They are agreeing with MMT's points one by one but denying that they are doing exactly that.
Perhaps I was not clear about what I think MMT is saying.
1] MMT requires that the Gov. fund and local govs. run a JGP, job guarantee program, that pays a "socially inclusive" wage to all who want such a job. By this I think in America this would be about $25/hr.
2] MMT says that the Gov. does not need to issue bonds to fund deficits. In fact most of them would reduce the interest on Gov. bonds to zero % because they see such interest as a ift to the rich. I think that insurance comps. need bonds with at least 2% interest to keep up with the central bank's target inflation rate of 2%.
3] MMT says that deficits will not cause inflation until they begin too cause there to be shortages in some natural resources, incl. labor. So, they say that economists need to learn how to track resource use and not rely on rough ideas about "money".
4] MMT says that there are certain "leakeges" of money out of the economy. Some examples are:
. . a] Savings. Once a dollar is parked in a nice savings place, it is not being used to bid up prices of anything.
. . b] Paying for imported goods. Once a dollar goes overseas, it isn't being used to bid up prices in America.
. . c] Other capital flows out of the US. Same as imports.
5] MMT says that therefore, as a minimum, there needs to be enough deficit spending to replace the above leakages and also keep up with population growth.
6] MMT makes a big deal out of fully "fiat money" nations. So, not any EU nation and certainly not any eurozone nation. MMT says it is really only talking about fully fiat nations. To be fully fiat an nation must:
. . a] Issue its own money or currency.
. . b] Never borrow in any other currency.
. . c] Float its currency and not peg it to anything.
7] MMT says that there is never any need to pay down or pay off any of its Gov. debt. That this is taking money out of the economy to take an interest bearing asset away from someone who would otherwise have it. And, this is pointless.
8] MMT says that a Gov. surplus (combined with a net imports deficit) will always result in the Private Sector of the economy being in deficit. It will need to borrow or draw down savings to just keep up. And, this will always reduce the GDP soon, when lenders stop the easy lending spree.
9] MMT says that it is by definition impossible for all nations to be net exporters at the same time. That for every dollar of value some nation exports, some other nation MUST import that dollar of value. That international lending doesn't change this, because the lender will be paid interest and later principal, which is as bad as importing.
10] Therefore, some nations will always be net importers. That this is always going to be a problem. And, net exporting nations are not helping the world. That the damage they are causing will someday become obvious. So, such nations are not acting ethically. However, such nations are now able to act superior, because their exports allow them to balance their nation's books far more often. So, don't look to Germany and Norway as counter examples. And, maybe Japan too, although, Japan has had large deficits for 28 years.
11] So, bottom line; the reason the UK, aka England in the beginning, has had a national debt since 1694 (for 327 years) is that the Gov. debt of nations never needs to be paid off. That the risk to the holders of such debt (now that they have fiat currencies) is that the nation will cease to exist. But, then holders of that nation's currency will also lose, when it become worthless fire starter paper.
. . Further, since a Gov. surplus will always damage the GDP, aka economy, paying down the Gov's debt is almost always a bad idea for the people of the nation. However, some people may benefit from this.
Of course, I firmly believe that the overriding issue today is the climate crisis. That the risk is human extinction in the worst likely case. And, a massive human die off as the minimum bad case IF the crisis is not addressed very soon. And, no-one can be confident that they or their descendants will avoid being among of those dying off.
. . . So, even the billionaires are making a huge mistake IF they love and care about their descendants.