https://youtu.be/-h41VUC_fdI
ケインズ12：00
15：00〜17：20
good evening everyone and welcome to politics and prose live we're joined here tonight by stephanie kelton and zachary carter let's talk about their new books before we get started I just want to give some quick housekeeping notes for everyone you can purchase both of tonight's books by clicking on the green button right below the speakers we encourage everyone to do that to help support our authors and also politics and prose also tonight we're gonna encourage you guys to ask questions which many of you already have the back portion of our event will be dedicated to your questions so if you click on the ask a question widget at the bottom you can see where people have already asked questions you can ask your question and you can vote on the questions that you're most interested in hearing our authors answer and lastly just a reminder to everyone that you can see us but we cannot see you so feel free to relax and get comfortable so without any further ado it is my honor to welcome stephanie kelton professor of economics and public policy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and a Bloomberg contributing columnist tonight she's here to discuss her new book the deficit myth modern monetary theory and the birth of the people's economy tonight we were all so lucky to be joined by Zachary T Carter who is a senior reporter at Huffington Post where he covers Congress the White House and economic policy tonight he will be discussing his book the price of peace money democracy and the life of John Maynard Keynes so without any further ado you know Zachary and Stephanie hi everybody it's really nice to be with you I want to start by talking to Stephanie about her book which is called the deficit myth Stephanie all I hear about when I listen to economic commentary is this talk about debt and deficits there was a tweet from the Lincoln project this new group of a sort of anti-trump Republicans talking about how Donald Trump had run up seventeen point eight trillion dollars of national debt there are always columns running in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal The New York Times about debt debt debt but your book calls the deficit he talks about as a myth what do you mean by the deficit myth and why do you feel that this book wasn't according to right at this point in time well thank you and thanks to politics and prose for having both of us here to spend some time talking about our new projects it's really pleasure to be with you so first let me start by saying that increasing the deficit and adding to the national debt is probably the least bad thing that Donald Trump has done I think we should just get that out there look I understand that that we are inundated from you know the media mainstream press politicians everybody who talks about deficits in debt virtually everybody talks about it in a negative way right when we hear people bring up the deficit it is almost always the case that they're there they are there to complain about the thing or the national debt these are presented to us as as problems at a at a minimum and as a national security threat or a threat to future generations I mean a real danger to us individually your share of the national debt borrowing from China all of these things that create a lot of anxiety on the part of the American people so when you say you know why did you write this book I think that you know my my hope is that I can reduce the level of anxiety I mean I start in Chapter one of the book telling a story about you know being a child and watching the television show Sesame Street and you know Sesame Street was really good at teaching us to sort of separate things into categories these things are similar these things are unlike the rest of them and you know as a kid my sister and I would watch and we would play along as the images came on the screen and they put up you know a bicycle and an automobile and a train and a tennis shoe they say you know one of these things is not like the other eye so we would haul her back at the television the shoe the shoe is not like the others you know and so I in the book I say that I'm an adult now I'm still hollering back at the television all the time because I turn on the TV and I hear you know often you know so-called experts on economics talking about the deficit or the debt in ways that I think are just fundamentally wrong and that they are getting some big things wrong and I'm hollering back at the TV so the reason I wrote the book I think is to try to get us to a better place to a better understanding where we can have a more meaningful and fruitful discussion about deficits in the national debt and government finances that ultimately I hope will get us to a place where we make better public policy so a really common criticism than you hear from people who talk about modern monetary theory or stephanie kelton is that is that you believe that deficits don't matter they're irrelevant this just came out in a you know there was a relatively nasty review in The Wall Street Journal where somebody accused you of this do you believe that deficits don't matter what what what do you make of this fatigue so you know it's funny because if you go to the webpage that I created to talk about the book it literally reads Dick Cheney says deficits don't Reagan prove deficits don't matter he was wrong so there I am right saying I disagree with Cheney's characterization that deficits don't matter my argument in the book and throughout my work is really that deficits matter but not the way in which we've been taught to believe that they matter so we've been taught as I said earlier that that they're inherently dangerous undesirable that you're there's something that you do in times of crisis because you have no choice like now but that in more normal times deficits are something we ought to be avoiding governments should not spend more than they take in in the form of taxes they should strive to balance budgets and avoid increasing the debt and so I walk through in the book a variety of ways in which deficits matter and one important way is every deficit is good for someone I mean that is the reality and so when you see the reap publicans passing these huge tax cuts at the end of 2017 these were massive tax cuts that Republicans passed knowing that they would massively increase deficits so if Republicans really believe that deficits were inherently dangerous and that they were gonna wreak havoc and all these bad things were gonna happen in future grandchildren they wouldn't do that the reality is that the Republicans understand I think perfectly well that every deficit is good for someone and so what they did was to massively cut taxes on corporations.
good evening everyone and welcome to politics and prose live we're joined here tonight by stephanie kelton and zachary carter let's talk about their new books before we get started I just want to give some quick housekeeping notes for everyone you can purchase both of tonight's books by clicking on the green button right below the speakers we encourage everyone to do that to help support our authors and also politics and prose also tonight we're gonna encourage you guys to ask questions which many of you already have the back portion of our event will be dedicated to your questions so if you click on the ask a question widget at the bottom you can see where people have already asked questions you can ask your question and you can vote on the questions that you're most interested in hearing our authors answer and lastly just a reminder to everyone that you can see us but we cannot see you so feel free to relax and get comfortable so without any further ado it is my honor to welcome stephanie kelton professor of economics and public policy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and a Bloomberg contributing columnist tonight she's here to discuss her new book the deficit myth modern monetary theory and the birth of the people's economy tonight we were all so lucky to be joined by Zachary T Carter who is a senior reporter at Huffington Post where he covers Congress the White House and economic policy tonight he will be discussing his book the price of peace money democracy and the life of John Maynard Keynes so without any further ado you know Zachary and Stephanie hi everybody it's really nice to be with you I want to start by talking to Stephanie about her book which is called the deficit myth Stephanie all I hear about when I listen to economic commentary is this talk about debt and deficits there was a tweet from the Lincoln project this new group of a sort of anti-trump Republicans talking about how Donald Trump had run up seventeen point eight trillion dollars of national debt there are always columns running in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal The New York Times about debt debt debt but your book calls the deficit he talks about as a myth what do you mean by the deficit myth and why do you feel that this book wasn't according to right at this point in time well thank you and thanks to politics and prose for having both of us here to spend some time talking about our new projects it's really pleasure to be with you so first let me start by saying that increasing the deficit and adding to the national debt is probably the least bad thing that Donald Trump has done I think we should just get that out there look I understand that that we are inundated from you know the media mainstream press politicians everybody who talks about deficits in debt virtually everybody talks about it in a negative way right when we hear people bring up the deficit it is almost always the case that they're there they are there to complain about the thing or the national debt these are presented to us as as problems at a at a minimum and as a national security threat or a threat to future generations I mean a real danger to us individually your share of the national debt borrowing from China all of these things that create a lot of anxiety on the part of the American people so when you say you know why did you write this book I think that you know my my hope is that I can reduce the level of anxiety I mean I start in Chapter one of the book telling a story about you know being a child and watching the television show Sesame Street and you know Sesame Street was really good at teaching us to sort of separate things into categories these things are similar these things are unlike the rest of them and you know as a kid my sister and I would watch and we would play along as the images came on the screen and they put up you know a bicycle and an automobile and a train and a tennis shoe they say you know one of these things is not like the other eye so we would haul her back at the television the shoe the shoe is not like the others you know and so I in the book I say that I'm an adult now I'm still hollering back at the television all the time because I turn on the TV and I hear you know often you know so-called experts on economics talking about the deficit or the debt in ways that I think are just fundamentally wrong and that they are getting some big things wrong and I'm hollering back at the TV so the reason I wrote the book I think is to try to get us to a better place to a better understanding where we can have a more meaningful and fruitful discussion about deficits in the national debt and government finances that ultimately I hope will get us to a place where we make better public policy so a really common criticism than you hear from people who talk about modern monetary theory or stephanie kelton is that is that you believe that deficits don't matter they're irrelevant this just came out in a you know there was a relatively nasty review in The Wall Street Journal where somebody accused you of this do you believe that deficits don't matter what what what do you make of this fatigue so you know it's funny because if you go to the webpage that I created to talk about the book it literally reads Dick Cheney says deficits don't Reagan prove deficits don't matter he was wrong so there I am right saying I disagree with Cheney's characterization that deficits don't matter my argument in the book and throughout my work is really that deficits matter but not the way in which we've been taught to believe that they matter so we've been taught as I said earlier that that they're inherently dangerous undesirable that you're there's something that you do in times of crisis because you have no choice like now but that in more normal times deficits are something we ought to be avoiding governments should not spend more than they take in in the form of taxes they should strive to balance budgets and avoid increasing the debt and so I walk through in the book a variety of ways in which deficits matter and one important way is every deficit is good for someone I mean that is the reality and so when you see the reap publicans passing these huge tax cuts at the end of 2017 these were massive tax cuts that Republicans passed knowing that they would massively increase deficits so if Republicans really believe that deficits were inherently dangerous and that they were gonna wreak havoc and all these bad things were gonna happen in future grandchildren they wouldn't do that the reality is that the Republicans understand I think perfectly well that every deficit is good for someone and so what they did was to massively cut taxes on corporations.
and the wealthiest
people in this country 83% of the
benefits went to people in the top 1% of
the income distribution in other words
those who least needed the help
but the deficits that the government ran
and are running become financial
surpluses
in somebody else's pocket their deficits
become our surpluses their red ink is
our black ink the question is who's our
right who's benefiting from that
financial windfall Republicans are happy
to run deficits because they know that
they create a financial surplus that
they can direct into the hands of the
people that they're most interested in
helping and what I I would hope is that
Democrats would reach the point where
they to understand that deficits aren't
something we should be striving to
wrestle down and reduce but that the
deficit can be used as a tool to carry
out an agenda that serves the broader
public that benefits people who are
truly hurting and so that's a lot of
what I talk about in the book it feels
to me like when I when I read your work
whether it's in this book or blog posts
op-eds that you've written over the
years interviews that you've done there
is a real emphasis on on economic
distribution whether it's the
distribution of actual resources how you
how you move supply chains from point A
to point B or what kind of society you
want to live in in terms of particularly
economic inequality and the focus seems
to be on on a sort of social vision more
so than a I
don't want to I don't want to say you're
not an economist here but but the the
way the traditional economists focus on
on debt and deficits is sort of the
primary way of understanding the economy
you seem to have to my mind at least a
sort of broader social vision there
first of all is that an accurate
description of of the way you think
about your own work and second what do
you think it says about the economics
profession that we have this focus on on
debt and deficits instead of these other
these other social priorities yeah it's
a you know in the in the book chapter 7
is called the deficits that matter and
so that's exactly what I'm trying to do
to redirect our obsession with deficits
to the very real deficits that surround
us in our everyday lives and that are
crushing in many ways for millions and
millions of people in this country so
you are right that for me I look at the
federal budget as a world document and
the federal government there are our
elected officials and they get to write
and pass a budget that determines where
financial resources will be dedicated
and to what ends and in my view anyway
our elected officials are there to act
in the interest of the broad majority I
mean the people of this country right
and if the people of this country
indicate that they want you know
everybody to have health care for
example then I think that Congress
should be looking for ways to budget our
nation's real resources so that we can
deliver those that material well-being
to people so MMT is about saying listen
the easiest part of any agenda is
finding the money that's the easiest
part the challenge is how many of our
nation's real productive resources how
many of our workers how many people how
many how much of our factories how many
machines how much real resources do we
want directed to producing public goods
health care education infrastructure
I know those sorts of things and how
much do we want to leave to the private
sector and so
there is a balance there and when I talk
about addressing the deficits that
matter whether its climate or retirement
security or you know education student
loan debt health care all of that is in
that chapter that I talk about I am I'm
I'm focusing in ways that are maybe not
common among economists to think about
directing real resources to solve real
problems in our economy I have to say
that that focus reminds me quite a bit
of a fellow who I've spent a great deal
of time studying I don't know if you've
heard of him.
Stephanie his his name is
John Maynard Keynes are you familiar
with his work.
Kelton:12:00
am i familiar with his
work that guy
Z:
yeah it's a famous
political cartoon on that on that mug of
Keynes looking kind of like a spider in
the chair I think frankly a very lanky
yeah you know I one of the things I
loved about studying Keynes is that he
is he's one of these kind of broad broad
thinkers he's he's he's kind of an
economist by accident I think I I feel
like he you know his life is is one
where he's he's constantly surrounded by
all these philosophers and artists and
these great writers like Virginia Woolf
and Lytton Strachey and Ian Forester who
you know you know all the Merchant Ivory
you know sweepy melodramas from the 80s
at 90s he would get you know early
drafts of ianforster books before before
they came out and he forced would be
like don't tell anybody but but let me
know what you think Maynard and he was
concerned with art and letters and ideas
and and this sort of big grand vision of
society and he kind of just realized
that economics was the the science that
he could he could pursue that would give
his ideas sort of access to power and I
I feel like when I read his work you
know his very technical economic work
like like the gender
theory is often extremely dense and kind
of like it's kind of like eating a
pretzel covered in thorns it's just like
very nasty and at times but but a lot of
his other work his essays his letters
they're very very clear he has the
ability to distill these big complex
ideas into into you know fragments that
ordinary people can understand because I
think he's he's fundamentally concerned
with ordinary people and what they can
understand because he believes the
economy is not this sort of like weird
thing that has to be hived off away from
social policy he believes it's it's a
way to address the social policy that he
cares about he's concerned with war and
peace and authoritarianism and democracy
and all the big problems of the early
20th century and when I read that stuff
III have to say I feel like the the
economics profession today doesn't seem
to be working at the same level of
ambition for the most part there are
exceptions clearly and there are a lot
of very good economists out there but
the idea that you would you would sit
down within it I feel like economists
are there to tell us no that we can't do
the things that we want to do we can't
solve the problems that we need to solve
and so my question for you Stephanie
here is what are the big problems that
economists need to solve today if it's
not debt and deficits what what should
the great minds from academia be
focusing their attention on if it's not
debt and deficits.
Kelton:15:00
well I think in a
moment it seems to me that the obvious
answer is unemployment and this is of
course the big problem that Keynes
wrestled with in the general theory
because the economy was in the grips of
a Great Depression and so here we find
ourselves yet again with you know tens
of millions of people who have lost jobs
in the course of the shortest span of
this magnitude of job losses in our
nation's history so we got to figure
that out I think that probably right now
there's no higher calling than to deal
with unemployment but
you know you you know this you you and I
know a lot of these people there are
economists all over the country down I
you and I might agree that there aren't
enough but there are economists that are
also engaging in the climate space not
necessarily as experts on climate
science but there are environmental
economists who are working in
collaboration.
you mentioned Keynes you
know working alongside philosophers and
people with areas of expertise outside
his own and I think those collaborative
efforts are really important whether it
comes to health care or education there
are things that economists can do and
ways in which we can be useful.
but we I
think need to sometimes show some
humility and recognize that scholars in
other fields also bring an awful lot to
the table and to the extent that we
could work better together and I make
economists or sometimes not very good at
this we think that our discipline sits
higher in the in the pyramid in
hierarchy than a lot of other
disciplines and so you know unemployment
healthcare the environment I mean the
list of problems as I said I did a
chapter in the book on this but I want
to talk about your book wonderful people
who are here what made you want to study
this man who I think is a fascinating
figure but what was it about him that
made you want to study and spend years I
presume studying his his life.
z:17:17
so I
didn't come at Cain's from traditional
economics background I don't have a PhD
I don't know the masters I studied
philosophy as an undergraduate but in
2006 the job I sort of fell into after I
graduated from college was a job as a
financial journalist and I was living in
central Virginia working for a trade
publication that's now part of S&P
global but I wasn't terribly thrilled to
be covering banking as a 22 year old it
just didn't seem like you know the most
exciting job in the world but then the
banking sector did me a huge favor
and exploded and it became very very
excite
to cover the banking sector and and
there was this very clear shift that
happened over the course of 2007 and
2008 where everybody who I talked to in
the markets was like oh look we got we
all we all agree the markets irrational
we all agree that supply and demand to
find automatically find a prosperous
equilibrium we all know that that the
thing things are gonna work out if the
government just stays out of the way and
they move very quickly to saying oh well
obviously the government needs to
intervene immediately to rescue the
financial sector otherwise the economy
is going to collapse in society is going
to fall into disrepair
and and when that shift happened I mean
people were very open with me at least
financial market participants we're very
open with me about the fact that they
were changing their minds I don't want
to accuse these people of hypocrisy but
but all of a sudden they were talking
about this guy John Maynard Keynes and
saying his ideas were irrelevant.
and
they were they were key in a way where
previously he had been sort of kind of
dismissed to the academic margins if you
were a Keynesian specialist as an
economist you know I guess you could
have like Paul Krugman had a job at the
New York Times but academically it
wasn't taken super seriously you had to
work for a particularly you know
specialist Keynesian institution if you
were an academic and and then the
markets people just didn't really talk
about it like it was a real thing and
suddenly it was just totally legitimate
and I thought that was incredible I
thought that shift was remarkable not
only because people had changed their
tune but because the the possibilities
that were available in terms of
policymaking just seemed incredibly
broad and the specific policies that we
pursued in 2008 where we can basically
bailed out the financial sector and let
everybody else kind of twist in the wind
that struck me is a not terribly great
way to go about rescuing an economy and
it struck me as odd that a fellow who
was this famous would would prescribe
something like that so I went and
started reading Keynes and I tried to
read the general theory and like I said
the general theory is that it's a real
nasty piece of work like if you wanna if
you want to give yourself a big headache
go just open the general theory and
start on pay
one and try to get through it it's it's
a brilliant book it's one of the great
great triumphs of Western Letters but it
is also it's like reading you know
Nietzsche or Heidegger or something.
20：13
where you have to slog through dozens of
pages of just nasty crazy nonsense until
you get to that one gem where suddenly
you know that the sees part and the
skies open and you're like oh my
goodness this man is brilliant but I
went and read the economic consequences
of the peace which is his critique of
the Treaty of Versailles the the treaty
that ends World War one in 1919 and this
is a much clearer document it's much
easier to understand economically it's
not nearly as sophisticated as what made
makes him famous I think today as an
economist but the moral and
philosophical force of the document and
the political ideas that are involved I
think are just as urgent as everything
in the general theory and as as really
any piece of political writing I've ever
encountered in that book just it just
kind of lit a fire under man this guy is
onto something really serious it's a
book about political accountability he
says essentially the leaders who have
organized this peace treaty have saddled
every country with insurmountable debts
whether it's the war debts for the
Allies as you know that they've assumed
over the course of the war or the
reparations duties that have been it
that have been assessed on Germany that
you know who lost World War one
obviously and as a result people are
going to be shipping money across
different borders and they're not going
to have the funds available to mobilize
those real resources that are going to
make their economies recover and and
generate prosperity.
and that the really
I think brilliant point is that that's
not just going to be an economic problem
people are going to going to blame
outsiders for the fact that they're not
recovering and they're not going to be
totally wrong because they will be
shipping capital abroad that could be
spent at home.
and and that's going to
fuel international resentment it's going
to lead to dictatorship and war and I
thought that connection between economic
dysfunction and social crisis was
something that I just had not you know I
felt this sense of unfairness over the
bailouts in 2008 but I didn't feel like
they were economists who were put
together saying like okay well the
reason these numbers appear to add up on
paper but actually result in socially
terrible results that just didn't feel
like that was something that was coming
coming down from on high from people
whether they're Republicans or Democrats
in positions of economic expertise and
Keynes in in his work I felt like this
deep deep moral force and and also this
this concern for for things that were
not really about dollars and cents like
he he was concerned about the equations
balancing but he was really just afraid
of dictatorship and war he was focused
on that big kind of social problem it's
you know not the pot of gold at the end
of the rainbow it's like it's like the
march of fascism at the end of the
rainbow but he was he was afraid of
something bad happening to society and
to commute into his community not of of
you know an equation that failed to
balance appropriately and and so I just
became completely obsessed with a guy
and I was a philosophy student so I
found a lot of his ideas it was very
easy to understand him as a philosopher
more so than as a you know it economy
trician he was not he was not somebody
who cared deeply about mathematics even
though he studied mathematics as an
undergraduate when he was when he was at
Cambridge so he doesn't even have a
degree in mathematics he's what in
economics he's one of the greatest
economists who's ever lived in his
Greece in mathematics not not economics
because he's he's kind of early to the
profession it's something that's just
kind of being born when he's studying as
an undergraduate so I wrote this book
because of the crash of 2008 and my
feeling of confusion about where the
world was going and my feeling of deep
kind of moral despair and I felt like
Keynes was somebody who could speak to
that sense of of uncertainty and and of
unfairness frankly that was that was in
the air at the time.
kelton：24：20
I feel like you know
you must feel almost in a sense like you
know him like you're so inside his head
that and you and you come to this in the
moment right on the you know precipice
of the
natural crisis and the meltdown global
economic meltdown and you talk about you
know the Treaty of Versailles and the
reparations that were imposed on Germany
and how Keynes could foresee the kinds
of the rise of fascism and the social
unrest and all of that how did it feel
working on this project and looking at
what was happening in Europe where you
know the Greek debt crisis not just
Greece but the countries didn't not feel
like you were living the moment.
z：25：
oh it's
terrifying I remember being so I went to
Cambridge to go through his papers at
King's College at Cambridge University
in the spring of 2017 and and this was
past the like worst days of of the Greek
debt crisis but every single week you
would see headlines about about you know
Golden Dawn and these these horrible
like far-right fascist parties that were
rising up in Greece and other other
countries it wasn't just like these
fringe parties the conservative parties
were sort of also sort of subsuming
these these fringe parties and because
making it part of their they're kind of
like more mainstream conservative the
you know policy agenda and and it was it
was deeply frightening you you would
just go through his papers and you'd be
like I'm really really worried that
Germany is gonna go fascist pretty soon
I'm really really worried that Italy's
gonna go fascist pretty soon and boom
they would do it you know you just keep
turning the pages through the documents
he's like oh Mussolini has taken power
in Rome I'm sad and the the idea that
there was an economic connection between
these things to Keynes was just obvious
it was common sense I feel like you kind
of have to argue that now in the United
States in this weird way politically
that that there's a connection between
economic policy and social disruption
this way which I don't I don't think you
actually have to do in Europe in Europe
people just kind of accept this they
might deny whether or not their
particular policymaking is responsible
from further rise of fascism but the
idea that these things are connected is
is just common sense over there so in a
certain sense it was it was nice being
around a
people who I think sort of saw this
connection between economic and social
policy the way I did certainly being in
DC you would just talk to people on the
hill in the bi oh well you know all we
care about is growth and so long as that
so long as we have growth everything's
fine and you kind of like I okay
but you know there are these people in
the industrial Midwest who like don't
have jobs and their communities are
rotting like are you you're not worried
about that like no because of all the
growth you just like what what much why
would you look at these metrics this way
and I felt like I don't know there are
some things with Keynes when you go
through his letters he just has this
incredible capacity to communicate to
other people and and he you could I
don't want to say that he felt the way I
felt looking at these things but I felt
a real sense of there was a real
resonance with a lot of his letters when
he's talking about coal miners going on
strike in 1926 and saying we're not
gonna work for this terrible wage
anymore you want to sit you want us to
eat at ten or twelve percent pay cut you
know you know buzz off and in Keynes
being like what are the oh my god
they're gonna there's gonna be a huge
strike the country is gonna go into
revolt and of course the country did go
and revolt in 1926 they have this huge
general strike in Britain and it's this
enormous moment of upheaval where all of
the labor unions just refuse to go to
work because of the conditions that are
being demanded from the government and I
you know in a sense I feel like we're
seeing some of that today I you know
obviously George Floyd's killing is the
the spark for all the unrest around the
country in the United States right now
but I think there underlying that is
there's this deep sense of unfairness
that that everything not just the police
but everything in life is slated against
working people whatever color they are
but particularly black and brown people
and that and that there's there's no way
to guarantee yourself that you know that
that tomorrow is going to be better than
today that that the political system has
abandoned not just a not just a few
people the margins but most of the
country really and I think that
that sort of sense of that crisis is
something that Keynes was concerned with
it it always it just makes his writing
come alive in a way that most you know
when I read an economics journal like
you know I've read plenty of academic
economic material it doesn't have the
same sort of fire behind it when you
know you think about canes and Keynesian
economics people I think think that
oftentimes what I gather is that people
think that Keynesian economics means
that government is supposed to prime the
pump you know just kind of grease the
wheels when the economy slows down you
you do a little bit of fiscal stimulus
you increase government spending a bit
and then you can safely take your hands
off and the economy will find its way
back to an equilibrium path and there's
no need for sustained presence on the
part of the federal government so
looking at where we are today and
recognizing that the risks are continued
social unrest and you know opportunities
for people who might want to take
advantage of those anxieties and that
unrest you know take us a note in a
fascist direction what do you think if
we could have Keynes in this chat box
with us you know would he say do
something to safeguard the American
people
you got to provide jobs for everyone you
have to safeguard health care you have
to provide education would he embrace do
you think an FDR style New Deal program
for the 21st century you know I think he
would be I think he would approve of
your work Stephanie but I think he'd be
very frustrated by the fact that it's
necessary.
I think he would he would say
you know look we know that these
technical questions about money and
numbers are just technical questions
about money in numbers we have a climate
crisis that's approaching us we have
this huge breakdown in international
relations between the United States and
China the European Union is
disintegrating and we know what's
happened in the past when the European
states have gone and have not gotten
along it has not been good for the rest
of the world and we have deep inequality
and just about unit in every country
however you know whatever stage of
development we want to describe them as
being and we have deep inequality within
each country and then also between
countries so he would I think be talking
about he would be trying to devise some
grand plan that could be used to kill
many of these birds at once there with
you know with with one stone I mean I he
really liked birds so I don't think
he'll be trying to kill birds with
stones one of his big complaints about
America was that there were not enough
birds in the countryside here he felt
like the English countryside had had far
more birds so it's really a much nicer
place but he when what he would want to
try to do more than one thing with his
economic policy he wouldn't just want to
cure unemployment he would want to also
solve the climate crisis he would want
to fix the relationship between the
United States and China and then he'd
probably ask a probably a separate
agenda for Europe frankly it's just you
know it's this so only so much you can
do with one policy but it'd be a very
grand plan and it's not the sort of
thing that you can do by just asking you
know JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley
to you know to you know lower some
interest rates on some loans it's it's
not something that can be done without
coordination somewhere so he would look
to the state I think as the body that
could coordinate this type of action
what he would prescribe you know I find
it hard to predict frankly like he is
somebody who is always changing his mind
it he was not ashamed to change his mind
one of the things I admire most about
him really you know he got all sorts of
stuff wrong he's deeply politically
naive you know in a lot of ways I think
is just too conservative and just
misunderstands the way the world works
but he is ok with admitting when he's
wrong and in changing course it's hard
for me to imagine it I think he was
probably smarter than I am and may may
be able to come up with with big plans
that I have not I have not seen but I do
think he'd be looking at people who were
rolling out proposals like the green New
Deal and saying that's the kind of
thinking we should be we should be
working with
we should not be working with these sort
of tax incentives to encourage certain
types of private and private behavior he
would say look we have we have crises
that have to be managed so let's go
ahead and let's go ahead and manage them
and then he would not have been a nudge
guy I mean I do not want I know in a rip
cass sunstein because he he tweeted out
something nice about my book so cass you
know appreciate it
but no i don't think so i think i think
keynes it depends on which cans you know
cuz he he is he's he changes his mind
like i said over the course of his
career but certainly by the end of his
life you know kings losses almost every
single political battle that he engages
in between 1919 and 1941 when he starts
winning it's when the Labour Party is in
power in Britain and they're the
socialist labor power late Labour Party
very very explicitly socialist in an era
when being socialist was a much more
like dangerous thing than it is today
and the thing that he his first real
policy victory is serving as the
financial kind of technician for the
British National Health Service so he
socializes British medicine and in is
not a minor player in that he is one of
the main guys who gets the British
National Health and Health Service
enacted and he's doing this when
Britain's basically broke and in World
War World War two when when you know the
Blitz has devastated Britain and they've
had they've lost so buddy thousands of
lives in in the war so you know he's
somebody who's capable of thinking very
very big even even with your back up
against the wall and I certainly think
he would be if he could if he can social
his British medicine in 1943 I'd
certainly think the new the green New
Deal would seem like a pre you know that
in a lot of ways I feel like Cannes
Cannes would have been mortified by the
the rhetoric of the Bernie Sanders
campaign not not to bust up your old
boss or maybe it's your current boss I
don't know but the talk about revolution
would have made Cannes very very
uncomfortable but in in certain respects
I think he he would have said you know
the the policy agenda that that Sanders
is pursuing is
if anything maybe a little too timid you
know you have to think big these these
crises are very real and they're bearing
down upon society right now and we are
seeing the effects of them in real time
so I I certainly would see him as
somebody who would be who would be
talking about the green New Deal and and
coming up with some very very complex
diplomatic solution that probably none
of his diplomatic solutions ever worked
so it probably wouldn't have worked but
some some way to try to resolve the
tensions between United States and China
let me ask you one more question and
then I know there are a lot of people
who want to jump in with with their own
questions but you know we hear people
talk about in inequality income and
wealth inequality all the time now I
mean there's this just commonplace but
Keynes opens the last chapter of the
general theory the first sentence to the
last chapter of the book reads from
memory something like the two great
flaws in our economic system are its
failure to provide for full employment
think about where we are today and its
arbitrary and unjust distribution of
income maybe he says income in wealth
you know I probably don't remember it
exactly but Keynes called out you know
then when levels of income and wealth
distribution the the degree of
inequality looks a whole lot like it
does today so I just wondered and and I
don't really recall seeing greater
treatment of that question the
inequality piece in Keynes's other work
but I haven't read it the way that you
have and I wondered whether you
discovered that he had a lot more to say
about inequality and so his other
writing yeah Keynes is deeply concerned
about economic inequality because he's
worried about societies being able to
hang together
he's worried primarily about revolution
he's he's a perky and conservative in
the sense where he doesn't want to see
the people rising up and overthrowing
the system he thinks that the disorder
and chaos that results from revolution
is not worth whatever prosperity might
come from a new system that is built so
he's always trying to to sort of do what
you can with the existing structures of
society
but if you if you go back and read the
economic consequences of the peace his
big work from from 1919 he basically
says look economic inequality is unfair
and the economic system of the Gilded
Age which basically ended at the opening
of World War one was a ripoff for
working people and and the only reason
people bought into this was because they
believed sincerely that tomorrow was
going to be better than today and once
you break that faith in the future which
the war had done it'll be impossible to
restart this engine now I think the
story that Keynes is telling there and
in 1919 is wrong I don't think it's the
case that people had this deep faith in
the future in 1908 or 1903 and thought
really if they just kept working hard
enough that tomorrow would be better
than today I think he was coming from a
particularly elite perspective but he is
clearly concerned with the idea that
escalating inequality is unsustainable
that you have to find some way to make
people feel part of the same social
project together and that moves that
idea is deeper than his economic sort of
technical policy prescriptions he's he's
much more concerned with these sort of
moral and political beliefs than he is
with whatever particular policy agenda
that he did he's concocted at any given
time to try to pursue this so you know
there there are periods in time when
he's basically like a Milton Friedman
kind of style monetarist but when that
doesn't work he just says okay well
let's do something else so I think
inequality matters to him on this moral
level that is is it is fundamental to
the way that he thinks about the world
and and and he he just does not believe
that deeply unequal societies will be
able to hang together and he says this
from the position of somebody who wants
to enjoy all the fruits of being on top
he he loves going to the Opera and art
openings and he was married to a
ballerina the most famous ballerina in
London you know he's just you know he
loves the high life but he doesn't want
to lose it and he feels like if you do
not have a more equal society if you
don't let people participate in that
high life then he won't get to enjoy it
either because people will revolt yeah.
and you said you said a more equal and
that's another thing that he points out
in that last chapter he's not talking
about an egalitarian district
of income and wealth in fact he says you
know we just have too much inequality
and so what we need to do is you know
rein it in but he he goes out of his way
to make the argument that certain amount
of inequality in his view actually does
serve some useful purpose in terms of
you know incentivizing people and
innovation and that sort of thing right
yeah and Stephanie I want to ask you
this question about your work cuz I I
feel like there are times when the focus
on mmt is understandably about deficits
and debt but in a lot of ways I think
the sort of more radical implications of
your work seem to me and correct me if
I'm wrong to suggest that we can focus
more on these questions of distribution
than we do on on questions of say growth
which is what economists typically are
saying you know so long as we grow the
pie everybody's better off
it might am I wrong about that if I
misread you in some way.
kelton：41：00
no do you mean
questions of distribution just with
respect to income and wealth with
inequality right right any part yeah so
one of the things that mmm tears have
always pointed out with respect to what
is the role of taxes in the economy
we've been taught to believe that taxes
are primarily useful because they're the
source of revenue to the federal
government's how the government pays the
bills and mmt rejects that and says no
taxes are important for a lot of reasons
but that ain't one of them and one of
the reasons that taxes are important is
because it does give the government
gives Congress a lever to pull to
realign the distribution of wealth and
income if they want to make adjustments
to the tax code not because they need to
peel a few bucks off of a billionaire
here and a billionaire there to fund
education or do some infrastructure
investment but because they genuinely
want to tackle the problem of extreme
concentrations of wealth and income
inequality in this country then it's
perfectly legitimate to set forth with
an ambitious agenda to adjust taxes on
the very wealthy for no other reason
- then to realign the balance of
distribution I think in a lot of ways
Zack we don't go far enough because we
look at the very wealthy as a pay-for
and lawmakers say well we want to you
know do infrastructure we want to put
some more money in education we want to
improve lives for the broad majority of
people but we feel like we have to pay
for it somehow so we got to get money
and we get money by raising revenue and
we don't want to hurt the people in the
middle and the people at the bottom so
we're gonna concentrate all the pain at
the very top that's where the taxes will
fall the problem from my perspective is
while that might be perfectly legitimate
to try to pass a bill that says we're
gonna spend to you know increase money
for Pell grants or infrastructure or
whatever and alongside that we're gonna
increase taxes on the rich very often
what I've observed in my brief time in
the Senate and in my longer journey as
just an observer of you know the
political process is that even Democrats
are very reluctant to increase taxes on
people at the top there's this notion
that it's punishing success in some way
and you know the job creators will be
heard and we you know so what happens is
we pair that you know desire to spend
more on education or whatever with a
need to raise taxes so that we don't end
up adding to the deficit and that forces
lawmakers to pick two fights and you
don't just have to pick two fights you
have to win two fights you have to
convince enough of your colleagues to
vote for the increased spending on
education and you have to convince them
to close the tax loopholes or you know
to introduce a wealth tax or whatever it
is and if you can't win both of those
fights you don't win on your agenda you
don't get the increased spending for
education so you know it's it's a
double-edged sword this game of trying
to play by pay-go rules to avoid adding
to the deficit but mmm tears and myself
included look at Democrats sometimes and
say you know when you approach taxes
this way you're not being nearly
ambitious
enough because you're just trying to
peel off enough to cover the cost of
whatever it is you're trying to do so in
the case of a wealth tax for example if
if the wealth tax is to take 2% from you
know people with very large fortunes and
then at the same time tell them but
don't worry you're not even gonna feel
it because your wealth is going to
accumulate at a much higher rate on an
annual basis than what's in a sense
what's the point right what's the point
if they're not going to feel it you're
not gonna address the extreme
concentrations of wealth inequality so I
do approach the tax question differently
and I think I come at it with a more
ambitious desire to see realignment and
rebalancing you know these extreme
concentrations of income and wealth
inequality aren't just bad for the way
our economy functions it's bad for the
way our democracy works so before we go
and Tom I think I think we will want to
have some questions from the audience a
second but before we do that Stephanie I
have a question for you about sort of
the the Washington legitimacy kind of
etiquette because I feel like for a long
time there are very good people on
Capitol Hill who are you know brilliant
thoughtful folks who will listen to
arguments no matter where they come from
but there are a lot of people on Capitol
Hill who are not brilliant and not
thoughtful and and they don't so much
listen to the arguments as they listen
to like the prestige that surrounds the
person who is saying them so like you
know in 1989 if Alan Greenspan had
showed up on the hill and told everybody
that actually all horses are really hand
grenades so we really have to stop
riding them because they're about to
explode people would have just said oh
man you know I really got to stop
writing all these horses and they would
have they would have believed him did
you notice a difference because you've
been talking about this stuff for a long
time did you notice a difference in the
way that you were treated by folks on
the hill after you started working for
the Senate Budget Committee did that did
that have a any sort of change in the in
the way that you're sort of ideas seem
to resonate with with staff no I don't
think they resonated with staff item I
don't feel well Zac I talked about it a
little bit in the book you know I think
there was a certain degree of surprise
when I showed up that you know they were
accustomed to dealing with deficit hawks
people who want to balance the budget
really fast get it done and get it done
quick and the deficit doves who were
sort of more apologetic and tolerant of
deficits while they also wanted to see
them balanced they were willing to go
more slowly but those are the only two
sort of birds they were accustomed to
and then I show up and you know I
cleaned that phrase years ago the
deficit owl to distinguish my own views
from these other from these other birds
and I remember that yeah you've been
you've been living there in Texas right
no I'm in Virginia but yes we have we
have this family of our but they got
back fantastic I think of the deficit al
every time I see you tweet a picture but
the quick story is that people were
taken aback
they didn't a lot of folks didn't
realize exactly what I was and that
people actually had views like I held
and I think it took some getting used to.
