The mood in Australia changed at that Canberra conference. You mean they changed from ridiculing MMT to ignoring MMT out of fright. Too much egg on their neoliberal faces. This sort of wilful ignorance is surely criminal, or at worst worth a trial at the Hague for gross negligence and malpractice.
Don't believe this rubbish from Mosler. He either does not have an abilty to research a money trail or is deliberately ignoring it along with other relevant facts. His claims that government can spend without taxing are false. Government does not create or issue money in the economy. Government is however the first spender of money it gets from the Federal reserve bank as payment for securities it sells to the bank . If government does not have enough money collected from taxation it must borrow it because it does not create the money. The creators of money in the fiat system we have today such as in the USA are the central bank which runs on business model and the private banks. It is all fiat credit and debt based money. If government wants new money or more money because taxes are insufficient for their spending they borrow either from the Federal Reserve bank or from the private sector or overseas entities. This involves government selling Treasury securities to the public or overseas or the Federal reserve. Institutions and private people buy those Treasury securities and want payment with interest when the Traesury reserves mature. In time all of those Treasury securities mature and the investors get paid back by the government who has to dip into tax revenues to pay them out. Private banks however create most of the fiat credit money in every country. They create over 90% of it in most countries when they lend to their customers as loans. Private banks are purely private independent businesses who do not get money from the Reserve bank to lend to the bank's customers for profit. They are actual creators of new money and they are not just agents of the reserve bank or government. There is an almost identical system that operates in Canada and most countries around the world. There is a straight forward easy to understand Canadian explanation about how money is created is on the Library of Parliament is available at:- lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201551E#:~:text=Money%20is%20created%20in%20the,new%20loans%2C%20such%20as%20mortgages.
I'm English dominant and having a problem understanding what's articulated by the economics person (I'm especially baffled that there is NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION). --> There should be English translation because this concept is being introduced to Americans.
Buch schon im Handel / now available www.amazon.de/sieben-unschuldigen-t%C3%B6dlichen-Betr%C3%BCgereien-Wirtschaftspolitik/dp/3944203216/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1494250681&sr=1-1&tag=httpwwwshop0d-21&ascsubtag=2508955774&tag=httpwwwshop0d-21
Awesome video. I guess it’s a little too abstract for me, with the debits and credits. Hopefully someone can make it a little more concrete for me. In the accounting equation. Assets = liabilities + equity + revenue- expenses 1. Is he saying debits and credits to the fed and treasury , are these basically on the right side of the equation canceling each other out. 2. When bonds are issued wether the fed buys them or the public invest in them, reserves are drained from banks to control the money supply. 3.When the bonds are paid the treasury balance is subtracted from”debited” and the fed is credited to pay them? Currently MMT is the new buzz word and at first I rejected the idea until I listened to Mosler and Wray. I can’t wait to read the books. I’m starting to wonder if Schiff, Maloney and others are pushing their compelling beliefs to capitalize on selling gold. I will say Maloney , Schiff and Peak prosperity have vedios and books that dumb down the gold standard to where is so easily understood and accepted.
Yes, Schiff is interested in fooling people. He wants to make money simply by owning assets and not doing any useful work. He can do this if people are forced to borrow credit money, since that implies interest gets paid to the lenders, like Schiff. Debt cancellation mechanisms like M4A and a Job Guarantee would reduce schiff's predatory profits. So of course he will ALWAYS be opposed to MMD/MMT even when he is proven wrong on every single metric.
@V J I''ll try to be polite here. 1st I do not have any "system", as you know MMT describes the money system as it is, it does not advocate left wing or right wing, socialist or capitalist policy. 2nd where is the "theft"? All money that is not bank credit comes from past government deficits. Why is it left in the economy? It's generally done to pay public sector workers whose spending provides the sales that drive profits for private firms, plus welfare recipients who cannot find work or who cannot work and spend almost 100% of their cheque. When you say "socialism is theft" you are completely guilty of false polemics. I could just as easily say "all capitalism is theft", and in fact that'd be more accurate, since all sales are made possible by workers, who should therefore have by natural justice and equal share in profits. Or I could say, "the sky is green". All you have is a definition there. Fine, so "socialism is theft" in which case we probably all need a good deal more "theft" in our workplace. If you say business owners somehow deserve a greater share of profits because they take the liability risk of owning their firm, then I can equally say, fine, but that's a very weak case to make, since they could also choose to share the liability with their fellow human beings, their employees, then sharing profit is natural and not theft. 3rd I cannot be sure about how Schiff makes his money, I can be pretty sure that since he is involved purely in the financial sector that in effect all he does is siphon credit off the rest of the economy, since he is not selling any particular goods or services. Now he may be selling something, so that's fine, then he's playing some role and might be useful for whoever is buying his product. But purely financial gains not derived from sales of real goods are entirely predatory, they are income gained either from interests on debt or economic rents, and if it's not from interest form debt it has to have come from past government deficits, there is no other way to make money appear unless Schiff counterfeits, or takes money off counterfeiters. I could generalize and say "Schiff" is just a dummy name for anyone trading purely financial assets not real productive goods & services, to de-personalize the story, Then may claims would be sound.
