tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post4444971462516268264..comments2024-03-01T02:40:14.946-05:00Comments on Bond Economics: MMT Primer: Mosler's White PaperBrian Romanchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-44052278617603814822022-05-29T03:42:49.796-04:002022-05-29T03:42:49.796-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Yousuf Ansarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11882492230450504927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-64748444879739928652022-04-30T05:50:27.579-04:002022-04-30T05:50:27.579-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Geron20425https://www.blogger.com/profile/18199408202798816280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-44354711128484999012022-02-17T08:58:24.569-05:002022-02-17T08:58:24.569-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.asdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615177339102104838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-63500485619836004902021-02-21T12:24:38.162-05:002021-02-21T12:24:38.162-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.GhaziiSEO grhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13917254617036872524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-42318433791109136852020-12-21T03:57:04.328-05:002020-12-21T03:57:04.328-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.GhaziiSEO.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07740133774426729355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-86583208334786270692020-09-30T01:20:31.746-04:002020-09-30T01:20:31.746-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-29789672576186268202020-09-26T05:55:06.273-04:002020-09-26T05:55:06.273-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.SEOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15958270143733054273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-3356109495781971542020-09-10T04:32:17.222-04:002020-09-10T04:32:17.222-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Harrison Rebbeccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361449812594366739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-73770119971812049862020-07-13T06:42:24.687-04:002020-07-13T06:42:24.687-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Muhammad Hassanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04282277249728542966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-42813052183702953502020-06-29T06:46:03.819-04:002020-06-29T06:46:03.819-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Elena Antoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02629969856442944231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-61417815555055146392020-06-28T17:12:33.370-04:002020-06-28T17:12:33.370-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.eman shaabanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05672139576927260980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-43650678183840829272020-06-24T02:43:49.413-04:002020-06-24T02:43:49.413-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-84182505101357892002020-05-31T10:03:53.244-04:002020-05-31T10:03:53.244-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Besthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14738544344243782854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-77486526694430380942020-05-16T18:53:28.083-04:002020-05-16T18:53:28.083-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-23903483290704893302020-05-15T09:41:26.294-04:002020-05-15T09:41:26.294-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.adseo2https://www.blogger.com/profile/02272288072492821938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-66963927458776562362020-03-30T08:09:23.237-04:002020-03-30T08:09:23.237-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Omar ABdullahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18437187384951846858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-50532304341239806172020-03-06T03:20:03.810-05:002020-03-06T03:20:03.810-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.dương nam phonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13904409223317859526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-34605926067036403742020-02-03T03:09:13.304-05:002020-02-03T03:09:13.304-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.MAYA KHANhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10860156699420952853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-17577767259378945352020-01-15T16:25:46.159-05:002020-01-15T16:25:46.159-05:00Egmont’s been posting the same stuff for years. Mu...Egmont’s been posting the same stuff for years. Multiple people pointed out his accounting was wrong, but nothing sunk in.Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-34805831643345267642020-01-15T13:22:47.570-05:002020-01-15T13:22:47.570-05:00"In plain words: macroeconomic profit of the ..."In plain words: macroeconomic profit of the business sector Q is equal to dissaving (= deficit-spending) of the household sector −S"<br /><br />If businesses reinvest their profits, then they're neutral on a cash basis. Without knowing how much businesses are investing, how can you make inferences about the household sector's dissaving?<br /><br />Consider a simple economy where everyone's net lending is zero, all businesses are breakeven and no business even has a balance sheet. At the end of year Y, a business realises it can reuse something it has bought during year Y+1. This means it can capitalise its purchase, and depreciate less than the full cost of the item in year Y. This in turns means the business will make a profit - but it continues to have a cashflow statement ending with a zero.<br /><br />I really value heterodox economic thinkers with interesting challenges to MMT and I hoped you might be one. With apparently elementary errors and so much strident denigration of people's good faith and intellect I fear not.Anders Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-77314753369717380442020-01-15T13:05:48.830-05:002020-01-15T13:05:48.830-05:00You say the relationship "govt deficit = non-...You say the relationship "govt deficit = non-govt surplus" is false, but your link doesn't show why. Sectoral net lending relationships are simply silent on corporate profit: this isn't obfuscation, it's just that net lending is more akin to a cashflow statement, whereas corporate profit is seen in an income statement. Eg a business can be profitable but running out of cash, or loss-making but continuing to accumulate cash - no intrinsic relationship between the two. <br /><br />It's quite possible for the corporate sector as a whole to be highly profitable, and ploughing all of its profits back into investment. So if an MMT proponent observes that corporate net lending is negative, this by no means indicates that they think business is lossmaking. <br /><br />I hate to say this when you've done so much writing, but it seems as though you're muddled about national accounting. Profit is in the income account (notably gross operating surplus (~EBITDA) B2g), whereas net lending/borrowing is in the financial or capital account (B9n).<br /><br />We ought to fix excessive corporate profits by amending the tax code or by tightening antitrust rules, not by running the economy slower than it needs to be!Anders Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-37162124359570963522020-01-05T15:24:34.157-05:002020-01-05T15:24:34.157-05:00Brian Romanchuk
