An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
The OWS protests are going viral internationally. This is a world-historical moment that you can tell your grandkids you witnessed online. Me? I'm headed off to the Occupy Wall Street protest in Iowa City today.
First, because political events affect economics, markets, and policy, and secondly, because this is directly related to the future of the global monetary and financial system.
Those protesting recognize that the system is broken in a way that is disadvantaging them, and so the demand for radical change is growing stronger.
What that change will look like is an open question. However, at this point, it seems that the pressure is increasing for overhauling the system instead of reforming it.
The basic complaint that is pretty much shared on left and right is that a principal problem is corruption, and the system is rigged against the vast majority of people. The young see a bleak future for themselves in the global economy that is developing, the middle sees itself being increasingly shut out of the rewards even though they have done everything right, and seniors and boomers approaching retirement see their "golden years" getting pushed further and further away from them, as they are forced to labor in the coal mines for less and less until they die.
People with whom I have been discussing this do not think that MMT offers change that is radical enough. The overwhelming push is to end the Fed, and along with it central banking and international financial institution like the BIS and IMF, and go to a completely different system that neutralizes the power of global finance capital.
I was at a meeting with friends on Wednesday to discuss the present financial and economic mess and what to do about it. A friend that I had alerted about MMT surprised me by rejecting it as a viable solution because he saw it as a compromise with a broken system. He understands MMT quite well; yet he is pushing the Kucinich/AMI plan because he thinks it will change the system, whereas MMT will just try to patch it up, leaving the same people in power. He figures that they will just work around the patch and eventually gut it, and then remove it.
The sentiment funs from Ron Paul, sound money, and a return to the gold standard, to the Kucinich/AMI proposal to go to direct issuance of notes by the Treasury, establishing money creation as a public utility.
If MMT is going to get a foothold as an option going forward, it is going to have to assert itself as a viable option. Right now, that's not happening. Warren did get out there and address the Tea Party, so I assume that some MMT'ers will attempt to educate the OWS people, too, as things progress. It is very early in the game yet, but there is a lot work to do.
The closest thing to MMT on the radar at this point is Michael Hudson, who is a member of the Kansas City school of economics. He visited the Occupy Wall Street gathering a couple of days ago, for example. But he is presently supporting Kucinich/AMI. He is also probably a too far left for many that support MMT as an apolitical centrist solution that both left and right can come together on.
My perspective is that it is too late to influence the '12 general election significantly at this point, and nothing much will change after the election, no matter who is elected. Both parties are bought and paid for, and will do the bidding of their masters, who are the same masters. But these are going to be major issues in '16 and also likely in '20, and by then MMT needs to be established as the preferred option.
The time to start is now. I'm off to the general meeting of the local OWS group this afternoon after attending last evening. Nice group of well-intentioned people with good energy. They are preparing to dig in for the long haul.
People say that the 99'ers don't have a any demands. They have a very clear, singular demand: — the 1% (read "ruling elite") has to go. And they are preparing to dig in until that happens.
Anyone who thinks this is a blip on the screen that is not going to affect the global economy and financial system big time is ignoring a gorilla in the room, IMHO. And if times get worse, as seems likely, this pressure is only going to build and gather steam. I am not saying that OWS is that trend in toto. But it is positioning itself to become a major player. So far, they are taking care not to ally themselves with any party or interest group, and they are well aware that there will be attempts to hijack the movement as well as to marginalize it.
I am a strong believer in trends as shapers of future events. Those who can pick up on trends early and see where they may be leading have an advantage in a lot of ways, markets being one of them.
This is a major trend in the making, as Ravi Batra, Strauss & Howe, and Gerald Celente all predicted before it got underway. If they are correct, it is going to result in profound change, socially, politically, and economically. OWS is shaping up as a principal contributor to that trend that Batra summed up as "the coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos."
"Current events form future trends" - broadly true, but of course it depends on how you interpret the trends.
Anti-war protests were very prominent during the Vietnam War - and what happened thereafter until today?
If anything, the trend is for the system going full circle - from feudalism to neo-monetary-debt-feudalism. Why? - because there are too many people and not enough resources - and this is how the system defines who gets the resources and who doesn't.
If you agree that China is the success story of the past 2 decades - then you should recognize that China has a totalitarian government which can control allocation of resources centrally. What is wrong with that?
Many are claiming that the system is broken because they are looking at world events via the lens of the populist-peasant corner. From the perspective of those who have access to resources, the current system makes perfect sense - I can't predict who will win - but I can tell you one thing - given exponential population growth with severe resource limitations - those who have access to resources will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way - and you know the military, financial and political resources they have access to.
"Anti-war protests were very prominent during the Vietnam War - and what happened thereafter until today?"
Nixon was forced to resign. Man, did we have a party that night. The draft was ended. Cultural repression ended. The countercultural revolution changed the culture. Lots of big things happened. I grew up i the forties and fifties, so I know firsthand.
Yes, there was a set-back beginning in the Reagan years. The young got co-opted with the materialism they opposed initially.
What you say it about the future is true. There are two scenarios, where the 90% get eliminated and the 10% remain, or the 90% eliminate the 10%.
There is an old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. We are entering interesting times.
While it is true that the 10% "control" all the levers of power, including the military, remember that the guns are all in the hands of people that come from the 90%.
Tom, I wouldn't be as extreme as to say 90%-10%. The new system still needs productive people e.g. scientists, engineers, architects, ECONOMISTS (!) etc etc. to run properly.
By my estimation, we need to eliminate around half of the people in the US to reach equilibrium.
In any case, the US melting pot experiment is clearly a failure. The most effective and productive social orders are usually linear e.g. race, gender, affiliation, thought processes etc etc. Until that happens, don't hold your breath for any human advancement. In fact, if you look at the US, it appears to be the first example of social & human regression in mankind's history.
6 comments:
I thought this is a MMT site - why the proliferation of populist, rabble rousing peasant propaganda?
First, because political events affect economics, markets, and policy, and secondly, because this is directly related to the future of the global monetary and financial system.
Those protesting recognize that the system is broken in a way that is disadvantaging them, and so the demand for radical change is growing stronger.
What that change will look like is an open question. However, at this point, it seems that the pressure is increasing for overhauling the system instead of reforming it.
The basic complaint that is pretty much shared on left and right is that a principal problem is corruption, and the system is rigged against the vast majority of people. The young see a bleak future for themselves in the global economy that is developing, the middle sees itself being increasingly shut out of the rewards even though they have done everything right, and seniors and boomers approaching retirement see their "golden years" getting pushed further and further away from them, as they are forced to labor in the coal mines for less and less until they die.
People with whom I have been discussing this do not think that MMT offers change that is radical enough. The overwhelming push is to end the Fed, and along with it central banking and international financial institution like the BIS and IMF, and go to a completely different system that neutralizes the power of global finance capital.
[continued]
I was at a meeting with friends on Wednesday to discuss the present financial and economic mess and what to do about it. A friend that I had alerted about MMT surprised me by rejecting it as a viable solution because he saw it as a compromise with a broken system. He understands MMT quite well; yet he is pushing the Kucinich/AMI plan because he thinks it will change the system, whereas MMT will just try to patch it up, leaving the same people in power. He figures that they will just work around the patch and eventually gut it, and then remove it.
The sentiment funs from Ron Paul, sound money, and a return to the gold standard, to the Kucinich/AMI proposal to go to direct issuance of notes by the Treasury, establishing money creation as a public utility.
If MMT is going to get a foothold as an option going forward, it is going to have to assert itself as a viable option. Right now, that's not happening. Warren did get out there and address the Tea Party, so I assume that some MMT'ers will attempt to educate the OWS people, too, as things progress. It is very early in the game yet, but there is a lot work to do.
The closest thing to MMT on the radar at this point is Michael Hudson, who is a member of the Kansas City school of economics. He visited the Occupy Wall Street gathering a couple of days ago, for example. But he is presently supporting Kucinich/AMI. He is also probably a too far left for many that support MMT as an apolitical centrist solution that both left and right can come together on.
My perspective is that it is too late to influence the '12 general election significantly at this point, and nothing much will change after the election, no matter who is elected. Both parties are bought and paid for, and will do the bidding of their masters, who are the same masters. But these are going to be major issues in '16 and also likely in '20, and by then MMT needs to be established as the preferred option.
The time to start is now. I'm off to the general meeting of the local OWS group this afternoon after attending last evening. Nice group of well-intentioned people with good energy. They are preparing to dig in for the long haul.
People say that the 99'ers don't have a any demands. They have a very clear, singular demand: — the 1% (read "ruling elite") has to go. And they are preparing to dig in until that happens.
Anyone who thinks this is a blip on the screen that is not going to affect the global economy and financial system big time is ignoring a gorilla in the room, IMHO. And if times get worse, as seems likely, this pressure is only going to build and gather steam. I am not saying that OWS is that trend in toto. But it is positioning itself to become a major player. So far, they are taking care not to ally themselves with any party or interest group, and they are well aware that there will be attempts to hijack the movement as well as to marginalize it.
I am a strong believer in trends as shapers of future events. Those who can pick up on trends early and see where they may be leading have an advantage in a lot of ways, markets being one of them.
This is a major trend in the making, as Ravi Batra, Strauss & Howe, and Gerald Celente all predicted before it got underway. If they are correct, it is going to result in profound change, socially, politically, and economically. OWS is shaping up as a principal contributor to that trend that Batra summed up as "the coming revolution against political corruption and economic chaos."
"Current events form future trends" - broadly true, but of course it depends on how you interpret the trends.
Anti-war protests were very prominent during the Vietnam War - and what happened thereafter until today?
If anything, the trend is for the system going full circle - from feudalism to neo-monetary-debt-feudalism. Why? - because there are too many people and not enough resources - and this is how the system defines who gets the resources and who doesn't.
If you agree that China is the success story of the past 2 decades - then you should recognize that China has a totalitarian government which can control allocation of resources centrally. What is wrong with that?
Many are claiming that the system is broken because they are looking at world events via the lens of the populist-peasant corner. From the perspective of those who have access to resources, the current system makes perfect sense - I can't predict who will win - but I can tell you one thing - given exponential population growth with severe resource limitations - those who have access to resources will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way - and you know the military, financial and political resources they have access to.
"Anti-war protests were very prominent during the Vietnam War - and what happened thereafter until today?"
Nixon was forced to resign. Man, did we have a party that night. The draft was ended. Cultural repression ended. The countercultural revolution changed the culture. Lots of big things happened. I grew up i the forties and fifties, so I know firsthand.
Yes, there was a set-back beginning in the Reagan years. The young got co-opted with the materialism they opposed initially.
What you say it about the future is true. There are two scenarios, where the 90% get eliminated and the 10% remain, or the 90% eliminate the 10%.
There is an old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. We are entering interesting times.
While it is true that the 10% "control" all the levers of power, including the military, remember that the guns are all in the hands of people that come from the 90%.
Tom, I wouldn't be as extreme as to say 90%-10%. The new system still needs productive people e.g. scientists, engineers, architects, ECONOMISTS (!) etc etc. to run properly.
By my estimation, we need to eliminate around half of the people in the US to reach equilibrium.
In any case, the US melting pot experiment is clearly a failure. The most effective and productive social orders are usually linear e.g. race, gender, affiliation, thought processes etc etc. Until that happens, don't hold your breath for any human advancement. In fact, if you look at the US, it appears to be the first example of social & human regression in mankind's history.
Post a Comment