Secure Da Bag
Veteran
I'll just copy what was in the Kamala thread.
...which is a good thing
It is a good thing. A very good thing
Considering MMT is nonsense, this is definitely not a good thing.
Why not? Aren't we just printing money and using the debt ceiling for window dressing? Isn't MMT spending money and throwing away the fake ceiling?
Yung @Perfectson enlighten a breh on why MMT is bad. I honestly have no opinion on it.
First I appreciate the call out. Had a similar convo with @King Kreole
There are many triggers in the economy that happens when you over print money to pay for domestic goods . Long term you would devalue your currency and the fact that we are ind eat to countries like China means we would need to settle that debt at some point, in the mean time if inflation hits and currency devalued, we would need to tax citizens more in order to pay interest payments on the debt. The sucking out money from the citizens and economy to try to settle foreign holders of debt would be disastrous and cause long term economic recessions / depression . MMT believes money has no value and we can continue printing it because economically the goods and services haven't changed . .its a farce
This is why I don't believe in the socialist movie of spending money we don't have and expecting nothing to happen downstream
The crux of our debate is over the definition of "over printing money". MMT absolutely accounts for the fact that continually injected currency into the economy can to inflation/devaluation of currency. In fact, that's one of the two pillars of concern that MMT focuses on, next to unemployment. The point of MMT is that the government doesn't need to tax to spend money, because tax revenues aren't what funds spending. Most people think the government, a currency issuer, must obey by the same financial physics as private citizens, who are currency users. It's a nonsense theory put forth by conservative thinkers who want to shrink the role of the state. So no, America doesn't need to tax citizens more in order to pay interest payments on the debt, because government spending doesn't come from tax revenues. The government actually accounts for spends before it accounts for tax revenue. Taxes are used to control and regulate the amount of money in the economy, not pay for expenditures. It's patently absurd to claim "MMT believes money has no value and we can continue printing it because economically the goods and services haven't changed." I have no idea where you even got that idea from. MMT says there's no actual hard limit that government can run into when it comes to spending, the limits should contextual to the state of the economy. Fear of the debt ceiling or government deficits is almost completely unfounded.
The key question is what is the current state of the economy? If inflation is high, MMT advocates increasing taxes and slowing government spending to cool the economy down. If unemployment is high, MMT advocates increasing government spending and lessening taxes to heat it up. A key point is that the government debt levels is not a primary metric to worry about, because the government can never run out of currency it creates out of thin air. The government by definition cannot go broke, and it can always afford any spending it chooses to undertake. There is no such thing as "spending money we don't have" because the government literally creates money.
I don't believe any believers of MMT believe printing money leads to anything, despite your initial statement your final statement is my issues in a nutshell. Of course you can print money , but there are dire consequences that MMT proponents don't believe in or at least don't take serious.
It's akin to flat earthers saying something everyone logical scientist knows is factual
National debt and deficit don't cause any inherent problems, and inflation and unemployment are emphasized by MMT proponents, so what are the dire consequences that they don't believe in?
But deficit spending does/can cauze issues that's my entire point, you aren't gonna listen tho