Mathias Cormann, don't let the door slam on your way out.

Remove this Banner Ad

And here's a very good calm, methodical demolition of the economic lies that his entire career as a minister was built on advancing.

Read it and bookmark it for reference next time the Coalition come out with their moronic economic theories.

 
This thread is to acknowledge the blow in from Belgium's achievements in public life, and the hard work he's done to earn his generous pension. I'll start.
1. Not being able to count to forty five.

Over to you Big Footy.
Bye bye Dr Evil

You've done enough damage
There’s a lot of salt flowing from perennial losers in this thread. Maybe you’ll win the 2028 election.
D99E55E6-285F-4407-9308-D025F890A0F2.gif
 

Log in to remove this ad.

And here's a very good calm, methodical demolition of the economic lies that his entire career as a minister was built on advancing.

Read it and bookmark it for reference next time the Coalition come out with their moronic economic theories.

I’m sorry, that is not a good or balanced article. It misrepresents how well accepted MMT is and makes several very questionable claims. That is not to say that I think that analogies to household budgets aren’t equally misleading.

In general I would be very distrustful of any thinkpiece that presents such an oversimplified and dogmatic position on MMT - whether in favour or against. It’s a really complex topic and a lot of respected economic theorists disagree about it to varying degrees.
 
I’m sorry, that is not a good or balanced article. It misrepresents how well accepted MMT is and makes several very questionable claims. That is not to say that I think that analogies to household budgets aren’t equally misleading.

In general I would be very distrustful of any thinkpiece that presents such an oversimplified and dogmatic position on MMT - whether in favour or against. It’s a really complex topic and a lot of respected economic theorists disagree about it to varying degrees.
It may well misrepresent how well MMT is accepted but what are its questionable claims?


I think if it has put paid once and for all to the all-too-convenient lie that government budgets are the same as household budgets, then it has already done an immense service to the standard of political debate in this country.
 
It may well misrepresent how well MMT is accepted but what are its questionable claims?
That the RBA is currently implementing MMT, for starters.

I think if it has put paid once and for all to the all-too-convenient lie that government budgets are the same as household budgets, then it has already done an immense service to the standard of political debate in this country.
Replacing one misconception with another is not a good thing, even if it is a misconception you personally prefer.
 
That the RBA is currently implementing MMT, for starters
Seems pretty clear to me.
Replacing one misconception with another is not a good thing, even if it is a misconception you personally prefer.
Except that you’ve provided precisely zero case that in convincingly demolishing a dangerous misconception, West has replaced it with another.

(Sorry Caesar, love your posting here and on the Swans board, but it might have been quicker to initially just respond “hmmm, interesting article. Let me think about it.”)
 
Seems pretty clear to me.
Then you have an imperfect understanding of what MMT is (as distinct from generally expansionary monetary policy).

Except that you’ve provided precisely zero case that in convincingly demolishing a dangerous misconception, West has replaced it with another.

(Sorry Caesar, love your posting here and on the Swans board, but it might have been quicker to initially just respond “hmmm, interesting article. Let me think about it.”)
I think you have me confused with someone else. Regardless, I’m not the right person to get into deconstructing the detail of a really complex economic theory.

I’m just warning you that it’s an article that presents the topic in a way that is misleadingly skewed, and I would read a bit more widely if you actually want a good understanding of the topic.

I certainly don’t think you should be going around recommending it to people like it is some kind of definitive summary.
 
Yes, real integrity, and some very strong opinions on govt cyber-surveillance and the citizens’ right to privacy.

I followed him in the committees on this stuff. He was a good parliamentarian.

But I'm sorry I can't take some of the Greens seriously such as SHY, Jordon Steele-John or even Richard Di Natale.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seems pretty clear to me.
Except that you’ve provided precisely zero case that in convincingly demolishing a dangerous misconception, West has replaced it with another.

(Sorry Caesar, love your posting here and on the Swans board, but it might have been quicker to initially just respond “hmmm, interesting article. Let me think about it.”)

I may jump in on this one (and fwiw not saying Caesar and i agree btw)

MMT is something I'm not a fan of. It is printing money, and it is inflationary. Also it should only be used IMO when you are wanting to stimulate an economy, not when everything is humming (as they kept doing in the USA)

There is a however, however ;)

we are actually facing the challenge of deflation - it was a risk precovid, and its more so now. that means something like MMT can be used in a restrained way because it will actually stimulate inflation and keep it from completely tanking. As per above however, you need the discipline to know when to stop, and when to reverse it.

The other risk is bonds are sold on faith - faith that they will be worth xxx when they are paid out. if you use MMT too much, and kill the value of the currency, the value of your bonds will worsen. that then means you have to start paying higher rates on your bonds, creating a mini vicious cycle

people tend to be really monotheistic about their economic theories, and this is a mistake IMO. a little MMT at the right times and managed in the right way is a good thing to do. unleash it 24/7 for years unchecked, yeah, you will * yourself then
 
Then you have an imperfect understanding of what MMT is (as distinct from generally expansionary monetary policy).


I think you have me confused with someone else. Regardless, I’m not the right person to get into deconstructing the detail of a really complex economic theory.

I’m just warning you that it’s an article that presents the topic in a way that is misleadingly skewed, and I would read a bit more widely if you actually want a good understanding of the topic.

I certainly don’t think you should be going around recommending it to people like it is some kind of definitive summary.
Yes, I have confused you with someone else of a similar handle, apologies.

But you have still signally failed to support your argument that the article is flawed.

Michael West constructs a strong, well-argued case, and your responses have consisted of nothing more than "nah."
 
Geez you’re scraping from the bottom of the barrel with this attempt at a troll.
Fanboi 😂
You trolled ME ya *en idiot !!!!!!!!!!!!

:drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk:


* Looks at everyone else that reads this *
Please explain it to him , i don't have the energy for a 10 page utensil-off over the difference between trolling and retorting right now.
 
Yes, I have confused you with someone else of a similar handle, apologies.

But you have still signally failed to support your argument that the article is flawed.

Michael West constructs a strong, well-argued case, and your responses have consisted of nothing more than "nah."

Perhaps you over rate West?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top