2020年12月12日土曜日

kelton 2013:'NO' on $1 Trillion for Main Street



https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1241479447137714179?s=20

 

'NO' on $1 Trillion for Main Street

https://youtu.be/alFXKTTr8eE

 

1:54 

do that of course we can if we establish
that the Treasury secretary has the
capacity in a trillion dollar coin and
deposited in this account at the Fed
then they could put a 10 or a 100 or any
other number it is at the discretion of
the Treasury secretary so of course they
could do that
the question is
should they do that what would be the
ramifications of doing that former mid
director filled the accounting treatment 
 
here's how the coin would work republicans are once again threatening to hold the debt ceiling hostage as they did in the summer of 2011 that is they will not vote to raise the limit of the amount the US government can borrow unless the White House and Democrats agree to some draconian spending cuts enter the coin it turns out there is a subsection of the u.s. code called denominations specifications and design of coins that includes the following provision the secretary may meet and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications designs varieties quantities denominations and inscriptions as a secretary in the Secretary's discretion may prescribe from time to time the idea of trillion-dollar coin advocates is the president would direct the Treasury to make a trillion dollar platinum coin and then deposit it in the Treasury bank account at the Federal Reserve and voila just as a $100 bill isn't made of $100 worth of cotton a new trillion-dollar coin wouldn't be made of a trillion dollars of platinum just a single small bit of platinum will do that's all economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said the process by which banks create money is so simple but the mind is repelled and the same can be said of how our government creates money the simple truth is it creates money simply out of thin air someone that the Federal Reserve punches in a number in spreadsheet and voila more money Abraham Lincoln printed greenbacks to fund the Union and his opponents mocked and mercilessly for doing so with this cartoon from the time depicting a machine spewing Bills shows an FDR ditched the gold standard to get us out of the Great Depression both those ideas were at the time probably about as ridiculous as a trillion dollar coin if that can work well then let's just make a 10 trillion dollar coin and zero out the deficit or the national debt and then just like forget all this fiscal cliff stuff but all these grand bargains let's just throw it in there and 10y stop pretending 20 trillion hundred trillion dollars that we draw on for the next hundred years why is that why can't we do that ？

Kelton：
off course we can if we establish that the Treasury secretary has the capacity in a trillion dollar coin and deposited in this account at the Fed then they could put a 10 or a 100 or any other number it is at the discretion of the Treasury secretary so of course they could do that the question is should they do that what would be the ramifications of doing that.

（Ｑ:
 former mid director filled the accounting treatment the coin is identical to treatment of all other coins and in strikes the coin ships at the bed books a trillion dollars and transfers a trillion dollars of Treasury's general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like with proceeds of bond sales or additional tax revenues this works just like an additional tax revenue borrowing under a higher debt limit oh.）

Kelton :
 all it is our digital entries locked up on a spreadsheet that's what that is when the Federal Reserve credits the Treasury's bank account it's just digital entries locked okay can't run away they can't escape they can't go anywhere they can't chase any Goods they can't hyper-inflated they can't do all of these things that people.
Ｑ:
here's my question to think what are the limits ?（then you can just be like centrist all the time there are no limits on the behavior we can spend as much as we want as little as you want.）

Kelton:
of course I didn't say that at all no there are limits of course there are limits on how much you can spend the limits are on the real side of the economy though not on the financial side and what we're so accustomed to hearing is we can't afford it we can't afford it it's always the financial side there aren't enough numbers on the balance sheet we don't we can't spend because we don't have the money so let's take the hypothetical I know how he's going to fall out of her chair and I'll say a hundred trillion dollars okay take that hypothetical okay we make $120 going 100 trillion dollar coin and the Fed credits the treasurer's account what happens nothing absolutely nothing in the first instance the question is what then would happen to those dollars if Congress appropriated some spending because the the the government can't spend unless Congress operates right so if Congress said well look we have 2.2 trillion dollar infrastructure disaster in this country we're gonna appropriate some funding to start repairing and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure then those funds can begin to flow and then they move into the real resources are there we've got 23 million Americans who want full-time work in this country and can't find it many of them unemployment put them to work why on earth would we allow 23 million Americans who want to contribute that we have useful things for them to do we have unemployed construction workers unemployed manufacturing workers they have exactly the skill set that we need 20 the only thing they need is for Congress to give them permission to do it sure well the only way we're not getting from 109 is if we started the museum exhibit it'll started charge wait don't the constraint that no I want you to go right 次の動画 自動再生
時刻: 5 件のコメント:

2020年12月3日木曜日

Economics of Michal Kalecki, Part One by John Harvey（Tcherneva 2012）


Economics of Michal Kalecki, Part1,2,3,4
https://youtu.be/73gWjTXd-ts
https://youtu.be/B4wMDW-kKSM
 



https://youtu.be/SZpHgufGxEg
https://youtu.be/CEzQnPQArC4

 

Tcherneva 2012

investment goods production. If we assume that workers spend their entire income, while firms do not consume out of profits (two assumptions that will be relaxed later), we can develop the following relationships: 

PCQC = WCNC + WINI (1) 

The wage bill generated in the C- and I-sectors is spent on consumer goods produced. Therefore, the profit generated in the C-sector is equal to the wage bill in the I-sector: 

πC = PCQC - WCNC = WINI (2) 

Separately, investment goods output sold must pay for the wage bill in the I-sector (i.e., the cost of production) and generate profit. 

I = PIQI = WINI + πI (3) 

or 

πI = I - WINI (4) 

Combining (2) and (4): 

πC + πI = WINI + I - WINI (5) 

or 

π = I (6)

10

1 Aggregate profits add up to total investment, producing the famous Kaleckian result that consumers spend what they get, while investors get what they spend. In a capitalist/investing economy investment determines aggregate profits and prices must carry profits (Minsky 1986, 142). 

Notation:

 WC and WI – wages in the C- and I-sectors, respectively; 

NC and NI – the number of employed in each sector; 

WCNC and WINI – the wage bills in the C- and I-sectors, respectively; 

πC+πI = π are the profits generated in each sector, which add up to total profit in the economy. 

From the above relationships, it is clear that πC would be zero if only workers in Csector were to demand consumer goods (i.e., if PCQC = WCNC), but since I-sector workers also consume, the C-sector must produce surplus, which will be rationed by the price system between the two sources of demand. Another way to look at this relationship is to consider the Keynesian insight that in a monetary production economy, all production takes place in the pursuit of monetary profit. In other words, even if all workers were employed in the Csector and consumed all the goods and services which they produced (i.e., if PCQC = WCNC), there will be no incentive to produce because there would be no profits generated from consumption goods production. The system simply cannot reproduce itself. Therefore, all Csector workers must produce more than they consume, in order for the C-sector to generate profit—an impossible outcome if all output is only produced by and sold to C-sector workers. Additionally, because firms operate on the basi

 

John Harvey

http://personal.tcu.edu/jharvey/30233/30233StdQ_Su2019.pdf  

THE ECONOMICS OF MICHAEL KALECKI (1899-1970) 

Tcherneva, Pavlina (February 2012). “Inflationary and Distributional Effects of AlternativeFiscal Policies: An Augmented Minskyan-Kaleckian Model,” Working Paper No.706, LevyEconomics Institute. http://personal.tcu.edu/jharvey/30233/Tcherneva.pdf Reading92.For Keynes, the very existence of fiscal policy was to correct what two outstanding faultsof society?[17 words]

11

Lecture2. Basic Two-Sector Model93.Show how, starting with PCQC = WCNC+ WINI in the basic two-sector model, consumersspend what they get and investors get what they spend.[sixequations and some notes] 

94.Derive the price equation for the basic two-sector model starting with PCQC = WCNC +WINI. Clearly indicate which portion is the markup over cost in the C sector. [6 equationsplus show which part is markup)Reading 

95.Write the Kaleckian price equation and use it to explain why an investment-led expansionis more likely to cause inflation than a consumption-led one. [61 words–I will help withthis one in class] 

96.The basic two-sector model describes earlier (pre-WWI) market economies wheregovernments and trade contributed little to output and in which what is the normalcondition and it is prone to what forces? [13 words]

 97.The relatively large share of government spending in GDP in the post-WWII periodmeans what (and what sort of bias does this introduce)? [17 words] 

3.2 Government Spending on Transfer Payments to Firms in the form of Investment Subsidies:TRISReading 

98.Government stimulus programs typically end up as investment subsidies (i.e., money forincreases in investment spending that then, hopefully, generate sufficient demand toinduce the private sector to hire the unemployed). Tcherneva argues that this is a problembecause a) it might not be very effective in spurring new investment and b) money spentin this way tends to go to profits (rather than to the unemployed workers). Something shedoesn’t discuss but is also true is that a side effect might be the lowering of the incomemultiplier. Why is that (Tcherneva does not explain this, you’ll have to figure it out)? [24words] 

3.3 Government as Employer via Indirect Job CreationReading 

99.What kind of unemployment can never be addressed bygovernment policesunemployment insurance, investment subsidies, or indirect job creation?[one word]

 3.4 Government Direct Job Creation via the Employer of Last Resort ProgramReading

 100.Tcherneva argues that, under an employer of last resort program, even the most unskilledperson can do something in the public sector that does what? [39 words] 

101.How high is the ELR wage relative to that in the consumption and private sectors? [5words]12

POLICYLecture 

102.Draw the chart that compares traditional deficit spending with an ELR regarding thefollowing: deliberation, size, flexibility, policy entry point, unemployment reductionmethod, primary beneficiary, efficiency, and abuse. [93words]FYI: In 2010, unemployment was 9.6%. Social safety net spending (discounting theelderly) was around $421 billion, while paying every single unemployed person $10/hourfor 40 hours for 50 weeks (+25% for miscellaneous costs) would have been $366 billionand it would have created 0% unemployment. Meanwhile, the fiscal stimulus packagepassed in response to the Great Recession (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Actof 2009) spent around $185 billion in 2009, $400 billion in 2010, and $135 billion in2011. Over the ten years of planned spending from the act, $250 billion in total wasearmarked for health care, unemployment, and housing. Unemployment was 9.35%,9.6%, and 8.9%.103.Draw the diagram that shows how the entry points and means by which unemployment isreduced for both traditional deficit spending and an ELR. Tcherneva, Pavlina (February 2012). Unemployment:The Silent Epidemic,” Working PaperNo.895, Levy Economics Institute.http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_895.pdf 

104.Tcherneva argues that unemployment behaves more like what than a random shockevent? She later adds that says the “success” of the current fall in unemployment islargely due to what? [14 words] 

105.To make matters worse, unemployment breeds unemployability. Employers view ninemonths of unemployment as the equivalent of what? [9 words] 

106.A metadata analysis of 63 countries revealed that how many suicides are due tounemployment? [5 words]107.Tcherneva talks at length about the connection between unemployment and the lives ofchildren and youths. Pick out the two or three things you found most significant and listthem. [indeterminate] 

108.Tcherneva says that, “When it comes to epidemics, preparedness and prevention areessential.” In terms of preparedness, by design, the job guarantee will maintain what? Interms of prevention, what are the two preventative features of the job guarantee? [94words] 

109.In her section on Paying for Goods, Not Bads, Tcherneva says that unemployment isalready “paid for” how?[25 words]13 

ECONOMIC POLICY SUMMARY:•Unemployment: Jobs Program.•Inflation: Determine the beneficiary of the redistribution and addressdirectly.•Financial Sector: Steve Keen’s argument that, “The essential policymessage is that we should avoid crises inthefirst place, developingandmaintaining institutions and policies that enforce a good financialsociety in which the tendency bybusinesses and bankers to engage inspeculative finance is constrained. The institutional arrangementsincludecloseand discretionary supervision of financial institutions andfinancial arrangements and a bias toward income equity rather thaninequality.”14

 

時刻: 2 件のコメント:

2020年12月2日水曜日

ラーナー 1971 Abba P. Lerner on austerity, jobs, debt and inequality.



Abba P. Lerner on austerity, jobs, debt and inequality.
1971年12月

https://youtu.be/vlYOgIyKxTg 




Abba P. Lerner on austerity, jobs, debt and inequality.

2017/04/13

Lyndon LaRouche Debates Abba Lerner.

Dec 1971

»»» Abba P. Lerner:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba_.

»»» Functional finance:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funct..

Source: https://youtu.be/8m93hJOTG8Y



Moderator: I think Mr. Lerner wants to answer a question. 

I'm not sure l can understand [his decision]. However I have a minor explanațion. First of all, I {insist} that I am not supporting austerity, 
unless you're going to change the meaning of the word, and call it austerity, whatever I'm proposing. I'm proposing(not) really to make the workers poorer, but to do what the study under he wishes to make the bedrock, by having more jobs., 
Secondly, I'm not proposing to increase the value or the budgetting power of the dollar l'm only proposing to stop the rather wrong recovering were underway.
 and I'm suggesting that it be something like a certain proposal which will have wages increasing by [local] productivity,

 I would propose that this is about three percent, Instead of the 5 1/2 percent being proposed now, which is a minor difference. 

 As to Mr. Marcus's saying, that he would do something in a socialist society, what he is proposing he would do, is really very similar to what I am proposing. I do not know why you have to […] society in order to do it. You can do it now, can be done, it has been done. was every time there was an improvement in the economic conditions ofi the country. More money was created And, great fun is made by Mr. Marcus about the accumulation of debt. One should remember that the national debt, which I donit think-is a serious matter anyway, but f you are writing about it, you should notice, that it has increased from being about 115% of, the gröss national product, to something ike 40 to 45 percent of the gross natilonal product now. But, of course, you can never note that the real content is only in the money, and rather this is more than it ever has been, I think it is more important to look at the real thing Why aren't we there already.

 Um, there's one thing which I agree with In Mr. Marcus it is not like me in a capitalist society, to make alarge reduction. in the share of a product relative to capitalism. 

I, myself, would like to reduce the share golng to capitalists and increase the share going to workers; more accurately, I would rather increase the income of the poor, whatever their… whether they're workers or not. I am against poverty. But,if people are less against poverty than they are against the rich, you get a different proposal Now, I think that the way to improve the condition of the poor, is not to be found in taking it away from the rich. . The rich have been about a quota on the social product, and capitalist society will probably continue to do so. . 

 It is conceivable that we might take away from this 25%, maybe 10% at the most, and still have this particular system work, and this, think, is a very minor matter […], that over 50 years, we have increased the income of the worker by several hundred percent . not by taking it away from the shareholding capitalist, but by increasing productivity, which in other words to say there was a hundred divided before, and these capftalists got twenty-five, the workers got 75, leaving the workers a rather larger stake, it's four hundred, and the capitalists have gotten much more, they got a hundred, four times as much, and the workers have three hundred, also four times as much. This, to me, is much more important. It is more important, because I am much more concerned with dealing with the poor than with the impoverishing [of] the rich.

緊縮財政、雇用、負債、不平等についてのアバ・P・ラーナー。

司会：ラーナー氏が質問に答えたいようです。

彼の決定を理解できるかどうかはわかりません。しかし、私にはちょっとした説明があります。まず第一に、私は緊縮財政を支持していません。
言葉の意味を変えて、緊縮財政と呼ぶのでなければ、私が提案していることは何でも構いません。私が提案しているのは、労働者をより貧しくすることではなく、より多くの仕事を持つことで、彼の下での研究が岩盤を作りたいと思っていることをすることです。
第二に、私はドルの価値や予算編成力を上げることを提案しているのではありません。私が提案しているのは、ある提案のように、生産性によって賃金が上昇するようなものですが、今提案されている5.5％ではなく、3％程度ではないでしょうか。

  マーカス氏が社会主義社会で何かをすると言っていますが、彼が提案していることは、私が提案していることと非常によく似ています。なぜ、それをするために、社会でなければならないのか、私にはわかりません。今すぐにでもできるし、できるし、されてきた。より多くのお金が生み出されたのです。そして、マーカス氏は、借金の蓄積について大笑いしています。国の借金は、深刻な問題だと思いますが、それについて書いているのであれば、国の総生産の115％から、今では40～45％にまで増えていることに気づくべきでしょう。しかし、もちろん、本当の内容はお金の中だけにあるということはありませんし、むしろ、今まで以上に増えています。

  えーと、私がマーカス氏に同意しているのは、資本主義社会の私のように、資本主義と比較して、製品のシェアを大幅に減らすことはできないということです。

私自身、資本家へのシェアを減らして 労働者へのシェアを増やしたいと思っています より正確には、貧しい人々の収入を増やしたいのです 彼らが労働者であろうとなかろうと 私は貧困に反対です。しかし、もし人々が金持ちに反対するよりも、貧困に反対する方が少ないのであれば、異なる提案を得ることになるでしょう。 貧困層の状態を改善する方法は、金持ちから奪うことでは見つけられないと思います。金持ちは、社会的生産物にノルマを課してきたし、資本主義社会は、おそらくこれからもそうしていくだろう。。

  我々は、この25％、せいぜい10％を奪うかもしれないし、まだこの特定のシステムが機能しているかもしれないことは考えられるし、これは、非常に些細な問題だと思う[...]、50年間で、我々は数百パーセントの労働者の所得を増加させてきた。これは、言い換えれば、以前は１００分割されていて、資本家は２５分割されていたが、労働者は７５分割されていて、労働者の方が４００分割されていて、資本家はもっと多く、１００分割されていて、４倍、労働者は３００分割されていて、４倍になっている。これは、私にとっては、もっと重要なことです。なぜなら、私は、金持ちを困窮させることよりも、貧しい人たちを相手にすることの方がはるかに重要だからです。

www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。

時刻: 8 件のコメント:
登録: 投稿 (Atom)