NNT vs MMT

That’s MMT, Modern Monetary Theory. I am just following behind a thread at Instapundit: NASSIM TALEB IS NOT PUTTING UP WITH YOUR BULLSHIT: which began with this:

It’s this Stephanie Kelton who is the focus here, another economic tragedy in the making. Never heard of her, but the comments thread quickly brought out everything you need to know.

Stephanie Kelton is the proponent of Modern Monetary Theory (TL; DR: we can just print more money and tax it all back if inflation gets to high.) Even Paul Krugman thinks it’s off the wall, leftist, la la land thinking that could completely screw us all.

She’s a Professor. People actually pay her

She’s a fancy professor at Stonybrook. LOLOL. That’s like young adult day care – not a college.

Not just a professor, but a professor of economics. And economic advisor to Congressional Dimocrats.

She’s Bernie Sanders Chief Economics adviser. Of course. He’s the dumbest man in America

This is even more enjoyable when you click through to find out who he is pwning. Kelton is someone who ought to know better but makes a living pretending she does not: Prf. of Economics & Public Policy @stonybrooku.

Was Chief Economist for the Dems on U.S. Senate Budget Committee.I have an old video clip of her making the case that the government can never go broke because it is the source of money and thus can print all it needs. The Weimar Republic could not be reached for comment.

She said “you take it from your workers.” The exact opposite is true.

Somehow she missed the lesson on mutually beneficial exchange. And yet she is ‘Chief economist for the Dems.’ Go figure.

She is actually probably slightly above average in intelligence. That’s the kind of person who becomes a lefty. People significantly less intelligent than average are suspicious of clever ideas, because they think (quite rightly, as it turns out) that nobody would propose them if they weren’t more advantage to the proposer than the proposee. They’ve been snookered plenty by bright people and clever schemes, so they have a basic enhanced animal wariness. People significantly more intelligent than average are deeply skeptical of any social enterprise, because they expect it to be executed incompetently (by their own standards) and degenerate into parasitism and failure. The people who love social schemes are just smart enough to dream them up, smart enough to be dissatisfied with the status quo, but not smart enough to be wary of the unknown unknowns, the unanticipated side-effects, the limits of the ability of plain smarts to accurately predict the future.

Being educated doesn’t mean you’re not stupid. It means you’re not ignorant in the things you were told to repeat to get passing marks in class.

Well, our cultural values are kind of screwed up that way. We value raw intelligence far more than we should, and value character far less than we should. The world doesn’t need that many Einsteins, and having a surplus of them won’t do anyone much good. But it has an endless need for men and women of good character.

There’s no creationists running biology departments.
There’s no flat earthers running geography departments
So why are there marxists running economics departments?

I thank her for writing the most succinct summary of the socialist fallacy that I’ve ever seen.

That last one is from “Aussie Pundit” (not me).