Capitalist wants government to drive up unemployment by 40-50 per cent and inflict more ‘pain in the economy’ on workers
Two items this Wednesday before the music segment. First, we saw the stark ideology of…
Thomas Fazi and I have been discussing the shape of our next book and I think it will be an interesting and worthwhile followup to Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World (Pluto Books, 2017). We hope it will be published some time late in 2019. One of the angles that will be delved into is the way in which neoliberal narratives and constructs have permeated individual consciousness. Yes, sounds a bit psychological doesn’t it. But there is a strong literature going back to well before the recent period of neoliberalism that allows us to draw some fairly strong conclusions on how the process has worked. It also allows us to make some coherent statements about the dis-junctures that are going on across the world between the people and their polities, which have spawned the support for Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the popularity of far-right movements, the electoral demolition of the traditional social democratic political parties, the election of the new Italian government, and the on-going trouble that the Gilets Jaunes are causing the mainstream political processes in France (and Brussels). The literature also provides a guide as to how the Left might break out of their current malaise based on their tepid yearning for cosmopolitanism, identity and their fear of financial markets to reestablish themselves as the progressive voice of the people. That is what I am writing about at present and here is a snippet.
Here is previous blog post on this topic – Humans are intrinsically anti neo-liberal (May 22, 2017).
I have long considered that traditional Left-wing values align much more closely with what we, as humans, want as basic outcomes for our lives, than the competitive, individualistic norms encouraged by neoliberalism.
When I was a student (particularly at postgraduate level) and studying the works of Marx in depth, I was continually confronted with the claim that socialism is against human nature, which apparently is competitive and dog-eat-dog in form.
I was told that people are intrinsically selfish and evolutionary biology tells us that.
In a New York Times article (May 12, 1998) – Scientist at Work: Edward O. Wilson; From Ants to Ethics: A Biologist Dreams Of Unity of Knowledge – journalist Nicholas Wade wrote:
Karl Marx, Dr. Wilson once joked when talking about ants, was correct: he just applied his theory to the wrong species.
He was referring to the work of American biologist, Edward O. Wilson who thought that humans were intrinsically unsuited for a sharing-type of collective society.
The concept of the ‘selfish gene’ (a la Richard Dawkins) was pushed to negate the view that altruism in groups was possible and hence neoliberalism was some sort of ‘natural’ order aligned with our intrinsic nature..
Commenting on the path-breaking article in Nature (The evolution of eusociality (August 26, 2010)), E.O. Wilson told the UK Guardian in 2010 that in relation to the “concept of a selfish gene” (Source):
I have abandoned it and I think most serious scientists working on it have abandoned it …
The Nature article (you can access it it HERE), dramatically revised what biologists thought was accepted doctrine on ‘kin selection’.
In terms of the application to human society, E.O. Wilson said during an interview with the Discover Magazine – E.O. Wilson’s Theory of Altruism Shakes Up Understanding of Evolution (April 28, 2011) that:
In human terms, family is not so important after all; altruism emerges to protect social groups whether they are kin or not. When people compete against each other they are selfish, but when group selection becomes important, then the altruism characteristic of human societies kicks in …
Group altruism dominates over selfishness because it ensures the survival of the group, while the latter is an inferior strategy in this regard.
The point is that I never considered the ‘selfish gene’ view to be evidence-based given what I had read, at the time, in the psychology, sociology and anthropology literature.
That sort of literature has, of course, expanded dramatically in the intervening decades and I have been catching up on it as we draft the new manuscript.
The relevant concepts that I think bear on this line of enquiry relate to the two types of motivation that psychologists distinguish between based on the rewards that are forthcoming: extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation.
In 1971, Edward L. Deci published a path-breaking article – Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation – (in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(1), pp. 105-115), asked the question (p.105):
If a boy who enjoys mowing lawns begins to receive payment for the task, what will happen to his intrinsic motivation for performing this activity?
Edward Deci wrote that (p.105):
One is said to be intrinsically motivated to perform an activity when he receives no ap- parent rewards except the activity itself. This intrinsic motivation might be either innate or learned
The study sought to “the effects of external rewards on this motivation … Will his intrinsic motivation for the activity decrease, increase, or remain the same?”
Up until that time (1971), it was concluded “that external rewards decrease intrinsic motivation” but the literature was far from definitive on the matter.
On the one hand, when an extrinsic reward is offered “the locus of control or the knowledge or feeling of personal causation shifts to an external source, leading him to become ‘a pawn’ to the source of external rewards”.
Extrinsic rewards “affect the person’s concept of why he is working and his attitude toward the work”.
Note: I apologise for the male-language his, he etc but the literature was published prior to 1971.
There was also a strand of literature that indicated “that insufficient external rewards will lead to enhanced intrinsic motivation”.
We will see that this is important in helping us understand the growing rebellion against neoliberalism.
Other studies had found that when an external reward was introduced, the intrinsic motivation declines but then increases when the reward is reduced – an “enhancement” effect.
After a series of experiments (I cannot link to the article because it is behind the library subscription paywall), Edward Deci concluded:
1. “when money is used as an external reward for some activity, the subjects lose intrinsic motivation for the activity.”
2. But “that when verbal reinforcement and positive feedback are used as the external rewards, the subjects’ intrinsic motivation seems to increase relative to the non-rewarded subjects”.
3. “money may work to “buy off” one’s intrinsic motivation for an activity. And this decreased motivation appears (from the results of the field experiment) to be more than just a temporary phenomenon.”
4. “rewards such as social approval do not seem to affect a person’s phenomenology in the same way.”
This was the first study to really state that “extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation”.
A later meta analysis published by the Psychological Bulletin in 1999 by Edward Deci and co-authors, of the intervening research since Deci had published his ground-breaking article in 1971, examined 128 extant studies of “the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation”.
1. “the undermining of intrinsic motivation by tangible rewards is indeed a significant issue”.
2. “verbal rewards tended to enhance intrinsic motivation … expected tangible rewards did significantly and substantially undermine intrinsic motivation …”
[Reference: Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., and Ryan, R. M. (1999) ‘A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation’, Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.125.6.627]
This research informed the development of – Self-determination theory – which really began with Edward Deci’s 1971 study.
[Reference: Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.55.1.68]
Self-determination theory (SDT) considers that (p.68):
The fullest representations of humanity show people to be curious, vital, and self-motivated. At their best, they are agentic and inspired, striving to learn; extend themselves; master new skills; and apply their talents responsibly. That most people show considerable effort, agency, and commitment in their lives appears, in fact, to be more normative than exceptional, suggesting some very positive and persistent features of human nature.
But, “it is also clear that the human spirit can be diminished or crushed and that individuals sometimes reject growth and responsibility” (p.68).
SDT “is an approach to human motivation and personality … that highlights the importance of humans’ evolved inner resources for personality development and behavioural self-regulation” (p.68).
It relates to (p.68):
… people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs that are the basis for their self-motivation and personality integration, as well as for the conditions that foster those positive processes …
we have identified three such needs – the needs for competence … relatedness … and autonomy … that appear to be essential for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural propensities for growth and integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal well-being.
These needs are nurtured or frustrated within the social environment and as we move further away from self-determined states where intrinsic motivation is based on inherent satisfaction, interest, to non-self-determined states, extrinsic motivation with external rewards and punishments begin to dominate behaviour and intrinsic motivation drops.
You can guess where this is leading.
In brief, these basic needs are:
“Competence”, according to Robert White’s 1959 study relates “to an organism’s capacity to interact effectively with its environment” (p. 297).
Earlier notions of “basic instinct” as motivating “exploratory behavior, manipulation, and general activity” are found to be wanting (p. 328).
Instead, Robert White says that humans are motivated to produce “a feeling of efficacy” (p.329) and the desire to achieve mastery.
[Reference: White, R.W. (1959) ‘Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence’, Psychological Review, 66(5), 297-333. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1961-04411-001]
“Relatedness” is about the “need to belong” and to form interpersonal attachments” which Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary described in their 1995 article.
[Reference: Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995) ‘The Need to Belong – Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human-Motivation’. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. Baumeister, RF and Leary, MR ]
The “need to belong” is a “fundamental human motivation” and requires that we have (p.497):
… frequent, affectively pleasant interactions with a few other people, and … these interactions must take place in the context of temporally stable and enduring framework of affective concern for each others’ welfare …
This is much more than the “No [person] is an island” epithet (p.497).
Baumeister and Leary argue (p.498) that the “belongingness hypothesis might help psychology recover from the challenge posed by cultural materialism”:
Cultural materialism … is based on the assumption that human culture is shaped primarily by economic needs and opportunities, and so historical, anthropological, sociologicial, and other cultural patterns should mainly be analyzed with reference to economic causes … belongingness … would suggest that human culture is … adapted to enable people to satisfy the psychological need to live together …
Finally, “Autonomy” is discussed in Edward Deci and Martin Vansteenkiste’s 2004 article on positive psychology.
[Reference: Deci, E.L. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2004) ‘Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology’, Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(1), 23-40 . http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2004_DeciVansteenkiste_SDTandBasicNeedSatisfaction.pdf]
The authors argued that while “activity and optimal development are inherent to the human organism, these do not happen automatically. For people to actualize their inherent nature and potentials … they require nutriments from the social environment” (p.24).
The need for autonomy (p.25):
… concerns people’s universal urge to be causal agents, to experience volition, to act in accord with their integrated sense of self … and to endorse their actions at the highest level of reflective capacity … To be autonomous does not mean to be independent of others, but rather it means to feel a sense of willingness and choice when acting …
We can bring the ideas of intrinsic motivation and self-determination together in a straightforward manner.
Where an external reward undermines the sense of autonomy, intrinsic motivation declines.
Where external rewards appear as “instruments of social control, they can leave people feeling like pawns to the rewards … [which] … thwarts the people’s need for autonomy” (p.27).
The research strongly suggests that (pp.34-35):
autonomy-supportive interpersonal climates and environments focused on the attainment of intrinsic goal pursuits are likely to yield optimal development, presumably because they promote basic need satisfaction. In contrast, controlling contexts and extrinsic goals have been found to result in passivity and impaired performance because such contexts and goals tend to thwart basic need satisfaction.
When I started studying economics I was told by professors that neoclassical principles apply universally irrespective of culture, language etc.
And I witnessed as I was developing as an academic, IMF missions flying into nations (such as Korea) on a Friday afternoon, barricading themselves up in expensive hotels in the city centre, cursorily pouring over documents brought to them by government technocrats, eating and drinking lavishly in between, flying out Sunday and then …
Publishing a shock-doctrine report on what the government needs to do to solve their problems – privatisation, austerity etc.
The time spent over the weekend must have been the time they took to search and replace ‘Nation X’ for ‘Nation Y’ in the standardised report they would pump out at the end of such visits.
This is universality in action – an absence of context, history, culture etc.
But the conception of personal motivation in the work of Edward Deci and his colleagues over the years is in stark contrast to the construction of human behaviour in standard economics textbooks, which reflects what we now think of as the neoliberal ideal.
The neoliberal era has elevated the idea the individuals are rational, selfish beings who seek personal goals independent of their environment and social groups as a result of external incentives (rewards and punishments).
The pyschology literature, as noted above, sees humanity caught in a bind – between the intrinsic needs and motivations and the external rewards that work, in many cases, to undermine these basic needs.
Behavioural studies reinforce our reciprocating nature and our desire to find cooperative solutions when available. Trust and belongingness are complex motivations that defy the simple idea that we want external financial rewards before we will act.
In the 2005 edited book – Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life (MIT Press) by Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles and Ernst Fehr, the Chapter by Elinor Ostrom – Policies That Crowd out Reciprocity and Collective Action – argues that (p.260):
1. External interventions crowd out intrinsic motivation if the individuals affected perceive them to be controlling. In this case, both self determination and self-esteem suffer, and the individuals react by reducing their intrinsic motivation in the activity controlled.
2. External interventions crowd in intrinsic motivation if the individuals affected perceive them to be supportive. In this case, self-esteem is fostered, and individuals feel that they are given more freedom to act, thus enlarging self-determination (emphasis in original)
In other words, economic policies that assume we are only motivated by external financial reward are likely to elicit the first response rather than the second.
US academic David Kotz wrote in 2002 that:
Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a “free market economy”) not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. The state is assigned a very limited economic role: defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and regulating the money supply.1 State intervention to correct market failures is viewed with suspicion, on the ground that such intervention is likely to create more problems than it solves.
The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. These recommendations include deregulation of business; privatization of public activities and assets; elimination of, or cutbacks in, social welfare programs; and reduction of taxes on businesses and the investing class. In the international sphere, neoliberalism calls for free movement of goods, services, capital, and money (but not people) across national boundaries.
[Reference: Kotz, D.M. (2002) ‘Globalization and Neoliberalism’, Rethinking Marxism, 12(2), 64-79].
The hallmarks of this approach are to emphasise external rewards and punishments and to take autonomy away from individuals despite continually claiming that neoliberalism is all about individual freedom and choice.
I will write more about concepts of individual freedom another day.
When Margaret Thatcher espoused her famous – There is no alternative (TINA) mantra – that the ‘market’ and ‘external rewards’ were the only way to organise the economy – she was undermining intrinsic motivation and self-determination.
I have juxtaposed two visions of the economy in previous blog posts.
For example, Towards a progressive concept of efficiency – Part 1 (July 18, 2016).
This graphic summarises the point.
It is derived from Anat Shenker-Osorio’s 2012 book – Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy and provides two alternative visions of the way we think of the people, our natural environment and the economy.
[Reference: Shenker-Osorio, A. (1987) Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy, New York, Public Affairs. References are frm the eBook version]
The left hand panel represents the dominant neo-liberal view, where the basic assumption is that “people and nature exist primarily to serve the economy” (Shenker-Osorio, 2012: Location 439).
In the 1980s, we began to live in economies rather than societies or communities as the neo-liberal narrative gained supremacy.
The economy is figured as a deity that is removed from us though it recognises our endeavours and rewards us accordingly. We are required to have faith (confidence), work hard and make the necessary sacrifices for the good of the ‘economy’: those who do not are rightfully deprived of such rewards. They are miscreants – recidivists – sinners!
The economy is also figured as a living entity. If the government intervenes in the competitive process and provides an avenue where the undeserving (lazy, etc.) can receive rewards then the system becomes ‘sick’.
The solution is to restore the economy’s natural processes (its health), which entails the elimination of government intervention such as minimum wages, job protection, and income support.
This is all about loss of autonomy, loss of competence and loss of relatedness.
External rewards and punishment dominate.
The right-hand panel represents an alternative view of the economy, where the economy works for us as our construction and people are organically embedded and nurtured by the natural environment.
Shenkar-Osorio (2012: Location 1037) says:
This image depicts the notion that we, in close connection with and reliance upon our natural environment, are what really matters. The economy should be working on our behalf. Judgments about whether a suggested policy is positive or not should be considered in light of how that policy will promote our well-being, not how much it will increase the size of the economy.
In this view, the economy is seen as a ‘constructed object’ and policy interventions should be appraised in terms of how functional they are in relation to our broad goals, which a progressive vision would articulate in terms of advancing public wellbeing and maximising the potential for all citizens within the limits of environmental sustainability.
The focus shifts to one of placing our human goals and needs at the centre of our thinking about the economy.
In this narrative, people create the economy.
However, the neoliberal era has elevated the first conception and the consequential domination of external rewards have dominated our intrinsic motivation.
There have been clearly defined stages in this process.
The Communitarian sentiment that prevailed after the Second World War was corrupted by the monied interests of capital in the recovery period, in part, by the rise of mass consumption.
Please read my blog post – The mass consumption era and the rise of neo-liberalism (January 7, 2016) – for more discussion on this point.
This patterned behaviour based on mass consumption was coercive but it diverted attention away from the essential conflicts between labour and capital, which had been more apparent to everyone during the production era before the consumption possibilities expanded for all.
The conformity also allowed capitalists to saturate ‘markets’ with mass produced and ever cheaper products that delivered high margins.
The inner dissatisfaction that accompanied our loss of intrinsic motivation was ‘compensated’ for by the abundance of mass produced goods like never before.
Significantly, the new consumption boom also meant that the distribution of national income had to shift so that workers could purchase the ever-growing flow of goods (and then services) into the shops.
