Ladies and Gentlemen,

I just wanted to provide an update. The interview has been scheduled for this Thursday at 12:30 pm on Bloomberg Radio. The show is called “The Hays Advantage”. Warren will broadcast with her live from the U.S. Open in New York. Everyone be sure to tweet, post, and tell your contacts to listen at that time.

Kind regards,

Will Thompson

Here’s how you can find/listen to it… AM 1130 in New York,
By satellite radio: Sirius: Channel 130 or XM: Channel 129

Or listen online at http://www.bloomberg.com/radio Just click the large play button on the front page.

11 Responses

  1. I just posted the following reply to a link from Yahoo Tech Ticker, and plan on using it in a modified for as a template for such forums. Please correct me if I am wrong on anything, or feel free to copy/paste if you don’t feel like writing and agree. I think a spot featuring Warren Mosler on Tech Ticker would garner a large number of page views and help open up and advance the debate. Lets make that happen.

    Let me start this by saying I am a limited govt. guy, and don’t particularly like Krugman, and add that neither side (Dems/Reps) seems to understand the real nature of our problems and what to do about them.

    Mr. Wesbury is correct in his micro view (cash for clunkers, etc is bad), but incorrect macro wise. The deficit is not a problem, and the US govt. does not have to “borrow from China” to spend. To spend, the govt. simply spends. Sounds crazy, but read the link below. The real nature of FEDERAL debt is not what nearly everyone (economists and laymen alike) believe it is. The US govt. by definition cannot be “bankrupt”; it is the SOLE SUPPLIER of US dollars. There is no way to get a fiat (non-convertible $) without the Federal govt. first spending it.

    The Federal govt. is the sole supplier of (unbacked) currency, and is thus different than businesses, states, and most countries. People need dollars because they are needed to pay taxes. The govt. first spends the dollars, then taxes them away (partially because they don’t understand what is happening).

    This does not mean the govt. can “print money” at will and everything will be a-ok. Federal spending is constrained by INFLATION. But not SOLVENCY.

    We have a severe lack of demand- the solution is to eliminate the FICA tax, change taxation laws, and stop taking our income away during DEFLATION. People need INCOME not CREDIT, like the Fed believes. There is no demand for credit so the Fed/Monetarists are constrained in what they can do. We need to slahs taxes and stop worrying about the deficit- the deficit is a function of accounting (every $ we save was first “spent” by the govt. as there is no way to get a $ otherwise). It is not the same as a business or state or other entity. I know it sounds crazy but these guys are ALL WRONG, which I’m sure you can believe by looking at the track record over the years of mainstream economists.

    What we need right now are LOWER TAXES (aka fiscal stimulus) so we can by the things we produce. No reason to fret about China or the debt, we don’t borrow from them to spend. Then we need structural change to get the govt away from its useless functions to focus on what we need/want them to provide (eg defense, etc). Once we establish what services we want from the govt., then we can set the tax rate appropriately, which will be lower than the current rate right now. Dems are wrong because they want to increase taxes, Repubs are wrong because they want to reduce the deficit. I know this sounds crazy but please consider that it is possible that both sides are wrong!

    Please follow the link below and read, this is real.

    http://moslereconomics.com/

    1. JD,
      I like the idea of having a template response to use whenever you come across the same thing. However, I think you should take out all the “I know it sounds crazy” lines. It makes it sound like a lot of the spam I get in my email and my own website comics. e.g. “Make $50,000 working from home? Sounds crazy but this single mom did it!” or “Got credit card debt? You can eliminate it by paying just pennies on the dollar. Sounds crazy, but we did just that with all these people.”

      I would instead replace it with something more like, “it sounds counter-intuitive, but it makes sense when you think about it” or something that sounds less spammy.

    2. The Federal govt. is the sole supplier of (unbacked) currency, and is thus different than businesses, states, and most countries.

      I don’t think it is different from most countries nowdays. Although countries may hold gold, bonds and foreign currency as reserves it isn’t for convertibility purposes. And most countries are the sole suppliers of their own currency. (Euro countries being the most prominent exception.)

  2. MMT commenters,

    I linked this on Bill Mitchell’s blog comments in February and got some useful feedback (thanks), but here it is again after some smallish updates (marginally less ugly, added CB open market ops, etc):

    MMT-inspired Macroeconomic Balance Sheet Visualizer
    http://econviz.com/balance-sheet-visualizer.html

    I have hoped that it would be useful in clarifying MMT-related macroeconomic discussions especially for those unclear about the concepts of balance sheet liability, net equity, etc, though I know it’s not great for complete beginners (I have other visualization ideas for that goal). There’s now a way to link directly to specific operations, for example if you wanted to send someone directly to a visualization of Quantitative Easing, or of Bank Loans.

    My question: what are the key things you think it currently needs to be valuable at its particular narrow purpose?

    If the #1 answer is “credibility and accuracy — you might have butchered and misrepresented the concepts”… well that is a risk, and I’m happy for corrections or an “everything looks accurate” from anyone who has the time. Other answers are welcome too (there is a link provided via the tool to submit comments if you don’t want to here). Thanks…

    1. You have the right idea, a picture does speak a thousand words. I like that visualizer but, as my constitutional law professor would say, “this one has a lot of moving parts”. So I’d start with something easier to grasp.

      The most basic point about MMT is Wynne Godley’s observation that every economy has three separate sectors to balance; Fiscal (govt savings/deficit), Private (private savings/deficit) and Foreign (trade surplus/deficit):
      Fiscal + Private + Foreign = 0

      For a country like the US running a fiscal deficit and a trade deficit, this means:
      Fiscal deficit = Private savings + Foreign deficit

      For a country like German running a Fiscal deficit and a trade surplus:
      Fiscal deficit + Foreign Surplus = Private savings

      A recent Martin Wolf column had a couple of charts that made this point rather dramatically.
      http://media.ft.com/cms/cf0ab07c-7a20-11df-9871-00144feabdc0.gif

      The first step to understanding MMT is to realize its no coincidence that the sectoral fiscal balances match up perfectly for all those different countries. The second step is sending a money order to the address on Warren’s contact page– no no, don’t tell them that! :o)

      It doesn’t hurt to plays to people’s political biases. For a liberal audience, you could do worse than cite economist and The Nation columnist James K. Galbraith and rail against conservatives wanting to starve the economy of federal spending because they don’t understand economics (how dare they!)

      For a conservative audience, you could cite investment banker and National Review columnist Thomas E. Nugent and rail against liberals wanting to starve the economy by raising taxes because they don’t understand economics (how dare they!). :o)

      1. Thanks, Beowulf.

        I agree that the current “stock” visualizer is way too complex for the average newcomer, and I have been slowly working on a “flow” visualizer intended to capture the financial sectoral balances exactly as you describe. Trouble is, that’s much trickier to implement than a handful of animated rectangles 🙂

        Personally I see the stock visualizer as useful for those with some background in economics already who aren’t used to the idea that the government is financial balance sheet “insolvent” by definition so that the private and foreign sector are able to accrue financial savings. So it is a smaller niche. I also envision it helping people who like me a couple years ago are trying to figure out exactly how bank lending works from a balance sheet perspective.

        While I do intend to stay politically neutral, I’ll have to think about whether to include quotes from opposing parties, but I appreciate the concrete suggestion!

Leave a Reply