Gyroscopic Investing

What a load of Communist ideological claptrap!  Words fail me as to how misrepresentive of various levels of reality it is.  It is the worst economic school of "thought" I've ever come across.  Thanks a lot, Gumby.

I apologize to anyone that has read one of my missives where this claptrap crept in as reason d'etre.

What changed your mind?

around a year ago or so didn't pretty much everyone agree MMT was a load of claptrap? even its ardent supporters like moda threw it over for MR,  and doesn't MR take a "we will just describe the molecules of the system, and how they interact in endless detail with full minutia.."  stance, and when asked the big questions refer back to the same text wall they just posted about the molecules of the system, and how they interact, in endless detail, with full minutia... and pretend it answered the question..  saving it from being communist clap trap...

(all due respect to the accuracy and insight MR provides into the molecules of the system, how they interact in the endless detail and minutia of a fiat monetary system)

I don't know that everyone agreed it was claptrap (besides the other economic school knee jerk ideologues); the debate was shifted to MR/MMT and then eventually to MR by Gumby because of the "prescriptive" being ideologically political, but without any clear explanations as to why the evolution or the differences between the three.  But maybe this occured during one of my breaks from the forum?  Because the original debates were 2-3 years ago as I recall.

The core problem is MMT fails both "prescriptive" AND "descriptive".  It is a Communist Cult that doesn't explain any aspect of our current institutional or operational reality at all.  I don't know how else to put it.  The closest it comes to existing in the real world is in China and they are moving away from it anyway.

I believe Gumby found MMT because he was trying to find an explanation for the role of the T-Bonds in the PP.  Well, the reality is it is just a risk-free asset with a long duration as a consequence of debt becoming money in 1971 (i.e. before that year you could not use T-Bills or Treasuries as a margin deposit in brokerage accounts).  Anything beyond this, like MMT, is complete and utter gibberish.  I don't know how else to put it.

MMT is a heterodox cult offshoot of what's called heterodox Post-Keynesian Economics which is the truest of the motley lot to Keyne's original writings without all the statist or ideological hallucinotions (classical, neoclassical, new classical, monetarist, austrian, new keynesian, et al.) that has come to signify what passes as mainstream composite economics thought today.

I was always uncomfortable with MMT "descriptives" but just assumed the cognitive dissonance was due to having to learn something new.  It's not until I dug into the specifcs that I saw what a crock of Bullshit it all was.  It's hard to believe anyone who isn't mentally unstable or insane can believe in this doggie doo, nevermind an economist!  What an insult to the profession.

my memory is undoubtedly faulty on the time range the forum debates took place, two/three years could be right.

based my following the discussions back then, my takeaway on MMT is pretty much the same as yours -  communist gibberish
my take away on MR was that it described the workings of our fiat dollar system accurately (not that i would be the one sharp enough or well studied enough to blow holes in it ) but it fell short of actually having much use, it is useful for for blowing a few holes in other types of economic  thinking due to their poor descriptions of the system. but leaves all other questions not dealing with workings unasked and unanswered.. 

l82start wrote: based my following the discussions back then, my takeaway on MMT is pretty much the same as yours -  communist gibberish
my take away on MR was that it described the workings of our fiat dollar system accurately (not that i would be the one sharp enough or well studied enough to blow holes in it ) but it fell short of actually having much use, it is useful for for blowing a few holes in other types of economic  thinking due to their poor descriptions of the system. but leaves all other questions not dealing with workings unasked and unanswered..

MR implies fiscal conservatism, because the tax revenues are literally stolen coming from the private sector money supply for welfare redistribution transfers.  And the gold bug doom porners will be right as a coincidence some day, just like a broken clock.  I can't decide who are worse: MMTers or gold bug doom porners? 

One good thing about MMT is it at least gave everyone exposure to Post-Keynesian Economics which isn't exactly mainstream.  PKE sans MMT aims to deal with reality as it is, not hallucinotions.  I guess statism is like banking, impossible to ever fully eradicate and like a weed it will pop up anew no matter where you go.  Good grief.