You say: “Woah, buddy, you’re jum...Brian Romanchuk<br /><br />You say: “Woah, buddy, you’re jumping all over the place. Your first comment referred to ‘accounting’, and that only makes sense in the context of discussing the monopoly issuer status of the central government. Now you are pretending you are just talking about price level determination ― which your accounting mumbo-jumbo tells us nothing about.”<br /><br />The fact is that I start with well-defined macrofoundations.#1 From these macrofoundations follows the price level as P=W/R and the elementary balances equation (which is the algebraic counterpart of macroeconomic accounting) as Q=−S or Q+S=0. In plain words: macroeconomic profit of the business sector Q is equal to dissaving (= deficit-spending) of the household sector −S.<br /><br />For the government sector follows analogously Q=(G−T), i.e. private profit Q is equal to public deficit (G−T), i.e. to the deficit-spending of the government sector.<br /><br />For the household and the government sector combined this gives Q=(G−T)−S. This equation replaces the false MMT slogan “Government Deficit = Non-government Surplus.”#2<br /><br />From Warren Mosler’s “operational core” follows NOTHING about the price level or about macroeconomic profit. Accordingly, the word profit does NOT appear once in your discussion of the White Paper.<br /><br />Profit does also NOT appear in MMT’s foundational sectoral balances equation. We have (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0 in the MMT textbook#2 and this contrasts with the correct equation (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−Q=0 which contains the balance of the business sector Q.<br /><br />From Warren Mosler’s ‘operational core’ follows NOTHING about the price level or the macroeconomic balances.<br /><br />You say: “In any event, your entire theory is based on you doing macro accounting in wacky fashion that nobody agrees with.”<br /><br />Of course, NO MMTer agrees with it because the axiomatically correct algebra implies (i) Public Deficit = Private Profit, (ii) MMTers are too stupid for elementary math, (iii) MMT’s policy of deficit-spending/money-creation is a free-lunch program for the Oligarchy, (iv) Warren Mosler is an agenda pusher/useful idiot for Wall Street, (v) Brian Romanchuk is Warren Mosler’s applause troll, (vi) MMTers are NOT scientists but political fraudsters because they deceive WeThePeople about the present and future negative effects of the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 Macrofoundations are for a start defined by three macro axioms (Yw=WL, O=RL, C=PX), two conditions (X=O, C=Yw) and two definitions (Q≡C−Yw, S≡Yw−C) in simplified notation.<br /><br />#2 Down with idiocy!<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/12/down-with-idiocy.html<br /><br />#3 Refuting MMT’s new Macroeconomics Textbook<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/03/refuting-mmts-new-macroeconomics.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-16394524055097020452020-01-05T09:06:18.417-05:002020-01-05T09:06:18.417-05:00Woah, buddy, you’re jumping all over the place. Yo...Woah, buddy, you’re jumping all over the place. Your first comment referred to “accounting”, and that only makes sense in the context of discussing the monopoly issuer status of the central government. Now you are pretending you are just talking about price level determination - which your accounting mumbo-jumbo tells us nothing about.<br /><br />Yes, the discussion of the price level is on shakier ground. But in the case of the Job Guarantee, there is one (1) price in the economy - the cost per hour of JG labour. Other wages are set as a markup over that wage, based on arbitrage-style arguments. Then, to what extent the price level is a function of wages, the price level has a relationship with the JG wage.<br /><br />In any event, your entire theory is based on you doing macro accounting in wacky fashion that nobody agrees with. Your broken macro relationships cannot tell us anything about the price level.Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-80178203817846210962020-01-05T03:59:07.909-05:002020-01-05T03:59:07.909-05:00Brian Romanchuk
I said: “Now, we know from method...Brian Romanchuk<br /><br />I said: “Now, we know from methodology that ALL microfounded approaches run into the Fallacy of Composition. NO way leads from the description of the institutional/operational details of the FED or other banking systems to the understanding of how the monetary economy works. … Because Warren Mosler gets the analytical starting point wrong, he gets the determination of the price level and the key interest rate wrong.”<br /><br />The Fallacy-of-Composition argument does here NOT relate to monopolistic money creation but to the determination of the price level. The price level is NOT determined à la Mosler by the government “setting one price” but by total output and total spending of all households and the government taken together. If in the limiting case government spending is zero, the price is still determined.<br /><br />For the production-consumption economy without government the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand says for the elementary case that P=W/R.<br /><br />The government is neither needed for the determination of the price level nor for bringing money into the economy.#1<br /><br />From Warren Mosler’s ‘operational core’ follows NOTHING about the price level or other macroeconomic variables. Obviously, Warren Mosler has NO idea what macroeconomic profit is and this is alone is proof that the White Paper is proto-scientific garbage.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 The right and the wrong way to bring money into the economy<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-right-and-wrong-way-to-bring-money.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-31276672557371578122020-01-04T14:14:46.848-05:002020-01-04T14:14:46.848-05:00That's a great answer Brian!That's a great answer Brian!Jerry Brownnoreply@blogger.com