[jeffkrol]

winterspeak.com: Deficit spending *enables* private savings
The Center of the Universe Blog Archive Deficit spending for dummies

Government (expendatures)(printing)(spending)(issuance of notes)(stimulus) "deficit spending" of $100 billion necessarily increases savings of financial assets by $100 billion.

IF the simple statement is so hard to understand changing the terminology is a bit hopeless............

Mitchell’s laws: To survive, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Reduced money growth cannot increase economic growth. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

Monetary Sovereignty – Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

[newarts]

winterspeak.com: Deficit spending *enables* private savings

Jeff, I understand that, you understand that, but that doesn't mean you'll convince Joe the plumber or even a large fraction of classical economists any time soon.

Try it on for size at your local Tea Party gathering.

[jeffkrol]

Jeff, I understand that, you understand that, but that doesn't mean you'll convince Joe the plumber or even a large fraction of classical economists any time soon.

Try it on for size at your local Tea Party gathering.

OR Fox/Rush/Beck ............ no, they are not listening, no matter the words, or proof, or historic accuracy.........

They are more interested in Christianity and voter ID.. trust me I've tried.....
might as well talk to a hard core Marxist.. at least they listen...

Try to tell anyone "The fed can spends what it wants and doesn't have to tax anything" while at the same time you and your state need to balance a budget.......

O/T
For later.. as Cheneys "book" is heading to press........

A Strong Push From Backstage | Cheney | washingtonpost.com

WHO was the president???

[jeffkrol]

The ECB does not have the power to print money to fuel recovery; and Tuesday's meeting between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel ruled out allowing it to issue region-backed eurobonds to raise money for growth and bailouts.

That was a big disappointment for markets.

Panic, policy cuffs could force new recession: analysts - Yahoo!

[GeneV]

Jeff, I understand that, you understand that, but that doesn't mean you'll convince Joe the plumber or even a large fraction of classical economists any time soon.

Try it on for size at your local Tea Party gathering.

Try a few conclusions from science on at the local Tea Party gathering and see how far you get, as well.

The MMT stuff is really not all that radical IMO, but most of the population does not even understand the most basic economics. I remember my first semester economics class in college, how my eyes got as big as saucers when they taught us that the money supply included credit extended. (We were not even completely off the Gold Standard back then). I had never thought of that. Once you understand a little about the relationship between credit and money supply, MMT is the logical result of fiat money, but stated sometimes in terms that sound a bit extreme.

[jeffkrol]

wonderful little article.. "we" need to keep hammering though...

L. Randall Wray: Krugman Taken to the Modern Money Cleaners

Just a few short years ago, the only one I knew who blogged was Bill Mitchell. He (correctly) saw it as the future. I was highly skeptical. I wrote my first blog on invitation from TPM in 2008, and later joined ND2.0, and HuffPost regularly carried my writing after that. Yet, even after Stephanie Kelton created NEP, I still saw the blogosphere -- or, social media -- as something of a lark. Many or even most of the early comments were pretty silly, often by obsessed libertarians with almost no understanding of economics. Certainly this was no match for the New York Times as a source of reasoned analysis.

But look where we are today. Take a look at the comments to Krugman's post. I have no doubt at all that there are hundreds of MMT followers around the world who could go toe-to-toe with Krugman in a discussion of sovereign government finance. And win. And Krugman is the best that the NYT has.

Social media not only helps to spread the ideas, but it also helps to develop, refine, and frame them. When MMT was confined to academic discussion among a few adherents and critics, it was necessarily limited by the shared background of the participants. We had the same parents, so to speak, in Smith, Marx, and Keynes. We had all heard the same stories designed to frame our views of economics, history, and policy. Exposing MMT to a broader audience, and -- importantly -- allowing that audience to respond to our writing forced us to think outside the box.

Now, the same dynamic goes on in the classroom -- or, at least, it should. I always found that when I must teach an idea, the interaction with students helps to sharpen my own thinking. But often that is still a fairly narrow slice of the population -- usually younger people, and by self-selection an audience that will more readily accept what the professor professes (students are not randomly assigned to classes, after all). Social media opens the floodgates to, potentially, anyone with access to the web. It subjects ideas to the accumulated knowledge of humankind. Many of those are quite bizarre, of course. But there was a time when MMT, itself, was bizarre.

Contrast that with corporate media (whether for-profit or "public"). Over the past year (at least) every time a National "Public" Radio or New York Times reporter introduces the topic of the US government deficit, she begins by noting that "everyone agrees, of course, that the deficit is out of control." The debate is framed, and then two "competing" sides are introduced, with the only difference separating them concerning how quickly and by how much the deficit must be reduced.

There is no chance for an alternative view; no one can instantly object that the reporter's statement is patently false -- as would be demonstrated by the hundreds of commentators who would readily disagree if given the chance. And many of those responding would be able to shred the two "competing" experts in a fair fight.

Every time I hear Ken Rogoff featured on the radio (which is distressingly frequent), I know there are literally thousands of people around the world who understand finance much better than he does. (If you ever run into him, ask him if he has yet figured out what a CDS is.) Yet he gets to drone on about topics he knows nothing about -- such as sovereign default risk -- while facing no challenge. His anointed role is to push the agenda of the corporate media -- which shields itself by circling the wagons and preventing access. Oh, sure, they might spend a couple of minutes a week reading a few selected letters. And they will occasionally give some "expert" (including yours truly) a few seconds on the air. But these exceptions pose no real alternative to the official message conveyed by corporate media.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. And you are part of it. The Modern Money Cleaners Brigade. Don't let up on Krugman.