Talk:Modern Monetary Theory

I'm new to editing Wikipedia so go easy on me in terms of procedure. If there is a better way to go about this, please let me know.

In my opinion, the current introduction section, does not accurately reflect the research from MMT academics. While some sources are suitable, their position has been reflected in a poor manner that I would consist not neutral and bordering on original research. Some other sources are unreliable as, althought they are published academic papers, they are critiques of MMT that do not fully comprehend its position.

I have drafted a revision which I believe better represents the academic work and change in mainstream position. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_monetary_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1297610453

I'm keeping the most up to date text here since I can't see that Wikipedia keeps proposed drafts anywhere:

"Modern Monetary Theory or Modern Money Theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic theory that describes the lifecycle of a currency within a fiat, floating exchange rate system. It builts upon an understanding of Chartalism, where money is a creation of the State.

MMT states that the government is the monopoly issuer of the currency and therefore must spend currency into existence before any tax revenue could be collected. This means that taxes cannot fund public spending, as the government cannot collect money back in taxes until after it is already in circulation. In this currency system, the government is never constrained in its ability to pay, rather the limits are the real resources available for purchase in the currency.

This framework for understanding the lifecycle of money, reverses a linchpin assumption at the base of most mainstream macroeconomic economics and has wide-ranging economic theory and policy implications.

According to MMT, for any other entity within the economy to have any financial assets, the government must have an opposite liability. Therefore, government debt corresponds to the net financial assets of the economy. This means that the size of the debt is not a concern to the issuer of the currency but is still a useful metric for understanding the overall health of markets within an economy. MMT economists often refer to government as the "scorekeeper" that cannot have or not have money in the same way that a referee in sports does not have a stockpile of points to award participants. It does not matter to the governing body of a sport what the score is, just that games are fair and competitive.

MMT argues that the primary risk of additional government spending once the economy reaches full employment is demand-pull inflation. Following the concepts of MMT, if the government deemed that additional spending was a priority, then taxes are used to reduce the spending capacity of the private sector, thereby reducing competition for scarce real resources and so reducing or eliminating any inflationary pressure.

MMT is opposed to the mainstream understanding of macroeconomic theory and has been criticized heavily by many mainstream economists. MMT is also strongly opposed by members of the Austrian school of economics. However, there have been several mainstream economists, pundits, and finance executives stating that the insights of MMT provide value for understanding how the economy works." MwikiNpedia (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

No feedback yet. I'll incorporate this into the page this week and see if that elicits some more engagement :) MwikiNpedia (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be a short summary, that is quite long. MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

That's fair but the length is not beyond what we can find on many articles. Comparing against some of the links in this draft: 391 Word vs Macroeconomics 313 vs Fiat Money 375 vs Full Employment 394

Do you have any suggestions on edits? I'm thinking of cutting "This framework for understanding the lifecycle of money, reverses a linchpin assumption at the base of most mainstream macroeconomic economics and has wide-ranging economic theory and policy implications."

Not sure we also need the mainstream critiques in the introduction but I left it there with some edits from the existing page. MwikiNpedia (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Please also see WP:NOR and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Also, see WP:BACKWARDS - in Wikipedia you don't just say what you think is correct and add that to artilces; the proper way to write articles is to read sources and then summarize them. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY point is fair. The body of the article does need work but this draft of the intro does support the points that are made in the rest of the article.

However, the suggested edit is worked backwards from sources and is not original research. I appreciate that I can't put the citations in here as they would be in the real page. MwikiNpedia (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Continuing the conversation here on request of @Avatar317

Comparing a potential revision:

"MMT argues that the primary risk of additional government spending once the economy reaches full employment is demand-pull inflation.^[1] MMT economists further argue that, if the government deemed that additional spending was a priority, then taxes are used to reduce the spending capacity of the private sector, thereby reducing competition for scarce real resources and so reducing or eliminating any inflationary pressure.^[2][1]"

Versus the current:

"MMT argues that the primary risk once the economy reaches full employment is demand-pull inflation, which acts as the only constraint on spending. MMT also argues that inflation can be controlled by increasing taxes on everyone, to reduce the spending capacity of the private sector.^{[1][2][verification needed][3]}"

The problem with the current version, is that it doesn't give the proper context for the risk of inflation. An equilibrium of spending at any level of employment is not believed to be inflationary. Demand pull inflation comes when attempting to spend beyond the real resources, so it is additional spending beyond full employment that is the risk.

The different versions are talking about different points. The new revision is continuing from the first point to talk about how to create room for additional spending. Whereas the current version is talking about how to tackle existing or predicted inflation. The current version should definitely state demand-pull inflation specifically.

The citations between them are identical except ^{[verification needed][3]} which aren't sources. MwikiNpedia (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Potential revision for "Principles" section:

"MMT's main tenetscore principles are that a government that issues its own fiat money:

1. Can pay for goods, services, and financial assets without a need to first collect money in the form of taxes or debt issuance in advance of such purchases Creates money with any and all government spending
2. Effectively destroys money via taxation
3. Cannot be forced to default on debt denominated in its own currency
4. Is limited politically in its money creation and purchases only by demand-pull inflation, which accelerates once the real resources (labour, capital and natural resources) of the economy are utilized at full employment
5. Should strengthen automatic stabilisers to control demand-pull inflation, rather than relying upon discretionary tax changes
6. Issues bonds as a monetary policy device, rather than as a funding device Has the option to issue bonds, at a price it decides, as a savings option for the private sector, but is not required to as a funding device
7. Uses taxation to provide the fiscal space to spend without causing inflation and also to give a value to drive demand for the currency. Taxation is often said in MMT not to fund the spending of a currency-issuing government, but without it no real spending is possible.

The first four MMT tenetsPrinciples 3-5 do not conflict with mainstream economics understanding of how money creation and inflation works. However, MMT economists disagree with mainstream economics about the fifth tenet sixth principle: the impact of government deficits on interest rates."

New changes are in bold. The removed current wording has a strikethrough.

