<p>MMT is propounding to be a theory. A theory can't be sustainable or unsustainable.  However, I think you meant to ask if the policy proposals of MMT-ers would be sustainable so I will answer assuming that is your question.</p>
<p>Now MMT is not a proper scientific economic theory* as it is not rigorously defined (<a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20201102" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mankiw 2020</a>), so it is not actually clear what MMT policy implications are but many MMTers generally claim that central bank should monetarily finance government spending, and that generally any amount of real spending can be funded by monetary expansion. Moreover they generally claim that countries that borrow in their own currency should not worry about government deficits because they can always create money to finance their debt.</p>
<p>These claims of MMT are rejected by virtually all professional economists. For example, recently IGM forum made poll among top US policy economists to gauge how many economists believe in the above mentioned propositions of MMT,  and the results shows that none of the top economists polled (all economists in the poll are a representative sample of Ivy league economists) did agree with any of the stated MMT propositions (see <a href="https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/modern-monetary-theory/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>). But then even MMT proponents generally do not agree on what MMT is. I seen people claiming it is a monetary theory and others claiming it is whole new economic paradigm. Moreover, the MMT is generally criticized for its policy prescriptions and even generally as a theory itself in the academic literature (e.g. see <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20201102" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mankiw 2020</a> or <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09538259.2014.957466?casa_token=01QJkCJvAzkAAAAA%3A90GWhDykSbGT3biQ5HhnWwiSiNPlcWlkHayEkDnIThb7soiwu_QrqrFVE2sVPBDRBx3QsTgW3xYnyw" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Palley 2014)</a>).
Furthermore, you should note that I do not know of any central banker at Fed or elsewhere that would be supporter/adherent to MMT (I suppose some might exist but nobody who is publicly known).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Additionally, will the low-rate environment remain permanent?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a good question without a good answer. It might be. Summers (see <a href="http://y%20Coen%20Teulings%20and%20Richard%20Baldwin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Summers 2014</a> in  Teulings and
Baldwin  (2014) or <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20151103" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Summers 2015)</a> argues that we will live in low rate environment due to secular stagnation and overabundance of savings (indeed Fed is forced to keep interest rates low due to enormous supply of savings). The secular stagnation hypothesis has its proponents but it is far from being completely accepted by profession.  To an extent we really live in secular stagnation and there is permanent over-supply of saving due to aging populations, slow technological growth and so on it might be permanent. However, it might as well be just transitory phenomenon caused by the sheer magnitude of Great Recession (indeed before pandemic hit Fed and other central banks were already planning to hike the interest rates but then pandemic hit - <a href="https://www.inman.com/2018/12/19/fed-raises-interest-rate-for-the-fourth-time-in-2018/#:%7E:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve%20raised%20interest,2.25%20percent%20to%202.5%20percent." rel="nofollow noreferrer">see this Dec. 2018 news article</a>).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I can't imagine the Fed, for example, raising rates substantially as 1. It would tank most assets and 2. It would make the already incredibly unwieldy sovereign debt that much harder to manage. It would seem we are locked into an endless money printing path that essentially can't be stopped without immense pain. Am I right in this understanding?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fed can do it in small steps in order to avoid popping potential bubbles. In fact that was the plan before covid-19 hit, to slowly rise interest rates instead of dramatically hiking them. See this NY times article on what Fed officials were claiming they planned to do, from before covid hit,   <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/business/fed-interest-rates-trump.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p><sub> * from the mainstream perspective on demarcation of science where theories have to be rigorously defined and testable to be considered scientific, of course there might be some alternative interpretations of what science is see discussions in Reiss Philosophy of Economics </sub></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T19:28:39.193Z
I wouldn't say that MMT theorists claim that *any amount* of spending can be funded, but rather, they claim that the amount of spending which can be funded is higher than the amount which politicians are currently willing to fund.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T19:29:24.407Z
Also, I claim that they claim that government deficit *is the wrong thing to analyze*. In other words: if you are creating the correct amount of money via government spending, and deleting the correct amount via taxation, but this produces a stupid-looking deficit figure, you should not change the creation or deletion figures just to make the deficit figure match what you think it should be, because *those* are the important figures and the deficit is not.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T19:33:30.410Z
It *doesn't* mean you get a pass to do any amount of creation-via-spending or deletion-via-taxation that you want.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T19:34:21.377Z
By contrast, traditional economists would say that if the government is running a high deficit, you must reduce spending or increase taxation to keep the deficit down.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-04T19:34:40.093Z
@user253751 those claims are reported in the sources I cited as stated in the answer, there is no unified MMT so maybe somewhere else you heard different claims but these ones are reported and referenced above
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T10:39:55.513Z
You argue that “MMT is not rigorously defined”. Based on what reading of MMT sources? You cite a survey of non-MMTers. Surveys are how science is conducted?
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T11:18:56.947Z
@BrianRomanchuk The proposition that MMT is not rigorously defined  is based on study that is published in one of the top peer reviewed publications in economic profession. Also surveys are relevant indicator of consensus, I use the survey to support claim that the MMT arguments are generally rejected by profession. And yes survey is how you quantify consensus. What do you mean “based on what MMT sources”... that’s like saying you argue vaccines are healthy and people should get vaccinated, based on what antivaxx sources? What sort of argument is that? I use best established science
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T11:39:16.073Z
How many citations from MMT journal articles  did have that paper have? Is everything in a journal necessarily true?
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T11:41:20.090Z
@BrianRomanchuk what do you mean MMT journals - I am not sure if you are aware but peer reviewed journals are not separated by theories there is no “philips curve journal” or no “comparative advantage journal” or no “solow-swan journal” that study cites a lot of highly prestigious monetary journals
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T11:45:07.200Z
@1muflon1 It was shorthand for “journal articles by an academic that is known to be a MMT proponent”. So, how many?
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T11:47:11.907Z
@BrianRomanchuk I don’t know I am not going to calculate that it cited the known MMTers like William Mitchell...
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T11:48:58.770Z
@1muflon1 This is the Mankiw article, right? The pre-print cited zero journal articles by MMT proponents. It did feature out of context quotes from an *undergraduate textbook*.
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T11:55:12.227Z
@BrianRomanchuk and the textbook is not based on MMT articles or fair overview of MMT literature?
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T11:57:28.977Z
@BrianRomanchuk in addition the lack rigorous definitions is also noted by Palley which cites all the common names associated with MMT
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:19:32.413Z
The Palley article was rebutted, in articles you ignore. In any event, Palley is heterodox, which would not meet neoclassical standards. And since heterodox econs argue that neoclassical theory is incoherent, by that standard, neoclassical theory is wrong.
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:21:24.697Z
@BrianRomanchuk what do you mean neoclassical standards? There is no such thing as neoclassical standards. Also, what articles that I ignored? I did not ignore any articles these are relevant articles
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:24:42.690Z
Whatever you think is “scientific.” Also, as I noted in an edit, heterodox authors argue in many journal articles that neoclassical theory is incoherent. By the “Palley wrote it, so it must be true,” standard, neoclassical theory is also incorrect.
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:29:59.610Z
@BrianRomanchuk 1.  what is meant by scientific is the common mainstream Popperian (and other follow up developments on Popper) tradition that currently dominates most sciences. 2. I never stated “Palley wrote it, so it must be true,” and sorry but such straw man is beneath you, in any scientific artcile people refer to other articles that is not same as saying "x wrote it, so it must be true,” I am refering to arguments made in a paper, if the same paper would be authored by "Mr X" I would cite it as well.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:31:16.387Z
You seriously did not learned at university the point of referencing and acknowledging past work on a subject? So when for example medical report debunking anti-vaxxer claim  that vaccines cause autism by referring to study of effect of vaccine on autism and the study is written by 'XYZ' is that according to you equivalent of saying 'XYZ' said so it must be true? Are you even listing to yourself?
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:33:14.317Z
Your argument is equivalent to “palley wrote it, it must be true” unless you take into account the rebuttals. His article included misrepresentations that were objected to by MMT proponents. I have a doctorate in the applied sciences. We never had these sorts of theoretical squabbling, bur even I know that you need to read the source literature you are critiquing, not the representations of those who disagree.
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:36:43.383Z
@BrianRomanchuk  I am not critiquing anything. I literally state "Moreover, the MMT is generally criticized for its policy prescriptions and even generally as a theory itself in the academic literature" - like are you serious right now are you so blind by rage that you did not even read what I have written. I made a claim that professional economists generally criticize MMT - for such claim one has to supply literature of professional economists criticizing MMT
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:38:15.147Z
@BrianRomanchuk if you wont actually criticize what I have written but just make a straw man of what I have written constantly there is no point in discussing this any further. Comments are supposed to be for constructive criticism see the help center
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:42:14.523Z
You wrote “ Now MMT is not a proper scientific economic theory as it is not rigorously defined” in your answer. That is what I object to. i am registering a public objection in the comments. I wrote a book on MMT, and at this point, not worried about debating in the comments.
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T13:49:51.720Z
@BrianRomanchuk yes because under commonly understood demarcation of science theories have to be rigorous and testable to be considered proper scientific theories - I added a footnote clarifying that I am referring to common mainstream understanding of demarcation of science
