4 responses to “MMT Is Not Distinct

  1. I don’t doubt those are my words, but I’m sure they sound a lot different in context. I personally care about a lot more than the mechanics, and I can assure you that Randy, Bill Mitchell, Warren, Mat Forstater, Scott F. and Pavlina do too. Understanding the operational stuff is important because of what you can *do* to with that understanding. Warren’s book is full of policy proposals, ranging from eduction to health care. Scott, Pavlina, Mat and Bill have written about environmental sustainability. Randy and I have written about Social Security and poverty. And, of course, we have all written about employment. The mechanics are merely the means — something like John Kenneth Galbraith’s Good Society awaits.

    • I agree with you. However, the common thread I see against MMT at present is the current orthodox economists running around saying something akin to ‘we have said the same thing for years’. We both know that there is a broad cross section of agreement with nearly all economics. It is the distinctions that count.

      And to be fair, they’re probably a slight modification of your words as I cleaned them up previously in a Google Group post so they did not come across as conversationally colloquial. I don’t believe I have removed meaning though, clearly I have some context otherwise you would not have commented.

      Compare my conversation with Stephen Koukoulas, former economic adviser to former PM Julia Gillard (both of the ‘Australian Left’) & technically still the incumbent government over at MNE and his more recent column on business spectator. The latter is a lot closer to our (yours and mine) shared view.

      To be clear with quoting your actual comment, the point of most of my recent pieces are exactly what you say:

      Understanding the operational stuff is important because of what you can *do* to with that understanding.

    • “The mechanics are merely the means — something like John Kenneth Galbraith’s Good Society awaits.”

      Exactly. This is the next step in the development of MMT as the new socio-economic paradigm to recover the Keynesian paradigm that was replaced by neoliberalism as a socio-economic political theory of the market society in replacement of the welfare society. The issue is whether labor is to be viewed as a commodity market on the same footing as other commodities or workers treated as human persons and without whose labor material resources have little or no economic value.

  2. Pingback: MMT Is Not Distinct | Modern Money Mechanics | ...

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s