An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Disappointing. WHY do commentators and sometimes MMTers so often fail to talk about the authority of the state? The MMT lens approach just does not seem to be making it through the morass of academics and commentators seeking to appropriate MMT's relative popularity for their own purposes. Since the material facts of modern money do not change, I think MMTers can just outlast them.
Marian Ruccius: Actually, it was rather better than I expected. No glaring errors. The authority of the state is important in MMT, but the "social obligation" nature of money is even more important, as the former is a consequence of the latter. And the state's authority was implicit throughout the article.
Thank, Ralph. I agree. You deserve a biscuit, sausages and steaks even! As you've said, MMT is basically just Keynes (ianism) minus a lot of junk.
So Skeptics doubt they’ll get to something beyond Keynesianism, or some monetary twist on Marxism.
What's wrong with getting exactly there? Real Keynesianism, Marx with modern money (= Kalecki?) is a very good place to be, an aim to strive for.
6 comments:
Reads like a Liberal Art degree nightmare...
The success of MMT is partly down to snarling MMT guard dogs like me who prowl the internet biting the pants off anyone who challenges MMT...:-)
“ The success of MMT ”
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt?
Trending with the trendy crowd. Not a good sign.
Disappointing. WHY do commentators and sometimes MMTers so often fail to talk about the authority of the state? The MMT lens approach just does not seem to be making it through the morass of academics and commentators seeking to appropriate MMT's relative popularity for their own purposes. Since the material facts of modern money do not change, I think MMTers can just outlast them.
Marian Ruccius: Actually, it was rather better than I expected. No glaring errors. The authority of the state is important in MMT, but the "social obligation" nature of money is even more important, as the former is a consequence of the latter. And the state's authority was implicit throughout the article.
Thank, Ralph. I agree. You deserve a biscuit, sausages and steaks even! As you've said, MMT is basically just Keynes (ianism) minus a lot of junk.
So Skeptics doubt they’ll get to something beyond Keynesianism, or some monetary twist on Marxism.
What's wrong with getting exactly there? Real Keynesianism, Marx with modern money (= Kalecki?) is a very good place to be, an aim to strive for.
Post a Comment