Favorable post on Fadhel Kaboub's presentation of the MMT JG. There is a bit of confusion in the post, however. The presentation is worth watching in full, not least because it contains a fairly straightforward explanation of MMT, and because, in a brief aside, Kaboub takes issue with the term Modern Monetary Theory, because, as he rightly points out, it is not a theory but a description of how money creation actually occurs in countries that enjoy full financial (monetary) sovereignty (e.g. US, UK, Japan, Australia, China, etc). Thus, a far more accurate term would be something like (my suggestion) Actual Monetary Practice (AMP), or, as Kaboub notes, a term that acknowledges that what is being referred to is a system (Actual Monetary System, perhaps?). Of course, the issue of MMT
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Fadhel Kaboub, JG, MMT
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Jared Bernstein, total idiot. You have to see this to believe it.
Steve Roth writes MMT and the Wealth of Nations, Revisited
Matias Vernengo writes On central bank independence, and Brazilian monetary policy
Michael Hudson writes International Trade and MMT with Keen, Hudson
The presentation is worth watching in full, not least because it contains a fairly straightforward explanation of MMT, and because, in a brief aside, Kaboub takes issue with the term Modern Monetary Theory, because, as he rightly points out, it is not a theory but a description of how money creation actually occurs in countries that enjoy full financial (monetary) sovereignty (e.g. US, UK, Japan, Australia, China, etc). Thus, a far more accurate term would be something like (my suggestion) Actual Monetary Practice (AMP), or, as Kaboub notes, a term that acknowledges that what is being referred to is a system (Actual Monetary System, perhaps?).
Of course, the issue of MMT being a misnomer has been raised by Peter May before on this blog and is a serious one in the sense that use of ‘theory’ means MMT is a “loaded” term. By that I mean that most people (and I know this from many years teaching undergrads and postgrads) take theory to mean we are talking about a supposition or set of ideas that may – and that’s the key word here, may, not does or can – explain a situation, action, or phenomenon. Use of ‘theory’ therefore instantly undermines the accuracy and descriptive power of the MMT approach.…The reality is that there are three major aspects of MMT. The first is a description of monetary systems, with emphasis on the presently operative floating rate system that replaced the fixed rate system under the gold standard. This is chiefly institutional analysis based on accounting principles and practice, and stock-flow consistent models. It is chiefly descriptive. This is set forth, for example, on Eric Tymoigne's book on money and banking.
The second aspect is a macroeconomic theory. This is set forth, for example, in Bill Mitchell and Randy Wray's textbook on macroeconomics. It is theory since it involves causal explanation.
The third aspect is economic policy based on understanding of the prior two aspects of MMT. This is normative, since policy objectives are based on values.
Progressive Pulse
Job guarantee programmes: back to the future?