So let me understand this, your saying if Zimbabwe had maintained its productivity by keeping the white farmers, There would have been nothing wrong with Zimbabwe pritinting a trillion of its own dollars to give to new native farmers in order to improve productivity?There would have been no inflation?
Well, it all depends upon what the new farmers would have done with that money, but the new money, if spent with no corresponding increases in production, may have caused inflation, but not like the hyperinflation that happened due to Zimbabwe killing its own productive economy.
Not exactly, but close. There are two parts to this: (1) The first is that Zimbabwe hyperinflation (like Weimar) was caused by a huge drop in supply of goods ppl needed to live. Thus too much currency chasing too little goods. Then Mugabee printed more & more currency making it worse and worse. This was because Mugabee gave all the farmers to Freedom Fighters who knew nothing about Farming. Thus the biggest Food producers in Africa (I think) had a sudden massive drop in supply - plus the war and violence and other problems. More on that here: ua-cam.com/video/yWGJ_js8huA/v-deo.html (4 minute video) (2) According to MMT (as someone who has read quite a bit on it from MMT Professors), the Central Bank of a Soveriegn Fiat Currency doesn't have a problem getting the currency, BUT they do have a problem keeping *a stable Currency*. So a Central Bank does still have to frequently measure if it needs to spend more money into or take money out of (done by Tax or exports) to keep a stable Currency. But if MMT is true, then it doesn't mean it must tax to get the money , it taxes for this reason which is less restrictive.
To Rohan: even if I accepted your premise 100%, a good question is: can we trust governments to manipulate the money supply and monetary policy. Rather, like stock shares, when new shares need to be issued, let the shareholders of current money wealth receive extra shares (like stock splits going to shareholders). Why should the government-political apparatus issue these added shares to their own institution. The accepted, unquestioned system we now have is akin to allowing google to issue new shares for themselves, thus diluting existing shareholder value. Yes, the free market process of discovering value is messy, but ultimately the only fair process to define currency value. Money purchasing power will fluctuate of course (likely deflationary in a healthy non-recessionary way), and that makes people, who cant keep up with loan payments angry enough to say the FRB must step in to help.
Not that this is a very good analogy for money anyway, but, Google absolutely is allowed to issue new shares, whenever they want. (They're also allowed to buy back shares, whenever they want). There is no rule that previous shareholders receive extra shares when they do this. Usually companies do stock splits only to redenominate if the numberical price is getting too large, roughly the same as re-denominating the currency (and all debts, contracts, etc), which governments also sometimes do when the numbers are getting too large.
@@deficitowls5296 Thanks for your reply. You are correct, however my point is most publicly traded companies that issue new shares typically do not add new shares, diluting shareholder value. As you know when stocks or split, the original holdee is not harmed. That is my point. In effect the Federal Reserve and Treasury have invented an invisible tax that the average citizen is not aware of.
The people who contribute to Deficit Owls span a few countries, but it is indeed mostly US based. But for more influencers from Australia, see Bill Mitchell, Steven Hail, and Claire Connelly.
Bill Mitchell teaches at the University of Newcastle. There will also be an online program beginning in the next few months called MMT University. There's also a large facebook presence, a group called "MMT Australia." I recommend reaching out to any of those, they can tell you more :)
university of adelaide, my professor is Dr. Steven Hail, he's one of the MMT people. If you take his courses, he'll teach the wrong mainstream and then the new economics, MMT, behavioural etc.etc.
I don't think he said that there is? (Also, just for the record, there's really no such thing as a "barter economy." There has never been a society that primarily arranged its production and distribution of resources in barter markets.)
@@deficitowls5296 Of course there isn't. It's a counterfactual thought. Just prove the point. MMT is not a very serious school of thought anyways. I would like to debate about it but writing in a language that's not my vernacular is always a tedious deed
@@v.mvarga4979 MMT is a very serious school of thought, that academic economists all over the world write about, and publish in peer-reviewed journals, and it also has followers among the top ranks of the financial and political "elite." If you ever want to learn more or ask questions, you know where to find us.
How so? The production to agriculture was so sudden and severe the citizenry were literally starving lol. How do you not turn on the printers and import food in a situation like that? You really think the answer is to let everyone starve? Just let it all as in society totally collapse? How is that an answer? Seems to me you confuse the map for the territory, the nominal abstraction with what is real, human lives.
@@steviewonder417 You seem to have the notion that you can print value, rather than just counterfeit currency that others have earned. Up to a point, you can get away with it, but it inevitably resuts in that crisis that is a consequence of the printing, not the primary cause of the collapse. At that point, printing does not and cannot provide you with spendable currency. All it does is accelerate the currency collapse. So your choice is to stop printing and allow a collapse that hurts some people but allows most to recover quickly, or keep printing to try to prevent anyone from being hurt, and in the end devastate everyone. The end result of your "compassionate" solution is far more destructive. If you could continue to print and never face the consequences, we'd all be limitlessly rich. By the same logic, corporations could give stock to everyone, who could sell it and be rich, and never depress the stock's price. The whole premise of the video is wrong - MMT is trash, and if you look at the effects of various shocks on nations with stable money, you never (NEVER) got hyperinflationary collapse. A catalytic event can precipitate it, but the fuel is all that printed money.
@@Krakondack you are just building a straw man here. I’m not saying you can print value but there is a reason every modern nation chooses to turn the printers in crisis and that is because it is sensible and the only chance actually to get to the other side. Your issue is you conflate all possible uses of said money and deem them all bad because some uses can in fact be bad, but I assure you importing food and feeding your people who are about to starve to literal death is a good use of a sovereign’s issued money. Can money printing be misused? Of course but the idea that no use can be productive is patently absurd in fact you have modern infrastructure all around you that is testament to the power of public debt.
The term "money velocity" comes from a mathematical equation, called the "equation of exchange." What they don't often tell you when they teach this is that "money velocity" is not actually a meaningful concept in itself. It's actually merely the residual quantity, necessary to make the equation true. Let me show you what I mean. Imagine that you have a certain number of umbrellas, U. You also play baseball a certain number of times per year, B. Now, let's write down the umbrella-baseball equation of exchange: UV = B, where V is the "umbrella velocity." So, what did we just learn about umbrellas and baseballs? Absolutely nothing. We merely defined a number, V = B/U. V is the residual quantity, it takes on whatever value it needs to to make the equation true. And it's exactly the same with money velocity. We define V = Y/M, where Y is GDP and M is the money supply. Is there any reason to think this is a meaningful quantity? No. Does it have any sort of tangible existence? No. Did we learn anything useful by writing it down? No. All we did is define a variable, V, as the ratio of Y to M. V is the residual quantity, it takes on whatever value it needs to to make the equation true. Might V increase in the future? Maybe, sure. But if so, it will be because either Y increase, M decreases, or some combination of the two. Y and M are real things, which can be measured. V is just the residual, that makes the equation true.
To Rohan: even if I accepted your premise 100%, a good question is: can we trust governments to manipulate the money supply and monetary policy. Rather, like stock shares, when new shares need to be issued, let the shareholders of current money wealth receive extra shares (like stock splits going to shareholders). Why should the government-political apparatus issue these added shares to their own institution. The accepted, unquestioned system we now have is akin to allowing google to issue new shares for themselves, thus diluting existing shareholder value. Yes, the free market process of discovering value is messy, but ultimately the only fair process to define currency value. Money purchasing power will fluctuate of course (likely deflationary in a healthy non-recessionary way), and that makes people, who cant keep up with loan payments angry enough to say the FRB must step in to help.
To Rohan: even if I accepted your premise 100%, a good question is: can we trust governments to manipulate the money supply and monetary policy. Rather, like stock shares, when new shares need to be issued, let the shareholders of current money wealth receive extra shares (like stock splits going to shareholders). Why should the government-political apparatus issue these added shares to their own institution. The accepted, unquestioned system we now have is akin to allowing google to issue new shares for themselves, thus diluting existing shareholder value. Yes, the free market process of discovering value is messy, but ultimately the only fair process to define currency value. Money purchasing power will fluctuate of course (likely deflationary in a healthy non-recessionary way), and that makes people, who cant keep up with loan payments angry enough to say the FRB must step in to help.
To Rohan: even if I accepted your premise 100%, a good question is: can we trust governments to manipulate the money supply and monetary policy. Rather, like stock shares, when new shares need to be issued, let the shareholders of current money wealth receive extra shares (like stock splits going to shareholders). Why should the government-political apparatus issue these added shares to their own institution. The accepted, unquestioned system we now have is akin to allowing google to issue new shares for themselves, thus diluting existing shareholder value. Yes, the free market process of discovering value is messy, but ultimately the only fair process to define currency value. Money purchasing power will fluctuate of course (likely deflationary in a healthy non-recessionary way), and that makes people, who cant keep up with loan payments angry enough to say the FRB must step in to help.
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate how little men/women really know about what they imagine they can design
Very well said!
So let me understand this, your saying if Zimbabwe had maintained its productivity by keeping the white farmers, There would have been nothing wrong with Zimbabwe pritinting a trillion of its own dollars to give to new native farmers in order to improve productivity?There would have been no inflation?
Well, it all depends upon what the new farmers would have done with that money, but the new money, if spent with no corresponding increases in production, may have caused inflation, but not like the hyperinflation that happened due to Zimbabwe killing its own productive economy.
Not exactly, but close.
There are two parts to this:
(1) The first is that Zimbabwe hyperinflation (like Weimar) was caused by a huge drop in supply of goods ppl needed to live. Thus too much currency chasing too little goods. Then Mugabee printed more & more currency making it worse and worse.
This was because Mugabee gave all the farmers to Freedom Fighters who knew nothing about Farming. Thus the biggest Food producers in Africa (I think) had a sudden massive drop in supply - plus the war and violence and other problems.
More on that here:
ua-cam.com/video/yWGJ_js8huA/v-deo.html
(4 minute video)
(2) According to MMT (as someone who has read quite a bit on it from MMT Professors), the Central Bank of a Soveriegn Fiat Currency doesn't have a problem getting the currency, BUT they do have a problem keeping *a stable Currency*.
So a Central Bank does still have to frequently measure if it needs to spend more money into or take money out of (done by Tax or exports) to keep a stable Currency.
But if MMT is true, then it doesn't mean it must tax to get the money , it taxes for this reason which is less restrictive.
Does that make sense? 😀
The first link is broken (the semantic scholar one). Could you please fix? Thanks.
To Rohan: even if I accepted your premise 100%, a good question is: can we trust governments to manipulate the money supply and monetary policy. Rather, like stock shares, when new shares need to be issued, let the shareholders of current money wealth receive extra shares (like stock splits going to shareholders). Why should the government-political apparatus issue these added shares to their own institution. The accepted, unquestioned system we now have is akin to allowing google to issue new shares for themselves, thus diluting existing shareholder value. Yes, the free market process of discovering value is messy, but ultimately the only fair process to define currency value. Money purchasing power will fluctuate of course (likely deflationary in a healthy non-recessionary way), and that makes people, who cant keep up with loan payments angry enough to say the FRB must step in to help.
Not that this is a very good analogy for money anyway, but, Google absolutely is allowed to issue new shares, whenever they want. (They're also allowed to buy back shares, whenever they want). There is no rule that previous shareholders receive extra shares when they do this. Usually companies do stock splits only to redenominate if the numberical price is getting too large, roughly the same as re-denominating the currency (and all debts, contracts, etc), which governments also sometimes do when the numbers are getting too large.