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T15:08:51.943Z
You stated as a fact that it is not rigorously defined, and cited a review of an undergraduate textbook. As an academic reviewer, I would have demanded a restatement of such sloppy logic. I would not engage in a debate about other issues. That’s my stance here.
Brian Romanchuk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-03T19:09:04.130Z
I don't wish to pour oil on the flames here, but I see 1muflon1's description of how "standard" economists  (- please don't flame me here but I think you know what I mean) see MMT as correct. Whether they are correct in this opinion would seem to me is a whole other debate. 
I've also noticed that most of the MMTer seem to be pretty unified in their outlook, and since there's only one policy - the job guarantee - there's not too much to argue about.
Studi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-03T19:15:01.693Z
@Food those are policy conclusions not theories. You can hold any policy conclusion you want. Many non-MMTers want job guarante as well. Policies are normative - that means value depended. Scientific theories are positive that is for example theory of supply does not have any values baked in it it’s just value free theory. MMTers are for sure united in some of their policy proposals that can’t be denied but they do not have unified theory of what MMT is. They are united in their policy proposals because with any theory having similar values you can arrive at similar policy prescriptions
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-04T11:05:22.317Z
@1muflon1 - couldn't agree more. In all honesty I'm a little confused why MMT has theory in the name. I speak as an MMT sympathiser, so don't burn me too hard Brian Romanchuk (insert emoji here)
Studi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-09T17:51:55.690Z
if you actually read the post you will find the source
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-03T18:00:50.690Z
2021-05-06T13:47:18.807Z
2021-05-06T13:47:18.807Z
1muflon1
<p>First of all, the headline of this post &quot;Is modern monetary theory sustainable?&quot; is really misleading and shows how common it is to misunderstand what MMT is hence it's important to describe here what MMT is.  Therefore i have edited the post to remove references to MMT.</p>
<p>&quot;they all seem to be simply printing their way out of any issues with their economies.  Is this sustainable without collapsing currency? I can't understand how massive supply increase doesn't led to reduction of purchasing power of a currency.&quot;</p>
<p>Some of the insights of MMT show that the act of printing money has no affect.  What matters is what the money is spent on.  If you just print money and leave it in bank accounts, it will have no affect.<br />
If the government is just buying its own government bonds, as happened in QE, then clearly thats not going to have any direct impact on the Real economy.  Both Money and Treasuries are IOUs of the government so its just exchanging one iou for another.</p>
<p>Some key MMT references:
Books / Papers from the Levy Institute of Randall Wray , Stephanie Kelton, Scott Fullwiler
Papers and blog writings and books of Bill Mitchell
Writings of warren mosler</p>
<p>Books</p>
<p><a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0230368891" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Money-Theory-Macroeconomics-Sovereign/dp/0230368891</a></p>
<p><a href="http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B07RM72BT7" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.amazon.com/Deficit-Myth-Monetary-Peoples-Economy-ebook/dp/B07RM72BT7</a></p>
<p><a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1137610662" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-William-Mitchell/dp/1137610662</a></p>
<p>Blogs</p>
<p><a href="http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://neweconomicperspectives.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://neweconomicperspectives.org/</a></p>
<p>Papers
<a href="http://www.levyinstitute.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.levyinstitute.org/</a>
(thankfully with no paywall, very economical!  whats the use of papers that only the ivory towers people have access to :) )</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-06T14:28:25.873Z
2021-05-06T14:28:25.873Z
Randor
<p>I am looking around at a lot of the central banks around the world (primarily ECB, Fed, and BOJ) and they all seem to be simply printing their way out of any issues with their economies. As far as I understand, this is the central component to MMT. Is this sustainable without collapsing currency? I can't understand how massive supply increase doesn't led to reduction of purchasing power of a currency.</p>
<p>Additionally, will the low-rate environment remain permanent? I can't imagine the Fed, for example, raising rates substantially as 1. It would tank most assets and 2. It would make the already incredibly unwieldy sovereign debt that much harder to manage. It would seem we are locked into an endless money printing path that essentially can't be stopped without immense pain. Am I right in this understanding?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-03T17:41:40.087Z
MMT is not something you can *do*. MMT is a theory that describes the way the world *already is* and *always has been* and *always will be* (unless we get to post-scarcity). It's like asking: is Newtonian gravity sustainable?
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-03T17:43:16.253Z
"I am looking at the planets and they seem to be orbiting around the sun. As far as I understand, this is the central component to Kepler's theory. Is this sustainable without collapsing into the sun?" I am trying to illustrate that *the map is not the territory* i.e. *the theory is not the reality* and reality is *the same* no matter which theory you use to explain it.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-03T17:47:38.843Z
But you do have an interesting question about whether the world is going to be stuck in the low-interest money-printing path. That just isn't called "MMT".
Criticize SE actions means ban
<inflation><monetary-policy><currency><central-banking><united-states>
Is modern monetary theory sustainable?
Runeaway3
# Is modern monetary theory sustainable?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-03)

