MMT is a Good Bet For Progressives and the Left

There has been discussion in the economic blogosphere recently, from a left perspective, about the merits or otherwise of employing an understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in debates over policy and efforts to transform the economic system. There is an interesting post, for example, by Dan at Pruning Shears (h/t Tom Hickey) suggesting that MMT might be a “dicey bet for liberals”. In reading this and similar arguments presented elsewhere, I find myself agreeing on some (though certainly not all) points, but differing in the conclusion to be drawn from them.

While Dan does acknowledge the relevance of MMT to the austerity debate, and its significance in this respect, he writes:

Nothing about Modern Monetary Theory is inherently just or equitable. It is … just a description of the way the world works – which is why I don’t really understand liberals putting a whole lot of time or energy into it. If one’s priority is the establishment (or protection) of just and equitable policies, Modern Monetary Theory is a terrible place to start. Every bit of time and effort getting it broadly accepted will get you precisely zero percent closer to those goals.

I agree that MMT does not dictate a particular political stance. If we were all equally informed about MMT, the effect would basically be politically neutral (though, granted, no analytical framework can be completely neutral). Personally, I think that this is a good quality for a macroeconomic framework to possess. It enables competing policy and theoretical analyses to occur on the basis of a shared and hopefully accurate interpretation of present institutions and sound macroeconomic and national accounting principles.

But although MMT in itself is more or less politically neutral, at the moment we are far from sharing equally the understanding it enables. Unfortunately, “the powers that be” appear to understand MMT much better than the rest of us. This has made it easy for them to confuse and deceive many people in a way that, as Dan notes, suits their purposes.

Unlike many of us, some people in very powerful positions do appear to understand that there is no revenue constraint on government spending, and they make use of this knowledge to expand military spending and pass tax breaks for the wealthy while at the same time leading the rest of us to believe that cuts in social spending are necessary and unavoidable. This is not a danger that might result from taking a “dicey bet” on MMT. It is the reality right now, and will remain so for as long as this knowledge is mainly only in elite hands and not ours. A benefit of disseminating MMT is to reduce the level of confusion and deception in the general community.

I don’t know about the circles others move in, but in “my circles” (Australia) there is plenty of confusion. It does not seem uncommon to encounter people who think the government has run out of money. They do often believe that much of the suffering caused by austerity is regrettable but unavoidable. They are not necessarily ideologically predisposed to austerity but have been deceived into thinking a household budget is like the government budget. Survey evidence appears to bear this out.

When we come to understand that a currency-issuing government faces no revenue constraint and sets the terms on which it spends (there is no danger, for example, of bond vigilantes impeding that process), it becomes clear that anything within resource limits is potentially on the industrial and political table. Yet, in complete contradiction of reality, the powers that be currently have many of us believing that government (and hence we) are beholden to the profit motive and helpless in the face of the demands of the major corporations, when in fact it is the currency-issuing government that sets the limits within which the profit motive is operative, if at all. Anything from hard left to hard right is possible, but right now many believe that only the neoliberal policy approach is viable.

Admittedly, mere knowledge of the possibilities does not help bring those possibilities about. That will take concerted effort from below. It will require an exertion of democratic pressure on government that, as we all know, is all too happy to serve elite interests. There is no easy solution to that problem. In this respect, Dan and others are undoubtedly correct to ask, “Suppose we did understand MMT, then what?” All the real problems would still be here. Although we would be better able to distinguish real challenges from fake ones, the real challenges would still remain.

There is no reason we can’t be pushing forward on those real challenges at the same time as disseminating MMT. Out of necessity, some will be more focused on disseminating MMT while others primarily or entirely focus on concrete struggles. Both tasks seem necessary, but one task does not need to be delayed until the other is completed. Some people will be receptive to certain concrete demands irrespective of any supposed fiscal concerns. Others, as Dan mentions, might ask “what about the money?”, at which point the question can be addressed. I suspect it is a question that will arise often, and will need to receive a convincing answer.

If the charge is simply that it would be foolish to put on hold all concrete demands until MMT is widely disseminated and understood, it is clearly true, and I doubt any MMTer would disagree. We might be waiting for a very long time if that were the approach. It is extremely difficult to get any message out when up against powerful forces and the universal reach and perceived credibility of the mainstream media. And even if the message is conveyed, many in the public may not be receptive, even resistive. Who wants to accept the implication, for instance, that they lost their job for no good reason? Some will cling to the neoliberal lie that their misfortune is a necessary sacrifice for the long-term benefit of the community. MMT offers hope, but requires a change in thinking. Neoliberalism requires “noble suffering” but no change in belief.

Both tasks — an assault on false consciousness and pursuit of concrete goals — need to be tackled at the same time, even if largely by different people. Success in concrete struggle is partly contingent on making headway in the battle over ideas. The more MMT or similar insights from related approaches to macroeconomics cut through into the collective consciousness, the more we level up the playing field for making progress in our social struggles. This is true irrespective of whether “our” particular progressive or left preference is for managed capitalism, social democracy, socialism, communism, anarchism or something else.

Conversely, overcoming false consciousness is partly contingent on securing victories in concrete struggle. Elite claims that the introduction of public healthcare will cause the sky to fall in might work before implementation, but once a program is operating smoothly and the sky remains up there, in the sky, the message gets across just a little bit more that perhaps the official position was a lie. Maybe the official position is, in general, a lie.

At the recent Rethinking Economics Conference (starting at about 4:46 in the video for part 3 of the Macroeconomics and Policymaking session), an attendee asked Paul Krugman for his thoughts on being a Nobel laureate. Krugman observed that it is a credential that helps to get your opinion taken seriously in public debate, but a credential that, unfortunately, sometimes goes to people you might wish were not so enabled.

In a way, it could be said that an understanding of MMT is similar. It is an understanding that empowers, but we can’t choose – and have no right to choose – who it empowers. It is knowledge, and, as knowledge, should rightly be obtainable by all. But, as it happens, it is not so much us who should be worrying about a possible empowerment of the powers that be. They are already empowered. Like so much of MMT, we need to flip things the other way round to see things as they actually are: it is us who stand to receive knowledge that the powers that be already possess and would prefer we never possessed.

So, the way I see it, we should be glad that MMTers and others in related approaches to macroeconomics have developed an understanding that, if widely accepted, helps to tilt the playing field back on level terms. This is a gift that possibly they would prefer some of us more left-leaning troublemakers never received. Yet, they offer the gift all the same. What we can make of it is up to us.

22 thoughts on “MMT is a Good Bet For Progressives and the Left

  1. I do not know of any MMTers who “would prefer some of us more left-leaning troublemakers never received” the “gift” of “an understanding” that “a currency-issuing government faces no revenue constraint and sets the terms on which it spends (there is no danger, for example, of bond vigilantes impeding that process), [to wit] that anything within resource limits is potentially on the industrial and political table.” Do you? If you do, can you name some names? If anything, I may know some “left-leaning troublemakers” who resist receiving such a “gift” and/or certainly disseminating it widely for it undermines their ‘theory’ (received, usually) that capitalism cannot be undone except via violent revolution.

  2. A few too many left-leaning or outright left folks do not want to give up THEIR moral tales about how the state acts to extract resources from them TO GIVE THEM to the capitalists or “the rich”. They use the image/fiction of a redistribution via federal taxation and federal spending of already existing resources FROM the honest and hard-working TO the dishonest, idle, parasitic, exploiters to gain the allegiance of those whom they seek to interpellate as ‘honest and hard-working’ for their revolutionary ideals. The two processes, taxation on the one hand, borrowing and spending on the other, as independent to one another either does not ‘compute’ for them or they reject the notion for extraneous reasons. They cannot accept that we do not extend federal government spending for THEIR preferred policies (and mine) independently of not having taxed enough of the wrong people enough. That it is an actual, old-fashioned POLITICAL choice, NOT constrained by ‘affordability’ and the ‘source of that affordability’.

  3. No, I don’t know of any MMTers who would prefer for some to not receive the understanding. (That sentence was intended to be tongue in cheek.) I tend to see most, if not all, of the leading MMTers as on the left. And even if some are not on the left, I think they are very happy for as many people as possible to gain the understanding. I think they believe that knowledge is valuable for its own sake, and I very much agree with them on that.

  4. From Dan’s post

    “Those on the left tend to fall back on a sort of ‘MMT plus’ formulation, as Alice does: ‘Speaking only for myself, I consider increasing taxes on the rich as necessary for preserving democracy.’ Right, because Modern Monetary Theory can be used to justify cutting taxes, and whoever wins the battle for the soul of MMT will get to decide just how liberal – or neoliberal – it will be in practice. Which side would you bet on, particularly if it starts to be taken seriously? Political and economic elites have a pretty good track record of co-opting movements. One that has the enormous wiggle room of Modern Monetary Theory’s non-monetary theory components could be immediately put in their service, without even a brief period of progressive utility.”

    No comments.

  5. Peterc,

    Your points have been explained to Dan over and over and over again, yet he repeats the same errors, not even bothering to alter his arguments to counter objections. I think we must acknowledge there are a good number of people choosing willfull ignorance so as to maintain their ideological model.

  6. Magpie, I’d make a couple of separate points in relation to that passage.

    The first is that if MMT is correct (I mean particularly in terms of the monetary analysis and implications for fiscal capacity) — which I think it is — then it is correct. End of story. If this leaves political possibilities open, then they are open. As I think Ben in his comment is alluding to, if we don’t care about the correctness of an analysis, only the ideology it serves, then I don’t think it should be taken seriously.

    There seems to be a feeling from some (certainly not you, quite the reverse) that we should just try to convince people of a particular set of policies or the superiority of a particular economic system without any regard to truth or accuracy, as if deceiving people into supporting a particular program is fine. I am on the side of those who think we should instead focus on telling the truth (as far as we are capable of ascertaining it) so that everyone is empowered to come to a better informed opinion over what sort of society they want.

    If it turns out that a majority want something we don’t, so be it. Heck, if everybody has the same information and a majority sees things differently from the left, maybe we are out of step. I say put the truth out there and let the chips fall where they may.

    However (my second point), I really don’t think the truth will hurt our cause. As far as I can tell, the majority are not in favor of tax breaks for the wealthy or right-wing solutions in general. True, TPTB favor them, but as discussed in the post, they appear already to be taking advantage of MMT-like understanding to grant themselves tax breaks and undertake military adventurism. It is only when it comes to Main Street that they feign ignorance. They have the knowledge, most of us don’t.

    Indications are that a majority, at least in Australia, appears to prefer higher taxes on the wealthy and is far from enthuastic about neoliberalism. A few survey results from the article linked to in the post: 67% of Australians (if the deficit must be reduced) support higher taxes on corporations and 57% support removal of tax breaks for high-income households. Only 23% support cutting unemployment and sickness benefits. Only 38% support cutting “middle class welfare”. (Incidentally, one point I tend to differ on compared with Bill Mitchell and perhaps other MMTers is his preference for means-testing. IMO, that is a way to weaken support for a program. Universality gives programs more resilience.) Strong majorities in Australia still oppose past privatizations of Telstra, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank. A majority are in favor of the establishment of a public bank (only 23% oppose). And this is a country that is probably as politically conservative as any developed nation other than the US.

    To the extent people are currently resigned to the neoliberal policies of the past four decades I really think it is out of a (very much) reluctant acceptance of TINA. They believe the lie that anything else is unaffordable and unviable. MMT makes clear that this is false.

    Even if we were trying to be purely strategic and had no regard for truth, why would we want to mix lies into the argument, with risk of exposure, when the basic MMT insights make crystal clear that TINA is a fiction and a solid majority appears to be opposed to the direction neoliberalism has taken the country?

  7. Peter,

    Honestly, I am not trying to cause trouble. Believe this. And I totally agree with this:

    “I say put the truth out there and let the chips fall where they may.”

    I’d have no problem whatever, if that were the general attitude. But, let’s not fool ourselves, you know as well as I do that there are those who don’t play by those rules. There are those who are actively, openly, everyday trying to give MMT their own twist and pushing other people’s views out of their way.

    Like I said, I don’t want to rock anybody’s boat, and I don’t want to put you in an uncomfortable position, so I won’t mention names, but you are my witness: haven’t you yourself seen that here in this very blog with your own eyes?

    Maybe you haven’t seen in other blogs and like I said, I won’t mention names, but trust me on this, even the better-known, more senior MMT proponents have been victims of that. This Prof. said something someone found slightly “unorthodox” and then the commentator starts with the scorn, pulling objections off his ass.

    Frankly, I don’t know what Dan’s intention was, but as I interpreted his post, it was a call for reflection. What’s wrong with that?

    I’m not asking you to do anything. If things are just honky dory for you (and I’ll leave you to judge), well, good for you. Maybe I’m mistaken.

    But I for one, am concerned, not so much with the theory behind MMT, but with the shape people are giving it.

  8. Peter, thanks so much for this thoughtful and detailed response. I really enjoyed reading it – very well argued and persuasive.

    One note from the comments – you write “if we don’t care about the correctness of an analysis, only the ideology it serves” etc. I tried to be clear in the post that the monetary theory part of MMT is correct, and accurately describes how the world works. I don’t dispute that. My angle is: As a liberal, I suspect promoting this particular true thing that exists in the world might not be the best use of our time.

    For progressives to pour energy into promoting a correct analysis, then see it used to cut taxes, would be a terrible outcome. Sure, it might not be used that way – it might be used for a federal job guarantee, Medicare for all, etc. But it might not. Hence, dicey. Better to lobby directly for one’s preferred outcome.

    I’m definitely a partisan, so I care very much about whose ideology is being served. That isn’t mutually exclusive with believing that true things ought to be endorsed, even when they conflict with ideology. I’m just questioning the ROI for liberals aggressively promoting MMT.

    But that’s just a quibble. Again, I really enjoyed your post.

  9. Thanks for clarifying, Magpie. Don’t feel you’re creating trouble. I won’t think that.

    Sounds like I need to spend some time visiting more blogs outside my normal routine. There’s so much to keep up with!

    I notice there were references to a popular liberal website in comments to one of Dan’s posts. Is that somewhere I should be looking?

    To be clear, I didn’t at all interpret Dan’s post as badly intentioned. As indicated in the post, I thought it interesting and, evidently, worth riffing off. At the same time, I was not aware of the history that perhaps Ben above is referring to.

  10. Thanks for the kind words, Dan. I only saw your comment after putting up my previous one. As indicated, I enjoyed your post also and now have another blog to keep up with.

    Thanks for clarifying your position (for my benefit). I agree, this is just a quibble at most, but something I found interesting to discuss. Cheers.

  11. The way it apppears to me is that many if not most progressives buy into the false government as big household analogy that makes a currency sovereign out erroneously as a currency user. This means that progressives think that their proposals have to be funded either by revenue and borrowing or by cutting other programs. So they recommend financing progressive goals using higher taxes and cuts to corporate subsidies and the military.

    However, MMT shows that these are two separate battles. It is possible to fund progressive policy proposals with currency issuance without generating inflation if it done according to a correct understanding of how the system works. This has the advantage of removing the chief objection to progressive policy, which is “affordability.” Then we can a debate on the merits and what the public prefers based on reality rather than myth.

    Inequality is a separate issue and has separate causes and therefore is more properly addressed separately. It’s a different fight.

    Some see strategic and tactical advantage to conflating the two, but others don’t. Michael Hudson, for example, who considers himself and MMT proponent often says that are out of paradigm with MMT based on the former choice of combined attack (killing two birds with one stone). That’s an option, but it does require playing loose with the truth, to which some would object. The answer to that is politics ain’t beanbag; bring a gun to a knife fight because the other guy is sure to.

    Most MMT proponents follow the strategy of separating the issues and attacking them on the merits.

    There are people doing both, so it’s up to individuals to choose which strategy to adopt and with whom to ally.

  12. In this blog Peter seems to equate MMT with Functional Finance while ignoring the other aspects of MMT. It’s those other aspects that bother me (and I think Danps, too.)

    I’m all for educating the public on functional finance. Tho as Danps pointed out, functional finance alone does not get you a left wing agenda — the right can and will use FF to justify more tax cuts for the rich, more wars, more spying, etc..

    Getting back to those other aspects of MMT — here are some things that I see as a problem for the left:

    — MMT embraces free trade, which has been a disaster for the American middle class and a boon for the 1%.

    — MMT’s minimum wage JG benefits the capitalist class by transforming Kalecki’s pool of desperate unemployed people into a pool of slightly less desperate marginally employed people. It’s a kinder gentler way of maintaining a pool of cheap labor for the benefit of the business class. A JG might be “step forward,” as Peter puts it, but it’s hardly inspiring.

    — MMT’s theory of inflation is flawed and contradictory. The JG “price anchor” theory assumes that if you anchor the price of one thing that somehow anchors the price of everything else, too, which is a highly questionable theory, especially when the thing in question is unskilled labor. When was the last time there was a major inflationary episode attributed to unskilled labor?

    With the other side of its mouth MMT acknowledges that most inflation is driven by oil. Well, which is it, oil or unskilled labor?

    With one side of its mouth MMT advocates for a floating currency and with the other side of its mouth MMT advocates pegging the currency to unskilled labor.

    With one side of its mouth MMT embraces the FF theory of inflation and with the other side of its mouth MMT rejects the FF theory of inflation by claiming the currency needs to be pegged.

    — inequality is the defining economic issue of our age and yet MMT has no plan to fix inequality. MMT takes a dim view of taxing the rich.

    — MMT inherits Minsky’s hostility toward transfer programs to redistribute wealth.

    — MMT inherits Minsky’s BS claim that “my policies are more politically viable than your policies” even though they’ve never been able to implement their policies. The reality is that we are ruled by oligarchs and there is no “politically viable” progressive economic path within the oligarchy. It may take a revolution to change things.

    I consider myself a “friend” of MMT, and I mostly agree with FF, with Sectoral Balances, and with the focus on real resource limitations. But other aspects of MMT strike me as being flawed and/or having a conservative slant.

  13. Peter, as far as history goes, I wrote a series of three MMT posts in May/June that got a heavy response when I cross posted elsewhere. My post last week links to a couple of the earlier posts, which in turn link to a couple of the posts being referred to. I wouldn’t recommend following unless you like extremely long and contentious comment threads, though it *would* let you see the kind of response MMT criticism from the left often generates. Ben’s comment above gives you a taste.

  14. Dan: Thanks for the info. I hadn’t realized about the cross posting of earlier posts and ensuing comments.

    Dan L: Yes, I should have been more explicit in the post that I particularly had in mind the monetary analysis, especially as it pertains to fiscal capacity. I think a case could be made that full MMT is still essentially politically neutral (provided FE is seen as a pretty much universally shared macro objective) but acknowledge that there appear to be different views on what is and is not part of MMT proper.

    Just a small quibble on one point. Bill M, at least, has made clear that he is for ‘fair trade’, not ‘free trade’. Also, I think it is clear that an openness to trade presupposes full employment is maintained at home. I’ll leave it for others to engage with your other points, if they wish. Thanks for your thoughts, as always. Yours too, Tom!

  15. There are three aspects of MMT, the operational description, the SFC approach to theoretical modeling, and policy formulation.

    Basically, MMT as an operational description and SFC approach based on accounting shows the policy available in a monetary production economic under various monetary regimes and institutional arrangements. This delineates the boundaries of what is possible as a priori knowledge.

    The theoretical aspect is a causal explanation that like all other casual explanations cannot be known to be true a priori. A superior theory is consistent and corresponds to data, while providing the most economical explanation. Some theories are valued as contributions to knowledge, whereas others are also of practical use. As a theory, MMT can be judged on these criteria.

    Policy also contains a normative aspect in addition to a positive one. Therefore, theories can be used differently for policy formulation based on difference of ideological norms.

    Macroeconomic is a policy science that can be used by different ideologies. Some approaches to macro fit the above criteria better than others. But in policy formulation they are all used to advance ideological objectives. MMT is no different, other than it claims to be the superior operational description and theory. That is contested, of course.

    Generally speaking policy aims at resolving the trifecta of growth, price level and employment. Most approaches to macro other than MMT hold that only two of these factors can be achieved simultaneously. MMT claims that it is possible to achieve investment-led growth, price stability allowing for moderate inflation, and full employment in the sense that anyone willing and able to work has a job offer above subsistence requirements including social insurance.

    While the macro focus is economic expansion commensurate with population growth, price stability, and “full employment” however that is defined, the social issue is about individuals living a good life in a good society.

    Economics is only one aspect of that, albeit an important one. John Kenneth Galbraith approached that in The Good Society and Economics and the Public Purpose from the vantage of social liberalism or rights liberalism, for example. Hayek, Rothbard and Milton Friedman take the position of economic liberalism. These conflicting POV’s are based on different ideological norms. Whatever one thinks of these different approaches they are comprehensive and well-developed.

    An MMT version has yet to be written from any angle. There’s plenty of opportunity for thinkers of different persuasions to build on MMT insights. It doesn’t need to be “MMT” as long as relevant contributions are acknowledged and cited where appropriate.

    “Let a hundred flowers bloom.”

  16. I’m all for educating the public on functional finance. Tho as Danps pointed out, functional finance alone does not get you a left wing agenda — the right can and will use FF to justify more tax cuts for the rich, more wars, more spying, etc..

    That is a point peterc specifically addressed in his post: the right is already doing all these things because their leadership knows how our monetary system works. MMT is in the end a public education program with the goal of teaching everybody what those people have known and used to their advantage for a long time.

    MMT embraces free trade, which has been a disaster for the American middle class and a boon for the 1%.

    Free trade is not what has damaged the American middle class and enriched the 1%, free movement of capital is responsible for this. These two are not the same things.

    MMT’s minimum wage JG benefits the capitalist class by transforming Kalecki’s pool of desperate unemployed people into a pool of slightly less desperate marginally employed people. It’s a kinder gentler way of maintaining a pool of cheap labor for the benefit of the business class. A JG might be “step forward,” as Peter puts it, but it’s hardly inspiring.

    Many MMT advocates, including myself, do not envision a marginal employment program at the minimum wage. There is nothing which would make impossible enacting a national jobs program at a living wage with a robust apprenticeship component. Don’t want to work in construction any more? The JG will train you in the field of your choice and create a position for you upon completion until such time as you choose to leave it.

    MMT’s theory of inflation is flawed and contradictory. The JG “price anchor” theory assumes that if you anchor the price of one thing that somehow anchors the price of everything else, too, which is a highly questionable theory, especially when the thing in question is unskilled labor. When was the last time there was a major inflationary episode attributed to unskilled labor?

    While I do question the sometimes description of a JG as the “key” to price stability, there is no reason to think it will not play a significant role in moderating fluctuations associated with booms, busts and potentially transitional periods in labor capacity. I would suggest the primary effect will be to establish a floor which effective demand will tend to remain above, making deflationary spirals less likely.

    With the other side of its mouth MMT acknowledges that most inflation is driven by oil. Well, which is it, oil or unskilled labor?

    MMT has never, to my knowledge, implicated unskilled laborers as bearing responsibility for inflation.

    With one side of its mouth MMT advocates for a floating currency and with the other side of its mouth MMT advocates pegging the currency to unskilled labor.

    You’re conflating external valuations on the fx markets with domestic price stability.

    With one side of its mouth MMT embraces the FF theory of inflation and with the other side of its mouth MMT rejects the FF theory of inflation by claiming the currency needs to be pegged.

    What peg? Gold, Yen? No one is talking about pegging to a wage level.

    inequality is the defining economic issue of our age and yet MMT has no plan to fix inequality. MMT takes a dim view of taxing the rich.

    Putting workers in position to discipline their bosses will be a major step toward addressing inequality. Furthermore I am unaware a major figure in MMT who does not support raising taxes for this very issue. MMT advocates typically take a dim view of relying on tax increases as a significant solution and history indicates that view is well-founded.

    MMT inherits Minsky’s hostility toward transfer programs to redistribute wealth.

    MMT states there is no such thing as transfer, period. It’s an illusion.

    MMT inherits Minsky’s BS claim that “my policies are more politically viable than your policies” even though they’ve never been able to implement their policies. The reality is that we are ruled by oligarchs and there is no “politically viable” progressive economic path within the oligarchy. It may take a revolution to change things.

    To the contrary, many conservatives are open to the idea of a Jobs Guarantee paying a living wage when the plan is presented in what they find to be a convincing context (pulling their own weight, no free rides etc.)

  17. @ Peter (on 29 September 2014 at 3:29 PM)

    Sorry I didn’t reply earlier.

    “I notice there were references to a popular liberal website in comments to one of Dan’s posts. Is that somewhere I should be looking?”

    I don’t know anything about that. Actually, it’s the first time I hear the reference. Is that supposed to be an Australian Liberal Party (or related) website?

  18. No, a bad guess on my part. Dan has since mentioned comments to cross posts.

    I meant liberal in the American sense. At least I hope so. I can happily keep abreast of what American liberals are saying, but have to plead “time constraint” when it comes to websites of the Australian Liberal Party. 🙂

  19. Magpie and others might be interested in the latest at Naked Keynesianism, if not seen already, posted by David Fields. It contains a link to a new book (forthcoming), Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa, edited by Bellofiore and Carter that draws on Sraffa’s mass of papers and notes. Includes connections between Sraffa and Marx, and Sraffa’s thinking on monetary matters. If you scroll down a bit on this page, there is a free sample (first chapter and archival index). Looks interesting.

  20. Warren Mosler says that, as the currency is a simple public monopoly, all citizens should have the right to earn a portion.

    That seems to me radical and progressive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *