MMT: REPORT FROM THE FRONT (PART2)

In Part 1 I discussed the third annual MMT conference that was recently held at Stony Brook, and you can find the program as well as videos of the conference here: ( https://www.mmtconference.org/ ).

在第 1 部分中，我讨论了最近在石溪举行的第三届年度 MMT 会议，您可以在此处找到会议议程和视频：( https://www.mmtconference.org/ )。

In this Part 2 I discuss a special issue of real-world economics review devoted to MMT ( http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue89/whole89.pdf ).

在第 2 部分中，我讨论了专门针对 MMT 的现实世界经济学评论特刊 (http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue89/whole89.pdf)。

As usual, my report stretched out to become too long for just 2 blogs so there will be a Part 3, coming later this week.

和往常一样，我的报告太长了，无法容纳 2 个博客，因此本周晚些时候将发布第 3 部分。

And who knows, maybe I’ll need a Part 4.

谁知道呢，也许我需要第四部分。

First, the good news.

首先是好消息。

The editors seem to have played the game reasonably fairly.

编辑们似乎相当公平地玩了这个游戏。

They invited contributions by MMT proponents and opponents.

他们邀请 MMT 支持者和反对者做出贡献。

Often editors will give the opponents an advantage—for example, letting them see the contributions by MMTers in advance, without letting the MMTers see the contributions by the opponents.

通常编辑者会给对手一些优势——例如，让他们提前看到MMTers的贡献，而不让MMTers看到对手的贡献。

When it comes to MMT, editors don’t like to play fairly.

当谈到 MMT 时，编辑们不喜欢公平竞争。

It looks to me like proponents and opponents were treated equally.

在我看来，支持者和反对者受到平等对待。

That is highly unusual when it comes to MMT “debates” which are almost always stacked against its proponents.

当涉及现代货币理论的“辩论”时，这是非常不寻常的，因为这些“辩论”几乎总是对其支持者不利。

More good news.

更多好消息。

There is one good contribution made to MMT that doesn’t come from the inner circle of MMTers.

对 MMT 做出的一项很好的贡献并非来自 MMT 拥护者的核心圈子。

This might be a first—at least, it is the first case I can recall.

这可能是第一次——至少，这是我记忆中的第一个案例。

The typical diatribe by critics runs like this.

批评家的典型谩骂是这样的。

MMT is wrong because it does not cover topics X, Y, and Z.

MMT 是错误的，因为它没有涵盖主题 X、Y 和 Z。

This will come from a critic who considers her/himself to be an expert on X, Y, Z.

这将来自一位自认为是 X、Y、Z 领域专家的评论家。

I do not recall any critic ever going on to try to extend MMT to cover topics X, Y and Z.

我不记得有任何批评家试图将 MMT 扩展到涵盖 X、Y 和 Z 主题。

This is, of course, what any scientist would do (I’m using the word scientist in a broad sense to include even social science).

当然，这是任何科学家都会做的事情（我在广义上使用“科学家”这个词，甚至包括社会科学）。

Our critics only want to take the opportunity to find a way to criticize us, not to actually do something that would be useful.

我们的批评者只是想借此机会找到批评我们的方法，而不是真正做一些有用的事情。

They know that the number of core MMT researchers who have developed MMT is exceedingly small—undoubtedly smaller than the core group of social scientists who have ever worked to develop a new paradigm.

他们知道，开发 MMT 的核心 MMT 研究人员数量极少——毫无疑问，比致力于开发新范式的社会科学家核心群体还要少。

But rather than joining to try to rectify the lacunae, they are only interested in bashing MMT.

但他们并没有加入进来试图纠正缺陷，而是只对抨击现代货币理论感兴趣。

They are not scientists—they barely rise above the level of trolls (and I’d guess trolls would even be embarrassed to be grouped together with some of our critics).

他们不是科学家——他们几乎没有达到巨魔的水平（我猜巨魔甚至会因为与我们的一些批评者归为一类而感到尴尬）。

So, this issue of rwer contains what I believe to be a first—an article that tries to fill a perceived gap.

因此，本期 rwer 包含了我认为是第一篇文章，试图填补已知的空白。

Some months ago Richard Murphy had written to me arguing that MMT has not gone sufficiently in depth on the issue of taxes.

几个月前，理查德·墨菲 (Richard Murphy) 写信给我，认为现代货币理论在税收问题上没有足够深入。

I thought that was a strange accusation—since most critics argue we talk too much about taxes (as in driving the currency and fighting inflation).

我认为这是一个奇怪的指控，因为大多数批评者认为我们过多地谈论税收（例如推动货币和对抗通货膨胀）。

Further, I had added a chapter to the second edition of my Modern Money Primer to discuss taxes in more detail—good taxes and bad taxes.

此外，我在《现代货币入门》第二版中添加了一章来更详细地讨论税收——好税和坏税。

But what Murphy meant was taxes at the micro level.

但墨菲的意思是微观层面的税收。

I responded that I accept the Musgrave&Musgrave approach (which I had studied—and taught; it is THE source on public finance).

我回答说我接受马斯格雷夫和马斯格雷夫方法（我研究过并教授过该方法；它是公共财政的来源）。

He responded that that is not sufficient.

他回答说这还不够。

I remained puzzled.

我仍然感到困惑。

But his piece in rwer , “Tax and modern monetary theory”, clarifies his point.

但他在 rwer 上发表的文章“税收和现代货币理论”澄清了他的观点。

And, I must add, in a reasonably respectful manner.

而且，我必须以一种相当尊重的方式补充。

Again, this is something we rarely see from critics—who call us fascists and communists (without I suppose recognizing that there’s an ocean of difference between the two—but, then again, the critics aren’t scientists).

同样，这是我们很少从批评家那里看到的东西——他们称我们为法西斯主义者和共产主义者（我认为没有意识到两者之间存在巨大的差异——但话又说回来，批评家不是科学家）。

Richard argues that “cash paid in tax is a residual figure arising from a plethora of decisions on tax bases, reliefs and allowances, as well as tax gaps that result from non-compliant taxpayer behavior”.

理查德认为，“税款支付的现金是由于大量关于税基、减免和津贴的决定以及不合规纳税人行为造成的税收缺口而产生的剩余数字”。

Recognizing MMT’s argument (based on Ruml) that taxes are not really for revenue purposes, he argues for seeing “use of tax [instead] as a critical instrument in economic and social policy management”.

他认识到现代货币理论（基于 Ruml）的观点，即税收并非真正用于收入目的，他主张将“使用税收（而不是）视为经济和社会政策管理的关键工具”。

I agree.

我同意。

My own contribution to the rwer issue actually addresses his first point, that taxes are a residual—what I call (following Keynesian theory) a leakage.

我自己对 rwer 问题的贡献实际上解决了他的第一点，即税收是一种剩余，我称之为（遵循凯恩斯主义理论）泄漏。

They cannot “pay for” anything since the spending must come first.

他们无法“支付”任何东西，因为支出必须是第一位的。

I argue that it is truly amazing that our Post Keynesian critics adopt the leakages and injections approach, recognizing that saving (a leakage) cannot finance investment (an injection) because injections logically come before leakages, but then drop it when they discuss government spending and taxes.

我认为，令人惊讶的是，我们的后凯恩斯主义批评者采用了泄漏和注入的方法，认识到储蓄（泄漏）无法为投资（注入）提供资金，因为从逻辑上来说，注入先于泄漏，但当他们讨论政府支出和税收时却放弃了它。

The same logic MUST be true of government spending (injection) and taxes (leakage).

同样的逻辑也一定适用于政府支出（注入）和税收（泄漏）。

But they all get “ dazed and confused ” when it comes to government.

但当谈到政府时，他们都会感到“茫然和困惑”。

They simply abandon any understanding of basic macro theory and jump on the “taxes pay for government spending” bandwagon.

他们干脆放弃了对基本宏观理论的任何理解，而跳上了“税收为政府支出买单”的潮流。

Truly bizarre and rather embarrassing too.

