advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

Le Baron said:
This is unfortunately a non-question (and one with a motive). Firstly because MMT describes normal operations in a monetarist economy. 'Respected economic institutions' are not economies nor are they governments implementing policy in line with anything. The OECD doesn't implement monetary and fiscal operations for, say, the UK. and even if it did for some sort of strange reason, all the same facts about how the system operates would be the same. Same currency issue power, same facts about taxation, same facts about transfer payments, same facts about how loans work, same facts about banking operations, same facts about employment. What is your actual question?

That said, there is indeed a complete department based upon MMT at the Levy Institute Bard College, and University of Missouri Kansas City, where many of these ideas were shaped. Also Melbourne University. And as it has much in common with previous thought in the post-Keynes tradition, it's actually everywhere in parts.
Click to expand...

I found looking at the currency, the buckaroo, started at Missouri a useful way to understand how money works in the real world

https://www.cnbc.com/2012/02/08/the-buckaroo-and-the-demand-for-money.html
 
Le Baron said:
This is unfortunately a non-question (and one with a motive). Firstly because MMT describes normal operations in a monetarist economy. 'Respected economic institutions' are not economies nor are they governments implementing policy in line with anything. The OECD doesn't implement monetary and fiscal operations for, say, the UK. and even if it did for some sort of strange reason, all the same facts about how the system operates would be the same. Same currency issue power, same facts about taxation, same facts about transfer payments, same facts about how loans work, same facts about banking operations, same facts about employment. What is your actual question?

That said, there is indeed a complete department based upon MMT at the Levy Institute Bard College, and University of Missouri Kansas City, where many of these ideas were shaped. Also Melbourne University. And as it has much in common with previous thought in the post-Keynes tradition, it's actually everywhere in parts.
Click to expand...

So that's a no then.

It would have been interesting to know if the Chancellor of Norway for example was incorporating it into their economic policy and then to see the effects - good and bad.

At the moment MMT seems to be stuck in academia and a few low level disciples on forums like this.
 
It’s an unwinnable argument. Neoliberalism doesn’t work, capitalism doesn’t work but western countries who follow this path tend to be richer & more desirable places to live.

The obvious side effect is inequality, but communism & socialism are also seen to have ‘failed’. It could well be do with basic human nature, we want to better than our peers, status is a powerful drug.

I’ve pretty much accepted my place in society, I’ve been pretty fortunate & done OK.
 
Spraggons Den said:
So that's a no then.

It would have been interesting to know if the Chancellor of Norway for example was incorporating it into their economic policy and then to see the effects - good and bad.

At the moment MMT seems to be stuck in academia and a few low level disciples on forums like this.
Click to expand...
Why are you trying so hard to be 1) a smartarse and 2) asking schoolboy-type questions hoping to get a 'gotcha'? Plenty of governments or potential governments have taken it into consideration, but the pressure of existing ideology is very great and it takes time and action to alter viewpoints. McDonnell's team consulted with Bill Mitchell, but grew afraid at the last moment and reverted to a 'fiscal rectitude' position, largely because of unfounded electorate fears of 'bankruptcy' stoked by the press. The U.S. treasury committee has employed two noted MMT theorists.

As I already said though, the chief point to recognise is not: are they incorporating it? Because MMT is also 'descriptive' and that power lies in demonstrating how a system operates as opposed to how a government or other bodies might say it operates. Something demonstrable in the final analysis. And since the Federal reserve and the BoE and the IMF had little recourse but to accept what MMT says about monetary and fiscal operations, they've had to fall back on scare stories as they also fall back on 1970s/80s knee-jerk responses.
 
Woodface said:
It’s an unwinnable argument. Neoliberalism doesn’t work, capitalism doesn’t work but western countries who follow this path tend to be richer & more desirable places to live.

The obvious side effect is inequality, but communism & socialism are also seen to have ‘failed’. It could well be do with basic human nature, we want to better than our peers, status is a powerful drug.

I’ve pretty much accepted my place in society, I’ve been pretty fortunate & done OK.
Click to expand...
Capitalism actually can work in a regulated economy. I say this as no great fan of capitalism in general. Neoliberalism/monetarism as an ideological view is something worthy of discussion on its own. The 'socialism has failed' narrative is somewhat naive when not considered within geopolitics of the last century.

You may have done OK, but the majority haven't and therein lies the problem. Very often a small fraction of certain countries (chiefly western or allies) have done very well indeed and the remaining percentage just gets bigger crumbs (and therefore considers itself 'rich' in contrast to great poverty), than the majority elsewhere who get tiny crumbs or practically nothing.
 
Woodface said:
It’s an unwinnable argument. Neoliberalism doesn’t work, capitalism doesn’t work but western countries who follow this path tend to be richer & more desirable places to live.
Click to expand...

Desirable for who? In a balance sheet economy any improvement in desirability for some has to be balanced for a decrease in desirability for many. We can see highly undesirable outcomes for many in places like Chile who have been testing grounds for neoliberalism. We would all prefer to live in the UK under Thatcher than Chile under Pinochet, but that is only down to the relative strength of our democratic tradition, not the efficiency of neoliberal economics

The obvious side effect is inequality….
Click to expand...
Yes
…but communism & socialism are also seen to have ‘failed’….
Click to expand...

There’s TINA again. Other alternatives are in fact available. We had one after WW2, there are others

I’ve pretty much accepted my place in society, I’ve been pretty fortunate & done OK.
Click to expand...
?
 
Is anybody else losing the will to live? :cool:

Anywaaaay, back to the topic of the thread....Starmer.

Sorry about the link to The Mirror.

Keir Starmer rules out 'any agreement' with Liberal Democrats at next election

Labour leader Keir Starmer said he wouldn't form a coalition with anyone and also insisted his party would not enter into a looser 'confidence and supply' agreement
Click to expand...

Source : Daily Mirror

Note: He has also ruled out any deal with the nationalists in Scotland. Good lad for both of these positions of principle.
 
It will all be very amusing when Starmer inevitably leads Labour to an election failure and has to go cap in hand to other parties to form a government.
 
Tony L said:
It will all be very amusing when Starmer inevitably leads Labour to an election failure and has to go cap in hand to other parties to form a government.
Click to expand...
Oh well, it’s a position of principle he is taking and is not perching on some fence. Damned no matter what.

Let’s face it, if he leads the party to failure I doubt Labour’s chances of removing tories is helped by people around the country who claim they dislike the tories talking Labour down and buying the tory right wing propaganda as we saw with Corbyn.

There was also this in the rags today...
Starmer denies using Holocaust memorial for political purposes
The Campaign Against Antisemitism accused Sir Keir of “exploiting” a visit to the memorial for campaigning purposes, calling the move as “manipulative and repulsive”.
Click to expand...


Source: The National

In any case, it’s moot given the LibDems will be keen to jump in with the like-minded tories.
 
Absolutely. The LibDems are tories and are definitely worth burning down. The SNP...no different to nationalists anywhere else. Starmer is doing the right thing by rejecting any deal with them both. I hope he sticks to his principles.
 
Tony L said:
These bridges ahead… Burn them all now!
Click to expand...

It's all pre-election positioning; no-one will promise to go into coalition with anyone else. Why would they? They all want the votes.

But don't worry. If there is no overall majority at the next GE, there will be Labour / SNP coalition if it secures one. The cost will be devo max.
 
Seeker_UK said:
It's all pre-election positioning; no-one will promise to go into coalition with anyone else. Why would they? They all want the votes.

But don't worry. If there is no overall majority at the next GE, there will be Labour / SNP coalition if it secures one. The cost will be devo max.
Click to expand...
The only way Labour can go into a coalition with the SNP is if the nationalists do not demand a referendum during the next parliament. Agree to a referendum in 2030 and go into a coalition by all means, but it has to be at least a full term otherwise it is pointless.

Woodface said:
It gives the Lib Dems another opportunity to sell off whatever integrity they have left.

The issue for me is that the Tories would not be in government.
Click to expand...
There isn’t much to sell off.

The top priority needs to be removing the tory govt but I doubt it will happen, some people are blind to the effect of their alternative agenda and there may be enough of them along with the tory faithful to ensure another 5 years of tory govt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top