“The most important conclusion reached by MMT is
that the issuer of a currency faces no financial constraints. Put simply, a country that issues its
own currency can never run out and can never become insolvent in its own currency. It can make
all payments as they come due.” As a result, “for most governments, there is no
default risk on government debt.”

Don't underestimate how dangerous this statement is.

It's definitely an interesting intellectual approach to some interesting ideas, but pragmatically, it boils down to the same thing: debts don't matter, so just print money.

It's immediately suicidal for any non-large nation, obviously history shows this, because nobody will want the currency, hyperinflation ensues, economic crashes etc..

For larger, more established nations with currencies that have externalizations, it's a very risky game to play.

Remember that government is under constant money pressure. 'The Budget' is 90% of the real debate in governance.

Currently, they can tax, or raise debt. The former is politically difficult, the later - they have to face market reality.

MMT basically says 'just print money'. It's basically using the nuclear option to take over the entire economy by undermining the system we use to measure it: money.

Money really drives incentives, distorts realities. I have no doubt so many politicians 'think they know better' and that 'if only they had several more billion the country would be so much better', it's a deep instinct. We need realities to counterbalance our fantasies however well intentioned.

Here are some examples of hyperinflation in the last century, at the end of the day, they all have the same root cause [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Notable_hyperin...

Edit: note that we are engaging in an MMT experiment right now. During this 'giant crisis' everyone is hosed, and so everyone is doing 'funny money things'. The market understands the situation however, and interprets such actions as 'responsible actions during a crisis' - but nevertheless a crisis. So the debt overhang is a real problem, but it can be excused as rational.

Politicians wanting to do the same spending (equivalent to 20 years deficits, like here in Canada) on some 'National XYZ Project' will not be treated the same way, unless that National Project boils down to 'getting money out of the ground i.e. Oil'. In some developing nations, 'accepted, obvious infrastructure' investments like electricity and roads.

The Fed did a little bit of this in 2008 when they took a zillion in bad mortgages onto the balance sheets. It's 'pain free' in the short term, but the moral dilemma really exists: the market basically accepted the failure of banks - and - all the people taking big mortgages and bailed them out. Who would have been the 'winners' of a housing crisis? Well, renters for one - as long as they kept their jobs. But the crisis was so big, socialization was the only answer.

I think it should be looked upon like a Hospital stay: pumping the patient full of drugs is helpful in a crisis, but said drugs are plainly not helpful for ongoing development of that individual. Proponents would say 'it's like Tylenol' I would say it's more like 'Morphene'.