,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
A piece by @MattBruenig that sort of complements my analysis, and also helps explain the Calvinball. He argues that MMT is basically about using odd language to imply that spending needn't be paid for, without being explicit 1/ peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/02/24/wha…
That may be a bit too cynical; I've talked with some MMTers who seem to truly believe that they have an analytical insight; the Kelton piece I discuss here does indeed say some new things. But those things happen to be false 2/ nytimes.com/2019/02/25/opi…
What is true is that political consumers of MMT probably like it not because they really understand macroeconomic arguments, but because they think that (a) standard macro justifies the deficit scolds and (b) alternative theory removes all spending constraints 3/
Both these beliefs are, however, wrong. You can be a conventional Keynesian and argue that debt concerns were grossly exaggerated – I am and did – while even MMT doesn't actually let you propose big programs without new taxes 4/ nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opi…
The bottom line is that MMT ends up being a not-helpful diversion from the real issues that a progressive agenda needs to confront 5/
