I think you have to revisit your cause and effect arguments in this thread.
Trennert (and I) are not claiming that MMT will be the cause of the US losing its economic supremacy. We're saying that people shouldn't treat MMT as a free lunch, because it will come back to bite IF the US starts to lose its supremacy.
Let's go back to the original question that prompted the voluminous responses.
The question was basic, why didn't QE cause inflation when the move is fundamentally inflationary? The answer was simple - because the timing of the move was in the aftermath of a major recession and the markets knew that the strength of the US economy could easily withstand the infusion of liquidity. It had nothing to do with Fed's accounting treatment of how QE was deployed into the markets.
Then the discussion turned to whether QE is sustainable over a long term, and that's where the warnings should sit. MMT is not pain free and works only when a country's currency and debt are used as a reference benchmark. That's why as a theory is doesn't work, because the cause and effect are reversed.
It's economic baloney talk that frames private economic activity as driven by government actions, as opposed to government's finances driven by private markets' behavior. Until you recognize the correct order of economic activity that funds government coffers with real currency (whether in fiat cash or tangible assets) then this discussion will go nowhere.
It's the perverse logic of economists' misunderstanding of the private economy's contribution that leads a politician to stand in front of an entrepreneur who built his business with his bare hands and tell him that he's not the one who built that business.