Thursday, January 31, 2019

Kevin Muir — EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT MMT (BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK)

If you read only one MacroTourist post all year, this is the one I want you to read. I think it’s that important....
Throwing in the towel.
I agree with Ben that MMT will change the type of inflation the economy experiences. I will leave it to much smarter people than I to decide if this is a good or bad thing.
In the meantime, in the coming months, quarters and years, watch for MMT to become a much larger source of change for your portfolio and trading. You might think it’s great and that the financial world could use a change. Or you might think it’s terrible and will be a disaster. Doesn’t matter what you or I think. MMT is coming. Ignoring it would be foolish.…
The cat is out of the bag, as we say in the US. Some see it instead as opening Pandora's box. Whatever, here we are. MMT has arrived!

Macro Tourist
EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT MMT (BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK)
Kevin Muir

18 comments:

Noah Way said...

"government only faces two different kinds of limitations; political restraint and full employment (which causes inflation)"

Sounds a lot like the fictitious 'natural rate of unemployment'. I'm not buying that. First, because it's never been demonstrated, and second, because taxation is the economic regulator.

Aside from that, quite good.

Andrew Anderson said...

because taxation is the economic regulator. Noah Way

Except the economy runs off bank deposits, not fiat, and since the government-privileged banks are not reserve (i.e. fiat) constrained they can replace taxed away deposits with new deposits.

And since Federal taxation destroys bank reserves, it improves their Supplemental Leverage Ratio thus allowing banks to create even MORE bank deposits than were destroyed by the taxation.

Thus Federal taxation appears to improve the relative power of the banks and the so-called credit worthy.

And that equals, for those who care about justice, a BIG FAIL.

Noah Way said...

Nationalize the banks, problem solved.

Andrew Anderson said...

Nationalizing the banks solves nothing wrt justice if the public's credit continues to be extended for private gain.

And who needs bank credit anyway since inexpensive fiat and a Citizen's Dividend allow a "loanable funds" banking model with the banks as mere brokers between individual citizen, business, etc. accounts at the Central Bank?

Konrad said...

.
“Sounds a lot like the fictitious 'natural rate of unemployment'. I'm not buying that. First, because it's never been demonstrated, and second, because taxation is the economic regulator.” ~ Noah Way

The effect of full employment was seen during World War II.

Everyone had a job and an income, but little to spend their money on, since consumer goods were rationed for the war effort. This created the threat of inflation. To deal with this threat, the US government needed to get money out of the economy.

The government did this in two ways…

[1] The government launched a mass campaign to get everyone to buy Treasury Securities called “War Bonds.” The message to “buy War Bonds” was everywhere, and Americans could buy them almost anywhere. The US government claimed that money from the sale of War Bonds was needed to “fund the war.” In reality the US government funded the war with money created out of thin air. The purpose of War Bonds was to control inflation by getting money out of circulation and keeping the money temporarily locked up as reserves.

[2] The sale of War Bonds was effective in getting money out of the economy, but not effective enough. Therefore on 21 Oct 1942 the US government imposed a quarterly “Victory Tax” on corporations. Then on 9 June 1943 the US government instituted the Personal Withholding Tax that deducted money from every paycheck of every worker. Again the government falsely told the masses that these taxes were needed to “fund the war,” when in reality the government destroyed the tax revenue upon receipt, just as the government does today

Today the Withholding Tax continues, and the government claims that the tax revenue is needed to “run the government.” It was a lie then, and it is a lie now, and still people believe it.

None of this invalidates MMT. On the contrary, it further validates MMT.

Konrad said...

“Nationalize the banks, problem solved.” ~ Noah Way

AGREED.

Unless the banks are brought under control, MMT will hurt us more than it helps us. Why?

Because the more money the government pumps into the economy, the more money the bankers can suck up as interest.

Consider places that have severe housing price inflation. If everyone’s income doubled, then housing prices would double alongside everyone’s income, and we would be no further ahead.

Western civilization went awry when the major money-lending operations ceased to be public, and became private money-lending scams. Since then, loan money created out of thin air has been used to enslave and impoverish mankind.

This (in my opinion) is what will finish the USA.

Andrew Anderson said...

AGREED. Konrad

What difference does it make WHO extends the public's credit but for private gain? It's still theft from those who can't or won't "borrow" to those who can and do.

And meanwhile, you've JUSTIFIED the entire concept of stealing from the poor to lend to the rich by putting government in charge of the theft.

And with the concept itself justified, the banks will soon claim, with a great deal of credence, that they can do the stealing more "efficiently."

Noah Way said...

Not sure how much more effective the banks can be at stealing. They already "profit" from citizens and the government, and write the regulations they want enacted. What's left to steal?

Great point on WWII, Konrad, I hadn't considered that.

FYI Nationalizing the banks would be required to effectively implement MMT.

Konrad said...

“What difference does it make WHO extends the public's credit but for private gain?”

Nationalized does not mean private gain. It means publicly owned.

You might find this web site helpful...

ttps://www.dictionary.com/

All banks should be nationalized (i.e. publicly owned) and regulated so that they don't engage in predatory lending, don't cause inflation, don't cause bubbles and crashes, and so on.

Andrew Anderson said...

Nationalized does not mean private gain. It means publicly owned. Konrad

Do you think the borrowers might obtain private gains by using the public's credit?

That's why lending should be 100% private.

Otoh, the monetary sovereign might simply distribute new fiat FOR FREE to all citizens equally for saving, consumption, investment, or lending, i.e. a Citizen's Dividend. That way, no one is cheated.

Konrad said...

"That's why lending should be 100% private."

I don't know what you mean, but if you mean that bank loans should be in the bank's own private currency, then this suggestion has its own problems. Each of the 13 original colonies had their own independent banks with their own independent currencies, and they were subject to corruption, crashes, bank runs, etc.

On 25 Feb 1791 the colonies collectively established the First Bank of the United States in Philadelphia, but it quickly became corrupt, and its 20-year charter was not renewed.

On 7 Jan 1817 the colonies (now states) established the Second Bank of the United States (also in Philadelphia) but it too became corrupt, and its 20-year charter was not renewed.

Finally in 1913 we got the Fed, which works for Wall Street, not Main Street.

All humans need to learn about the nature of banking, and how destructive banking can be when it is not properly controlled. Aspects of banking should be taught in every school, starting in elementary school.

On the other hand, if by "private banking" you mean something else, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

Andrew Anderson said...

On the other hand, if by "private banking" you mean something else, then I have no idea what you are talking about. Konrad

I've spelled it out many times here.

But basically, all citizens should be allowed debit/checking accounts at the Central Bank itself FOR FREE up to reasonable limits on account size and transactions per month and all other privileges for the banks such as government provided deposit insurance abolished.

The fundamental flaw in the US Constitution is failure to provide accounting services in its fiat for all citizens - leaving them at the mercy of private banks.

Joe said...

The author didn't mention that one sector's deficit is another's surplus. Only one picture of Kelton's tweet saying deficits raise savings. Without mentioning the sectoral balances, imo, you've missed the single most important economic idea since, well, ever. Every economic transaction ever is zero sum, I gain what you lose and vice versa. I see no indication this is widespread knowledge. Everyone wants to earn more than they spend, have their govt do the same and then castigate their fellow citizens when they can't also do the same. Completely incoherent.

Since the blog is called "Macro Tourist" maybe the balances are common knowledge among his readers.

Konrad said...

“I've spelled it out many times here.”

And you have been muddled and self-contradictory every single time. You want banks to be 100% private (whatever that means) yet you want everyone to have a checking account at the public central bank. (Do you mean the Fed? You are never clear about anything.)

“The fundamental flaw in the US Constitution is failure to provide accounting services in its fiat for all citizens - leaving them at the mercy of private banks.”

WTF? The Constitution does not have “fiat.”

“All citizens should be allowed debit/checking accounts at the Central Bank itself FOR FREE up to reasonable limits on account size and transactions per month.”

Why? Never mind. It will just be more gibberish.

“…and all other privileges for the banks such as government provided deposit insurance abolished.”

Why have any private banks at all, if you want everyone to have an account at the central bank?

Never mind. It will just be more gibberish.

Have you ever considered blogging while sober?

Just a thought.

Andrew Anderson said...

You want banks to be 100% private (whatever that means) yet you want everyone to have a checking account at the public central bank. Konrad

There's no contradiction there since central banks are public, or should be, while private banks are private, though not nearly private enough.

(Do you mean the Fed? You are never clear about anything.) Konrad

That the Central Bank in the US is the Federal Reserve System is common knowledge.

The Constitution does not have “fiat.” Konrad

"The Congress shall have Power ... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, ..." from Article 1, Section 8.

“All citizens should be allowed debit/checking accounts at the Central Bank itself FOR FREE up to reasonable limits on account size and transactions per month.” aa

Why? Never mind. It will just be more gibberish. Konrad

The economy runs off private bank deposits, not fiat. Otoh, deposits at the Central Bank ARE FIAT but only the banks may (presently) have accounts there.

So, do you wish to have to use private bank deposits when you might use your own Nation's fiat instead?

Why have any private banks at all, if you want everyone to have an account at the central bank? Konrad

To act as loan intermediaries (loan brokers) between accounts at the Central Bank.

Noah Way said...

Why do we need intermediaries? Ah, yes, of course - to needlessly suck off a living like the parasites they are.

Just like the corporations that manage student loans for the government.

Andrew Anderson said...

Well, if you like, do your own borrowing or lending directly - no intermediaries necessary.

Andrew Anderson said...

Only you won't have to compete with the ability of the banks to create purchasing power from thin-air - or, at least, not via government privilege.