New Economic Perspectives has the article Krugman Gives DeGrauwe 2011 Credit for What MMT Has Argued for 15+ Years.

Unlike years prior, since 2008 it’s rather clear to many (if not to neoclassicals) the importance of alternative ideas, frameworks, and methodologies—including MMT and the dozens of other approaches—that could contribute to building a new, more relevant field of economics. But the mainstream of a field that didn’t see the crisis coming has doubled down, essentially rewriting history by declaring that nobody could have seen the crisis coming, and that virtually nobody did. (Of course, it’s true that neoclassicals couldn’t have seen the crisis coming given that their models do not include a financial system—so in that sense they aren’t lying, just obviously casting their net too narrowly, by design.)

As for being able to see the crisis of 2008 coming, I saw the crisis coming years before 2008. I didn’t even get my insight from MMT. The earliest mention of MMT that I find on my blog via a quick search is May 26, 2012.

New Economic Perspectives has the article Three Natural Experiments Documenting Krugman’s Bias Against MMT.

The bad news is that in this case even after he read Roche’s rant he knew so little about the MMT scholarly literature that he represented to his readers that it exemplified MMT. The even worse news is that even after he read, and hated, Roche’s rant, Krugman knew so little about the MMT literature that he decided to provide his readers with a link to the rant – and only the rant – as supposedly representative of the MMT scholarly canon. To sum it up, Krugman’s attempt to assure his readers that he had “listened to the gentiles” (his phrase, not mine) before attacking them proved he had failed to do so. Krugman was so eager to reject and demean MMT scholars that his subconscious transformed Roche’s rant into the mother of all strawman arguments to aid his assault on MMT scholars.

I used to be such a fan of Paul Krugman until he went so obviously off the rails. He does write for The Dreaded New York Times. That should have warned me about what was eventually going to come out of his writings.

Workers World has the article Venezuela mobilizes against imperialist attacks on its electrical grid.

Another possibility is a dirty war, fought through rebel groups created and armed by the U.S. to apply enough pressure to collapse the Bolivarian social programs. The opposition already has a base of “guarimberos,” or violent street fighters, that could serve as a starting point.

In either case, the main battlefield is the economy. Imperialism’s plans to destabilize the country are based on “making the economy scream.” To defeat the new and desperate opposition attacks, it will be necessary to break the remaining power the oligarchy holds over the Venezuelan economy, while strengthening popular organization in the country.

OK, be skeptical of this article, but also be skeptical of what you hear from the imperialists.

Workers World has the article U.S. anti-war movement leaders report from embattled Venezuela.

Curcio discussed the U.S. role in creating the “humanitarian crisis” in Venezuela. These include shortages of basic necessities: toilet paper, corn, milk, coffee and vital medicines. To counter these shortages, the Bolivarian government established a distribution network to serve 6 million families by importing food, medicine and hygiene products.

The current U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s oil, the blocking of its banking services and the edicts that prevent the government from using its gold reserves all restrict the ability of the Venezuelan government to satisfy basic needs.

On top of this, the U.S. has handed $11 billion worth of assets of Venezuela’s national oil company, CITGO, directly to Juan Guaidó, a virtually unknown right-wing politician until U.S. Vice President Mike Pence suggested on Jan. 23 that Guaidó nominate himself to be “interim president.”

I have been wondering when we would hear a report of the trip that Ajamu Baraka and many others made to Venezuela.