I don't think that star wars tries to be particularly sophisticated about economics, but they are telling a very nuanced story, about living in a political/technological society, so it ends up being very good. Stars Wars, like most sci-fi, is very anthropologically focused, because it's about self-reflection on humanity by using aliens to ask "what makes us human"?
You hear them talk about "credits" and "imperial credits", so there is a nod to some chartalist ideas there, but the bigger deal, I think that is implied, is that the unit of account becomes distinct from the medium of exchange. Some kind of banking guild or collective is able define a unit of account, without dictating the medium of exchange. By using the very general term "credits", that is what is being implied there.
Do I think the star wars writers were some kind of economic genuises? Not intentionally... I think they just wanted
MMT attributes unemployment to government policy. Even if you accept that fiat inflation and government's credit limits are extremely flexible, especially in the long run, this is, to say the least, it carries a lot of implications.
Why should the government be reponsible for your unemployment? They don't wipe your ass or brush your teeth-- What are these MMTers talking about?
Well, I think, that within certain political unions, that yes, government does indirectly decide employment levels.
So classical liberalism, the idea that protecting basic freedoms, is sufficient to build a fair and effective society, it doesn't hold. Personal freedoms are not sufficient - to guarantee overall fairness, etc.
This is one of my big beefs with supply and demand, is that people generally don't care about the "fairness" of prices in isolation. Cooperation only happens through broad general political alignment. This generally isn't a micro phenomenon. So what really motivates people to "renegotiate" prices, usually doesn't have much to do with prices directly. Furthermore, this renegotiation often takes the form of political action. Should most prices be politically determined? No. But if you politically constrain 1 or 2 price levels, there is still sufficient flexibility for markets to dynamically adjust relative prices accordingly. This may not be as direct or efficient, but market influence is very contingent on on what form of wealth you control. Wealth that is financial in nature, makes it easy to express your market interests.
Many people have wealth in the form of labor, or social integration with a community/land. Whereas others will be much more directly plugged into financial systems. Political action allows these people to try their hand at influencing prices.
I don't think the Austrian economists have much of a case that all "political" pricing is flawed. As a rule, I generally, try not to assume to represent someone else's interest. But there definitely is a strong argument that subtle differences in how these rules are built, can significantly change what their effects are.
This is sort of the logic behind the debate of a minimum wage versus a job guarantee. Minimum wages, even if they don't reduce total employment, they can impose frictions: require more commuting, or even exascerbate inequality by pushing people away from local jobs that would be better for themselves and their communities in the long term. That's not to say that local jobs can't meet a decent wage standard too, but, they may have a harder time of it, and are much more likely to cut back their hours our reduce their staff as a result. I don't think we need any exceptions here or special cases, mostly just to be aware of what the regulation does, and what its unintended consequences might be. Minimum wage will never stop someone from starting their own business, but it removing a stepping stone for them to do so. It can also be very frustrating dealing with such labor regulations when you don't really understand what these unintended effects are.
As long as the minimum wage isn't too extreme, then even the smallest local businesses can adapt. And sometimes these practices are just a good idea besides. The biggest shortcoming of the minimum wage is it doesn't do a great job of recog- nizing cost of living differences, but at the same time, it's not supposed to, it's just a minimum.
Ima huge fan of Randall Wray, but the way he talks about a Job Guarantee being an indispensible part of MMT, puts me off. I don't like the phrase "Job Guarantee", because it is easy to misinterpret. It's not forced employment. It is "make work". All work is make work, because value is subjective. That's not the problem. The problem is the absolutism with which MMT treats national fiat credit as different from other forms of credit. It's correct that the nature of government credit is very different, but the reason it is different is very subtle and nuanced. It's because government's value proposition is totally different from private enterprise-- government doesn't seek financial profits, but public benefits. Government's balance sheet value is realized in parallel with private wealth building, it doesn't compete with private wealth building. I mean, this is why such a program is essential, because private deprivation, even if it's just 10% of society, is so costly. The government doesn't exist to make your life easy or comfortable, but it should try to make sure it's viable. Private labor markets can be so volatile, especially with bad credit paradigms. I primarily see value in fixing the way we measure and issue credit. But I 100% agree with and support a "Open Public Job Program for citizens". The GND is wealth building, so short and medium term, it really does increase emissions, if it works. Most green new deal advocacy is like anti-car(Internal Combustion Engine), and completely incoherent.
Supply and Demand are only proxies for cost and value. Supply is the amount of provisioning of a good FROM a market system at a specified price level. Demand is the amount of utilization of that good by the market system at a specified price level. So like, tautologically-- if you assume the respective curves are "well defined", then the market price is the intersection of supply and demand curves.
The only problem is, the curves aren't well defined. They are very hazy and wibbly wobbly. There can be big swings in provisioning and utilization without any kind of price response. Indeed, this is the norm, when you have some kind of overarching social stability.
The best way to think about price, is that it just has to be somehow negotiated, above the general sustainable costs of provisioning, and below the value of utilization. And of course, these are relative--
So supply and demand, isn't based on the absolute costs or value of creating or utilizing a specific product, any reasonable curve has to be created in the context of potential substitutions.
So water, for example, incredibly valuable for human life. Under certain conditions, people would pay through the nose to get water, but normally we get it for free. We say that's because it's so easy to supply, and that is why... Water is ultimate commodity.
But few things are such perfect commomdities as is water. Most things have a bunch of potential near substitutes.
Even water itself can be different... based on very small content levels of impurities, etc.
But the point being, the pricing curves are not about objective value or objective costs. Consumers can value some use very highly, but not be willing to pay very much, if they are either able to find substitutes, either of the same product or different products. This makes a so called "demand" curve, very hard to measure or even define.
Generally, also, economies of scale, fixed and marginal costs, mean that even if most people aren't willing to provi sion something at a certain price, a modern economy, will provision all it can demand, at the lowest price of any potential supplier. This is because, once fixed costs have been paid, which lead to minimal marginal costs, the supplier can supply to the whole economy. So the supply curve, they will produce as much as they can sell, or in fact, if they expect more sales they offer a lower price.
Supply and demand is such a mess, it's better just to understand, that there are costs of provisioning(may be production), and value of utilization, and that gives a window wherein the price can move. Calculating how people will profit from different arrangements and prices, is incredibly complex, even with very simple business plans. Supply and Demand curves do not scale very well.
And this is why comparative advantage, the idea that only your relative productivity matters, is so, uncompelling.
According to comparative advantage, it doesn't matter if you suck at everything, as long as-- you do the thing that you are best at relative to everything else. But the truth is, mass production simply undercuts costs... making it impossible to compete, so you have no comparative advantage, you offer negative value, small inefficiencies, mean that you are simply using too many raw resources to recoup your cost.
This is the counter-intuitive reality that many resources, are most cheaply delivered to end consumers, in finished product form. Try buying raw cotton fabric or sheet metal, etc. Often it is difficult to obtain these things more cheaply than buying them in the form of jeans or cans. This is simply because, economies of scale just completely dominate the productive costs, so holding slow moving inventory is just more expensive, and/or people buy raw materials for niche crafts where the pricing isn't as competitive.
So depending on comparative advantage, for full employment, is completely unrealistic. Often, you simply cannot compete selling products at cost alone. That's the harsh reality. To be employed, you have to be integrated somehow, politically.
So people never revolt, if one price or another is skeewompus, at least not if it's not important. No one will complain if playing cards are way too overpriced, to the point of social or political revolution.
Price trends housing+ other things down.
So unemployment, in a consolidated economic system, becomes a result of "EXTREME PRODUCTIVE REDUNDANCY"
When this is the case, the terms of a political union, are far more important than any notion of competitiveness.
Classical liberalism doesn't help you if you own no land, have no prospects or credit, simply because you are redundant.
The bare minimum such a union can guarantee, is basic fulfilling employment. But honestly, that's not the biggest deal...
Protecting your boundaries of territory, land, your relationships.. so you can be productive, and meet your own needs... so you aren't priced, that's the most important thing.
If a deathstar can force you to pay taxes to a war machine, then you should rebel, regardless of whether there is a nice fat job guarantee working for the millitary. Get the fuck out.
too much raw resources to re
Traditionally, the medium of exchange