Is this a "not real MMT" argument?

Regardless of whether the strictest rules of how you define MMT are met by the world's central bankers - it is the operating system of global finance. It is the theoretical lever that allows for endless spending on war, and endless policy that hurts the poor and middle class to the benefit of the crony/political class.

If your perfectly fine theoretical model has a problem when it clashes with the reality of monetary policy, then my critique is quite unbothered. That's a feature of every theoretical model that gets dashed on the rocks of the real world. It's in great company with every failed authoritarian's pipe dream.

If you're looking for confidence that your time will go un-wasted, I can make no promises.

But if taxes drive the value of currency (your claim!) then is there an explanation for the value of non-currencies? Where does the value of a non-fiat currency come from? Taxes still, or some other shibboleth? Why, if taxes drive the value, did pre-Federal Reserve/pre income tax dollars have 900X more value than today's much more highly taxed dollar?

Can MMT explain simultaneously that taxes reduce inflation, and drive the value of currency and also explain why the dollar loses value constantly even as productivity skyrockets and goods *should* be getting cheaper?