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

The Synthesis we Need

I found this comment on Twitter by Matt Yglesias interesting.  He says:

“I think MMT/NGDPLT synthesis is the advance we need.”

Why is it interesting?  Because it’s precisely what I discussed the other day in my response to the Woodford paper.  Monetary Realism was formed with the express intent of helping to describe how the monetary system works in its current form.  It is a pure description of the institutional structures that exist and how they work to impact the economy.  The view is entirely based on understanding how the machine works.  We did not start from an ideological position.  We started from a position of fact based on the actual institutional design of the system.  And we’ve left the policy entirely out of it.  In fact, one of the main intentions behind MR is that we can better understand how the system works and remain flexible on policy given the changing landscape of the economic environment.  No school has the policy ideas exactly right.  And through understanding how the system works we realize that there’s actually a lot right in these differing schools.

The problem with much of economics today is that most schools of thought start with an ideology, build a policy objective around that ideology and then create some description of the monetary system that makes that ideology appear more credible.  MR does the exact opposite.  We describe the system for what it is based on its institutional design and then say “you decide how to implement policy based on these understandings”.  In other words, MR bridges the divide that exists between all these different schools because it’s through our understanding of the system that we realize there are bits and pieces of each school that are correct.  That’s why you see Market Monetarists, Circuitists, Keynesians, Austrians and MMTers all agreeing with parts of MR….It’s the synthesis Matt Yglesias wants and probably doesn’t know exists….

Comments are closed.