A clueless MMTer explains macroeconomics to clueless beginners

Comment on Ellis Winningham on ‘The Budget Deficit and The National Debt: Not the Same Thing’*

Blog-Reference

(i) “The national government’s budget deficit is a condition where government expenditure exceeds what the government withdraws from the economy and destroys via taxation, fines and fees.” OK, more precisely, G>T Legend: G government expenditure, T taxes. G and T are flows, i.e. relate to a period of a given length.

(ii) “The budget deficit is what we call a ‘flow’”. False, the budget deficit is a difference of flows, i.e. G−T.

(iii) “When it [the government] runs a deficit, new dollars ‘flow’ into the private sector where they are allowed to accumulate as ‘net savings’.” False. When the government runs a deficit and the household sector balances its budget, then the business sector makes a profit Q, i.e. Q=G−T. This follows from the macroeconomic Profit Law Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M) with the other variables blanked out for a moment.

(iv) “At the end of the fiscal year, this accumulation of ‘net financial assets’ is totaled up and recorded as a thing called ‘the national debt’.” Half-true. Roughly speaking, accumulated financial wealth is the mirror image of the national debt ($21.5 trillion and counting).

(v) “The national debt is a ‘stock’: It is the private sector’s stockpile of net savings; the sum total of all cumulative deficits since the founding of the nation minus any budget surpluses. In other words, the national debt is not your debt; it is your savings.” False, the national debt is THEIR (= the Oligarchy’s) “savings”. Financial assets are a claim against the government and the national debt is a liability of the government. Because the government represents WeThePeople, ultimately the people hold the bag. In order to eventually redeem the national debt, the government has to eventually tax WeThePeople. So, the national debt is NOT “your savings” but your deferred taxes. Note well that you pay interest on your growing tax liabilities for an indefinite time.

(vi) “When the government deficit spends, which adds more dollars to the economy, this becomes the private sector’s income.” False, it becomes the business sector’s profit, and via profit distribution the Oligarchy’s income.

Ellis Winningham is one of the many incompetent economists who do not understand the elementary logic/mathematics that underlies macroeconomics.#1

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* Ellis Winningham blog

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

Related 'Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick' and 'Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy' and 'What is wrong with MMT? and What is wrong with Brad DeLong?' and 'MMT’s virtue-signaling distracts from failure/fraud'.

MMT ― backstop or advanced life support for the Oligarchy?

Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘Michael Roberts ― MMT 3 ― a backstop to capitalism’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Michael Roberts, the card-carrying Marxist economist, evaluates MMT: “MMT only offers a backstop to capitalist investment and employment, not an alternative.”

This does not excite the MMT philosopher Tom Hickey: “OK. Well, MMT didn’t set out to replace capitalism. So, the MMT economists are not calling for revolution. As if that is most serious charge that can be mounted against MMT?”

No, the most serious charge against MMT is that it claims to benefit WeThePeople but instead benefits the Oligarchy. To pay for social benefits with deficit-spending/money-creation is simply a political fraud. This is because of the macroeconomic Profit Law which boils down to Public Deficit = Private Profit. So, MMT offers a permanent free lunch to the Oligarchy which is beefed up with interest on a permanently rolled-over growing public debt. This amounts to reversed taxation of WeThePeople by the IRS on behalf of the Oligarchy.

Fabulous wealth in the USA is the mirror image of fabulous public debt (~$22 trillion and counting) ― NOT of productivity, innovation, monopoly, free markets, or exploitation.

Because the Marxist economist Michael Roberts does not know what profit is, he swallows MMT as an employment program and does not realize that it is a profit program that keeps the Oligarchy alive and well until the growth of public debt hits a wall.

Hundred and fifty years ago, Marx did not understand how capitalism works but things have not improved in the meantime among Marxist and non-Marxist economists.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


Related 'MMT and Marxism ― blather as immunizing stratagem' and 'Here is the long overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists' and 'MMT vs The Rest of Economics ― a Punch and Judy show' and 'MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation' and 'MMT: For the record' and 'MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?'. For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT.

***

REPLY to Panclasta on Feb 10

You ask: “How to analyse the current impacts of deficit spending to prove MMT does not and will not work to rescue capitalism in its current form?”

MMT does exactly that because deficit-spending/money-creation is a free lunch for the Oligarchy, see Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump, etc. and exploding profit.

***

Twitter Feb 26, 2023 Oligarchy is the correct designation, not Democracy

MMT and Marxism ― blather as immunizing stratagem

Comment on Tom Hickey on ‘Michael Roberts Blog MMT 2 ― the tricks of circulation’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Tom Hickey cites Aquinas, paraphrasing Aristotle: “‘A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end.’ Most economic theory stumbles out of the gate by getting this wrong.”

Or as Marx put it: “Beginnings are always difficult in all sciences.” or as Schumpeter said: “There is no more fertile source of error than apparently trivial premises.” or as Georgescu-Roegen put it: “In fact, the history of every science, including that of economics, teaches us that the elementary is the hotbed of the errors that count most.” or as Aristotle knew already: “When the premises are certain, true, and primary and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing.”

Scientific knowledge is missing in economics. This is the actual state: The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the pivotal concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong.

Because the premises are false, economics is, after 200+ years, still not more than confused proto-scientific blather. #1

As Tom Hickey correctly observes: “There are many interpretations favorable to Marx among Marxist and Marxian economists. There is no agreed-upon ‘standard’ interpretation of Marx that all Marxists and Marxians accept. Roberts’s view is one among many. In addition, Marx has been criticized widely by just about every other school of economics, and members of a school sometimes disagree over how Marx should be criticized. Pinning Marx down to a particular interpretation has proved impossible.” and “The same might be said of Keynes, as any other thinker, theory or school.” #2

In other words, economists sit over both ears in an intellectual swamp where “nothing is clear and everything is possible”. (Keynes) Whether this is by innate stupidity or educational design is an open question. Swampiness, wish-wash, and inconclusiveness are what Popper called instances of an immunizing stratagem because: “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” (Feynman) This benefit was not lost on fake scientists. #3

Now, the fact of the matter is that economists have occasionally spelled out their premises clearly and in these cases, they have promptly been proven wrong. In these cases, though, economists simply trample over scientific standards: “In economics we should strive to proceed, wherever we can, exactly according to the standards of the other, more advanced, sciences, where it is not possible, once an issue has been decided, to continue to write about it as if nothing had happened.” (Morgenstern)

As a result, economists discuss the various approaches until they are blue in the face without ever taking notice that their stuff lacks sound scientific foundations. This is the case for Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and MMT, which are all axiomatically false, i.e., based on provably false premises.

MMT, for example, is based on this false sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0. And here the methodological curse kicks in: “A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end.”

There is no need to study MMT in greater detail and to bother oneself with different interpretations. It is absolutely sufficient to prove that one premise/axiom is false. #4, #5 This collapses the whole verbal superstructure of interpretations and confused blather.

There is no use in waffling inconclusively about the 1001st interpretations of Marx or Keynes. The multiplicity of interpretations is proof enough that one is NOT dealing with a valid scientific theory but with political BS. #6

Marx and Keynes are refuted, and Tom Hickey’s clarification of the relationship between the two is an exercise in futility. The right thing to do is to bury this proto-scientific garbage at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery and to move on. #7

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Confused Confusers: How to Stop Thinking Like an Economist and Start Thinking Like a Scientist
#2 John Hicks, fake scientist
#3 And the answer is NCND ― economics after 200+ years of Glomarization
#4 Where economics went wrong (II)
#5 The miracle cure of economists’ micro-macro schizo
#6 Why is economics a total scientific failure?
#7 From false micro to true macro: the new economic paradigm

Related 'Here is the long overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists' and 'There is NO such thing as “smart, honest, honorable economists”' and 'If religion is opium of the people, economics is crack of the people' and '“But economics is not pure mathematics or logic” No, it is pure blather' and 'Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish' and 'Profit for Marxists' and 'The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith'.

***

REPLY to michael roberts on Feb 5

You summarize: “You tell us we are wasting our time because economics is not scientific and rigorous.” and counter: “… it seems you also are just ‘one among many’”.

Take notice that there are some differences between blathering and scientific proof:

• Marx’s profit theory is provably false. #1
• Because the foundational concept of profit is false, Marx’s whole analytical superstructure is false. #2
• Because the theory is defective, Marx’s policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations.
• After-Marxians have not spotted Marx’s foundational blunder to this day.
• After-Marxians are scientifically incompetent. You, for example, do not realize that public deficit D is defined as public spending G minus taxes T, i.e., D=G−T. Now, it is the deficit D that reduces unemployment and NOT G. If G=T, there is NO effect on employment, no matter how big G is. This is why you cannot find any correlation. #3
• MMT, too, gets macroeconomic profit wrong. The MMT sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 applies to a zero-profit economy. MMTers are simply too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics. #4

Because both Marxianism and MMT are false, any discussion about and between these two goofy approaches is no more than a sitcom.


#1 Profit for Marxists
#2 Ricardo and the invention of class war
#3 Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Employment
#4 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)

***

REPLY to jlowrie on Feb 5

For the founding fathers, Political Economy was what is today called sociology. Economics started as a hodgepodge of sociology, history, folk psychology, and folk philosophy (a mixture of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, Malthusianism/Darwinism, Individualism/ Protestantism). The two issues, ‘how society works’ and ‘how the economy works’, were not properly kept apart.

J. S. Mill defined Political Economy as a social science: “The fundamental problem, therefore, of the social science, is to find the laws according to which any state of society produces the state which succeeds it and takes its place.”

With regard to the subject matter, there is no difference between Mill and Marx: “My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, …” (Marx) #1

Clearly, the blunder lies in the definition of economics as a social science.#2 Fact is that economics is a systems science that deals with how the monetary economy works. Sociology, on the other hand, is a so-called social science or a cargo cult science, as Feynman so aptly characterized it.

The characteristic of the so-called social sciences is endless blather and interpretation and meta-communication, and political agenda pushing. Economics, as a systems science, figures out what the systemic laws are. For example, the macroeconomic Profit Law is given by Q≡Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M), and it consists of variables that are measurable with the precision of two decimal places. NO interpretation here!

From this equation follows, inter alia, that Keynes’ I=S is false, which, in turn, means that all IS-LM models from Hicks to Krugman are false. NO interpretation here!

As far as economics deals with psychology/sociology, it is fake science just like the so-called social sciences as a whole.

The ‘multiplicity of interpretations’ is the very characteristic of proto-, non-, anti-science and of post-modern anything-goes. #3

The true theory is well-defined by material and formal consistency. The ‘multiplicity of interpretations’ is the mark of idiocy. #4, #5


#1 Karl Marx, fake scientist
#2 For details of the big picture, see cross-references Not a Science of Behavior
#3 If religion is opium of the people, economics is crack of the people
#4 Marshall and the Cambridge School of plain economic gibberish
#5 A brief history of soapbox economics

***

REPLY to jlowrie on Feb 5

As I said, the ‘multiplicity of interpretations’ is the mark of idiocy. You confirm this conclusion with your incompetent comments. Marx got profit, exploitation, and class wrong 200 years ago, and after-Marxians are still behind the curve. For details see

► Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation
► No exploitation, no classes
► If we only had classes
► Here is the long overdue scientific death certificate for Marx and Marxists

***

REPLY to brunobertezautresmondes on Feb 5

You say: “If you’ve read my own stuff for any length of time, you’re familiar with ideas like the savings-investment identity, and it’s no revelation that government deficits have to be financed either by debt creation or money creation, … But phrased in particular, and slightly misleading ways (like “The only way for the private sector to accumulate a surplus is for the government to run a deficit”), these rather boring accounting identities are used by MMT as tools that promise only benefits from currency-financed deficit spending.”

Then you go on: “The one-minute exposition begins with the basic accounting equation for national income and output:

GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports – Imports
which is typically written as:
Y=C+I+G+X−M
Adding and subtracting taxes T and rearranging gives:
(Y−T−C)+(M−X)+(T−G)=I
This is the savings-investment identity, and is always true by definition.”

Take notice that there is NO such thing as a savings-investment identity and that the “rather boring accounting identities” are false because MMTers and the rest of economists, including you, are too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics. #1, #2, #3

The correct macroeconomic relations are given by Q≡−S for the elementary production-consumption economy and Q≡I−S for the elementary investment economy, with Q the business sector’s monetary profit, S the household sector’s monetary saving, business sector’s I investment expenditures. Saving is NEVER equal to investment.

MMTers, Marxians, and you simply get macroeconomic profit wrong. Economists are incompetent scientists, and this is “always true by definition”.


#1 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#2 For details, see cross-references Refutation of I=S
#3 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT, see cross-references MMT

MMT: If you’ve got a problem, I don’t care what it is, let me help

Comment on Stephanie Kelton/Andres Bernal/Greg Carlock on ‘We Can Pay For A Green New Deal’

Blog-Reference

Stephanie Kelton again jumps the ship. The day before yesterday she promised a pony for every American, yesterday she promised to care for the unemployed, poor, vulnerable, elderly, and debt-laden students, today she vigorously promotes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.

Stephanie Kelton and the MMTers have good news for everybody: “Anything that is technically feasible is financially affordable. And it won’t be a drag on the economy ― unlike the climate crisis itself, which will cause tens of billions of dollars worth of damage to American homes, communities and infrastructure each year. A Green New Deal will actually help the economy by stimulating productivity, job growth and consumer spending, as government spending has often done.”

How does MMT solve any social/economic problem? By deficit-spending/money-creation.#1 Does this work? Yes, as long as the government can increase public debt. At present, nobody can say where the limit is. MMTers claim that there is none.

As a matter of principle, all these social/environmental programs can be realized either with a balanced budget or with deficit-spending/money-creation. This is known to governments and economists since time immemorial. However, the MMTers' unique selling proposition is that the one and the only right way is deficit-spending/money-creation.

This, of course, is NOT true. The point is that deficit-spending/money-creation does NOT help WeThePeople as a whole in real terms but only the Oligarchy.#2, #3 MMTers are NOT the real Friends-of-the-People. Just the opposite, they try to hijack genuine grassroots movements.#4

Basically, the political agenda of MMT is pushing public deficits. The economic rationale lies in the macroeconomic Profit Law which implies Public Deficit = Private Profit. From the macroeconomic standpoint, it does NOT MATTER AT ALL whether the deficit is caused by war spending, social spending, or environmental spending. From a marketing standpoint, though, it matters a lot. Military deficit spending does NOT go down so well with the general public but social/environmental spending does. A green label helps to camouflage the distributional effects.

With the sudden rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s new environmental populism and the eclipse of Bernie Sander’s old social populism, agile MMTers like Stephanie Kelton have to jump ship and sell Wall Street’s deficit-spending agenda in the updated bluff package of a Green New Deal (GND).#5

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 How MMT makes everybody happy
#2 MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution
#3 MMT is ALWAYS a bad deal for the 99-percenters
#4 MMT and grassroots movements
#5 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick

Related 'MMT’s virtue-signaling distracts from failure/fraud' and 'MMT is NOT bold policy but spineless fraud' and 'MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?' and 'Fraud comes always in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom' and 'MMT Progressives: The knife in the back of WeThePeople' and 'Meet the MMT smart arses' and 'Q: How are you going to pay for it? MMT: By stealth taxation!' and 'No MMT illusions! YOU are going to pay for it'. For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT.

***

Twitter Nov 19, 2018, "Kelton Stephanie, Pavlina and Alexandria the Great"

Twitter Feb 1, 2021, Nice things

Twitter Apr 25

Twitter Aug 20 Nice things again

Twitter Sep 15 The nice MMT folks "solve" ALL problems of WeThePeople with deficit-spending/money-creation and as it so happens (because of the macroeconomic Profit Law) the rich always get richer

Twitter Apr 6, 2023 Any green agenda that does not feature as a top priority the reduction of the military in order to reduce damage to the environment can not be taken seriously. At the same time, the reduction of the military budget provides the money for investing in ecological measures. For "green"  deficit spending holds the macroeconomic Profit Law, which implies PublicDeficit=PrivateProfit.

Twitter/X Nov 6, 2023

Twitter/X May 15, 2025 Shares of total government spending

MMT vs The Rest of Economics ― a Punch and Judy show

Comment on Brian Romanchuk on ‘Why Are MMT Critiques Generally Terrible?’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

There is the political sphere where, in principle, everybody is admitted. The currency in the political sphere is opinion. Opinion is different from knowledge, and the fact of the matter is that it is most of the time false or merely commonsensically true.

“There are always many different opinions and conventions concerning any one problem or subject-matter... This shows that they are not all true. For if they conflict, then at best only one of them can be true. Thus it appears that Parmenides ... was the first to distinguish clearly between truth or reality on the one hand, and convention or conventional opinion (hearsay, plausible myth) on the other ...” (Popper)

The discourse in the political sphere has not much to do with truth or reality but with myth, storytelling, gossip, second-guessing, propaganda, belief, paranoia, disinformation, and entertainment.

The very opposite of opinion is knowledge. Science is about knowledge. Science is binary true/false and NOTHING in between. Non-science is the swamp between true and false, where ‘nothing is clear and everything is possible’ (Keynes). The distinction between science and non-science corresponds to the ancient Greeks’ distinction between episteme (= knowledge) and doxa (= opinion).

Science has been defined for 2000+ years by material and formal consistency. Logical consistency is secured by applying the axiomatic-deductive method, and empirical consistency is secured by applying state-of-the-art testing.

“In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)

What the general public cannot see is that economists do not have the true theory. The fact of the matter is that the major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMT ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the pivotal concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong. MMT is NO exception.

The lethal critique of MMT is that its macroeconomic foundations are provably false. So, the gigantic opinion/critique/polemic/disinformation bubble about MMT’s deficit-spending/money-creation, inflation, taxation, the debt burden, the Job Guarantee, etc. boils scientifically down to the question of which of the two foundational macroeconomic equations is true, i.e., materially and formally consistent:
• the MMT sectoral balances equation: (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 or
• the axiom-based balances equation: (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Qm−Yd)=0.#2

Note that this is NOT a question about opinion or political preferences but a clear-cut true/false question that can be unambiguously decided according to well-established scientific criteria.

The answer is that the MMT equation is logically/mathematically false. Because of this, the whole analytical superstructure of MMT is false.#3, #4, #5, #6, #7 This settles the matter. MMT is dead and buried at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery just like Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism.

This, though, does not stop Brian Romanchuk, MMTers, and the rest of the economists from blathering as if there were no tomorrow. In order to understand this phenomenon, one has to drop the presumption that economics has anything to do with science or that economists are scientists. For 200+ years now, economics is a fake science and economists are either clowns or fraudsters in the political Circus Maximus.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 The economist as stand-up comedian
#2 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)
#3 MMT: How to get out of the infinite meta-communication loop
#4 Brian Romanchuk’s Post-Keynesian idiocy
#5 Economics as tireless production of proto-scientific garbage: inflation theory as an example
#6 Truth by definition? The Profit Theory has been axiomatically false for 200+ years
#7 MMT: How mathematical incompetence helps the Kelton-Fraud

MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation

Reminder on ‘Jonathan Portes — Nonsense economics: the rise of modern monetary theory’

Blog-Reference on Jan 31

Jonathan Portes is wrong with regard to inflation. See
► Gov-Deficits do NOT cause inflation
► MMT and the inflation-red-herring

The government deficit causes a one-off price hike, but NOT inflation. Repeating the deficit period after period leaves the price at an elevated level. This holds for the current output. Deficit spending on investment goods is an entirely different matter. Both cases are constantly confused.

