Australia - you're standing in it
Hutchy 19 wrote:If the platform and pathway upgrade doesn't lead to a better walking and viewing experience for everyone then it should never have been planned and not built . Money should be spent more wisely upgrading facilities like toilets and change rooms .
A ciggy shop is stupid as the tourists would have planned for a day out and have a good supply .
If it would be only used for better viewing of the Bells contest then it is a waste and good on everyone for stopping it .
hutchy it's a moot point now as just a couple of us defeated the State Government/ SurfCoast Shire Council/ .Surf Coast Shire officers/Surfing Vic/WSL.......took 2 years .....there will be no platform!
The power of a vocal minority which had a good cause . Well done as I have said .
We can now move on to Capitalism and the wonderful benefits it has given to human society .
A ciggy shop?! Hahah fuck hutchy you’re unreal
Buy a deck of Winnie Reds on the way out to Winki
Hutchy 19 wrote:We can now move on to Capitalism and the wonderful benefits it has given to human society .
Indeed it has, if only there were a way to temper the extremities.
The laissez faire attitude that promotes inequality and social instability.
The exclusion of economic externalities that encourages environmental destruction.
The aggregation of hyper wealth that outstrips sovereign authority.
Hey-yup for capitalism but if something ain't done about those three factors then future generations will bemoan it the way you do feudalism.
goofy - I did make a mistake and read stop as shop . Too quick again .
Brutus- Your experience dipping your toe into political waters sounds just as I’d imagine. That’s why I have no tolerance for politicians. I’m not sure how you handled the smear campaign. If it was me I reckon it’d end up like one of those all in brawls you see in Korean parliament.
Imagine Scomo or the Beetrooter delivering public lies right to your face. Zero chance I’d be able to refrain from jumping the rail and slapping the bastards. That’s why I’m not suited for politics at any level. Thank Christ there’s people like yourself willing to do the right thing and expose yourself to the brutal tactics of those scumbags.
If you’d permit me to repurpose an old joke :
Q/ What do you call a thousand politicians at the bottom of the ocean?
A/ A good start.
Stu - Capitalism is not perfect but it is FAR better than any alternative . A lot of posts on this site are very negative towards it and are very uninformed .
"The laissez faire attitude that promotes inequality and social instability. " Wrong . It has done the opposite . Getting rid of feudalism promote equality and stability . 1600-1700 was the century of crisis .
The two world wars were the only period of major instability ( compared to the usual state ) and were not caused by capitalism .
"The exclusion of economic externalities that encourages environmental destruction." Wrong again .
Humans are smart and can factor in externalities . That's why we have parks , want to close the ozone hole , save endangered animals ( like whales we then find out they can be tourist attractions ) , stop logging old growth forests etc etc.
"The aggregation of hyper wealth that outstrips sovereign authority." I agree ! So you are against Gates ,Soros , Rothschild ,Big Tech , Big Pharma etc . I am worried about them to .
We've removed forum signatures, but if we reinstated them, mine would say:
"A ciggy shop at Winkipop is stupid as the tourists would have planned for a day out and have a good supply".
“Humans are smart and can factor in externalities . That's why we have parks , want to close the ozone hole , save endangered animals ( like whales we then find out they can be tourist attractions ) etc etc.”
Parks and closing the ozone hole were the result of government, not capitalism. And it was the excess of capitalism which drove whales to the brink of extinction, there was no whale tourism until 30 years after our society declared them protected
stunet wrote:Hutchy 19 wrote:We can now move on to Capitalism and the wonderful benefits it has given to human society .
Indeed it has, if only there were a way to temper the extremities.
The laissez faire attitude that promotes inequality and social instability.
The exclusion of economic externalities that encourages environmental destruction.
The aggregation of hyper wealth that outstrips sovereign authority.Hey-yup for capitalism but if something ain't done about those three factors then future generations will bemoan it the way you do feudalism.
No system is perfect but capitalism is the most perfect it's the one corner of a triangle the other being freedom & democracy.
Most of the negatives seen by capitalism is actually as a result of Crony Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
Nah Hutchy,
Laissez faire capitalism is a shonk. Markets need regulating as pure capitalism encourages vested interests who distort them to their own ends. The only people who'd disagree are those who stand to benefit.
"Humans are smart and can factor in externalities." Quite possibly the most naive thing you've ever written here, which is saying something. If humans can factor in externalities then tell me why we haven't done so yet? Came close with the Carbon Tax but the Mad Monk killed it. Abbott: the most destructive person in Australian politics and destined to be our worse PM ever, outclassing another Liberal scholar, Billy McMahon.
Yeah, I also don't think anyone needs the wealth those people and industries accrued. Never thought a right winger like yourself would agree to the Mining Tax but good on you for getting onside for a fairer Australia.
indo-dreaming wrote:Most of the negatives seen by capitalism is actually as a result of Crony Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
See also: The last eight years of Liberal National Party government.
Wasn't there a band called Ciggieshop that had a song called Brim Full Of Ashes at The Winkipop.
Blowin wrote:Brutus- Your experience dipping your toe into political waters sounds just as I’d imagine. That’s why I have no tolerance for politicians. I’m not sure how you handled the smear campaign. If it was me I reckon it’d end up like one of those all in brawls you see in Korean parliament.
Imagine Scomo or the Beetrooter delivering public lies right to your face. Zero chance I’d be able to refrain from jumping the rail and slapping the bastards. That’s why I’m not suited for politics at any level. Thank Christ there’s people like yourself willing to do the right thing and expose yourself to the brutal tactics of those scumbags.
If you’d permit me to repurpose an old joke :
Q/ What do you call a thousand politicians at the bottom of the ocean?
A/ A good start.
yeah Blowin , I had a choice in getting Stat decs , and making a huge public scene out of the cooments....have a friend who is a great lawyer , he organized a top lawyer pro bono...but why would I spend the next couple of years caught up in a political libel and slander case...I already know how corrupt politicians are and how broken the system is.....so took a deep breath forgave the people involved , as it's really their problem......was angry, anger stops with forgiveness and I found a peace......you have no idea the fight within to rain down revenge and retribution a
which is the old me...actions speak louder than words....and that is one of the hardest life changes one can entertain let alone adopt!
which means I can come onto SN and harass you haha,LOL!
Stu - your dislike of me ( which I have no problem with ) is making you write things that make you seem as thick as a brick .
""Humans are smart and can factor in externalities." Quite possibly the most naive thing you've ever written here, which is saying something. If humans can factor in externalities then tell me why we haven't done so yet? "
I gave you numerous examples . I can give you so many more , look at the wonderful reserves in Africa that bring in so much money for the locals . You point to ONE that did not happen ie the Carbon ( dioxide) Tax . There are much better ways to reduce CO2 than bring in a complicated system that can be rorted and avoided . Maybe like Wall St you want carbon trading .
Never thought a Mining Tax a good idea . We have them paying royalties and taxes on their profits already . Why do you want to single out an industry for more pain ? Do you hate them ? Another complicated and easily rorted system .
It sounds like you love bureaucracy ! We would need 100k more to administer your two good ideas .
And then for your highlight of stupidness "Laissez faire capitalism is a shonk."
Let me let you in on something . It doesn't exist in our world . Like the tooth fairy and Santa .
Very happy to debate any of the above .
Thoughts you guys on the Sustainable Australia Party....seem good on paper.
"Thoughts you guys on the Sustainable Australia Party....seem good on paper."
that's who gets my vote, atop of complicated labrynth of preferences that put labor and liberal last
yes even below you know who...
Hutchy at the Ciggie Shop on the 45,
Numerous times you've banged on about the evils of regulation, govt interference in free markets, you even wrote that 'I like bureaucracy' in your post, so it's pretty damn obvious you're a proponent of laissez faire capitalism, whether you believe it exists or not.
A park is not an externality if it makes financial returns. Get your shit together. The most obvious externality is pollution that is created by industry and borne by the public. Capitalism has no inbuilt mechanism to counter that, so govts have tried to factor in things such as polluter pays or carbon tax price signals, but right wing zealots oppose them at every turn.
Happy to debate any of the above.
#smileyface
good onya brutus...
even though Im feeling a bit of a pygmy for thinking I could never get a decent view of the surf there... the last thing needed is a wsl / tour bus corrupted viewing platform
good fight
and good good fight choice...
ie. not taking the litigious route, no matter how tempting and profitable it can be...
we need less of that shit and thinking creeping into oz, not more
here's an externality you might like hutchy...
the fact we do not count the carbon costs for transporting all that plastic shit from china
also all the mega pollution coming from the shitty low regulations chinese plastic factory...
if we did, many places would be much more attractive for manufacturing over china...
just sayin
In terms of the debate about laissez-faire economics I would suggest reading The Price of Peace; Money, Democracy And The Life Of John Maynard Keynes by Zachary D. Carter. Keynesian economics showed the way out of the laissez-faire economics of the late 19th and early 20th Century. The application of his ideas led to the New Deal in the US, funded the allies in World War 2 and led to the greater equity and increase in living standards in the post-war period.
Neoliberalism arose in opposition to Keynesian economics. Its explicit goal was to recreate laissez-faire economics. The election of Reagan and Thatcher led to the implementation of neoliberal ideas and the economic distortions that continue to channel vast sums into ever fewer hands while reducing government services.
The pandemic has forced governments to return to Keynesian principles by pumping large amounts of money into the global economy. The question needs to be asked, if this can afforded now why previously could we not afford higher wages and welfare payments, the transition to renewables, better hospitals and schools, toll free roads etc etc?
If Keynesian economics can be reduced to a single sentence it would be "If we can do it, we can afford it." To explain this a little further, if we have the manpower, the skills and the resources to do something, any economic barriers to it are the result of poor policy. He dreamed of a world in which his grand-children would work a threee hour day. We could be living in that world now.
blindboy wrote:.
The question needs to be asked, if this can afforded now why previously could we not afford higher wages and welfare payments, the transition to renewables, better hospitals and schools, toll free roads etc etc?
Wages...they are already too high compared to the rest of the world, the higher they go the more jobs go overseas.
Welfare payments...because the money has to come from somewhere..plus higher wealth fare as we have seen decreases initiative to work for many.
Transition to renewables.....Already happening per captia we have the fastest uptake rate in the world, last week we hit a record of 60% renewable energy at one stage (storage is and will be the problem not renewable uptake or transition)
Better hospitals and schools, toll free roads etc all great but money needs to come from somewhere unless you believe in magic money trees theories.
yeah the money has to come from somewhere........but where?.....does it really matter....i mean they always seem to spend untold money on weapons subs etc but always struggle to spend it where it really matters...schools hospitals etc........but does it really matter or are we all being deluded into thinking it does.......americas a fine eg............just print more,change the rules etc who cares.....
Indo, Ross Gittins explains why the debt we have generated is not a significant problem. Given the levels we have generated in a very short period and that much of it ended up in corporate profits I think it us fair to conclude that successive governments have failed to invest sufficiently. Keynes also had quite a bit to say about how governments should spend their money. Neoliberal governments around the world have wasted huge sums that could have made a huge improvements in standards of living.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/stop-thinking-our-kids-will-...
Stu - I was a proponent of the tooth fairy and Santa for a while , my young children loved them . How can I want " laissez faire" capitalism when it hasn't existed for centuries and for very good reason . Quite obvious really .
I have never advocated the"evils of regulation, govt interference in free markets" . I have said that over regulation and too much government regulation is bad and stifles free enterprise .You criticised me for misrepresenting ( accidentally ) a quote . Then you deliberately misrepresent me by writing this "so it's pretty damn obvious you're a proponent of laissez faire capitalism " .
Even China recognised this and brought in as much capitalism as they could stomach .
Governments make good decisions with many externalities introduced . It is why we vote for them and give them power . This why I wrote in my first post "Humans are smart and can factor in externalities . "
Some more examples - getting lead out of petrol , installing catalytic converters in cars to reduce pollution .Most of the marine and wildlife parks were declared long before tourism showed the benefits and capitalism was the best system to take advantage of it . There are hundreds more if you can't get your head around this . "right wing zealots oppose them at every turn " I don't , I applauded these important initiatives . Are you misrepresenting me again .
Companies are highly incentivised to improve their practises . Look at the cost Johnson and Johnson have to incur by stuffing up . RIO by blowing up a sacred site . The list is almost endless . Investors reward companies that do the right thing by investing in them .
Time to take your head out of the sand .
sypkan "the fact we do not count the carbon costs for transporting all that plastic shit from china " .
A very blunt , ineffective and inefficient way to get plastics reduced . I hate the plastics in our oceans .
Why not just reward the other alternatives and provide R&D to develop them , phase them out over a specific time , put a direct tax on their use , only allow them to be used when there are no alternatives , put quotas and import duties on Chinese ( and other countries ) products that use plastics , ensure correct disposal etc etc . These things we can do immediately .
Your first sentence is a logical absurdity, Hutchy.
Comparing fictitious characters to an economic policy? One that still has powerful proponents pushing their beliefs to this day: smaller govts, no intervention in markets, individuals forcefully serving their own interests first.
Yeah, sounds like Santa doesn't it?
If I'm misrepresenting you then it's only because these are thoughts that you've repeatedly pushed on here. The miracle of free markets, the tyranny of regulation, the virtue of wealth.
Hutchy you may (or perhaps not) have heard of Milton Friedman. He was one of the leading economists behind the development of the laissez-faire system you champion. Maybe you should have a look at his beliefs.
He;
Argued against licensing doctors on economic grounds
Opposed integrating schools
Defined freedom as only the ability to participate in a free market
Considered the differences between the US New Deal policies and Soviet totalitarianism to be trivial
Called income tax, social security and public education “socialist”
Argued against universal suffrage for black South Africans during the apartheid era.
If those are policies you approve of you cannot expect to be taken seriously. Further I would suggest that instead of indulging in long streams of poorly organised generalisations you consider supporting at least some of your claims with evidence. The evidence for my statements about Friedman can be found on pages 460-463 of the book I mentioned earlier.
milton friedman was a fuckwit, end of story.
Have you read The Shock Doctrine , great read
No inzider I'll have a look.
blindboy wrote:Indo, Ross Gittins explains why the debt we have generated is not a significant problem. Given the levels we have generated in a very short period and that much of it ended up in corporate profits I think it us fair to conclude that successive governments have failed to invest sufficiently. Keynes also had quite a bit to say about how governments should spend their money. Neoliberal governments around the world have wasted huge sums that could have made a huge improvements in standards of living.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/stop-thinking-our-kids-will-...
Yeah the debt we have generated isn't a huge problem, but if we kept spending and spending it would become a problem.
And yeah everyone thinks they know how to run a country, but very few actually do run a country, and very few as successfully as Australia.
Well yes Indo, there is a limit but it is clearly nowhere near the current level. My point more broadly is that the explicit goal of neoliberalism is to maintain and increase the wealth of that small minority of the population who control an outsize portion of the national wealth. To that end it is simply not in their interest to use Keynesian methods except for crisis management.
If you disagree with that there is always the point that laissez-faire policies always lead to financial crises. The 2008 meltdown was a direct result of the loosening of banking regulations in the US, particularly the Glass-Steagall Act. China, having followed a similar path, is now facing similar problems.
A few surfboard manufacturers have made the list in contact tracing northern nsw 
“if we kept spending and spending it would become a problem.”
Why is that Indo?
What a stupid question Andy . Indo said this " And yeah everyone thinks they know how to run a country, but very few actually do run a country, and very few as successfully as Australia."
You have NFI and I hope you are able to run your personal affairs . Here is something you may not know , money does not grow on trees . Look what happened to Italy when they spent too much . The austerity program is still being felt 10 years after the GFC .
I will say it again for all of you who either don't read or fail to comprehend my posts .
There are NO truly free economic systems in the entire WORLD . I DO NOT advocate that they should be tried or will work . ( even the local farmers market is regulated ) .
Stu- can I assume , since you did not mention externalities , you now concede that humans are good at doing them . I am happy to give you many more examples if necessary .
Stu -"Your first sentence is a logical absurdity, Hutchy.
Comparing fictitious characters to an economic policy? "
You are having trouble thinking straight Stu ! Comparing fictitious characters to a fictitious economic policy is a truism and not absurd . What is absurd and illogical is that you don't get it !!!!!
Friedman and Keynes have both been proven wrong on so many fronts as have most experts in most fields . The REAL world has humans and all their positives and negatives dominating .
So there's currently no one advocating for laissez faire principles such as smaller government?
Riiiight...
Advocating for less government intervention is not advocating for NO government intervention .
It is like hoping for smaller surf when its too big .
So Hutchy what is your view on the housing market? Would you support government intervention to stabilise prices?
blindboy wrote:Well yes Indo, there is a limit but it is clearly nowhere near the current level. My point more broadly is that the explicit goal of neoliberalism is to maintain and increase the wealth of that small minority of the population who control an outsize portion of the national wealth. To that end it is simply not in their interest to use Keynesian methods except for crisis management.
If you disagree with that there is always the point that laissez-faire policies always lead to financial crises. The 2008 meltdown was a direct result of the loosening of banking regulations in the US, particularly the Glass-Steagall Act. China, having followed a similar path, is now facing similar problems.
"To that end it is simply not in their interest to use Keynesian methods except for crisis management."
Reading about the theory, that's what it seems more to be about anyway, which makes sense you let things roll along during good times, and give a little push of help when things aren't looking so good.
And it's worked fine for the last 30 years, Krudd was pretty useless for the most part but one good thing he did was stimulate the economy during the financial crisis, same has been done during Covid.
As for "Neoliberalism" its just one of those words that people throw around, but everyone has a different grasp of what it really is, i dont agree with your view that its goal is to increase the wealth of a top minority.
BTW. All systems favour those at the top to some degree, the biggest difference with any Capitalist ideals compared to Communism & Capitalism is with Capitalist systems anyone can get to be the at the top and there so many shades of grey between the so called top and bottom, while especially Communism everyone is at the bottom with a few select government officials and cronies at the top, same with proper socialism.
AndyM wrote:“if we kept spending and spending it would become a problem.”
Why is that Indo?
Its quite obvious where you are going MMT is a theory even experts cant agree on, but yeah sure it may work to a certain extent for a period of time and yeah we shouldn't always think of debt as a bad thing, and there is good times to spend or times where we should spend and time's when we should be a bit more careful with spending.
But long term it's just common sense that endless spending is highly likely to end up going pear shaped, because it defies the whole point of the value of money.
BTW. The USA dollar is probably a little unique compared to other currencies, so highly likely they can bend things a little more than many other countries.
To just endless keep spending at high rates for Australia would be reckless and dangerous, not to mention it would most likely be like a serious drug habit where it would never seem like enough and always need that little bit more, all seems fine then bang one day things are pushed too far.
Hutchy 19 wrote:Advocating for less government intervention is not advocating for NO government intervention .
It is like hoping for smaller surf when its too big .
With most things in life the simpler you can get them generally the better otherwise you spin this messy web that can be very hard to untangled, yeah sure at times you need intervention but it should always be more tinkering a little by little where needed rather than crazy changes that could cause things to go real bad.
BTW. Ive said this before but it's always funny that those that complain about governments the most, actually want governments to be bigger and have more control over things and more intervention, go figure?
"it's just common sense that endless spending is highly likely to end up going pear shaped, because it defies the whole point of the value of money."
Pretty vague statement but again, it's conflating the spending of a monetary sovereign government and the spending of a household or individual.
If a government creates money to build, say, hospitals, how will that debase the "value of money"?
"As for "Neoliberalism" its just one of those words that people throw around, but everyone has a different grasp of what it really is,"
The term is frequently misused but the core meaning remains. I think Wikipedia nail it before going on to qualify it to include wider uses.
" Neoliberalism, or neo-liberalism,[1] is a term used to describe the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with free-market capitalism."
The reference to the 19th Century is particularly relevant as that was the age of laissez-faire (do what you like) economics and the robber barons. Workers were ruthlessly exploieted and wealth was highly concentrated. Keynesian economics, as used in the New Deal and the various forms of a welfare state, led to a more equal distribution of wealth....and power. Neoliberalism was developed to reverse these changes so its major focus was for the wealthy to regain their extreme wealth and power. Since the Reagan and Thatcher era it has been very succesful in doing that. It has also been very successful in getting the support, through the use of compliant media, of those who would do better under less malign policies .
AndyM wrote:"it's just common sense that endless spending is highly likely to end up going pear shaped, because it defies the whole point of the value of money."
Pretty vague statement but again, it's conflating the spending of a monetary sovereign government and the spending of a household or individual.
If a government creates money to build, say, hospitals, how will that debase the "value of money"?
Like i said it might not to a certain extent but there has to be a tipping point and the tipping point is kind of unknown.
Otherwise if it was that easy, developing countries would just go, okay lets just build new roads, hospitals, schools, water supplies, etc and maybe even great social wealth fare safety nets and just become developed countries.
Or even create some huge military force and take over other countries territories for resources, like China is doing in the South China Sea.
There has to be a tipping point.
Andy - You are proving you have NFI on how the real world works . You say "If a government creates money to build, say, hospitals, how will that debase the "value of money"? Why stop at hospitals . There are a million great projects we need . Build them ALL with created money . Lets give everyone a million dollars out of created money .
Whitlam had lots of good ideas he wanted to implement , but too quickly . Interest rates went to 18% as a result .
Blindboy - The GFC was caused by the regulators and media being in Wall Streets pockets . They refused to apply the existing rules . Watch the Big Short .
As I have said on the housing thread the governments needs to be very careful when trying to intervene in the housing market , Australia's Golden Goose . Most Australian's ( not a few ) wealth is in their own home . Major changes to the tax regime could be a disaster .
As I said , Australia has plenty of land . Working at home is now the norm so many don't have to be close to the cities . State and Federal governments have HUGE land banks . They can release more of this and we can build more homes . Councils are promoting higher density in their suburbs . More supply to satisfy the demand which which will lead to better affordability .
Let the market do the heavy lifting as it does so well . Governments can ticker around the edges but NEVER try to change the market as they have NFI on what the outcome will be .
"Otherwise if it was that easy, developing countries would just go, okay lets just build new roads, hospitals, schools, water supplies, etc and maybe even great social wealth fare safety nets and just become developed countries."
Well no Indo. It doesn't work like that. The basic idea of Keynesian economics is that there should be no economic barriers to a nation doing what it has the capacity to do. Developing nations simply lack capacity. This can include skills shortages, resource shortages, lack of basic infrastructure etc etc. In the current situation Australia has been able to put money into the economy because we have the capacity to provide the goods and services it is being used to purchase. My point is that, for a very long period, Australia has under invested in building its capacity through better education and training, better infrastructure and wiser use of its resources. As we approach the end of our long resource boom we will come to see this as a missed opportunity as the appalling governance of recent decades will limit our ability to manage future crises.....which are becoming increasingly common.
and endemic corruption at such a grand scale
Just the icing on the cake of neoliberal greed seaslug.
"...Developing nations simply lack capacity. This can include skills shortages, resource shortages, lack of basic infrastructure etc etc."
I guess money (capital) and the ability to raise it (create it) conveniently falls under that vague etc. etc.
"...In the current situation Australia has been able to put money into the economy because we have the capacity to provide the goods and services it is being used to purchase."
so being prudent in the lead up to this disaater wasn't just about being mean?
it figuritively put money in the bank for a rainy day... it also put confidence in our country as a whole so we could print the ridiculous amount of money required as an answer to the pandemic...
"...My point is that, for a very long period, Australia has under invested in building its capacity through better education and training, better infrastructure and wiser use of its resources."
well yes and no...
the 'investment' has been there, just in questionable (unsustainable) pursuits... with a lot of the investment coming from totally questionable sources as well...
"...As we approach the end of our long resource boom we will come to see this as a missed opportunity as the appalling governance of recent decades will limit our ability to manage future crises.....which are becoming increasingly common."
well yeh... but if we'd been shaking your keynsian tree for the last few decades for some ubiquitous wish list, we wouldn't have had the capacity to face this crisis with such confidence and capacity...
(only to totally overshoot the mark, and totally blow the reserves I would argue...)
as this is the most reasonable thing you wrote
"...will limit our ability to manage future crises.....which are becoming increasingly common."
neoliberalism - for all its faults - did address a problem... as does keynsianism...
you seem to advocate for a never ending policy of money printing...
how's that worked out over the last decade or so for housing affordability and equality?
Haha, so crotchety today Hutchy!
@Indo "there has to be a tipping point and the tipping point is kind of unknown."
Not quite sure what you mean, but governments can cause inflation, if they choose, by spending too much, or not taxing enough (i.e. taxes exist to control inflation).
When this happens, the total level of spending in the economy exceeds what can be produced by all the labour, skills, physical capital, technology and natural resources which are available.
https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-modern-monetary-theory-72095
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.