| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wednesday June, 15th
9:00-10:15 a.m.
10:15-10:30 a.m.
10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
12:00-1:30 p.m.
1:30-2:45 p.m.
2:45-3:00 p.m.
3:00-4:15 p.m.
Functional Finance
Pavlina Tcherneva, Levy Institute and Bard College
Break
Intro to Minsky
Steven Fazzari, Washington University in St. Louis
Suggested Reading
Suggested Reading
Suggested Reading
Lunch
Minsky and MMT
L. Randall Wray, Levy Institute and Bard College
Suggested Reading
Suggested Reading
Break
Minsky, Godley, and the Financial Balances
Gennaro Zezza, Levy Institute and University of Cassino
LERNER'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION
1977: Lerner embraces Monetarism: his FF had been too focused on macro, neglected
micro or mkt analysis → stagflation
► Proposes Peace Settlement between Keynesians&Monetarists and Sound&Functional
Finance:
► 1. issue wage-increase permits equal to desired rate of wage inflation
► 2. Set rate of money growth equal to real output; Put control of AggD in hands of Fed.
3. Divorce govt budget from total level of AggD, and focus fiscal policy on social
efficiency, internalizing externalities, and alleviating poverty
► Any increase of Govt spending should be offset by increase of
interfering with Fed's task of regulating AggD
Summer Seminar Conf. Room
CONCLUSION
Functional Finance
Minsky shared Lerner's "money as a creature of the state" and "functional finance" approaches.
The first concerns fiscal capacity, the second provides policy recommendation.
► Post-war Keynesians like Minsky and Lerner recognized sovereign government faces no
solvency constraint in own currency
► Fiscal policy (especially) should be directed to full employment
► But Minsky quickly moved to directed spending; Lerner later abandoned "steering wheel"
approach to demand management through fiscal policy only with the onset of stubborn stagflation
► Lerner's rejection of functional finance was more thorough than Minsky's as he embraced a
Monetarist alternative (actually rather similar to the current "Positive Money" approach).
► Minsky's version was always more nuanced; he rejected "mechanical" Keynesianism in favor of
an Institutionalist approach
Summer Seminar Conf. Room
Minsky: the
Father of MMT?
Pyramid; Endogenous money
CB functions: LOLR, interest rates
▶
Role of finance
► Credit&State money: Obligations drive demand
No solvency constraints
▶ The problems are inflation, exchange rates, stability,
efficiency
►Sectoral balances
ELR: Jobs first
▸ Directed demand
►Bottom-up
► Productive
Automatic stabilizers
Ceilings and floors LOLR and ELR
International
▸ Role of the dollar
► Insufficient appreciation of impact of current account deficit
LERNER'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION
1977: Lerner embraces Monetarism: his FF had been too focused on macro, neglected micro or mkt analysis → stagflation
► Proposes Peace Settlement between Keynesians&Monetarists and Sound&Functional Finance:
► 1. issue wage-increase permits equal to desired rate of wage inflation
► 2. Set rate of money growth equal to real output; Put control of AggD in hands of Fed.
3. Divorce govt budget from total level of AggD, and focus fiscal policy on social efficiency, internalizing externalities, and alleviating poverty
► Any increase of Govt spending should be offset by increase of interfering with Fed's task of regulating AggD
Summer Seminar Conf. Room
CONCLUSION
Functional Finance
Minsky shared Lerner's "money as a creature of the state" and "functional finance" approaches.
The first concerns fiscal capacity, the second provides policy recommendation.
► Post-war Keynesians like Minsky and Lerner recognized sovereign government faces no solvency constraint in own currency
► Fiscal policy (especially) should be directed to full employment
► But Minsky quickly moved to directed spending; Lerner later abandoned "steering wheel" approach to demand management through fiscal policy only with the onset of stubborn stagflation
► Lerner's rejection of functional finance was more thorough than Minsky's as he embraced a Monetarist alternative (actually rather similar to the current "Positive Money" approach).
► Minsky's version was always more nuanced; he rejected "mechanical" Keynesianism in favor of an Institutionalist approach
Minsky: the Father of MMT?
Pyramid; Endogenous money
CB functions: LOLR, interest rates
Role of finance
Credit&State money: Obligations drive demand
No solvency constraints
The problems are inflation, exchange rates, stability, efficiency
Sectoral balances
ELR: Jobs first
Directed demand
Bottom-up
Productive
Automatic stabilizers
Ceilings and floors LOLR and ELR
International
Role of the dollar
Insufficient appreciation of impact of current account deficit
ラーナー決議案
1977: ラーナーはマネタリズムを採用：彼のFFはマクロに焦点を当てすぎ、ミクロや市場分析がおろそかになっていた→スタグフレーション。
ケインズ派とマネタリスト、健全財政と機能的財政の間の和解を提案。
1. 望ましい賃金上昇率に相当する賃金上昇許可証を発行する。
► 2. 2. 貨幣増加率を実質生産高と等しく設定し、AggDのコントロールをFRBに委ねる。
3. 3. 政府予算をAggDの総水準から切り離し、財政政策を社会的効率性、外部性の内部化、貧困の緩和 に焦点を当てる。
政府支出の増加は、FRBのAggDの調整という任務への干渉の増加によって相殺されるべ きである。
サマーセミナーConf. 会議室
結論
機能的金融
ミンスキーはラーナーの「国家の創造物としての貨幣」と「機能的財政」のアプローチを共有した。
前者は財政能力に関するものであり、後者は政策提言を行うものである。
ミンスキーやラーナーのような戦後ケインズ主義者は、主権国家が自国通貨に対する支払能力の制約を受けないことを認識していた。
財政政策は（特に）完全雇用に向けられるべきである。
しかし、ミンスキーはすぐに財政支出に舵を切った。ラーナーは、頑強なスタグフレーションが始まったときに、財政政策による需要管理という「舵取り」アプローチを放棄した。
ラーナーの機能的財政の否定はミンスキーよりも徹底しており、マネタリストの代替案を採用した（実際には現在の「ポジティブ・マネー」アプローチにかなり近い）。
ミンスキーは「機械的」ケインズ主義を否定し、制度学派のアプローチを採用したため、ミンスキーのバージョンは常により微妙なものであった。
ミンスキー：MMTの父？
ピラミッド型、内生的貨幣
CBの機能。LOLR、金利
金融の役割
信用と国家貨幣。債務が需要を牽引
ソルベンシーの制約なし
問題は、インフレ、為替レート、安定性、効率性
セクター・バランス
ELR：雇用が第一
需要の誘導
ボトムアップ
生産性向上
自動安定化装置
天井と床 LOLRとELR
インターナショナル
ドルの役割
経常赤字の影響に対する十分な評価
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