#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: What about the significance for humanity between the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and that of Economic Sciences?

I asked ChatGPT:

"If asked to compare the significance for humanity of the achievements by those winning the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and those winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, what would you look at? What do you think it could show?"

ChatGPT answered:

"To compare the significance of achievements in the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, I'd focus on the following key aspects:

1. Direct Impact on Human Well-being

Physiology or Medicine: Achievements here often have a direct, tangible effect on health, longevity, and the quality of life. These can include advances in disease treatment (like cancer therapies or vaccines), understanding human biology, or breakthroughs in genetics, all of which can reduce suffering and improve global health outcomes.

Economic Sciences: Advances in economics tend to affect human well-being more indirectly, through policy-making, financial systems, and resource distribution. Economic innovations can influence poverty reduction, global financial stability, and long-term growth, shaping living standards on a macro level.

Comparison: While medicine directly improves survival and health, economics can influence the broader societal conditions that affect health, happiness, and equity. Both are essential, but one addresses immediate physical needs, while the other shapes systemic and structural conditions.

2. Scale of Beneficiaries

Physiology or Medicine: The benefits tend to be universal since diseases, health conditions, and biological processes affect all humans. However, access to medical advancements might be uneven, depending on healthcare systems and economies.

Economic Sciences: 

The impact of economic discoveries may apply globally but often varies based on region, government policies, and economic systems. For example, theories on poverty alleviation or market regulation can shape national and global economies but may not always benefit everyone equally.

Comparison: Medicine usually offers more immediate and universally applicable benefits, while economics can shape systems that influence everyone, though unevenly.

3. Longevity of Impact

Physiology or Medicine: Medical breakthroughs can have lasting effects, as they can redefine healthcare practices for decades or even centuries (e.g., antibiotics, vaccines, genetic engineering).

Economic Sciences: Economic theories and models can have a similarly long-term influence, as they underpin national and global policy decisions that may shape economies for generations (e.g., Keynesian economics, behavioral economics, or monetary policy frameworks).

Comparison: Both fields can have lasting impacts, but medical discoveries often have a more consistent, long-term relevance, while economic theories may evolve as economies and societies change.

4. Advances in Knowledge

Physiology or Medicine: Medical research advances our understanding of the human body, diseases, and treatment. It also accelerates scientific progress in other fields like biology, biotechnology, and pharmacology.

Economic Sciences: Economics contributes to our understanding of human behavior, societal organization, and resource distribution. It influences other fields like political science, public policy, and even environmental studies.

Comparison: Both contribute to expanding knowledge, but medicine focuses on biology and health, while economics contributes to understanding societal structures and human behavior.

5. Ethical and Societal Implications

Physiology or Medicine: Medical advancements often raise ethical questions, such as those around genetic modification, human experimentation, and healthcare access. They can spark debates on the limits of medical intervention.

Economic Sciences: Economic theories can also have profound ethical implications, particularly concerning inequality, resource distribution, and justice. Policies informed by economic models can deeply influence social equity, labor rights, and wealth concentration.

Comparison: Both fields raise important ethical and societal questions, though in different areas—health versus social justice.

Conclusion: By looking at these factors, a comparison might show that both prize categories contribute critically to human advancement, albeit in different ways. Medicine tends to address immediate and tangible health needs, while economics influences broader societal conditions. The significance of one over the other may depend on the context, as both fields can shape human welfare in profound ways."

I asked ChatGPT:

"What’s easier for ordinary citizens to understand, the explanations of the concrete achievements for why the judges decided to award the Nobel Prizes in Medicine, or those in Economics?"

ChatGPT answered:

"In general, it is often easier for ordinary citizens to understand the explanations for Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine than those in Economics, but this depends on the nature of the discoveries. Here's why:

1. Familiarity with the Subject Matter

Medicine: Most people have a basic understanding of health and disease, even if they don’t know the scientific details. Achievements in medicine, such as the development of vaccines or treatments for well-known diseases, are usually relatable. People can grasp the importance of breakthroughs that cure or alleviate suffering from conditions like cancer, diabetes, or infectious diseases.

Economics: Economic theories or models are less intuitive for many people. Concepts such as "asymmetric information," "market inefficiencies," or "game theory" can feel abstract, and the way they apply to everyday life might not be immediately obvious. Economic research often involves complex, sometimes counterintuitive ideas that require specialized knowledge to fully grasp.

2. Concreteness of Achievements

Medicine: The achievements in medicine often lead to tangible outcomes—drugs, therapies, or medical devices that people can see or experience. When the Nobel Prize is awarded for discovering a new treatment or biological mechanism, it’s relatively easy to explain: "This discovery saves lives or improves health."

Economics: Achievements in economics tend to be more theoretical or involve models and frameworks that explain how systems work. These are less concrete and harder to connect directly to everyday experiences. For example, explaining why a particular contribution to "auction theory" or "macroeconomic analysis" is groundbreaking may require understanding how these theories affect things like government policy or financial markets, which might feel distant to most people.

3. Language and Presentation

Medicine: The language used to explain medical discoveries is often more accessible because it deals with familiar terms like “cells,” “immune system,” or “diseases.” While there might be some technical jargon, the core idea—how it helps people live healthier lives—can usually be conveyed in simple terms.

Economics: The language of economics can be more opaque, filled with technical terms like "inflation targeting," "behavioral finance," or "game theory equilibria." The benefits of economic theories can be harder to explain because they might influence policy decisions or market dynamics indirectly, rather than producing immediate, visible results.

4. Media Coverage and Public Interest

Medicine: Breakthroughs in medicine usually receive broad, straightforward media coverage because they affect human health directly. People are generally interested in hearing about cures or treatments that could save lives, and media outlets often make an effort to simplify these stories.

Economics: Economic achievements tend to get less attention unless they directly impact global financial markets or government policy in a significant way. Even then, the explanations in media coverage often remain somewhat abstract, and the connection to daily life may not be immediately clear to the general public.

Overall

Medicine is usually easier for ordinary citizens to understand because of its direct, tangible impact on human health and the use of familiar language. Economics, on the other hand, deals with more abstract, theoretical concepts that require a deeper understanding of how complex systems function, making it harder to grasp without background knowledge.

I asked ChatGPT:

Final question (today) on this:"Based on your previous answer; in the case of medicine “direct, tangible impact on human health”, and in the case of economics “more abstract, theoretical concepts”; what Nobel Prize, that of Medicine or that of Economics, could have been awarded based on insufficient merits?" 

ChatGPT answered:

In considering which Nobel Prize might be more susceptible to being awarded based on insufficient merits, both the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences face different challenges, but for somewhat distinct reasons:

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Tangible results: Medicine is grounded in tangible, measurable outcomes—usually focused on improving health or saving lives. This makes it somewhat harder to argue that an award is based on insufficient merits, as the effectiveness of a medical breakthrough can often be directly observed and quantified through patient outcomes, clinical trials, or widespread adoption in healthcare systems.

Potential for premature recognition: That said, medicine can sometimes run the risk of premature recognition. For example, a groundbreaking discovery might seem promising initially but could later prove less effective or even harmful. Medical science evolves, and what seems revolutionary at one time might be surpassed or even invalidated by later research. In such cases, an award could appear to have been granted based on incomplete knowledge or early optimism, though this is rare due to the rigorous vetting process.

Example: A hypothetical example could involve a promising medical treatment or drug that is initially heralded as a breakthrough but later shows limited long-term efficacy or unforeseen side effects. While such cases are uncommon due to the strict criteria for long-term impact, they are possible.

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

Abstract and theoretical nature: Economics, by its nature, is more abstract and speculative. Theories or models awarded the prize might seem to offer profound insights into markets, behavior, or policy but could later be seen as overhyped or irrelevant in the face of changing economic conditions.

Uncertain or indirect impact: Economic theories often require years or decades to prove their real-world applicability. Some influential ideas might initially appear promising but may not hold up under practical scrutiny or fail to deliver the intended outcomes when applied to policy. Since economic systems are influenced by a wide range of variables, determining the precise impact of a specific theory can be harder, making it possible for an award to be based on merits that are later questioned.

Example: For instance, Rational Expectations Theory (awarded in 1995) or Efficient Market Hypothesis have had significant influence but have also faced criticism in light of real-world market crises, like the 2008 financial crash. While these theories revolutionized how economists view markets, their limitations became apparent in extreme conditions. This doesn't mean they were awarded on insufficient merits, but it illustrates how economic theories can face evolving challenges in proving their worth over time.

Comparative Vulnerability

Medicine: Given the emphasis on concrete results, medicine is less likely to be awarded on insufficient merits. Any award is generally based on years of empirical evidence and observed success in improving human health.

Economics: Economics, being more theoretical and dealing with systems that are difficult to control or predict, may be more vulnerable to awards that, with hindsight, could seem insufficiently justified. Theories that seem groundbreaking in one context may prove less applicable or even problematic in others, particularly as global economic systems evolve.

Conclusion

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is likely more vulnerable to being awarded based on insufficient merits due to the speculative and evolving nature of economic theory. Medicine, by contrast, is usually grounded in more tangible, measurable results, making it harder to prematurely or incorrectly award based on insufficient evidence. However, both fields are subject to the inherent uncertainties of scientific progress and changing knowledge over time.

I said: Thanks!

It said: You're very welcome!  This reminds me of a quote by Isaac Asimov, who said, "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom." It speaks to how, whether in medicine or economics, we sometimes recognize achievements before fully understanding their long-term impact. If you ever have more questions, feel free to reach out again

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI - ChatGPT.

ChatGPT - OpenAI: Getting to know you!

#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: Why are business schools silent on bank regulations capital favoring public debt and residential mortgages over loans to businesses?

I asked ChatGPT:

"Taking exception of bankers with a vested interest in lower bank capital requirements, why do business schools keep silence on current risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements, which so much favor public debt and residential mortgages over loans to businesses?"

ChatGPT answered:

"The silence of business schools on current risk-weighted bank capital and equity requirements, which favor public debt and residential mortgages over business loans, could stem from several factors:

1. Curriculum Focus: Business schools often emphasize broader financial theory, strategy, and corporate management, leaving regulatory specifics—like Basel III or risk-weighted capital requirements—largely to specialized finance or banking courses. There may also be a gap between academic theory and evolving industry regulations.

2. Conventional Wisdom: Traditional finance education often leans on the belief that the financial system, particularly through regulations like Basel III, is structured to ensure stability. Schools might avoid critiquing such frameworks because they are considered to provide a safeguard for economic stability, despite their flaws.

3. Complexity and Specialization: The nuances of risk-weighted capital requirements, and how they bias toward government debt and mortgages, require deep expertise in regulatory finance. These topics may not be central to most business school programs unless they specialize in banking or financial regulation.

4. Influence of Public Policy and Government Debt: Governments often play a significant role in setting economic policy, including bank regulations that incentivize public debt. Business schools may avoid critiquing the regulatory preference for public debt due to the sensitive nature of questioning public finance priorities, which align with national interests in borrowing.

5. Industry Ties: Many business schools have close relationships with financial institutions. Since many banks benefit from these capital requirements—especially the ability to hold safer assets like government debt or residential mortgages—there might be an implicit bias not to highlight the flaws of the system that favors such institutions. Critiquing these requirements could indirectly challenge the business models of key financial players who often fund or partner with business schools.

6. Focus on Corporate Strategy: Business schools may prioritize corporate finance over topics related to broader macroeconomic or regulatory critiques. As a result, the debate over the impact of capital requirements on business lending might not be a primary focus in business education.

While some specialized finance courses or programs might address these issues, the overall silence could reflect a blend of institutional inertia, academic focus on other priorities, and complex relationships with the financial industry.

I said: Thanks!

It said: You're welcome! Let me know if you have more questions or need further clarification. Always happy to help!

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT – OpenAI on bank regulations

#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: Does #MMT consider bureaucrats know better what to do with money than e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs?

I asked ChatGPT:

"Can you in less than 400 words summarize what Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) holds?"

ChatGPT answered:

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is an economic framework that challenges traditional views on government finance and fiscal policy. At its core, MMT holds that countries with sovereign currencies—like the U.S., U.K., or Japan—cannot run out of money in the same way businesses or households can, because they can always print more of their own currency.

Key principles include:

1. Government Spending and Deficits: MMT argues that government deficits are not inherently bad. In fact, they are necessary for economic growth because they inject money into the economy. According to MMT, a government should prioritize public spending to achieve full employment and economic stability rather than focus on reducing deficits.

2. Taxes and Inflation: Contrary to the common belief that taxes fund government spending, MMT holds that taxes are primarily a tool for managing inflation and controlling the supply of money in the economy. In an MMT framework, the government can print money to fund public services and projects, but taxes are used to withdraw excess money from the system to prevent inflation.

3. Inflation Constraints: The main limit to government spending under MMT is inflation, not deficits or debt. If an economy reaches full capacity (full employment, all resources in use), further spending could lead to inflation. In such cases, MMT suggests using taxes or other tools to cool down demand.

4. Public Employment Guarantee: A significant policy proposal in MMT is a government job guarantee, which aims to provide employment for anyone who wants a job. This would serve as a buffer against unemployment and ensure price stability.

In summary, MMT rethinks fiscal policies, focusing on full employment, economic stability, and inflation control, rather than obsessing over balanced budgets or national debt. It sees government spending as a primary driver for economic growth, constrained mainly by inflation rather than financial solvency.

I asked ChatGPT:

"Could MMT therefore imply that bureaucrats know better what to do with money that can be printed, and that has therefore not to be repaid, than what small businesses and entrepreneurs know what to do with money from bank loans they need to repay?"

ChatGPT answered:

MMT doesn't directly imply that bureaucrats know better than small businesses or entrepreneurs about how to use money. Instead, it presents a different view on how money is introduced and managed in the economy. In MMT, government spending, funded by printing money, is seen as a way to address large-scale societal needs—such as infrastructure, healthcare, or employment—where the private sector may not have the capacity or incentive to invest sufficiently.

The theory suggests that the government should focus on areas that improve the public good and boost overall economic productivity. This spending isn't necessarily aimed at crowding out private enterprise but is meant to complement it, by creating the conditions (like full employment or stable infrastructure) that make private business more successful.

The key idea here is that the government, unlike private entities, can create money and doesn't need to worry about running out of it. Small businesses and entrepreneurs, on the other hand, must rely on borrowing from banks and need to generate profits to repay loans. They operate under different financial constraints. MMT proponents argue that by ensuring sufficient demand (through government spending and job guarantees), the government can actually help create a better environment for private businesses to thrive.

So, while MMT advocates for an active role for government in steering the economy, it doesn’t necessarily assume that bureaucrats always know better than private businesses. Rather, it claims that government spending can fill gaps in the economy where private investment is lacking or insufficient, especially in times of recession or unemployment.

I asked ChatGPT:

"But is not government spending de facto, decided by government bureaucrats?"

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, government spending is indeed decided by bureaucrats, elected officials, and policymakers, making decisions about where public funds should be allocated. In the context of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), this means that the power to direct spending—potentially through the creation of new money—rests in the hands of these government entities.

However, MMT advocates typically frame government spending as a way to address macroeconomic goals like full employment, infrastructure development, or public services. The theory implies that the government should act as a stabilizer in the economy, using its spending powers to ensure that resources are fully utilized and that economic downturns are mitigated.

Critics of MMT, and of government intervention in general, often raise concerns about inefficiencies in how bureaucrats allocate resources. They argue that bureaucrats might lack the local knowledge, entrepreneurial insight, or efficiency incentives that private businesses have when it comes to investment decisions. Bureaucratic decision-making is also subject to political pressures, which can lead to spending that is misaligned with long-term economic priorities or skewed by short-term political goals.

MMT proponents would counter by arguing that the private sector also has limitations, such as focusing on profit maximization, which might not always align with societal or economic needs—like addressing unemployment or building infrastructure in less profitable regions. In their view, while bureaucratic decisions might not always be perfect, government spending is necessary to achieve outcomes that the market alone may not address.

In short, while MMT does imply a greater role for government spending—decided by bureaucrats—it doesn't necessarily suggest that this replaces or diminishes the importance of private sector decision-making, but rather that it fills critical gaps.

I asked ChatGPT:

"And since “the power to direct spending—potentially through the creation of new money—rests in the hands of these government entities”, does that not de facto imply bureaucrats know better what to do with money than what small businesses and entrepreneurs know to do with money from bank loans they need to repay?"

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, from one perspective, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) does imply that government entities—politicians and bureaucrats—have a significant role in deciding where newly created money should be allocated, which can suggest that they have a superior understanding of how to direct spending toward societal goals. However, the key distinction in MMT isn't about knowing "better" but about fulfilling different roles in the economy.

MMT posits that government spending is necessary to address macroeconomic goals such as:

Full employment

Infrastructure development

Health care

Education

Other public goods that may not be sufficiently funded by private enterprise

This role of government is not meant to replace or outperform the decision-making of small businesses and entrepreneurs but to complement it. The idea is that private businesses, when left entirely to market forces, may underinvest in certain sectors (like public health or infrastructure) or fail to maintain demand during economic downturns. In such cases, the government steps in to boost demand, maintain employment, and stabilize the economy.

Small businesses and entrepreneurs, on the other hand, make decisions based on profitability and market demand. They borrow money they must repay, which forces them to take calculated risks and allocate capital efficiently, or they will fail. Their incentives are different from those of the government, which MMT argues should focus on achieving broad economic stability, rather than turning a profit.

Critics of MMT could argue, as you point out, that this framework implies bureaucrats are in a position to decide where money should be spent, which introduces the possibility of inefficiency, waste, or misallocation due to a lack of market discipline. Bureaucratic decision-makers may not have the local knowledge, financial incentives, or innovative drive that entrepreneurs do. Hence, there is a tension between centralized government spending and market-based private investment, but this tension is inherent in MMT’s approach, rather than a declaration that bureaucrats simply "know better."

In summary, while MMT emphasizes a larger role for government spending, it doesn't claim bureaucrats are inherently more knowledgeable than entrepreneurs but rather that the government can address economic needs that the private sector might overlook or underinvest in.

I asked ChatGPT:

“MMT isn't about knowing ‘better’ but about fulfilling different roles in the economy”

Those bureaucrats deciding on what different roles in the economy they need to fulfill, do they not imply they believe themselves to have knowledge superior to that of the market?"

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, in a sense, bureaucrats making decisions about government spending under Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) are implicitly assuming that they have the knowledge and ability to allocate resources in ways that the market either cannot or will not. This belief is rooted in the idea that markets, while efficient in many respects, may fail to address certain economic or social objectives, such as full employment, environmental sustainability, or public infrastructure development.

Proponents of MMT argue that there are specific areas where government intervention is necessary because the market, driven by profit incentives, may not naturally allocate resources in ways that maximize societal welfare. For example:Public Goods: The government may invest in infrastructure, education, or healthcare—areas where private businesses might underinvest because the benefits are diffuse and long-term, or where profits are harder to capture.

Employment: MMT suggests that the government can guarantee jobs to ensure full employment, whereas the private sector might leave people unemployed during economic downturns.

Macroeconomic Stability: Governments, under MMT, can use deficit spending to stabilize demand during recessions, a function the market might not perform on its own.

However, this approach does imply a belief that government decision-makers—bureaucrats and policymakers—have a certain level of superior insight or understanding about the economy’s broader needs that the market does not prioritize. They decide what sectors to stimulate, where to allocate resources, and how much spending is necessary to maintain full employment or control inflation.

Critics of MMT would argue, as you are suggesting, that this belief in bureaucratic superior knowledge is problematic. Bureaucrats may lack the information, incentives, or flexibility to make efficient decisions, compared to the decentralized knowledge inherent in market systems. The market, driven by competition, innovation, and consumer choice, is often seen as better suited to allocate resources effectively because it responds directly to real-time demand and supply conditions.

In summary, while MMT does implicitly assume that bureaucrats can make decisions that address societal needs in ways the market may not, it opens the debate about whether central planning, even in a limited sense, can truly allocate resources more effectively than decentralized, market-based decision-making.

I asked ChatGPT:

"Would the bureaucracy’s spending power be more restrained by governments having to repay its debt than by MMT’s argument that they can much just print themselves out of such obligation?"

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, under traditional economic frameworks, the need for governments to repay debt acts as a restraint on public spending, imposing discipline on how much the government can borrow and spend. Governments face limits because excessive borrowing can lead to higher interest payments, investor skepticism, and ultimately, concerns over debt sustainability. This serves as a natural check on government spending, forcing fiscal responsibility, especially if the government needs to maintain creditworthiness or avoid inflationary pressures.

In contrast, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues that sovereign governments with their own currency (like the U.S., U.K., or Japan) are not constrained by the need to repay debt in the conventional sense. According to MMT, such governments can always create more money to service their debt or finance new spending, as they are the issuers of their currency. This approach fundamentally reduces the traditional restraint of debt repayment.

Instead of worrying about balancing the budget or repaying debt, MMT suggests the main constraint on government spending is inflation, not the size of the deficit or debt. In this view, the government can run larger deficits as long as inflation remains under control, since inflation is seen as the key indicator of when too much money is circulating in the economy.

The key difference is how these two frameworks restrain spending:

· Traditional View: The necessity to repay debt with interest serves as a financial limit. Governments must be mindful of investor confidence, bond market reactions, and the cost of borrowing, which can become prohibitive if debt grows too large. This naturally restrains excessive deficit spending.

· MMT View: The government can print money to finance debt, meaning repayment isn’t an immediate concern. The primary restraint becomes inflation rather than debt levels. MMT proponents argue that as long as the economy has slack (such as unused labor or capacity), the government can spend without creating inflation, and inflation should only be controlled by reducing spending or raising taxes when the economy reaches full capacity.

I asked ChatGPT:

"If 'the primary restraint becomes inflation rather than debt levels' could one not argue that the restrain becomes active only when the damage (inflation) has already shown its face?"

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, that’s a valid criticism of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). One could argue that if the primary restraint on government spending is inflation, then by the time inflation has appeared, the "damage" may already be done. Inflation, once it has taken hold, can be difficult to control, especially if it has been driven by excessive money creation and government spending.

Here are a few key points behind this concern:

1. Lag in Response: Inflation often becomes visible only after significant monetary or fiscal policy actions have already been implemented. If a government spends too much in an effort to stimulate the economy and only pulls back once inflation emerges, the economy might already be overheating. It can take time to reverse inflationary trends, which may require abrupt and potentially painful measures like cutting government spending, raising taxes, or increasing interest rates. These responses can slow down economic growth, cause unemployment, or even trigger a recession.

2. Difficulty in Timing: Predicting when inflation will occur and how severe it will be can be difficult. Economies are complex, and the effects of new government spending may not be immediately clear. This makes it challenging to apply the brakes at the right time, leading to the risk of reacting too late when inflationary pressures have already built up.

3. Inflation's Disruptive Effects: Inflation, if unchecked, can erode purchasing power, distort prices, and create uncertainty in the economy. Once inflation becomes entrenched, people's expectations adjust, making it harder to control without strong measures. For example, businesses might raise prices in anticipation of further inflation, and workers may demand higher wages, creating a self-reinforcing cycle.

4. Public Trust and Confidence: If people lose trust in the government's ability to manage inflation, it could lead to a loss of confidence in the currency, resulting in more inflation or even currency crises. This can undermine the credibility of fiscal and monetary authorities and make inflation harder to manage.

In MMT’s defense, proponents argue that careful monitoring of inflationary indicators would allow policymakers to intervene before inflation becomes problematic. They also suggest that the government has other tools—such as taxation or interest rate adjustments—to pull excess money out of the economy and cool down inflationary pressures.

However, critics point out that this approach can be reactive rather than preventive, meaning that inflation may only be addressed after it has caused harm. In traditional frameworks, the risk of inflation is often seen as a reason to maintain stricter fiscal discipline upfront, using debt and deficit levels as proactive constraints to avoid the need for inflation-fighting measures later.

In short, the concern is that under MMT, by focusing on inflation as the primary restraint, the economy may not face limits until inflation has already started to cause damage, making it harder to correct.

I said: Thanks! I might come back on this. 

It said: You're welcome! Feel free to reach out anytime if you have more questions or want to dive deeper into MMT or any other topic. I'll be here!

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI - ChatGPT.

ChatGPT - OpenAI: Getting to know you!

PS. I can now hear politicians and bureaucrats screaming: Why should we have to sweat it out carefully prioritizing public spending? Don’t you know that MMT unchains us from that shackle, and allows all of us to live on Easy Street?