Showing posts with label Steven Keen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steven Keen. Show all posts

Friday, July 19, 2013

Dirk Ehnts — NY Times reports on Keen, Bernanke, Kindleberger and Minsky

Economic research outside of the paradigm of the rationality postulate was made impossible by academic institutions – journals, central banks, etc. It is a great vindication for Hyman Minsky’s idea that (financial) stability creates instability.
Econoblog 101
NY Times reports on Keen, Bernanke, Kindleberger and Minsky
Dirk Ehnts | Berlin School for Economics and Law

The last mile closes a little more. 

But as long as Big Finance can point to rationality and market efficiency as standards, it can successfully lobby for less regulation, since "markets are optimally self-regulating" when left alone, given these assumptions.

Amazingly, Greenspan later admitted that he was mistaken about these assumptions, but Bernanke is paying no heed to the Maestro's admission of failure.


Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Edward Harrison — Endogenous or exogenous money?

I think the real difference between what Nick Rowe is saying and what people like Scott Fullwiler and Steve Keen are saying is that Nick believes over the medium-term, central bank interest rate policy is endogenous. What I think Nick means is that Scott Fullwiler’s view is reasonably clear and straightforward in his view that central monetary policy is exogenous but that it only matters over a short-term time horizon because central bank interest rate policy adjusts endogenously over the medium-term to commercial bank and other economic variables such that it is really endogenous rather than exogenous. 
Further, I think Nick Rowe is saying that it creates an expectation of central bank interest rate policy merely by announcing its target rate and the market moves to accommodate that target, knowing the central bank is the monopoly supplier of reserves. In that sense the central bank has control. But what he seems to suggest is that the central bank policy rate cannot be determined independent of macroeconomic variables (like inflation specifically) and that central bank may be forced to change policy based on these, making it possible to treat the central bank policy rate as medium-term endogenous.
Read it at Credit Writedowns
Endogenous or exogenous money?
By Edward Harrison

I think that Ed has this essentially right, and I said something similar to that effect yesterday. It is clear that the Fed sets the FFR and discount rates exogenously, but obviously, it doesn't do this arbitrarily, as Fed minutes show. Economics conditions figure into Fed decision-making and to that extent the process is "endogenous." I don't see this as a controversial point. It's essentially about semantics. 

When PKE and MMT economists say that money creation is endogenous and the Fed setting of the interest rate is exogenous, they mean that credit extension is determined in the market place through demand, while the Fed operates independently in setting rates. In the US, the overnight rate is not set in the overnight market by banks competing for available reserves. When the Fed does not manage the rate by paying IOR, it carefully manages quantity to target price using OMO, the issuance of tsys having already served as the major drain of excess reserves.

Is this all the kerfuffle is about? I don't think so.

Paul Krugman takes the position that the cb can use either price (interest rate) or the quantity (base money) as policy tools. PKE and MMT economists object that under the existing monetary and financial arrangements, this is merely theoretical and would be impractical to implement as a tactic. Policy tools need to be consistent with operational realities, not just modeling. Interest rate setting is what the Fed has actually been relying as a policy tool for some time, once this was discovered.

PKE and MMT economists would say further that the model-based approach of orthodoxy is misleading about causation, whereas the operations-based approach shows causation clearly. Once this is understood, orthodoxy is often discovered to have the causation reversed. 

For example, the "money multiplier" based on required reserves and "lending reserves" is seen as an accounting residual rather than as a cause, since operationally banks don't extend credit by lending either reserves or deposits — loans create deposits and obtaining reserves to settle and to meet the RR are a cost rather than a constraint. The spread between what a bank charges to make a loan and what the cost of the loans will be to the bank is determined by several factors including the cost of obtaining reserves.

So far a lot of what has gone down is people talking past each other. It was probably necessary to lay down the groundwork first, however. Hopefully, this discussion will now move forward to zero in on key issues.

One area that needs exploration is the interest rate. Monetarists make certain assumptions about the interest rate and inflation that PKE and and MMT economists challenge. Warren Mosler has observed, for example, that higher interest payments are actually economically stimulative, and that lower interest have the opposite effect. Therefore, he recommends setting the overnight rate to zero and using fiscal policy based on the sectoral balance approach and functional finance to address price stability.


Sunday, April 1, 2012

Keen on Krugman


It should never have gone this far. Krugman should have conceded long ago. The flurry in the blogosphere has been unrelenting, and Steve administers the coup de grace here.

Read it at Steve Keen's DebtWatch
by Steve Keen

UPDATE: My comment at Krugman's blog:

Does Professor Krugman realize that the US and world were operating under a convertible fixed rate system in 1963 when Tobin Brainard was published and that Nixon closed the gold window on August 15, 1971, putting the US on a non-convertible floating rate system, which the rest of the world ratified by treaty in August 1973? Please see Basil Moore, Horizontalists and Verticalists, 1988. And this is not just what the MMT crowd is saying; it's also Post Keynesians and Circuitists. Moreover, there are Fed and BIS papers denying that there is a money multiplier. This is a losing battle, Professor.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Steve Keen announces availability of his INET 2019 paper

My paper “Instability in Financial Markets: Sources and Remedies” for the INET conference “Paradigm Lost: Rethinking Economics and Politics“, to be held in Berlin on April 12-14, is now available via the INET website.
If you’d like to download it, you can get it either from my INET page, or from a link on the conference program. For copyright reasons I can’t reproduce it here, but I can provide a quick synopsis and some excerpts, so here goes....
Read it at Steve Keen's DebtWatch
My paper for INET’s Berlin 2012 Conference
By Steve Keen

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Steve Keen — Economics in the Age of Deleveraging


Non-economists might expect professional economists to pay great heed to these indicators—after all, surely private debt affects the economy? However, the dominant approach to economics—known as “Neoclassical Economics” —ignores them completely, on the a priori grounds that the aggregate level of private debt doesn’t matter: only its distribution can have macroeconomic impacts.
The argument is that a rise in debt merely indicates a transfer of spending power from a saver to a borrower. The debtor’s spending power rises, but saver’s spending power also falls, so in the aggregate there will only be a macroeconomic effect if there is a very large difference in behaviour between the saver and borrower.
Therefore only the distribution of debt matters, not its level or rate of change.
US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke provided precisely this rationale to explain why neoclassical economists ignored Irving Fisher’s “debt-deflation” explanation of the Great Depression (Fisher 1933), and he also asserted that the differences in behaviour between saver and borrower could not be large enough to explain the Great Depression....
Not only New Classicals think this, but also New Keynesians.
Similarly, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman argued recently that the aggregate level of private debt was not a factor in the GFC: only its distribution could be. He therefore developed a model in which the distribution of debt, rather than its level, was the causal factor...
Steve shows goes on to show why this is wrong thinking.

Read it at DebtWatch
By Steve Keen

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Steve Keen — MMT Convergence?


Neil Wilson recently posted A Double Entry View on the Keen Circuit Model
at 3spoken.

This elicited some excellent comments, including a couple of extensive contributions by JKH.

Keven Fathi emailed me that Steve Roth just posted at angry Bear that he regards Neil's post as The Most Important Econoblog Post This Year.
Congratulations, Neil, on moving this debate significantly forward.