@@Achrononmaster You really are so financially ignorant of facts and show it when you say "If you say business owners somehow deserve a greater share of profits because they take the liability risk of owning their firm, then I can equally say, fine, but that's a very weak case to make, since they could also choose to share the liability with their fellow human beings, their employees, then sharing profit is natural and not theft.". What do you think sharing profits is if not shareholders benefits ? What do you think sharing profits is if not paying employees for their work ? You also say "1st I do not have any "system", as you know MMT describes the money system as it is, it does not advocate left wing or right wing, socialist or capitalist policy." You have no evidence to demonstrate what you say. The reality is you are wrong and MMT and you contradict the explanatory evidence from the institutions who create money themselves including explanations of how money is created. Example the explanation from the Bank of Canada as shown on the Canadian Library of Parliament's site which spells it out in simple terms that rational and competent English speaking person can understand. Even you may understand it. Or perhaps some financially competent person can explain it to you. It is contrary to MMt and Mosler's view because his view is wrong. Here it is:- " lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201551E#:~:text=Money%20is%20created%20in%20the,new%20loans%2C%20such%20as%20mortgages.
So you have fallen for the classic error of believing a theorist who presents some so called facts by selecting a fellow promoter of the theory instead of some other independent person who has done research and has no connection with the theorist.
@@TheBandFiles It has bearing on the credibility of your comment which selects a developer and supporter of the theory as some sort of proof raher than some independent facts. Try addressing these historical facts in view of the MMT claims of taxes being destroyed and not re spent as the major funding for the fedreal budget. See;- www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ And look at Table 1.1 - SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS ( - ): 1789 - 2024 How can you and MMT ignore history? Unless you too are in denial of reality which MMT is. .
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Where's the educational part of this little episode of Modern Moslerian Mythology? Bard College? Signing on to the IRS shreds your tax payments? LOL Bard ? Should they not have an Economist call Treasury and ask them? I think they're joined at the Bankers Money hip.
"What keeps the government from taking your "score" away?" Answer. Well, they could do so, since they create the "score" of tax credits in the first place. It's not like there's a serious alternative that modern Capitalism can operate on barter-trade or 'intentionally-scarce' speculative currency like Bitcoin. Capitalism needs a healthy flow of money. The role of Capitalist government is to facilitate Capitalism, not purposely hamper it ... not unless the economy gets "too hot", in which case they do intentionally cool it off by legally increasing taxes and legally confiscating some money. So, Answers 1. Capitalism. 2. The Govt DOES take away your "score" by legal taxation, also legal fines and legal fees. Problem, per Warren: They take too much or provide too little. 3. Taxation -- beyond achieving 'stability' - is unnecessary and doesn't give the Govt anything, no spending power that govt does not already possess. 4. So there's no reason or purpose for Govt simply "taking away" your score except if it wants to assess certain spending by charging you (so we are aware of spending) or else as a form of punishment, AND the fact that some degree of taxation is necessary for there to be a demand to use the common stable currency for commerce.
Democracy basically, plus crowds, there'd be blood on the streets. So don't be a concern troll idiot buddy. Same as if a scoreboard administrator suddenly reversed the scores in the Superbowl or NBA finals - or actually Football World Cup or FA Cup - would involve even more bloodshed. But even before democracy, you have regulations and law preventing the bank accounts from being arbitrarily manipulated. Elected representative can be corrupt, but there is some transparency, some honesty, and enough benign whistleblowers to strongly counter such financial fraud.
11:48 - Mr. Mosler harks-back to 1979, when the Fed accidentally sent $300,000,000 to his firm (William Blair, Chicago), instead of merely $30,000. Mr. Mosler offers his conclusion that the money came from someone's thumb, as in a typographical error. This is a grown man, a college graduate, working in the financial field, who doesn't think twice about how or why his conclusion might be wrong. The error is $299, 970,000. If Mosler's conclusion were true (i.e., that there was a simple typo), then the Fed's books would've been out-of-balance by $299.97 million. But, in 1979, most professional-level accounting software required transactions to be entered one at a time, wherein each transaction's total-debits and total-credits must be equal, which means this "$300 million typo" (as artfully-imagined by Mr. Mosler) would've been rejected, i.e., never entered into the accounting system, as by Mr. Mosler artfully presumed. Using typical accounting software in 1979, a typo of the nature Mosler presumed must be made twice, i.e., so that the debits and credits are equal. But the conclusion that Mr. Mosler artfully imagined then would be untenable, because the money would demonstrably have come from "somewhere other than a thumb", i.e., "thin air". In other words, the clearing-house operation of the Fed would have to have taken the same amount of money away from some unlucky financial institution. If so, it was probably another William Blair Office, presumably one on Wall Street, which handled such large sums, and got the $30,000 instead of $300,000,000. Surprisingly, Mr. Mosler's artful conclusion that "money is nothing but keystrokes" is, today, still the basis of Modern Monetary Theory. Good grief.
I agree with what he says as to the myths about how the economy actually works. However, his presentation would be clearer if he wouldn't use the same words in different contexts. For example, he says "you" to refer to the individual and "you" to refer to the collective. An argument against fiscal spending is the created money is given to Jack but taxed from Joe. It's true that deficit spending is directed into the economy (Jack+Joe), but at the same time Joe, the loser, is less well off than Jack, the winner. That distinction between who the winners and losers are with fiscal policy is the core argument against it. He needs to explain why boosting Jack's welfare gives Joe a greater benefit than what he lost through paying taxes. Merely saying it's a political decision you (ie. the collective) must make is a cop-out. Myth 6: We need savings to fund investments. He argues savings aren't needed for investment, but leaves unstated the cases where it does. Investment banks, hedge funds, venture capitalist all use existing money someone has saved to invest. Also, states and municipalities use the selling of bonds and collection of taxes to fund their investments (e.g. roads, water, sewage, schools). Bonds are bought and taxes are collected from the savings of investors and citizens. He is right though, when saying that banks create money in the act of lending and the Fed Reserve and government creates money to spend. When the money is collected through loan payments, taxes, or buy-backs the created money is destroyed. He needs a disclaimer to set the proper context for Myth 6. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt regarding these ambiguities given the time constraints he was under and the complexity of the topic.
"An argument against fiscal spending is the created money is given to Jack but taxed from Joe." I agree on some of the pronoun confusion but the overall fact that you missed is that any tax paid by Joe or by Jack has no connection whatsoever with money paid out (often for *services* aka *work* ) to Jack or Joe or anyone else. Subtraction of "our" money and creation of "our" money is by two different agencies which are not functionally connected, only by an accounting spreadsheet on a govt computer which is *irrelevant* to actual operations (yet we make the difference politically and ideologically relevant) -- but very relevant to the health of the economy, in terms of net adding or net removing net financial assets. Also note, in your scenario, Jack likely spends nearly 100% of his net income, unless he's somewhat rich or Super Rich, and some of his consumer spending flows back to Joe in various exchanges, probably indirectly unless Joe is Jack's landlord or if Jack has a Govt Contract and Joe is Jack's employee. In the latter examples, Joe *directly benefits* from govt $ given to Jack.
@Pronator Tendon You say "Monetary operations can be defined with mathematical equations. Then try mathematically explaining this with MMT's claim that taxes are destroyed which is a pivotal claim of the theory. The total US history of federal budgets shows that tax revenue is used to pay for government spending. The figures are from the Whitehouse records at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ table 1.1 Table 1.1 - SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS ( - ): 1789 - 2024. They show how much revenue from taxes is spent (outlays) in comparison to revenue collected. Some years there is even a surplus where revenue exceeds spending. That could not occur by MMT claims of revenue (tax) being destroyed. So it's a rubbish theory bing heavily faulted on that basis alone.
The correct data to look at are correlations: government surpluses correlate with near future recessions. Since surpluses result from more taxation than deficit spending, the idea taxes pay for spending is simply absurd.
@Pronator Tendon and don't rad this idiot "Rob" below. MMT/MMD does not say taxes are destroyed. Tax receipts go into T&L accounts. The thing is, banks (Special Depositories) are not required to account for T&L accounts when calculating their reserve requirements, so the Treasury "could" destroy the tax deposits and nothing bad would happen in the banking sector, since it would not effect reserves nor money supply. The Treasury does not do this because it would just be a needless pain and inefficient to then top up the T&L accounts with securities.
Mosler says the taxes are credits. They are Not credits for the people who are in the private sector since they are debts which people have to pay. They are a credit for government just as a debt of what someone owes is a credit for the person to whom it is owed but Not for the person who owes it.
@@Richest_Person_in_the_World Fact 1. Tax is not a good or s service that any person desires. Fact 2. Tax is an exchange of purchasing power and nothing else is produced in that change from a person to government just as if you gave a persona present which allows them to spend at your loss of spending power. Fact 3. Changing of spending power does not create any goods or services. Fact 4. Dollars are accepted only because a person can get goods or services by exchanging them with someone else for those goods or services. If the dollars could not be exchanged for those goods or services then nobody would want them just like nobody wanted Zimbabwe dollars because they could not buy anything with them but they could pay taxes so eventually their own government did not want them. Would you want dollars that could buy no goods or services and that the government decided they did not want for the same reason? Say Zimbabwe dollars for instance which eventually their government did not want even as a tax payment.
Mosler claims the is No solvency risk in government printing more money. That is total B.S. because solvency itself occurs in both value and number. He ignores the value part. Failing to be able to pay in the designated number of dollars or failing to be able to pay in dollars that have fallen to such a low value they are virtually worthless. Who would consider they have been paid and are not paid in part only if they lent in dollars that could buy a gallon of fuel at a price of $2:50 and found that now would cost $ 15:00 because there were too many dollars created that government spent first. He hides behind part or weak definitions to cover his poorly thought out MM theory.
The reality is there is an actual risk of insolvency in government spending more than they collect in taxes and funding that spending with fiat money expansion. The statement that Mosler makes with his MMT economics is to assume that insolvency by way of failing purchasing power of the currency is does not result in insolvency. He completely ignores this understanding and takes a very narrow view which suits his narrow interpretation of insolvency. Many governments have made the same mistake of turning their currency into a valueless relic of the past that had made it utterly useless to their own population and wiped out their own population's savings in the process as well as reducing the production of the whole economy. The history of the 20th century and shortly after shows the governments of at least 30 countries failed their people in this very way. They include Brazil, Zimbabwe, the Weimar republic and Hungary. But Heh! What do MMTers learn from history - Practically nothing since do to their arrogance they ignore it !!
You must be a sad guy trolling under every MMT video there is. Funny again, how you prove your own ignorance. None of those hyperinflations you named was caused by the government spending to much. Every hyperinflation you named was caused by debt in a foreign currency (Weimar had to pay war reparations and therefore hat to export most of its domestic production) and/or a collapsing economy (Zimbabwe did a land reform giving land to people that did not know how to use it and therefore destroying production capacities). None of that had even the slightest to do with a government overspending. The one not wanting to learn from history is clearly you.
@@trixn4285 People and particularly large institutions do not lend large amounts to foreign governments or companies without a risk assessment of the capacity to pay it back. If what you say about debt to foreign currency is fact then my point is proven and yours is demolished by your own statement simply due to the reality that the cost of foreign currencies is just the price of that foreign currency compared to that of your own and the original cost at the time of borrowing was considerably less and of the lender's risk factors were satisfied at the time of that lending. The exchange rate is the comparative price of that currency. You have not even addressed those facts because if you did you would realize that your statements are just folly. When the Weimar had debt the authorities tried to pay it with expansion of the money supply. It was incurred as government debt that the government had the obligation to pay as did the other governments in all of the instances where hyperinflation occurred. Who do you think expanded the money supply ? The similar situation in Zimbabwe. - Who do you think expanded the money suppy to produce thousand and million and then trillion dollar notes to pay for government debt? Not the farmers, Not the butcher, Not the plumbers, Not the local fire fighters, Not the school teachers, not the postman. Besides all of that the loss of amount of farm output in one year was in the tens of percent per year yet the currency lost ot value in the same time by Hundreds of thousands of percent because of the fact of massive government deficits created to fund that increased government spending. Of course the foreign debt was harder to pay because of the massive increases in internal debt ruined investment and put up the cost of existing foreign debt due to exchange rate becoming more and more adverse which happens when the internally inflation depreciates the purchasing capacity of the currency.
@@trixn4285 You apply no sense of proportion in your understanding of finance and economics. That illustrates the problem of your blind acceptance of what MMT says that is disproportional to reality and arising from just poor application of basic research methods. Like someone believing the ship Titanic sank because of someone letting a the shower run too long causing flooding instead of the massive hole in it's hull from hitting an iceberg.
@@Rob-fx2dw What is your background? How old are you, what did you study? Which economic text books did you read. Although you claim you have the right understanding of finance you repeatedly demonstrate with your silly rants and gish gallop strategy that you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about. All of your text walls are consisting of straw mans, ad hominems, fallacies of composition or just you don't understanding the point made.
@@trixn4285 You say to me " you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about." - NO the fact is you have learned a load of rubbish that precludes you from recognizing what facts are when they hit you in the face. You seem to think you know economic and have some good understanding but can you answer these questions that test MMT and your own theory and find it wanting. Before I tell you just answer what questions I put to you. Tell me your age and qualifications and experience of life and the textbooks you have read or the financial success you have befitted from a rather than some theories you have read from people who have not had any financial success or predicted correctly any economic events of the last 40 years. I don't want some explanation like repeating what some theoretician who lives in academia told you and you have repaeted like a goldfish swallowing some fish food.. What point are you actually making apart from repeating what someone else said. You might also like to explain why the MMt theory is a government deficit is a private sector surplus when the deficits are funded by Treasury bond and note sales since those Treasuries all mature and have to be paid off with interest by the taxpayer's money which is a burden on the private sector that is higher than any amount of cash that might have flowed initially into the private sector at the time of the deficit. Again you could also explain how MMt claims of taxes creating acceptance of and putting a value into money when in all of those countries where the money failed through hyperinflation there were taxes but valueless money. Even their own governments rejected it. Perhaps you could explain why MMt description of how new money is created differs greatly from the official explanations given by the bank of Canada who actually create new money and those of the Bank of England who also does the same. They are not faulty economic theory but are actual economic fact. Bank of Canada :- lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201551E bank of England :- www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
Such a shame this isn't taught in ECO 101 classes.
It is taught at the University of Newcastle and University of Kansas.
@@Achrononmaster Newcastle? Really? Tell me more. Inclined to go there now.
00:00 -
01:33 - A word on behalf of our publisher
.
05:38 -
08:40 - Please welcome, Warren Mosler.
10:52 - The Beginning Deadly Innocent Fraud # 1
11:42 - Where does Money Originate / Come from ?
.
12:49 - Business Calculator ( 0 ) ( 0 0 ) ( 0 0 0 )
13:11 - REAL MONEY
.
13:25 - From
_______ Citizen-SDC-660II-Electronic-Calculator
.
13:29 - From Fed Reserve Board Computer
13:45 -
.
15:43 - Fact
15:49 -
.
16:14 - Debit Securities Accounts & Credit Reserve Accounts
16:46 -
.
17:36 - Fraud # 2
28:02 - Fact
.
28:18 - Fraud # 3 32:32 - Pompeii ->> 34:00 - Reserve Drain after Reserve Add
36:21 - Fact 36:52 - In Pompeii there were coins in the street (saved coins)
.
37:47 - Fraud # 4
40:48 - Fact
.
43:18 - Fraud # 5
49:49 - Fact
.
51:15 - Fraud # 6
53:51 - Fact
.
54:17 - Fraud # 7
54:34 - Fact
.
The mood in Australia changed at that Canberra conference. You mean they changed from ridiculing MMT to ignoring MMT out of fright. Too much egg on their neoliberal faces. This sort of wilful ignorance is surely criminal, or at worst worth a trial at the Hague for gross negligence and malpractice.
Warren speaks here 8:40
+OakhillSailor thanks!
good job
Not all hero’s wear capes
The only burden I have is not knowing this stuff upfront. It should be law to teach this in high school at least. People deserve to know the truth.
Don't believe this rubbish from Mosler. He either does not have an abilty to research a money trail or is deliberately ignoring it along with other relevant facts.
His claims that government can spend without taxing are false. Government does not create or issue money in the economy. Government is however the first spender of money it gets from the Federal reserve bank as payment for securities it sells to the bank .
If government does not have enough money collected from taxation it must borrow it because it does not create the money.
The creators of money in the fiat system we have today such as in the USA are the central bank which runs on business model and the private banks. It is all fiat credit and debt based money.
If government wants new money or more money because taxes are insufficient for their spending they borrow either from the Federal Reserve bank or from the private sector or overseas entities. This involves government selling Treasury securities to the public or overseas or the Federal reserve.
Institutions and private people buy those Treasury securities and want payment with interest when the Traesury reserves mature.
In time all of those Treasury securities mature and the investors get paid back by the government who has to dip into tax revenues to pay them out. Private banks however create most of the fiat credit money in every country. They create over 90% of it in most countries when they lend to their customers as loans. Private banks are purely private independent businesses who do not get money from the Reserve bank to lend to the bank's customers for profit. They are actual creators of new money and they are not just agents of the reserve bank or government. There is an almost identical system that operates in Canada and most countries around the world.
There is a straight forward easy to understand Canadian explanation about how money is created is on the Library of Parliament is available at:- lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201551E#:~:text=Money%20is%20created%20in%20the,new%20loans%2C%20such%20as%20mortgages.
Thanks for uploading! Did anyone record the q+a afterwards?
I wish a SINGLE video of Mosler's had decent audio. Why is the audio SO HORRIBLE?!?!?
Thank you for the class
I'm English dominant and having a problem understanding what's articulated by the economics person (I'm especially baffled that there is NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION).
--> There should be English translation because this concept is being introduced to Americans.
Buch schon im Handel / now available www.amazon.de/sieben-unschuldigen-t%C3%B6dlichen-Betr%C3%BCgereien-Wirtschaftspolitik/dp/3944203216/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1494250681&sr=1-1&tag=httpwwwshop0d-21&ascsubtag=2508955774&tag=httpwwwshop0d-21
Awesome video. I guess it’s a little too abstract for me, with the debits and credits. Hopefully someone can make it a little more concrete for me.
In the accounting equation. Assets = liabilities + equity + revenue- expenses
1. Is he saying debits and credits to the fed and treasury , are these basically on the right side of the equation canceling each other out.
2. When bonds are issued wether the fed buys them or the public invest in them, reserves are drained from banks to control the money supply.
3.When the bonds are paid the treasury balance is subtracted from”debited” and the fed is credited to pay them?
Currently MMT is the new buzz word and at first I rejected the idea until I listened to Mosler and Wray. I can’t wait to read the books. I’m starting to wonder if Schiff, Maloney and others are pushing their compelling beliefs to capitalize on selling gold. I will say Maloney , Schiff and Peak prosperity have vedios and books that dumb down the gold standard to where is so easily understood and accepted.
Yes, Schiff is interested in fooling people. He wants to make money simply by owning assets and not doing any useful work. He can do this if people are forced to borrow credit money, since that implies interest gets paid to the lenders, like Schiff. Debt cancellation mechanisms like M4A and a Job Guarantee would reduce schiff's predatory profits. So of course he will ALWAYS be opposed to MMD/MMT even when he is proven wrong on every single metric.
@V J I''ll try to be polite here. 1st I do not have any "system", as you know MMT describes the money system as it is, it does not advocate left wing or right wing, socialist or capitalist policy.
2nd where is the "theft"? All money that is not bank credit comes from past government deficits. Why is it left in the economy? It's generally done to pay public sector workers whose spending provides the sales that drive profits for private firms, plus welfare recipients who cannot find work or who cannot work and spend almost 100% of their cheque. When you say "socialism is theft" you are completely guilty of false polemics. I could just as easily say "all capitalism is theft", and in fact that'd be more accurate, since all sales are made possible by workers, who should therefore have by natural justice and equal share in profits. Or I could say, "the sky is green". All you have is a definition there. Fine, so "socialism is theft" in which case we probably all need a good deal more "theft" in our workplace. If you say business owners somehow deserve a greater share of profits because they take the liability risk of owning their firm, then I can equally say, fine, but that's a very weak case to make, since they could also choose to share the liability with their fellow human beings, their employees, then sharing profit is natural and not theft.
3rd I cannot be sure about how Schiff makes his money, I can be pretty sure that since he is involved purely in the financial sector that in effect all he does is siphon credit off the rest of the economy, since he is not selling any particular goods or services. Now he may be selling something, so that's fine, then he's playing some role and might be useful for whoever is buying his product. But purely financial gains not derived from sales of real goods are entirely predatory, they are income gained either from interests on debt or economic rents, and if it's not from interest form debt it has to have come from past government deficits, there is no other way to make money appear unless Schiff counterfeits, or takes money off counterfeiters. I could generalize and say "Schiff" is just a dummy name for anyone trading purely financial assets not real productive goods & services, to de-personalize the story, Then may claims would be sound.
@@Achrononmaster You really are so financially ignorant of facts and show it when you say "If you say business owners somehow deserve a greater share of profits because they take the liability risk of owning their firm, then I can equally say, fine, but that's a very weak case to make, since they could also choose to share the liability with their fellow human beings, their employees, then sharing profit is natural and not theft.".
What do you think sharing profits is if not shareholders benefits ? What do you think sharing profits is if not paying employees for their work ?
You also say "1st I do not have any "system", as you know MMT describes the money system as it is, it does not advocate left wing or right wing, socialist or capitalist policy."
You have no evidence to demonstrate what you say.
The reality is you are wrong and MMT and you contradict the explanatory evidence from the institutions who create money themselves including explanations of how money is created.
Example the explanation from the Bank of Canada as shown on the Canadian Library of Parliament's site which spells it out in simple terms that rational and competent English speaking person can understand. Even you may understand it. Or perhaps some financially competent person can explain it to you. It is contrary to MMt and Mosler's view because his view is wrong.
Here it is:- " lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201551E#:~:text=Money%20is%20created%20in%20the,new%20loans%2C%20such%20as%20mortgages.
Where is this background from?
It's simply untrue that MMT doesn't take money history into account; read Randall Wray.
So you have fallen for the classic error of believing a theorist who presents some so called facts by selecting a fellow promoter of the theory instead of some other independent person who has done research and has no connection with the theorist.
@@Rob-fx2dw - Thanks but your reply has no bearing on whether or not MMT addresses money history. (Which it does, of course.)
@@TheBandFiles It has bearing on the credibility of your comment which selects a developer and supporter of the theory as some sort of proof raher than some independent facts.
Try addressing these historical facts in view of the MMT claims of taxes being destroyed and not re spent as the major funding for the fedreal budget.
See;- www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ And look at Table 1.1 - SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS ( - ): 1789 - 2024
How can you and MMT ignore history? Unless you too are in denial of reality which MMT is.
.
@Butty Bobber What does he say in those plaguing mmt vids you brought to notice ? You need to explain it to notice so others can see.
Where's Rob Mews?
Where are you Rob, come out and play!
Yeah,
I was wondering the same thing.
Where's the educational part of this little episode of Modern Moslerian Mythology?
Bard College?
Signing on to the IRS shreds your tax payments? LOL
Bard ?
Should they not have an Economist call Treasury and ask them?
I think they're joined at the Bankers Money hip.
LOL, he did not disappoint. Tune in to the comments around June 2019. LULZ
Can I ask you, who is this Rob guy and why is he trolling every video about MMT for years now? What is his background?
Well if I ever study liberal arts, I suppose this is the place to go =^)
What keeps the government from taking your "score" away?
"What keeps the government from taking your "score" away?"
Answer. Well, they could do so, since they create the "score" of tax credits in the first place. It's not like there's a serious alternative that modern Capitalism can operate on barter-trade or 'intentionally-scarce' speculative currency like Bitcoin. Capitalism needs a healthy flow of money. The role of Capitalist government is to facilitate Capitalism, not purposely hamper it ... not unless the economy gets "too hot", in which case they do intentionally cool it off by legally increasing taxes and legally confiscating some money.
So, Answers 1. Capitalism. 2. The Govt DOES take away your "score" by legal taxation, also legal fines and legal fees. Problem, per Warren: They take too much or provide too little.
3. Taxation -- beyond achieving 'stability' - is unnecessary and doesn't give the Govt anything, no spending power that govt does not already possess.
4. So there's no reason or purpose for Govt simply "taking away" your score except if it wants to assess certain spending by charging you (so we are aware of spending) or else as a form of punishment, AND the fact that some degree of taxation is necessary for there to be a demand to use the common stable currency for commerce.
Democracy basically, plus crowds, there'd be blood on the streets. So don't be a concern troll idiot buddy. Same as if a scoreboard administrator suddenly reversed the scores in the Superbowl or NBA finals - or actually Football World Cup or FA Cup - would involve even more bloodshed. But even before democracy, you have regulations and law preventing the bank accounts from being arbitrarily manipulated. Elected representative can be corrupt, but there is some transparency, some honesty, and enough benign whistleblowers to strongly counter such financial fraud.
11:48 - Mr. Mosler harks-back to 1979, when the Fed accidentally sent $300,000,000 to his firm (William Blair, Chicago), instead of merely $30,000. Mr. Mosler offers his conclusion that the money came from someone's thumb, as in a typographical error.
This is a grown man, a college graduate, working in the financial field, who doesn't think twice about how or why his conclusion might be wrong.
The error is $299, 970,000. If Mosler's conclusion were true (i.e., that there was a simple typo), then the Fed's books would've been out-of-balance by $299.97 million. But, in 1979, most professional-level accounting software required transactions to be entered one at a time, wherein each transaction's total-debits and total-credits must be equal, which means this "$300 million typo" (as artfully-imagined by Mr. Mosler) would've been rejected, i.e., never entered into the accounting system, as by Mr. Mosler artfully presumed.
Using typical accounting software in 1979, a typo of the nature Mosler presumed must be made twice, i.e., so that the debits and credits are equal. But the conclusion that Mr. Mosler artfully imagined then would be untenable, because the money would demonstrably have come from "somewhere other than a thumb", i.e., "thin air". In other words, the clearing-house operation of the Fed would have to have taken the same amount of money away from some unlucky financial institution. If so, it was probably another William Blair Office, presumably one on Wall Street, which handled such large sums, and got the $30,000 instead of $300,000,000.
Surprisingly, Mr. Mosler's artful conclusion that "money is nothing but keystrokes" is, today, still the basis of Modern Monetary Theory. Good grief.
I agree with what he says as to the myths about how the economy actually works. However, his presentation would be clearer if he wouldn't use the same words in different contexts.
For example, he says "you" to refer to the individual and "you" to refer to the collective. An argument against fiscal spending is the created money is given to Jack but taxed from Joe. It's true that deficit spending is directed into the economy (Jack+Joe), but at the same time Joe, the loser, is less well off than Jack, the winner. That distinction between who the winners and losers are with fiscal policy is the core argument against it. He needs to explain why boosting Jack's welfare gives Joe a greater benefit than what he lost through paying taxes. Merely saying it's a political decision you (ie. the collective) must make is a cop-out.
Myth 6: We need savings to fund investments.
He argues savings aren't needed for investment, but leaves unstated the cases where it does. Investment banks, hedge funds, venture capitalist all use existing money someone has saved to invest. Also, states and municipalities use the selling of bonds and collection of taxes to fund their investments (e.g. roads, water, sewage, schools). Bonds are bought and taxes are collected from the savings of investors and citizens.
He is right though, when saying that banks create money in the act of lending and the Fed Reserve and government creates money to spend. When the money is collected through loan payments, taxes, or buy-backs the created money is destroyed.
He needs a disclaimer to set the proper context for Myth 6.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt regarding these ambiguities given the time constraints he was under and the complexity of the topic.
"An argument against fiscal spending is the created money is given to Jack but taxed from Joe."
I agree on some of the pronoun confusion but the overall fact that you missed is that any tax paid by Joe or by Jack has no connection whatsoever with money paid out (often for *services* aka *work* ) to Jack or Joe or anyone else. Subtraction of "our" money and creation of "our" money is by two different agencies which are not functionally connected, only by an accounting spreadsheet on a govt computer which is *irrelevant* to actual operations (yet we make the difference politically and ideologically relevant) -- but very relevant to the health of the economy, in terms of net adding or net removing net financial assets.
Also note, in your scenario, Jack likely spends nearly 100% of his net income, unless he's somewhat rich or Super Rich, and some of his consumer spending flows back to Joe in various exchanges, probably indirectly unless Joe is Jack's landlord or if Jack has a Govt Contract and Joe is Jack's employee. In the latter examples, Joe *directly benefits* from govt $ given to Jack.
17:19 Gesundheit
17:22 Gesundheit...
Johnson Lisa Martin Matthew Robinson Mary
How can a grown man believe this?
@Pronator Tendon You say "Monetary operations can be defined with mathematical equations. Then try mathematically explaining this with MMT's claim that taxes are destroyed which is a pivotal claim of the theory.
The total US history of federal budgets shows that tax revenue is used to pay for government spending.
The figures are from the Whitehouse records at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ table 1.1 Table 1.1 - SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS ( - ): 1789 - 2024.
They show how much revenue from taxes is spent (outlays) in comparison to revenue collected. Some years there is even a surplus where revenue exceeds spending. That could not occur by MMT claims of revenue (tax) being destroyed.
So it's a rubbish theory bing heavily faulted on that basis alone.
"Grown men" are often the most brainwashed. I'd trust a self-educated young person on so many things over a grown conservative idiot.
The correct data to look at are correlations: government surpluses correlate with near future recessions. Since surpluses result from more taxation than deficit spending, the idea taxes pay for spending is simply absurd.
@Pronator Tendon and don't rad this idiot "Rob" below. MMT/MMD does not say taxes are destroyed. Tax receipts go into T&L accounts. The thing is, banks (Special Depositories) are not required to account for T&L accounts when calculating their reserve requirements, so the Treasury "could" destroy the tax deposits and nothing bad would happen in the banking sector, since it would not effect reserves nor money supply. The Treasury does not do this because it would just be a needless pain and inefficient to then top up the T&L accounts with securities.
@Pronator Tendon Oh no... it fell through the cracks...
Mosler says the taxes are credits. They are Not credits for the people who are in the private sector since they are debts which people have to pay.
They are a credit for government just as a debt of what someone owes is a credit for the person to whom it is owed but Not for the person who owes it.
Yeah but why are dollars accepted anywhere at all? Because they are a tax credit.
@@Richest_Person_in_the_World Fact 1. Tax is not a good or s service that any person desires.
Fact 2. Tax is an exchange of purchasing power and nothing else is produced in that change from a person to government just as if you gave a persona present which allows them to spend at your loss of spending power.
Fact 3. Changing of spending power does not create any goods or services.
Fact 4. Dollars are accepted only because a person can get goods or services by exchanging them with someone else for those goods or services. If the dollars could not be exchanged for those goods or services then nobody would want them just like nobody wanted Zimbabwe dollars because they could not buy anything with them but they could pay taxes so eventually their own government did not want them.
Would you want dollars that could buy no goods or services and that the government decided they did not want for the same reason? Say Zimbabwe dollars for instance which eventually their government did not want even as a tax payment.
MMT = MAGIC MONEY TREE 🌳
Mosler claims the is No solvency risk in government printing more money.
That is total B.S. because solvency itself occurs in both value and number. He ignores the value part.
Failing to be able to pay in the designated number of dollars or failing to be able to pay in dollars that have fallen to such a low value they are virtually worthless.
Who would consider they have been paid and are not paid in part only if they lent in dollars that could buy a gallon of fuel at a price of $2:50 and found that now would cost $ 15:00 because there were too many dollars created that government spent first.
He hides behind part or weak definitions to cover his poorly thought out MM theory.
The reality is there is an actual risk of insolvency in government spending more than they collect in taxes and funding that spending with fiat money expansion.
The statement that Mosler makes with his MMT economics is to assume that insolvency by way of failing purchasing power of the currency is does not result in insolvency. He completely ignores this understanding and takes a very narrow view which suits his narrow interpretation of insolvency.
Many governments have made the same mistake of turning their currency into a valueless relic of the past that had made it utterly useless to their own population and wiped out their own population's savings in the process as well as reducing the production of the whole economy.
The history of the 20th century and shortly after shows the governments of at least 30 countries failed their people in this very way. They include Brazil, Zimbabwe, the Weimar republic and Hungary.
But Heh! What do MMTers learn from history - Practically nothing since do to their arrogance they ignore it !!
You must be a sad guy trolling under every MMT video there is. Funny again, how you prove your own ignorance. None of those hyperinflations you named was caused by the government spending to much. Every hyperinflation you named was caused by debt in a foreign currency (Weimar had to pay war reparations and therefore hat to export most of its domestic production) and/or a collapsing economy (Zimbabwe did a land reform giving land to people that did not know how to use it and therefore destroying production capacities). None of that had even the slightest to do with a government overspending. The one not wanting to learn from history is clearly you.
@@trixn4285 People and particularly large institutions do not lend large amounts to foreign governments or companies without a risk assessment of the capacity to pay it back. If what you say about debt to foreign currency is fact then my point is proven and yours is demolished by your own statement simply due to the reality that the cost of foreign currencies is just the price of that foreign currency compared to that of your own and the original cost at the time of borrowing was considerably less and of the lender's risk factors were satisfied at the time of that lending.
The exchange rate is the comparative price of that currency. You have not even addressed those facts because if you did you would realize that your statements are just folly.
When the Weimar had debt the authorities tried to pay it with expansion of the money supply. It was incurred as government debt that the government had the obligation to pay as did the other governments in all of the instances where hyperinflation occurred. Who do you think expanded the money supply ?
The similar situation in Zimbabwe. - Who do you think expanded the money suppy to produce thousand and million and then trillion dollar notes to pay for government debt?
Not the farmers, Not the butcher, Not the plumbers, Not the local fire fighters, Not the school teachers, not the postman.
Besides all of that the loss of amount of farm output in one year was in the tens of percent per year yet the currency lost ot value in the same time by Hundreds of thousands of percent because of the fact of massive government deficits created to fund that increased government spending. Of course the foreign debt was harder to pay because of the massive increases in internal debt ruined investment and put up the cost of existing foreign debt due to exchange rate becoming more and more adverse which happens when the internally inflation depreciates the purchasing capacity of the currency.
@@trixn4285 You apply no sense of proportion in your understanding of finance and economics. That illustrates the problem of your blind acceptance of what MMT says that is disproportional to reality and arising from just poor application of basic research methods. Like someone believing the ship Titanic sank because of someone letting a the shower run too long causing flooding instead of the massive hole in it's hull from hitting an iceberg.
@@Rob-fx2dw What is your background? How old are you, what did you study? Which economic text books did you read. Although you claim you have the right understanding of finance you repeatedly demonstrate with your silly rants and gish gallop strategy that you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about. All of your text walls are consisting of straw mans, ad hominems, fallacies of composition or just you don't understanding the point made.
@@trixn4285 You say to me " you don't have the first clue of what you are talking about." - NO the fact is you have learned a load of rubbish that precludes you from recognizing what facts are when they hit you in the face.
You seem to think you know economic and have some good understanding but can you answer these questions that test MMT and your own theory and find it wanting.
Before I tell you just answer what questions I put to you. Tell me your age and qualifications and experience of life and the textbooks you have read or the financial success you have befitted from a rather than some theories you have read from people who have not had any financial success or predicted correctly any economic events of the last 40 years.
I don't want some explanation like repeating what some theoretician who lives in academia told you and you have repaeted like a goldfish swallowing some fish food..
What point are you actually making apart from repeating what someone else said.
You might also like to explain why the MMt theory is a government deficit is a private sector surplus when the deficits are funded by Treasury bond and note sales since those Treasuries all mature and have to be paid off with interest by the taxpayer's money which is a burden on the private sector that is higher than any amount of cash that might have flowed initially into the private sector at the time of the deficit.
Again you could also explain how MMt claims of taxes creating acceptance of and putting a value into money when in all of those countries where the money failed through hyperinflation there were taxes but valueless money. Even their own governments rejected it.
Perhaps you could explain why MMt description of how new money is created differs greatly from the official explanations given by the bank of Canada who actually create new money and those of the Bank of England who also does the same. They are not faulty economic theory but are actual economic fact.
Bank of Canada :- lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201551E
bank of England :- www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
This lecture is confusing, boring and fails to convince or teach the viewer anything at all.
Then try this one. Dr. Stephanie Kelton was Bernie's econ adviser, and she makes MMT clear and almost fun. th-cam.com/video/Q1SMjeuyF-Y/w-d-xo.html