An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
A ten million dollar idea is only a ten million dollar idea if there's ten million worth of purchasing power. Without a strong and abundant middle class how many Ipads would apple have sold. Steve jobs didn't create the high standard of living that enables Ipad purchases. How many Ipads were sold in Somalia.
Also, all ideas are crated in the public domain. Einstein's work was built upon Newton who built on Galileo. Bill Gates built windows from the xerox software. Unless you were born in a cave secluded from mankind your ideas are a result of interactions and works of others available in the public domain. Which is why patent laws have gone too far with 99 year rights. All ideas originate in the public domain and all should be returned as soon as possible for others to build and create from. Otherwise each generation will have to rediscover what previous ones already have. A very inefficient way to go about things. It could also form a modern feudalism. were land is replaced by intellectual property
Mike, Obama was talking about the "unbelievable American system" and specifically about "roads and bridges". He should have said "them" instead of "that". Grammatical error.
"Somebody helped to create this unbelieveable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges - if you've got a business that - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The internet didn't get created on its own - government research created the internet, so that all the companies could make money off the internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together."
Should have been:
"Somebody helped to create this unbelieveable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges - if you've got a business you didn't build them. Somebody else made them happen. The internet didn't get created on its own - government research created the internet, so that all the companies could make money off the internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together."
It's a bit like George W Bush sticking his foot in his mouth when he says something like:
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." (2009)
The point is, it seems obvious to me that Obama wasn't saying "you didn't build your business". That would be insulting and incorrect. It would be like saying "I didn't decide what to say just now - it was my parents and my teachers".
Of course people build their own businesses. They have the ideas, make decisions, take risks etc. But it happens within a social context, and the more conducive that context is to success, then the more likely your business is to succeed. Fox news is saying that Obama literally meant "you didn't build your business", but that's just typical of them.
They didn't spend two days calling Bush a supporter of terrorists and an enemy of the country when he said the above or the following:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
BTW countries like the US don't attack other countries for their resources any more? Are you absolutely sure about that?
histrionics of conservatives and libertarians aside, I think most people understand that their success is not from them alone and had some help. At issue though was that his statement implied that successful individuals own some type of debt or featly to the gov't (higher taxes?) for providing all of those services you mentioned.
The middle class isn't created in a lab. The middle class creates itself when individuals are free to compete and are not held down by corporate-state allegiance.
All ideas originate in the public domain and all should be returned as soon as possible
This is just wrong. All ideas originate from individuals, who can either patent those ideas because they live in a statist society, or they can utilize the ideas which are then mimicked by others, for their own production.
Your statement is almost identical in form to a theologian who says "All human life originates in God and all should be returned as soon as possible."
You are conflating "public domain" with "two or more individuals sharing ideas." No "public" political coercion is needed here.
Ideas originate in the minds of individuals (assuming one doesn't believe in divine inspiration), but individual minds need others. No man is an island.
I'd associate "public" with something shared by a given population and thus subject to a certain shared set of rules. You identify this as inherently "violent" or "coercive", which is really just a rhetorical technique for pushing forward your own ideology at every opportunity.
I went to a public park today and enjoyed sharing that space with people from my local commuity. I didn't feel "state violence" or "state coercion" at any point, though I did recognise that, being a shared space, certain shared rules had to be abided by.
"histrionics of conservatives and libertarians aside, I think most people understand that their success is not from them alone and had some help. At issue though was that his statement implied that successful individuals own some type of debt or featly to the gov't (higher taxes?) for providing all of those services you mentioned."
This is what citizenship is about and if a sense of good citizenship is lost, then the future of the country is doomed, as we are now seeing with cuts in education, healthcare, basic R&D, and infrastructure. If people don't all pitch in iaw abilities and means, then countries that are superior in coordination will eventually displace the US.
The only area in which public investment is increasing is having to do with military and intelligence, and these are source of considerable technological innovation that will find its way into the private sector, like the internet did. BTW, the interstate highway system was developed under President Eisenhower, formerly five-star Supreme Commander of Allied Forces, Europe, specifically for military logistics in emergency in order to quickly move troops and supplies around and across the country.
The notion that anyone "makes it on their own" in a complex society is nonsense.
y: "Ideas originate in the minds of individuals (assuming one doesn't believe in divine inspiration), but individual minds need others. 'No man is an island'."
