Skip to main content

Palley on the limitations of MMT once again

Tom Palley's new paper on MMT titled "Modern money theory (MMT): the emperor still has no clothes" is out. From the abstract:
Eric Tymoigne and Randall Wray’s (T&W, 2013) defense of MMT leaves the MMT emperor even more naked than before (excuse the Yogi Berra-ism). The criticism of MMT is not that it has produced nothing new. The criticism is that MMT is a mix of old and new, the old is correct and well understood, while the new is substantially wrong. Among many failings, T&W fail to provide an explanation of how MMT generates full employment with price stability; lack a credible theory of inflation; and fail to justify the claim that the natural rate of interest is zero. MMT currently has appeal because it is a policy polemic for depressed times. That makes for good politics but, unfortunately, MMT’s policy claims are based on unsubstantiated economics.
 The full paper is here.

Comments

  1. "For the last seventy years the language of macroeconomics has been small scale simultaneous equation models with dynamic adjustment mechanisms attached to explore issues of stability. Proponents of MMT have a professional obligation to provide such a model to help understand and assess the logic and originality of their claims."

    Throw out Joan Robinson's work? Throw out Keynes' work? I don't know what to make of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This might help: Money, fiscal policy, and interest rates: A critique of Modern Monetary Theory - see http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_imk_wp_109_2013

      Delete
    2. I read that ages ago. I don't care about the debate. I think Palley's criticisms are weak.

      What I want to know is: from what position is Palley arguing? He seems to write a lot about how great the ISLM curve is. Does this make him a neo-Keynesian or what?

      Delete
    3. The use of ISLM does not necessarily make you a neo-keynesian: http://nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.com/2013/12/islm-further-explanation-and-defense.html

      Delete
    4. Well, I disagree with that. Robinson extensively criticised the ISLM. She showed serious problems with the investment function. [http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/2302/]

      But Palley also adopts the Phillips Curve. Taken together these are the hallmarks of neo-Keynesianism:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Keynesian_economics#Neoclassical_synthesis

      Then there's the insistence on static modelling as a prerequisite for economics to be "taken seriously". This again does not line up with anything I've read that could be classified as Post-Keynesianism.

      Honestly, I see very little that is not neo-Keynesian in Palley's paper.

      Delete
  2. I'm asking this everywhere but I'm genuinely curious... The more I read the paper the more it seems like a neo-Keynesian paper. On all the key points Palley seems to fall on the neo-Keynesian side of the argument. On ISLM; on the status of modelling; on using an equilibrium framework and testing for stability; on the Phillips Curve... it's all neo-Keynesian.

    Can some people on here please clarify whether Palley is a Post-Keynesian or a neo-Keynesian economist? I'm genuinely confused.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I generally disagree with Palley's piece, he is right that you should be able to express your theory as a system of equations. For functional finance, that's easy: Just replace the budget constraint with a fiscal policy rule setting the G-T based on inflation and/or unemployment, and the Taylor rule setting i at whatever value is necessary to stabilize the debt-GDP ratio or, if you prefer, at zero. If we can achieve output at potential and a constant debt ratio using orthodox policy, then we can also achieve them using this set of rules.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the 'Classical Dichotomy'?

A few brief comments on Brexit and the postmortem of the European Union

Another end of the world is possible
There will be a lot of postmortems for the European Union (EU) after Brexit. Many will suggest that this was a victory against the neoliberal policies of the European Union. See, for example, the first three paragraphs of Paul Mason's column here. And it is true, large contingents of working class people, that have suffered with 'free-market' economics, voted for leaving the union. The union, rightly or wrongly, has been seen as undemocratic and responsible for the economics woes of Europe.

The problem is that while it is true that the EU leaders have been part of the problem and have pursued the neoliberal policies within the framework of the union, sometimes with treaties like the Fiscal Compact, it is far from clear that Brexit and the possible demise of the union, if the fever spreads to France, Germany and other countries with their populations demanding their own referenda, will lead to the abandonment of neoliberal policies. Aust…

A brief note on Venezuela and the turn to the right in Latin America

So besides the coup in Brazil (which was all but confirmed by the last revelations, if you had any doubts), and the electoral victory of Macri in Argentina, the crisis in Venezuela is reaching a critical level, and it would not be surprising if the Maduro administration is recalled, even though right now the referendum is not scheduled yet.

The economy in Venezuela has collapsed (GDP has fallen by about 14% or so in the last two years), inflation has accelerated (to three digit levels; 450% or so according to the IMF), there are shortages of essential goods, recurrent energy blackouts, and all of these aggravated by persistent violence. Contrary to what the press suggests, these events are not new or specific to left of center governments. Similar events occurred in the late 1980s, in the infamous Caracazo, when the fall in oil prices caused an external crisis, inflation, and food shortages, which eventually, after the announcement of a neoliberal economic package that included the i…