My feed seems full of people on both sides calling each other names and weaponising quote tweets in what appear to be mindless attempts to win the internet, and generally assuming the worst of each other. Often these are people whose values are 90% aligned.
It's easy to discredit a body of thought; just criticise it, then engage & amplify those who defend it badly. Constructive critical engagement involves engaging the thoughtful, considerate and open proponents. In #MMT examples of such people are @StevenHailAus & @StephanieKelton.
Perhaps the most valuable thing I learned studying philosophy was to read generously. Look first for the contribution and the value that others bring, not for their flaws. If intent is ambiguous, assume it's positive until demonstrated otherwise.
So, what contribution is MMT making? It's casting doubt on the brainless obsession with budget surpluses. This is unambiguously a good thing. It's shining a light on the issue of full employment and our use of unemployed people to keep a lid on inflation. Also good.
It's advocating for a greater role for fiscal policy in economic management - arguable of course, but also good IMHO. We absolutely need a rethink of macro-economic management and better understand inflation, interest rates and government finances.
As some critics say, much of #MMT is not new, it's a synthesis of a bunch of post-Keynesian work that built up over decades. This is the case for any substantial body of thought. Systems of thought don't pop out of one person's mind (with a few exceptions and a nod to Einstein).
It doesn't really matter if it's new, what matters is that it's radically different from the mainstream understanding of public finances and, if the central tenets are right, opens the door to very different approaches to economic management. Here is great fodder for discussion
Instead of that discussion, what's recently happening on Twitter goes something like this: "He said the Job Guarantee would apply to fruit picking but over here, she said it doesn't. See, they're all idiots" - followed by a quote tweet that claims to prove how stupid MMT is
In turn, there are plenty of MMT proponents who play the same games, calling non-converts all kinds of names and assuming if they don't agree with MMT that they don't understand it (not helped by the fact that many critics clearly don't understand it).
The above may have you thinking that I'm an uncritical MMT supporter. I'm closer to a sympathiser. I think the central tenets are correct. A currency issuer is not financially constrained. The real constraint on government expenditure is the productive capacity of the economy
The key criticism I have is with the framing. The constant refrain that MMT is just a description of the monetary system as it currently exists conflicts with the JG being embedded as a core part of MMT. There are two aspects of MMT. One is descriptive and the other normative.
I also feel like much of the MMT scholarship and commentary underplays the role of bank money, which artificially inflates the role of government money - though I haven't truly settled my mind on this.
Overall, the main point of this thread is to suggest that everyone try to engage generously, courteously and productively. This is particularly important right now when anxiety is high and everybody's buffers are low.
I know it's pointless asking people to be nice on the internet but I can't help writing it anyway. We've got an opportunity right now to rethink how we do things, question assumptions and norms and possibly inch towards a better society. We're at serious risk of squandering it.
@DavidSligar, you're obviously one of the people I'm writing about. My feed has become dominated by your tweets calling MMT people dumb and using something one of them says to say "These people are ... ". Your style is extremely combative plus the weaponisation of quote tweets
I'm not excusing the behaviour of the worst of the MMT proponents who also insult and demean etc but I respect your views and you have a sharp mind. I think your tweets are feeding the polarisation beast which is one of the biggest problems we face.
BTW, for all readers: I only named David out of respect (avoiding the subtweet), not to turn this into an attack on him. That's the very opposite of what I was trying to achieve. David contributes to a lot of great conversations, but the MMT thing had turned really sour (again)
