tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post2633968495779115542..comments2024-03-28T07:50:06.102-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Sandwichman — The Wage[s]-Lump Doctrine -- still dogma after all these yearsmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29793744381245037352018-07-11T12:22:21.063-04:002018-07-11T12:22:21.063-04:00ANC Driver: My apologies, this is the first time I...ANC Driver: My apologies, this is the first time I have been able to get back to this conversation. <br /><br />ANC Driver:<i>Nowhere did I say nor do I advocate restricting rights</i><br /><br />I cannot understand how the following does not advocate drastic restrictions of rights: <br /><br /><i>Everyone needs to make a life changing choice, preferably when just reaching adulthood. Do you want to treat your house and your labours as an asset, and if so, you must accept that you are a market capitalist and accept the risks that come with it (such as bankruptcy). If you do not want to accept the risks then you should not be permitted to treat anything as a commodity.</i><br /><br />In my view, everyone should always have an inalienable right to buy stuff with their money, and to hold property, with no novel restrictions. In particular, their most important property and the socially and economically most important property by far: their right to own and dispose of their own labor as they see fit. Protection of this property right is what the abolition of slavery and the JG are about.<br /><br /><i>As an aside, I googled WPA ballerinas . . .</i> <br />No, what I meant was that the WPA, under the Federal Arts Project, put on ballets, so there were WPA workers whose job was ballerina. I ask you to trust me that I am not lying, no energy to dig up the URL.<br /><br />My point was that most have a very narrow and incorrect view of what the JG proposal is or what the WPA did. Basically, the WPA employed people at doing any conceivable job, any conceivable contribution to society. That is what the JG proposes. So it is just illogical and historically refutable that anyone can think of a job that the JG would not provide. If you can contribute to society, then there is a JG job for you. So aside from what seems to me to be drastic rights-restriction above that I oppose, I don't see anything that your proposal, as far as I understand it, would do that the JG doesn't do already. <br /> <br /><i>There are other ways, and lots of them, that people can contribute to society which have no commercial or economic element to them whatsoever.</i> <br />Again, in a sane society with a JG, this is basically a contradiction in terms.<br /><br /><i>I have also been homeless, my brother has also been homeless and much much longer than me.</i><br />My basic point here was that you haven't seen capitalist societies, where nobody was homeless. That was the whole capitalist world at the time you were born and before. It is really easy to go back to that, using improved versions of the ideas implemented back then = MMT. So I am highly suspicious of other ways.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-44616656275847441692018-06-18T07:46:03.814-04:002018-06-18T07:46:03.814-04:00Wrapping up the MMT narrative
Tom Hickey puts the...Wrapping up the MMT narrative<br /><br />Tom Hickey puts the MMT narrative straight: “… it’s contradicted by Warren Mosler’s account of how he discovered what he called ‘soft currency economics’ through an operationally-based understand of government finance, from which he made a pile of $. Subsequently, Warren met Randy Wray and then Bill Mitchell, who jointly developed the economics that came to be called MMT. Warren funded it.”<br /><br />This information helps to wrap up this thread.<br /><br />• MMT is the most recent incarnation of Political Economy. Political Economy abuses science since Adam Smith/Karl Marx for the purpose of agenda pushing.<br /><br />• Political Economy started as open propaganda, became more sophisticated over time, and is now a mixture of propaganda and science with varying proportions of the component parts. In most cases, the science ingredient does not satisfy the criteria of material and formal consistency. So what remains in the end of political economics, is a piece of communication with zero scientific content.<br /><br />• The scientific component of MMT is provably false. More precisely: MMT’s foundational macroeconomic balances equation, i.e. (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0, is false. The true equation reads (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)−(Q−Yd)=0.#1<br /><br />• The true equation says, inter alia, Public Deficit = Private Profit.<br /><br />• The economic policy guidance of MMT boils down to money-creation/deficit spending. Deficit spending has multiple effects, the main and immediate effect is that it increases macroeconomic profit.<br /><br />• MMT is presented to the general public as a socially beneficial program that uses the fiat money system for the Common Good. MMT’s argumentative flagship is the Job Guarantee. MMTers always talk about the employment effect of deficit spending but never about the profit effect.<br /><br />• As matter of fact, MMT amounts to a capturing of the state/central bank for continuous deficit spending which in turn amounts to a continuous self-financing of the one-percenters.<br /><br />• Members of the Oligarchy like Warren Mosler fund the propagation of the MMT self-financing scheme on all levels of communication from academia to the social media.<br /><br />• With regard to economics, which still claims to be a science, this has become common practice.#2 <br /><br />• The real problem with MMT, though, consists in the employment of the well-meaning and unsuspecting philosopher Tom Hickey and other proponents of the Good Society for pushing an a-social agenda.#3<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/11/mmt-one-deadly-errorfraud-of-warren.html<br /><br />#2 Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent’s Stealth Takeover of America<br />https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind-the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america<br /><br />#3 MMT is ALWAYS a bad deal for the 99-percenters<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/12/mmt-is-always-bad-deal-for-ninety-nine.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84321431993445483892018-06-17T21:55:37.529-04:002018-06-17T21:55:37.529-04:00Calgacus,
By suggesting I am young (I am 45) and h...Calgacus,<br />By suggesting I am young (I am 45) and have only experienced the neoliberal era, I should be safe in assuming you are much older than me. With all due respect, you must also not assume that because I am young that I do not read nor study history. I have read and studied Plato, Aristotle and the like, all major religious texts, I have read Commentaries on the Laws of England by Blackstone and others of his books, Suits in chancery by Gibson, Equity Jurisprudence by Pomeroy, Law on Trusts by Lewin, Trusts in Australia by Jacobs, I have studied all the rules of all the Supreme courts and High court of Australia, I have read 100s of cases out of Australia, US, UK, Canada etc on all manner of rights whether legal or equitable. I have read and studied every single Banking Act since Australia's federation in 1901. I have read and studied all manner of books on Banking, Economics, Finance. I have studied the stock, forex, futures markets and their histories. I have read Proudhon, Marx, Rousseau...need I go on?<br /><br />I have also been homeless, my brother has also been homeless and much much longer than me. I have seen wealth first hand (when my parents wont the lottery only to end up bankrupt 4 years later). I have worked for employers, I have owned my own businesses, including a trucking business which ultimately left me with a damaged and irreperable back.