Can you cite that? That's very odd, and contradictory to the MMT works I've read.
1. When central banks raise interest rates, this means governments spend more on their interest payments. This translates into increased income for bondholders. Higher incomes lead to more consumer demand, pushing up prices. Similarly, banks benefit from higher interest payments from the Federal Reserve. In other words, the interest from the higher interest rates goes to someone in the economy, and their demand increases rather than decreasing.
2. Interest rates are a cost for businesses. When central banks raise interest rates, businesses pass this new cost on to consumers in the form of higher prices, which is inflation by definition.
3. Higher interest rates make it harder to start a business and harder to hold inventory. This reduces supply, leading to higher prices aka inflation.
4. Finally, MMT economists point to the fact that there is no empirical research at all showing that higher interest rates decrease inflation. In fact, the correlation runs in the opposite direction.
The above points are taken from Additionally, the following points are taken made here https://www.reddit.com/r/mmt_economics/comments/wchq55/raisi...
A few coastal politicians saw MMT supports deficits, ignored the intellectual bankruptcy within, and turned it into a polarising topic when it’s just an interesting but impractical way of reframing common topics.
Like any field, there are different sides to it. Krugman and Cowell are both mainstream economists, but they disagree on a lot.
Keynes said that. In theory, fiscal policy alone can keep an economy balanced. In practice, you need an independent central bank.
MMT's novel assertion is that government debt is a monetary, not fiscal, exertion. (It also asserts raising rates is stimulative, et cetera.) It's broadly criticized and empirically unsubstantiated.