points, totally agree on the real costs being 'paid' by the current generation. In fact, there are many references in mainstream literature to this fact. Regarding govt deficit spending and borrowing to get the current job done- i wouldn't put it that way. Since you assume full employment, given our current institutional arrangements deficit spending will be the same whether we do something productive or just do wasteful things. So the deficit is not the result of the current infrastructure projects, but a necessary condition for full employment of any kind given our current 'savings desires.' exchanging cash for another currency and an associated drop in the currency does not lower the standard of living per se unless real terms of trade are somehow altered, as in your case where china buys real goods and services from us. standard of living is all about domestic output and real terms of trade. so unless real net exports went up- whatever that actually means- standard of living isn't altered by currency alterations. but internal distribution of consumption is likely to change, as in my draft. Honestly, the reason I think MMT languishes in obscurity is that it's too simple. You cannot make an academic career on anything that's simple and clear -- better to ramble on about "expectations" and conjecture on how you can apply a "negative interest rate to cash" etc. I'll never get those 10 minutes back I just wasted watching this. Got some things right about interest payment, many