Incredible read. While most of the article was somewhat over my head, I found my self enthralled. Hopefully PM Carney draws Lamont into his circle as an economic contrarian.
Interest rates are determined by the Central bank based on the false assumption that higher rates lowers inflation, which is like saying a sledgehammer kills mosquitos. High rates provide UBI for the already-rich (risk-free income from Treasuries , for no work) in proportion to how rich they are.
The Canadian Government spends the CDN $ into existence and taxes it out of existence. It does not have to borrow CDN $. Just spend to release the real resources a healthy society needs to prosper. Anything we can do…we can afford. ( we are self-funding).
This was very helpful for me at this stage of my life. So much of what we think we know is what we have been taught to know, and can just as quickly be unlearned. It’s pretty incredible that there are paradigms out there - such as economics like you describe - that have the capacity to swallow so much human experience. It’s like feeding a monster.
BTW, I couldn’t get the link to buy your book to work.
I love this article (though I only fully understood maybe, 30-40% of it!). I never was a supporter of Friedman and the Chicago/Austrian school of economics and felt that Keynesian economics were far more in line with the "lived economic reality" of real people. Unfortunately, the far right and all the oligarchs have fully adopted (co-opted?) Friedman to the detriment of democracies and all but the richest around the globe and persecute any who attempt to offer a counter argument. That being the case, what options do we have as individuals, to counter the predominant exploitation by the 1%, especially given the easy ability to shift production, finance and assets anywhere around the globe in mere moments away from governments that might wish to increase corporate taxes, personal income taxes on high income earners or impose a wealth tax?
Aside from any issues around taxation, we need to focus on restructuring debt - which is a massive burden for the vast majority and a source of unearned income for the wealthiest. They "earn it in their sleep", and debt itself grows mathematically independent of any outside changes. Debt relief was done during and after the Depression and the Second World War - debts that had been racked up in a crisis were written off. In Canada, there were programs which by the 1950s had reduced farm debt by half. The federal Government helped the provinces get rid of their Depression-era debt. It's a form of modern jubilee.
There are so many little things that you claim here and there that are mostly built on oversimplifications, hyperbole, and/or downright misuse of facts that I don’t have time to respond to everything. Instead, here are a few comments about the larger points you make. Your argument, especially the second half of your essay, that ‘neoclassical’ economics (an incredibly vague and functionally meaningless term — define it) lacks intellectual rigour is built on cherrypicking certain iterations of macroeconomic thought, and attributing this to price theory as a whole – a fallacy of composition.
“Value is about whether we think something is important or not, and how important it is to others. How are we determining whether the information we are looking at is important or not, and how important is it? Neoclassical economics, in which Carney is an expert, has no such intellectual underpinning.” Yes it does, it’s called marginalism — And you clearly have never actually studied economics otherwise you would know this. (“my undergraduate degree was in literature with a minor in philosophy, and my master’s degree in literature” — Thank you for letting us know)
Economists today rely upon the use of statistical modelling (aka econometrics) to test hypotheses; this is the bulk of modern economic work today (which I might add, rests upon the microeconomic theory of the past –– See Debreu-Arrow, Frisch, Angrist, Heckman, Card, etc.)
Next, your claim that “there are prescriptive disciplines, which is what mainstream, orthodox economics has become. Neoclassical and neoliberal economics do not accurately and impartially describe the functioning of the economy. The Global Financial Crisis and the Euro Crisis both showed that.” is perhaps the most intellectually lazy claim in the entire piece (and there are many).
There are undoubtedly normative elements of economic theory, no disagreement here. But to claim that economics is purely prescriptive is evidence of either profound dishonesty, ignorance, or both. In fact, most of economics is descriptive. Calculating marginal productivity, calculating real and nominal wage growth, national income accounting, etc. etc. Moreover, that the financial crisis somehow ‘disproves’ the legitimacy of economic thought, how so? I think this comes from a fundamental confusion between economics as a subject and economics as a discipline. Many laymen who make this critique seem to misunderstand what economists actually do — in short, it is less about prediction and more so about causal inference.
Your final claim is the most puzzling to me. You basically restate certain platitudes about economic thought that have been made for decades (if not centuries!) by economists yet claim that economics fails to adequately capture the 'informational' elements! A market is exactly what you are proposing! (See Hayek “The Use of Knowledge in Society”) “The money economy is entirely informational” Yes, in fact many if not most economists would agree with this! That is exactly what markets, prices, incentives, help us understand… Fiat money has no intrinsic value but it relays information to us about the real value of goods and services. Again, I think if you had actually studied economics before criticizing it (and I mean take the time to study industrial organization, RBC models, econometrics, etc. which it is clear to me that you have not, your arguments would have much more veracity and you could separate the wheat from the chaff in your own writing)
I have a degree in philosophy so am capable of reading quite esoteric texts. Your post was definitely a difficult read (several grammatical errors or missing words--cut and paste issues?--adding to the fun). May I suggest you try to make your post more accessible for readers. Your substantive argument is important and worthy of adequate communication. Please make it readable!
Agreed. It was Tommy Thomson's, funding of healthcare, (using tax money to benefit taxpayers them selves) which ushered in our greatest, redistribution of wealth and economy ( likewise in European countrys) that's we've ever seen and allowed the greatest growth on innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship we ever seen.
Since then, conservatives have clawed back farmers of their privilege and the stagnation of our economy and our growth began.
We've forgotten who we were actually working for, tepeople that pay th bulk of the taxes, not the e wealthy investors that ony send their money to safe havens.
Incredible read. While most of the article was somewhat over my head, I found my self enthralled. Hopefully PM Carney draws Lamont into his circle as an economic contrarian.
I may have to get business cards with that title.
Thank you very, very much.
Interest rates are determined by the Central bank based on the false assumption that higher rates lowers inflation, which is like saying a sledgehammer kills mosquitos. High rates provide UBI for the already-rich (risk-free income from Treasuries , for no work) in proportion to how rich they are.
The Canadian Government spends the CDN $ into existence and taxes it out of existence. It does not have to borrow CDN $. Just spend to release the real resources a healthy society needs to prosper. Anything we can do…we can afford. ( we are self-funding).
This was very helpful for me at this stage of my life. So much of what we think we know is what we have been taught to know, and can just as quickly be unlearned. It’s pretty incredible that there are paradigms out there - such as economics like you describe - that have the capacity to swallow so much human experience. It’s like feeding a monster.
BTW, I couldn’t get the link to buy your book to work.
Thank you and I will fix the link. It’s here, as well: https://www.mcnallyrobinson.com/9783127323207/dougald-lamont/bring-on-the-brand-new-renaissance
I love this article (though I only fully understood maybe, 30-40% of it!). I never was a supporter of Friedman and the Chicago/Austrian school of economics and felt that Keynesian economics were far more in line with the "lived economic reality" of real people. Unfortunately, the far right and all the oligarchs have fully adopted (co-opted?) Friedman to the detriment of democracies and all but the richest around the globe and persecute any who attempt to offer a counter argument. That being the case, what options do we have as individuals, to counter the predominant exploitation by the 1%, especially given the easy ability to shift production, finance and assets anywhere around the globe in mere moments away from governments that might wish to increase corporate taxes, personal income taxes on high income earners or impose a wealth tax?
Aside from any issues around taxation, we need to focus on restructuring debt - which is a massive burden for the vast majority and a source of unearned income for the wealthiest. They "earn it in their sleep", and debt itself grows mathematically independent of any outside changes. Debt relief was done during and after the Depression and the Second World War - debts that had been racked up in a crisis were written off. In Canada, there were programs which by the 1950s had reduced farm debt by half. The federal Government helped the provinces get rid of their Depression-era debt. It's a form of modern jubilee.
It's all in my book >> https://www.mcnallyrobinson.com/9783127323207/dougald-lamont/bring-on-the-brand-new-renaissance
fantastic
Thank you!
