for the government, they can issue as many fiat currency as they want, but when the holders of those fiat currency eventually spending those fiat currency, it will lead to inflation because the government only create fiat currency but they didn't produce any product or service back into the economy while in Subway case, they not only sell the coins but they also product the sandwich for when those coins are claimed. That's the flaw with MMT. Bob should've explained this better!
Mosler actually did address inflation. the BOJ, FED and ECB have spent trillions buying assets and inflation's been stagnant and there's been no effect in the real economy. they could've instead implemented Mosler's policies which target employment and lift burden out of the poorest shoulders in our societies.
At about an hour and thirty minutes into the debate - Mosler suggests that if people were really upset at unemployment, and not okay with relative low inflation - than there would be protests against the Fed. But how many people outside the small percent of the population that can grasp economics and how complicated the whole system of MMT really is - would know enough to march against the Fed? Those that partook in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement did not really understand that their real gripe was against the Fed, and not Wall Street. But it takes some real thought exercise to reach that conclusion when everything around you looks bleak.
I totally agree with you.
Precisely. Who wrote and passed the laws that allowed 30 to 1 leverage, and the housing bubble (AHA and the implicit US taxpayer backstop for Fannie/Freddie)? The parasites in Washington. IQ2: Blame Washington More Than Wall Street For The Financial Crisis-Intelligence Squared U.S.
The vast majority of people don't even know that they down own CASH in their bank accounts, they only own a bank liablity.
They'll only wake up in bank runs or large inflation. A low inflation rate keeps everyone calm - like a boiling frog.
WallStreet pays no taxes and is parasitical to the productive economy(www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/01/how-wall-street-parasites-have-devoured-their-hosts-your-retirement-plan-and-the-u-s-economy/), also we need to use the FED to finance a recovery - www.twsp.us
Yeah this is just a really bad explanation of what the "Occupy Wall Street" movement was about. Many of those people knew that just about everything the people on wall street did was legal. Whether or not the government should have made those financial games illegal, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement was furious with "Wall Street" actors who "gambled" irresponsibly with what they saw as their savings and their homes and their livelihoods. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement felt that "Wall Street" had a moral responsibility to keep their money "safe," and acted immorally. Many of them were dumbfounded that those financial practices weren't illegal, because they were under the assumption that government institutions like the FED and FDIC protected them from that kind of behavior, and many of them were rightly angry at the government for not regulating it, but their true complaint was with the way their fellow citizens gambled with their financial stability in such a callous manner.
Who else here in 2020? *money printer go brrr*
LMAO
HOLY SHIT HE SAID WE WERE ALL THINKING IT AND HE SAID IT THE FUCKING MAD MAN
Same
BRRRRR
haha
That guy who was the first to comment I have seen before. The guys who runs the economics blog. I'm pretty sure he was a wallstreet econ. commentator pre-2008 housing market crash, and he was scoffing at an Austrian economist who was claiming that their was an impending crisis-- literally laughed in his face about it. Then, well, obviously, that guy got his foot stuck in his own mouth. Kind of funny the "condescending" tone he supposedly finds in R. Murphy's arguments- guy hasn't quite recovered since his misunderstanding.
Easy for Austrians to be clairvoyants when they predict 25 out of every 3 crises.
@@fablo7830 better than not predicting any
@@fablo7830 Only becuase of government prevention/the delay of those economic crises. Only because the US is the reserve currency. For now
@@kipperedbeef2084 Well, no, that isn't better at all. Why would it be better to constantly be wrong and frozen in fear?
I see you Mike Green. Even though you didn’t introduce yourself, I noticed and was glad to spontaneously come across some earlier conversations with you. I wish you were having a three way debate with an Austrian and an MMT economist. Consider it. We’d love to watch.
lol... Who is Mike Norman to lecture people on being condescending? The guy is one of the biggest bullies that I have seen in economics.
+PoliticoSTK 88 Perhaps, but I could tell immediately that he didn't like the sophomoric argument about robbing liquor stores - which is the same old government-as-household fallacy of composition that Keynes referred to. The argument doesn't work and despite the aversion to guns-and-jails, there simply isn't another way to govern us unless you like having a Mad Max world of predatory gangs where "only the strong survive" - but not for long as they too grow older and weaker.
+sensey07 There are tons of untried ways to govern people. It's highly unlikely that none of them are better, given that most of the world is modeled after the US, the first attempt at a workable system. It is just hard to try new things when it comes to innovating states or public services.
I found that comment (about Murphy being condescending) accurate and it's a fallacy to say that whoever points that out must be a good person, he is stating his perception and that has nothing to do with the way he has acted in the past. And I can bring at least 3 situations where Murphy was very condescending in his comments towards Mosler's views. Regarding Robert Brothers comment, it shows how US-centrism works, to say that the US was the first attempt of a workable system is to completely disregard History, what are you even talking about? Did you forget the Roman Empire, the one that promoted the Republic? What about Greece and Democracy? What about the thriving civilizations during the Bronze Age? Because they didn't have cars or planes they were not in a "workable" system? What about the British, China, Japan ... and any freaking other civilization that existed before America was even found?
I never did see a followup video between Norman and Schiff, but perhaps Schiff mindfully took the high road. Norman would definitely have it coming.
@@acommunistdwarf He doesn't suffer disingenuous people very well. He probably believes in only 2 genders also.
Fascinating debate thank you for making this possible we need more of this
@AppleScab (Venturia inaequalis
) Murphy changed what Mosler said to make it sound ludicrous.
Mosler didn’t play that game.
@AppleScab (Venturia inaequalis
) Warren isn’t slimy, he is actually telling you how things work.
I like how the moderator pointed out that the similarity between the two approaches is that they are narrative. I've studied both separately, and never realized that aspect as something they had in common.
That’s all economics can ever be
Insofar as something is historical it is narrative. The logic of praxeology is timeless, however.
What does narrative mean
@@steviewonder417 thank you, how is this not obvious to everyone
@@TheSnookerGym they only can describe economic information based in history
Yes, that is the same Mike Norman that laughed at Peter Schiff on TV now complaining about disrespect. Lulz.
It must be the same rude "in your face ridiculer" Norman . The world could never deserve two!! That would two too many.
th-cam.com/video/sgRGBNekFIw/w-d-xo.html
@@herohero-fw1vc - Petter wrong about what would undo the destruction
th-cam.com/video/sgRGBNekFIw/w-d-xo.html&t=156 or
tinyurl.com/yxxn3bau .
. 29 DEC 2007
07:52 - But I [Peter Schiff] think the economy, in general, is going to be a bigger issue.
I think, certainly by November [2008], it'll be obvious to just about everybody that we're in a pretty severe recession.
.
I think a lot of the voters already know that.
Some of the people here in Wall Street haven't figured it out yet.
.
But I think that the recession, the economy in general, will be a much bigger issue.
.
Unfortunately, I think, you know, it's not tax cuts that we need.
.
We really need a lot of spending cuts.
.
The government has to cut spending because if they cut taxes and then just print the difference what we get is inflation instead.
.
So we have a little bit more money in our paychecks.
But we have to pay a lot more for food; we have to pay a lot more for energy; and of course eventually we're going to see a big increase in interest rates as a result of all this inflation.
.
Well everyone's laughing at Peter Schiff now :P
@@Terribliz yes, we've known Peter Schiff hasn't known what he is talking about for a long time. Some people just can't wrap their head around believing that the government has access to unlimited cash. It goes against everything they've ever been taught about economics.
Prior to the Keynesian Revolution, inflation was defined as an increase of the money supply. Rising prices were seen as a function of the increased supply of money.
People who define inflation as simply rising prices skirt the issue. In your list of three reasons why prices can rise, you never even address monetary issues. The idea you can track and measure a general price level is hubristic at best. The economy is dynamic, prices move in different directions at the same time.
But still nobody thinks about the total money supply when setting their prices. Only when there is increased demand prices will change. You might argue that in the long run the quantity theory is right, but as for example 2008 has shown singular markets can have that kind of inflation. The housing prices skyrocketed, but for example food didn’t get pricy that fast. In an idealised market the quantity theory would probably be right, but in reality there is just not enough speed in the money circulation
@@doncorleole2356 given enough time, excess money would distribute throughout the economy. 2008 proves that money can be printed and channeled into an asset class, but the excess money is neutralized if consumers can't exchange their equity for purchasing power. 2023 proves that the quantity of money theory is correct in regard to stimulus money.
@@digitaldough8972 lmao no it doesn't show it was correct. We kicked the van down the road and have had to continually repump money into the system. It doesn't show we can print endlessly and rack up debt without fear because we control the printer (mmt in a nut shell). The effects are short term gain long term loss, we are seeing the effects now in 2023. Our only hope is that the US dollar stays the international currency standard.
MMT economists don't believe that we can "print money endlessly" and rack up debt forever without negative consequences. The part they don't say out loud and explicitly (because it's not going to be popular) is that taxes have to increased somewhere to balance things out. Who will be most affected by this? Those who hold most of the money aka the wealthiest among us. I've only just started listening to this debate so if Mosler contradicts this I'll revise my opinion, but it's pretty clear that this is implied in Stephanie Kelton's book The Deficit Myth.
Anyone else think the Austrian guy looks like George Costanza?
Millennial be like :- Who dat ?
I think he looks like Vizzini unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/vizzini.jpg
Cantstandya!!
And the MMT guy looks like Ray Romano
There is no such thing as society.
i can't see how this is a debate at all. bob has ideas about the way the economy should be "there should be no central bank", and warren has no particular opinion but just says "we currently do have a central bank". those two statement don't contradict each other.
what is frustrating too is that Murphy's angle absolves him of needing to try to propose solutions, policy or practical...every time he was asked about policy suggestions or suggestions for solutions, he shuffled around the question
@Frederick Shull you miss my point entirely. if he doesn't have answers to the problems he insists are present, why are we listening to what he has to say. At least I can believe that Mossler believes he had an idea of how things work, and what to do from there. What does Murphy have to offer? Merely beliefs (and nothing more really) about individual actions (or how he thinks individuals should act) that neither inform his ability to provide a solution or apparently even the beginnings of working towards one.
@@Joshvs3 He believes that the government should absolve itself of any role in the economy. What he fails to understand is that basic principals such as property ownership rights are the construct of government. My one true wish is that these Austrian school economists could have a chance to live in the world with the laws (or lack thereof) which they espouse. It would be utterly hilarious to witness that but it can never happen so they can spend their days in think tanks talking about how if only their fantasy world could be implemented in the real world all economic problems would be solved.
@Frederick Shull nowhere in moslers philosophy does he advocate central planning, i believe you are misunderstanding what he is saying, he is in fact a capitalist and wants to do away with income tax entirely so that more people can buy goods and more people can produce goods. the govt has to spend money into existence and the only reason that money has value is because the govt demands it back as a tax. mosler only argues that there is no need for the fed to have a positive budget, the fed should be spending money into the economy not taxing it out, he argues that our economy is starved of cash.
moslers words not mine "when the U.S. government does what’s
called “borrowing money,” all it does is move funds from checking accounts at the Fed[federal reserve accounts] to savings accounts (Treasury securities) at the Fed. In fact, the entire $13[now 22] trillion national debt is nothing more than the economy’s total holdings of savings accounts at the Fed."
use the case of ww2, our deficit/ gdp was 20% by the end of the war and there no problems, however a year later when deficit/gdp fell to 7% there was recession, also observe the historically low deficit/gdp in the years 1929(.7%), 1930(.8%), and 1931(.6%) that preceded the great depression. also observe tax hikes in 1936 followed by a decrease of deficit/gdp from 5.1% in '36 to 2.4% in '37 with a return of the depression in '37. his core argument is that when fed deficit becomes too small it is essentially taking money from the economy
I don't think it's true at all that Warren Mosler doesn't have any normative statements in there. But Bob Murphy absolutely doesn't just say that we should get rid of central banking or how the economy "should be". Murphy presents what is generally recognized as the austrian perspective on business cycle theory and uses theory to describe how the economy works, or at least parts of it.
@goshjosh If you argue for the abolition of central banking then you can do just that, you don't need to have a replacement. Bob Murphy is against monetary policy altogether, meaning that he is against any monetary authority setting any policy. You wouldn't say that you need to propose an alternative if you argue against concentration camps.
On the issue of deposit insurance, it is clear that increasing the level of coverage to depositors permitted the banks to engage in high risk investment activities. The related issue is whether the FDIC appropriately analyzed the risk and therefore adjusted premiums charged to banks based on asset concentrations.
Very interesting debate. Thanks for posting.
Hold up man, it wasn’t just a Nasdaq bubble pop. It was across all indexes. Yes the NASDAQ would’ve contracted more than other indexes “theoretically”, but the initial contraction was a healthy and needed market correction after sustained growth over many years.
When the two weird kids in class have a fight
*And the one that lost his toupee loses the fight.*
Good discussion and still relevant after ~10yrs
So very refreshing to listen to a seriously civil debate. Kudos to all involved !
you don't know what you're talking about have you ever heard of Merrill Jenkins go look em up on youtube go look up the Coinage Act of 1792 and go look up the coinage act of 1965 and go look up the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which allowed for fraction of reserve banking which is immoral you're a clown in yourself you don't know what you're talking about
Warren Mosler won this debate hands down. Period.
Some of the MMT folks saw that there would be a crisis before 2007/8 based on an analysis of the private debt sector growing. Steve Keen called it as did some of my friends.
That was great, thanks for sharing this video
Hear this in 2022 is a cold shower..
Dang Mosler has been advocating for medicare for all for a while
How come
@@bperez8656 *Because it's more efficient and deflationary, combined with tax cuts you improve people's lives.*
"If it's fraud when a person does it, why is it okay when the government does it?"
This was by far the best moment of the debate. As logical and persuasive as Mosler is, his response to this very important question falls way short and exposes the root flaw in MMT's ability to provide a system that minimizes poverty and maximizes personal choice.
Government as scorekeeper: Flawed. In MMT government is a player in that it is also spending. Yes, it has to to create the currency, but that means it also has discretion, i.e. POWER to spend and allocate that currency. If it also has the monopoly on force through the military, government is absolutely not a neutral scorekeeper, or even a benevolent player.
"Move people from the private sector to the public sector": Statism. The end conclusion of this is, in fact central ownership and control of the means of production, credit, etc. Communisim.
The 20th century taught us one thing: power concentrated in government results in a small number of idealogically-driven people that will inevitably result in the devaluation of human life to achieve the idealogical goals.
Bingo
"Shifting rates is just shifting income between savers and borrowers-that's just a political decision, that's fine". Oh yeah, reach into people's pockets and nullify their agency. That's fine.
A jobs guarantee is nothing like communism, but sure, feel free to be scared of big ideas.
A Job Guarantee program would move jobs from the private sector to the public sector. It’s not communistic in the slightest
In the future, Mosler needs to wear a head mic because you can't hear him when he turns his head away from the mic.
Yeah I was struggling to hear him too.
"Informed electorate"
Hahahahahaha. Mosler made an unintentional funny.
MMT is like one of those FREE energy video.
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 does not even make sense.
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 No dont wait. just go way.
The money part of the equation don't matter, that's always infinite for our federal government, the ONLY thing that matters is we have enough real resources available to buy with that money. So all that matters is govt is investing in and strengthening our PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY to ensure the available real resources are available to buy with any future SPENDING
The one thing we know, that government is strictly unable to invest productively. Most all it does, is pay costs for unproductive action. How much income does the road generage? Well, some. How many roads is enough? Well national income is growing by half a dollar for every dollar debt taken. That should give you a clue. So we take a 10^12 USD more debt. That'll help, says the MMT.
Actually there's evidence on both sides of you get beyond ideology. Counter examples: US private healthcare costs far more per capita and delivers worse outcomes per capita than public option healthcare examples such as the healthcare for US veterans, or national systems such as in Australia or Europe. Don't believe me on the worse outcomes then do some research, but if you want a simple way of looking at it the average US citizen's life expectancy has been going down even as the rest of the world including Australia and Europe is rising. Another example of efficiency is the way the CCP has modernized Chinese cities with world class infrastructure. Look at US cities and so many have such rundown infrastructure that citizens in other countries would be horrified.
@@joythought For every wealthy chinese, there's 1000 of their supporters living in the countryside in abject poverty. US healthcare is a scam, because of government bs regulation. US is dropping because of deaths of despair. Suicides, opioids, etc. Paying 1000bucks for 20 bucks of insulin, that is a decade out original patent. Yet somehow the monopoly is upheld, because of evil government regulation. Health outcomes are very fine, when you go to the hospital. You will get treatment. That is not nearly as certain in single payer systems. You will get put on 6 month queue on anything not acute. Acute? Sure, kinda ok. Elderly and in long decline in health? Good luck.
Simple way of looking at it? Has completly assbackwards results.
Which is stupid because it hinges on the government not being corrupt.
@@Tenebrousable China just passed us in life expectancy lol
Very interesting on both parts insightful.
MMTers point to an accounting practice and think it proves that putting ink on paper creates wealth.
I have read a ton of MMT stuff and have had that thought as well.
From an MMT perspective, that is correct. HOWEVER it is only correct for the Government, not for anyone else, individuals or firms. The Government can (and does) credit money to bank accounts, and thus inject money into the economy. Is it that difficult to understand?
It’s not. But a lot of time seems to be spent discussing it.
Thank you for all that you do, WilhelmDrake. I suddenly agree with everything you say. Scholarship backed by evidence, remarkable. You're clearly an authority to be heeded. Cheers to your bright future, gifted one.
I like how Mosler keeps dodging direct questions and goes off on tangents. Now i know why so many politicians like MMT
It's the politicians' big trick i.e. - Never answer the question you are asked but use the opportunity to make a stupid self serving political claim that is backed by nothing of fact.
In Dr. Murphy's closing remarks he talks about how both models are looking to change the system from the way it currently operates, which is true, but I think there is a major difference between tweeking the system and completely upending the system. Just shifting to a fixed currency from a fiat currency, as would be required under the Austrian model, would have MASSIVE impacts on your society and would take decades to reach an equilibrium. Dr. Mosler's proposals would take a few tweeks that would take a couple election cycles, but it would not have that period of intense market correction.
I’m no expert in economics, but the pandemic, although 99% of its effects were awful, had one good side to it. It taught people a little tiny bit about supply side economics. There have been times where, no matter how much money you had, you could not get everything you wanted or would normally be able to afford. Some things were so limited in supply that it was just unattainable and some supply was just outright nonexistent. All the demand in the world and even free money from the govt didn’t fix this problem.
That’s funny I think the exact opposite happened. The government literally put money in there bank account they bought food payed their bills and that it is a policy choice to keep the rich getting richer and the poor struggling. Not having toilet paper because of a global pandemic that had people panic buying is not a confirmation of supply side economics. Man Reagan really broke people’s brains.
@@Eastbayrob ?...I'm not talking about toilet paper. I'm talking about all sorts of things that were unavailable due to the restrictions: Restaurants, clubs, concerts -- countless products and services. The government could have put $1 million into my bank account and it wouldn't have made Disneyland any more available to me. The park simply was absent from the market.
@@davidr1620 I though you were talking about electronic chips and was gonna ask why the supplier didn't simply up the price
Show me where MMT claims helicopter money is good and that it solves supply constraints.
@@davidr1620 "The park was simply absent from the market" Nice thought. You could also say that millions of workers were absent from the market, and these were all intentional policy choices that our government made! It really is wild to see how real emergencies (like Covid) can so radically shift the political window. Less than a year before Covid, Andrew Yang and his freedom dividend were laughed out of the discussion. As soon as things got really bad in the US, suddenly "fiscal hawks" were signing on to stimulus checks and 600/week in extra unemployment! Although the same crowd hardly shies away from enormous tax breaks. I hope more people can see that the government doesn't "interfere" with the market; it CREATES the market.
My take-away from this is that the government issues money by spending it into the economy then reclaims it through taxation. Therefore individuals who operarate as government officials operate under a different set of rules than everyone else, who don't have the privilege of spending money into existence and then collect it later through taxes. Does anyone else here not see this as morally problematic? For all the talk about inequality, the real inequality is this big elephant in the room. We have a House Speaker who's been in Congress for 35 years. That's a long time to have the privilege of not having to live within their means and deal with the effects of legislation that everyone else outside the government faces.
If we are to continue with this monetary system, we need term limits.
also insider trading is pretty bad for congressmen
It's called socialism but as Lenin pointed out socialism leads to communism.
Thank you for sharing wisdom
"Mr. Austrian got his ass kicked...butt I won't explain why"
mythirdaye He probably assumed that nobody who watched the debate would need that explained to them.
Glad to see a civil debate
Can we stop posting these comments they're getting annoying. Yes they're being civil and it's nice. But every third comment is a circle jerk complementing them on how civil they are. Can we discuss the actual topic?
A great debate until somebody let that prat Mike Norman speak
That was the best part 😂
There's a guy in this video who studied economics in the 40s and worked on Wall Street for 50 years. I just want to appreciate how amazing that is. He must've been in his 90s in 2010.
I wrote Warren a letter back in 2001 when I was incarcerated and suggested he rebuild the Sears Suburban Tractor for home gardeners.
“When you need to go to war, you suspend the gold standard.” Gold standard prevents war … another great point, Warren, thanks!
preventing means it is a cause to stop wars. but when u suspend gold standard while going to war, thats more like a result
removing gold standard is like going on steroids. yes, you will improve your performance for short term but everyone knows how that ends
The gold standard never prevents war. It just gets suspended in the face of war.
I would argue that having resources that can be used as money would more likely lead to an invasion/liberation (depending on one's POV). Oil is a useful commodity, much more so than gold now. Notice how the us invaded/liberated some countries and not others for the same reasons. And, more recently, notice how Russia is using its oil as a trump card (no pun intended) for Europe in the ukraine war/liberation (yes, I did it there too).
Ah yes, not even a single war occurred under the gold standard, lol
The MMT turns up without something to write and has to take one from somebody else... The irony burns.
This explains what Government is, and the difference between the User and the Issuer of a Currency.
Does MMT assume the US dollar will remain a reserve currency? Does that play a factor in this? Also, what about war (trade or hot) spending on MMT?
I was interested up until the 9mm and force part. I am out. Hope your system remains a theory and is never implemented. Goodbye!
@@Jinkaza1882 It is our system now. We have to pay our taxes in dollars.
@@kai.m No dispute with that. Whatcha getting at?
Make sure you listen to this: 1:52:40
I know, it's hilarious, right?
_"No inflation,"_ my hind foot.
MMT starts with the explanation of the system, and builds up on it. Austrian starts with a fantasy, continue with fantasy, end up with fantasy
"Every country that goes to war, immediately suspends the gold standard." EXACTLY. No fiat currency = much more limited capacity for governments to wage wars. Pretty sure that's a good thing.
+Shawn Cowden its called war financing the central bank buys goverment bonds in order to fucking fund the war if they were in a gold standard in such discipline the central bank wouldnt be able to fund the war it is a necessary thing not a good thing by the way the golden standard was such a failure that all the countries that had it except the us devalued the price of gold in order to over value their own currency in order to have deficit and start goverment projects
I guess my point went over your head. Not being able to fund war is a good thing.
Shawn Cowden we are talking about the secoind world war thats when the golden standard ended in one side of the war were the nazis and in the other everyone else so what the heck man
Nixon took us off the gold standard in '71 to reduce fiscal strain caused by the money spent on the Vietnam War.... now they can fight stupid war after stupid war without constraint. If our interventions can even be called "war".
Shawn Cowden the took us out of the fixed rate gold bretton woods system they took us out of the strict gold standard in 1933
8:40
"Give 40% of the campaign funding raised to the opposition..."
So, all of them or just the candidates deemed VIABLE by some nonprofit, for profit, or govt? Would it be split 5+ ways for a district (rep, dem, lib, socialist, green, or other parties) election? Would it be done for primaries, funding the same party candidates (20+) as well as the opposition candidates (also 20+)?
Can someone explain to me what is meant by fixed and floating exchange rate and why , according to MMT, the interest rate should be 0 in a floating exchange rate system ?
How much euro is 1 dollar? Im a fixed exchange rate sys this is fixed by let’s say US gov. So the fed has to do eveything to keep the fixed exchange rate. This limits the fiscal space of the gov, and adds burden on fed without that much of benefit. It is suggested the interest rate zero because higher interrst rate might cause higher inflation, in comtrast to the conventional wisdom, also suc rate is basically free money for the rich, UBI of the rich, and at the end lower interest rate might help economy growth (this is conventional).
Mosler offered the gold standard as an example of fixed exchange. Its essential difference to floating exchange is that it represents a hard limit on policy; without this hard limit, the interest rate tends to zero under a floating exchange because of political rent-seeking, but because it's technically legal and regulated, it's all good.
The biggest drawback I see with MMT is that Mike Norman supports it publicly.
1:21:35 the question here was the most articulate of the entire session. The answer it got was...umm... Well, you be the judge
Dimitri - Exactly - and Mosler did not answer it but tried to go on some rant about restricting the supply which he says caused someone to miss out.
Not so in the real world since there is not a fixed amount of money needed for every thing that is sold which is reflected in the adjustments that we see as changing prices of goods or services. When money is short and demand falls so do prices adjust to a lower level and that is the adjusting mechanism that results in jobs for all if there is not interference by legislation that demands prices stay too high or too low or quotas on the production or purchase of goods. Mosler ignores the price factor which destroys the credibility of his argument.
The answer is pretty simple. The contract remains the same. If you want to factor price levels or other factors into your contract, there's nothing to stop you doing that. This is already done with inflation indexed bonds.
@@jetfaker6666 why complicate contacts and investment to redistribute money to specific sectors in an arguably sneaky way.
3) "Now, in the case of assets having an elasticity of production, the reason why we assumed their own-rate of interest to decline was because we assumed the stock of them to increase as the result of a higher rate of output. In the case of money, however-postponing, for the moment, our consideration of the effects of reducing the wage-unit or of a deliberate increase in its supply by the monetary authority-the supply is fixed "
I guess the (M.M.T vs Austrain) debate comes down to this...
Is/ should the government be a monopoly or a curbed market /economy participant?
Is /should government policy be a reflection of it's curbed participation and/or it's monopolistic pursuit of the market /economy?
"MUST" non government market/economy participants be obliged to participate in government market/ economic policy, or can they be allowed to opt out?
Why can't both methods/theories work in tandem and parallel?
(One market/economy for the statists, and another market/economy for the free?)
Robert Murphy really does use a whole lot of Straw-manning to make a negative case of his opponent's point of view, instead of explaining his actual point and path forward. I think his opening statements about losing showed he was fearful and unsure of his ability to argue his points.
I understood where Warren Mosler is coming from and the points where he wanted to go.
@CrabApples Bodaciously Bitter Fruit's Kind of funny you think that when Murphy now concedes almost every MMT claim such that he finds MMT to be true but not a moral good or ideal.
@CrabApples Bodaciously Bitter Fruit's But what fears do you speak of?
I had believed that high powered money was synonymous with endogenous money, but perhaps I am mistaken. Its confusing to me since endogenous money implies to me the actual specie but it seems to only be used as endogenous vs exogenous money theory. I actually agree with the endogenous money theory.
Not quite sure what you are saying here - the spaces on these sites to express details are limed. Could you please explain more by expanding on the quote.
Can someone please explain what he means at 23:03 - 23:15?
Why am I watching this at 1:12 am on a Tuesday? Anyway I am glad I did
After rereading this, I realized I wasn't clear enough.
"the government, instead of the market, sets the price of gold"
I interpret this (perhaps incorrectly) as you saying that the price of gold vis-a-vis other goods on the market is set by the government when they say that 1 dollar = 1oz gold. If my interpretation is correct, my contention is that the dollar only represents a specific weight of gold but it does not directly affect the value of gold.
I don't think Warren answered the fellow in the yarmulkes question. Did he though? That was around hour 1:25:00
0:57:57 -
0:58:34 -
0:58:53 - depending on your politics : Spending Increase of a Tax Cut
0:59:07 - It was 2003
0:59:18 -
0:59:23 - Andy Carr
0:59:45 -
0:59:53 - Japan's been doing it for 15 years
1:00:00 - I explained the need for a fiscal adjustment
1:00:15 -
1:00:23 - To make our economy work it is up to our Government to cut taxes or increase spending
1:00:27 - How much? $700 BILLION, then about 6% of GDP
1:00:38 - Andy Carr thanked Warren.
1:00:40 - GWB said, "I don't look at numbers on pieces of paper. I look at jobs."
1:00:45 - GWB administration began stimulating . . . The "Right" is still mad at GWB for prescription drugs
1:00:53 - We rose to an annualized Currency Units in Circulation of $800 MILLION
This debate needed Peter schiff to educate Mosler
I don’t think Peter Schiff could keep up intellectually with Mosler
@@highlightrelz897 agreed. He is stuck in the land of fixed exchange rates and commodity money
Warren made so many false analogies. The score keeper analogy is flawed because the government is the score keeper AND player. He fails to address that.
Exactly - A false analogy. Has Mosler ever been to a football game where the scorer is a player on the field. Has anyone ? Besides that which you have pointed out the sequence of events is wrong since there is never a score until after the play has been made.
I have been saying this for many years yet MMT pushers keep repeating the fantasy. It's another instance of mixing the sequence of events.
Well, in govt terms, the presidential system has the head of state and the head of govt in one person--the president, so he's effectively both the referee and the coach.
My main issue with MMT is this:
Don't recall it being discussed, but it's not just being a sovereign nation with its own sovereign currency (most countries, except EU euro members), but how widely it is used in FOREX and XDRs (IMF). The US govt could do MMT much easier due to having ⅓+ of the XDRs, SWIFT, and ¾ of currency pairs in FOREX; than Mongolia with its sovereign currency could.
1:47:55 Concluding remarks by Dr. Murphy and Warren Mosler
Excellent debate. Calm honest and respectful.
Murphy is arguably right about a fixed exchange rate system. Mosler is right about a floating exchange rate system. We and most other countries live in a floating exchange rate system.
Also, there is a fundamental difference in outlook towards "the Gubmint". Murphy & co. think people in government are idiots or worse, and therefore he wants to reduce government policy space as much as possible, e.g. by fixed exchange rates, hard money, etc. Mosler & co. say "hey, fiat money and floating exchange rates give us all this policy space. Think of all the good we can do if we have smart, good policy-makers."
The fundamental flaw from Murphy's side is that hard money and fixed exchange rates don't constrain governments and never have. As soon as they become a problem for the upper class, they just get rid of them - which any government can do by fiat.
The problem for Mosler's side is finding smart, good policy makers.
Exactly
You are wrong...Google "Austrian economics on fixed exchange." I thought I never heard any Austrian take the stand that you just claimed...
@@johnludtke4416 Murphy's understanding of banking assumes a fixed exchange rate. It doesn't matter what google says.
@@ast453000 fixed to what the market values it at...which still fluctuates
@@johnludtke4416 No. That's not what a fixed exchange rate system is. Google "fixed exchange rate."
R.I.P. MMT † 2022
Minuto 9 al 15 explica principios escuela Austriaca. Del Minuto 16 al 20, explicacion crisis 2008-09 segun esc. Austriaca.
One Austrian economist who has developed a comprehensive theory of economic cycles (which is different from a "financial" or "business" cycle) is Fred Foldvary, at San Jose State University. He accurately forecasted the 2007 crash of U.S. property markets and how this resulted in a financial meltdown. What Fred Foldvary has factored in is the operate of land markets and land speculation as a fundamental driver in the cycle. He does not make the mistake of calling the crash a "housing" bubble. Land prices climbed at rates not sustainable given the decline in household incomes and household savings. Add to the problem the pattern of deregulation that resulted in explosion of the subprime mortgage lending loaded down with outright fraud and predatory lending, and the private label mortgage-backed securities this market generated finally blew up and caused investors to abandon the conventional MBS market as well. The financial implosion was on.
Sorry for the late reply, but isn't Foldvary a Georgist? I know both schools reach many of the same conclusions, but still.
@@wallychoong Fred did hold many of the same views as did Henry George. I do not think he thought of himself as a "Georgist." At best he might have accepted the term "Neo-Georgist". Unfortunately, Fred died in June of 2021 following a fall at his home.
Does anyone find it disingenuous that Mosler started with a list of handouts?
If it's free, YOU are probably the product
Making a better country for people isn’t “handouts”, it’s what government is suppose to do.
@@timgwallis funny joke
His recommendation on political campaign funding reform wasn't bad though.
@Tim Wallis. "Redistribution of wealth" is NOT what governments are "supposed to do." Not even close. Socialist govts do that. Govts with mixed markets do that. It is not what govts are "supposed to do."
I think the MMT guys miss something. Governments are *great* at misallocating capital. We can see with Greece and Puerto Rico, where their debt was *cheap* that they were not able to spend it in ways that properly allocated capital. The advantage of fixed rates is that economics then becomes about trade and production; and governments weren't able to outcompete those against whom they had a trade advantage (cheap debt for funding investments).
As well, they create demand through taxation of dollars. The 'at the point of a gun' analogy then rises to the fore. You know what works really well for creating demand for debts? Enforcing it as legal tender. Only enforce contracts denominated with dollars as (at least) one component. VISA is perfectly allowed to take my lump of gold to pay my bill. But I *MUST* give them at least the dollars we agreed to. So, I will want to go get dollars.
Misallocation of resources and coercive control - two inevitable results of mmt
Congress could always put a floating conversion rate on dollars backed by gold depending upon how much currency is needed in the economy to make run at optimum performance.
The chap asking about how the Austrian school would deal with unemployment was interesting. He did not have an answer. His supplementary pointed out that the volatility was from the private sector not the government which the Austrian said was the cause.
The person who said it best was Lysander Spooner.
"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
Lysander Spooner besides being my great great something or other was a member of the first socialist international, alongside Marx. He was also against wage labor entirely. Not quite the Rothbard before Rothbard he is remembered as by libertarians.
The fallacy is that you imagine yourself liberating him
I love the 9mm analogy. Makes a lot of sense that the only way to make gov fiat valuable is by threat of violence. Aside from that the card isn't the currency. It becomes the asset, like a concert ticket.
He says that austrian economics isn't libertarian politics packaged as economic theory, but he does repeat libertarian talking points like 'govt is violence'. Yes, I agree, but I thought that was inelegant.
Yes gov is a monopoly on violence. When you have a people’s gov however that means nothing more than the people are in control. It’s funny to me libertarians think that this is evil yet they think they are sovereign and have a monopoly on violence where it concerns their property lol. Quit being a child. Violence is ontologically true.
@@steviewonder417 so hard to deal with this level of ignorance. The analogy was simply a good one & I never mentioned libertarians. This is about macro economics & the austrian school. The analogy is about the specie of currency & how only a fool would want to hold fiat as their capital. So the threat of violence becomes necessary. Sound money prevents the need for violence pertaining to the monetary system.
@@freemarketeer7093 you need fiat you numpty because of said monopoly. What’s crazy is you think we need less tax CREDITS (currency) and more unemployed even when you know fiat is only scarce because the monopolist needs you to provision the government through our collective labor. Why do you want to retain the false edifice of that scarcity imposed on us being a real scarcity?
@@freemarketeer7093 money or no money. Fixed exchange or floating violence is and will always be. Libertarians are idiots who have no clue about anthropology or history and that the record shows violence even war was prior to the advent of money especially a monopoly on it. Read Graeber and get a clue dude you are lost.
Mr. Murphy speaks about money as though there is an identifiable limit on the amount of money, or particularly fiat currency, an economy can allow in circulation. In actuality, policy makers must respond to economic signs that too much fiat currency is in circulation (or for which velocity is too high). For better or worse, that sign is inflation. Additionally, with the U.S. $ representing the currency for global commerce, I think our natural currency limit is even more difficult to identify. An interesting concern is the likely result when China or the EU resists economic trade based on the U.S. $. Then, we might enter into an economic environment in which our natural limits to currency volume (& velocity) is more apparent. In that situation, these two gentlemen would have a more stable currency base in which to debate these economic philosophical differences. I wonder how their views would apply to, say, the UKs monetary policies?
in a sense a riskless interest rate should be zero. Govt doesn't need to borrow from the private sector if it can borrow directly from the Fed by means of an accounting entry. Problem is then there is no constraint on money creation. The creation of a govt bond actually acts as a brake, being a declaration the money is a loan and should be repaid.
I’ll summarize here from what I can gather from each side:
1. MMT: Short-run non-neutrality of money; Long-run non-neutrality of money.
2. Mainstream: Short run non-neutrality of money; Long-run neutrality of money.
3. Austrian: Short-run non-neutrality of money; Long-run non-neutrality of money.
‼️On the surface, it seems like MMT and Austrians agree on money’s effects on the economy, but I will argue in short that both of them mean different things when they claim that money is not neutral in the long run. ‼️Austrians
coming back to the point about money’s effect on real variables, it seems that while the mainstream and Austrians differ on the long-run effects of increases in the money supply, they both agree that the kind of pecuniary benefits MMTers support with an increase in deficits through total debt monetization is not viable. I found it extremely telling, and very amusing, to see this comment from someone in the debate who supports the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy in response to an MMTer:
I dont know what else to call “printing money makes us richer”. What’s a better label?
This point can be related to Austrian capital theory, which has somewhat influenced the debate, but not to the extent I think is appropriate. That same commenter made several related points about one of the overlooked faults of modern monetary theory. That is, there are constraints on the policies which MMTers are attempting to put forth in academia. These constraints are related to real factors:
There are a finite amount of real resources that can be used to invest in projects or spend in consumption. This could mean money in a traditional savings and loan bank, a bond mutual fund, a pension fund, etc.
If you think that there are not real resources being moved around in capital markets then you reject basically all economics at a fundamental level.
If you do not think that real resources are moved around in the market this implies that financial markets have an infinite amount of resources to go around to fund any project we want. This is not the case.
Someone else made a similar point:
There is a real resource constraint - if you use real resources to build a factory, those are resources not available to make chocolate cake. If all output is consumed, there’s nothing left over to use for investment. At full employment, this constraint binds, and is what determines real interest rates. Everyone agrees on this point.
For the mainstream, the benchmark model is the real model that would hold at full employment. Keynesian effects enter through the deviations from this model. For MMTers, the benchmark model is a nominal model, where actual quantities of money are sitting around in different places in the model, and the government can act on those quantities. That’s why the discussion of “loanable funds” is so confusing. The mainstream is thinking about the real constraint, while MMTers are thinking about the nominal balances.
I agree with their points completely, especially when one of them ironically uses the phrase many Austrians wield against these very individuals, “if you think otherwise then you think markets are able to create goods out of thin air.” However, I don’t think their arguments go far enough, particularly when it’s stated, “Of course, in recessions when we have underutilized resources, there is less if any competition between the private sector and government. But we’re not always in a recession.”
To add to their stance, it is important to remember some of the most important points of capital theory. First, capital is heterogenous and multi-specific. This means not just any pieces of capital or labor can “fit” together, they must be complimentary to one another in a given production process. Each factor of production has an opportunity cost, especially the less specific it is. Many factors have several uses, making it more versatile in production and it’s demand more elastic. If a given production method is found to be unprofitable, then the capital used can be reallocated to another industry or sector which needs it. But this comes with a cost, when capital is reallocated, it must often be changed, restructured, or formatted to adjust in a new factory or firm. There are therefore transaction and transportation costs involved when resources are allocated to new places by changes in monetary policy. This is what Austrians mean when they say money is a “loose joint” in the system. When there is malinvestment, resources are wasted because they are often very specific and cannot be inserted into another production process, making it idle. The MMT position completely ignores this.
Second, interest rates influence the value and supply of capital. If interest rates rise (fall), then the price of capital tends to fall (rise), but this process can be reversed if the interest rates don’t reflect the time preferences of individuals. This is a point that MMTers miss, and is related to Austrian business cycle theory. Labor is also affected by these policies since it must be complimentary to capital used in specific processes that are affected by them. Otherwise, workers must be retrained to be properly absorbed back into the labor market in accordance with a given capital structure that changes when prices, interest rates, or government spending and taxation change. And with MMT, there would be high rates of volatility in these variables.
Yellow/Blue _Austrian Watchman how exactly does MMT not account for inefficiencies? Isn’t that what prices are for? Of governments set the prices through their spending why don’t they just shop around?
@@steviewonder417 I wouldn't bother, he doesn't really know what he's talking about anyway. Still trapped up von Mises backside.
F Bordewijk you should put in a little more effort, some of us are trying to figure things out and all the insults from the MMTers isn’t winning anyone over. I’d like to know where he is wrong.
@@baronmeduse Excellent ad hominem!!
@@soulfuzz368 Basic MMT is not that hard. It's a matter of logic for the most part. Mosler's simple maxim that government levies a tax liability then puts its currency out to be acquired to pay the tax, thus creating the monetary economy of that particular unit of account, hasn't been undermined by any of the people who keep coming forward to dispute it.
"for some reason, buisness don't want to hire and expand". Because the majority has no demand to buy Production. Duh.
Or it is because they aren’t producing enough to be able to demand?
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 I was wrong.
a steel monopolist produces at a level that he/she thinks will maximize his profits, while the federal reserve's money production decisions are trying to achieve a different goal. and about the subway token analogy, wouldnt there be a secondary market for subway tokens? the interest rate for these tokens would be set at such a level that makes subway riders indifferent between rides today and rides at some time in the future. there is similarly a secondary market for money: just like when i borrow money from a bank so i can spend it today, i have to pay the bank some interest rate to equilibrate the value of the money today with the money i have to pay back later.
is i missing something?
a smith22969 - Yes, you are missing more than just something. Those are the subway token's value is purely dependent on the demand for the subway. Not the demand for tokens.
Just look at the other perspective. If you had tokens and no subway they would be totally worthless. But if you have a subway and no tokens the subway is still of value.
Without the tokens the subway would still be there and providing a service that is required by the public to fulfill a need. What the subway token respresents is a merely a restriction on the availability of a subway ride. It in no way enhances the ability to have a ride. The token is not wealth itself but just an authority over the ability to ride. Authority over something is not wealth at all.
If it were the case that a token was wealth then making tokens to allow people to cross the street would be making wealth but you can see the stupidity of that belief.
In your second sentence you reached the limit of Mosler's subway token metaphor. Since subway tokens can only be exchanged for subway rides, they would be worthless without the subway.
Money is different because it can purchase nearly anything. Money can also be exchanged for a CLAIM on future money. The price of acquiring money today which I will have to repay in the future is called an interest rate. It is the rate at which current money exchanges for future money.
You wrote that the demand for tokens won't change the price of tokens. "Those are the subway token's value is purely dependent on the demand for the subway. Not the demand for tokens." That may be the case for subway tokens, but it is an absurd comparison to money. The demand for money influences interest rates (the price of money). Tweaking the money supply is how the FED sets most interest rates. The nominal value of your dollars depends on the scarcity of the dollars and the amount of stuff the dollars will buy you.
Scarcity, by the way, is a relative lack or abundance of goods.
One final point. If you could convince people to take subway tokens in trade, they would be wealth. Think about people who sell their food stamps for 80% of face value. If someone will accept it as payment for goods or services, then it is wealth.
Mosler (MMT) made the most sense to me than (The Austrian School). The U.S. monetary system HAS NOT been tethered to the gold standard since 1971. A lot of Americans still don't know this fact. FDR also took us off the gold standard in 1933. That is a good thing, because who wants the U.S. monetary system to be tied to a *finite metal,* which only gets it value from the gold-buggers on Wall Street trying to sell it; let alone the damage extracting gold from the earth does to the environment and the people who and enslaved to remove it under very inhumane conditions.
Poor Mike Norman get his feelings hurt? Then he setup a "barter" strawman? What a tool.
1:07:14 - Q & A
all three very good discussioneers. i liked.
WARREN should speak louder, his voice s a bit soft at many spots in the timeline and did not have sustained and good level of voice volume, it is hard to follow the whole sentence he said because half of the sentence is in a completely low volume
To understand the MMT, you need to understand that Government IS NOT Household (or even Firm)
Epic878787 They think because it’s not a household that makes it sound and reasonable to just print more money. Just print away......
@@Epic878787 - Innovative production reduces human-labor & machine-labor cost
@@zygi22 - You misunderstood some basics. Very difficult for our ancestors to change their understanding from Ptolemy's earth-centered model of the real world to Copernicus's sun-centered model or the real world.
This understanding of a model of political economy which actually includes the tool of money is just as unbelievable.
GIMMS_Training_May_13_2019 tinyurl.com/tyn32g4 .
.
Steve Keen Speaks at Minsky 100th tinyurl.com/s6n7f7w .
.
Keep studying.
.
Your world will turn upside down either, easily as for me, in the time it took for one sip of coffee, or it will be a very, very difficult paradigm shift.
.
Get out your MONOPOLY board game and ask someone to join you in starting a game who is an accountant or who has completed a college Introduction to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
.
Start your game of MONOPOLY using "T" Accounts
.
You can call the notes in the rubber band the supply at "the Bureau of printing"
.
Then record on the "T" accounts your moving of the notes
from the Bureau of printing
to the Central Bank
Take note of the Debit (RED) and Credit (BLACK)
.
Then record on the "T" account your moving of money from the Central Bank to each Player
.
Then look at all that money in player-circulation and take note of where it came from.
.
Then add a rule to the game: Balanced Central Bank Rule : When all players have passed go, then collect all the money from the players in order to balance the statement of the central bank.
.
Take note of the money safely balanced in the central bank and the poverty of each player who lacks all money.
@@zygi22 - A political economy needs enough money in circulation so that each person has a living wage
@@thomasd2444 "A political economy"? You mean centrally- planned economy?
Interesting discussion, not really a debate. They should have targeted the differences between their policy recommendations instead of delving into how their systems work. Both are advocating action to be taken, and Mr. Murphy hit it on the head only at the end.
MMT may be highly specialized to the system as it is, but it does not follow that the MMT policy recommendations for change are better, only less drastic. Mr. Mosler brought up that the gold standard wasn't as useful to the gov esp in times of war due to its limitations, as if this were a bad thing. Perhaps from the perspective of the gov, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else who would see a limitation on war making, misallocation, and destruction as a bad thing.
Can you convince all governments that might not mind waging war on your country to convert to a fixed currency system on the gold standard?
@@Endelite No, and thankfully I don't have to. We already spend far too much on our military as it is, with little or no cost cutting incentives in place, quite the opposite in fact. Our biggest budget busters are entitlements, not national defense. Whether our finances are real or fiat will make little difference to our future adversaries, as it made no difference to our adversaries in the past.
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 I don't have a problem with that. Nasa hasn't been fit for purpose in decades, and what advances were made through the agency could just as easily have been done under the airforce. The panama canal could just as easily have been a privately funded project if it were really worth it.
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 "Non of that would happen in the Private sector Come with your delusion"
If it isn't worth doing in the private sector it probably isn't worth doing for the gov either.
.
"Capitalism was suppose to liberate us from feudalism"
lol, speaking of delusions, you are confusing economics with government.
.
"Not eternally enrishine us to those very rent seeking creditors"
Then don't go into debt if you don't want to.
.
"These ass hats make debt instruments "
All the more reason to deregulate the market and let the market forces crush them.
.
"An you 👄 pieces that defend them are equally responsible"
As opposed to you who can't even coherently communicate your ideas. YOU are the clown, spouting nonsense in a youtube forum six years after it was started.
@TheCanMan Can Since 1990 You'll need to be more specific, last I checked capitalism operates exclusively on this plane of existence.
That is where the term "endogenous" originates. It is endogenous to demand and bank credit. I misunderstood it to be endogenous to the medium which is what exogenous means in the theory.
So they are looking at the point of view from demand.
I am saying that I agree that this is basically how money is being created and that the medium, gold or otherwise, hardly matters with the exception of the Federal budget.
Nearly a century ago Will Rogers defined what an economist is and does - (not an exact quote) - An economist is a very intelligent and very well educated person who tries to predict future economic events. Seems to me that their inspired guesses are about as good as anybody's.
No
The austrian guy is never able to try to say something is not true in what Mosler says. MMT is not about what should be, but mainly about "how things actually happen". Quite hard to contradict.
Except that's not true as it's based off of philosophy where as the 'Austrian school' is based off of philosophy and demonstrated fact.
Oh really? So central banks pick up money from the trees. Or maybe they fish them...
stefanobc1971 no - they print it :)
Christian V Petersen
ofc they just push buttons. Explain it to the Austrians. They can'd deal with it.
jfdhgds
MMT is based off accounting not philosophy.
Mmt is very ad hoc as a theory. It doesn’t follow from one point to a conclusion whereas the Austrian point about interest being the price to which entities respond makes much much more sense
More than that, it's the price *of* something. The price of spending others' savings, which in turn is a preference for delayed consumption.
It’s literally the opposite since MMT actually starts with the money creation where as the Austrian model assumes its presence as just another commodity from the outset.
Governments may not formally default on debt but they can overprint a currency to the point where it's worthless.
Interest rates do exist in the absence of government. The issue with his example is that the price of the bus tokens will change depending on the conditions of which they trade. This is what interest is. It's the price on time and risk essentially.
Did the MMT guy admit that inflation can become a problem or did i misunderstand the part about how the government can tell people how much money (business cards in his example) are worth. He made it sound like that the government can change the value at will in any direction. He said that if he says you have to work 1 hour to get a card then that's the value. If he says 2 hours that's the value. How does a government do that in reality?