On 2013-06-21, at 10:04 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > Doug Henwood <[email protected]> wrote: >> The funny thing about MMT is that if the bourgeoisie were so weakened that >> they'd roll over for this funny money nonsense, why not go whole hog and >> just expropriate the fuckers? Short of that, it's like fantasy baseball.< > > I have a hard time pinning down exactly what MMT is. But what's > specifically is wrong with it, Doug?
I'd also like to see Doug elaborate. They're self-described Keynesians or rather "post-Keynesian" devotees of Minsky and Abba Lerner. So they don't want to overthrow capitalism so much as reform it. They think the policy and decision making elites just don't "get" how the modern monetary system based on fiat currencies works, and they're on an educating mission. Their prescription for unlimited government spending until the economy reaches capacity and full employment doesn't seem qualitatively different than what Krugman and other liberal economists are saying. Insofar as they and liberals in general don't appreciate that social relations are essentially shaped by power rather than ideas, you could say they're playing fantasy baseball. But they have drawn a lot of attention in the economics blogosphere across the political spectrum and respectable economists like James Galbraith subscribe to their theories. As I'm not conversant as others on the list with some of the more ! arcane doctrinal disputes they've provoked, a critique of the theory rather than vilification would be much more helpful. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
