The emerged economy | The built economy Book: https://xitter.cf/t.co/JGGNnF2R41
Joined December 2009
- Tweets38.1K
- Following2.4K
- Followers5.6K
- Likes19.6K
After Mundell and Goodhart: The International Settlement Question
clintballinger.substack.com/…
Clint Ballinger retweeted
The government protects property and financial accounts. Don't make our government protect vast hoards; after a certain amount, no government protection
Wealth: We really should think of it as only so much stuff or accounting units that society will protect.
After that amount, all bets are off
Clint Ballinger retweeted
Or just stop having the government intervene to protect anything but simple debt contracts.
Gov shouldn’t intervene to protect securitization of private loans (only protect the original debt contracts when held by originator) nor loans based on purely financial collateral
"What should be obvious is that hopping between hegemons will not work"
nytimes.com/2026/10/23/opini…
Clint Ballinger retweeted
Mainstream assumptions rule out virtually every important dynamic in the economy.
Useless and even dangerously wrong as a result
Clint Ballinger retweeted
To me, orthodox economists exist to protect the status quo and are flat out clueless when it comes down to understanding money. On topics such as taxes, inflation, interest rates, deficits, unemployment they've been consistently wrong and then doubling down on it. Their arrogance is on another level but these are the same people who couldn't foresee the GFC of 2007-2008 or even the dot com bubble/recession of 2000-2001. Also, orthodox economists suffer from a terrible lack of accountability, pushing policies for decades that have put America in the position it's in today. Truly pathetic and unfortunate.
The fatal challenge to heterodox economics is that there isn't actually orthodox economics.
Just take a few recent Nobels: behavioral, information failure, institutions, bubbles, financial fragility, labor monopsony (sort of), Schumpeterian creative destruction, etc.
Not to mention RCTs which are emblematic of how much economic research is empirical and only lightly if at all structural.
The real difference is methods. Heterodox economics is an avowedly political project not a social scientific effort to better understand the world. And I have nothing against political projects just shouldn't confuse the two.
Clint Ballinger retweeted
@florianederer asks a fair question, but the counterfactual is unobservable, b/c nobody publishes rejection letters (unless Florian is asking authors to share those).
What we can observe is impact. So here’s a different test. 🧵 1/
Heterodox economists claim that they're systematically shut out of top econ journals.
So I have a genuine question:
What are the best recent heterodox papers that deserved publication in a top journal but were rejected?
@IsabellaMWeber @devikadutt @DanielaGabor
Furiously trying to find real econ ideas to try to pass off as “we always knew it” and transmogrify into some useless neoclassical wording / “math”
Heterodox economists claim that they're systematically shut out of top econ journals.
So I have a genuine question:
What are the best recent heterodox papers that deserved publication in a top journal but were rejected?
@IsabellaMWeber @devikadutt @DanielaGabor
The bond vigilante debate survives because it confuses three fundamentally different constraints
clintballinger.substack.com/…
This is true of the entire world
Clint Ballinger retweeted
In my in-process MMT slide deck I have a section comparing Galileo’s heliocentric argument to MMT’s “taxes don’t fund spending”. The first thing I see in @clintballinger’s 1K Castaways is this.
I think I’m going to love this book 🤗
Clint Ballinger retweeted
Education falls within the guardian moral syndrome, not the commercial moral syndrome, (Jacobs 1992, Systems of Survival).
That’s why the best ones always have and always should look like this
