So when Jason Hickell says that “MMT provides an opportunity for us to create a post-growth, post-capitalist economy” he is saying no more than it is possible now with our current monetary system.
So money is decidedly not the problem, nor even capitalism.
Political will is the problem.
It appears to me that Peter May misses an important point about "capitalism" based on economic liberalism. Right from the start of the industrial age, the rallying cry of private enterprise was "laissez-faire," which means freeing business and commerce from government intrusion. This is based on the assumption that left to itself the "free market" is the most efficient and effective form of economic organization owing to the operation of market forces operating through the law of supply and demand.
This is still a strong argument accepted by much of the liberal world aka "capitalist" world, since "capitalism" is equated with economic liberalism and economic liberalism and political liberalism, that is, liberal democracy, are assumed to go hand in hand.
So advocates of economic liberalism would argue that imputing to them the motive of reducing the public footprint in the economy is not a matter of tilting the scales in favor of private enterprise.
The objection still has to be met that any motion in the direction of more "socialism" leads to greater inefficiency and reduced effectiveness.
Progressive Pulse
Degrowth and the ‘assistance’ of Modern Monetary Theory
Peter May
Progressive Pulse
Degrowth and the ‘assistance’ of Modern Monetary Theory
Peter May
Political will is the problem. Whether that be a willingness to pursue degrowth, or make the move to socialism.
ReplyDeleteI do wish people would stop trying to use MMT as justification for their hobby horses.
ReplyDeleteMMT at its core just says you can spend any unemployment you have and it won't cause any more inflation or damage the investment process. If you want to spend any more than that you need to create some more unemployment - usually by taxing somebody.
Everything else is just the usual public vs private argument.
ReplyDeleteWhy does everybody keep using the term "free" market when it's clearly not?
https://evonomics.com/why-free-market-ideology-is-a-double-lie/
and it won't cause any more inflation NeilW
ReplyDeleteI can refute that with a single example:
A mother on a JG paid to do nothing must then pay for day-care for her children, also transportation costs to/from work, etc. thereby potentially driving up those costs.
It would better to just pay her a Citizen's Dividend (in addition to welfare according to need) to stay home and take care of her family and thereby reduce the demand for outside services and transportation.
"Why does everybody keep using the term "free" market when it's clearly not?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it is a key piece in the sophistry of persuasion that the haves use to control the have-not's by deluding them. Sure, some of the haves actually believe their BS, but they are stupid ones.
Mothering is a JG job andrew
ReplyDeletePlenty of free markets in Africa, as any cowboy capitalist will tell you.
ReplyDeleteIs that so?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, paying ANYONE to waste their time prevents them from doing for themselves and thus increases the demand for the goods and services of others.
“Because it is a key piece in the sophistry of persuasion that the haves use to control the have-not's by deluding them. “
ReplyDeleteConspiracy theory....
Love of sophistry is a human affair that is all too real.
ReplyDelete"paying ANYONE to waste their time prevents them from doing for themselves"
ReplyDeleteThat's sort of the point. You don't get paid to use your time for your own benefit. You get paid to use your time for other people's benefit, because that payment is a claim on other people using their time for your benefit.
You get paid to use your time for other people's benefit, because that payment is a claim on other people using their time for your benefit. NeilW
ReplyDeleteAn equal Citizen's Dividend, to replace all fiat creation for private interests, would serve the same purpose and without wasting people's time.
Putting a bullet through your skull is my payment for taking your stuff.
ReplyDeleteIf society wants you to spend 40 hours a week looking for a job, then you better do it, buster.
ReplyDeleteIf society wants you to spend 40 hours a week looking for a job, then you better do it, buster. PP
ReplyDeleteThe social contract whereby employers shall provide good jobs by using the public's credit but for private gain has been reneged on via automation and outsourcing.
Therefore it's time to withdraw government privileges for private credit creation too.
That social contract was nullified by the narrative of "shareholder value".
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't we all shareholders?
We're not all shareholders since government privileges for private credit creation, aka for "the banks", make it cheaper for companies to "borrow" than to issue new shares in equity.
ReplyDeleteToo many loopholes in that contract, Andrew.
ReplyDeleteBusinesses have the option of issuing shares - it's not mandatory.
They have the option of paying dividends - again, not mandatory.
People have to pay money for shares - not conducive to having everyone be shareholders.
And what about privately held companies?
Businesses have the option of issuing shares - it's not mandatory. PP
ReplyDeleteIt would be much more mandatory (for their business survival) without government privileges for private credit creation; i.e. for "the banks."
They have the option of paying dividends - again, not mandatory. PP
Dividends are dumb since the purpose of a common stock company is to consolidate assets for economies of scale, not dissipate them. Besides, the common stock itself is a form of asset-backed private money.
People have to pay money for shares - not conducive to having everyone be shareholders.
Shares can be bartered for and also serve as partial wages.
And what about privately held companies?
Without a government-privileged counterfeiting cartel to serve them, they are much more likely to go public or go under.
Dividends aren't dumb if the intention is to create more shares and sell them for actual money.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole, this approach should be easier to sell to the public than a job guarantee.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you delete your post?
ReplyDeleteNon arms-length transactions are rife in that sector.
I felt my reply was hasty.
ReplyDeleteBesides, dividends are a side-issue except they should be suspect since they defeat the purpose of a common stock company which is to consolidate assets not dissipate them.
That said, a Citizen's Dividend is not really a dividend since it does not deplete assets but is instead an anti-deflation device.
What other term can be used?
ReplyDeleteOpponents will insist it's a UBI scheme.
As for social contracts, it's important that they don't have loopholes. Take the JG... you have a moral obligation to work.. unless you're wealthy.
Opponents will insist it's a UBI scheme. Peter Pan
ReplyDeleteIt isn't since the ONLY purpose of a Citizen's Dividend is to replace all fiat creation for private interests AND to counter price deflation so that fiat hoarding is not rewarded. That may or may not be a UBI.
Take the JG... you have a moral obligation to work.. unless you're wealthy.
The MMT crowd would do better to fear God and not the wealthy (c.f. Proverbs 29:25).
I fear neither.
ReplyDeleteReally Andrew, I doubt the MMT crowd see themselves as fearing the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of a "progressive" fears the wealthy?