Wolfers Blames MMT for Orthodox Economists’ Ignorance of MMT
Justin Wolfers is an economist who is disgracing the university I love, the University of Michigan.
贾斯汀·沃尔弗斯是一位经济学家，他让我热爱的密歇根大学蒙羞。
I had the great fortune to be born in Detroit and receive the first seven years of my higher education as an instate student at the University of Michigan.
我非常幸运地出生在底特律，并作为密歇根大学的州内学生接受了高等教育的前七年。
I was able to graduate with virtually no debt.
我几乎没有负债就能毕业。
Wolfers is also a native of Australia, which means he is familiar with kangaroos.
沃尔弗斯也是澳大利亚人，这意味着他对袋鼠很熟悉。
That familiarity is ironic because Wolfers is devoting his time these days to serving as the chief apologist for a kangaroo court of orthodox economists that convened to declare Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) anathema.
这种熟悉感颇具讽刺意味，因为沃尔弗斯这些天正把时间花在担任正统经济学家袋鼠法庭的首席辩护者上，该法庭开会宣扬现代货币理论（MMT）是令人厌恶的。
Kangaroo courts are sham legal proceedings which are set-up in order to give the impression of a fair legal process.
袋鼠法庭是虚假的法律程序，其设立的目的是为了给人留下公平法律程序的印象。
In fact, they offer no impartial justice as the verdict, invariably to the detriment of the accused, is decided in advance.
事实上，他们并没有提供公正的司法，因为判决是预先决定的，总是对被告不利。
The orthodox economists’ kangaroo court met that definition.
正统经济学家的袋鼠法庭符合这个定义。
Here is what happened – and there is no factual dispute about it.
这就是所发生的事情——对此不存在任何事实争议。
MMT opponents ignorant of MMT scholarship drafted two strawman questions.
现代货币理论的反对者对现代货币理论的学术研究一无所知，起草了两个稻草人问题。
(They were actually the same question, with unimportant changes in phraseology.) The willingness of people who never read MMT scholarship to be fervent opponents of MMT demonstrates the severity of the scandal.
（它们实际上是同一个问题，措辞上没有什么重要的变化。）从未读过现代货币理论学术研究的人愿意成为现代货币理论的狂热反对者，这表明了丑闻的严重性。
The kangaroo ‘poll’ drafters falsely claimed that MMT scholars would answer “yes” to both questions.
袋鼠“民意调查”起草者错误地声称现代货币理论学者会对这两个问题回答“是”。
Indeed, the deliberate implication was that a “yes” answer to both questions defined MMT’s core precepts.
事实上，故意的暗示是，对这两个问题的“是”答案定义了现代货币理论的核心原则。
MMT scholars have repeatedly and unequivocally made clear for decades that the answer to both questions is “no.” MMT scholars have repeatedly and unequivocally over the last nine years explained to Paul Krugman, the falsity of his recurrent ascription of the same strawman used by the orthodox economists’ kangaroo court to MMT scholars.
几十年来，现代货币理论学者一再明确表示，这两个问题的答案都是“不”。在过去的九年里，现代货币理论学者一再明确地向保罗·克鲁格曼解释说，他一再将正统经济学家袋鼠法庭所使用的稻草人归咎于现代货币理论学者，这是错误的。
As I have demonstrated in prior articles in this series, Brad DeLong has documented Krugman’s repeated falsehoods, the repeated statements of MMT scholars refuting Krugman’s strawman claims, and the clear statements by MMT scholars as to what they actually believe, write, and teach.
正如我在本系列之前的文章中所证明的那样，布拉德·德隆记录了克鲁格曼一再的谎言、现代货币理论学者反驳克鲁格曼稻草人主张的重复陈述，以及现代货币理论学者关于他们实际相信、撰写和教导的内容的明确陈述。
The orthodox economists who were the ‘judges’ in the kangaroo court (they call themselves the “IGM poll”) that condemned MMT based their decision on a single piece of ‘evidence’ – Krugman’s repeated strawman claim that MMT scholars teach the opposite of what MMT scholars actually teach about budget deficits.
作为袋鼠法庭“法官”的正统经济学家（他们称自己为“IGM民意调查”）谴责现代货币理论，他们的决定基于一个“证据”——克鲁格曼反复声称，现代货币理论学者关于预算赤字的教导与现代货币理论学者实际教导的相反。
The MMT opponents resurrected Krugman’s repeatedly refuted strawman claim to serve as their sole ‘evidence’ against MMT.
现代货币理论的反对者复活了克鲁格曼一再反驳的稻草人主张，作为他们反对现代货币理论的唯一“证据”。
The kangaroo court unanimously condemned MMT on the sole basis that MMT scholars believe “X” when MMT scholars constantly stress that they believe the opposite of “X.” The MMT opponents that forged the ‘evidence’ and falsely ascribed it to MMT scholars, and the orthodox economists who acted as the ‘judges’ and unanimously condemned MMT meet the definition of a kangaroo court.
袋鼠法庭一致谴责现代货币理论，仅仅因为现代货币理论学者相信“X”，而现代货币理论学者却不断强调他们相信“X”的反面。伪造“证据”并将其归咎于MMT学者的MMT反对者，以及充当“法官”并一致谴责MMT的正统经济学家，都符合袋鼠法庭的定义。
In fact, they offer no impartial justice as the verdict, invariably to the detriment of the accused, is decided in advance.
事实上，他们并没有提供公正的司法，因为判决是预先决定的，总是对被告不利。
Orthodox economists disgraced themselves when they launched this kangaroo court.
正统经济学家在推出这个袋鼠法庭时让自己蒙羞。
In my fifth column in this series, I explained the three “natural experiments” that the kangaroo court unknowingly launched.
在本系列的第五篇专栏中，我解释了袋鼠法庭在不知不觉中发起的三个“自然实验”。
The first two experiments tested the knowledge and integrity of orthodox economists.
前两个实验测试了正统经济学家的知识和诚信。
Each of the 37 kangaroo ‘judges’ who cast at least one kangaroo court verdict failed that test.
做出至少一项袋鼠法庭判决的 37 名袋鼠“法官”中的每一位都未能通过这一测试。
The 37 kangaroo ‘judges’ are elite orthodox economic scholars, not a random sample of orthodox economists.
这37名袋鼠“法官”是正统经济学精英，而不是正统经济学家的随机样本。
None of the 37 elite kangaroo ‘judges’ displayed even minimal knowledge of the MMT precepts they were condemning or the minimal integrity even the most junior economist should have brought to the process.
37 名精英袋鼠“法官”中没有一个对他们所谴责的 MMT 戒律表现出哪怕是最低限度的了解，也没有表现出即使是最初级的经济学家也应该在整个过程中表现出的最低限度的正直。
No one of integrity aids a kangaroo court.
正直无助于袋鼠法庭。
A kangaroo court is a travesty.
袋鼠法庭是一种嘲讽。
It is a lynch mob, but one that adds the cynical dishonesty of a “sham” presenting itself to the public as if it were a professional, ethical, and reliable citadel of justice.
这是一群私刑暴徒，但却增添了“骗局”的愤世嫉俗和不诚实，将自己呈现在公众面前，仿佛它是一个专业、道德和可靠的正义堡垒。
A kangaroo court combines the worst elements of tyranny and fraud.
袋鼠法庭结合了暴政和欺诈的最恶劣因素。
Its designers shape it to deceive the public and smear those it lynches as objectively ‘guilty.’ The first instinct of even junior professionals should be revulsion at kangaroo courts and those who ‘serve’ them.
它的设计者塑造它是为了欺骗公众，并将那些被私刑处死的人抹黑为客观上的“有罪”。即使是初级专业人士的第一本能也应该是对袋鼠法庭和那些“为他们服务”的人感到厌恶。
That revulsion should lead to a fierce passion to destroy and discredit all kangaroo courts.
这种反感应该会导致摧毁和抹黑所有袋鼠法庭的强烈热情。
Consider how much greater that revulsion and passion for justice should be if it is your profession that has been disgraced by creating a kangaroo court that forges the ‘evidence’ and condemns its opponents without even providing the pretense that their opponents are entitled to defend their views before the kangaroo ‘judges’ find them ‘guilty.’ Consider how much greater your humiliation and contempt would be if it was the most elite members of your profession that created and ran the kangaroo court.
想想看，如果你的职业因为创建了一个伪造“证据”并谴责对手的袋鼠法庭而蒙羞，甚至没有提供假装他们的对手有权在袋鼠“法官”发现他们“有罪”之前捍卫自己的观点，那么你对正义的反感和热情应该有多大。想想看，如果是你职业中最精英的成员创建和管理了这个法庭，你的羞辱和蔑视将会有多大。袋鼠法庭。
How great would your passion be to destroy such a disgrace and to condemn those that created it and served as its lynch mob if you learned that the lynch mob was composed of the most elite members of your profession?
如果你得知私刑暴徒是由你所在行业中最精英的成员组成的，那么你会多么热衷于摧毁这种耻辱，并谴责那些制造这种耻辱并充当私刑暴徒的人？
If you are an economist reading this, you know I jest.
如果你是一位正在读这篇文章的经济学家，你就会知道我在开玩笑。
The idea that elite orthodox economists have a passionate desire to destroy orthodox economic institutions of injustice and domination is, of course, hilarious.
精英正统经济学家热衷于摧毁不公正和统治的正统经济制度，这种想法当然是可笑的。
We know that because our exposure and condemnation of the kangaroo court that disgraced the field of economics has created a third natural experiment.
我们知道，因为我们对让经济学领域蒙羞的袋鼠法庭的曝光和谴责，创造了第三个自然实验。
The third experiment is how orthodox economists will respond to the disgrace, particularly those that run the kangaroo court and serve as its elite ‘judges’ (lynch mob).
第三个实验是正统经济学家将如何应对这种耻辱，特别是那些管理袋鼠法庭并担任其精英“法官”（私刑暴徒）的人。
I predict that the people who run the kangaroo court (U.
我预测管理袋鼠法庭的人（U.
Chicago’s business school), the unidentified people that took Krugman’s long-falsified strawman claims about MMT and used them as the forged ‘evidence’ presented to the orthodox kangaroo court members as their pretext for condemning MMT, and the elite kangaroo ‘judges’ will fail utterly this third test of integrity.
芝加哥商学院），那些不明身份的人将克鲁格曼长期以来伪造的关于MMT的稻草人主张作为伪造的“证据”提交给正统的袋鼠法庭成员，作为谴责MMT的借口，而精英袋鼠“法官”将彻底失败这第三次诚信考验。
My prediction causes me pain, and I hope that all three groups falsify my prediction.
我的预测让我痛苦，我希望所有三个团体都证伪我的预测。
I will be delighted to admit the failure of my prediction if that happens.
如果这种情况发生，我将很高兴地承认我的预测失败了。
I think that honest economists can be a great help to the world.
我认为诚实的经济学家可以为世界提供很大的帮助。
I teach economics, and I feel shamed for my discipline that its members created and ran a kangaroo court.
我教经济学，我为我的学科感到羞耻，因为它的成员创建并管理了一个袋鼠法庭。
To date, the overwhelming reaction of economists to the kangaroo court is to condemn the victims of this lynch mob rather than the perpetrators.
迄今为止，经济学家对袋鼠法庭的压倒性反应是谴责这起私刑暴徒的受害者，而不是肇事者。
The overwhelming reaction of economists has assumed that the forged ‘evidence’ of MMT’s ‘guilt’ must be correct.
经济学家的压倒性反应认为，现代货币理论“有罪”的伪造“证据”一定是正确的。
The results to date of this third natural experiment are appalling.
迄今为止，第三次自然实验的结果令人震惊。
The response demonstrates endemic economic ignorance among orthodox economists commenting on the kangaroo court.
这一回应表明，正统经济学家在评论袋鼠法庭时普遍存在经济无知。
Worse, it demonstrates how many economists lack critical minds that lead them to check out the facts rather than accept strawman arguments as gospel without kicking the tires.
更糟糕的是，它表明有多少经济学家缺乏批判性思维，无法引导他们去检验事实，而不是不假思索地接受稻草人的论点作为福音。
A college freshman with a search engine could document within five minutes that it was indisputable that the kangaroo court forged the ‘evidence’ it used as its pretext to condemn MMT scholars.
一名大学新生通过搜索引擎可以在五分钟内记录下来，无可争议的是，袋鼠法庭伪造了它用来作为谴责 MMT 学者的借口的“证据”。
In another five minutes, the freshman would know that MMT scholars repeatedly and clearly blew the whistle on Krugman’s strawman assaults on MMT scholars over the course of nine years – and that whoever runs the kangaroo court knowingly used Krugman’s dishonest strawman to ensure that the kangaroo court would unanimously condemn MMT.
再过五分钟，新生就会知道MMT学者在九年的时间里一再明确地揭发克鲁格曼对MMT学者的稻草人攻击——而无论谁经营袋鼠法庭，都故意利用克鲁格曼不诚实的稻草人来确保袋鼠法庭一致谴责MMT。
I began this article by noting that one source of great pain for me is to have Wolfers, an elite orthodox economist from the University of Michigan, emerge as the chief apologist (and Krugman brown nose) for the kangaroo court.
我在这篇文章的开头指出，对我来说巨大痛苦的一个来源是让沃尔弗斯，一位来自密歇根大学的精英正统经济学家，成为袋鼠法庭的首席辩护者（和克鲁格曼棕色鼻子）。
No honest person can defend a kangaroo court, so Wolfers’ apology for the kangaroo court and Krugman – and his effort to blame the victim – plumb new depths of dishonesty.
没有诚实的人可以为袋鼠法庭辩护，因此沃尔弗斯对袋鼠法庭和克鲁格曼的道歉——以及他试图指责受害者的努力——将不诚实的行为推向了新的高度。
Wolfers’ first tweet gleefully celebrated the kangaroo court verdict by calling its inevitable condemnation of MMT “evidence” that MMT was baseless.
沃尔弗斯的第一条推文兴高采烈地庆祝了袋鼠法庭的判决，称其不可避免地对现代货币理论的谴责是现代货币理论毫无根据的“证据”。
It certainly is.
确实如此。
The kangaroo court’s combination of fraud and farce evidences a cynical and dishonest effort to smear opposing scholars while fooling the public through a “sham …
袋鼠法庭的欺诈和闹剧相结合，证明了一种愤世嫉俗和不诚实的行为，目的是抹黑反对学者，同时通过“虚假……”愚弄公众。
set-up in order to give the impression of a fair legal process.” It also evidences the willingness of the lynch mob to ‘convict’ MMT solely by forging “evidence” that purports to show that MMT scholars believe the opposite of what MMT scholars actually believe.
以便给人留下公平法律程序的印象。”它还证明了私刑暴徒愿意仅仅通过伪造“证据”来“定罪”现代货币理论，这些“证据”旨在表明现代货币理论学者的观点与现代货币理论学者的实际观点相反。
Wolfers then doubled down on his brown nosing of Krugman and quintupled down on dishonesty.
随后，沃尔弗斯加倍对克鲁格曼嗤之以鼻，并对不诚实行为加倍打击。
He began his tweet:
他开始了他的推文：
Krugman’s prediction had a 100 percent chance of success.
克鲁格曼的预测有 100% 成功的机会。
He predicted that MMT scholars would point out, and prove, for at least the fifth time, that his strawman was a lie.
他预测现代货币理论学者将至少第五次指出并证明他的稻草人是一个谎言。
Duh.
呃。
The hilarious, insane, disgusting second part of Krugman’s message was his announcement of a Catch-22 – it was illegitimate for MMT scholars to refute Krugman’s lies.
克鲁格曼的信息中搞笑、疯狂、恶心的第二部分是他宣布的第二十二条军规——现代货币理论学者反驳克鲁格曼的谎言是非法的。
Krugman, and only Krugman, gets to make the debate rules and his first rule is that his opponent is not allowed to refute his lies, particularly his ‘weapon of choice’ – the strawman argument.
克鲁格曼，也只有克鲁格曼，有权制定辩论规则，他的第一条规则是不允许他的对手反驳他的谎言，特别是他的“选择武器”——稻草人论证。
Krugman’s phony ‘prediction’ and his Catch-22 did not upset Wolfers.
克鲁格曼的虚假“预测”和他的第二十二条军规并没有让沃尔弗斯感到不安。
Wolfers rushed to join in Krugman’s anti-MMT parade.
沃尔弗斯急忙加入克鲁格曼的反现代货币理论游行。
If Wolfers were honest and not so eager to curry Krugman’s favor, he would have called Krugman’s “prediction” and Catch-22 rule preposterous.
如果沃尔弗斯是诚实的，不那么急于讨好克鲁格曼，他就会认为克鲁格曼的“预测”和第二十二条规则是荒谬的。
Instead, Wolfers decided to add to Krugman’s chutzpah .
相反，沃尔弗斯决定让克鲁格曼更加肆无忌惮。
Wolfers claimed that any of the kangaroo court members who believed Krugman’s strawman claims about MMT scholars’ view – was a victim of MMT scholars!
沃尔弗斯声称，任何相信克鲁格曼关于现代货币理论学者观点的稻草人主张的袋鼠法庭成员都是现代货币理论学者的受害者！
[Krugman] may be right that MMT’ers think this question misrepresents their views.
[克鲁格曼]认为现代货币理论的支持者认为这个问题歪曲了他们的观点，这可能是对的。
But if even the very smart people running the IGM poll don’t understand what MMT’ers are saying, then perhaps the problem is that MMT’ers aren’t being clear.
但如果即使是进行 IGM 民意调查的非常聪明的人也不明白 MMT 的支持者在说什么，那么问题可能在于 MMT 的支持者并不清楚。
Wolfers is claiming that “the very smart people running the IGM poll” asked MMT scholars to explain MMT’s precepts for deficits and government spending.
沃尔弗斯声称，“进行 IGM 民意调查的非常聪明的人”要求 MMT 学者解释 MMT 关于赤字和政府支出的规则。
The “very smart people” came away from that discussion so confused that they wrote questions for the “IGM poll” that claimed that MMT scholars’ believe deficits never matter.
“非常聪明的人”在结束讨论后感到非常困惑，以至于他们为“IGM 民意调查”写了问题，声称现代货币理论学者认为赤字无关紧要。
In reality, MMT scholars teach that it is not true that “deficits never matter.” Wolfers’ inference is obvious, if “the very smart people running the IGM poll” get MMT scholars’ views so wrong that the poll questions represent the opposite of what MMT scholars believe, then the fault must lie with the MMT scholars.
事实上，现代货币理论学者教导说，“赤字永远不重要”的说法并不正确。沃尔弗斯的推论是显而易见的，如果“进行 IGM 民意调查的非常聪明的人”将 MMT 学者的观点弄得如此错误，以至于民意调查的问题与 MMT 学者的观点相反，那么错误一定在于 MMT 学者。
It logically follows that the MMT scholars must not be “very smart people” – and they must be so incompetent in explaining their positions that the “very smart [IGM] people” got everything reversed.
从逻辑上讲，现代货币理论学者一定不是“非常聪明的人”——他们在解释自己的立场时一定非常无能，以至于“非常聪明的[IGM]人”把一切都颠倒了。
There are four fatal problems with Wolfers’ whine.
沃尔弗斯的哀鸣有四个致命的问题。
First, “the very smart people running the IGM poll” never communicated with any MMT scholar seeking an explanation of MMT.
首先，“进行 IGM 民意调查的非常聪明的人”从未与任何寻求 MMT 解释的 MMT 学者进行交流。
In particular, the “very smart people” never showed any MMT scholar a draft of the two poll questions and asked whether the questions accurately reflected MMT precepts.
特别是，“非常聪明的人”从未向任何现代货币理论学者展示这两个民意调查问题的草稿，并询问这些问题是否准确反映了现代货币理论的戒律。
They never requested MMT scholars to submit questions for the ‘poll.’ The idea that MMT or virtually any economic theory is reducible to a single sentence is insulting.
他们从未要求现代货币理论学者提交“民意调查”问题。认为现代货币理论或几乎任何经济理论都可以简化为一句话的想法是侮辱性的。
Second, Wolfers has no idea who created the IGM poll questions and what their “intelligence” is – and he has no idea what MMT is or the intelligence level of MMT scholars.
其次，沃尔弗斯不知道谁创造了 IGM 民意调查问题，也不知道他们的“智力”是什么——他也不知道 MMT 是什么，也不知道 MMT 学者的智力水平。
The IGM poll site added a link recently providing “supplemental information” on MMT.
IGM 民意调查网站最近添加了一个链接，提供有关 MMT 的“补充信息”。
That link provides not a single citation to the MMT scholarly literature, nor a quotation from any MMT scholar.
该链接没有提供对 MMT 学术文献的任何引用，也没有引用任何 MMT 学者的内容。
That is a revealing and embarrassing failure.
这是一次具有启发性且令人尴尬的失败。
The entire farce reeks of a classic kangaroo court.
整场闹剧充满了经典袋鼠法庭的味道。
Romesh Vaitiling is the only person identified as putting together this sham “information” on MMT.
罗梅什·维蒂林 (Romesh Vaitiling) 是唯一被确定在 MMT 上整理这些虚假“信息”的人。
The “supplemental information” link attributes the information to him, but without any description of who he is.
