Unstable. Outside bonds supporting pensions, this is just rent for the already wealthy. Leading to ever greater inequality, which is not just economically unstable but morally outrageous.

You have said, several times, that - in his analogy - the stadium (government) spends $ (tickets) first and then collects $. This is wrong. You have likened his analogy with the business cards to a poll tax - that is wrong too. I am happy to discuss MMT - but only when properly characterised.

I’m sorry that you have misunderstood Mosler’s analogy entirely.

I’m sorry that you have misunderstood Mosler’s analogy entirely.

per se and a government-issued fiat currency. A better analogy that he makes is the one about his business cards (analogous to the tickets in this clip and so analogous to a fiat currency)

Yep, I know this. But definitely worth adding to this thread (should anyone else by reading it!). I think it’s far too short to be entirely clear what he’s saying - he’s not saying they print the tickets and then get paid for them later - he’s making an analogy between the ticket-issuance per se …

… the government and the non-government compete over a notion of money that is independently “issued” by neither party (for example because it is dug out of the ground).

… net financial assets is the government. The taxpayer or bond purchaser is clearly not funding the government, since they could not have the wherewithal to pay without previous government spending. Clearly all that I’ve just written is completely false in a non-fiat monetary system, where both …

Thanks. I’m still struggling a bit but I’m guessing you’re querying the idea the #MMT observation that the government spends before it collects revenue or sells bonds. In your analogy you’ve distinguished tickets from money - which is problematic. In a fiat currency system the only issuer of …

You may need to clarify your analogy, as at the moment I can’t map it on to anything that MMT is saying. What, in particular, is represented by the tickets in your question?