... approach may offer Fed officials a new way of thinking about their maximum employment and price stability goals -– one with an unlikely affinity to Marxian economics.
That’s because it frames inflationary processes at least in part as an outcome of class conflict. It suggests that whether low unemployment automatically translates to higher inflation, as Friedman believed, depends crucially on the balance of power between employers and workers. [Source]
That's what I've been writing on this blog for years now. The Phillips Curve isn't dead. It's just sleeping. It's sleeping because of the balance of power between the economic classes. There's no doubt about it.
Of course, I've written more on the subject than that. I've also explained that even if power were to go to the People and the People were to give themselves a much higher standard of living and quality of life, it wouldn't have to translate into price inflation. That's because the People could issue the money to match real productivity, which automatically takes resource constraints into account: balances demand and supply.
I didn't get that from Marx or MMT. I came to the conclusion completely independent of both. I actually got started down the road reading criticisms of fractional-reserve banking, which does exist regardless of what any MMTers say to the contrary.
They seem to think the UK's Central Bank speaks for the US Fed. The Fed employs a reserve ratio to this day. They may increase reserve to meet banking industry needs, but individual banks are still limited to the ratio and what they can borrow from other banks while remaining solvent (except when it's general banking industry bailout time).