Pages

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Why are the MMTers So Snarky?

    I'll say this about MMT, so many of its proponents are jerks judging by the comments they make over at Naked Capitalsim and the comment that Stanley left here:

    "Meters don't say deficits don't matter. Learn up before you write stupid posts."

     http://pragcap.com/dear-paul-krugman-you-do-not-understand-mmt

     http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2011/12/krugman-vs-mmt.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29

   Stanley is not much of an ambassador for MMT. Fact is that I actually have read some of this stuff over at places like http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system

   With some interest. But trying to have an intelligent conversation with the MMTers themselves is apparently impossible. What's weird is that this is clearly against the Comments Policy over at Pragmatic Capitalism:

    "Readers who denigrate authors or other readers will be banned without warning. This site does not tolerate any sort of reader abuse. The goal of this site is to create an environment that is conducive to learning and better understanding of the monetary system and the investment world. We expect readers to behave maturely and responsibly. We welcome and encourage intense and intelligent discourse, but the site adheres to a strict 1 strike policy. While it is your right to speak freely, it is not your right to behave childishly. Above all else, please enjoy the site. It is intended to be used as an educational tool and we hope the intelligent and mature debate will further that purpose. We hope readers will make an effort to respect that goal. Comments with excessive linking or foul language will be moderated before posting. "

     Sorry to say Stanley, there is no right to speak childishly. Hope that doesn't spoil it for you. The goal at PC and I think this is a good goal for any informed discussion is "It is intended to bue used as an educational tool and we hope the intelligent and mature debate will further that purpose."

    But I have seem little proof for this from many that claim to speak for MMT. I still do find MMT interesting not necessarily because it tells you what to do on any particular policy issue but because its framework enables you to look at the monetary system in a totally different way.

   So in the discussion with Krugman over the issue of whether at some point our deficit will be a concern-Krugman agrees that they don't right now as we are in a liquidity trap with lots of excess capacity and government debt with a roughly zero interest rate but that at some point, presumably when we have recovered they would matter.

   To me I would argue with what Krugman says here by pointing out that if we recovered we would no longer have such high budget deficits by definition. But the MMT answer goes deeper even that; it states on a fundamental level bonds don't fund are debt-nor do foreign governments. So by definition it doesn't matter for us-it's totally different for Europe as they are all stuck under one currency like the gold standard; essentially Germany, Greece, France and Italy are like the states of New York, Texas, California, or Georgia, they also have no lender of last resort and most importantly each lacks the ability to print its own currency-what bond interest rates are or whether tomorrow China were to move 100% out of U..S Treasuries.

    So what I like about MMT is that it is a very good "education tool." What I don't like is that so many seem not to know what ot do with it other than hitting people on the head with it.

6 comments:

  1. This was a pretty good post overall, especially at the end.

    Not to completely defend Stanley, but you did completely misrepresent MMT, and there are literally dozens of posts out there explaining why the "deficits don't matter" view of MMT is wrong. How do you feel when you explain something over and over and over and yet repeatedly others listen to only 1/2 of it and then misrepresent what you've been saying over and over? It's not an excuse for bad behavior or snarkiness, but the responsibility does run both ways, in my view.

    Best,
    Scott Fullwiler

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fine, Scott, but I think if you looked at my whole argument rather than "half of it" you would see I was speaking in good faith. If I msipreresented your views it wasn't deliberate.

    The fact is that this MMT stuff is brand new to me. I had heard if it before mostly perjoratively it's true through Money Illusion's Scott Sumner. I had no idea until yesterday what they are about. Maybe one reason people have a perjartive impression of MMT is that some of you bite people's heads off a little quickly. If you've explained yourselves 1,000 times that doesn't mean the person you're talking to has heard it even once. Don't assume what they have read.

    Now that I have read it I find it an interesting framework though I wouldn't employ it as something that will tell me what the right policy is on every question necessarily.

    Scott, I actually read something you wrote last night about the Clinton surplus that I found real interesting. You argued that it had quite untoward effects on the economy-assuming I read you right.

    That's the kind of thing I want to learn more about. As far as deficits go I'm quite a deficit dove myself so for someone to say they don't matter at all-like Cheney defintely did say-is not the worst thing in the world to me either. In fact I scarecely think they do matter myself.

    Let me ask you this-give me a scenario in which you would be concerned about a high deficit and tell me what you would do to solve it-would you cut spending or raise taxes. Again I get taht you guys don't generally like tax hikes so much either. But surely you weren't fans of the Bush tax cuts-I think they were the worst fiscal policy of modern times.

    Appreciate you taking the time to drop in hoope it won't be the last.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's some diplomatic MMT links w/ empirical data-evidence w/ charts

    1. Oil/energy prices cause inflation, NOT federal deficits -evidence/facts here: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/more-thoughts-on-inflation/
    2. www.RodgerMitchell.com Daily Economics Empirical EVIDENCE by CEO/MBA economist at http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/introduction/

    3. Seven Deadly Frauds of Economic Policy (PDF Link http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf ) by Bank CEO/economist Warren Mosler or click for here for shorter summary of Modern Monetary Economics 101

    4. http://MoslerEconomics.com -Daily Insightful & Most Accurate Empirical Economics Analysis by bank CEO/economist Warren Mosler

    5. http://MikeNormanEconomics.blogspot.com One of the BEST Daily Analysis by Chief Economist & FoxBusiness-Bloomberg contributor expert Mike Norman, formerly of S&P

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks a lot for the links Jason. Will definitely check them out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike,

    I used to be snarky once upon a time (a long long time ago) but I saw how much snarkiness hurt people - and there is nothing, and I mean nothing in being snarky that can justify that hurt - whether there is intent or not!

    ReplyDelete