I will not comment any further, since I have not yet read the literature that their assertions are based on. Given that the theory is a non-starter to anyone who is slightly numerate and familiar with observed developed country debt dynamics, I do not expect to read it any time soon...Brian makes an important observation here when he notes: "Even a struggling first-year philosophy student could tell you that if you assume a point is true that your opponent claims is false, you would appear to 'win' the argument."
The problem with most critics of MMT made by conventional economists is that they are based on assuming the truth of neoclassical assumptions, which is the very point that MMT economists, and other heterodox economists claim is at issue.
The case is point in this post is one that MMT economists have addressed. But the objectors to MMT make no mention of it and are apparently ignorant of it. In the professional world, ignorance is no excuse, in fact, it has reputational consequences. In fact, one of the chief and most serious critiques that MMT and other heterodox economist make regarding conventional economists in criticizing them is unprofessionalism.
In most academic fields it is considered highly embarrassing to display ignorance of papers relevant to one's thesis or argument. Apparently not in economics.
RealProgressives Podcast Discussing My Latest Book
Video Clip About North American Lumber Situation
“ if you assume a point is true that your opponent claims is false, you would appear to 'win' the argument."
ReplyDeleteLOL! Not if you believe the other guy! LOL!!!!
But economics papers are boring... insisting that they be read is abusive.
ReplyDelete