Richard Wolff — Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism

There is no alternative ("Tina") to capitalism.

Really? We are to believe, with Margaret Thatcher, that an economic system with endlessly repeated cycles, costly bailouts for financiers and now austerity for most people is the best human beings can do? Capitalism's recurring tendencies toward extreme and deepening inequalities of income, wealth, and political and cultural power require resignation and acceptance – because there is no alternative?

I understand why such a system's leaders would like us to believe in Tina. But why would others?

Of course, alternatives exist; they always do. Every society chooses – consciously or not, democratically or not – among alternative ways to organize the production and distribution of the goods and services that make individual and social life possible....

Capitalism thus entails and reproduces a highly undemocratic organization of production inside enterprises. Tina believers insist that no alternatives to such capitalist organizations of production exist or could work nearly so well, in terms of outputs, efficiency, and labor processes. The falsity of that claim is easily shown. Indeed, I was shown it a few weeks ago and would like to sketch it for you here.

Read the rest at The Guardian (UK)

Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism
by Richard Wolff

In short, MC worker-members collectively choose, hire and fire the directors, whereas in capitalist enterprises the reverse occurs.

Interestingly, a very similar distinction is manifest in religious denominations — between "low" churches that are congregational and "high" churches that are hierarchical. In the congregational modle the congregation chooses the minister, and in the hierarchical model, authority is centralized and imposed from the top, with parishioners required to be subservient and to conform.

hbl on the MMT and the MMT JG

While recognizing that most of this blogosphere discussion has passed me by months ago, I thought I'd share my perspective, redundant though it might be.

"Can you have MMT without a Job Guarantee?" The question phrased this way is a bit too ambiguous for my taste... I view the job guarantee as a description of a policy prescription. I agree with those who consider the job guarantee description to be integral to MMT, but I believe actual policy recommendations (prescriptions) can always differ by individual.

MMT describes the current economic system as it is and the policy space available to national governments. Any attempt at a full description of macroeconomics as viewed through the lens of MMT that lacks a description of employed versus unemployed buffer stocks would in my opinion be incomplete, as shown by the gaping black hole in this [partial] table of policy examples:

Read the rest at Thought Offerings
The Job Guarantee is a Description of a Prescription, like Much of Macroeconomics
by hbl

Cullen Roche — On Playing Politics…

Cullen Roche has a post up explaining how MMR is apolitical and simply an operational description that makes a variety of policy options possible.

I am posting it here, since it addresses relevant issues, and several regular commenters here who are no longer welcome over there may have something to add to the discussion.

Read it at Modern Monetary Theory
On Playing Politics…
by Cullen Roche

Beowulf on a land value tax — promoted from the comments

"nonetheless, a land value tax would be much better than an income tax."

You're probably right but there are two problems with a federal LVT, one legal and the other political.

There's a constitutional restriction on direct taxation of property that would kneecap a federal LVT. A workaround here would be to use the income tax to levy annually the imputed rental value of land (It would take a brave congressman to sponsor that bill).

However even with a workaround, any effort to levy federal taxes on land would lead to the state governments waging Jihad on Congress. Regardless of party, state governors will line up shoulder to shoulder to keep the Feds from stepping on their monopoly on taxing real property.

So what can be done?
Federal taxpayers are already given an income tax credit for foreign taxes paid (and the estate tax used to credit state inheritance tax paid).
If Congress understood MMT, there'd be no reason not to create a federal income/payroll tax credit for any state LVT paid (as with the foreign tax credit, phased out for higher incomes).

It would take state governors and legislators about 10 seconds to figure out that every dollar of tax burden they shifted onto land was a dollar their residents could legally avoid paying those suckers in Washington. (link)

A federal credit for LTV paid that phases out with higher income (remember a 100% tax credit is worth more than an at most 35% tax deduction) would divide the economic interests of the vast majority of property owners-- middle class homeowners who'd pay dramatically lower federal taxes -- from the tiny minority of very wealthy land barons who'd still be paying full freight on their federal incomes as well as their new state LTV.

The purpose of the LTV tax credit isn't to replace the federal income tax with a federal LTV (which is impossible in any event for the reasons I mentioned above) but to bribe state governments into shifting their tax burden off of sales, incomes and property improvements and onto land value.

I would like to think that furthers the purposes of the LTV admirably. (link)