• frank
    15.7k
    And the purpose of government spending should be to obtain full employment.Rank Amateur

    What's the basis of this statement? Is it supposed to be scientific? Ethical? What?
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    What's the basis of this statement? Is it supposed to be scientific? Ethical? What?frank

    Keynesianism is what it is.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.5k
    - just what MMT says - the proponents basis is that government spending creates an increase need for good and services, increased need for good and services should create a need for more employment, and higher wages. More employment and higher wages lead to increases in private consumption of goods and services, and then government can reduce spending to the degree private spending increased.
  • frank
    15.7k
    It's fairly obvious why government spending would increase employment. The statement you posted was about purpose, though. Why should the government take responsibility for employment?
  • Rank Amateur
    1.5k
    also - in almost all economic models full employment is a goal. The reason is labor is a factor of production, all factors of production should be used efficiently to maximize wealth ( not money - wealth) - un-employment is a waste of a factor of production - limiting productivity and wealth.
  • frank
    15.7k
    Why should the government concern itself with production? I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm asking for the basis of the comment that it should.
  • frank
    15.7k
    because it canRank Amateur

    The government can arrange to send astronauts to Mars. It doesn't have any responsibility to do that.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.5k
    Why should the government concern itself with production? I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm asking for the basis of the comment that it shouldfrank

    it has no obligation to do so - it is a political decision - And again MMT is not a framework that is being implemented - it is an explanation of what is happening.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.5k
    MMT , and all other economic theories are academic explanations of what is going on. They are not a political platform or some blueprint to economic bliss. You can't implement it- you can use it only to explain what is happening.

    In the case of this topic -

    Someone says - " the deficit is awful, it will bankrupt our children - it is an awful economic catastrophe - the butchers bill is coming.

    When in reality - employment is good, interest rates are low, inflation is low, capital is plentiful - why is that ?? and i am not talking about this week - this is decades long ( with a blip or 2 )

    MMT is an attempt to answer that question.
  • frank
    15.7k
    I see. Thanks.
  • LD Saunders
    312
    Frank: You are simply wrong. You claim that lowering taxes causes the economy to grow. You saying it always does, no matter the circumstances? You are aware there is absolutely no support for your claim in economics?
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.