积极的金钱:渐进的解决方案还是特洛伊木马?

IF 2 2区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Cambridge Journal of Economics Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1093/cje/bead035
Christian Etzrodt
{"title":"积极的金钱:渐进的解决方案还是特洛伊木马?","authors":"Christian Etzrodt","doi":"10.1093/cje/bead035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson made in 2012 a proposal for banking sector reform, which aimed at eliminating the ability of commercial banks to create money. They claim that their proposal would return the monopoly of money creation to the state, would reduce the debt level in society, and in turn would end the need for expensive bail-outs of too-big-to-fail banks by taxpayers. This paper will discuss the theory-external post-Keynesian criticism of the reform proposal as well as a theory-internal criticism, which focusses on the impact of this proposal for the banks’ customers, the commercial banks and the taxpayers. The analysis will show that Jackson and Dyson’s proposal is not a progressive solution but a Trojan Horse.","PeriodicalId":48156,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Positive money: progressive solution or Trojan Horse?\",\"authors\":\"Christian Etzrodt\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cje/bead035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson made in 2012 a proposal for banking sector reform, which aimed at eliminating the ability of commercial banks to create money. They claim that their proposal would return the monopoly of money creation to the state, would reduce the debt level in society, and in turn would end the need for expensive bail-outs of too-big-to-fail banks by taxpayers. This paper will discuss the theory-external post-Keynesian criticism of the reform proposal as well as a theory-internal criticism, which focusses on the impact of this proposal for the banks’ customers, the commercial banks and the taxpayers. The analysis will show that Jackson and Dyson’s proposal is not a progressive solution but a Trojan Horse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48156,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Journal of Economics\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Journal of Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Journal of Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bead035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Andrew Jackson和Ben Dyson在2012年提出了银行业改革的建议,旨在消除商业银行创造货币的能力。他们声称,他们的提议将把货币创造的垄断权交还给国家,将降低社会的债务水平,进而不再需要纳税人为“大到不能倒”的银行提供昂贵的纾困。本文将讨论对改革方案的理论-外部后凯恩斯主义批评以及理论-内部批评,重点讨论该方案对银行客户、商业银行和纳税人的影响。分析将表明,杰克逊和戴森的提议不是一个进步的解决方案,而是一个特洛伊木马。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Positive money: progressive solution or Trojan Horse?
Abstract Andrew Jackson and Ben Dyson made in 2012 a proposal for banking sector reform, which aimed at eliminating the ability of commercial banks to create money. They claim that their proposal would return the monopoly of money creation to the state, would reduce the debt level in society, and in turn would end the need for expensive bail-outs of too-big-to-fail banks by taxpayers. This paper will discuss the theory-external post-Keynesian criticism of the reform proposal as well as a theory-internal criticism, which focusses on the impact of this proposal for the banks’ customers, the commercial banks and the taxpayers. The analysis will show that Jackson and Dyson’s proposal is not a progressive solution but a Trojan Horse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Journal of Economics, founded in 1977 in the traditions of Marx, Keynes, Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Kaldor, provides a forum for theoretical, applied, policy and methodological research into social and economic issues. Its focus includes: •the organisation of social production and the distribution of its product •the causes and consequences of gender, ethnic, class and national inequities •inflation and unemployment •the changing forms and boundaries of markets and planning •uneven development and world market instability •globalisation and international integration.
期刊最新文献
Economic growth and the foreign sector: Peru 1821–2020 Asymmetrical, symmetrical and artifactual man: group size and cooperation in James Buchanan’s constitutional economics Polyarchy and societas: an extended continuum of discrete structural alternatives What politics does to the economic analysis of the employment relationship: a critical perspective on personnel economics Truth or coherence? How Adam Smith used philosophical sources to explain how paradigms change
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1