by Summary:
Appena pubblicato sui Working papers di Siena Bofinger and Ries versus Borio and Disyatat: macroeconomics after endogenous money. A brief note. Sergio Cesaratto Abstract A paper by Peter Bofinger and Mathias Ries (2017a/b) strays from the recent rethinking in monetary analysis to criticise Summers’ “saving glut” explanation of the prevalence of low real interest rates. A similar critical perspective is held by Borio and Disyatat (e.g. 2011a/b, 2015), who are criticised, however, by Bofinger and Reis for their Wicksellian background. In this note, we compare and assess these two different views. Both Bofinger and Reis (B&R) and Borio and Disyatat (B&D) reject traditional “loanable fund theory” in favour of an endogenous money view of credit, but while B&R regard conventional
Topics:
Sergio Cesaratto considers the following as important: Bofinger, Borio, capital theory, Dysiatat, endogenous money, Keynes, mnetray theory, Wicksell
This could be interesting, too:
Appena pubblicato sui Working papers di Siena Bofinger and Ries versus Borio and Disyatat: macroeconomics after endogenous money. A brief note. Sergio Cesaratto Abstract A paper by Peter Bofinger and Mathias Ries (2017a/b) strays from the recent rethinking in monetary analysis to criticise Summers’ “saving glut” explanation of the prevalence of low real interest rates. A similar critical perspective is held by Borio and Disyatat (e.g. 2011a/b, 2015), who are criticised, however, by Bofinger and Reis for their Wicksellian background. In this note, we compare and assess these two different views. Both Bofinger and Reis (B&R) and Borio and Disyatat (B&D) reject traditional “loanable fund theory” in favour of an endogenous money view of credit, but while B&R regard conventional
Topics:
Sergio Cesaratto considers the following as important: Bofinger, Borio, capital theory, Dysiatat, endogenous money, Keynes, mnetray theory, Wicksell
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes The Road Not Taken
Matias Vernengo writes More on the possibility and risks of a recession
Matias Vernengo writes Paul Davidson (1930-2024)
Matias Vernengo writes Keynes’ denial of conflict: a reply to Professor Heise’s critique
Appena pubblicato sui Working papers di Siena
Bofinger and Ries versus
Borio and Disyatat: macroeconomics after endogenous money. A brief note.
Sergio Cesaratto
Abstract
A paper by Peter
Bofinger and Mathias Ries (2017a/b) strays from the recent rethinking in
monetary analysis to criticise Summers’ “saving glut” explanation of the
prevalence of low real interest rates. A similar critical perspective is held
by Borio and Disyatat (e.g. 2011a/b, 2015), who are criticised, however, by
Bofinger and Reis for their Wicksellian background. In this note, we compare
and assess these two different views. Both Bofinger and Reis (B&R) and
Borio and Disyatat (B&D) reject traditional “loanable fund theory” in
favour of an endogenous money view of credit, but while B&R regard conventional
marginalist (real) theory as inconsistent with the endogenous money view, B&D,
following Wicksell, regard it as
consistent. We sympathize with B&R’s criticism of conventional theory, especially
their Keynesian view of the interest rate as a purely monetary phenomenon. Interestingly,
B&R refer to the problems of marginalist capital theory as undermining the
natural interest rate concept.
