Friday, October 9, 2015

Jesse A. Meyerson — Monetarily, We Are Already In The Next System…


This is really good in both matter and manner. Five stars.

Elasticity rather than scarcity.

The Next system
Monetarily, We Are Already In The Next System…
Jesse A. Meyerson
ht MoveThroughtIt in the comments

11 comments:

Dan Lynch said...

3 stars. Jesse gets off to a great start with the American Populists, but then fast forwards to Hyman Minsky -- neglecting Abba Lerner, C.H. Douglas, and others -- and attempts to portray the anti-union, anti-welfare, anti-Social Security Minsky as some sort of populist hero. Sorry, I'm not drinking that kool-aid.

Yes, Minsky understood fiat money when it suited his convenience, but at the same time he was a fiscal conservative when that suited his convenience, namely as an excuse to cut social programs that he didn't like anyway.

Let's not forget that Minsky's main political ally was fiscal conservative Senator Paul Simon, who tried to pass a balanced budget amendment and described himself as a "pay as you go" Democrat.

Dan Lynch said...

If Jesse had left out Minsky and instead tied the Populists to Abba Lerner, then I would have given it 5 stars. :-)

Matt Franko said...

Maybe Minsky was just stupid...

"stability breeds instability": this doesnt strike me as a very intelligent statement...

NeilW said...

"stability breeds instability": this doesnt strike me as a very intelligent statement...

Would you have preferred "success breeds arrogance" ;-)

Anonymous said...

Check #SOCAP15, interesting stuff.

Ryan Harris said...

I guess it is progress that the gold standard and bretton woods are in the rear view mirror of the popular media. Too bad that the outdated MMT model is being taught now and they don't just move onto our current monetary system as it exists and skip the old fashioned stuff. Oh well... not going to lose sleep over it.

Calgacus said...

The reason for falsely saying Minsky was "anti-union, anti-welfare, anti-Social Security", for Dan Lynch's animus against a dead man, escapes me. The real problem appears to be that Minsky advanced the understanding of economics - so he opposed UBI/BIG type lunacies enforcing poverty & benefiting plutocrats and instead favored workable programs to get rid of poverty like a JG. Sure, he may have erred in excessive fiscal conservatism - in a poorer world than today's. Who cares?

Matt Franko said...

Its not a very insightful statement or "hypothesis" Neil... sorry....

Why do we have to keep bringing up what dead people said anyway?

It creates factions/sects..... last I checked, there is no "Lutheran Mathematics" or "Roman Catholic Mathematics", etc....

Dan Lynch said...

@Calc, Minksy's distaste for welfare, unions, and Social Security are a matter of written record. I admire Hyman's contributions on some macro issues but his attitudes toward unions and transfer programs put him closer to Reagan than to the populists.

But good on Jesse for giving the 19th century populists their due. That's progress. Maybe someday MMT will go as far as to acknowledge Henry Carey and C.H. Douglas?

peterc said...

I think Jesse's post is fantastic. Great job!

Calgacus said...

Dan Lynch:Minksy's distaste for welfare, unions, and Social Security are a matter of written record No, they aren't. Not any record that anybody else has ever read or interpreted the way you have. Imho and other MMTers your reading of nuanced statements are very strained, tendentious and unjust.

On the basic issue of "transfer program" (like a BIG, which is more of a joke than a program) vs. a JG, Minsky's & MMT's point is basically that they have problems and don't work, have never worked, can't work as "a solution". Sure, there is a place for "welfare", as every society ever has always had such a place, as thinkers as opposed as Senior & Marx observed, at about the same time. Basically, a JG has no problems and does work, very well, always, for everyone but sadists. A money-using society without a JG is a lunatic asylum, just the same way that a slave-holding society was & would be a lunatic asylum.