by Wren-Lewis and the dangerous MMT Professor Simon Wren-Lewis recently wrote: “The dangers of pluralism in economics: the case of MMT” … Wren-Lewis argues that MMT concepts can be explained using mainstream terminology. Since I tend to use fairly standard terminology, I cannot disagree with that argument. However, I would phrase it differently. Mainstream discussion of fiscal policy is almost invariably clouded with theoretical junk (“fiscal sustainability”, “budget constraints”, “intergenerational transfer”, “bond vigilantes”) that it takes considerable effort to strip the junk out to get the correct description, which almost always ends up being the MMT description. The MMT jihad against various phrasings and framing terms reflects the need to think
Topics:
Lars Pålsson Syll considers the following as important: Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Klas Eklunds ‘Vår ekonomi’ — lärobok med stora brister
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Ekonomisk politik och finanspolitiska ramverk
Lars Pålsson Syll writes NAIRU — a harmful fairy tale
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Isabella Weber on sellers inflation
Wren-Lewis and the dangerous MMT
Professor Simon Wren-Lewis recently wrote: “The dangers of pluralism in economics: the case of MMT” …
Wren-Lewis argues that MMT concepts can be explained using mainstream terminology. Since I tend to use fairly standard terminology, I cannot disagree with that argument. However, I would phrase it differently. Mainstream discussion of fiscal policy is almost invariably clouded with theoretical junk (“fiscal sustainability”, “budget constraints”, “intergenerational transfer”, “bond vigilantes”) that it takes considerable effort to strip the junk out to get the correct description, which almost always ends up being the MMT description. The MMT jihad against various phrasings and framing terms reflects the need to think clearly about fiscal policy …
Modern Monetary Theory is evolving outside the journals that are locked down by the mainstream, and is focussed on real economic issues. Meanwhile, the mainstream is using dubious mathematics to painfully re-derive results that have been part of the post-Keynesian tradition for decades. You do not need a degree in the history of the philosophy of science to guess what the outcome is going to be. What we are seeing is the inevitable blowback of the attempt to stifle debate; since criticism cannot work through academic channels, it is instead funneled through non-academic ones.