Randall Wray-ek Paul Krugman-i buruz

Aspaldian idatzi nuen DTMz eta Paul Krugman-ez.

Defizit publikoa dela eta, ekonomialari ‘serioen‘ artean hiru talde edo daude: defizit belatzak, defizit usoak (P. Krugman tartean) eta defizit hontzak (nik erabiltzen ditudanak: W. Mosler, R. Wray, S. Kelton, B. Mitchell, …).

Ikus http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/money-is-no-object —> 33. diapositiba

Krugman aspalditik egon da MMT-koen, hots, DMT-koen inguruan, beraien izkribuak kritikatzen, eta abar…

Baina DTM-koek behin eta berriz erantzun diote. Hona hemen etsenplu batzuk, ez guztiak:

a) https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2011/04/25/jakin-nahi-zenuen-ia-guztia/
b) https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2013/06/04/paul-krugman-eta-randall-wray/
c) https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2013/09/03/krugman-ez-mila-esker/
d) https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2013/11/11/defizitak-garrantzitsuak-dira-baina-ez-jendeak-uste-duen-bezala/
e) https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2011/04/25/jakin-nahi-zenuen-ia-guztia/
f) https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/02/04/paul-krugman-eta-warren-mosler-who-is-who/
g) https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/04/21/usoak-eta-hontzak/
h) https://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/paul-krugman-eta-warren-mosler-jakin-ala-ez-jakin/at_download/file

DTM-koek ez dakite zein mendetan bizi den Krugman (Randall, lekuko). Nik ere ez.

Izan ere,

(i)                Krugman-ek pentsamendu eskola berri bat behar du[1]:

“As usual, Krugman’s reasoning is neat, plausible, and wrong. The main reason that mainstream economics survived the challenge of the Global Financial Crisis is not because of its strength, but because of its irrelevance.”

(ii)              R. Wray-ren iritziz, Krugman frustrazioan dago heterodoxiarekin[2]. Ironikoki honela dio Wray-k:

“So we don’t need to listen to those heterodox types who actually saw it coming, any more. Forget Minsky! Go back to ISLM models! Models that do not have banks–let alone shadow banks–or the potential for financial crises.”

(iii)             Pavlina Tchernevak ere Paul Krugman-i buruzko zehaztasun batzuk egin ditu.

(a) Modern Monetary Theory and Mr. Paul Krugman: a way forward[3]:

“We can and indeed we must challenge the current state of economic thinking and propel a new generation of economists forward—economists of the real world, not of the archaic textbooks.”

(b) No, Mr. Krugman, Bernanke’s Conundrum is Completely Different[4]:

How many years of low interest rates, aggressive QE1, QE2, Operations Twists, swaps, and $trillions and $trillions of lending do we need to recognize that these policy actions do not provide proper channels for dealing with the unemployment problem?

Eta berriki Randall Wray-ek hauxe dio Krugman-i buruz[5]:

(1)    “…Krugman would really like to stop worrying about the deficit so that he could advocate an “as much as it takes” approach to government spending. The problem is that he just cannot quite get a handle on the monetary operations that are required. Won’t government run out? What, is government going to create money “out of thin air”? Where will all the money come from?…”

(2)    “He really doesn’t understand that “money” is key stroke records of debits and credits. He still thinks banks take in deposits and then lend them out. He starts to tear his hair out whenever someone tries to correct him on this. He’s wedded to the deposit multiplier idea he got from his Econ 101 textbook.”

Ekonomialari ortodoxo guztiak frustrazioan bizi dira, zeren ekonomia ez baitago ados haien eskema zaharkituekin.

Dirua zer den eta zertan datzan ulertzeko, DTM-ra joan behar da[6], bestela galduak, erabat galduak dira ekonomialariak, ez soilik Paul Krugman.


Iruzkinak (1)

  • joseba

    Krugman Now Disagrees with His Earlier Critique of MMT:

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/07/krugman-now-disagrees-earlier-critique-mmt.html

    “…the key point is that (a) Krugman 2011 did not recognize the importance of a currency issuer vs. a currency user in setting interest rates on the national debt, and based his argument against MMT on the potential for bond vigilantes to raise US Treasury rates “for whatever reason,” but (b) Krugman 2014 does recognize this distinction and now appears to view its significance for interest rates on the national debt in much the same way as MMT.”

Utzi erantzuna

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude