MMT False Counterpoint #2 - Ceteris paribus with a perfect solution.

[Thrilla]

It has a number of times. That question does not lead us anywhere. What would be interesting is, what the economy and society would now be like, had we not increased the monetary aggregates so much and borrowed large quantities on the back of this.

recession are good examples of the sky falling?

it is an interesting question, but it's one that cannot be answered.... reality is what it is.
personally, I think the populace would be mired in poverty... but on a good note, the cost of living would be very low.:lol:

 

[DA60]

I can't imagine what kind of stone age we would be in if human kind said "well I've never seen it done, so I'm not trying it". Further you seem to have difficulty in understanding the principle of a "theory." Gravity, relativity, expansion of the universe, evolution are all laws or theories, that while we accept them, nobody pretends that we might discover something to the contrary later. Finally we HAVE historical proof. We're doing this RIGHT NOW. We've been deficit spending for a very long time and evidence is there:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...ig-deficits-cause-recessions-think-again.html

Umm...that thread is all over the place.

My question was specific.

The number one example of the MMT in history is Japan. And Japan - as I proved above - has (since they went MMT nuts in 1990-91) done far, FAR worse then America alone over that time period. Their major stock market has lost over half, while America's (DOW) has grown over 6 fold, they have experienced three times as many quarterly GDP contractions, their GDP per capita since 1991 is up only 15% while America's has gone up almost 50%, Japan's once mighty trade surplus has collapsed (overall), their debt-to-GDP ratio is now by far the worst in the world, almost half of their taxes go just to debt servicing, their Lost Decade (which is fast becoming their Lost Generation) and on and on.

All of these are facts and all of these are proof positive that their MMT-policies have been failures.

Besides, what evidence have you presented that austerity and the magic of the private sector will fix everything. The evidence continues to mount in the form of corporate profits against the idea of "incentivizing" private enterprise. Private enterprise can sell all they want....as long as the demand exists. Yet you like to always like to refer to this circular magic. Seriously, who is really suspending disbelief here. MMT makes sense, your ONLY counter point is always "well someday....".

The question is not is austerity wonderful but is MMT wonderful (as you seem to be asserting).

But I have shown many times how 'austerity' ended the 1920/21 Depression in 3 1/2 years with a 10% deficit reduction which blows away the notion that you have to spend your way out of recessions/depressions (while unemployment during the huge government stimulus 1930's was five times worse 10 years after the crash in 1929).

Sigh...Japan....again. We've been over the differences DA, countless times.

That is weak and you know it (I hope you do for your sake).

I present lots of unbiased data and you present nothing but trying to poo poo it away?

A) is any data I presented not true?

B) where is your factual proof from unbiased sources that the Japanese MMT experiment since 1990-91 has been a raging success?

If you cannot back up your claims with historical data...the claims means nothing (to me).


Good day.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

A) is any data I presented not true?

I told you last week that your "data" on the 1920 depression was incomplete and didn't tell the whole story.

B) where is your factual proof from unbiased sources that the Japanese MMT experiment since 1990-91 has been a raging success?

Where is your factual proof that Japan instituted policies that MMT would approve of? From everything I have real about Japan (still hard to find good info there), they are far more into corporate welfare than increasing demand via low-end consumers. That's not MMT-approved at all. Nor is their increased consumption tax. Your whole Japan fixation is completely misplaced when you try to use it to criticize MMT.

 

[DA60]

I told you last week that your "data" on the 1920 depression was incomplete and didn't tell the whole story.



Where is your factual proof that Japan instituted policies that MMT would approve of? From everything I have real about Japan (still hard to find good info there), they are far more into corporate welfare than increasing demand via low-end consumers. That's not MMT-approved at all. Nor is their increased consumption tax. Your whole Japan fixation is completely misplaced when you try to use it to criticize MMT.

Lol...how many times do I have to tell you?

I do not care in the slightest what you (or anyone else) thinks or theorizes about macroeconomics. I only care about the data/facts they can present.


If you can disprove the facts I present - please do so.

If you have additional facts/data from unbiased sources to present - please present them.

But I will probably never be interested in what any human being thinks, believes, interprets or theorizes about macroeconomics unless they can back up every, single point they make with statistical proof in the form of historical facts/data from unbiased sources.


One thing I learned being an investor for over 20 years...if someone cannot factually prove that what they are selling does what they claim it will do; then it is probably worthless.



Good day.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Lol...how many times do I have to tell you?

I do not care in the slightest what you (or anyone else) thinks or theorizes about macroeconomics. I only care about the data/facts they can present.


If you can disprove the facts I present - please do so.

If you have additional facts/data from unbiased sources to present - please present them.

But I will probably never be interested in what any human being thinks, believes, interprets or theorizes about macroeconomics unless they can back up every, single point they make with statistical proof in the form of historical facts/data from unbiased sources.


Good day.

But you only care about the "facts" that support your argument, and you ignore the facts that counter your argument. You aren't even living up to your own standards, yet you expect everybody else to.

We ran a large trade surplus in the 1920's, so there was no need for deficit spending. That alone kills your argument.

And your "facts" about Japan are so vague that they don't add up to an argument at all. Nothing close to a full picture has been presented, just bare claims that Japan's economy is slow, and they (to everybody's surprise) subscribe to MMT policies. Well, no, they don't.

 

[DA60]

But you only care about the "facts" that support your argument, and you ignore the facts that counter your argument. You aren't even living up to your own standards, yet you expect everybody else to.

We ran a large trade surplus in the 1920's, so there was no need for deficit spending. That alone kills your argument.

And your "facts" about Japan are so vague that they don't add up to an argument at all. Nothing close to a full picture has been presented, just bare claims that Japan's economy is slow, and they (to everybody's surprise) subscribe to MMT policies. Well, no, they don't.

Stats/facts are not vague...either they are either accurate or they are not.

And they are good enough for me.


So until you do post links to data/stats...we are done here for now.


Good day.

 

[joG]

recession are good examples of the sky falling?

it is an interesting question, but it's one that cannot be answered.... reality is what it is.
personally, I think the populace would be mired in poverty... but on a good note, the cost of living would be very low.:lol:

If one doesn't understand how the recent past shaped the present, one hardly has a chance at shaping the future.

 

[Absentglare]

Stats/facts are not vague...either they are either accurate or they are not.

And they are good enough for me.


So until you do post links to data/stats...we are done here for now.


Good day.

Well- what, specifically, is wrong in Japan ?

 

[pdog]

Umm...that thread is all over the place.

It's 3 sentences DA, try to keep up. I addressed your silliness in asking for "historical" proof, your shallow idea of a "theory", and closed with the FACT deficits are not the bane that you make them out to be.

My question was specific.

yes, it specifically asked for nonsense. If everybody demanded "historical proof" for every theory we would be no where as a society. The logic is there DA, but you dismiss it with lousy correlation.

The number one example of the MMT in history is Japan. And Japan - as I proved above - has (since they went MMT nuts in 1990-91) done far, FAR worse then America alone over that time period. Their major stock market has lost over half, while America's (DOW) has grown over 6 fold, they have experienced three times as many quarterly GDP contractions, their GDP per capita since 1991 is up only 15% while America's has gone up almost 50%, Japan's once mighty trade surplus has collapsed (overall), their debt-to-GDP ratio is now by far the worst in the world, almost half of their taxes go just to debt servicing, their Lost Decade (which is fast becoming their Lost Generation) and on and on.

All of these are facts and all of these are proof positive that their MMT-policies have been failures.

This are all facts, but you've done noting to prove they are caused solely on MMT. Every time you bring up Japan, the differences between Japan and the U.S. is pointed out to you. Japans aging population, their tendency to save, the corruption, the fact that they undo any mmt or Keynesian principle with new taxes. Time and time and time again this is pointed out to you and you never acknowledge the possibility of other correlations. Then the real kicker - despite these problems japan has an unemployment rate we would kill for. But of course you don't care about that - you seem to think the stock market is a better indicator of the health of an economy.

The question is not is austerity wonderful but is MMT wonderful (as you seem to be asserting).

When the opposite of MMT is less government spending in favor of private sector magic, yes it absolutely is.

But I have shown many times how 'austerity' ended the 1920/21 Depression in 3 1/2 years with a 10% deficit reduction which blows away the notion that you have to spend your way out of recessions/depressions (while unemployment during the huge government stimulus 1930's was five times worse 10 years after the crash in 1929).

