Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Aug 11 adapted to context
Bill Mitchell recounts: “The exchange took place on the social media page of a Labour Party insider who has long advocated a Land Tax, which McDonnell is on the public record as saying will ‘raise the funds we need’ to help local government. He called it a ‘radical solution’ (Source). An aside, but not an irrelevant one. It reflects the mindset of the inner economics camp in the British Labour Party, a mindset that is essentially in lockstep with the neoliberal narrative about fiscal policy.”
Bill Mitchell has serious doubts about whether the current Labour leadership really has the people’s best interest in mind:
• “The British Labour Party has not crowned itself in glory in the last few weeks by proposing to consider adding a UBI to its policy platform.”
• “As many commentators have pointed out the problem with this proposal can be summarized by just considering the party’s own title – Labour Party. A party that is concerned for the welfare and aspirations of workers who work and their dependents.”
• “Why would a progressive ‘Labour’ party want to introduce a UBI to solve unemployment when in government it could always ensure that all idle labour is productively employed?”
• “Why would a progressive Labour Party want to surrender to the neoliberal idea that there will never be enough jobs to go round when there is patently millions of jobs that can be created to serve community and environment if the government funds them?”
There is social policy and there is the funding of social policy. And these are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things. The economic stunt is that one can pull social policy out of the monetary cylinder that does NOT benefit WeThePeople but the Oligarchy. And one can call oneself a real Progressive and present oneself as true Friend-of-the-People and stab the elected party leadership in the back.
Classical social policy is rather straightforward: increase social spending and balance the budget by increasing the taxes of the rich or, alternatively, increase social spending and balance the budget by lowering military spending while keeping taxes unchanged.
Progressive social policy does not bother with either. As Bill Mitchell said elsewhere: “Do we need the rich’s money?” “No”.#1 Progressive social policy does not need taxes because, in a fiat money system, the sovereign government solves all problems by deficit-spending/ money-creation. MMTers correctly point out that, historically, ever-growing public debt has posed no serious problems and has never caused inflation. And this should tell everybody that all arguments against MMT are scientific and political BS.
In sum, Bill Mitchell argues that all available evidence confirms that Progressive social policy is superior to the obsolete social policy of the current Labour leadership which seems, moreover, to be mentally in bed with Neoliberals, Austerity sadists, and balanced-budget imbeciles.
The fact is that Progressives/MMTers are NOT true Friends-of-the-People. MMT is scientifically refuted on all counts.#2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 Because of the Profit Law, i.e. Public Deficit = Private Profit, MMT policy ultimately benefits alone the Oligarchy.
Politically speaking, Bill Mitchell is Wall Street’s knife in the back of the current Labour leadership.
Economics is scientifically worthless and politically corrupted since the founding fathers. This holds for Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and MMT.
#1 MMT: Academic snake oil for the people
#2 MMT, money creation, stealth taxation, and redistribution
#3 Deficit-spending/money-creation is ALWAYS a bad deal for WeThePeople
#4 Down with idiocy!
#5 MMT and the magical profit disappearance
#6 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit
#7 MMT: So-called Progressives as trailblazers for Trumponomics
Related 'MMT and grassroots movements' and 'MMT Progressives: The knife in the back of WeThePeople' and 'How Bill Mitchell stalks Jeremy Corbyn' and 'Is MMT good for WeThePeople or for the Oligarchy?'.