Macro N Cheese

This week Steve talks with Linwood Tauheed, someone we’ve heard about from several of our recent guests. Dr. Tauheed is an institutionalist economist; he looks at the economy not as a macroeconomy or a microeconomy, but as an economy that's founded on institutions. Beyond the economy, or perhaps intertwined with it, institutional frameworks enable and constrain all parts of social life. They are sometimes the unconscious or conscious ideas that structure the way ordinary people live their lives.Such an expansive, dialectical look at society inspires Steve to take this interview down a number of paths, visiting both recent and distant history. They talk about the stark differences between the French and American revolutions. Slavery was outlawed during the French revolution, which was fought by the poor against the rich:It was a class-based revolution, whereas the American Revolution was a revolution of the very well-off in this country against the monarchy, the very well-off in Britain. And so it wasn't a revolution that was based on freeing the poor. It was a revolution based on freeing the rich.The US Constitution is just one representation of the institutions that undergird the divisions of race and sex in the service to capitalism. According to institutionalist Thorstein Veblen, capitalists organize systems enabling them to “make a living without earning a living.” There are micro-institutions and “habits of thought” that continue to divide people whose common oppression should unite them.This episode includes discussion of A Tribe Called Quest, the life of Malcolm X, and, of course, Modern Monetary Theory. A transcript of the interview is available on our website. For additional, related content, check out the Extras page.Linwood Tauheed is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City, and teaches introductory and advanced courses in Institutional Economics, Political Economy of Race, Class, and Gender, Economic Development, and a doctoral seminar in Interdisciplinary Research Methodology. His primary research interests are in Economic Methodology, Community Economic Development and Analysis of Education. A major research project involves the development of ‘Critical Institutionalism,’ an interdisciplinary metatheoretical framework for developing models for evolutionary institutional change in social systems through social action.He is the immediate past president of the National Economic Association (NEA), which was founded in 1969 as the Caucus of Black Economists and recently celebrated its 50th anniversary.

The last time Delman Coates was a guest on Macro N Cheese, the Our Money campaign was still fairly new, this podcast was on its 20th episode, and none of us had heard of COVID-19.  Now, almost two years and 100 episodes later, it was long overdue for him and Steve to get together again.Delman believes the federal response to the pandemic has been an eye-opener. People saw the government use the public purse to provide economic stimulus. New money was created through deficit spending without the need for new taxes to pay for it. It’s out in the open: whether deficit spending is being done to bail out corporations or whether it’s spent on emergency relief, everyone can see it happening.And so that's why I think that there is so much power in MMT. Paulo Freire talked about the pedagogy of the oppressed. MMT is a pedagogy of the people. And as people see their government working and functioning, they understand that the concepts that we've been espousing are true. And because of that, I think it's unassailable.Delman says it’s our charge to educate all across the political spectrum. When the people understand how our economy actually works, they’ll realize we’ve been asking for far too little. Believing the public purse is funded through tax revenue, “we've been asking for crumbs when we could get the loaf.”Our Money’s Repair and Restore agenda is centered around a federal job guarantee, free health care, and federal funding of public education, pre-K through college.  Delman describes these three central policies as the biggest, broadest, and most robust form of automatic stabilizers to benefit the American people and black folks in particular. He emphasizes the use of stabilizers as opposed to stimulus. Stimulus is temporary.When we provide FDIC insurance for banks to go out here and treat the commercial lending market like it's a casino, we are providing public supports to the financial sector. So I want to be clear that when we talk about the power of the public purse, we're not talking about giving people something that they don't deserve.Delman goes into the job guarantee’s history in the civil rights movement. From Sadie Alexander, the first black American economist, to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and A. Philip Randolph, through today’s leaders, many have understood what guaranteed jobs could do in the battle against racism and the struggle for a secure decent life for all. The results would be profound.You won’t want to miss this episode. Delman’s eloquence and clarity are inspirational.Reverend Delman Coates is the Senior Pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, MD. He’s the Founder of Our Money, an economic justice campaign that seeks to solve some of our nation’s greatest social and economic challenges. Dr. Coates also founded the Black Church Center for Justice and Equality to address the social and spiritual challenges of the African American faith community.ourmoneyus.orgOn Twitter:@iamdelmancoates@ourmoneyus

From his days at TYT to his ground-breaking investigative work at Status Coup, Jordan Chariton has been on the front lines of journalism for years. The stories he covers should be plastered all over cable news and the national publications… but they aren’t. While the mainstream is obsessed with impeachment and a newly-elected Republican who follows QAnon, Jordan has been reporting on the tragedies and travesties being visited upon American communities far from Washington, DC.From Flint’s poisoned water supply to Iowa’s fraudulent Democratic caucus, what’s notable is the absence of the national press corps. Jordan travels to trailer parks and tent cities where he educates himself and his followers about the day-to-day misery perpetrated on the people.I'd be seeing what's actually happening in the country, which was just an economic Hunger Games mixed with environmental genocide. And I'd get back to the hotel or wherever I was staying, and the media's main focus would be on whatever Trump tweeted.Jordan and Steve delve into our current political reality, agreeing it’s increasingly unlikely substantive change will come from the halls of Congress. Steve suggests the progressive movement will need to engage in direct action while organizing legal and mutual aid. In Jordan’s view, targeted public pressure is important. He thinks we should focus on pressuring and dismantling the current corporate media monolith. We need to quell the mass public brainwashing, as well as disseminate the real news to a confused population.Jordan Chariton, Status Coup CEO, is an independent progressive journalist who’s worked inside and outside the belly of the corporate media beast for over a decade. He has worked at Fox, MSNBC, and The Young Turks, before starting Status Coup. His team’s investigative work is attracting attention and expanding their reach.@JordanChariton @StatusCoupstatuscoup.comCheck out Jordan’s article on DNC tamperinghttps://theintercept.com/2020/12/23/dnc-iowa-caucus-app-shadow/and on Snyder’s prior knowledge of Flint https://theintercept.com/2021/01/13/flint-michigan-rick-snyder-legionnaires/

We at Macro N Cheese are big fans of Black Agenda Report because of their clear, no-bullshit analysis and their global perspective. This week’s guest does not disappoint. Danny Haiphong is a contributing editor of BAR, co-host of The Left Lens, and co-author of American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News―From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror.Danny describes austerity as the assault on the rights and well-being of working people. It has been normalized and disconnected from the issues of xenophobia and white supremacy being peddled by both parties in a kind of faux competition between the elite over who is going to lead the charge for the empire at this given moment.Steve and Danny spend much of the episode addressing the distinction between reform and revolution and the dangers inherent when the lines are blurred. While it’s becoming clear that electoral politics are inadequate for bringing the kind of revolutionary change we need, we can’t entirely dismiss them. Unfortunately much of the American left lacks a historical materialist analysis and holds the mistaken belief that time can be reversed.And sometimes a disservice is really done, I think, when folks in the Sanders camp, for example, talk about the New Deal and FDR being the model, when at that time there were forces in that camp who were purging and attacking the left, socialists, communists in order to purify them from those ideological elements and in fact, save capitalism.We ignore, at our peril, the massive struggles it took to achieve even minor reforms, We neglect the historical context of the New Deal or the civil rights era and don’t consider the economic base of society. Many in the progressive movement believe we can repeat the New Deal in the 21st century without asking what was the development stage of capitalism then... and what is it now?This episode goes into censorship, the media, and monopoly ownership. Is censorship ever warranted? Steve and Danny take a deep dive into political theory and practical possibilities given the reality of the American empire, global and domestic.Danny Haiphong is a contributing editor to Black Agenda Report and co-host of The Left Lens. His work has been published widely elsewhere and maintains a blog at patreon.com/dannyhaiphong.@SpiritofHo on TwitterAmerican Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News―From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terrorhttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41953443-american-exceptionalism-and-american-innocence

