Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Loading...
Most Recent Stories

Did Keynes Understand Endogenous Money?

One of the core understandings of MR is the endogeneity of money. Endogenous money is based on the understanding that the money supply is high powered money + broad money and that these variables are determined by the private sector’s demand for money. That is, almost all of the money in our monetary system is created by banks almost entirely independent of the government.  It is created INSIDE the private sector.  The government has essentially outsourced the creation of money to a private oligopoly of banks who compete for business.  This fact is largely untouched in most of mainstream economics.  And there might be a fairly good reason why.

JM Keynes is clearly one of the most influential economists of all-time.  Perhaps THE most influential economist of all-time.  His General Theory is a veritable bible for many economists.  So it’s interesting to note that while many economists during the era of Keynes were aware of the endogeneity of money (Soddy and Fisher for instance), Keynes himself appeared extremely confused on the subject.  In the General Theory he wrote:

We can sum up the above in the proposition that in any given state of expectation there is in the minds of the public a certain potentiality towards holding cash beyond what is required by the transactions-motive or the precautionary-motive, which will realise itself in actual cash-holdings in a degree which depends on the terms on which the monetary authority is willing to create cash.

“In the case of money, however—postponing, for the moment, our consideration of the effects of reducing the wage-unit or of a deliberate increase in its supply by the monetary authority—the supply is fixed.”

Thus we can sometimes regard our ultimate independent variables as consisting of (i) the three fundamental psychological factors, namely, the psychological propensity to consume, the psychological attitude to liquidity and the psychological expectation of future yield from capital-assets, (2) the wage-unit as determined by the bargains reached between employers and employed, and (3) the quantity of money as determined by the action of the central bank

These are various forms of a money multiplier or government centric money system and they’re inapplicable to the way the system is actually designed.   It’s clear that JM Keynes did not have a solid grasp of endogenous money.  And perhaps that explains why so many modern day economists and economic models simply ignore the reality that banks rule the monetary roost.    Perhaps the confusion over so much of modern macro stems directly from the master himself?   Was the most influential economist of our times actually woefully misinformed?  It appears so….

Comments are closed.