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.
What mainstream libertarians don't understand is that the movement was started by the some of the one percent to get away from democracy. With the government gone the mega rich will have private armies and make their own rules. Taxes may go, but rents will replace them. The rents will be pitched at the maximum that can be tolerated, or the private army gets sent in.
Michael Hudson on Liberalism: "The aim is pretend that there is no rentier class trying to grab what belongs to the public at large, and that government protection against this class is an intrusion of liberty rather than protection of the kind of free markets that classical economists had in mind." When Michael Hudson speaks of "free markets" he means market free of economic rent not free from government. Liberalism is banker's racket.
I actively supported Ron Paul in 2012... http://www.gq.com/story/whos-afraid-of-these-ron-paul-delegates. However, when Romney became the GOP nominee, I chose to vote for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, who received 1,275,971 votes compared with 523,713 votes garnered by Bob Barr in 2008. Now Johnson will be the likely nominee again and he is polling over 10% in latest polls which is a big story. After watching some of the Libertarian Party debates I decided that candidate Austin Peterson is my choice because of his pro-life position. I reckon that makes me kind of unique because I also understand and appreciate where MMT fits into policy considerations.
I don't think that MMT leads specifically to any particular policy conclusions because policy is largely normative. MMT investigates different monetary arrangement wrt to what is possible under them, and wrt to policy, "policy space."
But also being a macro theory in addition to an operational elucidation MMT economists recommend certain policy choices in terms of the current debate among economists and policymakers about tradeoffs in the big three — growth, employment, and price stability.
MMT shows that under current arrangements, policy space is available to run truly full employment using existing available real resources to generate growth and maintain a financially and economically acceptable inflation rate while keeping the r < g for financial sustainability. This involves institutionalizing a permanent JG as a buffer of employed along with a price anchor.
MMT analysis also shows how to reconfigure the financial system in light of Minsky's financial instability theorem.
These are the current policy goals, which most economists think cannot be achieved simultaneously, so they debate over tradeoffs. MMT shows how we can have all.
5 comments:
What mainstream libertarians don't understand is that the movement was started by the some of the one percent to get away from democracy. With the government gone the mega rich will have private armies and make their own rules. Taxes may go, but rents will replace them. The rents will be pitched at the maximum that can be tolerated, or the private army gets sent in.
Michael Hudson on Liberalism: "The aim is pretend that there is no rentier class trying to grab what belongs to the public at large, and that government protection against this class is an intrusion of liberty rather than protection of the kind of free markets that classical economists had in mind."
When Michael Hudson speaks of "free markets" he means market free of economic rent not free from government.
Liberalism is banker's racket.
I actively supported Ron Paul in 2012... http://www.gq.com/story/whos-afraid-of-these-ron-paul-delegates. However, when Romney became the GOP nominee, I chose to vote for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, who received 1,275,971 votes compared with 523,713 votes garnered by Bob Barr in 2008. Now Johnson will be the likely nominee again and he is polling over 10% in latest polls which is a big story. After watching some of the Libertarian Party debates I decided that candidate Austin Peterson is my choice because of his pro-life position. I reckon that makes me kind of unique because I also understand and appreciate where MMT fits into policy considerations.
I don't think that MMT leads specifically to any particular policy conclusions because policy is largely normative. MMT investigates different monetary arrangement wrt to what is possible under them, and wrt to policy, "policy space."
But also being a macro theory in addition to an operational elucidation MMT economists recommend certain policy choices in terms of the current debate among economists and policymakers about tradeoffs in the big three — growth, employment, and price stability.
MMT shows that under current arrangements, policy space is available to run truly full employment using existing available real resources to generate growth and maintain a financially and economically acceptable inflation rate while keeping the r < g for financial sustainability. This involves institutionalizing a permanent JG as a buffer of employed along with a price anchor.
MMT analysis also shows how to reconfigure the financial system in light of Minsky's financial instability theorem.
These are the current policy goals, which most economists think cannot be achieved simultaneously, so they debate over tradeoffs. MMT shows how we can have all.
Post a Comment