The 2021 Tansley Lecture featuring Stephanie Kelton
— 地域通貨花子１ (@TiikituukaHana) November 7, 2021
2021/04/08https://t.co/Mpj4DtyA4h
2021/04/22公開
バンコールへの言及 https://t.co/s2PBtDZHf5
kelton:[bancor] 1:09:30 pic.twitter.com/o2ldtQjEbA
https://youtu.be/kjUlSVJmNrY?t=4160
kelton:[bancor] 69:30
well i think there's some sympathy for keynes's notion now it's not the same as a one world currency sort of thing but um doing something to reform the international monetary system in ways that in a sense level the playing field especially for developing economies because what you end up with so often are countries that get into a cycle right on a treadmill.
where they're trapped uh in developing st in developing country status they never get an opportunity to develop because they're always you know um extracting resources for export producing for exports so that they can get the dollar so they can turn around and hand the dollar over to the creditor because they've borrowed dollars.
because they need you know medicines and food or energy or something. and and they can't get you know currency independent current sovereign in that respect but they also can't get uh independent with respect to essentials right uh developing.
so you know i i think that um randy and some of the legal scholars rowan gray and uh nathan tankis and scott fullweiler and and others fadel khabub have been working along these lines of thinking about how to reimagine the international uh monetary system the use of swap lines and and that sort of thing.
so there's some sympathy i just don't think that most of us want to just grab the bank corp and say this is our plan you know what i mean.
kelton:[bancor] 69:30
ケインズの考え方には共感できるところがあります。一つの世界通貨のようなものとは違いますが、国際通貨システムを改革して、特に発展途上国のために、ある意味で公平な競争条件を整えようとしているからです。
発展途上国の状態に陥り、発展の機会を得ることができません。なぜならば、常に資源を採掘して輸出し、生産して輸出することで、ドルを手に入れ、そのドルを債権者に渡してしまうからです。
なぜなら、彼らは薬や食料、エネルギーなどを必要としているからです。その点では、通貨の独立、現在の主権を得ることはできませんが、必需品の権利や発展に関しても独立することはできません。 ランディや法学者のローワン・グレイ、ナタン・タンキス、スコット・フルワイラー、そしてファデル・カブブなどが、スワップラインなどを使って国際通貨システムを再構築する方法について考えています。
共感できる部分もありますが、私たちの多くは、銀行団を捕まえて、これが私たちの計画だと言いたいわけではないと思います。
www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。
他にJGP、ミンスキーに言及。50:30
2021/04/08 ケルトン The Tansley Lecture ~ The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy - Graduate School of Public Policy
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/news-events/events/2021/04/the-tansley-lecture-the-deficit-myth-modern-monetary-theory-and-the-birth-of-the-peoples-economy.php
The Tansley Lecture ~ The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy
Video Conference
Named in honour of Donald D. Tansley and his remarkable career as a senior civil servant in Canada, The Tansley Lecture is one of Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy's flagship events.
The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy
Deficits matter, but not in the way we've been taught to believe. This is especially true in Canada, where many think that deficits brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s and that recent federal deficits risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Underlying these worries is a belief that deficit spending is like running up credit card debt: it can easily get out of hand and burdens future generations. This reasoning lies behind arguments that we can't afford to take decisive action on climate change, find a solution to the water crisis in Indigenous communities or address countless other policy problems. These are myths. Deficits can be used for good or evil. They can enrich a small segment of the population, driving income and wealth inequality to new heights, while leaving millions behind. Or, they can be used to sustain life and build a more just economy that works for the many, and not just the few.
April 8 | 7:00 - 8:30 pm (CST)
Due to COVID-19, the 2021 Tansley Lecture will be delivered via Zoom. Those interested in attending this year's free, online lecture must register in advance.
--
Presented by: Stephanie Kelton
Stephanie Kelton is a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University and a Senior Fellow at the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research. Her most recent book, The Deficit Myth (June 2020), became an instant New York Times bestseller. She is a leading expert on Modern Monetary Theory and a former Chief Economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee (Democratic staff). Professor Kelton advises policymakers and consults with investment banks, and portfolio managers across the globe.
Event Details
- When:
- Time:
- 07:00 PM - 08:30 PM CST
- Location:
- Delivered by Zoom - Please register online and a link will be emailed to you.
JP 検索 9+ アバターの画像 The 2021 Tansley Lecture featuring Stephanie Kelton 84 回視聴•2021/04/22 2 0 共有 保存 jsgspp チャンネル登録者数 356人 The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy Deficits matter, but not in the way we’ve been taught to believe. This is especially true in Canada, where many think that deficits brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s and that recent federal deficits risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Underlying these worries is a belief that deficit spending is like running up credit card debt: it can easily get out of hand and burdens future generations. This reasoning lies behind arguments that we can’t afford to take decisive action on climate change, find a solution to the water crisis in Indigenous communities or address countless other policy problems. These are myths. Deficits can be used for good or evil. They can enrich a small segment of the population, driving income and wealth inequality to new heights, while leaving millions behind. Or, they can be used to sustain life and build a more just economy that works for the many, and not just the few. JSGS was pleased to welcome Stephanie Kelton: Stephanie Kelton is a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University and a Senior Fellow at the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research. Her most recent book, The Deficit Myth (June 2020), became an instant New York Times bestseller. She is a leading expert on Modern Monetary Theory and a former Chief Economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee (Democratic staff). Professor Kelton advises policymakers and consults with investment banks, and portfolio managers across the globe.
公開コメントを入力... 文字起こし
meeting again and welcome to the johnson shayama graduate school of public policies 2021 tennessee lecture my name is pavinia zamparez and i am an mpa candidate with johnson shayama and an executive intern with financial and consumer affairs authority of saskatchewan i will also be your emcee for tonight's events i would like to acknowledge that while the tennessee lecture is taking place online this year johnson shayama's physical homes at the university of regina and university of saskatchewan are located on treaty 4 and 3d6 lands and the traditional homeland of the metis we pay our respect to our first nations and main tea ancestors of this place and reaffirm our relationship with one another we would also like to welcome those of you joining us from across turtle island i am very much looking forward to tonight's discussion on this timely topic during the pandemic and considering that the budget is out and as governments plan for economic recovery and managing deficits i'm certain this will be a thought provoking presentation and discussion for all and a special learning opportunity for students now before we hear a few remarks from our executive director dr lolin bertol i would like to take care of a few housekeeping items we kindly ask that all attendees stay muted and turn off your video during the presentation portion of our event feel free to turn your videos back on for the q a the format for tonight's event is as follows following opening remarks our speaker dr stephanie helton will present for approximately 15 minutes followed by a fireside discussion with dr mark andrea pijong jsgs assistant professor and director of the canadian center for the study of cooperatives for the remaining time dr kelton will entertain audience questions moderated by dr pizon if you would like to ask a question please use zoom's chat function to submit your questions because we have a large audience and a short amount of time i would encourage you to keep your questions concise and to the point so that our speaker can respond to as many questions as possible if you have any logistical issues during tonight's presentation please don't hesitate to send a message to karen jester lockwood via zoom's chat function or email to school at jsgs.events at uregina.ca i am now pleased to introduce jhjs executive director dr lolin berto we will say a few words on behalf of on behalf of the school dr bertol thank you parvin and thank you everyone for being here it's so exciting to have so many people joining us from across the country and beyond and i'd like to take just a few minutes to say a few words about our school founded in 2007 by the university of regina and the university of saskatchewan the johnson chamber graduate school of public policy is well known and respected for its innovative graduate degree and micro-credential programs executive education training opportunities and research excellence like the rest of the world this past year has been one to remember in march 2020 our school pivoted to online learning and training for all students in order to meet the challenges presented by the covid19 pandemic.
however when faced with the trials of operating in a virtual world we also looked for opportunities our faculty executives and residents and staff worked collaboratively collaboratively across our two universities to support students our executive education team took its training online to continue supporting public servants and communities throughout the province and our researchers look for opportunities to secure national and provincial grants that focused on pandemic related research among other areas just last week our own doctor cheryl camillo was named a coke applicant on a nine million dollar grant to establish a national cove invariant rapid response network the week week prior doctor tyrone catapult was awarded more than half a million dollars to expand his co-away platform beyond covid19 to address a broad range of health issues such as mental health substance misuse and domestic violence as well as addressing communicable and non-communicable disease in northern indigenous communities not to mention faculty members dr justin longo dr murray fulton dr mark andrei pajang and dr yang yang received sixty thousand dollars to examine the latest impacts of digital technologies on public and agricultural sectors lastly through virtual events like the tanzley lecture we have been able to continue bringing together thought leaders academics students public servants and community members from across canada and around the globe to listen and learn about current issues affecting canadians speaking of thought leaders the late donald tansley was known and respected for his remarkable career as a senior public servant in canada an alumnus of the university of saskatchewan he began his career in the government of saskatchewan in the budget bureau under the guidance of al johnson donald was known for leading some of the most complex and contentious files in provincial government from rescuing ipsco from bankruptcy to implementing medicare and statute leading the modernization of the provincial government new brunswick and implementing highly controversial policies such as the program of equal opportunity in 1968 he moved to the federal public service where he served as vice president of the canadian international of the canadian international development agency pardon me adviser to the red cross ceo of the controversial anti-inflation board and finally he led the development of the department of fisheries and oceans donald tansley's character and commitment to the public service were undeniable often you would hear him encouraging colleagues to persevere through challenges and to take harsh judgments with a grain of salt two pieces of it pieces of advice i think would still resonate with our students today now that is enough from me i'm sure you would rather hear from our keynote speaker so i would like to invite to dr marco andre pischon to introduce our guest of honor rock andre great thank you so much loline um so dr stephanie kelton i'm going to refer to her as stephanie because we've known each other for going on 25 years now is a leading authority on modern monetary theory a sort of new i guess you could say approach to economics that has really captured the attention of the policy making space i'll refer a bit back to this in a in a few moments she's also considered one of the most important voices influencing that debate uh today and i think we'll we'll hear echoes of that as well through our conversation um her new york times bestseller the deficit myth modern monetary theory and the birth of the people's economy really kind of tries to get this question of the flawed thinking that um that she argues and i have a degree has kind of limited our policy makers around the world so in addition to stephanie's many academic publications and i'll refer to those a little bit later as well she's been a contributor to bloomberg opinion has written for the financial times new york times los angeles times u.s news and world report cnn and many others now as i mentioned stephanie's kind of been academia i'm going to come back to that minute but it's also important to point out her practical engagement in the political space she served as a chief economist on the u.s senate budget committee democratic staff in 2015 and as a senior economic advisor to bernie sanders 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns she's also a senior fellow at the schwartz center for economic policy analysis and a professor of economics and public policy at stony brook university stephanie has had visiting professorships at the new school for social research the university of ljubljana and the university of adelaide she is previously the chair of department of economics at the university of missouri kansas city now back to the kind of public engagement piece thing uh politico was called stephanie in 2016 one of the 50 most influential thinkers uh in 2019 bloomberg listed her as one of the 50 people who define that year uh barons named her as one of the 100 most influential women in finance in 2020 and prospect magazine listed her among the world's top 50 thinkers in 2020. now just add a little bit of a personal note to this stephanie is also a friend we first met about 25 years 23 years ago our offices were just next to each other when we were both passing through the levy economics institute just a little bit north in new york city um stephanie and i were both drawn to this place to work with a fellow named randy ray who's another leading figure in the mmt research community and i would add as well uh the late great win godley was one of the most influential economists in the united kingdom for decades and whose work has exerted influence on the development of mmt but also is really finding its way into central banks and department of finance including your own federal department of finance uh and that work can has a nice linkage to mmt i'd also add that that late 1990s period was a really kind of a special time in the history of ideas because in many ways it was the kind of pinnacle of the washington consensus what i call the washington consensus some people might say neoliberal suite of policy ideas and that included of course liberalized trade privatization of state assets and at the heart of that that consensus this notion of balanced budgets and i think that idea was really especially anchored in canada we're going to come back to that when stephanie and i engaged in a conversation but it was also equally true in the united states australia many other places that that was the anchor that kind of held all this this kind of suite of policies together and what was interesting was at the levy institute in the late 90s not only was mnt being developed as a kind of a research stream or thread but there was a really a lot of exciting research on wealth and income inequality and minimum wages a whole lot of issues that right now are kind of really in the fore so it was an exciting time and i feel very fortunate to have been passing through at that time so then with that i kind of want to just set that up because we're going to come back to this this trajectory of these ideas that were on the margin 20 25 years ago but are now at the center of the policy discussion and how did that happen so with that i'd like to ask you to please join me in welcoming stephanie kelton as our 13th annual tran tansley speaker.
uh i think this is a really opportune i didn't realize that the the mr tansley was involved in inflation board i think this is a nice tie into our conversation today so that stephanie i'm going to pass it over to you say a few marks and then we'll engage in a conversation.
kelton:
thank you uh marc andre and to all of you who um you know put forward this invitation and helped with the arrangements i'm delighted to be able to spend a bit of time with you this evening and i know that uh our time is limited and i do think that in many ways the most enjoyable part of this probably for me and all of you is going to come in the second portion when we actually just get to have some some dialogue so i don't want to take a tremendous amount of time um but i do want to sort of lay out uh a sort of broad brushstroke of of what modern monetary theory or mmt is and in some ways that's a challenge right because as marc-andre said this is a label mmt that is applied to a body of scholarship that has been developed now over a quarter of a century and by a number of economists and increasingly others from outside of economics legal scholars some historians and humanists and others so the body of work has grown and it's impossible to wrap your arms around it especially in a 10 or so minute kind of uh opening remarks but let me just uh start by telling you how i kind of came to this myself because this is a journey for me right i was studying economics i had a very conventional uh sort of training in economics many of my macro courses and money and banking finance type courses were very conventional and i began graduate uh school at cambridge university in 1995 in the fall and that is wrong in 1996 uh in the fall and uh that happened to be a time when you know countries were beginning to think about joining this economic and monetary union right you had the maastricht treaty this blueprint for introducing a common currency throughout parts of europe i was in the uk studying and at that time uh the british government was saying we don't think we're going to go in with you in this first phase we're going to let the rest of you go forward we'll sit back see how it goes and if it looks like things are working out all right you know we'll maybe we'll join you later and i remember that being such a big part of the conversation in not just you know at cambridge where i was studying and within economics but the politics right there was so much talk about this and i guess for me i started to then realize that there was something really big about this looming decision about whether to give up your currency and switch to using a different currency and in some ways a lot of the people around me were basically saying what difference does it make right it's going to be more efficient these are our main trading partners and so if we uh move to this common currency well it's mostly going to be beneficial because we're going to reduce a lot of transaction costs and we'll all be you know trading in the same currency and we'll have one central bank who will run monetary policy for the whole of the group that joins in and not much concern was paid actually to what it would mean for fiscal policy and mark andre you mentioned when godly's name and i had not met win yet but i would meet when just about a year later i got a fellowship from cambridge university to go to the levy institute and wynn godley was at levy and wynn had been the head of the department of applied economics at cambridge university so that's where he came from his academic home but then he went to the u.s and uh he was a very very interesting man extremely smart had very different ways of looking at things right his analytical framework was unlike anything i had been introduced to before and i started working with wynn and i started reading some of the things that wynn had written about the euro about the common currency and here was this man who as early as 1992 had laid out in the most incredibly clear fashion why it would be a mistake in his view for countries to move forward with this common currency project with the um the design that was in place in other words when saw a design flaw almost like a birth defect in this document in this master treaty which countries were signing onto and saying if we go forward we will all agree to these terms right we will be governed by one central bank it will conduct monetary policy for all of us we are all on our own when it comes to fiscal policy we will run our own fiscal policy and we will uh commit to playing by a certain set of rules we will in a sense have fiscal discipline we will not let our budget deficits rise in excess of 3 percent of gdp we will keep our debt to gdp ratios under 60 of gdp now some economists at the time were critical of those provisions they said i don't know if that's enough uh if that's enough leeway right what if they need a little bit of extra room wynn saw things very differently it wasn't that the thresholds were too restrictive it was that the design itself was going to transform countries that were previously uh able to run fiscal policy exercise fiscal policy in a way that would be most beneficial to their domestic economies right that they could maintain full employment that they could look after the economy uh manage chain you know the economy with using fiscal policy that is government spending and tax policy uh and that they would be giving up much more than just the ability to use monetary policy and have some constrained fiscal policy winds saw a much bigger problem so here i was thinking well something's you know interesting about this the the nature of the relationship between a nation and its currency right that when a government has the ability to issue its own currency and when that government doesn't promise to convert that currency into something it could run out of right the government is not promising to convert to gold or to some other country's currency but if you are a sovereign currency issuing government issuing a non-convertible floating exchange rate fiat currency that you have policy space available to you that countries that operate under more restrictive monetary systems do not have and that was winds real point that he was saying listen don't go forward until you fix the design flaw you're going to need fiscal policy and as mark andre said earlier you know there was this sort of consensus in macroeconomics that really you don't need fiscal policy all you need is a credible independent central bank that it alone right has the tools necessary to manage the economy through the business cycle that governments should mostly turn their attention to you know getting their budgets in order balancing budgets and and preventing budgets from moving into deficit on any kind of sustained basis and wind just saw things uh completely differently you know he used something i think he pioneered a framework called the sectoral financial balances framework and in my book i i try to put forward what could otherwise get complicated using just a series of buckets and i'm going to close with this uh little statement okay so i want you to imagine that you're interested in keeping your domestic economy healthy right you want lots of jobs you want good economic conditions domestically low inflation high levels of employment that's the bucket that you're worried about your domestic private sector so think of the canadian economy right you have a government bucket and the government bucket is important.
because the government bucket can let's say pour some dollars into the private sector to keep the private sector healthy you got one more bucket okay so we're dealing with three buckets the other bucket is the rest of the world and it's the interaction the interplay between the financial balances right the flows between and among these buckets that wind thought were important so if the goal is to keep the center bucket healthy the private sector healthy how can you do that well there are different options one option is that the rest of the world is providing very strong demand for the goods and services that come out of your economy and that's producing lots of demand and supporting jobs and you're getting good economic growth but not too much pressure and so not a lot of inflation but if you don't have a a trade surplus if the rest of the world does not have a huge appetite for the things that you produce then that bucket might actually be a drain on your economy in our case in the us it certainly is and in canada's case right if you have trade deficits or what are more appropriately called current account deficits that foreign sector bucket is draining off some of your dollars all right so how do you compensate for that well the government bucket can come in and replace some dollars that are being lost to the rest of the world in other words it's a little bit complicated to do kind of in a a short using my hands and my buckets but the point the point is that the government's deficit is nothing more than the difference between the number of dollars that the government spends into the economy each year and the number of dollars it subtracts back out each year so we are so accustomed to hearing the word deficit and having this adverse reaction right a deficit oh that's a bad thing right that's something you're supposed to try to avoid no no no deficit is neither good nor bad surplus is neither good nor bad what matters is the health of the economy if you have a well-balanced economy high levels of employment low inflation if your economy is balanced the number that falls out of the budget box at the end of each year whether it's a deficit or a surplus is irrelevant what matters is is the budget helping you to balance the broader conditions in the economy so every deficit is good for someone right if the government's budget is in deficit it means they are spending more dollars into the economy than they are subtracting away mostly through taxation in other words they're doing more adding than subtracting and when they do that somebody's on the receiving end receiving that financial surplus on the other side of every government deficit lies a financial surplus in some other part of the economy the question is for whom and for what right so we have governments yours mine governments around the world that have been running sizable fiscal deficits in response to covid and the ensuing economic fallout those deficits have produced enormous financial surpluses in the rest of the economy that is support for the rest of the economy now will those deficits need to remain large forever no the economy will recover we will eventually beat covet and as we do and as the economy begins to recover the need for that fiscal support will diminish and the budget deficit can safely come down right i think so much of the debate now is beginning to turn to should governments try to wrestle the deficit back down should they actively try to go in and cut spending or increase taxes in order to focus on you know rebalancing the budget outcome and my position would always be that you never want to make the budget outcome the target of economic policy the target of economic policy are real conditions in the economy and again if if you can achieve a good economy with your budget like this so be it right if you can achieve a good economy with your budget like this so be it that's not what it what is important so there's so much more that we could do but let's let's try to have a bit of conversation at this point.
:kelton
for sure stephanie and i think you you know just before we got on here he said let's have an organic conversation so i'm gonna i'm gonna run with that so you said a couple things that really got my attention about the eu for example because interestingly and this just came to my mind in the late 90s there was an active conversation about forming a north american monetary union not so much in the united states but in the canadian space this was the dominant topic in my when i was working the library department the research division and i you know it just strikes me as really relevant also because robert mundell who was at the kind of heart of these this thinking um just passed away so i'm wondering if you you know if you can reflect a little bit on that um robert mundell's passing that he was a canadian economist had some profile globally uh but he was really that that kind of a key figure in a lot of this currency union thinking um so do you have any kind of thoughts you can share about that and and maybe about canada dodging the bullet in terms of not signing up for a north american monetary union well we all dodged a bullet i mean we would have all similarly situated ourselves in in the place of a a currency using government right i mean that's the reality when you look at what the decision in europe was and his work was extremely influential there was used to justify it was sort of the theoretical justification for the introduction of the common currency in the eurozone and so you know again it comes back to this belief this this underlying faith in the power of monetary policy and in the you know the lack of necessity really for fiscal uh and uh and so yeah you dodged a bullet we dodgeable i don't think i don't know that we ever came very close you know i remember those conversations uh and you know that one beyond that which is a world currency a one world currency around the same time people were saying why stop there you know we could just have a one world currency sort of thing let me pick up on that stephanie because we've come a long way from those conversations right a lot of those conversations are dead in the water and they seem an anachronistic and so how and mmt has kind of come in and filled a bit of a gap how how did that happen how did mmt in your view go from the margins of the discussion to kind of really the center of the discussion i'll just for the audience to say i'll flag a few things that happened just this week uh uh uh sorry i'm blanking on his name now but uh oh good heart charles goodheart um a leading central bank theorist i think you probably know a little bit um just the other day said everyone's doing mmt they just don't like to admit it okay.
and and you know maybe he's got the framing wrong but it's still illustrative of how mmt has permeated the conversation the cd how institute here in canada probably are our most high profile think tanks certainly our most influential i've taken these ideas seriously enough to come up with a policy brief last month and then an editorial this week where they they actually concede some important points about m t but but they warned about the siren song right and then bloomberg not too long ago had a headline saying you know telling promising promising to tell how mmt won the fiscal policy debate so how did we get there how did we move from this conversation was very focused on budget balances currency unions privatization trade agreements to something that looks quite a bit different today.
kelton: 27:52
well i think there are a lot of things that happened that have shifted the policy debate in i will say in our direction i'm i'm willing to say that.
because look again 25 years i say this all the time the the mmt scholarship has well i mean the core of mmt has not changed what we have said from the very beginning is still core central tenets of mmt um the idea that the government can't run out of money the idea that as the issuer of the currency the government must spend first the taxes aren't necessary that you can't you know fiscal sustainability all these debates that we were engaged in over the decades we just continued to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again and what has happened is and i think it's quite clear is that so much of the macro discourse has just inched its way in our direction over time now you're asking you know how did that happen well to some extent i think you know getting a record in place and having the scholarship and and just being able to demonstrate that you were thinking correctly about a lot of these things over time and so being right matters in a sense right people begin to take notice for us early on there were journalists who started to pay attention to our work there was a journalist at reuters there was a journalist a business insider and there was a journalist at the wall street journal three different guys right and they started looking at the stuff that we were writing and they just were open-minded and they started to think well they're saying things that are so different that runs so counter to the mainstream narratives in so many ways but gosh it's kind of interesting so started to write about it and engage with us and that gave us access to different and larger platforms to get our ideas out there and then i think you know they just started to in a sense catch on and and people started to be more persuaded by the work that we were doing and and sharing and then you had the great recession and you had deficits increase and people sort of said oh well i guess fiscal policy is important but there was still that belief that it's the kind of thing that you know you keep on the wall behind the glass that says break in case of emergency right you're not supposed to be really relying on and integrating in a in a permanent sort of tool kit the use of fiscal policy.
and now here we are with covet and so i'll just kind of close with this the um after in in the u.s context after the republicans cut taxes in 2017 right they had these massive tax cuts and democrats hated them and many democrats including some very high profile ones made the case very publicly that if the republicans were successful in pushing through the tax cuts that it was going to leave the u.s i will use his words living on a shoestring for decades to come because of the deficits that is a quote that we would be unable to respond with fiscal policy if the economy were to slow down and i said no this can't be right you know the deficits of the past don't constrain your fiscal capacity in the future so i penned the thing for bloomberg and i said this is not right when the next downturn comes we will use fiscal policy and of course the next downturn came and what did we do multi-trillion dollar legislation one after another after another we're spinning out bills no pay fors no problems no increase in taxes no spike in it you know what i mean so i think the answer is a complicated combination of of factors but that's kind of what i think got us to where we are great thanks stephanie so uh i'm going to restrain myself from asking who you're referring to in terms of that public debate but the uh the uh they are if you feel comfortable going well i mean i wrote about it so it's larry summers right right right yeah but paul krugman had a column and called it you know deficits matter again and was warning about the the dangers of increasing the deficit uh with the tax cuts and it was supposed to in in his piece it was going to lead to crowding out as interest rates went up and all this stuff just didn't happen right i think we've had very similar discourse of course in canada probably many other places in the world i want to just kind of drill down on the canadian story a little bit uh because i think some of our audience members will will certainly be thinking and asking themselves this question.
um so you know i think you and i talked a bit about this but there's this story that canadians tell ourselves about our fiscal policy history um there was this golden era of the first post-war period 1950s 60s where you know maybe on balance budgets were balanced over a cycle that kind of thing and our debt to gdp ratio kind of trended down and then there was this kind of awful period in the 1980s where you know we we ramped up the spending carrie elliott trudeau the father of our current prime minister is widely discredited because of this and then and then you had our our our uh our thatcher our reagan the mulrooney conservatives come in and try to get this straight or they are claimed to anyway deficits keep growing then we finally get it right we get the liberals come in in 1993.95 and they their their confronted story goes they're confronted with this really big problem 35 cents on every dollar is going to service the debt uh we have a high debt to gdp ratio the wall street journal is selling us if you guys don't get your house in order you're going to be an honorary member of the third world the canadian dollar risk becoming a mexican peso it was a scary time at least that was the frame that's the framing of the story and then there was this kind of heroic effort to turn things around and by 97 98 we're back to balance and then canada becomes the land of balanced budgets for the next 10 12 years right through the financial crisis and after we we quickly come back to that position you know by 2015 we're back in balance and the world is good so this this is the story we tell ourselves and at the heart of that story i think are these bond vigilantes right these people that are going to discipline a country like canada which is not the united states doesn't have a reserve currency this is the the other part of the story and we have to be careful because we have a we're a small open economy with a floating exchange rate and we have these constraints that maybe the u.s doesn't have and that's that's the perspective uh from the more enlightened critiques of mmt let's put it that way so what do you think what do you make of that that story about the vigilante bondholders and i'd ask you to maybe describe the relationship between MMT and that bondholding community what is that you've been on the inside what what do they say when when when you talk to them about these things well it depends who you talk to i i was talking this morning to a friend of mine paul mccauley who was the chief economist at pimco for a period of time now pimco was the largest bond fund in the world right .
and if you if you ask paul mccully about this story uh he will tell you you know what so many of my uh friends who are in this space will tell you that it was never real okay you you are not at the at the mercy of the investor class or whatever you want to call it right of of bond markets when you are a sovereign currency issuing government now i think that you know the canadian government did have some foreign denominated debt and you probably were borrowing in dollars at the time but look you when you are the currency issuing government the most important thing to recognize is that you never have to borrow your own currency from anyone why would you right you're you literally have the the legal authority in our case the sole legal authority the u.s government has to issue the currency i can't do it right private businesses can do it state local governments can't do it if everybody else could do what the federal government could do then the government wouldn't doing be doing you know sending checks to people to try to help them uh out in the pandemic and business small business loans and all that kind of stuff to keep workers on payroll money for state local governments they can't do what you can do so you never have to borrow your own currency from anyone in order to spend it that's a really important point if you choose to offer people a way to hold their dollars right in a government security an interest bearing government bond you can also choose the interest rate that you are willing to pay on that security now that doesn't mean that the government always exercises that power it might give markets some some room to run so to speak and you know during that same time period we had alan greenspan and alan greenspan went and famously you know went to bill clinton and made a deal.
and uh greenspan said to clinton if you will back off uh of these middle-class tax cuts that you have promised then we will work monetary policy in a more favorable way for you and so forth so i mean it's a complicated history we are hearing even today uh here in the u.s we're hearing stories like well don't you remember the morning that we woke up and paul volcker had uh raised interest rates 200 basis points and oh that could happen again so we better not do this next infrastructure package because markets might not like it and and so you know we do we do tell these sorts of stories but canada has every bit uh as much capacity to manage its budget in a way that's like what the us or japan or australia or other sovereign currency issuing governments can can do.
t：
yeah i want to pick up on that you mentioned japan and that's that's a kind of classic kind of case study i guess of of mmt uh and and they've had very substantial deficits for for many many years now and their interest rates are at rock bottom and and as you know there was famously for a long time what was referred to as the widow trade right where people would bet against japan.
and they kept losing um so i'm kind of interested in digging down just a little more into the kind of investment community's interest in mmt because it seems to me that's where a lot of these ideas first found a voice uh or a place for for people that willing to listen why do you think that is the the very same people that were told to fear their their decision-making are the same ones who embraced mmt out the gate so what what's what's going on there what do you think is going on there.
kelton：3848
well first i think that you know because warren mosler who you know came with these this set of ideas in the mid 1990s and you know uh got these ideas in front of a small group of economists who then started to wrestle with his thinking what warren came from wall street warren was a bond trader and so there's a level of respect i think among other traders when they know that the ideas can be traced back to someone who you know uh lives in their world comes from their world and so there was less hesitancy to listen to the academics who were working with warren mosler and uh and so forth but the other piece of it marc andre is um they they just want to get it right and if they think that you have a better narrative especially with respect to monetary operations if they think that you understand the mechanics of the monetary system and the nature of government finance and you can explain interest rates and you you can you know the relationship between deficits and interest rates or interest rates and inflation or something and they think that they've got capital at risk and if they bet wrong and you mention the widowmaker trade if you're walking around and in your head you have um a belief that beyond some debt to gdp ratio everything falls apart and the government's going to be forced into bankruptcy it's going to end up like greece then yeah you start shorting jgbs and then you you find out that it never happens and so the widowmaker trade you know a lot of people um you know didn't survive that trade that's why it's called the widowmaker trade so my experience has been uh with people on wall street that they just they're open they're open to hearing people who think differently that don't want to lose money and if you can persuade them that you have a better kind of framework from within which to analyze macro they're they're totally open to it you know i um one of the earliest kind of things that i did outside of academia with wall street grew was um you know i was in kansas city and i got an invitation to come to new york city and have dinner at the 21 club and this invitation came from someone who knew warren and he said you know you come and i want you to just talk mmt with us we'll have dinner and we'll have some folks there so to me dinner and some folks meant you know a round table with six people and so i walk into the 21 club in new york city which is a very famous uh restaurant and i go upstairs and they've got the private dining room and there's a giant table you know huge rectangular table it had to hold 40 people and i had i had no idea i wasn't prepared you know for that and then i show up and everybody around the table is you know jp morgan and bmp parabola and all the and and i and i sit down and they said well if you could just you know talk for a couple of hours and i thought wait a minute one right no slides no notes no nothing and i just stood up and did it and then it became interactive and then from that point on many of those people just continued to you know uh invite me to do things with their their groups after because you know they on some level i guess they were convinced and persuaded that there was merit in what they had heard.
t ：
so so speaking of interactive stephanie we got a lack of questions i'm going to ask you one last question and then i'll turn some of the uh i'll turn to the audience questions if that's okay um so look you've had a good reception in the act in the finance community increasingly amongst policymakers but i'm kind of get i'd like you to maybe think a bit about where the where this conversation is going um there's still a lot of people that you know i'd say are you know we say in the mmt community they're out of paradigm right they're still far from from accepting a lot of the what's what's in mmt um mmt is still far from dominating economic textbooks uh and in fact it's really hard to find a space for it in a lot of academic conversations so so can you kind of project forward what do you see kind of playing out here um in the conversation as mmts kind of move to the center of the the broad public conversation.
kelton：4310
i mean textbooks are hard right you know there's a there's a textbook author there is an mmt textbook i have it on the shelf behind me uh i wouldn't call it an mmt textbook but a macro textbook written by 3mt economists so there is a lot of mmt in it um textbooks are really tough and that they managed to do that uh is kind of heroic in many respects because uh there's another economist david colander and david colander has a you know written um textbooks and and many additions over the years and i think david has uh told this story over and over again how difficult it is to get anything in a textbook that is a departure from what the mainstream is offering and teaching and he says at most you can do 10 deviation that's it you can't go beyond 10 or it won't get adopted and so that makes it really hard right i mean i never really liked to teach from textbooks when i was teaching principles in intermediate sometimes you feel compelled but you can put together material without a textbook but uh does it have to get into textbooks in order to go sort of next level i don't know if it would be i guess helpful if we could start from scratch and and try to lay everything out correctly from first principles right uh i don't know i what i do know is that i get lots and lots of email from students who are taking courses at harvard or michigan or wherever you know penn and i get a lot of email and they are discovering mmt on their own and then they're bringing it into the classroom and that is sometimes uh unwelcome and you know because they're in this in effect they feel like they're challenging maybe a professor with a different framework and and a different set of you know a different approach but um i i just think you know there's what's the old joke science makes progress one i it's you know one funeral at a time uh then the next the next crop of students they're they're learning they're learning and they're questioning and so i don't know.
t：
yeah i mean i think i i might add i think you mentioned earlier that there's kind of been an impending of m t beyond the economic space into history and law and other yeah so there seems like there's some opportunity to kind of have this broader conversation based on some of these ideas um okay stephanie so i'm going to turn to one of our questions i'm just going to take these sequentially so no selection bias on my part here if there's if there's only time for one question um our interlocutor asks this is what i want to want to know what is the longevity of mmt most would agree the deficit spending is needed right now to stimulate the economy but is it sustainable in the long run and what is the mmt relationship with taxation i guess that's two questions but i think the first one is really kind of hitting at this inflation issue and your recent new york times editorial kind of touches on that so maybe you can talk about that the deficit spending and it's kind of longevity you kind of refer to it but maybe elaborate.
kelton：4621
well i i wasn't sure what the it was in the question is it sustainable over time if it meant mmd or deficits but let's assume it means deficits so you know i in my adult life no in in my entire lifetime the government's budget in the u.s has been balanced or in surplus four years four years not going to tell you how old i am but that's a lot of years of sustained fiscal deficits deficits are the norm right there's nothing inherently problematic about a deficit it just depends on the demand leakages like i said you got these other buckets every dollar that is taxed away from me is a dollar that i don't have and can't spend chasing after some good or service in the economy so this is tying into the other part of the question about taxes so you got taxes are a leakage every dollar that i choose to save and don't spend is a dollar that can't be captured by some business trying to sell its output for you know revenue and profits and every dollar that i spend buying goods and services that are produced abroad rather than here domestically is a dollar that some u.s producer can't capture so you've got demand leakages and the question is always what are the offsets what are the injections that are helping to maintain the economy so that the output gets sold so if business investment is robust that's a strong injection if um government spending is strong robust that's a strong injection if the rest of the world is buying goods from us and we have strong exports that's a strong injection in other words the stronger the investment and the export channels are demanding demand then the less need there is for government spending so it's just about calibrating those flows and the you know it's like saying will you need a deficit five years from now i don't know tell me what the demand leakages are going to look like you know i think the story you've just told i mean i think templates really nicely on what happened with canada in that late 90s period we had a tremendous export boom largely going to the united states and that facilitated that that budget moving into balance right i think that part of the story gets left out a lot so i think that's that's a really important uh consideration the thing is mark andre real quick you had an export boom that facilitated the right the the healthy bucket for the canadian uh private sector what we had was the beginning for a dot-com bubble and then we had the beginning of a housing bubble and so we did we we did not have i'll say the benefit quote unquote of the export strong export channel what we had was uh a real housing bubble that allowed right uh the private sector for a period of time households to leverage up and drive a tremendous boom that on the surface superficially pushed the government budget in into surplus and it looked like it was producing a great economy but of course it was all unsustainable because it was being driven by private sector deficits and those aren't sustainable public sector deficits.
t：
right and i i think there's there's two two uh two points i'd make on that one was uh the us was i i in the world i was traveling we were characterizing the u.s as a the buyer of last resort they were buying up everything from all over the world right and generating that demand outside of the united states um but also uh in a canadian context that your your point about the household sector um really resonates because we have a highly indebted household sector in canada a very leveraged housing sector uh that is worrying a lot of people and and and what concerns me is that if the policymakers start ratcheting back and moving towards the surplus dramatically um the the consequences for that household sector could be could be significant right um they're already pretty fragile so i think there's a we may be playing out the story that happened in the united states not too long ago so we have we have another question here um and it's about the job guarantee idea maybe you can talk a bit about that we didn't we didn't get into that stephanie but it's an important element of mnt can you con just expand on that idea of a job guarantee and and and the resistance that you you see or don't see around that idea that's that's basically the question that's being asked.
kelton：5046
yeah i watched part of a webinar today with um a number of people i was the webinar was about a job guarantee and they were all labor labor union leaders and they're all they were all you know championing the importance of a job guarantee from their perspective as as labor uh leaders now you know the idea goes back so far you can find this in the work of hyman minsky and i'm sure there are people listening in right now who are familiar with with minsky i think he was one of the most important economists of the last century and minsky was writing about this uh in the early 1960s and you know minsky is someone who right he's an academic he's an economist but he's also his area of expertise is in finance financial markets banking right and so minsky had this idea that he said okay we have a lender of last resort we have figured this out when it comes to the financial system we went through panic after panic and depression and bank runs and all this kind of stuff and we figured out that what we need is an institution whose job it is in part to quell you know discord in financial markets to deal with a lack of liquidity in financial markets to act as a lender of last resort to maintain liquidity at all times in in the financial system but he said it's curious we didn't invent anything an analog on the fiscal side so he said why don't we have an employer of last resort and that we used to call it elr or employer of last resort many many years ago and we've sort of transitioned to calling it a federal job guarantee but the principle is the same and minsky's point was why don't we ensure that the labor market is always sufficiently liquid and what that meant to him was that the government could establish right basically an open-ended job offer a standing offer of employment a public option in the labor market and essentially create a perfectly elastic demand curve so that you've got the price fixed and then you take everybody who comes and you create employment for them you hire them right at that wage and minsky had a variety of you know ways of defending the proposition right that you would have this liquid labor market that would act as a powerful new automatic stabilizer so that when the economy goes into a natural downturn instead of businesses shedding workers and they become unemployed many of them long-term unemployed and then many of them unemployable because skills deteriorate right labor scarring we're starting to here today right instead they can transition into a new form of employment stay employed work habits are maintained skills can be upgraded and so forth and they are ready as a pool of employed workers to be hired back into the private sector when the private sector is ready to restore jobs and so it's a program that would cushion the economy through the business cycle you hire in when the economy is weak and you release workers from the program when the economy recovers and you have the social and economic benefits but the the powerful automatic stabilizer is um one that you know minsky uh emphasized as well.
t：
so that idea found its way if i'm not mistaken into the green new deal proposals correct stephanie and and oh yeah can we speak about that the kind of political side of it i mean i know you're it's not your research area but you've been engaged in that space what what is that story what does that story look like is there an appetite for that and politically in the united states or elsewhere.
kelton：
oh there's a huge appetite i mean that's uh we have a congresswoman congresswoman ayanna pressley from massachusetts who just what a month ago introduced a resolution calling for a federal job guarantee and it is centered around this very idea that i just sketched out but it is so much rooted for her in the civil rights movement in the idea of equality and centering justice and if you're talking about a green new deal where you know we're potentially talking about touching almost every part of the economy transforming the way we live and work it's housing it's agriculture it's energy it's um you know uh transportation then there has to be a just transition for people through this you know years long transition off of fossil fuels and so the idea of a job guarantee is very central to the green new deal for um you know or organizations behind the green new deal for many lawmakers because they see it as a way to ensure that whatever happens in these years that we're transitioning that there is always the stability of you know a good job living wage with benefits through the process.
t ：
right um so we have uh 48 new questions coming through stephanie uh but we have until about 8 20 our time uh which is i realized pretty late for you so we'll we'll hang in there i hope um so here's the next question stephanie and i i kind of know where you're going to go with this but i'll ask it anyway what happens when the healthy economy cannot pay enough in taxes to make payments on the debt that have been incurred i think there's an opportunity here to kind of reiterate some points you made earlier but that that's the question that's being asked right now.
kelton：
yeah so again you know the thing in that we try to do in mmt is to get the sequencing right so the conventional narrative goes like this right this the taxpayer is at the center of the monetary universe everything revolves around the taxpayer and as margaret thatcher told us you know the government has no money of its own there is only taxpayer money so at the end of the day uh we have to foot the bill for everything and mmt says no no no there is public money right she's wrong about that the government does have its own source of money. and if you get the sequencing right you recognize that the government spends first and only after it spends its currency into existence can the rest of us actually get it have it to either pay taxes or buy government bonds so if we get the sequencing right then we can see that by the time the bonds are sold the spending has already happened and so when we talk about you know how do we pay back the debt this i think it's very confusing because we're using terms that really don't apply to a currency issuer the currency issuing government is not really borrowing the currency issuing governor is not really taking on debt not in the sense that we borrow and that we take on debt right if i walk into a bank and i sit down with the loan officer and it's marc andre and i show up and and he's sitting at the desk and he says can i help you i say i'm here to borrow money he says oh how much money do we want what do we want money for and i say oh here's my business plan or i'm gonna you know buy a home or a car or whatever and he sizes me up and he decides whether i'm a reasonable credit risk likely to repay the loan on time and so forth he can make a loan to me right i walk out in debt the government does not do that okay when the government borrows let's do this the government matches its deficit spending by selling bonds right so the government spends a hundred dollars into the economy and only taxes 90 back out we label that a deficit we say the canadian government deficit is minus 10. now you match your deficit by selling bonds okay so you put 100 in you take 90 out you've made a deposit you got 10 canadian dollars sitting there but now you're matching the deficit up by selling bonds so what happens is the 10 don't go in the 10 in bonds go in in other words it's like me walking into marc-andre setting the money down on his desk and then saying may i have a loan please right i'm giving you i'm putting the cash down. and then it doesn't make any sense to refer to that as borrowing and no future taxpayer will be harmed uh in the you know retiring of government bonds all we're talking about is shifting funds from one account at the central bank to another account at central bank right paying down the debt means debiting the securities account and crediting the reserve account.
t：
so i think that that's that's the part where i think people get stuck there's a that that kind of detailed accounting exercise that you you've run through in the mmt literature does a real nice job of uh so i i i think that's that's a really important point and it links to i think this conversation the next question we have here is around um the the u.s states and i would say provinces as well and maybe some sub-national jurisdictions elsewhere are often restricted or prohibited from deficit spending constitutionally otherwise so there's this take and i think this i know where you're going to go with this but does this take an important tool out of the toolbox during a recession or does it importantly ensure some level of fiscal discipline at that sub-national level and maybe maybe i'll just add on stephanie if you could talk about that relationship between the sovereign level and that sub-national level what kind of policy should we see there and given sometimes these constitutional restrictions or other self-imposed limits on on discipline .
kelton：
yeah i mean it it is it works the way that it works here with respect to you know our 50 states and and territories they do not have the ability to do what the federal government can do almost every state is subject to a balanced budget requirement so what happens in good times you're okay right because you know you have strong growth you have strong income uh growth tax revenues are increasing the the economy is producing enough activity to buoy the receipts of the state government or the provincial government and that's allowing them to maintain state services and operations and so forth what happens is that economies don't just run in perpetuity in boom mode eventually you hit a speed bump i mean you hit a you you hit a bump and you go into recession and when you go into recession tax receipts tend to fall off a cliff and depending on the depth of the recession they might fall sharply uh off a cliff and so then what right you you don't have the ability to do what the currency issuing government can do what the federal government can do so you scramble and we saw that here we had state uh governors across the country we had mayors imploring the federal government please get us aid please help us because if you don't there's only one option on the table for us now technically they could try to raise taxes but most of them don't want to do that so they go slashing budgets it's teachers who are laid off right it's essential workers who are losing jobs public services are being cut the transit doesn't run as often all that sort of stuff so we've finally come around to this and then the last coveted relief package here we've got 350 billion going to state and local governments but it is something the currency issuer can do it can send that one-way cash dispensation is you know no strings attached whereas left to their own devices they they have really difficult you know choices budget cuts or maybe some limited borrowing but then you're talking about taking on debt in a weak in a weak state and then potentially having difficulty paying it back.
t：
there's lots of interesting permutations on this conversation because there there could be a case in a federation like canada where you have provinces that are constrained as you've described. and you have a central government that's not constrained in the same way and uh there's this dynamic tension around who has what jurisdictional responsibility how much should the provinces be on the hook for their own decisions how much should they expect from the federal government transfers i mean really meaty political economy questions that i don't think mmt purports to solve right there's these very real political dispute debates that still play out in that space and i don't know if you have any reflections on that. i mean there is some solution but there is also a jurisdictional tension here that i think persists right.
kelton：
yeah i mean we we have those uh we've had those debates here as well lots of finger pointing right because people say well if the government's just going to bail out um the the governors who've mismanaged their finances or the obama's over-promised with the pensions or something and we all start finger-pointing but the reality is that i think in our case six or seven of the ten most needy states are red states republican states uh so the reality is everybody needs everybody needs the help and uh and they're gonna get it.
t：
okay so here's a question that's completely off we're going to switch directions a little bit it's about the 2008 crisis and we saw a lot of mistakes uh coming from the banking sector i guess um but the government felt obligated at that time to bail out the sector. um how do you what are your thoughts about that i i don't you know this is maybe a little bit of a stray but can you give me thoughts around that and what's the mmt perspective on that that bank bailout episode in in the hist recent history.
kelton：
yeah i mean yes we i launched the blog new economic perspectives right you know i think in the summer of 2009 so uh you know occupy wall street and some of those things started around 2011 but we were we wrote a lot during this period of time randy ray wrote an awful lot about this during that that period of time we didn't like it i mean you're right uh to say and i and i think that you know politically now um lawmakers understand that it was a big mistake the the way that the um financial crisis was handled or mishandled as the case may be and the total nurturing of wall street back to health at the expense well at the at the exclusion of doing what was needed to get main street back to health right that there was this belief that if you just rescue the banks in the financial system that will rescue the whole of the economy and that's just not the way it worked we didn't keep people in their homes millions and millions of people lost their homes i mean we had a so-called recovery that was anything but a recovery for millions of people who never felt it never never experienced a recovery while you know pundits were saying oh this is the recovery is underway and so forth and it just wasn't .
t：
so that kind of speaks to this next question stephanie because i think there's been some reflection within the democratic party that maybe they didn't manage that crisis as well as they could have and set up the conditions for trump for example to kind of come in and take take the ball um so so here's the question i think kind of relates to this point um it's dangerous for pulse makers to cling to miss what what recommendations do you have for getting them as well as the public to kind of abandon the deficit myth right i mean there's obviously your book but maybe you can just speak to some of that that changing conversation how how we do that how what's the way to make that happen in canada say as opposed to the united states.
kelton：
well listen i don't know i i can tell you that it's happening here i can tell you awesome you know i'm on the phone every week with lawmakers who sometimes you know just this week alone um my phone rings and i pick up the phone and it's a member of congress that i've never spoken to before who will say something along the lines of i read your book it's everything my thinking has completely shifted and let's get together let's have you come present let's do so i'm doing all of that here and it's um it is so it has gone so much further than i think almost anybody would believe uh because i don't really talk about it publicly but uh it's it's happening here now how do we make it happen there uh i understand there are maybe some lawmakers with us now i you know i i just think it's it isn't easy and you know this right because so much of the time what i have um what i've experienced is that lawmakers even when they begin to change the way they're thinking they don't know how to message it because they have for too many years been out there repeating things like blowing a hole in the deficit driving up the national debt this inflammatory language that they've used they've accused the people on the other side of the political aisle of you know destroying the nation's finances look what you've done you've wrecked and now how are you supposed to then come in and embrace uh more ambitious use of fiscal policy including the use of deficits where appropriate to to support the economy and to achieve you know macro goals and social goals and so forth it's tough if you've been out there you know beating the other guy over the head for adding to the deficit to then come out and find a way to reposition but i can i can tell you some of the most fun meetings i've had on the hill with lawmakers have been about exactly this how do we now that we've pushed ourselves in a corner how do we get out and those are fun conversations because you just start um you know everybody's going to have to take that leap at some point and you might just have to say we were wrong.
t：
there's a kind of reputation there's a kind of reputational inertia there that you have to overcome right but that's really sticking um so i i've got maybe two or three more questions stephanie and thank you for your patience for this is a really fun um listen this next question is going to take us again in a very different place uh didn't keynes push for a world currency the bank or to stop the problem of having a national currency act as a world reserve standard what do you think what is an mmt perspective on that issue of a global currency uh and keynes's notion of a bancor.
kelton:[bancor] 69:30
well i think there's some sympathy for keynes's notion now it's not the same as a one world currency sort of thing but um doing something to reform the international monetary system in ways that in a sense level the playing field especially for developing economies because what you end up with so often are countries that get into a cycle right on a treadmill where they're trapped uh in developing st in developing country status they never get an opportunity to develop because they're always you know um extracting resources for export producing for exports so that they can get the dollar so they can turn around and hand the dollar over to the creditor because they've borrowed dollars because they need you know medicines and food or energy or something.
70:00
and and they can't get you know currency independent current sovereign in that respect but they also can't get uh independent with respect to essentials right uh developing so you know i i think that um randy and some of the legal scholars rowan gray and uh nathan tankis and scott fullweiler and and others fadel khabub have been working along these lines of thinking about how to reimagine the international uh monetary system the use of swap lines and and that sort of thing so there's some sympathy i just don't think that most of us want to just grab the bank corp and say this is our plan you know what i mean.
:bancor
t:
right but a promising area of research how about we put it that way right that's the door for anyone's interested so here's here's the next question and i i again i'm anticipating your response but here's here's how it's framed i understand why deficits in debt don't matter in mmt theory i know you're going to react to that but if you take away the budget constraint for government leaders what mechanism will force them to make the difficult choices about what to spend on or or does mmt say they don't have to make a difficult decision as long as inflation stays low so that's the that's the question can you.
kelton:
that's the difficult decision first of all what stops them and it you're right to say i'm the hair on the back of my neck deficits in debt don't matter they do they just don't matter the way we've been taught to believe and you're right to center the risk the relevant risk is inflation there's an inflation constraint but look where we are today right where we are today is lawmakers do not agree on an infrastructure package and they likely won't agree and so part of what stops them from pushing too far is just fundamental disagreements about priorities what investments matter you know some want to put a very high premium on climate change and and education and health care and the other party wants to put a higher premium on you know regulatory and tax and maybe some you know skinny infrastructure roads and bridges kind of thing um but you know mmt is trying to say to lawmakers look when you put together legislation you should have in mind that there is an inflation risk and you should have to draw up your spending bill and have it vetted rigorously evaluated not to see whether it increases deficits over the next 10 years which is what we do now but to um to vet that proposed spending to see if you have properly adequately mitigated any inflation risk that might be seen and then you can just say to lawmakers instead of coming back with a bad score from the congressional budget office that says no this does too much to add to deficits you would come back and say actually you know based on our analysis you haven't mitigated the inflationary pressures of this sort of thing.
t:
yeah so that that's that's a really nice segue into this next question i want to i've skipped a few because you've already addressed some of these points that the questioners are asking but it's around this cd how piece that um i flagged early on in my comments and it it's interesting that that piece actually makes a number of concessions to m t for example they say they acknowledge the deaths that m t says deficits matter right in the way you just described um they they say that the governments have much more control over interest rates than we might commonly believe they they don't accept the crowding out story either they there's a lot of points that they kind of concede to mmt but they still fall back on this fear of the bond vigilante at the end of the day um so i'm wondering if you can kind of reflect on that because the question we have here is what are your thoughts on the mmt or they see how critique which i've just kind of laid out a little bit in the context of a small open economy like canada.
74:16
that's that's the crux of it .
small open economy with canada is vulnerable to these bond and currency traders who can drive our currency down stop buying our bonds drive up our yields slow the economy you know and create this this concern around debt spiral so what are what are your thoughts around that that argument i'm sure you've heard variations on that theme before so i'll throw that out at you.
kelton:
well i just come back again sometimes i do joke that uh the last mile to mmt is the longest mile because you can get like you said that you know the they can see this point they can see this point they can see this point and they get stuck where everyone gets stuck and where everyone gets stuck is but what if markets force rates higher what if the what if they don't what if the appetite for our debt isn't there to which i remind you that if we get the sequencing right the spending comes first the taxes and bonds come second and borrowing in your own currency is never an imperative why would a country that issues its own currency ever need to get its own currency borrow it from anyone we'd have to borrow dollars from china they can't turn off the spigot and no more dollars will come out and then the u.s is we tell ourselves this story right that if china ever wakes up one day and decides no more dollars for you we're turning it off that somehow we can't pay the bills it's nonsense right it's it's nonsense so you have to recognize that what you are doing as a government is it's just the net spending this thing we call the national debt is nothing more than a historical record right you're looking in the rearview mirror it's a historical record of your nation's cumulative net spending every single year that the government made a financial deposit to the economy put in more than they took out you kept a record and you wrote it all down and the number that you arrive at today is the look back it's the historical cumulative net spending they're the dollars that were spent in and not taxed back currently being held in the form of government securities that's a nice thing if you happen to have money that you can park in a government bond it's it's a risk-free reward right warren mosler calls it a subsidy for people who already have money it's like a universal bondholder income but the government should never feel compelled to make a universal bondholder income available to to anyone and if you do choose to do so remember that you can always manage the interest rate on those bonds the canadian central bank can always effectively take control of the yield curve and and even if rates go very high like they did here when we had paul volcker under reagan's presidency you know rates were rates were almost 16 on the 10-year treasury never fell below 7 reagan's entire term in office and what happened he did two massive tax cuts massively increased defense spending tripled the national debt and what and we made every interest payment on time and every you know and and it isn't about being uh you know small open economy you don't have to you don't have to issue the bonds if you don't want to.
t:
right so so uh interesting point about the debt as a kind of guaranteed income for rich people it it's also a deposit insurance if you want to think of it that way these it's a bulletproof deposit insurance scheme for for wealthy people as well they no no uh repayment risk and you you're you're kind of getting an interest payment along the way as well.
kelton:77:59
you know frank newman frank newman wrote a little book uh he wrote a couple of books i have them behind me uh one of them is called six myths that hold america back. frank newman was the deputy uh treasury secretary under secretary of the u.s treasury num you know deputy and uh frank says to your point that um the winners at a bond auction the winners get the treasuries and the losers he calls them are stuck holding their dollars in a bank account where they bear you know bank risk.
t:
right precisely um so stephanie this is literally the last question although we have 75 and q i will yeah that's we've got to stop um so this is back to it's the same theme but let's go to a kind of more emerging economy perspective uh and the question is where there's where we're going to see capital accounts assume more of the country's deficit spending if bonds are used to finance debt i'm just going to read the question and i haven't really interpreted but how would swapping bond financing with taxation remedy previous debt assumed by these economies so we're in an emerging economy context what's the story there maybe that's another way of thinking about what's the mmt story in an emerging context emerging economy context so not canada not the united states.
kelton:
yeah well it depends um i mean you you have emerging economies that are issuing local right debt denominated and local currency you've got emerging economies that are borrowing in foreign currency i mean um south africa has taken on u.s dollar debt in the covid um you know pandemics so um i'm not the question's not entirely clear but the the risks are very different right it's not so much whether you're emerging or not emerging but it definitely does make a big difference whether you are taking on dollar denominated debt many of these countries are much more vulnerable sensitive to sharp swings in the exchange rate and that mostly again goes back to if your exchange rate had a sudden you know sharp depreciation could you get medicine and technology and food and energy that you need.
t:
yeah listen stephanie this has been a wonderful conversation very generous of you i know you have a 6 30 a.m meeting tomorrow and it is 8 is 10 20 your time i would be in bed by this time normally and so i'm very grateful we're all very grateful for your time tonight thank you so much um i am now gonna turn it over to um i'm sorry uh parvin who's going to kind of bring us to the conclusion of our conversation thank you again stephen uh thank you dr kelton for your thoughtful and resourceful presentation and dr pizon for facilitating such an interesting and engaging q a session there are definitely many takeaways from these lessons of mmt for us to keep in mind to step past pandemic and leverage this potential i think what stood out most for me at a nice presentation was the comparison and drawing that line between the private sector deficits which can be unsustainable and avoiding the people of taking the same approach towards the public sector deficits that can be leveraged fairly sustainably if the inflation risk is carefully evaluated and mitigated another interesting takeaway for me was also drawing the line for where to maintain liquidity to function as a cushion for example for the labor market or the transitions as compared to the more conventional view of maintaining liquidity in all cases and as much possible at all costs thank you again for the amazing presentation and q a i am now pleased to turn the floor over to dr birdle who will present the 2021 mentor award and close tonight's event well thank you very much parvin and and thank you again stephanie for that amazing talk and to all of our our participants for for the the comments and questions in the chat um please uh feel free to express your gratitude as well in the chat it's it's just wonderful to have had such an amazing event it is my great pleasure to present our our mentor award tonight uh established in 2019 and awarded to one recipient annually the mentor award recognizes and thanks outstanding public servants who have served as mentors in our executive internship program contributed to the growth and development of our interns and have made ongoing contributions to the school this year we are very pleased to recognize nancy gardner director of the strategic and management branch in the public service commission with the 2021 mentor award many of you here tonight may know nancy gardner through her long and winding career path with the saskatchewan public service over the past 25 years she has had roles with energy and minds saskatchewan agriculture and eventually came to the hr service center with the public service commission in 2009 as manager of optimization and reporting it was during this time that she became interested in the wide wide wide world of policy and through the jsgs policy certificate program decided she wanted to be a policy analyst when she grew up nancy landed in her current position as the director of strategic management of the psc where she gets to combine her passion for all things planning with her expanding interest in policy in this case hr policy for government it is part the best part of her job is constantly learning from a staff of diverse policy professionals all of whom are former or current jsgs interns i will now let rebecca wallace a past intern and sunday lewis nancy's current intern talk about why she is deserving of this award nancy congratulations on this award it is so well deserved you were and you still are an incredible mentor and friend our time together at the psc set me up for success in ways i didn't even know at the time for those of you who don't know nancy but let's be real who doesn't know you i want to share a few ways in which she shines nancy is a culture builder she sees connections she brings people together and she helps them grow maybe by growing their waistlines because there always seems to be food involved nancy is so invested in others growth and learning opportunities she invited us to countless meetings committees and encouraged us to participate as much as possible kind of like when she voluntoled both me and sunday to lead smv's united way campaign nancy has so much energy that it's contagious maybe it has something to do with knowing all the coffee hot spots in regina and her endless runs to 33 and a third nancy is an incredible networker and connection maker this is why going to jsgs events with you can be draining she literally knows everyone nancy consistently recognizes others hard work and she's so supportive of her teens it was really meaningful when she nominated our ed glenda for chairs award so nancy thank you for everything and congratulations yes very well deserved congratulations to you nancy for the award um thank you for being the awesome human that you are a very kind and generous soul you saw very open and welcoming that you made me so comfortable to relate with you from the very first zoom call we had and now probably a million teams meetings together you know your style of leadership as a mentor is very enabling and empowering i'm very grateful for that invitations to meetings at the leadership table smt and you know even surprisingly at shares forum at the bean forum at the inter jurisdictional table and many others and the opportunity to lead various tasks in the branch have all provided great opportunities for my learning and development contributing to my growth in many different ways there are those times when i feel like i'm running out of ideas or that the challenge is too big and i know i just need to talk to you and those ideas start to flow again because you're a source of inspiration and energy you give planning a different perspective you make it so attractive and now i'm almost getting to become a planner the chats during our coffee works the words of affirmation the encouraging comments and the moments of ganda have always to prepare me for a future in the public service thank you nancy thank you for who you are and all you do and you do it the best way you know how and it is really but this will say cheers to you nancy and congratulations on your heart nancy thank you for your support for in developing the next generation of public servants and thought leaders i'd now like to invite nancy to unmute and uh and say a few words oh my goodness can you hear me yes we can okay well that's who it's all about for me it's about the robertas and sundays and maria's and yings and julia's and and jeff's and the others that i've had um the privilege of working with it really is a privilege to work with the high caliber students that johnson choyama brings to us it's easily one of the best parts of my job but i'd like to share this recognition with my team mentorship at the psd is a whole team affair as well as a two-way street we each bring a unique experience or style or skill set to share and you don't have to ask us twice to share it as our as as our current intern sunday would say we have a few things to learn from them too i appreciate when they throw down the challenge flag and question why certain things have to work a certain way.
and i have to say we don't always have good answers so thank you to the amazing interns turned colleagues that continue to strive to make government more innovative open and accessible it's been a true pleasure thanks so much well thank you nancy and what i'd like to ask everyone uh who is on this call to do is uh you all know where at this point where your uh where your mute buttons are and if we were all together the way we should be uh in sort of a non-pandemic world we would all be standing and applauding nancy i'm going to ask us to to do the the virtual equivalent of that if you could please unmute your audio and give nancy her very well [Music] and thank you thank you as well for those of you.
who are putting your congratulations uh to nancy in the in the chat um it's it's very appreciated um i'd like to uh just to say a few rounds of additional thank yous before i conclude this year's tanzley lecture uh first uh dr uh kelton thank you again for tonight's informative lecture it was um it was the the time just flew and i felt like we could have gone for another hour um but uh to everyone especially you getting up early in the morning i can assure you we will not uh to uh to mark andre thank you so much for moderating the q a it was uh there was so much going on in the chat uh your ability to to manage all of that and have such a great discussion going uh has been uh it was it was really really amazing parvin uh i'd like to thank you for being such an amazing mc uh for those of you who don't know uh parvin was also a member of our national case competition team this year uh it placed a third nationally so congratulations to you and your teammates absolutely fantastic job i would like to uh to thank our jsgs staff who organized tonight's event it's been a very large undertaking and and exceptionally well done as always and finally i would like to thank you our guests for joining us this evening for your participation engagement it has uh it has been really um i think a great show of what can be done.
when we when we have to make things work virtually as always for more information on our upcoming gsts lectures or to learn more about our programs please visit our our website schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca uh tonight's event was recorded and will be available for viewing once it's edited so please be sure to uh to let others know and hopefully others can can enjoy this uh this wonderful event in the future and with that i will say thank you good night and stay safe we look forward to seeing you again in the future bye for now.
タンズリー講義〜赤字神話：現代貨幣理論と人民経済の誕生
ビデオ会議
ドナルド・D・タンズリーとカナダの上級公務員としての彼の目覚ましい経歴にちなんで名付けられたタンズリー・レクチャーは、ジョンソン庄山大学院公共政策大学院の主力イベントの1つです。
赤字神話：現代貨幣理論と人民経済の誕生
赤字は重要ですが、私たちが信じるように教えられてきた方法ではありません。これは特にカナダに当てはまります。カナダでは、赤字が1990年代に国を破産の危機に瀕させ、最近の連邦赤字は過去の過ちを繰り返すリスクがあると多くの人が考えています。これらの懸念の根底にあるのは、赤字支出はクレジットカードの借金を使い果たすようなものであるという信念です。それは簡単に手に負えなくなり、将来の世代に負担をかける可能性があります。この理由は、気候変動に対して決定的な行動をとったり、先住民コミュニティの水危機の解決策を見つけたり、その他の無数の政策問題に対処したりする余裕がないという議論の背後にあります。これらは神話です。赤字は善にも悪にも使うことができます。彼らは人口のごく一部を豊かにし、何百万人もの人々を置き去りにしながら、収入と富の不平等を新たな高みへと駆り立てることができます。または、
4月8日| 7：00-午後8時30分（CST）
COVID-19により、2021年のタンズリーレクチャーはズーム経由で配信されます。今年の無料オンライン講義への参加をご希望の方は、事前にご登録ください。
--
発表者：ステファニーケルトン
ステファニーケルトンは、ストーニーブルック大学の経済学と公共政策の教授であり、ニュースクールフォーソーシャルリサーチのシュワルツ経済政策分析センターのシニアフェローです。彼女の最新の本、The Deficit Myth（2020年6月）は、ニューヨークタイムズのベストセラーになりました。彼女は現代貨幣理論の第一人者であり、米国上院予算委員会の元チーフエコノミスト（民主党員）です。ケルトン教授は、政策立案者に助言し、世界中の投資銀行やポートフォリオマネージャーに相談します。
イベントの詳細
- いつ：
- 時間：
- 07:00 PM-08：30 PM CST
- ロケーション：
- ズームによる配信-オンラインで登録してください。リンクがメールで送信されます。
JP30 9+アバターの道具ステファニー・ケルトンをフィーチャーした2021年のタンズリーレクチャー84回放送•2021/04/22 20共有贈jsgsppチャンネル登録者数356人赤字神話：現代の通貨理論と人民経済の誕生赤字問題、しかし私たちが信じるように教えられてきた方法ではありません。これは特にカナダに当てはまります。カナダでは、赤字が1990年代に国を破産の危機に瀕させ、最近の連邦赤字は過去の過ちを繰り返すリスクがあると多くの人が考えています。これらの懸念の根底にあるのは、赤字支出はクレジットカードの借金を使い果たすようなものであるという信念です。それは簡単に手に負えなくなり、将来の世代に負担をかける可能性があります。この理由は、気候変動に対して決定的な行動をとったり、先住民コミュニティの水危機の解決策を見つけたり、その他の無数の政策問題に対処したりする余裕がないという議論の背後にあります。これらは神話です。赤字は善にも悪にも使うことができます。彼らは人口のごく一部を豊かにし、何百万人もの人々を置き去りにしながら、収入と富の不平等を新たな高みへと駆り立てることができます。または、それらを使用して、生命を維持し、少数ではなく多くの人々のために機能する、より公正な経済を構築することができます。JSGSは、ステファニーケルトンを歓迎しました。ステファニーケルトンは、ストーニーブルック大学の経済学および公共政策の教授であり、ニュースクールフォーソーシャルリサーチのシュワルツ経済政策分析センターのシニアフェローです。彼女の最新の本、The Deficit Myth（2020年6月）は、ニューヨークタイムズのベストセラーになりました。彼女は現代貨幣理論の第一人者であり、米国上院予算委員会の元チーフエコノミスト（民主党員）です。ケルトン教授は政策立案者に助言し、投資銀行と相談します。
公開コメントを入力... 文字起こし
ジョンソンシャヤマ公共政策大学院2021テネシーレクチャーへようこそ私の名前はパビニアザンパレスです。ジョンソンシャヤマのmpa候補であり、サスカチュワン大学の財務および消費者問題当局のエグゼクティブインターンです。今夜の司会者にもなります。今年テネシーレクチャーがオンラインで行われている間、レジーナ大学とサスカチュワン大学のジョンソンシャヤマの実家は、条約4と3d6の土地にあり、メティスの伝統的な故郷に敬意を払っています。私たちの最初の国とこの場所の主要なお茶の祖先は、お互いの関係を再確認します。また、タートルアイランド全体から私たちに参加する皆さんを歓迎したいと思います。今夜はとても楽しみです。パンデミック中のこのタイムリーなトピックに関する議論と予算がなくなっていることを考慮し、政府が景気回復と赤字の管理を計画しているので、これはすべての人にとって刺激的なプレゼンテーションと議論であり、今までの学生にとって特別な学習の機会になると確信しています事務局長のロリン・ベルトル博士からいくつかのコメントを聞きました。いくつかのハウスキーピングアイテムの世話をしたいと思います。イベントのプレゼンテーション部分では、すべての参加者にミュートを維持し、ビデオをオフにしてください。お気軽にビデオを元に戻してください。今夜のフォーマットのqaのために」イベントは次のとおりです。開会の辞に続いて、スピーカーのステファニー・ヘルトン博士が約15分間プレゼンテーションを行い、その後、マーク・アンドレア・ピジョンjsgs助教授およびカナダセンターの所長と、残りの時間の協同組合の研究のために暖炉のそばで話し合います。 dr pizonによってモデレートされた聴衆の質問を楽しませる質問をしたい場合は、ズームのチャット機能を使用して質問を送信してください。聴衆が多く、時間が短いため、質問を簡潔かつ的確に保つことをお勧めします。今夜のプレゼンテーション中にロジスティクスの問題が発生した場合は、スピーカーができるだけ多くの質問に答えることができます。ズームのチャット機能を介してカレンジェスターロックウッドにメッセージを送信するか、jsgsの学校にメールを送信してください。uregina.caでのイベントjhjs事務局長drlolinbertoを紹介できることをうれしく思います学校を代表していくつかの言葉を述べますdrbertolありがとうparvinそしてここにいてくれてありがとうみんなたくさんいるのはとてもエキサイティングです全国から、そしてそれを超えて私たちに参加する人々と私は2007年にレジーナ大学とサスカチュワン大学によって設立された私たちの学校について少しお話ししたいと思います。ジョンソンチャンバー大学院公共政策大学院は、その革新的な大学院の学位とマイクロでよく知られており、尊敬されています。クレデンシャルプログラムのエグゼクティブ教育トレーニングの機会と、昨年の世界の他の地域と同様の卓越した研究は、2020年3月に、covid19のパンデミックによって提示された課題に対処するために、すべての学生を対象としたオンライン学習とトレーニングに重点を置いたことを覚えています。
しかし、仮想世界での運用の試行に直面したとき、私たちはまた、教職員と居住者およびスタッフが2つの大学間で協力して学生をサポートする機会を探しました。私たちの経営者教育チームは、オンラインでトレーニングを受けて、公務員とコミュニティ全体をサポートし続けました。州と私たちの研究者は、先週、他の分野の中でも特にパンデミック関連の研究に焦点を当てた国および州の助成金を確保する機会を探しています私たち自身の医師シェリルカミーロは、国の入り江不変の迅速な対応を確立するために900万ドルの助成金でコークス申請者に指名されましたネットワーク前週のドクタータイロンカタパルトは、彼の共同プラットフォームをcovid19を超えて拡張し、次のような幅広い健康問題に対処するために50万ドル以上を授与されました。メンタルヘルス物質の誤用と家庭内暴力、そして北部の先住民コミュニティにおける伝染性および非伝染性疾患への対処として、教員は言うまでもなく、ジャスティンロンゴ博士マレーフルトン博士マークアンドレイパジャンとヤンヤン博士は最新の影響を調べるために6万ドルを受け取った最後に、タンズリーレクチャーなどの仮想イベントを通じて、公共および農業セクターにおけるデジタルテクノロジーの取り組みを継続し、カナダ全土および世界中のソートリーダー、学者、学生、公務員、コミュニティメンバーを集めて、カナダ人の発言に影響を与える現在の問題について耳を傾け、学ぶことができました。故ドナルド・タンズリーは、カナダの上級公務員としてサスカチュワン大学の卒業生として彼のキャリアを始めたことで知られ、尊敬されていました。アル・ジョンソン・ドナルドの指導の下、予算局のサスカチュワン政府では、破産からイプスコを救助することから、州政府の新しいブランズウィックの近代化を導く医療と法令を実施することまで、州政府で最も複雑で論争の的となるファイルのいくつかを導くことで知られていましたそして1968年に平等な機会のプログラムのような非常に物議を醸す政策を実行する彼はカナダ国際開発庁のカナダ国際の副大統領を務めた連邦公務員に移りました。インフレーション委員会そして最後に彼は水産海洋省の開発を主導しましたドナルド・タンズリー '公共サービスへの性格とコミットメントは否定できませんでした。彼が同僚に挑戦を乗り越え、一粒の塩で厳しい判断を下すように勧めているのを耳にすることがよくあります。基調講演者からのご意見をお待ちしておりますので、マルコ・アンドレ・ピション博士にゲストの名誉ロックを紹介していただきたいと思います。ステファニー・ケルトン博士に感謝します。彼女をステファニーと呼んでください。25年前からお互いを知っているので、現代貨幣理論の第一人者であり、一種の新しいものです。政策決定スペースの注目を集めた経済学へのアプローチと言えるでしょう。 'しばらくすると、彼女は今日の議論に影響を与える最も重要な声の1つと見なされており、ニューヨークタイムズの会話を通じてその反響も聞こえると思います。ベストセラーの赤字神話現代貨幣理論と人々の経済の誕生は、彼女が主張し、私が学位を持っているという欠陥のある考え方のこの質問を実際に取得しようとしています。ステファニーの多くの学術出版物と私は少し後でそれらを参照します彼女はブルームバーグの意見の寄稿者でもあります私がステファニーのアカデミアのようなものでしたmはその分に戻りますが、彼女が2015年に米国上院予算委員会の民主党員のチーフエコノミストを務め、バーニーサンダース2016年と2020年の上級経済顧問を務めた政治分野での彼女の実際的な関与を指摘することも重要です。彼女の大統領選挙また、シュワルツ経済政策分析センターの上級研究員であり、ストーニーブルック大学の経済学と公共政策の教授であるステファニーは、リュブリャナ大学とアデレード大学の社会研究のための新しい学校で教授職を訪問しました。ミソウリカンザスシティ大学の経済学部の議長は、今や公共政策のようなものに戻っています。2016年にポリティコはステファニーと呼ばれました。2019年に最も影響力のある50人の思想家の1人でした。その年、男爵は彼女を2020年に金融で最も影響力のある100人の女性の一人に指名し、プロスペクト誌は彼女を2020年に世界のトップ50の思想家に挙げました。さて、このステファニーに少し個人的なメモを追加してください。これは、約25年23年前に最初に会った友人でもあります。私たちが少し北にあるレビーエコノミックスインスティテュートを通過していたとき、私たちのオフィスは隣同士でした。ニューヨーク市のステファニーと私は両方ともこの場所に引き寄せられ、mmt研究コミュニティのもう1人の主要人物であるランディレイという名前の仲間と仕事をしました。また、後半の大勝利のゴドリーは、で最も影響力のあるエコノミストの1人でした。何十年にもわたってイギリスであり、その仕事はmmtの開発に影響を及ぼしてきましたが、中央銀行やあなた自身の連邦財務省を含む財務部門にも実際にその道を見出しています。その仕事はmmt i 'との素晴らしいつながりを持つことができます。dはまた、1990年代後半は、アイデアの歴史の中で本当に特別な時期だったと付け加えています。なぜなら、多くの点で、私がワシントンコンセンサスと呼んでいるワシントンコンセンサスの頂点のようなものだったからです。もちろん、これには国有資産の自由化された貿易民営化が含まれ、その中心には、このバランスの取れた予算の概念が合意されており、このアイデアは特にカナダに根付いていたと思います。ステファニーと私が会話をしたときに戻ってきますが、米国オーストラリアの他の多くの場所でも同様に、この種の一連のポリシーをまとめたアンカーでした。興味深いのは、90年代後半の賦課金研究所で、一種の研究ストリームまたはスレッドとして開発されていただけでなく、富と所得の不平等と最低賃金に関する非常に多くの刺激的な研究がありました。今は本当に前面に出ているので、エキサイティングな時間でした。その時を通り抜けることができてとても幸運だったので、それで私はそれを設定したいと思います。20 25年前に限界にあったが、現在は政策議論の中心にあるこれらのアイデアのこの軌跡に戻るつもりです。それはどのようにして起こったのでしょうか。ぜひご参加ください。ステファニー・ケルトンを13回目の年次トランタンスリースピーカーとして迎えました。
ええと、これは本当に好機だと思います。タンズリー氏がインフレ委員会に関与していることに気づいていませんでした。これは今日の会話との良い結びつきだと思います。マークしてから会話をします。
ケルトン：
ありがとう、マーク・アンドレ、そしてあなたが知っているすべての人にこの招待状を提出し、手配を手伝ってくれました。今夜あなたと少し時間を過ごすことができてうれしいです。私たちの時間は限られていることを知っています。多くの点で、これの最も楽しい部分はおそらく私にとって、そして皆さんは私たちが実際にいくつかの対話をするようになったときに2番目の部分に来ると思いますので、私は途方もない量を取りたくありません時間ええと、しかし私は、現代貨幣理論またはmmtが何であるか、そしていくつかの点でそれのある種の幅広いブラシストロークをレイアウトしたいと思います。marc-andreが言ったように、これは四半世紀以上にわたって現在開発されている一連の奨学金に適用されるラベルmmtであり、多くの経済学者や経済学者以外の法学者や歴史家によってますます多くの人々によって開発されているためです。そしてヒューマニストや他の人たちが仕事の本体を成長させ、それは特に10分ほどの冒頭の発言で腕を包むことは不可能ですが、これは私にとっての旅なので、私がどうやってこれに来たのかを説明することから始めましょう。私は経済学を勉強していました。私のマクロコースやマネーアンドバンキングファイナンスタイプのコースの多くは非常に慣習的な経済学のトレーニングを受けていました。1995年の秋にケンブリッジ大学で大学院を始めましたが、1996年の秋には間違っていました。ええと、それはあなたが国がこの経済と金融の組合に参加することを考え始めていたことを知っている時でしたあなたはヨーロッパの一部に共通の通貨を導入するためのこの青写真をマーストリヒト条約に持っていました私は英国で勉強していましたそしてその時ええと英国政府は、私たちが私たちだとは思わないと言っていました」この最初のフェーズであなたと一緒に行くつもりです私たちはあなたの残りの人を前進させるつもりです私たちはそれがどうなるかを見て座ってそして物事がうまくいっているように見えるならあなたは私たちが多分私たちになることを知っています後で参加します。私が勉強していたケンブリッジや経済学の分野だけでなく、政治についても多くの話があり、私にとっては始めたと思います。それから、あなたの通貨をあきらめて別の通貨の使用に切り替えるかどうかについてのこの迫り来る決定について本当に大きな何かがあったことに気づき、ある意味で私の周りの多くの人々は基本的にそれがどのような違いをもたらすのかを言っていましたより効率的なのは、これらが私たちの主要な取引パートナーであるため、この共通通貨にうまく移行すれば、多くの取引コストを削減し、同じ通貨での取引をご存知であり、グループ全体の金融政策を実行する中央銀行が1つあるため、ほとんどの場合有益です。それが加わり、財政政策とマークの意味に実際にはあまり関心が払われていませんでした。敬虔な名前と私がまだ勝利に会っていなかったときにあなたが言ったのですが、ちょうど約1年後にケンブリッジ大学からフェローシップを得たときに会うでしょう徴税研究所に行くために、ウィン・ゴッドリーは徴収され、ウィンはケンブリッジ大学の応用経済学部の長だったので、彼は大学の家から来ましたが、それから彼はuに行きました。sそしてええと、彼は非常に興味深い人でした。非常に賢く、物事を正しく見る方法が非常に異なっていました。彼の分析フレームワークは、私が以前に紹介したものとは異なり、wynnで働き始め、wynnが持っていたもののいくつかを読み始めました。共通通貨についてのユーロについて書かれた、そしてここに、1992年に早くも最も信じられないほど明確な方法で、各国がこの共通通貨プロジェクトを進めるのは間違いであると彼の見解で説明したこの男がいました。言い換えれば、各国が署名していたこのマスター条約のこの文書で出生欠陥のような設計上の欠陥を見たときに実施された設計は、私たちが前進すれば、私たちはすべてこれらの条件に同意するだろうと言っています。中央銀行それは私たち全員のために金融政策を実施します財政政策に関しては、すべて私たち自身で財政政策を実行し、ある意味で財政赤字が3を超えないようにするための一定の規則に従って行動することを約束します。 gdpのパーセント私たちはgdpの60未満のgdpに対する負債の比率を維持します今、当時の一部のエコノミストはそれらの規定に批判的でした余分な部屋のウィンは物事を非常に異なって見ました。閾値が厳しすぎるということは、設計自体が、以前は財政政策を実行することができた国々を、国内経済にとって最も有益な方法で、完全な雇用を維持できるように変革しようとしていたということでした。彼らは経済の世話をすることができますええとあなたは政府支出と税務政策である財政政策を使って経済を知っているチェーンを管理しますそして彼らは金融政策を使う能力以上のものをあきらめ、いくつかの制約された財政政策の風を見ましたはるかに大きな問題なので、ここで私は、政府が自国の通貨を発行する能力を持っているときとその政府が持っていないときの、国とその通貨の権利との関係の性質について興味深いことをよく考えていました。その通貨を正しくなくなる可能性のあるものに変換することを約束する政府は金や他の国の通貨に変換することを約束していませんが、あなたがソブリン通貨発行政府である場合は、変換不可能な変動相場制の法定通貨を発行しますより制限的な通貨システムの下で運営されている国にはない政策スペースを利用できます。それは、財政政策が必要になる設計上の欠陥を修正するまで、耳を傾けないでくださいと彼が言っていた本当のポイントでした。マーク・アンドレは以前、マクロ経済学にはこの種のコンセンサスがあったことを知っていると言いましたが、実際にはそうではありません。財政政策が必要なのは、信頼できる独立した中央銀行だけです。それだけで、景気循環を通じて経済を管理するために必要なツールを備えています。政府は、予算の均衡を保ち、予算を防ぐために予算を取得することを知っていることにほとんど注意を向ける必要があります。あらゆる種類の持続的な赤字への移行から、風は物事をまったく異なって見ただけです。彼はセクター別財政均衡フレームワークと呼ばれるフレームワークを開拓したと思います。私の本では、他の方法では複雑になる可能性のあるものを提案しようとしています。一連のバケツだけで、この小さなステートメントで締めくくります。国内経済を健全に保つことに再び関心を持っているあなたはたくさんの仕事を望んでいるあなたは良い経済状況を望んでいる国内的に低インフレ高水準の雇用それはあなたが国内の民間部門について心配しているバケツですバケットと政府のバケットは重要です。
政府のバケツは、民間部門を健康に保つために民間部門に数ドルを注ぎ込むことができるので、もう1つのバケツを大丈夫にしたので、3つのバケツを扱っています。もう一方のバケツは世界の他の地域であり、相互作用です。財政的バランスは、風が重要だと考えたこれらのバケット間の流れを正しくするので、目標が中央のバケットを健康に保つことである場合、民間部門を健康に保つにはどうすればよいですか？はあなたの経済から生まれる商品やサービスに非常に強い需要を提供し、それは多くの需要を生み出し、仕事を支えています、そしてあなたは良い経済成長を得ていますが、あまり圧力がかからず、それほど多くのインフレはありませんが、あなたがそうしなければ世界の他の地域があなたが生産するものに対して大きな欲求を持っていない場合、貿易黒字があります。そのバケツは、私たちの場合は確かに、カナダの場合はあなたが正しい場合、実際にあなたの経済の枯渇になる可能性があります貿易赤字、またはより適切には経常収支赤字と呼ばれるものがあり、外国部門のバケツがあなたのドルの一部を大丈夫に使い果たしているので、政府のバケツが入って残りに失われているいくつかのドルをどのように補うことができますか言い換えれば、私の手とバケツを使って簡単に言うのは少し複雑ですが、要点は政府がs赤字は、政府が毎年経済に費やしているドル数と、毎年差し引かれるドル数の差にすぎないので、私たちは赤字という言葉を聞いて、この悪影響を正しく受けることに慣れています。赤字ああそれは悪いことですそれはあなたが避けようとしていることですいいえいいえいいえ赤字は良くも悪くもありません余剰は良くも悪くもありません重要なのはあなたがバランスの取れた経済の高水準を持っているなら経済の健康ですあなたの経済がバランスが取れている場合、雇用の低インフレは、それがそうであるかどうかにかかわらず、毎年の終わりに予算ボックスから落ちる数です。赤字または黒字は関係ありません重要なのは、経済のより広い条件のバランスをとるのに役立つ予算です。したがって、政府の予算が赤字である場合、すべての赤字は誰かにとって良いことです。言い換えれば、彼らは差し引くよりも多くの加算を行っており、彼らがそれを行うとき、誰かがsすべての政府赤字の反対側でその財政黒字を受け取る受信側では、経済の他の部分の財政黒字が問題になります。コビッドとそれに続く経済の落ち込みに対応してかなりの財政赤字を実行するこれらの赤字は、経済の残りの部分で莫大な財政黒字を生み出しました。最終的には切望を打ち負かし、私たちと同じように、そして経済が回復し始めると、財政支援の必要性は減少し、財政赤字は安全に減少する可能性があります。赤字予算の結果のリバランスを知っていることに集中するために、彼らが積極的に参入して支出を削減したり増税したりしようとした場合、私の立場は常に、予算の結果を経済政策の目標にしたくないということです。政策は経済の現実の条件であり、このような予算で良い経済を達成できるのであれば、このような予算で良い経済を達成できるのであれば正しいので、それは重要なことではないので、できることはまだまだたくさんありますが、この時点で少し話をしてみましょう。
：ケルトン
確かにステファニーと私はあなたがここに乗る直前にあなたが知っていると思います彼は有機的な会話をしましょうと言ったので私はそれで走るつもりですそれであなたは例えばeuについて本当に私の注意を引いたいくつかのことを言いました興味深いことに、これは90年代後半に頭に浮かんだばかりです。米国では北米通貨連合を形成することについて活発な会話がありましたが、カナダのスペースでは、これが図書館で働いていたときの私の主要なトピックでした。研究部門と私はあなたがそれが本当に関連していると私を驚かせることを知っています。なぜなら、これらの思考の中心にいたロバート・マンデルがちょうど亡くなったからです。少し反省できるかどうか知っているかどうか疑問に思います。そのumロバートマンデルに」彼がカナダの経済学者であったことを通過すると、世界的にいくつかのプロファイルがありましたが、彼は本当にこの通貨同盟の多くの考え方の重要人物でしたので、それについて、そしておそらくについて共有できるような考えはありますか？カナダは、北米通貨同盟に登録しないという点で弾丸をかわしました。私たちは皆、弾丸をかわしました。つまり、政府の権利を使用して、通貨の代わりに同じように自分たちを配置したでしょう。sヨーロッパでの決定が何であったかを見ると、彼の仕事は非常に影響力があり、ユーロ圏での共通通貨の導入の理論的正当化のようなものであったことを正当化するために使用されました。この信念これは金融政策の力へのこの根底にある信仰であり、あなたは本当に財政の必要性の欠如を知っていますええとええとそうそうあなたは私たちが避けられる弾丸をかわしました私は私たちが今までに来たことを知らないと思います非常に近いあなたは私がそれらの会話を覚えていることを知っていますそしてあなたはそれを超えたものが世界通貨であるということを知っています私たちがそれらの会話から長い道のりを歩んできました。それらの会話の多くは水中で死んでいて、時代錯誤のように見えます。そのため、mmtはどのようにやって来て、少しのギャップを埋めました。あなたの見解は、議論の余白から本当に議論の中心になります。私は聴衆に、今週起こったいくつかのことを報告するつもりだと言います。ええと、ええと、すみません、彼の名前を空白にしますさて、ええと、グッドハートチャールズグッドハートええと、中央銀行の主要な理論家だと思います。先日、みんながmmtをやっていると言ったのは、大丈夫だと認めたくないということです。
そして、おそらく彼はフレーミングが間違っていることを知っていますが、それでもmmtが会話にどのように浸透したかを示していますCDここカナダの研究所はおそらく私たちの最も有名なシンクタンクです確かに私はこれらのアイデアを真剣に受け止めました先月の政策概要と今週の論説で、彼らは実際にmtに関するいくつかの重要な点を認めていますが、サイレンの歌について警告しました。 mmtがどのように財政政策の議論に勝ったのか、どうやってそこにたどり着いたのか、この会話からどのように移行したのかは、通貨同盟の民営化貿易協定の予算収支に非常に焦点を当てていました。
ケルトン：27：52
さて、私は政策論争をシフトさせた多くのことが起こったと思います。私は私たちの方向にそれを言いたいと思います。
もう一度25年見てみると、mmtの奨学金は常に順調に進んでいるので、mmtの核心は変わっていないということです。最初から言ったことは、まだmmtの核となる中心的な信条です。政府はできないという考えです。通貨の発行者として政府が最初に税金を使わなければならないという考えはお金を使い果たしますあなたは財政の持続可能性を知ることができないという考えは私たちが何十年にもわたって行ったこれらすべての議論を繰り返し続けました同じことが何度も何度も繰り返され、何が起こったのかというと、マクロの議論の多くが時間の経過とともに私たちの方向に向かって進んでいることは明らかだと思います。それがどのようにしてうまくいったのかをある程度知ってもらいたいのですが、記録を残して奨学金をもらい、時間の経過とともにこれらの多くのことについて正しく考えていたことを示すことができたので、正しいことが重要だと思います。ある意味で、正しい人々は私たちの仕事に注意を向け始めたジャーナリストが早くから私たちに気づき始めました。ロイターにジャーナリストがいました。ビジネスインサイダーのジャーナリストがいました。ウォールストリートジャーナルにジャーナリストがいました。そうです、彼らは私たちが書いているものを見始めました、そして彼らはただオープンマインドで、彼らは非常に多くの点で主流の物語に反するほど異なることを言っているとよく考え始めましたが、それはまあまあです」ちょっと面白いので、それについて書き始め、私たちと関わり始めました。それにより、私たちのアイデアを世に出すために、さまざまなより大きなプラットフォームにアクセスできるようになりました。私たちが行っている仕事や共有している仕事にもっと説得されて、それからあなたは大きな不況になり、赤字が増えて、人々は財政政策が重要だと思いますが、それはそのようなものであるという信念がまだありましたガラスの後ろの壁にとどまっていて、緊急事態の場合に壊れると言っていることを知っていることは、財政政策の使用に実際に依存して、恒久的な種類のツールキットに統合することは想定されていません。
そして今ここで私たちは切望しているので、2017年に共和党が減税した後、米国の文脈では、これらの大幅な減税と民主党員が彼らを嫌い、多くの民主党員が非常に知名度の高いものは、共和党が減税を押し進めることに成功した場合、それが私たちを去るだろうということを非常に公に主張しました。経済が減速した場合、財政政策に対応することはできません。過去の赤字を知っているので、これは正しくないはずだと私は言いました。」将来的にあなたの財政能力を制約するので、私はブルームバーグのために物事を書きました、そして私は次の不況が来たときにこれは正しくないと言いました私たちは財政政策を使いますそしてもちろん次の不況が来ましたそして私たちは数兆ドルの法律を何をしましたか次々と私たちは請求書をスピンアウトしています支払いなし問題なし税金の増加なしスパイクなしあなたは私が何を意味するのか知っているので答えは要因の複雑な組み合わせだと思いますがそれは私たちが私たちに到達したと思うようなものですステファニーに感謝します。公開討論の観点から、誰を指しているのかを自問自答することは控えますが、うまくいっていると感じたら、私はそれについて書いたのです。 's larry summers right right right yeahしかし、ポール・クルーグマンはコラムを持っていて、赤字が再び問題になることを知っていると呼び、減税で赤字を増やす危険性について警告していました。金利が上昇し、これらすべてのことが正しく行われなかったため、混雑につながりました。もちろん、カナダでも非常によく似た話し合いがあったと思います。おそらく世界の他の多くの場所で、カナダを掘り下げたいと思います。私たちの聴衆の何人かは確かにこの質問を考えて自問するだろうと思うので、少し話をします。
ええと、あなたと私はこれについて少し話しましたが、カナダ人が私たちの財政政策の歴史について自分自身に語るこの話がありますええと、戦後最初の1950年代から60年代のこの黄金時代がありました。そのようなことと私たちの財政対gdp比率のバランスがとれたサイクルでバランスが取れた後、1980年代にこのようなひどい時期があり、現在の首相の父であるキャリー・エリオット・トルドーが支出を増やしました。このために広く信用を失い、それからあなたは私たちのええと私たちのサッチャーに私たちのリーガンを持ってきて、これをまっすぐにしようとします、または彼らはとにかく赤字が増え続けていると主張しますそして私たちは最終的にそれを正しくします1993。95年に、彼らの対峙した物語は彼らに行きます。この本当に大きな問題に再び直面しました1ドルあたり35セントが債務を返済しますええと私たちは高い債務対gdp比を持っていますあなたが行くためにあなたたちがあなたの家を手に入れなければウォールストリートジャーナルは私たちを売っています第三世界の名誉会員になるカナダドルがメキシコペソになるリスクは少なくともそれが物語の枠組みであるフレームであり、それから物事を好転させるためのこの種の英雄的な努力があり、97 98私たちはバランスを取り戻し、カナダは金融危機の直後の次の10〜12年間、バランスの取れた予算の土地になります。そして、2015年までにすぐにその位置に戻った後、バランスを取り戻し、世界は良いので、これは私たち自身が語る物語であり、その物語の中心にあるのは、米国ではないカナダのような国を懲戒しようとしているこれらの人々が正しいと思います準備通貨を持っていないこれは話の別の部分です私たちは変動相場制の小さなオープンエコノミーであり、おそらく私たちが持っていないこれらの制約があるので注意する必要がありますそれが、mmtのより啓発された批評からの視点です。それをそのように言いましょう。自警行為の債券保有者についてのその話をどう思いますか。MMTとその関係について説明してください。債券保有コミュニティあなたは何ですかあなたがこれらのことについて彼らによく話すとき、あなたが誰と話すかは、今朝、pimcoのチーフエコノミストであった私の友人のポール・マッコーリーと話していたとき、彼らは何を言っているのかを知っています。今やピムコは世界最大の債券ファンドでした。
そして、あなたがポール・マッカリーにこの話について尋ねると、彼はあなたに、このスペースにいる私のええとの友人の多くが、あなたがの慈悲にかかっていないのは決して本当のことではなかったとあなたに言うだろうとあなたに言うでしょうあなたがソブリン通貨発行政府であるとき、投資家クラスまたはあなたがそれを債券市場の権利と呼びたいものは何でも今私はあなたがカナダ政府がいくつかの外貨建ての負債を持っていたことを知っていると思いますそしてあなたはおそらく当時ドルで借りていましたがあなたを見てくださいあなたが通貨発行政府である場合、認識すべき最も重要なことは、誰からも自分の通貨を借りる必要がないということです。なぜあなたはあなたが文字通り法的権限を持っているのですか？私たちの場合、私たち政府が持っている唯一の法的権限です私ができる通貨を発行するには」民間企業はそれを正しく行うことができます地方政府はそれを行うことができません他の誰もが連邦政府ができることを行うことができれば政府はあなたが彼らを助けるために人々に小切手を送ることを知っていることをしませんパンデミックやビジネスの中小企業向けローンなど、州の地方自治体の給与を労働者に支払わせるためのあらゆる種類のものでは、彼らはあなたができることを行うことができないので、それを使うために誰かから自分の通貨を借りる必要はありません。本当に重要な点は、政府の証券で自分のお金を正しく保持する方法を人々に提供することを選択した場合、国債を保有する利子を付けることもできます。つまり、政府は常にその力を行使して、市場にいわば実行する余地を与える可能性があります。同じ期間に、アラン・グリーンスパンとアラン・グリーンスパンが行き、有名なことに、ビル・クリントンに行って取引をしました。
そして、グリーンスパンは、あなたが約束したこれらの中流階級の減税を取り消すなら、私たちはあなたのためにより有利な方法で金融政策を行うなど、クリントンに言ったので、それは私たちが聞いている複雑な歴史だということです今日、私たちの中で、私たちが目覚めた朝を覚えていませんか？ポール・ボルカーが金利を200ベーシスポイント引き上げたのを覚えていませんか？市場はそれを好まないかもしれないので、私たちはこの種の話をしますが、カナダには、私たち、日本、オーストラリア、または他のソブリン通貨発行のような方法で予算を管理するための十分な能力があります政府はできる。
t：
ええ、あなたが日本について言及したことを取り上げたいと思います。それは、私が推測する古典的なケーススタディの一種です。そして、彼らは長年にわたって非常に大きな赤字を抱えており、金利は非常に高いです。底とそしてあなたが知っているように、人々が日本に対して賭けるであろう未亡人貿易権と呼ばれるものが長い間有名にありました。
そして彼らはええとを失い続けたので、私はmmtに対する投資コミュニティの関心の種類をもう少し掘り下げることに興味があります。なぜなら、これらのアイデアの多くが最初に声を見つけた場所であるように思われるからです。なぜあなたは彼らの意思決定を恐れるように言われたのとまったく同じ人々がゲートの外でmmtを受け入れたのと同じであるとあなたが思う理由を聞いて喜んでいる人々それでそこで何が起こっているのかあなたは何が起こっていると思いますかそこ。
ケルトン：3848
まず最初に、あなたが知っているウォーレン・モスラーが1990年代半ばにこれらの一連のアイデアを持ってきたので、あなたは知っていると思います。ウォール街のウォーレンは債券トレーダーだったので、他のトレーダーの間では、アイデアが自分の世界に住んでいることを知っている人にまでさかのぼることができることを知っているときの尊敬のレベルは、自分の世界から来ているので、ウォーレンモスラーと一緒に働いていた学者の話を聞くことを躊躇しませんでしたええとなどですが、他の部分は、彼らはそれを正しくしたいと思っています。彼らがあなたが金融の仕組みを理解していると思うなら、特に金融業務に関してあなたがより良い物語を持っていると彼らが考えるならシステムと政府財政の性質とあなたは金利を説明することができますそしてあなたはあなたが赤字と金利または金利とインフレまたは何かの間の関係を知ることができますそして彼らは彼らが危険にさらされている資本を持っていると思いますそして彼らが間違って賭けたならそしてあなたがするなら、あなたは未亡人の取引について言及します歩き回って、頭の中で、債務とgdpの比率を超えると、すべてが崩壊し、政府が破産を余儀なくされると信じています。ギリシャのようになり、jgbsをショートさせ始めます。それは決して起こらないので、多くの人が知っている未亡人の取引はその取引を生き延びなかったので、それは未亡人の取引と呼ばれています。 「お金を失いたくないと違った考え方をしている人々の意見を聞くことができます。マクロを分析するためのより良い種類のフレームワークがあることを彼らに説得できれば、彼らは彼らです」完全にオープンで、私が学外で壁通りが成長した最も初期の種類のことの1つは、私がカンザスシティにいて、ニューヨークシティに来て夕食をとる招待状を受け取ったことです。 21クラブとこの招待状はウォーレンを知っている誰かから来ました、そして彼はあなたが来ることを知っていると言いました、そして私はあなたが私たちと一緒にmmtと話して欲しいと言いましたあなたは6人のラウンドテーブルを知っているので、私はニューヨーク市の21クラブに歩いて行きます。これは非常に有名なレストランです。2階に行くと、プライベートダイニングルームがあり、巨大な長方形のテーブルを知っている巨大なテーブルがあります。それは40人を収容する必要がありました、そして私は私がそうではなかったとは知らなかったのです」あなたがそのことを知っている準備をして、それから私が現れて、テーブルの周りのみんなはあなたがjpモルガンとbmp放物線とすべてを知っていることですそして私と私は座っていますそしてあなたが数時間話すことを知っていれば彼らはよく言いましたちょっと待ってくださいスライドもメモも何もありませんそして私は立ち上がってそれをしましたそしてそれはインタラクティブになりましたそしてそれからそれらの人々の多くはあなたが彼らと一緒に何かをするように私を招待することを知っていました彼らのグループは、あるレベルで彼らを知っているので、彼らが聞いたことにはメリットがあると確信し、説得したと思います。
t：
インタラクティブなステファニーについて言えば、質問が不足しているので、最後にもう1つ質問します。それから、いくつかの質問に移ります。それでよければ、オーディエンスの質問に移ります。政策立案者の間でますます金融界での行為で好評を博していますが、この会話がどこに向かっているのかについて少し考えてもらいたいと思います。まだ多くの人が私を知っています。 mmtコミュニティでは、彼らはパラダイムから外れていると言っていますが、mmt um mmtにあるものの多くを受け入れるにはまだほど遠いですが、経済教科書を支配することにはまだほど遠いです。多くの学術的な会話でそのためのスペースを見つけるのは本当に難しいので、mmtsが幅広い公開会話の中心に移動するときに、会話の中でここでどのようなことが行われているのかをプロジェクトで進めることができますか？ 。
ケルトン：4310
つまり、教科書は難しいです。教科書の著者がいます。mmtの教科書があります。後ろの棚にあります。mmtの教科書とは呼ばないでしょうが、3mtのエコノミストが書いたマクロの教科書なのでたくさんあります。ええと、別のエコノミストのデビッド・コランダーがいて、デビッド・コランダーはあなたが何年にもわたって書かれたumの教科書と多くの追加を持っているので、その中のmmtのum教科書は本当にタフで、彼らは多くの点で一種の英雄的です。デビッドは、主流が提供し、教えているものからの逸脱である教科書で何かを得るのがどれほど難しいかを何度も何度もこの話をしたと思います、そして彼はあなたが行くことができないということであなたはせいぜい10の逸脱をすることができると言います10を超えるかそれはしません」採用されるので、それは本当に難しいです。私が中級で原則を教えていたとき、私は教科書から教えるのが本当に好きではなかったことを意味します。次のレベルに進むために、最初から始めて、最初の原則からすべてを正しくレイアウトしようとすると役立つかどうかわかりません。私が知っていることはわかりません。ハーバードやミシガン、またはペンを知っている場所でコースを受講している学生からたくさんのメールを受け取り、たくさんのメールを受け取り、彼らは自分でmmtを発見し、それを教室に持ち込んでいます。時々ええと歓迎されません、そしてあなたは彼らが事実上これにいるので彼らが彼らのように感じるのであなたは知っていますおそらく、異なるフレームワークを持ち、異なるセットの教授に挑戦することは、異なるアプローチを知っていますが、ええと、古いジョーク科学が進歩していることを知っていると思います。学生の次の収穫彼らは彼らが学んでいることを学んでいて、彼らは質問しているので、私は知りません。
t：
ええ、私はiiが追加するかもしれないと思います私はあなたが先に述べたように、経済空間を超えて歴史と法律にmtが差し迫っていると思いますそして他のええそれでいくつかに基づいてこのより広い会話をする機会があるようですこれらのアイデアのうち、ステファニーは大丈夫なので、私たちの質問の1つに目を向けます。これらを順番に取り上げるので、1つの質問の時間しかない場合は、ここで選択バイアスをかけないでください。私が知りたいのは、mmtの寿命が最も長いことであり、経済を刺激するために赤字支出が今必要であることに同意するでしょうが、それは長期的には持続可能であり、mmtと課税との関係は何ですか？s 2つの質問ですが、最初の質問はこのインフレ問題に実際にぶつかっていると思います。最近のニューヨークタイムズの社説はそれに触れているので、赤字支出とそれはあなたが言及しているような長寿について話すことができます。それが、多分手の込んだ。
ケルトン：4621
まあiiは、それがmmdまたは赤字を意味するのであれば、それが長期にわたって持続可能であるかどうかはわかりませんでしたが、それが赤字を意味すると仮定しましょう。バランスが取れているか、4年4年余剰で私が何歳かはわかりませんが、それは何年にもわたる財政赤字の持続です赤字は当たり前のことです赤字について本質的に問題はありませんそれは私のような需要の漏れに依存しますあなたは私から課税されるすべてのドルが私が持っていないドルであり、経済のいくつかの良いまたはサービスを追いかけるのに費やすことができないこれらの他のバケツを手に入れたと言ったので、これは税金に関する質問の他の部分に結びついていますだからあなたは税金を手に入れました支出は、収益と利益を知っているためにその生産物を販売しようとしている一部の企業が捉えることができないドルであり、私が国内ではなく海外で生産された商品やサービスを購入するために費やすすべてのドルは、一部の私たちの生産者がキャプチャできないため、需要の漏れがあります。問題は常に、経済を維持するのに役立つ注入とは何かということです。これにより、生産物が販売されるため、事業投資が堅調な場合は、政府の場合は強力な注入になります。世界の他の地域が私たちから商品を購入している場合、支出は強力で強力です。強力な輸出があります。つまり、投資と輸出チャネルが需要を要求しているほど、政府の必要性は少なくなります。支出するのでそれは」sこれらのフローを調整するだけで、5年後に赤字が必要になると言っているようなものです。需要の漏れがどのようになるかわかりません。あなたが今言った話だと思います。つまり、90年代後半にカナダで何が起こったのかについてのテンプレートは、主に米国に向けて大きな輸出ブームが発生し、その予算のバランスが取れるようになりました。ストーリーの一部が大幅に省略されていると思います。だから私はそれだと思います」本当に重要なことを考慮してください。それはマークであり、本当に迅速な輸出ブームがあり、カナダの民間部門の健全なバケツを促進しました。私たちが持っていたのはドットコムバブルの始まりでした。住宅バブルだったので、私たちが持っていた輸出の強力な輸出チャネルの利益見積もりの引用符なしは、民間部門が一定期間レバレッジすることを可能にした本当の住宅バブルでした。表面的には政府予算を黒字に押し上げた途方もないブームを引き起こし、それは素晴らしい経済を生み出しているように見えましたが、もちろんそれは民間部門の赤字によって引き起こされていたため、すべて持続不可能であり、それらは持続可能ではありません公共部門の赤字。私たちが持っていたのは、輸出の強力な輸出チャネルの引用されていない利益の見積もりでした。これは、民間部門が一定期間、政府を表面的に押し上げた途方もないブームを活用して推進することを可能にした本当の住宅バブルでした。予算は黒字になり、それは素晴らしい経済を生み出しているように見えましたが、もちろんそれは民間部門の赤字によって推進されており、それらは持続可能な公共部門の赤字ではないため、すべて持続不可能でした。私たちが持っていたのは、輸出の強力な輸出チャネルの引用されていない利益の見積もりでした。これは、民間部門が一定期間、政府を表面的に押し上げた途方もないブームを活用して推進することを可能にした本当の住宅バブルでした。予算は黒字になり、それは素晴らしい経済を生み出しているように見えましたが、もちろんそれは民間部門の赤字によって推進されており、それらは持続可能な公共部門の赤字ではないため、すべて持続不可能でした。
t：
右と私は2つあると思います2つ2つあると思います1つは私たちが旅行していた世界で私たちがiiだったということです私たちは私たちを最後の手段の買い手として特徴付けていました彼らは世界中からすべてを買っていました世界の権利と米国外でその需要を生み出しているええと、カナダの文脈では、家計部門についてのあなたの意見は本当に共鳴しています。カナダには非常に負債の多い家計部門があるので、非常に活用されている住宅部門です。多くの人々とそして私が懸念しているのは、政策立案者がラチェットバックして黒字に向かって劇的に動き始めた場合、その家計部門への影響は重大である可能性があるということです。少し前にアメリカで起こった話をしているかもしれないので、ここで別の質問があります。それは仕事の保証のアイデアについてです。私たちがしなかったことについて少し話すことができます。そのステファニーに入るが、それはmntの重要な要素であり、仕事の保証というその考えを拡張することができます。そして、その考えの周りに見られる、または見られない抵抗は、基本的に尋ねられている質問です。s mntの重要な要素は、仕事の保証という考えを拡張することでできます。そして、その考えの周りに見られる、または見られない抵抗は、基本的に尋ねられている質問です。s mntの重要な要素は、仕事の保証という考えを拡張することでできます。そして、その考えの周りに見られる、または見られない抵抗は、基本的に尋ねられている質問です。
ケルトン：5046
ええ、私は今日ウェビナーの一部を見ました。ウェビナーは仕事の保証についてでした。彼らはすべて労働組合のリーダーでした。彼らはすべて、彼らからの仕事の保証の重要性を擁護していることを知っています。労働組合の指導者としての視点は、これまでのところアイデアが戻っていることを知っています。これはハイマンミンスキーの作品で見つけることができます。今、ミンスキーに精通している人がいると思います。彼は前世紀の最も重要な経済学者とミンスキーは1960年代初頭にこのことについて書いていました、そしてあなたはミンスキーが彼が経済学者である学者であるということを知っていますが、彼はまた、彼の専門分野は金融金融市場の銀行業務であり、ミンスキーは、パニックとうつ病の後にパニックを経験した金融システムに関しては、最後の貸し手がいると言ったという考えを持っていました。銀行が運営していることなど、私たちが必要としているのは、金融市場の流動性の欠如に対処して金融市場の貸し手として行動するために、金融市場の不和を鎮めることが一部の仕事である機関であることがわかりました。金融システムで常に流動性を維持するための最後の貸し手ですが、彼は私たちが財政面でアナログを何も発明しなかったのは不思議だと言いました。それは何年も前の最後の貸し手または雇用主であり、私たちは連邦政府の雇用保証と呼ぶように移行しましたが、原則は同じであり、ミンスキーのポイントは、労働市場が常に十分に流動的であることを保証しない理由であり、それは政府が基本的に権利を確立できるということでした。オープンエンドの仕事は、労働市場での公的な選択肢である雇用の永続的な申し出を提供し、本質的に完全に弾力性のある需要曲線を作成します。価格を固定してから、来た人全員を連れて行き、彼らのために雇用を創出します。その賃金で彼らを雇い、ミンスキーは、この流動的な労働市場が機能するという提案権を擁護する方法をさまざまに知っていました。強力な新しい自動安定装置として、企業が労働者を失い、彼らが失業するのではなく、経済が自然な不況に陥ったときに、彼らの多くは長期失業し、その後、スキルが低下するために失業するようになります。代わりに今日ここから始めて、彼らは新しい形態の雇用に移行することができます雇用された仕事の習慣は維持されますスキルをアップグレードすることができますなどそして彼らは民間部門に雇用される雇用労働者のプールとして準備ができていますセクターは雇用を回復する準備ができているので、経済が弱いときに雇用するビジネスサイクルを通じて経済を緩和し、経済が回復し、社会的および経済的利益があるときにプログラムから労働者を解放するプログラムですが、強力な自動スタビライザーは、ミンスキーも強調していることをご存知のとおりです。景気が低迷し、経済が回復し、社会的および経済的利益が得られたときにプログラムから労働者を解放するときに採用する景気循環を通じて経済を緩和するプログラムですが、強力な自動安定装置はあなたが知っているものですミンスキーええと、同様に強調しました。景気が弱いときに採用する景気循環を通じて経済を緩和し、経済が回復し、社会的および経済的利益があるときにプログラムから労働者を解放するプログラムですが、強力な自動安定装置はあなたが知っているものですミンスキーええと、同様に強調しました。
t：
だから、私がグリーンニューディールの提案に誤解されていなければ、そのアイデアはその道を見つけました正しいステファニーそしてそうそう、私たちはそれのそのような政治的側面について話すことができます私はあなたがあなたの研究分野ではなくあなたであると知っていることを意味しますその空間に従事してきたその物語は何であるかその物語はどのように見えるかそれに対する欲求があり、米国または他の場所で政治的に。
ケルトン：
ああ、大きな食欲があります。つまり、マサチューセッツ州の下院議員のアヤンナプレスリーが、1か月前に連邦政府の雇用保証を求める決議を発表しました。これは、私がスケッチしたばかりのこの考えを中心にしていますが、そうです。平等と正義の中心化という考えでの市民権運動に深く根ざしており、グリーンニューディールについて話しているのであれば、経済のほぼすべての部分に触れて私たちの生活を変革することについて話している可能性があります。仕事それは住宅ですそれは農業ですそれはエネルギーですそれは」ええと、あなたはええと輸送を知っています、そしてあなたは化石燃料からの何年もの長い移行を知っているこれを通して人々のための公正な移行がなければなりません、そしてそれで仕事保証の考えはあなたが知っているまたは背後の組織のためのグリーンニューディールの非常に中心です多くの議員にとってグリーンニューディールは、私たちが移行しているこれらの年に何が起こっても、プロセスを通じて利益をもたらす良い仕事の生活賃金を常に知っているということを保証する方法と見なしているためです。
t：
ええと、ステファニーを通して48の新しい質問がありますが、私たちの時間は約8 20までです。これは、かなり遅れて実現したので、そこでハングアップします。次の質問はステファニーです。そしてiiあなたがこれでどこに行くのか知っていますが、健全な経済が発生した借金を支払うのに十分な税金を支払うことができない場合はどうなるのかとにかく尋ねます私はここに親切にする機会があると思いますあなたが以前にしたいくつかのポイントを繰り返しますが、それは今尋ねられている質問です。
ケルトン：
預金をしたので、そこに10カナダドルが座っていましたが、今は債券を売って赤字を埋め合わせているので、10が債券に入るのではなく、つまり、私がマルクに足を踏み入れたようなものです。アンドレは彼の机にお金を置いて、それから私がローンを持っているかもしれないと言ってください、私はあなたに私が現金を置いていると言っています。そして、それを借り入れと呼ぶのは意味がなく、将来の納税者が害を受けることはありません。国債の廃止について話しているのは、中央銀行のある口座から別の口座に資金を移すことだけです。中央銀行の権利で債務を返済することは、証券口座から借方に記入し、準備口座に貸方記入することを意味します。つまり、私がマルクに足を踏み入れたようなものです。彼の机にお金を置いて、ローンを組んでもいいと言ってください。現金を下ろしているのです。そして、それを借り入れと呼ぶのは意味がなく、将来の納税者が害を受けることはありません。国債の廃止について話しているのは、中央銀行のある口座から別の口座に資金を移すことだけです。中央銀行の権利で債務を返済することは、証券口座から借方に記入し、準備口座に貸方記入することを意味します。つまり、私がマルクに足を踏み入れたようなものです。彼の机にお金を置いて、ローンを組んでもいいと言ってください。現金を下ろしているのです。そして、それを借り入れと呼ぶのは意味がなく、将来の納税者が害を受けることはありません。国債の廃止について話しているのは、中央銀行のある口座から別の口座に資金を移すことだけです。中央銀行の権利で債務を返済することは、証券口座から借方に記入し、準備口座に貸方記入することを意味します。
t：
だから私はそれが人々が行き詰まっていると思う部分だと思いますあなたがmmtの文献で経験したそのような詳細な会計演習はええと本当に素晴らしい仕事をしているのでそれは本当に重要なポイントだと思いますそしてそれは私がこの会話にリンクしていると思います私たちがここで持っている次の質問は米国の州の周りですそして私は州も言うでしょうそして、これはあなたがこれでどこに行くのか知っていると思いますが、これは不況時にツールボックスから重要なツールを取り出しますか、それともその地方レベルである程度の財政規律を確保することが重要ですか？ソブリンレベルとそのサブナショナルレベルとの関係について話し合うことができれば、ステファニーを追加します。そこではどのようなポリシーを見る必要があり、時にはこれらの憲法上の制限やその他の自主的な規律の制限を与えます。
ケルトン：
ええ、私たちの50の州と準州には、連邦政府ができることを実行する能力がないことを知っているという点で、ここで機能するのと同じように機能するということです。ほぼすべての州がバランスの取れた予算要件の対象となるためです。良い時期に何が起こるかあなたは大丈夫ですあなたはあなたが強い成長をしていることを知っているのであなたは強い収入を持っていますええと成長税収は増加しています経済は州政府または州政府の収入を押し上げるのに十分な活動を生み出していますそしてそれは彼らを可能にします国家のサービスや運営などを維持するために何が起こるかというと、経済はブームモードで永続的に実行すると、最終的にスピードバンプにぶつかります。つまり、ぶつかって不況に陥り、不況に陥ると、税収が崖から落ちる傾向があり、その深さによって異なります。不況は彼らが崖から急激に落ちるかもしれないので、あなたには通貨発行政府ができることをする能力がありません連邦政府ができることをあなたはスクランブルしますそして私たちはここに州知事がいるのを見ました全国で、連邦政府に懇願する市長がいました。私たちに援助を求めてください。私たちのテーブルに選択肢が1つしかない場合、技術的には増税を試みることができますが、ほとんどの人はしたくないので、私たちを助けてください。それで彼らは予算を削減しますそれは正しく解雇されるのは教師です」公共サービスが削減されている仕事を失っている重要な労働者は、トランジットがそれほど頻繁に実行されないので、私たちはついにこれに行き着きました、そしてここで最後の切望された救済パッケージは3500億に行きます州政府や地方自治体ですが、通貨発行者ができることは、一方向の現金支払いを送信できることです。抱きたいカンケイがないのに、自分のデバイスに任せておくと、予算の削減や限られた借り入れの選択肢を知るのが非常に困難です。それからあなたは弱い状態で弱い状態で借金を引き受け、それからそれを返済するのが難しい可能性があることについて話している。州や地方自治体に3500億ドルが支払われましたが、それは通貨発行者ができることです。一方通行の現金支払いは、抱きたいカンケイがないことを知っているのに対し、自分のデバイスに任せていると、選択肢の予算削減を知るのが非常に困難です。あるいは、借り入れが限られているかもしれませんが、弱い状態で弱い状態で債務を引き受け、それを返済するのが困難になる可能性があるということです。州や地方自治体に3500億ドルが支払われましたが、それは通貨発行者ができることです。一方通行の現金支払いは、抱きたいカンケイがないことを知っているのに対し、自分のデバイスに任せていると、選択肢の予算削減を知るのが非常に困難です。あるいは、借り入れが限られているかもしれませんが、弱い状態で弱い状態で債務を引き受け、それを返済するのが困難になる可能性があるということです。
t：
カナダのような連邦では、説明したように州が制限されている場合があるため、この会話には興味深い順列がたくさんあります。そして、あなたは同じように制約されていない中央政府を持っています、そしてええと、誰がどのような管轄責任を持っているかについてのこの動的な緊張がありますmmtが正しく解決しようとは思わない、本当に肉厚な政治経済学の質問は、その分野でまだ繰り広げられているこれらの非常に現実的な政治紛争の議論があり、あなたがそれについて何か反省があるかどうかはわかりません。私はいくつかの解決策があることを意味しますが、私が正しいと思う管轄の緊張もここにあります。
ケルトン：
ええ、私たちはここでそれらの議論をしたことを意味します、そして政府が彼らの財政を誤って管理した知事またはオバマの約束を超えて救済するつもりであるかどうか人々がよく言うので、多くの指差しが正しいです年金か何かで、私たちは皆指さしを始めますが、現実には、私たちの場合、最も困窮している10の州のうち6つまたは7つは赤い州、共和党の州だと思います。彼らはそれを手に入れるつもりです。
t：
さて、これは完全にオフの質問です。少し方向を変えます。2008年の危機についてです。銀行セクターから多くの間違いがありましたが、政府はその時点で救済する義務があると感じていました。セクター。ええと、それについてどう思いますかiiこれが少し迷っているかもしれないことを知らないのですが、それについての考えと、最近の歴史の中でのその銀行の救済エピソードについてのmmtの見方を教えてください。
ケルトン：
ええ、そうです、私たちは2009年の夏に私が思うに、ブログの新しい経済的展望を立ち上げました。ウォール街を占拠し、それらのいくつかは2011年頃に始まりましたが、私たちはこの期間中にたくさん書いていました。レイはその期間中にこれについて非常に多くのことを書きました私たちはそれが好きではありませんでした私はあなたが言うのは正しいことを意味しますそして私と私はあなたが政治的に今知っていると思います場合によっては、金融危機が処理または誤って処理され、ウォール街を健康に戻すために必要なことを行うことを除いて、ウォール街を健康に戻すための完全な育成が行われたこと経済全体を救う金融システムの銀行を救うだけなら、それはそれがうまくいった方法ではなく、何百万人もの人々が家を失い、何百万人もの人々が家を失いました。つまり、決して経験したことがないと感じたことのない何百万人もの人々の回復ではない、いわゆる回復があったということです。専門家が言っていたのを知っている間の回復は、これは回復が進行中であるなどであり、そうではありませんでした。
t：
民主党内では、恐らく彼らがその危機を管理できなかったのではないかという反省があったと思うので、そのようなことはこの次の質問のステファニーに話します。そして、ボールを取るので、これがこの点に関連していると私が思う質問です。パルスメーカーが彼らと一般の人々に赤字の神話を放棄させるためにどのような推奨事項があるかを見逃しがちなのは危険です確かにあなたの本があるということですが、米国とは対照的に、カナダでそれを実現する方法はどのようになっているのか、その変化する会話のいくつかに話しかけることができます。
ケルトン：
よく聞いてください私は知らない私はそれがここで起こっていることをあなたに言うことができます私はあなたが私が毎週電話をしていることをあなたが知っている素晴らしいことをあなたに言うことができますそして、それは私が前に話したことがない議員であり、私があなたの本を読んだときに何かを言うでしょうそれは私の考えが完全に変わったすべてですそして集まりましょうあなたが出席してもらいましょうそうしましょう私はすべてをやっていますええと、それはそうです、それは私が実際にそれについて公に話していないので、ほとんど誰もが信じるだろうと思うよりもはるかに進んでいますが、ええと、それは今ここで起こっています。たぶん私たちと一緒に何人かの議員がいます私はあなたが知っている私はそれがそうではないと思うだけです簡単で、あなたはこれを正しく知っています。なぜなら、私が経験したことの多くは、立法者が考え方を変え始めたとしても、メッセージを送る方法がわからないからです。あまりにも多くの年月が赤字に穴を開けて国の債務を押し上げるようなことを繰り返していました彼らが使用したこの炎症性の言葉彼らはあなたの政治的通路の反対側の人々を国の財政の外観を破壊することを知っていると非難しましたあなたがやったこと、そして今、あなたはどのようにやって来て、経済を支え、あなたが知っているマクロ目標と社会目標を達成するために適切な場合には赤字の使用を含む財政政策のより野心的な使用を受け入れることになっていますかなどなど、あなたがそこに行ったことがあるので、赤字を増やして他の人を頭上で殴り、再配置する方法を見つけましたが、私が丘で議員と行った中で最も楽しい会議のいくつかをあなたに伝えることができますどうやって抜け出すのか、そしてそれらは楽しい会話です。なぜなら、あなたは、ある時点で誰もがその飛躍を遂げなければならないことを知っているからです。私たちが間違っていたと言わなければなりません。どうやって抜け出すのか、それは楽しい会話です。なぜなら、あなたは、ある時点で誰もがその飛躍を遂げなければならないことを知っているので、私たちが間違っていたと言わなければならないかもしれません。どうやって抜け出すのか、それは楽しい会話です。なぜなら、あなたは、ある時点で誰もがその飛躍を遂げなければならないことを知っているので、私たちが間違っていたと言わなければならないかもしれません。
t：
ある種の評判がありますそこにはある種の評判の慣性があり、それを克服する必要がありますが、それは本当に固執しているので、ステファニーにさらに2、3の質問があります。これは本当に楽しいです。この次の質問は、ケインズが銀行に世界通貨を要求したり、国の通貨を世界の予備基準として機能させる問題を止めたりしなかった、まったく別の場所に私たちを再び連れて行くでしょう。mmtとは何だと思いますかグローバル通貨のその問題とケインズのバンコールの概念についての展望。
ケルトン：[bancor] 69:30
さて、ケインズの概念にはある程度の共感があると思います。今では、それは1つの世界通貨のようなものと同じではありませんが、ある意味で、特に発展途上国の競争の場を平準化する方法で国際通貨システムを改革するために何かをしています。発展途上国のステータスでの開発に閉じ込められているトレッドミルでサイクルに入る国は非常に頻繁にあります彼らは常にあなたが輸出のための輸出生産のための資源を抽出していることを知っているので開発する機会を得ることはありません彼らがドルを手に入れることができるように、彼らはあなたが薬と食べ物やエネルギーか何かを知っている必要があるので彼らがドルを借りたので彼らが振り返ってドルをクレジットに渡すことができるようにします。
70:00
そして、彼らはその点で通貨に依存しない現在のソブリンを知ることはできませんが、開発中の必需品に関して独立することもできません。ネイサン・タンキスやスコット・フルワイラーなどのフェーデル・カブブは、スワップラインの使用など、国際的な通貨システムを再考する方法についてこれらの考え方に沿って取り組んできました。私たちの中には、銀行の会社を手に入れて、これが私たちの計画だと言いたいのです。
：bancor
t：
そうですが、有望な研究分野は、誰もが興味を持っている人にとっての扉です。これが次の質問です。また、私はあなたの回答を期待していますが、これがどのように構成されているかを示しています。債務の赤字がなぜないのか理解しています。 mmt理論では問題になりますが、それに反応することはわかっていますが、政府指導者の予算の制約を取り除くと、どのメカニズムが彼らに何に費やすかについて難しい選択を強いるのか、mmtはそうしないと言いますインフレが低いままである限り、難しい決断をしなければならないので、それがあなたにできる質問です。
ケルトン：
それはまず第一に彼らを止めるのは難しい決断ですそしてあなたは私が私の首の後ろの髪だと言うのは正しいです信じるように教えられ、あなたはリスクを中心に置く権利があります関連するリスクはインフレですインフレの制約がありますが、私たちが今日いる場所を見てください。同意しないので、彼らが行き過ぎないようにする理由の一部は、優先順位についての根本的な意見の不一致です。投資が重要であると知っている人は、気候変動と教育とヘルスケアに非常に高いプレミアムを置きたいと考えています。あなたのプレミアムは規制と税金を知っています、そして多分あなたは細いインフラ道路と橋のようなものを知っていますが、mmtはあなたがインフレリスクがあることを心に留めておくべき法律をまとめるときに立法者に見ようと言っていることを知っています支出請求書を作成し、厳密に評価して、今後10年間で赤字が増えるかどうかを確認する必要はありません。これは、現在行っていることですが、提案された支出を精査して、インフレを適切に軽減したかどうかを確認する必要があります。見られるかもしれないリスクそしてあなたはすることができます議会予算局から悪いスコアで戻ってくるのではなく、議員に言ってください。これは、赤字を増やすにはあまりにも多くないということです。私たちの分析に基づいて、インフレ圧力を緩和していないことを実際に知っていると言います。このようなこと。
t：
ええ、それはこの次の質問への本当に素晴らしいセグエです。質問者が尋ねているこれらのポイントのいくつかにすでに対処しているので、私はいくつかスキップしたいと思いますが、それは私が早い段階でフラグを立てたこのCDの周りです私のコメントでは、その作品が実際にmtに多くの譲歩をしているのは興味深いことです。たとえば、彼らは、mtが赤字が重要であると言っている死を認めていると言っています。私たちが一般的に信じているよりも金利は、彼らが混雑した話を受け入れないか、彼らがmmtに譲歩するような多くのポイントがありますが、それでも彼らは一日の終わりに債券警戒のこの恐れに頼っていますだから私は私たちがここに持っている質問はmmtについてのあなたの考えは何ですか、または彼らは私がちょうど一種の小さな開放経済の文脈でどのように批判を示したかを見ているので、あなたはそれについて少し考えることができるかどうか疑問に思いますカナダ。
74:16
それがその核心です。
カナダの小さな開放経済はこれらの債券に対して脆弱であり、通貨を下げることができる通貨トレーダーは債券の購入をやめ、利回りを上げるのをやめ、あなたが知っている経済を遅くし、債務スパイラルに関するこの懸念を引き起こします。議論あなたは以前にそのテーマのバリエーションを聞いたことがあると確信しているので、私はあなたにそれを捨てます。
ケルトン：
さて、私は時々また戻ってきます時々私は冗談を言いますええと、mmtまでの最後の1マイルは最長のマイルですあなたが言ったようにあなたは彼らがこのポイントを見ることができることを知っているので彼らはこのポイントを見ることができますそして彼らはこのポイントを見ることができます誰もが行き詰まり、誰もが行き詰まっている場所は行き詰まっていますが、市場の強制レートが高い場合はどうなりますか？そうでない場合はどうなりますか？支出が最初に来て、税金と債券が次に来て、自国通貨での借り入れは決して必須ではありません。自国通貨を発行する国が、中国からドルを借りなければならない人から自国通貨を借りる必要があるのはなぜですか。スピゴットをオフにすることはできず、それ以上のドルは出てこないでしょう。s私たちはこの話を正しく自分に言い聞かせています。もし中国がいつか目を覚ましてあなたのためにもうドルがないと決めたら、どういうわけか私たちは請求書を支払うことができないということをオフにしますそれはナンセンスですそれはナンセンスなのであなたはそれを認識しなければなりませんあなたが政府としてしていることは、私たちが国債と呼んでいるこのことを単に純支出であるということです。あなたが後ろ姿の鏡で見ているのは歴史的記録にすぎません。それはあなたの国の毎年の累積純支出の歴史的記録です。政府は経済に財政的預金をしました。彼らが取った以上のものを入れて、あなたは記録を残しました、そしてあなたはそれをすべて書き留めました、そしてあなたが今日到着する数はそれが彼らの歴史的な累積純支出である振り返りです費やされ、現在国債の形で保持されている課税されていないドルについては、国債に駐車できるお金がある場合はそれは良いことですそれはリスクのない報酬です右ウォーレンモスラーはそれを呼んでいますすでにお金を持っている人への補助金は、普遍的な債券保有者の収入のようなものですが、政府は、誰もが普遍的な債券保有者の収入を利用できるようにすることを強制されるべきではありません。そうすることを選択した場合は、いつでもそれらの金利を管理できることを忘れないでくださいカナダの中央銀行が常に利回り曲線を効果的に管理できる債券であり、リーガン大統領の下でポール・ヴォルカーがいたときのように金利が非常に高くなったとしても、10年国債の金利はほぼ16でした。 7未満のリーガン '任期中、彼が2回の大幅な減税を行った結果、国防費が大幅に増加し、国債が3倍になりました。私たちはすべての利息を期限内に支払い、すべてのことを知っています。それは、小さな開放経済を知っているということではありません。必要がなければ、債券を発行する必要はありません。
t：
そうそう、金持ちのための一種の保証された収入としての債務についての興味深い点は、それをそのように考えたいのであれば預金保険でもありますこれらは裕福な人々のための防弾預金保険スキームです返済リスクとあなたはあなたも途中で利息の支払いを受け取っているようなものです。
ケルトン：77：59
あなたは率直なニューマンを知っています率直なニューマンは小さな本を書きましたええと彼は私が私の後ろにそれらを持っているいくつかの本を書きましたええとそれらの1つはアメリカを妨げる6つの神話と呼ばれています。率直なニューマンは、あなたが副を知っている米国財務長官の下の副ええと財務長官でした、そしてええとフランクはあなたのポイントに、債券オークションの勝者は国債を手に入れ、彼が彼らと呼ぶ敗者は彼らのドルを保持して立ち往生していると言います彼らがあなたに負担をかける銀行口座は銀行リスクを知っています。
t：
まさにええと、ステファニーこれは文字通り最後の質問ですが、75があり、気はええ、それは私たちがええとやめなければならないので、これは同じテーマに戻りますが、ある種のより新興経済の視点に行きましょう質問は、債券が債務の資金調達に使用される場合、資本勘定が国の赤字支出の多くを想定するところがどこにあるかです。私は質問を読むだけで、実際には解釈していませんが、債券の資金調達をどのように交換するのでしょうか課税はこれらの経済によって引き受けられた以前の債務を救済するので、私たちは新興経済の文脈にいるので、そこにある話は何ですか？それはおそらく、新興経済の文脈でのmmtの話は何であるかについての別の考え方であり、米国ではありません。
ケルトン：
ええ、それはあなたが地方の権利債務建ての新興経済国を持っていることを意味し、あなたが外貨で借りている新興経済国を持っていることを意味します私はあなたがあなたの共同体で私たちにドル債務を引き受けたことを意味しますパンデミックを知っているので、質問は完全には明確ではありませんが、リスクは非常に異なります。エマージングしているかどうかはそれほど重要ではありませんが、ドル建ての債務を引き受けているかどうかは間違いなく大きな違いをもたらしますこれらの国々のうち、為替レートの急激な変動に敏感な国ははるかに脆弱であり、為替レートが急落した場合は、急激な下落により必要な医薬品や技術、食料やエネルギーを手に入れることができることがわかっています。
t：
ええ、ステファニーを聞いてくださいこれはあなたの非常に寛大な素晴らしい会話でした私はあなたが明日午前6時30分に会議をしていることを知っています今夜は本当にありがとうございました。どうもありがとうございました。今からお返しします。ごめんなさい。私たちの会話の結論に私たちを連れて行くつもりですもう一度ありがとうスティーブンええとあなたの思慮深くそして機知に富んだプレゼンテーションのための博士ケルトンとそのような興味深くそして魅力的なqaセッションを促進するための博士ピゾンこれらのmmtのレッスンから確かに多くのポイントがあります私たちがパンデミックを乗り越えてこの可能性を活用することを心に留めておくために、素晴らしいプレゼンテーションで私にとって最も際立っていたのは、持続不可能な可能性のある民間部門の赤字を比較して線を引き、人々が同じことをするのを避けることだったと思いますインフレリスクを注意深く評価し、軽減すればかなり持続的に活用できる公共部門の赤字へのアプローチ私にとってもう1つの興味深いポイントは、流動性を維持して、たとえば労働市場または移行は、すべての場合に流動性を維持するという従来の見方と比較して、可能な限りすべてのコストで素晴らしいプレゼンテーションをありがとうございました。qaiは、フロアをバードル博士に引き渡して、 2021年のメンターアワードと今夜のイベントの締めくくりは、パービンに感謝します。また、ステファニーの素晴らしい講演に感謝します。また、チャットでのコメントや質問について、参加者全員に感謝します。チャットではそれだけです」このような素晴らしいイベントを開催できたことは素晴らしいことです。2019年に設立され、毎年1人の受賞者に授与される、今夜のメンターアワードを発表できることを大変嬉しく思います。メンターアワードは、エグゼクティブインターンシップでメンターを務めた優れた公務員を表彰し、感謝しています。このプログラムは、インターンの成長と発展に貢献し、今年も学校に継続的に貢献してきました。公共サービス委員会の戦略および管理部門のナンシーガードナーディレクターに、2021年のメンター賞を授与しました。ナンシー・ガードナーは、過去25年間、サスカチュワンの公共サービスで長く曲がりくねったキャリアパスを通じて知っているかもしれません。彼女はサスカチュワンの農業にエネルギーと精神を持って役割を果たし、最終的には一般の人々と一緒に時間サービスセンターに来ました。最適化とレポートのマネージャーとしての2009年のサービス委員会は、この時期に彼女は幅広い幅広いポリシーの世界に興味を持ち、jsgsポリシー証明書プログラムを通じて、彼女が成長したときにポリシーアナリストになりたいと決心しました。 pscの戦略的管理のディレクターとしての現在の位置では、すべての計画に対する情熱と、この場合は政府に対するポリシーへの関心の高まりを組み合わせることができます。これは、彼女の仕事の最良の部分であり、常にスタッフから学ぶことです。元または現在のjsgsインターンである多様な政策専門家の私は今レベッカに過去のインターンと日曜日のルイスナンシーをウォレスさせます」彼女がこの賞に値する理由についての現在のインターンの話ナンシーはこの賞に値するので、あなたはとても価値があります、そしてあなたはまだ信じられないほどのメンターであり、pscで一緒に過ごした友人は私がしなかった方法で私を成功に導きましたナンシーを知らないが、あなたを知らないあなたのことをその時に知っていても、私は彼女が輝くいくつかの方法を共有したいと思いますナンシーは彼女が人々を結びつけるつながりを見る文化ビルダーであり、彼女はナンシーは他の人の成長と学習の機会に投資されているので、ウエストラインを伸ばすことで彼らの成長を助けます彼女は私たちを無数の会議委員会に招待し、彼女が私を志願したときのようにできるだけ多く参加するように勧めましたと日曜日にsmvをリードする」ユナイテッドウェイキャンペーンのナンシーはエネルギーが非常に多いため、伝染性があります。レジーナのすべてのコーヒーのホットスポットを知っていることと関係があるかもしれません。彼女のエンドレスランは33で、3番目のナンシーは信じられないほどのネットワーク担当者であり接続メーカーです。これがjsgsに行く理由です。あなたとの出来事は、彼女が文字通り、ナンシーが他の人の努力を一貫して認識していることを知っていることを知っています。彼女の十代の若者たちをとてもサポートしてくれたので、彼女が私たちのed glendaを椅子賞にノミネートしたときは本当に意味がありました。ナンシーはすべてに感謝し、おめでとうございます。とても親切で寛大な魂がとてもオープンで歓迎してくれたので、私たちが最初に行ったズームコールからあなたとの関係をとても快適にできました。今ではおそらく100万のチームが集まり、メンターとしてのリーダーシップのスタイルが非常に可能であり、私に力を与えるリーダーシップテーブルsmtでの会議への招待に非常に感謝しています。また、驚くべきことに、管轄区域間テーブルのBeanフォーラムの共有フォーラムや他の多くの人々、およびブランチでさまざまなタスクを主導する機会が、私の素晴らしい機会を提供してくれたことを知っています。さまざまな方法で私の成長に貢献する学習と開発アイデアが不足していると感じたり、課題が大きすぎて、あなたと話す必要があることを知っていると、それらのアイデアが再び流れ始めます。あなたはインスピレーションとエネルギーの源であるため、あなたはそれをとても魅力的にする別の視点を計画することを与えます、そして今私は」mほぼプランナーになりつつある私たちのコーヒーの仕事中のチャットは、励ましのコメントとガンダの瞬間が常に公務員の将来のために私を準備しなければならないことを確認する言葉ありがとうナンシーあなたが誰であるか、そしてあなたがするすべてに感謝しますそして、あなたはそれをあなたが知っている最善の方法で行います、そしてそれは本当にですが、これはあなたに歓声をあげますナンシーとあなたの心にお祝いを言いますナンシー私が今欲しい次世代の公務員とソートリーダーの開発へのあなたのサポートに感謝しますナンシーをミュート解除に招待して、いくつかの言葉を言ってくださいああ私の良さは私を聞くことができますはい私たちは大丈夫ですそれは私にとってすべてですそれはロベルタと日曜日とマリアとインとジュリアとジェフと他の人についてです私'ジョンソン・チョヤマが私たちにもたらす優秀な学生と一緒に仕事をすることは本当に特権です。それは私の仕事の最高の部分の1つですが、この認識を私のチームのメンターシップと共有したいと思います。 psdはチーム全体の問題であり、双方向のストリートであり、それぞれが独自の経験、スタイル、またはスキルセットを共有します。現在のインターンの日曜日のように、共有するように2回依頼する必要はありません。彼らから学ぶべきことがいくつかあると言ってください。彼らがチャレンジフラグを投げて、なぜ特定のものが特定の方法で機能しなければならないのか疑問に思うとき、私は感謝しています。この認識を私のチームのメンターシップと共有したいのですが、psdはチーム全体の問題であり、双方向の道でもあります。それぞれが独自の経験、スタイル、スキルを共有できるため、2回質問する必要はありません。現在のインターンの日曜日と同じように、彼らから学ぶことがいくつかあると言っているのと同じように共有してください。彼らがチャレンジフラグを投げて、なぜ特定のことが特定の方法で機能しなければならないのか疑問に思うとき、私は感謝しています。この認識を私のチームのメンターシップと共有したいのですが、psdはチーム全体の問題であり、双方向の道でもあります。それぞれが独自の経験、スタイル、スキルを共有できるため、2回質問する必要はありません。現在のインターンの日曜日と同じように、彼らから学ぶことがいくつかあると言っているのと同じように共有してください。彼らがチャレンジフラグを投げて、なぜ特定のことが特定の方法で機能しなければならないのか疑問に思うとき、私は感謝しています。
そして、私たちは常に良い答えを持っているとは限らないので、政府をより革新的でオープンでアクセスしやすいものにするために努力し続けている素晴らしいインターンになってくれた同僚に感謝します。この電話に出ているすべての人に聞いてみたいのは、この時点でミュートボタンがどこにあるかを知っていることです。私たち全員が一緒にいたら、パンデミックではない世界にいるはずです。私たちは皆立って拍手喝采しますナンシー私はあなたがあなたのオーディオをミュート解除してナンシーに彼女をとてもよく与えることができればそれと実質的に同等のことをするように私たちに頼むつもりです君は。
おめでとうございます。おめでとうございます。今年のタンズリーレクチャーを締めくくる前に、追加のありがとうございました。ありがとうございます。ありがとうございます。もう一度、今夜の有益な講義のために、それはちょうど飛んだ時間でした、そして私たちはもう1時間行くことができたように感じました、しかしええと、特に朝早く起きているあなたは私たちがええとええとええとしないことを保証できますマークアンドレは、QAをモデレートしてくれてありがとうございました。チャットではたくさんのことが起こっていました。そのすべてを管理し、素晴らしいディスカッションを行うことができました。本当に素晴らしいパービンでした。ええと、私はあなたのような素晴らしいmcであることに感謝したいと思います。パービンは今年、全国ケースコンペティションチームのメンバーでもありました。全国で3番目になりました。おめでとうございます。あなたとあなたのチームメイトは本当に素晴らしい仕事をしました。今夜のイベントを企画してくれたjsgsスタッフに感謝します。大規模な事業であり、いつものように非常によくできています。最後に、今夜の参加にご参加いただき、ありがとうございました。本当にうーん、何ができるかを示す素晴らしいショーだと思います。非常に大規模な事業であり、いつものように非常によくできています。最後に、今夜の参加にご参加いただきありがとうございます。参加していただきありがとうございます。本当にうーん、何ができるかを示す素晴らしいショーだと思います。 。非常に大規模な事業であり、いつものように非常によくできています。最後に、今夜の参加にご参加いただきありがとうございます。参加していただきありがとうございます。本当にうーん、何ができるかを示す素晴らしいショーだと思います。 。
今後のgsts講義の詳細やプログラムの詳細については、ほぼいつものように機能させる必要がある場合は、当社のWebサイトschoolofpublicpolicy.sk.caにアクセスしてください。今夜のイベントは記録されており、一度視聴できるようになります。編集しましたので、必ず他の人に知らせてください。他の人がこの素晴らしいイベントを将来楽しむことができることを願っています。それで、おやすみなさい、そして安全を保ちます。またお会いできるのを楽しみにしています。今。
JP 検索 9+ アバターの画像 The 2021 Tansley Lecture featuring Stephanie Kelton 84 回視聴•2021/04/22 2 0 共有 保存 jsgspp チャンネル登録者数 356人 The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy Deficits matter, but not in the way we’ve been taught to believe. This is especially true in Canada, where many think that deficits brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s and that recent federal deficits risk repeating the mistakes of the past. Underlying these worries is a belief that deficit spending is like running up credit card debt: it can easily get out of hand and burdens future generations. This reasoning lies behind arguments that we can’t afford to take decisive action on climate change, find a solution to the water crisis in Indigenous communities or address countless other policy problems. These are myths. Deficits can be used for good or evil. They can enrich a small segment of the population, driving income and wealth inequality to new heights, while leaving millions behind. Or, they can be used to sustain life and build a more just economy that works for the many, and not just the few. JSGS was pleased to welcome Stephanie Kelton: Stephanie Kelton is a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University and a Senior Fellow at the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research. Her most recent book, The Deficit Myth (June 2020), became an instant New York Times bestseller. She is a leading expert on Modern Monetary Theory and a former Chief Economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee (Democratic staff). Professor Kelton advises policymakers and consults with investment banks, and portfolio managers across the globe. 0 件のコメント me com 公開コメントを入力... 文字起こし 00:12 meeting again 00:13 and welcome to the johnson shayama 00:14 graduate school of public policies 2021 00:17 tennessee lecture my name is pavinia 00:19 zamparez and i am an mpa candidate with 00:22 johnson shayama 00:23 and an executive intern with financial 00:26 and consumer affairs authority of 00:27 saskatchewan 00:28 i will also be your emcee for tonight's 00:31 events 00:32 i would like to acknowledge that while 00:34 the tennessee lecture is taking place 00:36 online this year johnson shayama's 00:38 physical homes at the university of 00:39 regina and university of saskatchewan 00:42 are located on treaty 4 and 3d6 lands 00:45 and the traditional homeland of the 00:47 metis we pay our respect to our first 00:50 nations and main tea ancestors of this 00:52 place 00:53 and reaffirm our relationship with one 00:55 another 00:56 we would also like to welcome those of 00:58 you joining us from across turtle island 01:02 i am very much looking forward to 01:03 tonight's discussion on this timely 01:05 topic 01:06 during the pandemic and considering that 01:08 the budget is out 01:09 and as governments plan for economic 01:11 recovery 01:12 and managing deficits i'm certain this 01:15 will be a thought provoking presentation 01:17 and discussion for all and a special 01:19 learning opportunity for students 01:24 now before we hear a few remarks from 01:26 our executive director 01:28 dr lolin bertol i would like to take 01:30 care of a few housekeeping items 01:33 we kindly ask that all attendees stay 01:36 muted and turn off your video during the 01:38 presentation portion of our event 01:40 feel free to turn your videos back on 01:42 for the q a 01:44 the format for tonight's event is as 01:46 follows 01:47 following opening remarks our speaker dr 01:50 stephanie helton 01:51 will present for approximately 15 01:53 minutes followed by a fireside 01:55 discussion 01:56 with dr mark andrea pijong jsgs 01:59 assistant professor 02:00 and director of the canadian center for 02:03 the study of cooperatives 02:06 for the remaining time dr kelton will 02:08 entertain 02:09 audience questions moderated by dr pizon 02:13 if you would like to ask a question 02:15 please use zoom's chat function 02:17 to submit your questions because we have 02:19 a large audience and a short amount of 02:21 time 02:22 i would encourage you to keep your 02:24 questions concise and to the point 02:26 so that our speaker can respond to as 02:28 many questions as possible 02:30 if you have any logistical issues during 02:33 tonight's presentation 02:34 please don't hesitate to send a message 02:36 to karen jester 02:38 lockwood via zoom's chat function or 02:41 email to school 02:42 at jsgs.events at uregina.ca 02:46 i am now pleased to introduce jhjs 02:48 executive director 02:50 dr lolin berto we will say a few words 02:53 on behalf of on behalf of the school dr 02:56 bertol 02:58 thank you parvin and thank you everyone 03:00 for being here 03:01 it's so exciting to have so many people 03:03 joining us from across the country and 03:05 beyond 03:06 and i'd like to take just a few minutes 03:08 to say a few words about our school 03:11 founded in 2007 by the university of 03:14 regina and the university of 03:15 saskatchewan the johnson chamber 03:17 graduate school of public policy is well 03:19 known and respected for its innovative 03:20 graduate degree and micro-credential 03:22 programs 03:23 executive education training 03:25 opportunities and research excellence 03:28 like the rest of the world this past 03:30 year has been one to remember 03:32 in march 2020 our school pivoted to 03:34 online learning and training for all 03:36 students 03:37 in order to meet the challenges 03:38 presented by the covid19 pandemic 03:41 however when faced with the trials of 03:43 operating in a virtual world 03:45 we also looked for opportunities our 03:47 faculty 03:48 executives and residents and staff 03:50 worked collaboratively 03:52 collaboratively across our two 03:53 universities to support students 03:55 our executive education team took its 03:57 training online to continue supporting 03:59 public servants and communities 04:01 throughout the province 04:02 and our researchers look for 04:04 opportunities to secure national 04:06 and provincial grants that focused on 04:08 pandemic related research 04:09 among other areas just last week 04:13 our own doctor cheryl camillo was named 04:16 a coke applicant on a nine million 04:18 dollar grant 04:18 to establish a national cove invariant 04:21 rapid response network 04:23 the week week prior doctor tyrone 04:26 catapult 04:27 was awarded more than half a million 04:29 dollars to expand his 04:31 co-away platform beyond covid19 04:34 to address a broad range of health 04:36 issues such as mental health 04:38 substance misuse and domestic violence 04:41 as well as addressing communicable and 04:43 non-communicable disease in northern 04:45 indigenous communities 04:46 not to mention faculty members dr justin 04:49 longo 04:50 dr murray fulton dr mark andrei pajang 04:53 and dr yang yang received sixty thousand 04:56 dollars to examine the latest 04:57 impacts of digital technologies on 04:59 public and agricultural sectors 05:02 lastly through virtual events like the 05:05 tanzley lecture 05:06 we have been able to continue bringing 05:07 together thought leaders academics 05:10 students public servants and community 05:12 members from across canada 05:14 and around the globe to listen and learn 05:16 about current issues 05:18 affecting canadians speaking of thought 05:21 leaders 05:21 the late donald tansley was known and 05:24 respected for his remarkable career as a 05:26 senior public servant in canada 05:29 an alumnus of the university of 05:30 saskatchewan he began his career in the 05:32 government of saskatchewan in the budget 05:34 bureau 05:35 under the guidance of al johnson donald 05:37 was known 05:38 for leading some of the most complex and 05:40 contentious files in provincial 05:42 government 05:43 from rescuing ipsco from bankruptcy 05:47 to implementing medicare and statute 05:50 leading the modernization of the 05:52 provincial government 05:52 new brunswick and implementing highly 05:55 controversial policies 05:56 such as the program of equal opportunity 06:00 in 1968 he moved to the federal public 06:03 service where he 06:04 served as vice president of the canadian 06:07 international 06:08 of the canadian international 06:09 development agency pardon me 06:11 adviser to the red cross ceo of the 06:14 controversial anti-inflation board 06:16 and finally he led the development of 06:18 the department of fisheries and oceans 06:20 donald tansley's character and 06:22 commitment to the public service were 06:24 undeniable 06:25 often you would hear him encouraging 06:27 colleagues to persevere through 06:29 challenges 06:30 and to take harsh judgments with a grain 06:31 of salt two pieces of it pieces of 06:34 advice 06:34 i think would still resonate with our 06:36 students today 06:38 now that is enough from me i'm sure you 06:40 would rather hear from our keynote 06:42 speaker 06:43 so i would like to invite to dr marco 06:45 andre pischon 06:46 to introduce our guest of honor rock 06:48 andre 06:49 great thank you so much loline um so dr 06:52 stephanie kelton i'm going to refer to 06:53 her as stephanie because we've known 06:54 each other for going on 25 years now 06:57 is a leading authority on modern 06:59 monetary theory 07:01 a sort of new i guess you could say 07:02 approach to economics that 07:04 has really captured the attention of the 07:06 policy making space i'll refer a bit 07:08 back to this in a 07:09 in a few moments she's also considered 07:11 one of the most important voices 07:13 influencing that debate uh today and i 07:14 think we'll we'll hear echoes of that as 07:16 well through our conversation 07:18 um her new york times bestseller the 07:20 deficit myth modern monetary theory 07:23 and the birth of the people's economy 07:25 really kind of tries to get this 07:26 question of the flawed thinking that 07:28 um that she argues and i have a degree 07:30 has kind of limited our policy makers 07:32 around the world 07:34 so in addition to stephanie's many 07:36 academic publications and i'll refer to 07:38 those a little bit later as well 07:39 she's been a contributor to bloomberg 07:41 opinion has written for the financial 07:43 times 07:44 new york times los angeles times u.s 07:46 news and world report cnn 07:49 and many others now as i mentioned 07:51 stephanie's kind of been academia i'm 07:53 going to come back to that 07:54 minute but it's also important to point 07:56 out her practical engagement in the 07:58 political space 07:59 she served as a chief economist on the 08:01 u.s senate budget committee 08:03 democratic staff in 2015 and as a senior 08:07 economic advisor to bernie sanders 08:08 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns 08:12 she's also a senior fellow at the 08:13 schwartz center for economic policy 08:15 analysis 08:16 and a professor of economics and public 08:17 policy at stony brook university 08:20 stephanie has had visiting 08:21 professorships at the new school for 08:23 social research 08:24 the university of ljubljana and the 08:26 university of adelaide 08:27 she is previously the chair of 08:29 department of economics at the 08:31 university of missouri kansas city 08:34 now back to the kind of public 08:35 engagement piece thing uh politico was 08:37 called stephanie 08:38 in 2016 one of the 50 most influential 08:41 thinkers 08:42 uh in 2019 bloomberg listed her as one 08:45 of the 50 people who define that year 08:47 uh barons named her as one of the 100 08:50 most influential women 08:52 in finance in 2020 and prospect magazine 08:55 listed her among the world's top 08:56 50 thinkers in 2020. 09:00 now just add a little bit of a personal 09:01 note to this stephanie is also a friend 09:04 we first met about 25 years 23 years ago 09:08 our offices were just next to each other 09:10 when we were both passing through 09:12 the levy economics institute just a 09:14 little bit north in new york city 09:15 um stephanie and i were both drawn to 09:17 this place to work with a fellow named 09:19 randy ray 09:20 who's another leading figure in the mmt 09:22 research community 09:24 and i would add as well uh the late 09:26 great win godley 09:27 was one of the most influential 09:29 economists in the united kingdom 09:31 for decades and whose work has exerted 09:33 influence on the development of mmt but 09:36 also is really finding its way into 09:39 central banks and department of finance 09:41 including your own federal department of 09:42 finance 09:43 uh and that work can has a nice linkage 09:45 to mmt 09:46 i'd also add that that late 1990s period 09:49 was a really 09:50 kind of a special time in the history of 09:51 ideas because in many ways 09:53 it was the kind of pinnacle of the 09:55 washington consensus what i 09:57 call the washington consensus some 09:59 people might say neoliberal 10:00 suite of policy ideas and that included 10:02 of course liberalized 10:04 trade privatization of state assets 10:07 and at the heart of that that consensus 10:10 this notion of balanced budgets and i 10:11 think that idea 10:12 was really especially anchored in canada 10:14 we're going to come back to that 10:16 when stephanie and i engaged in a 10:17 conversation but it was also 10:19 equally true in the united states 10:20 australia many other places that 10:23 that was the anchor that kind of held 10:25 all this this kind of suite of policies 10:27 together and what was interesting was at 10:29 the levy institute in the late 90s 10:31 not only was mnt being developed as a 10:33 kind of a research 10:35 stream or thread but there was a really 10:37 a lot of exciting research on wealth and 10:39 income inequality 10:41 and minimum wages a whole lot of issues 10:43 that right now are kind of really in the 10:45 fore so it was an exciting time and 10:47 i feel very fortunate to have been 10:48 passing through at that time so then 10:50 with that i kind of want to just set 10:52 that up because we're going to come back 10:53 to this 10:54 this trajectory of these ideas that were 10:56 on the margin 10:57 20 25 years ago but are now at the 10:59 center of the policy discussion and how 11:01 did that happen 11:02 so with that i'd like to ask you to 11:04 please join me in welcoming stephanie 11:06 kelton 11:06 as our 13th annual tran tansley speaker 11:09 uh i think this is a really opportune 11:11 i didn't realize that the the mr tansley 11:14 was involved in inflation board i think 11:17 this is a nice 11:18 tie into our conversation today so that 11:20 stephanie i'm going to pass it over to 11:21 you 11:22 say a few marks and then we'll engage in 11:23 a conversation
kelton:
11:27 thank you uh marc andre and to all of 11:30 you 11:30 who um you know put forward this 11:33 invitation 11:34 and helped with the arrangements i'm 11:36 delighted to be able to spend a bit of 11:38 time with you this evening and i know 11:40 that 11:40 uh our time is limited and i do think 11:43 that 11:44 in many ways the most enjoyable part of 11:47 this 11:47 probably for me and all of you is going 11:49 to come in the second 11:50 portion when we actually just get to 11:52 have some some dialogue so i don't want 11:54 to 11:55 take a tremendous amount of time um 11:58 but i do want to sort of lay out uh 12:01 a sort of broad brushstroke of of what 12:04 modern monetary theory or mmt 12:06 is and in some ways that's a challenge 12:09 right because as marc-andre said 12:12 this is a label mmt that is applied to a 12:16 body of scholarship that has been 12:17 developed now over a quarter of a 12:19 century and 12:21 by a number of economists 12:24 and increasingly others from outside of 12:28 economics legal scholars some historians 12:31 and humanists and others so the body of 12:34 work has grown 12:36 and it's impossible to wrap your arms 12:38 around it especially in a 12:40 10 or so minute kind of uh opening 12:42 remarks but 12:44 let me just uh start by telling you 12:47 how i kind of came to this myself 12:50 because this 12:50 is a journey for me right i was studying 12:54 economics i had a very conventional 12:56 uh sort of training in economics many of 12:59 my macro courses and money and banking 13:01 finance type courses were very 13:03 conventional and i 13:05 began graduate uh school at cambridge 13:07 university 13:09 in 1995 in the fall and 13:12 that is wrong in 1996 uh in the fall 13:16 and uh that happened to be a time when 13:20 you know countries were beginning to 13:22 think about 13:23 joining this economic and monetary union 13:26 right you had the maastricht treaty this 13:28 blueprint 13:29 for introducing a common currency 13:32 throughout 13:32 parts of europe i was in the uk studying 13:36 and at that time uh the british 13:39 government was saying we don't think 13:40 we're going to go in with you 13:42 in this first phase we're going to let 13:44 the rest of you go forward 13:46 we'll sit back see how it goes and if it 13:48 looks like things are working out all 13:49 right 13:50 you know we'll maybe we'll join you 13:51 later and 13:53 i remember that being such a 13:56 big part of the conversation in not just 13:59 you know at cambridge where i was 14:01 studying and within economics 14:03 but the politics right there was so much 14:05 talk about this 14:07 and i guess for me i started to then 14:10 realize that there was something really 14:12 big about this looming decision about 14:15 whether 14:16 to give up your currency 14:19 and switch to using a different currency 14:21 and in some ways a lot of the people 14:22 around me were basically saying 14:24 what difference does it make right it's 14:27 going to be more efficient 14:28 these are our main trading partners and 14:30 so 14:31 if we uh move to this common currency 14:35 well it's mostly going to be beneficial 14:37 because we're going to reduce a lot of 14:39 transaction costs and we'll all be 14:41 you know trading in the same currency 14:43 and we'll have one 14:44 central bank who will run monetary 14:46 policy for the whole of the group that 14:48 joins in 14:49 and not much concern was paid actually 14:53 to what it would mean for fiscal policy 14:56 and mark andre you mentioned when 14:59 godly's name 15:00 and i had not met win yet but i would 15:03 meet when 15:04 just about a year later i got a 15:06 fellowship from 15:07 cambridge university to go to the levy 15:09 institute 15:10 and wynn godley was at levy and wynn had 15:14 been 15:14 the head of the department of applied 15:16 economics at cambridge university so 15:19 that's where he came from his academic 15:21 home 15:21 but then he went to the u.s and uh he 15:24 was 15:25 a very very interesting man extremely 15:28 smart 15:29 had very different ways of looking at 15:32 things right 15:33 his analytical framework was unlike 15:35 anything 15:36 i had been introduced to before and 15:39 i started working with wynn and i 15:41 started reading some of the things that 15:43 wynn had written 15:44 about the euro about the common currency 15:46 and here was this man who as early as 15:49 1992 15:50 had laid out in the most incredibly 15:53 clear fashion 15:54 why it would be a mistake in his view 15:57 for countries to move 15:58 forward with this common currency 16:01 project 16:02 with the um the design 16:05 that was in place in other words when 16:08 saw a design flaw 16:09 almost like a birth defect in this 16:12 document in this master 16:13 treaty which countries were signing onto 16:16 and saying if we go forward we will all 16:18 agree to these terms right 16:20 we will be governed by one central bank 16:22 it will conduct monetary policy for all 16:24 of us 16:25 we are all on our own when it comes to 16:27 fiscal policy we will run our own fiscal 16:29 policy and we will 16:31 uh commit to playing by a certain set of 16:34 rules 16:35 we will in a sense have fiscal 16:37 discipline 16:38 we will not let our budget deficits rise 16:41 in excess of 3 percent of gdp 16:43 we will keep our debt to gdp ratios 16:46 under 16:47 60 of gdp now some economists at the 16:50 time were critical of those provisions 16:52 they said i don't know if that's enough 16:54 uh if that's enough leeway right what if 16:57 they need a little bit of 16:58 extra room wynn saw things very 17:01 differently it wasn't that the 17:03 thresholds were too restrictive 17:05 it was that the design itself 17:09 was going to transform countries that 17:12 were previously 17:14 uh able to run fiscal policy exercise 17:17 fiscal policy 17:19 in a way that would be most beneficial 17:21 to 17:22 their domestic economies right that they 17:24 could maintain full employment 17:25 that they could look after the economy 17:29 uh manage chain you know the economy 17:31 with using fiscal policy that is 17:33 government spending and tax policy 17:36 uh and that they would be giving up much 17:39 more than just the ability to use 17:42 monetary policy and have some 17:44 constrained fiscal policy winds saw a 17:46 much bigger problem 17:48 so here i was thinking well something's 17:51 you know interesting about this the the 17:53 nature of the relationship 17:55 between a nation and its currency 17:59 right that when a government has the 18:01 ability to 18:02 issue its own currency and when that 18:04 government doesn't promise to convert 18:07 that currency into something it could 18:08 run 18:09 out of right the government is not 18:11 promising to convert to gold or to some 18:13 other country's currency but if you are 18:15 a sovereign currency issuing government 18:18 issuing a 18:19 non-convertible floating exchange rate 18:21 fiat currency 18:23 that you have policy space available to 18:26 you 18:27 that countries that operate under more 18:29 restrictive monetary systems 18:31 do not have and that was winds real 18:34 point that he was 18:35 saying listen don't go forward 18:38 until you fix the design flaw you're 18:41 going to need 18:42 fiscal policy and as mark andre said 18:44 earlier you know there was this sort of 18:46 consensus in macroeconomics that really 18:49 you don't need fiscal policy all you 18:51 need 18:52 is a credible independent central bank 18:55 that it alone right has the tools 18:59 necessary to manage the economy through 19:01 the business cycle that governments 19:03 should mostly 19:04 turn their attention to you know getting 19:07 their budgets in order 19:08 balancing budgets and and preventing 19:10 budgets from moving into 19:12 deficit on any kind of sustained basis 19:14 and wind just saw things 19:16 uh completely differently you know he 19:18 used something 19:19 i think he pioneered a framework 19:22 called the sectoral financial balances 19:25 framework and in my book 19:27 i i try to put forward what could 19:29 otherwise get complicated using just a 19:31 series of buckets and i'm going to close 19:33 with this 19:33 uh little statement okay so i want you 19:36 to imagine 19:37 that you're interested in keeping your 19:39 domestic economy healthy 19:41 right you want lots of jobs you want 19:43 good 19:44 economic conditions domestically low 19:46 inflation 19:47 high levels of employment that's the 19:49 bucket that you're worried about your 19:51 domestic 19:52 private sector so think of the canadian 19:53 economy right 19:55 you have a government bucket and the 19:57 government bucket is important 19:59 because the government bucket can let's 20:01 say pour 20:03 some dollars into the private sector to 20:05 keep the private sector 20:07 healthy you got one more bucket okay so 20:10 we're dealing with three buckets the 20:11 other bucket is the rest of the world 20:13 and it's the interaction the interplay 20:16 between the financial balances 20:18 right the flows between and among these 20:21 buckets that wind thought were important 20:24 so if the goal is to keep the center 20:27 bucket healthy 20:28 the private sector healthy how can you 20:30 do that 20:31 well there are different options one 20:33 option is that the rest of the world 20:36 is providing very strong demand for the 20:39 goods and services that come out of your 20:40 economy 20:41 and that's producing lots of demand and 20:43 supporting jobs and you're getting good 20:45 economic growth but not too much 20:47 pressure and so not a lot of inflation 20:49 but if you don't have a a trade surplus 20:54 if the rest of the world does not have a 20:55 huge appetite for the things that you 20:57 produce 20:58 then that bucket might actually be a 21:01 drain on your 21:02 economy in our case in the us it 21:03 certainly is and in canada's case right 21:06 if you have 21:07 trade deficits or what are more 21:08 appropriately called current account 21:10 deficits 21:11 that foreign sector bucket is draining 21:14 off 21:14 some of your dollars all right so how do 21:18 you 21:18 compensate for that well the government 21:21 bucket can come in 21:22 and replace some dollars that are being 21:25 lost 21:26 to the rest of the world in other words 21:29 it's a little bit complicated to do 21:31 kind of in a a short using my hands and 21:34 my buckets but 21:35 the point the point is that the 21:37 government's deficit 21:39 is nothing more than the difference 21:41 between 21:42 the number of dollars that the 21:43 government spends into the economy each 21:46 year 21:46 and the number of dollars it subtracts 21:48 back out each year 21:49 so we are so accustomed to hearing the 21:51 word deficit 21:52 and having this adverse reaction right a 21:55 deficit oh 21:56 that's a bad thing right that's 21:57 something you're supposed to try to 21:58 avoid 21:59 no no no deficit is neither good nor bad 22:03 surplus is neither good nor bad what 22:05 matters is 22:06 the health of the economy if you have a 22:09 well-balanced economy 22:10 high levels of employment low inflation 22:13 if your economy is balanced 22:15 the number that falls out of the budget 22:17 box at the end of each year 22:19 whether it's a deficit or a surplus is 22:21 irrelevant what matters is 22:23 is the budget helping you to balance the 22:26 broader conditions 22:27 in the economy so every deficit is good 22:31 for someone 22:32 right if the government's budget is in 22:34 deficit it means they are 22:35 spending more dollars into the economy 22:37 than they are subtracting away mostly 22:39 through taxation in other words 22:41 they're doing more adding than 22:42 subtracting and when they do that 22:45 somebody's on the receiving end 22:47 receiving that financial surplus 22:50 on the other side of every government 22:52 deficit lies a 22:53 financial surplus in some other part of 22:56 the economy 22:57 the question is for whom and for what 23:01 right so we have governments yours mine 23:04 governments around the world 23:05 that have been running sizable fiscal 23:08 deficits 23:09 in response to covid and the ensuing 23:11 economic fallout 23:12 those deficits have produced enormous 23:15 financial surpluses 23:17 in the rest of the economy that is 23:19 support for the rest of the economy now 23:22 will those deficits need to remain large 23:24 forever 23:25 no the economy will recover we will 23:28 eventually 23:29 beat covet and as we do and as the 23:32 economy begins to recover 23:34 the need for that fiscal support will 23:36 diminish and the budget deficit can 23:39 safely come down right i think so much 23:41 of the debate 23:42 now is beginning to turn to should 23:45 governments try to 23:46 wrestle the deficit back down should 23:48 they actively 23:49 try to go in and cut spending or 23:51 increase taxes in order to focus on 23:54 you know rebalancing the budget outcome 23:57 and 23:58 my position would always be that you 24:01 never want to make the budget 24:03 outcome the target of economic policy 24:05 the target of economic policy 24:07 are real conditions in the economy and 24:10 again 24:10 if if you can achieve a good economy 24:13 with your budget 24:14 like this so be it right if you can 24:17 achieve a good economy with your budget 24:18 like this 24:19 so be it that's not what it what is 24:21 important so there's so much more 24:23 that we could do but let's let's try to 24:26 have a bit of conversation at this point .
:kelton
24:28 for sure stephanie and i think you you 24:30 know just before we got on here he said 24:31 let's have an organic conversation so 24:32 i'm gonna i'm gonna run with that 24:34 so you said a couple things that really 24:37 got my attention 24:38 about the eu for example because 24:40 interestingly and this just came to my 24:42 mind 24:42 in the late 90s there was an active 24:44 conversation about forming a north 24:45 american monetary union 24:47 not so much in the united states but in 24:48 the canadian space this was 24:50 the dominant topic in my when i was 24:52 working the library department the 24:53 research division 24:54 and i you know it just strikes me as 24:56 really relevant also because robert 24:57 mundell 24:58 who was at the kind of heart of these 25:00 this thinking um 25:02 just passed away so i'm wondering if you 25:03 you know if you can reflect a little bit 25:05 on that um 25:07 robert mundell's passing that he was a 25:09 canadian economist had some 25:10 profile globally uh but he was really 25:13 that that kind of a key figure 25:14 in a lot of this currency union thinking 25:16 um so do you have any kind of thoughts 25:18 you can share about that and 25:19 and maybe about canada dodging the 25:21 bullet in terms of 25:23 not signing up for a north american 25:24 monetary union well we all dodged 25:27 a bullet i mean we would have all 25:29 similarly situated ourselves 25:32 in in the place of a a currency using 25:35 government 25:35 right i mean that's the reality when you 25:37 look at what the 25:38 decision in europe was and his work was 25:42 extremely influential there was used to 25:44 justify it was sort of the theoretical 25:46 justification 25:47 for the introduction of the common 25:49 currency in the eurozone 25:51 and so you know again it comes back to 25:54 this belief this this 25:56 underlying faith in the power of 25:58 monetary policy 26:00 and in the you know the 26:03 lack of necessity really for fiscal uh 26:06 and uh and so yeah you dodged a bullet 26:09 we dodgeable i don't think 26:11 i don't know that we ever came very 26:12 close you know i remember 26:14 those conversations uh and you know that 26:17 one beyond that which is a world 26:19 currency a one world currency around the 26:21 same time people were saying why stop 26:22 there you know we could just 26:24 have a one world currency sort of thing 26:27 let me pick up on that stephanie because 26:29 we've come a long way from those 26:30 conversations right a lot of those 26:31 conversations are dead in the water and 26:33 they seem an 26:34 anachronistic and so how and mmt has 26:36 kind of come in and filled a bit of a 26:38 gap how 26:39 how did that happen how did mmt in your 26:41 view go from the margins 26:43 of the discussion to kind of really the 26:45 center of the discussion i'll just 26:46 for the audience to say i'll flag a few 26:48 things that happened just this week 26:50 uh uh uh sorry i'm blanking on his name 26:53 now but uh 26:54 oh good heart charles goodheart um 26:57 a leading central bank theorist i think 26:59 you probably know a little bit 27:00 um just the other day said everyone's 27:02 doing mmt they just don't like to admit 27:04 it okay and 27:04 and you know maybe he's got the framing 27:06 wrong but it's still illustrative 27:08 of how mmt has permeated the 27:09 conversation the cd how institute here 27:12 in canada 27:13 probably are our most high profile think 27:16 tanks certainly our most influential 27:18 i've taken these ideas seriously enough 27:20 to come up with a policy brief last 27:22 month 27:22 and then an editorial this week where 27:24 they they actually concede some 27:25 important points about m t but 27:27 but they warned about the siren song 27:29 right and then bloomberg not too long 27:31 ago had a headline 27:32 saying you know telling promising 27:34 promising to tell how 27:35 mmt won the fiscal policy debate so how 27:38 did we get there how did we 27:39 move from this conversation was very 27:41 focused on budget balances 27:43 currency unions privatization trade 27:45 agreements 27:46 to something that looks quite a bit 27:47 different today.
kelton:
27:50 well i think there are a lot of things 27:52 that happened 27:53 that have shifted the policy debate 27:57 in i will say in our direction i'm i'm 28:00 willing to say that because look again 28:02 25 years i say this all the time the the 28:05 mmt scholarship 28:07 has well i mean the core of mmt 28:11 has not changed what we have said from 28:14 the very beginning 28:15 is still core central tenets of mmt 28:19 um the idea that the government can't 28:21 run out of money 28:23 the idea that as the issuer of the 28:25 currency the government must spend first 28:26 the taxes aren't 28:28 necessary that you can't you know fiscal 28:29 sustainability all these debates that we 28:31 were engaged in 28:33 over the decades we just continued to 28:35 repeat the same thing 28:37 over and over and over and over again 28:39 and what has happened 28:40 is and i think it's quite clear is that 28:43 so much of the macro discourse has just 28:46 inched its way 28:48 in our direction over time now you're 28:51 asking 28:51 you know how did that happen well to 28:54 some extent 28:55 i think you know getting a record in 28:57 place 28:58 and having the scholarship and and just 29:00 being able to demonstrate that 29:02 you were thinking correctly about a lot 29:05 of these things 29:06 over time and so being right matters in 29:09 a sense right people begin to take 29:10 notice for us 29:12 early on there were journalists who 29:13 started to pay attention to our work 29:15 there was a journalist at reuters there 29:18 was a journalist a business insider 29:20 and there was a journalist at the wall 29:22 street journal three different guys 29:24 right 29:24 and they started looking at the stuff 29:27 that we were writing 29:28 and they just were open-minded and they 29:31 started to think well they're saying 29:32 things that are so 29:33 different that runs so counter to the 29:35 mainstream narratives in so many ways 29:38 but gosh it's kind of interesting so 29:40 started to write about it and engage 29:42 with us 29:43 and that gave us access to different 29:47 and larger platforms to get our ideas 29:50 out there 29:50 and then i think you know they just 29:52 started to 29:54 in a sense catch on and and people 29:56 started to be more persuaded 29:58 by the work that we were doing and and 30:00 sharing and then 30:01 you had the great recession and you had 30:04 deficits increase and people sort of 30:05 said oh well 30:06 i guess fiscal policy is important but 30:09 there was still that belief that 30:10 it's the kind of thing that you know you 30:12 keep on the wall behind the 30:14 glass that says break in case of 30:16 emergency right 30:17 you're not supposed to be really relying 30:20 on 30:20 and integrating in a in a permanent sort 30:23 of 30:24 tool kit the use of fiscal policy and 30:26 now here we are with covet 30:28 and so i'll just kind of close with this 30:30 the 30:31 um after in 30:34 in the u.s context after the republicans 30:37 cut 30:37 taxes in 2017 right they had these 30:41 massive tax cuts and democrats hated 30:44 them 30:44 and many democrats including some very 30:47 high profile ones 30:49 made the case very publicly that if the 30:52 republicans were successful 30:53 in pushing through the tax cuts that it 30:56 was going to leave the u.s 30:58 i will use his words living on a 31:00 shoestring 31:01 for decades to come because of the 31:03 deficits that is a quote 31:05 that we would be unable to respond 31:08 with fiscal policy if the economy were 31:11 to slow down 31:12 and i said no this can't be right you 31:15 know the deficits of the past 31:17 don't constrain your fiscal capacity 31:20 in the future so i penned the thing for 31:22 bloomberg and i said this is not right 31:24 when the next downturn comes we will use 31:26 fiscal policy 31:28 and of course the next downturn came and 31:30 what did we do 31:31 multi-trillion dollar legislation one 31:34 after another after another we're 31:36 spinning out bills 31:37 no pay fors no problems no increase in 31:40 taxes 31:41 no spike in it you know what i mean so i 31:44 think the answer is 31:45 a complicated combination of 31:48 of factors but that's kind of what i 31:51 think got us to where we are 31:53 great thanks stephanie so uh i'm going 31:55 to restrain myself from asking 31:57 who you're referring to in terms of that 31:59 public debate but the uh 32:00 the uh they are if you feel comfortable 32:03 going well i mean i wrote about it so 32:04 it's larry summers 32:06 right right right yeah but paul krugman 32:08 had a column and called it you know 32:09 deficits matter again 32:11 and was warning about the the dangers of 32:14 increasing the deficit 32:16 uh with the tax cuts and it was supposed 32:17 to in in his piece it was going to lead 32:19 to crowding out as interest rates went 32:21 up and all this stuff just didn't happen 32:23 right i think we've had very similar 32:25 discourse of course 32:26 in canada probably many other places in 32:28 the world i want to just 32:29 kind of drill down on the canadian story 32:31 a little bit uh because i think some of 32:33 our audience members will 32:34 will certainly be thinking and asking 32:36 themselves this question um so you know 32:38 i think 32:38 you and i talked a bit about this but 32:40 there's this story that canadians tell 32:42 ourselves 32:43 about our fiscal policy history um there 32:45 was this golden era of the first 32:48 post-war period 1950s 60s where 32:51 you know maybe on balance budgets were 32:53 balanced over a cycle 32:55 that kind of thing and our debt to gdp 32:56 ratio kind of trended down and then 32:58 there was this kind of 32:59 awful period in the 1980s where you know 33:02 we we 33:03 ramped up the spending carrie elliott 33:04 trudeau the father of our current prime 33:06 minister 33:07 is widely discredited because of this 33:10 and then and then you had our our our uh 33:13 our 33:13 thatcher our reagan the mulrooney 33:16 conservatives come in and try to get 33:17 this straight or they 33:18 are claimed to anyway deficits keep 33:21 growing then we finally get it right we 33:22 get the liberals come in in 1993.95 33:25 and they their their confronted story 33:28 goes they're confronted with this 33:29 really big problem 35 cents on every 33:32 dollar 33:33 is going to service the debt uh 33:36 we have a high debt to gdp ratio the 33:39 wall street journal is selling us 33:40 if you guys don't get your house in 33:42 order you're going to be an honorary 33:43 member of the third world the canadian 33:46 dollar risk becoming a mexican peso it 33:49 was a scary time at least that was the 33:50 frame that's the framing of the story 33:52 and then there was this kind of heroic 33:54 effort to turn things around 33:56 and by 97 98 we're back to balance and 33:59 then canada becomes the land of balanced 34:00 budgets for the next 10 12 years 34:03 right through the financial crisis and 34:05 after we we 34:06 quickly come back to that position you 34:08 know by 2015 34:09 we're back in balance and the world is 34:12 good so this this is the story we tell 34:14 ourselves and at the heart of that story 34:16 i think are these bond vigilantes right 34:18 these people that are going to 34:19 discipline 34:20 a country like canada which is not the 34:22 united states doesn't have a reserve 34:23 currency this is the 34:24 the other part of the story and we have 34:27 to be careful because we have a we're a 34:28 small open economy with a floating 34:30 exchange rate 34:31 and we have these constraints that maybe 34:33 the u.s doesn't have and that's that's 34:35 the perspective 34:36 uh from the more enlightened critiques 34:38 of mmt let's put it that way 34:40 so what do you think what do you make of 34:42 that that story about the vigilante 34:43 bondholders and i'd ask you to maybe 34:45 describe 34:46 the relationship between mmt and that 34:48 bondholding community what is that 34:50 you've been on the inside what what do 34:52 they say when when when you talk to them 34:53 about these things 34:56 well it depends who you talk to i i was 34:58 talking this morning to 35:00 a friend of mine paul mccauley who was 35:03 the chief economist at pimco 35:05 for a period of time now pimco was the 35:09 largest bond fund in the world right and 35:12 if you 35:12 if you ask paul mccully about this story 35:15 uh 35:16 he will tell you you know what so many 35:18 of my uh 35:19 friends who are in this space will tell 35:22 you that 35:23 it was never real okay you you are not 35:26 at the at the mercy of the investor 35:30 class or whatever you want to call it 35:32 right of of bond markets 35:34 when you are a sovereign currency 35:36 issuing government now 35:38 i think that you know the canadian 35:39 government did have some foreign 35:41 denominated debt and you probably were 35:43 borrowing in dollars at the time 35:45 but look you when you are the currency 35:48 issuing government the most important 35:49 thing to recognize is 35:50 that you never have to borrow your own 35:52 currency from anyone 35:53 why would you right you're you literally 35:56 have 35:57 the the legal authority in our case the 35:59 sole legal authority the u.s government 36:01 has to issue the currency i can't do it 36:04 right private businesses can do it state 36:06 local governments can't do it if 36:07 everybody else could do what the federal 36:09 government could do 36:10 then the government wouldn't doing be 36:12 doing you know sending checks to people 36:14 to try to help them 36:15 uh out in the pandemic and business 36:18 small business loans and all that kind 36:20 of stuff to keep workers on payroll 36:21 money for state local governments they 36:23 can't do 36:23 what you can do so you never have to 36:26 borrow your own currency from 36:27 anyone in order to spend it that's a 36:29 really important point 36:31 if you choose to offer people 36:34 a way to hold their dollars right in a 36:37 government 36:37 security an interest bearing government 36:40 bond 36:41 you can also choose the interest rate 36:43 that you are willing to pay on that 36:45 security 36:46 now that doesn't mean that the 36:48 government always exercises 36:50 that power it might give markets some 36:53 some room to run so to speak and you 36:56 know during that same time period we had 36:58 alan greenspan 37:00 and alan greenspan went and famously you 37:03 know went to bill clinton and made a 37:05 deal 37:06 and uh greenspan said to clinton 37:09 if you will back off uh of these 37:12 middle-class tax cuts that you have 37:14 promised 37:15 then we will work monetary policy in a 37:18 more favorable way for you and so forth 37:21 so i mean 37:22 it's a complicated history we are 37:24 hearing even today 37:26 uh here in the u.s we're hearing stories 37:28 like 37:29 well don't you remember the morning that 37:31 we woke up and paul volcker had 37:33 uh raised interest rates 200 basis 37:36 points 37:37 and oh that could happen again so we 37:39 better not do this next 37:40 infrastructure package because markets 37:43 might not like it and and so 37:45 you know we do we do tell these sorts of 37:48 stories but canada has every bit 37:50 uh as much capacity to 37:54 manage its budget in a way that's like 37:56 what the us or japan or australia or 37:59 other sovereign currency issuing 38:00 governments 38:02 can can do.
:kelton
yeah i want to pick up on 38:04 that you mentioned japan and that's 38:05 that's a kind of classic 38:07 kind of case study i guess of of mmt uh 38:10 and and they've had very substantial 38:11 deficits for for many many years now 38:13 and their interest rates are at rock 38:15 bottom and 38:17 and as you know there was famously for a 38:19 long time what was referred to as the 38:21 widow trade right where people would bet 38:22 against japan 38:23 and they kept losing um so i'm kind of 38:25 interested in digging down 38:26 just a little more into the kind of 38:28 investment community's interest 38:30 in mmt because it seems to me that's 38:31 where a lot of these ideas first found a 38:33 voice 38:34 uh or a place for for people that 38:36 willing to listen why do you think that 38:37 is 38:38 the the very same people that were told 38:40 to fear 38:41 their their decision-making are the same 38:43 ones who embraced mmt 38:45 out the gate so what what's what's going 38:46 on there what do you think is going on 38:48 there.
kelton:
38:48 well first i think that you know because 38:50 warren mosler 38:52 who you know came with these this set of 38:55 ideas in the mid 1990s 38:57 and you know uh got these ideas in front 39:01 of a small group of economists who then 39:04 started to wrestle 39:05 with his thinking what warren came from 39:07 wall street warren was a bond trader 39:09 and so there's a level of respect i 39:13 think among 39:14 other traders when they know that the 39:16 ideas can be traced back to someone 39:18 who you know uh lives in their world 39:21 comes from their world and so there was 39:24 less hesitancy to listen to the 39:27 academics who 39:28 were working with warren mosler and 39:31 uh and so forth but the other piece of 39:33 it marc andre is 39:34 um they they just want to get it right 39:38 and if they think that you have a better 39:41 narrative especially with respect to 39:44 monetary operations if they think that 39:46 you 39:46 understand the mechanics of the monetary 39:49 system 39:50 and the nature of government finance and 39:52 you can explain interest rates and 39:54 you you can you know the relationship 39:55 between deficits and interest rates or 39:57 interest rates and inflation or 39:58 something and they think that 40:00 they've got capital at risk and if they 40:02 bet wrong and you mention the widowmaker 40:04 trade if you're walking around 40:06 and in your head you have um a belief 40:09 that 40:10 beyond some debt to gdp ratio everything 40:13 falls apart 40:14 and the government's going to be forced 40:16 into bankruptcy it's going to end up 40:17 like greece then 40:18 yeah you start shorting jgbs and then 40:21 you 40:21 you find out that it never happens and 40:23 so the widowmaker trade you know a lot 40:25 of people 40:26 um you know didn't survive that trade 40:28 that's why it's called the widowmaker 40:30 trade 40:31 so my experience has been uh with people 40:34 on wall street 40:35 that they just they're open they're open 40:37 to hearing people who think differently 40:39 that don't want to lose money and if you 40:41 can persuade them that you have a better 40:44 kind of framework from within which 40:47 to analyze macro they're 40:50 they're totally open to it you know i um 40:53 one of the earliest kind of things that 40:56 i did 40:56 outside of academia with wall street 41:00 grew 41:00 was um you know i was in kansas city and 41:03 i got an invitation to come to new york 41:04 city 41:05 and have dinner at the 21 club and this 41:08 invitation came from someone who knew 41:10 warren 41:10 and he said you know you come and i want 41:12 you to just talk mmt with us 41:14 we'll have dinner and we'll have some 41:16 folks there so to me 41:18 dinner and some folks meant you know a 41:20 round table with six people 41:22 and so i walk into the 21 club in new 41:24 york city which is a very famous 41:26 uh restaurant and i go upstairs and 41:29 they've got the private dining room 41:31 and there's a giant table you know huge 41:33 rectangular table 41:34 it had to hold 40 people and i had i had 41:37 no idea i wasn't prepared you know for 41:39 that 41:40 and then i show up and everybody around 41:42 the table is 41:43 you know jp morgan and bmp parabola and 41:45 all the and and i and i sit down and 41:47 they said 41:48 well if you could just you know talk for 41:50 a couple of hours and i thought 41:51 wait a minute one right no 41:55 slides no notes no nothing and i just 41:57 stood up and did it and then it became 41:59 interactive and then from that point on 42:02 many of those people just continued to 42:05 you know 42:06 uh invite me to do things with their 42:09 their groups after because you know they 42:12 on some level i guess they were 42:14 convinced and persuaded that there was 42:16 merit in what they had heard.
:kelton
so so 42:19 speaking of interactive stephanie we got 42:21 a lack of questions i'm going to ask you 42:23 one last question and then 42:24 i'll turn some of the uh i'll turn to 42:26 the audience questions if that's okay 42:28 um so look you've had a good reception 42:30 in the act in the finance community 42:32 increasingly amongst policymakers but 42:34 i'm kind of get i'd like you to maybe 42:36 think a bit about 42:37 where the where this conversation is 42:39 going um there's still a lot of people 42:41 that 42:42 you know i'd say are you know we say in 42:43 the mmt community they're out of 42:45 paradigm right they're still far from 42:47 from accepting a lot of the what's 42:49 what's in mmt 42:50 um mmt is still far from dominating 42:52 economic textbooks 42:54 uh and in fact it's really hard to find 42:56 a space for it in a lot of academic 42:59 conversations so so can you kind of 43:01 project forward what do you see kind of 43:02 playing out here 43:03 um in the conversation as mmts kind of 43:06 move to the center of the the broad 43:08 public conversation.
kelton:
43:10 i mean textbooks are hard right you know 43:12 there's a there's a textbook author 43:15 there is an mmt textbook i have it on 43:17 the shelf behind me 43:18 uh i wouldn't call it an mmt textbook 43:20 but a macro textbook written by 43:22 3mt economists so there is a lot of mmt 43:26 in it um textbooks are really tough and 43:29 that they managed 43:30 to do that uh is kind of heroic in many 43:34 respects because 43:35 uh there's another economist david 43:37 colander and david colander has a you 43:39 know written 43:40 um textbooks and and many additions over 43:43 the years and 43:43 i think david has uh told this story 43:46 over and over again 43:47 how difficult it is to get anything in a 43:49 textbook 43:50 that is a departure from what the 43:52 mainstream is offering and teaching 43:55 and he says at most you can do 10 43:58 deviation that's it 44:00 you can't go beyond 10 or it won't get 44:03 adopted 44:04 and so that makes it really hard right i 44:06 mean 44:07 i never really liked to teach from 44:09 textbooks 44:10 when i was teaching principles in 44:12 intermediate sometimes 44:13 you feel compelled but you can 44:16 put together material without a textbook 44:18 but uh 44:20 does it have to get into textbooks in 44:22 order to go sort of next 44:24 level i don't know if it would be 44:27 i guess helpful if we could start from 44:30 scratch 44:31 and and try to lay everything out 44:33 correctly from 44:34 first principles right uh i don't know i 44:37 what i do know is that i 44:39 get lots and lots of email from students 44:42 who 44:42 are taking courses at harvard or 44:45 michigan 44:45 or wherever you know penn and i get a 44:48 lot of email 44:49 and they are discovering mmt on their 44:52 own and then they're bringing it into 44:54 the classroom 44:55 and that is sometimes uh unwelcome and 44:58 you know because they're in this in 45:00 effect they feel like they're 45:01 challenging 45:02 maybe a professor with a different 45:06 framework and and a different set of you 45:08 know a different approach but 45:10 um i i just think you know there's 45:13 what's the old joke 45:14 science makes progress one i it's you 45:18 know 45:18 one funeral at a time uh then the next 45:22 the next crop of students they're 45:24 they're learning 45:25 they're learning and they're questioning 45:26 and so i don't know.
:kelton
45:28 yeah i mean i think i i might add i 45:30 think you mentioned earlier that there's 45:31 kind of been an 45:32 impending of m t beyond the economic 45:34 space into history and law and other 45:37 yeah so there seems like there's some 45:38 opportunity to kind of have this broader 45:40 conversation 45:41 based on some of these ideas um okay 45:43 stephanie so i'm going to turn to one of 45:44 our questions i'm just going to take 45:45 these sequentially so 45:47 no selection bias on my part here if 45:49 there's if there's 45:50 only time for one question um our 45:52 interlocutor asks 45:53 this is what i want to want to know what 45:55 is the longevity of mmt 45:57 most would agree the deficit spending is 45:59 needed right now to stimulate the 46:00 economy 46:01 but is it sustainable in the long run 46:03 and what is the 46:04 mmt relationship with taxation i guess 46:06 that's two questions but 46:08 i think the first one is really kind of 46:09 hitting at this inflation issue and 46:11 your recent new york times editorial 46:12 kind of touches on that so maybe you can 46:14 talk about that 46:15 the deficit spending and it's kind of 46:17 longevity you kind of refer to it but 46:19 maybe elaborate.
kelton:
46:21 well i i wasn't sure what the it was in 46:23 the question is it sustainable over time 46:25 if it meant mmd 46:27 or deficits but let's assume it means 46:29 deficits 46:30 so you know i in my adult life 46:33 no in in my entire lifetime the 46:36 government's budget in the u.s has been 46:39 balanced or in surplus 46:41 four years four years not going to tell 46:44 you how old i am 46:45 but that's a lot of years of sustained 46:48 fiscal deficits deficits are the norm 46:51 right there's nothing inherently 46:53 problematic about a deficit it just 46:55 depends 46:56 on the demand leakages like i said you 46:58 got these other buckets every dollar 47:00 that is taxed away from me is a dollar 47:02 that i don't have 47:03 and can't spend chasing after some good 47:06 or service in the economy so this is 47:07 tying into the other part of the 47:09 question about taxes 47:10 so you got taxes are a leakage every 47:14 dollar that i choose to save and don't 47:16 spend 47:16 is a dollar that can't be captured by 47:18 some business trying to sell its 47:20 output for you know revenue and profits 47:23 and every dollar that i spend buying 47:24 goods and services that are produced 47:26 abroad 47:27 rather than here domestically is a 47:29 dollar that some 47:30 u.s producer can't capture so you've got 47:33 demand leakages 47:34 and the question is always what are the 47:37 offsets what are the injections 47:39 that are helping to maintain the economy 47:42 so that the output gets sold 47:44 so if business investment is robust 47:47 that's a strong injection 47:49 if um government spending is 47:52 strong robust that's a strong injection 47:54 if the rest of the world is buying 47:56 goods from us and we have strong exports 47:58 that's a strong injection in other words 48:00 the stronger the investment and the 48:02 export 48:03 channels are demanding demand then the 48:06 less need there is 48:08 for government spending so it's just 48:10 about calibrating those flows 48:12 and the you know it's like saying will 48:15 you need a deficit five years from now i 48:17 don't know tell me what the demand 48:18 leakages are going to look like you know 48:20 i think the story you've just told i 48:22 mean i think templates really nicely on 48:24 what happened with canada in that late 48:25 90s period we had a 48:27 tremendous export boom largely going to 48:29 the united states and 48:30 that facilitated that that budget moving 48:33 into balance right 48:34 i think that part of the story gets left 48:35 out a lot so i think that's that's a 48:37 really important 48:38 uh consideration the thing is mark andre 48:40 real quick 48:41 you had an export boom that facilitated 48:45 the right the the healthy bucket for the 48:48 canadian 48:49 uh private sector what we had was the 48:52 beginning for 48:53 a dot-com bubble and then we had the 48:55 beginning of a housing 48:57 bubble and so we did we 49:00 we did not have i'll say the benefit 49:02 quote unquote 49:03 of the export strong export channel what 49:07 we had 49:07 was uh a real housing bubble 49:11 that allowed right uh the private sector 49:13 for a period of time households to 49:16 leverage up 49:16 and drive a tremendous boom that on the 49:20 surface 49:20 superficially pushed the government 49:23 budget in 49:24 into surplus and it looked like it was 49:26 producing a great economy but of course 49:28 it was all unsustainable because it was 49:29 being driven by 49:31 private sector deficits and those aren't 49:33 sustainable 49:34 public sector deficits.
:kelton
right and i i 49:37 think there's there's two 49:38 two uh two points i'd make on that one 49:40 was uh the us was i i 49:42 in the world i was traveling we were 49:43 characterizing the u.s as a the buyer of 49:45 last resort 49:46 they were buying up everything from all 49:48 over the world right and generating that 49:49 demand 49:50 outside of the united states um but also 49:52 uh 49:53 in a canadian context that your your 49:55 point about the 49:56 household sector um really resonates 49:59 because we have a 50:00 highly indebted household sector in 50:02 canada a very leveraged 50:04 housing sector uh that is worrying a lot 50:06 of people and and and what concerns me 50:08 is that 50:09 if the policymakers start ratcheting 50:11 back and moving towards the surplus 50:13 dramatically 50:14 um the the consequences for that 50:15 household sector could be 50:17 could be significant right um they're 50:19 already pretty fragile so 50:20 i think there's a we may be playing out 50:22 the story that happened in the united 50:23 states 50:24 not too long ago so we have we have 50:26 another question here um 50:28 and it's about the job guarantee idea 50:29 maybe you can talk a bit about that we 50:31 didn't we didn't get into that stephanie 50:33 but 50:33 it's an important element of mnt can you 50:35 con just expand on that idea of a job 50:37 guarantee 50:38 and and and the resistance that you you 50:40 see or don't see 50:42 around that idea that's that's basically 50:44 the question that's being asked.
kelton:
yeah
50:46
i watched part of a webinar today
50:49
with um a number of people
50:52
i was the webinar was about a job
50:54
guarantee and they were all labor
50:56
labor union leaders and they're all they
50:59
were all
51:00
you know championing the importance of a
51:02
job guarantee from their perspective as
51:04
as labor uh leaders now
51:07
you know the idea goes back so far you
51:10
can find this
51:11
in the work of hyman minsky and i'm sure
51:13
there are people listening in right now
51:15
who
51:16
are familiar with with minsky i think he
51:18
was one of the most important economists
51:19
of the last century
51:21
and minsky was writing about this uh in
51:23
the early 1960s
51:25
and you know minsky is someone who right
51:28
he's an academic he's an economist
51:30
but he's also his area of expertise is
51:34
in finance financial markets banking
51:35
right
51:36
and so minsky had this idea that he said
51:40
okay
51:40
we have a lender of last resort we have
51:43
figured this out when it comes to the
51:45
financial system
51:46
we went through panic after panic and
51:48
depression and bank runs and all this
51:50
kind of stuff
51:50
and we figured out that what we need is
51:53
an institution whose job it is in part
51:56
to quell you know discord in financial
52:00
markets to deal with
52:02
a lack of liquidity in financial markets
52:05
to act as a lender of last resort
52:07
to maintain liquidity at all times in in
52:10
the financial system but he said
52:12
it's curious we didn't invent anything
52:14
an analog on the fiscal side so he said
52:17
why don't we have an employer of last
52:19
resort
52:20
and that we used to call it elr or
52:23
employer of last resort many
52:24
many years ago and we've sort of
52:26
transitioned to calling it
52:27
a federal job guarantee but the
52:30
principle is the same
52:31
and minsky's point was why don't we
52:34
ensure that the
52:35
labor market is always sufficiently
52:38
liquid
52:39
and what that meant to him was that the
52:42
government could establish
52:44
right basically an open-ended job offer
52:46
a standing offer of employment a public
52:48
option in the labor market
52:50
and essentially create a perfectly
52:52
elastic demand curve
52:54
so that you've got the price fixed and
52:56
then you take everybody who comes
52:58
and you create employment for them you
53:00
hire them right at that wage
53:03
and minsky had a variety of you know
53:06
ways of defending the proposition right
53:08
that you would have this liquid labor
53:11
market that would act as a powerful new
53:13
automatic stabilizer
53:15
so that when the economy goes into a
53:17
natural downturn
53:19
instead of businesses shedding workers
53:21
and they become unemployed many of them
53:23
long-term unemployed and then many of
53:25
them unemployable
53:26
because skills deteriorate right labor
53:29
scarring we're starting to
53:30
here today right instead they can
53:32
transition
53:33
into a new form of employment stay
53:36
employed work habits are maintained
53:38
skills can be upgraded and so forth and
53:40
they are ready as a
53:42
pool of employed workers to be hired
53:45
back into the private sector when the
53:46
private sector is ready
53:48
to restore jobs and so it's a program
53:52
that
53:52
would cushion the economy through the
53:54
business cycle
53:55
you hire in when the economy is weak and
53:57
you release workers from the program
54:00
when the economy recovers
54:02
and you have the social and economic
54:04
benefits but the
54:05
the powerful automatic stabilizer is
54:09
um one that you know minsky uh
54:11
emphasized as well.
:kelton
54:13 so that idea found its way if i'm not 54:15 mistaken into the green new deal 54:16 proposals correct stephanie and and oh 54:18 yeah can we speak about that the kind of 54:20 political side of it i mean i know 54:22 you're 54:22 it's not your research area but you've 54:24 been engaged in that space what what is 54:26 that story what does that story look 54:28 like is there an appetite for that 54:30 and politically in the united states or 54:32 elsewhere.
kelton:
54:33 oh there's a huge appetite i mean that's 54:35 uh we have 54:36 a congresswoman congresswoman ayanna 54:39 pressley from massachusetts who 54:41 just what a month ago introduced a 54:43 resolution 54:44 calling for a federal job guarantee and 54:47 it is centered around 54:49 this very idea that i just sketched out 54:51 but it is 54:52 so much rooted for her in 54:55 the civil rights movement in the idea of 54:58 equality and 54:59 centering justice and if you're talking 55:01 about a green new deal 55:03 where you know we're potentially talking 55:06 about 55:07 touching almost every part of the 55:08 economy transforming the way we live and 55:11 work it's housing it's agriculture 55:13 it's energy it's um you know uh 55:16 transportation 55:17 then there has to be a just transition 55:19 for people 55:20 through this you know years long 55:24 transition off of fossil fuels and so 55:26 the idea of a job guarantee 55:28 is very central to the green new deal 55:30 for um 55:31 you know or organizations behind the 55:33 green new deal for many lawmakers 55:35 because they see it as a way 55:37 to ensure that whatever happens 55:40 in these years that we're transitioning 55:42 that there is always 55:44 the stability of you know a good job 55:47 living wage with benefits through the 55:49 process.
:kelton
55:50 right um so we have uh 48 new questions 55:53 coming through 55:54 stephanie uh but we have until about 8 55:56 20 our time uh which is i realized 55:58 pretty late for you so we'll 56:00 we'll hang in there i hope um so here's 56:01 the next question stephanie and i i kind 56:03 of know where you're going to go with 56:04 this but i'll ask it anyway 56:05 what happens when the healthy economy 56:07 cannot pay enough in taxes to make 56:09 payments on the debt 56:10 that have been incurred i think there's 56:11 an opportunity here to kind of reiterate 56:13 some points you made earlier but that 56:14 that's the question that's being 56:16 asked right now.
kelton:
yeah so 56:19 again you know the thing in that we try 56:21 to do in mmt is to get the sequencing 56:23 right 56:24 so the conventional narrative goes like 56:27 this right this 56:28 the taxpayer is at the center of the 56:29 monetary universe everything revolves 56:31 around the taxpayer 56:32 and as margaret thatcher told us you 56:34 know the government has no money of its 56:36 own there is only taxpayer money 56:38 so at the end of the day uh we have to 56:41 foot the bill 56:42 for everything and mmt says no no no 56:44 there is public money 56:45 right she's wrong about that the 56:47 government does have its own source of 56:49 money 56:49 and if you get the sequencing right you 56:52 recognize that 56:53 the government spends first and only 56:56 after it spends its currency into 56:58 existence can the rest of us 57:00 actually get it have it to either pay 57:02 taxes 57:03 or buy government bonds so if we get the 57:06 sequencing right 57:07 then we can see that by the time the 57:09 bonds are sold 57:10 the spending has already happened and so 57:13 when we talk about you know how do we 57:16 pay back the debt 57:17 this i think it's very confusing because 57:20 we're using 57:21 terms that really don't apply to a 57:24 currency issuer 57:26 the currency issuing government is not 57:27 really borrowing the currency 57:29 issuing governor is not really taking on 57:31 debt not in the sense that we 57:34 borrow and that we take on debt right if 57:36 i walk into a bank 57:38 and i sit down with the loan officer and 57:39 it's marc andre 57:41 and i show up and and he's sitting at 57:43 the desk and he says can i help you 57:45 i say i'm here to borrow money he says 57:47 oh how much money do we want what do we 57:48 want money for 57:49 and i say oh here's my business plan or 57:52 i'm gonna you know buy a home or a car 57:53 or whatever 57:54 and he sizes me up and he decides 57:57 whether i'm a reasonable credit risk 57:59 likely to repay the loan on time and so 58:01 forth 58:01 he can make a loan to me right i walk 58:03 out in debt 58:05 the government does not do that okay 58:08 when the government borrows 58:10 let's do this the government matches its 58:13 deficit spending by selling bonds 58:15 right so the government spends a hundred 58:17 dollars 58:18 into the economy and only taxes 90 back 58:20 out we label that 58:22 a deficit we say the canadian government 58:23 deficit is minus 10. 58:25 now you match your deficit by selling 58:28 bonds 58:29 okay so you put 100 in you take 90 out 58:33 you've made a deposit you got 10 58:34 canadian dollars sitting there 58:36 but now you're matching the deficit up 58:39 by selling bonds so what happens is 58:41 the 10 don't go in the 10 58:44 in bonds go in in other words it's like 58:47 me walking into marc-andre 58:49 setting the money down on his desk and 58:51 then saying may i have a loan please 58:54 right i'm giving you i'm putting the 58:56 cash down 58:57 and then it doesn't make any sense to 58:59 refer to that 59:00 as borrowing and no future taxpayer will 59:03 be harmed 59:04 uh in the you know retiring of 59:07 government bonds all we're talking about 59:08 is shifting funds 59:10 from one account at the central bank to 59:12 another account at central bank 59:14 right paying down the debt means 59:17 debiting the securities account 59:19 and crediting the reserve account.
:kelton
so i 59:21 think that 59:22 that's that's the part where i think 59:23 people get stuck there's a that that 59:25 kind of detailed accounting 59:26 exercise that you you've run through in 59:28 the mmt literature does 59:29 a real nice job of uh so i i i think 59:32 that's that's a really important point 59:34 and 59:34 it links to i think this conversation 59:36 the next question we have here is around 59:38 um the the u.s states and i would say 59:42 provinces as well and 59:44 maybe some sub-national jurisdictions 59:46 elsewhere are often restricted 59:48 or prohibited from deficit spending 59:49 constitutionally otherwise 59:51 so there's this take and i think this i 59:53 know where you're going to go with this 59:54 but does this take an important tool out 59:55 of the toolbox 59:56 during a recession or does it 59:58 importantly ensure some level of fiscal 60:00 discipline 60:00 at that sub-national level and maybe 60:02 maybe i'll just add on stephanie if you 60:04 could talk about that relationship 60:05 between 60:06 the sovereign level and that 60:08 sub-national level what kind of policy 60:10 should we see there 60:11 and given sometimes these constitutional 60:13 restrictions 60:14 or other self-imposed limits on on 60:16 discipline.
kelton:
yeah 60:17 i mean it it is it works the way that it 60:20 works here with respect to 60:22 you know our 50 states and and 60:25 territories they 60:26 do not have the ability to do what the 60:28 federal government can do 60:29 almost every state is subject to a 60:32 balanced budget requirement 60:33 so what happens in good times 60:37 you're okay right because you know 60:40 you have strong growth you have strong 60:43 income uh growth tax revenues 60:46 are increasing the the economy is 60:49 producing 60:50 enough activity to buoy 60:54 the receipts of the state government or 60:56 the provincial government 60:57 and that's allowing them to maintain 61:00 state services and operations and so 61:02 forth what happens is that 61:03 economies don't just run in perpetuity 61:05 in boom mode 61:06 eventually you hit a speed bump i mean 61:10 you hit a 61:10 you you hit a bump and you go into 61:12 recession and when you go into recession 61:15 tax receipts tend to fall off a cliff 61:18 and depending on the depth of the 61:19 recession they might fall 61:20 sharply uh off a cliff and so then what 61:24 right you you don't have the ability to 61:26 do 61:27 what the currency issuing government can 61:29 do what the federal government can do 61:31 so you scramble and we saw that here we 61:34 had state uh 61:35 governors across the country we had 61:37 mayors 61:38 imploring the federal government please 61:41 get us 61:42 aid please help us because if you don't 61:44 there's only one 61:45 option on the table for us now 61:47 technically they could try to raise 61:49 taxes but most of them don't want to do 61:51 that so they go slashing budgets it's 61:53 teachers who are laid off right 61:55 it's essential workers who are losing 61:56 jobs public services are being cut the 61:58 transit doesn't run as often all that 62:00 sort of stuff 62:01 so we've finally come around to this and 62:04 then the last coveted 62:06 relief package here we've got 350 62:09 billion 62:09 going to state and local governments but 62:12 it is something the currency issuer can 62:14 do 62:15 it can send that one-way cash 62:18 dispensation is 62:20 you know no strings attached whereas 62:23 left to their own devices they they have 62:27 really difficult you know choices budget 62:29 cuts or 62:30 maybe some limited borrowing but then 62:32 you're talking about taking on debt in a 62:34 weak in a weak state and then 62:36 potentially having 62:38 difficulty paying it back.
:kelton
there's lots 62:40 of interesting 62:41 permutations on this conversation 62:43 because there there could be a case in a 62:45 federation like canada where 62:46 you have provinces that are constrained 62:49 as you've described 62:50 and you have a central government that's 62:51 not constrained in the same way 62:53 and uh there's this dynamic tension 62:55 around who has what jurisdictional 62:57 responsibility 62:58 how much should the provinces be on the 63:00 hook for their own decisions 63:02 how much should they expect from the 63:03 federal government transfers i mean 63:05 really meaty 63:06 political economy questions that i don't 63:08 think mmt purports to solve right 63:10 there's these 63:11 very real political dispute debates that 63:13 still play out in that space and i don't 63:15 know if you have any reflections on that 63:16 i mean 63:16 there is some solution but there is also 63:18 a jurisdictional 63:20 tension here that i think persists right.
kelton:
63:24 yeah i mean we we have those uh we've 63:26 had those debates here as well lots of 63:28 finger pointing right because people say 63:31 well if the government's just going to 63:32 bail out um 63:34 the the governors who've mismanaged 63:37 their finances or the 63:39 obama's over-promised with the pensions 63:41 or something and we all start 63:42 finger-pointing 63:43 but the reality is that i think in our 63:45 case six or seven of the ten most needy 63:48 states are red states republican states 63:51 uh so the reality is everybody needs 63:53 everybody needs the help 63:55 and uh and they're gonna get it.
:kelton
okay so 63:58 here's a question that's completely off 64:00 we're going to switch directions a 64:01 little bit it's about the 2008 64:03 crisis and we saw a lot of mistakes 64:07 uh coming from the banking sector i 64:09 guess um but the government felt 64:11 obligated at that time to bail out the 64:13 sector 64:13 um how do you what are your thoughts 64:15 about that i i don't you know this is 64:16 maybe a little bit of a stray but can 64:18 you 64:18 give me thoughts around that and what's 64:20 the mmt perspective on that 64:22 that bank bailout episode in in the hist 64:25 recent history.
kelton:
64:26 yeah i mean yes we i launched the blog 64:30 new economic perspectives right 64:33 you know i think in the summer of 2009 64:37 so uh you know occupy wall street and 64:40 some of those things started around 2011 64:43 but we were we wrote a lot during this 64:46 period of time randy ray wrote an 64:48 awful lot about this during that that 64:50 period of time we didn't like it 64:52 i mean you're right uh to say and i and 64:55 i think that 64:56 you know politically now um lawmakers 64:59 understand 65:00 that it was a big mistake the the way 65:03 that the um financial crisis was handled 65:08 or mishandled as the case may be and 65:11 the total nurturing of wall street back 65:14 to health 65:14 at the expense well at the at the 65:17 exclusion of doing 65:19 what was needed to get main street back 65:22 to health right 65:23 that there was this belief that if you 65:25 just rescue the banks in the financial 65:27 system 65:27 that will rescue the whole of the 65:30 economy and that's just not the way it 65:32 worked we didn't 65:32 keep people in their homes millions and 65:35 millions of people lost their homes i 65:36 mean 65:37 we had a so-called recovery 65:40 that was anything but a recovery for 65:42 millions of people 65:43 who never felt it never never 65:46 experienced a recovery while you know 65:49 pundits were saying oh this is 65:51 the recovery is underway and so forth 65:53 and it just wasn't.
:kelton
so that kind of 65:55 speaks to this next question stephanie 65:56 because i think there's been some 65:57 reflection within the democratic party 65:59 that maybe they didn't 66:00 manage that crisis as well as they could 66:02 have and set up the conditions for trump 66:04 for example to kind of 66:05 come in and take take the ball um so so 66:08 here's the question 66:09 i think kind of relates to this point um 66:12 it's dangerous for pulse makers to cling 66:13 to miss what what recommendations do you 66:15 have for getting them 66:16 as well as the public to kind of abandon 66:19 the deficit myth right i mean 66:20 there's obviously your book but maybe 66:22 you can just speak to some of that 66:23 that changing conversation how how we do 66:26 that how what's the way to make that 66:28 happen in canada say as opposed to the 66:30 united states.
kelton:
well listen 66:32 i don't know i i can tell you that it's 66:35 happening here 66:36 i can tell you awesome 66:39 you know i'm on the phone every week 66:43 with lawmakers who sometimes you know 66:45 just this week 66:46 alone um my phone rings and i pick up 66:49 the phone and it's a member of congress 66:51 that i've never 66:51 spoken to before who will say something 66:54 along the lines of 66:56 i read your book it's everything my 66:59 thinking has completely shifted 67:01 and let's get together let's have you 67:03 come present let's do so i'm doing 67:05 all of that here and it's um 67:08 it is so it has gone so much further 67:11 than 67:12 i think almost anybody would believe uh 67:15 because i don't really talk about it 67:16 publicly 67:18 but uh it's it's happening here now how 67:22 do we make it happen there 67:23 uh i understand there are maybe some 67:26 lawmakers 67:27 with us now i you know i i just think 67:30 it's 67:32 it isn't easy and you know this right 67:34 because so much of the time 67:36 what i have um what i've experienced 67:40 is that lawmakers even when they begin 67:43 to change the way they're thinking 67:45 they don't know how to message it 67:47 because they have for too many years 67:50 been out there repeating things like 67:52 blowing a hole in the deficit 67:54 driving up the national debt this 67:56 inflammatory language that they've used 67:58 they've accused 67:59 the people on the other side of the 68:01 political aisle of 68:02 you know destroying the nation's 68:04 finances look what you've done you've 68:05 wrecked 68:06 and now how are you supposed to then 68:07 come in 68:09 and embrace uh more ambitious use of 68:12 fiscal policy 68:14 including the use of deficits where 68:17 appropriate to 68:18 to support the economy and to achieve 68:20 you know macro goals and social goals 68:23 and so forth it's tough 68:24 if you've been out there you know 68:27 beating the other guy over the head 68:28 for adding to the deficit to then come 68:30 out and find a way 68:32 to reposition but i can i can tell you 68:35 some of the 68:35 most fun meetings i've had on the hill 68:38 with lawmakers 68:39 have been about exactly this how do we 68:42 now that we've pushed ourselves in a 68:43 corner 68:44 how do we get out and those are fun 68:46 conversations because you just 68:48 start um you know everybody's going to 68:51 have to 68:52 take that leap at some point and you 68:54 might just have to say 68:56 we were wrong.
:kelton
there's a kind of 68:58 reputation there's a kind of 68:59 reputational inertia there that you have 69:01 to overcome right but that's 69:03 really sticking um so i i've got maybe 69:06 two or three more questions stephanie 69:07 and thank you for your patience for this 69:09 is a 69:09 really fun um listen this next question 69:12 is going to take us again in a very 69:13 different place uh 69:14 didn't keynes push for a world currency 69:16 the bank or 69:17 to stop the problem of having a national 69:20 currency act as a world reserve standard 69:22 what do you think what is an mmt 69:23 perspective on that issue of a global 69:26 currency 69:27 uh and keynes's notion of a bancor.
[Bancor]
kelton:
well 69:30 i think there's some 69:32 sympathy for keynes's notion now it's 69:34 not the same as a 69:36 one world currency sort of thing but um 69:39 doing something to reform the 69:42 international monetary system 69:44 in ways that in a sense level the 69:47 playing 69:48 field especially for developing 69:50 economies because what you end up with 69:51 so often 69:53 are countries that get into a cycle 69:56 right on a treadmill where they're 69:58 trapped uh 70:00 in developing st in developing country 70:02 status they never get 70:03 an opportunity to develop because 70:05 they're always 70:07 you know um extracting resources 70:10 for export producing for exports so that 70:12 they can get the dollar 70:13 so they can turn around and hand the 70:15 dollar over to the creditor because 70:16 they've borrowed dollars because they 70:18 need 70:18 you know medicines and food or energy or 70:21 something and and they can't get 70:23 you know currency independent current 70:26 sovereign 70:27 in that respect but they also can't get 70:29 uh independent with respect to 70:31 essentials right uh developing so you 70:34 know 70:34 i i think that um randy 70:37 and some of the legal scholars rowan 70:40 gray and 70:41 uh nathan tankis and scott fullweiler 70:44 and and others fadel khabub have been 70:47 working along these lines of thinking 70:49 about how to reimagine the international 70:51 uh monetary system the use of swap lines 70:54 and 70:54 and that sort of thing so there's some 70:56 sympathy i just don't think that 70:58 most of us want to just grab the bank 71:00 corp and say this is our plan 71:02 you know what i mean.
:kelton
[:bancor]
right but a 71:04 promising area of research how about we 71:06 put it that way right 71:07 that's the door for anyone's interested 71:09 so here's here's the next question and 71:11 i i again i'm anticipating your response 71:13 but here's here's how it's framed 71:15 i understand why deficits in debt don't 71:16 matter in mmt theory i know you're going 71:18 to react to that 71:19 but if you take away the budget 71:20 constraint for government leaders what 71:22 mechanism will force them to 71:24 make the difficult choices about what to 71:26 spend on 71:27 or or does mmt say they don't have to 71:29 make a difficult decision as long as 71:30 inflation stays low 71:32 so that's the that's the question can 71:33 you.
kelton:
that's the difficult decision first 71:35 of all 71:36 what stops them and it you're right to 71:38 say i'm the hair on the back of my neck 71:41 deficits in debt don't matter they do 71:43 they just don't matter the way we've 71:44 been taught to believe and you're right 71:46 to center 71:47 the risk the relevant risk is inflation 71:49 there's an inflation constraint 71:50 but look where we are today right 71:54 where we are today is lawmakers do not 71:57 agree 71:58 on an infrastructure package and they 72:00 likely won't agree 72:01 and so part of what stops them from 72:04 pushing too far 72:06 is just fundamental disagreements about 72:09 priorities 72:10 what investments matter you know some 72:12 want to put a 72:13 very high premium on climate change and 72:16 and education 72:17 and health care and the other party 72:20 wants to put a higher premium on 72:22 you know regulatory and tax and maybe 72:25 some 72:25 you know skinny infrastructure roads and 72:28 bridges kind of thing 72:29 um but you know mmt 72:32 is trying to say to lawmakers look 72:35 when you put together legislation you 72:38 should 72:39 have in mind that there is an inflation 72:42 risk 72:43 and you should have to draw up your 72:45 spending bill 72:46 and have it vetted rigorously evaluated 72:49 not to see whether it increases deficits 72:52 over the next 10 years which is what we 72:55 do now 72:56 but to um to vet that proposed spending 73:00 to see if you have properly adequately 73:02 mitigated 73:03 any inflation risk that might be seen 73:06 and then you can just say to lawmakers 73:08 instead of coming back with a bad 73:09 score from the congressional budget 73:11 office that says no this does too much 73:13 to add to deficits 73:14 you would come back and say actually you 73:17 know 73:18 based on our analysis you haven't 73:20 mitigated the inflationary pressures of 73:23 this sort of thing.
:kelton
73:24 yeah so that that's that's a really nice 73:25 segue into this next question i want to 73:28 i've skipped a few because you've 73:29 already addressed some of these points 73:30 that the questioners are asking 73:32 but it's around this cd how piece that 73:34 um i flagged early on in my comments and 73:36 it it's interesting that that piece 73:38 actually makes a number of concessions 73:39 to m t 73:40 for example they say they acknowledge 73:42 the deaths that m t 73:43 says deficits matter right in the way 73:45 you just described um they they say that 73:48 the 73:48 governments have much more control over 73:50 interest rates than we might 73:52 commonly believe they they don't accept 73:54 the crowding out story either they 73:55 there's a lot of 73:57 points that they kind of concede to mmt 73:58 but they still fall back on this 74:00 fear of the bond vigilante at the end of 74:02 the day um so i'm wondering if you can 74:04 kind of reflect on that because the 74:05 question we have here is 74:07 what are your thoughts on the mmt or 74:09 they see how 74:10 critique which i've just kind of laid 74:12 out a little bit in the context 74:14 of a small open economy like canada 74:16 that's that's the crux of it 74:17 small open economy with canada is 74:19 vulnerable to these bond and 74:21 currency traders who can drive our 74:22 currency down stop buying our bonds 74:24 drive up our yields slow the economy you 74:27 know and create this 74:28 this concern around debt spiral so what 74:30 are what are your thoughts around that 74:31 that argument i'm sure you've heard 74:32 variations on that theme before so i'll 74:35 throw that out 74:36 at you.
kelton:
well i just come back again 74:39 sometimes i do 74:40 joke that uh the last mile to mmt is the 74:43 longest mile 74:44 because you can get like you said that 74:46 you know the 74:47 they can see this point they can see 74:49 this point they can see this point 74:50 and they get stuck where everyone gets 74:52 stuck 74:53 and where everyone gets stuck is but 74:56 what if markets 74:57 force rates higher what if the what if 74:59 they don't what if the appetite for our 75:01 debt 75:02 isn't there to which i remind you that 75:04 if we get the sequencing right 75:06 the spending comes first the taxes and 75:08 bonds come second and 75:10 borrowing in your own currency is never 75:12 an imperative 75:14 why would a country that issues its own 75:16 currency 75:17 ever need to get its own currency borrow 75:19 it from anyone we'd have to borrow 75:20 dollars from china 75:22 they can't turn off the spigot and no 75:24 more dollars will come out and then the 75:25 u.s is 75:26 we tell ourselves this story right that 75:29 if china ever wakes up one day and 75:30 decides no more dollars for you 75:32 we're turning it off that somehow we 75:35 can't pay the bills it's nonsense 75:37 right it's it's nonsense so you have to 75:40 recognize 75:41 that what you are doing as a government 75:44 is it's just the net spending this thing 75:47 we call the national debt 75:49 is nothing more than a historical record 75:53 right you're looking in the rearview 75:54 mirror it's a historical record 75:56 of your nation's cumulative net spending 76:00 every single year that the government 76:02 made a financial deposit 76:04 to the economy put in more than they 76:06 took out you kept a record and you wrote 76:08 it all down 76:09 and the number that you arrive at today 76:11 is the look back 76:12 it's the historical cumulative net 76:15 spending 76:16 they're the dollars that were spent in 76:18 and not taxed back 76:20 currently being held in the form of 76:22 government securities 76:24 that's a nice thing if you happen to 76:27 have money that you can park 76:29 in a government bond it's it's a 76:31 risk-free reward right 76:33 warren mosler calls it a subsidy for 76:35 people who already have money it's like 76:36 a universal 76:37 bondholder income but the government 76:40 should never feel 76:41 compelled to make a universal bondholder 76:45 income available to to anyone and if you 76:49 do choose to do so remember that 76:51 you can always manage the interest rate 76:54 on those bonds the 76:55 canadian central bank can always 76:58 effectively take control of the yield 77:01 curve and 77:02 and even if rates go very high like they 77:04 did here when we had paul volcker 77:07 under reagan's presidency you know rates 77:09 were rates were almost 16 77:12 on the 10-year treasury never fell below 77:14 7 77:15 reagan's entire term in office and what 77:18 happened 77:19 he did two massive tax cuts massively 77:22 increased defense spending tripled the 77:24 national debt and what 77:26 and we made every interest payment on 77:28 time and every you know and and 77:30 it isn't about being uh you know small 77:32 open economy 77:33 you don't have to you don't have to 77:36 issue the bonds if you don't want to.
:kelton
77:38
right so so uh interesting point about
77:41
the
77:41
debt as a kind of guaranteed income for
77:43
rich people it
77:44
it's also a deposit insurance if you
77:47
want to think of it that way
77:48
these it's a bulletproof deposit
77:50
insurance scheme for for wealthy people
77:52
as well they
77:52
no no uh repayment risk and
77:56
you you're you're kind of getting an
77:57
interest payment along the way as well.
kelton:
77:59 you know frank newman frank newman wrote 78:01 a little book 78:02 uh he wrote a couple of books i have 78:04 them behind me uh one of them is called 78:06 six myths that hold america back frank 78:09 newman was the deputy uh 78:12 treasury secretary under secretary of 78:13 the u.s treasury num 78:15 you know deputy and uh frank says 78:18 to your point that um the winners 78:21 at a bond auction the winners get the 78:23 treasuries and the losers he calls them 78:26 are stuck holding their dollars in a 78:28 bank account 78:29 where they bear you know bank risk.
:kelton
right 78:33 precisely um so stephanie this is 78:35 literally the last question although we 78:36 have 75 and q 78:38 i will yeah that's we've got to stop um 78:42 so this is back to it's the same theme 78:44 but let's go to a kind of more emerging 78:46 economy perspective 78:48 uh and the question is where there's 78:50 where we're going to see capital 78:51 accounts 78:52 assume more of the country's deficit 78:54 spending if bonds are used to finance 78:56 debt 78:57 i'm just going to read the question and 78:58 i haven't really interpreted but how 78:59 would swapping bond financing with 79:01 taxation 79:02 remedy previous debt assumed by these 79:05 economies 79:06 so we're in an emerging economy context 79:09 what's the story there maybe that's 79:10 another way of thinking about what's the 79:11 mmt story 79:12 in an emerging context emerging economy 79:15 context so not canada not the united 79:17 states.
kelton:
79:17 yeah well it depends um i mean you 79:20 you have emerging economies that are 79:23 issuing 79:24 local right debt denominated and local 79:26 currency you've got 79:27 emerging economies that are borrowing in 79:29 foreign currency i mean 79:31 um south africa has taken on u.s dollar 79:34 debt 79:34 in the covid um you know pandemics so 79:38 um i'm not the question's not entirely 79:42 clear but the the risks are very 79:44 different right it's not so much whether 79:46 you're 79:46 emerging or not emerging but it 79:49 definitely 79:50 does make a big difference whether you 79:53 are 79:53 taking on dollar denominated debt many 79:56 of these countries 79:57 are much more vulnerable sensitive to 80:00 sharp swings in the exchange rate and 80:02 that mostly again goes back to 80:04 if your exchange rate had a sudden you 80:06 know sharp depreciation could you get 80:08 medicine and 80:09 technology and food and energy that you 80:10 need.
:kelton
yeah 80:12 listen stephanie this has been a 80:13 wonderful conversation very generous of 80:15 you i know you have a 6 30 a.m meeting 80:17 tomorrow 80:18 and it is 8 is 10 20 your time i would 80:21 be in bed by this time normally 80:22 and so i'm very grateful we're all very 80:25 grateful for your time tonight 80:26 thank you so much um i am now gonna turn 80:29 it over 80:30 to um i'm sorry uh parvin who's going to 80:33 kind of bring us to the conclusion of 80:35 our conversation thank you again stephen 80:37 uh thank you dr kelton for your 80:39 thoughtful and resourceful presentation 80:41 and dr 80:42 pizon for facilitating such an 80:44 interesting 80:45 and engaging q a session there are 80:48 definitely many takeaways from these 80:50 lessons of mmt for us to keep in mind to 80:53 step past pandemic 80:54 and leverage this potential i think what 80:57 stood out most for me at a nice 80:58 presentation was the comparison and 81:01 drawing that line 81:02 between the private sector deficits 81:04 which can be unsustainable and avoiding 81:06 the people of taking the same approach 81:08 towards the public sector deficits that 81:10 can be leveraged 81:12 fairly sustainably if the inflation risk 81:15 is carefully evaluated and mitigated 81:19 another interesting takeaway for me was 81:22 also drawing the line for where to 81:24 maintain liquidity to function as a 81:27 cushion for example 81:28 for the labor market or the transitions 81:31 as compared to the more conventional 81:33 view of maintaining liquidity 81:36 in all cases and as much possible at all 81:39 costs 81:41 thank you again for the amazing 81:42 presentation and q 81:44 a i am now pleased to turn the floor 81:47 over to dr birdle 81:48 who will present the 2021 mentor award 81:51 and close tonight's event 81:55 well thank you very much parvin and and 81:57 thank you again stephanie for that 81:58 amazing talk and to 82:00 all of our our participants for for the 82:03 the comments and questions in the chat 82:05 um please uh 82:06 feel free to express your gratitude as 82:09 well in the chat it's 82:11 it's just wonderful to have had such an 82:13 amazing event 82:14 it is my great pleasure to present our 82:17 our mentor award tonight 82:19 uh established in 2019 and awarded to 82:22 one recipient annually the mentor award 82:24 recognizes and thanks outstanding public 82:27 servants 82:28 who have served as mentors in our 82:30 executive internship 82:31 program contributed to the growth and 82:33 development of our interns 82:35 and have made ongoing contributions to 82:37 the school 82:38 this year we are very pleased to 82:40 recognize nancy gardner 82:42 director of the strategic and management 82:44 branch in the public service commission 82:46 with the 2021 mentor award 82:50 many of you here tonight may know nancy 82:53 gardner through her long and winding 82:55 career path with the saskatchewan public 82:57 service over the past 82:58 25 years she has had roles with energy 83:02 and minds 83:03 saskatchewan agriculture and eventually 83:05 came to the hr service 83:07 center with the public service 83:08 commission in 2009 83:10 as manager of optimization and reporting 83:13 it was during this time that she became 83:15 interested in the wide wide 83:17 wide world of policy and through the 83:20 jsgs policy certificate program 83:22 decided she wanted to be a policy 83:25 analyst when she grew up 83:27 nancy landed in her current position as 83:29 the director of strategic management of 83:31 the psc 83:32 where she gets to combine her passion 83:34 for all things planning 83:36 with her expanding interest in policy in 83:39 this case 83:39 hr policy for government it is part 83:43 the best part of her job is constantly 83:45 learning from a staff of diverse policy 83:48 professionals 83:49 all of whom are former or current jsgs 83:52 interns 83:53 i will now let rebecca wallace a past 83:55 intern 83:56 and sunday lewis nancy's current intern 83:59 talk about why she is deserving of this 84:02 award 84:07 nancy congratulations on this award 84:10 it is so well deserved you were and you 84:13 still are an incredible mentor and 84:15 friend 84:16 our time together at the psc set me up 84:18 for success 84:19 in ways i didn't even know at the time 84:22 for those of you who don't know nancy 84:24 but let's be real 84:25 who doesn't know you i want to share a 84:27 few ways in which she shines 84:30 nancy is a culture builder she sees 84:33 connections she brings people together 84:35 and she helps them grow 84:36 maybe by growing their waistlines 84:38 because there always seems to be food 84:40 involved 84:41 nancy is so invested in others growth 84:43 and learning opportunities 84:45 she invited us to countless meetings 84:47 committees and encouraged us to 84:49 participate as much as possible 84:51 kind of like when she voluntoled both me 84:54 and sunday to lead smv's united way 84:56 campaign 85:00 nancy has so much energy that it's 85:02 contagious 85:03 maybe it has something to do with 85:04 knowing all the coffee hot spots in 85:06 regina 85:07 and her endless runs to 33 and a third 85:11 nancy is an incredible networker and 85:13 connection maker 85:14 this is why going to jsgs events with 85:17 you can be draining 85:18 she literally knows everyone nancy 85:22 consistently recognizes 85:24 others hard work and she's so supportive 85:26 of her teens 85:27 it was really meaningful when she 85:29 nominated our ed glenda for chairs award 85:32 so nancy thank you for everything and 85:34 congratulations 85:38 yes very well deserved congratulations 85:42 to you nancy 85:44 for the award um thank you for being the 85:47 awesome human 85:48 that you are a very kind and generous 85:51 soul 85:52 you saw very open and welcoming that you 85:54 made me so comfortable 85:56 to relate with you from the very first 85:58 zoom call we had 85:59 and now probably a million teams 86:01 meetings together 86:03 you know your style of leadership as a 86:05 mentor is very enabling and empowering 86:08 i'm very grateful for that invitations 86:11 to meetings at the leadership table 86:14 smt and you know even surprisingly at 86:17 shares forum 86:18 at the bean forum at the inter 86:20 jurisdictional table and 86:22 many others and the opportunity to lead 86:25 various tasks in the branch have all 86:26 provided great opportunities for my 86:28 learning and development 86:30 contributing to my growth in many 86:32 different ways 86:34 there are those times when i feel like 86:36 i'm running out of ideas or that the 86:38 challenge is too big 86:40 and i know i just need to talk to you 86:42 and those ideas 86:43 start to flow again because you're a 86:45 source of inspiration and energy 86:48 you give planning a different 86:50 perspective you make it so attractive 86:53 and now i'm almost getting to become a 86:55 planner 86:57 the chats during our coffee works the 86:59 words of affirmation 87:00 the encouraging comments and the moments 87:02 of ganda 87:03 have always to prepare me for a future 87:06 in the public service 87:07 thank you nancy thank you for who you 87:10 are and all you do and you do it the 87:13 best way you know how 87:15 and it is really but this 87:18 will say cheers to you 87:22 nancy and congratulations on your heart 87:31 nancy thank you for your support for in 87:33 developing the next generation of public 87:35 servants and thought leaders 87:36 i'd now like to invite nancy to unmute 87:39 and uh 87:40 and say a few words 87:50 oh my goodness can you hear me 87:53 yes we can okay well that's who it's all 87:57 about 87:58 for me it's about the robertas and 88:02 sundays 88:03 and maria's and yings and julia's and 88:06 and jeff's and the others that i've had 88:09 um the privilege of working with 88:13 it really is a privilege to work with 88:15 the high caliber 88:16 students that johnson choyama brings to 88:19 us 88:19 it's easily one of the best parts of my 88:23 job 88:23 but i'd like to share this recognition 88:25 with my team 88:27 mentorship at the psd is a whole team 88:30 affair 88:31 as well as a two-way street we each 88:34 bring 88:34 a unique experience or style or skill 88:37 set to share 88:38 and you don't have to ask us twice to 88:41 share it 88:43 as our as as our current intern 88:46 sunday would say we have a few things to 88:50 learn 88:51 from them too i appreciate 88:54 when they throw down the challenge flag 88:57 and question why certain things have to 88:59 work a certain way 89:00 and i have to say we don't always have 89:03 good answers 89:04 so thank you to the amazing interns 89:07 turned colleagues that continue to 89:09 strive 89:10 to make government more innovative open 89:12 and accessible 89:14 it's been a true pleasure thanks so much 89:20 well thank you nancy and what i'd like 89:22 to ask everyone uh who 89:24 is on this call to do is uh you all know 89:27 where 89:28 at this point where your uh where your 89:30 mute buttons are 89:32 and if we were all together the way we 89:33 should be uh 89:35 in sort of a non-pandemic world we would 89:38 all be standing and applauding nancy 89:40 i'm going to ask us to to do the the 89:43 virtual equivalent of that 89:45 if you could please unmute your audio 89:47 and give nancy 89:49 her very well 89:52 [Music] 90:03 and thank you thank you as well for 90:05 those of you who are putting your 90:06 congratulations 90:07 uh to nancy in the in the chat um it's 90:10 it's very 90:11 appreciated um i'd like to uh just to 90:14 say a few rounds of 90:16 additional thank yous before i conclude 90:18 this year's tanzley lecture 90:20 uh first uh dr uh kelton thank you again 90:23 for tonight's informative lecture it was 90:25 um it was the the time just flew and i 90:28 felt like we could have gone for 90:30 another hour um but uh to everyone 90:33 especially you getting up early in the 90:35 morning i can assure you we will not 90:37 uh to uh to mark andre thank you so much 90:40 for moderating the q a 90:41 it was uh there was so much going on in 90:43 the chat uh your ability to 90:45 to manage all of that and have such a 90:48 great discussion going 90:49 uh has been uh it was it was really 90:52 really amazing 90:54 parvin uh i'd like to thank you for 90:56 being such an amazing 90:57 mc uh for those of you who don't know uh 91:00 parvin was also a member of 91:02 our national case competition team this 91:04 year uh it placed a third nationally so 91:07 congratulations to you and your 91:08 teammates 91:09 absolutely fantastic job i would like to 91:12 uh to thank our jsgs staff who organized 91:15 tonight's event it's been a 91:19 very large undertaking and and 91:21 exceptionally well done 91:22 as always and finally i would like to 91:25 thank you 91:25 our guests for joining us this evening 91:28 for your participation engagement it has 91:30 uh it has been 91:32 really um i think a great show of what 91:34 can be done when we 91:36 when we have to make things work 91:37 virtually 91:39 as always for more information on our 91:41 upcoming gsts lectures or to learn more 91:43 about our programs 91:45 please visit our our website 91:49 schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca 91:51 uh tonight's event was recorded and will 91:53 be available for viewing once it's 91:55 edited so 91:56 please be sure to uh to let others know 91:58 and 91:59 hopefully others can can enjoy this uh 92:02 this wonderful event in the future 92:04 and with that i will say thank you good 92:07 night 92:08 and stay safe we look forward to seeing 92:10 you again in the future 92:11 bye for now.
Marc-André Pigeon - Graduate School of Public Policy
返信削除https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/about-us/faculty/marc-andre-pigeon.php
Areas of Interest
Marc-André Pigeon is an Assistant Professor in the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan campus, and the Director of the Centre for the Study of Co-operatives. He holds a PhD in Mass Communications from Carleton University and has worked in a number of economics and policy-related positions, most recently as assistant vice-president of public policy at the Canadian Credit Union Association. He has also served as interim-vice president of government relations at CCUA, as a special advisor and senior project leader at the federal Department of Finance, and as lead analyst on several federal Parliamentary committees including the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Dr. Pigeon also worked as an economic researcher at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and started his career as a financial journalist at Bloomberg Business News.
Dr. Pigeon’s academic background is in economics as well as communications studies (including journalism), having studied at Carleton University, the University of Ottawa and New School University in New York City. His research interests include the study of co-operatives, behavioural economics/psychology, income distribution, money and banking, and fiscal and monetary policy.
Download Marc-André Pigeon's CV.
Designations
PhD, Carleton University
MA, Ottawa University
BA, Carleton University
Ontario Graduate Scholarship, Ottawa University Admissions, and Ottawa University Excellence Scholarships, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Scholarship.
Marc-André Pigeon - 公共政策大学院
返信削除https://www.schoolofpublicpolicy.sk.ca/about-us/faculty/marc-andre-pigeon.php
興味のある分野
Marc-André Pigeonは、サスカチュワン大学ジョンソンショーヤマ公共政策大学院の助教授であり、協同組合研究センターのディレクターでもあります。カールトン大学でマス・コミュニケーションの博士号を取得した後、経済や政策に関するさまざまな職務に就き、最近ではカナダ・クレジットユニオン協会の公共政策担当副社長補佐を務めた。最近では、カナダ信用組合協会の公共政策担当副会長補佐を務めたほか、CCUAの政府関係担当暫定副会長、連邦財務省の特別顧問および上級プロジェクトリーダー、下院の財務常任委員会、公共会計常任委員会、銀行・貿易・商業常任委員会、農林常任委員会など、連邦議会の複数の委員会で主席アナリストを務めたこともある。また、Bard CollegeのLevy Economics Instituteで経済研究者として勤務した後、Bloomberg Business Newsで金融ジャーナリストとしてキャリアをスタートさせました。
カールトン大学、オタワ大学、ニューヨークのニュースクール大学で学び、経済学とコミュニケーション学（ジャーナリズムを含む）を専攻しました。 研究テーマは、協同組合の研究、行動経済学／心理学、所得分配、貨幣と銀行、財政・金融政策など。
Marc-André Pigeonの履歴書をダウンロードする。
資格
カールトン大学 博士号
MA, オタワ大学
カールトン大学, BA
オンタリオ州大学院奨学金、オタワ大学入学金、オタワ大学優秀奨学金、社会科学・人文科学研究評議会（SSHRC）奨学金
2021/04/22続編？
返信削除MMT Job Guarantee and the Birth of the People's Economy - 22 April 2021
https://youtu.be/3h1IL4w4Ezg
返信削除2021/04/22続編？
MMT Job Guarantee and the Birth of the People's Economy - 22 April 2021
https://youtu.be/3h1IL4w4Ezg
4:00
https://youtu.be/kjUlSVJmNrY
50:30
返信削除2021/04/22続編？
MMT Job Guarantee and the Birth of the People's Economy - 22 April 2021
https://youtu.be/3h1IL4w4Ezg
4:00
https://youtu.be/kjUlSVJmNrY
7:00
50:30