“补充信息”链接将信息归因于他，但没有任何关于他是谁的描述。
A link reveals that he is a member of the staff of a center at the London School of Economics.
链接显示他是伦敦经济学院一个中心的工作人员。
His title is “Press and Public Relations – Support.” He could not have written those words had he read even a single scholarly work by an MMT scholar.
他的头衔是“新闻和公共关系——支持”。如果他读过现代货币理论学者的哪怕一本学术著作，他也不可能写下这些话。
The “supplemental information” sheet makes clear that Vaitiling has no understanding of MMT.
“补充信息”表明确表明，Vaitiling 对 MMT 并不了解。
The first sentence of the sheet begins with this falsehood – the exact strawman that Krugman has been repeating for at least nine years despite recurrent explanations by MMT scholars of its falsity:
该表的第一句话就是从这个谎言开始的——尽管现代货币理论学者一再解释其虚假性，但克鲁格曼已经重复了至少九年的确切稻草人：
‘Modern monetary theory’ (MMT) – the idea that a country that is able to borrow in its own currency need not worry about government deficits and debt….
“现代货币理论”（MMT）——一个能够以本国货币借款的国家不必担心政府赤字和债务的想法……。
Note that as with Krugman’s repeated, identical falsehood, the “supplemental information” sheet on ‘MMT’ begins with the big lie MMT that quotes no MMT scholar and cites no MMT scholarship.
请注意，与克鲁格曼重复的、相同的谎言一样，关于“MMT”的“补充信息”表以 MMT 的弥天大谎开头，没有引用 MMT 学者，也没有引用 MMT 奖学金。
Third, the entire “supplemental information” sheet contains inks only to two op eds by MMT scholars.
第三，整个“补充信息”表仅包含 MMT 学者的两篇专栏文章。
It consists overwhelmingly of links to op eds attacking MMT, several of which repeat Krugman’s big lie.
它绝大多数由攻击 MMT 的专栏链接组成，其中一些重复了克鲁格曼的弥天大谎。
It is a hit piece, not an introduction to the MMT scholarly literature.
这是一篇热门文章，而不是现代货币理论学术文献的介绍。
Even as obviously stacked as it is against MMT, however, each of the op eds by MMT scholars makes clear the big lie at the heart of the kangaroo court.
然而，尽管它明显反对现代货币理论，但现代货币理论学者的每篇评论都清楚地表明了袋鼠法庭的核心谎言。
Neither op ed by MMT scholars was intended to refute Krugman’s big lie about MMT.
现代货币理论学者发表的两篇评论文章都无意反驳克鲁格曼关于现代货币理论的弥天大谎。
Each op ed was addressed to explaining different nuances about MMT precepts and policies.
每篇专栏文章都旨在解释 MMT 规则和政策的不同细微差别。
MMT scholars’ op eds, of course, overwhelmingly explain the nuances of what MMT theory says rather than explaining what MMT does not say.
当然，MMT 学者的评论绝大多数解释了 MMT 理论所说的细微差别，而不是解释 MMT 没有说的内容。
There are op eds by MMT scholars designed to refute directly Krugman’s big lie, but the “supplemental information” sheet failed to cite or quote them.
现代货币理论学者发表了一些专栏文章，旨在直接反驳克鲁格曼的弥天大谎，但“补充信息”表却没有引用或引用它们。
Recall that Krugman’s big lie, adopted nearly verbatim by the U.
回想一下克鲁格曼的弥天大谎，美国几乎逐字逐句地采用了。
Chicago kangaroo court, is that MMT claims that federal budget deficits never matter.
芝加哥袋鼠法庭认为，现代货币理论声称联邦预算赤字从来不重要。
The “supplemental information” sheet provides a link to Stephanie Kelton’s March 7, 2019 op ed in Bloomberg .
“补充信息”表提供了 Stephanie Kelton 2019 年 3 月 7 日在彭博社发表的专栏文章的链接。
The specific language of the first question claims that MMT says that the federal government never needs to “worry about government deficits.” The supplemental information sheet proves that the people who put together the kangaroo court ‘poll’ knew that Stephanie Kelton, one of the world’s most prominent MMT scholars wrote to emphasize that MMT scholars had no such belief.
第一个问题的具体语言声称，现代货币理论认为联邦政府永远不需要“担心政府赤字”。补充信息表证明，袋鼠法庭“民意调查”的负责人知道世界上最著名的现代货币理论学者之一斯蒂芬妮·凯尔顿写信强调现代货币理论学者没有这样的信念。
Indeed, the title of her op ed makes that clear.
事实上，她的专栏标题已经清楚地表明了这一点。
“How to Tell When Deficit Spending Crosses a Line.” There is no “line” that governments must not ‘cross’ if governments never need to “worry about government deficits.” Kelton went on to explain when a government needs to worry about a government deficit.
“如何判断赤字支出何时跨越界限。”如果政府永远不需要“担心政府赤字”，那么就没有政府不能“跨越”的“界限”。凯尔顿接着解释了政府何时需要担心政府赤字。
As every economist knows, inflation — not a budget deficit — is the tell-tale sign of an economy that is under pressure from excessive spending.
每个经济学家都知道，通货膨胀——而不是预算赤字——是经济面临过度支出压力的明显迹象。
If prices aren’t accelerating, you don’t have an inflation problem.
如果价格没有加速上涨，就不会出现通货膨胀问题。
And if you don’t have an inflation problem, you don’t have a spending problem.
如果没有通货膨胀问题，就没有支出问题。
The “supplemental information” sheet also links to a March 1, 2019 op ed by Scott Fullwiler, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City; Rohan Grey, a Doctoral Fellow at Cornell Law School; and Nathan Tankus, Research Director of the Modern Money Network in the Financial Times .
“补充信息”表还链接到堪萨斯城密苏里大学经济学教授 Scott Fullwiler 于 2019 年 3 月 1 日发表的评论文章； Rohan Grey，康奈尔大学法学院博士研究员；以及英国《金融时报》现代货币网络研究总监内森·坦库斯（Nathan Tankus）。
In a major step forward, the broad consensus of these pieces in a series of outlets has been to agree with my colleagues and I that the only limit on government spending is inflation.
向前迈出的重要一步是，一系列媒体的这些文章达成了广泛共识，同意我和我的同事的观点，即政府支出的唯一限制是通货膨胀。
First, when we suggest that a budget constraint be replaced by an inflation constraint , we are not suggesting that all inflation is caused by excess demand.
首先，当我们建议用通货膨胀约束取代预算约束时，我们并不是说所有的通货膨胀都是由过度需求引起的。
Third, when we do advocate using tax increases to address inflationary pressure, we are not suggesting that Congress attempt to raise taxes in real time after inflation has already emerged.
第三，当我们确实主张通过增税来应对通胀压力时，我们并不是建议国会在通胀已经出现后尝试实时增税。
Indeed, our approach is precisely intended to avoid a situation in which Congress merely spends without paying attention to inflation dynamics until it is too late.
事实上，我们的做法正是为了避免出现国会只是花钱而不关注通胀动态的情况，直到为时已晚。
Thus, we argue varying tax rates and other inflation offsets should be included in the budgeting process from the outset.
因此，我们认为，不同的税率和其他通货膨胀抵消措施应该从一开始就纳入预算过程。
The “supplemental information” sheet shows that the kangaroo ‘judges’ of the IGM ‘poll’ agreed with Kelton’s point.
“补充信息”表显示，IGM“民意调查”的袋鼠“法官”同意凯尔顿的观点。
I quote the entire passage of the ‘supplemental information’ sheet’s discussion of the comments made by the judges.
我引用了“补充信息”表中对法官评论的讨论的整段内容。
Note that they agree with Kelton – the real constraint on deficits is avoiding harmful levels of inflation.
请注意，他们同意凯尔顿的观点——对赤字的真正限制是避免有害的通货膨胀水平。
Among the short comments that the experts are able to include when they participate in the survey, Oliver Hart at Harvard made the same remark in response to both statements: ‘This kind of behavior can quickly lead to inflation or even hyperinflation once the economy is close to full capacity.’ So too did Steven Kaplan at Chicago, who answered both statements: ‘At some point it becomes untenable and the country becomes Venezuela or Zimbabwe.’
在专家们参与调查时能够发表的简短评论中，哈佛大学的奥利弗·哈特(Oliver Hart)对这两种说法做出了同样的回应：“一旦经济接近满负荷，这种行为就会迅速导致通货膨胀，甚至恶性通货膨胀。”芝加哥的史蒂文·卡普兰(Steven Kaplan)也是如此，他回答了这两种说法：“到了某个时候，它就会变得站不住脚，这个国家就会变成委内瑞拉或津巴布韦。”
On the first statement, Kenneth Judd at Stanford commented: ‘A government may be able to do this once but doing this systematically will make it impossible to sell bonds in the future.’ Robert Shimer at Chicago noted that: ‘The real value of the money supply is bounded above.
在第一份声明中，斯坦福大学的肯尼思·贾德 (Kenneth Judd) 评论道：“政府也许能够做到这一点，但系统地这样做将使未来无法出售债券。”芝加哥大学的罗伯特·希默 (Robert Shimer) 指出：“货币供应的实际价值是有限度的。”
At some point, this must create inflation.’ And Markus Brunnermeier at Princeton cited precedents for that outcome: ‘See numerous historical examples: Germany in 1920s, Latin America…’.
在某种程度上，这必然会造成通货膨胀。”普林斯顿大学的马库斯·布伦纳梅尔 (Markus Brunnermeier) 引用了这一结果的先例：“参见许多历史例子：20 年代的德国、拉丁美洲……”。
On the second statement, Eric Maskin at Harvard observed: ‘There will come a point where the currency is so debased that further spending becomes difficult if not impossible.’ And Larry Samuelson at Yale added a further reference to history: ‘Creating money can finance a great deal of spending, but incidents of hyperinflation, collapse and other crises indicate there are limits.’
对于第二份声明，哈佛大学的埃里克·马斯金 (Eric Maskin) 表示：“到了某个时候，货币会大幅贬值，进一步的支出即使不是不可能，也会变得困难。”耶鲁大学的拉里·萨缪尔森 (Larry Samuelson) 进一步引用了历史：“创造货币可以为大量支出提供资金，但恶性通货膨胀、崩溃和其他危机事件表明存在局限性。”
Every orthodox economist polled agreed with the position the MMT scholars expressed in their op eds – unrestrained budget deficits could trigger serious inflation, which is when deficits matter.
