As promised...
Well I'll start a new thread perhaps in good time, but I want to respond to this a bit more specifically.
1) I never said printing money creates wealth on its own, that is absurd
2) Private savings do certainly 'have to' come from government deficit spending in the sense that government spending ends up in private bank accounts as savings.
3) MMT doesn't entail "no bad consequences can ever come from leaning on the printing machine!" Indeed, most if not all MMT'ers (as Bootstoots has already pointed out) will readily point out the negative consequences that can spring from this.
OK so I have no way of telling what you really believe (nor Hygro), and I can't argue against positions I don't know. What I can do is argue that the "main postulates" of MMT are completely inconsequential accounting identities and tautologies; and that the policy implications
usually derived by those silly tautologies by MMTers are dead wrong. It's what happens when accounting principles are uncritically applied to macro.
Starting from the start, MMT's founding idea is that a government that issues its own currency (and whose debt is on that same currency) can't be forced to default, because they can just print more money to cover their outstanding debt. To which I say: yeah, duh. This has been known since fiat currency was created. But it doesn't mean a whole lot. If a government abuses its printing press prerogatives, if lenders lose confidence that they will get the full
value (only accountants care about pure numbers) of their loan back, demand for the government's bonds will fall. If economic actors lose confidence in a currency, demand for that currency will collapse (MMTers argue that the government creates demand for its currency by taxing in that currency, which is true, but people and corporations can always store their savings in other currencies and then convert the amount needed just to pay taxes. We've seen this happen to many currencies, and they become essentially worthless).
So yes, the government can finance it's deficit by money issue instead of bond issue if it finds no demand for its bonds. But MMTers don't seem to realize that deficit financed by money is much more inflationary than by bonds, as the money is lent, and indeed a large deficit financed by money-issue can quickly lead to hyperinflation (as it has many times).
The point being that there are limits to the amount of resources the government can appropriate through seigniorage. It matters whether the deficit is financed by bonds or the printing press. Yes, financed. Taxes in the future indeed pay for deficit now, so essentially they are financing the deficit (that MMTers deny this is rather shocking, but we have to remember they think as accountants. If they can't follow the beans going from one cup to another, they don't understand it).
MMTers think the deficit only becomes a problem when it generates "too much" aggregate demand, but that's clearly nonsense, as the financing is demonstrably important as well. So while the government can't technically "go broke", on accounting terms, on practical terms it can very well go broke. Several have, even in full control of their printing press. There are limits to how much they can borrow and spend, and those limits are given by the
real resources and technological level in an economy. Having a printing press gives the government a lot economic flexibility, it allows it to better cope with shocks, but it doesn't give the government magical powers. It can't always guarantee full employment, or pay for all social services we can dream of.
In one line: MMT is wrong because the financing of the government deficit matters.