Of course, no argument there. The argument we have is that you believe we can just spend, spend, spend - and I don't.
I started my career in the 1980s in Canada. How would any of this really be a problem ? I lived through your "nightmare" scenarios already. Only difference is I see the bigger picture better now and know how to take advantage of it. If gas costs more well it hardly matters if I own some energy stocks. Same with bank service fees. Tax brackets were actually more brutal back then in Canada too. A single guy making a professional salary even a modest one hit a fairly high bracket with some of their income. But I do agree that personal tax rates are going to go up in the US. Like they did in Canada when we had the federal deficits the US runs now. More inflation please ... .
That's of course an expression of where your mind is, though it has little if anything to do with what I believe. Last night I saw on TV a woman who contrasted what we say, "I'll believe it when I see it," with what we do, "I'll see it, when I believe it." In other words, we make up our minds, and then see and hear only with what's consistent with what we already think and believe. We are blind and deaf to what others are really showing us and saying.
No observer can deny that inflation "is spreading to all sectors of the economy". It's mistaken however to think that we should not enact the Biden initiatives because of the inflation we see now. It's true that inflation will not be stemmed by enacting Biden's agenda, it will be stemmed when supply catches up with demand and the antitrust laws are once again inforced. What will happen is the small boats will be lifted proportionally more than the Mega-yachts -- the exact opposite of what happens under supply-side stimulus so popular among Republicans. Now every one is going to do better; not just the wealthy. The lower middle class is going to do much better. The economy is going to take off like a space rocket, slow at first and then accelerate to warp speed. The Biden agenda is the first in a long while to put the ball in the middle class court with tremendous demand side stimulus. Very different from the supply-side stimulus so popular with the shrinking Republican party. Measure your real gains and losses; not your nominal gains and losses.
No argument there as well. So when are you going to see that politicians (and economists) - on both sides of the political aisle but different agendas - have been saying that we can spend, spend, spend .... are wrong. Note for future: it's enforce. It was into the evening, I've done it too.
Well, if there are any politicians saying we can "spend, spend, spend...." they are wrong. I don't know of any politician that believes that. Certainly I don't believe that, nor is their any MMT economist that believes that. So, here is one rather obvious problem, obvious to me at least. MMT is overtaking, not without some resistance, neoclassical economics in the sub-discipline of money theory. The MMT economists have uncovered irrefutable, and therefore convincing, evidence of neoclassical money theory being quite incorrect. I suppose errors in neoclassical money theory stem from an understandable, seemingly irresistible, tendency to equate the finances of governments that create new money "out of thin air" with the finances of those in the private sector who use that same money but can only temporarily create additional money via fractional reserve banking. Ergo the neoclassical economist and the typical person conclude that governments must restrict their expenditures to their incomes plus what they can borrow, and not borrow too much, or they will go bankrupt. The MMT economist have shown us that this thinking is fundamentally wrong. However if one is unfamiliar with MMT money theory, a somewhat complex subject not easily understood in full without serious study, one will quite naturally combine the last sentence of the previous paragraph with the first sentence of this paragraph to conclude that MMT economists are telling us that governments do not have to limit their expenditures to their tax receipts plus the amount they can borrow. Then, if governments can create as much money as they like, the MMT economists are in effect telling us that governments can spend an unlimited amount of money. What follows from this line of common, but incorrect, reasoning is the conclusion that what MMT economists are telling us must be lunacy, because everyone knows the government will go bankrupt if it spends without limit, to say nothing of the inflation problems caused. This reasoning completely misunderstands what has been learned from MMT economics. There are in fact real constraints on how much money a government can create and spend without making the money it issues worthless! These constraints, however, are other than how much a government taxes plus how much it can borrow. Mind you we are strictly talking about governments that issue their own currency, do not borrow in other governments currencies, and have very deep sovereignty over the money they issue. The number of such governments is limited. Among the main tenets of MMT economics are these: 1) Money is created by the State; 2) Taxes serve a purpose other than providing the State with money to buy things; 3) The purpose of State issued Bonds is other than that of raising money for the State to spend. Their purpose is to provide a tool for the Central Bank and to act as an interest paying store of money. No MMT economist believes the state can spend without limit without undesirable consequences. MMT economists agree, generally speaking, on what the constraints on money creation and spending ought to be, but the semantics may vary some.
.......... The MMT economists have uncovered irrefutable, and therefore convincing, evidence of neoclassical money theory being quite incorrect........ Hehe good one - a hilarious laugh or two is never a bad thing. “In *theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” -Einstein. Too bad he wasn't an Economist. Wait what am I saying. What a waste of intellect that would be. Though being a Physicist he well understood that .... for action there is is a equal and opposite reaction. The Fed, largest employer of Economists in the World (Guessing most MMT'ers nowadays), seems to think otherwise. Have a good rest of your weekend. Me and Einstein's ghost have got a bottle of Red to share. * MMT theory
The only way such a quote can make sense is in a specific context. In other words the quote can be nonsense when taken out of context. I can lead a horse to water, but I can not make it drink.