In the below link there is an excellent discussion about the two heterodox ways of looking at money and its role in the economy. Both MMT and Positive Money (PM) accept that the state is capable of creating and spending fiat money in order to serve the public purpose, constraint only by resources availability and inflation. However, whereas MMT favors maintaining the present banking system and focuses on fiscal policy in managing economic activity, PM argues in abolishing banking money creation and keeping only the sovereign aspect. For PM sovereign money puts an end to endogenous money creation by commercial banks and does away with reserves altogether. Thus, “a Sovereign Money System would end the split between the two money circuits that currently exist: one circuit of reserves, accessed only by banks and the central bank, and one of bank deposits, used by the general public. In a Sovereign Money system, citizens and banks access the same single money circuit.” Conversely, MMT does not propose ending the endogenous money creation by commercial banks, but instead emphasizes the primary role of the state as originator of the money supply. https://positivemoney.org/2018/09/modern-monetary-theory-and-positive-money/

#Week 2 Masterclass Recording Have you derived the Laffer curve, government tax income vs tax rate, in Minsky? Or did I just give myself a Minsky exercise? The Laffer thesis is that a high tax rate reduces productivity and therefore tax income, a 100% tax would make a dead economy. A lower rate increases productivity therefore increasing income to tax, but zero tax rate would mean zero tax income, the tax rate to maximize government tax income is somewhere in between. I have never seen an analysis of where the max is. Art Laffer implies that the max is way lower than the current rate.

Hello everyone, My name is Johan Zijlstra and I'm from The Netherlands. I have been active for the monetary reform movement 'Ons Geld' since the beginning and have been fascinated by money as far as I can remember. Because of events and conditions I haven't had a proper education pasted my failed high school, but during Business Administration I noted that there wasn't much thought given to how money was created. It still feels strange that a video called 'Money as Debt' once put my life around and that now my favorite economist, Steve Keen, is still one of the few economists out there that can explain how money is created. In The Netherlands there are a lot of people against Central Bank Digital Currencies. As monetary reformer I also would have like to have seen a different approach, but it seems that there is a change that CBDC could lead to a system change where money is created without debt attached to it. That being said, I was wondering how people on this Skool / forum / in this Community see money. Do you see a way for money to be debt-free and where do you think the states / governments fit in in these scenario's?

Rebecca Gorman's comment (are you still in the group, Rebecca) highlighted something I'm conscious of myself: that I'm cramming too much information into too few lectures. I expanded the number from 7 to 10 just to (a) enable me to separate Ravel from Minsky, and add lectures (b) on what microeconomics should be and (c) the flaws in Neoclassical economics. Should I go further, for the sake of people's comfort in absorbing my material?