I believe she essentially agrees with Modern Monetarist Theory, which to me is essentially socialism. And I think it's been tried repeatedly and failed every time. Actually she may not agree with MMT so much as it's a convenient way for her to say all of the policies she favors (medicare for all, minimum family income, 70% taxes on whom she considers too wealthy, are all achievable and will benefit the econ as a whole
"The reason the government doesn’t need to sell treasury securities, or levy taxes, to spend money is that the central bank, under the control of the treasury, can pay for everything by conjuring up electronic money. In MMT’s ideal world there would still be taxes, but their main purpose, aside from lessening inequality, would be as “offsets” to keep inflation under control. Taxes would drain just enough money from consumers and businesses so total spending in the economy won’t be excessive.
It’s tempting to view MMT’s conception of fiscal policy as essentially similar to that of the mainstream—“Hey, they believe in taxes, too!”—but that’s not quite right. MMTers hold that inflation isn’t primarily the result of excessively strong growth. They blame much of it on businesses’ excessive pricing power. So before trying to choke off growth to kill inflation, they would try to break up monopolies and stop banks from making too many loans. “The more actively we regulate big business for public purpose, the tighter the full employment we can achieve,” three MMTers wrote in a
letter to the
Financial Times’ Alphaville column that was published on March 1."