An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
I looked up Post Keynsian Economics in Wiki, and far as I can see nearly all the ideas in it are ideas which Keynes himself spelled out. Plus Nick Rowe had a post recently saying that PKE is nonsense:
So looks like PKE is a wheeze that academic economists have found for keeping themselves employed and metaphorically counting the number of angels that can dance on a pin head. Or perhaps I’ve missed something.
So economists are chairs rearranging themselves on the deck of the Titanic? Impressive. :(
"We're NOT Keynesian. We're Monetarists."
"Ok, we're not Monetarists, we're post-Keynesians."
"Ok, we're not PK's, we're NeoK's!"
Ok, so what's a NeoK? Keynesian?
We've heard everything EXCEPT "pragmatic."
Can't someone besides Warren Mosler just come out and state that Keynes explained what Marriner Eccles pragmatically did, but never updated his theory for the change from convertible to fiat currency regimes? It requires only an incredibly simple re-declaration in Keynes' equations about which variables are fixed vs floating.
This ain't rocket science, folks.
Show me an orthodox economist [i.e., non MMT] who even grasps the simple reality of banking notation.
New Keynesians are not Keynesians at all in that they reject the basic assumptions of Keynes by accepting those of the neoclassical synthesis.
With them "Keynesian" just means that they are less rigid than Neoclassicals in accepting the relevance of stimulus in a liquidity trap. Neoclassicals hold that stimulus is always irrelevant due to Ricardian equivalence.
So New Keynsians claim that Keynsian stimulus has no effect because households do amazing Ricardian type calculations which take into account the amount of deficit, monetary base, etc etc required to give us X% or Y% inflation.
Bill Mitchell said that the above idea comes from “La-la” land. See: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11757
Y, was the above La-la land point what I missed or is there something else? I’m always happy to learn.
Joseph Stiglitz said, “Ricardian equivalence is taught in every graduate school in the country. It is also sheer nonsense.”
"So looks like PKE is a wheeze that academic economists have found for keeping themselves employed and metaphorically counting the number of angels that can dance on a pin head. Or perhaps I’ve missed something."
Some Post Keynesian economists:
Joan Robinson Nicholas Kaldor Michal Kalecki Hyman Minsky Abba Lerner Augusto Graziani Basil Moore
Do you think their work is just a pointless 'wheeze'?
9 comments:
I looked up Post Keynsian Economics in Wiki, and far as I can see nearly all the ideas in it are ideas which Keynes himself spelled out. Plus Nick Rowe had a post recently saying that PKE is nonsense:
http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2013/09/new-keynesians-just-assume-full-employment-without-even-realising-it.html
So looks like PKE is a wheeze that academic economists have found for keeping themselves employed and metaphorically counting the number of angels that can dance on a pin head. Or perhaps I’ve missed something.
Ralph, New Keynesianism are not Post Keynesians. Krugman is a New Keynesian.
So economists are chairs rearranging themselves on the deck of the Titanic? Impressive. :(
"We're NOT Keynesian. We're Monetarists."
"Ok, we're not Monetarists, we're post-Keynesians."
"Ok, we're not PK's, we're NeoK's!"
Ok, so what's a NeoK? Keynesian?
We've heard everything EXCEPT "pragmatic."
Can't someone besides Warren Mosler just come out and state that Keynes explained what Marriner Eccles pragmatically did, but never updated his theory for the change from convertible to fiat currency regimes? It requires only an incredibly simple re-declaration in Keynes' equations about which variables are fixed vs floating.
This ain't rocket science, folks.
Show me an orthodox economist [i.e., non MMT] who even grasps the simple reality of banking notation.
"Show me an orthodox economist.."
I've been scratching my head Roger, and can't think of one. Sorry to let you down..:-)
"Or perhaps I’ve missed something."
Yes, you have.
New Keynesians are not Keynesians at all in that they reject the basic assumptions of Keynes by accepting those of the neoclassical synthesis.
With them "Keynesian" just means that they are less rigid than Neoclassicals in accepting the relevance of stimulus in a liquidity trap. Neoclassicals hold that stimulus is always irrelevant due to Ricardian equivalence.
So New Keynsians claim that Keynsian stimulus has no effect because households do amazing Ricardian type calculations which take into account the amount of deficit, monetary base, etc etc required to give us X% or Y% inflation.
Bill Mitchell said that the above idea comes from “La-la” land. See: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11757
Y, was the above La-la land point what I missed or is there something else? I’m always happy to learn.
Joseph Stiglitz said, “Ricardian equivalence is taught in every graduate school in the country. It is also sheer nonsense.”
John Cochrane takes the piss out of New Keynsianism here:
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-new-keynesian-liquidity-trap.html#comment-form
"So looks like PKE is a wheeze that academic economists have found for keeping themselves employed and metaphorically counting the number of angels that can dance on a pin head. Or perhaps I’ve missed something."
Some Post Keynesian economists:
Joan Robinson
Nicholas Kaldor
Michal Kalecki
Hyman Minsky
Abba Lerner
Augusto Graziani
Basil Moore
Do you think their work is just a pointless 'wheeze'?
Post a Comment