> Just because they don't completely redefine economic models from the start doesn't mean MMT isn't a theory.
Yes it does, it makes it not an economic theory but a political one.
> Their description of how government issued currency, coercion, and tax act as a tool to capture services from the economy (as opposed to filling up a treasury for the government to spend) is extremely underrated in mainstream economics.
It is Abba Lerner's functional finance and it essentially only applies to the US federal government, as noone else is big enough. But they also like to extend it to "banks don't lend out deposits", which isn't true. And the idea that you can raise taxes to control inflation doesn't appear to be true either.
> Why would MMT be limited to traditionally left/right boundaries?
Cuz they're only trying to sell it to left-wing politicians.
Yes it does, it makes it not an economic theory but a political one.
> Their description of how government issued currency, coercion, and tax act as a tool to capture services from the economy (as opposed to filling up a treasury for the government to spend) is extremely underrated in mainstream economics.
It is Abba Lerner's functional finance and it essentially only applies to the US federal government, as noone else is big enough. But they also like to extend it to "banks don't lend out deposits", which isn't true. And the idea that you can raise taxes to control inflation doesn't appear to be true either.
> Why would MMT be limited to traditionally left/right boundaries?
Cuz they're only trying to sell it to left-wing politicians.