<br /><br />So please don't tell me I am wrong or that I am confused, or that I have no idea what I am on about. I can assure you now, that in trying to achieve what it is I am trying to achieve I have placed an inordinate amount of emphasis on ensuring that by doing so that it will never come at any nominal or real cost to any tax-payer or property owner so that I can ensure they have no grounds to complain.Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-68884836110157708752018-06-17T21:30:41.458-04:002018-06-17T21:30:41.458-04:00Calgacus, you are still misrepresenting me, and th...Calgacus, you are still misrepresenting me, and the more you reply the worse it is becoming. Nowhere did I say nor do I advocate restricting rights, if anything, I am trying to increase the scope of rights for those people who unfortunately lack the capacity to sell anything including themselves of which there are many and it is increasing at an alarming rate (including two sons I have who have special needs and are not fit for being sellers of anything let alone having the discipline to hold down a job of any sort), and to do so in ways other than welfare. We do not want your or anyone elses welfare. But to be frank I am tired of this conversation; I doubt anyway, even if you were to fully grasp what I was saying whether you'd support it let alone actually be able to contribute to it being implemented.<br /><br />As an aside, I googled WPA ballerinas and all I got was Ebay listings. Is this what you were referring to - if so I don't get it?Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84137337361945486182018-06-17T12:17:39.388-04:002018-06-17T12:17:39.388-04:00You're thinking of money too much as a thing, ...<i> You're thinking of money too much as a thing, as a commodity (which it sort of is) but not as what it is more deeply, a credit-debt relationship,</i> <br /><br />This is key. A lot of wrong thinking about issues related to economic matters involves conflating money with money things. They are different. Money is entirely abstract, where as money things are concrete tokens going proxy for the abstractions that are the stuff of formal institutional arrangements that arose from and were initially fashioned by customs. Eventually traditions were codified as law. <br /><br />Historically, credit came first and then state money based on it. Focusing on the tokens that represent money leads to just-so stories about history and confusion of barter and monetary economies. Barter was never central and could not be central owing to the inefficiency of the double coincidence of wants. Commodity "money" is just a convenience within the barters system by providing things that are generally desirable and can be "saved," that is, stored. Initially this was grain, not gold or other "precious" goods, since they were not available to supply demand. The natural transition was from the gift economy of implicit credit to formal accounts in ancient Sumer, for instance.<br /><br />It's similar with property. Property is an abstraction related to institutional arrangements growing out of customs, which were later codified into law. Property as real assets is created by and dependent on the abstractions that lie at the basis of legal ownership, contract, etc. and are enforceable.<br /><br />These abstractions at thew basis of money and property are not real "essences" existing in some Platonic world of form. As institutional arrangements arising from customs, they are social constructs that can change, have changed over history and geography, and can be changed in the future — and likely will be changed.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-69200019218734655642018-06-17T12:12:37.898-04:002018-06-17T12:12:37.898-04:00Calgacus
You say: “Not seeing fallacies in some r...Calgacus<br /><br />You say: “Not seeing fallacies in some reasoning that MMT is welfare for the rich is not the same as there not being a fallacy, and there is. A really easy way for anyone to quickly see that the reasoning must be fallacious (formally inconsistent) is the historical fact that applied MMT has everywhere led to progressively more equal distributions of wealth and income, not the opposite. … (By applied MMT I mean the New Deal, WWII in the US & UK, the postwar era practically everywhere & for a few countries even afterward. Pretty much the closer to MMT / genuine Keynes - the better for income/ wealth distribution.)”<br /><br />Note that there are two issues here (i) the classical macroeconomic issue of the relative magnitudes of profits and wages [To determine the laws which regulate this distribution, is the principal problem in Political Economy (Ricardo)] and (ii) the issue of the distribution of wages among workers and of profits among firms. I have dealt with both issues in working papers#1, #2 and in blog posts.#3, #4<br /><br />It is pretty obvious that economists from Smith/Ricardo via Keynes to MMT never understood what macroeconomic profit is and by consequence thoroughly messed up Distribution Theory.<br /><br />I know for sure that you don’t understand what macroeconomic profit is. Therefore it is beyond your means to say anything sensible about distribution.<br /><br />The axiomatically correct Profit Law for the economy as a whole is given as Qm=Yd+(I−Sm)+(G−T)+(X−M) which reduces to Qm=G−T for Yd, I, Sm, X, M = 0. The reduced Profit Law says that the monetary profit of the business sector Qm is equal to the deficit G−T of the public sector, in a nutshell: Public Deficit = Private Profit.<br /><br />Now, MMT is essentially money-creation/deficit spending. Because of this, it is correct to say that MMT progressively worsens the distribution.#5<br /><br />However, for anyone who can read an equation, it is obvious that the positive effect of a government deficit G−T on macroeconomic profit Qm can at any time be counteracted by negative effects of the other variables, i.e. Yd, I, Sm, X, M.<br /><br />Whether this has been the case during the “New Deal, WWII in the US & UK, the postwar era practically everywhere” can be established only by testing the complete equation.<br /><br />There is no way around it, in order to make progress with Distribution Theory, the Profit Law must be tested with the data for the historical time periods you mentioned.<br /><br />As far as I know, the axiomatically correct Profit Law has never been tested. Your assertion “Pretty much the closer to MMT / genuine Keynes ― the better for income/ wealth distribution.” is pretty much hanging in midair.#6<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith. What About the True Distribution Theory?<br />https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2511741<br /><br />#2 Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Profit<br />https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2575110<br /><br />#3 Profit and the decline of labor’s nominal share (I)<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/profit-and-decline-of-labors-nominal.html<br /><br />#4 Profit and distribution: a primer<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/06/profit-and-distribution-primer.html<br /><br />#5 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/12/keynes-lerner-mmt-trump-and-exploding.html<br /><br />#6 Keynesianism as ultimate profit machine<br />http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/07/keynesianism-as-ultimate-profit-machine.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-34580861699805321052018-06-17T11:58:30.488-04:002018-06-17T11:58:30.488-04:00This is what MMT looks like for me. The trained ec...<i> This is what MMT looks like for me. The trained economist and hedge fund founder Warren Mosler stumbled one day upon Post-Keynesianism/MMT and found that it contained a lot of sound arguments against mainstream monetary theory and some good social planks for a political platform. Warren Mosler developed the narrative of how the fiat money system can be used to solve most socio-economic problems. As a marketing buff, he realized that Wall Street types have a credibility problem with selling social policy. And this resulted in strengthening the sales team with caring Stephanie Kelton and the spiritually enlightened philosopher Tom Hickey.</i> <br /><br />Bad guess. it's contradicted by Warren Mosler's account of how he discovered what he called "soft currency economics" through an operationally-based understand of government finance, from which he made a pile of $. Subsequently, Warren met Randy Wray and then Bill Mitchell, who jointly developed the economics that came to be called MMT. Warren funded it. The other MMT economists came way later. MMT didn't get any serous exposure before Bernie Sanders chose Stephanie Kelton as an economic adviser.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-69181306721081898032018-06-17T10:40:21.749-04:002018-06-17T10:40:21.749-04:00From the Wikipedia article on C. B. Macpherson:
...<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._B._Macpherson" rel="nofollow">From the Wikipedia article on C. B. Macpherson</a>:<br /><br /><i> Macpherson's best-known contribution to political philosophy is the theory of "possessive individualism", in which an individual is conceived as the sole proprietor of his or her skills and owes nothing to society for them. These skills (and those of others) are a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market, and in such a society is demonstrated a selfish and unending thirst for consumption which is considered the crucial core of human nature. Macpherson spent most of his career battling these premises, but perhaps the greatest single exposition of this view can be found in The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, where Macpherson examines the function of this particular kind of individualism in Hobbes, Harrington and Locke (and several writers in between, including the Levellers) and its resulting pervasiveness throughout most liberal literature of the period. An avowed socialist, he believed that this culture of possessive individualism prevented individuals from developing their powers of rationality, moral judgment, contemplation and even friendship and love. These were the "truly human powers," Macpherson claimed.[5]<br /><br />On Milton Friedman<br />Essay VII of the Essays in Retrieval was titled "Elegant Tombstones: A Note on Friedman's Freedom," and was a direct challenge to certain assumptions of "freedom" made by Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom. For Macpherson, capitalism was discordant with freedom. Part of the disagreement can be found in the differing interpretations of 'freedom.' For self-described 'classical liberals' like Friedman, freedom is negative and is seen as an absence of constraints or freedom of choice. Following a tradition that began with G.W.F. Hegel, Macpherson viewed freedom as positive and defined it as the freedom to develop one's fullest human potential.</i><br /><br />Spot on. Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-35832362409846341932018-06-17T10:30:31.401-04:002018-06-17T10:30:31.401-04:00But all of these institutions are not enough for t...<i>But all of these institutions are not enough for there are also other people who lack the necessary capacities to be able to sell their time, who lack the capacities to hold down a job, let alone obtain private property, and my proposal is to create security for these people (other than with welfare) which in no way would effect any of the institutions above mentioned, but also allow these people to contribute to society in ways other than 'selling' something.</i><br /><br />Again, ANC, by thinking in overcomplicated terms imho, you don't seem to see that you contradict yourself above. If they can't "sell their time", very broadly understood, then they have to be supported by "welfare". "Contributing to society" = "selling your time", rather "trading your time". The logic of the JG applies to any economy, a gift economy etc and is instituted everywhere except in modern monetary production economies. You do something nice for society. Society does something nice back. That's it. I suspect that like most you have overly narrow and incorrect conceptions of what work JG programs would do and have done. (E.g. somebody once suggested to me "ballerina" so I gave a link referring to WPA ballerinas.)<br /><br />Sure, people can go live on communes, whatever. Let their relatives handle much of their stuff (I do myself.) But restricting their rights!? There are basically no people who can cooperate with others = contribute to society, and do something like literally burn their paycheck every time they get one. If they do that, in a sane moment, they could ask the JG bureau to autodeduct their rent from their check, or something similar. You're thinking of money too much as a thing, as a commodity (which it sort of is) but not as what it is more deeply, a credit-debt relationship, just like the one that is created by gifts in a gift economy.<br /><br />The institution of money etc just represents, is an instantiation of gift economy relations, of the less formal obligations that would occur in your "another way" subset of society, if they are not just living off other people's work. There is plenty of existing financial social technology available that would "be provident for" the improvident. That there are non-negligible numbers of people in modern societies who somehow are pegs that can't fit in these very adaptable holes is just not true IMHO. I mean, there is plenty of real world experience with this.<br /><br />The real, pressing social problem of millions, of billions of people is that you can be the most market oriented, adaptable person imaginable. And the market society can and does make your life unlivable, for no reason other than to make some rich people relatively but not absolutely richer. IMHO you ask that people adapt to a market economy, while MMT is more about adapting market economies to people. (Writing fast because I probably will be off the net for a week or so.)Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-7219055399885780032018-06-17T08:42:11.742-04:002018-06-17T08:42:11.742-04:00Tom Hickey
Tom Hickey summarizes: “I have said th...Tom Hickey<br /><br />Tom Hickey summarizes: “I have said that new vision is needed and proposed a framework in terms of one of the enduring questions of Western intellectual history, which I believe can only be dealt with holistically by incorporating non-Western traditions. That question is the one that occupied the ancient Greeks, what does it mean to live a good life as an individual in a good society. That has a long tradition in terms of ethics, action theory and social and political thought.”<br /><br />Yes, the political/philosophical discussion about the Good Society goes back to the beginning of civilization.<br /><br />Tom Hickey tells the story how he came after a spiritual quest through Western and non-Western history to see that the society we live in is mentally deranged and institutionally dysfunctional and that MMT offers a solution, at least for the economic causes of the malaise.<br /><br />“Realistically, that is where we need to start strategically. What MMT proposes is feasible politically.” Tom Hickey’s narrative explains how he became an MMT agenda pusher.<br /><br />When one takes the political glasses off and puts the scientific glasses on one sees a quite different reality:<br />• Tom Hickey never did serious science.<br />• It is the MMT social goals that appeal to him.<br />• He never realized that the economic theory that underlies MMT policy guidance is provably false.<br />• He promotes MMT for political reasons and does not really care about its scientific validity.<br /><br />So, Tom Hickey stands firmly in the tradition of Political Economy which abuses ‘science’ from Adam Smith onward as credibility/authority-enhancer. For agenda pushers, the political narrative comes always first: “A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. ... A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.” (Haack)<br /><br />Tom Hickey recounts MMT history: “Warren Mosler has set forth a range of proposals for implementing a policy based on MMT principles. The range is not complete and many other issues need to be addressed that MMT doesn’t as yet. As the MMT have said, there are less than a dozen of us, which is an improvement on the original 3 + 1 twenty years ago ― Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell and Randy Wray, along with grad student Pavlina Tcherneva.”<br /><br />This is what MMT looks like for me. The trained economist and hedge fund founder Warren Mosler stumbled one day upon Post-Keynesianism/MMT and found that it contained a lot of sound arguments against mainstream monetary theory and some good social planks for a political platform. Warren Mosler developed the narrative of how the fiat money system can be used to solve most socio-economic problems. As a marketing buff, he realized that Wall Street types have a credibility problem with selling social policy. And this resulted in strengthening the sales team with caring Stephanie Kelton and the spiritually enlightened philosopher Tom Hickey.<br /><br />I have no problem with agenda pushers promoting their stuff in the political Circus Maximus. And I have no problem with Wall Street’s Warren Mosler running for Virgin Islands governor. The lethal flaws of MMT are:<br />• The scientific part of MMT is provably false.<br />• MMT policy guidance has no sound scientific foundations.<br />• MMT is a political fraud, not substantially different from Neoclassics, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism.<br /><br />The mixing of politics and science always corrupts science. This starts with Smith/Marx and continues over the whole right/left spectrum from Hayek, Keynes, Friedman, Krugman, Keen, Mosler to Tom Hickey.<br /><br />Let’s get rid of all of them.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-25512594361634387892018-06-17T03:52:43.562-04:002018-06-17T03:52:43.562-04:00Calgacus,
Thanks for the lengthy reply, I do appr...Calgacus,<br /><br />Thanks for the lengthy reply, I do appreciate it; however, I am not against a JG program, I am not against private property, I am not against jobs/paid employment, I am not against earning money, I am not against free-markets, I am not against regulated markets, I am not against capitalism, I am not against socialism. Every individual on earth is endowed with certain strengths and weaknesses which vary so much that it is necessary that all of these above institutions exist. <br /><br />But all of these institutions are not enough for there are also other people who lack the necessary capacities to be able to sell their time, who lack the capacities to hold down a job, let alone obtain private property, and my proposal is to create security for these people (other than with welfare) which in no way would effect any of the institutions above mentioned, but also allow these people to contribute to society in ways other than 'selling' something. I am sorry we do not see eye to eye on this. As a result of seeking such a model I discovered that such a way might also benefit people in certain fields of specialization - it was never my intent to suggest that because someone is an economist, researcher, hobby farmer etc that they 'must' renounce money/property etc. <br /><br />The fact that you are interpreting what I say to mean I am against all of these things above, I accept 100% as my fault for not explaining myself properly, but text is a difficult medium to convey things (other than legal accounts of course! lol..sorry, had to throw that in - I hope you appreciate the humour in that).Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83759881222042834272018-06-17T02:27:39.946-04:002018-06-17T02:27:39.946-04:00EKH:Take notice that there is Xmas economics where...EKH:<i>Take notice that there is Xmas economics where everybody writes down a list of his wishes.</i><br /><br />Have to mention this.<br /><br />The world's greatest mathematician by far, an all-time great up there with Archimedes and Newton, until he died in 2014 was Alexander Grothendieck. He called one of his methods "l'arbre de Noel" the Christmas tree. Write down a wish list of theorems and definitions and concepts. So if Xmas math works, why not Xmas economics? :-) <br /><br />You gotta do it right. Wish boldly, but be careful what you wish for, you might get it. There are more tears shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones. See how your wishes interact. And if the facts contradict your theories or theorems- see where the mistake was, don't pretend it didn't exist, that Santa can fulfill your contradictory wishes. But the MMTers understand that, like AG and few others.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-41713131213343545752018-06-17T02:03:10.759-04:002018-06-17T02:03:10.759-04:00Covering your more recent comments - very interest...Covering your more recent comments - very interesting, but I don't think you are thinking about law and economics the right way. Roughly, it seems you focus on loi, gesetz or lex instead of droit, recht or ius - all translated by law in English. You over restrict "economics" and refer to things like national accounting, when the point is to explain them, explain the "ius" concepts used therein, not use some particular "lex" as a confining authority. I strongly recommend Crawford MacPherson's book "Property" (anthology of a dozen great philosophical sections on the subject, with an introductory and concluding essay) as an example of what I think is the right way.<br /><br />Again, restrictive views of economic can be caused by marketism. It is getting things backwards. The "contribution to society" as defined by society, defines market value, not vice versa. A JG does everything good your "another way" does, without constricting freedom for fear of imaginary problems.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-780621410822739142018-06-17T01:11:02.249-04:002018-06-17T01:11:02.249-04:00(3/3)
As more proof of the problem of this irony, ...(3/3)<br /><i>As more proof of the problem of this irony, Australia's total mandatory superannuation savings (3.7 trillion) a scheme which began 30 years ago, only eclipses total household debt (3.5 trillion) by the smallest of margins, and therefore has failed. </i><br /><br />This is like adding the temperature to the air pressure and saying that since it is below the humidity, we are DOOMED. Whhuuuh??! Those numbers have little to do with each other. Not too familiar with Australia, but I think you saying something like there is too little money in the Social Security Trust Fund. No, the problem is there is too much! Would have been much better if there were no money at all in these Australian Funds or the SS Trust Fund. That's how the US SS Trust Fund worked for about 50 years, basically nothing in it - and could have worked forever that way. A nation saving up its own money for itself, or enforcing private saving in any but the most inflationary environment (WWII UK) is a crackpot idea. Just give people a state pension when they are old. If they want to have a bigger one, maybe let them "pay in". The pension payment is paid with newly created state money.<br /><br /><i> I do not believe that we need more workers (paid employment contributing to GDP), I believe we already produce (in GDP terms) far more than we need and we will continue to produce far more than we need.</i> <br />Who are you to say what we need? Who are you to tell other people what to do? All that MMT says is that it is literally insane, criminally insane to not have a JG, to not let people earn money when they want, and thereby they're going to contribute to GDP. And almost everyone would prefer to earn a decent living from a JG than to be treated as a subhuman with no right to property. (Why, why, why?!!? It is a solution without a problem, far worse than any problem.)<br /><br />Throughout time, the vast majority of human societies, under which the great majority of people have lived, have had a parallel practice to the JG. The national monetary economies of the past two odd centuries are an extreme aberration. The postwar era was basically a return to the norm.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-41353145635709482292018-06-17T01:09:44.452-04:002018-06-17T01:09:44.452-04:00(2/3)
they are slaves to the concept, belief, idea...(2/3)<br /><i>they are slaves to the concept, belief, ideal (whatever you want to call it) which says that 'only by economic activities within a market, (selling one's time and contributing to GDP), can one contribute to society'.</i><br />This is blaming the victim, very unjustly and incorrectly. It is not the ideas of the unemployed which are at fault. But those of the criminally insane state and the criminally insane unemployers who corrupt it. Those killed by some maniac firing into a crowd are not at fault. That is what being unemployed is. Your contribution to society is held in contempt because maniacs firing into a crowd randomly chose you. Proposing to eliminate private property rights for anyone, particularly those who can make a contribution to society and are refused by the maniacs is something - well if you understood how evil it is, I don't think you would propose it. It is like preventing people in a crowd being shot at from shooting back or taking cover.<br /><br /><i>'only by economic activities within a market, (selling one's time and contributing to GDP), can one contribute to society'. There are other ways, and lots of them, that people can contribute to society which have no commercial or economic element to them whatsoever.</i><br /><br />No, there are no such ways, because this is a contradiction in terms. If it is a contribution to society, it is economic. If it involves two people cooperating in any way whatsoever, it is economic - it is those two people selling their time to each other. The examples you give "economists, researchers, hobby farmers, preachers, artists, public servants, and people who are from cultures which do not practice private property etc," prove this point. Why on earth do you think a Job Guarantee and a bigger public sector as in the postwar era, would not employ such people, as they did in the past? If society thinks it is a contribution, it is a contribution, and today's societies reciprocate this subsidization by money. JG workers, public servants are subsidizing the society, the state, not vice versa. And this money value is part of GDP = C + I + <b>G</b>. That <b>G</b> covers the contributions to society you are talking about. They are not "within a market" but they are monetary transactions, productive transactions. And again, "the market" is a side effect of these transactions.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-4975458612788397592018-06-17T01:06:04.119-04:002018-06-17T01:06:04.119-04:00(1/2) ANDC Driver:I am sympathetic to the point yo...(1/2) ANDC Driver:<i>I am sympathetic to the point you are making which is basically saying that in order for people to feel more secure in life people need to find a way so that workers and the unemployed are not slaves to owners of the means of production and politicians who work for them. I get that. </i><br /><br />It's not about "feeling more secure". It's about <i>being</i> more secure. It is not an opiate to slaves. It is about liberation. I really do not think you get that, because you don't understand the problems. The problem of unemployment or other social problems today. And I have to say it is probably because you are too young. You've only seen the repulsive side of the world the neoliberals made, and think that this outlier, aberrant society is the way it always was and must be. I think you have a lot to contribute, that your ideas on the relevance of concepts of law, of property, of philosophy etc are looking in a very important and underexplored direction. But is it a good idea to become too exclusively attached to one's own ideas, even if they have good seeds in them? While half-understanding and prematurely dismissing solid work like MMT - that you don't seem to understand expresses much of these ideas already, but in a more coherent way? And that the defects and worse of your proposals are caused by the "neoliberal" "market" way of thinking embedded in them, NOT in the JG and MMT? If I am harsh, please forgive me, it is because I am pressed for time and am taking you seriously.<br /><br />Again: <i>What appears to be happening is that most people want the benefit of owning a home and other financial assets but without the risk of loss - I do not understand how anyone can think that is possible.</i> <br />(1) Homes aren't financial assets. (2) Nobody thinks they have no risk of any loss - that is, not having a particular house with a mortgage they can't afford, or thinks that they cannot go bankrupt. So you lose that house, so you go bankrupt. Big deal. But that is not the same thing as not having any private property at all, not being able to have financial savings or not having some home (a property right in a lease, say) and a secure life. There is no inconsistency or impossibility or even difficulty there. You're quite wrong and confused here. The people you "do not understand" are right and are not confused. <br /><br /><i>but because they are slaves to the concept, belief, ideal (whatever you want to call it) which says that 'only by economic activities within a market, (selling one's time and contributing to GDP), can one contribute to society'. I will call this 'market economics' from now on. And that as a result of this enslaved mentality, the markets themselves are over-crowded and will forever be over-crowded until mankind is able to lift his thoughts and imagination above this ideal as the only way to contribute to society.</i><br /><br />You mix some good MMT ideas with some very bad ones, that nobody would or ever has opted for except under extreme duress. The conception of market economy here, the relations between societies, the state and the market is very confused. #1 - The market doesn't exist. No such thing. Not even a useful concept almost. #2 This non-existent market is a side effect. A side effect of the state policies which are called "intervention" - a side effect of the "another way" you are talking about, which has always existed and always will exist. It's not that markets can't work well without the "another way", they can't exist, can't be defined without it. It is like talking about an itch that has no animal attached. :-) This way of fleeing "the market" is highly enslaved to marketism. Remove the marketism, fix the economics and the accounting and they turn into MMT & the JG.<br /><br />By the way, what does "overcrowded" mean? That unemployment exists? That markets cannot supply everyone?Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-21992953226342420102018-06-17T00:34:24.459-04:002018-06-17T00:34:24.459-04:00Right at this point I realized what all the religi...Right at this point I realized what all the religious texts were saying to me. I have a choice as to whether or not I want to hold others legally accountable for their promises, or better yet, whether or not I want to set about engaging people into legally binding promises to begin with and that choice will dictate how I myself will be treated. Yet, when it comes to economics and the treatment of resources as commodities, it only permits 'one way', the legally binding way.<br /><br />Do all people like the fact that the only way you can access resources sufficient to function property in this world is by holding others legally accountable for their promises under threat of monetary damages etc? Do all people like having the same accountability being held against them, even if they know deep down that because they can't know the future they never really know if they can ever fully make good all their promises?<br /><br />There are many people who will answer yes to both these questions, and some of them will answer yes even though they may perceive of other ways; then there will be many who will answer yes but do so not because they want it this way but because they cannot perceive of any other way. But there also many who will answer no.<br /><br />Can you see other ways one may be able to hold resources and work (such as in trust and custodianship) where one does not have to hold other individuals directly legally accountable under threat of monetary damages and property seizure and which does not rely on trade unions, economic visionaries, and other such organizations/people to engage in power struggles on their behalf?<br /><br /># http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/sa/SASC/2007/365.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=%22autonomy%22<br />Individual Autonomy <br />1. In a competitive world where one person’s economic gain is commonly another’s loss, a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing mere economic loss to another, as distinct from physical injury to another’s personal property, may be inconsistent with community standards in relation to what is ordinarily legitimate in the pursuit of personal advantage: <br /><br />http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/52.html<br />DEANE J. It is an incident of human society that action or inaction by one person may have a direct or indirect effect on another. Unless there be more involved than mere cause and effect however, the common law remains indifferent. A person's action or inaction may be a cause of another's injury or discomfort; unless there be some particular relationship, personal or proprietary right or other added element, the common law imposes no liability to make payment of compensation or other damages. In a society where material success, commonly measured in comparative terms, is accepted as a legitimate objective and the preservation of individual freedom of action or speech is acknowledged as a legitimate goal, the law must be so restrained if it is to be attuned to social standards and reality. If material success were to be accompanied by legal liability to all who have suffered emotional chagrin or physical or material damage as a consequence or along the way, it would be largely self-destructive. In that regard, the common law has neither recognized fault in the conduct of the feasting Dives nor embraced the embarrassing moral perception that he who has failed to feed the man dying from hunger has truly killed him. <br /><br /><br />* https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2662&context=uljDeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-27840468982303545992018-06-17T00:33:51.398-04:002018-06-17T00:33:51.398-04:00Tom Hickey:
I did not know what the term perennia...Tom Hickey:<br /><br />I did not know what the term perennial wisdom meant until today (I googled it after reading your post). Although never before knowing the term, a few years ago, after doing some bible study with a friend, I was flying to Thailand, and in the entertainment monitors on the back of the seats, I found the whole Koran so I decided to read as much of that as I could during the flight; and when I got to Thailand in the drawer next to my bed in the hotel was a book on Buddhism, which I also subsequently read. After all of this I came to the conclusion that all of these texts were relaying the very same core principles.<br /><br />For me, the most basic core is the tenet 'treat others as you would have them treat you'. On first blush, and as many have testified, this may seem like a charitable statement, but I disagree. To me it means, if you like competing, bargaining, and power struggles then there is nothing wrong with it, but only do it with others who are going to treat you the same way, and do not do it against those who do not like competing, bargaining and power struggles. By the same token, if you don't like competition, bargaining and power struggles then don't stick your nose in where it doesn't belong and is not wanted, and instead find people who are like you and work with them instead.<br /><br />At it's core, all economic activities which have legal effect, are acts of competition, bargaining, and power struggles - there is no two ways about this#. No entity or system which treats labours and resources as commodities can perform any economic activity without competing, bargaining, and power struggles because no economic activity can be performed, no contract fulfilled, and no legislation upheld, without holding others legally accountable with the threat of punishment. This is the core of property ownership and alienability and therefore all economic activities. <br /><br />The question I asked myself then was: <br /><br />'can anyone provide for their daily sustenance without some form of legal accountability as against others in general (i.e. as against the rest of the world)?'<br /><br />The answer here is no, but in this instance we are talking purely of possessory rights, i.e. I have the right to the utility of a house and whatever resources are necessary (without owning the same resources), and no one else has the right to prejudice those possessory rights. Whether every individual on earth should have possessory access to sufficient resources such as housing, clothing, etc is not a matter of economics - it is a matter or law because unless everyone has access to basic needs they themselves are unable to obey all laws.*<br /><br />The next quesiton I then asked was:<br /><br />'can anyone provide for their daily sustenence without some form of legal accountability as against others in personum, i.e. contracts, and other agreements where damages for non-compiance sound in money and seizure of property?'<br /><br />cont...Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-34535312801743354192018-06-16T22:39:43.370-04:002018-06-16T22:39:43.370-04:00As an addition to my last post Egmont, I have adde...As an addition to my last post Egmont, I have added here below a link to a download (spreadsheet) which I worked on some time ago which was inspired by my understanding of your profit law - which people should be able to download and can interact with on the spreadsheet to try and make the business sector profitable. Any comments or feedback most welcome!<br /><br />https://drive.google.com/open?id=17fYN4vDCMVQH8m_QiH8qGucpzBb36icjDeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-32535325614688537312018-06-16T21:20:22.236-04:002018-06-16T21:20:22.236-04:00Egmont, in response to your response to me:
I agr...Egmont, in response to your response to me:<br /><br />I agree with you, but does not LS also need to define first and foremost what is and what is not an economic activity and therefore which acts become statistics for national accounts and which actions do not (not to mention what it is that enables anyone to engage in economic activities to begin with and the inherent cost involved)? <br /><br />No disrespect to others on this forum, but it appears to me that the most people do not understand the profit law which you have taken pains to explain (nor the other laws you frequently write of) because at the core they do not even understand when something is an economic activity and when something is not an economic activity, nor do they seem to understand what allows an economic activity to take place in the first place (Nick Rowes romantic fruit tree example suffices to demonstrate this because nowhere in his article does he touch on the cost that ownership of those trees carries and therefore nowhere in his analysis does he factor in the fact that the tree owners will always have to pass those costs on to someone else which obliterates his romanticized notion of being able to swap an equal amount of bananas for apples indefinitely because eventually he will be facing bankruptcy, and so too will the other two tree owners).<br /><br />For starters, which of the following would you deem economic activities which make it into the national accounts statistics?<br /><br />Granny owns an apple pie business with a registered business name and business tax number which whilst selling some pies for actual cash, she also sometimes swaps for other produce, and today she swaps one pie for a dozen eggs with next door (in this case it is irrelevant if the egg swapper is an actual business or not) - economic activity yes/no?<br /><br />Granny does not own any business and only makes pies for personal consumption but one day someone offers to swap a years worth of pies (one every week) for a piece of antique artwork (which has monetary value) wherein an actual contract is drawn up - economic activity yes/no?<br /><br />Granny does not own any business and only makes pies for personal consumption but today next door (who is not a business owner in the 'egg' sense) comes around with a dozen eggs and asks if granny would be willing to swap a pie for the dozen eggs - economic activity yes/no?<br /><br />Now explain to the whole class why there is a difference between the above acts and why not all are economic activities.<br /><br />The following link may help some students.<br /><br />https://www.business.gov.au/info/plan-and-start/a-business-or-a-hobby<br /><br />On to Nick Rowe and his fruit trees.<br /><br />Why has he not factored in that ownership of the tress carries costs? The reason is because he doesn't want to admit that ownership carries costs because it messes up his whole theory and just about everything he has worked on for all those years, not to mention what he learned in economic school. If he factors in the costs of ownership and the fact that those costs must be passed on to others, i.e. consumers and households, then he will be forced to admit that property ownership, the very thing, the 'only' thing, which enables anyone to perform any economic activity to begin with has inherent costs which economic activities themselves cannot pay for, and must come from somewhere else.<br /><br />Hence the reason why I say that society takes for granted the fact that 'some' of us can engage in economic activities to begin with whilst at the same time having very little idea of what enables them to do it in the first place.<br /><br />It is only because I have taken the time to fully understand what constitutes an economic activity, and what enables them to be performed in the first place and the costs which this 'enabler' comes at, which has enabled me to UNDERSTAND YOUR PROFIT LAW.Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17395348035867237331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-12895209585560776062018-06-16T20:00:15.398-04:002018-06-16T20:00:15.398-04:00EKH:MMT’s money-creation/deficit-spending makes di...EKH:<i>MMT’s money-creation/deficit-spending makes distribution progressively more unequal.#1 You say that you want to better the distributional situation of the ninety-nine-percenters but your recommendations make matters worse</i><br /><br />As several people have commented for some time, no it doesn't. Not seeing fallacies in some reasoning that MMT is welfare for the rich is not the same as there not being a fallacy, and there is. A really easy way for anyone to quickly see that the reasoning must be fallacious (formally inconsistent) is the historical fact that applied MMT has everywhere led to progressively more equal distributions of wealth and income, not the opposite. I. e. Such reasoning is materially inconsistent to use EKH's terminology. (By applied MMT I mean the New Deal, WWII in the US & UK, the postwar era practically everywhere & for a few countries even afterward. Pretty much the closer to MMT / genuine Keynes - the better for income/ wealth distribution.)<br /><br />I've commented on this error in the past, (without a relevant answer from EKH that I recall) but for something new, I think I saw Wray treating such points somewhere in some old Economonitor "Great Leap Forward", will try to dig it up if it exists. It is basically a well known, classical error IIRC; should be plenty refutations in the 30s 40s debates on Keynesian econ too, exact refs may come to me.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-73838619561103747822018-06-16T19:04:40.943-04:002018-06-16T19:04:40.943-04:00@ AXEC / E.K-H
I have said that new vision its n...@ AXEC / E.K-H <br /><br />I have said that new vision its needed and proposed a framework in terms of one of the enduring questions of Western intellectual history, which I believe can only be dealt with holistically by incorporating non-Western traditions. That question is the one that occupied the ancient Greeks, what does it mean to live a good life as an individual in a good society. That has a long tradition in terms of ethics, action theory and social and political thought. <br /><br />I have a theory in that framework that I have not elaborated here. I began thinking about it seriously back in the Sixties and wrote a master's thesis entitled, Revolution or Evolution: Toward a Theory of Social Change. Aside: A professor warned me away from it as a career-killer. <br /><br />The outcome of this investigation was that I became convinced that the solution to a vision of total living required a basis in perennial wisdom, which both Plato and Aristotle had suggested in the West and which is integral to Eastern thought. Subsequently I shifted my specialization toward perennial wisdom.<br /><br />I have been engaged with some others of like mind in working on a comprehensive vision with input from many fields. Economics is one of them, but conventional economics appears to be a path in the wrong direction since it examines a mode of production that leads to a dysfunctional individual and a dysfunctional society, being based on self-interest when self-interest is the basis of the problem.<br /><br />I don't think that a design solution is possible without revising the current design to correct its major flaws, which lie in a misconception of reality.<br /><br />So all we can hope for is palliatives and analgesics until a new system is unfolded.<br /><br />I have never said that MMT provides a complete solution, and I don't think that MMT economists claim that either.<br /><br />It addresses some of the major results of design flaws and policy misconceptions while leaving the system largely in place. <br /><br />Realistically, that is where we need to start strategically. What MMT proposes is feasible politically. Utopianism leads to nowhere. I am always open to other ideas and strategy, but so far MMT is the best there is on the table, at least in my estimation.<br /><br />Looking in my crystal ball, as it were, I expect major changes in the coming decades as a result of technological disruption, on one hand, and challenges like growing inequality, the effects of climate change, and the looming Sino-American rivalry on the other.<br /><br />But we could act now to obviate unemployment. As I have also said, we also need to address economic rent and rent-seeking as a factor in growing inequality and incipient plutonomy that threatens the republic.<br /><br />Warren Mosler has set forth a range of proposals for implementing a policy based on MMT principles. The range is not complete and many other issues need to be addressed that MMT doesn't as yet. As the MMT have said, there are less than a dozen of us, which is an improvement on the original 3 + 1 twenty years ago- Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell and Randy Wray, along with grad student Pavlina Tcherneva.<br /><br />You have to start somewhere and the MMT JG seems to be a good choice strategically, since it leads into the rest of MMT in explaining now to "pay for" it.<br /><br />Really, the first step is providing a vision and how to actualize (operationalize) it and that requires educating those involved about the possibilities and feasibility.<br /><br />This requires more than just economic theory. And more than political economy, too. Fortunately, the MMT cohort is now growing and diverse.<br /><br />In fact, economic theory is really only needed in discussion among economists. It has to be broken down for others to understand, since they lack the necessary background in the field.<br /><br /><br /><br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-78556747839923143012018-06-16T17:41:24.906-04:002018-06-16T17:41:24.906-04:00Tom Hickey
You say: “Given contemporary condition...Tom Hickey<br /><br />You say: “Given contemporary conditions, that would seem to involve instituting full employment now, since it is not only possible but simple by following MMT analysis, theory, and policy based on it. In fact, as Calgacus has pointed out, the MMT JG would begin breaking the back of modern capitalism by increasing labor power. … What needs to happen is that the capital/labor share ratio has to be shifted in favor of workers.”<br /><br />Take notice that there is Xmas economics where everybody writes down a list of his wishes. Your priorities go roughly as follows: full employment, technological innovation, increasing productivity, increasing leisure, a more equitable distribution.<br /><br />This list makes you a very likable philosopher. Not many people will contradict you but probably add such things as environmental protection and affordable health care.<br /><br />In order to realize this program, you need to know how the monetary economy works. Your problem is that you don’t. For example, you recommend MMT/JG without realizing that MMT’s money-creation/deficit-spending makes distribution progressively more unequal.#1 You say that you want to better the distributional situation of the ninety-nine-percenters but your recommendations make matters worse.<br /><br />The economist’s business is NOT to write down a wish list but to realize the goals that have been authorized by the Legitimate Sovereign. This requires scientific knowledge about how the monetary economy works. This knowledge is embodied in the systemic laws of the monetary economy. You cannot achieve full employment (however defined) if you don’t know the Employment Law.#2<br /><br />To soapblubber about flying above the clouds is futile. It is the folks that have figured out the laws of aerodynamics and thermodynamics who get things off the ground. Analogous in economics.<br /><br />As Marx said: “Philosophers and politicians have hitherto only popularized various wish lists; the point is to know how to realize them.”<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 MMT: So-called progressives as trailblazers for Trumponomics<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/04/mmt-so-called-progressives-as.html<br /><br />#2 This brings us back to the first post.AXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-1277973293969116222018-06-16T10:54:19.328-04:002018-06-16T10:54:19.328-04:00continuation
This is not chiefly a monetary matte...continuation<br /><br />This is not chiefly a monetary matter, however. The share needs to be approached in terms of real goods and resources. $ is just bookkeeping in a monetary production economy in terms of the economic cycle of production, distribution and consumption of real goods and use of real resources. This is difficult to see in a framework where markets where goods are rationed by price, hence also money, have replaced the theological notion of God in the cultural paradigm.<br /><br />With evener distribution of real goods and resources, as well as the work/leisure ratio, everyone would be well off, although some would gain while others would lose. This would largely affect the tails, and the range and standard deviation would be more reasonable, with less to no poverty and lower inequality. Most of the population would be "middle class" with freedom from want and a reasonable amount of comfort.<br /><br />endTom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-31669699324671971342018-06-16T10:54:03.718-04:002018-06-16T10:54:03.718-04:00@ANC Driver
The system you described is a fair su...@ANC Driver<br /><br />The system you described is a fair summation of a mixed economy in a capitalistic system based on modern finance and propertarianism.<br /><br />The issues in such societies arise as a result of a variety of factors that can be addressed.<br /><br />However, as long as there is a monetary production economy in which income is required where money is always someone's liability, giving rise to the credit-debt relationship, income will be an issue and the system is vulnerable to financial cycles.<br /><br />This system is likely to persist as long as the fundamental institutional arrangements remain essentially in place. This framework and the socio-economic systems that dependent on it have design flaws that cannot be corrected completely since tradeoffs are involved and there are winners and loser; thus, different path lead to different consequences with both positive and negative features.<br /><br />These institutional arrangements grew out of the transition from the agricultural age to the industrial age and from feudalism to capitalism. I think that Marx is likely correct in assuming that the material forces of production are fundamental, so we are stuck with so-called capitalism based on wage labor until the transition to the next phase of material production begins in earnest. That may be happening now, and according to the people that study these things, the world will be radically different by 2030 owing to the proliferation of automation, robotics, AI, and other technological innovations that will begin to be adopted widely.<br /><br />So in a sense, focusing on full employment now is a sidetrack or at least a side issue. Its arises because most people are assuming that the future will resemble the past, although most are also aware the landscape is changing fast owing to technological innovation that is also disruptive.<br /><br />In my view as social and political philosopher that has studied the past and a social theorist that considers the future, I would say that the world needs to be begin in earnest a reexamination of fundamental concepts, assumptions and structure with a view to making iterative and incremental changes in the way that the range of philosophical, social, political and economic categories are approached systematically. Philosophical categories include reality, which is studied by metaphysics or ontology, knowledge which is studied by epistemology and cognitive studies, and action, which is studied by action theory and ethics.<br /><br />In a liberal environment this requires deep inquiry and open debate, hopefully putting cultural differences and ideological bias aside as much as possible to arrive at a developing highly functional system that works for everyone, not with mathematical precision but with moral comprehension.<br /><br />Given that we have to avoid utopian thinking, which is a path to nowhere ("utopia" means nowhere), we need to consider getting from here to there as seamlessly as possible. Given contemporary conditions, that would seem to involve instituting full employment now, since it is not only possible but simple by following MMT analysis, theory, and policy based on it. In fact, as Calgacus has pointed out, the MMT JG would begin breaking the back of modern capitalism by increasing labor power.<br /><br />So I do not see full employment as an end itself but rather a stepping stone toward a better and far different future as technological innovation makes increased leisure and its distribution not only possible but also necessary to avoid dysfunction. <br /><br />But the MMT JG is not the only such step that can be taken now to get the ball rolling. What needs to happen is that the capital/labor share ratio has to be shifted in favor of workers. <br /><br />continued<br /><br />Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.com