My take was that Murphy was long on abstractions and metaphysics and short on specifics. The opposite of Warren Mosler.
I've also read various comments that Mosler was too confusing and technical, which probably explains why so many people are turned off by MMT. Few want to devote serious thought to such things; they want a political slogan to chant and a political agenda to march behind.
Bob explained how Austrian Economics is about interest rate signals from the market resulting in optimal investment, so when the Fed 'artificially' lowers rates from said market rates you get 'mal-investment' etc.
I pointed out that that is true for fixed fx regimes, where govt. rates are market determined as the currency/banking is always inherently reserve constrained, but not with floating fx, where the currency/banking is, alternatively, not inherently reserve constrained. In fact, the absence of govt. intervention (no tsy secs, no interest on reserves, etc.) with floating fx is a 0% term structure of 'risk free' rates.
What this means is that Austrian is, at best, applicable to fixed fx but in no case applicable to floating fx. That is, it's applicable in HK and Bulgaria, but not the US, UK, Japan, Eurozone, Canada, etc. etc. etc.
Bob had no answer, and gave every appearance of passive acceptance.
This also happened with several other of his points.
John Carney, the moderator, did not officially declare a winner, but does agree with the above.
My take was that Murphy was long on abstractions and metaphysics and short on specifics. The opposite of Warren Mosler.
ReplyDeleteI've also read various comments that Mosler was too confusing and technical, which probably explains why so many people are turned off by MMT. Few want to devote serious thought to such things; they want a political slogan to chant and a political agenda to march behind.
I agree: Mosler is a genius in some ways, but he's not a good public speaker - and nor am I...:-)
DeleteBob explained how Austrian Economics is about interest rate signals from the market resulting in optimal investment, so when the Fed 'artificially' lowers rates from said market rates you get 'mal-investment' etc.
ReplyDeleteI pointed out that that is true for fixed fx regimes, where govt. rates are market determined as the currency/banking is always inherently reserve constrained, but not with floating fx, where the currency/banking is, alternatively, not inherently reserve constrained. In fact, the absence of govt. intervention (no tsy secs, no interest on reserves, etc.) with floating fx is a 0% term structure of 'risk free' rates.
What this means is that Austrian is, at best, applicable to fixed fx but in no case applicable to floating fx. That is, it's applicable in HK and Bulgaria, but not the US, UK, Japan, Eurozone, Canada, etc. etc. etc.
Bob had no answer, and gave every appearance of passive acceptance.
This also happened with several other of his points.
John Carney, the moderator, did not officially declare a winner, but does agree with the above.
I would still like to know where the actual video and a transcript are to be found...
ReplyDeleteVideo available at:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.modernmoneynetwork.org/mmt-vs-austrian-school.html
http://youtu.be/cUTLCDBONok