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.
He has the oil price correlation correct but he has the causation backwards. There is no "invisible hand".
The oil monopolists and central Banks (also monopolists) drive/set the exchange value of the dollar, not the other way around... ie if we were to go max nuclear and produce our own synthetic hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 and H2O, thus shutting down the oil monopolies, the USD would skyrocket...
I know. He was really over the top in his latest screed on MMT, or what he thinks MMT is anyway.
But Stirling generally has interesting things to say when he isn't being temperamental, and from his perspective, he is correct in thinking that MMT is not a radical overhaul of the system.
It's not, and that is what upsets a lot of people who think that only radical change will get the job done right. No compromise.
I think that Stirling is right on this. The global leaders will either deal with this, or not. If not, well, in the past that has generally spelled conflict.
Speaking of conflict, did you hear about the Senate vote over China's currency stance? I don't if it was more posturing or if it was an ominous sign of a path we are about to take.
Instead of thinking about how to increase adaptability rate of humankind as a species going forward into a globalized world by exploring options, countries are retreating into the childish zero-sum games characteristic of nation states that often turn into lose-lose situations. If we are heading into a global downdraft, it will likely get worse as nations take the approach of, "It's every man for himself."
This is hardly provocative reading - more like an example of poor writing, poorly structured paragraphs which lose the reader, poorly structured arguments and lastly, logic gaps large enough to drive a train through.
I hope you posted this as an example of how in the age of the internet, even really poor economists and writers / bloggers can have their say and disseminate their garbage out to an unsuspecting public.
Other than that, there is really little value in reading his post.
My posting something doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it, but rather than it is a positon that needs to be taken into consideration in assessing future developments. Perception is often more influential than reality, until reality firmly assets itself, and it always does eventually, causing consternation.
Often I post things to provoke comments, since I am more interested in sharing my own views in dialogue rather than imposing them. I think that this approach is working pretty well, as the level of participation shows.
I posted this for several reasons, one being that Newberry is a well known antagonist of MMT. Secondly, he speaks for a particular brand of progressivism. Thirdly, his point about the role of oil especially and commodities in general, and the currency dynamic that is related to it relates to the relation of the nominal and real, as well as the availability of real resources, all of which are significant to MMT as a macro theory.
The position that SN puts forward is not unique to him either. Others are saying that this not so much about peak oil or not peak oil, or whether there is a human hand in global warming, but rather it's about the changing dynamic wrt the oil producers, e.g., their reaction to fx changes, on one hand, and to the changing rate of real global growth on the other.
15 comments:
Ask Newberry about MMT and enjoy the fireworks.
He has the oil price correlation correct but he has the causation backwards. There is no "invisible hand".
The oil monopolists and central Banks (also monopolists) drive/set the exchange value of the dollar, not the other way around... ie if we were to go max nuclear and produce our own synthetic hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 and H2O, thus shutting down the oil monopolies, the USD would skyrocket...
"Ask Newberry about MMT and enjoy the fireworks."
I know. He was really over the top in his latest screed on MMT, or what he thinks MMT is anyway.
But Stirling generally has interesting things to say when he isn't being temperamental, and from his perspective, he is correct in thinking that MMT is not a radical overhaul of the system.
It's not, and that is what upsets a lot of people who think that only radical change will get the job done right. No compromise.
The end of his article has a real Strauss and Howe feel to it- the need of a crisis war to settle it all out.
I think that Stirling is right on this. The global leaders will either deal with this, or not. If not, well, in the past that has generally spelled conflict.
Speaking of conflict, did you hear about the Senate vote over China's currency stance? I don't if it was more posturing or if it was an ominous sign of a path we are about to take.
Not an encouraging sign. I think it is ominous.
Instead of thinking about how to increase adaptability rate of humankind as a species going forward into a globalized world by exploring options, countries are retreating into the childish zero-sum games characteristic of nation states that often turn into lose-lose situations. If we are heading into a global downdraft, it will likely get worse as nations take the approach of, "It's every man for himself."
This is hardly provocative reading - more like an example of poor writing, poorly structured paragraphs which lose the reader, poorly structured arguments and lastly, logic gaps large enough to drive a train through.
I hope you posted this as an example of how in the age of the internet, even really poor economists and writers / bloggers can have their say and disseminate their garbage out to an unsuspecting public.
Other than that, there is really little value in reading his post.
Kevin,
Ed at Credit Writedowns sees the Chinese currency bill as political posturing. Won't get thru the House. Get the people riled up though.
My posting something doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it, but rather than it is a positon that needs to be taken into consideration in assessing future developments. Perception is often more influential than reality, until reality firmly assets itself, and it always does eventually, causing consternation.
Often I post things to provoke comments, since I am more interested in sharing my own views in dialogue rather than imposing them. I think that this approach is working pretty well, as the level of participation shows.
I posted this for several reasons, one being that Newberry is a well known antagonist of MMT. Secondly, he speaks for a particular brand of progressivism. Thirdly, his point about the role of oil especially and commodities in general, and the currency dynamic that is related to it relates to the relation of the nominal and real, as well as the availability of real resources, all of which are significant to MMT as a macro theory.
The position that SN puts forward is not unique to him either. Others are saying that this not so much about peak oil or not peak oil, or whether there is a human hand in global warming, but rather it's about the changing dynamic wrt the oil producers, e.g., their reaction to fx changes, on one hand, and to the changing rate of real global growth on the other.
Well looks like I need to do a Search for "Newberry and MMT" then asI have never heard of him.
On Nazinomics - Preface
On Nazinomics - Thesis
On Nazinomics - The Fox Pisses
SN then goes on to develop his historical account in the June archive at The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Nazinomics! Thank you Stirling Newberry. His writing is too flowery and over-the-top for me. At least now I know to stay away from him...
He does come across sometimes like an old guy standing in his yard, shouting at cars.
Yes I found the Nazinomics articles.
Nonetheless my quick read (read: what I recall of them from the other day) of them suggests it is relatively easy to refute.
Post a Comment