Hacker News Reader

Comment by robertAngst | Hacker News Reader

> that government debt is consumer surplus and not inherently a bad thing, and also that printing fiat currency specifically to pay for programs does not itself increase inflation

Sounds like when cigarette companies funded studies to 'prove' cigarettes were safe.

They even went full 'USA Freedom Act' by throwing the word Modern in the title.

Those are two non-political red flags. I'll save my personal ideas on economics as this gets into politics.

View on HN

I think "modern" is more of an allusion to Modern Portfolio Theory, which has been around for decades, rather than trying to imply that modern = newer = better. Modern in this sense could loosely mean "after John Maynard Keynes died", or "Adam Smith never heard of it".

Modern Monetary Theory itself is a general economic theory, rather than an American monetary or fiscal policy position. The jury is still out on it, but it could suit countries like the US or maybe Switzerland, who have the right economic and currency conditions.

Both MMT advocates and critics have agreed that MMT isn't particularly new; it seems to be a rekindling of Neo-Keynesianism.

And generally people do have a misconception that printing more money = inflation. For example in the last 2 decades the amount of Chinese currency has increased by more than 800%(https://webofdebt.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/m2-for-China-F...), but inflation remains at 2.2%.

At what rate has Chinese production increased. Money supply does need to increase in some situations.

I don't think all the MMTers are Neo-Keynesian. The alternate term applicable to MMT is neochartalist. It's more of a claim about money and systems, and less of a statement about what should or shouldn't be done once these facts are acknowledged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com