Proposals
-
Proposal update, including the jobs guarantee
-
The Mosler Plan for Greece
-
Fixing the small banks
-
Proposed Alternative to Geithner Plan
-
Mosler TALF Alternative
-
Mosler Health Care Proposal
-
Mosler Housing Proposal
-
Proposals for the Eurozone
-
Proposal for the UK
-
Proposal Update for Obama
-
Initial Recommendations for President Obama
-
Energy Crisis Solution
-
Proposal
-
VCP Proposal for Bankers
-
Payroll Tax Holiday
-
The Mosler Plan
-
The Mosler Plan, short version
-
Alternative Bank Liquidity Proposal
-
Financial Architecture Fundamentals
-
Current Proposals
-
2004 Proposal for Senator Joe Liberman
October 13th, 2009 at 3:18 am
Mr. Mosler,
Your proposals under the current monetary economics are indeed quite clever. Sadly however, we will never fully be free as a people so long as the U.S. pays a premium for it’s very own currency through the Federal Reserve banking system, as long as our government is corrupt and for as long as we wage war for profit!
In truth, I believe we have in our midst the spawning of a new era wherein we finally realize that our current socio-economic foundation no longer serves us…it never really did! We must shift our thinking towards a completely new structure that supports all life on this planet and not just the privileged few at the expense of others.
Our current structure is inherently corrupt and as I stated earlier, we can never be free under it nor can it be “fixed”. “Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them”.
– Einstein
The Zeitgeist Movement is one such organization, albeit in its infancy, that proposes radically different ideas, ideals and would create a world where “pure science” could lead us all towards a global society where everyone’s basic needs are met.
I invite you to open your heart and mind, to explore the ideas and concepts proposed therein:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
http://www.thevenusproject.com
Thank you,
Namaste
Reply
October 16th, 2009 at 7:50 am
My guess is Obama is modeling after the Clinton years 9They have a lot of the same people)
Large deficits in the beginning(blame them on Bush)
Economy grows
Gets reelected on platform of cutting deficit -fiscal responsibility
Raises taxes in year 5, cuts spending due to more Republicans in congress
Economy continues to grow then collapses just after he leaves office and blames the new guy
Reply
February 11th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I must quote the comment above because it is so appropriate, “Your proposals under the current monetary economics are indeed quite clever. Sadly however, we will never fully be free as a people so long as the U.S. pays a premium for it’s very own currency through the Federal Reserve banking system”
It’s a complicated subject in many ways but I will try to distill my questions to their essence. Do you support abloshing the Federal Reserve? If not, could you please explain briefly why it is better to allow a private banking cartel to issue our currency at interest than to print it ourselves at no interest to anyone (as the constitution clearly says we must)?
Reply
August 13th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
I’m on board so far Mr. Mosler but I would like a reply to the question above. It’s one I often hear.
Reply
August 14th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
all the fed does is regulate the banks and set the term structure of rates.
it sets the marginal cost of funds for the banking system.
It doesn’t ‘issue currency at interest’ in any way i know of
Reply
August 9th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Warren, do you think there are legal ways for this idea to be done?
“Tom, something unrelated to the blog.
This morning I was thinking if all of the MMT-people around the world invest in a newly created hedge fund or whatever money management entity, which will be operated by some of the MMT stars.
I don’t know how many of us are there today around the world, but I am pretty sure everybody with some money will be trilled to invest and be part of such project.
And maybe something like 50% of the returns on investments will be going directly for MMT purposes, like commercials, TV time, why not political elections. Kind of let’s make MMT work for itself.
What do you think?”
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2761684730989137546&postID=5692573327056702713
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
August 9th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
don’t know
Reply
rvm Reply:
August 9th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
MMT needs some kind of funding to be able to go to the next level.
Some kind of formal organization.
Think it is time to see how many of us are there.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
August 10th, 2011 at 12:29 am
agreed
Neil Wilson Reply:
August 10th, 2011 at 3:49 am
@rvm,
Given that the stock market has tanked, perhaps we should all buy high yield shares.
Than those that are causing the problem can fund the change.
rvm Reply:
August 10th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Warren, I think the MMTers-first generation, like yourself, have to initiate something in such direction sooner or later.
Like in the army, Generals and Officers organize and lead the solders. Now we look more like not very well organized guerrillas.
September 27th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
An interesting bit of history, on two counts:
http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2011/09/testimony-of-marriner-eccles-to.html
“Read this and know that just one person, with vision and principles, can make a difference to the world in a time of crisis, establishing the basis for decades of prosperity and growth.”
Words of inspiration to MMTers, but also a number of proposals similar to those found on this web site, even though Eccles seems to have had a different understanding of economics.
Reply
October 9th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Warren, MMT has to be permanently presented in OWS movement. MMT and OWS have common interests and, as you commented somewhere already, OWS needs MMT.
I’ve just returned from Zuccotti Park where I spent couple of hours holding your book in my hands and wearing this hat:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/hat1.jpg/
I tried to spread the word, but we need a permanent spot in this park with some MMT slogans and a lot of copies of SDIFEP book.
Are there any unemployed MMTers with some free time?
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
I can have a box of books sent
Reply
Tom Hickey Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
@WARREN MOSLER,
How about quick making some short videos specifically on 7DIF to put up at YouTube, FB, etc. This is the way to have a shot at going viral.
Dylan Ratigan’s rant is now being promoted as the one demand of OWS, for example.
Occupy Wall Street Our One Demand
Mike Norman’s Jones Beach video demonstrated that all it takes to set up a studio is a cheap digital camera, natural lighting, and quiet environment.
Reply
rvm Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
@ Tom Hickey
Getting the money out of politics is a perfect demand for OWS. One person – one vote, and not $1 -one vote.
But in order to formulate next perfect demands OWS will need MMT.
Tom Hickey Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
@Tom Hickey,
I would recommend a series of short videos on 7DIF, proposals for reform, and why MMT is superior to the solutions proposed by Ron Paul and the Kucinich/AMI plan to get MMT in the hands of the protestors as quickly and widely as possible.
I think that getting copies of 7DIF in the hands of key activists and following up on it is also a priority.
beowulf Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 12:24 am
@Tom Hickey,
I suppose Warren could always take the whistleblower angle– like an inside source Jessie Ventura would interview on his conspiracy TV show (Matt Taibbi is in this one).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOpEScwidPw
The certain way to build a rapport with any political audience, left or right, is to hate on the Federal Reserve. So one approach is to go with the flow– get the crowd on your side first with that and then dive into the pecifics ways Warren’s proposals would thwart the dark plans of the Fed (Bernanke gets enough grief, so I wouldn’t single him out by name).
A future episode of Jessie Ventura’s show could be promoted with:
“A Wall Street legend blows the whistle and speaks out about the Federal Reserve’s secret plan to drain your wallet with something insiders call a”reserve drain”.
Or,if you really want to be mean, align the Fed with animal abuse and then take the other side!
“Our political system is a dogfighting ring, Jessie, its run for the gamblers. The Democrats, the Republicans; they’re just the poor animals trained and fed to tear each other part. Meanwhile its people like Michael Vick and the Federal Reserve who are pulling the strings and making the money ["making the money" is literally true in the legal tender sense].
Mario Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 12:35 am
@Tom Hickey,
Tom your time has come my friend.
YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME VIDEOS TO POST ON YOUTUBE FOR OWS!!!!
You have all the knowledge to speak for MMT, you have an edge that OWS people will FEEL and RESONATE with…you’re normal and ordinary and accessible. You can articulate this in both complicated economic language as well as in ordinary PEOPLE talk. OWS needs YOU Tom. You can also articulate the types of proposals we need. You can talk about the banking system and how “evil” it is and how we need to tax the rich (rentier) class, etc, etc, etc.
THIS IS YOUR TIME TOM. All that you have done before now culminates at this very moment. Don’t try to reject this Tom. This is your mission. Please choose to accept it.
As you yourself have already stated:
Mike Norman’s Jones Beach video demonstrated that all it takes to set up a studio is a cheap digital camera, natural lighting, and quiet environment.
There are no more excuses Tom. It’s time for you to get out there and share the information….the medicine….the balm….the fire.
DO IT!!!!! (and do it NOW Tom). Yes you marched this weekend for OWS Iowa City…but these videos Tom….your videos Tom….they have more power and potency than any marching you could ever do anywhere. Do this Tom. Make your videos. Make them now.
beowulf Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 12:41 am
@Tom Hickey,
I should clarify for new readers that yes I meant the conspiracy angle tongue-in-cheek.
:o)
Tom Hickey Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 12:57 am
@Beowulf,
Just cut to the chase and recommend formally consolidating the Treasury and Fed under the Treasury secretary since they are already informally consolidated.
Tom Hickey Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 1:00 am
@Mario,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mario, but Warren has the cred. He’s been there and done it.
Mario Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
@Tom Hickey,
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mario, but Warren has the cred. He’s been there and done it.
Of course all cred goes to Warren and co of course! He is THE MAN and the “high-priest” of MMT. He’s also been a mentor and major influence for me in my professional life to boot!
I don’t think it really matters who does the vids…in fact anyone and everyone could do MMT vids!!! What I’m seeing is some quick 5-10 min. videos with a few bold main MMT points/statements in text on the screen and then followed up with a easy-to-grasp explanation of that MMT point. Each main MMT point gets a video. It just needs to be in accessible language so that people can get the full message without an economics textbook.
Heck maybe I’ll do them….even though I don’t feel qualified enough and familiar enough with all the intricacies of the material to really be doing vids, but the fact is they need to be done and it takes absolutely nothing to make them. Not to speak for Warren or anything but I’m sure there’s no objections to people making MMT vids so long as the info is correct and accurate.
Well that’s just my two ticks for ya’ll and I’ll leave it at that. But an MMT channel on youtube would be a great idea whoever puts it up (that knows the information at least).
Cheers!
Tom Hickey Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
@Tom Hickey,
It does matter who makes the vids and how they are presented. They have to counter Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, celebrities of the left and right.
Paul and Kucinich have to be met on the same level to get cred. Among MMT proponents, only Warren has that cred. He’s a successful “Wall Street’er” who has figured out how the system works and how it can be used to achieve public purpose instead of being hijacked.
Neither the Paul nor the Kucinich plans will accomplish what their proponent think. This needs to be spelled out precisely and concisely. Moreover, the presenter has to have the background to field objections. In addition, 7DIF is there for immediate follow up. Warren is the clearly the point man here.
Mario Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
@Tom Hickey,
well then I’d say we need to help out Warren do whatever it takes to get these videos up!!!
Warren is there anything I (we) can do to help you get some videos made?
Cheers to all!!!
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
October 11th, 2011 at 12:04 am
back in the office tomorrow. will try to get to it, thanks
Tom Hickey Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
@Mario,
Warren needs to be the front man, but he needs an organization behind him promoting the MMT narrative. That’s where we come in.
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
i’ve started more than once but somehow never got it done
BFG Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
@WARREN MOSLER,
They have their own library and address you can send them to.
http://peopleslibrary.wordpress.com/
Contact Us
email:
owspeopleslibrary@gmail.com
Mail:
The UPS Store
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Attn: The People’s Library
118A Fulton St. #205
New York, NY 10038
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
got a couple of people taking my books there
rvm Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
@ Warren
That would be great. I can help to distribute them but only on the weekends, as I can’t take any vacation.
Reply
October 11th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
My local newspaper, published every Tuesday and Friday, prints every letter to the editor it receives, unedited even for grammar, spelling and punctuation, but only up to 300 words, and only once per week per author.
Would it be possible to package some MMT principles in 300-word bites for publication in papers like mine? I would try, but I think it would be more effective coming from the likes of Warren, or Randall.
Not a really wide audience, but a grass-roots start. Once created, these short epistles could be collected on a web site and used by others in their own local papers. And they do have longer guest op-eds, too.
http://www.westvalleyview.com/
Reply
October 26th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Well, no comments on my last post here, so I claim plagiarism rights as necessary. Here’s a draft of my first installment. Comments, corrections, suggestions welcome. It’s 288 words. In particular, I would like for Warren or someone else knowlegable to validate the statement in the 6th paragraph:
Our politicians seem all to be ignorant of some basic economics.
If the world is divided into government (the US Federal variety) and non-government, then if one of them saves money ($US) the other must dissave it. In other terms, if one has a “surplus” in its budget, the other must have an equal “deficit”. There is no other place where savings can go or come from, because these two categories encompass the entire universe.
The US Federal Government is the monopoly producer of dollars. There is no other place that the dollars saved by non-government can come from. Government produces dollars by spending, and destroys them by taxing. Net production is a budget deficit, and net destruction is a budget surplus.
Non-government can be divided into two sectors, domestic and foreign. When the domestic non-government sector saves money, we call it “private savings”. When the foreign sector saves $US, it is called the Trade Deficit. The way the foreign sector gets $US to save is by selling more goods and services to us than they buy from us.
We have a trade deficit because the foreign sector wants to save $US (by buying T-Bills), just like we do. If they didn’t want to save $US, they could buy US goods and services, or exchange their $US for other currencies. They don’t. They prefer to save $US.
Since we do have a trade deficit, and we do have net private savings, it is a mathematical certainty, not a policy option, that (if the economy is in equilibrium) we must also have a Federal Budget deficit, and it must be equal to the sum of the other two surpluses.
More about equilibrium next time.
For more information, see http://www.moslereconomics.com
Reply
ESM Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
@John O’Connell,
It looks fine, but as I’ve said many times on this blog, I think the real disconnect is caused by the (mistaken)mainstream belief that the issuance of Treasury bonds saps aggregate demand by forcing deferral of consumption.
If people recognized that a Treasury bond is effectively the same thing as a dollar bill, then they would understand that there is no inflation sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.
