What MMT Gets Wrong, and Monetary Sovereignty Gets Right

Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT, is just starting to break into the edges of the mainstream now.  Progressives from the new rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the venerable Bernie Sanders are now (correctly) starting to endorse, whether subtly or not-so-subtly, the core tenet of MMT, namely, that federal deficits don't really matter since the federal government can just print the money.  While few are bold enough to say out loud the corollary that federal taxes do not actually pay for federal spending (and that the "national debt" is literally nothing more than deposits in Treasury security accounts), it is nonetheless implied since it follows logically from the premise that the federal government has infinite money.  And Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's related offshoot theory, Monetary Sovereignty (MS), also contains these same truths as well.

But MMT is also seriously flawed in a way that MS is not, and that is how they deal with the inflation question.  MMT prefers to keep interest rates permanently at zero or close to zero, regardless of how much inflation there is, preferring instead to adjust tax rates in response to inflation.  MS, on the other hand, prefers to use interest rates as a way to prevent and cure inflation, as taxes are too crude, too political, and not quick enough to use for inflation control as it happens.  (Note that even modest federal taxes can still work for automatic inflation control in the background without changing the tax rates, as the tax take automatically increases with the velocity of money.)  MMT, in other words, paints itself into a corner, while MS retains the flexibility to deal with inflation as it happens.  Of course, raising interest rates only works to fight demand-pull inflation as opposed to cost-push inflation, but the former is much more sailent than the latter in regards to the (generally overblown) fear of "what if we print too much money?"  The FERAL Reserve can also drain excess bank reserves (i.e. where all excess liquidity eventually shows up sooner or later) and "sterilize" them, as yet another means of inflation control.

In other words, following MMT to the letter will ultimately take us back to where we started at square one in the same box, while MS represents a genuine way out of the box without the pitfalls of MMT.

Thus, while it is probably good to keep interest rates low or even zero as a rule, the flexibility to raise them as needed still needs to remain on the table.  And some sort of federal taxation would need to remain even if not for revenue-raising purposes.  Aside from a crude but automatic background method of inflation prevention, taxes can also give We the People leverage over the oligarchs by providing a handy "carrot and stick" means of controlling the economy to one degree or another.  So let's not box ourselves in with too pure a version of MMT, or throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

Otherwise we will find ourselves, to quote Paul Krugman, "Running on MMT".