Talk:Modern Monetary Theory/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 30 January 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

This article is terrible.

And I come at this not as someone who's starting premise is to defend MMT. I'm no economist, and I'm perfectly happy to have my views challenged and given new information. However, compare this page to that on Austrian School Economics - whilst critical, the latter goes into detail into the problems with the theory, uses multiple sources and, whilst snarky, largely steers clear of direct insults. I've never seen an article more seething with bile, and uses of the term 'second-class', 'theologists' and so on, which goes without mentioning the poor grammar of this article. And whilst I don't claim to be an expert on MMT (hence I'm not editing it myself), I know certainly that the writer of this has already gotten something wrong. They're confusing the concept of a government being theoretically unlimited by cost with the idea of just printing money ad nauseum, which MMT does address (i.e., taxing puts money back into the system to counterract inflation).

I welcome a constructive, less juvenile take on this topic, even if it's generally critical. PinkBastard (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have also stumbled across this article and made the same observations. I have some specific additions to make.

" “no simple proportionate relationship exists between rises in the money supply and rises in the general price level.” This is a blatant lie, since the correlation of money growth and inflation is 0.8 in US, with similar correlations elsewhere." -- This depends strongly on what is meant by simple proportionate relationship. If what was intended was a simple linear correlation, it's obviously bullshit. If what was meant are there exist numerous confounding variables, then calling it a blatant lie is a blatant lie because it's actually true.

"...seem cognizant of the deleterious effects of inflation, but even those who know how bad inflation is..." -- inflation is not black and white. Extremely low inflation can be situationally as bad as moderately high inflation. Though everyone suffers really bad under hyperinflation. How bad you suffer under inflation also depends on how much savings you got, so this sounds a bit like rich guy apologetics. Perhaps this article could use some expansion on what exactly the deleterious effects are?

"...and that economies typically operate with spare productive capacity. They don’t give evidence..." -- I'm not sure why you would need to give evidence for something mainstream economists also support. Though the class conflict part is very weird and probably wrong.

"Considering how the idea of controlling prices have failed for thousands of years" -- Well, you haven't read Adam Smith, that's for sure. The government historically can, and has successfully controlled prices. Often to bad results from a macroeconomic perspective. One also does not seem to know what the actual purpose of a central bank is.

"...it’s pretty much what Venezuela and Zimbabwe did." -- Perhaps you could tell us what they did and what happened to them yourself? Venezuela's financial history is rather complicated with several successes and several failures. Could you tell us which event in particular you're talking about at least? Did the thing happen while Zimbabwe was experiencing heavy trade sanctions for breaking from Britain? Because that would also tank an economy.

Saying that a crank supports a theory is not enough to convince me that it's a crank theory. I'd prefer an article that chiefly examines the substance of the theory. Tulpa001 (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This has to be the worst page I have seen on Rationalwiki. It's not only dismissive and grossly self-satisfied but just flat out wrong. This is like a South Park analysis, like someone woke up, took a bunch of bong rips, and read some MMT hit-piece while half asleep and decided they could write an article about it. This is exactly the kind of treatment my racist grandpa gives Karl Marx. A real low point for this otherwise pretty funny and informative website.^{— Unsigned, by: Erenny / talk / contribs}

The Post-Keynesian Economics article on RW covers MMT to some degree. Beyond being drivel, this article might be entirely unnecessary. Radio (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added more to the MMT section of the Post-Keynesian Economics article. In there, there are several responses to the inflation hawkery that's going on in this article. I also recommend deleting this article or rewriting it to include what MMTers have to say about inflation. Omni-Democratist (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This article can be improved

Please come to talk page if interested in helping Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Ya gotta gotta gotta be much more incremental in what you're doing. Otherwise it looks like a takeover of the page and that just doesn't work well around here. Take your time. DerFluchtPlan (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I added some basic views and explanation of those views of MMT. Later on, I can expand on other MMT views such as why MMT rejects the Phillips Curve analysis.--Omni-Democratist (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Dunno, the reason why I reverted it is because it stunk of POV-pushing. --Goatspeed. _{All holidays matter}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{Steal my ideas} 23:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you recommend I do so it doesn't seem that way? Should I just drop the explanations and just keep the basic views?--Omni-Democratist (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Of the deleted parts, I think the basic views part was pretty good and should be included. The subsequent explanations were decent, but could benefit from references and, maybe, a little discussion of how it compares to real world outcomes. The more detailed explanation parts were good, but a little over-the-top compared to the rest of the article. It'd be like having Tesla-like autopilot installed on your 15 year old Hyundai- cool, but too much. As for CR's POV-pushing point, I don't see it, but it's worth consideration. To me, the through-line should be that MMT is a credible-sounding, but empirically suspect, rewrite of classical and Keynesian economics that coincides with a lefty economic viewpoint (that I kind wish had more support). DerFluchtPlan (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay I changed my edit to include the political limitations of fighting inflation. It should now correctly address the criticism below where it says income policies don't work. Essentially, politicians may not use the correct tool to fight inflation. I also added another criticism of MMT.--Omni-Democratist (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

MMTers didn't support large government checks as centerpiece and the stimulus halved unemployment

Kelton supported some direct money, but ultimately wanted more on PPE and jobs, Wray wanted close to none direct payments and wanted it almost exclusively focused on jobs.. Mosler had no interest in direct payments, and wanted an almost complete takeover of key business by the government.

Also the stimulus cut unemployment by more than half, from 14 to 6.9 and falling. MMTers support continuous stimuluses as well (as we do anyways every year). Not one-timers. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE Neiltyson1fan

This is with regards to this removal. https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_Monetary_Theory&type=revision&diff=2263081&oldid=2263080 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

On 2804:14c:5b72:856c:d864:b6a0:392a:881f additions which are being edit warred

"some say" is weasel wording, which when contested, should provide more than 1 citation. Some > 1. The longest time a professor yelled at me was when I used the term, "some say", in a paper.

