DOCSLIB.ORG

Modern Monetary Theory Delusions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Modern Monetary Theory Delusions A reprinted article from November/December 2019 Modern Monetary Theory Delusions By Charles Lieberman, PhD ® © 2019 Investments & Wealth Institute®, formerly IMCA. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. NOVEMBER DECEMBER FEATURE 2019 Modern Monetary Theory Delusions By Charles Lieberman, PhD hot debate has erupted over “modern monetary theory” A (MMT), which promoters allege With one notable exception, every time governments have justifies an increase in government printed money copiously to pay bills, the result was rising deficit spending to pay for the Green inflation and, in the extreme, hyperinflation. New Deal and other programs. The government would issue as much debt as needed to raise funds, and the Federal Reserve (the Fed) would buy by Keynesians and has been mainstream With one notable exception, every time the debt by printing the money. MMT for many years. But Kelton goes further governments have printed money copi- proponents claim there would be no by maintaining there is no limit to the ously to pay bills, the result was rising adverse consequences because the debt size of the budget deficit that can be run inflation and, in the extreme, hyperinfla- is denominated in dollars and the Fed as long as there is no inflation problem— tion. Two egregious examples are the can print as many dollars as required. and she sees no link between too much Weimar Republic and its hyperinflation federal spending and inflation. She calls in Germany in the 1920s and Zimbabwe One vocal and visible MMT promoter is such a link “hard to believe.” Others, in 2008–2009. Both printed vast, seem- Stephanie Kelton, former chief econo- however, believe that MMT misses the ingly unlimited quantities of money to mist of the Senate Budget Committee for inevitable link between too much federal finance government spending, but they the Democratic minority staff, a former spending, printing money, and inflation. paid for this behavior with runaway senior advisor to Bernie Sanders, and a inflation. Recently, Venezuela, which is professor of economics at Stony Brook THE SOMETIMES TRAGIC experiencing eroding oil revenues, has University. Kelton has argued that any HISTORY OF DEFICIT FINANCE managed its deficits by printing more country engaged in MMT doesn’t have a The legal ability to print money has long money, and its inflation rate has risen deficit problem unless it has an inflation been held exclusively by government, from around 800 percent annually in problem; she states that running very despite the best efforts of counterfeiters. 2016 to an estimated 1-million percent large deficits does not lead to rising Economies need currency with which in 2018. These are the extreme examples inflation (Helfand 2019; Malter 2019). to conduct business transactions. In trotted out to explain why printing Kelton notes that because the U.S. gov- supplying money to their economies, money is economically dangerous. ernment can print its own money to governments enjoy seigniorage, which meet any obligation (the Fed would do is the difference between the face value More moderate versions are more com- the printing and buy the Treasury’s of money, such as a $10 bill, and the mon, with lesser but still problematical newly issued debt), it is not possible for cost to produce it. Governments can results. When Italy and France had their the U.S. government to ever become print currency at little cost and use it to own currencies, both economies contin- insolvent. This is true, but others believe buy goods and services for the govern- ually suffered from higher inflation than that dire consequences will ensue. ment beyond whatever tax revenues the rest of Europe. They found it difficult they can impose on their economies. politically to pay for their high level of Kelton’s argument stands on the basic And for the most part, governments government spending with taxes, so view that increased government spend- have handled this ability to print money they made up the difference by printing ing is desirable to fight high unem– fairly responsibly. But they can and have money and tended to have higher infla- ployment, even when that spending gone overboard with severe adverse tion than their neighbors. These higher creates a deficit. This basic view is held consequences. inflation rates weakened their currencies 44 INVESTMENTS & WEALTH MONITOR © 2019 Investments & Wealth Institute, formerly IMCA. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. NOVEMBER FEATURE | MODERN MONetarY THEORY DELUSIONS DECEMBER 2019 to offset the rise in domestic prices Figure CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE and to maintain competitiveness. 1 11 Neighboring governments resented that the French and Italians were always 10 weakening their currencies in order to maintain their competitiveness to sell 9 goods. So, the Europeans pressed to 8 adopt a single currency that would make competitive devaluations a thing of the 7 past. Indeed, when the Italians and 6 French pegged their currencies to the Percent rest of Europe, their higher rates of infla- 5 tion killed their competitiveness and 4 they suffered high unemployment even when they chose to run larger govern- 3 ment budget deficits. 2 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Some Latin American countries, such ■ U.S. recessions as Argentina and Brazil, also have cho- sen to fund budget deficits by printing Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, fred.stlouisfed.org money to pay for their spending. These episodes also ended badly. Bonds issued growth for more than two decades. It Inflation results when demand for goods in their own currencies required ever also has a shrinking population as well and services exceeds supply, so rising higher interest rates to compensate as a highly acquiescent population that prices are required to offset the differ- investors for rising inflation, so these seeks order and favors existing institu- ence. For example, consider an economy governments resorted to issuing bonds tions. Workers don’t strike for higher with $19 trillion in demand that is pro- in foreign currencies, such as the wages in Japan. Redundant workers ducing $19 trillion in goods when the U.S. dollar. But the international invest- aren’t fired; they0 are givendead -end government chooses to increase its ment community’s appetite for Latin jobs with nothing to do. It isn’t clear spending by $1 trillion financed by American bond issues in the U.S. dollar that any other–10,000 nation could mimic the printing money. There is now demand was sated when foreign investors wor- Japanese economy, assuming it wished for $20 trillion of goods and services, ried they’d never be repaid. A buyer’s to do so. Regardless,–20,000 we haven’t yet seen but only $19 trillion is being produced. revolt resulted in a financial meltdown in how Japan’s huge budget deficit will There are two possible outcomes. The –30,000 Latin America in the 1980s, because play out. first is that the economy expands more those governments could no longer fund quickly so output increases to meet that –40,000 their deficits.1 THE CASE FOR AND higher level of demand. This is feasible AGAINSTMillions of Dollars MMT when unemployed workers can be hired –50,000 Even the United States has succumbed Kelton’s argument seems to be based on to increase output. In this case, deficit to this temptation. In the 1960s, when the observable–60,000 fact that the U.S. govern- spending may be desirable. Indeed, this Lyndon Johnson sought to finance ment is running a large budget deficit is precisely when Keynesians argue that “guns and butter” spending on Great today without–70,000 experiencing worrisome fiscal stimulus should be used to help Society programs and also pay for a war rising inflation. MMT advocates1995 don’t2000 the2005 economy get2010 back to full2015 employ- in Vietnam, inflation surged. The Fed seem to offer any■ U.S. explanation recessions of what ment quickly following a recession. imposed historically high interest rates does cause inflation, and Kelton rejects in order to squeeze inflation out of the outright the possibility that inflation The second possibility is that the excess U.S. economy and bring down federal may increase in response to large budget demand drives up inflation. The gap deficits. deficits albeit with a lag. MMT adher- between $20 trillion in demand and ents also claim that if inflation were to $19 trillion in supply can be closed by The notable exception to large budget increase, then government could prevent a 5-percent price increase across the deficits without rising inflation is Japan, a surge by raising taxes. That may be board, so that the $19 trillion in supply is where the debt to gross domestic prod- true in theory, but in practice, govern- repriced to cost $20 trillion. This situa- uct ratio is about 2.5, well above the U.S. ments raise or lower taxes when such tion arises when the economy is already ratio of about 1.0. Yet Japan has been in action is politically expedient, not when at full employment, hiring is difficult recession or experienced rather little it is most appropriate for the economy. because unemployed labor is scarce, and INVESTMENTS & WEALTH MONITOR 45 © 2019 Investments & Wealth Institute, formerly IMCA. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. © 2019 Investments & Wealth Institute, formerly IMCA. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. NOVEMBER DECEMBER FEATURE | MODERN MONetarY THEORY DELUSIONS 2019 Figure SHORT-RUN PHILLIPS CURVE injected incremental spending into an 2 economy already enjoying low unem- ployment. Most economists expected the 8% tax cut to prove inflationary. The very fact that it has not resulted in a surge in inflation has been taken up by MMT pro- ponents as evidence to suggest it won’t 5% and shouldn’t be expected to do so.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introductory Discussions of Supply and Demand and of the Working of the Price Mechanism Normally Treat Quantities Demanded and S
