Pablo Malvar Fernandez 1,326 Chief computational linguist at codeq.com
Do you have questions for Pablo Malvar Fernandez?
Log in to ask Pablo Malvar Fernandez questions publicly or anonymously.
Lately I have been trying to wrap my head around MMT. Yesterday as I was reading a review/critique on the WSJ (www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-deficit-myth-review-years-of-magical-thinking-11591396579) of Stephanie Kelton‘s book "The Deficit Myth" I came across this:
What about all the countries that have suffered inflation, devaluation and debt crises even though they print their own currencies? To Ms. Kelton, developing nations suffer a “deficit” of “monetary sovereignty” because they “rely on imports to meet vital social needs,” which requires foreign currency. Why not earn that currency by exporting other goods and services? “Export-led growth ... rarely succeeds.” China? Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Her goal posts for “success” must lie far down field.
The problem is that “the rest of the world refuses to accept the currencies of developing countries in payment for crucial imports.” Darn right we do. Her solution: more printed money from Uncle Sam — a “global job guarantee.”
That couple of paragraphs led me to start thinking of MMT as very US-centric theory of fiscal policy. What I'm starting to think is that MMT can only work if the US maintains the US dollar reserve currency status, as it gives it the ability to import and export goods with dollars, which it can supposedly print without any constraints (except domestic inflation goes rampant).
So what happens if countries around the world refuse to do international commerce with the US in dollars? Does MMT break down?
Put differently, does MMT need dollar hegemony and, subsequently, developing nations to keep suffering under their inability to print the dollars they need to participate in international commerce? If this is the case, wouldn't this be a very cynical exercise of mental gymnastics from a progressive thinking point of view?
Also, how does the petrodollar system fit in all of this? If I understand it correctly, the petrodollar system is an essential mechanism to maintain dollar hegemony (once the US cut itself completely from the Breton Woods version of the gold standard). So if MMT is being proposed as the policy framework necessary to fund the Green New Deal, isn't it ironic (to say the least) that it needs a fossil fuel-centric mechanism to maintain the supremacy of its currency in order to fund green initiatives?
It looks like this letter was responsible for the death of the proposed bill in New York state that wanted to impose a 3 year moratorium on granting licenses for cryptocurrency mining operations.
Yes, rat poison squared.
It looks like BTC sold off on the news of the US recovering the Colonial Pipeline ransom paid in BTC. I've seen some court documents specifying the way the BTC was traced through various address hops, but how did the US got a hold of the private key holding the majority of that BTC?
I've seen people suggesting (using another court document from the Northern California district) that the guys behind the attack were using a custodial service possibly located in Northern California.
Why would anyone hack a crucial piece of infrastructure and be using a custodial service to hold the extorted ransom?
While confusing and puzzling, this is the explanation that makes most sense to me at the moment, but I'll monitor this story because I'm most curious.
Does anybody have more information?
The latest Speaking of Bitcoin discusses several layer 3 applications already working on top of Bitcoin’s Lighting Network. Absolutely fascinating.
I just watched this talk by Andreas from March 2017, where he mentions that before there was adequate adoption/penetration of email (before there was enough density of participants) it was not possible to create applications like social networks.
Analogous to this, he also says that none of the smoke people were selling back in 2017 in the form of ICOs was possible. He argues that we needed a lot more density of participants, a lot more liquity, etc.
This makes me wonder: are we there yet? Do we have enough density and liquidity? Or we still being sold a bunch of smoke this cycle?
Is Bitcoin like email in his description of the internet and what is needed to enable all the innovation that will come a couple of decades from today?
Here’s Andreas talk: