Talk:Modern monetary theory

Lacks a neutral viewpoint

The tone of this page, from the opening paragraph, presents MMT to non-academic audiences as a "theory" in opposition to a presumed "reality" which is referenced as "mainstream economics".

This is wrong. Economics is not a hard science and everything which passes for "mainstream" economics is as untested and assumed as MMT.

MMT should be presented as an alternative model, which it is, rather than a lesser idea which needs to displace convention in order to be taken seriously.

MMT will never, and can never, replace other models. Nor can older models be assumed to be more valid than newer ones. It should be treated like plate-tectonics before widespread acceptance, not as currently here, flat-earth theory. 176.253.22.20 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not an "alternative model" insofar as it adopts a principle in contradiction with prior theories. That makes it a distinct theory subject to testing and falsification. But perhaps one should not be surprised that an MMT advocate, finding acceptance of the theory lacking, demands to borrow it on the credit of geologists. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of government debt

In the into, the article states “…governments do not need to worry about accumulating debt…”. This is not quite right as MMT has always posited that unchecked government debt leads to unchecked printing which leads to inflation. However, what MMT does state here is that governments that control their own currency can never become insolvent. This does not equate to no worry about accumulating debt except within non-inflationary bounds. 2600:8801:AF7E:4000:BC81:203C:73B1:3AAE (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact Warren Mosler has pointed out that increases in public debt can cause inflation via increased interest payments, particularly when accompanied by increased interest rates. So the MMT perspective is that public deficits could be "financed" by money creation, without matching bond sales, in order to reduce the risk of inflation. In the MMT view governments cannot become insolvent but they can cause inflation by "giving away" money. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

MMT vs "mainstream economics"

Before an edit today, I noticed much of this page vacillates between saying MMT is very heterodox to saying it is only 1 argument away from "mainstream" theory. Then the article goes onto try to differentiate it from "mainstream theory" in at least 5 different ways. I think some consistency on this would be good or at least a notice of conflicting attitudes in the lede Civil9095 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the recent presence of MMT economists in the Senate Budget committee and in major presidential campaigns in the Democratic Party makes me question if this is still qualifies as heterodox in politics, and if the "mainstream" people are watching and playing catch-up when they feel necessary. MMT is heterodox in academic circles, but that isn't all of economics. In short, this nuance does not lend itself to black and white thinking, especially conflicting black and white thinking throughout the page without a nuance qualifier in the lede. Civil9095 (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the best available sources, this sometimes leads to minor inconsistencies between articles or even within articles. That also means that the "mainstream" is set by the relevant experts in a field, not by politicians or other sorts of popular media. Most newspapers print horoscopes, but astrology is still not mainstream science. MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The page has an entire section where it lists 5 areas of disagreement http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory#Comparison_of_MMT_with_mainstream_Keynesian_economics. The sentence you were re-adding was saying there is only one area of disagreement. This is not minor. It just creates confusion. If re-added how can we qualify? Civil9095 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges. The 'Comparison of MMT with mainstream Keynesian economics' section is not limited the specific principles enumerated in the 'Principles' section. I don't see the conflict. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The section lists 5 areas of disagreement that go beyond interest rates. The sentence you are re-adding without qualification for reasons you have still not articulated says there is only one and about interest rates. That has nothing to do with apples and oranges analogy Civil9095 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You are misreading the sentence you are attempting to remove, which is about disagreement with the specific list of principles in that section. It is not addressing the same topic as the other section you highlight. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The idea of there being 6 first or main tenants which constitute that section is not sourced in that sentence. It is an assertion with sources that support each 6 being important but not the first or only 6 tenetsCivil9095 (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a report about this at the edit warring noticeboard. MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, none of the sources say those are the only or even the main tenets so wtf?? Civil9095 (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)