Excellent. But also in this space of MMT activism we need to be getting Mosler's analysis into the aether. The whole industry surrounding savings schemes is a total waste of human lives. Yet existing institutional structures force people into such pointless financial activity, and only the very wealthiest can afford to pay "professionals" to do it for them. Wray's whole "money manager capitalism" critique is basically the same as Mosler's, just slightly different styles. We should not want money manager capitalism not *only* because it creates instability and is parasitic, but also because it is one giant real resource drain (the whole cottage industry) that is entirely unnecessary.
Bijou, thanks for taking the time to comment. My initial reaction was, "Okay, where do we start? What are some of the *first things* we can do to change the 'whole industry surrounding savings schemes'?" If we were to draft legislation taking on what I would agree with you is a "giant real resource drain," what aspects of it would we change first such that (a) they lead to real improvements in people's lives; and (b) they help to expose the various deficit myths?
We MMT advocates have heretofore been good at saying, "Here's the way our monetary economy really works," and "In principle, we could change the laws so that it works differently -- better and fairer." What we have *not* been good at is saying, "Here are the specific laws that must be changed." In my discussion of U.S. Social Security, I'm trying to work my way toward answers for that latter question. We'll need to start doing that for finance as well.
Both Warren and Randy and Yeva have given some of the low hanging fruit. First is scrap superannuation (that's what we call it in New Zealand.... something, like your 401K stuff. Giant waste of resources, and people think it is "affording"; them things. LOL.)
Jim, as you say, elimination of the non-marketable government bonds would have no impact on the Treasury's books as they represent both an asset (in the OASI trust fund (and other trust funds)) and a liability of the Treasury. Funds to repurchase the bonds from the trust fund come from the Treasury itself and, therefore, return to the Treasury. Another way to do this would be to just let the bonds run off as they are doing now with an expectation that they will all be gone in about 10 years. At that point, either allow that shortfall of benefit payments over FICA revenue to be paid from general funds or allow the trust fund to borrow from the Treasury. The effect of these two approaches is identical.
Excellent. But also in this space of MMT activism we need to be getting Mosler's analysis into the aether. The whole industry surrounding savings schemes is a total waste of human lives. Yet existing institutional structures force people into such pointless financial activity, and only the very wealthiest can afford to pay "professionals" to do it for them. Wray's whole "money manager capitalism" critique is basically the same as Mosler's, just slightly different styles. We should not want money manager capitalism not *only* because it creates instability and is parasitic, but also because it is one giant real resource drain (the whole cottage industry) that is entirely unnecessary.
Bijou, thanks for taking the time to comment. My initial reaction was, "Okay, where do we start? What are some of the *first things* we can do to change the 'whole industry surrounding savings schemes'?" If we were to draft legislation taking on what I would agree with you is a "giant real resource drain," what aspects of it would we change first such that (a) they lead to real improvements in people's lives; and (b) they help to expose the various deficit myths?
We MMT advocates have heretofore been good at saying, "Here's the way our monetary economy really works," and "In principle, we could change the laws so that it works differently -- better and fairer." What we have *not* been good at is saying, "Here are the specific laws that must be changed." In my discussion of U.S. Social Security, I'm trying to work my way toward answers for that latter question. We'll need to start doing that for finance as well.
I think that is spot on!
Both Warren and Randy and Yeva have given some of the low hanging fruit. First is scrap superannuation (that's what we call it in New Zealand.... something, like your 401K stuff. Giant waste of resources, and people think it is "affording"; them things. LOL.)
Jim, as you say, elimination of the non-marketable government bonds would have no impact on the Treasury's books as they represent both an asset (in the OASI trust fund (and other trust funds)) and a liability of the Treasury. Funds to repurchase the bonds from the trust fund come from the Treasury itself and, therefore, return to the Treasury. Another way to do this would be to just let the bonds run off as they are doing now with an expectation that they will all be gone in about 10 years. At that point, either allow that shortfall of benefit payments over FICA revenue to be paid from general funds or allow the trust fund to borrow from the Treasury. The effect of these two approaches is identical.