- Joined
- Apr 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 229
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I'm obviously in a camp that doesn't think the standard economic theory is completely correct. And before you dismiss that, my camp includes plenty of Ph.D.s that studied standard economics and then came to the MMT camp, plus those Ph.D.s that started out there. So it has some validity.
My intention was not to drown your claims but to be precise about how economists work out the relationship between real variables and nominal variables.*If you're going to make the case that it is wrong, the first thing to do is to be very clear about it is you criticize.
And I don't think of DSGE models as exactly correct, as much as I think they are useful tools to organize arguments. I know that Lawrence Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum, and Paul Krugman have expressed this kind of view in the past. John Cochrane also has a similar view and it's the opinion all macroeconomists under which I studied share.
That said, your explanations might as well be written in German for all the help they are to a layman. You need to dumb it way down on this forum.
Let me try it again.
The most fundamental concepts in economics are preferences and option costs. Here, the important bit concerns option costs. The idea is that when you can't have your bread and eat it too, so one must be sacrificed to obtain the other. That which you sacrifice is the option cost. Now, in a context where you have prices, this means that what will matter are price ratios: the rate at which the market allows you to sacrifice, say, little American flags for some beer on every July 4th is what matters.
This feature is not a bug, but a fundamental feature of economic theory. It's everywhere, including in our most sophisticated models and because it's the ratio of prices that matters, you get the core of what makes money neutral in some models: if you multiply all prices by 10, no ratio has changed (because you multiply the numerator and denominator of each ratio by 10), hence, if nothing else has changed, the behavior of people is the same. The way you work around this is obvious: you want some, but not all prices to be multiplied by 10 so that some ratios change and the behavior of people therefore also changes, even if nothing else happened. That's what price stickiness does in New Keynesian models: it creates drag in average price adjustments (sometimes also in wage adjustments) that have consequences on real variables like output, consumption, investment, etc.
So, to respond to a comment you made previously, money doesn't come first in this view. What is fundamental is how many hours I need to work to buy a bag of oranges and prices are just instruments that convey this information, even if I gave above an explanation as to how this information might be distorted by delays in pricing adjustments. You don't care about dollars, except through what dollars can get you if you prefer. That's the point of view of contemporary economics, though I left out some subtleties, hopefully to make more accessible.
Right now in Jackson Hole, Krugman and Summers are coming to some very MMT-like conclusions, but without acknowledging MMT itself or any of the MMT academics that have been saying the same things, and publishing papers, for years. They are bending into pretzels trying to validate Krugman's IS/LM ideas, instead of simply questioning whether it's valid at all. Mostly, I believe, because they have too much to lose by admitting that they have been wrong for years.
This will shock you, but the arguments made by Krugman and Summers are not esoteric. Krugman's Wonderland analogy, his arguments about the ineffectiveness of monetary policy at the zero lower bound, about how unconventional monetary policies should play out, about the power of fiscal policy during a zero lower bound spell, etc. ALL of that without a single exception comes out of a New Keynesian DSGE model. Krugman uses the IS/LM diagrams to get his point across to a lay audience, but the point can be even more forcefully be made in a New Keynesian model.