Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Modern Monetary Theory debate

  1. #1

    Modern Monetary Theory debate

    I keep hearing all this arguments from economist that keep pushing MMT Private debt is not the same as public debt. Unlike the fed gov, individuals, states, and businesses can go bankrupt bc they are not currency issuers. They are currency users. Important distinction.

    Economist keep printing articles like this https://www.forbes.com/sites/frances.../#7af6b690314f

    It's like don't even care about the debt anymore



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by CORRY20 View Post
    I keep hearing all this arguments from economist that keep pushing MMT Private debt is not the same as public debt. Unlike the fed gov, individuals, states, and businesses can go bankrupt bc they are not currency issuers. They are currency users. Important distinction.

    Economist keep printing articles like this https://www.forbes.com/sites/frances.../#7af6b690314f

    It's like don't even care about the debt anymore
    They never did care but the debt itself isn't real, except to foreign holders that expect to be compensated for their holdings as they liquidate it during the ongoing petrodollar unwind. What is real is all of the (taxable) economic activity that the imaginary debt generated, which does have value after it has been earned by one's labor.

    MMT can be summed up as "BRRRRRRRRRRRR". It's all imaginary but we all play the game to various extents to capture a slice of the illusion.
    Last edited by devil21; 06-10-2020 at 11:22 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  4. #3
    Modern Money is NOT Honest Money.

    Modern Money allows people that have the power to print more money to steal the VALUE of your money without affecting the Quantity.

    So who has the power to "print money"? Banks and Governments.

    What happens is this. You have a dollar in your pocket. Your one dollar can buy one apple. Then they print money. Suddenly the price of your one apple is now 10 dollars, not one. They did not touch the money in your pocket, but were able to steal its value by printing new money. They call it Inflation, and turn back around and lie to us and tell us INFLATION IS GOOD. Might as well tell us also that being sick is healthy, and being stupid is smart. Bizarro world.

    Ron Paul said that Inflation is a Hidden Tax on the poor. Why? When poor people print money, the people that have the power to legally print money call it counterfeiting, even though that is exactly what the people in power are doing, and it has the exact same effect.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  5. #4


    MMT is just the latest smoke-and-mirrors attempt to hide and excuse socialism.

    There is no 'pool of underutilized resources' that can be more productively engaged if we accept more government intervention and socialist spending.
    >_<

  6. #5
    Another one i came up with:
    >_<

  7. #6
    There's no essential difference between MMT and what the state's been doing for the last many decades. If you understand why the factors of production should be allocated according to market prices, then you already understand why MMT is a bad idea. The details of that theory are just new shine on an old turd.

  8. #7
    Congress has the power and authority which they lawfully outsourced to the Fed, and the Fed is - at least publicly, run by Presidential appointment and Senatorial confirmations. Therefore, no taxation without representation doesn't apply to monetary easement.

    One of these days, conservatives will realize the truth - that the Constitution is not a conservative document, but a very liberal one, and that free markets are not a conservative principle, but a liberal one - which has caused mostly all problems, corruption and debasement of our society.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Congress has the power and authority which they lawfully outsourced to the Fed, and the Fed is - at least publicly, run by Presidential appointment and Senatorial confirmations. Therefore, no taxation without representation doesn't apply to monetary easement.

    One of these days, conservatives will realize the truth - that the Constitution is not a conservative document, but a very liberal one, and that free markets are not a conservative principle, but a liberal one - which has caused mostly all problems, corruption and debasement of our society.


    Huh...?

    How have free markets caused our problems (especially considering that we've had nothing resembling a free market for eons)?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post


    Huh...?

    How have free markets caused our problems (especially considering that we've had nothing resembling a free market for eons)?
    You just answered your own question. The free markets that existed in the 1700s and 1800s gave birth to the current oligarchy.
    As capital was consolidated, markets became less free. Don't forget, free markets do not prohibit crony capitalism.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    You just answered your own question. The free markets that existed in the 1700s and 1800s gave birth to the current oligarchy.
    As capital was consolidated, markets became less free.
    Don't forget, free markets do not prohibit crony capitalism.
    There is always some set of people who benefit from state intervention in the market.

    The relatively free markets of the past didn't create that problem.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-12-2020 at 07:58 PM. Reason: typo

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There is always some set of people who benefit from state intervention in the market.

    The relatively free markets of the past didn't create that problem.
    That is not the case at all.

  14. #12

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There is always some set of people who benefit from state intervention in the market.

    The relatively free markets of the past didn't create that problem.
    Don't feed the troll- or in his case, the prole.


    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    He's right - and capitalism is not traditional nor conservative in any way.

    Capitalism is an economic system meant to promote and consolidate the power of the CAPITALIST class -

    who have been increasing their power with dramatic results ever since the French Revolution.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Don't feed the troll- or in his case, the prole.
    Prole in practice? Plainly, but not in (his) theory. The "ever since the French revolution" part is instructive. He has (correct me if I'm wrong @Snowball) adopted a "third way" ideology, ala distributism or G.K. Chesterston. If that's so, then he thinks that the end of the old order (which he caricatures just like the socialists) opened the doors to evil, exploitative, atomistic "capitalism" (itself a derogatory term). My view? A pinko who talks about fondly of medieval merchant guilds is still a pinko.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Prole in practice? Plainly, but not in (his) theory. The "ever since the French revolution" part is instructive. He has (correct me if I'm wrong @Snowball) adopted a "third way" ideology, ala distributism or G.K. Chesterston. If that's so, then he thinks that the end of the old order (which he caricatures just like the socialists) opened the doors to evil, exploitative, atomistic "capitalism" (itself a derogatory term). My view? A pinko who talks about fondly of medieval merchant guilds is still a pinko.
    Oh, great, I suppose the conversation is supposed to stop here.
    I'm getting ready to read "Creed or Chaos" by Dorothy Sayers, and you're getting ready to read "Unstoppable Prosperity" by Charles Payne.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Oh, great, I suppose the conversation is supposed to stop here.
    I'm getting ready to read "Creed or Chaos" by Dorothy Sayers, and you're getting ready to read "Unstoppable Prosperity" by Charles Payne.
    I'm not sure what your point is.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm not sure what your point is.
    See. He's very smart. He's about to read something by some no name mediocrity about how progress is corrupting. He's saying he isn't some simpleton troglodyte like you who believes in vulgar capitalism and all the tyranny the capitalists inflict by siphoning off surplus value from wage slaves.

    Smart people believe the answer to all ills is printing money and when inflation sets in using price controls. Literally the prescription galaxy brains like Hugo Chavez, Salvador Allende and in Zimbabwe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    I don't want taxes, I gave example of how they can be replaced with issuing money to pay for expenditures.
    De-monetization is not a pipe dream anymore than the pipe dreams expressed here are, such as people walking around
    with gold coins. Increasing the money supply is not a tax. To the extent sellers would seek to raise prices, that can be
    mitigated with legislation. I am a proponent of price-setting, not free market.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 11-27-2020 at 05:08 PM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    See. He's very smart. He's about to read something by some no name mediocrity about how progress is corrupting. He's saying he isn't some simpleton troglodyte like you who believes in vulgar capitalism and all the tyranny the capitalists inflict by siphoning off surplus value from wage slaves.

    lol, has never heard of Dorothy Sayers. "no name mediocrity"


  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    lol, has never heard of Dorothy Sayers. "no name mediocrity"

    Sorry. Never heard of her. Does she babble about usury and the evils of free enterprise like you?

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Sorry. Never heard of her. Does she babble about usury and the evils of free enterprise like you?
    Hold on a second. I have never disparaged free enterprise.

    The false associations you've been taught to believe are that KAPITALISM is free enterprise (it is not), and that USURY is prosperity (it is not).

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Hold on a second. I have never disparaged free enterprise.
    Well.. You did. You said markets shouldn't determine prices. Just read the bolded part of your quote. That is literally the most important and fundamental aspect of free enterprise. There is no free enterprise without prices being able to adjust to supply and demand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    I don't want taxes, I gave example of how they can be replaced with issuing money to pay for expenditures.
    De-monetization is not a pipe dream anymore than the pipe dreams expressed here are, such as people walking around
    with gold coins. Increasing the money supply is not a tax. To the extent sellers would seek to raise prices, that can be
    mitigated with legislation. I am a proponent of price-setting, not free market.


    The false associations you've been taught to believe are that KAPITALISM is free enterprise (it is not), and that USURY is prosperity (it is not).
    Laissez faire capitalism like in the 1800s United States (which you disparaged in thread as creating oligarchs) and free enterprise are the same.

    Usury doesn't exist in a capitalist system. Market rates of interest are a component of a free society.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Well.. You did. You said markets shouldn't determine prices. Just read the bolded part of your quote. That is literally the most important and fundamental aspect of free enterprise. There is no free enterprise without prices being able to adjust to supply and demand.
    The postmodern financial system we live under has taken speculation and price fixing to new realms of technological control. This control does not necessarily sprout from the democratic government, but rather from the international banking cartels, such as the FR and others. Therefore, much of the price-fixing you're disparaging takes place nonetheless, under the false pretense of a free market, when there is not a free market. Domination by the most powerful and advanced private firms or public-private hybrids is controlling not only commerce but all macroeconomic prices and directives.

    This is the end result of capitalism. Those with the capital control the market, making it unfree. They choose the winners, promoted from within their own select ranks, and make the policies not only in the economic sphere but in the technological, medical and sociological. Price caps, inflation controls and setting of what is part of the market and what is not, all this varies in US history. Democracy and Capitalism were seen as incompatible by many honored American historians and philosophers. Now, we are headed toward a new paradigm where international finance tech and power over democracies and other forms of government is at levels never envisaged before, except by the conspiratorial plotters whose families and corporations now sit at the top of the pyramid.

    If it's all ok with you, that's fine, we can end the conversation. I'll leave you with a small book recommendation so you can appreciate some of my
    historical perspective, at least as it concerns the American experience. 'End Of American History: Democracy, Capitalism, and the Metaphor of Two Worlds in Anglo-American Historical Writing, 1880-1980'

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    The postmodern financial system we live under has taken speculation and price fixing to new realms of technological control.
    Your first sentence has no meaning. Just a word salad of crazy.

    The price of eggs is set by supply and demand. Not a secret international banking consortium. Works quite well.

    Things that don't work well- price controls. Gas lines under Jimmy Carter. Shortages of everything in Venezuela.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    The postmodern financial system we live under has taken speculation and price fixing to new realms of technological control. This control does not necessarily sprout from the democratic government, but rather from the international banking cartels, such as the FR and others. Therefore, much of the price-fixing you're disparaging takes place nonetheless, under the false pretense of a free market, when there is not a free market. Domination by the most powerful and advanced private firms or public-private hybrids is controlling not only commerce but all macroeconomic prices and directives.

    This is the end result of capitalism. Those with the capital control the market, making it unfree. They choose the winners, promoted from within their own select ranks, and make the policies not only in the economic sphere but in the technological, medical and sociological. Price caps, inflation controls and setting of what is part of the market and what is not, all this varies in US history. Democracy and Capitalism were seen as incompatible by many honored American historians and philosophers. Now, we are headed toward a new paradigm where international finance tech and power over democracies and other forms of government is at levels never envisaged before, except by the conspiratorial plotters whose families and corporations now sit at the top of the pyramid.

    If it's all ok with you, that's fine, we can end the conversation. I'll leave you with a small book recommendation so you can appreciate some of my
    historical perspective, at least as it concerns the American experience. 'End Of American History: Democracy, Capitalism, and the Metaphor of Two Worlds in Anglo-American Historical Writing, 1880-1980'
    First, "capitalism" being a derogative used to describe laissez faire by the Marxoids (the implication being that the system benefits only the owners of capital), I won't be using that term. I'll call it laissez faire, the market system, etc. I say this now to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

    Second, the highly interventionist system of price controls and monopolies and so forth that you describe is the antithesis (or almost, short of actual socialism) of laissez faire.

    Third, if a market system existed at a certain time, and then by some later time had evolved into your interventionist system, that development would not have been the result of endogenous forces within the market system, but of state intervention. If the state enforces the rules of the market system, there is virtually no opportunity for the kind of behavior you describe (the only exceptions being rare natural monopolies, e.g. sewer or water services).

    Fourth, the market order does not cause the state to interfere with the market order; i.e. it is not self-destructive. There is never a shortage of special interests seeking some kind of state intervention, regardless of the underlying economic system. Actual baron or "robber baron" makes no difference. It's the character of the state itself that determines how likely the state is to act on this permanent pressure for favors.

    Fifth, judging by the summary, I agree with your Dorothy Sayers (having never heard of her) as to the importance of fixed doctrine, contra sola scriptura run amok, but this has almost nothing to do with the subject at hand. I say "almost" only because the low church opposite view tends to breed revolutionary movements, e.g. Taborites, Diggers, etc. But, given a secure state committed to defending property rights (i.e. the market order), what people believe is irrelevant. Market transactions don't need to have any particular moral or ideological color. That's the whole point and beauty of it; morality is nice, but (given this system) greed (more reliable than morality) will do (Smith's invisible hand).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-07-2020 at 08:08 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's the whole point and beauty of it; morality is nice, but (given this system) greed (more reliable than morality) will do (Smith's invisible hand).
    I fundamentally disagree with that notion being a good thing. It was a theory and abstract made to conceal the true conspiracy of Freemasons and Zionists to create a New World Order under their direction. Even the phrase "invsible hand" is a Masonic keyword. That did nothing but cause the reaction which was, and is, Marxism, because it produced disorder and waste of resources and lives. It was a revolt against the higher order of ethics that did much harm to our world, and it shall be dealt with. The way it is dealt with today is leading us all into a preservation of the oligarchy that stripped power away from the Church and the Family, not to mention the Throne. It's replacement? The welfare class, the warfare class, the working class, the business class, the capitalist class, and the moneychanger class, then finally, a shadow power which is still not revealed in all its deceptions and evil motives. They have technologies still hidden from the public and its government, such as UFOs.

    Concerning Dorothy Sayers, I was watching some videos on You Tube that read aloud some of her writings concerning the seven deadly sins, and the nature of work and economy which I found to be very prognostic, they were delivered in a speech she made during the war in May, 1940. Particularly to this subject, the two small chapters, "Why Work?" (starting p. 46), and "The Other Six Deadly Sins", p. 63.
    https://cors.archive.org/details/dli...ge/46/mode/2up
    Last edited by Snowball; 12-08-2020 at 12:45 PM.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    I fundamentally disagree with that notion being a good thing. It was a theory and abstract made to conceal the true conspiracy of Freemasons and Zionists to create a New World Order under their direction. Even the phrase "invsible hand" is a Masonic keyword. That did nothing but cause the reaction which was, and is, Marxism, because it produced disorder and waste of resources and lives. It was a revolt against the higher order of ethics that did much harm to our world, and it shall be dealt with. The way it is dealt with today is leading us all into a preservation of the oligarchy that stripped power away from the Church and the Family, not to mention the Throne. It's replacement? The welfare class, the warfare class, the working class, the business class, the capitalist class, and the moneychanger class, then finally, a shadow power which is still not revealed in all its deceptions and evil motives. They have technologies still hidden from the public and its government, such as UFOs.

    Concerning Dorothy Sayers, I was watching some videos on You Tube that read aloud some of her writings concerning the seven deadly sins, and the nature of work and economy which I found to be very prognostic, they were delivered in a speech she made during the war in May, 1940. Particularly to this subject, the two small chapters, "Why Work?" (starting p. 46), and "The Other Six Deadly Sins", p. 63.
    https://cors.archive.org/details/dli...ge/46/mode/2up
    Nevermind



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-24-2019, 06:55 PM
  2. Modern Monetary Theory --- Same Old Federal Reserve Nonsense
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-24-2019, 03:56 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2019, 08:13 PM
  4. [Article] Economics: Modern Monetary Theory
    By AlexMerced in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2012, 03:48 PM
  5. Modern Monetary Theory vs. Austrian Economics
    By AlexMerced in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-15-2012, 01:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •