Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Carlitos Wrote: I suppose it depends on their economic advice?
I think we can both agree that he wouldn't have Clinton advisers on his team.
Carlitos Wrote: Sanders never went with Modern Monetary Theory(MMT) on the campaign trail, but he should have. He would have avoided the criticism that he didn't actually have a plan. But it would have necessitated confronting the deficits myths head on and the "democratic socialist" Senator didn't want to have that kind of fight in a primary/election. While Sanders may get the MMT message in private from association with Kelton, he's couldn't be THE public messenger and wasn't willing to take on the costs and risks of the controversy it would create. It's hard to introduce revolutionary ideas, while reversing one's public positions about government deficits held for decades (in line with popularly held conventions across party and independent lines), when you are trying to NOT make people nervous about your "socialist" political label. So I sympathize with Sanders' choices, and maybe he wasn't the guy to promote the MMT message. As Hillary says, "if you can't explain it, you can't sell it, and it sits on the shelf."
Even Jill Stein copped from a full throat endorsement of MMT by stating that it is something we need to discuss and talk about before implementing.
Stephanie Kelton is that special kind of progressive educator that can explain and sell the "deficit owl" position (contrary to both "deficit hawks" and "deficit doves") to both liberal and conservative audiences. She's in front of financial audiences regularly and steals the show. She could have been a wonderful asset for the Sanders campaign on the trail and speaking as a surrogate, but she wasn't given the opportunity.
I'm just not a big believer in MMT, especially with how our Constitution is set up. There would have to be enough people elected to both houses of Congress to vote for such a drastic change to monetary policy and I think we aren't anywhere near that ever actually happening.
The reason MMT hasn't taken off is because it's a fringe idea. Dramatically changing the value of money in the United States hasn't happened since the 37th Congress authorized the use of Greenback notes.
That was during a Civil War.
You can argue that going off the gold standard in 1971 was revolutionary, but it wasn't nearly as revolutionary as declaring that government issued tokens will wipe away all of the nations debts and obligations.
Constitution has nothing to do with it.
No vote to change monetary policy has to happen.
Value of US dollars doesn't have to change.
Nobody is talking about wiping away the nation's debts or obligations.
All Congress has to do is recognize that they are not constrained by financial solvency constraints outside of what they impose on themselves. They can't run out of US dollars to spend. If we default on obligations, it is a political choice. If they refuse to spend or cut taxes when the economy is cold, that's a political choice.
Something tells me you haven't read the MMT literature?
And your pro-Clinton bias has you biased against anything connected with Sanders.
Heather Boushey was recently picked by Clinton as the head economist of her transition team. She's an Econ PhD from the New School for Social Research, a heterodox school, and where Stephanie Kelton also received her PhD.
Boushey is an inequality expert and could have easily served in a Sanders administration.