Show paragraph

Wonderful! 'Modern states have existed for thousands of years' have they? In that case- we might be tempted to conclude- they aren't modern at all. However, this would be very wrong of us because Modern Description theory describes something which is not modern as modern and thus we were being silly.



Governments don't create money by spending. They either have to print money or sell Treasury Bills or Gilts. If this were not the case, why on earth does the Government pay people to Print Money or conduct Open Market operations?



Taxation does not 'extinguish money'. I know this because I had a friend who was sent to jail for not paying his VAT bill. He said 'I collected the money, sure enough, but suddenly it disappeared in a puff of smoke. This is because MMT has correctly described how taxation extinguishes money- causing it to disappear in a puff of smoke.' Poor fellow, the jury didn't believe him and sent him to jail.



A large country borrowing excessively in its own currency may suffer hyper-inflation. There is likely to be capital flight by the under invoicing of exports and crooked foreign currency auctions etc. Sooner or later, the country has to rely on a hard currency in key sectors. Then, it becomes subject to the punitive discipline associated with default.



Full employment is multiply realizable. It can be attained by paying a subsistence wage to extra street sweepers or else it can be attained by people with basic skills getting into fields where their skill-set and productivity will rise thus permitting higher wages to be paid because real per unit labor costs are falling.



MMT's 'proposed job guarantee' is about giving people with basic skills low productivity jobs which will keep them trapped in poverty. India's NREGA is a scheme of this sort. The poor have little enthusiasm for it. They would prefer cash transfers to get them out of rural stagnation and give them a chance to better themselves by entering fields where productivity growth is 'low lying fruit'.



Galbraith correctly describes the legal position of the Fed. However, what he is not saying is that Congress isn't going to let the Executive use the Fed for its own purposes. Imagine a situation where Trump could hire all his supporters as 'Immigration Prevention officers', albeit on a basic wage. No doubt, Liberals are right to think people, on the whole, are good. Politicians, on the other hand, not so much. 'Practical, straightforward and realistic ways' which permit nice Presidents to do nice things can also be used by nasty Presidents to do very nasty things. Keynes, in the German edition of 'General Theory' pointed out that what he was proposing- or MMT come to that- could be better implemented under a regime like Hilter's than in a Liberal Democracy under the Rule of Law. That's one reason, not to go down that particular primrose path.