Vistas de página en total

sábado, 6 de julio de 2013

La "moderna" teoría monetaria

http://ineteconomics.org/institute-blog-0/new-york-times-intellectual-fashion-and-modern-monetary-theory

The New York Times, Intellectual Fashion, and Modern Monetary Theory

With regard to the spread of new ideas it is said that first they are ignored, then they are ridiculed, and then the new ideas win. If one is to judge from the new piece in the New York Times on "Modern Monetary Theory" (aka "MMT") then we're clearly in stage 2, which marks progress of a sort.
Several years ago, the "heretical" views expressed by the likes of Warren Mosler, Randy Wray, Bill Mitchell, Stephanie Kelton, Pavlina Tcherneva, and a host of others, wouldn’t have been seen anywhere near the Times. That said, the piece is rife with factual errors (for a good summary read this) but at least begins to challenge many of the prevailing misconceptions that dominate our current policy discourse.
In particular, the piece looks at the MMT challenge in regard to "fiscal sustainability". In general, I consider these concerns reflect a misunderstanding of the role deficits play in a modern monetary system. Specifically, this viewpoint still maintains that the absolute size of the deficit is some indicator of good and bad and that bigger is worse than smaller. Then at some size (unspecified) the deficit becomes unsustainable.
A key insight of MMT is that in a system of free-floating non-convertible exchange rates (i.e., "fiat currencies), there is no such thing as "fiscal sustainability" per se, in terms of a fully sovereign government able to create currency to pay its bills. In fact, there are many more examples of governments running continuous budget deficits with some central bank support for extended periods where inflation has not been an issue.
Most of the significant inflationary episodes in the last 50 years have been sourced in supply-side shocks rather than demand-pull situations arising from aggregate demand outstripping the real capacity of the economy to respond via output increases. And MMT is very sensitive to the inflation concerns, in contrast to the usual caricatures in the blogophere, which seems to view the lot of them as a bunch of Weimar hyperinflationistas.
It’s worth reading the Times piece, but note the subtle prejudices that underlie it. Why, for example, is Jamie Galbraith characterized as a "radical", while an apologist for the 1% like Greg Mankiw is considered wholly within the mainstream?
And finally, it is wrong to characterize MMT practitioners as "deficit lovers". It is more accurate to describe them as dismissive of the deficit phobias which are taken as a given in our policy discussions in Washington, Brussels, Berlin, and other parts of the world. Hopefully the Times piece at least indicates that we’re on the way to step 3, and that the old, mistaken ideas are on their way out.