Image credit |
Here are some reasons why studying Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is worth the effort.
First, increasingly, the economically literate are expected to be acquainted with MMT.
Second, MMT shines a new light on the economy and the customary ways of looking at it.
Third, MMT provides a systematic critique of mainstream economics within a framework that itself offers an alternative to the target of its criticism.
A theory worth its salt ought to remain open to sensible challenges at any time.
Economics is not exempted from this proviso. Though it is not the most common habit of economists to call their science into question.
However, studying economics and challenging it should be intertwined activities.
Attempting to refute what the student learns is what lends the exercise of education its scientific character.
Mainstream economics is often presented to the student as a monolithic block of settled wisdom, rather than as a body of thought in need of permanent corroboration and renewal.
Apart from the promise of its own interesting picture of the economy, MMT is perfectly suited to putting established economics to the test.
By reading this book you get to know an alternative approach to economics, acquainting yourself with (a) a different view of the economy and (b) a means to practicing economics according to the scientific way, learning economics by being critical of it.
No matter how you assess MMT in ideological and political terms, and independent of findings that may prove MMT or aspects of it wrong, you will gain by studying it along the lines of the present book.
We never know whether the theory we happen to be studying will be refuted one day. We should always expect refutation to be possible and, indeed, seek to accomplish the rebuttal of the theory we are studying. If we are successful at refutation, what is there to lose? Having been proven wrong, there is a good chance that the theory will improve or it will be replaced by a more robust theory, telling us more insightful things about our world than its precursor.
No comments:
Post a Comment