We’ve had several episodes on Brexit, but this is the first time we’re talking about it with a Scottish nationalist. Kairin Van Sweeden is the executive director of Modern Money Scotland and works with the SNP, the Scottish National Party.Joining the union was forced upon the Scottish people in 1707 against the wishes of the majority. With the seat of government and economic power concentrated in London, the needs of Scotland are not a priority in the UK. Despite the continual growth of the independence movement, they couldn’t get it passed in the 2014 referendum. By the time of the Brexit vote in 2016, many realized their mistake as the majority in Scotland voted to stay in the European Union.Scotland has an abundance of resources, with a huge farming sector and an excess of renewable energy potential in the form of tidal and wind energy. They have 60% of the UK’s ocean water but only 8% of the population. Enter a problem. Scotland has an aging (shrinking) population and needs to attract young people. The result of the Brexit vote led to an immigrant exodus.Kairin’s anti-Brexit sentiment isn’t a signal of approval of the European Union. As an MMTer she understands the powerlessness coming from the lack of monetary sovereignty. Scotland is at the mercy of the Bank of London in a situation not so different from the EU nations’ impotence at the hands of the troika.We can see that neoliberalism is built into the EU. You cannot have more than a three percent deficit just across the board for all countries, you know, and that's complete nonsense. Of course, that can't possibly apply to all different countries. And different countries have different requirements as well. Greece is never going to be anything like Germany, so you can't expect it to be an industrial powerhouse in the way that Germany is.Kairin and Steve talk about the neoliberal mindset which is recognizable regardless of nationality. We’ve all heard of the Northern Europeans who blame Greece for its economic problems, but Kairin tells us of a former editor of The Sun newspaper who was recently online saying, "Yeah, that would be good if Scotland got their independence because I'm sick of paying for them out of my taxes."The COVID pandemic is opening many eyes. In recent years the UK’s national health care system has been eroded by privatization. Consumer choice is portrayed as a human right. But the public health crisis demonstrated that money can be created when politicians choose to do so. People must now ask why we’ve had decades of austerity.Kairin Van Sweeden is Executive Director of Modern Money Scotland, Convener @Yes Edinburgh North and Leith, and North East Coordinator of Scottish National Party Common Weal Group.@IndyAnatomist@ModernMoneyScotmodernmoney.scot

Recently our friend Bill Black introduced us to June Carbone. He suggested she could tell us how the job guarantee fits into cutting edge research on the family. June holds the Robina Chair in Law, Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota Law School and writes about the intersection of family, the economy, and politics. In this episode, June takes Steve through the evolution of the American family as it transitioned to meet the economic needs of modern society. She says what excites her is not so much what things are, but why they change. When the US was founded, it was an agricultural society. The foundation of the colonial era family was the farm, owned and controlled by men and primarily a self-contained unit. Industrialization and urbanization disrupted the system. The entire economy became dramatically more insecure, with boom-bust economic cycles. Women are no longer helping in the fields.They are the moral centers of the family. What's their job? Well, we think of it as sparkling kitchen floors from the 50s. But the real job of the women in the separate spheres is the creation of a new upper-middle class. It is to have the girls prevent the boys from getting them pregnant. Why? Because if the girls get pregnant too early, the boys have to marry them and that derails the whole enterprise. You’ve got to keep the boys in school. They've got to get the job. They've got to get through the first couple of years when they're working their way up, and then they can afford a wife.June talks to Steve about the changing economic conditions through the 19th and 20th centuries, and their effect on demographics and family behavioral trends. Race and class distinctions were sharp. Patterns of migration during WW II and the postwar period have had long-term effects, especially on African Americans. She explains how trends like divorce rates and single parenting reflect economic precarity. The Reagan years saw massive increases in both instability and inequality.By today’s unrealistic model of the urban middle class family, young people have cycled through the first three or four jobs, and have settled on a career. They’re able to marry and have children with the financial security to weather a downturn or allow the spouse to go back to school. As June points out, the majority of the population cannot get there. Well, start thinking of what it would mean to empower workers the way we empower employers. The corporate world wants flexibility, the ability to move plants abroad, to a different state, to automate, to sell one unit and buy another unit, to reinvent the iPhone. They have the iPhone replace the PC. We build in disruption in the corporate model. What would it mean to provide stability and security for people?Steve and June go through much of the interview without mentioning the job guarantee, yet there’s no doubt June is constructing the case for it. Our listeners may never have heard it approached from these angles. It will give you a whole new perspective.June Carbone holds the Robina Chair of Law, Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota School of Law. She is coauthor of RED FAMILIES V. BLUE FAMILIES: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture (Oxford, 2010) and MARRIAGE MARKETS: How Inequality is Remaking the American Family (Oxford 2014)http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=165168@carbonej on Twitter

What can we say about the job guarantee that hasn’t already been said?  Quite a bit, actually, as you’ll see in this and upcoming episodes.This week Fadhel Kaboub is talking to a mellower Steve, fresh from the hospital and still on the mend from Covid19. Fadhel begins with the reality that capitalism is a brutal system that constantly leaves people behind. It’s driven by technological change, and as this develops, we require some workers with new skill sets, while others are rendered virtually obsolete. We don’t have an existing system bringing them into the new technology.We count on individual workers to do this on their own, to somehow anticipate technological change, take time and money from their own budget, so to speak, to invest in learning new skills that will be useful for this new industry that doesn't exist yet and somehow be ready to go to transition to those new jobs. And those jobs sometimes are in a different location. Sometimes they're completely in a different country, a different part of the world. So that is the absurdity of the system that we leave this up to individuals to struggle.A job guarantee will treat training and education as part of the job. Advancing technology tends to be more capital intensive, requiring a smaller workforce. What do we do with all the surplus labor? Fadhel explains why it’s not enough to provide a basic safety net, such as healthcare and social services, though they are desperately required as well. Work is more than an income, with well-proven benefits to individuals and families beyond the paycheck. JG advocates like Pavlina Tcherneva and Fadhel speak of a “care economy” of the most valuable work from a broader human and social perspective. Fadhel says it’s “a social, economic and political consensus, a social contract that doesn't throw people under the bus as the economy changes over time.”Steve asks Fadhel about the job guarantee in a mixed economy and command economy. They discuss workers’ co-ops and the aversion, from some on the left, to state control. Fadhel reminds us the JG talks about federal funding. Everything else, from job creation to implementation and management, is done at the local level through a participatory democracy model.Some tricky questions arise. Who defines local?  Is it state, municipal, county?How many grassroots voices do we have in the decision-making process? Is all the money going to go to the same city council officials who will hand out these contracts to the same developers who exclude minority groups from access to jobs, who always invest in the wealthier part of town? So those are important details so that we don't end up feeding the system and recreating the same problem. So grassroots participation, community participation is important. It can't be just symbolic.Fadhel talks about the role of nonprofit organizations, which are important not only because they are existing organizations we don’t need to invent or create from scratch. They’re also in touch with the people who need the most services, so are in the best position to speak to what will benefit them.The interview covers the UBI, with enough information to handle any debate. Fadhel explains the meaning of “buffer stock,” with examples of how economists normally use the term. He reveals the real reason UBI is being heavily promoted by Silicon Valley.Steve and Fadhel look at the need for independent media like Real Progressives. Democracy without a fourth estate is not a democracy. The privatization and monopolization of the media over the past 40 years has served to destroy local journalism, meaning we don’t have full-time reporters covering local news, city councils, how the money is spent.This episode covers much more than can be described here. You’ll just have to listen for yourself.Dr. Fadhel Kaboub is an Associate Professor of Economics at Denison University and President of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity.global-isp.org@FadhelKaboub & @GISP_Tweets

Steve Grumbine has been in the hospital with Covid-19 complicated by pneumonia. We’re encouraged by his progress and expect to have him back in the saddle soon. Since he was unable to record a new interview this week, we’re reviving a 2017 conversation he had with Patricia Pino from the UK. Our listeners know her as co-host of the MMT Podcast, but this was recorded several months before that project was launched.  It’s amusing to revisit the past, comparing ourselves then and now. In 2017 Steve was still very much into a heavy metal, confrontational style. He was constantly being challenged by folks obsessed with the “Illuminati.” They were more willing to believe in Rothschild conspiracies than in the reality of sovereign fiat currency. In contrast, Patricia was remarkably optimistic, assuring us that we’re “almost there”... MMT is catching on.  American progressives had been frustrated by the results of the 2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and identified with the disappointment in the Labour Party’s defeat in the UK. Many of us saw similarities between Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie, though the electoral systems, political parties, and governing structures are quite different. Patricia enlightens us on both.  A large part of the discussion is about Brexit, which British liberals associate with racism and xenophobia. Patricia talks about the history of the European Union, a project that was sold to the public as a means of keeping the European countries united after WW2. Eventually, the neoliberal agenda slipped in by way of government spending treaties and single market agreements. Many still see in the EU the ideal of a united Europe and international cooperation. The extreme suffering of the Greeks is blamed on their own mismanagement. According to Steve, we can’t understand the Greek crisis without considering sectoral balances. Greece is a net importer.   They have no ability to really produce any kind of export activity, not at least at the level required to sustain their existence. And when they gave up their monetary sovereignty by joining the EU, they, in essence, gave up the ability to offset the fact that they're a net importer. And so now they're basically a debtor nation enslaved to the troika.   Eurozone countries that are net exporters, like Germany, are doing fine while non-sovereign countries that are net importers are struggling. This is as true of Greece as of Puerto Rico.  Patricia and Steve look at the concept of government debt in both the US and UK and agree that when the public understands how things actually work there will be millions of angry people ready to make demands and accept no compromise. Folks won’t need to understand economics to see the truth.  Patricia Pino is a London-based engineer, artist, and activist. She is co-host of The MMT Podcast and a research fellow at the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity.  @PatriciaNPino on Twitter  https://pileusmmt.libsyn.com/  http://www.global-isp.org/patricia-pino/

Happy New Year!  Welcome to our first episode of 2021.  Among ourselves, we on the Macro N Cheese team often debate (argue) whether it’s possible to achieve our economic and political goals under the present system. We’re as susceptible to discouragement and despair as anyone else. This is why we love a guest like Emma Caterine whose optimism is rooted in experience and realism.  Emma’s message for 2021 is “organize!” To begin with, we must address the isolation that people are feeling while in the midst of the most heightened state of class war since the Great Depression. Everyone has lost a source of income - or they know somebody who has. Debt continues to accrue with no end in sight, and while people understand that this is widespread, they all experience it on a visceral, personal level. It’s our job to communicate with them. It’s our job to educate.  It’s clear we can’t expect much in the way of solutions or relief from the Biden administration. The president-elect has had a lifelong political commitment to the finance industry. He's a true believer in financial capital. When the government denies relief, that industry does very well; we have nowhere else to turn. Emma describes the provisions in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which Biden co-authored. Class warfare is virtually written into the law.   The whole point of going over this is to say that the Biden administration is not only ideologically committed to the finance industry, but Biden is so committed to the finance industry that he will actually do things that hurt the economy overall, not just working people, but the economy overall, just to make short term profits for his friends in the industry.   On a positive note, there are groups doing great work. The Debt Collective initiated student loan strikes, which are a historic, successful attempt to inject class politics into the world of finance and debt. Make the Road NJ and NY, are mobilizing around workers and immigrant rights. During the pandemic, there have been many efforts to cancel rent, without much success. It comes down to the usual suspects: budgetary restrictions and means-testing for what little relief is available. The states are proclaiming their helplessness, but Emma pierces that veil.  Steve brings up the “moral hazard” argument, which is an all-purpose excuse for federal lawmakers to clutch their pearls and tighten the purse strings. Emma says it’s a term that neoclassical economists love to use.   The model is all nice and beautiful in its abstract vacuum world that is nothing like the real world that we actually live in. And that's a really important point, because these austerity politics, they're not pragmatic. They're not some kind of cost-cutting realism. It's an ideological belief that when times get tough, the worst off people should be the ones to shoulder the burden. It's not a mistake. It's not a hard reality. It is class warfare. It's an element of class war.   As is appropriate for the first episode of 2021, the final part of the interview looks at our goals for the coming year. We need to build on the enthusiasm for the Sanders campaign and the awareness and participation in Black Lives Matter. Emma urges us to focus on recruitment. Let’s not just rely on reaction to events, whether positive (AOC’s election) or negative (police shootings). She shares her experiences as an organizer in the labor movement and Democratic Socialists of America. We have a long way to go, but maybe it’s not impossible.  Emma Caterine is a lawyer and writer with more than a decade of experience working within economic justice, feminist, LGBTQ, and racial justice movements. Her legal practice and writing are focused on consumer debt and financial regulation. She is a partner at the Law Office of Ahmad Keshavarz.  emmacaterine.com  Find her work on Medium emmacaterine.medium.com

Happy 100th!To our supporters, both old and new,Thank you for making this podcast a success exceeding our expectations.  For the story of Macro N Cheese and our 100th episode, please check out the “Extras” section on the episode web page.  realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-100-flying-with-sara-nelson  *   *   *   *   *  Sara Nelson is a labor leader with MMT bullets in her bandolier. She’s practical, wise, and filled with compassion for the workers she represents and those she doesn’t. She joins us fresh on the heels of another victory, celebrating the passage of the latest Covid-19 relief bill while admitting it’s not perfect.  She explains that her union’s strategy requires a multi-pronged attack and its success manifests on multiple fronts. They could only prevail because they are organized. Their battle began long before they arrived at the legislative process. They had already fought through the early rounds.  We brought capital to the demands. OK? … This is organizing in the workplace and saying capital is going to be disrupted if you don't work with us. So bringing our airlines to this political process was what made all the difference. And that's only possible if we organize in mass numbers and build that kind of power in the workplace because the only thing that is going to move people is if you actually move capital.  Sara shares astute observations of neoliberal maneuvers from Wall Street to Washington. She warns against those who ask “is it politically possible?” If you’re starting with that question, you’ve already lost. It’s up to us to make it politically possible.  Steve and Sara discuss the power derived from penetrating the deficit myth, pulling back the curtain, and laying bare the lie of austerity. They talk about the 1912 textile workers’ demand for “bread and roses” and how it’s as vital now as it was then. The recent rebirth of the strike in this country is resulting in unexpected and transformative outcomes.  Look at the Chicago teachers who lifted tens of thousands of people out of poverty with that strike. Life-changing. Right? Got nurses in the schools so that parents who are working two and three jobs to survive and don't understand why their child is having such a hard time at school. And now there's a nurse to say, you know, your child's having a hard time hearing and we just need to get them a hearing aid and all of a sudden that child can participate. And the parents, you know, I mean, can you imagine that? Can you imagine the difference this makes in people's lives? But those are the results that we can get by organizing.  Sara Nelson is the International President of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO. She worked to secure federal payroll grants to keep aviation workers employed and connected to healthcare during the coronavirus pandemic while banning stock buybacks and capping executive compensation. The program was extended in the emergency relief bill on December 21st.  afacwa.org  @FlyingWithSara on Twitter

Are you listening to Macro N Cheese on our website? If not, you’re missing the transcript and extra content that accompany each episode.  This week we welcome Professor Steve Keen for his third visit to the podcast. He talks to us about the need for a debt jubilee, rising from the insanity of orthodox economics and the very real consequences attached to that paradigm.  There's this belief which is promulgated by mainstream economics. If you read a text like Mankiw, for example, you'll find a statement saying that when the government runs a deficit, it has to borrow money from the private sector. And when it borrows that money, it puts an unreasonable burden on future generations. And that belief, I think, is the core of why we don't use the power the government has to create the money when it's necessary, as it is right now. And that belief is fallacious. The government creates money by running a deficit, it doesn't need to borrow in the first place to raise the money. It creates it by the deficit.  Keen and Grumbine focus most of their discussion on the US, since its behavior is the most egregious, both in how it cares for its citizens and its export of neoliberal capitalism around the world. Keen compares the government’s response to the 2nd World War to its response to the COVID crisis. He also talks about the significance of the relatively low level of private debt after the 2008 recession and what that could have meant about the near future. Of course, with the pandemic, all bets are off. People will come out of this period buried under piles of personal debt, with no way of paying it off. He thinks we could be facing our very first slump not preceded by a boom.  There’s a humorous (sort of) segment on why economists are unable to accept MMT. Having spent 50 years in the field, Keen notes that a few are simply malicious...  ...but the vast majority of them believe they're making the world a better place by explaining economic theory to us and getting us to redesign the economy so it matches a first year economic textbook. And it is simply a mindset, and it's the same thing as a religious mindset. They have a paradigm. The paradigm makes perfect sense to them.  He compares economics to science. Ptolemy’s model of the universe simply couldn’t explain the actual behavior of the planets, but even so, Copernicus wasn’t able to convince Ptolemaic astronomers they were wrong. Thus we have the trope that science advances one funeral at a time. So why is it that when the old generation of economists dies, a new generation replaces them believing the same thing? Keen provides a cogent explanation.  Professor Keen is a Distinguished Research Fellow at UCL and the author of “Debunking Economics” and “Can We Avoid Another Financial Crisis?” He is one of the few economists to anticipate the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, for which he received a Revere Award from the Real World Economics Review. His main research interests are developing the complex systems approach to macroeconomics, and the economics of climate change.  @ProfSteveKeen on Twitter  Most of his content on Patreon is free. Subscribe: www.patreon.com/ProfSteveKeen

This week, Randy Wray joins us for his fifth Macro N Cheese episode. As always, he brings loads of useful insights and factual information, both historical and of the moment.  While cable news and Democratic social media are jubilant with the ouster of Donald Trump, we know it’s a hollow victory. There’s nothing to celebrate. Randy and Steve look at the sobering facts. We stand on the precipice of country-wide evictions and mortgage foreclosures. Many jobs and businesses are lost forever. The optimists among us keep looking for signs, but at every turn, we’re confronted with evidence that the incoming administration has no intention of meeting the challenges.  In normal times (pre-pandemic), our paychecks are gobbled up by rent, health care, utility bills, and debt, debt, debt - leaving very little, if any, discretionary income. Now we’re faced with overdue rents and mortgages, overdue electrical, gas, and water bills. Student loans, car loans, and credit card debt haven’t gone away, and there’s no help in sight. Whatever relief numbers have been floated in Washington are woefully inadequate. Just like the Obama stimulus, our lawmakers are too timid to extend relief past the trillion-dollar line. Big numbers are so frightening!  When the global financial crisis hit, instead of punishing the financial institutions, the Obama administration ramped up the moral hazard by rewarding bad behavior, thereby guaranteeing it would continue unabated. So financial institutions went back to doing what they had been doing in the run-up to 2007. Since then, their behavior has gotten worse and financial fragility has grown. Randy refers to the theory of his professor, Hyman Minsky, to explain the trend.  When we look at government response to the pandemic, most of the focus goes to the individual relief checks. What tends to be ignored are the preemptive bailouts of financial institutions. Before they actually experienced a crisis, we began funneling funds to them, leading the mainstream press to marvel that despite record unemployment and a disastrous economy, the stock market keeps going up. It’s a miracle!  Randy says it’s hard to make forecasts about the real depths of the economic crisis because of the uncertainty of the pandemic.  The last one began as a financial crisis that then begot an economic crisis and high unemployment. This one is completely turned all the other way around where first it's a health crisis, then it's an economic crisis, and then eventually it's going to be a financial crisis. So there's lots of uncertainty about this, but I will be very surprised if we get through this without a major financial crisis.  This episode covers a lot of ground, like PAYGO and healthcare. Steve and Randy discuss the double disadvantage American workers face -- the low rate of unionization leaves them without representation on the job, and the lack of a US Labor Party means no representation in Washington. They talk about the Panama Papers and make an interesting case about inefficiency created through legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion. They look at the way the pandemic has exposed weaknesses in global supply chains and whether this might lead to changes in the way production is organized.  As liberals celebrate the Biden administration bringing us back into the international community’s efforts to address climate change, Randy offers a unique caution,  Remember the Democratic convention last time around? ...I was surprised to find out that Russia and China were enemies of the United States, according to the Democratic Party.  Building up to another Cold War contributes to the climate catastrophe, even if we don’t use the weapons and it is, of course, the opposite of cooperation. That just might be as scary as the climate crisis we face.  L. Randall Wray is a Professor of Economics at Bard College and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics  Institute.www.levyinstitute.org/scholars/l-randall-wray

You don’t have to be a Marxist to know the vital importance of labor. Workers hold the key to social change. They keep us fed, clothed, and provided for; they’re the only force with actual leverage over the ruling class. No wonder unions are such a threat.  Joe Burns isn’t just a labor lawyer and negotiator, he’s a student of labor history. He joins us to talk about the past, present, and future of the movement. For the challenges faced today, it is instructional to look back. For example, the gig economy is not so different from the early days of the auto industry, when employment was often temporary. The sprawling nature of trucking was used by employers as a barrier to organizing. When unions saw past those conditions, they were able to grow and achieve results.  Joe talks about the historical significance of national unions as we look at today’s international economy. Early unions were local or regional, but as transportation and trade developed, so did national manufacturing and product markets, so labor had to be organized on a national scale.   And I think if we fast forward to today, we're really in a similar situation where labor and product markets are global in nature. So it doesn't match the employers' structure and scale if we're still organized only on a national basis. Right? So we need a global labor movement that's able to confront global capital. Now, that's not an easy task. And frankly, the labor movement over the years has done a horrible job at it. For decades, the labor movement basically operated as an arm of the United States State Department.   When talking about solidarity, we don’t have to look into the distant past to see examples of it.  While working-class solidarity may or may not exist naturally, it can build rapidly through struggle. Joe brings up the “red state teachers’ strikes” of 2018, which sprang from discussions by a handful of teachers on Facebook. After sharing their grievances (as one tends to do on social media) someone suggested a strike, and it spread like wildfire. West Virginia teachers went out and, despite its illegality, they were granted concessions. Teachers in Arizona and Oklahoma followed suit; and then it spread to blue cities and states.  You can’t talk about labor without discussing class, and Joe briefs us on the two basic trends in the early years of organizing. There was class struggle unionism, represented by the IWW, International Workers of the World, and the business unions, typified by the AFL, American Federation of Labor. From the 1930s through the ‘60s, they achieved a grand bargain, gaining a little bit for a lot of workers.   But at the same time, we didn't really contest this control over the workplace and society, and employers got more and more powerful because they accumulated more and more profits. And then eventually they turn it against the workers. Right? And against our movement. So if we're going to revive the labor movement, we really have to look to socialist union theory. It's hard to envision a labor movement that doesn't actively contest the power of capital in the workplace and society succeeding.   Unsurprisingly there has also been a long debate about race among union organizers, with many believing they could talk about workers’ unity without involving race in the discussion, especially in the South. The leftist unions of the ‘30s and ‘40s confronted the special oppression of black workers head-on.  Throughout the episode, Joe continues to look to the past for understanding of the present and lessons for the future.  Joe Burns is a labor lawyer and negotiator. He is the author of “Reviving the Strike” and “Strike Back.” Look for “Class Struggle Unionism” in 2021.  Check him out on Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/Reviving-the-Strike-168598319827846  Buy his bookshttps://bookshop.org/books/reviving-the-strike-how-working-people-can-regain-power-and-transform-america/9781935439240  http://www.igpub.com/strike-back/

