It only took about 6 decades or so. And, in between, there has been denial, fiction, and diversions. But here we are 2022 and work that was explicit in the 1960s is now being recognised by the central bank of the largest economy. In fact, the foundations of this new acceptance goes back to the C19th and was developed by you know who – K. Marx. Then a socialist in the 1940s wrote a path breaking article further building the foundations. And then a group of Marxist economists brought the ideas together as a coherent theory of inflation early 1970s as a counter to the growing Monetarist fiction that inflationary pressures were ultimately the product of irresponsible government policy designed to reduce unemployment below some ‘natural rate’. I am referring here to a Finance and Economics Discussion Series (FEDS) working paper – Who Killed the Phillips Curve? A Murder Mystery – published on May 20, 2022 by the Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve System. I suppose it is progress but along the way – over those 6 decades – there have been a lot of casualties of the fiction central banks created in denial of these findings.
The topic is of course close to my heart given that I have specialised in the Phillips curve since early in my academic career....
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
US Federal Reserve Bank economists going Marxist on us
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
US Federal Reserve Bank economists going Marxist on us
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
“ And like all instances where Groupthink dominates, the ‘clinical’ practice that is based on the dominant theoretical stance is typically very damaging to those that are impacted.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s not the figurative “groupthink!” it is the literal methodology of the Liberal Art side of the academe… start with the theory first and then dogmatically advocate for it via interlocution…
Instead of issuing a new figure of speech to confuse people (and then ofc don’t ever get anywhere) why not just identify this technical deficiency in the platonist liberal Art methodology?
All bill is really doing here is an interlocution with the people who were taught monetarist theory…