Re: A Future Economics

["John Gelles" <indexed-savings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gunnar Tómasson implies that economists have tried
to describe and recommend a system that would not
short-change purchasing power relative to produced
output for sale.
                    It would take Say's law--that production
creates its own monetized demand--and make it true
enough to (1) reach full employment, (2) pass on
productivity gains to that needier segment of society
that technology invites us to serve, and (3) otherwise
end much of the material want our culture has brought
on itself to date.
                    Gunnar goes on to say, economists
"have tried to do just that since the 1930s - so far
without success."

Before attempting to describe reforms that might help,
let us note that even if everything produced for profit
were purchased by consumers, (including those at the
bottom of the income ladder), because God, herself *,
put money under our pillow every night to make the
system work, we might still have a major problem:
                    It just might be that all that was produced
was stuff we avoid, like dope, porn and fattening food.
The good stuff was not produced because producers
were all male *   whores.

Admittedly, this is just an exaggerated example to make
the point that Say's law is not enough: society needs
expert input from decent, informed people, to allow
producers and consumers to move the economy out
of the sewer and into the light.

Now, knowing we have the smarts to produce what
is healthy, let us examine how we can replace God,
above, with a money machine that avoids hyper-
inflation.

Several us on PKT (and other forums) have offered
versions of this machine.
                    Is it not time to concentrate to on, say a
half a dozen of these machines: (1) to discuss
their merits, and (2) to arrive at an approach to economic
reform whose effect would be the same as discovery
of an intelligent-Say's-law machine that worked.

John Gelles
 * respect for gender politics made me try
    to alter conventional male-for-androgenous
    English. I don't like it. But then I'm not used
    to it.