Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 82 83 84 85 
Send Topic Print
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) (Read 127142 times)
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1245 - Sep 15th, 2025 at 12:03pm
 
Article from 'The Institute for Wicked Problems':

https://www.invi.nu/en/om-os

Democracy as an empty ritual: 77% of Britons  say political decisions are impossible to implement


........

Yes, because - as I'm exploring in this MMT thread - funding government via bond sales to rich people and institutions, pits rich people against ordinary taxpayers, as Liz Truss found out when she tried to reduce taxes without a corressponding reduction in spending - which mainstream economists from the IMF down rejected in the interests of bond traders.....

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1246 - Sep 16th, 2025 at 12:32pm
 

From 'Go Meta with Oli Sharpe' (you-tube blog).

Unpacking 'The Deficit Myth' by Stephnie Kelton


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWcvVf7r88s

Many people are worried that America is going broke, its government spending too much money. But Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) suggests that this is the wrong way to think about how fiat currencies, like the US dollar, actually work. This video is a book review and summary of The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton in which she explains why the ideas of Modern Monetary Theory suggest that actually countries that issue their own currency, like the USA issuing the dollar, can afford to consistently spend a little more than they tax back, to always be in deficit, without it necessarily leading on to high levels of inflation.

And, given the pressures on our economies from the metacrisis we are facing, I think this is a useful book to help better understand what are the real constraints on government spending.






Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1247 - Sep 19th, 2025 at 12:13pm
 
[Alternet]

America's Comeback' is nothing but a con job

When Charlie Kirk was assassinated, he was sitting under a tent that had “The American Comeback Tour” printed in huge letters across all four sides. It was the theme of his tour of college campuses, a tour run by his Turning Point organization that was, according to NBC News, early-funded by 10 morbidly rich right-wingers.

The question is “America Comeback” to what?

In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was sworn into office

・Fully two-thirds of Americans were in the middle class,

・College was so cheap you could pay your tuition with a weekend job,

・Healthcare was inexpensive and widely available,

・Women and minorities had achieved legal (albeit not yet actual) parity with white men,

・And school and mass shootings were largely unknown because weapons of war were mostly outlawed from our streets.

・Today, however, as a result of the Reagan Revolution:

・Only around half of us are in the middle class,

College debt has crushed two generations to the point where they can’t start a family or buy a house,

A half-million families end up homeless or bankrupt every year because somebody got sick.

The GOP is leading an effort to make it harder for women and minorities to vote or maintain employment, And, with more guns than people, mass shootings are an almost-daily occurrence.

It's easy to see why an appealing pitch to the nation’s young people would be “comeback” or “Make America Great Again.” But what caused that “greatness” that we need to “come back to” and what wrecked it?

The American middle class is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 1900, only about 17 percent of us were in it; by the time of the Republican Great Depression it was about a quarter of us.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt was sworn into office in 1933, he embarked on a radical new campaign to create the world’s first widespread, more-than-half-of-us middle class. It had three main long-term components.

First, he passed the Wagner Act in 1935 that legalized labor unions and forbade employers from bringing in scab workers or refusing to recognize a union. That gave workers democracy in the workplace, and they used that power to demand that as their productivity increased, so would their pay and benefits.

And, with more guns than people, mass shootings are an almost-daily occurrence.

It's easy to see why an appealing pitch to the nation’s young people would be “comeback” or “Make America Great Again.” But what caused that “greatness” that we need to “come back to” and what wrecked it?

The American middle class is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 1900, only about 17 percent of us were in it; by the time of the Republican Great Depression it was about a quarter of us.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt was sworn into office in 1933, he embarked on a radical new campaign to create the world’s first widespread, more-than-half-of-us middle class. It had three main long-term components.

First, he passed the Wagner Act in 1935 that legalized labor unions and forbade employers from bringing in scab workers or refusing to recognize a union. That gave workers democracy in the workplace, and they used that power to demand that as their productivity increased, so would their pay and benefits.

Second, he established a minimum wage to make sure that people who worked full time would never end up in poverty.

Third, he raised the top income tax rate to 90 percent for the morbidly rich and 52 percent for corporations.

That high top tax rate on the rich meant that the average CEO took only about 30 times what the average worker did (because he’d be paying 90 percent or 74 percent after taking the first few millions), leaving far more money in the company to give raises and benefits to workers.

Corporations could get around their top tax rate by investing in their business. Research and development, new product roll-outs, advertising and marketing, and increasing pay and benefits were all tax-deductible, and that high tax rate incentivized them to do these things that built a strong and resilient manufacturing economy (stock buybacks were considered illegal stock manipulation until 1983).

Reagan undid all of that, lowering the top tax rate on the morbidly rich from 74 percent to 27 percent (it’s since gone up to 34 percent), cutting the top corporate tax rate to 34 percent, and legalizing stock buybacks, so now CEOs are taking literally hundreds of billions out of their companies (Musk is set to make a trillion) and wages for workers have been mostly flat even since 1981.

In similar fashion, Reagan declared war on labor unions so effectively that that one-third of us protected by unions in 1981 has collapsed. Today private sector union membership rates are only 5.9 percent, with some states even lower (North Carolina 2.4 percent, South Dakota 2.7 percent, and South Carolina 2.8 percent.

Regarding college, 80 percent of the cost of an education in state-run colleges and universities was paid by government when Reagan came into office, leaving about 20 percent of the cost to be covered by tuition. The Reagan Revolution changed all that, so that today tuition covers the largest percentage and the state is only covering around 20 percent-40 percent (it varies from state to state).


(cont.)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1248 - Sep 19th, 2025 at 12:31pm
 
(cont.)

Great strides had also been made in opportunity for minorities and women by 1981; just a decade earlier women had gained the right to have a credit card or sign a mortgage without a husband, brother, or father’s signature. Affirmative Action programs were pulling racial and religious minorities into the mainstream of the American economy, kicking off a widespread Black middle class.

So, if Charlie Kirk was all about an “American Comeback,” what were his positions on the issues that created that broad, widespread middle class that Republicans and Trump promise us they’ll restore when they “Make America Great Again”?

On taxes, Kirk wanted to replace the progressive income tax with a 10 percent flat tax, so even the poorest person is paying income taxes on their meager income while the morbidly rich get a massive tax break.

He called unions “cartels” and celebrated teachers losing the right to unionize.

On college tuition, he opposed any plan to reduce student debt or increase federal or state funding to higher education, calling free college a “bribe.”

And on health care, Kirk opposed the kind of universal health care every other developed country in the world has, calling the VA an example of failed “government-run” healthcare.

With regard to the rights of women and minorities Charlie was also outspoken, most notably saying about prominent Black women Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom he labeled “affirmative action picks”:

“You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

He added:

“We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s.”

Finally, with regard to guns, even though 87 percent of Americans want reasonable gun control, Kirk was all-in with the firearms industry, arguing that “some gun deaths every single year” are worth the cost of the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. How do we protect our kids? Kirk said, quite simply, more guns was the solution:

“If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don’t our children?”

So, the question: How does doubling down on low taxes for the morbidly rich, keeping our health care for-profit, withholding higher education funding, gutting unions, increasing the number of guns, and trash-talking women and minorities make America “comeback”?

Republicans and their well-paid hustlers (Kirk took in hundreds of millions) have been promoting these positions for forty-four years and the result has been the gutting of the American middle class, now leading to anger, resentment, and political violence.

It’s way past time for America to return to the policies and positions that history proves (both in America and around the world) produce and build a strong middle class, the essential foundation for economic and political stability.


.....

And it's time for the currency-issuing government to stop borrowing from the private sector - and repaying with interest - its own currency; rather government debt resulting from low taxation should be monetized:


(google)

"Monetization of debt is when a central bank pays for government spending by creating new money, effectively buying the government's debt and permanently increasing the money supply. Instead of selling bonds to the public, the government "borrows" directly from the central bank, which then "prints" the money to cover the debt. This practice is often called "printing money" and is restricted in many countries due to the significant risk of causing inflation or even
hyperinflation"


Oh - so the 'risk' of inflation is the reason why government debt monetization is restricted. 

But if government can oversee an economy which remains productive with low inflation, what's the problem with government debt, while eliminating  the need to satisfy bond traders? 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1249 - Sep 21st, 2025 at 12:40pm
 
Brilliant discussion between Richard Murphy and Steve Keen looking at why Neoclassical economics is so entrenched:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRQrY9GnYyc

(plus examination of Warren Mosler's claim: " Exports are a cost, imports a benefit", a point they both refute).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1250 - Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:11am
 
Steve Keen demolishing mainstream economics:

The accounting error that fooled an entire profession

I just exposed the fundamental lie that every economics professor teaches about banking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Q1pYK0j6k

What mainstream economics gets catastrophically wrong about banking will shock you:

• The Money Multiplier is accounting fraud: When you actually do the double-entry bookkeeping that economists refuse to do, their model creates errors that would bankrupt any real bank within days.

• Central banks debunked it years ago: The Bank of England (2014) and Bundesbank (2017) both confirmed that banks don't lend from reserves - yet economists still teach the same false model to students.

• Their ideology blinds them to reality: Mainstream economists need to blame government for everything, so they ignore how private banks actually create money by crediting both loans and deposits simultaneously.

• This causes real economic disasters: By focusing on false government deficit fears instead of private debt bubbles, economists completely missed predicting the 2008 financial crisis.

I used my Ravel accounting software to demolish the arguments of mainstream economists Bob Murphy and George Selgen, showing exactly where their bookkeeping fails basic accounting rules.

Watch the full demolition here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Q1pYK0j6k

The real debt bomb is private sector debt creation, not government deficits.

Best,
Steve.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1251 - Sep 24th, 2025 at 9:42pm
 
The tribulations of national treasurers who attempt to follow the mainstream 'taxes are for funding government'  dogma.

(Daily Mail)

Second think tank urges Reeves to break manifesto vows and raise NI, income tax or VAT this autumn

Rachel Reeves has been urged to ditch her manifesto promise and hike income tax, national insurance or VAT this autumn.

The Institute for Government (IfG) is the second think tank this week to call on the Chancellor to break her pledge and hit the middle classes with tax rises.

In a report published today, the IfG called on Ms Reeves to undertake serious tax reform, instead of reaching for an ‘eclectic grab bag of tax raisers’.

The IfG said the Chancellor should try to avoid ‘layering even more complexity and distortion onto the tax system’.

But it warned: ‘Raising substantial revenue will likely require broad-based tax rises that are paid by a large population.

‘The best candidates would be increases to the main rates of VAT, income tax and national insurance – even if that has to come at the political price of undoing one of Labour’s (rash) manifesto commitments.’

Several Labour MPs have called on the Government to introduce a wealth tax this autumn, but the IfG said it would be ‘difficult’ and ‘risky’ to raise substantial sums this way.

‘The revenue yield from such a set of measures would be more uncertain than broad-based tax increases, because it would be sensitive to the behaviour of a small group of people.’

The report comes just days after the Resolution Foundation urged Ms Reeves to cut national insurance and increase income tax to create a ‘level playing field’ and protect workers’ pay.

It suggested she cut national insurance by 2p, and match it with a 2p rise in income tax.

The think tank argued that the switch would raise £6 billion and help tackle ‘unfairness’ in the tax system, as income tax is paid by more people including pensioners and landlords.

The Government has repeatedly said it will not increase the rates of VAT, income tax or national insurance at the Budget in November.

Tom Pope, the IfG’s deputy chief economist, said: ‘This autumn, the chancellor finds herself in a difficult position.

‘With tax rises all but inevitable, she should reject the path of least resistance, often taken by her predecessors, of raising taxes in an inconsistent way based on what seems easiest.

‘Instead, now is the time to commit to tax reform and lay out an agenda on tax that fits with her broader growth objectives.’
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1252 - Sep 28th, 2025 at 12:12pm
 
Steve Keen speaks at an event organized by Jeremy Corbyn, originator of a new Left party - significant given that UK Labour is now polling behind Nigel Farages's populist right Reform party.

Steve's point is to teach politicians that mainstream economics is wrong on government deficits and debt (it's a pity Jeremy didn't know this when he was leader of UK Labour).

https://youtu.be/Mng2Fr3TXmU
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1253 - Sep 30th, 2025 at 6:11pm
 

Why neoclassical economics has failed - Book summary of The New Economics by Steve Keen

Video from 'Go Meta' with Oli Sharpe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNJSeWlw8a8
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1254 - Oct 1st, 2025 at 11:57am
 
Market contradictions resulting from delusional Neoclassical orthodoxy:

(Markets Insider)

Gold and stocks are setting records at the same time. Here's why that's unusual and what it means.

Gold prices have surged 46% in 2025 alongside strong stock market performance.

That's unusual given that gold and stocks aren't often correlated.

Market pros say inflation concerns — and even a fraying of the social fabric — could be fueling gold's rally.

When stocks hit trouble, investors usually run to gold. So with stocks at new highs, fresh off a 33% rally since April, investors are…still running to gold?

The precious metal is at an all-time high, up 43% this year and a whopping 84% since the start of 2024. At the same time, the stock market is hovering at record highs, with the S&P 500 up 13% in 2025.

Since gold tends to do best when stocks and the economy are flailing and investors are seeking safety, its recent rally is out of the ordinary, considering how strong the stock market has been amid the continued AI frenzy.

What gives?
In addition to risks like geopolitical uncertainty, maybe the most straightforward explanation is that inflation has remained sticky, and investors see both stocks and gold as a more stable store of value.

Inflation has remained well above the Federal Reserve's 2% target, hitting 2.9% in August. Historically high tariffs threaten to push prices up further, and predictions for the Fed to loosen monetary policy have compounded forecasts for another bout of inflation.

"I think the reason you see the simultaneous rally is it's not a safe haven trade right now," said David Miller, CIO at Catalyst Funds. "It's more of an inflation and a currency debasement question that's driving both stocks and gold."

"You think of it the same way with real estate, for example," Miller added. "Who would ever think housing prices would be up dramatically from where they were in 2021 in spite of interest rates going substantially higher."

Ben McMillan, CIO at IDX advisors, said you might view the gold rally as another sort of iteration of the bond-vigilante trade, where investors express their discontent with their dollars as inflation erodes the value of fiat currency.

"This is concern about inflation, fiat stability, and just too much debt in the system," McMillan said. He added that it's "definitely a warning signal" for a stagflationary environment ahead.
Of course, there doesn't necessarily need to be a tidy explanation for the simultaneous stock and gold surge. Equity investors may simply be bullish on AI — after all, the earnings that top tech firms are bringing in are impressive, to say the least.

At the same time, the inflation fears mentioned above, along with factors like China's plan to host more gold reserves, could be fueling the rise in the precious metal.

But if you were looking for a more dire explanation — about how the soaring value of gold reflects fears of a wider societal reckoning — those exist, too.

Viktor Shvets, global strategist at Macquarie Capital, tied gold's rally to the growing prevalance to AI — as evident in the surge in AI-stock prices — and the havoc he thinks it will wreak on the world.

"As technology destroys while giving birth to a new world, chaos and polarization will likely get worse, potentially leading to civil, cold, and hot wars. This is where gold comes in: it is no longer simply a hedge against inflation but a hedge against destruction," Shvets wrote in a client note.


"Societal polarization leads to a political polarization which in turn further aggravates frictions and reduces policymaking competence, leading to high volatility of economic and inflationary outcomes," he continued. "This is what we have been describing as an 'Insanity Premium.'"

How's that for something to chew on for a Tuesday morning? That's not all, though. Adding to the uncertainty—and helping gold extend its gains this week—is a looming government shutdown. The federal government is set to shut down at midnight on Wednesday, barring a last-minute deal between lawmakers.


Ah - the 'debt ceiling' nonsense rears its head, again. 

THe US government can monetize the debt accumulated in the past, without causing inflation, because the deficit spending which resulted in the current US debt has already moved through the economy while inflation has been successfully managed.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1255 - Oct 10th, 2025 at 11:13am
 
Increasing calls to remove central  bank independence:

How a Fed Overhaul Could Eliminate the Federal Debt Crisis,

Part I: The Fed’s Hidden Drain


https://ellenbrown.com/2025/10/05/how-a-fed-overhaul-could-eliminate-the-federal...

The Federal Reserve’s independence is currently being challenged by political forces seeking to reshape its mandate. The Fed has not always been independent of Congress and the Treasury. Its independence was formalized only in 1951, with a Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord that was not a law but a policy agreement redefining the relationship of the parties. In the 1930s and 1940s, before the Fed officially became “independent,” it worked with the federal government to fund the most productive period in our country’s history. We can and should do that again.


UK Prof. Richard Werner shows that there is no evidence that more independent central banks deliver lower inflation. In fact, per his findings, central bank independence has no measurable impact on real economic performance, and greater central bank independence has resulted in lower economic growth.

This two-part series will probe the forces in play now to overhaul the Fed, and the feasibility of redirecting it to use its tools, including “quantitative easing,” not just to save the banks but to save the economy. Part I looks at a particularly flawed Fed policy — Interest on Reserves (IOR)  — which burdens the budget, stifles liquidity, and subsidizes banks. Then it suggests ways that eliminating IOR and reining in the Fed’s independence could solve the Treasury’s interest burden altogether.


Is President Trump onto something re his call for lower interest rates?

Read the full article at the above link.

.....

But the whole mainstream mess would be eliminated by a self-funded (ie, via a currency-issuing) federal government in conjunction with a mandated zero interest rate, full employment policy, with inflation managed by government balancing resource supply and demand in the macro-economy, rather than balancing a (monetary) budget (like you and I - users of the currency - have to do).
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 10th, 2025 at 11:18am by thegreatdivide »  
 
IP Logged
 
Daves2017
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2513
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1256 - Oct 10th, 2025 at 7:36pm
 
Hi, I’m still reading but I need to really  spend time reading to understand what you posted.

It’s good to read and research and understand, ta.

I sold my bitcoin ( at a small profit) because  we both know it’s really not based on anything of value.

I  use that $$ to buy gold before it booming and it’s working out a win / win.

I had to pay tax on my bitcoin profit but I think I can avoid taxes selling gold?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 10th, 2025 at 7:43pm by Daves2017 »  

I am, you are, we are ISIS and HAMAS.

Australia is weak, we will take over it!

"Allahu Akbar“.

With Albo blessing we will conquer Australia and rule!!
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1257 - Oct 11th, 2025 at 3:29pm
 
The problem is this silly Neoclassical-informed woman is responsible for the mess....

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/08/imf-chief-warns-uncertainty-is-...%20public%20sector%20deficit[/url]

IMF chief warns ‘uncertainty is the new normal’ in global economy


Kristalina Georgieva outlines mounting risks to economic stability before fund’s annual meetings next week


The head of the International Monetary Fund has issued a stark warning about the mounting risks facing the global economy, saying: “Buckle up: uncertainty is the new normal.”

As finance ministers and central bankers prepare to meet in Washington for the IMF’s annual meetings next week, its managing director, Kristalina Georgieva said the world economy had shown surprising resilience in the face of Donald Trump’s trade war.

The US is now expected to avoid recession, despite the imposition of historic tariffs on many of its trading partners, and the global economy is forecast to slow “only slightly this year and next”, she said.

But Georgieva pointed to growing signs of strain, including the record gold price – which topped $4,000 an ounce on Wednesday, signalling anxiety among investors – and exceptionally high valuations for US stocks.

“Before anyone heaves a big sigh of relief, please hear this: global resilience has not yet been fully tested. And there are worrying signs the test may come,” she told an audience at the Milken Institute in Washington.

Georgieva suggested the full economic impact of US tariffs “is yet to unfold”, after many firms front loaded exports earlier this year to dodge the levies. “Buckle up: uncertainty is the new normal and it is here to stay,” she warned.

In the last update of its World Economic Outlook in July, the IMF forecast global GDP growth of 3% for this year – a modest slowdown from 3.3% in 2024. It will update its projections at next week’s meetings.

While financial markets have broadly remained calm in the face of policy turmoil, she said this was “masking but not arresting some softening trends”, and warned: “History tells us this sentiment can turn abruptly.”

Share prices in the US have surged to fresh highs in recent weeks, driven by rocketing valuations for the “magnificent seven” tech firms, including chip maker Nvidia and Elon Musk’s electric vehicle-maker Tesla.

Optimism about future productivity gains from generative AI have continued to underpin confidence on Wall Street, despite signs of a slowdown elsewhere, including in the US jobs market.

Drawing a parallel with the dotcom bubble at the turn of the millennium, Georgieva said; “Today’s valuations are heading toward levels we saw during the bullishness about the internet 25 years ago.

“If a sharp correction were to occur, tighter financial conditions could drag down world growth, expose vulnerabilities, and make life especially tough for developing countries.”

The IMF is urging policymakers in large economies to take action to reduce the risks of instability by addressing global imbalances – including calling on the US to tackle its spiralling public sector deficit.

Trump’s tax cuts, targeted at higher earners, are expected to add more than $3tn to US public debt over the next decade – though the US president has hailed tariff revenues as a way of improving the nation’s finances.

Georgieva also called on Beijing to carry out reforms aimed at kickstarting growth and boosting household spending, saying that in China, “private savings are chronically high”.

The Bulgarian economist also offered what she called “tough love”, to “my beloved native Europe”, urging the EU to appoint a “single market tsar”, to accelerate the integration of markets.

“Enough lofty rhetoric on how to lift competitiveness – you know what must be done. It is time for action,” she said. “Remove border frictions in the labour market, goods and services trade, energy and finance. Build a single European financial system. Build an energy union. Complete your project.”

She also highlighted growing public frustration at the economic status quo in some countries, warning: “Many people in many places – especially the young – are taking their disappointment to the streets: from Lima to Rabat, from Paris to Nairobi, and from Kathmandu to Jakarta, all are demanding better opportunity.”[i]

...........

Yes - the young all around the world are demanding better opportunities, but she is demanding governments 'balance their budgets', ie impose 'austerity' on their electorates.   

Hopeless.

Yet the US can ignore the [i]currency-issuing
federal government's deficits and debt, so long as inflation remains subdued and the US remains productive and can pay for imports; and China should do likewise, enabling the central government - given the much vaunted "overcapacity" in China -  to subsidize increased consumption by its insecure consumers.

And while the EU DOES need a fiscal union like that existing in the US and China (a point she recognizes), the ECB also must also avoid imposing 'austerity' by seeking a 'balanced central-government budget'.

Apparently she hasn't heard of MMT. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1258 - Oct 11th, 2025 at 3:49pm
 
Daves2017 wrote on Oct 10th, 2025 at 7:36pm:
Hi, I’m still reading but I need to really  spend time reading to understand what you posted.

It’s good to read and research and understand, ta.

