Modern Monetary Theory (Huh? Whut?)

The Washington Post has a long (5 pages!) article 'bout Modern Monetary Theory, a "coming into the mainstream" school of macroeconomics that emerged in the 90s, and is kinda, sorta, vaguely post-Keynsian.
 
Mind you, after the entertainment caused over the last few decades by the Chicago School, I'll take shamanism as an alternative, but still MMT does seem to have some nifty ideas going for it.

The article was somewhat (but only somewhat) well written, but it doesnt capture the essential difference of MMT.  Now, along comes Isabella Kaminska (of FT Alphaville fame), with a nice writeup on MMT emphasizing this very point.

(the theory) is naturally divisive because most of the time it fails to communicate its message succinctly. Which is weird, since the premise is actually fairly simple to understand. We’d say it’s akin to looking at an autostereogram. Once you get it, you never see things quite the same way again. But at the same time, try as they might, some people will never be able to see the image. Ever.

And it all rests on one key fact (at least as far as we can tell!) . Rather than treating money as an object of wealth or somebody else’s debt, a means to trade … MMT treats money as a claim on wealth, a product of trade.

And in this area, the government acts as the ultimate clearinghouse, as a

clearer and intermediary to the trillions of transactions and trades that take place in its economy every day.

In short, fiat money is basically scrip from the gummit that can be used to standardize all those zillions of little tiny trades that we do as part of our daily lives.

Theres more, much more.  Go read it.