A new report, forensically analysing the flow of payments in Sweden has come to the conclusion: ● Sweden is a self-financing state.● Taxes do not finance the Swedish state.● The Swedish state does not borrow Swedish kronor from the private sector. Our report shows this by expanding on the description by FSPOS (the Financial Sector's Private-Public Cooperation forum) in their report “Swedish Payment Flows – How they work” of how payments to and from the state actually are performed. The report also makes reference to Swedish law, as well as to publications and web pages of Riksbanken, the national Debt Office (Riksgäldskontoret) and the Financial Management Authority (Ekonomistyrningsverket). Together these sources clearly show that state spending creates money, that taxes do not finance the state, and that the state does not borrow Swedish kronor from the private sector. https://www.mmtforsverige.se/rapporter

GSM-ASA for short, instead of MMT modern monetary theory. Many thanks to @Demetrios Gizelis @Richard Corin @Jon Underwood @Marcus Champ The government makes a budget every year with outgoings for police and social security and stuff. And as income, postulates - guesses- how much tax will be paid during the same calendar period. Day one of the budget starts, and the government instructs the treasury *or whatever department deals with payments, to pay out from the account at the central bank. As money is coming on from taxes, a lot in January, the amount is paid out. Where do taxes come from? Economic activity of ordinary citizens However, next month, taxes are slow coming in. The treasury* needs to BORROW. how does it do that? Issue bonds. The treasury prints the sum on a nice paper, a bank or otherwise certified lender dips into their coffers and pays the amount to the treasury*, gets the paper instead. Now. Where did the bank get that money? From profits. Where did the profits come from? From offering services like lending and making a profit on them? From whom did the profits come? Ordinary citizens. What will banks get from lending the money? Dividend. So - correct me if I am wrong about this theory - the government, to pay its already budgeted (i.e. agreed outgoings) borrows money from banks - paying them a dividend every month - money that banks have got by making profits on services to ordinary citizens. So - correct me if I am wrong - banks make profit on money transactioning two times. I love this theory it is really neat. But it also says that - as citizens are going to pay one way or another - that it might be better to skip private banks altogether as they don't seem to add much value? Citizens are going to pay the budget via taxes, better to do that directly than have these banks as middle men.

The article from BBC seems to explain it all. https://bbc.com/news/business-50504151 Spend first, claw back in tax. However, we all know that once the budget is agreed, the account at the central bank can open. But does it only have a month's worth of money in it? This so e.g January's tax back pays February's outgoing cash flow wise, and covers January's outgoings accounting wise? If you get the national account loaded with the ability to pay out during the year cash flow would look dodgy only at the end of the year. So why have to borrow throughout the year? Why hold back on money already decided? Any experts out there understand what is going on? I asked Richard Murphy about why Sweden borrows for every month and he said they do it because they are under a delusion. The gov debt office with 500.employees! Help me out @Demetrios Gizelis ?

Milton Friedman, the archbishop of monetarism, in his influential article “The Methodology of Positive Economics” argued that an economic theory is not to be judged by the realism of its assumptions but only by its predictive power. In this video “Professor” Hearn thinks that he’s destroying MMT by arguing that it has to be false because its assumptions are unrealistic. Here we’re dealing with an advocate of monetarism who’s attacking MMT on the ground that it’s founded on wrong assumptions! Irrespective of this methodological inconsistency, I wonder how seriously can someone take this person when he fails to understand that MMT only describes the operation of a contemporary fiat monetary system, and as such does not rely on any type of assumptions? If you listen to this junk, then throw it in the trash bin 🚮 https://youtu.be/QcIeZuatxnA?si=d_dm-xwyZG9tkiem

In this article MMT economists Scott Fullwiler and L. Randall Wray explain the role of Quantitative Easing as a potent tool of monetary policy, the efficacy of fiscal policy vs monetary policy, accountability issues regarding the activities of the Treasury vs those of the Fed, and proposals for reform of monetary policy. For anyone interested in gaining some useful understanding of these general monetary issues, I think it’s worth the while spending time to studying it. https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_645.pdf