are too dangerous and how on earth you explain all that complicated shifting gears, pressing gas and breaks -- holy mess! people would never get it!" So, you believe that what prevent federal workers from going on strike now is the fear of govt deficits? Seriously? I am trying to see how MMT would be implemented. Right now the leverage for not spending is that threat that it will drive up the deficit. If federal employees went on strike, the threat of what their demands would do to the deifict is an argument that would be used against them. It's a simple argument that resonates with voters. With MMT you can't use the threat of increasing the deficit. What do you say to get support for resisting a wage-increase demand? Or for any spending proposal, how do you explain or make the case that it will be inflationary rather than being helpful to the economy? but of course, and ironically, in real terms non working people are entirely consuming vs saving, and only working people are contributing to real savings even if they are nominally dissaving in a big way. Well, "non-working" people can still have some income, from SS and investments, but not only are they typically "entirely consuming" vs saving, in the traditional retirement planning scenario they will be spending their lifetime accumulated savings at a rate of 4% a year, or so. So they will be spending more than their incomes. (That was what I meant by