Some questions just have easy answers, don’t they?
Question of to the day: what to call an economics that embraces MMT?
Although we might explain this a little bit to make it a less easy answer.
The nuts and bolts of the heart of MMT are correct. Governments make money, governments can make more money. Thus the money is not the limitation to what a government can spend.
This also doesn’t make any difference. For money is only a proxy for what we’re interested in, which is scarce resources. Making more money doesn’t change the resources we have available to us – therefore it doesn’t actually solve our important problem.
If you want to say that at times more money does solve problems then that’s fine. For it’s also correct. We’d rather not have deflation, QE stopped that, QE was making more money. But that’s straight monetarism, that’s not MMT (we can and do derive it from Friedman and the money equation for example, and that just ain’t MMT).
Moving on to the Sage’s musings:
So, what is economics that we need, which will have to embrace MMT and the Green New Deal, which I believe can together provide the required tools and policy framework?
Two ideas come to mind. One is enoughness. The idea that we can have enough may be something that we are learning right now.
That’s called “satisficing” and is hardly new nor does it emanate from Ely, not even a whiff of spudness about it.
But I think I prefer balanced economics, which then becomes BE and BEing.
I am, of course aware that this can be suggested to be very ‘touchy-feely’. But that’s far from what it is. It’s hard nosed fact that we do need to balance the way that we live and to recognise that there is virtue in enough now if we are to have any hope of surviving the climate crisis that is to come.
That’s known as prioritising and ain’t new either.