Occasional Tweets: MMT is a do-gooder scam

 

JG, GND, etc is a do-gooder-scam for fooling #WeThePeople. The 3-sector #ProfitLaw Q≡(G−T)+(I−S)+Yd implies #PublicDeficitIsPrivateProfit. Thus, #DeficitSpendingMoneyCreation is a #FreeLunch for the #Oligarchy.

MMT works just fine (for the Oligarchy)https://t.co/J7ThjKutR5 pic.twitter.com/KEOWQ3vRRO

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) September 24, 2021

For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT.

Occasional Tweets: Climate, deficit, profit

 

#Economics#FailedScience#FakeScience

For the relationship between #Climate and #Profit see

MMT/GND: Another case of bad people capturing a good causehttps://t.co/t1YFcltC2z

— E.K-H (@AXECorg) August 12, 2021

For more about the Green New Deal GND see AXECquery. 

MMT/GND: Another case of bad people capturing a good cause

Comment on Nathan Tankus/Andrés Bernal/Raúl Carrillo on ‘The Green New Deal will be tremendously expensive. Every penny should go on the government’s tab.’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Sep 26

It cannot be otherwise, bad people always and everywhere claim to promote the good cause. This is rather old stuff: “Everyone sees what you seem to be, few know what you really are; and those few do not dare take a stand against the general opinion.” (Machiavelli) This is why corruption comes in the cloak of philanthropy and ruin comes in the cloak of salvation. As a rule of thumb, public opinion is upside down: “Fair is foul, foul is fair.” (Shakespeare)

A new version of political deception is MMT’s promotion of environmental protection. The communicative fact of the matter is that nobody can argue against environmental protection just as nobody can argue against peace, freedom, wealth, love, solidarity, motherhood, equity, and the welfare of humankind.

The economic fact of the matter is that MMT is a program for the permanent enrichment of the Oligarchy. This is impossible to sell to the general public, therefore, MMT has to be repackaged as a program for the benefit of WeThePeople. Luckily, this is not very hard: “The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar.” (Machiavelli)

Accordingly, Nathan Tankus/Andrés Bernal/Raúl Carrillo argue: “The Green New Deal is a vital way to address the social threat of climate change. Some GND advocates want to make the idea more palatable by relying on indirect financing like public-private partnerships or loans to private companies. While the ideas are designed to make the Green New Deal more politically palatable, indirect financing will also blunt the changes made by the GND. … Accordingly, people who truly want to see a GND in our time should fully embrace the power of the public purse.”

Economically, the “power of the public purse” works via the macroeconomic Profit Law which says Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M) with Q as macroeconomic profit. The Law boils down to Public Deficit (G−T>0) = Private Profit Q which means that the Oligarchy’s financial wealth and public debt grow in lockstep. It is the very characteristic of the free-market economy that it is already for a long time on the life support of the state. Profit is produced mainly by the government through deficit-spending/money-creation. The Oligarchy, in turn, uses the opulent free lunches to corrupt what remains of the state’s legislative, executive, judiciary institutions, including academia.

As a matter of principle, any GND measure can be realized with a balanced budget. NO MMTer will ever propose that. The message of the MMT do-gooders is deficit-spending/ money-creation.

MMT is not only bad science and bad policy but MMTers are also bad people. How can we know this? Quite easy, Nathan Tankus/Andrés Bernal/Raúl Carrillo is an #EconBlocker.#1 Genuine scientist do NOT block their critics but try to refute them, yet for stupid/corrupt agenda pushers blocking/suppression is second nature.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Business Insider
#1 Economists/MMTers: agenda pushers, distractors, blockers, muters, censors

Related 'Fraud comes always in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom' and 'Is MMT good for WeThePeople or for the Oligarchy?' and 'Links on MMTers push Wall Street’s agenda' and 'No MMT illusions! YOU are going to pay for it' and 'How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it' and 'The half-truths and half-falsehoods of MMT' and 'MMTers are NOT Friends-of-the-People' and 'MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia' and 'MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (I)' and 'MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (II)' and 'How MMT enlightens Washington' and 'Very busy these days: Wall Street’s agents' and 'How to spot economics trolls'.

***

Cast of #EconBlockers

“Raúl Carrillo is the director of the Modern Money Network.

Andrés Bernal is a lecturer at CUNY Queens College Department of Urban Studies and an advisor to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.

Nathan Tankus is a research fellow at the Clarke Business Law Institute's Program on the Law and Regulation of Financial Institutions and Markets at Cornell Law School and is the research director at the Modern Money Network.”

***

REPLY to Andrew Anderson on Sep 26

With regard to the realization of environmental protection, you ask: “With or without increases in the money supply? If ‘with’ how do you propose to increase the money supply in an ethical manner?”

This is a secondary question. If you want to reduce CO2, for example, the first logical question to ask is who is the biggest polluter? The simple answer is the military. So, real Progressives would radically reduce the military and redirect its humongous budget to environmental-friendly measures. This budgetary/monetary neutrality, of course, is anathema for the deficit-spending/money-creating false Progressives of MMT.

MMT/GND deficit-spending/money-creation as environmental policy is fully in line with the ethics of the Pentagon and Wall Street. It is NOT for the benefit of WeThePeople.

***

Mike Norman Economics Nov 14

Twitter May 16, 2021 A question of allocation

Twitter Aug 12, 2021 Climate and deficit

New Daily, Alan Kohler: The money for dealing with climate change will have to be printed

MMTers are false Progressives and false Friends-of-the-People

Comment on Bill Mitchell on ‘”Sound finance” prevents available climate solution with massive jobs potential’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Economists are known to have dabbled in virtually every discipline: psychology, sociology, political sciences, geopolitics, law, history, anthropology, social philosophy, philosophy, theology, pedagogic, biology/evolution, art, literature, and whatnot. This somewhat perverse habit has been called Economics Imperialism.#1, #2, #3 The perversity consists of the fact that economists have utterly failed in their own discipline. Since Adam Smith, economics has not risen above the proto-scientific level.#4 Economists do not know to this day how the monetary economy works.

The greatest scientific losers cannot hold their mouths when genuine scientists are solving real-world problems. This is something economists have never done; just the opposite. As Napoleon summarized: “… he had always believed that if an empire were made of granite the ideas of economists if listened to, would suffice to reduce it to dust.” (Viner)#5

History seems to repeat itself. Bill Mitchell quotes an article in the latest edition of Science#6: “The authors note at the outset that: Photosynthetic carbon capture by trees is likely to be among our most effective strategies to limit the rise of CO2 concentrations across the globe.” and “The restoration of trees remains among the most effective strategies for climate change mitigation.” and “We could restore 1tn trees for $300bn”.

Now, Bill Mitchell chimes in with good advice: “Clearly tree planting is not rocket science and the skills necessary to undertake these reafforestation projects would be within the reach of most workers. A progressive editor or commentator should never be questioning how we can pay for a tree planting project. They should be lobbying at every chance governments to end their ‘sound finance’ mindsets.”

A progressive editor would simply propose to shift the government’s budget from military spending to reforestation. The problem is NOT budget-balancing a.k.a. sound finance but budget allocation which is long-known in economics under the old slogan guns vs butter. The USA can very easily save the environment and improve social conditions by reallocating the given budget.#7, #8 This, however, is NOT what “progressive” MMTers propose. Instead, they propose to increase deficit-spending/money-creation.

Accordingly, Bill Mitchell does not talk about reallocation of a given budget but prophylactically mows down all budget balancers: “The neoliberals continually drown the populace in a swathe of austerity myths:

• The government has run out of money.
• Deficits will drive up interest rates.
• Deficits will cause hyperinflation.
• Deficits will rack up unsustainable debts on our grandchildren.
• Bond markets will punish governments who run continuous deficits.
• Deficits undermine growth because the private sector thwarts its intent by increasing saving to pay for higher implied taxes in the future.
• Direct job creation creates unreal jobs that are worthless.
• A Job Guarantee would undermine the capacity of private employers to attract labor and drive down productivity.
• ETC, the list goes on.

Bill Mitchell never talks about the profit effect of deficit-spending/money-creation. The macroeconomic Profit Law, i.e. Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M), tells everyone that Public Deficit = Private Profit and that MMT is a free-lunch program for the Oligarchy and that private financial wealth and public debt grow in lockstep and that fabulous financial wealth in the USA is roughly equal to humongous public debt (22 trillion and counting).#9, #10

MMT is NOT a scientific theory but a dishonest political farce. MMTers are not Friends-of-the-People but the useful idiots of Wall Street.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 “Economics imperialism in contemporary economics is the economic analysis of seemingly non-economic aspects of life, such as crime, law, the family, prejudice, tastes, irrational behavior, politics, sociology, culture, religion, war, science, and research.” (Wikipedia)
#2 Economists: Jacks-of-all-trades ― except economics
#3 Overreach: Economists have their fingers in every pie except real economics
#4 Economics: The greatest scientific hoax in modern times
#5 Econogenics in action
#6 Science: The global tree restoration potential
#7 MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (II)
#8 MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (I)
#9 Is MMT good for WeThePeople or for the Oligarchy?
10 What comes first: eco-self-destruction or oeco-self-destruction?

Related 'Schizonomics' and 'Why the MMT benefactors of humanity never talk about profit' and 'How to spot economics trolls' and 'MMT: A new myth for WeThePeople' and 'MMT’s true program' and 'No MMT illusions! YOU are going to pay for it' and 'Links on Austerity' and 'Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople' and 'How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it' and 'Just one more day: How deficit-spending postpones the breakdown of Capitalism'.

No MMT illusions! YOU are going to pay for it

Own post, no external Blog-Reference

For the average citizen, the essence of smartness is to get more out of the social trough than to put into it. Or, in monetary terms, to get stuff and to make others pay for it. Or, in national terms “I will build a great, great wall … and I will have Mexico pay for that wall.” Most people never get above this pig-trough world view which, after all, serves for 150+ years now as one of the axioms of economics, i.e. “HC3 Agents independently optimize subject to constraints” (Weintraub) or in plain text: people seek to make the difference between utility and disutility as big as they possibly can, or in the words of the founding fathers “Just in the same manner does Political Economy presuppose an arbitrary definition of man, as a being who invariably does that by which he may obtain the greatest amount of necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries, with the smallest quantity of labour and physical self-denial with which they can be obtained in the existing state of knowledge.” (J. S. Mill)

The obvious logical problem with the pig-trough worldview is that it cannot work for all: it is impossible that all get more out of the trough than they throw into it. This is, as Marx realized, the fundamental problem of capitalism: “How can they continually draw 600 p. st. out of circulation, when they continually throw only 500 p. st. into it? From nothing comes nothing. The capitalist class as a whole cannot draw out of circulation what was not previously in it.” Neither Marx nor the rest of scientifically incompetent economists have answered this fundamental question of economics to this day.#1

Because of their pig-trough thinking, people fall since time immemorial for gold-makers, snake oil sellers, bubble blowers, and all types of wealth creators, chief among them economists: “… in the introduction to Book IV we read that Political Economy ‘proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign,’ and it is this definition which expresses both what Smith wanted above everything and what interested his readers more than anything else.” (Schumpeter)#2

Pig-trough psychology explains the political attractiveness of MMT. MMT answers the question of How are you going to pay for it? with deficit-spending/money-creation. Posing as real Progressives, MMTers do not criticize governments for permanently increasing the public debt but only for not handing over the money to needy people or GND world savers but to farmers or other unworthy folks: “Have you noticed that when the president unilaterally directs $16 bn in bailout payments to agricultural interests, no one says: but how will you pay for it?”#4

This rhetorical question stirs up outrage and deflects from political fraud, i.e. from the economic fact that deficit-spending/money-creation is in the end to the disadvantage of WeThePeople and to the advantage of the Oligarchy.#5

The economic fact of the matter is: either the budget is balanced then WeThePeople pay for government spending through open taxation, or the government deficit-spends then WeThePeople pay through stealth taxation, i.e. through an almost unnoticeable one-off price hike (NO inflation). Because the macroeconomic Profit Law entails Public Deficit = Private Profit the financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with public debt. For the overall profit of the business sector, it does NOT matter at all whether the deficit spending goes to the military, the farmers, or the Green New Deal. #6, #7, #8

So, the answer to the question Who pays? is always and everywhere: WeThePeople pay in real terms no matter whether the budget is balanced or money is created out of nothing. WeThePeople pay vastly more in the case of deficit-spending/money-creation (because of the interest on public debt) than in the case of budget balancing.

Economists in general and MMTers, in particular, are a hazard to their fellow citizens because they are either stupid or corrupt or both.#9

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith
#2 Fraud comes always in the cloak of charity, salvation, or threat of doom
#3 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists
#4 Twitter, Chris Hayes
#5 Dear idiots, MMTers are Wall Street’s agenda pushers
#6 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists
#7 MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (II)
#8 MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (I)
#9 Econogenics in action

Related 'Gold-making, wine from water, M―C―M', perpetuum mobile, free lunch, beating the stock market, and the perennial human dream' and 'Economics between science and magic' and 'How MMT makes everybody happy' and 'The Magic Money Tree is real ― too bad that the magic is fraud' and 'Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit' and 'The Kelton Fraud'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references MMT.

***

AXEC152c

MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (II)

Comment on Richard Murphy on ‘Growth, MMT and the Green New Deal’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Strictly speaking, environmental protection is an issue for physicists, chemists, and other scientists. Economists are not scientists because they do not know to this day how the monetary economy works. This does not stop these abysmally incompetent folks from uttering their irrelevant opinion on every issue between heaven and earth.

Richard Murphy claims to have synthesized MMT and GND: “This one takes an explanation because it has become very closely associated with the Green New Deal, which is again at least in part my fault.”

Unfortunately, he gets the economics part of the synthesis badly wrong. In more detail:

1. “Fundamentally it [MMT] suggests that since we came off the gold standard all money is ‘fiat’ currency It’s a promise to pay and nothing more. The promise backed by the power of the state to tax.” FALSE! TRUE: The creation and value of money does NOT depend on the taxing power of the State.#1, #2 ,#3, #4

2. “But the state does not need tax to spend. All spending is effectively settled with money created by banks on demand from a customer. It is not paid for out of a stock of savings. And in the case of a government, it is not paid for out of tax received.” FALSE! TRUE: Spending on current output with newly created money is analogous to the spending of the counterfeiter.#5

3. “Instead gov’t spending is paid for by the government asking its bank ― the Bank of England ― to make payment for it. This is exactly akin to the fact that banks do not lend out customer funds: rather they make the funds they lend by a process of double-entry book-keeping and bank deposits are the result of that process, and not where it starts.” FALSE! TRUE: Money is a generalized IOU. Government deposits and overdrafts are produced simultaneously. The government spending is ‘financed’ by overdrafts at the central bank which have to be eventually repaid.#6

4. “The result is that a government with its own central bank and currency can never run short of money ― because it can instruct that it be made at will. And it can never go bankrupt if it borrows solely in its own currency because it can always create the funds to make payment. But of course, it cannot print money at will ― because inflation will result.” FALSE! TRUE: This is the good old Quantity Theory Fallacy. Continuous deficit spending and growing public debt do NOT cause inflation.#7

5. “So action has to be taken to keep inflation under control ― and that is the real purpose of tax in MMT.” FALSE because of 4.

6. “Its secondary purposes are to Ratify the value of money; Redistribute income and wealth; Reprice market failure; Reorganise the economy; Raise representation in a democracy.” FALSE! TRUE: Because of the macroeconomic Profit Law it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit and this means that the lethal effect of MMT policy is on distribution and that it secures ― intentionally or unintentionally does not matter ― the self-alimentation of the Oligarchy. Nothing could be more anti-democratic than MMT policy.

The claim of MMTers that a Green New Deal can be realized at any time by deficit spending is misleading at best. Technically, of course, there is no problem. However, as a matter of principle, any Green New Deal can be realized with a balanced budget. But in the MMT scheme of things, a balanced budget is something for the Swabian housewife and permanent deficit spending is the prerogative and duty of the Sovereign State.

The point is that MMTers are not so much interested in how the government’s budget is allocated but that the government runs a deficit because it is the deficit as such that produces the macroeconomic profit for the Oligarchy.#8

MMT is NOT science but political agenda pushing in a social/environmental bluff package. MMT and GND together are the dream team for deceiving WeThePeople for the benefit of the Oligarchy.#9

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The creation and value of money and near-monies
#2 MMT, money, value, and transcendental Capitalism
#3 The canonical macroeconomic model
#4 MMT: fundamentally false
#5 How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it
#6 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists
#7 Settling the MMT―Inflation issue for good
#8 MMT and the promotion of Wall Street's idea of social policy
#9 Just one more day: How deficit-spending postpones the breakdown of Capitalism

Immediately preceding 

Related 'MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (I)' and 'Economists: Trolls with a mortarboard' and 'The half-truths and half-falsehoods of MMT' and 'Fraud comes always in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom' and 'MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help' and 'MMT is NOT bold policy but spineless fraud' and 'Econogenics in action'.

***

ADDENDUM (re. Andrew (Andy) Crow on May 24, submission closed)

Economists fall into two categories: political economists (= agenda pushers) and theoretical economists (= scientists).

As in every walk of life, there is the genuine thing and the lookalike: “A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. ... A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham, and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.” (Haack)

Political economists in general, and MMTers, in particular, are fake scientists. MMT is provably false, i.e. materially and formally inconsistent.

When I as an economist say “Economists are not scientists because they do not know to this day how the monetary economy works.” the word “economists” clearly refers to political economists.

Needless to say, the general public does NOT discriminate between P-economists and T-economists and does not realize that P-economics is fake science. The point to grasp is: MMT is proto-scientific garbage and MMTers are agenda pushers for the Oligarchy.

MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (I)

Comment on Randall Wray on ‘How To Pay For The War’

Blog-Reference

MMT claims to be a theory, i.e. a materially/formally consistent mental representation of reality, and NOT a policy.#0 Accordingly, MMT is, as a matter of principle, compatible with any policy: “Consequently, the message from the MMT camp to all those campaigning on progressive … economic issues is that MMT macro is complementary, is something to be added and should prove a boost to whatever the specific issue, e.g., GND, happens to be.”#1

This is correct, MMTers jump on any bandwagon from unemployment to healthcare to a Pony-for-every-American to the Green New Deal.#2 MMTers have a solution to almost all social/economic problems and it consists of deficit-spending/money-creation.#3

The first schizophrenic fact of the matter is, though, that MMTers present themselves as real Progressives ― in contradistinction to the debilitated old Left ― who fight hard for the cause of WeThePeople. The second schizophrenic fact is that MMTers are not so much social activists but agenda pushers for the Oligarchy. On closer inspection, MMT is neither a scientific theory nor a social program but a political fraud.

The first thing to note is that MMTers always mix up Employment Theory and Allocation Theory and Monetary Theory. For the purpose of analysis, these issues have to be treated separately.

Since Keynes, most economists agree that unemployment can be reduced by government deficit spending. However, most economists do not know the macroeconomic Profit Law which entails Public Deficit = Private Profit. By consequence, to fight unemployment with deficit-spending/money-creation means to feed the Oligarchy.#4

Let us assume for a moment that the employment problem has been solved and turn to the question of allocation. So, what is now the answer to the question of how will you pay for the Green New Deal?

The answer is pretty obvious: shift the money from the military budget to the environmental protection budget. This has two effects, (i) because the military is the greater polluter compared to the average household, CO₂ emissions and other negative environmental impacts go down immediately as a result, and (ii), neither tax increases nor additional deficit-spending/money-creation is necessary. A quite ordinary re-allocation of the existing budget is sufficient for the implementation of a Green New Deal program.

So, the answer of MMTers that a Green New Deal can be realized at any time by deficit spending is a bit misleading.#5, #6 As a matter of principle, any New Green Deal can be realized with a balanced budget. But in the MMT scheme of things, a balanced budget is something for the Swabian housewife and permanent deficit spending is the prerogative of a Sovereign State.

The point is that MMTers are not so much interested in how the government’s budget is allocated but that the government runs a deficit because it is the deficit as such that produces the macroeconomic profit for the Oligarchy.#7 From a higher standpoint, it is a matter of economic indifference whether a deficit stems from military or environmental spending. This is the reason why MMTers jump on any popular social movement with the well-received message that money is not a problem for a sovereign government because the money-issuer cannot go bankrupt. This is true, of course, but only obfuscates the economic fact that MMT policy amounts to stealth taxation of WeThePeople and a free lunch for the Oligarchy.

Real Progressives would answer the question How are you going to pay for a GND? with Simple, by re-allocating the budget. Phony Progressives answer with Simple, by telling the Central Bank to digitally create some extra money on the government’s account.

MMT is NOT science but political agenda pushing in a social cloak. MMT and GND together are the dream team for a financial coup of mind-blowing proportions in the tradition of John Law.#8

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#0 “MMT should not been seen as a regime that you ‘apply’ or ‘switch to’ or ‘introduce’. As I have noted regularly, MMT is rather a lens which allows us to see the true (intrinsic) workings of the fiat monetary system. … The point is that MMT is agnostic about policy bar its preference for an employment buffer rather than an unemployment buffer to discipline inflation. … In general, it makes no sense to talk about an “MMT-type prescription” or an “MMT solution”. To make that MMT understanding operational in a policy context, a value system or ideology must be introduced. MMT is not intrinsically ‘Left-leaning’.” (Bill Mitchell)
#1 Twitter David Merrill Message from the MMT camp
#2 MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help
#3 Twitter William J. Luther, MMT in a nutshell
#4 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit
#5 How counterfeiters save America with an extra profit and make WeThePeople pay for it
#6 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists
#7 MMT and the promotion of Wall Street's idea of social policy
#8 Wikipedia John Law (economist)

Related 'MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (II)' and  'Full employment through the price mechanism' and 'Economics debate ― just another variant of hardcore wrestling' and 'MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?' and 'Deficit-spending/money-creation is always a bad deal for WeThePeople ― to paint it green makes no difference'. For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT.

***

Twitter: MMT in a nutshell

Twitter Jun 20

Twitter Jun 20

Twitter Nov 10, 2021

Twitter Jun 29, 2022

How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists

Comment on Randall Wray on ‘How To Pay For The War’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference (Link)

Randall Wray puts the issue into perspective: “I’m going to talk about war, not peace, in relation to our work on the Green New Deal ― which I argue is the big MEOW — moral equivalent of war ― and how we are going to pay for it. So I’m going to focus on Keynes’s 1940 book ― How To Pay for the War …” and “Our analysis (and the MMT approach in general) is in line with J. M. Keynes’s approach. Keynes rightly believed that war planning is not a financial challenge, but a real resource problem.” and “We’ve timed our GND to be completed by 2030. We have 10 years to make Keynes’s vision become reality. The alternative is annihilation.”

What Randall Wray has not grasped, though, is that Keynes got macroeconomics wrong, and because of this, Keynesianism and its derivatives up to MMT are scientifically worthless. So, in order to avoid annihilation, the proto-scientific garbage of macroeconomics has to be fixed first. #1

Macroeconomic foundations

The production-consumption economy is defined by the following set of macroeconomic axioms: #2 (A0) The elementary configuration of the economy consists of the household and the business sector, which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Y_w=WL wage income Y_w is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

Under the conditions of market-clearing X=O and budget-balancing C=Y_w in each period, the price as the dependent variable is given by P=W/R. The price is determined by the wage rate W, which takes the role of the nominal numéraire, and the productivity R. This is the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand.

The focus is here on the nominal/monetary balances. For the time being, real balances are excluded, i.e., it holds X=O. L is set at full employment.

The condition of budget balancing, i.e., C=Y_w, is now skipped. The monetary saving/ dissaving of the household sector is defined as S≡Y_w−C. The monetary profit/loss of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Y_w. Ergo  Q≡−S.

The balances add up to zero. The mirror image of household sector saving S is the business sector loss −Q. The mirror image of household sector dissaving (-S) is business sector profit Q. Q≡−S is the elementary version of the macroeconomic Profit Law.

With additional sectors, the complete macroeconomic Profit Law is given by Q≡Y_d+(I−S)+(G−T)+(EX−IM). It is here reduced to Q=(−S)+(G−T), which says that profit Q is determined by the household sector’s and government sector’s deficit spending.

Scenario_0

With employment L and wage rate W given, wage income is Y_w=100 monetary units [e.g., trillion $]. Productivity R and output O remain constant throughout. Consumption expenditures C are equal to wage income, i.e., C=Y_w. As a consequence, the profit of the business sector is zero. The household sector consumes the whole output. The required stock of transaction money is provided by the central bank and is left out of the picture.

Scenario_1 War with full taxation

The government needs part of the current output O in period t=1. The need is legitimate and undisputed, e.g., war. The government taxes the wage income, i.e., T=10. Disposable income is reduced from 100 to 90. The households reduce consumption expenditures in lockstep from 100 to C_h=90. The government fully spends the income tax of 10 units, that is, total consumption expenditures C=Ch+G remain unchanged, and the market-clearing price P remains constant. Both the household sector and the government sector fully consume their respective shares of output O_h and O_g, i.e., O=O_h+O_g. The real war consumption Og is fully paid for by taxes. The government’s budget is balanced, i.e., G=T. The household sector’s budget is balanced, i.e., C_h+T=Y_w. In real terms, the households pay Og for the war effort, in nominal terms T.

In period 2, the war is over, and income tax is again zero, and everything else is like in the initial scenario_0.

Scenario_2 No taxation, household sector saving, government deficit spending

The government imposes no income tax. The household sector reduces consumption expenditures voluntarily from 100 to C_h=90 in period 1. Through saving of 10 units, the household sector’s current deposits at the central bank increase. At the same time, the government spends G=10 and takes up overdrafts at the central bank. Both sides of the central bank’s balance sheet are equal. Households’ deposits = government’s overdrafts. Total consumption expenditures, i.e., C=C_h+G, and the market-clearing price P remain unchanged. The government runs a deficit, i.e., G−T=10 with T=0. Profit is zero because of G−T=S.

The war is over in period 2, and no changes happen in periods 2, 3, and 4. The households keep the deposits, and the government keeps the overdrafts. Interest payments are left out of the picture. The household sector’s financial assets are equal to the public debt. Seen in isolation, the household sector is wealthier after the war. This, of course, is an illusion that stems from ignoring the public debt, which is psychologically nobody's debt.

In period 5, the government is supposed to pay back the overdrafts. The wage income of Y_w=100 is taxed with T=10 units. Disposable income is reduced to 90. The government uses the 10 units of income tax to reduce its overdraft at the central bank to zero. At the same time, the household sector dissaves 10 units, i.e., reduces its deposits to zero. Consumption expenditures C are then equal to disposable income 90 plus dissaving 10, i.e., C=100. The balance sheet of the central bank at the end of period 5 is again zero as in the initial period. Deposits (= money) and overdrafts are destroyed, i.e., reduced to zero.

What actually happens in scenario_2 in comparison to scenario_1 is that the taxation for the war is shifted from period 1 to period 5. In real terms, there is NO difference at all. Real consumption of the household sector is reduced in both cases in period 1. In other words, the taxes are paid in period 5 with a saving of 10 units from period 1. That’s all if the interest rate is zero. The whole exercise amounts to an indefinite tax deferment.

If the government issues bonds with a volume of 10 units in period 2, the household sector’s deposits are reduced to zero, and so are the government's overdrafts. The central bank’s balance sheet reduces to zero. The household sector holds bonds instead of deposits, and the government switches overdrafts into bond liabilities. The central bank is out as an intermediary, and there is a direct creditor-debtor relationship between the household and the government sector in the form of bonds or similar types of government securities.

The interest on bonds is taxed from the household sector and paid to the bondholders. There is a redistribution of disposable income as long as the public debt is rolled over. This redistribution is normally not for the benefit of WeThePeople but for the benefit of the Oligarchy. The lower the interest rate, the smaller the redistribution from the ninety-nine-percenters to the one-percenters.

In period 4, the whole securitization transaction is exactly reversed. The government sector takes up 10 units of overdrafts and redeems the bonds. Accordingly, the household sector’s stock of bonds is reduced from 10 to zero, and the deposits go up from zero to 10.

In period 5, the households are taxed, they dissave, and the government fully repays the overdrafts.

In period 6, everything is again as it was in the initial period.

Scenario_2 fully replaces Ricardian Equivalence.

Scenario_3 No taxation, no saving, government deficit spending

The government spends G=10 on war, but the households do NOT reduce consumption expenditures, i.e., C_h=100, and accordingly, their deposits are zero at the beginning and the end of period 1. The government takes up overdrafts at the central bank and spends these 10 units IN ADDITION to the households, so total consumption expenditures are now C=C_h+G=110. Since total output remains unchanged, the market-clearing price now rises, and the business sector makes a profit of Q=10, which is equal to the government’s budget deficit, i.e., G−T=10 with T=0. At the central bank, the business sector’s deposits are 10, and government overdrafts are also 10 at the end of period 1. The redistribution of current output O between the household and the government sector does not happen via the income tax or saving but via a one-off hike of the market-clearing price P. There is NO inflation.

In real terms, there is again NO difference between the scenarios. The difference compared to scenario_2 is that the business sector now has 10 units of deposits instead of the household sector because the households do not save, and the business sector makes a profit of 10 units. Business sector’s deposits = money = government’s overdrafts.

In the next period, the war is over, the government’s war spending stops, and the market-clearing price falls back to the initial level. The business sector can hold its deposits indefinitely, and the government can keep its overdrafts indefinitely. Alternatively, the government sector can sell bonds to the business sector, which takes the central bank out of the loop and establishes a direct credit relationship between the business sector and the government sector.

As long as the government does not tax the households, everything remains unchanged for an indefinite time. So, the whole issue of war financing can simply be pushed beyond the time horizon and forgotten. The trouble comes here in period 5 when the disposable income is reduced due to taxation from 100 to 90, and consumption expenditures also fall to 90 because now there is no dissaving. In this case, the market-clearing price falls, and the business sector makes a loss of 10 units, which reduces its deposits to zero. The one-off price hike of period 1 is reversed in period 5. Summed over all periods, macroeconomic profit is zero.

The government is now in possession of 10 units of deposits from taxation, which can be used to redeem the bonds/overdrafts. Everything is then again as it was in the initial period.

Comparison

In scenario_1, the households pay income tax in period 1, and NO credit relationships ensue. In scenario_2, the tax payment is deferred via saving in period 1 and dissaving in period 5. In scenario_3, we have instead of the saving/dissaving of the household sector profit in period 1 and loss in period 5. Summed over all periods, profit and loss cancel out. In scenario_2, profit is zero over all periods.

In REAL terms and with an interest rate of zero, there is absolutely NO difference between the scenarios. In real terms, the war is paid for in period 1 by the household sector. The significant difference is between the saving/dissaving scenario and the profit/loss scenario.

In the real world, a mixture of the three scenarios happens. The war is paid for in nominal terms by a combination of taxation, household sector saving, and government deficit spending.

Summary

From the perspective of WeThePeople, scenario_1 is the best. It entails budget balancing. Scenario 2 brings additional taxes for the payment of interest on the public debt. From the perspective of the Oligarchy, scenario_3 is the best. This scenario produces the macroeconomic profit of the business sector. In other words, the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is the Oligarchy’s profit booster.

The households pay in real terms for the war through a reduction of real private consumption in period 1. In nominal terms, the question is how long is taxation deferred? The central bank can extend the deferment in principle until eternity by buying the government securities and keeping them on the asset side. Otherwise, the households are taxed for interest payments on the public debt in perpetuity for the benefit of the Oligarchy.

Neither in war nor in peace, the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is ultimately in the interest of WeThePeople. When it comes to the debate about the Green New Deal ― allegedly the moral equivalent of war ― people should be aware that economists are scientifically incompetent and/or morally corrupt. The proof is in the actual distribution of financial wealth and the amount of public debt (about $22 trillion and counting). When MMTers talk about physical annihilation, it should be realized that people have already lived for a long time in a state of deferred financial annihilation.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* New Economic Perspectives
#1 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT
#2 The canonical macroeconomic model

Related 'What comes first: eco-self-destruction or oeco-self-destruction?' and 'How to solve almost any problem' and 'The true nature of economists' confusion' and 'MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (I)' and 'MMT and the Green New Deal: Where is the snag? (II)' and 'Stephanie Kelton sells children into debt slavery'.

***

Twitter Dec 22

Twitter Jan19, 2021

Twitter/X Jan 2, 2026  Existing gold stocks are an alternative to funding the war

Twitter/X Aug 19, 2026 History of bamboozle

Economists: Trolls with a mortarboard

Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘Jeffrey Sachs ― Green New Deal is feasible and affordable’

Blog-Reference

The axiomatically correct Profit Law for the economy as a whole is given by Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M) and reduces to Q≡(G−T) if Yd, I, S, X, M is taken out of the picture for a moment. The reduced Profit Law says that the monetary profit of the business sector Q is equal to the deficit (G−T>0) of the public sector, in a nutshell: Public Deficit = Private Profit.

So, from the standpoint of plain self-interest, the one-percenters and their useful academic spokespersons should consistently argue FOR deficit spending, and the ninety-nine-percenters and their academic spokespersons should consistently argue AGAINST it. Reality is different.#1, #2, #3, #4, #5

The communicative problem is this: the Oligarchy cannot argue, folks, we need permanent public deficits for our economic well-being and growth of our cash-backed political power, so they let their academic trolls argue, folks YOU need public deficits for YOUR social well-being and YOUR survival in view of rapidly increasing environmental hazards.#6

It was MMTers like Warren Mosler who took it upon themselves to actively promote deficit-spending/money-creation and a continuously growing public debt as a benefit for WeThePeople. This is a fraud because just the opposite is actually the case, that is, MMT benefits the Oligarchy. What can be currently observed is that not only a growing number of economists are jumping on the MMT bandwagon, but also opinion leaders of the Oligarchy, like Warren Buffett. #7

It seems that virtually all economic schools are now for socially/environmentally enlightened capitalism with state-generated profits for the Oligarchy. The remaining tiny problem is those pesky rent-seekers who simply take their public-deficit free lunch without pretending that they work hard for the best of humanity: “… the GND [Green New Deal] entails using true price based on true costs, which eliminates the extraction of economic rent through socializing negative externality, the bill for which is now coming due on global society and the global economy. The system is becoming increasingly dysfunctional, while the fat cats become fatter on rent extraction. Take away the rents and ‘capitalism’ works all by itself through actual market price by preempting rent-seeking and rent extraction (as many Austrian economists have been saying from the right and Marxist and Marxian economists from the left.” A great coalition of economic trolls is currently in the making.

Tom Hickey fails to realize or to mention that nothing has ever produced more profit = rent than the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation. Fabulous financial wealth is the mirror image of humungous public debt ($22 trillion and counting).#8

Since Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, economists have failed to tell WeThePeople where profit and financial wealth really come from. MMTers are only the last in a long series of storytelling academic trolls.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Austerity and the political games Progressives play
#2 MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?
#3 MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
#4 Economics as a cover for agenda pushing
#5 Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich
#6 MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help
#7 MMT for beginners
#8 Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy

Related 'The MMT propaganda runs hot' and 'Very busy, those Wall Street propaganda folks' and 'Look, how they jump on the deficit/profit bandwagon'.

***

Twitter Mar 1

Twitter Mar 6

The half-truths and half-falsehoods of MMT

Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘Paul Mason ― Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal is radical but it needs to be credible too’*

Blog-Reference

The mission of economics as a science is to figure out how the economy works. Nothing more, nothing less. The mission of economics is NOT to push a political agenda. The point to grasp is that there is the scientific sphere and the political sphere, and both have to be kept apart. Why? Because politics corrupts science. #1 This also happened to economics. Economics is a failed/fake science.

The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. MMT is no exception.

MMTers characterize themselves as Progressives. Generally speaking, Progressives claim to care for the welfare of their fellow citizens (local, national, global; present and future) and the environment (local, national, global; present and future). On the scale from individualism to globalism, MMTers argue for the primacy of national welfare.

From the standpoint of science, these political claims are not an issue for the economist. Political goals and means have to be discussed in the political sphere and ultimately decided by the Legitimate Sovereign. The economist as a scientist is alone concerned with the question of how the actual economy works. #2 The Legitimate Sovereign is free to use scientific knowledge for the implementation of policy. The bleak reality is, though, that economists have always been fully occupied with agenda pushing and have to this day no scientifically valid theory about how the economy works. Economic policy guidance has NEVER had valid scientific foundations.

All this applies across the board from Adam Smith onward to MMT.

Economically, there are two questions for government spending (i) on what is the money spent (e.g., (ia) administrative-, (ib) military-, (ic) social-, (id) environmental-budget), and (ii) is government spending G less, equal, or greater than taxation T, i.e., (iia) G<T, (iib) G=T, (iic) G>T? Needless to emphasize that the questions about allocation and financing are constantly confused. The question is further confused by lumping it together with the full employment policy.

MMTers claim that the answer to almost all economic/social problems is permanent deficit-spending/money-creation, with some caveats with regard to inflation.

With regard to employment policy, for example, this is correct. Public deficit spending helps to reduce unemployment. Whether this is the best policy is another matter.

MMTers are right in pointing out that, as a matter of principle, money as the means of transaction is NOT a limiting factor for the realization of any combination of administrative, military, social, and environmental spending on which the Legitimate Sovereign finally settles. However, as a matter of principle, deficit spending is the wrong way to bring money into the economy because of its effect on distribution. Axiomatically correct macroeconomics tells one that Public Deficit = Private Profit.

Paul Mason argues: “MMT gives no account of where economic growth or profit comes from other than within the monetary system itself.” This is not quite correct. MMTers deliberately obfuscate where profit comes from. #3, #4

Tom Hickey argues: “What conventional economics misses is how finance and economics are joined at the hip in a monetary production economy, and that this joint is structured in terms of double-entry accounting, which implies stock-flow consistent modeling using a unit of account.” This is a half-truth because MMT, too, gets macroeconomic accounting provably wrong.

Tom Hickey argues: “This was a major point made by Keynes that MMT economists agree with: Investment causes saving. It is not the case that saving causes investment.” This is patently false. Business sector investment I and household sector saving S are causally unrelated. The correct macroeconomic relationship is given by Q=I−S, with Q as macroeconomic profit.

MMT policy has one property that makes it disadvantageous for WeThePeople and advantageous for the Oligarchy, i.e., because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit. So, no matter how the money is allocated between administrative, military, social, and environmental spending, as long as there is deficit-spending/money-creation, the Oligarchy makes a profit equal to the deficit.

The result is fabulous financial wealth on one side and humongous public debt on the other side of the national balance sheet, with all negative effects of MMT policy shoved beyond the time horizon.

MMT is proto-scientific garbage. MMTers are fake Progressives. In the political Circus Maximus, MMTers are agenda pushers, useful idiots, and stand-up comedians. The Green New Deal is only a new opportunity to sell the old program of deficit-spending/money-creation, i.e., of a permanent free lunch for the Oligarchy. #5

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* NewStatesman
#1 “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” (Schumpeter)
#2 “Senior, . . . , said indeed that the economist’s conclusions ‘do not authorize him in adding a single syllable of advice.’” (Schumpeter)
#3 Understanding public deficits, money, and profit
#4 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
#5 Fraud always comes in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom


Related 'Opinion, conversation, interpretation, blather: the economist’s major immunizing stratagems' and 'How MMT makes everybody happy' and 'MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution' and 'Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople' and 'Full employment through the price mechanism' and 'MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help. For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT.

Links on MMT is politically open and applicable to both Capitalism and Socialism

Comment on Peter Cooper on  ‘MMT is Politically Open and Applicable to Both Capitalism and Socialism’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Feb 10

Peter Cooper asserts: “Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) offers an understanding of sovereign (and non-sovereign) currencies that is applicable to a wide range of economic systems, including capitalist and socialist ones. Irrespective of the personal political preferences of its proponents, the theoretical framework in itself is neutral on the appropriate balance between public sector and private sector activity, or the relative merits of capitalism and socialism.”

This is not the case.

In the course of an enumeration of MMT’s essential features, Peter Cooper mentions “Government deficit equals non-government surplus.” and explains “Basic accounting relationships apply irrespective of a society’s politics. Funds created through government spending that have not been taxed back are held as financial assets by non-government.”

It is methodologically true, of course, that “Basic accounting relationships apply irrespective of a society’s politics”, however, MMT’s fundamental accounting relationship, i.e. the sectoral balances equation, is logically/mathematically false. Because of this fundamental blunder, the rest of MMT is scientifically worthless and neither applicable to capitalism or socialism.

The correct accounting relationship states Public Deficit = Private Profit.

For the proof see
► Rectification of MMT macro accounting
► What and where is profit?
► “But economics is not pure mathematics or logic” No, it is pure blather
► Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

***

Links on Michael Roberts’ ‘The Green New Deal and changing America’

Blog-Reference on Feb 10

Calgacus cites: “Many of the MMT school don’t appear to understand (or at least don’t admit) that the very existence of MMT as a body of knowledge directly opposes ruling capitalist class interests.” and comments “Ohh, they almost all understand and admit it. They’re just quiet about it.”

To speak of MMT as a “body of knowledge” is a silly joke. MMTers have not even understood that their foundational sectoral balances equation is false. Descriptions of the operational details of Treasury/FED interactions are useful information but NOT scientific knowledge.

To maintain that “MMT directly opposes ruling capitalist class interests” is either self-delusion or fraud. Because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, i.e. Public Deficit = Private Profit, the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation guarantees a permanent free lunch for the Oligarchy. For details see
► Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit
► Fraud comes always in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom
► Socialism and scientific incompetence
► MMT and Marxism ― blather as immunizing stratagem

***

Links on Lars Syll’s ‘Paul Samuelson–an economist in “the business of dishonesty”’

Blog-Reference on Feb 8

The problem with Samuelson is NOT silly policy advice but scientific incompetence. See
► The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids
► There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”

***

Link on Bruce Wilds' ‘Deficit Spending Main Driver Of American Economy!’

Blog-Reference on Feb 5

Tom Hickey replies: “And Accounting 101 shows why this is wrong. Basic accounting shows that public debt increases private saving. The funding sources is currency issuance. The funds government net spends in aggregate are exactly equal to the funds that the private sector net saves in aggregate.”

Take notice that the assertion “public debt increases private saving” is provably false. Economists are too stupid for macroeconomic accounting. Because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit.#1


#1 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick

Fraud comes always in the cloak of charity, salvation, or the threat of doom

Comment on Jacob Weindling on ‘What Is Modern Monetary Theory and Why Is It So Important to the Green New Deal?’*

Blog-Reference

Jacob Weindling asserts: “… the question of … how do you pay for the Green New Deal?’ has already been answered. The HuffPo piece was written by Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Stony Brook University, Stephanie Kelton, who was also the Chief Economist for the Democrats on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. Yesterday, she posted a thread outlining some legitimate economic questions that MMT claims to answer.” and “The question of how to pay for the Green New Deal is pretty silly when you take a step back and look at the larger issue at hand. Scientists are nearly in unanimous agreement that unless we do something unprecedented in the next twelve years, the Earth will become irreversibly hostile to human life in twenty years, with an estimated cost of $69 trillion to deal with this apocalyptic future.”

Jacob Weindling is either a confused blatherer or a fake Progressive agenda pusher. #1

The answer to the question “How are you going to pay for it” has two progressive answers: the genuine and the fake. The genuine Progressive answers: simple, by cutting military spending. #2 The fake Progressive answers: simple, by deficit-spending/money-creation.

MMTers are fake Progressives. In fact, MMTers are agenda pushers for the Oligarchy. How can one be sure of it?

Economically, there are two questions for government spending (i) on what is the money spent (e.g., (ia) administrative-, (ib) military-, (ic) social budget, etcetera), and (ii) is government spending G less, equal, or greater than taxation T, i.e., (iia) G<T, (iib) G=T, (iic) G>T? Needless to emphasize that these questions are constantly confused, whether intentionally or unintentionally, does not matter. The question is further confused by lumping it together with the full employment policy.

MMTers claim that the answer to almost all economic/social problems is permanent deficit-spending/money-creation, with some caveats with regard to inflation.

Now, MMT policy has one property that makes it disadvantageous for WeThePeople and advantageous for the Oligarchy, #3, #4, #5, i.e., because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit. So, no matter how the money is allocated between administrative, military, social, and environmental spending, as long as there is deficit-spending/money-creation, the Oligarchy makes a profit equal to the deficit. #6

As a rule of thumb, the financial wealth of the Oligarchy grows in lockstep with the public debt. In other words, the fabulous wealth in the U.S. is the mirror image of fabulous public debt ($21.5 trillion).

No matter what MMTers claim that permanent public deficit spending is good for, #6 it is ultimately good for the permanent self-alimentation of the Oligarchy.

While MMTers have hitherto posed as friendly helpers for the unemployed and socially disadvantaged, they now sell deficit spending as the last hope for saving humanity and the planet.

MMT is proto-scientific garbage and social fraud. This is what economics has been since Adam Smith/Karl Marx. Economics is failed/fake science. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Paste
#1 MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?
#2 What the world wants and how to pay for it using military expenditures
#3 How MMT makes everybody happy
#4 MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution
#5 Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople
#6 MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help

Related 'The Kelton-Fraud' and 'Down with idiocy!' and 'Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy' and 'MMT sucks' and 'MMTers are NOT Friends-of-the-People'.