Comments on: Is a revolution in economic thinking under way? Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:42:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Sustento Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:19:17 +0000 Anatole,

Talking of good and bad money, read this short article on Monetary Dialysis. This is pretty much the answer to the questions you are asking. s/2012/07/NZ-Investor-Piece-Monetary-Dia lysis.pdf

By: normanmacraeltd Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:45:41 +0000 If anyone here followed my father norman macrae’s writings in The Economist on how to prepare for the net generation being the most productive time for youth everywhere then there is a simple keynsian rule. Trust in a nation’s credit in 2010s is not primarily related to what debt-ridden mistakes old macroeconomists have made ; it is related to credibly investing in next generation’s post-industrial revolution. This -as do such sectors as green energy and job creating education webs – needs abundant economics models based round multi-win system designs (valued round sustaining long-term growth exponentials) because unlike consuming things most communally vital knwoledge multiplies value in use. For those of us who tried to intervene in the mess the 5 big global accountant monopoly trapped spreadsheeted mindsets in, if goodwill had properly been valued in 1990s as transparent win-win modeling all this terrifying monetisation economics would never have ruled over us. As you may know: keynes mentored people like dad that economists are only capable of compouunding 2 opposite things: the purposes that most people want from each global market sector or the destuction of such purposes. It is surely time we get back to pro-youth economics if we are not to completely meltdown the global finacial systam – a risk dad first coined entrepreneurial revolution xmas issue The Economist 1972 as needing to prevent. At we try to profile 100 leaders whose purspose can still collaboratively empower 2010s as youths most productive and communally sustainable decade- help needed! In dad’s 1984 book of how to create next 3 billion jobs, Norman assumed the bbc as a broadcaster of the people would help in such pro-youth investigative journalism – something it has so far singularly failed to do with no help from the hacking murdochs of this world.

By: reality-again Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:26:51 +0000 Printing money is useless any way you look at it.

Decades from now, after the dust settles, the times ahead of us may be remembered for the following historic trends:
1. The collapse of the Western European welfare state.
2. The collapse of the North American middle class.
3. The massive transfer of wealth and power from nation states to global corporations. The above includes the loss of power of national institutions such as parliaments, governments, and central banks.

By: Paats-W. Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:39:48 +0000 is this the end of untransparent democraties?

By: TocoToucan Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:29:47 +0000 Weren’t Abraham Lincoln and JFK both assasinated shortly after proposing systems whereby the government could effectively bypass banks and print money themselves?

Surely it’ll never happen – the ultra rich won’t allow it, because it derives them of one of their most effective means of stealing the wealth of a nation.

More to the point though, I cannot believe that people honestly believe that there should be a painfree alternative to repaying all of the debts that were accumulated over the past decade. But I guess that central bankers, having got away with ludicrous monetary policy for decades have to keep up the pretence that they have everything under control, and if they can just print enough money, everything will be fine.

The more I learn about our banking system, the more appalled I am by it.

By: QuietThinker Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:07:44 +0000 The problem with working through the banks in recent years has been the lack of talent in the large banks. Rather than being bankers, most of the folks handling money in the large financial institutions are gamblers using OPM (Other Peoples Money). They haven’t a clue how to evaluate a mortgage or small business loan. For years they wrote many loans that a real banker would have rejected and caused our present crisis. Now the recovery is suffering because they won’t fund perfectly good loans.

By: paintcan Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:21:23 +0000 Mr Karetsky – doesn’t “The radical idea of depriving banks of their money-creating function,” translate as depriving banks of the ability to make loans?

@gmontante when you say no taxation and transferring Picasso paintings laterally I think of the Gilded age or even the mid eighties when Van Gogh was being bid through all recognizable limits by otherwise hard headed corporate CEOs. There were/are? a few Van Goghs locked away in bank basements because the CEO couldn’t pay the bid price. That was how they behaved even with taxation.

I also think of how the megawealthy of this country spent lavishly in cash for their Newport cottages and playgrounds. It was both a spur for the economy and a binge that crashed. It was isolated to playgrounds like Newport, Long Island’s Gold Coast and the Berkshires.

I can’t imagine what would happen if that happened across the country or globally? It sounds like economic delirium.

But I have about the same economics background as Ronald Reagan and don’t trust what I know more than a few inches forward.

By: krimsonpage Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:21:59 +0000 Not going to happen. There are many good, caring, and honest economists out there. But what good are they? They don’t make the big decisions….their wealthy benefactors do.

Look at the UK. Just this week that jerk Cameron was touting 1% GDP growth as “on track”.

Anatole, I very much admire your optimism.

By: Pete_Murphy Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:48:45 +0000 A “revolution in economic thinking?” Any thinking at all among economists would indeed be revolutionary. They could begin by eliminating their long-standing, self-imposed ban on thinking about the effects of a growing population. (Today, anyone who dares such a thing is instantly dismissed and derided as a “Malthusian.”) If they did, they might come to recognize the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption and its wide-ranging implications for worsening unemployment and poverty and global trade imbalances.

But, no, all we get is more goofy ideas for creating an illusion of prosperity.

By: mikehall2 Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:42:31 +0000 Well, it looks like the mainstream, after a financial crash that need not have happened & very damaging policies since, all underpinned by similarly fundamentally flawed thinking, is beginning to cop on.

What Turner & the IMF (some of them) are now talking about reflects the correct understanding of the monetary system & macro policy options that flow from that, that Post Keynesians, especially MMT, have been talking about for years.

It is not ‘fiscal responsibility’ to forego £100s billions of output (cf Andrew Haldane) by deliberately enforcing millions to languish in dole queues for want of a few money tokens in circulation. Driven by ignorance, irrational fear, incompetence & narrow self interest of the elites.

The mainstream of economics thinking has been rotten to the core for decades.

MMT also have the optimal policy prescription for combining monetary & fiscal policy – their ehanced automatic stabiliser & price stability mechanism called Job Guarantee, or Employer of Last Resort. Every unemployed person to have the option (ie +voluntary+) of a full time, minimum wage, job performing a non-competing activity in the community/charity sector. Socially useful & individually rewarding work which also ensures that a minimum of aggregate demand spending is maintained in the economy during private sector cyclical downturns. A buffer stock of usefully employed (& waged) – not unemployed.

And as some people are now realising, there is no ‘money’ constraint, no need to borrow, for a sovereign issuer of fiat, free-floating currency to ‘finance’ such a policy. The only constraint is +future+ potential for rising inflation as the economy nears full productive capacity & (non-JG) employment. Whereupon it is simple matter to extinguish excess money in circulation, & on a much smarter sectoral basis than blunt interest rate setting, by increasing taxation or decreasing spending, as required. It’s not rocket science to manage inflation this way. Educating the public concerning the correct reasons & timing for taxation policies will ensure that elected politians do not abuse the system – or are swiftly voted out if they do.

With the econometric ability of todays computerised & data networked world, that our forebears could not have dreamt of, there is no reason that economies should not be managed in this way.

….Except that the present neo-fuedal boom & bust mess greatly enrichens the top few percent, at the expense of the rest, during either phase.