pull down to refresh

Proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) think that money is a “creature of the state.” They say that money is whatever the state says it is, and that this is instituted primarily through taxation. For them, money is “that which [the state] accepts at public pay offices (mainly, in payment of taxes).”
MMTers dispute the Mengerian theory of the origins of money, saying that it “is based on false a-historical premises.” Carl Menger made the commonsense claim that before money, there must have been barter. In barter, people trade goods for direct use—they don’t use any good as a “bridge” or “medium” to get a different good that they actually want. You can imagine that getting what you want from the market could be very difficult. You have to find somebody who has what you want and, simultaneously, who wants what you have. This condition for voluntary exchange is called the “double coincidence of wants,” and it’s a severe constraint for direct exchange markets.
Menger posited that market participants in such a situation would notice that some goods are more “saleable” than others. You can buy corn or cotton and then resell it quickly for a minimal (or no) loss. But for other goods, like surgical instruments, it might take a long time to find a buyer—if you tried to sell surgical instruments quickly, you’d probably have to settle for a much lower price. …
In short, the historical evidence vindicates Menger and vitiates the MMTers. The clay tablets were not an early fiat money. They were receipts that overwhelmingly showed people using silver as money—a commodity with non-monetary uses—just as we would expect based on Menger’s theory.
The MMTers are nothing more than statist courtiers supporting the state because they are well paid by the state to make their statist arguments. They, the MMTers, are ridiculous. Menger and Mises have it right about the origins of money, Menger making the direct barter to indirect barter case and Mises regressing the case of the worth of current money back in time to the worth of the most tradable commodity as money. The only reason the MMTers can even talk is they are supported by the state in their silliness. Why do you think states can get away with making nothing something?
The MMTers are nothing more than statist courtiers supporting the state because they are well paid by the state to make their statist arguments.
I actually wish it were as straightforwardly sinister as this. For the most part, I believe the MMTers are sincerely that far off the mark.
There's likely truth to what you're asserting, but I think it's more borne of a subconscious drive to rationalize the state.
reply
There's likely truth to what you're asserting, but I think it's more borne of a subconscious drive to rationalize the state.
Yes, it is true, they are dyed in the wool statists and they are making the state’s arguments for stealing from the populace through inflation. They are probably rationalizing the state because, somehow, their paycheck is coming from the state through NGOs or direct payments as academics.
reply
I think Chomsky's explanation is generally more accurate: these people get the positions they hold because they believe what the regime wants them to.
That's much easier to manage than trying to keep disingenuous people on message.
reply
Ok, I can see that happening. It happens in scientific research all the time! They are already convinced the theory holds so no other effort to herd them along is needed. It is like herding sheep rather than herding cats.
reply
Exactly. His theory was about the media, but it holds for academics and bureaucrats, too.
reply
It looks like like it is more of a universal application theory rather than just narrowly applied. Perhaps applying it in other areas, like medicine would be fruitful, too.
MMT = Chartalism with flashy handouts.
reply
Chartalism with flashy handouts
Do they even bother with charts? Wouldn’t the good charts expose their grift immediately? I suppose their handouts could be more confusing and confounding than useful for understanding what they are they are trying to explain.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Arceris 8 May
Well, to be fair, I was going for two puns there 🤣
reply
I guess, I am too dense to get the fun punning out.
reply