[jerf]

Politicians have a long track record of picking out the conclusions they like from an economic theory and doing some combination of ignoring the preconditions, being unaware of the preconditions, and being too mathematically illiterate to understand the concept of preconditions. I'll leave the exact balance as an exercise for the reader.

If our governments ever ran true Keynesianism, they didn't do it for long before they started spending more when Keynesianism said they should spend more and spending more when Keynesianism said they should spend less, and whatever the academic merits of MMT it has in practice simply removed whatever faint limits the old theories imposed on our politicians because it has been translated to them as "MMT says the government can spend whatever it likes forever, especially if it has the reserve currency, and nothing bad is even possible, let alone going to happen".

In a sane world economists would recognize that explaining new theories to politicians is just handing a lit match to a toddler, but, well, you live in the world you live in, you know, not the world you wish you lived in.

[Atlas22]

A lit match is a bit of an understatement, more like a flamethrower that only works when aimed at lower and middle class.

[comte7092]

MMT has never gained mainstream acceptance amount politicians, outside of a handful of left wingers. Your argument lacks empirical evidence.

Politicians spend because it’s popular, they cut taxes because it’s popular. In reality they don’t need a theory to justify their behavior. The budget deficit has been ballooning for decades before MMT even became a faint part of the public consciousness.

It’s ridiculous to assert that academics are somehow responsible for the behavior of politicians. What matter is that they develop theories that are correct and true.

[Atlas22]

I don't think they were claiming that academics are responsible for politicians behavior, rather that politicians often use academic work with little to no understanding of it and/or as an excuse to give their predetermined conclusion (increase spending) "expert backing."

[jerf]

This is correct. Economic theories are merely one of a portfolio of reasons to spend lots of money, and not anywhere near the most important ones.

Though I would submit that they do have some pretty significant impacts in a couple of particular places, at the Treasury and the Fed. In Congress, of course, it's probably all but irrelevant except as which fig leaf some more sophisticated ones may reach for.

[comte7092]

If I handed a lit match to a toddler, I’d consider myself responsible for what happened next.

[Natsu]

I don't think people think they're responsible, exactly, it's just a very convenient way to justify what they're doing.