by The contribution of the historical dimension to a theory, monetary or otherwise, is undoubtedly not sufficient in itself to demonstrate the correctness of this theory. But it does shed light on the underlying dynamics and the way in which they are articulated. It helps to identify the chains of causality that serve as a basis for the construction of a coherent body of theory, and it helps to eliminate arbitrariness in reasoning. It also helps to falsify certain ideas, such as the idea that bartering preceded the appearance of money, or that the market and real exchange predate money. The main objective of this article is to show that MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) is based on solid historical facts and on the use of logic. In particular, it explains that coercive power is absolutely
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
John Quiggin writes The war to end war, still going on
New Economics Foundation writes Reclaiming our regions
New Economics Foundation writes New Economics Podcast: Why is the benefits system failing disabled people
Michael Hudson writes Jill Stein: Splitting the Pro-Imperial Vote
The contribution of the historical dimension to a theory, monetary or otherwise, is undoubtedly not sufficient in itself to demonstrate the correctness of this theory. But it does shed light on the underlying dynamics and the way in which they are articulated. It helps to identify the chains of causality that serve as a basis for the construction of a coherent body of theory, and it helps to eliminate arbitrariness in reasoning. It also helps to falsify certain ideas, such as the idea that bartering preceded the appearance of money, or that the market and real exchange predate money.Exploring the societal, cultural and institutional history and foundations of money-use.The main objective of this article is to show that MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) is based on solid historical facts and on the use of logic. In particular, it explains that coercive power is absolutely necessary for the emergence of monetized societies, and that the market is an epiphenomenon of the State, while unemployment is a social construction of the State, which itself has a monopoly on currency. Finally, he presents the specificity of MMT thinking compared to all other monetary approaches, taking "money" as a token of value that can be expropriated by those in authority....
ConclusionIt is clear that MMT is not a simple contribution, not only to economic thought, but also to the whole of the social sciences. It is a profound questioning of it, in the sense that it lays down bases common to all social classes, and therefore contains a theoretical value that goes far beyond the economic dimension. Indeed, by providing an explanation of the foundations of society, it presents itself as a possible starting point for understanding the macro level of the social sciences as a whole. It thus suggests the possibility of a transdisciplinarity allowing to lay the foundations of an integral social science, not only to realize bridges between the conclusions of the social sciences, but rather to lead to an organization of the knowledge concerning them. And this possibility, which has not yet been fully expressed, suggests how potentially very influential MMT is.
Robert Cauneau