New Economic Perspectives has the article The Millennials’ Money Pt. 1 by J. D. Alt. The author is presenting several parts of a proposed new book to get feedback from the readers of the New Economic Perspectives blog. I chose to comment on this statement in the article:

While the “idealist” BGX generations have been less interested in desired outcomes than on  insisting that those outcomes be achieved in accordance with their ideological “rules”, the “civic” Millennials view the world as a pragmatic problem to be solved by whatever method works best.

Here is the feedback  that I intended to give:

Is yet another book based on wild over-generalizations what we really need right now?  I am now over 70, and I have always claimed to believe I viewed “the world as a pragmatic problem to be solved by whatever method works best.”

We don’t need to set up another system to achieve good ‘in accordance with their ideological “rules”’ you intend to put forth as MMT.  MMT is a theory that is a good model of the way the world works within the simplifications of what can only be a model of a reality that is too complex to handle without simplification.  As long as the world is mostly acting within the assumptions of the model, then the model’s predictions will be close to reality.  We always need to keep in mind what the simplifications are, so that we can know when the model is likely being over-extended.

Grand over statements of the generality of a model in the introductory chapter are not good signs for the rest of the book.

As I submitted this comment on the February 26th article (only 4 days old) that had 18 comments, the web site informed me that this post was closed to further comments.  Also not a good sign for the actual intentions of the author of this proposed book. Perhaps he had so much positive feedback in the 18 comments, that he felt he didn’t need to hear any more.

March 4, 2015

I have a previous post Diagrams and Dollars: Modern Money Illustrated (Part 1 & 2) about the ebook to which J. D. Alt refers in the above article The Millennials’ Money Pt. 1.

Robert Reich has a Facebook post in which he declares the he is not refraining anymore.

Meanwhile, many American Jews who have refrained from speaking out against the right-wing radicalism that has taken hold in Israel – a radicalism that rejects a “two-state solution” and continues to build new settlements on the West Bank, and which we believe imperils the future of Israel — are now feeling emboldened to do so. Aipac does not speak for us. House Republicans do not speak for us. Billionaires do not speak for us. We have been silent for too long. — Robert Reich

I agree even though I am not among “many American Jews who have refrained from speaking out against the right-wing radicalism that has taken hold in Israel.” I mean I am not among the set who has been refraining.

I am surprised at how many American Jewish Liberals are fans of Netanyahu, when they would be strongly opposed to him if he were an American politician of the far right wing or perhaps Tea Party. The right wing is where he would be if he espoused his positions as an American politician.

Here is a bit of BBC propaganda that I picked up from one of the comments to Robert Reich’s post. The YouTube post explains the context.

Uploaded on Apr 11, 2008

This clip is from episode one of a British-made documentary from 2002 titled ‘The Age Of Terror’, and examines the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22nd July 1946 by Zionist-Jewish terrorists, in which the south wing of the hotel, then occupied by British civil-military authorities, was bombed killing ninety-one people. Twenty-eight of the victims were British, forty-one Arabic, while seventeen were Jewish.
.
.
.

I have heard all the justifications for this episode from fellow Jewish parents, teachers, and assorted other folk. All I ask is that as you watch the video and repeat all those stories you have been taught, just for a moment listen to your own justifications. Now think about what your reaction would be if the people posing as Arabs to carry out this attack were, in fact, actually Arabs.

Naked Capitalism has the article Austerity Kills: Economic Distress Seen as Culprit in Sharp Rise in Suicide Rate Among Middle Aged by Yves Smith.

I’m surprised, but perhaps I shouldn’t be, that a recent study hasn’t gotten the attention it warrants. It points to a direct connection between the impact of the crisis and a marked increase in suicide rates among the middle aged. This link seems entirely logical, given how many citizens found themselves whacked by a one-two punch of job loss or hours cutbacks combined with the sudden plunge in home prices. Normally, a last ditch course of action for most middle and upper middle class income members in the pre-crisis days, when things got desperate, was to sell you (sic) house and cut costs radically by moving into a much more modest rental. But that option vanished in all but the most stable markets (as in some flyover states that the subprime merchants ignored) due to home price declines trashing equity for all but those with small or no mortgages.

It doesn’t seem like so long ago when every debate about capitalism versus socialism would end up at the point where the capitalist would say, “And the final point is to look at the suicide rate in Sweden. It must be socialism that causes it to be so high.” If you are a defender of capitalism and foe of socialism, don’t tell me you never used that argument. If you can’t remember, then you have worse problems than I thought.

It looks to me like a big dose of some Bernie Sanders’ socialism right now would do a world of good.