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.”