When Steve Mnuchin announced a clawback of the CARES Act, the liberal media wasted no time before launching condemnations. Among our friends in the MMT community, wiser heads prevailed. Make no mistake, nobody denies Mnuchin is the Grinch who stole Christmas. But like a magic eye picture, if you change your focus slightly, a different image will form. This week, our friend, Robert Hockett, joins us to tell us why Mnuchin’s announcement can be seen as a gift in our stocking, not a lump of coal.  On the surface, the CARES Act appeared to be an acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve and Treasury had gotten it wrong in 2008-09. They had bailed out the banks, while ignoring the victims of those very same institutions whose obscene dealings had plunged the planet into crisis in the first place. This time they were extending a lifeline to Main Street, and to the states, regions, and cities bearing the brunt of the current crisis -- who are, in fact, first responders on the front lines of both the pandemic and economic devastation it has wrought.  The CARES Act was ultimately a smokescreen, making it appear as if Congress and the White House wanted to take serious action, while its performance was same old, same old. Mnuchin said the facilities established under CARES Act “achieved their objectives,” which apparently meant propping up Wall Street and enriching the elite.  As Bob wrote in his recent Forbes column, the Fed never needed the CARES Act in the first place. It can provide funds to strapped entities under provisions that already exist under the Federal Reserve Act. Meanwhile, he sees the creation of the Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) and Main Street Lending Program (MSLP) as net positives  because they call attention to the possibilities for “spreading the Fed.”   This episode is packed with information on the workings of the regional Federal Reserve banks and their underutilized potential for meaningful aid to cities, states and territories (like Puerto Rico) and life-saving loans to small businesses. Whether the Fed will accept this role is a whole ‘nother question. It may never depart from its ostensible mission of shoring up the financial industry. Much may depend on the incoming administration. Which brings us to…  The final part of the interview is Bob’s assessment of Janet Yellen, Biden’s pick for Treasury, as well as speculation on the rest of the team of economic advisors, including potential roles for Stephanie Kelton, a long-time favorite of this podcast. He ends on a note of his irrepressible optimism. We wish we could agree. We hope he’s right. But we doubt it.  Robert Hockett is the Edward Cornell Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Visiting Professor of Finance at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, and Senior Counsel at Westwood Capital, LLC. He specializes in the law, economics, and philosophy of money, finance, and enterprise organization in their theoretical and practical, their positive and normative, and their local, national, and transnational dimensions. @rch371 on Twitter Check out Bob’s TWO new books!Financing the Green New Deal: A Plan of Action and Renewal https://bookshop.org/books/financing-the-green-new-deal-a-plan-of-action-and-renewal/9783030484491 Money From Nothing: Or, Why We Should Stop Worrying About Debt and Learn to Love the Federal Reservehttps://bookshop.org/books/money-from-nothing-or-why-we-should-stop-worrying-about-debt-and-learn-to-love-the-federal-reserve/9781612198569  His latest column from Forbes:https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhockett/2020/11/20/treasurys-gift-to-the-fed--and-to-our-states-cities-and-small-businesses/?sh=571e252564c8

Not all of our listeners are anti-capitalist but it’s safe to say that most of us object to the accumulation of massive wealth solely by virtue of inactive, unproductive ownership. Sitting on idle property is a particularly egregious way of accruing riches, often to the detriment of surrounding communities that are forced to tolerate eyesores in their midst for decades on end. Depreciation has been a windfall for the ruling elite.  Our guests, Joshua Vincent and Rich Nymoen, are proponents of the land value tax, or LVT, associated with 19th-century political economist and journalist Henry George. The term "Georgist philosophy" refers to the economic analysis and social philosophy he advanced.  Neither Josh nor Rich promote the confiscation of property. Value is derived by different means:  ...it's the rental value, not the actual land itself that belongs to the community. And most of that wealth is publicly created, is community-created. If you look at a city, almost all of its value - some comes through the location - but most of the value comes from the investments that have been made into that city: infrastructure, sewers, schools, fire protection, that kind of thing. And so I think it's our view that none of that wealth should be short-stopped by private operators, private players, rent-seekers.  In this country, property taxes fall equally on land and buildings. When landowners improve or develop their holdings, their taxes go up, serving as a disincentive to improvement. Josh and Rich explain how communities can use the land value tax to encourage productive use of property and collect revenue benefitting the locality. The LVT applies pressure to develop vacant or unused sites by dramatically increasing the taxes on these properties, while improved lots will see significant reductions.  Josh and Rich describe some remarkable successes, particularly in Pennsylvania, as well as the challenges they face when first attempting to introduce these concepts to recalcitrant officials. They find that they need to use both the carrot and the stick.  The LVT has supporters as diverse as Joseph Stiglitz, Milton Friedman, and our recent guest, Michael Hudson. The financial industry’s connection to land is of critical importance. Most bank lending is tied to real estate. Since people borrow from a bank in order to purchase land, they’re essentially paying the land rent to the bank.  So that's really how the 1% is being created: by all these land rentals and natural resource rentals being paid to the finance industry. Whereas if you were paying it to the community, it would be shared more equally than being funneled to the top. You may be aware that the board game, Monopoly was originally intended to teach these principles?  This interview contains a good balance of the micro- and macroeconomics of Georgism, some strategies for applying them, and the community benefits that ensue.  Josh Vincent is Executive Director of the Center for the Studies of Economics, a 501(c)3 organization dating back to 1926.  One of the group’s endeavors is the Center for Property Tax Reforms. urbantoolsconsult.org centerforpropertytaxreform.org @JoshuaRVincent @urbantools Rich Nymoen is the President of Common Ground USA, a 501(c)4 affirming that “all persons have equal and common rights in the earth and its resources.” He is on the board of the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.  commonground-usa.net  schalkenbach.org  @rnymoen2  @Schalkenbach

At Real Progressives, we get daily messages from people who are still recovering from Bernie’s trouncing in the primaries. They remain distraught, disillusioned, and discouraged - convinced that he was robbed.  Last week Rohan Grey explained Rashida Tlaib and AOC’s Public Banking Act. This week we asked him to take off his MMT hat and talk to our wounded volunteers. To help them put the recent political past in perspective and move forward, they first must accept a sobering dose of reality. Rohan wasn’t surprised by Sanders’ loss.   ...I think at least for me, as someone who tries to be a committed leftist revolutionary, whatever, the odds are always extremely small. The odds are extremely small right up until the point that you win. And they continue to be very small the next day for the next thing you try to win. And I don't think that the history of progress is the history of always inevitably having a good shot. It's the history of very, very difficult things, somehow managing to eke through as much as it is.   The idea of continuity expressed above is repeated throughout the episode. He constantly suggests we ask ourselves what we’re going to do next. The social media battles for and against voting for Biden didn’t alter the need to fight for a Green New Deal and a job guarantee.  For those who may still be reeling, Rohan reminds us: political action neither begins nor ends at the ballot box. Electoral politics can play a role in a left agenda, but the size and scope of its importance will vary, and shouldn’t be exaggerated. We could use a more nuanced appreciation of it as a cultural and political institution among many, just as there are many legitimate roles and actions for any of us to undertake.   And most importantly, hopefully, you can develop a nose where you can say, OK, this opportunity is coming down the line, and it's one that has the potential to do something. Today we're out in the streets, tomorrow we're talking about a political candidate, the next day we're in the labor unions, the next day we're on social media, the next day we're writing a fiction novel that's going to spark a new social imagination. All of those are legitimate and valid. The only question is in what context and to what extent?   To be effective, we need to be informed. Ideas don’t arise in a vacuum; they’re shaped by material conditions, but they also have an impact on those material forces. Rohan’s advice echoes that of some other podcast guests, like Esha Krishnaswamy, who suggested we read theory, especially Lenin. Rohan, unsurprisingly, thinks those who care about economic issues should understand the history of political economy, how it’s handled in academia, and how those ideas get refracted back through popular culture and media. We should work towards understanding human and social psychology. Armed with these tools we’re more adept at assessing the value of political resources and the usefulness of various strategies and tactics.  The interview isn’t all advice and therapy, and it isn’t all Bernie. Steve asks about presidential politics because, well, we can’t help but be interested. Rohan calls it parlor gossip. After all, these are the celebrities of our time. He has an interesting take on the outcome of the election and suggests that a Biden presidency might be better for the left than the Obama years were or a Hillary Clinton victory would have been in 2016. His explanation might surprise you.  Rohan Grey is an Assistant Professor of Law at Willamette University, the president of the Modern Money Network, and a director of the National Jobs for All Network, whose research focuses on the law of money in the internet society.  rohangrey.net  modernmoneynetwork.org  @rohangrey on Twitter

On October 31st, Rohan Grey posted a 31-part Twitter thread about Rashida Tlaib’s and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s new Public Banking Act, which he helped craft. We immediately reached out and arranged for Steve to interview him, ending up with not one, but two episodes of Macro N Cheese. This week he answers our questions about the Public Banking Act. Next week he and Steve will venture into the swampland of politics. By the time the episode airs the election will truly - finally - be over. So, has anything changed? How does Rohan see the road going forward? But back to the Public Banking Act…   "It's long past time to open doors for people who have been systematically shut out and provide a better option for those grappling with the costs of simply trying to participate in an economy they have every right to—but has been rigged against them," Tlaib said in a statement. "The COVID-19 pandemic has also plunged city and state governments into a financial crisis unlike any other they've ever experienced—and public banks could offer a much more tenable option for dealing with their debts at a time when they need it most.” -- Newsweek   Instead of attempting to describe this interview, we’re going to let Rohan’s Twitter thread speak for itself:   First, some big picture comments about the bill  a) It does *not* create any new public banks. Rather, it *enables &amp; encourages* the creation of public banks by establishing a comprehensive federal regulatory framework, grant programs, &amp; supporting financial infrastructure.  b) It is designed to foster *state &amp; local public banks*, not establish a federal public bank. In contrast to the federal govt, which issues the $US dollar, state &amp; local govts face unique financial &amp; monetary constraints that public banks can help alleviate.  c) It *complements, rather than competes with,* other progressive financial reforms, such as postal banking, FedAccounts, &amp; eCash (on latter, see @RashidaTlaib’s #ABCAct). Together, they envision a new financial system that serves the people &amp; promotes public purpose.  d) It does not make the mistake of treating public banks as an alternative to/substitute for federal spending &amp; investment. Rather, it provides “top-down” support for “bottom-up” local initiatives, even while recognizing the critical need for more direct federal action.  e) Finally, it does not take a one-size-fits-all approach to the kinds of public banks eligible for federal support. Rather, it accommodates a wide variety of institutional structures and activities, from basic payments to consumer lending to public investment.  Okay, now let’s look at what the bill says...   The rest of the thread is published <a href="https://realprogressives.org/the-public-banking-act/">as an article</a> on Real Progressives website. If you listen to Macro N Cheese on the website, don’t miss the EXTRAS section for each episode. This week it’s full of links leading to the complete text of the Public Banking Act, press releases, and articles. Rohan Grey is an Assistant Professor of Law at Willamette University, the president of the Modern Money Network, and a director of the National Jobs for All Network. His research focuses on the law of money in the internet society.  modernmoneynetwork.org/  @rohangrey on Twitter

Esha Krishnaswamy, host of the <a href="https://historicly.substack.com/">historic.ly</a> podcast, joins Steve to talk about the frustrating political miasma of centrism. Centrism. So vapid and insubstantial, how does one grab ahold? It’s a wispy dandelion head (aptly named the capitulum) - one slight *poof* and it’s gone. But we’re not fooled. As soon as the left gets behind a popular policy or candidate, the center reveals itself to be a mighty, unstoppable force in the service of the ruling class. In today’s world, the US centrist home turf is the Democratic Party.  Esha’s jam is history and throughout the episode she calls on instances from the past, from John Locke’s justification of inherited land wealth to E. Belfort Bax on liberalism and socialism in 1890. Through the lens of historical materialism, events can be progressive or reactionary, depending on the conditions of their time. She likes reading Lenin because “he’s hilarious and insults everyone.” If he were around now he would be “the worst Twitter troll ever.”  She compares the DNC to Russia’s Constitutional Democrats and reads Lenin’s 1906 description, summed up nicely with:  They want to ransom themselves from the revolution. They long for a deal with the old authorities. They are afraid of independent revolutionary activity by the people. The more this party develops its public political activities, the more marked it becomes in its inconsistency and instability.  Steve and Esha talk about the failure of electoral politics. In the US we’ve seen Bernie-like suppression of progressive candidates like Eugene V Debs, Henry Wallace, and Jesse Jackson. Whatever our democratic achievements, they were not won at the ballot box, but through political organizing and strikes. Esha points out that class awareness existed in the US up until the 1970s or 80s, when somehow it vanished. In Venezuela and Bolivia, radical change occurred through elections, but only with the groundswell of massive popular movements.  Esha sums up her indictment of centrists: “Their entire grift is to convince you that if they had the power, they'd totally do it,” but their hands are tied because they have no power - “which is always a lie.”  Esha Krishnaswamy is the host of the <a href="https://historicly.substack.com/">historic.ly</a>  podcast. She is a lawyer, writer, and media critic, whose focus is on history, foreign policy, and Modern Monetary Theory.  @eshaLegal and @historic_ly on Twitter  historicly.substack.com

This second part of Steve’s conversation with Warren Mosler was to be about the government response to the pandemic, but first Warren talks about disagreements with some in the MMT community. We here at Macro N Cheese believe in healthy debate and want to bring a range of viewpoints to our listeners.  The federal job guarantee is one area in which Warren disagrees with certain prominent MMTers. He sees the JG as a transitional program to be used during downturns in the business cycle with the goal of getting people hired by the private sector when the economy rebounds. A number of advocates see the job guarantee as a door to more spending on the public purpose. Warren’s position on public purpose jobs is simple: “if you need them, hire them.” We’re all in agreement that skilled workers shouldn’t be working minimum wage jobs, even at the more reasonable rate of a job guarantee minimum, but there’s a vast need for public services that won’t be met by private firms. Mosler says that some MMT proponents feel his position is politically naive; he goes so far as to suggest there’s an ideological war going on. We agree. Real Progressives is fiercely committed to radical systemic change extending beyond the seeming neutrality of MMT.  Whether it’s naive or not, Warren wants to rely on the democratic process and an informed electorate. Steve brings up the reality of fraud within the system and the overwhelming imbalance of power, to which Warren expresses optimism about electing better candidates and brings up his “60-40 plan” to take the money out of politics. This would dilute the power of the 1% but, of course, it would have to be passed into law… by those in power.  Warren is consistent in taking a straightforward approach to federal spending, and expresses skepticism about proposals to “mint the coin” or take advantage of swap lines through the Fed.  ...well yeah, that's fiscal spending and that's the realm of Congress. You know, if Congress wants to support full employment in Mexico or Bangladesh or Canada or New York, you know, they can do it. They don't need the Fed to come up with subterfuge of using swap lines for financial assets to get redirected into goods or services.  When the interview gets to COVID, Warren talks about the uniqueness of both the supply shock and demand shock we’re experiencing. They primarily involve non-essentials. Combine this understanding with the fact that the pandemic has resulted in a massive cut in our energy consumption, and there are lessons to be learned that should lead to significant changes in the way we live and do business.  Warren Mosler is an American economist and theorist, and one of the leading voices in the field of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Presently, Warren resides on St. Croix, US Virgin Islands, where he owns and operates Valance Co., Inc. He is the author of “The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy” and “Soft Currency Economics,” which are available on his website.  moslereconomics.com/  @wbmosler on Twitter

Talking to Warren Mosler reminds us just how far MMT has come since the days he traveled from conference to conference, peddling his intellectual wares. Well, they no longer laugh at Mosler Economics, AKA Modern Monetary Theory. It’s a well-known part of MMT history that Stephanie Kelton, fresh out of grad school, set out to disprove his assertions, point by point, and ended up making MMT her life’s work. Today, in Warren’s view, she’s arguably the most influential economist in the world, because all of the powerful economic advisors have read The Deficit Myth. Of course, he gives credit to Randy Wray, Bill Mitchell, Mat Forstater, and those who came after, but, he says, her book saved the world.  That we get this deficit spending is just great, you know, that we've had recently. You could say MMT has saved the world. Whether it knows it or not. There's no way they would have done three trillion and now talking another two trillion. And there hasn't been a single mention of a tax.  In this first episode of a two-part interview, Steve decided it’s a good time to revisit the money story. This podcast always has new listeners and, for those also new to MMT, who better to go to than Warren Mosler for the money story? If you haven’t heard how he flummoxed a tour guide in Pompeii, you’re in for a treat. To further illustrate the order of operations, he includes the tale of British colonists in Africa, imposing a hut tax in order to create - or coerce - a labor force for their coffee plantations.  Talking to Warren brings to light some of the differences among MMT proponents. They seem to be pretty much in agreement on the facts or core principles, although you might say proposals for the federal job guarantee are a significant departure from his “employer of last resort”. For the most part, however, Warren only expresses frustration with choices of emphasis, especially when it comes to the Fed’s inadequate analysis of some basics, like the rate of inflation.  What is the rate of inflation? Well, how is it defined academically? Academically, inflation is the continuous change in the price level that's happening right now. It's faced by people in the real economy. What's the continuous change in the price level they're facing right now? That they're dealing with? That's affecting their business, their purchases, their sales.  What the Fed doesn’t grasp is when they set interest rates, they are setting the inflation rate for the economy.  Throughout the interview, Warren details some of the most significant contributions of MMT, including a tax liability’s function, the national debt, and the cause of unemployment. He explains that the Fed’s use of “easing” (lowering rates) and “tightening” (raising rates) are exactly backwards. Even those who don’t understand the Federal Reserve’s operations should be able to see that when they raise interest rates, it’s mainly a boost of interest to the wealthy. Warren calls it a “basic income” for people who already have money.  Warren Mosler is an American economist and theorist, and one of the leading voices in the field of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Presently, Warren resides on St. Croix, US Virgin Islands, where he owns and operates Valance Co., Inc. He is the author of “The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy” and “Soft Currency Economics,” which are available on his website.  moslereconomics.com/  @wbmosler on Twitter

Bill Mitchell joins us this week to discuss a plethora of American misconceptions… perceived exceptionalism, obvious neoliberalism, and a dysfunctional electoral system, as we approach the culmination of perhaps the most absurd and disheartening presidential election in history. The interview covers the consequences of neoliberalism in Europe, the UK, Australia, and the US, both in the rightward march of political parties and the ticking clock of catastrophic climate change. They discuss the attraction to the Universal Basic Income by some on the left who can’t see its underlying agenda and the perils of turning us all into consumption units. Bill Mitchell is the guest we need to hear from as the ugly campaign season winds down. Our Australian friend’s vantage point, as well as his astute grasp of political economy, combine with his level-headedness to bring a message of understated optimism. When Steve gives in to a rare bout of despair about the future, Bill talks about the early days of the MMT movement, when Warren Mosler and the others would count the number of MMTers on their fingers. MMT is becoming mainstream. Everybody's hearing about it in the Australian press as regular articles now. I write op-eds in the Murdoch press about MMT. Critics or supporters are getting articles published regularly. Central bankers are talking about it. They're giving evidence before government committees about it. The financial markets are increasingly getting me to run workshops to teach them MMT - all around the world, not just in Australia - because they want to know about it, and they also now have finally worked out that an adherence to mainstream economics has cost them money. So I wouldn't be as despairing about the spread of the ideas just yet. Bill sees a cautionary tale in the subversion of Keynes’s ideas during the Great Depression. The mainstream economists hijacked his substantial insights into what’s called the neoclassical synthesis, which essentially watered his ideas down to only be applied in a special case. He sees today’s orthodoxy normalizing MMT within their own skillset when, in fact, the work of MMT economists has demonstrated the catastrophic failure of mainstream macroeconomics. He refers to the German physicist Max Planck, who said “Science advances one funeral at a time.” Bill adds that paradigms shift the same way. As for navigating through these final weeks of the US presidential election, Bill suggests we focus on and accelerate the education process and the organization of grassroots resistance. He says our challenge is to start rebuilding the sense of collective responsibility to society. ...And hope to hell that we've got some climate space that we can do that education, and that organization, and we can save the planet. But I'd focus on the positive and wouldn't get tied up too much in the dilemma you're facing with Biden and Trump. I mean, it's a no-win, isn't it? So try to move beyond that sort of angst, not tear yourselves apart about that, but move beyond it. And basically, I'm an optimist. I just, every day, get up and pursue the education agenda in hopes that little bit each day moves us in a positive way. It’s clear that with either electoral outcome we're not going to get a fantastic response to the climate emergency, new public infrastructure investments, and we’re certainly not going to fix our dysfunctional healthcare system, so if we're not going to get anything we want from either of these two, it’s time to move on. Professor Bill Mitchell holds the Chair in Economics and is the Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), an official research centre at the University of Newcastle. He also is a Visiting Professor at Maastricht University, The Netherlands, and is on the management board of CofFEE-Europe, a sister centre located at that university. @billy_blog on Twitter http://www.billmitchell.org/ “Macroeconomics” ordering information on bilbo.economicoutlook.net/

Some of us Macro N Cheesers first heard the term “rentier class” from Michael Hudson’s interviews and YouTube talks. In today’s episode, he and Steve discuss the idea of economic rent as a remnant of feudalism. Bankers have replaced the feudal lords as the parasites who extract most of the wealth from the economy. The financial, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector comprise the contemporary kleptocracy. They have manipulated the system to such an extent, it is impossible to get an accurate measure of our society’s economic health or pain.  Michael delves into the history of debt and its role in our ever-changing economic structure. He references classical economists like Smith, Mills, Ricardo, and Marx, with their concept of economic rent as unearned income. They believed that industrial capitalism would eliminate the entire legacy of feudalism and dissolve the landlord class by taxing away rent or nationalizing the land. Since most governments were subsidizing education and health care, it seemed counterproductive to allow privatization of health, education, or land rent monopolies. They also saw ‘credit’ as a public utility, expecting banks to lend for socially worthwhile and productive purposes. Ultimately, instead of banking being industrialized, industry was financialized.  Debt deflation is the idea that the more people pay in debt service — i.e. mortgages, credit card interest, fines, and fees — the less they can spend on goods and services; so money is sucked out of the production/consumption economy, and siphoned off into the wealth economy. This demand for debt service pillages the domestic market, destroys employment, and drives the population to emigrate, suffer, or die.  Since we’re still mired in the “silly season” of US elections, Steve asks Michael whether he holds out any hope for finding solutions through electoral politics. Michael says it’s not possible to vote ourselves out of the mess we’re in due to the nature of the two-party system in the US.  It's basically the same party with a little ethnic difference between them, but economically it's the same party, and there cannot be any alternative to this monolithic - we'll call it the Republican Party with Democratic cheerleaders - there cannot be any progress made until you break up the Democratic Party.  Looking at their success in keeping the Green Party off the ballot in most states, the Democrats and Republicans have sent the message of virtual impossibility for third party wins. They’ve gimmicked the system, leaving Wall Street in charge of the economy and our lives. The elected officials haven’t been captured by the kleptocracy; they are its front men. They’ve been nurtured and groomed for that role.  I think most people who have to work for a paycheck realize that they're being squeezed, but that's not what the politicians say. You know, "hope and change"... and, of course, their real job is to prevent change and to smash hope.  Michael Hudson is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of J is for Junk Economics (2017), Killing the Host (2015), The Bubble and Beyond (2012), Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1968 &amp; 2003), Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 &amp; 2009) and of The Myth of Aid (1971), amongst many others.  For access to his books, articles, and interviews:michael-hudson.com

Our guest, Cindy Banyai, is exactly the kind of person we want representing us wherever policy is made. She has the life experience of a working woman raising three kids, runs her own consulting business, and has lived and traveled all over the world. Did we forget to mention she knows MMT and supports the Green New Deal, universal health care, and a federal jobs program to ensure a basic minimum wage, worker protections, and benefits? When Cindy happened upon Modern Monetary Theory, it made sense of much of what she already believed. She had been a longtime proponent of participatory budgeting and says that being freed from economic shackles in policy-making is revolutionary. When people in her district come with complaints, she can truthfully say she knows what to do. She talks with Steve about the conservatives from both parties who place roadblocks in programs like Social Security and then criticize them for having those very complications. They use terms like “accountability,” “efficiency,” and “effectiveness.” Cindy tells us that her consulting firm is all about evaluation: I eat, sleep, breathe, effectiveness, and efficiency. There is not a single one of these hucksters that's going to be able to put a program in front of me, put a policy in front of me, and say, "We're working on efficiency." If that doesn't have the metrics in it and that doesn't have the right kind of measures to actually get these things accomplished and not just be these stupid barriers for access, then I'm going to call him out on it. And I will probably be the only one doing it. Because I'm going to be the first evaluator elected to Congress. As parents, Steve and Cindy have a shared, gut-level understanding of the need to fix a broken healthcare system. Cindy’s three-year-old daughter spent her first two years fighting a rare blood disease; while she was in the hospital fighting for her life, Cindy was fighting the insurance companies. She knows that there’s an alternative to medical bankruptcies and treatments determined by somebody else’s bottom line. She has done research and comparative analysis between the Japanese national health care model and the US model. As we move to universal healthcare she wants us to consider adapting features of the Japanese model, including cost-setting by the central government and decentralized implementation at the state level. One of Steve’s favorite components of the job guarantee is the way in which it is a democracy enhancer. It will revitalize local democracy by having it funded by the currency-issuing federal government but locally administered. Communities will determine which jobs to create based on which services are needed. This is an invitation for citizens to become involved in designing their very own local program. The discussion ignites Cindy’s enthusiasm for rethinking the way that we do governance. She talks about participatory governance - and the participatory budgeting component of it - having been a major component of her life’s work and research around the world. She describes the amplifying effects of civic engagement: people are more invested in their community, they meet their neighbors, some develop joint projects or business ventures together. We here at Macro N Cheese cannot endorse a specific candidate, but we can urge our listeners to pay attention and ask questions of your future representatives. We hope everyone finds candidates as well-informed and passionate as this one. Dr. Cindy Banyai is a Democrat running for Florida Congressional District 19, spanning coastal Southwest Florida from Boca Grande to Marco Island. She is a mom of 3 native Floridians, a small business owner, and part of the faculty of Political Science and Public Administration at Florida Gulf Coast University. @SWFLMom2020 https://www.cindybanyai.com/ https://www.news-press.com/story/news/2020/08/14/social-security-florida-protecting-our-seniors-cindy-banyai-congress/3343662001/

We here at Macro N Cheese are immersed in the world of MMT, but that doesn’t mean we don’t appreciate people who aren’t yet on board. As long as they’re not pushing an austerity agenda, we welcome them. Today’s guest, Margaret Kimberley, of Black Agenda Report, is just such an ally. Her book, Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents, was published earlier this year.  This interview takes place as one region of the US is ablaze in wildfires and the pandemic is no closer to being resolved. Margaret sees the inadequate handling of COVID19 as confirmation that we live in a failed state. Countries that have responded best to the virus are either fully socialist or have robust public funding of their healthcare system. The climate crisis is further proof that capitalism is in crisis and neither of our two major political parties has plans to protect us from the fallout. Barack Obama illustrates the hypocrisy as he tweets dramatic images of the orange fire-lit skies and urges people to “vote like your life depends on it.” During his term as president, he bragged about increasing oil production and fracking. The Governor of California, another Democrat, has given more fracking permits this year than he did in 2019.  The point is, we have these two parties who come together more often than not. Margaret reminds us that Democrats used to go through the motions of being the working people's party, and have been living off this reputation for decades. Yet when Kamala Harris was announced as Biden’s running mate, the headlines announced: "Wall Street Breathes a Sigh of Relief." "Silicon Valley is Happy."  It’s impossible to have a conversation nowadays without debating the current presidential elections. Steve brings up his fear that a Biden win will cause Democrats to relax and go to brunch. Any energy built up in the resistance to Trump will die out. He asks whether she sees more possibilities for revolutionary change arising from a Biden or Trump victory. Margaret, who votes Green, believes they’re about equal, but doesn’t want to focus on electoral politics. Our job is to build the movement, taking a lesson from the civil rights era:  During those years, people made concrete demands and they stuck with them. And they knew that they had an adversarial relationship with politicians and they didn't care. They knew that when they demanded the right to vote, or an end to segregation, or an end to housing discrimination, they knew that politicians didn't want to do what they were demanding. But they demanded it anyway. They worked cohesively en masse for years. And that is how those changes came about. I think the problem with electoral politics is that it should be what comes last. It's the movement that has to come first to create the political crisis, to move politicians, because that is the only way they move.  That's true not only of civil rights legislation, it's true of the environment. Nixon gave us the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. Why he gave it is because people were in the streets, there were millions of people.  Steve and Margaret talk about the differences and similarities between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. By the end of King’s life he had broken with Lyndon Johnson, who was seen as an ally of the civil rights movement. This could be a model for working with elected officials; you don’t have to sell out your principles.  The interview goes over many of the crucial issues affecting our lives in 2020, from Bernie Sanders to the actions of the Democratic Party elite; from Black Lives Matter to Antifa; from the Green Party to the need to end the duopoly.  Margaret Kimberley is a co-founder and Editor and Senior Columnist for Black Agenda Report. Her first book, “Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents” was published in February.  @freedomrideblog on Twitter  http://steerforth.com/titles/prejudential/  https://bookshop.org/books/prejudential-black-america-and-the-presidents/9781586422486

Back in 2018, Steve invited Robert Hockett to come on to talk about shadow banking and explain its role in the 2008 financial crisis. We’re bringing back this interview because shadow banks are still around and people still have a hard time grasping exactly what they do. This is partly because many don’t understand what banks themselves actually do. The popular vision is that banks borrow and lend and that they make loans based on what they have in the vault; we MMTers know that they make loans based on profitability.  Banks are policed with a view to their liquidity risk, while shadow banks are behaving the same way, without the policing.  In order for us to unpack this issue, we need to know the meaning of “endogenous” and “exogenous” money. Bob defines endogenous as the credit-money generated by private banks and lending institutions, while exogenous is the sovereign element, created by the Fed or central bank. As in most cases, there’s always an element of public involvement in the private. This is usually overlooked. To better illustrate this, Bob uses the metaphor of franchising, where the Fed is the franchisor and the private financial institutions are the franchisees, charged with distributing a public resource which Bob defines as “the sovereign’s monetized full faith and credit.”   When the Fed recognizes a bank loan or loan extended by a financial institution, it is effectively turning a private liability into a public liability. But if it's not fully cognizant that it's meant to be exercising quality control, you can get a defective product. That certainly happened in the lead up to 2008.  In this interview, Bob points out that everyone operates under the false premise that there’s a shortage of capital. He also distinguishes between capital meant for productive use and that meant for speculation and gambling. The market for speculation - ie, the neverending quest for new ways to generate profit - leads to the creation of new and twisted kinds of financial instruments, such as the disastrous subprime mortgage packaging that led up the financial crisis.  Bob’s proposal to insulate us, the public, from the kind of harm that arises from speculative mania is to separate the two kinds of financial institutions. Those that actually extend primary credit to homebuyers, small businesses, producers of goods and services should be separated from those that create credit for speculation. In other words, one institution would not be able to perform both functions.  For a true solution, he suggests we look to the past, to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s and ‘40s:  The RFC in its day was by far the largest financial institution in the entire world. Its balance sheet dwarfed all of the combined balance sheets of the Wall Street institutions. It was by far the largest credit-generating institution, credit-extending institution in the world, and it extended loans as small as $20 or $30 to African American barbershops in certain Los Angeles neighborhoods to giant mega-million or even billion-dollar loans for large public infrastructure projects like the Hoover dam or what have you. And this institution was a public institution. It was a government institution.  After all, it’s our credit anyway, isn’t it?   Robert Hockett is the Edward Cornell Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Visiting Professor of Finance at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, and Senior Counsel at Westwood Capital, LLC. He specializes in the law, economics, and philosophy of money, finance, and enterprise organization in their theoretical and practical, their positive and normative, and their local, national, and transnational dimensions.  @rch371 on Twitter