Oh, look! Another strawman argument tell us what MMT says about econ.
Modern Monetary Theorists posit that a country, which utilizes its own fiat currency, like the U.S. Dollar, can simply “print” more money to cover its debts. That much is technically accurate, but they also believe (or at least argue) that flooding the monetary market with Trillions of “new” dollars will have no adverse impact on the “value” of existing Dollars. They believe that inflation, in which prices rice in response to the decreased “value” (or purchasing power) for a currency, can be held at bay indefinitely.
Flooding the monetary market? Trillions of "new" dollars (evidently differing somehow from "old" dollars)??
What MMT says is that it is very difficult to cause "monetary" inflation when there are resources and labor available to deploy to accomplish the goal of spending. This is quite different from "price" increases due to select shortages of resources or labor.
In fact, I'm not so sure that it is possible for currency inflation (meaning that "ALL" prices rise in unison in reaction to a decreased value of currency) when that currency is sovereign fiat. That would be the "quantity of money" theory, and it went away along with the gold standard.
They seemingly argue that the laws of Supply and Demand no longer apply to money, but their arrogance is akin to saying that one is capable of controlling gravity throughout the universe.
Money is a unit of measure, not a commodity, so the law of supply and demand never did apply to money. You don't make a board longer simply by having a longer ruler with more inches.
However, they are notably reluctant to fully embrace their own theory by simply “printing” all of the money that government wants or needs. If the “theory” is sound, then we should dispense with taxes and borrowing: In for a penny, in for a pound.
Gee whiz! I never heard that argument - - not.
Firstly, all money is created in the same way by Congress, and it doesn't include tax "revenue". It is "decreed" into existence when it is spent in the private sector. The debt (a simple tracking entity in government accounting informing of the net money supply) destroys any money crossing from the private sector back into the government sector, so neither taxing nor borrowing are "funding mechanisms".
MMT acknowledges fully the purpose of taxation and borrowing (a misnomer), but simply says that "funding" spending isn't one of those. One cannot collect or borrow what doesn't yet exist, so spending must come first. It is more accurate to state that spending money into existence is what "funds" tax collections and Treasury bonds than the reverse.
The price of diamonds is kept high because De Beers maintains a monopoly over the supply, much like the federal government maintains the supply of Dollars.
This is not a valid comparison because diamonds are a commodity, not a currency and you can't pay your taxes or purchase Treasury bonds with them. Taxes and savings are the two things that drive acceptance of a currency, and you can't do either with diamonds without first converting them to US dollars. Once again, just for clarity: Commodities have prices and currencies "measure" prices.
The remainder of your rant/diatribe doesn't even have a coherent point other than you are very angry at something. Consequently, I won't even address it as you clearly have only a passing knowledge of economics that you evidently picked up in your neighborhood bar or some looney scare mongering website. You certainly have no clue about what MMT proscribes or how it reached its findings.
