I just came across this alarmingly uncritical analysis of MMT in the NYT.
M.M.T., as it’s known, is attracting a conspicuous number of fans in an unexpected place: Wall Street. Money managers, chief executives and business analysts maintain that the approach offers several important and overlooked insights, and far from finding it fanciful or deranged, they are using M.M.T. to build economic forecasts and even trading strategies.
"Unexpected place"!? Can we have some sense of a class analysis please? We teeter on the brink of one:
Wall Street is not immune to the herd mentality, but Mr. Koo and several other analysts argued that academic economists had a vested interest in certain theories and were, therefore, more likely to suffer from groupthink.
Yes, academic economists might have vested interests. Also, "money managers, chief executives and business analysts" might have vested interests. No?
We can start with this gem:
Mr. Biscardi described himself as a libertarian and conservative. To him, modern monetary theory means not only more government spending on infrastructure, but also lower taxes on the wealthy. After all, if government deficits can grow larger, there’s no need to raise as much revenue.
If MMT is a way to lower taxes on the rich, surely we are doing it wrong.
More to come.