确实很奇怪，也很尴尬。

In many places I have also discussed the use of taxes for behavioral management (sin taxes, and the like).

我在很多地方也讨论过使用税收进行行为管理（罪恶税等）。

But Murphy’s article goes deeper than I have in the past.

但墨菲的文章比我过去的文章更深入。

I recommend reading it, and I’m going to incorporate some of his arguments in my future work.

我建议阅读它，并且我会将他的一些论点纳入我未来的工作中。

I want to be clear—I’m not embracing everything in his article and I’m not convinced that his insights lead to an entirely different (and implicitly presumed to be better?) paradigm, modern taxation theory (MTT).

我想澄清的是，我并没有接受他文章中的所有内容，并且我不相信他的见解会导致完全不同的（并且隐含地认为更好？）范式，即现代税收理论（MTT）。

But I’m glad he tried to make a positive contribution.

但我很高兴他试图做出积极的贡献。

I’m not going to talk about every contribution to the special issue of rwer .

我不会谈论 rwer 特刊的每一项贡献。

Some of them I will not read (Rochon, Palley—read at your own risk); and one of them I read but could not follow the argument (Lawson).

其中一些我不会读（罗雄、帕利——阅读的风险由你自己承担）；我读过其中一篇，但无法理解其中的论点（劳森）。

I have not yet read Trond’s piece (parallel currencies for Euroland in crisis); and I skimmed Armstrong’s pro-MMT piece that lays out a number of issues clearly (he mentions my contribution to rwer but doesn’t cite it—I do not know whether he had it in advance); Dirk’s co-authored piece applies MMT to the euro.

我还没有读过 Trond 的文章（危机中欧元区的平行货币）；我浏览了阿姆斯特朗支持现代货币理论的文章，​​其中清楚地列出了一些问题（他提到了我对 rwer 的贡献，但没有引用——我不知道他是否事先就知道了）；德克与人合着的文章将现代货币理论应用于欧元。

Many readers will find these to be useful reviews of MMT.

许多读者会发现这些是对 MMT 的有用评论。

Shipman’s piece focuses on details of measuring the sectoral balances, warning that mismeasurement could lead to flawed analysis.

希普曼的文章重点关注衡量部门平衡的细节，警告称错误的衡量可能会导致分析有缺陷。

(I’ll come back to this while discussing Mayhew’s piece.) Lots of decisions go into national accounting and the official numbers can indeed mislead.

（我会在讨论梅休的文章时回到这一点。）许多决策都涉及国民核算，而官方数据确实可能会产生误导。

For me the most interesting part of his article dealt with a difference between modern money theory and modern monetary theory .

对我来说，他的文章中最有趣的部分涉及现代货币理论和现代货币理论之间的区别。

He has no problem with the first—which is the chartal theory of money—but worries about some of the analysis of the second.

他对第一个——货币图表理论——没有任何疑问，但对第二个的一些分析感到担忧。

Unfortunately this section is too brief so I didn’t fully understand his distinction.

不幸的是，这一部分太简短了，所以我没有完全理解他的区别。

I will note here that I use the terminology Modern Money Theory—and have seen that usage as following on from the title of my 1998 book ( Understanding Modern Money ).

我将在这里指出，我使用了术语“现代货币理论”，并且看到这种用法与我 1998 年的书的标题（《理解现代货币》）一致。

We also used this terminology in our textbook.

我们在教科书中也使用了这个术语。

However, many of my colleagues had used the other terminology Modern Monetary Theory.

然而，我的许多同事使用了其他术语“现代货币理论”。

I object to that as it draws attention to the word “monetary” and leads many to believe it is all about monetary policy—while in reality much of the focus is on fiscal policy (and we argue that the traditional division between the two is highly misleading in any case).

我反对这一点，因为它引起了人们对“货币”一词的关注，并导致许多人相信这一切都与货币政策有关——而实际上，大部分焦点都集中在财政政策上（我们认为，两者之间的传统划分无论如何都是高度误导的）。

Further, it seems to conjure in some minds a similarity to Monetarism.

此外，在某些人看来，它似乎与货币主义有相似之处。

But I’ve never seen the distinction Shipman is trying to make.

但我从未见过希普曼试图做出的区分。

It is perhaps useful but I don’t fully get it.

它也许有用，但我不完全明白。

Toporowski’s piece is a real head scratcher.

托波罗夫斯基的作品确实令人头疼。

After his introduction, he begins the analysis in earnest in the first paragraph on page two.

介绍完毕后，他在第二页第一段开始认真分析。

One immediately finds 3 statements supposedly about MMT:

人们立即发现 3 条据称是关于 MMT 的陈述：

OK, three strikes and you are out.

好吧，三振你就出局了。

I decided to give him one more strike for old time’s sake, and immediately found it in the next paragraph:

我决定看在旧情的份上再给他一击，立刻就在下一段中找到了：

I read that far so that you won’t have to bother.

我读了这么多，这样你就不用费心了。

I have no idea whose theory he is presenting.

我不知道他提出的是谁的理论。

None of the developers of MMT believe that there is only state money (“anyone can create money, the problem is to get it accepted”—MMT has always adopted endogenous money—hell, I wrote the damned book on it, as Bernie would say: Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies: the endogenous money approach , 1990); none believes taxes make people hold money and determine its value (we say that taxes drive a demand for money, but we do not claim that taxes determine its value or create a desire to hold money); none believes there is some policy option called “monetization” (all government spending today is always “monetized” through keystrokes to bank accounts); and none believes a JG is nonessential (the choice is between an employed or an unemployed bufferstock and MMT chooses the former).

MMT 的开发者都不相信只有国家货币（“任何人都可以创造货币，问题是让它被接受”——MMT 总是采用内生货币——见鬼，我写了一本关于它的该死的书，正如伯尼所说：《资本主义经济中的货币与信贷：内生货币方法》，1990 年）；没有人相信税收使人们持有货币并决定其价值（我们说税收驱动了对货币的需求，但我们并不声称税收决定了货币的价值或创造了持有货币的欲望）；没有人相信存在某种称为“货币化”的政策选择（当今所有政府支出总是通过敲击银行账户来“货币化”）；没有人认为 JG 是不必要的（在就业或失业缓冲库存之间进行选择，现代货币理论选择前者）。

I note he does not list even one single citation to MMT literature.

我注意到他甚至没有列出对 MMT 文献的任何引用。

That is to say, he does not even make a token effort to pretend he might have read a single piece.

也就是说，他甚至没有做出象征性的努力来假装自己读过一篇文章。

What would one label such “scholarship”?

人们会给这样的“奖学金”贴上什么标签呢？

I’ve had an occasional first year undergrad submit a treatise on some topic on which there was no obvious research.

我偶尔会遇到一年级本科生提交一篇关于某些没有明显研究的主题的论文。

Except for critics of MMT, I’ve never seen academic research by PhDs that doesn’t cite the work they discuss—much less an article that completely ignores the work it criticizes in a special issue of a journal devoted to the topic.

除了 MMT 的批评者之外，我从未见过博士的学术研究不引用他们所讨论的工作，更不用说在专门讨论该主题的期刊特刊中完全忽略其批评的工作的文章了。

Not only does this not speak well of the article, but it also does raise questions about the editors of the journal.

这不仅不能说明这篇文章的好坏，而且也确实引发了对该期刊编辑的质疑。

I think it is entirely unprecedented.

我认为这完全是前所未有的。

Toporowski’s piece is not the only one that fails monumentally to demonstrate even a minimal attempt to survey the literature.

托波罗夫斯基的文章并不是唯一一篇未能展示哪怕是最起码的文献调查尝试的文章。

Paul Davidson’s piece cites only Paul Davidson and JM Keynes.

保罗·戴维森 (Paul Davidson) 的文章仅引用了保罗·戴维森 (Paul Davidson) 和 JM 凯恩斯 (JM Keynes)。

His claims about the missing elements of MMT—“MMT completely neglects (1) the need to hold money for contractual liquidity purposes, and also neglects (2) the need for orderly price movements in financial markets”–are not backed up by any citations or even any argument.

他关于现代货币理论缺失要素的主张——“现代货币理论完全忽视了（1）出于合同流动性目的而持有货币的需要，也忽略了（2）金融市场有序价格变动的需要”——没有任何引文甚至任何论据的支持。

And they are blatantly false.

而且它们是公然错误的。

I’ve written on these topics, and Eric Tymoigne has written more.

我写过关于这些主题的文章，埃里克·蒂莫瓦尼 (Eric Tymoigne) 写过更多文章。

For Paul, money’s invention is tied to uncertainty: the invention of money had nothing to do with moving resources to the authority but rather to deal with fundamental uncertainty.

对于保罗来说，货币的发明与不确定性息息相关：货币的发明与将资源转移给权威无关，而是为了应对根本的不确定性。

It is because we cannot know the future that we invented money—so that we could write contracts in terms of money.

正是因为我们无法知道未来，所以我们发明了货币——这样我们就可以用货币来签订合同。

For Paul, MMT is wrong because it sees taxes as driving currency, rather than uncertainty being the handmaiden of the invention driving creation and use of money.

对保罗来说，现代货币理论是错误的，因为它认为税收是货币的驱动因素，而不是不确定性是推动货币创造和使用的发明的婢女。

However, we do not deny that use of monetary contracts is useful for such reasons—we simply argue that that cannot explain the origins of money.

然而，出于这些原因，我们并不否认货币合约的使用是有用的——我们只是认为这不能解释货币的起源。

So we do not believe he’s put his finger on what drives money.

所以我们不相信他已经把注意力集中在驱动金钱的因素上。

Our argument is that money as a unit of account must have pre-existed such a use of money as a hedge against uncertainty, and as well use of financial markets, themselves.

我们的论点是，货币作为记账单位必定预先存在对货币作为对冲不确定性的用途，以及对金融市场本身的使用。

Paul has an infinite regress argument—as do many other heterodox and orthodox economists.

保罗有一个无限回归论证——就像许多其他异端和正统经济学家一样。

“People invented money because they needed it to fulfill money contracts” is not a satisfying approach.

“人们发明货币是因为他们需要它来履行货币合同”并不是一个令人满意的方法。

“Holding money because it reduces the uncertainty concerning one’s ability to meet monetary obligations” is similarly an infinite regress.

“持有货币是因为它减少了一个人履行货币义务的能力的不确定性”同样是一种无限倒退。

What kind of existential uncertainty do we face in a monetary economy that we do not face in a nonmonetary economy?

我们在货币经济中面临着哪些在非货币经济中不会面临的存在不确定性？

That we will not have money when we need it.

当我们需要钱的时候我们却没有钱。

In other words, if we had never invented money, we would never need money to meet commitments in money.

换句话说，如果我们从未发明过货币，我们就永远不需要货币来履行货币承诺。

If we had not invented cars, we wouldn’t need seat belts to protect us in car wrecks.

如果我们没有发明汽车，我们就不需要安全带来在车祸中保护我们。

If we didn’t have cars and car wrecks, we wouldn’t use seat belts.

如果我们没有汽车和汽车残骸，我们就不会使用安全带。

Holding money does protect one in an economy that uses money contracts.

持有货币确实可以保护使用货币合约的经济体中的人。

But that cannot explain the origin of money.

但这无法解释货币的起源。

Citations are thin in most of the other critiques, too.

大多数其他评论中的引用也很少。

Collander’s piece has only two citations—one to Stephanie and one to me.

科兰德的文章只有两次引用——一个是斯蒂芬妮的，一个是我的。

Lawson has just one citation to MMT literature—to the 2012 (first edition) version of my Modern Money Primer—a book that was explicitly written for a general audience.

劳森只引用了一次 MMT 文献——我的《现代货币入门》的 2012 年版（第一版）——一本明确为普通读者编写的书。

Mayhew cites one journal article—a very early one by Stephanie—but admits she relies mostly on our textbook, “which I take to be the current definitive statement of MMT”.

梅休引用了一篇期刊文章——斯蒂芬妮很早的一篇文章——但承认她主要依赖我们的教科书，“我认为这是现代货币理论当前的权威声明”。

Imagine that.

想象一下。

A scholar takes an undergraduate textbook to be the “definitive statement” of an entire paradigm?

学者将本科教科书视为整个范式的“权威陈述”？

I’m sure this is unprecedented—another first.

我确信这是史无前例的——又一个第一。

As I said in Part 1 earlier, our textbook is MMT-consistent but it is a macroeconomics textbook and certainly does not attempt to present the state of the scholarly work on MMT.

正如我之前在第 1 部分中所说，我们的教科书与 MMT 一致，但它是一本宏观经济学教科书，当然不会试图呈现 MMT 学术著作的状况。

She also uses emails as textual evidence.

她还使用电子邮件作为文本证据。

I guess that for some kinds of research it could be useful.

我想对于某些类型的研究来说它可能会有用。

But to formulate a critique of economic theory?

但是要对经济理论提出批评吗？

I’m puzzled.

我很困惑。

Lavoie makes an effort—I count 5 legitimate academic sources plus a large number of BillyBlogs—which are serious pieces as any reader of BillyBlog can attest.

Lavoie 做出了努力——我统计了 5 个合法的学术来源以及大量的 BillyBlog——这些都是任何 BillyBlog 读者都可以证明的严肃文章。

Plus the textbook.

再加上课本。

He even includes Scott Fullwiler in that list—who has made some of the most important contributions on the technical details.

他甚至将 Scott Fullwiler 也列入了该名单，他在技术细节方面做出了一些最重要的贡献。

In that respect Lavoie is nearly unique—most of the others rely on the expositions designed for undergrads or general audiences.

在这方面，拉沃伊几乎是独一无二的——其他大多数人都依赖于为本科生或普通观众设计的阐述。

That does not mean, however, that he’s got much legitimate criticism.

然而，这并不意味着他受到了很多合理的批评。

He’s continuing to beat a dead horse on the consolidation technique.

他继续在巩固技术上击败死马。

When talking about the net impact of fiscal operations on the nongovernment sectors we sometimes consolidate the treasury and central bank—since the internal operations have no impact whatsoever on any entity outside government.

在谈论财政运作对非政府部门的净影响时，我们有时会合并财政部和中央银行，因为内部运作对政府以外的任何实体都没有任何影响。

Lavoie admits that this is perfectly legitimate.

拉沃伊承认这是完全合法的。

Here’s Buiter’s justification for doing so: “We therefore should, in order to understand the fiscal space of the sovereign, consolidate the accounts of the Treasury and central bank, and do our analyses and forecasts in terms of the accounts of this consolidated entity – the State…

比特尔这样做的理由是：“因此，为了了解主权的财政空间，我们应该合并财政部和中央银行的账户，并根据这个合并实体——国家的账户进行分析和预测……

This is a key feature our analysis shares with Modern Monetary Theory.” I could go on with many other such examples, but there’s no point—literally everyone does this.

这是我们的分析与现代货币理论共有的一个关键特征。”我还可以举出许多其他这样的例子，但这没有意义——实际上每个人都这样做。

My first Money and Banking teacher, John Ranlett at CSUS-Sacramento (he was also Stephanie’s teacher some decades later), did the same in his textbook—where I learned how to do the accounting and which made it possible for me to immediately understand Warren Mosler’s comment that “bond sales are just a reserve drain, not a borrowing operation”.

我的第一位货币与银行学老师，CSUS-Sacramento 的 John Ranlett（几十年后他也是 Stephanie 的老师），在他的教科书中做了同样的事情——我在那里学会了如何做会计，这让我能够立即理解 Warren Mosler 的评论：“债券销售只是储备金消耗，而不是借贷操作”。

So why keep beating that dead horse?

