An MMT site bringing you dogma-free economics without the pleadings of self interest
More of these please!Also, Tom, on a somewhat related note, when Nixon closed the gold window...do you know what the general reaction from the public was? And did the economic community ask like ANY questions?I've read stories about how Nixon's administration spent more time discussing the "when" of the announcement (apparently they had to interrupt Bonanza)as opposed to the decision itself. And while comical, it's not a very good gauge of public sentiment outside the fact people didn't appreciate being disturbed during prime time television.
That was too complex for the public to get, let alone get excited about. Economists missed it and still haven't caught up. FDR had already shut the gold window domestically. This was internationally. The flak came from other countries with a KAS with the US and wanted "their" gold. Treasury Sec. John Connally, who recommended it, was correct that Nixon would get away with it with minimal consequences politically.
FDR shutting the gold window - isn't that a bit like the government stealing the nation's gold? One day you could go to the Fed and exchange your ntes for gold, the next day you couldn't.
notes, not ntes
"FDR shutting the gold window - isn't that a bit like the government stealing the nation's gold? One day you could go to the Fed and exchange your notes for gold, the next day you couldn't."That one way of seeing it. The other way is that shutting the domestic gold window resulted in a gain of policy space that allowed government to prevent excessive saving (gold hoarding) from "stealing" jobs.There are always trade-offs. The right thinks that property rights trump human rights, and the left thinks the opposite, so they see the same thing differently.
Good way of putting it, Tom. Still, if the government makes promises, it's always a shame when it breaks them. I don't like having to defend so-called 'robber-baron' government (in the eyes of the right). Anyway, that's past - the government should never have made those promises in the first place.The promises were made by a government on the side of capital TO capital. Then labour turned up and changed the game.Still, it's difficult to convince people that government 'theft' is worth it in the long run. It does require a particular political point of view.
p.s I agree that gold standard = theft from the working class.
Anonymous, governments will always do what it takes in crisis, if they realize what it takes, which they often don't. Libertarians don't get that survival trumps property rights, which they think are biblical and "the word of God," apparently. They are in la-la land of their own imagination regarding reality. It's therefore difficult to have a meaningful conversation with them.
Maybe their concept of property rights is simply too narrow. As far as they are concerned property rights can only apply to an individual, in a sort of 'finders-keepers' type of logic. That's a weak point in their argument. One doesn't even have to introduce other terms/ ideas in order to refute their logic on its own terms. One simply has to point out that there is no irrefutable foundation for their concept of property rights - i.e. that their ideal is simply a subjective/cultural construction. At that point their arguments about natural law take on a decidedly authoritarian character.. Turn the tables on them: they are the authoritarians, wishing to impose an ideology based on subjective preferences upon everyone else...
"they are the authoritarians, wishing to impose an ideology based on subjective preferences upon everyone else..."Exactly. Apriori through and through cloaked in the mantle of self-evident first principles. Very Aristotelian.
Post a Comment