Is MMT the Liberal Version of Supply-Side Economics?

US Bureau of Engraving and Printing

An interesting contrast between liberals and conservatives is playing out right now. Conservatives, as you probably recall, faced a problem 40 years ago: their concern over budget deficits always made them the bad guy. Democrats could spend with abandon, but Republicans had to be skinflints—and voters don’t like skinflints.

Then, 40 years ago, Jude Wanniski published The Way the World Works and conservatives rushed to embrace his new gospel of supply-side economics. Tax cuts would supercharge the economy so powerfully that they could banish deficits even if spending went up. It was a free lunch so seductive that it remains conservative dogma to this day.

Today the roles are reversed: liberals have big spending ideas and are tired of having to face deficit constraints that nobody else cares about. This time, the fiscal white knight galloping to the rescue is called Modern Monetary Theory, which says that taxes aren’t really necessary to fund the government. Basically, all government spending is funded by printing money.

There are more details, of course, and so far no liberal version of Jude Wanniski has written a bestselling book about it. Nevertheless, MMT has started to gain a following in the AOC wing of the Democratic Party. It’s become an all-purpose way of supporting things like Medicare for All without having to fuss over taxes or worry about deficits.

So what do liberal economists and pundits have to say about it? So far, they’re not buying it. “I am not a fan of MMT,” says Paul Krugman. It is not just wrong, says Max Sawicky, but “will impress most people as either crankish or arcane.” Matt Brueunig calls it “word games.” Josh Barro says MMT is just circular reasoning: “Whether you take a Keynesian view or an MMT view, if the government spends more, it’s likely going to need to tax more, sooner or later.” Josh Marshall calls it “hokum.”

So far, then, MMT has not seduced most lefty economists into becoming defenders of crank theories the way supply-side economics did on the right. Hooray for us! But it’s still early days, even though MMT itself has been around for a while. What will happen if a Democratic candidate for president decides to become the Reagan of the left, with MMT acting as the gateway to liberal dreams? What will we all be saying then? Especially if the alternative is Donald Trump?


The more we thought about how MoJo's journalism can have the most impact heading into the 2020 election, the more we realized that so many of today's stories come down to corruption: democracy and the rule of law being undermined by the wealthy and powerful for their own gain.

So we're launching a new Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption. We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We'll publish what we find as a major series in the summer of 2020, including a special issue of our magazine, a dedicated online portal, and video and podcast series so it doesn't get lost in the daily deluge of breaking news.

It's unlike anything we've done before and we've got seed funding to get started, but we're asking readers to help crowdfund this new beat with an additional $500,000 so we can go even bigger. You can read why we're taking this approach and what we want to accomplish in "Corruption Isn't Just Another Scandal. It's the Rot Beneath All of Them," and if you like how it sounds, please help fund it with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.