tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post8624226557737483374..comments2024-03-01T02:40:14.946-05:00Comments on Bond Economics: Comments On Chris Dillow's ReviewBrian Romanchukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-14183932826654798752020-10-12T16:40:16.661-04:002020-10-12T16:40:16.661-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.M. Tahahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045558659892762964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-11774739529708543662020-09-30T09:30:38.139-04:002020-09-30T09:30:38.139-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.John smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11048677454036012189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-73961050787297950942020-09-29T15:05:41.790-04:002020-09-29T15:05:41.790-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.ايماhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06014403412012419424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-46243875653608458972020-09-17T18:59:36.719-04:002020-09-17T18:59:36.719-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.rhvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15259655519778279970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-22367474847865649452020-09-08T16:53:14.025-04:002020-09-08T16:53:14.025-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.eman gamalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01500922885154679124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-86105332363264875442020-07-14T18:18:08.822-04:002020-07-14T18:18:08.822-04:00As I noted below - I meant to put the comment here...As I noted below - I meant to put the comment here as a reply to you - I suggest that Mitchell & you & Brian are seeing things in Kalecki's essay which are not there. There is no reason for MMT followers to want to "save capitalism" any more than Marx or Kalecki did - or for Marxists to hate the Job Guarantee. Rather, the thing to do is to fight for it and all other socialist measures. <br /><br />And not see disagreements or problems where there aren't any. Socialism achieved amazing unity in the century before the First World War - and amazing disunity over Big-Endian vs Little-Endian issues in the century after.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-76984020938875285252020-07-13T17:02:02.049-04:002020-07-13T17:02:02.049-04:00“Accelerationism” has been a thing for as long as ...“Accelerationism” has been a thing for as long as I remember in the Canadian context (and probably similar to the US). Social welfare policies were allegedly bad, since they forestalled revolution. However, the only people that thought that way were the few dozen people that populated the two Marxist-Leninist parties.<br /><br /> In Western Canada, if you were a sensible leftist, you aligned yourself with the NDP, and dodged whatever red-baiting that happened in the Cold War. In Quebec, language politics tended to dominate, until recently (and I don’t pay much attention to local politics any more).Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-80690503185032470162020-07-13T16:24:15.221-04:002020-07-13T16:24:15.221-04:00Kalecki didn't believe that full employment wa...Kalecki didn't believe that full employment was or would be impossible in the postwar era. How could he? He lived through it! If one wants to say that full employment capitalism is impossible, then fine. That means that the period until the oil shocks was NOT CAPITALISM. IHMO, Marx himself would have said something like that! It wasn't really the ideal capitalism he was talking about.<br /><br />Kalecki explained why <i>business leaders</i> would (and did) oppose full employment. As neither he nor most socialists were business leaders, this opposition did not include them. :-)<br /><br />Mitchell is a Kaleckian, not an opponent. But he too grossly misreads Kalecki the same way with his:<br /><br />"[Kalecki] laid out the blueprint for socialist opposition to Keynesian-style employment policy. The criticisms would be equally applicable to a Job Guarantee policy." <br /><br />Again, real socialists, reasonable socialists like Kalecki or Marx do not and did not oppose Keynesian-style full employment / Job Guarantee policies. They recognize the obstacles in their way, but they fight for them, not oppose them! Unfortunately, crazy anti-socialist opposition to full employment "socialism" <b>from socialists</b> is rather older than Kalecki - it became the mainstream of European socialist thought and parties, especially and even in government, between the wars. Urk. With suicidal enemies like these, rabid capitalists don't need friends!Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-60592247545943311242020-07-13T14:42:42.444-04:002020-07-13T14:42:42.444-04:00Although I could respond to that (there are also i...Although I could respond to that (there are also innate reasons why MMT followers would like to save capitalism, come what may), I will not.<br /><br />Instead, I will limit myself to admit that I was, indeed, mistaken.<br /><br />You are no exception among MMT followers, evidently.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-46583809030817860562020-07-13T07:35:38.847-04:002020-07-13T07:35:38.847-04:00I read Kalecki’s essay. From my perspective, Kalec...I read Kalecki’s essay. From my perspective, Kalecki’s opposition is just him talking his book. Marxists have an innate reason to hate the Job Guarantee because it shows that we don’t need Socialism. <br /><br />Saying that a policy is impossible to implement has to be literally the worst strategy for campaigning for it. MMTers have read Kalecki, we can understand why some free marketers won’t like it, but that doesn’t matter if you win elections.Brian Romanchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02699198289421951151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-84710515293273747532020-07-13T01:01:25.132-04:002020-07-13T01:01:25.132-04:00You should read Kalecki's essay. You can find ...You should read Kalecki's essay. You can find the original version here:<br />http://gesd.free.fr/kalecki43.pdf<br /><br />I have a deep respect for Prof. Mitchell. He is an honest intellectual (something exceedingly unusual, particularly among economists and their online fans). I first heard of a Kaleckian critique to MMT through him and he has a response:<br />http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11127<br /><br />You should also read it. It's up to you to judge how well his counter argument fares against Kalecki.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5908830827135060852.post-35752699108767125332020-07-13T00:30:46.823-04:002020-07-13T00:30:46.823-04:00Brian
Let me first acknowledge that you are an ex...Brian<br /><br />Let me first acknowledge that you are an exception among MMT followers. You are measured and rational. I thank you for that.<br /><br />Having said that, and with all due respect, I will say that you missed the point of Dillow's remarks on the politics of MMT, particularly regarding full employment.<br /><br />He isn't advising the US Democratic Party to adopt a socialist platform, as much as the Bernie Sanders crew (which is not without its electoral weight) would like. He isn't telling the UK Labour Party to beg for Jeremy Corbyn's forgiveness.<br /><br />You say that in Canada socialism has no chance. For all I know, you may well be right.<br /><br />But Dillow isn't talking about "political strategy". His point is not how to get votes or win elections. <br /><br />He is talking about political <b>feasibility</b>.<br /><br />Moreover, it's not to Dillow that credit should be given for saying: "To implement her ideas (and those of Kalecki, Keynes, Lerner, Beveridge and Minskly!) however requires more than an intellectual (counter-)revolution. It requires a dismantling of capitalist power. And that's a tougher job."<br /><br />That credit should go to Michal Kalecki:<br /><br />"'Full employment capitalism' will, of course, have to develop new social and political institutions which will reflect the increased power of the working class. If capitalism can adjust itself to full employment, a fundamental reform will have been incorporated in it. <b>If not, it will show itself an outmoded system which must be scrapped</b>."<br /><br />That's how Kalecki himself concluded his 1943 essay, as published in Political Quarterly. He was sceptical 'full employment capitalism' was at all possible (for the reasons he argued in that essay). One would need to develop a series of unspecified "new social and political institutions which will reflect the increased power of the <b>working class</b>" to make 'full employment capitalism' possible.<br /><br />Dillow's point, which is Kalecki's point, is that full employment is unlikely under capitalism, MMT or no MMT.<br /><br />-----<br /><br />You should ask Prof. Bill Mitchell about this. This is not the first time that MMT have encountered Kalecki's article as an argument against full employment.<br /><br />Personally, I appreciate Prof. Mitchell's opinion, but ultimately I find Kalecki's argument still stands (I myself had planned to write something similar).Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.com