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.
MMT policy proposals: 1) Increased welfare for the banks to greatly increase their immunity from market discipline via: a) unlimited, unsecured loans from the Fed at 0%. b) unlimited FREE(!) government-provided insurance on their deposits, including the deposits the banks themselves create ("Bank loans create bank deposits").
2) For those dis-employed by the banks using what is even more so the public's credit but for private gain? Wage slavery to government to supplement wage slavery to the private sector.
3) For the rich? Their ill-gotten wealth to remain untouched.
I agree with your three points. But it's a bit unfair to criticise MMT for not agreeing with you (and me). 95% of MMTers do not POSITIVELY endorse the existing bank system: they are just indifferent to bank reform.
The distinction I see is between description of how modern monetary systems work and policy proposals, including those that would fundamentally change the system. MMT is unequaled in explaining the status quo -- cutting away layers of unimportant details to reveal the underlying structure. Start there to advocate your policy proposals. This should apply to Andrew Anderson as well as to the numerous critics who deride MMT as some sort of extreme perspective. Recognize how the system works, then feel free to argue for changes.
Recognize how the system works, then feel free to argue for changes. Detroit Dan
Good advice and I acknowledge the great work MMT theorists have done in explaining how the system works.
That said, I'm disappointed that MMT proposals do not acknowledge that the use of, what is, even more so under MMT proposals, the public's credit but for private gain is legalized THEFT which REQUIRES restitution - not wage slavery to government to supplement wage slavery to the private sector.
The banks have been a major source of calamity for centuries. Isn't it past time to fix them for good?
Agree with Dan who succinctly cuts to the point. MMT reveals the structure of economics, policy determines the use.
Current policies hide the structure (how are we going to pay for it?) to support a system that grossly rewards a few at the expense of the vast majority and the environment. Eliminating the subterfuge (we can't afford it) may allow the creation and implementation of policy to address these matters.
Crying about bank privileges is really just complaining about policy while ignoring true structure of the economic system and how it is ideologocially misrepresented to support certain interests (such as banksters).
Crying about bank privileges is really just complaining about policy while ignoring true structure of the economic system ... Noah Way
Bank privileges allow them and the so-called "credit worthy" to compete for real resources with deficit spending by the monetary sovereign - but not for the general welfare but for their own private welfare.
To ignore those privileges or increase them as Warren Mosler would do is to sabotage the ability of the monetary sovereign to deficit spend for the general welfare.
7 comments:
MMT policy proposals:
1) Increased welfare for the banks to greatly increase their immunity from market discipline via:
a) unlimited, unsecured loans from the Fed at 0%.
b) unlimited FREE(!) government-provided insurance on their deposits, including the deposits the banks themselves create ("Bank loans create bank deposits").
2) For those dis-employed by the banks using what is even more so the public's credit but for private gain? Wage slavery to government to supplement wage slavery to the private sector.
3) For the rich? Their ill-gotten wealth to remain untouched.
And that's socialism?
Sound much more like fascism to me.
For anyone who wants to send Hendrickson an email telling him what they think of him, it's here:
mwhendrickson@gcc.edu
Andrew,
I agree with your three points. But it's a bit unfair to criticise MMT for not agreeing with you (and me). 95% of MMTers do not POSITIVELY endorse the existing bank system: they are just indifferent to bank reform.
The distinction I see is between description of how modern monetary systems work and policy proposals, including those that would fundamentally change the system. MMT is unequaled in explaining the status quo -- cutting away layers of unimportant details to reveal the underlying structure. Start there to advocate your policy proposals. This should apply to Andrew Anderson as well as to the numerous critics who deride MMT as some sort of extreme perspective. Recognize how the system works, then feel free to argue for changes.
Recognize how the system works, then feel free to argue for changes. Detroit Dan
Good advice and I acknowledge the great work MMT theorists have done in explaining how the system works.
That said, I'm disappointed that MMT proposals do not acknowledge that the use of, what is, even more so under MMT proposals, the public's credit but for private gain is legalized THEFT which REQUIRES restitution - not wage slavery to government to supplement wage slavery to the private sector.
The banks have been a major source of calamity for centuries. Isn't it past time to fix them for good?
Agree with Dan who succinctly cuts to the point. MMT reveals the structure of economics, policy determines the use.
Current policies hide the structure (how are we going to pay for it?) to support a system that grossly rewards a few at the expense of the vast majority and the environment. Eliminating the subterfuge (we can't afford it) may allow the creation and implementation of policy to address these matters.
Crying about bank privileges is really just complaining about policy while ignoring true structure of the economic system and how it is ideologocially misrepresented to support certain interests (such as banksters).
Crying about bank privileges is really just complaining about policy while ignoring true structure of the economic system ... Noah Way
Bank privileges allow them and the so-called "credit worthy" to compete for real resources with deficit spending by the monetary sovereign - but not for the general welfare but for their own private welfare.
To ignore those privileges or increase them as Warren Mosler would do is to sabotage the ability of the monetary sovereign to deficit spend for the general welfare.
Post a Comment