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.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Monday, July 23, 2012
Chris Dillow — Why austerity's failing
Chris Dillow does sectoral balances
Read it at Investors Chronicle (UK) Why austerity's failing by Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle (h/t Scott Fullwiler via Twitter)
Is it a failure when individuals who operate according to the market process have more control over scarce resources?
In another context, is it a failure when political prisoners are set free and for a short while adjust to what life is like in freedom vis a vis other freed prisoners?
In yet another context, it is a failure when previously utilized means are changed, which then leads to those who treat means as ends to believe that ends are being reduced?
Not sure I get what you are talking about. The "market" is trying to hoard money. The issuer of money can allow this or not. Austerity is not allowing the "market process" to freely operate and thus results in plummeting RGDP.
Not sure I get what you are talking about. The "market" is trying to hoard money.
Then let people hoard money. It's THEIR money.
The issuer of money can allow this or not.
In a free market in money production, the question will not be whether the issuers "allow" such hoarding to take place, as if they are the rulers of everyone's spending, but rather whether or not people hoarding cash will provide for a profitable opportunity to produce more money.
Austerity is not allowing the "market process" to freely operate and thus results in plummeting RGDP.
That's not austerity. That's the exact opposite. Austerity is the state LETTING those in the market control more real resources for the consumer's benefit, which is had by the state printing and spending less money, not more money.
"In a free market in money production, the question will not be whether the issuers "allow" such hoarding to take place, as if they are the rulers of everyone's spending, but rather whether or not people hoarding cash will provide for a profitable opportunity to produce more money."
There is no free market and there never was. What questions are applicable in fairy tales really doesn't matter.
First, I didn't claim we have a free market. If we did then I wouldn't be advocating for a change to the monetary system, since it would already be a free market in money production.
Second, if don't have a free market, then you cannot claim (not saying you did claim, just saying you cannot claim) that there exists empirical evidence that refutes the superiority of free markets.
What questions are applicable in fairy tales really doesn't matter.
You mean like the fairy tale you believe in that violence solves complex social problems? Hammer for every problem? Yeah, that fairy tale is not applicable to the reality I am attempting to direct your attention towards.
Another fairy tale: The long term viability of middle of the road socialism-capitalism, as if such a system does not keep tending towards socialism.
Major Freedom, you are talking about some nice ideas. Anarcho-capitalist ideas are really nice, just like utopian communist ideas are. I am not saying anything against It or for It. Let's just first make the best with what we have. I am sure you agree that government is not going to disappear in next 5 years or in next 25 years. Neither are we going to win if we lobby for communism. Don't you think life is full of compromises? Let's make the best with what we have. How about full employment and price stability? Our other choice is high unemployment, sluggish ecomomic growth and still no communism or anarcho-capitalism. You don't really believe that your eyes are going to see life without government, do you? That's why I'm saying that you are talking about fairy tales, not because I want to insult you. How about having Keynesian golden age of capitalism all over again for a start? What do you say?
Is it a failure when individuals who operate according to the market process have more control over scarce resources?
ReplyDeleteIn another context, is it a failure when political prisoners are set free and for a short while adjust to what life is like in freedom vis a vis other freed prisoners?
In yet another context, it is a failure when previously utilized means are changed, which then leads to those who treat means as ends to believe that ends are being reduced?
MF,
ReplyDeleteNot sure I get what you are talking about. The "market" is trying to hoard money. The issuer of money can allow this or not. Austerity is not allowing the "market process" to freely operate and thus results in plummeting RGDP.
Major Freeedom
ReplyDeletein English please!
PeterP:
ReplyDeleteNot sure I get what you are talking about. The "market" is trying to hoard money.
Then let people hoard money. It's THEIR money.
The issuer of money can allow this or not.
In a free market in money production, the question will not be whether the issuers "allow" such hoarding to take place, as if they are the rulers of everyone's spending, but rather whether or not people hoarding cash will provide for a profitable opportunity to produce more money.
Austerity is not allowing the "market process" to freely operate and thus results in plummeting RGDP.
That's not austerity. That's the exact opposite. Austerity is the state LETTING those in the market control more real resources for the consumer's benefit, which is had by the state printing and spending less money, not more money.
money4nothing:
in English please!
You mean dumbed down? I don't know if I can.
"In a free market in money production, the question will not be whether the issuers "allow" such hoarding to take place, as if they are the rulers of everyone's spending, but rather whether or not people hoarding cash will provide for a profitable opportunity to produce more money."
ReplyDeleteThere is no free market and there never was. What questions are applicable in fairy tales really doesn't matter.
money4nothing:
ReplyDeleteThere is no free market and there never was.
First, I didn't claim we have a free market. If we did then I wouldn't be advocating for a change to the monetary system, since it would already be a free market in money production.
Second, if don't have a free market, then you cannot claim (not saying you did claim, just saying you cannot claim) that there exists empirical evidence that refutes the superiority of free markets.
What questions are applicable in fairy tales really doesn't matter.
You mean like the fairy tale you believe in that violence solves complex social problems? Hammer for every problem? Yeah, that fairy tale is not applicable to the reality I am attempting to direct your attention towards.
Another fairy tale: The long term viability of middle of the road socialism-capitalism, as if such a system does not keep tending towards socialism.
Major Freedom, you are talking about some nice ideas. Anarcho-capitalist ideas are really nice, just like utopian communist ideas are. I am not saying anything against It or for It. Let's just first make the best with what we have. I am sure you agree that government is not going to disappear in next 5 years or in next 25 years. Neither are we going to win if we lobby for communism. Don't you think life is full of compromises? Let's make the best with what we have. How about full employment and price stability? Our other choice is high unemployment, sluggish ecomomic growth and still no communism or anarcho-capitalism. You don't really believe that your eyes are going to see life without government, do you? That's why I'm saying that you are talking about fairy tales, not because I want to insult you. How about having Keynesian golden age of capitalism all over again for a start? What do you say?
ReplyDelete