tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post4442520098339807737..comments2023-08-29T01:27:13.772-07:00Comments on Magpie's Asymmetric Warfare: So, I Actually Hate the JG, Who Knew?Magpiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-3706155761061744162021-08-16T02:33:03.197-07:002021-08-16T02:33:03.197-07:00Calgacus,
I hope your health has not deteriorated...Calgacus,<br /><br />I hope your health has not deteriorated further since your last post. I was actually looking forward to the reply you promised. :-)Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-68272603108016216742021-06-29T01:03:24.269-07:002021-06-29T01:03:24.269-07:00I'm interested! I do know that Wray and Forsta...I'm interested! I do know that Wray and Forstater have written interesting things on the labour theory of value (Wray) and primitive accumulation (Forstater).<br /><br />Is there more to it?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-38245695561633210422021-06-28T00:28:53.174-07:002021-06-28T00:28:53.174-07:00My apologies. Wasn't well back then. Not feeli...My apologies. Wasn't well back then. Not feeling great, again. I wrote a long reply and have it somewhere, once I find it I will probably add more, become dissatisfied and then not post it for another 5 months. :-) What I wrote at Romanchuk's blog explains some. I am against idiotic "accelerationist" anti-socialist socialism, which at times had been the mainstream of socialists and socialist thought. <br /><br />My point - and I assert this was Marx's main view - is that an MMT JG alone would amount to the hegemony of the proletariat. Would sufficiently constitute workers control of the means of production. And obviously so. So to oppose a JG, to oppose Keynesian / New Deal work programs - is & was to oppose socialism; and Kalecki did not. Unfortunately, this has been far from being always the majority view on the Left. Though always and everywhere it has been on the Right - it's what capitalists themselves say and think - rather <i>know</i> - but foolishly ignored by "socialists".<br /><br />The question of political possibility: It happened back then. So it could happen again. Hence the worldwide appeal of a Green New Deal now. <br /><br />On that book. You can download it with a free internet archive account. The borrowing period is 14 days, but there is a way around that. So I have an awful lot of books from there and elsewhere. :-)<br /><br /><br /><i>Bill Mitchell (yes, the guy who invented the Job Guarantee and apparently the only MMT founder who has actually read Marxist literature.</i><br /><br />Far from the case. Wray & Hudson & Forstater especially have. In my (probably unique) opinion they are all actually to the left of Mitchell. Forstater is the best read and most careful historian of the group overall. Hudson focuses more on ancient history recently. But he is a red diaper baby (born Huckleberry Hudson) and once personally held the copyright to Trotsky's works. Minsky was also one, a Menshevik like his parents. Minsky first met Lerner after Lerner returned from Mexico after unsuccessfully explaining to Trotsky that his biggest (and worst, but tragically most widespread to this day) theory - his polemic against "Socialism in One Country" - was wrong.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-4758864836076189212021-06-18T15:17:50.070-07:002021-06-18T15:17:50.070-07:00Hey, Calgacus!
It's been -- what? -- five mon...Hey, Calgacus!<br /><br />It's been -- what? -- five months? Have you got your response ready yet? I'm looking forward to it! :-)Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-79759149051336731812021-01-29T00:54:50.832-08:002021-01-29T00:54:50.832-08:00Ten days after I approved his latest comment, I am...Ten days after I approved his latest comment, I am rather disappointed that Calgacus, who takes courtesy so seriously, has not deigned to acknowledge my previous comment.<br /><br />I hope nothing I wrote above offended or discouraged him.Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-22811160549326767372021-01-19T00:53:34.682-08:002021-01-19T00:53:34.682-08:00Hi Calgacus,
First, let me apologise if I sounded...Hi Calgacus,<br /><br />First, let me apologise if I sounded patronising. It wasn't my intention.<br /><br />I have no reason to doubt you have read Kalecki's essay many times and in different versions as you write above. <br /><br />More to the point of you last comment. I am aware this essay appeared in different periodicals in at least two slightly different versions. The version I used (linked to above) mentions that, in several endnotes. The first one (note 1, that is) explains that there is an abbreviated Polish-language version and other translations, based on that version, in several European languages.<br /><br />The particular version I am relying on is the one Mitchell linked to in his post (the slightly longer version that appeared in Political Quarterly, 1943, not an English translation of the shorter Polish version).<br /><br />I may be mistaken in using that longer version, of course, but in principle Mitchell's recommendation -- implicit in that link -- is good enough for me. Do you have any objection to that version? If you do and have a more authoritative version, feel free to post a link to it. Now, I hope you will not take offence in my asking why a different version is preferable to the one I used.<br /><br />Equally, feel free to explain what precisely your argument is. What is it Kalecki really argued and how it differs from what he appears to argue in my version? Where did Mitchell go wrong? (It doesn't need to be a complete takedown: just a couple of examples would do.) <br /><br />Finally, and given that what is really crucial is the political feasibility of a Job Guarantee, in your opinion, and based on your reading of what Kalecki really argued, is the Job Guarantee easily achievable?<br /><br />PS,<br /><br />Incidentally, I take it your reference to Feiwel's book is "The Intellectual Capital of Michal Kalecki: A Study in Economic Theory" (1975), which, although available through the Internet Archive, does not seem to be free of charge[*].<br /><br />[*] https://archive.org/details/isbn_087049161Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-37430888588974089552021-01-18T17:15:07.857-08:002021-01-18T17:15:07.857-08:00Hi Magpie.
Still owe you a response. Here's a...Hi Magpie.<br /><br />Still owe you a response. Here's a presponse. But could you be a bit nastier to me? Call me an idiot or something? :-) It's a bit patronizing to suggest I haven't read a paper which I had read many, many times. In fact, I had to because I found much of what Mitchell and even Wray was saying to be unintelligible until I read that paper, and I still find some of Kalecki's explanations far superior in every way, pedagogically AND theoretically to later ones, which should simply be discarded.<br /><br />My whole point was that it is Mitchell and many others who are putting words in Kalecki's mouth. Making him say things he isn't saying. Some of which I found stupid, unserious and pseudo-socialist sloganeering, very much against Kalecki's lifelong attitude. See George Feiwel's biography, available at the internet archive (Even freely and permanently downloadable, if you know how). I was puzzled to the point where I wondered whether youse all were reading the same paper.<br /><br />Well, then I looked at Kalecki's collected works, and found finds that there ARE several versions of the paper. Which explains some of this dispute. Some have clearly inadvertent omissions because they make an argument incomprehensible. Some have extra passages that give more support to Mitchell's arguments than the version he usually links to, which is the version I reread the most. But not enough in my opinion of course - :-)Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-11069498269205359802020-07-30T07:29:05.837-07:002020-07-30T07:29:05.837-07:00Kalecky's ide is that Full EMployment policy (...Kalecky's ide is that Full EMployment policy (i.e. Job Guarantee) will be so succsesfull that there will be political rejection of it in enough time given. Funny that isn't it.<br />Kalecky there have a wrong interpretation of two things How interest rate is determined in an economy and <br />What is a businness confidence<br /><br />Since the Full employment was so succsesful that caused political opposition that changed such policy has allready happened and is still rulling in the world, there is no much argument about it there, except that any real solution to economic problems would end in such way. FULL STOP<br /><br />Interest rates to government borrowing are determined sollely by it's Central Bank, no other thing determines it. Sovereign or non sovereign country determines it by it's governor. EVen Greece did it in 2010 when they raised interest by temselves, not by foreign banks. Thier idiotic governer raised interest rates to their banks when borrowing from Government and as such did the banks follow suit and raised interest rates to thier goverment. Interest rates are determined by Central Bank raising interest rates to their own banks for borrowing from governmnet. Banks turn around and charge the same rate to the government.<br />Pupulace does not land money to the government, only Primary dealers do and then it is distributed as much as private sector wants it so there is never preassure to raise interest rates. Primary dealers are requierd to buy Securities and then resell them. Selling Securities is only to drain excess reserves not to fund deficit. That is the MMT insight. Excess reserves come from too much credit issued and deficits spending. Excess reserves ruins the Monetary policy so they sell Securities. WIth paying interest on excess reserves that problem is solved. Selling Securities became the unecessery.<br /><br />Business confidence is a made up term to hide tha orders determine willingness to invest more mney into more prodution. No orders in crisis says that there is no need to invest more when wearhoues are allready full of unsold goods.<br />Business confidence in full employment is determined by orders, not by some psychological quality of business leaders as presented here.<br />Business leaders will not decline orders from government funded by taxes or by deficit. It is a mythology made up by those leaders but they never decline such orders, especially not in the crisis. That only fasist were able to make businesses accept orders from government is such a blatant lie. Look at Google that grew so big mostly thanks to the government orders to spy on users. Or Facebook, or Military industry. They all grew on government orders and funds. Ask Marianna Mazzuccato.<br /><br />Me personlay preffer JG and UBI in some combination because that both solve particular needs.<br /><br />P.S. Inflation is controlled by World supply of products. Yes, Sovereign governments use the supply of the whole world so money printing is not resource constrained but employment constrained. IF there is everyone employed then the inflation can show anything else will be imported without inflation.Critical Tinkererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08540226813192385645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-65639986990064924062020-07-29T23:52:38.393-07:002020-07-29T23:52:38.393-07:00Calgacus,
Thanks for your comments at Romanchuk&#...Calgacus,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments at Romanchuk's blog. <br /><br />I found you mean well and are heading in the right direction and are trying to understand the situation. But I am not sure you got there yet.<br /><br />So, my advice is to read Kalecki with calm, an open mind and trying honestly to understand what he is trying to demonstrate.<br /><br />Now, just because Kalecki said something, that doesn't make it so. People, even brilliant people one admires, can make honest mistakes. (That goes for everybody: Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Marx, Mitchell, the Pope, whatever).<br /><br />Mitchell understands that. He admires Kalecki but is trying to poke holes at Kalecki's argument. That's not a sin. He is not trying to destroy Kalecki's reputation. One may disagree with someone one admires.<br /><br />Here, in this post Mitchell does that.<br />http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11127<br /><br />Again: read it. Do that with calm and an open mind and trying honestly to understand what his arguments are. It's up to you to decide whether he was successful or not and to what degree he succeeded.<br /><br />Sounds good?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3634628224045926034.post-16380366990559611382020-07-29T11:05:02.284-07:002020-07-29T11:05:02.284-07:00I am curious as to what you think of the replies, ...I am curious as to what you think of the replies, directed mainly to you, that I posted there - on misreading Kalecki and history. The problem is where you, Romanchuk, Dillow and Mitchell agree, not disagree - :-). Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.com