[Steve_American]

MMT is catching on world wide. If you don't want to fall behind, you need to understand the basics of MMT. Then you will not make the mistake (or lie) of pointing to Greece to claim the US may have the same problems someday. As a few people here have done over the last several months.

The Big Things you need to know!

FIRST, HERE’S WHAT WE’RE NOT SAYING: We’re not saying currency-issuing governments can’t spend too much, or on the wrong things. We are not saying that our current monetary system is perfect, nor are we ignoring the very real problems related to rising inequality and concentration of economic and political power. And we’re not saying governments should pay for everything just because they can!

Our aim is to provide a basic understanding of how modern monetary systems work, dispel some common myths, and help us see how to use this powerful tool to better serve the public. We are saying that currency-issuing governments aren’t actually constrained in the ways we commonly understand. They have the power — and indeed, the responsibility — to use their sovereign currency to help develop the nation and improve the living standards of their citizens with the resources made available to them.

After you click on the round "Click Here" button, you click on each box to see that chapter or lesson.

https://modernmoneybasics.com/

.

[Puffer Fish]

While it is a well made and pretty, glossy site, I do not think the actual material in that site does an adequate enough job explaining why more money would not just cause inflation, cancelling all benefit from more money. Many of the explanations for this seem half-hearted, kind of vague, and are not really solid enough. They also don't do anything to explain how/why the economic policies they wish to achieve could not just be accomplished through changes to government spending and taxation, as far as I can see.

I did not see any contact information in that site, so it's impossible to send anyone a message asking them about this.

So again, it's a beautiful site, and if I had a complicated theory I wanted to try to explain to people, I would love to use that same format they have, but on the whole I just can't support this theory they are propounding. It is actually kind of wacky.

And I think this theory relies on piecemeal logic and a lot of marketing hype.

[SueDeNîmes]

After you click on the round "Click Here" button, you click on each box to see that chapter or lesson.

Not working here. I click the links and nothing happens.

I'm already 90% sold on MMT anyway. In fact I tend to agree with this guy :

Why Isn’t Modern Monetary Theory Common Knowledge?

I’ve always been baffled why ‘modern monetary theory’ is called a theory. I don’t mean this in a disparaging way. As far as theories of money go, I think modern monetary theory (MMT for short) is the correct one. But having a correct theory of money is a bit like having a correct theory of traffic lights.

Traffic lights (like money) are a social convention. We agree that red means stop and green means go. Why we’ve chosen these particular colors is an interesting question, as is why we choose to put traffic lights where we do. But the fact that red means stop and green means go just is. It’s something we’ve defined to be true. The workings of money are similar. True, money is more complex than a traffic light — but only in application. In conceptual terms, money is equally simple. It’s a social convention that we’ve defined into existence.

..article continues

It mostly gets complicated because the coventions monetary authorities have defined into existence are designed to obscure that ineluctable fact.

[Steve_American]

@Puffer Fish,
I have provided many links here to Prof. Bill Mitchell's blog.
You can go there and get the more detailed proofs you say you want.
I have posted a lot here in Prfo.
There is plenty of evidence the the Mainstream (MS) theory is wrong. Simply adding the the money supply doesn't dilute the value of the money.
. . . There is the example of Japan. For te last 28 years or so it has had deficits every year and the national debt to GDP ratio is now about 240%. Even worse according to the theory, the Bank of Japan holds about 40% of those bonds. And, yet inflation has been about 0%, interest rates on bonds being sold are also about 0%, and the yen is one of the strongest currencies in the world. The MS predictions of coming collapse have proven wrong for over 2 decades.

Before the covid crisis started there was no demand, so corps. didn't expand production to meet the demand. The Fed. was using QE to give money to the rich and the Gov. was giving tax cuts to the rich who used the money to buy assets because there were few investments that would meet an unmet demand. Stock shares and real estate are assets they bought. They are 2 things where corps. can't easily create more supply, so we see inflation there. It is not called inflation, though. It is called a price bubble.
. . . Now we are seeing the money supply shoot up in all advanced nations because of the covid crisis. But there is no inflation except in stock shares. I'm not aware of the MS reason why there is no inflation in the US when the deficit is about $4T IIRC. It seems like there ought to be inflation but the price level on a graph I just saw is dropping toward the zero % increase per year level.

So, you don't like the simple explanation and don't read the detailed ones.

@ Sue,
The site has had problems the last 20 hours. could not reach it.
Try the links again.
.

[Puffer Fish]

There is plenty of evidence the the Mainstream (MS) theory is wrong.

I don't doubt that the Mainstream theory is wrong, in many ways.

Simply adding to the money supply doesn't dilute the value of the money.

Well, that starts to get complicated. It depends what you mean by the "money supply", and which types of money supply actually cause inflation, and to what extent.

But for simplicity, lets just talk about a hypothetical case where there is only money issued by a Central Bank, and that money is pure fiat currency, not backed by anything (with no reserve assets), but there is taxation.

Why wouldn't expanding the money supply in this case lead to inflation, in proportion to the amount of money that has been circulated?
Can you give me a logical explanation for that?

. . . There is the example of Japan. For the last 28 years or so it has had deficits every year and the national debt to GDP ratio is now about 240%. Even worse according to the theory, the Bank of Japan holds about 40% of those bonds. And, yet inflation has been about 0%, interest rates on bonds being sold are also about 0%, and the yen is one of the strongest currencies in the world.

Well, maybe they would have deflation if it was not for the new money constantly being issued by the Central Bank.
And that might be a good thing.

Besides that, it is well known that the economy of Japan has not been doing too good. (Though I think they are doing a bit better in the last couple of years; though that is still irrelevant because the policies we are talking about stretches back much longer than that)

The MS predictions of coming collapse have proven wrong for over 2 decades.

Okay, granted. But we do not know if things would have been different if it was not for those policies, or if things might have been better.

Before the covid crisis started there was no demand, so corps. didn't expand production to meet the demand.

Okay, but that still does not explain how printing money would be any better to effect that type of policy than simple old-fashioned taxation and government spending would. It seems to me they would both result in very similar sort of effects, in this way.

. . . Now we are seeing the money supply shoot up in all advanced nations because of the covid crisis. But there is no inflation except in stock shares.

I think the effect of rising unemployment and falling rents, because business revenues are down, is counteracting inflation.

That may be why the inflationary effects of more money are often not seen during recessions, though they certainly end up having an effect.

If you did not have that additional money, you would have deflation, and then things would go back to normal after. Whereas with the additional money, you don't see much change in the inflation rate at first, and then after the recession you start seeing inflation, that compensates for the monetary deflation that didn't happen.

That is what I believe.

[BeesKnee5]

. Whereas with the additional money, you don't see much change in the inflation rate at first, and then after the recession you start seeing inflation, that compensates for the monetary deflation that didn't happen.

That is what I believe.

Which is why Keynesian economics advocates government spending in downturns and taxing in the upturn. However most government's get greedy and allow their economy to overheat rather than shrink the public sector when the private sector is performing well. This is my view that the economy is a balance between private, public and external trade, when one shrinks then the others need to step up to prevent a recession, when one expands then the others need to shrink to maintain steady growth.

My view of MMT isn't that government's print money and therefore increase the amount in circulation. It's that they spend money on capital investment and use tax to keep a lid on the amount of money in circulation. Truth is government's do this all the time for military spending and large infrastructure projects, weekdays different is to use government funds to buy and fund assets.

[Puffer Fish]

My view of MMT isn't that government's print money and therefore increase the amount in circulation. It's that they spend money on capital investment and use tax to keep a lid on the amount of money in circulation. Truth is government's do this all the time for military spending and large infrastructure projects, weekdays different is to use government funds to buy and fund assets.

I am not really sure that is MMT.
Isn't that Keynesianism, or just advocating for higher amounts of government involvement in economic spending?

MMT, as a theory by itself, seems a little vaguely defined when you actually try to parse out the details of exactly what it is.
Or at least that's what it seems to me. It's hard to call it a specific logically systematic theory.

[BeesKnee5]

I am not really sure that is MMT.
Isn't that Keynesianism, or just advocating for higher amounts of government involvement in economic spending?

MMT, as a theory by itself, seems a little vaguely defined when you actually try to parse out the details of exactly what it is.
Or at least that's what it seems to me. It's hard to call it a specific logically systematic theory.

I disagree, . Keynesian spending is paid for through taxation and bonds, MMT spending is direct from the currency through the creation of money. The Keynesian view of taxation is that it pays for things, including debt accrued through bonds, taxes in the good times pay down debt from the bad.

MMT is the argument that the main reason countries issue currency so that you can pay taxes. It doesn't ignore inflation but argues that inflation is a result of how much money is circulating and therefore investment by the state on things like education and healthcare is possible without causing inflation. Effectively a government should not be concerned about how much debt it accrues with is central bank, but focus on how it spends money and uses taxation to control the flow of money.

That's my take anyway.

[Steve_American]

... snip ...
I don't doubt that the Mainstream theory is wrong, in many ways.

... snip ...
Well, that [= adding to the money supply] starts to get complicated. It depends what you mean by the "money supply", and which types of money supply actually cause inflation, and to what extent.

But for simplicity, lets just talk about a hypothetical case where there is only money issued by a Central Bank, and that money is pure fiat currency, not backed by anything (with no reserve assets), but there is taxation.

Why wouldn't expanding the money supply in this case lead to inflation, in proportion to the amount of money that has been circulated?
Can you give me a logical explanation for that?

OK, but I'll just note that banks create money that adds to the money supply with every loan.
. . . I think that for money supply increases to cause inflation you need to also assume that no comp. expands its production to increase its profits by meeting a demand for more stuff. If more stuff is offered for sale then that stuff can suck up the extra money. [MMT would even let the Gov. make the investments to expand production if corps. refuse to.]
. . . MMT specifically, says that the Gov. (in the US, the Congressional Budget Office) will learn how to look at what real resources (incl. idle labor) will be necessary to let the Gov. spend "this" money without competing with those other users of the resources.
. . . Also, MMT talks a lot about incomes. All Gov. spending adds to someone's income. Taxation reduces what they can spend, so it functionally reduces their income. So, MMT seems to say that it is not "the money supply", it is incomes that can cause inflation.

Puffer Fish wrote: Well, maybe they would have deflation if it was not for the new money constantly being issued by the Central Bank.
And that might be a good thing.

Besides that, it is well known that the economy of Japan has not been doing too good. (Though I think they are doing a bit better in the last couple of years; though that is still irrelevant because the policies we are talking about stretches back much longer than that)

MMTers say that the reason Japan has not done so well is that it doesn't deficit spend enough to offset or replace the savings of its people.
. . . Most MS economists already know that deflation is a very bad thing. Think about a small landlord who owns 10 houses that she rents out. She has mortgages on many of them, incl. the one she lives in. With deflation rents fall, but her mortgage payments don't fall. Why is it good for the economy for her to lose most of her houses?

Puffer Fish wroote: Okay, granted [=that Japan has not collapsed in 28 years of deficit spending]. But we do not know if things would have been different if it was not for those policies, or if things might have been better.

MMT says that if the policies had been different then for sure the results would have been different. MMT says that things would have been worse if the Japanese Gov. had not deficit spent like that. Wondering if things could have been better IF ..., is not a convincing argument.

Puffer Fish wrote: Okay, but that still does not explain how printing money would be any better to effect that type of policy than simple old-fashioned taxation and government spending would. It seems to me they would both result in very similar sort of effects, in this way.

MMT proves that if the Gov. balances its books, then the only way that total non-gov income can increase is for some to borrow from a bank and spend that money. This adds to the money supply. It adds to someone's income which is added to the gross GDP, so GDP can rise. However, it also adds to private debt. Private debt has caused 150 recessions and depressions in some nation over the last 150 years. This is one a year. One study that I heard about said that over those 150 years there had been just 6 cases of hyper inflation. [A Cato Inst. study found 57 cases of hyperinflation over the last 150 years, all after WWI. Maybe they used different definitions or something.] Among those 150 we have the GFC/2008 and the dot com recession of 2001.
. . . MMT also says that when people save this reduces someone's income. If the Gov. is not deficit spending and there are no bank loans then the GDP will fall as a direct result. MMT doesn't want the only way to avoid a falling GDP to be either to ban any savings or to increase bank lending. But bank lending is not sustainable unless the borrowers have a growing income to keep making larger payments as they keep borrowing. This process will always end in a recession.

Puffer Fish wrote: I think the effect of rising unemployment and falling rents, because business revenues are down, is counteracting inflation [during a recession].

That may be why the inflationary effects of more money are often not seen during recessions, though they certainly end up having an effect.

If you did not have that additional money, you would have deflation, and then things would go back to normal after. Whereas with the additional money, you don't see much change in the inflation rate at first, and then after the recession you start seeing inflation, that compensates for the monetary deflation that didn't happen.

That is what I believe.

OK, well, I think that history has shown that one of the main ways to end a recession or depression is to get into a big enough war. This is because in a war nobody worries much about deficit spending.
. . . So, I ask you to think about how to end then Great Depression without Gov. deficit spending. The situation is as follows: all corps. have warehouses full of stuff that they made but could not sell, all corps. have laid off many or most of their workers, as a result the ex-workers are not buying the stuff in the warehouses, until that stuff is sold the corps. will not hire workers to make more stuff, the workers with jobs delay all spending as long as possible, banks will not lend to many people because they can't pay it back, there has been some deflation (which means prices & rents & wages are down), which makes all old loan payments harder to pay, and so on. How, does this end?
. . . You said that some deflation might be a good thing to have (every decade or so?) because this *might* be a good thing. So, I ask you to show just how deflation can be a good thing. Saying if might be good, isn't convincing.
__________________________ ______________________________- _________

On another note, why are you so afraid of *inflation*? And are not afraid of deflation?
All central banks are not afraid of inflation of 2%/yr. This is their target rate, not 0%.
You really ought to learn to specify what you mean more clearly when you say "inflation". Is it 10% you fear or what? Or do you really mean 'hyperinflation'?
.

[Steve_American]

@ Puffer Fish,
As I keep saying, I'm not an expert.
If MMTers are right a dollars saved can't contribute to high inflation, and
All so called deficit spending is matched by a bond sale, and
This bond sale is a kind of saving; then
Why is everyone thinking that the current $25T of national debt and $4T of this year's so called deficit are going to be a problem someday?
All of this money is just sitting in savings.
It is just money that has found a nice safe place to sit.
Some of it leaks out and gets spent every year, but why would it all or most all come out at once?
Why would the current bond holders this this would be a good idea all at once?
_______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________

Also, the US doesn't borrow from China. Let me explain.
china sells stuff it made to Americans and accepts dollars in payment.
This dollars never leave the US. They are in a bank account at an American bank.
Americans got real stuff to use, and China got what some fools call "worthless paper money".
Now that China has these dollars in a bank account it has a few choices. It can ---
. . a] Leave it in a checking acc.
. . b] It can move it to a CD or savings acc.
. . c] It can buy euros or some other currency with it.
. . d] It can buy something in Europe or elsewhere with it. As an investment or something.
. . e] It can buy something in America with it. As an investment or to damage America.
. . f] It can buy a US bond with it.

China choosing to buy a bond (or not) is not a problem for Americans.
The problem (if it is one) comes from China having all those dollars.
They have them because American politicians decided to let so much American industry move to China. They didn't care what this did to the US Balance of Payments. And this led directly to China have $3T or $4T.

[Puffer Fish]

MMT is the argument that the main reason countries issue currency so that you can pay taxes.

I can agree with that.

It doesn't ignore inflation but argues that inflation is a result of how much money is circulating and therefore investment by the state on things like education and healthcare is possible without causing inflation.

I do not agree with that.

Surely things like debt and savings also play a part in inflation, not just the money that's actually circulating.

Effectively a government should not be concerned about how much debt it accrues with is central bank, but focus on how it spends money and uses taxation to control the flow of money.

Um, that doesn't really make logical sense.
It sounds like you're saying government should issue new money, and then use taxation to make sure it does not cause inflation. But if that was the case, why not just use the money you have collected from taxation, rather than issuing new money?

[Puffer Fish]

Also, a lot of the arguments I'm hearing from MMT seem to be saying that MMT policies will not cause an observable inflation effect, but that is NOT the same thing as saying they do not have an inflationary pressure.

The difference is, they will cause an inflationary effect, but that inflationary effect will be concealed behind a deflationary effect caused by other things. If that makes sense.

So if you didn't have these MMT effects, you might have observable deflation. Which might not be such a bad thing.

(Although that is another complicated argument we could have in a different topic)

[Puffer Fish]

Why is everyone thinking that the current $25T of national debt and $4T of this year's so called deficit are going to be a problem someday?
All of this money is just sitting in savings.

Because all of those savings will be wiped out if the government can't find a way to repay.

And it also creates a (potentially) very precarious situation. Are you familiar with a debt spiral and how that works?
If people, for some reason, start wanting to pull their money out, interest rates start shooting up, making it even harder to repay. It becomes like a run on the bank.

Inflation can't really solve that problem either, because everyone takes this into account. The demanded interest rates will go up in accordance with the expected inflation rate.


Sorry, perhaps I do not really know what you were saying, and if that is the case, perhaps everything I have written here is going off on some irrelevant tangent.

[Puffer Fish]

. . . Most MS economists already know that deflation is a very bad thing.

Well, what if they're wrong? What if a little deflation is no worse than a little inflation?

I know this would be a very complicated issue to get into, and we're most likely not going to get into that debate in this discussion, but let me just say that if that is not true, it could blow a big hole into your whole theory, possibly. So you want to be sure you have patched up all the holes that could leak, so to speak.

I totally disagree with the idea that deflation will result in reduction in spending in the economy. If money is increasing in value, that's all the more incentive for sellers to want to get their hands on more money, and so they will lower their prices, which will equally compensate for the reluctance of consumers to spend.

Furthermore, if everyone is expecting a little deflation in the future, interest rates will be lower, making it easier for borrowers.
So while inflation may help borrowers in the present, it will hurt them in the long-term. (And think about borrowers who will have to rollover their debt, taking out another loan to repay their previous one)

That's a very short explanation, as short and concise as I can get into now.

[Puffer Fish]

OK, but I'll just note that banks create money that adds to the money supply with every loan.

Okay. Well I'll just point out that I don't believe the "money supply" is actually the factor that causes inflation, or to be more specific, I mean the money in bank accounts does not cause inflation.
Why would this be? Because the money in bank accounts is exactly balanced out by someone else's loan that they owe. It stands to reason that savings in one person's account should exactly cancel out the money that someone else owes, when it comes to the inflationary effect.

Now, I believe there can indeed be an inflationary effect during a huge economic crisis, when many of the loans that were made are never going to be repaid. (And that may be exactly what happened during the lead up to the 2007 Housing Crisis) However, that is mostly a different story.

I totally reject the Velocity theory of inflation. As far as I see, it is not based on a logical foundational premise.
(I mean mathematically, ironically. Though nothing to do with the complex mathematical equations it uses)

[Steve_American]

Because all of those savings will be wiped out if the government can't find a way to repay.

And it also creates a (potentially) very precarious situation. Are you familiar with a debt spiral and how that works?
If people, for some reason, start wanting to pull their money out, interest rates start shooting up, making it even harder to repay. It becomes like a run on the bank.

Inflation can't really solve that problem either, because everyone takes this into account. The demanded interest rates will go up in accordance with the expected inflation rate.


Sorry, perhaps I do not really know what you were saying, and if that is the case, perhaps everything I have written here is going off on some irrelevant tangent.

I think that this post illustrates your problem groking MMT.
The US can always pay every bill it owes on time, every time.
This is because the US can (if it changes the law) just spend the money into circulation. It creates the money (along with banks which the Gov. sort of licenses to create money).
The US can now get the Fed. to buy bonds from it too. At least from the 2nd-dary market.
Or it can sell more bonds.

The US can and should refuse to sell bonds at a higher interest rate because selling bonds is voluntary for the US.
The US is NOT like nations that use the euro, period. Full stop.
__________________________________ ______________________________

As for deflation being NOT so bad, I'm no expert. Argue with the central bankers who have set their target inflation rate at 2%. They seem to think it is terrible.

I always wonder at people who argue that something might happen or might be a good thing. Often, they ignore the bad things that are going on now. Like 40M unemployed. Like working at the min. wage isn't enough to eat and rent a 1 bedroom apt. in many cities. Like full time workers at Wal-Mart who can be eligible for welfare of some kind.
__________________________________________ ________________________

BTW --- why are you so afraid o inflation. I lived through the 70s as a worker and it wasn't that bad. It was better than the flat or negative real wage growth we have had for the last 30 years now.
.

[Steve_American]

BeesKnee5 wrote:
Effectively a government should not be concerned about how much debt it accrues with is central bank, but focus on how it spends money and uses taxation to control the flow of money.

Um, that doesn't really make logical sense.
It sounds like you're saying government should issue new money, and then use taxation to make sure it does not cause inflation. But if that was the case, why not just use the money you have collected from taxation, rather than issuing new money?

Puffer Fish.
There are several reasons --
1] As the population and GDP grows the society needs more money. Taxing and spending the same amount doesn't grow the money supply. Bank borrowing stops at some point when the borrowers can't make their payments. At this point only deficit spending can add to the money supply.
2] The Gov. can just spend to do good things for the people. Like provide healthcare and education. If this is causing a problem (like inflation) for the rich (and therefore powerful), then the rich have to live with inflation or let there be higher taxes.
3] MMT wants the Gov. to ignore the financial constraint and ONLY look at the constraints caused by the real resources available to the nation. A shortage in resources can cause inflation; if the nation doesn't want inflation it can tax more. Education and healthcare mostly cost the money for the labor, not so much for more stuff. This is why BeesKnee5 mentions them IMO.
4] People are told they should save. The ONLY way *everyone* can save is for the Gov. to add to the money supply with deficit spending. Bank borrowing can't do it because the borrowers are not saving, they are increasing their debt.
. . . Therefore, it is necessary for the Gov. to provide the money for all the people to save.** In your ideal nation, for someone to save, someone else must borrow or see their net worth decline in a different way. It is a zero sum game, period, full stop.
5] When the nation's foreign trade has a trade balance in deficit, this means money is flowing out of the nation and not being returned. It must be being saved overseas. This is exactly the same as an American saving. The money must be replaced by Gov. deficit spending. If it isn't, then someone in America is seeing a falling net worth and or income. This will *certainly* damage the GDP. Damage the GDP enough and we get a recession or depression.

But, you are more afraid of a little inflation than you are of deflation. BTW, deflation has a tendency to deepen as more and more people stop spending more and more. Inflation OTOH only grows if the Gov. keeps pushing it. It is pretty easy to stop. Where in history it wasn't stopped is because the Gov. chose not to stop it.
. . . The main problem situation is like in Zimbabwe where the crop failed. In this case the way to avoid printing money is for the Gov. to ration ALL food. One or the other, that is the choice. While also, seeing to it that the next crop doesn't fail.


** . This is BTW the problem Japan has had for 28 years. The Japanese people love to save. The massive deficit spending by the Japanese Gov. wasn't enough to satisfy the people's desire to save. So, the people didn't spend the money which would have added to the GDP. They saved it.
. . . Maybe there was no way to deficit spend enough for that. Maybe the Gov. could stop spending and instead buy stuff and give the people the stuff. The people can't just save the stuff and they can't sell it because everyone got the same stuff.
. . . Or, maybe pass a law that retired people can't save. They must spend (or give away) all their income. The penalty is you lose all your new savings.

[Puffer Fish]

Puffer Fish.
There are several reasons --
1] As the population and GDP grows the society needs more money. Taxing and spending the same amount doesn't grow the money supply.

I understand this. If you have population growth but you don't have an increase in the money supply, you are likely to see general price levels go down, which could be described as observable deflation. (The prices for land and housing likely would not go down though, since increased population puts more pressure on the limited available resources)

But I am just saying that a little bit of deflation might not be a bad thing. I'm not saying not to increase the money supply in response to population increases, I am just saying maybe let there be at least a little deflation.

If we are talking about deflation happening in response to GDP growth, that is a good thing. If increasing productivity can make things cheaper, why do we need inflation to maintain the same price levels? Yes, you could get away with increasing the money supply without the prices going up, but why would you want to do that? Better to let prices go down and make things easier on the consumer.

Population growth also isn't something that's sustainable. Countries in developed countries actually have slightly negative birth replacement rates. The population growth is being fueled entirely by immigration from other parts of the world.
Ironically it's this population growth which is contributing to keeping birth rates low, since middle class people don't feel they can afford having children.

[Puffer Fish]

BTW, deflation has a tendency to deepen as more and more people stop spending more and more.

I thought I already explained how that is a false economic theory.

Deflation won't ultimately reduce economic exchange. Prices go down a little, yes, but the amount of economic exchange pretty much continues as it did before.

Increasing the demand for money not only makes consumers more reluctant to spend, but also makes sellers more eager to earn, so they drop their prices (making consumers more eager to buy). The two cancel each other out with near equal effect.

[Puffer Fish]

3] MMT wants the Gov. to ignore the financial constraint and ONLY look at the constraints caused by the real resources available to the nation.

Okay, but that sounds like a little bit of a red herring, since that has nothing necessarily intrinsic to do with changing the money supply.
You should be able to accomplish those same ends with simple taxation and redirection of government spending.