I think this passage from Brian Romanchuk at Bond Economics is pretty fun:
Reformation of economics. From my cynical outsider perspective, the improvement of the economics used by institutions will be the result of developments outside of academia. Obviously MMT and post-Keynesian academics are important for pushing the theoretical agenda, but institutions will remain captured by “mainstream” economists. The political facts on the ground need to change, at which point the institutions will again blow with the wind. (In other words, no theoretical refutation of mainstream economics is going to change anyone’s behaviour.)
The context of this diatribe is Brian teeing up some comments he plans to make to a conference on Modern Monetary Theory, a school of thought with which he seems to have a lot of sympathy. *
I think MMT is mostly a semantical confusion. But I am not going to get into that here. Nor do I think my disagreement with MMT is going to prove testable in North America over, say, the next 10 to 20 years. MMT says the idea of fiscal capacity is a distraction. I say the US still has plenty of fiscal capacity (although you ought not waste it.) Not exactly a satisfying thing to fight over. Events seem unlikely to declare a winner before I stop blogging.
So I like that passage mostly out of context. The idea that institutions will basically just blow with the wind seems right to me — at least as a description of what can happen some of the time. The ease and speed with which the sycophants signed on to (mostly harmless) QE, and separately their willingness to flirt with H money, were — for me — pretty striking to behold.
But those are old fights over which I am now mostly boring. As diatribe, and assessed purely on aesthetic grounds, that is some nice dissing right up there.
* The teeing up is for the purpose of his blog, not the presentation he will make to the post-Keynesians at the conference.