[This is part of an ongoing effort to understand and explain differences and points of agreement between Modern Monetary Theory, Full Reserve Banking, Post Keynesianism, Steve Keen’s work, and related approaches in as simple of terms as possible (difficult, as the debates hinge on complex and subtle concepts at times, but I will try). The goal is to create a resource for the general public to better understand these areas of study and why neoclassical economics fails, and to foster clearer communication between MMT, FRB, and PK proponents.]If this is of interest, check out the comments over there, too. CB clarifies in light of some off-blog responses.
Clint Ballinger — On good urbanism, sane economics, & problems in the social sciences
Post Keynesianism, MMT, & 100% Reserves Project: Question #1
Clint Ballinger
(h/t Matt Franko in the comments)
5 comments:
And recognition that FRB has long been highly regarded by very well-respected economists. It is important to note that these have spanned the ideological range of economics, from those with “progressive” views concerned with equitable distribution to arch- free marketers (I think this is a hint that there is indeed something to FRB.)
I liked the article, generally, and think that the question is valid and deserves to be taken more seriously. I don't agree with the type of reasoning that Ballinger uses when he says if people from diverse ideological outlooks agree on something it means there's "something to it." We regularly see the inverse of this when a faux progressive like Obama will say "the far right and the far left (mainstream liberals) both hate the idea, so we must be on the right track." Sometimes, if people hate your plan it might be because it actually just sucks. Different people can also like something for different reasons and still be wrong.
I have consolidated the various recurring points here http://clintballinger.edublogs.org/2012/12/22/post-keynesianism-mmt-100-reserves-project-post-no-2/
additional comment welcome. I am really trying to narrow down the sticking points between these various POVs.
Hey David, thanks! I can understand what you are getting at. In this case, though, I think that any economic plan that can unify positions feared by bankers for their "progressiveness" (like positivemoney.org) with views of Milton Friedman & Ludwig von Mises (much less Simons, Knight, Tobin etc.) suggest _something_ of fundamental importance must be going on. I want to get to the bottom of what. I think MMT, and/or Post Keynesianism and/or Steve Keen, have some of the answers.
Promoted your next to post, Clint.
Thanks Tom - sorry I can only be on here sporadically (behind the Great Firewall of China with a crackdown on VPNs). Enjoyed the comments elsewhere - one of yours is featured somewhere on a later post.
Cheers, Clint
Post a Comment