Saif’s arguments are so logical that I am genuinely baffled by how the other two economists are wired (Pavlina Tcherneva, an MMT economist, and Jason Hickel, an ecological economist). I keep trying to understand their reasoning as humans, assuming there is some logic behind it.
Money as debt. Tcherneva argues that money is essentially an IOU, a ledger of obligations. Saif refers to something very simple: a claim on money is not money itself. The stadium analogy is brilliant. Saif has written about this before. Issuing more tickets to a football match does not create more seats in the stadium. Is that too difficult to imagine in your head?
Next, expanding the money supply to create economic prosperity. Hickel and Tcherneva both argue that an elastic money supply allows governments to mobilize resources and fund economic activity. Just picture that, like an elastic stretching.
🤔
How does creating more units of money create more wealth? The quantity of money is irrelevant to its function as a medium of exchange because money can do its job regardless of how many units exist.
Purchasing power adjusts to that. Printing more currency does not magically produce more resources or capital, not even labor.
Telling people to work harder and ignore monetary debasement is like telling someone to keep pouring water into a leaking bucket.
Make yourself some time and listen to this. It is brilliant. Plus, I really love Saif’s faces while he is writing down things and ready to rebut.
And if you were curious about Austrian economics, here is quite a lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/dohadebates
