精神＝ストック

精神＝ストック

https://freeassociations2020.blogspot.com/2021/01/blog-post_19.html @

NAM再考 2017

http://nam-students.blogspot.com/2017/11/nam2017.html

マルセル・モース（Marcel Mauss、1872 - 1950）

https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/03/marcel-mauss-1872-1950-httpnam-students.html

《…商品物神は交換からたまたま生じたのではなく、交換にとって不可欠なもの
としてあった。なぜなら、見知らぬ者との間での交換は、それを保証する何らかの
力を必要とするからだ。国家・法もないときにそれを与えたのが、物に付着した
霊的な力、つまり物神である。「信用」はそれによってもたらされる。モースは
つぎのようにいっている。

　「贈与は必然的に信用という観念をともなうのだ。経済にかかわる法は、
物々交換から売買へと進化したわけではない…」（[モース]『贈与論』）。

　物々交換から信用が発展したのではなく、その逆である。また、売買も信用に
根ざしている。…》柄谷行人「精神としての資本」現代思想増刊2017.06より

マルクス主義は産業資本を扱うがゆえに
ストックよりもフロー(＝力)を重視する
だからストックの分析がおろそかになる
近年ではピケティがそれを補った
信用貨幣論はストックに着目しないと見えてこない＊
精神を見ることは
商品貨幣論を維持しつつストックを見ることだ
精神はストックを意味するのだ

ヘーゲル、マルクス、ハイデッガー、デリダは両面を見ようとしたが
経済学的に無自覚なるがゆえに不十分だった
(デリダの負債への着目は正しかったが柄谷の盟友グルーバーのような
最新人類学的知見がなかった)
柄谷は商品貨幣論を内在的に突き抜けて信用貨幣論に至る
ドイツ語文献学的には精神という用語はフローからストックへ移行してきた

（あるいはフローへ駆逐して来た）
これは精神、近代的自我のmindへの回収と言える


《資本の蓄積運動は、人間の意志や欲望に発するのではない。それはいわば「物神」に駆りたてられたものだ。資本主義社会とは、最も発展した形態に達した物神によって組織されるようになったものである。マルクスは、いかにして「物神」（スピリット）が実現されるかを示すために、『資本論』ではヘーゲルの論理に忠実に従って書く必要があったのだ。》


《　一八七三年以後の事態からふりかえると、『資本論』が、イギリスがヘゲモニーをもち自由主義的であった時代に書かれたことがはっきり見えてくる。そのため、彼は『資本論』で、「国家」をカッコにいれて資本主義経済を考察することができたし、また、イギリス一国を通して世界資本主義を考察することができた。そのような条件は一八七〇年代以後、急激に失われたのである。しかし、『資本論』は、それ以後の世界を理解する手がかりを十分に与えている。
　「資本主義的生産の真の制限は資本そのものなのである」というマルクスの認識はむしろ、『資本論』以後の世界にこそ妥当するのである。彼が利潤率の低下あるいは資本の過剰について述べたことは、もともと資本主義がグローバルにしか存在できないことを含意している。一国の中であれば、たちまち利潤率の低下が生じる。資本の蓄積は、グローバルに、労働力商品、すなわち、商品を生産し且つそれを買い戻すような商品を創り出すことによってのみ可能である。
　そこで、資本主義のグローバリゼーションが要請される。しかし、それは早晩、利潤率の低下に帰結する。そして、この過程において、世界中に近代以前からあった人間の生活、そして、自然環境の破壊がもたらされる。しかし、これを繰り返すことなくして、資本は存続できない。資本の蓄積は今後、ますます困難となるだろう。にもかかわらず、資本は蓄積をやめない。個々人がどう考えようと、自己増殖する資本の欲動は決して消えない。それが「資本物神」の力なのだ。だからこそ、それをとらえた『資本論』が今も重要なのである。

　後記
　これはCrisis&Critique（http://crisiscritique.org/past.html）に寄稿した論文CapitalasSpiritの日本語原文である。》

（3）ブローデルは『物質文明・経済・資本主義』の中で、資本主義と市場を区別した。市場は、市民や農民や小商人で構成される交換の空間である。そこでの取引は、基本的に等価交換であって、大きな利益を上げることは難しい。一方、資本主義は遠隔地交易によって巨大な利潤を得るものだ。

＿＿＿＿

精神としての資本、現代思想増刊2017.06
より
　しかし、マルクスが商品物神といったとき、すでにそれ[アニマ]と同じようなことを考えていたということに留意すべきである。物神はたんなる比喩ではない。交換について考えるとき、それを避けて通ることはできない。商品物神は交換からたまたま生じたのではなく、交換にとって不可欠なものとしてあった。なぜなら、見知らぬ者との間での交換は、それを保証する何らかの力を必要とするからだ。国家・法もないときにそれを与えたのが、物に付着した霊的な力、つまり物神である。「信用」はそれによってもたらされる。モースはつぎのようにいっている。

　贈与は必然的に信用という観念をともなうのだ。経済にかかわる法は、物々交換から売買へと進化したわけではないし、売買にしても、その場での支払いから期間を置いた支払いへと進化したわけではない。贈り物を与えること、そして、ある一定の期間を置いて支払いすること、このシステムの上にこそ、一方に物々交換が成立し（もともとは時間の隔たりがあったにもかかわらず、その隔たりが省略されたり短縮されたりすることによって）、他方に購買と販売（一定期間を置いた支払いによる販売も、その場での支払いによる販売も）、および貸借が成立したのである（『贈与論』）。

　物々交換から信用が発展したのではなく、その逆である。また、売買も信用に根ざしている。…

ちくま文庫

#3 ３　アメリカ北西部 

名誉と信用

☆

ところで贈与は必然的に信用の観念をもたらす。発展が経済上の法を、物々交換から販売へ、現金販売から信用販売へと移したのではない。一定期間の中で与え、返却される体系の上に、一方で物々交換が生まれた。これは以前には別々になっていた二つの時期を隣接させ、単純化する過程で作られたものである。他方、売買そのものも同じように生まれた。売る時は期限をつけ、あるいは現金で購入し、また貸し付けを行った。(というのは、われわれが叙述している（特にバビロニア法の）段階を超えた法体系のいずれにおいても、今日われわれの周囲に残存しているあらゆる古代社会に知られている信用に関する観念が欠けていたことをわれわれは証明することが出来ないからである。そこに、ダヴィ氏がすでに研究したように、契約によって結合される「二つの時期」の問題を解決する単純で実際的な方法が存在している（135）。)

以下デリダ123が引用、

すでに見たようにメラネシアとポリネシアでは、贈り物には確実にお返しをしなければならない。その「確かさ」は必ずお返しされるという贈り物──それ自体が「確かさ」である──の性質の中に含まれている。しかしどんな社会においても、贈り物の性質の中に期限付きでそれを返す義務が含まれている。共餐に招かれ、カヴァ酒をご馳走になり、護符を貰った場合、当然ながらすぐに返礼することができない。反対給付をするためには、一定の「時」が必要である。したがって、訪問をし、結婚を行い、同盟を結び、和睦をし、定期的に行われる競技や戦闘に参加し、祭りを催し、儀礼的に奉仕を行い、名誉を与え、互いに「敬意を示す」などには、どうしても期間が必要である（132）。しかもこれらのことすべては、社会がより豊かになるのに応じていっそう増加し、より贅沢なものになる他の物と交換されることになる。 　(現在の経済史や法制史には、この点について非常に間違いが多い。近代の諸概念に影響され、進化という先験的（アプリオリ）概念を作り（133）、いわゆる必然的な論理を追いかけている。結局そのような研究は古い伝統に基づいているのである。シミアン（Simiand）氏が名付けた、この「無意識の社会学」ほど危険なものはない。例えばキュク（Cuq）氏はまた次のように述べている。「未開社会では、物々交換の制度しか知られていなかった。進んだ社会においては、現金を得るために販売がなされる。信用による販売は高度な文明の特色の一つである。それは当初、現金販売と貸借との結合という遠回りの形で現れる（134）」。そうではなく、出発点はよそにあるのだ。それは、法律学者や経済学者の関心をひかないために扱われなかった慣習のカテゴリーの中に見出される。それは最も古い形態の複雑な現象である贈与のことであり、この論文では扱わない全体的給付の現象である。)☆

以下、ハーヴェイが書名を借りたデリダ論考、

デリダ　時間を与える　より

理想

1984.11

109:

もし人がこの最初の単純化的な表象だけで満足しているのだったら、彼はもうすでにこう言うでしょう。すなわち、いくばくかの時間があるところではどこででも、時間が経験一般を支配ないしは条件づけているところではどこででも、環としての時間(ハイデッガーはこれを「通俗的」概念と言っているわけですが、この点にはあとでもう一度触れる必要があるでしょう)が支配しているところではどこででも贈与は不可能である、と。あらゆる循環のこじあけが生起したであろう[aura eu lieu]瞬間にしか、贈与は可能でありえず、贈与はありええません [il ne peut y avoir]。しかもさらに、時間的円環のこじあけが生起するだろう [aurait lieu]その瞬間は、時間には所属するはずがないでしょう[ne devrait pas]。その瞬間が逆説的にも時間を引き裂く瞬間にしか(この意味で、人は決してなんらかの贈与の時間をもつことは な い で しょう[n'aurait jamais])、決断のその瞬間(キルケゴールによると、その瞬間は狂気なのです)が時間を遮断し、もはやそれが一つの今として、時間的綜合のうちに連結されている一つの現在として、つまり、過ぎ去った現在、現在そのもの、言いかえれば顕在的現在、未来的現在として思考可能でない瞬間にしか、贈与はあらぬでしょう [il n'y aurait pas]。その ような瞬間は、古典的な意味で一つの現在ではあらぬだろう [ne serait pas] 瞬間であるでしょう[serait]。古典的な意味でというのは、現在が時間の循環的時間化における一契機であるような…

121:

この狂気は、それが二重の束縛に、このごろ英語で言われる言葉を借りればダブル・バインドに結びつけられているだけに、すなわちそれがダブル・バインド の構造によって、つまり絶対的に結びつけるとともに結びを解くという、絶対的に解き放つという二重の義務の構造によって誘発されるだけに、なおいっそう気違いじみており、なおいっそう狂乱しており、狂乱させます。この狂気は、それが理性を理性の両端において、つまり同時に内側からと外側から攻めたてるだけに、なおいっそう狂乱しており、狂乱させます。この狂気は理性であると同時に非理性なのです。というのも、たえず論理的に、合理的におのれを再構成し、こうしておのれの環のなかで超過を廃棄してしまうエコノミー的円環の狂気で、それはあるからですが、しかしそれはそうした超過そのものの狂気なのです。その超過はくだんの円環を引きずってゆき、それを果てしなく回転させ、それにその運動を与えます。そしてこの運動を、その円環と環は決して包括し [comprendre(理解し))、廃棄することができません。

123:

…モースは、まさしく「狂気」が名ざされる一節で 〜〜しかもその一節で少なくとも二度にわたって語棄の問題が、少しあとで私が強調するだろう用語で立てられるのだが〜〜インディアン の諸部族のそうした過度を記述するのですが、その前にメラネシアやポリネシアの諸部族のもとにもうしばらく滞在して、贈与物の、モースが贈与物と呼ぶことに固執するところのものの円環、規則的循環を、そして同時にまたその循環における「時間」の役割を記述します。そこで問題になるのは、ポトラッチにおける「信用」と「期限」(支払い期日の意味での期限)の価値です。モースは書いています。「すでに見たように、メラネシア、ポリネシア では 贈与物が…

124:

　さて、以上のことからして、贈与と交換との同一性は直接的かつ分析的ではありません。すなわち、その同一性はいわば、待期を要求する一種のアプリオリな綜合であります。綜合である、というのは、それが待期を要求するからであり、アプリオリな〜言いかえれば必然的な〜綜合である…

125:

贈与/反対贈与の運動は、個人的ないしは集団的主体たちの一つの契約、一つの志向的挙措であるより以前に、事物に内在する一つ の力(フォルス)(一つの「力(ヴュルチュ)」とモースはいましがた言ったところです)なのであり、あるいはともかく、贈与者 - 受贈者たちによって、事物に本具的なものとして体験されている力なのです。ほかならぬ事物こそが、或る神秘的な力に動かされて、贈与と返却を求め、要求するのです。

130:

…綜合を行なうのに「ハウ」は必要でない、と彼[レヴィ＝ストロース]は言います。なぜなら、正反対などは現実に存在していないのだから、と。そのような正反対は土俗学者たちの一種の幻覚ないしは錯誤だというのです。往々、彼らはその理論のなかで、往々にして社会学者としてふるまう土着人たちの諸理論を熟考し、再現している、というのであります。そしてレヴィ = ストロースは、理論の(フロイトが幼児の性理論について語りえた意味で、自然発生的な、主観的な、錯覚的な理論の)錯覚に抗して〜〜その理論が西洋的であると土着的であるとを問わず(「土着的 であると西洋的であるとを問わず、理論は理論にすぎない」) 

「根底に横たわる実在に到達する」ことを可能ならしめる」客観的な」批判と彼が呼ぶものを提起します。根底に横たわるこの実在を、彼は或る無意識と規定します。もっと正確には、「無意識的な心的諸構造」の総体と規定します。しかし、これら無意識的諸構造に、諸制度を通して、「もっと的確に言えば、言語において」到達しうると彼は考えるのです。そして、ほかならぬ無意識への依拠の名 に お いて、無意識への「客観主義的な」(「客観的」批判)依拠の名において、彼は言語のなかに、言語の財宝のなかに、言語的諸特徴のなかに、彼の関心を呼ぶ客観性を探そうとするわけです。彼の考えでは、そうした客観性が錯誤的な諸理論から彼を守ってくれるのです。ハウは土着人たちの熟考の産物である、と彼は言います。しかしモースが、それらにふさわしい重要性のすべべてをそれらに与えることなく、指摘し忘れなかったいくつかの言語的諸特徴のほうにおいて、実在はもっと明白である……、いうわけです。

　さて、言語の問題、言語的諸特徴の問題に到達したこの時点で、まだ途中ではありますが、私はレヴィ = ストロースを放棄します。

＊

カレツキ経済表はストックを無視するが
p利潤はC不変資本と同じ位置づけとして考えることも出来る

mv

だけでは再生産可能とは言えない

Godley, W and M Lavoie (2007b) Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth . London: Palgrave/Macmillan 
http://dl4a.org/uploads/pdf/Monetary%2BEconomics%2B-%2BLavoie%2BGodley.pdf
[全575頁]
ゴドリー、ラヴォア共著。第1章冒頭にカレツキの言葉が掲げられている
Monetary Economics An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth Wynne Godley and Marc Lavoie
https://nam-students.blogspot.com/2019/05/monetary-economics-integrated-approach.html
ランゲ『再生産と蓄積の理論』1965,1961にはカレツキの名が出てくる。
《…彼[カレツキ]はおどけて「経済学とはつねにストックの概念(W)とフローの概念(WT-1)を混同して、その結果誤りを犯すような科学である」といっている》邦訳12頁
ゴドリー、ラヴォアはロビンソン経由で引用している
(カレツキ自身はマルクスによるスミスv+mのドグマ批判が念頭にあったのではないか)
https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-abstract/6/3/295/1718546?redirectedFrom=PDF
http://stockfloweconomics.blogspot.com/
http://stockfloweconomics.blogspot.com/2013/09/assumptions.html

‪Godley and Lavoie Monetary Economics‬
‪http://dl4a.org/uploads/pdf/Monetary%2BEconomics%2B-%2BLavoie%2BGodley.pdf‬
‪第1章冒頭にカレツキの言葉(ロビンソン経由)‬

 I have found out what economics is; it is the science of confusing stocks with flows.   

A verbal statement by Michal Kalecki, circa 1936, as cited by Joan Robinson, in ‘Shedding darkness’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 6(3), September 1982, 295–6.

‪《…彼[カレツキ]はおどけて「経済学とはつねにストックの概念とフローの概念を混同して、その結果誤りを犯すような科学である」といっている》‬
‪ランゲ『再生産と蓄積の理論』12頁‬

マルクスとケインズを考える上で以下は重要。

柄谷2017

　一八七三年以後の事態からふりかえると、『資本論』が、イギリスがヘゲモニーをもち自由主義的であった時代に書かれたことがはっきり見えてくる。そのため、彼は『資本論』で、「国家」をカッコにいれて資本主義経済を考察することができたし、また、イギリス一国を通して世界資本主義を考察することができた。そのような条件は一八七〇年代以後、急激に失われたのである。しかし、『資本論』は、それ以後の世界を理解する手がかりを十分に与えている。

ケルトン 2012（MMT-MCT Fields Instituteセミナー：Stephanie Kelton）

https://freeassociations2020.blogspot.com/2021/01/kelton-2012.html?m=0

freeassociations：kelton 2012（MMT-MCT Fields Instituteセミナー：Stephanie Kelton）

これが私たちがとても恐れている理由の一部ですが、私たちが他の国と何が違うのか理解できません私たちはまだキーボードを持っています発行する通貨を持っています私たちは彼らが外貨を採用したソブリンマネーを持っています通貨を発行することができず、彼らがソブリン通貨をあきらめ、金融市場を発行できないものを採用したため、日本のような英国のような米国のような国にはない大きな力を持っています金融市場は、あなたが常に推定を支払うことができれば本質的にゼロであるデフォルトのリスクはあなたが常に正しいであろうことを知っています支払いする能力があり、それは金融市場に彼らがあなたの支払いをしないという自信を与えますs金融市場は、ギリシャ、アイルランド、ポルトガルがエロスを得ることができる唯一の場所を思い付くことができないかもしれないことを理解しています。それは税金を徴収することによってそれを上げることであり、あなたの経済が進むとき、あなたの税収は行きます。他の形態の支出の増加右自動スタビライザーが政府の支出を増やす社会的セーフティネットプログラムへの支出税が赤字から減少している借り入れのギャップを埋めるが、資本市場に行かなくてはならないユーロを求めて彼らはよく言う貸し出しはあるが、デフォルトのリスクがかなり高くなっているので、ローンを組むには、デフォルトのリスクプレミアムが上昇し始めるプレミアム権が必要です。ペナルティは金融市場によって評価され、これらの国は現在、米国の個々の州のようです。ギリシャはジョージアのようなものですジョージアはジョージアが行く必要があるのを見ることができますこれを使うために彼はドルを借りなければなりませんこれが彼らが私たちの州の地方自治体とのそのような危機である理由です各国は支出権限を金融市場に移しましたあなたは私たちがいくら使うことができるかあなたが私たちを完全に遮断することができるあなたが貸してくれる金額を教えてくれます私は水路を渡っています私たちはまだキーボードを持っています私たちはギリシャのようではありませんグループのようになることはありません私たちは支払いを逃すことを余儀なくされることはありません私たちは破産することはできません私たちは常に支払う能力を持っています私たちはスポーツイベントがポイントを使い果たすことができるスコアキーパー以上にお金を使い果たすことはできませんジェイクと最後に会ったのはいつですか？昨夜はカンザスシティチーフスを倒したと思いますああ、昨夜のように見える野球のロイヤルズの権利すら知らないのですが、最後にスポーツイベントに行って本当に知っているのはいつでしたかウェブサイトゲームゲームを一度だけ逃げるだけでなく、そのポイントを次々とスタンドに置き、あなたの息子がスタンドにいると、彼らがこのレートで得点し続けると、ポイントが不足するのではないかと心配します。あなたには決して起こらないが、これは基本的に私たちの対応方法ですが、それはどういうわけか有限のオブジェクトであるかのように政府が自国通貨を発行しており、お金がここのオブジェクトではないように、ある時点で使い果たされるでしょう'■スコットペリーという名前のインタビュアーと60分間にスパムを雨が降っているアランと、ストックペルビスがあなたの服を訪ねることはありませんか？ペニーは、ベニスがバーナンキに費やした税金は税金ではないと言います。アカウントそれは私たちが費やした方法ですそれはUMKCの私の同僚が注意深く見ている2人の博士課程の学生と一緒に論文を書いた引用ですそして私たちは連邦準備制度の介入に拡張しそして最後にしかしそれが2007年に始まって以来私は推測しそして彼らは真の29兆の開始以来、FRBは29兆ドルの調子に介入してきました。彼らはどこで29番目になりましたか。あなたがそれを提供したのはかわいいストロークになるまで存在しないと思いますが、一度それが世界のGDPは元々50兆ドルだったら、あなたのことはすごいです。私が残したいポイントは、私が去りたくないということです。少なくとも、通貨が常に向かう可能性がある問題だと言ったことを誰もが覚えていないということです。これがアラン・グリーンスパンです。私の債務が米ドルであり、私が米国政府である場合、政府は自国通貨での義務に関して破産することはできません。もちろん、私はドルが私から来る債務をいつでも処理できます。米ドルは米国政府から不換紙幣です。私たちが今日持っているようなマネーシステムは、そのような請求を無制限に生成することができますが、通貨を作成する能力に運用上の制約はないということを制限なく生成する必要があるとは言いません。s独占発行者が通貨であるため、これらすべてのことを実行でき、このポリシースペースをすべて備えている場合、回復が非常に弱いのはなぜですか。ポケットの損傷の深刻さを大幅に過小評価していることについて、おそらくこの質問に答えることができます。従来のポンププライミング少しのポンププライミングと金利を引き下げる世界の中央銀行からの迅速な対応必要なQBはほとんどないかもしれませんこれは本当にここに書くことができますこれはFRBがたくさんあると信じていつも使用しているものと同じポリシーツールを使用することですあなたが銀行に準備金を与えるならば彼らがローンを作ることを可能にするというお金乗数の言葉がそれらの支出が支出につながると信じているよりも強力であるため、GDP成長雇用を促進します。回復の途上にあるので、これらすべてが間違いでした。私たちが実際に扱っているのはバランスシートの不況であり、民間部門の債務対所得比率が非常に高いため、より多くの所得を提供しても持続的な期間、人々は新たに生産された商品やサービスを購入せずに債務を返済することになります。経済には長い時間がかかるでしょう。そのため、私たちはこれらすべての理由から、私たちは間違った方法で戦いを続けてきたと思います。特に米国では、ギリシャとすべての赤字ヒステリーになることを恐れているので、カナダの赤字ホークの用語を使用していますが、赤字は一般的な用語なので、私たちの支配的なグループは本質的に2つの異なる政党から来ています彼ら自身を財政保守主義者と呼ぶのが好きな党はそこに赤字のタカです私は赤字は悪いことですそれは無責任ですそれは次の世代に負担をかけますあなたがあなたに悪い時を与えられたのにあなたが赤字を全く望まないことを知っている」彼らは赤字支出を望んでいるので、彼らは原則としてそれに反対し、健全なお金のようなものが好きだと言います、そして時々あなたはこのキャンプの人々が100％の準備金の支援のようなものを主張するのを聞くでしょう私たちはゴールドスタンダードに戻らなければなりません抑制され、彼らが費やすことができ、それは財政的に責任のある政府を回復するなど、彼らはバランスの取れた予算修正のようなものを提唱し、これらすべての政府が今日の予算のバランスをとることを確実にするために米国憲法を修正しますあなたは赤字が資金提供者を驚かせます-申し訳ありませんが、赤字はあなたに感謝します赤字の疑いは彼らがよく言う優しい優しい反赤字の人々です赤字は危険であるのは事実であり、財政の家を整えるために私たちのベルトを締める必要があるのは事実ですがそれは失業率が高いことも事実です。経済は脆弱であり、引き締めが早すぎると回復を危うくする可能性があるため、中期的には赤字に焦点を当てましょう。短期的には成長などを知っていることに焦点を当てましょう。実際にはそれをするためにもう少しお金をかけなければならないかもしれません、しかしあなたが正しいので私たちはあなたが悪い赤字に同意するので私たちは赤字の世話をしますそしてあなたはそうしますそしてあなたは皆赤字の悪魔について聞いたことがあると確信していますこれが一部である赤字のフクロウは、私が説明しているアプローチについて書かれたワシントンポストの記事から取られました。これは、金銭的通貨理論または現代貨幣理論と呼ばれることもあります。ちょうど今年、ワシントンポストのエコノミスト誌のような場所で取り上げられました。先月のフィナンシャルタイムズのプレイボーイ誌は深刻な5ページだったので、とにかくワシントンポストにこの作品がありました。私が置いたこの小さな家系図のどちらかである可能性があります。ここでの違いを示すために上に低いスタブとホークスがありますが、赤字のフクロウは大丈夫ですこれは私がこの幅広いアプローチに注意を払い始めている人々の何人かを教えてくれます過去35分間、現代貨幣理論または現代貨幣理論は、赤字支出などのほとんどの事柄についての従来の教科書の話から大きく逸脱していることを説明してきました。失業は社会的に有害で経済的に効率的であり、あなたが正しい通貨制度を持っているという事実のおかげであなたが持っている力を使った雇用経済はよく言います、そして私たちはあなたがフルタイムの仕事を望んでいて私たちがいつ見つけることができない2500万人を必要としないのでそれを正しくするべきですそれを大丈夫にすることができるので、MMTの赤字または赤字は、赤字のサイズまたは期間に任意の制限を割り当てません。赤字カウルについては、2017年までに赤字を半分に削減する必要があります。黒字の貿易収支が逆転し、巨額の経常黒字が発生する可能性があり、予算が実際に循環する可能性があります。今日の予算はどうあるべきかわかりません。将来的には、政策の大胆な目標は赤字の大きさではなく、完全雇用のような実際のボウルを除いて、実際の経済で起こっていることである必要があります私は赤字をその目標を達成するために必要な場所に移動させることができます赤字フクロウあなたは政府の予算ポジションの孤立を決して考えないだろうか彼らはあなたがしなければならない経済の他のセクターで起こっていることに関して政府の予算がどこで黒字か赤字であるかについて常に考えるだろうあなたは政府を見ることができない」政府の赤字は、政府がその徴収額を超えて支出している場合、10番目の非政府部門について100を徴収するか、90を徴収するか、それ以外の場合、政府の赤字は定義上ペニーになります。財政面での非政府の黒字も同様に、政府が支出よりも多くを集めた場合、100を取り、私は90を費やしますIIはあなたが10を失った余分な10を持っているので、私の黒字はあなたの赤字ですこれは二重入力の帳簿管理です定義上、真は会計の法則に従うので、特定の期間に、経済のどのセクターも、赤字を実行する収入よりも多く、黒字を実行する収入よりも少ない支出、または正確にそれに等しい支出を費やすことができることを示しています。それ'予算非政府部門を国内と外国の民間部門に分けると、国内の公的国内民間部門とその他の世界の外国部門を扱うための3つの部門があります。これらの収入のある親はすべて、新しく生産された商品やサービスを購入し、漏れ漏れを節約します。経済への注入はすべてどこかから来なければならず、すべてはどこかに行かなければならないので、最後に蓄積またはドローダウンが発生して大丈夫になるフローがあるので、支払いのストップフロー分析です経済のセクター全体で行われていることは、1つのルールに従う必要があります。すべての人が同時に黒字になるわけではありません。すべての人が同時に赤字になるわけではありません。直感的に理解できるはずです。私は黒字を実行できません。 '他の誰かが自分の権利以上を費やしていない限り、私が費やすよりも多く稼ぐので、少なくとも1つのセクターが赤字である必要があります少なくとも1つは国内の民間である可能性があります国内の公共は外国のセクターである可能性がありますが誰かがその赤字の立場を取るつもりです誰が通常赤字の立場を取っているのかこれはフルレザーでまとめられたグラフであり、彼は維持および更新し、私たち全員が常にそれを失うので私たちの残りの人も感謝していますこれは実際のネイティブですこれはあなたが仮想的に製造したことを知らないこれは実際のデータですはい経済であり、赤がゼロラインを下回っているときはいつでも赤は公共部門です政府は赤字を出している緑は世界の残りの部分なので昔の私たちかつてはビールの敵である小さな貿易黒字を実行し、世界の他の地域は私たちに対して赤字を実行しました今私たちは貿易赤字を実行しているので、世界の他の地域は私たちに対して黒字を蓄積していますので、政府が赤字を実行している場合はどうなりますか？それは、彼らが課税しているよりも多くを費やしていることを意味し、世界の他の地域も私たちからより多くを購入している場合、私たちは彼らから購入しているので、民間部門の黒字に追加されますしたがって、これら2つを足し合わせると、正確に正しくなります。最初に写真について何に気づきますか。鏡像あなたは正しい理由を見ることができますなぜそれはすべてのバランスの合計がゼロに等しくなければならないのでそれは民間部門にあるのでほとんど常に黒字の公共部門にありますほとんど常に赤字は民主党が望んでいるいわゆるクリントンブームの間に起こったことを見てください米国で自慢するこれは、数十年ぶりの財政黒字をもたらしたクリントン政権に関連した名誉のバッジです。

私たちはあなたが知っている本当の財政責任者ですが、あなたは黒字が経済にとって本当に良かったです連邦政府の黒字を取りなさい。つまり、私たちが影響力を買うので、世界の他の国々が私たちからより多くを奪っているという事実に加えて、彼らが民間部門を追い詰めるのに費やしているよりも多くの税金を取っていることを意味します。私たちから再購入することで私たちをさらに押し下げ、民間部門が資金を提供しているこれらの巨大な民間部門の赤字がますます多くの債務を引き受けるようになるので、これはここに蓄積された巨大なレバレッジであり、政府の予算は右に移動します住宅が活況を呈しているATMマシンになっているATMマシンになっている人々は家ではなく家を買うあなたはより多くのレバレッジを得るあなたは別の不況を得る政府の予算は急激に赤字になりますが民間人はどうなりますかセクターは急激に黒字に転じているので、これは政府の巨額の赤字の結果として起こっていることであり、民間セクターを心配している人は皆、黒字の領域に押し戻されています。今では、民間部門が黒字を出している支出よりも支出収入よりも多く稼いでおり、民間部門がそれを活用するのに役立っています。バランスシートを修復するのに役立っています。私が指摘したいことの1つです。dはこれと数学とこれらすべてを考える上で追加の助けが大好きですが、私が常に強調していることがここで起こっています。これは民間部門のバランスであり、私が指摘しようとしているのは、民間部門が通常は黒字であるだけではありません。しかし、それはその黒字である必要があります。民間部門は、私たちが多くの借金を引き受け始め、ゼロラインを超えてここで赤字を実行するようになるまで、ここで黒字で暮らしていますが、私が気付いたのはこれら不況は米国が第二次世界大戦以来11回の不況であり、不況の直前のすべてのケースで11であり、民間部門の予算ポジションが急激に逆転しています。民間部門が赤字に陥ったということは、黒字が大幅に縮小したか、赤字に転じたということですが、毎回、これらの不況のすべてにつながる逆転があるので、私にはどう思われますか？政策立案者がすべきことは、民間部門の財政ポジションの振る舞いに焦点を当て、第二次世界大戦の終わり以来私たちが持っているすべての不況を進行させるように見えるそれらのターニングポイントを予測することです。私はほぼ終わりに近づいています。財政危機の後に政府が赤字を出し、財政赤字が爆発的に拡大したことによる経済の崩壊は、民間部門のバランスに重くのしかかっているように見えます。政府が赤字を削減し始めると、彼らは互いに反対に動くことを覚えています。s民間部門の黒字を削減するのはなぜですか？最後のグラフのせいで、民間部門のバランスが急激に低下すると、景気後退が進行する傾向があることを示しました。大丈夫私はすでに言ったので、私は作っています民間部門は黒字である必要があるという議論、そしてどうやって民間部門を黒字にする3つの方法があります政府の赤字政府支出の組み合わせが必要以上に黒字と残りの部分を残します私たちが彼らから購入するよりも多くの購入を私たちから費やしている世界は私たちに多くを残しているので、これら2つのことは一緒にあなたに民間部門の黒字を保証します、またはあなたが米国のようであなたが現在の口座赤字を実行しているならあなたは政府の赤字を持っている'貿易赤字のために起こっている流出を相殺し、民間部門を黒字に保つために、経常収支赤字よりも大きいので、経常収支赤字よりも大きな政府赤字が必要な場合、または経常収支黒字になる可能性がある場合ユーロ圏の幸運な国のように、経常収支の黒字を達成できるドイツは、より小さな政府赤字を実行する余裕があり、それでも民間部門を黒字に保つことができます。貿易黒字のある国だけが政府赤字の実行を回避できます。民間部門を黒字に保つことです。問題はそれが賢明であるのと同じくらい素晴らしいことです。解決策は、誰もが貿易黒字を実行することです。もちろん、赤字を抱える必要はありません。もちろん、1つの国が黒字であるため、誰もが貿易黒字を実行できるという約束です。そのため、すべての人がその戦略を採用することはできません。申し訳ありませんが、ドイツは申し訳ありません。それが思い浮かび、私は彼を規定とBymark Germanyで怖がらせたので、彼は今は去っていますが、おそらく彼らは戻ってくるので、私たちがより賢明なマクロ経済政策を進めるのを妨げるものは何ですか？政府の力を使って、赤字が上がるのでどういうわけか金利が上がるか、それが好きになると私が説明した方法で支出する場合は、ハイパーインフレーションを設定します。sすべての正統派が貸付資金市場について考え、混雑していること、そしてこれらすべての中国人が私たちの債務を購入するためにそれらを使用することができます、そしてあなたは人々がドルへの信頼を失っていることを知っていますある種の経済状況に沿ったこの混乱の中で、これらはビル・ミッチェルによって実際に作成されたグラフであり、赤い線を投影してみましょう。

金融危機や景気後退がなかったとしたら、赤い線は私たちが青い線上にあったような道は、私たちが実際に最終的に終わった場所です。違いは、私たちが放棄しているすべての出力であり、それを生成していないということです。s私たちがそのリードパスにとどまり続けているために生み出されている収入であり、彼がしていることは、毎日これが米国のためであり、強い回復をもたらさず、その赤字に戻ることはないと推定しています。私たちは毎日9,800億ドル相当をあきらめています。たとえば、毎日9,80億ドルをテーブルに置いておくのと同じです。それは、完全雇用に戻るのではなく、維持し、混乱する機会費用です。現在、公式に貧困状態にある子供たちの4人に1人がいます。米国の脳全体で、国のすべてのインフラストラクチャを調査したところ、8ポイント3兆ドルのインフラストラクチャが不足しています2。3兆人が私たちを合格させるためだけに必要だと言っているので、失業中のワクチン接種労働者、建設労働者、建設する必要のあるものを建設するスキルを持った人々が維持され、私たちは理解できないようです2つを組み合わせる方法と私が言ったように、フルタイムの仕事を望んでいて仕事を見つけることができない2500万人のアメリカ人はそれが政策の巨大な失敗であり、彼らはそれが私たちの理解の失敗に直接由来する政策の失敗であると考えていますネイチャーシスターは、私たちがギリシャとリンクしていない理由を実行するために私たちに与える柔軟性と、私たちの多くが過去数年間提案してきた政策提案を閉じるだけで非常に迅速になります。景気後退に続いて、私たちはこれら3つのことを私たちに送ったのですが、私たち全員が退職のために社会保障にすべての給与の支払いから源泉徴収された収入を持っていますあなたはそれが停止されていると思いますその収入を取るのをやめてくださいそれを完全に止めてくださいゼロに戻ると、それを最も必要とする人々のポケットに追加の収入が入ります。アメリカ人の95％は、稼いだ1ドルごとに社会保障税を支払うので、一時的にギャロル税の休日をなくすと、その税金は正しくなります。高い債務水準に苦しんでいる何人かの人々がそれを使って債務を返済する必要がある場合、それは私のような他の人々が外に出て何かを買うのは良いことです」良いことは両方とも起こる必要があるので、州の地方自治体や通貨のユーザーを認識しているだけで、彼らは深刻な問題に直面している発行者ではなく、彼らは深刻な問題に直面しているため、彼らは削減を続けています。連邦政府が刺激するために左手でやろうとしていることはすべて、正反対のことをしている州の地方政府によって右手で奪われています。最後のことは、あなたのマクロ政策がどれほど優れていても、前に言ったとおりです。あなたが非常に面白く保つつもりはない通貨政策あなたはそれをあなたの楽しみにすることができますあなたが彼らを見つけることができない仕事を望んでいる人々が常にいるでしょうそしてあなたがそれを得ることができる限りすべての政策を得るときそれらの人々のために君は'まだ何人かの人々を置き去りにするつもりなので、私たちが好きな人々のために、最後の手段または雇用保証プログラムの雇用者のええ、FDRと一緒に捕らえられた何かが、公共事業促進局のWPAプログラムである市民保全部隊のCCCであった新しい取引の下で行われましたエネルギー使用や環境問題などに注意を払うことで活力を与える持続可能な開発について人々を働かせる国家青年政権がありました私たちはあなたを理事会に戻すために何かが必要です」あなたが赤字を呼びかける人々が赤字の鳩と呼ぶのは実際には深さですホークスの解決策は政府を運営することだけではありません重要なことは私たちが銀行に再び貸し出すことができれば経済は悪化する可能性があると言うええ、彼らの解決策は公的債務や公的部門の債務の前に政府が設定することはもうありません、そしてそれは本当に後でここで問題になります今日の問題です彼らの違いは政府の債務が返済される必要がないということです

アダム・スミスは言った政府はなく、私は時間の経過とともに債務を支払いますが、それが増えると、十分な民間債務を返済する必要があります。そうしないと、担保として約束された財産を失うことになります。景気後退に伴う解決策を投資することは、債務のデフレーションを増やし、経済のリスクを高めることです。政府の財政赤字を実行することは、政府のお金を返済する必要がないため、良いことだとは思わないからです。経済がより速く成長し、それがGEに戻った場合、政府の赤字はプレートを引っ張りますええ、私たちはそれらの方程式に分子を持っているハートリーに夢中になっていますそれはまた、誰もが分子に焦点を当てているGDPに対する債務の比率です誰も分母に注意を払わず、何らかの理由でその比率が必要な場合は、分母を成長させたい場合は、製品の赤字を実行する必要があると言います。私が自分の日々について話していることを確認する別の方法があります。 。経済が急速に成長した場合、政府の財政赤字を政府の財政赤字で返済する必要がないので、政府の赤字を実行することは良いことだと気が進まないので、それはGEに戻ってきます。これらの方程式に分子を使ってハートリーに夢中になっているのは、GDPに対する赤字の比率でもあります。誰もが分子に焦点を当てているGDPに対する負債の比率であり、分母に注意を払う人は誰もいません。分母それから彼らは製品の赤字を実行する必要があります私が自分の日々について話していることを見る別の方法があります。経済が急速に成長した場合、政府の財政赤字を政府の財政赤字で返済する必要がないので、政府の赤字を実行することは良いことだと気が進まないので、それはGEに戻ってきます。これらの方程式に分子を使ってハートリーに夢中になっているのは、GDPに対する赤字の比率でもあります。誰もが分子に焦点を当てており、分母に注意を払う人は誰もいません。何らかの理由でその比率が必要な場合は、成長させてください。分母それから彼らは製品の赤字を実行する必要があります私が自分の日々について話していることを見る別の方法があります。ええ、私たちは分子に夢中になっているハートリーをそれらの方程式に入れます。それはまた、赤字対GDP比の負債対GDP比であり、誰もが分子に焦点を当てており、誰も分母に注意を払わず、何らかの理由でその比が必要かどうかを言いますあなたがそれを下げて分母を成長させたいのなら、彼らは製品の赤字を実行する必要があります。私が自分の日々について話していることを見る別の方法があります。ええ、私たちは分子に夢中になっているハートリーをそれらの方程式に入れます。それはまた、赤字対GDP比の負債対GDP比であり、誰もが分子に焦点を当てており、誰も分母に注意を払わず、何らかの理由でその比が必要かどうかを言いますあなたがそれを下げて分母を成長させたいのなら、彼らは製品の赤字を実行する必要があります。

私が自分の日々について話していることを見る別の方法があります。s私が自分の日々について話していることを見る別の方法。s私が自分の日々について話していることを見る別の方法。したがって、経済が成長し、システムに2つの資金源があり、マクロが成長している場合は、洗練を超える民間債務と課税を超える政府支出の新しい問題の両方を抱えている必要があります。たとえば、シプロや政府がゼロバランスを実行している場合は秘密のバロットシェアリングを行う場合は、1つまたは2つのことが発生する経済のほぼ割合で両方が発生することはありません。そうすれば、地元のお金は発言のレベルに比べて増加し、過去40年間に実際に見られたことが起こるので、まったく同じ現象をとることはありませんが、私は経済が成長しているなら、すべてが異なる洞察を持っていると確信しています。民間債務が増え、政府が私のものを作ったのは確かですが、ロレーナと同じ家を別の方法で見ているだけなら、それが最初です。ええ、私の議論の一部は、あなたが言うときであり、民間部門の貯蓄の性的マイナス面は保護者の赤字であるということですそれはそうでなければシステムが身に着けることができるということを部分的に主張していますそれは私たちがこれに値することを意味します方法この第2の側面全体への不利益の期間は、私がテーブルをノックして解決することを見つけるためにアカウントを持っているために、必ずしもそこにあるという変更を含む必要はありません私たちは包括的なものを持っている必要がありますそれはすべてを行うので、私が何をするのですか？あなたが財産全体を持っていて、その一部として銀行を含めるとき、おそらく彼の民間部門が言う赤字を取ることが原則であるかをあなたに知らせますが、私たちはそれらすべてを差別化するサイズを取得する必要がありますそして、プッシュして、あなたが作成した輝きの関係を取得します。コミックを使うときに違いを生むことができるかどうかは、システムに廃止されたトランジットのすべてのトップの合計になります。そうそう、この特定のグラフはそれについてです不安定性の指標を理解することはそれが何であるかを理解しているので、青が下がりすぎているのを見ると、ミンスクの不妊症が蓄積している可能性があることを示す指標の手がかりになるので、それが言っていることを期待してこれを批判するべきではありません私たちの情報私たちに言うつもりはありませんええ大丈夫そう感じますそれは私にとっては大丈夫だと言っているのでそれはそうですそしてそれは必要です私は西の半分は両方とも本当だと思いますええ私が言ったことはあなたが私を回すとあなたが判明するようなものですバイクを持っていることはまったく同じ構成でした強調が異なっていましたそれは人々が両方を誤解していることは本当に正しいですそうそうそうそうあなたはそれをグラフに載せるとあなたは不況が低学年であることを学びますそうそうそれは余剰の民間部門がそれは彼らが平均している拡大があるポイントですので、そこに成長があるに違いないので、問題はそのポイントではありません問題はペイントである十分な余剰があるという脅威ですそしてそれは依存度が低いのは、民間部門の穴が上向きに引っ張っているという不況が始まるということです。つまり、展示ポイントのほかに、すぐに始める必要があります。

それは、政府を頂点として再び始めたピラミッドを示すことができれば、それはあなたのためです。そうそう、トップの政府は驚くべきことにヨーロッパ人はこれを理解していませんユーロのヨーロッパ人は政府が赤字を実行する可能性があると言っていますそしてそれは彼らのEU憲法の日焼け123なので彼らは政府がなかったので言う中央銀行政府はすべての政府の赤字を銀行が負担しなければならないので、ヨーロッパでは銀行がトップになります。つまり、政府が赤字を出したとき、彼らは銀行に利息を支払わなければなりませんが、米国政府はそうではありません。あそこは違う」彼らはこれを理解できない認知ビジネス中央銀行が政府にお金を貸すために銀行にお金を貸すことであると想像しているだけであり、それは完全に異なるほぼ生物学的構造であり、異なる王国であり、彼らはこの中央銀行がその一部ですが、ヨーロッパでは、三光銀行は銀行システムの一部であり、政府の一部ではありません。したがって、銀行が政府以外のすべてを決定していることを示すことができます。ヨーロッパでは、無料のマーケターは中央計画を大いに信じています。ソビエト連邦よりも、そしてナチスドイツよりもはるかに多くの中央計画は、政府ではなくロンドン市のウォールストリートの手に委ねられるべきだと彼らは信じています。なぜアンジェラメルケルがとても怒ったと彼らは言うのですか？これについてのレファレンダムでは、銀行のロビイストであるアラン・グリーンスパンのような誰かが銀行から言われたことをする人を意味するテクノクラットを任命する必要があります。あなたの赤字はGDPの3％を超えないかもしれないと言うので、あなたはノーノーと言います。つまり、政府が予算の側面を管理しているので、あなたがよく知っているような政府を得るという考えです。スペインは黒字の権利を実行しています。これですが、いくらかの黒字は手に負えません。突然、経済タンクの税金が落ち、自動安定装置の支払いが始まり、雇用の会話が始まります。他のすべてのことは、私の赤字が私の周りで爆発していることを何もしていません。」今夜は完全に私の手から離れて、これは意図的な政策であり、私は何もしなかったので、税金はこのようになり、政府の支出は自動的にそのようになり、違いは私の軽量化になりました最初にそれが安定と成長協定であり、次に財政協定があなたを終わらせるというあなたが知っているという考えを欠くが、あなたが本当に本当に本当に規則に固執することを約束した場合にのみ、子供たちは規則に固執しなかった」民間部門を黒字に保つことができる大きな経常黒字を持っている買い手が大きな政府を持っていない場合に備えて、彼らは経常収支の黒字を持っていたので、規則に従わなければなりません。だから私たちは広く賞賛された正しい本当の恥が出てきます誰もがあなたの残りのモデルであるケルトの虎をアイルランドで見ると言いますが彼女が除外した貧しいセクターがありますそしてそれは彼が政府が米国政府以来であるという仮定を訪れました自国通貨を提供しているので、簡単ではないこともあります。はい、私が言ったことを実行する余裕があるので、彼が言ったような政策措置は、政府がそれを望んでいるようです。ある時点で50の政府が非常に多くの赤字であるため、最終的には、政府が常にそこにあるとあなたが見ているような政策措置を講じるというあなたのコミットメントへの信頼を失うからです。私たちは顔を失いませんでしたが、247年の間に、米国政府があなたの時代に8回もなかった正しい数の米国の歴史がありますが、それらはすべて不況または不況のいずれかで終わっていますまあ、ディックが言っていることは、あなたが話をする必要があると思うので、これは米国に当てはまる国ごとに固有のものがあり、これ以上に常に受信者はすべての企業に当てはまる支配的な軍事力です私たちのように多くの訴訟が発生していることを知っていることを示すPowerPointがありますいくつかの国が大金を稼いだことを知っていて、何を言っているのかを前に話し直しましたが、それらは国のすべての状況でした。たとえば、固定相場制でした。私がブランドンブランドンの政策をとっていたのは、なぜですか。そもそも固定相場制にあることには正当な理由があったに違いありません。彼らが愚かで愚かであることを知っているわけではありません。固定相場制がなければ人々は訓練について他の理由だったに違いありません。彼らの国に投資し、経済的または認識された経済的理由が正しくなる前にデモンストレーションがあった政治的理由がありましたが、間違ったパラダイムを持つことの重要性を過小評価しないでください私たちはここで5週間スティーブと戦ってきました間違ったパラダイムはしない」過小評価していると思いますが、友達同士で話していることはわかっていますが、正しいパラダイムがどのようなものであるかを理解して、各国に特定の歴史的な経済サイクルがあることを確認してください。しかし、多くの国のデータをたくさん表示できると思います。世界的な超大国ではなく、彼らは何十年もの間赤字を続けており、国の準備状況や準備通貨の問題、または債務のほとんどが国内で保有されているという事実とは無関係に、通貨や私が示すことができるものに対する政府への信頼を失った人は誰もいません。つまり、私は何でもそれを行うことができますが、そうではないのは、それをやろうとする国に時々形が起こることを知っているということではないと思います」ハイパーインフレーションは、これらすべてを採用している人々がまったく塹壕に投資していないことをよく知っているので、私たちが言っていることは、民間部門がゼロであるという労働に政府に入札させるという仕事の保証について話すとき、何らかの理由があるに違いありません私たちが話しているインフラストラクチャを再構築するために私たちが話しているときに、あなたがリソースを奪い合ったり、何かの価格を入札したりしないように、少し離れてください。あなたは私たちがたくさんの余裕を持っている民間部門によって現在入っているリソースを取ります政府を使うと言っていない」s力と経済を雇用のために超えて押し進めるが、資源が利用可能であり、特に賃金で雇用されたい労働者がそれを採用すべきである場合ギリシャがユーロを大丈夫にした場合、それはドラクマに戻り、通貨の問題はステファニーのようでした」彼らの初期条件が他の国にとって非常に重要であるという事実について話しているが、インドに関する限り、インドはあまり良い立場ではなく、まともな立場にあった8485であるが、新首相は彼が新しい彼はロッティを逃そうとしました彼らは主に他の多くのことをしましたインドは1980年に危機のように墜落しました彼らはまだ宗派のような事件のために400の14日間を支払うのに十分なお金がありませんでしたドルか確かな何かでそれならあなたは覚えておいてください私が言ったのは、あなたが常にアカウントの単位で建てられた債務を支払う能力を持っているなら、あなたは出席することに加えてあなたが狂っているということですあなたは必ずしもあなたの通貨のすべてではないのでどんな秘密も物語の半分を意味しますある時点で、人々はあなたの通貨に甘んじているので、申し訳ありませんが、スコットはエンハンサーについて話すつもりです。次のスピーカーはマイケルバーナーなので、この英語で数分休憩するだけです。

Dan Mitchell Debating Modern Monetary Theory 2019/03/01

 Dan Mitchell Debating Modern Monetary Theory

https://youtu.be/4CIwS0PDs1g

文字起こし deficits do matter but they don't matter in the ways that we've been conventionally thinking about them and the way we usually think about a deficit is that it's evidence of excessive spending and that's just wrong evidence of excessive spending is inflation so I would argue you don't have a deficit problem or a debt problem unless you have an inflation problem let me bring Dan Mitchell in to respond to all this dim well I think two things first I agree with Stephanie that economic growth and job creation is not inflationary but other than that I think we have some big disagreements I think what she's basically describing is Keynesianism on steroids and whether you're part of the modern monetary theory people that that think you can basically finance more government with the printing press or whether you're talking about it we're in the sense that Stephanie's talking about it we just have bigger government that supposedly is gonna be a perpetual motion machine for the economy in either way I think we're at risk of at best copying the economic policies of Greece and at worst copying the economic policies of Venezuela fundamentally we're really debating should government be a lot bigger and if you want government to be a lot bigger which I don't then you have the challenge of how are you paying for it and Stephanie's promoting a theory that's rather unconventional even a lot of left-wing economists disagree with it is there anywhere in the world Stephanie where mmt is is put into place I mean Dan was speaking to comparison to a profligate spending Greece or socialist Venezuela but are there countries that have adopted this yes the United States of America because we already have any money yeah it's just a description of how the federal budgeting process already works and what we're saying is that we're not taking full advantage of the space that we have already today with the system that we have to get better outcomes and that's what I'm talking about when I say a better mousetrap we have a system today that does not deliver we have crises one after another in this country we have 44 million Americans who are struggling with one and a half trillion dollars of student loan debt 45,000 American's die every year because they don't have hell insurance we've got nearly half of the population living in or near poverty ya know and I yeah I take your point so let me ask because a lot of this is coming up coupled with programs like Medicare for all or the green New Deal and some estimates in medicare for all save cost fifty trillion dollars over ten years green New Deal kind of runs in the tens of trillions to maybe upwards of hundreds are you suggesting that this would allow for those plans to be funded what I'm saying in the simplest possible terms is that Congress can write and pass any budget it likes and the Fed will clear the payments on behalf of the government okay so that's just a simple statement of kind of how the government budgeting process works now am I saying that because the government has the power of the purse that it can spend willy-nilly that it can fund trillions and trillions of dollars of new spending without ever needing to remove any of that spending either by raising a tax or by spending less in some other part of the budget no that's not what I'm suggesting but look with health care we're already spending the money in fact we're spending far more than any other country on earth so we talked about Medicare for all we're talking about moving to a system that will allow us to just try to get to the budget aspect of this so dental ask you about this as well so if moving to something like Medicare for all costed fifty trillion dollars over ten years or five trillion more a year Stephani suggesting that that could come from and I'm sorry to use the term but the printing press what would your response be to that would that create massive inflation or do you have other concerns about that how that would work in on the ground well if we're talking about funding the entire so-called green New Deal which is estimated anywhere from forty trillion to upwards of 90 trillion if you think that can be funded with the printing press you're talking about Zimbabwe Venezuelan type territory I simply don't believe you could in effect create that much money finance government just by writing a check on the federal reserve and not having some adverse consequences but I want to be perfectly fair to Stephanie our real debate is whether government should be at your Greek Italian type levels or whether it should be at current levels and fundamentally if you're gonna make government a lot bigger it's gonna in effect divert resources from the productive sector of the economy whether you finance it taxes whether you do it by borrowing or by simply running the printing presses figuratively Stephanie we have 22 trillion dollars of existing debt is would you suggest using this to write that all down no no no I'm not talking about creating trillions to fund a new Green Deal and not offsetting any of that spending I'm not worried about the 22 trillion in debt because all the national debt is it is a historical record of all of the dollars that the government spent into the economy and didn't tax back that people are currently saving in the form of US Treasuries I'm not worried about 22 trillion in US assets being held in portfolios and pensions and so forth all of would it interest rates in to me what I'm worried about being a little intention Stef's the only words I'm jumping in is so if interest rates go out right now they're very low which means the the borrowing costs or the deficit right now is very low and for the debt that you mentioned so if interest rates go up a little bit how do you propose to pay for that do you continue to just expand the money supply to meet whatever so if we go from paying you know small single-digit number per year to it upwards of double-digit number per year how do you how do you pay for that without shrinking anything to offset that do you just keep expanding the money supply so it the government pays interest on the debt the way it pays for anything else in other words the Federal Reserve will change the numbers on the bondholders account and there they will receive an interest income payment it doesn't work any differently what it means if interest rates go up is that the subsidy to bondholders gets much bigger and so we could talk about ways to avoid having that happen but that's probably a different conversation and I know you're talking about those stabilizers Dan final word before we go is how realistic do you think it is that this gains more and more attraction and what happens if it does well I think a hundred percent of economists on the writer Center don't like mmt and I think probably 75 to 80 percent of economists on the left don't like it because simply state it you can't for matically expand the burden of government and somehow have it be free and I think that's what at least some supporters of modern monetary theory want us to believe the Federal Reserve cannot write checks to finance a greek-style government because then you wind up with a Venezuelan swaps Venezuelan style economy Dan Mitchell stephanie kelton thank you for joining us today thank you 英語 (自動生成) Dan Mitchell Debating Modern Monetary Theory 5,655 回視聴•2019/03/01 80 27 共有 保存 Dan Mitchell チャンネル登録者数 431人 チャンネル登録 次の動画 1:10:20 再生中 L. Randall Wray - Modern Money Theory for Beginners St. Francis College 9.8万 回視聴 2 年前 26:21 再生中 But how does bitcoin actually work? 3Blue1Brown 565万 回視聴 3 年前 1:26:43 再生中 Stephanie Kelton: The Public Purse UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose 4.9万 回視聴 2 年前 6:16 再生中 Deutsche Bank will no longer do business with Trump CNN 178万 回視聴 2 日前 新着 再生中 1/16　冷笑の時代に、なぜわたしたち若者は声をあげるのか #VoiceUpJapan Choose Life Project 875 人が視聴中 ライブ配信中 14:59 再生中 Poverty isn't a lack of character; it's a lack of cash | Rutger Bregman TED 133万 回視聴 3 年前 31:00 再生中 How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio Principles by Ray Dalio 2048万 回視聴 7 年前 6:39 再生中 AskProfWolff: What is Modern Monetary Theory? RichardDWolff 7.5万 回視聴 2 年前 16:03 再生中 The unexpectedly hard windmill question (2011 IMO, Q2) 3Blue1Brown 335万 回視聴 1 年前 1:01:41 再生中 Chess and the Art of War: Strategies That Win, from Grandmaster Magnus Carlsen Milken Institute 35万 回視聴 3 年前 4:40 再生中 Lawrence: ‘Never Forget’ Those Who Enabled Trump | The Last Word | MSNBC

The roots of MMT do not lie in Keynes – Bill Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory 2015

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31681

The roots of MMT do not lie in Keynes

billTuesday, August 25, 2015

I am currently working on an introductory chapter to a collection I have prepared for my publisher (Edward Elgar) which describes the evolution of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). The task might appear to be straightforward but in fact is rather vexed. There is considerable dispute as to where the roots lie. A specific debate is the importance of the work of John Maynard Keynes. Many Post Keynesians, almost by definition, believe that Keynes was a central figure in the development of what we now call Post Keynesian economics, although that 'school of thought' evades precise identification and is certainly anything but homogenous. There are MMT proponents, who while sympathetic with much of Post Keynesian theory, disagree on key propositions – specifically relating to debt and deficits (as an example). But then they also point to Keynes' work as seminal in the development of MMT. My own view is that many of the important insights in Keynes were already sketched out in some detail in Marx. Further, the work of the Polish economist Michał Kalecki was much deeper in insight than the work of his contemporary, Keynes. But for me the real sticking point against Keynes was his view that fiscal deficits should be balanced over the business cycle and that would allow governments to pay back debt incurred in the deficit years. That view has crippled progressive thought ever since and is antithetical to MMT. The debate also has resonance with the current leadership struggle within the British Labour Party about fiscal deficits and the claims by the 'socialist' candidate, Jeremy Corbyn that he will "balance the budget" when unemployment is low so as to avoid inflation. This view derives from the adoption by progressives of Keynes' views, whether they know that or not. It is a mistaken view and retards progressive policy development.

In his 1961 book article (page 139) – The Burden of Debt – the founder of Functional Finance – Abba Lerner opened with the following parable:

"But look," the Rabbi's wife remonstrated, "When one party to the dispute presented their case to you, you said 'you are quite right' and then when the other party presented their case you again said 'you are quite right', surely they cannot both be right?" To which the Rabbi answered, "My dear, you are quite right!"

It was in reference to economists who were critical of the US government using debt to match spending on public projects. Lerner said the mainstream economists who were mounting such criticisms were "right" but only if they "redefine" key concepts in convenient (but perverse) ways.

Redux: Phelps article on austerity denial which I discussed in yesterday's blog – Greece – now the conservatives are denying there was austerity

Keynes did not discuss fiscal policy in great length in his most famous work – The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936).

But in two articles which appeared in the The Times (November 14 and 15, 1939) under the title "Paying for the War", Keynes provided detailed analysis of the conduct of fiscal policy. These articles came out in his short 1940s book "How to Pay for the War".

The context was the fear that if governments use debt to 'fund' fiscal deficits to prosecute the War effort it was likely that inflation would result from a shortage of productive resources.

The inflation would most likely come from stronger consumption on the back of higher incomes and a limited availability of consumption goods.

He disliked the distributional effects of inflation – and considered it to be a tax on workers and the debt issued by governments would be a source of wealth for the capitalist class.

So he thought fiscal deficits pushed resources towards the rich and as a result of their low propensity to consume (high savings rate) would endanger the viability of the capitalist system – bias it towards depression.

He also didn't want the workers to be taxed more to 'pay' for the deficits.

His solution, outlined in those articles, was to introduce a 'compulsory saving scheme' with progressive income tax rates, which would reduce consumption (divert income into financial wealth accumulation) but ensure that the low income workers benefited from the deficits.

He wrote that this system would be beneficial because:

… it would be the wage earners, and not the profit takers, who would emerge from the war as the main holders (in the form of deferred pay claims) of the newly created National Debt.

Suffice to say the trade unions and labour activists were horrified by the proposal. They wanted heavy taxes to be levied on the rich capitalists to pay for the War.

Keynes' fear of inflation also meant that he was not enamoured with fiscal deficits. He saw them as being necessary in times of recession but should not be a general tendency for governments.

Deficits were a means of resolving a "deficiency of effective demand", which Keynes demonstrated was the principle cause of mass unemployment.

Keynes actually moved somewhat away from this position by 1943 when he supported the proposals by the British Treasury (from James Meade) to introduce a social security system to attenuate periods of deficient demand.

In other words, put the burden of adjustment onto the automatic stabiliser component of the fiscal balance rather than the discretionary component.

So when private spending fell and unemployment rose, workers would attenuate the loss of earned income by the receipt of income support payments through the social security system, which would provide some floor in the recession.

He also divided the fiscal balance into what he called the 'current budget' (we now use the term recurrent to describe revenue and spending flows exhausted within a year) and the 'capital budget', which relates to public infrastructure expenditure.

In correspondence to Sir Richard Hopkins (July 20, 1942) – which is recorded in his Collected Works, Volume 27, Keynes wrote:

… the ordinary Budget should be balances at all times. It is the capital Budget which should fluctuate with the demand for employment.

This is the precursor to the modern concept of the 'golden rule'. which limits fiscal deficits to the rate of public investment in productive capital.

The 'golden rule' essentially means that over some defined economic cycle (from the peak of activity to the next peak) the government deficit should match its capital (infrastructure) spending.

All 'recurrent' spending (that is, spending which exhausts its benefits within the current year) should be 'funded' through current revenue (taxes and fines, etc.).

The 'golden rule' is considered equitable across generations because the current taxpayers 'pay' for the public benefits they receive now, while the future generations have to pay for the benefits that the infrastructure delivers to them in the years to come.

Thus, day to day spending that benefits the current taxpaying public should be covered by taxation revenue and capital infrastructure should be funded through debt.

The fiscal balance would thus always be zero net of public investment spending.

The 'golden rule' reflects the mainstream economics view that governments have to 'fund' their spending just like a household.

But Keynes went one step further and driven by his fear of inflation concluded in the General Theory (Chapter 13, Section III) that:

If, however, we are tempted to assert that money is the drink which stimulates the system to activity, we must remind ourselves that there may be several slips between the cup and the lip

Monetary policy (adjusting interest rates) was uncertain and Keynes didn't have confidence that it could constrain and inflationary boom.

So fiscal policy was the principle policy tool for constraining inflationary episodes, just as it was the most effective means of overcoming a recession.

So in Victorian times, the 'golden rule' was that in good times, the current 'budget' should deliver a surplus, which would then allow the government to repay the debt incurred in bad times, when it was running deficits.

This reasoning then lef to the conclusion that balanced 'budgets' as a principle was dangerous and that 'budgets' should, rather, be balanced over an economic cycle.

Run deficits in bad times and surpluses in good times to avoid inflation and build up the funds to run down the debt accumulated during the deficit years.

Most of this analysis was conducted under closed economy assumptions. Keynes was focused on fluctuations in private investment and national income and certainly didn't consider what an on-going external deficit would mean for the conduct of fiscal policy if the private domestic sector desired to net save.

The point is that I depart from the view espoused by many Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) proponents who suggest that Keynes is one of the important precursor economists to the development of MMT.

As I explained in this blog – Corbyn should stop saying he will eliminate the deficit – there is no foundation in the idea that fiscal balances should ever be balanced much less over the course of some discrete economic cycle (peak to trough to peak).

Keynes' views in this context were relatively conservative and mistaken.

1. Issuing debt to match fiscal deficits does not reduce the inflation risk of the initial spending, whether that spending be government or non-government.

It just swaps one financial asset – a saving balance (deposit) for a government bond. Moreover, the latter carries an income flow which is likely to be larger than the former.

2. There is no reason to believe that continuous fiscal deficits will be inflationary. Extending Keynes' own logic, deficits are required when non-government spending is insufficient to generate sales that would justify firms fully employing all available labour.

As long as firms can continue to respond to nominal demand growth through increased output growth, there is no major likelihood of an inflation breakout.

In other words, a deficit could easily be a 'steady-state' policy position to support full employment when the other sectoral balances (external and private domestic) were in particular states.

For a nation such as Britain, we note the following:

1. A fairly sizeable external deficit which drains domestic spending in net terms (more cash flows out via imports than flows in via exports) and is not going to go away anytime soon and is not a problem anyway, given it means the British people enjoy advantageous real terms of trade (foreigners are willing to send them real goods and services in exchange for bits of paper – financial assets).

2. The private domestic sector is already highly indebted and cannot be expected to sustain even higher debt levels.

3. There is considerable idle capacity – unemployment, underemployment etc.

In this context, a continuous fiscal deficit is indicated.

Remember, a fiscal deficit is a flow of net spending that disappears each period and if not sustained will lose its impact.

As long as that flow is supporting a flow of production in each period then there is no inflation risk. That is the desirable policy position – to ensure all real resources are in productive use.

If from a position of full employment, the external deficit narrows (via export expansion), or private domestic investment increases, then depending on what the society sees as a desirable mix between private and public resource usage, the fiscal deficit will have to decline to avoid inflation.

But that is not the same thing as invoking a 'balanced budget rule over the cycle'. Even when private domestic spending is stronger, public deficits will normally be required to maintain full employment.

Governments should not follow fiscal rules like a 'balanced budget rule over the cycle'. Rather, they should be guided by evaluations which show the impact of different fiscal policy parameters on the well-being of the population.

If there is a need for the private domestic sector to have less purchasing power, then a tax increase is indicated. Not to generate revenue for the government but to reduce purchasing capacity of households and firms.

The tax increase is serving a specific function – to deprive the private domestic sector of purchasing power, presumably, because the government wants extra real resource space available to pursue its own socio-economic mandate and/or exports are booming.

It needs to create the extra resource space because if the taxes weren't increased there would be incompatible claims on those real resources from all the claimants (households, firms, government, foreigners) which would result in inflation.

But no rule can be devised to automatically ensure that these functional decisions will be made effectively. It is the art of the policy maker that rules rather than a rule driving the policy.

Keynes did not take into account the sectoral balances. MMT makes them a central part of the macroeconomic evaluation and policy development framework. Understanding them in an accounting sense is only the first step. The art is to understand what drives these balances and how they interact.

So a 'balanced budget over the cycle' rule would mean the private domestic sector has a deficit equivalent to the external deficit on average over the same cycle.

Why is that desirable? It implies that the private domestic sector will be accumulating ever-increasing debt levels, which eventually will become unsustainable.

MMT focuses on the private debt dynamics and considers the public debt dynamics to be passe. It goes further and recommends that governments break the nexus between debt-issuance and fiscal deficits.

In this sense, governments should use Overt Monetary Financing rather than going through the pretence that they are being funded by private bond holders. The bond sales are made possible by past deficits, which generate net financial assets for the non-government sector.

Further, they are just an example of corporate welfare, which is totally unnecessary.

There is some progressive argument that the debt helps pension/superannuation funds provide safe returns to workers in retirement. My solution would be to nationalise superannuation funds, eliminating the managerial fee grab of workers' savings, and using the government's currency-issuing capacity to fund workers' retirements.

That is pure MMT but very non-Keynes.

I have run out of time today but you might also like to reflect on David Colander's article in the Journal of Economic Literature (December 1984) – Was Keynes a Keynesian or a Lernerian? – which mounts the argument that Keynes shifted ground in the 1940s and considered Lerner's Functional Finance to be a sound framework.

[Full Reference: Colander, D. (1984) 'Was Keynes a Keynesian or a Lernerian?', Journal of Economic Literature, 22(4), December, 1572-1575].

Conclusion

Progressives should abandon the notion that they attribute to Keynes that the fiscal balance should be zero on average over the course of the economic cycle.

In this regard, the work of Abba Lerner in the 1940s on Functional Finance is much more seminal to the development of MMT than was Keynes' offerings, which I believe are antithetical to the foundational blocks of MMT.

Progressive narratives should aim to educate the public as to the need in normal times for continuous fiscal deficits. Then we would start getting somewhere.

Off to catch a big airplane!

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2015 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.

iPhoneから送信

kelton 2012 (MMT-MCT Fields Institute Seminar: Stephanie Kelton )

 https://freeassociations2020.blogspot.com/2021/01/freeassociationskelton-2012mmt-mct.html

MMT-MCT Fields Institute Seminar: Stephanie Kelton 
2012
https://youtu.be/khaypwRG5C0?t=23m

貨幣ヒエラルキー

 文字起こし yeah all right nice start so thank you for coming this morning so just to remind yourself what yourself what we are doing so it's team convene this visit is pretty much all right that's a stateless visit in the fields Institute for the month and then to have a forum for us to exchange ideas and said research problems to work in theater with father Kevin and regular series of sending us up in heaven then since that's what this is going to be the fit of those so we call it ruins and nonlinear economics and just to hand on a high note so we invited distinguished friends from other places so today would be all from the external researchers who have talks in the morning and to talks in the afternoon and the last one will be stiff stiff gets the privilege of having the last word so it's a great question I have is the first speaker Stephanie counsels from University of Kansas thank you thank you for helping them put this together thank you to see from the invitation suggested all together so I know this is the fields Institute and ordinarily you would come in you and have a nice rigorous mathematical presentation of some time but that's not what I'm going to do today this is a lecture that's intended for a general audience people who have an interest in some economic question those policy questions want to understand maybe the issues way that you don't often hear them explain in media and press and so forth and so I just want to begin by do we have time consent is how to projector on this attend on everything I'll say you just press ok so the it was all to get this kid here we go it's fine lay eggs again we've had what we have mr. Nesmith does anybody ever meant anything to chance okay here we go all right okay so the title of the talk is money is no object and I'm being provocative here in a couple of different ways and what I hope to convince you out of money and the hour is a cop look two things the way that we conventionally think about money is is wrong we tend to think of money as a thing and we most often the something that's finite in its existence money is an object and there's only so much of it out there right so we have to make difficult choices about what to do with money allocating money like any other scarce resource in the economy and so forth so I want to kind of pull that into question and then I want to extend that to say if money is not a physical thing whose limited and scarce like other resources and it can be created at will sense the money is no object when it comes to do the kinds of things that we want to do to sustain the math very funny at a targeted level of employment for example so this question what is money begs an answer and the usual description that you find in the textbooks is one that I find very unsatisfying and I like this from gentleman named Hyman Minsky who's an economist that many of you in the room are probably familiar with in Minsky's most famous work stabilizing an unstable economy Minsky says anyone can create money that's kind of nice to know anyone can create money the trick is to get it accepted hey how different does that sound from what if you've ever had a course in economics whether it's micro or macro from the principals level all the way up to the graduate level you've probably encountered a story that begins you get to the page that begins to talk about money what's the first thing you see once upon a time right it begins like a fairy tale why because it is once upon a time man conducted his affairs on the basis of barter right this is dominant within the discipline in economics it has its roots in the medalist tradition which is the bipolar right the opposite end of the spectrum from what I'm going to describe in a few moments the chart elasaur cartola state theory of money the old idea that money emerges spontaneously within the private sector as individuals make about how better to conduct their affairs.

so as Smith said man has a natural propensity to truck barter and exchange it's an art DNA it's what we do right we produce things or specialize at some point and then we pick those things up and we love them to the local trading venue called the market where we attempt to change that which we have into that which we desire we attempt to make a trade this is very clumsy specialize in something you're the best fisherman in the village so you catch fish and you go to the local trading venue and you have all the fish you need or want to sustain yourself but what you really need is a clay pot to cook your fish in maybe a new pair of shoes to walk around in whatever it is right so off you head to the local training venue with your surplus fish looking for someone who both has what you want and once what you have right so barter is inefficient it's clumsy it requires the famous double coincidence of wants unless the double coincidence of wants to satisfy no no trade can take place I barter involves these heavy transaction costs this week economists sometimes use the two terms shoe leather costs you have to presumably walk around for a long time in order to find someone who wants what you have and has what you want so money helps to take care of this problem right.

and what did the textbooks tell you old money and banking textbooks new money and making textbooks it doesn't matter the same story gets repeated in all of them and the story begins in that once upon a time sort of fashion where we struggle to overcome the inefficiencies of order and the first humans decide to use to mediate to alleviate the efficiencies of barter our primitive monks beads feathers calorie shells dancing ladies bigots and money-making textbook dancing ladies you know cattle fish stones all of these things that were supposedly early forms of money somewhere at some point in human history.

and then eventually the next stage of evolution the story goes well some of those things just don't make a very good money thing fish don't last forever right cattle are very hard to lug down to the marketplace and what do you do as cattle is your money thing and what you're after is just a pair of shoes or a clay pot what's the exchange value by the leg for a pot it's not divisible it's not a good money thing this is the story so humans decide precious metals that's what we should be using this makes a better money thing it's portable it's durable it's divisible.

this is this is what we ought to do so the next stage of the evolution in the story and the text books goes man invented commodity monies and then eventually you move away from having to actually pull out gold coins silver coins and make transactions you begin trading with paper but the paper is convertible into precious metals gold or silver so you have convertibility so when you're answering the question why would people take those pieces of paper in exchange for something of value like a cattle or fish whatever well it's because paper is as good as gold I convertible into gold and then we reached the next stage in the evolution of money which is where we are today pure fiat currency I intrinsically worthless not convertible into anything else at a fixed price what do people accept it this gets difficult for the conventional textbook story because if you ask them why do people accept to be hot like worthless oh well they take it because they know they can go down and go to the marketplace and spend it well why does the shopkeeper take it well the shopkeeper takes it because he knows that he can pay his worker well the worker takes it because they know they can pay their landlord well what you see where the problem is it's an infinite regress problem you never get a satisfactory answer to the question why do people accept intrinsically worthless fiat currency nevertheless The Economist's are undaunted by the problem and press forward with the simple once upon a time story what is money money is what money does primarily money is a medium of exchange it's not interesting in and of itself it's the thing we handed each other to get the real good or service it simply intermediates it's the exchange process it also serves as a mythical store value my money is what money does it's a veil over the real economy we don't too much have to pay attention to money it's there but it doesn't do anything important this is something that Steve Keene has been critiquing for an awful long time right that we don't really need money in our most important to bail it's just there to help us make the transactions that were pre-programmed in our DNA to make anyway right we don't even need it in Marmont sitting next to Steve Keen is Michael Hudson who's written a lot of work tell me a very different story about the nature and origins of money where does money come from why do people use money how do we tell a very different story and this story involves out of what we refer to as the card list for charmless theories of money an economist by the name of George Friedrich map wrote home while the state theory of money many other economists have written about this less extensively than an octave but in any event the story is there but it's best told not by economists most economists don't know their history they don't read outside of their discipline.

so they don't but they're not simply just not aware of this other story about what motivates the use where do we find the origin of money what is the nature of money if you read the work vamp apologists sociologists misma tests Michael Hudson this is where you're going to get I think a much richer and much more historically meaningful tale about why societies began to use my Nana's ruins you find here the story focuses on the origin of money in early credit and debt relationships money evolves along with death right where you have not a society of people all deciding collectively hey let's use money it would be easier to conduct transactions but in authority who imposes debt on a population requires them to pay that debt and tells them how they can eliminate the obligation in order to eliminate the debt to meet the authority whether on the path of its apalis community whether other palace chief whether on the nation-state.

 I'm going to impose that on you I will tell you what you have to do to eliminate the death you will provide real resources to me I will pay for those real resources with something that you can then turn around and give back to me to eliminate your obligation right the purpose in all of this as Michael has told the story so about anything is that we should be focusing on the desire of the authority to get resources moved from the private to the public domain and the way that that's achieved is through by imposing liabilities on others that they have to work off in order to earn that which is necessary to pay the tax the fee find to the state so yeah can't you have both stories like in some places there is a strong state that does that and then maybe not the discipline that was both stories I mean can you do you have this article records of both alright this is my we may never know but they're not what other stars in there quickly that's worse than David greatest exactly.

I was gonna mention that yet that we're looking about societies you only find it quite trivial handful even if I'm in modern tribal society law and in historical records we find and what you tend to find we look at the star birth was ending cultures it's actually communal exchange that precedes the money period and what really goes on a mutual gift-giving which then generates mutual credit and that's part of how those societies evolved because they were cooperative.

 we're not you know in the barcode it again has it's the having like a couple of one of them wild animals that hunt alone and get together to exchange and don't have any communal relations but in fact it's a friendship thing and at the society to you I'll give you a gift you feel an obligation to me and you didn't return the gift later and I think what we see coming out of when we get to the agrarian societies and that I think that mutual or gift-giving becomes a mutual credit because encapsulated what the entity which is a combination religious state and commerce roots together yeah I think I mean great book goes out looking for answers and he goes out looking for examples where the other story actually hold certain water and it comes up with this steep set very few examples that in fact what economists have intended to do is to read the present into the past.

and so when you see tribal societies engaged in communal gift-giving and you see ones that go like that and the other cycle like that and you see wampum beats you know moving back and forth we say oh it must be paying with the beads that must be how they paid for the other thing so therefore beads were an early form of permanently it's not what's going on okay but that takes okay so forget all the history regardless of the origin of money what do we know today is now I want to move into the present and have a discussion about the kind of monetary system we have today and what needs regardless of where money came from all money exists.

and I argue and I have my viewed in many publications as simultaneously Democratic money at the end of the day it's a social relationship it involves two parties you must have a debtor and the creditor money exists is an asset and a liability all money is an IOU the eye is the debtor is the creditor okay all of these io u--'s money is a recording device money debt credit is recorded in some unit of account I would choose this punitive account in Australia the unit of account is the Australian dollar.

 in the US the US dollar in Canada Canadian dollars Japan the Japanese yen in Britain the British pound and in Italy what's different it turns out to be very important right the money of account the unit of account is an abstract convention it's not something you can feel it's not an object it's like an inch or a hectare or a yard or a year it's abstract it's something that only humans can conceive it represents a relationship it reports those social debts in any modern nation the money of account is chosen by the national government any place on the globe that you can point to the money that is circulating you can rest assured it's chosen state government this is something that's not new it's not modern in this sense it's something that if you go back to Aristotle you can find this it's certainly an Adam Smith and it runs through the works of a large number of economists so I do not even fully developed form in James's treatise on money which is the major work that he published just before the general theory Keynes tells us the age of journalists or state money was reached when the state declared what things should answer to the money of a cat to the Union what things should answer today all civilized money's beyond the possibility of dispute Chartist he says also in the treatise the state claims the right to write and rewrite the dictionary so think Italian government to write the dictionary it's clear and then to rewrite the dictionary cross out the lira and Europe right to write and rewrite the dictionary this is a right claimed by all sovereign governments so the sovereign government has four important things it defines the unit of account what will be the unit of account in that state it imposes taxes fees fines and other obligations it decides what it will accept in payment of those taxes fines fees and obligations and it chooses how it will make its owner payments those are four important decisions that any sovereign government makes most sovereign governments clearly not all choose their own unique money of account and issue their own currency in that unit of account the Japanese yen the Canadian dollar.

 I most go with a one nation one money approach the money and the national borders most governments also require that taxes be paid in a currency that the state has the exclusive right to issue exclusive right it gives itself the monopoly to create that which is necessary to settle obligations to the state when it does these things its operating with sovereign currency why does that matter as long as the state has the power to enforce the tax obligations the people need the government's money.

we are so used to I think thinking in terms of the government need our money but if the state is the issuer of the currency and grants itself exclusive power to create the currency why not earth do they need to come to us to get the currency the currency comes from them.

and we accept it because we need it to settle obligations to the state the currency will have value people will be willing to work in order to produce in order to earn the currency because it's Cerie in order to settle death in order to settle obligations right.

whatever the government accepts in payment to itself becomes what George Friedrich Knapp called the definitive money of the system.

 my foot definitely definitive and it is the final means of settlement so here the Charter lists the card lists emphasize the means of payment function of money.

the the role that many pays and extinguishing obligations and eliminating death okay.

so go back to minute see anyone do create money the trick is to get it accepted anything can create life then make it think of a whole range of money things.

 I can create money Michael can create money he's got the gist of everybody in this room can create money.

the state can create money banks create money but all the money is not created equal some io u--'s are more acceptable than others some will circulate more rightly some will serve as a good medium of exchange.

and others will be rejected some will make a means of payment a final means of payment you can settle your debt by handing over the IOU up someone else others won't okay.

 what's the difference which I owe you use our most special I mean my argument is that the io u--'s at the top of the pyramid are the most special those are the io use the money things that are going to be the most accepted and whose io u--'s are those so if anyone can create money households can do it financial institutions banks can do it non-bank firms can do it government can do it who's io u--'s did you get a layering of I only use like a pyramid the most acceptable are at the top the least acceptable or at the bottom so imagine that after this lecture today I've allowed too much and I pay with my credit card I go into death is you in I owe you one myself and I get to eat the food and I get to walk out am I finished I'm not finished I a couple the weeks later I go to the mailbox there's the bill for visa what do they want they want to be paid for the meal but if they extended be credit so what do I do I get out my checkbook I write a cheque put it in the mailbox off to the center visa gets the check so I'm transferring the IOU of someone higher in the pyramid Lisa gets my check are they happy is it done visa doesn't want my shiny I have a really lovely signature but it's not at the end of the day with their actor they aren't happy with the cheque they want what happens after the cheque goes through it's clearing process what visa wants is a credit to its bank account which gives it a claim on I have to transfer the IOU of someone higher in the pyramid to get out of my home debt that results in the transference of another ionian higher in pyramid and the only way to ultimately eliminate my debt is to pay the state line and we have a long discussion about bank reserves and I'll add trust me at the end play what happens is that visa gets paid with something that gives it a claim on the government's IOU okay so if we look at the u.s. hierarchy it looks like this that what I want to emphasize is the relationship between the government and the thing at the top of the pyramid so in the case of the United States the pyramid looks like this the most acceptable form of payment is the US dollar is the only way ultimately to settle any debt denominated in u.s. dollars right the government's bends in u.s. dollars collects taxes in US dollars it issues the currency that sits at the top of the pyramid that currency the US dollar is non convertible it's a pure floating fiat currency we don't have a fixed exchange rate system the government doesn't promise to convert dollars into gold or anything else at a fixed price it's purely a fiat currency again why does that matter what are the benefits of issuing a currency that sits at the top of the pyramid it means all the stuff that at least in the US we hear every single day on the television and newsprint that the nation is on a fiscal fiscally unsustainable path that we're going broke that we're going to become like Greece all of that stuff is wrong the issuer of the currency can never run out of the currency that your assets of the exclusive right to issue can go grow you can't be forced to miss a payment in your own currency you can afford anything that's for sale in that unit of account so the upper limit to the US government's ability to spend what's for sale many dollars because I could have it all if I wanted to right if you're willing to sell something to me for US dollars I can I can have okay it doesn't mean to borrow its own currency in order to spend it issues the currency it can set the policy interest rate and any level it doesn't have to use its interest rate to defend or protect a stock of gold or another country's currency if it's on a fixed exchange rate system it has control of the policy interest ring this gives the state and expanded policy space it gives you more elbow room in terms of your ability to use primarily physical but also monetary policy to try to influence what's happening in the macro economy this is the u.s. before 1971 1973 two years matter here I go with 73 that's when the golden window is closed for good you're you're right I didn't say that there were no constraints I said there was no constraint on the government's ability to spend in its own currency that's very different and inflation is a real constraint we recognize that I'll come to that yeah I'm not saying that there are no constraints on spending I'm saying there's no constraint on the government's ability to create its currency and buy whatever's for sale in that unit account of different cities okay so before 1973 1974 lon a fixed exchange rate system that was known as international monetary system called renin with 44 countries participated 43 of them fixed the value of their currency to the US dollar and the US government as convertible into gold at a fixed price oh okay so it's a fixed exchange rate system under that monetary arrangement the government in the u.s. is promising to convert dollars into gold and a fixed price what sat at the top of the hierarchy under that type of monetary system was not the US dollar and that places constraints on the government's ability to issue the US dollar because if it issues too many dollars and it's going to happen before all that I want to start converting to gold then there's only so much because that is finite right so it constrains your policy space there's less fiscal room there's less positive space under monetary system like that same thing even after 73 you have lots of countries that continue to run fixed exchange rate systems and as a consequence you have lots of currents and crises and debt defaults Russia 1978 Argentina in early 2000 sadly station 97 Mexico in 94 95 all of these countries experienced payment problems as a consequence of the fact that they don't control the currency that sits at the top of a pyramid.

they get a debt in a currency that they have trouble then servicing debt because of the nature the monetary system that they've adopted it gives them limited policy space.

 it robs them of the ability to use the interest rate to set the interest rate anywhere they want to so in the case of Russia for example Russia is fixing the value of the ruble to the US dollar so they're pledging on demand to allow holders of ruble balances to convert rules into the US dollar to fixed price fun until everybody wants to do that right and when too many people start choosing to convert to the u.s. dollar problem because in order to maintain the peg you need a sufficient holding of your reserve asset which is the dollar and if everybody's converting into dollars you're losing your dollar reserves so what is the Russian government do they respond by trying to compete with the desire to convert to US dollars this they hold on you don't want US dollars what you really want are gkos Russian government bonds have a take this instead this pays interest you'll like it it's nice right and the rural people who were holding rubles said no I really just prefer the dollar things well hang hang on what about a higher interest rate wouldn't that appeal to you just raise the interest rate a bit come on take the G K up no go to the dollars I'm gonna have the dollar please oh wait wait wait wait a little bit higher a little bit higher interest rates with 150% before the fixed exchange rate system who love so these are very limiting types of monetary systems you give up control of your interest rate you constrain your policy space and you become heavily dependent on current account surpluses on trade because it's the only way to accumulate non-government sector for the private sector when you're constrained in your ability to run deficits the surplus in the private sector and I'll talk more about that okay what about the euro euro is an exceptional case it's not a fixed exchange rate system but it definitely limits the policy space and it introduces a relationship between the government's that use the euro and the hierarchy that takes away that relationship of one nation one currency I control the currency that sits at the top of the pyramid because they don't write all of these countries the seventeen countries that adopted the bureau gave up their sovereign currencies and adopted what's effectively a foreign currency to them modeled on the one market one money principle one impart we all do so much trade together why don't we for efficiency reasons just use the same thing it goes back to the old medalist apartment high money is just the thing we hand around and it's more efficient if we all hand around the same thing because we do so much trading together what difference could it make so it turns out it makes a huge difference I now these countries are users currency not issuers of the currency and because they no longer issue the currency that sits at the top of the pyramid they can run out of heroes they can go broke they can become insolvent they can be forced to miss a payment they have limited policy space and they have to pay market rates of interest so it turns out that money matters money is not this afterthought that you may or may not put into your model because it's really just like a veil over the real economy and that's what matters at the end of the day money matters and governments should be in control of the currency that sits at the top of the pyramid if they give up the control they also give up some of their policy space this is a bomber who was a contemporary of Keynes's.

and institutionalists post-keynesian economists who says by virtue of its power to create and destroy money by Fiat or to take money away from people through taxation the state is in a position to keep the rate of spending in the economy at the level necessary to achieve order and to sustain okay something that no pathless economy has ever achieved we have fleeting periods of what might be characterized as full employment unemployment rates of two and a half percent in Europe three percent three and a half percent in the US and you call that full employment but they're always fleeting and they usually come during wartime or speculative bubbles but no capitalist economy has never successfully sustained full employment and learner's arguing that if you have the right type of monetary system and the degree of policy space that comes with that then you can take advantage of that and you can actually do what hasn't been achieved before so how do currency issuers spend how does the issuer for the current extent it spends by giving instructions to have somebody else's account credited now with modern money the age of electronic money in support this frequently happens without the government even writing a check Social Security payments are made automatically you're sitting at home looking online at your bank statement and you see two thousand dollars in your account and then suddenly the numbers change you see I just got my credit they spend with keystrokes this is something Ben Bernanke it's been really forthcoming that Alan Greenspan has been very forthcoming this is how modern governments spend do we understand this no too often we don't so we have our president going on television and in response to a question are we are we out of money when we'll be running lady he says we're out of money now that's his response on television we're out of money it all starts really getting bad when this guy makes his appearance this is Ross Perot boy I did 92 so he goes on TV runs for president right he's famous with his flip charts and he's sort of the Pete Peterson of his day he goes around scaring the hell out of everyone telling them that if I ran you know my business the way this government runs its operations why I be bankrupting a little Texas accent you know and he just showed everybody that this is really really irresponsible the government is spending money it doesn't have its burdening our grandchildren you know the arguments all that it's kind of live within its means just like the rest of us do right so we think and this narrative that governments are like households it's just like one big household really needs to play by the same rules of the household when you and I type our belts it's responsible for the government to tighten its belt too.

 and so forth is that this have any sense at all does the government really like a household you know a fixed exchange rate system you know pledge to convert our currency in the gold or anything else we spend like hitting the keys on a keyboard but we act like we're still on one of these ancient monetary systems.

 I mean the world truly does change in 1971 Nixon closes the gold window we go off Bretton Woods completely by 73 it's all time everything changes and we play by the same rules that applied under the old monetary system why well for one thing we look around we see what's happening in other parts of the world that we say dear God if I don't get my fiscal house in order I'm going to end up like Greece Spain Portugal iron right oh this is very powerful the u.s. they hit this over and over again and Americans by and large are convinced because if you take polls Americans say the deficit is one of the most important problems we face today about the deficit to come down.

and this is part of the reason that we're so terrified but we don't understand what makes us different from those countries over there we still have our keyboard we have a currency to be issued we have sovereign money they adopted a foreign currency they can't issue the currency and because they gave up there are sovereign currencies and adopted something that they can't issue financial markets have a great deal of power that they don't have in a country like the US like the UK like Japan where financial markets know that the risk of default that's essentially nil if you can always pay the presumption is you will always be right there is the ability to pay and that gives financial markets confidence they don't make your payment's financial markets understand that Greece and Ireland and Portugal might not be able to come up with it's the only place they can get the eros is to raise it by collecting taxes and when your economy goes your tax receipts go and so to fill the gap as other forms of spending increased right automatic stabilizers kick in government spends more on social safety net programs taxes are falling off the deficit lightens have you fill the gap borrowing but you gotta go to capital markets hat in hand ask for euros and they say well well we have lend but the risk of default is getting fairly high so in order to make the loan we need a premium right that default risk premium begins to climb the penalty is assessed by the financial markets and these countries are now like individual states in the u.s. Greece is like Georgia Georgia can issue see Georgia has to go he borrowed the dollars in order to spend this is why they're such a crisis with state local governments in the u.s. they can't do what the federal government can do okay the eurozone countries have transferred the spending authority to the financial markets you tell us how much we can spend how much are you willing to lend you can shut us off completely I have been cross waterway the u.s. still has its keyboard we're not like Greece we're not going to be like groups we can never be forced to miss a payment we can't become insolvent we always have the ability to pay we can't run out of money any more than a scorekeeper a sporting event can run out of points right when was the last time with you Jake's played last night things I would say they beat my Kansas City Chiefs Oh see I don't even know the Royals right that's baseball it seems like last night and when was the last time you went to a sporting event and saw you know a really website a game one thing once besides just running away with it putting that point after point after point and your son in the stands and you thought oh god if they keep scoring at this rate they're gonna run out of points worry you'd never respond that way though never occur to you but this is basically how we respond but it's been government issuing its own currency as if it's somehow is an object that is finite and it's going to run out up at some point like money is not an object here's Alan raining spam on 60 minutes with an interviewer named Scott Pelley and stock pelvis ever visit your clothes i penny says is that tax money the Venice spending Bernanke says it's not tax money he says we just use the computer to mark up the size of the account I mean that's how we spent that's a quote my colleague at UMKC randy ray wrote a paper with a couple of PhD students looking carefully and we extend to the feds intervention and last but since it started 2007 I guess and they came up with a number of 29 trillion dollars the Fed has intervened to the tune of 29 trillion dollars since the start of a true 29 trillion no where did they get their 29th I think you served it into existence doesn't exist until it's cute stroke but once it's what is world GDP that's awesome about you trillion if 50 trillion original okay so the point I want to leave with I mean I don't want to leave and not have everyone at least remember that I said this the issue where the currency can always head and here's Alan Greenspan government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency if my debt is in the US dollar and I'm the US government of course I can always service the debt the dollar comes from me the US dollar comes from the US government a fiat money system like the ones we have today can produce such claims without limit that doesn't say it should produce such claims without limit that says it can right there's no operational constraint on its ability to create the currency it's the monopoly issuer the currency so if we can do all of these things and have all of this policy space why is the recovery so weak and we could all probably answer this question for one thing we significantly underestimated the severity of the damage our pocket with traditional pump priming a little pump priming and a good swift response from the central banks of the world cutting interest rates maybe little QB of necessary we can write this really just here's your use your policy tool same ones always used by believing that the Fed is much more powerful than it is believing that the money multiplier words that if you give banks reserves they will allow to make loans those ones will result in spending the spending will drive GDP growth employment and so we'll be on the road to recovery so all of these things were mistakes a failure to appreciate that what we're really dealing with is a balance sheet recession that the private sectors debt to income ratio is so high that even if you provide more income for a sustained period of time people are going to be paying down debt not buying newly produced goods and services the economy is going to take a long time so I think for all of those reasons we've been fighting the fight the wrong way on top of that you have all this fear about becoming Greece and all the deficit hysteria especially in the US okay so we have juice use the terms in Canada deficit Hawk who deficit though is a common term so you know that the dominant groups in the u.s. come from essentially the two different parties the party that likes to call themselves fiscal conservatives the Republicans there the deficit hawks I mean a deficit is a bad thing it's irresponsible it burdens the next generation we should never run them unless they're in office and you know you just don't want deficits at all you've been given you bad times you don't want deficit spending so they say they oppose it on principle and they say they favorite things like sound money and sometimes you hear people in this camp advocate for things like 100% reserve backing we ought to go back to the gold standard governments have to be restrained and what they can spend and that will restore fiscally responsible governments and so forth okay they would advocate things like balanced budget amendments amend the US Constitution to make sure that the government all these balances its budget today you have the deficit hawks the funders sorry-sorry does the deficit does thank you the deficit doubts are the kinder gentler anti-deficit folks they say well it's true that deficits are dangerous and it's true that we do need to tighten our belt to get our fiscal house in order but it's also true that unemployment is high the economy is sort fragile and if we start to tighten too soon we could jeopardize the recovery and so let's focus on deficits in the medium term but in the short run let's focus on you know growth and so forth we might actually have to spend a bit more to do that and but we'll take care of the deficit because you're right we agree with you deficits bad and then you have and I'm sure you've all heard of the deficit devil the deficit owl this this is part of this was taken from the Washington Post article that was written about the approach that I'm describing which is sometimes referred to as monetary monetary theory or modern money theory and it's been featured just this year in places like the Economist magazine in the Washington Post the Financial Times Playboy magazine last month serious five pages so anyway there there was this piece in The Washington Post they could be either this little family tree I kind of put a low stubs and Hawks up above to show the distinction here but what's a deficit owl okay this just tells us some of the people who are beginning to pay attention to this broad approach that I've been sort of describing to you for the last 35 minutes modern monetary theory or modern money theory departs sharply from the conventional textbook stories about most things certainly money in deficit spending and so forth focus is on unemployment as socially harmful and economically efficient and advocates for employment economy using the power that you have by virtue of the fact that you have the right monetary system says well then we ought to do it right you don't need 25 million people who want full-time jobs and can't find when we can make that happen okay so the MMT deficit or any deficit at all would assign no arbitrary limit to the size or the duration of the deficit you would never say if you're a deficit cowl the deficit should be cut in half by the year 2017 I know you might have a surplus trade balance reverses and get a huge current account surplus and your budget can actually move into circle you don't know today what your budget should look like in the future the policy bold target should not be the size of the deficit the target should be what's happening in the real economy except real bowls like full employment I can let the deficit move where it needs to to achieve that goal a deficit owl would you never consider the government's budget position isolation they would always think about where the government's budget is surplus or deficit with respect to what's happening any other sectors in the economy you have to you can't look at the government's budget in isolation so as a starting point you can say the government's deficit if the government is spending more than its collecting spend a hundred collect ninety or the other about the tenth non-government sector so the government's deficit is by definition into the penny the non-government surplus in financial terms right similarly if the government collects more than it spends Oh take a hundred and I'll spend ninety I I have the extra ten that you have lost ten so my surplus is your deficit right this is double entry bookkeeping it's true by definition follows the laws of accounting so what is it show it shows that in any certain period any sector in the economy can be spending more than its income running a deficit spending less than its income running a surplus or exactly spending equal to its in it's budget if we separate the non-government sector into private domestic and foreign then we have three sectors for dealing with domestic public domestic private and the rest of the world foreign sector all of those income parents purchasing newly produced goods and services savings the leaking leakages and injections in the economy everything has to come from somewhere and everything has to go somewhere has to end up somewhere so you have flows that results at the end in an accumulation or a drawdown to stop all right so it's a stop flow analysis of the payments that take place across the sectors in the economy it has to follow just one rule not everybody can be in surplus at the same time not everybody can get in deficit at the same time that should be intuitive right I can't run a surplus I can't earn more than I spend unless someone else spent more than their right so at least one sector has to be in deficit at least one could be the domestic private could be the domestic public could be the foreign sector but someone's gonna take that deficit position who who usually takes the deficit position this is a graph it's got full-leather put together and he maintains and updates and the rest of us are also grateful because we all lose it all the time this is the actual native this is not you know manufactured hypothetical stuff this is the actual data yes economy and the red is the public sector whenever the red is below the zero line government is running a deficit the green is the rest of the world so back in the back of the old days the u.s. used to run trade surpluses little ones foe beer and trade surpluses the rest of the world ran a deficit against us now we run trade deficits so the rest of the world is accumulating surpluses against us right so look what happens if the government is running a deficit it means they're spending more than they're taxing that ends up adding to the private sector surplus if the rest of the world is also buying more from us than there then we're buying from them that also adds to the private sector surplus so if you add these two together you get exactly that right what do you notice about the picture first thing it's a mirror image you can see that right why because the sum of all balances has to equal zero it has to the private sector is almost always in surplus public sectors almost always deficit look what happened during the so-called Clinton boom the Democrats would love to brag in the US this is a badge of honor to have been associated with the Clinton administration which brought us the first budget surpluses in decades we are the real fiscally responsible party to be you know however you a surplus well was that really good for the economy take the federal government's surplus which means they're taking more in taxes than they're spending driving the private sector down on top of the fact that the rest of the world is taking more from us because we buy influence then they're buying from us driving us further down so you get these huge private-sector deficits that are being financed by the private sector taking on more and more debt right so this is huge leverage building up here here results in a recession the government's budget moves right back into deficit where it normally is would plug along for a while we get the housing booming right house has become ATM machines people buy houses not homes you get more leverage you get another recession the government's budget boots sharply into deficit but what happens to the private sector they move sharply into surplus and so this is what's happening as a consequence of those huge government deficits that everybody's so worried about the private sector is being pushed back into surplus territory where they're now earning more than their spending income greater than expenditure the private sectors running surpluses and it's helping the private sector leverage it's helping them repair their balance sheets okay one thing I want to point out I'd love additional help in thinking this through and the math and all of this but there is something going on here that I always emphasize and this is the private sectors balance and what I try to point out is not only is the private sector usually in surplus but that it needs to be its surplus okay the private sector lives up here in surplus until recently when we start taking on so much debt and becoming so leveraged that we cross the zero line and we end up down here running deficits but what I notice these are recessions the US has had eleven recession since World War two 11 in every single case immediately preceding the recession you have a sharp reversal in the private sectors budget position it doesn't mean the private sector went into deficit it just means that either the surplus shrank significantly or that we moved into deficit but you have a reversal leading up to every one of these recessions you have right at every single time so it seems to me then what policymakers should be doing is focusing on havior of the private sectors budget position and anticipating those turning points that seem to proceed all of the recessions that we have since the end of World War two okay very quickly I'm almost to the end this is the deficit the government ran after the financial crisis and the ensuing economic meltdown through the budget deficit exploded look weighed in to the private sector balance remember they move opposite to one another as the government begins to cut its deficit it's cutting the private sectors surplus why is that a concern because of the last graph I just showed you that when the private sector's balance turns sharply down it tends to proceed a recession okay I just I've already said that okay so I'm making the argument that the private sector needs to be in surplus and so how do you do that there are three ways to put the private sector the surplus a combination of a government deficit government spending more than it takes leaves you with a surplus plus the rest of the world spending more buying from us than we spend buying from them leaves us with more so those two things together guarantee you a private sector surplus or if you're like the US and you run current account deficits you have to have a government deficit that's bigger than your current account deficit to offset the outflow that's happening because of the trade deficit and keep your private sector in surplus so you if it would require the government deficit bigger than whatever your current account deficit is or you could have a current account surplus like the lucky countries in the euro zone those Germany those that are able to achieve current account surpluses can afford to run the smaller government deficits and still keep their private sector in surplus only countries with trade surpluses can avoid running government deficits what I'm saying is to keep their private sector in surplus okay the problem with that is as wonderful is it sensible then the solution is for everybody to run a trade surplus and then we don't have to have deficits anymore promise of course that everybody can run a trade surplus because one country surpluses so we can't all adopt that strategy I'm sorry Germany right we can't all do what you've done okay these are questions that came up and I scared him off with provisions and Bymark Germany and so he's gone now but but maybe they'll come back so what are the things that prevent us from moving forward with more sensible macroeconomic policy I think the usual responses that it would set up hyperinflation if we were to use the government's power to spend in the way that I've described that somehow it would cause interest rates to or love because the deficit goes up the interest rate will go up it's all the Orthodox thinking about loanable funds markets and crowding out and all this the Chinese we can use them to buy our debt and you know people losing faith in the dollar whatever sewins are resolved of those fears unfounded as I think they are we end up in this muddling along sort of economic situation where these are graphs that were actually done by Bill Mitchell who said well let's just project out the red line is where we would have been have there never been a financial crisis and an economic downturn the red line is sort of a path that we were on the blue line is where we actually ended up that's actual real GDP the difference is the it's all the output that we're giving up we're not producing it's the income being generated because we continue to stay on that lead path and so what he does is estimate that on a daily basis this is for the US every single day we don't bring about a strong recovery and get back on that red line we're giving up the equivalent of nine point eight billion dollars every day like leaving nine point eight billion on the table every day right it's it's the opportunity cost of sustaining and and muddling along as opposed to getting back to full employment so in the u.s. we have now one in four children officially living in poverty we have an eight point three trillion dollar infrastructure deficit on the Corps of Engineers surveys all of the country's infrastructure a B - C D plus F overall the brain in the u.s. led 2.3 trillion they say it would be needed just to get us up to pass so we have tremendous needs we have unemployment vaccinating workers construction workers people with skills to build things stuff that needs to be built repaired maintained and we can't seem to figure out how to put the two together and as I said 25 million Americans who want a full-time job and can't find work so it's a colossal failure of policy and they think it's a failure of policy that derives directly from our failure to understand the nature sister the flexibility that it gives us to do things why we're not linked Greece and so very quickly just in closing the policy proposals that many of us have been putting forward for the last few years or so I don't heels the economic downturn what should we do we sent these three things like a full payroll tax holiday in the u.s. we all have income withheld from every paycheck pay into Social Security for retirement you think it's suspended just stop taking that income stop it altogether cut back to zero that would put additional income into the pockets of those who most need it 95% of Americans pay Social Security tax on every single dollar they earn so if you eliminate for a time garol tax holiday that tax you're putting the money right where it needs to go some folks who are struggling with high debt levels would use it to pay down debt that's a good thing other folks like me will go out and buy something that's a good thing both need to happen and so we like that policy revenue sharing just recognizing state local governments or users of the currency they're not issuers they're in the deep trouble and because they're in deep trouble they continue to cut so everything the federal government is trying to do that the left hand to stimulate is being snatched away with the right hand by state local governments who are doing exactly the opposite and the last thing is as I said before no matter how good your macro policy is fiscal monetary policy you're not going to keep very funny you can do it your fun there are always going to be people who want jobs you can't find them and for those folks when you get all the policy as good as you can get it you're still gonna leave some people behind and so for those people we like that yeah of an employer of last resort or job guarantee program something caught along with FDR did under the new deal which Works Progress Administration WPA program the Civilian Conservation Corps the CCC which was about sustainable development vitalizing pay attention to energy use and environmental concerns and so forth put people to work there was a National Youth administration we need something to get you back on the board it's interesting that the people you call over the deficit that they call the deficit doves are actually the depth Hawks their solution is not only to run a government never said before important they say if only we can get the banks lending again the economy can are worse way out of debt yeah so their solution is no more government set before public debt and or public sector debt and that's really will here in the later cost the problem today they are the difference is that government debts never have to be repaid Adam Smith said that no government and I would paid the debt over time it goes up and up enough private debts have to be repaid or else you lose the property of pledged as collateral so what they're doing is invest their solution with the downturn is to increase the debt deflation and increase the riskiness of the economy because they're unwilling to see that running the government deficit is a good thing because the government money doesn't have to be repaid by the government deficit if the economy grows faster and that's it back to GE we'll pull the plate yeah we're so preoccupied Hartley with the numerator into those equations it's also the deficit to GDP ratio debt to GDP ratio everyone focuses on the numerator and nobody pays attention to the denominator and says if you want that ratio for whatever reason if you want it to come down grow the denominator then they need to run a product deficit there's another way to look at that I'll be talking about my own days.

so if you're going have a growing economy and there are two sources of money creation in the system and when it's growing both of the macro which means you have to have muses of private debt exceeding refinements and new issues of government spending exceeding taxation if you don't have them both happening roughly proportion of the economy you're going to have one or two things happen if you're going to have the cipro or the government as well secret ballot sharing if the government runs a zero balance for example then the local money's going to grow relative to the level of say and you're going to get this we actually have seen happen in the last 40 years so I don't take exactly the same phenomenon but I'm sure everything a different insight if you guys have growing economy then you have to have growing private debt and growing government created mine surely we would say that too yeah but if you simply looking at the same home with Lorena a different way it's the first that yeah part of my argument again is that it's when you say and the sexual downside in a private sector saving is a protector deficit it's partly arguing that it has to be otherwise the system can wear it means imply that we on this deserve it we raised that way the period of the disservice to this whole second aspect to have the account if I'm a little bit about well knock the table to find out resolving not necessarily including the change of that it's on side there too we need to have a comprehensive one that does all of that so how do what I'll make you know what it's a principle that having yes probably take the deficit his private sector say when you have the entire property to and include banks as part of it doesn't differentiate them but we need to get the size we differentiate all of that and then push you get the relationships where shine that you created that you know if you can have the difference when spending the comic will be the sum of all the tops of transit deprecating into the system let me connect oh yeah this particular graph is it's about understand an indicator of instability that's what it is so when you see the blue coming down too far that's an indicator cue that there may be Minsk infertility build-up it's so we can't we shouldn't critique this by expecting it to be telling us information that it's not intended to tell us yeah okay feels like it's yeah it's to me it's saying it okay so dude which is like and it's necessary I think half the West are both are true yeah what I said it's like what you turn out if you turn I have a bike is exactly the same composition was different emphasis right that's really right whatever people misunderstand both yes yeah so you put that on the graph you learn that have the recession's under grade yeah so so the thing is that when the private sector of the surplus is going down that's the point where there's an expansion they're averaging so I bet that there's growth there so the problem is not that point the problem is the threat there's enough surplus which is paint and it's just depended less that is the recession the private sector hole pulling back the upturn begins I mean you need to begin right yes besides exhibition point and that's that that's for you if you could show the pyramid that you started again with the government at the top which yes yeah the government at the top amazingly enough the Europeans don't understand this the Europeans in the euro say that the government can up run a deficit and that's a tan 123 of their the EU Constitution so they say because the government there was no central bank governments all the government deficits have to be financed by the bank so in Europe the banks are on top and that means when the government created runs a deficit they have to pay interest to the banks whereas the US government doesn't and it's so different over there it's cognitive business they cannot understand this they just imagine that a central bank is to lend money to the banks to lend money to the governments and it's a completely different almost biological structure it's a different Kingdom and they don't understand this central bank will be part of it but in Europe the Sanko bank is part of it's part of the banking systems right not part of the government so they can I show the banks are on top determining everything not the government so in Europe the free marketers believe in central planning much more than Soviet Union and much more even the Nazi Germany they believe that both central planning should be in the hands of Wall Street in the City of London not the government why they say Angela Merkel got so upset the priest said you can't ever referendum over this you have to appoint a technocrat meaning a bank lobbyists someone like Alan Greenspan someone who does what he's told by the bank the other thing that tried to be personally crazy is the idea that you can legislate the budget position then you can say your deficit may not exceed 3% of GDP right so so you say no no I mean the idea that governments have control over the size over the side the budget so you get a government like you know well Spain it's running a surplus right that's right this but some surplus sits on its hands touches nothing all of a sudden the economy tanks taxes fall off automatic stabilizers payments kick in for an employment conversation and all the other stuff sir I haven't done anything my deficit is exploding around me and it's completely out of my hands tonight you know this idea that this is a willful policies profligate spending at all that kinds of I didn't do anything prank the taxes went this way and the government spending automatically went that way and the difference became my lightening deficit the idea that you know first it's the stability and growth pact then it's the fiscal pact will end you you but only if you promise to really really really stick to the rules this time the kids stick to the rules didn't have to follow the rules because they had current account surpluses in case the buyer when they have a big current account surpluses which allowed them to keep the private sector in surplus not have a big government so the economy was held via running big trade surpluses and so we got there widely praised right true shame comes up everybody says look at Ireland the Celtic Tiger the model for the rest of you but there's a poor sector she left out and that's bro he visited an assumption that the government is the since the US government gives its own currency so it's in some it's not easy yes very can afford to do the things I said so the kind of policy measures that he mentioned it seems that the government would like it's it's in that it's just one part of the story because at one point of time fifty government is very lots of deficit will at the end lose faith in the commitment you put that take the kind of policy measures that you are seeing that the government always there there it is I mean we didn't lose face but over the course of two hundred and forty seven years is that the right a number of US history the US government has been no eight times in your periods but they have all ended in either depression or recession me well I guess what what a dick say saying is that so you need to tell the story there's a specific for each of the countries of this holds for the US and over this always receivers also happen to be dominant military power of relationship holds for every company has a PowerPoint that will show you about you know you see many court cases as we're talking before that you know some countries did the fortune and you say what but they were all the circumstances for the country for example they were in a fixed exchange no no no not that I was in Brandon Brandon policy - so why would our government want to be in the fixed exchange rate to begin with they must have had good reasons for their it's not that they are you know dumb and stupid oh I just wanted must that must have been other reasons about training because without a fixed exchange rate people wouldn't invest in their country and there were political reasons there were there were demonstrations before there were economic or perceived economic reason right but don't underestimate the importance of having the wrong paradigm I mean we've had Steve here for five weeks fighting against the wrong paradigm don't underestimate I understand but now you know talking amongst friends yet so understand them what the right paradigm is healing to see that each of the countries has a particular historical economic cycle but I think I can show you lots of data for lots of countries that are not global superpowers they have sustained deficits for decades and decades and nobody's lost faith in the government the currency or anything I could show out of that independent of a country's reserve statuses and reserve currency issue or the fact that most of the debt is held domestically I mean I can do it for anything but I guess what it is isn't is that you know sometimes shape happens to countries that try to do that it's a hyperinflation different into well you know people taking all these not investing in the trenches at all so there must be some reason when we talk about the job guarantee what we're saying is let the government bid for labor that the private sector has a zero bit off so you're not competing for any resources or not bidding up the price of anything right when we say to rebuild the infrastructure we're talking about taking resources that are currently in by the private sector you have tons of slack we're not saying use the government's power and push the economy beyond for employment but when the resources are available and especially labor wanting to be employed at a wage should employ it I guess expenses despite the correctness of the paradigm after all initial conditions matter of how you got to do right if if Greece left the euro okay and which went to the back to the drachma and was it currency issue were just like Stephanie's talking about the fact their initial conditions would matter a whole heck of a lot for the other countries but as far as India is concerned India was not in a very good position but in a decent position the 8485 but the new prime minister claiming he was new he tried to be miss Lottie they largely many other things the public sector things at the end India ended up in 1980 crash like crisis they did not have enough money to pay the 14 days of 400 that was because of the incident like the yet denominated in dollars or something well sure then you're taking on remember I said if you always have the ability to pay debt denominated in the unit of account that is you are crazy by addition to attending you are not always be everything in your currency so that whatever secret means any half part of the story at one point of time you people be loose with your currency you have to sorry miss Scott is gonna talk enhancer so many shows in the night next speaker is Michael burner so just to take a few minutes break with this 英語 (自動生成)