I have already seen a couple of stories about the reverse centaurs: one at the Australian National University and one a friend who owns a tech company using AI to replace software developers. The Doctorow's radiology example explains what happens.

The reverse centaur is a mode of alienation as this old message reminds us https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTTQfumgRvV/?igsh=bHRrbHBxcWxhNWQ1

@Jon Underwood >>No! Please show where the money came from that Treasury is spending. Please show using DEBK how Treasury spends new money into existence.<< Already shown here https://www.skool.com/stevekeen-free/mmt-responds-to-their-critics?p=a97c21ac and here https://www.skool.com/stevekeen-free/mmt-responds-to-their-critics?p=5fbebf77 You need DEBK + T-bond salees + Deficit spending + System Dynamics + OMOs to explain the causational effects that produce the current state of the financial system from any previous point in time. The separation between fiscal and monetary authorities is a fiction that does not obviate MMT. You are stuck around a transient/equilibrium point on the T-bond sale / Deficit spending transition. Your cause and effect is based in ideology. You are assuming that the private sector is rich and the government is both poor and limited to deficit spending and T-bond sales. This is a partisan "ideal". It takes more than DEBK, deficit spending and T-bond sales to explain how the government can exponentially inflate the money supply subject to the funding rules. A proper description also requires system dynamics and OMOs. You need to step back and understand (reproduce using Ravel) what I am saying. --Done

@Jon Underwood >>Show me a ravel using ‘system dynamics’ that shows Treasury spending or Treasury deficit spending creating new reserves, and I’ll show you a ravel where Treasury is spending prior to receiving tax receipts or bond sales revenue.<< https://www.skool.com/stevekeen-free/mmt-responds-to-their-critics?p=a97c21ac and here https://www.skool.com/stevekeen-free/mmt-responds-to-their-critics?p=06ab799e

@Jon Underwood We are going around in circles. When you asked me questions I gave answers. You need to address my responses. 1. You asked: >>As long as you do not allow treasury deficit spending with a treasury zero balance, so no overdraft allowed, ravel will show you the treasury deficit spending does not create new reserves. I have showed you this. Why do you disagree with ravel?<< Ravel does not show this. See the attachments Initial TGA > 0 balance. Bank reserves and NBNFS deposits both increase after deficit spending. I also attach the Ravel file. New bank reserves and deposits have been created that never exited before by deficit spending. If you believe that bank loans create deposits then tell me why treasury spending did not create deposits here? 2. My debunk of your substack post is still awaiting response. >>Repost the content here, as O keep saying I cannot access links, and I will show you all your mistakes, again!<< I had already reposted it on free here https://www.skool.com/debunking-economics-7964/mmt-responds-to-their-critics?p=39bb2011 Here it is again..... Let us repeat your proof from your substack ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I repeat what you say: >>If we track the money supply, we have the following buying the bond: -Deposits (bond buyer) -Reserves (buyer’s bank) +Reserves (TGA) +Bond (bond buyer) = -D -R +R +Bond = -D + Bond The Public buying bonds redeuces deposits and decreases the money supply. The Deficit Spending looks like this: -Reserves (TGA) +Reserves (Payee’s bank) +Deposits (Gov Payee) = -R +R +D = +D GOV spending causes banks to create new deposits. Taken both together, which tracks the money supply from before the bond was sold until after the bond proceeds were spent: -D -R +R +Bond -R +R +D = +Bond.

@Jon Underwood >>“Bank reserves and NBNFS deposits both increase after deficit spending.” No. Reserves are Fed Liabilities, and are transferred from TGA to banks, no net change, no net increase.<< Show this using Ravel OR show how what you say happens in my Ravel. >>Deposits were reduced when customers via banks paid taxes or bought bonds, which is how the TGA was funded by receiving the underlying existing Reserves<< This ignores causation (Ravel system dynamics) - should be "Deposits were reduced when customers via banks used bank deposits previously created by TGA spending to pay taxes or buy bonds." >>When the TGA spends those reserves, they are returned to the banking sector, which is where they were created by the CB expanding their BS to accommodate banks swapping their assets for reserves.<< Inaccurate. If I try to translatre my Ravel into the language that we have been using then it would read, "When the TGA "spends", the Fed transfers a portion of the TGA balances to banking sector reserve accounts of targetted banks belonging to the targetted recipients. These newly created bank reserve assets are offset by newly created bank deposit liabilities corresponding to the deposit account assets of the targetted spending recipients." The bank reserves and deposits are new money. Why? Because following our previous discussions about how bank loans create new deposits and hence create new M1, so too has government spending created new M1. You also stated that when a bank customer pays another customer, deposits are first destroyed when spent and created when received. The result in all cases is the same. Under the FFR other deposits owned by the NBFS are at some point destroyed through bond sales so that the TGA account at the Fed never goes into overdraft. >>No new net reserves. No new net deposits from public taxes or bond purchases after TGA spends these funds. Literally “borrow then spend.”<< When you say "net" you are welding bond sales to spending as if they are a single combined atomic process. Ravel does not do this because it takes into account the system dynamics in which these transactionas are separate. Hence your >>“borrow then spend.”<< ignores causation by design.

@Jon Underwood >>You wrote >>A. Tax and spend creates no new net reserves and no net new deposits.... Yes! >>Fed facilitates bank payments to UST via Liability Swap: Yes! -Liabilities (-reserves Treasury)<< This shows an outbound Treasury payment ‘to’ a bank, I.e. Treasury spending. << You originally wrote >>Fed facilitates bank payments to UST via Liability Swap: -Liabilities (-reserves Treasury) +Liabilities (+reserves receiving bank)<< It is a typo. Should be -Liabilities (+reserves Treasury) Wrong '-' should '+'

@Jon Underwood >>No. The funds that pay for the bond comes from a bank, a transfer of existing Ressrves, and those exact Ressrves are what the Treasury spends.<< These reserves DID NOT always exist. Take a look at the above plot. >>In fact, the ONLY funds the Treasury uses to deficit spend are from bond sales. No bond sale, no deficit spending.<< Where did the funds come from for bond sales? Take a look at the above plot. No matter what institutional reality you try to enforce, the underlying theory that describes how money works remains the same. Ravel is that law and it shows that the government is creating the fiat that cycles through the economy. >>Everything else about cycles of spending is a distraction, it’s a solution fur a different problem.<< On the contrary, the evidence for causation is contained withing the cycles of spending. This is precisely my point. >>You are solving a different problem with your cycles, the fact that we have a $30T economy but only $3T in Ressrves.<< This is a good point concerning the last plot where there are neither initial fiat nor bonds. In that last plot the CB "buys back the debt" by OMOs/QE or otherwise the economy dies. But this is not the case for my other simulations. It is perculiar to the zero initial condition case which requires bank loans to kick-start the economy. The demonstration of causation as we follow the money in the simulation remains unaltered as in all of my simulations. >>That means the bond sale is always the start of the Treasury being able to deficit spend.<< No. Equally the treasury spending is always the start of the NBFS acquiring the deposits to buy the bonds. It is a chicken and egg situation that can only be resolved by observing the system dynamics. You only understand the DEBK bit of Ravel. You also need to understand the system dynamics. This is a problem you need to address. Did you read about Newton's second law? Did you grasp the reason why I stated that Ravel is the "Newtons's second law of economics"? Ravel is a paradigm shift in economics.

@Jon Underwood >>this thread is not the forum for you to be giving advice about the money mechanics in BoE article, MMT, UCL or MY BOOK!<< If that is this the case then why this? >>Btw, Here is an analysis I did on Substack to clarify the deficit spending issue: https://open.substack.com/pub/jonunderwood/p/dont-let-mmt-fool-ya-the-only-way?r=emteb&utm_medium=ios<<

@Jon Underwood I have two questions about what you are saying here. >>So intellectually, what insights can you provide in light of the data that contradicts the MMT narrative?<< To be clear, I do not believe that the financial data you cite for the UK (for example) contradicts the MMT narrative. >>Since there has been no borrowing, and no increase in Ressrves, it’s extremely clear that the BoE is NOT creating new Fiat for the Treasury to spend.<< I believe you are again referring to Chart 1 of https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/bank-of-england-market-operations-guide/our-objectives However there was "borrowing" (not a word I would use a la MMT) because there were treasury bond sales to the public - right?