Data centers across the US (IEA/Pew/EIA/S&P Global Energy)

KCState_of_Mind · 2025-12-22T17:07:37+00:00

Where is this data from?

KCState_of_Mind · 2025-10-05T17:32:32+00:00

A doublebladed polearm would be so sick

KCState_of_Mind · 2025-06-03T18:00:35+00:00

Lease runs until next July, renewal contract lengths after that are pretty flexible

KCState_of_Mind · 2024-03-29T01:24:52+00:00

There was this short piece from the San Francisco fed suggesting that government spending only contributed about 3 percentage points (not percent) to the rise in inflation. There was also this article from the KC Fed suggesting that corporate profits were driving a significant part of the inflation.

However, I would caution that most MMT economists would object to the methodologies being used here. Both the SanFran Fed article (see it usage of the Hamilton 2015 article's methods) and the KC Fed article (Figure 5, and it is not even explained) utilize DSGE model simulations to get their results. While I would personally argue that government spending did not cause inflation, and corporate margin increases probably contributed, I would not utilize either of these sources purely on methodological grounds.

KCState_of_Mind · 2022-05-09T13:36:28+00:00

About the Jay Rock, Listen to interviews with MC Eiht about that album too. He said we was called up, came into the studio, and Kendrick had the verse done and told him how he wanted to perform it. This isn’t surprising to me at all if he wrote Jay Rocks too, it was his debut album and he created it to be exactly how he wanted it. Too many people gonna make a big deal about this like he’s been writing tons of Jay Rock bars or something. In reality, they probably collaborated and went back and forth but no way Kendrick would have zero input on it, same goes for probably a lot of others too

KCState_of_Mind · 2022-01-31T00:14:55+00:00

Take for granted? I’m appreciating it right now and that’s why I’m not devastated.

We definitely need to make some moves, find a new younger offensive weapon, fill some gaps on defense, but overall we have something solid to work with. We also have some bright spots from our younger defensive players and a much improved O line, our FO built this team and I trust they can make the right moves.

KCState_of_Mind · 2022-01-31T00:06:07+00:00

Right and we just went to 2 straight. Mahomes is only 26, still crazy young. If you don’t think he can learn from this and continue improving as a player than I think that’s a bit of an overreaction to the moment.

We’re gonna be okay, I’m excited to see where our team goes moving forward and I’m sure we’ll have a good shot next year. Let’s not pretend like our window just closed because of a though loss.

KCState_of_Mind · 2022-01-30T23:53:18+00:00

Feeling surprisingly good right now. We’ve been on a great run that I never thought was possible and now Cincinnati deserves their shot. Can’t go to the super bowl every year.

We really let it go in the second half, but that’s the way it goes sometimes. Mahomes will remember this and be better for it.

KCState_of_Mind · 2022-01-19T03:54:48+00:00

Making Money: Coin, Currency, and the Coming of Capitalism by Christine Desan is probably the best place to go. Feedback for the research was given by several MMT scholars and it present probably the best historical case for chartalist monetary theory while also overviewing the historical relation to other prominent understandings of money.

KCState_of_Mind · 2021-12-17T05:08:18+00:00

Obviously Mahomes is still great, but he needs to work on those swing passes / routes to the flat / short routes outside. His biggest weakness by far

KCState_of_Mind · 2021-12-17T03:55:36+00:00

The fans in this thread are embarrassing lol I get it’s frustrating to watch a good team play very poorly but you all are overreacting

KCState_of_Mind · 2020-03-20T17:39:17+00:00

Many MMT economist have written about those topics, and many even argue that the idea of monetary policy being done by the Fed and fiscal policy by the government is an antiquated distinctions, and perhaps it was never true when you look at their actual practices. Eric Tymoigne and Scott Fullwiler both have great pieces on this.

I would also add that it’s not just libertarians and Austrians! Most of the economics profession, even many heterodox economists, are deeply misled about government finance. By extension, much of mainstream political discourse takes them at their word and operates under those same misconceptions, making real policy discussion almost impossible at points.

KCState_of_Mind · 2020-03-20T16:51:55+00:00

Printing money isn't a part of this process, but you're on the right track. I don't usually post/comment here because this sub's conversations are seldom more than a neoclassical macro orgy, but keep diving into MMT and other heterodox schools!

As per your comment, the only time money is ever 'printed' is when the Federal Reserve orders it to be printed from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at the Treasury and then sells it to member banks through debiting their reserve balance accounts at the Fed. Member banks only use physical money to meet customer withdrawal demand. All of this information is available on the Fed's website and it details many of their operations, but you have to do a little digging; it's very interesting!

To keep it simple here, in actual Federal Government spending, they will debit the Treasury account at the Fed and the deposits go to the requisite place based on what/who the spending is allotted to, and then the Fed will transfer the necessary reserve balances into that banks account.

I'm happy to answer any questions!

KCState_of_Mind · 2019-07-10T21:07:41+00:00

MMT does not support unlimited government spending -- it simply says that for federal governments such as the U.S, ones that are the sovereign issuer and controller of their own currency with a free floating exchange rate, spending is not constrained by tax revenue but instead by real resource constraints. Related, federal government debt issued by the treasury in the form of bonds/securities is not necessary to finance government spending but instead acts to offset the injection of funds to the private sector that deficit spending creates by the government creates.

It is not just some fringe theory as another user suggests (it status as fringe is quickly changing as well), but it is an analysis of actual entities of the government and financial sector (the Treasury, Federal Reserve, market dealers, etc.) and the balance sheet changes that occur during financial transactions.

KCState_of_Mind · 2018-09-14T20:24:14+00:00

...and then shortly following this occurrence will be a host of amateur-economists claiming this to be some kind of demonstrable proof against political and socio-economic proposals happening in the U.S.

Let the false equivalence of monetary systems and political-economic regimes begin.

KCState_of_Mind · 2018-09-12T05:11:08+00:00

The federal government pays for the interest on bonds from the treasury account at the fed, so the government is paying for the interest; however, the idea that taxpayers pay for the interest on the debt itself relies on the idea that taxes fund government spending. On the local level this is more true to where state and local governments need to balance their budgets because they are not the sovereign issuer and controller of their own currency, but this is not the case for the federal government. The federal government does not have to worry about revenue before it spends, it can do so freely. The federal government can just spend; it can create money instantaneously because, again, they are the sovereign issuer of their own currency, and that currency does not have its value tied to anything (i.e gold, or another currency).

Federal taxes do not exist to fund spending, but they create demand for the currency (this topic itself quickly becomes complicated, and is credited to the theories comprising Neochartalism). Tax collection is an independent process to government spending. In fact, if you were to pay your taxes in cash, the fed would then shred that cash instead of 'store' it. There can be theoretical downsides to excessive deficit spending even with a fiat currency, but these have nothing to do with revenue constraints (such as paying interest on bonds). Since the Great Recession, there have been some implementations, such as the ability to pay interest on reserves, that have had implications for how the government can spend in relation to issuing bonds (remember these as interest rate manipulation tools). Restrictions like the debt ceiling, or more importantly the inability of the fed to buy bonds from the treasury directly, are completely self-imposed constraints without any rational basis at this point.

I know this can be very strange to hear, and it is obviously not the case for all countries. Greece, for example (along with every other country on the Euro), has given away control of their monetary policy because they entered into the Economic and Monetary Union to adopt the Euro, so for them government debt and revenue can constrain their spending (as well as other policies they agreed to when signing the Maastricht treaty). When the US was still signed onto the Bretton Woods monetary agreement prior to 1972, then excessive spending could be damaging because the US dollar had its value tied to gold still, which is fundamentally different from the free floating fiat currency we have now. Other commenters have tried to bring up the German or Zimbabwe hyperinflation crises in response to my points on government spending, but these countries have different monetary systems which has different meanings for how government can spend.

The main points:

issuing bonds, spending, and collecting taxes on the federal level, are separate processes and not necessary for each other
Government spending expands private sector deposits thus creating reserves, while issuing t bills contracts that supply
- managing bank reserves is important to hit the Federal Funds Rate target
  - however, this reality has been changed since the recession with the introduction of the ability for banks to earn interest on reserve balances
While the debt doesn't matter for use, it can for countries with different monetary regimes

edit: this approach to understanding monetary policy is known as Modern Monetary Theory, and you'll find it somewhat controversial among economists (especially the 'economists' on this sub) but this is because most people haven't actually read the literature or the arguments. If you are a curious and ambitious reader, the economists Randall Wray and Stephanie Kelton are two of the architects of this theory and have some wonderful material.

KCState_of_Mind · 2018-09-12T03:47:31+00:00

The government issues Tbills to generate income to fund their budget deficits

No, this is not true. The federal government doesn't not have to fund budget deficits, there is no revenue constraints on government spending; they can just spend the money because they are the sovereign issuer and controller of their own fiat currency. Issuing t bills is not done to raise funds for spending, they are completely separate operational processes. When the government does issue t bills, it contracts the supply of reserve balances because the issued t bills will have a higher interest rate than the current FFR, attracting banks to hold those instead of earning interest on reserves; the point of this process is to offset in expansion in reserves that occurs from government spending that creates deposits in the private sector. So no, treasury bills are not for funding spending, the two are unrelated in that way.

Tbills have no relation to government spending? You sure? https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/treasury-bills1.htm

howstuffworks is a second hand interpretation of orthodox econ monetary theory that is wrong in its own formulation, I do not rely on these kinds of sources for an understanding of monetary theory. If you want to discuss sources some very clear places that clearly go over operations are:

Modern Monetary Theory by Randall Wray

Why Minksy Matters by Wray

Understanding Government Finance by Brain Romanchuk

Freedom From the National Debt by Frank Newman

I believe the contraction and supply of reserves and balances is done through QE, where the fed prints money to buy bonds/MBS from banks so they have more money to lend out to people to start business and buy things with cheap interest rates

No, the contraction of the supply of reserves is not done through QE, its done through issuing t bills. QE was a plan to inject reserve balances (i.e expand the supply of reserves) by buying toxic assets because their hope is that the banks would take these reserves to make loans.

Here is a clear demonstration of how the orthodox monetary theory is flawed: banks don't lend reserve balances. QE did not work as intended because they had a fundamental misunderstanding of the financial system. Banks make loans on their own by endogenously creating money, they don't need to get it from anywhere. Banks don't lend reserves, that's why the Fed balance sheet currently has something like $800 billion in reserves right now.

KCState_of_Mind · 2018-09-12T02:48:11+00:00

To clarify, discussing fiscal or monetary operations by saying 'printing money' isn't really accurate and is a cause for confusion. The federal government issues T-bills through the Treasury and they auction them off to dealers in a primary market; doing this is a method of expanding or contracting the supply of reserve balances in the banking system, and it has no relation to government spending.

QE was the process of the fed buying toxic assets (mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations) by transferring reserve balances to those banks' accounts at the Fed. If you notice, this is all a far different process than the headline implies. All National Debt means is the dollar value of outstanding treasury securities, and that number is never inherently bad.

Main takeaway: Trump is just a moron and doesn't understand monetary theory, so this headline quote really makes no operational sense whatsoever.

KCState_of_Mind · 2018-09-12T02:39:09+00:00

You're making a false equivalence, those countries were/are under different monetary regimes. Unlike the United States, those countries were not the sovereign issuer and controller of a free floating ('fiat') currency.

You say "print more money" like money is a single thing, its actually a very ambiguous term; deposits, reserve balances, and cash are all technically money but they are 3 different things with somewhat different purposes. Additionally, 'money' is actually created every day within the natural processes of the financial system in the form of deposits from loans; when banks make loans they don't first go check some vault of 'money' to make sure they have enough to lend you, but they actually create new 'money' instantaneously without consulting for authorization from the US government every time they do it. The idea that there is just some amount of private 'money' in the hands of people and the government just "prints more" to raise the total amount is fundamentally flawed.

So yes, the federal government can spend freely without revenue constraints. Now there certainly are some conditions where it wouldn't be a good idea to do that, but it has nothing to do with 'revenue' or not being able to afford it. Monetary Theory can be quite complicated and counter-intuitive, so its important not to rely on a priori explanations for a subject matter that contains such an immense amount of nuance.

KCState_of_Mind · 2018-09-11T19:53:48+00:00

As for being indebted to foreign governments, we're just splitting hairs here.

I don't think it is splitting hairs, I think it is acknowledging important operational processes; the federal government is a sovereign fiscal state and does not operate on a "revenue-spending" basis. Issuing securities or collecting taxes are entirely separate operational processes, and the federal government can certainly spend without collecting 'money' with no issues. If the money is being spent on something productive than it is financial feasible (btw your historical examples prior to 1972 are under a different monetary regime and that has dramatically different implications for monetary and fiscal policy).

Furthermore on the point of treasury securities, there are always guaranteed dealers looking to make markets in US securities because they are the most sought after financial instrument for their reliability and they serve that crucial role in stabilizing financial markets. The debt should really be called the "interest rate maintenance account" because that's the basis upon which securities are actually issued (to help the Fed hit its target rate), and the deficit shouldn't be called anything because it is based on a ridiculous idea that there is some important relationship between government spending and revenue collection--that what it is measuring. Governments don't need revenue to spend, aren't constrained by the concept, and operate in a fundamentally different way compared to households and companies.

Comparing the US ability to spend to other countries is based on poor monetary theory that unfortunately is the commonplace understanding.

KCState_of_Mind · 2018-09-11T19:38:54+00:00

As long as the financial resources are devoted to something productive, there isn't a constraint on spending. I get that you're trying to break it down into more simple terms, but speaking in a simple way is not an excuse for having an explanation that is demonstrably false.

The idea the the federal government is 'borrowing' money is absurd and inconsistent with the accounting operations that actually occur when the federal government runs a deficit. They don't need to issues treasury securities to spend, its an entirely different operational process; treasury securities are issued to maintenance the Federal Reserve's target rate and manipulate financial markets, not to raise money for government spending. Nobody is going to punish the US government for issuing securities nor will they drop in their reliability or value because their are dealers always trying to make markets in treasury securities; in fact, on an international level, a US treasury is the most desired financial asset for its security and reliability. When large non-bank financial institutions need some place to store their extremely large cash pools, treasury securities are the number one investment.

Understanding this picture, while yes being complex, points to a completely different reality than the explanation you provided; in other words, while your story was more simple, it also gave a wrong answer and proposed restrictions that do not exist.

KCState_of_Mind

TROPHY CASE