Abstract
ABSTRACTSome authors have claimed that the paradox of debt invalidates Minsky's theory of financial instability. Their theoretical frameworks are radically different from Minsky's in several aspects. Important Minskian elements, the role of margins of safety as a basis of financial decisions and the effects of asset prices on debt dynamics, among others, are absent in the critics' frameworks. We maintain that the thrust of the paradox of debt‐based criticism to Minsky's theory has been exaggerated and key insights of Minsky's theory of financial instability can be formalized in an alternative macroeconomic framework. We provide a stock‐flow consistent model of Minskian long waves.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
