Those who argue MMT per se is inflationary would do well to acquaint themselves with the subject*. The idea and practice isn’t particularly modern or new; Abraham Lincoln at least argued part of its case:
“The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. By adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.“
…. and used it during the American Civil War.
Henry George approved the same principle, despite MMT advocate Bill Mitchell believing that Henry George simply favoured land value ‘taxation’ (actually rent) as an efficient revenue-raiser, and seeing LVT as being an “obsession’ which denies the role “financial capital plays in destabilising economic systems”.
Sorry, this just isn’t so, Bill. Seems you, too, may have been advised not to read Progress and Poverty because it’s rubbish? Like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, JS Mill and Tom Paine, Henry George understood that ‘ground rent’ must be taxed away in order to deliver to labour and capital their undiminished, rightful rewards – and to bring an end to rent-seeking monopolies.
Viz, P – R = W + I
At least some MMT-ers* appear to appreciate that the full capture of land rent could, in fact, bring land prices and monetary inflation to zero, just as surely as MMT considers the rightful interest rate is also zero.
Zero interest: zero land price?
Food for thought – for everyone.
MMT and LVT anyone?