MMT Scholars’ Predictive and Policy Successes – Part A

The second article in this series deals with Modern Monetary Theory’s (MMT) predictive and policy successes.

本系列的第二篇文章讨论现代货币理论 (MMT) 的预测和政策成功。

The article has three, separately published, parts.

本文分为三个部分，分别发表。

Part 2A deals explains why predictive ability and policy success are so critical – and notes that MMT’s critics have been conspicuously unable to provide a record of predictive failure by MMT scholars.

第 2A 部分解释了为什么预测能力和政策成功如此重要，并指出 MMT 的批评者显然无法提供 MMT 学者预测失败的记录。

Part 2B deals with MMT successes in microeconomics.

第 2B 部分讨论现代货币理论在微观经济学中的成功。

The MMT work on microeconomics constitutes a powerful refutation of the ‘microfoundations’ of ‘modern macroeconomics.’ The key characteristics that the MMT theorists have demonstrated dramatically superior predictive ability, particularly in the most important microfoundation issues of the last 70 years.

MMT 在微观经济学方面的工作构成了对“现代宏观经济学”的“微观基础”的有力反驳。MMT 理论家的关键特征是表现出惊人的卓越预测能力，特别是在过去 70 年最重要的微观基础问题上。

In the microfoundations context, MMT scholars have also demonstrated exceptional policy success.

在微观基础背景下，现代货币理论学者也表现出了非凡的政策成功。

Part 2C deals with macroeconomics.

第 2C 部分涉及宏观经济学。

Again, MMT scholars’ predictive success has been excellent.

MMT 学者的预测再次取得了出色的成功。

Equally important, MMT scholars have demonstrated their predictive successes in the most important macroeconomic issues of our lives.

同样重要的是，现代货币理论学者在我们生活中最重要的宏观经济问题上展示了他们的成功预测。

Predictive Success is how Economists Agree We should Test Theories

预测成功是经济学家同意我们应该测试理论的方式

With the exception of ‘Austrian-school’ economists, who sometimes believe that laissez faire ideology is self-evidently true, virtually all economists agree that the way one should test the validity of theories is their predictive success.

除了“奥地利学派”经济学家有时认为自由放任意识形态是不言而喻的真理之外，几乎所有经济学家都同意，检验理论有效性的方式应该是其预测成功。

Paul Krugman and the other prominent orthodox economists who have attacked Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), all agree with this proposition.

保罗·克鲁格曼和其他攻击现代货币理论（MMT）的著名正统经济学家都同意这一主张。

The obvious question, given their disdain for MMT, is why none of these prominent orthodox economists was able to point to predictive failures by any MMT scholars.

鉴于他们对现代货币理论的蔑视，一个明显的问题是，为什么这些著名的正统经济学家都无法指出任何现代货币理论学者的预测失败。

Given the tone of the orthodox attacks on MMT and MMT scholars, dismissing it and us as nonsense, and the length of our work (roughly 25 years in ‘macro’ and 35 years in microfoundations) it should be simple for our critics to point out a dozen major predictive failures.

考虑到对 MMT 和 MMT 学者的正统攻击的基调，将其和我们视为无稽之谈，以及我们工作的长度（‘宏观’大约 25 年，微观基础 35 年），我们的批评者应该很容易指出十几个主要的预测失败。

Nonsense theories produce nonsense predictions.

无意义的理论产生无意义的预测。

One can be lucky predictively for several years, but not for a quarter-century.

一个人可能会幸运地预见几年，但不可能持续四分之一个世纪。

Krugman and Larry Summer’s instinctive approach to refuting MMT must have been to check out our predictive record.

克鲁格曼和拉里·萨默反驳现代货币理论的本能方法一定是检查我们的预测记录。

Why does no attack on MMT mention even a single predictive failure?

为什么对 MMT 的攻击甚至没有提到一个预测失败？

Why, instead, did they rely on inventing strawmen claims they attributed to MMT scholars that they knew we rejected?

相反，为什么他们依赖于发明稻草人的主张，并将其归咎于现代货币理论学者，而他们知道我们拒绝了这些主张？

Why did they rely overwhelmingly on ad hominem attacks on unnamed MMT scholars?

为什么他们主要依赖对未透露姓名的现代货币理论学者的人身攻击？

We do not have to guess whether Krugman would have attacked our predictive failures had he found them, for he just wrote a column denouncing a foe on the basis of his repeated predictive failures.

我们不必猜测，如果克鲁格曼发现了我们的预测失败，他是否会攻击我们的预测失败，因为他只是根据他重复的预测失败写了一篇专栏来谴责敌人。

Here is How Krugman Criticizes Economists with Poor Predictive Records

克鲁格曼如何批评预测记录不佳的经济学家

Krugman wrote a column on March 25, 2019 that demonstrates my point.

克鲁格曼于 2019 年 3 月 25 日撰写了一篇专栏文章，阐述了我的观点。

He denounced President Trump’s decision to appoint Stephen Moore to the Fed.

他谴责特朗普总统任命斯蒂芬摩尔为美联储成员的决定。

Krugman argued that Moore’s terrible predictive record proved that he was a terrible economist.

克鲁格曼认为，摩尔糟糕的预测记录证明他是一位糟糕的经济学家。

About Moore: It goes almost without saying that he has been wrong about everything.

关于摩尔：几乎不用说，他在所有事情上都错了。

I don’t mean the occasional bad call, which all of us make .

我指的不是我们所有人偶尔都会做出的错误决定。

I mean a track record that includes predicting that George W.

我指的是一项记录，其中包括预测乔治·W·布什 (George W.

Bush’s policies would produce a magnificent boom , Barack Obama’s policies would lead to runaway inflation , tax cuts in Kansas would produce a “ near immediate ” boost to the state’s economy, and much more.

布什的政策将带来巨大的繁荣，巴拉克·奥巴马的政策将导致通货膨胀失控，堪萨斯州的减税政策将“近乎立即”提振该州的经济，等等。

And, of course, never an acknowledgment of error or reflection on why he got it wrong.

当然，从来没有承认错误或反思为什么他会犯错。

Beyond that, Moore has a problem with facts.

除此之外，摩尔对事实有疑问。

After printing a Moore op-ed in which all the key numbers were wrong, one editor vowed never to publish the man’s work again.

在发表了一篇摩尔的专栏文章后，其中所有关键数字都是错误的，一位编辑发誓再也不会出版摩尔的作品。

And a blizzard of factual errors is standard practice in his writing and speaking .

大量的事实错误是他写作和演讲中的标准做法。

It’s actually hard to find cases where Moore got a fact right.

事实上，很难找到摩尔说得对的事例。

Krugman’s column attacking Moore demonstrates exactly how he would have attacked MMT scholars – if we had a record of predictive failure or made “a blizzard of factual errors.” If MMT were a bogus theory and MMT scholars were dishonest, he would have given three examples of major predictive errors and examples of repeated “factual errors.” Instead, Krugman – and every other ‘expert’ critic of MMT has failed to present even the “occasional bad call” or factual error by any MMT scholar.

克鲁格曼攻击摩尔的专栏准确地展示了他会如何攻击现代货币理论学者——如果我们有预测失败的记录或犯下“大量事实错误”。如果现代货币理论是一个虚假理论，而现代货币理论学者不诚实，他就会举出三个主要预测错误的例子和重复的“事实错误”的例子。相反，克鲁格曼以及所有其他现代货币理论的“专家”批评者都未能提出任何现代货币理论学者的“偶尔的错误判断”或事实错误。

That is a devastating failure because it is universal and total.

这是一次毁灭性的失败，因为它是普遍的、彻底的。

If any of our orthodox economics critics had been able to demonstrate even a few predictive errors by the weakest MMT scholar over the course of the last 25-35 years, you know that they would have done so with gusto.

如果我们的正统经济学批评家能够在过去 25-35 年的过程中证明最弱的 MMT 学者哪怕是一些预测错误，你知道他们会满怀热情地这样做。

Such an attack, of course, would not have invalidated MMT or its strongest scholars, but it is revealing that Krugman and other orthodox critics could not even find a junior scholar’s predictions to pillory.

当然，这样的攻击不会使现代货币理论或其最强大的学者无效，但它揭示了克鲁格曼和其他正统批评家甚至无法嘲笑一位初级学者的预测。

What terrifies our orthodox critics is that MMT scholars have a superb predictive record on the most important economic issues of our lifetime.

让我们的正统批评者感到恐惧的是，现代货币理论学者对我们一生中最重要的经济问题有着出色的预测记录。