Scotland

Krugman and Wren-Lewis worry about the Euro disaster replicating itself in London.

The radical Left:

"So what, then, are socialist arguments for independence that would meet these requirements? The most obvious is the possibility of breaking up the British imperialist state."

A referendum called while the occupation of Afghanistan was still ongoing, with the Iraqi and Libyan interventions a recent memory, is inseparable from the arguments against these wars and the British state’s subordinate alliance with the American empire. Scottish secession would at the very least make it more difficult for Britain to play this role, if only by reducing its practical importance for the US.

Why Scotland Should Vote Yes by Neil Davidson

I guessed correctly. No Tony Blair poodle. American imperialism isn't great but Chinese or Russian imperialism won't be better and will probably be worse.

Steampunk - The Knick

AV Club reviews The Knick: “They Capture The Heat”

NGDP path level targeting

Level versus Growth Targeting by Scott Sumner

Here’s Lars Christensen:

In fact I am pretty sure that if somebody had told Scott in July 2009 that from now on the Fed will follow a 4% NGDP target starting at the then level of NGDP then Scott would have applauded it. He might have said that he would have preferred a 5% trend rather than a 4% trend, but overall I think Scott would have been very happy to see a 4% NGDP target as official Fed policy. 

Actually I would have been very upset, as indeed I was as soon as I saw what they were doing. I favored a policy of level targeting, which meant returning to the previous trend line. 

Now of course if they had adopted a permanent policy of 4% NGDP targeting, I would have had the satisfaction of knowing that while the policy was inappropriate at the moment, in the long run it would be optimal. Alas, they did not do that. The recent 4% growth in NGDP is not the result of a credible policy regime, and hence won’t be maintained when there is a shock to the economy. 

However I do agree with Lars that the Fed has done much better than the ECB.

Piketty & the euthanasia of the rentier

Piketty and the Money View by JW Mason

social insurance

In defense of social insurance by Max Sawicky

macro, Keynes and monetarism

Their Own Imaginary Keynes (Wonkish) by Krugman

IS-LM as “Obfuscation”? No: Thursday Focus for September 11, 2014 by DeLong

Nick Rowe on Money and Coordination Failures by David Glasner

What Is Special About Recessions in a “Monetary Economy”: Trollng Nick Rowe: Wednesday Focus for September 10, 2014 by DeLong

Adam Posen on the Old Normal

(via DeLong)

universal basic income

Preferences vs Interests by Chris Dillow

America is running out of jobs. It's time for a universal basic income. by Ryan Cooper

The Replacements

By chance I caught the reunited Replacements playing on Jimmy Fallon's show which was weird.

Veronica Mars

Okay, Kristen Bell has gone way up in my book. I saw the Veronica Mars movie on HBO and since then have been watching the TV show. My future dream project is a steampunk The Knick-Outlander mashup about Ada Lovelance, but instead of being exactly like the Outlander heroine she'd be more like the witty, melancholic class warrior of Veronica, a teenage outlook in an adult body. But with computer smarts so a combo Veronica-Cindy "Mac" Macenzie. I'll have to check if that squares with the historical Lovelace.

helicopter drop, Kalecki, and Lenin

To fix the economy, let's print money and mail it to everyone by Dylan Matthews

Interview with Brown political economist Mark Blyth and hedge fund manager Eric Lonergan

Mark Blyth: There was a brilliant piece in 1943 by the Polish economist Michał Kalecki. It was a critique of full employment policy. He said a problem with Keynesian macroeconomics is that if we get away with it, if you have permanently full employment, two things happen. One, job switching becomes costless and employers no longer have the whip hand. There will be a political revolution, employers will find economists who'll say it's unsustainable, and they'd try to overturn it. He wrote that in 1943, and that was basically the neoliberal revolution foretold.
Two, capitalism embodies an ethic that you must earn your crust, and if you create an economy whereby the crust is there without being earned, it's deeply disturbing on some political, ideological, and moral level. The other thing, besides the vested interest of employers in stopping full employment, is the idea that there must just be something wrong with doing this. 

Deep down inside, many people refuse to accept something simple: central banks, in a fiat money system, are just printing. There's no corresponding liability besides the balance sheet convention of listing cash as a liability. There's nothing claimed against anything else like gold. All that matters is the credibility of policy — that the place is reasonably well-run — and that you have the intergenerational ability to tax. If you have both of these things, you're just printing. So instead of printing it, shoving it through the banking system and hoping some of it trickles down after it's blown the stock market up to 15,000, why not just give people the cash?

And as Chris Dillow wrote:

I agree with Steve that the rich hate inflation not least because it creates uncertainty. (There's also the historical point that the inflationary 70s also saw the nadir of the fortunes of the 1%: this might be just coincidence, but why risk it?) 

This alone creates a bias to tighten. What amplifies this bias is that the rich can tolerate mass unemployment. Nick's parallel with the 1930s is, I think, irrelevant. Back in the 30s, mass unemployment was a threat to the rich because workers could see a plausible alternative to the existing order in communism. Today, by contrast, there are no big feasible alternatives to capitalism and so unemployment is not a political danger - which means it is more tolerable. 

This answers Peter's question: why has the Keynesian coalition vanished from modern politics? It's because it is no longer politically necessary. It was not Keynes who convinced capitalists of the need for full employment but Lenin.

The timeline is a little off. The Soviet Union didn't collapse until the earlier 90s, but basically things turned in the 70s. America destroyed Vietnam in order to save it and Nixon turned the Chinese Communists against the Soviets. Then Reagan and Thatcher came in the 80s as Mitterand's Socialists buckled under pressure from the bond vigilantes.

12 Years a Slave

Spoiler Alert.

Finally, I saw 12 Years a Slave last night and it was really good. The kidnapped Solomon Northrop finally escapes slavery as he is rescued after getting a letter back to the North describing what happened to him. Then he becomes active in the abolitionist movement. Damn hippy activists.

the rich and unemployment

Interest Rates and the 1 Percent by Chris Dillow

...
I agree with Steve that the rich hate inflation not least because it creates uncertainty. (There's also the historical point that the inflationary 70s also saw the nadir of the fortunes of the 1%: this might be just coincidence, but why risk it?) 

This alone creates a bias to tighten. What amplifies this bias is that the rich can tolerate mass unemployment. Nick's parallel with the 1930s is, I think, irrelevant. Back in the 30s, mass unemployment was a threat to the rich because workers could see a plausible alternative to the existing order in communism. Today, by contrast, there are no big feasible alternatives to capitalism and so unemployment is not a political danger - which means it is more tolerable. 

This answers Peter's question: why has the Keynesian coalition vanished from modern politics? It's because it is no longer politically necessary. It was not Keynes who convinced capitalists of the need for full employment but Lenin."