那么为什么还要继续打败那匹死马呢？

MMT economists were the first to go deeply into the operational details involved when government spends—especially Stephanie, Scott, and Eric.

MMT 经济学家是第一个深入研究政府支出时涉及的操作细节的人，尤其是斯蒂芬妮、斯科特和埃里克。

And so we get criticized for consolidating, and also for not consolidating because going too deeply into the details is just so difficult to understand!

因此，我们因整合而受到批评，也因不整合而受到批评，因为太深入细节太难以理解！

Can criticism get any more ridiculous than that?

批评还能比这更荒谬吗？

But Lavoie’s main beef in this piece is that MMT doesn’t cite enough Post Keynesian work, especially his own.

但拉沃伊在这篇文章中的主要观点是，现代货币理论没有引用足够多的后凯恩斯主义著作，尤其是他自己的著作。

His main piece of evidence is our textbook (which he admits he had not finished).

他的主要证据是我们的教科书（他承认他还没有完成）。

But it is an undergrad textbook—and we generally chose to cite the fore-fathers and fore-mothers of heterodoxy rather than those who have helped to keep the ideas alive.

但这是一本本科生教科书——我们通常选择引用异端思想的前辈和前辈，而不是那些帮助保持这些思想的人。

Far too much of the PK literature is just rehashing what the forebearers said (a problem in Insitutionalist thought, too, me thinks), anyway.

无论如何，太多的 PK 文献只是在重复前人所说的内容（我认为，这也是制度主义思想中的一个问题）。

Strangely, Warren Mosler’s contribution has been excluded from almost all of the critiques (except the Bonizzi, et al, piece; and as noted, I never read Rochon or Palley so I have no idea which—if any—MMT pieces they cited).

奇怪的是，沃伦·莫斯勒的贡献几乎被排除在所有评论之外（博尼兹等人的文章除外；如上所述，我从未读过罗雄或帕利，所以我不知道他们引用了哪些（如果有的话）MMT 文章）。

Warren is clearly the “father” of MMT, and he writes precisely and concisely.

沃伦显然是现代货币理论的“之父”，他的著作准确而简洁。

It is like criticizing Marxism without reading and citing Marx; or Keynesianism without reading or citing Keynes.

这就好比不读马克思、不引用马克思就批评马克思主义；或凯恩斯主义而不阅读或引用凯恩斯。

OK, yes I know that is done all the time by hacks.

好吧，是的，我知道这总是由黑客完成的。

But can we hold our critics to what is normal standards of scholarship?

但我们能让批评者遵守正常的学术标准吗？

The Bonizzi contribution does contain a large number of citations to actual MMT literature.

Bonizzi 的贡献确实包含大量对 MMT 实际文献的引用。

They sort of wander all over the field of MMT in a mostly congratulatory summary of the ideas, but then bring up the tired old bogeyman that MMT ignores countries that don’t have currency sovereignty as we define it.

他们在现代货币理论的领域里徘徊，主要是对这些想法进行祝贺性的总结，但随后提出了一个令人厌倦的老妖怪，即现代货币理论忽视了那些没有我们所定义的货币主权的国家。

Let us say that were true—that MMT has only concerned itself with the countries that satisfy the conditions of currency sovereignty, and that it has accurately described how those systems work and has proposed policy to improve the way they work.

让我们说这是真的——现代货币理论只关心满足货币主权条件的国家，并且它准确地描述了这些系统如何运作，并提出了改进其运作方式的政策。

Would that be an accomplishment worthy of praise?

这是值得赞扬的成就吗？

Or would you call it a fascist approach?

或者你会称其为法西斯主义做法吗？

Well, we know the path that critics like Jerry Epstein take.

好吧，我们知道像杰里·爱泼斯坦这样的批评家所走的路。

After all, those sovereign currency nations account for perhaps three-fourths of global GDP and also their economic policy and performance has big impacts on the rest of the world.

