Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Fighting over the "Last, great, unguarded pools of money in this country." Really?

(Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

That's how the American Federation of Teachers & AFL-CIO think?

That's what they think "People Power" is? Could we set our sights a bit higher?

No wonder we're focusing on tactics, winning a few Pyrrhic victories, ignoring strategy & context, and losing the class war.

Sounds like this topic meets their Gold Standard. :(
From AFL-CIO <peoplepower@aflcio.org>:
Join AFT President, Randi Weingarten
& ex Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi
for a discussion of his new book
The Divide: American Injustice
in the Age of the Wealth Gap

Monday, April 21, 2014, 3–4:30 p.m.
AFT, 555 New Jersey Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20001, (4th Flr Conf Room)
RSVP to Carolyn Jenkins at cjenkins@aft.org byApril 18
Matt Taibbi has led the effort to expose Wall Street firms that are making millions in profits off public pension funds.

“Essentially it is a wealth transfer from teachers, cops and firemen to billionaire hedge funders,” Taibbi says. “Pension funds are one of the last great, unguarded piles of money in this country, and there are going to be all sorts of operators that are trying to get their hands on that money.” 
[As usual] Matt Taibbi's book, "The Divide" will be available for purchase and signing.
#####

This is amazing. And also deflating. 

Reminds me of the last, great, unguarded pool of ladders, and how people might use them to get a better view of context.


We're all supposed to focus on the "last, great, unguarded pools of money in this country?" Why? When all these static pools of already-expressed-fiat pale in comparison to continuous access to our own, unlimited public fiat

"Fiat" currency in the USA is a direct expression of public initiative (and has been, officially, since 1933, NOT just since the inter-gov-only adjustments of 1971). Once we're convinced that we can somehow run out of our own, unlimited public initiative, then perhaps we've passed a tipping point. Past that point, is every pool of static assets already divided and conquered? Is Taibbi only uselessly railing about the mop-up exercises, AFTER implied capitulation? And in the process, completely missing the far more important DYNAMIC ASSETS?

Someone please tell Matt & the AFL-CIO that capitulation has not yet occurred? And that dynamic assets always trump static assets?

And also tell them that over-emphasis on defending (to the death) the isolated pools of already-issued fiat currency credits is a strategic error of colossal proportions? Isn't that like hunkering down to defend Stalingrad, and forgetting the purpose of the whole class war? Hint to all. Success ALWAYS tracks ability to envision the expanding scale of context - i.e., "Battle Space" - and exploring new options with more agility than opponents.

Given that the "opponents" in this struggle represent only our own, distributed ignorance, this is a battle we should win with ease, if we'd only listen, sooner, to more of ourselves!

Taibbi's call is akin to ONLY fighting over pools of already-issued tax credits?

That's how losing sides illustrate that divide-&-conquer works.

Taibbi doesn't get it? Nor does the AFL-CIO? And, they're both missing the bigger point? Worse,by doing so they actually help divert our electorate's attention away from the far bigger crime proceeding under our very noses, unnoticed by nearly all?

Nothing is as defeatist as a victimized population going along with it's own robbery, while actually helping to distract their own, distributed attention to details which are subsidiary to the greater crime.

In an all or nothing struggle for operational democracy, you do NOT focus excessive attention on subsidiary details, to the detriment of grand strategy!!! What part of all-or-nothing don't these people understand?

Instead of getting tied in knots defending specific, completely optional beachheads, the US Middle Class needs to be on an ALL OUT OFFENSIVE to preserve functional democracy .... and ACTING WITH AGILITY!!!

If the AFL-CIO would only take this context more seriously, this pointless, class in-fighting could be over in 6 months .... or it could drag on, with tragic economic losses, for another generation.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

Roger, do you think you could do a little more to explain the background of the issues and pieces you are writing about, and then explain your own position on those issues, and your arguments for those positions, instead of just launching into a free-form rant on pieces that you have apparently read, but your readers often haven't? I can't be the only one who frequently has a difficult time knowing where you are coming from.

Tom Hickey said...

Market-based distribution systems are about money. When markets are the basis of distribution that everyone obsesses about money and gets compulsive about getting it, holding it, and expanding one's holding. Market-based system are highly inefficient and ineffective as adaptive mechanisms in that their focus is backwards.

Tom Hickey said...

It's funny in that conventional economics treats money as a veil over barter and people are really bartering good and services including labor.

