This passage demonstrates that Murphy understands the accounting side of “MMT operations analysis” — not a big ask for a part time professor of accounting — but does not grasp economic theory nor its context. If literally everyone who has studied economic theory and is sympathetic to MMT states that the Job Guarantee is a core part of MMT and you do not understand them, the correct response is to reduce your ignorance, and not write a primer on MMT.
Brian saved me the trouble writing this. Actually, I was thinking of doing so yesterday but didn't have the time. Many seem to equate MMT with the institutional analysis, which is descriptive, and either forget about the macro theory, which is a causal explanation with factual implications, or else they misunderstand it, usually by reading it from a framing that MMT specifically rejects.
Bond EconomicsSilly "MMT" Drama
Brian Romanchuk
5 comments:
A job guarantee might help ordinary people. Can't have that.
We need to make it clearer that the Job Guarantee is there to *replace* interest rate adjustments as the system stabilisation policy.
Some nations are closer to being able to do that than others. Generally you have to get universal healthcare sorted first...
We move stabilisation from the market for money to the market for labour.
Murphy probably not ignorant of the political dilemmas the JG part would create..
Not in the UK Matt. We practically have one already. (as in people without work get paid to do a default job)
We're a lot further along the road than the US.
The US is the odd one out.
Post a Comment