I personally think that there should not be a dividing line between MMT and PK. They do not disagree over the major issues when it comes to the description of the economic system. Differing policy recommendations are not a reason for a split between the two. In a world with uncertainty, policy prescriptions will never coincide. The discussions between MMT and PK are fruitful, and I have learned a lot from both sides. So much so that I would find it incredibly hard to align myself to either camp. I like the balance sheet approach of MMT, SFC models and Minsky’s discussion of debt, but also thecircuitist approach, the PK work on inequality and financialization and the compensation thesis.
econoblog 101
Modern Money Theory and Post-Keynesian economics – time for reunification?
Dirk Ehnts | Berlin School for Economics and Law
Modern Money Theory and Post-Keynesian economics – time for reunification?
Dirk Ehnts | Berlin School for Economics and Law
I think it's kind of important to form a reality based school of economics. Elsewhere on this blog, this has been referred to as tribalism, but the schools matter. Aside from the obvious political advantage of having a coherent understanding of economics supported by a coherent group, there is the fact that economics principles are all interconnected.
ReplyDeleteThus, for example, saying Piketty stands alone is ridiculous. It would be like saying that the biology of the juman head stands alone, separate from a coherent theory as to how the body as a whole works...