> Demand doesn't boost GDP, producing real goods and services boosts GDP. You can't spend your way to prosperity despite what any of the insane MMT economists might say.
I appreciate that you feel strongly on this matter. However, the strength of your feelings are less relevant than the fact that different people (who all know quite a lot about this sort of thing) do not agree with you (or with each other). Calling MMT folk "insane" may make you feel good, but it neither refutes their arguments nor substantiates yours.
Only because you haven't taken the time to understand what is being said - just the twisted version that isn't actually the case.
Every financial debt has a corresponding financial asset. Why follow the 'debt' and not the 'asset'? Because you have a psychological anchor on the word 'debt' that causes an emotional reaction?
All money is somebody's debt. That's how the accounting works. Rather than looking at the books from the 'credit' side, why not look at it from the 'in credit' side?
What I find amusing is how the bank borrowing from you so you are 'in credit' with the bank is a good thing, but the government borrowing from you so you are 'in credit' with government is a bad thing.
Given those are identical propositions in accounting terms, rationally the view about them should be the same.
Because at some point the credits and the debits need to be settled with real goods and services and when they can’t be someone has to take a loss. The loss either comes through default or inflation but allocating those costs are extremely painful politically. In many cases those costs end up being paid in blood.
When you go to the casino and change your cash for chips you are in credit with the casino. If that casino started handing out more chips without taking in cash, those people would be in credit with the casino too. Would you want to be in credit with that casino? You can create an accounting "asset" with the stroke of a pen but not a real one.
I dont agree with the previous poster but I think you should recognize that the bank and the government in your example are not playing symmetric games. The incentives for each are different, even though at a point in time accounting principles can describe their respective balance sheets.
Your comment added nothing of value to this discussion. Replying and telling someone that you appreciate their "feelings" while ignoring the points made may make you feel good, but it neither refutes their arguments nor substantiates yours... if you'd even care to make any.
how would MMT work in a pre-industrial economy? Technological progress that boosts efficiency is what drives real growth, not economists printing money
I appreciate that you feel strongly on this matter. However, the strength of your feelings are less relevant than the fact that different people (who all know quite a lot about this sort of thing) do not agree with you (or with each other). Calling MMT folk "insane" may make you feel good, but it neither refutes their arguments nor substantiates yours.