Modern Monetary Theory could be awesome, but it probably won't be because most of the people pushing for it are using it only to further distance themselves from accountability. Its core ideas could enable some of the world's more barbaric and outdated institutions to abandon violent coercion as a business model, evolve, and find a legitimate place in civilized society.
Under MMT, an institution in control of issuance of a currency has no need to tax or balance a budget in order to fund its spending. It simply issues currency like a startup company issues shares of stock to raise capital or pay its first employees. As long as forced taxation is off the table, the spending institution would be dependent on consensual acceptance of its issued currency by its employees. A collapse in popular confidence in the institution would devalue its currency and undermine its power. In this way, the core ideas of MMT suggest a way to transition current government services so that they're actually rooted in the consent of the people they're intended to serve.
Unfortunately most politicians have no interest in giving the idea of "consent of the governed" enough substance to risk limiting their power. This is evident yet again in the MMT discussion, as they reach for it only as an excuse for spending without accountability and insist on maintaining traditional taxation to offset inflation. Based on this analysis, the tendency to inflation should be seen as a revocation of the people's consent to grant government authority. Taxation as a coercive means of preventing inflation is a rejection of consent of the governed as a premise of government legitimacy.
Here's an overview of MMT and its relevance to current politics: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained
And here's a 1946 article to point out that these ideas are not actually new: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/taxes-for-revenue-are-obs_b_542134
