Regrettably, the comments made by your distinguished panellists simply betray their lack of genuine understanding of MMT. They reflect a stereotyped orthodox shorthand that MMT is all about fiscal spending that ignores the inevitable inflationary consequences.
First, there is a presumption the COVID-related fiscal packages were an exercise in MMT, whereas the only resemblance between the two is that the former involved the government using its fiscal policy powers. Anyone reasonably familiar with MMT would appreciate that it advocates using fiscal policy in a carefully calculated way, as opposed to using it as a firehose to inject 25% of GDP, precisely because MMT is obsessed with inflation.
Second, Mr Arnott asserts that "MMT policies simply make the rich richer". Again, I presume he's referring to the COVID-related fiscal packages. His assertion is contrary to the evidence, which shows working class families' savings rates and balance sheets improved significantly due to the fiscal stimulus. Yes, eventually that money will find its way to the business sector as people spend on goods and services, much like the Kalecki-Levy equation illustrates, but again, that is not a fault of MMT, which simply provides the framework to describe how that process plays out.
Third, there is no mention at all of the role supply side constraints played in creating the current inflationary pressures.
There is a host of other points that someone with a reasonable understanding of MMT could raise from this article. Frankly, if you are going to convene a panel to discuss MMT, surely it behoves you to include someone who is an expert on the subject. What transpired instead was a good illustration that when it comes to economics, conventional wisdom contains a whole lot more convention than wisdom.