MMT: overcoming the political divide.

The JG is not welfare, it is guaranteed socially useful participation in the economy (according to local needs), at above poverty level. If neoliberal orthodoxy could achieve real full employment in "invisible hand' economies (U6 < 2%), there would be no problem to fix.

I reckon MMT might gain more attention than Georgism in the near term, since central bankers are beginning to grapple with the MMT concept now, as covid19-induced government debts are sky-rocketing. I don't see much reference to Georgism.

As I said in that paragraph, I am HALF with Marx. I don't mind an invisible hand market rewarding special effort.

I'm all for publicly funded R&D.

And how will government fund "just compensation", to the extent required?

Ability to "contribute to the wealth of a community" (in the sense you are presenting the concept) is something like an ability to compose a symphony, ie depends on God-given talent, as well as desire/willingness to contribute. "From each according to his ability". Marx was right in that regard.

That's why I despise economic Libertarianism as nothing more than instinctive greed.

A point of agreement - and the reason for this thread.

It's a pity the Chinese government don't know MMT. Then they would know the question of how the government "can pay for it" is a non-issue, and they would easily overtake the West - with its banksters' debt model - in a decade.

.

All 4 of us already know that. But the **** in Los Angeles' air during normal traffic flows in business as usual IS the problem.

So who is going to pay for the upgrade and scrapping of much of the current vehicle fleet?

Now that's an interesting thought. The Indian government could raise sufficient funds by taxing landowners, to retrofit its coal plants?

And that's before the noxious ICE vehicle emissions problem, which is even worse than in Los Angeles.

 

This is inanity. Its just a matter of fact that Marx is an important figure in our understanding of property rights. Indeed, its not possible to refer to even orthodox approaches such as New Instituionalism without reference to his contribution. You've already been informed of this, so no excuse for continued ignorant view.

 

What an admirably candid evaluation of your post.

Right: just as Aristotle is an important figure in our understanding of slavery, Ptolemy is an important figure in our understanding of astronomy, and Lamarck an important figure in our understanding of genetics: they show how drastically even very intelligent people can go wrong when their basic factual assumptions are wrong.

You must be referring to the errors New Institutionalism imported from Marxism...

HAHAHAHAA You are amusing. The Wikipedia article on New Institutionalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_institutional_economics

does not appear to contain the word, "Marx" at all, proving your claim factually incorrect as well as ignorant.

AGAIN.

 

As usual you say nothing. Bit of a habit, isn't it? Which errors in New Institutionalism are you referring to? I look forward to your dodge

HAHAHAHA! You're totally reliant on Wikipedia aren't you?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHHHHAAAAAAA!

No, I just post the first Googled proof that you are wrong. As Wikipedia is usually the first site Google lists, that's as far as I need to go. There's no point in listing all the subsequent Google hits that also prove you wrong.

 

You continue to shoot yourself in the foot. When asked to refer to New Institutionalism you cant. You merely only inform everyone that you do not know the economics. You can only read Wikipedia and play pretend Thanks for that!

Now I refer directly to the evidence. Here's an example: Phillips (1985, Marx, the Classical Firm, and Economic Planning, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 8(2), pp. 266-276). You're welcome!

 

<yawn>

That, inevitably, does not support your claim.

You are very good at posting references... that either aren't relevant to your claim, don't say what you claim they say, or even disprove you. So, when are you going to post any evidence for your claim that it is not possible to refer to New Institutional economics without reference to Marx? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you will never be doing so.

 

Hahahaha! Look at you attacking my use of evidence (and trying to justify complete reliance on Wikipedia). Terribly cute.

We have a paper referring to previous research that acknowledges that Marx was the first economist to derive a theory on endogeneously determined property rights. We also have a paper that refers to how the new institutionalist approach to the firm is essentially Marx-minus (as it just leaves out his consideration of class conflict). Perhaps you're keen on the Bowles quote: "the Coasian view of the capitalist economy as a multiplicity of mini-communal economies operating in a sea of market exchanges is...superficially indistinguishable from the Marxian view".

But heck. You stick with Wikipedia.

 

<yawn> You didn't provide any evidence, just an irrelevant quote from an irrelevant paper.

So, when are you going to post any evidence for your claim that it is not possible to refer to New Institutional economics without reference to Marx? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you will never be doing so.

Which is wrong, as well as (surprise!) irrelevant to your claim.

So it actually isn't Marxist at all, as Marx without class conflict is just conceptually impoverished classical economics.

You are satisfied with superficiality. I know.

It's enough to demolish all your nonsense, anyway.

 

HAHAHAAHAAA! Put your glasses on. I am shooting fish in a barrel, here.

I did. As you know, but have to deny.

Well, at least it beats your method: pretending without even reading Wikipedia.

<yawn> So, when are you going to post any evidence for your claim that it is not possible to refer to New Institutional economics without reference to Marx, given that Marx is not mentioned in the entire Wikipedia article on New Institutional Economics? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you will never be doing so.

 

Still no content Who'd have thought?

We have Marx as the first theorist behind the New Institutionalist property rights approach. We have multiple examples of economists acknowledging that New Instititutionalism just took the Marxian perspective and made it weaker. And we have you using Wikipedia as you don't even understand what is being said. Keep going mind you. Everytime you give your content-free waffle I have a little chortle.

 

Thanks for the warning about your post.

Not you.

We of course do not actually have any of those things, just your empty and unsupported claims.

<yawn> So, when are you going to post any evidence for your claim that it is not possible to refer to New Institutional economics without reference to Marx, given that Marx is not mentioned in the entire Wikipedia article on New Institutional Economics? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you will never be doing so.

 

Tut tut, repetition in your dodge. I've referred to three economic sources that refer to the obvious: Marx derived the property rights analysis that was then utilised by New Institutionalism. We both know that you're clueless over what New Institutionalism entails. We both also know that you denied Marx's contribution in property rights analysis, only describing how little you really know. But hey, keep pretending

 

You got that right!

 

Yes well Conservatives are generally incapable of seeing beyond their own careless satisfaction with the status quo:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/01/water-shutoffs-us-coronavirus-utilities-economy

'It feels like nobody cares': the Americans living without running water amid Covid-19.

“I always pay my bills on time, but without work, I just didn’t have the money to cover everything, so I asked for an extension. They said no,” Haynes said.

The sad part is Trump could order the treasury and Fed, via their currency issuing capacity, to pay the bill by simply crediting Haynes' bank account (as outlined by Mosler in the OP) with no implication for inflation, during this pandemic.

 

Please continue, don't let me stop you!

 

Tut tut, repetition in your dodge:

<yawn> So, when are you going to post any evidence for your claim that it is not possible to refer to New Institutional economics without reference to Marx, given that Marx is not mentioned in the entire Wikipedia article on New Institutional Economics? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you will never be doing so.

 

Hahaha, still think Wikipedia is a credible source? Wowsers. I've referred to 3 economic sources, all confirming what I said. I appreciate you've boxed yourself into a corner, so don't mind repeating. Marx derived the property rights analysis that was then utilised by New Institutionalism. We know that as its only superficially different, as it just relaxes class conflict comment. Its essentially "Marxian-minus".

I wonder whether you're going through your play pretend routine as you desperately try to read up on New Institutionalism

 

Neoliberalism is particularly awful for the EU, because member states have forfeited their currency sovereignty while remaining politically 'sovereign', and the ECB - the only currency issuer in the EU, is prohibited from fiscal policy intervention beyond certain strict EU rules.

So the ECB has to break the rules - if Italy, Spain and increasingly France, are to avoid insolvency.

Professor Bill Mitchell explores the whole charade with reference to the latest German Federal Constitutional Court ruling on a dispute between the ECB's PSPP ( a fiscal operation) and the German government declining to participate in these operations.

[...A bit different to the US where (was it Trump) said "let the states go bankrupt" in reply to criticism that the rescue package passed by congress was inadequate to deal with state finances crippled by Covid-19].

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=44869

BVerfG decision once again exposes the sham of the Euro system

 

On average, Wikipedia is more factually accurate than the peer-reviewed papers you like to preen yourself over, because it can be scrutinized and corrected by millions of reviewers, not just a handful of the author's pals:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40614-019-00194-2

No, not one of them offered any support for your claim, which remains falsified. That is your normal modus operandi: cite an article that is either irrelevant, doesn't say what you claim it says, or outright contradicts you, and then claim to have provided evidence for your claims.

No, analysis of property rights absent the Marxist class conflict nonsense long antedates Marx, and was already more accurate.

That amused me. You really think your braying is enough to motivate me to read the trash you cite?

 

Hahahahaha! You're worse than a Trumpster. The idea that Wikipedia is a good source is quite cretinous. That you then refer to an irrelevant article from a peer reviewed journal is then just icing on the case. Please keep going. Mind where you put your foot

You still haven't worked it out? Gosh! I suppose it doesn't help that you don't know understanding either Marx or New Institutionalism. We have Marx first coming out with the property rights approach. We have economists acknowledging that any difference with the New Institutionalism approach is superficial. That they have a Marxian-lite property rights approach is just a matter of fact. The only debate is whether they lose anything by ignoring class conflict. Ironically, the Austrians would say that they do. The visible hand of the managerial planner is just as likely to be a victim of dispersed information as the socialist planner

I don't think you will read anything. Given you just peddle Georgist cobblers, you have no need. Georgism isn't vibrant after all, explaining Georgist learned helplessness

 

Don't forget checking below the bed and in the closet, Reiver. Henry George may be hiding in your room, watching you while you sleep.

 

Here is an interesting view of neoliberalism and the present pandemic, found in the comments section of professor Bill Mitchell's MMT blog:

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=44853&cpage=1#comment-67832

"The interchange between Neil and Jerry seems to be focused on whether the current pandemic is a serious enough blow to the neoliberal system to create a genuine opportunity to end it and replace it with something more humane and ecological........Don’t almost all of us on this blog want a better, more beautiful world than that of the neoliberal gerbil wheel, which grinds the marginalized and the natural environment as we frantically spin it? Only time will tell whether this sudden freezing of the neoliberal economy, which like some sharks must swim to breath, will have been been long enough to threaten its existence".

 

George is just one of thousands economic thinkers that have influenced the discipline. He's certainly irrelevant for this thread. Of course land obsession is actually about hiding from these debates.

The real issue remains application of conservatism to maintain the shackles of neoliberalism. Rather than looking for MMT solutions, the British government is already peddling austerity snake oil. Workers are deemed to be 'addicted' to furlough. Rather than long term capability of the economy, there are demands for elimination of health measures purely to bring back rent seeking behaviour as early as possible. Its the narrative that they spin which makes MMT so much more important for eliminating rent than long dead George.

 

No, because unlike, e.g., Marx, he was one of the handful who were factually correct.

No, because he was a greenbacker, which was an early form of MMT. You'll find a lot of sympathy for MMT-style monetary reforms among geoists because unlike you, they understand the problem is privilege and the symbiotic relationship between bankster privilege and landowner privilege, not employers, markets, or property rights in the fruits of one's labor.