Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
1–10 of 164 posts
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#2Except for the MMT people. They mostly got it right but they don't count as 'real' economists to the WSJ.
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#3Except for the MMT people. They mostly got it right but they don't count as 'real' economists to the WSJ.
I love MMT in theory but it is terrifying to consider actually making policy decisions with MMT as the justification. The downside risk of MMT being wrong and the resulting runaway hyper inflation would destroy the dominant economic standing that the US has spent the entire post war era cultivating.
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#4Paywalled, couldn’t read.
As an economist, strongly allergic to this kind of title. The theory of endogenous money (as opposed to non monetary and/or fractional reserve banking theories) accounts for what is described in the title fairly effectively: money needs to be viewed as a medium of exchange, and it needs to be plentiful so that information never gets bottlenecked: this will surprise no software developer if they compare it to, for example, storage space and/or network bandwidth. Economic theories that either ignore money as irrelevant or ascribe inherent value to it (as does neoclassical economics, and as do crypto-currency enthusiasts who effectively seek to recreate artificial sources of scarcity just as the gold or more accurately bimetallic standard did) fail to account for the economic expansion that accompanied the expansion of monetary supply; endogenous money models, though less widespread, do not make such disproven predictions, and thus should be allowed to stand whereas the others should be held to be manifestly disproven.
Now, could we please sit down and figure out not what the next currency shall be, but what an ‘antibank’ is going to be?
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#5Except for the MMT people. They mostly got it right but they don't count as 'real' economists to the WSJ.
I love MMT in theory but it is terrifying to consider actually making policy decisions with MMT as the justification. The downside risk of MMT being wrong and the resulting runaway hyper inflation would destroy the dominant economic standing that the US has spent the entire post war era cultivating.
[deleted]
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#6Satoshi got it right; "Chancellor on Brink of Second Bailout for Banks" — 10 years and running strong. Seems the Austrians are winning back a century of lost ground!
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#7Except for the MMT people. They mostly got it right but they don't count as 'real' economists to the WSJ.
MMT is not enough to google for. Who are they and what do they think/teach?
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#8Except for the MMT people. They mostly got it right but they don't count as 'real' economists to the WSJ.
I have plenty of quibbles with MMT but I’d classify it as a theory of endogenous money (albeit one of the least savoury ones).
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#9Except for the MMT people. They mostly got it right but they don't count as 'real' economists to the WSJ.
MMT is not enough to google for. Who are they and what do they think/teach?
Re: Economists’ projections of interest rates and unemployment have proved too high
#10Satoshi got it right; "Chancellor on Brink of Second Bailout for Banks" — 10 years and running strong. Seems the Austrians are winning back a century of lost ground!
Satoshi got it extremely wrong, to the point that if he had any economic background at all I’d suspect the first wave of crypto currencies to be a sick joke: artificial scarcity (and more generally, inflexible money supply) of the kind engendered by bitcoin and its ilk are the exact embodiment of what money must not be if one is to not artificially crimp the economy’s growth. There’s a very good reason why we came off the so-called Gold Standard (bimetallic standard, actually), and why coming off it heralded the greatest period of economic growth in Western history.