Discussion continued over on Steve Keens Patreon Page and Bill Mitchell also Blogged his own thoughts on his Blog. There are two aspects to MMT as I see it. The IS side where the Theory sets out to describe modern Money mechanics, that is the sectoral Balances description of how the accounting identity balances to zero. The Other part of the MMT school of thought is the Ought side. In the Ought side of any theoretical analysis of any system one necessarily leaves the IS empirical facts and puts forward what Ought to be. MMT’rs Like Bill Mitchell say there Ought to be a goal of Full employment and a Job Guarantee is seen as preferable to say a Universal Basic Income. David Hume wrote extensively about the Is-Ought problem and the arguments between Monetary reformers seem to fall into the Ought Camp where IS questions are disputed this tends to be where the IS facts do not fit with the Ought convictions/beliefs. The Aspect of the debate which is potentially the most helpful is seeing matters in terms of Resources and allocation of resources to production of wants and needs in this question the pathfinders are somewhat more scarce. Dr Tim Morgan and His Surplus Energy Economics Blog deserves looking at for anyone interesting in this way of Analysing the real energy costs of Investment, Embodied energy questions and future production possibilities outside fo the P&L double entry bookkeeping monetary/Fiscal paradigm. https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2018/05/ Steve Keen has started exploring Entropy in Economics and made this podcast from Nov 2016.
I wanted to add a small contribution to the discussion here, I have been greatly encouraged and nourished by the discussion you started on Twitter.