Political online game and economic simulation

Many mainstream economists seem to think the idea behind Modern Monetary Theory is new and originates from economic cranks.
New? Cranks? How about reading one of the great founders of neoclassical economics – Knut Wicksell. This is what Wicksell wrote in 1898 on ‘pure credit systems’ in Interest and Prices (Geldzins und Güterpreise), 1936 (1898), p. 68f:
https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2017/01/...ns-of-mmt/

BREAKING: Man cites 130 year old pre-credibility paper to defeat strawman, orthodox economists floored

LoL, what is "pre-credibility"? Wicksell had the eyes and brain to consider endogenous money. Meanwhile, more than a hundred years later, orthodox economists still believe in loanable funds, in times in which the majority of the world uses free floating fiat, and not a metal standard like during Wicksell's period (not that metalism is incompatible with endogenous money or vice-versa).

"Pre-credibility" revolution- a period of change which underpins part of present-day economics as a science. For someone who hates ***ORTHODOX*** economics so much, you don't know very much about it.

Are you referring to 'The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics"?
Poor excuse, bro. But kudos for another trollish comment. You're very good at it.

That's a part of what I'm referring to, yes.

Uhuh, mighty fine rebuttal there. Doesn't surprise me that you don't elaborate by what you even mean by "excuse", though. Or really how pointing out significant scientific drawbacks in early economics is a "poor" one.

Yeah, if you remember I did actually give debating you seriously several tries. To no end, though, so I decided this would be both more cathartic and less effort for me. I'm sure it's the same for you.

What you invoked to make fun on the article is a poor choice in argument. Economists might consider updating the textbooks, since most countries are no longer on a gold standard, or fixed exchange rate.
As I recall, your "serious" debating style was to straw man Chartalism.

For what it's worth, here's the debate between the Currency School and the Banking School for a proper understanding of ednogenous money, something that mainstream theory is still at odds with.
http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP21-Wray.pdf

Uhuh. You've said the same to me in the past and my response is the same now.

I've never heard of Chartalism and I have no interest in historical economics. This level of misunderstanding is why I said "to no end".

Thanks for the link, I'll run the source past my buds since I'm not familiar with cfeps.

---

Uhuh. You've said the same to me in the past and my response is the same now.

Yeah, that there was enough misunderstanding that you think that is what I was saying is why I said I tried being serious "to no end".

Thanks for the link, I'll run the source past my buds since I'm not familiar with cfeps.