LateMechanic
No bio...
User ID: 1841
LateMechanic
25d ago
"It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?”
Not sure you're following the point, that was saying that we have a goofy system precisely because different people have been trading off who wins & loses all the time. Especially in the 19th century the winners didn't exactly know what they were doing (constant boom & bust cycles with many severe depressions).
"Primary dealers" of monopoly money can surely not fail in delivering it to the US government, but how exactly does that translate into food rations for GI?
The government prints up some IOUs called treasury securities, and swaps them for some other government IOUs called central bank reserves, in a primary dealer auction completely unencumbered by "people choosing to buy debt". Then they use those IOUs (widely called 'money') to spend and/or give to people out in the economy, who are willing to trade goods & services for those IOUs. These government IOUs are valuable because they're the only way to settle your taxes that the government declared that you owe.
If that sounded like gibberish to you, well I already said most people don't understand the monetary system and never learned about it. If you think there's "a" world reserve currency conferring special status to a single country, that does explain where you're at, but the basic logic I just laid out also applies to other countries that issue their own currency.
LateMechanic
25d ago
Private savings don't have to be in T-Bills. To the extent the market is flooded with them, they crowd out private investment and savings in private instruments.
There's no crowding out there, it's just a price effect. The government sets the risk-free rate, and others price risk premiums on top of that. Finance is infinitely available: price not quantity.
So even if some amount of T-bill generation each year is actually good, it would be best achieved by funding courts and police and setting taxes near to zero.
That's exactly right, that's why we fight (politically) for our preferred outcomes. It's just a mistake to say the deficit has anything to do with the size of government or what we prioritize doing in the public sector. The size of the government deficit & debt have to do with the savings desires of the populace. So it's just the wrong target to look at.
LateMechanic
25d ago
What if people refuse to use your currency to trade goods and services? What if they tell you to fuck off when you ask them to pay you your own fun bucks?
This entire scenario is specifically about what happens when your power to enforce the privilege of exchanging debt for ressources ends.
Money is debt. So that would be inflation, which was definitely covered from the start. That is absolutely the relevant constraint on government deficit spending.
As far as the exchange rate goes: in the very worst case scenario of your exchange rate suffering, you can always at least import as much as you export. That's true whether you even have your own currency or not. But if you have a currency that foreigners are willing to save in (a world 'reserve currency', which basically all currencies are to different degrees), that just allows you the luxury of importing even more than you export (not necessary, but can be nice, although then your exporter businesses might start bitching about your country's 'trade deficit', so it's not all roses).
What happens when US treasuries are no longer viewed as the most risk free investment vehicle in the world and are replaced by something else and demand craters?
As I tried explaining procedurally above, it doesn't matter a single iota whether there's any market demand for treasuries. That's the charade part of it. The government effectively is just printing money as they deficit spend, and they always have been. They print the money, they set how much interest money pays (if any), and we have to get the government's money regardless of anything, in order to pay taxes.
If the king wants something done, he levies a tax on the subjects. Then he prints up some tally sticks, and pays them out to people to do the thing. Then they pay their tax, and he burns the tally sticks. Same with colonial american paper money: levy a tax, print up some stacks, get the work done, then shred the money as it gets paid back in taxes.
LateMechanic
24d ago
Ill note that you still havent explained why too much inflation is bad, or how we would know what "too much" is.
I assume you're not asking for the various downsides of inflation in general and why people find it annoying when it's above some small amount like 1-2%? My original statement was that people should have the properly oriented mindset, where the problem of 'too much government debt' is along the lines of 'too much of a good thing'. The 'good thing' here is the money in the private sector, not inflation, if that was the confusion. This is all in contrast to most peoples' gut notion that "deficit" and "debt" sound negative and bad and worth minimizing on their own.
I agree that the taxes give value to the IOUs, but I dont think the made up unit gives you all that much long-term
You don't think the US making up their own 'dollar' unit of measurement is too important? You must be on some kind of galactic time scale here for what long term means. This is surely one of the most important things about being a sovereign nation, creating and issuing your own currency.
Unless you can somehow inflate above expectations indefinitely, in the long term you need to tax back what you borrowed plus interest in real terms.
Again, maybe I'm not thinking long term enough. But in the US, we went into millions, then billions, now trillions. Should we find the tens of trillions a special number, such that we wouldn't expect to see quadrillions? When and why would they ever need to 'tax back' this amount? The IOUs just roll over indefinitely.
There is no reason to borrow unless your position as the government gives you investment opportunities above market returns, youd just pay interest for no good reason.
Yeah once you recognize that all money is just transferable credit, you will notice that there is basically no economic difference between central bank reserves and treasury securities. So rather than one being 'money' and the other being 'borrowing', they are actually not 'borrowing' at all. They are just creating money in different forms. This fact has dawned on people like Larry Summers a decade after central bank reserves started paying interest just like treasury securities.
As for paying interest, it's purely a policy choice to pay anything other than 0% on any of these IOUs. It's a government subsidy to savers: they will give you more money for having money. There are various macroeconomic effects for any chosen rate. Currently the policymakers in charge think choosing to pay a higher interest rate is on balance more constrictive than stimulative, and think that low rates are on balance more stimulative.
MMT is propably not a popular position here.
That is definitely the case, but I would be surprised if anyone could do the t-accounts for various government & banking accounting operations and actually put the liabilities & assets on the correct sides, etc. Even most economists mess it up completely. It's just not something most people learn or care about. My guess was definitely about US officials and how their actions may be explained by their private knowledge, rather than an estimation about our forum members' beliefs.
The rest is the same thing in different words. And as for that.
Identities are a basic check to make sure you're not getting something totally wrong. If you think the government deficit is a bad thing that should be reduced, you have to explain why you think that of the non-government surplus as well. It is quite literally the same thing. As Kelton said in that presentation, people goof up on this all the time. The WSJ in the late clinton years proudly proclaiming in one column "isn't this wonderful? This is the longest sustained budget surplus since 1929!" while the next column over is hand-wringing "this is very worrying, the private sector savings are plummeting!".
Why is inflation correcting it?
When collectively the private sector has more monetary savings than we want, we will value money less and increasingly try to spend it away - the hot potato effect. Prices will get bid up high enough from this economic activity (falling value of a dollar) until we have the correct/desired amount of savings again. Or before that, the increased economic activity will cause the excess monetary savings to get shed off in increased tax payments (monetary destruction, IOUs returning to their issuer).
So taxes being set at rates instead of flat amounts is therefore one of our main automatic stabilizer policies (the other being safety net spending): the government deficit automatically shrinks & grows depending on the state of the economy. Demand-pull inflation is the final relief valve after that, re-valuing money downward until we have the amount we want.
LateMechanic
3mo ago
Every citizen is ultimately on the hook for the government's debts in one way or another.
I'm pretty sure they were also saying 200 years ago "our grandchildren are going to be burdened by paying off this debt!" Somehow the bill hasn't come due yet, but maybe our grandkids will finally be the time? Seems a bit more likely that people should solve their cognitive dissonance on this stuff by realizing they don't quite understand money, accounting, banking, and government finance as much as they thought they did.
"The fiscal crisis is about to destroy this country, the government deficit is about to hit $10 million $2 billion $90 billion $1 trillion $50 quadrillion"
Particularly if anyone finds themself like Elon saying 'what, the total worldwide debt is $100 trillion...lol who do we owe it to, Jupiter??', surely there must be some sense of 'maybe I just don't understand this fully'.
If you find it desirable, why not cut the middleman and increase corporate surplus by donating your money to a corporation directly?
If I had the power of broad taxation where the only thing I accept in payment is my own IOUs back to me, then: my IOUs would be perpetually valuable, people would probably want to save some extra for a rainy day / retirement, and I would indeed (have to) satisfy their savings desires by spending & giving them out (hopefully in reasonable ways).
LateMechanic
24d ago
Im asking for some kind of real economic cost; "Its annoying when the prices are different than I remember" doesnt count, no.
You could look it up, it's not my argument. It's good enough for me that most people hate it, so let's avoid it. It's fun when nickels are worth picking up off the ground and can get you a coke.
If you dont pay enough interest, people will stop lending you money.
When you have your own currency and central bank, people don't 'lend' you your own money at all. You can print up IOUs and tell people they pay 0% or 150%, up to you if you want to subsidize savings.
Well, you said that the difference between me and the state is that the state can tax. If it doesnt actually need to do that, then whats the difference?
I said the government levies 'some' taxes every year, reoccurring indefinitely, broadly on everyone. That provides a perpetual anchor value for the government's debt, understood universally, even though the amount outstanding can continue to rise (if people want to keep accumulating it for the future, for a rainy day, to pass down to their kids, whatever).
That doesn't imply anything about somehow taxing it all back and paying it all off or whatever, at some unspecified jubilee judgement day where we have to unwind everything.
LateMechanic
25d ago
In which area do you see them being hampered by the public debt? The usual story goes that ever since the 90s crash, Japan had mostly been unable to generate any inflation, in their constant fight against dipping into deflation. The only exception being the 2022 inflation where basically every currency got the same tick up.
As far as how this coincides with the story about government debt corresponding to monetary savings desire, a plausible story is that the Japanese people don't trust the stock market after the crash, and thus most of their asset allocation is monetary (cash/bonds), especially as an aging society trying to save for retirement. So for the japanese government to really juice the economy with stimulus, it would have to try a lot harder with a huge deficit (instead they often balked and pulled back multiple times over the decades).
LateMechanic
25d ago
Well the private sector definitely creates money and real wealth as well, so it's not a competition for any kind of limited quantity of financing. But it does so pro-cyclically: when times are good there's lending & investments everywhere, but everyone clams up when times are bad. The government can be the counter-cyclical engine, stopping the paradox of thrift.
If you would have otherwise had high unemployment, then creating money and paying those unemployed people to dig holes is at least better than letting them atrophy away, in terms of "damage done", because at least they go on to spend that money and generate more demand. But yeah it would always be a better idea to put people to work generating some kind of base-level valued output (goods/services). Ideally the government catches people at the bottom unemployment end, and they can as quickly as possible transfer back into the private sector to make more money and do something valuable.
LateMechanic
25d ago
The point of me saying this was that in that situation you should put more effort on justification.
Yep fair enough, my initial 2nd paragraph was kind of declaring things outside the point of the rest of it. That was trying to punch up what people might 'know' which I think are incontrovertible, without going into subjective policy implications.
