1. Sarrera gisa
Mosler-en webgunean eztabaida bat sortu da MMT-ren inguruan, hots DTM-ri buruz. Batzuek MMT (Modern Money Theory) barik, ME-MMT (alegia Mosler Economics-Modern Money Theory) izen berria proposatu dute, Mosler-i arlo horretan, teoria berri horretan, bere gidaritza onartu eta errekonozitu nahiz[1].
2. ME-DTM
Jarraian dago nik bidalitako e-posta:
Basque saying: Nori berea, da zuzenbidea
English translation: To each their own, that is justice
I do agree with Paolo.
joseba
(University of the Basque Country. Just finished a book of 286 pages in Basque about ME-MMT, i.e, ME-DTM = Mosler Ekonomia-Diru Teoria Modernoa)
============
Mosler-ek jadanik erantzun dit, hauxe esanez:
yes, he’s very good at what he does!
good job!!!
ready for some constructive change there!
Hona hemen, linkean, Mosler-ek berak MMT-z dioena[2]. Baita Keynes-i eta ekonomialari klasikoei buruz dioena ere [3].
[2] Ikus http://moslereconomics.com/2012/12/09/my-response-to-a-post-on-an-italian-keynes-blog/. Ingelesez: “… let me remind that MMT was originally ‘Mosler Economics‘ which began with ‘Soft Currency Economics’ (1993)…. Note too that ‘Soft Currency Economics’ was a result of my first hand experience after 20 years in banking and monetary operations. I had never read Keynes, or even heard of Lerner, Knapp, or had any knowledge of any ‘post Keynesians’. So while it may be true that MMT can be derived from one school of thought or another, it didn’t happen that way.”
[3] Link berean, ingelesez: “Second, if there is a ‘fundamental’ contribution of MMT to ‘the literature’ it’s the explicit recognition that a currency like the dollar is in fact a simple public monopoly, and all the rest follows. Along those lines I have lectured on the long standing ‘Keynes vs the Classics’ discussion, where the Classics argued there can be no unemployment without monopoly, and Keynes argues there in fact can be persistent unemployment even without monopoly, due to the effects of unspent income, etc. in the monetary system. My response is they both failed to explicitly recognize the currency itself is a public monopoly. Notional demand is from taxation and from savings desires, and notional supply from state spending and/or state lending. And unemployment is the evidence of a restriction in supply from the monopolist- the failure to spend enough to satisfy the need to pay taxes and the desires to net save in that unit of account. So the classics were right in that unemployment does come from monopoly, but they failed to recognize the applicable monopoly. And Keynes was right, the problem was on the monetary side, but he failed to recognize the currency itself was a simple public monopoly, even though he described it much along those lines. If Keynes had recognized the currency was a monopoly, he surely would have explicitly said so in this discussion, and many other places as well to support many of his contentions.”
