Warren Mosler’s interview on INETeconomics

Marshall Auerback interviews Warren Mosler for the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

14 responses to “Warren Mosler’s interview on INETeconomics

  1. John Turner

    I have just watched the interview in Australia. In future can the sound volume be adjusted to be about the same for each speaker. Much of what Mosler had to say was almost beyond deciphering.
    Otherwise the content was excellent.

    • I noticed this in the Columbia debate as well, I think Warren just speaks very quietly so the mic doesn’t pick it up well on regular volume. Perhaps he’s just grown tired of having to repeat himself again and again after all these years 🙂

    • I think it might be a problem with your computer.

    • You’re right. He needs a few hours with a speech coach. He doesn’t enunciate or project consistently unless he’s telling a joke and gets animated.

      This talk is not for beginners (there’s no starting at the beginning…I couldn’t show this to a beginner). It preachers to the choir.

  2. In the debate with Robert Murphy Mosler claims that it’s very hard for a central bank to create inflation. What if it just kept on buying foreign currency, on and on and on, until the value of its own currency collapsed?

  3. Does Mosler seriously think the planet needs more humans? wtf…

  4. Andrew Hartman

    Dear Blog,

    Thanks you for producing this interview! Big fan of Marshall Auerback as a commenter on economic/business issues.

    I am commenting assuming that this interview was produced for a lay audience.

    MA is doing a lot of explaining in this interchange. To interview Warren Mosler, I suggest the opposite personality or style (if MA can pull it off.) Ask open ended questions, and then ask follow up questions in brief language as if you have no idea what he is talking about and need every word and concept explained. Let’s call this the idiot-savant interviewer. WM will get quieter and quieter in the presence of a fast talking person like MA. Underneath, he is very passionate, but he needs to be in charge of the discussion.

    WM: “I like to say it opens up their options.”
    Interviewer: “How would their options change?”

    I know it takes a lot more work, but with something like this, some cutting is going to have to happen. You might have to get him to answer the question three or four times until he gets in the swing.

    Again, greatly appreciate another exposure to WM and MA.

  5. Marshall is excellent at this.
    I suggest he does the rounds. Is he rich enough to give up the day job ?
    Randall next, then get him a ticket to Darwin.

  6. Can’t believe all the anti-Warren comments.
    Not clever.

  7. I think Warren Mosler manner is disarming, which can be a good thing when one’s theories are contrary to orthodox thinking.

    What MMT needs is another Ross Perot type, with the down-home folksy style and cartoon-simple charts and graphs showing where all the people’s money would go if government didn’t hold debt.

  8. Bill Moyers argues a “living wage” would be $15/hour. You want the “Job Guarantee” to support Demand, and so $15/hour would be that “living wage.” Arguably, in high cost real estate areas (Manhattan, Silicon Valley, Seattle, etc) the “living wage” would be even higher; so maybe “area adjusted” for housing cost. http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/10/moyers-rose-on-the-middle-class/

    And then there’s Allan Sheahen at Tikkun Olam, who says “Jobs Are Not The Answer,” arguing that “Job creation is a completely wrong approach because the world doesn’t need everyone to have a job in order to produce what is needed for us to live a decent, comfortable life. We need to re-think the whole concept of having a job. When we say we need more jobs, what we really mean is we need is more money to live on.” He argues for a “Basic Income Guarantee,” although calling for it to be “just above the poverty level,” which isn’t enough of a “living wage.” http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17104-jobs-are-not-the-answer