I am looking around at a lot of the central banks around the world (primarily ECB, Fed, and BOJ) and they all seem to be simply printing their way out of any issues with their economies. As far as I understand, this is the central component to MMT. Is this sustainable without collapsing currency? I can't understand how massive supply increase doesn't led to reduction of purchasing power of a currency.

Additionally, will the low-rate environment remain permanent? I can't imagine the Fed, for example, raising rates substantially as 1. It would tank most assets and 2. It would make the already incredibly unwieldy sovereign debt that much harder to manage. It would seem we are locked into an endless money printing path that essentially can't be stopped without immense pain. Am I right in this understanding?

**Tags:** inflation, monetary-policy, currency, central-banking, united-states

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: MMT is not something you can *do*. MMT is a theory that describes the way the world *already is* and *always has been* and *always will be* (unless we get to post-scarcity). It's like asking: is Newtonian gravity sustainable?  
> **username_1**: "I am looking at the planets and they seem to be orbiting around the sun. As far as I understand, this is the central component to Kepler's theory. Is this sustainable without collapsing into the sun?" I am trying to illustrate that *the map is not the territory* i.e. *the theory is not the reality* and reality is *the same* no matter which theory you use to explain it.  
> **username_1**: But you do have an interesting question about whether the world is going to be stuck in the low-interest money-printing path. That just isn't called "MMT".  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-05-03. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

MMT is propounding to be a theory. A theory can't be sustainable or unsustainable. However, I think you meant to ask if the policy proposals of MMT-ers would be sustainable so I will answer assuming that is your question.

