by Summary:
Beneficial or Destructive?
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Beneficial or Destructive?
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
New Economics Foundation writes Is the Labour government delivering on its promises?
John Quiggin writes Dispensing with the US-centric financial system
New Economics Foundation writes Whose growth is it anyway?
Matias Vernengo writes What is heterodox economics?
| Beneficial or Destructive? |
100% with you Steve. MMT is ok with debt for constructive things not making the rich richers. Constructive stuff is: healthcare, education, small companies loans/grants, social housing, R&D, etc. Not speculation, large companies grants, illegal or unnessary wars, etc.
Usury is a big problem in the 90% of large democracies that are collapsing today. Not only in national debt, but in mortgages and therefore mortgage-backed securities as well.
The reality of national debt is:
1) Presidents are always going to hire Central Bank Chairs that print money in advance of elections (to make the economy look better than it is – to cement re-election – like Nixon, Trump, and Trudeau did).
2) When debt becomes unserviceable, it gets forgiven – like Germany 52, most countries in Europe in 1934, Greece, etc. Poof – no more debt. Magic right?
Much ado about absolutely nothing – for all of you noobs that falsely believed that money is real – for (high income?) countries.