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.
I haven't read the 110 page proposal so I don't have an opinion on it, just thought that it was interesting that they're even talking about it and acknowledging that most money is currently created by private banks out of thin air.
If we look at banks as licensees of the monopolist and most "bank money (loans)" being created out of thin air, "... acknowledging that most money" (velocity) "is currently created by private banks"
I could get along with that observation. Because banks (largely) don't spend net dollars into private accounts any more than payday loan outfits do.
I haven't read it yet, Dan, but what iceland does or doesn't do is really only significant for Icelanders, the country is so small. So they have a very special situation that doesn't apply to most others, with different opportunities and constraints.
For example, because they are so limited in population, they could easily adopt popular participatory democracy, which would be much more challenging in larger countries.
"Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments, and would serve as intermediaries between savers and lenders"
It starts to make me nervous. Now people will "have" to save in order for there to be any investment funds available..... isn't this just more supply side drivel? This is all an attempt to make crowding out a reality it seems to me. Im sure this CB would would need to be making a profit so as to send some to the govt for spending.
For example, because they are so limited in population, they could easily adopt popular participatory democracy, which would be much more challenging in larger countries.
I should unpack this by saying that by having popular participatory democracy a completely different institutional structure becomes possible than in places where elite control is entrenched. Elite institutional control is determinative socially, politically and economically. No escape.
The French escaped elite control in the 1790's, and the Russians sorta escaped elite control in 1919. It was messy, though. ;-)
How long was it before there was a French empire under Napoleon and a new oligarchy of the Party in Russia, with Stalin even mimicking a Tsar in absolute power.
"How long was it before there was a French empire under Napoleon and a new oligarchy of the Party in Russia, with Stalin even mimicking a Tsar in absolute power."
I just watched a news report about how Zappos is creating a boss-less workplace and my initial thought was...... somebody will become the boss, they always do. We will always develop systems where somebody takes charge, but the way they attain power, how they maintain it and how long they get to keep it are just some of the things that should always be negotiable. And who gets to do the negotiating matters too.
Right. The dialectic is between hierarchical organization and consensual organization. In a well-functioning organization they need to be harmonized.
The best way I have seen to do this is through task groups that come together to address specific tasks and then dissolve. Natural leaders arise who are best suited to the particular task. This allows the org to be stable enough to do the job in any particular case, yet flexible enough to adapt to shifting context.
9 comments:
OT Tom but thought this Iceland proposal to get rid of private money creation might be of interest to you.
I haven't read the 110 page proposal so I don't have an opinion on it, just thought that it was interesting that they're even talking about it and acknowledging that most money is currently created by private banks out of thin air.
Dan
If we look at banks as licensees of the monopolist and most "bank money (loans)" being created out of thin air, "... acknowledging that most money" (velocity) "is currently created by private banks"
I could get along with that observation. Because banks (largely) don't spend net dollars into private accounts any more than payday loan outfits do.
I haven't read it yet, Dan, but what iceland does or doesn't do is really only significant for Icelanders, the country is so small. So they have a very special situation that doesn't apply to most others, with different opportunities and constraints.
For example, because they are so limited in population, they could easily adopt popular participatory democracy, which would be much more challenging in larger countries.
When I read things like;
"Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments, and would serve as intermediaries between savers and lenders"
It starts to make me nervous. Now people will "have" to save in order for there to be any investment funds available..... isn't this just more supply side drivel? This is all an attempt to make crowding out a reality it seems to me.
Im sure this CB would would need to be making a profit so as to send some to the govt for spending.
For example, because they are so limited in population, they could easily adopt popular participatory democracy, which would be much more challenging in larger countries.
I should unpack this by saying that by having popular participatory democracy a completely different institutional structure becomes possible than in places where elite control is entrenched. Elite institutional control is determinative socially, politically and economically. No escape.
The French escaped elite control in the 1790's, and the Russians sorta escaped elite control in 1919. It was messy, though. ;-)
The French escaped elite control in the 1790's, and the Russians sorta escaped elite control in 1919. It was messy, though. ;-)
How long was it before there was a French empire under Napoleon and a new oligarchy of the Party in Russia, with Stalin even mimicking a Tsar in absolute power.
"How long was it before there was a French empire under Napoleon and a new oligarchy of the Party in Russia, with Stalin even mimicking a Tsar in absolute power."
I just watched a news report about how Zappos is creating a boss-less workplace and my initial thought was...... somebody will become the boss, they always do. We will always develop systems where somebody takes charge, but the way they attain power, how they maintain it and how long they get to keep it are just some of the things that should always be negotiable. And who gets to do the negotiating matters too.
Right. The dialectic is between hierarchical organization and consensual organization. In a well-functioning organization they need to be harmonized.
The best way I have seen to do this is through task groups that come together to address specific tasks and then dissolve. Natural leaders arise who are best suited to the particular task. This allows the org to be stable enough to do the job in any particular case, yet flexible enough to adapt to shifting context.
Post a Comment