Well In our small, very poor county in California, Imperial County, many teachers, teachers aids county department of educacation employees, other employees of state agencies have already received pink slips. These pink slips won't take effect immediately. Some won't show up as unemployed for several months.

Suggested LInks: Nakedcapitalism.com http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/ http://moslereconomics.com/ http://economistsview.typepad.com/

Uhhhh… no," the most important parts of modern supply chains are embedded in the heads of innovators and… in the space… in which discussions about innovation take place…" this is not true. The most important part of Apple's "supply" chain is its patents. Without the government enforced monopoly provided by the United States patent system, the profits accruing to Apple would be multiples smaller. The question American taxpayers should be asking is why do we grant Apple a government enforced monopoly if they're shipping all their jobs to China? The reason we grant patents is because we think doing so will benefit us as a society not to benefit inventors. There is no constitutional right to a government enforced monopoly. Naturally the inventors will try and free ride on the government enforced monopoly system, i.e. they'll try to keep all the advantages of having a U.S. patent while eschewing the costs of benefiting American society, but there's no reason the system should stay as it is. I like to think about it this way, WWBCD? What Would Bain Capital Do if it were running the toll booth to government enforced monopoly protection in the United States. I'm pretty sure they'd be making sure the lions share of the profits benefited American society, not just investors.

The issue between MMT and traditional monetarists is really about how the money supply is increased. MMT says that moving electrons from one sector of the Fed's hard drive to another sector of the Fed's hard drive does not increase the money supply. I've been searching for a practical explanation of how Fed action could increase the money supply and have yet to find one. Who actually gets the new money? Does the Fed have authority to print money and then spend it? At least under MMT it's pretty clear how the money supply is increased, the government prints money, i.e. as opposed to borrowing or taxing it away from others, and then spends it. Amazingly enough the money supply increases.

The effect of QE that you mention is canceled by the loss of interest income to the economy from keeping rates low. I've read estimates that this alone has cost the economy 200 Billion dollars in GDP. I don't think the conflict between MMT and Monetarists, anyway, has to do with theory. The prescription for the current economy from both sides is to "increase the money supply." What MMT is saying and monetarists are refusing to hear is that moving trillions of dollars from one sector of the Fed's Hard drive to another sector of it's hard drive does not increase the money supply. MMT is saying that the only real way to increase the money supply is through government spending. I have yet to hear anyone explain, in a practical fashion, how the money supposedly "created" by the Fed gets out into the economy. Who gets all this new money? I've gone round and round with economists about this and no one seems able to give an explanation of how it actually works. At least under MMT the explanation of how the money supply is increased is quite clear, the government "prints" money and then spends it.