The Keen/Krugman Debate: A Summary

In recent days, Paul Krugman and Steve Keane are discussing intrinsic and foreign money and other issues. As the discussion is about to come to an end, I am here to provide a summary for those who can not see the tree.

Krugman read and rejected Steve Keane's paper, specifically he insisted that banks need to deposit before the loan and rejected the endowed currency

2. Keen replied that banks do not need to save before lending because banks can create loans and deposits through double-entry bookkeeping. Certification bodies must provide the necessary reserves for short-term financing. Otherwise, the economy will stagnate.

Nick Rowe's comments are important. He generally supports Krugman, but seems to agree to some of the content claimed by endogenous money supporters, including at least the double accounting view of money creation.

However, Krugman continues to deny this, claiming that the certification body is in charge of currency control and citing articles by James Tobin to support his view. He not only claimed that the certification body could not control financial activity, but also wrote a paper entitled "Commercial Bank that Created a Currency" which agreed with Krugman's view. . Oppose

6. Krugman seems to acknowledge that banks can make money, but they insist on saying that this process has no limits while continuing to tell proponents of endowed currency of the Scarecrow Stated. Of course, this is not true - the only argument is that reserves are not restrictions, the actual restrictions are capital, risks and interest rates.

7. Unfortunately, Krugman continues to publish another article that the central bank is effectively claiming that it is fully managing the money supply. Tampering

8. Both Krugman and Rowe revealed that they did not read Keen's latest post correctly and went directly to his explanation of DSGE and showed their ignorance. Sharp reaction. Krugman said the discussion was over.

Looking back at the discussion, I will record it in Keane - you may think about this, but I truly experienced it for a while, I told him that he might be wrong think. Sadly, Krugman obviously moved the goal post several times, and even after I asked him, Luo did not show his position clearly. They are not compromising Keen or someone else's claim.

It is no use dare to feel that orthodox economists are intentionally confusing the controversy - they are not convinced what they claim, but at the same time claim that the critic is attacking the Scarecrow . I doubt if their theory is completely forged.

Note: Some other people have made some constructive comments on the loosely defined definition of Keen in his recent paper on units that are particularly valuable to read. Nonetheless, Keen's accounting appears to be correct, even if it is not clearest.

Criticism of neoclassicalism, economic theory, economists, intrinsic and extrinsic currencies, monetary policy, Paul Krugman, Steve Keane

Anna Schwartz and Edward Nelson replied to Paul Krugman's article "Who is Milton Friedman?" The focus of the discussion is whether the Fed's policy at recession worsens the situation. Krugman considers the discussion itself to be confused - suggesting that simple observation should not fall down but raising monetary base should solve this problem. I am using coins as spare. Some insist that there is an informal safety net before the FRB, but this seems to be unrelated to the free market economy. But Friedman's faithful believers insist on this.

Looking back at the discussion, I will record it in Keane - you may think about this, but I truly experienced it for a while, I told him that he might be wrong think. Sadly, Krugman obviously moved the goal post several times, and even after I asked him, Luo did not show his position clearly. None of them compromised Keen or someone else's argument. It is no use dare to feel that orthodox economists are intentionally confusing the controversy - they are not convinced what they claim, but at the same time claim that the critic is attacking the Scarecrow . I doubt if their theory is completely forged.