tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post491830913695257086..comments2024-03-29T02:19:19.866-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Sean Keith and Alexander Kolokotronis — "But How Will We Pay for It?": Modern Monetary Theory and Democratic Socialismmike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-45012590357723744982018-05-07T05:47:22.156-04:002018-05-07T05:47:22.156-04:00So let's gift every citizen without a house or...<i>So let's gift every citizen without a house or condo the down payment if they can otherwise afford the house or condo they wish to buy. </i> aa<br /><br />On second thought, the down payment gift should be equal to every citizen without a house or condo but certainly adequate for a comfortable house or condo.<br /><br />But won't those who already own their own home feel left out? Yes, so this argues for a one-time equal fiat distribution to all citizens with the following provisos:<br />1) Those who owe debt must use all, if necessary, of their fiat distribution to pay their debt off or down.<br />2) Those who don't own a home must use at least part of their fiat distribution to buy one that meets Federal standards.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83692323120577797042018-05-07T05:25:37.947-04:002018-05-07T05:25:37.947-04:00If I am wrong about this, then I wish someone woul...<i>If I am wrong about this, then I wish someone would explain why, because I like the idea of a Universal Basic Income, but I fear that it would create the same problems as a JG.</i> Konrad<br /><br />I no longer advocate for a Universal Basic Income but for a Citizen's Dividend since a CD does not imply income sufficiency and thus does not serve as an excuse to cut existing transfer payment programs such as Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-68746961439344500932018-05-07T05:15:44.015-04:002018-05-07T05:15:44.015-04:00Without a national program of affordable housing a...<i>Without a national program of affordable housing and rent controls, I don’t see how a JG would benefit us. Without crucial changes to society, a JG would only widen the gap between the rich and the rest. It would only feed the cancer.</i> Konrad<br /><br />Yes, so let's get citizens out of apartments and rental houses into their own houses or condos. The only thing stopping many is lack of the down payment since they are already paying as rent what could otherwise be a mortgage payment instead. So let's gift every citizen without a house or condo the down payment if they can otherwise afford the house or condo they wish to buy. <br /><br />Additionally a high Federal Real Estate Tax on the ownership of existing houses and condos beyond a single homestead exemption would encourage those who own rent houses or condos to sell them to those who have no house or condo at all.<br /><br />As for long term interest rates, we know they can kept as low as desired.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-61138298200779367222018-05-07T05:13:26.630-04:002018-05-07T05:13:26.630-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-35981957774090724292018-05-06T21:31:32.311-04:002018-05-06T21:31:32.311-04:00@ Andrew Anderson...
Your comment leads me to ano...@ Andrew Anderson...<br /><br />Your comment leads me to another problem with the JG. <br /><br />In the USA the lower classes are crippled by rent and by debts (mortgages, student loans, etc). Indeed, U.S society is currently structured so that all monies eventually flow upward to the rich. <br /><br />Meanwhile corporations use their obscenely high profits not to create jobs, or do research, but to buy back stock, pay dividends, and pay off debts from pursuing mergers and acquisitions. <br /><br />Many US cities have housing shortages that, when combined with housing speculation, is causing horrendous price bubbles. <br /><br />Unless these factors are modified, a JG would be useless, even if it could work. Sure, you have a job, but in many parts of the USA your rent would go up in proportion to your added income. All monies would continue to "trickle up" to the top. <br /><br />Without a national program of affordable housing and rent controls, I don’t see how a JG would benefit us. Without crucial changes to society, a JG would only widen the gap between the rich and the rest. It would only feed the cancer. <br /><br />If I am wrong about this, then I wish someone would explain why, because I like the idea of a Universal Basic Income, but I fear that it would create the same problems as a JG.Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739209449391854796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-49785020776754946922018-05-06T19:55:45.581-04:002018-05-06T19:55:45.581-04:00How nice! A right to be a wage-slave! And to joi...How nice! A right to be a wage-slave! And to join a trade union too!<br /><br />And what good will trade unions be when almost all jobs have been automated away, Tom? Especially given that a JG is meant to raise private sector wages via artificial labor shortages?<br /><br />Here's a hint: Advocate for justice and what you advocate will never become (laughably) obsolete. <br /><br />But what is justice? You say the Bible is subject to many interpretations and thus (you imply) useless to read. I tell you it isn't on both counts. <i>"Seek and you shall find"</i> certainly applies to knowing what justice is.<br /><br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-21418929557414785822018-05-06T19:23:57.355-04:002018-05-06T19:23:57.355-04:00"Guarantee" denotes a promise or pledge...."Guarantee" denotes a promise or pledge. That promise is based on a putative human right as in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 23 "23. Workers’ Rights. Every grown-up has the right to do a job, to a fair wage for their work, and to join a trade union."<br /><br />It is not a gift, handout or entitlement. It is a right established in law, and when a JG bill is crafted it should so state.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-59791504108811895922018-05-06T18:10:58.395-04:002018-05-06T18:10:58.395-04:00@Andrew Anderson:
I say that JG advocates are cul...@Andrew Anderson:<br /><br />I say that JG advocates are cultists because they fanatically cling to the word “guarantee.” This world is problematic and politically charged.<br /><br />My position is that a jobs "guarantee" is unnecessary. Why obsessively cling to the word “guarantee”? Why not say we want the U.S. government to create jobs by commissioning New Deal-type public works programs?<br /><br />If we called Medicare a “minimal health guarantee,” and Social Security a “monthly stipend guarantee,” we would give more ammunition to people who seek to destroy such programs. <br /><br />The JG is a religion; a faith-based fantasy. This is why JG jihadists become so hostile when you question their dogma. <br /><br />MMT basics are incontrovertible, but the JG is merely a wish. And yet, if you question the JG dogma, you are condemned as a heretic who has “not done the required reading.” You are a an apostate; an infidel. You have not been sufficiently programmed by the cult. <br /><br />The engine of the cult is guru worship. Since Randy Wray is a JG cultist, the JG is “true” for the rest of the cultists. Since Randy Wray chants that “taxes drive money,” the mantra is “true” for the rest of the cultists. <br /><br />If you decline to become a member of the JG jihadist cult, then you are a blasphemer.<br /><br />Worse than all this, the JG is based on the false belief that rich people deserve their free lunch, while poor people deserve to toil. Rich people don’t need a JG, since they don’t have to work. They own. They accrue money and power by merely breathing. Rich people claim that this is their right. They say the poor have no such right. They say the poor must sweat. <br /><br />This lie is perpetuated by JG dogma. The gap between the rich and the rest is legitimized by JG dogma. (“The poor must toil, or else they are evil. And with a JG, the poor can be assured of toiling.”) <br /><br />I say we should forget about the JG, and concentrate on spreading basic truths -- e.g. the U.S. government is not “broke,” and does not have a “debt crisis.”Konradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01739209449391854796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-80563371445096868012018-05-06T17:30:44.973-04:002018-05-06T17:30:44.973-04:00Here's what the JG cultists apparently support...<i>Here's what the JG cultists apparently support:</i><br />All that is only what is apparent <i>to you</i>.<br />Appearance, not reality. That is NOT what they or I say. That is very different from what we say. MMTers & me oppose your 1 & 2.<br /><br /><i>since I've written many, many comments laying out what I advocate to apparently, given your ignorance, no avail?</i><br /><br />I've tried to agree with you a lot above. Seemed like you even sometimes, eventually agreed with my formulations of your positions. That is "avail", not "no avail". <br /><br />I'm just asking you to similarly say that "The JG is not necessarily pure evil. I might be wrong. Let's think about it and discuss it without pre-judgment."Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-28266837682099175032018-05-06T16:11:48.988-04:002018-05-06T16:11:48.988-04:00Here's what the JG cultists apparently support...Here's what the JG cultists apparently support:<br /><br />1) Continued welfare for the banks and, by extension, for the rich, the most so-called creditworthy of what is then, in essence, the PUBLIC'S CREDIT but FOR PRIVATE GAIN.<br />2) Wage slavery for the needy victims of welfare for the banks and, by extension, for the rich.<br /><br />Now tell me why I should even wish to discuss anything further with you since I've written many, many comments laying out what I advocate to apparently, given your ignorance, no avail?<br /><br /><br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-73731541753978565182018-05-06T16:10:01.455-04:002018-05-06T16:10:01.455-04:00They were created by the same President & Cong...<i>They were created by the same President & Congress, you know</i><br />I mean, the work programs like the WPA, a quasi JG and SS were created by the same pres and congress.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29309464131214313022018-05-06T15:56:37.222-04:002018-05-06T15:56:37.222-04:00Every month I receive a Social Security check that...