Modern Monetary Theory (MMT or Magic Monetary Tree) is all in the air. I have spent a good amount of time understanding the idea. I think I get it. MMT advocates are solely on the "left," claiming that there is more "policy space" than traditional accounting methods show and that MMT provides the "space" for more spending on social problems, such as the Green New Deal. I find no inherent connection between the expansion of "policy space" and the use of this space to expand spending on social programs. Ronald Reagan expanded the "policy space" to vastly increase military spending along with a jaw-dropping deficit. The above observation leads me to see MMT as "motivated reasoning." Advocates of MMT obviously assume that they will also be in political power to institute "reforms" in, for example, the Federal Reserve and to spend the funds on programs advocated by the "left." I don't see why a Tea Party gov...

In a previous post, I mentioned how our world view - especially our perceived system of values - comes into our politics . At the same time, political players tend to misrepresent their own value system and the value system of their opponents to gain power. Power itself is a value worth looking into. In fact, "political" power seems to show up in all the "social great apes" and many other species. My aim here is simply to visualize this dimension - to come up with a visual metaphor that helps us think of this type of value. There are many values similar to "political power". I chose to talk about "influence" as a representative of this class of values. These networks are essential to understanding one of the themes of this entire blog: the superorganism. Networks of value play a role similar to the nervous system of the individuals who make up these organisms. They account for "why" these organisms value what they value and do what the...

(Originally posted in " The Zen of Value ") Discussions about how money originates often start with the assumption that it evolved to facilitate trade and "store value". Otherwise, so the story goes, you and I would simultaneously want something somebody else had (say, you have more fish than you need and I have extra sheep). There is scant evidence for "cash" arising out of this situation. Evidence for another narrative can be found in human behavior that naturally arises when "cash" is in short supply. Say, you go fishing and catch 5 nice big salmon. It would not be unusual at all for you to show up at my door and offer me a fresh salmon "for free". On the other hand, we would tacitly understand that this establishes a debt. Perhaps at some point, I'd mow your lawn or give you a basket of berries, or jam from my last berry picking trip. The math doesn't need to work out. If I'm in bad shape and have nothing to give in retu...

Thieves of State " Thieves of State " is about a particular form of society - sadly perhaps the most common form of society - a kleptocracy. "Thieves" goes into a lot of detail about how individuals are drawn into (assimilated into) this form of society ("dragon"). The examples allow us to drill down to get a close-up view of how assimilation takes place, how it is almost inevitable and why it is so difficult to resist. It's hard to find an example of a social form that doesn't feature a "strongman" (usually but not always male) with built-in mechanisms that draw group resources to the strongman and his immediate family. This is as true of a Canadian "first nation" as it is of the Trump administration in the USA. Chayes describes how this phenomenon permeates the whole society in a kind of fractal structure, with layer upon layer of mini-strongmen paying up to the strongmen above them while extracting resources from humans below...

This was originally posted in its own "Zen of Value" blog but has been moved here for sake of integration and connection. It turns out that I don't have much more to say about the "Zen of Value". Discussions about how money originates often start with the fable that it evolved to facilitate trade and "store value". Otherwise, so the story goes, you and I would simultaneously want something somebody else had (say, you have more fish than you need and I have extra sheep). There is scant evidence that "cash" arose out of this situation. This can be seen when "cash" is in short supply or in small groups (families, neighbors) who exchange goods and services without cash, even indignantly refusing cash when it would be perfectly sensible when interacting with a stranger. We also have times, such as the "Dirty 30's" where, for technical reasons, nobody had "money" but everybody had more than they need of some things...

My thoughts about the four economies have emerged from thinking about money and debt. Some writers, especially Graeber  do a great job of sketching what money is (debt) and prying the concept away from "value". Graeber makes dire predictions about the fate of the world based solely on the nature of money. Graeber seems to think that, by the very nature of money, debt expands to choke the "real" economy - a phenomenon he calls "debt deflation". I think that Graeber's misunderstands the way that money works and its relationship to the other economies we live in, most obviously value (which is constantly being created and destroyed) and information (which mostly grows at an exponential rate, contributing to a growing percentage of the value of everything we buy). However, Graeber's analysis is helpful in pointing out that many transactions involving money and the creation of debt take place entirely in the "money universe" without inc...