By definition if you are creating more bills than you are destroying you are creating inflation, that is what inflation is. It doesn't matter why or where the money goes, it being created is inflation.
Oh here we go. This is why I should have done this video unlisted. I knew this would happen as soon as I saw the algorithm noticed this video. For some reason I used to enjoy these firefights with Austrians but I just don't anymore. Printing money is not the same thing as inflation. Not in normal economics. In your heterodox economics you call printing "inflation". When you say "price inflation" that's what mainstream economics just calls "inflation". So no, "price inflation" is not always the result of printing. It can be and is most definitely if you do it enough or at the wrong time, but not always and everywhere.
Why does the U.S doesn't have inflation as high as Argentina? Both countries run the same model, they both have huge deficits and pretty much monetize the debt
The US has a lot better situation than Argentina and when they do use M, it's less likely to hurt because they are more discerning in their use of it. It also helps that the economy in general in the USA is stronger. Was that helpful?
Interestingly, the inflation rate and interest rate formulas look the same. The government is setting a relation between today's price of money and tomorrow's price of money with that base interest rate. That interest rate is a cost of doing business and therefore is part of prices across the economy. That interest rate is part of forward pricing calculations. The higher interest rates are supposed to then, cause the economy to slow down when it can't pay the higher prices. But if the government's debt is high enough, it will find itself, if it cares to look, supplying the currency to the economy via interest payments, for the economy to pay the higher prices caused by the higher interest rates. Some MMTers point to this as an explanation of why the predicted recession in the US has not arrived. I have not heard from any MMTers yet, a clear explanation of the channel by which the interest payments that are paid to savers, trickles into the economy, at least enough to support it. So far they say that a booming economy is evidence that it is occurring. So these interest payments to entities that already have money are supporting a booming economy in both the USA and Argentina. These interest payments, are considered by MMTers to be a form of basic income. There are lots of proposals for basic incomes, but no one in their right mind would choose a basic income to people that already have money. This is essentially trickle-down economics in action, supporting a booming economy in the most unfair possible way.
@BenjaminFaust tcc ended my microsoft account and blocked me access to like 10s of people I like. 😑. So I don't have the emails anymore. I just wanted to see if you were doing good. I absolutely loved microeconomics and I miss tcc and your class. Keep it up!! (This is Ruben, I used to sit next to Chris)
Ruben! Good to hear from you. We ended the Gmail accounts we are still at firstname.lastname at tccd . Edu - but I don't know what the construction of the student emails is now. You can email me at work from a personal email or you can email me from the email link under my profile here (the business inquiries one should get to me) as for your former TCC classmates, I suggest trying to use social media to find them. Your class was a fun section!
One clue as to whether the government is overspending is whether it is paying higher prices for the same thing than the prices previously paid. Monopoly theory says the monopolist is the price setter. The currency issuer is the monopolist of its currency. So what it takes in return for its currency or collateral for borrowing is where the value of the currency is set. Paying higher prices means requiring less in return for its currency.
You can analyze it from that perspective, but at times you get the government forced to pay more because inflation expectations have been set. When it's real bad the government is printing just to keep up with the inflation. There's also fiscal inflation which is not caused by printing but the expectation of printing and forces the government to pay more. While the government has a monopoly on printing money they don't always control price levels directly though ultimately they are responsible to keep it in check.
It is true that probably most of the time it is better for the government to accept the prices the market expects. The Federal Government can choose not to accept the higher prices, and there would definitely be consequences for that decision. MMT is the only school of thought that explains the ultimate source of the price level. It says that it comes from monopoly theory. The prices across the economy are set relative to what the monopolist requires in return when it pays for things or lends. I also wonder, when I see all this focus on the risks of inflation that come with government dollar creation, why there is no concern about the dollar creation in the form of bank deposits that is by far a larger part of the dollars in circulation.
Three different things to respond to here. The market sets prices, not the government. The government central bank creates the money that is a catalyst to make trades easier. Including trades needed by the government. If a government is printing to buy something then it's using a tool it has to afford something the market has priced. Secondly, mainstream economics has known for years money supply is linked to inflation. MMT is not special in that way. And since fractional reserve banking has existed almost since money has then it's already incorporated into how money operates it's not a concern. The central bank has to be the initial printer anyway for fractional reserve banking to have something to work with. An additional thought I have for you is monopolists tend to restrict supply to extract more profits. We don't see that with central banks. If anything the temptation in the modern era is oversupply.
On to your other separated comment, money issued is a liability to the government. So in that respect you could say since the government is a monopoly it prints more in order to profit more which would be like a supply restriction in terms of how much money could buy. That thinking follows your theory better.
The government sets whatever price it wants to set. They usually set the bank rate / Fed Funds rate and let the market determine the rest of the interest rates. Another price that is set in the US is a minimum price for certain farm production. It chooses to follow the market though, for most things it pays for. For the "source of the price level" MMT is unique. Other schools of thought assume the current price level comes from yesterday's price level. Only MMT has an explanation of the price level on day one of the currency existence. Central banks do not choose the amount of currency to supply the economy. In monetary policy, central banks set an interest rate range and then exchange back and forth buying and selling bonds in whatever quantity the market asks to keep the interest rate as it chose. And this is no different from the market choosing the amount of dimes it wants, and the Fed, together with the Mint, work to satisfy that demand so that the dime value is kept at par with the rest of the currency. A couple years ago, because of icy weather, the Fed was unable to supply enough dimes and they were trading at a premium for a short time. It is the Treasury Department, via deficit payouts, that increases the amount of its currency in the economy. Monetary policy involves exchanging that currency with bonds, which are not significantly different than what is generally understood to be currency. Government bonds are are effectively, the form of government currency desired for savings because of the interest rate paid.
![Currency Exchange, Exchange Rate Policies, and Foreign Reserves [Macroeconomics Lecture]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hNU6m3u4ihw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Currency Exchange, Exchange Rate Policies, and Foreign Reserves [Macroeconomics Lecture]](/img/tr.png)
By definition if you are creating more bills than you are destroying you are creating inflation, that is what inflation is. It doesn't matter why or where the money goes, it being created is inflation.
Oh here we go. This is why I should have done this video unlisted. I knew this would happen as soon as I saw the algorithm noticed this video. For some reason I used to enjoy these firefights with Austrians but I just don't anymore. Printing money is not the same thing as inflation. Not in normal economics. In your heterodox economics you call printing "inflation". When you say "price inflation" that's what mainstream economics just calls "inflation". So no, "price inflation" is not always the result of printing. It can be and is most definitely if you do it enough or at the wrong time, but not always and everywhere.
Excellent video as always Mr. Faust!
Bring back the gold standard.
Why does the U.S doesn't have inflation as high as Argentina? Both countries run the same model, they both have huge deficits and pretty much monetize the debt
The US has a lot better situation than Argentina and when they do use M, it's less likely to hurt because they are more discerning in their use of it. It also helps that the economy in general in the USA is stronger. Was that helpful?
@@BenjaminFaust 👍
Interestingly, the inflation rate and interest rate formulas look the same.
The government is setting a relation between today's price of money and tomorrow's price of money with that base interest rate.
That interest rate is a cost of doing business and therefore is part of prices across the economy. That interest rate is part of forward pricing calculations.
The higher interest rates are supposed to then, cause the economy to slow down when it can't pay the higher prices. But if the government's debt is high enough, it will find itself, if it cares to look, supplying the currency to the economy via interest payments, for the economy to pay the higher prices caused by the higher interest rates.
Some MMTers point to this as an explanation of why the predicted recession in the US has not arrived. I have not heard from any MMTers yet, a clear explanation of the channel by which the interest payments that are paid to savers, trickles into the economy, at least enough to support it. So far they say that a booming economy is evidence that it is occurring.
So these interest payments to entities that already have money are supporting a booming economy in both the USA and Argentina. These interest payments, are considered by MMTers to be a form of basic income. There are lots of proposals for basic incomes, but no one in their right mind would choose a basic income to people that already have money. This is essentially trickle-down economics in action, supporting a booming economy in the most unfair possible way.
I've been wanted to email you! Hope you're well
I'm well ☺️ feel free to email me if you like
@BenjaminFaust tcc ended my microsoft account and blocked me access to like 10s of people I like. 😑. So I don't have the emails anymore. I just wanted to see if you were doing good. I absolutely loved microeconomics and I miss tcc and your class. Keep it up!! (This is Ruben, I used to sit next to Chris)
Ruben! Good to hear from you. We ended the Gmail accounts we are still at firstname.lastname at tccd . Edu - but I don't know what the construction of the student emails is now. You can email me at work from a personal email or you can email me from the email link under my profile here (the business inquiries one should get to me) as for your former TCC classmates, I suggest trying to use social media to find them. Your class was a fun section!
One clue as to whether the government is overspending is whether it is paying higher prices for the same thing than the prices previously paid.
Monopoly theory says the monopolist is the price setter. The currency issuer is the monopolist of its currency. So what it takes in return for its currency or collateral for borrowing is where the value of the currency is set. Paying higher prices means requiring less in return for its currency.
You can analyze it from that perspective, but at times you get the government forced to pay more because inflation expectations have been set. When it's real bad the government is printing just to keep up with the inflation. There's also fiscal inflation which is not caused by printing but the expectation of printing and forces the government to pay more. While the government has a monopoly on printing money they don't always control price levels directly though ultimately they are responsible to keep it in check.
It is true that probably most of the time it is better for the government to accept the prices the market expects.
The Federal Government can choose not to accept the higher prices, and there would definitely be consequences for that decision.
MMT is the only school of thought that explains the ultimate source of the price level. It says that it comes from monopoly theory. The prices across the economy are set relative to what the monopolist requires in return when it pays for things or lends.
I also wonder, when I see all this focus on the risks of inflation that come with government dollar creation, why there is no concern about the dollar creation in the form of bank deposits that is by far a larger part of the dollars in circulation.
Three different things to respond to here. The market sets prices, not the government. The government central bank creates the money that is a catalyst to make trades easier. Including trades needed by the government. If a government is printing to buy something then it's using a tool it has to afford something the market has priced. Secondly, mainstream economics has known for years money supply is linked to inflation. MMT is not special in that way. And since fractional reserve banking has existed almost since money has then it's already incorporated into how money operates it's not a concern. The central bank has to be the initial printer anyway for fractional reserve banking to have something to work with. An additional thought I have for you is monopolists tend to restrict supply to extract more profits. We don't see that with central banks. If anything the temptation in the modern era is oversupply.
On to your other separated comment, money issued is a liability to the government. So in that respect you could say since the government is a monopoly it prints more in order to profit more which would be like a supply restriction in terms of how much money could buy. That thinking follows your theory better.
The government sets whatever price it wants to set. They usually set the bank rate / Fed Funds rate and let the market determine the rest of the interest rates. Another price that is set in the US is a minimum price for certain farm production. It chooses to follow the market though, for most things it pays for.
For the "source of the price level" MMT is unique. Other schools of thought assume the current price level comes from yesterday's price level. Only MMT has an explanation of the price level on day one of the currency existence.
Central banks do not choose the amount of currency to supply the economy. In monetary policy, central banks set an interest rate range and then exchange back and forth buying and selling bonds in whatever quantity the market asks to keep the interest rate as it chose.
And this is no different from the market choosing the amount of dimes it wants, and the Fed, together with the Mint, work to satisfy that demand so that the dime value is kept at par with the rest of the currency. A couple years ago, because of icy weather, the Fed was unable to supply enough dimes and they were trading at a premium for a short time.
It is the Treasury Department, via deficit payouts, that increases the amount of its currency in the economy. Monetary policy involves exchanging that currency with bonds, which are not significantly different than what is generally understood to be currency. Government bonds are are effectively, the form of government currency desired for savings because of the interest rate paid.