I've updated the language within the section to use principles throughout to have consistency with the title of the section. Having said that, I wonder if it would be better to rename the section to "tenants" instead. MwikiNpedia (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317@MrOllie new draft for Principles above if you'd like to review/comment. MwikiNpedia (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, your problem is that you should start by editing the BODY of this article WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Nowhere in the body was "double-entry bookkeeping" mentioned yet you added it to the lead. Find a source on MMT, read it and summarize some element of it that we don't yet have in the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The principles aren't in the Introduction. Are the principles not part of the body? If not, where does the Body start and finish? MwikiNpedia (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The "lead" is the first part of the article above the table of contents. (Please see WP:MOSLEAD). The body in this case starts with the "Principles" section. You should be adding your changes to the Principles section so as to better clarify MMT's principles, and then that section should have a summary paragraph in the lead.

Separately, the lead is supposed to summarize the article: So we should have statements summarizing each section of the article in the lead. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok so there shouldn't be any issue with drafting a revision for the principles like I have above and asked if you have feedback on? Talk:Modern monetary theory#c-MwikiNpedia-20250714062400-MwikiNpedia-20250627121900 MwikiNpedia (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but you should do that by finding sources that state the principles, so that we can know that we are accurately paraphrasing them. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that citations work well in the Talk page. I planned to use a lot from the existing source 16 Do Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending by Stephanie Bell (will update the source to use a non-paywall version https://www.levyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/wp244.pdf). Some quotes:

"In Section 5, the complexities of reserve accounting are caremlly considered, and newly-created money is revealed as the source of all government finance."

"It must also be recognized that when currency or reserves return to the State, the liabilities of the State are reduced and high-powered money is destroyed.

"Similarly, bonds need not be issued in order to allow the government to spend in excess of current taxation. ... In the absence of bond sales, deficit spending would result in a net increase in aggregate bank reserves. Bonds, then, are used to coordinate deficit spending, draining what would otherwise become excess reserves. They provide the private sector with an interest-earning alternative to non-interest-bearing government currency and allow the government to spend in excess of taxation while maintaining positive overnight lending rates."

"taxes can be viewed as a means of creating a demand for the government’s money, HPM." MwikiNpedia (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism has a specific definition here, and it is not that you think an edit is bad or that you personally disagree (even strongly). The addition was well-cited with sources that directly make the connection between the described events and MMT. Kindly discuss on the merits here on the talk page rather than throwing around insults in edit summaries. MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The first reference of the page is a "compound reference". Let's break down what it contains:

[[Heterodox economics|heterodox]]<ref name= "Heterodox">{{multiref2 |{{cite journal |last1=Chohan |first1=Usman W. |title= Modern Monetary Theory (MMT): A General Introduction |journal=CASS Working Papers on Economics & National Affairs |date=6 April 2020 <!-- requires url, but for the fans: |access-date=27 July 2020 --> |ssrn-access =free |publisher=Social Science Research Network |ssrn= 3569416 |id=EC017UC (2020)}} |{{cite journal |last1=Edwards |first1=Sebastian |title=Modern monetary theory: Cautionary tales from Latin America. |journal=Cato Journal |date=2019 |volume=39 |issue=3 |page=529 |doi= 10.36009/CJ.39.3.3 |s2cid=195792372 <!-- requires url, but for the fans: |access-date=27 July 2020 --> | doi-access= free}} |{{cite news |last1=Kosaka |first1=Norihiko |title=The Heterodox Modern Monetary Theory and Its Challenges for Japan |url= https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d00499/the-heterodox-modern-monetary-theory-and-its-challenges-for-japan.html |access-date=27 July 2020 |work= Nippon |date=6 August 2019}} |{{cite news |last1=Krugman |first1=Paul |title=How Much Does Heterodoxy Help Progressives? (Wonkish)|format=Opinion |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opinion/how-much-does-heterodoxy-help-progressives-wonkish.html |access-date=27 July 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=12 February 2019|author1-link= Paul Krugman}} |{{cite web |last1=Raposo |first1=Ines Goncalves |title=On Modern Monetary Theory |date=11 June 2019 |url=https://www.bruegel.org/2019/02/on-modern-monetary-theory/ |publisher=Bruegel |access-date=27 July 2020}} }}</ref>

Starting with the first reference it contains:

[[Heterodox economics|heterodox]]<ref name= "Heterodox">{{multiref2 |{{cite journal |last1=Chohan |first1=Usman W. |title= Modern Monetary Theory (MMT): A General Introduction |journal=CASS Working Papers on Economics & National Affairs |date=6 April 2020 <!-- requires url, but for the fans: |access-date=27 July 2020 --> |ssrn-access =free |publisher=Social Science Research Network |ssrn= 3569416 |id=EC017UC (2020)}}

"Chohan, Usman W" from the CASS aka the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies "an independent research think tank founded by the Pakistan Air Force with specializations in the domains of aerospace, emerging technologies, security, and foresight." - that's not an appropriate reference for an article on Modern Monetary Theory, as it's clearly a political organisation, focused on National Security for Pakistan. It would be dubious to assume they're giving a clear an accurate academic viewpoint. This is not appropriate for Wikivoice.

{{cite journal |last1=Edwards |first1=Sebastian |title=Modern monetary theory: Cautionary tales from Latin America. |journal=Cato Journal |date=2019 |volume=39 |issue=3 |page=529 |doi= 10.36009/CJ.39.3.3 |s2cid=195792372 <!-- requires url, but for the fans: |access-date=27 July 2020 --> | doi-access= free}}

This one is from The Cato Institute, a political think tank, whilst I don't have a problem with the author, the paper isn't published outside of the Cato Institute, and the Cato Institute's journal can't be said to have an appropriate level of peer review for this field as they're a libertarian political institute, giving a libertarian perspective. This is not appropriate for Wikivoice.

{{cite news |last1=Kosaka |first1=Norihiko |title=The Heterodox Modern Monetary Theory and Its Challenges for Japan |url= https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d00499/the-heterodox-modern-monetary-theory-and-its-challenges-for-japan.html |access-date=27 July 2020 |work= Nippon |date=6 August 2019}}

This is the first semi-reasonable reference. Norihiko Kosaka is a freelance economics writer giving their opinion for nippon.com a public interest NGO for Japan. Looking at their website, we do find some nationalist sentiments for Japan (and perhaps that's to be expected):

"In recent years, major nations around the world have steadily enhanced their messaging capabilities on the global stage. Japan, however, has seen its international presence wane. The Nippon Communications Foundation was launched to counter this trend. By sharing information on Japan’s politics, economy, society, and culture on our multilingual website, Nippon.com, we aim to boost understanding of the country and to extend its influence worldwide."

