“It seems to me simply untenable that some ‘ready to go’, implementable ‘plan’ for ‘steady state’ can be said to exist. Most certainly not from what you posted so far, & nothing I’ve found.”

No one is saying that such exists, least of all me. In fact my entire response to your questions went to tedious lengths to say precisely the opposite (yet again).

“The contrast with MMT (& ‘functional finance’) could not be more stark. All the required structures are already in place & any minor modifications needed are easy & virtually instantly implementable.”

Steady-state’s contrast with the system as it currently operates is also stark. So what! Its contrast with feudalism is stark, with a blueprint for a new house, or anything else tried and tested, is stark; obviously, since what we are talking about with steady-state economics is UNTRIED. I’ve said this over and over, in agreement with your position, only for you to say, “It seems to me simply untenable that some ‘ready to go’, implementable ‘plan’ for ‘steady state’ can be said to exist.” Are you even arguing with me? My name is at the top of your comment yet your arguments barely address what I say.

As for common ground, that there is such in MMT is neither here nor there, IF its insistence on growth (in GDP terms!) is counterproductive (I think it is). There is common ground among neoliberals too. Common ground is not the hallmark of a good plan. And it is blindingly clear to me that the fringe ideas I echo here (I did not create them) are fringe (though not as fringe as you suggest). I am not expecting anything to change simply because of my comments. I have nothing like the force of authority of Warren Mosler of Randal Wray. I’m just some guy putting forward the thinking that seems most appropriate to me. Would you stop attacking me as if my efforts here are about to derail the entire MMT project! That you continue to treat me as a serious threat I can only take as a weird compliment, albeit one attached to a slap in the face.

But, for you to keep on saying there’s no plan—there isn’t, there are only suggestions that together are the beginnings of a possible plan—yet not read the book in which those suggestions are to be found because you’ve read many like it, then offer up that Herman Daly has no plan, is a bit rich, and rather evasive. Now I’m not telling you (I wouldn’t presume) to buy the book, I’m just saying there is the beginning of a plan therein, that it proposes using existing infrastructure, need disrupt nothing, need only be discussed and pondered. What’s not to like? We’re talking about how to preserve the environment that gives us life.

“Come on, Toby, are you really saying, as you strongly seem to imply (with such ‘loaded’ language as ‘communism’) that you are comfortable in some way with the current lack of jobs (& all that entails in social depravation) for between 1 in 10 and + 1 in 3 + of work seeking citizens, depending on age demographic?”

Come on, Mike, are you really telling me that you think that? That what I am all about is keeping unemployment up and wages down? Do you really think any old job is better than a meaningful role in the community where a social dividend frees people to offer and contribute what they can? If there were really a way not to further degrade the environment and give meaningful paid labour to all who sought it, I’d be for it. But like I said, I don’t think there is. I work with ex East-Berliners, who tell me often of their times in their old jobs, simply sitting idly eight hours a day, to ‘earn’ a wage to buy stuff with. What’s the point of tying people to a chair as if the job contributed something? Why not just give them the money to enable them to contribute as passionately and creatively as possible? It uses far fewer resources that way. I’m not aware of any neoliberal support for guaranteed income, by the way, but Martin Luther King was for it. Are you against it? It has growing support in Germany (though resistance is strong for cultural reasons) due to the tireless efforts of one Götz Werner, a professor of economics (I think it’s economics) who also happens to be a very successful business man (an unusual mix). His proposal is to pay all citizens something like 1,000 Euro a month and keep the money supply from booming via VAT, then do away with all other taxation. The recently elected (to Berlin’s regional assembly) Pirate Party (“Die Piraten”) are exploring alternative ‘funding’ ideas for a guaranteed income. And I haven’t even mentioned professor Franz Hörmann’s plan (also a collection of suggestions and ideas). Personally, I like Eisenstein’s proposals best. (And I seem to recall that the SPD in some western county (perhaps Rheinland Pfalz?) has adopted guaranteed income as part of their platform.) In short, at least in Germany, this is not a crazy idea only discussed by ‘loonies’ like me; a debt-free, happily married father of two healthy girls, both doing well at school. As to the demurrage idea, it has been discussed in ‘serious’ circles too.

Anyway, far too much from me again. A request from me to you to wrap up with: If you stop treating me as if I were some enormous threat to MMT I’d be a happier man. MMT isn’t perfect, nothing is. Your touchy reaction to criticism of it hardly endears you to me, nor does it increase my respect of MMT. If anything you inspire me to further critiques. And the tone you adopt, that I am somehow beneath the right to criticize a system so carefully crafted over decades by Great Minds, is elitist, and one I cannot respect.

Toby

The thrust of my arguments is not that some of the many different aspects you put forward, broadly under a ‘steady state’ banner, have no merit into the future, but that starting from the present crisis, existing monetary & fiscal structures, public mindset, media control, the kinds of things you propose +are+ a massive leap into a radical, untried & novel system & structures.

Moreover there is no core common approach being put forward by the various proponents of those different elements. There is no agreement on what combination of policy elements should be put forward as regards such things (you mention) as the ‘commons’, multiple currencies, citizens’ dividends etc. Even such fundamentals as the appropriate roles of the private sector and government are far from agreed by any core of proponents.

It seems to me simply untenable that some ‘ready to go’, implementable ‘plan’ for ‘steady state’ can be said to exist. Most certainly not from what you posted so far, & nothing I’ve found.

The contrast with MMT (& ‘functional finance’) could not be more stark. All the required structures are already in place & any minor modifications needed are easy & virtually instantly implementable. And there exists already, with a lot of work behind them, a significant core of proponents, both academic & financial sector ‘practitioners’ with a common understanding of requirements. Lets be clear, all that is required to change to implement MMT is +conceptual+ – a recognition of what our existing monetary & fiscal systems can actually do – and radically different, right now – if we simply make that conceptual leap.

Simply put, that conceptual leap is that with most (near all, globally) monetary systems, as +now+ constituted, ‘money’, +by itself+ is not a constraint to government action. It’s +resources+ that are the constraint. Do you not see how that seismic shift in the public/government debate naturally leads us to consider the real constraints of our finite planet?

As I’ve said before, it opens up an entirely new dialogue as regards the role of government in dramatically improving the welfare of citizens. And much else besides, including the role that government can take, on behalf of citizens, to get the key decoupling of energy supply from fossil sources. That opens the way for all the needed recycling of other key resources.

We need no longer accept the +lie+, from politicians, mainstream advisers, & the wealthy corrupt elite that run them, that the ‘problem’ is ‘money’. It is not.

That is the vital ‘conceptual’ leap that MMT offers, not after 20yrs of deliberation of ‘steady state’ on how to throw out near every system, structure & institution & replace with untried new ones, but +right now+, +tomorrow+.

At a minimum, imo, MMT deserves to have the most serious, properly performed academic & public debate. Not just the crass, insulting to our intelligence, two paragraph ‘throwaways’ in a newspaper column by Paul Krugmam & his (egotistical) ilk.

A flavour of just some of the unresolved issues around steady state: (An honest call for the ‘plan’ you keep stating exists, but only seem to offer one book by Eisenstein & the work of Daly different from that in many details.)

“Richard Smith: If Herman Daly Has A Better Plan, Let’s Hear It?”

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/rwer-issue-55-richard-smith/

You say:

“I’m not attracted by full employment (smacks of state communism to me)…..”

First let me restate (again) my position. I talk about +near+ full employment, as the source advocates of MMT also make crystal clear. What is meant by that is that something in the region of 2% unemployment (of working seeking citizens) would be an appropriate goal, fully recognising the vagaries of the real world. (In between jobs, personal ‘life’ issues etc.)

Come on, Toby, are you really saying, as you strongly seem to imply (with such ‘loaded’ language as ‘communism’) that you are comfortable in some way with the current lack of jobs (& all that entails in social depravation) for between 1 in 10 and + 1 in 3 + of work seeking citizens, depending on age demographic?

And that those who are not as comfortable as you with that misery are somehow calling for – by implication of your ‘loaded’ language – some form of totalitarian ‘communism’?

Sorry, that, to me, ‘smacks’ of the kind of gratuitously divisive narrative of the neoliberal mess we currently suffer.

Do you really think it possible that the attitude & politics you express there are really conducive to the kind of harmonious, co-operative, mutually supporting, low ecological impact, less materially selfish society you seem to say you want?

I have no doubt Eisentein is a ‘good read’. It may surprise you to hear that I’ve read a great deal more than that on the topics you mention & listened to proponents first hand, & over many years. Countless discussions with people deeply concerned with both our planet’s future and ours.

I have no doubt, in concluding, that we must have concern for +all+ citizens as a primary goal absolutely parallel with that of sustainable ecology. Or whatever policies we advocate will not gain the majority democratic backing they need. Yes, in the short term, that is going to mean pandering to a little more ‘materialism’ than I personally feel is either good for planet or healthy for us. But this is the world we have +now+. And we must begin to act +now+ & try to persuade the majority, as their conciousness is +now+, that action is needed +now+.

Whilst I strongly accept (& advocate here – a blog concerning financial topics) the merits of MMT, what I would like to see, produced by movements such as OWS, are national citizens’ led conventions to consider & propose the kinds of root and branch radical reforms we need, with mandatory adoption following referenda. But I believe parallel, wide ranging public debate of practical reforms to be a vital part of that process.

Of course there are questions regarding an untried mode of socioeconomic organization, just as there are of ‘tried and tested’ modes, but when it comes to the unprecedented, no one, whether within government or without, can or should believe anything other than a leap into the unknown is being attempted or pondered. This should go without saying. As such, there can be no answers the many questions an idea like steady-state economics throws up, only suggestions. How could it be any other way? Dismissing the untested for being untested is easy, easier by far than admitting the current system of perpetual growth must be left behind (or transcended, take your pick).

(As a side-note, might we not say that Japan’s famous lost decades are initial, if ‘undesired’ experiments with steady-state? Similarly, are we of the West not already in steady-state, which is a snaking growth-contraction movement around a mature growth state? (We’re not bumping along the bottom, we’re snaking around the top!) Trying to ‘reignite growth’ so as to get money (spending power) to people via jobs is futile, and failed attempts at stimulus thus far are at least some evidence this is so. Hence we could say that regardless of how hard it is for ‘experts’ and politicians to accept it, we are already there, and our system is in the early to mod-stages of breakdown due to a failure to appreciate what is taking place, applying tools that no longer work.)

Your point 1 is redundant. Of course steady-state is about renewable energy and utterly different amounts of consumption. Point 2 I addressed above, but it is, in my opinion, not that relevant unless it is not true that humanity is over-consuming (apparently at a rate of 1.5 earths). If the planet cannot keep up with current levels of consumption, it is up to us to react accordingly, not stick fearfully to the devil we know simply because the new way is unclear. I do not mean to dispute that the task is enormous, however!

Point 3’s questions apply to economic growth generally, and have nothing to do with steady-state per se. For what it’s worth, negative interest currency spent into existence along MMT lines would be workable within current financial infrastructure while coping with steady-state growth. As for GDP, I for one will be happy when people stop referring to it as a useful measure of anything at all. There are many alternatives, but the ‘best’ (I would be for a basket of measures) has yet to surface. Hardly surprising in a paradigm which inists on GDP growth.

Precise policy tools can’t be known in advance. Point 5 I addressed above. Again, the situation will force our hand at some point. Denial is only ‘effective’ for so long.

I’m not attracted by full employment (smacks of state communism to me), rather by the concept of full, meaningful social participation, as (slowly and painfully) enabled by a revolution in education, introduction of a social dividend, and the simultaneous functioning of multiple currency types for different human needs. “Sacred Economics” goes into (all of) this in depth. Seriously, it’s well worth a read. 🙂

Hey thanks dude.

Maybe we can jam sometime if you venture to blighty 🙂

Mind you, some of the protesters are using petrol bombs…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8836509/Stones-and-fire-bombs-hurled-at-police-in-front-of-the-Greek-parliament-in-Athens.html