MMT – lacks a political economy?What was the phrase?
First they ignore available operations, then they laugh at the idea of exploring options, then they fight to constrain aggregate options ... then the aggregate survives.With inspiration from Gandhi, as well as evolutionary history. , where natural SELECTION = Outcomes Based Training & Education (same thing).
13 comments:
"Joe Guinan correctly notes that comprehension is one thing but “the point, however, is to change” the system.
In this respect, he asked (by way of criticism because he provides the answer):
What, then, are MMT’s prescriptions?"
This Guinan guy doesnt want to "believe it" unless he gets to dictate the policy response.... which I'm sure will be highly flavored with libertarianism...
Pretty sad excuse for a human being imo....
"Progressivism as a political philosophy holds that societal problems can best be addressed by having government impose solutions to social problems like poverty, violence, "corporate greed," and racism, rather than leaving the economy and society up to the free market and individual actions and choices"
I guaranty this is where this Guinan guy's problems start.... He will only be seen to "believe MMT" if he agrees with whatever govt "imposes" in result....
This fear is inherent (in degrees) in libertarians...
Yes, but this is exactly the debate that we need to have and win on the merits. The mainstream is reluctant to engage in it but Libertarians are willing to engage. After all, Warren started his political campaign addressing the Tea Party.
I don't think that fear is irrational Matt. Where I think most modern libertarians get confused is in how to dissect the public from the private.
Everyone knows that govts get bought and can then simply be bully extensions of some private actors....... and I have never heard anyone admit that this is a GOOD thing (There are some who think its a good thing but won't admit it, but thats another issue). However, unless you see the problem as certain private individuals obtaining enough power to buy govt, you won't advocate for control of the private power.
Many libertarians see the collection of private power as good and the fact that there is something else they must buy, pay a toll to so to speak, is THE problem.
I want govt to be more than just a toll booth, which is what it has become in many ways, thanks to the neo liberal neutering of govt. Libertarians want us to remove the toll booth and simply see the private power as THE power we need to deal with.
Neither of us likes the toll booth govt but libertarians seem to think that once you remove the govt "toll trolls" all will be well. Private toll trolls will simply arise and there is nothing outside of govt that can limit it. I want limited govt toll trolls and a govt that limits private toll trolls.
Greg yes it is probably not irrational imo it is the way these people are 'wired'...
They seem to be living in some form of constant fear of authority to differing degrees...
This guy Guinan is not a hardcase (seems) but he is still wary of what would be imposed by govt imo... this fear is effecting his cognitive abilities in some way... and he ends up conflating/blurring the descriptive and prescriptive to an extent...
Most of this can be analyzed in terms of rents.
A Libertarian assumption is that it is government that creates the asymmetric power that enables rents and rent-seekers, so removing government or at least severely curtailing its functions would solve the economic problem by making markets as information systems subject to "economic calculation" on the assumption that free markets spontaneously organize economic activity efficiently.
Opponents argue that this is a huge assumption that overlooks market power, e.g., from economies of scale and capital intensity as an effective barrier to entry by new player who want to compete.
Opponents also argue that efficiency is not effectiveness and there are other economic objectives in relation to outcomes other than the efficient use of means.
Opponents would further argue that the fallacy of such assumptions is based on failure to understand systems design and operation, for example, the role of institutional arrangements in shaping outcomes asymmetrically, as well as asymmetrical endowments, instead of the assumed merit and just deserts, which assume a level playing field and equal starting positions.
The fundamental disagreement involves the key assumption of socio-economic metaphysics. The key assumption of economic liberalism is that economics is based on natural laws that result in self-organizing and self-regulating systems if allowed to operate naturally.
Opponents argue that human cultures are socially constructed rather than natural and that the assumption of so-called natural laws operative in human affairs is unscientific and lacks empirical warrant.
Even more foundational is the conception of rights and values and how to prioritize them as norms and criteria.
These are fundamental disagreements that would not be overcome even with agreement over key issues concerning economic analysis. They are basically "philosophical" issues arising from different world views. The liberal challenge politically is organizing a society where worldviews differ markedly in a way that avoids tyranny of the majority.
So this can't be a zero-sum game, or the politics of it will be the swinging back and forth of the pendulum from right to left, never settling in the center.
The danger, of course, is that the pendulum will get fixed at either end of the range through imposition of institutional arrangements that are difficult to impossible to change. In fact, this is the goal of political extremists, and they are quite clear in advocating it.
The cultural challenge that liberalism presents in reconciling social, political and economic liberalism to achieve maximum freedom consistent with law and order in nation functioning at a high level on all measures is a long way from being achieved, and there is as yet no agreed upon way to achieve it.
Tom follow me here please...
Here's Bill: "Each one of us knows that the cards are stacked against any government being able to abandon the voluntary (neo-liberal) constraints on their fiscal capacities that became irrelevant after August 1971."
Bill is asserting that this alleged cohort of "neo-liberals" all got together and "voluntarily" constrained their fiscal ability...
When did this happen? Council of Trent????
When was the meeting and who was there?
Here is the guy writing on the disgraced Columbus psychos you posted:
"the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization.... The information that Columbus wanted most was: Where is the gold? "
So let me get this straight here is Aristotle from whatever 400BC: "We term it nomisma because it is always in our power to control it..."
Then here's the Lord at 33AD or whatever: "Exhibit to me the poll tax currency..."
So things are going well they have plenty of currency and they are driving it with the poll tax, yada yada....
THEN we are to believe a bunch of so-called "neo-liberals" somehow all get together and say "hey, I've got it! this is going waaaaaaaay too easy for us! OK... lets 'voluntarily' constrain ourselves and shit-can this whole thing and make it waaaaaaay harder on ourselves so we dont have any currency anymore and instead have to sail all around the earth and dig for mass measures of gold and silver! ... Which we may not even ever find enough! ..... Because they are scarce!"
"Yes! Brilliant my neo-liberal friend! Outstanding idea!!! I cant wait for civilization to collapse as a result!!! Too bad we wont be able to make as much money as there wont be any around! but all of the other benefits look too good to pass up!!"
?????????
When did this voluntary neo-liberal meeting take place? I think the history books have missed it....
There was no meeting, it was an ideological capture that happened over decades.
They hate government, they are true believers in 'free markets' and all this come from a deep class hatred and bigotry and the typical ayn rand rants of being 'self-made', 'empowering the individual' and 'down with the collective and collectivism'. you can trace this ideology probably back to the middle age (some scholastics), but with "hyper-capitalism" in some places in the XIX century (which in reality was crony statism, but libertardians and Ayn Rand lovers would never say that) it grew. It has been always there and the oligarchs and different strata of elites (technocrats and bureaucrats included) in love with the idea of 'meritocracy' have always fought against any sort of 'socialism'. monetary sovereignty is pure socialism and they will fight with passion anything that empowers expansion of the state spending (and control of the economic output) unless they can control it (like they do now).
It's sad but all this toxic ideology is not 'neo', is just a continuation of sociopaths that have been amongst us since a long long time ago, and when we left tribes societies we didn't evolve social control systems of check & balances to purge these rotten apples efficiently enough (is obvious legal systems are always coming short).
In the end is all control obsession, hate and/or bigotry what moves that people.
"Each one of us knows that the cards are stacked against any government being able to abandon the voluntary (neo-liberal) constraints on their fiscal capacities that became irrelevant after August 1971."
That's basically the MMT position that the operational reality was "voluntarily restrained" by political decision. The establishment continued to operate "as if a gold standard were still in place." It was Greenspan who actually said that, IIRC.
@ Ignacio
Sadly, that is the case. Organisms have natural defenses against parasitism but are often overwhelmed by it, resulting in the termination of the parasites along with the organism or local group of organisms affected. Some primitive social systems like hives also deal with free riders by exterminating them; bees sting them to death. Humans haven't yet developed an efficient way of accomplishing this and have continuously suffered the consequences.
"It's sad but all this toxic ideology is not 'neo',"
right this is what I am thinking... there is nothing "new" about it... its always been there...
rsp,
Galbraith said it best about conservative economists, something to the effect of "working to create mathematical models which can justify greed is their constant goal"
Ive gotten real tired of hearing about "brave" and "tough" CEOs who do such "innovation" in their companies and when you really look at it all they really did was lower wages to preserve profit.
That is the oldest trick in the book. Cut someones wages
It's even worse than that, Greg. CEO's then transfer the saving from the wage bill to their own compensation, and sometime then some, for being so "productive."
Post a Comment