Three Natural Experiments Documenting Krugman’s Bias Against MMT

I urge readers to review Scott Fullwiler’s brief paper on the theoretical and predictive successes of MMT scholars on a topic of enormous theoretical and practical importance.

我敦促读者回顾一下 Scott Fullwiler 的简短论文，该论文介绍了 MMT 学者在一个具有巨大理论和实践重要性的主题上的理论和预测成功。

You do not need economics training to understand it.

您无需接受经济学培训即可理解它。

Fullwiler reports the results of two “natural experiments.” In this context, this means an unplanned experiment.

富威勒报告了两项“自然实验”的结果。在这种情况下，这意味着一次计划外的实验。

The twin experiments were:

双胞胎实验是：

Fullwiler’s paper answers both questions.

Fullwiler 的论文回答了这两个问题。

The orthodox scholar, unknowingly, confirmed the predictive strength of many of MMT’s most important insights.

这位正统学者在不知不觉中证实了现代货币理论许多最重要见解的预测能力。

Krugman praised De Grauwe’s findings as “seminal.” Krugman had no idea he was praising the predictive successes of MMT scholars because Krugman had never read MMT scholars’ work.

克鲁格曼称赞德格劳威的发现是“开创性的”。克鲁格曼并不知道他在赞扬现代货币理论学者的预测成功，因为克鲁格曼从未读过现代货币理论学者的著作。

Fullwiler’s paper shows that a series of MMT scholars made De Grauwe’s point more than a decade before De Grauwe published his “seminal” contribution in an orthodox journal.

富尔维勒的论文表明，早在德格劳威在正统期刊上发表其“开创性”贡献的十多年前，一系列现代货币理论学者就提出了德格劳威的观点。

Stephanie Kelton was one of the MMT scholars who demonstrated precedence, making Krugman’s use of the word “seminal” as a descriptor even more unintentionally humorous.

斯蒂芬妮·凯尔顿（Stephanie Kelton）是现代货币理论（MMT）中表现出优先地位的学者之一，这使得克鲁格曼使用“开创性”一词作为形容词更加无意中幽默。

The natural experiment helps explain the timing, cause, and tactics of the sudden, coordinated effort to demean MMT scholars and the newly elected progressives that terrify orthodox economists.

自然实验有助于解释突然、协调一致的努力贬低现代货币理论学者和新当选的进步派的时机、原因和策略，这些努力让正统经济学家感到恐惧。

First, the truth that everyone in economics knows is heterodox economics scholars overwhelmingly read the orthodox economics literature (and often other fields) and the heterodox economics literature.

首先，经济学界所有人都知道的事实是，非正统经济学学者绝大多数阅读正统经济学文献（通常还有其他领域）和非正统经济学文献。

Orthodox economic scholars virtually never read heterodox economic scholars’ work and generally claim that they are proud that they refuse to read it.

正统经济学学者实际上从未读过非正统经济学学者的著作，并且通常声称他们为拒绝阅读这些著作而感到自豪。

The orthodox scholar that wrote the supposedly “seminal” piece almost certainly did not read the heterodox scholars who actually had developed the insight.

写下这篇所谓“开创性”文章的正统学者几乎肯定没有读过那些真正提出了这一见解的非正统学者。

The outside reviewers the orthodox economics journal used did not read the heterodox scholars’ work so they did not call the De Grauwe’s attention to the work by MMT scholars.

正统经济学期刊使用的外部审稿人没有阅读非正统学者的著作，因此他们没有引起德格劳韦对现代货币理论学者的著作的关注。

I believe that Krugman will confirm that when he wrote to praise De Grauwe, he had never read any of the MMT scholars’ publications listed in Fullwiler’s paper.

我相信克鲁格曼会证实，当他写信赞扬德格劳威时，他从未读过富维勒论文中列出的任何MMT学者的出版物。

I believe that Krugman will confirm that even today he has not read any of those papers.

我相信克鲁格曼会证实，即使在今天，他也没有读过任何这些论文。

We are not claiming De Grauwe “stole our ideas” or “stole our ideas and refused to give us credit for our insight.” We would be startled to discover De Grauwe read the work of MMT scholars prior to writing his paper.

我们并不是声称德格劳威“窃取了我们的想法”或“窃取了我们的想法并拒绝承认我们的洞察力”。我们会惊讶地发现德格劳威在撰写论文之前阅读了现代货币理论学者的著作。

I would be surprised if he read Fullwiler’s paper.

如果他读了福尔维勒的论文，我会感到惊讶。

This pattern of deliberate, asymmetrical ignorance and orthodox arrogance is not some secret conspiracy.

这种蓄意的、不对称的无知和正统的傲慢模式并不是什么秘密阴谋。

The typical professor in an orthodox economics doctoral program assigns zero heterodox scholarship.

正统经济学博士课程的典型教授分配的非正统奖学金为零。

If an orthodox professors refers to MMT it will typically be a snide dismissal based on a claim that MMT says “X” when MMT actually says the opposite.

如果一位正统的教授提到 MMT，通常会因为 MMT 说“X”而实际上说相反的说法而进行冷嘲热讽。

Those orthodox sneers at MMT by orthodox professors in class were vanishingly rare.

正统教授在课堂上对现代货币理论的正统嘲笑几乎是罕见的。

The overwhelming orthodox norm is never to inform students that MMT exists.

压倒性的正统规范是永远不要告诉学生 MMT 的存在。

At UMKC, we assign our economics doctoral students hundreds of orthodox readings.

在 UMKC，我们给经济学博士生布置了数百本正统读物。

Our doctoral candidates cannot pass their comps unless they demonstrate mastery of a canon of over 100 orthodox scholarly papers.

我们的博士生必须证明自己精通 100 多篇正统学术论文，否则无法通过考试。

We require doctoral students to engage in multi-disciplinary research in other disciplines as well.

我们要求博士生也要从事其他学科的多学科研究。

We also, of course, assign them to read hundreds of papers by heterodox scholars.

当然，我们还指派他们阅读非正统学者的数百篇论文。

We are not claiming that only MMT scholars promptly recognized the dangers of the euro.

我们并不是说只有现代货币理论学者迅速认识到了欧元的危险。

Warning about the euro’s dangers was a repeated focus of MMT scholars at a very early date that does great credit to them.

关于欧元危险的警告是现代货币理论学者很早就反复关注的焦点，这给他们带来了巨大的荣誉。

Conversely, only a very small percentage of orthodox scholars published similar warnings.

相反，只有极少数的正统学者发表了类似的警告。

We agree that those orthodox scholars’ early warnings do great credit to them.

我们一致认为，那些正统学者的早期预警给他们带来了很大的功劳。

This asymmetry is indefensible, and we welcome Krugman’s interest in MMT as a means of beginning to end orthodoxy’s celebration of ignorance.

这种不对称是站不住脚的，我们欢迎克鲁格曼对现代货币理论的兴趣，将其作为从头到尾正统学派对无知的颂扬的一种手段。

Krugman and MMT scholars share a broad overlap in economic theory and policy.

克鲁格曼和现代货币理论学者在经济理论和政策上有广泛的重叠之处。

Fullwiler’s article exemplifies the point – when Krugman did not know he was evaluating an MMT original insight he was lavish in his praise of our ideas.

富威勒的文章例证了这一点——当克鲁格曼不知道他正在评估现代货币理论的原创见解时，他对我们的想法大肆赞扬。

Fullwiler’s article also begins to demonstrate that Krugman is actually aware of far more MMT scholarly literature than he knows – he simply does not know of the very large overlap between his views and the views of many MMT scholars.

富威勒的文章还开始表明，克鲁格曼实际上了解的现代货币理论学术文献比他自己知道的要多得多——他根本不知道他的观点与许多现代货币理论学者的观点之间有很大的重叠。

On a broad range of issues, including microfoundations, Krugman will find that MMT views make us natural allies.

在包括微观基础在内的广泛问题上，克鲁格曼会发现现代货币理论的观点使我们成为天然的盟友。

The Third Natural Experiment: Krugman’s Non-Debate with a Non-MMT Non-Scholar

第三个自然实验：克鲁格曼与非现代货币理论非学者的非辩论

We know the extent to which Krugman kept himself willfully ignorant of the MMT scholarship because Krugman reported the results of a natural experiment he unknowingly conducted in August 2011.

我们知道克鲁格曼在多大程度上故意对 MMT 奖学金一无所知，因为克鲁格曼报告了他在 2011 年 8 月无意中进行的一项自然实验的结果。

The remarkable thing about this third natural experiment is that Krugman did not know he had conducted a natural experiment even after he unknowingly reported the results of the experiment he unknowingly conducted.

第三次自然实验的值得注意之处在于，克鲁格曼在不知不觉中报告了他不知不觉中进行的实验的结果后，并不知道自己进行了一次自然实验。

I hope that sounds bizarre, for Krugman acted bizarrely on multiple dimensions.

我希望这听起来很奇怪，因为克鲁格曼在多个维度上的行为都很奇怪。

He also demonstrated an eagerness to demean MMT scholarship and scholars he had never read and a degree of errant arrogance that reached ten on the Krugman scale.

他还表现出急于贬低现代货币理论学术和他从未读过的学者的倾向，以及克鲁格曼等级上达到十级的错误傲慢程度。

In August 2011, Krugman announced that he was “debating the Modern Monetary Theory guys.” That phrase was already a warning that Krugman was lost.

2011 年 8 月，克鲁格曼宣布他正在“与现代货币理论的家伙们辩论”。这句话已经是克鲁格曼迷路的警告。

Female MMT scholars are particularly well known.

女性 MMT 学者尤其出名。

Krugman then assured his readers that “I have read various MMT manifestos — this one is fairly clear as they go.” That phrase represented the second, third, and fourth warning signals that Krugman had gone off the rails.

克鲁格曼随后向他的读者保证，“我读过各种现代货币理论宣言——这一宣言相当明确。”这句话代表了克鲁格曼偏离轨道的第二个、第三个和第四个警告信号。

Why would a scholar read “manifestos” to learn of the work of other scholars?

为什么学者要阅读“宣言”来了解其他学者的工作？

Why would Krugman read “manifestos” by non-scholars?

克鲁格曼为什么要阅读非学者的“宣言”？

Even more fundamentally, why would he read a non-scholarly “manifesto” by Cullen Roche, a non-MMT, non-scholar – and claim that it demonstrates his familiarity with MMT scholarship and competence to criticize MMT?

更根本的是，为什么他会读卡伦·罗奇（Cullen Roche）这个非现代货币理论、非学者的非学术“宣言”——并声称这表明他对现代货币理论学术的熟悉以及批评现代货币理论的能力？

It gets better.

情况会变得更好。

Krugman found reading Roche’s manifesto to be a painful exercise due to the writing style.

克鲁格曼发现，由于其写作风格，阅读罗氏的宣言是一项痛苦的练习。

I do dislike the style — the claims that fundamental principles of logic lead to a worldview that only fools would fail to understand has a sort of eerie resemblance to John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged….

我确实不喜欢这种风格——声称逻辑的基本原理导致了一种只有傻瓜才能理解的世界观，这与约翰·高尔特在《阿特拉斯耸耸肩》中的演讲有一种奇怪的相似之处……

For Krugman, comparing the pain of reading Roche’s rant to pain of reading the world’s most infamous Ayn Rand rant – John Galt’s turgid 60-page ode to narcissism – is the ultimate insult.

对于克鲁格曼来说，将阅读罗氏的咆哮的痛苦与阅读世界上最臭名昭著的艾因·兰德的咆哮——约翰·高尔特对自恋的夸张的 60 页颂歌——的痛苦进行比较，是最大的侮辱。

It also raises a question that would be obvious to any scholar trying to learn about a scholastic field he or she had never studied.

它还提出了一个对于任何试图了解他或她从未研究过的学术领域的学者来说都是显而易见的问题。

No one had a gun to Krugman’s head demanding that he subject himself to the masochistic horror of reading a manifesto he considered an “eerie resemblance” to Galt’s execrable manifesto.

没有人拿枪指着克鲁格曼的头，要求他在阅读一份他认为与高尔特可恶的宣言“令人毛骨悚然的相似”的宣言时，让自己陷入受虐恐惧之中。

For Krugman, having to read an “eerie resemblance” to Galt’s endless rant must closely approximate his working definition of hell.

对于克鲁格曼来说，必须读到与高尔特无休止的咆哮“令人毛骨悚然的相似之处”，这必定非常接近他对地狱的工作定义。

Why did Krugman choose to read Roche, and why did he continue to read Roche’s rant when he found the process excruciating?

为什么克鲁格曼选择阅读罗氏，以及为什么当他发现这个过程令人痛苦时还要继续阅读罗氏的咆哮？

Reading Wray would be the obvious way an American economist would begin to learn about MMT.

阅读雷将是美国经济学家开始了解 MMT 的明显方式。

There are many advantages of reading Wray instead of an “eerie resemblance” to Galt if one wishes to learn about MMT.

如果你想了解 MMT，那么阅读雷（Wray）的作品比阅读与高尔特（Galt）“令人毛骨悚然的相似”有很多优势。

First, reading a top academic in a field is a great way to learn both the general theory and the nuances.

首先，阅读某个领域的顶尖学者的著作是学习一般理论和细微差别的好方法。

Second, it is quicker.

其次，速度更快。

Third, academic works have copious citations that allow academic readers to understand how the author researches and provides the academic reader with resources to research particular topics in greater depth.

第三，学术著作有大量的引用，可以让学术读者了解作者的研究情况，并为学术读者提供更深入研究特定主题的资源。

Krugman can draw on the New York Times’ researchers and university librarians.

克鲁格曼可以借鉴《纽约时报》的研究人员和大学图书馆员的经验。

Consider the other obvious alternative – combining those resources with the telephone.

考虑另一个显而易见的选择——将这些资源与电话结合起来。

Find the contact information for a prominent MMT scholar, call the scholar, explain you would like to learn about key MMT precepts, ask for suggestions on several concise scholarly articles that he or she could email you.

找到著名 MMT 学者的联系信息，致电该学者，解释您想了解 MMT 的关键规则，询问他或她可以通过电子邮件向您发送的几篇简明学术文章的建议。

That would be the collegial approach – scholar to scholar.

这就是学院式的方法——学者对学者。

That would be the approach based on developing and signaling mutual respect.

这将是基于发展和表明相互尊重的方法。

Krugman appears never to have followed this approach.

克鲁格曼似乎从未遵循过这种方法。

We call it “revealed preferences.” His preference is to treat MMT scholars as non-colleagues and non-equals.

我们称之为“显性偏好”。他倾向于将现代货币理论学者视为非同事和不平等的人。

Krugman, without reading any MMT scholarship assumed there would be no meaningful difference between the work of experienced MMT scholars and a rant by a non-scholar that Krugman found to be torture to read.

克鲁格曼在没有读过任何现代货币理论学术著作的情况下，认为经验丰富的现代货币理论学者的著作与克鲁格曼认为读起来很折磨的非学者的咆哮之间没有任何有意义的区别。

That is every bit as absurd, arrogant, biased, un-collegial, and insulting as it sounds.

这听起来完全是荒谬的、傲慢的、有偏见的、不合规的、侮辱性的。

The third natural experiment, of course, demonstrates that Krugman did not understand MMT scholarship because he never could be troubled to take the obvious steps essential to learn about MMT scholarship.

当然，第三个自然实验表明克鲁格曼并不理解现代货币理论的学术研究，因为他从来不会费心采取必要的明显步骤来了解现代货币理论的学术研究。

He was so ignorant of MMT that even after assuring his readers that he had read several non-scholarly MMT “manifestoes” he could not tell that Roche’s rant was not MMT scholarship.

他对现代货币理论非常无知，以至于即使在向读者保证他读过几篇非学术性的现代货币理论“宣言”之后，他也无法看出罗氏的咆哮不是现代货币理论的学术内容。

Roche runs an investment firm.

罗氏经营着一家投资公司。

In fairness to Krugman, at the time that Roche first wrote his manifesto he did describe himself as favorably influenced by MMT scholars on a subset of MMT.

公平地说，克鲁格曼在罗氏首次撰写宣言时，确实将自己描述为在 MMT 的一个子集上受到 MMT 学者的积极影响。

Roche now considers himself an MMT critic.

罗氏现在认为自己是现代货币理论的批评者。

Roche later made this explicit to Krugman.

罗氏后来向克鲁格曼明确表达了这一点。

Clicking on Krugman’s hyperlink to Roche’s rant brings up this message from Roche (emphasis in the original).

单击克鲁格曼指向罗氏咆哮的超链接会显示来自罗氏的这条消息（原文中的强调）。

In 2011 I was briefly associated with a group of economists who advocate for a theory called “Modern Monetary Theory”.

2011年，我与一群主张“现代货币理论”的经济学家有过短暂的交往。

Paul Krugman even cited an early draft version of a popular paper of mine as a MMT paper.

保罗·克鲁格曼甚至引用了我的一篇热门论文的早期草稿作为 MMT 论文。

This paper is not a MMT paper although an early draft cited aspects that were consistent with MMT.

尽管早期草稿引用了与 MMT 一致的方面，但本文不是 MMT 论文。

The paper is not a representation of MMT’s views and I have never fully endorsed MMT.

该论文并不代表现代货币理论的观点，我也从未完全认可现代货币理论。

That said, I am sympathetic to some MMT ideas (like endogenous money theory), but I’ve never fully agreed with MMT as a whole and in fact believe there are elements of MMT that are wrong.

也就是说，我同情现代货币理论的一些观点（比如内生货币理论），但我从未完全同意现代货币理论的整体观点，事实上，我认为现代货币理论的某些要素是错误的。

In fairness, there are also elements I think are useful.

平心而论，也有我认为有用的元素。

I’ve outlined those views in a post here .

我在这里的一篇文章中概述了这些观点。

I’ve also written an extensive critique of MMT here .

我还在这里写了一篇对 MMT 的广泛批评。

On the whole I find MMT to be an eye opening and useful theory to understand, but I do worry that some of their ideas are a bit extremist and twist the operational realities of our monetary system in an effort to promote progressive policy ideas.

总体而言，我认为现代货币理论是一个令人大开眼界且易于理解的有用理论，但我确实担心他们的一些想法有点极端主义，并扭曲了我们货币体系的运作现实，以促进进步的政策理念。

The good news for Krugman is that while he falsely represented to his readers that Roche’s rant represented the views of lead MMT scholars, Krugman did so unknowingly and unintentionally.

对克鲁格曼来说，好消息是，虽然他向读者错误地表示罗氏的言论代表了现代货币理论主要学者的观点，但克鲁格曼是在不知情和无意的情况下这样做的。

The bad news is that in this case even after he read Roche’s rant he knew so little about the MMT scholarly literature that he represented to his readers that it exemplified MMT.

坏消息是，在这种情况下，即使在他读了罗氏的咆哮之后，他对现代货币理论的学术文献知之甚少，以至于他向读者展示了它是现代货币理论的例证。

The even worse news is that even after he read, and hated, Roche’s rant, Krugman knew so little about the MMT literature that he decided to provide his readers with a link to the rant – and only the rant – as supposedly representative of the MMT scholarly canon.

更糟糕的消息是，即使克鲁格曼阅读并讨厌罗氏的咆哮，但他对现代货币理论文献知之甚少，因此他决定向读者提供该咆哮的链接——而且只是咆哮——被认为是现代货币理论学术经典的代表。

To sum it up, Krugman’s attempt to assure his readers that he had “listened to the gentiles” (his phrase, not mine) before attacking them proved he had failed to do so.

总而言之，克鲁格曼试图向他的读者保证，他在攻击他们之前“听取了外邦人的意见”（他的说法，不是我的），但事实证明他没有做到这一点。

Krugman was so eager to reject and demean MMT scholars that his subconscious transformed Roche’s rant into the mother of all strawman arguments to aid his assault on MMT scholars.

克鲁格曼如此渴望拒绝和贬低现代货币理论学者，以至于他的潜意识将罗奇的咆哮变成了所有稻草论据的源泉，以帮助他攻击现代货币理论学者。

The fourth article in this series explains the four “tells” that demonstrate that Krugman knows he cannot win an honest debate against MMT.

本系列的第四篇文章解释了四个“事实”，表明克鲁格曼知道他无法赢得针对现代货币理论的诚实辩论。

[1] I have numbered the articles in this series in what I consider their logical progression, but I have completed the closely related third and fourth articles prior to the second, so we will publish them prior to the second article.

[1] 我按照我认为的逻辑顺序对本系列中的文章进行了编号，但我在第二篇文章之前完成了密切相关的第三篇和第四篇文章，因此我们将在第二篇文章之前发布它们。