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.
Undoubtedly, there is a computer involved with this textbook. There's no explanation for Mitchell, but I suspect we're going to have to run interference with Wray since he recently allowed his cat to create his recent Twitter name: glf530619. Someone send HALP.
"Note 34. Thus, an exogenous money system might work in a socialist society, where the object of production is to provide goods and services. However, a monetary, capitalist society is based on accumulation of money-denominated wealth, and not on production of goods and services."
The whole point. The result is worker exploitation, as capital (investment) is treated as the factor of production and everything else, including labor is considered at input (commodity resource); whereas the truth is that labor is the factor and everything else is an input.
This is Marx in a nutshell. But for Mark it was industrial capital where M>C>M' where money (investment) is used for capital goods to produce profit (more money) in excess of product cost + labor share. Under finance capitalism it is M>M', which is increasing wealth through rent and by-passing product + labor share entirely.
Wray's Modern Money Primer from NEP is going to be published as a book for the coming school year. Scott Fullwiler mentioned it a couple of weeks ago on Twitter.
As for the text with Mitchell, they sent it over to Cullen for a final edit. ;- 0
Might, could, would ... but not in the reality we find ourselves in. A "capitalistic" society is a euphemism for the end product of a impressively long evolutionary chain. A "capitalistic society" is therefore a superficial euphemism for a "highly adaptive society." The array of factors & forces at work sum the feedback from all existing disciplines, not just economics or finance.
We have no idea what challenges we'll face, but we've overwhelming evidence that the surviving human societies - if any - will be those with the highest adaptive rate.
You might always want to keep AT LEAST Darwin & von Boltzman in mind (and be able to call upon any input, upon demand), and also the USMC. Here are some prime examples, in simple jargon, to fuse with MMT.
"success follows the quality of distributed decision-making" ... and "we generate tempo by decentralizing decisionmaking"
USMC on [policy by other means] http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/mcdp1.pdf
USMC on Campaigning http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCDP%201-2%20Campaigning.pdf
12 comments:
Homework!
Btw, does anyone know when the MMT textbook by Wray/Mitchell will be available?
Trixie,
I found that at any point of time the textbook is to be published "next year". Does that answer your question? ;)
Well, it's only 1/35th of the time that we will have to wait to get free, limitless power from fusion on earth. What are you complaining about? :-)
Start of the school year. So Autumn for the US.
I'm going to guess it is this:
Wray, L.R. (2012) Modern Money: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary System
However no mention of W.F. Mitchell there.
Undoubtedly, there is a computer involved with this textbook. There's no explanation for Mitchell, but I suspect we're going to have to run interference with Wray since he recently allowed his cat to create his recent Twitter name: glf530619. Someone send HALP.
#Swish
I've suggested replacing the 530619 with Wray as most other Wray related names are taken so it would be
GLFWray - it seems reasonable to me.
this is interesting:
"Note 34. Thus, an exogenous money system might work in a socialist society, where the object of
production is to provide goods and services. However, a monetary, capitalist society is
based on accumulation of money-denominated wealth, and not on production of goods
and services."
@ Matt
The whole point. The result is worker exploitation, as capital (investment) is treated as the factor of production and everything else, including labor is considered at input (commodity resource); whereas the truth is that labor is the factor and everything else is an input.
This is Marx in a nutshell. But for Mark it was industrial capital where M>C>M' where money (investment) is used for capital goods to produce profit (more money) in excess of product cost + labor share. Under finance capitalism it is M>M', which is increasing wealth through rent and by-passing product + labor share entirely.
Wray's Modern Money Primer from NEP is going to be published as a book for the coming school year. Scott Fullwiler mentioned it a couple of weeks ago on Twitter.
As for the text with Mitchell, they sent it over to Cullen for a final edit. ;- 0
well it is about time I said I don't like the inside wealth and outside wealth analogy comparison in the MMP.
Why?
Because I don't get it.
@Matt Franko,
Might, could, would ... but not in the reality we find ourselves in. A "capitalistic" society is a euphemism for the end product of a impressively long evolutionary chain. A "capitalistic society" is therefore a superficial euphemism for a "highly adaptive society." The array of factors & forces at work sum the feedback from all existing disciplines, not just economics or finance.
We have no idea what challenges we'll face, but we've overwhelming evidence that the surviving human societies - if any - will be those with the highest adaptive rate.
You might always want to keep AT LEAST Darwin & von Boltzman in mind (and be able to call upon any input, upon demand), and also the USMC. Here are some prime examples, in simple jargon, to fuse with MMT.
"success follows the quality of distributed decision-making"
... and
"we generate tempo by decentralizing decisionmaking"
USMC on [policy by other means]
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/mcdp1.pdf
USMC on Campaigning
http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCDP%201-2%20Campaigning.pdf
Interesting that the USMC is about as far from a capitalistic institution as one can get.
Capitalism was an evolutionary step. Like all previous steps, it is to be surpassed by the next step.
Post a Comment