Thank you but General Relativity was right even when 99.9999% of physicists can't even understand it.
And MMT doesn't say what's in question A nor in quetion B in that article. The economists who support MMT repeated this many times. This just means there is not even interest in understanding what MMT really claims. Probably even a MMT supporter like me would had given those replies without context, because those claims are strictly wrong.
Just to make it clear: MMT doesn't claim the governament can issue infinite money. According to MMT, the public spending has an effect to the economy and so does the fiscal policy, but the two are not linked by accounting practices like mainstream economics assumes. In other words, the State doesn't have to spend a unit of credit for each unit of credit got with taxes. The function of creating money and the one of destroying it can't be linked with a 1$-1$ rate (or whatever is the currency). We don't even know the relationship is linear. Instead it's reasonable to assume that relation heavily depends on many other factors including structural differences often not considered in econometrics. This leads to the rejection of the concept of public deficit. Instead a feedback system approach would be more sensible and the Job Guarantee proposal does so: the public spending would be used to guarantee 100% of employment and taxation is regulated to ensure that a too rapid increase in domestic demand won't lead to hyperinflation.
A very important aspect of Job Guarantee is that with it the State can set the minimum working conditions not only de iure but de facto because private employers will be forced to offer better working conditions to attract workers and to do so they will have to share the profits, reverting the mechanism that is currently making wealth centralize in fewer hands.
