Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Revenge of the Billionaire’s Tax? — Stephanie Kelton

Arguing of pay-for that are not necessary for spending. Spending and taxation are separate fiscal operations,. Ideally, each should be directed at objectives in terms of the socio-economic system taking politics into account as an expression of the will of the people, spending for public purpose to promote the general welfare and common good, and taxation to make space for public spending as well as to control inflation. Taxation can also serve to regulate the system by providing positive and negative incentives, e.g., promoting investment in green and discouraging negative externality and imbalances such as excessive inequality that creates a drag on the system. Ad hoc measures and unnecessary linkage are unlikely to be effective and will likely involves unintended consequences that are not desirable.

The Lens
Revenge of the Billionaire’s Tax?
Stephanie Kelton | Professor of Public Policy and Economics at Stony Brook University, formerly Democrats' chief economist on the staff of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and an economic adviser to the 2016 presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders


Footsoldier said...

I don't know if you guys have seen this.

But I have never seen anything like it in my life.

I used have a great respect for Mark Lavoie but this is basically 're writing the history of economic thought using lies and deceit. To hide the failings of his profession and to keep his status.

The way he frames it and his narrative is a complete bullshit.

What a narcissistic lying prick !


Footsoldier said...

The way Lavoie frames the presentation and his narrative against MMT to rewrite recent economic theory is criminal.

The "we knew all along" pitch right the way through the presentation makes you wanna puke.

Matt Franko said...


An understanding that Accounting abstractions are not real is not very profound knowledge…

Which is pretty much all what MMT is …

This might be what this guys basic point is…

Footsoldier said...

Did you watch it Matt ?

The whole episode on banks and the central bank. They never knew any of it even in the presentation they had the years 2015 and 2016 of when they knew how banks worked. They believed the loadable funds view and the money multiplier.

It was MMT that taught them about the banks. They didn't even have banks in their models.We knew how it all worked years before 2015.

Bills blog started in 2009.

They listed the PK view half of which they never knew until MMT'rs came along. As if they knew and it was the common view. It wasn't.

That was bad enough.

Then say how is MMT different to us. Then use Joe at Bloomberg in a bitter and twisted way to say MMT says nothing new. The mid represent what MMT'rs say without quoting one MMT economist.

He twisted Joe's words at Bloomberg to fit his narrative. The narrative of they knew all along.

They never knew and never saw 2008 because of it and thought QE would be inflationary and interest rates would rise because of larger deficits. The list of what they didn't know was big but now claim it was always the PK view.

It was outrageous Matt what he did.

I've seen it all before from Palley and Krugman but never respected them one inch. But from Lavoie of all people who I did have respect for because of his stock flow consistent models.

To lie like that and frame it the way he did.


Footsoldier said...

That was a complete fairy tale he presented there Matt.

Showed no respect to MMT economists.

This quote

" An understanding that Accounting abstractions are not real is not very profound knowledge…"

That's all well and good in hindsight after the years have passed by to say that now. But nobody would be looking at the government accounts, commercial bank accounts and central bank they way everybody is looking at them now without Mosler Matt.

There is absolutely no way Matt anybody could analyse what central banks do right now with their gymnastics and freakery without Mosler and what he taught.

Even now when the FED does something people can't figure it out. What Mosler taught everybody helps them to figure it out in the end.

That is the crux of it. Never mind all the other stuff PK get wrong.

That was in the 1990's

Lavoie acted as if Mosler never existed and PK knew everything that's after they've shared a platform together in Canada. I watched the presentation they did together.

Lavoie was being cruel and obtuse . He knew it when he wrote that presentation Matt.

Footsoldier said...

It's like you buy the guys books gain respect for a person and really be is just a prick like Krugman.

Protecting their status in the world bullshit.

His books will be leaving my house pronto. Tomorrow morning they are out of here.

Footsoldier said...

Even the bit at the end Matt.

He says these 6 myths are no longer accepted because of promotion by MMT via social media. These myths were not PK myths but neoclassical myths.

Which was absolute bull shit Matt.

Simon Wren Lewis and Krugman believed everyone of these 6 myths and still do today. They all believed them.

Outrageous !

Robbrian said...

99% of Americans believe those myths. And every time a prominent academic, journalist or politician demands to know how legislated appropriations will be 'paid for' reinforces the fraud, the myth.

Matt Franko said...


They are not “myths!”… they are theses… here we go with the “myth!” again..

The Art degree side of the academe works this way… dialogic exchanges between sects that eventually lead to a synthesis of the two sects theses …

This is textbook Socrates/Plato 101…

So the MMT sect is a synthesis and has some of the post Keynesian sect thesis in it (PK predates MMT) so it’s easy for post Keynesian sectarians to point out that the MMT sect has some of their PK sects thesis in it…

It’s like if you were in the Roman Catholic Church your whole life and you visited a Protestant church and you would say “hey! their “service” is is the same as our “mass”!”…. Luther synthesized his antithesis with the preceding Roman Catholic thesis..,

In the Art degree methodology the antithesis to your thesis is not a “myth!”… it’s simply an antithesis which eventually your thesis will synthesize with to form an entirely new thesis.,,

Perhaps you have a point that this guy shouldn’t be so surprised a new theses has some of a preceding thesis in it…

But otherwise this looks like normal Art degree people behavior to me… this is what they are trained to do…

Matt Franko said...


Here is a chronicle of better art degree form:


Brian Wilson vs Paul McCartney…

I get your point that this is probably bad Art degree form from this French Art degree dude ..

Peter Pan said...

Revenge of the nerds, Foot... they have no shame.

NeilW said...

The PKers are getting tetchy. We have the same in the UK.

You can always tell when some character talks about MMT as though they "knew it all along". They will never mention the Job Guarantee and what it does.

And if they don't mention that, then they have missed the 'missing macroeconomic equation' that MMT highlights - which is where the additional output MMT can provide lives.

The problem with nearly all economists is that they are obsessed with interest rates. And if your only tool is an interest rate then everything looks like a bank loan.

It would help if they moved beyond "Treatise on Money".

Matt Franko said...

“ The problem with nearly all economists is that they are obsessed with interest rates.”

This is interesting Neil in contrast the young people today have not known anything in their adult lives but ZIRP…

Their cryptos don’t pay interest …

This current whining “stagflation!” thesis from the geriatric dinosaur boomers on their way out on their last legs might be high interest rates last stand…