I recently re-read John Maynard Keynes’ magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (hereafter GT). First published in 1936, this was the great man’s attempt to persuade his fellow economists that changes to their understanding of economic theory and policy were necessary to remedy the mass unemployment which seemed to be a recurring feature of capitalist economies, particularly during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
It is now a decade since the onset of the Great Recession, when governments across the world ‘rediscovered’ Keynes, or what they thought were Keynesian ideas, for fighting the economic slump. There was a brief revival of activist fiscal policy: taxes were cut, public spending increased and government deficits rose. But once the threat of collapse had been averted, there was a turn to austerity in many countries, amid renewed worries about ‘credibility’ and business confidence. Continue reading →
The aim of QE is to reduce long-term interest rates, boost private sector lending, and raise asset prices to generate a positive wealth effect on private spending. Altogether, these are meant to raise private sector consumption and investment, and thus economic growth.
Richard Koo, economist at Nomura and originator of the theory of balance sheet recessions, has outlined the potential problem of the ‘QE Trap’ (2015). While QE might have the effect of mitigating such a recession, once the recovery is underway, its withdrawal could lead to slower growth than otherwise. In other words, over the longer term, its overall effect might be negligible or even negative: Continue reading →
Plenty of economists, investors and others have been wondering what will happen to financial markets and the real economy as monetary stimulus in the form of Quantitative Easing is wound down by central banks from the US to the Eurozone in the face of stronger growth.
I will be writing more about it next week, considering the perspectives of critic Richard Koo among others, but here is Michael Hudson from, as ever, his iconoclastic and insightful ‘dictionary’ J is for Junk Economics (p.189-91): Continue reading →
A nice interview with post-Keynesian Professor Steve Keen, in which he discusses what are (or should be) some of the most important issues in modern economics.
He covers the role of finance and private debt in generating inequality and what can be done to reduce it; the idea and feasibility of a universal basic income; economics and planetary ecology; and the incorporation of energy into economic models.
Last week I posted several times on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), a set of ideas which seems to have plenty of support, or at least generates plenty of debate, judging by its presence on the internet.
MMT is an offshoot of post-Keynesianism. The policies which flow from its main theses suggest that a wise and benevolent state can ‘print’ money, within certain limits, to achieve full employment and moderate inflation.
Some MMTers also support an Employer of Last Resort (ELR) function for the state too. In other words, the state should provide a job at a set wage for all those who want one, so that full employment can be sustained even when economic growth slows or the economy goes into recession. The ELR policy was supported by Hyman Minsky whose ideas have also influenced MMT. He saw it as a more productive alternative to forms of welfare which pay people while they are inactive in terms of formal employment. Continue reading →
Continuing this week’s slightly eclectic series of posts on Modern Monetary Theory, here is a repost of a repost(!) of some thoughts on MMT and Marxism by blogger Scott Ferguson, via the Union for Radical Political Economy blog. The link is below.
David M. Fields has kindly asked me to expand my critique of David Harvey’s latest project for the Union for Radical Political Economics blog. The result is a brief essay titled, “Some Remarks on MMT & Marxism in Light of David Harvey’s “Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason”.
A short video featuring L. Randall Wray, one of the leading proponents of Modern Monetary Theory. He discusses the reasons why economists and politicians struggle to understand it, and why non-economists, particularly those working in financial markets, apparently do not have this problem.
Towards the end, he mentions policymakers’ fears regarding the potential for inflation, which I shall return to in the context of MMT in a future post.