tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post1301128070917532856..comments2024-03-18T19:09:18.510-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Tim Worstall — The Problem With Modern Monetary Theory – Explained For Children So MMT Enthusiasts Can Understandmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger141125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-26368163885714265652019-01-03T17:40:25.963-05:002019-01-03T17:40:25.963-05:00Egmont, this excellent article shows why profit ca...Egmont, this excellent article shows why profit can be bad and what policies are needed to deal w it and why. You should love it. What are you doing to support what your research says are good ideas? (now lets watch as Eg attacks an.article that he should support)https://medium.com/radical-urbanist/basic-income-isnt-the-solution-it-s-a-band-aid-on-a-broken-system-eb7896e2ca15Clint Ballingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484643778860969972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-616044917627748652018-12-31T09:23:23.035-05:002018-12-31T09:23:23.035-05:00Economics is out of science. Economics is politica...Economics is out of science. Economics is political agenda pushing. Economic academics are scientifically incompetent (look in the mirror). Economists deceive the general public about the ultimate effects of their policy on distribution. Economic policy is not progressive as claimed, i.e. for the benefit of the ninety-nine-percenters, but for the benefit of the one-percenters.<br /><br />There, fixed it for you. <br /><br />Egmont, you haven't proven anything except impenetrably dense and obnoxiously persistent.Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22175875274234784952018-12-31T04:58:14.821-05:002018-12-31T04:58:14.821-05:00Noah Way, Clint Ballinger, Bob Roddis, etcetera
L...Noah Way, Clint Ballinger, Bob Roddis, etcetera<br /><br />Let’s sum up before 2018 ― the year when MMT was refuted on all counts ― ends. MMT is materially and formally inconsistent. The arguments of all sides are before everyone’s eyes for evaluation.<br /><br />It has been proven:<br />• MMT is bad science,<br />• MMT is bad policy,<br />• MMTers are bad people.<br /><br />MMT is out of science. MMT is political agenda pushing. MMT academics are scientifically incompetent. MMTers deceive the general public about the ultimate effects of their policy on distribution. MMT policy is not progressive as claimed, i.e. for the benefit of the ninety-nine-percenters, but for the benefit of the one-percenters.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-2167808315152008252018-12-31T04:38:57.445-05:002018-12-31T04:38:57.445-05:00Btw, low interest rates in fiat would be undeniabl...Btw, low interest rates in fiat would be undeniably good but for HOW they are produced:<br /><br />BAD WAY TO PRODUCE LOW INTEREST RATES IN FIAT:<br />Largely limit fiat use to depository institutions via government privileges for bank deposits - hence greatly reducing the DEMAND for fiat.<br /><br />GOOD WAY TO PRODUCE LOW INTEREST RATES IN FIAT:<br />1) Maximize the citizens' DEMAND for fiat by allowing them to have accounts at the Central Bank or Treasury itself and by eliminating all other privileges for depository institutions. By itself, this would greatly INCREASE interest rates in fiat.<br />2) All fiat creation beyond normal deficit spending by the monetary sovereign shall be via equal fiat distributions to all citizens to their individual citizen accounts at the Central Bank or Treasury.<br />3) Negative interest to be applied to individual citizen accounts at the CB or Treasury above a certain limit to encourage citizens to lend and invest once their own legitimate risk-free liquidity and savings needs have been met.<br />4) Negative interest to be applied to all other private sector accounts at the CB or Treasury since these have no inherent right to use fiat for free. This shall also encourage lending and thus lower interest rates.<br /><br />The above SHOULD satisfy the Austrians since it does not violate equal protection under the law when low interest rates are produced.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-57400592445332483952018-12-31T02:59:07.369-05:002018-12-31T02:59:07.369-05:00•pro gov money•pro gov moneyClint Ballingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484643778860969972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-13103500592609604382018-12-31T00:03:54.453-05:002018-12-31T00:03:54.453-05:00Andrew, I only have time to skim at the moment, bu...Andrew, I only have time to skim at the moment, but I came to all this from a money/anti-bank background. Irving Fisher , Steve Keen etc were big in my development. Some of my posts explore those issues. I think you would find much of interest. Cheers 😊 Clint Ballingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484643778860969972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-40206243231082857952018-12-30T22:32:34.214-05:002018-12-30T22:32:34.214-05:00Correction:
Yes, the liabilities of the banks tow...Correction:<br /><br />Yes, the liabilities of the banks toward the non-bank private sector are a shame but I meant to say "sham." Pardon me, please.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-42177010243651745672018-12-30T22:06:13.504-05:002018-12-30T22:06:13.504-05:00Moreover, with 100% private banks with 100% volunt...Moreover, with 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors, we should not care if a single bank or EVERY bank failed since they would no longer hold the economy hostage via a single payment system (besides physical fiat, aka "cash") that must work through them.<br /><br />Instead, an additional, always liquid, inherently risk-free payment system consisting of individual citizen, business, industry, State and local government, etc. accounts at the Central Bank would allow the economy to carry on regardless.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-48726740300495111242018-12-30T21:49:41.929-05:002018-12-30T21:49:41.929-05:00Clint,
Warren Mosler's assertion The hard les...Clint,<br /><br />Warren Mosler's assertion <i>The hard lesson of banking history is that the liability side of banking is not the place for market discipline.</i> is false since the following conditions, at least, for banks to be 100% private with 100% voluntary depositors have never existed at the same time:<br /><br />1) Inexpensive fiat ONLY so that all citizens may use it.<br />2) All citizens may have checking/debit(later development) accounts at the Treasury or Central Bank itself. Why should citizens be limited to mere physical fiat?<br />3) Sufficient spending or equal fiat distributions to all citizens by the monetary sovereign to preclude price deflation - an obvious duty given how detrimental risk-free rewards from fiat hoarding are to economic progress (Mathew 25:14-30). Note that fiat distributions don't require big government but only inexpensive fiat and accounting.<br />4) Since the debt of a monetary sovereign is inherently risk-free, it should yield no more than 0% MINUS overhead costs and that's for the longest maturity sovereign debt with shorter maturities costing more and fiat itself costing the most* (most negative interest).<br />5) No lender or asset buyer of last resort.<br />6) No government provided deposit insurance or other privileges for the banks.<br /><br />Hence the liabilities of the banks toward the non-bank private sector have always been a shame and hence genuine liabilities cannot be said to have failed.<br /><br />Indeed, the hard lesson of banking history for Mr. Mosler is that monetarily sovereign governments have NEVER needed banks but that banks have always enjoyed explicit or implicit privileges from monetarily sovereign governments.<br /><br />*Not withstanding that citizens have an inherent right to use their Nation's fiat FOR FREE up to a reasonable account limit since some risk-free liquidity and savings are legitimate.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-1354522679032540612018-12-30T21:02:11.371-05:002018-12-30T21:02:11.371-05:00Andrew - scroll back through my old blog On good u...Andrew - scroll back through my old blog <a href="http://clintballinger.edublogs.org/" rel="nofollow">On good urbanism, sane economics, & problems in the social sciences</a> and you will see what I think about banks, banking, money etcClint Ballingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484643778860969972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-65685174045810841212018-12-30T20:58:38.216-05:002018-12-30T20:58:38.216-05:00Egmont – Coase set out the Theory of the Firm in 1...Egmont – Coase set out the Theory of the Firm in 1937. Probably at least six decades before your trivial thoughts. It and the ideas around/after it encompass your idea of the “whole economy as one firm” and much much more. Just the wikipedia entry on it alone is more meaningful than your entire AXEC project in its entirety. <br />You waste your time .You should listen to others and try to expand your ideas on profit. There is a grain of something interesting there, which is why I bother at all. But you refuse to develop the interesting bits.Clint Ballingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484643778860969972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-22383814494966408702018-12-30T20:45:35.825-05:002018-12-30T20:45:35.825-05:00Noah Way
You say: “Newton’s Laws are not axioms. ...Noah Way<br /><br />You say: “Newton’s Laws are not axioms. They were theories that became laws because they have been supported by rigorous and repeated testing.”<br /><br />Good, lets put methodology aside and have an experimentum crucis. This is my challenge to MMTers, refute this empirically:<br />False (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 MMT,<br />true (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Qm−Yd)=0 AXEC.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-25953796866629379692018-12-30T20:38:25.736-05:002018-12-30T20:38:25.736-05:00Roddis wrote “No taxes means no tax credits. Furth...Roddis wrote “No taxes means no tax credits. Further, what business is it of the government to swipe someone's gold or to infringe upon their right to exchange it? “<br /><br />Bob – 1) I didn't say anything about “no taxes”. Yes, there would be tax, so yes, the unit of account is tax-credits. <br /><br />2) No one said anything about taking gold. You can buy all the gold you want. And no one is taking your gold. And you can exchange gold you want. <br />And no, gold in a safe does not earn interest. Nor should tax credits. The gov should not prop up interest rates. And yes, you are confusing the market rate of investment w the base rate of currency. Clint Ballingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484643778860969972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84782192441451787552018-12-30T19:04:35.111-05:002018-12-30T19:04:35.111-05:00Newton's Laws are not axioms. They were theori...Newton's Laws are not axioms. They were theories that became laws because they have been supported by rigorous and repeated testing. <br /><br />Once again (repeated for those slow of wit): science deals with the physical world, not abstract artificial constructs such as economics. <br /><br />Social science is an oxymoron. You on the other hand are just a moron.Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-55916167395376075492018-12-30T18:36:37.421-05:002018-12-30T18:36:37.421-05:00Noah Way
