The reservation I have about MMT so far, from what I've heard about it from Steve Keens, is the same reservation that I have about mainstream economic theory happily sustaining the markets. Neither seems to adequately take into account basic resource limitations. Whether it's 'guaranteed basic income' to guarantee that economies are sustaining an essential base level of demand and supplying basic needs, or mainstream economics notion that you should be able to achieve exponential 3%/annum growth ad infinitum and thereby do the same, I'd like to hear both talking more about the fact that neither one seems oriented to provide much at all in the way of look ahead and planning for a planet and resource base that is, in fact, finite and already in the process of being polluted, depleted and destroyed.

I think these are real and difficult questions about national (and global) economics, but I do find it kind of funny and ironic that most of the Austrian school austerity, anti-MMT, balanced budget folks that seem to predominate the investment analysis world got rich aligning with the cranky tight money views of their already rich clients, while they meanwhile all floated up together at accelerating speeds in a Keynesian, fiat dollar economic world. Many of the milling suits seen on CNBC at NYSE and in the talking heads boxes will be out of work & forced to bartend or teach night-school if/when we ever suffer the economic bomb drop of either global balanced budgets or the Ponzi collapse - meanwhile, everyone (and finance in particular) loves "temporary" money-printing and soberly declares it wise policy if >their< sector benefits ;-). For more depth and heft, I'd like to see MMT favoring (with qualifications) rebel economist Steve Keen interviewed here on Realvision. I'm still trying to grasp all the angles, but he points out that mainstream economic theory seems to pretend that money and printing money doesn't really exist, that we live in a barter economy, and the only possible result of printing money is to create inflation. In fact, establishment economists have been doing trillions in QE in Japan for decades and the rest of the world since 2009, and are struggling to maintain both growth and nominal inflation. In fact, the only way you get growth in a slow growth economy and limited inflation in a deflation-risk world with high debt is by expanding the money supply, otherwise prices go down and the debts are never paid. He also advocates a debt jubilee, last I heard, which makes sense, it seems. His view is to move away from the extremes of capitalism or socialism and find balance between the extremes. I'd like to learn more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyzKblOtZjg

MMT = Magic Money Tree

I totally agree with the premise. However, there is a huge problem that the opponents of MMT fail to address. Why was it okay to use MMT to bail out Wall Street in '08/'09, yet all of a sudden it's not okay to bail out Main Street in '19/'20? Just saying it would create too much more debt ain't gonna cut it as an argument, much less an effective answer to MMT.