Four “Tells” That Show Krugman Knows He Cannot Win an Honest Debate

When Krugman and a bevy of the “Very Serious People” (VSP) Krugman used to ridicule created and then attacked strawman MMT positions (e.g., using Roche’s rant), they were unintentionally revealing their knowledge that they did not believe they could dispute successfully MMT scholars’ real positions.

当克鲁格曼和一群“非常严肃的人”（VSP）克鲁格曼过去常常嘲笑创造然后攻击稻草人 MMT 立场（例如，使用罗氏的咆哮）时，他们无意中透露了他们的知识，他们不相信自己能够成功地质疑 MMT 学者的真实立场。

My first article quoted the “Very Serious People’s” admissions that MMT is “obviously true” and that the VSPs spread “myths,” quasi-religious “superstition,” and “obvious falsehood[s]” to deceive the voters and elected officials to reject MMT.

我的第一篇文章引用了“非常严肃的人”的承认，即现代货币理论“显然是正确的”，而 VSP 散布“神话”、准宗教“迷信”和“明显的谎言”来欺骗选民和民选官员来拒绝现代货币理论。

VSPs are openly admitting that the reason they lie is that they believe that the voters and elected officials would agree with MMT scholars’ if there were an honest debate.

VSP 公开承认，他们撒谎的原因是他们相信，如果进行诚实的辩论，选民和民选官员会同意 MMT 学者的观点。

You do not lie to win a debate when the facts are on your side.

当事实站在你这边时，你就不会为了赢得辩论而撒谎。

I want every reader to hold the VSPs to the burden of proof they logically accepted when they adopted their coordinated strategy of smearing MMT scholars with ad hominem labels that we are “fringe,” “messianic,” “extremists” who are obviously wrong about economics.

我希望每个读者都让 VSP 承担起他们逻辑上接受的举证责任，因为他们采取了协调一致的策略，用人身攻击的标签来抹黑 MMT 学者，称我们是“边缘人”、“救世主”、“极端主义者”，他们对经济学的看法显然是错误的。

When economists and white-collar criminologists have predictive records extending over decades (mine extends over 35-years), it would be easy for opponents to demonstrate copious predictive and policy failures if MMT and MMT scholars were actually bogus.

当经济学家和白领犯罪学家拥有长达数十年的预测记录（我的预测记录超过 35 年）时，如果 MMT 和 MMT 学者实际上是假的，反对者很容易证明大量的预测和政策失败。

Predictive strength, as Krugman has repeatedly emphasized, is the key test of the strength and validity of theory and policy.

正如克鲁格曼一再强调的那样，预测强度是检验理论和政策强度和有效性的关键。

The VSPs claim, without reading our literature, that they know we are sham scholars.

VSP 声称，他们没有读过我们的文献，就知道我们是假学者。

Fine.

美好的。

If your claim is correct, it is a simple matter to meet your burden.

如果你的主张是正确的，那么减轻你的负担是一件简单的事情。

Document with quotations and citations our frequent, recurrent predictive and policy errors.

用引文和引文记录我们经常出现的预测和政策错误。

The VSP assault on MMT makes enormous claims that we are shams who deserve scorn and disrespect because our theoretical work is obviously, totally baseless.

VSP 对 MMT 的攻击极大地声称我们是骗子，应该受到蔑视和不尊重，因为我们的理论工作显然是毫无根据的。

The VSP’s chose their own burden of proof when they decided to rely on an ad hominem assault.

当 VSP 决定依靠人身攻击时，他们选择了自己的举证责任。

The obvious tell is that the VSPs would not rely on ad hominem smears if the facts ‘obviously’ prove that the MMT scholars are “fringe” fantasists.

显而易见的是，如果事实“明显”证明 MMT 学者是“边缘”幻想家，VSP 就不会依赖人身攻击诽谤。

The fourth tell is the most novel and brazen.

第四个故事是最新颖、最厚颜无耻的。

It is also relies on Krugman’s paranoid conspiracy theory about MMT scholars.

这也依赖于克鲁格曼对MMT学者的偏执阴谋论。

Krugman’s paranoid conspiracy theory, which he put in writing, is that MMT scholars want to keep our work and theories secret from orthodox scholars.

克鲁格曼写下的偏执阴谋论是，现代货币理论学者想要对正统学者保守我们的工作和理论的秘密。

On February 12, 2019, Krugman wrote two columns attacking MMT.

2019年2月12日，克鲁格曼撰写了两篇攻击MMT的专栏。

In his first February 12, 2019 column, Krugman launched this citation-free smear of MMT scholars.

在 2019 年 2 月 12 日的第一篇专栏中，克鲁格曼发起了对 MMT 学者的无引文诽谤。

But first it seems to me that I need to set out what’s right and what’s wrong about MMT.

但在我看来，首先我需要弄清楚现代货币理论的正确与错误。

Unfortunately, that’s a very hard argument to have – modern MMTers are messianic in their claims to have proved even conventional Keynesianism wrong, tend to be unclear about what exactly their differences with conventional views are, and also have a strong habit of dismissing out of hand any attempt to make sense of what they’re saying.

不幸的是，这是一个很难提出的论点——现代现代货币理论的支持者们在声称甚至证明传统的凯恩斯主义都是错误的方面具有救世主般的主张，往往不清楚他们与传统观点的差异到底是什么，而且还习惯性地立即驳回任何试图理解他们所说内容的尝试。

I hope that reading Krugman’s paranoid claim triggered in you the “Twilight Zone’s” music intro.

我希望阅读克鲁格曼的偏执主张能够引发您对“暮光之城”音乐介绍的兴趣。

It is difficult to use logic to refute Krugman’s breathtaking flight of paranoia because he could launch it only by abandoning even the pretense of logic.

很难用逻辑来反驳克鲁格曼惊人的偏执狂，因为他只有放弃逻辑的伪装才能发动它。

My first question for the reader is “ why ?” MMT scholars cannot secure employment and promotion, publish, or influence anyone as scholars without spending large portions of our lives explaining our theories in books, articles, blogs, testimony, innumerable presentations, and media appearances.

我向读者提出的第一个问题是“为什么？”如果不花费我们一生的大部分时间在书籍、文章、博客、证词、无数的演讲和媒体露面中解释我们的理论，MMT 学者就无法获得就业和晋升、发表论文或影响任何人作为学者。

If we hope to influence policy makers, we have to be able to explain complex, multi-disciplinary analytics in plain language.

如果我们希望影响政策制定者，我们就必须能够用简单的语言解释复杂的、多学科的分析。

As my first article in this series explained, the reason for the blizzard of VSP assaults on MMT and MMT scholars is that MMT scholars have effectively communicated to progressive members of Congress MMT’s precepts.

正如我在本系列的第一篇文章中所解释的，VSP 对 MMT 和 MMT 学者的猛烈攻击的原因是 MMT 学者有效地向国会进步成员传达了 MMT 的戒律。

MMT scholars have also explained to progressive members of Congress MMT’s implications for policies and the U.S. fiscal capacity to implement the emerging progressive policy core that polls show has broad support from the electorate.

现代货币理论学者还向国会进步派议员解释了现代货币理论对政策的影响以及美国实施新兴进步政策核心的财政能力，民意调查显示，该政策核心得到了选民的广泛支持。

Krugman and the terrified forces of orthodoxy launched this desperate assault on MMT scholars not because we block any “attempt to make sense of what [we’re] saying,” but because we do the opposite.

克鲁格曼和令人恐惧的正统势力对现代货币理论学者发起了这种绝望的攻击，不是因为我们阻止任何“试图理解我们所说的内容”，而是因为我们做了相反的事情。

We are getting increasingly good at helping elected officials make sense of the interplay of the complex research findings from economists, criminologists, accountants, and psychologists.

我们越来越擅长帮助民选官员理解经济学家、犯罪学家、会计师和心理学家的复杂研究成果之间的相互作用。

(In jargon, we ‘synthesize’ theory from multiple disciplines.) We help them understand the theory and its implications for policy.

（用行话来说，我们“综合”来自多个学科的理论。）我们帮助他们理解理论及其对政策的影响。

Krugman and the orthodox assault team mounted their coordinated attack on MMT scholars because of our clarity and our efforts to help people understand MMT and its policy implications.

克鲁格曼和正统攻击团队对现代货币理论学者发起了协同攻击，因为我们的清晰度以及我们为帮助人们理解现代货币理论及其政策含义所做的努力。

Here is one hint.

这是一个提示。

You are reading an article published originally in “New Economic Perspectives” (NEP).

您正在阅读一篇最初发表在《新经济视角》（NEP）上的文章。

Other web sites and newspapers frequently republish and quote our articles.

其他网站和报纸经常转载和引用我们的文章。

MMT scholars write most of our articles.

我们的大部分文章都是由 MMT 学者撰写的。

Stephanie Kelton, when she was at UMKC, started the UMKC economics blog site (NEP) and edited it for the express purpose of explaining MMT.

斯蒂芬妮·凯尔顿 (Stephanie Kelton) 在 UMKC 任职时，创办了 UMKC 经济博客网站 (NEP) 并对其进行编辑，其明确目的是解释 MMT。

I now have that mission.

我现在有这个使命。

(Thank you Devin Smith, the volunteer that has made our website possible for years!) Is Krugman seriously paranoid enough to claim that the tens of thousands of hours of work MMT scholars have put into NEP was done for the purpose of blocking our readers’ “attempt to make sense of what [we’re] saying?”

（谢谢德文·史密斯，多年来让我们的网站成为可能的志愿者！）克鲁格曼是否真的偏执到声称 MMT 学者在 NEP 上投入的数万个小时的工作是为了阻止我们的读者“试图理解我们所说的内容”？

Note that Krugman, without any quotation or citation, issues a general condemnation of whatever he means by the term “MMTers.” That term is “unclear.” I leave it to the reader to decide why Krugman deliberately chose a vague term that he did not define.

请注意，克鲁格曼在没有任何引用或引用的情况下，对他所说的“MMT 者”一词的含义进行了普遍谴责。这个词“不清楚”。我让读者来决定为什么克鲁格曼故意选择一个他没有定义的模糊术语。

He may have lumped MMT scholars with social media commenters in order to demean the scholars as no better academics than social media commenters.

他可能将现代货币理论学者与社交媒体评论者混为一谈，目的是贬低这些学者并不比社交媒体评论者更好。

He may have used the vague term to smear the maximum number of people with his paranoid fantasy that we all seek to ensure that no one can “make sense of what [we’re] saying.” He may have used it for both purposes.

他可能使用了这个模糊的术语，用他的偏执幻想来抹黑大多数人，我们都试图确保没有人能够“理解我们所说的”。他可能将其用于两个目的。

In all cases one our family rules is again proven – it is impossible to compete with unintentional self-parody.

在所有情况下，我们的家庭规则再次被证明——不可能与无意识的自我模仿竞争。

The irony of Krugman using such a vague phrase of his own construction to attack globally some group of undefined people for their purportedly intentional vagueness in some unspecified and unknowable context is lost on Krugman.

克鲁格曼使用自己构建的如此模糊的短语来攻击全球范围内一些未定义的人群，因为他们在某些未指定和不可知的背景下故意含糊不清，这一讽刺在克鲁格曼看来是不存在的。

I explained that Krugman, being a paragon of unintentional self-parody, managed to top the inherent self-parody of creating a deliberately vague strawman group in order to declare every member of that group guilty of intentional vagueness by using Cullen Roche as his only identified exemplar of that group.

我解释说，克鲁格曼是无意识自我戏仿的典范，他成功地超越了固有的自我戏仿，创建了一个故意模糊的稻草人团体，通过使用卡伦·罗奇作为他唯一确定的该团体的典范，以宣布该团体的每个成员都犯有故意模糊的罪行。

Roche is a non-scholar and an opponent of MMT.

罗氏是一位非学者，也是现代货币理论的反对者。

Krugman’s use of Roche raised his levels of unintentional self-parody to a level of artistry.

克鲁格曼对罗氏的运用将他无意识的自我戏仿提升到了艺术水平。

MMT scholars’ work is the issue – not “MMTers,” whoever they may be.

MMT 学者的工作才是问题所在，而不是“MMT 学者”，无论他们是谁。

MMT scholars do not read the comments by non-scholars on Krugman’s website to learn Krugman’s views on economics.

MMT学者不会阅读克鲁格曼网站上非学者的评论来了解克鲁格曼的经济学观点。

That would obviously be insane.

这显然是疯狂的。

We certainly would not read the comments of non-scholars on Krugman’s website advancing positions attacking Krugman’s views and ascribe the critics’ comments to Krugman.

我们当然不会在克鲁格曼的网站上看到非学者的评论，提出攻击克鲁格曼观点的立场，并将批评者的评论归咎于克鲁格曼。

That would be beyond insane.

那太疯狂了。

I have just described, of course, Krugman’s attribution of Roche’s Ayn Rand-like Galtian rant to MMT scholars.

当然，我刚才已经描述了克鲁格曼将罗氏的艾因·兰德式加尔特式的咆哮归咎于现代货币理论学者。

Krugman, however, transcended this “beyond insane” level or by constructing an even more paranoid fantasy – and then attempted to weaponize it as a bizarre debate trick.

然而，克鲁格曼超越了这个“超越疯狂”的水平，或者构建了一个更加偏执的幻想，然后试图将其武器化为一种奇怪的辩论技巧。

Hold on to your seats, I am taking you on an even wilder ride on the Krugman paranoia express.

坐在座位上，我将带您乘坐克鲁格曼偏执快车，进行一次更疯狂的旅程。

On February 12, 2019, Krugman published two columns attacking MMT.

2019年2月12日，克鲁格曼发表了两篇攻击MMT的专栏。

In his second column, Krugman re-launched his favorite anti-MMT strawman claim.

在他的第二篇专栏中，克鲁格曼重新推出了他最喜欢的反现代货币理论稻草人主张。

MMT scholars (and me) repeatedly telling him that his strawman was false.

现代货币理论学者（和我）反复告诉他，他的稻草人是假的。

I keep hearing that heterodox economics — specifically Modern Monetary Theory — says that we don’t have to worry about where the money will come from, that because we have a printing press deficits don’t matter.

我不断听到非正统经济学——特别是现代货币理论——说我们不必担心钱从哪里来，因为我们有印钞机，赤字并不重要。

Note that first clause.

请注意第一个子句。

It probably seems innocuous, but it is highly revealing.

它可能看起来无害，但它非常具有启发性。

“I keep hearing” – from who?

“我不断听到”——来自谁？

Note that Krugman does not write: “I keep reading MMT scholars that say ‘we don’t have to worry about where the money will come from.’” Krugman does not even write: “I keep reading non-scholars’ comments on my web site.” No, he just “hears” apparently hearsay comments from unspecified people that unspecified, never quoted and never cited “MMTers” “say” (again, not write) that “because we have a printing press deficits don’t matter.” So, Krugman talks to unidentified folks, probably reporters, and they tell him that unidentified people they talk (“MMTers”) believe that “because we have a printing press deficits don’t matter.” On that sound, utterly normal research basis, Krugman wrote two columns smearing MMT scholars with a preposterous strawman argument.

请注意，克鲁格曼没有写道：“我一直在阅读现代货币理论学者的说法，‘我们不必担心钱从哪里来。’”克鲁格曼甚至没有写道：“我一直在我的网站上阅读非学者的评论。”不，他只是“听到”来自未指明的人的显然是道听途说的评论，这些评论未指明，从未引用过，也从未引用过“MMTers”“说”（再次，不是写）“因为我们有印刷机赤字并不重要”。因此，克鲁格曼与身份不明的人（可能是记者）交谈，他们告诉他，他们交谈的身份不明的人（“MMTers”）相信“因为我们有印刷机赤字并不重要”。在这个健全的、完全正常的研究基础上，克鲁格曼写了两篇专栏文章，用荒谬的稻草人论点抹黑现代货币理论学者。

Actually, Krugman was acting far worse than I have yet explained.

事实上，克鲁格曼的表现比我所解释的要糟糕得多。

Krugman has been repeating this same smear for many years, and MMT scholars have been correcting him for years only to have him re-offend.

克鲁格曼多年来一直在重复同样的诽谤，现代货币理论学者多年来一直在纠正他，结果却让他再次冒犯。

At a minimum, Krugman has known for at nearly six years that this strawman is false.

至少，克鲁格曼在近六年的时间里就知道这个稻草人是假的。

He has known because three MMT scholars and Brad DeLong told him that MMT scholars believed the opposite.

他之所以知道这一点，是因为三位 MMT 学者和布拉德·德隆告诉他，MMT 学者的看法恰恰相反。

DeLong compiled some of our efforts in a March 18, 2013 blog devoted to the subject of Krugman and MMT scholars calling him out on his strawman attacks on MMT.

德隆在 2013 年 3 月 18 日的博客中整理了我们的一些成果，专门讨论克鲁格曼和 MMT 学者的主题，谴责他对 MMT 的稻草人攻击。

As you read what we wrote six, eight, and nine years ago, recall Krugman’s recent claims that we are “messianic” wingnuts who seek to block “any attempt to make sense of what [we’re] saying.” (Also, Paul, if we were emulating our messiah we would use parables so the general population could understand the message.

当你读到我们六年、八、九年前写的文章时，请回想一下克鲁格曼最近的说法，即我们是“弥赛亚式”的疯子，他们试图阻止“任何试图理解我们所说内容的尝试”。 （另外，保罗，如果我们效仿我们的弥赛亚，我们会使用比喻，以便普通大众能够理解这个信息。

If MMT scholars were “messianic” our entire focus would be on making our gospel (“good news”) as understandable as possible to the public.) You cannot logically accuse us of both being messianic in our desire to spread our views to the widest possible audience and claim that we are dedicated to preventing anyone from learning what we think.

如果MMT学者是“弥赛亚式的”，那么我们的全部重点将是让公众尽可能地理解我们的福音（“好消息”）。）你不能从逻辑上指责我们既渴望将我们的观点传播给尽可能广泛的受众，又声称我们致力于阻止任何人了解我们的想法，这在逻辑上是合理的。

You will see from DeLong’s compendium of our efforts that we have been making every effort over the course of nearly a decade to explain – repeatedly – in the clearest terms that Krugman’s strawman was false.

你会从德隆对我们努力的概述中看到，在近十年的时间里，我们一直在尽一切努力——反复地——以最清晰的措辞解释克鲁格曼的稻草人是错误的。

Note that three MMT scholars took the time to write articles explaining to Krugman that his strawman was false.

请注意，三位现代货币理论学者花时间写文章向克鲁格曼解释他的稻草人是假的。

Why would three of us do so if our goal was to prevent poor Paul from learning “what [we’re] saying”?

如果我们的目标是阻止可怜的保罗了解“我们在说什么”，为什么我们三个人要这样做呢？

DeLong (and Krugman) Smackdown Watch: Bill Black, Stephanie Kelton, and Randy Wray Are Justifiably Irate Modern Monetary Theory How Do Deficits Matter?: Monday Hoisted from Comments Weblogging

德隆（和克鲁格曼）的打击观察：比尔·布莱克、斯蒂芬妮·凯尔顿和兰迪·雷有理由愤怒现代货币理论赤字如何重要？：周一从评论网络日志中吊起

DeLong’s conclusion was that the three MMT scholars were “justifiably irate” at Krugman’s strawman argument attacking MMT.

德隆的结论是，三位现代货币理论学者对克鲁格曼攻击现代货币理论的稻草人论点“理所当然地感到愤怒”。

Jeff Sachs is irate.

杰夫萨克斯很生气。

He says that Paul Krugman says that deficits don’t matter.

他说保罗·克鲁格曼说赤字并不重要。

And that makes Paul Krugman irate: [DeLong then quotes Krugman]

这让保罗·克鲁格曼感到愤怒：[德隆随后引用了克鲁格曼的话]

Deficits and the Printing Press : Right now, deficits don’t matter — a point borne out by all the evidence.

赤字和印刷机：目前，赤字并不重要——所有证据都证明了这一点。

But there’s a school of thought — the modern monetary theory people — who say that deficits never matter, as long as you have your own currency.

但有一个学派——现代货币理论人士——认为只要拥有自己的货币，赤字就无关紧要。

I wish I could agree with that view — and it’s not a fight I especially want, since the clear and present policy danger is from the deficit peacocks of the right.

我希望我能同意这种观点——而且这并不是我特别想要的一场斗争，因为当前明确的政策危险来自右翼的赤字孔雀。

But for the record, it’s just not right…

但郑重声明，这是不对的……

“It’s just not right.” True.

“这就是不对。”真的。

Krugman was right that Sachs’ claim was false.

克鲁格曼认为萨克斯的说法是错误的，这是正确的。

Krugman does not believe that deficits never matter.

克鲁格曼并不认为赤字永远不重要。

MMT scholars do not believe that deficits never matter.

现代货币理论学者并不认为赤字永远不重要。

It is ironic that one sentence after defending himself from Sachs’ false charge, Krugman used exactly that same false charge against MMT scholars whose work he plainly never read.

具有讽刺意味的是，克鲁格曼在为萨克斯的虚假指控辩护后，又对现代货币理论学者使用了同样的虚假指控，而他显然从未读过这些学者的著作。

DeLong makes this point clear.

德隆明确指出了这一点。

He begins by quoting me, then Stephanie Kelton about Krugman’s karma, and then Randy Wray.

他首先引用了我的话，然后是斯蒂芬妮·凯尔顿关于克鲁格曼因果报应的言论，然后是兰迪·雷的言论。

For the record, Paul’s description of MMT’s position is incorrect, as we have repeatedly explained to him.

根据记录，保罗对现代货币理论立场的描述是不正确的，正如我们一再向他解释的那样。

This is a strawman claim.

这是稻草人的主张。

If Paul ever cites a work by academic MMT scholar (X) to support his claim (Y) that “MMT” argues that “deficits never matter” we will be able to show that the MMT scholar’s work actually argues “not Y.” Indeed, it is worse to make the claim without citation because it does not allow the reader to check the citation and realize that it actually argues “not Y.”

如果保罗引用学术 MMT 学者 (X) 的著作来支持他的主张 (Y)，即“MMT”认为“赤字无关紧要”，我们将能够证明 MMT 学者的著作实际上主张“不是 Y”。事实上，在没有引用的情况下提出主张更糟糕，因为它不允许读者检查引用并意识到它实际上主张“不是 Y”。

Well, what goes around….

好吧，周围发生了什么……

Krugman characterizing MMT on March 25, 2011: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/

克鲁格曼于 2011 年 3 月 25 日描述 MMT：http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/deficits-and-the-printing-press-somewhat-wonkish/

Right now, deficits don’t matter — a point borne out by all the evidence.

目前，赤字并不重要——所有证据都证明了这一点。

But there’s a school of thought — the modern monetary theory people — who say that deficits never matter, as long as you have your own currency.” ~Paul Krugman

但有一个学派——现代货币理论人士——认为只要拥有自己的货币，赤字就无关紧要。” ～保罗·克鲁格曼

Leading MMTer L.

领先的MMTer L.

Randall Wray writes a blog entitled “Deficits DO Matter, But Not the Way You Think.” July 20, 2010.

兰德尔·雷 (Randall Wray) 撰写了一篇题为“赤字确实很重要，但不是你想的那样”的博客。 2010 年 7 月 20 日。

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/deficits-do-matter-not-way-you-think

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/deficits-do-matter-not-way-you-think

Deficits Do Matter, But Not the Way You Think | Next New Deal : Our claim is that a sovereign government cannot be forced into involuntary default.

赤字确实很重要，但不是你想象的那样下一个新政：我们的主张是，主权政府不能被迫非自愿违约。

We have never claimed that sovereign currencies are free from inflation.

我们从未声称主权货币不存在通货膨胀。

We have never claimed that currencies on a floating exchange rate regime are free from exchange rate fluctuations.

我们从来没有声称浮动汇率制度下的货币不受汇率波动的影响。

Indeed, we have always said that if government tries to increase its spending beyond full employment, this can be inflationary…

事实上，我们一直说，如果政府试图在充分就业之外增加支出，这可能会导致通货膨胀……

we have admitted that currency depreciation is a possible outcome of using government policy to stimulate the economy….

我们承认，货币贬值是利用政府政策刺激经济的可能结果……。

None of the 48 commenters on DeLong’s column on MMT and deficits could meet my challenge and quote any MMT scholar stating that deficits never matter.

德隆关于 MMT 和赤字的专栏上的 48 名评论者中没有一个能够应对我的挑战并引用任何 MMT 学者的说法，即赤字从来不重要。

DeLong wrote that he had not found any such quotation from an MMT scholar.

德隆写道，他没有找到现代货币理论学者的任何此类引述。

DeLong wrote:

德隆写道：

The closest I can come to meeting Bill Black’s challenge is to go to Warren Mosler’s Soft Currency Economics:

我能最接近地应对比尔·布莱克的挑战就是阅读沃伦·莫斯勒的《软货币经济学》：

Warren Mosler is a very smart man and an important contributor to MMT thought, but he is not an MMT scholar, which was my challenge.

沃伦·莫斯勒是一个非常聪明的人，也是 MMT 思想的重要贡献者，但他不是 MMT 学者，这是我的挑战。

The passage DeLong cites from Mosler does not say that deficits never matter.

德隆引用莫斯勒的话并没有说赤字永远不重要。

It says that a nation with a fully sovereign currency does not face a “financial risk” (i.e., bond vigilantes cannot create a risk of governmental default on debts in its own currency).

它说，一个拥有完全主权货币的国家不会面临“金融风险”（即债券义务警员不能造成政府以其本国货币债务违约的风险）。

DeLong quotes the passage in which Mosler says that the fact that the bond vigilantes cannot create a default danger does not mean that deficits cannot cause bad “economic outcomes” (e.g., inflation).

德隆引用了莫斯勒所说的一段话，债券义务警员不能造成违约危险这一事实并不意味着赤字不能导致不良的“经济结果”（例如通货膨胀）。

Options over spending, taxation, and borrowing, however, are not limited by the process itself but by the desirability of the economic outcomes.

然而，支出、税收和借贷的选择并不受过程本身的限制，而是受经济结果的期望的限制。

Mosler’s language is not as clear.

莫斯勒的语言并不那么清晰。

Wray, Kelton, and I used exceptionally clear language in 2013 to, not for the first time; make clear that MMT scholars do not say that deficits never matter.

雷、凯尔顿和我在 2013 年使用了异常清晰的语言，这并不是第一次；明确现代货币理论学者并没有说赤字无关紧要。

DeLong understood that Mosler was not saying that deficits never matter to “economic outcomes” like inflation.

德隆明白，莫斯勒并不是说赤字对通货膨胀等“经济结果”从来不重要。

Now that you know that we, and DeLong, called Krugman out on his creation of a strawman claim to attack MMT six years ago, and that Krugman launched the identical strawman argument in his current assault on MMT, you can begin to see how farblondget Krugman is.

既然你知道我们和德隆在六年前斥责克鲁格曼编造了一个攻击现代货币理论的稻草人主张，并且克鲁格曼在他目前对现代货币理论的攻击中发起了同样的稻草人论点，你就可以开始看到克鲁格曼有多金发了。

Even adding the 2013 history does not suffice to explain how paranoid, convoluted, and devious Krugman’s fourth ‘tell’ is.

即使加上 2013 年的历史也不足以解释克鲁格曼的第四次“讲述”是多么偏执、错综复杂和狡猾。

A normal human being would be embarrassed that DeLong and a trio of scholars called out Krugman so publicly and effectively for creating a strawman – particularly given the irony that Krugman wielded the same strawman argument Sachs used to attack him unfairly to attack MMT scholars unfairly.

一个正常人会感到尴尬的是，德隆和三位学者如此公开而有效地指责克鲁格曼创造了一个稻草人——特别是讽刺的是，克鲁格曼利用萨克斯用来不公平地攻击他的相同稻草人论点来不公平地攻击现代货币理论学者。

A normal human being would publicly apologize to the MMT scholars, not wait six years and hurl the same strawman argument at MMT scholars.

一个正常人会公开向 MMT 学者道歉，而不是等六年后向 MMT 学者抛出同样的稻草论据。

Indeed, a normal human being would recognize that the MMT scholars were urging the same policy actions from a different theoretical perspective.

事实上，一个正常人会认识到现代货币理论学者是从不同的理论角度敦促采取相同的政策行动。

A normal human being would consider us likely allies and act collegially, particularly given the unprofessional and utterly fallacious attack he launched on us.

一个普通人会认为我们可能是盟友并共同行动，特别是考虑到他对我们发起的不专业且完全错误的攻击。

Krugman, however, took a radically different approach to dealing with his DeLong’s castigation in 2013 of his error and abuse.

然而，克鲁格曼在 2013 年对德隆的错误和虐待行为进行严厉批评时，采取了截然不同的方法。

Krugman did not simply double down on his original strawman argument in his February 2019 assault on MMT.

克鲁格曼在 2019 年 2 月对 MMT 的攻击中并没有简单地强化他最初的稻草论点。

He tried to make his repeated false claims against MMT scholars into a virtue – and make his repeated falsehoods the fault of the victims of his strawman attacks.

他试图将他一再针对现代货币理论学者的虚假主张变成一种美德，并将他一再的谎言归咎于他的稻草人攻击的受害者的过错。

This is the point where Krugman’s paranoia, his lack of intellectual honesty in admitting error, his refusal to apologize for combining error and ad hominem smears, and his belief that he is so much more clever than anyone else that he can convert his failures into a debate trap combine to create his “Calvinball” tactic.

正是在这一点上，克鲁格曼的偏执、他在承认错误时缺乏理智上的诚实、他拒绝为将错误和人身攻击相结合而道歉，以及他相信自己比任何人都聪明得多，可以将自己的失败转化为辩论陷阱，这些结合起来创造了他的“卡尔文球”策略。

Here is what Krugman thinks is his brilliant debate trap.

克鲁格曼认为这是他精彩的辩论陷阱。

He invents, without any supporting citation or quotation from any MMT scholar, a super-charged paranoid fantasy.

他发明了一种超强的偏执幻想，但没有任何现代货币理论学者的任何支持性引用或引用。

He begins as I have explained with the paranoid assertion that MMT scholars do everything possible to seek to block Krugman from learning “what [we’re] saying.”

正如我所解释的那样，他一开始就偏执地断言，现代货币理论学者会尽一切可能阻止克鲁格曼了解“我们在说什么”。

The second step is to complain bitterly, without any supporting citation or quotation from MMT scholars, that we keep pointing out that he falsely ascribes strawman arguments to us.

第二步是在没有任何现代货币理论学者的支持性引用或引用的情况下强烈抱怨我们不断指出他错误地把稻草人的论点归咎于我们。

As I have just documented with extensive quotation and citation from DeLong’s 2013 blog, MMT scholars have repeatedly quoted and cited passages from Krugman columns in which he falsely presents strawman arguments that he ascribes to MMT scholars without any supporting quotations or citations.

正如我刚刚从德隆 2013 年的博客中大量引用和引证所记录的那样，MMT 学者反复引用和引用了克鲁格曼专栏中的段落，其中克鲁格曼错误地提出了他归咎于 MMT 学者的稻草论点，而没有任何支持的引文或引文。

We then go on to state our actual position, which is the opposite of Krugman’s strawman claims.

然后我们继续陈述我们的实际立场，这与克鲁格曼的稻草人主张相反。

For obvious reasons, Krugman does not quote or cite any of the cases where we document and falsify his strawman claims.

出于显而易见的原因，克鲁格曼没有引用或引用我们记录和伪造他的稻草主张的任何案例。

Instead, he invents an alternate reality.

相反，他发明了另一种现实。

In this alternate reality, Poor Paul is engaged in a search for truth and seeks repeatedly to learn what “MMTers” believe.

在这个替代现实中，可怜的保罗致力于寻找真理，并反复寻求了解“MMT 主义者”的信仰。

The jesuitical MMT scholars bedevil Poor Paul’s labors in search of the truth by deliberately making it so terribly hard to understand what we believe.

耶稣会现代货币理论学者故意让我们的信仰变得非常难以理解，从而使可怜的保罗寻找真理的努力陷入困境。

Now comes the double-dose of Krugman paranoia.

现在克鲁格曼偏执狂的双倍剂量来了。

He is outraged that every time he says “MMT say X” – we respond by demonstrating that MMT scholars actually say the opposite.

他感到愤怒的是，每次他说“MMT 说 X”时，我们都会通过证明 MMT 学者实际上说的是相反的观点来回应。

Under the double-shot Krugman paranoia theory, it reflects badly on us to point out that Poor Paul is repeatedly creating strawmen arguments and that every time he does so we call him out and refute his claims.

根据双重克鲁格曼偏执理论，指出可怜的保罗一再制造稻草人论点，并且每次他这样做我们都会斥责他并反驳他的主张，这对我们产生了不好的影响。

Poor Paul, selfless seeker of the truth, obviously would never create a strawman claim about MMT and then attack his own strawman.

可怜的保罗，无私的真理追求者，显然永远不会创造一个关于现代货币理论的稻草人主张，然后攻击他自己的稻草人。

It follows ineluctably (i.e., with no need for citation or quotation) that when he ascribes to MMT scholars a claim “I keep hearing” came from some unidentified, unquoted, and uncited “MMTer” that claim must be what MMT scholars believe.

不可避免地（即，不需要引用或引用），当他将“我不断听到”的主张归咎于现代货币理论学者时，它来自于一些身份不明、未引用和未引用的“现代货币理论学者”，该主张必定是现代货币理论学者所相信的。

It then follows ineluctably without any need for support, that when MMT scholars deny and refute his hearsay assertions about some unidentified “MMTers” they are lying and playing ‘Calvinball.’ MMT scholars have conspired to confuse Poor Paul about MMT precepts and policy recommendations to ensure that he never learns what we MMT scholars believe.

接下来，不可避免地，不需要任何支持，当现代货币理论学者否认和反驳他关于一些身份不明的“现代货币理论学者”的道听途说时，他们就是在撒谎，玩“卡尔文球”游戏。现代货币理论学者合谋让可怜的保罗对现代货币理论的戒律和政策建议感到困惑，以确保他永远不会了解我们现代货币理论学者所相信的东西。

Now comes the debate trick Krugman thinks is so clever.

现在来了克鲁格曼认为非常聪明的辩论技巧。

He announced in his recent attacks on MMT that repeat his old, discredited strawman claims about MMT scholars, that it if MMT scholars point out that he is repeating his strawman arguments he knows are false – he will declare that we lose the debate.

他在最近对现代货币理论的攻击中宣布，重复了他对现代货币理论学者的旧的、不可信的稻草人主张，如果现代货币理论学者指出他正在重复他明知是错误的稻草人论点，他将宣布我们输掉了这场辩论。

Why?

为什么？

Because if we prove (again) that he is (again) ascribing to us strawman arguments as a sleazy debate tactics, he will define our refutation as Calvinball and declare that he has won the debate.

因为如果我们（再次）证明他（再次）将我们的稻草人论点归咎为一种卑鄙的辩论策略，他就会将我们的反驳定义为卡尔文博尔，并宣布他赢得了辩论。

Krugman’s debate tactic is to create a Catch-22 .

克鲁格曼的辩论策略是制定第 22 条军规。

(See article 5 in this series for an update on this debate tactic.) If we allow them to ascribe falsely to MMT views that are the opposite of MMT we lose.

（有关此辩论策略的最新信息，请参阅本系列的第 5 篇文章。）如果我们允许他们错误地归因于与 MMT 相反的 MMT 观点，我们就会失败。

If we point out the falsehood of the strawman argument, we lose because Krugman gets to declare that we are engaged in Calvinball.

如果我们指出稻草人论点的虚假性，我们就会失败，因为克鲁格曼宣布我们参与了卡尔文球运动。

Joseph Heller coined the term to illustrate a logical error under which those who set the rules ensure that there is no escape from the paradox.

约瑟夫·海勒（Joseph Heller）创造了这个术语来说明一种逻辑错误，在这种错误下，制定规则的人确保无法逃脱悖论。

Calvinball is a mythical game without rules.

卡尔文球是一种没有规则的神话游戏。

MMT scholars, however, are playing by the normal academic rules.

然而，现代货币理论学者却遵循正常的学术规则。

The normal academic rules are that you quote and cite the rival scholarly research you are challenging, and explain your logic and show where you found your facts critical to testing theory and praxis.

正常的学术规则是你引用并引用你所挑战的竞争对手的学术研究，并解释你的逻辑并表明你发现你的事实对于检验理论和实践至关重要。

Look again at DeLong’s 2013 blog to see what the normal rules look like in application.

再看看 DeLong 2013 年的博客，看看正常规则在应用中是什么样子的。

DeLong links to the original articles and quotes key passages.

德隆链接到原始文章并引用了关键段落。

He identifies the people involved.

他确定了相关人员的身份。

DeLong shows through quotation from a 2013 Krugman column that Sachs falsely ascribed to Krugman the strawman argument that Krugman believed that deficits never matter.

德隆通过引用 2013 年克鲁格曼专栏的内容表明，萨克斯错误地将克鲁格曼认为赤字无关紧要的稻草人论点归咎于克鲁格曼。

Sachs quoted Krugman correctly, but DeLong’s fuller quotation of Krugman’s 2013 column demonstrates that Sachs seized on a passage that when removed from its full context created a false impression denying Krugman’s actual belief that deficits sometimes matter.

萨克斯正确地引用了克鲁格曼，但德隆更全面地引用了克鲁格曼 2013 年的专栏，这表明萨克斯抓住了一段话，当从全文中删除这段话时，会产生一种错误的印象，否认克鲁格曼真正相信赤字有时很重要。

Sachs made DeLong’s task far easier by providing the citation to the Krugman article so that readers could check the full text and, like DeLong, spot that Sachs had presented Krugman’s arguments contrary to the full context.

萨克斯通过提供对克鲁格曼文章的引用，使德隆的任务变得更加容易，以便读者可以检查全文，并像德隆一样，发现萨克斯提出的克鲁格曼的论点与全文相反。

Krugman, by contrast, ascribed to MMT scholars exactly the same strawman argument Sachs had wielded against him, but Krugman provided no quotations and no citations when he falsely ascribed the identical strawman argument to the MMT “people.” Krugman did not identify scholars who supposedly believed what he claimed “MMT people” believe.

相比之下，克鲁格曼将萨克斯用来反对他的同样的稻草人论点归咎于现代货币理论学者，但当克鲁格曼错误地将相同的稻草人论点归咎于现代货币理论“人民”时，他没有提供任何引文和引用。克鲁格曼没有指出哪些学者相信他所说的“现代货币理论人士”所相信的东西。

Krugman’s failure to follow the normal scholarly rules of identifying, quoting, and citing the scholars you are criticizing made it far more difficult for readers to check his claims.

克鲁格曼未能遵循识别、引用和引用你所批评的学者的正常学术规则，这使得读者更难以检查他的主张。

The MMT scholars that DeLong cited and quoted provided Krugman’s key language and citations to Krugman’s relevant column so that readers could read Krugman in complete context and evaluate the strength of the MMT scholars’ refutation of Krugman’s strawman argument.

德隆引用和引用的MMT学者为克鲁格曼相关专栏提供了克鲁格曼的关键语言和引文，以便读者能够在完整的语境中阅读克鲁格曼，评价MMT学者反驳克鲁格曼稻草人论点的力度。

The MMT scholars followed the normal scholarly rules.

MMT学者遵循正常的学术规则。

Krugman is the one playing Calvinball .

克鲁格曼是扮演卡尔文博尔的人。

He is the one refusing to follow the normal rules and making up bizarre rules.

他就是那个拒绝遵守正常规则并制定奇怪规则的人。

To date, Krugman has created five Calvinball rules.

迄今为止，克鲁格曼已经创建了五条卡尔文博规则。

First, he declares himself the official scorer who gets to declare himself the debate victor.

首先，他宣布自己是官方得分手，并可以宣布自己是辩论胜利者。

Second, he wins the debate if his opponents demonstrate (again) that he is (again) falsely ascribing strawman arguments to rival academics, for he declares the rule that if we refute his mischaracterization of MMT we are guilty of playing Calvinball.

其次，如果他的对手（再次）证明他（再次）错误地把稻草人的论点归咎于竞争对手的学者，他就赢得了辩论，因为他宣称，如果我们反驳他对现代货币理论的错误描述，我们就犯了卡尔文博尔的错误。

Third, he gets to use copious ad hominem attacks to smear MMT scholars, but they must give him deference because he is a VSP.

第三，他可以使用大量的人身攻击来抹黑 MMT 学者，但他们必须尊重他，因为他是 VSP。

Fourth, he gets to declare that if he can draw an IS-LM graph that could be consistent with an economic phenomenon – he has established that IS-LM is correct and MMT is at best simply derivative of IS-LM.

第四，他可以宣称，如果他能画出一个与经济现象相一致的 IS-LM 图，他就已经确定 IS-LM 是正确的，而 MMT 充其量只是 IS-LM 的衍生品。

Fifth, each of these four claims is a non sequitur under normal rules of logic.

第五，这四个主张中的每一个在正常逻辑规则下都是不合逻辑的。

Krugman is the one playing Calvinball, and he understands the optimal game theoretic strategy in Calvinball is for one party to announce immediately a Catch-22 rule ensuring that he always wins.

克鲁格曼是玩卡尔文球的人，他明白卡尔文球的最佳博弈论策略是一方立即宣布第 22 条规则，确保他总是获胜。