But the reality is that participants focus on money rather than goods and services and so utility maximization by rational optimization boils down to who's got the money and how can I get it over to my pile. In other words its about revenue, saving and wealth rather than exchange of goods and services under the veil of money.

Marx and Keynes got M > C > M', but the neoclassical economists still think in terms of C > M > C.

Karl Marx, Capital Volume One, Part II: The Transformation of Money into Capital, Chapter Four: The General Formula for Capital

Anonymous said...

Tom, the arguments over those formulas always struck me as similar to an argument over:

Egg > Chicken > Egg

Chicken > Egg > Chicken

Capitalists seek money to preserve their options for acquiring capital goods, which in turn enables them to acquire more money, which in turn allows them to acquire more capital goods, etc. etc. It is an ongoing evolutionary process.

Tom Hickey said...

Randy: "PZ there might be some economy somewhere in the universe in which money is neutral in the long run. Certainly not here on planet earth where capitalism dominates. What is the purpose of capitalist production? To make money. More precisely it is a matter of M-C-M': start with money, purchase commodities to produce output, sell output for more money (profits). How could money "not matter"? - in the comments

MCM' underlies the Post Keynesian monetary theory of production (MTP).

It has been shown that the basic schema of the MTP – as established by Graziani (2003) – mainly focuses on the problem of the monetary reproduction of a capitalist system, in a situation where firms as a whole are unable to realize money profits. It has been stressed that this conclusion – the so-called paradox of profits – holds on some restrictive assumptions and, particularly, on the assumption that every production process starts without pre-existing stock of wealth. It has been shown that Graziani"s formulation is close to Keynes"s Treatise on Money and can also be interpreted as a "rationalization" of the Marxian sequence M-C-M". A simple macroeconomic model has been provided in order to show that the basic assumptions of the MTP are consistent with the fundamental Keynesian thesis, as stated both in the TM and in the GT, with particular regard to the role of aggregate demand and uncertainty.

Investopedia:

Definition of 'Circuitism'

A macroeconomic explanation of how banks create money for production activities, how firms direct production, how workers contribute to production and consumption and how money from those activities then returns to banks. Circuitism is a post-Keynesian theory based on Karl Marx's ideas about the M-C-M (money-commodities-money) capital cycle.

Also known as monetary circuit theory.

Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains 'Circuitism'

Circuitism was developed starting in the late 1950s mainly by French and Italian economists such as Bernard Schmitt and Augusto Graziani.

Circuitism says that money supply is based on money demand. Money is demanded to finance production, to trade goods and services, to save and to invest. In contrast to neoclassical economic theory, which emphasizes the role of the individual in the economy, circuitism emphasizes the roles of banks and firms.

Anonymous said...

The thesis that money is "neutral" in either the short run or the long run can be rejected without leaning on that rather vague M-C-M business.

For a system that continuously evolves in historical time with endless cycles and subcycles of production, exchange, money creation, monetary profit making, monetary and real capital investment, credit expansion, etc., it makes little sense to single out one factor in the process as the beginning of the process. Nor does it make much sense to me to identify "making money" as the purpose of capitalist production. Most people, except for lunatic misers, still pursue money for the sake of the command it gives them over real resources: i.e. over people, capital goods and consumption opportunities.

Peter Pan said...

M' = includes profit
Businesses have to make profit, don't they?

Roger Erickson said...

? Dan Kervick?

I provided the sample of AFL-CIO correspondence ... then commented on it.

Do you have an inability to reason by analogy?

Do you want me to start each post by reminding you that there's such as thing as an alphabet, then words, then patterns of words illustrating concepts ... then agile manipulation of any & all word patterns?

I fail to see what your problem is, other than a general slowness at pattern recognition and manipulation of symbols.

If a conversation is going too fast for you, try asking questions, instead of complaining that the conversation moves too quickly for you, and that the world should slow down to your pace. That's not the way things work.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Roger, perhaps you're just too fast and nimble for me.

Or maybe you are just a lazy and disorganized writer, who writes only to entertain himself with his own garbled thinking, has no conception of the concept of a reader, has difficulty producing paragraphs containing multiple sentences and exhibiting a logical development of one proposition to another, and prefers repetitive emoting to such alternative forms of discourse as analysis, cogent argument or the considerate evaluation of evidence.

Matt Franko said...

Easy Dan... just speaking for myself we are not all nearly as talented at writing as you are...

Roger is a trained evolutionary scientist so I see him as bringing to the table a high level of skills in behavior observation and related analysis not necessarily being able to write it up in the narrative format perhaps as well as others who are more talented and trained in writing...

