MMT discussion is giving default a bad reputation

I watch a few blogs on the MMT topic, mostly where sandbox theory is censored.  MMT discussions always ends up discussing government spending, it is a mechanism for more government spending, they say.

That gives default a bad name. Occasional, partial defaults by government are the other half of the right to coin. A theoretical requirement of flow accounting, we have to carry a risk account called 'right to coin' jitter because we know the right to coin must be exercised, why it is called generational. This adjustment is MMT.  Technology will do nothing but make this as accurate to the point of miner  minor nuisance, but it takes some rebuilding years, four or five. (1981-1972=9; 1/2 * 9 is about 5).

MMT is a non-market rebalancing of government accounts, not necessarily causing changes in spending. The discussion implies MMT might not be the right name..  Nixon Shock doesn't work as a name because we are not juicing with an impulse response. Monetary regime change simply implies a technology update.  Our economic historians have never given name nor theory to our periodic monetary regime changes.

The general mechanism is the generational overlap, thanks to Simon Wren who keeps talking it up.  But the GO is not just monetary regime.  Nixon did the central bank reform, Reagan did the entitlement updates.

The mathematical term is spectral matching in self sampling system. In particular, I am talking about a very specific action, the necessity of keeping our balance sheets stable around the 'right to coin' turning point, the need for a better axis of symmetry around that part of the Constistution. But that is true every time we do this, that is why the technology update, we always improve that axis.

We have to bet time, unfortunately, Congress cannot assign powers for unlimited time.  But, it is well hedged with renewal.   This sets the 15 year bond a benchmark for a while, but the government agencies, managing their own S?L, will makw the treasury curve much more accurate, from now on. The adaption time designed as 1/3 of the contract interval, everything is half a Nixon Shock.  Nothing in the election cycles is co-prime with 3 or 5, and we get a spread in uncertainty, a Congress critter always preferring, just, to continue the contract rather than renege.  Policy is about spectral packing a restricted (sparse = low liquidity)  government channel.

OK, I give the economic historians one more shot, give me a theory and name for the generational regime change at the CB? Tell me how it relates to generation imbalances?  Tell me the cost? Do some useful work. I still like MMT, the best theory of right to coin.