A blogger over at Corrente, a blog that sometimes covers MMT stuff, they criticize crude Austrian objections to macroeconomics and aggregation (often hilariously paired with Garrison's own aggregate models [this is a knock on the crude Austrians that can't see the irony, not Garrison]).
The post raises some important points about complexity theory. This is another thing about the crude Austrians I've found absolutely unfathomable. In the same breath that they criticize aggregated analysis, they claim to appreciate complexity and emergent order.
If there is ONE CONCLUSION of complexity theory, it's that complex aggregates composed of many interacting parts can exhibit stable behavioral patterns that are not immediately obvious from looking at the interaction of the parts. And this isn't exactly a new point in economics either - this is Mandeville/Smith stuff. And yet somehow the people who pay so much lip service to complexity are often the same ones that critize thinking about aggregates.