My paper for INET’s Berlin 2012 Conference

flattr this!

My paper "Insta­bil­ity in Finan­cial Mar­kets: Sources and Remedies” for the INET con­fer­ence “Par­a­digm Lost: Rethink­ing Eco­nom­ics and Pol­i­tics”, to be held in Berlin on April 12–14, is now avail­able via the INET website.

If you’d like to down­load it, you can get it either from my INET page, or from a link on the con­fer­ence pro­gram. For copy­right rea­sons I can’t repro­duce it here, but I can pro­vide a quick syn­op­sis and some excerpts, so here goes.

A Primer on Minsky

The paper starts with a syn­op­sis on Min­sky, since his “Finan­cial Insta­bil­ity Hypoth­e­sis” is one of the key foun­da­tions of my approach to eco­nom­ics. He has come into vogue these days of course, but to peo­ple who’ve known his work for sev­eral decades rather than ever since the “Min­sky Moment” of late 2007, a bet­ter expres­sion would be that he’s “come into vague”. I read papers like Krugman’s “Debt, Delever­ag­ing, and the Liq­uid­ity Trap: A Fisher-Minsky-Koo approach”, and for the life of me, I can’t see Min­sky there. As I note in my paper:

Now, after the cri­sis that his the­ory antic­i­pated, neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists are pay­ing some atten­tion to his hypoth­e­sis, and there has been at least one attempt to build a New Key­ne­sian model of a key phe­nom­e­non in Minsky’s hypoth­e­sis, a debt-deflation (Krug­man and Eggerts­son 2010). How­ever, to those of us who are not new to Min­sky, it is hard to recog­nise any ves­tige of the Finan­cial Insta­bil­ity Hypoth­e­sis in Krugman’s work.

My good friend and long term fel­low rebel in eco­nom­ics Pro­fes­sor Rod O’Donnell once remarked that neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists are inca­pable of read­ing Keynes: they look at his words and then spout Wal­ras instead. A sim­i­lar phe­nom­e­non applies here: neo­clas­si­cals like Krug­man read Min­sky, and then pro­ceed to build equi­lib­rium mod­els with­out banks, and think they’re mod­el­ling Minsky.

No they’re not: they’re cre­at­ing an equilibrium-obsessed Wal­rasian hand pup­pet and call­ing it Minsky—just as they did to Keynes with DSGE modelling.


I used the word “equi­lib­rium” twice above, because one clear method­olog­i­cal aspect of Minsky’s think­ing is that macro­eco­nom­ics is about dis­e­qui­lib­rium. Neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists have the world pre­cisely (to use an evoca­tive piece of Aus­tralian slang) arse about tit. They believe that if it’s not an equi­lib­rium model it’s not economics.

Non­sense! The pre­cise oppo­site is the case: if it isn’t dis­e­qui­l­brium, then it isn’t economics.

There’s noth­ing “rad­i­cal” about this, which is often the way that neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists react when I press this point: “assume dis­e­qui­lib­rium? How dare you!?”. I dare because “dis­e­qui­lib­rium” is so com­mon in real sci­ences that they don’t even call it that: they call it dynam­ics. Any dynamic model of a process must start away from its equi­lib­rium, because if you start it in its equi­lib­rium, noth­ing hap­pens. It’s about time that econ­o­mists woke up to the need to model the econ­omy dynamically—and to give Krug­man his due here, he does admit at the end of his paper that his dynam­ics are dread­ful, and need to be improved:

The major lim­i­ta­tion of this analy­sis, as we see it, is its reliance on strate­gi­cally crude dynam­ics. To sim­plify the analy­sis, we think of all the action as tak­ing place within a sin­gle, aggre­gated short run, with debt paid down to sus­tain­able lev­els and prices returned to full ex ante flex­i­bil­ity by the time the next period begins. This side­steps the impor­tant ques­tion of just how fast debtors are required to delever­age; it also rules out any con­sid­er­a­tion of the effects of changes in infla­tion expec­ta­tions dur­ing the period when the zero lower bound remains bind­ing, a major theme of recent work by Eggerts­son (2010a), Chris­tiano et. al. (2009), and oth­ers. In future work we hope to get more real­is­tic about the dynamics.

Hurry up Paul: you’re already eight decades behind Irv­ing Fisher, who put the case for dynam­ics even for those who assume that equi­lib­rium is stable:

We may ten­ta­tively assume that, ordi­nar­ily and within wide lim­its, all, or almost all, eco­nomic vari­ables tend, in a gen­eral way, toward a sta­ble equi­lib­rium… But … New dis­tur­bances are, humanly speak­ing, sure to occur, so that, in actual fact, any vari­able is almost always above or below the ideal equilibrium…

The­o­ret­i­cally there may be—in fact, at most times there must be—over-or under-production, over– or under-consumption, over– or under-spending, over– or under-saving, over– or under-investment, and over or under every­thing else. It is as absurd to assume that, for any long period of time, the vari­ables in the eco­nomic orga­ni­za­tion, or any part of them, will “stay put,” in per­fect equi­lib­rium, as to assume that the Atlantic Ocean can ever be with­out a wave.’ (Fisher 1933, p. 339)

Endoge­nous Money

One key com­po­nent of Minsky’s thought is the capac­ity for the bank­ing sec­tor to cre­ate spend­ing power “out of nothing”—to quote Schum­peter. As well as explain­ing endoge­nous money, I show that Minsky’s analy­sis leads to the con­clu­sion that aggre­gate demand is greater than aggre­gate sup­ply aris­ing from the sale of goods and ser­vices alone—and there­fore that ris­ing debt plays a cru­cial role in a cap­i­tal­ist economy:

If income is to grow, the finan­cial mar­kets, where the var­i­ous plans to save and invest are rec­on­ciled, must gen­er­ate an aggre­gate demand that, aside from brief inter­vals, is ever ris­ing. For real aggre­gate demand to be increas­ing, … it is nec­es­sary that cur­rent spend­ing plans, summed over all sec­tors, be greater than cur­rent received income and that some mar­ket tech­nique exist by which aggre­gate spend­ing in excess of aggre­gate antic­i­pated income can be financed. It fol­lows that over a period dur­ing which eco­nomic growth takes place, at least some sec­tors finance a part of their spend­ing by emit­ting debt or sell­ing assets. (Min­sky 1963; Min­sky 1982) (Min­sky 1982, p. 6)

This aggre­gate demand is spent not just on goods and ser­vices, but also on buy­ing finan­cial assets—hence eco­nom­ics and finance are inex­tri­ca­bly linked, in oppo­si­tion to the failed neo­clas­si­cal attempt to keep them sep­a­rate in two her­met­i­cally sealed jars. This in turn tran­scends Wal­ras’ Law to give us what I call the Walras-Schumpeter-Minsky Law:

Aggre­gate demand is income plus the change in debt, and this is expended on both goods and ser­vices and finan­cial assets. There­fore in a credit-based econ­omy, there are three sources of aggre­gate demand, and three ways in which this demand is expended:

1.    Demand from income earned by sell­ing goods and ser­vices, which pri­mar­ily finances con­sump­tion of goods and services;

2.    Demand from ris­ing entre­pre­neur­ial debt, which pri­mar­ily finances invest­ment; and

3.    Demand from ris­ing Ponzi debt, which pri­mar­ily finances the pur­chase of exist­ing assets.

Neo­clas­si­cal Mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tions of Fisher, Min­sky & Banking

How do you mis­in­ter­pret me? Let me count the ways…”

There are so many ways in which neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists mis­in­ter­pret non-neoclassical thinkers like Fisher and Min­sky that I could write a book on the topic. This sec­tion focuses on just one facet of how they get it wrong: by ignor­ing banks, and treat­ing loans as trans­fers from “savers” to “spenders” with no bank in between.

This is pre­cisely how Krug­man mod­els debt in his recent paper:

In what fol­lows, we begin by set­ting out a flexible-price endow­ment model in which “impa­tient” agents bor­row from “patient” agents, but are sub­ject to a debt limit. If this debt limit is, for some rea­son, sud­denly reduced, the impa­tient agents are forced to cut spend­ing… (Krug­man and Eggerts­son 2010, p. 3)

This is debt with­out banks—and with­out the endoge­nous cre­ation of money—and it explains why neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists don’t think that the level of pri­vate debt matters.

With that vision of debt, a change in the level of debt isn’t impor­tant, because the borrower’s increase in spend­ing power is coun­ter­acted by the lender’s fall in spend­ing power. Here’s the lend­ing process as neo­clas­si­cals like Krug­man see it:

Assets Deposits (Lia­bil­i­ties)
Action/Actor Patient Impa­tient
Make Loan +Lend –Lend

Krug­man there­fore reas­sures his blog read­ers that there’s noth­ing to worry about when pri­vate debt lev­els rise or fall:

Peo­ple think of debt’s role in the econ­omy as if it were the same as what debt means for an indi­vid­ual: there’s a lot of money you have to pay to some­one else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we cre­ate is basi­cally money we owe to our­selves, and the bur­den it imposes does not involve a real trans­fer of resources.

That’s not to say that high debt can’t cause prob­lems — it cer­tainly can. But these are prob­lems of dis­tri­b­u­tion and incen­tives, not the bur­den of debt as is com­monly under­stood. (Krug­man 2011)

That would be reas­sur­ing if true, since we could then ignore data like this:

Unfor­tu­nately, real lend­ing is bet­ter described by the next table:

Bank Assets Bank Deposits (Liabilities)
Action/Actor Patient Impa­tient
Make Loan +Lend –Lend

In the real world, a bank loan increases “Impatient“‘s spend­ing power with­out reduc­ing “Patient“‘s, so that the level of pri­vate debt does matter.

Apply­ing Min­sky to Macro­eco­nomic Data

In par­tic­u­lar, the rate of change of debt mat­ters because that tells us how much of demand is debt financed. When you add the change in debt to GDP, you get total aggre­gate demand, and that makes it exceed­ingly clear why the eco­nomic cri­sis occurred: the growth of debt col­lapsed, and took the econ­omy with it:

Since change in debt is part of aggre­gate demand, the accel­er­a­tion of debt—the rate of change of its rate of change—affects change in aggre­gate demand. This in turn has impacts on the change in employment.

It also impacts on change in asset prices. The rela­tion­ship between accel­er­at­ing debt and ris­ing asset prices is clear even in the very volatile world of the stock market:

It is unde­ni­able in the prop­erty market:


Since asset mar­ket volatil­ity is dri­ven by the accel­er­a­tion of pri­vate debt, the Min­skian solu­tion to insta­bil­ity in finance mar­kets is to some­how sever the link between debt and asset prices. I put for­ward two ideas.

Jubilee Shares

Cur­rently, shares last for the life of the issu­ing com­pany, and 99% of the trade on the stock mar­ket is in the sec­ondary mar­ket. The Jubilee Shares pro­posal would allow shares to last for­ever as now when pur­chased on the pri­mary issue mar­ket, but would have them switch to a defined life of (say) 50 years after a lim­ited num­ber of sales on the sec­ondary mar­ket (say 7 sales). This would encour­age pri­mary share pur­chases, and also make it highly unlikely that any­one would use bor­row money to buy Jubilee shares on the sec­ondary market.

Prop­erty Income Lim­ited Leverage

Cur­rently lend­ing to buy prop­erty is allegedly based on the income of the borrower—which gives bor­row­ers an incen­tive to actu­ally want higher lever­age over time. “The PILL” would limit the amount that can be lent to some mul­ti­ple (say 10 times) of the income gen­er­at­ing capac­ity of the prop­erty itself.

End of Synopsis

There’s much more detail in the paper itself, and when the con­fer­ence is held my talk on it will also be avail­able on the INET website.

Attend­ing the conference

The con­fer­ence itself has only 300 invi­tees, and INET had over­whelm­ing demand from stu­dents for the 25 places they reserved for them. Rather than let­ting the over 500 other appli­cants miss out, these other appli­cants can watch the con­fer­ence live from a spe­cial live video broad­cast room at the Adlon Hotel, right next to the con­fer­ence venue itself in Berlin. Click here for details if you’re one of those 563 applicants.

About Steve Keen

I am Professor of Economics and Head of Economics, History and Politics at Kingston University London, and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous private debts accumulated globally, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to My paper for INET’s Berlin 2012 Conference

  1. RJ says:

    Is a clas­si­cal recipe for war”

    Rub­bish. a few Govt jour­nal entries to reduce poverty and unem­ploy­ment and improve liv­ing stan­dards will not cause a war.

  2. centerline says:

    How pri­vate inter­ests profit from the cre­ation of pub­lic debt?

    Just to scratch the sur­face.… First there is a div­i­dend paid to the pri­vate par­ties. That is chump change though. Next up is prox­im­ity. For exam­ple, spec­u­la­tion in var­i­ous mar­kets based on insider infor­ma­tion, abil­ity to influ­ence poli­cies for pri­vate gains, abil­ity to bor­row at rates no one else has access to, etc. Also, there is con­trol. Just take a look at how cam­paigns for politi­cians are run now or how leg­is­la­tion is han­dled, etc. It all bows down to money inter­ests. When you have this level of con­trol over a nation’s gov­ern­ment, the pos­si­bil­i­ties are end­less in how wealth can be extracted.

    The “leak­age” is fairly sig­nif­i­cant and can­not be ignored. Nor can the desire to con­trol the sys­tem for the sake of power and greed. Pub­lic and pri­vate debts are tied together is so many unin­tended ways. It seems you guys rou­tinely miss this when you boil the world down to bal­anc­ing double-entry account­ing entries on a 2 dimen­sional ledger paper.

  3. centerline says:

    Rub­bish. a few Govt jour­nal entries to reduce poverty and unem­ploy­ment and improve liv­ing stan­dards will not cause a war.”

    Really? As if the effects on one cur­rency have no real effects on another? On inter­na­tional trade? On the prices of com­modites and stan­dards of liv­ing at home and elsewhere?

    In a closed sys­tem, you may be right. The prob­lem is that this is not a closed sys­tem and we aren’t quite yet liv­ing in a one gov­ern­ment, one cur­rency world.

  4. TruthIsThereIsNoTruth says:

    Blis­sex — re your reme­dies comment.

    Don’t cloud the the­o­ret­i­cal fan­tasy with prac­ti­cal con­sid­er­a­tion. It’s fairly obvi­ous that the tax and reg­u­la­tory sys­tem is the most prac­ti­cally appro­pri­ate mech­a­nism for influ­enc­ing eco­nomic activ­ity. But what fun would that be. Here’s an anal­ogy — run­away elec­tri­cal train, we can either switch off the mains or super­man can fly down from the clouds and flex his mus­cles. Remem­ber now, we’ve got a movie to make.

  5. Steve Hummel says:

    The prob­lem with the econ­omy and the money sys­tem is that peo­ple are not sov­er­eign, gov­ern­ments, pro­duc­ers and Banks are. If you’d rem­edy this prob­lem so that indi­vid­u­als didn’t have to rely upon a job to sur­vive you would be free to elim­i­nate waste and anti-social pro­duc­tion left and right. And no, pro­duc­tion would not suf­fer in any way, tech­nol­ogy already makes many jobs actu­ally redun­dant, bor­ing or utterly mean­ing­less, plus the actual waste of resources is so preva­lent that we miss most of it. Waste is the dark energy of the eco­nomic world, its hard for those hung up on employ­ment to keep the econ­omy half assed going to rec­og­nize that.……with tech­nol­ogy increas­ingly reduc­ing human effort and even human input all the time, job­less “recov­er­ies are the new norm.

    Lib­er­a­tion from wage slav­ery is a deeper and more impor­tant problem/goal than unemployment/production/asset infla­tion etc. These need to be addressed, yes, most espe­cially asset infla­tion, but until you deal with the wage slavery.…how can one even say the sys­tem is free with­out being pre­ten­sious. Its this unrec­og­nized cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance that lies at the heart of the cur­rent cri­sis and the neg­a­tive effects of eco­nom­ics as a whole.

    Sys­tems were made for Man, not Man for Sys­tems. When we begin to tai­lor our eco­nomic and mon­e­tary sys­tems on that insight is when the vec­tor toward col­lapse of all human and nat­ural sys­tems will begin to change direction.

  6. centerline says:

    Steve — sorry being so much of pain today. But, too many posts just rub my fur the wrong way.

    Krug­man, from what I have read over the last few years, seems to ignore a basic real­ity that every­one else knows… that there is an imbal­ance in the notion that one mans debt is another mans asset. In essence, ignor­ing that a wealth trans­fer mech­a­nism exists within the sys­tem in the prof­i­teer­ing from the cre­ation of gov­ern­ment debt and the endoge­nous cre­ation of money.

    The trans­fer I wager is expo­nen­tial in nature — off­set only by expo­nen­tial growth — which is clearly not sustainable.

    Try­ing to explain this way using double-entry account­ing a la Account­ing 101 class = fail. I fear for the pro­fes­sion of eco­nom­ics, but on this course will not regret is pass­ing. Engi­neer­ing of some sort is bound to replace it in time.

  7. mahaish says:

    mmt sup­ports endoge­nous money, steve,

    they might have a prob­lem with rj’s defence of krugman .

  8. mahaish says:

    ran­dal wray on finan­cial instability,

    talk alot about minsky

  9. Dragunov says:

    Hey Steve. A bit of a digres­sion, but I’m hop­ing you can write a piece on Aus­trian eco­nom­ics some­time. Your book had a decent layperson’s intro­duc­tion to Sraf­fian and Marx­ist eco­nom­ics but skipped over the argu­ments and method­ol­ogy of the Aus­tri­ans. Maybe you can just give your thoughts on this post if you’re busy.

  10. Steve Hummel says:

    Icon­o­clasm like insta­bil­ity is a good, espe­cially after long peri­ods of ortho­doxy and cor­rup­tion have reeked havoc on human sys­tems and human pop­u­la­tions. This is the rea­son I and many oth­ers are drawn to Steve’s think­ing and work. But there’s icon­o­clasm and then there’s icon­o­clasm. There’s the­o­ret­i­cal icon­o­clasm and then there’s philo­soph­i­cal icon­o­clasm. The lat­ter is what Human­ity is really long­ing for and that is in fact most needed with the con­verg­ing economic/financial/monetary/energy and eco­log­i­cal crises con­fronting us.

    What if the real prob­lem is a fail­ure to look and ques­tion deeply enough, to fail to work and act quickly enough and the fail­ure to ignore cri­tique from every expected and unex­pected direc­tion because dis­as­ter is still dis­as­ter for our prog­eny even if it is 50 years off instead of 5. Par­a­digm change is NECESSARY. That is the REAL truth. Philo­soph­i­cal change FIRST. Let the­o­ret­i­cal and pol­icy changes fol­low from there. As Aris­to­tle said, “We learn by doing.” The world will not end if indi­vid­u­als are sov­er­eign instead of slaves…yes slaves.

    Demon est Deus inver­sus, The devil is God upside down. Inse­cu­rity, scarcity, hope­less­ness, apa­thy and enslave­ment to exter­nal con­di­tions can­not be bet­ter than secu­rity, actual and poten­tial abun­dance, hope, love and indi­vid­ual lib­erty and self deter­min­ism. Yes, I am a crazy per­son, but I’m a look­ing crazy per­son even more than I am a think­ing crazy per­son. I tilt at wind­mills, but I have an 18 year old son who I would pre­fer to have a long and fruit­ful life instead of a neo-feudal strug­gle, an eco­log­i­cally chaotic and per­ilous dystopia or even a civ­i­liza­tion killing nuclear reac­tion to NOT mak­ing deep enough changes.

    Finally, remem­ber that true par­a­digm changes are evo­lu­tion­ary, inclu­sive and trans­for­ma­tional. Man is Man, but he has poten­tial that he is not uti­liz­ing and actu­al­iz­ing. Reac­tions tend to destroy struc­ture, but par­a­digm changes renew and include them. Profit and work are wor­thy eco­nomic pur­poses, but destruc­tive pri­mary ones. Facil­i­tat­ing the meet­ing of goods and ser­vices with con­sumers is a deeper and more ade­quate pri­mary pur­pose under which profit and work can fit quite well and even be transformed.

  11. RJ says:

    Debt has two sides (an asset and a lia­bil­ity) and is sim­ply cre­ated by jour­nal entries.

    Pri­vate debt mat­ters as does non mon­e­tary sov­er­eign Govt debt. Mon­e­tary sov­er­eign Govt debt by itself is com­pletely and utterly irrel­e­vant. Yet this is what many so called experts focus on.

    What mat­ters is the amount of money and finan­cial assets required for con­sump­tion and sav­ings. Too much money going into con­sump­tion causes prob­lem. Too lit­tle = unem­ploy­ment. Too much into sav­ings with­out Govt bonds might cause asset inflation.

    A level of debt is needed to keep the econ­omy tick­ing over and to meet our sav­ings require­ments. An imbal­ance between pri­vate and mon­e­tary sov­er­eign Govt debt can cause issues. As can too much or too lit­tle Govt bonds. Or the banks hold­ing too many Govt bonds etc.

    This is where the research should be directed. It isn’t in large part because most econ­o­mists do not under­stand (in fact they are clue­less) how our money and bank­ing sys­tem works. Or what debt (or money) is and the rela­tion­ship to money.

  12. NeilW says:

    Debt has two sides (an asset and a lia­bil­ity) and is sim­ply cre­ated by jour­nal entries.”

    There is more than one def­i­n­i­tion of debt.

    It is utterly vital to main­tain flex­i­bil­ity over terms. Try­ing to rail­road a par­tic­u­lar def­i­n­i­tion is not going to help if who­ever you are talk­ing to has a dif­fer­ent viewpoint.

    Half the bat­tle with eco­nom­ics seems to be work­ing out what world-view and there­fore what under­ly­ing nor­ma­tive assump­tions the per­son you are talk­ing to has. Then you have to tai­lor the dis­cus­sion to that.

  13. Pingback: My paper for INET’s Berlin 2012 Conference Read… « zumoit

  14. centerline says:

    The basic premise that a sim­ple jour­nal entry is the magic answer to the finan­cial woes of nations is about as absurd as it gets. Like­wise, view­ing the world of debts and assets in such a 2 dimen­sional and sta­tic man­ner com­pletely misses the mark (real­ity). There are many dif­fer­ent types of debts with dif­fer­ent terms, mech­a­nisms of creation/destruction, etc. — hasn’t Steve been point­ing out that accel­er­a­tion and veloc­ity mat­ter? Heck, mod­ern eco­nom­ics to date has com­pletely ignored endo­ge­neous money cre­ation! What does that tell you about the “sci­ence” of eco­nom­ics. It is not sci­ence (yet). It is dogma passed off as a sci­ence because lim­ited math­e­mat­ics are involved.

    Even more dis­turb­ing is that most peo­ple don’t even stop to ask about the nature of debt and why debt cre­ation con­tin­ues to morph and move out­side of reg­u­lated space. Chas­ing it with new eco­nomic think­ing in the man­ner I have seen so far is akin to foren­sics herein.

    Con­sid­er­ing that money is a key com­po­nent of the fab­ric of soci­ety, it is painfully clear how dan­ger­ous the pro­fes­sional of eco­nom­ics is to world peace and prosperity.

    Neilw’s last post above is more on the path I have been point­ing out here after hav­ing become frus­trated see­ing more X=Y+Z dri­vel with­out look­ing at the nature of the vari­ables themselves.

  15. Steve Hummel says:

    Profit in aggre­gate i.e. macro-economically speak­ing, is really just waste, no? So if you uti­lize a mech­a­nism like a com­pen­sated (to retail­ers) retail dis­count (to con­sumers) you’ve got bal­ance. See­ings how this price dis­count is on or after retail sale it is in no way actu­ally cen­tral plan­ning. It is sim­ply enabling indi­vid­u­als to decide what they want to pur­chase and then elim­i­nat­ing the dross for con­sumers while also mak­ing retail­ers whole and enabling them to pay their bills and make a mar­gin of profit on a micro-economic level.

  16. Steve Hummel says:

    True price is the cost of pro­duc­tion. Banks cre­ate money ex nihilo and other than a rea­son­able amount of profit (and rea­son­able profit is prob­a­bly much less than they make now) the rest could eas­ily be can­celed out as waste with the above mech­a­nism. For instance, if a bank dis­trib­utes $200k for a mort­gage and there is a 20% dis­count dur­ing that period of pro­duc­tion the bank dis­counts the loan to $160k to the con­sumer. They of course are com­pen­sated back that $40k, but most of that is can­celled out either in their expenses, their rea­son­able profit or returned to their reserves. Mean­while The infla­tion­ary aspect of the asset is negated so far as the con­sumer is con­cerned, profit remains a part of the sys­tem, reserves are main­tained as well as macro-economic balance.

  17. Steve Keen says:

    I cer­tainly hope they would Mahaish.

  18. Steve Keen says:

    Then you’d bet­ter read him more care­fully RJ.

  19. RJ says:

    Here is a good arti­cle from Roger Mitchell web­site. Most still have not woken up it the impact of this change

    Yet eco­nom­ics is sim­ple, and that sim­plic­ity can be under­stood by young peo­ple, if not by adults. So here is the first attempt.

    Before August 15, 1971, the United States gov­ern­ment was on a gold stan­dard. This meant, the U.S. gov­ern­ment needed to own gold before it could pay its bills.

    It didn’t pay its bills with gold. No, it paid with dol­lars. But unless it owned gold, the U.S. was not allowed to cre­ate its own dol­lars. That was the law. No gold, no dol­lars to pay bills.

    And when the gov­ern­ment didn’t have enough gold to make dol­lars to pay its bills, it had to get dol­lars from some­one else. Either it had to bor­row dol­lars, or it to levy taxes.

    Not being able to cre­ate dol­lars, when­ever you want to, is called being “mon­e­tar­ily non-sovereign.” You and I are mon­e­tar­ily non-sovereign. We can’t just cre­ate dol­lars. We can’t pay our bills unless we obtain dol­lars from some­one else. Our states, coun­ties and cities are mon­e­tar­ily non-sovereign. They have to obtain dol­lars from taxes or bor­row­ing. They are not allowed to make dol­lars out of thin air. That is the law.

    On August 15, 1971, Pres­i­dent Nixon announced that the U.S. would change the law. No longer would we need to have gold. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment would sim­ply cre­ate dol­lars with­out hav­ing gold. No gold. No prob­lem. Pres­i­dent Nixon made us MONETARILY SOVEREIGN.

    And this changed everything.

    Today, in Amer­ica, only the fed­eral gov­ern­ment is Mon­e­tar­ily Sov­er­eign. Only the fed­eral gov­ern­ment can cre­ate dol­lars out of thin air. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment is unique.

    Here is how you and I pay our bills:

    Per­sonal Income (salary, invest­ments)
    + Per­sonal Bor­row­ing
    Per­sonal dol­lars avail­able to pay our bills

    In order to pay our bills, we need to have a source of dol­lars. We are mon­e­tar­ily non-sovereign

    And states, coun­ties and cities pay their bills the same way the same way:

    State Income (taxes)
    + State Bor­row­ing
    State dol­lars avail­able to pay state bills

    Yes, the states, coun­ties and cities also need a source of dol­lars, to pay their bills. They too are mon­e­tar­ily non-sovereign.

    That’s the way it is, and that’s the way it always has been. So nat­u­rally, many peo­ple think the fed­eral gov­ern­ment works the same way. And once it did, but now it doesn’t. Not after 1971. Here’s what the fed­eral gov­ern­ment does with any money it receives:

    Fed­eral Bor­row­ing
    + Fed­eral Tax­ing
    Dol­lars destroyed

    What??! The fed­eral gov­ern­ment destroys all that tax money you and your par­ents send it?? And the gov­ern­ment even destroys all the money it borrows??

    That’s right. etc

  20. RJ says:

    Money is noth­ing more than a series of jour­nal entries. Always backed by debt. We just need more Govt debt to solve our cur­rent problems.

    Very sim­ple. But econ­o­mists need to keep it com­plex to jus­tify their existence.

  21. centerline says:

    Dammit Steve. How dare you and so many oth­ers make eco­nom­ics so com­plex as RJ has so mas­ter­fully pointed out! I feel so betrayed!

    (Just kid­ding. And I either have to assume RJ is very igno­rant — or very smart and loves the fric­tion. I wager it is the lat­ter. Made me smile though. For that I say thank you. Cheers).

  22. mahaish says:

    no probs steve,

    infact bill mitchell (mmt) tends to have the good prof krug­man in the cross hairs alot, and his aim is pretty good, just like yours steve.

    this is one of many exam­ples, and the dis­cus­sion of the mechan­ics of bank­ing is par­tic­u­larly rel­e­vant and very much in tune with hor­i­zon­tal endoge­nous money.

    steve “indi­ana jones” keen in his acubra and karki pants hunt­ing down all sorts of neo clas­si­cal prey, ehh 😉

  23. Pingback: Why Krugman is wrong, and how. The importance of debt. | Bursting bubbles & myths

  24. Steve Hummel says:


    Money is ali­i­i­itle bit more com­pli­cated than that. Its def­i­nitely more com­pli­cated than it has to be, thats true. Num­ber one in a pri­vate mon­e­tary sys­tem sov­er­eign inter­est does build up to redicu­lous amounts which neces­si­tate equally redicu­lous tax­a­tion which exac­er­bates an inher­ent gap in pur­chas­ing power enforced by cost account­ing con­ven­tions like the fact that labor is not the only cost of busi­ness thus enforc­ing scarcity of that very pur­chas­ing power. Now there are cranks that focus only on inter­est as the prob­lem here and I under­stand that this is not where the real prob­lem exists because of the time vari­ant between inter­est and money gen­er­ated by the wheel of com­merce and num­ber of times that pay­rolls are gen­er­ated in a years time.…however, the scarcity of pur­chas­ing power is again inher­ent in every financial/productive cycle so that price will always exceed the “grasp” of effec­tive demand. Keynes, as I pointed out a ways back acknowl­edged this gap.

    The trick with money is chang­ing to a Dis­trib­u­tive mon­e­tary and finan­cial sys­tem and so fill­ing the micro-economic gap in pur­chas­ing power with a div­i­dend and bal­anc­ing the macro-economy with a dis­count mech­a­nism. This threads the nee­dle between the sup­possed irrec­on­cil­able posi­tions of polit­i­cal par­ties in a re-distributive money sys­tem and solv­ing all kinds of prob­lems inher­ent in that scarcity dri­ven mind­set. Cre­at­ing this suf­fi­ciency and main­tain­ing it can open doors we’ve never been through eco­nom­i­cally, eco­log­i­cally, psy­cho­log­i­cally and cul­tur­ally. Thats a goal worth pursuing.

  25. RJ says:

    Num­ber one in a pri­vate mon­e­tary sys­tem sov­er­eign interest ”

    In you are refer­ring to inter­est that can not be paid back. No it does not build up as I believe Steve along with oth­ers have pointed out. Inter­est recycles

    The inter­est that can not be paid back so banks can own the world is fiction

Leave a Reply