>Rather than reckless paraphrases, I'll leave you
>with my own quick restatement of the pop program:
>
>* Democratic money boils down to two things: a monetary policy
> dedicated to tight, near-inflationary labor markets;
Then you're talking about changing the balance of class forces between K and L. It's cowardly and devious to talk about low interest rates and not talk about the real social consequences you're after. Central bankers understand this very well, even if their critics don't, or pretend not to (like Jamie Galbraith's odd critique of the Fed as being "stupid," which it certainly isn't).
The "near" modifier is interesting. Why not inflationary? Does the inflation, or the proximity to inflation, have anything to do with the altered balance of class forces?
>and the
> regulation of credit allocation to prevent discrimination, and
> to promote investment in under-served areas and to under-
> financed populations.
The problems with "under-served areas" are that public investment is too low and with "underserved populations," that their market incomes are too low. Lending becomes a substitute for what should be a strategy of expropriation.
>* The critique of free trade leads to international labor solidarity
> on behalf of green & labor standards and national governments'
> commitment to defend sectors with higher labor standards within
> their jurisdictions against scab import policies.
What populists are pursuing "international labor solidarity"?
And in another post...
>Yeah well Pound is an idiot. And I don't mean in the elegant
>greek sense. The King's stamp is not immaterial -- quite the
>contrary. The power of the state, from which fiat money derives,
>makes money a real economic institution with real economic effects.
>In a malign sense, it is a device for facilitating indebtedness, typically
>to the state and to capital. In a positive sense, it facilitates exchange
>and real capital formation. It is not a "symbol system."
Saying something is a symbol system isn't to say it doesn't have material roots and material consequences. The only reason we can talk to each other is because we learn the rules of language and obey all the conventions of what "I" and "you" mean.
Which isn't to say that violence isn't the ultimate backing of money. Donald Barthelme has a story about talking with his IRS auditor about how the tax code is just a discursive system - to which she responded, but my discursive system has subpoena power.
Doug