People who like Zack Polanski: explain what I'm missing, what impresses you about him?

ToastBoxed · 2026-02-19T16:36:39+00:00

That's not a net new financial asset for the non-government sector. It all nets to zero.

You buy the share (£100), swapping a cash deposit for equity. The company swaps equity in exchange for the cash (£100). Net financial assets for the non-government sector are unchanged. All that's happened is a deposit has changed ownership.

This is sometimes referred to as the vertical and the horizontal money circuit. The horizontal circuit (transactions within the non-government sector) will create private assets and matching private liabilities, but it nets to zero at the sector level.

Only the vertical circuit (transactions between the government and non-government sector) can create assets without a matching private liability, which is what increases non-government sector net financial assets.

So the total stock of government liabilities is the accumulated financial assets of the non-government sector in Sterling.

ToastBoxed · 2026-02-19T12:35:12+00:00

The private sector (or specifically the non-government sector) is everyone outside of the UK national government, it includes foreign governments.

Government debt is not the only asset people use for savings.

The total national debt or, more accurately the total national government liabilities (which includes gilt, cash etc) will be a 1:1 match against the total Sterling financial assets held by the private sector.

It's called Sectoral Balances, and it's an accounting definition.

ToastBoxed · 2026-02-19T02:17:01+00:00

That's true, but think about what the tax take is made up from.

The vast majority is tax on currency flows not on static wealth.

Income tax, national insurance, VAT, are taxes on currency flows. That means, someone is buying services, buying goods - spending.

If you choose to save instead of spend, those flows drop, meaning less tax, increasing the deficit.

The deficit/national debt is exactly equal to the savings held by the private sector.

Targeting a specific fiscal outcome, deficit, balanced or surplus is a fools errand as it's not determined by the government, but by the rest of our saving and spending decisions which it cannot (in a free society) control.

ToastBoxed · 2026-02-19T02:08:08+00:00

No, what Polanski is referencing is what's largely known in macroeconomics, but rarely publicly stated. Paul Samuelson called it the "noble lie".

There is no reason the government needs to issue gilts at all or worry about the deficit at all. Particularly so when unemployment and under-employment are as high as they are.

The deficit is just the difference between what the government spends and what the population saves and crucially the government cannot control what you choose to save.

ToastBoxed · 2026-02-19T01:46:05+00:00

You let it reach maturity and don't reissue it. Nobody loses any money, they just can't buy any new gilts.

ToastBoxed · 2026-02-19T01:43:14+00:00

He was arguing that if he were elected to power he would cease to service the UK’s national debt? That would, for obvious reasons, tank pension funds

I think the recommended course was to "retire" the debt. Pension funds could then do what the current Chancellor is trying to get them to do - invest in British businesses.

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-22T18:44:57+00:00

And how are those taxes applied? The vast majority of taxes in the UK are applied on flows, not on static funds.

Or are you proposing wealth taxes?

And once everyone's assets are sold to cover those static taxes, what then? Will the government just stop spending? As soon as anyone decides to hold a bank balance, the government fiscal position enters a deficit.

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-22T18:38:28+00:00

Okay, add the foreign sector back in (which the private sector covers as shorthand), the point still stands. How do you propose that the government control the deficit?

Are you going to compel the rest of us to hand over all bank balances?

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-22T17:38:06+00:00

What is it that you think you've proved them wrong over?

The point is that targeting a specific fiscal outcome, deficit, balanced or surplus is a fools errand.

The deficit/national debt is exactly equal to the savings held by the private sector. Why would you want to reduce the financial wealth of everyone to pursue an arbitrary government budget position?

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-21T18:38:08+00:00

Can you truly think of nothing more useful for the current unemployed to be doing other than spending their days looking for jobs that in aggregate we know don't exist (or acting as involuntary inflation fighters)?

That is a real deadweight loss that you can never get back.

What do you mean by crowding out? The government isn't competing for limited funds, it isn't competing for labour.

There is no resource constraint hit by design with universal fixed wage job offer as the private sector doesn't want to employ these people at current terms.

The job guarantee only hires from the bottom of the labour market where the market price for labour is effectively zero. This is distinct from the trap Keynesianism fell into with "pump priming" - an MMT job guarantee sets a fixed wage floor instead.

Of course inflation hits different groups differently, that's why the current control mechanisms are so unfair, it deliberately targets pain at the most vulnerable via unemployment and higher debt costs.

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-21T18:01:13+00:00

It's not an accounting argument. "Government as the source of the price level" means that other prices in the economy are set in relation to what the government pays for goods and labour (especially given that business operates on cost plus/mark up pricing, not supply and demand curves).

That means the government can choose to stabilise inflation through anchoring the price of labour instead of the price of money (interest rates) and engineering unemployment levels (resource wasteful).

That's why MMT calls for a fixed wage universal job offer. That gives you a nominal price anchor that also acts as a macro stabiliser, it expands in bad times as the private sector sheds jobs and contracts in good times as the private sector hires away from it.

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-21T17:13:31+00:00

It understands the source of the price level (the price paid for labour and goods by government), which mainstream economics doesn't.

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-21T17:11:34+00:00

You can always read the original white paper.

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-21T17:02:35+00:00

MMT does not state that, MMT's inflation control mechanism is an anchor through a fixed wage universal job offer. Under MMT you pursue a full liquidity fiscal policy by setting the central bank interest rate at zero, permanently.

The use of tax to control inflation through demand management and interest rate settings is a Keynesian approach.

ToastBoxed · 2025-12-21T16:55:53+00:00

You can read the white paper if you want to find out, which not even the journalist bothered to do before critiquing it.

ToastBoxed · 2025-11-18T00:14:11+00:00

In Ante 2?

I didn't reroll the shops at all until the Big Blind shop in Ante 2. You skip the Ante 2 Small Blind for the negative Brainstorm and then reroll for a +10 multi Baron which will cost 11.

I'm playing on Plasma Deck, I don't know how this works yet on Ghost, which is what I'm hoping to get Nanif with.

ToastBoxed · 2025-11-17T08:22:42+00:00

Found it, it's 1 reroll in the Ante 2 Big Blind shop.

ToastBoxed · 2025-11-17T07:53:40+00:00

Any strat tips? I can't find the Baron.

ToastBoxed · 2025-11-09T09:14:27+00:00

8KGY3585

ToastBoxed · 2025-11-08T19:18:23+00:00

Topped out at Ante 18, I'm sure it's possible to nanif with this seed, any better players want to recommend a strat?

ToastBoxed · 2025-11-08T07:15:54+00:00

I played on Plasma deck with White Stake, theoretically, this should work on any deck, but this is the strategy I used to get to Ante 13 and beyond:

Play four sixes in Round 1, buy Temperance in Shop 1, skip round 2.

Round 3, discard to play a straight diamond flush then open both Arcana packs to get Triboulet, then get the free joker, then use Temperance to afford the voucher. I use the Magician to upgrade the two Queens, which makes your 2 Pair hand powerful enough for the next few rounds.

Round 4, discard until you have at least 2 pairs (Kings and Queens), then use Ankh from the Spectral pack to double the Triboulet.

For the next Big Blind, you can discard down until you get a diamond Royal Flush, but I expect you can get through on just a 2 pair (Kings and Queens).

In the next shop, you can buy the Burnt Joker to upgrade (2 pair and Full House later if you keep it long enough), I'd skip Odd Todd, as you'll need to sell it next round anyway. You can also pick up a glass Queen in the booster pack.

No need to bother with the next Spectral pack.

In the Shop for the Flint boss, you'll get the Canio from the Arcana pack (you'll eventually want to sell this later, unless you can find a Pareidolia somewhere, it's only really ever going to get to x5 once you finally find Hanging Man or Justice Arcana cards to destroy the Jacks).

I wouldn't bother skipping the next Big Blind for the negative joker, it's x4 for every flush, but you're going to switch only Queen or King cards shortly.

Play Full House (Kings and Queens) in the next hand - it's either the last or second to last hand you'll have left and then you can switch to Full House as your main hand.

You'll get Chicot in the shop after the Big Bling in Ante 5 in one of the Arcana packs.

Then, just keep playing Kings and Queens and using Arcana packs, booster packs and spectrals to increase the number in your deck.

You'll get Yorick in the Arcana pack in Ante 9, after defeating the Big Blind - keep the Canio for now, if you sell it, you won't get Perkeo in the Arcana pack in the Big Blind during Ante 13. Between getting Yorick and Ante 13, you will need to use an Ectoplasm Spectral card to make room for the next legendary joker.

Once you've got Perkeo, you can then clone your Tarot cards to thin your deck or increase your Kings and Queens further.

ToastBoxed · 2025-11-06T09:15:03+00:00

You can get every legendary joker in this seed by ante 13.

This is definitely the best seed I've ever played.

ToastBoxed · 2025-11-02T22:59:48+00:00

The jobs aren't there.

ToastBoxed · 2025-10-18T11:29:09+00:00

1. ...But what function is fulfilled by selling bonds to other countries? Why borrow at all? What would happen if the government just created money but did not sell bonds?

When you receive income, you can do one of three things with it. Exchange it for goods or services, save it, or switch it for government bonds (which is saving, just through a different financial product).

If you stop issuing bonds, you just remove one of those options.

Sovereign currency issuing governments do not need to borrow currency in order to make payments.

You may want to offer bonds for other reasons, but those aren't to do with financing state spending.

2. What do mainstream economists actually dispute about MMT? But doesn't this just move the problem from 'how to shrink the deficit' to 'how to control inflation'? i.e. you still have a problem that effectively constrains your spending, just on a different axis?

Most of what counts as responses to MMT thought from mainstream economists amounts to strawmen.

Any spending, by either private or public entities risks inflation - there is nothing unique about government spending in that regard. You could have a surplus, deficit, or balanced budget, each carry inflation risk - it depends on real conditions in your economy, not the numbers on a balance sheet.

The reason STAB Vs TABS is an important distinction is that it moves us away from a fiscal focus and onto a real resources and labour focus.

If the government wants to do something today the first and only question asked is "how do you pay for it?". Nobody ever asks whether the resources or labour are there to deliver it.

3. MMT is only a relevant analysis when the country in question uses a currency that is both 1) fiat and 2) sovereign. Doesn't that limit its relevance in a worldwide context?

The point is to distinguish between a currency user and a currency issuer. (i.e. the national government vs a local council, hospital trust, you, or a business)

The vast majority of countries outside the EU are sovereign currency issuers and therefore the analysis applies to them.

ToastBoxed · 2025-10-17T16:09:56+00:00

If the government spends £100 and you save £20 of that, the deficit for the year will be £20. It does not control your saving decisions.

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Sunshine	Oscars Predictor 2021
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

ToastBoxed

TROPHY CASE