- RT @B_MarkeyTowler: Challenge the core of economics @ProfSteveKeen @Rumplestatskin? Why not! The facts, and now theory are on our side! ht… 8 hours ago
- RT @ProfSteveKeen: Axiomatic equilibrium micro-founded non-monetary macro @DaveSGower @B_MarkeyTowler @Rumplestatskin https://t.co/8TSAaSJP… 8 hours ago
- The latest Economists are a Trial! paper.li/AusMMT/1328162… Thanks to @macro_business @joshgans #ausecon 9 hours ago
- The latest Economists are a Trial! paper.li/AusMMT/1328162… Thanks to @RecoEco @WhitefordPeter @RHT_ebooks #auspol #ausecon 13 hours ago
- @bradvoracek If you haven't seen it you might enjoy @heteconomist posts on JIG heteconomist.com/job-or-income-… There's many more of them 1 day ago
Net $AUD Assets
March 2017 S M T W T F S « Jan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Tag Archives: mmt
MMT considers that the aggregate demand impact of interest rate changes are unclear and may not even be negative (for a rise) or positive (for a fall) depending on rather complex distributional factors. For example, remember that rising interest rates … Continue reading
I was involved in a conversation as to whether MMT was left-wing or not. My standard comment is that it is neither left- or right-wing it just is. Is, in this case, is a framework for describing and understanding the … Continue reading
My brief summary is that MMT pretty much coincides with traditional Keynesian views in the context of a liquidity trap, but that I reject the claim commonly made in popular presentations of MMT, that increased government spending doesn’t imply increased taxation.
SOURCE: Market Monetarism: A First Look
It is unfortunate and disappointing that this is the clearest exposition by Professor Quiggin and his thoughts on MMT after previous discussions on MMT by his own admission was a “misreading of MMT” by others and confining the topic to the sandpits after having had his say on the subject.
Quiggin and MMT’s dispute over increased government spending seems to be an intertemporal one. The disagreement seems to be more about WHEN the increased taxation occurs. NOR IS IT CLEAR what is meant by “increased taxation”. Is it an increase in tax rates? Is it an increase in tax collected as done by the existing effective tax rates? If the latter there is no disagreement, that is just the function of automatic stabilisers.
MMT rejects the liquidity trap (and IS-LM) & consequently rejects that MMT only applies in a liquidity trap. DeLong seems willing to see if MMT applies beyond the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) but only as a look towards the future.
As previously noted in this blog – The real point of departure for MMTers and traditional Keynesians appears to be bound up in the loanable funds theory of the interest rate (the former rejecting and the latter accepting it). From that follow all sorts of differences re: fiscal sustainability. Thankfully Philip Pilkington has a reasonably clear take-down of it and acknowledges the reason it persists is that it works in theory, if not practice. And MMT economist Scott Fullwiler explains fiscal sustainability from an MMT perspective.