I think Modern Monetary Theory proponents have made acceptance of their ideas a bit more difficult by not drawing a bright line between their theory, which is a description of how government spending works in a fiat currency system, versus what they believe are resulting sound policy approaches, such as setting the price of labor (a Job Guarantee) rather than the price of money.Some folks seem slow on the uptake. How loud to MMT economists need to shout? (shakes head)
Why is the MMT position that MMT economists shares and have written about exhaustively so difficult to grok?
I suspect it is because MMT uses a different lens for looking at macroeconomics and political economy, while others continue to look through their own accustomed lenses.
Hello, MMT is not essentially about tax justice. That is a different subject that informs political economy and it is chiefly a political matter, as implied by the term, "justice." "Justice" is a legal term, not an economic one.
Political economy intersects with philosophy, sociology, evolutionary theory, anthropology, sociology, political theory, law and justice, etc. The MMT economists are doing macroeconomics, which is their field of expertise. Because MMT is a type of institutional economics that also builds on Post Keynesianism and other influences, it is difficult for other economists to categorize so they try to force it into a box that doesn't fit.
When MMT economists venture into policy, they do so personally. Macroeconomic is policy-neutral other than in its assumptions. But the commonly held assumption among macroeconomists is that the chief aim of macroeconomics is explaining the relationship of growth, employment and price. MMT offers a unique approach to this using a different lens to look at the data and issues and to construct models of different types of systems.
Hello, MMT is not essentially about tax justice. That is a different subject that informs political economy and it is chiefly a political matter, as implied by the term, "justice." "Justice" is a legal term, not an economic one.
Political economy intersects with philosophy, sociology, evolutionary theory, anthropology, sociology, political theory, law and justice, etc. The MMT economists are doing macroeconomics, which is their field of expertise. Because MMT is a type of institutional economics that also builds on Post Keynesianism and other influences, it is difficult for other economists to categorize so they try to force it into a box that doesn't fit.
When MMT economists venture into policy, they do so personally. Macroeconomic is policy-neutral other than in its assumptions. But the commonly held assumption among macroeconomists is that the chief aim of macroeconomics is explaining the relationship of growth, employment and price. MMT offers a unique approach to this using a different lens to look at the data and issues and to construct models of different types of systems.
Naked Capitalism
“ Because MMT is a type of institutional economics that also builds on Post Keynesianism and other influences, it is difficult for other economists to categorize so they try to force it into a box that doesn't fit.”
ReplyDeleteThey are not trained to discriminate.... they are trained to synthesize which is what they are doing...
Yves Smith has an agenda. End of story.
ReplyDelete“ Why is the MMT position that MMT economists shares and have written about exhaustively so difficult to grok?”
ReplyDeleteWhat is “grok”?
Why introduce an entirely new figure of speech here?
Just say “understand”...
“Why is the MMT position so difficult to understand ?”
Maybe that will lead you somewhere....
Google sez:
ReplyDeletegrok
/ɡräk/
verb informal•US
verb: grok; 3rd person present: groks; past tense: grokked; past participle: grokked; gerund or present participle: grokking
understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
"because of all the commercials, children grok things immediately"
empathize or communicate sympathetically; establish a rapport.
Origin
1960s: a word invented by Robert Heinlein (1907–88), American author.