The mistake is largely due to the erroneous government as firm or household analogy. A sovereign currency issuer is not limited in the amount of currency it can issue, unlike currency users that must obtain the currency. The constraint limiting issuance by a currency sovereign is the availability of real resources including the ability of the economy of the currency zone to meet demand in markets by expanding supply.
Clint Ballinger
MMT & the Fourth Spark Plug: Descriptive vs. Prescriptive revisited
Clint Ballinger
MMT & the Fourth Spark Plug: Descriptive vs. Prescriptive revisited
Yes, a very good essay. Points that should be emphasized more and more. I've made the point about (free) lunches that way myself. The car repair is a very good comparison. People who criticize MMT and the JG are not running on all cylinders. :-)
ReplyDeleteThorstein Veblen was making very similar points when he stressed the importance of sabotage as a business practice. Running on three cylinders makes some people money, keeps them in power. That's why it's done so much.
The constraint limiting issuance by a currency sovereign is the availability of real resources including the ability of the economy of the currency zone to meet demand in markets by expanding supply. Tom Hickey
ReplyDeleteCorrect but the government privileged usury cartel competes in the same market for real resources and not for the general welfare but for the private interests of the banks themselves and of the most so-called credit worthy of what is then, in essence, the public's credit, but for private gain.
When are MMT advocates going to get serious about bank reform, i.e. about allowing citizens to use fiat as the banks do - via inherently risk-free accounts of their own at the Central Bank?
If you don't, you'll be forgotten as a long line of faux reformers/bank defenders have already been or remembered with contempt.
MMT: A free lunch for the Oligarchy
ReplyDeleteComment on Clint Ballinger on ‘MMT & the Fourth Spark Plug: Descriptive vs. Prescriptive revisited’
As every good snake oil seller, Clint Ballinger first takes people away in a dream world: “Imagine you are an experienced mechanic. One day your neighbour comes home with a newly purchased used car. It is running terribly – sputtering and running slowly with little power. You look under the hood. It is a four cylinder car in good condition, and you notice that one of the spark plug cables is simply unconnected. The only thing that needs to be done to make the car run smoothly and with 100% power is to connect that spark plug so that all four cylinders fire. This is the case with economics and the economy. There are a minority of economists, MMT and Post-Keynesian economists especially, who actually observe the real properties and understand the fundamentals of how the economy functions …”
The fact of the matter is, though, that neither MMTers nor Post-Keynesians understand how the economy works. Both approaches do not satisfy the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency. In other words, MMT is provably false. MMTers are NOT like the experienced mechanic, they are simply too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics.#1
As a result, MMT policy has NO sound scientific foundations. MMTers are quite ordinary snake oil sellers.#2
Technically speaking, MMT is based on this sectoral balances equation (X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S)=0 and this equation is mathematically false. The correct balances equation reads (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0 and from it follows that Public Deficit = Private Profit. In other words, the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation boils down to money-making for the Oligarchy. The free lunch Clint Ballinger promises is indeed a free lunch but NOT for WeThePeople but for WeTheOligarchy.#3
For WeThePeople, the essential points to know about MMT are:
• MMT has NO sound scientific foundations,
• MMT’s foundational sectoral balances equation is mathematically false,
• MMTers do NOT know how the monetary economy works,
• MMT is political agenda pushing in a scientific bluff package,
• MMT policy is NOT for the benefit of WeThePeople,#4
• MMT is just another political fraud,
• The storyteller Clint Ballinger is a pushy member of the MMT snake oil sales team.#5, #6, #7, #8
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT
http://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/07/mmt-cross-references.html
#2 MMT, Warren Mosler, and the little helpers from Wall Street and Academia
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/10/mmt-warren-mosler-and-little-helpers.html
#3 Why the MMT benefactors of humanity never talk about profit
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-mmt-benefactors-of-humanity-never.html
#4 MMT is ALWAYS a bad deal for the 99-percenters
http://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/12/mmt-is-always-bad-deal-for-ninety-nine.html
#5 The Kelton-Fraud
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-kelton-fraud.html
#6 MMT: The one deadly error/fraud of Warren Mosler
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/11/mmt-one-deadly-errorfraud-of-warren.html
#7 Richard Murphy: the MMT fraudster dressed up as realist
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/06/richard-murphy-mmt-fraudster-dressed-up.html
#8 MMT: academic snake oil for the people
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/02/mmt-academic-snake-oil-for-people.html
“When are MMT advocates going to get serious about bank reform?” ~ Andrew Anderson
ReplyDeleteIndeed. MMT is useless without bank reform.
The US government can create infinite money out of thin air, but putting more money into circulation will increase inequality if we don’t control where the money goes. Today, most of the money in the economy flows to FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, which includes bankers and other creditors).
Consider what happens when a tech giant moves to a town. The high salaries of tech employees put more money into the local economy, but the extra money is stolen by banks as they push up housing and rental prices. This in turn pushes up insurance premiums. This worsens inequality and homelessness.
When thieves steal most of the money in the economy, we don't help matters by giving the thieves more money to steal.
People who criticize MMT and the JG are not running on all cylinders. :-) Calcagus
ReplyDeleteThen what do you call people who defend a banking model that was designed/evolved for the Gold Standard and not for inexpensive (as it should be) fiat?
Bank toadies, comes to mind.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNoah WayNovember 15, 2018 at 5:43 PM
ReplyDeleteAXEC says A free lunch for the Oligarchy and then goes on to complain that modern monetary theory is not based on science.
The oligarchy already has a free lunch, and they are eating yours as well. It is ironically amusing that he criticizes MMT for a lack of science when in fact no economic theories are based on anything resembling science. Economics or an artificial construct and as such do not follow physical laws, a.k.a. "Science".
I do enjoy Egmont's circular reasoning, especially the links to his own arguments to back up his own arguments.
MMT is one way to see the economy through the lens of fiscal and monetary systems. Anyone that says the model will hold up any better than any of the other models is just lying. Yes, the accounting appears to at least make sense. But the more obvious failures and perverse incentives it creates are sort of hand waved off as if they are inconsequential. If all the economy was designed to maximize and optimize the system ala MMT, problems will emerge. All economic and financial systems appear to operate one way, but it's only a mirage because once everybody acts and believes one dominant paradigm, it becomes obvious how to subvert their paradigm and everybody will try to profit from it. What is worse is that a political system never can be optimized for one belief system, it's always going to be a bastard mix. I'd argue our current system already is an perfectly optimized MMT system given the political constraints and competing belief systems including a variety of programs with are essentially a JG in effect but are limited to prevent perverse incentives.
ReplyDeleteWhat is worse, the core proposition in MMT is that the currency value floats and can provide "space" but what is not often talked about that "space" can and does often become negative. It's an equilibrium assumption with rational, informed participants, well meaning, rule following and all that. Big fantasy. Positive fiscal space is bandied about as opening up policy dreams. Well what about negative space? It means spending must contract or taxes must rise when real resources are in short supply or the currency adjusts too much. Currency values don't move gradually and clear nicely; Investment and capital drive currencies to extreme levels for decades at a time. It's a giant inter-related mess of interactions between related people. Inflation isn't primarily determined by the domestic labor markets; In a globalized economy labor prices and quantity are determined by industrial policies in far away lands. You could have runaway inflation and a currency collapse and at the same time the JG could have to soak up labor and spend more; The more people that go on a JG, productivity falls and spending rises and currency falls further. One of those pesky tipping point things. These systems aren't simple and 1-2-3 boom, everybody gets free education, healthcare and climate change fantasies fulfilled in one move. MMT is horribly defective and potentially a horrible catastrophe with a bunch of people advocating for simplistic solutions to complicated problems.
Ryan Harris: These arguments are quite specious and dealt with at length by the MMTers. They either say that there are some mysterious problems but not what they are, or claim by specious reasoning that there is a problem where there isn't. ("external constraint" globaloney) In particular, applying them to the USA is not serious.
ReplyDeleteThe "space" in the USA has almost never been "negative". Not since WWII. Barely within living memory and not within the memory of anyone here I believe. The enormous unused space that has been squandered - the entire lifetime of many commenters here - has led to atrocious economic performance for decades by historical US standards. The idea that the USA is hostage to mysterious "industrial policies in faraway lands" is just not serious. Them furriners want our dollars. And the dollars would be a lot scarcer and hard to come by with a JG or MMT policies say, than the Trump tax cuts (and rising interest rates).
By the way, I dislike the overuse of "model" and "lens" etc. I prefer simple words like "true" or "false". As in 'Applied MMT obviously will and has led to great increases in economic performance at no cost' is True. The truth here is simple, the problem is that people fed on a diet of baloney all their lives insist that simple and conceptually easy to fix problems are complicated.
You could have runaway inflation and a currency collapse and at the same time the JG could have to soak up labor and spend more; The more people that go on a JG, productivity falls and spending rises and currency falls further. One of those pesky tipping point things.
Nope, it is not a tipping point thing. That is just not how a JG works. Or one is just calling some other policy a "JG". A JG cannot cause runaway inflation and currency collapse. MMT policies like the JG are intentionally designed to have negative feedback, be automatic stabilizers. If there is inflation and currency collapse, the JG by design spends less, not more, to the point of vanishing. This feature really has nothing to do with the external sector or the onion producing sector or the entertainment sector of the economy in particular.
Productivity in the way relevant to the nation as a whole rises with a JG - people who weren't working do work with a JG. Total production, productivity per person rise. Per capita productivity of working people may fall - or may not - whatever. Who cares? It isn't relevant.
A living person is a complicated structure, just like an economy or a society. That doesn't mean that very simple advice cannot be helpful. "Don't stab yourself and you won't bleed." "Don't try to breathe water like a fish, or you will drown." "Run your car on all cylinders, not just three." That's the kind of advice MMT gives. "Don't sabotage your economy as a whole by forcing people to be unemployed."
I mean, the whole world ran on MMT principles after WWII - the most prosperous era in history, where many nations instituted free health care and education - and by any yardstick prospered MORE, not less, because of this. The more MMTish the policies, the better each nation tended to do. So saying that applied MMT has mysterious insuperable problems is like insisting that heavier-than-air-flight is impossible to people who have seen, ridden in or even piloted airplanes. Is it serious? Is this running on all cylinders?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"It means spending must contract or taxes must rise when real resources are in short supply or the currency adjusts too much."
ReplyDeleteRyan:
"currency adjusts too much"??
Ryan, and please elaborate on how this would happen. "You could have runaway inflation and a currency collapse" without foreign denominated debt. ??
ReplyDeleteBy what mechanisms precisely?
Konrad,
ReplyDeleteDesirable as bank reform is, it’s going a bit far to say “MMT is useless without bank reform”. Strikes me that even if there’s no bank reform, MMT still brings benefits in that it brings a better understanding of national debts and deficits.
Andrew,
You ask: “When are MMT advocates going to get serious about bank reform?” I agree it would be nice if MMTers got to grips with bank reform, on the other hand there are plenty of other groups concentrating on bank reform, e.g. Positive Money and the Swiss and German “Vollgeld” movements.
Plus the average MMTer is completely clueless on bank reform at the moment, so the average MMTer would have to do a HUGE AMOUNT of reading to get up to speed on that topic. I.e. might be best if MMTers stick to MMT in its present form. And I speak as someone who has written a book on bank reform (link below). The 3rd edition of that book is coming out soon.
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/57025889/fulresbk179senttocrspto
“You could have runaway inflation and a currency collapse"
ReplyDeleteLook at the US from 2000 -2007....
Property up , oil up gas up, etc... and dollar way down...
How MMT makes everybody happy
ReplyDeleteComment on Clint Ballinger on ‘MMT & the Fourth Spark Plug: Descriptive vs. Prescriptive revisited’
Clint Ballinger explains how MMT works: “Just as with the mechanic, there is no way to look at an otherwise well-running four cylinder car that is running needlessly on 3 cylinders and not mention “Errr,,,you know…it would run amazing if you simply connect that cable back, which I can do for free in 10 seconds.” … Another way to say this: In this case there is in effect a “free lunch”. There is almost no effort involved in plugging the fourth cylinder in, but a massive gain that is currently being foregone for no reason.”
The key words are “almost for free”. People like to get things “almost for free”. Fraudsters know this, and since the ancient gold makers, they promise ‘something for nothing.’ MMTers are no exception.
Let’s see how it works.
The elementary production-consumption economy is for a start defined by three macroeconomic axioms (Yw=WL, O=RL, C=PX), two conditions (X=O, C=Yw) and two definitions (profit/loss Q≡C−Yw, saving/dissaving S≡Yw−C). Legend: Yw wage income, W wage rate, L employment, O output, R productivity, C consumption expenditures, P price, X quantity bought/sold.
It always holds Q+S=0 or Q=−S, in other words, the business sector’s surplus = profit equals the household sector’s deficit = dissaving and, vice versa, the business sector’s deficit = loss equals the household sector’s surplus = saving. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law.
Given the two conditions, the market clearing price is derived for a start as P = W/R. So, the price P is determined by the wage rate W, which has to be fixed as a numéraire, and the productivity R. This is the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand.
Unfortunately, the elementary production-consumption economy is in the state of unemployment and nobody has any idea of how to fix the problem.
Now, the smart MMTer Clint Ballinger talks to the unemployed: “My park has been devastated, I offer each of you the current wage W if you clean up the mess. Your work is appreciated as a valuable contribution to environmental protection.”
The hitherto unemployed happily agree and start to work while Clint Ballinger vanishes in the basement of his house and prints the extra wage sum Ywu. The money is indistinguishable from central bank money.
The income of the household sector increases to Yw+Ywu. If the households fully spend their income, consumption expenditures increase and the price goes up a little (NO inflation). The household sector as a whole gets the SAME total real output O under the conditions of market clearing. The hitherto unemployed now get a share of the output of the business sector. Correspondingly, the hitherto employed get less in real terms. Their real wage falls unnoticeable.
The profit of the business sector increases because Q1=C1−Yw is greater than Q=C−Yw=0 because C1 is greater than C. The situation of the business sector improves. It holds: the business sector’s profit is equal to Clint Ballinger’s counterfeit money creation Ywu.
That’s a real win-win solution, isn’t it? Clint Ballinger gets his park tidied up for free, the unemployed are productively employed, and the business sector’s profit increases.#1, #2 The question is: Who holds the bag? Could it be WeThePeople?
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 MMT: Money-making for the one-percenters
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/09/mmt-money-making-for-one-percenters.html
#2 MMT, money printing, stealth taxation, and redistribution
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/11/mmt-money-printing-stealth-taxation-and.html
"Indeed. MMT is useless without bank reform.
ReplyDeleteThe US government can create infinite money out of thin air, but putting more money into circulation will increase inequality if we don’t control where the money goes. Today, most of the money in the economy flows to FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, which includes bankers and other creditors).
Consider what happens when a tech giant moves to a town. The high salaries of tech employees put more money into the local economy, but the extra money is stolen by banks as they push up housing and rental prices. This in turn pushes up insurance premiums. This worsens inequality and homelessness.
When thieves steal most of the money in the economy, we don't help matters by giving the thieves more money to steal."
You are spot on Konrad. What is the point of more money if it only ever goes in one direction (to property owners). My parents won half a million dollars in 1998, only to end up bankrupt AND $50k in debt 4 years later..we were so shocked by this that we did some research and at that time there was a statistic showing that 19 out of 20 lottery winners end up the same way..the main reason is because people do not understand money and will always give it to those who do.
what is missing for a lot of people is not money or more money, it is some form of permanency whether that be a job or property, i.e. something which will produce an income ad infinitum, or more to the point, something that will ensure basic needs and wants will be met on a periodical basis..my real life experiences as someone who watched my parents (and met other lottery winners) and also someone who has first hand experience both with homelessness and as a successful businessman for a period, is that NO AMOUNT OF MONEY FIXES ANYTHING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF CREATE PERMANANCY..money is a flow, not a stock, flows cannot produce permanancy, only stocks can, and even then this is still risky
The problem we all have is that we want to create some security and permanancy in our lives but there are really only two ways under a monetary economy, one is real property, the other is personal property (i.e. financial assets), and as you rightly point out, the more we come to rely on property the higher in value it goes meaning each new generation can't get into these markets and so become ever more reliant on socialist government policies, which means each new generation is being aksed to first is to hate capitalists, something which seems hypocritical to me, and the second, to 'trust' politicians and government, something which is a bit rich to ask considering any one government is always at risk of being voted out; there is simply no security/permanancy in politics (even though many will argue against this until they are blue in the face) and I become offended when people tell me I should trust politics when there is no historical evidence to demonstrate that any level of security/permanancy was ever created out of politics, otherwise we wouldn't be having these conversations to begin with; I Wonder if bank reform will only last as long as any government can last.
The closest thing that would create permanancy is constitutional change, but we must also remember that constitutions are largely drawn up as a means to protect property rights against governments and because property is important for a lot of people, we need to find additional ways to create permanancy which do not rely on property whilst at the same time not destroying property as an institution in itself; for instance, tri-lateral relationships operating under trust law where government is one party, a famly is another party, and the private sector is the third party, and the relation has an account at the central bank (I refer to this in my economists challenge) which uses money on its own circuit outside of the FIRE circuit.
Now I await for Calgacus to judge and rip everything I say to shreds (because for some reason I am a threat to him)
Economists Challenge:Now I await for Calgacus to judge and rip everything I say to shreds (because for some reason I am a threat to him)
ReplyDeleteI apologize for any offense I have given. If I respond to you much it is partly out of respect, because you have unusual and clear insight on some things. There was one time at billyblog, me as "Some Guy", If I am not mistaken that was you under another name there - where I was too harsh on your "naivete". I later realized that I agreed with what you were saying. The naive thing is almost always the, or a, right thing to do. It just may not be the only right thing to do - saying that should have been the focus of my criticism instead. Sure, wage human rights lawfare for a right to work. IMHO not many have as much insight here as you do - I don't think even Bill Mitchell understands this as well as you or the Kansas City school - who I think talk more to lawyers.
I don't think you are threat to me, I just think you are wrong about some things. So I respond because I believe truth proceeds more readily from error than confusion, and you are at least not "not even wrong." (Bacon, Pauli) The basis of my criticism is that you discard MMT before understanding it, before seeing how deep its criticism of the conceptual categories that you use goes. If you did, you or anyone could see the nonsensicality about MMT being pro-oligarchy, say. MMT arguments are airtight. The critics's arguments aren't.
Similarly others worrying too much here about the banks misses the point. Full employment is even more important than bank reform, which of course MMTers very strongly support. The rich rule not by grabbing more wealth, but by excluding others from it, sadistically keeping people out of the money economy. They have their free lunch, but they know it is even more important to keep you from eating yours. Sabotage, not theft. MMT just says stop this sabotage and destruction. Recognize the property rights of poor people too.
Calgacus,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the response, and I too apologize for my reactions over the past.
I still do feel that you are way off on some of your interpretations of what we are trying to achieve - it would be nice if you could take the economists challenge (if you get time) and present some questions.
My criticisms of MMT are not restricted to MMT. I have a problem with almost all economists out there of all camps, because whilst they all continue to fight over how the game of money economics should be played (on the claim that they are concerned with reducing unemployment), they fail to see that just to the side of the game board is a group of society who don't want to play that game at all but who would rather produce something for either themselves of the community (or both) under a different mode of production and one that is not based on private property (when I say private property I am using the legal definition that the courts use, and not the definition that the average person uses).
Our group (which came up with the economists challenge aka custodian model) believe that the % of the population which would prefer to utilize a different mode of production could be somewhere up to the vicinity of the current levels of unemployment - meaning, if countries around the world wanted to operate the custodian model alongside the monetary economy, it could significantly reduce unemployment without the need to create or find new "jobs" (using the standard definition of "job"), and what's more, these people would be happier because they are operating under a mode which is suited to them, and I would be the first person to put up his hand and say 'I want to operate as a custodian please'. If one of the main aims of any economist is to find ways to reduce unemployment, then I believe they have a duty to at least see our idea. If they see our idea and choose to ignore it or criticize it without good reason, then this leads me to believe the true motivation of most economists then is not to reduce unemployment at all but rather to sell books or something. As far as MMT is concerned, whilst they might see the Custodian as only partly reducing the level of unemployment, it should still be a boon for them as it means less jobs are necessary through the JG program for the rest who do wish to work a day job.
My reactions to you in the past have been mostly based on the feeling that your responses seem to reflect an idea that what we are trying to achieve (the economists challenge aka the custodian model) if it was successfully implemented, whether by one household or even a million (I am just basing this 1 million figure on Australia's population), would somehow cause you and others economic harm without you demonstrating to us how. At one time you said that you would stand at the beachfront and defend against our idea with guns - to this day I am still completely perplexed as to why you would want to stop me from being happy when I can prove that my happiness (and the happiness of many others in society who do not want to play the money/property game) will not cause you or any other economic loss. What's more, if anyone took the time to absorb the idea, you might actually begin to see that if there were more custodians in society, then the rest of society who are the property owners or pursuing economic pursuits would be better off because there would be reduced competition for property.
Our main principle is that 'private property' is the Yang, and the Custodian is the Ying.
https://economistschallenge.wordpress.com/
than bank reform, which of course MMTers very strongly support. Calgacus
ReplyDeleteNo you don't, except to make the current Gold Standard banking model more stable such as by eliminating liquidity crisis with ZIRP.
The rich rule not by grabbing more wealth, but by excluding others from it, sadistically keeping people out of the money economy. Calgacus
That's exactly what the current banking model does, it excludes the non-bank private sector from even using fiat, except for mere physical fiat, coins and bills, forcing people to use bank deposits instead to the benefit of the banks and the rich, the most so-called credit worthy of what is now, in essence, the public's credit but for private gain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(1/2) Too much work to do, and too little energy, still recovering from surgery. Wrote this several times, don't know where earlier versions are. I apologize that it is a mess, that I didn't say more, that I am saying this so late, and that it is so critical. I am more dissatisfied by my own reply here than with anything you have said. But it is either writing this, which is too nasty and confused, or nothing at all & I am interested in your thinking.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the conceptual way you still look at economics is (quite) neoliberal, neoclassical - that's the problem, because these concepts are wrong. (Leads to accepting EKH's (who has the same problem) nonsense about MMT being welfare for the rich.) You don't see the "Custodian" nature of all societies and economies, which leads you to misunderstand today's money-using sector and people and think that it has defects or aims it does not have. The basic problem is that today's societies ask their members to do logically impossible things. Fix that. Every other problem is trivial. And it would reappear in your project - should the Custodian sector be asked to do logically impossible things? Yes or no? If that is not understood and answered, then it will crash and burn.
I still do feel that you are way off on some of your interpretations of what we are trying to achieve
I don't think our aims differ much. Also, I do not think your proposals will cause direct economic harm to me or anyone else outside their adopters. This point is important because we have both, along with many others historically, noted the same about the JG. But it most do not understand this today.
What I have a problem, what led to my "fight on the beaches" attitude was with some of what you have said. I think you need to be more self-critical - I don't want to be aggressive or insulting - But have you read what you have written on blogs?
That there are "two kinds of people", the idea that the decision to become "a custodian" is irrevocable, individuals giving up rights etc. I said I opposed this because it violently contradicts human rights - rights which have been universally embodied in law. Primarily the human rights of the "custodians".
Your criticisms of MMT are based on a superficial and defective understanding. MMT & similar thinkers through the ages, "are all about the people to the side of the game board" - those that are supposed to be ignored by it. But it does a better job of thinking coherently and consistently about them - realizing that there is no choice but having some rules, the aim is to understand and make good ones, ones that do not do violence to logic.
Basically, the custodian model is reinventing the wheel. Sure, go ahead with it. Improved wheels are always welcome, but why pretend it isn't one? It most certainly is all the things it is listed as not being - political, economic, a co-op / commune etc. I mean, it is so by dictionary definition of all the things it is supposed to not be. Again, a JG as envisioned by MMTers does practically all the things that the custodian model does.
As did some of the US New Deal programs.
The burden is on a proposer of something else to say why it is better - and when he thinks there is some new feature that people haven't thought of before - to search and ask others to make sure it really is new and not a feature of other proposals he is criticizing as insufficient. It is not so far from the truth to say that your proposal, viewed charitably, is nothing but (part of) a Job Guarantee. Thinking it is not is to not understand the Job Guarantee and specific proposals for it.
(2/2) Without intending to, imho you are blaming victims - people who are crushed by today's societies, by identifying the difference in them - not the fact that they are basically like randomly chosen victims of serial killers. For instance people are homeless today not because they should be "custodians" - but because societies have become insane, less "custodian-like". 50 years ago, there was no homelessness anywhere in the developed countries. The societies went socially insane. There was no change among individuals that caused homelessness. Many people are too young or have bad memories and don't realize. I am not and don't.
ReplyDeleteAnd not seeing the universality of the MMT / MMT-ish conceptual analysis. And of property, credit, money, commodities etc. In particular, there are no human societies or languages that don't have words and concepts for credit/debt/obligation. The idea of not operating within the framework of debtor/creditor relations is unintelligible. It is not possible, and your description of the custodian model shows it is operating within this framework. It is like saying you won't operate within the framework of 3-dimensional spatial geometry.
Identifying this with "the commodity framework" is also wrong. Modern capitalist societies don't operate within a commodity framework. In your terms the most basic message of MMT is that the commodity framework - things being bought & sold on a market - is not the framework, but something superficial, an appearance that becomes ever more illusory. The reality underneath is something like a (highly corrupted) "Custodian Model" already- because the "commodity framework", is not merely empirically, but logically impossible. The people to the sides, the "custodians" are basically everybody.
Finally, what do you mean by "when I say private property I am using the legal definition that the courts use, and not the definition that the average person uses"? What is the intended opposition? Imho neither bases (& what body of law?) are definitive or complete. I aim at using universal, philosophical definitions - those of legal philosophers are pretty good.
" Also, I do not think your proposals will cause direct economic harm to me or anyone else"
ReplyDeleteFinally..thank you..that's all I was after.
As for the rest, it matters little because this was all I was after.
But I will correct you on this:
"What I have a problem, what led to my "fight on the beaches" attitude was with some of what you have said. I think you need to be more self-critical - I don't want to be aggressive or insulting - But have you read what you have written on blogs?
That there are "two kinds of people", the idea that the decision to become "a custodian" is irrevocable, individuals giving up rights etc. I said I opposed this because it violently contradicts human rights - rights which have been universally embodied in law. Primarily the human rights of the "custodians". "
The decision to become a custodian is 'not' irrevocable - if a custodian no longer wanted to be a custodian they would dissolve their custodian relation with the government and return back to the private sector and operate under the property laws that govern private property and contractual relations. What I was saying is that 'whilst' I am a custodian it would be a breach of the custodian trust laws to treat any thing as my own.
Further, I have said many times that I would be the first person to put up his hand and ask to be a custodian, so how can I be violently contradicting my own human rights if it is a decision I am willingly and knowingly making? Or are you suggesting that I am too stupid to know what it is I want and that if I was to become a custodian that you Calgacus, would send men in white shirts to pick me up on grounds that I am violating my own human rights?????