No it isn’t because the economic theory at the core, Modern Monetary Theory, is very much NOT accepted as valid in academic economic circles because so much of it relies on unfalsifiable concepts.
It’s a bad metaphor because the core of it is completely incorrect. If MMT was valid why did the bankruptcy of the USSR play out the way it did?
It sounds like you’re saying that when an entity pays the government what they now owe in tariffs, that money simply ceases to exist and is never counted or accounted for again.
This is an inaccurate metaphor because the referee doesn’t normally earn points but governments absolutely spend money.
The money is collected by the government and funds budgets.
The referee assigns points to teams, but doesn’t need to collect those points from another team or earn them to assign them out.
It’s a decent metaphor.
No it isn’t because the economic theory at the core, Modern Monetary Theory, is very much NOT accepted as valid in academic economic circles because so much of it relies on unfalsifiable concepts.
It’s a bad metaphor because the core of it is completely incorrect. If MMT was valid why did the bankruptcy of the USSR play out the way it did?
It sounds like you’re saying that when an entity pays the government what they now owe in tariffs, that money simply ceases to exist and is never counted or accounted for again.
Or used for other purposes.