One of the authors of the reviewed textbook has a three part response to this paper.
>In this blog post, I provide a response to the specific points made in that paper and conclude that if it aims to be a fair ‘guide’ to MMT (even from a critical perspective) then it fails badly.
>In fact, his readers will come away from reading his paper with a very weird version of our work. I hope they are curious and come back to source to learn how they have been mislead – intentionally or otherwise.
>I hope that Greg Mankiw changes his “Skeptic’s guide” when he presents it in the coming days at a major conference in the US.
>He has clearly misrepresented our work in significant ways and that should not be tolerated in an academic milieu.
>In this blog post, I provide a response to the specific points made in that paper and conclude that if it aims to be a fair ‘guide’ to MMT (even from a critical perspective) then it fails badly.
>In fact, his readers will come away from reading his paper with a very weird version of our work. I hope they are curious and come back to source to learn how they have been mislead – intentionally or otherwise.
>I hope that Greg Mankiw changes his “Skeptic’s guide” when he presents it in the coming days at a major conference in the US.
>He has clearly misrepresented our work in significant ways and that should not be tolerated in an academic milieu.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43900
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43961
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=43997