Despite the optimistic subheading of my book, “Staying Positive Amidst Disorder”, I’m a cynic by nature and so sometimes need to critically examine both the tone of my work and how its content is being interpreted by others. The last thing I want is for my writing to be seen as “punching left”, inadvertently promoting crypto-conservative viewpoints like a Dave Rubin, Jon Haidt, Steve Pinker or their ilk. If you don’t know I’m a deep progressive, my pieces on MMT (Modern Monetary Theory), UBI (Universal Basic Income) and identity politics could certainly be superficially interpreted that way. While I think the left’s openness to novelty is a great strength, I don’t believe ideas get a pass merely because they’re new, exciting or challenge preconceived notions. Our passion for the new can just as easily lead us into error as to utopia – as it certainly has in the past. 

So in that vein, I want to continue talking about MMT by looking at the criticisms I received for my previous piece on Reddit and Twitter. I try to be fair in what I write about any subject; my goal is not to “punch left”, but to see if exposing young policy programmes to critique by outside perspectives can highlight what, if anything, they offer that’s new. This is made challenging by MMT proponents constant and tactical shifts between description and prescription, between the desire to challenge existing narratives and to craft a radical vision of their own.

In short, I received two sorts of criticism for my contribution. First, that I misunderstood and misrepresented the case of Venezuela. Secondly, that I (alongside most economists) overegg fears of inflation in economies that are demand-constrained. The following tweet from Adelaide-based economist Stephen Hail is representative of the comments I received: