Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

An Excellent Conversation

Recs

13

April 07, 2011 – Comments (15)

Below is a post from Interfluidity [IF] (Steve Randy Waldman) and a response by The Pragmatic Capitalist [TPC] (Cullen Roche) regarding MMT. It is very good because IF doesn't start attacking MMT from a straw man perspective, but rather raises some core points and discusses / critiques them. TPC has a very good set of clarifying comments.

The reason why I like this discussion is because the level of discourse regarding deficits inevitably goes like (which I fully admit will be cartoonish / potentially its own straw man):

Deficit hawk: DEFICITS ARE BAD!!! DESTROY THEM ALL!!!! ALL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE IN SURPLUS!!!!!
Deficit dove: NUHH-UHHH!! WE NEED TO RUN A DEFICIT NOW FOR AGGREGATE DEMAND!! WE CAN RUN A SURPLUS LATER!!!!
MMT position: YOU ARE BOTH WRONG!! DEFICITS ARE NECESSARY!! SURPLUSES ARE STUPID!!!

Here is the way I am approaching this topic: I am not dogmatic on any economic philosophy. I think the Austrian School thoughts regarding Business Cycles is extremely useful. But some Austrian proponents still hold to the Government Budget Constraint analogy, which I think is incorrect. I think Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has easily the most coherent and complete description of how our monetary system actually works (it was fundamentally changed in 1971 and I don't think most people fully appreciate that fact: http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/the-matter-of-deficits/435457 and http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/follow-up-qe-is-not/533092), and the role and effects of reserves and federal government debt and taxes (i.e. that bonds "fund" nothing. When the US Government wants to spend, it simply spends. More specifically, the Treasury credits bank accounts directly. This is exogenous to the banking system and has been termed 'vertical money creation', as opposed to 'horizontal money creation' which happens completely in the banking system. For more on this, see here. This also illustrates why the US Government is not revenue constrained. It must first credit accounts so that money can disseminate through the economy, one use of which is to pay taxes. Neither Taxes nor Treasury Issuance 'funds' Government activities.)

I am not saying Austrian Economics is 'right'
I am not saying Modern Monetary theory is 'right'
I am not saying that mainstream neo-classical economics is 'right'

I am far more interested in studying all of them and taking the pieces that work (that produces predictions based on economic modeling that bear out against real world data). I am far more interested in 'useful' than 'elegant'.

MMT's discussion of sectoral balances and stock/flow macroeconomic models is exceptionally useful. It is a framework under which one can determine when a deficit can hurt the underlying economy (low unemployment, trade surplus, private sector has high net savings), and when a deficit is good for the economy (high unemployment, trade deficit, private sector has low net savings and desires to net save).

My own take on this is very similar to Cullen Roche's, which he says here:

I approach MMT from a (free) market practitioner’s perspective so it’s much more sympathetic to the austrian school. Although I am not an austrian I do sympathize with many of their beliefs – particularly when it comes to govt overstepping its boundaries. I do, however, recognize that some level of government intervention is not only necessary, but quite useful. So, I think I am straddling more of a middle ground when it comes to the Austrian vs. Keynesian debates that MMT often devolves into….

And in order to do that, these topics must be discussed on their merits. All too often you see someone trash MMT as 'neo-Keynesian / deficits = forever' either as outright bashing or through a contrived straw man argument (a la Krugman). So the conversation that follows is a refreshing and frank discussion about MMT.

And it is very timely too, because there is obviously a lot of heated debate over the deficit right now, to the point where we have a looming government shutdown.

The debate is framed as: "We need to cut the Deficit NOW!" and the rebuttal is "We can cut a little now and some more later". Almost nobody is saying "Why exactly do we need to cut the deficit now? What are the benefits and costs associated with reducing the deficit?". And like I point out above, there are times when a deficit hurts an economy .... but I really don't think that time is now.

This statement is not made from a 'Keynesian' viewpoint, an 'MMT' viewpoint, an 'Austrian' viewpoint, etc. I am just an amateur who has stuided this subject from a number of different angles and has come to his own conclusion.

--------------------------------------

Post from: http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1357.html

-- Interfluidty [IF] main point in bold
-- Interfluidity [IF] comment in normal
-- The Pragmatic Capitalist [TPC] comment in italics


First, I want to make clear that the critiques I’ll offer below are not intended to discredit or dismiss MMT. As I’ve said before, I think MMT offers a coherent and important perspective on fiscal and monetary issues that ought to be understood, on its own terms rather than in dismissive caricature, by anyone serious about macroeconomics. MMT is not “true”, but then no theory is “true”. We ultimately judge theories by how useful they are, both in making sense of “the data” we already know and in offering guidance for policy going forward. In my opinion MMT is one of the most useful perspectives in thinking about fiscal and monetary questions.

