completely, though. But the accounting was a problem philosophically for many on his site, not as much for him, though he wasn't completely on board on that as being at least necessary even if not sufficient for analysis, either. Jim Baird Reply: December 11th, 2009 at 10:08 am I think that Keen, even though he makes fun of mainstreamers for their obessession with fancy math, still has a bit of a problem with that himself (although to his credit, he actually understands fancy math far better than most "math poseur" economists, who think that 19th century mathematical techniques are hip and happening...) Accounting is just too simple -- just addition and subtraction, for God's sake! Not a derivative anywhere! Congdon Keynesian-monetarism will likely frustrate readers of this blog. Matt Franko Reply: December 11th, 2009 at 9:09 pm Winter you guys did a GREAT job over there. You guys planted some seeds I'm sure for both him and his readers, that's all you can do, the truth does the rest, it just takes some time...please keep up the good work there and elsewhere if possible!!! Resp, Regarding 1, it depends on how you define "money." Most, including Nick, define it as some sort of bank liability + currency. Receivables of a company are not included. MMT'ers prefer not to use the term "money." I agree with you . . . receivables are a horizontal expansion, albeit lower on the "hierarchy" than bank loans (i.e., you can use bank liabilities to pay