Somedays I just hate being a thinking person...
as most here know i have supported MMT as the defacto standard as to how our system really works and should work.
my thinking is changing based on this article:
http://pragcap.com/how-is-mr-different-from-mmt
in my way of thinking MR and MMT are not that different with the degree of seperation mostly hinging on the FED.
As some know I also stand behind Mr. Kuchinic's HR 2990 bill which would eliminate the FED and return "money" into the realm more of MMT functionality
so it seems the bottom line is MR relates to NOW. MMT relates to an alternate NOW based on eliminating the Fed.(VERY broad interpretation)
so it seems the same but totally different..
anyways food for thought..
Quote: We explain how it works, YOU decide what to do with it….
In sum, our primary difference with MMT will be our emphasis on the operational realities of the monetary system. We aren’t seeking to change people’s politics or force policies on anyone. We seek only to provide the reader with an unbiased and apolitical perspective on how the modern monetary system actually works. Where the reader goes politically is entirely up to them. Any policy ideas that we might discuss on the site are our opinions and entirely peripheral to the core understandings in MR. We hope this website becomes a resource for educating the public on the operational realities of the monetary system and we hope that this will help create a more informed public ultimately leading to a better and more prosperous environment for all of us.
* I should note that I (Cullen Roche) was a proponent of MMT for around 18 months after discovering it in 2010. Many of the broad concepts are incredibly useful and a vast improvement over neoclassical economics. The explanations of the banking system, busting the money multiplier myth, emphasizing the idea of a currency user and the fact that an autonomous currency issuer cannot “run out of money” are all very powerful and superb concepts that should be adopted by everyone in the field of economics. MMT and its founders deserve enormous credit for their work on these matters and getting these messages out to the mainstream. MR’s disagreements go much deeper than these broad macro ideas and have more to do with the details of money, capitalism and the operational realities of the monetary system as it is designed. So while MMT is an improvement over the mainstream neoliberal views, I do believe MR is a necessary step in helping to better balance these big broad understandings with a more complete and balanced understanding of operational realities. Regardless of our disagreements, MMT has proven incredibly helpful in expanding the understanding of the modern monetary system and breaking the neoliberal views. For this they deserve a great deal of credit. That’s not to be overlooked in these criticisms.
Addendum: O/T but interesting:
http://pragcap.com/housing-recession-and-myth-making
I do NOT support his "blaming the homeowner" though there is culpability.. It was an equal share blame game
VERY interesting post w/ no reply:
Quote: I’m a Realtor and can tell you I never sought out potential buyers – they sought me out. If anything I wanted to represent Sellers because it was so damn easy to sell a home as there seemed to be 10 to 50 qualified buyers per home. Buyer’s wanted in and showed me their lender qualification letters.
On the other hand, I was approached by mortgage brokers – literally on the street at times when they saw me picking up my open house signs – explaining they could get anyone I knew a loan, no matter who else turned them down, and that they would pay me a referral fee. In CA those referral fees are illegal, so I knew immediately they were unscrupulous.
So who is at fault? In essence the guy who approached me on the street was a drug dealer with a lot of product to sell. Of course he’s at fault… but without drugs available he wouldn’t exist.
The person taking the drugs – homeowners, were just gullible non-experts who were told it was healthy for them – and they were told this by the media, their politicians, their accountants, their friends, their family. Are they to blame – sure, but again, if there were no drugs, how could they have participated???
So the fault is in all the many areas that allowed free, no money down, interest only, etc loans (drugs) to be created and brought into the market. And the shame is all of this is that they got bailed out – and homeowners are still being blamed and the only bailouts they get are the kinds that ruin their credit and destroy them financially. Good times
Last edited by jeffkrol; 08-16-2012 at 07:07 AM.