I appreciate the reference. Where are you on this, JD?
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Steve Bruns <[email protected]> wrote: > A rebuttal to Krugman's recent NYT piece, "What are Taxes For?" and > his seignorage objection to MMT. > > > http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=14238&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicoutlook%2FFYvo+%28billy+blog%29 > > > > > On 22-Apr-11, at 6:53 AM, Doug Henwood wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Max Sawicky wrote: > > > >> Re: the SS 1%, the thing people miss is that it never jumps on you > >> all at once. > >> It builds up imperceptibly over the next 30 years. > >> > >> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2010/VI_OASDHI_GDP.html#159076 > >> > >> (Table VI.F4) > >> > >> So the adjustment for any year to year period is much less than a > >> percent of GDP. > > > > Yes, I know this stuff very well - been writing about it for 15 > > years. But you see the circus in Washington now. Could you imagine > > what a fight over something like the equivalent of $140 billion a > > year would look like? > > > >> As for MMT, I understand it as boiling down to the point that a > >> sovereign nation cannot default on debts in its own currency, so > >> the issue is really the inflationary threat from monetizing the > >> debt and the Fed's ability to deal with it when and to the extent > >> appropriate. > > > > What's modern or even theoretical about that? Marx wrote in the > > Grundrisse: "The notes with which it [the central bank] discounts > > the bills of exchange of this public are at present nothing more > > than drafts on gold and silver. In our hypothetical case, they would > > be drafts on the nation's stock of products and on its directly > > employable labour force: the former is limited, the latter can be > > increased only within very positive limits and in certain amounts of > > time. The printing press, on the other hand, is inexhaustible and > > works like a stroke of magic." Money is valuable because it's a > > claim on goods and services (including labor). If you print money in > > excess of that, then you've got a problem. MMT seems to be an effort > > to evade those constraints - that for a gov to spend money it has to > > take it from someone or it's just playing inflationary games. > > > > I don't get how the Fed could print money to pay off Treasury paper > > and then "deal with" the inflationary consequences - wouldn't that > > be undoing what it had just done? > > > > Doug > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
