The problem with having such a position is that a character flaw should never get in the way of an argument; this is especially the case when I am not relying on my reputation to convince people: that is why I included a number of references in my post.
It would be great if the world worked that way. Maybe I'm just around the wrong kind of people, but my impression is that many people do not judge an argument solely on the facts presented, at least not when they see or hear it for the first time. There is a "social proof-based" defensive shield that is instinctively put up, and only after you've passed that will they start to really think things through. Actually, I believe most people (including myself) are like that for many topics.
The deficit comment is also something Krugman would say, and he is not an MMTer. So such a statement is not a sufficient differentiation factor, and so I went into more detail.
You have a point there. Still, it can help to start with a more widely accepted point and then add to that. But you're right, it's important to discuss the difference between typical post-Keynesians like Krugman, who say that there should not be a deficit over the business cycle (i.e. deficits in a downturn should be balanced by surpluses during good times), and the MMT researchers, who have a very convincing argument that increasing government debts (in absolute numbers) are necessary in the long run for a typical country (the only exception being countries like Norway with their massive oil exports).
I don't see that I am giving off such a vibe. Are you sure you're not projecting?
You don't help by giving off the vibe of a crazy person (though I admit it often does feel like the inmates are running the asylum).
I certainly don't think you're a crazy person, and probably I should have worded things differently. What I'm really trying to say is this: try to see things from the perspective of someone who is utterly convinced that sound finance and a return to the gold standard is the way to go. Someone whose entire social circle believes the Robinson Crusoe & Friday story for where money comes from, thinks that deposits create loans, and so on. All those things are wrong, but for someone who has made them part of their identity
, they are hard to give up.
To someone like that, the notions of MMT must sound as crazy as the claim that the earth moves around the sun sounded to normal people a few centuries ago.
So if you really want to convince the more open-minded among that group of people, you need to tread carefully and diplomatically. Don't tone down the message itself - it's important that people get exposed to it fully - but be careful in how you present it so as not to drive people away needlessly.