None of this describes an actual problem with inflation. It says that inflation will automatically regulate away any excess borrowings. Why then not set taxes to 0, and just let the inflation run its course?
Having some amount of taxes is what gives the currency an initial anchor value. Those taxes being levied broadly and reoccurring every year is what makes the money universally accepted and used even in the private economy. The currency is an IOU where the only thing 'owed' upon redemption is tax relief. If you levy no taxes, then inflation definitely will regulate the value automatically to the desired savings amount of 0 (give or take some inertia).
Is there any reason this is unique to the government? Or is my deficit also literally the same thing as rest-of-the-economy surplus? Because if it is, then it seems noone else should have objections to me borrowing indefinitely, either - it just makes you better of!
The only thing unique to government is the ability to levy taxes (backed up by force). That's what allows them to indefinitely print up IOUs that promise to pay nothing but an abstract amount of value in a unit of measurement they make up, and people will still line up to earn those IOUs (working in the army or wherever).
The generalized logic is: "you will always value your creditor's own debt". Because you can cancel out the debts with each other. The government can decree that it's a universal creditor to everyone (everyone owes taxes, abstract amounts of value payable in nothing). Thus enabling it to actually simultaneously be a universal debtor to everyone (issuing IOUs far exceeding the tax liabilities, if people are willing to save some for a rainy day).
You can write any number of IOUs that say "I owe the bearer of this note 1 apple", and use that new money to pay for things. Maybe only people in your neighborhood will accept it (also helps if they know you have an apple tree in your yard, and that there aren't too many outstanding notes to enable a run on your apples). If you write "I owe the bearer of this note $1", then some people (particularly banks) may accept it as valuable if they trust your creditworthiness. Your deficit is indeed definitely everyone else's surplus, if splitting the economy into those 2 sectors is useful to any analysis. So we (in the non-Lykurg sector of the economy) do benefit. The only problem is you run out of creditworthiness before we get very stimulated.
Why would they not want more? You demand that I explain why we would ever want non-government surplus to be less, but now you just assert that it will be the case.
Well, would you be happy holding millions/billions in checking/saving/bond accounts, or would you be tempted at some point to start buying stocks, yachts, and islands instead? It seems that most people tend to have savings targets to hit, after which they feel more free to spend any excess income. And their preferred asset allocation of savings maxes out at some desired amount of monetary savings.
But indeed, the government deficit could certainly be eleventy zillion dollars, if it were to end up in someone's account that has an infinite savings desire who wouldn't touch it. In the MV=PQ identity, that would be money increasing but velocity falling off a cliff, causing no effect on output or price level.
And I didn't say that there's no reason to want to shrink the government deficit, just that it does take an explanation. I could say that I do want to shrink the non-government surplus in hypothetical situations, if we're having obnoxious levels of inflation, maybe caused by too much government spending being indexed against the price level (causing a positive feedback loop that prevents automatic stabilization).
Finally, we indeed have basically never had much demand-pull inflation in the modern era of democracies with proper central banks using fiat currency (since the early 20th century at least). The bouts of inflation are usually better explained as cost-push, often from energy price shocks. The central bankers take credit for being wizards and steering the economies well, but it's probably those fiscal automatic stabilizers doing the work.
LateMechanic
25d ago
MMT is mainly about describing how fiscal policy and money itself works, and it apparently has been essentially the same throughout human history. The word 'modern' was a joke from a Keynes quote about "the past 4000 years, at least". Mesopotamian temple accounts, European tally-sticks, various stamped coins, etc. Always money being transferable credit, and dominated by credit from the authority of the day. It's how you would bootstrap a monetary economy into existence, whether you're talking about a hippie commune, a Lost desert island situation, or a new nation, without relying on any circular reasoning "lets call this seashell money: I value it, because someone else will value it, because someone else...". Using the authority's power of taxation (and power to punish/expel those who don't pay) to give value to money is an imposition, but it appears to be the least barbaric method for organizing society we've come up with so far.
Monetary policy as the business of setting interest rates, isn't of that much concern to me. I think they've landed on basically sane goals of desiring slight inflation over time, and a policy regime of simply paying interest on reserves to set the base interest rate (much better than the pre-2008 system of open market operations). I would like to see them just set the interest rate at 0-1% and leave it there forever, as I don't think there's good evidence that it controls inflation or the economy like they wish it did, and I think interest payments are maybe some of the worst government spending.
But have you sit down for a second and asked yourself if that's a good thing that it works like that or not?
I was basically a libertarian before I learned MMT and became a normie, although I never really had that core furious uncomfortability that someone else's decisions can affect 'my money', which seems to really animate some people in these questions you're raising.
The whole current system especially in the US is downstream of hundreds of years of business interests, ideological libertarians, and others clashing over precisely the kind of political questions you listed. The core economic logic is actually extremely simple, but there are a million self-imposed constraints, strange terminology, and extra steps between it all (leftover from the gold-standard era mainly, but it's been through a lot).
And most importantly, what happens to all this the day that people stop buying US debt no questions asked?
It's almost purely a charade that they pretend the market has a role in buying US debt. 'Almost', because they currently do like to take the temperature of market predictions on longer-term securities, and let those rates up the yield curve fluctuate with market sentiment. It's a self-imposed constraint that the treasury and central bank are separated, a self-imposed constraint that the treasury can't go into infinite overdraft on their account, a self-imposed constraint that they can't directly swap liabilities with each other, etc. After WW2 when they re-imposed that last constraint, the Fed chair Eccles told congress exactly that the market plays no real role and that it was a charade, but they re-imposed the pretend restriction anyway for the optics.
The current system of maneuvering around the laws in the US is that the central bank contracts commercial banks as 'primary dealers' who have an obligation to make sure every treasury bond issuance goes off perfectly without a hitch at the chosen policy rate. No bond vigilantes get a say in the process.
LateMechanic
25d ago
I've said this before, but I'm pretty sure a lot of members of congress have learned at least some MMT stuff about banking & government finance accounting. They pretty much all still use the deficit, debt, and fear of large numbers as rhetorical weapons against their opponents when out of power. But we seem to see fewer people than ever signing up for the mistaken sucker play of being in power and actually crashing the economy with austerity. Maybe more senators than house members understand the reality; surely more democrats than republicans have been incentivized; and definitely more congressional aides and rank&file treasury/fed people know how the financial plumbing works compared to elected & appointed officials (but in the US in particular, these types seem to effectively be able to get the word out to stop politicians from wrecking things usually). This time around, Trump even potentially had Elon as a perfect fall guy to take any blame, if Trump actually wanted to cut the deficit (luckily he didn't).
To be economically literate, one would have to know that saying the government deficit should be cut is identical to saying the non-government surplus should be cut. Or that the government's debt is not "our" debt, it's our asset: the government is just a balance sheet entity we made up, which we use to emit IOUs that we (the actual people) get to hold & use. It's much more akin to a scorekeeper, tracking the points everyone has. The national debt is essentially the net money supply, and that money is being created by running a deficit (constantly for hundreds of years, with no reason to stop if the people keep wanting to accumulate monetary savings). Government deficit & debt are good things, and the only problem is along the lines of 'too much of a good thing' (inflation, which is the self-correction mechanism).
I think MMT was especially catching on amongst politicians around like 2018-2019. The inflation of 2022 probably put it on the backburner for awhile. But even back in 2012, here they are talking about how a load of congress members understand things but just can't say anything publicly: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ba8XdDqZ-Jg&t=1h4m25s
Moderator: Can you answer the question of why does the system not adopt what you're saying?
Mosler: Yeah so last year we had the debt ceiling drama. Remember that last summer? And right after the State of the Union, Paul Ryan got up and said 'Look the US could be the next Greece, we're going to be on our knees to the IMF, interest rates are going to spike, we might get downgraded, we might default, we have to take $1 trillion out of the deficit, and we're not going to vote for the debt ceiling increase unless we do that'. And Obama actually agreed! The president agreed, and he had a plan to take 6 trillion out, but they didn't like what each other was doing, they got right down to the wire, they kicked the can down the road with a compromise... Interest rates had gone up in anticipation of something terrible happening, the stock market was crashing, and we got downgraded by S&P... And what happened? Okay, interest rates went down instead of up. 3-month treasury bills were going through at 0%. Everybody was like 'what's going on, how is this possible?' No move on the deficit, we're up over 16 trillion...and, you know this is supposed to be the end of the world. And then suddenly it started sort of coming out: you had Alan Greenspan come out and say 'well you know, we print our own money'. And Warren Buffett came on and said 'we're 4A not 3A, because the Federal Reserve prints the money'.
So I compare this to the War of 1812 and the Battle of New Orleans. The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the war was over. So what's happened is that moment when they came out realized that we weren't going to be the next Greece...okay the US was not going to be at its knees, that deficits don't drive interest rates up (and there's absolutely no reason to think they would when you understand monetary operations--they never do)... the war was over! Okay, we had won the war. The reason for deficit reduction was gone. It disappeared. All the reasons that, you know, Ryan and Obama..."we've run out of money", all these things were over! Okay, but they kept fighting the war anyway! And it's kind of the strangest thing. They just started pushing ahead with, 'okay, now we got to do it towards the end of the year...'. And nobody talked about Greece for a while, and then now all of a sudden in the last few months you're starting to hear Greece sneak into it again. Okay, that war is over, you're right, it should be over! Okay we know that deficits don't cause any default risks, they don't cause interest rates to go up, they don't cause any of that. Now, they might cause inflation, if we overspend. But let me say two things on that.
Japan's been trying to inflate as hard as it can for 20 years, and hasn't managed to get out of deflation. The Federal Reserve has been trying to inflate with everything it's got, every trick in the book, every tool it can imagine, for four years and hasn't done it, it's utterly failed. It's not that easy. I've been writing for years that central banks cannot cause inflation no matter what they do. And I think we've seen that proven out. So #1, inflation is not that easy. (The causes of these other things were all special circumstances, all the hyperinflations I won't get into that). But if there is any reason to think that we do need deficit reduction, that we should cut spending or raise taxes, it has to be inflation. Because none of the other things are a factor. So let's look at our inflation forecast: there isn't one analyst out there who has a reputation to defend that's forecasting any kind of inflation. The treasury index bonds, 30-years, are forecasting very very low inflation. There's not a single inflation forecast out there.
So I talked to representative, what's his name, Hollen--he's on the deficit reduction committee from Virginia, he's a progressive Democrat. I said "okay the war is over, why are you pushing for cuts in social security, cuts in Medicare? Isn't the burden of proof on the other side to tell you that we have to cut or else is going to be inflation? Maybe they have to do a little research, and prove to you that there could could be inflation and therefore we have to cut Social Security and Medicare? Because there's certainly no forecast out there. Why are you just voluntarily (the left, the Progressive Democrats) out there proposing these cuts?" He goes, "well, it's a pretty large number and I think we need to do something about it." It's like 'What??'
Okay there's something very wrong with the political process. And I think what's happened is they become victims of their own propaganda. They've gotten it so instilled in people that we have to do something about the deficit, they can't even begin to talk otherwise. Even though they know the war is over, even though they know they've lost any possible reason for it, even though they know the burden of proof is on the other side now to show that spending needs to be cut or taxes need to be raised for some reason... The polls show and the reactions show that if they come out and aren't for deficit reduction, they get laughed off the stage and they they lose their spot. So this is the the Battle of New Orleans being fought after the war is over because people don't realize the war is over. So even though the policy members might know that, they're dealing with a population that doesn't know...and is just an economic disaster, a real tragedy.
Let me say one more thing about taxes, if I can, and the size of government because I want to make this entirely apolitical (which it should be). The size of government is a political question. How many teachers do we want in the classrooms, how many soldiers do we want in the army -- if you take too many there'll be nobody left to grow the food and we're going to starve, if you take too few we're going to lose the war. These are all political decisions of what resources we want to move from the private sector to the public sector. And you'll have differences of opinion: some people think we need more government, some people think we want less government. But once we've settled politically on the right size government, then there is an appropriate level of taxes that allows the right size deficit, so we have the right amount of savings, to offset our pension needs and stay at full employment. So given that the size of the government is a political decision that shouldn't be based on whether the economy is good or bad -- 'we need a a legal system, how many judges and clerks do we need?' Well you know if there's a 10year wait, maybe we need more. If they're calling you up asking you to see 'why don't you go out and sue somebody, we have people waiting around to have a trial', maybe we've got too many of them. See, you've got to come up with the right size legal system and everything else.
But once you've done that, taxes are the thermostat on the wall. If the economy is ice cold and unemployment's high: you're taking too much money out for the size government we have, and you need lower taxes for that size government. If on the other hand it's overheating, there's too much spending, and prices are going up too fast, and unemployment is too low (whatever that means): then taxes have to be raised because for the size government we have, taxes aren't high enough (we're not taking enough money out). So for this right size government, taxes are the thermostat on the wall. They're not there to balance a budget, to bring in money. We're just changing numbers down, we're changing numbers up. The deficit is a residual. You find out afterwards if it was a right size deficit by counting the bodies in the unemployment line. Not by worrying about 'paying it back' or 'becoming Greece' and all that nonsense -- there is no such thing.
So your question now is "why can't the political process get us there?" And now that you know all this, I'm going to ask you for the answer. Because it's becoming more of a mystery every day. Because the more people I know who know the right answer.... you know, it's almost like the less willing they are. I talked for hours to Senator Blumenthal who read my book Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds (you get it free online, it's an easy read). And he gets the whole thing and he won't do anything -- just sits there. Same with Lieberman from Connecticut (I ran for Senate from Connecticut a couple years ago). Talked to these people, I talked to Hollen, I talked to all kinds of people over the years... and they're not going to be the ones to move us off the dime on this. We've got the academic community starting to get some of the right answers and through the blogs. And it's called mmt: modern monetary theory (somebody gave it a name, wouldn't be the name we chose). It's been expanding rapidly. But it's not there yet: that the only thing between us and full employment and prosperity beyond what anyone can imagine, is the space between our ears. There's nothing else in the way right now: there's no food shortage, there's no shortage of housing, we have surpluses of everything.
Kelton: Warren, remember. I won't say who it was, but Warren and I met with a member of Congress together. And we went through all of this with this person, and when we got done, this person looked at us and said "I can't say that". Not "I don't believe that", "I disagree with that", "you're wrong", "you're crazy" -- "I can't say that"! We have to make it increasingly safe for these folks to say that, to take these positions. And wasn't it FDR who said 'I can't do things, you have to make me do things'.
Mosler: And this is pro-agenda for all of them. The Republicans would love to cut taxes and not have to cut spending. They could agree to that. But they can't...if they cut taxes, they've got to cut spending even more because they think they have to balance the budget, so they don't even do their own tax cuts. Democrats would like to increase spending.
LateMechanic
1yr ago
MMT just gives the descriptive reality & logic of how things work now and throughout history, including how the base interest rate is simply a policy tool to subsidize savings (which can be set at 0% any time we desire to not pay that subsidy). Argentina is currently serving as a good example of why giving savers free money, in proportion to how much money they already have (increasing the interest rate), is probably not the tool you're looking for if you want to combat inflation (shocked pikachu there). As for the USD inflation, it appears that most currencies around the world experienced about the same cost-push inflation coming out of covid, while having fairly disparate levels of counter-cyclical fiscal injections and unemployment levels, so it's not as obvious as it may seem.
