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.