Yep, I studied economic history, I have read all of his books (including his first book on statistics in early 20th century Germany). His latest book wasn't that well received, and it is very far from the best book on the 2008 financial crisis (it is far too early to say which book is the best, but Tooze framed that book in terms of the bete noires of the left at the time, Trump and Brexit, which massively takes away from the book's broader relevance...it happens, it is how publishers sell books, it is not how writers produce great ones). Deluge and Wages of Destruction are considered his best books, and Wages is clearly superior (Deluge and Crashed are really more popular history).

Either way, I don't think I made any specific claims about the limits of Tooze's knowledge (I have no real idea what Tooze does or does not know). My point was simple: if you look solely at Nazi Germany fiscal policy between 1931 and 1944, it will appear very much like there are no limits to spending. He references this multiple times throughout the article. I also mentioned that the other very common place that you see this is is people who have studied Japanese economic policy in the 70/80s. If you take these periods and you want to believe that there are no limits in spending, these periods will allow you to make that argument (and it is common to see this generally: people who are experts in one period of history, often see everything through that lens...human nature). It is extremely common for people who believe in MMT or some variant of MMT to reference these periods (and again, not make any reference to other aspects of how that was possible i.e. politics).

The problem with this is that this information does not generalize (and I have said specifically why this information doesn't generalize in these cases). He refers to post-WW2 as an example of there being no limit to spending but, again as I explain specifically, it is an example of the opposite. I made no claim about why that is: all I said is that Tooze's expertise is periods in which the limits to spending aren't clear, and he is referencing a period which is a the textbook example of limits to spending (post-WW2).

I didn't say this but I know why he is making this argument: Tooze is left-leaning. Most economists aren't particularly familiar with the details of 1950s monetary policy (there are very few books on this subject, it isn't fashionable) but even if there were, people would still believe in MMT. The reasons why people in believe in certain things are not limited to evidence (Tooze was one of the public figures that was behind Corbyn's MMT-funded spending plans, he has taken a political stance on this). If this wasn't the case, I do suspect he would have a different interpretation of the post-WW2 period.