"Let me clear up some of your confusion Keith."

I wouldn't lay claim to being infallible, but my MMT understanding is the result of one on one conversations with many prominent MMT economists, including Dr. Stephanie Kelton and Warren Mosler. You can search YouTube using either name to clear up some of your confusion.

"MMT is NOT how the major economic powers are currently working. This is quite clear given that the responsibility for inflation control is held by central banks rather than done through taxation."

The Federal Reserve, like most central banks of the major economies, is entirely a creature of legislation. Many of its functions are in response to such legislation from Congress, but none can supersede the Constitution which gives a monopoly patent for creating US dollars to Congress.

The Fed is the clearing bank for payments made by Congress to the private sector and it has some oversight of its member banks. However, those member banks are free to demand any interest rate they wish from borrowers at any time. It simply isn't wise to charge a rate that isn't competitive or that doesn't cover the cost of reserves which can only be obtained via the Fed by license from Congress.

Those reserves are not gifts to the banks. They are obligations that must be repaid with whatever interest the Fed demands at the time they are issued. Given that most economic activity is funded via credit, either to consumers or businesses, increasing the cost of that credit will increase the cost of goods across the board and fuel inflation.

"However, like all supporters of MMT, your comments on HOW it would've worked are vague, you're not saying anything more than "interest rates hurt the average person and we could've done better"."

Taxation is only one component to fighting inflation. MMT economists generally advocate for automatic stabilizers, especially a job guarantee that is funded with new money creation. Such a program would allow the economy to be stabilized without the pain of involuntary unemployment that is currently the preferred method. Workers would move between public and private employment as the economic conditions fluctuated and the bottom for their compensation would be established by the program, including benefits.

This would inject money into the private sector when needed as well as create a more humane economy. Shocks to supply chains would be severely reduced to encourage price stability and the burden of welfare would be mostly lifted from the states. One only has to take a short walk through most communities to see that there is no shortage of constructive work available that doesn't compete with private business.

"Higher bond interest rates makes money harder for the private sector to borrow, it doesn't inject more money into the private sector..."

How is the result of higher bond interest, funded by new money creation, not increasing the money supply? It is your position that more money equates to inflation, not mine. As higher interest rates keep more lower-middle-class workers from qualifying for loans, the markets, especially in housing and autos, will not accommodate those workers and only produce higher-end products. One only has to compare the average house built in the '50s/'60s to those being built today to see how this drives inflation.

" Do you think the trillions of dollars that have been printed over the last year play no part in this? Are you not aware of all the examples throughout the years of governments printing too much money without a proper control mechanism, resulting in hyperinflation?"

There is not a single example of an economy with a sovereign currency that suffered hyperinflation from "printing money". All macro-economics is about resources and labor. There is always enough money to purchase anything available and the currency issuing authority is the price setter.

I know all of the examples you likely have in mind and none of them were the result of a currency being issued in excess. They are all the result of supply shock, not demand, and the currency printing came after the disruption of supply chains.

"there's no need to be so rude and aggressive!"

Civility is good when people aren't suffering and dying because of misconceptions surrounding economics. I would hope we can get to that point, but you believe the lies that are creating much of the suffering and death and you defend it because of ego. That is what I would consider rude and aggressive.