by MMT critics jumping the shark I was sent two papers by Thomas Palley the other day. I have known him for decades. He continually disappoints. He has become one of those self-styled Post Keynesians who are trying to destroy the credibility of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) for reasons that are not entirely clear … He definitely has a set on MMT and regularly recycles the same sorts of attacks, which, continue to have the same problems. In other words, he does not seem to (or does not want to) learn. He also accuses those who respond of dishonesty — playing the pure is me card — although his own work on MMT fails, in part, because he deliberately (or not) refuses to acknowledge the extant MMT literature, which addresses the issues he claims are missing in
Topics:
Lars Pålsson Syll considers the following as important: Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Daniel Waldenströms rappakalja om ojämlikheten
Peter Radford writes AJR, Nobel, and prompt engineering
Lars Pålsson Syll writes MMT explained
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Statens finanser funkar inte som du tror
MMT critics jumping the shark
I was sent two papers by Thomas Palley the other day. I have known him for decades. He continually disappoints. He has become one of those self-styled Post Keynesians who are trying to destroy the credibility of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) for reasons that are not entirely clear … He definitely has a set on MMT and regularly recycles the same sorts of attacks, which, continue to have the same problems. In other words, he does not seem to (or does not want to) learn. He also accuses those who respond of dishonesty — playing the pure is me card — although his own work on MMT fails, in part, because he deliberately (or not) refuses to acknowledge the extant MMT literature, which addresses the issues he claims are missing in the MMT approach …
When the Swedish economist Lars P. Syll wrote a critique of Palley’s latest papers (April 12, 2019) — Thomas Palley claims MMT fails to provide plausible macroeconomics — he was met with this response from Palley:
”Your blog post is misleading to the point of being dishonest.”
I didn’t find anything misleading at all with Lars P. Syll’s short overview of the problems in Palley’s work …
I only decided to explicitly address the Palley papers, not because they are important in any way, but because some of the points are still raised in E-mails I receive from readers who are acting in good faith …
But you can see why Palley avoids citing my work – because I have already written the stuff he claims MMT ignores!