This is a pretty good entry on Lerner. It is missing his important article, "The Economic Steering Wheel," which is where he first laid out the principles of functional finance, even if not by name. One reason it is often left out is that it appeared in The University [of Kansas City] Review in 1941, before he left the University of Kansas City (now University of Missouri--Kansas City, UMKC) to go to the New School. Interestingly, scholars at the New School and UMKC began collaborating on the revival of the functional finance approach around 1997, resulting in a number of books and articles, e.g., Reinventing Functional Finance (Elgar, 2003), edited by Edward J. Nell of the New School and myself. Viewed through the logic of the functional finance approach, the entire Social Security debate going on currently is greatly confused. More importantly, it shows that the Social Security program is fine, if we understand modern monetary and budgetary systems, but that we may destroy the program through self-imposed constraints and unnecessary and misguided 'reforms.' (see the relevant working papers, policy notes and special reports at www.cfeps.org <http://www.cfeps.org/> ). Recently, Fed Chairman Greenspan revealed that he understood the real issues in an interview: RYAN... do you believe that personal retirement accounts can help us achieve solvency for the system and make those future retiree benefits more secure? GREENSPAN: Well, I wouldn't say that the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure, in the sense that there's nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The question is, how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which those benefits are employed to purchase. So, the issue is definitely not the solvency of the system, as one would be led to believe by all the talk of "bankruptcy". This is another great example of what John Kenneth Galbraith calls "innocent [or not-so-innocent] fraud" in his recent book. The real issue-will the employed population at some future date be capable of producing enough real goods and services for itself and those who are not working (retirees, children, etc.)-is not being addressed by the current proposals. Do economists understand Greenspan and Lerner? Apparently not, if you look at something like the recent special issue of The Economists' Voice on social security (see http://www.bepress.com/ev/ ). Mat Forstater