Thomas Palley

This paper reconstructs the Keynesian income – expenditure (IE) model to include distinctions between government purchases of private sector output, government production, and government job guarantee program (JGP) employment. Analytically, including those distinctions transforms the model from a single sector model into a multi-sector model. It also surfaces the logic behind the automatic stabilizer property of JGP employment. The model is then extended to include Kaleckian income distribution effects which contribute to explaining why expenditure multipliers vary by type of fiscal expenditure. The Kaleckian version generates a new balanced budget multiplier driven by changed composition of government spending. It also illuminates some macroeconomic implications of privatization of government produced services.

READ MORE

The US is currently enjoying another stock market boom which, if history is any guide, also stands to end in a bust. In the meantime, the boom is having a politically toxic effect by lending support to Donald Trump and obscuring the case for reversing the neoliberal economic paradigm.

For four decades the US economy has been trapped in a “Groundhog Day” cycle in which policy engineered new stock market booms cover the tracks of previous busts. But though each new boom ameliorates, it does not recuperate the prior damage done to income distribution and shared prosperity. Now, that cycle is in full swing again, clouding understanding of the economic problem and giving voters reason not to rock the boat for fear of losing what little they have. READ MORE

Thomas Palley, Louis-Philippe Rochon, Guillaume Vallet , Review of Keynesian Economics, April 2019.

The Great Recession (2008/9) triggered by the financial crisis of 2008 has had considerable impact on the conduct of monetary policy. Before the recession, monetary policy was largely based on a New Consensus-type macroeconomic model and it targeted inflation via a Taylor interest rate rule. The belief was that policy engineered changes in real interest rates had strong and predictable effects on output and inflation.

Based on that understanding, in the immediate wake of the financial crisis, central banks were quick to lower their policy interest rate to zero or near-zero. The expectation was for a speedy and robust V-shaped recovery, an expectation which was reflected in Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s comments in March 2009 about seeing “green shoots” of economic recovery.

When that V-shaped recovery failed to materialize, expectations shifted to a U-shaped recovery, and then in turn morphed into L-shaped recovery and talk of secular stagnation. READ MORE

The case for central bank independence is built on an intellectual two-step. Step one argues there is a problem of inflation prone government. Step two argues independence is the solution to that problem. This paper challenges that case and shows it is based on false politics and economics. The paper argues central bank independence is a product of neoliberal economics and aims to institutionalize neoliberal interests. As regards economics, independence rests on a controversial construction of macroeconomics and also fails according to its own microeconomic logic. That failure applies to both goal independence and operational independence. It is a myth to think a government can set goals for the central bank and then leave it to the bank to impartially and neutrally operationalize those goals. Democratic countries may still decide to implement central bank independence, but that decision is a political one with non-neutral economic and political consequences. It is a grave misrepresentation to claim independence solves a fundamental public interest economic problem, and economists make themselves accomplices by claiming it does. [READ MORE]

The last decade has witnessed a significant revival of belief in the efficacy of fiscal policy and mainstream economics is now reverting to the standard positions of mid-1970s Keynesianism. On the coattails of that revival, increased attention is being given to the doctrine of Modern Money Theory (MMT) which makes exaggerated claims about the economic costs and capability of money-financed fiscal policy. MMT proponents are now asserting society can enjoy a range of large government spending programs for free via money financed deficits, which has made it very popular with progressive policy activists. This paper examines MMT’s assertion and rejects the claim that the US can enjoy a massive permanent free program spree that does not cause inflation. It also shows the proposed MMT fiscal program entails economically implausible debt and money supply dynamics that will likely trigger financial instability. READ MORE