The Critics of Modern Money Theory (MMT) are Right

Eric Tymoigne and Randall Wray's (T&W, 2013) defense of MMT leaves the MMT emperor even more naked than before (excuse the Yogi Berra-ism). The criticism of MMT is not that it has produced nothing new. The criticism is that MMT is a mix of old and new, the old is correct and well understood, while the new is substantially wrong. Among many failings, T&W fail to provide an explanation of how MMT generates full employment with price stability; lack a credible theory of inflation; and fail to justify the claim that the natural rate of interest is zero. MMT currently has appeal because it is a policy polemic for depressed times. That makes for good politics but, unfortunately, MMT's policy claims are based on unsubstantiated economics

The state spends first: Logic, facts, fictions, open questions

Keynesian (or Kaleckian) logic leads post Keynesian economists to presume that a variation of state revenues from taxes and sales of Treasury bonds are the result of a variation in state spending and not the other way around. In the past two decades, the exponents of modern monetary theory (MMT) have been at the forefront in asserting the Keynesian (or Kaleckian) logic of this proposition, filling a theoretical vacuum in post Keynesian thinking. The question is that MMT consolidates the Treasury and Central Bank (CB) so that the latter automatically creates purchasing power in favor of decisions of the former to spend. Critics, however, point out that most institutional arrangements forbid CBs to finance the Treasury directly. After Lavoie (2013) the debate has moved forward and seen some convergence. The present paper critically reviews for unfamiliar readers an otherwise almost esoteric but fundamental discussion