> everyone is working with wildly different and often contradictory definitions I’ve found the main MMTers to be mostly consistent amongst themselves in their

> everyone is working with wildly different and often contradictory definitions I’ve found the main MMTers to be mostly consistent amongst themselves in their theories. Now, I think some ideas are wrong, but they do seem mostly on the same page. I agree MMT does an excellent job convincing laymen of some pretty wacky ideas and that’s one of my bigger complaints with it. Also, I find the focus on mathematical models problematic in mainstream economics. It obfuscates a lot of erroneous assumptions. Models are great for testing, but words are useful for communicating ideas too and can sometimes be a better format, especially for wider audiences. To be clear, I’m not saying models are bad or that MMT shouldn’t use them, in fact I saw one MMTer post this paper recently: http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_992.pdf http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_992.pdf