Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
MMT is indeed Modern Monetary Theory.

I think Piketty does belong there, in that he charts a long-term destabilisation route. So he would belong with Keynes and Minsky.

In general, I think it is important to understand the economics of the urbanised, industrialised, consumer world we are living in and also how it differs from other economies.

I recently read a critique of Keynes analysis of the German WWI debt, based on the post-Napoleonic french states ability to pay 700 million livres over the course of a couple of years. I think a crucial difference (that was not covered) is the mainly rural characther of early 19th century France. If the state mainly extracts surplus from farmers with access to the productive resources it needs, the state does not really need to provide demand to keep the economy going, the farmer's belly does that just fine. But the economy we are in is in contrast extremly dependent on demand being there all the time in order for labour, capital and resources to form up to economic activity.

Bit of a tangent there.

by fjallstrom on Wed Mar 25th, 2015 at 10:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wholly agree about the need for the relevant economic history to be considered in any economic comparison. The fact that it blows up so many grand theories is likely a large part of why it and History of Economic Thought has largely been banished from Mainstream Economics. And I agree that Piketty's conclusions are both consistent with and supportive of MMT. But they are not the same thing.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Mar 27th, 2015 at 12:11:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see how my comment can be read like Piketty is part of MMT, but actually I meant he belongs on the list, at point three with Keynes and Minsky.
by fjallstrom on Mon Mar 30th, 2015 at 02:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series