    STRATHCLYDE DISCUSSION PAPERS IN ECONOMICS ‘ECONOMIC GEOMETRY’: MARSHALL’S AND OTHER EARLY REPRESENTATIONS OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY. BY ROY GRIEVE NO. 08-06 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE GLASGOW ‘ECONOMIC GEOMETRY’: MARSHALL’S AND OTHER EARLY REPRESENTATIONS OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY ROY GRIEVE1 ABSTRACT Does an apparent (minor) anomaly, said to occur not infrequently in elementary expositions of supply and demand theory, really imply – as seems to be suggested – that there is something a bit odd about Marshall’s diagrammatic handling of demand and supply? On investigation, we find some interesting differences of focus and exposition amongst the theorists who first developed the ‘geometric’ treatment of demand and supply, but find no reason, despite his differences from other marginalist pioneers such as Cournot, Dupuit and Walras, to consider Marshall’s treatment either as unconventional or forced, or as to regard him as the ‘odd man out’. Introduction In the standard textbooks, introductory discussions of demand and supply normally treat quantities demanded and supplied as functions of price (rather than vice versa), and complement that discussion with diagrams in the standard format, showing price on the vertical axis and quantities demanded and supplied on the horizontal axis. No references need be cited. Usually this presentation is accepted without comment, but it can happen that a more numerate student observes that something of an anomaly appears to exist – in that the diagrams show price, which, 1 Roy’s thanks go to Darryl Holden who raised the question about Marshall's diagrams, and for his subsequent advice, and to Eric Rahim, as always, for valuable comment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and How to Build a Better
    PANOECONOMICUS, 2021, Vol. 68, Issue 3, pp. 405-414 Book review Received: 09 May 2020. Boris Begović The Deficit Myth: Modern University of Belgrade, School of Law, Serbia Monetary Theory and [email protected] How to Build a Better Economy by Stephanie Kelton John Murray Publishers, 2020. According to the title, this book is about a theory (a monetary one) and about a policy proposal (improvement of resource allocation and speeding up economic growth, with perhaps some redistribution). According to Stephane Kelton, the author of the book, it is about widespread myths and the way that these myths can be overcome. It is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), humbly referred to as a Copernican revolution by the au- thor, that will dispel all these myths. Just for the record, these myths are conventional wisdoms, insights accepted by most academic economists worldwide, all mainstream economists, and virtually all decision-makers, wither elected representatives or civil servants in the central banks and ministries of finance. So, all of them are wrong and MMT and its representatives are right. Nonetheless, being in the minority, or rather alone, does not necessarily mean that you are wrong. The majority opinion is not necessarily right only because it is held by the majority. After all, Nicolaus Copernicus was (almost) alone when he made the scientific revolution. So, it is necessary to consider the insights of the MMT, the argu- ments that those insights are based on, and the evidence that supports them to see whether that theory is superior in explaining reality. At the end of the day, the purpose of economic theory is to explain reality, to identify causality relations, and to enable us to understand why people behave the way they do.
    [Show full text]
  • Supply and Demand Is Not a Neoclassical Concern
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Supply and Demand Is Not a Neoclassical Concern Lima, Gerson P. Macroambiente 3 March 2015 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/63135/ MPRA Paper No. 63135, posted 21 Mar 2015 13:54 UTC Supply and Demand Is Not a Neoclassical Concern Gerson P. Lima1 The present treatise is an attempt to present a modern version of old doctrines with the aid of the new work, and with reference to the new problems, of our own age (Marshall, 1890, Preface to the First Edition). 1. Introduction Many people are convinced that the contemporaneous mainstream economics is not qualified to explaining what is going on, to tame financial markets, to avoid crises and to provide a concrete solution to the poor and deteriorating situation of a large portion of the world population. Many economists, students, newspapers and informed people are asking for and expecting a new economics, a real world economic science. “The Keynes- inspired building-blocks are there. But it is admittedly a long way to go before the whole construction is in place. But the sooner we are intellectually honest and ready to admit that modern neoclassical macroeconomics and its microfoundationalist programme has come to way’s end – the sooner we can redirect our aspirations to more fruitful endeavours” (Syll, 2014, p. 28). Accordingly, this paper demonstrates that current mainstream monetarist economics cannot be science and proposes new approaches to economic theory and econometric method that after replication and enhancement may be a starting point for the creation of the real world economic theory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rock-Star Appeal of Modern Monetary Theory
    The Rock-Star Appeal of Modern Monetary Theory thenation.com/article/the-rock-star-appeal-of-modern-monetary-theory Economic Policy Ethical Economics Feature May 22-29, 2017, Issue The Rock-Star Appeal of Modern Monetary Theory The Sanders generation and a new economic idea. By Atossa Araxia Abrahamian Twitter May 8, 2017 fb tw mail Print May 8, 2017 1/7 (Illustration by Victor Juhasz) Ready to fight back? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. In early 2013, Congress entered a death struggle—or a debt struggle, if you will—over the future of the US economy. A spate of old tax cuts and spending programs were due to expire almost simultaneously, and Congress couldn’t agree on a budget, nor on how much the government could borrow to keep its engines running. Cue the predictable partisan chaos: House Republicans were staunchly opposed to raising the debt ceiling without corresponding cuts to spending, and Democrats, while plenty weary of running up debt, too, wouldn’t sign on to the Republicans’ proposed austerity. In the absence of political consensus, and with time running out, a curious solution bubbled up from the depths of the economic blogosphere. What if the Treasury minted a $1 trillion coin, deposited it in the government’s account at the Federal Reserve, and continued on with business as usual? The workaround was technically authorized by an obscure law that applies to commemorative platinum coins, and it didn’t require congressional approval, so the GOP couldn’t get in the way.
    [Show full text]
  • FACTORS of SUPPLY & DEMAND Price Quantity Supplied
    FACTORS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND Imagine that a student signed up for a video streaming subscription, a service that costs $9.00 a month to enjoy binge- worthy television and movies at any time of day. A few months into her subscription, she receives a notification that the monthly price will be increasing to $12.00 a month, which is over a 30 percent price increase! The student can either continue with her subscription at the higher price of $12.00 per month or cancel the subscription and use the $12.00 elsewhere. What should the student do? Perhaps she’s willing to pay $12.00 or more in order to access and enjoy the shows and movies that the streaming service provides, but will all other customers react in the same way? It is likely that some customers of the streaming service will cancel their subscription as a result of the increased price, while others are able and willing to pay the higher rate. The relationship between the price of goods or services and the quantity of goods or services purchased is the focus of today’s module. This module will explore the market forces that influence the price of raw, agricultural commodities. To understand what influences the price of commodities, it’s essential to understand a foundational principle of economics, the law of supply and demand. Understand the law of supply and demand. Supply is the quantity of a product that a seller is willing to sell at a given price. The law of supply states that, all else equal, an increase in price results in an increase in the quantity supplied.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Modern Monetary Theory
    An assessment of modern monetary theory M. Kasongo Kashama * Introduction Modern monetary theory (MMT) is a so-called heterodox economic school of thought which argues that elected governments should raise funds by issuing money to the maximum extent to implement the policies they deem necessary. While the foundations of MMT were laid in the early 1990s (Mosler, 1993), its tenets have been increasingly echoed in the public arena in recent years. The surge in interest was first reflected by high-profile British and American progressive policy-makers, for whom MMT has provided a rationale for their calls for Green New Deals and other large public spending programmes. In doing so, they have been backed up by new research work and publications from non-mainstream economists in the wake of Mosler’s work (see, for example, Tymoigne et al. (2013), Kelton (2017) or Mitchell et al. (2019)). As the COVID-19 crisis has been hitting the global economy since early this year, the most straightforward application of MMT’s macroeconomic policy agenda – that is, money- financed fiscal expansion or helicopter money – has returned to the forefront on a wider scale. Some consider not only that it is “time for helicopters” (Jourdan, 2020) but also that this global crisis must become a trigger to build on MMT precepts, not least in the euro area context (Bofinger, 2020). The MMT resurgence has been accompanied by lively political discussions and a heated economic debate, bringing fierce criticism from top economists including P. Krugman, G. Mankiw, K. Rogoff or L. Summers. This short article aims at clarifying what is at stake from a macroeconomic stabilisation perspective when considering MMT implementation in advanced economies, paying particular attention to the euro area.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard Kennedy School Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government Study Group, February 28, 2019
    1 Harvard Kennedy School Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government Study Group, February 28, 2019 MMT (Modern Monetary Theory): What Is It and Can It Help? Paul Sheard, M-RCBG Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School ([email protected]) What Is It? MMT is an approach to understanding/analyzing monetary and fiscal operations, and their economic and economic policy implications, that focuses on the fact that governments create money when they run a budget deficit (so they do not have to borrow in order to spend and cannot “run out” of money) and that pays close attention to the balance sheet mechanics of monetary and fiscal operations. Can It Help? Yes, because at a time in which the developed world appears to be “running out” of conventional monetary and fiscal policy ammunition, MMT casts a more optimistic and less constraining light on the ability of governments to stimulate aggregate demand and prevent deflation. Adopting an MMT lens, rather than being blinkered by the current conceptual and institutional orthodoxy, provides a much easier segue into the coordination of monetary and fiscal policy responses that will be needed in the next major economic downturn. Some context and background: - The current macroeconomic policy framework is based on a clear distinction between monetary and fiscal policy and assigns the primary role for “macroeconomic stabilization” (full employment and price stability and latterly usually financial stability) to an independent, technocratic central bank, which uses a “flexible inflation-targeting” framework. - Ten years after the Global Financial Crisis and Great Recession, major central banks are far from having been able to re-stock their monetary policy “ammunition,” government debt levels are high, and there is much hand- wringing about central banks being “the only game in town” and concern about how, from this starting point, central banks and fiscal authorities will be able to cope with another serious downturn.
    [Show full text]
  • Macroeconomics: an Introduction the Demand for Money
    Lecture Notes for Chapter 7 of Macroeconomics: An Introduction The Demand for Money Copyright © 1999-2008 by Charles R. Nelson 2/19/08 In this chapter we will discuss - What does ‘demand for money’ mean? Why do we need to know about it? What is the price of money? How the supply and demand for money determine the interest rate. The Fed controls the supply of money, so the Fed can control the interest rate. Why Study the Demand for Money? Fed controls the supply of money through open market operations. The demand for money depends on the interest rate. Interest rate is a price, and it adjusts to balance the supply and demand for money. That means the Fed can control interest rates by changing the supply of money. 1 Why are interest rates important? Low interest rates stimulate spending on - plant and equipment - and consumer durables. High interest rates discourage spending, - affect GDP and employment, - finally, prices and wages too. Control over interest rates gives the Fed a lever to move the economy. What is the Demand for Money? How much money would you like to have? - One billion? - Two? That can’t be it. Instead ‘How much money (currency and bank deposits) do you wish to hold, given your total wealth.’ Puzzle - Why hold any money at all? It pays no interest. It loses purchasing power to inflation. 2 Motives for holding money: 1. To settle transactions. - Money is the medium of exchange. 2. As a precautionary store of liquidity. - Money is the most liquid of all assets.
    [Show full text]
  • A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory
    2021 A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory Steven Globerman fraserinstitute.org Contents Executive Summary / i 1. Introducing Modern Monetary Theory / 1 2. Implementing MMT / 4 3. Has Canada Adopted MMT? / 10 4. Proposed Economic and Social Justifications for MMT / 17 5. MMT and Inflation / 23 Concluding Comments / 27 References / 29 About the author / 33 Acknowledgments / 33 Publishing information / 34 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 35 Purpose, funding, and independence / 35 About the Fraser Institute / 36 Editorial Advisory Board / 37 fraserinstitute.org fraserinstitute.org Executive Summary Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a policy model for funding govern- ment spending. While MMT is not new, it has recently received wide- spread attention, particularly as government spending has increased dramatically in response to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and concerns grow about how to pay for this increased spending. The essential message of MMT is that there is no financial constraint on government spending as long as a country is a sovereign issuer of cur- rency and does not tie the value of its currency to another currency. Both Canada and the US are examples of countries that are sovereign issuers of currency. In principle, being a sovereign issuer of currency endows the government with the ability to borrow money from the country’s cen- tral bank. The central bank can effectively credit the government’s bank account at the central bank for an unlimited amount of money without either charging the government interest or, indeed, demanding repayment of the government bonds the central bank has acquired. In 2020, the cen- tral banks in both Canada and the US bought a disproportionately large share of government bonds compared to previous years, which has led some observers to argue that the governments of Canada and the United States are practicing MMT.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Monetary Theory: Cautionary Tales from Latin America
