If an economic (or any other) theory would be “correct in all respects” then we would have the “memeome” for the next step in social evolution and the theory would naturally be largely adopted.

But there is not such thing as a theory “correct in all respects”. Therefore scientists must recombine ideas of different theories in search for less falsifiable theories or, at least, more useful theories. If this framework is accepted, refusing to consider a whole theory because one finds a particular meme wrong does not make quite sense as it blocks variety from entering the recombination process.

I will agree that MMT has a simplistic rendering of the supply side of economics today. In particular, MMT theorists are mute about open source, the commons and P2P. On the other hand I find the MMT framework insightful to understand money mechanics and macro effects.

Michel: why not to contribute your critiques in a MMT forum? 🙂 People interested in MMT are (as usual) very diverse.

@ Bitcoiner

In my opinion, even when coins are infinitely divisible there are 3 problems with deflation:
a) It biases the creditor / debtor relation in favor of creditors because debts do not deflate (or interest rates do not become negative).
b) It is psychologically unpalatable.
c) It is operationally irrelevant as dividing coins requires to augment the number of bits to express quantities of money. This is the same as augmenting the total number of money tokens in existence or the total money quantity in existence. The difference between “inflating” and “deflating with division” lies in where one considers the position of the decimal point to be: totally to the right (inflating) or totally to the left (deflating). In other others, where one “numerizes” in N, the naturals, or in Q, the rationals.

I would bet that it has not been sufficiently appreciated that the issuer of a totally electronic currency has inherently access to most of the information needed to solve “the quantity of money calculation problem”.

I heard a lot of good things about MMT, but when I heard a presentation in Ireland, in which they defended a very simplistic rendering of supply side economics as one of their key principles, I became very worried and sceptical about the rest of the story.

http://moslereconomics.com/

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/

Some comments on the fly:

– The understanding of the nature of money is a key issue for civilization progress. Most people see money as a “thing”, rather than an abstract contract of cooperation, for which currencies are the (locally adapted) physical and operational implementations of money. “Fiat money” would be more correctly called “trust money”.

– Currency is a national common good. In the p2p philosophy the issues of its issue and regulation should be treated as other national common goods.

– A nation is a quasi-closed domain of reproduction. Nations have a the fundamental biological function of creating genetic diversity, and hence resilience, for the species.

– Usually a nation should have a currency. Each nation is an Optimal Currency Area.