... a government’s monetary sovereignty creates a potential for meaningful social progress. But it is only a potential, and can only be fulfilled through genuine democracy conducted by an informed citizenry.
Right now, it is perhaps fair to say that an informed citizenry and, as a consequence, genuine democracy, are almost entirely lacking in the specific area of macroeconomics.
At minimum, an informed citizenry would understand that, due to monetary sovereignty:heteconomist
If we can do it, we can afford it....
Unfulfilled Potential
Peter Cooper
10 comments:
"to allow its government to pretend otherwise would seem to reflect a state of almost collective hallucination."
This is correct .... It's stupidity.... a basic problem with cognition...
the thing is that the academic method of teaching via rote relies on coercion to be successful (academics threaten students with a failing grade) so if you can't get the people into a position where they can be coerced we can't depend on the academe to get us out of this... they are powerless to teach without that coercion..
The only reason the kleptocratic state invented funny fiat money was because THERE IS NO CONSENSUS to spend it on broad "social" programs. The purpose of funny fiat money was to shift wealth to the first recipients of the new money without the rest of society realizing that they had lost purchasing power to those first recipients while they have no understanding of the process at all.
The "progressives" can then whine and whine about inequality and how wealth is being transferred to the rich (duh) and blame it all on "capitalism". How pathetic.
Bob there is no evidence that anybody invented anything with regard to our current operations.... post a link to the design documentation... there isn't any...
MMT: scientific incompetence or political fraud?
Comment on Peter Cooper on ‘Unfulfilled Potential’
There is the political realm where, in principle, everyone is admitted. The currency in the political realm is opinion. Opinion is different from knowledge and the fact of the matter is that it is most of the time false or merely superficially plausible.
Accordingly, there is political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.
Theoretical economics (= science) has been body snatched by political economists (= agenda pushers). For the general public, science clones are virtually indistinguishable from scientists: “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”
What is missing in political economics is the true theory of how the actual economic system works.#1 The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit wrong. There is no such thing as a scientifically true economic theory, merely the pluralism of provably false theories.
Political economics is easy to recognize. Political economists do not talk about how the economy works but about freedom, liberty, democracy, overall welfare, justice, ethics, the conscience of a liberal/conservative, folk psychology/sociology, nationalism/globalism, and the bad elite versus the good little man. Political economics ― right-wing, left-wing does not matter ― has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years.#2
MMT is no exception. MMTers stand for a series of political priorities, first and foremost sovereignty: “… a government’s monetary sovereignty creates a potential for meaningful social progress. But it is only a potential, and can only be fulfilled through genuine democracy conducted by an informed citizenry.” (Cooper)
There is nothing to say against the political program of MMT except that it is backed by an economic theory and that this theory is provably false. The problem with MMT is this:
• it is based on inconsistent accounting identities,#3
• it is scientifically worthless,
• it amounts to a wellness program for the one-percenters,#4
• it claims to support the little man.#5
Either MMTers are in a state of scientific self-delusion or they are just another political fraud like Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and Pluralism.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The economist as standup comedian
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2016/11/the-economist-as-standup-comedian.html
#2 Economics: 200+ years of scientific incompetence and fraud
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/06/economics-200-years-of-scientific.html
#3 Rectification of MMT macro accounting
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/09/rectification-of-mmt-macro-accounting.html
#4 MMT and the magical profit disappearance
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/08/mmt-and-magical-profit-disappearance.html
#5 MMT is NOT an alternative to neoliberalism
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/08/mmt-is-not-alternative-to-neoliberalism.html
Why Bernie Sanders is unintentionally a godsend for the one-percenters
https://axecorg.blogspot.de/2017/02/why-bernie-sanders-is-unintentionally.html
Matt Franko said...
Bob there is no evidence that anybody invented anything with regard to our current operations.... post a link to the design documentation... there isn't any..
*****************************************************
Every stage of the implementation was an attempt at looting by the .1%.
Kuehn first demonstrates that it was the Fed's funding of WWI that caused an artificial boom and inflation. The problem was not caused by any failure of "the free market".
2. The austerity depression of 1920–21
During WorldWar I federal expenditures ballooned and although the new income tax was able to partially finance the war effort, most of the financing was done through federal borrowing and by the highly accommodating monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. The role of the Federal Reserve at this time was expressed unambiguously by the New York Federal Reserve Bank Governor Benjamin Strong, who told a Congressional committee in 1921 that ‘I feel that I, or the bank at least, was their [the Treasury’s] agent and servant in those matters’ and further added that the wartime inflation caused by the low interest rates maintained by the bank were ‘inevitable, unescapable, and necessary’ for prosecuting the war (Strong, 1930) [emphasis added}
This is the pure Rothbardian explanation. Wars are funded with fiat money which robs average people of purchasing power without the victims understanding exactly what is being done to them and without any due process of law. If the citizens had to make an immediate sacrifice in the form of a forced contribution of tax money to fund wars on a pay-as-you-go format, there would be far fewer wars. Kuehn then notes that the inflation encountered by the populace had been caused by the “expansionary policy of the Federal Reserve” and thus not any alleged “market failure”. After the war, such policy was “sharply curtailed” as was government spending leading to the predictable bust
http://bobroddis.blogspot.com/2012/08/daniel-kuehn-provides-factual-basis-for.html
AXEC / E.K-H said...
"The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit wrong."
I see no evidence that you understand the first thing about Austrian analysis or concepts.
Bob that is all gold standard era operations ... the whole point here is what we are doing post Breton Woods 1971....
"If the citizens had to make an immediate sacrifice in the form of a forced contribution of tax money to fund wars on a pay-as-you-go format,"
There would be no difference to output to war efforts the only difference would be the citizens could not save USDs ... those would be savings would instead go to taxes...
You could pay everyone $10,000 the first of the month and have a 100% tax on all USD accounts at the end of the month and run a balanced fiscal policy within the 30 day fiscal period and still operate a nice war effort...
Then there is just commandeering assets and forced conscription.
Lack of funding hasn't been much of a deterrent to war.
The major reason for funding war with taxation is inflation control. But that can be done through rationing and price controls.
As George Carlin said, "They own you."
Post a Comment