,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
MMT is really a lesson in the poverty of modern macroeconomics (which tbh post-crisis macroeconomists acknowledge to varying degrees, e.g. piie.com/commentary/spe…)
1/
1/
Macro aggregates aren't just informative, but also misleading: "assessing how underutilised our existing resources are ... requires detailed, expert analysis from a range of industry analysts; not just statistical regressions on aggregate economic data by macroeconomists." 2/
By taking a monolithic view of inflation, std macro assumes away many tools: "there are a range of sources of inflation that aren’t caused by general state of dmd ... Whether it's businesses raising profit margins, or it’s Wall Street speculating on commodities or houses." 3/
By taking a monolithic view of employmt, std macro fails to address problem of quality of jobs, wch these days due to long-standing decline in market pwr of labor often impose moral as well as physical and emotional costs: "the government can commit to real full employment" 4/
By faulty translation of economic concepts into empirical estimates of those concepts, std macro generates "nonsense output gaps" (cf. @RobinBrooksIIF): "the Congressional Budget Office continually defines potential capacity down from what it actually is" 5/
Std macro treats tax policy as static not dynamic. "varying tax rates and other inflation offsets should be included in the budgeting process from the outset" 6/
Whether MMT gets everything right is not the point, since no macroeconomist can meet that standard. The point is that macro needs to be rethought from its very foundations. 7/7
