Talk:Post-Keynesian economics

This page is automatically archived by Archiver

Not sure

Not sure why in references to taxation destroying money the word destroy is in quotes. That is literally what is happening, both physically and in the accounting. The documentation regarding the payments is shredded and the numbers representing the money on the computer are deleted. And in rare instances where someone pays their taxes in physical bills, those too are shredded. In every sense the money is destroyed, it simply ceases to be.

Also, it isn't 'sometimes' called Modern Monetary Theory. People like Kelton always call themselves MMTers. I've rarely ever seen the term Post-Keynesian on MMT sites and only Wray makes much use of the term neochartalism. 24.20.65.149 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sign your posts! You can do this by typing four tildes, and failing to do so doesn't actually hide whodunnit for more than six seconds. Secondly, while physical currency is sometimes pulled from circulation, this is not a tax-specific phenomenon, but instead something that happens so that bills don't fall apart/otherwise go to shite. As for non-cash payments, the issue is more... subtle, but again, money is not destroyed by taxation. PacWalker 11:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: quotes indicate that the money is not destroyed in the physical sense, the one which would otherwise be presumed when the word destroy is used of a tangible object (this of course excludes fish, per SCotUS). PacWalker 11:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the separate process of shredding old bills so there aren't too many crappy old pieces of paper in circulation. The majority of our money these days doesn't even exist in physical bill form to begin with. When you pay (federal) taxes the endgame for that money is that it will be erased from existence through accounting. If you pay $500.00 that value will be changed to $000.00. It doesn't go into some government account, it doesn't go into a federal budget, any physical paperwork regarding it isn't even thrown into a vault to be forgotten. It's shredded, and the digital record altered to nothing. 24.20.65.149 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the quotes are used to indicate that destruction is not in the physical sense, that being the sense in which destroy is normally used when referring to (nominally) tangible things. PacWalker 11:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question: post-Keneysians are referred to as "lunatics" and the footnote claims "that's been the opinion of economics academia in much of the West". What substantial evidence can be provided for this claim? This requires an actual citation, especially in regards to the primary manifestation of post-Keneysianism, MMT, because after spending a good deal of effort searching, I have found only one example of criticism of MMT in peer-reviewed literature. I look forward to seeing some decent citation(s), so I won't need to edit the article. 216.19.178.90 (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the comment above was made by me, though I forgot to sign in (or it was before I signed up -- I cannot recall). ThVa (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh

knockoff reddit doesn't like us? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 18:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This is wrong

"surpluses when inflation is high". Post-Keynesians would not support surpluses under any circumstances, because it destroys the economy by sucking money out of it.^{— Unsigned, by: 123.176.26.131 / talk / contribs} 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What, exactly, is fringe about Post-Keynesian economics?

If "fringe" implies it has flaws, then yes, nothing is without flaws. The same can be said of neoclassical economics with its "kill the poor" policies and fetishistic insistence on Homo economicus. But what exactly makes Post-Keynesian economics fringe? Anything on its own? The economy is a human construct, and so is money. I am skeptical of claims regarding human constructs that claim to be "as solid as the laws of gravity". Ergo, what makes Post-Keynesian economics fringe and neoclassical economics not? Both have points of merit and flaws. Vee (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)