However, it is still just a perspective. Enthusiasts sometimes present MMT in a manner that’s too complete and hermetically sealed. While some MMT theorizing is based on “double entry accounting” or “obvious, unarguable facts”, when MMT adherents offer non-trivial conclusions, they rely upon assumptions about human behavior that are in fact contestable. I continue to place non-zero weight on theories of government insolvency that MMT-ers have persuaded me are, in a sense, incoherent. Life is complicated, and even absurd prophesies can prove self-fulfilling.

This will be a long post. I’ll discuss each of the seven points I outlined in my summary of MMT stabilization policy. Then I’ll offer some general comments. Before you continue, you should understand the point of view being examined. Please read my previous post first. Or much better yet, read Chapter 1 (Tymoigne and Wray) and Chapter 5 (Tcherneva) of A handbook of alternative monetary economics (ed. Arestis & Sawyer). These essays offer a polished, concise introduction to the MMT perspective. Then spend some time with the “mandatory” or “101″ readings on Warren Mosler and Bill Mitchell’s websites.

The summary points from my previous post are repeated below in bold. New comments then follow. I am critiquing my own distillation of MMT stabilization policy, so there is the danger I have set up straw men. If I have, I apologize and look forward to being set straight in the comments. As usual, almost nothing I say will be original. Many of the points I’ll make have been made better by others, for example, in the comments to the previous post, which are extraordinarily good. At a Kauffman Foundation blogger convention last week, I discussed MMT informally but at some length with David Beckworth, Megan McArdle, Mish, and Mark Thoma. My comments will undoubtedly be informed by those conversations.

   1.      The central macroeconomic policy instrument available to governments is regulating the flow of “net financial assets” to and from the private sector. The government creates private sector assets by issuing money or bonds in exchange for current goods or services, or else for nothing at all via simple transfers. Governments destroy private sector financial assets via taxation. MMT-ers tend to view financial asset swaps, whereunder the government issues money or debt to buy financial assets already held by the private sector (“conventional monetary policy”) as second order and less effective, although they might acknowledge some impact.

      While the flow of net private sector financial assets does strike me as an important and powerful tool for macroeconomic policy, it is not a uniquely effective tool. Changes in the relative price of financial assets (the object of conventional monetary policy) and in the distribution of financial assets can also powerfully affect behavior, and there are costs and benefits associated with each lever. What is the justification for focusing almost exclusively on managing the level of “net financial assets”?

I prefer fiscal policy over monetary policy because of the channels through which they function. Monetary policy is most effective when it benefits the banking system. Our banking system is a system which produces little, but takes much. Yes, it is a vital component, but it is not the engine of economic growth.

The US economy is at an interesting juncture here as 30 years of monetary policy driven focus has resulted in a massively indebted household sector. I don’t have the time to get into the nitty gritty here, but I would argue that the flawed theories of the 70’s are largely to blame. A multitude of factors have resulted in an increased role of the Fed, explosion in the size of the banking sector and a shrinking middle class and imbalance in household balance sheets. The current predicament can be traced back several decades in my opinion. So, it’s not necessarily that fiscal policy is some holy grail (or that monetary policy is useless). It’s that monetary policy can be detrimental when it is relied upon too heavily. Fiscal policy, on the other hand, can be much more focused and precise in its efficiency of distribution – assuming it is applied effectively. The last 24 months certainly prove that fiscal policy can be allocated poorly. So it’s no holy grail…



   2.      A government that borrows in its own currency cannot be insolvent in the same way as private businesses. That is, such a government will never face a sharp threshold where it cannot meet promised payments, leading to a socially unanimous or even legal declaration of insolvency and an almost certain run on its liabilities.

      It is unassailably true that a government cannot be forced into insolvency for want of capacity to pay in its own currency. But a government might find itself politically or institutionally unable to meet an obligation despite access to the printing press, and there might be a sharp run on government obligations even without the focal point of formal insolvency that usually occasions private sector runs. It strikes me as an open question the degree to which protection from formal insolvency protects government obligations from disruptive races to redeem. Point #7 below strikes me as stronger protection.

This is a political constraint. Not an operational constraint. The level at which the public rejects the sovereign currency is hyperinflation. That is a very different phenomenon than inflation or even “high inflation” in my opinion. You might be interested in my thoughts on this subject: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1799102


   3.      However, the value of money and government claims in real terms is absolutely variable. Governments do and properly should manage their flow of obligations with an eye to supporting that value, among other competing objectives (such as, especially, full employment).

      I think almost no one would argue with this point.

Yes


   4.      The real value of money and government debt is not reliably related to any theory of government balance sheets. In particular, the stock of outstanding government obligations is largely irrelevant. The value of government obligations is a function of financial flows.Government claims will retain their value so long as the private and foreign sectors wish to expand their holdings of those claims at the current price level, that is so long as agents are willing to sacrifice real goods and services today to reduce their indebtedness, improve their financial position, or stimulate their export sectors. The value of government claims will come under pressure when agents, on net, seek to increase indebtedness or redeem existing claims for real goods and services.

      This is a place where MMT-ers, quite rightly, call out conventional economists on adherence to dogma ill-supported by the data. Empirically, the relationship between government balance sheet quantities and either the price level or private/foreign willingness to absorb government claims is weak. Conventional economists intone seriously about our growing debt-to-GDP, and discuss solvency criteria that no one believes as though they were real. (I don’t think any sensible person believes indebted governments will ever run surpluses of present value greater than the accumulated stock of public debt. Yet that is the party line solvency criterion.) Theories of the public balance sheet that have proven unreliable continue to be endorsed to avoid inconsistency in the edifice of neoclassical finance. It is true, in extreme cases, that governments that experience hyperinflations go through periods of high indebtedness relative to GDP, but what is cause and what is effect there is murky.

      Macroeconomic theory is often stupid about debt. Common models impose a “no Ponzi condition” that is absurd not only for governments, but also for private firms. All firms and governments eventually end, and when they do, they usually leave substantial claims unsatisfied. Agents lend to corporations and governments not because they believe the debt will be paid down, but because they believe the almost certain eventual default or debasement of claims is unlikely to happen within their investment time horizon. In the real world, governments and corporations balance actual gains from the transfer component of increased borrowing against increased hazard that the end will come quickly and potential “distress costs”. Typically, governments and firms find these costs easy to manage as long as indebtedness grows no faster that “size” (whether measured in terms of revenue or asset values). While it is risky to “lever up” — to increase debt faster than size — many firms and governments do so successfully. We have no reliable criteria of maximum leverage even for firms, let alone for governments. Governments are special. Their core asset is their taxing power. Their liabilities, whether notionally bonds or money, are best understood as preferred equity rather than debt. They face very diffuse liquidity constraints.

      All of that said, I think MMT-ers sometimes err in the opposite direction. They are right that ultimately it is flows (actual or desired) between private agents in aggregate and governments that determine the value of government obligations. But the whole purpose of balance sheet analysis, in the private sector and the public sector, is to predict future flows. That conventional theories of public balance sheets are foundationally stupid and overstate the hazards associated with large stocks of outstanding debt doesn’t invalidate the intuition that flow volatility is likely to be proportional to the outstanding stock of government claims. Suppose, because of a sunspot, private holders of government claims get nervous and try to redeem them for current goods. If the net stock of claims in private sector hands is small, it takes very little taxation to offset that flow. If the net stock of government claims is large, than the desired flows might be massive, and governments might be faced with unappetizing choices between taxation or accommodating inflation. There is little evidence that increasing the stock of government obligations, by itself, increases the likelihood that the private sector will seek (impossibly but disruptively) to divest itself of those claims. But there are undoubtedly fluctuations in the private sector’s enthusiasm for holding money and government debt, and it strikes me as implausible that the difficulty of managing those fluctuations is entirely unrelated to outstanding stock of those claims.

      Also, although MMT-ers are typically regarded as “left” economists, I think they underplay the distributional costs that attend expanding the stock of government obligations. Government obligations, like all financial assets, are disproportionately held by the wealthy. If the government did not accommodate the private sector’s demand for net financial assets, preferring different policy levers to stabilize the economy, wealthy people might be forced to store wealth in the form of claims on real resources, and would have to oversee the organization of those resources into value-sustaining projects. A large stock of “risk-free” financial assets allows people wishing to carry wealth forward to shirk their duty to steward resources carefully and bear the consequences of investment failure. Thus, the availability of government obligations simultaneously degrades the quality of real investment (by disincentivizing supervision) and magnifies the distributional injustice that attends failures of aggregate investment by shifting the burden of those shocks onto risk investors and workers. In theory, governments can mitigate this injustice by careful transfers and expenditures ex post, and that might be the right policy, but in practice those who disproportionately hold existing government obligations disproportionately hold political power, and resist the issue of new obligations which might put dilute the value of existing claims. In practice, a large stock of government claims serves as the lifeboat through which prior wealth inequality carries itself into the future. Absent an accommodative stock of government obligations, recessions would be crucibles that separate the deserving from the undeserving rich, and would thin the ranks of the rich generally. Recessions should be periods that decrease inequality, but the availability of default-risk free claims whose purchasing power is politically protected inverts the dynamic.

