@conorsen Plenty of MMTers, including myself, have proposed a) voluntary/mandatory savings programs, b) auto-fiscal stabilizers, c) direct credit regulation (as an alternative form of monetary policy to interest rate hikes). Why are those not sufficient? Believing inflationary risk is real
@conorsen does not require believing traditional approaches to managing inflation risk are good/appropriate.
@conorsen Here's us articulating back in 2019 a range of tools that could/should have been included this past year but weren't, not because MMT had nothing to say but because the Biden admin is not following MMT prescriptions.
@conorsen And here's what we actually say about taxes as a demand-management tool - again, not running away from its importance but clarifying how to do it properly (which again, Biden admin/Congress wasn't interested in over the past year, b/c they aren't "doing MMT"):
@conorsen And finally, here's us in 2019 quoting Stephanie from *2013* recommending an independent fiscal agency to adjust in live-time, again a proposal not considered in the past year because contra orthodox wisdom, MMTers are not in the drivers seat in Biden admin
@conorsen There are ppl w a vested interest in proclaiming MMT a failure who are gleeful about inflation we have now, but reality is that a) Biden admin abandoned sound finance for its spending thanks in part to MMT's influence but b) did not adopt a MMT inflation-management framework.
@conorsen The correct response to that is not 'see, MMT is a failure!' and to lament the abandonment of terrible sound finance principles (as many are doing), but to do properly what we've been advocating for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm not a fan of Krugman nor do I have much intrinsic respect for the economics "Nobel Prize", but it was notable in these interactions
just how willing Stewart, who often hid(hides) his politics behind the shield of "i'm just a comedian", was to straight-up dismiss Krugman's arguments, not because he had any substantive response to them, but simply because they stretched credulity beyond what he could grasp.
The Fed's report on CBDCs is out, & predictably, on the most important issue of all - protecting/maintaining cash-like privacy - there is no analysis, just assertion, that anonymity is non-viable b/c greater scale/velocity of digital. Very disappointing.
I've made this point before, but it's important to emphasize: the Fed is not statutorily responsible for issuing cash, nor does its mandate or expertise extend to issues of preserving civil liberties or balancing security/privacy concerns. Its opinions/preferences are not gospel.
Presently and for thousands of years, individuals are/have been able to transact with cash anonymously, and do not need/have not needed to sign-up or provide their identity in order to make transactions with public money. Eliminating that capacity in the digital age is extreme.
1. Prates claims Fed only purchases Tsy securities. But that’s incorrect. The Fed buys both notes & coins from Tsy today, and then sells them onto commercial banks and others, who sell excess coins back to the Fed.
2. The Fed is also legally the Tsy’s fiscal agent, and is required to accept monies deposited by the Tsy. There’s no indication that excludes coins and the law is quite clear if Tsy and Fed disagree on scope of that authority, the law sides with Tsy Sec.
3. Prates argues the Tsy cannot deposit the coin in its regular account because "Fed accounts only receive reserves". But this is a category error, reserves are a *liability* of the Fed. The coin would be an asset, like tsys and other acquired assets.
Easy to dismiss this as a one off, a bad apple, even a sign of the need to tighten up around the edges. But it's deeper, there's a more fundamental legitimacy crisis at play around the technocratic presumptions of central bank dominance and this feeds right into it.
Because reality is that before you can even begin to contemplate the kind of ethics violation that Clarida did, you have to be in a certain economic class where that kind of temptation exists. I dont know many elementary school teachers with investment portfolios like Clarida.
"Even the advocates of a strict literal construction of the phrase, 'to coin money & regulate the value thereof,' while insisting that it defines the material to be coined as metal, are compelled to concede to Congress large discretion in all other particulars.
The Constitution does not ordain what metals may be coined, or prescribe that the legal value of the metals, when coined, shall correspond at all with their intrinsic value in the market.
... More than once in our history has the regulation been changed without any denial of
the power of Congress to change it, and it seems to have been left to Congress to determine alike what metal shall be coined, its purity, and how far its statutory value, as money, shall correspond, from time to time, with the market value of the same metal as bullion."
Youre still just displaying your ignorance. The Tsy "printing" this quantity of money doesn't do anything unless Congress actually directs it to be spent, and if Congress directs the Tsy to spend it doesn't matter whether it's via issuing tsys or coins the economic effect is same
Obviously it would be a stupid idea to try to spend 30,000x GDP in one go, which is why no one is saying Congress should do that. But that has literally nothing to do with minting the coin unless you dont understand public finance like Preston.
And of course, if Preston wants to argue to the court that there is presently a limit on the amount of Reserves or Federal Reserve Notes that can be created, or the amount of Treasury Securities the Tsy can issue when debt ceiling is suspended, or amount of pennies to stamp etc