Is Creation Science vs Evolution a good analogy for Mainstream Economics [MSE] vs MMT? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14920554
Several MMTers have explicitly said that [paraphrased] --- getting a degree in economics is learning a whole lot or vastly mostly a bunch of incorrect facts. Or, that getting a degree in economics is getting a degree in bullshit. This is why no Main Stream Economist predicted the crash of 2008. And this crash did hurt the paychecks of a lot of economists [except those who were bailed out by $27T in Gov. loans to keep the big banks, etc., from failing].

Many of us [the posters and lurkers here] would agree that getting a degree in Creation Science from a Christian Univ. is getting degree in bullshit and is learning a bunch of incorrect facts.

So, when I'm arguing with Crantag and posters like him; I'm arguing with a graduate economist who paid his money to be taught economics. He [they] assumed that the facts they were learning are correct. They paid their money and spent their time in good faith. It is not their fault that they were swindled. But, were they swindled?
. . . MMTers will tell you that they are systematically excluded from the curriculum of most all economics degree programs. That their theories are not given a fair hearing. MSE would say that MMT is obviously wrong so they don't teach it. After all, should biology departments be forced to teach Creation Science?

I ask the lurkers to give MMT a fair shot. Do you home work. Unlike evolution, economics matters to *all* the people of every Western nation. If the Gov. is using a deeply flawed theory of economics then your income will be impacted, almost always in a negative way.

BTW --- Europeans have a different problem. You use the euro. So, your Govs. are more constrained than US, UK, Canada, Aust., NZ, etc. Nevertheless MMT is still a better theory. Your lives would be improved if the ECB & IMF, etc., believed in MMT instead of MSE [aka Creationism :) ].

A few new to me links to get you started. From 2015 though.
The roots of MMT do not lie in Keynes. [A maverick position in MMT.]
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31681
Greece – now the conservatives are denying there was austerity.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31665
More recent but youtube. And he just mostly reads the power point slides to you.
#14921159
Steve_American wrote:Several MMTers have explicitly said that [paraphrased] --- getting a degree in economics is learning a whole lot or vastly mostly a bunch of incorrect facts. Or, that getting a degree in economics is getting a degree in bullshit. This is why no Main Stream Economist predicted the crash of 2008.

It's true that modern mainstream neoclassical economics consists largely of absurd and dishonest fictions designed to rationalize privilege and justify injustice, much as creation "science" is BS designed to justify Biblical literalism. But MMT is not a comprehensive organizing theory like evolution. It is really only about one aspect of economics -- money -- and it mistakenly assumes that its largely correct understanding of debt money applies to all forms of money.
Many of us [the posters and lurkers here] would agree that getting a degree in Creation Science from a Christian Univ. is getting degree in bullshit and is learning a bunch of incorrect facts.

Same for economics. You can't be accepted into a graduate program in economics, at least in the USA and Canada, unless you prove you have learned and internalized the system of absurd lies known as neoclassical economics.
So, when I'm arguing with Crantag and posters like him; I'm arguing with a graduate economist who paid his money to be taught economics. He [they] assumed that the facts they were learning are correct. They paid their money and spent their time in good faith. It is not their fault that they were swindled. But, were they swindled?

Well, they were taught a bunch of BS, anyway. But almost all paid economics jobs require chanting that BS, so "swindled" might not be the right word. In any case, we can't expect people who have devoted their lives to BS to be honest, or to accept the facts when they at presented.
. . . MMTers will tell you that they are systematically excluded from the curriculum of most all economics degree programs. That their theories are not given a fair hearing. MSE would say that MMT is obviously wrong so they don't teach it. After all, should biology departments be forced to teach Creation Science?

In fact, it is neoclassical economics which is obviously wrong, especially in its false claims that money, debt and banking are irrelevant to the economy, which MMT largely corrects.
If the Gov. is using a deeply flawed theory of economics then your income will be impacted, almost always in a negative way.

Neoclassical economics provides the plausible rationalization for injustice under capitalism, much as the divine right of kings did under feudalism.
BTW --- Europeans have a different problem. You use the euro. So, your Govs. are more constrained than US, UK, Canada, Aust., NZ, etc. Nevertheless MMT is still a better theory. Your lives would be improved if the ECB & IMF, etc., believed in MMT instead of MSE [aka Creationism :) ].

The euro is a pastiche of logically contradictory BS. It is doomed.
#14921448
The dichotomy between creation science and evolution is not as thick as some people presume it to be.

Some of the first genetics research in the west was done by Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar and basically a monk. People had been breeding animals (such as dogs, cats and birds) selectively for traits for centuries before he came along though, so they were clearly fully aware of how traits can be passed down to animals. And the concept of epigenetics arguably dates back to the times of Aristotle.

The real difference was when people started applying these concepts to human beings, whom in the west at one time (but arguably not always) were viewed as following a different paradigm than what animals follow.

The original dichotomy was that those who believe in evolution would apply the concepts to humans (e.g., eugenics) whereas those who believed that humans didn't or shouldn't operate in light of evolutionary paradigms were generally more religious than the eugenicists. Somehow, the trend reversed itself. People who push evolution also insist that all people are fundamentally the same and are generally unaffected by evolutionary pressures in any significant way, whereas the creationists talk more about controlling evolutionary pressures. Strange world :)
#14921469
Crantag wrote:I actually agree with TTP's post for once, or most of it. So good show, chap.

As it were, I went to graduate school in a country which is not the US or Canada, and they paid me to study; largely to study Marxist economics.

But I think I was really just a reference point. I don't think I am very important here.

Apparently it doesn't matter much if you study Marx or MSE.

Either way you are immersed in assumptions that only apply when a nation is on a standard like the gold standard. Marx wrote in the 1800s so he assumed the gold standard, if he didn't I'll apologize. MSE also assumes that the Gov. should act as if the gold standard is still in place. Plus other stupid assumptions like "Since bank loans are just money being transferred from thrifty people to spendthrift people, bank loans can be ignored in our/their macro-economic model because bank loans don't create new money." [Crantag agreed that bank loans in fact do create new dollars. And MMT thinks that this is a huge problem specifically because the loan also creates a piece of paper that has value that offsets the value of the new dollars. And these pieces of paper did in-fact cause the GFC of 2008. If this statement is true then it is a huge error to just ignore the effect of banking in your macro-economics model.]
#14921610
Crantag wrote:You make ignorant/stupid assumptions about other posters constantly. That is principally what I meant.

If this is so it is no doubt a result f my inability to read people.
It is a handicap I have had to live with all my life.
So, at least my assumptions about reality are pretty good. It is just people who confuse me.

Another resource of degenerates who want to watch […]

There are many ways to approach a construction si[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I disagree with this, but I also don't think &quo[…]

The actual argument (that the definition is being[…]