Tuesday, January 29, 2019

John T. Harvey — Does Modern Monetary Theory Have Any Scholarly Validity?

What I would really love to do right now is give you a complete and comprehensive explanation of what MMT is–of course, that’s impossible for all the reasons suggested above (heck, I’m already at almost 400 words)! So, while I will offer some helpful links later, let me just focus here on a few of the ideas attracting the most attention. In fact, let’s make a game of it!...
This is the correct approach — cite documentation.

It is fairly simple to "write" a complete online book on a single page by organizing links to material that is already available if one knows the literature and the material is generally available rather than being paywalled. Unfortunately, a lot of articles are behind paywalls. Fortunately, however, the MMT economists have made a lot of their work accessible by providing working papers that are free. The literature is available. It just needs to be organized and presented. This is now especially necessary for two reasons, the first being exploding interest in MMT, and the second being the profusion of MMT literature over the past several decades. In other words, make it easy.

BTW, it is actually the approach that got me into MMT. I was interested in learning why economists ha missed the GFC when it was obvious to me as a bystander what what going on in the real estate market. So I started exploring. Serendipitously, I ran into a comment that Ramanan had posted somewhere — I no longer remember the circumstances. It was a fairly long and detailed comment about MMT but it was so out of the mainstream I blew it off, since there's no time to follow up on everything. But then I had the gut feeling, no, Ramanan was clearly a very sharp guy and he had also provided references. I did follow up by reading the references. The rest is history.

What is also needed now is a popular book on MMT that is accessible to everyone with a basic education, e.g., no equations and no technical jargon, with lots of visuals like the "Kelton seesaw"  and the sectoral balances chart. Based on what she has said recently in Twitter, I believe that Stephanie Kelton has such a book almost ready right now.

Forbes — Pragmatic Economics
Does Modern Monetary Theory Have Any Scholarly Validity?
John T. Harvey | Professor of Economics, Texas Christian University


AXEC / E.K-H said...

Answer to ‘John T. Harvey ― Does Modern Monetary Theory Have Any Scholarly Validity?’


MMT is refuted on all counts, see cross-references

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

Konrad said...

We know that MMT is a lie, and I am a genius because f(x)=a_0+∑(n=1)^∞(a_n cos⁡〖nπx/L〗+b_n sin⁡〖nπx/L〗 )(-b±√(b^2-4ac))/2a = (x)=a_0+∑ =0

Hedgehog CrackerJack-Hankie

Clint Ballinger said...

Tom, funny you mention what got you into MMT here – John T Harvey is who got me into it. I came from Irving Fisher to Keen, and then to Harvey where the final switches went on on public finance.

Also funny you mention that a book is needed – I do not claim to be MMT but I am trying to make a non-technical book that the public and students will actually read, and a book that actually that gets all the operational basics right. You, of course, have been kindly posting the draft chapters to it: 1000 CASTAWAYS: Fundamentals of Economics

Someone today on the Intro to MMT facebook page commented “When I was learning MMT, the primary focus of most everything I read and watched was on HPM and ‘credit money’ was not even mentioned. It took a while to figure out where the private banking system fit in with chartalism. Your story makes it super clear that the two systems are actually operating simultaneously and with very different goals, use cases, and pitfalls.”

So I hope I am working in the right direction. And I would love for people here to check out what I am working on, at least until Kelton comes out with her book :) I am about to add two more chapters (Chapter 4 and 5) soon.

Clint Ballinger said...

Oh, come oN Cracker-Jack-Hankie, you KNOW it is f(yy)=a_0+∑(n=1)f^^X7^∞(a_n cos⁡〖nπx/L〗+b_n sin⁡〖nπx/L〗 )(-b±√(b^2-4ac))/2a = (x)=a_0+∑ =88.
You got it all wrong! Its my profit theory! See the following 400 links, they prove it! Oh, and your mom is fat and I hate everyone.

AXEC / E.K-H said...

The reply to Clint Ballinger got lost.

For the full text see

Noah Way said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Noah Way said...

Idiots. Everybody knows that

N = C + {fb(cm) . fb(tc)} + fb(Ts) + fc . ta


fbs / fcs = functions of the bacon type
cm = condiments
tc = cooking time
Ts = temperature
ta = time taken to fill the sandwich
C = force (in Newtons) required to break the bacon

Unlike some equations posted here (and elsewhere) this has been repeatedly tested and proven by experiment.

S400 said...

Noah Way is refuted on all counts by my farting theory.
See cross-references