John weeks explains how neo-liberalsim causes the rise of fascism. You can read this lecture here
Economics
Mark Blyth – Why People Vote for Those Who Work Against Their Best Interests
Mark Blyth rubbishes the title of his lecture. People vote for what they want and he explains why they want what we have: Trump, Brexit, Duterte, but also Corbyn and Podemos.
Economics
Stephanie Kelton – The Public Purse
A good lecture concerning Modern Monetary Economics
Finance
The Gig – Hooked
Bama Athreya wanted to understand why people would drive for Uber. In this episode you’ll meet some of the drivers I met and interviewed: Tess from South Africa, Rebecca from California and Yaseen from London, […]
Very interesting talk. However, two items of content appear contentious:
1. The talk appeared to favour a returnto fixed, or at least controlled, exchange rates. I find MMT very persuasive, for which floating exchange rates seem to be fundamental. Instead, I believe, it favours controls on capital movements to counter currency speculation. In this context John McDonnel’s fears are unfounded – but then the Labour Party (as with many Left leaning progressive Partys) does not seem to have cottoned on to (or is afraid to admit to) MMT.
2. The idea of a Universal Basic Income has also come in for, what I perceive as substantially valid, criticism – largely from a societal standpoint rather than purely monetary considerations. The proposals for a job guarantee are receiving much more favour.
John Weeks is a founder of Prime Economics. It would be interesting to see, from them, a comprehensive economic manifesto – as comprehensive, to a lay person like myself, as that expounded by Bill Mitchell and Thomas Fazi in their book ‘Reclaiming the State’. Perhaps the upcoming revised Labour Party Manifesto, John alluded to, is that document.
Thank youu for the commet.
A correction – I was not a founder of PrimeEconomics. It was founded by Ann Pettifor and Jeremy smith years before I began to write for it. I am mereley an associated author.
MMT is theoretically unsound and empirically dubious.