Brian Romanchuk's commentary and books on bond market economics.
I have the ebook and I'm curious about your comments that Palley's arguments are the most reasonable against MMT but the content of the arguments he make are 'weak'. Can you expand on that please?
A lot of it was “monetary financing! We’re all gonna die in hyperinflation!”. Palley works with some variant of IS/LM and has not updated his views since the 1970s. Way behind heterodox and even neoclassical thinking.Pretty sure a lot of the arguments in there were shot down in rebuttals by Wray (and others) years ago.In my view, it was mainly bad faith wingeing, so I really didn’t want to dwell on it. However, it does cover all the bases, so it seems the the briefest source critique to read.
The other issue with that article is that I only saw it (it was new) *after* I had finished the manuscript. It overlapped existing critiques too much to be able to work it in. So I basically scanned it, and wrote the comment that it was a good summary. If it arrived six months earlier, I could have built it into my text better. Since it was largely superfluous, I didn’t spend much time parsing the text.
Fair enough. Reasonable from an IS/LM view. I hadn't previously understood that. Thank you.
Note: Posts are manually moderated, with a varying delay. Some disappear.The comment section here is largely dead. My Substack or Twitter are better places to have a conversation.Given that this is largely a backup way to reach me, I am going to reject posts that annoy me. Please post lengthy essays elsewhere.