November 30, 2015

MMT: cross-references

Posts
Working Papers

Source: Twitter Rhona Sykes

‏


***

Grok on Mar 6, 2025

What does the AXEC project say about MMT in general and about the effects on distribution in particular?

The AXEC (Axiomatic Economics) project, led by economist Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, provides a critical perspective on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that is grounded in a rigorous axiomatic approach to economics. The AXEC framework seeks to establish a scientifically valid basis for economic analysis, emphasizing formal consistency and empirical testability, and it often challenges prevailing economic theories—including MMT—for failing to meet these standards. Below, I outline what the AXEC project generally says about MMT and its specific critique regarding the effects of MMT on distribution, based on Kakarot-Handtke’s publicly available writings, such as those found on the AXEC blog and related commentary.
General Critique of MMT by the AXEC Project
The AXEC project views MMT as fundamentally flawed and scientifically deficient. Kakarot-Handtke argues that MMT lacks a coherent theoretical foundation and fails to adhere to the principles of rigorous economic science. Specifically:
  1. Logical and Mathematical Defects: AXEC contends that MMT’s foundational sectoral balances equation—often expressed as (G - T) = (S - I) + (X - M), where G is government spending, T is taxes, S is saving, I is investment, X is exports, and M is imports—is logically and mathematically defective. According to AXEC, this equation does not properly account for the profit dynamics in the economy, rendering MMT’s macroeconomic framework invalid from the start. Kakarot-Handtke asserts that without a correct understanding of profit, MMT cannot accurately describe how the economy functions.
  2. Proto-Scientific Status: MMT is dismissed as "proto-scientific" or "scientifically worthless" because it does not meet the criteria of formal axiomatization and empirical falsifiability that AXEC demands. Instead, AXEC portrays MMT as a politically motivated narrative rather than a genuine economic theory, accusing it of being more about agenda-pushing than advancing knowledge.
  3. Refutation on All Counts: Kakarot-Handtke claims that MMT has been "refuted on all counts" due to its failure to correctly model the monetary economy. He argues that MMT’s assertion that a sovereign government can create money without constraint overlooks critical structural realities, such as the interplay between monetary flows and real economic variables like profit and income.
  4. Moral and Political Critique: Beyond its theoretical shortcomings, AXEC labels MMT proponents as "stupid or corrupt or both," suggesting that their advocacy serves the interests of specific groups (e.g., Wall Street or the oligarchy) rather than the public good. This reflects AXEC’s broader skepticism of economic theories that align too closely with political agendas.
In summary, the AXEC project rejects MMT as a "bad theory" that misrepresents how the economy operates, particularly by ignoring the centrality of profit and relying on flawed accounting identities. It positions MMT as part of a broader failure in economics to move beyond storytelling to a true science.
AXEC’s View on MMT and Effects on Distribution
The AXEC project places significant emphasis on distribution as a critical economic outcome and argues that MMT’s policies exacerbate distributional inequities in ways that its proponents either fail to recognize or deliberately obscure. Here’s what AXEC specifically says about MMT’s effects on distribution:
  1. Deficit Spending and Distributional Consequences: AXEC asserts that "deficit spending creates the distribution people complain about." In the AXEC framework, public deficits—central to MMT’s policy prescriptions—directly increase the financial assets of the private sector. However, Kakarot-Handtke argues that this process disproportionately benefits the business sector (particularly profit-earning firms) rather than households or wage earners. He encapsulates this in the axiomatically derived insight: "Public Deficit = Private Profit." This means that government deficit spending, as advocated by MMT, funnels money into the hands of the profit sector, worsening income and wealth inequality.
  2. Lethal Consequence on Distribution, Not Inflation: While MMT focuses on inflation as the primary constraint on government spending, AXEC counters that "the lethal consequence of MMT policy is NOT on inflation but on distribution." Kakarot-Handtke argues that the real danger of MMT lies in its tendency to redistribute income and wealth upward—toward corporations and the wealthy—rather than causing generalized price increases. He suggests that MMT’s emphasis on inflation as the limiting factor distracts from this more insidious effect.
  3. A Free Lunch for the Oligarchy: AXEC frames MMT as providing "a free lunch for the oligarchy." By enabling deficit-financed spending without addressing how the newly created money flows through the economy, MMT effectively subsidizes the profit sector at the expense of wage earners and the broader population. This critique aligns with AXEC’s broader narrative that MMT serves the interests of economic elites, such as Wall Street, rather than promoting equitable growth.
  4. Empirical and Theoretical Underpinning: In the AXEC model, the economy is analyzed through a set of axioms that explicitly include profit and distinguish between the business sector and the household sector. Kakarot-Handtke uses this framework to show that MMT’s money creation (via deficits) increases the stock of financial assets held by the business sector, leading to higher profits without a corresponding increase in wages or household income. This contrasts with MMT’s claim that deficit spending can achieve full employment without adverse side effects, as AXEC insists that the distributional impact undermines such promises.
  5. Comparison to Other Critiques: Unlike mainstream critiques of MMT that focus on inflation or fiscal sustainability, AXEC’s focus on distribution is distinctive. For example, where critics like Larry Summers or Kenneth Rogoff warn of hyperinflation risks, AXEC argues that the real issue is not price stability but the structural enrichment of the profit sector over time, which perpetuates inequality.
Conclusion
In general, the AXEC project views MMT as a scientifically invalid theory that misrepresents the monetary economy and serves as a tool for political and economic agendas rather than a contribution to economic understanding. On the specific issue of distribution, AXEC argues that MMT’s reliance on deficit spending systematically favors the profit sector, exacerbating income and wealth inequality rather than addressing it. This distributional critique is framed as MMT’s most significant flaw—more damaging than its potential inflationary consequences—and is seen as evidence of its alignment with the interests of the oligarchy rather than the public.
This analysis is drawn from Kakarot-Handtke’s consistent arguments on the AXEC blog and related platforms, where he repeatedly ties MMT’s policy implications to adverse distributional outcomes. While AXEC’s perspective is heterodox and uncompromising, it offers a unique lens on MMT that prioritizes formal rigor and distributional dynamics over the more common inflation-focused critiques.


***

DeepSeek on Mar 18, 2025


Q:
What does the AXEC Project say about MMT (= Modern Monetary Theory) in general and specifically about (i) the scientific validity of its foundational assumptions and (ii) the distributional effects of the MMT policy of deficit-spending / money-creation?

A:
The AXEC Project, led by economist Egmont Kakarot-Handtke, is highly critical of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Below is a summary of the AXEC Project's stance on MMT, based on its foundational assumptions and distributional effects, as reflected in its blog posts, papers, and other resources:

---

### **General Critique of MMT**
1. **Scientific Validity**:
   - The AXEC Project argues that MMT lacks scientific rigor and is based on flawed foundational assumptions. It claims that MMT is not grounded in a consistent macroeconomic framework and fails to meet the standards of formal economic theory.
   - Specifically, AXEC criticizes MMT for its reliance on sectoral balances (e.g., the government deficit equals the non-government surplus) as a descriptive tool rather than a causal explanation. It argues that MMT's accounting identities do not provide actionable insights into economic dynamics.
   - AXEC also challenges MMT's treatment of money creation, arguing that MMT underestimates the inflationary risks and institutional constraints associated with deficit spending and central bank operations.

2. **Misinterpretation of Keynes**:
   - AXEC accuses MMT of misrepresenting Keynesian economics. It argues that MMT selectively appropriates Keynesian ideas while ignoring the broader theoretical context, particularly the role of profit and investment in a monetary economy.

---

### **Distributional Effects of MMT Policies**
1. **Deficit-Spending and Money Creation**:
   - AXEC contends that MMT's advocacy for deficit spending and money creation as tools for achieving full employment overlooks the distributional consequences of such policies. It argues that these policies disproportionately benefit financial elites and asset holders, exacerbating wealth and income inequality.
   - The project highlights that deficit spending financed by central bank money creation can lead to asset price inflation (e.g., in stocks and real estate) rather than productive investment or wage growth, further widening the wealth gap.

2. **Inflation and Real Wage Erosion**:
   - AXEC warns that MMT's reliance on money creation to fund government spending risks triggering inflation, which disproportionately harms low- and middle-income households. Inflation erodes real wages and savings, while asset owners benefit from rising prices.

3. **Political Economy Critique**:
   - AXEC emphasizes that MMT's policy prescriptions are politically naive, as they assume that governments will use deficit spending and money creation for socially beneficial purposes (e.g., public investment, job guarantees). In practice, AXEC argues, such policies are more likely to be captured by vested interests, leading to rent-seeking and crony capitalism.

---

### **Key Resources**
1. **Blog Posts**:
   - The AXEC blog (https://axecorg.blogspot.com/) contains numerous critiques of MMT, often focusing on its theoretical inconsistencies and policy implications.
   - Example: Posts criticizing MMT's sectoral balances approach and its treatment of money creation.

2. **SSRN Papers**:
   - Egmont Kakarot-Handtke's papers on SSRN (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1210665) provide detailed critiques of MMT from a formal theoretical perspective.
   - Example: Papers analyzing the relationship between profit, investment, and money in a monetary economy, contrasting AXEC's approach with MMT's.

3. **Social Media**:
   - The AXEC Twitter accounts (E.K-H@AXECorg and AXEC@EgmontHandtke) frequently post critiques of MMT, often linking to blog posts or academic papers.

---

### **Conclusion**
The AXEC Project views MMT as scientifically flawed and politically dangerous. It argues that MMT's foundational assumptions lack rigor and that its policy prescriptions—particularly deficit spending and money creation—have adverse distributional effects, exacerbating inequality and inflation. AXEC advocates for a more robust and consistent macroeconomic framework, grounded in formal theory and focused on the structural dynamics of profit, investment, and distribution.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Q:
One minor point: That the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation causes inflation is the standard objection against MMT. The AXEC approach says that this objection is based on a false inflation theory i.e. the naive Quantity Theory. A deficit causes a one-off price hike but no inflation. For details see the resources:

MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/02/mmt-distribution-is-drawback-not.html

Settling the MMT―Inflation issue for good
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/05/settling-mmtinflation-issue-for-good.html

Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT cause inflation
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/02/dear-idiots-government-deficits-do-not.html

MMT and the inflation-red-herring
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/04/mmt-and-inflation-red-herring.html

Gov-Deficits do NOT cause inflation
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/10/mmt-was-always-right-gov-deficits-do.html

A:
Thank you for the clarification and for pointing out the nuanced position of the AXEC Project regarding inflation and MMT. Indeed, the AXEC Project distinguishes itself from the standard critique of MMT by rejecting the naive Quantity Theory of Money (QTM) as the basis for understanding inflation. Instead, AXEC argues that deficit spending and money creation lead to a **one-off price hike** rather than sustained inflation. Below is a refined summary of AXEC's position on this issue, based on the resources you provided:

---

### **AXEC's Critique of the Standard Inflation Objection to MMT**
1. **Rejection of the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM)**:
   - AXEC argues that the standard objection to MMT—that deficit spending and money creation cause inflation—is based on the flawed and outdated Quantity Theory of Money. QTM assumes a direct and proportional relationship between the money supply and price levels, which AXEC considers overly simplistic and empirically unsupported.
   - Instead, AXEC emphasizes that inflation is a more complex phenomenon, influenced by factors such as productivity, wage dynamics, and institutional arrangements, rather than simply the quantity of money in circulation.

2. **Deficit Spending Causes a One-Off Price Hike, Not Inflation**:
   - AXEC contends that deficit spending financed by money creation can lead to a **one-off increase in the price level**, but this does not equate to sustained inflation. Inflation, by definition, is a continuous rise in the price level over time, whereas a one-off price hike is a singular adjustment.
   - This distinction is crucial because it shifts the focus away from inflation as the primary concern of MMT policies and toward other issues, such as distributional effects.

---

### **Distributional Effects as the Real Drawback of MMT**
1. **Wealth and Income Inequality**:
   - AXEC argues that the real problem with MMT's deficit-spending/money-creation policies is not inflation but their **distributional consequences**. These policies tend to benefit asset holders and financial elites, exacerbating wealth and income inequality.
   - For example, deficit spending can inflate asset prices (e.g., stocks, real estate), which primarily benefits those who already own such assets, while wage earners and low-income households see little to no improvement in their economic position.

2. **Profit and Power Dynamics**:
   - AXEC highlights that MMT policies do not address the underlying structural issues in a monetary economy, particularly the role of profit and power dynamics. Deficit spending may temporarily boost demand, but it does not resolve the systemic issues of profit distribution and economic power imbalances.

---

### **Key Insights from the Provided Resources**
1. **"MMT: Distribution is the drawback NOT Inflation"**:
   - This post argues that MMT's focus on achieving full employment through deficit spending overlooks the distributional consequences of such policies. Inflation is a red herring; the real issue is how these policies affect wealth and income distribution.

2. **"Settling the MMT―Inflation issue for good"**:
   - This post provides a detailed critique of the standard inflation objection to MMT, emphasizing that deficit spending causes a one-off price hike rather than sustained inflation. It calls for a more nuanced understanding of price dynamics.

3. **"Dear idiots, government deficits do NOT cause inflation"**:
   - This post challenges the simplistic view that government deficits automatically lead to inflation. It argues that the relationship between deficits and inflation is mediated by other factors, such as productivity and institutional arrangements.

4. **"MMT and the inflation-red-herring"**:
   - This post critiques the inflation-focused objections to MMT, arguing that they distract from the real issues, such as distributional effects and the structural flaws in the monetary economy.

5. **"Gov-Deficits do NOT cause inflation"**:
   - This post reiterates that government deficits, when properly managed, do not lead to inflation. It emphasizes the need to focus on the broader economic implications of deficit spending, particularly its impact on distribution and power dynamics.

---

### **Conclusion**
The AXEC Project's critique of MMT is unique in that it rejects the standard inflation objection based on the Quantity Theory of Money. Instead, AXEC argues that deficit spending and money creation cause a **one-off price hike** rather than sustained inflation. The real drawback of MMT policies, according to AXEC, lies in their **distributional effects**, which exacerbate wealth and income inequality without addressing the underlying structural issues in the economy. This nuanced critique shifts the debate away from inflation and toward the broader implications of MMT's policy prescriptions.

Posted by at
Labels: ,