Magic Money Theory

money cash god we trust retirement savings relief taxModern Monetary Theory, or MMT, is all the rage in the halls of Congress lately.

To hear the Progressive left tell it, MMT is not unlike a goose that keeps laying golden eggs. All we have to do is pick up all the free money. This is music to politicians’ ears, but Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is singing a decidedly different tune. Said Powell recently on MMT, “The idea that deficits don’t matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency … is just wrong.”

MMT advocates see this as outdated thinking. We can, they claim, spend as much as we want on whatever we want, unencumbered by trivialities like how much we have. But MMT is a bait-and switch wrapped in a sleight-of-hand. It focuses on debt and dollars rather than resources and products. Debt and dollars are merely tools we use to transfer ownership of resources and products. It’s the resources and products that matter. Shuffling debt and dollars merely changes the ownership of resources and products. It doesn’t create more.

MMT begins with the government “printing money.” There’s more to it than that, but the effect is to create money that didn’t exist before and to place it in the hands of the government. The government then uses that money to pay for things politicians want.

But, other things being equal, if the money supply grows faster than the production of goods and services, inflation results. MMT advocates claim that the growth in the production of goods and services will probably be enough to counteract any inflationary effects there might be. Growth in the production of goods and services averages about 2 percent per year. Other things constant, the money supply would have to grow no faster than this to avoid inflation. But the money supply is already growing at 6 percent per year — and that’s without any MMT shenanigans.

So here’s the sleight of hand. MMT advocates say that we won’t experience inflation because the U.S. dollar is a reserve currency — foreigners hold lots of U.S. dollars. First, increasing the money supply, other things constant, does create inflation. But when a reserve currency inflates, the pain gets spread around the world instead of being concentrated within one country. In short, MMT advocates believe our government should print money and let foreigners bear some of the inflation pain. Second, there’s no law that says that the U.S. dollar must be a reserve currency. The British Pound was one, but as its value declined, foreigners stopped holding it. Foreigners will stop holding U.S. dollars too as their value declines.

And here’s the bait-and-switch. MMTers say that if inflation does become a problem, the government can simply raise tax rates to soak up excess dollars. In short, the government would print money with one hand, buying whatever it wants and causing inflation. It would then tax with the other, thereby removing dollars from the economy and counteracting the inflation. In the end, all that’s happened is that the government has replaced goods and services that people want with goods and services politicians want.

After a bout of MMT, we might have the same GDP and zero inflation, but what constitutes that GDP would have changed dramatically. Instead of having more cars and houses, we might have more tanks and border walls.

When called on the bait-and-switch, the MMT response is that, as with the private sector, the government’s decisions won’t be flawless. If voters are displeased with fewer cars and more tanks, all they need do is to voice their displeasure. This response ignores nearly everything we know about human behavior in both the private and public sectors. In the private sector, profit and loss feedback pushes businesses to correct errors. In the public sector, the motivation is simply to spend without constraint, errors be damned.

Not surprisingly, Progressives want you to believe that they have found a way around the laws of economics, and that their new path will allow politicians to spend as much as they like. This isn’t economics. It’s magic dressed up in techno-jargon.

Reprinted with permission from - Inside Sources - by Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Outside Contributor
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

Socialism is and always has been completely dependent on an uninformed and economically illiterate public believing MMT is not only practical, but also desirable. In virtually every country that has previously gone down the path of adopting socialism, the public was always first convinced by those pushing socialism as “the solution”, that MMT would allow the government to spend endlessly on every Utopian “freebie” promised being pitched to a gullible public.

When you look at Venezuela today, just remember that Hugo Chavez didn’t take power by force. He was elected by the people of Venezuela over 16 years ago based on the promises of MMT and the endless wonders that socialism would deliver to everyone. Free health care, free schools, free food and housing to those less fortunate, economic and social justice for all. Yes, everyone is now equally poor and miserable. He systematically robbed the wealth of the nation and became the richest person in South America for a time. Now his daughter, who inherited his billions is enjoying life in Florida. Before dying, Chavez hand-selected Maduro, a bus driver and ardent Chavez loyalist, to be his successor. By then, free elections had long been replaced by sham votes. The country’s populace had been disarmed, the free press shut down, the national court system largely shut down and the national assembly stripped of all powers. Now the people of Venezuela are dependent on emergency food supplies from the United States, that the Maduro regime is determined to stop. How’s that social and economic justice working out for you now Venezuela?

The same story has played out in Argentina, Zimbabwe and other countries where the people were foolish and ignorant enough to buy into the “government can give you everything for nothing” siren song of socialism. Very few have ever recovered from making that mistake. The United States. The last bastion of opportunity and personal liberty is now being actively targeted from within by our own home-grown socialists, who see us as the ultimate prize. A nation that can be looted to finance every other failed socialist democracy on the planet for years. While also eliminating the last major opposition to a globalist order based on the tenets of socialism. If the American people are stupid enough to fall for the siren song of socialism here, there will be no other country rushing to our rescue. There will be no “do overs” or “second chances”.

1 year ago
Reply to  PaulE

It seems the latest iteration of govt as provider comesin the form of a very pleasant and easy to listen to man named andrew yang. Hes running in the crowded dem field and is promoting ubi. This is one of the newer ways of selling socialist rot. Somehow handing every citizen a thousand a month is supposed to energize both the economy as well as ennoble our populace. I suspect this is going to be a key element in the campaign of 2020. Yang is easy going, personable and without the nasty edge most of his opponents sport. Btw, he plans to pay for the ubi with a vat tax.

1 year ago
Reply to  Morbious

Yes, the UBI will definitely be a big part of the Dems 2020 election platform. Finding a pleasant and non-foaming at the mouth Democrat face to act as a shill for any socialist policy is how it is done in other countries. Make the policy sound benign and associated with a face the media can endlessly refer to as “common sense”, “moderate” or “reasonable and fair” (all lies of course), is how they manipulate a gullible public into accepting such politicians and policies. The UBI has been a financial disaster in every country that has tried it, but that of course doesn’t discourage the Democrat Party here. To them, it is just another way to create more federal government dependents and the new taxes to extend federal hooks into the economy.

Both the Democrats and various RINO’s have been pushing to enact a VAT here to nearly two decades. They love the automatic ratcheting up of taxation that occurs at each step of a good’s movement through the economy. From initial manufacture, mining or harvesting, through each srep of processing and transportation to final consumer consumption, the VAT generates a consistent and steady stream of revenue for the politicians to play with. All embedded within the economic life cycle of an item. Both of these groups desperately want to mimick the socialist model of western European countries in the worst way. Even though that model has reduced the average GDP growth of those economies to 1 percent or less each year since the VAT was first introduced in those economists in the 1970’s. Another issue most of the American public is woefully uniformed about.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x