I would not have called MMT "nonsense economics". Thus I ...

I would not have called MMT "nonsense economics". Thus I think Jonathan Portes needs to put a choke collar on Prospect's headline writers. It is very much the case that MMT done right focuses attention on the inflation constraint rather than the financiers-are-scared-the-debt-is-too-high constraint, and that would seem to me to be a healthy thing. However, I do worry about multiple equilibria���and jumps between equilibria: Jonathan Portes: Nonsense Economics: The Rise of Modern Monetary Theory: "Under MMT, fiscal policy is the main tool. This may well make sense when interest rates are at or close to zero.��But that... was explicitly recognised by��government policy during and immediately after the 2008 financial��crisis.... It���s an integral part of Labour���s fiscal rule.... It��also means that MMT���at least the credible version���does not mean there��is no limit to deficits, just a different one, dictated by the��potential impact on inflation.... So in the end I... find... MMT... frustrating... [as] a mixture of the tautological, the��obvious and the tendentious.... The claim that that MMT means��that a future government can dodge hard choices about how to pay for��decent public services is just plain nonsense...

#noted