Perspectives and Worries

Image credit.

I am in two minds as to whether I should start in this blog a series on Modern Monetary Theory  that is supposed to serve as a systematic and comprehensive account of this particular variant of modern (macro-)economics.

What speaks to the prospect is that MMT represents a pretty coherent body of economic reasoning with a high degree of applicability to fundamental as well as very concrete policy issues; it also provides an excellent critique of mainstream economics, and offers a useful platform for paradigmatic controversy. While MMT should always be discussed or presented in a way that remains open to reasonable criticism and falsification, whatever hic ups and flaws it may elicit,  I value it, quite in contrast to mainstream economics, as a coherent narrative capable of replacing the  adhockery and  bizarrely unrealistic and false assumptions underlying much of modern (policy-guiding) economic theory.

Of course, I do not know what problems, doubts and refutations I may encounter along the way of a comprehensive exposition. For time being, I feel attracted to MMT for its elegance (comprehensiveness), honesty (convincing questioning of mainstream economics), and relevance (a paradigm helpful in assessing important features of modern economic reality).

So far the pluses (see also the PS below). What about the minuses?

It is a huge task. Will I find the time and perseverance to carry it out? Do I have an angle to offer that makes sense and perhaps even adds a missing element to the prism of MMT expositions? I would like to start the exposition and arrange the chapters in the light of some of the fundamental premises underlying MMT — but have I thought through the theory deep enough to be able to devise a logical structure of this kind (explaining the doubts and criticisms of modern economics that MMT is built to address)?

Finally, a psychological hurdle: while I am convinced, at least for the time being, that MMT helps to identify and carry through vital improvements in the welfare of society, especially by explaining the role of fiscal space in bringing about advancements in human welfare that will be unavailable in its absence (avoidance and overcoming of severe economic crises, notably unemployment, and the provision of public goods), the way in which humans decide to make use of fiscal space is inherently controversial and MMT is not capable of settling the involved disagreements. 

You may argue from the point of view of MMT in favour of Green energy policies thinking they are desirable and help advance human welfare, but you may also come to diametrically opposed results. MMT does not help one in deciding whether global warming and the pushing of “renewable” is a matter of reason or folly. So, once you have got your economics reasonably right, you may still be prone to terrible error in your economic policy decisions.

I suppose, the zeal that drives me as an author used to be a stronger propellant when I still believed (subliminally) in economic and social paradigms and policies that promised the ultimate good. I no longer do.

PS

An interesting linguistic aspect; some say “pluses and minuses” is false and propose to use “pros and cons” instead. Here is a different opinion:

"Pluses and minuses" is perfectly okay, as is "pros and cons". Your new teacher is just displaying a personal quirk.

Actually, the two expressions sometimes have different meanings. "Pros and cons" generally means "arguments for and arguments against". "Pluses and minuses" often means "advantages and disadvantages", which sometimes are not the same thing as arguments for and against.

The source.

German Twin Post.

Continued here.