Citing "scientific" economics journals as some sort of barometer or science is interesting, considering the massive failure of mainstream economists over the last decade or so. It's currently at your revision. I previously kept the meat of your stuff in, but cut it down and made it less weasel wordy, which apparently was too much for you. I think mainstream economics isn't a science, you do, so if it is, at least cite accordingly when challenged please or the additions needing proper citations or less weasel wording will be reverted again. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Additionally if Post-Keynesianism is horrible, and MMT isn't Post-Keynesianism, as you are arguing both, wouldn't that argue against your additions to begin with, which is to question the validity of the theory, for which there do exist some good arguments against in other places.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, I don't consider either AOC or Trump to be reps of MMT, but how is AOC more of a rep of MMT as an economics theory (not a set of policy prescriptions) than Trump? Considering Trump explicitly said the US cannot default by virtue of it being a currency mononpolist, and AOC just says, "let's sprinkle in MMT into the convo" as if it's a spice and moves onto anti-MMT stuff just like Trump does. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Oddly enough, some of your points are actually interesting. I'll answer by tomorrow. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:D864:B6A0:392A:881F (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

First thing first, I didn't even said Post-Keynesian is bad. I said it's fringe. It is, at least in 2020. Even on Cambridge, where some of the greatest "progressive" economic minds came from it lost its influence a long time ago. It never won the Nobel prize (albeit I agree that names like Joan Robinson were more relevant than many laureates). Just like the Austrian School, it had its time, but right now it's not discussed extensively anymore, and that won't probably change anytime soon. That being said, it's not an article about Post-Keynesian Economics, but about MMT. My point is that, even on a relatively small school of thought, MMT is not that popular. I'll find a better way to write this, criticism towards Post-Keynesian as a whole belongs somewhere else. About Thomas Palley, you're right that the Repec ranking doesn't prove he's the most relevant Post-Keynesian economist around, let alone the best or whatever. We should drop that part, albeit I think we should put the reference just to show how a major Post-Keynesian economist despise the theory. Now, I don't understand why you dropped this part of my text: "panned heavily MMT quite a few times, claming that "MMT adds nothing new warranting its own theoretical label. Instead, its over-simplifications represent a step-back in understanding.". So, an article that mentioned a fucking TikTok video cannot have a harsh critic just because it might hurt someone's feelings? You can edit the whole thing and let's see how it turns out. Also, a bit offtopic, but I believe the entire "MMT vs other schools" part should be moved to the criticism topic. Sorry for any typos, I'm an ESL. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:30E6:A99C:E746:538 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't delete your critic, you keep saying I did, I just removed "some say" weasel wording with regards to Post-Keynesianism and the assertion the notion that Palley is the most notable Post-Keynesian, when that seems very dubious and the citation never made that claim.

"About Thomas Palley, you're right that the Repec ranking doesn't prove he's the most relevant Post-Keynesian economist around, let alone the best or whatever. We should drop that part, albeit I think we should put the reference just to show how a major Post-Keynesian economist despise the theory."

ok, that's great.

"Now, I don't understand why you dropped this part of my text: "panned heavily MMT quite a few times, claming that "MMT adds nothing new warranting its own theoretical label. "

Because the quote I included of his said the exact same thing. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"I didn't even said Post-Keynesian is bad"

You included a statement saying multiple reputable people call it a pseudo-science and then only linked one person. Given it was one of only 3 additions you made, and you made it without proper citation, I doubt you are a fan of Post-Keynesianism. Which again, is fine if cited properly in the article when challenged, ie please add more than one citation for the "some say". Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics is a shitty science anyways. Mainstream economics isn't inherently more accurate than heterodox schools of economics, it's just the one endorsed by the capitalist mainstream. Human societies don't operate under the same rules as the laws of physics do, they are inherently plastic and malleable to a near infinite degree. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please, confine your anti-rationalist, anti-empiricist post-modern musings to a more appropriate page. This has nothing to do with MMT. IveBeenFrank (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream academic economics has the same reputation as christian-theology-as-science or psychiatry. They are taught in colleges but are without clothing and hardly anyone defends them in public outside of echo chambers. Appeal to authority arguments are among the worst criticisms of anything, including MMT, and are logical fallacies when stated as adding to fact. Added quite a bit to the criticism section here, but it's arguably a credit to the theory if academic economists dislike it. I agree with Oxyaena, and it's not anti-intellectualism/anti-rationalist, but anti-academia in certain cirumstances, when accuracy trumps it. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And what about the Trump/AOC point brought up earlier 2804:14c:5b72:856c:d864:b6a0:392a:881f ? What are your thoughts on that, as it is still in the article as you wrote it. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't edit the AOC part, and honestly, I don't know anything about her views on MMT. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:30E6:A99C:E746:538 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You aren't 2804:14c:5b72:856c:d864:b6a0:392a:881f, you are 2804:14C:5B72:856C:30E6:A99C:E746:538|2804:14C:5B72:856C:30E6:A99C:E746:538 Neiltyson1fan (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@IveBeenFrank Read what Niel said. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

In his academic text that predates the youtube video linked, Wray explicitly cites 20th century economists Gunnar Heinsohn, Otto Steiger, David Levine and George Dalton, and anthropologist Caroline Humphrey, among others, in work on the origin-of-money story, not Graeber who is 21st century

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2050427

Cleaned up a previous mess and cited appropriately. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, the only critique directly addressing MMT's line on origin-of-money comes from the right-wing libertarian CATO institute, which, probably not so coincidentally has the same obsession over Graeber that our 'definitely-not-Austrian' IP editor also has. It's worth noting that Graeber was not cited in the MMT academic literature (merely mentioned once in a passing way for 5 seconds in a lecture on Youtube, where Randall explicitly says he does not get his ideas from Graeber) and that Graeber/MMT-comparison is a CATO obsession. The only other person piling onto this MMT critique involving someone MMT doesn't academically cite is a blogger named David Henderson https://www.econlib.org/archives/2012/07/hummel_on_graeb.html Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverting without coming to talk page on this will result in needless edit wars. We're right here Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't see it, but I dropped the Graeber part, I was quoting Wray, not him. Wray said that "Barter never existed". Also a few other problems with the part you wrote.

Adam Smith isn’t the father of the free market thinking. As Robert Heilbroner said, The Wealth of the Nations might be a masterpiece, but it isn’t an original book. Indeed, Smith compiled ideas that already existed on is book, and many free markets, like Mandeville Cantillon, Turgot and Quesney predates him.

The Gish Gallop that tries to give more credit to MMT theory on the origin money doesn't convince me. CATO institute aren’t the only ones that lambasted MMT on the subject. I didn’t even know that they had ever talked about MMT, let alone Graeber. Criticism of their theory is almost universal. Other sources (ie. every History book ever) should be included. The entry looks like an attempt to give the MMT theory on this subject more credit than it really has. It doesn’t even quote authors that disagree with MMT.

As for Keynes, the man said the following words:

“”Thus the age of money had succeeded to the age of barter as soon as men had adopted a money of account. And the age of chartalist or State money was reached when the State claimed the right to declare what thing should answer as money to the current money of account—when it claimed the right not only to enforce the dictionary but also to write the dictionary.

As for the “ridiculous notion that markets are natural”, I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying that markets were created by the ruling class? Because that doesn’t make sense. If you read the free market authors from the XVIII they were describing the markets, not making prescriptions on what the government should or not do. Or, as Adam Ferguson said, markets are the product of the human action, but not of the human design. They are, in other words, older than “free market thinking”.

Markets weren’t designed, they arose where the institutions allowed them to. Does that make them natural? It depends on what you call natural. Scholars usually compare markets with language. Of course, things have changed since the Scottish Enlightenment, and now markets are somehow implemented the decisions that politicians make and academic beliefs, but that’s not how it was created in the first place. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As for what you reverted for being "Austrian", I didn't know David Dollar and Acemoglu are Austrians. Thank god, there are no Austrian pseudoeconomists on the World Bank and on MIT as far as I know. I'll revert that part because it was an arbitrary decision that you took and even your explanation doesn't make sense. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Adam Smith isn’t the father of the free market thinking."

Good point, changed it to "a father"

"The Gish Gallop"

It's cited a bunch because that's the only thing to resort to as arguing on personal opinions on the subject all day won't yield anything, and not trying to convince anyone. If you want to add critics, please stop the essaying and cite the exact critic without extrapolation.The more people disagree, the more important citing claims are. I could only find CATO and that blog after an hour of research. There's probably more and if it presents any new info go ahead and add it.

"Can't say something is natural because natural can mean different things"

Disagree, most people mean it to mean what would happen in pre-historical conditions, and it's clear that's what it means in the context of the surrounding sentences, but will change it to something more specific, and more neutral to stop the edit wars. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are still interested in essaying on contested material instead of using direct citations, RW has an Essay: prefix that would kindly suggest you use for a new page, like here https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Palaeos Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of the reason why citation is so important for this stuff as it's arguing over history and this is an extremely obscure topic, it's easier to just cite the relevant people's full opinions. Which in your case would be a step up from linking offhanded comments in Youtube vids. If it's your opinion that barter economies existed, then go ahead and cite who, where and who said so. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

One more thing, reading that excerpt, it does seem Keynes may has differences with MMT, and you are free to add that properly, but to use that to insinuate that this has an application to modern times in Keynes' view would be disingenuous as right after that quote you linked he said,

“”To-day all civilised money is, beyond the possibility of dispute, chartalist

—Keynes, after that sentence you linked

Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed the Keynes claim, as you were right on that Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't clear when I said lots of people disagree on that. In fact I meant something entirely different. When I said that lots of people critized MMT on the subject I wanted to say that most of historians, economists and economic historians disagree on them. I wanted to mention Wray (in fact, I still intend to mention him alone) because he did say "Barter didn't exist", which is an absurd since evidence of barter is quite strong. Ok, on his most formal studies he didn't say that, but it's on the video I posted. As for Keynes, I posted that excerpt that I read on his Treatise on Money many many years ago so I don't remember 100% so I probably won't be talking about him before re-reading the whole chapter at least 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you read the literature from Wray that I linked he is very clear that when he says "barter" he means "barter economies". Same with other economists mentioned and Caroline Humphrey. This Youtube video comment is not even a point as the lecture is in the context of economies. It's already mentioned in the article that the barter story is the mainstream/accepted/popular story, but we can be more clear on that if you want, by adding 'heterodox economics' in the lede or by being more clear in that sectionNeiltyson1fan (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

With regard to your Youtube link, you seem hung up with taking it in bad faith. It would be more productive for your position to cite direct criticism of MMTs line of thought rather than bad faith or correlational essaying. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Now You're calling me an "Austrian 4channer". I didn't post "my" opinion, I posted the mainstream consensus (that by the way, doesn't like Austrian very much, neither do I, in fact I despise them). I posted as sources a book that was written by a MIT and a Chicago professor, I forgot to post another by Douglass North, a Nobel prize laureate, a classical article written by a Bird economist, and two studies made by Sweden and French government. And yet you said that's "Austrian". Honest question, have you ever read an economics textbook that wasn't written by a MMTer? Because the idea that institutions is the key to growth and fiscal reponsability is a key to good institution was indeed advanced by some austrians, but it's not "only" an Austrian thing (that's the reason I didn't post an article by Boettke or Holcome). If I was pushing the Austrian POV, I would say that even if the prices are not rising the growth of money supply is already the inflation, the prices are just the sympton. Yes, that's what they believe, but since I despise Austrians I'm not posting about them. I know you really want this article to be pro-MMT, but it's quite arrogant to say that the mainstream view is an opinion written by a BoN. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Around the exact time you were editing here, someone was spamming anti-semitic stuff here, maybe that wasn't you, regardless....

... I wrote a bunch of paragraphs of criticism of MMT on the main page! If you have another criticism, please make it a good faith argument and if it's contested, then with good citations. There's tons of good criticisms of MMT, which now takes almost half the article, but 'muh inflation' while citing Hayeck is somewhere near the bottom of the underside of the barrel. We are nowhere near an inflation problem, and haven't been for probably our entire lives, and there's been massive deficit spending almost every year since Clinton, assuming you live in the USA. If you live in an impoverished country, the article already states MMT is shitty in that respect Neiltyson1fan (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I did quote Hayek (not Hayeck), my point was to show how even the "good" Austrians (if such thing exist) know that it was painfully obvious that the government should provide public goods and arguing otherwise is an absurd (in other words I criticized laissez faire economics 'using the most important of the Austrians). And inflation is a good criticism of MMT, just like its incapacity of creating good institutions that guarantee property rights. Oh, and by the way, MIT is not a good citation but wordpress is? 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What was the MIT citation for? The weird detour about Sweden and Chile is unnecessary given the size of the article rn. Who in MMT ever made claims about Sweden's deficit spending levels? I remember one or two prominent MMTers stating Norway didn't need huge deficits because of their trade surplus, but they don't seem to venture much into Scandinavian commentary, mostly USA, Argentina, and Italy from what I've seen so far Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

But devils advocate with your additions, Let's assume that 1) MMT claims to be a "solution to all problems" (which it doesn't), and that it claims to be a prescriptive theory (which it doesn't), then let's assume MMT also said Sweden doesn't deficit spend enough (a hypothetical), the fact that Sweden could benfit from more deficit spending in theory, if they are running a trade deficit isn't exactly a criticism of MMT, and this is a windy detour that would go best in an Essay: page Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The MIT quote was the Acemoglu's book. They don't comment, I believe, because it cannot be explained by their theory, and shows that you can have a huge welfare state and be one of the most fiscal responsable countries in the world at the same time (though when you depart too much from fiscal responsability you face the same problems the rest of the world does). That's the point of the article from the Sweden Central Bank I posted. Again, I'm not posting my opinion, I'm posting the opinion that those guys from Harvard, MIT, Chicago, Columbia, Princeton, Standford, Oxford, etc believe is the correct one. You don't need to agree with them, but saying it doesn't have credit is too much. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What does trade defficit has to do with MMT?2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I know, MMTers love to say how they theory is not prescriptive, but since it caught the attention of politicians this claim ceased to be truth (though if you want my honest opinion it never was). So yes, MMT in 2021 (maybe not when it was actually "new") does advocate for larger government expenditures and deficits and believe that the money supply can grow when compared to what is now. And this is pretty much what mainstream economists believe it's garbage. That's my point. Maybe I wasn't clear enough (again, I speak English as a secondary language). Do you really think it's not fair criticism?2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

MMT and "fiscal responsibility"

"What does trade deficit has to do with modern monetary theory?" asks anon IP

"So yes, MMT in 2021 (maybe not when it was actually "new") does advocate for larger government expenditures and deficits" says anon IP

MMT typically states that monetarily sovereign and developed countries with a consistently large trade surplus can and often should also run budget surpluses (what you'd call ""Fiscally responsible""). This has to do with sectoral balances. Consistently large trade surpluses, according to MMT act as a potential inflation mechanism due to pushing the country beyond it's labor limits. In other words, both a trade surplus and a budget deficit is generally the combination that puts the most pressure on domestic labor. According to MMT, a really general outline is... in monetarily sovereign nations: Budget deficits generally encourage labor, budget surpluses generally discourage labor. Trade deficits generally discourage labor, trade surpluses generally encourage labor. Trade deficits act as a drain on labor encouraged by budget tightening. Budget loosening acts to encourage labor from what you'd probably call trade "irresponsibility". According to the MMTer Bill Mitchell http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=2418:

“”Some readers have written in and asked about whether Norway behaves like a modern monetary economy after they read the New York Times article titled Thriving Norway Provides an Economics Lesson. The short answer is yes but this is a case that 'raises interesting issues about the way the government and non-government sectors interact and how sustained economic growth and high employment can be accompanied by a budget surplus. Yes, it is possible but atypical. In this blog I provide the explanation. Using the sectoral balance framework, we can say that a current account surplus (X – M > 0) allows the government to run a budget surplus (G – T < 0) and still allow the private domestic sector to net save (S - I) > 0. In fact, the budget surplus is ensuring that the total net spending injection to the economy matches the spending gap derived from the desire to save. If the government tried to run deficits in this case, then spending overall would be too large relative to the real capacity of the economy and inflation would result.

—Bill Mitchell

Ultimately MMT is more nuanced than "fiscal responsibility/irresponsibility", you need to define what you mean by that how deficit spending would change whatever particular situation you are thinking of. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC) MMTers also advocate budget surpluses in extreme cases of private sector borrowing to purchase labor, for example, Mosler supported the budget surplus in the latter half of the Clinton years for that reason, as a counter-cyclical mechanism to private-debt-fueled spending. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you're mixing trade deficit with fiscal deficit. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, did you read the quote? According to MMT, budget surpluses can act as a drain on demand for work that would otherwise be present in a country with chronically large trade surpluses and a trade deficit. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds absurd to me, trade deficts aren't indicators of good nor bad economy alone. In any case, I don't see why the mainstream theory on institutions cannot be used to criticize MMT on a criticism section. And by the way, Sweden was just an exemple to make things clear, the quantitative data is in the World Bank article I posted. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of it, or whether it's correct or not, this article is predicated on a basic understanding of MMT, and this is just one example of how MMT doesn't offer a one-size-fits-all (like "always run deficits"), but rather a contextual approach to the overall economy. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the "always run deficits" is pretty much a stample in the economy nowdays, so I doubt any MMTer will support a fiscal adjust in US or UK, for instance. Sweden is one of the few countries with a budget surplus. And I'll ask again. The importance of institutions is the basic explanation on how countries grow. Most, if not all MMTers in the political branch (albeit the academic branch is not that different, even if they like to pretend they are) are asking for more government expediture and, yes, an increase of the money supply. Both things are bad for the institutions and do not, according to the mainstream interpretation, cause development. Why it shouldn't be on the page?

You are directing the conversation in a million different directions, by not specifying what you mean. I already showed how MMT does not always advocate for deficits in the USA or in Scandinavia. If you have a question, please be specific, and with your additions, please try to make them specific. MMT does not say "always run deficits", and I"ve already shown that. You can run in circles all you want to try to make me say it says that, but it simply does not say that, even if it were a prescriptive theory to maintain high employment and GDP. Your only good contribution to the article was a clarification about Keynes that doesn't deserve more than a sentence. A good starting point or adding to an article is 1) understanding the subject at hand 2) double checking what the subject actually says when challenged and 3) engaging with specific things about that subject rather than essaying around a few second clips and caricatures you saw. You frequently manage to avoid all three. There's not much reason to continue wasting time on lazy additions.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Now we're finally reaching the Calvinball problem. "Does not always advocate". You do know those are weasel words, right? Nor I said Mainstream always advocates for fiscal surplus. Now, does MMT advocates an even larger fiscal deficit than the one we already have in US at least? Many do, even if they pretend they don't. Judging a policy on its results, not on its objectives in the first thing we learn when we're analyzing public policies. And yes, the MMT prescriptions are bad to our institutions according to the mainstream. Your only contribution to the discussion was showing how mainstream critics don't really understand it and attack strawmans. A good way to study a subject is: check what most specialists think, not what the fringe ones believe it's true. 2 Read their criticism on the fringe. 3 Try to undestand why the fringe proponents still believe the mainstream is wrong (usually, they didn't understand it). You failed at all three. There's no reason for someone with little to no knowledge on the subject that wants to disregard evidence because of their ideological views to contribute to a wiki. My sources are the greatest minds of our time, yours are Wordpress. And you conplain about YouTube. I was being polite with you and I even overlooked most of your mistakes, but since you're going to be so arrogant I'll be more frankly from now on. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Since you were incapable of explaining how the mainstream criticism on the effects of MMT over the institutions, caused by their disdain over property rights and effects on macroeconomic stability I'm adding that part again by tomorrow. If you want to, you can explain on the article what's the MMT answer on that. (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sectoral balances are essential to understanding MMT. Have you not seen that sectoral balance sheet they wave around at every turn? It includes the foreign trade balance as the three measurements. You are expressing a severe lack of knowledge on the subject and an extreme desire to POV push, by trying to make me assert MMTers always advocate for deficits despite being shown otherwise. A lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't make everyone else wrong, that's evidence of narcissism on your part, not theology on the part of others. Sorry, if you don't understand it, you don't understand it, and there's nothing I can do but ask you do read more into it or abstain from parts of the subject which you haven't looked into beyond commentary or your own personal thoughts on a caricature. I kept the Calvinball thing in because it's at least entertaining and a common/notable criticism, even though I don't agree with it. There's some good criticisms of MMT, but it is true that many people use MMT as a projection of their own pet theories/interests/complaints, that have little to nothing to do with MMT.

