Mark Carney’s first budget projects $78B deficit, program and civil service cuts

submitted by

www.sootoday.com/local-news/mark-carneys-first-…

The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

80
97

Back to main discussion

Parent comment

edited

Tankus has blogged about Krugman’s evolution.

And my “defense of printing money” was not a judgement about the inflationary pressure of doing so, it was a recognition that there are more things to consider - such as the risk of millions of people being evicted from their homes or going hungry.

You’re still trying to put words in my mouth, and you’re not engaging earnestly, so, goodbye

(edit: typo)

 reply
1

Tankus has blogged about Krugman’s evolution.

So nothing from Krugman himself? Seems reasonable…

You’re still trying to put words in my mouth,

Lol, yes by quoting you and adding the exact context.

I strongly recommend, just give a quick look at any of the dozens well rounded critiques of MMT. Some may be a little obtuse if you don’t have an econ background but feel free to reach out and i’ll explain as best I can!

Cheers.

 reply
1

I am pointing to Tankus’ blog because he outlines the things Krugman has said.

Second: would you have not issued CERB and had millions lose housing? Or would you issue CERB and accept some inflationary pressure (keeping in mind that much of the inflation was gouging and supply chain issues)? You had made a blanket statement “issuing currency is drinking bleach” and I gave one of many possible examples for why that is a ridiculous statement.

And in terms of your arrogance around understanding what you’re talking about:

“Taxes fund services” is flat out wrong from a MMT perspective, quite literally it is the most fundamentally wrong thing one could say about it as an economic framework, so I suggest you develop a better understanding of the thing you claim to understand the critiques of. Or perhaps read critiques from those who actually understand it.

Cheers

 reply
1
edited

“Taxes fund services” is flat out wrong from a MMT perspective, quite literally it is the most fundamentally wrong thing one could say about it as an economic framework

Are you trolling? It’s that or this is the dumbest thing I’ve read in years.

On the off chance you really don’t understand what you’re talking about, yes, taxes can be used as a disinflationary tool (with a million caveats, hence the silliness of MMT) but they also fund services. Unless, I dunno, you think the 300,000+ federal civil service are actually volunteers or something.

Maybe ask your teacher or parents to help explain? Hell, even an LLM.

 reply
1
Insert image