Is this a “not real MMT” argument?
No, that is not MMT.
Regardless of whether the strictest rules of how you define MMT are met by the world’s central bankers — it is the operating system of global finance. It is the theoretical lever that allows for endless spending on war, and endless policy that hurts the poor and middle class to the benefit of the crony/political class.
No. Central banks do not operate with MMT principles in mind. Central bankers believe monetary policy (mainly manipulation of interest rates) is an effective modulator of both inflation and unemployment, and subscribe to the mainstream understanding of the NAIRU. This is anti-MMT. MMT is not used as a justification for the defense budget or corporate subsidies because it’s not accepted by the mainstream political class in the first place. Your understanding of MMT seems to be “MMT = deficit spending”, which is just mind-numbing.
If your perfectly fine theoretical model has a problem when it clashes with the reality of monetary policy, then my critique is quite unbothered. That’s a feature of every theoretical model that gets dashed on the rocks of the real world. It’s in great company with every failed authoritarian’s pipe dream.
You’ve offered no example of this. Rather, MMT is consistently verified in practice. See the above discussion and chart of the balance of accounts between governmental, private domestic, and foreign sectors. See also the discussion of interest rates and inflation.
But if taxes drive the value of currency (your claim!) then is there an explanation for the value of non-currencies? Where does the value of a non-fiat currency come from?
A ridiculous question. MMT says taxes are the means by which a government is able to impose a currency, and that higher taxes tend to increase the value of a currency (or moderate inflation) via supply and demand. Not that fiat currency are the ONLY tradeable objects of value. Where does the value of non-fiat treadeable objects like Bitcoin come from? Where does the value of gold come from? What about collectible stamps? All similar questions. The difference is that bitcoin, gold, etc are fundamentally different than fiat currency in that they are not debt. They are commodities.
Why, if taxes drive the value, did pre-Federal Reserve/pre income tax dollars have 900X more value than today’s much more highly taxed dollar?
This is getting a bit tiresome. Please show me where MMT claims that tax rates are the only, or even primary, determinant of inflation.
Can MMT explain simultaneously that taxes reduce inflation, and drive the value of currency and also explain why the dollar loses value constantly even as productivity skyrockets and goods *should* be getting cheaper?
You seem to be hyper-focused on the idea that MMT claims taxes are the end-all-be-all of currency value. See above again for the MMT view of the role of taxes. Also, I suggest you re-read the article for a refresher on the MMT view of money creation, which is primarily endogenous. I.e, the vast majority of demand deposits circulating in the economy are ultimately bank credit.
I suggest reading primary MMT sources to clear up some of these misconceptions. The best overview is probably the MMT primer, which is available in blog format with discussion and Q&A for each section: