Re: Sabotage 399

[Warren Mosler <mosler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- Barry Brooks <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Whether it's Veblen's sabotage, tight
> money, low confidence,
> mal-distribution, or regulation
> economists have plenty of explanations
> as to why we produce less than we
> could. There may not be agreement about
> what is slowing the growth of
> consumption, but the chorus sings
> together, "we want more."

Not exactly.  Instead, I'd put it this way:
If we want to 'work' there are things we can do
that we want done.  These can include writing
more software, holding hands in old age homes, etc.
all of which don't necessarily tax resources.  The can
also include research into whatever we want to
research.  (more below)

>
> The notion that our scarcity is due to
> shortages of labor and productive
> capacity has little support among
> economists. Today, the various factors
> which sabotage the economy are seen as
> technical and political. And, it seems
> that scholars have substantial
> agreement about the factors, if not as
> to the proper weight to be assigned to
> each.

Apart from those who expouse an 'artificial
budget constraint' as previously discussed.

(snip)

Eliminate all other forms of
> sabotage and the business planners will
> just have plan to put the slack back
> into the economy to avoid unprofitable
> investments.

'business planners'?  conspiracy theory
popping up here?

>
> Of course the euthanasia of the renter
> class due to low interest rates could
> change the nature of the profit game,
> but one might as well talk of
> revolution. Perhaps, willy-nilly, our
> guardians will soon make revolution
> against themselves. Surely tighter
> money will be needed.

surely... in the long run...

>
(snip)
>
> We have a new need for sabotage, namely
> resource scarcity. We must not forget
> the limits to growth in our plans and
> our studies. It is a fundamental fact
> that can't not be ignored by honest
> people. We want more and we can't
> imagine any way to get more except by
> stimulation of consumption? Hey guys!
> Perishables aside, what we have is what
> we produce minus what we throw in the
> trash (consume). Consumption is always
> part of a subtaction from what we have.

Consumption includes hair cuts, massage,
music lessons, etc...
>
> If one wants more it would be foolish
> to advocate more consumption.

as above.  services count as gdp.
most of it, in fact?

>
> The needs of the world's poor could be
> met without problem if resources
> weren't being wasted on wasteful
> consumption. Poor people don't need
> very much. The limits to growth are not
> impinging on our capacity to care for
> the poor.

True, but better still, availability of sufficient
employment (ELR, for example...)
that carries a sufficient minimum standard of living
leaves only 'welfare' cases to 'care for.'  The
rest quite nicely can take care of themselves.

 The problems relating to
> poverty, and the problems with
> hyper-active growth economics, are
> mostly political. It's time to admit
> that more consumption in the developed
> world is not the way to anything except
> future scarcity.
Maybe someday.  But today full employment policy
is a readily available option that is not
being considered due to imagined budget constraints.

Warren Mosler

see Full Employment And Price Stability at
www.mosler.org

=====
http://www.mosler.org
      http://www.moslerauto.com

Primary email contact:  wmosler@xxxxxxxxxx

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com