[nabla9]

MMT is extreme to the other end. Critics (most of them mainstream Keynesian) say that it oversimplifies Keynesian model. Usually simple theories that are internally consistent miss some variables.

Basic observation: Government that issues debt (or money) in it's own currency can't go bankrupt. This is essentially correct and it even works in practice. Hyperinflation is a problem only if you have to pay foreign debt in foreign currency.

Where MMT differs from mainstream is that in their model this ability can be exploited freely. The fiscal-monetary conflict goes away. They also assume that the only feedback loop goes trough taxation–taxation is seen as the tool reducing the money supply. Other ways money creation affects the economy don't exist or don't matter.

[crdoconnor]

MMT's most controversial assertion is that a government that issues its own currency can't go bankrupt.

You called it extreme and then largely agreed with it....?

[nabla9]

How is that confusing in the context of everything else I wrote?

True premise can lead to wrong conclusion.

Some models can work only within a some range.

If you accept only one-handed economists you get into trouble.

---

joke explainer: “Give me a one-handed Economist. All my economists say 'on hand...', then 'but on the other...” ― Harry Truman

[crdoconnor]

>How is that confusing in the context of everything else I wrote?

Because when you declare a school of thought to be "extreme" it's kind of weird to agree with the core (and most controversial) concepts and only disagree on unspecified details.

On the one hand, it's like declaring that the Catholic Church is run by religious extremists because their wafers are exactly the wrong shade of pale off-white. On the other hand, it's exactly like that as well.