Ask you scientific gutter buddy Bob Rodd...Noah Way<br /><br />Ask you scientific gutter buddy Bob Roddis, even the Austrians apply axiomatization: “The action-axiom is the basis of praxeology in the Austrian School, and it is the proposition that all specimens of the species Homo sapiens, the Homo agens, purposely utilize means over a period of time in order to achieve desired ends.”#1<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 Wikipedia, Action axiom<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_axiomAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-60721735036551938352018-12-30T18:12:03.786-05:002018-12-30T18:12:03.786-05:00Noah Way
You say: “Axioms only apply to logic and...Noah Way<br /><br />You say: “Axioms only apply to logic and mathematics. As such science does not have any axioms.”<br /><br />You are dumb as a bag of hammers. Newton’s Principia starts with the famous 'Axioms, or the Laws of motion'.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-82667539079151008592018-12-30T17:32:52.505-05:002018-12-30T17:32:52.505-05:00Axioms only apply to logic and mathematics. As suc...Axioms only apply to logic and mathematics. As such science does not have any axioms. <br /><br />The primary point is that the context here - economics and the mathematical universe - are completely contrived and only exist in the imagination. They are simply fabrications of the mind that require no link to the real world.<br /><br />So what <b>Egmont</b> is stating is his own hypothesis, the principle (and seemingly only) point of which is that all other hypotheses are wrong. What's hilarious is that this is undoubtedly true for Egmont's economic theories (as well as others), but not for any of the reasons Egmont states. <br /><br />Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-62841900248466842232018-12-30T17:08:51.133-05:002018-12-30T17:08:51.133-05:00FYI Bob, Murray Rothbard said bank runs were GOOD ...FYI Bob, Murray Rothbard said bank runs were GOOD since they keep banks honest.<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />Then why wouldn't you want bank runs to be as safe and convenient as possible and not require the citizens to make dangerous physical fiat withdrawals when they might instead simply transfer deposits from commercial banks, credit unions, etc. to their inherently risk-free accounts at the Central Bank or Treasury via check or debit card?Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-24528703002633020062018-12-30T15:32:13.623-05:002018-12-30T15:32:13.623-05:00Bob Roddis
You say: “Your statements are nothing ...Bob Roddis<br /><br />You say: “Your statements are nothing but a proposed model, a model that has no relationship to reality and which is not helpful in understanding reality. Your model is certainly is not ‘axiomatic’.”<br /><br />My guess is that you have looked up the word axiom five minutes ago in some folk encyclopedia.<br /><br />I am not going to explain the relationship between a set of economic axioms, a model, and reality to a hopeless Austrian blatherer. All the more so because this information has been made publicly available long ago.#1, #2, #3, #4, #5<br /><br />Axiomatization is the first step of any scientific analysis: “The attempt is made to collect all the assumptions, which are needed, but no more, to form the apex of the system. They are usually called the ‘axioms’ (or ‘postulates’, or ‘primitive propositions’; …). The axioms are chosen in such a way that all the other statements belonging to the theoretical system can be derived from the axioms by purely logical or mathematical transformations.” (Popper)<br /><br />Needless to emphasize, that “statements belonging to the theoretical system” must be empirically testable.<br /><br />Economics has to be built upon clearly stated premises, i.e. upon a set of axioms.<br /><br />By the way, what are your axioms? You have none! Yeah, soapbox economists just blather off-the-cuff and need no bloody axioms.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 True macrofoundations: the reset of economics<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/05/true-macrofoundations-reset-of-economics.html<br /><br />#2 How to restart economics<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2016/01/how-to-restart-economics.html<br /><br />#3 Don Lars and the axiomatic windmill<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/07/don-lars-and-axiomatic-windmill.html<br /><br />#4 AXEC blogspot, Axioms<br />https://www.axec.org/axioms<br /><br />#5 Wikimedia, New Foundations of Economics<br />https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AXEC137.pngAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7038996288183678172018-12-30T13:29:00.835-05:002018-12-30T13:29:00.835-05:00Bob Roddis
