billy blog Wed 2010-09-29 10:15 EDT

Budget deficits do not cause higher interest rates

Bill Mitchell

...An often-cited paper outlining the ways in which budget deficits allegedly push up interest rates is -- Government Debt -- by Elmendorf and Mankiw (1998 -- subsequently published in a book in 1999). This paper was somewhat influential in perpetuating the mainstream myths about government debt and interest rates...Their depiction of...Ricardian equivalence...alleges that: ``the choice between debt and tax finance of government expenditure is irrelevant...[because]...a budget deficit today...[requires]...higher taxes in the future...'' ...I have dealt with this view extensively...Ignoring the fact that the description of a government raising taxes to pay back a deficit is nonsensical when applied to a fiat currency issuing government, the Ricardian Equivalence models rest [on] several key and extreme assumptions about behaviour and knowledge. Should any of these assumptions fail to hold (at any point in time), then the predictions of the models are meaningless. The other point is that the models have failed badly to predict or explain key policy changes in the past. That is no surprise given the assumptions they make about human behaviour. There are no Ricardian economies. It was always an intellectual ploy without any credibility to bolster the anti-government case that was being fought then (late 1970s, early 1980s) just as hard as it is being fought now...So where do the mainstream economists go wrong? At the heart of this conception is the [pre-Keynesian] theory of loanable funds...where perfectly flexible prices delivered self-adjusting, market-clearing aggregate markets at all times...Mankiw claims that this ``market works much like other markets in the economy''...[assuming] that savings are finite and the government spending is financially constrained which means it has to seek ``funding'' in order to progress their fiscal plans. The result competition for the ``finite'' saving pool drives interest rates up and damages private spending. This is what is taught under the heading ``financial crowding out''...Virtually none of the assumptions that underpin the key mainstream models relating to the conduct of government and the monetary system hold in the real world...When confronted with increasing empirical failures, the mainstream economists introduce these ad hoc amendments to the specifications to make them more realistic...The Australian Treasury Paper [used advanced econometric analysis to find that] domestic budget deficits do not drive up interest rates. The long-run effect...is virtually zero. The short-run effect is zero!...toss out your Mankiw textbooks...

Billy Blog; budgets deficit; caused higher Interest rate.

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.

Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective Thu 2010-07-22 16:08 EDT

Money is not a Neutral Veil

Lord Keynes

Neoclassical economics has the erroneous belief that money is neutral...Neoclassical analysis sees economic life in terms of a moneyless, ideal barter system. In this system, money exists but has been introduced merely to make trade easier...[however] John Maynard Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) argued that modern capitalist economies are pre-dominantly monetary systems. The starting point for any sensible economic theory must recognise that monetary factors are crucial to modern economic activity...

21st century; money; Neutral Veil; Post Keynesian Perspective; social democracy.

billy blog Thu 2010-07-15 16:28 EDT

Trichet interview -- the cult master speaks!

The centre-left Parisian daily newspaper Libération recently published (July 8, 2010) an -- Interview with Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB. The questions...probed some of the key issues facing the EMU... ...the likely response in the EMU will be to further constrain fiscal policy. The glaring design flaw in the monetary system is the lack of a supranational fiscal authority that can spend like a sovereign government and address asymmetric demand shocks. Trichet's solution is to worsen this design flaw by penalising nations that encounter deficits outside of the fiscal rules. The reality is that the automatic stabilisers have driven the budgets in many countries beyond the SGP rules given how severe the collapse in economic activity has been following the sharp decline in aggregate demand. Further constraining the fiscal capacity to respond to these negative spending shocks will entrench higher levels of unemployment and poverty...

Billy Blog; cult master speaks; Trichet Interview.

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.

Credit Writedowns Sat 2010-05-22 20:38 EDT

Out of control US deficit spending [MMT introduction]

Regular readers know that, while I have a little of what Marshall Auerback calls deficit terrorism in my DNA, I fully support fiscal stimulus as a means to arrest a deep downturn...the US economy will not be able to sustain recovery for long without stimulus. The likely result of withdrawing stimulus is a recession that is deeper than the last one aka a major depression...a lot of talking heads are trying to bamboozle people with tales of woe about hyperinflation and sovereign bankruptcy in the US to support specific claims about what deficit spending can and can't do. Deficit hawks, in particular, are on the warpath...I am throwing in the towel on policy makers because it's clear that Obama has been captured by the deficit hawks and we are headed for a painful recession within the next two years...The policy debates aren't working because the actual mechanics of a fiat monetary system are being obscured by ideological political debates. So, what I want to do is lay the foundations of modern money with you so we can strip away the politics and ideology from the economics...

control; credit writedowns; deficit-spending; MMT introduction.

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.

Wed 2010-05-19 11:56 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> When you've got friends like this ... Part 3

...how limiting the so-called progressive policy input has become. One could characterise it as submissive and defeatist. But the main thing I find problematic is that its compliance is based on faulty understandings of the way the monetary system operates and the opportunities that a sovereign government has to advance well-being. Progressives today seem to be falling for the myth that the financial markets are now the de facto governments of our nations and what they want they should get. It becomes a self-reinforcing perspective and will only deepen the malaise facing the world...When the neo-liberals cry about the burdens of the public deficits that the future generations will have to bear they are talking nonsense. The actual burden we are leaving for our children and their children is the dead-weight losses of real income and the opportunities that that income would have provided them...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; friends; Part 3.

Wed 2010-05-19 11:53 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> When you've got friends like this ... Part 2

Part 2 in a series I am running about the propensity of self-proclaimed progressive commentators and writers to advance arguments about the monetary system (and government balances) which could easily have been written by any neo-liberal commentator. The former always use guarded rhetoric to establish their ``progressive'' credentials but they rehearse the same conservative message -- the US has dangerously high deficits and unsustainable debt levels and an exit plan is urgently required to take the fiscal position of the government bank into balance. In doing so, they not only damage the progressive cause but also perpetuate myths and lies about how the monetary system operates and the options available to a currency-issuing national government...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; friends; Part 2.

PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM Tue 2010-05-18 15:15 EDT

A DEFLATIONARY RED FLAG IN THE $U.S. DOLLAR

TPC

...the performance of the dollar is the surest evidence of the kind of environment we're currently in. The surging dollar is a clear sign that inflation is not the concern of global investors. This is almost a sure sign that deflation is once again gripping the global economy and should be setting off red flags for equity investors around the world. The recent action in the dollar is eerily reminiscent of the peak worries in the credit crisis when deflation appeared to be taking a death grip on the global economy and demand for dollars was extremely high...As for the gold rally, I think it's clear gold is rallying in anticipation of its potential to become a future reserve currency. The potential demise of the Euro has become a rally cry for inflationistas who don't understand that the Euro is in fact another single currency system (like the gold standard) which is destined to fail. In the near-term, the rise in gold is likely justified as fear mongering and misguided governments increase demand for the yellow metal. Ultimately, I believe investors will realize that there is little to no inflation in the global economy and that the non-convertible floating exchange systems (such as the USD and JPY) are fundamentally different from the flawed currency system in place in Europe. Debt deflation continues to plague the global economy. Thus far, policymakers have been unable to fend off this wretched beast and I attribute this largely to the widespread misconceptions regarding our monetary systems. This extends to the very highest levels of government...Positioning yourself for hyperinflation and a U.S. dollar collapse has been a recipe for disaster and will continue to be a recipe for disaster as debt deflation remains the single greatest risk to the global economy.

DEFLATIONARY RED FLAG; PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM; U.S. dollar.

Tue 2010-05-18 14:16 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> The enemies from within

...Unemployment is the major source of poverty whether it be in a advanced or developing country. It is alienating, soul destroying, extends its costs well beyond the individual and the income losses alone dwarf the costs arising from so-called microeconomic inefficiencies. The daily loss of GDP involved in not having all available workers doing something productive is mammoth. It is a no-brainer that it is the large economic problem that should be solved in any country...If the private sector cannot produce enough then there is only one sector left ladies and gentleman who can do the trick!...Given the private sector doesn't want to spend at present -- and you cannot blame them for that given the appalling state of their balance sheets and the very unsteady housing market -- there is a danger that demand will drop further unless the government adds to its stimulus packages...the US is an economy that desperately needs more aggregate demand. The only constraint on employment is the lack of spending and there is no financial constraint that exists in a fiat monetary system that prevents the government from eliminating that demand deficiency...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; enemies.

Debtor's prison Sun 2010-01-03 10:37 EST

Would a Single World Currency be GOOD for the world?

MAAA

...One Single World Currency (SWC) is a topic that we have discussed many times from the very early days of this blog. For months, our discussions have focused on the causes behind the eventual collapse of the current USD-backed financial system, the apparent INEVITABILITY of this collapse and the very high LIKELIHOOD that the proposed solution to this will be a global monetary system backed by a single currency unit -- perhaps a modified version of an IMF SDR as Jesse suggests, or something new altogether. While most of our energy has been spent demonstrating the high likelihood (in our opinion, inevitability) of a SWC, we have been cowards when it comes to taking a stance on a SWC either way. Our apparent neutrality thus far has been largely motivated by a desire to remain unbiased while we explored some of the Numbers/definitions first. Having set these foundations and thought about the matter for some time, the gloves finally come off and we declare ourselves to be VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to a SWC, both technically and in principle and spirit...we argue that the significantly increased trade granularity of the past few decades diminishes the need for a SWC, and in fact, creates ideal situations for the establishment of more localized currencies, which would be infinitely more stable than a SWC...increased trade granularity (which is a fact) increases the pheasibility and stability of local, floating currencies, to the point that they might be a preferable alternative to a SWC.

Debtor s Prison; good; Single World Currency; world.

naked capitalism Thu 2009-10-15 17:12 EDT

Hyperinflation, national bankruptcy, dollar crash and other exaggerations

Edward Harrison

Marc Faber, Martin Wolf... George Soros' comments on dollar weakness: ``The dollar is a very weak currency except all the others.'' Right now, there is no alternative to the dollar. Some people are fleeing U.S. assets if they can. But the alternatives are limited and this limits how far the dollar will fall. And this is unfortunate because the monetary system now in place is in need of change. Without it, we are likely to see nationalistic policy responses to economic weakness, which will induce conflict.

dollar crash; exaggerated; Hyperinflation; naked capitalism; nationalized bankruptcy.

Tue 2009-09-29 11:14 EDT

Take This Monetary System, Please - Up and Down Wall Street Daily - Barrons.com

RANDALL W. FORSYTH

The current exchange-rate regime can't go on, but what's the alternative?...As long as China's currency remains joined at the hip to the dollar, the impact of the dollar's weakness ironically is felt more outside the U.S. than within its borders. And to keep that exchange rate stable requires China to continue to accumulate U.S. assets, notwithstanding that nation's vocal complaints about American deficits that it is compelled to fund. [reserve currency]

Barrons; com; monetary System; please; take; Wall Street Daily.