William Mitchell — German Bundestag body’s MMT overview exposes the hidden agenda – the population simply can’t be allowed to understand MMT

by
Mike Norman
My articles My siteAbout meMy booksMy videos
Follow on:TwitterFacebook

The Scientific Advisory Department of the Deutscher Bundestag recently (January 27, 2023) released a discussion paper – Modern Monetary Theory – An overview – which really exposes what all the opposition to our work is about. Initially, I was interested to learn from the discussion paper that I was a US economist after thinking all these years that I was Australian by birth and citizenship. Perhaps that error tells you something about the quality and depth of the research effort that the authors undertook. The paper recognises that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is “an economic school of thought that has existed for around 25 years” but is hazy on the provenance, ignoring that at the beginning there was Warren Mosler, Randy Wray and myself. Rather interestingly, the discussion paper claims that there is no disagreement among the mainstream as to the theoretical and conceptual elements of MMT. So the mainstream all agree with us now! That is quite an admission. But, as one gets further into the discussion, it becomes obvious that the authors miss the point when they start talking about MMT policies. What their critique of MMT illustrates is that the real antagonism to our ideas is that they might open up wider policy options to the public than the political process cares to admit. Or, in other words, the real problem is that an understanding of MMT exposes the TINA mantra – that allows governments to maintain policies that advance the interests of the few at the expense of the many – as wanton neglect of the responsibilities of government. That exposure, if sustained, would alter the whole policy terrain and challenge the hegemony of the elites. That is what the opposition to MMT is about.

While Bill's criticisms are well-taken, the presentation of MMT is actually more positive than I would have expected judging from most of the things I encounter about what MMT purportedly is (NOT). 

In other words, it is a presentation that is the basis for further discussion, which Bill undertakes, rather than being worthy of dismissal out of hand as hopelessly delusional. Bill acknowledges what the analysis gets right and where it goes off-track, showing how it can be improved to correctly reflect the MMT position.

So I would regard this as a step forward, especially since it gives exposure to MMT, on the principle that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Better to be talked about negatively than ignored. I would count it as "progress" — sort of. The ball is advancing down the field — "first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then attack you, and then you win,"paraphrasing a quote often misattributed to Gandhi.