Tag Archives: MMT criticism

This economic theory [MMT] could best be described as the equivalent of claiming that water runs uphill, the sun rises in the West and apples do not fall from trees. It is the Alfred E. Neuman platform of political posturing. It takes “What, Me Worry?” to a new level in promoting political ideas that are fiscally dysfunctional. Two weeks ago, the U.S. national debt passed $22 trillion. You get the idea. Another clueless "progressive" determined to lose. And if they won, they would be...

Kevin Drum is clearly an apologist rather than a serious commentator. Ignore him. So far, then, MMT has not seduced most lefty economists into becoming defenders of crank theories the way supply-side economics did on the right. Hooray for us! He is a reason that progressives that follow the line he touts will lose, or if they win, will fail. Clueless, and don't want to know. Mother JonesIs MMT the Liberal Version of Supply-Side Economics?Kevin Drum

Doug Henwood has posted up at Jacobin an MMT critique that amounts to little more than a character assassination. It is what I’d expect of him in his reincarnation as a Neoliberal critic of progressive thought. (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/modern-monetary-theory-isnt-helping). It adopts all the usual troll methodology: guilt by association, taking statements out of context, and paraphrasing (wrongly) without citation.... New Economic Perspectives Response to Doug Henwood’s Trolling...

Removing some confusions. See the comments also.Lars P. Syll’s BlogWhat’s wrong with MMT? Nothing!Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

Risible. Of course, there is another choice: more deficit spending. Last week, I tried to educate myself on so-called “modern monetary theory.” Embraced by some Democrats, its central thesis seems to be that deficits are not nearly as dangerous as we’ve been led to believe. Here’s the case for that view, as best I can determine.“The biggest mistake we make is thinking of the federal government as a household” that has to repay its debt, says Stephanie Kelton, an economist at Stony Brook...

Another straw man argument.Matt Bruenig begins with summarizing what some prominent MMT critics have said and then attacks MMT on that basis. Lame.At one time, it was prudent strategically to correct erroneous arguments against MMT. It still is when arguments are researched. But otherwise it is a waste of time now. Time can be more productively allocated.People's Policy ProjectWhat’s the Point of Modern Monetary Theory? Matt Bruenig

Hyperinflation crank.Concord MonitorMy Turn: Money, wealth and balloon navigationChristopher Carley

I hate to break it to the MMTers, but fuddy-duddy economists already knew this. Indeed, among free-market economists it is a standard pedagogical device to tell the audience that the government has three ways of financing its spending, namely (1) taxes, (2) borrowing, or (3) inflation. So this notion that only the MMTers perceive the possibility of the printing press as a means of “paying for” government programs is silly.  For proof, consider the following excerpt from Austrian economist...

Interesting title since the primary issue of the day is the survival of life on Planet Earth as the sixth extinction progresses. Should be "Planet earth to AEI."Bond vigilantes again.AEIPlanet earth to Modern Monetary Theorists Desmond Lachman |AEI scholar, previously managing director and chief emerging market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney after serving as deputy director in the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Policy Development and Review Department

"Stealth Socialism." The Epoch TimesMMT: Modern Monetary Theory or Monopoly Money Tyranny? Mark Hendrickson | adjunct professor of economics and sociology at Grove City College