and you know I think it over a period of
time maybe there's been they've been
taken more seriously but it I wouldn't
say that it happened in that short kind
of span of time that I was there there
was a warming up to but not not a full
embracive mm-hmm by the way I think ok
well Tom I think we're ready to field
some questions here if if you got it has
anyone asked any questions yet we have
quite a few actually we're not gonna
have a chance to get to all of them but
I will read the ones that have the most
votes so the first question with the
most votes is what if any would be the
impact of mmt on the Social Security
trust funds which consists exclusively
of special obligation Treasury bonds
like that's for you Stephanie well okay
so mmm tea per se doesn't have an impact
on Social Security but I did write a
whole chapter on anti
Dolan's and tried to make the point that
you know FDR set up social security back
in 1935 and he argued that he'd set it
up the way he did so that these are his
words so that no damn politician could
ever put his hands on my Social Security
program that was almost a direct quote
and what he did was say that everybody
was going to pay into it you were gonna
see your contribution in the form of a
payroll tax withholding you'd see the
money go in and then upon retirement you
would draw your earned benefits right
and so today we have a situation where
we continue to believe that the only way
the government can maintain its promises
to future retirees to their dependents
to the disabled is if there's enough
money available to do that so we started
as a consequence of alan greenspan and
his commission in 1983 started building
up this massive trust fund locking up
digital dollars on a spreadsheet called
a trust fund and saying well if we just
have enough spreadsheet entries and
there are enough dollars locked in place
then we can release those dollars in the
future when we need to make the benefit
payments so mmt points out the insanity
of this and the proposition that the
government needs to lock up its own
currency in digital form in order to be
able to spend its own currency in the
future and so you know what I argue in
that chapter is that there's a really
quick way I could do it with a single
sentence amendment to the Social
Security Act of 1935 I could make the
whole problem quote-unquote go away with
a one-sentence amendment to that act
it's just about granting Congress the
legal authority to make benefit payments
regardless of the balance and the trust
fund okay this next question you kind of
talked about a little bit but is it's
this person asks how do you think Keynes
would have reacted to Congress's actions
with Co good relief ie PPP loans and
such how do you think he'd approach our
current economic situation
I don't hijack this one Stephanie but I
think think this was sort of my
territory you know I think Keynes
wouldn't have been worried about the
amount of money being spent I think he
would agree with everything Stephanie is
said about debt and deficits so far but
I think he would have been deeply
troubled by the way that the money has
been spent and and about the conditions
that have been placed on that money I
think the point that Stephanie made
earlier about about Keynes believing
that the general theory of employment
interest and money sort of unlocked this
ability for the government to tackle
inequality directly as as sort of a way
to make markets work better I I think he
would have looked at this rescue and
said you know this is a lot of money for
the richest people in the country and
not a whole lot for everybody else and
and I think you know he also would have
been this is this is a more deeper
philosophical question but the question
about work versus welfare in particular
you know Keynes didn't want people to
have to work their whole lives he had
this he had this sort of utopian view of
a world which we all had 15 hour work
weeks we spent the rest of the time you
know doing art and in writing poetry I
think he would have wanted that in a
certain sense but he also understood
that people take a great deal of moral
and social satisfaction from from having
a job no matter how many a horse they're
working you might want them to not have
to work all the time but he recognized
that people like participating in their
community through their work and so the
fact that we were putting a lot of money
into expanding unemployment payments
instead of making sure that people
didn't lose their jobs I think would
have troubled him that that's like you
know I think Keynesian scholars could
could dispute me on that on that point
but more broadly he would just said look
we need to rescue the economy we have to
do something and we and we do have to
rescue the rich we do have to retic it's
not good if all these corporations just
fail but he would have said the focus
needs to be on on income support for all
of these people and I don't think the
the bill that was passed by 96 to 0
margin in the Senate
focused its priority
on on the types of things that that they
that animated canes throughout much most
of his life this next question is for
Stephanie this person wants to know if
you could walk through the mechanism
that explains why deficits do not matter
well let me reiterate first that my
position has that deficits do matter but
not the way we've been taught to believe
so they matter in a lot of ways there's
the very and important source of
corporate profits for one thing so let's
put that aside because there's a
Colette's key profit equation we don't
have time to go through that but let me
do it the quick and dirty way okay when
I say every deficit is good for someone
the deficit is the difference between
two numbers right one number is how many
dollars the government is spending into
the economy the other number is how many
dollars the government is subtracting
out of the economy by taxing us
primarily okay so that we use this term
deficit to describe the condition when
the government adds more dollars into
the economy then it subtracts we call
its deficit but what we forget is we
could just as easily call it a surplus
we're using the word deficit because
we're describing what's happening on the
government's ledger but if we were
describing what's happening on the other
ledger the outside of government part of
the economy we would call it a surplus
they spend a hundred in and only tax
ninety away from us that ten dollars
that gets deposited becomes our surplus
the real question is who got it for whom
and for what what was the government
doing was it building hospitals and
schools was it repairing infrastructure
was it paying for health care was it
dealing with climate change or did it
just become a windfall to the people who
least need the help so deficits matter a
lot right they are a financial deposit
that shows up on somebody else's bank
account the question is you know for who
and for what I think we only have time
for one more question so I'm going to
ask this one to Zack
this person would like to know a little
bit about Keynes and the Bloomsbury
group so Keynes comes of age at the turn
of the 20th century and he's hanging out
with all of these people like Virginia
Woolf and ianforster they're writers and
artists and it's a a very is certainly
given the strictures of British society
at the early 20th century it's a very
liberated group so these people are
constantly swapping lovers Keynes is
very enthusiastically gay for most of
his life until he falls in love with the
most famous ballerina in in Britain and
marries her and then they have a
wonderful marriage that lasts the rest
of his life but these people in a lot of
ways are sort of the the moral authority
in Keynes's life he's not somebody who
is looking around to Pete you know if
you if you hang out on Capitol Hill long
enough which I think both Stephanie and
I have done you know for better force
quite a bit people on Capitol Hill are
sort of looking to like what you know
what what business groups and lobbyists
are gonna think about what they do
Keynes did not he was never looking over
his shoulder to say what's Farmar gonna
say what's Wall Street gonna say he was
looking over his shoulder to say like
what's Virginia Woolf gonna think about
what I'm doing he always felt this very
intense moral pressure from these people
in his life and and that pressure
extended to the fact that he was even
working in government at all they were
like why are you wasting your time and
in this terrible you know stuff of
public administration I mean you could
be a writer you could be a poet you
could be a painter wouldn't that be a
fine thing and and of course he's he's
doing he's good at it right and it's
it's actually quite good for the world
that he's doing it because he's he's
good at it but but they're constantly
sort of riding him and saying you'll
make sure that whatever that you do is
living up to these ideals and Bloomsbury
has this in certain respects I think
very naive view of the world they think
that the power of love and art and
Letters is capable of breaking down all
these barriers between people's that
have been built up through political
systems over time so if you if you just
show people the right painting
if you read them the right novels
they'll be able to communicate across
different borders.
and different
languages and understand each other it's
a really beautiful vision and and
they're constantly just telling canes
like live up to that live up to that
ideal and and they're the only people in
the world who can really convince him
that he's gone astray in any moral sense
so I think canes as a as a member of the
Bloomsbury set he's kind of an odd duck
because he's the only economist in the
Bloomsbury set everybody else is an
artist or a writer but in a lot of ways
he is sort of trying to realize their
vision on the world stage it make it
make it something that is material in
concrete in in public policy and
certainly by the end of his life I think
he's quite successful with that I think
the British National Health Service is a
great example of that but you know his
his great work his first great work the
the economic consequences of the peace
is largely you know an apology to
Bloomsbury for his role in and financing
the the First World War for for Britain
he's basically telling everybody in
Bloomsbury I was wrong this war was
pointless and a lot of people died and
it was for nothing you guys were right
and I was wrong
that that dynamic is there throughout
his career and it's it's it's really
significant I think it make it's one of
the things that makes him a very unique
economist well thank you so much guys
this is a really fascinating talk I want
to remind everyone that you can purchase
the deficit myth and the price of Pete's
piece by clicking the green button at
the bottom of your screen and thank you
so much Zachary and Stephanie for being
here with us tonight
thanks everybody thanks everyone no.
英語 (自動生成)
この動画のチャットのリプレイはオフになっています。
Zachary Carter, "The Price of Peace" and Stephanie Kelton, "The Deficit Myth"
4,387 回視聴•2020/06/12 にライブ配信
134
9
共有
保存
Politics and Prose
チャンネル登録者数 13.5万人
チャンネル登録
Stephanie Kelton, professor of economics and public policy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and Bloomberg contributing columnist, has been called a “prophetic economist” and a “Rock Star” of progressive economics. Stephanie is the founder and of the top-rated economic blog New Economic Perspectives, and a member of the TopWonks network of the nation’s best thinkers. In 2016, Politico recognized her as one of the fifty people across the country most influencing the political debate. Zachary D. Carter is a senior reporter at HuffPost, where he covers Congress, the White House, and economic policy. He is a frequent guest on cable news and news radio, and his written work has also appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, and The American Prospect, among other outlets. His story, “Swiped: Banks, Merchants and Why Washington Doesn’t Work for You” was included in the Columbia Journalism Review’s compilation Best Business Writing. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.
Purchase Books Here: https://www.politics-prose.com/event/...
もっと見る
チャンネル登録者数 13.5万人
チャンネル登録
Stephanie Kelton, professor of economics and public policy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and Bloomberg contributing columnist, has been called a “prophetic economist” and a “Rock Star” of progressive economics. Stephanie is the founder and of the top-rated economic blog New Economic Perspectives, and a member of the TopWonks network of the nation’s best thinkers. In 2016, Politico recognized her as one of the fifty people across the country most influencing the political debate. Zachary D. Carter is a senior reporter at HuffPost, where he covers Congress, the White House, and economic policy. He is a frequent guest on cable news and news radio, and his written work has also appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, and The American Prospect, among other outlets. His story, “Swiped: Banks, Merchants and Why Washington Doesn’t Work for You” was included in the Columbia Journalism Review’s compilation Best Business Writing. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.
Purchase Books Here: https://www.politics-prose.com/event/...
一部を表示
5
00:07
00:09
00:10
00:12
00:14
00:15
00:18
00:19
00:22
00:24
00:26
00:29
00:31
00:33
00:35
00:37
00:40
00:41
00:43
00:45
00:46
00:50
00:52
00:54
00:57
00:59
01:02
01:03
01:04
01:07
01:08
01:11
01:13
01:16
01:18
01:20
01:22
01:24
01:26
01:29
01:31
01:36
01:36
01:39
01:41
01:43
01:47
01:49
01:52
01:54
01:56
01:58
02:00
02:02
02:04
02:05
02:07
02:09
02:12
02:15
02:17
02:19
02:22
02:25
02:26
02:29
02:33
02:36
02:38
02:41
02:45
02:48
02:53
02:56
02:59
03:02
03:05
03:07
03:10
03:12
03:16
03:20
03:22
03:25
03:28
03:31
03:34
03:37
03:39
03:43
03:45
03:48
03:51
03:53
03:56
03:58
04:00
04:02
04:05
04:07
04:10
04:12
04:15
04:18
04:19
04:21
04:23
04:27
04:29
04:31
04:33
04:37
04:39
04:42
04:44
04:48
04:49
04:52
04:55
04:57
05:00
05:03
05:05
05:08
05:10
05:13
05:15
05:17
05:20
05:22
05:23
05:25
05:26
05:29
05:30
05:34
05:37
05:39
05:42
05:44
05:47
05:50
05:52
05:54
05:57
05:59
06:02
06:05
06:07
06:10
06:12
06:14
06:18
06:20
06:22
06:24
06:26
06:30
06:32
06:34
06:38
06:40
06:43
06:46
06:48
06:50
06:53
06:55
06:58
07:00
07:02
07:03
07:06
07:08
07:11
07:13
07:17
07:19
07:21
07:24
07:26
07:27
07:31
07:34
07:35
07:38
07:42
07:44
07:46
07:48
07:51
07:53
07:57
07:58
08:01
08:03
08:06
08:08
08:11
08:14
08:18
08:20
08:23
08:25
08:26
08:29
08:30
08:32
08:35
08:37
08:39
08:41
08:44
08:46
08:49
08:53
08:56
08:57
08:59
09:02
09:03
09:05
09:08
09:10
09:12
09:14
09:17
09:20
09:22
09:25
09:28
09:31
09:33
09:35
09:40
09:43
09:46
09:49
09:50
09:55
09:58
10:00
10:02
10:05
10:08
10:11
10:14
10:16
10:18
10:20
10:23
10:25
10:28
10:30
10:33
10:35
10:39
10:43
10:44
10:48
10:50
10:52
10:55
10:58
11:01
11:05
11:07
11:09
11:10
11:14
11:16
11:18
11:22
11:24
11:27
11:31
11:34
11:38
11:41
11:44
11:46
11:48
11:50
11:52
11:56
12:08
12:11
12:13
12:16
12:19
12:22
12:25
12:29
12:32
12:36
12:38
12:40
12:42
12:45
12:46
12:49
12:52
12:54
12:56
12:58
13:00
13:02
13:05
13:07
13:11
13:14
13:17
13:21
13:23
13:24
13:27
13:29
13:31
13:33
13:36
13:38
13:41
13:46
13:47
13:50
13:53
13:54
13:56
13:58
14:01
14:03
14:05
14:07
14:09
14:13
14:15
14:19
14:21
14:24
14:26
14:28
14:30
14:32
14:34
14:37
14:39
14:42
14:45
14:48
14:51
14:54
14:57
15:01
15:04
15:08
15:10
15:11
15:15
15:17
15:21
15:23
15:26
15:28
15:30
15:33
15:36
15:37
15:40
15:41
15:45
15:46
15:49
15:52
15:54
15:56
15:58
16:00
16:03
16:06
16:08
16:11
16:13
16:15
16:19
16:22
16:24
16:27
16:29
16:31
16:33
16:35
16:38
16:40
16:44
16:47
16:48
16:51
16:59
17:03
17:06
17:08
17:12
17:15
17:19
17:20
17:22
17:24
17:27
17:30
17:31
17:33
17:35
17:39
17:41
17:43
17:46
17:47
17:50
17:51
17:53
17:56
17:59
18:01
18:03
18:05
18:07
18:09
18:11
18:13
18:15
18:17
18:19
18:22
18:25
18:26
18:27
18:30
18:32
18:34
18:36
18:38
18:41
18:42
18:45
18:48
18:50
18:53
18:55
18:57
18:59
19:01
19:02
19:05
19:07
19:09
19:11
19:13
19:15
19:17
19:20
19:21
19:24
19:27
19:29
19:30
19:33
19:36
19:38
19:39
19:43
19:46
19:48
19:50
19:52
19:53
19:56
19:57
20:00
20:01
20:04
20:04
20:06
20:08
20:11
20:13
20:14
20:16
20:19
20:21
20:23
20:24
20:26
20:29
20:30
20:33
20:36
20:38
20:40
20:42
20:45
20:47
20:49
20:51
20:54
20:56
20:58
21:01
21:03
21:05
21:07
21:09
21:13
21:15
21:16
21:18
21:20
21:22
21:24
21:25
21:28
21:29
21:31
21:33
21:35
21:38
21:41
21:43
21:45
21:47
21:50
21:51
21:53
21:55
21:58
22:00
22:02
22:04
22:07
22:10
22:13
22:16
22:18
22:20
22:22
22:25
22:29
22:30
22:32
22:34
22:37
22:40
22:44
22:46
22:48
22:51
22:52
22:54
22:58
23:00
23:01
23:02
23:05
23:08
23:11
23:14
23:18
23:20
23:22
23:25
23:27
23:30
23:33
23:36
23:38
23:41
23:42
23:44
23:45
23:47
23:49
23:51
23:52
23:55
23:58
24:00
24:02
24:04
24:06
24:08
24:13
24:15
24:19
24:21
24:24
24:27
24:31
24:31
24:34
24:36
24:39
24:42
24:45
24:47
24:49
24:52
24:55
24:56
24:59
25:02
25:05
25:08
25:09
25:14
25:17
25:20
25:22
25:25
25:28
25:30
25:32
25:34
25:37
25:40
25:42
25:45
25:49
25:51
25:52
25:54
25:56
25:57
26:00
26:01
26:03
26:05
26:10
26:12
26:14
26:16
26:18
26:20
26:23
26:25
26:27
26:29
26:31
26:33
26:35
26:38
26:40
26:42
26:44
26:45
26:47
26:49
26:51
26:53
26:55
26:58
26:59
27:03
27:05
27:07
27:08
27:10
27:12
27:16
27:18
27:20
27:22
27:25
27:28
27:31
27:32
27:34
27:37
27:39
27:41
27:43
27:44
27:45
27:47
27:51
27:52
27:53
27:55
27:57
28:00
28:02
28:04
28:06
28:08
28:10
28:12
28:15
28:19
28:22
28:24
28:27
28:29
28:33
28:36
28:38
28:39
28:42
28:46
28:48
28:51
28:54
28:56
28:59
29:01
29:03
29:05
29:08
29:09
29:11
29:14
29:18
29:20
29:22
29:25
29:28
29:31
29:33
29:36
29:37
29:40
29:42
29:45
29:48
29:51
29:53
29:55
29:59
30:02
30:04
30:06
30:11
30:14
30:16
30:20
30:23
30:24
30:26
30:28
30:30
30:34
30:37
30:40
30:42
30:44
30:46
30:49
30:51
30:53
30:56
30:58
31:00
31:01
31:03
31:05
31:06
31:09
31:10
31:13
31:15
31:18
31:20
31:22
31:23
31:26
31:28
31:32
31:35
31:37
31:39
31:40
31:42
31:43
31:45
31:47
31:48
31:51
31:54
31:55
31:57
31:59
32:01
32:03
32:04
32:06
32:08
32:10
32:12
32:14
32:16
32:19
32:22
32:24
32:28
32:30
32:32
32:36
32:38
32:41
32:43
32:45
32:47
32:49
32:51
32:53
32:55
32:59
33:03
33:07
33:10
33:12
33:14
33:17
33:19
33:21
33:24
33:24
33:26
33:29
33:32
33:33
33:35
33:36
33:41
33:45
33:47
33:49
33:51
33:53
33:55
33:57
33:59
34:00
34:04
34:06
34:09
34:12
34:13
34:15
34:18
34:20
34:22
34:25
34:27
34:30
34:31
34:35
34:37
34:39
34:40
34:43
34:45
34:48
34:50
34:52
34:55
34:56
35:00
35:03
35:06
35:08
35:10
35:12
35:16
35:18
35:20
35:22
35:24
35:27
35:28
35:30
35:33
35:36
35:38
35:39
35:41
35:44
35:45
35:48
35:51
35:53
35:56
35:58
36:02
36:03
36:06
36:08
36:10
36:12
36:13
36:15
36:18
36:20
36:22
36:24
36:28
36:30
36:33
36:36
36:40
36:42
36:44
36:48
36:50
36:52
36:55
36:57
36:59
37:01
37:04
37:07
37:09
37:12
37:14
37:16
37:19
37:21
37:23
37:25
37:27
37:28
37:30
37:32
37:34
37:36
37:38
37:41
37:43
37:45
37:48
37:50
37:51
37:53
37:55
37:58
38:01
38:03
38:05
38:08
38:10
38:13
38:15
38:17
38:19
38:21
38:23
38:24
38:27
38:29
38:33
38:34
38:35
38:38
38:41
38:42
38:45
38:47
38:48
38:52
38:55
38:58
39:00
39:02
39:05
39:07
39:09
39:10
39:12
39:15
39:16
39:19
39:22
39:25
39:27
39:31
39:33
39:36
39:37
39:39
39:42
39:44
39:46
39:48
39:50
39:51
39:53
39:54
39:56
39:58
40:00
40:01
40:03
40:05
40:07
40:09
40:11
40:14
40:16
40:19
40:22
40:24
40:26
40:28
40:30
40:34
40:37
40:40
40:42
40:45
40:47
40:49
40:52
40:54
40:55
40:57
41:00
41:03
41:06
41:08
41:11
41:14
41:17
41:19
41:21
41:25
41:26
41:27
41:30
41:32
41:35
41:37
41:38
41:44
41:46
41:48
41:51
41:54
41:56
41:58
42:00
42:03
42:05
42:08
42:12
42:15
42:18
42:20
42:23
42:25
42:29
42:32
42:34
42:36
42:38
42:40
42:41
42:44
42:46
42:48
42:50
42:52
42:55
42:58
43:01
43:04
43:06
43:09
43:11
43:14
43:17
43:19
43:22
43:26
43:28
43:31
43:33
43:35
43:39
43:41
43:44
43:47
43:49
43:50
43:52
43:54
43:56
43:58
44:01
44:03
44:05
44:09
44:11
44:14
44:16
44:19
44:23
44:26
44:27
44:29
44:30
44:31
44:34
44:36
44:38
44:43
44:45
44:47
44:48
44:50
44:52
44:55
44:57
44:58
45:01
45:04
45:07
45:10
45:14
45:16
45:17
45:19
45:20
45:24
45:26
45:27
45:29
45:30
45:35
45:38
45:40
45:42
45:44
45:45
45:47
45:48
45:51
45:52
45:55
45:57
45:59
46:01
46:03
46:05
46:06
46:07
46:10
46:12
46:15
46:17
46:18
46:20
46:24
46:25
46:28
46:30
46:33
46:37
46:39
46:41
46:43
46:46
46:49
46:52
46:53
46:56
46:58
47:02
47:04
47:05
47:07
47:11
47:13
47:15
47:18
47:20
47:24
47:26
47:30
47:31
47:35
47:37
47:40
47:41
47:43
47:47
47:50
47:52
47:56
47:58
48:01
48:04
48:06
48:10
48:13
48:16
48:19
48:23
48:25
48:28
48:30
48:34
48:37
48:40
48:42
48:45
48:49
48:51
48:54
48:56
48:59
49:03
49:08
49:09
49:12
49:14
49:17
49:20
49:21
49:23
49:25
49:28
49:31
49:35
49:37
49:40
49:42
49:45
49:48
49:50
49:52
49:55
49:57
49:59
50:01
50:04
50:06
50:08
50:10
50:13
50:15
50:18
50:20
50:23
50:24
50:27
50:28
50:31
50:34
50:36
50:39
50:41
50:43
50:50
50:52
50:55
50:57
51:00
51:02
51:05
51:07
51:09
51:12
51:13
51:15
51:17
51:19
51:20
51:21
51:24
51:26
51:29
51:31
51:33
51:36
51:38
51:42
51:45
51:46
51:48
51:50
51:52
51:54
51:57
51:59
52:02
52:04
52:06
52:09
52:11
52:13
52:16
52:18
52:20
52:23
52:26
52:28
52:30
52:32
52:34
52:37
52:39
52:42
52:45
52:47
52:49
52:51
52:53
52:56
52:57
52:59
53:01
53:03
53:06
53:09
53:11
53:14
53:16
53:18
53:21
53:23
53:28
53:32
53:34
53:37
53:41
53:43
53:45
53:47
53:50
53:53
53:55
53:57
53:59
54:01
54:03
54:05
54:08
54:10
54:12
54:14
54:16
54:20
54:23
54:26
54:28
54:31
54:33
54:35
54:37
54:39
54:41
54:44
54:46
54:49
54:52
54:55
54:58
55:00
55:02
55:05
55:07
55:09
55:12
55:14
55:17
55:19
55:22
55:27
55:30
55:32
55:33
55:35
55:39
55:41
55:43
55:47
55:51
55:54
55:56
55:58
56:02
56:03
56:05
56:09
56:10
56:13
56:16
56:19
56:22
56:25
56:26
56:27
56:30
56:33
56:35
56:38
56:39
56:43
56:44
56:46
56:47
56:49
56:52
56:55
56:57
56:58
57:00
57:03
57:05
57:06
57:08
57:09
57:11
57:14
57:15
57:17
57:20
57:22
57:25
57:28
57:30
57:33
57:35
57:38
57:40
57:41
57:43
57:45
57:47
57:48
57:49
57:52
57:54
57:56
57:58
58:01
58:02
58:04
58:07
58:10
58:12
58:13
58:16
58:19
58:22
58:24
58:27
58:29
58:30
58:32
58:35
58:38
58:40
58:42
58:45
58:47
58:49
58:51
58:52
58:54
58:56
58:58
59:00
59:02
59:03
59:07
59:09
59:10
59:13
59:14
59:17
59:19
59:20
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