These socialist loons are completely mainstream

Start with this, from the New York Times: Modern Monetary Theory Makes Sense, Up to a Point. It begins:

The term “modern monetary theory” has been talked about so much lately that we mainstream economists need to try to understand it.

We’re having trouble, though I’m beginning to suspect that it may be because M.M.T., as it’s often called, is really just a voguish name for a group of old and, for the most part, sensible ideas, repackaged in a new form.

And just what are these old ideas in a new form?

It seems that modern monetary theory is not so much a recipe for disaster as it is a not entirely original series of ideas that are not well defined or well integrated, and whose implications have been exaggerated.

Entire fields of study in economics departments are devoted to grappling with some of these problems. For a serious examination of issues concerning public debt, for example, consider the classic 1979 study “On the Determination of the Public Debt,” by Robert Barro of Harvard.

Professor Barro said, in essence, that the government faced time-varying expenditure needs and, optimally, could attempt to keep tax rates constant by varying borrowing. Then there is the 1936 opus of John Maynard Keynes, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” which prescribes countercyclical deficit spending to stabilize the economy.

Demonstrating once again that much of modern mainstream textbook theory is junk science. Paying attention to almost any of it will drive your economy off course and into the sand.

Which brings me to this: Beto O’Rourke Goes Full Socialist, Says He Will ‘Break Apart’ American Wealth.

He may be a far left nutter but is centre stage among Democrats. As dangerous as he is ignorant, but when did that ever stop a politician from succeeding?

This entry was posted in American politics, Economics on the left. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to These socialist loons are completely mainstream

  1. stackja

    As dangerous as he is ignorant, but when did that ever stop a politician from succeeding?

    Kev o7?

  2. stackja

    Seems apt too:

    Liberty Quote
    The system of discriminatory taxation universally accepted under the misleading name of progressive taxation of income and inheritance is not a mode of taxation. It is rather a mode of disguised expropriation.

    — Ludwig von Mises

  3. Modern Monetary Theory Makes Sense, Up to a Point.

    Oh dear lord this is terrible, incredibly stupid, well intentioned, but truly horrifying.

    May god have mercy on us all.

    The term “modern monetary theory” has been talked about so much lately that we mainstream economists need to try to understand it.

    We’re having trouble, though I’m beginning to suspect that it may be because M.M.T., as it’s often called, is really just a voguish name for a group of old and, for the most part, sensible ideas, repackaged in a new form.

    This is so damned stupid wanna go and blow my brains out.

    Enjoy those currency and banking collapses, 300% debt to GDP ratios and permanent economic ruin, you silly, silly buggers.

  4. Dr Fred Lenin

    Dont knock our preference elected career rulers the people who own the political parties know how to pick the best people for the job . As long as the obscene profits keep rolling in they will be happy ,bugger the peasants .

  5. RobK

    When people talk of the levers of the economy; the one marked MMT should have its trimpot turned down from 9 to something less than 1.

  6. Tom

    Such is its embrace of lunatic leftist propaganda in place of public interest reporting in the past decade, it will be a close run thing if the New York Times still has a readership upon which to base a viable existence in 20 years time.

  7. Tim Neilson

    Thomas Hobbes said that if the fact that two and two made four acquired a political relevance there would be a faction to deny it.

    Step forward “progressive” economists (and energy policy makers).

  8. Zatara

    He may be a far left nutter but is centre stage among Democrats. As dangerous as he is ignorant, but when did that ever stop a politician from succeeding?

    O’Rourke is a stalking-horse, nothing more.

    He’s useful in testing out just how far left they can go. But there is no way they will let him face Trump.

  9. Bear Necessities

    You first Beto. Take your families wealth and your in-laws wealth and break it apart.

  10. Pyrmonter

    @ SteveK

    First link appears broken (goes to Gmail sign-in page).

    For once, I’d have thought there might be something close to a Kates/Krugman unity ticket: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opinion/whats-wrong-with-functional-finance-wonkish.html?module=inline

  11. Zatara:

    He’s useful in testing out just how far left they can go. But there is no way they will let him face Trump.

    Well said, that umm.. person.

  12. Done Deal

    Their ALPBC is really pulling out all stops now the election is upon us. Every radio news bulletin in the last week or so has led breathlessly with one or two “news” items about things negative to the Coalition or PHON, usually followed by something positive for you-know-who, and tonight’s major editorial shows Australian Story & Four Corners are also friendly to the left and detrimental to the right. One a touchy feely story about some refo made good but can’t get into the country, and the other about the Liberals failed or failing energy policy. And what little I could bring myself to watch of the ‘Dumb’ was more of the same. It’s gobsmacking in it’s audacity, and I can’t even get my 8 cents a day back…probably more like a $1 a day now, & after the election shortarse it will probably make it $2 a day. Unbelievable. they must be getting a bit worried by some of the opinion polls and the NSW election result.

  13. Tel

    MMTer are what Keynesians would be if they had to tell the truth about everything.

    Professor Barro said, in essence, that the government faced time-varying expenditure needs and, optimally, could attempt to keep tax rates constant by varying borrowing. Then there is the 1936 opus of John Maynard Keynes, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” which prescribes countercyclical deficit spending to stabilize the economy.

    Did you ever find a Keynesian who actually stopped spending and started saving when times were good?

  14. “Modern” seems to be the vogue means of taking a respected idea and bending it in a new direction. I note that Tim Wilson is calling himself a “modern Liberal”

  15. Tel:

    Did you ever find a Keynesian who actually stopped spending and started saving when times were good?

    That’s the lure of Keynes – you never have to stop spending.
    That’s the reason politicians love the theory.

  16. Sydney Boy

    Now waiting for an MMT white knight economist to fly in to Venezuela and save the country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.