I recently read Michael Roberts analysis on the merits of Helicopter money as a savior of Capitalism.
You can read his analysis in his blog:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/helicopter-money-and-the-chicago-plan/
I argue that Helicopter money should be viewed as a glimpse to a future socialist Society, not as a savior to Capitalism. Here is my response to Michael's article:
Michael,
I think that you have tried to answer two different problems with the same answer.
Helicopter money cannot save capitalism from itself as profits are the determinant force that drives investment.
Helicopter money is an alternative to Capitalism in which investment is decided democratically. If used inside Capitalism, then it is like a drug that prevents Capitalism from destroying itself for a period of time, if of course the money go to the real economy.
Thus Keynesians make a double mistake.
First, they believe that printing money will save Capitalism from itself. It can’t. It is just an aspirin.
Secondly, because of the first mistake, they do not see that helicopter money works because it is not controlled by profits and thus the only solution is to go to an economy without profits with increased democratic control.
Helicopter money is anticapitalist. Keynesians do not see it that way.
In your effort to explain the errors of Keynesian Economic thinking, you have accepted helicopter money as a method to save Capitalism rather than what it is, a glimpse into an economy not driven by profit.
You can read his analysis in his blog:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/helicopter-money-and-the-chicago-plan/
I argue that Helicopter money should be viewed as a glimpse to a future socialist Society, not as a savior to Capitalism. Here is my response to Michael's article:
Michael,
I think that you have tried to answer two different problems with the same answer.
Helicopter money cannot save capitalism from itself as profits are the determinant force that drives investment.
Helicopter money is an alternative to Capitalism in which investment is decided democratically. If used inside Capitalism, then it is like a drug that prevents Capitalism from destroying itself for a period of time, if of course the money go to the real economy.
Thus Keynesians make a double mistake.
First, they believe that printing money will save Capitalism from itself. It can’t. It is just an aspirin.
Secondly, because of the first mistake, they do not see that helicopter money works because it is not controlled by profits and thus the only solution is to go to an economy without profits with increased democratic control.
Helicopter money is anticapitalist. Keynesians do not see it that way.
In your effort to explain the errors of Keynesian Economic thinking, you have accepted helicopter money as a method to save Capitalism rather than what it is, a glimpse into an economy not driven by profit.
