Theory & Other Problems Archives - Page 4 of 6

Eight pitfalls to avoid in the helicopter money debate

19th August 2016

Definitions of Money, Helicopter Money, Monetary Policy, Money in Europe, Theory & Other Problems

Learn first, then teach Professors Stephen Cecchetti and Kermit Schoenholtz are the latest to opine on the subject of helicopter money. It is worth quoting from their opening paragraphs, it frees me up to re...

Monetary policy: transparency or obfuscation?

Eric Lonergan

5th August 2016

Helicopter Money, Monetary Policy, Money in Europe, Theory & Other Problems

1

We live in a era where monetary policy is more transparent than ever - if measured by press conferences, publication of minutes and individual policy-makers forecasts. At the same time, the behaviour of cent...

Helicopter money is different

Eric Lonergan

24th May 2016

Definitions of Money, Helicopter Money, Monetary Policy, Theory & Other Problems

31

The discussion of helicopter money may have moved from the periphery of the policy debate to its centre. Unfortunately, analytical confusion seems correlated with interest levels. Keynes once remarked that w...

Bernanke’s four errors

Eric Lonergan

12th April 2016

Definitions of Money, Helicopter Money, Monetary Policy, Money in Europe, Theory & Other Problems

11

I am a huge fan of Ben Bernanke. He can take a significant amount of personal credit for preventing a depression. Also, The Courage to Act is a superb book. Disappointingly, Ben’s latest contribution to the ...

Buffett v the Landesbank – the US gets paid to have a trade deficit

Eric Lonergan

26th March 2016

Economic History, Finance & Asset Pricing, Theory & Other Problems

28

It remains conventional wisdom that the US current account deficit is the accumulation of a debt that will one day need to be repaid. There are very good reasons to believe this is false. The US in fact has ne...

Nothing is permanent

Eric Lonergan

5th March 2016

Monetary Policy, Theory & Other Problems

14

To borrow a disparaging phrase from Paul Krugman, the concept of 'permanence' in economics seems “to have a special ability to create intellectual confusion, even in smart people.” Personally, I don't reall...

The economics of language: David Hume & valuing Facebook

Eric Lonergan

19th February 2016

Definitions of Money, Economic History, Theory & Other Problems

14

David Hume is the first great thinker to identify language, law and money as 'spontaneous' institutions of social organisation. Hume was on to something quite profound, which remains under-appreciated. Langu...

Accounting as religion: Buffett, Derrida, and MMT

Eric Lonergan

17th January 2016

Definitions of Money, Economic History, Theory & Other Problems

89

A number of my recent posts seem to have wound up some of the more sensitive ‘mainstream’ economists, who don't like the suggestion that the likes of Minsky deserve their own 'school’. Some philosophers of sc...

More on eclecticism

Eric Lonergan

15th January 2016

Economic History, Theory & Other Problems

“Experience has shown that Mother Nature is eclectic” - Paul Samuelson This recent blog on the merits of eclecticism in macroeconomics seems to have resonated. It follows a theme Dani Rodrik has advocate...

The case for eclecticism

Eric Lonergan

9th January 2016

Economic History, Theory & Other Problems

5

Most macroeconomists have a mental model of how the economy works. I think there are five relevant mental frameworks: Keynesian. This is the approach that most people are taught in high school and un...

Eight pitfalls to avoid in the helicopter money debate

Monetary policy: transparency or obfuscation?

Helicopter money is different

Bernanke’s four errors

Buffett v the Landesbank – the US gets paid to have a trade deficit

Nothing is permanent

The economics of language: David Hume & valuing Facebook

Accounting as religion: Buffett, Derrida, and MMT

More on eclecticism

The case for eclecticism

Reviews of Eric’s book

CNBC: market sell-off is ‘noise’

Monetary policy & babysitting: why rates are so low, and ‘what’s next?’