Money Creation and the State : A Critical Assessment of Chartalism

Gnos, Claude; Rochon, Louis-Philippe

doi:10.1080/08911916.2002.11042881

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it would make more sense in what they see as the more general analytical framework provided by the TMC approach than within MMT per se. Gnos/Rochon's (2002) article complements the paper by Rochon/Vernengo (2003). Gnos/Rochon (2002: 45) assert that 'Wray's approach of the money-creation process is at odds with the post-Keynesian approach.'…”

Section: Basic Theorysupporting

confidence: 58%

“…In many cases advocates of MMT have specifically, and at some points aggressively (see Lavoie 2011: 7-8 on that point), responded to these critics. For the best-known academic critiques of MMT at the level of basic theory see Febrero (2009), Gnos/Rochon (2002), Lavoie (2011), Mehrling (2000, Parguez/Seccareccia (2000), Rochon/Vernengo (2003), andVan Lear (2002). MMT has drawn both praise and criticism from non-academics on various blogs and media outlets.…”

Section: Basic Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Institutionalists and post-Keynesians share a common approach to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?

Nesiba

2013

EJEEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are Institutional and post-Keynesian economists converging on a shared approach to understanding Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)? The literature suggests growing recognition that post-Keynesians and Institutionalists share a common intellectual history, conceptual frameworks, and overlapping professional memberships. For this reason, PostKeynesian Institutionalism (PKI) has emerged as a unifying approach to heterodox economics. In this review of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) literature, I explore the degree to which this PKI convergence extends, or fails to extend, to the historical, theoretical, and policy issues surrounding MMT. The point of this paper is to delineate where scholars from these traditions agree, where they specifically disagree, and to explore whether or how these disagreements may be ameliorated with respect to MMT.

show abstract

Section: Basic Theorysupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Basic Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Institutionalists and post-Keynesians share a common approach to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?

Nesiba

2013

EJEEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Palley argues that the monetary financing of government expenditures promoted by MMT leads to inflation, and he has been joined by Lavoie, Rochon, Fiebiger and others in their rejection of the consolidation hypothesis (Palley 2012;JKH 2012aJKH , 2012bLavoie 2013;Fiebiger 2012aFiebiger , 2012bRochon and Vernengo 2003;Gnos and Rochon 2002). They note that this hypothesis does not describe the current institutional framework of developed countries, and claim it pushes MMT into unnecessary strong logical claims.…”

Section: The Simplest Case: the Circuit With A Consolidated Governmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modern Money Theory 101: A Reply to Critics

Tymoigne

Wray

2013

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in November 2013The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection presents research in progress by Levy Institute scholars and conference participants. The purpose of the series is to disseminate ideas to and elicit comments from academics and professionals.Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, founded in 1986, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independently funded research organization devoted to public service. Through scholarship and economic research it generates viable, effective public policy responses to important economic problems that profoundly affect the quality of life in the United States and abroad. MMT. This paper addresses the critiques raised using the circuit approach and national accounting identities, and by progressively adding additional economic sectors.

show abstract

“…We do not discuss here the chartalist approach to money (see Wray 1998), which explains the creation of money and its purchasing power by referring to the existence of taxes that the population has to pay to the local State. See, however, Rossi (1999), Gnos and Rochon (2002) and Rochon and Vernengo (2003) for a critical discussion of the chartalist view. 11.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Endogenous money: the evolutionary versus revolutionary views

Rochon¹,

Rossi²

2013

Review of Keynesian Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the endogenous nature of money. Contrary to the established post-Keynesian, or evolutionary, view, this paper argues that money has always been endogenous, irrespective of the historical period. Instead of the evolutionary theory of money and banking that can be traced back to Chick (1986), this paper puts forward a revolutionary definition of endogenous money consistent with many aspects of post-Keynesian economics as well as with the monetary circuit approach. This alternative starting point leads to the conclusion that money is indeed 'always and everywhere' an endogenous phenomenon. This analysis rests on the nature of debt, the essential role of a settlement institution, and the link between production, money and income.

show abstract

Money Creation and the State : A Critical Assessment of Chartalism

Cited by 27 publications

References 9 publications

Do Institutionalists and post-Keynesians share a common approach to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?

Do Institutionalists and post-Keynesians share a common approach to Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)?

Modern Money Theory 101: A Reply to Critics

Endogenous money: the evolutionary versus revolutionary views

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About