the mmt take is that high deficit spending is actually good in general since this creates net savings for the private sector
in terms measuring a simple effect, but if you think that increased demand increases inflationary "pressure", then the general effect of deficit spending must be inflationary even if it doesnt lead to inflation (due to eg the effect of other vatiables)
reserve status is a big example, we can deficit spend and get other countries to pay for it bc companies countries need dollars and dollar denominated bonds. ofc that leads to other issues like trade deficits insofar as production becomes more expensive with strong dollar
Yeah I'm under the impression its just not a hard science yet. Its seems to inherit the ambiguity of other soft sciences likes psychology.
"zero knowledge orwellianism" i like that. but I'm inclined to disagree here. imo hard sciences are in part hard because the subject under study does not change its behavior when being observed and theorized about. the problem with macro is that theory is inherently intertwined with broader political/social considerations because theory modifies behavior. that is to say, theory becomes socially/politically motivated insofar as it has behavioral implications, (even if value netural) in general any true proposition you make about the economy is way too contingent on other factors.
Yeah thats a good point. My basis of hard/soft science was just based on the degree of ambiguity that the discourse harbors, but the object of study itself being transformed by the process of studying, certainly adds a ton more ambiguity.
Yeah I agree that it won't become as hard as physics. At least, I'd be deeply surprised if at some point in our evolution we are able to engineer societies with the programmatic nonchalance with which we currently engineer televisions.
