I'm not disagreeing with you that it is happening. I'm saying that it's socialism for the rich. See my previous comments.
Meaning you are so sure that we are wrong about MMT, that we don't understand it properly, but you are unable to refute the very basic points that we're making in any way other than by appealing to some video.
Actually that is a common mis-characterization. Please see the quote, in my original post, from Jim Luke in response to one of Krugman's blogs .
Can you please make one of those basic points for me, and I will do my best to address it as i understand MMT from my studies? At this point I don't know if you are wrong from the viewpoint of MMT. I am not interested in proving anyone wrong. My main purpose for starting this thread is to call your attention to MMT and the great importance of understanding it at least at a basic level, because so much of what is commonly thought to be true is in fact incorrect and can easily be shown so.
True. I should have used this quote "What I find most interesting is the realization that what Mosler and fellow MMT’ers would recommend at this stage of business cycle would be more fiscal stimulus. You see, MMT’ers believe that in the absence of inflation (real constraints) there is no reason for the government not to continue spending. As long as there is slack in the economy somewhere, MMT’ers believe that government stimulation results in higher real GDP output."
Excuse me Mr Government man with whom I attended school, there is slack in my business. I'll give you a job after you finish in government if you help me out .
I think this is a correct characterization of thinking among MMT economists, but perhaps a little misleading unless more context is given. When MMT economists refer to slack in the economy they are usually referring to idle or unused resources, which could include an unemployed labor pool. Economic stimulus could then be used to put unemployed workers back to work, building needed resources such as infrastructure. MMT economists have also considered using the government as the employer of last resort as a means of eliminating both unemployment compensation and the need for setting a minimum wage. The basic wage paid to last resort employees would effectively become the minimum wage that employers would have to compete against. Under such a policy there would be no such thing as involuntary unemployment. The economy would always operate at full employment. Our current system uses unemployed labor to hold down wage and price inflation but that comes with excess slack, thus lowered productivity and the need to pay people for not working.