,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Since Matt wants to talk about word games, it's worth describing the one he engages in here.
1. conflate MMT with *one* element of it (functional finance). So Instead of critiquing MMT it's sufficient to merely critique Lerner. (Notably @JWMason1 & @arjun_jayadev admit ...) 1x
1. conflate MMT with *one* element of it (functional finance). So Instead of critiquing MMT it's sufficient to merely critique Lerner. (Notably @JWMason1 & @arjun_jayadev admit ...) 1x
...their piece was not about MMT entirely but only about functional finance, but unfortunately that admission came after, on Twitter, after the talking heads had already pounced on their piece as proof MMT could be regurgitated within orthodox framework. Pity).
2. Reduce 2x
2. Reduce 2x
Lerner to a single policy prescription, ignoring entire framework that leads to that prescription (including a sophisticated treatment of when and why to issue public debt, which gets mangled into the assertion debt issuance and tax have similar functional effects of removing 3/x
"money" from circulation).
3. Claim that the policy prescription (use taxes to reduce inflation) is functionally identical to existing orthodox approach (offset all spending w revenue) such that MMT's recommendations are the same as orthodoxy - a claim that is only facially 4/x
3. Claim that the policy prescription (use taxes to reduce inflation) is functionally identical to existing orthodox approach (offset all spending w revenue) such that MMT's recommendations are the same as orthodoxy - a claim that is only facially 4/x
Plausible because you've already excluded the rest of the paradigm that acknowledges other sources of demand/inflation and also other ways of addressing demand/inflation beyond taxes.
4. Ignore repeated clarifications on these points by MMTers
5. Profit!
5/5
4. Ignore repeated clarifications on these points by MMTers
5. Profit!
5/5
