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.
Mike Norman Economics / MMT Blog? Or Tom Hickey Politics / Russia Blog?
Fair point.
Mike has not chosen to post here recently. Mike has a YouTube channel to which he posts and people can flow him there.
Other than Bill Mitchell the MMT economists have not been blogging either. So there is little MMT news and I put up what comes up.
The action is now longer in the blogosphere but rather at FaceBook and on Twitter. I don't post stuff from there here at MNE. People here that are interested can follow the relevant parties at those venues, such as #MMT at Twitter.
As far as politics, international relations, and other subjects that I post on goes, I take a systems view of the world and see the social, political and economic aspect as aspect of a single system. I have criticized the economics profession as a whole for failing to address economics in this light and treat the global economy as a closed system that is also influenced by social and political events. As far as I am concerned, doing economics is a windowless room is a fool's errand that is mostly just a waste of time and ink.
THE major issues in the global system right now revolve around the US and its allies, Russia, and China. I post quite a bit on Russia since there is a lot of information available on one hand and on the other, as a complement to the Western view. The truth lies somewhere in the middle but it is not a matter of just splitting the difference either. It requires more careful analysis.
I could spend a lot more time on US politics, which has more influence on the global economy that most anything else. But I just don't have the stomach for that. It's too much of a sewer.
BTw, I would also like to know more about China and posts more about it. But there is little good information in English. Most of the stuff written on China is from a Western perspective and is deeply influenced by Western ideology and tacit knowledge. It shown itself to be consistently off the mark. China should have collapsed long ago if these views held.
From what I can tell, the Chinese realize that it is about real resources availability and money is just a mater of a unit of account used in bookkeeping. A command system is powerful if the people in charge know what they are doing. Westerners are convinced that this is wrong but China keeps on rolling along. Same with Japan and its outsized public debt.
Conventional wisdom holds that China is at a certain stage of economic development. Their challenges and advantages are different, and are expected to change as their economy evolves. Of course the Marxist view will be different to that of the neoliberalist.
According to the narrative whereby capitalism raises people from poverty, China has been a great success.
I'm sure the Chinese realize the importance of real resources; if they were as financially driven as the UK or the US then they'd try for ideological reasons to pretend otherwise. As an export-driven economy they are aware of the importance of the exchange rate.
More than 96% of what Africa exports to China is raw materials. More than 90% of what Africa imports from China is manufactured goods. Not unlike the resource colonialism practiced by the United States and UK/EU when they were at similar levels of industrialization.
I have been reading MNE for years and I just want to say that I think you do a good job Tom Hickey. Although I don't agree with everything you say I try to learn from it.
I also appreciate Tom's work, although I sometimes pass by a lot of news and just read the summaries posted and headlines.
The problem Tom (and everyone else) faces is that a lot of the economics news in the macro space it is just echoes of the past. What is interesting about 'economic news' regarding macro and economists sectarian wars? Is more of the same, is only interesting to read about them when there is an important development on one camp (and Tom does a good enough work on that).
So keeping posting about the latest idiotic statement (out of the 'moronism' camp) from whatever politician or policy maker is entertaining to a point but of little information value.
Keeping a view on international politics and struggles otherwise has high value (and usually is deeply connected with practical economics) as that does indeed affect us and we can have a (negligible) impact at least, whereas is impossible to change what mainstream economists say or people who will keep thinking we can 'run out of money' (99.99%?).
10 comments:
Mike Norman Economics / MMT Blog? Or Tom Hickey Politics / Russia Blog?
And some said Newsweek was overpriced at $1.
Ha !
Mike Norman Economics / MMT Blog? Or Tom Hickey Politics / Russia Blog?
Fair point.
Mike has not chosen to post here recently. Mike has a YouTube channel to which he posts and people can flow him there.
Other than Bill Mitchell the MMT economists have not been blogging either. So there is little MMT news and I put up what comes up.
The action is now longer in the blogosphere but rather at FaceBook and on Twitter. I don't post stuff from there here at MNE. People here that are interested can follow the relevant parties at those venues, such as #MMT at Twitter.
As far as politics, international relations, and other subjects that I post on goes, I take a systems view of the world and see the social, political and economic aspect as aspect of a single system. I have criticized the economics profession as a whole for failing to address economics in this light and treat the global economy as a closed system that is also influenced by social and political events. As far as I am concerned, doing economics is a windowless room is a fool's errand that is mostly just a waste of time and ink.
THE major issues in the global system right now revolve around the US and its allies, Russia, and China. I post quite a bit on Russia since there is a lot of information available on one hand and on the other, as a complement to the Western view. The truth lies somewhere in the middle but it is not a matter of just splitting the difference either. It requires more careful analysis.
I could spend a lot more time on US politics, which has more influence on the global economy that most anything else. But I just don't have the stomach for that. It's too much of a sewer.
I should also add that I have stopped posting on Moronism, which is most writing on economics and finance.
The politics of MMT, and for prescriptions like the JG, JIG, are bleak.
BTw, I would also like to know more about China and posts more about it. But there is little good information in English. Most of the stuff written on China is from a Western perspective and is deeply influenced by Western ideology and tacit knowledge. It shown itself to be consistently off the mark. China should have collapsed long ago if these views held.
From what I can tell, the Chinese realize that it is about real resources availability and money is just a mater of a unit of account used in bookkeeping. A command system is powerful if the people in charge know what they are doing. Westerners are convinced that this is wrong but China keeps on rolling along. Same with Japan and its outsized public debt.
Conventional wisdom holds that China is at a certain stage of economic development. Their challenges and advantages are different, and are expected to change as their economy evolves. Of course the Marxist view will be different to that of the neoliberalist.
According to the narrative whereby capitalism raises people from poverty, China has been a great success.
I'm sure the Chinese realize the importance of real resources; if they were as financially driven as the UK or the US then they'd try for ideological reasons to pretend otherwise. As an export-driven economy they are aware of the importance of the exchange rate.
More than 96% of what Africa exports to China is raw materials. More than 90% of what Africa imports from China is manufactured goods. Not unlike the resource colonialism practiced by the United States and UK/EU when they were at similar levels of industrialization.
I have been reading MNE for years and I just want to say that I think you do a good job Tom Hickey. Although I don't agree with everything you say I try to learn from it.
I also appreciate Tom's work, although I sometimes pass by a lot of news and just read the summaries posted and headlines.
The problem Tom (and everyone else) faces is that a lot of the economics news in the macro space it is just echoes of the past. What is interesting about 'economic news' regarding macro and economists sectarian wars? Is more of the same, is only interesting to read about them when there is an important development on one camp (and Tom does a good enough work on that).
So keeping posting about the latest idiotic statement (out of the 'moronism' camp) from whatever politician or policy maker is entertaining to a point but of little information value.
Keeping a view on international politics and struggles otherwise has high value (and usually is deeply connected with practical economics) as that does indeed affect us and we can have a (negligible) impact at least, whereas is impossible to change what mainstream economists say or people who will keep thinking we can 'run out of money' (99.99%?).
My 2 c.
Post a Comment