|Appears in Collections:||Economics Book Chapters and Sections|
|Title:||Post-Keynesian Theories of Money and Credit: Conflicts and (Some) Resolutions|
|Citation:||Chick V & Dow S (2013) Post-Keynesian Theories of Money and Credit: Conflicts and (Some) Resolutions. In: Harcourt GC, Kriesler P (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Post-Keynesian Economics, Volume 1: Theory and Origins. Oxford Handbooks in Economics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 152-166.|
|Publisher:||Oxford University Press|
|Series/Report no.:||Oxford Handbooks in Economics|
|Abstract:||Four approaches to money in the macroeconomy have appropriated the name of Keynes or the label “post-Keynesian”: liquidity preference, circuit theory, and the two forms of endogenous money, structuralism and accommodationism. Despite the common appeal to Keynes, there is little apparent common ground between these approaches. Horizontalists reject the very idea of the demand for money to hold, which is at the core of liquidity preference; circuitists reject uncertainty as the source of the existence of money, one of Keynes’s strongest assertions; structuralists reject an unconstrained supply of money, the core of the horizontalist approach. There is even disagreement about the definition of money. This chapter conducts a ground-clearing exercise in order to establish where we all agree: that bank loans create deposits. This exercise is followed by an argument that, contrary to the belief of some horizontalists, liquidity preference is not incompatible with loan-to-deposit causality. The chapter then rehearses the different concepts of money held by circuitists and liquidity preference theorists.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Type:||Part of book or chapter of book|
|Affiliation:||University College London|
|2013 Harcourt & Kriesler chick & dow final.pdf||377.67 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 31/12/2999 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependant on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.