Skip to main content

View Diary: Who can own the future? (262 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What MMT does (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subterranean

    What MMT does is usurp labor through the taxing process.  We can usurp labor for the type activity you describe and I agree inflation would not be a consideration.  It is only if we want that product as a society.  People doing your research couldn't do other research.

    The other thing is that the reason spending doesn't increase inflation is because it produces utility - that is a good.  If we just credited everyone's bank account without producing additional utility we would have lots more $ chasing the same amount of goods and that would produce inflation.  That's not what MMT advocates.  

    The question here is what kind of utility would we get.  My guess it would be substantial.

    This is just my understanding of MMT - I am always grateful for correction.  I might join your group.  

    •  You are 100% correct that the question is always (5+ / 0-)

      "what is the utility of this investment, what is the social good and productivity increase that this investment will create" and never "can we afford this investment as a society".

      You did a nice job of describing MMT thinking, but I would just add one simple caveat to this sentence:
      "If we just credited everyone's bank account without producing additional utility we would have lots more $ chasing the same amount of goods and that would produce inflation."

      I would add "When the private economy is running at full capacity.........if we just credited everyone's bank account without producing additional utility we would have lots more $ chasing the same amount of goods and that would produce inflation"

      The reason MMT would put it this way is because if there is plenty unused productive capacity due to low aggregate demand stemming from high unemployment, then adding additional spending power to people (instead of a lump sum payment into everyone's bank account, you could equivalently just cut broad based taxes like FICA to accomplish the same economic effect of giving people more spending capacity), would go towards increasing sales and thus employment.  Increasing employment would increase the number of goods and services produced, so even if there was more money, it would be chasing more goods and services so you could have a net zero effect as far as inflation when you are doing this from a high unemployment rate position.  Now if the unemployment rate was 3%, and we implemented a large FICA tax cut, or increased Govt spending significantly, we would already be near our maximum ability to produce and then we would more likely get inflationary pressure.

      A good way to think about and summarize the rule of thumb is as follows:

      If unemployment is too high => the deficit is too small
      If inflation is too high => the deficit is too large.

      Always remember that inflation is a combination of 4 factors:
      M x V = P x Q
      (M)oney supply
      (V)elocity of money
      (P)rice level (inflation)
      (Q)uantity of goods and services for sale

      If the money supply increases and goods stay the same, we could not have inflation in the velocity of money were to drop a corresponding amount.  There is always more to it than just "More money = more inflation".  Thats a right wing myth.

      You have a much clearer understanding than many people so thats good

      "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens.................... Please join our Kos group "Money and Public Purpose". The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it.

      by Auburn Parks on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:55:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site