Governments printing money doesn’t have a dazzlingly successful track-record – Weimar Republic (see where that ended up), Zimbabwe and more probably. In his enthusiasm to demonize those he disagrees with, the author breezily overlooks vast swathes of history and does not concern himself with much in the way of facts.

Funny how this crisis has the remarkable ability to affirm everyone’s pet beliefs.

Historically, when states have majored on “created money out of thin air” it has not ended well. The underlying economy must support the money supply in cashflow and size, or the result is inflation which is likely to become runaway, in our present situation, leading to the trashing of our currency and consequently, all of our liquid assets. You heard it here first 🙂

Public Health England has hardly covered itself in glory. They have ignored several warnings, including a paper written a year ago by none other than Dominic Cummings that the UK was “totally unprepared for a pandemic”. I understand that it was the German Private Biotec companies which quickly swung into action, and may have saved thousands of German lives.

I thought we were in the middle of a reasonably serious epidemic, how will that lead to a “a radical paradigm shift “.
While every nutter and his dog are using this as an excuse to pursue their unproven, unrealistic and downright dangerous Utopian fantasies I’ve never seen one as extensive as “popular sovereignty, democratic control over the economy, full employment, social justice, redistribution from the rich to the poor, relocalisation of production and the socio-ecological transformation of production and society”
Anything left out?
Of course there’s just a wee problem: it requires the imposition of an anti-human tyranny that people hate.

“Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Fazi, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Fazi asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby.”
G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905.

What a brilliant article, just pure brilliance re Globalisation and EU etc.. Jesus I literally feel sick for the poor Italians and Spaniards.. however the idea that we have no idea how we are going to pay for this fabulous open cheque book our government has found, is wide of the mark.. firstly its obvious to me anyway, and I am no Economist, but Income Tax is going to go sky high AND you almost have to admire Rishi on this one, they have at the same time as being incredibly generous, just closed another tax loop… most business owners pay themselves low wages and high dividends for tax purposes but as Govt only paying 80% of actual salary a) they have managed to keep payments down to business owners, whilst protecting their staff and b) will make owners think long and hard about how they pay themselves in the future IF these viruses are going to become a part of our future! Genius!

How disappointing. Unherd usually hosts thought-provoking and well-argued articles from a wide variety of perspectives, which perhaps haven’t previously been given enough attention. You can certainly argue that there are dysfunctional and even unjust aspects of the modern Western economic system, especially in the US, UK and EU, with too many rewards perhaps accruing to finance services and too little to industry and the real economy. Regarding ‘austerity’ in the UK, many would argue that there was not really austerity on a macro-economic level (cf the Greek experience), but nonetheless too great a contribution might have been required of spending cuts, especially to local government, and not enough of tax rises.

However, this seems to be little more than an ultra-Left rant, whose author seems to have absolutely no idea economically what he is talking about. Basically, all we seemingly need to do is sit at home and the government can print money and create wealth for everyone! Maybe tax the “1%” to pay for everyone else. Genius! You do wonder if it was so easy, why politicians of the Left, indeed of the populist the Right, haven’t previously thought of this so they can be elected and stay in power for ever.

The term neoliberalism is misleading. It is generally construed as referring to the economic systems espoused by Reagan, Thatcher and their successors, its roots being as recent as the later twentieth century. The truth is it is not much changed from mid-19th century neoclassical microeconomics. It has been shown time and again to be utterly false.
The only major change since then has been the Friedman-led refocusing from businesses maximising company profit onto maximising shareholder take.
As far back as 1862, Ruskin had pointed out that the neoclassical model was deficient in ‘applicability’ (Ruskin, 1862, The Roots of Honour). Since then there have been repeated learning experiences which showed it to be completely unrealistic. The 1929 Wall Street Crash was followed by the austerity driven Great Depression broken only by Roosevelt’s New Deal employment creations. That learning experience was repeated by the 2008 crash followed again by a decade of ideologically driven austerity, which Covid-19 realities might help bring to an end.
Nevertheless, as at today, the neoclassical microeconomic modelling still rules. It dominates macroeconomic decision making, and justifies all manner of destructive effects, including frauds and criminality, unprecedented inequalities and unsustainable environmental impacts.
Why has that 19th century economic model survived despite its obvious failings? Back in the 1930s, Roosevelt suggested it was because it served the purposes of what he referred to as organised money. Today organised money comprises the financial sector, financialised business, supportive strands of academia, the media including social media, and the political sector itself. They are the beneficiaries of neoclassical microeconomics and they are the ones with economic power which will only be overcome by political decision.
It remains to be seen whether Covid-19 will prove a more effective learning experience than 1929 or 2008. Maybe the fact that the whole human race appears to be approaching the sustainability buffers will add to its effect. It is just possible that the quasi-criminal financial sector will no longer be allowed to ride rough-shod over the rest of humanity.

.

Underread anachronistic self entitled trolls need to read MMT to see how right Thomas is.

The fact that he cares about people should be unsurprising.

That is the meaning of economics, care of the house hold; not supporting freeloading narcissistists and rentseekers.

Those who see big holes in Thomas’s argument or who are put off by the leftist rhetoric should read the rather good book he wrote with one of the gurus of modern monetary theory, Bill Mitchell. That deals with the inflation objection among others. What the article and the book fail to make clear, however, is that MMT is a set of technical insights that can be harnessed by any one of a range of political positions. It’s ideologically neutral. Fazi and Mitchell want to rescue the Left from its infatuation with identity politics and the EU. Good luck to them! I would see MMT as the right tool for governments like the present one in the UK that are looking for an approach to economic recovery that is markedly better than what the Cameron Tory leadership did after the 2008 meltdown. It’s the macroeconomics that One Nation, ‘red’ Tories need in 2020. Let’s hope Boris and co have the courage to recognise this.

Can I post?

Teenage rant or something more sinister? I think what Mr Fazi wants is National Socialism. It was tried once before in the 30s and 40s in Europe. Didn’t work out too well.
Perhaps there’s a typo with his name!

All you underread anachronistic self entitled trolls need to read MMT to see how right Thomas is.

The fact that he cares about people should be unsurprising. That is the meaning of economics, care of the house hold; not supporting freeloading narcissists and rentseekers.

Abba Lerner, Wynne Godley & Hyman Minsksy all rolled into one plus a large dose of Stephanie Kelton. A 3rd rate academic from a 4th rate university. God help us….

My favourite line in the book so far is “My parents stayed married for 70 years, mostly out of spite.”
Woody Allen has been cleared of sexual misconduct, why is he still treated like a convicted criminal by the press?

In 1992 I was in Prague and visited a Holocaust memorial whose name or status I cannot now remember after all these years – specifically I cannot recall whether it was a separate museum or a component of a larger institution. What I do recall, vividly, was walls covered with photographs of Jews who perished. The most terrible was one which showed the faces of children. No abstract art could be more shocking, or more effective. In Lublin, Poland, I more recently saw some very thoughtful evocations of the destroyed and massacred ghetto. Not only were the inhabitants killed in Majdanek, not far away, but the entire site was levelled during the war and is now occuped by a dual carriageway, a large shopping centre, and two bus stations. Under the castle hill, on a wide pavement, there is a symbolic space representing a rabbi’s house. Low blocks of varying heights symbolize, on a smaller scale of course, the site of that building. The idea is that you stand in the middle and reflect. There are other such spaces nearby, including a general space of reflection on the Jews of Lublin, which I could not locate in the short time available but hope to find when I am next there. The Lublin spaces are abstract, but they are directly related to what was there before, and very moving.