
"No corras con las tijeras en la mano // Don't run with the scissors on the hand" by pictfactory on flickr
The headline progressives are in full retreat. They have found out the hard way that their bleeding heart pleadings — ‘yes, the financial markets might destroy us, but how can we cut this or that worthy cause’ — don’t cut it. They have fallen into the out of paradigm world that takes it as gospel that the U.S. is at imminent risk of becoming the next Greece; where financial markets can cut off funding and ability to spend and force the giving up of national sovereignty and begging for an IMF bailout, or else, face the option of default or printing money, which launches one down that slippery slope to hyperinflation… bla bla bla…
And so to show they too are indeed fiscally responsible grownups who wouldn’t think of instigating such a financial crisis, the headline progressives more than agree that the federal deficit is indeed a very dangerous long term menace that demands appropriate attention. Accordingly, President Obama, on behalf of the Democrats, has proposed over $4 trillion of his version of deficit reduction over the next ten years, with “everything on the table” including Social Security and Medicare. The main difference seems to be that the Democrats include tax hikes, while the Republicans only support spending cuts.
The great irony is that with productivity at an all-time high, and with no actual shortage of the real resources needed to take care of our seniors at a level that makes us feel proud to be Americans, to care for the sick, to educate our children, and to provide for the public infrastructure and institutional structure that facilitates and fosters private sector output and employment, there has never been a better time for the progressive agenda.
The few lonely progressives, who do understand all this and have stayed the course with the progressive agenda, are those who recognize what has come to be known as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). It is these MMT progressives who realize that a currency like the U.S. dollar is a simple public monopoly, and that the following are facts of actual monetary operations:
1. Federal taxes serve to regulate aggregate demand, not to raise revenue per se.
2. Federal borrowing serves to regulate the term structure of interest rates, and not to fund expenditures.
In other words MMT teaches us there is no such thing as the U.S. Government running out of dollars, that the U.S. Government is not dependent on foreign borrowing to be able to spend, and that hyperinflation comes only from sustained over spending far beyond full employment and our capacity to produce. Nor can the U.S. government become the next Greece or Ireland. MMT teaches that financially, joining the euro zone put those nations into the positions of U.S. states. So while California or Illinois can become the next Greece or Ireland, and need a federal bailout to avoid default, just like Greece and Ireland needed a bailout from the European Central Bank, the widely proclaimed analogy of Greece and the U.S. Government is entirely false, and tragically counterproductive.
And as for the U.S. national debt and all the talk about borrowing from China, MMT recognizes that U.S. Treasury securities are, functionally, nothing more than savings accounts at the Fed, which the Fed in fact happens to call securities accounts. Yes, the trillions of dollars of U.S. national debt is nothing more than that many dollars in savings accounts at the Fed. So when China buys Treasury securities, which we call going into debt to China, all that happens is the dollars they got from selling things to us that went into their checking account at the Fed, get shifted to their savings account at the Fed. And when we pay back China, which happens every month as some of their Treasury securities come due, all the happens is the Fed shifts those dollars (plus interest) from China’s savings account back to China’s checking account, all on the Fed’s books. (note: there are no grandchildren involved in this process!)
Confronted with MMT, all mainstream financial arguments for defunding and ‘strengthening’ Social Security and Medicare utterly fail. All mainstream financial arguments for defunding education utterly fail. All mainstream financial arguments against maintaining desired public infrastructure utterly fail. And unemployment, for all practical purposes can be eliminated in short order.
For an example of an MMT supported progressive policy initiative, many MMT progressives today favor the immediate suspension of all FICA taxes, which are highly regressive, punishing taxes on people working for a living that no progressive should tolerate. Eliminating FICA fixes the economy the progressive way, from the bottom up versus the highly regressive top down trickle-down economics practiced by the current administration that would have made even President Reagan blush. Yes, the last two years have seen positive real growth, but with employment remaining near post depression lows, and wages under continuous downward pressure, executive compensation just hit new highs and stocks more than doubled, as this administration presided over the largest transfer of wealth from the least to the most wealthy in the history of the world. Many headline progressives, however, are violently opposed to cutting FICA taxes, fearing such cuts would be considered a defunding of Social Security. And without an understanding of MMT, they are not equipped to successfully defend the combination of FICA cuts AND true Social Security and Medicare strengthening (increased benefits) supported by MMT equipped progressives.
With no actual shortages of food, clothing, and housing for our seniors, no disagreement that they are not being over provisioned by Social Security payments, and a severe shortage of aggregate demand in the U.S. economy in general, MMT progressives categorically reject the notion of any kind of reduction in Social Security or Medicare benefits or eligibility, and support both increased benefits and FICA cuts.
The knowledge that the only constraints on our prosperity are the limits of our productive capacity and available resources, which include everyone who is willing and able to work, sets MMT progressives far apart from today’s headline and out of paradigm progressives (and conservatives) who are handicapped by the false notion that deficits per se are a problem, as they support deficit reduction even in the context of today’s massive shortfall of aggregate demand. MMT progressives know the US can afford to defend itself, ensure taxes are low enough relative to spending to allow the private sector to employ anyone willing and able to work who doesn’t already have a good job, allow government to provide, maintain, and fund the public infrastructure we deem appropriate, including the military, legal system, Social Security system, transportation, healthcare, and research and education, including the funding of private sector contractors for public purpose as deemed appropriate.
So if you consider yourself populist and progressive, and if any of this rings true and you want to get up to speed on MMT, please read The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy.
Moreover, just so you don’t have to take my word for it, here are what some of the headline progressive economic and political organizations are saying about the federal budget. And note that none are willing to challenge the Clinton spin on surpluses or challenge the notion that federal deficits per se are to be avoided if possible:
EPI: “budget plan that prioritizes recovery while also putting the country on a sustainable budget path”
CAP: “CAP has a plan to put the federal budget back in the black while investing in the middle class.”
CBCP: “We, like most others who analyze fiscal policy developments and trends, believe that the nation’s fiscal policy is on an unsustainable course.” and “Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Record Deficits”
CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus): “Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021”
Nease Reader, A Leaner, Meaner Defense Strategy Can Reduce the Deficit



165 Comments

Thank you, Warren.
Recommended cuz I’d like everybody at the Lake to read your writings. We need to be on the same page.
And thank you, selise, for turning me on to Warren’s writings a couple years ago.
when we should be arguing about tax cuts and/or spending hikes. surreal!
you are MOST welcome… and thank you!
I’d REALLY like to see this front paged at the mothership. If for no other reason to have others see how they are being duped by the ‘progressive intelligentsia’.
don’t go away :)
Yep and thanks everyone for bring Warren over but aren’t you afraid that this might get out to the masses? I have been trying to explain this to people for yrs and only a few get it. It’s like No Amerika is not your check book. No it’s not a state, city or county. No it’s not in business like a corp. Hell I only went to HS and figured this out but then again no one in the beltway cares about anything but where the next $$$$$ election funds are coming from and not about the citizens of this nation or the world for the matter.
Thanks again for the link, I think try and send to my congresscritter.
ghly rcc’d n bookmarked with the other links.
Nice work Mr. Mosler . . .
Thank you, Mr. Mosler. What you call “headline progressives” we call in the New Progressive Alliance call FalseProgs.
Thanks to the comments last week from selise, letsgetitdone, and fairleft on our draft platform, the final version of that document will excise the endnote, which mention’s of the CPC plan. Our Steering Committee will get the final version this weekend and vote on its ratification by August 1.
We would be honored if you’d consider joining our Steering Committee, and working with our policy team on a financial plan which embraces all the tenets the platform spells out. If you’re interested, please contact me personally at tony_at_newprogs_dot_org.
Thanks again, Mr. Mosler, for your dogged dedication to REAL Progressivism!
oops: that’s tonyn_at_newprogs_dot_org.
Thanks!
Anthony Noel, NPA Facilitator
Within this framework, what is the view roars adjusting current marginal income tax rates? Hw should we think of “tax reform” or calls for increased revenues?
Still waiting. *G*
And then there is this lie being put out by Geithner:
“The Treasury has repeatedly said default was unthinkable and that there was no alternative to raising the debt ceiling, ”
From here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/federal-reserve-plans-contingency-default_n_905068.html
Ditto
Ditto. selise has provided me a wealth of info too. Much more than I’ve received from anywhere else in quite some time.
I have been trying to understand this but I still have questions. For example, you say taxes are only needed to regulate demand. That assumes that we can simply snap our fingers and have this or that tax rate. It doesn’t work like that. Once there is a tax cut – - middle classs or wealthy – - you “pay hell” to get it reversed. FICA is a regressive tax and so you believe we should just eliminate it. I agree to some extent. I am not even sure why we need a SS fund, seems useless especially since Obama is trying to cut it with 2.4T or so in the fund today. BUT, if you once defund that, won’t you then have the problem of “see, we told you the fund would run out and we are paying far too much.” So, as they say, it all sounds too good to be true. And you know what they say about that.
apparently delayed. i was waiting too!
I agree and have that same reservation.
I used to think that the national debt could provide quick adjustments by borrowing money (demand) out of the economy and returning money to the economy via quantitative easing. MMTists have convinced that that view is in error: the bond market is so efficient that we may as welll view them as just another form of currency. I.e., when the Treasury borrows, it’s in effect increasing the money supply just as surely as if they had printed money to cover their deficit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY3tHQJegOM&feature=related
In the meantime, the mothership has put up the really important info about the idiot Allan West which does nothing to educate others.
who is allan west?
wait… strike that. i already know enough idiots. :)
Wigwam,
I believe, that when Warren talks about taxation, he means the overall tax revenues, and is not addressing the redistributive purpose of taxation. Already, Warren has backed the Payroll tax holiday, and if asked, would be for it to become a progressive tax, covering everybody. I personally would like to see a return to the top income tax brackets last seen in the Eisenhower administration, and income taxes to start kicking in somewhere above median wage. Again, high estate taxes, kicking in probably at the 80th percentile would also work.
Some people, when they read about MMT say to themselves -”If the government does not need to tax to spend, then why not do away with taxation completely.” Under the new money paradigm, taxation is needed to 1) control inflation, 2) Create a demand for the government money, and 3) prevent large accumulations of wealth.
The redistributive effect of taxation is much needed, and is very often villified by many who worship the “free market.” Free markets by their very nature will, left to themselves lead to obsecene wealth inequality.
This comes primarily from two very human tendencies – a) A human inclination to engage in zero sum games (otherwise known as gambling.) and the other b) A desire to get a free lunch, or “not having to get my forehead wet” also known as “let your money work for you” – in other words rent seeking behavior, once a certain amount of wealth has been accumulated.
This is exacerbated by a third tendency, which is a desire to leave behind some of our wealth to our progeny.
These three forces together lead to the impoverishment of large segments of society.
The New Scientist article “Why it is hard to share the wealth” in conjunction with “Now that’s power” makes for an interesting juxtaposition. The implication is that the richest 0.1% of the population’s income is described by Pareto’s Law — meaning that if you’re born into that kind of money, you’ll only get richer, no matter what you do. And the poorest 99.9% of the population’s income is explained by Boltzman’s Law — describing random movement of gases in an enclosed area, and meaning that even if you’ve struggled up to the leftend of the Pareto curve, you’re far more likely to get poorer than to make it to the 0.1% elite. So much for the American Dream.
The above is not to say that free markets mean wealth equality for the bottom 99.9%, but rather, that they are in the “dog eat dog” world governed by the Boltzmann-Gibbs laws.
So, how does MMT explain away the phenomenon of “stagflation,” where (as I understand it) inflation occurs in economies that are operating well below full capacity?
In my imagination, the government pays all of its bills with freshly printed money and burns all of the money it collects in revenue (taxes, fees, etc.) and/or borrows. Because money is fungible, that view is as valid as any other, but it sure gives a different perspective on things.
And, BTW, this is a key place where I differ with Paul Krugman, whom I usually like:
The notion of “insolvency” for a government with fiat currency is a form of insanity. On this matter, I agree with Jamie Galbraith’s (in)famous quote:
Galbraith was being a bit overly glib, in the sense that it appears to require the coin seigniorage trick to give the Treasury full access to the equivalent of a money press.
True, indeed definitional, information is not always the best answer to the problem.
The payroll tax protects the benefit from becoming welfare because once it is welfare politics says it would be cut and disappear.
Indeed much of Warren’s work is refreshing as perspective is important, and nothing he says is wrong – except the “productive capacity” line. I have seen nothing from MMT on any theory that defines “productive capacity” in anything we measure now (the Fed measurement includes crap infrastructure that will never be used again – which is why our utilization now in the mid to low 70′s is only 4% below the average – with the high point over the years being, around 82%, and service industry productive capacity is a fun topic), or which explains how we know we are going over whatever it is and into inflation, until we have out of control inflation, which requires tax increases to stop – something that politically we don’t do.
Sorry – but the assertion that progressives must follow his policy ideas is just another assertion. I agree with the economics, but see a lot of problems with those policy ideas.
It doesn’t! Of course “full capacity” is never really defined either!
:-)
Another MMT problem re policy – and a hard one to understand why they have that policy view given their correct understanding that Fed borrowing to send reserves to banks where the reserves sit and are not used for loans means no real effect on economic activity.
As an aside re coin seignorage – that power of the president to order a coin minted and sold to the Fed (or to put us on the gold standard all by himself), I thought the time when wooden sticks were used as money in England is a story worth retelling.
King Henry I, son of William the Conqueror, in 1100 A.D. used the standard accounting device – notches on sticks or “tallies” (from the Latin talea meaning “twig” “stake”), for tax receipts which, to prevent alteration or counterfeiting, cut in half lengthwise, leaving one half of the notches on each piece, one of which was given to the taxpayer, which could compared for accuracy by reuniting the pieces. Henry II taxed twice a year, Eastertime, and Michaelmas with tally sticks recording payment. Then he started to issue tally sticks ahead of tax day so as to get funds early, giving up a discount – they became “money”. After 1694 the government issued paper ‘tallies” as paper evidence of debt (i.e. government borrowing) in anticipation of the collection of future taxes – and we now had paper bank note money. But wooden stick tallies continued to be used until 1826.
Indeed a Tally Stick that represented £25,000 was used by one of the original stockholders in the Bank of England to purchase his original shares – buying power and wealth with a stick. The secret of course as MMT and Warren remind us, is that money is anything people think has value – like sticks that take care of a tax bill.
Right on. Human beings have never been more productive, more awash in resources. The only thing at stake is how we use those resources, and the debt ‘crisis’ is one more step in a long series of steps towards artificially restricting availability of resources and well being.
wigwam, hopefully one of the experts will correct me if necessary, but i found this explanation very helpful (not strictly mmt):
Stagflation in the 1970s: A Post Keynesian Analysis
here’s hoping!
fairleft’s counter slogan to obama’s “shared sacrifice” is shared prosperity
will do!
Hooray, it finally made it to the frontpage of the mothership !!
glad you didn’t miss it ubetcha, sorry about yesterday.
While I agree with progress tax rates, i find it more important to make the adjustments to the institutional structure that is causing the problem in the first place.
start with my proposals for the financial sector here and tell me what you think, thanks!
http://www.moslereconomics.com/?p=8968
I’m reading today that China is concerned and has spoken to Washington several times to make sure their investments will be safe.
When our government is defaulting and cutting out our social insurance programs that would make any investor nervous. It shows the government cannot fulfill its debts or pay the T-Notes off.
Thank you so much for writing this Warren, and thanks to selise helping to arrange it.
And thanks for the CPC link at the bottom. Well, they certainly are following Obama’s exhortations that cutting the deficit must be the first thing that “progressives” should care about. I read a letter from one of them recently. It could have been written by Eric Cantor.
I seriously think we need to dump the word. It has become meaningless, the symbol of a failed movement-that-wasn’t that was easily pulled into line behind a neoliberal agenda.
wow. how sad.
p.s. thank you jane.
I don’t see anything good and/or progressive coming out of the debt ceiling spectacle.
There’s a good chance a bill never even gets to the President, which means the heads south with unemployment heading north until they do something about it.
but don’t worry about treasury rates, they won’t go up much, if any, and are more likely to fall
Superb!!!
Great to “see” Warren Mosler here, at FDL.
Thank you, Warren.
And thank you, selise.
DW
Yes, and I am still pissed that he feels he can tell Progressives what they should be thinking!
For GOD’s sake! Does the man not understand he is supposed to serve us?
From Buzzflash editor:
“According to The Associated Press:
China, the biggest holder of U.S. Treasury debt, appealed to Washington on Wednesday to take steps to boost confidence in the dollar and protect its investors….
China held some $1.15 trillion in Treasury debt as of the end of April, according to U.S. government data. Chinese leaders have repeatedly appealed to Washington to avoid measures that might erode the value of the dollar and those holdings.
“We hope the U.S. government concretely takes responsible policy measures to increase the confidence of international financial markets and respects and safeguards investors’ interests,” the State Administration of Foreign Exchange said in a statement.”
Any investor would/should be concerned with the antics they are doing in DC. Not only have they managed to scare the elderly and those soon to be on Social Security, now they are in a fright fest with monetary supporters!
I still think it is extremely naive to think you can move tax rates up or down as you like to regulate demand or combat inflation. Maybe in some other world or time, but not here. Ask Grover Norquist.
SS is the same thing. Once deplete that fund and, as Papua notes, it becomes welfare, if it is around at all. A regressive tax it most certainly is, but if you want to help people give them tax credits or something else and leave my SS fund alone. Obama’s move to reduce SS tax will only work in the end to deplete the fund faster and make it another crisis. Come up with a tax credit not tied to SS instead.
One jewel in the above post is a new way to attack the Republicans. Instead of saying that we are cutting Medicare and Social Security, tell seniors that the Republicans think the $14,000/yr SS payment is too high.
First, everyone in Fed Monetary Operations will back up everything I say.
Second, have you read my ’7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy’ at http://www.moslereconomics.com/?p=8662/
One of the ‘innocent frauds’ is that social security is broken.
And yes, there is a faction that doesn’t want social security, but for the wrong reason. it’s not that they want our seniors eating out of garbage cans when we produce 8,000 calories per day per person, or homeless when we have millions of vacant houses, it’s that they think the real cost is a separate issue from the monetary expenditures. And that running a deficit is ‘bad’ and that we can only ‘afford’ what can be bought with a balanced budget. So looking at the current budget deficit, its obvious to them spending has to be cut, and social security and medicare are the largest expenditures and therefore, to them, obvious targets.
Unfortunately the President is one of them.
The only road to success is to promote how the monetary system actually works. It’s not hard, and it dismisses their arguments as inapplicable
A definition is unemployment below 4% in the US.
Actually what Mr Mosler said is true, and the logical extension of MMT is not having to pay income taxes or payroll taxes. We can just print what we need.
Here you go:
treasury securities are functionally nothing more than savings accounts/CD’s at the fed with a fancy name
fed reserve accounts are functionally nothing more than checking accounts at the fed with a fancy name.
so govt borrowing is nothing more than shifting dollars from checking to savings at the fed, and qe is nothing more than shifting dollars from savings to checking
neither one does much of anything apart from changing the term structure of ‘risk free’ interest rates.
and with more dollars saved than borrowed in the economy,rate hikes add interest income and rate cuts subtract interest income from the economy, and make things worse
there is no direct effect on the economy
not only republicans :(
“I seriously think we need to dump the word. It has become meaningless, the symbol of a failed movement-that-wasn’t that was easily pulled into line behind a neoliberal agenda.”; ABSOLUTELY, it’s not even a creative anachronism anymore.
On my more cynical days I think that Obama regards default as a feature, not a bug. It would allow him to declare an emergency and rule by decree. Of course that would be completely unconstitutional, but seriously, who is going to stop him?
But then I calm down that think that Obama will settle for gutting the New Deal and raising the debt ceiling.
sigh
as previously discussed, I’ve addressed many of the sources that causes the skewed incomes that then demand progressive taxation. And most of it comes courtesy of the financial sector. So by eliminating tsy secs, narrowing banking to its public purposes, making it illegal for govt insured pension funds to buy equities and other investments that feed the financial sector, the majority of today’s exaggerated income skew falls by the wayside.
The problem with having institutional structure that distributes income like it does today, and then trying to
take it away from the top end that never should have had it in the first place, is the difficulty and compliance costs in actually enforcing the tax code.
So better, easier, and more effective to cut it off at the roots?
that looks like the letter my rep has also posted (after 69 house dems signed it)….
i mentioned this one:
in my letter to my rep and when i spoke with a legislative aide yesterday (gave them a copy of warren’s book too).
Thanks to the Jane and the FDL community for giving Warren a platform and thanks for supporting last years fiscal sustainability conference. Modern Monetary Theory is remains an obscure economic idea, but word is spreading. In spite of everything, I am feeling encouraged.
I just have a simple question (with multiple examples): If soverign governments can just print their way out of financial trouble, why did the Weimar Republic collapse under economic stagnation and rampant inflation? Why did Argentina go through the paroxysm that it suffered in the 1970′s? Why did we have to bail out Mexico in the 1990′s? Why did Russia and East Germany crumble?
What I’m gathering from the monetary storm is very dark. As the time for security, universal health care, excellent and full education, and much more has become imminent for the working masses here, the dollar is being restructured and devalued again, just as it was in the early 1970s when coincidentally many of the African sub-Saharan European colonies achieved their independence and could leapfrog the Industrial Revolution into the jet age and information age — but weren’t able when the price of oil doubled, along with everything else a society needs to join the 20th century.
I dont know about all of them but the Weimar Republic was forced to pay debts in foreign currency, and they just went off printing
more money to buy the foreign currency. That was at least one problem. I’m not sure what else entered into it. I do think the MMT folks need to address all those issues as most everyone will think that just printing money is not good.
There will be blood.
Social security is welfare, and welfare to be proud of.
for me, the question is the level of support for our seniors that makes us feel proud to be Americans? We don’t want them eating out garbage cans, or, at the other extreme, flying to ball games on private jets.
And dollars taken from people working for a living doesn’t, operationally, ‘fund’ Social Security. What the tax does is cut into working peoples real standard of living, as Social Security support senior’s standard of living. All ‘this year’ The ‘saving dollars for the future’ thing has been recognized as a ‘useful fiction’ since inception, and not a description of the real world happenings.
And with our first in a long time Democratic self described progressive President putting Social Security ‘on the table’ seems that useful fiction isn’t so useful any more.
I agree on the productivity issue. I’ve written a lot about that as well, but not all that much in the book.
Also, i’ve never seen actual inflation from excess demand in my 40+ adult years. I have seen a foreign monopolist jacking up the price of crude oil and causing our cost of living go up and standard of living go down, but that’s another story, and certainly not a reason to accept less than continuous full employment
wigwam, I don’t think MMT “explains away” “stagflation.” It simply attributes it to “supply-push” inflation and the response of the monetarists. Here’s Bill Mitchell’s treatment of “supply-push” http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=13035
Doesn’t matter if ‘we’ dump it. ‘They’ figured out how to use it and they’ll own its use/abuse. (I never liked it, always suspicious of adjectives-turned-nouns. Me, I’m a self-moderating anarchist.)
The Brits demanded more Gold than Germany had – so Germany tried to get Brit pounds that had gold backing.
Before Clinton the definition was 6%
Indeed Greenspan was on TV every few months warning about how too many were employed.
I don’t want blood. Maybe the fear of blood. What I’m afraid we are going to get is just more misery and pain for everyone. We are going to know where it came from, but the majority of low information voters still won’t know what hit them.
It’s not ‘monetary inflation’ from excess demand, and ‘that kind’ of inflation is not reason to have less than full employment with demand management, and, of course the transition job for anyone willing and able to work to facilitate the transition away from unemployment.
if the peaches die the price goes up due to scarcity, that’s a relative value shift that makes us poorer (fewer peaches to go around). And if the govt then gives everyone a pay hike to buy the same amount of peaches at the higher price, the price just goes up some more, and that’s the process of monetary inflation.
same if a foreign monopolist jacks up the price of oil. we either use less by keeping take home pay constant, or we can give everyone a pay increase and hope the monopolist doesn’t just jack up the price more in response.
Stagflation is when the monopolist jacks up price, and we don’t give anyone a raise to chase it, and keep the deficit too small for full employment as well because we call the price hikes ‘inflation’ and react by tightening up.
right, it’s a political decision, based on generally unwarranted inflation fears from ‘excess’ employment.
in 2000 or so we happened to have unemployment below 4% and core inflation below 2% if i recall correctly, which cause the temporary abandonment of the theory
comment via email from L. Randall Wray:
“MMT, by itself, does not necessarily address all possible policy issues and certainly progressives can disagree over policy. Warren and I agree on extending the payroll tax holiday, and would actually like to see it eliminated. That is a policy issue that a progressive does not necessarily have to agree with. But MMT makes it so much easier to see why WE DO NOT NEED the payroll tax to FINANCE Social Security benefit payments. Indeed, it does not FINANCE the benefits; and it DOES NOT increase our ability to cover tomorrow’s benefit payments by building up a Trust Fund. Another example: I do personally support an estate tax rate that is so high that it is confiscatory–to help prevent the production of dynasties. Has nothing to do with “paying for” government spending, nor even with “fighting inflation”–since it is not a very effective tax in that regard. It has to do with economic power (or limitation, thereof). So I would never support estate taxes to “raise revenue”, or to “redistribute income” (if you want poor people to have income, give it to them! and jobs are the best way), but I would support them to destroy wealth.
