advertisement


Who should pay for social care ?

Joe Hutch said:
I was obliquely responding to farfromthesun's statement that:

'What an absolute tragedy it is that this older generation have, on the whole, spectacularly failed at making the world a better place for their children to live in; unlike the generation before them, who fought and died to make the world a better place for their own children.'
Click to expand...

It hadn't escaped my notice that it's ruffled a few of your feathers, Joe! In my defence, it was partly tongue in cheek; I mentioned in a later post that perhaps those who had done well and benefited from low house prices, good pensions, etc. yet are happy to stand back and suggest that the kids always want something for nothing, or that the world owes them nothing, might reflect on how fortunate they had been instead of just condemning them to the scrap heap. I have two kids of 11 and 13 and have serious, serious concerns about the type of world they're going to find themselves contending with as young adults.

Funnily enough, it had never occurred to me that you were someone who did think that way and it wasn't supposed to come across as such a sweeping generalisation! I was only really referring to those horrible Tory voters and those who generally do look upon the younger generation as idle loafers, and I most certainly don't think that's you.
 
Just to further clarify my angst about the type of world my kids might have to contend with, what I am mostly concerned about is that they will never be able to move out, and therefore one of their bedrooms will never get turned into a dedicated music room.
 
I certainly didn't take it personally. I just think that most people want to do 'what's best' for their children. But maybe I'm too naive.
 
Kirk said:
Paul Krugman is one. I point you to Google (or your browser of choice) once again for the remaining answers you seek (should you be truly interested).

I see Sharon Graham has decided to focus on workers and detach somewhat from the Labour Party which I applaud and which is in stark contrast to her Ivy restaurant-loving predecessor. I assume social care costs will come into her thinking. Thoughts? Also looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how the left can win the next GE and who will lead it to victory.
Click to expand...

But IIRC Krugman says he’s further left than MMT economists. He’s not exactly a straight forward Heyekian from what I can see, in fact he describes himself as a ‘neo Keynesian’.

Is Krugman really one of those credentialed economists who dismiss MMT that you spoke of earlier, or is Krugman’s position a bit more complex?
 
Last edited:
I wonder why Krugman would say he's 'further left'. It's an unusual thing really, what is he trying to prove? I mean there are economists who are more left than Krugman, but get things wrong. And ones further to the right who get things right!
Among the main MMT theorists there is actually a broad range of political viewpoints and yet the core MMT theory is shared and remains coherent. That's a pretty strong position. Even Bill Mitchell who is clearly politically on the left states clearly that MMT, being a description of the existing facts of a monetary economic, could be employed by anyone.

Personally I can't see why for example a Tory could remain a current Tory and adopt the concept of a job guarantee (which is a core concept of MMT as an economic stabiliser) when they are so invested in the contrary view. I don't think MMT can ever sit well with the generalised right-wing because they are obsessed with the view of 'low taxes, low spending, minimal government etc just for ideological reasons.
 
ks.234 said:
That’s the same question asked by your friend Brian, which I gave a lengthy answer to some time ago. The left is dead, it was killed by the Labour Party. There is no one who will lead the left to victory. We now have only right wing politics or very right wing politics to choose from at the next GE.
Click to expand...

Post number?
 
ks.234 said:
But IIRC Krugman says he’s further left than MMT economists. He’s not exactly a straight forward Heyekian from what I can see, in fact he describes himself as a ‘neo Keynesian’.

Is Krugman really one of those credentialed economists who dismiss MMT that you spoke of earlier, or is Krugman’s position a bit more complex?
Click to expand...

Google is your friend.
 
Le Baron said:
Paul Krugman blocked me on Twitter because he can't answer basic criticisms. He's another one who has been doing hit-job articles to save face over the fact that he's rested his reputation on things that simply aren't true. Krugman is not like Greg Mankiw, but unfortunately he sits in the same basic paradigm. It's become a sort of joke among economists that if you get the 'nobel prize' for economics (which was created because they were sulking about being ignored) then you're likely spouting nonsense acceptable to the prevailing ideology.
Click to expand...

It's hard to get two economists to agree on anything, and they can be a bit dismal at times, but that doesn't change the simple fact: that MMT won't catch on. Many think Canada should go full-on MMT, but like most sensible, centrist countries it hasn't. I can see why certain political celebs on the left have latched on it though. The left desperately need something/anything to replace socialism, which has lost its global appeal (though Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea are still trying), and of course a reason to spend.

PS You and KS seem quite animated by Krugman. Is he too left?
 
ks.234 said:
The search button is your friend
Click to expand...

I guess I will have to go on your summary about the left being dead etc then. Do you really think they are dead? They seem rather active and alive to me just not very effective and relevant. Surely there is a leader amongst them who can restore the left and lead them into No.10. Someone here suggested RLB and JM.
 
Kirk said:
It's hard to get two economists to agree on anything, and they can be a bit dismal at times, but that doesn't change the simple fact: that MMT won't catch on. Many think Canada should go full-on MMT, but like most sensible, centrist countries it hasn't. I can see why certain political celebs on the left have latched on it though. The left desperately need something/anything to replace socialism, which has lost its global appeal (though Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea are still trying), and of course a reason to spend.

PS You and KS seem quite animated by Krugman. Is he too left?
Click to expand...
No animation. It was you who highlighted Krugman as an economist who ‘dismissed’ MMT. A claim that has been questioned. That’s all.
 
Kirk said:
It's hard to get two economists to agree on anything, and they can be a bit dismal at times, but that doesn't change the simple fact: that MMT won't catch on. Many think Canada should go full-on MMT, but like most sensible, centrist countries it hasn't. I can see why certain political celebs on the left have latched on it though. The left desperately need something/anything to replace socialism, which has lost its global appeal (though Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea are still trying), and of course a reason to spend.

PS You and KS seem quite animated by Krugman. Is he too left?
Click to expand...
Centrist conceptions of the economy aren't sensible, they're flat-out wrong and their 40-year failure to address problems without causing even bigger ones is hardly unknown. Your cheap attempt at goading just dissipates before my eyes because practically everything you wrote is incorrect or 'informed' by means of being completely uninformed.
About 95% of left-wing people are hostile to MMT because they think it's a capitalist plot to 'save capitalism'. Since MMT is concerned with the functions of a capitalist monetary economy it's hardly itself socialism, nor is it a replacement. The only mistake the left ever made was buying into the nonsense wheeled-out by the 'Chicago boys'. Now that nonsense has had time to demonstrate its failure people are listening to old truths again, plus new understanding. Krugman is progressive at heart, but undermined himself by unwittingly promoting neoliberal conceptions.

Being hostile to spending for the sake of it is just ideological claptrap; as is being for or against taxation. If you're just a right-wing leaning centrist with little economic knowledge just say so. Or I can just save time and say it for you?
 
Last edited:
Le Baron said:
Centrist conceptions of the economy aren't sensible, they're flat-out wrong and their 40-year failure to address problems without causing even bigger ones is hardly unknown. Your cheap attempt at goading just dissipates before my eyes because practically everything you wrote is incorrect or 'informed' by means of being completely uninformed.
About 95% of left-wing people are hostile to MMT because they think it's a capitalist plot to 'save capitalism'. Since MMT is concerned with the functions of a capitalist monetary economy it's hardly itself socialism, nor is it a replacement. The only mistake the left ever made was buying into the nonsense wheeled-out by the 'Chicago boys'. Now that nonsense has had time to demonstrate its failure people are listening to old truths again, plus new understanding. Krugman is progressive at heart, but undermined himself by unwittingly promoting neoliberal conceptions.

Being hostile to spending for the sake of it is just ideological claptrap; as is being for or against taxation. If you're just a right-wing leaning centrist with little economic knowledge just say so. Or I can just save time and say it for you?
Click to expand...

So, the left in the US are quite fond of MMT (e.g. AOC) but it will never come to anything. It is better than communism though, I will give you that.

If you think the 'only' mistake the left has made - summarising - is buying into the right's economic worldview then I think you need to do some more reading.

So Krugman is not left enough - fair enough.

The rest is just a mild over-reaction, mischaracterisation of my post and projection of your own economic narrative.

PS Why does the left have such a problem with centrism? KS, feel free to weigh in if you want.
 
Kirk said:
So, the left in the US are quite fond of MMT (e.g. AOC) but it will never come to anything. It is better than communism though, I will give you that.

If you think the 'only' mistake the left has made - summarising - is buying into the right's economic worldview then I think you need to do some more reading.

So Krugman is not left enough - fair enough.

The rest is just a mild over-reaction, mischaracterisation of my post and projection of your own economic narrative.

PS Why does the left have such a problem with centrism? KS, feel free to weigh in if you want.
Click to expand...
It's an economic discussion, so I was pointing to the left's fundamental economic problem, and that really is the major mistake the left is continually making. Everyone can always read more, but I assure you I've read much more over a longer period than most who flap their lips about this.

Only a small group of the US left flirt with MMT and keep defaulting to monetarist narratives in-between. More reject it as incompatible with other heterodox views. It's funny you complain of mischaracterisation and a 'narrative', whilst boldly asserting a mere opinion (because it is an uninformed opinion) of 'it will never come to anything', then tagging on 'but it's better than communism' as if that's relevant or even related.

Why do the left have a problem with centrism? Simple, it accepts a fundamentally flawed economic view which props up a system totally opposed to its own stated aims (though more in line with the aims of some centrists who are Tory-lite).
 
Le Baron said:
It's an economic discussion, so I was pointing to the left's fundamental economic problem, and that really is the major mistake the left is continually making. Everyone can always read more, but I assure you I've read much more over a longer period than most who flap their lips about this.

Only a small group of the US left flirt with MMT and keep defaulting to monetarist narratives in-between. More reject it as incompatible with other heterodox views. It's funny you complain of mischaracterisation and a 'narrative', whilst boldly asserting a mere opinion (because it is an uninformed opinion) of 'it will never come to anything', then tagging on 'but it's better than communism' as if that's relevant or even related.

Why do the left have a problem with centrism? Simple, it accepts a fundamentally flawed economic view which props up a system totally opposed to its own stated aims (though more in line with the aims of some centrists who are Tory-lite).
Click to expand...

My original point was that MMT will never catch on. Your replies, whilst appreciated, haven't really change my mind. It is an interesting theory though and thus like all interesting theories I hope that it might see the light of day in at least one country so we can see whether it really works or not.

Re: centrism - what is the flawed economic view again?
 
Kirk said:
My original point was that MMT will never catch on. Your replies, whilst appreciated, haven't really change my mind. It is an interesting theory though and thus like all interesting theories I hope that it might see the light of day in at least one country so we can see whether it really works or not.

Re: centrism - what is the flawed economic view again?
Click to expand...
The original point is neither here nor there. MMT describes how the/a modern economy actually functions and the number of 'opponents' who have had to concede this fact is a damning testament to their credibility. In that sense it isn't a 'theory' but a description. Whether you are convinced of it won't change this.
It often takes a long time before ideas filter through, the shift of accepted practise is slow. Or the alternative - as with monetarism - is to persuade some governmnent(s) it suits their ideology and to force it into existence, as happened in the U.S.-led destruction of Chili.
 
Last edited:
Kirk said:
So, the left in the US are quite fond of MMT (e.g. AOC) but it will never come to anything. It is better than communism though, I will give you that.

If you think the 'only' mistake the left has made - summarising - is buying into the right's economic worldview then I think you need to do some more reading.

So Krugman is not left enough - fair enough.

The rest is just a mild over-reaction, mischaracterisation of my post and projection of your own economic narrative.

PS Why does the left have such a problem with centrism? KS, feel free to weigh in if you want.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with centrism, I’m a arch-centrist myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top