Typography

Lord Keynes continues to squabble with the Austrians on the origins of money in two separate posts, one on Adam Smith and the other on Mises's regression theorem . The combativeness on the blog is unproductive, but I left a few comments anyways. On Smith: I don't really disagree with your claims, although I think you have to read the full Wealth of Nations in order to appreciate Adam Smith's theory of money. For instance, you are quoting from book 1 chapter 4, but Smith also has a very interesting (and much more extensive) chapter describing the complex workings of the system of bills of exchange, so he was by no means focused on gold and silver as money (See book 2 chapter 2). In this way he was different from Menger, who never discusses credit. Like Henry Dunning Macleod (who I see someone has already quoted), Smith was comfortable with credit as money.  The existence of Henry Dunning Macleod, as well as George Berkeley and James Steuart, disconfirms the thesis that clas...

heteconomist.com has a post on MMT's openness and political neutrality. See A Clarification on Political Openness . Heteconomist: "I prefer to see MMT as an open framework (basically an understanding of the monetary system and national accounting) within which – or out of which – various policy approaches could be developed and pursued." Reply: I’m no expert, but I decompose the monetary component of MMT into chartalism and endogenous money. These ideas are so old… you can go back centuries to find the origins of chartalism in Locke and Berkeley (money as a ticket, agreement, or sign). Endogenous money’s roots traces to the banking school of the 19th century. MMT doesn’t own these individual ideas… they are diffused into the general body of economics. There are no intrinsic reasons why the ideas of Locke, Berkeley, and the banking school need be associated with a particular political slant. The chartalist version of Locke/Berkeley’s token theory of money surely appeals to...