An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Once again, Schiff makes another MMT moron look like a fool. Way to go Peter! MMT has been largely discredited already so we don't need much more time debunking these dangerous ideas.
Go MMT evolutionary step by step rather than reduce/expand to the absurd extreme like loud mouthed Schiff/ettes like our brave heart anonymouse here ;)
The problem with Schiff is he doesn't understand the relationships between money supply, economic output, savings/spending, and a GROSS misunderstanding of what inflation is.
MMT interest me very much hence my question below to get a deeper understanding. Please share your view.
In the interview Warren use the analogy of points scored in a foot ball game to FED increasing money supply. That it is just created and that it doesn't have to come from Taxes etc.
My simple understanding is that the points scored at the stadium (rate) is determine by the player actually kicking a goal (I'm Australian)
So the stadium can't just add another 10points to the score during the drinks break. I'm really confused.
For me money is tied to a dynamic ratio between competing goods and services consumed by humans. So it's a medium for goods and services to be exchanged with the added bonus of being able to store for future.
So simply for example, Instead of a shoe maker taking a truckload of shoes to a builder and exchange it for a house (Bata System) a common medium (money) can be used to make the transaction more practical.
500,00 shoes = $1MM ($200 per shoe) 1 house = $1MM
So if the FED all of a sudden double it's money supply then the ratio simply change to,
500,00 shoes = $2MM ($400 per shoe) 1 house = $2MM
So we can't magically create shoes or houses out of thin air because it's still tied in to finite things like Labour, Materials, Time etc..
So we can explain this as Inflation.
Above example is overly simplified but I'm confused how the above fundamental relationship is not addressed by Warren in the interview.
For me Peter still makes sense and Warren confuse me.
What am I missing out here? How can you create something out of nothing? This could be the miracle that I've been waiting for. This might just be the answer on how I could spend an infinite amount of money without ever having to earn!
Creating something out of nothing. We could apply this principal perhaps to create infinite energy, Infinite life and everything infinite. We could change the universe!
I know peter lacks common courtesy when he tend to talk over others but I think it comes from Frustration of someone going round in circles without really answering the question.
To me Warren didn't answer anything. He just went round in circles and make some poor analogies that didn't mean anything.
Would appreciate very much if someone could explain my simple mind.
Also I disagree Peter Schiff is misunderstood about Inflation. I think it's Warren who's completely in the dark.
Be more than happy to be proven wrong because that's the only way I will grow in my knowledge so thank you in advance for all your valuable thoughts and comments.
Ruwan, depends on the the cycle. If purchasing power is injected into the cycle when there are idle resources, then supply will increase to meet it without changing the price level. If purchasing power is increased at full capacity so that supply cannot expand to meet the demand increase, then inflation. Conversely if purchasing power falls under available supply, produces don't lower prices but instead cut back workers and employment rises.
Purchasing power varies based on changing relationship of desire to save or consume. Saving is demand leakage. When the private sector is net saving-delevering, then output falls unless offset by net exports rising or government deficit spending.
All countries cannot be net exporters simultaneously because the global economy is a closed system. So government will need to deficit spend in some countries to offset the demand leakage to maintain full capacity-full employment.
15 comments:
where they in the same room ?
peter schiff is a charlatan.
MMT Smackdown. Mike & Schiff in same room. Boom!
ummt.org
Hey,
Still a way to go, but there is some meat on the bones.
@Mike
Your comment yesterday was more accurate - TFA.
People like Schiff are impossible. Question: How do you all begin to present MMT to your circles?
Once again, Schiff makes another MMT moron look like a fool. Way to go Peter! MMT has been largely discredited already so we don't need much more time debunking these dangerous ideas.
Peter Schiff needs to stop talking for 5 seconds!
@Joe C
>>How do you all begin to present MMT to your circles?<<
Here is how I do it:
Other Person: We have to balance the budget!
Me: Government can spend what it wants because it makes dollars
Other Person: zOMG! Inflation!
Me: So you're saying the government is constrained by inflation, and not revenue? We are in agreement.
Just do the thought experiment; compare balanced budget to MMT (Deficit's equal non-government surpluses/savings).
(De/In)crease Taxes (In/De)crease demand (In/De)crease sales/production/employment/income/saving/consumption.
Go MMT evolutionary step by step rather than reduce/expand to the absurd extreme like loud mouthed Schiff/ettes like our brave heart anonymouse here ;)
i love it when warren asks "..my turn?" ***chuckle***
appears he had been forewarned of peter's acute social retardation & propensity to drown guests with his spittle.
@ SR
I believe that Warren encountered Schiff before when they were both running for Chris Dodd's vacated seat.
The problem with Schiff is he doesn't understand the relationships between money supply, economic output, savings/spending, and a GROSS misunderstanding of what inflation is.
Hi Guys.
MMT interest me very much hence my question below to get a deeper understanding. Please share your view.
In the interview Warren use the analogy of points scored in a foot ball game to FED increasing money supply. That it is just created and that it doesn't have to come from Taxes etc.
My simple understanding is that the points scored at the stadium (rate) is determine by the player actually kicking a goal (I'm Australian)
So the stadium can't just add another 10points to the score during the drinks break. I'm really confused.
For me money is tied to a dynamic ratio between competing goods and services consumed by humans. So it's a medium for goods and services to be exchanged with the added bonus of being able to store for future.
So simply for example, Instead of a shoe maker taking a truckload of shoes to a builder and exchange it for a house (Bata System) a common medium (money) can be used to make the transaction more practical.
500,00 shoes = $1MM ($200 per shoe)
1 house = $1MM
So if the FED all of a sudden double it's money supply then the ratio simply change to,
500,00 shoes = $2MM ($400 per shoe)
1 house = $2MM
So we can't magically create shoes or houses out of thin air because it's still tied in to finite things like Labour, Materials, Time etc..
So we can explain this as Inflation.
Above example is overly simplified but I'm confused how the above fundamental relationship is not addressed by Warren in the interview.
For me Peter still makes sense and Warren confuse me.
What am I missing out here? How can you create something out of nothing? This could be the miracle that I've been waiting for. This might just be the answer on how I could spend an infinite amount of money without ever having to earn!
Creating something out of nothing. We could apply this principal perhaps to create infinite energy, Infinite life and everything infinite. We could change the universe!
I know peter lacks common courtesy when he tend to talk over others but I think it comes from Frustration of someone going round in circles without really answering the question.
To me Warren didn't answer anything. He just went round in circles and make some poor analogies that didn't mean anything.
Would appreciate very much if someone could explain my simple mind.
Also I disagree Peter Schiff is misunderstood about Inflation. I think it's Warren who's completely in the dark.
Be more than happy to be proven wrong because that's the only way I will grow in my knowledge so thank you in advance for all your valuable thoughts and comments.
Ruwan, depends on the the cycle. If purchasing power is injected into the cycle when there are idle resources, then supply will increase to meet it without changing the price level. If purchasing power is increased at full capacity so that supply cannot expand to meet the demand increase, then inflation. Conversely if purchasing power falls under available supply, produces don't lower prices but instead cut back workers and employment rises.
Purchasing power varies based on changing relationship of desire to save or consume. Saving is demand leakage. When the private sector is net saving-delevering, then output falls unless offset by net exports rising or government deficit spending.
All countries cannot be net exporters simultaneously because the global economy is a closed system. So government will need to deficit spend in some countries to offset the demand leakage to maintain full capacity-full employment.
Ruwan, see Edward Harrison, Modern Monetary Theory for Austrians
Post a Comment