毕竟，这些主权货币国家的GDP可能占全球的四分之三，而且它们的经济政策和表现对世界其他地区也有重大影响。

Would you want to understand how sovereign currency works, or would you prefer to continue to use the flawed neoliberal deficit hawk approach of so many of our heterodox brethren?

你想了解主权货币是如何运作的，还是愿意继续使用我们许多异端兄弟有缺陷的新自由主义赤字鹰派方法？

But even the Bonizzi piece backs off the claim that MMT has actually ignored nonsovereign nations, and admits that MMT has argued there is more of a continuum of exchange rate regimes.

但就连博尼齐的文章也否认了现代货币理论实际上忽视了非主权国家的说法，并承认现代货币理论认为存在更多的汇率制度的连续体。

They try to make this sound like a recent conversion, but it has long been in my lectures—as my students can attest.

他们试图让这听起来像是最近的转变，但它早已在我的讲座中出现了——我的学生可以证明这一点。

And UMKC produced students who have applied MMT to developing nations—a dozen years ago at least.

UMKC 培养的学生将 MMT 应用于发展中国家——至少在十几年前。

I will admit that when I wrote Understanding Modern Money , 1998, I was reluctant to discuss exchange rate regimes (although Warren pushed me to do so—and Warren has always made clear that when he talks about “soft currency economics” he is not including nations that don’t have their own sovereign currency).

我承认，当我在 1998 年撰写《理解现代货币》时，我不愿意讨论汇率制度（尽管沃伦敦促我这样做，而且沃伦一直明确表示，当他谈论“软货币经济学”时，他不包括没有自己主权货币的国家）。

My hesitation was not because I wasn’t interested in the fate of nations that peg, but because I had no training in either international economics or development.

我的犹豫并不是因为我对挂钩国家的命运不感兴趣，而是因为我没有接受过国际经济或发展方面的培训。

Like most American students, my professors never got to those topics in our classes.

和大多数美国学生一样，我的教授们从来没有在我们的课堂上讨论过这些话题。

Yes, the USA has long been too insular.

是的，美国长期以来过于孤立。

But Mat Forstater is a development economist and he brought that background into his work from the very beginning; and Bill lives in a tiny little open economy and so he always had the international scope in mind.

但马特·福斯特 (Mat Forstater) 是一位发展经济学家，他从一开始就将这一背景带入了他的工作中。比尔生活在一个很小的开放经济体中，因此他始终牢记国际视野。

And in Part 1, I directed those who are interested in the application of MMT to developing nations to the video from the conference panel on the topic.

在第 1 部分中，我向那些对 MMT 在发展中国家的应用感兴趣的人介绍了有关该主题的会议小组的视频。

Finally.

最后。

As I discussed above, if MMT has holes in its approach, the correct approach of a scientist would be to try to extend MMT—not to bash it with troll-like criticism.

正如我上面所讨论的，如果现代货币理论的方法有漏洞，那么科学家的正确方法是尝试扩展现代货币理论，而不是用巨魔般的批评来猛烈抨击它。

I have often asked for experts on developing nations, exchange rate theory, and international economics to help in our endeavor.

我经常请发展中国家、汇率理论和国际经济学方面的专家来帮助我们的工作。

Instead, they have devoted most of their effort to criticizing us and making excuses for the tired old policies of pegging, currency boards, and constraining growth to avoid balance of payments constraints.

相反，他们把大部分精力都花在批评我们，并为陈旧的钉住汇率制、货币局和限制增长以避免国际收支限制等陈旧政策找借口。

How about trying something new after all the old advice has failed to produce even one genuine example of success?

在所有旧的建议都未能产生哪怕一个真正的成功例子之后，尝试一些新的东西怎么样？

Due to the length, I will wrap up this second part here.

由于篇幅原因，我将在这里总结第二部分。

In Part 3, I’ll summarize the rest of the contributions to the rwer issue and I will return to issues related to the treatment of MMT’s academic scholarship by the journals and associations.

在第 3 部分中，我将总结对 rwer 问题的其余贡献，并将返回与期刊和协会对待 MMT 学术奖学金相关的问题。