Modern Monetary Theory and Expansionary Fiscal Policy

Mainstream economics is hopelessly adhering to a big lie. There is absolutely no chance that monetary policy or fiscal policy will ever benefit society as a whole. Yet the world is still captivated by the notion that either of these theories are necessary for enhancing the economy. Growth is attributed to both.

The fact is that human nature prevents both modern monetary theory or fiscal policy from working as intended. There is no question that each has an influence over the economy. But, that influence can never be anything in the name of public good or even results that are expected.

I wonder, if the multitude of economists whom adhere to these concept believe that objectivity in using them is completely unnecessary. Is it fine that the economy is just stimulated just for the heck of it or randomly?

Ask your economics professor, or your favorite economist how it is determined that economic intervention is necessary and called for?  An economic decision is made by a child with $5 to spend in a candy store. He is careful to get as much candy that he likes as can possibly be obtained for $5.00.

Do governments make economic decisions? No, it is impossible. Governments make political decisions. So, even if intervention had a chance of working, the fact that governments can ‘t make economic decisions guarantees a miserable outcome for society at large.

So what are modern monetary and fiscal policies good for? They are extraordinary political tools.

(Visited 59 times, 1 visits today)
5 3 votes
Article Rating

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.
This entry was posted in Daily Comments. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments