Is it over rated? I wouldn't really talk about MMT in terms of ratings, but rather decide whether it is a good explanation for how the economy works.
I'm fairly knowledgeable with respect to MMT and the first thing I'd like to say is that I think the name "Modern Monetary Theory" is an awful name for what MMT actually is.
It is "modern" in the sense that it describes the system of money that we've had in place since 1974 (also known as chartalism).
It is "monetary" only in the sense that it talks about money.
However the word theory is entirely inappropriate. It is not a "theory" in that it's a "best guess" or a "hunch", nor is it a theory in the more scientific sense (as in a theory of gravity), as in a well-reseached group of ideas created to explain a group of facts and confirmed through experimentation.
Anyone that knows much about economics knows that it's not a science, strictly speaking. It is more closely related to the field of accounting.
So for what it's worth, I agree with your assessment with respect to the name MMT. In my own conversations, I rarely talk about the school of thought I belong to and stick to addressing the facts as best I understand them.
If MMT is anything, its just a detailed description of how our modern money system works. The hard part of understanding and accepting MMT as a description is that in some ways is a bit counter intuitive because when the US system of money changed in 1974 (the US government no longer pledged to back the currency with gold), it was impossible to completely reinvent the system. There were very subtle changes made, but those subtle changes had profound impact on the way our money system works today. Unfortunately, those changes were not made part of any school or university curriculum. The old system has continued to be taught and it's lead to profound confusion.
Now, having said all of that, the ideas of MMT are completely divorced from any political party. Both parties approach the problem of the economy wrongly and each has aspects which are correct (confused yet?), but each does it in a different way.
One of the mistakes I see people make when discussing economics is that they conflate facts about the economy with political policy.
For example, spending=income. That's an accounting fact, when spending happens, someone else earns and income. What the rate of minimum wage is, or if there should be a minimum wage at all, is a political economic policy. It's best to stick with the descriptive facts and come to some sort of understanding, then discuss policies supported based on that understanding. It's just important to remember that MMT does not support policy, but people that understand and support MMT do.
In Christian terms, Jesus is the son of God. This is a Christian fact.
But....
Churches should be a sign of our reverence for God:
Churches should be humble before God:
These are two examples of Christian policies.
Point here being, that what a church should look like is more a matter of Christian policy between denominations rather than a fact....
If you know what I mean.
Now the bible might have something to say about this (I really don't know - but remember that's not really the point here) if it did, than in a hypothetical conversation with another Christian, you'd want to discuss the facts of Christianity before confusing the facts with ideas that are more driven by policiy.
I hope that makes sense.