      MMT-ers are right, I think, to argue that, for fiat-money issuers who borrow in their own currency, conventional government solvency criteria are false. They are right to argue that such governments have a great deal more latitude to issue money and debt than conventional theories suggest. But that shouldn’t be taken as license to defend carelessness in the distribution of new claims, or to treat expansions of money or debt as entirely cost-free. To be fair, this is a bit of a straw man. Serious MMT-ers think about distributional issues and quality of expenditure, and don’t claim that deficits should be “carelessly” expanded. But in the heat of current policy debates, rhetoric about “deficit terrorists” and money being nothing more than spreadsheet entries unhelpfully obscures that. At its best, a deep point of MMT is that the absence of short-term fiscal constraints creates space for government to craft policy that focuses on the productivity of the real economy. If the mobilization of real resources is wise, fiscal maneuvers will be rendered sustainable ex post. If the real economy will be mismanaged or let to languish and decay, no amount of “fiscal discipline” will save us. The version of MMT that I like best is, oddly, wedded to an almost Austrian sensibility about real investment.

The real value of money is in the underlying goods and services that that money can purchase. I like to think of the tax system as “the glue that binds”. Think of it like a partnership between govt and pvt sector. We all agree to use this common currency with the assumption that govt will properly regulate its supply in accordance with its demand. If either party breaks their part of the agreement the other party can reject the currency. I’ll copy and paste from my treatise:

The willingness of the consumers in the economy to use these notes is entirely dependent on the underlying value of the output and/or productivity, the government’s ability to be a good steward of the currency and the ability to enforce its usage….The government cannot force the “value” of its currency on its citizens. The value of these notes is ultimately determined by the goods and services that are produced by the citizens and the value that other citizens are willing to pay for these goods and services. Therefore, government has an incentive to promote productive output. Otherwise, they risk devaluing the currency and possibly threaten the stability of their currency system. Paying its citizens to sit at home doing nothing, buy cars they don’t need or purchase homes they can’t afford are unproductive forms of spending (sound familiar?). If government is corrupt in its spending and becomes an institution that is mismanaged and detracts from the private sector’s potential prosperity then it is only right that the citizens revolt, denounce the sovereign currency and demand change.



   5.      The “solvency” of a government is best understood as its capacity over time to manage the economy in a manner that avoids net outflows. “Net outflows” here means attempts by nongovernment actors in aggregate to redeem government paper for current goods and services.

      I agree entirely. I think this is the best definition of government solvency.

      The MMT-sympathetic Traders Crucible objects, however, to my use of the word “solvency” here, even with the scare quotes. After all, what currency issuing governments must concern themselves with is not insolvency per its dictionary definition (an inability to pay debts), but something quite different, a decay in the value of its claims in terms of real goods and services. Here’s TC:

          [T]he impossibility of insolvency does not mean the fiat currency will have value. A government might be fully solvent even with a worthless currency… This distinction between insolvency and debasement is at the heart of MMT…

          Why is the Traders Crucible going nuts…about the difference between insolvency and debasement?

          Well, we can directly observe the debasement of a currency in an economy through the inflation rate. We can directly observe the process of debasement and loss of value of the currency through inflation. We cannot directly observe the risk of insolvency — it must be inferred from bond price action… the resulting process is one of guesswork, misstatements, boneheaded plans, wild specualtion, and dumb***ery, because there is no way to observe the risk of insolvency directly even though it is one of the ideas that govern our spending. …[B]y removing the fear of insolvency, we can more directly observe the risk of debasement… [W]e don’t need to rely on the bond market to “give us signals” about the potential loss of access to their club to determine if we need to lower spending, or raise spending. We can just witness inflation and unemployment and make decisions on these two variables, instead of the three variables of unemployment, inflation, and insolvency… This is a much simpler task, and is perhaps the core strength of the MMT paradigm.

      This is an important point, but contestable. We know with some confidence that the threat of traditional insolvency can lead to powerful and unpredictable runs and a lot of turbulence in the value of private claims. I’m glad to concede that, at the margin, absence of a sharp solvency threshold reduces the likelihood of such events. But does the lack of a sharp solvency threshold eliminate the possibility of sudden stops, Wile E. Coyote moments, etc? Can we be confident that, absent the danger of outright default, any debasement of fiat claims would take the form of an observable spiral, which would start slowly and thereby offer time to apply a policy antidote? Would we in fact observe and recognize the signs, and would they be different than, for example, a 500% increase in the price of gold in the span of a few years and recurring bouts of commodity inflation? Are employment pressure and labor costs the sole true and perfectly reliable indicators of debasement hazard?

      One can make a strong case that increases in labor costs are in fact the sine qua non of uncontrollable inflation, that absent labor income to “ratify” price rises, inflation in inherently self-limiting. But you can make other cases too. Perhaps transfers and deficit spending can substitute for wage power, bidding up commodity prices and the capital share of income even while wages are held back by the reserve army of the unemployed. I’m not sure about any of these stories. But my experience as a trader in capital markets makes me wary of accounts that suggest sharp swoons in the price of any asset cannot happen, or would definitely be preceded by warning signs that would permit one to get out early.

      So, I’ll to acknowledge TC’s objection as important and potentially valid, but defend my positing of an MMT “solvency” constraint, at least with scare quotes in place. I don’t think it’s reasonable for MMT-ers or anybody else to write off the possibility of sharp and unexpected changes in the value of a fiat currency. The possibility is dangerous enough that it should focus the mind in a precautionary way. If MMT policy advice is to be taken seriously, it must offer a some assurance of safety against that scenario. The absence of formal default hazard provides some assurance, but without Point #7 as a backstop, not enough.

Again, I think we’re veering towards a hyperinflation discussion. See above.


   6.      Avoiding net outflows is easy in times like the present, when i) low quality and difficult to service debt in the private sector leaves many agents eager to reduce indebtedness and increase their holdings of financial assets; ii) there has been little inflation or devaluation in the recent past; and iii) resource utilization is slack, as evidenced especially by high unemployment. Avoiding net outflows is more difficult when private sector agents’ balance sheets are healthy, or when agents come to expect inflation or devaluation, or when real resources (especially humans) are fully employed.

      I think this point is unobjectionable.

Don’t necessarily disagree.



   7.      However, a sovereign government can always create demand for its money and debt via its coercive ability to tax. That is, if optimistic agents with strong balance sheets start up a spending spree, or if gold bugs fearful of devaluation ditch government paper for commodities, a government can reverse those flows by forcing private agents to surrender real goods and services for the money they will owe in taxes.

      On the one hand, I consider this point is one of MMT’s deepest insights, and its secret weapon. So long as a government’s taxing power is strong, so long as it is capable of persuading individuals to surrender highly valued real goods and services for the ability to escape liabilities imposed by fiat, exercise of that taxing power creates a floor beneath which the value of a currency, in real goods and services, cannot fall.

      However, relying too overtly on taxation to give value to a currency strikes me as dangerous and potentially counterproductive. A government’s taxing power is limited and socially costly. Governments must maintain a patina of legitimacy so that people pay taxes “voluntarily” or else they must intrusively or even brutally force compliance. In a decent society, it’s perfectly possible that governments will find it politically impossible to tax at the level consistent with price stability goals. A wise, MMT-savvy government would try very hard to regulate the issue of government obligations over time in a way that avoids the need for sharp fiscal shifts in order to stabilize the price level. Avoiding the need for sharp contractions later on might imply slower issue of obligations than would be short-term optimal during recessions. But once you acknowledge this kind of forward-looking dynamic, MMT starts to sound very conventional. We start having to trade off the short-term benefits of fiscal demand stimulation with long-term “exit costs”.

      Two other points are worth making here:
          *            Even though, in principal, taxation could be used to regulate economic activity and put value underneath the currency, the institutions that would be necessary to do this successfully are simply not in place in existing democratic polities.

            Within the MMT community, smart people have given a great deal of thought to institutional forms under which which fiscal policy might be used to regulate activity. As far as I know, they have mostly converged upon the institution of a “job guarantee (JG)” or an “employer of last resort (ELR)”, whereunder the size and wage of a “buffer stock” of public labor would become the economic instrument of macro stabilization. This is an ambitious idea, both politically and technically. Not only must one develop appropriate policies for stabilizing the economy on the fiscal side (i.e. the equivalent of a Taylor Rule for ELR wage levels), but one must also plan and implement real-world projects for a variable-sized pool of (hopefully) transient workers. These projects should usefully employ and develop the productive capacity of ELR participants, while remaining distinct from and and not interfering with the ordinary private and public sector workforces. (As I understand the proposal, ELR employees would be distinct from other public employees, in that they’d be paid a standard, low but livable, package of wages and benefits. ELR employment would always be viewed as a backstop that individuals would be encouraged to transition out of, rather than as permanent employment.)

            I’m interested in and sympathetic to the project of designing a government-guaranteed full employment policy that would be complementary to a vibrant private sector and that would anchor rather than disrupt macroeconomic stability goals. But however richly MMT-ers have outlined such an institution in theory, we are very far from implementing such a thing in practice. MMT-ers participate actively in current fiscal policy debates, arguing that “sovereign” governments have sufficient space to let fiscal concerns be secondary to resource utilization goals given their power to tax. Yet the power to tax is next to worthless if we do not have well understood and broadly legitimate means of exercising it in a timely manner.

