Galbraith. Wray, Davidson, Mosler, & Me

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

    This week we were sent, by Davidson, to James
    Galbraith's critique of mainstream economics --
    especially its failure to examine the record of
    its ideas in the 20th Century. What worked?
    For how long? What is left to guide us in
    the 21st.

    Galbraith itemized leading mainstream economic
    doctrines and results;  and he hinted there was
    incipient pragmatic economic thjought that might
    serve society and the environment better than
    neoliberalism and its anti-planning cousins.

    He thought young economists, (and citizens too), might
    learn how to approach economic policy from observers
    less self-absorbed than the leaders, and current crop, of
    academic economists.  He saw men who, out of need for
    acceptance, feared to step out of professional line --
    no matter how often that line seemed to stumble in
    search of error.  They ignored decent alternative ideas
    that were everywhere offered to them.

    He invited them (and us) to join the chorus of those
    who question the present distribution of wealth and
    power in the great capitalist markets of the world.
    Especially those who worry of the mischief we may
    expect from wild and crazy capital flows.

    That distribution may mirror the law of the jungle
    more than the law of God;  it may lack the unselfish
    energy that moves men to fight and die to end slavery
    in their nation, both of the litteral and Galbraithian kind
    -- James' dad has said, nothing so deprives us of
    liberty as the total absence of money.

    Which brings up the second treat in the same week.
    Warren Mosler sent us to Randy Wray whose voice
    was raised, not against all the mainstream, but only
    those among them who would pay down the federal
    debt instead of forming a more perfect union,
    establishing justice (political and economic), and
    otherwise observing the canon of the American
    Preamble.  The Preamble sets out goals that may
    very well best be achieved with some federal debt
    outstanding, (although I'm not one who believes this).

    Well I was tickled to read Galbraith and Wray
    on policy, pragmatism, values, goals and ideas.
    And it made me think of the basics not often
    discussed in Pkt's corner of the net.

    If Galbraith is right, and our attention to price
    (the result of supply and demand) has obscured
    our view of sustainable production, distribution
    and living standards, -- to say nothing of our
    primary libertarian mission, (to ensure that human
    beings are not enslaved by being deprived of both
    money and the things it is meant to provide), --
    then we must look again at the past for clues he
    suggests the mainstream keeps ignoring.

    We recognize that production was attempted in
    communist nations by state owned monopolies.
    The astronomical number of parts, processes,
    skills and secrets necessary for successful
    manufacture of modern materail wealth
    confounded their monopolistic methods;  and
    the human desire for freedom was suppressed
    just to keep production from falling through
    its cracks.

    Welfare state capitalism was also attempted
    to finesse the issue of complexity with semi-
    decentralized oligopolies in markets that
    looked to world prices to solve problems
    for which they were not equipped.

    Neoliberalism is now in the saddle, again
    looking to world prices to do the impossible.

    Randy Wray comes up to plate offering the
    tool of the variable debt and deficit to combine
    with price and save the day.  Of course this
    has been the actual practice from the beginning
    of national budgets -- and it never made a
    major difference to the plight of the poor or
    the filth of the planet we call home

    Modern data warehousing, mining and
    decision models could no doubt help do
    what central communist planning attempted.
    But the suppression of freedom took place
    as a chain of political events separate from
    market price setting.  It would be foolish
    to return to the political problems of
    the police state just because computers
    may make its economic programs more
    successful.

    But what about modern business science
    as typified by quant strategic successes,
    as a partial answer to Galbraith's call for
    dethroning hard money prices.

    Why not something more amenable to
    decentralized and competitive teams
    using management by objectives models
    complimented by frequent strategic
    intervention by the executive branch of
    government in credit and price setting
    systems.  In other words, removing from
    mothball storage, much of what we
    learned in World War II of how to get
    things done.

    What is the economic difference between
    weapons production and production to end
    poverty defined as material shortages?

    The same for training for jobs in industry
    compared to training for jobs in the Army?

    The same for health care for all who enlist
    to receive it from a parallel system of providers
    on annual salaries?

    What is wrong with merging war bonds,
    inflation protected bonds, and voluntary
    pension accounts into a single system of
    government provided social security that
    free individuals can enter and exit at will.
                Sure, we would all be
    opportunistic gamblers -- and end up
    looking for help when the game in the private
    sector broke us.
                But if production can truly
    overcome scarcity in essential material
    wealth, what's the problem?

    Voices in Congress are challenging the idea
    that growth in material wealth is bad. I'm
    not talking about pollution -- real growth must
    be green or its anit-growth.
                The orthodoxy that allows high
    interest (and its attendant shortages) in place
    of high output and unlendable deposits as
    primary weapons to lower price, must be
    defeated at the polls.
                It's an orthodoxy that kills the
    American dream for labor and small business.

    The little people have the votes. They need
    coherent leadership from the likes of
    Davidson, Galbraith, and Wray, and
    supporting real industrialists and smart
    politicians.

    I'm not sure who the enemy is -- so for the
    moment I'll not say. But it may be Democrats
    in love with taxes and Republicans in love with
    their free lunch called earned interest.
                In all events, it cannot be everyone
    who's self-absorbed or who thinks taxes to pay
    interest to strangers is NOT a good idea.  Cause
    if these types on Galbraith's and Wray's lists are
    the bad guys, they certainly include me. And if
    I were bad, why do I want the Preamble to be
    rewritten as enforceable law?

        John Gelles
         email    1944@xxxxxxxx
             url    http://1944.org