Very, very few individuals are capable of originating an idea from scratch and turning it into a viable operation. It is very difficult to sell an untested idea, too, e.g., a patent. I know some people that have carried this through but it is a tough row to hoe and I've also seen many ideas ripped off. Having rights is one thing and enforcing them is another. Civil suits involve cost in funds, time, and energy.
Of course, creative artists can and do originate complex ideas that become novels, plays, musical compositions, etc.and non-fiction authors produce salable content, too. Lots of them sell their right to production and distribution to established venues.
But digital media are allowing independent artists to proliferate successfully.
I don't know if anyone has noticed but Cullen Roche has posted the latest 'updated' version of his magnum opus "Understanding the Modern Monetary System".
This 'paper' started life as a basic repetition of basic MMT concepts, and the following list of references was included at the bottom:
1 - Mosler, W. (1995), Soft Currency Economics 2 - Wray, R. (2007), Endogenous Money: Structural and Horizontalist 3 - Roche, C. (2010), MMT & The Concept of Vertical and Horizontal Money Creation 4 - Carpenter, S & Demiralp S. (2010), Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy 5 - Edesess, M. (2011), Beyond the Efficient Market Hypothesis 6 – Wikipedia (2011), Legal Tender Cases 7 – Keynes, JM. (1914), The Royal Economic Journal, vol. XXIV 8 – United States Secret Service, Know Your Money 9 – Roche, C. (2011), Hyperinflation – It’s More Than Just a Monetary Phenomenon 10 – Roche, C. (2011), Buffett’s Silly Talk About the US Debt 11 – FRBNY, Open Market Operations 12 - FOMC, Minutes, September 12, 1961, p. 49 13 – FRBNY – Administration of Relationships with Primary Dealers 14 – Wray, R. (2010), The Federal Budget Is Not Like a Household Budget
Miscellaneous Works Cited:
Understanding Modern Money, By L. Randall Wray Soft Currency Economics, by Warren Mosler 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds, by Warren Mosler Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability, By Scott Fullwiler It's Time to Rein in the Fed, By Scott Fullwiler and L. Randall Wray 9 Myths We Can't Afford, by L. Randall Wray and Marshall Auerback MMT and the Operational Realities of Our Monetary System, By Scott Fullwiler Deficit Spending 101 (part 1), (part 2), (part 3), by Bill Mitchell Barnaby, Better To Walk Before You Run, By Bill Mitchell Stock-Flow Consistent Macro Models, By Bill Mitchell Modern Central Bank Operations - The General Principles, Scott Fullwiler Sector Financial Balances Model of Aggregate Demand, by Scott Fullwiler Helicopter Drops Are Fiscal Operations, By Scott Fullwiler A collection of Essays by Wynne Godley, Wynne Godley The Financial Instability Hypothesis, Hyman Minsky The Natural Rate of Interest is Zero, Warren Mosler & Mathew Forstater The Neo-Chartalist Approach To Money, By Randall Wray Protecting the Budget From Intergenerational Warriors, By Galbraith, Mosler, Wray The Collapse of Monetarism and the Irrelevance of the New Monetary Consensus, James Galbraith.
Now Cullen Roche has changed one or two things in this 'updated version' of the paper. For example, he now refers to 'monetary realism' instead of MMT, and says a few more things about how important private business is and how much he likes banks, for example.
However, for some reason the new version of the paper, with its new little changes, has only the following list of references:
– FRBNY – Administration of Relationships with Primary Dealers 2 - Lavoie, Marc, ‘Changes in Central Bank Procedures during the Subprime Crisis and Their Repercussions on Monetary Theory’, Working Paper No. 606, Levy Economics Institute, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, August 2010. 3 – FRBNY, Open Market Operations 4 – Santoro, P. (2012), The Evolution of Treasury Cash Management during the Financial Crisis 5 – FRBNY – Administration of Relationships with Primary Dealers 6 - Kalecki, M. Theory of Economic Dynamics 7 – Roche, C., (2012) Where are Corporate Profits Headed? 8 – Clinton, K. (1997), Implementation of Monetary Policy in a Regime with Zero Reserve Requirements 9 – Carpenter & Demiralp (2010), Money, Reserves and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist? 10 – Fullwiler, S. (2008), Modern Central Bank Operations – The General Princplies 11 – Roche, C. (2011), Buffett’s Silly Talk About the US Debt 12 - Edesess, M. (2011), Beyond the Efficient Market Hypothesis 13 – Innes, A. (1913), The Banking Law Journal 14 – Wikipedia (2011), Legal Tender Cases 15 – Keynes, JM. (1914), The Royal Economic Journal, vol. XXIV 16 – United States Secret Service, Know Your Money 17 – Roche, C. (2011), Hyperinflation – It’s More Than Just a Monetary Phenomenon
All of a sudden, it's as if MMT never really existed! As if Colon Roach came up with this stuff on his own!!
All previous MMT references but 1 removed! Deleted! Even though he's still saying exactly the same things, just with a few word changes and bits and bobs thrown in!
He also refers to 'functional finance' without once making any reference to Abba Lerner! In fact he presents 'Functional finance' as if it's his own idea!
You can't trust this guy any further than you can kick him. Give him something to look after and he'll be passing it off as his own and trying to sell it to the first guy he meets for a quick buck.
Hey Mike nice video, but for future reference, the "Ayn" in Ayn Rand isn't pronounced like "Ann", it rhymes with "Mine". Which is quite fitting actually...
Great work on finding the change in Roach's references. I think that it is worthy of a post, just as a historical reference. We can't let pseudo-opponents use original MMT work without recognizing its true source. I hope Tom, Matt, Mike, or Roger recognizes the good work you have done.
At the same time people around Roach should be aware of the person that is leading them and how such an association will be perceived if Roach is unable to adequately justify the removal of references.
@Mike
Great video Mike. Although I can't help feel that the political impartiality of this blog is being undermined.....
I think Roche believes that if you take someone else's vase, drop it on the floor like a clumsy ass, then stick the pieces back together with glue so that some of the pieces are in the wrong place, the vase suddenly becomes your creation.
Then you can say to people "look, I made that!".
And if anyone challenges you, you can say "look, not all the pieces are in the same place, so it's obviously a totally different vase to the other one. Therefore, I made it!"
Folks perhaps in fairness to Cullen, I believe he was asked to disassociate with mmt when he took a position counter to the jg. So perhaps he is just now getting to this part of the 'paperwork'.
When and where was he asked to disassociate from MMT? Were MMTers going to allow Cullen to pass MMT work off as his own? It seems a bit strange that MMTers would agree to such terms.
We are not partisan here. But politics is as aspect of political economy, and if it turns out that one side or the other embraces a particular position, they have to be ready to take the heat for it wrt policy criticism.
BTW, there is no sharp demarcation separating ethical, social, political, legal, and economic. They all feed into the same grinder in the sausage-making. We are talking about the ingredients and the outcomes in terms the sausage as nourishment for a well society.
"The monetary system in the USA is designed specifically around a competitive private banking system... The banking system in the USA is a privately owned component of the system run for private profit. This was designed intentionally in order to disperse the power of money creation away from a centralized government and into the hands of non-government entities."
Really? Who "specifically intentionally designed" the system?
"The modern banking system is fragmented in such a way so as to disperse the power of money creation across both the private and public sectors. This is consistent with our form of government that is structured in such a way so as to avoid providing any branch of government with unchecked powers. So while the banks wield enormous power over the money supply it is incredibly important that the check on the banking sector be enforced via regulation, but also that the government’s power over money be regulated by the people."
Do you see what he does here? He equates banks (like JP Morgan) with "the people". JP Morgan serves as a "check and balance" on Big Government! JP Morgan defends "the people" from unchecked Big Government!
Anonymous, nothing wrong with criticizing someone but going personal weakens the case, cheapens the argument, and reflects poorly on the arguer. The more so when one posts anonymously.
27 comments:
A ten million dollar idea is only a ten million dollar idea if there's ten million worth of purchasing power. Without a strong and abundant middle class how many Ipads would apple have sold. Steve jobs didn't create the high standard of living that enables Ipad purchases. How many Ipads were sold in Somalia.
Also, all ideas are crated in the public domain. Einstein's work was built upon Newton who built on Galileo. Bill Gates built windows from the xerox software. Unless you were born in a cave secluded from mankind your ideas are a result of interactions and works of others available in the public domain. Which is why patent laws have gone too far with 99 year rights. All ideas originate in the public domain and all should be returned as soon as possible for others to build and create from. Otherwise each generation will have to rediscover what previous ones already have. A very inefficient way to go about things. It could also form a modern feudalism. were land is replaced by intellectual property
Miller
Good points
I agree completely. Even Warren Buffet said that he owed his prosperity to being born in the right environment.
Mike, Obama was talking about the "unbelievable American system" and specifically about "roads and bridges". He should have said "them" instead of "that". Grammatical error.
"Somebody helped to create this unbelieveable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges - if you've got a business that - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The internet didn't get created on its own - government research created the internet, so that all the companies could make money off the internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together."
Should have been:
"Somebody helped to create this unbelieveable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges - if you've got a business you didn't build them. Somebody else made them happen. The internet didn't get created on its own - government research created the internet, so that all the companies could make money off the internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together."
It's a bit like George W Bush sticking his foot in his mouth when he says something like:
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." (2009)
The point is, it seems obvious to me that Obama wasn't saying "you didn't build your business". That would be insulting and incorrect. It would be like saying "I didn't decide what to say just now - it was my parents and my teachers".
Of course people build their own businesses. They have the ideas, make decisions, take risks etc. But it happens within a social context, and the more conducive that context is to success, then the more likely your business is to succeed. Fox news is saying that Obama literally meant "you didn't build your business", but that's just typical of them.
They didn't spend two days calling Bush a supporter of terrorists and an enemy of the country when he said the above or the following:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
BTW countries like the US don't attack other countries for their resources any more? Are you absolutely sure about that?
histrionics of conservatives and libertarians aside, I think most people understand that their success is not from them alone and had some help. At issue though was that his statement implied that successful individuals own some type of debt or featly to the gov't (higher taxes?) for providing all of those services you mentioned.
miller B:
The middle class isn't created in a lab. The middle class creates itself when individuals are free to compete and are not held down by corporate-state allegiance.
miller B:
All ideas originate in the public domain and all should be returned as soon as possible
This is just wrong. All ideas originate from individuals, who can either patent those ideas because they live in a statist society, or they can utilize the ideas which are then mimicked by others, for their own production.
Your statement is almost identical in form to a theologian who says "All human life originates in God and all should be returned as soon as possible."
You are conflating "public domain" with "two or more individuals sharing ideas." No "public" political coercion is needed here.
"All ideas originate from individuals"
Ideas originate in the minds of individuals (assuming one doesn't believe in divine inspiration), but individual minds need others. No man is an island.
I'd associate "public" with something shared by a given population and thus subject to a certain shared set of rules. You identify this as inherently "violent" or "coercive", which is really just a rhetorical technique for pushing forward your own ideology at every opportunity.
I went to a public park today and enjoyed sharing that space with people from my local commuity. I didn't feel "state violence" or "state coercion" at any point, though I did recognise that, being a shared space, certain shared rules had to be abided by.
p.s. MF, are you against patents? What do you think about intellectual property in general?
"histrionics of conservatives and libertarians aside, I think most people understand that their success is not from them alone and had some help. At issue though was that his statement implied that successful individuals own some type of debt or featly to the gov't (higher taxes?) for providing all of those services you mentioned."
This is what citizenship is about and if a sense of good citizenship is lost, then the future of the country is doomed, as we are now seeing with cuts in education, healthcare, basic R&D, and infrastructure. If people don't all pitch in iaw abilities and means, then countries that are superior in coordination will eventually displace the US.
The only area in which public investment is increasing is having to do with military and intelligence, and these are source of considerable technological innovation that will find its way into the private sector, like the internet did. BTW, the interstate highway system was developed under President Eisenhower, formerly five-star Supreme Commander of Allied Forces, Europe, specifically for military logistics in emergency in order to quickly move troops and supplies around and across the country.
The notion that anyone "makes it on their own" in a complex society is nonsense.
Why would you need higher taxes when inflation is below 2% ?
y: "Ideas originate in the minds of individuals (assuming one doesn't believe in divine inspiration), but individual minds need others. 'No man is an island'."
Very, very few individuals are capable of originating an idea from scratch and turning it into a viable operation. It is very difficult to sell an untested idea, too, e.g., a patent. I know some people that have carried this through but it is a tough row to hoe and I've also seen many ideas ripped off. Having rights is one thing and enforcing them is another. Civil suits involve cost in funds, time, and energy.
Of course, creative artists can and do originate complex ideas that become novels, plays, musical compositions, etc.and non-fiction authors produce salable content, too. Lots of them sell their right to production and distribution to established venues.
But digital media are allowing independent artists to proliferate successfully.
"Why would you need higher taxes when inflation is below 2% ?"
It's an alternative to running larger deficits in response to massive wealth accumulation by a relative few.
Taxes need to be lower below $1 Million though.
I don't know if anyone has noticed but Cullen Roche has posted the latest 'updated' version of his magnum opus "Understanding the Modern Monetary System".
This 'paper' started life as a basic repetition of basic MMT concepts, and the following list of references was included at the bottom:
1 - Mosler, W. (1995), Soft Currency Economics
2 - Wray, R. (2007), Endogenous Money: Structural and Horizontalist
3 - Roche, C. (2010), MMT & The Concept of Vertical and Horizontal Money Creation
4 - Carpenter, S & Demiralp S. (2010), Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary
Policy
5 - Edesess, M. (2011), Beyond the Efficient Market Hypothesis
6 – Wikipedia (2011), Legal Tender Cases
7 – Keynes, JM. (1914), The Royal Economic Journal, vol. XXIV
8 – United States Secret Service, Know Your Money
9 – Roche, C. (2011), Hyperinflation – It’s More Than Just a Monetary Phenomenon
10 – Roche, C. (2011), Buffett’s Silly Talk About the US Debt
11 – FRBNY, Open Market Operations
12 - FOMC, Minutes, September 12, 1961, p. 49
13 – FRBNY – Administration of Relationships with Primary Dealers
14 – Wray, R. (2010), The Federal Budget Is Not Like a Household Budget
Miscellaneous Works Cited:
Understanding Modern Money, By L. Randall Wray
Soft Currency Economics, by Warren Mosler
7 Deadly Innocent Frauds, by Warren Mosler
Interest Rates and Fiscal Sustainability, By Scott Fullwiler
It's Time to Rein in the Fed, By Scott Fullwiler and L. Randall Wray
9 Myths We Can't Afford, by L. Randall Wray and Marshall Auerback
MMT and the Operational Realities of Our Monetary System, By Scott Fullwiler
Deficit Spending 101 (part 1), (part 2), (part 3), by Bill Mitchell
Barnaby, Better To Walk Before You Run, By Bill Mitchell
Stock-Flow Consistent Macro Models, By Bill Mitchell
Modern Central Bank Operations - The General Principles, Scott Fullwiler
Sector Financial Balances Model of Aggregate Demand, by Scott Fullwiler
Helicopter Drops Are Fiscal Operations, By Scott Fullwiler
A collection of Essays by Wynne Godley, Wynne Godley
The Financial Instability Hypothesis, Hyman Minsky
The Natural Rate of Interest is Zero, Warren Mosler & Mathew Forstater
The Neo-Chartalist Approach To Money, By Randall Wray
Protecting the Budget From Intergenerational Warriors, By Galbraith, Mosler, Wray
The Collapse of Monetarism and the Irrelevance of the New Monetary Consensus, James
Galbraith.
http://www.fullermoney.co.uk/content/2011-11-14/UnderstandingModernMonetaryTheory.pdf
Now Cullen Roche has changed one or two things in this 'updated version' of the paper. For example, he now refers to 'monetary realism' instead of MMT, and says a few more things about how important private business is and how much he likes banks, for example.
However, for some reason the new version of the paper, with its new little changes, has only the following list of references:
– FRBNY – Administration of Relationships with Primary Dealers
2 - Lavoie, Marc, ‘Changes in Central Bank Procedures during the Subprime Crisis and Their Repercussions
on Monetary Theory’, Working Paper No. 606, Levy Economics Institute, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY,
August 2010.
3 – FRBNY, Open Market Operations
4 – Santoro, P. (2012), The Evolution of Treasury Cash Management during the Financial Crisis
5 – FRBNY – Administration of Relationships with Primary Dealers
6 - Kalecki, M. Theory of Economic Dynamics
7 – Roche, C., (2012) Where are Corporate Profits Headed?
8 – Clinton, K. (1997), Implementation of Monetary Policy in a Regime with Zero Reserve Requirements
9 – Carpenter & Demiralp (2010), Money, Reserves and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the
Money Multiplier Exist?
10 – Fullwiler, S. (2008), Modern Central Bank Operations – The General Princplies
11 – Roche, C. (2011), Buffett’s Silly Talk About the US Debt
12 - Edesess, M. (2011), Beyond the Efficient Market Hypothesis
13 – Innes, A. (1913), The Banking Law Journal
14 – Wikipedia (2011), Legal Tender Cases
15 – Keynes, JM. (1914), The Royal Economic Journal, vol. XXIV
16 – United States Secret Service, Know Your Money
17 – Roche, C. (2011), Hyperinflation – It’s More Than Just a Monetary Phenomenon
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905625
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can anyone believe this guy?
All of a sudden, it's as if MMT never really existed! As if Colon Roach came up with this stuff on his own!!
All previous MMT references but 1 removed! Deleted! Even though he's still saying exactly the same things, just with a few word changes and bits and bobs thrown in!
Why would you need higher taxes when inflation is below 2% ?
To address the effects of economic rent. Michael Hudson explains this. Economic rent is inversely proportional to marginal tax rate.
He also refers to 'functional finance' without once making any reference to Abba Lerner! In fact he presents 'Functional finance' as if it's his own idea!
You can't trust this guy any further than you can kick him. Give him something to look after and he'll be passing it off as his own and trying to sell it to the first guy he meets for a quick buck.
Hey Mike nice video, but for future reference, the "Ayn" in Ayn Rand isn't pronounced like "Ann", it rhymes with "Mine". Which is quite fitting actually...
@Anonymous
Great work on finding the change in Roach's references. I think that it is worthy of a post, just as a historical reference. We can't let pseudo-opponents use original MMT work without recognizing its true source. I hope Tom, Matt, Mike, or Roger recognizes the good work you have done.
At the same time people around Roach should be aware of the person that is leading them and how such an association will be perceived if Roach is unable to adequately justify the removal of references.
@Mike
Great video Mike. Although I can't help feel that the political impartiality of this blog is being undermined.....
I think Roche believes that if you take someone else's vase, drop it on the floor like a clumsy ass, then stick the pieces back together with glue so that some of the pieces are in the wrong place, the vase suddenly becomes your creation.
Then you can say to people "look, I made that!".
And if anyone challenges you, you can say "look, not all the pieces are in the same place, so it's obviously a totally different vase to the other one. Therefore, I made it!"
Folks perhaps in fairness to Cullen, I believe he was asked to disassociate with mmt when he took a position counter to the jg. So perhaps he is just now getting to this part of the 'paperwork'.
Rsp
When and where was he asked to disassociate from MMT? Were MMTers going to allow Cullen to pass MMT work off as his own? It seems a bit strange that MMTers would agree to such terms.
"the political impartiality of this blog"?
We are not partisan here. But politics is as aspect of political economy, and if it turns out that one side or the other embraces a particular position, they have to be ready to take the heat for it wrt policy criticism.
BTW, there is no sharp demarcation separating ethical, social, political, legal, and economic. They all feed into the same grinder in the sausage-making. We are talking about the ingredients and the outcomes in terms the sausage as nourishment for a well society.
Mike, Well said!
Some intellectual gems from mr roche:
"The monetary system in the USA is designed specifically around a competitive private banking system... The banking system in the USA is a privately owned component of the system run for private profit. This was designed intentionally in order to disperse the power of money creation away from a centralized government and into the hands of non-government entities."
Really? Who "specifically intentionally designed" the system?
"The modern banking system is fragmented in such a way so as to disperse the power of money creation across both the private and public sectors. This is consistent with our form of government that is structured in such a way so as to avoid providing any branch of government with unchecked powers. So while the banks wield enormous power over the money supply it is incredibly important that the check on the banking sector be enforced via regulation, but also that the government’s power over money be regulated by the people."
Do you see what he does here? He equates banks (like JP Morgan) with "the people". JP Morgan serves as a "check and balance" on Big Government! JP Morgan defends "the people" from unchecked Big Government!
How does anyone get to be so dumb?
http://pragcap.com/understanding-the-modern-monetary-system-part-3
Roche endlessly contradicts himself and writes like a child.
Anonymous, nothing wrong with criticizing someone but going personal weakens the case, cheapens the argument, and reflects poorly on the arguer. The more so when one posts anonymously.
Post a Comment