Blog-Reference
Tom Hickey maintains: “First, there is no such thing as bad publicity. It provides exposure anyway, and name recognition (‘brand identification’) is a good thing. Secondly, on the ‘first they ignore you’ metaphor, being attacked is a forward step that acts as confirmation that you are winning. I no longer link to most criticism of MMT, first, because it is stupid, and secondly, so as not give it exposure.”
This, obviously, is NOT the language of a scientist but of a propagandist, PR/Marketing professional, or social media troll. For a scientist, the question is always whether an assertion is provably true/false. For a political agenda pusher, the question is always how many followers/likes/clicks does an assertion generate? The truth value of an assertion is not an issue for a propagandist.
The problem with economists is that they claim to do science but that they have never been anything else than clowns and useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus. The major approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent and all got the foundational economic concept of profit wrong. The newcomer MMT is no exception.
Accordingly, the economic discussion has zero scientific content but is a more or less open smear. Bill Mitchell complains: “The mainstream economists and those who profess to be ‘free marketeers’ bring out their big guns pretty quickly ― inflation and socialism/ Stalinism. … More recently, those who claim to be on the ‘progressive’ side of the debate have become more vociferous in their attacks, sensing, I suspect, that MMT have supplanted their relevance as the defenders of the anti-neoliberal wisdom. These characters resort to all sorts of snide-type attacks ranging from accusations of anti-Semitism (which I have covered previously), siding with Wall Street, ‘America-first corporatist sycophants’ …, giving succour to fascists and the Alt-Right, and that sort of stuff.”
Accordingly, the philosopher Tom Hickey as chief information manipulator of the Mike Norman Blog simply filters “that sort of stuff” out as “stupid criticism” of MMT. Not only this, under the label of “stupid criticism” MMTers conveniently suppresses valid scientific refutation of MMT.
MMTers claim (i) that MMT is scientifically superior to mainstream economics, (ii) that MMT policy is for the benefit of WeThePeople, (iii) that MMTers are the real Progressives.
The fact is that all three claims are false. Like their mainstream colleagues, MMTers are too stupid for the elementary math that underlies macroeconomics. Therefore, the whole analytical superstructure of MMT is just as scientifically worthless as that of mainstream economics.
Scientifically, MMT is dead but politically it is very much alive. The MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation clearly benefits the Oligarchy because of the macroeconomic Profit Law’s logical implication Public Deficit = Private Profit. MMTers either do not understand the Profit Law or ignore/suppress the proof of the falsity of their sectoral balances equation which lacks the all-important balance of the business sector, i.e. profit.#1 MMTers are just as stupid/corrupt as mainstream economists as censors/ suppressors/manipulators in the econblogosphere (see #EconBlocker).
MMT is NOT Alt-Right or anything else of the usual silly smear. MMT is a relatively new political project that is driven under the mantel of Science and Progressiveness by scientifically incompetent/corrupt academics and promoted/sponsored by the Oligarchy.
It is NOT a lucky scientific event that: “Core MMT economists (and that means the original team plus those who came soon after but are prominent) are getting invitations to speak all around the world now as more and more people, organisations and government agencies are seeking to learn about MMT and its implications for them.” All this only proves that the Oligarchy has changed its marketing strategy. In personality terms, Paul Krugman’s worn-out “Conscience of a Liberal” is out and Stephanie Kelton’s “Birth of the People's Economy” is in.
In economics, the package ― or as Tom Hickey puts it the “brand identification” ― is currently changing but the product is the same since Adam Smith/Karl Marx: BS for WeThePeople.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
* Bill Mitchell’s blog
#1 For the full-spectrum refutation of MMT see cross-references MMT
***
REPLY to Matt Franko on Sep 12You ask: “Why would you seek to hold them accountable to the scientific methodology when they never said they are doing that in the first place?”
You are mistaken. Bill Mitchell and others claim that MMT is an objective scientific lens: “MMT is not a regime that you ‘apply’ or ‘switch to’ or ‘introduce’. Rather, MMT is a lens that allows us to see the true (intrinsic) workings of the fiat monetary system. It helps us better understand the choices available to a currency-issuing government. It is not a regime but an accurate perspective on reality. It lifts the veil imposed by neo-liberal ideology and forces the real questions and choices out in the open. In that sense, MMT is neither right-wing nor left-wing ― liberal or non-liberal ― or whatever other description of value-systems that you care to deploy.” #1, #2
Because they claim to do science, MMTers have to be judged according to well-defined scientific criteria. The outcome is that they fail already at basic math.
The real progress is that in these days Wall Street sends Stephanie Kelton and Bill Mitchell to bring Japan up to speed while in the old days, they sent Commodore Perry.
Japan, not to forget, is living proof that the MMT policy of deficit-spending/money-creation works to never dreamt of levels of public debt. MMT’s message for Japan is to continue ― as they say on Wall Street ― doing God’s work.
#1 YouTube MMT Is A Lens, Not A Regime
#2 MMT is just plain good economics
***
REPLY to Matt Franko on Sep 13You invoke the methodological invective Model-Platonism. There is no need to go into the finer point of economic methodology here. The point is that economists fail already at the elementary level of putting 2 and 2 together. For details see
► Econ 101: Economists flunk the intelligence test at the first hurdle
► Economics: No method to the madness
► How incompetent are economic methodologists? Very!
► For details of the big picture see cross-references Methodology
