I asked Neel Kashkari of the Mpls Fed if the issue isn’t a supply side/production issue, and that raising interest rates will only limit or reduce hiring. He said while maximizing employment is one of the Fed’s two pillars, controlling inflation via interest rates is presently a higher priority. But, he said, the economy could certainly use better immigration policy to maximize employment. And the Fed does not control that.
Hi Stephanie. Your arguments here seem to me crystal clear. I’m an old man. I’ve been thru this before… serious inflation in the seventies, thousands thrown out of work, years of suffering until things got back to “normal.” Don’t economists have memories? Aren’t, say, the 70s “data?” Where does “unemployment compensation” come from, the guardian angel? This happens over and over. Why don’t economists…. Mmt folks excluded … live in the world? Oh, I see they live at Yale,
Harvard, at Stanford, et Al., and they aren’t unemployed. That explains it. Dan.
Stephanie rhetorically asks "Isn’t economics supposed to help us make efficient use of our resources?"
The answer since 1980 has been & will continue to be, to protect the Big Money Interests with little concern for 'we the people' until we elect genuine reformers.
Specifically, the Congress has assigned the Fed to conduct the nation’s monetary policy to support the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
A) Monetary policy isn't the best approach to these problems. Fiscal policy is needed.
B) We won't vote our way out of this. You easily forget how quickly the last set of "reformers" we elected turned into the same old corporate time-servers. We need a more vigorous way to show our disapproval, like a GENERAL STRIKE.
At some point, it's no longer a question of economists in high places doing bad science and making mistakes. It becomes clear it's a matter of political economy.
In political economy, we know that the political desires of anyone but wealthy people have no impact on what gets through Congress. But this same class of people and their Wall Street minions enjoy enormous soft power. (I'm sure you've noticed that it's difficult to get people to understand MMT when they are paid not to understand it, but it's even harder when they have unshakable prior ideological commitments to not understanding it, and when their friendships and professional status requires circling the wagon against outsiders in defense of orthodoxy)
In any case, soft power emanates from Wall Street through through public and specialist media to form an iron cage of orthodoxy inside which Powell comfortably lives.
It's unclear to me in a number of policy areas what to do when the people you're debating pretend to be engaging in an proper good-faith discourse, but their true opinions are as immovable as the Pope's commitment to the catechism.
If the intent is to pull purchasing power out of the economy, is it possible to tax enough money out of the top end of the economy (private equity firms, etc) to do the job? Or is the scale just not there?
If great wealth & income is taxed AND those $ directly go to some specific purpose or project AND not returned to the Treasury, that should work. Otherwise according to my understanding of MMT, the $ taxed and returned to the Treasury is basically like burning them.
I asked Neel Kashkari of the Mpls Fed if the issue isn’t a supply side/production issue, and that raising interest rates will only limit or reduce hiring. He said while maximizing employment is one of the Fed’s two pillars, controlling inflation via interest rates is presently a higher priority. But, he said, the economy could certainly use better immigration policy to maximize employment. And the Fed does not control that.
No surprise Neel wants more immigration to keep wages down.
Hi Stephanie. Your arguments here seem to me crystal clear. I’m an old man. I’ve been thru this before… serious inflation in the seventies, thousands thrown out of work, years of suffering until things got back to “normal.” Don’t economists have memories? Aren’t, say, the 70s “data?” Where does “unemployment compensation” come from, the guardian angel? This happens over and over. Why don’t economists…. Mmt folks excluded … live in the world? Oh, I see they live at Yale,
Harvard, at Stanford, et Al., and they aren’t unemployed. That explains it. Dan.
Stephanie rhetorically asks "Isn’t economics supposed to help us make efficient use of our resources?"
The answer since 1980 has been & will continue to be, to protect the Big Money Interests with little concern for 'we the people' until we elect genuine reformers.
Specifically, the Congress has assigned the Fed to conduct the nation’s monetary policy to support the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
Maximum employment will lose every time.
A) Monetary policy isn't the best approach to these problems. Fiscal policy is needed.
B) We won't vote our way out of this. You easily forget how quickly the last set of "reformers" we elected turned into the same old corporate time-servers. We need a more vigorous way to show our disapproval, like a GENERAL STRIKE.
At some point, it's no longer a question of economists in high places doing bad science and making mistakes. It becomes clear it's a matter of political economy.
In political economy, we know that the political desires of anyone but wealthy people have no impact on what gets through Congress. But this same class of people and their Wall Street minions enjoy enormous soft power. (I'm sure you've noticed that it's difficult to get people to understand MMT when they are paid not to understand it, but it's even harder when they have unshakable prior ideological commitments to not understanding it, and when their friendships and professional status requires circling the wagon against outsiders in defense of orthodoxy)
In any case, soft power emanates from Wall Street through through public and specialist media to form an iron cage of orthodoxy inside which Powell comfortably lives.
It's unclear to me in a number of policy areas what to do when the people you're debating pretend to be engaging in an proper good-faith discourse, but their true opinions are as immovable as the Pope's commitment to the catechism.
If the intent is to pull purchasing power out of the economy, is it possible to tax enough money out of the top end of the economy (private equity firms, etc) to do the job? Or is the scale just not there?
If great wealth & income is taxed AND those $ directly go to some specific purpose or project AND not returned to the Treasury, that should work. Otherwise according to my understanding of MMT, the $ taxed and returned to the Treasury is basically like burning them.
Bank of Canada should not side with capital in a class war
https://shar.es/afvNfw
Why does the end of an article on the pain of unemployment (welcome to poverty) have a sign that says "read more if you paid"?