The actual argument against MMT

MMT tells us how money is made and government is financed. We’re fine with it so far. It’s the next leap that worries – if government can just print to spend then of course it should until the economy is at full capacity.

This, at least, is my worry about it. Telling the politicians they’ve a blank chequebook until inflation appears worries. Partly simply because I desire a small government polity. But rather more because of this:

That the government should borrow extra funds to get the economy back on track is clear. That it is capable of borrowing wisely, and for a greener future, is in doubt.

Government’s simply shit at spending money. Whether they’ve printed it or borrowed it, they’re shit at the doing things with it. Therefore we want them to direct fewer of the collective resources, not more.

3 thoughts on “The actual argument against MMT”

  1. Friedman identified the problem: spending other people’s money on other people, and who cares about the outcome?
    Spending invented money on other people doubles down on the problem.

  2. ‘if government can just print to spend then of course it should until the economy is at full capacity’

    Keynes is dead, dammit.

    The constraint on the economy is GOVERNMENT. There is plenty of pent up demand. Government spending in this economy is gross waste. End the lockdowns and get out of the EU if you want economic growth.

  3. ‘if government can just print to spend then of course it should until the economy is at full capacity’

    So I would assume MMT advocates all agree that in a country which has had to import millions to meet employment demand over the past two decades, MMT is not required in the UK?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *