« Nothing to fear but... | Main | Corbyn's victory, the Bubble's defeat »

September 11, 2015

Comments

Ben

Finally are economists coming blinking into the real world?

aragon

Speaking as an occasional filter, I have my own personal albatross and which means no recognition and no payment. I am not a policy entrepreneur in that I do not represent sectional interest other than the public interest as I perceive it.

It is conventional economic theory, that now is a good time for public investment with interest rates at zero or negative.

Both letters agree on this, and it would be the path of least resistance.

As a filter, or at least the position I am in, you get to propose and then watch as it gets modified, by other inputs, with better access, sometimes out of all recognition.

People disagree with, misunderstand, or deliberately misrepresent policies.

Modern Monetary Theory is a school of economic thought, with it's own (academic economist) supporters and detractors and competing theories with whom you can engage.

But the policy called Peoples QE by Richard Murphy was not endorsed by MMT economists in advance.

Flip flopping is a sign of lack of understanding or conviction however a little policy wiggle room acts as a prophylactic. Because you disagree with a policy does not make it poorly thought out, it's foundations are in MMT. Jeremy Corbyn relies on economic advice from Richard Murphy and Ann Pettifor etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory

I am not an Member of Parliament or a paid assistant, I have no formal standing, and I am not plugged in to a network other than the internet. But I do apply my own knowledge experience and world view.

I am not acknowledged, I am just a cypher.

The policy is on it's own now, I disagree with Simon Wren Lewis and many others on details or even principles, and as they say in the military 'incoming'...

Dipper

Peter Principle ... tell us that firms promote incompetents,

No. It says firms promote competent people and don't promote incompetent people.

Blissex

«what behaviour is filtered out and what in, and how can we improve these filters? I fear, though, that the bad filters which select against good policy-making»

Oh man, "good policy-making" depends entirely on whose interests the policy-making is for.

For example the "conservatory building classes" consider (fiscal) wage-austerity and (monetary) property-boosting policies as "good policy-making" because it makes their income grow and their costs shrink.

The filters are there to give cover to the policies that are "good policy-making" for some interests but not others...

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad