If a framework assumes responsible actors but makes abuse easier, that’s a design flaw in the framework itself. A good framework should anticipate human behavior.
What do you mean by "design flaw"? You're assuming that economic frameworks must prevent human misuse, as if any theory can police behavior. You're also treating an economic framework like it should contain ethical protective measures within itself. Economic models aren't governance systems, they describe fiscal operations and constraints. The framework didn't cause the abuse, it just exposes the mechanisms where abuse can occur more transparently. And MMT also doesn't assume moral actors. If the political system sucks, that's on governance.
Agreed, but they certainly affect its viability in the real world, which happens to be full of slimeball politicians, in case you haven't noticed.
Okay, but viability ≠ theoretical flaw. MMT is a lens. It describes how fiat monetary systems already function. It seems like you're just trying to debate governance reform. Blaming the framework that simply clarifies the truth of modern finance is like being mad at thermometers for showing you have a fever.
Yes, that is how politicians spend in the real world. MMT makes it much easier for them.
No, MMT reveals what was always easy for them, we already do emergency spending, corporate bailouts, and wars without blinking. The only difference is that politicians lie about what's possible for things like healthcare or infrastructure by hiding behind deficits.
Yes, that's my main point here. If abuse is expected, and no mechanisms within the framework prevent it, that’s a design flaw.
It's a descriptive economic framework, it's not a policy enforcement mechanism. Why are you expecting an analytical lens to double as a regulatory guard? MMT isn't a constitution, it's not designed to prevent abuse. It's designed to clarify what governments can do in a fiat system, and what actual constraints are. Every system can be abused, but your claim assumes that ignorance or some sort of artificial constraint somehow prevent abuse. That abuse is already happening under our current model. Austerity gets justified on nonsense, etc. So what, the current setup is somehow more moral because it obscures how money actually works?
Again, this supports my point. If mmt depends on the same extremely flawed political process we already have, and allows more spending, then why would we expect an improvement?
So what you're basically implying is:
1. MMT depends on current political process
2. The political process is flawed
3. MMT allows more spending
4. Therefore, MMT will make things worse.
This sort of logic doesn't follow. MMT also clarifies how spending already works. And by exposing the actual constraints (productive capacity, inflation, real resource use) instead of fake ones (like "taxpayer money" or "we're broke"), it gives us a better dashboard to actually drive the economy. Here's a question, would you rather fly a plane with fake gauges and hope for the best? Or real-time data and the responsibility to use it wisely? Improvement under MMT isn't guaranteed I can agree with that much, but it still becomes possible. It shifts into a more rational constraint than arbitrary debt ceilings. Why do we prefer ignorance?