            Taking a page from status quo macro management — that is, from the world of central banks — the least costly way to meet macro stabilization goals is to maintain credible expectations among the general public that tax policy will in fact be managed with sufficient dexterity and force that those stabilization goals are rarely tested. Existing fiscal institutions are mostly quasidemocratic legislatures that act in sporadic and highly politicized bursts. Their policy ventures typically mix interventions on the liability side of the public balance sheet with ad hoc changes to programs on the asset side that are often difficult to reverse. These institutions seem poorly suited to the task of credibly managing expectations and ensuring, in high-frequency real time, an appropriate fiscal stance. Promoting fiscal license in actual policy while the institutions that would render such license sustainable do not exist strikes me as reckless. When participating in practical debates about fiscal policy, it would be better if MMT-ers would bundle their support for “fiscally loose” stabilization policy with advocacy of institutional changes that could be plausibly implemented in time to matter and that could ensure support of the value of government claims, should that become necessary.

            Some MMT-ers (Warren Mosler and Winterspeak come to mind) have proposed less ambitious institutions than an employer of last resort program, specifically using the level of existing payroll taxes as the instrument of discretionary macro policy. A government can stimulate by reducing the level of payroll taxes (and thereby increasing the flow of net financial assets to the public sector in a manner that directly encourages job formation), and could fight inflation by raising payroll taxes, rather directly reducing wages and putting pressure on employment. Macro policy by unemployment is detestable, despite its long, proud tradition at the Federal Reserve. If it can be made practical, I’d much rather we work out an effective ELR program. But ELR is not an achievable option in the time frame of the current business cycle. Delegating management of the level of the payroll tax to a “technocratic, independent” institution, whether the existing central bank or some new entity, is practically achievable on a short time frame (although the politics would be rough). Perhaps there are better easy-to-implement means of conducting credible, high-frequency macro policy. I’ve no special attachment to payroll taxes as an instrument. (I’d prefer that we use transfers as an instrument.) Whatever the specifics, relying on ad hoc interventions by Congress to thread the needle between inflation and underemployment strikes me as unlikely to work out.

          *            This is a technical point that would usually apply mostly to small, open economies, but that arguably applies to the United States today. Taxation can support the value of government claims, when priced in domestically produced goods and services. Taxation cannot support the foreign exchange value of a fiat currency, except to the degree that foreigners desire to purchase domestically produced goods and require expensive domestic currency to do so. A country that runs a large current account deficit owing to decisions by foreign governments to accumulate its currency and that faces competitive export markets cannot rely on taxation to support its currency, should foreign governments revise their policy of accumulation. For a country like the United States which is structurally “short” tradables, one may view the possibility of a difficult-to-counter fall in the value of the currency as a good thing or a bad thing. People like Dean Baker and Paul Krugman argue that a weaker dollar is exactly what the US needs to eliminate the structural gap in tradables production and spur domestic demand. People like Warren Mosler argue that a very weak dollar would be a bad thing, an adverse terms-of-trade shock and a loss of opportunity to trade cheap nominal claims for valuable real resources. Regardless of how you view the event, the taxing power of the government will not be able to undo it.

Again, I view the tax system as the glue that binds. A breakdown in the tax system results in hyperinflation and hyperinflation is the result of exogenous forces discussed in the paper above.


   8.      Therefore, a government’s “solvency constraint” is not a function of any accounting relationship or theories about the present value of future surpluses. A government’s solvency constraint ultimately lies in its political capacity to levy and and enforce the payment of taxes.

      I think this is true, a deep and powerful way to think about public finance. Note that a government’s “political capacity to levy and and enforce payment of taxes” depends first and foremost on the quality of the real economy it superintends. The value that a government is capable of taxing if necessary to sustain the value of its obligations increases with the value produced overall. A government that wishes to be solvent should first and foremost interact with the polity in a manner that promotes productivity. Secondly, the political capacity to levy taxes depends upon either the legitimacy of or the coercive power of the state. A government that wishes to sustain the value of its obligations must either gain the consent of those it would tax or maintain an infrastructure of compulsion. In theory, either choice could be effective, although along with the libertarians, I like to imagine excessively coercive regimes are inconsistent with overall productivity, so that legitimacy is a government’s best bet. The two strategies are not mutually exclusive — a government could be sufficiently legitimate as to be capable of taxing some fraction of the population without resistance and sufficiently coercive as to force the other fraction to pay up. That probably describes the best we can hope for in real governments.

Yes. If the tax system collapses the gig is up.

I’ll end with a few miscellaneous comments:

    *      I’d like to see more attention paid to quality-of-expenditure concerns. That is, if a stable economy requires continuing government deficits to accommodate growing private sector’s demand for financial surplus, then the government must actually make choices about how to spend or transfer money into the economy. These choices will undoubtedly shape the evolution of the real economy, for better or for worse. Should we rely on legislators to make direct public investment choices? Should we put funds in the hands of individuals and then allow consumer preferences and private capital markets to shape the economy? How? Via tax cuts? A job guarantee? Direct transfers? Perhaps the government should delegate management of public funds to financial intermediaries, and rely upon banking professionals to find high value investments? While MMT focuses mostly on the liability side of the public balance sheet, many critics fear that ever increasing public outlays imply increased centralization of economic decisionmaking that will lead to low quality choices. Whether that is true depends entirely on institutional and political choices. These concerns can be and should be specifically addressed.

    *      MMT-ers sometimes blur the distinction between “private sector net savings”, which is necessarily backed by public sector deficits or an external surplus, and household savings, which need not be. In doing so, MMT-ers rhetorically attach the positive normative valence associated with “saving” to deficit spending by government. This is dirty pool, and counterproductive. The vast majority of household savings is and ought to be backed by claims on real investment, mediated by the liabilities (debt and equity) of firms. There is no need whatsoever for governments to run deficits to support household saving. When household savings increases, an offsetting negative financial position among firms represents increase in the amount or value of invested assets, and is usually a good thing. Household savings is mostly a proxy for real investment, while “private sector net financial assets” refers to a mutual insurance program arranged by the state. It is a category error to confuse the two. Yet in online debates, the confusion is frequent. Saving backed by new investment requires no accommodation by the state. It discredits MMT when enthusiasts claim otherwise, sometimes quite aggressively and inevitably punctuated by the phrase “to the penny”.

    *      In general, the MMT community would be well served by adopting a more civil and patient tone when communicating its ideas. I’ve had several conversations with people who have proved quite open to the substance, but who cringe at the name MMT, having been attacked and ridiculed by MMT proponents after making some ordinary and conventional point. Much of what is great about MMT is that it persuasively challenges a lot of ordinary and conventional views. But people who cling to those views, even famous economists who perhaps “ought to” know better, are mostly smart people who simply have not yet been persuaded. Neither ridicule nor patronizing lectures are likely to help.

      My complaint is a bit unfair. The MMT community has been sinned against far more than it has sinned, especially within the economics profession. Whether you ultimately agree with them or not, the MMT-ers have developed a compelling perspective and have done a lot of quality work that has pretty much been ignored by the high-prestige mainstream. But a sense of grievance may be legitimate and still be counterproductive.

      The internet is a fractious place. Many MMT-ers are civil and patient, and devote enormous energy to carefully and respectfully explaining their views. There’s no way to police other peoples’ manners. Still, even by the standards of the blogosphere, MMT-ers have a reputation as an unusually prickly bunch. That might not be helpful in terms of gaining broader acceptance of the ideas.

Anyway, that was a lot. I hope that it’s not entirely useless. Despite my complaints and critiques, learning about MMT has added enormously to my thinking about economics. In practical terms, I think that MMT offers the most promising toolkit for crafting a desperately needed replacement of status quo central banking.

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 07, 2011 at 5:23 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

+1 rec simply for posting what I believe is probably the longest blog in TMF history.  I'm going to have to come back to this to fully digest it all.

Report this comment
#2) On April 07, 2011 at 5:26 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

kdakota630 ,

LOL! Thanks man :) Actually 90% of it is from Interfluidity, with a little from TPC. I only wrote the first 10 or so paragraphs at the top :)..

Report this comment
#3) On April 07, 2011 at 7:39 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

kdakota630 agreed I'm put this on following so I can read it this weekend, preferably early in the morning : )

binve- I have a stupid question, how did you get a post this long copy and pasted. I tried posting a long piece from my word processor, and it got cut off in the middle? Had to do the rest in the comments section. Also the links don't always tranfer well.

Thanks. 

Report this comment
#4) On April 07, 2011 at 8:23 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

HarryCarysGhost,

No worries :) Actually I just write the HTML myself. I copy and paste the text of interest into a non-processing text editor (like notepad or if you are a unix weenie [like I am] then vi] and since it is just very simple HTML (a, b, img, and em tags) I just code it myself. It is very easy to control that way. Then it is simple to copy and paste into the Caps blog editor..

Report this comment
#5) On April 07, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Option1307 (30.12) wrote:

Spark notes version? ;)

I sure wished the "follow" feature worked, grrrrr!