Utter B.S. and another rehash of arguments that have been found wanting:

I wish people that wrote articles wouldn't be so casual with the "facts".

Forgetting the massive post-war retooling to be done, the influx of GIs back into the work force, etc, lets look at government spending during the period in question.

#1
Government spending started falling in 1919 - you could easily say that reduced government spending was a CAUSE of the 1920 depression.

#2
The reduced level of spending that everybody is celebrating as the cure is more than 4 times higher than prewar spending.

Gee, I guess the era leading into the roaring 20s and on to the great depression isn't so simple after all.

That is weak and you know it (I hope you do for your sake).

I present lots of unbiased data and you present nothing but trying to poo poo it away?

It's not the data that's not factual. It's your correlation fallacy. Countless times a larger picture of Japan's problems has been presented to you. And you simply "good day" your way out of the argument.

A) is any data I presented not true?

Probably not. is there anything that I presented to you that is not factual? Does Japan have an aging economy? Do they tend to save more than us? Is their unemployment rate low? Did they have to start importing more energy after the earth quake? Do they raise taxes?
I don't feel like digging up all these links again, but here is one of the more quantitative ones:
Japan Savings Ratio | Economics Help

The reality is there is more than enough data to bust your thin correlation.

B) where is your factual proof from unbiased sources that the Japanese MMT experiment since 1990-91 has been a raging success?

https://ycharts.com/indicators/japan_unemployment_rate
where is your links that say japans success or problems are 100% tied only to deficit spending?

If you cannot back up your claims with historical data...the claims means nothing (to me).

until you stop treating japan as a single MMT variable, your correlation fallacy means nothing to me.

 

[Moderate Right]

But you only care about the "facts" that support your argument, and you ignore the facts that counter your argument. You aren't even living up to your own standards, yet you expect everybody else to.

We ran a large trade surplus in the 1920's, so there was no need for deficit spending. That alone kills your argument.

And your "facts" about Japan are so vague that they don't add up to an argument at all. Nothing close to a full picture has been presented, just bare claims that Japan's economy is slow, and they (to everybody's surprise) subscribe to MMT policies. Well, no, they don't.

Is this the pot calling the kettle black? You only care about the facts that support your argument. Japan doesn't subscribe to MMT policies? How is this possible? I thought MMT was merely a description of how things work everywhere.

 

[Moderate Right]

we've been operating under MMT since the 1930's.... has the sky fallen yet?

How is this possible that we have been operating under MMT since the 1930's? I thought MMT was merely a description of how things worked, not something you can operate under. Did things work differently before 1930 than after 1930? The way things work are just the way things work.

 

[Critter7r]

How is this possible that we have been operating under MMT since the 1930's? I thought MMT was merely a description of how things worked, not something you can operate under. Did things work differently before 1930 than after 1930? The way things work are just the way things work.

Let me google that for you

 

[Absentglare]

How is this possible that we have been operating under MMT since the 1930's? I thought MMT was merely a description of how things worked, not something you can operate under. Did things work differently before 1930 than after 1930? The way things work are just the way things work.

It feels like you're not even attempting to understand what has been repeatedly spelled out to you.

We're not on the gold standard. That means we can create as much money as we want to. There is no limit on our ability to create money (but there are limits on our desires to create money).

 

[Thrilla]

How is this possible that we have been operating under MMT since the 1930's? I thought MMT was merely a description of how things worked, not something you can operate under. Did things work differently before 1930 than after 1930? The way things work are just the way things work.

the monetary system operated very differently when our currency was pegged to gold.

 

[Moderate Right]

Let me google that for you

That is just ridiculous. Now you're saying there are two economic policies, the gold standard and MMT and that's all there is. It's got to be one or the other. MMT is only the liberal description of how things work. Supply Side Economics is the conservative description of how things work. Oh, that makes three. Cullen Roche, an ex MMT'r, clearly details how MMT gets many things wrong, including how the banking system works but you take MMT on faith, like the bible. MMT is not a description of how things work. Again, it is only the liberal description of how things work. It is a slick economic policy designed to justify massive never ending spending. Some on the left try to do the hard sell on it but nobody anywhere is buying it. That's why not one country out of about 200 on the planet follows MMT as their country's economic policy.

 

[Moderate Right]

It feels like you're not even attempting to understand what has been repeatedly spelled out to you.

We're not on the gold standard. That means we can create as much money as we want to. There is no limit on our ability to create money (but there are limits on our desires to create money).

OH geeeeeeeeeez. Here we go again with the contradictions. So what if it is possible to create as much money as we want to? I can create as much money as I want to also but there will be consequences if I do, just as there will be consequences if the US does the same thing. What's the point of saying that we can create as much money as we want to if even you yourself claim we would not want to do that? That's just a stupid and irrelevant point - probably a bandwagon fallacy (wait a minute while I look that definition up again). I can pick weeds in my back yard year after year until I finally die but do you really care? What would be the point of me saying that if I knew I wasn't going to do it anyway?

 

[Moderate Right]

the monetary system operated very differently when our currency was pegged to gold.

The monetary system works very differently than what MMT'rs believe.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

The monetary system works very differently than what MMT'rs believe.

Why don't you explain the differences to us, then?

IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

 

[Absentglare]

OH geeeeeeeeeez. Here we go again with the contradictions. So what if it is possible to create as much money as we want to? I can create as much money as I want to also but there will be consequences if I do, just as there will be consequences if the US does the same thing. What's the point of saying that we can create as much money as we want to if even you yourself claim we would not want to do that? That's just a stupid and irrelevant point - probably a bandwagon fallacy (wait a minute while I look that definition up again). I can pick weeds in my back yard year after year until I finally die but do you really care? What would be the point of me saying that if I knew I wasn't going to do it anyway?

What contradictions ?

I'm glad you agree that we can create as much money as we want. The point of explaining this is to say that we are not truly in jeopardy of defaulting on our debt obligations. We will always be able to meet every debt obligation that we want to meet (as long as that debt is in US dollars, we can always create US dollars to service the debt).

Of course, i think we all agree that the government should not actually print limitless amounts of money. What we want to talk about is what should we spend money on ? How should we collect taxes ? What should we be concerned about ?

Clearly, we should be concerned about printing too much money and suffering from excessive inflation.

 

[mmi]

the assumption that the US economy will always grow. … historically that's a very poor assumption.

Except for the Great Depression (thanks for that one, GOP SSE supporters), real US per capita GDP has grown steadily at around two percent for the past 150 years. What history are you looking at?

(source, p. 2)

The forecasts I've seen anticipate a figure of around $85K by 2050.

(source)

I have shown many times how 'austerity' ended the 1920/21 Depression in 3 1/2 years

You keep saying that, but it's a ridiculously stupid lie. You think you can win an argument by referring to events that nearly everyone is ignorant of from a hundred years ago.

That downturn lasted eighteen months, not forty. And two years later, in May of 1923, the economy was back in recession. That one lasted fourteen months. A little more than two years after that? Another recession started in Oct 1927. Sounds like a horribly mismanaged GOP SSE economy to me. Wait another two years, and we get the GOP SSE Great Depression and Nazi Germany. But yer such a wise and successful investor, I'm sure you can tell me how those "facts" are incorrect.

>>a 10% deficit reduction which blows away the notion that you have to spend your way out of recessions/depressions

As I noted in an other thread, "the $736 billion surplus in 1922, about one percent of GDP, created by a 31% reduction in federal spending, was one factor that pushed the economy back into recession two years later in May 1923."

>>unemployment during the huge government stimulus 1930's was five times worse 10 years after the crash in 1929

You get those figures by pretending that Americans employed through the New Deal work relief programs you demonize were somehow unemployed. The gubmint didn't start measuring unemployment through the CPS until 1940, so we're left to rely on academic studies.

The rate in 1929 was in the 3-4% range. If you count those employed through work relief programs as unemployed, you do indeed get a rate in 1939 of around 17%. If you decide to be more realistic and count them as employed, the rate was more like 11%. And even that fails to account for the poor decision FDR made in 1937 to go with austerity, as federal spending was cut by seven percent. The unemployment rate was down to around nine percent that year, and ran back up to eleven when programs were cut.

This is, I admit, a complex issue. See, e.g., "Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7:2, Spring 1993, pp. 41-59, reprinted by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

 

[Moderate Right]

Why don't you explain the differences to us, then?

IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

There is no reason to do it in my own words when many experts have already done it before me. There is much you post that isn't in your own words. You often post links, graphs, stats, and other things from other sources to prove your points but then you don't allow others to do the same, especially when you can't counter the experts. When you stop, I'll stop. That's ridiculous and nothing more than deflection and intimidation tactics from a bully who has no answers to the experts who have debunked MMT. This has been posted many times before and you already know that. Go find it yourself or go away but, again, I thank you for feeling the need to respond to my posts because I am a threat to you. If I wasn't then there would be no reason to respond to my posts. I am actually very flattered that I am such a threat to both you and MMT.

 

[Moderate Right]

What contradictions ?

I'm glad you agree that we can create as much money as we want. The point of explaining this is to say that we are not truly in jeopardy of defaulting on our debt obligations. We will always be able to meet every debt obligation that we want to meet (as long as that debt is in US dollars, we can always create US dollars to service the debt).

Of course, i think we all agree that the government should not actually print limitless amounts of money. What we want to talk about is what should we spend money on ? How should we collect taxes ? What should we be concerned about ?

Clearly, we should be concerned about printing too much money and suffering from excessive inflation.

You yourself say that we can but we shouldn't. That's my point and my point was also that I can print all the money I want too but there will be consequences for me doing it, just as there would be consequences for the US doing it. I think it is you who have problems reading English. Why would I want to say that I can pick weeds in my backyard forever if I really know that I can't or shouldn't do it (but I theoretically could)? Do you get the analogy? What's the point of saying we can print money forever if you acknowledge that there will be consequences for doing it, so therefore we shouldn't? It's just a plain stupid argument.

 

[DA60]

https://ycharts.com/indicators/japan_unemployment_rate

That's it? Japan's unemployment rate is all your proof? The fact that Japan is drowning in debt, stagnation, a gradually regressing standard of living, 3 times as many negative GDP quarters then America since 1991 and a stock market that has shrunk 50% compared to the DOW growing by over 600% since 1990...they all mean little/nothing to you?

Lol...noted.

where is your links that say japans success or problems are 100% tied only to deficit spending?

I never said - or even thought - that it was.

Only an idiot would blame economic problems 100% on any one problem.


Thank you for your answer.

Your mind is clearly closed on this issue and you obviously do not understand real world macroeconomics. Like Cleveland and mmi et al....you are apparently emotionally attached to a certain way of thinking on macroeconomics and rely on (no offense) simpleton economics and pie-in-the-sky theories that have NEVER been proven as effective.
Whereas I am attached to nothing (on this) but the truth and making money - for me and others. I don't care about macroeconomic theories or political partisanship.

Further discussion with you on this matter would be a waste of my time.

We are done here for now.

Good day.

 

[Critter7r]

You yourself say that we can but we shouldn't. That's my point and my point was also that I can print all the money I want too but there will be consequences for me doing it, just as there would be consequences for the US doing it. I think it is you who have problems reading English. Why would I want to say that I can pick weeds in my backyard forever if I really know that I can't or shouldn't do it (but I theoretically could)? Do you get the analogy? What's the point of saying we can print money forever if you acknowledge that there will be consequences for doing it, so therefore we shouldn't? It's just a plain stupid argument.

For the same reason people talk about placing speed limits on roads ... because cars have the ability to drive 120mph, but there are roads on which it would be a bad idea to do so. Do YOU get the analogy? What's the point of your denying our ability to print endless dollars simply because we shouldn't? It's just a plain stupid statement.

 

[Critter7r]

Let me google that for you

That is just ridiculous. Now you're saying there are two economic policies, the gold standard and MMT and that's all there is. It's got to be one or the other.

Where in that post did I say any of that?

MMT is only the liberal description of how things work. Supply Side Economics is the conservative description of how things work. Oh, that makes three. Cullen Roche, an ex MMT'r, clearly details how MMT gets many things wrong, including how the banking system works but you take MMT on faith, like the bible. MMT is not a description of how things work. Again, it is only the liberal description of how things work. It is a slick economic policy designed to justify massive never ending spending. Some on the left try to do the hard sell on it but nobody anywhere is buying it. That's why not one country out of about 200 on the planet follows MMT as their country's economic policy.

more opinion and conjecture ....

EDIT: Actually, it's not "more ...", it's the same points you've brought up in the same words you've brought them up in, a hundred times.