NOTHING TO ADD

Dear Colleagues,
 
I take a quick look at the mail coming through this service, but I'm not attracted to engaging in debate via this kind of medium. And I don't think I am under any moral obligation to do so.
   With regard to the public finance issue on which Bill Mitchell and Randall Wray share a common view, I have almost nothing to add to the attempt I made at a considered appraisal in:
 
-- T. Aspromourgos (2000) "Is An Employer-of-Last-Resort Policy Sustainable? A Review Article", Review of Political Economy, vol. 12 (no. 2), pp. 141--55.
 
That paper proceeds by way of a review of L. Randall Wray (1998) Understanding Modern Money: the key to full employment and price stability (Cheltenham UK: Elgar). I say "almost nothing to add", because the question of what determines the long-run sustainable level of public debt was not addressed in my ROPE review. I indicated that one would have to bring in the private sector's portfolio preferences to answer this question in a further, small contribution:
 
-- T. Aspromourgos (2002) "Comment on 'Fiscal Policy and the Job Guarantee'", Australian Journal of Labour Economics, vol. 5 (no. 2), pp. 261--3.
 
The sort of thing I had in mind there is very usefully formally modelled in:
 
-- C. Panico (1993) "Two Alternative Approaches to Financial Model Building", Metroeconomica, vol. 44 (no. 2), pp. 93--133.
 
I am thinking in particular of the long-run "Kaldorian" model presented there. [I cannot give the specific pages because I don't have the paper with me at the moment. Short-run Tobinesque and Kaldorian models -- and a long-run Tobinesque model -- are also presented in that paper.] A further Panico paper of interest is:
 
-- C. Panico (1997) "Government Deficits in Post-Keynesian Theories of Growth and Distribution", Contributions to Political Economy, vol. 16, pp. 61--86.
 
I may add one further thing. I'm not impressed by the undertone in some contributions to this chatter, as to who is "really" heterodox, or radical, or whatever. I have no desire to be heterodox, or orthodox -- I would just like to be correct. And if the correct view happens to be heterodox, so be it; or if it turns out to be orthodox, well ... that's okay as well.
 
Regards,
 
Tony Aspromourgos
Received on Tue Jan 28 01:24:41 2003