Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective Thu 2010-09-30 08:12 EDT

Would Keynes have endorsed Modern Monetary Theory/Neochartalism?

Lord Keynes

...what would Keynes have thought of neochartalism/modern monetary theory (MMT)? MMT developed from Abba Lerner's theory of functional finance, as well as G. F. Knapp's theory of chartalism, as propounded in his book The State Theory of Money...MMT tells us that the government is the monopoly issuer of its own currency. Hence the government is not revenue-constrained. Taxes and bond issues do not finance government spending. No entity with the power to create and destroy money at will requires anyone to ``fund'' its spending. Having said this, one must immediately say that, even though deficits are not ``financially'' constrained in the normal sense, they do face real constraints in the inflation rate, exchange rate, available resources, capacity utilization, labour available (= unemployment level), and external balance...My discussion is based on the fundamental article by David Colander on this subject...``Lerner approached Keynes and asked: `Mr. Keynes, why don't we forget all this business of fiscal policy, public debt and all those things, and have some printing presses.' Keynes, after looking around the room to see that no newspaper reporters could hear, replied: `It's the art of statesmanship to tell lies but they must be plausible lies.' ''...

21st century; endorsed Modern Monetary Theory/Neochartalism; Keynes; Post Keynesian Perspective; social democracy.

billy blog Mon 2010-09-20 09:39 EDT

The consolidated government -- treasury and central bank

...The notion of a consolidated government sector is a basic Modern Monetary Theory starting point and allows us to demonstrate the essential relationship between the government and non-government sectors whereby net financial assets enter and exit the economy without complicating the analysis unduly. This simplicity leads to many insights all of which remain valid as operational options when we add more detail to the model...the mainstream macroeconomics obsession with central bank independence is nothing more than an ideological attack on the capacity of government to produce full employment which also undermines our democratic rights...The vertical transactions which add to or drain the monetary base that I have outlined here are transactions between the government and the non-government sector... These transactions are thus unique -- they change net financial assets in the economy. All the transactions between private sector entities have no effect on the net financial assets in the economy at any point in time...

Billy Blog; central bank; consolidated government; Treasury.

billy blog Sat 2010-09-18 10:52 EDT

There is no solvency issue for a sovereign government

Bill Mitchell

...There is no debt crisis in sovereign nations. The only public debt problems that have emerged in the current crisis have been in non-sovereign countries and even then with appropriate ``fiscal support'' those crisis were managed. I am referring to the intervention by the ECB when they decided to purchase outstanding public debt in the secondary bond markets -- which amounte to a fiscal act within a flawed monetary system. But blurring the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign nations is the starting gate for this absurd journey in self-importance...From a Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective public Debt/GDP ratios have no relevance at all. What exactly do they tell us? The implication is that the bigger the economy the larger the tax base and so the government can support more debt. But a sovereign government does not need to tax to spend and its taxation powers serve different functions...It might be that the size of the economy limits nominal government spending because it provides some indication of the real resource base but that doesn't tell us anything about the capacity of the government to service any outstanding debt. A sovereign government can always service its nominal debts. It simply credits a bank account when the interest or maturity payments are due...

Billy Blog; solvency issue; sovereign Government.

billy blog Thu 2010-08-19 16:25 EDT

There is no credit risk for a sovereign government

Bill Mitchell

...UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong...likes to think of himself alongside Krugman as part of the ``Keynesian'' army against all the neo-liberals. Both are in fact New Keynesians. In that sense, they are not very dissimilar to Mankiw and his gang. Interestingly, they appear to be continually trying to one-up Mankiw as part of some internecine struggle within the American economics academy. But from a Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective, it is hard to tell their various narratives apart...a sovereign government is never revenue constrained because it is the monopoly issuer of the currency. That is a basic starting point in exploring the differences between spending and taxation decisions of a sovereign government and the spending and income-earning decisions/possibilities of the private sector entities (households and firms). The two domains -- government and non-government -- are very different in this respect and any attempt to conflate them as if both are subject to budget constraints is wrong and starts the slippery slide down into the total mispresentation of how the macroeconomics system operates...When a government runs a surplus it is not ``saving'' anything. The surpluses go nowhere! They are just flows that are accounted for and the aggregate demand which is drained by the surpluses is lost in that period forever...DeLong is actually teaching some bastardised course in Political Science here and only allowing the conservative side of the debate to be aired...HSBC economist Steven Major ...[writes in the Financial Times (FT)]...so contrary to what is being peddled each day in the financial press that a medal for bravery should be awarded...

