MMT: overcoming the political divide.

Thanks for the warning about your post.

Thanks for the warning, but I was already well aware of that. You seem to have nothing else to live for.

Do your own homework. I'm not here to provide you with nits to pick, as you have done so relentlessly and disgracefully in every thread you have participated in.

 

I already know the importance, and weaknesses of the the Coasian approach. I've just got my fingers crossed that you'll be able to achieve some validity. Now I appreciate that the question was unfair. There's no way that you're going to understand transaction cost analysis if you don't understand the purpose of the Coase Theorem, is there? Have you tried Wikipedia yep?

 

Prove it.

There's no way you are going to understand the uses of the Coase Theorem if you think its purpose is to analyze transaction costs.

 

The importance of the Coasian approach is to understand the boundaries of the firm. The neoclassical approach without it, for example, cannot understand the firm (defined in New Institutionalism as a vertically integrated enterprise). Its weakness is it leads to over reliance on concepts such as asset specificity. There's no real understanding of the negative effects of market power, nor the importance of the entrepreneur. There is only acceptance of some vague application of the Principal-Agent problem.

Its a statement of fact. The Coase Theorem is deliberately constructed to show how its only in the simplest of cases, where bargaining costs are low, that protecting property rights is sufficient. Bit obvious really, but hey ho...

 

Nope. It's to understand property rights, a far more important issue.

The inadequacies of the neoclassical approach are not remedied by Coase.

At least that is partly true: it's one weakness.

You left out the most important weakness: the inadvisability and even impossibility of assigning clear and unambiguous property rights to everything.

No, only a naive interpretation thereof.

But its real importance is in sneaking in the premise that protecting property rights is necessary.

 

This amused me. I've already informed you of the New Institutionalist approach and the nature of its property rights. The Coase Theorem is used to highlight how, if property rights can be protected (i.e. there are minimal transaction costs), then externalities are naturally internalised. But that isn't the objective to the Coasian approach. The objective is to give orthodox economics a credible 'theory of the firm'. Without it, there isn't any understanding of economies of scope. Entrepreneurs should simply co-operate. Indeed, there is no real understanding of the boundaries of the firm (e.g. they have to make bogus claims over u-shaped cost curves).

I'm afraid Wikipedia seems to have let you down again

 

Give it a rest.

Sneaking in the assumption of valid property right assignment.

Putatively.

Please quote Wikipedia making any of the points I made.

Thought not.

 

Meanwhile MMT is struggling to gain widespread acceptance, because the idea of government issuing its own currency (via treasury and central bank) to pay for social programs, without the support of taxpayers or bond holders, is counterintuitive to the experience of taxpayers themselves.

Though possibly the financial circumstances - and unemployment levels - after the pandemic has passed, will hasten a change in the public understanding of macroeconomics, if logic has any influence, eg, government money creation to replace wages and incomes destroyed by the pandemic will not cause inflation, obviously - this being the main objection to MMT ("magic money tree") by those who know nothing about it.

 

No content again. That's a shame. Let's try again. Do you now see how New Institutionalism is relevant to this thread? We had neo-Keynesian analysis which, by ignoring Keynes' radicalism, generated the perfect storm for monetarism. We now have New Institutionalism which, by ignoring class conflict, attempts to bunnify the visible hand of market power. Given the current crisis is likely to intensify such power (and therefore rent), this is the very time to shift away from macroeconomic conservatism.

 

If you want government to be able issue debt-free fiat money to pay for public benefits without provoking inflation, you are going to have to stop private banksters from issuing so much debt money in pursuit of unearned interest income. There's the rub. During the pandemic, the banksters aren't issuing much private debt money because households and firms don't want to borrow money they see no clear way of repaying. So government can issue lots of debt-free money without provoking inflation, just to replace the debt money being destroyed by bank loan principal repayments. But once the pandemic is past, it will be back to business as usual unless the private commercial banks are reined in.

 

Correct: it's a shame you offered no content again.

I have always seen how it is relevant to your plan to derail the thread into your favored hobbyhorses.

Non sequitur.

"Bunnify"?? Pass.

Again, market power -- other than that conferred by bankster privilege -- is barely relevant to MMT.

 

One liners that are again only about offering spam. That really isn't good enough. The problem of course is that you haven't followed the discussion. You didn't know that monetarism was a reaction to the orthodox corruption of Keynesianism. You also didn't know that New Institutionalism provides too much celebration of market power. This is poor form, given the macro response to COVID-19 will certainly further inflame that market power. Why are you against macro policy which breaks through the shackles of conservatism?

 

There is a difference between not agreeing with your erroneous interpretations of economic ideas and not knowing facts. Your erroneous interpretations are not facts that those who disagree with you "don't know."

It's nothing to do with "market power." It's just a direct gift to the super-duper uber-rich. It will make things worse, but through a transfer of purchasing power, not market power.

Not all reforms are beneficial, and there are heavier shackles on offer than conservative ones. Like Marxist ones.

 

Zero content as usual. Of course this is about market power. As you ignore these issues you only inform me that you don't give a rats about rent.

 

MMT would enable citizens to vote on the application of market power in certain sectors of the economy;
eg, by permitting "costless"* nationalisation (paid for by state money issuance) of the energy sector (a natural monopoly), very advantageous in transitioning to a clean green economy.

(*given the necessary resources)

 

This is the focus which is needed. A realisation that rejection of conservatism can generate positive change. Macroeconomics has been in the doldrums for way too long.

 

Gideon Gono should be considered the spiritual father of MMT.

So, you are saying that money is wealth?

 

This won't do. Please critique MMT. That should involve economic comment. Good luck!

 

Money in the hands of private citizens is wealth.

OTOH, for the state - which issues the nation's currency - wealth is in its resource (not money) endowment.

 

LMFAO...Abba Lerner's head just exploded in his grave!

 

Nonsense. Abba Lerner knew that money in the hands of private citizens is "wealth".

OTOH, for the state - which issues the nation's currency - wealth is in its resources and people (not money) endowment.

[Gideon Gono as spriritual father of MMT is the ultimate misrepresentation from a blind ideologue. MMT is based on the state's available resources and productive capacity, NOT money].

 

Fossil fuel resources are monopolies and rightly considered a public trust, but only certain types of energy industry -- like the power grid -- are natural monopolies. Liquid fuels, for example, are not a natural monopoly.

 

Well...OK, but who (apart from maybe ships and aircraft) needs liquid fuels in a green economy?

 

It's a question of cost, not need.

 

All sustainability is about need. Perhaps the Georgism needs a kick?