Marc Lavoie Post-Keynesian Economics vs MMT

40 views
Skip to first unread message

Joe Leote

unread,
Oct 4, 2021, 2:20:47 PM10/4/21
to Money Group
This talk by economist Marc Lavoie explains Macro theory of Post-Keynesian Economics in the context of the Covid response in Canada. Near the end he compares PKE and other economic theories to MMT.


Joe

her...@chariot.net.au

unread,
Oct 4, 2021, 6:07:36 PM10/4/21
to understan...@googlegroups.com

Talk about a comparison is absurd, because MMT is a subdivision of PKE.

Do you agree?    - John Hermann

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Understanding Money" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to understandingmo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/understandingmoney/CAMpwg53Sy%3DYbWUPpvuiauZF4UPaXsrOr-_dF7p6%3Dxkr4eV_07Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Jean Erick

unread,
Oct 5, 2021, 1:52:37 PM10/5/21
to understan...@googlegroups.com

What’s PKE?

 

James

Joe Leote

unread,
Oct 5, 2021, 2:26:40 PM10/5/21
to Money Group
As described in the following paper Mark Lavoie recognizes unique contributions by MMT authors working within the general theoretical framework called Post-Keynesian Economics.

Modern Monetary Theory and Post-Keynesian Economics:


Thomas Palley frequently criticizes Modern Monetary Theory within the context of Post-Keynesian Economics as for example in the following paper.

Macroeconomics vs. Modern Monetary Theory: Some Unpleasant Keynesian Arithmetic:


If MMT is the same as PKE then we have two words for the same thing so just call it PKE and there is no criticism or distinction. So MMT authors and PKE authors both make efforts to compare MMT to the rest of PKE.

Joe


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/understandingmoney/002b01d7b96c%2438d26cc0%24aa774640%24%40chariot.net.au.

her...@chariot.net.au

unread,
Oct 5, 2021, 7:28:37 PM10/5/21
to understan...@googlegroups.com

Palley’s paper (referenced below) misrepresents and misunderstands both MMT and the nature of money. Clearly Palley has not read widely on MMT or he would not have made the elementary mistake of asserting that all deficits incurred by a monetary sovereign government need to be “paid” from future taxes. Only taxes paid to non-monetary-sovereign governments -- the lower levels of government (using currency created by the central government) fund anything. The money used to pay central government taxes (both bank deposit money and the associated banking reserves) go out of existence with each payment. The primary purpose of central government taxation is not to provide revenue, but rather, to destroy purchasing power in order to keep a lid on inflation. In doing so. It frees up fiscal space for the central government.  Palley’s assertion is the erroneous position of neoclassical economics.   - John Hermann

Jean Erick

unread,
Oct 6, 2021, 12:48:37 PM10/6/21
to understan...@googlegroups.com

     Yeahbut.   What about the over riding concept of the “Galbraithian Miracle”?  The

 

drop in purchasing value of debt payments due to inflation?  Effective partial debt

 

cancellation.

 

I actually wondered if they were going to push it further by defaulting.  I begin to

 

suspect that bond holders do not expect a profit.  Just to not fall as behind as

 

much as others.

 

 

 

James

 

From: her...@chariot.net.au
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:28 PM
To: understan...@googlegroups.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages