Old redistribution ideas concerning the raising of funds by governments (via tax), and NGOs (via donations) is old backward thinking. The present economic system is more suited to "stone age" man rather than modern humanity. See my project. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2011, 15:11 Subject: Re: [P2P-F] MMT/FEASTA... Michael, this reply is more specific to your recollection of the MMT presentation/Q&A in Dublin.
however, I came out less than enthusiastic ..
the reason is the following, one of the ladies who gave the lecture, gave an intro with the main principles of MMT, and one of the rules sounds really simplistic supply-side to me
Michael, what your impression and description of what you were told does seem like a repackaging of supply side economics, and the crux is in the details. It was in my opinion that what was described is actually the same economistic thinking that attempts to validate what is known as the "Laffer Curve." And then there is a caveat/disclaimer. A lot of the pseudo MMT stuff is wrapped around a very specific and neo-classical re-visionism that was applied to J. M. Keynes's body of works. J.M.K. evolved his own thinking and insights relative to economics over his life span. He started out as a neo-classical economist with an usually high sense of social integrity and responsibility, as evidenced early with his "Economic Consequences Of The Peace." The group of economists who identify themselves as post-Keynesians, which includes the MMT people begin from the position and theory developed in Keynes's later work. It is also very true that Keynes's legacy has been abused by the familiar neo-classical ..."savants," Specifically Milton Friedman as a transition ploy to corrupt Keynes theoretical contributions to serve otherwise contrary interests. At the time the public reputation of Keynes was very high post WWII, the politicals generally avoided Keynes's proposals. Joan Robinson a former associate and collaborator has described with strong authority that this ploy should be described as "bastard Keynesianism." Taxation within the MMT/Functional Fiscal finance at the sovereign (Federal) level is a way to control the concentration of wealth, and through the accelerating lobbying efforts a progress tax code has been replaced with a an entirely regressive application of taxation. Deficit spending under the bastard Keynesianism (neo-classical economics in costume) as enabled by the misrepresentation of Keynes used under the privatization "deficit" spending. Deficit spending when the government is a sovereign state can be issued entirely debt free, much as the US Continentals and the US Greenbacks were used. Taking back the sovereign power to issue currency does not even need legislative approval, just the information and the political integrity to decline massive levels of bribery. With regard for Keynes's effort to raise the awareness of the demand side of the economy a tax holiday for the producing classes is a Keynesian/MMT concept through and through. The generalization that this applies to all form of taxation is bluntly ignorant. The MMT/Post-Keynesians also more importantly advocate for countercyclical intervention in the creation of basic living wage jobs. The same set of assumptions, ie legitimate MMT/FF/Minsky et al, can be also applied to define "social infrastructure," such as education and health care as extensions of the commons. Yes, to the extent that taxation could reduce spendable income by individuals, yes that could cause the economy to slow down further. Corporations and particularly banking corporations currently don't have that constraint at all currently through the episodes of "Quantitative Easing" (Neo Classical wizardry of the golden oz.) hiring in response to demand will just not happen. So this part is just backwards at best, and worse simply illiterate even by intention. Taxation under a Georgist application of economics as a commons state and local taxes are levied under some recognition of the source of the value of infrastructure which is tha basis of community centered economics. Taxation upon idle and potential assets re-directs to not tax personal property by personal use. Taxation in this fashion can reduce the blight of land speculation based upon valuation being based upon the structure, contrary to the potential contribution to the community economy. enough for now, Tadit
she said, lower taxes, and the economy grows, higher taxes, and the economy slows down ...
Disbelieving I asked a question on this, and she confirmed, and this pretty much discredits MMT for me,
Michel
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:27 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael, this is the link to Bill Mitchell's Billy Blog site and the first segment of 7 in total.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=6122
Mitchell is one of the top authorities on modern monetary economics which is the discourse which has applied what was learned from legitimate interpretations of Keynes and of the demand side economics of the WPA, CCC, and NYA as progressive (U.S.) responses to the 20th century Great Depression. Mitchell covers a list of "progressive" nominal economists/establishments in the successive entries. L. Randall Wray of the Univ. of Missouri Kansas City Econ. Dept has made similar statements which would take me a bit longer to produce. The core difference is between the economic assumptions being applied. The New Economic Perspectives from Kansas City blog has a treasure trove of resources both in the current primer review and of other stand alone materials. It may require a bit of translation. Mitchell is at the top of his class in terms of modern monetary economics and as a perspective it has been one of the few opposing perspectives relative the well funded deficit terrorism campaigns. Some of the material may seem counter-intuitive, and it is based upon in part how central banking actually operates currently, only how those principles can serve a more public and more social agenda. The counter-intuitive part derives from the neo-classical framing which has dominated the field for decades if not longer. Ie, by its familiarity, the neo-classical framing seems correct when it is not actually, and serves to contain genuine progressive initiatives within a neo-classical box of assumptions. On a related topic, what is known as Jevons's Paradox is often applied within ecological and environmental circles to "prove" the futility of progressive energy measures and energy efficient technology, ends up being paradoxical only within the neo-classical set of assumptions.
as we go, Tadit
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:49:51 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
thanks, do you have a link to the baker critique you mention below?
Michel
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Y'all, Baker tends to have a reputation of being strong on the rhetoric but very weak on the actual economics side of his material. It has been demonstrated that his economic assumptions are neo-liberal in their substance. Though this might be an interesting foray at one level, if done in a less than serious fashion it is likely to promote economic illiteracy. This may seem harsh, and buying into the neo-liberal/neo-classical framing of our situation cuts off even imagining informed fiscal options. I come from primarily a post-Keynesian macro-economics and functional finance perspective, and this sits well with my 20 plus years of being active in community centered economic activism, from entrepreneurship development, to being treasurer of two different cooperatives, to being downstream of fraud perpetrated under a false flag of left "progressiv-ism," and other investments regarding. Just finished a series of essays by Bill Mitchell which included a critique of Dean Baker's economics, entitled "With Friends, Like These..."
Tadit Anderson, Re-Imagining Economics
On Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:50:04 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/End-of-Loser-Liberalism.pdf
Hi Kevin, perhaps you'd find chapter 10 interesting, and even
chapter 11,
commentary always appreciated if you have time,
Michel
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation