John Russell Palmer critiques 7DIF from the "laissez-faire" POV (his term, not mine).
Read it at Adumbration
Concerning Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds Of Economic Policy by Warren Mosler
John Russell Palmer
(h/t Clonal via email)
Palmer acknowledge the influence of Austrian School Taylor Conant's previous critique at Economic Policy Journal
A Refutation Of Mosler Economics And Mosler's 7DIF, Part I
A Refutation of Mosler Economics and Mosler's 7DIF, Part II
A Refutation of Mosler Economics and Mosler's 7DIF, Part III
A Refutation of Mosler Economics and Mosler's 7DIF, Part IV
A Refutation of Mosler Economics and Mosler's 7DIF, Part V
See also:
Sorry MMTers, the Economy Doesn't Exist and GDP is Bogus
Bob English at EconomicPolicyJournal.com
Why MMT Needs to be Attacked by Austrians
Robert Wenzel | Editor&Publisher, Economic Policy Journal
I've yet to check the link, but saw "MRW" mention this on Warren's site and thought folks might like to check a blast from the past:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/47336694/Taxes-for-Revenue-Are-Obsolete-Ruml-1946
Enjoy!
Apparently we matter a lot more than we think if people are going to spend this much time trying to refute us.
ReplyDeleteWe even have our own pet Austrians here. But one has to admit, they sure are a dedicated bunch.
ReplyDeleteOh heavens. do we really have to do this? I just waded very quickly through the first one. This man is obsessed. I just want to know when Ben is going to up my account with the new CU. I'll take it, inflation and all.
ReplyDeleteYou can tell he is really trying hard to refute Warren given all the time he has tortured over it. Glad I am not an economist.
True believers will go to the ends of the earth to justify their position. It's the "experts" who provide the rationale.
ReplyDeleteTom -
ReplyDelete"We even have our own pet Austrians here. But one has to admit, they sure are a dedicated bunch."
It is good sparring. Coming from a HS education, it's good to have both views presented to help fill in the background. In the past, I've viewed economics (on the whole) as no more tractable or useful than religion or politics. MMT was my first foray in to economics and at the macro level, I still find it still best describes our the nature of our currency.
Just read the “Sorry, MMTers…” article by Bob English. It’s low grade Austrian drivel (forgive the tautology).
ReplyDeleteFirst, he devotes about 500 words to explaining that GDP is a flawed concept because it does not distinguish between capital and consumer goods. Quite right. But anyone who has done Econ 101 ought to know that. I.e. GDP is not a PERFECT measure of anything.
E.g. it does not measure the HAPPINESS derived from extra production. Also, it treats arms production (which is arguably totally senseless) as form of production. And what about oil and coal production which are wrecking the environment?
We all know there are loads of “ifs”, “buts” and reservations associated with GDP.
Next, he argues that inflation is a flawed concept because it lumps the price increase of lots of different goods and services together. I’d rather discuss economics with a chimpanzee.
E.g. it does not measure the HAPPINESS derived from extra production. Also, it treats arms production (which is arguably totally senseless) as form of production.
ReplyDeleteYeah, if you don't want to keep the Franco-Belgian forces from seizing the Twinkie surplus in Natick.
Next, he argues that inflation is a flawed concept because it lumps the price increase of lots of different goods and services together.
Which is just titanically dumb on his part. There are a bunch of really good critiques of inflation stats - like ignoring quality - but he's pissed off that it does what it's literally supposed to do.
MMT was my first foray in to economics and at the macro level, I still find it still best describes our the nature of our currency.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot about MMT that is weird and annoying - like Bill Mitchell's tendency to explain things in a seemingly endless wall of text instead of equations that don't scare me - but the most important thing about any paradigm is its resilience in the face of natural experiments.
MMT just keeps being right. Can't argue with reality.
Edmund -
ReplyDeleteI too find Mitchell's posts rather difficult to absorb. He does tend to get more micro about MMT, but he is an academic and their job is to make your brain hurt. So as we drill down from the macro to the micro and political preferences come in to play, it serves us well to separate the wheat from the chaff. And it will make your brain hurt. Well, it makes mine hurt anyway.
I hope nobody here is considering debating these fools, who feel like they have to refute everything they read...I mean it's a joke. I'm pretty sure he critiqued every sentence in Mosler's chapter 1.
ReplyDeleteReading part one of this refutation. Just came across our old friend: "When the government creates new money, it does not create new wealth."
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me that Austrians think this is a revelation. It really reinforces how shallow a reading is at play.
aahahahahahaaa
ReplyDeleteFrom the comments below part 1:
"The specific application of monetary accounting within the banking sector is not a defense of Mosler's larger point he's trying to convey, which is that the Fed/govt don't have to worry about economic scarcity of REAL goods and services because they can always print up more of the "tickets" that are claims to these REAL goods and services."
I've been reading about MMT in papers and blog posts (up to and including Mosler's book) for almost three years now and I have yet to encounter anyone making this argument.
If you can't state your opponent's position, you can't refute it. It's as simple as that.
To any reading this: I am sure there are much more productive uses for your time than reading tens of thousands of words rehashing and raising old misconceptions like they're somehow novel or interesting.
So many scarecrows...
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDelete"that the Fed/govt don't have to worry about economic scarcity of REAL goods and services"
This is actually the exact opposite of what MMT asserts.
In fact, imo, the contrary to this statement could be looked at as one of the defining principles behind MMT ie "the ONLY constraints are REAL".
"He was a man-killer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, for truth is not in him." .... these people are sadly being put in a position whereby they simply cannot recognize or dispense truth, full of metal-love, etc.. ie disgraced.
Sad to watch. rsp,
Oh this is TOO good:
ReplyDeleteThe blog title is "Adumbration- Casting Shadows"
Unbelievable... You can't make this stuff up.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adumbration
"4. To overshadow; shadow or obscure."
HA! For crying out loud how much more of a TIP OFF do you need????
They are telling you exactly what they are doing...
You will find NO TRUTH there for sure, in fact just the opposite.
The brazenness of these morons...
rsp
OK I've read enough, right in his chapter one:
ReplyDelete"In an instant, the state under FDR in 1933 effectively confiscated personally held gold and compelled all debts previously denominated in gold to be payable in terms of paper, which constituted a wholesale theft from everyone in the community. "
That's all I need to see at this point...
rsp,
I spent a fair amount of time politely rebutting Mr. Conant back in 2010. I'm "The Banker". He eventually got frustrated and gave up the argument when he realized that he was merely attacking straw-men and had very little of any substance with which to engage the actual arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnon aka The Banker,
ReplyDeleteThanks, and yes they have nothing...
rsp,
It took a little while for me to notice this feedback, so I should acknowledge the link to my contribution in this debate. On looking through the comments it seems that many are about something else entirely - so be it. However, Mr. Franco made a couple specific remarks. To him I will first observe that there are three other definitions in TheFreeDictionary, to wit:
ReplyDelete1. To give a sketchy outline of.
2. To prefigure indistinctly; foreshadow.
3. To disclose partially or guardedly.
One might also consider checking the "About" page for an explanation (http://johnrussellpalmer.com/blogs/adumbration.php/2012/02/about-blog-a), and allow for the ambiguity in language while we work on making this world a better place.
I made response to his other comment about gold confiscation back at the source (http://johnrussellpalmer.com/blogs/adumbration.php/2012/07/modern-monetary-theory-fraud-1#c36)