Monday , December 23 2024
Home / Mike Norman Economics / Jonas Elvander – Interview with Costas Lapavitsas and Nicolás Águila: Modern Monetary Theory says that money is fundamental to human existence

Jonas Elvander – Interview with Costas Lapavitsas and Nicolás Águila: Modern Monetary Theory says that money is fundamental to human existence

Summary:
Two Marxian economists critique MMT. I want to stress that because people often do not realise it. And more broadly, both MMT and Marxism offer a challenge to the aggressive capitalism of the last four decades.However, there are crucial differences between us, which Nicolás and I brought out in our paper. They also go back a long time. The most fundamental difference has to do with what money is, and that is not a minor issue. People might think it is a bunch of academics disagreeing about ancient history or abstract ideas. Far from it. The bottom line is this: MMT argues, in the line of previous chartalist theories, that money is created outside the market, that it is the creation of the state, of some sort of a social authority. And, therefore, money in in the power of that authority.

Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Lars Pålsson Syll writes Andreas Cervenka och den svenska bostadsbubblan

Mike Norman writes Trade deficit

Merijn T. Knibbe writes Christmas thoughts about counting the dead in zones of armed conflict.

Lars Pålsson Syll writes Debunking the balanced budget superstition

Two Marxian economists critique MMT. 
I want to stress that because people often do not realise it. And more broadly, both MMT and Marxism offer a challenge to the aggressive capitalism of the last four decades.

However, there are crucial differences between us, which Nicolás and I brought out in our paper. They also go back a long time. The most fundamental difference has to do with what money is, and that is not a minor issue. People might think it is a bunch of academics disagreeing about ancient history or abstract ideas. Far from it. The bottom line is this: MMT argues, in the line of previous chartalist theories, that money is created outside the market, that it is the creation of the state, of some sort of a social authority. And, therefore, money in in the power of that authority. In contrast, Marxism argues that money is the creation of the market: it is an unplanned and unintended outcome of spontaneous market interactions. Money emerges when commodities interact, whether you like it or not.

Of course, this is not what MMT says at all. According to MMT, state money has been the dominant financial economic institution for thousands of years. A sovereign has the ability to set and issue the unit of account and ensures demand for it by those who use it by accepting only its currency in satisfaction of financial obligations it imposes, chiefly taxation, but also tariffs, fees and fines. In so doing, the sovereign exerts a monopoly on the currency as issuer. Demand creation for the currency through taxation constitutes a sufficient condition for a state currency to be accepted in the market to transfer privately owned goods to public use. It is, however, a necessary condition for a state to be fully sovereign, which is why those who oppose state power oppose chartal money. If a state has to obtain that which is necessary to transact rather than create it, e.g., under a metals standard, then the state is subject to the dynamics of a monetary system it doesn't control. This limits the fiscal power of the state.


See also

Another take by a Marxist involving MMT.

Mike Norman
Mike Norman is an economist and veteran trader whose career has spanned over 30 years on Wall Street. He is a former member and trader on the CME, NYMEX, COMEX and NYFE and he managed money for one of the largest hedge funds and ran a prop trading desk for Credit Suisse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *