naked capitalism Fri 2010-08-06 19:34 EDT

Auerback: The Real Reason Banks Aren't Lending

Marshall Auerback

...there is a widespread belief that government fiscal stimulus has run up against its ``limits'' on the grounds of ``fiscal sustainability'' and the need to retain ``the confidence of the markets''. Consequently, goes this line of reasoning, as private credit conditions improve the private sector must pick up the baton of growth where the public sector leaves off. If this proves insufficient, there is room for an expansion of monetary policy via ``quantitative easing``...The premise is that the central bank floods the banking system with excess reserves, which will then theoretically encourage the banks to lend more aggressively in order to chase a higher rate of return. Not only is the theory plain wrong, but the Fed's fixation on credit growth is curiously perverse, given the high prevailing levels of private debt...credit growth follows creditworthiness, which can only be achieved through sustaining job growth and incomes. That means embracing stimulatory fiscal policy, not ``credit-enhancing'' measures per se, such as quantitative easing, which will not work. QE is based on the erroneous belief that the banks need reserves before they can lend and that this process provides those reserves. But as Professor Scott Fullwiler has pointed out on numerous occasions, that is a major misrepresentation of the way the banking system actually operates...We would like to see the Obama Administration at least begin to make the case that fiscal stimulus, whether via tax cuts or direct public investment, is still required to generate more demand and employment...deficit cutting per se, devoid of any economic context, is not a legitimate goal of public policy for a sovereign nation. Deficits are (mostly) endogenously determined by the performance of the economy. They add to private sector income and to net financial wealth. They will come down as a matter of course when the economy begins to recover and as the automatic stabilizers work in reverse...

Auerback; Lends; naked capitalism; real reason Bank.

Wed 2010-07-21 10:26 EDT

Professor Jamie Galbraith's testimony to Deficit Commission | Angry Bear

1. Clouds Over the Work of the Commission. ... 2. Current Deficits and Rising Debt were Caused by the Financial Crisis. ... 3. Future Deficit Projections are Generally Based on Forecasts which Begin by Assuming Full Recovery, but this Assumption is Highly Unrealistic. ... 4. Having Cured the Deficits with an Unrealistic Forecast, CBO Recreates them with Another, Very Different, but Equally Unrealistic Forecast. ... 5. The Only Way to Reduce Public Deficits is to Restore Private Credit. ... 6. Social Security and Medicare "Solvency" is not part of the Commission's Mandate. ... 7. As a Transfer Program, Social Security is Also Irrelevant to Deficit Economics. ... 8. Markets are not calling for Deficit Reduction; Now or Later. ... 9. In Reality, the US Government Spends First & Borrows Later; Public Spending Creates a Demand for Treasuries in the Private Sector. ... 10. The Best Place in History (for this Commission) Would be No Place At All.

Angry Bear; deficit Commission; Professor Jamie Galbraith's testimony.

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.

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.