I am Right. You are Wrong.

There’s battle lines being drawn

And nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong

Young people speaking their minds

Getting so much resistance from behind

What a field day for the heat

A thousand people in the street

Singing songs and carrying signs

Mostly say ‘Hooray’ for our side

It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound?

Everybody look what’s going down


—For What It’s Worth, Buffalo Springfield (1966)

When it comes to Modern Monetary Theory...

What is Stephanie Kelton Thinking?

The headline for the upcoming July issue of Luckbox magazine was inspired by Paul Krugman, the progressive New York Times economist who can’t find many positive things to say about Modern Monetary Theory. Proponents of MMT advocate using radical fiscal and monetary mechanisms to achieve economic and social outcomes that don’t square with generations of accepted economic dogma. As hard as Krugman tries, he simply can’t figure out what Stephanie Kelton, MMT’s most ardent spokesperson, must be thinking.

We shouldn’t focus only on Krugman’s errant reasoning—such considerations could easily consume an entire issue. Keynesian and Austrian economists alike have overwhelmingly rejected MMT’s assertion that a government that prints its own money can spend it freely—essentially without regard to increasing the deficit. 

My initial instinct was to agree. As a long-time hobby economist, I take pride in owning tattered tomes of John Maynard Keynes (The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 1936) and F. A. Hayek (The Road to Serfdom, 1944). But, I must confess that the Serfdom pages are much more weathered from obsessive reading. So, rejecting MMT outright would be convenient and uncomplicated. What can possibly be gained from keeping an open mind?

I wouldn’t be alone in righteously rejecting reasoning contrary to what (I believe) I know to be right. These days there’s little time or tolerance for opposing perspectives. Shades of gray are confined to softcore porn. Weak and wavering nuance is the province of the irresolute. 

I am right. You are wrong. That’s the single line of reasoning we all agree upon these days. We condemn before we consider, rationalize rather than reason, and attack instead of analyze. Armed with arrogance, we activate the adage that “when you only own a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Indeed, we hammer away, certain that we’re right. Saying it more loudly makes us more right.

University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer, who coined the phrase “The New Tribalism,” notes that the erosion of civility in public discourse is only a surface manifestation of malaise. As evidence, he cites “the growth of a politics based upon narrow concerns, rooted in the exploitation of divisions of class, cash, gender, region, religion, ethnicity, morality and ideology, a give-no-quarter and take-no-prisoners activism that demands satisfaction and accepts no compromise.”

But do we really know what we believe we know? I don’t want to get all philosophically gooey here, but, really, why does it seem as though so many of us believe that we are so right about everything? Perhaps we best be more honest with ourselves: None of us is an expert on everything (including Hannity, Maddow, Krugman, et al.), and knowing one’s own limitations is the beginning of wisdom, as Socrates famously reminded us. It also does a lot to enhance our credibility.

The new ethical skepticism—the disciplined suspension of judgement—is an essential practice on the path to wisdom. It’s inspired by Aristotle’s idea that not enough skepticism leads to gullibility and too much skepticism breeds closed-mindedness. Virtuous skepticism is the mean between these two extremes. This refreshing return to reason with humility is articulated at theethicalskeptic.com:

A state of neutrality which eschews the exercise of religious, biased rational or critical, risky provisional and dogmatic dispositions when encountering new observations, ideas and data. In contrast with a wallow in passive neutrality or apathy ... a form of active investigation based upon a discipline of impartiality.

In this issue, we feel privileged to provide Kelton a platform to make her case, and we grant equal time for a dissenting voice. After speaking with Kelton, reading her book The Deficit Myth, and invoking the Greeks, we concede that two opposing truths can co-exist. Governments with sovereign currency may print money without regard to deficit constraints (as America has done in 46 of the past 50 years), while, at the same time, deficits do indeed matter. 

To the ethical skeptics among you—please let us know what you think.

Jeff Joseph, Editorial Director, Luckbox Magazine

The next issue will be published on 7/1.

Digital subscriptions of the award-winning (Best New Magazine, 2019) Luckbox magazine are available 100% free at getluckbox.com