Who Am I?

I am Senexx.  I am no one of import in any profession but I am passionate about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

The main reason for the pseudonym is my belief that what is written is more important than who writes it.

I have a dream.  A dream that one day we can aggregate all the news, blogs on Modern Monetary Theory, Chartalism on the one webhost under one domain.

I have a dream that we can have a central place for MMT.  I have a dream that this place will be a resource centre for all those interested in MMT.

I have a dream that this will be the education centre for the economic truths.

You can reach me via email: senexprudensATgmailDOTcom

The other contributor to this blog can be found at Stubborn Mule

3 responses to “Who Am I?

  1. I just discovered your blog after spending a few days coming up to speed on MMT. Having read a lot of Keen it’s certainly something I’ve been putting off for too long. I’ve noticed the usual standards for debate tend to drop when it’s discussed so I thought I’d bounce some ideas/comments off you to clarify a few thoughts.

    1.Isn’t the type of funding for government expenditure often glossed over by both sides? MMT proponents would LIKE TO SEE reserve banks directly fund the government via a ledger action, and not have it go to the bond market. Opponents, dealing with the world as it currently is, bring up interest rates and crowding out (which to my mind aren’t real issues given the private sector’s debt deflation and the fact that rates in the US and JP are super low). Put another way, aren’t the grounds of the arguments often murky, and shouldn’t it be established whether we are talking about funding issues surrounding a simple Keynesian expansion OR whether we should restructure government spending?

    2. Is Japan’s experience a semi-ideal MMT scenario? ie. the debt is sold to a willing buyer in the domestic economy, households.

    3.Does Keen’s Monetary Circuit Theory simply just add on to the horizontal component of MMT? He’s expanding on the consequences of endogenous money creation where as MMT seems to focus more on the fiscal response side of things. I don’t know why the theories couldn’t just be bundled together?

    Again, congrats on the great blog. Having being schooled in neoclassical nonsense from an otherwise respectable university I really get a lot out of this work.
    Cheers,
    E

    • 1. MMT describes the operations the way they happen. The opponents are stuck in the loanable funds model. It is incorrect to say what MMT would like to see and what opponents say. Ultimately the bond markets are only necessary to target the Interest Rate.

      2. Japan is not an ideal or semi-ideal scenario and no MMT proponent would say so, Japan is in the situation as a direct consequences of its actions and understanding the way modern money operates shows this. MMT is not an ideology but an understanding of mechanics.

      3. There’s basically two related schools of thought out there, the Circuitists (Steve Keen, etc) & the NeoChartalists (MMTers). The Circuitists focus on horizontal money which MMT accepts & MMT adds vertical money (State money & Reserves). The theories could quite easily be bundled together. There is debate amongst the academics about the role of the State in these transactions.

  2. Isn’t the type of funding for government expenditure often glossed over by both sides? The problem here is with the wrongness of the first question. Government expenditure funds itself.

    If you, Mr. Government, ask someone, Miss Private Sector, to scratch your back, and you give them a back-scratch coupon in return, then where is there “funding” necessary, or even possible? Banks, the Fed, the Treasury play a silly game with different colored back-scratching coupons that Mr. Government has spent into existence, and the banks own coupons. The primary importance of this game is not in its effect on the real economy of back-scratching, which is pretty much by definition, marginal, but in hypnotizing everyone into thinking that the colored coupon game is real, is important in comparison to the ultimate issuance & redemption of back-scratching coupons and how this directs the real economy of back-scratching.

    MMT proponents would LIKE TO SEE reserve banks directly fund the government via a ledger action, and not have it go to the bond market.
    Some MMTers want to make it ultra-simple, so everyone can see what is going on, what has always been the way things operated. But that is of secondary importance to having an economy where everyone who needs his back scratched gets it, where the coupon system adequately directs the real economy. The JG, full employment, is enormously more important than a ZIRP, “no bonds”. Non-ZIRP, some low interest rate on bonds, different colored coupons, may have a role in achieving an ideal economy, rather than a merely extremely prosperous one, who knows?

    3. Monetary circuit theory is basically the same theory as MMT, if it is done right. It starts from the creditary theory of money, which is even more fundamental than MMT’s state theory of money. But if it incorporates the primary importance of the state’s money correctly, it just becomes MMT.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s