Susan, we already had a very long conversation about this on another thread, where I talked about how that's been interpreted literally by the Supreme Court as only coins and we talked at length about MMT. But the question under discussion is whether students are at fault for getting a college education at all, whether government is at fault, or whether a for-profit economic system is at fault. What do you (and MMT) say about that, and how would education be (or is already) funded under MMT?
"Under MMT": Since MMT Is an empirical description of the current monetary system, whatever way college is being funded at this time is the way it's being funded "under MMT."
However long our former discussion may have been, it seems that I need to give you some more time or information to understand that MMT isn't something you "do." It's a description of what already IS.
"An empirical description" means that MMT economists look at the monetary system the way another scientist would look at a microorganism through a microscope. It's not something that you implement, any more than a microscope is something that you implement.
It's just looking and describing.
This is a different approach than classical economics, in which a Great Man would describe his theory of how the economy works, or how it SHOULD work, and then subsequent scholars would argue for or against the theory, until another Great Man came along and offered a new theory.
MMT scholars stick to What Is.
Does this help to explain why asking how college would be funded "under MMT" is not a question? It simply doesn't apply.
P.S. The Supreme Court is now into a very literal interpretation of the Constitution in many areas.
Susan, we already had a very long conversation about this on another thread, where I talked about how that's been interpreted literally by the Supreme Court as only coins and we talked at length about MMT. But the question under discussion is whether students are at fault for getting a college education at all, whether government is at fault, or whether a for-profit economic system is at fault. What do you (and MMT) say about that, and how would education be (or is already) funded under MMT?
"Under MMT": Since MMT Is an empirical description of the current monetary system, whatever way college is being funded at this time is the way it's being funded "under MMT."
However long our former discussion may have been, it seems that I need to give you some more time or information to understand that MMT isn't something you "do." It's a description of what already IS.
"An empirical description" means that MMT economists look at the monetary system the way another scientist would look at a microorganism through a microscope. It's not something that you implement, any more than a microscope is something that you implement.
It's just looking and describing.
This is a different approach than classical economics, in which a Great Man would describe his theory of how the economy works, or how it SHOULD work, and then subsequent scholars would argue for or against the theory, until another Great Man came along and offered a new theory.
MMT scholars stick to What Is.
Does this help to explain why asking how college would be funded "under MMT" is not a question? It simply doesn't apply.
P.S. The Supreme Court is now into a very literal interpretation of the Constitution in many areas.