I know that to the US, the EU is just a big country but really, that's totally bogus. You might as well say Australia and New Zealand are the same country, or USA & Canada. There are massive differences politically, culturally, religiously, economically, just to name a few. For instance Germany is in the EU, and so is Estonia - the latter has a GDP/capital 1/3 of the former.

Someone mentioned Germany as bad - that's interesting because the English people I know working there say good things about how well-run things are, and the Germans have a massive reputation for efficiency.

I think everyone is either patriotic to their country, or thinks it is falling apart - or often both at once

Personally, I think the OP is far to young to decide he knows enough to turn his back on his home country, but is also very wise to go travelling if he can do so. Don't look to move country - you don't know enough to decide - travel various places instead.

And - saying you'll only go to countries with your language is part of the arrogance that makes Americans rather unpopular.

[quote name='Ravyne' timestamp='1323641187' post='4892908']
I don't believe that the American system is sustainable for all the programs we have.

Huh?
Taxation is not what pays for government spending, because under a fiat system the government is not revenue constrained. [...][/quote]

Small piece of advice: being correct is not enough in such discussions. If you want to be taken seriously, you also have to make sure that the out-of-band signals you're sending are good. For example: don't sound condescending or offensive. "Huh?" is a bad way to start your comment. It is never a good way to start if your ultimate goal is to convince the other person (or, more likely, some bystanders).

Another point is that your answer could be tailored better to the discussion at hand. Ravyne's belief - as far as I understood - was that it would be impossible to sustain US social programs without raising taxes. To this one could reply that, in fact, a government deficit is a good thing because it provides much needed stimulus to the economy. Of course, lack of knowledge about the mechanisms behind inflation is bound to come up in such a discussion eventually, and it's up to you how you want to deal with that particular problem.

That way, your contribution to the discussion becomes more useful, and everybody benefits from that. It's an uphill battle to at least get everybody to read basic facts about how the monetary system works, such as the one on PragCap or the primer by Randall Wray. You don't help by giving off the vibe of a crazy person (though I admit it often does feel like the inmates are running the asylum).

[quote name='Prune' timestamp='1323508128' post='4892467']
plus, I've no doubt some of our German friends are realizing that after two failed attempts at taking over Europe militarily, they might now be able to subjugate it economically).

Nothing like a bit of racism :/[/quote]

How is that racist? He is explicitly not over-generalizing - note the "some of our German friends". And besides, he is fundamentally correct. It has been a common theme in the German media for quite some time that Germany should just buy Greek islands and other assets. It's not just populism either: there has been a report by a German think tank on how a Greek privatisation should be overseen, with the obvious expectations that Germans would buy a large share of the assets which would be sold undoubtedly below value - as always happens in privatisation.

If you are a sociopath - as many high-level managers and politicians are - then this is a very natural thing to want to do from the German perspective. Thanks to net exports, the top 0.1% of Germans hold a lot of financial claims on firms or states in the rest of the EU either directly or indirectly. That is why they do not want to let the Greek and other governments go into bankruptcy: when someone goes into bankruptcy, it is always the creditors who take a loss. (Note how quickly Papandreou was forced to withdraw the idea of a referendum on the austerity measures.) It makes sense to try to convert those financial claims/assets into something more tangible.

The majority of Germans unfortunately do not understand this. To them, the narrative is "we are paying the Greeks to be lazy". They never even get a glimpse of the fact that what is really happening here is class warfare of the German capitalist elite (or at least a significant subgroup) against the rest of the Eurozone, including against German workers. In fact, the class warfare against German workers is the main tool by which they got into their current position of power in the first place.

(In case you haven't heard about it yet, wages in Germany have been stagnant for the last ten years, which created a huge discrepancy between Germany and the rest of the zone. This is what made the German net exports possible, which in turn caused the current account surplus, which led to the accumulation of large financial claims on the rest of the world.)

P.S.: I'm German.

Just move to Mars. =/

Small piece of advice: being correct is not enough in such discussions. If you want to be taken seriously, you also have to make sure that the out-of-band signals you're sending are good. For example: don't sound condescending or offensive. "Huh?" is a bad way to start your comment. It is never a good way to start if your ultimate goal is to convince the other person (or, more likely, some bystanders).

The problem with having such a position is that a character flaw should never get in the way of an argument; this is especially the case when I am not relying on my reputation to convince people: that is why I included a number of references in my post.

Another point is that your answer could be tailored better to the discussion at hand. Ravyne's belief - as far as I understood - was that it would be impossible to sustain US social programs without raising taxes. To this one could reply that, in fact, a government deficit is a good thing because it provides much needed stimulus to the economy.[/quote]
The deficit comment is also something Krugman would say, and he is not an MMTer. So such a statement is not a sufficient differentiation factor, and so I went into more detail.

That way, your contribution to the discussion becomes more useful, and everybody benefits from that. It's an uphill battle to at least get everybody to read basic facts about how the monetary system works, such as the one on PragCap or the primer by Randall Wray.[/quote]
Your first link leads to the second link I posted--I was being so helpful that I even saved people an extra click.

You don't help by giving off the vibe of a crazy person (though I admit it often does feel like the inmates are running the asylum).[/quote]
I don't see that I am giving off such a vibe. Are you sure you're not projecting?

The problem with having such a position is that a character flaw should never get in the way of an argument; this is especially the case when I am not relying on my reputation to convince people: that is why I included a number of references in my post.

It would be great if the world worked that way. Maybe I'm just around the wrong kind of people, but my impression is that many people do not judge an argument solely on the facts presented, at least not when they see or hear it for the first time. There is a "social proof-based" defensive shield that is instinctively put up, and only after you've passed that will they start to really think things through. Actually, I believe most people (including myself) are like that for many topics.

The deficit comment is also something Krugman would say, and he is not an MMTer. So such a statement is not a sufficient differentiation factor, and so I went into more detail.[/quote]

You have a point there. Still, it can help to start with a more widely accepted point and then add to that. But you're right, it's important to discuss the difference between typical post-Keynesians like Krugman, who say that there should not be a deficit over the business cycle (i.e. deficits in a downturn should be balanced by surpluses during good times), and the MMT researchers, who have a very convincing argument that increasing government debts (in absolute numbers) are necessary in the long run for a typical country (the only exception being countries like Norway with their massive oil exports).

You don't help by giving off the vibe of a crazy person (though I admit it often does feel like the inmates are running the asylum).[/quote]
I don't see that I am giving off such a vibe. Are you sure you're not projecting?
[/quote]

I certainly don't think you're a crazy person, and probably I should have worded things differently. What I'm really trying to say is this: try to see things from the perspective of someone who is utterly convinced that sound finance and a return to the gold standard is the way to go. Someone whose entire social circle believes the Robinson Crusoe & Friday story for where money comes from, thinks that deposits create loans, and so on. All those things are wrong, but for someone who has made them part of their identity, they are hard to give up.

To someone like that, the notions of MMT must sound as crazy as the claim that the earth moves around the sun sounded to normal people a few centuries ago.

So if you really want to convince the more open-minded among that group of people, you need to tread carefully and diplomatically. Don't tone down the message itself - it's important that people get exposed to it fully - but be careful in how you present it so as not to drive people away needlessly.

Minor irony based on a true story: upon reading that post you quoted I though; oh there we have the local condescending MMT nut again. But 'Prune' didnt ring a bell.

'Prefect', thats the name I was thinking of .

I know what you mean. It's easy to get carried away. But I try ;)

(Does calling me a 'nut' make you feel better? Or where does this come from?)

What I'm really trying to say is this: try to see things from the perspective of someone who is utterly convinced that sound finance and a return to the gold standard is the way to go. Someone whose entire social circle believes the Robinson Crusoe & Friday story for where money comes from, thinks that deposits create loans, and so on.

But here's the thing: such a position was actually where I started from! I even used to be a (mild) fan of Ron Paul, though now I believe he'd be a worse president than freakin' Ru Paul. Then the topic came up when I was chatting with a bona fide genius acquaintance and he easily destroyed every argument I had or copied and pasted in the MSN chat from various sources. And when I say destroyed, I mean nuked to atomic dust. Then I researched MMT, seeking holes to use in my next discussion with said friend, but instead ended up overriding my ego and overcoming my ignorance. And if someone as narcissistic as I am can do it, so can anyone else. It was the same sort of extreme conversion as when I read the interpretation of QM Mohrhoff puts forth and suddenly everything made sense and gained perfect clarity. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 (also now an expanded form is available as a book on Amazon).

My approach may be a bit condescending, but it's because I have limited patience and I get offended easily. I know it's paying off nonetheless. I've convinced several people on Slashdot to inform themselves and now I have a number of them backing me up and correcting the misguided, so I'm doing my bit to spread the knowledge that in retrospect should be obvious.