This is a bad article. I've actually been spending some time recently trying to get to know about MMT because it seems like it is emerging as important in the

This is a bad article. I've actually been spending some time recently trying to get to know about MMT because it seems like it is emerging as important in the mainstream - people like Ezra Klein have bought on people to discuss its merits and things like that. I have found it unfathomably difficult to understand what is unique or interesting about MMT in its understanding of the world. There seems to be one core conclusion - that the US can choose not to care about tax revenue. That seems to be an incredibly convenient conclusion so we really need to understand the mechanisms of why that must be true. That's where I fall down, I have yet to follow the argument as to why. This article in particular seems to take joy in focusing on the unimportant parts of the article to which it's responding. The focus is to attack the author for their perceived attacks on the backgrounds of the people they're talking about. I think one key argument in the original article that this one is attacking is: "If you print money to fund government too much you will get inflation. How does MMT say you solve that problem?" There's a lot of emotive language in the response, but no answers. Only ridiculous attacks. The original article reads to me like a serious person posing serious questions about what the implications and mechanics of MMT are, and this response just doesn't address them. I'm really only just getting into this subject right now, but MMT looks incredibly weak to me.