The model examines two claims of Modern Monetary Theory: 1) The government determines the price level through the prices it pays when it spends. 2) Deficient demand results when the government does not supply enough currency to meet private demand. #MMT 🏛️💸
The model builds a "monopoly money" framework where the government sets the "price of money" through its spending. While private actors recirculate government currency, they depend on the government as the monopoly supplier. #MonopolyMoney 💰📈
In equilibrium, the private "price of money" converges to the government's price. This supports the claim that government spending determines the overall price level. #PriceLevel#Equilibrium ⚖️
However, when the government aims to purchase a fixed quantity of goods while levying proportional taxes, it essentially "fixes" its fiscal position in real terms. #FiscalPolicy#Taxes 📊🔧
Yet a changing price level creates a mismatch that results in either hyperinflation or deflation, depending on initial conditions. #Inflation 📈 #Deflation 📉
Even if falling prices temporarily restore full employment, they cannot alter the government's underlying fiscal stance. Loose or tight policies will continue to shift aggregate demand over time. #Employment#AggregateDemand 👩💼📊
In summary, the model demonstrates how the government's role as currency issuer gives it power over the price level. #MMTModel 🌐💪
However, fixing purchases while levying proportional taxes creates an unstable fiscal situation where price changes cannot resolve the imbalance, resulting in inflation or deflation. #FiscalInstability ⚠️🔄
So there you have it Professor Richard Holden, what we presume you requested the mathematisation of MMT, as other than that it already provides clearly defined assumptions & logically consistent arguments, so we presume the “formal theory” request is #MMT mathematically defined
A quick follow up: He also asked for MMT’s theory on inflation. I’d like to point him towards Kalecki’s Theory of Economic Dynamics: An Essay on Cyclical and Long-Run Changes in the Capitalist Economy 1954; includes role of distributional conflicts in determining inflation rates.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think the Nordic model is likely the correct model but not for accounting of revenue but for its broad based (sometimes progressive) VAT & inclusive social wage since it’s income tax scales are flatter than Australia’s.
The social wage does more predistribution but the taxes fulfil the functions listed above
Now I know who the non-heterodox economists in the book are, lets start with Can Heterodox Economics make a difference? by @PhilArmstrong58 again. I'll be making relational references to #MMT
Victoria Chick makes the point that Post Keynesians should emphasise the spending comes first. This is completely #mmt consistent
The argument of Davidson & Wray about money being in contracts and Wray that it settles taxes is perfectly consistent and coherent. Tax obligations are a contract #mmt
I admire the goals of UBI advocates but when set low enough it's just a social security transfer payment system & when set high enough it runs into an inflationary index problem
As for bullshit jobs, yes there are some, but I think we will disagree what they are. Most are there for our social protection.
And as for taxation to reduce price pressures, you need to ensure that's built in as an automatic stabiliser well before you pay anyone. Otherwise the pay become one political choice & tax another political choice.
In this context the word “Modern” is used in the same context that Keynes has used it.
The State, therefore, comes in first of all as the authority of law which enforces the payment of the thing which corresponds to the name or description in the contracts.
But it comes in doubly when, in addition, it claims the right to determine and declare what thing corresponds to the name, and to vary its declaration from time to time – when, that is to say, it claims the right to re-edit the dictionary.