The lethal effect of MMT policy is NOT on inflation but on DISTRIBUTION. See
► Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy

Anti-MMTers are just as incompetent as MMTers. So
► Debunking idiots does not prove that MMT is valid


Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


For details of the big picture, see cross-references Profit/Distribution.

For more about "tax the rich", see AXECquery.

***

REPLY to Andrew Anderson on Jan 31

You say: “You seem to assume that deficits shall be financed with sovereign debt?”

No. In the elementary case, Public Deficit = Private Profit, deficit spending creates first business sector deposits (= money) and government sector overdrafts on the balance sheet of the Central Bank. Whether the overdrafts are consolidated by selling bonds is a separate question. See
► MMT: Not a joke but a fraud
REPLY to Bob Roddis on Jan 18

***

REPLY to Clint Ballinger on Feb 1

You say: “As far as AXEC, his basic point that spending in more than we tax out is bad IF WE ALLOW IT to accumulate to wealthy hoarders of our public good ("money"), is correct. We need far higher taxes on the rich, not for "paying for things," but to stop the wealthy from corrupting our political system …”

You directly contradict the official MMT doctrine, which says “Don’t tax the rich.” See
► MMT: Academic snake oil for the people

MMTers like to have it both ways. Schizo is the very logic of the political agenda pusher.

***

REPLY to Clint Ballinger on Feb 2

You say: “I think you need to show sources ― any sources at all ― that show "MMT" saying/writing "Don’t tax the rich." I doubt you can.”

I have given the source already above. Here it is again for the illiterate/retarded
► MMT: Academic snake oil for the people

***

REPLY to Clint Ballinger on Feb 2

MMTers in general and Stephanie Kelton, in particular, have a problem. As useful idiots for the Oligarchy, they have preached for years now 'make deficits―don’t tax'. Taxes are NOT needed for spending, only for inflation control, and there is NO inflation.

But now this happens: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Elizabeth Warren come forward with a marginal tax rate of 70% and a new wealth tax.

From the MMT standpoint, this is madness the super-rich have to blame themselves for. See
► Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich
► MMT is NOT bold policy but spineless fraud

***

REPLY to Greg on Feb 2

You say: “Pointing out that playing a zero sum game of finding tax revenue from someone before you fund something else is unnecessary is not the same as saying ‘dont tax the rich’.”

No, it is NOT the same, and I never said so. The fact is that MMTers say (i) don’t tax for revenue and (ii) don’t tax the rich: “Bill Mitchell is politically consistent. He not only promotes deficit spending but also downplays the idea of taxing the rich and closing their tax havens: ‘Do we need the rich’s money?’ ‘No’” #1

As good foot soldiers of the Oligarchy, MMTers see to it that the rich get their profits via deficit-spending/money-creation, their interest on government bonds, which the IRS conveniently takes from WeThePeople, and that the rich’s tax rates are low and the loopholes are big, and that the foundations/charities/think tanks/lobbies are tax-exempt.

The thing is that billionaire folks like Pete Peterson are really so daft that they complain about deficit-spending/money-creation. Capitalism has already been for a long time on the life-support of public deficit-spending.* Zero deficit means zero macroeconomic profit. Any complaints of the Oligarchy about the State saving Capitalism from breakdown are pure madness.

On this point, Stephanie Kelton is right: “The Wealthy Are Victims of Their Own Propaganda.”

From the standpoint of simple self-interest and because of Public Deficit = Private Profit, the one-percenters and their useful academic idiots should consistently argue FOR deficit spending, and the ninety-nine-percenters and their useful academic idiots should consistently argue AGAINST it. #2

Curiously, it’s just the opposite.


#1 MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
#2 Austerity and the political games Progressives play

* Twitter Feb 2

Source: Twitter

***

REPLY to Greg on Feb 3

Why don’t you simply follow the links given?

Bill Mitchell’s piece is titled: “The ‘tax the rich’ call bestows unwarranted importance on them.” and “Do we need the rich’s money?” "No".” and FULL NODE says “MMT agrees. Taxing rich people for revenue is a silly claim.” Richard Murphy says: “The time for pussy-footing with new taxes to extract a little more from the rich is yesterday’s news. There is no time for that. This is the time to create money for change.”

