Steve’s appearance as a guest on 1Dime Radio, where he and Tony discuss revolution, democracy, and MMT. Originally a two-part series, it is presented as a single episode.
“And someone like Warren Mosler, who is a fantastic explainer of MMT. Brilliant genius economically. Uh, but sometimes the way he talks about politicians and the fact that others don't understand MMT. He seems to think that it just boils down to their ignorance and that they're just stupid and aren't making the right policies.”
I find this to be a rather bizarre description of Mosler’s explanations of policymaking. Compared to other analysts, including some prominent MMT theorists, I find Mosler to be quite objective and less flippant in his analysis of why politicians do not implement MMT-informed policies even if the policymakers are aware of MMT. Perhaps this simply comes down to Mosler’s experience advising central bankers and politicians, but it could well be the product of the analytical approach Mosler takes to all sorts of areas.
When interviewers ask Mosler why, say, the Argentinian government/central bank refuses to implement MMT-informed policies when they are aware of the benefits of it, he discusses the mistrust of the government by the citizens and why then government might be more inclined to do something economically silly such as Dollarizing just because it is something easier to sell. The same is the case with the Euro and why citizens of, say, Greece are distrustful of their own government and why they’d rather cede economic control over to the Germans. Mosler is willing to give the dose of democratic political reality that people in Europe do not want to return to national currencies and so policy proposals probably need to fit within the currency union framework. And, of course, Mosler is willing to show how vast improvements can be made even with the currency union.
Mosler might not be a product of the traditional political science academy, but then he isn’t a product of the traditional economic academy or the traditional automotive engineering academy either. Even without that, or maybe because of it, Mosler’s pragmatic approach offers many practical insights if people are willing to fully listen to what he says because he gives a practical view of the political hurdles which must be overcome. One thing I will say about Mosler is that he does somewhat tailor his discussion to the political views of the audience. His positions don’t necessarily change, but some of his phrasing is different. With that, it is sometimes worthwhile to listen to Mosler speak to both left and right-leaning audiences to try to get a fuller view of his observations.
I can understand that position, Jules, but I don’t view things quite the same way. When we look at the crisis in the Middle East, there are many important factors which rarely get discussed. On the one end of things, the US is using increased military industry spending as a jobs program of sorts, one that quite destructive in so many ways. On the other end of things, when we advocate for a more just situation in the Middle East, whether it be a one-state or two-state solution, part of that just situation is creating an economic plan which will allow peace to flourish and not have the region stumble into backwardness. After all, is liberation really liberation if it leads to constat strife and backwardness?
We need to advocate for policy which, domestically, pushes for a peace-oriented economy based on full employment policies. We need to advocate for the same internationally. It seems to me that Mosler has much to offer towards these goals even if it is up to the community to make those connections.
Just to name a couple of examples, I do not always agree with every position from Mosler and Bilbo, but I can also learn from what they get right to build an argument against what they are saying based on a combination of their knowledge and my knowledge in a particular area. It should also be said that with Mosler at least, his positions are not always static. I can think of many examples where his thoughts and positions on a matter have changed over the years. There was a time when Mosler proclaimed himself a ‘Tea Party Democrat’ and was pushing for rather right-wing solutions to healthcare and such. I think it is fair to say that he no longer advocates for such positions. It seems to me that Mosler is open to learning from the groups he’s a part of and so it is worth keeping him in these policy discussions for everyone’s benefit, including his own. And, of course, it is entirely possible that Mosler is quite aligned with the prevailing views around these parts on certain matters, but perhaps nobody has asked him about it.
Great talk. If the ruling class sees that the working class has more money in its hands, it won't hesitate to raise prices. However, basic services like healthcare, education, housing, childcare, food, transportation, etc. would reduce the power they hold over the rest of us.
Can’t wait to listen. 1Dime is a great show…I found it on one of the many MMT explainers I looked up a long time ago.
“And someone like Warren Mosler, who is a fantastic explainer of MMT. Brilliant genius economically. Uh, but sometimes the way he talks about politicians and the fact that others don't understand MMT. He seems to think that it just boils down to their ignorance and that they're just stupid and aren't making the right policies.”
I find this to be a rather bizarre description of Mosler’s explanations of policymaking. Compared to other analysts, including some prominent MMT theorists, I find Mosler to be quite objective and less flippant in his analysis of why politicians do not implement MMT-informed policies even if the policymakers are aware of MMT. Perhaps this simply comes down to Mosler’s experience advising central bankers and politicians, but it could well be the product of the analytical approach Mosler takes to all sorts of areas.
When interviewers ask Mosler why, say, the Argentinian government/central bank refuses to implement MMT-informed policies when they are aware of the benefits of it, he discusses the mistrust of the government by the citizens and why then government might be more inclined to do something economically silly such as Dollarizing just because it is something easier to sell. The same is the case with the Euro and why citizens of, say, Greece are distrustful of their own government and why they’d rather cede economic control over to the Germans. Mosler is willing to give the dose of democratic political reality that people in Europe do not want to return to national currencies and so policy proposals probably need to fit within the currency union framework. And, of course, Mosler is willing to show how vast improvements can be made even with the currency union.
Mosler might not be a product of the traditional political science academy, but then he isn’t a product of the traditional economic academy or the traditional automotive engineering academy either. Even without that, or maybe because of it, Mosler’s pragmatic approach offers many practical insights if people are willing to fully listen to what he says because he gives a practical view of the political hurdles which must be overcome. One thing I will say about Mosler is that he does somewhat tailor his discussion to the political views of the audience. His positions don’t necessarily change, but some of his phrasing is different. With that, it is sometimes worthwhile to listen to Mosler speak to both left and right-leaning audiences to try to get a fuller view of his observations.
I personally stopped listening to anyone, MMT proponent or not, who doesn’t vocally oppose genocide 🤷♀️ j/s
I can understand that position, Jules, but I don’t view things quite the same way. When we look at the crisis in the Middle East, there are many important factors which rarely get discussed. On the one end of things, the US is using increased military industry spending as a jobs program of sorts, one that quite destructive in so many ways. On the other end of things, when we advocate for a more just situation in the Middle East, whether it be a one-state or two-state solution, part of that just situation is creating an economic plan which will allow peace to flourish and not have the region stumble into backwardness. After all, is liberation really liberation if it leads to constat strife and backwardness?
We need to advocate for policy which, domestically, pushes for a peace-oriented economy based on full employment policies. We need to advocate for the same internationally. It seems to me that Mosler has much to offer towards these goals even if it is up to the community to make those connections.
Just to name a couple of examples, I do not always agree with every position from Mosler and Bilbo, but I can also learn from what they get right to build an argument against what they are saying based on a combination of their knowledge and my knowledge in a particular area. It should also be said that with Mosler at least, his positions are not always static. I can think of many examples where his thoughts and positions on a matter have changed over the years. There was a time when Mosler proclaimed himself a ‘Tea Party Democrat’ and was pushing for rather right-wing solutions to healthcare and such. I think it is fair to say that he no longer advocates for such positions. It seems to me that Mosler is open to learning from the groups he’s a part of and so it is worth keeping him in these policy discussions for everyone’s benefit, including his own. And, of course, it is entirely possible that Mosler is quite aligned with the prevailing views around these parts on certain matters, but perhaps nobody has asked him about it.
https://youtu.be/E3HqM5b42uA?si=jUREHAeruSEp7VGE
Great talk. If the ruling class sees that the working class has more money in its hands, it won't hesitate to raise prices. However, basic services like healthcare, education, housing, childcare, food, transportation, etc. would reduce the power they hold over the rest of us.