Economic theory on politics

KyussBishop

I've been studying economics out of interest, for much of the past year, and recently a big part of that has involved Modern Monetary Theory (linked to thread I posted about it).

MMT is basically a fundamental reframing of economics, based on government fiat currency, revolving around government spending and money creation; it has heavy empirical backing, and it affects a very wide range of political topics, from discussion on national debt, deficit spending, government spending in general, taxation, government regulation, etc. etc. (Some links to blogs that discuss it, here, here and here).

Basically, MMT touches on almost all areas of politics involving economics, and I post on Politics a lot, and recently base a lot of my arguments on MMT, and this is attracting the ire of the mods in Politics.


This is understandable, as nobody is familiar with this economic theory, and it's natural for people to be skeptical of new economic theories (though MMT, i.e. Chartalism is more than a hundred years old), but I am getting regularly warned for posts relating to MMT, and while it's fair enough that I have made a couple of off-topic posts relating to MMT that I was fairly warned on, I am also getting warned for posts that are perfectly on-topic.

I'm worried about this causing a chilling-effect, where I'm pressured into not posting arguments based on MMT, because I'm worried that I'm going to get warned every time I post; this would be bad, as it would enforce a kind of self-imposed censorship on the topic.


In my view, it is important that MMT is allowed to be discussed on Politics, because it is the only place there will be actual discussion about it (the Economics forum does not have enough posters to spur actual discussion on it), and it is also important, because MMT puts the lie to the austerity 'there is no alternative' argument, and this is (in my view) the most insidious and provably false political propaganda around at the moment, it is entirely false and it needs to be shown that there are alternatives, which MMT does extremely well.

It is very important, particularly in the Politics forum, that that austerity propaganda is countered; particularly since a lot of that austerity propaganda, is based on Austrian/Neoliberal economic views, and any (incidental/unintended) censorship of MMT views, is not equally applied to those economic views (I am not arguing that it should be, just pointing out the unintended, de-facto double standard).

Tragedy

In my limited experience, you're getting warned because the posts you make based on MMT, are on theories that have been categorically and repeatedly proven to not work in the real world. You then drive the thread off topic by attempting to defend your theories but you never actually post any supporting evidence, just more theories (that once again, have been shown to not hold true in the real world).

There's a reason MMT and Chartalism has been pretty much ignored since it's inception. MMT is a tautology rather than a proven economic theory and this is almost universally accepted by Economists.

"This is understandable, as nobody is familiar with this economic theory, and it's natural for people to be skeptical of new economic theories"
Scofflaw seems broadly informed on economic theory in general and considering MMT isn't particularly complex, I'm show he became familiar with it quickly enough. I know I did!

And before you deride me for being an austerity propagandist
1) I don't believe Austerity is working particularly well, and nor do the ECB or IMF for that matter.
2) I don't ascribe to any particular economic bent.

As MMT isn't on the table, constantly derailing threads shouting at the top of your voice that MMT will solve all our problems is incredibly pointless. So would the ECB just magically waiving a hand and cancelling all our debt, but I don't see that happening and I certainly wouldn't start dragging threads off topic telling people it was a valid counterpoint to austerity.

KyussBishop

Well, first off, I think it's majorly important that if people claim MMT is a tautology, that needs to be backed up with argument, not just assertion; I respect peoples economic knowledge, but it is wrong that a decision should be made solely based on 'authority' of economic knowledge (especially when most economics taught today, called a 'dismal science' for good reason, is provably empirically unsound), because that appeal to authority is fallacious and sidesteps the fact that arguments need to be made to back it up.

In particular, you claim many parts of my posts are straight out empirically wrong, but you do not quote any of it, you just assert it, and the mods who thank you share that view too; that is not right, and I can not defend my arguments or my position, when people do not quote the parts they take issue with.

I have a suspicion, that this view that it is a tautology, is based solely on reading the Wikipedia page criticism for Chartalism, and reading it without any kind of critical thinking, to see that this is just an assertion. This is addressed in detail here, by one of the primary proponents of MMT:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=15842 (rather long, which his entries usually are)
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=15683 (a shorter one, responding to criticism from Krugman about inflation, but which does not capture the tautology argument)

I have actually spent time searching out accusations of tautology on MMT, and it is largely addressed in the first article above, so I would encourage those who view it that way to search that out themselves, and give an honest reading in the context of the above article.
MMT is not just a completely new, made up theory; overall, MMT is a collection of many ideas that already have individual empirical backing, which are collated together into the overall theory.

In general, MMT does not seem to be getting an honest or fair reading here, so please, I think it's really important here that views are backed up with sources and not just asserted; Scofflaw and other mods obviously have a very in-depth knowledge of economics, so this is something that should be easy to source, instead of just being asserted, and it is important that that is done.


One of the basic arguments I have put forward (which rather a lot of my posts are based upon), which is true no matter whether you consider it based in MMT or not, is that money creation does not automatically cause inflation (very easy to prove this is false), and that by extension it is how money is spent that determines whether or not inflation happens (again, extremely easy to prove), and I have given ample arguments explaining precisely how inflation does not happen (primarily in an economic downturn; it happens a lot more easily in full employment), through numerous specific uses of created money, that help resolve the economic crisis.

All that is required to understand these arguments, is a basic knowledge of how inflation actually works (demand-pull etc.), and this knowledge does not have to be based in MMT, it is shared with Keynesianism in general.

Nobody has given an argument that successfully counters these claims; in fact, nobody opposing them (bar one person, SupaNova) seems to actually understand inflation enough to actually engage in argument on it.

Again, the arguments backing that, are part of standard Keynesian understanding of inflation, not just MMT, yet they will also be effectively censored from the forum.


There are fundamental provable empirical problems with all of neoclassical economics and variants (what is traditionally taught today, New Keynesianism and such), and Austrian, Marxist, Sraffian and other economic schools; the first two (neoclassical/Austrian) of which most economic discussion is based upon in Politics (and, importantly, both of which some Politics mods support), yet they are perfectly acceptable to discuss on the Politics forum, despite fundamental problems with theory.

There is no argument against MMT (which is part of the Post-Keynesian school), except an unbacked assertion that it is a tautology, without any source quoted, or argument provided; now it is coming close to being censored from Politics, based solely on personal opinion; this is a clear and massive double standard.


There are any number of other viewpoints on Politics, based on empirically provably false ideas, that are allowed in discussion; viewpoints on the benefits of excessive deregulation, the benefits of having no public sector (and small government stuff in general), austerity itself.

All of these have roots in provably flawed economic theory, and are allowed for discussion; MMT based arguments are judged flawed based on assertion, and are censored.

So it is an extremely clear double standard, that is very inconsistent, and which censors discussion of an important topic; MMT is not just economic theory, it deeply ties into Political discussion in general (as does all economics).

southsiderosie

I see several fundamental problems here.

First, as you have been told repeatedly, if you want to discuss an economic theory, you should do so in either the Economics forum or the Political Theory forum. The fact that these are not as fast-paced as the Irish Economy forum is irrelevant: AH is a faster-paced forum than Politics, but unless a political thread there is general enough to warrant 'pub discussion', then Politics is the more appropriate place for it.

Second, there is a big difference between putting forth an argument that can be linked to a theoretical viewpoint (Keynesianism, neoliberalism, Marxism, etc), and putting forth a theoretical viewpoint to make an argument. You are doing the latter, and it is a problem: how do you expect people to respond to this? Just to be clear about the distinction: if a thread is about unemployment, and the various viewpoints that emerge are 1) the government should pump money into infrastructure spending in order to boost employment, 2) the government should loosen labor laws and abolish the minimum wage, and 3) the government should nationalize industry in order to guarantee universal employment, these are all arguments that are rooted in very specific theories of political economy, but that are expressed in political terms that have clear real-world implications that can then be discussed. However, if someone proposes nationalization and someone else replies with an admonishment to read The Road to Serfdom, well, what are we supposed to do with that?

Third, you are claiming that one of the reasons that people reject MMT is that it flies in the face of economic orthodoxy in some way. However, if you are the one putting the argument forward, the onus is on you to show why you think your position is valid: not by throwing up a bunch of links - something that is generally frowned upon anyway - but by articulating what steps you think political actors should take and why. If other posters think that these steps are wrongheaded, responding with "the theory says it is so!" is not going to move the debate forward - it will end up with a) you getting ignored or b) the thread being derailed.

I will also add that the other argument you seem to be putting forward is that people are rejecting it because they do not understand it. This isn't a graduate seminar on political economy, it is a public discussion board, and if you want to introduce concepts that 99% of the people on the board are unfamiliar with, the proper response is NOT to assign 40 pages of reading! The reality of the situation is, people do not come to the Irish Economy forum to debate theory, they come to discuss possible solutions to real-world problems. If your response in these threads is "read the theory!" rather than walking through the practical implications of that theory in a real-world environment, then you are posting in the wrong forum - and as you have been reminded repeatedly, there are appropriate fora on this website to have this theoretical debate.

On that last point, let me also note that if 99% of the people on threads in your view 'don't understand' MMT, then perhaps you should ask yourself: are they the problem, or are you? Because frankly, essentially telling everyone else that they are too stupid to understand your grand theory is not the way to interest people in engaging with you, nor does it take into account the fact that perhaps people don't get it (or aren't interested in it) because it doesn't make any sense, and instead of getting bogged down in a lengthy theoretical debate with you, they would rather discuss what is actually going on in Dublin or Brussels.

Finally, you seem to imply that some ideologies (neoliberalism/libertarianism) are given a free pass in the forum, while MMT is unfairly marginalized. I think you are fundamentally misreading the situation here: the problem is not that you think MMT is the way to resolve the economic crisis, it is the fact that you drag this theory into every single thread related to any aspect of the economy. In terms of moderation, you are being treated in the same way as posters who insist on riding their hobby horses into threads that are, at best, tangentially related, or who start multiple threads on the same subject: warnings and red cards have been handed out to those who evangelize Irish language, anti-Fianna Fail-ism, public sector worker bashing (although this is admittedly an uphill battle), and, yes, libertarianism (the discussions of which are, I should note, generally confined to the Political Theory forum).

LoLth

emmm... I think you've sorta proven Tragedy's point there.

I've studied economics and I can tell you, I dont care whether MMT is a tautology or not. I dont care about who believes it or who doesnt. the point is, if you repeatedly derail topicss with the same arguement then you are fast approaching soap-boxing territory.

If the topic is "alternative economic theories" then fair enough, have at it and knock yourself out. If it is not and is instead a discussion on the deficit where no fantasy strategies have been mentioned, then refrain and stop posting off topic.

Additionally, a lot of your warnings/infractions seem to be for your lack of ability to make your argument in a civil / impersonal manner. There are recent ones for the discussion of MMT but only the most recent.

If MMT is coming close to being censored from politics , I think perhaps you have yourself principally to blame and the way in which you have tried to convey your belief to others. Judging by the warnings for back seat modding , personal abuse and crowbarring MMT into a thread, and those are only the carded occurrances, that doesnt take into account threads that got an on thread warning or were part of a locked thread, I'm thinking that your infractions for MMT are only the most recent example of your behaviour and its not MMT that is on the verge of being banned but rather you and not just if you post about MMT.

KyussBishop

southsiderosie wrote:

First, as you have been told repeatedly, if you want to discuss an economic theory, you should do so in either the Economics forum or the Political Theory forum.

This is the point: It is impossible to not discussion political/economic theory in the politics forum.

If I post a policy based on MMT, which counters a policy based on neoliberal/Austrian economics, that is going to lead directly to a conflict of theory; if discussion of that theory is not allowed, a lot of discussion of Politics immediately reduces to assertions, which aren't much better than arguing "yes it is" vs "no it isn't".


If you ban me from being able to post MMT based policy (not theory, policy), but allow others to post policies based in other dubious econmomic theory, that is a double standard and isn't right.

There is still a way to accomodate this though, when the inevitable conflict of theories come up:
If I can post MMT based policy, but not theory, then I could validly say "I'm not allowed to discuss the theory here, but you can discuss it in my thread over here".

If I am disallowed from posting both policy and theory, that would be suppressing/censoring MMT, while allowing other theories, which would be a bad double standard.

southsiderosie wrote:

Second, there is a big difference between putting forth an argument that can be linked to a theoretical viewpoint (Keynesianism, neoliberalism, Marxism, etc), and putting forth a theoretical viewpoint to make an argument.

If I post about a job guarantee program, and say "temporary public sector jobs funded by money creation", without providing the theory explaining how that is non-inflationary, it just attracts hyperinflation scaremongers, and turns into a battle of assertions.

If I am free to direct people to an MMT thread in Political Theory or Economics to discuss the details of that, that could probably (mostly) resolve it.

southsiderosie wrote:

However, if someone proposes nationalization and someone else replies with an admonishment to read The Road to Serfdom, well, what are we supposed to do with that?

This is exactly why I get into the theory though; I don't direct people to 'read up on MMT', I try to directly explain precisely how a certain policy works.

southsiderosie wrote:

Third, you are claiming that one of the reasons that people reject MMT is that it flies in the face of economic orthodoxy in some way. However, if you are the one putting the argument forward, the onus is on you to show why you think your position is valid: not by throwing up a bunch of links - something that is generally frowned upon anyway - but by articulating what steps you think political actors should take and why.

I don't just throw around links though, giving arguments and suggesting specific actions is precisely what I've done?

southsiderosie wrote:

If other posters think that these steps are wrongheaded, responding with "the theory says it is so!"

This bit in particular kind of irks me a bit, because I have not done this anywhere and I challenge anyone to quote where I have; this also inherently shows exactly why I get into explaining the details of the theory; it's so I'm not just making assertions, so I'm not just saying "the theory says it is so!".

So what irks me about this, is it seems to be a rather huge misrepresentation of how I've gone about arguing all of this.

southsiderosie wrote:

I will also add that the other argument you seem to be putting forward is that people are rejecting it because they do not understand it. This isn't a graduate seminar on political economy, it is a public discussion board, and if you want to introduce concepts that 99% of the people on the board are unfamiliar with, the proper response is NOT to assign 40 pages of reading!

The reality of the situation is, people do not come to the Irish Economy forum to debate theory, they come to discuss possible solutions to real-world problems. If your response in these threads is "read the theory!" rather than walking through the practical implications of that theory in a real-world environment, then you are posting in the wrong forum - and as you have been reminded repeatedly, there are appropriate fora on this website to have this theoretical debate.

Ok this is irking me even more now, please quote this, because I want to see where I have done this; I have made a lot of effort to directly explain things in my own words, not just throw links at people.

If you're referencing the link I provided for refuting the tautology accusation, then it is the person claiming the theory is a tautology that needs to back that up, not me to refute it.
Nobody has even provided any kind of explanation or source why they think that, it has only been asserted, and nobody has even bothered to provide a link (like I have done) to back that.

southsiderosie wrote:

On that last point, let me also note that if 99% of the people on threads in your view 'don't understand' MMT, then perhaps you should ask yourself: are they the problem, or are you? Because frankly, essentially telling everyone else that they are too stupid to understand your grand theory is not the way to interest people in engaging with you, nor does it take into account the fact that perhaps people don't get it (or aren't interested in it) because it doesn't make any sense, and instead of getting bogged down in a lengthy theoretical debate with you, they would rather discuss what is actually going on in Dublin or Brussels.

My argument isn't that "people don't understand it", my argument is that people don't bother to address my actual arguments, they just assert that it's false without engaging at all.

That's fine, if people on the forum aren't interested in discussing it that's grand, and I haven't taken issue with that; what I'm clearly taking issue with, is suppression of discussion of it by the mods, and as justification, claiming it is empirically false and tautological.

If that is going to happen, it is perfectly justifiable to require that it is at least understood first, and I am perfectly happy to try and explain it better for anyone who wants to understand it better; I just don't want blanked dismissal of it to cause discussion of it to be shut down (so hopefully my solution above, of allowing discussion of policy but not theory, is acceptable).

southsiderosie wrote:

Finally, you seem to imply that some ideologies (neoliberalism/libertarianism) are given a free pass in the forum, while MMT is unfairly marginalized. I think you are fundamentally misreading the situation here: the problem is not that you think MMT is the way to resolve the economic crisis, it is the fact that you drag this theory into every single thread related to any aspect of the economy.

The entire austerity argument, is based on such ideologies, and my responses have primary been against them; if they are allowed and MMT counters are not, then clearly those are being given a free pass.

I am not saying I think censorship of those views is the right solution, I am just saying the current enforcement is not balanced.

If going forward, MMT-based policies are allowed for discussion, but not the theory, that might resolve this (but might require the ability to link to theory-threads, to redirect discussion, to avoid a lot of unproductive assertion-based discussion).

KyussBishop

LoLth wrote: »

emmm... I think you've sorta proven Tragedy's point there.

I've studied economics and I can tell you, I dont care whether MMT is a tautology or not. I dont care about who believes it or who doesnt. the point is, if you repeatedly derail topicss with the same arguement then you are fast approaching soap-boxing territory.

If people present arguments on the forum, that are based on neoclassical/mainstream economics all the time, are they soapboxing?

If they are not, then policies (not theory) based on MMT should not be soapboxing.

LoLth wrote: »

If the topic is "alternative economic theories" then fair enough, have at it and knock yourself out. If it is not and is instead a discussion on the deficit where no fantasy strategies have been mentioned, then refrain and stop posting off topic.

See this is not a fair reading, because you are already disparaging the theory.

When MMT-based policy (not theory) is directly related to the deficit, then why would it be wrong to discuss it?
Neoclassical/mainstream policy, with all its empirical problems, is left as perfectly fine to discuss.

LoLth wrote: »

Additionally, a lot of your warnings/infractions seem to be for your lack of ability to make your argument in a civil / impersonal manner. There are recent ones for the discussion of MMT but only the most recent.

That is true, I've been in a lot overheated argument on Politics in the past, but I'm only really posting about the MMT infractions.

LoLth wrote: »

If MMT is coming close to being censored from politics , I think perhaps you have yourself principally to blame and the way in which you have tried to convey your belief to others. Judging by the warnings for back seat modding , personal abuse and crowbarring MMT into a thread, and those are only the carded occurrances, that doesnt take into account threads that got an on thread warning or were part of a locked thread, I'm thinking that your infractions for MMT are only the most recent example of your behaviour and its not MMT that is on the verge of being banned but rather you and not just if you post about MMT.

Look, I don't contest any of my past infractions for topics other than MMT, and don't deny that there are plenty of instances where I have posted uncivilly; I get in heated argument a lot and I know that has been a pain for the mods, so I apologize for the instances I've been uncivil, but it would be wrong to use this as a retroactive justification for banning me, for discussing MMT, and that reinforces my claim that MMT is getting a disproportionate reaction.

So far as I can see, I don't think any of my posts on MMT have gotten a warning for being uncivil; while I respond to people being dismissive of me in a similar way, if I am going to be accused of being uncivil in MMT discussions, then I really would prefer if people would please quote me.

Scofflaw

KyussBishop wrote:

Look, I don't contest any of my past infractions for topics other than MMT, and don't deny that there are plenty of instances where I have posted uncivilly; I get in heated argument a lot and I know that has been a pain for the mods, so I apologize for the instances I've been uncivil, but it would be wrong to use this as a retroactive justification for banning me, for discussing MMT, and that reinforces my claim that MMT is getting a disproportionate reaction.

