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
▼
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Lord Keynes — A Proposal for an Alt Left Political Program
Well, I'm reading the proposals and I can honestly say that I absolutely love MMT. Randolph Wray says it can be used by both right-wing and left-wing governments. Public services can be run by private companies, or public ones. I would like to see more public provision on some things because the quality can be much better, and it's usually fairer and more accountable.
To think of the kind of world we could have, much more low cost Green energy, full employment, happier people, a safer environment, better quality healthcare, the list just goes on.
If other countries used MMT they could help stabilise world population growth in a way that people are happy with. Many people have large families to ensure they have provision in old age, but good quality health care and social security can reduce this need.
Bhutan is a poor country but has free healthcare and free education. This dog eat dog capitalism isn't making people happy.
Lord Keynes says we should the utility companies should be renationalised and I agree. Many of the privatisations since the neoliberal era should be overturned. But this would create monopolies and strong unions some would argue. But were strong unions ever a problem? What union members were scared of was losing their jobs and good wages, which is understandable.
When new technology was being introduced, like ticket machines at public train stations, the ticket issuing staff got rightly concerned. But rather than just slash jobs, why not agree on natural wastage and redeployment along with wage increases for remaining staff. As train station staff got reduced due to new technology the workers could share in the prosperity by seeing their wages rise and then they would be more likely to go along with the changes, and the overall effect would still be cost reductions for the public. In this way prosperity gets shared and it doesn't just all go to the 0.1 Percent. More prosperity amongst workers means more sales for other businesses so everyone wins and we get a much more pleasant society.
Other ways of dealing with productivity changes was to have deals that ended strikes but would have sensible arbitration instead - like ACAS.
In an MMT world capitalism would be more relaxed and workers would feel less threatened in the first place, meaning they would find changes easier to go along with. The difference between what we could have and what we have got instead is shocking.
I like the Alt Left political/economic program as described by "Lord Keynes".
The Alt Left should support reasonable and sensible civil and equity women’s rights and gay rights, but strongly reject French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJW cults, divisive and extreme identity politics, Third Wave Feminism, and endless cults of victimology from identity politics. The combination of all these ideas has created a toxic wing of the modern left called the “regressive left,” which needs to be totally rejected.
I would like to see the above spelled out more constructively. Rather than rejecting these movements, might it be possible to specify specific components of these movements that are objectionable? I know L.K. has done that in some detail, and his post does include some specifics, e.g.
The Alt Left should also reject extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, because this is not supported by science.
To be successful politically, the Left is going to have to assemble a coalition of disparate ideological stances on the left from center left to far left. Each of those groups has an ideological viewpoint. Generally what has happened on the left is internecine warfare among ideological groups, with the result that the left goes nowhere politically.
Notice how the Right as had little difficultly in assembling political coalitions that range from center right to far right. Yes, it is s difficult to hold such coalitions together and the US Right is in a state of transition over its longstanding coalition that developed an institutional establishment that is now under attack.
The reality seems to be that the Right is getter at holding its nose in cooperating to win elections. So far, the left has not been aloe to do so.
So it is not just a matter of putting together a platform articulating ideology, but making something work politically.
I feel more ready to compromise than ever. We're going nowhere so are got to get together on this. I'm sure most people will be more than happy with a MMT country, with good public services without excessive tax. Were might even be able to very some of the right on board.
I rather think the 'left' and the 'right' are somewhat outdated concepts and that there is an axis tilt underway that is reconfiguring the entire scene.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm reading the proposals and I can honestly say that I absolutely love MMT. Randolph Wray says it can be used by both right-wing and left-wing governments. Public services can be run by private companies, or public ones. I would like to see more public provision on some things because the quality can be much better, and it's usually fairer and more accountable.
ReplyDeleteTo think of the kind of world we could have, much more low cost Green energy, full employment, happier people, a safer environment, better quality healthcare, the list just goes on.
If other countries used MMT they could help stabilise world population growth in a way that people are happy with. Many people have large families to ensure they have provision in old age, but good quality health care and social security can reduce this need.
Bhutan is a poor country but has free healthcare and free education. This dog eat dog capitalism isn't making people happy.
Lord Keynes says we should the utility companies should be renationalised and I agree. Many of the privatisations since the neoliberal era should be overturned. But this would create monopolies and strong unions some would argue. But were strong unions ever a problem? What union members were scared of was losing their jobs and good wages, which is understandable.
ReplyDeleteWhen new technology was being introduced, like ticket machines at public train stations, the ticket issuing staff got rightly concerned. But rather than just slash jobs, why not agree on natural wastage and redeployment along with wage increases for remaining staff. As train station staff got reduced due to new technology the workers could share in the prosperity by seeing their wages rise and then they would be more likely to go along with the changes, and the overall effect would still be cost reductions for the public. In this way prosperity gets shared and it doesn't just all go to the 0.1 Percent. More prosperity amongst workers means more sales for other businesses so everyone wins and we get a much more pleasant society.
Other ways of dealing with productivity changes was to have deals that ended strikes but would have sensible arbitration instead - like ACAS.
In an MMT world capitalism would be more relaxed and workers would feel less threatened in the first place, meaning they would find changes easier to go along with. The difference between what we could have and what we have got instead is shocking.
Agree with Kaivey!
ReplyDeleteI like the Alt Left political/economic program as described by "Lord Keynes".
The Alt Left should support reasonable and sensible civil and equity women’s rights and gay rights, but strongly reject French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJW cults, divisive and extreme identity politics, Third Wave Feminism, and endless cults of victimology from identity politics. The combination of all these ideas has created a toxic wing of the modern left called the “regressive left,” which needs to be totally rejected.
I would like to see the above spelled out more constructively. Rather than rejecting these movements, might it be possible to specify specific components of these movements that are objectionable? I know L.K. has done that in some detail, and his post does include some specifics, e.g.
The Alt Left should also reject extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, because this is not supported by science.
To be successful politically, the Left is going to have to assemble a coalition of disparate ideological stances on the left from center left to far left. Each of those groups has an ideological viewpoint. Generally what has happened on the left is internecine warfare among ideological groups, with the result that the left goes nowhere politically.
ReplyDeleteNotice how the Right as had little difficultly in assembling political coalitions that range from center right to far right. Yes, it is s difficult to hold such coalitions together and the US Right is in a state of transition over its longstanding coalition that developed an institutional establishment that is now under attack.
The reality seems to be that the Right is getter at holding its nose in cooperating to win elections. So far, the left has not been aloe to do so.
So it is not just a matter of putting together a platform articulating ideology, but making something work politically.
I feel more ready to compromise than ever. We're going nowhere so are got to get together on this. I'm sure most people will be more than happy with a MMT country, with good public services without excessive tax. Were might even be able to very some of the right on board.
DeleteI rather think the 'left' and the 'right' are somewhat outdated concepts and that there is an axis tilt underway that is reconfiguring the entire scene.
ReplyDeleteQuite a good piece here about the change - which may see the end of existing coalitions and the reformation of new ones.