And real wages grew in line with productivity and the problem of capitalist realisation was averted. A period of relative calm emerged and the shopping centres crammed with all manner of goods functioned as the sedative.
This was the period before the financial deregulation began and capital had yet to discover that it could have it both ways: it could suppress real wages growth and still realise the surplus value on the ever-increasing volume of output it was producing by simply loading households up with debt.
The financial engineers would come along a little later to facilitate that new era of financial capital. But during the full employment era, capitalism was forced to share the spoils more evenly and mass consumption and real wages growth was the manifestation of that accommodation.
A related phase was the degradation of work brilliantly documented by the reat American author and activist – Harry Braverman – in his magnificent book – Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New York, Monthly Review Press, 1974).
Harry Braverman wrote (pp.170-171):
Thus, after a million years of labour, during which humans created not only a complex social culture but in a very real sense created themselves as well, the very cultural-biological trait upon which this entire evolution is founded has been brought, within the last two hundred years, to a crisis, a crisis which Marcuse aptly calls the threat of a “catastrophe of the human essence”. The unity of thought and action, conception and execution, hand and mind which capitalism threatened from its beginnings, is now attacked by a systematic dissolution employing all the resources of science and the various engineering disciplines based upon it. The subjective factor of the labour process is removed to a place among its inanimate objective factors. To the materials and instruments of production are added a “labour force”, another “factor of production”, and the process is henceforth carried on by management as the sole subjective element.
Progressively, these “labour processes” (market-values) have subsumed our whole lives – sport, leisure, learning, family – the lot. Everything becomes a capitalist surplus-creating process.
The mass consumption era morphed into something even more comprehensive where aspects of our lives that were previously consider ‘non work’ (which meant non capitalist) became markets, with commodities supplied to support. The technological gadget revolution has accelerated this process.
If we judge all human endeavour and activity by whether they are of value in a sense that we judge private profit making then we will limit our potential and our happiness.
This period of sedation, however, was interrupted by the neoliberal financial market deregulation and attacks on trade unions.
First, real wages started lagging behind productivity growth as national income was redistributed towards profits.
Second, to avert a realisation disaster, financial engineering entered the fray and the credit explosion began (in the 1980s).
Please read my blog post – The origins of the economic crisis (February 16, 2009) – for more discussion on this point.
So we entered a period where not only were government services being cut back but workers were unable to gain satisfactory real wage increases despite the rise in productivity and so were reliant on increasing personal debt to maintain their mass consumption.
Neoliberalism was getting ahead of itself.
The domination of external rewards and the suppression of self determination started to create ‘losers’ and the loss of self-esteem and autonomy translated into dissatisfaction with the system and a rising sense of dislocation.
That is the conjecture here.
The domination of ‘competitive’, ‘individualistic’ constructs in our society have undermined our intrinsic motivations.
For a time, the elevation of external incentives were effective but as neoliberalism started to withdraw them from workers (real wage constraints, excessive debt, foreclosures, etc), they have started to work in a negative fashion, which is undermining their purpose.
In other words, our intrinsic needs are reasserting themselves and group behaviour is on the rise.
Our evolutionary capacities for empathy and belongingness are powerful and when the external rewards are not forthcoming they reassert their influence on our behaviour.
I have often stated that people will only tolerate being suppressed for so long.
It is reasonable to conjecture that the social instability and rebellions that are manifesting around the world in various forms, many of which are not progressive at all, reflect a desire to pursue intrinsic motivation in an environment where the provision of external rewards looks more like punishment and loss than advancement.
The neoliberal capacity to dominate intrinsic motivation and the subjugation of basic needs with external rewards is in decline.
The tensions that are emerging reflect that.
It is possible that the game is up and we are in the death throes of neoliberalism.
The problem then is that the void is being filled by the Right rather than the Left, which is still supporting ideas that are part of the problem not the solution.
This literature suggests that people want to have work that is secure – whether it be full-time or not. They want some control over their income generating destiny.
Zero hour contracts and rising casualisation with attendent underemployment is the anathema of this need.
People want to have security of housing and not be thrown to the rental market wolves.
At the same time, they are increasingly aware that their sense of security is compromising the capacity of their children to enter the housing market.
People want to see their local communities prospering in a qualitative sense – they don’t want to see whole areas waste away through joblessness and the withdrawal of public services.
People want reliable and cheap public transport systems.
They want public education systems that allow their children to gain mobility as adults. They don’t want public schools starved of funds while private schools receive government handouts and provide the children enrolled with a surfeit of resources.
People want a clean and sustainable environment.
People want effective and affordable health services. They don’t want a system where the rich can access better health care while the poor lose their teeth for want of financial capacity.
People do not want the urban centres prospering while the peripheral regions die a slow and pain death from lack of work and lack of public investment.
And on and on.
These are all needs which appeal to the core values of the traditional Left.
They are the anathema of the approaches taken by the confected Left of the Third Way or the Blairites or the PayGo Democrats or the ‘we will run a bigger surplus’ Labour parties or the ‘we will impose harsher austerity’ of the European social democrat parties.
People are sick of the banks ripping us off. They are sick of Wall-Street/London City types swanning around on huge salaries when it is obvious they add nothing productive to society.
They are sick of Labour Party types who then claim the government is powerless against these financial types.
There is a solid agenda for the Left, if only it has the courage to end its dalliance with neoliberalism and corporatism (such as the Europhile Left who hang onto the EU as a security blanket).
The last word goes to Tony Benn. In an interview with PNS (October 17, 2000) – Commanding Heights – he was asked:
Q: So do you see the pendulum swinging back the other way? Will the movement progress toward free markets, or reverse and go back again?
… I mean, the political power of a big corporation — I’ve dealt with them all my life. I mean, I was the energy minister, so I used to deal with the oil companies. And Esso once came to me and said, “We’re not working with you because you’re of a different political philosophy.” So I said, “Thank you very much,” and they went out. I had all the North Sea oil and I had to allocate it, so I didn’t give any to Esso. They came back a year later, and they were on their knees. Amoco wouldn’t cooperate, so they didn’t get any more North Sea oil, so they sacked their top management and came back and got it [from me]. I mean, we’re much more powerful in dealing with big corporations than anyone believes. I remember IBM tried to cancel out our devaluation of the pound by raising the price of all their goods. So I put pressure on them, and they had to capitulate. But you’ve got to fight for the people you elect.
And if the government said, “We’re not having that with Ford,” then Ford would realize they’d better change their policy. Governments are big purses. I mean, if Ford closes its plant in Dagenham, I’d say to them, “We’re never buying another Ford car for the ministry of defense, for the police force,” [and] Ford would capitulate in five minutes. But we’ve been brainwashed into believing that we’re at the mercy of the corporations. We are not at the mercy of the corporations, but they tried to control us, and now they buy political parties to be their agents …
I am in the process of setting up a 501(c)(3) organisation under US law, which will serve as a funding vehicle for the MMT Education project – MMT University – that I hope to launch early-to-mid 2019.
For equity reasons, I plan to offer all the tuition and material (bar the texts) for free to ensure everyone can participate irrespective of personal financial circumstance.
Even if I was to charge some fees the project would need additional financial support to ensure it will be sustainable.
So to make it work I am currently seeking sponsors for this venture.
The 501(c)(3) funding structure means you can contribute to the not-for-profit organisation (which will be at arm’s length to the not-for-profit educational venture) in the knowledge that your support will not be publicly known.
Alternatively, if you wish to have your support for the venture publicly acknowledged there will information presented on the Home Page of the MMT University to acknowledge that funding.
To ensure the project has longevity I am hoping to obtain some long-term support proposals.
At present, I estimate I will need about AUD 150k per year.
Note that most of these funds will support an administrative support staff (1 person fractional), data charges, and video editing and design staff (as needed).
I will personally take no payment for the work I am putting into the project nor will other key Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) academics, who have agreed to help in the educational program.
So I cannot do this without sufficient support. My research group does not have the financial capacity to support this venture.
I also do not wish to place advertisements on my blog posts.
You will be contributing to a progressive venture.
Please E-mail me if you can help.
I have some funding pledges already but I am not near the target yet.
That is enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2019 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.