Jo Wilson made this comment this comment on the blog this morning when discussing how to communicate economic ideas:
Find a way to communicate what MMT actually is (heck, just give it a new name), as so many non-scientific people seem to confuse “theory” with “hypothesis” — as soon as they hear “theory” it's immediately translated to “oh, *just* a theory, eh?” in their minds…
Jo has hit on an essential point. Modern monetary theory is not something you would call an idea if you wanted to sell it. It also has a whole range of problems implicit in the name.
It's not that modern.
OIt's not just about money.
It's more a description than a theory.
And it is by no means a complete description of the economy that is desired even if it is a powerful tool.
So what to call a new economics? Kate Raworth has Doughnut Economics and there are major elements of her work I like. But again, the term essentially refers to a tool, and not a desired outcome. And I think that a weakness.
So, what is economics that we need, which will have to embrace MMT and the Green New Deal, which I believe can together provide the required tools and policy framework?
Two ideas come to mind. One is enoughness. The idea that we can have enough may be something that we are learning right now. That some have not got enough is also readily apparent.
But I think I prefer balanced economics, which then becomes BE and BEing.
I am, of course aware that this can be suggested to be very ‘touchy-feely'. But that's far from what it is. It's hard nosed fact that we do need to balance the way that we live and to recognise that there is virtue in enough now if we are to have any hope of surviving the climate crisis that is to come.
So the question of the day is, what is the right description? And it need not be either of these suggestions.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
In homage to the unholy trinity of 3×3 slogans:
Money & tax, how it works, household & government.
Maybe as a sub-title to your BE.
I like that
What ‘worries’ me about ‘Balanced Economics’ as a title is that I think it may be too easily confused with balanced budgets, which is where all the austerity brigade are coming from. ‘Balanced’ implies (or will be widely inferred to mean) same on either side of the scales and that is not helpful is it ? We need to get away from the economics of Micawberism into a wider and or deeper understanding of what makes a national economy stable over time accommodating the peaks and troughs without the traditional booms and busts.
My own conviction is that the problem is in getting across that economics is about management of resources. Obsession with budgets and money management allows politicians to say that ‘unemployment is a price worth paying for…..” without seeming to consider that unemployment is a criminal waste of one of a nation’s most crucial resources.
I am losing my enthusiasm for it…
As a lay person this sounds on the right lines. I felt the key to my better understanding lay in changing what I thought about money.
Joe public understands money in term of his daily life, it buys stuff, if he doesn’t have enough – things are hard, you can’t just magic it up, it’s hard to accumulate…. The notion that it is created out of nothing, and cancelled back to nothing is so foreign to Joe that the idea almost isn’t believable.
As soon as one accepts that in an economy money is created out of nothing, and in enormous quantities then a light goes on. The household budgeting analogy goes, and an analogy more like the economy as a leaky container of money which requires constant top ups comes in. This is not perfect off course but I hope it makes the point.
Whatever description is used it needs to spur a mind shift on money..
“Money, its creation and cancellation, how economies really work…”
Or just ‘How economies really work’
You make the point there that MMT is not an economic theory. It’s a description of how the fiat currency system works in reality when we stop pretending it’s a gold proxy.
We need to dump the subject heading ‘Economics’ in universities. We certainly need to stop the pretence that economics is a (hard) science. There is as I understand it Political Economy and econometrics: two entirely different approaches to different questions, the ‘why’ and the ‘how’.
Without the philosophy underpinning the political economy you have no ‘why’ that needs a ‘how.
You suggest MMT is not just about money…?? But it is really. It doesn’t tell you what to do with it. It is entirely non prescriptive in terms of political economy and that’s why the one percenters don’t want anyone else to know how money works.
In truth MMT is, per Mitchell, Wray & Watts book, quite simply ‘Macroeconomics’. Just as Macro is MMT.
But the significance of that is something only pros and insiders would appreciate. To me, the revolution (or maybe that should be revelation?) is MMT is only understood once we take off our ‘Household’ specs and put on our ‘MMT’ specs. But there you run into the problem of a simplistic (but wrong) metaphor vs a seemingly complex (but correct) technical understanding. That just won’t cut it.
So, as I’ve mentioned a few times here before, we too must make sure our metaphor is equally simple to get as ‘Household’. Which is why I recommend we must always make sure we put on our ‘FA’ specs when thinking about economics as we all get that the FA is NOT like a football team vis-a-vis its unit of account – the mighty league point.
So, how about ‘League Point Economics’? (the obvious one would be ‘FA Economics’ might get too many smirks)
I’m not sure many people would get that reference
Not everyone is a football fan
Hard to understand, I know, but true
Fair point. However I feel its important to try grasping for something as snappy as Katie Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. Your Balanced Economics is technically spot on wrt MMT, but slightly falls short on the ‘snappy’ eye-catching front.
Maybe the concept of switching specs (which I admit was a straight steal by me of Bill Mitchell’s ‘MMT’ lens), how about ‘X-Ray Economics’? (as in X-Ray specs), which implies the wearer can see inside the ‘body’ of economics vs the superficial view of the mainstream.
Alternatively ‘Anti-Economics’? since the very word itself means ‘household’ in Greek. So why not say out loud our condemnation of the enemy within – ‘household’.
OK, enough ideas for today, I’ll shut up now.
Thanks
For the ideas
Not shutting up, that is
My question of the day relates to the donations which we are invited to make: Assuming your 20/21 incomes goes over the personal allowance, are the donations taxable?
Yes
A problem I have with Kate Raworth’s doughnut image is that my abiding childhood memory of a doughnut is not of a ring but of a stodgy ball of dough with a dollop of jam inside. To get to the jam you had to consume mouthfuls of dough – not the sort of economy I would want to live in.
Chapter 5 of her book talks about the need for business to become regenerative instead of degenerative – a much more life affirming image.
Is a Regenerative Economics what we need?
No one would understand what that meant
And my problem is I don’t like ring doughnuts….give me that jam!
It’s only jam tommorrow, as always. : )
I think MMT is becoming quite well established from an anonymous start ,to change its name now would more liley just cause more confusion the already confused mind of the nation. Just leave it alone.
But I am not seeking to do MMT…I am going further…so the term does not work, come what may
Nor am I seeking to step on the toes of those only doing MMT
Point taken,
Equitable Economics then;
Definition and other meanings of equitable;fair and impartial,just,impartial even handed,fair-minded,unbiased,reasonable.
Bagel Economics?
🙂
It’s an interesting question without an easy answer, especially for a disinterested public.
I take your point that MMT is not new and not just about money, having said that I like to refer to MMT simply as Modern Money. It seems to hold the attention of people who think they understand how it all works but have the household myth running through their heads as they start to explain their understanding.
I get asked things like what do you mean by modern money, how is it any different today. The point for me is that it engages their minds and gives a starting point for discussion.
Part of the problem is who is the audience we’re trying to reach, for me it’s the wider public.
I think modern money may resonate with a wider audience…
They think the economy is money
Sustainable Society Policies?
But it’s more than policies?
What about just – How Money Works.
It’s fundamental and gets to the point. And the more times it’s repeated the more it sinks in. Plus it’s 3 simple words which seems to be the basis for the catchiest slogans that resonate with people. Even if you disagree, by saying the phrase you’ve already conceded the point.
“We can’t afford it.” – That’s not how money works.
“But Weimar & Zimbabwe” – that’s not how money works.
“We need to raise taxes to cut the deficit” – you don’t understand how money works.
“How are you going to pay for it?“ – you just pay for it because that’s how money works. There’s a difference between money and resources.
We need to talk about something much more than money though – because economics is, however important that is
Modern Money – Just drop the theory
Except it’s more than money
MMT is – after all the JG is not about money per se
21st Century Money: How It Can Work For All Of Us.
🙂
I guess whatever it’s called, going forward it has to be sustainable.
So why not…………Sustainable Economics?
The sustainable economy….
MMT may be about how money functions in an economy but I think it all starts before we introduce money. It’s all about available resources and how these are efficiently utilised to maximise the wellbeing in a society. Any human resources that are underutilised reduce the efficiency of the community so first and foremost full employment is essential. Money is what we use to utilise those resources. Debt becomes meaningless if we focus on resources.
Debt is never meaningless
It redistributes resources
Justa s tax abuse does
Both matter
I think that one of the operative conditions we have is that we underfund the majority of society (through low wages and benefits) in order to use that to motivate people to keep working, working harder and competing with each other etc. People will try harder to get what they feel they need – or/and – what the market tells them that they need.
All I have ever wanted is enough money to eat, provide shelter, save, pay down debt, have a pension, help my kids and the odd holiday too. Oh, and I don’t see why my income has not been made to keep up with inflation either. I also have believed it right to be rewarded for hard and effective work which is why having been made redundant twice I went back to University, in search of job security. But no, a degree doesn’t stop from facing the scrapheap either these days.
The word I think we might be able to use is ‘sufficiency’ – the economics of ‘social sufficiency’. Having sufficient income in society helps individuals AND markets (those who wish to profit), and it overcomes the Left blind spot as it is an economic ‘win/win’ for people and markets. It also helps services. To me, too many public services are used to just take the edge off some of the sick thinking that we have about keeping people unemployed for example. Really, our services should be there for the worst cases – not just routinely supporting the status quo.
One of the faults of our current system is that short-circuiting tax systems means that the rich can switch their focus on profit made from sufficient income in society (everybody buying their stuff) and aggregate wealth through not paying taxes. Not paying taxes incentivises capitalists to not pay decent wages? Or they lose interest in running factories and creating good jobs for the nation and their concern becomes maintaining the value of their stash – their focus becomes money – not the society they are actually a part of.
Anyhow, we could call it ‘monetary sufficiency’, ‘fiscal sufficiency’ ‘wage sufficiency’? I don’t know.
Another thought that occurs to me is that people don’t really like to apply for benefits or hand outs. Sufficient wages or UBI/JG (whilst being a form of help) is a leveller of kinds. The Left’s tendency is to offer people state help and funnel them towards that, but people don’t necessarily want that help – there is still a stigma to it, being a passive recipient of money. That is why the Left needs to grasp MMT – and UBI/JG pretty quick. And offer choice – if you can volunteer to do something in your community why can’t UBI/JG be attached to that? We all know people who help others and clapping is not enough to acknowledge that.
The other issue of course is to ensure that what ever monetary ‘sufficiency’ programme there is also ropes in changes to consumerism that damages the planet.
But that it the word that occurred to me this morning ‘ sufficiency’ = ‘an adequate amount of something, especially of something essential’.
Lord knows, we’ve put up with insufficiency enough and the PPE and testing scandal is the last straw as far as I am concerned.
Thanks.
Thanks….
Reflecting on all this
What about
Reciprocal Economics – even tho’ RE seems unfortunately often to stand for Religious Education…
or
Interdependent Economics, which I hope means what it says on the tin.
(For some reason you seem already to have rejected Corbynomics 🙂 )
Reciprocal economics….
I like the sense of balance in that…
Emphasising the descriptive significance of MMT:
Understanding Real Money (URM)
Interesting how most comment is about money
I mentioned in an earlier reply that I think ‘MMT’ and ‘Modern Monetary Theory’ are gaining traction as terms that people have heard, even if they’ve no clue what they mean. I can see however that although this gives a common grounding to start discussing what this describes, it’s a cobbled together name.
I like the idea of having the word ‘balanced’ in any future description. It perfectly sums up what we need to survive as a species on this planet.
What to tag it to is the thing.
Balanced Ecology Economics
Balanced Society Government
Balanced Economic Future
I don’t know but I definitely think ‘balance’ or ‘balanced’ is a powerful word that fits well to the content.
Thanks
Equalibrium economics?
Sustainable economics?
Yin Yang economics? (Maybe not!)
Harmonic economics?
Circular Economics!
How’s about “flexible government finances”
Good
But it’s more than that
`Resource Economics` is descriptive.
Fascinating discussion, and a very important topic. I have been pondering this for a while, and have no idea what a perfect answer might be. If it is to be recognisable by the general, lay public, and catch their interest, it ideally needs to avoid terms like “macroeconomics”, and be quite short. I like Adam H’s “How money works”, but can see that it’s about more than just money.
MME – Modern Monetary Economics?
I thought of that
But it’s also fiscal….
MMFE – Modern Monetary & Fiscal Economics.
Isn’t there’s a danger of expecting too much from a simple, memorable acronym? ‘Keynsianism’ covers a multitude of sins.
It does…
My thought started with Community (as in national community) Economics, before moving on to Commonwealth, to end up with “Common Wealth Economics”.
Or for a slogan, how about ‘Money and Tax – how they work together to build a Common Wealth Utopia’
🙂
You say MMT is about more than money. No specialist me, but not entirely sure that’s so. What is certainly true however, is that those who argue for MMT also argue for a whole lot of other things too, and MMT is a component of their thinking. It tends to go with the GND.
And that’s a pretty understandable idea. It’s green, it focuses on the climate and the environment, and for those who know any history it echoes FDR’s New Deal. And it suggests even for those who won’t pick up that reference a new settlement focused around both the climate and social justice. What’s not to like.
We’re 36 comments in here and coming up with an alternative to MMT is proving pretty difficult. Do we even need one? Seems to me GND works pretty well. That’s the project. You can explain how money works, how its created and so on along the way. And yes debunk household analogies, but does MMT need to be front and centre?
I don’t think so.
An interesting point
The problem is some linked to the GND – like Ann Pettifor – think MMT is the devil’s work
In fairness, I have no idea what Ann is really saying these days
Fairness economics
Economics, equity & fairness
The Nation’s wealth
I like fair
But no one knows what it is
Or rather, we don’t agree on it
We need a catchy song that gets the message across.
It should be suitable to sing on the streets and on marches and with a strong beat. Keep it short so people can sing along with it.
I’ve had a go at a first verse and a chorus.
The tax bit should be in the next verse referencing democracy.
Chorus:
People are dying,
The earth is frying.
Yet…We’re told to believe.. that the money’s not there.
Pay the tax you owe,
But don’t lie to me…
There is a Money Tree.
“Austerity,
It’s a great big lie you see.
For there’s a money tree
It’s called our central bank.”
If anyone can suggest a second verse I would be very grateful. I will share the result. If it’s any good I’ll record it and circulate the result.
I have done this before with a song about the street tree massacre in Sheffield which i get asked to perform at demonstrations.
Very good…but not my skill
I’m not able to get the concepts of Green/ sustainable; monetary theory or practice; egalitarian values and modernity into three words.
You did write some time ago of the concept of the political economy -an old but IMHO more accurate term.
Political Economy Paradigm for the Modern world -as a longer title.
or Modern Political Economy Programme. MPEP But a programme reminds us of a manifesto and that can be exhausted as it completed-or not.
So, maybe ‘paradigm’, which is a way of thinking rather than a set or proposals.
One could object paradigm is not a word in general enough use but could be a conversation starter.
When I was counselling people would sometimes say ‘I did XYZ. Was that right?’
I would answer “perhaps there were more skilful ways of doing it” -thus avoiding setting myself up as a judge. They would say ‘what do you mean?’ Then we had a conversation which involved looking at something from different angles and stepping back emotionally.
Not sure if that is relevant but it could be a useful way of taking people out of the categories people think they know e.g. left/right; conservative/socialist etc and react to rather than responding.
Modern political economy…
I like that
But maybe I’m a geek
‘The Joy of Tax: the basis for modern political economy’ might work better
The Joy Of Tax
I like that one….
Its Sunday, we’re (mostly) British, so how about some (with apologies to vegetarians):
Balanced Economy for Environment & Fairness
Maybe not…
Resource Based Economics
Being an engineer I wold like to suggest “Sovereign Monetary System”
Thanks
(On Ann Pettifor – she thinks that the taxpayers’ funds are the collateral for borrowing – so that’s really saying you need the proper rule of law to ensure efficient tax collection. So not a million miles apart. Although she does seem to emphasise borrowing money rather than creating it).
Whatever the new economics is called it needs to be the opposite of – and to be argued against – the Extractive Economics we now have. Which is extraction either by the finance sector from the rest of us, or by the extraction of the resources of the planet. So what is its opposite? That’s why to me ‘Reciprocal’ or ‘Interdependent’ look good – or possibly, if it needs to feel technical, a more obscure description meaning broadly the same thing: ‘Correlative Economics’…
Perhaps ‘Sovereign’ could or should be added – in order to demonstrate national democratic accountability – although climate change cannot be cured alone – but we have to start somewhere.
Maybe Reciprocal might just cover it all
Ann I’d actually close to being a modern monetarist
But she thinks MMT us about creating debt free money, helicopter money, UBI and spend without limit
But then she also thinks Keynes was a monetarist and we have just suffered 40 years of fiscal policy
I am afraid she is pretty incoherent
The above are fair representations…..
Healthy Symbiotic Economics
It seems to me that economics is all about relationships.
Whether between state and business, private and public, rich and poor, the buyer and the seller, the investor and the risk taker. Spend and Tax, the labourer and the employer. The young and the old, and those still to be born. The fit and the ill.
Currently we have unhealthy symbiotic economics, where parasites and predators are winning.
What you are describe are healthy symbiosis like mutuality, and good (level playing field) competition.
Currently we have the present winning and the future losing.
BTW I liked a previous comment about How money works
Basically I think from now on when I say MMT I will say – MMT, how money works
Indeed
I fear most people don’t know about symbiosis
I would go for something more in line with cooperation instead of competition…
For me, $money is meant to minister to human beings. ‘Peace, Prosperity and Dignity’.
At the moment greed is in control; capitalism allows power to be concentrated in the hands of just a few – $money is weaponised. Humanity and the planet suffer as a result. It is a human problem.
There is not enough kindness and generosity.
You cannot look to world leaders or systems to fix a deficit of human kindness. It is not an ideological problem. It is a matter for each human heart. So-called ‘world leaders’ are quite happy with the way things are.
People need to understand that $money can be used to educate, ensure good health, lift people and provide a foundation for peace; so that prosperity for all and human dignity can result. That the colour of their skin, their race and country of birth, their culture does not matter – we are all human beings, one species – and should not listen to the ‘Causes’ (disguised greed and lust for power) of world leaders: – but instead, listen to the real needs of people. Not our wants — our real needs.
Countries, like people, should give each other plenty of elbow room to be themselves and not interfere because of greed, but help with what is needed. The veil needs to be lifted on the potential of $money to release real human potential. All over the planet, a change is needed. We need to get back to what we do best — being human. Only in times of peace do human beings grow and learn and enjoy being alive — plumb the incredible gift of life that they have.
Then a $monetary system and whatever label you give it, will I respectfully opine, might actually mean something.
Balance will assume accounting balance but I do like the BEing
Flourish and Thrive economics
Some are using Sustainable Prosperity Economics
Stop looking at monetary and thinking of monetary policy, look at monetary and think money – money-tary
Moneyomics
Clever!
Glad it’s kicked off a discussion – lots of nice ideas above. For what it’s worth, I like Balanced Economics, which then needs a snappy tagline along the lines of “how money really works” or one of the other suggestions others have chipped in.
‘Real’ or ‘Real World Economics’. MMT does describe how money and finances really work doesn’t it?
I quite like that
And yes, MMT does describe the real world
What’s in a name…
Keynes tuned into Keynesian without too much hassle. Unfortunately, Murphy’s Law is taken (forgive the pun).
The problem, as I see it, in creating names that describe anything is doomed to become irrelevant at some future date due to the evolution of ideas. So I would suggest you look for a “Google” compostite word that can absorb change. Invent a new word…
What about PECO as in Progressive Economics.
PECO is all about model railways for me….
And it’s heavily trademarked!
Shame…
I thought on this overnight and on balance what seemed like the best option was:
Balanced Economics
as that in my mind encapsulates what a lot of MMT proponents seemed to argue from Abba Lerner on, that MMT is an apolitical description of how money works, irrespective of the (modern) political context, and frequently the point made is that what’s really going when the Chicago school adherents speak about ‘reducing the debt’ ad nauseum is the creation ideological cover for a political choice to create ‘labour market flexibility’ a la Alan Greenspan – e.g. the point is that choices are being made (if I remember correctly I think Warren Mosler makes this most clear) about where resources are being directed to in an economy and so the seesaw is being ‘balanced’… at the moment, as noted here, heavily in favour of rentiers and banks.
Thanks
How about PE, Progressive Ecomoneycs?
Wow…that took a second to work out!
Real World Economics? Then we can slip straight into saying “…because the economics that has been practiced for the last 40 years is Fantasy Land Economics based on myths and lies.”
Which is good…
Economics without the crass assumptions
That would never do
Sustainable Economics – as noted several times above. I prefer this because it carries a sense of now and future (or near and far).
It also chimes in with similar words about where we should be headed re climate change, green new deal etc.
And, it makes a specific claim – something that is ongoing, capable of continuing.
It seems to be coming out on top
It should be a name that inspires, but that also gives you a hook to pitch policy headlines with.
My suggestion is ‘Beautiful Economics’.
When someone asks why it is called that, an answer can start in many ways but I would start it with, ‘Because fifty years of neoliberal dogma has left us in an ugly mess, and these new economics are what we need if we are to create something more beautiful’.
I like your logic
I’m not sure it’s saleable
We do not have to be too pedantic about strict accuracy, a snappy name or phrase which grabs attention should not be provably wrong but can stretch a point, so the Modern in MMT may not be quite accurate, but it is being touted as a “new” way of looking at things, at least in the sense that is moving on from neoliberalism or the “old” way. “Modern” and “New” are good words and defendable in this context, “progressive sounds a bit too political and may alienate some. “Green” is very much in at the moment.
Something like:
Towards a New Economics, paying for a Green World.
If people then want to shorten it to just “The New Economics” then let them, even if the pedants mumble in their beards (no offence meant – I have a beard too and a tendency towards both mumbling and pedantry) about it not being strictly new.
I’m still musing this
But sustainable economics seems to embrace what you’re saying as well
I’d be happy with ‘Sustainable Economics’
For what it’s worth, I like the term ‘sustainable economics’. Simple and understandable.
Craig
I’m thinking “Resilient Economics”
The term “resilient” could easily apply to MMT policies that can handle pandemics, as well as sustainability, saving the planet, saving ecosystems, Green New Deal, dealing with financialisation and extreme wealth, tax havens, doughnut economics, etc.
And no one can say “we don’t want resilient economics”.
True….
Economics for the Common Good????
It’s good
You could add Resilient, balanced, sustainable, flexible or some other term in front if one desired.
Indeed
IMO key elements of the language of economics are problematic to a wider degree.
There are far too many psychological attachments to for example “National Debt”.
Yet-to-be-informed listeners instinctively create contexts around these frames of reference whenever they hear these phrases uttered. IMO a new language – with new terms – could lead to better literacy with the subject.
If only…