I noticed this tweet response from Warren Miosler this morning:
I have replied as follows:
The point about preparing the ground a little more is relevant. After the debate that has already happened, I want to summarise the points of difference this week. I think that is important. Then there is a structure to the discussion.
There will, in other words, be more posts on MMT over the next few days. I am unapologetic: thinking on the issues involved in this debate right is key to solving many of our economic problems, in my opinion.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Why do you want it to be in public or on twitter? It seems much more grown up to discuss it in private?
A debate is not held in private
Accountability has to be witnessed
It seems you want confrontation..you need to understand not everyone thinks that way
I want change
If that requires a few eggs be broken to make the required new omelette, so be it
Mr Hall, please explain why a public debate means it is confrontational? I find this kind of non-sequitur offers a depressing commentary on the capacity of people to place their beliefs to the test of public scrutiny. It is a demonstration only of intellectual weakness. How are assertions to be tested, if only debated in private?
@John Warren
Herr Mosler literally said ‘in person’.
There is nothing in that to infer he meant ‘in public’; desirable as that may be, or without the content moderation that operates on this blog as an example.
If Mr Mosler says ‘in person’ and you don’t like that, why take it out your venom on Terry Hall as someone unhappy with ahem ‘public scrutiny’ when the person you should go for is the person that says ‘in person’. i.e. Mr Mosler.
You really are unpleasantly aggressive, aren’t you?
Warren Mosler made the offer publicly.
The paper I disputed was offered by him, publicly.
I will engage, publicly.
Now take your nastiness elsewhere, thank you.
Looks like an open MMT meeting, somewhere central, would be educational and fun.
I suspect on line will be required
Please don’t apologise for working on more MMT posts over the next week or so. I have thoroughly enjoyed the ones posted so far and regard the last week as one of the most informative and enjoyable periods spent reading your blog. The more, the merrier, in my view. The potential to get the formal definitions of MMT clarified for all – and the policy implications that would flow from that – is one of the most important public services anyone could deliver.
Regarding the issue of debating in public, you are quite right to insist on this. As can be seen from the nature of the various responses last week, the people who currently disagree with you are happy to grasp at any distraction or follow any misdirection or red herring (the request discuss Schrodinger’s cat had to be the most ludicrous). Having the debate in public will at least ensure that misrepresentations can be pointed out and misinformation can be minimised. Good luck!
Thanks
Appreciated
The problem lies for me in the way Mosler writes. He makes statements that come across as self evident. He’s done the thinking and that’s his verdict and you too are expected to understand that and his wisdom.
You on the other hand explain and evidence your thinking constantly – talk it through. Maybe hopefully, this is a stylistic issue ( but then again maybe not).
Mosler sort of apes how economic writing is these days – with its Neo-liberal bias and ways of presenting information, it’s economy of writing by way of what it does not say – it’s a bad habit but understandable (but not excusable) when we consider how dominant neo-liberalism is academia.
It is good that he wants to talk and its going to be interesting.
A set-piece debate may be interesting, but with the risk that rhetorical technique gets in the way. I would prefer to see his reasoned written response to your comments, so we can judge the quality of the argument and not the slickness of the presentation.
That is why I won’t agree to anything until I have summarised my arguments in full
I have begun that
There is. more to do
Oh! Bother, I missed the Schrödinger’s dead cat bounce. I should have known that one would come up. Desperation comes in many guises.
where do I buy a ticket 🙂
Wait for it…..
I think it was Richard Dawkins who famously declined an invitation for a public debate on Evolutionary Theory with someone who I’d never previously heard of, and someone whose name I have since forgotten, on the grounds that it would be a large positive in the CV of his opponent but a large negative in his own.
So it all depends on perceptions of relative status. You’re obviously putting Warren Mosler up there as a significant contributor to MMT. It remains to be seen whether he will reciprocate. His comments will more likely be of the “I hope that helps” variety! IMO.
He may not
But that would not be to his credit and I suspect he does not want to alienate potential and actual followers
Perhaps it could be a video podcast?
I hope so
I love intelligent discussion. Far too little of it these days. I want to see/hear/read this one.