However, the source is just a transcription of an interview with Norihiko Kosaka, giving his personal opinion in relation to the Economy of Japan which has been in a state of deflation for 25 years or more (known as the Lost Decades). More to the point, he doesn't actually use the term 'heterodox' himself when describing MMT (it appears in the title given to the article, and the summary written for the interview, he however, doesn't use that description). Obviously opinion pieces are not appropriate for Wikivoice anyways.

{{cite news |last1=Krugman |first1=Paul |title=How Much Does Heterodoxy Help Progressives? (Wonkish)|format=Opinion |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/opinion/how-much-does-heterodoxy-help-progressives-wonkish.html |access-date=27 July 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=12 February 2019|author1-link= Paul Krugman}}

Another opinion piece, this time from Paul Krugman. It's worth noting a series of opinions isn't the same as an academic consensus. Opinion pieces are widely understood on Wikipedia as not appropriate for Wikivoice.

...and finally:

{{cite web |last1=Raposo |first1=Ines Goncalves |title=On Modern Monetary Theory |date=11 June 2019 |url=https://www.bruegel.org/2019/02/on-modern-monetary-theory/ |publisher=Bruegel |access-date=27 July 2020}} }}</ref>

Inês Goncalves Raposo, a blogger, and thus Not appropriate for Wikivoice in terms of lead paragraphs.

So what we have here, is a Pakistani National Security Think Tank, a Libertarian political Think Tank, and a series of opinion pieces all thrown in a large and confusing multi-ref in a kitchen-sink attempt at justifying Original Research/Opinion. For this reason, I'm removing the this multiref, as well as the word "heterodox" (which it's trying to justify) from the first line of the page. (as it's WP:OR). A series of opinions and political think tanks, doesn't make an academic consensus, and shouldn't be using Wikivoice. RecardedByzantian (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

As per WP:NEWSOPED and WP:RSOPINION - opinion pieces should not be used as statements of fact. They might be reliable sources FOR FACTS if the author is so qualified. However, there's no unit of measurement or objective measure for whether a model is considered "heterodox" at any one time or not. If MMT were a physical object, with objective measurements that would be different (for instance, the first description of MMT as a theory probably has a date of inception attached, that date about the first appearance of MMT is a fact about MMT). Whether it's "heterodox" (according to the opinions of the world) is relativistic and subjective, it's not an absolute one can measure or "know" in totality at any one time. If Krugman or another qualified economist says:

"In 2017, private insurance paid about a third of America’s medical bills — $1.2 trillion, or 6 percent of GDP."

We could quote that as a fact, using the Krugman Op-ed (because he's qualified to make that determination of the American economic statistics, as an objective statement). This doesn't mean every subjective opinion he gives about his field is a black and white fact. Wikipedia editors are expected to know the difference between statements of fact and subjective opinions. WP:NEWSOPED and WP:RSOPINION are clear on the issue of when an Op-Ed can be used as a source, and for what they can be used. They can only be used for statements of fact, not to pass off subjective opinion as fact. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Doing due diligence as an editor I looked for alternative sources that can be used to call Modern Monetary Theory heterodox. Using google, and scholar.google.com I found a blog from Phil Armstrong (a PhD in Economics from the Southampton Solent University, UK), that states:

The paper also addresses MMT’s intellectual origins in financial practice rather than heterodox theory and analyses sociological factors shaping its contentious reception within economics.

Which states it has "intellectual origins in financial practice rather than heterodox theory". I found this PDF an essay by the same author uploaded to a word press account, however it also doesn't describe MMT as a heterodox theory.

I also found this abstract by L. Randall Wray, in which he says:

This chapter traces the origins and development of MMT, showing that it synthesises several traditions from heterodox economics, including chartalism, endogenous money, financial instability, the sectoral balance approach, and policy to promote full employment.

However synthesizing traditions from certain schools of thought (which themselves have been subjectively described as heterodox, Keynesianism included) isn't the same as describing MMT as being a heterodox theory in any objective sense. Wikipedia's page for Heterodox economics makes it clear that it is NOT an objective description saying (amongst other things) "There is no absolute definition of what constitutes heterodox economic thought..." so it's highly unlikely we'll find an objective, qualified, academic source, describing MMT this way. Saying something is part of heterodox economics, is by our own Wikipedia page's qualification, not an objective statement. RecardedByzantian (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

These aren't opinion pieces (other than Krugman) and they simply state what is seen as a fact in the economics field, that MMT is not mainstream. Like this: "These folks sometimes refer to themselves as “heterodox economists”, “neo-chartalists”, or proponents of “modern monetary theory”. - And in Wikipedia we don't have "objective facts" - we state what sources say. See this essay WP:TRUTH. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No they're not all opinion pieces, as I state above some are connected to think tanks that don't support Modern Monetary theory, and others to blogs. So still fall below WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

The topic for the page is Modern Monetary Theory. The topic is not external views of modern monetary theory from other schools of economic thought. The topic is the theories themself. Citing a theorist external to MMT who is making claims on what modern monetary theorists *might* call themselves (but Wikipedia has no source for), isn't good enough for Wikivoice. Just find the MMT sources saying it (if it's as common as you're claiming).

Basically, stick to and be CLEAR ABOUT the topic, and the sources you're using - especially when it's the WP:LEAD sentence. Criticisms should go at the END of the WP:LEAD section, not the third word for describing the concept. Articles that are predominately criticisms from outside MMT (the topic) - aren't appropriate. The lead is there to describe THE TOPIC. This is not a page on "Criticisms of MMT" - nor should that be the nature of the VERY FIRST SENTENCE ON THE PAGE. What you're doing is WP:TEND for that reason.

All I'm trying to do here is CORRECTLY attribute statements to their sources (and by the way, I MOVED the Austrian school references, I didn't ADD THEM IN, I moved them to the criticisms section). Which brings me to my main point for replying to you:

Your recent roll backs removed the attribution to Krugman's opinion, a move that goes against what WP:VOICE says to do with opinions. Please stop going against Wikipedia policy in order to add in tendentious opinion piece sources. Let's try to stick to the topic when describing the topic. RecardedByzantian (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, do you want to point out which you think is the best of the 5 sources for the label heterodox? There's the Pakistani CASS think tank, the Cato Institute, Nippon.com (where the person being interviewed doesn't use the term themselves), The Krugman opinion piece, or the blog.

Fun fact, the section of the CASS paper which calls MMT heterodox, is actually summarizing a different paper (Jayadev & Mason), which states: "We argue that this perception is mistaken: While MMT’s policy proposals are unorthodox, the analysis underlying them is entirely orthodox." (so it's quoting a paper arguing MMT is orthodox).

The Cato institute appears on Wikipedia's Perennial sources list (WP:RSP) which states "Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed."

Nippon.com has the problem of the person being interviewed not affirming the claim being made. Krugman is clearly labelled as an opinion piece (so we're required to give attribution, which isn't usually done in the WP:FIRST sentence), and the blog post is also clearly labelled as a blog post (so we're required to give attribution). There's just no avenue for using any of these particular sources for the statement. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I will say that I find the idea that MMT is not heterodox to be quite interesting, as typically MMT theorists frame themselves against the mainstream/orthodox (which isn't a bad thing at all) and often positively in the heterodox. But this is just based on my experience with what the MMTers say on their blogs and whatnot, so that's just my impression.

There's an interesting chapter here in the book Post Keynesian Economics that might be useful to refine the wording. Randal Wray here argues:

This paper examines heterodox theories of the determinants of the value of money. Orthodox approaches that tie money’s value to relative scarcity of money or to the price level are rejected as inconsistent with the monetary theory of production embraced by heterodox traditions linked to Marx, Veblen, and Keynes. 'This paper examines and integrates (1) recent contributions by David Graeber and Duncan Foley that reinterpret Marx’s labor theory of value, (2) the interpretation of Keynes’s liquidity preference theory as a theory of asset pricing that began with Sraffa and was further developed by Minsky and Kregel, and (3) Modern Money Theory’s approach to sovereign currency

In "Modern Monetary Theory: A Response to Critics" in "Modern Monetary Theory Debate" by Fullwiler, Kelton & Wray (all advocates of MMT), they state:

We have never tried to separate our “MMT” approach from the heterodox tradition we share with Post Keynesians, Institutionalists and others. We have tried to extend that tradition to study the “nature” of “modern” money—that is, state money as defined by Knapp and Keynes.

There is clearly a close connection between heterodoxy and MMT, not sure how exactly to describe it, however. I don't think the current approach is particularly bad, it seems to broadly reflect what the MMTers are saying about themselves in published work too. Katzrockso (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

As for the Mason article, my read is the exact opposite as yours: they are specifically focusing on one aspect of MMT (functional finance) and argue that the policy prescriptions of this approach are indeed not heterodox. That is true, but doesn't obviate the point that their views on money are not concordant with the mainstream. Indeed, they state in the very first sentence that "An increasingly visible school of heterodox macroeconomics, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), makes the case for functional finance".

I would agree that we should not describe MMT as "heterodox" in the lead, however, given that the term is polysemic enough for this to just introduce confusion rather than clarity. I think that's the base of the issue here?

argues The emergence of two high-profile policy-rich approaches, one nested in Post Keynesianism (modern monetary theory, MMT), and the other, stratification economics (SE) are discussed as illustrative of heterodox alternatives to neoliberalism. The chapter goes onto elaborate how MMT is opposed to the orthodoxy, as defined in the article.

This is from a more neoclassical standpoint, but states Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), a heterodox branch of economics in the post-Keynesian tradition, made a meteoric rise in the 2019 presidential candidate debates

From the book Populism and Modern Monetary Theory: Exploring the Rise of Milei in Argentina, "This intervention, which unfolded near the end of Macri’s presidency, acts as a crucial yardstick, contrasting orthodox prescriptions with heterodox alternatives, particularly the post-Keynesian school of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)". Katzrockso (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Avatar317 as per your request (given via an edit summary, rather than direct participation on talk), I've searched the talk page archives for the "consensus" you keep bringing up - finding only this section: Talk:Modern_Monetary_Theory/Archive_1#heterodox. I assume this is when the 5 WP:SYNTH sources discussed above were added. That section of the talk page however only cites this Vox article which states "...what was once an obscure “heterodox” branch of economics has now become a major topic of debate among Democrats and economists with astonishing speed." - that source appears to be valid (and arguing MMT was *once* heterodox but is now not). Combined with the above paper (Jayadev & Mason) there are now two valid sources saying MMT is not heterodox. I've updated the article to include these two valid sources, and reincluded some of the above opinion pieces in an attributed form (having read through the articles to see what they're actually arguing).

Because you want there to be a consensus on this, I've opened a request for a third party opinion on the relevant notice board (Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements), as I'm trying to work with you in good faith as a fellow editor. RecardedByzantian (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Heterodox doesn't mean "bad" or "wrong" or even "unpopular", it just means something that isn't orthodox or mainstream. Indeed, the Vox source is perfectly consistent with MMT being heterodox, but becoming more prominent in public spheres. Other heterodox approaches (e.g. Austrian economics) have gained increase salience in different political contexts (e.g. Milei in Argentina) but don't stop being heterodox when they do so. Katzrockso (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh, you're smarter than me! I had to look up what "polysemic" even meant. But yeah, that's the base of the issue. That and clarity (which you also noted). Part of my issue including "heterodox" in the lead sentence is that I think Wikipedia sometimes struggles to express debate, or the changing viewpoints in current media. Heterodox is often read as "whacky", not principled on orthodox fundamentals or otherwise not viable for mainstream discussion. Sources will often allude to MMT being from heterodox economics (usually citing Keynesianism) then immediately claim its prescriptions are orthodox, or founded on orthodox principles.

For this reason I've tried to use some of User:Avatar317's preferred sources (such as Krugman , and Ines , both of which are opinion pieces from Doctors of Economics), to frame it as a current debate (they all seem to agree MMT made its way into mainstream discussion in 2019). However some of User:Avatar317's preferred sources (such as The Cato Institute) just can't be used outside the criticisms section (despite them being pushed back into the article repeatedly).

Vox states "But what was once an obscure “heterodox” branch of economics has now become a major topic of debate" and Ines puts it "It is February 2019 and modern monetary theory (MMT), a heterodox theory born in the late 1990s, has made its way into mainstream discussions". So whilst I know in academic terms Keynesianism is considered a "heterodox" economics (as it's not the current Neoliberal model), I'm also aware than Wikipedia needs to report accurately on what sources are saying (particularly when ideas are breaking through to mainstream discussion).

I think I was editing the article when you were commenting here, for this reason you may want to clarify what you mean by "I don't think the current approach is particularly bad, it seems to broadly reflect what the MMTers are saying about themselves in published work too." as the more opinions, the better. Thanks for participating User:Katzrockso!

Also, thank you for the new sources and quotes, they seem more reliable than what we've been using so far (which has mostly been opinion pieces, and think tanks). I'll work to include your sources and quotes after seeing what others do and say (hopefully that doesn't mean seeing CATO reincluded, or any peacocking of Krugman being added back in via a drastic roll back). RecardedByzantian (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the article for Keynesianism doesn't use "heterodox" in its lead section at all. I think it might be best to follow suit here. RecardedByzantian (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

That's because Post-Keynesianism is the heterodox school, not Keynesianism. New Keynesianism is a mainstream approach. Katzrockso (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

That would seem to indicate we'd best comment on it at the end of the lead as Post-Keynesianism does, and as WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. It's just a question of how to convey the various aspects of what's been said. 1) It synthesizes from heterodox schools. 2) it's high profile and policy rich. 3) there has been mainstream discussion around the school. 4) its theory of value differs from orthodox neoliberal schools of thought. RecardedByzantian (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

If its an objective fact surely there are better sources that would back it up? (t · c) buIdhe 21:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

What would you qualify as a "better source"? I agree that Cato isn't a good source, but Krugman and many others, PLUS THE MMT'ers THEMSELVES (as we have in sources) call themselves "heterodox" (otherwise they'd be mainstream and we wouldn't even have this article.)

I agree with Katzrockso that likely the general public doesn't understand "heterodox economics" as what it really means: "Heterodox doesn't mean "bad" or "wrong" or even "unpopular", it just means something that isn't orthodox or mainstream." Kind of like the public may misunderstand "progressive taxes" as being good and "regressive taxes" not.

Maybe we should have the lead statement say something like "MMT is a non-mainstream (heterodox) economic theory." to help people understand the meaning of "heterodox"?

And to point out, Galileo's theory would have been called "heterodox" when he first introduced it, so this isn't a moral judgement or insulting phrase. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

There has been more controversy about MMT's relationship to heterodoxy and the mainstream than other schools of economics, which is why it might be worth a couple sentences in the lead rather than a mere description in the first sentence. I think some MMTers themselves eschew the heterodox label for the same reasons that the genera public derides it; they don't want to be associated with the label. There's actually a more significant literature on the concept of 'heterodox economics'; whether it's a positive (i.e. people specifically affiliate themselves with it) or negative (defined in relation to the orthodoxy/mainstream) label, etc. Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I think following sentence in the lead should be restored: "MMT is opposed to the mainstream neoclassical macroeconomic frameworks and has been criticized heavily by many mainstream economists."

This sentence is not just based on opinion articles, but also on scientific sources such as:

• Modern Monetary Theory: A Solid Theoretical Foundation of Economic Policy?
• The critics of modern money theory (MMT) are right
• What's wrong with modern money theory (MMT): A critical primer
• Modern Monetary Theory: A Wrong Compass for Decision-Making

These views are mainstraim within economic science, so the lead should represent this. PJ Geest (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I propose to restore the article to before @RecardedByzantian edited it (specifically this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_Monetary_Theory&oldid=1321083075).

The current lead goes beyond summarising the article and goes too much in technical detail. The lead also relies heavily on sources produced by MMT proponents (e.g. Wray, GIMMS, advocacy-oriented material). While some of these sources (the ones coming from scientific journals) could be appropriate for describing the theory, Wikipedia policy recommends that article summaries rely primarily on independent secondary sources when characterizing a field. Advocacy websites are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, not in the lead and not in the body.

Also in the body there are issues with recent edits because youtube is added as a source. There are just too many issues with th recent edits, so better to restore the old version completely. PJ Geest (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, as you can probably tell from my edits and reverts.

The complaint above about "opinion" sources was for the "heterodox" characterization in the first sentence of the lead in the old version (2025-11-08T15:46:51).

I'd also support adding the sources you found to "MMT is opposed to the mainstream neoclassical macroeconomic frameworks and has been criticized heavily by many mainstream economists". ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your first source doesn't say anything's wrong with the theory, it says the theory is made up of theories from the past - specifically "MMT is indistinguishable from the Keynesian cross model, as well as a neoclassical macroeconomic model". Both of which are still used (so saying they're "wrong" is quite incorrect). Neoliberalism#Traditions for instance uses neoclassical macroeconomic models, just the same as MMT. Your source also gets MMT's stance on the nature of money wrong, saying: money is a creation of the state where as according to this paper MMT sees money as a unit of account saying "The term ‘money’ simply refers to the unit of account chosen by government to denominate tax liabilities and payment made to government, the dollar in both the US and Australia’ (Mitchell et al. 2019: 145)"

Your next source from Palley states "Furthermore, depressed times actually make MMT’s claims more plausible" so isn't an outright criticsm (let alone a "heavily" criticising it).

Your third source a "working paper" or primer by the same author as above (Palley) claims MMT is "simplistic printing press economics" and that MMT is "financially unconstrained and not needing taxes or bonds to finance spending" despite MMT stating taxes are deflationary, and a tool against inflationary constraints (such as the risk of hyper inflation, which is a strong part of MMT's discourse). To repeat, MMT is not "financially unconstrained" nor does it push for such, as per the end of our article this is a common misconception of the school. I should think if these are your premier sources against MMT (by the way this page is about MMT, not against MMT) - they would at least know the very basics of the school. It's those basics we're supposed to convey in the WP:LEAD.

Your fourth source , once again gets MMT's concept of money incorrect, claiming MMT neglects the idea of money as a "unit of account and a store of value." (as stated earlier, according to this paper MMT holds that "The term ‘money’ simply refers to the unit of account chosen by government to denominate tax liabilities and payment made to government, the dollar in both the US and Australia’ (Mitchell et al. 2019: 145)"

None of the sources you've selected substantiate the claim "MMT is opposed to the mainstream neoclassical macroeconomic frameworks and has been criticized heavily by many mainstream economists.".

What absolutely must be said, is that economics, like any academic subject has schools of thought and debate. Modern Monetary Theory is participating in these debates, as a legitimate school of thought. All of which are criticized by the other schools of thought. "Heavily" is thus counter to WP:WTW. Sources should reflect the statement they're sourcing, and display an accurate understanding of the subject matter Wikivoice is here to explain or report on. RecardedByzantian (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, it's a pretty standard viewpoint that MMT has "far-reaching" policy recommendations aka is "policy-rich". You'd be hard pressed to find an article saying otherwise, so that statement (that MMT is policy-rich) stands until you find a source that says otherwise. RecardedByzantian (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other here.

My point is not whether every specific critique of MMT is perfectly formulated, but that MMT is widely criticised within the economics profession, which is extensively documented in independent academic and policy literature.

The lead should summarise how a field is received, using primarily independent secondary sources, not advocacy material. At present, the lead relies heavily on MMT-affiliated sources, while largely omitting the well-documented mainstream criticism.

Assessing whether individual critics “get MMT right or wrong” goes beyond the function of the lead and risks WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia cannot adjudicate which side of an academic debate is correct; it must report that the debate exists and that criticism from mainstream economists is substantial.

Even if particular critiques are contested by MMT authors (which can and should be attributed as such in the body), the existence and prominence of mainstream criticism is encyclopaedically relevant and belongs in the lead.

Focusing on alleged misunderstandings by individual critics does not address the core issue: the current lead underrepresents the mainstream academic reception of MMT and overrelies on self-descriptive and advocacy sources, contrary to WP:WEIGHT PJ Geest (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

"The lead should summarise how a field is received, using primarily independent secondary sources, not advocacy material. At present, the lead relies heavily on MMT-affiliated sources, while largely omitting the well-documented mainstream criticism."

I think you're wrong on the basics of Wikipedia. The lead is not a summary of how a field is received, it's a summary of the topic in question. The topic is not "How MMT is received by other Economists" that's simply not the title of this page. The topic IS Modern Monetary Theory its self. So you've chosen a specifically biased framing here.

Likewise, people like Warren Mosler, L. Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, Bill Mitchell and Pavlina R. Tcherneva, and various historians, are not "activists" or "advocates". They are "MMT-affiliated sources" because they are the people most familiar with the topic (some of whom are its founders). As opposed to sources that take common misconceptions and run with them. So it's QUITE ABSURD, that your complaint, is that we have too many sources familiar with the topic.

it must report that the debate exists and that criticism from mainstream economists is substantial.

I'm fine with that, and it was already done in the previous version of the page. It was part of the subject that I went to Wikipedia:Third_opinion for. As it's not been resolved fully, I'll just ping some users who have commented since I requested help there, so they can provide input too (having already touched on this thread somewhat). @Katzrockso and Buidhe:

The fact there have been criticisms was already mentioned in the lead (and prior to Avatar317's recent reverts, we had a section for the popular debate of the school) - but what your doing now, is asking to characterise criticisms using words like "heavily", or "substantial" (against the advice of WP:WTW) - when it's well known that all schools of economics criticise all other schools (this is the nature of the study of economic man). This is why most pages for economic schools have a criticism section, and mention debate. This page shouldn't be singled out to have those viewpoints amplified, or passed off as the topic.

Outside of noting (without bias) that there is debate, what specifically did you want to say that wasn't already covered by the previous version? The topic should surely use sources shown to be familiar with the topic. There is already a criticisms section, and I'll note within that criticism section a couple of times, after a criticism, MMT theorists and academics are referenced to point out the criticism is based on a misconception of the school:

MMT economist William K. Black said "MMT scholars do not make or support either claim."[121] Multiple MMT academics regard the attribution of these claims as a smear.[122]

...

Actually, now that I have a look at the recent reverts, I notice one of the academics corrections to a misconception, was completely removed from the page by Avatar317. It previously read:

Paul Krugman states that he believes "Modern Monetary Theory — says that we don’t have to worry about where the money will come from", while the economist Bill Mitchell and other MMT advocates note that as a common misconception of the school.

That's a little odd. It almost feels pointed. I should hope there's no effort going on to perpetuate misconceptions of MMT, or protect illegitimate criticisms of MMT (such as by peacocking them).

On a similar but unrelated note, was your comment on my talk page about a page I created, Wealth defense industry... this is all starting to feel a bit tendentious. I'm trying to have good faith here, but it seems you're of a certain viewpoint, across multiple articles, be careful not to target other Wikipedians too much.

Are you in fact here to WP:BUILD an encyclopedia? If so, you must surely acknowledge that Wikipedia is here to give accurate information, from academics familiar with the topic, including when they're correcting common misconceptions about their field (as I've said, we can assume founders of MMT, know the field). In this case, the topic is Modern Monetary Theory. Not it's reception, not criticism of it, those are relevant, but not the purpose of the page. "MMT-affiliated sources" are used, because they're most familiar with the school of thought.

I ask you, and Avatar317, to avoid erasing text where experts on Modern Monetary Theory, are correcting misconceptions of the topic. We are trying to cover the topic accurately. Not team up to bias it, or protect misconceptions of it. RecardedByzantian (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As as easy extreme example, Wikipedia's policies don't allow White Supremacist experts to "protect misconceptions" from what mainstream sources say about their beliefs. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue here is we don't really have lots of great third-party studies of MMT that aren't written from advocacy standpoints (either pro or against), so it's harder to establish what is DUE or not. I agree with @RecardedByzantian that The lead is not a summary of how a field is received, it's a summary of the topic in question. It's also unclear why orthodox economics is given the priority in criticism here, versus the Post-Keynesian critiques of MMT, which both predate and outnumber the orthodox economics critiques in the academic peer-reviewed literature and have received more response / discussion in the academic literature (in that there are entire books devoted to these discussions).

I do think we should certainly mention that the school/theory [whatever you want to call it] is criticized in the lead (and indeed we already do), but I'm not sure change is being proposed here. Katzrockso (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You previously asked for a third opinion; why don't you bring your conjecture that Wikipedia is supposed to cover a topic based on what it's founders or proponents say rather than what mainstream academics say about it to the WP:TEAHOUSE and see what others say. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily hostile, why don't we WP:AGF and WP:FOC. Katzrockso (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as hostile, it was meant as a genuine suggestion, since last time RecardedByzantian did follow your suggestions (which came from Third Opinion), but clearly disagrees with mine.

Also, "The lead is ... a summary of the topic in question". - Yes, but not sourced to proponents, which are basically WP:PRIMARY sources; it should be sourced to WP:SECONDARY sources. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You are confusing primary sources with non-independent sources and secondary sources with WP:independent sources, and possibly WP:BIASED sources with the former categories of sources. Katzrockso (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think RecardedByzantian is arguing with a false dichotomy here. It is not a choice between describing what MMT is and describing how it is received. You can do both. This is also exactly what the version Avatar317 and myself propose does.

Secondly, the claim "all schools of economics criticise all other schools" so there should only be a criticism section, no criticism should be discussed in the lead, is inconsistent with MOS:INTHELEAD, which says "All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more." Furthermore Wikipedia does not treat all schools symmetrically. According to this source only 5-10% of (American) economists belong to Heterodox economics. This is why in articles about heterodox topics it is logical to also include criticism in the lead, because criticism is coming from mainstream economists which constitute a significant majority. If the topic of the Wikipedia article is mainstream economics, then it is logical to only include criticism in a dedicated section because the criticism is coming from a minority of economists. This difference reflects WP:WEIGHT.

Possible misconceptions by critics are not at all relevant, verifiability matters, not truth, see WP:NOTTRUTH.

The only thing in the version which Avatar317 and I propose which should be changed to be in line with Wikipedia rules is changing the sentence "MMT is opposed to the mainstream neoclassical macroeconomic frameworks and has been criticized heavily by many mainstream economists." to "MMT is opposed to the mainstream neoclassical macroeconomic frameworks and has been criticized by several mainstream economists." We don't need the word heavily, we can just add what specific points of critique mainstream economists are saying. In the first week of February I have the time to expand the criticism section because many reliable mainstream criticism sources are not yet included in the article. Based on these additions I will expand the lead with the specific points of criticism mainstream economists have. But for now mentioning MMT has been criticized by several mainstream economists is enough.

In contrast the version of RecardedByzantian is inconsistent with WP:RS & WP:BESTSOURCES: "When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." Here are the used sources which are not reliable:

• Advocacy website GIMMS:
• Advocacy website GIMMS:
• Think tank Levy Economics Institute:
• YouTube:
• Personal blog of tax campaigner Richard Murphy (tax campaigner):
• Blog neweconomicperspectives.org: &

Following statement by Katzrockso is not true: "we don't really have lots of great third-party studies of MMT that aren't written from advocacy standpoints (either pro or against)". The four critical sources I mentioned earlier are academic publications. They are independent secondary sources under WP:RS and should not be dismissed as advocacy material.

Given the extent to which the version of RecardedByzantian relies on unreliable sources, the version proposed by Avatar317 and myself is more consistent with Wikipedia policy (with the removal of the word “heavily”).

It is preferable to start from a version that is more clearly wikipedia policy compliant and continue improving the article from there. I am open to civil discussion about the appropriate weight and wording, but the use of advocacy websites, blogs, and YouTube videos as core sourcing is not consistent with Wikipedia’s sourcing standards.--PJ Geest (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. This explicitly includes personal websites and personal or group blogs.

The sources being reintroduced here (personal blogs / self-published sites by MMT proponents) fall squarely under this category and therefore cannot be used to rebut or “correct” criticism from reliable sources. Also video hosting services (like YouTube) are explicitely mentioned in WP:RS as unacceptable as sources.

As stated in (WP:USERGENERATED): "Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites." PJ Geest (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

It might not be WP:DUE, but L. Randall Wray is a professor of economics, so his blog can be used as a WP:EXPERTSPS. I'm sure that there are better sources for this information, but it is not intrinsically an unreliable source.

Think tanks are often considered WP:RS, sometimes more limited to opinions; see WP:CATO. Pew Research Center is a think tank, but I think you would find it difficult to argue that it is unreliable. The Levy Economics Institute is most definitely a reliable source, it is an organ of Bard College, an academic institution.

I agree that the taxresearch.org.uk source and the Youtube source are unreliable. I am not sure about the Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies, but would lean towards it being considered unreliable as well.

@PJ Geest Katzrockso (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:EXPERTSPS is intended for non-controversial material only. Self-published sources are allowed solely under very specific conditions. In this case, four out of the five required conditions are not met (WP:ABOUTSELF):

• Not unduly self-serving / not an exceptional claim: The material is explicitly defensive and promotional, and is used to counter substantive academic criticism. It advances exceptional claims that require independent secondary sources.
• Does not involve claims about third parties: The sources make evaluative claims about critics, mainstream economists, surveys of economists, and other third parties.
• Does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source: The material is used to reinterpret or rebut external academic debates, empirical surveys, and policy discussions, rather than merely describing the source itself.
• Article not based primarily on such sources: In disputed sections, these self-published sources are used in a structurally central way to offset or neutralize criticism from independent reliable sources.

Regarding think tanks: the Levy Economics Institute, like CATO, is an ideologically positioned think tank and therefore cannot be treated as a neutral or authoritative source for adjudicating academic disputes.

Finally, WP:BESTSOURCES still applies: “When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements.” An NPOV dispute clearly exists here, which makes reliance on self-published or advocacy-oriented sources inappropriate. PJ Geest (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we should employ the best sources, which is why I stated that It might not be WP:DUE and I'm sure that there are better sources for this information. I was trying to correct the impression that this is a particularly unreliable source, rather than a source we can use in particular contexts. You are confusing WP:EXPERTSPS with WP:ABOUTSELF; WP:SPS states Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. L. Randall Wray is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. You can easily check his Google Scholar to see over 18,000 citations in economics, a h-index of 62, books published by respected academic presses (Edward Elgar, Bloomsbury Publishing, Princeton University Press) and journal articles in respected journals (Cambridge Journal of Economics, Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, International journal of political economy, EJEEP, etc).

I am not saying this is an amazing source or one that we should be using for every citation in the article. Indeed, I am sure the best version of the article would not include citations to L. Randall Wray's blog. But it is not an intrinsically unreliable source.

As for the Levy Institute, you say therefore cannot be treated as a neutral or authoritative source for adjudicating academic disputes, which is precisely the issue. Wikipedia does not "adjudicat[e] academic disputes", it catalogues them. Whether or not a particular academic dispute is prominent enough to warrant lengthy commentary in the lead is a separate matter. Katzrockso (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we are talking past each other here.

First, the relevant question under WP:RS is not whether a source is “intrinsically unreliable”, but whether it is appropriate for the specific use in question. Many sources are not intrinsically unreliable, yet are still inappropriate in contested articles with availability of reliable (academic) sources.

Furthermore, while WP:EXPERTSPS does allow limited use of self-published material by established experts, expert status is a necessary but not sufficient condition. I’m not treating this as an either/or between WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:EXPERTSPS. They address different aspects of self-published sources, but both are applicable here and both impose clear limits on use. As WP:EXPERTSPS itself explicitly notes, “any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.” In a disputed academic context, framing or correcting criticism clearly constitutes an exceptional claim. Citation counts, h-index values, or publication records do not override these limitations, nor do they relax the constraints imposed by either policy.

Finally, I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should adjudicate academic disputes. Of course Wikipedia catalogues disputes, and we agree on that. The issue here is sourcing hierarchy and due weight. Cataloguing an academic debate requires independent secondary sources; it does not permit one side of the debate to frame or correct criticism using its own self-published commentary.

I think my position on the applicability of WP:EXPERTSPS in this context is clear and grounded in policy, so I have nothing further to add at this point. PJ Geest (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

While L. Randall Wray is an expert in the GENERAL field of economics (so his personal blog might be acceptable as an expert opinion for his view on tariffs driving inflation), since he advocates MMT, he ALONE is not a good source for info on this topic. A WSJ source we have in this article interviewed Wray and then put Wray's and MMT'ers views in broader context; that is one example of a much better source. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

He is an expert on MMT as well, given that his published works focuses on MMT. I would actually be against using any of his published commentary on his blog on say inflation and tariffs, as his specialty/field of focus in economics is not trade economics. Katzrockso (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you here; the point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't use his statements (wherever he puts them) as SOLE sources for statements about MMT, since he is one of the key architects and proponents. So using his works ALONE would be WP:PRIMARY and open to interpretation by Wikipedia editors. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Not all of his work is "primary" to MMT and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. I would agree that if every statement in the article were cited to Randall Wray, that would be bad. I don't think there is inherently a problem if the only blue clicky thing next to some statements is Randall Wray, but obviously having more blue clicky links is often better. Katzrockso (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is intended for incidental use. In this article, the use of MMT proponents is systematic (roughly half of the sources and explanatory text in the article is based on supporters). In this context, where reliance on MMT proponents is already systematic, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD cannot be invoked to defend the use of primary sources. PJ Geest (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes it can! And once again, the author of a piece being an MMT proponent does not make them a "primary source", it makes them a WP:BIASEDSOURCE. We can write an entire Wikipedia article that perfectly complies with NPOV entirely with biased sources. Katzrockso (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it can not. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD clarifies that primary sources are not inherently unreliable. It does not state that they are appropriate for systematic explanatory use, especially in controversial topics. To know if these sources are appropriate for this use you have to look at other policy. Especially WP:SECONDARY which states: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source."

About what is primary and what is secondary:

WP:PRIMARY states the following: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. A scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment."

WP:SECONDARY states the following: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Be aware that either type of article can be both a primary and secondary source, although research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources"

An MMT proponent who explains, defends, extends, or applies MMT is directly involved with the subject and therefore constitutes a primary source for claims about MMT itself. PJ Geest (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The idea that a proponent of a scientific theory cannot be a source for information about that scientific theory is so ridiculous it doesn't even merit a response, since it would be nearly impossible to write articles on 99% of scientific topics. Katzrockso (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

That's totally wrong;

1) Secondary sources are simply someone saying "String theory researcher Sue believes that her theory (which holds that ...) explains observed phenomenon Y, while competing theorist Joe relies on modified quantum field theory (with Joe claiming ...) to explain the same phenomenon; whose theory is correct will hopefully be shown when the Super-large hadron collider is built in 2035." - DESCRIBING rather than PROMOTING a theory. - with the Bolded parts being the Secondary author interpreting/summarizing the Proponents' views. - That is the type of sourcing we need here.

2) 99% of scientific topics aren't sourced to THEORIES they are sourced to EXPERIMENTAL research results.

MMT proponent Stephanie Kelton could write an academic analysis and interpretation of Wray's writings, (which I believe she has) and her writing would be WP:SECONDARY to Wray, (but primary for her) but also not an WP:IS Independent Source for MMT description, and not a WP:BESTSOURCES for use in this article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:39, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the Policy Implications section, it states that under MMT should not place taxes solely on billionaires, since consumption is done in majority by average Americans. In light of the semi-recent Moody's analysis that the top 10% of earners account for nearly 50% of consumption, I think it would be prudent to change or scrap this paragraph altogether, as it seems to be in conflict with reality. Algaeninja (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)