[3Point Pete]

Maybe someone can help explain this to a cousin of MMT proponent, Monetary Sovereignty. I put this most excellent AE post forward (maybe my favorite) as I regularly debate about the perpetual growth religion that MMT and MS don’t seem to address.

The blogger, Roger Mitchell writes,
, ” . . . the added value conveyed by every additional – borrowed – dollar has at the very least threatened to become negative.”

He doesn’t understand that a Monetarily Sovereign nation doesn’t need to borrow, and when it does borrow, it easily could pay off all its loans in one day. Actually, he doesn’t understand Monetary Sovereignty. Period.

He also said, ” . . . we may have already reached the point where there no longer is any economic growth, there is only uneconomic growth.”His rationale is, “the costs of things like depletion of resources and pollution resulting from consuming resources”

Really? The world is doomed? Sounds a bit of hyperbolic to me. Didn’t Malthus say that 200+ years ago?”

I wonder if one of you big brains could sum up a simple explanation to Mr. Mitchell. I keep thinking “Monetary Sovereignty” is a contradictory term. Sovereign means self-governing. With the Fed and central banks issuing interest bearing debt-based money it seems that we have a command economy. There is nothing self-governing about it and as MS proposes we could eliminate all “debt” with a few keystrokes, the current institutions in place will never allow that to be a reality. Am I off base? Looking to educate myself and another seemingly smart “economic expert” that seems rather cavalier about the growth paradigm’s effect on our ecosystems.

Thanks ~ Pete

[Author]

Posts