Read on Twitter
Progressives tend to like #MMT because it lays bare what is possible. Conservatives tend to hate it for the same reason.
That said, I've known progressives, liberals, conservatives, right libertarians, Marxists, and anarchists who study #MMT.
It's descriptive, not ideological.
It's descriptive, not ideological.
One of the only things about #MMT that is even remotely ideological is the idea that we should have full employment.
And that shouldn't be controversial.
And that shouldn't be controversial.
The only people who seem to take umbrage with full employment are neoliberal monetarist NAIRU charlatans who want to grade us on a curve and keep the most vulnerable among us in poverty.
Marxists and anarchists might argue that monetary employment is just enclosure, that it shouldn't exist at all. That's fine. That's also my belief. But it doesn't make #MMT any less correct about the state of the world.
"From each according to their ability" is, in its own way, just another mode of full employment.
Whatever form it takes, the idea is the same: everyone should have the opportunity to provide nicer things for themselves and their family, friends, and community.
Whatever form it takes, the idea is the same: everyone should have the opportunity to provide nicer things for themselves and their family, friends, and community.
#MMT says nothing about whether money or monetary employment should exist, only that it does indeed exist today in a certain mode, and that it could be leveraged to ameliorate suffering in the here and now.
Studying #MMT doesn't mean you love money, that you're a statist, or that you're anticommunist. In my experience, quite the opposite.
For progressives of all stripes, studying #MMT only means we seek to understand the things we wish to abolish.
And I firmly believe this is necessary if we are to enact lasting change.
END
And I firmly believe this is necessary if we are to enact lasting change.
END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
