Wray on the History of Money

By Dan Kervick

This is just a brief note to the readers of New Economic Perspectives to point them to an outstanding new working paper posted by L. Randall Wray at the website of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.  The paper is called “Introduction to an Alternative History of Money”.   In the abstract of the paper, Randy beautifully captures a feature of heterodox approaches to economics that distinguishes those approaches from much orthodox economic theorizing:

Heterodox economists reject the formalist methodology adopted by orthodox economists in favor of a substantivist methodology. In the formalist methodology, the economist begins with the “rational” economic agent facing scarce resources and unlimited wants. Since the formalist methodology abstracts from historical and institutional detail, it must be applicable to all human societies. Heterodoxy argues that economics has to do with a study of the institutionalized interactions among humans and between humans and nature. The economy is a component of culture; or, more specifically, of the material life process of society.  As such, substantivist economics cannot abstract from the institutions that help to shape economic processes; and the substantivist problem is not the formal one of choice, but a problem concerning production and distribution.

There is no doubt that abstraction has its purposes in science.  But so much of orthodox economic debate these days seems to get lost inside the formal models of the debaters, adding pointless epicycles to models that are fundamentally flawed from the outset, and whose inherent social and psychological unreality no number of added complications can fix.

The curves of economic theory have an attractive and almost addictive visual simplicity.  Some are very useful.  The risk, however, is that they quickly become intellectual crutches.  People addicted to the representational power of these curves can start thinking too much in terms of animated PowerPoint displays, where various actions produce automatic effects in terms of motions either of the curves or along the curves in a pure mathematical space.  And as a result they may begin to neglect observation of the real-world processes occurring among actual, organic and historically given people and institutions – the processes that the models were supposed to describe in the first place.   The human reality of MMT and other heterodox approaches is part of what attracted me to this new way of thinking in the first place – and helped break me of some of the bad mental habits burned into my brain from that old Intermediate Macro course I took in 1978.

Anyway, enjoy Randy’s paper!

New York Times Reporters need to Read Krugman’s Columns

By William K. Black

To know the Washington Consensus as a regular citizen is to hate the Consensus.  The Washington Consensus, as the name implies, was an “inside the beltway” series of neo-liberal policies embraced by the IMF, the World Bank, and the U.S. government.  It called for a minimal State and an all-powerful private sector.  The private sector and de facto private central banks would discipline the State by insisting on balanced budgets – perpetual austerity.  Democracy was unreliable, indeed dangerous, so the central banks had to be “independent” of the democratic process (and wholly dependent on the largest banks).  Only the private sector had the proper incentives that could be relied upon to create vibrant growth and a self-correcting economy.  The Consensus was developed in the context of the policies that should be imposed on Latin America and Latin Americans were the guinea pigs of Consensus.  (This metaphor was particularly troubling for Latin Americans who knew that their ancestors raised guinea pigs as a reliable source of meat.)

Continue reading

A Closer Look at Three Sectors’ Financial Balances

By Erin Haswell

Erin’s video is first among several developed by students in Eric Tymgoine’s modern money course.

Developing Nations

By Dan Kervick

Matt Yglesias has described three popular contemporary political approaches to the challenge of maintaining our national commitment to “providing health care services to the elderly, the disabled, and the poor and also to bolstering the general incomes of elderly people.”  One is Congressman Paul Ryan’s approach of reducing the level of the future commitment in order to bring it in line with “historic norms about the level of taxation.”  The second is the liberal approach of preserving our existing level of commitment into the future, even if that means raising taxes in the aggregate.  The third is “the hazy Obama/Simpson-Bowlesish center that wants to raise taxes and cut programs.”

Perhaps this short list characterizes the main political answers reasonably well, if the main political question is how to tame the budget, and shrink or control the deficit.  But I would like to point out that all three answers have something in common:  Not a single one of these approaches, as usually presented, contains any call for the national government to engage seriously in what one might call “investing in our future”.  All three of them reflect the defeatist mindsets of different camps of worn out oldsters, each promoting a different way of giving up, making do, or just hanging on.  They are all pathologies of the dismal “No, we can’t!” era in which we now live.

The promoters of these three variations on the theme of austere, hard news pessimism no doubt fancy themselves realists and responsible grownups.  But they are nothing of the sort.  They are burned-out casualties of neoliberalism, afflicted with dead imaginations or ideological blinders, who have forgotten what it means to grow a country and build a society.  We need to move beyond their miserable and dismal trilemma.  If the die-hard adherents of these schools of thought want to mope around the shuffleboard courts at the End of History Home for Final Surrender, let them.  But it’s time for the rest of us to reject all three approaches and reignite our history.

Continue reading

RESPONSES TO BLOG 48: MMT AND THE JOB GUARANTEE

By L. Randall Wray

Ok we had a huge number of responses. I can see we will need a Blog 49 on this topic and that there are way too many comments for me to deal with tonight. I will just hit seven themes—commentators should be able to see which of these themes their comments fall under. And I will be brief. I will deal in more detail next week with a few of these.

1. Attention Deficit Disorder: A couple of comments here, and from what I can tell a huge number of comments on other “Modern Money” blogs that are not called MMT, suffer from ADD. Some people cannot read past a single sentence. I think there are now drugs that help. Try them.

So apparently a lot of bloggers (especially those who accept MMT, but without the taxes or the JG—go figure!) latched onto a sentence, plus one word. I said: “So, can we have MMT without a JG? Certainly!” Now that followed a long discussion, including an analogy to a theory of disease and a policy to fight the disease (more in a minute), and followed by the statement by me: “I believe it is a policy mistake to operate a modern money system without a JG—but that is what almost all countries do. MMT allows us to analyze them, and to offer policy recommendations. But if we leave out the JG in our recommendations, we are seriously remiss in our advice.”

Continue reading

The Astonishing Case of the Impenetrable Zero Bound

By Dan Kervick

In a small, peaceful town there once lived three people: Abbie, Baker and Carlie.

Abbie was a very wealthy aristocrat, and also a philanthropist.  Her fortune and position in the town were the fruit of the hard work of her ancestors, but her life was dedicated now only to managing that fortune.  She lived to make the common people of the town happy, especially Carlie, who was her personal favorite.

Baker was much more selfish, and looked out for his own interests.  He wasn’t terrible and mean, just obstinately self-interested.  It seems he was born that way; it was in his DNA.

Abbie frequently lent money to Baker, and Baker frequently lent money to Carlie.  But in accordance with the ancient and venerable laws of the town, enacted to maintain a decorous distance between the aristocrats and common people, Abbie was forbidden from loaning money directly to Carlie.  Nevertheless, Abbie was usually able to help out Carlie indirectly when necessary.  She found that when she lent money to Baker, Baker was sometimes more willing than before to lend money to Carlie.  And if Abbie loaned the money to Baker at lower rates of interest than previously, Baker would usually reduce the rate of interest he charged Carlie in turn.

Continue reading

May Day: The Real Meaning

By John F. Henry

In the United States, the real meaning of May Day has been largely forgotten. To be sure, there is a “Labor Day,” a time for picnics and various festivities, but May 1 has been converted—not without reason and not without malice—into “Law Day.” In 1921, following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, May Day was renamed “Americanization Day.” In 1958, May Day became “Loyalty Day,” and later that year, President Eisenhower proclaimed May 1 “Law Day.”

What a travesty, and what a repudiation of the original May Day, a day that should be remembered and celebrated by all those who labor for a wage or salary.

May Day celebrates the struggle—long and often bloody—for the 8-hour day. While this now seems remote and rather archaic, in the 19th century, the 8-hour day was a rallying point for the vast majority of workers who put in 10, 12, or more hours per day, six days a week.

On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers across the United States shut down the machines and walked off their jobs in the first May Day celebration in history. In Chicago, 40,000 went on strike with socialists and anarchists in the leadership. More workers continued to strike until the numbers grew to nearly 100,000. Two days later, violence broke out at the McCormick Reaper Works, an aggression precipitated by Chicago police, acting in the interests of McCormick, a notable capitalist of the day.

For months, police and Pinkerton agents beat and attempted to intimidate picketing workers. A rally was called in Haymarket Square. Someone, we still don’t know who (possibilities include a disgruntled worker or police agent), threw a bomb and all hell broke loose. In the aftermath of the ensuing melee, anarchist leaders were arrested and charged with the crime—though most were not even present when the bomb was thrown. Albert Parsons, August Spies, Samuel Fielden, Oscar Neebe, Michael Schwab, George Engel, Adolph Fischer and Louis Lingg were arrested and convicted of murder. On November 11, 1887, Parsons, Spies, Engel and Fisher were hanged. Louis Lingg ostensibly committed suicide.

In 1890, the Second International declared May Day as an international celebration to commemorate the “Haymarket Martyrs” and to continue the fight for the 8-hour day. There was a time when tens of millions of workers walked off the job in international solidarity. Indeed, in the 1930’s “a million” walked Fifth Avenue to demonstrate their opposition to the prevailing economic system.

It is time, indeed, past time, to reclaim May 1 as International Workers Day. Workers in the US, whether miners, factory operative, clerks, teachers, civil servants, need to join others throughout the world to help galvanize a renewed movement to assert their rights, to demand their economic well-being, to claim simple justice. It is time to say, “Enough!” The monied “1 percent” has been in the uncontested driver’s seat long enough. Let us return to the days of labor militancy, of labor democracy. Let’s restore May 1 as the real May Day. As Mother Jones would have it: “Pray for the dead; fight like hell for the living.”

For further reading, see the short but insightful Philip Foner, May Day. (New York: International Publishers, 1986)

Geithner channels Greenspan and Airbrushes Fraud out of our Crises

By William K. Black

On April 25, 2012, Treasury Secretary Geithner made remarkable statements about the role of elite financial fraud and greed in producing our recurrent, intensifying financial crises.  In this first installment I focus on the first of five problems with Geithner’s claims: (1) he does not understand the causes of prior crises, (2) he does not understand the causes of the ongoing crisis, (3) he does not understand that if he were correct about the first two points our nation would be in even greater peril and the urgency of Geithner leading a radical transformation of finance and regulation would be greater still, (4) he is not correct that we are prosecuting the elite criminals who drove the ongoing crisis, and (5) the media continues its nine-year pattern of failing to challenge Geithner’s fictions and his failures to lead the radical transformation that he should be desperately seeking given his stated beliefs about the causes of financial crises.

Here are the specifics of what Geithner said about financial crises, fraud, and greed.

Continue reading

The Dutch Left’s Embrace of the Austerity Suicide Pact: It’s Necessary for the Children!

By William K. Black

A remarkable, and terrible, thing has just taken place in the Netherlands of which few Americans are aware.  The ruling Dutch political coalition collapsed when the ultra-right wing party (the Freedom Party, led by Geert Wilders) refused to support its coalition partners’ austerity package (calling for tax increases and reduced government expenditures).  Wilders is best known for his opposition to Islamic immigrants but is developing a new following based on his Euro skepticism. The core parties of the governing coalition were Mark Rutte’s VVD party and the Christian Democrats (CDA).

Continue reading

MMP Blog 48: IS THE JOB GUARANTEE NECESSARY?

By L. Randall Wray

Over the past 11 months, or so, we have examined Modern Money Theory. This is the proper paradigm for analyzing all modern countries that use their own currency.

Some have wondered whether we can separate MMT from the Job Guarantee (JG): can one accept MMT while rejecting the JG?

To be honest, I find this to be a rather strange question. We have a modern theory of Bubonic Plague. Until medical science developed a theory of disease that can be caused by microbes too small to be seen with the naked eye, all sorts of explanations of the cause of the Plague were offered. The most popular was “bad air”. The preventative measures offered (quarantine of affected individuals, evacuation of cities, burning of the property of the deceased), and improvement of public sanitation actually were quite effective—indeed, in the richer countries the plague was almost banished even before the “germ” theory of disease was ever developed. (To be sure, there were false starts—such as killing cats, that had helped keep rats in check!)

Continue reading