Saturday, October 20, 2018

Multiverse





The Multiverse with multiple timelines seems to have become more popular or salient in popular culture. Rick and Morty. Berlanti-verse's The Flash.

When Trump was elected, many people felt as if we somehow slipped into a crazy timeline.

Does it mean anything? The importance of choices; the focus on the individual and philosophical voluntarism in late capitalism and neoliberalism. The focus on the individual will. Do people try hard enough. The end of history. (Blaming the victim.)

Personally I don't believe any of this stuff has to be true. Maybe we live in Hellworld. Maybe things can get better. Some positive things: the election of socialist Ocasio-Cortez (who can be seen on Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel) the fact that Missouri voters voted down a right-to-work law in a referendum.

The direction the November 6th Midterm elections go could make some people believe we live in Hellworld or that things are getting "back to normal." I always thought things were heading in a bad direction after Bill Clinton's welfare reform (and everything surrounding it even though liberals thought they had it good with West Wing and then Obama.)

That's why it's refreshing to see Bennet-Brown's American Family Act in 2017 which doesn't help non-parents but does expand the welfare state for parents - even those without income.

Kamala Harris's LIFT act has the trapezoid problem which focuses on "rewarding work" but given the option to receive monthly checks based on last years income, it is almost a UBI (except it doesn't cover those without earned income and those earning more than 100k, so no not universal. But it does give monthly checks to most of those who could use it without strings attached.)

Still it's good to see. Things may be turning for the better despite the many bad things like Climate Change and a feckless liberal elite. Another sign things might change for the better: the Republican base no longer believes Republican economic orthodoxy.

The fact that different governments continue to legalize marijuana (Canada last Wednesday, on the ballot in North Dakota and Michigan) always made it seem to me like the Flash had kicked us over to another timeline (despite strong opposition from conservative racists like Jeff Sessions). The Drug War was always a racist endeavor. Nixon used it as a dog whistle (as the FX show Snowfall pointed out via a CIA drug runner.) Gay marriage. America electing a black man. Pleasantly surprised to see those things happen in my life time.

My personal life hasn't had as many lucky breaks, but I prefer to focus on the larger state of the world. No doubt my conservative, bootlicker friends consider me to be lazy, whereas I see their insult to mean that I don't kiss enough ass. Gotta brownose to move up in the world. That's what I would tell the kids. Ingratiate yourself. Socialize. Find a mentor to suck up to.

Still no matter one's personal problems, when Chapo Trap House's new book hits the New York Times best seller list and the New York Times Style Section tweets @ Taylor Swift to "go on Chapo," one get the vertiginous feeling that perhaps you're in the wrong timeline.

It's not just Trump who makes liberals feel like they have been moved around in the multiverse. Kavanaugh's recent nomination to the Supreme Court, making it safely Republican, has thrown many of them also even though it's a logical extension of Trump's election victory.

Listening to Doug Henwood's radio show/podcast on the Supreme Court, I was reminded of the many ways it's an anti-democratic institution and how even though the Republicans have a lock now on the court, gay marriage and marijuana legalization are moving forward.

Maybe it's social media that is making things weird?

The Wall Street Journ op-ed pages are attacking UBI and Matt Bruenig's SWF-UBD. The White House just put out a paper on why socialism doesn't work. As Jeff Stein tweets: "White House report on socialism cites @ryanlcooper, Piketty, and Jacobin's Meagan Day..."

Part of it is what Corey Robin talks about when he says the conservatives have won (with Macron, Clinton, Blair, Schroeder) and so they are sort of flailing around and hooked on griping about the culture war (which they are losing).

In some ways we've moved to a state of political economy reminiscent of the 1850s pre-Civil War period. A minority, property elite is gaining a lock on political institutions and power and using it to thwart the popular will. The Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision did not legalize slavery for all time. It led to the Civil War and the end of slavery.

Bennet-Brown from 2017: a return to pre-welfare reform welfare

per the discussion on the Bruenig podcast

Senate Democrats have a plan that would cut child poverty nearly in half by Dylan Matthews

The American Family Act of 2017

Avoid the Trap(azoid)

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Welfare for Everyone: interview with Matt Bruenig

Welfare for Everyone - an interview with Matt Bruenig (Jacobin)


She's running, Kamala Harris edition

"The lift the Middle Class Act would provide monthly cash payments of up to $500 to lower-income families, on top of the tax credits and public benefits they already receive."

Sort of a misnomer.

Kamala Harris’s Trump-Size Tax Plan by Annie Lowrey (via Neera Tanden)
Harris is offering as much as $3,000 a year for a single person or $6,000 a year for a married couple, on top of existing tax and transfer programs, disbursed either as a lump-sum tax refund or as a monthly payment. Working families making less than $100,000 a year would qualify, including those making close to nothing. As many as 80 million Americans would benefit, Harris’s office has estimated, with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculating that the proposal would lift 9 million people out of poverty, including nearly 3 million kids.
...
Her proposal joins a growing number of aggressive plans coming from Democrats concerned with economic stagnation, competing to win over younger and more progressive voters, and emboldened by the success of President Donald Trump. They differ in their mechanisms, costs, and effects, but all point to the same Robin Hood goal: not just raising taxes on the rich, but shunting vastly more money to the working classes and the poor. In Harris’s case, that means something like $200 billion a year more.

Senator Harris Seeks To Raise Incomes Using A New Tax Credit by Elaine Maag (TPC)

On one hand, Harris’s LIFT proposal is probably the best Dem tax proposal put forward in while. On the other hand, it’s still EITC-like (predicated earned income) and therefore excludes the very poorest. The front yellow line should be vertical IMO.
As Matt notes, Dems need to get out of the trapezoid trap. Just make it a UBI or make it a backdoor UBI by letting people declare a trivial amount of earned income. LIFT is better than EITC, but it still shares its work-centric problems.

Saturday, October 06, 2018

Wednesday, October 03, 2018

Saturday, September 29, 2018

UBI (and SWF-UBD)

The Case for Giving Every American a Share of a Public Wealth Fund by Jim Pugh

Common Wealth: workers' ownership in the history of socialism by Matt Bruenig

Will Your Universal Basic Income Check Soon Be in the Mail?: A Future Tense event recap. by ANTHONY NGUYEN

A radical idea for reducing inequality deserves more attention by Ryan Avent

UBI, the Unknown Ideal by Max Sawicky

Job Guarantee Programs: Careful What You Wish For by Thomas Palley

SWF+UBD by Steve Randy Waldman

Tackling Inequality Through the Social Ownership of Capital by Matt Bruenig

Opinion: All Americans would get an income boost under this new plan to share the country’s riches by Peter Barnes

The case for an American social wealth fund by Ryan Cooper

A Simple Fix for Our Massive Inequality Problem by Matt Bruenig

Robot Takeover Matters Less If We're All Shareholders by Noah Smith

A Response to Mike Konczal on the Social Wealth Fund by Matt Bruenig

Alaska Gives Cash To Its Citizens Every Year. The Rest Of The U.S. Could Too. by David Dayen

The big idea that could make democratic socialism a reality by Matt Yglesias

Why We Need a Social Wealth Fund by Peter Gowan

I Do Not Understand Why the Left Should Want a Sovereign Wealth Fund by Mike Konczal

A “SOCIAL WEALTH FUND” COULD BE THE NEXT BIG IDEA by Rachel M. Cohen

Stockton’s Awesome Public Experiment by Jeff Spross

Why reform conservatives should embrace a universal basic income by Jeff Spross

'I feel very betrayed': Basic-income recipients react to one of the world's largest experiments suddenly being canceled (BusinessInsider)

Could a Universal Basic Income Become a Political Reality? by Clio Chang

Why the world should adopt a basic income by Guy Standing

Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income policy in next manifesto, John McDonnell says

Universal basic income vs jobs guarantees: which one will make us happier? by Cory Doctorow

Universal Basic Income Is Not the Solution to Poverty by Felix Salmon

What if the Government Gave Everyone a Paycheck? by Robert Reich

Here’s the one book every millennial and Gen Z new graduate should read (and it’s not Dr. Seuss) by Erin Kaine (on David Graeber)

"My forthcoming book will be called "The Case For People's QE" and will be published by Polity, probably in Spring 2019." - Frances Coppola

Who Really Stands to Win from Universal Basic Income? By Nathan Heller

Do We Need a Universal Basic Income? A Debate. BY MATT BRUENIG REBUTTAL BY ROHAN GREY & RAÚL CARRILLO

excellent podcast on JG-UBI by Current Affairs

BASIC INCOME, NOT BASIC JOBS: AGAINST HIJACKING UTOPIA by Scott Anderson

JOB GUARANTEE: MARXIST OR KEYNESIAN? by Chris Dillow


My impression of job guarantee advocates, which I am afraid you are not doing much to dispel, is that they are not willing to admit that their preferred approach ahas any drawbacks, or that any alternatives have any merits.

Smile by Steve Randy Waldman





Thursday, September 13, 2018

thoughts on SWF + UBD

SWF + UBD by Steve Randy Waldman

"new contributions would be made from a variety of dedicated tax streams and from the compounding of undistributed earnings. Initially the dividend would be quite small, but over time, it would grow."

Bruenig noted on twitter that other commentators failed to note the compounding of undistriubted earnings.

"Bruenig proposes paying out roughly 4% of fund value annually, assuming total returns would generally be higher than that. To generate a $12K per year UBI for US adults in 2018 dollars, the fund would need to grow to about $75T."

[is this Bruenig also or just Waldman?]

"Basically, on these numbers, the fund would have to grow to hold something like 64% of all assets, or 80% of US “net worth”, to finance a “full” UBI at a 4% per annum payout rate."

"It takes the miracle of compound growth that capitalists are always on about and turns it into a miracle of compound taxation, effectively taxing wealthier cohorts (those who would otherwise own the SWF assets) an ever increasing share of income year after year without requiring any new legislation, and with minimal distortion of investment behavior."


Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Warren vs. Sanders

Thoughts on Bernie Sanders’s Democratic Socialism and the Primary by Mike Konczal

Warren emphasizing women candidates in taking back Congress.


Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Stop Bezos Act

Bernie Sanders is picking the wrong fight with Amazon by Ryan Cooper

The controversy over Bernie Sanders’s proposed Stop BEZOS Act, explained by Matt Yglesias

Jared Bernstein

CBPP report

Ben Spielberg

Bruenig blog from past

Josh Mound

Jonathan Chait


Tuesday, September 04, 2018

job guarantee and MMT links

Job Guarantee Programs: Careful What You Wish For by Thomas Palley

SWF+UBD by Steve Randy Waldman

What if you could sue the government for a job? by Jeff Spross

Universal basic income vs jobs guarantees: which one will make us happier? by Cory Doctorow

Should Democrats play it safe with a job guarantee? by Jeff Spross

Reorienting Fiscal Policy: A Critical Assessment of Fiscal Fine-Tuning by Tcherneva

What if the Government Gave Everyone a Paycheck? by Robert Reich

Here’s the one book every millennial and Gen Z new graduate should read (and it’s not Dr. Seuss) by Erin Kaine (on David Graeber)

Do We Need a Federal Jobs Guarantee? A Debate. BY ROHAN GREY & RAÚL CARRILLO REBUTTAL BY MATT BRUENIG

Yes, a Jobs Guarantee Could Create “Boondoggles.” It Also Might Save the Planet. by Kate Aronoff

10 Principles for a Federal Job Guarantee By Angela Glover Blackwell, Sarah Treuhaft, Darrick Hamilton, and William Darity, Jr.

excellent podcast on JG-UBI by Current Affairs

Robert Reich video on JG

Democrats’ Next Big Thing: Government-Guaranteed Jobs by Jim Tankersley

Three Ways to Design a Democratic Job Guarantee by Alexander Kolokotronis

Stephanie Kelton Has The Biggest Idea In Washington by Zach Carter

PUBLIC SERVICE: EMPLOYMENT:A PATH TO FULLEMPLOYMENT by L. Randall Wray, Flavia Dantas, Scott Fullwiler, Pavlina R. Tcherneva, and Stephanie A. Kelton  (April 2018)

The Job Guarantee:Design, Jobs, and Implementation by Tcherneva (April 2018)

Why We Need a Federal Job Guarantee by Mark Paul, William Darity Jr and Darrick Hamilton

The Job Guarantee Controversy by Timothy Taylor

Baby bonds

JOB GUARANTEE: MARXIST OR KEYNESIAN? by Chris Dillow

Some thoughts about the Job Guarantee by Simon Wren-Lewis (2017)

The Long, Tortured History of the Job Guarantee By PETER-CHRISTIAN AIGNER and MICHAEL BRENES


Workfare Means New Mass Peonage by Frances Fox Piven and Barbara Ehrenreich (1987)


My impression of job guarantee advocates, which I am afraid you are not doing much to dispel, is that they are not willing to admit that their preferred approach ahas any drawbacks, or that any alternatives have any merits.


Bernie Gets Socialistic by Max Sawicky



Smile by Steve Randy Waldman

We Work by James K. Galbraith
















Strengthening Unemployment Protections in America (Center for American Progress)



The Call for Jobs for All by Matthew Klein




Israel Nash




Thursday, August 30, 2018

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

SWF free-for-all

Team Bruenig:
Peter Gowan, Carl Beijer, Ryan Cooper, (Steve Randy Waldman) David Dayen?, Mathew Lawrence, Josh Mound(retweeted)? Ben Spielberg

Team Konczal:
J.W. Mason, Henwood, Max Sawicky, Candian Mike Rozworski, (team MMT Raul, etc.)  Matt Stoller, Matthew Klein, Marshall Steinbaum retweeted?, Matt Yglesias


Sandbu on Nordic economies


Much of Scandinavia’s success is not rooted in direct state intervention

by Martin Sandbu 
8.28.18

The most predictable phenomena can also be the most surprising. Just look at the revival of “socialism” as a politically viable idea in the US and UK. 

Ten years ago, the global crisis laid bare the failures of financial capitalism. This gave the political left an opportunity to win support for its agenda. Yet almost every established centre-left party in the developed world bungled this shot at political dominance. 

Instead of a comeback, we seem to be getting a throwback. The only leftwing politicians to prosper have been those who reject the “third way” centre-leftism of the 1990s. In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn has taken over the Labour party with the support of a hugely expanded membership. In the US, Bernie Sanders’ socialist primary campaign gave Hillary Clinton a run for her donor class money in 2016. In recent local results, like-minded politicians Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have won safe-seat Democratic party nominations to Congress. Polls show that about half of young Americans now favour “socialism” over “capitalism”. 

This has triggered a debate about what the new socialists mean by “socialism”. On one reading, it is just an aspirational label for Scandinavian social democracy, with policies such as universal healthcare or better conditions for workers. 

But some of its most thoughtful proponents argue in favour of socialism because it is opposed to capitalism. The political theorist Corey Robin, for example, advocates “socialism” because it makes workers free, while capitalism leaves them unfree. Such claims see socialism and capitalism as rival and incompatible systems. 

 This semantic difference matters politically. The either/or view may have made sense during the cold war. But even when the dichotomy was real, the Nordic countries were clearly arrayed on the capitalist side of the dividing line. To oppose “socialism” against “capitalism” is to refuse to learn from the experience of the societies that have probably come closest to the new socialists’ own ideals.

The Nordic countries have been called “mixed economies” precisely because they combine elements of socialism and capitalism: state and private ownership of the means of production; public regulation and market competition; redistributive taxes and wages determined by employers and employees. 

If the socialists of today ignore capitalism’s role in that mix, they fail to follow their own leading lights. Here are three lessons they should heed from the Nordic model, whether or not they call it “socialist”. 

First, it embraces globalisation. It was no coincidence that the Nordic mixed model emerged in countries with high exposure to international trade. Public understanding that trade brings prosperity, but that global fluctuations hit hard and unpredictably, increased support for the insurance elements of the Nordic welfare states. 

So if “socialism” it is going to be, it should be a socialism confident about economic openness. The US left’s opposition to trade deals weakens any affiliation it may try to claim with the Nordic model. So does British socialists’ seduction by “ Lexit” — the alleged leftwing case for escaping the rules that smooth trade between European countries. 

Second, while the Nordics’ economic egalitarianism is well known in broad terms, the detail is not. But the detail matters. The achievement of the Nordic model is something very specific: a highly compressed distribution of market wages (before taxes and transfers). In comparison, the distribution of wealth and capital income, and the degree of income equalisation through policy, is unexceptional. The Nordics succeeded not through maximal redistribution but by engineering an economy that did not need to overburden the state’s redistributive power. 

This leads to the third lesson. Much of the Nordic model’s success is rooted not in direct state intervention but in the finely balanced interplay between social organisations, especially in the labour market. Admirers appreciate the role of unions in the Nordic economies; they are less aware of the equal importance of coherent employers’ associations. 

A blinkered workers-against-bosses view of the world suggests anything that makes capital owners better organised must harm the interests of workers. The Nordic experience shows the opposite is true. Coherent organisation encourages employers to recognise how what may seem like a burden on an individual company benefits business as a whole. 

In Scandinavia, a compressed wage structure has been good for productivity. If it is expensive to use labour unproductively, and if high-skilled labour is relatively cheap, companies accelerate investment and quickly adopt new technology. Similarly, an organised employer sector helps workers, businesses and the government to adjust in the face of technological disruptions. If this is socialism, it is one that makes for a more flexible capitalism. 

The Nordics, then, give vindication to the insight of great liberal centrists of the interwar years: that wise government intervention is good for capitalism, and makes capitalism good for workers. Progressive centrism may have earned itself a bad name in the run-up to the crisis and its aftermath. But if socialists reject it out of purism, they will find their own goals frustrated as well.

Monday, August 27, 2018

DeLong and Anderson vs. socialism & Krugman on neolibralism

The New Socialists by Corey Robins

STEERING BY THE SOCIALIST IDOLS IN THE HEAVENS LEADS US TO SAIL NOT TOWARDS BUT AWAY FROM THE SHORES OF UTOPIA: (EARLY) MONDAY COREY ROBIN SMACKDOWN by Brad DeLong

A tenured six-figure government job must be sweet, professor, but this is utopian silliness: “Under capitalism, we’re forced to submit to the boss. Socialists want to establish freedom from rule by the boss, from the need to smile for the sake of a sale.”
Capitalism, Socialism, and Unfreedom by Krugman

There is no alternative. The Democratic Party platform is as good as things can get.