3 ms·
Some thoughts about MMT: 0) If you, as a layman (and why not, if you're an expert as well), are going to have an informed opinion on economic issues, you owe i
by jabl 8y ago
Some thoughts about MMT:
0) If you, as a layman (and why not, if you're an expert as well), are going to have an informed opinion on economic issues, you owe it to yourself as well as whoever you're going to discuss it with, to educate yourself broadly and study both sides of an issue. Seems that too many people who discuss on the internet happened for some random reason to read a book, then (maybe) continue to read books in the same vein, and are subsequently unable to look out of the ideological pigeonhole they have jumped into. Don't become that old bore that rants endlessly about "libtards/global financial capitalism/whatever" at xmas dinner, while the rest of your family sits there in an embarrassed silence wishing you to drop dead or at least STFU so that the kids can have their presents! For some background that explains the thought behind MMT, I can recommend Mitchell & Fazi, Reclaiming the State.
1) I don't understand the obsession with the gold standard that some in the Austrian school seem to have. Or if not gold, some other valuable commodity, energy, basket of commodities etc. Whatever. Bretton Woods is over, deal with it. The only underlying reason I've been able to find is that to people who dream of a nightwatchman-state, the notion of a state with fiscal and monetary power is poison.
2) The core of MMT, namely the description of the macroeconomics of a sovereign government with a monopoly on issuing its own floating fiat currency, is not new per se, but it's explained maybe slightly differently than usual, but it explains it pretty well. And given how confused people seem to be about macroeconomics, fiscal policy, and fiat currencies, being able to explain it clearly is a big deal.
3) As for the policy implications of MMT. MMT teaches us that in terms of monetary and fiscal policy governments are not as constrained as is commonly thought (the usual anti-MMT slurs of "printing your way to Nirvana" and subsequent hyperinflation tells more about the ignorance of whoever is presenting those). Now, most of the MMT proponents are pretty left-leaning, so they tend to want to use that extra fiscal space for various social programs, but one has to keep in mind that's a policy choice and not something inherent in the theory itself. Another policy choice would be to buy weapons and engage in various foreign policy adventures, but again, nothing that MMT per se prescribes.
- ardy42 8y ago> Seems that too many people who discuss on the internet happened for some random reason to read a book, then (maybe) continue to read books in the same vein, and are subsequently unable to look out of the ideological pigeonhole they have jumped into. They're like people who read only one side's arguments in an adversarial court case: it's the job of each lawyer to tell the most compelling story he can that's maximally biased on his client's behalf. They're not going to call attention to holes in their story or more probable theories, but rather paper over them. If they've done a good job you'll come out of with false impression thinking they're perfectly right (or even righteous), when in fact they may have been totally wrong. A lot of books are the same way, arguing as strongly as they can for some point of view. People are busy, and like the righteous feeling of thinking that personally know "how it really is" and who the "real" villains are, so they'll often stop after reading one POV, because reading other POVs feels like a challenge to their new righteous-feeling ideology and therefore a challenge to themselves personally.
- SubiculumCode 8y agoTo be clear, I've read a number of articles, primers, and research manuscripts about multiple economic theories, though often focusing on MMT, so I am not one of those that hears things like 'national debt' and goes howling at the moon and agro at the dinner table, and indeed am a step away from the common person in terms of education on the matter, but I am a neuroscientists, not an economist, and this is HN where there is almost always someone else that knows a whole lot more about something than yourself.
- jabl 8y agoMy point #0 wasn't specifically aimed at you, but at the general state of the economic policy discourse. Sorry about that. Coming from a STEM field myself, the state of economics with wildly different schools of thought is quite perplexing. But I guess that comes with the territory, considering that you can't really do society-wide experiments on different economic models, and even if you could, societies are so complex it's very difficult to discern the effect of a single measure.