Been seeing fragments of a discussion among neoclassical economists who are confused about MMT. I’m somehow too busy to peruse the thread (no idea how that happened), to see the exact issue. However, I saw some comments that suggested that the following observation fits. (1/n)

MMT is a body of economic thought, like neoclassical economics.. If you make a generic statement about MMT, ask yourself whether the statement makes sense if you substitute in “neoclassical economics”?

For example, “Implementing neoclassical economics” makes no sense.

Almost all popular discussion of MMT is confined to a few topics, mainly around fiscal policy.

The problem is that over 90% of characterisations of “MMT” one encounters in op-eds, internet, etc. are incorrect/misleading.

My guesstimate is that neoclassical economists are putting MMT into the same category as “the Quantity *Theory* of Money” or the “Fiscal *Theory* of the Price Level.” Those are somewhat generic mathematical models, not bodies of economic thought. Thus, not inter-changeable.

MMT is a subset of post-Keynesian economics, which people sort-of understand that is a body of thought. What makes MMT different is that there is a deliberate effort to create an internally consistent theory - and not spend time on the arcane splits that characterise PK econ.

Anyway, time to do my first barbecue of the season...