3 ms·
what i don't understand about liberal/left economists is how they don't talk about control of the money supply in class conflict terms this seems like an obvio
by recursivedoubts 3y ago
what i don't understand about liberal/left economists is how they don't talk about control of the money supply in class conflict terms
this seems like an obvious thing to socialize: fiat money is granted value by the assent of all (backed by the monopoly on violence of the government) so why on earth allow a barely-concealed private cartel to manage it via credit expansion?
why is it only libertarians who talk about this, typically in terms of private money? maybe I'm just ignorant and there is a lot of content on this topic someone can point me to?
- spindle 3y agoNot enough of them do, I agree, but some of the Modern Monetary Theory people do. E.g. Mark Blyth (some very entertaining talks on youtube), Stephanie Kelton. Also political economists do and always have, I believe. (IANAE, and in fact I'm not certain that Mark Blyth is an MMT person, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling.)
- feedforward 3y ago> fiat money is granted value by the assent of all (backed by the monopoly on violence of the government) But most left economists do not think this. I think the modern idea is that "fiat" currency has been implicitly backed by gold since 1971, whereas before the backing was explicitly. Otherwise, why does the Federal Reserve pay to store tons of gold? Why did Germany repatriate its gold in 2013? Gold makes a good currency, by there's nothing magical about it as some in the right sometimes think. Silver or another precious metal will do too. Or even slightly less currency friendly commodities.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]