I repeat, I'm not exclusively #MMT. But why do none of the professional economists on this thread apart from Itamar understand it even at a basic level? For instance, MMT does advocate tax increases in specific circumstances. It's basically a description of the operation of fiat currency systems, influenced by but not limited to older positions such as Chartalism, functional finance, endogenous money creation, sectoral balances and financial instability. It's certainly related to post-Keynesianism, which can help remedy some of its flaws such as trade balances, international currency valuation etc. I'm just a lowly all-rounder - economic history, sociology, social psychology - who worked in criminology departments. If I can understand it and summarise it why can't professional economists? Spoiler - the basic reason is that they have to straw-man it to fit their ideologically bound off-the-peg criticisms. Empirically grounded and theoretically sophisticated reformulation of provisional knowledge just isn't their forte. Paradigm-changing ideas are out of the question - disallowed. I block these people because there's no point in debating with them. You might as well argue with scientologists. I'm not trashing the intellectual capabilities of individuals I don't know outside their orthodox writings, but simply stating the incontrovertible truth that thus far the mainstream neoclassical position has been ideologically locked, that's all. Press any of them hard enough and you'll find its dual root is a deep fear of the state, socialism, collectivism, totalitarianism etc. and an equally deep belief in the individual's right to enter markets to aquire and bequeath unlimited assets. Professional/institutional advocates are not allowed to stray from these principles.

The US froze prices in WWII By 1941–42 the US was pouring unprecedented sums into the war. Deficits hit 13–27% of GDP. Factories were converting, workers were flooding into cities, and civilian demand was colliding with military demand for steel, rubber, food, and fuel. In WWI the same pattern produced a price explosion. Officials remembered that. Uncontrolled bidding would have driven the cost of the war itself through the roof, created windfall profits in scarce goods, and risked civilian unrest. Price controls were not a peacetime ideology. They were an emergency tool to keep the mobilisation from eating itself. The institutional answer: Roosevelt created the Office of Price Administration. John Kenneth Galbraith, then a young economist, became deputy administrator in charge of prices. Early selective “scientific” ceilings on individual commodities proved too slow. Inflation kept rising. In April 1942 they switched to the General Maximum Price Regulation - a near-economy-wide freeze at March 1942 levels. In April 1943 came the “Hold-the-Line” order. Complementary rationing (meat, sugar, gasoline, tires) and wage guidelines followed. Taxes and war-bond drives soaked up purchasing power. How inflation was actually contained: Official consumer prices for working-class households rose about 12% from the May 1942 freeze to January 1946 - roughly 3.3% a year. After Hold-the-Line the rise slowed to 1.4% a year through early 1946. That was far below the WWI trajectory. Wholesale prices and the cost of living rose much less than in the corresponding months of 1917–18, even though real output more than doubled and unemployment fell below 2%. Galbraith’s later explanation: many prices were already “administered” by large firms rather than set in auction markets. A freeze plus public compliance plus rationing could hold the line within a “margin of tolerance” of excess demand. Patriotism and local volunteer boards did a lot of the enforcement work. What made them useful: The point was never perfect price stability. It was to stop prices of war-critical and household goods from exploding while resources were redirected. • The government paid less for munitions and ships. • Civilian real consumption still rose 50% even as the military took a huge share of output. • Labour’s share of income increased. • Windfall profits in scarcity were limited, which helped political legitimacy. • Time was bought for fiscal measures (withholding tax, bond sales) to catch up. Galbraith later wrote that the General Maximum Price Regulation “worked.” He considered the OPA years one of his principal achievements precisely because prices stayed relatively stable while the economy quadrupled in size. What they did not do: They did not abolish shortages. Quality often deteriorated. Black markets appeared, especially in meat. A large bureaucracy was required. Official indices missed some hidden inflation (skimpflation, forced substitution). When controls were lifted abruptly in 1946, prices jumped 20%. Those costs were accepted as the price of running a command-mobilisation economy at full stretch. Galbraith himself later favoured only limited, strategic restraints on large firms and unions in peacetime - not a full wartime apparatus.