This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What is "commodity money" and how does it differ from normal commodities?Is a gold standard, such as existed prior '72, a form of commodity money?
I would call a system where people contractually determined what money would be used in their transactions to be a "commodity money" system. Prior to 1971, the US was on a strange "gold exchange" standard where average people were prohibited from owning gold pursuant to unconstitutional statutes. Those two system are different, right? You list the ways.
Part of the prescriptive core of MMT describes the operations of a floating rate sovereign currency, which includes the vast majority of those national currencies in existence.Most of this description is basic accounting and is true by definition, being internally consistent.Non of the objections to MMT have been able to demonstrate an error in the accounting.Most objections concern the nature of existing monetary arrangements and whether or not the MMT description of floating rate sovereign currencies is accurate.That most currencies are floating rate is undeniable, that MMT describes this has yet to be demonstrated false, nor has anyone provided a correct alternative.All evidence, legal, regulatory, etc, indicates that MMT does accurately describe current monetary arrangements.Any explanation of the money system must explain the operations of a floating rate regime and how it differs from a fixed rate.Any theory of money that cannot account for the operations of a floating rate currency is utterly useless in a world of floating rate currencies.I have yet to hear any Austrian describe how a floating rate currency differs from a fixed, or even that such a distinction exists.Austrians need to provide details, & yes this includes the accounting, on 1) how they believe the current monetary system operates, 2) given current arrangements what policies to they advocate & 3) what in the end do they want, the policies, institutions, etc.
The MMT "accounting" process does not account for much. Like voluntary transactions and their terms. Or $220 trillion in unfunded adult diaper changing services for baby boomers.And that "new net financial assets" crap is just a Cantillon Effect of squirting of stolen purchasing power to the new recipients. And you guys think you are just SO DEEP.When MMTers claim that the government's deficit is the private sector's surplus, there are 2 scenarios. The first is when the deficit is all borrowed debt. Some part of the private sector owes all that debt to another part of the private sector. So, contrary to your insinuations, there is NO free lunch there. And no accounting for who in the private sector actually owes the debt or to whom.The second scenario is when the government just spends money into existence in excess of tax receipts (which at present it DOES NOT DO). The recipients of the new funny are receiving purchasing power from those holding the existing money. There is only a free lunch for the recipient but an equal loss for the victim. And MMT makes no accounting for it.MMT is a scam.Further, the Austrian School has analyzed the nefarious effects of fiat funny money until we’re blue in the face. But facts and analysis are just like water rolling off a duck’s back to an MMTer.