Post @post@qoto.org

@freemo

And the concept of "printing money" misrepresent the system (come on, you print cash, that is just a possible physical mean to register a credit, like as you know electronic hardware just enable computer networks but enstablishing a connection and exchange information doesn't mean we physically build a server, so don't confuse the physical mean with the information or the hardware and the software).

Often in MMT "issuing money" is deficit public spending. The State is in fact the only economic subject enabled to spend without credits, because it "creates" them when spending. Doing so it create a difference between the amount of credits in its national currency and the amount of debts in favour of the former... you can see it like electric potential difference that makes exchanges possible in the first place like with the electic current powering a circuit.

So yes "printing money" doesn't create wealth per se but it powers the economy and people with their work create wealth, a bit like a power generator doesn't create electrons or other particicles with mass but makes them move to provide power that goes into actuators.

@freemo 😂 I wouldn't say anything like that, you think I'm really stupid... since I'm not a native English speaker I can't find better words than "financial wealth".

Of course I know money is "virtual", it's the whole point of MMT: money is just a concept in a protocol built to make people work and understanding it makes use able to guarantee full employment and allow the State to protect rights like working conditions, equality, health and education for everyone and so on.

@freemo

Did you get that MMT doesn't those claims in the article?

If I say "A" and someone else ask to experts "do you think B is true?" why do you think I'm interested in those replies? As I said it just indicates there is not interest by certain economists in understanding MMT and in addition consider that MMT is not economics so economists can't say if it's true or not, they can only says if they found it useful as a basis for their models or not.

Also you are totally wrong about the perception of MMT in academic economics, it has 25+ years of history (in its current formulation, because it has roots in chartalism by Knapp, in Marx, Keynes, Lerner and Minsky) and became more and more popular over the years. As I said, even the criminal Mario Draghi, former president of the European Central Bank, months ago said we should consider MMT.

Also when someone try to rise some criticism like Krugman there is often a reply by important supporters like Kelton. So don't assume this "debunk" is one-directional.

Of course you feel like I'm not going to change my opinion: you didn't even try to test my attitude with real arguments. And this is getting boring, really all you can say as a data scientist is "I believe in what I think is experts' thought"?

@freemo

If you want to discuss on the matter I'm here but:

"it becomes very obvious very quickly why MMT is not considered valid by professionals."

is just poor (and now irritating) rethoric. I still don't see any real argument by you while I spent time to try to make more clear what MMT claims. If you don't appreciate the effort please don't tell me I'm the one who doesn't want to change opinion.

None of use is going to change opinion with rethoric. The only chance is to find what makes you or me so convinced. I don't even know what you are convinced about. I only know you tend to trust what you feel is a shared belief by experts in a field that as I said is not even about this subject: despite MMT is supported by some economists they use it like biologists use the microscope but MMT is a description of a (information) technology. Economists generally don't even know the terms to describe it. If I tell to an economist that the monetary system is a protocol stack I could spend the entire day to explain what that means, he probably won't get it. Economists generally don't even understand the math tools they use and end up making a pseudoscientific use of math models. Since you are into modelling and you know economists you should know what I mean. And this is true also for MMT supporters, they mostly believe sectoral balances are a mathematical framework for MMT ahah

@HarryChenPhD @kravietz @freemo @elia

Please untag me from this particular argument cause I think it's really too early to have sensible discussions on the subject due to the partial and contradictory data we currently have.

@freemo

Thank you but General Relativity was right even when 99.9999% of physicists can't even understand it.

And MMT doesn't say what's in question A nor in quetion B in that article. The economists who support MMT repeated this many times. This just means there is not even interest in understanding what MMT really claims. Probably even a MMT supporter like me would had given those replies without context, because those claims are strictly wrong.

Just to make it clear: MMT doesn't claim the governament can issue infinite money. According to MMT, the public spending has an effect to the economy and so does the fiscal policy, but the two are not linked by accounting practices like mainstream economics assumes. In other words, the State doesn't have to spend a unit of credit for each unit of credit got with taxes. The function of creating money and the one of destroying it can't be linked with a 1$-1$ rate (or whatever is the currency). We don't even know the relationship is linear. Instead it's reasonable to assume that relation heavily depends on many other factors including structural differences often not considered in econometrics. This leads to the rejection of the concept of public deficit. Instead a feedback system approach would be more sensible and the Job Guarantee proposal does so: the public spending would be used to guarantee 100% of employment and taxation is regulated to ensure that a too rapid increase in domestic demand won't lead to hyperinflation.

A very important aspect of Job Guarantee is that with it the State can set the minimum working conditions not only de iure but de facto because private employers will be forced to offer better working conditions to attract workers and to do so they will have to share the profits, reverting the mechanism that is currently making wealth centralize in fewer hands.

@freemo

Sorry I didn't read your other replies, don't block me.

Feel free to tag me for any further discussion :)

@freemo

So tell me, take your time to organize your arguments and let's discuss on the matter. But please avoid any rethoric if not needed to explain a real argument.

Anyway do you think former ECB president Mario Draghi did a huge mistake recently by saying we should consider new theories like MMT? (Yes he mentioned MMT and nothing else). This is a real question, I'm curious to better understand your vision.

@HarryChenPhD @freemo

If I say it wasn't my intention you can only believe me, you can't read my mind and you can't tell what was my intention. If you had a perception now you know that was wrong.

@freemo

Again you are bringing into the discussion your unproven assumptions. Nobody can tell what is the opinion of the majority of the scientists. You think so because the media give you these feelings. We often refer to this fallacious trust in institutions as neo-positivist ideology.

@freemo

English is the language of the neoliberist ideology, of course it's it self hacked by it.

Here there is what happened: the word liberalism indicated the values instroduced mostly by Enlightment thinkers and included equality, freedom of speech, inviolability of the home, division of the powers in the State, a constitution as origin of the law and many others.

This concept was exploited to support an idea of free market that leads to economic power overwhelming the political one. So the liberalism was followed by socialism that added social rights and complemented the Liberal State with the Welfare State.

Since there was a conflict between socialist thought and the ones who claimed to be representatives of the liberal thought it happens that a real liberal thinker introduced a new term to distinguish the liberal values from the ideology that was basically supporting the capitalism.

He was the Italian phylosopher and father of the 1948 Italian Constitution Benedetto Croce. The term was liberism, different from liberalism. The term was later introduced also in USA and you should find it in dictionaries.

After WWII the liberalism was about to disapper also thanks to the liberal economist John Maynard Keynes, still known as the father of macroeconomics and precursor of MMT (he got right the main concepts).

But because of Friedrich Von Hayek and Milton Friedman ideas the liberism was populized again. And the again there was the attempt to link it to liberal values so it's known in English as neoliberalism. Instead in Italy we never use the equivalent of neoliberalism, we use the neoliberism one.

Neoliberalism term doesn't make any sense because the "pause" wasn't for liberal values, so the "neo-" part doesn't make sense. Instead there was a break between liberism and neoliberism (the Keynesian period) and there are some differences. Instead there is nothing like "a new liberalism".

@freemo *prove

@freemo

Just dive into MMT with your data scientist skills and try to understand if it could be right.

I can ensure you that if your conclusion is that it's right you will also realize how much criminal this world is and understand me when I say that what China governament does is nothing.

This is not a ranking of who is worse. It's a matter of realizing as humanity how much bad this world-wide ideology is.

Since you are a data scientist probably what stops you from realizing it is the fallacious assumptions by mainstream economics, that are revealed by MMT.

If on my side there is no propension to change opinion proves that you are different.

@freemo

Same for "the virus originated from China"

You are into the fallacy that mainstream version is proven right by definiotion and only the others must provide evidence to disagree with it.

@freemo @HarryChenPhD @elia

P.S. I said "neoliberist". "Neoliberal" term doesn't make any sense.

@freemo @HarryChenPhD @elia

I expect an apology for these offensive words. I brought arguments. Here I only read rhetoric. You talk about rationality so you should be able to distinguish arguments from rhetoric.

I have no intention to justify the Chinese governament. I'm just saying that nothing it did can be compated to what the US Empire did for decades and is currently doing to the rest of the world. And 90% of what is happening can be understood by learning Modern Monetary Theory, so if you didn't know it it's a chance to open your mind.

@HarryChenPhD @elia @freemo

As I said in another post the president of the Italian professional order of biologists claims that the Italian virus is different from the Chinese one and it originated from Italian zootechnical industry (animal farming).

So the discussion is still open.

@freemo

Again with this thing about majority...

The monetary system is not something that should be studied by economists like biology doesn't study how microscope works, physics does so.

Yes economist can't understand the monetary system because it's an information technology.

Oh and tell me, are those the same economists that make possible a world were ~50 people own half of the financial wealth and 7 bilions of people the other half?

@HarryChenPhD @elia @freemo

I didn't say so. But Italy and in future USA are risking a total collapse and we don't even have monetary sovereignty to save people.

This is not China's fault, our system was extremely fragile because of the same neoliberist ideology that is making exploitaion of workers in China a reality.

@HarryChenPhD @freemo @elia

Maybe I can't understand Chinese culture but I know where neoliberist ideology originated from (spoiler: UK & USA).