Billy Blog; credit Risk; sovereign Government.

Wed 2010-07-21 10:34 EDT

Paul Debates Jamie and MMT | Corrente

Paul Krugman, well-known for his opposition to the austerity concerns of the deficit terrorists and his advocacy of additional Government stimulus to lower unemployment and end the recession, just ignited a paradigm conflict which promises to clarify for many, the issues dividing ``deficit doves'' like Paul, from economists who take a Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) approach to economics, which holds, among other things, that Government deficits and surpluses are not, in themselves important, and that Government spending has to be evaluated relative to its impact on public purposes...this conclusion and also Paul's first post both set up a ``straw man,'' because Jamie never claimed that deficits are never a problem, and even pointed to circumstances (conditions of full employment) where deficits could lead to inflation. Given the comments on Paul's first blog, including a very clear comment by Marshall Auerback, it should have been clear to him that he was distorting the position of both Jamie and MMT. But evidently, Paul didn't want to admit that...Jamie and the MMT economists are opposed to the very idea, the very framing of Government's role in the economy in a way that makes everything subject to deficits, national debts, and debt-to-GDP ratios. The position of MMT is that these numbers are just endogenous consequences of real economic activity including Government fiscal activity, and that it is this activity that ought to drive them and not the other way around...

Corrente; MMT; Paul Debates Jamie.

Wed 2010-07-21 10:31 EDT

Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Galbraith versus Krugman on Deficit Spending

In a recent post, Paul Krugman has criticised James K. Galbraith's view of deficit spending. The latter is obviously influenced by Modern Monetary Theory...Krugman has misunderstood Galbraith...Galbraith understands that there are real constraints on deficit spending, not phantom ``financial'' ones. Moreover, it is perfectly clear that Galbraith is talking about deficit spending during a period of high unemployment and low capacity utilization, and perhaps even in the face of a double dip recession. In his response to Galbraith, Krugman adopts the flawed quantity theory of money and attempts to prove mathematically what is perfectly obvious: that hyperinflation can result from continuous budget deficits that are monetized by the central bank. But, since Modern Monetary Theory already acknowledges that inflation is a real constraint on deficit spending, Krugman's analysis seems rather pointless.

21st century; deficit-spending; Galbraith versus Krugman; Post Keynesian Perspective; social democracy.

Credit Writedowns Mon 2010-07-19 12:08 EDT

Misunderstanding Modern Monetary Theory

Paul Krugman wrote a post today regarding MMT called "I Would Do Anything For Stimulus, But I Won't Do That (Wonkish)." The gist of Krugman's post was to refute Modern Monetary Theory's view on money and deficits...Krugman's post mischaracterizes both MMT and Galbraith's statement...Krugman is trapped in a gold standard view of money as he assumes the government must issue bonds to fund itself. He forgets that we live in a fiat world...the problem for deficits is not national solvency but inflation and currency depreciation. That makes me worried about deficits. If that makes me an inflation hawk and anti-deficit, then so be it. Nevertheless, MMT does say the same thing about deficits, namely that they can lead to inflation. But MMT also says that inflation is not a problem when you have an enormous output gap from 17% underemployment. MMT proponents recommend deficit spending to close that gap. But you can't spend at will under MMT; eventually the output gap closes and inflation becomes a big problem...

credit writedowns; Misunderstanding Modern Monetary Theory.

Credit Writedowns Fri 2010-07-16 14:22 EDT

Paul McCulley does Modern Monetary Theory

PIMCO's Paul McCulley: ``the Financial Times' Martin Wolf...cited in a recent column the financial balances approach of the late Wynne Godley...Godley's analytical framework should be the workhorse of discussions of global rebalancing, in the context of a deficiency of global aggregate demand. So, it was wonderful to see Martin riding Godley's horse...'' Edward Harrison: McCulley makes my point that government deficits are not the cause of private sector surpluses but rather the reverse -- private sector debt distress is causing deleveraging and driving up net savings -- which causes greater government deficits.

credit writedowns; Modern Monetary Theory; Paul McCulley.

billy blog Thu 2010-07-15 16:35 EDT

Employment gaps -- a failure of political leadership

Overnight a kind soul (thanks M) sent me the latest Goldman Sachs US Economist Analysis (Issue 10/27, July 9, 2010) written by their chief economist Jan Hatzius...It presents a very interesting analysis of the current situation in the US economy, using the sectoral balances framework, which is often deployed in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)...some of the top players in the financial markets have a good understanding of the essentials of MMT...he US is likely to have to endure on-going and massive employment gaps (below potential) for years because the US government is failing to exercise leadership. The paper recognises the need for an expansion of fiscal policy of at least 3 per cent of GDP but concludes that the ill-informed US public (about deficits) are allowing the deficit terrorists to bully the politicians into cutting the deficit. The costs of this folly will be enormous...

Billy Blog; employment gap; failure; political leadership.

Tue 2010-06-01 18:54 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirit of debate ... my reply Part 3

Bill Mitchell

The debate seems to be slowing down which means this might be my last response although we will see...I urge all those who are interested in finding out more about the employment guarantee approach to price stabilisation to read our major Report (released in December 2008) called Creating effective local labour markets: a new framework for regional employment policy...productive is not confined to contributing to the profit bottom-line of a capitalist enterprise. There are many things that deliver social returns that will never spin a private profit. Even mainstream economics says optimality should be defined in terms of social costs and benefits. It is just that they never get to that level and slip back always into the private returns mould...It also seems that conservatives in the US are starting to take to modern monetary theory. My colleague Warren Mosler has been giving modern monetary talks to the arch-conservatives in the US at the Tea Party meetings... would advocate that banks be regulated into going to back to being banks and outlawed from being merely commission recipients for securatised package deals etc. I would prevent banks from doing anything other than taking deposits and making loans. All the rest of the behaviour that the banks have been involved in would be outlawed...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; reply Part 3; Spirit.

Tue 2010-06-01 18:24 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirit of debate ... my reply Part 2

Bill Mitchell

Today, I offer Part 2 of my responses to the comments raised in the debate so far...Modern monetary theory does not use the term ``money'' in the same way as the mainstream because it creates instant confusion. As Scott said ``Money is always someone's liability, so better to be precise about whose liabilities we are talking about than saying money.'' That is why we emphasis fully understanding the asset-liability matches that occur in monetary systems. And that leads you to realise that transactions between government and non-government create or destroy net financial assets denominated in the currency of issue whereas transactions within the non-government sector cannot create net financial positions...So modern monetary theorists prefer to concentrate on what is going on with balance sheets after certain flows have occured rather than narrowly defining some financial assets as money and others not...There is no doubt that the non-government institutions can increase credit. Some slack analysts call this an increase in money. But the accurate statement is that, as a matter of accounting it increases the (in Scott's words) ``the quantity of financial assets and financial liabilities 1 for 1 in the non-govt sector. So, with private credit, there is BY DEFINITION no NET increase in private sector financial assets created.'' Once we understand that and note that typically the non-government sector seeks to net save in the currency of issue then modern monetary theory tells you that the public sector must run a deficit to underwrite this desired net saving or else see an output gap widen...Who is in control is an interesting question. Clearly, the government cannot directly control the money supply which renders much of the analysis in mainstream macroeconomics textbooks as being irrelevant. The Monetarists via Milton Friedman persuaded central banks to adopt monetary targetting in the 1980s and it failed a few years later -- miserably...Then you might like to consider it from the other angle -- a government which accepts responsibility for full employment can ``finance'' the saving desires of the non-government sector by increasing its deficit up to the level warranted by the spending gap (left by the full employment non-government savings)...Orthodox macroeconomic theory struggles with the idea of involuntary unemployment and typically tries to fudge the explanation by appealing to market rigidities (typically nominal wage inflexibility). However, in general, the orthodox framework cannot convincingly explain systemic constraints that comprehensively negate individual volition. The modern monetary framework clearly explicates how involuntary unemployment arises. The private sector, in aggregate, may desire to spend less of the monetary unit of account than it earns. In this case, if this gap in spending is not met by government, then unemployment will occur. Nominal (or real) wage cuts per se do not clear the labour market, unless they somehow eliminate the private sector desire to net save and increase spending...to maintain high levels of employment and given that the public generally desire to hold some reserves of fiat money, the government balance will normally have to be in deficit...modern monetary theory demonstrates that if you want the non-government sector to net save...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; reply Part 2; Spirit.

