The Day Orthodox Economists Lost Their Minds and Integrity
Something extraordinary happened yesterday.
昨天发生了一些不寻常的事情。
Orthodox economists, frustrated by their inability to intimidate progressive elected officials, have launched a coordinated assault on MMT in hopes of making it politically dangerous for elected officials to embrace MMT.
正统经济学家因无力恐吓进步的民选官员而感到沮丧，他们对现代货币理论发起了协调一致的攻击，希望使民选官员接受现代货币理论面临政治危险。
Yesterday brought three remarkable revelations about orthodox economists’ willingness to engage in naked intellectual dishonesty in their desperation to find something to discredit MMT.
昨天，三个显着的事件揭露了正统经济学家为了不顾一切地寻找一些东西来抹黑现代货币理论，而愿意进行赤裸裸的知识欺诈。
The orthodox economic attack on MMT should be a ‘slam dunk’ – if orthodox economists were correct about MMT.
如果正统经济学家对现代货币理论的看法是正确的，那么对现代货币理论的正统经济攻击应该是“灌篮高手”。
There are two obvious ways to deliver the ‘slam dunk.’ First, orthodox economists preach that a theory’s predictive ability is the test of its validity.
有两种明显的方法可以实现“灌篮”。首先，正统经济学家宣扬理论的预测能力是对其有效性的检验。
MMT scholars have been making predictions for decades, so orthodox economists should be able to produce a large number of falsified predictions by MMT scholars and declare victory.
MMT学者几十年来一直在做出预测，因此正统经济学家应该能够制造出大量MMT学者证伪的预测并宣告胜利。
There is only one problem with this option – MMT scholars have an exceptionally fine predictive record and orthodox macro scholars have such a terrible predictive record that prominent economists deride “modern macro” as the “dark ages” (Paul Krugman) and a religion unsuccessfully posing as a pseudo-science (Paul Romer).
这种选择只有一个问题——现代货币理论学者拥有极其出色的预测记录，而正统宏观学者则拥有如此糟糕的预测记录，以至于著名经济学家嘲笑“现代宏观”为“黑暗时代”（保罗·克鲁格曼）和一种不成功地伪装成伪科学的宗教（保罗·罗默）。
.
。
The second way orthodox economists could ‘slam dunk’ on MMT scholars would be by quoting them (not contrary to context) and then presenting objective evidence or logic proving that the MMT scholars’ quoted statements were indisputably false.
正统经济学家“猛烈抨击”MMT学者的第二种方式是引用他们的观点（不违背上下文），然后提出客观证据或逻辑来证明MMT学者引用的陈述毫无疑问是错误的。
If, as the orthodox economists repeatedly assert, MMT positions are ludicrous, then this ‘slam dunk’ should not require orthodox economists to even work up a sweat.
如果像正统经济学家一再断言的那样，现代货币理论的立场是可笑的，那么这个“灌篮高手”不应该需要正统经济学家费尽心思。
Orthodox economists religiously fail to cite and quote MMT scholars.
正统经济学家虔诚地不引用现代货币理论学者的观点。
Actually, I have been hiding the ball on you.
事实上，我一直把球藏在你身上。
As a white-collar criminologist, I study the third ‘slam dunk’ strategy – the strategy orthodox economists actually use to discredit MMT – fraud.
作为一名白领犯罪学家，我研究了第三种“灌篮”策略——正统经济学家实际上用来抹黑现代货币理论的策略——欺诈。
As white-collar criminologists, we emphasize that “accounting control fraud” is a “sure thing.” A strawman argument is a fraudulent debate tactic that becomes a sure thing if you get to be prosecutor, judge, and jury.
作为白领犯罪学家，我们强调“会计控制欺诈”是“肯定的事情”。稻草人论证是一种欺诈性辩论策略，如果你成为检察官、法官和陪审团，这种策略就一定会发生。
The orthodox ‘scholars’ have found it impossible to quote MMT scholars writing something that is demonstrably false.
正统的“学者”发现不可能引用现代货币理论学者所写的东西，这些东西显然是错误的。
It is child’s play (a ‘sure thing’), however, for an orthodox economist to create a strawman claim that is obviously, demonstrably false.
然而，对于一个正统的经济学家来说，创造一个显然是错误的稻草人主张是小孩子的游戏（“肯定的事情”）。
The orthodox economist crafts the strawman to be demonstrably and obviously false.
正统经济学家将稻草人塑造得明显且明显是错误的。
The orthodox ‘scholar’ then fraudulently claims that the strawman represents MMT scholars’ position.
正统“学者”随后谎称稻草人代表了现代货币理论学者的立场。
The obvious needs to be stated.
显而易见的事情需要说明。
Creating a strawman is intellectually dishonest, unethical, and represent a “revealed preference” – it reveals that orthodox scholars know they cannot win an honest debate.
创造一个稻草人在智力上是不诚实的、不道德的，并且代表了一种“显性偏好”——它揭示了正统学者知道他们无法赢得诚实的辩论。
If the facts and your predictive successes support your orthodox theory, you have no need to create and ascribe strawman arguments to smear rival scholars and theories.
如果事实和你预测的成功支持你的正统理论，你就没有必要创造和归咎于稻草论据来抹黑竞争对手的学者和理论。
Yesterday, dozens of orthodox economists, many of them prominent, collectively lost their minds and their integrity.
昨天，数十位正统经济学家，其中不乏知名人士，集体失去了理智和正直。
They coordinated their actions to create a show trial that would have warmed Stalin’s spleen.
他们协调行动，制造了一场可以温暖斯大林脾气的表演审判。
The show trial purported to judge the validity of MMT.
这场审判旨在判断 MMT 的有效性。
The sole ‘evidence’ allowed in the show trial consisted of two strawman claims written by orthodox ‘scholars,’ but falsely ascribed to MMT.
审判中允许的唯一“证据”包括正统“学者”撰写的两个稻草人主张，但错误地归因于现代货币理论。
MMT scholars do not simply not make the two strawman claims – MMT scholars say the opposite of the strawman claims.
现代货币理论学者并非根本不提出这两种稻草人主张——现代货币理论学者的说法与稻草人主张相反。
These are not new strawman claims, they are identical to the false claims Krugman has been making for eight years.
这些并不是新的稻草人主张，它们与克鲁格曼八年来的虚假主张完全相同。
In plain English, a show trial of orthodox economists proclaimed MMT false based on the ‘prosecutors’ crafting two statements the prosecutors falsely claimed represented MMT theory, even though MMT scholars have repeatedly written the opposite.
用简单的英语来说，一场对正统经济学家的公开审判宣称现代货币理论是错误的，因为“检察官”捏造了两份声明，检察官错误地声称代表了现代货币理论理论，尽管现代货币理论学者一再写出相反的内容。
Further, MMT scholars have been refuting the strawman arguments the ‘prosecutors’ drafted – for at least eight years.
此外，现代货币理论学者至少八年来一直在反驳“检察官”起草的稻草人论点。
Orthodox economists conducted a show trial to pronounce MMT guilty for being correct .
正统经济学家进行了一场表演审判，宣布现代货币理论的正确性有罪。
The irony is that the show trial proved MMT scholars’ actual views correct.
讽刺的是，这场审判证明了现代货币理论学者的实际观点是正确的。
Every orthodox ‘judge’ that voted on the strawman claims agreed with MMT scholars that the claims were false.
每一位对稻草人主张进行投票的正统“法官”都同意现代货币理论学者的观点，即这些主张是错误的。
The “Initiative on Global Markets” (IGM) reported the results of its show trial on March 13, 2019 – the day orthodox economists lost their minds and abandoned even the fig leaf of integrity.
“全球市场倡议”（IGM）于 2019 年 3 月 13 日公布了其审判结果——这一天，正统经济学家失去了理智，甚至抛弃了正直的遮羞布。
Question A: Countries that borrow in their own currency should not worry about government deficits because they can always create money to finance their debt.
问题A：以本国货币借款的国家不应该担心政府赤字，因为它们总是可以创造货币来融资其债务。
Question B: Countries that borrow in their own currency can finance as much real government spending as they want by creating money.
问题B：以本国货币借款的国家可以通过创造货币来为它们想要的实际政府支出提供尽可能多的资金。
MMT scholars do not make or support either claim (see articles 2 & 3 in this series) – so how did IGM manage to create two strawman claims, falsely ascribe them to “Modern Monetary Theory,” and report this show trial to the world as a universal condemnation om MMT by their panel of orthodox economists?
MMT 学者既不提出也不支持任何一种主张（参见本系列文章 2 和 3）——那么 IGM 是如何设法创造出两种稻草人主张，错误地将它们归咎于“现代货币理论”，并向全世界报告这一表演审判，作为他们的正统经济学家小组对 MMT 的普遍谴责？
MMT scholars, for decades, have been explaining when, how, and why deficits can matter.
几十年来，现代货币理论学者一直在解释赤字何时、如何以及为何会产生影响。
For at least eight years, MMT scholars have been repeatedly refuting Krugman repeatedly advancing this false strawman argument.
至少八年来，现代货币理论的学者们一直在反复驳斥克鲁格曼反复提出的这种虚假的稻草人论点。
Whoever drafted these questions knew that they did not represent the position of MMT scholars and that MMT scholars disagree with both of the strawman questions.
无论起草这些问题的人都知道，它们并不代表现代货币理论学者的立场，而且现代货币理论学者不同意这两个稻草人问题。
The show trial represents a natural experiment of the competence and intellectual honesty of orthodox economists.
这场审判代表了对正统经济学家的能力和知识诚实的自然实验。
The results of that natural experiment are spectacular – a large group of the world’s prominent economists failed the test of honesty and competence even though the test set such a low bar that they should have passed it without discernible effort.
这个自然实验的结果是惊人的——一大批世界著名经济学家未能通过诚实和能力测试，尽管该测试设置的门槛很低，他们本应不费吹灰之力就能通过。
As always, show trials demonstrate conclusively the lack of morality and integrity of the ‘judges.’ Not a single member of the ‘judges’ in the show trial passed the twin tests of competence and integrity.
与往常一样，表演审判最终证明了“法官”缺乏道德和诚信。表演审判中的“法官”没有一个成员通过了能力和诚信的双重考验。
They disgraced themselves and our discipline.
他们羞辱了自己和我们的纪律。
The form the IGM economist panel uses has a space for comments and a number of the panelists wrote comments.
IGM 经济学家小组使用的表格有一个评论空间，许多小组成员都写了评论。
Not a single panelist wrote a comment objecting to the strawman questions falsely attributed to MMT scholars that made a mockery of the purported ‘process.’ Not a single panelist blew the whistle on this shameful show trial.
没有一个小组成员写评论反对被错误地归因于现代货币理论学者的稻草人问题，这些问题嘲笑了所谓的“过程”。没有一个小组成员对这场可耻的表演审判揭发。
There are two possible reasons: one bad, the other awful.
可能的原因有两个：一是坏的，二是糟糕的。
It would be bad; and revealing, that not a single prominent economist on the panel knew enough about MMT to know that the questions were vile strawman claims.
那就糟糕了；并揭示出，小组中没有一位著名经济学家对现代货币理论有足够的了解，知道这些问题是卑鄙的稻草人主张。
It would be awful; and revealing, if any of the panelists knew enough about MMT to know that the questions were strawmen – but still participated in the show trial and failed to blow the whistle on this scandal.
那就太糟糕了；并透露，是否有任何小组成员对现代货币理论有足够的了解，知道这些问题都是稻草人，但仍然参加了审判并未能揭发这一丑闻。
If no one on the ‘expert’ panel had even the tiniest exposure to the MMT scholarly literature required to spot the use of strawman questions to ensure that the panel discredited MMT, much less expertise in evaluating MMT, then IGM has to fix its system.
如果“专家”小组中没有人对 MMT 学术文献有哪怕一丁点的接触，以发现稻草人问题的使用，以确保专家组抹黑 MMT，更不用说评估 MMT 的专业知识，那么 IGM 就必须修复其系统。
It also needs to apologize to MMT scholars, elected officials, and the public.
它还需要向现代货币理论学者、民选官员和公众道歉。
IGM must promptly withdraw formally their ‘verdict’ in their show trial.
IGM 必须立即正式撤回他们在表演审判中的“裁决”。
Consider how IGM would have operated if it actually wanted to report the informed views of orthodox experts on heterodox theory instead of conduct a show trial.
考虑一下，如果 IGM 实际上想要报告正统专家对异端理论的知情观点，而不是进行一场表演审判，那么它会如何运作。
IGM would use questions drafted by the heterodox scholars that would accurately reflect the heterodox scholars’ theories.
IGM将使用非正统学者起草的问题，这些问题将准确反映非正统学者的理论。
IGM would ask the heterodox scholars to provide an executive summary of key MMT principles.
IGM 将要求非正统学者提供 MMT 关键原则的执行摘要。
IGM would require its panelists to read enough of the scholarly MMT literature to make an informed judgment.
IGM 将要求其小组成员阅读足够多的现代货币理论学术文献，以做出明智的判断。
Far better, however, would be to create an ongoing, collegial dialog among orthodox and heterodox scholars rather than these mock rulings by panels composed exclusively of orthodox scholars.
然而，更好的办法是在正统和非正统学者之间建立持续的、学院式的对话，而不是由完全由正统学者组成的小组做出这些模拟裁决。
We are now running another natural experiment – how many of the orthodox ‘judges’ will admit their failures, apologize, and act to reduce the harm they caused?
我们现在正在进行另一个自然实验——有多少正统的“法官”会承认自己的失败、道歉并采取行动减少他们造成的伤害？
I write this article as an addendum to that natural experiment.
我写这篇文章是作为该自然实验的附录。
I urge the orthodox economists who disgraced themselves by aiding this show trial to seek redemption.
我敦促那些因协助这场表演审判而蒙羞的正统经济学家寻求救赎。
Perhaps you were simply conned by the people who created the strawman questions.
也许你只是被那些制造稻草人问题的人欺骗了。
For that to be true, you must be exceptionally unaware of MMT – and willing to condemn it without doing any work.
要做到这一点，你必须对现代货币理论一无所知——并且愿意不做任何工作就谴责它。
Apologize, but do not stop there.
道歉，但不要就此止步。
You should be enraged at those who made you complicit in this disgrace.
你应该对那些让你参与这种耻辱的人感到愤怒。
Find out who created the strawman questions and who suggested the show trial and blow the whistle on their frauds.
找出谁制造了稻草人问题，谁建议进行表演审判，并揭发他们的欺诈行为。
In your joint, open letter of apology, each of you should identify how many published articles or books by MMT scholars you read prior to condemning MMT.
在你们联合发表的公开道歉信中，你们每个人都应该指出在谴责 MMT 之前您阅读了多少 MMT 学者发表的文章或书籍。
The next week will test your integrity and your zeal to restore it.
下周将考验你的正直和恢复正直的热情。
I urge journalists to ask each of the ‘judges’ to identify how many MMT scholars’ works they had read.
我敦促记者询问每位“评委”，确定他们读过多少 MMT 学者的著作。
My prediction is that the cumulatively, the ‘judges’ in this shameful show trial had read fewer than five works by MMT scholars.
我的预测是，这场可耻的表演审判中的“法官”累计阅读过现代货币理论学者的著作不到五本。
Journalists should also ask every ‘judge’ in the show trial to cite and quote the work of at least one MMT scholar making the statements ascribed to us by twin the strawman questions.
记者还应该要求表演审判中的每一位“法官”引用并引用至少一位现代货币理论学者的著作，他们通过孪生稻草人问题做出了对我们的陈述。
I predict that none of them will be able to do so.
我预测他们中没有人能够做到这一点。
Ignorance, of course, is not remotely a defense.
当然，无知远不是一种防御。
If you have never read any of the scholarly MMT literature and someone asks you to be a ‘judge’ in a show trial obviously created to condemn MMT, you have an ethical duty to refuse and to try your best to prevent the show trial from disgracing our field.
如果你从未读过任何现代货币理论的学术文献，并且有人要求你在一场明显是为了谴责现代货币理论而设立的表演审判中担任“法官”，那么你有道德义务拒绝并尽力阻止表演审判让我们的领域蒙羞。
While I always hope for redemption, my prediction is that most of the ‘judges’ that disgraced themselves and our discipline are proud of their role in the show trial.
虽然我一直希望得到救赎，但我的预测是，大多数让自己和我们学科蒙羞的“法官”都为自己在审判中的角色感到自豪。
I believe they will claim they did a great service to the country by smearing MMT through fraudulent strawman claims.
我相信他们会声称通过欺诈性的稻草人说法来抹黑现代货币理论，为国家做出了伟大的贡献。
Orthodox economists are already citing the show trial ‘verdict’ as proof that MMT is false.
正统经济学家已经引用这次审判的“判决”来证明现代货币理论是错误的。
Justin Wolfers, who often writes in the New York Times , tweeted his glee at the results of the disgraceful show trial.
经常在《纽约时报》上撰文的贾斯汀·沃尔弗斯在推特上对这场可耻的审判结果表示高兴。
He described it as “evidence” (in a show trial designed to ensure that the ‘judges’ had zero evidence, and instead was based entirely on two fraudulent strawman statements).
他将其描述为“证据”（在一场旨在确保“法官”证据为零的表演审判中，而完全基于两个欺诈性的稻草人陈述）。
He then claimed that the “only real debate” was between the ‘judges’ that “disagreed” with the faux MMT strawman and the ‘judges’ that “strongly disagreed.”
然后他声称，“唯一真正的辩论”是在“不同意”假 MMT 稻草人的“法官”和“强烈不同意”的“法官”之间。
Wolfers’ dishonesty spurred Paul Krugman to tweet a level of calculated dishonesty that exceeds the term “disgraceful.”
沃尔弗斯的不诚实促使保罗·克鲁格曼在推特上发布了精心策划的不诚实行为，其程度超出了“可耻”一词。
Prediction: MMTers will say this doesn’t fairly represent their views.
预测：MMT 拥护者会说这并不能完全代表他们的观点。
Why?
为什么？
Because they say that about *any* attempt to represent their views clearly.
因为他们说“任何”试图清楚地表达他们的观点。
MMT is an attitude, not a model; try to pin it down and they will move the goalposts.
MMT是一种态度，不是模式；试着把它固定住，他们就会移动球门柱。
Krugman has been working in his columns and tweets for the last two weeks trying to perfect the wording of this bit of cynical dishonesty.
过去两周，克鲁格曼一直在他的专栏和推文中努力完善这种愤世嫉俗的不诚实行为的措辞。
It is such a brazen lie that I dubbed it Krugman’s chutzpah .
这是一个如此无耻的谎言，我称其为克鲁格曼的厚颜无耻。
It is a Catch-22 – if MMT scholars ‘admit’ that Krugman’s dishonest strawman claims he falsely ascribes to MMT scholars are correct, we are admitting our theories are bunk.
这是第二十二条军规——如果现代货币理论学者“承认”克鲁格曼不诚实的稻草人声称他错误地认为现代货币理论学者是正确的，那么我们就承认我们的理论是废话。
If we point out that Krugman, again, is falsely ascribing a dishonest strawman claim to us, then Krugman declares this act proves we are not scholars and have no theories.
如果我们再次指出克鲁格曼错误地将不诚实的稻草人主张归咎于我们，那么克鲁格曼就宣称这一行为证明我们不是学者，没有理论。
Whatever we do, in response to his lies Krugman defines us as the loser.
无论我们做什么，克鲁格曼都会将我们定义为失败者，以回应他的谎言。
He will now claim that the show trial, which used his strawman claims, proves he was correct.
他现在声称，使用他的稻草主张的表演审判证明他是正确的。
For years (see articles 3 & 4 in this series), we were willing to ascribe Krugman’s strawman arguments to his ignorance of MMT.
多年来（参见本系列的文章 3 和 4），我们愿意将克鲁格曼的稻草论点归因于他对 MMT 的无知。
We repeatedly explained not only the falsity of his strawman claims – which in every case he ascribed to MMT scholars without ever providing a citation or quotation – but also our actual views.
我们不仅反复解释了他的稻草主张的虚假性（在每种情况下，他都将其归咎于现代货币理论学者，而从未提供引文或引用），而且还解释了我们的实际观点。
It has been clear for at least six years, however, that Krugman is deliberately deceiving his readers.
然而，至少六年来，克鲁格曼显然在故意欺骗他的读者。
We know this because he keeps ascribing falsely to us the same strawman arguments that we have repeatedly explained to him are false.
我们之所以知道这一点，是因为他一直错误地把我们一再向他解释的稻草论点错误地归咎于我们。
The show trial used the identical strawman claims that we are on record consistently refuting.
这场表演审判使用了我们在记录中不断反驳的相同的稻草人主张。
Krugman ascribes to us in these twin strawman claims views that are the opposite of MMT precepts.
克鲁格曼在这对双胞胎稻草人主张中将与现代货币理论的戒律相反的观点归咎于我们。
MMT explains that deficits can matter and goes on to explain when, how, and why the can matter.
现代货币理论解释了赤字可能很重要，并接着解释了赤字何时、如何以及为何如此重要。
Krugman, and the orthodox show trial, repeatedly, without citation or quotation and ignoring our refutations, simply lie and say that MMT purports that deficits never matter.
克鲁格曼和正统派反复展示审判，没有引用或引用，也无视我们的反驳，只是撒谎并说现代货币理论声称赤字从来不重要。
We also know that Krugman is lying rather than ignorant because he slipped up in a March 26, 2011 column – nearly eight years ago – and admitted that he knew that MMT explained that deficits can matter a great deal if they cause a shortage of real resources.
我们还知道克鲁格曼在撒谎而不是无知，因为他在 2011 年 3 月 26 日的一篇专栏文章中犯了错误——差不多八年前了——并承认他知道现代货币理论解释说，如果赤字导致实际资源短缺，赤字可能会产生很大影响。
As I understand the MMT position, it is that the only thing we need to consider is whether the deficit creates excess demand to such an extent to be inflationary.
据我了解，现代货币理论的立场是，我们唯一需要考虑的是赤字是否会造成过度需求，达到导致通货膨胀的程度。
The perceived future solvency of the government is not an issue.
政府未来的偿付能力被认为不是问题。
We enjoy that Krugman column because it documents another predictive success of MMT compared to Krugman’s analysis.
我们喜欢克鲁格曼的专栏，因为与克鲁格曼的分析相比，它记录了现代货币理论的另一个预测成功。
Krugman knew that his “prediction” that we would respond to the show trial by stating that the positions ascribed to MMT scholars in that ‘trial’ were strawman falsehoods that we have repeatedly exposed as lies for over a decade had a 100 percent chance of proving accurate.
克鲁格曼知道，他的“预测”，即我们将通过声明在这场“审判”中赋予现代货币理论学者的立场是稻草人的谎言来回应这场审判，我们十多年来一再揭露这些谎言，这种预测有 100% 的机会被证明是准确的。
He has seen us rebut the same lie many times when he advanced the identical strawman falsehood repeatedly for nearly a decade.
当他近十年来不断提出同样的稻草人谎言时，他已经看到我们多次反驳同样的谎言。
Any reputable scholar would respond to a strawman argument by pointing out that it was a strawman.
任何有信誉的学者都会通过指出这是一个稻草人来回应稻草人的论点。
A strawman argument is a classic logic failure.
稻草人论证是典型的逻辑失败。
Krugman has redefined chutzpah by claiming that if he lies repeatedly about his opponents’ argument by repeatedly advancing a strawman claim, and his opponents repeatedly refute his lie, his opponents have wronged him and he has won the debate.
克鲁格曼重新定义了“肆无忌惮”，他声称，如果他通过反复提出稻草人的主张，反复对对手的论点撒谎，而他的对手反复反驳他的谎言，那么他的对手就冤枉了他，他赢得了辩论。
Every aspect of Krugman’s chutzpah is logically false, dishonest, immoral, and wackiness of epic proportions.
克鲁格曼的肆无忌惮的每一个方面在逻辑上都是错误的、不诚实的、不道德的和史诗般的古怪。
As a criminologist, I emphasize an important research finding.
作为一名犯罪学家，我强调一项重要的研究发现。
The fraudsters’ key to success is typically audacity, not genius.
欺诈者成功的关键通常是大胆，而不是天才。
Krugman’s audacity is breath taking.
克鲁格曼的大胆令人惊叹。
As a criminologist, I particularly love the audacity of making a “predict[ion]” he knows is certain to come true – MMT scholars will refute the lies and strawman questions that the orthodox economists who staged the show trial used to declare MMT scholars ‘guilty’ of claiming things are true that MMT scholars actual teach are untrue.
作为一名犯罪学家，我特别喜欢大胆做出他知道肯定会实现的“预测”——MMT学者将驳斥那些进行表演审判的正统经济学家用来宣称MMT学者“有罪”的谎言和稻草人问题，因为他们声称MMT学者实际教导的事情是不真实的。
Krugman will then claim his predictive success demonstrates his skills and the perfidy of MMT scholars
然后克鲁格曼将声称他的预测成功证明了他的技能和 MMT 学者的背信弃义