<i>Every month I receive a Social Security check that I am free to spend as I please (legally, that is).</i><br /><br />You don't get Social Security (the main program) if you don't get vested into the system by working. SS is much closer to a JG than to a citizen's dividend or welfare. They were created by the same President & Congress, you know. You think they were right to set up a program to give you that check, based on your work, but their reasoning is not worth a hearing?<br /><br />I said I was a cult follower myself above. What I am interested in whether my cult's beliefs are true or not. I'm also a member of the "civilized discussion" cult, and occasionally try to practice what I preach. <br />Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-14090563052585494752018-05-06T14:44:30.575-04:002018-05-06T14:44:30.575-04:00I'll concede that welfare is often meddlesome ...I'll concede that welfare is often meddlesome but a citizen's dividend would not be.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83210461587522425762018-05-06T14:42:45.364-04:002018-05-06T14:42:45.364-04:00that basic income / citizen's dividends / welf...<i><b>that basic income / citizen's dividends / welfare is busybody meddling, while guaranteed jobs are "doing for yourself" and not a waste.</b></i> Calgacus [bold added]<br /><br />Every month I receive a Social Security check that I am free to spend as I please (legally, that is).<br /><br />But I would be much more free of busybody meddling if additionally I had to show up at a JG site and be bossed around for 40 hours/wk?<br /><br />I think Konrad has you pegged correctly as a cult follower.<br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-75243640460338873882018-05-06T14:28:01.587-04:002018-05-06T14:28:01.587-04:00Fundamentally, state money and bank money are the ...<i>Fundamentally, state money and bank money are the same thing. Calgacus<br /><br />No they are not as is evident during bank runs.</i><br /><br />I'm speaking at a more fundamental level, they're conceptually the same thing. State money is money issued by states, bank money is money issued by banks. My arm and your arm are both arms, instances of the concept arm. That is not saying they are the same arm.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-52431569153826028972018-05-06T14:24:04.848-04:002018-05-06T14:24:04.848-04:00Fundamentally, state money and bank money are the ...<i>Fundamentally, state money and bank money are the same thing. </i> Calgacus<br /><br />No they are not as is evident during bank runs. And this will be especially evident when government-provided deposit insurance and other privileges for the banks are abolished such as exclusive access to inherently risk-free accounts at the Central Bank.<br />Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-23600455736764847102018-05-06T14:22:45.232-04:002018-05-06T14:22:45.232-04:00When the central bank does the lending or asset bu...<i>When the central bank does the lending or asset buying it does.</i><br />OKCalgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-12957023802940747382018-05-06T14:17:34.606-04:002018-05-06T14:17:34.606-04:00Lending or asset buying can't create fiat mone...<i>Lending or asset buying can't create fiat money.</i> Calgacus<br /><br />When the central bank does the lending or asset buying it does.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-3495200266338708002018-05-06T14:10:23.082-04:002018-05-06T14:10:23.082-04:00Andrew: The first response is just quibbling over ...Andrew: The first response is just quibbling over semantics. Surely you see what I mean? We don't disagree. Your proposal is just explained in a way that might confuse people.<br /><br />The second is confused. Lending or asset buying can't create fiat money. Only deficit spending can. (Which should include hidden deficit spending by the central bank and other gimmicks, true). Again, "equal fiat distribution" is basically pointless, don't really want to argue about it at the moment. Why not propose that everyone run on a treadmill or a giant squirrel wheel?<br /><br />In general, and to ride a personal hobbyhorse for a minute, like many MMT fans, you seem to think that "fiat" money is something magical and new. No, all money is fiat money, credit money and always was. Fundamentally, state money and bank money are the same thing. Government finances and household finances can be compared. That's the whole point of MMT - to do it correctly, MMT slogans to the contrary. The problem is not with the household analogy, but with the logic used by bad economics when they are doing it. <br /><br />But again, can we talk about a job guarantee without hearing immediately that it is a way to waste people's time? Other people, famous people like FDR & Harry Hopkins saw and said- correctly imho - that basic income / citizen's dividends / welfare is busybody meddling, while guaranteed jobs are "doing for yourself" and not a waste. Is it possible that they could be right and you could be wrong?Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-70361312871257792402018-05-06T14:05:09.092-04:002018-05-06T14:05:09.092-04:00I was very roughly equating a Post Office Bank or ...<i> I was very roughly equating a Post Office Bank or nationalized banking systems with your idea:</i> Calgacus<br /><br />Neither the central bank, nor a Post Office Bank, nor the monetary sovereign should lend fiat.<br /><br />What I am advocating is risk-free debit and checking services available to all citizens. Lending would be, as it should be, the province of 100% private lenders with 100% voluntary depositors.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-82278368641033079242018-05-06T13:54:52.475-04:002018-05-06T13:54:52.475-04:00Again, my point, which is almost universally accep...<i>Again, my point, which is almost universally accepted is that the cure (eliminating deposit insurance) is much, much worse than the disease. (moral hazard). </i> Calgacus<br /><br />Not all at once, but PROGRESSIVELY - say over 5 years (20% reduction in insured limit/yr), with equal fiat distributions to every citizen to provide the needed fiat - which the banks could then borrow or buy to obtain the needed reserves for the transfer of formerly insured deposits to inherently risk-free accounts at the central bank.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-25037746306110974092018-05-06T13:42:21.618-04:002018-05-06T13:42:21.618-04:00And (b) After the jubilee, a Citizen's Dividen...<i>And (b) After the jubilee, a Citizen's Dividend is pointless at best, unjust and destructive at worst. I'm generally speaking about the whole, longterm system. Not a temporary quick fix. </i> Calgacus<br /><br />Fiat creation is good to keep up with population growth and to avoid rewarding money hoarding with risk-free gains from deflation.<br /><br />So any desired fiat creation beyond that created by deficit spending by the monetary sovereign for the general welfare ONLY should be via equal fiat distributions to all citizens - NOT via lending or asset buying from the banks and the rich.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-34242246230685625742018-05-06T13:33:46.049-04:002018-05-06T13:33:46.049-04:00To me, having a bank account is part of "bank...<i>To me, having a bank account is part of "banking". So this proposal directly contradicts<br />100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors</i> Calgacus<br /><br />No, it doesn't since every citizen having an inherently risk-free account or multiple accounts at the Central Bank does not preclude them from also having an account or accounts with 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-2829434699456254122018-05-06T13:25:53.096-04:002018-05-06T13:25:53.096-04:00Andrew Anderson: I was trying to find areas of agr...Andrew Anderson: I was trying to find areas of agreement with you. I was very roughly equating a Post Office Bank or nationalized banking systems with your idea:<br /><br /><i>all citizens should have inherently risk-free accounts at the Central Bank itself</i> <br />To me, having a bank account is part of "banking". So this proposal directly contradicts<br /><i>100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors</i><br /><br />Again, my point is fine, do it, do all your banking proposals, do whatever you want. But don't expect much. <br /><br /><i>One might argue that giving every citizen an equal amount of fiat is pointless but it isn't since it allows debtors to paydown or payoff their debt without necessarily disadvantaging non-debtors, especially if the non-debtors are immune to rent increases.</i><br /><br />Sure. The MMTers have even recently proposed forgiving student loan debt, a la ancient jubilees. Great. But to be clearer, my points are - (a) Why have a system that needs such jubilees? And (b) After the jubilee, a Citizen's Dividend is pointless at best, unjust and destructive at worst. I'm generally speaking about the whole, longterm system. Not a temporary quick fix. <br /><br /><i>I see your point, privileging private entities can be dangerous. But this cure is worse than the disease: it would be like having the Post Office / Citizen's account at the Fed bank NOT insure deposits. Calcagus<br /><br />Andrew Anderson: Deposits at the Central Bank are inherently risk-free.</i><br /><br />Again, my point, which is almost universally accepted is that the cure (eliminating deposit insurance) is much, much worse than the disease. (moral hazard). That's why I compared it to your proposal (citizens banking at the Fed) minus an essential feature - NOT something you propose. Can we agree that no deposit insurance and no citizen banking at the Fed is a terrible idea? <br /><br />As before, if we have citizen banking at the Fed, then get rid of deposit insurance. Ok, I'm fine with that. But again, don't expect much from it.<br /><br />On the problems with citizen's dividend, basic income, I said I can't say everything at once. A major problem is that to have an extended argument, one needs to provisionally accept the opponent's premises "for the sake of argument". Or we will never get anywhere. That is what I tried to do above.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-13416191619902855522018-05-06T10:02:34.208-04:002018-05-06T10:02:34.208-04:00Are you sure you're name isn't Arthur Ande...Are you sure you're name isn't Arthur Andersen?Noah Wayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012500819097539976noreply@blogger.com