Great report as always. One thing to consider. I, and many of my Boomer peers, loathe podcasts. Consequently, I wait till the essay comes out - if ever. You cannot do something else while you listen as you might radio music. Videos are not only more engaging, but I can see facial expression, eye contact, posture etc., which helps to better understand the interaction. Moreover, vids allow presenters to use graphics to communicate. Of course, table and charts are seldom used to convey economic information LOL. Pls consider vids vs pods.
Your tireless effort is appreciated. Especially when this latest nonsense like this from the Banque de France—https://publications.banque-france.fr/en/meaning-mmt —continues to get published. Hat tip to Brian Romanchuk who talks about it in his newsletter. You'd think by now the neoclassicals would have learned to make better arguments. This latest is a comical attempt to sound like they are engaging directly with the MMT lens in the narrow sense—how government finance and fiat money actually work—and in the broader sense of policy.
Some years ago while reading Wray's book and your first MMT article from 1998 the Ptolemaic-Copernican-Keplerian trichotomy occurred to me and it amazes me how apt the comparison is.
These guys—why is it usually guys?—mostly cannot let go of their Ptolemaic geocentric models (in the trichotomy they are Smith, Ricardo, Say). They can't. They WON'T.
And when they finally do they go to Copernican models full of epicycles (the neoclassicals: Walras, Wenger, Jevons, Bates-Clark).
Kepler comes along and gives a better model—broadly speaking Minsky, Godley, Wray, Mosler, Kelton, et. al.—with the three laws of planetary motion and the neoclassicals refuse to let go of their models.
Every talk you give, every interview, every article, is another chip at the foundation of neoclassical nonsense. I thank you for it. I wish I could do more than send copies of your book to some legislators and friends.
It should be pointed out that the car in the image is a Mosler MT900.
Great report as always. One thing to consider. I, and many of my Boomer peers, loathe podcasts. Consequently, I wait till the essay comes out - if ever. You cannot do something else while you listen as you might radio music. Videos are not only more engaging, but I can see facial expression, eye contact, posture etc., which helps to better understand the interaction. Moreover, vids allow presenters to use graphics to communicate. Of course, table and charts are seldom used to convey economic information LOL. Pls consider vids vs pods.
Your tireless effort is appreciated. Especially when this latest nonsense like this from the Banque de France—https://publications.banque-france.fr/en/meaning-mmt —continues to get published. Hat tip to Brian Romanchuk who talks about it in his newsletter. You'd think by now the neoclassicals would have learned to make better arguments. This latest is a comical attempt to sound like they are engaging directly with the MMT lens in the narrow sense—how government finance and fiat money actually work—and in the broader sense of policy.
Some years ago while reading Wray's book and your first MMT article from 1998 the Ptolemaic-Copernican-Keplerian trichotomy occurred to me and it amazes me how apt the comparison is.
These guys—why is it usually guys?—mostly cannot let go of their Ptolemaic geocentric models (in the trichotomy they are Smith, Ricardo, Say). They can't. They WON'T.
And when they finally do they go to Copernican models full of epicycles (the neoclassicals: Walras, Wenger, Jevons, Bates-Clark).
Kepler comes along and gives a better model—broadly speaking Minsky, Godley, Wray, Mosler, Kelton, et. al.—with the three laws of planetary motion and the neoclassicals refuse to let go of their models.
Every talk you give, every interview, every article, is another chip at the foundation of neoclassical nonsense. I thank you for it. I wish I could do more than send copies of your book to some legislators and friends.