Randall Wray Speaks of Sumner on MMT's Achille's Heel but Somehow Fails to Give Attribution to Diary of a Republican Hater

      UPDATE: I love Randall Wray again as he has added attribution. I figured it was just an oversight-but you know what they say it's all good publicity if they spell your name right. He has now spelled my name right.

      It's kind of bittersweet. I read Sumner's latest tantrum with considerable relish. 

     "My rebuttal is that whoever wrote that nonsense is a liar, a moron, and a jerk, all wrapped up in one. Life’s too short to respond to someone who claims I asserted that lowering interest rates to zero would cause NGDP to double. (It’s got several names attached, so I don’t know who wrote it.)"

    "Rates just fell to zero in 2008 and I don’t see NGDP doubling."

     http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=24551

      Here's what bothered me when I saw Wray's piece: he failed to quote my piece at all which clearly had some kind of inspiration-I mean the title was clearly derivative of mine. Compare mine:

      http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/11/sumner-on-achilles-heel-of-mmt.html

      to his:

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/11/scott-sumner-find-mmts-achilles-heel.html#comment-514485

    I left a comment over at Wray but he doesn't allow comments before he checks them first so we'll see if he squashes mine. Please Mr. Wray I hope you're not going to go there! I want to believe we're on the same side here.

  

    We certainly do have Sumner predicitng NGDP would double as well as the price level almost doubling:

    "So let’s say they double the base and let rates go where ever they want. I claim this action doubles NGDP and nearly doubles the price level. MMTers seem to disagree, as I haven’t changed the amount of net financial assets (NFA) at all. But here’s the Achilles heel of MMT. Neither banks nor the public particularly wants to hold twice as much base money when interest rates are 5%, as that’s a high opportunity cost. So they claim this action would drive nominal rates to zero, at which level people and/or banks would be willing to hold the extra base money. Fair enough. But then what? You’ve got an economy far outside its Wicksellian equilibrium.”

     So we have it from the horse's mouth. Still why is Wray refuisng to attribute the inspiration for this-I agree that he adds his own insights to it but the title clearly was from my title. I was the one who put out this quote and link from Sumner yesterday. Mr. Wray somewhat disdainfully tells us he's not a blogger. I like him and respect him a lot. But maybe not being a blogger he doesn't understand blogger etiquette. 

    P.S. In all fairness Wray takes his analysis further than what I wrote yesterday-which is how it works. One blogger takes us to point A, the next following up on point A takes to point B and then the next takes it to point C. That's how it worked. However, I'll admit it, it's got me irked. Hopefully he'll acknowledge it was an oversight. If not, he's going to ruin it for me. Maybe I'll turn Market Monetarist out of spite. LOL.