The vast majority of your additions have been arguments from authority and "well if you agree with x, you should know that y associates with x but is not the same as x!!". These are not good arguments, and are often logical fallacies... You keep trying to bring me down to your level, to make the entire article about academic authority. Sorry, not happening. You can either put good faith and empirical effort into the subject or get reverted. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I said: "no, MMTer don't always advocate for deficts, but they don't need to, because when they do (and more important, the way they do), we already have a problem. Is my English really that bad that you didn't understand it? T And once again its not "my" POV at all, unfortunately I don't work on the World Bank, they are the ones that said that my points are problems. You said that MMTers don't always advocate for deficits even though I don't remember saying they did. But are you going to deny many MMTers want, right now, an even bigger deficit than the one US faced over the last few years? And that mainstream is complaining about US deficit since it was fairly smaller? he discussion right now is: I say MMT has a problem. You counter-argument is: but they have an answer to that problem! My rebuttal is: their answer is not enough. The only solution I see is adding both points on the article. I've already posted empirical evidence, but I guess you were too lazy to open the links I've posted, or maybe you didn't understand them (indeed, they're heavy on Math and I don't blame you if you didn't as I also have a hard time reading them). 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Argument. from. authority. arguments. are. not. good. arguments. And correlation does not equal causation, and when you are told why, you should engage with the argument. In the case of inflation, it would be because MMT only makes the inflation claim in question for developed countries with a non-pegged, government monopolized currency, which automatically excludes dozens of countries. Even if the correlation was valid, it still does not equal causation. So instead of conflating correlation with causation, and making arguments from authority, how about you spend some more time on the subject, and then see if the article is accurate on the subject, rather than trying, over and over to say that the subject is heterodox, which is well known, and I also put in the first sentence so that you can get your point across. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The last part of how you contribute to articles shows why you will not have a fun time on RationalWiki. Referring to where you said, "Try to undestand why the fringe proponents still believe the mainstream is wrong (usually, they didn't understand it)." We don't care how mainstream something is, but rather how accurate the article is on something. This is not neoliberal wiki, or anti-minority wiki, this is an anti-pseudoscience, pro-rationalist, anti-crank wiki, including when the mainstream is sometimes wrong, if it is. That you admit you consciously conflate minority opinion with crank as part of your decision making process on rationality is worrying. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

But I didn't say the mainstream is always correct. At all. I just said that most of criticism made by layman is usually a result of ignorance on the subject. I asked you earlier and you didn't answer. Have you ever read a mainstream textbook? Oh, and by the way, I didn't say we should put this because it's the mainstream POV, I said we should put it because it's an important critic. You said we shouldn't because, hey, MMT has an answer for that!. Sorry, but you're being irrational. Oh, and by the way, the articles I posted don't imply that correlation=causation. Acemoglu even said once that lack of correlation doesn't mean lack of causation. Their models are far more complex.. Indeed, a lot more complex than yelling "Japan!" every time someone asks evidence. If you disagree with their methodology, you can explain what's wrong with the sources. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Japan and the USA and Canada and the UK etc are evidence that consistent, yearly deficit spending does not necessarily lead to runaway inflation. Japan is simply the best example. This aspect of MMT is a strongsuit. I have some examples of good cheap-shots at MMT, but these are bad even as cheap-shots, as they are inaccurate criticisms. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, first things first, qualitative evidence is(ie mentioning four or five countries) is questionable evidence (see Dollar article, that uses hundreds of countries). Second. I didn't say higher deficits cause higher inflation. At all. Higher deficits can have many outcomes in the long term, some can happen at the same time. 1 The government starts to spend less. 2 The government will just borrow more money. 3 The government will default. 4 The goverment will raise taxes. 5 Economic growth will allow the country to spend some more. 6 The government will expand the supply of money. Only the last one will probably cause inflation, while 1 and 4 might cause deflation, and 3 can go both ways. The problem on fiscal deficit wasn't inflation. The problem of fiscal defict is that it lower the savings, raises the interest rate, reduces public and private investment... Not inflation. I honestly dont't know how you came up with the conclusion that my argument is that MMT's case for deficit will lead to inflation. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

With regards to the government default subject, putting burden of proof on a negative claim in a wiki talk page is bad faith. It's well known that negative claims are nearly impossible to prove without a doubt. Insinuating there's a method to do so on a wiki talk page is bad faith. MMT says that there are no developed, monetarily sovereign countries that have involuntarily defaulted on their currency. This is a negative claim. If you know of a developed, monetarily sovereign country that has involuntarily collapsed it's currency, ever, then go ahead and prove it. All you'd have to do first is name single a country and time, instead of asking me in a bad faith way to go over every single country in the history of time.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

And better yet, with regards to the wiki article, you don't even need to prove anything yourself. The criticism added to the main page can be completely wrong and if it's at least directly cited to someone and relevant to MMT's actual claims, it's fine to add Neiltyson1fan (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a very weak reasoning. Saying that something never happened doesn't mean it cannot happen, especially when we have such a limited scope of countries and time. How many countries are in the game? Why didn't they default? Maybe because they have institutions that acted before things got out of control (that pretty much sums up the economic history of the 80's 90's in fact). Usually eliminating a primary deficit and having only a total deficit is enough (having a surplus is even better but it is not required in 99% of the cases). You're the one saying that correlation=causation. On the other hand, again, the mainstream agrees that no monetarily sovereign countriy will actually defaults. It will just send the bills to the people, sometimes raising taxation, sometimes butchering social programs, sometimes expanding the money supplies, Again, most MMTers don't really grasp the mainstream criticism on their views. Of course the government can do what MMTers are saying. But should it? No! That's the point of the criticism. By the way, your whole post sounded like a Chewbacca Defense since it doesn't adress my objections. And it is an actual claim. Again, do you deny that many MMTers believe that the US goverment should spend even more? Do you deny that many MMTers believe that the American monetary base should be bigger? Do you deny that mainstream economists believe this is bad for the instituions and they find the solution gave by MMT wanting? 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to add property rights, that MMTer don't seem to respect very much. In order to fulfill your pride, you will have to give an explanation at how MMT does not affect these three independent points: inflation, deficit and property rights. Not only how MMTers answer these points (I'm A-ok with their responses on the article), but also how these criticism doesn't exist on the mainstream. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Why didn't currency monopolists default on the currency they issue themselves?"

MMT says that countries with a non-pegged government monopolized currency (monetarily sovereign countries) cannot involuntarily default because they can always issue money to satisfy whatever debt or payment they want, unlike a country that has not monopolized their currency, like Greece and the Euro. Monetarily sovereign countries can also borrow in their own currency and because they are currency monopolists, they can always pay the money back to themselves, making the mere act of borrowing from themselves a non-issue. They don't need revenue or a surplus to make payment because they are the monopolist of thier own currency. Monopoly is easy to understand, and it should be for you as well.

"do you deny that many MMTers believe that the US goverment should spend even more?"

Part of why the additions you made about inflation were reverted was because you were too vague. But since you have now chosen to specify a place and time, specifically the USA right now, then yes, of course, most economists including MMTers advocate deficit spending during economic recessions. If you want me to describe when MMTers think deficit spending won't cause inflation, I'll also explain that to you now. They typically say such a thing would not cause inflation if there is spare productive capacity, a trade deficit, and the spending is aimed at employment, rather than taking people out of work. Some, but not most MMTers, also discourage against high deficits during years of low unemployment and extremely negative domestic private sector balances as a percentage of GDP, as long as the amount of financial assets taken out of the economy for counter-cyclical measures is introduced right after a private debt bubble burst. Also, during rare times of full productive capacity, MMTers say inflation can be mitigated while deficit spending through price controls and taxation. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Do you deny that many MMTers believe that the American monetary base should be bigger?"

In the article, which it appears you haven't read given you are asking really bad faith questions for someone you know is reviewing every edit, it explains that MMTers reject the quantity theory of money, so this is a non-issue to them. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Do you deny that mainstream economists believe this is bad for the instituions and they find the solution gave by MMT wanting?"

No, because I added the word heterodox in the lede sentence, look up what the word means. I also explained in the origin of money section that the MMT position is not mainstream, and I also put in the article that close to 0 prominent academic economists tout MMT. But again, you are obsessed with argument from authority, and again, that is not a good argument, you can write here for months how great you think it is that MMT isn't mainstream, and I'll keep telling you, day after day, that the argument from authority is not a good argument.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your entire post is a quote mining and a strawman. You didn't answer a single of my points. I honestly don't even know where to start. Once again, your argument is: "MMT claims to have a solution for that, therefore we don't have to put this point". You said that right now even mainstream economists advocate for more deficit. Albeit that's partially true I was talking about normal circunstances, not a fucking pandemic. I wasn't clear enough on this point, so I admit it was my mistake.

"Monetarily sovereign countries can also borrow in their own currency and because they are currency monopolists, they can always pay the money back to themselves, making the mere act of borrowing from themselves a non-issue."

Already answered. Mainstream economists agree on this one. It is a positive claim. The differences only arise on the normative realm, at that's the issue here. If the government does this, the country will face many problems. No one denies that monetarily sovereign countries can borrow in their currency. It doesn't mean they should. It is, therefore an issue and should be on the criticism part, even if you think its bad criticism.

"In the article, which it appears you haven't read given you are asking really bad faith questions for someone you know is reviewing every edit, it explains that MMTers reject the quantity theory of money, so this is a non-issue to them."

Of course it isn't an issue to them. MMTer are not the ones that criticizes MMT. Who brought the issue were the mainstream economists.

If you don't deny MMT is bad for the institutions according to mainstream economists why don't you want to see this on the article?

"But again, you are obsessed with argument from authority"

Just re-read what I said about it some time ago. I won't explain again why I'm not using any form of ad verecundiam here. Stop this strawman/Chewbacca Defense.

The problem is that you can't even understand my criticis. You spent the entire night saying I was talking about inflation when I even admitted that these policies could clause deflation! I'm not sure I understand whyyou think these points shouldn't be on the article. It is because you disagree with the mainstream and you think the answers from the MMTers are already enough or is there something else? 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)~

MMT and mainstream acceptance

Regarding IP editors comments:

"You said that right now even mainstream economists advocate for more deficit. Albeit that's partially true I was talking about normal circunstances, not a fucking pandemic. I wasn't clear enough on this point, so I admit it was my mistake." --IP editor

Then was it your exact question? lol, don't make me assume it for you Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"No one denies that monetarily sovereign countries can borrow in their currency. It doesn't mean they should. It is, therefore an issue and should be on the criticism part, even if you think its bad criticism." --IP editor

Then tell us why you think it shouldn't. A monopolist of a fiat currency can always satisfy payments to itself. It doesn't need the money from ayone to pay back the loan it took from itself. It doesn't operatioanlly need to borrow from foreign countries to do so, and it doesn't operatioanlly need to tax to do so. This is because it is the issuer of the currency. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Of course increasing the money supply isn't an issue to MMT. MMTer are not the ones that criticizes MMT. Who brought the issue were the mainstream economists." --IP editor

If you want to say that most economists advocate the quantity theory of money, if it's true (which it probably isn't given most regular Keynesians also reject it), then cite it and add it in an appropriate section. That's fine.

Your current addition is garbage because it automatically assumes the quantity theory of money is true in an attempt to debunk MMT, (" this was analyzed based on the theory of monetary quantity" from your Dinh Doan Van article).(The quantity theory of money is primarily associated with Milton Friedman, so if you are not Austrian, I suppose you are Chicago school or some monetarist offshoot variant)

Earlier in the MMT page here, the page shows how MMT claims to reject the quantity theory of money. Therefore, in order for the article to not repeat itself, as the article already established that MMT conflicts with the quantity theory of money, one would need to properly criticize the methodology/logic in which MMT rejects the quantity theory of money. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You're still making the strawman that I think MMT is wrong because mainstream economists disagree with it. I don't see any reason to answer to your post, even though it's overflowing with mistakes since it doesn't have anything to do with with my point. The only point I'd like to make is: the US deficit was growing steadily before the pandemic for half a decade before the pandemic. MMTers believe there's still room for more deficit. Mainstream economists don't. Therefore it is criticism on MMT, should and' will be on this page. B-b-but MMT already debunked this! Your POV is irrelevant on the subject, the criticism still exists. Moreover, the deficit is only one of the three points I raised. And by the way, you don't know what "monetarism" or "Chicago" is. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are a proponent of the quantity theory of money as you linked it as an "accurate criticism of MMT", which is a right-wing and inaccurate monetarist notion born out of the Chicago school of economics. I'm tired of your endless bad faith arguing and dishonesty. Given you don't want to engage with the methology in which Keynesians, more or less MMT, rejects the quantity theory of money, I only have to say this: Add garbage and you'll be reverted, I'm out of the talk page. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine, so I'll revert again and we'll have a editions war.2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Think I'm done here on talk

On talk... Too exhasting. There's a barrage of anti-semitic trolls (see redacted talk page history) and Friedman-esque monetarism, as well as endlessly repeating that MMT isn't mainstream, engaging in bad faith arguments, and showing a basic lack of understanding of the topic of the article. They keep repeating that MMT isn't mainstream as if it's some knock-out-punch, and posing as purely neutral observers with no POV while spouting Friedmanesque garbage as vaguely as possible (for reasons unknown). It's in the lede that MMT isn't mainstream, that is what 'heterodox' means. I recommend that neoliberals take a look at prior talk page stuff before adding garbage to the page. I can't keep this page quality by myself, (and this page is as of Jan 3rd, is an improvement of the prior article here https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_Monetary_Theory&diff=2260419&oldid=2243688) So would encourage new people to jump in who also actually understand the topic, unlike the IP editors here, whether it be people who like or dislike the theory.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

And you keep repeating that the fact that mainstream dislikes MMT is relevant to the points I raised. Amazing 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like you're engaging in a Gish Gallop strawman. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

About this edit-warring

Look, I don't have an agenda here. I don't want to link up with BoNs. There's plenty of criticism about MMT, and I feel it's only right if it is included in this article. If the criticism is outlandish or refutable, then create a new section and tear it to bits. I made sure to remove opinionated, unclear, or politically charged language in the section, and present in a relatively neutral way what many people believe. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to say either way, but this article is bad, and inserting monetarist bullshit into it is just making it worse. — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This talk page currently covers all of the right-wing, inaccurate monetarist garbage the IP editors were trying to force in, as Oxy pointed out. After they refused to engage with the material and kept repeating the same things, sometimes peppered with Anti-Semitic blurtings now reverted on the talk page, the situation has been dealt with by Oxy. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(EC, responding to Oxy)First, I'm not entirely sure that it's monetarist (unless you want to rip a move from the conservative's playbook and call everything you don't like monetarist), and second, so what if it is? If it's really flimsy, awful stuff, then providing a rebuttal inside the article should be a piece of cake. The way I view it, removing criticism without reason shows that the theory in question may be fragile and weak. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Reasoning is on the talk page above for virtually every addition Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What addition? What I'm discussing are your rampant deletions. IveBeenFrank (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The deletions in reference are to a right-wing libertarian troll who would not engage with either the talk page material in good faith referencing deleted additions by him, not engaging with Keynesian or MMT rejection of the quantity theory of money, and very odd behaviour, including him or him or whoever was working with him on the Anti-Semitic reverted talk page stuff while disagreeing with Keynesianism or offshoot variants in the anti-semitic rants Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

So, because you disagree about a certain criticism it shouldn't be on the topic? Milton Friedman, George Stigler , Anna Schwarts, Scott Sumner and Phillip Cagan aren't among the sources I've quote, so I don't see any "monetarist bullshit" here.

I mentioned that one: MMT may lead to a bigger deficit. 2 MMT may lead to higher inflation rates. 3 MMT is bad for property rights. All these institutions are important according to some economists to development and growth. The counter-argument is: MMTers already adressed on this subjects (not all of them, since Tyson remained silent over property rights). But because they answered and according to his POV they are right it shouldn't be on the topic? By the way, I hope I'm not the "Anti-Semitic troll" Tyson fan is talking about. Last but not least, aren't you banned from editing moonbattery articles, Oxy?2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your contributions are inaccurate right-wing monetarism, (and yes you've at times sourced such content, like with the Doan Van, D. addition, rather than just spouting it, see above talk referencing that) and random sources which do not directly address the topic, to support your own correlational essaying. You've been asked to engage with the critique of the 'quantity theory of money' rather than writing as if everyone agrees it is true. One can still add criticisms about MMTs approach to the quantity theory of money in a rational way, for example by citing someone criticizing MMTs rejection of the quantity theory of money, instead of repeating that MMT conflicts with it, which is already stated in the article in a big paragraph. You are continually evading points on the talk page in a bad faith manner, with the exception of an argument about Keynes, and so until you can engage with the talk page in a good faith manner, there isn't much reason for Oxy or I to unlock the page so you can add your (increasingly) watered down inaccurate monetarism while pretending to be a non-ideological observer. I'm done responding to you, 99% of your additions are inaccurate right-wing inflation/deficit fearmongering, unrelated personal attacks (such as now with Oxy), lies about your POV, and arguments to authority on a field that has failed the world now at least twice in ten years through historical global recessions. If you keep at this for weeks or whatever without getting banned again, it'd be best to cite people directly addressing MMT instead of dragging us all into arguments about your personal innacurate theories. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, what a rant. And a rather innacurate one. You just don't know what monetarism is, stop using a word you don't understand. Again, you're still repeating the "arguments to authority" to your strawman. You were even incapable of understanding the difference between the deficit criticism and the inflation criticism, and just ignored the property rights criticism. The sources I've posted might not mention the world "MMT" but they criticize policies that MMTers believe. I understand that you lost the discussion and are using some sort of ad balacum here. Oxy is banned from this kind of topic in case you don't know, she shouldn't even be here. Again, just because you disagree with a certain criticism doesn't mean it's not valid. Your only contribution to the discussiong is proving how you had never read about the subject. Just study a little bit more before building up such strong opinons. 2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57FB (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Together with your consistent spelling errors *on the main page*, unrelated personal attacks, lying about your personal views, lying about what monetarism is etc, there is no reason to unlock the page. That you are less anti-Semitic about this than people who you are saying are not you, but just happened to comment when you were angry, isn't much of an improvement, and so the page will stay locked until you can calm down Neiltyson1fan (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What does MMT have to do with property rights? None of the proposals that MMT advocates for involve abolishing private property. The Job Guarantee, deficit spending, the floating exchange rate, and zero interest rate policies don't really do anything to take away physical stuff that people have.--Omni-Democratist (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

2804:14C:5B72:856C:E4A5:71F4:2DF5:57F has now posted under 4 IPs in under a few hours for a small 3 day ban by Oxy and Circ and is threatening coop on my talk page for Oxy and Circs ban initial ban of his, and then my ban of his for ban evasion, and engaging in clear concern trolling on talk pages. Not feeding the troll, but posting a notice of a proxy/sock abuser trying to make people fight over exactly which sock are his. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The "criticism" sections of this article are pretty bad

This article is overall embarrassing, but the two "criticism" sections are the worst.

The "MMT vs other economic schools" has at least three big problems. It crams together the Austrian and Chicago Schools on the very topic that they disagree the most: money. It should be MMT vs Austrian School considering how distant is Chicago from them. Whoever wrote the phrase "MMT vs Austrian/Chicago-school probably had never read a line on the subject. By far the biggest mistake on the article. "MMT vs other Post-Keynesian schools" doesn't make sense as well. Post-Keynesian might have some branches, but it doesn't make sense to separate them as different schools. The Baker paragraph also seems quite wrong to me. I think it should be removed, considering how Palley came here himself and said it was wrong.

The " Criticism" topic is also bad. It spends a way too much time talking about the Austrians. It is also very self-indulgent in my opinion. Indeed, it criticizes MMT critics more than MMT itself. My impression after reading it is that it was written by someone that believes that the main flaw on MMT is the fact that it's not progressive enough. Yet, there's no Marxist critic here, even if they had written some interesting stuff on the subject. VoiceOf (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to change/add to it, just be sure to use respected sources when you can. We occasionally get some idealogues passing through here, so any fixes to our website are welcome. CoryUsar (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Have no interest in discussing the differences btw Chicago and Austrian economics, given that strays too far from the topic, but if you want we can just remove, "Chicago school", from that. Chicago/Austrians don't seem to have major differences in criticisms of MMT though. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Another major mistake: "MMT does not hold a mainstream monopoly on the opinion that federal debt does not necessarily lead to inflation.". The entire section of MMT and inflation is bad but this is appalling. The writer is confusing fiscal policy and monetary policy. I believe he meant that paying deficits by expanding the money supply won't necessarily lead to higher inflation rates. It mentions a Forbes article. Why not Milton Friedman? Because I've never ever seen an economist saying that higher deficit and/or an increase in the monetary base will "necessarily lead to inflation". This is a strawman that I sometimes see MMT supporters saying and I’m not surprised to see this here again. The Austrians are a particular case, they believe that the increase in the money supply is inflation, but they don't believe the prices will always rise when there's more money, so the part of the topic covering them is also wrong. Prices are, in other words, irrelevant to their views on inflation.

The "This is a form of empiricism that bothers Austrians a lot" is also wrong. Similarities of Austrians and Post-Keynesian economists on the methodology department were recognized by both sides and their critics. On "Macroeconomics", a MMT texbook, the authors say: "Austrians (like heterodox economists) admit that our expectations about the unknowable future can be wrong. Our mistakes disrupt the movement of the economic system toward equilibrium and cause business cycle."

After the first paragraph the entire section shoul be re-written. VoiceOf (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

> "I've never ever seen an economist saying that higher deficit and/or an increase in the monetary base will "necessarily lead to inflation""

"[The economist] Milton Friedman said sustained growth in the money supply leads to inflation" https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/monetarism.asp

Japan has had unprecendented sustained money growth (M1, M2, and M3) since we went off the gold standard and has been battling deflation for decades. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MYAGM1JPM189N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MYAGM2JPM189S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MYAGM3JPM189N Will change relevant sentence to 'Japan shows that sustained growth in the money supply does not necessarily lead to inflation', regardless. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also rewrote that section to focus less on the forbes article, which now reads:

MMT does not hold a mainstream monopoly on the rejection of monetarism, or the idea that sustained money growth necessarily causes inflation.https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/?sh=6b6ccf5942f5 https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/rapid-money-supply-growth-does-not-cause-inflation https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/09/05/increasing-the-money-supply-does-not-create-inflation/</ref> In fact, the belief that sustained money growth necessarily causes inflation has fallen out of academic favor in general, even though the microeonomic New Keynesian school is still academically dominant.<ref>https://vdoc.pub/documents/microeconomic-theory-old-and-new-a-students-guide-11e9j894ne60 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2509361 "monetarism has fallen out of favor and has been replaced by New Consensus Macroeconomics"

“”Monetarism has fallen out of favor because, among other things, it has been shown that neither basic assumption of the quantity equation holds—V is not constant and t he real economy, Q, is affected by changes in the money supply, M. But the quantity equation (and monetary theory) is a good example of how macroeconomic theory and policies arise directly from the model of a simple barter economy and the assumptions economists make to jump from there to a market economy with money and prices.

—Microeconomic Theory Old And New: A Student's Guide, by John Gowdy

Neiltyson1fan (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have primary sources that Friedman said that money growth necessarily causes inflation? Because I believe it contradicts his magnum opus, A Monetary History of the United States. The "monetarists aren't a fan of the real world because empiricist" rant also doesn't make lots of sense considering how his Essays in Positive Economics is still a backbone in the use of empiricism in economics. VoiceOf (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The idea that monetarism is out of fashon seems correct, most of the economists believe that inflation should be controlled by interest rates as far as I know.VoiceOf (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, the troll's back. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Voiceof, Due to the fact that Friedmanesque thinking is indeed more nuanced than how I first wrote it, I changed it to this

"According to MMT, inflation does not result from government spending in, "monetarily sovereign nations", or the size of the total supply of money. According to MMT, the availability of real resources in proportion to spending is the chief determinant of inflation.

Milton Friedman disciples, who often call themselves 'monetarists', usually assert to the contrary, that the size of the money supply in proportion to economic output is the chief determinant of inflation.https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/03/basics.htm https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/monetarism.asp

MMT does not hold a mainstream monopoly on the rejection of monetarism, or the rejection of the idea that large money growth necessarily causes inflation.https://vdoc.pub/documents/microeconomic-theory-old-and-new-a-students-guide-11e9j894ne60 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/05/14/money-growth-does-not-cause-inflation/?sh=6b6ccf5942f5 https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/rapid-money-supply-growth-does-not-cause-inflation Minsky, Hyman P. John Maynard Keynes, McGraw-Hill. 2008. p.2 https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/09/05/increasing-the-money-supply-does-not-create-inflation/ In fact, the belief that large money growth necessarily causes inflation has fallen out of academic favor in general, even though the microeonomic New Keynesian school is still academically dominant. "

“”Monetarism has fallen out of favor because, among other things, it has been shown that neither basic assumption of the quantity equation holds—V is not constant and the real economy, Q, is affected by changes in the money supply, M. But the quantity equation (and monetary theory) is a good example of how macroeconomic theory and policies arise directly from the model of a simple barter economy and the assumptions economists make to jump from there to a market economy with money and prices.

—Microeconomic Theory Old And New: A Student's Guide, by John Gowdy

And gave monetarism it's own section, away from debt hawkishness, even though lay proponents of Friedman conflate the two, and critics do as well to respond to those people Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. 2804:14C:5B72:8BC8:C0C0:DD09:1EE5:EF65 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also added that monetarists don't believe in inflation-as-a-result-of-business-monopolies-and-production-price-shocks (cost-push inflation), whereas modern Keynesians and MMT do, with citation Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Palley

Wasn't my decision to add Palley but rather that troll who got blocked. But read more into his work and clarified to say his main splitting hair with MMT (with regards to that section) seems to be whether banks are part of "government originated money" or not.

Also, if you believe private economic activity without government at all, can generate money for taxing, I'd classify that a, "tax first, spend later" philosophy, but removed that part and made it more specific with a citation so Palley should be fine with it, while it remaining accurate. If you aren't, please tell us why and cite accordingly if you are indeed him Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, this is the relevant Palley quote from, "WHAT’S WRONG WITH MODERN MONEY THEORY (MMT): A CRITICAL PRIMER, https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_fmm_imk_wp_44_2019.pdf

“”"As regards injecting state money to pay taxes, MMT is strictly wrong with its claim that the public cannot pay taxes until government has first spent. . In fact, the central bank is the source of such money. It can inject money into the system by buying existing government bonds, buying private sector assets, or by lending to private banks." --Thomas Palley

That sentence is used for this sentence in the current RationalWiki article

“”[Palley] argues that MMT is wrong that money ultimately comes from the state and cites central banks as a possible counter-example

Neiltyson1fan (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)