You quote: “Indeed, the Profit Law tel...Bob Roddis<br /><br />You quote: “Indeed, the Profit Law tells one in no uncertain terms that the market economy will eventually break down BECAUSE of macroeconomic losses.” and exclaim: “That allegation is totally baseless and a bunch of nonsense.”<br /><br />Let us reduce the Macroeconomic Profit/Loss Law, in short, the Profit Law, to Qm=I−Sm. This equation says, as long as the business sector’s investment expenditures I are greater than the household sector’s saving Sm, the monetary profit of the business sector Qm is positive. If the growth of the capital stock, expressed by I, slows down, macroeconomic profit falls and may even turn negative, i.e. become a loss. This means, firms break down, unemployment increases, and the banking system has to write down debt, which, in turn, may lead to a banking crisis. The process is self-reinforcing and if this lasts longer, the economy breaks down. Every recession gives you a foretaste of what happens if the algebraic sign of Qm switches from positive to negative.<br /><br />So, roughly speaking, if growth ends, that is, if I goes to zero, the market economy will break down. This is NOT a “baseless allegation” but follows straight from the Profit Law which consists of measurable variables and is therefore testable. Your problem is that you do not know how the economy works and what science is. This you have in common with Clint Ballinger and Noah Way.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-28768644225789003032018-12-30T12:06:00.137-05:002018-12-30T12:06:00.137-05:00This is the result of an artificial increase in cr...<i>This is the result of an artificial increase in credit over the amount and direction of voluntary lending of actual savings of the lenders which artificially lowered interest rates and raised prices and apparent wealth in an unsustainable configuration.</i> Bob Roddis<br /><br />Certainly, the Central Bank should not buy from, lend to, pay interest to or in any other way create fiat for the private sector - in order to not violate equal protection under the law.<br /><br />However, if you really want to protect savers, it makes no sense to force citizens to use one bank, credit union, or another or else be limited to mere physical fiat, coins and bills, since that vastly increases the ability of banks, etc. to safely (for them) create new bank deposits.<br /><br />Instead, you would want to make bank runs as convenient and safe as possible by allowing all citizens, at least, to have fiat checking or debit accounts at the Central Bank or Treasury itself so bank runs would not have to involve personally dangerous physical fiat withdrawal.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-31138195578195145632018-12-30T10:54:06.762-05:002018-12-30T10:54:06.762-05:00I reinvent nothing but start axiomatically with (i...<i>I reinvent nothing but start axiomatically with (i) there exists a household and a business sector, (ii) the household sector consists of households, (iii) the business sector consists of firms, (iv) at the beginning, the business sector consists of one giant firm.</i><br /><br />Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.<br /><br />Your statements are nothing but a proposed model, a model that has no relationship to reality and which is not helpful in understanding reality. Your model is certainly is not "axiomatic".Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32379057257478015772018-12-30T10:51:30.296-05:002018-12-30T10:51:30.296-05:00Indeed, the Profit Law tells one in no uncertain t...<i>Indeed, the Profit Law tells one in no uncertain terms that the market economy will eventually break down BECAUSE of macroeconomic losses.#2</i><br /><br />That allegation is totally baseless and a bunch of nonsense. There are no facts or evidence from the real world to support it. Therefore......<br /><br /><i>There is nothing to argue about here</i>Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-62637473697304441672018-12-30T10:45:14.664-05:002018-12-30T10:45:14.664-05:00Surprise, surprise. Egmont proves his point once a...Surprise, surprise. Egmont proves his point once again with insults and utter nonsense.<br /><br />Economics is nor science. The pseudoscience of economics (a.k.a. the silly science) is based on an artificial construct that does not act according to physical laws but rather to the ever-changing (dynamically, intentionally, accidentally) social context that defines it. <br /><br />Egmont would undoubtedly have more success if he focused on mathematical equations defining the emotions of love and hate. Or not.Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83590282211118212172018-12-30T05:20:02.377-05:002018-12-30T05:20:02.377-05:00The natural rate of interest for the unit of accou...<i>The natural rate of interest for the unit of account (whether gold or tax credits) is zero;</i> Clint Ballinger<br /><br />How can the natural interest rate of fiat be 0% when the demand for fiat is artificially suppressed in that only depository institutions, i.e. "the banks", can use fiat in safe, inherently risk-free, convenient account form at the Central Bank? While citizens are limited to unhygienic, subject to theft and robbery, totally inadequate for modern commerce, physical fiat, aka "cash?"<br /><br />Or are government privileges for banks your definition of natural, Clint?Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.com