I see Roger's main take here:

"And also tell them that over-emphasis on defending (to the death) the isolated pools of already-issued fiat currency credits is a strategic error of colossal proportions.... Success ALWAYS tracks ability to envision the expanding scale of context and exploring new options with more agility than opponents.

Given that the "opponents" in this struggle represent only our own, distributed ignorance... Taibbi's call is akin to ONLY fighting over pools of already-issued tax credits? That's how losing sides illustrate that divide-&-conquer works."

Roger is pointing out what he sees as irrational behavior in those who continue to think more or less "we're out of money!" like Taibbi does here... I get it... maybe this reaches Taibbi and he can begin to see his irrational behavior that Roger is illustrating for him here... who knows...

or at least perhaps those in the scientific and military communities who may read this will be made to see what is going on over in the academe of economics...

rsp,

Anonymous said...

Roger is pointing out what he sees as irrational behavior in those who continue to think more or less "we're out of money!" like Taibbi does here.

Matt, where does Taibbi say that?

Matt Franko said...

Dan,

He doesnt write/say it.... its seen in his behavior as he implies in essence "hedge funds have all the money!"... "we have to get the money from the hedge funds!" etc...

Roger has studied chimpanzees and other primates and shaped their behavior in laboratory environments... chimpanzees cannot talk or write yet Roger has been able to assess and modify/shape their behavior just based on other non-verbal behaviors he is able to discern and then feedback to...

This is the way Roger is approaching it imo... like a biological scientist and Taibbi is the primate exhibiting the response behaviors...

rsp,

Anonymous said...

He doesn't write/say it.... its seen in his behavior as he implies in essence "hedge funds have all the money!"

I see nothing in that brief blurb implying any such view, Matt. Rather the view seems to be only that pension funds contain a vast amount of money from which ambitious Wall Street firms are making large amounts of money, at the expense of the people whose pensions are being managed.

More importantly, Taibbi has written an entire book on this issue, and all we have in this post is a one paragraph blurb. Apparently Roger's experience with other primates allows him to penetrate the contents of whole books and evaluate their arguments by sheer telepathy.

Matt Franko said...

Dan,

If his (Taibbis) point is that he thinks the fiduciaries who have authority over where/how these pension funds are invested are not getting the best value for their beneficiaries by using the Wall St firms, then he can leave out the "last unguarded pools" metaphor imo and rather just illustrate how much the fiduciaries are paying in fees vs other approaches like hiring their own in-house investment specialists and portfolio managers and pay them salaries, etc... (but then where will the free tickets to the ball games come from but I digress...)

What happens if the funds collapse in value to the point where they cannot meet their commitments to the beneficiaries and need a "bailout" even if they stop using Wall St? No options? as "the last pool of money has been emptied!"?

So Taibbi imo contributes to the continuation of the "we're out of money!" falsehood here with his "last pool" metaphor...

rsp,



Anonymous said...

That section of the book is no doubt a reprise of the arguments made in this Rolling Stone article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-the-pension-funds-20130926

In the context of that article, the claim about the "last unguarded piles of money" probably refers to his point that these state and local pensions are not covered by the ERISA law, and so do not require the firms who are managing them to exercise a "prudent man" standard, and have as a result lost a ton of money.

Here's a review of the book from the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-matt-taibbi-20140330,0,4516236.story#axzz2yQGso7Eb

Now I understand that many MMTers do not think issues about financial predation, TBTF, looting, criminality, plutocracy or the rest are important because there is no economic or public policy issue in the universe for which the answer is not "fiat money".

Retirement? Fiat money!

Education? Fiat money!

Health care? Fiat money!

Bubbles and flim-flam? Fiat money!

Private sector debt? Fiat money!

Asteroids from outer space? Fiat money!

It's amazing how all of humanity except for a select, enlightened few, have missed out on recognizing the magical properties of fiat money for creating real resources and real human labor energies from nothing and for eliminating contentious political issues about the control over the allocation of finite resources!

Unknown said...

I agree with Dan.

Unknown said...

also: piles, not pools.

Unknown said...

If I complained that I had just been robbed at gunpoint by Jamie Dimon on Wall Street, would the appropriate response be "Who cares? We have fiat money! The government can create as much as it wants! Why are you focusing on this irrelevant detail?"

No.

Unknown said...

Money is a real thing, even fiat money. When it's paid to people it belongs to them - it's their property. If a bunch of people put their money into a pile then you have a pile of money. If someone tries to con their way into taking a large part of that pile then you have a problem.

The fact that the money is fiat money, doesn't change that.

Pension funds are accumulations of money so calling them a pile is not problematic.

Matt Franko said...

C'mon Dan you are going to hyperbole with the extreme examples there with asteroids, etc..

Look if lets say we have a bridge that is not designed/operated correctly and it collapses due to inadequate design while at the same time, investigators detect fraud in that one of the steel suppliers knowingly supplied non-corrosion resistant steel in some area that would eventually result in premature replacement 20 years from now... you cant blame the fraudsters for the collapse you have to blame the designers...

I'm not saying "ignore fraud" in my hypo here those should be prosecuted but it is not the fix...

If we just listen to Taibbi and his more myopic focus on the fraud here to detect "what is wrong" with the system it is surely going to happen again... I'm not saying that "Taibbi is wrong" but rather he is not focused on the true problems...

et tu y?

rsp,

Anonymous said...

OK, Matt, so what is the real problem? Can someone figure out what the real problem is from Roger's post? Could someone reading Roger's post even come away with slightest idea about what Taibbi's book is about? What should be done differently? We're talking about state and local government pension plans here, so they don't even have an option in which fiat money plays any role.

Matt Franko said...

Dan among other things Taibbi is contributing to the perpetuation of the falsehood that "we're out of money!" imo this is not helping at all...

The problem is at least that no one in authority is monitoring the relationship between system liabilities vs system income and govt prices paid... so what we see is an acceleration of liabilities while at the same time system incomes and govt prices paid are not being sustained at a rate and levels to result in successful banking operations...

Its like we have people in charge of building bridges who are ignorant of gravity...

Look Roger is not an economist he's a PhD biologist, so it shouldnt be his job to redesign our economic systems we are (supposed to) have people in the academe who's job it is to do that... ie the academe of economics which is a complete disgrace... if I were in it I would get the heck out of it and into another dept...

Mike is bringing in people from diverse academic backgrounds here (not economics Mike is Ivy League and has the MA in economics here) like Roger here who is from the field of biology come military operations research who is pointing out how what we are doing as a species does not make sense from a biological behavioral perspective, imo hoping to draw the attention of folks in those fields who can draw the analogies he makes... (I get it at least...)

Its not Rogers job to redesign the US economic system he's a biologist for crying out loud ... all he is trying to do is draw some attention to what he sees as potentially species threatening policies that are being imposed by the people whose job it is ... and here wrt the Taibbi article imo he is pointing out that "we cant see the forest for the trees" type of thing which makes perfect sense (to me anyway...) as Taibbi is too narrowly focused...

rsp, matt

Peter Pan said...

Have any of you contacted Matt Taibbi? If he's so darned important, then maybe you should...

There are a large number of "we're out of money!" claims to write, speculate or gesticulate about.

Roger Erickson said...

Wow. The discussion here has gone in many directions, none of which I expected.

Dan K,
The allegory intended here is that campaigns work when they pick a Desired Outcome, and then discover any & all means of getting there. That's called agile "strategy" and agile policy.

Those who attempt to rally entire movements to isolated tactics or single issues, such as recruiting the Middle Class to focus on Pension Funds - instead of on Agile Policy as the Desired Outcome - are the most common causes of campaign failure.

As an example, note that Marriner Eccles in the 1930's did NOT write a book about any particular single issue, nor recruit unions or the public to focus on isolated tactics.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51046418-82/eccles-economy-president-federal.html.csp

Instead, he and FDR were incredibly agile, and did any & all things to keep the public's eye on the real prize.

Taibbi's book does NOT qualify as bold & courageous leadership. Nor do any AFL-CIO actions.

If you had the slightest willingness or proclivity to think, that should ALL be obvious from the very mention of "Pyrrhic victories" - which is, after all, a 2000-yr-old topic.

Next, I'll expect you to ask why I don't just always write for the lowest common denominator in our electorate, like you do, or Taibbi does.

It's because all system science points out the value of writing to the highest common denominator, while giving any intelligent, educated or highly practiced people remaining in the audience something to shoot for.

The only rational thing to do, ever, is make even more suggestions, or ask questions.

There were many people who criticized Eccle's writings, then and since (they're usually called Monetarists, or simply slow thinkers, even Deficit Doves).

Dan, whenever you criticize others in a campaign, merely because YOU do not understand something, you undermine team effectiveness and stall much coordination.

When it's a simple matter of what YOU do & don't understand, it's better to ask questions instead of demanding that all participants conform to ONLY & ALWAYS to the lowest common denominator.

There's precious little, outside of the evolving writings of Mosler, Wray & Mitchell, that weren't already more clearly discussed 80+ years ago.

Just starting from less-than-scratch, like YOU and Taibbi do, is definitely not going to cut it.

We need to set our goals and standards higher. MUCH higher.

Capiche?

Roger Erickson said...

Frankly, Dan K's comments remind me of a 10-yr old complaining about the writing at a quantum-mechanics convention.

If he doesn't understand, is it because the writers are lazy, the readers are lazy, or because of the diversity of both?

There are always some readers to understand every writer.

It's incredibly selfish - and childish - for either writers or readers to publicly complain about the diversity in the other's distribution curve. That's what defines prejudice and bias. Might as well go back to racism and discrimination against sexual diversity.

Anonymous said...

Taibbi's book does NOT qualify as bold & courageous leadership.

How do you know Roger? I strongly suspect you haven't read either that book or read the articles it builds upon.

You say there is some kind of "campaign" going on, and that Taibbi's concerns about pension plans are taking our eyes of the "real prize". OK, what is the real prize? What is the nature of that campaign? Can you yourself even articulate it? I doubt it.

I don't "capiche". Neither, I suspect, do you. I have come to the conclusion that you are just one of the many raving, delusional bullshitters of which the internet abounds, and that 90% of the time you yourself can't even attach any clear sense to the words you are using.

You say I should ask more questions. But in fact I have asked you questions in the past and you have taken great offense at the fact that inferior minds would dare to ask you for clarification of your magnificently airy "analogies".

So dream on in your fantastical cargo cult, powered by the delusional self-image that you are speaking a higher form of language unintelligible to the lowest common denominator. And good luck with the continuing induction of "recruits" into your imaginary movement.

Peter Pan said...

The purpose of writing books is usually to make money for the publisher and the author. Ever wonder what Matt Taibbi does to make a living?

The AFL-CIO have their own pile of funds to protect. That is the main purpose of that moribund institution.

There are dozens of other books and institutions advocating similar or divergent solutions to perceived problems - why is this noteworthy?

Lest a sparrow fall from the sky without Roger bemoaning the continuation of the status quo.

If I can visit a blog and be informed, I consider that a bonus.

Tom is informative. Long-winded, yet informative. Mike is concise. Roger is entertaining. All in all, a winning formula, else I wouldn't keep returning to this site.

As a reader, I'm capable of appreciating a variety of writing styles. I even enjoy Paul Craig Roberts, who may or may not be certifiable.

Roger Erickson said...

Dan K,
there are at least two polar opposite approaches to teaching & leading (& writing);

1) post constrained questions & tell people circumscribed answers; this is more commonly called instruction;
[this is what many students hate about many parents, ideologues & school - too many constraints]

2) pose questions, and demand that diverse audiences & teams find their own answers & lead themselves (i.e., actually THINK)
(for adults, & even for kindergarten students [with safe challenges], method #2 leaves method #1 in the dust;)

for one of many examples, see http://davidmarquet.com/

or try this
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa106027.html

Anonymous said...

Good points, Roger. When I was an academic my classes were conducted via Socratic method, which is question based and open-ended.

I would recommend that you attempt method #2 yourself. To date, however, your posts are not composed in a spirit of critical inquiry but generally consist of a boringly predictable string of brusquely articulated declarative sentences, loosely prompted by some piece to which you link but with which you never really engage, issued with as much exhibitionistic emotion and unearned contempt for your foil as you can muster.

In fact, it really doesn't seem to matter what writer you are linking to, since in most cases it seems clear you have not read much of what they actually wrote beyond some title or sentence that set you off into your own obsessive-compulsive circle of fixed ideas. It usually goes something like this:

[Link]

What?!

Are you kidding me?

Another idiot!

Haven't they heard about Return on Coordination?!

What is it about the term "fiat money" people don't understand?!

Agility!

Really?

That's the best they can do?

The post write themselves, don't they? I'm sorry to be so blunt about how dreadful this routine is. My usual habit is to just pass over your self-indulgent maunderings in silence, since I can't think of a single debate to which you have made a contribution even worth commenting upon. But I decided it is a disservice to people like Taibbi who have actually done some hard investigative legwork, and as a result have produced something that, whether right or wrong in the end, is worth paying attention to, to stand by and let crackpots rail at them and rip them down in public without being called on it. Too much passive silence conveys an impression of agreement. And you have seemed impervious to the more gentle forms of constructive criticism that others have offered on this blog from time to time.

Anonymous said...

For me, I think the notion of ‘vision’ is central: it makes all of the contributors on MNE interesting, and is the unifying element.

Someone sees some way of betterment in some field: - then they have to mask what they see in words that somehow are transparent. Not only revealing what they see, but its significance. Words can mask vision, just as vision can mask significance. The art is in making them transparent. It is, in essence, the art of being human!

Each develops their own technique, like writing a piece of music to reveal the motion and power underneath. Helpful criticism is understood and appreciated.

Losing sight of the vision brings fragmentation. Keeping the vision in sight fosters mutual respect. However, respect I believe begins with oneself, as a human being – because you find something within yourself that is worth respecting - and then is extended to others; a common vision providing a conduit.

So, we learn, we are not that far apart from each other, or different, after all! Just a little elbow room works really well when the focus is on vision. One sees the tail, one sees the tusks, one sees the legs, one see the ears, one sees the trunk: it is the same elephant in the room.

The overriding vision for humanity is Peace! It is in each and every human heart. But peace first, then vision, is the way nature has construed things! Then the message.

Roger Erickson said...

Your apology is accepted, Dan.

The personal rancor in your response I won't dignify with a response.

Some background:

https://twitter.com/lescnet/status/440185595009445888/photo/1

'The greatest failure of the American institution was the "school solution." which was common in all American military institutions and teachings except for The Infantry School. The officers were presented with only one right way to handle things. Such a teaching methodology has no place in a professional officer's education and it cannot be defended. It makes grown-up officers into yokels and the results were predictable. Mediocre officers relied entirely upon doctrine because they knew no other way. Outstanding officers had a hard tome to shake it up and become creative. The consequence was a lack of leadership, unimaginative problem solving against an imaginative enemy, and and a slow and methodical approach to warfare.'

The same applies for context management of anytime.

Demanding, and clinging to specific doctrine to use in fluid situations just doesn't work. There's no sense in continually calling for it, unless your goal is to harm your country, and keep it's capabilities phlegmatic rather than dynamic.

Unknown said...

Roger, a problem I had with reading your posts is I found them to be quite vague and opaque, and quite repetitive. So I stopped reading after a while. A such I don't know whether they got better or not.

I just read this one on your blog and thought it was good though:

http://openmonetaryopsforum.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/to-help-shape-aggregate-success-never.html

Anonymous said...

Roger, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you the guy who wanted to get into a discussion with me about the fact that I was diverging from your preferred "paradigm" in front of the potential "recruits"? So please give me a break about your supposed fluidity and agility. I have engaged with a much wider diversity of economic ideas than you have.

Roger Erickson said...

Y, none of the posters here have the goal of continually entertaining a few, specific readers.

An oft-repeated goal is to attract & recruit ~10% of the net or net-adult electorate. That comes out to be somewhere between 14 million to 33 million residents. We have a LONG way to go, and therefore NEED constant repetition.

Given that goal, it's natural for given combinations of readers/posters to tune in, participate, move on. That, in fact, IS one of the milestone goals.

No need to comment on that.

Since we are an ad hoc community, co-interested in fiat currency operations, my own rule is to urge other contributors and posters to not undermine the efforts of other writers in the MMT community.

Infighting is the surest way to make any group look foolish, lose an audience, and stall recruiting.

It's a balancing act, to experiment with critiquing non-MMT writers, while being careful to not undermine MMT writers with a shared agenda. Depends on whether there is a coherent Desired Outcome, or simply a random collection of tactics masquerading as national policy goals.

Roger Erickson said...

No comment, Dan.

Unknown said...

Roger,

ok. I don't expect you to entertain me or anyone else with novelties, you can write what you want.

Just saying I found the post on your blog interesting, as it puts a bit more flesh on the ideas you talk about.

Ryan Harris said...

I like reading most of the stuff posted on MNE. Regular comments from folks like Dan or Y or Ralph or whoever with diverse backgrounds, keeps everyone honest and on their toes. I think you guys work together to create a constructive, vibrant little media outlet. MMT dishes out a TON of criticism on politics and econ, a little constructive criticism or bickering here in public doesn't detract much.
Keep up the good work, lots of people read posts and comments