    Modern Monetary Theory: Cautionary Tales from Latin America Sebastian Edwards* Economics Working Paper 19106 HOOVER INSTITUTION 434 GALVEZ MALL STANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD, CA 94305-6010 April 25, 2019 According to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) it is possible to use expansive monetary policy – money creation by the central bank (i.e. the Federal Reserve) – to finance large fiscal deficits that will ensure full employment and good jobs for everyone, through a “jobs guarantee” program. In this paper I analyze some of Latin America’s historical episodes with MMT-type policies (Chile, Peru. Argentina, and Venezuela). The analysis uses the framework developed by Dornbusch and Edwards (1990, 1991) for studying macroeconomic populism. The four experiments studied in this paper ended up badly, with runaway inflation, huge currency devaluations, and precipitous real wage declines. These experiences offer a cautionary tale for MMT enthusiasts.† JEL Nos: E12, E42, E61, F31 Keywords: Modern Monetary Theory, central bank, inflation, Latin America, hyperinflation The Hoover Institution Economics Working Paper Series allows authors to distribute research for discussion and comment among other researchers. Working papers reflect the views of the author and not the views of the Hoover Institution. * Henry Ford II Distinguished Professor, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA † I have benefited from discussions with Ed Leamer, José De Gregorio, Scott Sumner, and Alejandra Cox. I thank Doug Irwin and John Taylor for their support. 1 1. Introduction During the last few years an apparently new and revolutionary idea has emerged in economic policy circles in the United States: Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). The central tenet of this view is that it is possible to use expansive monetary policy – money creation by the central bank (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Monetary Theory: a Marxist Critique
    Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 1 2019 Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique Michael Roberts [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, Michael (2019) "Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 7 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.7.1.008316 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol7/iss1/1 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique Abstract Compiled from a series of blog posts which can be found at "The Next Recession." Modern monetary theory (MMT) has become flavor of the time among many leftist economic views in recent years. MMT has some traction in the left as it appears to offer theoretical support for policies of fiscal spending funded yb central bank money and running up budget deficits and public debt without earf of crises – and thus backing policies of government spending on infrastructure projects, job creation and industry in direct contrast to neoliberal mainstream policies of austerity and minimal government intervention. Here I will offer my view on the worth of MMT and its policy implications for the labor movement. First, I’ll try and give broad outline to bring out the similarities and difference with Marx’s monetary theory.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Scientific Illusion of New Keynesian Monetary Theory
    The scientific illusion of New Keynesian monetary theory Abstract It is shown that New Keynesian monetary theory is a scientific illusion because it rests on moneyless Walrasian general equilibrium micro‐foundations. Walrasian general equilibrium models require a Walrasian or Arrow‐Debreu auction but this auction is a substitute for money and empties the model of all the issues of interest to regulators and central bankers. The New Keynesian model perpetuates Patinkin’s ‘invalid classical dichotomy’ and is incapable of providing any guidance on the analysis of interest rate rules or inflation targeting. In its cashless limit, liquidity, inflation and nominal interest rate rules cannot be defined in the New Keynesian model. Key words; Walrasian‐Arrow‐Debreu auction; consensus model, Walrasian general equilibrium microfoundations, cashless limit. JEL categories: E12, B22, B40, E50 1 The scientific illusion of New Keynesian monetary theory Introduction Until very recently many monetary theorists endorsed the ‘scientific’ approach to monetary policy based on microeconomic foundations pioneered by Clarida, Galí and Gertler (1999) and this approach was extended by Woodford (2003) and reasserted by Galí and Gertler (2007) and Galí (2008). Furthermore, Goodfriend (2007) outlined how the ‘consensus’ model of monetary policy based on this scientific approach had received global acceptance. Despite this consensus, the global financial crisis has focussed attention on the state of contemporary monetary theory by raising questions about the theory that justified current policies. Buiter (2008) and Goodhart (2008) are examples of economists who make some telling criticisms. Buiter (2008, p. 31, fn 9) notes that macroeconomists went into the current crisis singularly unprepared as their models could not ask questions about liquidity let alone answer them while Goodhart (2008, p.
    [Show full text]