4 ms·

Funny, because MMT reads like "flat earth Facebook group" to plenty of mainstream economists.

by slibhb 6y ago

cantankerous 6y ago
Mainstream economics reads like a flat earth Facebook group when you see how many times it's failed to predict booms and busts despite being considered acceptable as such.
- tclancy 6y ago
  Especially compared to all the other systems that do a lot better which we haven’t adopted.
  - kvgr 6y ago
    For example?
    - tclancy 6y ago
      I think you figured it out.
- kvgr 6y ago
  There is more than one mainstream economics thinking. Not all countries and schools use the same. Some borrow parts from other schools.
  - dools 6y ago
    Yes and sadly they almost all start from the faulty premise that money anything other than a tax credit
Context_free 6y ago
MMT reads like "flat earth Facebook group" to plenty of economists outside of the establishment as well, including Bernie supporting ones.
- dools 6y ago
  Yes the difference being that MMT is verifiable in much the same way as the curvature of the earth’s surface. If you analyse fiscal and monetary operations from officially published sources you can map it to an MMT description of currency.
notriddle 6y ago
There is no consensus economic theory. That's why it's called "the dismal science." It's extremely unfortunate, though, personally, I'm hoping to see more anthropology influences; a bit of an outsider's perspective might help here.
- prionassembly 6y ago
  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp
dragonwriter 6y ago
The descriptive parts of MMT are mainstream economics, though not aspects that mainstream economists tend to trumpet. The part that is controversial is normative, starting with the call to honesty (“since spending of a nation in its own fiat is not, in fact, limited by the ‘fiscal’ constraint of revenue + borrowing but only by monetary constraints, we should stop treating fiscal ‘constraints’ as real and instead analyze what has traditionally been described with the misleading metaphor of the fisc through a monetary lens”), and proceeding to concrete policy recommendations which are derived from actually following the call to honesty.
- slibhb 6y ago
  Saying that your heterodox economic theory is a "call to honesty" seems a lot like begging the question...
  - dools 6y ago
    If you discover that a machine works differently from the way those operating the machine have been telling you, then asking them to accurately describe the operation and justify their actions in that context is quite rightly described as a call to honesty. It would only be begging the question if we were assuming MMT correctly describes how currency works, but that’s a provable from officially published sources; a fact rather than an assumption.
    - slibhb 6y ago
      If MMT is "provable" then MMT theorists will speedily win their debates with dissenting economists. Until then, it's just one theory among many and calling it "a call to honesty" is begging the question.
      - dools 6y ago
        Well I would say it’s very hard to win a debate against ideology and ignorance ... ever tried debating someone on a street corner about the veracity of the bible? For example I think this is one of the best debates and even though plenty of Austrian economics fans have seen it, they think Murphy “wins”. What do you think? https://youtu.be/cUTLCDBONok https://youtu.be/cUTLCDBONok Also most of my work has been on verifying MMT in an Australian context, this is one of the best videos I produced about the reality of Australian federal finances: an interview with an investment manager: https://youtu.be/jq6QbMSPoxQ https://youtu.be/jq6QbMSPoxQ Stephanie Kelton and Warren Mosler have been producing massive volumes of similar stuff for the US. MMT economists regularly “win” debates based on facts, but the real game is winning hearts and minds and that takes longer.
dools 6y ago
Yes the difference is that MMT is verifiable through accounting analysis and official publications whereas “orthodox” macro is actually a flawed aggregation of micro and austro-libertarianism is a bizarre mix of fantasy, philosophy and historical revision.

Funny, because MMT reads like "flat earth Facebook group" to plenty of mainstream economists.

by slibhb 6y ago

Funny, because MMT reads like "flat earth Facebook group" to plenty of mainstream economists.

Mainstream economics reads like a flat earth Facebook group when you see how many times it's failed to predict booms and busts despite being considered acceptable as such.

tclancy 6y ago
Especially compared to all the other systems that do a lot better which we haven’t adopted.
- kvgr 6y ago
  For example?
  - tclancy 6y ago
    I think you figured it out.
kvgr 6y ago
There is more than one mainstream economics thinking. Not all countries and schools use the same. Some borrow parts from other schools.
- dools 6y ago
  Yes and sadly they almost all start from the faulty premise that money anything other than a tax credit

Context_free 6y ago

MMT reads like "flat earth Facebook group" to plenty of economists outside of the establishment as well, including Bernie supporting ones.

dools 6y ago
Yes the difference being that MMT is verifiable in much the same way as the curvature of the earth’s surface. If you analyse fiscal and monetary operations from officially published sources you can map it to an MMT description of currency.

notriddle 6y ago

There is no consensus economic theory. That's why it's called "the dismal science." It's extremely unfortunate, though, personally, I'm hoping to see more anthropology influences; a bit of an outsider's perspective might help here.

prionassembly 6y ago
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp

dragonwriter 6y ago

The descriptive parts of MMT are mainstream economics, though not aspects that mainstream economists tend to trumpet. The part that is controversial is normative, starting with the call to honesty (“since spending of a nation in its own fiat is not, in fact, limited by the ‘fiscal’ constraint of revenue + borrowing but only by monetary constraints, we should stop treating fiscal ‘constraints’ as real and instead analyze what has traditionally been described with the misleading metaphor of the fisc through a monetary lens”), and proceeding to concrete policy recommendations which are derived from actually following the call to honesty.

slibhb 6y ago
Saying that your heterodox economic theory is a "call to honesty" seems a lot like begging the question...
- dools 6y ago
  If you discover that a machine works differently from the way those operating the machine have been telling you, then asking them to accurately describe the operation and justify their actions in that context is quite rightly described as a call to honesty. It would only be begging the question if we were assuming MMT correctly describes how currency works, but that’s a provable from officially published sources; a fact rather than an assumption.
  - slibhb 6y ago
    If MMT is "provable" then MMT theorists will speedily win their debates with dissenting economists. Until then, it's just one theory among many and calling it "a call to honesty" is begging the question.
    - dools 6y ago
      Well I would say it’s very hard to win a debate against ideology and ignorance ... ever tried debating someone on a street corner about the veracity of the bible? For example I think this is one of the best debates and even though plenty of Austrian economics fans have seen it, they think Murphy “wins”. What do you think? https://youtu.be/cUTLCDBONok https://youtu.be/cUTLCDBONok Also most of my work has been on verifying MMT in an Australian context, this is one of the best videos I produced about the reality of Australian federal finances: an interview with an investment manager: https://youtu.be/jq6QbMSPoxQ https://youtu.be/jq6QbMSPoxQ Stephanie Kelton and Warren Mosler have been producing massive volumes of similar stuff for the US. MMT economists regularly “win” debates based on facts, but the real game is winning hearts and minds and that takes longer.

dools 6y ago

Yes the difference is that MMT is verifiable through accounting analysis and official publications whereas “orthodox” macro is actually a flawed aggregation of micro and austro-libertarianism is a bizarre mix of fantasy, philosophy and historical revision.