Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia have, together with John Smithin, been leading voices in recent discussions on monetary theory. Among Post-Keynesians they have stood out for their willingness to engage with the rapid evolution of policy, in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, and for their creative approach to the doctrines of Post-Keynesian analysis. This chapter is therefore dedicated to them formally as well as in the sense that it presents a view of financial crisis that, in many respects, complements their original insights. There are few monetary economists today who doubt the idea that the supply of money is endogenous. That the number of such doubters is so reduced is, in good measure, due to the compelling case for endogeneity that has been put forward by the Canadian Post-Keynesians. The banking and financial crisis, however, stands out as something of an anomaly in this approach to monetary theory: if money, or credit, is generated by processes inherent in the functioning of the credit system according to need, then, by definition, a financial crisis cannot arise because of a shortage of credit. Such crises must be because banks refuse to lend as much as is necessary, or because of some disturbances in the price mechanism (a fall in asset prices, or a fall in the rate of profit in relation to the rate of interest).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".