An MMT critique from the man who bailed out the banks. Others have already shares strong words about this. Some comments from me: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-ideological-bankruptcy-of-modern-monetary-theory?fbclid=IwAR2G23XaaIcKtNL6WveEvkNQY1Hvoz9A_RU29A8RoikvmDahscuikKckFfs
The “Monetary” in MMT refers to the fact that it is a description of the monetary system. Mervin is right to say that MMT highlights the importance of fiscal policy. “Monetary” still applies though. Also, he is right on BOE independence, that’s why MMTers oppose it.
He uses the word “print money” a lot which is a shame as it’s an obsolete term that confuses the message. “Create” might be better, assuming this is what he means. Further than that I don’t understand the logic here, how does this make it not a theory?
MMT argues that the deficit should be whatever it needs to be to maintain full employment. The strategy that MK outlines would seek to force the deficit down after the crisis accepting the unemployment (and poverty) cost that comes with it.
Finally, he states that the austerity of 2010 was (partly?) justified. The zero sum game is common amongst mainstream economists. The problem is w/o MMT they haven’t got an understanding of where the economy’s limits lie, so they imagine them to be entirely financial.