What's interesting is the fact that the most basic reason to oppose this idea -- that it would demolish the economy -- isn't even well understood by the BBA's proponents, who only see minor technical reasons (there'd be loopholes!) to oppose.

It'd be fine if George Will and everyone else wanted to say that the above analysis is wrong, and that the economy would be just fine if it had to balance the budget every year. That'd be a fine to debate to have. But at least be aware that this is the main issue.

This problem isn't confined to just Will.

The same ignorance was seen when Joe Scarborough wrote about how Paul Krugman was all alone in thinking that the deficit was not an urgent issue, which was just untrue. Lots of people agree with Paul Krugman on the question.

Clearly in DC, the deficit debate is so one-sided, that many people aren't even aware there are counter-arguments or people who could be opposed, for economic reasons, the wisdom of shrinking the deficit.

"Europe's railways are approaching a very important junction", said on January 30th Siim Kallas, vice president of the European Commission responsible for transport. They are facing the perspective of stagnation and decline or taking efficient decisions for restructuring of the markets with the aim to encourage innovation and increasing the quality of service. Probably another "package" (fourth in a row) of the Commission is not such an encouraging news for countries like Bulgaria, Spain and Portugal which, regretfully, are moving downward after the junction. In other words - the direction where European railways are headed, the Bulgarians can welcome them there as hosts.

For years in many member states under-investments have created a vicious circle - deterioration of infrastructure and rolling stock (locomotives, passenger carriages and rail motors), which makes railway transport non-attractive, therefore leading again to loss of interest for investments. But it is essential for the functioning of the EU economy, with turnover of 73 billion euros, which is 65% of the turnover of air transport, and ensures employment for some 800 000 people. Railways have a 10% share in the overall freight traffic in Europe with revenues of 13 billion euros, while the number of passenger trips for 12 months is more than 8 billion.

...

The new proposals of the Commission are focused on several weak spots in the current practise: bureaucracy, bad management of infrastructure, uncompetitive access to markets for passenger transport and quality of services.

Croatia's rapporteur in the European Parliament Libor Rouček (Socialists & Democrats, Czech Republic) is convinced that the country does not need a post-accession monitoring mechanism, similar to that imposed on Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. The reason, according to him, is that Croatia is fully prepared for EU membership, if, of course, it does its homework. In an interview with euinside, Mr Rouček disagreed with the proposed amendment to his draft resolution on Croatia's progress for EU membership by his colleague Monica Macovei (EPP, Romania). She proposes for Croatia to be introduced a post-accession monitoring mechanism because she believes corruption remains a serious problem in the country.

According to Ms Macovei, the mechanism should monitor the Croatian efforts in the fight against conflict of interest, corruption and organised crime, as well as the implementation of the reforms plan in the judiciary. In other words, precisely the same mechanism which was the pre-condition for Bulgaria's and Romania's accession in the EU on January 1st 2007, instead when they are ready with the reforms. But Libor Rouček is of the opinion that with every enlargement wave, the candidates are better prepared because of the experience and because more specific problems are addressed. Croatia is much better prepared for EU membership than some countries from the big bang enlargement in 2004 or compared to Greece 30 years ago.

...

Theoretically, it is possible Croatia not to succeed joining in time because of problems with ratification. So far, only in three member states the ratification procedure has not started yet. Those are Denmark, Germany and Slovenia. The latter is the biggest obstacle for the ratification process because it has put pre-conditions to initiate the procedure - solving the issue with the failed Yugoslav Ljubljanska banka. Currently, the top diplomats of the two countries - Vesna Pusic and Karl Erjavec - are holding a series of meetings together with the special financial experts, appointed by the governments in Zagreb and Ljubljana, to find an expert solution. The last meeting ended on February 6th after marathon negotiations in Slovenia, after which the two ministers announced that they have found a solution but they refused to name it before the prime ministers of the two countries - Zoran Milanovic and Janez Jansa - have approved it.

Q: You were a student of Hyman Minsky. Was Minsky's view on banks based on MMT principles?

A: Here's the funny thing. In 1996 when I was finishing up the UMM book, I mentioned the prospective title to Minsky. He raised an eyebrow. I talked about "taxes drive money" and the "employer of last resort". Eyebrow was raised again, but he didn't say anything.

I did recall that when I was his student, he had talked about taxes giving value to the currency. And in his 1986 Stabilizing an Unstable Economy book there are two direct references to this: (p. 55-56) "The value of Federal Reserve liabilities is based on the existence of substantial taxes, which must be paid in Federal Reserve liabilities to the government's account at the Federal Reserve. As long the federal government is an effective taxing authority, as long as a major part of government expenditures are financed by taxes, and as long as the government `banks' at the Federal Reserve, conditions cannot arise in which the Federal Reserve liabilities no longer function as money"; and (p. 258) "In an economy where government debt is a major asset on the books of the deposit-issuing banks, the fact that taxes need to be paid gives value to the money of the economy".

So he's got both Federal Reserve "money" and private bank "money" driven by taxes. You cannot get clearer than that. What I didn't know in 1996 was that Minsky had actually started a new book in 1989 with a working title of "Modern Money"! During the period 1991-93 he detailed how modern financial systems work as he continued to work on the book manuscript. And, he had written tons on the employer of last resort approach to ending unemployment and poverty back in the 1960s and early 1970s--including yet another unfinished manuscript. Unfortunately, he died later that year so I never got to talk to him about all of this, and only found all the manuscripts a few years later as we started to put his archives together at the Levy Institute. We are working at getting his drafts out. Stay tuned because it is tremendous stuff. He blows away any other post WWII thinker, in my opinion. He is the giant on whose shoulders we should stand.

Cut and not actually broadcast. One is tempted to think that was because of bad taste, but it is SNL, after all.