A Solution Exists
shamelessly pleading, even begging for advocates
[New first paragraph added 01/26/24.]
This solution would absolutely, positively put an end to unemployment and poverty while at the same time systemically addressing the existential flaw in the way the existing economic system is utilized. Currently, there is a ‘need’ for constant, unending ‘growth’: an imperative to produce and consume ever more ‘stuff’ just to keep the economy — and therefore civilization itself — from collapsing. We have reached the point at which that must change for civilization to survive.
There are thousands of people here on Medium alone who are aware of this solution. Yet, as far as I am aware, not one of them has written one word to advocate for this idea. I cannot for the life of me understand why intelligent, concerned people refuse to advocate for this solution. I’m begging people to ‘step up’.
Do people lack intellectual self-confidence? Many people decry excessive dependence on ‘experts’, but people do find it difficult to advocate for any idea that has not gained the approval of at least a few widely acknowledged experts.
On the other hand, I (to be clear, the author of this idea) am an expert in economics. I began reading seriously in economics 50 years ago. I earned an M.A. in the subject. Going on to a Ph.D. (which I did not have the resources to do, having used up my G.I. Bill education benefits getting that far), would not have offered any further understanding of the structure and functioning of the existing economy. Besides, school at every level is all about reading and understanding what others have written, and I have definitely read and understood enough for a Ph.D. in economics — including but not limited to the French ‘Physiocrats’ (generally acknowledged as the first to make the economy, i.e., the process of producing/acquiring goods/services, a subject of study — Francois Quesnay, et al.), Jean-Baptiste Say (French, but not a Physiocrat), Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen, C.E. Ayers (a less well-known but more rigorous ‘institutional economist’ than Veblen was), the ‘Austrians’ (Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, et al.), Joseph A. Schumpeter, John Maynard Keynes, and Milton Friedman as well as Modern Monetary Theory (which I actually learned about in detail from Keith Evans here in Medium).* [Reading from cover to cover (over 1,000 dense pages in the edition I read) Schumpeter’s History of Economic Analysis (which his wife, Elizabeth, also an economist, finished after his death) is enough by itself to make anyone who does that pretty much of an expert in the structure and functioning of the existing economy — and, yes, I did also read his Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy.]
All that aside, it is simply not possible to read what I write in economics and come to the conclusion that I don’t know what I am talking about. People complain that they don’t understand what I write. That really isn’t the point. The point is that I happened upon a solution and obviously know what I am talking about.
Isn’t that all anyone needs to know to advocate for any solution to any big problem? People advocate all the time for things they don’t actually fully understand, but are trusting to the knowledge and understanding that other people possess.
Every question that can be answered prior to actually implementing this solution in any nation (which would necessarily entail nation-specific details) has been answered. Given the outcomes that the monetary paradigm I have developed would accomplish (no unemployment, no poverty, the possibility for no taxes, and definitely a systemic increase in environmental sustainability) and how it would be accomplished (without some imposing costs on others), there is no good reason for anyone to reject this paradigm. Given what it unassailably promises, there is every reason to advocate for it.
Is it revolutionary? Yes. Yes, it is.
Can we solve those problems by diddling about with taxes and public debt? We cannot. We’ve been doing that since WWII, at least.
A revolutionary idea of some kind is necessary, not just for progress, but to prevent total disaster. For a time progress was being made in a general way in places, but now the tide of material outcomes is flowing in the other direction. Technologically, we are on the brink of a materially better world than has ever existed in the history of civilization. Institutionally, we are stuck in the middle of the 1900’s, at best. We must bring our institutional arrangements into the 21st century. This transformational action could be accomplished in any nation on the planet with a single legislative Act.
Yet, this solution is not radical. It does not require tearing down any part of any nation’s existing institutional structure. It utilizes in a new way the existing economic system, i.e., the set of institutions via which the process of producing/acquiring goods/services proceeds — specifically, money (as currency, i.e., money created for central governments and central banks to use for their purposes).
Thinkers and writers on Medium could turn it into a bastion of support for an actual solution to all of society’s problems stemming from the existing economic system (the way it is now utilized). At this point, what is there to lose by advocating for this solution?
I’ll turn 72 if I make it to my next birthday. I’ve had a life. This isn’t for or about me. It’s about nothing but doing something good for this world.
For anyone reading this who is new to this idea, if interested the best place to start learning about it is “Economic System Not the Problem,” here in Medium but (like all my stuff here) not behind the paywall.
______________
*’Supply-side’/’neoliberal’ economics represent a regurgitation of standard economic thought prior to the Great Depression. That was the “crisis,” predicted by Marx, from which the economy he saw developing in the middle of the 1800’s would not be able to recover. Marx did not foresee anyone (Keynes) developing a paradigm by which the central government, backed by the central bank, would form an ongoing life-support system for the economy. Since the 1970’s central banks have taken the lead in trying to prevent the economic worst from happening: either implosion in the form of a cycle of less and less of everything until the economic system stops functioning or the whole thing exploding in a supernova of hyperinflation.