Hi Monica, Thanks for your thoughtful response.
About 1990, there was a popular documetary about MMT in the United States. I wish I could recall the author/documentary maker's name for you; maybe later some brain cells will kick in. But this fellow really explained the basis for MMT and how it effects us. The documentary did recieve some attention noteriety in its day. It was well done. Similar material is readily available on the interent for anyone to watch.
About 10 years back, I was having lunch with my work colleagues, most of whom were university educated. Somehow, the discussion led to the myth that when a bank gets a deposit, it loans that money out. I tried to explain that the bank loans about 10x that deposit out. I was ridiculed for making this claim about factoring. My colleagues either 1) didn't see the documentary, 2) didn't understand it, or 3) didn't believe it. If I could not get across factoring, they would not have understood the documentary.
MMT is a fairly difficult concept to grasp. I certainly have not mastered it. But the people really don't want to understand it, just because it is not easy to understand. So the myth persists.
The point I'm trying to make is that the public has already had lots of exposure to MMT--and most citizens have chosen to ignore it. More education is not likely to produce the results we are looking for.
I am currently reading a political science book about an "open democracy." It is interesting even though this is not my solution. The book talks about Iceland trying to make constitutional changes circa 2010, hopefully to prevent another disaster like its 2008 recession.
This Iceland story is confirming a hypothesis of mine. Much of the public wants to be apathetic of affairs of governance. They have jobs, families, social activities, and hobbies. Too many have minor or major mental illnesses to really deal with politics wisely.
The apathy is hard for political junkies to understand. Junkies believe that more citizens should be as engaged as they are. And this then leads to: "these citizens should be engaged in the same way I am engaged," which then leads to disunity in competing political thoughts.
I'm not hopeful that we can elevate the public to a reasonable understanding of all the issues of governance: MMT, COVID, supporting Ukraine, Uighers in China, math curriculum in elementary schools, whether Lincoln County should buy a new dumptruck, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. --and then we come to a rightful understanding that somehow moves those overly ambitious people who aspire for public office into rightful action. There have been successes in this regard, but they are so few. We just can't move pubilc opinion on many issues--because all these issues are competing for the same spot of the public's mind.
We need a different system where we find competent people to govern. Then let them govern. If they make reasonably good decisions, free of corruption and grandstanding, many citizens will be content with this system--even if they don't like some of those decisions.
