NOT The Onion: BS' economic advisor says they can pay for his plan by just printing more money.

[Cha]

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

1. YGBFKM!

[Cha]

4. Just Print More Money!

Mahalo, Jackie

[NurseJackie]

6. We have a nice color printer... I'd be glad to help out.

[crazytown]

12. Here's the design Jackie

Charmin!

[Cha]

16. lol!

[crazytown]

18. And here's the paper

[Cha]

21. I got it..

[George II]

67. Both combined:

[mcar]

40. ....

[NurseJackie]

46. Oh dear!

[Dagstead Bumwood]

55. Can I purchase an Impossible Whopper with one of those?

Seems fitting.

[emmaverybo]

76. ROFL

[Cha]

15. I'm sure lots of

people would like to join in!

[yaesu]

2. Actually, its quite logical and makes much more sense than say, voting for the 2005 bankruptcy bill

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Not logical at all. Printing more money

causes inflation, you have more money chasing the same amount of goods so the price of everything goes up. People have more money but everything costs more so nobody is better off. That’s Econ 101 and an “economic advisor” should know better.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

13. More like High School Econ

Trillions printed in the last 10 years. Where’s the inflation?

Look at the yield on the Treasury.

[unblock]

14. "Printing money" happens all the time and rarely causes inflation

The money supply generally should grow with the economy.

"Printing money" only tends to cause inflation when the money supply grows faster than the economy.

Government spending programs directly expand the economy, so printing money to pay for it makes perfect sense.

The trick is to not print too much.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. The government prints more money when it's needed to replenish cash for banks

and to replace bills that have to be taken out of circulation. They don't print money in order to control the economy:

The myth that the central bank prints money became prevalent following the Great Recession, when many were concerned about the unconventional policies of the central bank, which included intervention in the commercial paper market, mortgages and outright purchases of debt to keep the system from collapsing. Both during and in the aftermath of the recession, the Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet, peaking at roughly $4.5 trillion from late 2014 through 2016.

Many who were against an interventionist central bank opposed this credit creation as printing money, which would lead to hyperinflation. The Federal Reserve and its defenders argued its policies were more of a reaction to economic conditions and the absence of expansionary fiscal policy.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/082515/who-decides-when-print-money-us.asp

[CarlitosMMT]

60. Correct! The title of that article is misleading!

Govt spends (or lends) by marking up accounts in the banking system, not by printing dollars.

Banks “pay” for printed cash with “reserves,” which is just another name for the funds that banks have in their checking accounts at the Fed.

[unblock]

68. The fed can and does control the money supply to control the economy.

That's what quantitative easing was all about. The fed bought up tons of financial assets like mortgages and treasuries from banks and paid them by simply crediting their accounts with more money, effectively printing cash, albeit electronically.

Congress can pay for programs by issuing treasuries, then the fed can buy treasuries through the the same mechanism.

Again, it works if you don't overdo the "printing". What matters is how much the government spending actually expends the economy. If it goes to workers and consumers and poor people who will spend locally, it works. If it goes to rich people who will hoard it or spend/invest it overseas, then the printing of money here would cause inflation.

[CarlitosMMT]

73. Fed controls the price, not quantity of money

Fed sets interest rates, explicitly the overnight and penalty fed funds rates. It does not control quantity as that would interfere with its interest rate targets. It also has target rates that are not published or explicit.

Fed bought assets Congress has approved it to purchase eg Treasury backed mortgages and govt securities. It’s not wrong to call Tsy backed mortgages or any Tsy backed loan, govt securities (held by the public or non govt), all cash held by the public, and bank reserves the net money supply.

The Fed did do a bunch of unconventional things at beginning of the financial crisis, ie Maiden Lane AIG ‘bailouts’ etc.

QE removed interest income from the economy contracting the net money supply.

Hoarding by rich people does not cause inflation. Think that thru.

MMT consolidates Treasury and Fed operations.
The starting point for the dollar to enter the economy is federal spending (or lending).

[unblock]

86. "Printing money" typically refers not so much to the physical manufacturing of money but to

any way the supply of money in circulation is increased.

This can happen in several ways, including private banks simply deciding to lend more. The one dollar they receive in deposits becomes ten (or so) dollars in circulation when they decide to lend as much as they are allowed. If banks decide to freeze lending, e.g., for credit reasons, the money in circulation starts to contract.

The fed lowers rates by buying treasuries, bidding the price up, thereby lowering yield. They buy treasuries by paying banks, putting cash in circulation. The banks in turn lend out multiples of it (based on reserve requirements) putting even more money in circulation.

In practice, the fed doesn't have to fully pay for manipulating rates because the announcement combined with small purchases is enough to lower rates as investors don't like to fight the fed. But between fed operations and bank lending, more money is in circulation.


I know hoarding cash doesn't cause inflation in and of itself. I meant, if the government increases the money supply to pay for a government program, then that will cause inflation unless the government program increases economic activity. So if the government program stimulates enough domestic spending and investment, it wouldn't cause inflation. Hoarding cash wouldn't provide economic activity sufficient to counter the inflationary effect of the increse in money supply.

[CarlitosMMT]

89. Bank lending creates deposits in banking system

Banks don’t lend deposits.
Deposits are bank liabilities.
What limits bank lending is capital requirements and other regulatory requirements.
The capital is like a buffer in case of losses.
That’s the bank’s ‘skin in the game.’ When losses exceed capital, the government pays.
Reserve requirements are like checking account minimums for the bank’s account at the Fed.
Fractional reserve banking is a myth. Hasn’t been that way since the intro of FDIC and further Fed Reserve consolidation (all which happened when FDR closed the domestic gold window).

Real world is different than text books (*but not all text books).

[bahrbearian]

19. Yup, and Obama started Quantitative Easing

The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, has “printed” more than $2 trillion since the global economic crisis began in 2008. This has more than tripled the size of its balance sheet. Before this spree of paper money creation began, the Fed held $950 billion in assets; now it holds nearly $3 trillion.

But since Bernie wants to continue Obama's QE ,it is now Pie in the Sky. it shall never come to pass.

And if we go with Pelosi's Pay-Go than nothing will ever change. Forget about the Green New Deal.

[riverine]

23. Sure the Fed printed $4 trillion and then held it on the balance sheet you reference

in the form of US Treasuries.

This held down interest rates. The Fed is slowly "unwinding" that balance sheet by selling those bonds and destroying that money.

[bahrbearian]

24. So the Fed printed money and gave it to the banks as bonds.

They didn't hold it they gave it to Banks and Bond Holder's at almost 0.5% interest.

[riverine]

26. No. The Fed bought US Treasuries - the proceeds fund the US Government.

The banks got nothing*.


*(a few select banks are known as"primary dealers' who auction off the Treasures and receive a tiny commission).

[CarlitosMMT]

74. Destroying dollars?

Govt securities are just interest earning dollars. They are like having a 100% insured savings account at the Fed.

So when the Fed sells securities, it’s changing the composition of dollars held by the economy from non interest earning to interest earning dollars. It’s not net destroying anything. In fact it’s net adding dollars by adding interest incomes.

Taxes or loans repaid to the Federal govt destroy dollars.

[treestar]

42. That bill did not change much

It added a couple of forms and made it harder to discharge student debt. It could still be discharged for hardship. It was the courts that interpreted "hardship" so strictly.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Must be a graduate of Trump University.

[Chemisse]

17. I know! Didn't Trump come up with this beaut a while back?

Oh yes. Several times.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/11/trump-once-considered-just-printing-money-to-lower-the-national-debt-woodward-reports.html

[bahrbearian]

20. Or just a continuation of Obama's QE.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. Or what Paul Krugman says on a regular basis.

The United States is a country that has its own currency--can’t run out of cash because we print the money. If you even try to think what would happen--suppose that investors get down on the United States. Even so, that would weaken the dollar, not send interest rates soaring, and that would be good. That would help our exports,” Krugman said on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers.”

[riverine]

50. QE is not Obama's. It is a Fed strategy that requires no input from Congress or POTUS.

The Fed just does it to combat unemployment - which is one of their two mandates.

Bernanke did it.

And thanks Ben Bernanke.

btw the Fed pays all the interest earned on Treasuries back to taxpayers every year.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-remittance/fed-sent-653-billion-to-treasury-in-2018-paid-385-billion-to-banks-idUSKCN1R322X

[Gothmog]

7. K&R

[Midnight Writer]

8. So...she's a Republican?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Trump would do it but I don't think any other GOPer

with the possible exception of Larry Kudlow is that stupid.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. Or Paul Krugman?

The United States is a country that has its own currency--can’t run out of cash because we print the money. If you even try to think what would happen--suppose that investors get down on the United States. Even so, that would weaken the dollar, not send interest rates soaring, and that would be good. That would help our exports,” Krugman said on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers.”

[crazytown]

30. And everyone on fixed income gets screwed

Inflation 101

[Hassin Bin Sober]

38. We can increase social security. In fact we absolutely should.

We need some wage inflation and the inflation that comes with it. The economy and people grow out of debt. That’s how people like my father, before he paid of his house, had a $200 dollar mortgage payment. Seemed like a lot, I’m sure, when he bought the house but it was peanuts by the time he reached middle age.

Unfortunately for people reaching retirement today, we’ve gone through a forty year battle against non existent hyper inflation. People reaching retirement now are, for the most part, fucked.

What people here are now proposing, because Teh Bernie, is the same fate for today’s younger people.

[betsuni]

36. Paul Krugman on MMT: "What concerns me is I can't actually figure out what it is."

[emmaverybo]

9. Makers of Monopoly could make the money look kinda nostalgic and family oriented. Let's start

by raiding our old sets.

[thesquanderer]

10. It's an interesting article, but it is not Sanders' position (n/t)

[Cha]

32. Oh yeah? BS doesn't listen to his "economic advisor"?

[thesquanderer]

66. Did you read the article? It doesn't sound like it. (n/t)

[riverine]

22. It's that debunked garbage theory called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

[CarlitosMMT]

51. Debunked?

Hey I get the Bernie vs Biden thing, but this Democrats vs MMT is the dumbest f%%%ing thing I’ve ever seen.

MMT’s operational description is by far and away the most accurate theory in describing actual fiscal and monetary operations.

Bernie doesn’t even subscribe to or understand MMT.
He just listens to Kelton on specific issues bc it’s hard not to.

Do yourself a favor and work thru some of the links at wiki page that are written by MMT economists.

[riverine]

56. If Paul Krugman doesn't understand it

I doubt very seriously I will.

The fact is that any sovereign can print so much money that no one else wants it.

See Venezuela (a sovereign) with its own currency. They are very rich in Maduros or whatever it is called.

But they can't buy basic medicine or toilet paper because no one wants their currency. Thus the plight they are in.

[CarlitosMMT]

57. Krugman admittedly does not understand T-accounts

Krugman, like most conventional econs, probably never had a class in accounting. He admittedly does not understand how to do balance sheet accounting. It’s embarrassing.
He’s not as smart as his perch might imply.
Kelton and Krugman debated via Twitter for weeks and every unbiased observer thought he was completely out of his league.

I will add that MMT’ers were the most voracious, consistent and elite defenders of Obama-Biden era deficits and their administration’s efforts to increase govt spending and cut taxes for working people during the recovery. You literally should be thanking us and pinning medals on MMT economists.

[lapucelle]

78. "Every unbiased observer thought Krugman was out of his league"?

"He’s not as smart as his perch might imply"?

Oh dear.

Still, most mainstream economists view M.M.T. as the Cult of the Magic Money Tree, deriding what they see as its theorists’ preference for analogy over mathematical modelling or empirical evidence. “What most concerns me is I can’t actually quite figure out what it is,” Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and Times columnist, told me. Krugman is a political progressive, and he agrees with many of the spending programs that M.M.T. proponents support. But, he said, “I’ll be damned if I can figure out what it is exactly that they think.”

Some of "what they think" includes:

Kelton and Mosler believe that taxing the wealthy does nothing for a big program like the Green New Deal: taxes don’t fund spending, after all, and wealth taxes won’t control inflation. “If you did an ambitious Green New Deal, two to three trillion a year over ten years, and you tried to pay for it with a wealth tax, you’d get massive inflationary pressures,” Kelton told me. “You’ve removed all the income from people who aren’t going to spend it.”

To remove cash from the monetary base, and thereby offset inflation, you have to tax the people who spend most of their income—the poor or middle classes.

Kelton also makes the startling claim that she knows better than the his staff director what the candidate she is advising is really doing and thinking:

Warren Gunnels, Sanders’s staff director, told me that Sanders hired Kelton because they agree on the policies that form Sanders’s platform. “She’s one of the leading economists who’s trying to create an economy for all,” he said. “We need more economists like her.” But, he said, “M.M.T. never really crossed our mind, to be honest. We never looked at M.M.T. as a theory that we should adopt.”

After my call with Gunnels, Kelton e-mailed me to say that portraying Sanders as opposed to M.M.T. “would be a mistake.” She went on, “Senator Sanders knows that Congress needs to be able to spend without that artificial constraint.

Presidential candidate Sanders, like every other presidential candidate, is trying not to get called out by literally everyone for proposing stuff he ‘can’t pay for.’ You have to know this is how the game is played.”

It's stunning that Kelton said on the record to a reporter from the New Yorker:

Presidential candidate Sanders, like every other presidential candidate, is trying not to get called out by literally everyone for proposing stuff he ‘can’t pay for.’ You have to know this is how the game is played.”

Kelton should be fired for that alone.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-economist-who-believes-the-government-should-just-print-more-money

For more on Paul Krugman and his perch:
https://bit.ly/2P6QptV

[CarlitosMMT]

83. Oh dear?

The man admittedly doesn’t not understand how to split out a balance sheet into Assets, Liabilities, and Equities and follow out thru multiple transactions with other agents. Oh f%%%ing dear is right! Why are you people holding him up as some oracle?
Krugman does not understand that loans create deposits in the banking system! That’s disqualifying. Not a smart person. If he doesn’t understand MMT, it’s because he doesn’t bother to read and can’t accept that something besides ISLM might be a better modeling framework. That’s just arrogance.

The whole idea we might need to raise taxes to offset inflation due to a GND runs contrary to implicit notion of this article that MMT prescribes unlimited deficits.
Mosler and Kelton do not advocate higher taxes on the poor and middle class, but if taxes are the only tool (which it is not) for mitigating inflation then regressive taxes would work best (not that we shouldn’t tax the rich for other reasons).

Meanwhile, it is incorrect to say Sanders is for or against MMT. The candidate hasn’t taken a position but has tried to avoid a debate on the subject! So Kelton is correct and that hardly merits the firing of one of nation’s leading female economists.

[lapucelle]

91. Oh dear indeed.

"Every unbiased observer thought Krugman was out of his league."

It's difficult to even know where to even begin with the problems in the validity and soundness of such a claim.

- What are the criteria for the determination of who is or isn't biased?
- Who determined that criteria?
- As a fan of the theory espoused by one side, do you meet the criteria for inclusion in the "unbiased" set?
- Do you have data to support the claim that every single "unbiased observer" thought X?

Anyone could ask a similar set of questions concerning the the mild invective "out of his league" and then finish by questioning whether and why any unbiased observer would employ loaded language to make his case.

- hasty generalization
- petitio principii
- argument by emotive language (loaded language fallacy)
- argumentum ad hominem (abusive)
- tu quoque

Anything that follows a statement as sweeping and one-sided as

"Every unbiased observer thought Krugman was out of his league."

is bound to be met with skepticism, especially given the subtext and extension:

"Every "unbiased" observer who is a fan of his opponent thought Nobel Laureate in Economics Krugman was out of his league during the debate. Besides, Krugman isn't not even an accountant. It's embarrassing!"

This is probably not the best way to persuade an audience that an opinion concerning theory is thoughtful, measured, and indeed worthy of serious consideration.

[CarlitosMMT]

92. You are ignoring the point - Krugman is wrong and Kelton is right

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2019/03/four-tells-that-show-krugman-knows-he-cannot-win-an-honest-debate.html

By the way, you are committing the authority fallacy or argumentum ad verecundiam.

[PETRUS]

93. I appreciate your efforts here.

But I've found that most people (not just on DU) don't understand economics particularly well, and tend to hold any number of false assumptions. Thanks for posting, and good luck.

[CarlitosMMT]

98. It's the same as arguing with Republicans

Literally Democrats deploy the same arguments against MMT that Republicans do.

We are our own worst enemy.

[Cha]

102. Not if we Vote Democratic we're Not

"our Own Worst Enemy".

VOTE BLUE!

[PETRUS]

103. I've had that feeling sometimes, too.

Not necessarily about MMT, but when discussing macroeconomics, fiscal, and trade policy.

[ehrnst]

107. "We?" Speak for yourself.

Also, I'd be careful with the "using the same arguments as Republicans!!!" trope.

It can backfire on someone.

“So many stories about me in the @washingtonpost are Fake News. They are as bad as ratings challenged @CNN. Lobbyist for Amazon and taxes?”

"Anybody here know how much Amazon paid in taxes last year?" Sanders asked the crowd during a town hall in Wolfeboro. "See, I talk about that all of the time. And then I wonder why the Washington Post... doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't know why. But I guess maybe there's a connection.""

[lapucelle]

94. I am not ignoring "the" point, I am evaluating your point.

And because my argument does not concern economic theory, it appeals to no economic authority, so that charge fails on relevance.

[CarlitosMMT]

95. The first box you quoted was very much an appeal to authority

You wrote literally wrote “oh dear” and then included a snip in an appeal to ‘authority’ - which also included an ad hominem attack by said authority figures.

Your next post was about one sentence I wrote - ignoring everything else - in some sort of hypermoralizing on argumentation.

[lapucelle]

96. The first box is a quote of something you said.

It is not my point. It is your point. How can it be my appeal?

[lapucelle]

99. I think I see what you're getting at now. Your response is to an earlier post,

not to the post your were actually responding to. No wonder it seemed non sequitur.

The quote in my original post in the sub thread doesn't concern an endorsement of any economist. It is simply the actual text from the New Yorker article in contrast to your characterization of it. I am not appealing to Krugman's economic authority. I am correcting the record as to what the article actually said.

Similarly, quoting exactly what MMT theorists said on the record is not an ad hominum attack against them. Why would quoting their own words be an attack?

It is indeed unfortunate that both Mosler and Kelton said disrespectful things concerning Senator Sanders, specifically both Mosler's claims about the candidate's grasp of MMT and Kelton's insistence that the candidate's campaign might not be entirely candid about the his views on MMT because it is election season.

They should be more circumspect in the future.

[ehrnst]

108. +1000.

[George II]

25. .

[bobbieinok]

29. This DESTROYS any credibility BS may have re economics/economy, right???

[crazytown]

31. Maybe. How low can he go?

[defacto7]

33. That's what the Romans did off and on for 400 years.

It never worked. You'd think we'd learn from things tried 2000 years ago that failed. But nooooo...

[Prosper]

34. Just two words explain this.

Delusional.

Makes as much sense. MMT totally ignores generating revenue through tax revenue by stimulating the economy to create self paying jobs. New industries sponsored by tax revenue.

[CarlitosMMT]

58. Taxes aren't for raising funds to spend

The federal govt spends first and then taxes can be paid and/or govt securities purchased.

[Prosper]

77. Taxes may not be

for raising funds but tax money spent has positive results.

[CarlitosMMT]

84. Would not disagree

Govt spending has many positive effects.
But the concept of ‘spending tax money’ only applies to local/state govts, not the federal govt which is the tax and tax credit monopolist. US dollars are tax credits. All federal spending (or lending) creates tax credits. Taxes paid after that spending deletes tax credits remaining in the economy.

[Prosper]

104. Your: "Taxes paid after that spending deletes tax credits remaining in the economy."

The key word in your sentence is “economy”. The economy is handicapped and especially in the middle class by lack of money. In stead of printing money why not tax money not as a punitive but directing action to inject money back into the economy. By not punitive I mean to exclude money invested in the goods and services sector from tax liability. Only subject to a high progressive rate if the money is not invested or spent. Ascribing money to its origin of facilitating trading. Money not used for trading in goods and services exists to destroy the economies it was created to facilitate.

[riverine]

35. Krugman comments on this:

Still, most mainstream economists view M.M.T. as the Cult of the Magic Money Tree, deriding what they see as its theorists’ preference for analogy over mathematical modelling or empirical evidence. “What most concerns me is I can’t actually quite figure out what it is,” Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and Times columnist, told me. Krugman is a political progressive, and he agrees with many of the spending programs that M.M.T. proponents support. But, he said, “I’ll be damned if I can figure out what it is exactly that they think.”

OP link

[Cha]

37. Mahalo for Krugman, riverine!

[betsuni]

41. While reading the article I thought the same thing, couldn't figure out what MMT is.

Then I saw Krugman's comment, the only time I will ever have anything in common with him.

[dalton99a]

47. It's bullshit if Krugman can't understand it.

[mcar]

39. ...

[Cha]

45. It's raining Money!

Mahalo, mcar!

[betsuni]

43. K&R

[comradebillyboy]

44. That's about par for the course for the Bernie campaign.

There is just a aura of unreality about his economic proposals.

[Thekaspervote]

49. Okay then...I think I'll go print a cool mil..anyone care to join me?

[Amimnoch]

52. LOL, next he'll just write a check.

Hell, let’s just stop bothering with those budgets all together and just print more money!!



Nothing like just handing Republicans all the talking points they need on a silver platter...

[Vegas Roller]

53. She beat the Onion in making me laugh K&R

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[NYMinute]

54. Tomorrow's headline

Sanders campaign's "bold" new plan to allow people to print their own money according to their needs.

[Me.]

59. Why Didn't We Think Of THat?

And that tells you just about all you need to know about the Sanders Institute,

"Sanders Institute founding fellow and leading economist Stephanie Kelton"

[betsuni]

61. It's like breaking up the Big Banks. How? Just break 'em up!

How are you funding that? Just print more money!

[Me.]

64. You Know....

With a stick

[CarlitosMMT]

85. 'Banks' are designated agents of the govt

That’s what FDIC insurance and the Fed as the lender of last resort means.

[IndyOp]

62. Modern Monetary Theory - legit economists agree with Bernie.

Printing the bucks is - perhaps - an essential approach to providing adequate funding to address climate crisis.

Debunking deficit hysteria with Stephanie Kelton
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/debunking-deficit-hysteria-stephanie-kelton-podcast-transcript-ncna1003301

[lapucelle]

79. Is BS a proponent of MMT?

Mosler [one of the architects of MMT] told [Zach Helfand author of the New Yorker piece] that he has met with Sanders’s staffers, and many of them expressed a familiarity with M.M.T. “The staff read my book. They’re all really good with this stuff,” he said. “But Bernie doesn’t go there. They kind of roll their eyes and say, ‘Look, we try.’ ”

Mosler has his own remedy for inequality, “but it’s so counter-intuitive that it catches people out,” he said. Part of it “is to eliminate the federal income tax entirely, corporate and individual. And replace it with just a property tax.”

snip=========================================================

Warren Gunnels, Sanders’s staff director, told [Zach Helfand author of the New Yorker piece] that Sanders hired Kelton because they agree on the policies that form Sanders’s platform. “She’s one of the leading economists who’s trying to create an economy for all,” he said. “We need more economists like her.” But, he said, “M.M.T. never really crossed our mind, to be honest. We never looked at M.M.T. as a theory that we should adopt.”

Did one of MMT's chief proponents really say on the record that

The staff are all really good with this stuff,” he said. “But Bernie doesn’t go there. They kind of roll their eyes and say, ‘Look, we try.’ ”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-economist-who-believes-the-government-should-just-print-more-money

[IndyOp]

105. I want to hear from all of the candidates on MMT - I appreciate you

pointing out that BS isn’t on board.

[keithbvadu2]

63. Idi Amin had the same theory of printing money.

A story is told of a former Governor of Bank of Uganda who was killed after defying orders from President Idi Amin to print money. It is reported that Joseph Mubiru, was summoned by Amin and asked to release money urgently. The governor told Amin that the treasury did not have money.

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=YJ9gXc_MMoSU-gS3iaaADg&q=idi+amin+print+money&oq=idi+amin+print+money&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5373.9889..10900...0.0..1.451.4060.0j17j0j2j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..35i39j0i131j0j0i20i263j0i10j0i22i30.TGfEiJbGVRw&ved=0ahUKEwjP_Ky_uZrkAhUEip4KHbeECeAQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

[keithbvadu2]

65. Big bucks

https://thefinanser.com/2013/07/zimbabwes-currency-crisis-and-the-100-trillion-dollar-note.html/

'... but it actually means in practice that
Zimbabwe no longer uses Zimbabwe currency for trade.

They use US dollars mainly.
A nice stable currency.'

[lunamagica]

69. K&R for visibility

[Cha]

70. Gracias, Luna!

[lunamagica]

71. Por nada, Cha

[BootinUp]

72. Utopia at last. Nt

[Cha]

75. lol.. we're in

heaven now

[lapucelle]

80. No, we're in the money:

[Cha]

82. No more Worries!

YAY! !

[tirebiter]

81. .It worked so well for the Confederacy

And preWWII Germany. Wheelbarrow makers were happy

[CarlitosMMT]

90. Credible tax system is needed

The Confederacy has same problem as Republic of Texas, they lacked a credible tax system.

All other modern hyperinflations have come from shortages that precede the govt spending, including Germany, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela.

MMT doesn’t advocate spending in unlimited quantities. The limits are real resources.

[Voltaire2]

87. That is only for wars and tax cuts.

We cannot use debt to improve our lives or build or public infrastructure.

Austerity Democrats are why we lose elections.

[Gothmog]

88. K&R

[aidbo]

100. Lots of ignorant comments on this page. Blithely ignorant.

[Cha]

106. All you have is lobbing insults at other members.

[redstatebluegirl]

101. Trumps dream.

Print money faster than he can lose it.