Henric (@HenricCont) profile picture

“Il faut cultiver notre jardin”

Joined April 2018
Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)Photo by Henric (@HenricCont)
No matter what MMT tries to claim the real tax is paid when gov spends, by transfer of goods and service from private to public. The rest is just funding. If gov issue money and the money gets its value from taxation then its the tax payer. If the issue more, then devaluation.
27
11
6
58
25,277
Henric retweeted
Setting Marxism aside, probably the closest thing to a flat-Earth theory in economics is MMT. Its proponents are people so confused by accounting identities that they are unable to grasp the distinction between nominal and real variables.
Saying that saving creates investment is the flat-Earth theory of economics
10
34
319
5,082
Replying to @foscaecon
@foscaecon doesn't seem to understand the chartalist/MMT theory that @WilliamJLuther's article challenges, so let me to remind him: according to that theory, the value of fiat money depends on the public's need for it to pay taxes to the issuing gov't. "Ghost" gov'ts don't tax.
I always find it amusing when people treat social and economic theories as if they were laws of physics carved into stone tablets. Guys, social regularities are historically contingent. When structural and institutional conditions change, so do the regularities themselves. But that's not even the funniest part of the Somalia story. Somalis continued using a currency originally created by the state even after the central government had effectively collapsed. In other words, the state had ceased to function, but its institutional ghost lived on in people's monetary relations and collective expectations.
4
3
1
32
1,768
Just remember, people spouting MMT static accounting tautologies reveal their total incomprehension of the matters on which they never cease to pontificate.
Just remember: 1. Spending creates income. 2. Loans create deposits. 3. Taxes do not fund spending. 4. Government deficits create non-government financial surpluses. 5. Real resources, not money, constrain sovereign government spending.
1
3
175
MMTers still trying really hard to confuse money-demand with real savings
Saying that saving creates investment is the flat-Earth theory of economics
8
11
133
3,210
Just remember: 1. Every economic entity must fund its balance sheet. MMT misconstrues this concept by treating central government spending as self-funding because the sovereign issues the unit of account, but this ignores liability management: money creation injects liabilities into the private sector that alter asset prices, yield curves, and inflation expectations. Spending without credible funding mechanisms is not a free lunch; it is an inflation tax. 2. While loans create deposits endogenously, banks face strict liquidity and capital constraints. A bank must fund deposit outflows at clearing, manage reserves, and hold regulatory capital against risk-weighted assets. Credit expansion is constrained by balance sheet profitability and solvency risk, not an infinite creation tap. 3. Taxes don't just 'drive currency demand'; the real productive tax base defines a nation's fiscal space. A sovereign's ability to run persistent deficits depends entirely on an endogenous, highly productive private sector creating goods, services, and wealth to back that unit of account. Deficit capacity is a derivative of private-sector productivity, which is why the US can sustain deficits that developing economies like Somalia cannot. 4. The MMT claim that 'government deficits equal private financial surpluses' is an accounting truism, not an economic virtue. By definition, any borrower's liability is another party’s financial asset. Just as household borrowing creates financial assets for the non-household sector, government borrowing creates non-government assets. The critical question isn't whether the ledger balances, it always does, it's whether the debt fuels real output growth or simply inflates nominal claims against a fixed resource base. 5. Real economic wealth is constrained by what the private sector produces. Since government *often* absorbs real resources (labor, capital, materials) rather than producing them, public spending redistributes or competes for private-sector output. Therefore, fiscal policy is bound by productive supply, and expanding nominal claims faster than real output inevitably degrades the currency. Private sector output constraints govt balance sheet expansion. See #3.
Just remember: 1. Spending creates income. 2. Loans create deposits. 3. Taxes do not fund spending. 4. Government deficits create non-government financial surpluses. 5. Real resources, not money, constrain sovereign government spending.
39
44
1
233
15,943
Henric retweeted
All MMTers are bots or people who cannot do better than bots.
Replying to @PerBylund
Oh, you poor lost cultist. You don't even realise you are what you initially criticised. Mises and Hayek would be rather ashamed to have you defending them. But alas, that is a sad reality you're permanently living with, while getting butthurt on social media.
2
2
42
1,586
Henric retweeted
When will the leading "scholars" of MMT start acting like real scholars? We've produced the critiques, they're peer reviewed and published. We're waiting for your responses.
6
6
2
59
3,125
Henric retweeted
Another MMT defender presenting an "argument" against real economics based on purely made-up nonsense labeled "verifiable history." These guys/bots really have no shame. And cannot argue.
Replying to @PerBylund
This is all verifiable history without bias Bylund. Amazing how a small group with wealthy backing came out of nowhere was enlisted to fight off anything social=Keynes. As it was an insult to the Natural Order[TM]. Hence I ask you why the Von was remove.
6
3
50
1,974
Henric retweeted
MMT is a cult. Any critique of it is always dismissed as wide of the mark. But they only tell you that, never *how* is misses the point. At least Kelton shuts up, which makes her much smarter than the average MMTer.
Replying to @PerBylund
I have. Your piece attacks a straw man, as is so often the case with MMT ‘critique’. Kelton said she’d wait, and she’s still waiting.
18
15
3
139
4,114
Austrian economics is value-free MMT starts with the assumption that we’re all slaves to the state
MMT in three easy steps: 1. the government can't run out of money 2. so deficits don't matter 3. inflation? just tax it back out so the fix for the state printing too much is the state taking more. wild that they call this a theory and not a hostage situation.
7
9
1
176
2,170
Replying to @sioneill
MMT relies on the fantasy of private vs. public sector aggregates and pretends the former just is there and has "idle capacity" that the latter can tap into by spending newly created currency. Which implies exactly what I claimed: it disregards the economy.
2
1
3
109
MMTers have an amazing quality: they consistently respond to charges that they don't understand anything about the economy with attempted rebuttals explaining how they do indeed understand it, which only reinforces the view that they understand nothing. It's as fun as it is odd.
11
10
1
110
4,104
Henric retweeted
This is the MMT mindset. They are totally oblivious to the enormous gains of capitalism. They take wealth for granted as though it’s the default state of life.
We have relied on mainstream (neoliberal) economic opinion for the past 50 years, and look where that has got us! Time to give modern monetary theory a chance!
2
1
11
449
With all the respect you are due, this retelling of MMT is so frightfully muddled it risks saying nothing at all! If the core of MMT is 'real supply shocks dictate a rise in the price level' then you have landed yourself right back into the middle of neoclassical theory.
Tbh I think MMT has been reasonably well borne-out? it’s not a theory that says you never get inflation. It says inflation is driven by real-economy shortages and/or gluts of their version of the money supply. COVID produced real supply shocks and the MMT version of the money supply has exploded over the last decade.
2
3
74
2,127
Replying to @dlacalle_IA
The real problem with MMT is not what it says, but the fact that it serves politicians in power as economic fundament for the BS they do.
3
1
7
712
MMT tells you a monetarily sovereign nation can issue all the currency/debt it wants and nothing will happen, claiming that currency and market volatility can easily be eliminated by cancelling the capital account. This nonsense can only be promoted by someone that does not understand that the currency collapse and creditworthiness slump are driven by domestic citizens and savers rejecting the local currency; it is not an evil conspiracy of foreign investors. Furthermore, no nation is monetarily sovereign. It always depends on demand. Try to force use or restrict flow, and the currency is worth nothing. And local citizens are the first to reject an increasingly worthless currency issued by an irresponsible government. You are welcome
11
44
39
184
41,733
Think Clint is alone? No, the MMTers are all the same. They can't find the highlighted words in a screenshot. Even less understand them.
Replying to @AbhayDes @PerBylund
Ooooorrr... you avoid replying because you are afraid they'll shoot down your arguments like fish in a barrel. (kind of like Bylund afraid to define value in a tweet.)
3
2
8
621
Replying to @RealMacroEcon
Most of the MMTers I have encountered on Twitter are authoritarians who hate the private sector and are in complete denial about its ability to vote with its feet to flee any jurisdiction where it gets control.
3
3
7
118
#MMT has no wealth creation mechanism. As you can see in the post, the poor MMTer doesn't even know how to define value. It's something magical to him that simply appears. Unbelievable! People get conned when they want something for nothing. MMT is a perfect example.
MMTers' attempts at gotchas tend to be based on ignorance of very basic economics. They are not embarrassed by this (but I am on their behalf, because it's terribly embarrassing).
3
4
1
27
1,619