@@deficitowls5296 Thanks for your reply. You are correct, however my point is most publicly traded companies that issue new shares typically do not add new shares, diluting shareholder value. As you know when stocks or split, the original holdee is not harmed. That is my point. In effect the Federal Reserve and Treasury have invented an invisible tax that the average citizen is not aware of.
Does the US have more foreign debt then Venezuela?
Last I checked it was around 90% of gdp vs around 20%.
Who holds the debt is far less important than what currency the debt is denominated in. The US has basically zero foreign-denominated debt.
Yeah try zero
amen
Hey this guy is from Australia, like me! You familiar with Fairmoney Australia?
Most of Defict Owls from the US?
The people who contribute to Deficit Owls span a few countries, but it is indeed mostly US based.
But for more influencers from Australia, see Bill Mitchell, Steven Hail, and Claire Connelly.
Deficit Owls
Thanks. I have heard of Bill Mitchell, but not the other two.
Deficit Owls
Do you know if Australia also has a Uni where MMT's tend to conglomerate or where it's offered as an academic discipline to some degree?
Bill Mitchell teaches at the University of Newcastle. There will also be an online program beginning in the next few months called MMT University. There's also a large facebook presence, a group called "MMT Australia." I recommend reaching out to any of those, they can tell you more :)
university of adelaide, my professor is Dr. Steven Hail, he's one of the MMT people. If you take his courses, he'll teach the wrong mainstream and then the new economics, MMT, behavioural etc.etc.
How then can bank notes change value from 100 to 1.000.000.000 if not by printing...misleading title sorry.
Uriel Nakach because that money isn't being used to stimulate anything except for corruption. There is no return
Prove that there's inflation in a barter economy
I don't think he said that there is? (Also, just for the record, there's really no such thing as a "barter economy." There has never been a society that primarily arranged its production and distribution of resources in barter markets.)
@@deficitowls5296 Of course there isn't. It's a counterfactual thought. Just prove the point. MMT is not a very serious school of thought anyways. I would like to debate about it but writing in a language that's not my vernacular is always a tedious deed
@@v.mvarga4979 MMT is a very serious school of thought, that academic economists all over the world write about, and publish in peer-reviewed journals, and it also has followers among the top ranks of the financial and political "elite."
If you ever want to learn more or ask questions, you know where to find us.
@@v.mvarga4979
That is just not true, but the point was already explained by the last comment.
@@v.mvarga4979 debate me rn on my channel
It's still money printing that caused it. Collapse was inevitable, and they could have allowed it to happen much sooner, with far less overall damage.
How so? The production to agriculture was so sudden and severe the citizenry were literally starving lol. How do you not turn on the printers and import food in a situation like that? You really think the answer is to let everyone starve? Just let it all as in society totally collapse? How is that an answer? Seems to me you confuse the map for the territory, the nominal abstraction with what is real, human lives.
@@steviewonder417 You seem to have the notion that you can print value, rather than just counterfeit currency that others have earned. Up to a point, you can get away with it, but it inevitably resuts in that crisis that is a consequence of the printing, not the primary cause of the collapse. At that point, printing does not and cannot provide you with spendable currency. All it does is accelerate the currency collapse.
So your choice is to stop printing and allow a collapse that hurts some people but allows most to recover quickly, or keep printing to try to prevent anyone from being hurt, and in the end devastate everyone. The end result of your "compassionate" solution is far more destructive.
If you could continue to print and never face the consequences, we'd all be limitlessly rich. By the same logic, corporations could give stock to everyone, who could sell it and be rich, and never depress the stock's price.
The whole premise of the video is wrong - MMT is trash, and if you look at the effects of various shocks on nations with stable money, you never (NEVER) got hyperinflationary collapse. A catalytic event can precipitate it, but the fuel is all that printed money.
