global financial crash yay!
- Thread starter sufi
- Start date
vimothy
yurp
Helping me to organise my thinking though.
EDIT: The problem with Scott's solution in the first instance is two-fold:
The Fed does not control the money supply
Even if the Fed controlled the money supply, some other factor would need to stabilise AD for an increase in the money supply to raise NGDP. Scott simply assumes that output is held constant. Since output is constant, increasing the money stock raises NGDP by virtue of raising the price level relative to output.
EDIT: The problem with Scott's solution in the first instance is two-fold:
The Fed does not control the money supply
Even if the Fed controlled the money supply, some other factor would need to stabilise AD for an increase in the money supply to raise NGDP. Scott simply assumes that output is held constant. Since output is constant, increasing the money stock raises NGDP by virtue of raising the price level relative to output.
Last edited:
huh, well I can't say that I find that very persuasive at all.
So if Chartalism isn't actually what everyone means when they say "Chartalist" then what is it?
It seems like the classic defense of a weak academic position (backtracking and narrowing the definition of "chartalism", until you get to a point where there is nothing to "chartalism", and nothing left to critique). The features that Febero critiques do quite clearly seem to be part of Chartalism as I hear it espoused. If Fullwiler & co. don't like the conclusions he draws, and don't like this concept of Chartalism, then they should probably just stop calling themselves Chartalists, rather than redefining it to the point of being unrecognizable. It's usually a sign of a bad theory when you keep having to add caveats that contradict earlier claims, and then criticizing others for not keeping up with all the caveats being added to a fundamentally flawed, incoherent theory.
My take is that anything that is actually useful in Chartalism has already been incorporated into PK, while Chartalism itself seems to be fundamentally flawed
So if Chartalism isn't actually what everyone means when they say "Chartalist" then what is it?
It seems like the classic defense of a weak academic position (backtracking and narrowing the definition of "chartalism", until you get to a point where there is nothing to "chartalism", and nothing left to critique). The features that Febero critiques do quite clearly seem to be part of Chartalism as I hear it espoused. If Fullwiler & co. don't like the conclusions he draws, and don't like this concept of Chartalism, then they should probably just stop calling themselves Chartalists, rather than redefining it to the point of being unrecognizable. It's usually a sign of a bad theory when you keep having to add caveats that contradict earlier claims, and then criticizing others for not keeping up with all the caveats being added to a fundamentally flawed, incoherent theory.
My take is that anything that is actually useful in Chartalism has already been incorporated into PK, while Chartalism itself seems to be fundamentally flawed
who do you think is gonna go first?
Greece have initiated massive tax hikes for anyone that earns more than 1 million per year. but official figures show that only 4 (FOUR) people fell into that tax bracket last year. LOL
i remember reading that a fifth of the total budget of the Athens Olympics was unaccounted for. I almost believe it now.
Greece have initiated massive tax hikes for anyone that earns more than 1 million per year. but official figures show that only 4 (FOUR) people fell into that tax bracket last year. LOL
i remember reading that a fifth of the total budget of the Athens Olympics was unaccounted for. I almost believe it now.
vimothy
yurp
Okay, so this is my reading:
Claim 1,
Febrero: EMU money is not Chartalist soveriegn money.
Fullwiler: Correct. This has always been the Chartalist position.
Claim 2,
Febrero: The Chartalists believe that the state determines the value of money.
Fullwiler: No they don't. (They believe AD determines the value of money, and government deficits relative to private sector AD determine AD for the economy as a whole...?)
Claim 3,
Febrero: Chartalists believe the private sector leverages high powered money like a money multiplier.
Fullwiler: No thety don't.
The first is straightforward. Of course the Euro is not an example of soveriegn money.
The second, I'm still thinking about. Incidentally, I looked at the paper by Wray Febrero cites and couldn't find this claim in it anywhere.
I think the third is a misunderstanding as well, though I'm near the extent of my knowledge of Chartalism. In any case it seems only fair to take an actual Chartalist at face value (ha!) when he explains what his own positions are...
Greece. As Vimothy pointed out earlier, when the ECB stops accepting Greek debt on repo due to a downgrade that's basically it - game over. I have a feeling that they will do something to avoid this though, something sneaky like debt guarantees, or some sort of ECB "facility" to temporarily buy up PIIGS debt, maybe some sort of write-down on the existing debt. I'm not sure exactly, but it seems like they are definitely going to have to do something about Greece.
vimothy
yurp
Ha
Greece has been pushed to the front of the queue by EU elites. They are agitating for its collapse. They actually want it to suffer. A sacrifice: offer Greece up to the wolves.
The logic of the market can do the rest. It's not hard to read the writing on the wall.
Up next: Spain or Portugal.
Greece has been pushed to the front of the queue by EU elites. They are agitating for its collapse. They actually want it to suffer. A sacrifice: offer Greece up to the wolves.
The logic of the market can do the rest. It's not hard to read the writing on the wall.
Up next: Spain or Portugal.
vimothy
yurp
So lemme re-phrase:
1. K: government can influence AD for the economy as a whole
2. C: government can determine AD for the economy as a whole
But I don't think the Chartalists actually believe that the government can determine AD for the economy as a whole, merely influence it, per Keynes:
1. K: government can influence AD for the economy as a whole
2. C: government can determine AD for the economy as a whole
But I don't think the Chartalists actually believe that the government can determine AD for the economy as a whole, merely influence it, per Keynes:
ok, but that's not even a view that is in any way unique to Chartalists
example:
http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html
If Bill Mitchell's brand of MMT isn't Chartalism, where the private sector is incapable of recycling savings into spending, then what exactly is the Chartalism? What's the essential Chartist position? From what I can tell it is essentially an assertion that private bank lending cannot stimulate AD... or something
example:
http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html
If Bill Mitchell's brand of MMT isn't Chartalism, where the private sector is incapable of recycling savings into spending, then what exactly is the Chartalism? What's the essential Chartist position? From what I can tell it is essentially an assertion that private bank lending cannot stimulate AD... or something