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.
Polls show that there is more support for capitalism in China than in the US. Dan Lynch
Which is why something different from either socialism or capitalism as now practiced is called for. Else we'll just oscillate between the two.
I suggest "ethical capitalism" which would involve co-existing government and private money supplies per Matthew 22:16-22. The money system we now have is not ethical nor even philosophically consistent with either socialism or genuine capitalism.
MMT deals with the system we have rather than the one some would like, in spite of criticism to the contrary owing to the fact that some MMT'ers advocate different policy than that being followed.
I think that Randy is on the right track with the new meme" agenda that emphasizes public purpose. This is essential to a the view of capitalism that envisions a positive role for government, unlike neoclassical and Austrian economics, which see government as the problem.
The fact is that in the existing system govt does play a positive role (as well as a negative one). The policy prescription is that this positive role be increased and the negative role, e.g., cronyism, be decreased.
Doing this requires addressing public purpose, including public investment goods, common goods and community, as well as diagnosing and treating the parasitism of economic rent, which neoclassical and Austrian economics largely rule out,
Capitalism and market competition are not the exact same thing, although most don't make the distinction. Market competition is how we make Capitalism 'fairer.' Our economy reflects our values, and we need and ought have competition that brings out the best in man, and not the worst. In my view, MMT assumes market competition, and it's agnostic on how it's organized.
For example, at the Mosler Occupy Address at Occupy Dallas, we had socialists there who questioned Warren on whether MMT could be applied to an economy organized on socialist lines (public/state controlled firms, worker controlled firms, etc.), and his answer was yes.
"Market competition is how we make Capitalism 'fairer"
This is an important point…currently competition has been gamed out of the system for the big boyz™, only we peons (small business and workers) have to compete.
Which is why we have a 2-tiered system and gross inequality.
This is a two tier economy. You either have access to the mass market or not. If not, your earnings will be limited. If you do, the sky's the limit with globalization, especially if you are charging rent or have a product with repeatable sales or a big back end. The objective here is to dominate the market, which case competition is limited due to entry costs and economies of scale.
However - if its "general case" applied - it might be a very different version of capitalism; one where the government could spend through a non independent central bank, instead of having to submit to the fiction of being dependent upon private markets to finance its deficit expenditures.
Democratic control of the central bank by subordinating it to an elective executive body would possibilitate a return of an improved version of the social democratic form of capitalism that prevailed for some 30 years after WW II.
The current situation of central banks independent of democracy yet totally subordinated to the interests of the FIRE sector is certainly the worst, most unpalatable form of capitalism ever designed.
MMT is going to apply in any monetized economy where the state retains monopoly control over net financial asset production and destruction. Sectoral balances, exchange rate regimes, endogenous money/circuit theory and tendency of households to net save will still probably be relevant.
Whenever it is shown that there are no mathematical limits on how much money we can print or pay interest on they change the subject to MARKETS AIIEEEEEE!!!!
There is no attempt to refute the premise on mathematical grounds.
13 comments:
The new, improved "in your face" Warren Mosler...I like it.
MMT assumes capitalism.
Polls show that there is more support for capitalism in China than in the US.
Just sayin'.
Polls show that there is more support for capitalism in China than in the US. Dan Lynch
Which is why something different from either socialism or capitalism as now practiced is called for. Else we'll just oscillate between the two.
I suggest "ethical capitalism" which would involve co-existing government and private money supplies per Matthew 22:16-22. The money system we now have is not ethical nor even philosophically consistent with either socialism or genuine capitalism.
MMT assumes capitalism.
MMT deals with the system we have rather than the one some would like, in spite of criticism to the contrary owing to the fact that some MMT'ers advocate different policy than that being followed.
I think that Randy is on the right track with the
new meme" agenda that emphasizes public purpose. This is essential to a the view of capitalism that envisions a positive role for government, unlike neoclassical and Austrian economics, which see government as the problem.
The fact is that in the existing system govt does play a positive role (as well as a negative one). The policy prescription is that this positive role be increased and the negative role, e.g., cronyism, be decreased.
Doing this requires addressing public purpose, including public investment goods, common goods and community, as well as diagnosing and treating the parasitism of economic rent, which neoclassical and Austrian economics largely rule out,
Capitalism and market competition are not the exact same thing, although most don't make the distinction. Market competition is how we make Capitalism 'fairer.' Our economy reflects our values, and we need and ought have competition that brings out the best in man, and not the worst. In my view, MMT assumes market competition, and it's agnostic on how it's organized.
For example, at the Mosler Occupy Address at Occupy Dallas, we had socialists there who questioned Warren on whether MMT could be applied to an economy organized on socialist lines (public/state controlled firms, worker controlled firms, etc.), and his answer was yes.
"Market competition is how we make Capitalism 'fairer"
This is an important point…currently competition has been gamed out of the system for the big boyz™, only we peons (small business and workers) have to compete.
Which is why we have a 2-tiered system and gross inequality.
This is a two tier economy. You either have access to the mass market or not. If not, your earnings will be limited. If you do, the sky's the limit with globalization, especially if you are charging rent or have a product with repeatable sales or a big back end. The objective here is to dominate the market, which case competition is limited due to entry costs and economies of scale.
MMT is certainly consistent with capitalism.
However - if its "general case" applied - it might be a very different version of capitalism; one where the government could spend through a non independent central bank, instead of having to submit to the fiction of being dependent upon private markets to finance its deficit expenditures.
Democratic control of the central bank by subordinating it to an elective executive body would possibilitate a return of an improved version of the social democratic form of capitalism that prevailed for some 30 years after WW II.
The current situation of central banks independent of democracy yet totally subordinated to the interests of the FIRE sector is certainly the worst, most unpalatable form of capitalism ever designed.
@Dan Lynch,
MMT is going to apply in any monetized economy where the state retains monopoly control over net financial asset production and destruction. Sectoral balances, exchange rate regimes, endogenous money/circuit theory and tendency of households to net save will still probably be relevant.
Jose,
"submit to the fiction"
good way to phrase it imo...
rsp,
Matt,
A fiction that holds sway,unfortunately, over the minds of most people living on planet earth.
It must be broken, once and for all.
Whenever it is shown that there are no mathematical limits on how much money we can print or pay interest on they change the subject to MARKETS AIIEEEEEE!!!!
There is no attempt to refute the premise on mathematical grounds.
Post a Comment