wow, a lot to unpack here (not good, mischaracterisations of MMT)
would first and foremost highly suggest talk with someone like , , or even to better understand MMT and inflation dynamics w money supply
Conversation
I've noticed this is a common retort to arguments of this nature
"You don't understand 'true MMT', therefore your argument is invalid"
Regardless of how you perceive MMT, doesn't change the fact that non-CPI inflation is insidious
1
6
no, this is pretty straight forward. MMT proponents don't even like QE, so equating QE policies with MMT just doesn't make sense
so this is not some true scotsman fallacy, it's essential to understand what MMT is actually positing
3
1
20
I'm confused, don't QE and MMT both point in the same direction? I agree they're not the same thing, but also think that both would effectively increase prices vs USD
5
1
7
The MMT view on QE is that it's largely useless. That it constitutes an asset swap (reserves for treasuries, both of which are government liabilities), without ultimately changing the public or private sector's financial position.
3
11
49
to be clear:
1) are you just talking about QE on treasuries, or also buying other assets?
2) does it have impact on interest rates, even if not *directly* on monetary supply? (If so, this would likely lead to an effectively larger monetary supply b/c of increased lending.)
1) buying other assets is also an asset swap not just injecting new money in a quantitative sense. you're taking asset risk out of the economy but not necessarily changing overall quantities by much
2) you can have low interest rates and lending contraction and high rates and
1
2
2
lending expansion. there isn't a mechanical link b/w rates and quantity of credit/investment expended and its certainly not what most people are talking about when they talk about QE increasing the money supply that's about M0 increasing which ignores the asset-swap aspect
1
2
3
Show replies