Once again, you claimed existence of a free lunch. Why not tune this machine to generate a vast amount of wealth?
Actually, I don't claim the existence of a free lunch. I realize that a lot of what MMT states looks like a claim of a free lunch on a first glance. However, when you actually read what those economists write, you'll realize that they simply have a better understanding of what the constraints are that prevent a free lunch.
In a nutshell, MMT says that there are no financial constraints, but there are real constraints. Here, "real" is used in the economic sense of real goods and services etc.
Government spending adds to aggregate demand, and when that grows too quickly for real productive capacity to adjust, then inflation results. On the other hand, when aggregate demand is too low and the productive capacity is under-utilized, firms will lay off workers and unemployment will result.
Fiscal responsibility therefore means to achieve a budget deficit that is neither too high to push inflation nor too low to result in unemployment. Note how there is no mention at all of whether this means the budget deficit is zero.
Furthermore (and this is simply an observation) since the private sector tends to save in net financial assets in the long run, the private sector creates drag on the aggregate demand. Therefore, budget deficits are normal and in fact desirable.
This last part is what may sound like a "free lunch", but it's really not. It's simply the observation that the private sector tends to not use all its spending power, and therefore, there is cake left over for the government. (The US is also in the special situation where China just keeps sending a lot of cake for no good reason other than they are unable to adjust their economy to do differently, so even more cake is left in the US.) Moreover, the government should eat that cake, because otherwise it will rot and stink up the entire house. (The last sentence is analogy for: if the government does not fill the gap in aggregate demand, this will cause unemployment; unemployment leads to loss of labour skill, which reduces the potential for future growth in the economy; similarly, other productive capital such as factories may be closed and removed forever.)
As to your links, I find them delusional as mentioned below. For example, the first link claims fiscal prudence at the government level is a "innocent fraud", an inherently contradictory phrase (hence, automatically wrong). I don't take serious people who make arguments that are wrong by definition.
Dude. If you could have been bothered to at least read the Prologue of that book, you would have read that: "Professor Galbraith coined the term to describe a variety of incorrect assumptions embraced by mainstream economists, the media, and most of all, politicians. The presumption of innocence, yet another example of Galbraith’s elegant and biting wit, implies those perpetuating the fraud are not only wrong, but also not clever enough to understand what they are actually doing. And any claim of prior understanding becomes an admission of deliberate fraud - an unthinkable self-incrimination."
It is a clever and unusual play with words that you failed to recognize for what it is.
You obviously need to look at the very examples you cite (also look at your Japan example). Blizzard doesn't need a functioning economy, nor do they need to respect the property of their players. But if they want to keep getting paid by their player base, they won't monkey around with the game economy.
If you had actually read anything about game-based virtual economies, you would know that game inflation is actually a big problem. And game developers spend a lot of time balancing money sources with sinks. For example, Blizzard introduced money sinks such as high-end mounts.
And I would bet you any amount that despite those money sinks, Blizzard has a significant budget deficit in WoW gold. Their gold debt should by now have reached quite spectacular heights, actually.
In fact, those money sinks are exactly what taxation is. Taxes are a money sink to prevent inflation.
The great irony of this discussion is that the argument in favor of gaming the system is that somehow wealth will be destroyed if we don't. No reason is given why governments are different from any other entity, such as people or businesses.
I'm not sure what you're really saying here. Nobody is saying that government spending is different from any other kind of spending after it has left the government. What people are saying is that there are situations (such as today) when somebody really needs to start spending to get the economy going again. The federal government is in the unique position of always being able to spend - unlike private entities and state governments, both of which can be insolvent, so it's up to the federal government to get things moving again when the private sector has painted itself into a corner.
Inflation and other unintended consequences are completely ignored, ... For example, consider this statement from Mosler's book ("7 Deadly Innocent Frauds"): ...
Then why have deficits or debt at all?
The deficit is by definition simply the difference between spending and tax revenue. The debt is usually defined as the sum of all outstanding treasuries - and yes, there are MMT economists who believe the practice of issuing treasuries should be abolished. Read their work on the resulting implications for monetary policy.
Also, if you had bothered to look a little further than just stop as soon as you think your prejudices are confirmed, you would have realized that inflation is not ignored at all. For example, see the section "Why the Federal Government taxes" starting at page 25.