In individuals, there is a medical disorder characterized by abnormally low body weight, distorted perceptions, and an intense fear of getting heavier. Unfortunately, in the public sphere we have the Economic Anorexics, who call for fiscal restraint, claiming the debt load is too much to bear, even though the economic body wastes away for lack of spending sustenance!
Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government's Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939. Its proceedings cover 850 pages. (Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence Respecting the Bank of Canada, Ottawa, J.O. Patenaude, I.S.O., Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1939.) Most of the evidence quoted was the result of interrogation by Mr. “Gerry” McGeer, K.C., a former mayor of Vancouver, who clearly understood the essentials of central banking. Here are a few excerpts:
Q. So far as war is concerned, to defend the integrity of the nation, there will be no difficulty in raising the means of financing, whatever those requirements may be?
Mr. Towers: The limit of the possibilities depends on men and materials.
Q. And where you have an abundance of men and materials, you have no difficulty, under our present banking system, in putting forth the medium of exchange that is necessary to put the men and materials to work in defence of the realm?
Mr. Towers: That is right. (p. 649)
***
Q. Would you admit that anything physically possible and desirable, can be made financially possible?
"One of the great truths of fighting wars of survival like World War II is that national leaders discover MMT even if the priestly class of economists yammers on about the terror of deficits and sovereign debt. No UK leader would respond to a German invasion by saying: “Sadly, we’re ‘out of money’ because we’re already running a deficit and our sovereign debt to GDP ratio is high – so I’ve ordered our troops to lay down their arms and surrender.”
Notice the lack of a financial footnote in Winston Churchill’s famous speech on June 4, 1040 to the House of Commons about the military disaster in France, the hard-won miracle of Dunkirk, and the prospect of a German invasion.
***
His entire speech says not a word about financial constraints. His speech is filled with discussions of real resources, particularly limitations in those resources and how the government was working urgently to provide the monumental increases in real resources required for national survival. There is no footnote saying “we shall never surrender”* (*“until we ‘run out of money’”). Nations with sovereign currencies faced with threats to survival discover within hours that their problem is not “running out of money” but running out of bullets."
Of course - there are not enough real assets for that amount of money to purchase. The government should not hand out million dollar cheques but should rather implement a true full employment policy and spend in a targeted way to ensure anyone who wants to work has a job opportunity to earn income and contribute to society.
Alan Greenspan: "I wouldn't say the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure in the sense that there is nothing to prevent the Federal Government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase?"
If the government gave everybody $1 million ferrari would make enough cars so that everyone who wanted to spend their million on a Ferrari could buy one so there would be enough assets for that amount of money to purchase.
why are you changing the subject? Why are you afraid to answer the question? For the third time do you think the government should give everyone $1 million so that everyone can be rich?
If you understood the concept, you could answer the question yourself. For the last time, "The limit of the possibilities depends on men and materials." Cheers and goodbye.
I've been aware of that guy for over a decade. He's an economic writer, not a real economist. He is a total partisan hack. He is slippery though and can make an effective debater.
Kick his MOFO ass Stephanie!! Concede nothing! I remain a staunch advocate for DNC to write MMT into the Democratic platform narrative. Peaceful Blue Revolution now as oaths we have taken; past time we fulfill them!!
It would mean there was an MMT( magic money tree) so the left could pay for Medicare for all, universal basic income, free college etc. and not have to trouble greedy taxpayers for their money!
Considering neolibs did an unfriendly takeover of the party over 40 years ago, then ditched the New Deal (including finance regs) and abandoned the majority working class, count me a skeptic. I know because at the time I was a rank and file blue collar union activist and a local D campaign mgr. who fought them. Plus I've read in depth pol and econ data confirming my experiences.
Among the results of their corporate lite policies, to be expected given their corporate heavy campaign contributions, was the '08 crash. Of course they bailed out the Wall St. vultures. For the working people who lost jobs, pensions, homes? Nothing!
As for "Peaceful Blue..." I suggest you read Les Leopold's 2024 book //Wall Street's War on Workers (How Mass Layoffs and Greed Are Destroying the Working Class and What to Do about It)//. Stock buybacks, which benefit only CEOs and their bankster allies, are financed by mass layoffs. Leopold begged the D party elite to use this issue, a likely winner. Nope.
Also re: "Peaceful" as not going with "Blue"--Biden's Dept. of State was openly run by neocons trained by Dick Cheney. Why do you think he endorsed Harris? For the last 125 years the R party hasn't objected to self -serving, narcissistic advocates of plutocracy and trickle up economics. More likely Cheney didn't see loose cannon Trump as reliable for the neocon PNAC agenda; a unipolar world, economic empire backed up by military might.
Besides, having been to my share of political conventions, I know party platform planks are there mostly to mollify various constituencies. The elite controlling the party very seldom has any intent of follow through. Especially when some plank offends their corporate and 1%er donors They'd never say, as FDR did in Oct. 1936 about banksters, war profiteers, Wall St. speculators et. al. "I welcome their hatred!"
My eyes remain wide open. I’m a geopolitical strategist and 30 year veteran and very much appreciate your POV as I believe it’s f’n accurate. Danke shurn!
They didn't bail out Wall street. Many firm went bankrupt and others were given loans that were paid back with interest. Had govt not stepped in the to help solve the problem it alone created there would have been a huge depression with total economic collapse.
Further, govt bails out millions of failed individual everyday with various welfare programs. They never pay back a penny. Notice how you want to pretend there is no welfare so you can demand even more welfare is needed?
good luck. i am on your side. but...and i know this may not be the time to bring up cautions about mmt, but just in case the other guy brings them up, here are mine:
whether the lens of mmt will prevent the same people in congress who lie about the deficit...prevent them from just using mmt money to enrich their friends while continuing to ignore the poor.
whether the people who favor mmt are just hoping for unlimited free money to save them from having to be prudent in their own personal spending, or national spending on "welfare for all" causes. i am especially concerned about your apparent belief that mmt can pay for Social Security which...if DOGE doesn't kill it by "denial of service" and lies about "fraud," and claims about "ponzi scheme"...SS depends on being worker-paid for it's survival. MMT is a good answer to the deficit lie. It may not be any answer at all for ordinary personal spending.
you already have close experience with stubborn stupidity in members of Congress, not to mention bold face lies. i expect you will see more of that than any questions about my concerns, but it might be a good idea to have some good answers ready.
Good for you, your reservations are well founded! Nothing could be more wasteful than sleazy politicians cut loose from the discipline of spending taxpayers' hard earned money and instead spending freely from the magic money tree.
i don't know what you mean. with an auto loan the bank gives you money and then you pay it back with interest. with a treasury you give treasury money and then they pay you back with interest. of ocurse you can't repossess their car. with mmt as i understand it so far, treasury can print money but they can't expect people or other countries to lend them dollars, or want our dollars if dollars won't buy as much tomorrow as they would today.
And if those dollars buy twice as much as they did the day before a 50% Discount/Rebate policy was enacted???
Also, the US doesn't need anyone else's money because they are monetarily sovereign, and if the potential demand for every enterprise's goods and services is doubled by the above policy don't you think that investors in the US and abroad would want to create production here???
In the auto loan simile, the Government is like a car buyer going to banks (private sector dollar holders) to borrow dollars to enable the Government to spend money to buy something. MMT says that the Government creates dollars from nothing and therefore doesn’t need to borrow them in order to spend money on cars or anything else. Therefore treasury certificates are not like car loans.
In the savings certificate simile, the Federal Reserve is like a bank that offers its customers savings certificates as an inducement to keep their money in it. The Fed is a bank that has access to all the dollars it wants (because it creates them from nothing) and whose customers are other banks who already have reserve dollars at the Fed, otherwise they couldn’t buy the Treasuries. The Fed offers them interest paying treasury certificates in a misguided attempt to control the economy by controlling the money supply through quantitative easing (buying treasuries and increasing reserve dollars) and quantitative tightening (selling treasuries and decreasing reserve dollars). MMT says this doesn’t work. The Fed doesn’t have a “faucet” to control private sector spending. Therefore, since Treasuries are sold by the Fed to people who already have Dollars, they’re like a bank offering a savings certificate.
Both similes rest on the MMT insight that government spending doesn’t have to be balanced by taxes and borrowing. Treasury is required to balance its books by regulation not by necessity.
Tom, thanks. I'll try to thinkabout this. Later. Right now I think MMT can create money up to a point. That money can stimulate productivity, So far so good. Even better, it stops the Deficit lie. But I think there is danger in expeting to solve all our Political and Money problems.
Thats because MMT doesn't have the paradigm changing policies of a 50% Discount/Rebate at retail sale, a reflective 50% Discount/Rebate at the retail point of the banks' loan to you, that is, your loan payment and the same regarding your insurance premium payment.
If they'd do that they'd be able to create the greatest socio-economic and political mass movement for the new monetary paradigm that the country and world has ever seen.
Don't be silly; there is no free lunch. Improvements in standards of living from the Stone Age to here came from the supply of new inventions, obviously. Unless you have a new invention you can shuffle papers and change monetary and fiscal rules rules all you want but it won't help one tiny bit.
"there is no free lunch" Congratulations, a succinct analysis of the actual deepest economic problem.
Banks create money with the incredibly powerful temporal universe reality achoring tool man has probably ever created, namely double entry bookkeeping. If the terminally orthodox dumb shits like yourself, and even the most erudite but 6000 year old acculturated to the present monetary paradigm of Debt Only like Steve Keen and Stephanie realized that, by using that same tool, strategically creating new money as a gifted reality at retail sale, they could break up that monopoly paradigm, end inflation forever and bequeath abundant demand upon virtually everyone.
MMT is not something you do or don't do. It is a description of how fiat monetary systems operate. "MMT" doesn't create anything. You should study MMT a bit before making all these comments. You don't seem to understand it at all.
if this is addressed to me, i have "studied" [read carefully] Kelton's book and some stuff by william mitchell, and lots of stuff by mmt-ers on line. so i think i know what i am talking about...what they are talking about. "create money" is the most accurate way i know of saying what the mmt "lens" wants the government to do. i understand that banks and all modern governments with "sovereign currency" already do that....except that they call it "debt." i could be wrong, that's why i pose my thoughts as questions. you do not present any answers at all, just make an assertion that sounds meant to insult.
Well, lets remember, Kelton is a socialist and her hope is that by freeing politicians from having to spend taxpayers' hard earned money they will be able to spend freely on more new, crippling welfare programs.
She got a little traction from Bernie Sanders before Biden's Covid inflation sunk her. She used to say " I think there is room for further monetary expansion". Now we have relearned again that we are already spending all we can and inflation is waiting at the door for the tiniest slip up.
i think i understand (mostly) Treasuries and a..uto loans, but from the point of view of the same person, an auto loan is him borrowing from the bank, and a Treasury is the government borrowing from him, which seems to me to be the disinction you are making above...except that you seem (to me) to be arguing that government does not need to borrow. i would think it would still need to keep track of the money "created" : how much and what it was spent for. all of which makes me think i undertand mmt better than i understnd what you said.
Hi, Dale. Sorry to take so long to reply. A Treasury security is not the government borrowing from a person. It's the government offering to pay people interest on Dollars they already have. The government doesn't need to borrow because it creates all the money that it needs to execute government spending. I liken Treasury securities to a bank savings certificate, because although we buy a note from the bank we don't think of the bank as borrowing from us. Rather when we buy their note it's like a type of savings account for us. Maybe it's a poor analogy, because the bank could be seen as borrowing our money, too.
thanks for the reply. in some ways late is better than soon. gives my neurons to quiet down from the fight.
i would need to know more about the whole bond picture before i could really understand what you are saying. but here is where i am now:
i think i understand kelton and mmt generally. as she says it's a "lens" for looking at national debt, as she also says it is both limited in what it can do and "policy neutral." that is "money" however created, cannot exceed "resources" and there is no guarantee that ven mmt money will ot be spent to make the rich richer while doing nothing for the rest of us.
later in her book, she seems to forget this...saying that mmt can pay for Social Security. i think it can't. SS is too big to just "create" money to pay for it. currently it is paid for by the workers themselves, who create value while working, then defer the consumption their work has earned them the right to demand, "saving" it for the day when they will need it more...when they are too old to work [or want to work] or disabled. please note that resources saved = resources demanded. actually, resources demanded later can be more than the resources saved because of something called "interest" which is a way savers can demand more than they saved because borrowers are willing to pay more for being able to use the money now (use the money translates as "demand resources.
i am not sure Kelton understands this, or that SS may be too big..and moreover works because it is worker paid and not welfare. i am not sure she understands that the money can be used for purposes she and i do not like, and that who gets it will be decided by the people who decide who gets it today. only instead of crying "the debt! the debt!" they will cry "the inflation! the inflation!".
maybe worse, her followers seem to believe that mmt will pay for everything they want without them having to work to earn it. i do not think mmy is desiggned or intended to work this way. we stil have to work to earn our daily bread and pay taxes to pay for what government does best..includinng providing welfare for those in need..who might one day be us.
sorry if this is too long. just trying to provide a base. as for interest on treasuries, i understand there is some mystery (for most of us) in ow that works. but i think that in the first case, it's simply the government paying interest for using our money to pay for things they are not ready to tax for. no problem there. as for what the government "pays itself" i would bet there is a good reason for that. maybe just a way of keeping track, maybe just a way of keeping people who believe conventional ideas about debt confident that no one is doing anything "unsound"--though we may have lost that confidence lately. i think..just a little magical thinking on my part... that the government pays itself interest for the same reason we "pay ourselves interest" when we buy a bond, deferring present consumption in order to pay for the right to greater consumption later. hope that makes sense. i am thiking of the famous cartoon of Uncle Sam furiously borrowing from one pocket to pay the other pocket. the cartoon was always a lie. uncles sam is not one person but 200 million people who do borrow from each other and lend to each other, and that is what makes the world go round.
this is exactly what mmt is describing, though making it more clear, and it is exactly what all government do, even while they tell themselves that debt is evil. [which it can be if you are not borrowing from "yourself": not a good idea to borrow from a bank, the mafia, or a another country that can demand payment in various ways in a currency that has not lost its value.
i'd be glad to be instructed by you if i am wrong, but i would not expect you to take the time.
Hi Ted. Sorry I took so long to reply. The US Government doesn't need to sell Treasuries in order to spend because it creates the currency. Certainly US Government spending won't collapse if no Treasury securities are sold, because it creates the currency. So it could reduce the federal funds rate to zero, and that would become the risk-free interest rate instead of 5% or whatever it is now. All other interest rates on Dollar denominated loans would then be zero% plus a risk premium. A zero rate Treasury would still be valuable as a kind of guaranteed dollar holding for large dollar amounts that a person has that exceed federal deposit insurance. But an easier way to insure dollar accounts would be to take off the dollar limit and have the federal government guarantee all deposits at federally chartered banks. Then restrict what banks can make loans for. That's Warren Mosler's proposal as I understand it. See "https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-Natural-Rate-of-Interest-is-Zero.pdf"
Hi Tom, thanks for responding. The government does need to sell treasuries because they create an obligation to pay the money back and therefore to spend it wisely so they are able to pay it back. if you print money you don't care how it is spent .If you borrow money you care a great deal in order to avoid debtors prison or the modern equivalent.
Thanks for your comment about borrowing and spending wisely. If I’m getting your point right, it’s that an entity must wisely use the money it borrows so that it makes more money in order to be able to pay back the loan. If it can’t pay back its loans it goes bankrupt. Thus, borrowing exerts discipline. This is true for a business.
Bankruptcy is not a threat to the federal government, though, because it can’t go bankrupt. If someone wants to convert a Treasury security to Dollars, the fed simply reduces their treasury security holdings and increases their Dollar holdings. These are accounting entries and the fed can do them anytime in any amount.
My take is that the federal government’s wise use of its money is defined as any federal spending that increases the country’s productivity or wellbeing. Increasing economic productivity increases real national wealth. If the federal government runs a deficit to do that it’s a good thing, because it has increased real wealth in the economy at the cost of a few accounting entries. Voters should tell the federal government to focus its spending so that it increases real national wealth or wellbeing and not expect the choice of federal financing methods to make that happen.
When you say that, “If you reduce the fed fund raise to zero then in theory you have tremendous inflation”, you’re kind of right. Non-federal spending puts upward pressure on prices just like federal spending does. If interest rates were zero, private borrowing would probably go way up and spending those borrowings could increase prices and cause asset bubbles. To control that Warren Mosler has suggested that federally insured banks only be allowed to make loans for specified purposes, like mortgages, that are well secured. (see: https://youtu.be/hcx-gFh1Alk?si=sA5Iy0Cg63JHNFi1
at minute 6:09 approximately)
Debating whether the Federal Government spends with or without issuing Treasury bonds won’t improve the usefulness of federal spending as much as debating what the effects of federal spending will be on prices, on employment, on wealth distribution, and on general well-being.
Federal government can't increase productivity because it is just making wild guesses about where to invest the money while individuals investing the money in homes businesses education are for more likely to do it any meaningful way that will yield meaningful results. Government is always wasting money because it is other people's money and they don't care how it is spent. Imagine what would happen if a business or household could print money. All of a sudden millions would be wasted instead of invested prudently and productively and wisely. Do you understand now?
if Bank could only loan money for mortgages that might be good for the housing industry but it would be crippling for all other industries. It's hard to imagine crippling so many industries would be anything but totally destructive for the economy
Federal government affect on prices will of course depend on how much money they print their effect on everything else will be a disaster because they are a distant bureaucracy with no skin in the game and no experience. A local bank and a local business make a very precise deal that moves the economy forward. Millions and millions of deals like that make the economy hum very efficiently. A few Nazi socialist bureaucrats spending or wasting from DC with other people's money and no need for payback could not possibly be as precise or as accurate as little local banks and the local businesses. Do you understand now?
If treasuries were reduced to 0% all who hold them all over the world would suffer a huge loss; it would trigger a depression and probably lead to a new gold standard. Thankfully doing so would be illegal.
Treasuries already issued would still return interest at the stated rate when they were issued. The return on new treasuries would be zero. Eventually, the old treasuries would all age out and be redeemed, and after that zero interest on all treasuries.
lets start from the beginning with you?capitalism began when the first hunter and fisher traded meat for fish to help each other out. it is simply free exchange to improve your standard of living. interfering with freedom will not help but rather reduce your standard of living.
bankruptcy is a huge threat to the federal government precisely because it can print money. That means it can go bankrupt and not care about wasting trillions and trillions of our resources. Printing money makes them wasteful and a danger to our economy. Do you understand now?
will definitely watch - thanks for your efforts Stephanie !
as you well know, it's hard to get MMT approach considered by the public. there are alot of "fiscally conservative" liberals out there, who are hard over on deficit cutting.
i've been discussing performative Deficit cutting vs MMT with Chat and Grok and i'm interested in how much they agree. i also used this software to simulate a debate on this topic between Stephanie and Elon, and posted on X.
do you know that computers are programmed by people like Musk?
Sci Fi movie long time ago, "Forbidden Planet." A planet where the people invented a machine that could read their minds and supply them with what they wanted. Turned out every one had someone who wanted, in their id, to kill him.
Hey Dale, i'm sorry you are afraid of computers. i'm afraid of many things too. but look here at what computers might be useful for; help us expose public to MMT perspective ? BTW: Grok awarded this debate narrowly to Stephanie :-)
Moderator: Opening Statements
Moderator: Welcome to today’s debate on economic policy. We’re joined by Stephanie Kelton, a key figure in Modern Monetary Theory, and Stephen Moore, a well-known conservative economist. Our topic is government spending and deficits. Let’s start with opening statements.
Stephanie Kelton: Thank you. Modern Monetary Theory reveals a critical truth: a government that issues its own currency, like the U.S., isn’t financially constrained like a household or business. We can afford to invest in healthcare, infrastructure, and education. Deficits aren’t the boogeyman they’re made out to be—they’re tools to boost employment and stabilize the economy. The real limit isn’t debt, but inflation and available resources. We should spend strategically to meet society’s needs.
Stephen Moore: Thanks. I fundamentally disagree. MMT is a reckless fantasy that pretends we can spend endlessly without consequences. History proves that unchecked deficits lead to inflation, higher interest rates, and economic ruin—think 1970s stagflation or today’s post-COVID price spikes. Government isn’t a bottomless wallet; every dollar spent comes from taxpayers or borrowing, crowding out private investment. We need fiscal discipline, not a free-for-all.
Kelton: Deficits are just the gap between government spending and tax revenue. For a nation that issues its own currency, like the U.S., they don’t pose the same risks as household debt. The government can always pay its bills by issuing dollars—it can’t go broke. The constraint is inflation, not solvency. When the economy has slack—like unemployed workers—deficit spending can boost demand without overheating. Look at the COVID response: massive spending kept us afloat.
Moore: That’s a fairy tale. If deficits don’t matter, why not spend $20 trillion tomorrow? Borrowing trillions competes with private businesses for capital, jacking up interest rates and stifling growth. And what about our kids? They’ll be stuck paying off this debt mountain. Japan’s stagnation despite huge deficits shows this doesn’t work—endless spending isn’t a solution.
Kelton: Japan actually supports MMT. Its debt-to-GDP ratio is sky-high, yet there’s no crisis—low inflation, low interest rates, and no trouble borrowing. Why? Because Japan issues the yen. The U.S. is the same with the dollar. Crowding out assumes a fixed pool of money, but government spending creates income and savings, expanding the pie. It’s not about reckless deficits; it’s about using them wisely.
Moore: Wise spending? Tell that to the inflation we’re seeing now—decades-high prices from too much stimulus. MMT says, “Oh, we’ll tax it back if it gets bad,” but that’s a pipe dream. Politicians won’t raise taxes—they’ll keep spending. This is just a Trojan horse for socialist agendas like the Green New Deal, bloating deficits even more.
Kelton: Inflation comes from spending beyond the economy’s capacity, not deficits themselves. MMT calls for spending up to full capacity—no more, no less. If inflation creeps up, we adjust with taxes or spending cuts. The COVID spike wasn’t MMT; it was a supply shock plus stimulus. We shouldn’t let deficit phobia stop us from tackling unemployment or climate change.
Moore: Politicians can’t “adjust” anything—they overspend every time. The 1970s showed this: big spending, high taxes, and stagflation. Reagan fixed it with tax cuts and deregulation, unleashing private-sector growth. That’s what works, not government checks.
Kelton: Reagan ran huge deficits too—funny how that’s ignored when it suits tax cuts for the rich. MMT isn’t about handouts; it’s about investing in public goods that the private sector needs to thrive—roads, schools, research. Government and markets aren’t enemies; they can work together.
Moderator: Efficiency and Incentives
Moore: Government’s a black hole—inefficient, bloated, and full of waste. The private sector allocates resources better because it follows market signals. MMT assumes bureaucrats can fine-tune the economy, but that’s central planning, and it’s failed everywhere.
Kelton: MMT isn’t planning—it’s recognizing reality. The government already shapes the economy; we just need to use that power smartly. The private sector can’t fix everything—unemployment, infrastructure, climate change. Public spending sets the stage for private success, not the other way around.
Moore: But it distorts incentives! Handouts create dependency, killing the drive to work or innovate. Supply-side policies—tax cuts, deregulation—spur investment and jobs. That’s how you grow an economy.
Kelton: Full employment isn’t dependency—it’s empowerment. People with jobs take risks, start businesses, innovate. MMT stabilizes the economy so the private sector can shine. Your tax cuts often just pad corporate profits, not broad growth.
Moderator: Inflation Concerns
Moderator: Stephen, you say MMT ignores inflation. Stephanie, how does MMT handle it?
Kelton: We don’t ignore it—we prioritize it. Inflation hits when spending outstrips what the economy can produce. MMT monitors slack—unused labor, factories, resources. If we overshoot, we dial back with taxes or cuts. It’s about balance, not blank checks.
Moore: Governments can’t balance anything—they misjudge and overdo it. Look at today: stimulus overshot, and now the Fed’s hiking rates, slowing growth. MMT’s fiscal obsession sidelines monetary policy. We need rules, like a balanced budget amendment.
Kelton: That amendment would cripple us. Forcing balanced budgets in a recession—like Europe did in the Eurozone crisis—deepens the pain. The U.S. thrives because we control the dollar. MMT uses that flexibility to avoid austerity disasters.
Moore: Austerity works when done right—Canada and Sweden cut spending in the ‘90s and boomed. Discipline restores confidence. MMT’s endless spending erodes it.
Kelton: Those booms had help—exports, commodity prices. The U.S. doesn’t need to slash and pray; we can spend to build capacity. It’s about resources, not spreadsheets.
Moderator: Closing Remarks
Moore: MMT’s a seductive lie—no free lunches exist. Growth comes from markets, not government. Cut taxes, shrink bureaucracy, and let freedom drive prosperity.
Kelton: MMT exposes how our system works. We can afford what we need—jobs, health, a planet—if we manage resources well. Fear of deficits shouldn’t paralyze us.
thanks for the note and all info. i will read the whole thing when i get a little more time. first impressions:
1) I am not afraid of computers. I am afraid of what people will use them for. I don't see using them to simulate a debate is a good idea.Isn't it bad enough we get our lies first hand? a computer is not a genius. People on the other hand are spiritual beings in contact with the real world. A machine knows nothing. It just rearranges dots according to a program, however clever. It doesn't know when it is lying, and it doesn't fear the consequences of the lies it tells.
2) Stephen More is apparently a liar of the old school. He either has not read Kelton's bok or just chooses to ignore it so he can tell the lies he came to tell...familiar lies, so he knows they will stick with the audience better than new ideas.
3)i will hold off commenting on Kelton's intro until i have had a chance to review and rethink.
it’s only one “AI” simulating a discussion between Stephanie and Musk. I used Grok, so it’s mostly informed by a filtering of Twitter data. But ChatGPT and Grok agree on most of the stuff i’ve asked about, which is reassuring.
Suggest we legislate a 50% Discount for virtually every retail product which means we are implementing beneficial price and asset deflation because everyone pays only $50 for $100 worth of groceries, $30k for a $60k EV, $250k for a $500k house and only pay 50% of their insurance premiums and mortgage payments, but because the FED or the government rebates every cent of the discount back to the merchant they get their full price...if they compete and innovate instead of inflating. And, if they do inflate, any revenue they may get is taxed at a rate of 100%. I mean if their response to a single policy doubling the potential demand for everyone of their goods and services is to attempt to destabilize that benefit to the consumer...is that showing good will toward their customers???
This policy simply applies MTT's correct observation that equal debits and credits/double entry bookeeping/accounting is how new money is actually created...it simply creates it as a gift...that resolves inflation instead of causing it, benefits both consumer and merchant and breaks up the monopolistic monetary paradigm that new money must ONLY be created as debt that has always backfired on both businesses and the individual whether the money creating power is in the hands of The Pallace or the Banks.
Stephanie you must suggest this policy. You can do the simple algebra (-50% of price discounted to the consumer + 50% of price rebated back to the merchant = them getting their full price, a doubling of demand for the merchant but no additional cost to them) and the simple accounting (equal debits and credits that sum to zero). Have Moore be the consumer and you be the merchant and just dramatize the policy. Then ask him if he as the consumer experienced inflation or deflation and declare that you as the merchant are ecstatic because there is now potentially double the amount of demand for your goods and services than there was before the new monetary paradigm was implemented by this single policy. I can give you many other policies and regulations that answer all of the replies you'll still get from the terminally orthodox like Moore as well as honest insights into the nature and effects of historical paradigm changes. C'mon, lets finally blow away the delusional current economic and monetary paradigms by making it Christmas every time we go to the store
There is a fresh economic phenomenon in England at present, whose name is Gary Stevenson (See Gary's Economics).
I believe a debate between the two of you would create significant interesat in Britrain at present. Is there any possibility you schedule would allow time for a debate this year?
Because of your post, I looked him up. Thanks! Young (to me, anyway) London School of Econ grad, former financial trader--he'd know the system from the inside. That he's now vehemently opposed to the egregious econ inequity is very interesting. The snarky silliness of his critics is a huge plus as well.
Gary has made quite a splash, especially recently on Piers Morgan’s show and BBC Question Time. He’s nearly the perfect spokesperson for reducing inequality, having made millions as a trader and knowing the “system” intimately and having grown up working class and speaking to their concerns and that of the middle class.
He talks in much more conventional terms about economics—e.g., the government has to “fund itself,” it’s subject to the financial markets, neither of which are MMT tenets—but I’m not so sure he and Prof. Kelton would have that much to debate. But I do agree that his engagement with Prof. Kelton would probably be very interesting. (Whether or not Gary would find it to his benefit to have such a conversation isn’t clear to me—his fight against inequality in the UK is somewhat orthogonal to MMT—but it would be interesting in itself to see what his response to a proposal for a conversation would be.)
I find your comment that Gary and Stephanie would have much to debate questionable, as I believe debate would be about the " fit" of their two positions. Gary brings a sense of direction to the table: Stephanie brings an alternative lens with which to view the economic system. Does Stephanie share Gary's belief in the inevitable impoverishment of working and middle classes under neoliberalism? What actually **is** Gary's perspective on MMT? - something that to date on which his narrative has noticeably failed to comment. So I renew my appeal to anyone in a position to promote this exchange - Please bring it on!
Yes, although, from Gary's perspective, it might not matter. Listening to Gary subsequent to my comment, it's become clearer to me that he holds premises are other than what MMT holds or at least, he talks as if he does.
Again, he might view his campaign against inequality as orthogonal to MMT—he’d want to tax the rich, no matter what MMT says about taxation—essentially, he’s talking about a unequal contest between currency users—and, so, frames his rhetoric in more conventional terms, in which case, I could easily imagine him saying, “It doesn't matter what I think about MMT.” (And it doesn’t hurt his campaign to not rebut the idea that the UK government “needs to find the money somewhere” and that “somewhere,” for good reasons, should be the rich.)
I don’t think that Gary has anything to gain by aligning himself with MMT even if he agrees with it. Doing so would just open up another front for those opposing him.
I’m always interested to hear the views of those that disagree with MMT. It’s my way of continually testing it but I don’t think I’ll ever hear Gary’s opinion of it.
The extreme left is against inequality for MMT and against billionaires. None of their positions make sense but they all get lumped together even though they are in addition to being nonsensical, unrelated.
National debt is a disaster for Americans. Every American is something like $200,000 in debt and we have to pay it off every time we pay our taxes. thanks for the government we all are paying off a mortgage on a house that we can't live in. if government had spent the money wisely and solved all of our problems with the spending then at least you could justify it. But the way things stand our problems are bigger than ever and our debt is bigger than ever.
i got back here may 4 and saw your apr 24 comment and decided to reply. you won't like my reply. you seem to hold the propaganda of the R's as truths we hold self-evident. our taxes our "paying off a mortgage" we ARE living in. it's called the United States of America. and with the sort of exceptions tht flesh is heir to givves us our money's worth in government services we need but cannot be provided by our personl effort or private enterprise. one of those services is to prevent private enterprise from robbing us. we ain't ever gonna solve "all our problems" but it would be nice if the people at least mostly understood that government is at least part of the solution. and a "balance" between government and private enterprise is the best solution ANYone has ever found.
perhaps you're not aware that America was founded on the principle of freedom and liberty from government because government was seen as the source of evil in human history. Our Genius founding fathers knew that in the 18th century. We have seen the great left-wing governments from Hitler Stalin mao pol pot Castro and stillstill the left does not understand the evil inherent in government.
no. America was founded on the principle that it was better to govern ourselves than to be governed by England. Knowing the evils that all government is heir to, they tried to construct a system of government that by checks and balances would avoid some of those evils. It took about another century and a half before they {we) realized that government had to balance aginst private enterprise to prevent the evils that ungoverned private enterprise is heir to.
Wow you really misunderstand the nature of the American revolution. now one state would've ratified the constitution if they thought it would restrict their sovereignty in anyway.
"[Our Constitution] is an instrument for the people to restrain the government". Patrick Henry
private enterprise does not rob us rather it cares for us. If you doubt it for a second open a business and announce that you don't care for your workers and customers. Do you know what would instantly happen? Notice you have bought into the left-wing propaganda and are getting everything backwards.
I realize this is a side issue and not germane to the argument for MMT, but why is it the supposedly fiscally responsible budget balancers never count the country's assets? What's a national park worth? An aircraft carrier? Mineral rights? The National Institutes of Health? If the national parks have unique features cherished as close to priceless, wouldn't "priceless" pretty much balance national debt? ;- )
If Copernicus, Gallileo and Kepler would not have said that the earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around earth (the inversion of both mental and temporal universe reality signature of every historical paradigm change) nothing would have changed in astro-physics for god knows how long.
And nothing will change the fact that money flows uphill in an oligarchy, new money creation is only allowed to be in the form of debt and private debt has always destabilized economies...until you or someone else has the guts to illogically but correctly declare that Strategic Monetary Gifting will not cause erosive inflation, but rather beneficial price and asset deflation, and among other benefits will reduce the rate of increase in private debt sufficiently that its human civilization-long destabilizing curse will be resigned to the dust bin of history the same as Ptolemaic cosmology has been.
Take the chance. Do the simple algebra and simple accounting operations of the policies I suggest and become the first authority to acknowledge the new monetary paradigm.
1) the national "debt" indeed ain't no problem. 2) the monies created to rebate merchants' discounts AIN'T DEBT JUST MONEY, and 3) because its distributed at the terminal ending point of the entire economic process where production exits the economy and becomes consumption, i.e. retail sale and 4) hence it is also at the terminal expression point for inflation 5) we've never had y/o/y inflation of 50% let alone moment to moment and so 6) the 50% Discount implements beneficial price and asset deflation and 7) along with the other carrot and stick tax and regulatory regime I've suggested before that stop various forms of greedflation and speculative financial "innovation" and align the economy with more rational goals and so 8) we end the fetish of "free" market theoretics and instead have a system that is designed to graciously create abundant free flowingness.
Its just my way of "offing the terminally orthodox conservatives, libertarians and sociopathic narcissists" whose delusional beliefs unconsciously enforce Finance's current monopolistic monetary paradigm. So sad about the identity crisis, but it won't kill them.
It’s an interesting idea that he is suggesting. If, through his love of tariffs, we diversify our economy then by that act alone we would help all other countries to diversify their economies. By pulling more industry back here, then other countries won’t need our “monopoly, the US military” as much and will instead lean more into manufacturing more regionally for their military. This would actually place much more power into the allies of NATO or the United Nations and less so in the hands of the United States.
I just don’t see the GOP going for this especially as they spit on our allies in “the art of the deal”. I also don’t know if geopolitically our politicians across both sides would like the idea of sharing the military load more with our allies but I have to admit I would love if we could have less of a “primary” military presence and more of a “shared” military presence worldwide.
Please note: while I see the advantages of tariff (stick) in conjunction with incentives like the CHIPS act (carrot), I whole heartedly believe the current administration is going about this in too dramatic of a transition.
I have friends I want to invite to watch this but they have don't know anything about MMT. Is it usually better to at least watch the "Find the Money" documentary first?
thanks for the reply. i am afraid i may have slandered Stephen Moore, since it was apparently only a computer impersonating him. which would explain why "his" ["its"? another entry to the great pronoun crisis?] openeing remark which did not show any sign of being a response to Kelton, in spite of using language which would suggest it was a response. nor, I think, was "Kelton, A.I." a fair representation of what the real life Kelton might say.
Of course my take is not worth too much as I haven't had a chance to really think about this. I guess I am still afraid of what humans are going to do with AI.
Thank you, Stephanie Kelton!
In individuals, there is a medical disorder characterized by abnormally low body weight, distorted perceptions, and an intense fear of getting heavier. Unfortunately, in the public sphere we have the Economic Anorexics, who call for fiscal restraint, claiming the debt load is too much to bear, even though the economic body wastes away for lack of spending sustenance!
you want no fiscal restraint?????Please explain
Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence Respecting the Bank of Canada, 1939 http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenE.htm
Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government's Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939. Its proceedings cover 850 pages. (Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence Respecting the Bank of Canada, Ottawa, J.O. Patenaude, I.S.O., Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1939.) Most of the evidence quoted was the result of interrogation by Mr. “Gerry” McGeer, K.C., a former mayor of Vancouver, who clearly understood the essentials of central banking. Here are a few excerpts:
Q. So far as war is concerned, to defend the integrity of the nation, there will be no difficulty in raising the means of financing, whatever those requirements may be?
Mr. Towers: The limit of the possibilities depends on men and materials.
Q. And where you have an abundance of men and materials, you have no difficulty, under our present banking system, in putting forth the medium of exchange that is necessary to put the men and materials to work in defence of the realm?
Mr. Towers: That is right. (p. 649)
***
Q. Would you admit that anything physically possible and desirable, can be made financially possible?
Mr. Towers: Certainly. (p. 771)
So you are saying the govt can print all the money it wants and there is no problem with that???
Mr. Towers: The limit of the possibilities depends on men and materials.
_______________________________________________________________________________
What if the Public Understood How Money Works?
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/01/public-understood-money-works.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+neweconomicperspectives%2FyMfv+%28New+Economic+Perspectives%29
"One of the great truths of fighting wars of survival like World War II is that national leaders discover MMT even if the priestly class of economists yammers on about the terror of deficits and sovereign debt. No UK leader would respond to a German invasion by saying: “Sadly, we’re ‘out of money’ because we’re already running a deficit and our sovereign debt to GDP ratio is high – so I’ve ordered our troops to lay down their arms and surrender.”
Notice the lack of a financial footnote in Winston Churchill’s famous speech on June 4, 1040 to the House of Commons about the military disaster in France, the hard-won miracle of Dunkirk, and the prospect of a German invasion.
***
His entire speech says not a word about financial constraints. His speech is filled with discussions of real resources, particularly limitations in those resources and how the government was working urgently to provide the monumental increases in real resources required for national survival. There is no footnote saying “we shall never surrender”* (*“until we ‘run out of money’”). Nations with sovereign currencies faced with threats to survival discover within hours that their problem is not “running out of money” but running out of bullets."
Is there any reason the government couldn't make everyone a millionaire?
Of course - there are not enough real assets for that amount of money to purchase. The government should not hand out million dollar cheques but should rather implement a true full employment policy and spend in a targeted way to ensure anyone who wants to work has a job opportunity to earn income and contribute to society.
____________________________________________________________________
Greenspan: "There is nothing to prevent the government from creating as much money as it wants."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCZHAQnfGU
Alan Greenspan: "I wouldn't say the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure in the sense that there is nothing to prevent the Federal Government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase?"
If the government gave everybody $1 million ferrari would make enough cars so that everyone who wanted to spend their million on a Ferrari could buy one so there would be enough assets for that amount of money to purchase.
Mr. Towers: The limit of the possibilities depends on men and materials.
so you want govt to give everyone $1 million so we can all be rich??
I want you to understand the concept that collectively we are limited by resources and not by finances.
why are you changing the subject? Why are you afraid to answer the question? For the third time do you think the government should give everyone $1 million so that everyone can be rich?
If you understood the concept, you could answer the question yourself. For the last time, "The limit of the possibilities depends on men and materials." Cheers and goodbye.
Popcorn heating up!
I've been aware of that guy for over a decade. He's an economic writer, not a real economist. He is a total partisan hack. He is slippery though and can make an effective debater.
not sure being an economist would make him any better.
Kick his MOFO ass Stephanie!! Concede nothing! I remain a staunch advocate for DNC to write MMT into the Democratic platform narrative. Peaceful Blue Revolution now as oaths we have taken; past time we fulfill them!!
peter
i am curious: exactly what would writng mmt intothe platform look like?
And even if there, most likely would have little effect on actual policies.
It would have a huge effect on policy! The entire idea (scam) is to free sleazy politicians from having to beg greedy taxpayers for their money!
I’m working on it!
It would mean there was an MMT( magic money tree) so the left could pay for Medicare for all, universal basic income, free college etc. and not have to trouble greedy taxpayers for their money!
Considering neolibs did an unfriendly takeover of the party over 40 years ago, then ditched the New Deal (including finance regs) and abandoned the majority working class, count me a skeptic. I know because at the time I was a rank and file blue collar union activist and a local D campaign mgr. who fought them. Plus I've read in depth pol and econ data confirming my experiences.
Among the results of their corporate lite policies, to be expected given their corporate heavy campaign contributions, was the '08 crash. Of course they bailed out the Wall St. vultures. For the working people who lost jobs, pensions, homes? Nothing!
As for "Peaceful Blue..." I suggest you read Les Leopold's 2024 book //Wall Street's War on Workers (How Mass Layoffs and Greed Are Destroying the Working Class and What to Do about It)//. Stock buybacks, which benefit only CEOs and their bankster allies, are financed by mass layoffs. Leopold begged the D party elite to use this issue, a likely winner. Nope.
Also re: "Peaceful" as not going with "Blue"--Biden's Dept. of State was openly run by neocons trained by Dick Cheney. Why do you think he endorsed Harris? For the last 125 years the R party hasn't objected to self -serving, narcissistic advocates of plutocracy and trickle up economics. More likely Cheney didn't see loose cannon Trump as reliable for the neocon PNAC agenda; a unipolar world, economic empire backed up by military might.
Besides, having been to my share of political conventions, I know party platform planks are there mostly to mollify various constituencies. The elite controlling the party very seldom has any intent of follow through. Especially when some plank offends their corporate and 1%er donors They'd never say, as FDR did in Oct. 1936 about banksters, war profiteers, Wall St. speculators et. al. "I welcome their hatred!"
My eyes remain wide open. I’m a geopolitical strategist and 30 year veteran and very much appreciate your POV as I believe it’s f’n accurate. Danke shurn!
If it is accurate why don't you give us the reason you think it is accurate?
They didn't bail out Wall street. Many firm went bankrupt and others were given loans that were paid back with interest. Had govt not stepped in the to help solve the problem it alone created there would have been a huge depression with total economic collapse.
Further, govt bails out millions of failed individual everyday with various welfare programs. They never pay back a penny. Notice how you want to pretend there is no welfare so you can demand even more welfare is needed?
Interesting, can you tell us anything at all that makes sense about MMT?
stephanie
good luck. i am on your side. but...and i know this may not be the time to bring up cautions about mmt, but just in case the other guy brings them up, here are mine:
whether the lens of mmt will prevent the same people in congress who lie about the deficit...prevent them from just using mmt money to enrich their friends while continuing to ignore the poor.
whether the people who favor mmt are just hoping for unlimited free money to save them from having to be prudent in their own personal spending, or national spending on "welfare for all" causes. i am especially concerned about your apparent belief that mmt can pay for Social Security which...if DOGE doesn't kill it by "denial of service" and lies about "fraud," and claims about "ponzi scheme"...SS depends on being worker-paid for it's survival. MMT is a good answer to the deficit lie. It may not be any answer at all for ordinary personal spending.
you already have close experience with stubborn stupidity in members of Congress, not to mention bold face lies. i expect you will see more of that than any questions about my concerns, but it might be a good idea to have some good answers ready.
Good for you, your reservations are well founded! Nothing could be more wasteful than sleazy politicians cut loose from the discipline of spending taxpayers' hard earned money and instead spending freely from the magic money tree.
If he says interest payments on the debt is unbearable recommend reducing interest rate on treasuries to zero.
Also, treasuries are like savings certificates not like auto loans.
tom
i don't know what you mean. with an auto loan the bank gives you money and then you pay it back with interest. with a treasury you give treasury money and then they pay you back with interest. of ocurse you can't repossess their car. with mmt as i understand it so far, treasury can print money but they can't expect people or other countries to lend them dollars, or want our dollars if dollars won't buy as much tomorrow as they would today.
And if those dollars buy twice as much as they did the day before a 50% Discount/Rebate policy was enacted???
Also, the US doesn't need anyone else's money because they are monetarily sovereign, and if the potential demand for every enterprise's goods and services is doubled by the above policy don't you think that investors in the US and abroad would want to create production here???
Demand is not doubled if you give people money and then tax it back. 1+1=2
Hi, Dale,
In the auto loan simile, the Government is like a car buyer going to banks (private sector dollar holders) to borrow dollars to enable the Government to spend money to buy something. MMT says that the Government creates dollars from nothing and therefore doesn’t need to borrow them in order to spend money on cars or anything else. Therefore treasury certificates are not like car loans.
In the savings certificate simile, the Federal Reserve is like a bank that offers its customers savings certificates as an inducement to keep their money in it. The Fed is a bank that has access to all the dollars it wants (because it creates them from nothing) and whose customers are other banks who already have reserve dollars at the Fed, otherwise they couldn’t buy the Treasuries. The Fed offers them interest paying treasury certificates in a misguided attempt to control the economy by controlling the money supply through quantitative easing (buying treasuries and increasing reserve dollars) and quantitative tightening (selling treasuries and decreasing reserve dollars). MMT says this doesn’t work. The Fed doesn’t have a “faucet” to control private sector spending. Therefore, since Treasuries are sold by the Fed to people who already have Dollars, they’re like a bank offering a savings certificate.
Both similes rest on the MMT insight that government spending doesn’t have to be balanced by taxes and borrowing. Treasury is required to balance its books by regulation not by necessity.
Tom, thanks. I'll try to thinkabout this. Later. Right now I think MMT can create money up to a point. That money can stimulate productivity, So far so good. Even better, it stops the Deficit lie. But I think there is danger in expeting to solve all our Political and Money problems.
Thats because MMT doesn't have the paradigm changing policies of a 50% Discount/Rebate at retail sale, a reflective 50% Discount/Rebate at the retail point of the banks' loan to you, that is, your loan payment and the same regarding your insurance premium payment.
If they'd do that they'd be able to create the greatest socio-economic and political mass movement for the new monetary paradigm that the country and world has ever seen.
Don't be silly; there is no free lunch. Improvements in standards of living from the Stone Age to here came from the supply of new inventions, obviously. Unless you have a new invention you can shuffle papers and change monetary and fiscal rules rules all you want but it won't help one tiny bit.
"there is no free lunch" Congratulations, a succinct analysis of the actual deepest economic problem.
Banks create money with the incredibly powerful temporal universe reality achoring tool man has probably ever created, namely double entry bookkeeping. If the terminally orthodox dumb shits like yourself, and even the most erudite but 6000 year old acculturated to the present monetary paradigm of Debt Only like Steve Keen and Stephanie realized that, by using that same tool, strategically creating new money as a gifted reality at retail sale, they could break up that monopoly paradigm, end inflation forever and bequeath abundant demand upon virtually everyone.
MMT is not something you do or don't do. It is a description of how fiat monetary systems operate. "MMT" doesn't create anything. You should study MMT a bit before making all these comments. You don't seem to understand it at all.
Rick
if this is addressed to me, i have "studied" [read carefully] Kelton's book and some stuff by william mitchell, and lots of stuff by mmt-ers on line. so i think i know what i am talking about...what they are talking about. "create money" is the most accurate way i know of saying what the mmt "lens" wants the government to do. i understand that banks and all modern governments with "sovereign currency" already do that....except that they call it "debt." i could be wrong, that's why i pose my thoughts as questions. you do not present any answers at all, just make an assertion that sounds meant to insult.
Well, lets remember, Kelton is a socialist and her hope is that by freeing politicians from having to spend taxpayers' hard earned money they will be able to spend freely on more new, crippling welfare programs.
She got a little traction from Bernie Sanders before Biden's Covid inflation sunk her. She used to say " I think there is room for further monetary expansion". Now we have relearned again that we are already spending all we can and inflation is waiting at the door for the tiniest slip up.
Tom
i think i understand (mostly) Treasuries and a..uto loans, but from the point of view of the same person, an auto loan is him borrowing from the bank, and a Treasury is the government borrowing from him, which seems to me to be the disinction you are making above...except that you seem (to me) to be arguing that government does not need to borrow. i would think it would still need to keep track of the money "created" : how much and what it was spent for. all of which makes me think i undertand mmt better than i understnd what you said.
Hi, Dale. Sorry to take so long to reply. A Treasury security is not the government borrowing from a person. It's the government offering to pay people interest on Dollars they already have. The government doesn't need to borrow because it creates all the money that it needs to execute government spending. I liken Treasury securities to a bank savings certificate, because although we buy a note from the bank we don't think of the bank as borrowing from us. Rather when we buy their note it's like a type of savings account for us. Maybe it's a poor analogy, because the bank could be seen as borrowing our money, too.
hi tom
thanks for the reply. in some ways late is better than soon. gives my neurons to quiet down from the fight.
i would need to know more about the whole bond picture before i could really understand what you are saying. but here is where i am now:
i think i understand kelton and mmt generally. as she says it's a "lens" for looking at national debt, as she also says it is both limited in what it can do and "policy neutral." that is "money" however created, cannot exceed "resources" and there is no guarantee that ven mmt money will ot be spent to make the rich richer while doing nothing for the rest of us.
later in her book, she seems to forget this...saying that mmt can pay for Social Security. i think it can't. SS is too big to just "create" money to pay for it. currently it is paid for by the workers themselves, who create value while working, then defer the consumption their work has earned them the right to demand, "saving" it for the day when they will need it more...when they are too old to work [or want to work] or disabled. please note that resources saved = resources demanded. actually, resources demanded later can be more than the resources saved because of something called "interest" which is a way savers can demand more than they saved because borrowers are willing to pay more for being able to use the money now (use the money translates as "demand resources.
i am not sure Kelton understands this, or that SS may be too big..and moreover works because it is worker paid and not welfare. i am not sure she understands that the money can be used for purposes she and i do not like, and that who gets it will be decided by the people who decide who gets it today. only instead of crying "the debt! the debt!" they will cry "the inflation! the inflation!".
maybe worse, her followers seem to believe that mmt will pay for everything they want without them having to work to earn it. i do not think mmy is desiggned or intended to work this way. we stil have to work to earn our daily bread and pay taxes to pay for what government does best..includinng providing welfare for those in need..who might one day be us.
sorry if this is too long. just trying to provide a base. as for interest on treasuries, i understand there is some mystery (for most of us) in ow that works. but i think that in the first case, it's simply the government paying interest for using our money to pay for things they are not ready to tax for. no problem there. as for what the government "pays itself" i would bet there is a good reason for that. maybe just a way of keeping track, maybe just a way of keeping people who believe conventional ideas about debt confident that no one is doing anything "unsound"--though we may have lost that confidence lately. i think..just a little magical thinking on my part... that the government pays itself interest for the same reason we "pay ourselves interest" when we buy a bond, deferring present consumption in order to pay for the right to greater consumption later. hope that makes sense. i am thiking of the famous cartoon of Uncle Sam furiously borrowing from one pocket to pay the other pocket. the cartoon was always a lie. uncles sam is not one person but 200 million people who do borrow from each other and lend to each other, and that is what makes the world go round.
this is exactly what mmt is describing, though making it more clear, and it is exactly what all government do, even while they tell themselves that debt is evil. [which it can be if you are not borrowing from "yourself": not a good idea to borrow from a bank, the mafia, or a another country that can demand payment in various ways in a currency that has not lost its value.
i'd be glad to be instructed by you if i am wrong, but i would not expect you to take the time.
You can talk all you want about what a treasury certificate actually is but who cares if it has no policy implications???
Obviously if you reduced the interest rate on treasuries you eliminate anyone's interest in them and the entire world would collapse. 1+1 = 2
Hi Ted. Sorry I took so long to reply. The US Government doesn't need to sell Treasuries in order to spend because it creates the currency. Certainly US Government spending won't collapse if no Treasury securities are sold, because it creates the currency. So it could reduce the federal funds rate to zero, and that would become the risk-free interest rate instead of 5% or whatever it is now. All other interest rates on Dollar denominated loans would then be zero% plus a risk premium. A zero rate Treasury would still be valuable as a kind of guaranteed dollar holding for large dollar amounts that a person has that exceed federal deposit insurance. But an easier way to insure dollar accounts would be to take off the dollar limit and have the federal government guarantee all deposits at federally chartered banks. Then restrict what banks can make loans for. That's Warren Mosler's proposal as I understand it. See "https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-Natural-Rate-of-Interest-is-Zero.pdf"
Hi Tom, thanks for responding. The government does need to sell treasuries because they create an obligation to pay the money back and therefore to spend it wisely so they are able to pay it back. if you print money you don't care how it is spent .If you borrow money you care a great deal in order to avoid debtors prison or the modern equivalent.
Hi, Ted,
Thanks for your comment about borrowing and spending wisely. If I’m getting your point right, it’s that an entity must wisely use the money it borrows so that it makes more money in order to be able to pay back the loan. If it can’t pay back its loans it goes bankrupt. Thus, borrowing exerts discipline. This is true for a business.
Bankruptcy is not a threat to the federal government, though, because it can’t go bankrupt. If someone wants to convert a Treasury security to Dollars, the fed simply reduces their treasury security holdings and increases their Dollar holdings. These are accounting entries and the fed can do them anytime in any amount.
My take is that the federal government’s wise use of its money is defined as any federal spending that increases the country’s productivity or wellbeing. Increasing economic productivity increases real national wealth. If the federal government runs a deficit to do that it’s a good thing, because it has increased real wealth in the economy at the cost of a few accounting entries. Voters should tell the federal government to focus its spending so that it increases real national wealth or wellbeing and not expect the choice of federal financing methods to make that happen.
When you say that, “If you reduce the fed fund raise to zero then in theory you have tremendous inflation”, you’re kind of right. Non-federal spending puts upward pressure on prices just like federal spending does. If interest rates were zero, private borrowing would probably go way up and spending those borrowings could increase prices and cause asset bubbles. To control that Warren Mosler has suggested that federally insured banks only be allowed to make loans for specified purposes, like mortgages, that are well secured. (see: https://youtu.be/hcx-gFh1Alk?si=sA5Iy0Cg63JHNFi1
at minute 6:09 approximately)
Debating whether the Federal Government spends with or without issuing Treasury bonds won’t improve the usefulness of federal spending as much as debating what the effects of federal spending will be on prices, on employment, on wealth distribution, and on general well-being.
Federal government can't increase productivity because it is just making wild guesses about where to invest the money while individuals investing the money in homes businesses education are for more likely to do it any meaningful way that will yield meaningful results. Government is always wasting money because it is other people's money and they don't care how it is spent. Imagine what would happen if a business or household could print money. All of a sudden millions would be wasted instead of invested prudently and productively and wisely. Do you understand now?
if Bank could only loan money for mortgages that might be good for the housing industry but it would be crippling for all other industries. It's hard to imagine crippling so many industries would be anything but totally destructive for the economy
Federal government affect on prices will of course depend on how much money they print their effect on everything else will be a disaster because they are a distant bureaucracy with no skin in the game and no experience. A local bank and a local business make a very precise deal that moves the economy forward. Millions and millions of deals like that make the economy hum very efficiently. A few Nazi socialist bureaucrats spending or wasting from DC with other people's money and no need for payback could not possibly be as precise or as accurate as little local banks and the local businesses. Do you understand now?
If you reduce the fed fund raise to zero then in theory you have tremendous inflation.
If treasuries were reduced to 0% all who hold them all over the world would suffer a huge loss; it would trigger a depression and probably lead to a new gold standard. Thankfully doing so would be illegal.
Treasuries already issued would still return interest at the stated rate when they were issued. The return on new treasuries would be zero. Eventually, the old treasuries would all age out and be redeemed, and after that zero interest on all treasuries.
What would be the point of zero interest on treasuries. Nobody would buy them.
do you know anything about economics?
lets start from the beginning with you?capitalism began when the first hunter and fisher traded meat for fish to help each other out. it is simply free exchange to improve your standard of living. interfering with freedom will not help but rather reduce your standard of living.
bankruptcy is a huge threat to the federal government precisely because it can print money. That means it can go bankrupt and not care about wasting trillions and trillions of our resources. Printing money makes them wasteful and a danger to our economy. Do you understand now?
