Read on Twitter
“The Deficit Myth: a review” by @CJFDillow
I wouldn’t characterise the review as negative, but I disagree with some of the complaints within.
As the title suggests, argues a lot of “The Deficit Myth” known to Old Keynesians. https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/07/the-deficit-myth-a-review.html
I wouldn’t characterise the review as negative, but I disagree with some of the complaints within.
As the title suggests, argues a lot of “The Deficit Myth” known to Old Keynesians. https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/07/the-deficit-myth-a-review.html
This comes down to what I am now referring to as the “narrow MMT”/“broad MMT” distinction.
“The Deficit Myth” is a popular book (in both senses), and is mainly covering “narrow MMT.” Narrow MMT does not cover all of macro, and a lot predates MMT.
http://www.bondeconomics.com/2020/07/what-is-mmt-short-version.html
“The Deficit Myth” is a popular book (in both senses), and is mainly covering “narrow MMT.” Narrow MMT does not cover all of macro, and a lot predates MMT.
http://www.bondeconomics.com/2020/07/what-is-mmt-short-version.html
I write more about the history behind MMT in my books. I also sell several orders of magnitude of copies of books less than “The Deficit Myth.”
The market is sending a very clear message: most people do not long-winded histories of the heterodox project.
The market is sending a very clear message: most people do not long-winded histories of the heterodox project.
I am one of the people who read more PK work courtesy of MMT (I was a Minsky fan before). I read various well-known PK authors, and my response invariably was: under all this literary blah-blah, what is useful?
The MMT project focussed on what was useful, and generated interest.
The MMT project focussed on what was useful, and generated interest.
Rather than sniping at MMT, heterodox econs need to accept that MMT is going to be a major pipeline to deliver interested readers.
Returning to the review, the question was: why did “we” forget about Functional Finance principles? The fact that “we” did is a pretty good indication of the inability of heterodox econs to get their act together politically.
The final footnote asks why European countries threw away their currency sovereignty? From this side of the Atlantic, some of us ask that question, and our answers are a lot different than what suggest.
Canada has free-floated almost the entire post-1950 period.
Canada has free-floated almost the entire post-1950 period.
Finally, the question of class-based political analysis. I am not going to argue that there is no class system in North America, but the tribal sympathies that exist in Europe don’t translate. Also, unclear how far one can take it macro - already too many pieces to analyse.
On the political side, Marxists were part of the Prairie Populist movements. Although they were good organisers, they were a political liability. At the end of the day, it was the Christian socialists/democrats who drove election wins, and Marxists dwindled to a joke fringe.