每一位接受调查的正统经济学家都同意现代货币理论学者在他们的专栏中表达的立场——不受限制的预算赤字可能引发严重的通货膨胀，而这正是赤字发挥作用的时候。
Note also that that the author of the questions reported, but did not understand the significance of, the following comments by one of the ‘judges.’ “Oliver Hart at Harvard made the same remark [about inflation] in response to both statements.” He made the same comment about inflation in response to both questions because both questions are different ways of phrasing the same question – do federal deficits never matter?
另请注意，问题的作者报道了其中一位“法官”的以下评论，但并不理解其重要性。“哈佛大学的奥利弗·哈特（Oliver Hart）在回应这两种说法时也发表了同样的评论（关于通货膨胀）。”他在回答这两个问题时对通货膨胀做出了相同的评论，因为这两个问题是同一问题的不同表达方式——联邦赤字从来都不重要吗？
The Kelton and Fullwiler, et al.
凯尔顿和富威勒等人。
op eds and the ‘judges’’ comments on the poll questions demonstrate the key points.
专栏文章和“法官”对民意调查问题的评论表明了要点。
First, the two ‘poll’ questions were slight variants of the same question – do you believe that deficits never matter?
首先，两个“民意调查”问题是同一问题的轻微变体——你认为赤字永远不重要吗？
Second, the poll says that MMT answers both questions “yes.” Third, every MMT scholar would answer “no” to both ‘poll’ questions .
其次，民意调查显示，现代货币理论对这两个问题的回答都是“是”。第三，每个现代货币理论学者都会对这两个“民意调查”问题都回答“不”。
Fourth, the people that created this kangaroo court knew from reading the two op eds by MMT scholars that they were falsely attributing statements to MMT scholars that MMT scholars oppose.
第四，创建这个袋鼠法庭的人通过阅读现代货币理论学者的两篇评论文章知道，他们错误地将现代货币理论学者反对的言论归咎于现代货币理论学者。
The “supplementary information” sheet notes, but its author does not understand the significance of the fact that the kangaroo court results were unanimous – “this kind of unanimity of opinion is rare.” It is almost impossible to get intellectually honest economists to agree unanimously about the validity of nearly any major controversial economic theory.
“补充信息”表指出，但其作者并不理解袋鼠法庭结果一致这一事实的意义——“这种意见一致是罕见的。”让理智上诚实的经济学家一致同意几乎所有有争议的主要经济理论的有效性几乎是不可能的。
It is easy to produce unanimity only if you attribute falsely to a group of theorists an economically illiterate statement that they do not believe.
只有当你错误地将他们不相信的经济文盲陈述归咎于一群理论家时，才容易达成一致。
The kangaroo court poll answer was unanimous because both questions purported that MMT believed a claim that was economically illiterate.
袋鼠法庭民意调查的答案是一致的，因为这两个问题都表明现代货币理论相信一种经济文盲的说法。
Why would MMT scholars believe a claim that was preposterous?
为什么现代货币理论学者会相信这种荒谬的说法？
Why would the kangaroo court assign to MMT scholars a claim that MMT scholars have consistently explained was false?
为什么袋鼠法庭会将 MMT 学者一贯解释为错误的主张分配给 MMT 学者？
The kangaroo drafters of the questions knew the MMT scholars would have voted “disagree” on the questions.
这些问题的袋鼠起草者知道现代货币理论学者会对这些问题投“不同意”票。
The unanimity of the voting was a warning sign that the ‘poll’ was a kangaroo court exercise.
投票的一致是一个警告信号，表明“民意调查”是袋鼠法庭的行为。
The fourth fatal flaw in Wolfers’ whine is that it implicitly admits his ignorance of MMT scholarship combined with his willingness to insult MMT scholars in order to seek Krugman’s favor.
沃尔弗斯抱怨的第四个致命缺陷是，它含蓄地承认了他对现代货币理论学术的无知，并且愿意侮辱现代货币理论学者以寻求克鲁格曼的青睐。
He could not have read any MMT scholarship to make the two tweets he did about MMT scholarship.
他不可能读过任何 MMT 奖学金才能发表他关于 MMT 奖学金的两条推文。
So why was he commenting on MMT?
那么他为什么要评论现代货币理论呢？
He knew from Krugman that MMT scholars would point out that the kangaroo ‘poll’ questions falsely reversed MMT scholars’ actual views.
他从克鲁格曼那里得知，现代货币理论学者会指出，袋鼠“民意调查”问题错误地颠倒了现代货币理论学者的实际观点。
That should have warned him immediately to read at least one MMT scholar’s work and determine whether the kangaroo ‘poll’ questions reflected our views.
这应该警告他立即阅读至少一位现代货币理论学者的著作，并确定袋鼠“民意调查”问题是否反映了我们的观点。
Krugman’s tweet, which prompted Wolfers’ second tweet on MMT, should have warned Wolfers that MMT scholars had repeatedly corrected his repeated efforts to tar us with a strawman claim he invented to smear us.
克鲁格曼的推文引发了沃尔弗斯关于现代货币理论的第二条推文，它本应该警告沃尔弗斯，现代货币理论的学者们已经多次纠正了他一再用他发明的用来抹黑我们的稻草人说法来抹黑我们的努力。
Wolfers could have used a search engine to learn the truth within five minutes.
沃尔弗斯本可以使用搜索引擎在五分钟内了解真相。
Wolfer’s research would have also proved that MMT scholars clearly and repeatedly refuted Krugman’s lies.
沃尔弗的研究也将证明现代货币理论学者清楚地、反复地驳斥了克鲁格曼的谎言。
Wolfers would then have known with certainty:
沃尔弗斯那时就会确切地知道：
(2) The ‘poll’ question restated Krugman’s big strawman lie,
(2)“民意调查”问题重申了克鲁格曼的稻草人大谎言，
(3) Krugman’s ‘prediction’ that MMT scholars would point out that the kangaroo ‘poll’ simply repeated Krugman’s big strawman lie was an act of cynicism because he knew with certainty that we do not allow Krugman’s big strawman lie to be repeated without refuting it, and
（3）克鲁格曼“预测”现代货币理论学者会指出袋鼠“民意调查”只是重复了克鲁格曼的稻草人大谎言，这是一种愤世嫉俗的行为，因为他确信我们不会允许克鲁格曼的稻草人大谎言在没有反驳的情况下被重复，并且
(4) Krugman’s Catch-22 that says it is illegitimate for MMT scholars to refute his repeated lies was indefensible and obscene.
(4) 克鲁格曼的《第二十二条军规》称现代货币理论学者反驳他一再重复的谎言是非法的，这是站不住脚的，而且是下流的。
Wolfers either read, or deliberately stopped reading, tweated responses to the kangaroo ‘poll’ by MMT critics who have read MMT scholarship on the twitter feed.
沃尔弗斯要么阅读，要么故意停止阅读现代货币理论批评者对袋鼠“民意调查”的回应，这些批评者在推特上阅读了现代货币理论的学术成果。
He would have learned two critical facts.
他会了解到两个关键事实。
The ‘poll’ questions falsely ascribed to MMT scholars views we have consistently opposed.
“民意调查”问题错误地归因于我们一贯反对的现代货币理论学者的观点。
The ‘poll’ was a kangaroo court.
“民意调查”是在袋鼠法庭进行的。
Alternatively, Wolfers could have read the “supplemental information” sheet, clicked on the two links to op eds written by MMT scholars and confirmed the same critical facts.
或者，沃尔弗斯可以阅读“补充信息”表，点击 MMT 学者撰写的专栏文章的两个链接，并确认相同的关键事实。
Every day that passes since the announcement of the scandalous kangaroo poll without U.
自从宣布丑闻的袋鼠民意调查以来，每一天都没有美国参与。
Chicago, the ‘judges,’ and those like Wolfers and Krugman who ballyhooed the ‘poll’ apologizing for this travesty is a day that adds to the disgrace of each of these people and institutions.
芝加哥、“法官”以及像沃尔弗斯和克鲁格曼这样大肆宣传“民意调查”并为这一嘲讽行为道歉的人，这一天给这些人和机构增添了耻辱。
The forces of orthodoxy in many disciplines have used strawman arguments and sham ‘judicial’ panels to condemn and even murder the heterodox over thousands of years.
数千年来，许多学科中的正统势力一直利用稻草论据和虚假的“司法”小组来谴责甚至谋杀异端。
Orthodoxy launches these purges when formerly ignored views begin to receive broader attention.
当以前被忽视的观点开始受到更广泛的关注时，正统派就发起了这些清洗。
Academics rely on strawman arguments and kangaroo courts only when they cannot win an honest debate.
只有当学术界无法赢得诚实的辩论时，他们才会依赖稻草人和袋鼠法庭。
While MMT scholars are the victims of this latest travesty, we would be happy to be part of transforming this scandal into a real dialog about how economics can aid rather than obstruct our Nation’s ability to solve our worst problems.
虽然现代货币理论学者是这一最新讽刺的受害者，但我们很乐意参与将这一丑闻转化为一场真正的对话，讨论经济如何帮助而不是阻碍我们国家解决最严重问题的能力。
We can provide full employment without harmful inflation, provide superior health care at a lower price, and fix rather than assault our planet’s ability to sustain life.
我们可以在没有有害通货膨胀的情况下提供充分就业，以较低的价格提供优质的医疗保健，并修复而不是破坏我们星球维持生命的能力。
My deepest pain, however, is that I know two of the elite economists who agreed to be the faux judges in this kangaroo court.
然而，我最深的痛苦是，我认识两位精英经济学家，他们同意担任这个袋鼠法庭的假法官。
I personally call on Darrell Duffie and Austan Goolsbee to blow the whistle on this scandal and do everything within their power to expose and make right the disgrace they helped bring on our field.
我个人呼吁达雷尔·达菲和奥斯坦·古尔斯比揭发这一丑闻，并尽其所能揭露并纠正他们给我们这个领域带来的耻辱。
If you actually want to learn about MMT, contact me and I will introduce you to my colleagues and their work.
如果您确实想了解 MMT，请联系我，我将向您介绍我的同事和他们的工作。
Read our columns explaining why the kangaroo court you aided was a disgrace, take action to ensure it does not soon happen again, and work to undo the harm you have done.
阅读我们的专栏，解释为什么您所帮助的袋鼠法庭是一种耻辱，采取行动确保这种情况不会很快再次发生，并努力消除您所造成的伤害。
I am sure that neither of you had ever read MMT scholarly work prior to rendering your ‘verdict.’ Please join us in righting this disgrace.
我确信你们在做出“裁决”之前都没有读过现代货币理论的学术著作。请与我们一起纠正这种耻辱。
MMT scholars are going to continue to demand that the economics profession admit, condemn, and do everything possible to cure this scandal.
现代货币理论学者将继续要求经济学界承认、谴责并尽一切可能纠正这一丑闻。
This must never happen again in our lifetimes.
在我们有生之年绝不能再发生这种事。