The thought occurs that what is needed most in the world right now is for somebody to put up the most irrelevant post ever. Maybe it will provide a small insight into the world some choose to inhabit in preference to blogging about Modern Monetary Theory and related approaches to economics. It is a world in which numerous teams and many solo players are at loggerheads with the casinos of the world. However, few if any operate in a manner anything like the loose circle of individuals about to be encountered. “Advantage players”, so called, invariably pride themselves on their hard-nosed attitude to finding a legal edge in any game they can. Little else matters. It is amoral and apolitical, other than to stay within the law. What counts in advantage play is “getting the money”. Only the most otherworldly dreamers could be less unrelenting in this regard than the circle with which we are about to become acquainted.
Upon extensive investigation, it seems that the source of our present economic woes can be narrowed down to one or more of the following explanations:
The first part of this short two-part series addressed an article by John Kay in the Financial Times in which he characterizes Modern Monetary Theory and the chartal explanation of state money on which it is partially based as a crank theory. In fact, as Pavlina Tcherneva documents in an interesting book chapter on the subject, the chartal or tax basis of money is not only recognized by Modern Monetary Theorists but, in the history of economic thought, by such notables as Keynes, Say, Mill and Adam Smith.
There is an article in the Financial Times by John Kay who in attempting to disprove the chartalist explanation of state money by example gives an illustration fully consistent with it. The article is entitled “Money, like hat-wearing, depends on convention, not laws“. The article is behind a paywall.