The Greece point is that the conversation was simply incoherent just 10-15 years ago, but has moved significantly toward productive correct debates about the preferred size of government and inflation constraints, rather than a fear of large numbers and negative-sounding words debt & deficit. So that's my prediction that the world is moving farther away from arbitrary limit rules on those, rather than looking to embrace the wisdom of Germany in 2009 or 1992.
LateMechanic
24d ago
So you're just going to repeat back MMT to me as if I haven't read Tcherneva and never heard of chartalism?
On the other side of the dunning-kruger scale, this is loudly announcing 'I looked up the wikipedia page'. And I'm not just repeating MMT back to you. I answered your precise first question by showing you how the actual government finance operations work in the US, with a link to an official testimony people find a bit shocking and interesting if they know anything about what's being discussed, and you thought that sounded like monopoly money that 'nobody gives a shit about'. You can't really be helped if you don't know the first thing about any of this.
Come on, at least engage with the idea of a debt crisis.
all I see from MMT proponents is a total faith in the impossibility of default or hyperinflation.
Involuntary default in your own currency that you issue? Definitely impossible. Inflation? I already started with that covered as the real constraint.
What if I start paying your military men in the new harder currency to loot your country?
Getting your state looted by foreign creditors is a real thing that really happens to people.
Ok, we're nearly up to countries can go to war with each other. Can you try to tie this back in to the fiscal responsibility of US republicans & democrats? Do you have any prediction about the timeline of the US becoming Russia?
LateMechanic
25d ago
My thinking is not confused because I admit that money and treasuries are (consolidated) government liabilities, both of which need backing and ability to repay. People get confused with “fiat money” and think that it doesn’t require any backing. But the value of fiat money today depends on the expectations of its value in the future; that value depends on the demand and supply of money then.
I don't know what you would mean by "backing" in this context. The treasury issues IOUs that pay interest (bonds/bills/etc), and they make those interest payments by issuing more of the same IOUs in the future: they indefinitely roll over. The central bank issues IOUs that pay interest (reserves), and they make those interest payments by issuing more of the same IOUs in the future: it indefinitely rolls over. There is no promised future real 'value', it is what it is, and if there's inflation, so be it (other than the inflation-indexed bonds). And the only thing any of these government IOUs can be redeemed for when returned to their issuer is tax relief (or you can freely swap them for other different types of government IOUs).
If the federal reserve has no assets, then it cannot react to a lower demand for money by withdrawing the money from circulation so the value of money would be lower.
They are the monopoly issuer of the currency, and thus can either control price or quantity. There was a bit of a monetarist experiment with Volcker where they tried to control quantity and let price float, but that just caused the price (interest rate) to keep ratcheting up, because commercial bank lending creates deposits endogenously. They have since recognized that they just have to fix price and let quantity float, to run the system properly. So they just set the interest rate and do not care about 'demand for money' - it's infinitely available at some price. We're simply talking about numbers in account balances.
Finally, repayment in real terms is the concern. Inflation is default.
Whose concern? The government doesn't care. And no one else's opinion matters. They are not beholden to the market. If inflation ticks up, that is definitely not the same as defaulting on the debt. We still need the government's IOUs to pay taxes, so they will perpetually be valuable to that extent.
No serious monetary economist will ever tell you that a central bank has no meaningful budget constraint
Not sure what you mean by a central bank budget constraint. They have various expenses each year, but any preparation of a formal budget is to make their case to congress that they're behaving well and shouldn't be slapped on the wrist. It's not an economic constraint. They tend to end up in profit every year and just dump that amount into the treasury's account.
The usefulness of money allows you to get some value without any backing (for a different example of that look at Bitcoin).
Bitcoin has no issuer offering a redemption value, and thus is a commodity rather than money. As an economic instrument, the fair value is $0. Any valuation above that might be a small amount for the utility of making transactions (would work if each btc were 1 cent or something), and otherwise just speculative (don't get caught holding the bag).
If you're saying that bitcoin has no 'backing', but US dollars have 'backing', maybe you're using that term for what I'm calling IOU 'redemption'? (returning an IOU to its issuer, to get what is 'owed')
LateMechanic
25d ago
Germany lost a war and a ton of productive capacity, and had to pay war debts in foreign currencies. The other one about 'productive' was Zimbabwe destroying their own real economy with land reforms.
Don't remember what Argentina's deal was, didn't they keep borrowing in USD and do multiple voluntary peso defaults? Or recently they mistakenly were causing inflation by increasing their interest rate which was supposed to fight inflation, until they finally realized that and cut the interest rate which cut the inflation proportionally? Getting the gas & brake pedals confused is a rough time.
Anyway none of these were some policymakers learning the forbidden dark arts of 'oh the only constraint on fiat currency deficit spending is inflation, not insolvency? That doesn't sound bad, let's spend with abandon!'
I thought the 70s stagflation had put to rest the silly notion that high inflation equals low unemployment.
Well the premise would be: if prices are going up because 'people just have so much money they can't spend it fast enough', businesses would be booming and would be desperate to hire anyone that's available. But yeah, the '70s shows that if inflation is 'cost-push', ie caused on the supply side by something like an oil embargo out of nowhere, then it doesn't matter if you try to wreck the economy (as volcker tried), those prices may not be tamed by more unemployment slack. May need to deregulate natural gas in that kind of instance, to get costs back down.
LateMechanic
25d ago
Yet issuing more Treasuries and then wasting the proceeds is not sustainable.
But what are the 'proceeds' in your formulation? They issue a government liability that pays the policy rate, swap it for a different government liability that pays the policy rate (central bank reserves), and then spend it. There is no difference between reserves and treasuries, so calling one 'money' and calling the other 'debt that requires backing and an ability to repay' is only serving to confuse your thinking.
It's akin to printing up a new $5 bill, then exchanging it for quarters because that's what the arcade takes. No more or less money in any form. They can print as many central bank reserves or treasury securities as they want, so 'repayment' is a non issue. Inflation is the only relevant concern.
It seems like your deep dive was not into primary MMT sources, but rather critiques from the outside? Your post sounds like you were just following the attempted dismissal from like a Sumner/Rowe/Noah Smith, at least from when I was following along 10 years ago.
If you were reading anything from the main MMTers themselves, you would surely have seen them counter these dismissals a hundred times. You would surely have seen that the main thing they talk about is about how fiscal policy already manages the macro system with automatic stabilizers for the last 80+ years, not requiring congress to manually fiddle with tax rates all the time to respond to demand and inflation. And you would have heard Wray say in every book or every talk that we could certainly get some demand-pull inflation before true full employment if simply pumping fiscal stimulus via general spending, which is a demonstrated lesson from the 60s keynesians. If those were 2 of your own 3 conclusions from an actual deep dive, and you weren't just re-presenting a critique you heard, I don't really know what to say.
I do agree that a full discussion is a bit pointless and frustrating. In general I'm perfectly content with how economists, central bankers, policymakers, all the way on down to average internet commenters, have shifted a decent amount in the last 15 years toward the MMT explanations. From what I see there's a lot less of the really goofy misconceptions (we're borrowing from china, we're broke, central bankers are wizards, interest rates control the price level, banks are lending out reserves, QE is printing money, etc). So to the extent that the dismissal of MMT is "we already knew that" or "I don't agree with their progressive policy prescriptions", it works for me.
LateMechanic
1yr ago
This is rather MMTers poking some fun at other supposed macro experts who don't actually have a correct clear grasp on how money or government funding works. He kept tripping over his words because his intuition was leading him astray, so "government prints money and then lends it" kept coming out. The correct, clear, simple answer is that government prints money in the form of bonds every day, and swaps them with central bank reserves where appropriate (like swapping between $100 bills, $1 bills, and quarters where appropriate, perhaps when trying to ride the bus or go to the arcade). The only clash is that people have pre-existing non-sensical stricter definitions of the word "money", so MMT generally prefers to sidestep a language intuition issue and just refer more broadly to what matters, financial assets.
It's already been nearly a decade since mainstream economists stopped trying to say MMT is wrong, and switched to "we knew that already", so I guarantee you MMTers aren't saying something as obviously wrong as "we can print as much money as we want without worrying about inflation". And it's MMT who has pushed better & better verbal explanations to laypeople of all those interlocking balance sheets in IGI's linked NYFed diagram.
LateMechanic
20d ago
but there is a well-defined understanding of what normally happens to debt that there isnt so much with money
What people thought was their well-defined understanding of government money & debt led to stuff like completely being blindsided by QE not affecting inflation. Monetization, printing the obligations! Or to the japanese bonds widowmaker trades, where people just couldn't believe the interest rate could go down with that much debt. Or indeed, the '90s Italian bonds case where Mosler made his first hedge fund hundreds of millions, taking a free 2% spread by betting against people who thought Italy had default risks for their own currency debt.
How it works so far may be consistent with your theory, but also others where there is still cause to worry.
Hence the content of my very first post to fcfromssc. If anyone feels like the way the system has been run for over a century is irresponsible and must be leading to unavoidable disaster, let them try to prove that case that we have cause to worry! Let's see the hard-nosed analysis about this supposed disaster, from people who understand the zero-sum nature of financial accounting and who can also properly explain everything else going on now and in history in whatever framework they find illuminating.
Don't sign up politically for a sucker play based on feelings & fear, and don't expect your opponents to do so either. All the evidence shows that economic disaster follows shrinking the debt, while good times follow growing the debt. For those who don't want to learn the plumbing, at least consider going with 'nothing ever happens' and take up the grill pill, for your own sanity. Elon wouldn't have crashed out if he realized the deficit is a tool which would be useful to his own goals of becoming multi-planetary, instead of assuming it's an existential threat because we're 'broke' or something.
LateMechanic
23d ago
You'll have to forgive me that I'm frustrated that every single time I try to discuss this topic with MMT advocates they do this same exact thing of just trying to discuss the accounting instead of what the policy actually results it empirically. It's about as enjoyable as trying to get Austrians who rant about praxeology to acknowledge empirical evidence.
The point is specifically about how the real-world accounting works for banking and government finance. MMT isn't a policy, it's describing the system as it already works today and how it's worked throughout history. And monetary policy is barely relevant to it. If assets and liabilities and balance sheets are not your interest, but you feel obligated to engage for ideological reasons with your own hypotheticals about radically changing the macroeconomic management from what's been working because you have your own prediction of impending disaster, I can indeed imagine that's frustrating.
MMT "advocates" are trying to explain how it works and why it has continued working despite people having your same fears for centuries, so that you can join us in sleeping soundly at night instead of despairing. FCFromSSC is not my 'opponent' in the slightest.
Who said anything about involuntary?
Well anyone can voluntarily do anything stupid. There can be a wide range of competence in macroeconomic management. The unsustainable argument is only strong if you think the system is headed toward involuntary crisis.
What leads you to that choice?
Voluntarily choosing to default on your own currency debt? Incompetence, not understanding the accounting, malice or kingly inconsideration maybe. In the US, the existence of the debt ceiling law for example is partially incompetence/misunderstanding, but mostly kept around as a political weapon to use against the opposing party in power.
Since both of these create massive political instability, good government requires avoiding the circumstances that create this dilemma, and thus a limit on non-productive spending.
OK solid. That's what I opened with in the very first post: good macroeconomic governance entails not causing runaway accelerating inflation by making the deficit too large. And we judge by outcomes, we don't get sidetracked counting the number of digits or commas.
LateMechanic
3mo ago
They are choosing to set the interest rate above 0%, to subsidize savings by giving money to people who have money. Interest is just another type of deficit spending. On balance I agree with the view that it's probably a pretty dumb idea to do that subsidy spending. But the current macro regime still thinks that higher interest rates are anti-inflationary (even with large debt-to-gdp, which doesn't seem to have been worked into their models), and they want to have the ability in the future to drop rates (because they still think that's stimulative).
LateMechanic
3mo ago
Yes, in order for the private sector as a whole to be a net creditor, the government must be a net debtor, but that's meaningless. There's no reason we should care about the private sector being a net creditor.
Well I agree that it's not like a rule of the universe that the private sector must always need or want to be in perpetual surplus, accumulating monetary savings. It just happens to be how people have acted, in the US in the past few centuries at least.
In the US's history, there have been 6 periods where the government went significantly into surplus, with the private sector being significantly in deficit. Those ended in the 6 depressions in the country's history:
- 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.
- 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.
- 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857.
- 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.
- 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.
- 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.
And it seems pretty understandable logically, that people like accumulating net savings over time.
In more recent history, the private sector going into financial deficit (some combination of spending down savings and increasing private debt) in the late '90s and mid '00s ended with a massive recession. Your contention that non-financial physical asset wealth was fine didn't seem to stop that resulting recession.
It's true that if government doesn't run deficits private investors can't invest in government bonds, but they can buy private bonds or invest in equities.
It's not even about the actual financial savings instruments being available, because we have banks with infinitely flexible balance sheets (indeed, the current monetary policy regime is simply paying interest on reserve balances directly, so treasury securities are a pointless vestigial leftover). It's more about the flows of spending: someone's spending is someone else's income.
The government borrowing [...] adds to the burden of private borrowers by driving up interest rates
If there's enough demand for government bonds that government can borrow at rates low enough
For a government that uses their own currency and has their own central bank, the base interest rate is a simple policy tool set wherever you want -- it's not subject to market forces.
Under no circumstances should the government borrow 6% of GDP at 4% interest at the peak of the business cycle in order to subsidize middle-class consumption.
Totally agreed, as they should drop the interest rate much closer to 0-1% and leave it there. Interest income is just deficit spending in a mostly-pointless, regressive way.
LateMechanic
1yr ago
It may be the case when dealing with random commenters on the internet, but that kind of goes for everything right? I'm talking about like Paul Krugman who kept being embarrassed when going a few rounds against MMT economists over the years, and he kept exposing that he couldn't shake some fundamental incorrect starting points like a loanable funds framework.
As for different words, that's definitely a communication hurdle where people feel like they're not speaking the same language. To me it seems to be warranted to actually cut to the heart of what matters with some different terminology, to avoid some pitfalls with peoples' everyday colloquial versions of money, lending, borrowing, etc., and talk about what is actually happening with each balance sheet operation.
But it has to be said that people in finance and central banking pretty much immediately understand MMT's descriptions in a matter of minutes. After MMT started gaining popularity, there were multiple central bank research papers put out saying the same types of things, to help educate the field and wider public, and to help correct classic misconceptions still being taught in economic textbooks. The only people who really struggled with it were mainstream academic economists, who had to try to translate real world explanations into their toy model terms. 'So you're saying that in your version of my model, my drawn curve here should be basically a vertical/horizontal line pushed out over here?'
I think too many people in power have learned from MMT how money, banking, and government finance actually works, so it would probably take a few generations for people to forget those again for debt-hysteria to strongly return. In addition to the plain logic, all the evidence is that strong fiscal policy is the answer to extreme economic crises, rather than a target for blame.
Even the eurozone seems to have learned that their anti-fiscal-policy stances were a mistake and caused the first big crisis to flatline growth for the last 15 years. So the Maastricht 3% deficit limit is finally being scrutinized and softened to allow for better counter-cyclical fiscal policy. And in the US we've gone from Obama being confused and thinking he needed to fly to China to make sure they'll still 'lend' us money, to now the massive covid stimulus packages without a peep about becoming Greece or bankrupting our grandchildren.
Now the conversation is more correctly about inflation instead of solvency. And while regular people do hate inflation, even way more than is warranted, I'd guess that's too nuanced and subjective for much support of a constitutional amendment around debt/deficit.
More options
Context Copy link