blog commentary on dean baker's loser liberalism bk
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: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
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
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: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
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
hi Tadit, I checked your work through Google ... interesting! you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on my part ... earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in Dublin, after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members .. 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 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: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Michael, I assure that that depiction of MMT is not accurate at all. If you have a link to some of that discussion, I can be more specific. The summary was actually radically wrong relative to MMT and functional fiscal policies. Taxation at this point is primarily a means of controlling the accumulation of wealth withing specific income groups, and of course accelerating the incomes for other economic profiles. It has no bearing on funding fiscal policies at all. The FEASTA people have been generally fairly good relative to the rest of the folks promoting community currencies, and that can be misleading because the level of economic literacy among community currency advocates is generally very low, which makes it usually a zone the less well informed promote economic illiteracy. If I had a name of one of the presenters or a name of the association or?, I could trace back to the people at the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City to see who those people were. From what you have described someone or some group seems to be promoting dys-information. This a long term pattern whereby pop-level "economics" speaker are used to confuse any discourse or interest toward monetary reform. Perhaps MMT in a nutshell would be useful topic. I've done a two flyer set on a presentation of MMT. The first flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/674 The second flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/675 I could digest this down to even simpler terms and a shorter length. and so we meander, Tadit Anderson On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:33:08 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Tadit,
I checked your work through Google ... interesting!
you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on my part ...
earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in Dublin, after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members ..
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
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
It was a blond woman from the uni of missouri and she seemed quite smart and central to the core group .. My question was very clear asking to confirm whether they really believed that lower taxation directly related to higher economic activity and vice versa .. As for Robert remarks on backward thinking ... you can't compare the description of an ideal utopian system, with little chance of being implemented in the near future, with the classic debates on the good use of taxation .. that's called 'current thinking' ... Within the current context and power relations, progressive taxation and productive public investment would still be miles ahead of current neoliberal austerisizing On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael, I assure that that depiction of MMT is not accurate at all. If you have a link to some of that discussion, I can be more specific. The summary was actually radically wrong relative to MMT and functional fiscal policies. Taxation at this point is primarily a means of controlling the accumulation of wealth withing specific income groups, and of course accelerating the incomes for other economic profiles. It has no bearing on funding fiscal policies at all. The FEASTA people have been generally fairly good relative to the rest of the folks promoting community currencies, and that can be misleading because the level of economic literacy among community currency advocates is generally very low, which makes it usually a zone the less well informed promote economic illiteracy. If I had a name of one of the presenters or a name of the association or?, I could trace back to the people at the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City to see who those people were. From what you have described someone or some group seems to be promoting dys-information. This a long term pattern whereby pop-level "economics" speaker are used to confuse any discourse or interest toward monetary reform. Perhaps MMT in a nutshell would be useful topic. I've done a two flyer set on a presentation of MMT.
The first flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/674
The second flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/675
I could digest this down to even simpler terms and a shorter length.
and so we meander, Tadit Anderson
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:33:08 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Tadit,
I checked your work through Google ... interesting!
you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on my part ...
earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in Dublin, after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members ..
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
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
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
If that is the case then it was mostly likely Prof. Stephanie Kelton. At that I would be quite astonished if she ever actually said what you thought she said. The Post-Keynesian discourse can be a bit difficult to wrap your mind around at first. Yes, you were right to be startled by the possibility of the whole thing about demand side economics as defined by bastard Keynesianism. I have been following their blog for a number of years, and have read I expect most of the articles she has written in the past ten years. I hope that your prior contact and confusion/revulsion will allow me to work through these issue to your satisfaction. One of the stories that goes along with understanding the Post-Keynesian/MMT paradigm. To paraphrase a quip from Adolph Lowe to the effect that neo-classical economics likes to pretend that the economy has no means of control or influence strategically averting acknowledgement of the actual effects all effectively intentional and awareness only as it is convenient. In a sense as if economics was a variety of social quantum physics, or that the bus we are on actually has a steering wheel, brakes, and regulatory functions that can be changed. Ask me all of your MMT question and I will walk you through its commons core. Much of the validation of the countercyclical intervention to provide living wage jobs comes from the direct experience of the US Depression era government employment initiatives, WPA, CCC,and the NYA. Minsky is a major part of this discourse as well and his economic science is impeccable relative to the underlying scientific philosophy of science. Minsky's economics is not based upon any "equilibrium" based economic model, just analytic and inductive in the validity, applicability, adequacy, and reliability structure of discourse as a dialectic. Tadit On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:08:47 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
It was a blond woman from the uni of missouri and she seemed quite smart and central to the core group ..
My question was very clear asking to confirm whether they really believed that lower taxation directly related to higher economic activity and vice versa ..
As for Robert remarks on backward thinking ... you can't compare the description of an ideal utopian system, with little chance of being implemented in the near future, with the classic debates on the good use of taxation .. that's called 'current thinking' ...
Within the current context and power relations, progressive taxation and productive public investment would still be miles ahead of current neoliberal austerisizing
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael, I assure that that depiction of MMT is not accurate at all. If you have a link to some of that discussion, I can be more specific. The summary was actually radically wrong relative to MMT and functional fiscal policies. Taxation at this point is primarily a means of controlling the accumulation of wealth withing specific income groups, and of course accelerating the incomes for other economic profiles. It has no bearing on funding fiscal policies at all. The FEASTA people have been generally fairly good relative to the rest of the folks promoting community currencies, and that can be misleading because the level of economic literacy among community currency advocates is generally very low, which makes it usually a zone the less well informed promote economic illiteracy. If I had a name of one of the presenters or a name of the association or?, I could trace back to the people at the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City to see who those people were. From what you have described someone or some group seems to be promoting dys-information. This a long term pattern whereby pop-level "economics" speaker are used to confuse any discourse or interest toward monetary reform. Perhaps MMT in a nutshell would be useful topic. I've done a two flyer set on a presentation of MMT.
The first flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/674
The second flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/675
I could digest this down to even simpler terms and a shorter length.
and so we meander, Tadit Anderson
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:33:08 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Tadit,
I checked your work through Google ... interesting!
you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on my part ...
earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in Dublin, after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members ..
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
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
Hi Tadit, perhaps you could start with the general principles of MMT and in particular, what you call its 'commons' core, and why 'p2p' oriented people should pay attention to it? perhaps we could use it to write a blog series introducing MMT? Michel On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
If that is the case then it was mostly likely Prof. Stephanie Kelton. At that I would be quite astonished if she ever actually said what you thought she said. The Post-Keynesian discourse can be a bit difficult to wrap your mind around at first. Yes, you were right to be startled by the possibility of the whole thing about demand side economics as defined by bastard Keynesianism.
I have been following their blog for a number of years, and have read I expect most of the articles she has written in the past ten years. I hope that your prior contact and confusion/revulsion will allow me to work through these issue to your satisfaction.
One of the stories that goes along with understanding the Post-Keynesian/MMT paradigm. To paraphrase a quip from Adolph Lowe to the effect that neo-classical economics likes to pretend that the economy has no means of control or influence strategically averting acknowledgement of the actual effects all effectively intentional and awareness only as it is convenient. In a sense as if economics was a variety of social quantum physics, or that the bus we are on actually has a steering wheel, brakes, and regulatory functions that can be changed.
Ask me all of your MMT question and I will walk you through its commons core. Much of the validation of the countercyclical intervention to provide living wage jobs comes from the direct experience of the US Depression era government employment initiatives, WPA, CCC,and the NYA.
Minsky is a major part of this discourse as well and his economic science is impeccable relative to the underlying scientific philosophy of science. Minsky's economics is not based upon any "equilibrium" based economic model, just analytic and inductive in the validity, applicability, adequacy, and reliability structure of discourse as a dialectic.
Tadit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:08:47 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
It was a blond woman from the uni of missouri and she seemed quite smart and central to the core group ..
My question was very clear asking to confirm whether they really believed that lower taxation directly related to higher economic activity and vice versa ..
As for Robert remarks on backward thinking ... you can't compare the description of an ideal utopian system, with little chance of being implemented in the near future, with the classic debates on the good use of taxation .. that's called 'current thinking' ...
Within the current context and power relations, progressive taxation and productive public investment would still be miles ahead of current neoliberal austerisizing
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael, I assure that that depiction of MMT is not accurate at all. If you have a link to some of that discussion, I can be more specific. The summary was actually radically wrong relative to MMT and functional fiscal policies. Taxation at this point is primarily a means of controlling the accumulation of wealth withing specific income groups, and of course accelerating the incomes for other economic profiles. It has no bearing on funding fiscal policies at all. The FEASTA people have been generally fairly good relative to the rest of the folks promoting community currencies, and that can be misleading because the level of economic literacy among community currency advocates is generally very low, which makes it usually a zone the less well informed promote economic illiteracy. If I had a name of one of the presenters or a name of the association or?, I could trace back to the people at the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City to see who those people were. From what you have described someone or some group seems to be promoting dys-information. This a long term pattern whereby pop-level "economics" speaker are used to confuse any discourse or interest toward monetary reform. Perhaps MMT in a nutshell would be useful topic. I've done a two flyer set on a presentation of MMT.
The first flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/674
The second flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/675
I could digest this down to even simpler terms and a shorter length.
and so we meander, Tadit Anderson
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:33:08 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Tadit,
I checked your work through Google ... interesting!
you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on my part ...
earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in Dublin, after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members ..
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
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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
OK, I've part of this in a clutch of 5 of my flyers already, a sixth piece would be directed at demonstrating the core commons principles. The back story about is a bit complex but having some knowledge of who Keynes was to macroeconomics. This will contextualize the debate and lack of debate about deficit based debt in a economics should be more about its performance, than the received dogma. Rocket scientists would not even gain traction under such enclosing of a scientific commons. The financialization of science in all of its domains and beach front properties has diminished itself. Re:establishing the legacies of alternative economic history seems critical, now that there is a bit more impassioned need for a commons based array of choices. Randall Wray has developed a primer for MMT that he has been serially producing. I could probably meld it with what I have. My part 1 and part 2 on MMT, came from my review of his book "Understanding Modern Monetary Theory." This should be ready in perhaps a month though I would like to work through an editing process for, as you put it "..a lay audience." My personal issue here is with the designation of "lay" versus "professional." What I mean is that I am in large part an auto-didact, which is a "lay" person performing to "professional" standards. I believe in deschooling as in de-institutionalizing education. I tend to be prejudiced against the distinctions invested in assuming that "lay" cannot be taught to get out of their own way, or that credibility has any direct correspondence time spent interned in institutions of "higher?" learning or even online coursework as a measure of intelligence, sans practice. as we go, Tadit On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:15:49 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Tadit,
perhaps you could start with the general principles of MMT and in particular, what you call its 'commons' core, and why 'p2p' oriented people should pay attention to it?
perhaps we could use it to write a blog series introducing MMT?
Michel
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
If that is the case then it was mostly likely Prof. Stephanie Kelton. At that I would be quite astonished if she ever actually said what you thought she said. The Post-Keynesian discourse can be a bit difficult to wrap your mind around at first. Yes, you were right to be startled by the possibility of the whole thing about demand side economics as defined by bastard Keynesianism.
I have been following their blog for a number of years, and have read I expect most of the articles she has written in the past ten years. I hope that your prior contact and confusion/revulsion will allow me to work through these issue to your satisfaction.
One of the stories that goes along with understanding the Post-Keynesian/MMT paradigm. To paraphrase a quip from Adolph Lowe to the effect that neo-classical economics likes to pretend that the economy has no means of control or influence strategically averting acknowledgement of the actual effects all effectively intentional and awareness only as it is convenient. In a sense as if economics was a variety of social quantum physics, or that the bus we are on actually has a steering wheel, brakes, and regulatory functions that can be changed.
Ask me all of your MMT question and I will walk you through its commons core. Much of the validation of the countercyclical intervention to provide living wage jobs comes from the direct experience of the US Depression era government employment initiatives, WPA, CCC,and the NYA.
Minsky is a major part of this discourse as well and his economic science is impeccable relative to the underlying scientific philosophy of science. Minsky's economics is not based upon any "equilibrium" based economic model, just analytic and inductive in the validity, applicability, adequacy, and reliability structure of discourse as a dialectic.
Tadit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:08:47 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
It was a blond woman from the uni of missouri and she seemed quite smart and central to the core group ..
My question was very clear asking to confirm whether they really believed that lower taxation directly related to higher economic activity and vice versa ..
As for Robert remarks on backward thinking ... you can't compare the description of an ideal utopian system, with little chance of being implemented in the near future, with the classic debates on the good use of taxation .. that's called 'current thinking' ...
Within the current context and power relations, progressive taxation and productive public investment would still be miles ahead of current neoliberal austerisizing
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael, I assure that that depiction of MMT is not accurate at all. If you have a link to some of that discussion, I can be more specific. The summary was actually radically wrong relative to MMT and functional fiscal policies. Taxation at this point is primarily a means of controlling the accumulation of wealth withing specific income groups, and of course accelerating the incomes for other economic profiles. It has no bearing on funding fiscal policies at all. The FEASTA people have been generally fairly good relative to the rest of the folks promoting community currencies, and that can be misleading because the level of economic literacy among community currency advocates is generally very low, which makes it usually a zone the less well informed promote economic illiteracy. If I had a name of one of the presenters or a name of the association or?, I could trace back to the people at the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City to see who those people were. From what you have described someone or some group seems to be promoting dys-information. This a long term pattern whereby pop-level "economics" speaker are used to confuse any discourse or interest toward monetary reform. Perhaps MMT in a nutshell would be useful topic. I've done a two flyer set on a presentation of MMT.
The first flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/674
The second flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/675
I could digest this down to even simpler terms and a shorter length.
and so we meander, Tadit Anderson
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:33:08 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Tadit,
I checked your work through Google ... interesting!
you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on my part ...
earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in Dublin, after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members ..
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
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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
THANKS Tadit, indeed feel free to re-use your own or other people's older material with 'lay', I'm not assuming unintelligent, just unfamiliar with particular specialized language, and not to assume too much prior knowledge .. doesn't mean of course that no effort should be required from anyone, Michel On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 1:13 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
OK, I've part of this in a clutch of 5 of my flyers already, a sixth piece would be directed at demonstrating the core commons principles. The back story about is a bit complex but having some knowledge of who Keynes was to macroeconomics. This will contextualize the debate and lack of debate about deficit based debt in a economics should be more about its performance, than the received dogma. Rocket scientists would not even gain traction under such enclosing of a scientific commons. The financialization of science in all of its domains and beach front properties has diminished itself. Re:establishing the legacies of alternative economic history seems critical, now that there is a bit more impassioned need for a commons based array of choices.
Randall Wray has developed a primer for MMT that he has been serially producing. I could probably meld it with what I have. My part 1 and part 2 on MMT, came from my review of his book "Understanding Modern Monetary Theory." This should be ready in perhaps a month though I would like to work through an editing process for, as you put it "..a lay audience."
My personal issue here is with the designation of "lay" versus "professional." What I mean is that I am in large part an auto-didact, which is a "lay" person performing to "professional" standards. I believe in deschooling as in de-institutionalizing education. I tend to be prejudiced against the distinctions invested in assuming that "lay" cannot be taught to get out of their own way, or that credibility has any direct correspondence time spent interned in institutions of "higher?" learning or even online coursework as a measure of intelligence, sans practice.
as we go, Tadit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:15:49 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Tadit,
perhaps you could start with the general principles of MMT and in particular, what you call its 'commons' core, and why 'p2p' oriented people should pay attention to it?
perhaps we could use it to write a blog series introducing MMT?
Michel
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
If that is the case then it was mostly likely Prof. Stephanie Kelton. At that I would be quite astonished if she ever actually said what you thought she said. The Post-Keynesian discourse can be a bit difficult to wrap your mind around at first. Yes, you were right to be startled by the possibility of the whole thing about demand side economics as defined by bastard Keynesianism.
I have been following their blog for a number of years, and have read I expect most of the articles she has written in the past ten years. I hope that your prior contact and confusion/revulsion will allow me to work through these issue to your satisfaction.
One of the stories that goes along with understanding the Post-Keynesian/MMT paradigm. To paraphrase a quip from Adolph Lowe to the effect that neo-classical economics likes to pretend that the economy has no means of control or influence strategically averting acknowledgement of the actual effects all effectively intentional and awareness only as it is convenient. In a sense as if economics was a variety of social quantum physics, or that the bus we are on actually has a steering wheel, brakes, and regulatory functions that can be changed.
Ask me all of your MMT question and I will walk you through its commons core. Much of the validation of the countercyclical intervention to provide living wage jobs comes from the direct experience of the US Depression era government employment initiatives, WPA, CCC,and the NYA.
Minsky is a major part of this discourse as well and his economic science is impeccable relative to the underlying scientific philosophy of science. Minsky's economics is not based upon any "equilibrium" based economic model, just analytic and inductive in the validity, applicability, adequacy, and reliability structure of discourse as a dialectic.
Tadit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:08:47 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
It was a blond woman from the uni of missouri and she seemed quite smart and central to the core group ..
My question was very clear asking to confirm whether they really believed that lower taxation directly related to higher economic activity and vice versa ..
As for Robert remarks on backward thinking ... you can't compare the description of an ideal utopian system, with little chance of being implemented in the near future, with the classic debates on the good use of taxation .. that's called 'current thinking' ...
Within the current context and power relations, progressive taxation and productive public investment would still be miles ahead of current neoliberal austerisizing
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael, I assure that that depiction of MMT is not accurate at all. If you have a link to some of that discussion, I can be more specific. The summary was actually radically wrong relative to MMT and functional fiscal policies. Taxation at this point is primarily a means of controlling the accumulation of wealth withing specific income groups, and of course accelerating the incomes for other economic profiles. It has no bearing on funding fiscal policies at all. The FEASTA people have been generally fairly good relative to the rest of the folks promoting community currencies, and that can be misleading because the level of economic literacy among community currency advocates is generally very low, which makes it usually a zone the less well informed promote economic illiteracy. If I had a name of one of the presenters or a name of the association or?, I could trace back to the people at the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City to see who those people were. From what you have described someone or some group seems to be promoting dys-information. This a long term pattern whereby pop-level "economics" speaker are used to confuse any discourse or interest toward monetary reform. Perhaps MMT in a nutshell would be useful topic. I've done a two flyer set on a presentation of MMT.
The first flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/674
The second flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/675
I could digest this down to even simpler terms and a shorter length.
and so we meander, Tadit Anderson
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:33:08 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Tadit,
I checked your work through Google ... interesting!
you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on my part ...
earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in Dublin, after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members ..
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
As far as I understand it MMT, an updated incarnation of Chartalism believes that governments can create "enough" new non-repayable debt free money into the economy. If it causes inflation taxation (and presumably interest) can be re-introduced to take out much of the excess capital to avoid serious devaluation of currency. Ofcourse, MMT cannot compare with TFE which is a much more advanced system...yet similiar to the former. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2011, 19:13 Subject: Re: [P2P-F] blog FEASTA/MMT/.... bk3 Michel B OK, I've part of this in a clutch of 5 of my flyers already, a sixth piece would be directed at demonstrating the core commons principles. The back story about is a bit complex but having some knowledge of who Keynes was to macroeconomics. This will contextualize the debate and lack of debate about deficit based debt in a economics should be more about its performance, than the received dogma. Rocket scientists would not even gain traction under such enclosing of a scientific commons. The financialization of science in all of its domains and beach front properties has diminished itself. Re:establishing the legacies of alternative economic history seems critical, now that there is a bit more impassioned need for a commons based array of choices. Randall Wray has developed a primer for MMT that he has been serially producing. I could probably meld it with what I have. My part 1 and part 2 on MMT, came from my review of his book "Understanding Modern Monetary Theory." This should be ready in perhaps a month though I would like to work through an editing process for, as you put it "..a lay audience." My personal issue here is with the designation of "lay" versus "professional." What I mean is that I am in large part an auto-didact, which is a "lay" person performing to "professional" standards. I believe in deschooling as in de-institutionalizing education. I tend to be prejudiced against the distinctions invested in assuming that "lay" cannot be taught to get out of their own way, or that credibility has any direct correspondence time spent interned in institutions of "higher?" learning or even online coursework as a measure of intelligence, sans practice. as we go, Tadit On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:15:49 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Tadit,
perhaps you could start with the general principles of MMT and in particular, what you call its 'commons' core, and why 'p2p' oriented people should pay attention to it?
perhaps we could use it to write a blog series introducing MMT?
Michel
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
If that is the case then it was mostly likely Prof. Stephanie Kelton. At that I would be quite astonished if she ever actually said what you thought she said. The Post-Keynesian discourse can be a bit difficult to wrap your mind around at first. Yes, you were right to be startled by the possibility of the whole thing about demand side economics as defined by bastard Keynesianism.
I have been following their blog for a number of years, and have read I expect most of the articles she has written in the past ten years. I hope that your prior contact and confusion/revulsion will allow me to work through these issue to your satisfaction.
One of the stories that goes along with understanding the Post-Keynesian/MMT paradigm. To paraphrase a quip from Adolph Lowe to the effect that neo-classical economics likes to pretend that the economy has no means of control or influence strategically averting acknowledgement of the actual effects all effectively intentional and awareness only as it is convenient. In a sense as if economics was a variety of social quantum physics, or that the bus we are on actually has a steering wheel, brakes, and regulatory functions that can be changed.
Ask me all of your MMT question and I will walk you through its commons core. Much of the validation of the countercyclical intervention to provide living wage jobs comes from the direct experience of the US Depression era government employment initiatives, WPA, CCC,and the NYA.
Minsky is a major part of this discourse as well and his economic science is impeccable relative to the underlying scientific philosophy of science. Minsky's economics is not based upon any "equilibrium" based economic model, just analytic and inductive in the validity, applicability, adequacy, and reliability structure of discourse as a dialectic.
Tadit
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:08:47 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
It was a blond woman from the uni of missouri and she seemed quite smart and central to the core group ..
My question was very clear asking to confirm whether they really believed that lower taxation directly related to higher economic activity and vice versa ..
As for Robert remarks on backward thinking ... you can't compare the description of an ideal utopian system, with little chance of being implemented in the near future, with the classic debates on the good use of taxation .. that's called 'current thinking' ...
Within the current context and power relations, progressive taxation and productive public investment would still be miles ahead of current neoliberal austerisizing
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael, I assure that that depiction of MMT is not accurate at all. If you have a link to some of that discussion, I can be more specific. The summary was actually radically wrong relative to MMT and functional fiscal policies. Taxation at this point is primarily a means of controlling the accumulation of wealth withing specific income groups, and of course accelerating the incomes for other economic profiles. It has no bearing on funding fiscal policies at all. The FEASTA people have been generally fairly good relative to the rest of the folks promoting community currencies, and that can be misleading because the level of economic literacy among community currency advocates is generally very low, which makes it usually a zone the less well informed promote economic illiteracy. If I had a name of one of the presenters or a name of the association or?, I could trace back to the people at the Univ. of Missouri at Kansas City to see who those people were. From what you have described someone or some group seems to be promoting dys-information. This a long term pattern whereby pop-level "economics" speaker are used to confuse any discourse or interest toward monetary reform. Perhaps MMT in a nutshell would be useful topic. I've done a two flyer set on a presentation of MMT.
The first flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/674
The second flyer is at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/node/675
I could digest this down to even simpler terms and a shorter length.
and so we meander, Tadit Anderson
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:33:08 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
hi Tadit,
I checked your work through Google ... interesting!
you may want to answer this, perhaps a misunderstanding of MMT on my part ...
earlier this year, I attented a Modern Monetary Theory lecture in Dublin, after some enthusiastic promptings of FEASTA members ..
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
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
_______________________________________________ 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
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
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
thanks Tadit, I'm pretty ignorant in economics, my point is simply that taxation of low-spending capital owners, can be more productively invested by a social state, and therefore, higher taxation, if spent well, does not only not decrease economic activity, but can increase it ... Michel On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
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
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Michel, I believe that your intuition and intent are clear. The whole point is to engage is a productive discourse. It gives me opportunity to express this stuff in as an accessible a manner as possible. And that seems to come best with practice. Tadit On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:06:52 -0400, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
thanks Tadit,
I'm pretty ignorant in economics, my point is simply that taxation of low-spending capital owners, can be more productively invested by a social state, and therefore, higher taxation, if spent well, does not only not decrease economic activity, but can increase it ...
Michel
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
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
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:50 AM, 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,
Thanks, Michel -- I'll try to check it out this week. -- Kevin Carson Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism http://mutualist.blogspot.com The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
participants (4)
-
ideasinc＠ee.net -
Kevin Carson -
Michel Bauwens -
robert searle