I’m fully with your idea.
However we need to acknowledge 1928. It was a sum of little carriers, newbies, who provoked a big crisis.
How can we also avoid falling into the 1928 situation?
However we need to acknowledge 1928. It was a sum of little carriers, newbies, who provoked a big crisis.
How can we also avoid falling into the 1928 situation?
If we were to assume they're both very similar, there would have been a bailout of banks around 1916 leading to QE and the rise in tide after. There was even a pandemic + war around 1918, so a crash should have occurred around then. And the "fundamental" drivers seemed to have been people buying stocks on credit (now margin) and the easy availability of credit. I don't really see the easy availability of credit now, except for the stimulus checks, and they're a write-off, not a liability for the gov.
If anything, we're in for another roaring 20's. But we must all buy raincoats in these 20's as we know what came after.
I'm not a historian, nor am I right about many things, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, MMT predicted that QE would not be inflationary but it also predict that it's not a proper way of stimulate the economy.
I don't know what that mean. Or a theory is better than the current one explaining facts or it's not. That's the scientific method.
>>"[..] US's reserve currency status [..]"
We know what the neo-keynesian predicted for Japan monetary policy of the last 25 years (high inflation, high interest rates), and we know that it's not what happened.
>>"And how does MMT solve for the various asset bubbles ongoing including the real estate bubble in Australia or perhaps the stock bubble in the U.S."
It totally does. Because the central banks are buying financial assets, they are crowding out institutional investors to other kind of assets up the chain and pushing prices up. Note, that MMT doesn't support QE. They just predicted what would happen.
Do you want technical or legalese barriers?