Report this comment
#6) On April 07, 2011 at 10:33 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

Option1307 ,

LOL! Yeah, this was a long one :)..

Report this comment
#7) On April 08, 2011 at 10:07 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

I need more coffee before tackling this one.

Report this comment
#8) On April 08, 2011 at 10:50 AM, binve (< 20) wrote:

ChrisGraley,

amphetamines would probably help too :)..

Report this comment
#9) On April 13, 2011 at 2:05 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

My god binve. That was brutal.

I would describe it as a "ghastly" conversation between two idiots that recently discovered that their entire system of economic thought relies on violent intervention, yet cannot contemplate how this violent intervention impacts the subjective value scales of any of the parties involved or even if these "agents" (also called "people" by those of us who have a moral compass) can act irrespective of this violence.

If you start with the premise that whatever is is good, you must also conclude that whatever is not is bad.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On April 13, 2011 at 3:52 PM, mtf00l (49.87) wrote:

whereaminow,

Are you the prickly type referred to in the original article? =D

binve,

I enjoyed the read.  Admittedly, long though it is.

Report this comment
#11) On April 13, 2011 at 6:51 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

mtf00l,

You know me too well. But I'm only prickly on the web. In person, I'm a joy =P

I'm sorry but there was just so much in here that was horrendous to my senses: the constant references to government's role as a steward of the economy bringing us full employment and wise fiscal policy.

Who are these angels they are referring to?  Makes me nauseous.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On April 13, 2011 at 7:56 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

whereaminow,

Hey man :)

There are many aspects that are often ascribed to MMT that I am not on board with, which goes along with an all-encompassing Keynesian fiscal planning of the economy.

That is not of interest to me. My purpose in studying and highlighting MMT are the reasons I state above: MMT has by far the best description of how the banking system actually works, what the role of government debt is in a sovereign-issuer fiat currency based economy, sectoral balances, and stock/flow consistent macroeconomic models.

There are other areas like massive centrally planned fiscal policy, the larger role of government in the economy and our lives that I am definitely not advocating. I am interested in studying the aspects I just discussed.

But in order to understand our economy and monetary system, anyone who doesn't listen to these particular lessons from MMT are doing themselves a huge disservice.

For example: What is the default risk of US Government debt? It is precisely zero (I suppose not precisely, because Congress might not issue authorization for interest payments). But the point is that is a political choice, not a financial or monetary constraint. So people like Glenn Beck and Paul Ryan who compare the US to Greece and take about the imminent default / insolvency of the US Government show they have no idea how our system works.

Is massive inflation a risk? Yes

Is hyperinflation a risk? Yes (although I would argue not likely based on current macro conditions).

Is US Government default a risk? NO.

MMT tells us why that is directly. Anybody who denies this is simply fear mongering / pandering. Do we have problems (currently and potentially)? Yes! But default isn't one of them.

As investors and participants in the economy, we have to understand how it works. And this is why I write and highlight post like these. I don't have any agenda, other than to try to help people understand the reality of our situation.

I think you know that is where I am coming from, we have had a similar conversation before: (comments #14-#17 especially): http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/the-deflationary-shock/543137

mtf00l ,

Thanks!..

Report this comment
#13) On April 13, 2011 at 8:15 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

binve,

You know that my complaints on this topic are never directed towards you.

I happen to hold The Pragmatic Capitalist in very low regard due to conversations we have had, in which he espoused ideas and predictions that were completely nonsensical.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On April 13, 2011 at 8:20 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

binve,

By the way, I must add that the only reason I read these posts is because you recommend them. So even though I don't like certain aspects of them, your opinion carries enough weight that I usually trudge through them anyway.

I don't know if I can give a higher compliment than that on these matters, so please don't take offense if I am occasionally annoyed by them.  I will continue to read them when I can simply because you think I will benefit from it.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On April 14, 2011 at 1:08 AM, binve (< 20) wrote:

whereaminow ,

>>You know that my complaints on this topic are never directed towards you.

I know :) You are just vociferous in your disagreement, and I get that :)

>>I don't know if I can give a higher compliment than that on these matters, so please don't take offense if I am occasionally annoyed by them.  I will continue to read them when I can simply because you think I will benefit from it.

Seriously man, Thank You! That means a lot.

Yeah, I really am trying to pick out the good/useful parts from all of the economic theories / analysis that I come across. Like I said in the post, I really am not dogmatic on any school of thought, and I am trying to be open-minded (at least more than I have been) about analysis and ideas, and I am trying to highlight them.

The fact that you are willing to read and engage in the mish-mash of semi-coherent economic thoughts that I string together really makes me happy. :) We are all trying to understand this mess that we have all created, and I am very glad that you and I can discuss these ideas. Thanks man!..

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement