mmt & social possibilities
If we can do it, we can afford it. That’s clear once we understand the capacities of currency-issuing government. There is no financial barrier in our way. But what about the politics? Can we overcome the political forces we are up against? The political barrier The answer is probably “no” unless we overthrow capitalism. This [ ]
Most national governments today are currency issuers. Their spending is not financed out of revenue but self-financing. The act of spending is what issues the currency, and the aggregate net liabilities of the rest of us are only payable once the currency has been issued in this way. Pretending otherwise is damaging Pretending that the [ ]
I have been reading about the Soviet revolution, and it is striking how little the behavior of the West has changed. Now, like then, Western imperialists do everything in their power to block or sabotage any country that seeks even the slightest degree of autonomy. The violence of anyone else pales into insignificance next to [ ]
In reaction to MMT statements that government spending must occur before taxes can be paid, it is sometimes noted that a household could pay taxes by borrowing from a bank that subsequently obtains reserves from the central bank. Whether this is true from inception of a modern money system will depend on the terms set [ ]
This post concerns ten recent Marxist claims about MMT and one about Kalecki (a forerunner, in certain respects, of MMT). Some Marxists claim that: MMT fixates on the monetary, ignoring the real. MMT ignores social structure in favor of tweaks of the monetary system. MMT is incompatible with Marx on money. MMT falsely claims that [ ]
In recent exchanges on Marx and MMT, one question has concerned the capacity of government spending to encourage private investment and promote employment. Some Marxists appear to regard MMT as incompatible with Marx on this question. My own view is that Marx and MMT are compatible, both in general and on this particular question, and [ ]
For both Marx and MMTers, money is a social relationship. For Marx, the social relationship is fetishized in a commodity for reasons that stem from the nature of commodity production. Money only becomes necessary, for Marx, when it is impossible for a currency to represent social labor time directly, which is the case under commodity [ ]
For Marx, a currency’s representation of the labor performed in commodity production is indirect, mediated through a ‘money commodity’. The reason for this is that labor performed in commodity production is not directly social but only made so, indirectly, according to the ‘law’ of value under which the concrete properties of diverse labors are abstracted [ ]
MMT does not presuppose a particular theory of value. In principle, it is possible to situate a subjective or objective view of value within it. The present focus is on Marx’s theory of value and, more specifically, his ‘law’ of value. Marx’s law of value, in which commodity production only occurs on the basis of [ ]
It is suggested in an earlier post that the presence of complex labor affects value creation in Marx’s theory, including at the aggregate level. The argument starts from Marx s distinction between concrete and abstract labor. In making this distinction, Marx explicitly identifies productivity as a property of concrete labor and labor complexity as a property [ ]