> It's a pernicious myth that there is some meaningful democratic oversight over monetary policy

Latinate words are not a useful cover when you're lying. All Western central banks are effectively a branch of government and are directly responsible to Congress/euparl/$local_variant, and are run by a bunch of politicians (the chair of the Fed is Powell and the president of the ECB is Lagarde, ffs).

The notion that they aren't beholden to the popular will is just ridicolous.

The second paragraph on Wikipedia:

Central banks in most developed nations are institutionally independent from political interference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

The paper linked in the Wikipedia citation for that line has the following in its abstract:

"The governance of central banks has two dimensions: corporate governance and public governance. Public governance is an institutional framework whereby the general public governs a central bank by and through the legislative and executive bodies in a country (...)".

"Independence of the central bank" means independence from direct intrusion by the executive branch, in the same sense the judiciary is independent from political interference.

So, generally, are courts, police and civil servants.

That doesn’t mean that those are not government institutions.

You used 'privately owned' to indicate it being shady.

Which propaganda videos would you prefer I watch?

The Federal Reserve (by far the most important one) is privately owned, as are Belgium, Greece, Japan, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey and the Bank of Italy.

The ECB is owned by central banks of member states, some of which are privately owned.

Private ownership is any case one issue, the other is the fact the CBs are structured in such a way to be resistant to political pressure and (meaningful) oversight.

> Which propaganda videos would you prefer I watch?

This is a good start:

https://youtu.be/sT1KoXayDNU

I'm familiar with Mosler and MMT.

MMT requires the government to raise taxes once inflation starts rising due to previous money printing.

What are governments doing now? They are actually thinking of handing out more money to people to offset the effects of inflation (thereby making the inflation worse).

In other words, MMT requires governments to always do the right thing, which they don't.

That's ignoring the theoretical underpinnings of MMT which are by no means unassailable.

> MMT requires the government to raise taxes once inflation starts rising due to previous money printing.

That’s a common misconception. Have you seen any MMT economist advocate a tax increase recently?

Here is an excellent podcast with one of the most eminent MMT scholars Randall Wray discussing his recent publication on how to deal with inflation in the US currently:

https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-173-inf...

Here is the publication:

https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb_157.pdf

MMT is widely regarded as not in agreement with the few things we’re pretty sure we know about economics, and furthermore its proponents generally refuse to publish actual models of the system they propose. Here’s a good examination of an MMT model that finds it somewhat lacking:

https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/examining-an-mmt-model-in-...

The opening line of this blog is:

> MMT, for those who aren’t familiar with it, is a small, cohesive group of people who go around telling the government to borrow more and spend more.

Which is fundamentally incorrect and betrays a misunderstanding of MMT so his opinion is irrelevant

Do you have a PhD in Economics? The author does, so I’m going to take his understanding of it over yours for now. He is fundamentally right that MMT proponents are reluctant to publish models, while proponents of other economic theories aren't. If you won't publish a model because you're afraid it won't stand up to scrutiny, you don't get to be taken seriously.