Rob is both right and wrong. Economists generally don’t give moral and ethical considerations their due. That’s because they get stuck at the theoretical level of thought and don’t get to the philosophical level where ideas themselves and ethics are an integral part of its mindset.
He’s wrong in thinking that MMT would necessarily run up debt any more than neo-classical economics. It would probably make it a little less likely and the effects of the build up would probably be less harsh then now.
MMT’s problems are that it focuses too much on governmental debt when private debt is the larger problem. It also believes that it could control inflation which is flimsy at best because the operant cause of “monetary” inflation….isn’t money at all, but rather not having/creating a better alternative to our monetarily austere situation where when commercial agents perceive more money coming into the system they raise their prices in the hopes of garnering more business revenue/available individual income. And that (the better, more beneficial alternative for all agents) is what my Wisdomics-Gracenomics does in spades. Wisdomics-Gracenomics also incorporates a job guarantee into the policy framework as an assist to anyone having problems finding purpose without necessarily putting in their time on a job. Thus it is more an adjunct to the primary and paradigm changing policies of a universal dividend and discount/rebate policies at the point of retail sale. There will be much more employment with a Wisdomics-Gracenomics than any other theory because the investment climate will be so good and stable, but it also enables us to see clearly that employment is only a subset of all positive and constructive human purposes.
Some MMTers who “knock” a universal dividend betray the fact that their theory is largely stuck in the old paradigm of Debt Only for the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of credit/