4 ms·

So, if I understand what you are telling me, when, for instance, Krugman, write his text book and his New York Times columns, he is just writing a simplificatio

So, if I understand what you are telling me, when, for instance, Krugman, write his text book and his New York Times columns, he is just writing a simplification. Because he thinks that the notion that private banks create money as an account operation, and they search reserves after giving a credit, and not before, is too complicate for his readers. Fair enough, but you have to recognize that, then, it's not so strange, and hardly their fault, that MMT economists end writing "straw men" posts (as you said before).

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
One would expect that MMT economists might understand what mainstream economists think, and understand it at a somewhat deeper level than that of an NYT column. One would therefore expect that they could avoid strawmen, because they could argue against the mainstream economists' real position.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> So, if I understand what you are telling me, when, for instance, Krugman, write his text book and his New York Times columns, he is just writing a simplification. Any time an expert is writing for a non-expert audience, they are usually writing a simplification tailored for the audience and the purpose of the writing. > Because he thinks that the notion that private banks create money as an account operation, and they search reserves after giving a credit, and not before, is too complicate for his readers. Or because the general idea of a multiplier effect works either way, and his columns are unlikely to depend on the mechanics of the simplified computation of the multiplier as an estimator of the maximum level of the multiplier effect under the simplifying assumptions that apply to that calculation. If you have a specific problematic column in mind, we could have a less abstract discussion about the problem you have with it.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  Sorry for the late answer, I have a life ;-) Anyway, I don't think our discussion is going to arrive anywhere. You ask for Krugman (who is a guy that I like by the way) opinions: https://www.cnbc.com/id/46944145 https://www.cnbc.com/id/46944145 For me, what he says there is in clear contradiction with (for instance): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105752191... It seems to me that whatever it is what they put in their textbooks, even more important is what they put in their models. Here there is a good criticism of Krugman views: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/scott-fullwiler-krugmans-flashing-neon-sign.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/scott-fullwiler-krug... But if they didn't solve it, we are not going to neither.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

One would expect that MMT economists might understand what mainstream economists think, and understand it at a somewhat deeper level than that of an NYT column. One would therefore expect that they could avoid strawmen, because they could argue against the mainstream economists' real position.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> So, if I understand what you are telling me, when, for instance, Krugman, write his text book and his New York Times columns, he is just writing a simplification. Any time an expert is writing for a non-expert audience, they are usually writing a simplification tailored for the audience and the purpose of the writing. > Because he thinks that the notion that private banks create money as an account operation, and they search reserves after giving a credit, and not before, is too complicate for his readers. Or because the general idea of a multiplier effect works either way, and his columns are unlikely to depend on the mechanics of the simplified computation of the multiplier as an estimator of the maximum level of the multiplier effect under the simplifying assumptions that apply to that calculation. If you have a specific problematic column in mind, we could have a less abstract discussion about the problem you have with it.

RobertoG 8y ago
Sorry for the late answer, I have a life ;-) Anyway, I don't think our discussion is going to arrive anywhere. You ask for Krugman (who is a guy that I like by the way) opinions: https://www.cnbc.com/id/46944145 https://www.cnbc.com/id/46944145 For me, what he says there is in clear contradiction with (for instance): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105752191... It seems to me that whatever it is what they put in their textbooks, even more important is what they put in their models. Here there is a good criticism of Krugman views: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/scott-fullwiler-krugmans-flashing-neon-sign.html https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/scott-fullwiler-krug... But if they didn't solve it, we are not going to neither.