Trump and MMT: Make profits great again

Comment on Matt Franko on ‘Must be a libertarian bad dream …’

Blog-Reference (Blog-Reference blocked)

The latest Donald J. Trump Tweet proclaims: “I am pleased to announce the House has passed our budget deal 284-149.”#1

Economically, Mr. Trump continues the long tradition of deficit-spending/money-creation.#2 Deficit-spending is said to be good for everything from employment, growth, education, war, health-care, to saving humanity and the planet.

The economic fact of the matter is that deficit-spending/money-creation is, and has always been, bad for WeThePeople and good for the Oligarchy.#3, #4

Since Adam Smith, the task of economists is to deliver some scientifically looking justification for already decided upon policies. Last time it was Friedrich Hayek who acted as a useful academic idiot for Prime Minister Thatcher/President Reagan, this time it is the MMTers Kelton/Mosler/Mitchell/etc.

Modern Monetary Theory is refuted on all counts.#5 Politically, this does not matter much because in the political realm it is not the scientific truth-value that counts but the political use-value.#6

The macroeconomic Profit Law, i.e. Q≡Qm+Qn with Qm≡Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M) entails Public Deficit = Private Profit which means that the central MMT policy recommendation of deficit-spending/money-creation benefits the Oligarchy and ultimately not WeThePeople. In other words, MMTers attempt to convince people of policies that are not in their interest. Inside the political sphere, this counts as smart, outside the political sphere this counts as deception/fraud/corruption.

Permanently growing debt is an indicator that the system is broken. The economic fact of the matter is: so-called free-market economies like the USA have long been on the full life support of the state. The continuous creation of financial wealth has become the first and foremost economic task of the state. The Oligarchy is continuously fed by deficit-spending/money-creation. Roughly speaking, the Oligarchy’s financial wealth is equal to accumulated Public Debt (with WeThePeople as ultimate bag holders).#7

The very characteristic of late Capitalism is that the so-called free-market economy is on the full life support of the state. Profit is produced 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, and judiciary institutions.

What President Trump and the House, with the propaganda support of MMT, have actually achieved is that the system survives economically at least until the next election in 2020.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Twitter Jul 26

Source: Twitter

#2 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit
#3 Is MMT good for WeThePeople or for the Oligarchy?
#4 MMTers are false Progressives and false Friends-of-the-People
#5 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT
#6 MMT’s true program
#7 The decisive reason to worry about government debt

Related 'MMT = Trumponomics'

***

Twitter Jul 26

Source: Twitter

Mike Norman Economics Feb 18, 2021

The decisive reason to worry about government debt

Comment on J. W. Mason on ‘A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons Not to Worry about Government Debt’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Arguments 1. to 8. and 11. boils down to unemployment being bad for multiple reasons, and government deficit-spending can effectively reduce unemployment. This is widely accepted since Keynes but tacitly implies budget-balancing over the business cycle. So, there are two cases: temporary and permanent deficit spending. Not many people worry any longer about temporary deficit spending. But the fact that the self-regulating and self-optimizing free market economy is on the permanent life support of the government tells one that the system is not sustainable over the long run. And this is the life-and-death reason to worry about growing government debt. Permanently growing debt is an indicator that the system is dysfunctional.#1 This is the real problem to worry about.#2

Arguments 9. and 10. say that with low-interest rates the growth of public debt is slower in relation to GDP growth. This is trivially true, of course, and suggests that the problem will go away by itself. This is pure optics, though, that crucially depends on the tacit assumption that GDP will grow. If it does not, the debt/GDP ratio explodes and low-interest rates only dampen the process.

Argument 12 is circular. The macroeconomic Profit Law boils down to Public Deficit = Private Profit. So, the government continuously fills the coffers of the Oligarchy, which, in turn, is looking out for some safe and juicy assets. Again, the government jumps in and offers Treasuries to consolidate its overdrafts at the central bank. This is a case of simultaneous supply/demand creation.#3

What J. W. Mason misses altogether is the distributional effects of a permanently growing public debt. Deficit-spending/money-creation benefits the Oligarchy because it increases macroeconomic profit according to the Profit Law. MMT is a free lunch program for the Oligarchy. Financial wealth and public debt grow in lockstep, and the fabulous financial wealth in the USA is roughly equal to humongous public debt ($22 trillion and counting). The Profit Law explains how billionaires are able to accumulate that much money and why they can buy all the bonds the Treasury issues and cash in the ultra-safe interest that is reliably taxed from WeThePeople as long as the debt is rolled over, which can be very long indeed. This Ponzi scheme creates the extremely skewed distribution of income and wealth, and this works as long as public debt grows. But infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet. This also holds for public debt. Eventually, debt growth slows down and even reverses, and then macroeconomic profit turns into loss, and the so-called free market economy breaks down.

This is the decisive reason to worry about government debt. What J. W. Mason is doing is doling out an overdose of argumentative placebos.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Just one more day: How deficit-spending postpones the breakdown of Capitalism
#2 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists
#3 Safe assets ― how the State pampers the Oligarchy

Related 'MMT undermines democracy' and 'Some nasty MMT surprises behind the time horizon'.

***

REPLY to JW Mason, Arthurian, MisterMr, Unlearning, PeterT

Distribution is the problem of MMT policy and nothing else. For details see
Dear idiots, it is deficit spending that creates the distribution people complain about
and cross-references Profit/Distribution.

***

#PointOfProof

MMT, voodoo, and dead horse beating

Comment on Bill Mitchell on ‘Voodoo economic revisionism abounds ― and it is not MMT doing the voodoo’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Science is about true/false and NOTHING else. Economics is supposed to be a science and by consequence it is about how the monetary economy operates and NOT about what journalists, politicians, trolls, tweeters, Mr. Trump, Rush Limbaugh, or any other brain-dead agenda pusher in the Circus Maximus hallucinates.

From an economist one expects to learn the true (= materially/formally consistent) theory and NOT that economic policy guidance in the incarnation of Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism is voodoo. Everybody knows this by now. No need for  Bill Mitchell to repeat the same old folk-psychological crap over and over again.

• “Both articles … are rehearsing the growing angst that the deficit terrorists who were dominant in the 1990s up until recent years are now feeling as their anti-government, anti-fiscal policy message ― their continued prophesies of doom ― but most of all, their relevance ― is evaporating before their very eyes ― exposed by too many predictions of doom and disaster which have never been realised.”

• “The angst these conservatives are now going through is mirrored by the obvious fact that mainstream macroeconomics is growing in irrelevance itself. Which is why many of the ‘big’ names are attacking MMT so relentlessly.”

• “The MMT economists are delivering the alternative paradigm in macroeconomics. No other challenge to the mainstream has succeeded and the heterodox tradition just became lost in peripheral issues. MMT is front and central macroeconomics and the mainstream cannot deal with it.”

• “And when a character like Trump comes along who doesn’t play by the script the world of these ‘free market’ liars is blown apart.”

• “And Trump is demonstrating by his fiscal actions that the main weapon the Republicans used to kill off any progressive policy dreams is now defunct.#1 No one believes the deficit horror stories any more.”

• “Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore … All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it’s been around.” (Limbaugh)#2

• “How many years have people tried to scare everybody about the deficit? The years, how many decades of politicians tried to scare us about deficit the national debt, the deficit, any number of things. And yet, here we’re still here and the great jaws of the deficit have not bitten off our heads and chewed them up and spit them out.” (Limbaugh)

In sum: “Cover blown.” and “… all the deficit terrorists … are now running around like headless chooks because their lies have lost traction.”

As far as the failure of mainstream economics is concerned,  this is accurate, of course, but from this he-said-she-said-I-said gossip does NOT follow that MMTers “… are delivering the alternative paradigm in macroeconomics.” The fact is that MMT macroeconomics is refuted on all counts.#3

MMT is the academic cover for a straightforward political agenda: to push deficit-spending/money-creation. Bill Mitchell’s message is simple: government deficits and growing public debt are good, there are no risks to speak of and the residual risks can be easily handled and everybody who says otherwise is a liar and deficit-terrorist.

There is not the smallest snippet of science in this talk. Obviously, Bill Mitchell has moved from serious scientific research to Orwell’s propaganda ministry.

MMT is provably false, i.e. materially/logically inconsistent, and therefore, MMT policy guidance lacks sound scientific foundations. MMTers deceive the general public because they never address the toxic distributional effect of their policy.

The policy of deficit-spending/money-creation benefits the Oligarchy because it increases macroeconomic profit according to the Profit Law which entails Public Deficit = Private Profit. MMT is a free lunch program for the Oligarchy. Financial wealth and public debt grow in lockstep and the fabulous financial wealth in the USA is roughly equal to humongous public debt ($22 trillion and counting). The Profit Law explains how billionaires are able to accumulate that much money and why they can buy all the bonds the Treasury issues and cash in the ultra-safe interest that is reliably taxed from WeThePeople as long as the debt is rolled over which can be very long indeed. MMT policy is a Ponzi scheme that works as long as public debt grows. But infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet. This holds also for public debt. The fact that things went fine so far proves NOTHING about the future. And it does NOT prove the scientific validity of MMT.

While it is true that mainstream economic policy is voodoo, the same holds for MMT policy.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit
#2 Links on Austerity
#3 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT

Related 'Economics debate ― just another variant of hardcore wrestling' and 'Economists: scientists or political clowns?' and 'Economics: A pointless left-right wrestling show' and 'Debunking idiots does not prove that MMT is valid' and 'Econogenics in action'. For details of the big picture see cross-references Failed/Fake Scientists.

Immediately preceding Bill Mitchell ― Wall Street’s hitman keeps an eye on MMT defeatists.

***

REPLY to Bob Roddis on Jul 25

Fiat money, or evil fiat funny money as you call it, is not the basic problem of the monetary economy but how it is injected into the system. See The right and the wrong way to bring money into the economy

Bill Mitchell ― Wall Street’s hitman keeps an eye on MMT defeatists

Comment on Bill Mitchell on ‘There are no financial risks involved in increased British government spending’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

MMT is the academic cover for a straightforward political agenda: to push deficit-spending/money-creation. No matter what, from unemployment to health care to climate change, MMTers chime in as helpers and saviors. MMTers present themselves as Progressives but macroeconomic analysis shows that MMT policy harms WeThePeople and benefits the Oligarchy.

Needless to emphasize that MMTers argue that deficit-spending/money-creation brings immediate help to WeThePeople and involves no risks, neither in the short run nor in the future.

Why is there no risk whatsoever and why was the British Chancellor always dead wrong? “His concept of ‘fiscal space’ … was erroneous of course. It was a denial of the most basic currency capacity that the UK government possesses ― it can never run out of spending capacity. Which, of course, is not the same thing as saying that it can run out of things to spend on.”

This, as most MMT arguments, is superficially true. Like a counterfeiter, the UK government cannot run out of money, but this does not change the fact that paying with counterfeit money is just a tricky way of stealing. Pushing aggregate demand through deficit-spending/money-creation is the wrong way to bring money into the economy.#1

And that is already the end of MMT. MMT policy has no sound scientific foundations. MMT is a political fraud and, strictly following their script, MMTers never speak about the toxic distributional effect of their policy.

The policy of deficit-spending/money-creation benefits the Oligarchy because it increases macroeconomic profit according to the Profit Law which entails Public Deficit = Private Profit. MMT is a free lunch program for the Oligarchy. Financial wealth and public debt grow in lockstep and the fabulous financial wealth in the USA is roughly equal to humongous public debt ($22 trillion and counting). The Profit Law explains how billionaires are able to accumulate that much money and why they can buy all the bonds the Treasury issues and cash in the ultra-safe interest that is reliably taxed from WeThePeople as long as the debt is rolled over. This can function for a very long time but eventually ― well beyond the time horizon of MMTers and their gullible audience ― the economy breaks down. This is not a risk but a mathematical certainty.#2 MMT policy is a Ponzi scheme that works only as long as public debt grows. But infinite growth is impossible on a finite planet. The risks explode as soon as debt growth slows down or reverses as it eventually must. The so-called free-market economy lives literally on borrowed time.

Phillip Inman, the journalist who dares to take the word risk in his mouth is told that there is no risk because “… basic macroeconomics tells us that one sector’s spending is another sector’s income.” And that there are no other risks of higher public debt. There are some real risks, though, for folks who spoil MMT’s snake-oil sales talk: “Come the day that an Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) understanding is widespread ― we are working on it ― the likes of Philip Inman will have to do something productive to earn a living.”

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The right and the wrong way to bring money into the economy
#2 How to pay for the war and to be bamboozled by economists

The worthlessness of value theory

Comment on Matias Vernengo on ‘Why do we need a theory of value?’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Matias Vernengo correctly observes: “The theory of value and distribution is at the heart of economics. … However, most economists have no clue about it, about the centrality of value.”

Then he summarizes the main approaches:

• “Let me start with the authors of the surplus approach. In fact, a bit earlier with the economists that would eventually be known as Mercantilists (if you can talk about a school). If we are allowed to generalize and simplify, the latter believed that the wealth of nations depended essentially on maintaining trade surpluses and accumulating precious metals. Profits were essentially the result of buying cheap and selling dear, or profits upon alienation, which indicates that, for Mercantilists, profits were generated in the exchange process.”

• “Classical political economy authors, starting with William Petty, emphasize the determination of profits in the process of production, as a residual of output, once the conditions for the reproduction of the productive system were satisfied. So profits are not the result of selling high and buying low, something that could result from the mere fluctuation of market prices, but from the ability to produce beyond what was needed for the simple material reproduction of society. … So the normal rate of profit is needed to determine prices, and prices are needed to determine the normal rate of profit. This was well understood by both Ricardo and Marx.”

• “In other words, for a coherent theory of output, accumulation, international trade, technological change and more (taxation, etc.) you need a theory of value and distribution. That is also the case in the mainstream. Marginalism developed in the last quarter of the 19th century, both as a result of the lack of analytical solution in that period for the problems of the LTV and as a reaction to radical revival of the theory (Marxism). The important distinction is that while classical political economy authors dealt only with objective factors, and considered demand as given when determined value and distribution, marginalism incorporated subjective preferences as central for the explanation of long term normal prices, and prices and quantities were determined simultaneously.”

Let us make it short here: the theory of value/profit/distribution is false since Adam Smith.#1, #2 However, Matias Vernengo, too, has no clue about what profit is and how the monetary economy works.

The elementary production-consumption economy is defined with this set of macroeconomic axioms: (A0) The economy consists of the household and the business sector which, in turn, consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw 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=Yw in each period, the price as the dependent variable is given by P=W/R (1a). The price is determined by the wage rate W, which takes the role of the nominal numéraire, and the productivity R. The elementary production-consumption economy is shown on Wikimedia.#2

The macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand (1a) implies W/P=R (1b), i.e. the real wage is always equal to the productivity no matter how the wage rate W is set. Labor gets the whole product.

The focus is here on the nominal/monetary balances. For the time being, real balances are excluded, i.e. it holds X=O. The condition of budget-balancing, i.e. C=Yw, is now skipped. The monetary saving/dissaving of the household sector is defined as S≡Yw−C. The monetary profit/loss of the business sector is defined as Q≡C−Yw. Ergo Q≡−S.

The balances add up to zero. The mirror image of household sector saving S is 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.

Ramifications: (i) The business sector’s revenues can only be greater than costs if, in the simplest of all possible cases, consumption expenditures are greater than wage income. (ii) In order that profit comes into existence for the first time in the elementary production-consumption economy, the household sector must run a deficit at least in one period. This presupposes the existence of a credit-creating entity. (iii) Profit is, in the most elementary case, determined by the increase and decrease of the household sector’s debt. There is a close relation between profit/loss and the expansion/contraction of debt for the economy as a whole. (iv) Wage income is the factor remuneration of labor input. Profit is not a factor income. Since capital is nonexistent in the elementary production-consumption economy profit is not functionally attributable to capital. (v) There is no relation at all between profit, capital, marginal or average productivity. (vi) The value of output is, in the general case, different from the sum of factor incomes. This is the defining property of the monetary economy. (vii) Profit is a factor-independent residual and qualitatively different from wage income. Therefore, it is an elementary mistake to maintain that total income is the sum of wages and profits.

In brief, to this day, Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, Austrians, MMTers, and Matias Vernengo have no clue about profit and as a consequence about value and distribution. They will all be buried at the darkest corner of the Flat-Earth Cemetery.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Naked Keynesianism
#1 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith. What About the True Distribution Theory?
#2 Economics ― nothing but claptrap, twaddle, drivel, slip-slop, wish-wash, waffle, and proto-scientific garbage
#3 Wikimedia AXEC31 Elementary production-consumption economy

Related 'The Logic of Value and the Value of Logic'.

***

REPLY to André on Jul 23

You say: “Price is not directly related to costs, be it wages or any other costs. A theory that relies on relations between prices and costs is lacking, to put it mildly.”

Observing one firm and then generalizing for the economy as a whole is called the Fallacy of Composition. This fallacy is the main reason why economics is proto-scientific garbage to this day.

Take, for a start, the most elementary case that the households fully spend their wage income on consumption, i.e. C=Yw, and that there are two products. Under the condition of market clearing and W1=W2=W, the prices are given by P1=W/R1 and P2=W/R2. The profits in both firms are zero, i.e. Q1≡C1―Yw1=0, Q2≡C2―Yw2=0, C=C1+C2, Yw=Yw1+Yw2, C=Yw, Q=Q1+Q2=0.

For relative prices, i.e. the exchange relation, holds P1/P2=R2/R1 in the most elementary case. The exchange relation between the two goods is determined by the objectively given productivities.

Now firm 1 increases the price P1. The households pay more for good 1 but keep total consumption expenditures unchanged, i.e. C=Yw, so they spend less on good 2. P2 falls under the condition of market-clearing. As a result, firm 1 now makes a profit and firm 2 makes a loss and the total profit of the business sector Q is zero as before.

Alternatively. Firm 1 increases the price P1. The households pay more for good 1 but keep expenditures on good 2 constant, that is, total consumption expenditures C are now greater than wage income Yw. In other words, the household sector deficit-spends or dissaves. In this case, the profit of the business sector as a whole Q is greater than zero. It holds Q≡−S, i.e. total profit of the business sector is equal to total dissaving of the household sector. The balances of the two sectors add up to zero, i.e. Q+S=0. One may call this the Law of the Conservation of Value.

One cannot do Price Theory and Value Theory without taking the macroeconomic balances equation into account.#1 OK, you can because you are a scientifically incompetent blatherer, to put it mildly.


#1 The Pure Logic of Value, Profit, Interest

***

REPLY to André on Jul 23

You say: “Price is not necessarily related to costs, and this is a fact. If you ignore facts, you are just like a mainstream economist - ie, no scientist at all.”

Indeed, price is not necessarily related to costs. This is a well-known triviality. I treat this case in the section that starts with “Now firm 1 increases the price P1.” and in the section that starts with “Alternatively. Firm 1 increases the price P1.”

So, the point at issue is that you make a trivial statement about the price-setting capacity of a single firm. This is not “realism” but dumb partial analysis. The Walrasians can be criticized for many things but their point is valid that Marshallian partial analysis is worthless and has to be replaced by total analysis because of the interdependence of markets.

The interdependence of markets is a reality. It is nowhere to be found in your trivial examples. You simply do not get the essential point of price/value theory, to put it mildly.

***

#PointOfProof

Jul 24
post still missing

If you can’t make it, fake it

Comment on Barkley Rosser’s ‘A Half Century Since Apollo 11 Launched To The Moon’

Blog-Reference

Famous scientific non-achievements in economics and elsewhere:

• Profit Theory ― provably false for 200+ years,
• Walrasian microfoundations ― provably false for 150+ years,
• Keynesian macrofoundations ― provably false for 80+ years,
• application of elementary mathematics in macroeconomics/national accounting ― provably false for 80+ years,
• human space travel beyond low earth orbit, and moon-landing and fooling around in a −298/+224 F vacuum ― physically/technically impossible for 50+ years.

The failed scientist and applause troll, attention/reputation manager, political agenda pusher, crime hunter (“He is guilty guilty guuilty”), academic busybody, storyteller, and False-Hero-Memorial builder Barkley Rosser does not get tired of parroting proto-scientific nonsense and dispersing fake news. Not only about economics, where he understands nothing, but also about physics, where he understands even less.

With regard to scientific credibility in general and Barkley Rosser’s, in particular, it is worth noting that economists have to this day not realized that Keynes’ elementary macroeconomics, i.e. “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.”, is materially and logically defective. The correct relationship is Q≡I−S with Q as macroeconomic profit.

Economists have the Age of ― scientific/cultural/political ― Enlightenment still before them.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'The future of economics: why you will probably not be admitted to it, and why this is a good thing' and 'Economics: The greatest scientific fraud in modern times' and 'Throw them out! Orthodox and heterodox economists are unfit for science'.

***

Twitter Feb 9, 2021 Here they go again!

Prophet Stephanie divines the seizure of the means of production of currency

Comment on Yuko Takeo/Masahiro Hidaka on ‘MMT’s Kelton Sees Central Banks Quietly Yielding to Governments’*

Blog-Reference

Since biblical times, prophecies are a tool of psychological manipulation and social programming. Needless to emphasize that prophets claim a higher insight and make assertions that can neither be verified nor falsified. So, prophecy is the very opposite of science.

MMT claims to be a scientific theory. The fact is that it is refuted on all counts. MMTers claim to do science. The fact is that they are in the business of political agenda-pushing. Stephanie Kelton claims to be a scientist. The fact is that she is one of the many useful idiots of the Oligarchy who populate academia.

The MMT agenda is simple and straightforward: pushing deficit-spending/money-creation by all means which includes seizing the “means of production of currency”, i.e. the central bank.#1 All else is populist do-gooder-save-the-world propaganda.

Stephanie Kelton, the public face of Modern Monetary Theory, puts the MMT mission statement into the form of a prophecy: “While they [the monetary authorities] won’t openly say that they’ve lost their independence, she predicted, ‘you’re going to see central banks responding in more accommodative, coordinating ways.’

Stephanie Kelton resolves all doubt: “Critics say that MMT is a recipe for spiraling government debt and would revive now-dormant inflation with a vengeance. There’s also growing concern about central-bank independence, driven by President Donald Trump’s Twitter tirades against the Federal Reserve, and similar pressures in Turkey and India.” and “MMT argues that government spending is the most direct way to spur growth ― and sees no reason why central banks shouldn’t support it.”

The reason lies in macroeconomics. The policy of deficit-spending/money-creation benefits the Oligarchy because it increases macroeconomic profit according to the Profit Law which entails Public Deficit = Private Profit. MMT is a free lunch program for the Oligarchy. Financial wealth and public debt grow in lockstep and the fabulous financial wealth in the USA is roughly equal to humongous public debt ($22 trillion). The Profit Law explains how billionaires are able to accumulate that much money and why they can buy all the bonds the Treasury issues and cash in the ultra-safe interest that is reliably taxed from WeThePeople as long as the debt is rolled over. This can function for a very long time but eventually, the economy breaks down. This is NOT a prophecy but a mathematical certainty.

The very characteristic of Late Capitalism is that the so-called free market economy is on the full life support of the state. Profit is produced by the government through deficit-spending/money-creation and Wall Street is kept going by the central bank. The Oligarchy, in turn, uses the opulent free lunches to corrupt what remains of the state’s legislative, executive, and judiciary institutions. The circular interdependence is self-reinforcing and politically ruinous. The logical end of the process is state capture.

In order to pull this fraud through, a snake-oil sales team is needed. Stephanie Kelton is neither a scientist nor a prophet but an agenda-pusher for the Oligarchy.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Bloomberg
#1 MMT’s true program

Related 'How Stephanie Kelton brain-washes a lovely young English girl' and 'The Kelton-Fraud' and 'The brouhaha about prediction: which Feynman is right?' and 'Mathematical Proof of the Breakdown of Capitalism' and 'Paul’s and Stephanie’s economic delirium talk' and 'MMT: doom or survival?' and 'The clock runs down on economics' and 'Mission impossible: economists join WeThePeople' and 'Dear idiots, MMTers are Wall Street’s agenda pushers' and 'MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia' and 'MMT: A new myth for WeThePeople' and 'MMT has an offer that Labour cannot refuse' and 'State capture ― time to switch rhetoric'.

***

Twitter Feb 2, 2021 Fed and Treasury: the means of production of currency