modern monetary theory

A new wave of agitators in the realm of monetary systems has emerged.
The fact that the government is utterly financially unconstrained in just the way Trump noted today is the hugest, most subversive Truth he has told to date. And of all the truths he has ever told, it is the one that libertarians should be proclaiming the loudest.
If the debt ceiling causes a default or government shutdown and becomes a campaign issue in the 2016 election, there are some signs that the coin could be taken seriously by the Democratic front-runners for president.
The re-shuffle of the last U.S. election that put austerity-minded Republicans in power has ironically resulted in a new anti-austerity economist being hired by Senator Bernie Sanders in the Senate Budget Committee.
What do the president, the party leaders, all members of Congress, all the headline economists (both hawks and doves), the entire Federal Open Market Committee, and just about everyone else apart from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) proponents agree on?
Is the trillion dollar coin sustainable? If it helps inspire ideas to solve the planet's economic and ecological problems, it sure can be.
As the Vatican learned with Galileo, the truth has a way of resurfacing. Be on the lookout for debt-free, interest-free money, coming soon to a country-needlessly-plunged-into-recession-by-austerity near you.
This is far more problematic than markets realize. The president had a choice. The debt ceiling thing expresses 'the will
The coin presents a rare opportunity to have a public discussion about the nature of money, something very few people understand. If advocates play their cards (and coins) right, it could even result in the creation of a new and more sustainable monetary system.
Every serious economic forecaster cuts his GDP and employment estimate with tax hikes and spending cuts.
They thought all kinds of bad things about the deficit. And then, after the 2011 debt ceiling debacle and the formal downgrading of the credit rating of the United States, they were all proven utterly wrong.
Two aspects of the current system of money creation cause unnecessary difficulties for the federal government's budget.
Since the government is only taking in about 57 cents in tax revenue for every dollar it spends (as it is currently doing while running its huge public deficit), why aren't we seeing all that massive inflation as this new government-spending-created money sloshes around the private sector?
The trade differentials in the eurozone are not in the least an insurmountable problem, at least not in theory.
Federal deficit reduction should be off the table, and the burden of proof of a sufficiently high long term inflation risk be on those who want to put the deficit back on the table.
Demand leakages are unspent income. This translates into what's commonly called the 'output gap,' which is largely a sanitized way of saying unemployment.
While the Germans aren't entirely wrong in their belief that lower deficits would restore funding capacity, I don't think they recognize that as currency users debt to GDP ratios may need to be under 30 percent to get to that point.
Applying this to the US to replicate the Wiemar inflation Congress would have to increase the deficit to about $8 trillion