Can you spare a minute to help this campaign? No US Airforce At Scottish Airports

Please see below & sign petition if you agree:

c.org/nDtfwfvZ9c

"Governments do not deficit spend they just spend. At the end of the year we calculate whether there was a deficit or not." L. Randall Wray

Austerity is madness because it's based on the logic of the miser. The miser counts up his/her money and feels anxiety about a number.

Orthodox economists think the same way: that's wrong headed thinking. Currency issuers should aim for a balance economy not a balanced budget.

MMT101 Workshop 1: Origins and Nature of Money How we got from owing your neighbour a chicken to paying for a coffee with your phone

Origins and Nature of Money: How we got from owing your neighbour a chicken to paying for a coffee with your phone

I'm putting on monthly MMT workshops on my MMT101 Substack. This is my first.

No prior knowledge is needed.
Click for more info: tinyurl.com/bdfscjmd

I don't know why this is so hard for some people to grasp. If we extend our use of fossil gas, rather than going all-out for grid batteries, heat pumps and induction hobs, we extend our dependence on *foreign* sources of gas, regardless of whether we also use the UK's last remaining reserves. 🧵

Does MMT Have Anything To Teach Currency-Using Governments? Constraints and Choices in Currency-Using Economies: Insights from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

3. To put it bluntly, austerity is a form of economic madness.

Read on: tinyurl.com/yxv33yzn

2. Greece is a good example: after austerity was imposed following the Eurozone debt crisis, GDP fell sharply, unemployment soared and, despite deep cuts to public spending, the debt-to-GDP ratio increased because the economy contracted faster than deficits could be reduced.

1. Austerity makes things worse

Austerity destroys productive capacity and doesn’t even meet the goal of its advocates, which is to reduce deficits. Less economic activity means less tax income - meaning that the deficit is as likely to increase as to go down.

Does MMT Have Anything To Teach Currency-Using Governments? Constraints and Choices in Currency-Using Economies: Insights from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

6. With that in mind, here are some of the insights that MMT can pass on that are relevant to both currency-issuing and currency-using governments.

Read on: tinyurl.com/yxv33yzn

5. However, it is at the heart of the MMT story that it is more difficult to unlock that wealth for currency users - but that doesn’t mean there aren’t strategies that can help make the most of those resources.

4. And that remains true to an extent even for governments that don’t issue their own currency. A country’s wealth is its people, its resources, its skills and its ability to manage those assets for the good of its own citizens.

3. What MMT tells us, in relation to marshalling resources for the good of citizens, is that it’s not just about the finance, it’s also about the availability of resources that can be bought with that finance

2. The answer is yes, but as we will find out, it’s a qualified yes.

For sure, MMT tends to focus on currency-issuing governments like the UK and US and much of that focus is on how the payment mechanisms of those governments work.

1. Lessons for Currency-Using Economies Through an MMT Lens

This week, I ask the question: can currency-using governments such as Scotland or the Eurozone countries learn any lessons from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?

Does MMT Have Anything To Teach Currency-Using Governments? Constraints and Choices in Currency-Using Economies: Insights from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

New on MMT101: Does MMT Have Anything To Teach Currency-Using Governments?

tinyurl.com/32pzk6np

Joseph Stiglitz.

Joseph E. Stiglitz on Milton Friedman's book, 'Free To Choose'.

MMT & Democracy in the Age of Neoliberalism: From Theory to Political Reality Eight suggestions to help Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) advocates get past neoliberal gatekeepers and make democracy work for us all

17. And only then will those pointing out that government spending does not work as their politicians, economists and media commentators tell the it does have any leverage.

tinyurl.com/t2uct63h

16. There are many different models we call democracy so, firstly, we need to be aware that that is the case and, secondly, we need to make changes to the way our current democracies work.

Only then will we have the option to choose what’s best for all, not just best for the few

15. But the question is: what type of democracy will get us from where we are now to where we need to be?

I say need to be, because our current direction means the end of us all as our planet heats up at an ever greater rate.

14. However our current form of democracy is open to exploitation by those whose best interest is to ensure that citizens - and for that matter politicians themselves - stay ill-informed.

My assumption remains that democracy is our best form of government.

13. However, it’s my belief that there needs to be change in our current cultural and political landscape before voters are able to have any control over the levers of government.

Informed citizens know right from wrong and understand what is in their interests and what is not.

12. and, thus, can have an impact on the way our governments shape policy.

I put my trust in citizens, or as politicians tend to call them, ‘voters’.

11. And they will open the doors to a new understanding of how our economies operate and in particular how government funding operates.

In other words, we will find ourselves in an environment where the ideas of MMT can be heard

10. By implication I believe these changes will strengthen our democracy, either by making politicians more accountable to voters or by bringing voters themselves closer to the decision making process.

9. At the conclusion of this post I will put forward eight suggestions that I think are crucial changes that are needed, at a minimum, to blunt the power of those currently in control of our governments and economic policies.

8. However, in this article I am concerning myself with the state of our democracies from the late 1970s onwards - and the impact that has on the ability of MMT advocates to get past the gatekeepers of the current government policy direction.

7. There were of course many other things at play - including the post-war application of Keynesian policies that led to greater state spending - and the economic problems in the 70s that gave ‘an in’ to an alternative approach.

6. And a major reason that things deteriorated after Reagan and Thatcher came into power in the late 1970s was a weakening of democracy, which was both caused by, and exploited by, the rise of neoliberalism: a useful ideological framework for the corporate interests of the time.

5. George Monbiot and Peter Hutchison in their book, The Invisible Doctrine: The Secret History of Neoliberalism (2024), express the belief that one of the reasons that ‘general prosperity rose steadily’ after the Second World War was ‘the rise of social democracy’.

4. But what it can’t do is tell us in whose interests that government spending should serve. For that is always down to the ideological outlook of those in power and - as I argue in this post - the strength of our democracy.