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:
Matias Vernengo writes Was Keynes a Liberal or a Socialist?
Matias Vernengo writes The problem with Keynes’ General Theory: by Tom Palley
Matias Vernengo writes Review of Crotty’s “Keynes Against Capitalism” (forthcoming in ROKE)
Matias Vernengo writes Kalecki’s alternative to Keynes and White and its consequences
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.