Well, it seems you've hit on a hurdle that the MMT economists may have yet to get over. Shall we now defer to the "Behavioral" economists?This would never work, the incentives are exactly the opposite for politicians.
I try to read Bill Mitchell's blog as regularly as possible. If I understood correctly, the MMT boys (and Girls) will soon be coming out with a basic undergraduate text in economics. This promises to have correct descriptions of Treasury and Central Bank Operations and blow a few myths unwittingly incorporated into traditional standard texts, which are largely revisions of previous additions going back to pre-1971, out of the water. (It happens in every field that errors get incorporated into standard texts that take years to get back out.) In my own field, chemistry, the classic example is the bit about third period elements "expanding the electron octet" via incorporation of 3d-orbitals. You may recall being taught that! In actuality the 3d orbitals lie far too high in energy to by occupied by the third period elements. That's been known for years! The correct explanation of how third period elements "expand their octet" invokes a 3-center bonding model. Yet I don't know of a single standard text that does not still teach the incorrect model for bonding in third period elements! You'll even find a majority of chemist still defending the older model!
Last edited: