[_heimdall]

Oh I have read about it, I just fundamentally disagree with both MMT and Keynes.

What I was trying to ask there is what does it mean for debt to exist when there is no relative risk?

When a third party extends debt in good faith, it says something about their estimation of risk.

When a government extends debt to itself it literally means nothing, if one party fails they both do. More importantly, there's no recourse if the debtor defaults. The debt there exists purely as smoke and mirrors, it is created only so they can claim money wasn't made out of thin air.

[david-gpu]

> When a government extends debt to itself it literally means nothing

I get where you are coming from. If I'm not mistaken, and according to MMT, a government buying its own debt induces future inflation and a decrease to interest rates.

All money nowadays is fiat (i.e. created out of thin air by a few actors), so it's not like any form of money creation and destruction means much more than changes to the inflation rate, interest rate and the derived swings to the economic cycle.

[_heimdall]

Yeah that's my understanding how MMT would explain the system as well. I just take issue with that approach.

When you peak behind the curtain and see how an MMT system actually works, it's pretty clear that the whole thing is just for a game and, at best, a benign one.

As long as it isn't hurting anyone, I can see it being plenty useful given what we can do with it even if the system is just a game. As soon as the system starts harming people though, say because they can't access basic goods or live a happy life, simply because of how the game works then it skips right past being an entertaining game and into the realm of being a dangerous, arguably evil, weapon.

[cen4]

Covers it quite well - https://michael-hudson.com/2023/07/global-economic-history-i...