Summary
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) significantly alters the economic power dynamics by shifting control from banks to democratic governments, emphasising people and full employment. Critics misunderstand its implications, but MMT asserts that governments with sovereign currencies aren't dependent on financial markets because they can create currency to fund spending. Taxation plays a crucial role in controlling inflation, reshaping the focus of economic policy towards full employment and addressing inequality, ultimately empowering citizens over finance.
Some people argue that modern monetary theory is irrelevant or that it changes nothing. They're wrong. MMT fundamentally reframes the power relationships within our economy, moving power away from banking and the City and towards democratic government control whilst prioritising people and full employment instead. No wonder so many people don't like it: MMT challenges all the privileges they enjoy at cost to the rest of us.
The audio file is here:
The transcript is:
Why is modern monetary theory so important?
I made a video on MMT recently and explained what it is. But knowing what it is isn't sufficient to explain why I think it is so important.
Critics of MMT say that it doesn't really change anything because, as they point out, and as I agree, MMT says that a government must tax a sum broadly equal to the amount of its spending if it is to control inflation.
If so, they say, so what? Does it matter whether we think that tax comes before spend or spend comes before tax? What's the consequence, they say, when, as a matter of fact, the books will be broadly balanced inside any macroeconomic system, whether it's using the principles of MMT or not? And my point is that, oh yes, it really does matter.
Their question is naïve; it's rather like a physicist saying, “We don't need Einstein and all that nonsense about the theory of relativity and everything else. What we can do is use Newtonian physics, which is an approximation to the truth in 97 per cent of situations, and that will do well enough for us.”
Except, of course, it isn't. The three per cent of situations when Newtonian physics might well not provide a good approximation are where most of the important decisions need to be made.
And the same is true with regard to economics. It may be that MMT does really say that taxation is fundamentally important and that we must raise a great deal of it if we want to spend a large part of the national income through the government. But, understanding what MMT says makes an enormous difference to the way in which we interpret that spending and the relationships that exist within the economy.
Let me explain. First of all, understanding that the government is not beholden to financial markets, which is one of the core messages of MMT, is fundamental.
Modern monetary theory says that any government with its own sovereign currency that is internationally accepted and its own central bank can never be dependent upon the financial markets for money because it can always ask its own central bank to create the new currency that is required to enable government spending to take place.
As a matter of fact, we know this is true. It happened in the UK and in many other countries after the 2008 financial crisis, and it happened again during COVID. Quantitative easing tried to disguise that fact, but it failed in the real sense that we know that the amount of money in circulation created by the Bank of England or other central banks rose enormously.
So, that dependency on financial markets is not true. in existence, and MMT acknowledges that fact, which other theories of macroeconomics do not.
Being aware, as a consequence, that the government doesn't borrow from financial markets but does instead provide financial markets with the opportunity to save fundamentally changes the power relationship between the City of London and the government in the UK and similar relationships elsewhere.
The bankers don't rule. That is one of the messages of MMT. And it's got to be understood. But no one else is saying it but MMT and, therefore, that makes modern monetary theory really important.
Secondly, tax is fundamentally important in MMT. Anybody who says it isn't is wrong. Tax is, inside modern monetary theory, the principal tool used to control inflation. There is no other tool that can do it as well as taxation. Let's be clear about it.
And what MMT says, as a consequence, is that the whole of this myth of central bank independence and the whole role of interest rates in controlling inflation, which has imposed so much pain on so many people as a consequence of unnecessary increases in interest rate over the last couple of years, is not true. Instead, tax has that role. So, this again shifts the balance of power.
The balance of power now lies with the Treasury and its decisions over taxation, including short-term changes that it can make if necessary to control inflation, like changing the basic rate of VAT, which is entirely possible at any time within any economy the central bank suddenly becomes just a regulator of banks and not a controller of the whole of economic policy, which is the status we've given it for the last 25 odd years, wholly mistakenly.
And then the role of tax is also different. Instead of tax being just about revenue raising, with the obsession being whether a particular tax is good at raising money or not, tax is seen as something much bigger in terms of the delivery of government policy.
It's about the delivery of policy to tackle inequality.
It's about the delivery of policy to change the way in which the economy runs, by providing subsidies, for example, to those things that the government wants to happen, and by charging tax on those things that it doesn't want to happen. It's about, therefore, charging tax on those things which are bad, let's call them gambling, alcohol, carbon, whatever you wish, and it's about not charging tax on things that are good, like education books and so on.
It's also about building a relationship between citizens and government because it's vital that people understand how tax works because they pay it, and that is one of the ways in which they can decide how to hold government accountable. In other words, tax is a fundamental driver of democracy.
MMT makes all these things clear.
And it also makes clear that the government need not obsess about inflation, because inflation always goes away of its own accord. That's what history tells us, since 1210, when we've got data for that period in the UK. And, instead, the focus of government economic policy should be on things that are much more important.
Things like full employment, which MMT prioritises. Or investment, or inequality, or climate change.
All of those things could become the focus of attention rather than inflation, which has become so destructive as a goal, much more destructive, in fact, than inflation itself.
So, what MMT does is fundamentally change the description of how the economy works - the government spends and its taxes. Others would argue that the government taxes and it spends. And the sums of money will not necessarily alter greatly as a consequence of MMT. But what it does do is change our understanding of the power relationships around that.
This, then, is a political economic theory, because political economy is all about power relationships. And MMT puts the power back with democratic government, the Treasury, and the choices that it has to make about how to meet the needs of people, in particular by delivering full employment.
This makes MMT powerful, radical, different, and fundamentally important because it puts people, and not money, and not bankers, and not finance, at the centre of its economic policy. And that, I believe, is what has to happen now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
For me, Modern Money Theory explains:
☑️That the Government never has to “find” the money (it can always print what it needs), but it must be careful about its spending on resources
☑️The welfare state (including the NHS) is affordable and better value than private healthcare (where profits are skimmed off).
☑️Public services are affordable, and do not require public finance initiatives (PFI) schemes, nor private equity (which skim off profits)
☑️MMT lets us put people before profits. Some of the private sector engages in neoliberal predatory capitalism which puts profits before people.
☑️Taxation can always take money out of the economy what the government spends into it (taxes do not pay for government spending)
☑️Full employment is obtainable.
☑️Cost-effective energy and transport is obtainable.
☑️Underfunding deliberately causes austerity and is avoidable. Government spending grows the economy.
It’s also equally important that people should understand the macro argument where the possibility of saving money can justly be derived.
As I always say, the truths about MMT cannot be stated enough.
The worst of it is, is that using MMT sovereignty for the rich seems perfectly OK as long (as it seems), you don’t do the tax bit. And then you fall into the inflation trap.
Your example
“We don’t need Einstein and all that nonsense about the theory of relativity and everything else. What we can do is use Newtonian physics, which is an approximation to the truth in 97 per cent of situations, and that will do well enough for us.”
is interesting. Please can I add a little to it.
GPS is embedded in or mobile phones and many use their mobiles for route finding. In the maths, for GPS they initially used newtonian physics and it gave the wrong answers. It was only when they allowed for relativistic effects that the essential precision was obtained that is now so embedded in the world’s navigation systems. Modern life and our economies would be very different without it.
Thanks
In view of MMT’s importance in expressing the truth about the economy, I think that a more appropriate physics analogy is the Copernican revolution. The government is the sun and the planets are the financial markets, not the other way around.
Good point
I like this comparison.
MMT, for me, is just the simplest way to explain the observed world. In its most basic formulation I have never found anyone in finance that disagrees.
Of course, some folk feel that MMT means no government bonds or a job guarantee but these are policies made possible by seeing the world through the MMT lens…. not central to MMT.
Nigel Clayton- I used that analogy in my first attempt at macro blog-writing for the lay-reader in 2019. https://thepoundinyourpocket.org/2019/08/30/but-how-will-you-pay-for-it/
With regards to the Copernicus heliocentric model, it reminds me of Galileo and his row with the Catholic Church. He was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that his opinions contradicted accepted Biblical interpretations. His books were banned from Catholic countries after upsetting Pope Urban VIII and the Jesuits. He reportedly recanted on his death bed but this may be apocryphal. The ban on his books was lifted in 1833 nearly 200 years after his death. A metaphor for the obstinacy of the current establishment maybe?
Yes
“MMT says that a government must tax a sum broadly equal to the amount of its spending if it is to control inflation.”
Question 1: some gov spending has an economic multiplier effect (e.g. spending on health) – does this carry with it the implication of tax > spending (due to increased eco activity)
Question 2: if the gov invested in assets such as renewable generation this usually has an asset value >> than the original investment i.e. it has a RoI – how to tax?
The questions are not intended to undermine the “spend & tax” statement – but rather to show that gov spending has returns – mostly overlooked by the tax n spend/usual suspects
Broadly equal ≠ equal
So, if the spend will generate more tax revebue by itself and there is resource in the economy to permit it to take place then over time the invetsment should allow other taxes to fall or boradly equal may become equal, and that will rarely be desired.
It seems to me that if you tax (destroy) money that is in the hands of the lower income deciles of a population, (where it is needed mostly to buy essentials within their local economy) it has a very different effect than if you tax (destroy) money that is in the hands (and savings) of the top deciles of the population (who already have the essentials of life) and have difficulty thinking of things to spend it on. (A sort of mirror “tax multiplier effect” to the public spending multiplier idea.)
Correct
PSR recently raised a question I had been wondering about.
If we adopted MMT, would we be able to re-join the the Single Market, let alone the EU?
Are there any people in Europe advocating MMT?
Yes, we could
We would have to commity to joining the euro, buit without ever saying when
Look at Sweden
if we introduced it and it was a success, then the EU might move away from the Bundesbank mentality.
We don’t have to adopt MMT or believe in it. Any more than we need to adopt or believe in general relativity or Copernican heliocentrism. It is just a description of how the world works. And as it happens it is a better description than others that have come before.
But perhaps we should explore the conclusions that follow from it.
Correct
And thank you
Those who think the Government is beholden to the financials in the City when the Government “needs to borrow” might like to tell us where they think those £££’s which the City will “lend” came from in the first place.
@ Geejay. Try putting that question to the arrogant and ignorant Labour politicians in the House Of Lords they’ll simply ignore you!
https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=61999#view_comments
The UK badly needs a new political party that recognises we need greater emphasis on innovation but not at the expense of collective well-being. The Labour Party is not this party! It has become the scamming party. Even if you ignore the lies over the last five years Keir Starmer, for example, has received more value in gifts per year than the new state pension of £11,502 and getting close to the minimum wage of £22,011 for a 37 hour week both of which are inadequate for many :-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/18/keir-starmer-100000-in-tickets-and-gifts-more-than-any-other-recent-party-leader
With at least one exception – Prem Sikka!
I am off-thread here, and I know everyone appears committed to the BBC, as far as I can see, for political reasons, or because they think the programmes they like watching forgive anything; but I simply do not believe the excuses are good enough. The Huw Edwards debacle was, for me illustrated by the roger Bolton interview, C4 News last night. Bolton was anxious to excuse the corporate BBC, and pass the buck to the ‘industry’, or society, or worse; to internal reviews. Bolton said this: “Who was looking after the staff?”. And this “It is a power issue”. And this “How does [the BBC] monitor staff like Huw Edwards?”. And this “Stars are too powerful”. And this “There is always a review”. There is. so why are we here again. Bolton recited what should happen, but that is what all the reviews were for; and here we are again. Déjà vu, all over again, and again, and again. Clearly something very, very critical isn’t happening. The Corporate BBC simply doesn’t work.
Who was looking after the staff, or monitoring staff? It is a “power” issue. That was what the Dame Janet Smith Report was supposed to correct. In my view control over “the talent” was always the problem (or choosing the talent in the first place); but it seems nobody really has a grip on this; and given the history, that is unacceptable. The background to all this is the Dame Janet Smith Report, on Savile (but remember, there were also Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall – there is a very troubling history here), and so it goes on, and on; or in out of control journalism, Bashir etc. The Dame Janet Smith Report provided recommendations; you know, the point of all the work to stop this happening, that in Britain we almost never implement, or bother auditing, or checking on; until it happens again. Dame Janet Smith recommended regular public audits on progress in the BBC to make sure “the talent” was not out of control; and I do not recall seeing these regular public audit reports. What happened? We have been here far, far too often; going round the same circle.
It seems clear to be we are all in Britain superficial triflers; give us the show, the tinsel, the glamour, the gossip, the entertainment; just never, ever peel back the veil and disappoint us with what actually lies behind. That will never do.
@John S Warren
Sir,
Most times your off-topic posts annoy me – although I always read them – simply because they are off-topic, no matter how well-researched and written they are.
This one, though, in my opinion is off-topic but totally relevant to the tenor of Professor Murphy’s story arc in all his posts: there is a moral duty on all of us to protect the weak, the vulnerable, the power-less. And we must never let it sleep.
Thank you for highlighting where we have “dozed away” our responsibility – because “it was easier” that way.
Thank you. That is probably the nicest ‘back-handed’ compliment I can recall receiving.
Also off-topic. I’m afraid, but it seems to me that with reference to the ‘Huw Edwards’ debacle that ‘mental health’ is carrying a very heavy load if it includes the loss of self-esteem by going to Cardiff University rather than Oxford………
I am certainly not committed to the BBC, although my memory might be. Never has such a cultural icon fallen from grace so badly in my time at least. I can only concur with you that far from being a bastion, the BBC is no better than most institutions in post-Soviet Britain.
Bill Mitchell’s latest blog piece outlines the current state of the discussion within MMT on the euro – https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=62001 – which is clearly somewhere in between a sovereign currency with its own central bank, and countries using a foreign currency (since the euro’s fiscal rules that restrict government actions can’t be changed without treaty renegotiation – but can be changed in due course).
I wonder what thoughts you have on this discussion ?
No, except to say that Bill has a spectacular record of getting most things about Europe very wrong, which is why I rarely read him
Richard…. there is a whole community here now that ‘gets it’,in large part thanks to your efforts. We all of us, I’m sure, disseminate the message every chance we get and I for one would happily pay for my close family to attend the Mile End Economists roadshow.
Thanks
Good idea. Let’s start a crowdfunder and donate to Starmer and Reeves so they can afford to attend as well, because I know money must be tight when you need an “angel” to pay for your wife’s clothes and have to ask pensioners to pay for your “maxed out credit card.”
” This makes MMT powerful, radical, different, and fundamentally important because it puts people, and not money, and not bankers, and not finance, at the centre of its economic policy. And that, I believe, is what has to happen now.”
Yes.
It is difficult to avoid being put into a particular box in these debates – a box that one might not want to be in.
It seems much more comfortable to be ‘MMT influenced’ than fully signed up to it.
Focussing on the practicalities – how it can or cannot help us rebuild the NHS, getting the nearly 8 million waiting list down, and rebuilding all the other public services which are crying out for investment – seems to be the most valuable way of exploring and using MMT insights. Mazzucato, Jim Neil, Wreen Lewis etc etc had an FT letter urging nging massibe public investment..
And showing how MMT ideas can show how to implement the Green New Deal , getting Water, Railways, Energy back into public hands without paying over the odds to global corporates/ monopolies/off shore private equity etc etc .
And how can we get as much community ownership of local wind, solar as possible?
We all want a ‘mixed economy’ but the secular trend – as Piketty suggests – seems to be ever greater inequality, where most peoplel are having less and less control, less autonomy – owning less and less – and renting more and more. A handful of companies globally producing/ distributing food, technology, energy, pharmaceuticals etc etc.
How far does MMT alone explain this – I’m not sure , I dont know enough – wikipedia seems to try to help
. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
and also useful to look at marx-influenced discussion of MMT …
ttps://developingeconomics.org/2021/03/17/monetary-policy-is-ultimately-based-on-a-theory-of-money-a-marxist-critique-of-mmt/
MMT explains how money works in the macro economy
That’s it
It then permits a differewnt undertsanding of that economy
That’s also it
It can’t dop more than that
But in itself that’s a big deal
Hey Richard, I am always pleaed to learn more about MMT. It would be interesting to understand, or see acknowledged and/or disputed, the criticisms of MMT…
Can I suggest you start with Stephanie Kelton’s ‘The Deficit Myth’ and then google its critics?
What about all these complex financial instruments that the US and UK financial services industries have created which in the GFC and the Liz Truss fiasco seemed to mean that we were beholden to bailing them out else our whole financial edifice would have come crashing down.
Can we really tough it out with the bond markets?
Yes
Thanks for the important post.
MMT matters for very simple reasons:
1. Unlike most macro teaching it presents an accurate description of the workings of a modern monetary system
2. It explains why macro policy in most advanced nations is flawed from its foundations
The problem with MMT
3. Despite (1) less than 5% of the population understand MMT and of that probably only 50% believe it and only 25% can explain it properly
4. Because of (3) it played no part in our elections nor will it play a part in the forthcoming US elections where false arguments about the level of US debt and it’s so-called sustainability will be centre stage. This was/is a catastrophe
5. The MMT community spends too much time fighting among itself (See Keen being disinvited from MMT conference etc) and being rude to others who disagree with them.
The danger is that it remains largely a side show with a group of largely angry old men (Kelton aside) arguing with each other and with others who hold different views. In that case, we all suffer.
Given how entrenched (incorrect) macro thinking is, it takes a great deal of effort for most people to get their heads around MMT. I had to read Randall Wray three times before it started to make sense.
MMT needs new spokespeople along with Kelton. People who can help people who struggle with this change in thinking and understanding. They seem far and few between at the moment and hence MMT remains a side show, albeit an important one.
I try
Richard, nobody astute and rational can seriously quarrel with this outstanding post, imo. I may reproduce it, if I may.
Feel free
Fascinating. However, you say with MMT we are not dependent on financial markets but I find that very difficult to accept, given the world we live in. Look what happened to Liz Truss.
Liz Truss did nit create the crisis of September 2022
The Bank of England did by announcing £80 billion of QT which threatened LDI trades
The House of Lords Report ‘National debt: it’s time for tough decisions’ is an atrocious piece of hack economics in order to build up the new Single Transferable Party’s obsession with defunct economics and absurd paranoia about Deficits and the National Debt. It provides in ‘Appendix 4: Japan – a brief case study in debt’; a disgracefully cobbled polemic, in less than two pages, clearly designed to trash Japanese monetary policy. It objects to Japan’s Debt-to-GDP Ratio: 252%. It completely fails to demonstrate the problem; except to beg the debt question, emphasise how bleak the picture is, without proof; and cite evidence almost solely over the serious problem of an ageing population. Britain has an ageing population, and a declining birth rate; it is just on a slightly different point on the same ageing curve. This bleak picture of Japan is painted in Para.2 (there are only 4 paragraphs in the case study).
Para.3/4 effectively contradicts the muddled criticism in Para.2: “[3] Japanese governments have nonetheless been able to attract the requisite levels of funding over an extended period of time thanks to a number of factors. These include, inter alia, a comparatively healthy overall balance sheet and a prolonged era of low interest rates. Japan has substantial assets which include, for example, a social security fund valued at around 55 per cent of GDP. As such, as of Q3 2022, assets totalling 134 per cent of GDP help to yield a somewhat smaller net debt figure of 119 per cent. Moreover, unlike the UK, Japan is also a large net lender internationally and has a structural current account surplus. Japanese government bonds also have a relatively long average maturity and are mostly held domestically (85.5 per cent as of December 2023) which facilitates debt roll-over.[4] The country’s low interest rates have also meant that roll-over funding costs have for some time been close to zero. In fact, on 19 March 2024, the Bank of Japan ended an eight-year period of negative interest rates with the first increase in its benchmark rate for 17 years.357 The willingness of Japanese households to lend to government via banks at comparatively low rates is in part based on the need for higher precautionary savings due to (comparatively) low outlays for social security and an undeveloped private pension system.” Para.4 finishes with a gloomy outlook filled with negative opinion, but almost bereft of substantive evidence.
This is all really based on the current obsession over the Debt-to-GDP Ratio; which is an abstraction, and a flawed measure. On both issues, here is the Federal Reserve of St.Louis on both the Ratio, and Japan (November, 2023).
“Looking at Japan’s Debt Burden:
Some economists have turned to Japan as an example to address this concern [the US National Debt]. Why? For more than two decades, Japan’s national debt has floated above 100% of its GDP. In fact, as of the second quarter of 2022, Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio was 226%. In other words, Japan has been able to maintain a very high level of debt for decades.
Researchers have also pointed out similarities in the fiscal problems faced by the U.S. today and Japan 20 years ago. Due to Japan’s rapidly aging population, economists predicted that the heavy burden of social security expenses would result in a large fiscal deficit, which could then lead to a public debt crisis. However, a crisis has yet to occur.
When examining Japan’s debt-to-GDP, it may therefore seem fair to assume that concerns regarding the U.S.’s high level of debt are overstated. In this blog post, we show that, while simple, a comparison based solely on the debt-to-GDP ratio overlooks several other key factors. A more comprehensive view of the debt issue necessitates an examination of the public sector’s balance sheet as a whole, the level of net liability and the revenue from its asset returns”.
Britain, buried in decades of abject economic and monetary failure has the audacity to criticise Japan. The proposition is farcical. Nobody, simply no nation with the least common sense would set the last twenty years of British Economic and Monetary policy performance as a paradigm, or as more than a national embarrassment; a case study in abject failure.
It is time for everyone outside Parliament and the Westminster Bubble say to the House of Lords, The BoE, The Treasury and the Single Transferable Party what is required of them, in three words:
PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF.
There is a blog coming on this report….when I finish it
By my reckoning four members of that fourteen member committe can be classed as Labour politicians and ought in theory to have a filed a minority report. Also notable in the background information found in Wikipedia on these members many come from wealthy backgrounds having attended private schools.
These discussions make me think there is a major theme for the Mile End gang; Labour: if we could put together a proposal to end poverty and nationalise essential services with a funding model that kept the economy in balance with the budget would you be prepared to hear it?
And of course they will say no, or if they do, it means they show their true colours.
Headlines: Labour refuses to hear professors explain how to fund socialist policies.
Noted
[…] By Richard Murphy, part-time Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School, director of the Corporate Accountability Network, member of Finance for the Future LLP, and director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Fund the Future […]
I’d like to see more about how the tax system would operate in its role in controlling money supply. Is it flexible enough in terms of targeting, timing and the effects on inflation ( ref increases in VAT) I’m a supporter of MMT but worry that the management of taxation is not getting enough attention.
Fair comment
I will get to it, but not today
MileEnd omnibus passenger back again. Another great video to bookmark, and I think I understood most of it!
I wrote to my Labour Junior Minister MP, critiquing Reeves’ economics on the basis of where spending comes from, and didn’t forget to acknowledge the role of taxation within MMT, and I got a patronising reply which basically blanked me on all the MMT stuff, and threw “Liz Truss & the Markets” at me, quoting all the things her mini-budget “caused” at me (market turmoil, fall in sterling, dramatic impact on mortgage market, borrowing cost on bonds reaching 5 yr high, traders selling off UK assets, withdrawal of mortgage products due to fears on interest rates, all supposedly justification for Labour’s “fiscal responsibility”).
I realise that was all based on classic BoE/monetarist theory, and I realise that MMT has a different explanation of what Truss/ Kwarteng, and their predecessors, and the BoE did wrong, and that MMT differs from what all the standard pundits said, and I think it has a lot to do with a reliance on BoE interest rates rather than taxation, to control inflation, BUT:
I don’t feel at all able to put it all together in a way that would inform a conversation on the REAL Mile End Omnibus travelling from my council estate.
WERE the markets spooked by the mini-budget, or by longer term issues, or were they being mischievous?
HOW would an MMT-committed government manage to, in Thatcher’s terms, “buck” the market?
How do I answer my MP? (not that they will pay any attention). I need an answer to the “Look what happened to Liz Truss” that will work with fellow Omnibus passengers.
I really appreciate what you are doing & the well informed contributors who comment.
Thanks
Appreciated
I think the most important part of MMT is that it reminds us that we can do this again
https://prospect.org/health/way-won-america-s-economic-breakthrough-world-war-ii/
Richard does MMT add anything to the legacy of Keynes Adler Minsky? The Einsteins of your analogy
If feel that this great report on the economic miracle of WW2 proved them right, and is the evidence for the Kelton, Wray, Keen crowd too
https://prospect.org/health/way-won-america-s-economic-breakthrough-world-war-ii/
It develops those legacies. All things must develop.
Right you are Richard. Though you used the word radical, I would suggest MMT has not developed enough. MMTer Hudson is more radical and I think has great insight which simplify achieving your goals
1. His concluding sentence – https://youtu.be/O_btd7wuslc?t=5839
2. His explanation of his position – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_btd7wuslc&t=5754s
Thanks
Yes all things should develop, however the famous historian tells about a time when monetary and fiscal policy worked better than they do eight years later!!
https://prospect.org/health/way-won-america-s-economic-breakthrough-world-war-ii/
[…] Cross-posted from Richard Murphy’s blog […]
two thumbs up!!!
BTW I meant EIGHTY years later 🙂
Yes all things should develop, however the famous historian tells about a time when monetary and fiscal policy worked better than they do eight years later!!
https://prospect.org/health/way-won-america-s-economic-breakthrough-world-war-ii/