Sunday, July 27, 2014

Endogenous Money Debate

That is, in the latest issue of Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE) between Steve Keen, Brett Fiebiger, Marc Lavoie and Tom Palley.

Matias Vernengo has a nice summary of it here:
Matias Vernengo, “A Debate on Endogenous Money and Effective Demand: Keen, Fiebiger, Lavoie and Palley,” Naked Keynesianism, July 25, 2014.
Two of the papers are also available for download:
Keen, Steve. 2014. “Endogenous Money and Effective Demand,” Review of Keynesian Economics 2.3: 271–291

Lavoie, Marc. 2014. “A Comment on ‘Endogenous Money and Effective Demand’: A Revolution or a Step Backwards?,” Review of Keynesian Economics 2.3: 321–332.
Matias Vernengo makes the point that Schumpeter’s contributions to economics are overrated: for example, his view of trade cycles is basically like the real business cycle theory.

1 comment:

  1. Interestingly, Lavoie's point seems to be that credit-creation analysis must be microfounded because otherwise we could only get the general correlations like Debt=>AD. Or is it just me?
    Two years ago Keen's point seemed interesting, now it kinda looks like debating tautologies. Intellectual wankery, to be honest.