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.
Tom, I looked at some of the Lietaer videos you linked to the other day. Much of what he has to say is well-taken but he seems to believe that the main parameter along which public debate should move is the centralization - de-centralization spectrum. He talks about "government-debt-bank money," which is a correct enough characterization as things are today. He makes good points about having alternative systems and redundancies which make the system more resilient if less narrowly efficient.
I think, however, that public vs. private is still an important issue on the money issue, which is why I think MMTers should take more seriously the basis of the 100% reserver's critique, even if ultimately disagreeing with the solution. A public monopoly is different from a private one as has been seen time and time again as utilities and other basic functions have been privatized. A public-private hybrid as, I suppose, our money system could be termed is not necessarily the golden mean, either. It doesn't do all that much good to have monetary sovereignty if the "sovereign" is captured by the "interested" men.
David, I think that these are fundamental problem, along with economic rent. This are the major issues that need to be brought out into the sunlight and debated. But, as Lietaer says, that's a career killer in the profession. TPTB do all in their power to make sure that this doesn't happen or if it does, it is off is some corner where it can be walled off as something like "socialism," or at least marginalized as not serious.
2 comments:
Tom,
I looked at some of the Lietaer videos you linked to the other day. Much of what he has to say is well-taken but he seems to believe that the main parameter along which public debate should move is the centralization - de-centralization spectrum. He talks about "government-debt-bank money," which is a correct enough characterization as things are today. He makes good points about having alternative systems and redundancies which make the system more resilient if less narrowly efficient.
I think, however, that public vs. private is still an important issue on the money issue, which is why I think MMTers should take more seriously the basis of the 100% reserver's critique, even if ultimately disagreeing with the solution. A public monopoly is different from a private one as has been seen time and time again as utilities and other basic functions have been privatized. A public-private hybrid as, I suppose, our money system could be termed is not necessarily the golden mean, either. It doesn't do all that much good to have monetary sovereignty if the "sovereign" is captured by the "interested" men.
David, I think that these are fundamental problem, along with economic rent. This are the major issues that need to be brought out into the sunlight and debated. But, as Lietaer says, that's a career killer in the profession. TPTB do all in their power to make sure that this doesn't happen or if it does, it is off is some corner where it can be walled off as something like "socialism," or at least marginalized as not serious.
Post a Comment