by Ha ha. Noah Smith criticizes an MMT formal model expressed in words rather than equations (which he thinks is OK as a formal method and as a logician, I agree) based on, wait for it, unrealistic assumptions, which is exactly the same thing that heterodox economists accuse conventional economists of doing, that is, if one considered John Maynard Keynes himself to be a heterodox economist.MMT economists should not fall into the trap of trying to mimics the mainstream in creating formal models, even conceptual ones, that mimic the mainstream. It is a failed methodology, and it won't work for MMT either, for all the reasons that Keynes gave in his criticism of Tinbergen's econometric approach and more.If you are into modeling, this may be a useful read. Otherwise, forget it.Oh, and Noah
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: MMT, MMT criticism, MMT critics
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Jared Bernstein, total idiot. You have to see this to believe it.
Steve Roth writes MMT and the Wealth of Nations, Revisited
Matias Vernengo writes On central bank independence, and Brazilian monetary policy
Michael Hudson writes International Trade and MMT with Keen, Hudson
Ha ha. Noah Smith criticizes an MMT formal model expressed in words rather than equations (which he thinks is OK as a formal method and as a logician, I agree) based on, wait for it, unrealistic assumptions, which is exactly the same thing that heterodox economists accuse conventional economists of doing, that is, if one considered John Maynard Keynes himself to be a heterodox economist.
MMT economists should not fall into the trap of trying to mimics the mainstream in creating formal models, even conceptual ones, that mimic the mainstream. It is a failed methodology, and it won't work for MMT either, for all the reasons that Keynes gave in his criticism of Tinbergen's econometric approach and more.
If you are into modeling, this may be a useful read. Otherwise, forget it.
Oh, and Noah Smith picks up on Brad DeLong's low ball criticism of MMT as guru-based economics. It seems that Noah and Brad have a mutually appreciation affair going on. They deserve each other.
BTW, the "debate" between MMT and economists critical of MMT is becoming more personal and is descending into mud-slinging. Unprofessional to say the least. The excuse is readily available, however. Macroeconomics as a "policy science" is more about politics than economics, and politics is inherently a dirty business.
Noahpinion
Examining an MMT model in detail