| Well, first, I suspect that Keynes would be ashamed of what post-keynesians have made of his insights. Anyway, you are implying that the current system is Keynesian, and that there are people advocating to change to a MMT system. But the current system is already MMT. So, to answer your question, for accountability, you could just keep in place the current way of doing things (or find some alternative) but recognize that "taxation and debt issuance are not required to fund spending". Let's recognize that public debt is irrelevant for instance, and that, yes, deficits can be inflationary, if the economy is already in full utilization but could not be in the proper circumstances. >>" People aren't interested in MMT because it is a neat model; but because if we use that model then it becomes very hard to explain that policies are wasteful uses of time and stuff. It is very easy to make a taxpayer understand why government waste is bad. Quite hard to make people take an interest when nobody knows if they are net givers or takers" So, basically, what you are saying is "let's lie to people" so we can have a smaller government. They say that naming is one of the hard things of computer science, maybe it's also true for economics. Let's change the name "public debt" for "public investment" and discuss then how much public investment can we afford. |
> So, basically, what you are saying is "let's lie to people" so we can have a smaller government.
That is not at all what roenxi is saying. That is what roenxi is saying MMT is saying, except for the "smaller government" part.
It also is you putting (incorrect) words in someone else's mouth, which is very much not cool.
It is also coming somewhat close to a personal attack (since many of us consider lying to be immoral), which is against site guidelines.