Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Post-Keynesian economics

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The dismal science
Icon economics.svg
Economic Systems

  $  Market Economy
  €  Mixed Economy
  ☭ Socialist Economy

Major Concepts
Warning icon orange.svg This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Post-Keynesian economics could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

Post-Keynesian economics refers to a collection of emerging schools within macroeconomics that are attempting to "go back to the basics" of the work of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). In the post-World War II era, after Keynes died, his theories merged with more neoclassical-oriented thought and became the separate schools called New Keynesianism[1] and neo-Keynesianism[2]. These schools sought to root Keynes' ideas in a microeconomic approach. Post-Keynesians, by focusing more on macro-effects, have in one way moved closer back to Keynes, but have also introduced many ideas not found in his work.

The years since 2008 have been labeled by someone the "Keynesian Resurgence" because of the return to Keynes' work after the dominance of neoclassically oriented schools like New Keynesianism and the Chicago school.

Modern monetary theory[edit]

Economist Bill Mitchell coined the term, "Modern Monetary Theory" (MMT), in reference to John Maynard Keynes' claim that for at least 4,000 years money has been "a creature of the state".[3]

Many Post-Keynesians either fall into the "circuitists" or the "neo-chartalists" (more often called "modern monetary theory"), though these two groups aren't mutually exclusive and there is a good deal of overlap. Both reject the idea of neutral money. Circuitists generally emphasize the role of credit money (loans made by banks) while neo-chartalists also emphasize the role of high-powered money (hard cash and credit lent to banks by a country's Central Bank). Circuitists base their theories on Augusto Graziani's Theory of the Monetary Circuit as well as Keynes. Neo-chartalists base their theories on the original chartalist ideas of Abba Lerner and their later reformulation and extension by Warren Mosler as MMT.

General beliefs[edit]

Although the Post-Keynesians are a diverse group, many share similar beliefs, some of which may include:

  • The government as a sovereign issuer of money. This is a commonly known fact, but important especially to neo-chartalists as they draw many implications from it. They believe that most people, the government included, act as if the nation still ran on the gold standard.
  • The government doesn't collect taxes in order to subsequently spend them. Taxes "destroy" currency and spending "creates" currency because fiat currency is only backed by the government's faith. So taxing money out of the economy is the same as destroying that money.
  • Financial transactions always create an offsetting liability. There are always three parties, not two, involved in a transaction: buyer, seller, and bank. This is because all money is credit. Cash ("high-powered money") is a liability of the Fed, credit (like credit cards) is a liability of your bank, and that credit is created by loaning out against the bank's reserve of high-powered money. Some post-Keynesians add the government as the insurer and protector of transactions and property rights being a fourth party.
  • Rejection of "crowding out". Government spending does not crowd out monetary resources because spending "creates" more money.
  • Rejection of the money multiplier. Banks can loan reserves to each other or get money from the Fed's discount window, making the money multiplier a formality without much real meaning.
  • Rejection of equilibrium. Post-Keynesians believe the market is dynamic and rarely if ever in equilibrium; markets might be above or below equilibrium level at any given time.
  • Rejection of a natural level of unemployment.
  • Rejection of homo economicus.
  • Belief that the economy should be viewed in historical time and with uncertainty of future expectations.
  • Government spending is limited by high levels of inflation, not tax revenue.
  • Importance of the credit cycle as part of the business cycle. Mostly modeled off of Hyman Minsky's "Financial Instability Hypothesis" which states that excessive credit given out "endogenously" over long periods of stability will necessarily lead to riskier investments, and therefore instability. This continues until speculators realize an asset's price is artificially inflated, causing them to sell it all at once, causing the asset price to fall to the ground. That results in what is called a "Minsky moment", and thus financial crisis.


The above has, in turn, led many Post-Keynesians to support policies such as:

  • Full employment at all times. Keynesianism on 'roids. Some support a job guarantee, whereby the government hires unemployed workers either directly or indirectly through private contracting.
  • Limitations on private debt since overleveraged and strained balance sheets lead to financial crisis.
  • Adjustable credit controls and asset side regulations to regulate demand from bank lending instead of interest rate hikes which lead to more government payments to the financial sector.
  • Lower taxes or higher spending except in cases of increased inflation to "destroy" excess currency.
  • Fiscal deficits as a counter-cyclical policy with adjustments being made to counter excess or lack of spending by the non-government sector (preferably automatically and regionally targeted).
  • Deficits when unemployment is high, lower deficits or surpluses when inflation is high. Zero-interest rate on government bonds to avoid unnecessarily handicapping fiscal policy.
  • Restructuring credit markets and debt (debt-to-equity swaps).
  • Intervening in markets to prevent inflation. Since they argue real resources, including human resources (people), are what matter, not money, some Modern Monetary Theory economists have argued that the government should intervene to prevent or half inflation on an industry-by-industry basis, on the basis of an informed analysis of the real constraints affecting those industries, rather than on the basis of some abstract economic model that bears no relationship to the real world. For example, if there is a shortage of computer programmers and computer programmers' salaries are rising at an unsustainable rate, the government could expand the labour supply by making it easier for programmers from other countries to obtain a visa (as the UK is able to do under its "shortage occupations" visa system), and/or advertise for people in shortage occupations to move to the country (as Australia has done). Alternatively, or in addition, the government could slow down or cancel government computerisation projects, to reduce the demand for programmers.

Post-Keynesians and the establishment[edit]

As of 2019, MMT has become the most prominent post-Keynesian school of economics, and with MMT, the American establishment has moved beyond the "first they ignore you" stage into the "then they ridicule you" stage of fighting a new idea. Awkwardly, however, elements of the Anglo-American establishment have actually already endorsed key theoretical conclusions of MMT:

  • The Bank of England has admitted that, just as MMT says, ordinary bank deposits are not "lent out", but rather, loans create deposits.[4] (Unlike American banks, British banks no longer have any reserve requirements, so the old simplistic theory of banking is unable to even get off the ground in the UK anyway.)
  • Alan Greenspan - despite being a right-wing former devotee of Ayn Rand - candidly admitted that there is no limit to the amount of money the US federal government can create, and even spells out, as MMT explains, that what matters is the "real assets" (not money or financial assets, but factories, goods, employable people, etc.) in the economy.[5]

Meanwhile American ally Japan is actually following a policy approach similar to what MMT would recommend, while furiously denying it and saying that of course, an MMT approach wouldn't work. If deficits scolds were correct, Japan should have been bankrupted long ago.

Let's not even talk about China, which has been achieving impressive economic growth by essentially deficit-spending its way to development.

See also[edit]

External Links[edit]