@@Krakondack you are just building a straw man here. I’m not saying you can print value but there is a reason every modern nation chooses to turn the printers in crisis and that is because it is sensible and the only chance actually to get to the other side. Your issue is you conflate all possible uses of said money and deem them all bad because some uses can in fact be bad, but I assure you importing food and feeding your people who are about to starve to literal death is a good use of a sovereign’s issued money. Can money printing be misused? Of course but the idea that no use can be productive is patently absurd in fact you have modern infrastructure all around you that is testament to the power of public debt.
Wrong. Hyperinflation is caused by money printing. The only reason it hasn't happened in the US yet is because money velocity is so low.
The term "money velocity" comes from a mathematical equation, called the "equation of exchange." What they don't often tell you when they teach this is that "money velocity" is not actually a meaningful concept in itself. It's actually merely the residual quantity, necessary to make the equation true. Let me show you what I mean.
Imagine that you have a certain number of umbrellas, U. You also play baseball a certain number of times per year, B. Now, let's write down the umbrella-baseball equation of exchange: UV = B, where V is the "umbrella velocity." So, what did we just learn about umbrellas and baseballs? Absolutely nothing. We merely defined a number, V = B/U. V is the residual quantity, it takes on whatever value it needs to to make the equation true.
And it's exactly the same with money velocity. We define V = Y/M, where Y is GDP and M is the money supply. Is there any reason to think this is a meaningful quantity? No. Does it have any sort of tangible existence? No. Did we learn anything useful by writing it down? No. All we did is define a variable, V, as the ratio of Y to M. V is the residual quantity, it takes on whatever value it needs to to make the equation true.
Might V increase in the future? Maybe, sure. But if so, it will be because either Y increase, M decreases, or some combination of the two. Y and M are real things, which can be measured. V is just the residual, that makes the equation true.
To Rohan: even if I accepted your premise 100%, a good question is: can we trust governments to manipulate the money supply and monetary policy. Rather, like stock shares, when new shares need to be issued, let the shareholders of current money wealth receive extra shares (like stock splits going to shareholders). Why should the government-political apparatus issue these added shares to their own institution. The accepted, unquestioned system we now have is akin to allowing google to issue new shares for themselves, thus diluting existing shareholder value. Yes, the free market process of discovering value is messy, but ultimately the only fair process to define currency value. Money purchasing power will fluctuate of course (likely deflationary in a healthy non-recessionary way), and that makes people, who cant keep up with loan payments angry enough to say the FRB must step in to help.
To Rohan: even if I accepted your premise 100%, a good question is: can we trust governments to manipulate the money supply and monetary policy. Rather, like stock shares, when new shares need to be issued, let the shareholders of current money wealth receive extra shares (like stock splits going to shareholders). Why should the government-political apparatus issue these added shares to their own institution. The accepted, unquestioned system we now have is akin to allowing google to issue new shares for themselves, thus diluting existing shareholder value. Yes, the free market process of discovering value is messy, but ultimately the only fair process to define currency value. Money purchasing power will fluctuate of course (likely deflationary in a healthy non-recessionary way), and that makes people, who cant keep up with loan payments angry enough to say the FRB must step in to help.
To Rohan: even if I accepted your premise 100%, a good question is: can we trust governments to manipulate the money supply and monetary policy. Rather, like stock shares, when new shares need to be issued, let the shareholders of current money wealth receive extra shares (like stock splits going to shareholders). Why should the government-political apparatus issue these added shares to their own institution. The accepted, unquestioned system we now have is akin to allowing google to issue new shares for themselves, thus diluting existing shareholder value. Yes, the free market process of discovering value is messy, but ultimately the only fair process to define currency value. Money purchasing power will fluctuate of course (likely deflationary in a healthy non-recessionary way), and that makes people, who cant keep up with loan payments angry enough to say the FRB must step in to help.
So just don’t provision government at all? What are you talking about? I like roads, I do.