@freemo

If you want to discuss on the matter I'm here but:

"it becomes very obvious very quickly why MMT is not considered valid by professionals."

is just poor (and now irritating) rethoric. I still don't see any real argument by you while I spent time to try to make more clear what MMT claims. If you don't appreciate the effort please don't tell me I'm the one who doesn't want to change opinion.

None of use is going to change opinion with rethoric. The only chance is to find what makes you or me so convinced. I don't even know what you are convinced about. I only know you tend to trust what you feel is a shared belief by experts in a field that as I said is not even about this subject: despite MMT is supported by some economists they use it like biologists use the microscope but MMT is a description of a (information) technology. Economists generally don't even know the terms to describe it. If I tell to an economist that the monetary system is a protocol stack I could spend the entire day to explain what that means, he probably won't get it. Economists generally don't even understand the math tools they use and end up making a pseudoscientific use of math models. Since you are into modelling and you know economists you should know what I mean. And this is true also for MMT supporters, they mostly believe sectoral balances are a mathematical framework for MMT ahah