This is three MMTers speaking out against taxing the rich.

This answers Clint Ballingers’ silly challenge: “Although, I think you need to show sources ― any sources at all ― that show "MMT" saying/writing "Don’t tax the rich."

And what does Stephanie Kelton tell her fabulously wealthy friends? If you want to avoid taxes you must accept deficits and not complain about them like this brainless billionaire Pete Peterson.

She is right. Pete Peterson simply does not understand that MMT is a wellness program for the Oligarchy. #1

#1 MMT: Redistribution as wellness program

***

Twitter Feb 11

For detailed arguments, see Dean Baker on CEPR MMT and Taxing the Rich.

***

REPLY to Clint Ballinger on Feb 16

Taxing the rich is contrary to the MMT agenda. According to the macroeconomic Profit Law Q=(G−T), MMT’s deficit-spending/money-creation feeds the Oligarchy permanently with profit, and therefore it makes absolutely NO sense to tax it away.

Perhaps the MMT salespeople still believe that MMT is for the benefit of WeThePeople. The fact is that MMT is a wellness program for the Oligarchy. Everyone can check how MMTers consistently argued against taxing the rich before the Green New Deal propaganda hit the headlines. #1

The philosopher Tom Hickey quickly adapted to the new situation and came forward with a new version of Hegel’s cunning of reason: “‘Taxing the rich’ through progressive taxation has another reason. That is, limiting the political power of wealth and reducing inequality.”

The question to MMTers: Why not simply stop deficit-spending/money-creation, the very producer of profit, political power, financial wealth, and inequality?


#1 MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation

***

billy blog Jun 12

Does this mean that we shouldn’t ‘tax the rich’?

The present authors’ values indicate we are all for taxing the rich. But not to get their money.

Rather, the rich should pay higher taxes in order to deprive them of their purchasing power, which translates into economic and political power.

This is not a minor issue.

Ultimately, fuelling the notion that we need the rich folk’s money to ‘[pay for] our schools and our caring services’, as the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell never tire of repeating, is a dangerous and misguided narrative for progressives to engage in.

Not only because it fuels damaging myths about how the monetary system works, but also because it elevates the rich and high-income earners to an indispensable status that is unwarranted.

As Pavlina Tcherneva, from the Levy Economics Institute, notes in her excellent response to Doug Henwood’s rather loopy attack on MMT – MMT Is Already Helping (February 27, 2019):

I would say that Henwood (like other “tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-progress” lefties) is tethered to the wealthy by an imaginary umbilical cord that holds his progressive agenda hostage to his oppressors. To me, this is the definition of a self-induced paralysis.

Time to cut the cord. MMT has a profound emancipatory power and the Left would do well to awaken to its potential.

Progressives should come to terms with the fact that the incomes and taxes paid by the rich do not enhance the capacity of a currency-issuing government to provide first-class public services and infrastructure.

***

Twitter Oct 13

Source: Twitter

***

Naked Capitalism

***

Twitter Oct 21, 2019

***

Twitter Jan 23, 2020

Stephanie Kelton and the self-destructive stupidity of the super-rich

Comment on Stephanie Kelton on ‘The Wealthy Are Victims of Their Own Propaganda ― To escape higher taxes, they must embrace deficits.’*

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference

Stephanie Kelton is desperate:

• For years now, MMTers propose deficit-spending/money-creation as the key policy instrument for the solution of any social/economic problem
• Because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, it holds Public Deficit = Private Profit#1
• Clearly, MMT policy is a permanent free lunch for the Oligarchy
• The fabulous wealth of the Oligarchy is the mirror image of the fabulous public debt ($21.5 trillion).#2
• Part of the free-lunch profit is invested in government bonds and generates ultra-safe interest income, which is taxed from WeThePeople, for an indefinite time
• MMTers argue consistently against taxing the rich#3
• MMTers deceive WeThePeople about the distributional effects of MMT policy#4
• MMT academics corrupt science on a daily basis by violating well-defined standards.#5

No one has done more for the super-rich than MMTers. But then comes a super-rich imbecile and ruins everything: “To be blunt, the super-rich have become victims of their own successful marketing campaign. Conservative billionaires like Pete Peterson spent decades complaining about debt and deficits, putting enormous sums of money into a PR campaign to turn politicians and the public against deficit spending.”#6

What a big letdown for Stephanie Kelton who has worked so hard for the benefit of the Oligarchy.#7

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


* BloombergOpinion

#1 What is wrong with MMT? and What is wrong with Brad DeLong?
#2 Stephanie Kelton on how to become fabulously wealthy
#3 MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
#4 Stephanie Kelton’s legendary Plain-Sight-Ink-Trick
#5 MMT: The fusion of Wall Street and Academia
#6 Austerity: Who takes the little man for a ride?
#7 MMT Progressives: The knife in the back of WeThePeople

Related 'MMT in a nutshell' and 'MMT: For the record' and 'MMT Progressives: stupid or corrupt or both?' and 'Austerity and the political games Progressives play' and 'The biggest scientific mistake of the last centuries, and it has much to do with academic economists' and 'Note on “Era of Austerity coming to an end...”' and 'Economics: A pointless left-right wrestling show' and 'MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation'. For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT.

***

REPLY to Julian Potter on Feb 3

You say: “Every public dollar spent becomes a private dollar in savings. This isn’t even MMT, it’s just basic macroeconomics.”

No! Basic macro says Public Deficit = Private Profit. Do your macroeconomic homework. See
The Kelton-Fraud.

***

REPLY to Julian Potter on Feb 3

Because of the macroeconomic Profit Law, i.e. Public Deficit = Private Profit, MMT benefits the Oligarchy and NOT WeThePeople. See MMT: A free lunch for the Oligarchy.

***

REPLY to JuHoansi on Feb 5

Take notice that MMT is refuted on all counts according to the scientific criteria of material/formal consistency.

For details see cross-references MMT.

***

REPLY to JuHoansi on Feb 6

As you can easily see, the foundational MMT sectoral balances equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 is logically/mathematically defective. Because of this, the whole of MMT is scientifically worthless.

***

REPLY JuHoansi on Feb 7

The point is NOT who says what but whether is it provably true, i.e. materially and formally consistent.

***

REPLY to JuHoansi on Feb 8

What MMT is saying to WeThePeople is the same as what the counterfeiter says to his wife pointing to his printer: I can buy you everything you ever want. Technically this is possible, of course, but economically it is a fraud. See

How MMT makes everybody happy
The day when WeThePeople sends debt-deranged economists to hell

***

REPLY to JuHoansi on Feb 9

Why do you permanently try to sidetrack the fact that MMT is a political fraud?

The Kelton-Fraud

***

REPLY to JuHoansi on Feb 10

Which of the two macroeconomic sectoral balances equations is true?

a ► (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0
b ► (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0

If you cannot answer this simple question you are out of economics.

***

REPLY to JuHoansi on Feb 11

Those equations tell everybody that Public Deficit = Private Profit, that MMT is a free lunch program for the Oligarchy, and that fabulous financial wealth in the US is equal to fabulous public debt (22 trillion).

That a counterfeit money producer cannot go bankrupt is a rather trivial revelation. The fact is that MMT is a political fraud that hurts WeThePeople big time.

MMTers are either stupid or corrupt or both.

***

REPLY to JuHoansi on Feb 11

No one with more than two brain cells takes seriously what politicians, billionaires, MMTers, or Stephanie Kelton blather about budget deficits.

Stephanie Kelton says “… the government’s ‘red ink’ becomes our ‘black ink”. The fact is instead Public Deficit = Private Profit. You say “Kelton helps the poor”. The fact is, Kelton provides a free lunch for the Oligarchy.#1

MMT is bad theory, MMT is bad policy, MMTers are bad people.


#1 Fraud comes always in the cloak of philanthropy, salvation, or threat of doom