These things are not known, actually. There are people much smarter than you or me that would disagree with your sentiment that "we know MMT is a bad long term policy."
> There are people much smarter than you or me that would disagree with your sentiment that "we know MMT is a bad long term policy."
How is anyone supposed to argue against that? You can use that to try and defeat any argument, but it doesn't really demonstrate anything. What people? How do you know they are smarter? Are smart people always correct?
The grandparent made a blanket statement that "we know MMT is a bad long term policy" which the other poster was rightly pointing out is wrong. This is a ridiculous blanket statement, and clearly and obviously false. Such arguments don't deserve detailed rebuttals.
Sorry, let me be clear: by "smart people" I mean economists who have spent their lives studying monetary and fiscal policy and analyzing how it can be used to make the world a better place.
Not sure why the onus is on me to be "reasonable" in my response when we all agree that the person I was replying to was making an entirely unreasonable assertion.
>I mean economists who have spent their lives studying monetary and fiscal policy and analyzing how it can be used to make the world a better place.
This means nothing when they haven't been held accountable for bad predictions. I work in finance, and it's super easy to build a model that looks like it can predict the future, but fails completely when applied in practice, due to some statistical/modelling error. Predicting the future is damn hard; it's way easier for us to convince ourselves that a model is correct than to actuallly produce a correct model, so if somebody isn't subject to a constant process of feedback (a scientific process) it's very unlikely they're producing correct models. Crystal healers have also spent their lives trying to determine how crystals can be used to make the world a better place; it doesn't mean squat because they don't apply the scientific method in their research.
From an economic perspective, if these people really had models that could predict the future, they'd be traders, not economists. Because why settle for a meagre economist's salary when they could be making millions?
I'm not sure what your point is? The comment I was replying to said "we know this is always true" I said, actually, economists aren't really sure about that issue. If your concern is that economists aren't good at making certain predictions, then guess what, we agree. Economists are also acutely aware of this fact and most of the ones involved in actual economic research are careful not to overstate the implications of their models.
Regardless, I simply have to laugh at your comment. The "finance bro says economists are all morons who would be traders if they actually knew anything" trope is pretty great!
How is anyone supposed to argue against that? You can use that to try and defeat any argument, but it doesn't really demonstrate anything. What people? How do you know they are smarter? Are smart people always correct?