The very fact that $10T of Treasuries, plus $2T of reserves, plus $1T of currency exist without sparking high inflation is convincing evidence that the non-governmental savings desire is at least $13T.
Reply
JCD Reply:
October 26th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
@ESM, If we could get the Fed to do Operation twist ad infinitum, we could prove the point. When every treasury trades at a yield of say 5 bps, what is the difference between treasuries and cash?
It would seem to be the easiest idea on earth to explain to an economist.
It’s enough to make me ashamed of my bachelors degree in economics.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 4:08 am
i like to put it this way
the reason the govt can deficit spend in the first place without causing ‘inflation’ via excess demand is because the economy has a net savings desire for whatever reason.
so govt doesn’t deficit spend first, and then, quick, offer some rate to keep those funds from causing inflation.
the govt buys things when it deficit spends, and that they are offered for sale is the evidence that the economy wants the net financial assets.
yes, the term structure of rates figures into that savings decision, but looking at the interest income channels and econometric evidence I suspect that higher rates reduce savings desires, and vice versa.
Reply
ESM Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 8:27 am
@WARREN MOSLER,
“the govt buys things when it deficit spends, and that they are offered for sale is the evidence that the economy wants the net financial assets.”
I agree in principle, but a big part of government deficit “spending” actually consists of transfer payments, right?
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 10:52 am
yes, but at the margin they buy things
JCD Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 8:33 am
@WARREN MOSLER,
Perhaps you’re missing my point.
My point is ZIRP and Mr. Twisty combine to form a natural experiment.
Imagine the Fed did both, until the entire term structure was at 5bps, flat as a board. And of course, Treasuries would retain their infinite liquidity because the Fed was willing to purchase or finance without limit at a given price/yield.
What would be the practical difference between a Benjamin and a bond? Nothing. It would be as if the treasury had never issued a bond, and just printed greenbacks. Economists would tell you that if they just printed greenbacks we would have massive inflation.
Well guess what? Two year treasuries are trading at $99.40 or there abouts. They are infinitely liquid. And the fed has said that rates will be near zero for two years. The Fed *HAS* turned bonds into Benjamins. And yet no inflation.
It makes you want to shake an economist by the lapels. The truth is staring them in the face. The Fed turned every treasury from two years and in into cash, and …. wait for it …. inflation went nowhere.
We are so going to be Japan.
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 10:54 am
and the main stream economist is telling us the Fed just hasn’t done enough…
John O'Connell Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@ESM,
“the real disconnect is caused by the (mistaken)mainstream belief that the issuance of Treasury bonds saps aggregate demand by forcing deferral of consumption.”
Mainstream among economists, maybe, but I don’t think the general public (my target) thinks in those terms. I think people generally believe that deficits cause inflation whether bonds are issued or not, and whether the Fed buys them or not. It’s just “deficit=bad”.
Reply
WARREN MOSLER Reply:
October 27th, 2011 at 4:04 am
congrats, you’ve come a long way in a short time
Reply
November 7th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while, amd now the flat yield curve discussion is my chance.
Occasionally, the Fed engineers an inverted yield curve, driving short term rates above longer rates. They did it in 2006, and before that in the late 1990′s. Every time they do it, a recesion follows.
This is widely believed to be a causal relationship. How does MMT view the effects of the inverted yield curve?
Reply
November 7th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Second letter to the editor, for your review and comment (292 words):
In my last letter I explained why we have a Federal Budget deficit, and why we MUST have one, if the economy is to be in equilibrium.
Equilibrium is when all production is just barely consumed. If there is any stuff left over, producers will reduce production to clear the market. That means laying off workers. If the stuff is all gone, and people are still looking to buy it, then producers will hire more workers and produce more stuff.
Equilibrium is not a very good goal for us right now. Unemployment is very high, and growth is too low. We need to advance, not to stay the same. The way to advance is for somebody to buy more stuff, and then producers will hire more people. Economists call that “increasing aggregate demand”.
Government can influence the economy by spending more (or taxing less, and then consumers will have more to spend) to make it grow, or by spending less (or taxing more) to reduce its growth rate, or even make it shrink (i.e., recession). The policy question is always whether the deficit is too big, too small, or just about right.
(It matters what kind of spending government does. Some things are more effective than others, and some can be harmful to certain individuals, but any spending helps the economy, even if it is not the spending we would prefer.)
So, today, is the deficit too big, too small, or just right? If you like the current unemployment rate and growth rate, then it’s just right. But, if you want higher growth and lower unemployment, the way to do that is with a bigger deficit, not a smaller one.
But, don’t deficits cause inflation? Next time.
For more information see http://www.moslereconomics.com
Reply