Sure, I can see that. Modern Monetary Theory by definition is weird. (One could even say Keynesian economics is weird.) But there’s a probability, and I think a likelihood, that MMT is a more correct economic model than is currently used. And if that turns out to be the case (maybe we’ll find out when we’re in our 80s), then possibly billions of people will have had a lower standard of living because of unnecessary government austerity.

That said, my real point is that it’s entirely ridiculous to write an article saying “debt is bad" during literally the greatest economic downturn in 100 years. Even if excess spending cripples future growth (through inflation, let’s say), that effect will be delayed compared to cutting spending in the face of an economic depression.

My belief, which I would assume you disagree with, is that the American economy would be stronger today if the “Great Recession" stimulus had been $2-$5 trillion instead of the ~$700 billion bailout. I should mention that the bank bailout may have cost closer to $27 trillion dollars (according to Google), and there was also the $150billion direct to consumer stimulus in 2008. But I think spending several trillion on infrastructure and the social safety net would have been much better than “keeping it small because our debt is getting out of control.” After all, isn’t government spending on projects that improve health and productivity something that increases GDP in the long run? (My brief review of the research says maybe, since infrastructure sits unused in the face of a future recession, thereby eliminating its effects on GDP).

In fairness, when people outside polls tell me someone is going to raise my taxes, I say good, they should. 🤷