In the debate, please discuss the different outcome of inflation due to tariffs versus inflation due to currency devaluations or supply disruptions
will definitely watch - thanks for your efforts Stephanie !
as you well know, it's hard to get MMT approach considered by the public. there are alot of "fiscally conservative" liberals out there, who are hard over on deficit cutting.
i've been discussing performative Deficit cutting vs MMT with Chat and Grok and i'm interested in how much they agree. i also used this software to simulate a debate on this topic between Stephanie and Elon, and posted on X.
https://x.com/santacruzian23/status/1902778856731447774/photo/1
I'm curious whether "AI" could be used as adjunct to news castings i.e.
https://x.com/santacruzian23/status/1906475915984691286
https://x.com/santacruzian23/status/1906873195556438429/photo/1
I guess not possible to bring this powerful software into the upcoming debate with Stephen Moore ?
But maybe simulating the debate between Stephanie and Stephen Moore would yield something.
kathleen
no animus, but you scare me to death.
do you know that computers are programmed by people like Musk?
Sci Fi movie long time ago, "Forbidden Planet." A planet where the people invented a machine that could read their minds and supply them with what they wanted. Turned out every one had someone who wanted, in their id, to kill him.
Hey Dale, i'm sorry you are afraid of computers. i'm afraid of many things too. but look here at what computers might be useful for; help us expose public to MMT perspective ? BTW: Grok awarded this debate narrowly to Stephanie :-)
Moderator: Opening Statements
Moderator: Welcome to today’s debate on economic policy. We’re joined by Stephanie Kelton, a key figure in Modern Monetary Theory, and Stephen Moore, a well-known conservative economist. Our topic is government spending and deficits. Let’s start with opening statements.
Stephanie Kelton: Thank you. Modern Monetary Theory reveals a critical truth: a government that issues its own currency, like the U.S., isn’t financially constrained like a household or business. We can afford to invest in healthcare, infrastructure, and education. Deficits aren’t the boogeyman they’re made out to be—they’re tools to boost employment and stabilize the economy. The real limit isn’t debt, but inflation and available resources. We should spend strategically to meet society’s needs.
Stephen Moore: Thanks. I fundamentally disagree. MMT is a reckless fantasy that pretends we can spend endlessly without consequences. History proves that unchecked deficits lead to inflation, higher interest rates, and economic ruin—think 1970s stagflation or today’s post-COVID price spikes. Government isn’t a bottomless wallet; every dollar spent comes from taxpayers or borrowing, crowding out private investment. We need fiscal discipline, not a free-for-all.
Moderator: The Deficit Debate
Moderator: Stephanie, MMT claims deficits aren’t inherently bad. Why?
Kelton: Deficits are just the gap between government spending and tax revenue. For a nation that issues its own currency, like the U.S., they don’t pose the same risks as household debt. The government can always pay its bills by issuing dollars—it can’t go broke. The constraint is inflation, not solvency. When the economy has slack—like unemployed workers—deficit spending can boost demand without overheating. Look at the COVID response: massive spending kept us afloat.
Moore: That’s a fairy tale. If deficits don’t matter, why not spend $20 trillion tomorrow? Borrowing trillions competes with private businesses for capital, jacking up interest rates and stifling growth. And what about our kids? They’ll be stuck paying off this debt mountain. Japan’s stagnation despite huge deficits shows this doesn’t work—endless spending isn’t a solution.
Kelton: Japan actually supports MMT. Its debt-to-GDP ratio is sky-high, yet there’s no crisis—low inflation, low interest rates, and no trouble borrowing. Why? Because Japan issues the yen. The U.S. is the same with the dollar. Crowding out assumes a fixed pool of money, but government spending creates income and savings, expanding the pie. It’s not about reckless deficits; it’s about using them wisely.
Moore: Wise spending? Tell that to the inflation we’re seeing now—decades-high prices from too much stimulus. MMT says, “Oh, we’ll tax it back if it gets bad,” but that’s a pipe dream. Politicians won’t raise taxes—they’ll keep spending. This is just a Trojan horse for socialist agendas like the Green New Deal, bloating deficits even more.
Kelton: Inflation comes from spending beyond the economy’s capacity, not deficits themselves. MMT calls for spending up to full capacity—no more, no less. If inflation creeps up, we adjust with taxes or spending cuts. The COVID spike wasn’t MMT; it was a supply shock plus stimulus. We shouldn’t let deficit phobia stop us from tackling unemployment or climate change.
Moore: Politicians can’t “adjust” anything—they overspend every time. The 1970s showed this: big spending, high taxes, and stagflation. Reagan fixed it with tax cuts and deregulation, unleashing private-sector growth. That’s what works, not government checks.
Kelton: Reagan ran huge deficits too—funny how that’s ignored when it suits tax cuts for the rich. MMT isn’t about handouts; it’s about investing in public goods that the private sector needs to thrive—roads, schools, research. Government and markets aren’t enemies; they can work together.
Moderator: Efficiency and Incentives
Moore: Government’s a black hole—inefficient, bloated, and full of waste. The private sector allocates resources better because it follows market signals. MMT assumes bureaucrats can fine-tune the economy, but that’s central planning, and it’s failed everywhere.
Kelton: MMT isn’t planning—it’s recognizing reality. The government already shapes the economy; we just need to use that power smartly. The private sector can’t fix everything—unemployment, infrastructure, climate change. Public spending sets the stage for private success, not the other way around.
Moore: But it distorts incentives! Handouts create dependency, killing the drive to work or innovate. Supply-side policies—tax cuts, deregulation—spur investment and jobs. That’s how you grow an economy.
Kelton: Full employment isn’t dependency—it’s empowerment. People with jobs take risks, start businesses, innovate. MMT stabilizes the economy so the private sector can shine. Your tax cuts often just pad corporate profits, not broad growth.
Moderator: Inflation Concerns
Moderator: Stephen, you say MMT ignores inflation. Stephanie, how does MMT handle it?
Kelton: We don’t ignore it—we prioritize it. Inflation hits when spending outstrips what the economy can produce. MMT monitors slack—unused labor, factories, resources. If we overshoot, we dial back with taxes or cuts. It’s about balance, not blank checks.
Moore: Governments can’t balance anything—they misjudge and overdo it. Look at today: stimulus overshot, and now the Fed’s hiking rates, slowing growth. MMT’s fiscal obsession sidelines monetary policy. We need rules, like a balanced budget amendment.
Kelton: That amendment would cripple us. Forcing balanced budgets in a recession—like Europe did in the Eurozone crisis—deepens the pain. The U.S. thrives because we control the dollar. MMT uses that flexibility to avoid austerity disasters.
Moore: Austerity works when done right—Canada and Sweden cut spending in the ‘90s and boomed. Discipline restores confidence. MMT’s endless spending erodes it.
Kelton: Those booms had help—exports, commodity prices. The U.S. doesn’t need to slash and pray; we can spend to build capacity. It’s about resources, not spreadsheets.
Moderator: Closing Remarks
Moore: MMT’s a seductive lie—no free lunches exist. Growth comes from markets, not government. Cut taxes, shrink bureaucracy, and let freedom drive prosperity.
Kelton: MMT exposes how our system works. We can afford what we need—jobs, health, a planet—if we manage resources well. Fear of deficits shouldn’t paralyze us.
Moderator: Thank you both for a fiery exchange.
kathleen
thanks for the note and all info. i will read the whole thing when i get a little more time. first impressions:
1) I am not afraid of computers. I am afraid of what people will use them for. I don't see using them to simulate a debate is a good idea.Isn't it bad enough we get our lies first hand? a computer is not a genius. People on the other hand are spiritual beings in contact with the real world. A machine knows nothing. It just rearranges dots according to a program, however clever. It doesn't know when it is lying, and it doesn't fear the consequences of the lies it tells.
2) Stephen More is apparently a liar of the old school. He either has not read Kelton's bok or just chooses to ignore it so he can tell the lies he came to tell...familiar lies, so he knows they will stick with the audience better than new ideas.
3)i will hold off commenting on Kelton's intro until i have had a chance to review and rethink.
kathleen
is this the AI debate?
it’s only one “AI” simulating a discussion between Stephanie and Musk. I used Grok, so it’s mostly informed by a filtering of Twitter data. But ChatGPT and Grok agree on most of the stuff i’ve asked about, which is reassuring.
If MMT makes any sense can you tell us the reason you think it makes sense. The more I look at is the dumber it seems.
Suggest we legislate a 50% Discount for virtually every retail product which means we are implementing beneficial price and asset deflation because everyone pays only $50 for $100 worth of groceries, $30k for a $60k EV, $250k for a $500k house and only pay 50% of their insurance premiums and mortgage payments, but because the FED or the government rebates every cent of the discount back to the merchant they get their full price...if they compete and innovate instead of inflating. And, if they do inflate, any revenue they may get is taxed at a rate of 100%. I mean if their response to a single policy doubling the potential demand for everyone of their goods and services is to attempt to destabilize that benefit to the consumer...is that showing good will toward their customers???
This policy simply applies MTT's correct observation that equal debits and credits/double entry bookeeping/accounting is how new money is actually created...it simply creates it as a gift...that resolves inflation instead of causing it, benefits both consumer and merchant and breaks up the monopolistic monetary paradigm that new money must ONLY be created as debt that has always backfired on both businesses and the individual whether the money creating power is in the hands of The Pallace or the Banks.
Stephanie you must suggest this policy. You can do the simple algebra (-50% of price discounted to the consumer + 50% of price rebated back to the merchant = them getting their full price, a doubling of demand for the merchant but no additional cost to them) and the simple accounting (equal debits and credits that sum to zero). Have Moore be the consumer and you be the merchant and just dramatize the policy. Then ask him if he as the consumer experienced inflation or deflation and declare that you as the merchant are ecstatic because there is now potentially double the amount of demand for your goods and services than there was before the new monetary paradigm was implemented by this single policy. I can give you many other policies and regulations that answer all of the replies you'll still get from the terminally orthodox like Moore as well as honest insights into the nature and effects of historical paradigm changes. C'mon, lets finally blow away the delusional current economic and monetary paradigms by making it Christmas every time we go to the store
F.a.o. Stephanie,
There is a fresh economic phenomenon in England at present, whose name is Gary Stevenson (See Gary's Economics).
I believe a debate between the two of you would create significant interesat in Britrain at present. Is there any possibility you schedule would allow time for a debate this year?
Because of your post, I looked him up. Thanks! Young (to me, anyway) London School of Econ grad, former financial trader--he'd know the system from the inside. That he's now vehemently opposed to the egregious econ inequity is very interesting. The snarky silliness of his critics is a huge plus as well.
Gary has made quite a splash, especially recently on Piers Morgan’s show and BBC Question Time. He’s nearly the perfect spokesperson for reducing inequality, having made millions as a trader and knowing the “system” intimately and having grown up working class and speaking to their concerns and that of the middle class.
He talks in much more conventional terms about economics—e.g., the government has to “fund itself,” it’s subject to the financial markets, neither of which are MMT tenets—but I’m not so sure he and Prof. Kelton would have that much to debate. But I do agree that his engagement with Prof. Kelton would probably be very interesting. (Whether or not Gary would find it to his benefit to have such a conversation isn’t clear to me—his fight against inequality in the UK is somewhat orthogonal to MMT—but it would be interesting in itself to see what his response to a proposal for a conversation would be.)
I find your comment that Gary and Stephanie would have much to debate questionable, as I believe debate would be about the " fit" of their two positions. Gary brings a sense of direction to the table: Stephanie brings an alternative lens with which to view the economic system. Does Stephanie share Gary's belief in the inevitable impoverishment of working and middle classes under neoliberalism? What actually **is** Gary's perspective on MMT? - something that to date on which his narrative has noticeably failed to comment. So I renew my appeal to anyone in a position to promote this exchange - Please bring it on!
I understand that Gary is not a proponent of MMT but I don’t know what his reason is. I’d certainly be interested to find out where he differs.
Yes, although, from Gary's perspective, it might not matter. Listening to Gary subsequent to my comment, it's become clearer to me that he holds premises are other than what MMT holds or at least, he talks as if he does.
Again, he might view his campaign against inequality as orthogonal to MMT—he’d want to tax the rich, no matter what MMT says about taxation—essentially, he’s talking about a unequal contest between currency users—and, so, frames his rhetoric in more conventional terms, in which case, I could easily imagine him saying, “It doesn't matter what I think about MMT.” (And it doesn’t hurt his campaign to not rebut the idea that the UK government “needs to find the money somewhere” and that “somewhere,” for good reasons, should be the rich.)
Agreed.
I don’t think that Gary has anything to gain by aligning himself with MMT even if he agrees with it. Doing so would just open up another front for those opposing him.
I’m always interested to hear the views of those that disagree with MMT. It’s my way of continually testing it but I don’t think I’ll ever hear Gary’s opinion of it.
The extreme left is against inequality for MMT and against billionaires. None of their positions make sense but they all get lumped together even though they are in addition to being nonsensical, unrelated.
National debt is a disaster for Americans. Every American is something like $200,000 in debt and we have to pay it off every time we pay our taxes. thanks for the government we all are paying off a mortgage on a house that we can't live in. if government had spent the money wisely and solved all of our problems with the spending then at least you could justify it. But the way things stand our problems are bigger than ever and our debt is bigger than ever.
ted
i got back here may 4 and saw your apr 24 comment and decided to reply. you won't like my reply. you seem to hold the propaganda of the R's as truths we hold self-evident. our taxes our "paying off a mortgage" we ARE living in. it's called the United States of America. and with the sort of exceptions tht flesh is heir to givves us our money's worth in government services we need but cannot be provided by our personl effort or private enterprise. one of those services is to prevent private enterprise from robbing us. we ain't ever gonna solve "all our problems" but it would be nice if the people at least mostly understood that government is at least part of the solution. and a "balance" between government and private enterprise is the best solution ANYone has ever found.
perhaps you're not aware that America was founded on the principle of freedom and liberty from government because government was seen as the source of evil in human history. Our Genius founding fathers knew that in the 18th century. We have seen the great left-wing governments from Hitler Stalin mao pol pot Castro and stillstill the left does not understand the evil inherent in government.
no. America was founded on the principle that it was better to govern ourselves than to be governed by England. Knowing the evils that all government is heir to, they tried to construct a system of government that by checks and balances would avoid some of those evils. It took about another century and a half before they {we) realized that government had to balance aginst private enterprise to prevent the evils that ungoverned private enterprise is heir to.
Wow you really misunderstand the nature of the American revolution. now one state would've ratified the constitution if they thought it would restrict their sovereignty in anyway.
"[Our Constitution] is an instrument for the people to restrain the government". Patrick Henry
and you completely misunderstood what i said.
and what Patrck Henry said. The Constitution was an instrument designed to restrain the government by creating checks and balances. But Isaid that.
Ted, I really have to go now.
private enterprise does not rob us rather it cares for us. If you doubt it for a second open a business and announce that you don't care for your workers and customers. Do you know what would instantly happen? Notice you have bought into the left-wing propaganda and are getting everything backwards.
oh, and here I thought it was you.
I'm looking forward to the event.
I realize this is a side issue and not germane to the argument for MMT, but why is it the supposedly fiscally responsible budget balancers never count the country's assets? What's a national park worth? An aircraft carrier? Mineral rights? The National Institutes of Health? If the national parks have unique features cherished as close to priceless, wouldn't "priceless" pretty much balance national debt? ;- )
Stephanie,
If Copernicus, Gallileo and Kepler would not have said that the earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around earth (the inversion of both mental and temporal universe reality signature of every historical paradigm change) nothing would have changed in astro-physics for god knows how long.
And nothing will change the fact that money flows uphill in an oligarchy, new money creation is only allowed to be in the form of debt and private debt has always destabilized economies...until you or someone else has the guts to illogically but correctly declare that Strategic Monetary Gifting will not cause erosive inflation, but rather beneficial price and asset deflation, and among other benefits will reduce the rate of increase in private debt sufficiently that its human civilization-long destabilizing curse will be resigned to the dust bin of history the same as Ptolemaic cosmology has been.
Take the chance. Do the simple algebra and simple accounting operations of the policies I suggest and become the first authority to acknowledge the new monetary paradigm.
I'm sure you can explain how the national risk-free debt ain't no prob
1) the national "debt" indeed ain't no problem. 2) the monies created to rebate merchants' discounts AIN'T DEBT JUST MONEY, and 3) because its distributed at the terminal ending point of the entire economic process where production exits the economy and becomes consumption, i.e. retail sale and 4) hence it is also at the terminal expression point for inflation 5) we've never had y/o/y inflation of 50% let alone moment to moment and so 6) the 50% Discount implements beneficial price and asset deflation and 7) along with the other carrot and stick tax and regulatory regime I've suggested before that stop various forms of greedflation and speculative financial "innovation" and align the economy with more rational goals and so 8) we end the fetish of "free" market theoretics and instead have a system that is designed to graciously create abundant free flowingness.
Its just my way of "offing the terminally orthodox conservatives, libertarians and sociopathic narcissists" whose delusional beliefs unconsciously enforce Finance's current monopolistic monetary paradigm. So sad about the identity crisis, but it won't kill them.
Did you see Oren Cass on Daily Show this week?
https://youtu.be/vgEQeLR-M0g?si=XMMbZ38YZk5EGvG2
It’s an interesting idea that he is suggesting. If, through his love of tariffs, we diversify our economy then by that act alone we would help all other countries to diversify their economies. By pulling more industry back here, then other countries won’t need our “monopoly, the US military” as much and will instead lean more into manufacturing more regionally for their military. This would actually place much more power into the allies of NATO or the United Nations and less so in the hands of the United States.
I just don’t see the GOP going for this especially as they spit on our allies in “the art of the deal”. I also don’t know if geopolitically our politicians across both sides would like the idea of sharing the military load more with our allies but I have to admit I would love if we could have less of a “primary” military presence and more of a “shared” military presence worldwide.
Please note: while I see the advantages of tariff (stick) in conjunction with incentives like the CHIPS act (carrot), I whole heartedly believe the current administration is going about this in too dramatic of a transition.
I have friends I want to invite to watch this but they have don't know anything about MMT. Is it usually better to at least watch the "Find the Money" documentary first?
kathleen
thanks for the reply. i am afraid i may have slandered Stephen Moore, since it was apparently only a computer impersonating him. which would explain why "his" ["its"? another entry to the great pronoun crisis?] openeing remark which did not show any sign of being a response to Kelton, in spite of using language which would suggest it was a response. nor, I think, was "Kelton, A.I." a fair representation of what the real life Kelton might say.
Of course my take is not worth too much as I haven't had a chance to really think about this. I guess I am still afraid of what humans are going to do with AI.