Not The Grub Street Journal

This Tweet I responded to yesterday is something of the scale of the situation and in the Old Adage of First they Ignore, then they Laugh and then they Fight then you win. 
Winning is a curious Notion as in a functioning monetary system there is no winning only taking part.

Daniel Lacalle‏Verified account @dlacalle_IA

FollowingFollowing @dlacalle_IA

More

The Petroyuan “challenge” to the USD in one graph. Weekly volume in Brent, WTI and nano-minuscule-microscopic-irrelevant Petroyuan (via @Ole_S_Hansen) #OOTT #Petroyuan

9:29 AM – 10 May 2018

• 25 Retweets
• 51 Likes
• 

14 replies25 retweets51 likes

Reply

 14

Retweet

 25

Like

 51

Direct message

Tweet text

Richard Phillips‏ @richyphillips

FollowFollow @richyphillips

More

Replying to @jbhearn @ProfessorWerner and 2 others

@wbmosler @StephanieKelton @StevenHailAus @billy_blog @ProfSteveKeen apparently your ideas are wacky!?

8:29 AM – 10 May 2018

• 1 Like
• 

2 replies0 retweets1 like

Reply

 2

Retweet

 

Like

 1

Direct message

Tweet text

123

The establishment Gatekeeper position on Centralised IBS models of International Floating exchange rates and debt based money has been taken up by Richard Murphy the Tax Evangelist.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/05/06/why-positive-money-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-805559

All of the comment I made on the discussion have been removed but I kept copies in this series of Posts. Richard Murphy and the MMT School knowingly or not are carrying water for the Status quo which is effectively privatised and centralised money creation as debt based instruments. People like Richard Murphy, Mosler, Wray and Mitchell are frankly part of the problem.

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/05/why-richard-murphy-disagrees-with.html

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/05/to-richard-murphy-and-mmt-witch-finder.html

http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/05/mmt-and-money-creation-reading-lists-my.html

This recent discussion between Keen and Mosler is worth struggling through, Mosler clearly shows how he is on the Ought side of the Is Ought Dichotomy.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.^[1][2]

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem