Ancestral Sins — MMT, Economics, and A Little Break to Think

Image credit

I am grappling with these problems:

I would like to write an introduction to Modern Monetary Theory. The idea, however, is not to adulate a certain economic theory, but to encourage an approach to economic reasoning that is a form of critical thinking. never trust economics, no matter its form. MMT is a good opportunity to become aware of the problems of economics and the need to challenge it.

This is why, I consider it necessary to describe classical and neoclassical economics before going more deeply into MMT. The student should get to know the assumptions on which M(ainstream) E(conomics) — ME —  is based. This in itself should encourage her to take a highly critical attitude towards economics.

Now, where are my difficulties? Well, it is not that easy to concentrate the manifold contributions to ME into a representative presentation. Still more challenging: how to achieve a  very brief yet lucid and complete outline? I don't want the reader to get lost. So there needs to be a common thread that tickles and guides the curiosity of the reader.

What I want to show is this: you may give a verbal account of classical economics (CE) that sounds plausible. You may present CE as if its truthfulness was a matter of opinion, personal preference. There is  much scope to sell it as innocuous, inspiring, basically right, not a bad starting point etc — so long as you ignore the exact meaning of its underlying assumptions. Once you look into these, you quickly realise that you are dealing with entirely untenable propositions.

Basically, CE is an ideologically ossified rationalisation of a once progressive impulse — to free economic forces from unhelpfully restrictive political fetters. To get this message across a theory was developed that exaggerated the benignity and independence of spontaneous economic forces.

ME has never abandoned this bias.

Astoundingly, the development of ME has been a story of growing (partial) amnesia.  Assuming, mostly tacitly, that CE was correct, neoclassical models (NCE = neoclassical economics) are built on the basis of the precursor's false postulates and even more preposterous assumptions. Today, the mathematically most advanced models of the economy are jokes, they have nothing to do with reality, and only serve to heighten the autism of a economic theory that takes for granted the autopoiesis of a so-called free economy. "Applied" macroeconomics — with its models that guide practical policies — is based on these fantasies.

So, I need to find a way to present all this in a short, clear, and motivating synopsis which is to preface my treatment of MMT.