Sunday, April 17, 2016

Randy Wray — CAN BERNIE DO IT? The View of a Non-Establishment Economist


At the risk of a cliché, awesomely awesome.

New Economic Perspectives
CAN BERNIE DO IT? The View of a Non-Establishment Economist
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, Bard College

Also

Bernie knows his Catholic social teaching, honed to navigate the strait between the Scylla of capitalism based on free market fundamentalism and the Charybdis of totalitarian communism. It's about putting humanity and ecology ahead of property and profit.

RAndy quotes liberal from Bernie's speech. Here is the transcript.

TIME
Read the Speech Bernie Sanders Gave at the Vatican
Ryan Teague Beckwith

7 comments:

Matt Franko said...

"The debt ratio grew to 100% of GDP"

That's about where it is right now if you look at total issued including intra-govt holdings... so what is the problem?

"the postwar economic boom was facilitated by the safe private portfolios stuffed full of risk-free US Treasuries."

Well that might be partially true but they weren't yielding ZERO....

Simsalablunder said...

"That's about where it is right now if you look at total issued including intra-govt holdings... so what is the problem?"

Unemployment, underemployment.

Matt Franko said...

So we had the same unemployment issues when this ratio of Wray's was at the same level?

I do not think so....

nivekvb said...

I thought Wray was a centrist but it turns out he is in the Left. But is he, and am I on the Left? Well, it depends on how you look at it. But if being on the Left means being anti-establishment, against war, and against being ruled by the rotten ruling class, well, the ultra right-wing libertarians are that too. Could it be that I'm really a centrist and that politics has moved way far to the Right. More on this in another post.

Simsalablunder said...

"So we had the same unemployment issues when this ratio of Wray's was at the same level?"
No.

Matt Franko said...

Well then what is his point?

This is a really poisonous sophomoric sentence:

" If the government takes too many resources, this could set off a bidding war and cause inflation."

Ignores "its about price not quantity..." completely ignorant of this part of the theory...

Where does he look at leading flows of USDs from the govt in the New Deal era? He looks at ex post results like the deficit and savings... but not what the USD flow of the leading spending was....

Trade?

Does not trade policy come into this and the propensity for export nations to save in USDs? No mention of trade... right now we have the deficit about equal to the trade balance so in effect only the foreign sector is saving in USDs and creating the current deficit...

this is also more complete BS:

"The math is quite simple. We could take away most of the wealth of those 60 individuals—leaving them still quite wealthy—and redistribute it to the 3.5 billion poorest people on planet earth, raising their living standards considerably without negatively impacting global production."

This is absurd... apparently "the math" is not quite so simple... How can you hope to convert the stock of these people's real/financial assets into a flow of currency balances for a continuous redistribution? How do you think that global production will not be effected if the firms currently producing everything will be liquidated? Who will these firms be sold to?

And now "money" comes from rich people? I dont think so...

this is just a really, really bad analysis...

Simsalablunder said...

Look, Wray is merely pointing out that todays scare mongers who says that depth ratio is to high are wrong. He does that by reminding the reader that it was that high back then and it worked just fine. You're again trying to make an argument out of nothing by misreading and extreme hair splitting exercises.