[vezzy-fnord]

§5 speaks in broad hypotheticals and apologetics of efficiently administrated policy, and is unsurprisingly very weak relative to the accounting and qualitative statements in the previous four sections.

If anything, you've convinced me more that MMTers believe in a perfect State. Post-Keynesian ideas seem to emanate from it. Kalecki and Robinson were outright Marxists, the former basing their economics on class conflict and the latter praising North Korea and Maoist China. The entire Post-Keynesian literature is devoid of public choice considerations, sans one weak paper from ~2004.

[RobertoG]

If MMT claims are so weak we are in dire necessity of a paper or, at least, a blog post that address its issues seriously. After searching, I have not found such thing. Maybe you could write it.

Most critics dismiss the conclusions or address questions that are not really part of MMT.

Personally, I am specially interested in criticism of the most descriptive part of MMT, starting on chartalism but going beyond, banks money creation, sectoral balances, foreign exchange, etc..

[vezzy-fnord]

I keep trying to repeat that the monetary economics of MMT are not that objectionable, but that the MMT banner encompasses a host of other unrelated conclusions that must be examined separately, and moreover that MMTers do not take public choice seriously. This isn't some shit-flinging that you can address in a blog post. You seem to be completely unable to differentiate across several taxonomies.

(FWIW, I do intend on eventually writing a criticism of Post-Keynesianism in book form, but I'm still in earlier research phases.)