Modern Monetary Theory: the economic basis for expanded social spending and greater shared prosperity

Originally published at:


These are probably the most important proposals in the list since the biggest issues with capitalism is how much it divorces labor from its use of capital. It always leads to a roller coaster effect in the economy (big highs, big lows). The economy should be growth oriented with emphasis on sustainability within the existing and projected (to be amended as time goes on) future populations. Also, I would probably add that the two points together should also include a kind of federalism within and among worker owned firms to ensure that production best fits the regions it originates rather than trying to ram in poorly fitting industries into a given community.


These ideas have been around since the early 1900s, growing up as a dissenting counterpoint to Keynesianism, pointing out that Keynes and the neoclassical economists assume that markets will be dominated by “active owners”

It’s worth noting preemptively in an inevitably pedantic discussion about economic schools of thought that the phrase “Keynes and the neoclassical economists” describes two separate entities, the distinction being made in simple terms between the assumption of friction in markets. Also, Keynes (with his “animal spirits”) is a little more cynical than neoclassical economists when it comes to the base level of rationality underlying the markets’ “rational actors.”

Carrying on…

We could have immediate positive effects by implementing German-style laws regarding mandatory labour representation on corporate boards. But, like universal single-payer health insurance, that small (relative to the DSA platform) change is “soshalism!” that disincentivises workers from pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.


Rather than “But how will we pay for it?” I find the question asked is often “But who will pay for it?” Since public money has become “taxpayer money” people have the idea that if something good happens it comes out of their pocket and we go to a one-dollar-one-vote monetocracy rather than a one-person-one-vote democracy.


The last 40 years has seen a steady rise of deficit-hawking, in which the world’s postwar social safety nets are shredded because the state “can’t afford” them

The lazier the Voters get, the more this happens.


Many people were first exposed to this theory in a lecture in 1985.

1 Like

Equally: the more weaponized propaganda becomes… the more this happens.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.