For those not familiar with the term ‘TLDR' it stands for ‘too long, didn't read'.
This was the subject of discussion over dinner in the Murphy household last night, but my wife and our sons agreed I did not need to write TLDR summaries for my blogs because they would all say:
1) The Tories have done something awful.
2) People will suffer as a result.
3) This is wholly unnecessary.
4) Something could be done about it.
5) Labour won't do whatever that something is.
6) We need electoral reform / a Green New Deal / monetary reform / tax reform / a new fiscal policy to address this.
7) Against all the odds I live in hope.
As the saying goes, ‘With friends like them….'
And for the record, and not just to spite my family, I am not planning TLDRs.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard,
Where do you see a good, substantive debate on **how** to implement MMT in today’s U.K.? Where can those of us who want to see change best engage in your view?
I am hoping to create it
Watch this space
“How to implement MMT?”. In its most basic form MMT is just a statement of “how money works”, so how to implement it is rather like asking Newton “so, how are we going to implement this new gravity thingy?”.
The problems come when MMT is used to inform policy ideas…. which I guess is what “implementation” means. And here we come up against various camps with differing views. they are too numerous to list but a few are…
1) Real Deniers. Some folk still think about the world in “household terms”
2) Faux deniers. Some know MMT is a correct description but “deny” because acceptance opens up new possibilities for policy that they don’t like.
3) Jockeys (because they ride hobby-horses). They have a particular policy that they like so insist that it is an essential part of MMT.
4) Theorists. They hate the idea of contact with the real world that may contaminate their beautiful models.
5) Realist idealists. (I would like to include Richard and most followers of his blog in this category). We are not that fussed about the ins and outs of monetary theory. We ARE fussed about a more socially/economically/environmentally just world… and MMT allows us to show what is possible if there is the will. We are looking for ideas that stand a chance of getting a hearing in our current world… and if that means compromise or accepting “second best” then so be it – as long as the direction of travel is correct. (I hope, Richard, you will forgive me if I mis-state you position…. and I note in another piece you are battling with the high priests of MMT… good luck!)
As my first post will make clear theory and implementation are very different.
My concern is the theorists are putting forward ideas that will seriously harm the implementation. I think that is dangerous precisely because thwart the actually theory says is too important for that to happen.
If they don’t like that, c’est la vie.
Accurate analysts are those Murphy children.
Able bringers of their father back to earth, I’d say
Being put right by my children is always good thing – even if a tad bitter-sweet.
To be told you are wrong about something might be a little bitter…. but realising that your children have the wisdom/confidence to challenge things they believe are wrong yields a sweetness that long outlasts any temporary “bitterness”.
I think it says you did something right
Isn’t that the problem though?
We just can’t be bothered to read these days? Ours is the age of reductionism.
We seem to feed off soundbites and quick summaries manufactured to look as though they speak some sort of truth when in fact they are written to exploit inherent biases.
It’s also a negation of history. And how can you reduce the learning of so much history?
Coping with complexity leads to better compromises and better outcomes.
“Coping with complexity leads to better compromises and better outcomes.”
Spot on – it is infuriating to see voters attracted to simplistic binary answers to complex questions – Brexit being the most obvious example.
Can we change this or do we just have to accept it and think of better thee word slogans?
“He who controls the language rules the world” — attributed to various tyrants
I think you do need to offer summaries. Many people are jumping into one of your posts randomly, and for the first time. The subject matter is overwhelming. I still feel like I am learning. I’m 62, but would be delighted if the blog was aimed at naive 17 year olds, which is how I felt a year ago before discovering political economics.
I simply do not have time
This is not my main job