Net Financial Assets v. ‘Net Debt Financial Assets’

Whenever MMTers (proponents of Modern Monetary Theory) say that the ‘gov’t deficit equals our non gov’t savings’, or ‘the gov’t red ink is our black ink’, the technical term for that ‘black ink’, those ‘savings’, is Net Financial Assets (NFA). Those that are uninitiated to MMT don’t use the term NFA—whenever the mainstream talks about the cumulative amount of all federal gov’t deficit spending-to-date, their technical term for it is ‘The National Debt’.
Net Financial Assets (NFA) are USUALLY created ONLY by the federal gov’t (‘exogenously’ / ‘vertically’) when deficit spending, and not by banks (‘endogenously’ / ‘horizontally’); BUT, there is an exception. In a 03/25/17 RP broadcast, Warren Mosler pointed out that banks CAN and DO, on many occasions, actually add Net Financial Assets (unintentionally) when they have negative capital (when a bank loan, +/or a bank itself, defaults). A bank loan default or an outright bank failure acts as ‘synthetic’ federal gov’t deficit spending adding NFA because monies were lent out endogenously and will NEVER be paid back. In other words, banks occasionally go out of their lane and bank money is (unintentionally) created without *actual* debt attached, as if it was created like the federal gov’t, the sole monopoly ‘supplier’ of money, creates money—with very little intention of ever being paid back.
The Bush economic ‘expansion’ was fueled by ‘synthetic federal gov’t deficit spending’ (questionable private sector subprime loans and financial derivatives that all defaulted).
The Clinton ‘boom’ was fueled by ‘synthetic federal gov’t deficit spending’ (private sector loans that defaulted because of the dot-com bust).
The Reagan ‘miracle’ was fueled by ‘synthetic federal gov’t deficit spending’ (almost a trillion dollars in defaulted private sector loans during the S&L debacle, THE ENTIRE SIZE OF THE TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT AT THAT TIME).
The ‘roaring’ twenties was fueled by ‘synthetic federal gov’t spending’ (private sector loans using leverage that financed stock speculation with minuscule margin requirements that all went bust).
Mr. Mosler muses that he “can’t think of a single boom year that WASN’T attributable to either out of control or outright fraudulent bank lending to the private sector that would never have been allowed with proper hindsight!”
In other words, instead of ‘synthetic’ federal gov’t deficit spending (additions of ‘synthetic’ NFAs into the banking system), “we could have had those economic booms legally, easily, and simply, by just increasing federal gov’t deficit spending with proper foresight,” Mr. Mosler added.
MMTers can go beyond the ‘NFAs can only be created by the federal government’ meme if MMTers can accept that synthetic NFAs like in the examples above are possible.
Nick “MineThis1” Hionas, a co-creator of Pure MMT for the 100% (along with co-contributor Charles “Kondy” Kondak), makes an interesting posit that synthetic NFAs, or as he calls them, ‘Net Debt Financial Assets’ (NDFA) are created in the non federal gov’t, by the rest of us, when we borrow dollars (when we deficit spend). The default instances mentioned above, since they were all horizontally created by the non federal gov’t (by the banks in the private sector), are all great examples of ‘NDFA’ (or, ‘permanent NDFA’) that, just like actual NFAs created vertically by the federal gov’t, are dollars permanently existing in the banking system today because they weren’t paid back (nor will they ever be paid back).
Just to make sure readers are following all that, let’s take a step back. If you want to buy anything, you must use dollars, but what must you use if you want to buy dollars?
Whenever the federal gov’t deficit spends, it’s a two-part creation of newly-created IOUs, aka Treasury bonds, (created and given to those that bought the bonds) AND newly-created $$$ (created and given to those who provisioned the gov’t). Note that it is the same entity that created both. In other words, in the post-gold standard, modern monetary system, it is not an actual debt for the federal gov’t because the IOU is denominated in fiat $$$ (and it is easy for the ‘issuer’ to get more $$$). Also note that the par amount of the bond is the exact amount of the addition of NFA (Net Financial Assets) going into the banking system—to the penny.
The same goes for the nonfederal gov’t. Whenever you deficit spend and need to get a loan from a bank, or any other financial institution (whether it is to get a jumbo mortgage to buy a home or just to pay for a quick lunch with a credit card), it’s a two-part creation—you are getting newly-created $$$ in exchange for your newly-created IOU. Your IOU (your guarantee) is a promise, in writing (your signature on a 50-page mortgage document or on a tiny credit card receipt) to pay the loan back, with interest, aka ‘your bond’. If you don’t have any dollars and you want some dollars (if you want to ‘buy’ dollars), then you need to ‘sell’ your ‘bond’, to an entity, to a financial intermediary, that will ‘sell’ you dollars (if they want to ‘buy’ your ‘bond’). Your bond is the asset, the collateral, that you just newly created, that you just conjured up ‘out of thin air’ and handed over in exchange for the newly-created $$$. The borrower creates the IOU for the lender and the lender creates the $$$ for the borrower (to reconcile both sides of both counterparty’s balance sheets). In other words, also FOCUS ON THE BOND CREATION when thinking about any money creation by both the federal gov’t and the nonfederal gov’t that are net additions of $$$ into the banking system. Whether it’s the federal gov’t deficit spending (for a new Mars rover) or it’s the nonfederal gov’t deficit spending (for a fresh cup of Starbucks), both are creating a bond (an IOU that guarantees to pay the $$$ back with interest), and selling it, in exchange for money—aka ‘debt monetization’. Loans create deposits (creations of $$$), yes; however, don’t forget the part where YOUR creations of BONDS CREATE LOANS. When YOU (the nonfederal gov’t) create the IOU (the ‘bond’), that’s the creation—the financial institution, the mortgage bank, the Visa card company, etc, is not creating the $$$, THEY ARE FACILITATING YOUR creation of $$$. When you pay back the IOU, your creation is destroyed. So the takeaway is that rather than seeing all (federal gov’t & nonfederal gov’t) deficit spending as just money creation, remember to also see it as a bond creation, or quite simply, as just another bond trade; except that this bond trade is settled with newly-created bonds & newly-created $$$ that unlike all (federal gov’t & nonfederal gov’t) surplus spending, are net additions of financial assets going into the banking system. The difference between federal gov’t (vertically-created) NFA and nonfederal gov’t (horizontally-created) NDFA is that nonfederal gov’t attached debt—an *actual* debt—which is an actual problem for the nonfederal gov’t because it isn’t as easy for the nonfederal gov’t (user) to get more $$$ as the federal gov’t (issuer) that has attached quote ‘debt’ unquote.
When we are talking about either NFA or NDFA, remember that we are talking about an addition of Net Financial ASSETS or Net Debt Financial ASSETS into the banking system (and not talking about an addition of CAPITAL). The newly-created bond does not add capital. Your net worth doesn’t go up when you create money in exchange for your newly-created bond because any newly-created bond ‘nets-out’ with the newly-created money (assets minus liabilities equal capital). Although it is fact that nonfederal gov’t borrowing has actual debt attached to the loans (that all nonfederal gov’t loans ‘net-out’), the MineThis1 insight here is that the moment bank loans create those dollars—as soon as those dollars go into circulation—they are ‘NDFA’. More specifically, the instant those nonfederal gov’t dollars are newly-created, they are ‘temporary’ NDFA; and as soon as the loan is paid off, they are not NDFA anymore, those dollars are newly-destroyed. The key takeaway here is that while NDFA technically ‘nets-out’, that could take awhile (and in the meantime, those newly-created $$$, those ASSETS, are circulating in the economy).
If in the event, as Mr. Mosler described above, that the borrower, or the lender, defaults (negative capital), then they are never destroyed, they become ‘permanent’ NDFA.
Keep in mind that similar to the nonperforming loan that defaults (becomes permanent NDFA), even the healthy loans that do not default (temporary NDFA) are usually not paid off for quite awhile. These assets are ‘pumping the economic prime’ for a very long time. Just like a consumer 30-year mortgage on Main Street in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or an institutional debt obligation on Wall Street that is perpetually rolling over in the hundreds of millions of dollars, many healthy loans take many years to ‘net-out’.
In the meantime, along with NFAs created by the federal gov’t, these NDFAs created in the non federal gov’t, they are also working their long-term magic (they are the ‘smoking gun’ of good economies too), which is helping the bottom line of US households—that at last count have over $100T in net worth.
Note that is a “T” as in TRILLION and that is a NET amount. That is the amount that US households have AFTER all their loans ‘net-out’ (which is a far greater amount than the current running total of NFAs created by the federal gov’t).
Thanks for reading,
Follow us at Pure MMT for the 100% 
Follow MineThis1 and his REAL MACRO trading instructors
P.S. The sooner folks get Nick’s ‘NDFA’ insight, the better they will see the moving pieces. Here’s another way of explaining ‘NDFA’: Unlike SURPLUS spending (where $$$ received are a wash with $$$ spent), when both the federal gov’t and the nonfederal gov’t DEFICIT spends, they are creating a bond AND creating money. The creation of the federal gov’t bond is the NFA added to the banking system and the creation of the nonfederal gov’t ‘bond’ is the ‘NDFA’ added to the banking system. The crucial difference is that when the federal gov’t creates the bond and the money, it’s the same entity doing both; when the nonfederal gov’t creates the bond and the money, it’s separate entities (the ‘seller’ of the bond is creating the bond and the ‘seller’ of the money is creating the money). Meaning that, since the federal gov’t (Monopoly Bank) issues both the bond and the fiat $$$ (Monopoly Money)—that the federal gov’t Treasury bond is denominated in—it’s not an actual ‘debt’; versus the nonfederal gov’t (Monopoly Players), who do NOT issue the money, so any nonfederal gov’t bond (IOU, mortgage, loan, credit card balance, etc) is an actual debt. That the federal gov’t (or any monetary sovereign spending their own fiat money) is never in actual ‘debt’ nor ever ‘goes broke’ is what MMTers know today (and what Charles Darrow knew in 1933 when he wrote the rules for his version of The Monopoly Game). For example, servicing debt is an actual problem for the nonfederal gov’t (the Monopoly Players). The Monopoly Game doesn’t end because The Monopoly Bank (the ‘issuer’) runs out of money, the Monopoly Game ends because The Monopoly Players (the ‘users’) run out of money.

If alive today the 7th President of the United States would love this idea.

On January 1, 1835, Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, paid off the entire US national debt.

However, as most MMTers know, running federal budget surpluses, like President Jackson did, is asking for economic trouble.

Similar to a private sector ‘deleveraging’ of debt (‘destroying’ of dollars) which can create a ‘paradox of thrift’, it can also trigger a full-blown ‘deflationary spiral’. So it’s never a good idea for the federal gov’t to pay down debt (to ‘destroy’ dollars)—unless federal policymakers intentionally want to slow the economy.

That’s why it isn’t a coincidence that all six depressions in US history, including The Panic of 1837, were preceded (were started) by sustained federal budget surpluses that decreased debt. Furthermore, it also isn’t a coincidence that the 2008 Great Recession and those six depressions were succeeded (were ended) by sustained federal budget deficits that increased debt.

In the post-gold standard, modern monetary system, there’s another way to pay down federal debt that doesn’t ‘destroy’ dollars. Let’s call it ‘Quantitative Redemption’ (QR).

If alive today the 7th President of the United States would love this.

In a QR, the Fed would announce that the $2.4T in Treasury bonds presently on their balance sheet are, effective immediately, redeemed (‘called’ before maturity date). We are only redeeming the Treasury bonds (20yr< maturity) and Treasury notes (10yr – 20yr maturity) on their balance sheet, not the other $1.8T in Agency bonds and Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) the Fed also bought and are also on their balance sheet.

How this QR works is ridiculously easy. There is nothing to actually do, except announce that instead of continuing to keep these Treasury bonds ‘impounded’ (held on the Fed’s balance sheet) from the Large Scale Asset Program (LSAP) / a.k.a. ‘Quantitative Easing’ (QE), the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has declared all these Treasury bonds redeemed, and no longer exist (or the FOMC may decide to do this piecemeal, whatever). This QR wouldn’t be anything new. Redeeming bonds is not an exotic concept, it’s done all the time by everyone, the only difference being that this would be the first time the federal gov’t is doing it with Treasury bonds. For example, other bond issuers like businesses that issue debt (‘corporate bonds’) and municipalities that issue debt (‘muni bonds’) have called their bonds before maturity date. This happened a lot since the credit crisis (since the LSAP program) because prevailing interest rates fell way below the rates being paid out to bondholders, so these particular issuers exercised what is known as an embedded call option. Similar to an ‘assignment’ in any option trade that is exercised, if bonds are called by the bond issuer, the bondholder has no say in the matter. Bondholders are simply notified that their bonds are being returned to the issuer and the bondholders then receive a cash payment in full for the entire bond principal (‘par value’) plus any remaining accrued interest at the financial institution where the bonds are held (‘registered’). This is exactly what the Fed did to Wall Street bondholders during LSAP. A Main Street example of a bond call, if a homeowner decides to pay off a mortgage before the term (‘prepayment’), same thing, the homeowner called the ‘bond’ (the debt owed) from the issuer (the lender). What Ben Bernanke did during LSAP was also not much different from a company purchasing its own shares (‘buyback’), which if not retired, are held on the company’s balance sheet (‘Treasury stock’). In fact, as a US Treasury bond broker during the QE years, whenever I spoke to primary dealers or confirmed trades with their settlement departments, ‘buybacks’ is exactly what they called QE. Most of the folks on Wall Street (correctly) referred to QE as ‘Fed buybacks’ while The Very Smart People on cable news & talk radio (incorrectly) called it ‘debt monetization’. The beauty of this QR idea is that this buyback step is already done. There is *literally* nothing the Fed has to do. All of the $2.4T in Treasury bonds were already called; all of the Wall Street bondholders were already paid back their $2.4T; all of the markets already had their ‘temper tantrum’; and even though that net addition of $2.4T into the banking system (by the Fed to pay for those bonds) had an inflationary bias, it caused no inflation whatsoever (because the economy was so weak it vaporized on impact like a brief sun-shower at high noon).

If the Fed did a QR this year, it’s actually not a redemption of the Treasury bonds this year, it’s only making it official that there was a redemption of Treasury bonds during the LSAP years. On December 29, 2008 the Fed began QE1, and after a combined total $2.4T of Treasury bond buybacks, the Fed ended QE3 on September 24, 2014. Now let’s step back from the picture and take another look at what happened. Prior to the 2008 credit crisis, one arm of the federal gov’t (the Treasury department) sold $2.4T in Treasury bonds, and then after the crisis another arm (the Federal Reserve Bank) bought them back. Except unlike any regular Joe Blow who buys back his own IOUs, instead of ripping them up, the federal gov’t didn’t rip them up. The federal gov’t put those IOUs, their own IOUs, in their own pocket. Then the federal gov’t started making semi-annual interest payments to itself, from itself, on all $2.4T of these Treasury bonds, on its own IOUs (and still does to this day). The point is, that all those Treasury bonds could have been declared ‘paid off’ the day Ben Bernanke created dollars (‘reserves’) and credited the sellers of those bonds long ago, but the Fed didn’t do that.

