MMT began as a better way of describing how our monetary system actually works, focusing on the symbiotic relationship between the central bank and the central governments’s Treasury Department. For that it gets, in my opinion, excellent marks. With the steadily growing debts of the central government since 1980, when the U.S. went from the ‘tax-and-spend’ Democrat way to the ‘borrow-and-spend’ Republican way (so much better for the ‘investor class’), we have effectively been living in an MMT nation.

As to MMT as a means of solving the ills of society, I have my doubts. The problem, as I see it, is that with MMT money is still tied to debt. Thus, as with the economy as it is currently structured, in MMT the viability of the economy depends on the ability to service the total debt — and using MMT for all the social tasks ascribed above would mean debt on a scale that would make the GDP — the total income of the nation — look like an anthill in comparison.

The debt of the government — pubic debt — is serviced by collecting taxes. While in MMT the central government can never run out of money, people, who must pay taxes to service the debt that the central government creates by spending more than it collects in taxes, can run out of money. Any graph showing the growth in the GDP and the growth of debt in the U.S. since 1980 shows dramatically that debt grows way, way faster than the GDP does.

Fortunately, there is a better way (to be clear, one I developed): “A Truly Great Idea” published in Data Driven Investor here in Medium. The supply of money (as currency) would be an income paid to eligible citizens. It would not involve any debt. The same process could be used to fund government at all levels, eliminating the need for any taxes/public debt (though, to be clear, debts already incurred would be fully repaid).