Talk:Modern Monetary Theory

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon economics.svg

This Economics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

MMT and developing countries[edit]

This article claims many times that MMT supporters don't have anything to say about developing countries, but there are no sources on this. Meanwhile, I Googled MMT developing countries and found some sources claming otherwise. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Feel free to improve it, and I also agree with you, there's some inaccurate criticism in the article still imo that are written as if they are accurate ones Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Mitchell vs Mankiw[edit]

@CircularReasoning made some changes in my edits about the Mankiw vs Mitchell debate, removing my exemples on paradigm shifts and and quotation marks. I'm ok with the first change, but I believe that the we should maintain the quoation marks since we were using his words. Also, Mitchell didn't really dismissed Mankiw's disdain as credentialism. I did. GeeJayK (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@GeeJayK As for your latter point (about the credentialism thing) I was just confused because of the weird wording you used. And the reason why I removed those parts is because they disrupted the flow of the section, turning it into a long list that detracted from the main point you were trying to make. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@CircularReasoning @GeeJayK The Mankiw section is way too large rn imo (4 paragraphs), given it just focuses on one guy's rather boring criticism. Forgot who wrote most of it, but given you all are currently editing, perhaps it can be trimmed down. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Neiltyson1fan It was GJK who originally wrote that. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 02:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I only wrote the Credentialism vs Galileo Gambit part. Considering how long was Mitchell's response over Mankiw's disdain on his blog I think it should stay. GeeJayK (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
You can keep it, but the Mankiw topic is not notable enough for 4 paragraphs. Mitchell writes at length about everything. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Recent changes I made are in reference to this , and not the Mankiw detour Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Economist article that accuses MMT of not using enough math[edit]

The monetarist here was asked to engage with the methodology of MMT or directly link criticism rather than further editorialize. After weeks, his contribution was a huge section citing a single anonymous author asserting MMT doesn't use enough maths (while not acknowledging MMTs mathematical models in this RW article no less) and then editorializing around it. C'mon man, I can add more actually notable criticism sections if you want more criticism sections Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Also can you read the RW article before contributing to it, the article already states MMT rejects many (most?) conventional economic models, and then brings up the ones it claims as it's own. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The citation you used about MMTs sophistication, some chart, also did not say what you said it said. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

All in all, the additions also made no sense and it required two people to make it coherent. after which it was just a random non-notable and uncommon criticism from an anon blog-tier post on Economist. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, we could make 70 criticism sections, each citing some random assertion from the hundreds of anti-MMT articles out there, but if it's not interesting, well-put-together, a common criticism, or from someone notable, you're just being lazy Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Calvinball criticism (I assume you added) was good, cuz it was notable and interesting and presented neutrally, even though I agree don't fully agree with it, but throwing random, poorly spelled spaghetti at the wall for months here and waiting for something to stick isn't going to go down well here. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Being 100% honest, I found most of your post incomprehensible. I also don't think I am who you think I am. If you want more people saying that MMT doesn't you math enough, you can see it here, for exemple.
Proponents of MMT tend to be against mathematical modeling. One reason is that economics has become over-mathematical, pushing it to the frontiers of nonsense. I agree with this sentiment, but refusal to model is not the right response. Indeed, by promoting confusion, refusal to model plays into the hands of those who model to excess.
Palley admits that the orthodox approach uses a way too much math, but he also believes that MMT doesn't use enough.
Another prominent academic that criticized MMT for their lack of Math is the Oxford professor Simon Wren-Lewis. The Economist is not the only journal that noticed how MMT doesn't use Math enough either. You can check Bloomberg and The New Yorker
I don't think we're are the ones to decide if the criticism is fair or not.

GeeJayK (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You have to be trolling. We spent days on some rando named Palley, to the point he even came here, cuz the person you are saying you are not, who has the exact same kind of consistent spelling mistakes, insisted on citing him and now he gets this undeservedly huge section in the RW article. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
IF you want to improve the section or rewrite it, I guess we can have another Palley criticism section lulz, with Bloomberg as a backup citation but I dunno how long it will stay, as this is not a common criticism of MMT Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
That Bloomberg source is the best source for the 'lack of math' claim, but it looks odd including that while also ignoring the math that is literally in the article, and their first textbook, with 550 pages of math/theory, which I'm 100% sure Palley and that Bloomberg guy never even attempted to read 00:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Mainstream media and economists took a 'spaghetti to the wall and maybe I'm wrong' approach to MMT which included hundreds of articles with assertions of people barely familiar with it, if we're to include every assertion if it has 2-3 people saying it, the criticism section could be a dozen pages long. Was just picking ones that were by large figures or played into some sort of public debate of the subject. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I just find it amusing you were asked to engage deeper with the material and you spent weeks tryna find people saying there was no deeper material Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
MMT isn't even that radical, it's just Keynesianiam + chartalism + 'jobs program' oriented stuff, that any mainstream economists tie themselves in a knot over tiny differences before actually reviewing their material like Mankiw didn't, is dumb Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
At the end of the day, I'm fine with you re-writing the general criticism if you cite everything you did here. It's totally unnecessary cruft given it doesn't even engage with the basic econ math on the RW page itself, and is an inaccurate criticism, but the Bloomberg source is good enough for a few sentences if it absolutely has to be in the articleNeiltyson1fan (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, saying that a form of criticism is better than the other because more people mention it is very similar to the ad populum MMTers have to face every day. The lack of math is, in fact the main reason why it's so hard for Marxists, Post Keynesians and Austrians to have their articles published in AER, JME and other similar journals, so one can argue it's in fact the single most common criticism a wide margin. That being said, I won't add it at least for now, since I have other stuff to take care of. GeeJayK (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Palley is a Post-Keynesian bruh Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and his methodological approach is heterodox (albeit I believe less heterodox than most of the MMTers I'm aware of). But whatever, as I said, I have more important stuff to do, even on this article. GeeJayK (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Economics is as much of a science as theology is. So what if something is heterodox? Institutions hail one school above others as "mainstream" and "scientific" by pure arbitration. Oxyaena Harass 09:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Me?/User:GeeJayK blocked for being part of long-term trolling[edit]

Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If wanted to make this edition (I said I wouldn't since didn't even have time) I would use my own account. Why would I use a sock puppet for that? Why wouldn't I add the sources like we talked about? Aren't you ashamed? 2804:14C:5B72:8BC8:B976:D638:E893:9279 (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Troll Oxyaena Harass 15:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

If I have time I'll be active on this article again over the next few weeks. There are some major mistakes here (even criticism that NTF added is bad) so don't be surprised if the final product is smaller than the bloated trash we have right now. GeeJayK (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)