I don’t think any MMT economist’s position is that you can always print infinite amounts of money with no negative outcomes. So, like, I wouldn’t call the “concession” that that isn’t true “squirrely”.
And what do you mean by “propaganda” anyway? Propaganda is not a synonym for “wrong”.
For a brief synopsis, that seems about right.
Although, there is more to it, because even Mark Blyth, the economist I mentioned upthread who is critical of MMT, acknowledges that quantitative easing and other money printing policies both here and in the EU have not caused anything near the levels of inflation that more orthodox economic theories would have predicted.
Thanks. That’s helpful. I’ve read just a smidge of Kelton, enough to have a lot of questions. I’ll get back with you after I’m vaccinated and I can go to libraries again.
Lots of people, including friends of mine, have been expecting runaway inflation and economic collapse since August 15th, 1971.
What are the most probable scenarios where MMT diverges significantly from Keynesianism on what ought to be done?
I think it’s sell t-bills/borrow to pay for the stimulus v. quantitative easing/“lend” money to the central bank.
I don’t want to speak for Sir Attenborough. For myself, I definitely think that sand and gravel mining should be regulated appropriately to avoid harming vulnerable ecosystems or contributing to local or global pollution. To be completely candid though, my family actually consumes a lot less sand and gravel than you seem to think, so don’t give me too much credit for noble self-sacrifice here.
Anyways, thanks for your clarification. In my first read, like an ignorant child, I completely missed the (obvious in hindsight) allusion to overexploitation of sand/gravel deposits. Let us all come together and demonstrate the power of compassion and love to promote responsible management of mineral deposits of all types.
Strictly speaking, you’re the only one who’s being condescending. Obviously I think all your posts here are ridiculous and I’m not taking any pains to be polite about that, but I certainly never said that you were ignorant or that you needed to have things explained to you in a simple and childlike way so that you wake up one morning and get it.
As to what Dr. Suzuki wrote, my whole point is that there isn’t anything there to agree or disagree with, because it’s all a bunch of rhetorical flourishes built around a centerpiece of nothing at all. Talking about sand and gravel is cool, but it’s nowhere at all in the piece you posted. Also, what is the maximalist solution to the sand question that we’re supposed to abandon incrementalism to implement? Is recognizing our spiritual kinship with construction aggregates sufficient, or is there some concrete (
) action that should be taken to make things better?
Kind of gruching and I’m a little drunk. I’m going to assume incrementalism means trying to change things withing the system…
So lets assume its time to abandon it. What is the next step? Violent revolution? Chopping Elon Musk head off?
I don’t know what we should do but I do know we can’t keep doing what we are doing now. I keep trying to remind myself all I can control is what I do within my household and community. So I am trying to consume less and preach to others to do the same.
Will that be enough? Probably not. But it’s where I am at.
Decrease consumption of pretty much everything. There’s certainly more than one maximalist way to make this happen.
Interesting article about sand. I didn’t know desert sand wasn’t good for concrete.
I think the pushback you get stems from the fact you drop truth bomb after truth bomb and the majority of us, myself included, have a stong desire to stick our heads in the sand.
We are all complicit.
That being said I’m not ready to abandon incrementalism. This is going to take society making changes together. And it’s going to be small changes.
Or it might get so fucked up we will be forced to abandon incrementalism.
You worry a lot about the long term impact of consumerism for a guy who is going to be murdered by cyborgs in 2029.
Incrementalism was always a farce anyway; everything’s been getting steadily worse for 40 years except for the occasional tokenism or coat of paint. (It’s okay that Obama executed the greatest destruction of Black wealth in history, because he was a Black president!) But then I’m more of the idea that America is a dying, irredeemable empire and the only question left is when the shooting starts.
edit: Even in practical terms, if incrementalism could work, it would only work if you can maintain power long enough to continually enact reform. You can’t do four years of incrementalism one direction followed by four years of hastily shredding every incremental achievement and then some and get anywhere. I mean we have one party that fundamentally does not believe in the legitimacy of representative government; how do you increment your way out of that? Certainly not by working with them, and yet.
I’m going to ignore the rest of your post because it’s going to devolve into a big debate about what condescending means, which is useless. I will point out though:
Whatever swipes you perceive that I made at you before you came at me are entirely in your imagination. My post that got you upset was, unambiguously, my thoughts about an article that you posted for discussion on this discussion forum. I think it’s bad, and I explained why. Whatever you imagine is going on here beyond that, actually isn’t.
David Suzuki is well known and respected in Australia.