Many people have drawn to my attention in recent weeks the evolution of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) Wikipedia entry and raised concern about the criticisms that are now on that site. I thought I better go and read the entry. I certainly have not added material to the site. Having said that I am happy that there is a page available. It seems that the criticisms cited are sourced to blogs by an Austrian Schooler, a graduate student blogger, and Brad DeLong. There does not appear to be an sound academic citation. The critics actually admit to basing their views on a cursory reading of the MMT literature and then only on the blogs that are out there now (including this one). The major claim is that MMT is just an accounting tautology. That just means they have read the first of hundreds of pages of MMT and then probably haven’t really grasped its significance. MMT is in fact an accounting-consistent, operationally-sound theoretical approach to understanding the way fiat monetary systems work and how policy changes are likely to play out.

Textbooks get out of date and need revision in the light of recent data or events. Some textbooks are exposed as being just plain wrong and should be re-written completely. Obviously authors in the latter category are reluctant to admit that their textbook is not an adequate description of the way – for example, the economy works – and so they not only resist updating their offering but they also defend it against all the evidence. Anyway, after reading Paul Krugman’s most recent attempt to come to grips with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) I concluded that it was way past the date that he should be rewriting his macroeconomics textbook. Otherwise he is misleading the students who are forced to use it in their studies. So Paul, its time to update your textbook.

I haven’t much time today. I note that the British Chancellor has made an emergency speech to the House of Commons last night (August 11, 2011) – Statement on the global economy. He claimed that the fiscal austerity had made the UK a “safe haven” for investors. The reason that demand for gilts is high at present is because the bond markets know the UK has no default risk. I also noted Paul Krugman’s wrote a blog in the New York Times yesterday (August 11, 2011) – Franc Thoughts on Long-Run Fiscal Issues – where he challenges Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) directly. To challenge something you have to represent it correctly.

I did some research today on the outstanding US public debt – not because I think it is particularly important but because a journalist asked me yesterday during an interview – how much of the total US Treasury Debt is held by the US government – I said off the top of my head about 42 per cent which was a quick calculation based on work I did about 12 months ago and a rapid adding up off what I remembered from the monthly reports since then with a quick division thrown in. It turns out after I have updated the databases I keep that my “guesstimate” was not misleading (as at March 2011). The journalist then said – “so lets get this straight, the US government owes itself money equivalent to 42 per cent of its total outstanding liabilities?” Answer: yes. He then responded: “to fix the debt problem why wouldn’t they just write it off?”. Answer: I don’t see a US public debt problem. But because you do, then the answer is that for the most part they could just write it off as long as their were some additional legislative changes (for example, they would have to finance the operations of the US Federal Reserve in a different manner). So who owns the US debt?

In the last few days I have read more misinformation and downright lies from financial and economic commentators in the media than I have for the last year. The decision by the irrelevant S&P to get some attention for their corporate profit-making activities by downgrading US government debt has sparked a frenzy of nonsensical “analysis” which is as ridiculous as was the S&P decision. The fact is that the S&P decision is irrelevant as long as the US government makes it so. The danger is that the Government will think there is something to be addressed and the US economy will suffer as a result. As long as the US government realises who calls the shots the S&P decision will be irrelevant.

With all eyes on the US wondering what would happen if the debt ceiling is not lifted you would think that bond markets would be losing interest in US government debt. If we trawled back through the debate over the last few years we could find many instances of commentators claiming interest rates would soar once bond markets ran out of patience with the rising US government debt. It was either that prediction or the other one – that all the “money” swishing around the system would cause inflation. Like some cult leader there was one self-styled US financial expert claiming that the Endgame was nigh. As the world didn’t slide into a void nor the debt-burdened US economy hyperinflate the date was shifted. Once, twice, thrice. Further, trying to overlay what is happening in the EMU at present onto US, UK, Japan or other sovereign nations is invalid. The monetary systems in place, in say the US, is vastly different to the system the ECB oversees when we focus on the member state level of the Eurozone. So it serves to remind people that none of the predictions the deficit terrorists have made have come true. The ideologues respond that it is only a matter of time. My reply, when might that be?

I haven’t much time today. I gave a talk at a conference in Melbourne today (as noted in yesterday’s blog). I will edit the audio soon and post the presentation for those who might be interested. In general I made the obvious point – if you want people to reach their potential and participate in the economy there has to be enough jobs and hours on offer. But the blog topic today relates to a speech made by a senior RBA official in Sydney yesterday which has excited some conservatives. In that speech, the RBA indicated that it would always lend to private banks which had high quality assets (in AUD) but might be experiencing a temporary liquidity problem and were unable to meet its reserve obligations. This function is part of the public good responsibilities of the central bank and does not mean that they prop up failed capitalist businesses. The speech made the valid distinction between illiquid firms and insolvent firms. The point of relevance to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is that the central bank cannot control the money supply because as part of its commitment to financial stability it must be prepared to provide reserves to the private banking system. That point is in contradistinction to the mainstream macroeconomics which starts by teaching students that the central bank controls the money supply. Overall, the central bank must treat financial stability as a public good and therefore must always guarantee reserves on demand.

In yesterday’s blog, I mentioned that Paul Krugman gave a plenary lecture over the weekend just gone at a conference held at Cambridge University. The conference – 75th Anniversary of Keynes’ General Theory – seems to have been a remarkable event. First, I don’t know everything but I always know when there is a major “Keynesian/Post Keynesian” conference and sometimes I even go. In the case of the 75th Anniversary conference I didn’t even know it was being held. It seems that wasn’t exceptional. As Ann Pettifor points out the UK Post Keynesian Economics Study Group, which is a leading group who focus on studying Keynes and, arguably, has the leading UK Keynesian scholars among its membership, “found out about the conference by accident.” Second, if you examine the speaker’s list and read the papers that are available you might wonder what this conference had to do with Keynes. Certainly if the Cambridge organisers were aiming to “honour” the message that Keynes gave, then they had a strange way of doing that. The reality is that the celebration of 75 years since Keynes was a farce.

I am travelling today and so have to steal time to write this blog between other commitments. Later this week I am presenting a paper at a workshop on stock-flow consistent macroeconomics and I was thinking over the weekend just gone what I would do with the time I have for the presentation (1 hour). I started putting together a database of IMF forecasts out to 2016 for various nations and simulating the implications for the sectoral balances. Then I thought I would discuss the internal inconsistencies of those forecasts from a stock-flow perspective and the implications of those inconsistencies. I will write a blog later in the week on that once I have finalised the presentation. But the preliminary thinking led to today’s blog. In policy you have to wish for the possible.

I have been travelling the last few days and while sitting at the airport on my way home I have been catching up on all the snippets of text and links I accumulate each day. While the current generations are living through the “digital revolution” we should not forget that 50 odd years ago humans went to the Moon – which at the time was an ingenious demonstration of our capacity for technological marvel. The motives for this feat which were tied up in the Cold War paranoia were clearly suspect but I recall at the time as a young high school student, as all the classrooms were mustered in a TV viewing room to watch the landing, that we are a clever lot. I no longer think that.