I apologize if anything I posted in the least suggested the quote came from you -- a quote which is accurate but silly, and highly misleading too, as it completely misunderstands the views of the economists it is purported to represent. I thought your post was well done and it should have been obvious to everyone that the quote was not yours. The problem with the quote is that it expresses nothing of value with regard to the opinion of economics professionals in regard to MMT. Worse yet, it infers that MMT espouses something that it's actually at odds with. You, by now, are realizing that MMT is nothing new, it has been a major influence in a branch of economics -- that part of economics that overlaps finance and deals specifically with money theory and the roles of fiscal policy, banking and treasury operations within the overall economy. It is already mainstream within that specific branch of economics, as it has already been, as you say, "vetted by peer review" over the past 70+ years in the economics literature. But it acquired its own name, MMT, only in the last 5 decades or so, and of course only recently did it surface by that name within the Halls of the U.S. Congress, and more recently still in the public media. It has followed much the same path as other breakthrough ideas that take many years to reach full recognition because they represent a sharp break from conventional thinking. For example the Quantum Mechanics took a similar period to be fully developed to a point where it became fully integrated into chemistry and physics. Keynes' Macroeconomics took a similar course. Out this year is the first undergraduate economics text that incorporates MMT and corrects incorrect, but ingrained, concepts of the previous period in economics -- for example, the "money multiplier", which up to now has been a feature in every standard economics text, is now clearly recognized as wrong.. If the past is a guide, we can say that once new thinking finally arrives in undergraduate texts its time to at least begin thinking of it as currently accepted by the profession. But in economics, more so than in science, it is rare that anything is considered entirely settled, and hardly anything should be accepted without question.. In my own field, I can point out an instance of textbooks now having been incorrect for decades. If you studied undergraduate Chemistry any time from the 1960s on you were taught that the reason the 3rd period elements could accommodate more then 8 electrons in their valence shell was because of the participation of d-orbitals. That is still, to my knowledge, in every undergraduate text. Going back at least to the 1950s, however, Pauling realized there was something profoundly wrong with 3d-orbital participation in the 3rd period, as these orbitals lie too high in energy to participate until the 4th period. Thus he did not know when he wrote his famous undergraduate text how to explain bonding in 3rd period elements. He wisely skirted the issue. It was later texts that used flawed ligand field theory to justify 3rd period bonding using d-orbitals. Forty years, or more, ago the 3-center bonding model was developed by Evans, and others. And that is now recognized by some. but not all. chemistry professionals , as the best current model for explaining 3rd period bonding; yet this still has not crept into undergraduate texts, which continue to be incorrect. And I assure you you will find prominent chemists who will maintain 3rd period elements can accommodate more than 8 electrons in bonding by using 3d-orbitals. (It was M.J.S. Dewar that first pointed out the error, years ago, yet the error persists!) This is more the standard pattern than the exception, when major breakthroughs occur in any field, they are not immediately accepted. They challenge the long held, thoroughly inculcated ideas the past. It takes time for them to become widely accepted. This seems to me to be exactly the case with MMT, which is now in the process of becoming accepted, among economists whose specialties are other than money theory, as correctly explaining the role of bonds, borrowing, debt and treasury-central bank operations in a fiat money regime; yet there is no question that some professionals still summarily dismiss it as wrong. And there can also be no question that the general public may have heard of MMT without the slightest clue what it is about. It has taken from at least the 1940s until 2020 for this economics to appear in undergraduate texts. So we shouldn't be at all surprised that there are as yet many who cling to ideas that MMT has shown quite convincingly to be incorrect.
Stable Currency Concept? Somebody's got to have it? Soviets had 8 kinds of roubles, Chinese followed, now dysfunctional West is getting ready too... As long as one preaches authoritatively any nonsense may pass as a revelation given the state of education for the past couple of generations.
%% You maybe right on that forcast; but he did admit to losing money on his youthful Chicago \hog trade\LOL. So pork barrel pattern nonsense may repeat for those dumb enough to get entangled/LOL
The problem with MMT is not in its axiom, it's in its interpretation of market reaction. Any model that does not incorporate infallibility is going to fail. The real world is not too far from MMT for sovereign issuers, FYI.
you meant, perhaps, "fallibility." Your observation that, "The "real world" is not to far from MMT...", is right on the money. The most inarguable MMT contentions come from examination of "real world" treasury-central bank balance sheets. To some extent MMT is just a formal recognition of what is. What's of greatest interest now is what are the implications for policy going forward?
Why did Keynes (of all people, how ironic) come hat in hand to Washington DC after the War looking for money when MMT and the printing press was all the Kingdom required?
Japan has the largest debt-to-gdp ratio for major economies, and they have run these huge deficits for the past 30 years. Many like to point to Japan's tame inflation rates and interest rates. But there is no "free lunch". Japan also has shown an average growth rate of about 1% over the past 30 years - which is quite mediocre.