A vision for the future.

I think, Maisie, there actually have been enough scholarly papers showing flaws in the theory for people generally to see that it is neither accepted by the mainstream, nor proposed as a way forward by any possible future government. You say you "don't care" that it hasn't yet passed their tests but others will use this as a benchmark for its view of Economics, and its usefulness.

Give us some links to them then, DAR. You are clearly much better at searching than I am.

Mind you, I only want academic papers which disprove the research result reported in the Self Financing State. I'm not interested in critques of any other aspects of MMT because I can find them for myself.

^ In a world where some people convinced themselves of misleading "facts" regarding the leaving the EU, and others believe the Johnson/Trump are truthful men looking out for their interests, I find I am wary of the evangelical offering us new truths.^

Perhaps you should start by reading the paper yourself and apply some critical thought to it instead of shutting your mind and trawling the internet for repetitions of the 'household economy' myth to confirm your biases.

The Household Economy is not relevant because households cannot create their own money (other than by working). The rest is pretty similar you can borrow money if the lender trusts you to repay it, the interest rate varies according to the risk.

A state cannot create unlimited amounts of money or lenders demand higher interest or refuse to lend, in a way QE tries to buck the market and avoid paying interest. That’s fine until conditions change and the value of those bonds fall which cancels out the whole operation.

Maisie. You believe you are right and, therefore, I must be wrong.

Not only do you believe this, but apparently, you and others are prepared to keep challenging my right to my opinion until I agree with your theory.

I'm trying to keep some balance by mentioning that some people don't agree with this theory. Some, who believe this is the answer to everyone's prayers, seem to think a counter-opinion may not be held or voiced. It seems I must be converted.

Good luck to MMT and all who believe. If it improves the future of this country, it will be brilliant. But, currently, I do not think, or believe, that this is the case and will probably continue to say so.

It seems to me that politicians who espouse MMT are keen to imply that governments can spend money they don't have without adverse consequences in order to convince voters to vote for them, whether they are of the Left or Right. Does the acronym stand for Magic Money Tree?

Grantanow

It seems to me that politicians who espouse MMT are keen to imply that governments can spend money they don't have without adverse consequences in order to convince voters to vote for them, whether they are of the Left or Right. Does the acronym stand for Magic Money Tree?

That is not what MMT 'says' at all, Grantanow

Who are the politicians of whom you speak? The only politician I know of who understands MMT is Labour's Clive Lewis, who is not exactly high profile or influential.

Magic Money Tree is rather an unfortunate term, it is true that governments with their own currency can create/borrow money according to needs. In practice it is not unlimited because too much will cause inflation and/or devalue the currency.

We seem to be drawing closer in our thinking, Katie59

'Magic Money Tree' is more than just 'unfortunate', it's a very stupid way to describe a form of money creation that has been going on for centuries. but I suppose it's been rhetorically useful for the naysayers...

A Special Report on Tony Blair Inc

m.youtube.com/watch?v=HX7TlBRvg9I