Finally, Papau raises some point meant to criticize MMT–some confused statement about our position on productivity and capacity. The MMT position is clear: if there is unused capacity, created by the monetary system, we ought to use the monetary system to eliminate the unused excess capacity. That is a primary responsibility of government. His belief that because we operate at 72% of capacity, that must be true full capacity makes no sense at all. Yes firms want to build in some excess capacity; but if aggregate demand is chronically low, that by itself leads to slow growth of capacity–why would firms continue to expand if they cannot use it. In point of fact, USA growth is chronically depressed due to insufficient demand–largely government’s fault. I have an old paper at http://www.levy.org (co-authored with Marc Andre Pigeon) that makes the case.”
A nice, digestible introduction to MMT.
The obvious downside, of course, is that MMT may be wrong in important ways. It should also be noted that MMT has very few proponents among the elite of the Economics world (L. Randall Wray is probably the most reknowned and is currently ranked 886th by RePEc).
If you are looking for an economic position to justify your political views, this may be a good starting point. If, on the other hand, you would prefer to know our best understanding of how economics works, then MMT is just one theory among many – and at present, a lightly regarded one.
I just hate that word :”sustainablilty”. We have become a nation of nut cases over deficit reduction.
Yay? Obama says he doesn’t watch cable news or read The Hill, but he said he reads FDL.
comment via email from scott fullwiler:
“I find the queries by Wigwam and Papau regarding a definition of productive capacity misguided. There’s no school of thought that has defined it in terms of how to measure it in the real world. This isn’t a criticism of MMT, per se–mainstream economists call this the natural rate of unemployment, the NAIRU, or potential GDP, but has any one of them provided a specific definition of that, or at least one more specific than when we refer to “full capacity”? No. Not only that, but they’ve never been able to produce a reliable measure of NRU or NAIRU in real time, either, which is why they switched to “potential GDP.” “Productive capacity” is surely no more poorly defined than “Potential GDP.” I’d like to see someone try and argue otherwise.
In the real-world, it’s understood that productive capacity is a moving target (i.e., spending on bombs creates price bottlenecks faster probably than employing people in the inner city at a job guarantee wage, oil prices will affect when price bottlenecks happen, labor’s bargaining power, pricing power of suppliers, and so forth) and can only be estimated or projected in real time by looking at a number of indicators.
In fact, this is what all the economists projecting the economy are trying to figure out all the time–when does inflation start to hit? So, we have ECRI’s future inflation gauge, for instance. CBO tries to measure “potential GDP,” too, and I don’t see Papau and Wigwam criticizing CBO for not being specific enough about what that is or the strong ideological assumptions behind that measure. They’re not criticizing the Fed for being vague about how the Livingston Surveys can give them an idea about inflation expectations related to a decrease in the output gap, are they? In short, they’re asking us to define something nobody has, but which can be understood fairly well in real-time if one does not take an overly ideological view (i.e., looking at ECRI’s measure rather than, say, the price of gold).
What MMT would add to all of this policy wise is strong automatic stabilizers that increase and decrease deficits as necessary in most cases, like the job guarantee (and other ideas, as well) that wouldn’t require (a) any particular definition of productive capacity to be implemented, and (b) would not be reliant on the ideological view of policymakers regarding how close we are to capacity. Where the stabilizers aren’t strong enough, and we again can know with a decent degree of certainty when that happens, like right now, then you can use discretionary policy to do more (like a payroll tax holiday) and have sunset provisions on those while keeping the option to sustain the stimulus if necessary.”
“and at present, a lightly regarded one.”—which only goes to show how corrupted and intractable the current theories being used are.
Bill Mitchel suggests many reason for inflation – ignores the demand side in the 70′s that actually appear to be the inflation cause, does not discuss the stag part of stag-flation – and talks about the GOP canard in the 70′s that all we need fear is cost push inflation caused by unreasonable union(labor) demands – then notes that the demarcation line in all the talk between each form of inflation is not a line in the sand.
In sum – stag-flation is not explained.
If the policy would confiscate estates to prevent dynasties, it’s only fair (and just) to amend the Constitution and award titles of nobility to those newly and forever deprived families. Call it the Noblesse Oblige Amendment.
Warren..thanks for the rational debunk of the current deficit frenzy. And we need to be reminded the growth of the USA economy over the last three decades adds a perspective to the discussion. Maybe 300% gdp in 30 years?
Thanks, Warren. Very lucid.
that’s why it’s so critical to promote the ‘mmt’ understanding.
without it seems most all is lost, one way or another, as we’ve seen over the last few years.
the headline progressives with their useful fictions, etc. have failed us, as tends to happen when arguing ‘out of paradigm.’
after sept 2008, i went looking for explanations that weren’t obviously stupid.
if you have any good references to challenge mmt, i hope you will share them.
That’s one way to look at things I suppose.
Another is that a small army of highly intelligent, hard-working economists, working both in conjunction and competition, with varying backgrounds have spent their lives exploring myriad details of economic theory and thought… and most don’t see MMT as an unusually valuable addition to that body of work at present.
“They laughed at Einstein!” (they didn’t, really, but so the saying goes…) “Yes, but they laughed at Bozo the Clown, too!”
This is such a great post. I’ve been struggling to understand economics for the past three years, having been completely disinterested before the financial crisis. After reading this piece, I feel like I’ve grown wings and am looking at economics from a whole new perspective. Thanks for helping simplify a complex subject.
Are there any good books to read that would be helpful for a beginner? Dr. Dean Baker’s, Massacio’s, and your blog are already bookmarked.
the 70′s construction slump during stag-flation was caused by the lack of supply that somehow did not generate employment in the construction industry?
“Stagflation is when the monopolist jacks up price, and we don’t give anyone a raise to chase it” variation of price pull (as opposed to supply push) explains the unions having the highest standard of living in 73 compared to the years earlier and after, the construction not being done in the 70′s by thousands of independent builders looking at massive unemployment in construction?
Sorry, Warren. MMT is not “wrong” here – but it does not explain anything either.
“Yes, the trillions of dollars of U.S. national debt is nothing more than that many dollars in savings accounts at the Fed.”
Spoken like someone who probably believes that the SS Trust Fund lockbox is probably overflowing with greenbacks.
Those trillions of dollars of national debt have been SPENT. Let’s not debate on where and why they were spent – you are an economist so you presumably understand the concept of sunk cost.
Continuing to print money is hyperinflationary – just look at the price of commodities. If you’re not worried about inflation, back off the complaint about chained CPI – it’s not an issue then, is it?
i really don’t care what some other nameless people think. what do you think? have you read warren’s list of “mandatory readings?” have you found anything to take issue with?
Einstein couldn’t or wouldn’t grasp quantum physics, so he couldn’t embrace it. MMT is a modern theory that relies on extant knowledge. Knowledge doesn’t travel at light speed. It evolves, meaning it travels slowly and arrives after everything else.
James K. Galbraith would be another. I’m not sure whether he calls himself an MMTist but this now infamous quote shows where he is at:
Oops! Maybe I better stop calling him a “dick” in the titles of my articles. ;-)
the Day After Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade are cut?
what democrats stand for?
the party of FDR, LBJ, JFK, will have been destroyed by a black president who is a 2 cent con man.
go view CENK video, OBAMA does not even like democrats
Will seniors celebrate this grand bargain ie Fuck FDR deal
will the poor celebrate this grand bargain ie Fuck FDR deal
will the middle class celebrat this grand bargain ie Fuck FDR deal
Will Dem in the house and senate line up to take pictures with OBAMA
Obama is on the record saying he would rather cut Social programs than defense programs
how does OBAMA win? a black man robbing grand ma and grand pa of their social security is not going to go over well in the USA, because that what he is doing
see OBAMA is giving tax cuts to the rich, with grand bargain ie FUCK FDR Deal?
so OBAMA is willing to take the fall for killing the party of FDR? yes or no
blogs:
billy blog
New Economics Perspectives
The Center of the Universe
books:
Warren Mosler: The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. (forward by James K. Galbraith)
L. Randall Wray: Understanding Modern Money:The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability
“Continuing to print money is hyperinflationary…”
Maybe only inflationary, and only if it circulates in addition to circulating currency.
Your language is hyperbolic.
No!!! That’s probably why he reads here!
also beowulf had a clever idea (among many) to tie, for example, payroll tax rates to the level of unemployment.
great job, selise, the whole thread
of course it circulates. it’s being printed in ordfer to be spent, so there is no “IF” there.
“hyper-” is a question of degree, i suppose. but if you believe that continuing to increase the supply of our fiat currency is not dangerous, you are wrong. you don’t want to admit it, but that doesn’t change things.
My perhaps misguided queries involving “productive capacity” were inspired by this from Warren’s posting:
I agree that it would be better to set tax revenue targets based on easier to measure factors such as the rate of inflation and perhaps of employment, which tends to lead the rate of inflation.
here’s another galbraith quote (i transcribed it from: “A Profession in Disgrace”, presentation to the ASSA ASE session, “New Directions in Macro: Where is the Real World Pulling Us?” Denver, Colorado on January 9, 2011)
“It would be useful if the basic principles of modern monetary theory, if the work of Wynne Godley and his followers insisting on models that maintain stock flow accounting consistency and if Minsky’s instability principles were at the core of understanding of these matters. But it is obvious that they are not.”
Thanks Selise, for organizing this- honored to be featured and get to interact with all the new names! And lots of good, constructive comments and contributions.
We all know the critical role full employment plays in any progressive agenda, and my first concern is that long term deficit reduction is likely to mean increasing odds of elevated long term unemployment for the US economy.
Once it’s understood the risk of excess spending is inflation, and not solvency, becoming the next greece, leaving the debt to our children, and all that nonsense, the debate radically changes.
The informed attack on social security and medicare might become ‘if it keeps going at the current pace in 20 years inflation will go from 2% to 6%’ or something like that.
I’m sure our Reps would act a lot differently to that ‘threat’ than the current perceived threat of insolvency financial collapse of some sort.
Best,
Warren
I think Mr. Warren, while very probably a nice guy, simply isn’t important enough in the Economics world to demand significant mindshare. As to his “mandatory readings”, my list already runneth over across many subjects with more respected and authoritative sources.
If I had unlimited time and resources, I might get around to reading his list. Until that comes to pass, I simply can’t read everything that someone happens to throw out as a suggestion. So I’m forced to use academia as a filter for my time on this one – and right now, academia says, “don’t bother”. Should that change and he establishes himself through the peer review process he’ll rise up through the ranks until it is worth the risk of my time to read his work.
many many thanks warren!
That’s akin to saying that since people only work 8 hours a day, as long as there are more hours in the day, we can continue to increase GDP just by working harder. It ignores the fact that as you continue to run the engine harder, it heats up.
The same is true of the $1.5 trillion that the Chinese have loaned us. It has all been spent. What do you propose to say to them? “Too bad, so sad”?
For reasons I don’t understand, American conservatives believe that it is okay to say “Fuck you!” to the elderly and the infirm, but get very respectful when speaking of the sacred obligation to honor our debts to everyone else. And that is why I consider American conservatives to be assholes.
do you even like the USA?
where were u in the Bush years, when Bush started 2 wars and cut taxes for the rich
you do know, if OBAMA let the Bush tax cuts expire, the debt problem would have been solved
do you think OBAMA is a progressive?
if so, go view the Cenk video about how OBAMA says he does not like progressives
link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3EVoF-LUdU&feature=relmfu
this must see tv for those who think OBAMA is a progressive
move2baru
has the U-Haul trucks arrived at the WH yet? for LOL
and knowledge is often proven to be false conjecture at best. but hell, since there’s the word “modern” in the name, it must be right, huh?
will repeat here some blogs and books for further reading:
blogs:
Warren Mosler: The Center of the Universe
Bill Mitchell: billy blog
Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, Scott Fulwiller and friends: New Economics Perspectives
books:
Warren Mosler: The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. (forward by James K. Galbraith)
L. Randall Wray: Understanding Modern Money:The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability
sorry, not what i said.
0 taxes(federal or state) means 0 value for that dollar/hyperinflation
and you can see this historically where tax authority broke down and the currency lost all value (except some collector value)
We’re back to the price of gold again, aren’t we? I see it’s down to $1590US this afternoon.
nice language – do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
look, we honor our debts. continual printing of money reduces the value of that money, which is a slow default on those debts. That is what Galbraith refers to as repayment in nominal dollars.
Think of it in terms of buying power of the greenback. China loans us $1 trillion, which let’s assume would buy 500 billion loaves of bread. When we continually degrade the dollar, it leads to inflation. That $2 loaf of bread now costs $4. So when we pay back $1 Trillion in devalued dollars, the Chinese are now getting the equivalent of 250 billion loaves of bread.
in short, printing money leads to less valuable money, which means we are paying back our loans on the cheap.
why do you think we got off the gold standard?
also, with our current tax law, when the economy improves tax revenue increases, to a fault, increasing far faster than govt expenditures. This puts us in an over taxed position that ends the cycle, as happened in the late 1990, where we allowed a federal surplus that drained income and dollar savings from the economy until it collapsed.
In other words, our current tax structure makes full employment unsustainable, since as we near full employment the system collects excessive taxes until it shuts down.
with the fica suspension what’s called the full employment budget- the size of the deficit should unemployment fall to say 4%- goes from surplus to deficit, helping to make full employment sustainable
I still see a need to kep explaining the MMT in terms that relate, explain or dismiss to CW understanding.
Suppose we have significant unused capacity, including 10% unemployment, nonstructural.
Suppose that during this period, revenues are $2.5 trillion and spending is $3.5 trillion. Suppose Congrss has passed a law that says, US can’t “borrow” any more.
What is the MMT analysis?
What is the MMTprogressve prescription for what to do next?
Also, how do we know there wouldn’t be support for a tax hike if the economy got ‘too good’ and unemployment got ‘too low’ (whatever that means)? There is currently plenty of support for interest rate hikes when inflation seems to threaten, even with high unemployment. And, again in my 40 years of experience, I’ve never seen unemployment low enough for a tax hike, so we have no evidence there would be resistance?
The resistance to tax hikes comes in times like today, with high unemployment, when we shouldn’t be hiking taxes to pay down the deficit in the first place.
you mean the gold that’s up over 33% in the last year? yeah, we’re back to that.
707! fabulous, i love it!
unfortunately we’re allowing our own pension funds to hoard commodities with their so called ‘passive commodities strategies’ where, based on Goldman analysis and presentations that started maybe 7 or 8 years ago, it’s ‘prudent’ for a pension fund to ‘invest’ 4% of assets in these strategies. Predictably (see my papers at http://www.mosler.org) it’s been an unchecked disaster with maybe $1 trillion or more, and climbing, thrown at these fragile markets.
Ideally, I would like to see the SS tax and related fund go away. But, MMT not withstanding, that is not going to happen very quickly. Like it or not most people equate the tax and the fund to a pension they at least helped to pay for and therefore, assuredly is not welfare.
It is the same with taxes. The wealthy can certainly afford to pay more. It is they who want to cut all the spending and putting out the nonsense of unsustainability. It would be nice to have low rates now and be able to raise them easily in the future when circumstances warranted. Buy alas it does not work that way.Furthermore, there a scads of IRS regs that should be revised, like carried interest.
I don’t know how to resolve these issues and the idea of cutting SS now is offensive to me, bottom line. Jobs may be even more important. That is why a tax credit or actual jobs bill will help. Those are the headlines.
Granted, most of this MMT theory is beyond my scope. But I have to ask, how would they find the finanaces to fund a 10 year, 120 billion dollar a year war? And also, wouldn’t we have to get rid of all politicians? No matter the brillance of any financial construct, politicians have the ultimate say on how the money is spent, not the economists.
the social security trust fund is simply after the fact record keeping that helps the accountants account for all the taxes and benefits payments.
Mosler, in a comment, acknowledges that “the risk of excess spending is inflation”, which is the theft of wealth, but he fails to acknowledge other problems with unchecked government spending.
As Jack Sparrow writes:
I suppose then I was mostly referring to Papau.
At any rate, I don’t see anything in your quote there from Warren that is any less clear than the neoclassicals’ concepts of potential GDP or the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU).
Indeed, as I noted, capacity utilization vs. capacity to produce in terms of their relationship to igniting inflation would seem a lot simpler to measure than those, and many do it already (including Warren’s employees at Valance).
also not the difference between what ‘a’ dollar buys, like maybe an apple, and what ‘all the dollars buy’ each year, which is the ‘real’ gdp- all the goods and services produced.
So while 100 years ago a dollar bought more than a dollar does today, all the dollars today buy far, far more than all the dollars bought back then. And that’s our real standard of living. Quality arguments aside, which could for a lot, like if we foster criminal behavior, then build jails and hire guards, etc. etc. etc. that’s called gdp…
Awesome. Thanks, selise!
James K. Galbraith is a good example, though I don’t know if he calls himself an MMTist either. He’s a sharp guy with a solid list of accomplishments who has influence with some politicians… but he is not even the economist that his father was – who, in turn, is not considered among the luminaries of the field.
The point is, there are LOTS and LOTS of economists as good or better (or far, far better) than JKG that you’ve never heard of. A fun conversation at a dinner party, sure… but not really someone whose economic theories you would rely upon without a lot of other – higher profile people – on board.
You should shop at Trader Joe’s. Prices haven’t gone up in years. Oh, and TJ’s IS the gold standard.
I don’t see where Sparrow’s said anything we haven’t in so many words. Anyone who thinks we are “cavalier” about government’s responsibilities hasn’t read much of our work at all. That’s just a gigantic straw man.
That entire post was really quite poor in terms of its understanding of MMT. Numerous folks who understand MMT tried to tell him that, but he didn’t want to hear it.
After reading these posts and the MMT economic theory, I lean toward your way of looking at this proposed solution.
But MMT is not what is baked into the conventions of accounting within a firm or within a government.
What is baked in is an attempt to divert economic flows into a pool of wealth (or financial surpluses). The conventions move in that direction.
But when everybody succeeds in doing that, the economic flows stop. Inventories rise. Crops rot in the fields. New firms don’t get started. Movement stops.
But when you have the power over wages, imports and exports, government spending, and business investment and you want not to put cash into any of those because you are scared you will lose it–when all of that occurs the elite succeeds in shutting down the economy. But the elite is numerous enough that it is a slow strangulation instead of a sudden stoppage.
What drives the flow of goods and services through the supply chain is money (call it price information) moving in the other direction.
Governments control money supplies (and flows) for the same reason they have a monopoly on physical force. So that the war of all against all in markets or in competition for power does not get out of hand. Through prudent use of these monopoly powers, governments can create healthy markets. To little money, and markets destroy themselves through lack of demand. Too much and markets destroy themselves through hoarding-created shortages. Both of those are the collapse of the relationship between buyers and sellers.
Does MMT argue that the role of government in the system must always be contrarian to the tendencies of the private actors in the market?
What happens when you look not at a single national economy but at a distributed network of 193 national economies with regional economies in them (think of the regional Feds or even states as stand-ins for the regional economies in the US)? You are looking at multiple points of control for business investment, government spending, and import/export balances. How does a US federal government contain state financial collapse under MMT analysis? How does the EZ contain the financial problems of its frontier countries – Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal – under MMT analysis?
donbacon, Jack Sparrow,VictorX,
Well put, well spoken. Thats pretty much what I thought as well.
And your evidence that the track record of the elites in economics shows that they are more worthy of respect than Randy Wray, Jamie Galbraith, Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, Marshall Auerback, Scott Fullwiler, Pavlina Tcherneva, Mat Forstater, is what: The Recession of 2000-2001, the Crash of 2008, the botched recovery since then, their recommendations that what we need now is worry about deficits and debts, and controlling the debt-to-GDP ratio?
Give me a break! Economics is an intellectually bankrupt discipline! It badly needs new approaches like MMT. If you doubt that look at the proceedings here:
http://www.netrootsmass.net/fiscal-sustainability-teach-in-and-counter-conference/
MMT is interesting and valuable because it isn’t ideological, and it seems not to rely on anything like a ‘point of view’, so it can interpret activities, behaviors, and events in as many dimensions as necessary. Sparrow’s commentary is ideological, and he’s making a wild guess that the United States government is indistinguishable from Wal-Mart.
I think the point is that we have a concept, capacity to produce, that needs measures. That doesn’t mean the concept is nonsense. And sometimes we refer to it as a short hand. In fact, that’s a common situation in all the sciences. So we “conjecture” measures for such concepts, and then use them, and see whether if we use them we improve our situation. If we do we say those measures seem to work. If we don’t, we start looking for new measures and maybe new concepts also.
Victorx,
Then, I suggest that you get on with it, and do not waste your time on blogs. After all, there are only 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and not many years left in a lifetime. Do not waste your time here replying to worthless articles and thoughts. Blogs are not “peer reviewed,” and hence there will be nothing of value for you there. I beg you, utilize your time in more worthwhile activities, and get your critiques published in peer reviewed journals!
“printed in order to be spent” only applies if it is issued a currency.
Most transactions at the Fed use the government debt as an asset in reserve for loans to private banks, who in turn used to lend that out to other private firms in the economy. But in the past three years have been purchasing exotic paper investments and issues of federal government debt. In this process, more government debt allows but does not require the Federal Reserve to issue more loans to banks. In practice the Fed controls this decision through reserve requirements or rates charged banks for borrowing.
In the case paying directly with currency, debt never occurs because all vendors are paid in full upon issue.
Inflation occurs but only turns bad when it runs into a constraint on supplies such that all prices in the economy rise as a result of the imbalance in the supply and demand for money instead of the supply and demand for competing goods and services.
At what degree does inflation become hyperinflation? My suspicion is that it occurs when the increase in the money supply intends to insulate folks against reducing demand for items facing a rapid spike in demand or shortage in supply.
Prudence is required in both systems. And tailoring the response to the economic environment.
congress may never even get a bill to him to sign
if they do, he’ll sign it, my best guess
The value of the dollar is a matter of the supply and demand. Printing more dollars increases the supply, increasing taxes increases the demand. Overly low taxes debase the dollar just as surely as printing too much money.
My contempt for conservatives has to do with their selective willingness to repudiate the portion of the national debt owed to the elderly and the infirm, but not to repudiate debt owed to the powerful, e.g.:
All borrowed money gets spent. Why default on debt owed to the SS and Medicare Trust Funds?
So far as I can tell, everyone agrees that it is possible for a governmet to spend (i.e., print):
1) so much money that it causes hyperinflation
2) so little money that it causes unemployment.
I’m tired of hearing people say that MMTists don’t believe #1, but I’ve read a few MMT documents that can legitimately give the unniniatiate cause for concern.
There was an interesting exchange between Galbraith and Krugman along that line a few months ago, where eventually agreed that our current problem is #2 but somewhere down the line it could be #1.
Since “Federal taxes serve to regulate aggregate demand, not to raise revenue per se” I guess we won’t be hearing any more about re-instating the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.
And since “Federal borrowing serves to regulate the term structure of interest rates, and not to fund expenditures,” meaning that expenditures don’t need to be funded, we won’t be hearing about budgets any more. Let ‘er rip. If you want it, Uncle Sam, just buy it.
It’s no more “tax and spend” it’s simply “spend.” Step right up folks, everyone’s a winner in Casino USA where the slots are loose.
Clonal antibody,
Well, thanks for your advice but I’ll keep my own counsel on such things :). As to blogs not being peer reviewed, you’re absolutely right and they should not be considered authoritative or academic in nature. Personally, I see economics differently, but YMMV.
VictorX,
Having studied with four later to be Nobel Laureates in Economics, and at least one nominee, my thesis chairman being one of the Nobels, and knowing the politics of what gets published, and what doesn’t, I would not place any importance on RePEc’s rankings. Nothing at all.
I would strongly suggest that you read Jeff Schmidt’s “Disciplined Minds” to understand the politics of academia. I would also suggest reading the writings of Foucault and Feyerabend. I would also suggest that you read and take to heart The Strange History of Economics
A further suggestion, and it is just a suggestion – “Please do not be a snot!”
Has Congress appropriated the $1 Trillion in deficit spending? Assuming none of it has been spent, but the debt limit has been reached, assuming also that projected GDP is $14.6 T, that imports will be 4% of GDP and private sector saving 6% of GDP, then
The MMT analysis is that the deficit is too small to enable full employment, it should be more like $1.5 Trillion to offset “leakage” to savings and imports. Since it is is not both savings and imports will fall below projections, the shortfall in GDP due to appropriate $500B less spending than necessary could be as much as $1 Trillion, assuming that the $500B would have been spent on high multiplier items. Its likely that the GDP gap will keep unemployment at 8-10%
1) if Congress won’t raise the debt ceiling, won’t allow Treasury to “print money” then MMT would recommend doing whatever is necessary to get out from under the ceiling. Some MMT people favor a constitutional challenge. Everybody would prefer lifting the requirement that Treasury issue debt before it deficit spends. The practical alternative since it depends only on the Executive Branch is using proof platinum coin seignorage to spend appropriations without exceeding the debt limit. Four alternative proposals for using CS to either spend appropriations, or pay back debt, or both, are here: http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2011/07/20/beyond-the-debt-ceiling-the-30-trillion-plan-for-ending-borrowing-and-the-national-debt/#comment-265439
2) Do everything possible to get Congress to close the anticipated deficit spending gap of $500B. That means advocating high multiplier measures to increase the deficit. Warren’s proposals have been:
– A full payroll tax holiday until full employment is reached, or keyed to some level of unemployment that is fairly low. Perhaps the holiday might be ended at 5% U6 unemployment, or perhaps even at 3% U6 unemployment
– A one-time State Revenue sharing keyed to $500 per person per State to be applied by States to job maintenance, not to tax cuts for the rich at the State level. Some MMTers suggest 1,000 per person.
– A Federal Job Guarantee program providing full-time employment for anyone who wants it at a living wage, which would, in effect set the minimum wage for the country MMTers differ on the amount of this wage. Warren has proposed $8.00 per hour with full fringe benefits including vacation and holiday pay and Medicare coverage, for example. I’ve seen other MMTers advocate $10.00 per hour. My own preference is $12.00 per hour in the median cost of living region in the country, with adjustments up or down by SMSA depending on variations in the cost-of-living. The idea of the JG is to provide a buffer stock of employed, rather than a buffer stock of unemployed for business to hire from as it fully recovers.
The JG functions as an automatic stabilizer in the economy. In recessions and depressions, it provides a basic living to people and also adds greatly to deficit spending. In times of full employment its expenses fall to nearly zero automatically reducing deficit spending, and during a period in which the economy is growing to full employment, it does not compete with business because its wage is the minimum wage.
Eventually once full employment is reached, the Payroll tax holiday measure and the JG can both offer automatic stabilizers to the economy. Legislation should key payroll tax payment to full employment, so that taxes would be levied at full rates when there is full is employment, they then could be set to incremental and automatic proportional reductions as U6 unemployment rose form 3 to 7%, whereupon a full payroll tax holiday would apply once again.
The JG also acts as an automatic stabilizer. The program might initially cost $75 Billion per month at initiation, but less than 6 months later it might cost only $10 Billion per month or less depending on how quickly the private sector recovers when it sees sales come back. As the States and private sector rehire or hire people, as the case may be, tax revenues at the local, State and Federal levels will grow, serving as a break on deficit spending, and driving the annual cost of the program down to the $500 Billion in additional deficit spending that is needed.
It is likely that the MMT program won’t be passable because of opposition to the JG and State Revenue sharing, and perhaps even opposition to the payroll tax holiday. Assuming that happens, MMT would encourage any high fiscal multiplier expenses or tax cuts that would compensate for the demand leakage of 10% of GDP.
One more thing, the general progressive MMT orientation to budgeting is to evaluate Federal programs according to whether they contribute to “public purpose,” in the Galbraithian sense of this term, and support only those programs that do. So, MMTers would work to cut programs that deliver poor or negative value to people, and work to spend on programs that deliver value. The MMT orientation focused on public purpose makes the content of programs as important as their size. Also, MMTers might well be in favor of much higher taxes on wealthy people, not because money is needed for spending on worthwhile; but because taxation at current levels for wealthy people has proven to be a danger to democracy.
Finally, the current context, progressive MMTers advocate restoring lawful behavior to business by investigating, prosecuting, and convicting those who contributed to crashing the economic system through criminal behavior. We are also for extremely tough regulation on and regulators for private sector economic activity. We know that self-regulating markets, all to soon become managed and administered markets that are not free and that are controlled by an illegitimate private sector political system unelected by the people, and tending toward kleptocracy. So, we would immediately use executive authority to restore the rule of law in business affairs and to get justice for past wrongs.
The above is my interpretation. All MMters don’t feel the same way, but I think that the majority I’ve communicated with for a year and a half now would probably agree with most of this.
There’s plenty of MMT analysis on the Eurozone. Warren, Randy Wray, Marshall Auerback, Bill Mitchell, and Michael Hudson all write frequently about Eurozone stuff and in a manner that is very critical of the design of the Eurzone, the actions of the ECB and the prospects for success. Generally, MMT thinks that the individual countries would be better off with their own currencies and consider current arrangements to be very anti-democratic and favorable to the interests of global elites at the expense of working people in the member nations. To learn more, go to moslereconomics.com, billyblog, New Economic Perspectives, and New Deal 2.0 and google Eurozone to find posts by the above authors.
Joe, thanks for the thoughtful response. This is moving closer to the rosetta stone I feel is sometimes missing. We are in two different languages, and the translation is difficult.
It might be helpful to turn your comment into a separate post, possibly edited down somewhat, so more people can see it.
Couple of points to note:
I deliberately supposed a deficit for a fiscal year. More spending than revenues. Your analysis doesn’t concern itself with closing that deficit, because its the wrong goal. Instead, you ask, how large or small should the deficit be to support full employment (and you have to make other assumptions about net?? imports, etc, to answer that). That’s an important point to make clear all its own. One important clarifying bite at a time.
When you then get to remedies, I believe you’re saying, how do we close the “deficit,” but it’s important to make clear that this word “deficit” is not the conventional definition of the budget deficit, but rather how much more the government needs to be spending to support full employment (or whatever the goal is?). That too is an important point to clarify all on its own. A post explaining these two very important points, and not trying to do anything else, would be worthwhile.
Again, thanks for your patience and diligence. Just remember this is a new language for most, and you’re still to writing the rosetta stone. The tomes are fine for some, but not for most readers.
One other point: when I added the debt limit to the hypothetical, the purpose was to clarify different ways of thinking about the rememdies.
You don’t say, “well one solution is to raise the limit.” Instead, you offer two legal solutions:
1. Cite the 14th amendment, and claim that entitles the executive to do what needs to be done, if though Congress hasn’t acted, or
2. Mint some coins and deposit them in the Government’s accounts to that they’re not longer up against the limit.
So, either declare the limit unconstitutional (and do something?) or avoid the limit by creating $$ in the account.
But doesn’t this say, “we have a legal problem, and we have to figure out how to get around it.” One obvious solution is . . . raise the limit. So, does the MMT perspective ever say, “yeah, that makes this technical/legal problem go away,” but it’s not helpful to think in those terms for solving the real problems. More clarity on that point would be helpful.
letsgetitdone — see my reply to your response.
I don’t always agree with Warren, but I do like his style.
the problem I see is that you use tax increases to control inflation. Good luck with that. (you can’t get a tax increase when peoples asses (ss, medicare etc) are on the line now, how can you sell an increase to combat inflation?
I prefere zero interest loans to every citizen when they reach 21, paid back in 10 years with a ten year hiatus before the first payment.
A progressive tax rate structure will generally automatically take care of it.
The Clinton year surpluses happened because the booming economy caused the tax revenues to go up more than government spending went up, first the deficits reduced, and then the surplus happened.
However, there is some evidence to show that these surpluses may have been one of the causative factors of the 2000-2001 crash.
Don, you’ve already heard that the constraint is inflation, and people have also talked about why taxation is important, so it’s not simply “spend.” What it is is to spend on what we need and never to claim that we’re running out of money, and when we hit inflation, we tax it away and we do so by taking the excess net financial assets from those who can afford it, and not from those who can’t.
Oh, sorry. I didn’t mean to suggest that MMT is opposed to raising the debt limit, to continue with deficit spending. I just didn’t mention because I assumed you were alluding to the present situation and the possibility that there won’t be an agreement.
From an MMT point of view further borrowing is fine. Since, the US is sovereign in its own currency and cannot become insolvent unless Congress acts stupidly, if we exclude that possibility further debt is of little consequence because at any point in time, the capability of the Government to continue to spend is unrelated to either the debt previously incurred, or to the debt-to-GDP ratio, however high it may be.
You might ask, well what if the bond markets get fed up with extreme levels of debt and raise interest rates on us. Then MMT says that the Treasury can respond by ceasing to issue any long-term securities and restricting all borrowing to three month securities. Interest rates on three month securities are pretty much governed by interest being paid on overnight reserves. If the Fed obliges and keeps the FFR rate down close to zero the three-month securities rates will also be very near zero. The fact is, that the bond markets don’t control borrowing costs, the sovereign Governments do. The key example of this is Japan whose central bank keeps bond interest rates very close to zero with this kind of management. Their debt-to-GDP ratio is twice ours. The rating agencies have way downgraded their rating to the point where it’s been among the lowest in the world. Nevertheless Moody’s, S & P the IMF, the bond vigilantes can do nothing to drive up their interest rates.
The same would apply to us even if we didn’t bother to change the Congressional mandate to borrow back our own currency before we deficit spend. If we ever got rid of that requirement and stopped issuing debt the bond markets would be approaching us to demand that we issue some so that they would have a safe haven for their USD reserves.
Once, in the 80s if I recall, Australia was running a surplus for awhile and it wasn’t issuing any bonds. The traders raised such a stink that the Government began issuing debt to shut them up, even though they no need at all to borrow.
Joe
No, it’s “spend and tax” as opposed to “tax and spend.” The whole theory seems to be that you spend what you need to, but then tax back enough to prevent serious inflation. At least, that’s how I understand it.
this is all from memory to make the point, so please don’t hold me to exact prices, dates, and details, thanks
the story starts with the texas railroad commission setting the price of oil at maybe 1.5-$2/barrel by a quota system for the US producers during that time of excess capacity. This was largely responsible for what’s been called the golden age of low unemployment and relatively low inflation that ended in 1973.
from maybe 1972 to 1980 or so oil went from maybe $2 to $10 during the first few years, which contributed to that recession and the construction slump. The deficit went up in the slowdown providing the income and nominal savings for the subsequent recovery, where construction had several good years. But then the Saudi’s again hiked crude prices which then jumped to $20, and then to maybe $40 per barrel which contributed to the 1980 recession, along with the (small) Carter budget surplus in 1979 that drained income and savings as well.
And what broke the inflation wasn’t ‘monetary policy’ and high interest rates. It was the deregulation of natural gas in 1978 that led to massive production and most electric utilities switching away from oil to nat gas. The supply response was enormous. Opec cut production by 15 million barrels a day in an attempt to keep prices over 30, but it wasn’t enough, and prices broke down in a sea of crude to the 10-15 range where they stayed for almost 20 years, with a brief spike for gulf war 1.
Yes, the unions had bargaining power, but largely because business had pricing power in those days before imports became competitive. It was the path of least resistance for business to grant pay raises and the hike prices. But when business lost their market power, unions lost their bargaining power.
The oil price hikes from $2-$40 would be like crude going from $100-$2000 over the next 8 years or so. I assure you that if that was to happen the price pressures from that ‘supply shock’ would be severe, whether unemployment was low or high.
So yes, we need an energy policy, and I have several proposals on my website for progressive ways to do that, vs the highly regressive cap and trade, carbon taxes, and the like.
Thanks John, answers above.
we do talk out of both sides of our mouths.
we demand they make the yuan stronger/dollar weaker for trade purposes,
and then we’re scared to death they might sell their dollars and make the yuan go up and the dollar go down.
Jane Jacobs once argued that individual cities would be better off with their own currencies. Let the currency markets take the shocks instead of the economy.
The main value the Eurozone delivers is preventing another general European war.
Thanks for the citations.
People hate and fear inflation! When inflation really threatens 90% of the population will be happy to support increased taxes on the other 10% to head off or control inflation.
and a few of my papers have been published in economic journals, including Full Employment and Price Stability, 0 is the Natural Rate of Interest, and A General Framework for the Analysis of Currencies and Other Commodities, and maybe one or two more.
Spending that has the effect of lowering the cost of doing business (even personal business) like infrastructure, has the effect of lowering all prices. Inflation occurs when restrictions on the supply of one class of items gets propagated to all items in the economy through issuing more money that production can support.
Not only can taxation bleed away inflation, it can also prevent asset bubbles if the tax code does not shelter assets.
so if you give the president a haircut, and he pays you $400, that $400 is your income and it also adds $400 to your nominal wealth until you spend it, when it becomes someone else’s income and nominal wealth. And that haircut also added $400 to the national debt, and it resides in one of three forms in the private sector- actual cash, reserve balances at the fed, or tsy securities which are also accounts at the fed.
well stated!
also consider the ramifications of going cold turkey to a balanced budget if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.
that would mean an annualized drop in federal spending of maybe 10% of gdp which is pretty much an immediate subtraction from gdp (merits of that lost spending aside for now).
Then the second order effects kick in. Consumer spending falls by a large part of the govt spending cuts, so sales plummet, unemployment soars, and federal revenues fall. And while this means higher unemployment checks in normal times, in this case federal spending falls further in lock step with the falling revenues. so in the absence of the usual automatic fiscal stabilizers, the downward spiral is, for all practical purposes, unchecked.
Hmmmm. So, as wages inflate in nominal dollars, everyone suffers bracket creep, and thus an increase in real taxes, even if the buying power of their wages hasn’t increased. Slick.
Thanks Warren!
Welcome to the 1930s. We even have the reincarnation of Herbert Hoover as President.
Recent video on the Eurozone with Randy Wray, Nouriel Roubini, and Dan Alpert:
EZ – Make It or Break It: Can the EZ Survive?, EconoMonitor: EconoMonitor
http://insider.thomsonreuters.com/link.html?cn=uid365267&cid=242553&shareToken=MTExNzU4Nzo3MzMzNDlkMC1kOGU4LTRlY2YtOGIxZS02ZWNkYmI4N2MzOTU%3D&start=0&end=434
Also, another on the debt ceiling with the same three panelists:
US – Debt Ceiling Quid Pro Quo and Risks to Growth , EconoMonitor: EconoMonitor
http://insider.thomsonreuters.com/link.html?cn=uid365267&cid=242550&shareToken=MTExNzU4Nzo2MTdmNWI2Ni02NGU5LTQ1NDYtYjlhYS1lMGI4MWQwNTE0Zjc%3D&start=0&end=585
Well that one, I’ve since discovered, was invented by James Meade in the 1940s, whereupon John Maynard Keynes quickly endorsed it (h/t Greg Mankiw).
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/mature-keynesian-perspective-ii.html
However, the comments above– that cutting taxes is the easy part, but raising taxes down the road would be hard– do give me pause. I think payroll taxes should be abolished (just pay SS out of Tsy General Fund) but how do we raise taxes in a timely manner when the economy is moving towards full employment? Delegate it to the Fed. In fact, Congress already has. The Fed already rebates its net earnings to Tsy and it has been granted the power to levy and adjust transaction fees on everything that moves through the FRS (see Monetary Control Act of 1980).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00000248—a000-.html
So instead of ineffectually playing with monetary policy, the Fed could adjust US fiscal stance under current law (so Congress never has to vote to raise taxes again) by marking up or marking down transaction fees and rebating the revenue to Tsy. Once Congress repeals the payroll tax, the Fed could get the ball rolling by marking up its fees sufficiently to refund what Tsy pays out in net interest (per CBO projections $200 billion this year, $5 trillion over 10 yrs). Now that’s a grand bargain! :o)
Edgar Feige proposed something quite similar to this (though he unnecessarily put it on Congress to enact) in his 2005 presentation to the Bush tax reform panel– what he called the Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25299549/Feige-APT-Presentation-to-Tax-Reform-Panel-2005
See my comment above to Selise.
http://my.firedoglake.com/warrenmosler/2011/07/20/modern-monetary-theory-the-last-progressive-left-standing-2/#comment-164
Maybe I’m just lazy but why are people so gung ho on changing laws when the ones we have on the books will do just fine (namely, the Federal Reserve’s de facto taxing power)?
:o)
Incidentally, the last couple pages of Edgar Feige’s presso (linked above) discusses how the maldistribution of financial wealth makes his proposed bank transaction tax (err, “transaction fee” if the Fed levies it) very progressive.
lol, beowulf, re meade and keynes. (to think it could have been your idea keynes endorsed)!)
re fed. not sure i’m comfortable with giving them any control of fiscal policy (just look at what they’ve done with monetary and quasi fiscal policy – yikes!). although, could be another great idea…. if only the fed (organization, appointments, etc) were brought under some political control other than the tbtf banks — any suggestions on that one?
thanks for the links!
p.s. i left you a message dkos.
That is a really good idea. But then perhaps the banking sector shall raise the cry to abolish the Fed? ;)
Great idea! But, along with selise, I’m wary of going around Congress this way on taxes, even though Congress has made it possible by passing the 1980 act, and even though Congress may be happy to see this happen so they would not ever have to take a vote on taxes. It seems that, over time, using one trick or another, Congress is delegating its constitutional responsibilities to the Executive. If the constitutional status of the Federal Reserve were ever challenged and the Court ruled that the FR system had to be in the Executive Branch under Treasury, combine that kind of ruling with the act of 1980 and your idea, and presto the power to tax is in the Executive Branch!
Oh, btw, I have a question for you here: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2761684730989137546&postID=5364310929798234928