Zergak eta DTM

Hasierarako, ikus ondokoa hau:

Zerga-paradisuak itxi behar dira, …, baina ez zuk uste dituzun arrazoiengatik

Eztabaida ala zer?

(i) Richard Murphy-ren MMT and tax havens


These points have been ignored by many in MMT: it is one reason why Neil Wilson alienated me from it for a long time because he appeared quite indifferent to tax evasion so long as sufficient tax was raised. I may well have the same issue with Bill Mitchell, but I think Bill has issues with almost everyone (https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com.es/2018/03/the-dangers-of-pluralism-in-economics.html) . In my opinion that indifference is quite wrong.

Mitchell gainditzearren edo, Murphy-k, aipaturiko lanean, Simon Wren-Lewis-en The dangers of pluralism in economics: the case of MMT erabiltzen du.

Baina ondoko lanean:

(ii) Richard Murphy-ren Modern monetary theory is not a footnote to Keynes: it is instead the opposite of neoclassical economics


Murphy-k berak Simon Wren-Lewis-en lana gaitzesten du:

MMT might be descriptive, [but there] is within the process it describes an economic theory that demands macroeconomic management in a way that is the precise opposite of the neoclassical economic prescription which suggests that governments must leave everything well alone.

I want to stress the significance of this. It is why Simon Wren-Lewis is wrong, in my opinion, when he argues that MMT is just a subset of neoclassical Keynesianism. It isn’t.


(iii) Ikus dezagun Neil Wilson-ek esaten duena:

In Bill Mitchell-en Video of my public lecture in Helsinki, February 27, 2018 (http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=38829#comments)


Neil Wilson says:

Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 4:27

Richard Murphy is hostile to most things MMT prescribes because it bumps up against his strong religious belief over the secret powers of taxation.
You tax the rich because you want them to have less money. That’s it. Taxation serves no other purpose in that direction. It’s a moral confiscation to correct a distribution failure. The spurious justifications of the tax justice warriors are just wrong.
MMT demonstrates that and that destroys the basis of Murphy’s arguments for taxation.
Taxation is largely just a very bad way of releasing resources for public use. Generally there are better more effective ways of freeing up resources – restricting bank lending, banning activities and delaying activities. There’s always a background of taxation that has to be fairly distributed in a simple manner, but
it is a background process rather than the be-all and end-all tax justice warriors seem to want it to be. I don’t like their reliance on envy as a political weapon.
Murphy is also against the Job Guarantee – which means he favours an unemployment buffer instead. Or rather he favours paying people to be unemployed, which as you know always goes down well with those who work. I have a section on the Basic Income which explains why, and which ultimately shows that Basic Income is about the theft of time from workers, whereas the Job Guarantee is the exchange of time between workers.

Eta aurrerantzean, beste iruzkin batean…

Neil Wilson says:

Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 16:23

Murphy sings the praises of MMT.”

If you don’t support the Job Guarantee, you’re not doing MMT. You’re just doing Keynesian pump priming which will cause a wage/price spiral just like it did the last time it was tried in the 60s and 70s.

Job Guarantee puts the currency on a time standard and anchors the currency in reality at all physical locations in the currency area. That’s vital for inflation control.

Surely if there are more jobs than people, this is where economic immigration serves a positive purpose?”

Again has the immigration into London from Rochdale helped the people of Rochdale? We keep recreating 1840s Manchester time and time again and every time we wonder why we have deprivation and social ills.

In a modern world of automated technology, we should be moving the work where the people are, not the other way around. That prevents the destruction of social capital inherent in a local community.

lump of labour’ analysis fails under a Job Guarantee scenario – because by definition a job is destroyed when the new one is created so there is little net benefit – particularly as the negative effects of large population centres start to bite: Increased housing costs, increased commuting times, and the environmental impact of that concentration in density.

All you are doing is moving activity from one country to another. You’re not increasing it in any way that justifies the social costs either on the source society or the destination.

The political difference with MMT is that it advocates moving the work where the people are and provides a way of doing it that *forces* capitalism to do the same – the Job Guarantee. That keeps social structures intact for the majority of people that want to live in a place, while still allowing those that wish to wander the opportunity to do so in a non-destructive manner.

As to setting taxation, a fair system is all that is required. Overall taxation will always end up as being about 90% of what government spends with the other 10% as an increase in savings. Chancellors can only really affect the distribution of taxation. The total is a function of the system and the desire of the non-government to save. I’ve not seen a lot on the type of taxation in MMT analysis because that’s a political question.

In aggregate taxation has to be high enough so that the Job Guarantee buffer never exhausts at any physical location within the currency area – even at peak private sector boom. You want to keep the anchor operating at all locations.

Under our current system the exhaustion of the ineffective unemployment buffer at physical locations where a private sector boom is underway is one of the reasons you start to get inflation. And that’s because you’re revving the private sector engine into the red zone to try and generate jobs. Under a Job Guarantee system you don’t need those private sector jobs, so you can limit the private sector engine to a lower level – which helps stop it blowing itself apart.”

Argi, orain?

Iruzkinak (2)

  • joseba

    Lars P. Syll-en Wren-Lewis and the dangerous MMT


    “… I would phrase it differently. Mainstream discussion of fiscal policy is almost invariably clouded with theoretical junk (“fiscal sustainability”, “budget constraints”, “intergenerational transfer”, “bond vigilantes”) that it takes considerable effort to strip the junk out to get the correct description, which almost always ends up being the MMT description. The MMT jihad against various phrasings and framing terms reflects the need to think clearly about fiscal policy …”

  • joseba

    Barne hazkundeak pobrezia murrizten du, baita errenta desberdintasuna ere
    Bill Mitchell-en Inclusive growth means poverty reduction and declining income inequality
    This topic bears on a number of strands of public policy that have been canvassed in the recent period.
    First, there is a continual call from so-called progressives who say governments need to tax the rich in order to get the funds to run social and other progressive-type programs.
    We hear that call continually.
    ‘Tax the rich the rescue the NHS in Britain’
    ‘Tax the rich to pay for a Green New Deal in the US’
    ‘Tax the rich to pay for better education’ (everywhere).
    And so on.
    I have written several times about that narrative, including:
    1. Off-shore tax havens – be sure we define the issues correctly (July 23, 2012).
    2. Governments do not need the savings of the rich, nor their taxes! (August 17, 2015).
    3. Upward mobility declines sharply as the rich make off with the growth (January 26, 2017).
    4. Progressives should move on from a reliance on ‘Robin Hood’ taxes (September 4, 2017).
    5. The ‘tax the rich’ call bestows unwarranted importance on them (February 21, 2018).
    It should never be part of a progressive narrative. The two components of say ‘Tax the rich the rescue the NHS in Britain’ call should be forever separated and expressed as individual, unrelated propositions.
    A progressive might want to tax the rich more to reduce their command over real resources as a means of containing their politicial influence or their influence in labour markets etc.
    But the government never needs to tax the rich to get money to pay for government spending. Never if that government is monetarily sovereign in the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) meaning of the term.
    A progressive will always want to advance social and environmental programs that increase well-being for the population and will typical eschew outcomes that benefit only the highest income earners.
    When I give public presentations on economic development, poverty and unemployment, I am often asked in the question time how I judge policy effectiveness.
    I reply with a simple rule of thumb.
    I judge the policy framework and the economy by not how rich it makes society in general but how rich it makes the poor!
    And I add that economic growth has to bring a maximum poverty reduction rate (meaning income inequality has to also fall as a result of the poverty reduction strategy).
    It is not an original benchmark but I think it is an effective one. It doesn’t make much sense to speed up the train if you leave an increasing proportion of the potential passengers behind on the station.
    A society that generates rising poverty rates and cannot even see that all those working are over the poverty line is a deeply flawed one.
    But, equally, a society that generates growth which is disproportionately received by the highest income earners (rising inequality) is not desirable, even if poverty rates are falling.
    This is the difference between ‘absolute pro-poor growth’ (making the poor less poor irregardless of distribution) and ‘relative pro-poor growth’ (tilting the benefits of growth disproportionately to the poor – reducing inequality), which I will return to presently.
    The ‘tax the rich’ is relevant then for ensuring a growth strategy delivers relative pro-poor growth, which should be the progressive goal.
    Second, progressives have jumped on the UBI bandwagon and have bought the line that there can never be enough jobs or that paid work is coercive so the responsibility of government should be to guarantee incomes, rather than the MMT position, that it should guarantee employment.
    I have written countless blog posts, academic articles and books about this topic.
    If you want to see more on that topic go to the – Job Guarantee category and start reading.
    I answered that question in these blog posts (among others):
    1. Why are CEOs now supporting basic income guarantees? (March 28, 2017).
    2. Basic income guarantee progressives cosy up with the worst CEOs in the world (April 4, 2018).
    It is clear that the high income earners require growth in order to expand their own incomes even though they also try to squeeze the share of other income groups in existing national income.
    To maintain growth, there has to be expenditure and the largest component of aggregate expenditure is consumption by households.
    Therein lies the problem.
    Squeezing the poor of wages and creating increasingly precarious work with elevated levels of job instability is good for the top-end-of-town because they can get a larger share of what is produced.
    But it also undermines the growth rate and becomes self-defeating.
    Two things help in the quest of the elites:
    1. Load the poor up with credit and debt – to keep consumption spending growing in an environment of flat wages growth.
    2. Get the government to provide a guaranteed minimum income (without higher taxes on the top earners) – also keeps consumption spending growing in an environment where jobs are being slashed and wages growth suppressed.
    So the advocacy by the CEOs for the provision of a UBI makes perfect sense. It is another way they can ensure national income growth continues, so they can further feather their own nests.
    A dollop of UBI compared to billions of expropriated income growth! A good equation.
    Progressives should always reject the goal of ‘absolute pro-poor growth’.
    Only inclusive growth, which means falling poverty rates, rising consumption potential among the poorest and declining income and wealth inequality, has to be the goal.
    A ‘tax the rich’ policy makes sense in that context. Not to raise funds for the job creation programs. But to ensure growth is more equitably shared.
    Just giving the poor a cash handout (like the UBI) will not help in this regard.

Utzi erantzuna

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude