MMT probably doesn't belong in this list as it is first and foremost a description of how sovereign currency functions. We've had currency for ~4,000 years, but we've only been engaged in omnicide for the last ~300.
I suppose I'd been thinking about how someone on Twitter suggested that Kate Raworth ask Nate Hagens for his opinion on MMT as a solution. He spoke to MMT earlier here at 26:00 -https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-05-28/helicopter-money-and-a-game-of-kick-the-can-episode-12-of-crazy-town/). It's helpful for governments to know that they can get things done even as tax revenue declines, but this doesn't make the problem of shrinking materials/energy go away. I'll move it over to 7.6 Caveats / Contraction-Friendly Policy!
I thought similarly to Nate until I did a deep dive on it. He's mostly using the mainstream talking points here, such as suggesting that MMT proponents advocate for unmitigated spending. If memory serves, Kate suggested an interview with Stephanie Kelton in that reverse interview. Her particular policy choices may very well be energy blind, so having Jason Hickel back on to give his perspective might be better for understanding the integration. Or the students on that paper I referenced perhaps.
I've been writing a few things I had thought about sharing with my political friends who also dismiss it, ironically, because they say it's unsustainable; As if the existing system was? I'll share the articles with you when/if I finish them. They wouldn't be meant for a post-doom audience though. Lot's of references to neoliberalism and capitalism and what not.
Suffice it to say, MMT is actually energy agnostic. I've become fond of it because it actually shifts the focus from money to resources, which has been a useful stepping stone for talking about oil for people interested in economics.
MMT probably doesn't belong in this list as it is first and foremost a description of how sovereign currency functions. We've had currency for ~4,000 years, but we've only been engaged in omnicide for the last ~300.
For example, members of the degrowth community are attempting to use MMT as their monetary basis, see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923002318?via%3Dihub
I suppose I'd been thinking about how someone on Twitter suggested that Kate Raworth ask Nate Hagens for his opinion on MMT as a solution. He spoke to MMT earlier here at 26:00 -https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-05-28/helicopter-money-and-a-game-of-kick-the-can-episode-12-of-crazy-town/). It's helpful for governments to know that they can get things done even as tax revenue declines, but this doesn't make the problem of shrinking materials/energy go away. I'll move it over to 7.6 Caveats / Contraction-Friendly Policy!
I thought similarly to Nate until I did a deep dive on it. He's mostly using the mainstream talking points here, such as suggesting that MMT proponents advocate for unmitigated spending. If memory serves, Kate suggested an interview with Stephanie Kelton in that reverse interview. Her particular policy choices may very well be energy blind, so having Jason Hickel back on to give his perspective might be better for understanding the integration. Or the students on that paper I referenced perhaps.
I've been writing a few things I had thought about sharing with my political friends who also dismiss it, ironically, because they say it's unsustainable; As if the existing system was? I'll share the articles with you when/if I finish them. They wouldn't be meant for a post-doom audience though. Lot's of references to neoliberalism and capitalism and what not.
Suffice it to say, MMT is actually energy agnostic. I've become fond of it because it actually shifts the focus from money to resources, which has been a useful stepping stone for talking about oil for people interested in economics.
re: unmitigated spending/unsustainable - i agree that it def doesn't need to be. it's just not a cure-all either. lmk when you post those articles!