Sunday Letters

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support! Support Sunday Letters

In this latest episode of Sunday Letters, we're in conversation with PhD, writer at bondeconomics.com and former quantitative analyst at various economic consultancies in Canada. He's the author of several self-published books on economics, including Modern Monetary Theory & The Recovery, published in 2021. The guy on the cover image of this episode, by the way, is Hyman Minsky, the guy most leftist economists cite as the father of MMT. He said, "Stability leads to instability. The more stable things become, and the longer things are stable, the more unstable they will be when the crisis hits.” Brian touches on this idea in the conversation.

The discussion begins with a foundational question: "What is money?" Brian explains that money is a complex concept that serves primarily as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. In a monetised society, money simplifies transactions by eliminating the need for direct barter or reciprocal obligations. While money is commonly thought of in terms of physical cash or digital equivalents like bank deposits, Brian highlights that it also includes instruments that are not technically part of the money supply but function similarly, such as credit card transactions and business receivables.

He goes on to emphasise that while individuals use money for everyday transactions, businesses and financial institutions engage in more complex exchanges involving various forms of credit and debt. This perspective shifts the understanding of money from a simplistic medium of exchange to a more intricate system of debt settlement and liquidity management.

The Role of Banks and Reserves

The conversation delves into the workings of banks and the concept of fractional reserve banking. Dmitri raises a common scenario where a bank holds only a fraction of its deposits in reserve while lending out the rest. Romanchuk clarifies that while this textbook model suggests a fixed reserve requirement, the reality is more flexible. Banks manage liquidity and credit risk, ensuring they can meet reserve requirements while still providing loans and other services.

Brian points out that in practice, banks often operate with minimal reserves, relying on liquidity management to balance their books. He explains that banks borrow from each other and from the central bank to maintain the necessary reserves, highlighting the critical role of central banks in providing stability to the banking system. This liquidity management is essential to prevent bank insolvency and maintain confidence in the financial system.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

The discussion then shifts to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which offers a different perspective on government spending and money creation. Brain explains that MMT posits that governments that issue their own currencies can never run out of money in the same way households or businesses can. Such governments can create money to finance deficits, focusing on managing inflation rather than balancing budgets.

He underscores that MMT challenges traditional views on fiscal policy, arguing that concerns about government debt are often misplaced. Instead, the focus should be on the productive capacity of the economy and the role of government spending in achieving full employment and economic stability. Brian also highlights that in times of economic downturn, government deficits can provide the necessary stimulus to support recovery and maintain demand.

Implications and Criticisms

The episode then explores potential criticisms of MMT, such as the risk of inflation and the political feasibility of its implementation. Brian acknowledges these concerns but argues that proper management of fiscal policy and economic resources can mitigate inflationary pressures. He also notes that the political challenge lies in shifting public and policymaker perceptions about the nature of money and government finance.

In conclusion, the episode provides a thorough examination of money's multifaceted role in the economy and introduces listeners to the principles of Modern Monetary Theory. Brian Romanchuk's insights offer a challenge to conventional economic thinking and a fresh perspective on how governments can leverage their monetary sovereignty to achieve economic goals. The discussion encourages a re-evaluation of traditional fiscal policies and highlights the importance of understanding the complexities of money and finance in modern economies.

So, How Does it Impact You And Me In Our Daily Lives?

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues that governments can and should spend more freely to ensure full employment. For the average worker, this means that in times of economic downturn, the government can inject money into the economy to create jobs and stimulate demand, reducing the likelihood of unemployment.

Increased government spending can fund public projects and services, creating more job opportunities in various sectors, including infrastructure, education, and healthcare. For employees, particularly those in finance, construction, and industries reliant on credit, understanding that banks are managing risks and ensuring liquidity can translate to more stable job conditions.

One of the criticisms of MMT is the potential for inflation, which is when prices rise, decreasing purchasing power. For the average person, this could mean higher prices for groceries, housing, and other essentials. However, MMT proponents argue that careful management can control inflation, preventing runaway price increases. By ensuring that government spending is directed towards productive uses—like infrastructure or technology—MMT aims to stimulate the economy without causing significant inflation.

Increased government spending under MMT can improve public services, which means better healthcare, education, and social services for individuals. Proponents suggest this can reduce out-of-pocket expenses for these services, indirectly lowering the cost of living. During economic downturns, for example, government spending can support welfare programs, unemployment benefits, and other social safety nets, providing a financial cushion for those impacted by job losses or reduced income. In this sense, MMT is a socially oriented approach to the economy and an answer to the liberal free market ideas of the 1980s that, arguably, have brought about some of the greatest economic catastrophes in recent times.

Unlike personal debt, government debt in countries that issue their own currencies is managed differently, so thinking about government debt as we would household or corporate debt is inaccurate. Governments that issue their own currency can take their time; they don’t owe anyone but themselves. They are the issuer of the currency, after all. The fear of government debt should not overshadow the benefits of strategic spending. For individuals, this means understanding that government investment in the economy can lead to better long-term economic conditions, benefiting everyone.

Support Sunday Letters

Send us a Tip

Get some Sunday Letters merch

Subscribe on YouTube

Get in touch with Brian Romanchuck

Bond Economics Newsletter on SubstackBrian’s BooksBrian Romanchuck on X

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In this episode of The Sunday Letters Podcast, I’m in conversation with former US Air Force pilot and current lecturer in digital media studies at TU Shannon, Bernie Goldbach. We talk about the contrast in Bernie’s work from the high intensity of flying missions in the Pacific region and the Middle East to the perhaps less demanding work of lecturing third-level students in Clonmel. Here’s a summary of some of the main points in the conversation.

* Hauling radioactive waste on Enewetak in the Pacific

* Identity and intrinsic motivation of Air Force pilots

* The challenge of work-life balance in high-intensity roles

* The Secret Service, working at The Pentagon and one of the greatest spoofs the US played on Russia.

* Bernie’s take on Ukraine, the intrinsic motivation of Ukrainian soldiers

* Why did the 1988 Ramstein Air Show disaster happen? What Bernie witnessed that day and, crucially, the night before.

* Leaving the Air Force and moving to Ireland and translating his skills into teaching.

* The heightened attention, perception, memory and motor skills of high-performers

* Creative design and digital media in education

* The negative impact of technology on young people’s development. Passive entertainment Vs practical interaction.

* Finding fulfilment and engagement in work and the power of symbols of success.

* The work in the post-Social Media world and the power of stories.

* What would you do if money was no object?

* The future of work and the impact of technology on work and jobs.

Links

clonmeldigital.micro.blog

insideview.ie

Bernie Goldbach LinkedIn

Technological University of The Shannon

How to support The Sunday Letters Journal

Subscribe for Free

Become a paid subscriber

Upgrade from Free

The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In our latest episode of The Sunday Letters Journal podcast, and I delved into the complex topic of the morality of money. This discussion is not just about the practicalities of economics but rather about the more profound moral questions that underpin our financial systems, our relationship with one another, and our sense of humanity and everyday existence.

The discussion begins by reflecting on the importance of money in our society. It’s impossible to talk about work without mentioning money because we’ve collectively decided that money is essential to our way of life. We dedicate a significant portion of our lives to work, often at the expense of truly living. The question arises then: why do we work? What is the purpose of work? Can we survive without effectively working as waged slaves for the best part of our lives? This leads us to the fundamental question of what it means to be moral in the context of making and spending money.

We both have been reading David Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5,000 Years”, which provides a substantial historical backdrop to our conversation. One of the core ideas we discussed is the concept of morality itself. Dmitri explained that morality involves a set of rules or principles that govern behaviour, and these principles can be understood through different philosophical lenses, such as deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology, as championed by Immanuel Kant, posits that there are universal moral laws that apply to everyone, regardless of the consequences. In contrast, utilitarianism, or consequentialism, suggests that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes, specifically whether it maximises happiness or utility for the greatest number of people.

As we delved deeper, we touched on the historical perspectives of morality and money, drawing on the ideas of ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Plato condemned the pursuit of money, believing it corrupted the soul by allowing desires to override reason. While also critical of the excessive pursuit of wealth, Aristotle introduced the concepts of use value and exchange value. He argued that goods should be produced primarily for their use value – to meet genuine needs – rather than for exchange value – merely to generate profit. This distinction remains relevant today as we grapple with the implications of producing goods and services primarily for profit and the satisfaction of base-level desires.

Our conversation then shifted to the role of religion in shaping moral views on money. In medieval Europe, the early church maintained a stance against commerce, just as perhaps Aristotle did, viewing profit as inherently deceitful and corrupting. However, as time progressed, the church’s position softened, recognising the necessity of trade for societal functioning. This transition highlights the evolving nature of moral perspectives on money, influenced by changing economic realities. Or it was perhaps due to the church’s increasing ties to wealth and political systems.

The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters

Send us a Tip

Get some Sunday Letters merch

Subscribe on YouTube

References

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

Welcome to Sunday Letters. I’m Larry Maguire, your host, and with me today is my friend and philosopher, Dimitri Belkov. In this episode, we’ll be discussing the role of money in our lives. We’ll look at where money comes from, different theories about its value, and how debt affects individuals and society. We’ll also touch on the history of money and some of the moral questions around financial obligations.

We don’t get to discuss John Maynard Keynes in this episode, but we should have, and maybe we’ll dedicate a future episode to the man who prophesied the three-day week in 1936. I think he was right insofar as that’s where technology was going. Still, work seems to hold a certain moral imperative, so much so that our sense of personal worth is so deeply entwined with working prescribed hours for the best part of our lives that we can’t see the obvious sense in what Keynes predicted.

So here we are.

The Origins of Money

One predominant theory that has circulated for centuries is the metalist theory of money. This theory posits that money originated as a medium of exchange with intrinsic value, often in precious metals like gold and silver. In his seminal work “The Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith suggested that before the advent of money, people engaged in barter trade, exchanging commodities directly. However, according to David Graeber, the barter myth does not hold up under scrutiny. He suggests that no documented society has relied primarily on barter as a method of exchange. Instead, anthropologists have found that gift economies and credit systems were more common in pre-monetary societies.

Contrary to classic economic theory, Graeber argued that the creation of money was more closely related to the needs of the state than to the inefficiencies of barter. States and rulers created standardised currency units to facilitate taxation and control of their economies.

Early forms of money included metal coins minted by kings to reflect their wealth. These coins, however, did not always have a value directly correlated with their metal content. Anthropological evidence shows that people often debased coinage; their actual metal content was less than their face value, leading to practices such as coin shaving. One of the most notorious episodes of monetary manipulation in English history was that of Henry VIII in the 1540s.

The Role of the State and Fiat Money

Contrary to the metalist view, another theory suggests that money’s value comes from its acceptance by the state as a means of payment for taxes and debts. This perspective is captured in the concept of fiat money, which holds value not because of its intrinsic worth but because of the government’s decree. This theory posits that the state played a crucial role in creating markets and stimulating production by issuing money.

The transition to fiat money marked a significant shift. Money became a promise by the government to accept it for tax payments, thus ensuring its widespread acceptance. This system allowed states to control the money supply and influence economic activity without relying on physical commodities like gold.

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters

Send us a Tip

Get some Sunday Letters merch

Subscribe on YouTube

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

Mark Twain referred to it as the Gilded Age. Given his wit and occasional cynicism, I’m not sure that was entirely in celebration of the growth and expansion of industrialisation in America at the time. It was a gilded age for some, such as the industrialists and capitalists, but not so much for the common worker. With the new “opportunities” that opened up for the people of the New World after the Louisianna Purchase of 1803, the next one hundred years would witness dramatic change and a conflict between the capitalists and the workers.

The Pullman Strike of 1894 is one of the most significant events in American labour history. It reflected the intense struggles between labour and management during this century of economic growth. This strike not only highlighted the harsh working conditions and economic disparities workers faced but also marked a pivotal moment in the development of labour unions and federal intervention in labour disputes.

George Pullman was a carpenter by trade from New York, who, in the 1850s, headed west to seek his fortune. He made his reputation raising houses and other buildings to the newly required street level. Later, he turned his hand to manufacturing luxury railroad sleeping cars that allowed wealthy passengers to travel in luxury from East to West. Pullman envisioned a utopian community for his workers, establishing the company town of Pullman, Illinois. This town included housing, shops, churches, and schools, all owned by the company. Pullman believed this controlled environment would foster loyalty and productivity among his workers.

Read the full article; https://sundayletters.larrygmaguire.com/p/the-pullman-strike-of-1894

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters

Send us a Tip

Get some Sunday Letters merch

Subscribe on YouTube

References

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

With the progression of artificial intelligence, many voices are heralding the end of work as we know it. It is not just one trade or profession that will be impacted, they say. There will be many, from data analysts to legal professionals, those in the arts and media, truck, bus and rail drivers, food delivery, security, teaching—you name it. There is no domain of work that will not be affected. Over the next twenty to thirty years, vast swathes of people will have no job. So what are we going to do? How will we earn a living (as if we should have to work to earn the right to live and be comfortable in the first place)? Universal Basic Income (UBI) may be the solution. In this week’s episode, Dmitri and I discuss this idea and the results of recent trials of UBI in various countries around the world.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a financial policy model that involves regular, unconditional payments made by the government to every citizen, regardless of their income level or employment status. The core idea behind UBI is to provide all citizens with a living wage that can support basic needs, thereby reducing poverty and its associated negative health outcomes and increasing equality within society. This concept has gathered both acclaim and criticism over the years and is backed by various philosophical, economic, and practical arguments.

The idea of a universal basic income isn't new. One of the earliest proponents of a form of UBI was Thomas Paine, an 18th-century political activist, who proposed a capital grant for all individuals upon reaching adulthood in his work "Agrarian Justice" (1797). In the 20th century, economists like Milton Friedman introduced the concept of a "negative income tax”. Although not strictly a UBI policy, it parallels the ideas of UBI in providing a financial safety net to the less affluent. These early ideas laid foundational thoughts that challenged traditional welfare systems, proposing instead a simpler and potentially more effective means of redistributing income to support economic and social welfare.

In recent years, several pilot programs and studies have been launched to test the feasibility and effects of UBI. One notable example is the 2017 to 2018 Universal Basic Income experiment in Finland, where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 per month without any conditions from January 2017 to December 2018. The findings, published by Kela, the Finnish social security agency, suggested that while the UBI did not significantly improve employment outcomes, it did increase the beneficiaries' well-being, giving them a sense of better financial security and mental health.

Another significant case study from the United States was conducted in the city of Stockton, California. It was conducted involving 125 residents who received $500 monthly and operated for two years. The preliminary results indicated improvements in employment and stability, debunking myths that financial aids discourage work. These contemporary experiments provide crucial data points and insights into how UBI could be structured and implemented effectively in different socio-economic contexts.

The future of UBI is a subject of vibrant debate among economists, policymakers, and the public. Proponents argue that UBI could be essential in addressing the challenges posed by automation and the precarious nature of modern work environments. It's seen as a tool for promoting consumer spending and economic stability. Critics, however, caution against its high costs and potential to dissuade individuals from seeking employment. Although, these arguments seem to be based on personal moral values rather than solid research findings. For example, a trial in Namibia from 2008 to 2009 found that UBI had a significant reduction in poverty and child malnutrition, an increase in school attendance and healthcare utilisation, and an increase in economic activity as recipients invested in small businesses and increased their purchasing power.

Universal Basic Income remains a compelling yet controversial idea in the discourse on economic reform and social welfare. As societies continue to evolve and face new economic challenges, the lessons learned from past and ongoing experiments will be crucial in shaping the future of UBI. Whether it will become a standard policy remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly represents a significant shift in thinking about welfare, work, and economic security in the modern world.

The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters

Send us a Tip

Get some Sunday Letters merch

Subscribe on YouTube

References

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In this week’s episode, we’re discussing David Graeber, anthropologist and activist, who introduced the concept of "bullshit jobs" in a 2013 article in Strike Magazine titled “On The Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs”. He hit a nerve and later expanded into a full book titled Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, published in 2018. Graeber defines a "bullshit job" as a form of employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence. At the same time, they feel obliged to pretend that this is not the case. He argues that these jobs have proliferated due to societal and economic factors that prioritise employment for its own sake, rather than for the productive contributions it may offer people and society. He also discusses second-order bullshit jobs; the ones that are created to support the higher-order bullshit jobs. Think about the cleaners, security staff, electricians and plumbers needed to maintain a building filled with people administering speculative investments.

There are five categories of bullshit jobs according to Graeber;

Graeber argues that meaningless, soulless jobs not only cause severe psychological distress but also represent a misallocation of economic resources and human potential. His theory has implications for understanding organisational inefficiencies, worker dissatisfaction, and the societal value placed on work.

How do you feel about your work? Take the short survey.

Support Sunday Letters

Send us a Tip

Get some Sunday Letters merch

Subscribe on YouTube

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here, or get yourself some merch here. Many thanks for your support!

In this week’s episode, and I discuss one of the fundamental dichotomies of human behaviour: cooperation versus competition. Are human beings inherently competitive, or are we more socially oriented and naturally cooperative? The question is important because the workplace seems primarily oriented towards competition. We compete for a limited number of clients and projects, departments within the same organisation may be adversaries, and workers are encouraged to compete for recognition, bonuses and promotions. In parallel, we also find workers in these same situations cooperate, albeit reluctantly at times, to achieve goals and get things done.

Ultimately, however, jobs require people to be agents of the profit-seeking organisation within a system of apparently limited resources. Making a profit is necessary, but the competition for it never stops, and it’s rarely shared equally among those who generate it (although that’s a topic for another day). Businesses, especially larger corporate ones, are never satisfied, and they demand that you and I, in our jobs, keep pushing for more. They squeeze as much as they can out of every human being, often until we are dry, broken husks of people. In this sense, we work in the metaphorical vice of competition for what are perceived as limited resources (again, a topic for another day).

The Capitalists argue that competition is good for society; it has given us all the technology, goods and services we take for granted. It has improved living conditions and made life better for all, or so the argument goes. Socialists offer a counterargument - competition has destroyed the fabric of life, raped and pillaged the planet, treated human beings and the natural world as objective means to material ends, and will kill us all. Cooperation and mutual aid, they say, are the keys to our survival. Read more

The Sunday Letters Journal is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

References

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here. Many thanks for your support!

On Tuesday, I wrote about the false promise of the future of work. I highlighted, amongst other things, that education helps school us towards direct paid employment or waged slavery, according to some, and not towards the freedom of self-employment, for example. Self-employment is too risky, it seems. If we take the chance and fail, we’ll lose everything we’ve earned. In this, we accept the prison of our employment over the freedom of the unknown.

The structure of the workplace provides us with a degree of certainty. But what if this apparent ground of our belief was not factual but something the system taught us? Maybe it is the pursuit of hedonic pleasure and the avoidance of pain that keeps us there. wrote this week that the philosopher Karl Marx believed work was a natural thing human beings seek to do, and in this need to express ourselves, we are manipulated by capital. In contrast, Plato and Aristotle believed manual work was of the lower order and not for sophisticated men. They also believed that slavery was right and proper, so perhaps not the best judges on these matters.

The question remains: Do we work to attain the means to live or merely survive, or do we seek fulfilment of a deeper, more innate human need? What would we do if we didn’t need to work to meet those basic needs? What would we do with our time? Is contemporary work designed to line the pockets of the capitalists, and do we comply through blind habit? That’s several questions, yes, but you get the picture.

Read more

Welcome to this week’s edition of the podcast. If you like what we’re doing, consider becoming a paid subscriber. If you’d rather not, you can offer a one-off tip here. Many thanks for your support!

I mentioned on Monday that change was afoot; well, here’s the story…

Welcome to the relaunch of the Sunday Letters Podcast. It has been some time since the last episode, and recently, I felt the urge to get this thing operational again. In doing so, I’ve managed to convince my learned friend and philosopher, to join me here and help build this thing out. Over the years, we have conversed privately on many topics we cover here on Sunday Letters, so the partnership seemed like a natural choice. Sunday Letters reflects how we both feel about and see the modern workplace - a fake plastic environment that, despite its best efforts to the contrary, seems incompatible with human welfare. This forms the basis of our forthcoming discussions on work.

I will publish new written content on Tuesdays on the Future of Work. Dmitri will publish the general topic of the week on Thursdays. New podcast episodes will be published weekly on Fridays with a full (but raw) conversation transcript. We will cover the issues affecting people's working lives and the role work plays in global politics, economics, and broader social issues. Work, after all, is so intertwined with all human affairs; it’s hard not to connect it with what’s happening in the world. From pollution and the global climate crisis to the conflict in the Middle East to the mistreatment of the vulnerable in society and the abuse of workers in the Global South, our jobs and our daily work play no small part.

In case you missed the hint, The Sunday Letters Journal is firmly on the Left—we are for people first, organisations second… at best. One of the most challenging problems in society today is that the interests of organisations often come before those of the people and the environment. A misalignment of values and motivations is at its core, and we think there’s something we can do about that.

Alright, thanks for being here. We’re looking forward to engaging with you in the comments, and if you’d like to support this work, become a subscriber today and get 20% off forever.