Finally, some constructive criticism of MMT. Civil engineer and manager Sig Silber suggests many points that he feels need to be addressed in debate. They are well taken. No doubt many encountering MMT will have similar questions. MMT economists have anticipated a number of them and addressed them already. Some just disappear on correct understanding of MMT. The remaining one are generally political issues as much as economic, which MMT also admits. Such issues have to be decided politically, but decisions should be properly informed before making choices. Open inquiry should precede judgment. However, in the end judgment often involves normative matters in addition to positive. Sig Silber rejects paternalism and "the noble lie" as an argument against MMT: I also do not
Mike Norman considers the following as important: MMT, MMT criticism, MMT critics
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Peter May — A communist manifesto for money?
Mike Norman writes Bill Dudley — Budget Deficits Still Matter
Mike Norman writes Gene Veith — “Modern Monetary Theory”: Deficits Don’t Matter
I also do not agree with many current Federal Programs and others that have been suggested by MMT’ers. But that is a separate topic from whether or not MMT is correct - and whether or not it inherently has unpleasant side effects. The two authors [Lance Roberts and Michael Lebowitz] may be making the point that MMT encourages unwise expenditures which are political in nature rather than based solely on what might improve the economy. Again, that is a separate topic but well worth discussing.
Arguing that MMT is inherently dangerous because the information makes it possible to do unwise things is like saying that any explanation of how something works is inherently dangerous because this understanding makes it possible to do unwise things. I find that an improper way to review an explanation which is part of - and the key part - of MMT. Improper use of the information is certainly possible but to assume this will necessarily happen is speculative….He adds a concern that many people have and which also needs to be debated:
I will add one more additional concern which I phrase as two questions:
- “Is an economy that is managed so as to never have a recession because it is managed to always be at Max Capacity or at some predetermined level below but near Max Capacity, a good idea?" (This question is separate from issues related to price stability and debt per se.)
- “Will such an economy ossify?"