Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) never academically challenged and much more in this series of videos including making Australia a Fully Employed Economy and addressing Austerity throughout the world; and the rolling crises in the Euro Zone. All in all, it goes for around 2 hours.
The MMT Podcast with Patricia Pino & Christian Reilly- #186 Phil Armstrong: MMT & Austrian Economics (part 1)
- #185 Dirk Ehnts: The public debt is what we own, not what we owe
- #184 Steven Hail: What if people aren’t utility-maximising omniscient supercomputers?
- #183 Mark Diesendorf: The Path To An Ecologically Just Civilisation
- #182 Warren Mosler & Cory Doctorow In Conversation
- #181 Erik Dean: What’s Standing Between Us And A 15-Hour Work Week?
- #180 John T. Harvey: MMT, The UK, and Pound Sterling
- #178 Building An Economy For The People - Unpacking The Deficit Myth Part 7
- #177 L. Randall Wray: Money For Beginners - A Politician’s Guide
- #176 Dirk Ehnts: Ending The Polycrisis
-
Comments on: Macro N Cheese Podcast
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Money on the Left
- Aesthetics after Autonomy with Grant Kester
- Economic Democracy with Pavlina Tcherneva
- The Alternative with Nick Romeo
- How can novels help us think about money ... and maybe even save the planet? (Guest Lecture)
- Resisting Predatory Finance w/ Raúl Carrillo (Recovered Audio!)
- Modern Movie Theory: What We Do in the Shadows
- Criticism LTD w/ Matt Seybold
- Teaching Economics w/ Benjamin Wilson
- Monetary Foundations of Education w/ Larry Johnson
- Power to the People w/ Sandeep Vaheesan
- Unknown Feed
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Modern Money - Macroeconomics 
It certainly ought to be challenged, academicall or otherwise! The MMT is wrong because it does not properly represent the whole macroeconomy and include what is really going on in other parts of our social system.
J.M.Keynes made the same error, which is really an assumption to have 2 or 3 (of the 6) sectors of our macroeconomy is sufficient. Unfortunately for him and us, this is not so. In fact we have since found that the adoption of his pump-priming schemes leads on to greater disasters.
MMT seems to me to be only a sligt bit better, because it includes only a small additional effect. What is missing are the significant effects of the Landlord (land value speculation and rent confiscation), Capitalist (use of “profits” for investment) and Government (sale of bonds and payment of interest on them) and other matters of similar kinds. The full picture may be found on “my” Google Image: DiagFuncMacroSyst.pdf .
LikeLike
MMT is typically considered a Post-Keynesian school of thought and corrects the mistaken thinking of some modern Keynesians and New Keynesians but to continue along that line I would have to go into the history of Keynesian thought and yes even Keynes got things wrong from time to time as do we all.
Your input is welcome but I must ask you to stop promoting your diagram as it can be perceived to be little more than link promotion for search engine optimisation.
As you continue reading these in order, you will see it does indeed include the Government sale of bonds and payment of interest.
You may enjoy this recorded interview and presentation by a Georgist that also happens to be a Neochartalist.
LikeLike
The challenge that I presented was not promoting any diagram (as claimed above) but it was claiming that the idea of the limited money circulation (as presented by advocates of MMT) unfortunately still follows the old tired Keynesian line, albeit in a slightly improved form.
My diagram shows all the necessary and sufficient connections in order to fully and properly model the system. Less that this does not do so, consequently any conclusions from partial modelling are likely to be incorrect. So far no comment has been made about this technical situation except for the political one of wanting to supress my reference to the model. It seem that I have struck a sensitive chord with my model, but nobody has show it to be unsuitable for use in MMT.
LikeLike
Correction: Your model was critiqued for not having an external sector. Your model can easily be integrated into the existing government & private sector model under MMT, yours is just broken down into more constituent parts (as can be done and is done with the model used by MMT).
And we all agreed that taxing economic rents was a good idea, even land rents – we pointed you in direction of Mosler & Hudson who has done work on these.
LikeLike
The criticism you mention also applies to the other MMT work that I have seen to date. There is no foreign trade nor investment abroad. Can you direct me to the computer programmes being used for MMT analysis which may be made to include my model as system structural data?
LikeLike
Neither Keynes, nor MMT scholars advocate priming the pump. What passes for Keynesian policy today has very little to do with Keynes’s own work. See my paper on Keynes’s approach to full employment in the Jan 2012 Review of Social Economy and my research on debunking the Aggregate Demand Management model (working paper versions of this research can be found on http://www.levy.org or my own website below). MMT is both multidisciplinary and true to the original Keynesian message.
LikeLike
Pingback: Chartalism (Neo) aka MMT Never Academically Challenged ... | The Money Chronicle | Scoop.it
@ Macrocompassion
If you want to see the Godley SFC modeling that MMT uses, get ahold of a copy of Wynne Godley and Marc Lavoie, Monetary Economics, Elgar 2007, recently in paperback in the 2nd ed 2012. It’s laid out there.
LikeLike