If the cantillon effect exists then it would apply to all monopolies including geographic monopolies. Why do people then single out "money printing" which is a fully decentralised process done by commercial banks? If you can found a new bank you get to do your own "money printing".
If anything I would be more worried about the cantillon effect of income taxes because they are collected decentrally but spent centrally leading to geographic redistribution of funds. Geographic concentration of money in say NYC and SF also has its own cantillon effect.
Monopolies like Visa or MasterCard take a cut that is basically the same as a tax because it is so widespread and they spend it centrally which also has its own cantillon effect. You don't need "money printing" for a cantillon effect and since central banks don't "print money" they are completely irrelevant for the cantillon effect. This makes me think the whole thing is always argued in bad faith and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Edit: Today's mainstream economics is neoclassical economics since the 70s, exactly when wealth inequality started skyrocketing in his fancy charts. Keynesian economics hasn't been mainstream for decades. The article is in fact written in bad faith.
You don't seem to understand what Cantillon effect is.
Since the Fed has been printing more money than every in history, the effect is very strong - Wall Street and elites who can "play big" on Wall Street and Business are at the entry point of that printed money. It's FAR MORE than either income tax or credit cars - by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!
Neoliberal Economics IS Keynesian Economics. Printing money to solve problems IS Keynesian Economcis.
Neoliberal economics is commonly correlated to monetarism, which came as a response against the implementation of Keynesian economics before it. Reducing Keynesian economics solely to printing money also seems overly reductionist.
I'd say the Fed is more interested in propping up growth rates regardless of the fundamental instability or the unfair effects of a more unfettered capitalism.
Fascinating (if biased) history on Keynesian economics for the layperson. Certainly _feels_ relevent to the post-COVID economy though I'm not too sure on the "bitcoin will fix everything" conclusion. Malthusianism and eugenics aren't a good look for Keynes especially in light of his affinity for wealth division and central planning.
> Contrary to the popular platitudes that socialism and communism are about achieving equality for all, going so far to prescribe absurdities like “equality of outcome”. The reality, documented by the likes of Dr. Kristian Niemietz in his “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”, is that the only equality brought about by collectivism is where everybody beneath the thin scab of elites and their apparatchiks are equally mired in poverty and servitude.
That needs to be repeated.
People think that inequality is when someone can buy a 300 foot yacht, or a $100 million mansion. True and brutal inequality is when someone can kill you in daylight and walk away with it. In countries like the US or Weastern Europe you may get away with murder (like O.J. Simpson), but that's not guaranteed at all. In communist countries if you were very high in the political apparatus, then you could literally kill someone with witnesses, and walk free. Without a trial.
I suspect things like that happen in other countries too, where the rule of law is weak. For example in Mexico (where the cartels kill left and right, and people know who ordered what murders).
There some people are above the law. That's true inequality.
> but that's not guaranteed at all. In communist countries if you were very high in the political apparatus, then you could literally kill someone with witnesses, and walk free. Without a trial.
This is conflating economic freedom with rule of law. Apparatchiks of the Pinochet regime were free to kill and torture people without fear, that doesn't make it communist.
> COVID stimulus showed how the lubricant for a globalized socialism was the monetary printing press.
Economic stimulus comes from taxes and bonds, not from printing money. This is a grave error that casts a pall over the entire article. I stopped reading.
If anything I would be more worried about the cantillon effect of income taxes because they are collected decentrally but spent centrally leading to geographic redistribution of funds. Geographic concentration of money in say NYC and SF also has its own cantillon effect.
Monopolies like Visa or MasterCard take a cut that is basically the same as a tax because it is so widespread and they spend it centrally which also has its own cantillon effect. You don't need "money printing" for a cantillon effect and since central banks don't "print money" they are completely irrelevant for the cantillon effect. This makes me think the whole thing is always argued in bad faith and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Edit: Today's mainstream economics is neoclassical economics since the 70s, exactly when wealth inequality started skyrocketing in his fancy charts. Keynesian economics hasn't been mainstream for decades. The article is in fact written in bad faith.