Why Hyman Minsky matters
12 Sep, 2018 at 09:12 | Posted in Economics | 3 CommentsListen to BBC 4 where Duncan Weldon tries to explain in what way Hyman Minsky’s thoughts on banking and finance offer a radical challenge to mainstream economic theory.
As a young research stipendiate in the U.S. yours truly had the great pleasure and privilege of having Hyman Minsky as a teacher.
He was a great inspiration at the time.
He still is.
3 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Posts
- DSGE models — a total waste of time
- Max von Sydow — non plus ultra
- Helden
- Radikaler Universalismus
- Was MMT right about inflation? Yes!
- You never can tell …
- The ‘Just One More’ Paradox (student stuff)
- Show me the way
- Brownian motion (student stuff)
- On the art of reading and writing
- Keynes — en ständigt aktuell inspiration
- Minnen som glömskan inte rår på
- The total incompetence of people in charge of the US economy
- Round About Midnight
- Ergodicity — a questionable assumption (wonkish)
Comments Policy
I like comments. Follow netiquette. Comments — especially anonymous ones — with pseudo argumentations, abusive language or irrelevant links will not be posted. And please remember — being a full-time professor leaves only limited time to respond to comments.
Recent Comments
rsm on The ‘Just One More… Jan Milch on Keynes — en ständigt akt… rsm on Brownian motion (student … Nanikore on The total incompetence of peop… Bruce Wilder on The total incompetence of peop… rsm on Ergodicity — a questiona… Edward Fullbrook on Susan Neiman on why left is no… rsm on The non-existence of economic… fredtorssander on The non-existence of economic… Mel on Cutting-edge macroeconomics… fredtorssander on MMT — coming to an econo… Jan Milch on The Swedish for-profit ‘… rsm on The Swedish for-profit ‘… fredtorssander on What’s the use of e… rsm on What’s the use of e… Reading List
Categories
- Economics (3,837)
- Education & School (273)
- Politics & Society (1,165)
- Statistics & Econometrics (937)
- Theory of Science & Methodology (501)
- Varia (1,626)
Archives
- May 2024 (19)
- Apr 2024 (27)
- Mar 2024 (35)
- Feb 2024 (30)
- Jan 2024 (28)
- Dec 2023 (34)
- Nov 2023 (25)
- Oct 2023 (32)
- Sep 2023 (38)
- Aug 2023 (34)
- Jul 2023 (49)
- Jun 2023 (46)
- May 2023 (48)
- Apr 2023 (42)
- Mar 2023 (36)
- Feb 2023 (31)
- Jan 2023 (31)
- Dec 2022 (35)
- Nov 2022 (25)
- Oct 2022 (26)
- Sep 2022 (29)
- Aug 2022 (32)
- Jul 2022 (29)
- Jun 2022 (29)
- May 2022 (26)
- Apr 2022 (33)
- Mar 2022 (26)
- Feb 2022 (33)
- Jan 2022 (41)
- Dec 2021 (45)
- Nov 2021 (40)
- Oct 2021 (31)
- Sep 2021 (44)
- Aug 2021 (38)
- Jul 2021 (50)
- Jun 2021 (49)
- May 2021 (51)
- Apr 2021 (35)
- Mar 2021 (60)
- Feb 2021 (47)
- Jan 2021 (33)
- Dec 2020 (46)
- Nov 2020 (41)
- Oct 2020 (55)
- Sep 2020 (37)
- Aug 2020 (44)
- Jul 2020 (50)
- Jun 2020 (49)
- May 2020 (68)
- Apr 2020 (61)
- Mar 2020 (51)
- Feb 2020 (65)
- Jan 2020 (41)
- Dec 2019 (54)
- Nov 2019 (71)
- Oct 2019 (61)
- Sep 2019 (53)
- Aug 2019 (75)
- Jul 2019 (72)
- Jun 2019 (68)
- May 2019 (84)
- Apr 2019 (93)
- Mar 2019 (76)
- Feb 2019 (71)
- Jan 2019 (55)
- Dec 2018 (52)
- Nov 2018 (62)
- Oct 2018 (69)
- Sep 2018 (53)
- Aug 2018 (50)
- Jul 2018 (44)
- Jun 2018 (63)
- May 2018 (63)
- Apr 2018 (61)
- Mar 2018 (59)
- Feb 2018 (40)
- Jan 2018 (62)
- Dec 2017 (46)
- Nov 2017 (44)
- Oct 2017 (53)
- Sep 2017 (47)
- Aug 2017 (42)
- Jul 2017 (37)
- Jun 2017 (44)
- May 2017 (48)
- Apr 2017 (44)
- Mar 2017 (46)
- Feb 2017 (35)
- Jan 2017 (54)
- Dec 2016 (62)
- Nov 2016 (58)
- Oct 2016 (42)
- Sep 2016 (44)
- Aug 2016 (40)
- Jul 2016 (56)
- Jun 2016 (43)
- May 2016 (45)
- Apr 2016 (41)
- Mar 2016 (70)
- Feb 2016 (58)
- Jan 2016 (39)
- Dec 2015 (32)
- Nov 2015 (51)
- Oct 2015 (58)
- Sep 2015 (47)
- Aug 2015 (34)
- Jul 2015 (42)
- Jun 2015 (50)
- May 2015 (48)
- Apr 2015 (44)
- Mar 2015 (54)
- Feb 2015 (41)
- Jan 2015 (54)
- Dec 2014 (51)
- Nov 2014 (50)
- Oct 2014 (54)
- Sep 2014 (52)
- Aug 2014 (69)
- Jul 2014 (72)
- Jun 2014 (48)
- May 2014 (47)
- Apr 2014 (38)
- Mar 2014 (51)
- Feb 2014 (54)
- Jan 2014 (50)
- Dec 2013 (67)
- Nov 2013 (60)
- Oct 2013 (77)
- Sep 2013 (74)
- Aug 2013 (45)
- Jul 2013 (54)
- Jun 2013 (38)
- May 2013 (43)
- Apr 2013 (47)
- Mar 2013 (58)
- Feb 2013 (40)
- Jan 2013 (47)
- Dec 2012 (66)
- Nov 2012 (62)
- Oct 2012 (71)
- Sep 2012 (75)
- Aug 2012 (38)
- Jul 2012 (76)
- Jun 2012 (113)
- May 2012 (64)
- Apr 2012 (49)
- Mar 2012 (42)
- Feb 2012 (35)
- Jan 2012 (45)
- Dec 2011 (39)
- Nov 2011 (68)
- Oct 2011 (61)
- Sep 2011 (63)
- Aug 2011 (53)
- Jul 2011 (21)
- Jun 2011 (30)
- May 2011 (47)
- Apr 2011 (45)
- Mar 2011 (19)
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and Comments feeds.
“Stability leads to instability” in money matters is what is being told here. It is not true nor the basic reason why our social system has instability within its nature. When a system starts to become unstable it may not necessarily reach full instability before it begins to self-correct and this is what has been happening repeatedly as in 2007. The system itself is bot stable with destabilizing trends. We need to better define what we mean by these various terms and then to discover how much instability we can tolerate before it is truly going “to sink the ship”!
Comment by David Harold Chester— 12 Sep, 2018 #
You said;
“When a system starts to become unstable it may not necessarily reach full instability before it begins to self-correct and this is what has been happening repeatedly as in 2007”.
What self-corrected during the GFC?
In fact nothing self-corrected! The central bankers(USFED) swapped bad assets from bankers balance-sheets against risk-free government-bonds(aka bankreserves=money with interest). To fully restore confidence they(with politicians) even had to let government entities(Freddie Mac/Fanny May i.e) to buy these severely downgraded assets(poor people´s mortgages) from the market. Taxpayers are still paying. No one in jail as in the Savings&Loan-scandal in the 90´s.
Self-correcting? Huhhh!!
Comment by ThorLeif— 13 Sep, 2018 #
“Taxpayers are still paying.”
.
No, TARP was political theater and was repaid with interest. The real bailout came in the form of unlimited currency swap lines and other lending programs from the Fed. As Dudley says in the Federal Open Market Committee September 16, 2008 transcript (http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/FOMC20080916meeting.pdf):
.
(From Page 17)
.
MR. DUDLEY. I think a lot of the programs that we have are actually open ended. The discount window is open ended in the sense that it’s limited only by the amount of collateral that the banks post there. The Primary Dealer Credit Facility is open ended in that it is limited only by the size of the tri-party repo system. My point here is that, if foreign banks worry about capacity limits, even having a large program could in principle not be sufficient in extremis. But if the program is open ended, the rollover risk problem goes away. If I lend you more dollars today, I don’t have to worry about getting those dollars back because I always know that the facility is there.
[…]
MR. LACKER. But we will communicate a program size?
.
MR. DUDLEY. I think that remains to be discussed with our counterparties. I think we need to have discussions about what would be most effective. Would a big size that’s fixed in quantity be most effective? Would an open limit be most effective? I think we have to have those discussions. I think the important thing here – and what we’re going for – is credibility. In a crisis you need enough force – more force than the market thinks is necessary to solve the problem – and we’re going to have to have discussions to determine how much is enough force.
Comment by Robert Mitchell— 16 Sep, 2018 #