Tuesday, December 20, 2022

MMT answers — Richard Murphy

I got an email overnight that I could reply to as a private mail, or I could hide the identity of the person who sent it and reply here, sending them the link. I have chosen the second option as I suspect the questions are not uncommon....
Basic stuff, but it is difficult for many people to get since they are programmed otherwise. 

In my experience (anecdotally), those who know little to nothing about economics and finance get the MMT basics of money creation pretty easily since it make sense in the absence of countervailing the assumptions. Accountants also get MMT; Richard Murphy is an expert in accountancy, for instance. As one accountant replied after I finished explaining MMT, "How else could it be?" It's just the way the accounting works.

It all really hangs on the distinction between a currency issuer and users of the currency, institutional arrangements imposed by the issuer as the prerogative of the issuer, and the availability of real resources in the economy offered in markets. This is the set up of a "monetary production economy" under a capitalistic system, e.g., as analyzed by Keynes. 

The Keynesian approach was carried forward by Post Keynesians and proponents of an institutional approach to economics and finance. MMT builds primarily on these schools of thought in contrast to neoclassical approach that dominates contemporary economics. Most people have been influenced by neoclassical economic ideas through the media, which predisposes many against MMT. (For purists, Hyman Minsky also influenced MMT, especially through Randy Wray, and Minsky, like his own thesis advisor, Joseph Schumpeter, rejected association with any school of economic thought.)

Of course, "the devil is in the details" also. But one must first grasp the basics — the general case — before moving on to the details, which are likely to be different in different jurisdictions owing to differences in institutional arrangements that set up special cases under the general case. Complications also arise from the relationship of government banking and finance and private banking and finance. Then, there is the EZ. So it would be incorrect to reduce MMT to the MMT basics, as some are wont to do. But the basics are just a prerequisite for approaching a much broader subject matter.

Still, grasp of the basics is all that many if not most people need to understand in order to engage in informed inquiry into much political discuss that involves economic and finance. Many of the common objections to MMT are based on misunderstanding of the basics.

Tax Research UK
MMT answers
Richard Murphy | Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London; Director of Tax Research UK; non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics, and a member of the Progressive Economy Forum

13 comments:

NeilW said...

"as someone who does not see the job guarantee as core to MMT (I know some will disagree, but I think it a policy option within it) "

Richard still doesn't get it I see.

Repeat after me. It's not MMT without a Job Guarantee.

That's the price anchor that allows MMT to maintain stable prices at a higher output than any other school of thought.

Without it, you're just doing old school tax and spend Keynesianism rather than updating the stabilisation policy to something more modern than wonks stroking their beards and trying to divine the One Interest Rate That Rules Them All.

Peter Pan said...

MMT without a JG is less objectionable... I wonder why.

Tom Hickey said...

"The devil is in the details." The JG is one of those details the devil is in.

Matt Franko said...

Permanent ZIRP is also MMT…

Matt Franko said...

MMT : permanent ZIRP

Biden: largest rate increase in shortest amount of time ever

MMT : job guarantee

Biden: wants Powell to get UE up to at least 5%

MMT : deficits don’t matter

Biden : brags every day about how lower his deficit is than trumps

Matt Franko said...

Pretty much everything that the MMT people are saying… then Biden is doing the exact opposite…

Ahmed Fares said...

MMT : deficits don’t matter

Stephanie Kelton weighs into the conversation...

DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS MATTER DEFICITS...

Twitter source

Ahmed Fares said...

Paul Krugman Asked Me About Modern Monetary Theory. Here Are 4 Answers.

From the article:

Is there only one right deficit level? No, because for one thing, MMT would establish a public option in the labor market—a federally funded job guarantee—thereby ensuring full employment across the business cycle. The deficit, then, would rise and fall with the cycle, as the job guarantee becomes a new stabilizer, automatically moving toward the “right size” in response to changes in the level of aggregate spending.

NeilW said...

Permanent ZIRP is how you eliminate the deficit problem. Mainstream have it backwards. When the deficit is big people are saving a lot, which likely means there is more for government to do, not less. We can tell that by looking at the length of the unemployment queue.

Once you stop paying money on deficits and leave it as what it is - an accounting balancing item nobody should be getting excited about - then you can concentrate on the unemployment queue, not the size of the interest bill.

The consequence of the MMT analysis is that it is better to fix the price of labour and leave the cost of money in the vertical circuit at zero.

The Deficit Myth is the idea that a bigger deficit costs more. What we need is nobody to care what size the deficit is. And the way to do that is to make it costless.

Warren's approach of Full Liquidity with a guaranteed job as the system autostabiliser is still the best system. If that upsets those who want to believe they shouldn't have to work for a living, then too bad.

Matt Franko said...

“ When the deficit is big people are saving a lot, ”

Nobody believes that….

Matt Franko said...

Everyone believes “ When the deficit is big government is borrowing a lot, “

This is what is taught at 99.99% of the liberal Art schools that teach Economics….

A reification error…

The liberal Art / Socratic methodology is not designed to prevent reification of the figurative and doesn’t even use abstraction…

Matt Franko said...

https://newrepublic.com/article/133431/donald-trump-right-deficits-dont-matter

“ Trump found himself well outside of mainstream thinking about deficits and debt last week when he suggested that the United States could borrow money to shore up the economy… Trump went further when he told CNN on Monday, “This is the United States government… you never have to default because you print the money.”

Then they support Biden… who does THE …EXACT… OPPOSITE … of what they are attempting to teach… 🤔

Senexx said...

Whilst ZIRP is the base case, permanent ZIRP is not necessarily MMT like the JG.

It ranges from ZIRP to low interest rates - check a variety of Randy’s work where he accepts both

And any person that says “without JG” has to explicitly state their preferred buffer stock - otherwise we are left to assume it's unemployment or gold