Comparative Discussion of Modern Money Theory and New Currency Theory
* Essay: Modern Money Theory and New Currency Theory A comparative discussion, including an assessment of their relevance to monetary reform. Joseph Huber
URL = http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue66/Huber66.pdf comments
Abstract
This paper discusses Modern Money Theory (MMT) from the perspective of a New Currency Theory (NCT) as represented by proponents of monetary reform. In the paradigmatic framework of currency teachings versus banking teachings, MMT, in contrast to its self-image as a chartal theory of money, represents banking theory much more than currency teaching. Its understanding of fractional reserve banking and monetary sovereignty is misleadingly incomplete. Thus, NCT’s analyses appear to be a more adequate foundation for modern sovereign money.
Discussion
Tadit Anderson:
"Huber first characterizes MMT is the representative of "the banking school" versus an alleged program of monetary somehow associated with the nominal "Austrian School," which is problem because the nominal Austrian School is mostly an exonym at this point, often used to validate libertarian superstitions. The characterization of MMT as representative of the banksters who occupy much of the financial sector as the banking perspective is a highly mixed association. Yes, MMT understands how banking actually now functions or can function, minus the corporatist false morality. The capitalists also do understand the capacities of a central banking institution, and pre-fer to use those capacities for such on going subsidy programs such as TARP, FDIC and QEx. This does not demonstrate any good faith actual understanding of MMT in contrast neo-classica/liberal economics.
...
The writer relies upon common economic superstitions and is using a strawman form of rhetoric. Huber's paper has little historical content
Near the top of the list is that the entirely ideological nature of what is presented as the only "scientific" approach. Conflating MMT with the general banking model is a convenient bit of dys-education.
The next stroke came in apparently because both "views" base their economics in large part upon what and how fiat sovereign currencies can be managed. This is a false framing accomplished through the reproduction economic superstitions. The postured counter value names the designated straw man as the solution in the preface is only a posited negative, aka a straw man gambit among people who by self interest don't understand.
I am stating that this linked article is largely a skein of political posturing and conceits. At the level of having to engage this low level oratory without science, ie validity, applicability, adequacy, and reliability this becomes a context for further discerning between maya, dharma, and tantra . This would require any "audience" paying attention to the difference between twisted path of convenient superstition or an authentic historical contextualization. Using an exonym such "Austrian Economics" ends up being very muddy ground. Name dropping doesn't really add credibility to people who have or had a connection of some common latitude or longitude. Eg my early mentor in absentia was Alfred Schutz who worked and studied in Vienna, even for a period of time participating in a von Mises circle. Instantly the "meaningful" nature of categories such as "Austrian Economics" become voids.
So much of the representation assumes sharply divided categories or where relationships are established by convenience. Framing a nominal comparison based upon a piece of three card Monte, is not even a good faith calling for a critique. The sophists were known for this skill, but I think that they were mocking the Lyceum frats.
I am more than just suggesting that not everyone needs to have a base understanding of related history and practices, unless they involved in a communal economic critique." (email, June 2014)