People often ask me what difference Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) would actually make in practice.
The surprising answer is that, in many respects, MMT already describes how the UK monetary system actually works.
Therefore MMT is neoliberal and we must abjure it.
Right?
“People often ask me ..”
No they don’t.
“I don’t think they do, mate.”
They often ask him to shut up?
Are these people in the room right now?
Lol
And look at the mess we’re in.
Not really on-topic, except as a commentary on the unforeseen consequences of central planning taking the place of free trade. And because the topic of whether and how steel-making in Britain should be protected is often discussed here. From the Walsall Wheebarrow Company:
Today, we remain the only company manufacturing complete wheelbarrows in the UK. This means British jobs, British wages, British investment and British tax revenue staying within the UK economy.
However, despite this commitment, we are increasingly concerned about the unintended consequences of the Government’s new steel tariff measures and the introduction of CBAM in 2027.
While we recognise the intention is to support UK steel production, many manufacturers rely on specifications of steel that are simply not available from domestic producers. Under the new legislation, imports above quota levels (currently set at just 40% of UK total demand) will face a 50% tariff, significantly increasing costs for UK manufacturers.
The risk is that businesses still manufacturing in Britain are placed at a competitive disadvantage compared with companies that have already moved production overseas.
As a result, we have reluctantly begun exploring overseas sourcing options to help offset the impact of future steel tariffs and CBAM requirements.
https://professionalbuildersmerchant.co.uk/news/walsall-wheelbarrow-co-warns-of-unintended-consequences-of-new-steel-tariff-measures/
Even further off topic – I’ve been reading the argument in the Frisby book on tax that the American Civil War was a tariff war. At a time when the Federal Government was financed from tariffs and Federal income tax was a lifetime away, the Southern States seceded as they found themselves paying 2/3rds of the tariffs by virtue of being more agricultural and needing imports to a greater degree than the North.
Maybe it wasn’t even technically a civil war as the South had already left the Union and had briefly become a set of independent countries with a Federal Fort called Sumter buggering up the plan by refusing to vacate when asked to nicely. But it was fundamentally a tax war.
Actually, an income tax was instituted to fund the war effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861
Another income tax was imposed in 1894, but that was declared unconstitional, which is why we have the Sixteenth Amendment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.
Shorter response: just say slavery.
If they ever do, I bet it’s something along the lines of “well what’s the point of that, then?”
People could ask him what are the problems with MMT, but he would probably ban them for trolling rather than admitting his pet theory has flaws.
There isn’t a difference in practice. Tax then spend or spend then tax. In either case the taxpayer’s buying power (and agency) decreases and the State’s increases.
All else is noise.
Except that it’s easier to increase State spending when you spend then tax.
Are there any MMT proponents who don’t want increased State spending? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one.
I try not to follow the Spuddite delusions too closely but IIRC he’s not actually 100% on how MMT ‘works’ anyway.
Spud isn’t ‘100%’ on how his toaster works.
Ah, but Murphy’s is real MMT, unlike that of anyone who disagrees with him (including the inventors of it).