This is a bunch of meaningless gibberish, but I am sure it will pass as sophisticated for some.
Sorry, are you referring to your own comment?
I don't tolerate comments that make no substantive arguments. You are offering no facts, no critique and no counter-argument. Make one or get banned.
There are so many little things that you claim here and there that are mostly built on oversimplifications, hyperbole, and/or downright misuse of facts that I don’t have time to respond to everything. Instead, here are a few comments about the larger points you make. Your argument, especially the second half of your essay, that ‘neoclassical’ economics (an incredibly vague and functionally meaningless term — define it) lacks intellectual rigour is built on cherrypicking certain iterations of macroeconomic thought, and attributing this to price theory as a whole – a fallacy of composition.
“Value is about whether we think something is important or not, and how important it is to others. How are we determining whether the information we are looking at is important or not, and how important is it? Neoclassical economics, in which Carney is an expert, has no such intellectual underpinning.” Yes it does, it’s called marginalism — And you clearly have never actually studied economics otherwise you would know this. (“my undergraduate degree was in literature with a minor in philosophy, and my master’s degree in literature” — Thank you for letting us know)
Economists today rely upon the use of statistical modelling (aka econometrics) to test hypotheses; this is the bulk of modern economic work today (which I might add, rests upon the microeconomic theory of the past –– See Debreu-Arrow, Frisch, Angrist, Heckman, Card, etc.)
Next, your claim that “there are prescriptive disciplines, which is what mainstream, orthodox economics has become. Neoclassical and neoliberal economics do not accurately and impartially describe the functioning of the economy. The Global Financial Crisis and the Euro Crisis both showed that.” is perhaps the most intellectually lazy claim in the entire piece (and there are many).
There are undoubtedly normative elements of economic theory, no disagreement here. But to claim that economics is purely prescriptive is evidence of either profound dishonesty, ignorance, or both. In fact, most of economics is descriptive. Calculating marginal productivity, calculating real and nominal wage growth, national income accounting, etc. etc. Moreover, that the financial crisis somehow ‘disproves’ the legitimacy of economic thought, how so? I think this comes from a fundamental confusion between economics as a subject and economics as a discipline. Many laymen who make this critique seem to misunderstand what economists actually do — in short, it is less about prediction and more so about causal inference.
Your final claim is the most puzzling to me. You basically restate certain platitudes about economic thought that have been made for decades (if not centuries!) by economists yet claim that economics fails to adequately capture the 'informational' elements! A market is exactly what you are proposing! (See Hayek “The Use of Knowledge in Society”) “The money economy is entirely informational” Yes, in fact many if not most economists would agree with this! That is exactly what markets, prices, incentives, help us understand… Fiat money has no intrinsic value but it relays information to us about the real value of goods and services. Again, I think if you had actually studied economics before criticizing it (and I mean take the time to study industrial organization, RBC models, econometrics, etc. which it is clear to me that you have not, your arguments would have much more veracity and you could separate the wheat from the chaff in your own writing)
I have a degree in philosophy so am capable of reading quite esoteric texts. Your post was definitely a difficult read (several grammatical errors or missing words--cut and paste issues?--adding to the fun). May I suggest you try to make your post more accessible for readers. Your substantive argument is important and worthy of adequate communication. Please make it readable!
Agreed. It was Tommy Thomson's, funding of healthcare, (using tax money to benefit taxpayers them selves) which ushered in our greatest, redistribution of wealth and economy ( likewise in European countrys) that's we've ever seen and allowed the greatest growth on innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship we ever seen.
Since then, conservatives have clawed back farmers of their privilege and the stagnation of our economy and our growth began.
We've forgotten who we were actually working for, tepeople that pay th bulk of the taxes, not the e wealthy investors that ony send their money to safe havens.
See https://warwickpowell.substack.com/p/beyond-solvency and
https://kathleenmccroskey.substack.com/p/the-hour-of-decision-for-canada