[aazaa]

> It's extremely HackerNews-ish of you to propose that the author of the article ignores your pet theory.

What pet theory is that? All I did was to mention two historical episodes that preceded the event under discussion, and which the paper fails to mention.

> The author of the linked article is Barry Eichengreen, widely recognized as the premier scholar of the Great Depression.

So what? We're talking about the paper, not a person.

> The article references about 900 pages worth of other articles, believe me: your pet theory about the 1920's events is considered in the conclusion.

On what pages does the paper take up the issue of the speculative bubble leading up to the Great Depression?

> Governments don't work like a household. What matters is borrow costs and use of funds. If a government can borrow and the net growth generated is greater than the interest rate on the debt, it's a good thing to borrow. Like any business debt.

A main MMT talking point. Yes, I've read Kelton's book and yes, a government that prints its own currency is not like a household.

MMT is an experiment. For all our sakes, I hope its proponents are right.

> A government can be in debt forever, the only thing that matters is borrowing costs and growth rate (and how the growth is generated see eg. Chinese real estate for malinvestment).

What if malinvestment looks like investment until it doesn't?