Thursday, January 14, 2021

Bill Mitchell — British Labour may as well just not turn up at the next election

Why does the Shadow Chancellor of Britain have a WWW page entry at the Institute for Fiscal Studies? HERE. Perhaps when you read this you will have the answer. What follows is bad. It won’t make anyone happy – my critics or those who agree with the analysis. But that is what has happened in the progressive world as lots of ‘progressives’ added the neoliberal qualifier to their progressiveness and paraded around claiming technical superiority and insights on economic policy that the old progressives just could grasp. They have become so enthralled by their own cute logic that they cannot see they are handing the opposite side of politics electoral victory on a consistent basis. After you read this you might understand why I say that the British Labour may as well just not turn up at the next election....
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
British Labour may as well just not turn up at the next election
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

9 comments:

Andrew Anderson said...

Labour unions were always doomed to eventual failure in a contest with capital because of unethically financed automation.

But who wants ethical finance?

Peter Pan said...

Boris needs someone to play the role of the defeated.

According to the folks at UK Central Casting, Labour is highly recommended.

Peter Pan said...

Charles Payne on capitalism: A change is going to come
https://youtu.be/yBJpibDwECY

Mentions MMT, but I can't make sense of what was said.

Ralph Musgrave said...

It's always possible that neither the senior people in Labour nor the Tory party believe in balancing the budget and that they just pretend to believe in it because its what the average voter believes in.

Andrew Anderson said...

"Pitching magical elixirs like Modern Monetary Theory" is clearly a put-down.

But no, the purpose of a business is to do the will of its owners WITHIN the law and in the case of a common stock company that is the will of the share owners.

The problem then is that common stock companies are narrowly owned and thus serve private interests and not the general welfare.

And the reason common stock companies are narrowly owned is government privileges for private credit creation since those allow a company to avoid issuing additional shares in equity as a means of finance. Indeed, they allow a company to buy back their shares with what is, in essence, the public's credit but for private gain.

Andrew Anderson said...

So government privilege for private credit creation, in addition to its other inherent flaws, is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC.

Matt Franko said...

“"Pitching magical elixirs like Modern Monetary Theory" is clearly a put-down.”


Not so fast there... these Art Degree morons could really think the MMT people are practicing witchcraft...

Tom Hickey said...

It's always possible that neither the senior people in Labour nor the Tory party believe in balancing the budget and that they just pretend to believe in it because its what the average voter believes in.

This is likely a big reason that Stephanie pitched The Deficit Myth at the "average person." The erroneous government-as-household/firm analogy is at the foundation most of the misunderstanding. It will take some time for the effect to be felt and a lot more will have to pile on to disseminate it widely.

The next "myth" is already being prepared, that is, "inflation."

A problem is that the haves are adamantly opposed to taxation and MMT's inflation-fighting tool is chiefly taxation. So that's a non-starter for them. They are fans of monetary policy since higher interests to "fight inflation" favor them.

Andrew Anderson said...

A problem is that the haves are adamantly opposed to taxation and MMT's inflation-fighting tool is chiefly taxation. Tom Hickey

How is taxing the rich supposed to curb price inflation since the rich don't consume enough to matter?

Instead, it seems to me that taxation to curb price inflation MUST fall on the non-rich.

So MMT = welfare for the banks and, by extension for the rich, the most so-called "credit worthy" and taxation of the non-rich to control price inflation?

Morally repugnant much?