Calling it MMT seems to hide the main point that is that the U.S. Federal Government can and should spend funds that are neither backed by taxes or borrowing.

We see a lot of back and forth about what that would do to the economy. That would depend on how those funds were distributed.

Is there any reason to believe that those the already control the distribution of the governments funds would change their habits of making sure the majority of those funds benefit the most wealth and powerful and not so much benefit the poor and weak.

We should first agree on what policies need greater funding before we get too distracted by the idea that we are not constrained by funding.

If it is a good idea finding funding is rarely a challenge. It is clear that those in power do not believe fighting poverty is a good enough idea to deserve to be well funded so if there was unlimited funds what would make us believe that much of those funds would go to fighting poverty.

Excessive funding creates selective inflation. Access to easy credit led to huge inflation in the price of post secondary education.

Easy money led to the housing bust.

Easy money led to the dot com bust.

Easy money might be leading to a fracking bust.

Funding should be difficult to obtain to force due diligence regarding the merits of the effort to be funded.

Even efforts to help the poor need to be scrutinized carefully to make sure that they actually do good and don't have unintended negative consequences or at least we understand what the negative consequences might be.

Quantitative easing should be a lesson to everyone. Just throwing money around does not make everything alright. It just shuffles the deck and randomizes the problems or kicks the can down the road.

TEK