elr doesn’t add to govt, it makes it smaller, for example

As to what people working for ELR could do, I am amazed so many people ask. They need to watch more science fiction. The list of optional improvements to life goes on and on. Unemployment could be seen as an opportunity. Bring on the 24th century. But you could start with finding uses for what people are doing and not getting payed for. For example there is no excuse for having unemployed scientists still doing research and publishing and not getting anything for it. There are unemployed people out there doing creative work all over the place that may to be worth giving the highest honors to or being put into an art museum, but nonetheless could be put to enough use to be worth minimum wage. I think of a friend of mine who never could keep a steady job, but earned easily more than the unemployment benefits she got in her direction of amateur dramatics productions in the community. On a more practical level, low private sector unemployment times could simply be seen as times to do more investing in the long term. America’s highways are a mess. The last time I was there I thought at first the rental car had a flat tire. But as I said earlier, if the government *seems* to be too short of funds to take care of things like that, perhaps the quick and dirty compromise would be go after private sponsorship like the adopt a highway scheme in California. It may kind of creep me out to see signs like “This public works project helping your community and putting America back to work, is payed for by McDonalds”, but it’s better than not having it at all and enduring endless discussions about how we can’t do this or that, because it is too much big government.

Here’s the document:

Exchange rate policy and full employment

http://moslereconomics.com/2010/10/04/exchange-rate-policy-and-full-employment/

you can get one time adjustments via the cost side, which is a different matter.

and with mmt recognizing imports as real benefits and exports real costs, and no solvency issue, etc.
most of the mainstream currency arguments are moot

see ‘exchange rate policy and full employment?’

in general, deficits are like a bumper crop, and surpluses a crop failure, etc.

Rising prices are not an inflation in the economic sense. Rising prices are a reduction in the standard of living.

Inflation is one of those irritating words like savings that is very Humpty Dumpty like – tons of definitions depending upon the particular prejudices of the writer.

“but if we are running fiscal deficits to get full employment and these deficits lead to a devaluation in the forex market”

The US is running colossal deficits right now and the value of the dollar is going up.

So is the UK and our exchange rate is relative stable and increasing against the Euro.

So this idea that increased money supply = decreased exchange rate is another neo-classical myth designed to frighten people away from changing the status quo. The reality is much more complex than that.

Remember that all MMT does is maintain the strength of the financial flows through the monetary circuit at somewhere near the maximum values the system can withstand. That is positive for real output and means the economy is more valuable, not less.

but if we are running fiscal deficits to get full employment and these deficits lead to a devaluation in the forex market, then we could have inflation and according to mmt we should raise taxes or cut spending in order to curb inflation
and that prevent us to get full employment
so IF fiscal deficits lead to devaluation of the currency then we cannot get full employment and price stability
where am i wrong?