This entry was posted on Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 1:40 am and is filed under Articles.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
29 Responses to “Heterodox economics: Marginal revolutionaries | The Economist”
“In 1996 he earned them over $100m after he pledged to buy more of a certain type of Japanese paper than the government had issued. And his bank made a monthly return on required equity of over 10% in 2011 largely by buying American Treasury bonds, betting against celebrated investors like Bill Gross of Pimco, the world’s largest bond fund, who sold his fund’s Treasuries in early 2011 before recognising his mistake later on.”
Seriously? No wonder you are living in the Virgin Islands!
It is tremendous being mentioned in The Economist. But the article itself reveals a lack of any understanding of, what to me, are the true insights of MMT;the difference between the gold standard and free-floating non-convertible currencies, an understanding of the reality of central and commercial banking operations (loans create deposits, reserves are not loaned, the true fiscal effects of monetary operations, etc), and an understanding of national accounts and flows of funds. The exposition of these realities by MMT has been a revelation for me. In these areas it is clear that mainstream economists are wrong. In not presenting these critical insights I think the Economist article is woefully deficient.
I’m happey for Mr. Mosler to actually be recognized in a major publication but the article was neither entertaining nor educational.
It consisted of a lot of benign rambling about the economy and constant comparisons between Austrians and MMT-ers all while denigrating both schools of thought. That’s to be expected by such a “mainstream” publication, but how has the “mainstream” economic answers and ideas worked out so far in regards to our economy??? The constant hype or push of mainstream economics based upon principles of meritocracy is not open to any suggestions or deviations of their dogma. After reading that “article” and understanding that there needs to be “more spending”, but BY WHOM and WHERE?
But some annoying people still think inflation is the growth in money supply, and they can only resort to ad hominem when they are confronted with the cold facts (I always use the graphs Mitchell posted in his The myth of rational expectations
great publicity; but the DT propagandists just won’t quit;
left this comment:
> “Mr Mosler [says] that there is plenty of scope for borrowing more”
?? That’s a complete mischaracterization, given all definitions of chartalism, or MMT. If a nation switches from a commodity-money-supply standard, to a “fiat” standard where currency is backed by distributed public initiative, then currency is NOT borrowed, any more than public initiative is.