As those who follow, my Twitter account will be aware, I was involved in a spat with Warren Mosler and those who follow his ideas on modern monetary theory over the weekend.
The dispute was on the role of tax within MMT, and as Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell, Randy Wray, Stephanie Kelton and others know, this is always been an issue of concern with MMT for me, at least as most (but not all) of them discuss it. The fact that Warren Mosler still presents arguments with regard to tax, which are, in my opinion, deeply dangerous to the economic causes that I think most of those who are attracted to MMT would wish to promote troubles me.
I was not alone in being concerned about the tone of the exchanges. Quite a number of people, including academics and well-known podcasters, questioned my right to disagree with Warren Mosler as if because he had spoken an economic truth that was inviolable had been revealed and I had no right to question it. As Ty Keynes, who works with Steve Keens, had to say on that issue:
Professor Steven Hail, a noted Australian proponents of MMT who appears to work most closely with Stephanie Kelton had this to say:
I am aware that neither commentator is criticising me. What concerns them and me is the implied suggestion of many those commenting that there can be no challenges to those who first promoted the ideas implicit in MMT. I share Steven's concern, ably expressed in his Twitter thread, that unless MMT can be challenged and therefore be developed as a result of rigorous debate then it is neither a discipline worthy of study or an applied methodology worthy of adaptation to real world scenarios.
I was trying not to work over the weekend and, therefore, when challenged by critics to refine my responses did so by reference to papers I had already written. Astonishingly, although I was replying to a paper by Warren Mosley, this method of response was apparently entirely unacceptable to my critics, who immediately claimed that I was unable to answer their questions, as if Twitter is the only place where such discourse can take place.
I do not have all the time in the world to address the issues I raised this week, but will do my best. I suspect I will do so in three stages. First I plan to post my glossary explanation of modern monetary theory, which has been sitting in draft for far too long. In that post, I expect to differentiate what I think MMT actually says, i.e. what is theory, and the political economic action that an understanding of MMT might lead to. They are not, of course, the same thing, but they are frequently confused.
The second post will focus upon the issues I have with Warren Mosler's paper, which he described as an explanation of MMT. In other words, it will be capable of contrast with the glossary definition that I will be posting.
Third, I will then do a post highlighting why I think Warren Mosler is wrong, and why we need a much better understanding of tax within MMT, and what that might be. In the process I may well touch upon some of the other rather strange claims that Bill Mitchell and Warren Mosler, particular, have been responsible for which are, in my opinion , real impediments to the acceptance of MMT as the basis for serious academic debate.
This debate is required. I am not going to duck it, even if it makes me unpopular.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Sir, I wish you well.
As an interested onlooker, I have always thought that there is a group of (mostly) men sitting at the top of the MMT tree who are excellent at describing the modern money system *in theory* (Mosler, Mitchell), and a second group of people who describe, with reference to that theory, the economic implications of those insights for our politicians (yourself).
As “Lee” said in a previous post this weekend, a child coming home with a sheet saying that “our government needs to borrow if it doesn’t gather enough in tax revenue” encapsulates the lack of knowledge. Giving the teacher a course on modern money *theory*, with talk of “the Debt Office” and “deficit spending” doesn’t help – unless it’s for an economics teacher. And it would certainly have no meaning for the pupil.
To improve the planet requires both the economist and the political economist. IMHO the theorists need to up their game and start talking about real-life scenarios, or accept that they are sitting in an ivory tower and let pragmatists work out how to utilise their theories.
At the end of the day, both groups are not in the wrong, but trying to compare a cricket bat with a baseball isn’t going to work. I understand only a little of the theory, but I do understand how that has a real life impact. Which tells you who is having the most effect on my political mindset.
As I said, I wish you well,.
I do not think Warren Mosler and Bill Mitchell do the theory well.
My whole point is some of what they say is seriously wrong.
That is what I will be arguing.
Good. This’ll be an opportunity to learn more about the subject, notwithstanding that knee-jerk critics are not interested in doing so.
The Life of Brian:
The People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front (fighting under Pilates Palace).
It is unfortunate that people that mostly agree often find it difficult to find common cause.
Doubtless the neocons are wetting themselves with laughter.
(no criticism of any parties in the MMT tax dispute btw)
The problem is that some in MMT are offering arguments the neocons will love
A wonderful moment in Life of Brian and I’ve always wondered which group on the Left they had in mind. I guess it was the WRP vs SWP spats which had their heyday in the 70s/80s. Also described as ‘whilst the Right are busy looking for converts, the Left are too often busy hunting down traitors’.
More seriously, it seems to me that Richard captures much of the unhelpful debate in suggesting ‘I expect to differentiate what I think MMT actually says, i.e. what is theory, and the political economic action that an understanding of MMT might lead to. They are not, of course, the same thing, but they are frequently confused.’ There are certainly some who suggest that MMT means that there is a bottomless pit of ‘money’ that can be spent into the economy regardless, with no negative consequences. That provides an open goal for MMT critics.
I have that and other open goals in mind
Work is progressing
I have conversed about MMT with Steve Hall in the past and he is a nice man – very helpful. People should listen.
This could be about egos and self regard – but let’s face it, MMTers might too easily bruise – I mean, they/you get kicked around a lot and not taken seriously, and you need enough ego to stick you head above the parapet anyway when confronted with the orthodoxy that dominates.
But the death knell of any movement trying to make change happen is when it cannot tell friend from foe. And that is what the Neo-libs are better at – sticking together and reinforcing each other. Mind you they have to be because their theories are pure shite anyway.
And BTW – you are not as your videos well illustrate an unreasonable man at all.
The least I expect of Mosler and Mitchell is that they model tax within MMT. Surely they can do that? I’m sure Steve Keen can!
Good luck – but the world needs those with a better narrative to stick together. It’s not about who is the king of the castle.
I will be on Steve Keen’s programme on 29/4 discussing this issue
Thanks for the head’s up – sounds worth watching.
I am a fervent supporter of MMT, but discussion is the only way to resolve difference of opinion. And sometimes those differences are due to different understandings, interpretations, experiences and viewpoints.
As long as everyone is respectful, I don’t see a problem, and when people aren’t, I assume they are just reacting, or I haven’t explained my point well.
I accept differences of course
I do not accept being told I cannot differ
In the early 90s a bond salesman in Tokyo gave the trading desk (where I worked) a copy of a piece called “Soft Currency Economics” written by one of his clients.
The thrust of things was that no country would ever default on its local currency debt. Why? Because they could always create money to pay back any particular maturing bond. This might have consequences for FX and Interest rates but there would be no default. For the hedge funds like his this meant that asset swapped government bonds at spreads over LIBOR were a free lunch.
Two things struck me. First, the piece came on a very high quality headed paper (no e-mail / internet in those days) with the company name and strapline “At first they ridicule, then they oppose but finally accept as self-evident” (or something like that). It smacked of a certain self importance.
Second, I don’t recall there being anything in it that was not self-evidently true – at least to any government bond trader. We were slightly surprised that it was being put out there as a piece of great insight. (For example, asset swapping of Italian Lire Government bonds was a huge market already and swapped Russian GKO debt would soon become the next hot thing).
In 1998 Russia defaulted on its local currency debt (but not its US dollar debt) with dire consequences for this hedge fund…. and many others. On a return visit to Tokyo I saw someone had dug up the old paper and pinned it on the notice board… but with the last phrase of the strapline crossed out and replaced to read “At first they ridicule, then they oppose… then they ridicule again”. In the world of bond trading the only scorecard was Profit and Loss.
The thrust of the paper was correct then and still is (the problem was that Russia, although not forced into default, chose to default) but the idea that someone “owns” the concept of MMT is nonsense.
Anyway, good luck with your discussions with the self-appointed High Priests of MMT.
Choice – now that’s a curse 🙂
Is it this: https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Soft-Curency-Economics-paper.pdf
Despite the date put on at the top, at the bottom it seems to date back to 1994 or 1995.
It has a US focus, but the conclusion bears repeating:
“The supposed technical and financial limits imposed by the federal budget deficit and federal debt are a vestige of commodity money. Today’s fiat currency system has no such restrictions. The concept of a financial limit to the level of untaxed federal spending (money creation/deficit spending) is erroneous. The former constraints imposed by the gold standard have been gone since 1971. This is not to say that deficit spending does not have economic consequences. It is to say that the full range of fiscal policy options should be considered and evaluated based on their economic impacts rather than imaginary financial restraints. Current macroeconomic policy can center around how to more fully utilize the nation’s productive resources. True overcapacity is an easy problem to solve. We can afford to employ idle resources.
Obsolete economic models have hindered our ability to properly address real issues. Our attention has been directed away from issues which have real economic effects to meaningless issues of accounting. Discussions of income, inflation, and unemployment have been overshadowed by the national debt and deficit. The range of possible policy actions has been needlessly restricted. Errant thinking about the federal deficit has left policy makers unwilling to discuss any measures which might risk an increase in the amount of federal borrowing. At the same time they are increasing savings incentives, which create further need for those unwanted deficits.
The major economic problems facing the United States today are not extreme. Only a misunderstanding of money and accounting prevents Americans from achieving a higher quality of life that is readily available.)”
That is fine
But what is said on tax is not
And there are other issues
Yes, that is the paper I saw… and yes, 1994 is about right – back in the days when Warren Mosler was running a Hedge Fund. Having glanced through it again is focuses on reserves, the Fed Funds rate and Fed open market operations using the sort of language that a bond trader would understand and take as self-evident. I don’t really have a problem with it…. but then there is little about Tax in it although his ideas have no doubt, developed since then. So, I await with bated breath to see where he and Richard disagree.
I am working in it.
It will not be ready for tomorrow.
According to Warren Mosler, the paper was first written in 1993. You can also find a version in book form – “Soft Currency Economics II” (copyright 1996 and 2012). As I’ve already mentioned in response to Clive Parry, Mosler knows that (most?) practitioners, including bond traders, understand the monetary operations described therein. The real point of the paper however is to draw conclusions from that understanding, and those conclusions cover a number of areas of economics. I doubt whether (most) bond traders would agree with (most) of those conclusions. However, he was seeking to persuade politicians.
Taxation is mentioned throughout, primarily because the paper seeks to show that tax does not fund government spending. There is also a section on taxation which floats some of Mosler’s suggestions on tax structure; in essence he says transaction taxes are inefficient and the focus should be on the disproportionate consumption of real resources. I imagine this is where Richard will disagree with the detail, or perhaps also with the principles?
The basic Mosler thesis is expressed in the first line of the section on taxation –
“Taxation is part of the process of obtaining the resources needed by the government.”
So he’s saying that taxation does not fund spending, but is required to release the resources including labour that are needed to implement public purpose – a point that Mosler has emphasised in many other discussions of MMT. The paper also touches on another of Mosler’s key policies – the job guarantee, which has been developed by several other MMT economists.
I am working on it still
The author of Soft Currency Economics has pointed out, many times, that practitioners including those at the Fed, get it. The problem, as he says, is with political appointees – and of course politicians.
I’m a little confused. Would you describe yourself as an “MMTer”?
The question is rather like asking is someone is a Christian
They come in many forms from fundamentalist to enlightened liberals
I think MMT is significant. I have never been a fundamentalist, having always had serious doubts about much that Mosler and Mitchell, in particular, have had to say.
That’s a bit like being a Christian and having serious problems with St Paul. Or even Leviticus. Many do.
Call me naive, but I thought applying rigour to evidence-based research is how we progress. “I believe this because…I hear you, but I believe something different because…Let’s have a discussion and see where we can agree, if possible.”
You would have thought that, wouldn’t you?
I don’t have a Twitter account and don’t follow any debates that go on there. As a consequence, I don’t even know how to locate the Twitter posts that Richard Murphy is responding to.
That being said, let me state that I have taught MMT several times now and in each case have referred my students to books by Richard Murphy, Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler and others. I’ve been in in-person sessions with Mitchell and Mosler and in Zoom meetings with all three, including attending the Levy Institute’s Summer Seminar last year where Mitchell and Murphy spoke via Zoom. I think it’s unfortunate that Richard’s “The Joy of Tax” has never been published in the U.S., which lessens students’ ability to read it.
So I have a lot of respect for all three of these people, as well as for Randy Wray, Stephanie Kelton and others. I’ve also been aware that these people do not necessarily all get along with each other. I’m not surprised by that, but I’m not happy about that either. I am aware that there is a school of thought that treats every remark by Warren Mosler as the MMT-gospel-truth, but I’ve never been a part of that school (and Warren does not strike me as the kind of guy who would want to be a part of that school, either). I hope that we can read discussion papers — not tweets — that will clarify our differences and enable us to move forward.
That is my hope
I have always felt deeply uncomfortable about the aggression in MMT
Bill Mitchell is partly responsible for this: I am far from alone in thinking him very aggressive.
But let’s be clear, I am not looking for friends. I am looking to get rid of things claimed for or about MMT that are not needed for it to be of use.
To add fuel to the fire, I have been trying to get something published for a week or so. I think it should annoy everybody
Show me the money!
Recently Silicon Valley Bank collapsed with multi-billion dollar losses.
A simple question:
Where are the billions that Silicon Valley Bank lost?
Three suggestions:
1) The orthodox Mr Market explanation is that that the bank “made bad investment decisions”. But this would mean that the counterparties of its trades have gained the billions that SVB lost. Just as, if I bet you £1,000 that Boris Johnson will come back as the next PM and I lose, I am £1,000 poorer and you are £1,000 richer. If the market explanation is correct, it has an unfortunate corollary. It means that bailing out bank customers is merely a side effect of state intervention. The overall effect is giving free money to the rest of the financial system.
2) The shoe box explanation. The money that the bank appears to have lost still exists, but is in a shoebox that cannot be opened until some future time. This helps with double entry accounting, and I think is Richard Murphy’s answer. The problem is that Mr Market and I think that only some of the money is in the shoebox. We can’t open the shoebox now, but our bet is that when the box is opened, only some of the money will be found. If Mr Market thought all the money was there, he would be happy to make a loan to the bank to tide it over.
3) The thin air explanation (https://sussexbylines.co.uk/s-where-do-they-come-from-where-do-they-go-and-a-bit-about-inflation/). £s and dollars are created from thin air and I argue that they can turn back into thin air. This explanation is my favourite, but I think it is unpopular with almost all flavours of economist – Neoliberal, Modern Monetary Theory, or Double Entry Accounting. To prove it wrong, however, you have to demonstrate where the money is. And if it is right, it also has strange implications.
I make a distinction between “working £s” and “resting £s” (same ref). “Working £s” circulate in the economy, buying goods and services. An excess of “working £s” will lead to inflation. “Resting £s” are tied up in assets and do not necessarily compete for goods and services. Silicon Valley Bank and other banks (also UK Pension Funds) got into trouble because their deposits were “working £s” and they converted these to “resting £s” in the form of bonds. When central banks raised interest rates, the assets that the bank was using for safe keeping of deposits became less valuable.
I suggest that a problem arises when double-entry book-keeping treats a fixed interest bond as equivalent to a particular number of £s or $s. If the central bank raises interest rates, the bond is valued at fewer £s or $s, though no transaction has taken place. Is any counterparty richer, or have some £s or $s just vanished? Conversely, when a central bank reduces interest rates, will some of the billions of £s or $s held in bonds just magic back into existence?
The misery inflicted by increased interest rates is mediated by the removal of “working £s” and is all too real, but what about “resting £s”? MMT is very precise about how money is created or cancelled. It seems absurd that billions of £s or $s could be created from thin air or disappear into thin air, not by a specific process, but simply as a side effect of a committee meeting. Have you a better explanation?
You need to distinguish realised and unrealised losses.
The losses were unrealised in the main.
They relate to valuation in the short and long term.
Your analysis does not allow for the fact that money is used for valuation without there ever having been an actual transaction to establish that value. That is why it does not work.
The losses are real whether you transact or not. For an unleveraged investor this is fine as they can hold on and keep collecting the (low) coupon until redemption. For a leveraged investor (and a bank is a highly leveraged investor) then there are constraints. Typically, this is having to post additional margin (to the people who lent you the money) as a bond sinks in value but for a bank it is the worry that lenders will just stop lending (depositors taking their money out) and you then have to liquidate the assets whatever your original intention was.
If SVB lost, the winner is the US Treasury – because that have issued an bond that pays a much lower coupon that the current market coupon.
You can consider the issuer (UST) and the owner (SVB) as the two opposite sides of a trade; one is “long” , one is “short”; one loses, one wins.
Clive, that is my thinking. An unrealised loss on a bond still has some real negative value, in the form of a bet whether the final value will be higher or lower than expected.
What I find weird and scary is the possibility that a decision to change the base rate increases or decreases the negative value of all bonds. Effectively destroying or creating billions of £s at the stroke of a pen. Worse, that an organisation that issues bonds can legally change their value at the stroke of a pen.
The final value is fixed
Between the theory and the practice falls the shadow of politics.
Neoclassical economics and the political projects that constitute neoliberalism have hugely benefited the rich.
It therefore doesn’t much matter what is true or false about the mechanics of central banks and government debt, or tax, or whatever else. It’s the politics that ultimately matters.
I agree
That is why I do political economy
The mistake you may be making Richard is to allow yourself to be drawn into an endless debate over this. The arguments are ideological; they are not going to be resolved; now, or ever. My sincere advice (for what it is worth)? Move on. Don’t look back, you will only turn to stone.
You operate in social media, and engage fully with Twitter. The problem is, close personal engagement in that world leads inevitably, unavoidably to these futile arguments. The nature of Twitter is that it doesn’t last. Its span is shorter than the relevance of a Tabloid headline. You will just dissipate your energy. Frankly the whole discipline of economics is not worth the energy expended.
Think the Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy. You cannot unscramble an egg.
Economics is the egg, and it was scambled long ago.
But I am an academic engaged in writing on this issue
It does matter
The issue matters; not this spat; it is just a Twitter storm; anoying as it undoubtedly is.
It is the issue I am addressing.
@ Richard,
You’ve made the following comment on Twitter
“Warren Mosler’s argument is that people work or run businesses to pay taxes. That is wrong. They pay tax because a) law requires it if b) they have income above a level. But they don’t work to pay taxes. They pay taxes because they work. So the argument Warren makes is false.”
I think I can see both sides of the argument here. With our complex taxation system it certainly looks to be the way you describe. However, let’s do a thought experiment:
Warren Mosler suggests the way European colonialists, in say Africa, imposed their rule (or could have imposed it) and at the same time implemented a monetary and taxations system, was to introduce a hut tax payable only in the currency of their issue. If the residents didn’t pay up, their huts and other properties were destroyed. All very simple and crude but the object of the exercise is clearly to compel the inhabitants to work to get their money to pay their taxes. It gave a value to the currency of issue. As Prof L Randall Wray puts it: “Taxes drive money”.
Over time the taxation system is progressively made more complex to eventually be very like the taxation system we have now. There is Income tax, capital gains tax, VAT etc. The hut tax itself is abolished at some point and replaced with property and land taxes of the kind which we are familiar with now.
So at what point will the taxation system have changed from the one described by Warren Mosler to the one that many think exists?
I’d suggest there isn’t any such transition. It may seem as if there has been but we still have to face the possibility of jail time if we don’t pay our taxes. The object of the exercise is now to ensure that society functions which it can only do if we all make a valid contribution by *working* to make things happen. We nearly all get enmeshed in the system whether we like it or not.
It may just about be possible to eek out a totally separate existence from the rest of society but it’s not an option many would choose.
Oh come on, Neil.
You have to engage the support of racist colonialists to make your argument and then argue that a government seeking to uphold the rule of law is a malign force in the economy.
What are you saying? That MMT is actually about promoting a far right libertarian agenda? In the case of Mosler and Mitchell I think it is. I had hoped better of you.
Please thank hard about withdrawing that deeply offensive comment.
Richard
I’ve had to read yours and Neil’s responses several times now to get my head around the issues, and I’m not sure I do.
I did a bit of research, and indeed there used to be colonial hut taxes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hut_tax
This reminded me of the 18th and 19th century window tax. In both cases, it seems to me, you have to work to pay the imposed tax, irrespective of whether you worked. That seems different to today, where you are taxed only if you work above a certain income threshold (I think your point)
I didn’t see Neil’s comment(s) as offensive. Comments may be construed as such if they are based on errors of fact (e.g. Holocaust denial), but the history of taxes does appear to be valid. Oh course the idea of colonialism and a hut tax themselves are offensive.
If my understanding is wrong, then I am happy to be corrected, no offence on my behalf is intended.
To use a racist, colonial tax as the basis for arguing nothing has changed without evidence is to me at best absurd, but at a basic level, offensive. We do not have a tax system that is remotely like that. If MMT has to descend to that depth to make its case it has no worthwhile case to make.
I agree that we no longer have anything like a window tax, though I find it of historical interest, as it also helps explains the mainstream view that taxes paid for spending.
But I also now see similarities with, and problems with a poll tax.
@ Richard,
It certainly wasn’t intention to support colonialism or racism.
Perhaps we could rework the hut tax story to remove these contentious issues and so any possible offence? Suppose we have a king who wishes to modernise his country’s economy by introducing a state currency. He sees the inefficiency of the barter system previously in use. He doesn’t have much gold or silver so a fiat currency is his only option.
He then levies a tax on huts and boats, payable only in his currency of issue, and naturally he has to enforce the payment of taxes by somehow punishing those who don’t pay. Maybe he puts them in the stocks or gives them a community service order! It can be whatever you like it to be.
Then the taxation system changes in exactly the same way as previously to be very like our present system. So the king has used his political power for benevolent purposes – but the point is that he was the one with the political power to be able to implement the process in the first place. Maybe he’s stepped back to be a constitutional monarch. Maybe he’s since been overthrown by republicans. It doesn’t matter for the purposes of the thought experiment.
This is the gist of Mosler’s argument which has nothing to do with Austrian economics or right wing libertarianism. It’s always useful to try to understand every theory even if we end up disagreeing with it on the grounds that it doesn’t fit the facts. Maybe that’s my scientific training coming to the fore!
There is a maxim that suggests when in a hole, stop digging.
You move from a racist trope that has been appearing quite regularly on MMT sites since at least 2016, where I can find it on Bill Mitchell’s blog, to a feudalist fantasy that presupposes a malign sovereign seeking to impose tax without justification and, what is more, who apparently does so without spending for public benefit first of all so that the required currency to make payment is available as a consequence of the benefit of that spending.
If you can’t see the anti-state, ant-tax messages in that I am troubled.
I am also troubled that the whole message relies on imposing a tax before spending, and is also antagonistic to fiat currency.
Then you suggest not much has changed now.
If you cannot see the problems with that then I suggest you really have not absorbed the messages from MMT, which is worrying since, if I guess your identity correctly you are a supposed expert on the subject.
I seriously suggest you open your eyes wide to the nonsense that is being said, wholly unnecessarily, to support MMT. And, I stress, this is a mild issue compared to the narratives to which I intend to draw attention soon from both Mosler and Mitchell.
I’ve said this before in comments on your blog, Richard, but it’s certainly worth saying again: Bill Mitchell is a very poor figurehead for MMT. His blog posts are long and rambling and his attitude towards people who disagree with him – even people on his own side – is obstreperous and dismissive. If he cut down his blog posts to (say) 500 words max per post and showed a willingness to engage with critics who are maybe 50-75% in agreement with him, rather than trying to shout down anyone who isn’t a 100% true believer, he’d do a lot better and MMT would be the better for it.
Warren Mosler seems incoherent on tax policy – for example this tweet from November 2020: “I have pointed out the real costs of transactions taxes, such as VAT and income taxes, disproportionately lower the standard of living for those with the lowest incomes, making those taxes, functionally, highly regressive= one more thing the political debate has backwards. 🙁 ” This may be correct on VAT but Mosler is totally wrong on income tax – it’s highly progressive even with England’s relatively low top rate of 45%. Further investigation reveals that Mosler is an advocate of the “one club golfer” approach of “raise all revenue from Land Value Tax”. This would be a mistake: while LVT has an important role to play in a good tax system, it would be a big mistake to get rid of income tax. Again, Mosler seems like a poor figurehead and advocate for the MMT movement.
Howard
I entirely agree on Mitchell. I have quite a number of mails from those who agree. I will not engage with him precisely because he is too obnoxious. I am not alone.
Re tax, Mosler’s misunderstanding is staggering. It’s either that or he is an Austrian economist. My renunciation of his arguments is now in draft. It is only 16 pages of A4 right now. Mitchell is caught in the cross fire.
Thanks for the comment.
Richard
@ Richard,
It might well be that Bill Mitchell and Warren Mosler have the personality defects you mention. But this is quite irrelevant. Isaac Newton was considered to be a rather an oddball and certainly not a pleasant person in his lifetime. It doesn’t change anything.
His theory of gravitation is still OK in a non-relativistic sense. It explains the motion of the planets pretty well. Apples still fall from trees!
My concern is with their theoretical justification for MMT, which I think seriously flawed even though MMT is not. They can have all the defects they like.
And of course, the only way to resolve the differences is through discussion.
Maybe
But publication of the evidence comes first