I sold my bitcoin ( at a small profit) because  we both know it’s really not based on anything of value.

I  use that $$ to buy gold before it booming and it’s working out a win / win.

I had to pay tax on my bitcoin profit but I think I can avoid taxes selling gold?


See the previous post; the global economy (a concern of MMT) is more than the "investing" adventures of Daves2017. 

(Whether you can make a profit on your gold "investments" is of importance to you alone; governments have other concerns. Tax implications of specific  investments are easily ascertained). 

Quote:
I am, you are, we are ISIS and HAMAS.

Australia is weak, we will take over it!

"Allahu Akbar“.

With Albo blessing we will conquer Australia and rule!!


1. I am not 'ISIS and HAMAS'.

2. Australia is not weak, though young Australians are abandoning the 2-party oligarchy, for reasons the IMF chief herself correctly stated.

3.  "Allahu Akbar“ is a declaration of faith in God, shouted by religious fundamentalists who are about to martyr themselves for 'God'.

4. Albo's capture by mainstream Neoclassical orthodoxy will result in his loss of power. 

And your pigmy brain requires no explanation.....   



 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 11th, 2025 at 3:56pm by thegreatdivide »  
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14095
Gender: male
Re: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
Reply #1259 - Oct 12th, 2025 at 11:02am
 
Genius Badenoch has a plan to solve the UK's budgetary problems:

Kemi Badenoch calls on Rachel Reeves to follow her lead and abolish stamp duty

Kemi Badenoch has thrown down the gauntlet to Rachel Reeves by calling on the Chancellor to follow her lead by abolishing stamp duty.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday about her rapturously received pledge to scrap the property tax at the Tory party conference, the Conservative leader says: ‘Rachel Reeves would steal it if she has any sense, but we know she doesn’t.

‘She should look at the reaction to my stamp duty announcement and think very carefully about why it’s had a near-universal welcome.’

Mrs Badenoch’s announcement, which received a standing ovation in Manchester, has given her an eight-point bounce in her approval ratings.

According to a poll last night, while Mrs Badenoch is still in negative territory on minus 14 per cent, she has extended her lead over Sir Keir Starmer, with the Labour leader languishing on a net minus of 41 per cent.

But the Opinium survey still puts the Tories well behind Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which is on 32 per cent.

Labour is on 22 per cent, with the Conservatives on 18 per cent.

The speech has also quelled – for the time being at least – talk of a leadership challenge, with one Tory MP saying they will now ‘reserve judgement’ until the new year.

Referring to Andy Burnham openly challenging Sir Keir Starmer for the Labour leadership, another added: ‘Nobody wants infighting now.

‘We can see how damaging it has been for Labour.’

Next month’s Budget will be another flash point for the Tory leader, who will head the response in the Commons to the Chancellor.

Ms Reeves is understood to be examining new taxes to impose in the Budget to fill a reported £30 billion fiscal black hole.

There is fresh speculation this will now include imposing Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on inherited assets, which would raise around £1 billion for the Exchequer.

Currently, the tax on profits is erased after death. A leaked report from bank Morgan Stanley claims that Ms Reeves wouldn’t have any ‘major issues’ imposing this drastic change politically – even though she has consistently said she wouldn’t be coming back for more tax rises.

Labour MP Torsten Bell, who is now leading Labour’s Budget preparations, was previously a major advocate for sweeping hikes in CGT.

As director of the Resolution Foundation, he pushed for this exact policy.

However, officials insist that they are keeping to Labour’s manifesto promise by ‘protecting payslips’.

Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride said: ‘Imposing Capital Gains Tax at death is not just a tax rise – it’s double taxation on grieving families, and will discourage people from investing in the long-term assets that drive our economy.

He added: ‘Rachel Reeves doesn’t need to introduce a new death tax – she needs to control spending.’


......

Ah- the old Tory line: reduce taxes AND spending, despite the need for higher spending.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 82 83 84 85 
Send Topic Print