So far as I can see, I don't think any of my posts on MMT have gotten a warning for being uncivil; while I respond to people being dismissive of me in a similar way, if I am going to be accused of being uncivil in MMT discussions, then I really would prefer if people would please quote me.

No, it isn't a case of any prior record being used to dismiss MMT. No offence, but it really is purely and simply a matter of you shoehorning MMT into any and all threads, and the manner in which you evangelise MMT and respond to criticism of it.

We're obviously in favour of discussions of economics and economic theory, and certainly don't have fixed opinions on MMT (hardly know enough about it to have formed even initial opinions at this stage). However, we can spot when someone is in the grip of a hobbyhorse, and insists on riding it through every available thread.

Debt figures? Have you heard the good news about MMT? Unemployment? Have you heard the good news about MMT? Deficit? Have you heard the good news about MMT? Household charge? Have you heard the good news about MMT? Public Sector pay? Have you heard the good news about MMT? And so on....

The problem is that your enthusiasm for MMT, the counter-intuitive nature of it, and perhaps the way that you're not justifying your use of MMT, but taking it as gospel, generates a pretty strong reaction, which results in the thread being dragged off into a train-wreck of repudiation of your claims by other posters, and, far too often, dismissal of their repudiations by you as semantics or ignorance. And that's not acceptable - and won't be tolerated. You are the person introducing a counter-intuitive economic theory, it's up to you to win people over. You're not doing so, you're simply telling them that you're right, that they're wrong, and by and large that they're fools as well.

We have been through this particular mill with a number of posters who had something worthwhile to add to the discussion - as you undoubtedly do - but who added it in such a combative manner, who were so certain of their correctness, and so dismissive of anyone who disagreed with them, that their net contribution was negative. By and large, those posters are banned from the forum. I will regret that step if you make it necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KyussBishop

You portray it as me being dismissive, but I usually get short in-turn with posters who are dismissive of me, and who avoid engaging in my actual arguments and just provide assertions which directly ignore my arguments.

I also don't take MMT as gospel in my posts, as I have always tried to explain in-detail my arguments; that criticism is a bit contradictory, because it is being said I am taking MMT views as gospel, without justification/explanation, and simultaneously said that when I try to justify/explain those views, that is judged as theory and off topic.

Scofflaw wrote:

You're not doing so, you're simply telling them that you're right, that they're wrong, and by and large that they're fools as well.

I really think this should be quoted, because I'm quite certain I did not do this. I appreciate that the mods have developed this negative view of my MMT posts, but I don't see where I have done this; whenever I have been dismissive, it is almost always towards people that are that way towards me; I think the other side of the debate in threads, isn't being looked at here.


In any case, to resolve the discussion of theory, and hopefully most of the overall problem:
Would it be acceptable to post on-topic policies (not theory) based on MMT in threads, and when people challenge those policies in a way that requires explaining theory, direct them to an MMT thread in Economics/Political-Theory, where it can be discussed?

K-9

KyussBishop wrote: »

You portray it as me being dismissive, but I usually get short in-turn with posters who are dismissive of me, and who avoid engaging in my actual arguments and just provide assertions which directly ignore my arguments.

I've found you'll get much further if you choose not to get short in return, or at least give them little time, there is only so much time you can give to somebody who'll repeatedly ignore your posts.

I also don't take MMT as gospel in my posts, as I have always tried to explain in-detail my arguments; that criticism is a bit contradictory, because it is being said I am taking MMT views as gospel, without justification/explanation, and simultaneously said that when I try to justify/explain those views, that is judged as theory and off topic.

I don't think the Irish Economy forum is the place to explain in detail, complicated economic theory. You have the politics theory or economics fora but they aren't busy enough for you, so you chose a busy forum that tends to be dismissive in nature.

I really think this should be quoted, because I'm quite certain I did not do this. I appreciate that the mods have developed this negative view of my MMT posts, but I don't see where I have done this; whenever I have been dismissive, it is almost always towards people that are that way towards me; I think the other side of the debate in threads, isn't being looked at here.


In any case, to resolve the discussion of theory, and hopefully most of the overall problem:
Would it be acceptable to post on-topic policies (not theory) based on MMT in threads, and when people challenge those policies in a way that requires explaining theory, direct them to an MMT thread in Economics/Political-Theory, where it can be discussed?

I don't think we have ever had something like that for libertarian theory, maybe an odd post referring posters to the theory section but nothing on an ongoing basis. The problem is you've a theory that is relatively unknown so people are going to question it, you'll be doing a lot of directing to the theory section.

KyussBishop

K-9 wrote: »

I've found you'll get much further if you choose not to get short in return, or at least give them little time, there is only so much time you can give to somebody who'll repeatedly ignore your posts.

That is fair enough, and I try to give posters a chance by clarifying my arguments further, but some just don't want to know, and just want to denigrate/shout-down.

When a poster is engaging in my actual arguments, it makes for good debate that I can actually learn from, and I appreciate that even when we disagree, but when I get met with assertions that ignore my arguments, straw men, dismissiveness and stuff like that, it's just going to last a couple of posts before I get curt in return to defend my arguments, and if they drop even a pretense of honestly engaging with my arguments, then I usually stop bothering with them.

It can be combative sometimes, but to me it's just defending my arguments, and I try to keep it proportionate (though it has gotten out of hand on more heated threads, but I don't think it has on MMT threads).

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think the Irish Economy forum is the place to explain in detail, complicated economic theory. You have the politics theory or economics fora but they aren't busy enough for you, so you chose a busy forum that tends to be dismissive in nature.

I don't think we have ever had something like that for libertarian theory, maybe an odd post referring posters to the theory section but nothing on an ongoing basis. The problem is you've a theory that is relatively unknown so people are going to question it, you'll be doing a lot of directing to the theory section.

Well, a lot of redirecting like that is ok for me, if the mods would be ok with that also?

It at least allows mentioning of MMT policies, without delving into theory or going off-topic; I'd probably still be a little wary of the potential for being unexpectedly warned again though, because linking to threads like that seems a thing that is currently frowned upon.

KyussBishop

This thread linked below, is a very good example of what I talked about above, where my arguments are just ignored (it doesn't help also, with an Admin labeling me a troll on that thread); I've redirected theory posts from that, into the Economics forum, which I hope is ok:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82198623#post82198623

Additionally, I think my previous reply in that thread was referenced here as an example of the behaviour mods were talking about:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82198623#post82167275

The other side of the posts there needs to be looked at, because if it's looked at how my arguments are almost entirely ignored (which is pretty regular whenever I interact with that poster), the dismissiveness is pretty justified; I had also gotten the MMT warnings that day, and did not know what I could post without getting further warned, so wasn't able to make a substantive reply either if I wanted to.

KyussBishop

It really needs to be defined what is trolling there, because if you're actually debating over the theory and criticizing core parts of it, or the reputation of founders of the theory, or displaying links between its political movement and a lot of anti-science think tanks etc., that isn't trolling; I'm a constant poster on such threads relating to Austrian/Libertarian stuff, but there is nothing wrong with that so long as I'm engaging in actual argument, and there is certainly nothing about it that is trolling.

I'm perfectly happy with people challenging MMT (I've been posting about it a lot so obviously desire it), and it makes for very interesting/informative discussion when people address the actual arguments (and the most informative discussion on it so far, was from a Libertarian/Austrian supporter, who I have previously been in endless debates with before over Libertarianism).

When it starts getting contested with posts that ignore my arguments or are otherwise fallacious I don't mind that, I'm not calling for any mods to deal with that, I am pointing out to the mods that the posts of me being dismissive, require looking at what I'm replying to; I'm perfectly happy for mods not to intervene with people ignoring my arguments etc., because I can deal with it myself by pointing out the other posters fallacious arguments (though that inevitably gets kind of combative, but on both sides; I don't mind that as I'm used to it).


I get the impression there is a lot of background discussion behind this that I'm tuned out from, particularly since an admin was labeling me a troll in that thread I linked in the last post; it's only fair, that where accusations of bad behavior or trolling are rolled out, that posts are quoted to back it up; it is impossible for a person to defend themselves otherwise, as they cannot see what that judgment is based upon, and there is also risk of that judgment being socially-reinforced (particularly behind the scenes) unless the person is given opportunity to contest it.

LoLth

but have you tried discussing it on the Economics forum ?

Political theory != economic theory

irish economy != theoretical irish economic scenarios if X or Y school of thought was applied

If you wish to discuss / compare / contrast economic schools of thought then I would have thought that the economics forum would be the logical choice for that discussion. if its very quiet, then liven it up with a topic to discuss.

I can understand people's irritation if htey post up a diatribe about the current state of the irish economy and how this or that policy is a disgrace and why X should be done only to have someone respond with "if they used this school of economics then you'd have nothing to complain about" the irish economy forum is abotu the actual irish economy (imho - the mods are free to correct me on this) and not about the theoretical economic road not taken.

you say it yourself, you dont have high hopes for discussions of MMT in any of the Politics forums (shifted emphasis) so why not move it to the economics forum (I see there is a thread there already on MMT started by KyussBishop

KyussBishop

LoLth wrote: »

but have you tried discussing it on the Economics forum ?

Political theory != economic theory

irish economy != theoretical irish economic scenarios if X or Y school of thought was applied

If you wish to discuss / compare / contrast economic schools of thought then I would have thought that the economics forum would be the logical choice for that discussion. if its very quiet, then liven it up with a topic to discuss.

I can understand people's irritation if htey post up a diatribe about the current state of the irish economy and how this or that policy is a disgrace and why X should be done only to have someone respond with "if they used this school of economics then you'd have nothing to complain about" the irish economy forum is abotu the actual irish economy (imho - the mods are free to correct me on this) and not about the theoretical economic road not taken.

you say it yourself, you dont have high hopes for discussions of MMT in any of the Politics forums (shifted emphasis) so why not move it to the economics forum (I see there is a thread there already on MMT started by KyussBishop

Indeed, I have a thread in the Economics forum there, yes; also an older one in Political Theory.

The problem is, the policies of the theory are on-topic for general Politics threads (such as debt writedowns, a job guarantee, running a deficit etc.), but that is getting shut-down too by the mod warnings; a solution, is that when people challenge the theory of those policies, I redirect them to an Economics/Political-Theory thread, and say I can only reply there without getting warned.

If the mods are ok with that solution, I think it would work.


All of discussion of economics on Politics/Irish-Economy are actually based on one school of thought or another, as the entire topic of economics is very ideologically loaded (there is no neutral way to talk about it, every policy is based on a particular school of thought or another, even if multiple ones); so when posting about policies, a clash of theory is always going to happen, and because MMT changes economics so fundamentally, its policies clash theoretically, very frequently (as do Austrian/Libertarian policies).

The policies (even if not theory) should be on-topic for Politics, even Irish Economy, as they are real and actionable, and policies from other schools are regularly discussed (discussions on austerity, public vs private, deregulation vs regulation, and all of that, are based in multiple schools).

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's true I guess, it does always gather a pretty strong reaction and a lot of the time it isn't conducive to debate; with MMT, that is pretty much the stuff I'd become dismissive about after a few posts, and brush off, though I wouldn't let it shut down discussion.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's true, and it's understandable too as it's required to guide moderation, so that part doesn't bother me; it's just important that when it becomes the basis of mod action, people have the opportunity to defend themselves, by seeing what posts that judgment is based on (that would also help ameliorate any social reinforcement).

southsiderosie

KyussBishop wrote: »

Indeed, I have a thread in the Economics forum there, yes; also an older one in Political Theory.

Yes, one that was moved from Politics. You then noted in that thread:

Ah, this got moved from Politics; a pity, as that is where I'll be using MMT-based arguments a lot.

But, as I said before, there is a difference between making an argument based on a theory and using a theory to make an argument. The former is fine, but the latter is a problem, and that seems to be where the disconnect is here.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The problem is, the policies of the theory are on-topic for general Politics threads (such as debt writedowns, a job guarantee, running a deficit etc.), but that is getting shut-down too by the mod warnings;

This is not what is getting shut down by mods...

KyussBishop wrote: »

a solution, is that when people challenge the theory of those policies, I redirect them to an Economics/Political-Theory thread, and say I can only reply there without getting warned.

This is.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If the mods are ok with that solution, I think it would work.

It can't work in a general forum, because you end up with threads like this:

Poster 1: We have to have an austerity budget to get our fiscal house in order.

KB: No, money needs to be printed.

Poster 2: No, that can lead to hyper inflation!

KB: Not with other anti-inflationary measures; it is all explained here [link to theory]

Poster 2: Many countries with fiat currency that has tried to print their way out of crisis have experienced hyperinflation from what you are proposing - look at Argentina.

KB: Read the theory!

Poster 1: That doesn't make any sense

KB: Read the theory!

You can't respond to other posters by telling them to 'read the theory' if you aren't in the theory forum - it just won't and can't go anywhere. Both Keynesians and Libertarians who post in the forum (outside of Political Theory) are pretty consistent about grounding their positions in the forum in their ideological beliefs - clearly having libertarian or Keynesian leanings will lead you to make certain policy proposals - but their response in the midst of a thread is not to say "Read the General Theory!".

KyussBishop

southsiderosie wrote:

But, as I said before, there is a difference between making an argument based on a theory and using a theory to make an argument. The former is fine, but the latter is a problem, and that seems to be where the disconnect is here.

Okey, well that clarifies it better then, as I was still unsure if policy was ok to mention, though the inability to explain or even link to explanations of policy, is problematic.

southsiderosie wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

a solution, is that when people challenge the theory of those policies, I redirect them to an Economics/Political-Theory thread, and say I can only reply there without getting warned.

This is.

It can't work in a general forum, because you end up with threads like this:

Poster 1: We have to have an austerity budget to get our fiscal house in order.

KB: No, money needs to be printed.

Poster 2: No, that can lead to hyper inflation!

KB: Not with other anti-inflationary measures; it is all explained here [link to theory]

Poster 2: Many countries with fiat currency that has tried to print their way out of crisis have experienced hyperinflation from what you are proposing - look at Argentina.

KB: Read the theory!

Poster 1: That doesn't make any sense

KB: Read the theory!

You can't respond to other posters by telling them to 'read the theory' if you aren't in the theory forum. Both Keynesians and Libertarians who post in the forum (outside of Political Theory) are pretty consistent with this - clearly having libertarian or Keynesian leanings will lead you to make certain policy proposals - but their response in the midst of a thread is not to say "Read the General Theory!".

That seems inherently contradictory though?

My preferred position up to now, has been to explain myself, exactly why some things are not inflationary; theory is not allowed though and is off-topic, so I fall back to linking to another thread (I'm forced into the practice which mods had criticized for earlier, despite not having done it before, previously always explaining myself), now I can only state the policy with no explanation at all.

So the type of discussion this will lead to is this:

Poster 1: We have to have an austerity budget to get our fiscal house in order.

KB: No, money needs to be printed.

Poster 2: No, that can lead to hyper inflation!

KB: No it won't.

Poster 2: Yes it will. Why not?

KB: No it won't. I'm not allowed explain or link to reasons why not.

Poster 1: That's ridiculous, you're clearly insane if you think that won't lead to hyperinflation!

*Poster 2/3/4 piling on ridicule to shout me down, me having no way to credibly defend my arguments*

So that is immediately a huge step down in quality of discussion; it is going to reduce into assertions that are no better than "Yes it is" vs "No it isn't", and I don't see how I will be able to defend my position.

This pretty much ensures that hyperinflation scaremongers can shout down any money-creation-based policies, and cause social reinforcement of that view through repetition (especially since they can point to historical precedent); policies will be judged not on their merit, but by social popularity/unpopularity on the forum.

Would the accusation of hyperinflation, and saying "look at Zimbabwe", not itself be theory? It will be impossible to counter arguments like that, and it will always lead to a very successful smearing of my views, because I'm restrained from explaining how my policies are not comparable to 'x' country experiencing hyperinflation.

southsiderosie

KyussBishop wrote: »

My preferred position up to now, has been to explain myself, exactly why some things are not inflationary; theory is not allowed though and is off-topic, so I fall back to linking to another thread (I'm forced into the practice which mods had criticized for earlier, despite not having done it before, previously always explaining myself), now I can only state the policy with no explanation at all.

So the type of discussion this will lead to is this:

So that is immediately a huge step down in quality of discussion; it is going to reduce into assertions that are no better than "Yes it is" vs "No it isn't", and I don't see how I will be able to defend my position.

This pretty much ensures that hyperinflation scaremongers can shout down any money-creation-based policies, and cause social reinforcement of that view through repetition (especially since they can point to historical precedent); policies will be judged not on their merit, but by social popularity/unpopularity on the forum.

Would the accusation of hyperinflation, and saying "look at Zimbabwe", not itself be theory? It will be impossible to counter arguments like that, and it will always lead to a very successful smearing of my views, because I'm restrained from explaining how my policies are not comparable to 'x' country experiencing hyperinflation.

This is starting to go around in circles. Your MMT-based answer to the question of why governments can print money without causing inflation is because of some countervailing basket of policies, no? Then why not just discuss the policies rather than saying "MMT says it is so" or "Read this lengthy treatise I wrote"? If people come back and argue that those policies are unrealistic because of the structure of the EU, or because of the nature of Irish politics, "MMT says it is so" is clearly an unsatisfying response, and "you just don't understand how inflation works, end of" is inflammatory. As I said before, this isn't a graduate seminar and Irish Economy is not a theory-driven forum - you need to engage with other posters by either showing their assumptions/assertions to be false or making a case for why the actual real-life examples they pull up (Argentina, Bolivia, etc) are not applicable in this case - again, using the language of politics not theory.

I want to be clear: you are free to push whatever policies you want in the forum, whether they are grounded in MMT, Keynesianism, Marxism, or neo-liberalism. You are free to question the assumptions of other posters. You are free to take an alternative viewpoint on inflation, austerity, whatever. But by and large, due to the nature of the forum - and in particular the Irish Economy forum - you are not free to, when challenged, reply with any variant of "MMT says it is so/Read this".

KyussBishop

southsiderosie wrote: »

This is starting to go around in circles. Your MMT-based answer to the question of why governments can print money without causing inflation is because of some countervailing basket of policies, no? Then why not just discuss the policies rather than saying "MMT says it is so" or "Read this lengthy treatise I wrote"?

I have not ever said "MMT says it is so", and I keep asking to be quoted where I have, but that is ignored and the misrepresentation repeated; I can't defend myself against that misrepresentation, when I can't see what it is based on.

The reason this is going in circles is because I seem to be being misrepresented, and my wider point seems to be getting missed.

If it is impossible to clarify a policy without delving into theory, and discussion of theory can not be redirected to another thread, how can that be resolved?

Note: Also, my suggestion of being able to link to theory threads is not fobbing people off with "go read the theory thread", it is to promote discussion in that thread, i.e. "I can't reply here, but if you ask the same question in that thread, I'll reply there".

southsiderosie wrote: »

This is starting to go around in circles. If people come back and argue that those policies are unrealistic because of the structure of the EU, or because of the nature of Irish politics, "MMT says it is so" is clearly an unsatisfying response, and "you just don't understand how inflation works, end of" is inflammatory.

These misrepresentations really bother me; I have asked to be quoted where I have done this so I can defend myself, and that is being ignored, just to have that repeated again.

I have not done this, and if it is claimed that I do, it is only right that it be quoted.

southsiderosie wrote:

As I said before, this isn't a graduate seminar and Irish Economy is not a theory-driven forum - you need to engage with other posters by either showing their assumptions/assertions to be false or making a case for why the actual real-life examples they pull up (Argentina, Bolivia, etc) are not applicable in this case - again, using the language of politics not theory.

If I say, in the case of Weimar Germany, how it is not comparable to money creation now:
They were forced into hyperinflation because they were forced to pay reparations back in foreign currency, by exchanging their currency for the foreign currency, and eventually this caused them to be locked into printing currency and thus caused hyperinflation (semi-accurate anyway, can't remember exact details).

I then say: That is not comparable to, e.g., a job guarantee, because money creation spent on idle resources, i.e. idle labour and idle industry capacity, is not inflationary; that is completely different.


That is a lot more succinct than the usual course of my argument, but there is still a fair bit of theory (primarily, the theory of how inflation works); I don't know how I can avoid that, so I don't know how to defend that position without delving into at least some theory. Is that example above acceptable on Politics?

It also changes the burden of proof, where the hyperinflation scaremonger can bring up any random example of hyperinflation happening, and I have to disprove that as a comparison, rather than him disprove that e.g. a money-creation-funded job guarantee does not have to be inflationary.

southsiderosie

KyussBishop wrote: »

I have not ever said "MMT says it is so", and I keep asking to be quoted where I have, but that is ignored and the misrepresentation repeated; I can't defend myself against that misrepresentation, when I can't see what it is based on.

The reason this is going in circles is because I seem to be being misrepresented, and my wider point seems to be getting missed.

I don't have time to pull out quotes right now, but this is the general impression. And I feel like you are missing the wider point that several of us have been trying to make here.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If it is impossible to clarify a policy without delving into theory, and discussion of theory can not be redirected to another thread, how can that be resolved?

But it is not impossible for the vast majority of people who use the forum, and this includes those posters who have historically been quite active in the Theory forum, and whose ideological positions are clear to Politics regulars.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Note: Also, my suggestion of being able to link to theory threads is not fobbing people off with "go read the theory thread", it is to promote discussion in that thread, i.e. "I can't reply here, but if you ask the same question in that thread, I'll reply there".

Do you not see how this is aggravating for those posters who are interested in your response to issues raised in the original thread? If you have to keep referring people to other threads to make your point, you need to re-think how you are making that point in the first place.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If I say, in the case of Weimar Germany, how it is not comparable to money creation now:
They were forced into hyperinflation because they were forced to pay reparations back in foreign currency, by exchanging their currency for the foreign currency, and eventually this caused them to be locked into printing currency and thus caused hyperinflation (semi-accurate anyway, can't remember exact details).

I then say: That is not comparable to, e.g., a job guarantee, because money creation spent on idle resources, i.e. idle labour and idle industry capacity, is not inflationary; that is completely different.


That is a lot more succinct than the usual course of my argument, but there is still a fair bit of theory (primarily, the theory of how inflation works); I don't know how I can avoid that, so I don't know how to defend that position without delving into at least some theory. Is that example above acceptable on Politics?

That seems sufficient. But if someone challenges you on why you think printing money to spend on 'idle labor' would not lead to inflation, given the general understanding of how inflation works, then you need to be able to explain why in general terms without assigning mandatory reading.

KyussBishop wrote: »

It also changes the burden of proof, where the hyperinflation scaremonger can bring up any random example of hyperinflation happening, and I have to disprove that as a comparison, rather than him disprove that e.g. a money-creation-funded job guarantee does not have to be inflationary.

You keep saying people are scaremongers, but printing money in times of economic crisis - including periods of high unemployment - has a terrible track record historically, particularly in Latin America. So if you are going to push against orthodoxy and history, the burden is on you to illustrate why what you are proposing is fundamentally different from what other governments have tried (and failed) to do in the past. And you need to do that without deferring to 'because MMT says so'.

ezra_pound

southsiderosie wrote: »

This is starting to go around in circles. Your MMT-based answer to the question of why governments can print money without causing inflation is because of some countervailing basket of policies, no? Then why not just discuss the policies rather than saying "MMT says it is so" or "Read this lengthy treatise I wrote"? If people come back and argue that those policies are unrealistic because of the structure of the EU, or because of the nature of Irish politics, "MMT says it is so" is clearly an unsatisfying response, and "you just don't understand how inflation works, end of" is inflammatory. As I said before, this isn't a graduate seminar and Irish Economy is not a theory-driven forum - you need to engage with other posters by either showing their assumptions/assertions to be false or making a case for why the actual real-life examples they pull up (Argentina, Bolivia, etc) are not applicable in this case - again, using the language of politics not theory.

I want to be clear: you are free to push whatever policies you want in the forum, whether they are grounded in MMT, Keynesianism, Marxism, or neo-liberalism. You are free to question the assumptions of other posters. You are free to take an alternative viewpoint on inflation, austerity, whatever. But by and large, due to the nature of the forum - and in particular the Irish Economy forum - you are not free to, when challenged, reply with any variant of "MMT says it is so/Read this".

This post sums up quite succinctly my own experiences of 'discussing' and 'debating' issues with Kyusbishop. Spot on.

ezra_pound

southsiderosie wrote: »

You keep saying people are scaremongers, but printing money in times of economic crisis - including periods of high unemployment - has a terrible track record historically, particularly in Latin America. So if you are going to push against orthodoxy and history, the burden is on you to illustrate why what you are proposing is fundamentally different from what other governments have tried (and failed) to do in the past. And you need to do that without deferring to 'because MMT says so'.

Ah yes. I've been called a scaremonger alright.

What I love about Kyusbishop is the way he/she completely ignores empirical evidence and then claims that his MMT bible is developed using empirical proof!



I posted this in a similar tread:

How about this quote from Bemholz (2003), "Monetary regimes and inflation"

'It has still to be shown that all hyperinflations ... have been
connected with huge public budget deficits... As can
be seen from the column referring to budget deficits, our hypothesis that in all
cases of hyperinflation deficits amounting to more than 20 per cent of public
expenditures are present, is confirmed for all cases except for Belarus,
Turkmenistan, Poland 2 and Yugoslavia. Whereas the first three show deficits
of between 5.87 and 12.04 per cent of expenditures, the budget figures for
Yugoslavia even present a surplus (Table 8.5(b)). As will be argued below
(Section 8.5), especially the case of Yugoslavia, but also those of the other
countries is incredible. As a consequence we maintain the position that the
huge budget deficits strongly suggest that the hyperinflations were caused by
issuing money to finance them.'

I've also just posted a quote from Krugman in wikipedia on another similar thread which has been Kyusbishoped and MMT'ed:

New Keynesian economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has stated that the MMT view that deficits never matter as long as you have your own currency is "just not right".[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism

I think southsiderosie may agree with this quote from the same wiki page:

New Keynesian Brad DeLong has suggested MMT is not a theory but rather a tautology


P.S.
OOPS! - only just started reading back over this forum.
I thought it was arguing with KYUSSBISHOP over printing money in recession etc...

Agree with all the posters !

K-9

Just on an aside I'm not sure why exactly this deserves a separate thread in Feedback when we've a discussion on the rules thread in politics for questions like this.

From reading back on your recent posts in the last week or so it would seem the majority are based on this theory, I can count 3 or 4 threads at least and 2 with extensive posting about it necessitating mod warnings, you even posted in AH about it. It is soap boxing in an evangelist type way.

KyussBishop

^^ ezra: You would need to explain why it's a tautology, not just provide a link that asserts it; though this would not be the thread for it.

southsiderosie wrote:

Do you not see how this is aggravating for those posters who are interested in your response to issues raised in the original thread? If you have to keep referring people to other threads to make your point, you need to re-think how you are making that point in the first place.

I'd prefer not to refer to other threads indeed, and instead to explain in my own words, right in the same thread; if I'm worried about how my reply might be taken as too much based in theory though, I would only consider linking a thread for fear of being warned. The alternative for a lot of stuff, is to leave my argument undefended, as I would not be sure if I can defend it without delving into at least some theory.

southsiderosie wrote:

That seems sufficient.

Okey, well it's good that that's sufficient, as I at least still see a way to defend my arguments; it is still a bit confusing to me though, where the line is drawn between policy and theory. If that line is fuzzy, I would worry about stepping over it without knowing, and getting more warnings; confusing/bad for me, and unintentionally aggravating for the mods.

southsiderosie wrote:

But if someone challenges you on why you think printing money to spend on 'idle labor' would not lead to inflation, given the general understanding of how inflation works, then you need to be able to explain why in general terms without assigning mandatory reading.

Perhaps a lot of the problem here is just my difficulty putting some of my points succinctly, and ending up explaining the policy in verbose, and delving into theory; it can be hard to put some things succinctly.


I'm trying to think of a more succinct way of describing the inflation part of the argument, and this is what I can manage (it inaccurately oversimplifies some things, for sake of keeping it short):
One of the primary ways inflation is caused, is (simplified) the demand for a good exceeding the supply of that good; if demand for a good drops below its supply, you can use money creation to buy up goods and increase demand, with little or no inflationary penalty.

When an economic downturn happens, demand for labour, goods, and industry in general, falls well short of supply; this is often caused by excessive private debt, sucking up demand.

Enormous amounts of created money can be pumped into private debt, into consumers hands, and into combining idle labour and idle industry, before demand meets supply again (you need to individually consider demand/supply for each of labour, specific industry, and specific goods); this allows an enormous amount of room, before created money will cause inflation.


Does that avoid theory well enough?

southsiderosie wrote:

You keep saying people are scaremongers, but printing money in times of economic crisis - including periods of high unemployment - has a terrible track record historically, particularly in Latin America. So if you are going to push against orthodoxy and history, the burden is on you to illustrate why what you are proposing is fundamentally different from what other governments have tried (and failed) to do in the past. And you need to do that without deferring to 'because MMT says so'.

You'll find that, in every discussion, I have done this with the exact inflation argument above (except more in depth), usually with a precursor explaining why money creation does not automatically lead to inflation, without ever saying "MMT says so"; I haven't fobbed people off like that in the course of argument.


Anyway, I think once I see more clearly, the line drawn between policy/theory, it will probably resolve this; I am just still confused on that, and am worried that the line may be kind of fuzzy (as that would lead to me not knowing when I might step over the rules, creating a chilling effect).

KyussBishop

K-9 wrote: »

Just on an aside I'm not sure why exactly this deserves a separate thread in Feedback when we've a discussion on the rules thread in politics for questions like this.

From reading back on your recent posts in the last week or so it would seem the majority are based on this theory, I can count 3 or 4 threads at least and 2 with extensive posting about it necessitating mod warnings, you even posted in AH about it. It is soap boxing in an evangelist type way.

I forgot about the rules thread in Politics; that might have been a better place alright.

How is it soapboxing if I am engaging in people with argument? (soapboxing is a one-way exchange)
If I present a policy, and provide significant backing for that policy, that isn't soapboxing if the policy is on-topic (even if I do it a lot), and so long as I respond to argument; the theory is a problem though, for being off-topic.

So primarily, the problem seems to be the encroachment of theory into discussion about the policies I put forward.

ezra_pound

KyussBishop wrote: »

^^

Anyway, I think once I see more clearly, the line drawn between policy/theory, it will probably resolve this; I am just still confused on that, and am worried that the line may be kind of fuzzy (as that would lead to me not knowing when I might step over the rules, creating a chilling effect).

Stop reading all that MMT stuff. It's empirically proven to blur vision and create apparitions of fuzzy lines. I can explain exactly how blurriness happens from MMT but take no notice because I'm a scaremonger and my explanation is a straw man.

As an aside: Everything you have been told about blurry lines is conventional and wrong. Ever since the Ken Kesey days we can now create blurry waves and lines as much as we like without effecting true clarity and understanding. You probably don't even know how obfuscation works. Blurry is the clear of the future.

LoLth

K-9 wrote: »

Just on an aside I'm not sure why exactly this deserves a separate thread in Feedback when we've a discussion on the rules thread in politics for questions like this.

From reading back on your recent posts in the last week or so it would seem the majority are based on this theory, I can count 3 or 4 threads at least and 2 with extensive posting about it necessitating mod warnings, you even posted in AH about it. It is soap boxing in an evangelist type way.

this.

Feedback is welcome but this has descended into a debate on the merits and validity of an economic theory. it is no longer feedback. I think the mods of the politics forum have given their views, its up to you to decide if you are willing to post in the forum under the limitations set by the moderators. You may not agree with those limitations but the mods know the forum and the users well enough to know what is and is not acceptable when discussing topics so that they are acceptable to the users of the forum.

As K-9 says, there is a thread in politics for discussion of the politics forum rules, I would suggest that any further questions be posted there.