also zero out. ~70% of USians have access to a 401k type plan but only ~50% contribute (HH money stress!).
summary: right idea, wrong # 4/4

welfare cliff as you move over the 3x food #. statistically, if you are in income deciles 20ish-50ish you don't have good (or any) wage related pension (401k), and used to have no, now just bad health insurance (and premium subsidies are now zeroed out in the big ugly bill). many other programs 3/4

a kind of vibes #, as >$134k = top 30% of US HH. a matter of expectations (and here he is possibly correct, but the great variance in US housing costs makes the claim about <$134k suspect).
that said, the OECD# refers to countries with public health systems, and the US does in fact have a huge...2/4

I come out of a geographical (&historical) perspective also. Thus: Harvey. Though I have my disagreements, ofc.

You can pick other ontological divergences that have important policy implications. (Like Neoclassicals vs Veblen or Schumpeter on corporate motivations: competition for profit -> productivity gains vs profit max’g -> search for monopoly and dampens innovation. 10/10

Public choice theory (all govt intervention creates rent seeking groups so govt should not intervene) and eventually get to Hayek & friends (protect the market from democracy to max Econ efficiency).
Best overall book on institututionalists geoffrey hodgson. www.geoffreymhodgson.uk/the-evolutio... 9

But full employment is a political limit, bc it ⬆️ worker power vs Kists, so they mobilize state vs workers. Kalecki = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C... . So going one more step left you can see why you end up with folks like David Harvey. Going right from rational choice, you encounter 8/

to max human betterment (also good for growth). Keynes slides adjacent to Marx by saying govt should minimally incentivize investment, max’ly do it itself, printing money (up to the resource limit). Kalecki says: resource limit is economically not a limit, as each new investment ⬆️ productivity 7/

Now we are in Keynes’ world - “anything we can do (= what physical & labor resources are available) we can afford” - credit creation sets things in motion. Policy issues become controlling excess credit creation by banks (vide 2008); use fiscal policy to max employment & output; use welfare state 6/

Endogenous credit creation= banks create money out of nothing (though usually with some collateral present). When they fund a loan they simply make ledger entries: loan = new asset for bank, deposit owned by borrower (the funding of the loan) = new liability for bank. -> different policy concerns 5/

creation. LFM= savings precede investment, must lower consumption to get savings, savings go in banks & banks then can lend to firms. Leads to policy like must lower taxes on savers (so, no/lo capital gains & dividend taxes, no/lo corp taxes), or austerity (govt spending crowds out savings) etc. 4/

“Critical” then becomes response to that -> new label to distinguish from the new orthodoxy. But critically (pun) in the best versions, not simply hostile 2 Kism but a different ontology. The ontological issues matter! Consider diff implications between a loanable funds model & endogenous credit… 3/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_The... & babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=md...
That all got shut down (domesticated) bc too… critical!
See S Amadae’s excellent book
press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bo...
So PoliEcon is relaunched with the same ontology as neoclassical economics (& Keynes also domesticated). 2/