The theory of the monetary circuit aims to provide a highly stylised account of the workings of a modern monetary production economy. While there may have been a time when it succeeded in this aim, that time is over. The key development in the monetary sphere of capitalism over recent decades is the advent of financialisation, a phenomenon that circuit theory cannot explain other than by omitting some of its most important characterising features while indiscriminately dismissing those features that it does address as dysfunctional outgrowths. The fact is that a theory that has the aggregate monetary circuit as its methodological framework and whose sole focus is on the financing needs of firms is simply not flexible enough to accommodate the new reality of financialisation. To make that accommodation what is needed is a framework that is sufficiently elastic as to be able to encompass a broad range of socio-economic factors, most notably those associated with demographic change, as co-drivers of financialisaton. This article argues that a framework based on Marx's commodity principle meets this requirement.

This essay explores the organisational character of Facebook's Libra currency by undertaking a critical reading of documents published by the Libra Association. Drawing on the conceptual work of Marilyn Strathern and Michel Serres, it illustrates how ownership cuts the network and encourages parasitism as a means of driving future profit. Central to this is the claim that Libra is not an exercise in democratising money, but rather, the opposite: Libra is run as a club, for the benefit of club members. The conceptual theme of ‘cutting’ is used to organise the argument. Rather than a cutting-edge technology, Libra's true innovation is organisational and consists in overturning the decentralised character of blockchain, such that distributed ledger technology is re-centralised by big tech firms. Outsiders are thus cut-off from Libra; only those inside the club have the right to participate in Libra and its governance. This position also affords members an exclusive capacity to take a cut of the profits generated through Libra. As a private organisation, members have sole rights to future profits generated from the Libra ecosystem and are in this way incentivised to create new product opportunities over time.

Critical macro-finance (CMF) has become an influential avenue of research aimed at shedding light on how the global payments system is governed. In the introduction to this special forum on CMF, we explore three main themes: (1) the intellectual lineage of CMF and its relation to financialisation studies; (2) the policy relevance of CMF; and (3) its ‘critical’ position.

This forum contribution outlines four propositions of the critical macro-finance approach: (1) US-led financial globalization has structurally evolved around market-based finance, driven by the production of new asset classes and the Americanization of national financial systems with changing practices for producing liquidity; (2) global finance is a set of interconnected, hierarchical balance sheets, increasingly subject to time-critical liquidity; (3) credit creation in market-based finance involves new forms of money (systemic liabilities); and (4) market-based finance structurally requires a derisking state, for both systemic liabilities and for new asset classes. The precise contours of the derisking state are determined through political struggles.

This forum contribution explains how analyzing the creation, distribution, and destruction of contemporary credit money is placed centre stage in the emerging field of critical macro-finance. This approach not only involves traditional forms of money but also ‘shadow money’: private credit instruments which are not regulated as money from a legal standpoint, but in many respects are functionally equivalent to ‘established’ forms of money. To connect different positions in this discourse, we propose three core criteria for defining shadow money as a baseline position for future critical macro-financial research.

This forum contribution critically rethinks the macro-financial approach to liquidity by focusing more explicitly on its public-private hybrid dimension. To do so, it introduces the notion of a ‘liquidity regime’: a heuristic device aimed at tracking the ensemble of social relations and institutions that govern the coherence of the payments system at any given time. A key insight that emerges from this approach is that the ability to make markets and access liquidity is never neutral or apolitical. What requires closer attention, therefore, is precisely how the interaction between public authorities and private market participants affords some actors greater leverage in shaping the financial system.

In our contribution to this forum, we suggest that critical macro-finance (CMF) scholars and Post Keynesian monetary theorists would profit from a more explicit engagement with each other. Post Keynesian scholars would benefit from the detailed empirical insights that CMF provides, particularly through its analysis of non-bank financial institutions and the conceptual focus on liquidity and liabilities. Meanwhile, the CMF literature would benefit from more explicit grounding in earlier Post Keynesian concepts. In particular, the theory of liquidity preference, the concept of the liquidity premium, and the theory of endogenous money highlight macroeconomic issues missing from CMF scholarship.

Reflecting on the broad ambitions of macro-finance, I argue that the commitment to placing finance at the centre of our economic conceptions comes with significant risks that speak directly to the politics of financialisation. By redirecting the focus of economic governance towards finance, macro-finance may consolidate rather than challenge the problematic trends of global finance. More specifically, I argue that the focus of the money view on liquidity has contributed to depoliticising financial governance and aligning it further with the demands of financialisation.