long. I'm still baffled that grounding analysis in accounting is such a difficult sell, but here we sit. Had the same problem on Steve Keen's site and we encounter it occasionally with heterodox economic historians, too. If anyone has any thoughts how to sell the importance of accounting in economic analysis, I'm all ears. Your efforts were as much or more heroic than mine, for sure, and you fired off a few real doozies that I had to write down so I don't forget. winterspeak Reply: December 11th, 2009 at 2:09 am Scott: Well, Nick's the university professor, teaching what's in the text books written by the guys who are advising the white house, running the Treasury, and running the Fed. We're no ones punching keys on the internet. There's definitely failure somewhere in this picture, but I don't think it's with Nick! Economists have a visceral hatred and disdain for accounting. If they understand it, they dismiss it as trivial. When I explain MMT to people, they begin by "that's impossible" and then switch to "that's trivial". I did not know you spent time with Steve Keen. Steve's 90% the way to being in paradigm anyway isn't he? Scott Fullwiler Reply: December 11th, 2009 at 9:16 am Yeah, although I don't blame Galileo for not convincing the Pope. Keen's got horizontal money pretty much down, at least in the sense that he understands it's endogenous and the money multiplier model is false. Still not on board on vertical money