Research Topics

This working paper integrates the credit money approach (associated with Post Keynesian endogenous money theory) with the state money approach (associated with Modern Money Theory) by drawing on Wray’s 1990 book (Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies: The Endogenous Money Approach, Edward Elgar), his 1998 book (Understanding Modern Money: the Key to Full Employment and Price Stability, Edward Elgar), and his 2004 edited book (Credit and State Theories of Money: The Contributions of A. Mitchell Innes, Edward Elgar). New sources and interpretation of the history of money make it clear that there is no contradiction between state money and private credit money—each played a role in the creation of the modern monetary system. Indeed, today’s system was created by bringing state money into the private money giro, thereby strengthening both.
 

This paper takes off from Jan Kregel’s paper “Shylock and Hamlet, or Are There Bulls and Bears in the Circuit?” (1986), which aimed to remedy shortcomings in most expositions of the “circuit approach.” While some “circuitistes” have rejected John Maynard Keynes’s liquidity preference theory, Kregel argued that such rejection leaves the relation between money and capital asset prices, and thus investment theory, hanging. This paper extends Kregel’s analysis to an examination of the role that banks play in the circuit, and argues that banks should be modeled as active rather than passive players. This also requires an extension of the circuit theory of money, along the lines of the credit and state money approaches of modern Chartalists who follow A. Mitchell Innes. Further, we need to take Charles Goodhart’s argument about default seriously: agents in the circuit are heterogeneous credit risks. The paper concludes with links to the work of French circuitist Alain Parguez.