finally, some points! 4) if I borrow $1200 from the bank, I don't "owe the bank a productivity increase", I owe the bank $1200. Whether that comes from me bein

finally, some points! 4) if I borrow $1200 from the bank, I don't "owe the bank a productivity increase", I owe the bank $1200. Whether that comes from me being more productive, or working more time into the future, is up to me bad analogy, since printing money is not a loan in traditional sense - government debt doesn't really make sense - it is a tax on future users of the currency, by means of productivity per dollar is decreased. more like, if everyone got a loan, and the bank said "trust me bro"...because the dollars were literally invented, not loaned - which increases the total M1 money supply. the hope was the velocity of the money would also increase, which inflation helps with - stagnating cash loses value constantly. one way to measure this "tax" (the damage done by inflation) is by measuring the value of the dollar per common good (the BigMac index) and is by debt/GDP/person. Of course it is a political bartering chip; everything is, but is also a useful measure of this change in buying power relative to the dollar. Business are going to be the first to reap the rewards of the increase in productivity. As they should. Taxes imply the government will be the secondary beneficiary. A well-executed MMT would then use the excess capital for common-good reinvest, a la the Build Back better plan. It's a dream, but that is how they hoped it worked.