[P2P-F] Regarding MMT being a cult

[ideasinc at ee.net]

A very reasonable observation. One of the standards of MMT is that its  
principles are based upon what actually happens in the way of outcomes. It  
might be a very radical concept to have people actually hold economists  
responsible for the results of their recommendations, as contrasted with a  
gaggle of econo wonks babbling about tweaking and adjustments, and then  
nothing happens or something significant fails to happen. Placing labor as  
important participant in the economic commons, rather than labor being  
treated as solely a commodity, would be a vast improvement in itself.

Part of the functional finance side of the process basically would  
eliminate welfare as it has been used as a threat to labor through a  
guaranteed minimum wage jobs program which is engaged in a counter  
cyclical fashion. Treating various social support services as  
infrastructure, such as medical coverage and higher education would  
establish new domains of employment to boost coverage of the existing  
systems. This would be beyond physical infrastructure projects which would  
also be at a skilled level, could end up providing mass transit systems  
where none exist now. Setting standards in this way would at least elevate  
expectations.

And... the truth is that every possible fiscal and economic policy would  
have the capacity of being subverted or turned to anti-democratic ends.  
Still if the citizenry is ignorant and passive lots of nefarious stuff can  
and would happen. No process can deliver a benign outcome without alert  
and engaged voters. So the choice seems to be keep the current system and  
expect change to magically happen, or work to elevate the economic  
literacy of the population and remove the parasites. The deficit terrorism  
which has had a recent resurgence in the wake of the big whoops, is  
guaranteed to make things much, much worse and it cannot be be perpetuated  
indefinitely. or people will simply explode into a long bloody rage, often  
minus any viable alternatives other than crime. Does your cynicism  extend  
to nihilism?  What about a body of theory and policy which has had a much  
higher degree of success that has been provided otherwise

Faith based economics and willing ignorance hasn't served us very well.  
And ye ole trickle down bait and switch scheming and scamming hasn't  
produced much other than chaos. Yes, the usual courtier crooks, frauds,  
and thieves will still be there. Is it even imaginable that the  
appropriate regulatory processes can be re-established?

MMT is based upon what is essentially a authentic scientific discourse  
which would a major shift all by iteslf. What would a commons centered  
economics look like for the unwilling and the hardened skeptics?

I'm listening, if you have something better in mind. My guess is that it  
is possible to develop a context in which the state is not inherently  
hostile.

Tadit



On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:04:45 -0400, Sandwichman <lumpoflabor at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> I don't know about "cult" but everything I've read by MMT advocates  
> assumes
> either that governments serve the public interest or that, if they don't
> they *should* serve the public interest. Yeah? Well, I agree they  
> "should"
> but what is going to make them? That's what I find distressing. A  
> political
> disconnect. Marx at least posited a revolutionary subject, the  
> proletariat.
> The big question for me is not would MMT work but who is going to  
> implement
> it?
>
> I continue to operate on the premise that the State is inherently  
> hostile or
> at best is passive and will only reluctantly pursue a progressive  
> program,
> however it may be couched technically, if compelled to by a mobilized  
> civil
> society.
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 2:05 PM, <ideasinc at ee.net> wrote:
>
>>  From Stephanie Kelton at the UMKC economics department
>>
>>
>> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:15:13 -0400
>>
>> Have these folks look at our Twitter following.  Journalists,  
>> progressive
>> groups, reporters (Reuters and such, not crackpots), MPs (two of them,
>> actually, one a Labor MP from Wales and one from Netherlands (socialist
>> party).  Randy and I are now recognized as "contributors" at Truthdig.
>> Anything we write for them (as our New New Deal piece of 2 weeks ago)  
>> will
>> be picked up by scores of other progressive sites (Counterpunch ran our
>> latest after it appeared in Truthdig), as well as less progressive  
>> places
>> like Global Economic Intersection (which also ran it).  Roughly half of
>> MMT blogs are run by traders -- not economists (Pragmatic Capitalism,
>> Center of the Universe, Naked Capitalism, CreditWritedowns (and Ed  
>> Harris
>> was an Austrian before he discovered, and then wrestled with, MMT).  We
>> are becoming the mainstream in economics, and history will not be kind  
>> to
>> the holdouts.  We have been right about every major economic event (both
>> forecasting it and then explaining why the policy response would fail to
>> bring about the desired results).  Krugman didn't say that QE wouldn't
>> work.  We did.  Dean Baker is moving toward OUR position.  His latest
>> piece on SocSec is a clear indication.  In it, he says that there is no
>> reason that SocSec can't be funded out of general revenue FOREVER.  That
>> IS MMT.  Affordability is not the issue.  Why do you think he said that?
>> We know Dean.  We like him as a person.  But he is NOT a macro  
>> economist,
>> and he does not understand the monetary system/government finance.  Same
>> goes for Krugman.  Not a macro person.  Ellen Brown has gotten much
>> better.  Why?  Because behind the scenes, she is sending e-mails like
>> crazy, seeking input from Randy, Marshall and other MMTers!!!  It's  
>> nuts.
>> They love these guys, and they are getting their material from us.
>>
>> snip
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>
>