Thread: This is what I would like @billy_blog’s feedback on.
I *thought* MMT was 100% descriptive, 0% prescriptive. Here are two slides from my MMT-101 lesson (video: ): 
In other words, it was my understanding that MMT was explicitly non-political. That people can take the *knowledge* of MMT and use it to implement policies that are progressive, neoliberal, Republican, Libertarian, etc. – or not use the knowledge at all.
To me, this is one of #MMT’s most important characteristics. It means that it can bring ALL people together, exactly because it is apolitical. MMT only describes the reality of how our economy actually functions. What you choose to do or not do with that knowledge is up to you.
Twice in the past month, however, @StephanieKelton has stated that this is incorrect, that there are indeed prescriptive aspects of MMT. 1/2:
2/2:
Bill also wrote about this in response to #MMTConf18 (bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=40464): He first says, “That does not mean that MMT is merely descriptive.”
Then he seems to contradict: "The point is that the policies I advocate reflect my value system rather than my understanding of MMT...However, someone with diametrically opposed values could have exactly the same grasp of MMT & come up with vastly different policy prescriptions."
So Bill takes the knowledge of MMT to advocate for progressive policies, while others with different values would take that same knowledge and advocate for completely different policies. (They would, however, have to be more honest about their motivations.)
So my questions and point: What is the difference between something being prescribed by MMT *itself*, as opposed to by its most prominent experts and economists (based on their personal values and knowledge of MMT)?
I can only assume the biggest prescription of #MMT is the Federal Job Guarantee. What else? Where are each of these made explicit?
If Modern Monetary Theory *itself* prescribes things such as the Federal Job Guarantee, then that means it is inherently progressive. If that’s true, then it is much less likely that non-progressives will be convinced by, let alone listen to, MMT. Isn’t that...bad?
I would love to get @billy_blog’s insights and clarification on all of this.
Thanks, @christreilly, @PatriciaNPino, and @MMTpodcast!
Jeff Epstein/@CitizensMediaTV
Thanks, @christreilly, @PatriciaNPino, and @MMTpodcast!
Jeff Epstein/@CitizensMediaTV
P.S. Here is a big discussion I started on MMT-for-@RealProgressUS on this subject that remains unresolved: facebook.com/groups/MMTforR…
Related: By Randall Wray, in his 2013 response to a fallout with Cullen Roche. archive.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/12…
Further thoughts after receiving insightful feedback from progressive @christreilly...
...and conservative John @carney.
Christian,
Currently, our big progressive programs are killed for economically inaccurate reasons. A huge example is how a large population of people fear that our big programs will DEFINITELY cause their taxes to skyrocket...
Currently, our big progressive programs are killed for economically inaccurate reasons. A huge example is how a large population of people fear that our big programs will DEFINITELY cause their taxes to skyrocket...
...and that these raised taxes will DEFINITELY bankrupt them, their families, businesses, the entire nation. (I learned this concept from @tonyweston.)
So they stand against all our big programs on (this economically inaccurate) principle.
So they stand against all our big programs on (this economically inaccurate) principle.
Not because they are against healthcare or education, but because they will not allow our luxuries, our pipe dreams, to cause certain economic devastation.
(The fact that most Democrats and progressives unknowingly reinforce this falsehood – "Please raise my taxes so I can give EVERYONE healthcare! Because I’m a nice person!" – is...very bad.)
I don’t totally understand the details of the JG yet, but I think I understand it enough to say that the JG does not promote progressive values. Rather, it is only intended to smooth transition into and out of for-profit industry, therefore stabilizing prices & taming recessions.
As far as what people specifically do during this transition, while on the JG, is up to different localities. The JG jobs themselves could be progressive, Republican, whatever.
In other words, the JG is NOT a Trojan horse for progressives. It is more generic and bigger picture (macroeconomic) than any kind of politics. It is therefore inaccurate to stand against it because it’s "progressive." However, it seems that the JG is indeed seen as exactly this.
Here’s conservative MMT thinker, John @carney, saying exactly this:
Honestly, I too have spent a lot of time dreaming of the progressive things that could be accomplished under the JG, and heard many others at #MMTConf18 doing the same thing.
As @ptcherneva emphasized at the conference, however, JG jobs are truly intended to be temporary, so ANY large and long term ideas are not suited to it.
But even more important than this misconception about the JG (a single program), it seems that the entirety of MMT is also seen this way: as a Trojan horse for all things progressive. Again, John @carney:
If I am understanding this correctly, I think it points to a serious problem. Without exaggeration, MMT is one of the very few major outlets in the world for genuine and true progressives. So it’s not surprising that much of the talk surrounding MMT is...
...about how much progressive stuff we can do for the people. (I mean, why not? It has little negative economic consequence...for the ppl.) This is only reinforced by the naturally progressive values & biases of its most prominent figures (Bill, @StephanieKelton, Tcherneva, etc.)
If MMT is going to have more broad and quick adoption (and if I am properly understanding this issue), then I think it is critical to do three things:
1. Seriously temper the massive progressive emphasis MMT seems to attract,
2. Regularly ephasize on how MMT and its prescriptions are macroeconomic/bigger than politics, and
3. Regularly demonstrate how MMT and its prescriptions can be used to implement NON-progressive policies.
2. Regularly ephasize on how MMT and its prescriptions are macroeconomic/bigger than politics, and
3. Regularly demonstrate how MMT and its prescriptions can be used to implement NON-progressive policies.
We don’t want people standing against our progressive programs for economically inaccurate reasons (raised taxes, “blow a hole in the deficit," etc.).
But more than that, we don’t want people standing against MMT *itself* on the (hopefully!) inaccurate principle that it is merely a Trojan horse for progressives to get everything they want.
Given our long term prospects as a organized species (and assuming I am properly understanding all of this) I find this to be an urgent problem for the movement.
(Finally, note that this is very much contingent on what other important MMT prescriptions there are, beyond the JG.)
(Finally, note that this is very much contingent on what other important MMT prescriptions there are, beyond the JG.)
Listening to episode nine now. This is somewhat addressed regarding the JG. itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/rek…
@christreilly Seems that much of the answer regarding the JG is that I need to learn more about it. Wonder if that’s the case with the rest of my question as well...