Now MMT is not a proper scientific economic theory\* as it is not rigorously defined ([Mankiw 2020](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20201102)), so it is not actually clear what MMT policy implications are but many MMTers generally claim that central bank should monetarily finance government spending, and that generally any amount of real spending can be funded by monetary expansion. Moreover they generally claim that countries that borrow in their own currency should not worry about government deficits because they can always create money to finance their debt.

These claims of MMT are rejected by virtually all professional economists. For example, recently IGM forum made poll among top US policy economists to gauge how many economists believe in the above mentioned propositions of MMT, and the results shows that none of the top economists polled (all economists in the poll are a representative sample of Ivy league economists) did agree with any of the stated MMT propositions (see [here](https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/modern-monetary-theory/)). But then even MMT proponents generally do not agree on what MMT is. I seen people claiming it is a monetary theory and others claiming it is whole new economic paradigm. Moreover, the MMT is generally criticized for its policy prescriptions and even generally as a theory itself in the academic literature (e.g. see [Mankiw 2020](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20201102) or [Palley 2014)](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09538259.2014.957466?casa_token=01QJkCJvAzkAAAAA%3A90GWhDykSbGT3biQ5HhnWwiSiNPlcWlkHayEkDnIThb7soiwu_QrqrFVE2sVPBDRBx3QsTgW3xYnyw)).
Furthermore, you should note that I do not know of any central banker at Fed or elsewhere that would be supporter/adherent to MMT (I suppose some might exist but nobody who is publicly known).

> Additionally, will the low-rate environment remain permanent?

This is a good question without a good answer. It might be. Summers (see [Summers 2014](http://y%20Coen%20Teulings%20and%20Richard%20Baldwin) in Teulings and
Baldwin (2014) or [Summers 2015)](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20151103) argues that we will live in low rate environment due to secular stagnation and overabundance of savings (indeed Fed is forced to keep interest rates low due to enormous supply of savings). The secular stagnation hypothesis has its proponents but it is far from being completely accepted by profession. To an extent we really live in secular stagnation and there is permanent over-supply of saving due to aging populations, slow technological growth and so on it might be permanent. However, it might as well be just transitory phenomenon caused by the sheer magnitude of Great Recession (indeed before pandemic hit Fed and other central banks were already planning to hike the interest rates but then pandemic hit - [see this Dec. 2018 news article](https://www.inman.com/2018/12/19/fed-raises-interest-rate-for-the-fourth-time-in-2018/#:%7E:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve%20raised%20interest,2.25%20percent%20to%202.5%20percent.)).

> I can't imagine the Fed, for example, raising rates substantially as 1. It would tank most assets and 2. It would make the already incredibly unwieldy sovereign debt that much harder to manage. It would seem we are locked into an endless money printing path that essentially can't be stopped without immense pain. Am I right in this understanding?

Fed can do it in small steps in order to avoid popping potential bubbles. In fact that was the plan before covid-19 hit, to slowly rise interest rates instead of dramatically hiking them. See this NY times article on what Fed officials were claiming they planned to do, from before covid hit, [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/business/fed-interest-rates-trump.html).

---

\* from the mainstream perspective on demarcation of science where theories have to be rigorously defined and testable to be considered scientific, of course there might be some alternative interpretations of what science is see discussions in Reiss Philosophy of Economics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I wouldn't say that MMT theorists claim that *any amount* of spending can be funded, but rather, they claim that the amount of spending which can be funded is higher than the amount which politicians are currently willing to fund.  
> **username_1**: Also, I claim that they claim that government deficit *is the wrong thing to analyze*. In other words: if you are creating the correct amount of money via government spending, and deleting the correct amount via taxation, but this produces a stupid-looking deficit figure, you should not change the creation or deletion figures just to make the deficit figure match what you think it should be, because *those* are the important figures and the deficit is not.  
> **username_1**: It *doesn't* mean you get a pass to do any amount of creation-via-spending or deletion-via-taxation that you want.  
> **username_1**: By contrast, traditional economists would say that if the government is running a high deficit, you must reduce spending or increase taxation to keep the deficit down.  
> **username_2**: @user253751 those claims are reported in the sources I cited as stated in the answer, there is no unified MMT so maybe somewhere else you heard different claims but these ones are reported and referenced above  
> **username_3**: You argue that “MMT is not rigorously defined”. Based on what reading of MMT sources? You cite a survey of non-MMTers. Surveys are how science is conducted?  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk The proposition that MMT is not rigorously defined  is based on study that is published in one of the top peer reviewed publications in economic profession. Also surveys are relevant indicator of consensus, I use the survey to support claim that the MMT arguments are generally rejected by profession. And yes survey is how you quantify consensus. What do you mean “based on what MMT sources”... that’s like saying you argue vaccines are healthy and people should get vaccinated, based on what antivaxx sources? What sort of argument is that? I use best established science  
> **username_3**: How many citations from MMT journal articles  did have that paper have? Is everything in a journal necessarily true?  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk what do you mean MMT journals - I am not sure if you are aware but peer reviewed journals are not separated by theories there is no “philips curve journal” or no “comparative advantage journal” or no “solow-swan journal” that study cites a lot of highly prestigious monetary journals  
> **username_3**: @username_2 It was shorthand for “journal articles by an academic that is known to be a MMT proponent”. So, how many?  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk I don’t know I am not going to calculate that it cited the known MMTers like William Mitchell...  
> **username_3**: @username_2 This is the Mankiw article, right? The pre-print cited zero journal articles by MMT proponents. It did feature out of context quotes from an *undergraduate textbook*.  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk and the textbook is not based on MMT articles or fair overview of MMT literature?  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk in addition the lack rigorous definitions is also noted by Palley which cites all the common names associated with MMT  
> **username_3**: The Palley article was rebutted, in articles you ignore. In any event, Palley is heterodox, which would not meet neoclassical standards. And since heterodox econs argue that neoclassical theory is incoherent, by that standard, neoclassical theory is wrong.  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk what do you mean neoclassical standards? There is no such thing as neoclassical standards. Also, what articles that I ignored? I did not ignore any articles these are relevant articles  
> **username_3**: Whatever you think is “scientific.” Also, as I noted in an edit, heterodox authors argue in many journal articles that neoclassical theory is incoherent. By the “Palley wrote it, so it must be true,” standard, neoclassical theory is also incorrect.  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk 1.  what is meant by scientific is the common mainstream Popperian (and other follow up developments on Popper) tradition that currently dominates most sciences. 2. I never stated “Palley wrote it, so it must be true,” and sorry but such straw man is beneath you, in any scientific artcile people refer to other articles that is not same as saying "x wrote it, so it must be true,” I am refering to arguments made in a paper, if the same paper would be authored by "Mr X" I would cite it as well.  
> **username_2**: You seriously did not learned at university the point of referencing and acknowledging past work on a subject? So when for example medical report debunking anti-vaxxer claim  that vaccines cause autism by referring to study of effect of vaccine on autism and the study is written by 'XYZ' is that according to you equivalent of saying 'XYZ' said so it must be true? Are you even listing to yourself?  
> **username_3**: Your argument is equivalent to “palley wrote it, it must be true” unless you take into account the rebuttals. His article included misrepresentations that were objected to by MMT proponents. I have a doctorate in the applied sciences. We never had these sorts of theoretical squabbling, bur even I know that you need to read the source literature you are critiquing, not the representations of those who disagree.  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk  I am not critiquing anything. I literally state "Moreover, the MMT is generally criticized for its policy prescriptions and even generally as a theory itself in the academic literature" - like are you serious right now are you so blind by rage that you did not even read what I have written. I made a claim that professional economists generally criticize MMT - for such claim one has to supply literature of professional economists criticizing MMT  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk if you wont actually criticize what I have written but just make a straw man of what I have written constantly there is no point in discussing this any further. Comments are supposed to be for constructive criticism see the help center  
> **username_3**: You wrote “ Now MMT is not a proper scientific economic theory as it is not rigorously defined” in your answer. That is what I object to. i am registering a public objection in the comments. I wrote a book on MMT, and at this point, not worried about debating in the comments.  
> **username_2**: @BrianRomanchuk yes because under commonly understood demarcation of science theories have to be rigorous and testable to be considered proper scientific theories - I added a footnote clarifying that I am referring to common mainstream understanding of demarcation of science  
> **username_3**: You stated as a fact that it is not rigorously defined, and cited a review of an undergraduate textbook. As an academic reviewer, I would have demanded a restatement of such sloppy logic. I would not engage in a debate about other issues. That’s my stance here.  
> **username_4**: I don't wish to pour oil on the flames here, but I see username_2's description of how "standard" economists  (- please don't flame me here but I think you know what I mean) see MMT as correct. Whether they are correct in this opinion would seem to me is a whole other debate.  I've also noticed that most of the MMTer seem to be pretty unified in their outlook, and since there's only one policy - the job guarantee - there's not too much to argue about.  
> **username_2**: @Food those are policy conclusions not theories. You can hold any policy conclusion you want. Many non-MMTers want job guarante as well. Policies are normative - that means value depended. Scientific theories are positive that is for example theory of supply does not have any values baked in it it’s just value free theory. MMTers are for sure united in some of their policy proposals that can’t be denied but they do not have unified theory of what MMT is. They are united in their policy proposals because with any theory having similar values you can arrive at similar policy prescriptions  
> **username_4**: @username_2 - couldn't agree more. In all honesty I'm a little confused why MMT has theory in the name. I speak as an MMT sympathiser, so don't burn me too hard username_3 (insert emoji here)  
> **username_2**: if you actually read the post you will find the source  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-05-06. Score: -2

First of all, the headline of this post "Is modern monetary theory sustainable?" is really misleading and shows how common it is to misunderstand what MMT is hence it's important to describe here what MMT is. Therefore i have edited the post to remove references to MMT.

"they all seem to be simply printing their way out of any issues with their economies. Is this sustainable without collapsing currency? I can't understand how massive supply increase doesn't led to reduction of purchasing power of a currency."

Some of the insights of MMT show that the act of printing money has no affect. What matters is what the money is spent on. If you just print money and leave it in bank accounts, it will have no affect.  
If the government is just buying its own government bonds, as happened in QE, then clearly thats not going to have any direct impact on the Real economy. Both Money and Treasuries are IOUs of the government so its just exchanging one iou for another.

Some key MMT references:
Books / Papers from the Levy Institute of Randall Wray , Stephanie Kelton, Scott Fullwiler
Papers and blog writings and books of Bill Mitchell
Writings of warren mosler

Books

[https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Money-Theory-Macroeconomics-Sovereign/dp/0230368891](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0230368891)

<http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf>

[https://www.amazon.com/Deficit-Myth-Monetary-Peoples-Economy-ebook/dp/B07RM72BT7](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/B07RM72BT7)

[https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-William-Mitchell/dp/1137610662](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1137610662)

Blogs

<http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/>

<http://neweconomicperspectives.org/>

Papers
<http://www.levyinstitute.org/>
(thankfully with no paywall, very economical! whats the use of papers that only the ivory towers people have access to :) )


---