Tue 2010-06-01 17:29 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirt of debate ... my reply

Bill Mitchell

...Steve Keen and I agreed to foster a debate about where modern monetary theory sits with his work on debt-deflation. So yesterday his blog carried the following post, which included a 1000-odd word precis written by me describing what I see as the essential characteristics of modern monetary theory. The discussion is on-going on that site and I invite you to follow it if you are interested. Rather than comment on all the comments over on Steve's site, I decided to collate them here (in part) and help develop the understanding that way. That is what follows today... We distinguish the horizontal dimension (which entails all transactions between entities in the non-government sector) from the vertical dimension (which entails all transactions between the government and non-government sector)...A properly specified model will show you emphatically that the horizontal transactions between household, firms, banks and foreigners (which is the domain of circuit theory) have to net to zero even if asset portfolios are changing in composition. For every asset created there will be a corresponding liability created at the same time...you will make errors if there is not an explicit understanding that in an accounting (stock-flow) consistent sense all these transaction will net to zero. In adopting this understanding you might abstract from analysing the vertical transactions that introduced the high-powered money in the first place, but never deny its importance in setting the scene for the horizontal transactions to occur. I think the differences between Steve's models and modern monetary theory are two-fold. First, I do not think that Steve's model is stock-flow consistent across all sectors. By leaving out the government sector (even implicitly) essential insights are lost that would avoid conclusions that do not obey basic and accepted national accounting (and financial accounting) rules. This extends to how we define money. Second, I think Steve uses accounting in a different way to that which is broadly accepted. It might be that for mathematical nicety or otherwise this is the chosen strategy but you cannot then claim that your models are ground in the operational reality of the fiat monetary system we live in. I have no problem with abstract modelling. But modern monetary theory is firmly ground in the operational reality and is totally stock-flow consistent across all sectors. If we used the same definitions and rendered Steve's model stock-flow consistent in the same way as modern monetary theory then Steve's endogenous money circuits would come up with exactly the same results as the horizontal dimensions in modern monetary theory. His results might look a bit different in accounting terms but most of the message he wishes to portray about the dangers of Ponzi stages in the private debt accumulation process would still hold.

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; reply; spirt.

Tue 2010-06-01 16:23 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirit of debate ...

Bill Mitchell

Readers of my blog often ask me about how modern monetary theory sits with the views of the debt-deflationists (and specifically my academic colleague Steve Keen). Steve and I have collaborated in the last few days to foster some debate between us on a constructive level with the aim of demonstrating that the common enemy is mainstream macroeconomics and that progressive thinkers should target that school of thought rather than looking within...hopefully, this initiative will broaden the debate and bring more people up to speed on where the real enemy of full employment lies...The modern monetary system is characterised by a floating exchange rate (so monetary policy is freed from the need to defend foreign exchange reserves) and the monopoly provision of fiat currency. The monopolist is the national government. Most countries now operate monetary systems that have these characteristics...the monetary unit defined by the government has no intrinsic worth...The viability of the fiat currency is ensured by the fact that it is the only unit which is acceptable for payment of taxes and other financial demands of the government.The analogy that mainstream macroeconomics draws between private household budgets and the national government budget is thus false. Households, the users of the currency, must finance their spending prior to the fact. However, government, as the issuer of the currency, must spend first (credit private bank accounts) before it can subsequently tax (debit private accounts)... Taxation acts to withdraw spending power from the private sector but does not provide any extra financial capacity for public spending...As a matter of national accounting, the federal government deficit (surplus) equals the non-government surplus (deficit). In aggregate, there can be no net savings of financial assets of the non-government sector without cumulative government deficit spending...contrary to mainstream economic rhetoric, the systematic pursuit of government budget surpluses is necessarily manifested as systematic declines in private sector savings...Unemployment occurs when net government spending is too low. As a matter of accounting, for aggregate output to be sold, total spending must equal total income (whether actual income generated in production is fully spent or not each period). Involuntary unemployment is idle labour unable to find a buyer at the current money wage. In the absence of government spending, unemployment arises when the private sector, in aggregate, desires to spend less of the monetary unit of account than it earns. Nominal (or real) wage cuts per se do not clear the labour market, unless they somehow eliminate the private sector desire to net save and increase spending. Thus, unemployment occurs when net government spending is too low to accommodate the need to pay taxes and the desire to net save...Unlike the mainstream rhetoric, insolvency is never an issue with deficits. The only danger with fiscal policy is inflation which would arise if the government pushed nominal spending growth above the real capacity of the economy to absorb it...government debt functions as interest rate support via the maintenance of desired reserve levels in the commercial banking system and not as a source of funds to finance government spending...there is no intrinsic reason for...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; Spirit.

Sat 2010-05-22 21:31 EDT

It's Hard Being a Bear (Part Six)?Good Alternative Theory? | Steve Keen's Debtwatch

...Chartalism rejects neoclassical economics, as I do. However it takes a very different approach to analyzing the monetary system, putting the emphasis upon government money creation whereas I focus upon private credit creation. It is therefore in one sense a rival approach to the ``Circuitist'' School which I see myself as part of. But it could also be that both groups are right, as in the parable of the blind men and the elephant: we've got hold of the same animal, but since one of us has a leg and the other a trunk, we think we're holding on to vastly different creatures...a leading Chartalist, Professor Bill Mitchell from the University of Newcastle, [writes] a précis of the Chartalist argument...The fundamental principles of modern monetary economics, By Bill Mitchell...The following discussion outlines the macroeconomic principles underpinning modern monetary theory (sometimes referred to as Chartalism)... [MMT principles]

Bear; Good Alternative Theory; hard; part; Steve Keen's Debtwatch.

Sat 2010-05-22 20:28 EDT

New Economic Perspectives: What If the Government Just Prints Money?

Scott Fullwiler

As Congress gets set in the near future to consider raising the debt ceiling yet again, my fellow blogger L. Randall Wray creatively suggests not raising the debt ceiling but instead having the Treasury continue spending as it always does: by simply crediting bank accounts...Wray's proposal is based upon modern monetary theory (MMT) that is the focus this blog and those by Bill Mitchell, Warren Mosler, and Winterspeak. Of course, given the lack of understanding of basic reserve accounting at the heart of MMT and Wray's proposal on the part of the public, the financial press, and the vast majority of economists, one can already anticipate the outpouring of criticism suggesting that such a proposal amounts to ``printing money'' and thereby destroying the value of the currency...The approach here recognizes the importance of understanding the balance sheet implications of both of these options that are central to MMT. While most economists typically assume a supply and demand relationship, as in the hypothesized loanable funds market, and then build models accordingly, such an approach can miss important relationships in the real world...Both the Treasury's bond sales and the Fed's operations affect only the relative quantities of securities, reserve balances, and currency held by the non-government sector; the total sum of these is set by the outstanding government debt. With or without bond sales, it is the non-government sector's decision to spend or save that matters in regard to the potential inflationary impact of a given government deficit. Indeed, to be more precise, a deficit accompanied by bond sales is actually the MORE potentially inflationary option, as the net financial assets created by the deficit will be increased still further when additional debt service is paid.

Government Just Prints Money; New Economic Perspectives.

Sat 2010-05-22 19:45 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> Zimbabwe for hyperventilators 101

Zimbabwe is the new Weimar Republic. Not! Zimbabwe is the front-line evidence that shows that government deficits will generate hyper-inflation. Not! Zimbabwe is the demonstration of the folly of a fiat monetary system. Not! Zimbabwe is an African country with a dysfunctional government. Yes!...Now at the risk of repeating myself a million times, this is the macroeconomic sequence that defines responsible fiscal policy practice. This is basic macroeconomics and the debt-deficit-hyperinflation hyperventilating neo-liberal terrorists seem unable to grasp it: [Mitchell summarizes modern monetary theory (MMT)]...So a responsible government will attempt to maintain spending levels sufficient to fill any saving....

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; hyperventilators 101; Zimbabwe.

billy blog Wed 2010-05-19 12:57 EDT

Naked Keynesianism

New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman occasionally brushes up against an understanding of how the macroeconomy works. Some people actually have said to me that he does get it but chooses for political purposes not to disclose a full understanding of the basic principles of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Well in his most recent column -- We're Not Greece -- published May 13, 2010, I think you can conclude that when left to his own devices he doesn't have a clue about what is really happening in the macroeconomy. So today, we are exposing his mainstream (neo-classical) keynesian nakedness -- he is now naked and without clothes...

Billy Blog; Naked Keynesianism.