Any /econ/ students here?

Any /econ/ students here?

What field are you studying? What school of thought does your school prescribe?

Developmental macro here, studying primarily Post-Keynesian theory (MMT in particular).

Any good reads lately?

Other urls found in this thread:

k.web.umkc.edu/keltons/Papers/501/functional finance.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I forgot to add:

Neoclassicals not welcome

can you cliffnote mmt? iv heard a lot of people criticise it heavily.

Long ago I minored in econ.

>What field are you studying

I favored international macro and finance, didn't specialize beyond that.

>What school

In my humble opinion only hacks and useful idiots sum up their views as being from "such and such" school of economics desu. Science has no room for ideological footsoldiers.

>Any good reads lately?

"Who Gets What and Why", "Narconomics", and when I feel trollish I go back and read "The Black Swan".

By the time you finish your bachelors, you'll realize Austrian is the only way, kid.

He's studying a science, not joining a cult.

>economics
>science

I didn't say it was a complete science. It's young.

>It's young.

Sure, I'll try and give a short rundown.

It mainly focuses on macro policy for sovereign states that issue their own currency.

In many ways it is a succinct conglomeration of various Post-Keynesian schools: Chartalism, Horizontalism, and most importantly, Abba Lerner's Functional Finance (plus shades of institutionalism).

For a sovereign issuer of currency, the state is in no way financially constrained (only constrained in real terms, i.e. amount of resources it can command), and as such, the state should pursue full employment using whatever fiscal tools necessary.

The deficit is moot. Moreover, the debt is a measure of the total public injection of wealth into the private sector. It uses the Sectoral Balances Identity of:
Domestic Private Balance + Domestic Govt Balance + Foreign Balance = 0

Taxes do not fund expenditures, they are primarily a method to drive money (hence the Chartalism link), and a pressure relief for aggregate demand.

There are many other aspects, if you're interested I recommend Randall Wray's book 'Modern Money Theory', he's a great professor, although some of his policy prescriptions such as a jobs guarantee make me a little uneasy.

What criticisms have you heard?

I would agree, economics is not a science, and the fact that neoclassicals have attempted to turn it into one is a large part of the reason we are in the shit show we find ourselves in today. I would favor a political economy approach.

Care to explain your Austrian leanings?

its ideologically blind to a resource crunch. is the main one I come across. I find it interesting because Keynesianism has worked well everytime I it implemented

Austrians are viewed as cranks by almost all mainstream economists for their refusal to use math so I doubt it.

Hmm, define resource crunch in the context of a developed country...

If you're (or whoever the critic is) implying that governments face real constraints on spending, MMT acknowledges that. No school refutes that, nor could they.

However, to impose 'sound finance' budget constraints based on arbitrary measurements, such as debt tic GDP, while resources and more importantly labor sit unutilized, well, that is the problem the neoclassicals have created and allowed to permeate

Do you read Bill Mitchell's blog? I study at his university, but I dropped my macro stuff cos the lecturer was an African woman that barely spoke english. I can't really find any flaws with MMT, but there is no way any country will be able to implement it without a major catastrophe and public outcry.

Have you looked into natsoc economics too? I've only compared on a surface level, but the funding of expansionary spending with treasury notes is basically the same as using a central bank to fund spending no? Shows what we are capable of with a big imagination and proper use of monetary policy.

mainly the forthcoming energy crisis. like, most countries have passed peak oil, wood is continuing to get scarce, etc.

The main resource MMT is concerned with managing is labour, as undersupply of labour will drive inflation, but if you are referring to, say another oil price shock, what solution does other branches offer? It is simply a market failure that needs to be worked around.

If economics is all about forgoing morality and theories of justice in favor of pure utility, then why don't economists debate the utility to be gained from slavery for the greater common good?

idk. this is just what I hear around my union when mmt is brought up. as I said, I'm sympathetic to Keynesian thought, it's always worked well when implemented in my country.

Economics, outside of der Ausssstrian skewl and such, doesn't assert market efficiency as a moral imperative.

Economics merely studies who gets what and why.

>Chartalism
More like CHARLATANISM.

I don't actually know what it is.

Slavery is bad because niggers get all of the jobs creating more wealth inequality and no competition for more efficient means of production if you just rely on free constant labor. It's a lot like feudalism was kicked to the curb. Also slavery is bad t b h.

I suggest hunting down and reading Lerner's functional finance
k.web.umkc.edu/keltons/Papers/501/functional finance.pdf

Economics is not about forgoing morality and justice for utility. That's neoclassicism, with ridiculous assumptions such as utility maximization, MC=MR, perfect information etc etc.

As I said in the OP, they are not welcome in this thread

No I don't, but I will check it out. I was a big fan of UnlearningEcon, as well as Steve Keen obviously. Seeing as you're an Aussie, I'm sure you're familiar with Frank Stilwell also. Great guy