Mind Matters: A Book Club for Big Ideas

Join us for a discussion of The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy by Stephanie Kelton.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
In The Deficit Myth, Kelton challenges the conventional view that government budgets function like household budgets and that deficits represent fiscal irresponsibility. Drawing on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), she argues that sovereign governments that issue their own currencies are not financially constrained in the same way as households or businesses; their real constraint is inflation, not solvency. The book reframes deficits as tools that can support full employment, public investment, and social welfare, while warning that the true limits to spending lie in resource capacity and price stability. Kelton contends that misunderstandings about public debt have narrowed political imagination and prevented governments from pursuing policies that could expand economic security and shared prosperity.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Kelton argues that governments that issue their own currency cannot “run out of money” in the way households can. How convincing do you find this distinction?
2. If inflation—not solvency—is the real constraint on public spending, how confident should we be in policymakers’ ability to manage that constraint?
3. Does reframing deficits as potentially beneficial change how you think about public debt debates in the U.S. or other advanced economies?
4. Kelton emphasizes real resource limits (labor, materials, productive capacity) over financial limits. Does this shift clarify economic trade-offs, or obscure fiscal discipline?
5. Critics argue that MMT underestimates political and institutional risks. What vulnerabilities or blind spots do you see in Kelton’s framework?
6. How does The Deficit Myth compare to more conventional macroeconomic theories about deficits, crowding out, and interest rates?
7. To what extent are Kelton’s claims dependent on the U.S. dollar’s global reserve status? Would her framework apply equally to smaller or emerging economies?
8. After engaging with the book, do you feel that deficit fears are overstated, appropriately cautious, or insufficiently attentive to inflationary risk?

N.B: Date to be confirmed and RSVP opens 4 weeks in advance.

Join us for a discussion of The Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe by Matthew Gabriele and David M. Perry.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
In The Bright Ages, Gabriele and Perry challenge the enduring stereotype of the medieval period as culturally stagnant, violent, and intellectually barren. Covering roughly 500 to 1500 CE, they emphasize the era’s dynamism, diversity, and global interconnectedness, highlighting vibrant trade networks, scientific exchange, religious pluralism, and artistic innovation across Europe, the Mediterranean, Africa, and Asia. Rather than presenting medieval Europe as isolated or uniformly “dark,” the authors argue that many foundational developments in law, governance, scholarship, and cross-cultural contact took shape during this period. The book seeks not simply to rehabilitate the Middle Ages, but to demonstrate how modern political and cultural narratives have distorted our understanding of them.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. The authors explicitly reject the “Dark Ages” framing. Do they succeed in replacing it with a more accurate narrative, or does their corrective risk overcompensation?
2. How does the book’s emphasis on interconnected trade and cultural exchange alter the way we think about medieval Europe’s place in global history?
3. To what extent does the portrayal of religious diversity and coexistence complicate common assumptions about medieval intolerance?
4. The authors link modern political myths to misrepresentations of the Middle Ages. Why do you think medieval imagery remains so powerful in contemporary politics?
5. How effectively does the book balance accessibility with scholarly rigor?
6. Does emphasizing vibrancy and innovation risk minimizing real episodes of violence, exclusion, or regression?
7. How does The Bright Ages compare with other reinterpretations of the medieval period you’ve encountered?
8. After reading the book, do you see the medieval era as foundational to modernity in ways you hadn’t previously considered?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.

N.B: Date to be confirmed and RSVP opens 4 weeks in advance.

Join us for a discussion of Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
In Abundance, Klein argues that many of the most pressing problems facing advanced democracies—housing shortages, climate transition delays, infrastructure stagnation, and rising costs—stem less from a lack of resources than from institutional bottlenecks and political veto points that make building difficult. He contends that well-intentioned regulatory regimes, procedural safeguards, and fragmented governance structures have constrained state capacity and slowed public investment, particularly in liberal cities and states. The book calls for a renewed focus on supply, institutional reform, and pro-building politics, framing “abundance” not as deregulation for its own sake but as a project of restoring democratic governments’ ability to deliver material progress at scale.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Klein argues that scarcity in housing, energy, and infrastructure is often politically constructed rather than economically inevitable. How persuasive do you find this claim?
2. Does the emphasis on “building more” risk underestimating environmental, community, or equity concerns that motivated regulatory expansion in the first place?
3. To what extent are procedural safeguards (environmental review, zoning, public input) essential democratic protections versus obstacles to collective action?
4. Is the book’s focus on supply-side reform compatible with progressive redistribution, or does it implicitly sideline questions of inequality?
5. How does Klein’s argument compare to other critiques of state capacity or neoliberal governance?
6. Does the diagnosis apply equally to national governments, states/provinces, and cities, or is it primarily a local governance problem?
7. What political coalition would be required to implement the reforms Klein envisions?
8. After engaging with the book, do you see the path to prosperity primarily in redistributing existing wealth or in expanding overall capacity—and what trade-offs does that entail?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.