Time we started to think differently about national finances

It makes a nonsense of the pre-election insistence preoccupation with 'how are you going to pay for it

Oops, should have previewed. Take out the 'insistence' please...

Thanks, growstuff [smile}

As growstuff says, it's more than just a 'theory' (to call it that is really a misnomer). It's an account of how money is 'created' by governments and how it 'can' be used.

Objections citing countries like prewar Germany and Zimbabwe are pointing to countries where the power to issue money has been misused by governments. growstuff's examples of US use of its power to issue money show where it has been used for the good. It can work either way; for corruption and inflation or for stimulating an economy for the benefit of all citizens. It comes down to political choices, really.

This is what makes it so interesting for me because once we are free of the 'taxation funds spending' idea we can look at choices offered by political parties and make electoral decisions based on what we would see as a the best and fairest way of spending 'public money'. It makes a nonsense of the pre-election insistence preoccupation with 'how are you going to pay for it' which is used to denigrate party policies on spending. In fact, there seems to be only two ways that public money can be spent, corruptly or incorruptly! It offers us a clearer choice.

It also, IMO, cuts out feelings that some citizens are more 'deserving' than others because of the way they have led their lives.

If people want to find out more, Murphy's blog is a good place to start; he can see the flaws in MMT as well as the good. Or just google MMT for adherents and critiques

e.g in this blog Murphy shows how government spending is not always particularly good for the economy

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/08/15/the-multiplier-shows-that-not-all-government-spending-is-equal/

Capitalism can't work without customers with money to spend.

It's not just a theory. It's the fundamental principle behind Keynes and Roosevelt's "New Deal", which successfully dragged the US (and the world) out of recession.

I don't understand how you can claim that it's unachievable under capitalism. The US has never been anything but a capitalist country and it worked there.

The idea also underpinned the Marshall Plan (the US's rescue plan for post-war Europe). The US realised that it needed export markets to buy its products, so it pumped money into European economies, so that people could buy US exports. If it hadn't have done that and had left Europe to fester, the US would have been poorer.

I think it’s a good idea in theory, and I say ‘in theory’ not to be disparaging but because I don’t know enough about Economics to know how it would really work in practice.

I like the idea of a much fairer society with as little poverty as possible (preferably none), but I also think that that is unachievable under capitalism, so we would have to radically alter everything from politics to employment. I’m not saying that that would be a bad thing at all, but neither do I feel confident to suggest that it’s a good thing based on that economic analysis.

Very interesting theory Maizie, you have certainly whetted my appetite to know more.
I’ll be interested to hear other views and sincerely hope these views come from many sides.