tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post3056872508553182463..comments2024-03-29T02:54:56.523-04:00Comments on Bond Economics: Looking At Some MMT CriticismBrian Romanchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-30505691181532873782020-09-26T07:01:42.498-04:002020-09-26T07:01:42.498-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Practice Management Software Australiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14255824438812999471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-78795883941764282892020-09-12T18:29:19.326-04:002020-09-12T18:29:19.326-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.rhvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15259655519778279970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-31548916389251907192020-09-08T08:23:45.405-04:002020-09-08T08:23:45.405-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Practice Management Software Australiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14255824438812999471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-79561780102543152192020-06-25T22:30:37.846-04:002020-06-25T22:30:37.846-04:00I was going to post something on Twitter, but deci...I was going to post something on Twitter, but decided I was too cranky.Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-85161857750303005352020-06-25T22:29:44.320-04:002020-06-25T22:29:44.320-04:00I was reading the thread on Twitter, then read the...I was reading the thread on Twitter, then read the Nersisyan/Wray paper. Yes, it mentioned rationing. But Quiggin’s characterisation is ridiculous. Rationing was given as a last case option.<br /><br />It seems to be that unless you just demand to tax rich people, Quiggin finds it unacceptable. That’s a ridiculous position. I don’t follow his thinking closely, but I see no evidence that he has a huge track record of political successes that allows him to dictate what acceptable policy options are.Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-45897621796888505812020-06-25T18:01:04.193-04:002020-06-25T18:01:04.193-04:00Indeed. The GND implies massive restructuring, but...Indeed. The GND implies massive restructuring, but even with his logic we'll run out of rich people's money and yachts before we run out of things that need doing!<br /><br />And thanks :) Good faith criticism of MMT is healthy, but they can't keep running the "not new/not interesting" line when there are obvious implications to the contrary. Daniel De Vosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082946957963563132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-24645618615074278762020-06-25T08:55:19.785-04:002020-06-25T08:55:19.785-04:00Don’t really understand his logic. I agree that ra...Don’t really understand his logic. I agree that rationing would be unpopular - but guess what, any mechanism used to put into place a Green New Deal would be unpopular. Pretending that we could just tax a couple billionaires and life goes on before - while there is a total restructuring of the economy - is not reality-based either.<br /><br />In any event, his complaints are that particular MMT economists are proposing policies he does not like. Policy debates are fun and all, but we cannot cast such disagreements as an issue for MMT as a theory, particularly if the complaint is nebulous opinions about popularity.<br /><br />I liked your article on the Twitter wars. https://danieldevoss.wordpress.com/2020/06/23/its-a-mad-mad-twitter-world-we-just-live-in-it/Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-35826585516736649022020-06-25T07:35:31.225-04:002020-06-25T07:35:31.225-04:00Well put, Brian. Relevantly, your interlocutor Joh...Well put, Brian. Relevantly, your interlocutor John "motte and bailey" Quiggin blocked me for this cheeky remark: https://twitter.com/dandevoss/status/1276096573143871488?s=19<br /><br />My cheekiness aside, in that thread he's either missing Fadhel's point deliberately, ignorantly, or possesses some superordinate model of the economy which assimilates MMT but he hasn't explained how. This is a common theme, not unique to Quiggin.<br /><br />Earnestly, any idea which?Daniel De Vosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082946957963563132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-68723282377850472232020-06-24T21:16:59.465-04:002020-06-24T21:16:59.465-04:00I didn’t read the whole Murphy piece; I mentioned ...I didn’t read the whole Murphy piece; I mentioned it as a marker to myself. His drawing a line between “printing money” and bond issuance is incoherent, and if we don’t allow bond issuance, it means that we need to balance the budget perfectly In every budget period. That’s not a defensible stance.Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-4112659083790045302020-06-24T21:10:10.420-04:002020-06-24T21:10:10.420-04:00I agree that this isn’t a great example. If we go ...I agree that this isn’t a great example. If we go back in time 8 years or so, it seems clear that some people misunderstood the MMT message. So obviously, wires got crossed somewhere. (This was John Quiggin’s complaint.) But I don’t care about someone’s feelings about blog comments from 8 years ago. This was the closest to a “modern” example I could get.Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-91832801462319911082020-06-24T21:04:30.379-04:002020-06-24T21:04:30.379-04:00It’s in my “to read” pile. It’s pretty thick right...It’s in my “to read” pile. It’s pretty thick right now, unfortunately.Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-23961730868727344382020-06-24T13:12:46.184-04:002020-06-24T13:12:46.184-04:00Murphy says a couple interesting things that deser...Murphy says a couple interesting things that deserve to be addressed:<br /> 1. that idle resources are the result of previous mal-investment.<br /> 2. his examples with goldman sachs and google.<br /><br />Some answers to these concerns are:<br /><br /> 1. It is easier use politics to suppress resource use, a great example is the classic "no man's land", when you look at any historical territory dispute. The resource simply goes idle when too many people contest it without an authority or agreement to resolve dispute. This is why governments are so expedient for resolving the edge cases of resource gridlock: they represent mutual consensus. This makes them both procedurally inefficient(dictators always can act faster than democracy), but also more resilient(you can't dethrone democratic consensus).<br /><br />In some cases, self-directed resource use makes sense, even in public spaces. A perfect example is that roundabouts are more efficient than traffic lights, so having a system where users are largely self directed and not subject to direct interference by a control system is better and more adaptive. But if you get rid of all traffic control, would you really expect a city to do better? There is a great city planning youtuber "City Beatiful", who actually brilliantly explores this possibility in "Where do the rules of the road come from" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFgqNiFi0cw<br /><br />Murphy fails to recognize his own ideology of methodological individualism, in suggesting that idle resources always deserve to be idle unless the "market" can find a use, and that the government has no useful role to play in resource use and allocation.<br /><br /> 2. His example of goldman sachs and google are very useful rhetorically, because private entities leverage their valuation in order to secure financing, but public entities don't have valuations in the conventional sense. Indeed, much of the private production of value depends on public infrastructure and dispute resolution. The difference between a free market and a "free-for-all" market, is critical. Public entities *allow* for individual expression of common values, instead of merely suppressing this.<br /><br />He references "conventional accounting" and "suits", and "If a government project is deemed unaffordable according to conventional accounting, then it should also be denied funding via the printing press."<br /><br />The final point, is that the MMT "confusion" between debt and money, is actually quite instructive, as debt is a political vehicle for resolving contested resource claims. As such, strictly nominal fiat debts, like treasury bonds, are claims against the value produced by the private sector supported by and subject to the political authority. As cullen roche said in his 2017 "state of the markets" address in 2017(about halfway throught), the U.S. dollar is strong in large part because we have the most productive private sector in the world.<br /><br /> Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11265404998402355578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-45547523179419117792020-06-24T13:10:00.027-04:002020-06-24T13:10:00.027-04:00Thanks, Brian
On Medicare, projections are for it...Thanks, Brian<br /><br />On Medicare, projections are for it to increase a handful of % of GDP. The question is if it's inflationary to pay for it or if some other offsets would be necessary (that potentially makes things more complicated, obviously). I think it's a flat out misreading of Stephanie's book to suggest she wasn't up front in the book about how she is framing it. It's not sleight of hand to say Medicare will always be financially affordable--it puts the debate on the appropriate issue of how much and which scarce resources to devote to Medicare and healthcare in general, and how to configure that. Hell, Medicare Part D is already reported by CBO and SS/Medicare Trustees as fully funded precisely because there's no law saying a particular tax has to cover it; the sleight of hand is to pretend a particular tax funds the rest of it. It's Klein's own sleight of hand to add/subtract to/from Stephanie's words in order to suggest she's ignoring other problems in the healthcare system, the degree to which Americans have healthy lifestyles or diets, and the current setup of Medicare. Her entire point is that those "other" things beyond financial affordability are what matter, not the ability to pay. His point is complementary to hers, not something she's tried to get people to somehow ignore--it's not as if she said "there's nothing wrong with Medicare or the American healthcare system as currently constructed--we can afford it, we just need to be able to devote the real resources." To the contrary, she wrote a collection of several essays 10-15 years ago on problems with the US healthcare system. <br /><br />Frankly, this begins to sound to me like whataboutism--her book is about changing the lens and the boundaries of debate, not about laying out everything important in every debate and certainly not about providing answers to them. And that is as it should be, for a number of reasons that should be self evident. <br /><br />Finally, as you note, the issue with the US healthcare system is its costs vs outcomes, both of which are poor by the standards of rich countries. It's the healthcare system we have, as well as our system of food production, and so on, that is creating these costs and outcomes; the rise in Medicare spending as currently configured is largely due to that, and somewhat also to an aging population (mitigated to a degree by moving to M4A and thus pooling more young with the old in the same program). It will be the private sector that will increasingly not be able to financially afford our healthcare system--medical bankruptcies, pvt insurance premium growth tacked on to labor costs, and so on--not the government sector that won't be able to financially afford Medicare. But it would be ridiculous and disingenuous to suggest Stephanie used sleight of hand to somehow divert attention from those issues by only focusing on the financial affordability of Medicare. If those are the issues I want to talk to people about, Stephanie just made that easier, not harder.<br />STFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16261666934714196464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-52160975038958266922020-06-24T11:29:41.591-04:002020-06-24T11:29:41.591-04:00Will any one be responding to Giacomo Rondina'...Will any one be responding to Giacomo Rondina's MMT Blue Paper? Seems like a good faith attempt to assess MMT from a mainstream perspective. The guy clearly dove into the actual MMT and PK literature to an extent most others have not. He even adopted Godley's stock-flow matrices..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com