It is extremely difficult to step away from the rules that govern every other aspect of our financial lives and place them in a mental box where they don’t influence perception. However, that is what we must do, and then force our leadership to do, to understand the dynamics of macroeconomics with a sovereign currency underpinning our economy. This gets even more distorted when the prevailing economic theories taught were arrived at under conditions that changed completely overnight. There are still no textbooks that reflect this new reality, or more than a handful of professors mentioning it in econ courses.
Our problem at the moment is a general misconception, even among many of those who manage our…
Keith Evans

It’s dangerous for me but I am going have to agree with MMT. Perhaps we need to separate money in circulation vs stagnant money. Is there a thread of connection between these two monetary states and MMT?

Your assertion here that few are taught MMT (modern monetary theory) speaks very poorly for it’s acceptance. It’s complexity is it’s undoing. Do you think that anyone on the Fed embraces/uses/conceptualizes/acts based on MMT?

I agree that no politician can explain this and few voters would understand it. Perhaps the example of double entry accounting for the economy might help some (those that are not confused about that!).

If MMT cannot be explained and embraced then it will never make it to policy and will survive on in theory only.

However if you could find a way to monetize an example of it, much like what Soros did with the English Pound people might find a way to embrace it without understanding it.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.