nathan wrote:
> Julio said... "The big problem I have with MMT is that it > does not make clear -- to me at least -- the fact that there is *no* > way -- absolutely *no* way in this universe -- in which "bond" > creation can make a society blow past its ceiling path." > > is this a joke Julio? "MMters" say this all the time. It's in fact the > whole premise of their position that real resources are the major > constraint we face and money can't change that. they especially make > this point. If this is the best you got, I'm not impressed. > > They've said it over and over again but I'll just extract one quote > from the last few months: > > " As long as the real resources (labor, raw materials, factory > capacity) are available, the financial resources (money) can always be > there. This can be done without causing inflation as long as the > additional spending does not outstrip the economy’s capacity to > produce." > > http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/05/the-laymans-case-against-austerity.html Okay. I stand corrected on that -- MMT *does* note that the ultimate constraint is available resources. However, note how they phrase things: > As long as ..., the "financial resources (money) can always be there. Full stop here. This is the crucial issue, is it not? If you have some arrangement for society to match resources to needs systematically -- call it "money" for now, for lack of a better term -- then explain what exactly this agreement would have in common with the current *money*, the *money* you and I are used to in this capitalist society, a society with market predominance, inequality, and all that. As a Marxist, I say, this social arrangement they call "money" would not be *money* or "financial resources" in any recognizable shape or form, because the implementation of said arrangement would entail the abolition of private ownership over productive wealth and, hence, of *money* as we know it. It is like saying that, in order for us to coordinate and regulate the traffic of things and people in our communal spaces, we need riot cops. No. We may need traffic facilitators (humans or robots, with some uniform) or whatever you wish to call them, but other than (possibly) appearance they would have nothing to do with the policing that consists of "managing" or repressing popular demonstrations. You know how we used to call this full-employment social arrangement, way back when? We used to call it communist planning. So, if the presumption (which, I believe, is pretty clear in the MMT phraseology) is that money and markets can continue to predominate in normal times, except that occasionally, the ruling class may need to violate the principle of private ownership in particular to preserve the principle of private ownership in general on which its power rests, then that is part of the problem. Again, I am not opposed to their demands that monetary policy be maxed to get the economy closer to full employment, but I cannot avoid the suspicion that they are hacking for markets and money. Nor am I saying that markets and money can or should be dismantled over night. I just think that we need to say things as they are. Maybe the MMT and socialists are closer than we think and this is the proverbial storm in a glass of water, but I continue to be under the impression that their argument is a bit too specious. It may be me. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
