@CuriousScholar13 Yeah, it's very dry. I can see why people would view this as boring. I think the Mises institute should start releasing more animated videos and/or just better produced. Kind of what Robert Reich does. It's more appealing to people.
Quality > Quantity - we, those who care, we are the best people ;-) It's very easy to get people to care. It has to be recommended to them by someone they massively respect. Nobody cares of the advice on how to get rich by a homeless guy. But if you were interested in investing and warren buffet, charlie munger or any other rich money manager would tell you some stuff you would listen with all ears. People follow stars and celebrities. That's why the democratic machine had all those hollywood celebrities on their payroll, to massively influence society. Also people love famous people, just because they are famous. The though is, If they are famous they must have something great to them, which is obviously a fallacy, but tons of people believe it and get blinded by status, fame or money or anyhting else. First be popular or respeceted: Then you can influence how much you want. It's authority or credibility based on status.
@@michaelgreene1260 Yep. Libertarians are the nerds in the classroom who point out that 2 + 2 = 4 , probably with a very sound, thorough, explanation why. Dems and Repubs do not care because the nerds don't sway the popularity contest that gives the Dems/Repubs their power. Libertarians are relevant to future historians who will be scratching their heads wondering how XYZ collapse happened when there were people who "clearly knew" what was going on. But they're fairly irrelevant to current politics.
One minor criticism: I don't know if it's exactly fair to describe Kelton's reference to units of account in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia as cherry picking. I think the point was to look at the oldest known civilizations for the origins of moneys. If anything, pointing to a money from 500 BC is more like cherry-picking, because that would likely have been a later innovation rather than an origin story. Fortunately, Mr. Newman saves it by handling those historical examples directly. Clay tablets with warehouse addresses is obviously analogous to a bank note - a money substitute backed either by a commodity money or by goods for barter, either of which reinforces the Mengerian account and demolishes the MMT version.
The invention of the medium of exchange happened before the invention of writing. What critics of the regression theorem fail to comprehend is the regression theorem explains the invention of media of exchange, not money qua the "generally accepted" medium of exchange. Money isn't "invented," it evolves from media of exchange. The existence of multiple media of exchange does not falsify the theorem because in reality the evolution toward a single medium of exchange has not completed. It was close to completion during the enforcement of the legal gold standard but the monetary system disintegrated again upon the invention of the modern central bank.
You all missed a MAIN POINT at the beginning when talking about the accounting debits and credits (financial assets). The GOODS & SERVICES which the public sector provides is THE ASSET. People swap assets every day - a haircut (service) for a bag of rice (good). We use "money" as a medium of exchange for convenience. "Money" is the future (potential) demand for a future ASSET. People through their work create ASSETS. The Government, printing money, does nothing to create ASSETS, but just debases the medium of exchange. People create GOODS and Services, governments don't.
People swap financial assets for real resources/goods/services. They don't actually swap a haircut for a bag of rice. They use Government debt instruments. Look at any dollar bill, it says this note is legal tender for all debts public and private. When you get a service or good from someone, you owe them a debt for which you pay(meaning to pacify). Normally, people "pacify" debts with the Governments debt instrument. When you work for the Govt, the Govt pacifies you with their debt instrument. You can then turn around and use that debt instrument as payment for something else in the economy to pacify your debts. Creating more of these debt instruments by spending them (printing) does not "debase" anything. The term debase does not apply to a floating exchange rate debt instrument.
23:39 notice how they always use the term WE, as if all the people in a nation have the same wants and needs...and have the same influence of law making and execution. This type of talk is very convincing to people that dont stop and think for themselves
Like Sowell says, the anointed think people can be moved around like blocks of wood. That individuals have no drive or motivations of their own. Very dangerous to attempt policy with this assumption.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win. What stage do you think we are in. Don't worry too much about it, MMT is correct.
30:43 good point. One may ask, who started a war and who is fighting the wars. Too many people say China or Germany....as if that identifies the exact individuals. Thats why collectivists always use the term WE, so people have trouble identifying exactly who benefits or loses in various actions or transactions
one thing that strikes me about “money theory” is that it’s not really a theory. because of computers we know EXACTLY how money flows. feels like someone that’s telling you there’s a theory is usually because either they don’t know things they should know, or they know and don’t want you to know. In my upcoming book I talk about class interactions instead of “money theory”. From the premise that money is produced under exclusive contract for the policy class by the lending class. That money buys votes to continue and expand the policy class - at the expense of - the middle class.
MMT is perfectly encapsulated by George Orwell: “There are some ideas so foolish, only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
I was watching a professor talk about how engineering students didn't do well in Economics courses. Their brains couldn't compute things like fiat money or MMT because of how completely bizarre the underlying theory is.
Oh the gullible people. The "government's" deficit, is "somebody's" surplus. Who is the "government"? Who is "somebody"? Guess what? You are not "somebody", but you will pay for the "government".
lol gullible indeed. The Governments deficit in US dollars is indeed somebody's surplus. If the Fed govt spend $100 it is -$100 and someone is +$100. No denying the accounting. In the US the Government is Congress, President and Supreme court, most kids in grade school understand this and when they pass a spending bill, they pay someone. THEY PAY SOMEONE, You don't pay for the Government. Der d der.
At minute 11:52, he concludes that a debt forced to be nullified by the threat of violence or incarceration is irrational, and it really highlights an class divide. Most people work to make enough money to fund their necessities, those w2s are taxed before ever meeting you own ledger. What is the consequence if you were to avoid paying taxes?
Very good. Thank you! 👍 Over fifty years ago I had to read economics, in particular how the financial and banking system worked, for professional examinations. The word “SCAM!” kept screaming at me in my head, but it was all stated just so matter-of-factly. I regurgitated the schitt and passed the exams but the screaming never stopped.
I kinda like MMT. It provides a clear-eyed description of how the modern economy functions in practice. I only really disagree with the "and that's a good thing" part.
@@troll_kin9456 My favorite MMT intuition is that government spends using their printer and that taxes only feed a bonfire. All the intermediary accounting mostly serves to convince people that that isn't already the net effect.
And they'll actually always tell you, "Bro, I'm just telling you how things are" but then they'll defend it like it's actually a good idea. It happens each and every time. Their next hallmark is to just throw their hands up in the air and say, "No one really understands MMT". Trust me, you'll see it.
Devaluing everyone’s time, via labor , isn’t self empowering and affects the poor and lower middle class more than the people at the top . It forces speculation on any extra currency we might have and is ultimately a ponzi scheme. A sound monetary policy makes way more sense to me but I’ll continue playing this game of musical chairs ( mmt) until the music stops .
Thank you for trying to take down MMT concepts. Their explanation is prerry clear and you did not change my mind that MMT has it right. I dont think you fully understand what they are getting at based on your criticisms which I am thankful for. I would like to hear more about how money evolved - markets > money > government. Vs government > Money > Markets. The Robinson Crusoe story does not cut it. That seems to be the distinction central to the disagreements.
I agree with almost everything in this video, but the last point about the origins of money wasn't fully baked. Yes, nobody would be willing to use random pieces of paper as money unless somebody with a gun forced them to, however this is not disputed by the MMT crowd. Whether or not it is morally right isn't being discussed, only whether or not it actually happened. I was hoping to get some new info on that latter question from this lecture, but at present I will have to keep looking :/
Im searching for a well reasoned debate. In this one, to be honest, I see more similarities than differences. Unless i got it wrong both sides agree that the currency issued is not the wealth, you can create any amount but that other factors determine what amount. The point made that MMT discourages people from asking "how are we gonna pay for this" is not what I got from the book. It was more about what we should be expecting from our politicians - we should not accept "we did not raise enough money from tax in order to pay for this. We cant find the money". The point that MMT claims to have discovered something we all knew - well they dont claim to have discovered it and in the book (The Deficit Myth) they show how others had arrived at most of the same conclusions before them.
9:00 Coconuts are real wealth. That's different to financial wealth. Clearly the only thing that *actually* matters is real wealth since that gives us our material prosperity, but we live in a monetary production economy where financial wealth clearly provides an economy with scope to distribute and produce more real wealth.
also over looking the fact that trumps ppp loan program had little regulation but a lot of language changes and instead off puting in price caps the fed turned inflation inducing interest rates which "printed money" in interest rate payments to the savers which expanded fiscally gov spending as the main holder of gov us treasuries.
apply unlike the tree doesnt create the money it owes to the bond holder they have sell enough product to thar the tree like the gov issues or creates that commodity issuer vs user
Be a better concept if it was MCT. Modern Currency Theory. More interesting is this idea is central to Mein Kampf. Originally theology by Dr Gottfried Feder (1881-1941). Mein Kampf. Copy and paste.... Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation. We all lived through it. But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created. Important to understand the difference here. Money is a claim cheque on wealth. Like a laundry matt. The shirt is the wealth not the piece of paper. (Fiat currency). Especially with the end of the Petro dollar the only thing that gives the piece of paper value is your personal time and energy. Which they print for themselves out of thin air for free
they borrowed then because banks were not tied to a bank charter that it is now and thats also why mmters always say that was a gold standard era which it was but not since we have the fed which controls the money supply and issues currency when the gov spends the gov checks will never bounce unless directed not to
this was during the time when we had a pretty full supply chain so ya thats where another mmt part comes you have full employment and have a healthy supply chain 85% you keep spending you will have inflation but the key factors are enough jobs and almost full manufacturing sectors which would go with fed jobs guarantee at community and fed level to state level so yes mmt has been correct
All bonds, basically are derivatives of real assets. Company bonds are leveraging the company's profits coming out of their real goods and services. Government bonds have value, based on the ability of the government to steal from the society it occupies and its real productivity. At the end all value comes down to real goods and services.
the money they 'spend into the economy', doesn't belong to them, it belonged to someone else. they did one of two things, taxed (took it from someone else), or when to the PRIVATE banking system and took out a loan (sure, they issued a debt instrument as a receipt, and one of the primary dealer banks bought it). primary dealer then sold it to (whoever wanted it), and it became part of the 23T of outstanding debt. So long as the gvt is borrowing it, it does expand the money supply, but you don't need gvt to do that. anyone can take out a loan and grow the money supply. (that was part of the inflation of the 1970s). you had a lot of baby boomers entering the work force, buying houses and having kids. (the rest of the inflation came (mostly) from the eurodollar system expanding)
in other words what cost are to produce and sale one of those things are interest rates then you have a competitor who might be able to out price you because they have enough recourses to do that and hurt you at the same time you gotta love the free market capitalism
How can money exist thousands of years before markets? If you have any means of exchange that is a market. A means of placing value on various items, goods or services.
I’ve never watched a segment where Robert explains anything well He knows his stuff and he’s right. MMT is one of the hardest topics to understand and the Mises Institute needs to find at least 1 person who can communicate well. I’ve watched him in debates and the Austrian View never comes across well
MMT summarized. Government prints or destroys money as the people in position decide. Proponents want you to believe that the people in those positions behave according to the nations best interest rather than using their power over money (and hence the power over society) to benefit themselves and their friends. They are your benevolent leaders. What could go wrong? Lets have free markets for money and may the best system win. Guess the problem is we would not be starting from a level playing field. From all the manipulation over decades, wealth concentration (and thus the wealthy have many resources to pursuade) is massive. So it would probably take many decades for things to level out and "real" money to be selected
MMT is just a rehashing of FDR's "The debt doesn't matter because we owe it to ourselves!" line. And the obfuscation is the same. The question is who is the 'we' and who is the 'ourselves?' All government spending involves buying goods and services from the private economy, so of course all government spending = "private sector" income. But the members of the "private sector" who get the money are politicians, banks, contractors, cronies, etc. Everyone else just gets reduced purchasing power.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To "lay and collect Taxes", Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and "general Welfare" of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .
Sometimes a commercial property is empty because the owner gets a tax break for it being empty. There is a restaurant in my little town (pop. 1900) fr which has the owner charges exorbitant rent and every new entrepreneur quickly goes out of business. Owner gets tax break or high rent. That's how screwed up governments have become. Anyone notice how screwed up AutoCorrect on these sites have become? You get the gist but that's not exactly how I wrote it
I thought the answer to the print vs borrow question is just: for the government there is no distinction there. In both cases it is issuing bonds, aka borrowing the money. The government itself never prints money. The government doesn't care if its bonds are bought with existing money or newly created. Actually it would or should prefer if the bonds are bought with existing money, to avoid inflation, which is politically massively unpopular. The central bank is the one who prints money (buy buying government bonds with newly created central bank money = reserves): Why does the central bank print money? To benefit its cronies, the banking cartel of which it is owned by. How does it benefit this banking cartel? By creating massive boom and bust cycles, where the banks can buy everything up for cheap, loan the money out to resell it to the public and get stupid rich on interests and rising prices, selling up until the peak and after the bust getting it all back for cheap again. The central bank is there and it prints money to perpetuate a massive pump and dump scheme with the entire economy. It's all just legal massive market manipulation. They have done this over and over again. It's always the same game.
It is amazing to watch how these praxeologists can never see that their silly Robinson Crusoe analogy is always missing a proper accounting of the LAND/NATURAL RESOURCES factor!!
You can create money with a credit card but you can't create wealth. The people who create wealth are the people who make and sell you stuff for that credit card money.
13:40 Oh my goodness, that answer was such an overload of cringe. He would have embarrassed himself far less if he had just said "That is a good technical question and I do not know the precise answer to it. I have to ask about that in our next meeting."
bonds take money out of the economy money that had to be spent into the economy to begin with so bonds are a reserve drain not an addition the us treasury website calls them a savings account
Bonds make no sense on a fiat currency system. It only makes sense on a fixed exchange rate like the gold standard because by outing dollars into a bond for 10 years you are saying to the government I will not exchange these dollars for gold for 10 years and the government will pay you more dollars in interest for letting it keep their gold. Under a floating exchange rate it makes no sense and Kelton is right
If their red is my black my pockets and bank account should be bursting at the seams. “Back to School” Rodney Dangerfield - In response to where should we build our fictitious factory, he says, “How about Fantasy Land”
Inflation averaged 4.25% over the past 50 years (I'm 73 years old and lived it). If you saved a dollar in 1974 and spent it today it would purchase about 12 cents worth of goods or services. Free money? Chuckle. Send us all a check for $1,000,000 and we can quit our jobs and retire. Let me know how that works out. Observation: Look around your house or office, can you find anything made in America? Americans are working longer and harder for less.
During the Real Estate crash the government should have done just that, give each taxpayer $1,000,000. Let the money enter the system from the bottom up. Better experiment than giving all the money to corporations who pilfered the money. We got nothing out of that deal.
If you can't state your ideas briefly, in plain English then it's because your ideas don't make sense. The opening speech is a perfect example. The bloke waffles on for 12 minutes, and by the end of it I am no wiser. Skelton's point is simple: the govt's spending is the private sector's income; the govt's revenue (taxes) takes money away from the private sector. Simple, clear, concise, logical. The issue with MMT has nothing to do with bonds, or asset accumulation, or Apple, or any of the other irrelevant things the speaker drags into his argument, it's inflation. Yes, the govt can print money and spend it into to the private sector and it will be better off in real terms, *as long as* there is no inflation (that's key!) Austrian economics can't refute that, hence all the waffling and hand-waving.
Actually, you’re missing a nuance here, and that is the fact that, if the free market is allowed to do its thing, competition will drive the price of goods down to the marginal cost of production. And on top of that, technological development will drive the marginal cost of production down until everything that is not strictly scarce is very cheap or free. And so the natural state of the free market is deflation (you get better products for less money) due to these 2 factors. The free market’s ruthless selection mechanism is the driver of efficient capital allocation. But when the government prints money to spend it into the private sector, it prompts up businesses that wouldn’t have survived in the free market. And the printed money isn’t free, it comes from extracting the purchasing power of all the other money in circulation, reducing the purchasing power of the unaided-by-government private sector actors. Even when it doesn’t increase inflation, it extracts the deflation all other actors would have otherwise benefitted from through seeing the purchasing power increase. My point is this: inflation isn’t an on/off switch, ANY amount of money printing will reduce the private market’s purchasing power from the first printed dollar with infinitisimal, unmeasurable effect, but the effect is still there as compared to the scenario where there was no money printing. And because centrally-planned, inflation-based spending isn’t bound by the same limitations free market actors are, it is necessarily less efficient than the spending the free market actors would have done with their relatively higher purchasing power.
@@user-ng1ws8we1v We already have a system that prints unlimited amounts of money - it's called the banking system. As long as the ratio of [money] to [goods & services being exchanged for money] remains constant, the price level will remain constant. If you have too much money chasing too few goods and services, you get price inflation. Conversely if you have too little money chasing too many goods and services, you get a collapse in economic activity (eg. the Great Depression, when money supply fell due to collapsing banks, and economic activity collapsed along with them.) The quantity theory of money explains the relationship between money creation and output/prices perfectly. As for competition driving down costs, this might be true in economic theory, but not in the real world! Economies of scale mean that the biggest company always wins, and can buy out or crush its competitors. Once that industry becomes an oligopoly (as almost all of them are today) then it has pricing power. A huge part of today's cost of living crisis is caused by price gouging. Think about it - how, in a cost-of-living crisis, are corporations making record profits? This is not possible in the theoretical worlds of Neoclassical or Austrian economics. But it IS happening in the real world, so you have to throw out those theories.
GOVERNMENTS DO NOT PRINT MONEY The (false) claim that MMT makes, is that gvt has a monopoly on money. That's never been the case, certainly not in modern times. (the reason is, global trade. Global Trade demands a pre-agreed upon medium of exchange). If gvt printed money, other countries wouldn't accept it. The constitution allows our gvt to coin money and set weights and measures (those are the same thing), or to borrow money. a dollar defined, is a weight of silver. When gvt coined money, all they did was set the 'value' of the dollar. (around 25 grams of silver, historically) (the gold coins were set as a ratio to silver) Under the Federal Reserve System (which is Neither Federal, or has reserves), we have Fed Reserve Notes. A federal reserve note is a debt instrument of Zero duration, at Zero interest. The Banking system is a PRIVATE, not government enterprise. All dollars in existence, are a product of the PRIVATE banking system. Somewhere, there is a debt instument attahced. Same is true is true in Europe, and even in China
Pretty cowardly to debate cherry picked video clips. When you're in front of an actual MMT or Chicago economist, these arguments fall apart pretty quickly.
Once again Mr. Murphy resorts to comparing government finance under a Fiat system to our personal finance. This is wrong because government finance is nothing like our personal finances. The main reason why they are different is because the government has a monopoly on creating our sovereign currency and we can not do that, at lweast not legally. Governments who creates its own sovereign currency and keeps its debt in that currency, can never be insolvent. That is not to say that spending is unlimited, it can produce unlimited amounts of currency, but that could lead to inflation if done incorrectly. So MMT clarifies their approach by saying that inflation is the only limitation as to the amount a government should invest in its economy. All MMT says is that it is the responsibility of governments who control their own sovereign currency, to spend, invest, as much money into our economy is it takes to keep it running at full capacity at all times, no more, no less. If it did that it would invest only when there are idle resources available to support that spending. They say that we seldom spend that much, leaving idle resources idle, ergo missing opportunities for growth. Mr. Murphy criticizes this because it debunks his libertarian ideology which he is paid to defend. In other words he has a dog in the fight. I would find it much easier to except views of people who don't have dogs in the fight. Like Warren Mosler. Here is a simple video that does explains government finance under our Fiat system. ua-cam.com/video/TDL4c8fMODk/v-deo.html
These micro economists are obviously baffling the audience understanding of the macroeconomy with illustrations from the macroeconomy sector or private economic bullshit
Rampant militarism and nation building? I can assure you it is not that simple. There are patriots out there that see and experience real threats and are solely focused on addressing them. Unfortunately, for many in the defense industry the primary mission is job security, akin to all other government agencies.
Its a shame that these videos dont get more views.
Hard to get friends and family to care or watch
@CuriousScholar13 Yeah, it's very dry. I can see why people would view this as boring.
I think the Mises institute should start releasing more animated videos and/or just better produced. Kind of what Robert Reich does. It's more appealing to people.
Quality > Quantity - we, those who care, we are the best people ;-)
It's very easy to get people to care. It has to be recommended to them by someone they massively respect. Nobody cares of the advice on how to get rich by a homeless guy. But if you were interested in investing and warren buffet, charlie munger or any other rich money manager would tell you some stuff you would listen with all ears.
People follow stars and celebrities. That's why the democratic machine had all those hollywood celebrities on their payroll, to massively influence society.
Also people love famous people, just because they are famous. The though is, If they are famous they must have something great to them, which is obviously a fallacy, but tons of people believe it and get blinded by status, fame or money or anyhting else.
First be popular or respeceted:
Then you can influence how much you want.
It's authority or credibility based on status.
Ask a republican or a democrat what they think about Libertarians.
There you go. 😃👌
@@michaelgreene1260 Yep. Libertarians are the nerds in the classroom who point out that 2 + 2 = 4 , probably with a very sound, thorough, explanation why. Dems and Repubs do not care because the nerds don't sway the popularity contest that gives the Dems/Repubs their power.
Libertarians are relevant to future historians who will be scratching their heads wondering how XYZ collapse happened when there were people who "clearly knew" what was going on. But they're fairly irrelevant to current politics.
This is what happens when you totally loose track of what an economy actually is, it isn’t numbers.
And it's not an overabundance of printing fiat "dollars." 😮😢
@Moving2Win not even close to a well thought out comment
@Moving2Win Lol, let me gues; you think all these anti-market, central planning policies we have are "capitalism".
@Moving2Win can't argue with that!!!! great point
@Moving2Win Wait, wait, wait. You're telling me that you think central planning and a market economy are the same thing?
One minor criticism: I don't know if it's exactly fair to describe Kelton's reference to units of account in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia as cherry picking. I think the point was to look at the oldest known civilizations for the origins of moneys. If anything, pointing to a money from 500 BC is more like cherry-picking, because that would likely have been a later innovation rather than an origin story.
Fortunately, Mr. Newman saves it by handling those historical examples directly. Clay tablets with warehouse addresses is obviously analogous to a bank note - a money substitute backed either by a commodity money or by goods for barter, either of which reinforces the Mengerian account and demolishes the MMT version.
The invention of the medium of exchange happened before the invention of writing. What critics of the regression theorem fail to comprehend is the regression theorem explains the invention of media of exchange, not money qua the "generally accepted" medium of exchange. Money isn't "invented," it evolves from media of exchange. The existence of multiple media of exchange does not falsify the theorem because in reality the evolution toward a single medium of exchange has not completed. It was close to completion during the enforcement of the legal gold standard but the monetary system disintegrated again upon the invention of the modern central bank.
You all missed a MAIN POINT at the beginning when talking about the accounting debits and credits (financial assets). The GOODS & SERVICES which the public sector provides is THE ASSET. People swap assets every day - a haircut (service) for a bag of rice (good). We use "money" as a medium of exchange for convenience. "Money" is the future (potential) demand for a future ASSET.
People through their work create ASSETS. The Government, printing money, does nothing to create ASSETS, but just debases the medium of exchange. People create GOODS and Services, governments don't.
Value is better word than asset.
Printing money only raises the price, nothing of value is created, no real wealth is created.
Very well stated!
Most important comment here
People swap financial assets for real resources/goods/services. They don't actually swap a haircut for a bag of rice. They use Government debt instruments. Look at any dollar bill, it says this note is legal tender for all debts public and private. When you get a service or good from someone, you owe them a debt for which you pay(meaning to pacify). Normally, people "pacify" debts with the Governments debt instrument.
When you work for the Govt, the Govt pacifies you with their debt instrument. You can then turn around and use that debt instrument as payment for something else in the economy to pacify your debts. Creating more of these debt instruments by spending them (printing) does not "debase" anything. The term debase does not apply to a floating exchange rate debt instrument.
Well, Kelton explains that the government's debt is your financial asset
Murphy is my favorite
He is everybodies favourite :) (especially vs Tom Woods)
The Broken Window Fallacy with extra steps.
23:39 notice how they always use the term WE, as if all the people in a nation have the same wants and needs...and have the same influence of law making and execution.
This type of talk is very convincing to people that dont stop and think for themselves
Altruist detected.
Like Sowell says, the anointed think people can be moved around like blocks of wood. That individuals have no drive or motivations of their own. Very dangerous to attempt policy with this assumption.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win. What stage do you think we are in. Don't worry too much about it, MMT is correct.
30:43 good point. One may ask, who started a war and who is fighting the wars. Too many people say China or Germany....as if that identifies the exact individuals.
Thats why collectivists always use the term WE, so people have trouble identifying exactly who benefits or loses in various actions or transactions
I'm waiting for a presentation with Bob Murphy in zombie makeup defending MMT in five words or less
"We have all the guns."
"We said so."
"We are in power."
"Shut up, peasant!"
I think you mean Jared Bernstein
Richard Murphy the British guy?
one thing that strikes me about “money theory” is that it’s not really a theory. because of computers we know EXACTLY how money flows. feels like someone that’s telling you there’s a theory is usually because either they don’t know things they should know, or they know and don’t want you to know. In my upcoming book I talk about class interactions instead of “money theory”. From the premise that money is produced under exclusive contract for the policy class by the lending class. That money buys votes to continue and expand the policy class - at the expense of - the middle class.
That Jared Bernstein clip was straight-up painful. A first-semester economics student could have been infinitely more enlightening than that.
MMT is perfectly encapsulated by George Orwell: “There are some ideas so foolish, only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Can't help but agree
I was watching a professor talk about how engineering students didn't do well in Economics courses. Their brains couldn't compute things like fiat money or MMT because of how completely bizarre the underlying theory is.
@@ryanarboristWhich proves that economics is a more advanced field than engineering
Thought that MMT talk was a _Saturday Night Live_ skit. Clearly, there’s a few patients running an asylum.
And yet, you're the same guy who asks: "Wait, who is the world indebted to? The Rothschilds?"
Oh the gullible people. The "government's" deficit, is "somebody's" surplus. Who is the "government"? Who is "somebody"? Guess what? You are not "somebody", but you will pay for the "government".
That is correct sir!!!
lol gullible indeed. The Governments deficit in US dollars is indeed somebody's surplus. If the Fed govt spend $100 it is -$100 and someone is +$100. No denying the accounting.
In the US the Government is Congress, President and Supreme court, most kids in grade school understand this and when they pass a spending bill, they pay someone. THEY PAY SOMEONE, You don't pay for the Government.
Der d der.
It doesn't have to be repaid, it remains outstanding for eternity
At minute 11:52, he concludes that a debt forced to be nullified by the threat of violence or incarceration is irrational, and it really highlights an class divide. Most people work to make enough money to fund their necessities, those w2s are taxed before ever meeting you own ledger. What is the consequence if you were to avoid paying taxes?
Love it!!!!!!!!!
Very good. Thank you! 👍
Over fifty years ago I had to read economics, in particular how the financial and banking system worked, for professional examinations. The word “SCAM!” kept screaming at me in my head, but it was all stated just so matter-of-factly. I regurgitated the schitt and passed the exams but the screaming never stopped.
Tag team? Murphy and Newman WWF wrestling Kelton and Mosler?
I kinda like MMT. It provides a clear-eyed description of how the modern economy functions in practice. I only really disagree with the "and that's a good thing" part.
But it doesn't. As Bob says, everything they say that's true is already part of standard economics, and everything they say that's new is wrong.
@@troll_kin9456 My favorite MMT intuition is that government spends using their printer and that taxes only feed a bonfire. All the intermediary accounting mostly serves to convince people that that isn't already the net effect.
And they'll actually always tell you, "Bro, I'm just telling you how things are" but then they'll defend it like it's actually a good idea. It happens each and every time. Their next hallmark is to just throw their hands up in the air and say, "No one really understands MMT". Trust me, you'll see it.
Devaluing everyone’s time, via labor , isn’t self empowering and affects the poor and lower middle class more than the people at the top . It forces speculation on any extra currency we might have and is ultimately a ponzi scheme. A sound monetary policy makes way more sense to me but I’ll continue playing this game of musical chairs ( mmt) until the music stops .
Bob Murphy, I really am intrigued by all that you know! Is there a way to sponsor you in any way?
This channel is Truth-Gold.
If the public understood the monetary system, Ron Paul would have been President
If people understood the monetary system, they wouldn't put up with the existence of the presidency, nor any other political office.
36:17 black woman jumpscare
😂😅 thanks I jumped right to it
Thank you for trying to take down MMT concepts. Their explanation is prerry clear and you did not change my mind that MMT has it right. I dont think you fully understand what they are getting at based on your criticisms which I am thankful for. I would like to hear more about how money evolved - markets > money > government. Vs government > Money > Markets. The Robinson Crusoe story does not cut it. That seems to be the distinction central to the disagreements.
You can create new net positive financial assets by leveraging /tokenizing real assets. Therefore not all financial assets sum to zero.
I agree with almost everything in this video, but the last point about the origins of money wasn't fully baked. Yes, nobody would be willing to use random pieces of paper as money unless somebody with a gun forced them to, however this is not disputed by the MMT crowd. Whether or not it is morally right isn't being discussed, only whether or not it actually happened. I was hoping to get some new info on that latter question from this lecture, but at present I will have to keep looking :/
Im searching for a well reasoned debate. In this one, to be honest, I see more similarities than differences. Unless i got it wrong both sides agree that the currency issued is not the wealth, you can create any amount but that other factors determine what amount. The point made that MMT discourages people from asking "how are we gonna pay for this" is not what I got from the book. It was more about what we should be expecting from our politicians - we should not accept "we did not raise enough money from tax in order to pay for this. We cant find the money". The point that MMT claims to have discovered something we all knew - well they dont claim to have discovered it and in the book (The Deficit Myth) they show how others had arrived at most of the same conclusions before them.
So if this is a theory why are they applying it to wider market instead of testing it in a controlled environment?
The Jared Bernstein clip is unreal.
we trying to people to see both sides of the ledger not just the one side thats why she says opening the other eye
9:00 Coconuts are real wealth. That's different to financial wealth. Clearly the only thing that *actually* matters is real wealth since that gives us our material prosperity, but we live in a monetary production economy where financial wealth clearly provides an economy with scope to distribute and produce more real wealth.
when the gov spends it becomes a gov liability that is redeemed through taxation at the fed level thats what the national savings it untaxed out money
also over looking the fact that trumps ppp loan program had little regulation but a lot of language changes and instead off puting in price caps the fed turned inflation inducing interest rates which "printed money" in interest rate payments to the savers which expanded fiscally gov spending as the main holder of gov us treasuries.
apply unlike the tree doesnt create the money it owes to the bond holder they have sell enough product to thar the tree like the gov issues or creates that commodity issuer vs user
Be a better concept if it was MCT. Modern Currency Theory. More interesting is this idea is central to Mein Kampf.
Originally theology by Dr Gottfried Feder (1881-1941). Mein Kampf. Copy and paste....
Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation. We all lived through it. But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created.
Important to understand the difference here. Money is a claim cheque on wealth. Like a laundry matt. The shirt is the wealth not the piece of paper. (Fiat currency).
Especially with the end of the Petro dollar the only thing that gives the piece of paper value is your personal time and energy.
Which they print for themselves out of thin air for free
they borrowed then because banks were not tied to a bank charter that it is now and thats also why mmters always say that was a gold standard era which it was but not since we have the fed which controls the money supply and issues currency when the gov spends the gov checks will never bounce unless directed not to
this was during the time when we had a pretty full supply chain so ya thats where another mmt part comes you have full employment and have a healthy supply chain 85% you keep spending you will have inflation but the key factors are enough jobs and almost full manufacturing sectors which would go with fed jobs guarantee at community and fed level to state level so yes mmt has been correct
All bonds, basically are derivatives of real assets. Company bonds are leveraging the company's profits coming out of their real goods and services.
Government bonds have value, based on the ability of the government to steal from the society it occupies and its real productivity. At the end all value comes down to real goods and services.
What happens if the government spends 100 into the economy and taxes 110 out?
the money they 'spend into the economy', doesn't belong to them, it belonged to someone else. they did one of two things, taxed (took it from someone else), or when to the PRIVATE banking system and took out a loan (sure, they issued a debt instrument as a receipt, and one of the primary dealer banks bought it). primary dealer then sold it to (whoever wanted it), and it became part of the 23T of outstanding debt. So long as the gvt is borrowing it, it does expand the money supply, but you don't need gvt to do that. anyone can take out a loan and grow the money supply. (that was part of the inflation of the 1970s). you had a lot of baby boomers entering the work force, buying houses and having kids.
(the rest of the inflation came (mostly) from the eurodollar system expanding)
in other words what cost are to produce and sale one of those things are interest rates then you have a competitor who might be able to out price you because they have enough recourses to do that and hurt you at the same time you gotta love the free market capitalism
that is on a floating exchange rate and not a fixed rate like a gold standard
How can money exist thousands of years before markets? If you have any means of exchange that is a market. A means of placing value on various items, goods or services.
it was also another way of creating jobs so it did get us out of a recession
interest rate payments are kinda like printing money on free money
I’ve never watched a segment where Robert explains anything well
He knows his stuff and he’s right.
MMT is one of the hardest topics to understand and the Mises Institute needs to find at least 1 person who can communicate well. I’ve watched him in debates and the Austrian View never comes across well
The governments creat base money & banks create second layer money.
Am I missing anything else important about MMT?
MMT summarized. Government prints or destroys money as the people in position decide. Proponents want you to believe that the people in those positions behave according to the nations best interest rather than using their power over money (and hence the power over society) to benefit themselves and their friends.
They are your benevolent leaders. What could go wrong?
Lets have free markets for money and may the best system win. Guess the problem is we would not be starting from a level playing field. From all the manipulation over decades, wealth concentration (and thus the wealthy have many resources to pursuade) is massive.
So it would probably take many decades for things to level out and "real" money to be selected
MMT is just a rehashing of FDR's "The debt doesn't matter because we owe it to ourselves!" line. And the obfuscation is the same. The question is who is the 'we' and who is the 'ourselves?' All government spending involves buying goods and services from the private economy, so of course all government spending = "private sector" income. But the members of the "private sector" who get the money are politicians, banks, contractors, cronies, etc. Everyone else just gets reduced purchasing power.
It is nice to see an economist with a personality.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To "lay and collect Taxes", Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and "general Welfare" of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .
The background music in the MMT Documentary is the tell that it's bullshit
Sometimes a commercial property is empty because the owner gets a tax break for it being empty. There is a restaurant in my little town (pop. 1900) fr which has the owner charges exorbitant rent and every new entrepreneur quickly goes out of business. Owner gets tax break or high rent. That's how screwed up governments have become. Anyone notice how screwed up AutoCorrect on these sites have become? You get the gist but that's not exactly how I wrote it
I thought the answer to the print vs borrow question is just: for the government there is no distinction there. In both cases it is issuing bonds, aka borrowing the money. The government itself never prints money. The government doesn't care if its bonds are bought with existing money or newly created. Actually it would or should prefer if the bonds are bought with existing money, to avoid inflation, which is politically massively unpopular. The central bank is the one who prints money (buy buying government bonds with newly created central bank money = reserves): Why does the central bank print money? To benefit its cronies, the banking cartel of which it is owned by. How does it benefit this banking cartel? By creating massive boom and bust cycles, where the banks can buy everything up for cheap, loan the money out to resell it to the public and get stupid rich on interests and rising prices, selling up until the peak and after the bust getting it all back for cheap again. The central bank is there and it prints money to perpetuate a massive pump and dump scheme with the entire economy. It's all just legal massive market manipulation. They have done this over and over again. It's always the same game.
It is amazing to watch how these praxeologists can never see that their silly Robinson Crusoe analogy is always missing a proper accounting of the LAND/NATURAL RESOURCES factor!!
I can create wealth woth a credit card also?
You can create money with a credit card but you can't create wealth. The people who create wealth are the people who make and sell you stuff for that credit card money.
Berenstein isn't an economist btw
I guess according to MMT we can reduce taxes to zero and create goods (money) out of thin air
Then hiw will we tax the money ba k out of the syatem.
@@TC2020-w8u You don't have to because MMT is built on the idea that their tickets actually have value.
Mmt sounds like the perfect system for a socialist/ syndicalist economy.
There is NOTHING NEW about MMT. This sort of fiat debt based garbage has always failed. They just repackaged old ideas.
Money only has value because people think it does. 💯
MMT in a nutshell:
It's okay for FedGov criminals to steal and counterfeit.
13:40 Oh my goodness, that answer was such an overload of cringe. He would have embarrassed himself far less if he had just said "That is a good technical question and I do not know the precise answer to it. I have to ask about that in our next meeting."
Representation!
Take care of your neighbors. God bless
Bitcoin (honest money) must really piss these folks off.
taxes are taken out never put back in at the fed level
I think it's really sad that we can't call this what it is: Otto von Bismarck sh!t.
bonds take money out of the economy money that had to be spent into the economy to begin with so bonds are a reserve drain not an addition the us treasury website calls them a savings account
Murphy is obviously a smart guy, but he needs to slow down and organize his thoughts better. I pray that he gets better at getting his point across.
Correct.... super stressed out...
sounds like redistribution of wealth to me. especially if the government gets to decide where that $100 intially goes.
But your insistence that the government should Hand You a sound currency, is not asking for a Handout
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!! THIS IS A JOKE RIGHT??? I never thought a Mises institute video could make me laugh as hard as I did 😂😂😂😂
Jimmy Door showed this woman time ago😂
And the second video too😂😂😂
they could have done both
Bonds make no sense on a fiat currency system. It only makes sense on a fixed exchange rate like the gold standard because by outing dollars into a bond for 10 years you are saying to the government I will not exchange these dollars for gold for 10 years and the government will pay you more dollars in interest for letting it keep their gold. Under a floating exchange rate it makes no sense and Kelton is right
state taxes help the state out by funding state level programes
MMT is government girl math.
Robert, you have to get better at refuting the MMT Logic. And, also Please keep you hands down. You don't appear as calm and cool as the MMT Chic!
Printing money is NOT taking from the private sector to give back to private sector. Guys, you can do better than this...
If their red is my black my pockets and bank account should be bursting at the seams.
“Back to School” Rodney Dangerfield - In response to where should we build our fictitious factory, he says, “How about Fantasy Land”
MMTers are acting like rock stars these days in their documentaries.
Oh... So it is so just because you say so?
Inflation averaged 4.25% over the past 50 years (I'm 73 years old and lived it). If you saved a dollar in 1974 and spent it today it would purchase about 12 cents worth of goods or services. Free money? Chuckle. Send us all a check for $1,000,000 and we can quit our jobs and retire. Let me know how that works out. Observation: Look around your house or office, can you find anything made in America? Americans are working longer and harder for less.
During the Real Estate crash the government should have done just that, give each taxpayer $1,000,000. Let the money enter the system from the bottom up. Better experiment than giving all the money to corporations who pilfered the money. We got nothing out of that deal.
Ya the did bonds so they have to tax out and bonds carry interest payments which again is the national saving you complain about
So I was right and wrong. I was right to say this behavior started in 1910 and 1945. This much worst than what I thought.
This is what BTC and tether is today...psychop like wat bonds
Would these simpletons explain how labour, mined assets and innovation is monetized in the real world.
They do not understand #MMT !!!
2 min in and I can spot the insanity.
If you can't state your ideas briefly, in plain English then it's because your ideas don't make sense. The opening speech is a perfect example. The bloke waffles on for 12 minutes, and by the end of it I am no wiser. Skelton's point is simple: the govt's spending is the private sector's income; the govt's revenue (taxes) takes money away from the private sector. Simple, clear, concise, logical. The issue with MMT has nothing to do with bonds, or asset accumulation, or Apple, or any of the other irrelevant things the speaker drags into his argument, it's inflation. Yes, the govt can print money and spend it into to the private sector and it will be better off in real terms, *as long as* there is no inflation (that's key!) Austrian economics can't refute that, hence all the waffling and hand-waving.
Actually, you’re missing a nuance here, and that is the fact that, if the free market is allowed to do its thing, competition will drive the price of goods down to the marginal cost of production.
And on top of that, technological development will drive the marginal cost of production down until everything that is not strictly scarce is very cheap or free.
And so the natural state of the free market is deflation (you get better products for less money) due to these 2 factors.
The free market’s ruthless selection mechanism is the driver of efficient capital allocation.
But when the government prints money to spend it into the private sector, it prompts up businesses that wouldn’t have survived in the free market.
And the printed money isn’t free, it comes from extracting the purchasing power of all the other money in circulation, reducing the purchasing power of the unaided-by-government private sector actors.
Even when it doesn’t increase inflation, it extracts the deflation all other actors would have otherwise benefitted from through seeing the purchasing power increase.
My point is this: inflation isn’t an on/off switch, ANY amount of money printing will reduce the private market’s purchasing power from the first printed dollar with infinitisimal, unmeasurable effect, but the effect is still there as compared to the scenario where there was no money printing.
And because centrally-planned, inflation-based spending isn’t bound by the same limitations free market actors are, it is necessarily less efficient than the spending the free market actors would have done with their relatively higher purchasing power.
@@user-ng1ws8we1v We already have a system that prints unlimited amounts of money - it's called the banking system. As long as the ratio of [money] to [goods & services being exchanged for money] remains constant, the price level will remain constant. If you have too much money chasing too few goods and services, you get price inflation. Conversely if you have too little money chasing too many goods and services, you get a collapse in economic activity (eg. the Great Depression, when money supply fell due to collapsing banks, and economic activity collapsed along with them.)
The quantity theory of money explains the relationship between money creation and output/prices perfectly.
As for competition driving down costs, this might be true in economic theory, but not in the real world! Economies of scale mean that the biggest company always wins, and can buy out or crush its competitors. Once that industry becomes an oligopoly (as almost all of them are today) then it has pricing power. A huge part of today's cost of living crisis is caused by price gouging. Think about it - how, in a cost-of-living crisis, are corporations making record profits?
This is not possible in the theoretical worlds of Neoclassical or Austrian economics. But it IS happening in the real world, so you have to throw out those theories.
MMT is nonsense.
GOVERNMENTS DO NOT PRINT MONEY
The (false) claim that MMT makes, is that gvt has a monopoly on money. That's never been the case, certainly not in modern times.
(the reason is, global trade. Global Trade demands a pre-agreed upon medium of exchange). If gvt printed money, other countries wouldn't accept it.
The constitution allows our gvt to coin money and set weights and measures (those are the same thing), or to borrow money.
a dollar defined, is a weight of silver. When gvt coined money, all they did was set the 'value' of the dollar. (around 25 grams of silver, historically) (the gold coins were set as a ratio to silver)
Under the Federal Reserve System (which is Neither Federal, or has reserves), we have Fed Reserve Notes. A federal reserve note is a debt instrument of Zero duration, at Zero interest.
The Banking system is a PRIVATE, not government enterprise. All dollars in existence, are a product of the PRIVATE banking system. Somewhere, there is a debt instument attahced.
Same is true is true in Europe, and even in China
Truly insightful comment!
Pretty cowardly to debate cherry picked video clips. When you're in front of an actual MMT or Chicago economist, these arguments fall apart pretty quickly.
Wow! The 1st Bernstein that knows nothing about money, lol
Once again Mr. Murphy resorts to comparing government finance under a Fiat system to our personal finance. This is wrong because government finance is nothing like our personal finances. The main reason why they are different is because the government has a monopoly on creating our sovereign currency and we can not do that, at lweast not legally. Governments who creates its own sovereign currency and keeps its debt in that currency, can never be insolvent. That is not to say that spending is unlimited, it can produce unlimited amounts of currency, but that could lead to inflation if done incorrectly. So MMT clarifies their approach by saying that inflation is the only limitation as to the amount a government should invest in its economy. All MMT says is that it is the responsibility of governments who control their own sovereign currency, to spend, invest, as much money into our economy is it takes to keep it running at full capacity at all times, no more, no less. If it did that it would invest only when there are idle resources available to support that spending. They say that we seldom spend that much, leaving idle resources idle, ergo missing opportunities for growth. Mr. Murphy criticizes this because it debunks his libertarian ideology which he is paid to defend. In other words he has a dog in the fight. I would find it much easier to except views of people who don't have dogs in the fight. Like Warren Mosler. Here is a simple video that does explains government finance under our Fiat system. ua-cam.com/video/TDL4c8fMODk/v-deo.html
She exudes fantasies. She's clever. 😅 We are a war economy and have always been. As far back as WW2. I did not know. How about WW1? 😮
I guess both sides can have credentialed idiots. Lasted about 12mins. Only thing I heard was ideology. Hidding your priorities in externalities.
The lead speaker is all over the place. Hard if not impossible to follow. Makes many assumptions about his audience.
These micro economists are obviously baffling the audience understanding of the macroeconomy with illustrations from the macroeconomy sector or private economic bullshit
Rampant militarism and nation building? I can assure you it is not that simple. There are patriots out there that see and experience real threats and are solely focused on addressing them. Unfortunately, for many in the defense industry the primary mission is job security, akin to all other government agencies.
Are you talking about the nation's that got invaded with "weapons of mass destruction"?
Only works in the united states )))
The last video is simply idiotic.
babble
Geeze. What a bunch of BS
A bunch of mindless double talk.
by whom?
@@dualfluidreactor the two guys above ne on the thread