Reading your article, am I wrong in interpreting that you're saying that the fundamental core to MMT is not much different to what you'd say? Your disagreements are with the policy implications some MMT folk tend to propose as a result?

Britain could encourage other large economies to end new oil and gas exploration with a creative new doctrine for the fleet of astute-class submarines. Mutually assured carbon reduction.

He could have just said any three post-keynesian economists in the world for some credibility. Or literally just say Keynes.

Unlike private borrowing, this process takes place after the spending occurs as an inflation mitigation tool, rather than in advance of spending as a funding source.

But try explaining that with a pile of fucking biscuits.

This creates fiscal space for the government's own investments - which once enacted, introduces new money into the economy via the spending, but may only return its economic value (and counter-inflationary pressure) later on...

It's nuts. The stupid fiscal rules are only there to please the types of ghouls now attacking her for "lying" about the state of the economy. As if they wouldn't have even more stringent rules themselves.

Is this what happens when a critical mass of politicians no longer have staff telling them not to do things?

which is also my opinion, but for good reasons.

I probably just don't follow your argument here? but i don't think the real resources care if the £s which mobilised them came from govt spending or anyone else's. If a policy reduces investment from some other place, then govt can fill that space if it wants?

Increased government spending. If you were going to do YCC then the point would be in order to do more govt spending.

thanks for the insight. I agree a £ depreciation would be an effect. But i feel there's £-appreciating things you could do to counter with lower rates - like big investment in the sorts of things that makes a country attractive. My sense is this is the Japan situation even if it wasn't their intent.

If the means by which they were attempting to increase inflation was by forcing interest rates lower then how much do we care that the - failing to increase inflation - part failed? Isn't it good for us that THAT is the part of the plan that doesn't work? we just want lower rates!

What's a good argument against directing the CB to engage in yield curve control as a policy?