“Borrowing, like taxation, destroys dollars previously spent into the private sector and cannot survive balancing the debt that created them to “fund” anything.”

In all sincerity, I need you to explain that to me more fully for me to be able to understand it.

As I understand the existing system, borrowing by the central government creates new money (the amount the Fed has the Treasury print for the Fed to use to purchase new debt). Are you saying that “borrowing” is the other side of the coin of taxation, that “borrowing” is but a mechanism for restoring to the economy money that taxation has taken from it?

At the end you seem to be saying that spending by the central government should be funded by simply creating the money for that, without using the fiction of debt. Taxes would still exist, but only to draw money out of the economy to avoid an infinite accumulation of money in the economy.

Given the vast amount of money that literally unlimited spending by the central government could entail, that tax bill would be HUGE. All of the issues that have forever been associated with taxation would be hugely exaggerated. So it seems to me that taxation remains the Achilles heel of this paradigm.

I find it incomprehensible that someone who understands the monetary component of the macro economy as well as you and has seen my similar (to my understanding of your ultimate version of MMT) but so beautifully simpler paradigm prefers a Rube Goldberg contraption based on MMT.