The difference between Chairman Ben Bernanke and Joe Blow was that Ben did not have the authority from Congress to pay those bonds off. The Fed is only a ‘swap’ desk. Just like any other bank, the Federal Reserve Bank can only create dollars as long as it’s in exchange for a swap of assets. The Congress is the ‘outright’ desk. Only Congress can allow any action that would outright change the cumulative count of previously authorized deficit spending (the ‘national debt’). The Fed cannot usurp the ‘power of the purse’ from Congress. Hence the Fed impounding the bonds during LSAP on the Fed’s balance sheet for a future unwinding (another swap that is ‘printing’ bonds back into the secondary market and simultaneously ‘unprinting’ dollars). So in reality a QR would just be the Fed going through the formality of getting permission to formally declare that the bonds were already redeemed.

If QR was done and the Fed redeems (debits) the Treasury bonds, there must be an equal and opposite ledger entry (credit) to replace them. In other words, something must replace these Fed assets (‘balance sheet repair’). Congress could authorize the Treasury to mint a $2.4T coin to be transferred to the Fed. Again, this would not be anything exotic nor unprecedented (The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 authorized the Fed to transfer all of its gold to the Treasury in exchange for gold certificates denominated in dollars). This would effectively replace the Treasury bonds (dollars with a coupon and a specific maturity date) with a coin (dollars without a coupon and a perpetual maturity date) without needing to create and enter dollars into the banking system (it was already done).

Here’s the best part. This QR, this redemption, this removal of $2.4T of previous ‘Debt Held By The Public’ will mark down the national debt from approx $21.8T to $19.4T, an ELEVEN PERCENT DECREASE, not a bad day’s work. If the US did this, perhaps Japan, a country with a national debt of over ONE QUADRILLION yen, might follow suit. In a single day, the BOJ could announce a quantitative redemption amounting to approx 425 trillion yen of Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) presently held on their balance sheet as of May 20, 2017. That would be an overnight reduction of their national debt of 43%.

Which would get other people (Swiss National Bank’s Balance Sheet to GDP as of November 2018 is 125%, the ECB’s is 41% and the Bank of England’s is 20%) around the world thinking that the big bad national ‘debt’ problem might not be such a big bad problem after all.

What MMTers have been saying all along.

Thanks for reading,

Follow us at Pure MMT for the 100%

Follow MineThis1 and the Real Macro trading instructors

P.S. ‘QE unwind’ is Wizard of Oz type stuff. It’s a prototype of end-game Pure MMT. It’s just a matter of time before they pull back the curtain and just level with everyone that federal gov’t DEFICIT spending (that isn’t ‘funded’ by taxes) is ‘cash-financed’—that bonds never have to be issued and sold in the first place. Treasury bonds are needed to be issued and sold to fulfill savings desires, yes; to help keep inflation in check, yes; to keep a running count of and to keep Congress having the ‘power of the purse’ on deficit spending, yes; but to ‘fund’ deficit spending, no. Something like a ‘QR’ is what it will take to change mainstream thinking from where we are now—from today’s MMT phase (where federal deficit spending is cash-financed under a guise of being ‘bond-financed’)—to the after, fully post-gold standard, end-game Pure MMT phase (where we stop saying ‘federal debt’, federal ‘deficit’ spending or even trade ‘deficit’).

(‘Progressive’) good intentions that may have (‘neoliberal’) unintended consequences

Why the student loan debt crisis didn't collapse America ?‍??‍????#Economics#BearsCantReadDataCorrectly

Posted by Logan Mohtashami on Sunday, November 18, 2018


Bill Mitchell was pointing out an inconvenient truth when he said “Progressives are neoliberals in disguise / Greens are neoliberals on bikes”!

One of the Pure MMT for the 100% insights is that political ‘prescription’ MMTers are unwittingly peddling policies that an actual ‘neoliberal’ would love too.

For example, the unintended consequence of the progressive ‘Wipe Out The Student Debt’ agenda is more dollars flowing to the top 5%.

In the enclosed video, Logan (who refers to the prescription MMTers as the ‘extreme ideological people’) explains. By the way, just in case you are wondering if Logan understands MMT, read this quote and decide for yourself:

“Student loan debt was never a crisis in terms of macroeconomics. If we had a high percentage of home loans delinquent, of credit cards delinquent, if we had 30% of auto loans in delinquency, we would see it, in the economy; but not for student loan debt, why, because those loans are tied to the federal gov’t and the federal gov’t is a bank that has unlimited ability to borrow —so there’s no concern about that, there’s no runs on private banks with student loan debt.”—Logan Mohtashami

Also note that Logan is NOT bashing the Wipe Out The Student Debt ‘prescription’. In fact, he goes on to say that it’s for the voters to decide (and he actually does think that over time the federal gov’t will provide some form of free college because it’s not expensive compared to the rest of the federal budget). What Logan concludes here, however, is what Pure MMT has been saying all along (warning about feeding $$$ into the saving bubble —instead of creating a feedback loop out of the savings bubble).

“Here’s the problem with ‘Wipe Out The Student Debt’. If you don’t understand how data works, student debt looks like this daunting thing and you believe that college-educated Americans are sitting in little tents eating ramen.”

“Here’s the breakdown, 70% of all student loans is actually under $15k—not so daunting. People with over $70,000 of student loan debt is a very small portion of society. Of these people who do have 70k – 100k of student loan debt, they are usually rich people.”

“These are the people that make money, that have healthcare, that have homes, cars and a 401k. Don’t worry about these people. Trust me. They are the people that make the most money, the people that work the most, and the people that have the lowest unemployment.”

“The ones that have the highest student loan debt are the people that are the wealthiest. So in a sense, by saying ‘Wipe Out The Student Debt’, you are facilitating wealth inequality.”

In addition, which Logan is happy to see, the (‘progressive’) New York Times agrees:

Thanks for reading and HAPPY THANKSGIVING,

Follow us at Pure MMT for the 100% at

Follow MineThis1 and his Real Macro trading instructors at

P.S. Regarding the federal ‘job guarantee’ proposal, this was Warren Mosler’s tweet (a reply to a Global Institute for Sustainable Development’s tweet sharing a poll finding that says 52% of Americans support a federal JG, even more so if those jobs help mitigate and adapt to climate change. 66% support Green New Deal-style proposals):

“I see those jobs as ‘standard’ gov jobs with standard federal pay and benefits etc. The jg isn’t meant to replace/undermine ‘normal’ gov employment.”—Warren Mosler

Perhaps Mr. Mosler is now seeing what Jim ‘MineThis1’ Boukis and Charles ‘Kondy’ Kondak have been saying all along at Pure MMT for the 100%, which is that we already have a military and a civil service (we already have a federal ‘jg’) that could do those jobs.

It seems like Mr. Mosler (now that midterm elections, including his own, are over and he is back to thinking in clear economic ‘description’ MMT mode instead of political ‘prescription’ MMT mode) is getting concerned about MMTers framing their jg as being needed to do those jobs. Which would have the unintended (‘neoliberal’) consequence of replacing/undermining the military & civil service workforce—as well as all other (‘progressive’) automatic stabilizers already in place.




Political ‘Prescription’ MMTer Kids Say The Darnedest Things

These ‘scholars’ are so quick to downplay federal taxation when it comes to peddling their dopey policy proposals (like having the federal gov’t spend $500B creating make-work JG ‘jobs’—during a labor shortage), that if you dare question the merit of using federal taxes on their ideas (if you don’t think a certain progressive agenda’s spending proposal is a good use of surplus funds), then the political ‘prescription’ MMTer will reprimand you for not understanding that ‘taxes are a false narrative’ (that ‘taxes are irrelevant’) and that you need to stop being a ‘racist’.

“You’ll see me fighting against people saying ‘the taxpayer dollar’ because saying it is a racist xenophobic trope that is used to great precision.”—Green Party of Pennsylvania November Conference Keynote speaker Steve Grumbine

“‘Taxpayer funds’ is a false narrative.”— Francisco Flores (@FFlorescpa)

“The proceeds from federal tax collections are irrelevant.”—Ellis Winningham


…if you listen to what these political ‘prescription’ MMTers also say about federal taxes when it fits their narrative, you’ll hear something like this:
“Number 9, federal taxation allows the US Government policy space to provision itself.”—Steve Grumbine, ’10 MMT truths’
“If inflation starts getting out of hand (say, approaches 4%), take action: Congress increases federal tax rates aggressively across the board…”—FFlorescpa, ‘Financing Economic Solutions to Unemployment and Accompanying Social Problems’
“MMT is quite extensive. It is not as simple as ‘Hey, federal taxes don’t fund federal spending’. So, to the activist I will say that if you only discuss this singular point endlessly, you are leaving a huge hole for people to drive a truck through. You are creating your own headaches.”—Ellis Winningham
And just like that, federal tax collections are relevant, taxpayer funds aren’t a false narrative, and if you are talking about taxpayer dollars then you aren’t a racist.

Thanks for reading,

Follow us at Pure MMT for the 100%

P.S. If you want to understand how money works, you need to understand how money trades; so stop watching the gains, and be a part of them…Follow MINETHIS1 and his Real Macro instructors at IMMT Investing




Once upon a time when MMT was the description not the prescription…

MMT & the Fourth Spark Plug: Descriptive vs. Prescriptive revisited

Once upon a time, before MMT was hijacked by ‘scholars’ that put themselves in charge of ‘solving’ your problems and ‘helping’ people, MMT was the description not the prescription.

As they keep trying to self-fulfill their gloom-and-doom prophecies (while capitalism solves our problems and people help themselves), political ‘prescription’ MMTers, who want to dismantle capitalism and replace it with a cradle-to-grave welfare state, keep pushing fake narratives like ‘The US economy is a junk economy’. Just like the stereotypical (untrustworthy) used-car salesman, they keep using slick stories, like the ‘unconnected spark plug’, to make their sale for the ‘Job Guarantee’ (a Universal Basic Income with a soviet-style, make-work requirement).

Rather than condemning those unemployed spark plugs into a $500B federally-funded Job GUARANTEE program (during a labor shortage and that by ‘prescription’ MMT design doesn’t compete with private sector jobs); perhaps a better idea would be to connect them with a job TRAINING program (that gives them the needed skills to get private sector jobs). Which is exactly what the current administration is doing right now AND we are seeing good results (i.e. record-low unemployment, increasing wage growth —above 3% —not seen since the recession and all this Fed unwinding because the economy is getting stronger).

NOTE: Just to keep this post apolitical, it’s fine if you don’t credit Trump for that (and let’s just instead credit all the presidents plus We The People because we are all in this together).

The political ‘prescription’ MMT notion of a ‘free lunch’ (don’t worry about How Are We Going To Pay For It…’because MMT’) ignores the unintended consequences of good intentions.

Do you really think that if tomorrow, the federal gov’t started assigning the unemployed with a ‘guaranteed’ chore and gave them a ‘living’ allowance (giving them a fish so they eat for a day), that *poof* they would be better off (versus teaching them the skills how to fish so they eat forever)…because MMT?

Do you really think that if tomorrow, the federal gov’t started paying for an uninsured’s healthcare, that *poof* they would start taking better care of themselves and begin living a healthier lifestyle (versus a plan where the federal gov’t annually funds your own personal tax-advantaged Health Savings Account starting at age 19 which creates a greater incentive to live a healthy lifestyle)…’because MMT’?

Do you really think that if tomorrow, the federal gov’t forgave someone’s student debt, that *poof* they would become financially responsible, make sound spending decisions and no longer rack up personal debts (versus having the federal gov’t relax/reform bankruptcy laws on nondischargeable debt)…’because MMT’?

If so, then I have a used car to sell you that’s “running terribly, sputtering and with little power” but don’t worry, the only thing wrong is that “one of the spark plug cables is simply unconnected”.

Thanks for reading,

Follow us at Pure MMT For The 100%

P.S. If you want to learn how money works, then you need to learn how money trades, so follow MINETHIS1 and his REAL MACRO instructors: