Breaking Hate

Note: I know the topic of this thread is "breaking hate" (of R/W supremacism); but I'm convinced economic well-being is at the root of these conflicts.
eg, I read somewhere that 40% of Americans can't easily raise $1000 in savings if they need to....so the tendency to want to blame others (find scapegoats) for this widespread and pervasive economic insecurity is no doubt very real.

Imagine if there was no poverty in the US. Who then would give a rat's ass about skin colour?

 

Well obviously, a government can create as much money as it wishes. However, that doesn't put food on anyone's table.

 

Those are deep thoughts for so early in the morning

I agree that anatchists are not middle of the road

Far from it

As for socialism fixing poverty I dont think it can

But my solution is very radical and unlikely to gain majority support either

It is simple however

Deport illegal aliens who are taking jobs from Americans

And simultaneously end the welfare state to force Americans to take jobs they do not like

NOt all at once

But over a few years period

 

.....a statement which is indeed in accordance with the first axiom of MMT: ie, A nation is constrained by real resources, not by money (with a slight change in emphasis: and you must allow a role for a government sector in the economy, as well as a private sector, a step I'm not sure you are willing to take...…?)

Question: do you really believe that the quantum/availability of resources in the US (including technological know-how) is insufficient to employ everyone who wants to work, at above poverty level?

….leading to another MMT principle: the Job Guarantee replaces the unemployed buffer stock of workers (the hideous NAIRU fiction of classical economics) with an employed buffer stock of workers ie workers in the public JG program whose numbers rise and fall depending on the requirements and cycles of the private sector. In effect the JG is an inflation anchor because the JG wage is a fixed peg - above poverty level but below private sector wages.

An introduction to MMT...

 

Have I indicated that I believe any such thing? No. There is a great deal of work to be done. Enough to keep anyone busy.

Ah, so MMT depends upon looting. I figured as much.

 

There's a neo-chartalist on the forum? I haven't seen one of those in a long time.

Most I've seen takes time to get there, but sooner or later they all realize the their currency is backed by the military, and thus by violence. From there, they usually have a moral dilemma in which to wrestle.

 

Indeed...anyone AND everyone....(get it?)

The expected response, in your fantastical world of every individual competing in an imaginary market place without government.

cheers.

 

MMT doesn't depend upon looting and enslaving?

 

I never said that I was "in the middle". Those are your words, not mine. I just don't fall under your authoritarian left/right paradigm.

This is why I said that you an Mac have more in common with each other than I do with either of you.

 

It certainly does. Neo-chartalism (MMT) collapses in the the absence of force to back the fiat.

This is an old theory...been around for decades. As with socialism, what is old is new again with the authoritarian left.

 

1. You will need to study MMT if you want to sensibly critique it. (Never mind, even the likes of Krugman and Summers display their ignorance of the topic when they discuss MMT).
But considering you reject the concept of government, that's a moot point.

2. The authoritarian left? What about the democratic left?

"Absence of force to back the fiat" - a nonsense statement of course;
you need to look more closely at the foundation of your Anarchist fantasy.
See posts 161,172,173.
….despite the cognitive dissonance you must experience if you are ever to escape this Anarchist fantasy.

 

But it depends upon looting and enslaving.

 

Goody....I hope it all addresses the left wing hate for Americans and America that has been so prominent in fake news.

 

You have it back to front; it is (just) law which is required to avoid the looting and enslaving, that is the natural state (anarchy, as opposed to Ted's mythical Anarchy) .

 

Great. Then feel free to implement MMT without the whole looting and enslaving thing.

 

Here's the thing: one doesn't "implement" MMT, which in fact 'merely' a more accurate description (more accurate than orthodox classical economics) of how modern fiat macro-economies actually work.

Eg, Keynes' pointed out (during the great depression) that any attempt to lower wages and or/interest rates will not necessarily result in higher employment (classical axioms), because effective aggregate demand (one of Keynes' brilliant insights) will fall if consumers are already highly indebted and/or fear further unemployment.
That's why governments cannot induce inflation (!) post GFC, try as they might - even despite massive debt (public or private depending on the country), low interest rates, and high underemployment rates.

MMT is a continuation of the Keynesian school. The battle between classical orthodoxy and MMT will be staged in academia; no looting and enslaving will be involved, just the emergence of a greater grasp of macroeconomic reality, realities which will then be accessed by central bakers.

 

MMT can't be implemented? Okay.

Oh that John Maynard and his idiotic aggregation.

How do you aggregate an apple and an orange?

But MMT can debase money.

 

Obviously an accurate description of macroeconomics must include the concept of aggregation, otherwise you run into problems such as the 'fallacy of thrift' eg, if all households (the micro level) attempt to save at the same time because of high personal debt loads and/or fear of unemployment, the (macro) economy will crash. Central bankers don't have a clue....

ie, A problem with the classical school is its method of drawing conclusions from behaviour of single entities/markets, and extrapolating these observations to the entire economy.

 

If everyone chose not to purchase, then why would it matter if the economy "crashed", whatever that means.

 

No sales by firms = skyrocketing unemployment = no purchasing power for workers = Great Depression.

But let's look at your statement: "But MMT can debase money", bearing in mind MMT is merely a description of how the macro-economy of a modern sovereign, fiat-currency issuing government actually works, as opposed to the mythology presented by the classical school.

1. Many factors can devalue money (inflate the currency).

2. Self-evidently, sustainable utilisation of all the resources available to the nation, including labour, is not one of those factors - maximising the potential productivity of an economy will increase (not decrease) the 'value' of that currency relative to other nation's currencies. Recall the price stabilising function of MMT's JG, a program which eliminates underemployment entirely (underemployed labour being a wasted resource, obviously).

3. An observation on "inflation" (devaluation of the currency): in 1969, the Apollo 11 mission cost c.$8 billion (so I gleaned from one of the many TV programs celebrating the 50th anniversary of that event - in today's money, c. $300 billion....but obviously today's money still has the same 'value' (or in many cases greater 'value') relative to the goods and services consumers wish to buy.

 

But didn't you just say that people were choosing not to buy anything. In your hypothetical, I mean. So why would they need be be employed?

What is the value of today's money? Exactly?

 

Putting aside the discussion on MMT (Longshot has been carrying on that debate), I've been thinking (dangerous I know...) about your Anarchy as the ideal system of social organisation.

If I recall correctly, one of Timothy McVeigh's 'complaints' about government was its prosecution of wars (ditto for author Frank Herbert who objected to the prosecution of the Vietnam war by the US government); Libertarianism also has a doctrine of non-involvement in overseas wars.

As one who believes in the evolving concept of an international rules based system, I can only agree with all of them!

But note the cognitive dissonance that exists over the entire political spectrum: On the Right, we want maximum individual freedom, on the Left, we want maximum shared prosperity, but neither is possible while war (and trade war for that matter) is legal.
Conclusion: an international rules based system, which implies the de-legitimisation of war, (since the legal destruction of life (!) is an oxymoron) requires modification of the concept of absolute national sovereignty.

Back to Anarchy, which is " the natural order of human life: Voluntary, consensual relationships among humans without the greatest problem in all of history- the hallucination, the dystopian ideal that some humans should have the right to violently control their fellow man" - "violent control of one's fellow man" being equated with 'government', since the natural order is " Voluntary, consensual relationships among humans"

"Love God and love another"?

But why did Christ need to "command" that we do this?

 

Did I say "choose"(.... I haven't time to check). In any case people don't normally stop stop purchasing by choice (at least not in the aggregate to the extent of causing firms (in the aggregate) to shed labour), but because they lose purchasing power - which recalls Keynes' concept of effective demand: of course aggregate demand remains the same, but effective demand varies - which is related to consumers concerns about their present debt or fear of unemployment.

Apparently I need to keep bringing you back to the concept of real resources (an axiom of MMT), real resources wherin lies real "value" - you mentioned it yourself eg, food, which sustains life; and the ability to send men to the moon. What's your hang-up with the "value of today's money"?

 

Socialism is a far greater threat than this boogey man.

 

Actually I did have the time to check your post #194 - (and surprise surprise), it was you who said "if people choose not to buy anything"... which is your interpretation of my statement (re the fallacy of thrift) "if everyone is attempting to save at the same time"....

An informative example of the influence of ideology on one's conception of/interpretation of reality. (eg the Randian concept of absolute volition available by use of reason alone.)