>

i call the deseas Socialism Argentinians call it “kirchnerismo” or “Peronismo” with that been say my own father guarantees me that Socialism is actually “good” its just that 50 years of Peronismo n 20 years of kirchnerismo where too corrupted,… i am telling you one thing the cure is no where to been seen in the next decades
“There are four kinds of countries: Developed countries, underdeveloped countries, Japan, and Argentina.” -Economist Simon Kuznets >

Why is Japan a standout? Is it a quote from the 80s? >

Huge amount of debt, low growth, low inflation. Yet things seem to work out. >

Because that debt is owned to their own citizens and not foreign countries. This is very common in places where there are lot of natural disasters and you need to rebuild. >

It's not much about who's holding the debt (about 20% of US debt is foreign held, compared to 15% of Japan's debt) but on what currency is it issued. Japan, like the US, has almost all of its debt issued on its own currency. That's not common, and that's why they can get away with it. >

This is the MMT view right? There are other, more well established schools of thought if I understand correctly. >

No, not at all. MMT views are completely trash. This view just takes US debt and currency realities for what they're worth. It's not an advocacy for infinite debt (that's not going to work), but it does explain why big deficits in the US in recent history are not that important. >

I think you’re mischaracterizing what MMT implies. The general idea is that with a sovereign currency, a country can spend (with debt) up to what its labor force at full employment & resources allow for. As the country approaches that limit, there is inflationary pressure. The opposite mechanism here to taking out debt being taxation, which reduces the money supply and relieves inflationary pressure. So in other words, MMT does not claim that you can have “infinite debt”. 
Although, I’m an engineer not an economist, so take this with a grain of salt lol >

I think the problem is less what the theory says (in theory) and what advocates use it for in practice.
MMT says basically, spend until you get inflation.... and that's your cap or "fiscal cliff."  But no one really agrees upon what that is and so MMT advocates will keep saying SPEND SPEND SPEND and there never really seems to be a concern for what is being spent on.
And then you get inflationary pressures and now instead of proclaiming that we have to cut government spending to reduce inflation they start yelling NO WE HAVE TO SPEND MORE.  Why?  Well people are suffering and we need money to jump start the economy!
Oh.
Like we're in hyperinflation right now.  Hypothetically the swarms of MMT enthusiasts from 2 years ago should be screaming at the top of their lungs to make cuts.  But all the politicians who claimed MMT as a basis for their spending just continue to advocate for more spending. >


MMT advocates will keep saying SPEND SPEND SPEND and there never really seems to be a concern for what is being spent on.
And then you get inflationary pressures

Inflation didn't happen after the great round of QE that happened post 2008 crash. It seems like the causes of inflation are a bit more complex than simply government spending. >

Why is it this so common in Argentina and not in neighboring countries?