A few points:
MMT answers MORE of the reason our modern economy currently operates vs old Keynesian or Classic economics. Both of those are rooted in commodity based money. Also, we don't have FIAT money anymore- we just have MONEY... Fiat, while still likely a dictionary definitional term, is an obsolete term since we no longer use commodities as money or the basis of money.
Money has the value people ascribe to it. However, gold or other commodities ALSO have only the value people ascribe to it. Commodities don't come out of the earth with a nature-asserted value.
Plenty of people are wealthy in our modern economy and it does not always mean they did something of value or useful to someone else- gambling on Wall St is a great example- Many, many people in modern economies work very hard and have little to show for it. The share of value that their productivity garnered their employers is no longer keeping pace with one another. We need to re-assert the labor-value principle back into our economic models. Barring that MMT would facilitate the concept of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) and thus let the "market" still maintain its current wage stagnation, but people would be more prosperous.
OF COURSE, government is a monopolist in the creation of money- it has to be- any other mechanism leads to chaos and economic breakdown. One need only review the first few decades of the USA with bank runs, multiple currencies in circulation and not being accepted in other regions of the nation.
Much of the rest of your article is essentially an Ayn Rand-ish diatribe falsely (Straw Man) asserting MMT is putting all workers "at the state's whinm." That is NOT what MMT expounds at all.
MMT is also NOT anything like central planning! Not even close. But if one did say we live in a planned economy based on corporations there is certainly a grain of truth there. But the only "Planning" I have seen advocated is commitment to full employment at a liveable wage which alleviates slack, raises the standard of living for ALL people, and encourages businesses to competitively bid for labor- which they barely have to do now (and not at all when the ecomony is in a downturn and unemployment is high).
Finally the article degrades to folksy poor metaphors (idle screwdriver) - the same kind of incorrect metaphor one hears when people declaim "if I have to balance my checkbook, the govt should too" Household spending and debt and finances are NOT the same as the federal government. As MMT points out- the government is a currency ISSUER, not a currency user. And MMT is not "politician driven"- it is expounded by actual economists.
