To Richard Murphy and the MMT Witch-finder Generals.

Witchhunts and Civil Discourse.

 “A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours, Danforth! For them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud – God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!”
― Arthur Miller, The Crucible

Bibtex
@techreport{740ca41df36047e6ab2de7c41a601e4a,
title = “Seigniorage in the 21st Century: A Study of the Profits from Money Creation in the United Kingdom and Denmark”,
abstract = “This paper develops a new theory of seigniorage suited to modern economies where the majority of money is created not by the state or central bank but by commercial banks and other monetary financial institutions via their lending activity. We identify four different forms of seigniorage that take account of the modern institutional separation between the state, the central bank, commercial banks and the non-bank private sector in terms of their identities as ‘money creators’ and ‘money users’. The new typology differentiates between seigniorage profits arising from interest rate spreads on stocks of created money and profits arising from flows of interest payments on newly created assets. We illustrate our theoretical framework with empirical data on commercial bank seigniorage and related variables in the United Kingdom and the Denmark over the past quarter century.”,
keywords = “Seigniorage, Money creation, Central banks, Banks, Financial intermediation, Interest rates, Financialization, Seigniorage, Money creation, Central banks, Banks, Financial intermediation, Interest rates, Financialization”,
author = “Ole Bjerg and Duncan McCann and Laurie Macfarlane and {Hougaard Nielsen}, Rasmus and Josh Ryan-Collins”,
year = “2017”,
language = “English”,
publisher = “Copenhagen Business School [wp]”,
address = “Denmark”,
type = “WorkingPaper”,
institution = “Copenhagen Business School [wp]”,
}
http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/9454/CBS-NEF%20%28January%202017%29%20Seigniorage%20in%20the%2021%20Century%20CBS%20WP.pdf?sequence=1

This Paper is well worth Reading Ole Berg is a philosopher who studies the epistemology of Money and it is in the meta-physics DOgmas and Catechisms of the differing schools of thought where the Devils own Details may be found.

This Paper has a Contributor called Josh Ryan Collins He used to be with the new economics Foundation and he has worked quite a lot with Positive Money.

Josh’s work https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/josh-ryan-collins and Oles Work http://research.cbs.dk/en/persons/ole-bjerg(925c9d02-6d89-4a1b-8608-147cbf0be547)/publications.html  Have been essential to the empirical research being done on Modern Monetary Practices they have tested some of the Theories and found them wanting they have this in Common of Course with Richard Werner.  https://www.southampton.ac.uk/business-school/about/staff/werner.page

In Defining their Boundary Conditions for defining terms to be compared this is a Key part of the introduction to this paper.

B) Who issues money?
Since seigniorage is accrued by the creator of money any concept of seigniorage also has
to make an assumption about who issues money. The question here is not simply whether
the state or commercial banks should be included as creators of money. Even within the literature
on central bank seigniorage, there are differences in the way that the state as the creator
of money is conceived. While some authors treat the state as one coherent issuer of
money (see for instance Friedman 1971; Drazen 1985) others take into account the institutional
separation between the central bank and the government (see for instance Rovelli
1994; Pedersen and Wagener 2000). We concur with Klein and Neumann (1990) that definitions
of seigniorage should pay close attention to particular institutional circumstances in
different countries as these may have profound implications for the way that money creation
is turned into seigniorage. This includes not only the relation between the central bank and
the government but also the relations between commercial banks, the central bank and the
government.

I have also been re-reading Lietaers 2005 Paper on Integral approaches to Money this morning, it’s pretty incisive stuff not much in the way of Twaddle. http://www.lietaer.com/images/Integral_Money.pdf  , The Hyper Rationality of MMT Dogmatists over MMP Students should serve as a warning to us all.

2. The more hyper-rational a market, the more likely it is to get caught in a mania.
Mythologically, as shown in the Bacchae, it is the Apollonian ruler, not those who
embrace the “messiness” of the Dionysian space, who end up being dismembered.
In other words, the more we defend ourselves against the Dionysian uncertainty, the more
likely that we attract his “madness.” This could explain why the most sophisticated
markets are the ones who get caught in manias. It is because of their very sophistication
that the illusion of control is most prevailing. The more tools we accumulate to ensure a
permanent Apollonian certainty, the more likely it is that we will attract a Dionysian
outburst.
Stanley Passy concluded: “The idea that anyone can see the future with certitude carries
within the dark and deadly
shadow of panic. Dispassionate
portfolio management,
technical analysis and
computer modeling live in
parallel with merger manias,”

Finally, Page 50 of the Full PDF of PM’s proposals deals with common criticisms, The Article here falling into the “Common” Category.
http://positivemoney.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/SovereignMoney-AnIntroduction-20161214.pdf
6. RESPONSES TO COMMON
CRITIQUES
Five themes are common amongst the various critiques of the sovereign money approach:
1. Supply of Credit: “There would be too little credit….leading to deflation and recession.”
2. Interest rates: “Interest rates would be too high and too volatile.”
3. Near monies: “It is futile to try to control private money creation because near monies
will immediately emerge from other parts of the financial system.”
4. Shadow banking: “It was the shadow banking sector that caused the last financial
crisis. By looking at commercial banks, sovereign money reforms focus on the wrong
part of the financial system.”
5. Monetarism: “This is just modern monetarism, and will be as harmful as the failed
monetarist experiments of the 1980s.”
Positive Money is currently undertaking further research on each of these areas, but we
have addressed each of these arguments briefly below. (The following sections on the
Supply of Credit, Near Monies and Shadow Banking are adapted from Dyson et al. (2016)
which first appeared in the Cambridge Journal of Economics.)

As I have noted in my previous posts there is a lot of second-hand re-treaded rubber in this debate and most of it does not go into the deeper academic literature, our host has already dismissed much of that newer writing as Twaddle:

Tolstoy, Leo. What is Art? p. 124 (1899). In The Kingdom of God Is Within You (1893), he similarly declared, “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” (ch. 3). Translated from the Russian by Constance Garnett, New York, 1894. Project Gutenberg edition released November 2002. Retrieved 2009-08-24.

See part 1 Particularly for this un published response to Richard Murphy’s Authoritarian and Intolerant Comment.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2018/05/why-richard-murphy-disagrees-with.html

One of my Main criticisms of the MMT as Catechism is the quality of its witch-hunters and the intolerance of its would be Commissars.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Off Guardian the antidote to the Authoritarian Stalinist tendencies of Gatekeepers of Liberal democracy.

https://off-guardian.org/