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.
Scott went all-out Matt Franko in that post. Interesting notion that because of the Internet and all these platforms, it is much easier to have a direct democracy in the US than it might have been even just 50 years ago.
This is the same as active learning vs rote learning....Active learning is systems learning and goals are simple rote statements....Imo some people (maybe all people) cannot do both it's either/or for us...MMT cannot be taught successfully via rote or "goals" as Adams describes it here... although many are trying....
Matt, is that why some left-wingers who first learn about MMT will agree on austerity being bad, but then try to call MMT a scam because they misinterpret some of the rote teaching that way and have a bit of their cognitive dissonance as a result? To me, the accounting aspect of MMT is no brainer, but I can see how it would be much harder for someone else who never looked at a balance sheet in their life to be able to understand some of the deeper intricacies here. I can see why Mike eventually decided to just focus on making money with his knowledge since it was frustrating for him to try to teach people this stuff and continually see many people not understand where he's coming from whatsoever.
I think you have cognitive abilities not present in most others that allows you to reach a fuller understanding of these systems... i.e. you are qualified.... this ability was either innate or obtained thru training or perhaps a bit of both...This is the larger point I'm trying to make with my "morons!" schtick and why I get triggered by all the "neo-liberal conspiracy!" excuses...
"Mike eventually decided to just focus on making money with his knowledge"I wouldn't discount that entirely that is perhaps another way of (active) teaching... not rote... I'd encourage Mike to keep it up no one else is doing it...
You have to cross stroke people. When they sneeringly ask you how you're going to pay for it, answer 'by spending the money'. Which is actually the answer.
"I wouldn't discount that entirely that is perhaps another way of (active) teaching... not rote... I'd encourage Mike to keep it up no one else is doing it..."In a way it seems to be working now for him. His subscribers are gradually climbing up. He passed the 2000+ mark a little while ago so there are more people listening and paying attention and being more active in learning MMT for themselves. I even saw one guy who kept hammering Mike and trying to call him as bad as Peter Schiff apologize at the end because he realized Mike had been getting a lot of these calls correct. It's not the biggest audience ever, but he's gradually acquiring more of a following than ever.
Please stop with Scott Adams.One can only stand so much fruitcake.
"Please stop with Scott Adams."He too does think we are "out of money!"...
Adams, like Trump, is an exercise in self-promotion. However, that doesn't mean that neither of them has any potentially useful ideas.This post is significant if not important because he is proposing an experiment in direct democracy.I think it is a good idea and Trump should take him up on it. It would be a change from jamming through legislation based on ideology. While I support direct democracy, issues like healthcare are technical and complicated and I don't know how far direct democracy can go in technical fields. However, Adams is not proposing a vote by referendum but rather a discussion of alternatives and options. It would be useful at least to acquaint people with the issues involves, along with the complexities.Hopefully, an MMT-based explanation about funding would be forthcoming. This could be a revealing experiment. It would also just be a start in educating the public how to approach design problems.
Please. He's going on about how clueless Trump is some genius three steps ahead of everyone else.And Adams's idea seems to be The Bachelor where they discuss healthcare policy instead of whether they're there for the right reasons. Maybe Adams will be the chosen one and walk around with his shirt off all the time.
As a citizen, I call upon the Trump administration to help the public create a system to sort out the best healthcare options for the country, free from the pressure of lobbyists. Just tell us which website to look at, and we’ll do the rest. When we (collectively) have a good set of proposals (let’s say three different plans), Congress can turn them into bills and vote. If the public takes sides with one of the bills, that helps to neuter the lobbyists. Lobbyists know politicians need to get reelected. And that means lobbyists are helpless when the public and the politicians are on the same side.I don’t like living in the “can’t do” country. If Congress can’t get healthcare fixed, the public appears ready and willing to fill the gap. All we need is a preferred website to focus that energy.Better yet, let’s see the debate on healthcare as a limited engagement reality TV show. Bring on the experts on each mini-topic (such as selling insurance across state lines) and have them try to convince a panel of business-expert judges that their plan is the best.I’d watch it.Adams is talking about engaging the public. That's a good thing in the debate. Polling shows that a majority of the American public prefers single payer. Their voices are not being heard now.Of course, these are only a few ideas. Those with suggestions they think better than his are free to propose them.
BTW, I survey blogs from across the political spectrum. The division into two groups is stark. They inhabit different realities with their own alternative facts and interpretations based on them. There seems to be no common ground for debate since the disagreement is so fundamental. This pretty much rules out the potential for compromise.
Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment?
Wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment?Not if just advice. Direct democracy as government of the people, by the people and for the people instead of electing representatives would require a constitutional amendment changing the form of government from a republic to a democracy.
Post a Comment