by Summary:
I have read the articles that The Economist published on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in the current edition of the liberal-leaning magazine (hereand there). I am not happy with the reporting, which includes false statements in general and also misrepresentations of what MMT is.... The Economist just put the UK debate on progressive economic policy on a slippery slope, claiming that a particular school of economics science constitutes “doctrine” and then misrepresenting that school’s views. They should know better than this... Dirk Ehnts points out that the problem lies with the framing The Economist uses. The frame is based on assumptions that MMT argues are wrong based on the evidence. It is therefore a bogus argument against a straw man set up by the frame. This is at heart a
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: MMT, MMT criticism, MMT critics, The Economist, UK politics
This could be interesting, too:
I have read the articles that The Economist published on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in the current edition of the liberal-leaning magazine (hereand there). I am not happy with the reporting, which includes false statements in general and also misrepresentations of what MMT is.... The Economist just put the UK debate on progressive economic policy on a slippery slope, claiming that a particular school of economics science constitutes “doctrine” and then misrepresenting that school’s views. They should know better than this... Dirk Ehnts points out that the problem lies with the framing The Economist uses. The frame is based on assumptions that MMT argues are wrong based on the evidence. It is therefore a bogus argument against a straw man set up by the frame. This is at heart a
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: MMT, MMT criticism, MMT critics, The Economist, UK politics
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
I have read the articles that The Economist published on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in the current edition of the liberal-leaning magazine (hereand there). I am not happy with the reporting, which includes false statements in general and also misrepresentations of what MMT is....
The Economist just put the UK debate on progressive economic policy on a slippery slope, claiming that a particular school of economics science constitutes “doctrine” and then misrepresenting that school’s views. They should know better than this...
Dirk Ehnts points out that the problem lies with the framing The Economist uses. The frame is based on assumptions that MMT argues are wrong based on the evidence. It is therefore a bogus argument against a straw man set up by the frame.
This is at heart a political (ideological) issue being framed as an economic one, from a bias that doesn't hold up to scrutiny when compared with reality. The Economist tries to frame MMT as lef-wing ideology and conventional economics as science. NOT!
Neoclassical economics ignores the accounting and the institutions that lie at the foundation of the issues and determine the correct frame. MMT explains this, both explicating the correct frame and showing why the neoclassical framing is wrong because it either ignores it or makes mistakes about it.