JP 検索 9+ アバターの画像 Why does the government tax me when it can just print more money?! 78 回視聴•2021/03/08 にライブ配信 8 0 共有 保存 99pages チャンネル登録者数 265人 99pages is pleased to name Stephanie Kelton's "The Deficit Myth" as the recipient of our very first "Book of the Year" award. The Deficit Myth's paperback release on March 9, 2021 comes at a pivotal time for the US and the free world. We somehow are the richest nation on earth yet are plagued with massive rates of poverty, healthcare debt, income inequality, and poor infrastructure. Kelton shows us how our Gold Standard logic leftover from the 1950s and 1960s continues to hold us back needlessly. She explains how modern monetary theory can help us reconceive the way in which currency owning governments can fund development and grow themselves out of hardship. This is the antidote to the senseless class war our nation is fighting and we need lawmakers to pay attention.
48：11
JGP具体例
https://youtu.be/B9G2bdKLpF4?t=2889
51:03〜56：30 操舵輪
that's worth doing on a permanent basis ought to be a permanent government-funded job if that's the way you want to do it that makes a lot of sense got it so it's a it's it's almost in what so i guess what you do is you have to look for jobs that are creating value but are acceptable to have a little bit of fluctuation as yeah things？
Kelton：
in the wpa pro program work progress administration yeah under fdr you had street performers you had theater that was part of the wpa where you could go out and you could see musicians perform and artists perform and they would put on concerts and so forth it's wonderful and amazing to have that to be able to take the family into a community space and enjoy you know some sort of a symphony production or something.
um but at some point that might you know you might lose uh the flutists and the others it's not going to be a permanent feature maybe.
but the community will miss it but it won't be the kind of thing that disappears that's destructive uh to the functioning of essential public services you know what i mean.
t:
what we need is a union of flautists.
and if that ever happens i'm gonna be the first one to sign.
kelton:
community gardens maybe in a in a very small town one of the proposed jobs could be you know the the library i go into the library the bookshelf this thing is is falling down and so all the books slide this way they don't stand up what we need is somebody to come in and a carpenter somebody with some basic carpentry skills build us a new bookshelf or shore these things up paint you know paint so you only have to do that once it's not a permanent thing that needs to be done but there's so much just in terms of maintenance.
and you can think of community gardens i mean again you know the playground at the school the basketball court the concrete's all broken up and uneven and so forth so get in there and give those kids a nice level uh you know basketball court to play on and and do that but that's a one-time thing you know it's not everything isn't long-lived kind of um.
M：
makes sense i i think that's a very important uh clarification so thanks for that question that's awesome uh look this week's uh dr kelvin i was watching my portfolio in horror as we were making like monetary policy announcements watching uh chairman powell chairman of the the federal reserve like talk about interest rates and everybody's sitting on the edge you had a really fascinating chapter in your book about handing control of monetary policy namely the fed over to our fiscal policy owners which is congress and you propose some like self-driving functions that would sort of automate spending in line with guard rails to make sure that we increased when the economy needed based on data and we decreased when the economy didn't need it based on data and so can you talk a little bit about this because i thought this was really forward-looking and i think it got a lot
そのためには、価値を生み出す仕事を探す必要がありますが、多少の変動があっても構わないと考えています。
ケルトン：48:11
WPAのプロプログラムWork Progress Administrationでは、FDRの下で大道芸人がいたり、WPAの一部である劇場でミュージシャンやアーティストのパフォーマンスを見ることができたり、コンサートが開かれたりしていました。
しかし、ある時点でフルート奏者やその他の人たちがいなくなるかもしれません。
しかし、コミュニティはそれを懐かしむでしょうが、本質的な公共サービスの機能を破壊するようなものではなくなるでしょう......
t：
つまり、私たちに必要なのはフルート奏者の組合なのです。
もしそれが実現したら、私は真っ先にコミュニティ・ガーデンに署名するつもりです。
ケルトン：
もしかしたら、とても小さな町で、提案された仕事の1つとして、図書館に行くと、本棚が倒れていて、すべての本がこのようにスライドしてしまい、立ち上がらなくなってしまうかもしれません。必要なのは、誰かに来てもらって、大工さんになってもらって、基本的な大工技術を持っている人に、新しい本棚を作ってもらったり、これらのものを補強してもらったり、ペンキを塗ってもらったりして、一度だけで済むようにすることです。
また、コミュニティ・ガーデンを考えることもできます。つまり、学校の遊び場やバスケットボール・コートのコンクリートがすべて壊れていたり、凸凹していたりするので、そこに行って子供たちにきれいな水平のバスケットボール・コートを提供したり、そういったことをすることができます。
50:00
M：
これは非常に重要な説明だと思います。質問ありがとうございました。 そして、データに基づいて経済が必要とするときには支出を増やし、データに基づいて経済が必要としないときには支出を減らすことができるように、ガードレールに沿って支出を自動化する自動運転機能のようなものを提案されていますが、これについて少しお話いただけますか？
www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。
操舵輪
Kelton
okay so i want let me be clear because not only does it maybe get some creative juices going but it might also get some anxiety running through geronimo and other people the fed be we we do not say i i think that what you have are two policy levers you have monetary policy and you have fiscal policy monetary policy is the thing the federal reserve does and most of the time that's just supposed to be about changing the interest rate in times like this the tool kit expands.
and the fed does a variety of other things people might have heard quantitative easing and stuff like that but mostly monetary policy in normal times is just supposed to be about the fed adjusting a very special price in the economy called the overnight interest rate and trying to get that overnight interest rate at just the right level to achieve what congress has given the fed which is a dual mandate congress said to the fed you have two jobs give us high levels of economic activity lots of employment lots of jobs and good growth and keep inflation low that's the dual mandate so congress is supposed to drive the bus they have the steering wheel i'm sorry i said congress the fed the fed is supposed to drive with monetary policy lever and what mmt is saying what i'm saying in my book is that doesn't seem to work all that well we've tried that for three plus decades and what we've done is we've put too much pressure on central banks not just ours but other central banks around the world we've given them too much responsibility and they just don't have a powerful enough tool kit to deliver on everything we are asking them to do what about this other lever there's this other lever called fiscal policy we should use it and engage it and use it more proactively instead of saying to the fed you fix the economy you manage it you steer you drive and congress will just sit here with his arms crossed and say not my problem we're saying you got to be engaged because you actually have the more reliable tool monetary policy works by driving people into debt what the federal reserve can do is change the interest rate when it wants to see the economy create more jobs it lowers the interest rate why so people will borrow more money why because if you borrow more money the purpose of borrowing presumably is to spend so monetary policy works by driving the rest of us into debt you lower the interest rate ooh credit is cheap i think i'll buy a house i think i'll buy a car now i'm on the hook i have debt fiscal policy works by driving income into people so that fourteen hundred dollar check that's coming to tens and millions of americans fiscal policy is a check is coming your way you own it free and clear have a good day right so fiscal policy works by driving income into people that's better than driving people into debt in terms of the durability.
and long-term sustainability so you kind of have both it's not to say that monetary policy has no role and that private you know borrowing is bad i'm not saying that i'm saying we need a better mix right and then there's this other lever which is fiscal policy and we ought to pull it more now you said something about automatic and making the steering wheel turn on its own yes let's do that let's do more of that and why because fiscal policy requires congress congress has to act that's fiscal policy fiscal policy is changes in government spending and changes in taxes and that only happens through congressional action.
and we all know what congressional action looks like it's messy they don't act they drag their feet it takes months to get something done.
https://youtu.be/B9G2bdKLpF4?t=3300
55:00
so in the book i say whatever we can do to strengthen the automatic stabilizers to make parts of the government budget move automatically even if congress is in a big huff and um unwilling to to do anything it doesn't want to work together and wants to go on recess and home for the holidays even if congress isn't working parts of the budget will move automatically in response to changing economic conditions so if the labor market if unemployment is high and people are hurting and struggling then we continue providing support for people because the budget will automatically move resources in that direction so you know it's like in your car right you have the cruise control button you can take the steering wheel and do it on your own you can pass a spending bill not pass the spending bill fight for a long time you know drive off a cliff or you can hit the cruise control button and all of a sudden the car just sort of like takes over right and well i don't know uh maybe if you have a self-driving car uh the wheels start turning on its own and you can just pull your arms back and you'll you'll be all right you know um so that's what we're talking about fiscal version yeah we don't want to take monetary policy away per se um might have monetary policy do different things and and use a bigger um more effective toolkit but not to deny the fed of any powers or anything like that.
ケルトン
これは創造力をかきたてるだけでなく、ゲロニモや他の人々に不安を抱かせるかもしれないので、はっきりさせておきたいと思います。連邦政府は、金融政策と財政政策という2つの政策レバーを持っていると思います。
連邦準備銀行は他にも様々なことを行っています。量的緩和などを聞いたことがあるかもしれませんが、平時の金融政策は、連邦準備銀行がオーバーナイト金利と呼ばれる経済の非常に特殊な価格を調整し、議会が連邦準備銀行に与えた二重の任務を達成するためにオーバーナイト金利をちょうど良い水準にしようとすることです。議会はバスを運転することになっています 彼らはハンドルを持っていますすみません、私は議会と言いました 連邦政府は金融政策のレバーで運転することになっています
mmtが言っていることは、私が本の中で言っていることは、それはうまくいかないようです 30年以上にわたってそれを試してきましたが、何をしてきたかというと 中央銀行にプレッシャーをかけすぎたのです。我が国だけでなく、世界中の中央銀行に大きな責任を与えすぎました。金融政策は人々を借金させることで機能します。連邦準備銀行ができることは、経済がより多くの雇用を創出することを望む場合には金利を下げることですが、なぜか人々はより多くのお金を借りることになります。金融政策は私たちを借金漬けにすることで機能しています。財政政策は、人々に収入をもたらすことで機能しますので、何百万人ものアメリカ人に届く1400ドルの小切手は、財政政策とは、小切手があなたに届くことであり、あなたはそれを無料で明確に所有しているのです。
金融政策に役割がないと言っているわけではありませんし、民間の借金が悪いと言っているわけではありません。
55:00
本の中で私は、自動安定装置を強化して政府予算の一部を自動的に動かすためにできることは何でもやろうと言っています。たとえ議会が大騒ぎして何もしたくなくても、協力したくなくても、休暇で家に帰りたくても、議会が動かなくても、予算の一部は経済状況の変化に応じて自動的に動きます。失業率が高く、人々が苦しんでいる場合は、予算が自動的にその方向に資源を動かすので、人々への支援を続けることができます。車で言えば、クルーズコントロールボタンがあり、ハンドルを握って自分で操作することができます。 これが私たちが話している財政バージョンです。それ自体は金融政策を奪いたいわけではありませんが、金融政策に別のことをさせたり、より大きな、より効果的なツールキットを使わせたりするかもしれませんが、連邦政府の権限を否定したりするわけではありません。
www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。
文字起こし california the reading capital of the world today is a very important broadcast tonight we are speaking with author professor and monetary policy expert dr stephanie kelton about her book the deficit myth the 99 pages book club book of the year 2021 the paperback release comes out on march 9th and look if there is just one book you read this year it has to be the deficit myth uh and we are just so proud to have her on the show i'm a big believer in her work and i think her uh discussion her concepts her policy proposals are absolutely what our nation needs to hear right now so dr kelton welcome to the program and congrats on your work.
thank you thank you so much for having me.
absolutely so you know stephanie i i i'd love to just start off with your narrative you know what are the notable moments in your life that create one's career in in the profession of modern monetary theory how do you get to that position?
Kelton:
i mean i s i stumbled on economics by accident to be perfectly honest you know i think i had as an undergrad seven different majors i think over time i mean i yeah i didn't know what i wanted to do i i thought you know medicine i thought law i thought accounting i thought finance i i bounced around for a good while and i was doing an account i was starting on my way on an accounting degree and you have to take some economics.
and i was pretty good at it and um i stumbled into a course a micro economic theory course of all things right it was one of my least favorite courses in terms of just content because it's like really you know micro theory you want me to swallow what all of this but i had this incredible professor and you know i'm sure that happens for a lot of people you walk into the classroom and you just get lucky and you have somebody who changes the trajectory of your life and that's what happened to me and so i went from thinking i was an accounting major to taking this micro class which was not inspiring in any way except that he was he was great in the classroom just masterful.
and i wanted to take another class with him because he was so amazing and the next class i took was the history of economic thought.
and then it's like okay you sold me right because that's where you he had us read the original works of you know adam smith and veblen and marx and keynes and mill i mean just you know the whole array.
and i was hooked on that stuff so i ended up with a double major in finance and economics with this professor who said to me you know you should go undergraduate school and that's the story you know i i went on to graduate school.
and i started off at the university of cambridge and i was there in the mid-1990s when um there was so much debate taking place about the launching the introduction of the euro and you know the maastricht treaty which is the blueprint for the euro this common currency that was introduced in many countries in europe.
and there i was studying in england and the british were saying yeah i don't think we're going to join you in adopting the euro i think we're going to wait they took this wait and see attitude .
and they were saying to the rest of the european countries you all go forward we'll see how it goes we'll watch and keep an eye if it looks okay we'll we may join you later and so i was there in the middle of those debates and all of a sudden i i was part of this you know wow why would it matter so much if you had your own currency or didn't have your own currency and that was kind of a pivotal i think moment for me where uh i started understanding um the monetary system .
and why having uh the pound and a floating currency that you control versus giving it up and joining this other monetary arrangement was so consequential.
M:4:11
so let's break it down to the bear like 101 uh of the thesis of your book and i think maybe a good place to start is to actually understand what exactly is modern monetary theory and how do we contrast that with the gold standard i think we kind of throw these terms out maybe uh you could help us just for the average citizen like what do these two terms mean well so if you're on a gold standard then you you know it's it's a particular monetary system it's a way to arrange your currency where the government says look uh i pledge to convert my currency into gold at a fixed price you bring me my currency i give you that many ounces of gold you bring me that many ounces of gold i give you that many units of my currency fixed right it's it's a commitment and what i'm saying to you is that i am promising to convert my currency into something that i can run out of my gold is finite something i could run out of so i have to operate my budget very differently when i'm making that pledge to convert my currency into something i can run out of versus the kind of monetary system that we have in the us today or that britain has today or that japan or australia or canada or so many other countries have so um you know the the nature of the monetary system really matters and you have degrees of freedom additional policy space you can do more as a government you have more freedom to operate your budget in ways that are not like a household when you're on a gold standard you have to be sort of miserly right you have to be very careful about how much of your currency you put out there because every unit you put out there is potentially convertible into gold and you only have so much of it so you know that's the the fundamental difference is that one of them makes you behave a whole lot more like a household and the other one allows you to operate your budget like a big beefy strong currency issuer that knows that it can never run out of money you know that's a wonderful transition to i think one of the core thesis of your book is like the household and the government are two very different ways of managing a balance sheet if you will and one interesting the dichotomy you propose is this thesis that we think that the government must operate in a tabs tabs framework which is first we're going to tax and then we're going to borrow and spend like our spending and borrow was a function of our ability to tax but you actually offer a stab thesis which is first actually we gotta spend and then we can tax and borrow later spending is actually the first element can you explain what that means and why it's different so you're right i and i say that you know this is a mnemonic it's just my way of imagining some helpful way for people to picture the way we've been taught to think of the government's finances and so when i when you say the tabs model that's the model i'm trying to debunk right and tabs i put it in parentheses t-a-b the t-a-b is taxing and borrowing and so what margaret thatcher said and i quote her in the book because she said it so plainly she said the government has no money of its own there is only taxpayer money there is only the money that you the taxpayer earns we can take some of that and there is your savings and we can borrow some of that so we can tax you or we can borrow from you and after we do those things we have money and once we have money we can spend so spending comes last you have to arrange your finances first then you are in a position to spend and what i argue in the book and the whole you know much of the point of mmt is to get the sequencing right to show people how government finance actually works how do government budgets really work how does the government really spend by logic right the government cannot tax you and collect dollars or borrow dollars from you until they have first made the dollars available because you can't create the dollars they can't come from you they can only come from government as the issuer of the currency so you know obviously the government can't come to you and demand that you pay dollars in taxes until they have made those dollars available to you they can't borrow your dollars until you have some dollars so the spending has to come first the currency issuer has to first make its currency available by spending or lending it into existence before the rest of us can have it and use it to pay taxes or borrow so it's just you know it sounds like a subtle thing just going from tabs to stab where spend comes first and taxing and borrow comes later but it's extremely important right in terms of understanding how it all works and when you hear politicians if they're talking about wanting to do big bold infrastructure or climate or health care or education whatever they want to spend money on you know that the big question they always get they're confronted with from some journalists or they're on tv and they say how are you going to pay for it how are you going to pay for it what is that question that question is asking who's going to pick up the tab and that's why i like the tabs thing right who's going to pick up the tab where is the money going to come from and what i'm trying to do is say it's not a gold standard you don't have to go find the money you know we're not digging in digging a hole in the ground to do this anymore right it's a different monetary system and it works differently and we've got to get the sequencing right so that we can get the thinking right so that we can get the policy right super interesting so if we are talking about inflation then as the metric of what government services cost in my head i think well addition is kind of a it's a it's a ratio right there's a numerator and a denominator and in my head and please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong i'm obviously not an expert here but when i think of inflation uh we're talking about the the things costing more money right and we're sort of dividing and i'm kind of curious what this ratio is like the change in the supply of dollars is obviously one element of it but what's the i guess that might be the denominator what's the numerator what is the value that's actually that we're actually dividing amongst more dollars okay so i think we should we should set that aside okay please yeah not think in terms of the money supply because i think this is part of the problem that you and i were both i'll bet you we were both trained to think exactly the way that you just said somehow inflation has to do with the supply of money and if the supply of money goes up then inflation somehow goes up because more supply means higher higher inflation somehow right and this we can talk about where that comes from and milton friedman and the quantity theory of money and all this kind of stuff let's put that aside so done to be honest my mba professors would all tell you that i never got it to begin with so i mean the thing is there is not a person on earth anywhere that you could sit down and talk to who could write down for you a model of inflation a a model that works to help you forecast understand explain inflation at all moments in time we don't have it it doesn't exist so inflation is a complex dynamic phenomenon that is meant to um have us think about you know a continuous increase in the price level so what is that you can you point to the price level can i i can point to the price level it's not i can't see the price level we try to get a sense right what is the price level so we construct these things called price indices and people have probably heard things like the cpi or you know um this is not hot stuff we think about on a daily basis most of us but there are these indices and this is how we try to measure inflation so you know very um serious wonky people sit around and build price indices and they decide you know we want to try to understand what's happening to prices so that we get a sense of what the average consumer is facing month over month year over year what is the what is the impact on the consumer budget as prices change so we we construct an index and we say well how does the average person spend their income well they spend a good bit of it on health care they spend a good bit of it on housing they spend a fair bit on education and transportation and energy we decide you know food entertainment clothing we build that basket to reflect the consumption patterns of the average consumer the more important any one of those items is healthcare housing transportation education the greater weight we give it in the basket and then we track over time what's happening to the prices of these things we know some things become more expensive over time and other things become less expensive so it's about what happens on balance to the prices of the things that are in that basket and then we say is it becoming more expensive to buy that basket of goods over time and if the basket is getting more and more expensive over time and your wages aren't keeping up then in real terms you're falling behind but if the basket is getting more expensive and your wages are climbing you know commensurate with that then you say well you're not falling behind right so inflation's tough it's tricky you can have inflationary pressure because you know rental you know costs a lot more for housing costs a lot more for health care and oil price shock drives energy costs way up so inflation is tricky and most of it is probably down to a struggle over income shares it's about you know how much goes to labor versus capital and that struggle to have pricing power to be able to protect your profits and um and move prices higher versus workers ability to move prices and wages in their direction and it's it's a complicated question it's it absolutely is but it's very important and i appreciate you have like kind of getting me to see the forest through the trees is really what you're helping me do you know it's like if inflation by itself is is an incredibly complicated thing to talk about and discuss then let's put it aside let's focus on what actually matters at the kitchen table and so it maybe we could actually make this more tangible like let's take a let's take an issue uh specifically uh let's say education for example there's a push let's just generally say there's a push that we want to have a more affordable higher education in this country and it's expensive it's going to cost the government on paper what looks like a lot of money so as a pot let's say you were advising a policy maker which by the way you did for many years of your life and continue to do um how do you spell out the actual cost or how do you spell out the consequences to a politician and say like look i get it on paper this money looks like a big number to pay for education but you're thinking it in the incorrect way i need you to put that dollar amount aside how do you get the what's the sales pitch if you will well i mean i i think you have to lead with your values if you're if you begin by starting with numbers you're gonna end up in a bad place because everyone will pick apart your numbers your your cost estimates will be off your revenue estimates will be off everything will be unrealistic and everyone will start fighting over you know how realistic your you know estimated costs are uh and so forth so if you believe as i do that um education's a public good and that we ought to have uh people ought to have the ability to go to public colleges and universities all across the country tuition-free then the question is how do you resource that right how do you deliver on that because the money is the easiest part that's the point you know that i'm trying to emphasize in the book is that we spend so much of our time bogged down with how will you pay for it what will it cost where will the revenue come from we're asking mostly all of the wrong questions and not paying attention the questions that are the real challenges which i just suggested is how do you resource it if i promise that every person in this country who wants a a college education can go to a public college or university tuition-free and get a four-year degree how do we resource it in other words do i have the faculty are there enough seats in classrooms are there places for people to park are there dorms are there you know are there labs are there um graduate teaching assistants are there light is does the library have the capacity that's the real resource capacity and to make good on that promise you've got to be able to deliver what you're promising which is the actual education the experience in the classroom and with the faculty and so forth the money's the easiest part and that's the part that always hangs us up so it really is about shifting the debate in onto an entirely different terrain where you know if you could just imagine you know uh it's almost like trying to imagine a game board where you have pieces right and you have to move the pieces around to achieve where it is you're trying to go and if if you don't have enough pieces you can't get there right you need the pieces and so part of the strategy might involve training and hiring uh enough faculty and enough additional you know administrators or whatever you need you know to get the capacity in place to have free public college well said so we got some questions coming in from our viewers if it's okay i'd love to turn it on so we have uh and uh shankar venkatrahman and chelsea uh i would love chelsea jacob i'd love to combine your question to one because i think they're they're uh related uh shucker asks uh so why isn't the government printing money at will if inflation isn't going to be directly impacted like what is that is the backstop and i think you know to to that point you know we'd like to know what is stopping politicians from getting this sequencing right you know the the the stab versus tabs model and i feel like these questions are related in their just very sort of like pro policy process uh implications could you speak to those if that's okay sure look i think that if we if we're paying attention to what congress has done for the last year what is today where it's march right year a year since covid really hit the u.s that we have been doing this for one year and what has congress done okay they have spun out bill after bill after bill spending spending legislation right congress has committed trillions and trillions of dollars they got together they voted for a spending package they authorized the spending boom the dollars go out there was no tax increase if you're thinking of the tabs model they didn't say well now whose taxes are we going to raise to pull this off there was no tax increase they didn't say now where are we going to borrow these dollars do you think china will finance it didn't happen congress has the power of the purse and if the votes are there the funding is there and congress knows this so we have you know i'm sure people who are tuned in now know that yesterday the senate moved forward on a 1.9 essentially trillion dollar uh covent relief package which comes on the heels of all of the additional of the previous legislation that has been passed the cares act of 2.2 trillion the 900 billion that was moved in december of last year so the the answer is they know they know that when they deem something a high enough priority that all it takes to fund the spending are the votes and if the votes are there the money is there and so they believe me they know the spending comes first and everything else is secondary and you know there are ways that in the future congress could start writing legislation differently they can write a bill that says we are committed to doing two or three trillion dollars of infrastructure spending and we also want to raise a variety of taxes to offset that spending they can do that but they don't have to do that so your question about inflation is important i want to make sure to address it because all of this spending that has taken place over the last year every one of these relief bills has been pure spending one set of instructions sent to the government's bank the federal reserve that said go make these payments congress has authorized them your job is to make the payments on behalf of the u.s treasury the federal reserve carries out those payments how does it do that well it marks the changes the numbers in the appropriate bank accounts it uses a computer keyboard and new digital dollars are born okay that's what's happening now the person asking the question is quite right to say at what point would this become a problem right then we're sending 1400 checks why not 14 000 checks why not 140 000 i mean if if congress can just conjure the money into existence why be so stingy why not you know 100 and the answer i hope is obvious which is that um there is a limit and at some point you could put too much money into our hands and we could turn around and try to spend that money into an economy that doesn't have the productive capacity to produce the supply to meet all of that demand and if you've got demand going way up here and supply struggling to keep up well the punishment for that is going to be inflation very interesting um i had a follow-up to your point about like you know congress knows this and the money's there if the votes are there why is it then that and you talk a little bit about this in your book we always seem to talk about the spending limits when it comes to things like education health care uh and at times infrastructure but rarely like when i got sent to afghanistan no one was talking about how much it would cost you know when we started talking about tax cuts or even like you said the covet stimulus we didn't really talk about like increasing taxes for any of those like what is it about certain issues that drive the spending debate uh versus others like i mean in your time at capitol hill like why is it that like education infrastructure health care uh things like that just draw the scrutiny of uh quote-unquote fiscal conservatives well because we have we are ideologically different we have different values we do not share the same core values when it comes to funding you know i mean i will say with respect to defense this one is a special sort of category right because there is widely bar bipartisan support for uh the defense spending and every year when the defense reauthorization act comes up it's like you want you're asking for 720 billion are you sure that's all you want because we feel like we want to give you 738 billion i mean literally that the white house and the pentagon will ask for a certain amount of money and a hundred senators will walk through the door and say i don't think it's enough i think it should be i think it should be a bit more and they'll just vote for even more to authorize even more than the white house had requested and these this will pass with 89 92 votes so this is an a this is a budget item that has broad bipartisan support um so i don't want to suggest that there there are the ideological divisions yes that's one of those where there's a whole lot of uh of support from both parties but yeah obviously on on a variety of things the two parties just fundamentally differ in terms of you know how many dollars they'd like to allocate or or take away from certain parts of the budget they're they're different so you know congress has the power of the purse they could double pell grants and provide more support for education and funding and so forth but roughly half of the us senate doesn't want to do that you know and and we could go down the list with with other uh categories of spending so super interesting i mean this topic is just uh kind of mind-blowing from when i had when i read your book i was it shifted my perspective in a lot of different ways so i want to get to something that i think is very important and i know we actually had quite a few questions coming through the chat but i just want to move on a little bit to what i believe is honestly the reason why i invited you on which is this policy proposal of the federal job guarantee uh this to me just according like my value system just when i heard about it it just clicked um and i would like to just have you introduce it uh for a minute would you mind telling talking a little bit about what the federal job guarantee really is and why it might help us in today's day and age so sure you know how you hear people talk about um health care and some people say well we should have a public option with in health care where the government will say if you want your health care delivered this way there's always a standing offer on the table the job guarantee is a public option in the labor market it is an offer of employment at a standard wage and benefit package so if you want a job that pays you 15 an hour and comes with these benefits and you can't find anything else anywhere in the economy that suits you you always have this at the ready right it's standing by it's there for you there's no time limit you don't have to qualify it is a guarantee anyone can have it at any moment in time so it works um it does so many different things it is a really powerful way to stabilize the whole economy because you know we're a capitalist economy we are a market economy and market economies are dynamic we go through periods of boom and then we go through periods of bust we have recoveries and recessions and we can we're never going to eliminate the business cycle we're always going to have our ups and downs so a job guarantee is this program that's in place ready and waiting to catch anyone who falls you know through the cracks in as an employer for whatever reason finds that i i can't make it with the workers i have i'm gonna shed workers maybe for good reasons maybe for not so good reasons but if your employer lays you off or cuts your hours and you don't have the benefits and the and the income that you need there's something standing by that you always have access to so in a recession in a downturn this is really important because instead of millions and millions of people becoming unemployed and the longer and deeper the downturn the longer people stay unemployed you will hear people like um janet yellen our treasury secretary talk about scarring effects you know people get damaged through unemployment it's not just you know gosh i i feel bad because i'm unemployed and i i'm depressed and i can't support my family there are a lot of social and economic costs that are associated with unemployment the longer you're out of work the deeper those costs become right in terms of you know social and mental and economic and you at some point become unemployable employers don't like to hire people who've been out of the um out of work for a long period of time your work habits deteriorate and so forth so this is a place that catches you immediately re-employs you keeps your skills maintained upgrade skills provides additional training and allows you to do something useful for the community it's a federally funded program that's locally administered so the community is saying these are things of value to us and people can contribute in ways you know big and small in their communities get a living wage to do that and as the economy recovers they can return to work in the private sector they can transition out of that program back into the private sector and so it works like a shock absorber in your car it it makes the ride smoother so that when the economy goes through these inevitable ups and downs you get a smoother ride it's more humane people have you know the opportunity to stay engaged stay employed have their income protected their benefits secured um and they're just a variety of benefits to the program so is there not a point though like let's say uh that uh we go through a downturn we have a federal job guarantee and we start recovering and uh we decide that our national values require a national education plan we got to hire people to build the the the parking lots and the for the for the university of peak and park all the limitations that you addressed earlier i mean at some point aren't we actually distorting the labor market with governmental projects that actually makes it harder for small business to compete in the labor market no i mean the whole point of this program is to maintain a ready well i shouldn't say the whole point uh one of the features of this program is that you are maintaining a buffer stock a ready pool of skilled employed people that the private sector can have any time they're ready all they have to do is pay a small premium to get them out of this program and into the private sector's hands so what you're doing is you're maintaining the liquidity of the labor market you're keeping it liquid so that it doesn't part of it doesn't rot out and become unuseful right the term unemployed where the labor scarring and so forth honestly if you said um you know come to me with the most pro sort of business uh idea that you can come up with i'd probably say you know medicare for all and a job guarantee because with with a medicare for all program you're taking health care off of the books of private employers and with a job guarantee you're making sure that they can always have access to a pool of employed workers that they can dip into when they're ready so that it is easier to hire and ramp up production when they're ready to do that so i think it's it benefits both the employee and the employer and the purpose of the program is not to compete with the private sector it's to enhance the functioning of the labor market and to smooth the business cycle i like that it's it's and and i appreciate both the analogy of the shock absorber uh as a means of like making the the ride a little bit less bumpy during the hard times i think that's a really an astute observation uh we had a clear clarifying question coming through the chat that's okay will these be solely federal and state jobs are we asking businesses to set aside positions as well uh and i think that's kind of interesting in the in in a context of say government contracting like do those contractor jobs kind of count in this pool are these actually like w-2 federal state and local employees so they're not uh the answer to the first part of your question is no that you are not counting um people hired by private employers that that is not part of the federal job guarantee in other words we're not trying to subsidize private sector employment if the private sector wants to hire workers they ought to hire workers and this is a program that you know provides an option for people that the private sector does not currently have a use for right that those are the people that the private sector has decided for itself it does not wish to hire so the job guarantee takes those folks employs them keeps them employable and releases them to the private sector when the private sector is ready to hire from that program so as a taxpayer myself i expect a lot out of my government services and if these people aren't employable by the private sector like what can they do for our government what are some of these jobs looking for what do they look like well i i mean i think your imagination is the limit in terms of there is so much work that needs to be done you can drive through communities all over this country and see readily with your own eyes uh probably dozens or hundreds of things that have been untended to useful things that could be done that have just been neglected so you know for people who want to look at this they're i talk a little bit about it in my book my book is not focused on the job guarantee but i do answer the question what kinds of jobs could people perform uh i co-authored a report that was published by the levy economics institute on a federal job guarantee a path to full employment people can look at that uh for answers and you can also look at a book that was published around the same time as mine by an mmt economist named pavlina chernova and her book is all about the federal job guarantee so she gets very deep into these questions about the kinds of jobs that would be performed but broadly speaking here's the answer think of the jobs as all being oriented in one way or another around building a care economy caring for people caring for communities caring for the planet now that's pretty big tent kind of stuff right that's a you're casting a wide net so what do you what do you do when you care for the community well the point is that the federal government funds the program but the local communities the people living in them they decide what is of value to them the federal government doesn't know what people living in northeastern oklahoma need the people living in northeastern oklahoma know what they value and what their unique needs are so the jobs are supposed to come from the bottom up people living in the communities local governments in concert with state government officials they approve the jobs uh and then those jobs get performed but you know think of care work elder care child care community gardens dealing with climate change monitoring invasive species so that farmers are protected you know from uh having you know their crops uh invaded and and crop losses right i mean we could go and hours and hours just thinking about the kind of things that people in these programs could do but the idea is that it's it is of value to the community how do we know that because the community said so the jobs are coming from members of the community themselves so you're telling me that we can take the unemployed people of our society the ones that the private sector has either chosen for whatever reason economic or skill sets wise have chosen not to hire we can give them jobs that will actually help problems in our communities dictated by the communities and our the cost to our country is inflationary we have we know it's about our value systems and i can't think of anything more american in values than a job right the job is the vehicle of how you get your health care in this country how you get your retirement in this country it's how you pay taxes in this country like the job is kind of kind of the building block of everything we are why is this not done yet like what are the obstacles what what what keeps this from becoming a reality i mean you know you've got to have enough it's the votes right everything comes back to the votes fund the programs and someone has to initiate the an idea like this and actually just within the last week or so we had a member of congress introduce a resolution for a federal job guarantee and it was pretty big deal right it was congresswoman ayana presley who introduced a a resolution for a federal job guarantee and she laid it out and she said this is what this is a direction i would like to move toward so we that is a resolution is not a a spending bill that will come soon uh and i know that they're working on that but we'll see what kind of support uh there is in the house for something like this but you know with with fdr you had an alphabet soup of job programs but you had the great depression and you had millions and millions of people out of work and desperation does breed creativity right when you have a real mess on your hands people can get pretty creative and you say i got millions of unemployed people a lot of unemployed men uh this isn't going to end well we got to figure out something for these folks to do and you had the civilian conservation corps and the works progress administration you had a national youth association an nya for jobs for young people so um you know people can can get creative when they when they feel like there is a crisis and a need and but we should have to wait for that because you know every unemployed person is uh his value is of value and wants a way in unemployment is by definition somebody who's looking for paid work they want to contribute they want to do something and they can't find a pathway in so why not create a job lord knows there's enough uh valuable work to be performed out there and we ought to you know unemployment is costly we can't think you you mentioned uh the cost and inflation and you know i mentioned that levy report earlier we modeled this we said what if the federal government actually had a job guarantee how many people would come in what would it cost and what would be the macroeconomic effects of running a program like this and so what we did was run this through a large-scale macro simulation and ask the question tell us what would happen to a range of economic metrics real gdp growth inflation interest rates and so forth and what we found is that the program would um employ on average about 15 million people that you could finance this program federally hire all the people who come through the door give them something useful to do the impact on inflation is minimal i mean minimum not even a one percent jump in inflation and the impact is very short term because you basically get a one-time increase in wages and prices and then it peters out and so it is not inflationary it doesn't lead to you know fiscal ruin or anything like that we're talking about a government with a sovereign currency funding the program and you get all of the economic benefits of of doing this so you know we modeled it out and um and you get tremendous benefits from doing something like this oh man i'm uh i mean obviously everybody knows you if you hopefully you've seen the rap song we wrote for 99 pages on the federal job guarantee we care a lot about this issue it's it's american right we want like this is not a handout this is the american hand up like it just seems like such a common sense policy i might be blinded by my idealism and my affection for your book but uh i'm so glad that you are are promoting this issue is exceptionally exciting so thank you for your work on it um like i know i mean we've got uh like lots of people watching right now i'm just curious like if if somebody wants to get involved i mean i encourage you to call your congressman we've actually posted the article uh in the chat so go ahead and take a look at that uh announcing uh congresswoman presley's uh proposal so take a look at it call your congress person see if they're interested see where they are on the issue after that dr kelton what are some things that just us average americans can do to uh to get involved and support this issue i mean every average american is different look what you're doing i mean i'll call you you know i consider myself an average american so i do what i can right i tweet i write i do um interviews i just try to push the boundaries in whatever way i can and you just raised a really good possibility which is you know write your member of congress if people don't understand or i think many people um discount the value of reaching out personally to your member of congress those phone calls those emails do not think that those don't matter they do matter they matter a lot and when the phone lines are blowing up and the email is blowing up that is it is not something they ignore i know i worked in the senate i know the impact that that has when staffers are inundated with calls and they have to tell their member this issue is important people have been calling all day about this issue so you know you you take two minutes out of your day to reach out to your member and and tell them you know this listen we we just saw something now you can you can have your issues with the 15 an hour minimum wage not being in the 1.9 trillion dollar covent relief package that the senate moved through yesterday uh you can take issue with other parts of that legislation but that was pretty big i mean 1.9 trillion after the 900 billion in december after the 2.2 trillion in the cares act after i mean you know this is a significant improvement over what we got after the last uh recession with the financial crisis and basically one big piece of legislation and then congress was like we done yeah no hands we are worried about deficits we think we're out of money we are stopping and we're going to put all the burden on the fed let them figure it out because we've done our share not this time bill after bill after bill we all know that what president biden wants next is a recovery package he said this thing we are getting now is a down payment it's relief he wants recovery he wants another package that lays a foundation for a inclusive and sustainable recovery so he's talking about potentially trillions of dollars more on infrastructure climate especially in education and caregiving and so forth so where are we gonna go and here's where your you know question is so important because i think that part of the reason that this bill had to get through and lawmakers knew and every democrat you know gave their vote and got this through is because it was so popular everybody wanted it democrats wanted it independents wanted it republicans were 60 of the population or more supported this bill so when the next package comes and some of them start squawking about price tags and pay fors and deficits and stuff we got to keep their spot you got to keep them upright because they will um you know there is some risk that they will uh they will waiver and they need to know that we are behind them and we want them to cast that vote for um you know the kind of spending that is long neglected in so many different areas education and infrastructure and climate we have to tackle these problems you know i have a chapter in my book called the deficits that matter and it's not enough to just stop with relief we have to do you know some really strategic investments in our economy to redress long-standing inequities and and shortfalls and so whatever we can do to keep the pressure on yes ma'am we're gonna work on it you know and actually we had a great question coming to the chat uh before we leave the federal job guarantee uh gita asks won't these short-term employment opportunities cause disruption when people find other better-paying jobs and i actually think this is an interesting question because a lot of these problems that are worth solving namely infrastructure for example or climate change these are problems that are going to take decades to solve sometimes and so like let's say we have a federal job guarantee and we're in a recession we hire a bunch of people and then we start work on a big infrastructure project but then the economy recovers and they're like well wait a minute i'm gonna go to the private sector because i can go make more money outside like how do we keep these infrastructure projects or these long-term projects that are originally uh resourced with the federal job guarantee when when people leave and go to the private sector like how do we keep these projects still afloat why what would keep them from stagnating yeah so it's a it's an important question i'm glad that she asked it because you do not want um to employ people in programs and projects where if they left the project you have a half built hospital that's not what you do so the job guarantee is not for that kind of infrastructure investment that is regular government spending and in like the kind of infrastructure program that we were just talking about the next congressional package i'm talking about doing regular old-fashioned infrastructure spending where the government will contract with the private sector and they will build um community health centers and they will do high-speed rail and they will do broadband and they will do that that is government-funded infrastructure investment not the federal job guarantee program so you know anything that's worth doing on a permanent basis ought to be a permanent government-funded job if that's the way you want to do it that makes a lot of sense got it so it's a it's it's almost in what so i guess what you do is you have to look for jobs that are creating value but are acceptable to have a little bit of fluctuation as yeah things in the wpa pro program work progress administration yeah under fdr you had street performers you had theater that was part of the wpa where you could go out and you could see musicians perform and artists perform and they would put on concerts and so forth it's wonderful and amazing to have that to be able to take the family into a community space and enjoy you know some sort of a symphony production or something um but at some point that might you know you might lose uh the flutists and the others it's not going to be a permanent feature maybe but the community will miss it but it won't be the kind of thing that disappears that's destructive uh to the functioning of essential public services you know what i mean what we need is a union of flautists and if that ever happens i'm gonna be the first one to sign community gardens maybe in a in a very small town one of the proposed jobs could be you know the the library i go into the library the bookshelf this thing is is falling down and so all the books slide this way they don't stand up what we need is somebody to come in and a carpenter somebody with some basic carpentry skills build us a new bookshelf or shore these things up paint you know paint so you only have to do that once it's not a permanent thing that needs to be done but there's so much just in terms of maintenance and you can think of community gardens i mean again you know the playground at the school the basketball court the concrete's all broken up and uneven and so forth so get in there and give those kids a nice level uh you know basketball court to play on and and do that but that's a one-time thing you know it's not everything isn't long-lived kind of um makes sense i i think that's a very important uh clarification so thanks for that question that's awesome uh look this week's uh dr kelvin i was watching my portfolio in horror as we were making like monetary policy announcements watching uh chairman powell chairman of the the federal reserve like talk about interest rates and everybody's sitting on the edge you had a really fascinating chapter in your book about handing control of monetary policy namely the fed over to our fiscal policy owners which is congress and you propose some like self-driving functions that would sort of automate spending in line with guard rails to make sure that we increased when the economy needed based on data and we decreased when the economy didn't need it based on data and so can you talk a little bit about this because i thought this was really forward-looking and i think it got a lot of creative juices going for me uh maybe you could explain that to some of our viewers?
Kelton
okay so i want let me be clear because not only does it maybe get some creative juices going but it might also get some anxiety running through geronimo and other people the fed be we we do not say i i think that what you have are two policy levers you have monetary policy and you have fiscal policy monetary policy is the thing the federal reserve does and most of the time that's just supposed to be about changing the interest rate in times like this the tool kit expands.
and the fed does a variety of other things people might have heard quantitative easing and stuff like that but mostly monetary policy in normal times is just supposed to be about the fed adjusting a very special price in the economy called the overnight interest rate and trying to get that overnight interest rate at just the right level to achieve what congress has given the fed which is a dual mandate congress said to the fed you have two jobs give us high levels of economic activity lots of employment lots of jobs and good growth and keep inflation low that's the dual mandate so congress is supposed to drive the bus they have the steering wheel i'm sorry i said congress the fed the fed is supposed to drive with monetary policy lever and what mmt is saying what i'm saying in my book is that doesn't seem to work all that well we've tried that for three plus decades and what we've done is we've put too much pressure on central banks not just ours but other central banks around the world we've given them too much responsibility and they just don't have a powerful enough tool kit to deliver on everything we are asking them to do what about this other lever there's this other lever called fiscal policy we should use it and engage it and use it more proactively instead of saying to the fed you fix the economy you manage it you steer you drive and congress will just sit here with his arms crossed and say not my problem we're saying you got to be engaged because you actually have the more reliable tool monetary policy works by driving people into debt what the federal reserve can do is change the interest rate when it wants to see the economy create more jobs it lowers the interest rate why so people will borrow more money why because if you borrow more money the purpose of borrowing presumably is to spend so monetary policy works by driving the rest of us into debt you lower the interest rate ooh credit is cheap i think i'll buy a house i think i'll buy a car now i'm on the hook i have debt fiscal policy works by driving income into people so that fourteen hundred dollar check that's coming to tens and millions of americans fiscal policy is a check is coming your way you own it free and clear have a good day right so fiscal policy works by driving income into people that's better than driving people into debt in terms of the durability.
and long-term sustainability so you kind of have both it's not to say that monetary policy has no role and that private you know borrowing is bad i'm not saying that i'm saying we need a better mix right and then there's this other lever which is fiscal policy and we ought to pull it more now you said something about automatic and making the steering wheel turn on its own yes let's do that let's do more of that and why because fiscal policy requires congress congress has to act that's fiscal policy fiscal policy is changes in government spending and changes in taxes and that only happens through congressional action.
and we all know what congressional action looks like it's messy they don't act they drag their feet it takes months to get something done so in the book i say whatever we can do to strengthen the automatic stabilizers to make parts of the government budget move automatically even if congress is in a big huff and um unwilling to to do anything it doesn't want to work together and wants to go on recess and home for the holidays even if congress isn't working parts of the budget will move automatically in response to changing economic conditions so if the labor market if unemployment is high and people are hurting and struggling then we continue providing support for people because the budget will automatically move resources in that direction so you know it's like in your car right you have the cruise control button you can take the steering wheel and do it on your own you can pass a spending bill not pass the spending bill fight for a long time you know drive off a cliff or you can hit the cruise control button and all of a sudden the car just sort of like takes over right and well i don't know uh maybe if you have a self-driving car uh the wheels start turning on its own and you can just pull your arms back and you'll you'll be all right you know um so that's what we're talking about fiscal version yeah we don't want to take monetary policy away per se um might have monetary policy do different things and and use a bigger um more effective toolkit but not to deny the fed of any powers or anything like that.
M
that's super interesting you know uh i don't have a self-driving car um .
K
either .
i got a subaru it gets me from a to b but one day i will and i love that in algae too uh dr kellen we are so grateful time we have time for just one more question i'd like to ask you and uh i know we actually had a ton of chat uh coming in here in the in the last few minutes and i'm sorry we just don't have enough time uh but i will if you don't mind steph dr kelton i'd love to just send you some of the questions maybe and uh maybe back to our community that'd be great um but i want to give you an uh i would love for you to speak a little bit on the final chapter your book because this is what really gripped me uh you discuss kennedy's call to action to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth uh to and this is obviously a great example of mmt in action that has created massive amounts of return for our nation that we had no idea how to predict or measure beforehand could you talk about this in relation to mmt and i think it'd be a wonderful way to close our discussion today well look emma so mmt doesn't tell us exactly what we should do it shows us what we can do so if we can get you know rid of the imaginary obstacles things that we think are barriers to progress oh we don't have the money oh we might go broke oh we might turn into greece oh china might you know close the window and we don't get any more dollars oh you know all the things that we're told um burdening the next generation our grandkids oh the debt oh those if we could get rid of all of the myths that hold us back and see clearly what the where the real limits are right there are limits we have to see clearly where they are but get a fuller appreciation for the capacity of the state the government to spend then we could start having a very different debate like what are our national priorities for jfk a priority was landing a man on the moon and he made it a priority and he said he went to congress and he delivered a speech and he said here's what i need from you to achieve this mission and he asked for the money to do it and that's the kind of thing that mmt is trying to pull us toward it is trying to get us to think mission oriented you know if we had mission-oriented budgeting this covered relief package and we'll come back to it again because it is a significant piece of legislation this 1.9 trillion it is estimated that half of all the children who today are living in poverty will be lifted out of poverty as a consequence of this bill that's mission oriented what if we said why just half why not all of them what if we said what about all the unemployed people who are still going to be unemployed a year from now to why not employ them why not wouldn't climate change why not you know set goals make them objective and concrete and fit the budget to the mission so much of the time we try to scale the budget not to the mission but we scale the mission to the budget so we say well we think we could probably get away with spending another trillion how much could we do to you know impact climate on a trillion dollars that's the wrong way set an ambitious goal we want to be you know carbon neutral net neutral by 2030 or 20 35 or 20 set the goal and then fit the budget to the mission that's what jfk did with the moon shot that's the way we ought to think about this stuff and then the real challenge is managing the inflation risk because the money can always be there all you need are the votes you get the votes you've got the money but structuring the legislation so that you can safely spend the money and that word is important safely so that you can safely roll out that spending without creating other problems in the economy and that's where well-designed you know piece of legislation i think mmt has a great deal to offer in terms of you know how we can be ambitious and bold and aspirational and get those moonshot uh kind of policies in place but do it in a way that recognizes that the constraints we face are not financial they're in our real resource our productive capacity so how do we manage the resources how do we get the mission accomplished and you know we can we can do this we just have to stop fighting about the things that don't matter and start having a better more productive debate well said and i love the phrase scale the budget to the mission not the mission to the budget dr kelton it has been nothing short of an honor to have you on the show today i'm 99 pages club this is our 2021 book of the year uh we don't give that a word out lightly i you guys know us like we read book like at least a book a week sometimes two books a week like we are on a mission to make reading fun and achievable and we picked this as the most important book for the entire year if you read one book this should be it the paperback release for the deficit myth comes out on march 9th go to pick it up it's an amazing read i uh personally uh thought it to be incredibly insightful and a way to sort of break them the log jam of this like rhetoric that we hear from both sides of the political wow that drives us all insane uh so i'm very proud to have had dr kellen on this book two calls to action one obviously pick up the book and two if you like the idea of the federal job guarantee go and check out ayanna presley's uh congresswoman ayanna presley's uh bill call your congress person see if they're interested find out where they stand on the issue and why get involved because let's face it folks we got some pain in this country to solve and it's on all of us to take ownership of it so dr kelm thank you for being with us and best of luck to you on your paperback release this week thank you so much it was great to be with you likewise all right 99 pages we'll see you in a couple of weeks with some more content some great books y'all have a
JP 検索 9+ アバターの画像 Why does the government tax me when it can just print more money?! 78 回視聴•2021/03/08 にライブ配信 8 0 共有 保存 99pages チャンネル登録者数 265人 99pages is pleased to name Stephanie Kelton's "The Deficit Myth" as the recipient of our very first "Book of the Year" award. The Deficit Myth's paperback release on March 9, 2021 comes at a pivotal time for the US and the free world. We somehow are the richest nation on earth yet are plagued with massive rates of poverty, healthcare debt, income inequality, and poor infrastructure. Kelton shows us how our Gold Standard logic leftover from the 1950s and 1960s continues to hold us back needlessly. She explains how modern monetary theory can help us reconceive the way in which currency owning governments can fund development and grow themselves out of hardship. This is the antidote to the senseless class war our nation is fighting and we need lawmakers to pay attention.
文字起こし
2021/03/08ケルトンもっとお金を印刷できるのに、なぜ政府は私に課税するのですか？！
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1366166108059947008?s=20 2021/03/08ケルトンもっとお金を印刷できるのに、なぜ政府は私に課税するのですか？！
https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/1366166108059947008?s=20
「TheDeficitMyth」を最初のBookof the Year（2021）賞の受賞者に指名してくれた、99ページに感謝します。この3月7日の会話を楽しみにしています。youtube.com/watch?v=B9G2bd…
JPGoogle 9+アバターの画像もっとお金を印刷できるのに、なぜ政府は私に課税するのですか？！78回視聴•2021/03/08にライブリ99pagesチャンネル登録者数265人99pagesは、ステファニー・ケルトンの「The Deficit Myth」を、私たちの最初の「Book oftheYear」賞の受賞者に指名しました。2021年3月9日のDeficitMythのペーパーバックのリリースは、米国と自由な世界にとって極めて重要な時期に来ています。私たちはどういうわけか地球上で最も裕福な国ですが、莫大な割合の貧困、医療債務、所得の不平等、貧弱なインフラに悩まされています。ケルトンは、1950年代と1960年代に残ったゴールドスタンダードロジックが私たちを不必要に抑制し続けていることを示しています。彼女は、現代貨幣理論が、通貨を所有する政府が開発に資金を提供し、困難から抜け出す方法を再考するのにどのように役立つかを説明します。
今日の世界の読書の中心地である転写カリフォルニアは、今夜非常に重要な放送です。著者の教授であり、金融政策の専門家であるステファニーケルトン博士と、彼女の本について、赤字の神話について話します。 3月9日に、今年読んだ本が1冊しかない場合は、それは赤字の神話である必要があります。彼女がショーに参加できることをとても誇りに思っています。私は彼女の作品を大いに信じています。彼女の議論は彼女の概念彼女の政策提案は絶対に私たちの国が今聞く必要があるものなので、ケルトン博士はプログラムへようこそそしてあなたの仕事を祝福します。
どうもありがとうございました。
絶対にあなたはステファニーiiを知っています私はあなたの物語から始めたいと思いますあなたは現代貨幣理論の職業で自分のキャリアを生み出すあなたの人生の注目すべき瞬間は何であるかを知っていますどのようにあなたはその位置に着きますか？
ケルトン：
つまり、isiは偶然に経済学に出くわしました。正直に言うと、私は学部生として7つの異なる専攻を持っていたと思います。時間の経過とともに、私は何をしたいのかわからなかったと思います。私は会計を考えました私は金融iiがしばらくの間跳ね返ったと思いました、そして私は会計の学位を取得する途中で始めていたアカウントをやっていて、あなたはいくつかの経済学をとらなければなりません。
そして、私はそれがかなり得意でした、そして、ええと、私はすべてのもののミクロ経済理論コースに出くわしました。このすべてですが、私にはこの素晴らしい教授がいました。あなたが教室に足を踏み入れた多くの人々にそれが起こると確信しています。あなたは幸運に恵まれ、あなたの人生の軌道を変える誰かがいます。それが私に起こったことです。それで、私は会計専攻だと思っていたのですが、彼が教室で素晴らしかったことを除けば、まったく刺激を受けなかったこのミクロクラスを受講するようになりました。
彼はとても素晴らしかったので、私は彼と一緒に別のクラスを受講したいと思いました。次のクラスは経済思想史でした。
アダム・スミスとヴェブレンとマルクスとケインズとミルを知っているあなたのオリジナルの作品を彼が私たちに読んでもらいましたので、それはあなたが私を正しく売ったようなものです。
そして私はそのことに夢中になっていたので、私はあなたが学部に行くべきだとあなたが知っていると私に言ったこの教授と金融と経済学の二重専攻になりました、そしてそれはあなたが私が大学院に進んだことを知っている話です。
私はケンブリッジ大学で始めました。1990年代半ばにユーロの導入について多くの議論が行われ、この一般的なユーロの青写真であるマーストリヒト条約を知っています。ヨーロッパの多くの国で導入された通貨。
そこで私はイギリスで勉強していて、イギリス人はそうだと言っていました。ユーロの採用に参加するつもりはないと思います。彼らがこの待機をして態度を見るのを待つつもりだと思います。
そして彼らは他のヨーロッパ諸国にあなた方全員が前進すると言っていました私達はそれがどうなるか見ていきますそしてそれが大丈夫だと思われるなら私達は後であなたに加わるかもしれないので私は真ん中にいましたそれらの議論のすべてと突然のiiはこれの一部でしたあなたはあなたがあなた自身の通貨を持っているかあなた自身の通貨を持っていなかったならなぜそんなに重要なのか知っていますそしてそれは私にとって重要な瞬間でした私は通貨システムを理解し始めました。
そして、なぜあなたがコントロールするポンドと変動相場制を持つことと、それをあきらめてこの他の金銭的取り決めに参加することは非常に重要でした。
M：4：11
それで、あなたの本の論
それで、あなたの本の論文の101 uhのようにクマに分解しましょう。おそらく、現代の通貨理論とは正確に何であるかを実際に理解し、それを金本位制とどのように対比するかを理解することから始めるのが良いと思います。これらの用語を捨てるのは、おそらく、これらの2つの用語が何を意味するのかなど、平均的な市民のために私たちを助けることができるので、金本位制を採用している場合は、それが特定の通貨システムであることがわかります。政府が言うところ、私は私の通貨を固定価格で金に変換することを約束しますあなたは私に私の通貨を持ってきます私はあなたに何オンスの金を持ってきますあなたは私に何オンスの金を持ってきますそれはコミットメントであり、私が何であるかですあなたに言っているのは、私は自分の通貨を金が不足する可能性のあるものに変換することを約束しているということです。私は自分の通貨を変換することを誓約するとき、予算をまったく異なる方法で運用する必要があります。通貨は、私たちが今日私たちに持っている、または英国が今日持っている、または日本、オーストラリア、カナダ、または他の多くの国が持っている種類の通貨システムに対して、私が不足する可能性のあるものになります。あなたは通貨システムの性質を知っています。本当に重要であり、自由度の追加のポリシースペースがあります。政府としてより多くのことができます。金本位制に関しては、あなたはある種の惨めな正しさをしなければなりません。あなたがそこに出すすべてのユニットは潜在的に金に変換可能であり、あなたはそれだけしか持っていないので、あなたはそこに出す通貨の量に非常に注意しなければなりません。あなたはそれが根本的な違いであることを知っていますそれらの1つはあなたが家のように振る舞うようにし、もう1つはあなたがお金を使い果たすことは決してないことを知っている大きな頑丈な強力な通貨発行者のようにあなたの予算を操作することを可能にしますそれは素晴らしい移行だと思います。あなたの本の中心的な論文の1つは家庭のようなものであり、政府はバランスシートを管理する2つの非常に異なる方法であり、あなたが提案する2つの興味深い二分法は、私たちが考えるこの論文です。政府はタブタブフレームワークで運営する必要があります。これが最初です。再び課税し、それから私達は私達の支出のように借りて使うつもりですそして借りることは私達の課税能力の関数でした、しかしあなたは実際に私達が最初に実際に使わなければならないという刺し傷の論文を提供しますそしてそれから私達は後で支出を課税して借りることができますこれは実際には最初の要素であり、それが何を意味し、なぜそれが異なるのかを説明できます。あなたは正しいです。これはニーモニックであることがわかっていると思います。これは、人々が私たちのやり方を想像するのに役立つ方法を想像するための私の方法です。政府の財政について考えるように教えられたので、私がタブモデルと言うとき、それは私がモデルであるm右とタブをデバンキングしようとしています私はそれを括弧内のタブに入れましたタブは課税と借用ですそしてマーガレットサッチャーが言ったことと私は彼女がそれをとても明白に言ったので本の中で彼女を引用します納税者のお金だけ納税者が稼いだお金だけがあり、その一部を受け取ることができ、あなたの貯蓄があり、その一部を借りることができるので、あなたに課税したり、あなたから借りたりすることができます。お金と私たちが使うことができるお金があれば、支出が最後に来るので、最初にあなたの財政を調整する必要があります、そしてあなたは使う立場にありますそして私が本で主張することとあなたがmmtのポイントの多くを知っている全体は政府の財政が実際にどのように機能するかを人々に示すための順序付けの権利政府の予算が実際にどのように機能するか論理的に正しく使う政府はあなたに課税してドルを集めたり借りたりすることはできません。彼らが最初にドルを利用できるようになるまで、あなたから得られないドルを作成することはできません。彼らは政府からのみ発行者として来ることができます。通貨なので、明らかに政府はあなたのところに来ることができず、彼らがあなたにそれらのドルを利用可能にするまであなたに税金でドルを支払うように要求します彼らはあなたがいくつかのドルを手に入れるまであなたのドルを借りることができないので支出が最初に来なければなりません通貨発行者は、他の人がそれを手に入れて税金を払ったり借りたりする前に、まずそれを使ったり貸したりして通貨を利用できるようにする必要があります。支出が最初に来て、課税と借り入れが後で来るところですが、それは」sすべてがどのように機能するかを理解するという点で非常に重要な権利であり、政治家が大胆なインフラストラクチャ、気候、ヘルスケア、教育をやりたいと話しているのを聞いたとき、彼らがお金をかけたいものは何でもあなたに大きな質問があることを知っています常に彼らが何人かのジャーナリストから直面している、または彼らがテレビに出ていると彼らはあなたがそれに対してどのように支払うつもりであるかを言いますあなたはそれに対してどのように支払うつもりですかその質問は誰がタブを拾うつもりかを尋ねているその質問は何ですかだから私はタブが好きなのです誰がタブを拾うのかお金はどこから来るのですかそして私がやろうとしているのはそれはあなたがお金を見つけるために行く必要がないゴールドスタンダードではないと言うことです私たちはもうこれを正しく行うために地面に穴を掘るのを掘っていないことを知っています」異なる通貨システムとそれは異なった働きをします、そして私達は私達が政策を非常に興味深いものにすることができるように私達が正しく考えることができるように順序付けを正しくしなければなりません私の頭の中のサービスコスト私はよく追加は一種だと思いますそれは分子と分母があり、私の頭の中にある比率ですそして私が間違っているなら私を訂正してください私は明らかにここの専門家ではありませんがインフレについて考えるとき、私たちはより多くのお金がかかることについて話しているのですが、私たちは一種の分裂をしています、そして私はこの比率がドルの供給の変化が明らかにそれの1つの要素であるようなものであるかどうか興味がありますしかし、私はそれが分母であるかもしれないと私は推測します何ですか？s分子実際に私たちが実際にもっと多くのドルの間で分割している値は何ですか大丈夫だから私たちはそれを脇に置いておくべきだと思います大丈夫そうそうマネーサプライの観点から考えないでくださいこれは問題の一部だと思いますあなたと私は両方とも、インフレはどういうわけかマネーサプライと関係があるとあなたが言ったように正確に考えるように訓練されていたに違いありません。より高いより高いインフレはどういうわけか正しいですそしてこれはそれがどこから来たのかについて話すことができますそしてミルトン・フリードマンとお金の量理論とすべてのこの種のものはしましょう」それはさておき、正直に言うと、私のMBAの教授は、私が最初からそれを手に入れたことは一度もないとあなたに言うでしょう。つまり、あなたが座って書き留めることができる人と話すことができる人は地球上にいないということです。あなたにとってインフレのモデルあなたが予測するのを助けるのに役立つモデルは、私たちが持っていないすべての瞬間にインフレを説明するのを助けるので、インフレは複雑な動的現象であり、私たちにあなたのことを考えさせることを意味します価格レベルの継続的な上昇を知っているので、あなたが価格レベルを指すことができるということは、私ができない価格レベルを指すことができるということです。価格水準を理解しようとしているので、物価指数と呼ばれるものを構築します。おそらく、消費者物価指数のようなものを聞いたことがあるか、これは私たちが日常的に考えているホットなものではないことを知っています。私たちのほとんどですが、これらの指標があり、これがインフレを測定しようとする方法です。非常に深刻な不安定な人々が座って物価指数を作成していることを知っています。彼らは私たちが何を理解しようとしているのかを知っていると判断します。平均的な消費者が毎年毎月直面していることを把握するために価格に何が起こっているのか、価格が変化したときに消費者の予算にどのような影響があるのかを把握するために、インデックスを作成し、どのように平均的な人は収入をよく使います彼らはそれのかなりの部分をヘルスケアに費やします彼らはそれのかなりの部分を住宅に費やします彼らは教育と輸送とエネルギーにかなりの部分を費やします平均的な消費者の消費パターンは、これらの項目のいずれかがヘルスケア住宅輸送教育であるほど重要であり、バスケットにそれを与える重みが大きくなり、その後、時間をかけて追跡します。これらのものの価格に起こっていることは、時間の経過とともに高くなるものと低くなるものがあることを私たちは知っているので、それはそのバスケットにあるものの価格とのバランスで何が起こるかについてであり、それから私たちはそれがより高くなると言いますその商品のバスケットを時間の経過とともに購入し、バスケットが時間の経過とともにますます高価になり、賃金が追いついていない場合、実際には遅れていますが、バスケットがより高価になり、賃金が上昇している場合あなたはそれに見合ったものを知っています、そしてあなたはあなたが正しく遅れていないのでインフレはそれが難しいとよく言います」トリッキーなインフレ圧力がかかる可能性があるのは、賃貸料は住宅コストがはるかに高く、石油価格のショックはエネルギーコストを大幅に上昇させるため、インフレはトリッキーであり、そのほとんどはおそらく闘争にかかっているためです。インフレシェアそれはあなたが労働対資本にどれだけ行くかを知っていること、そしてあなたの利益とええとを保護し、価格をより高く動かすことができる価格設定力を持つのに苦労しているのに対して、労働者が価格と賃金を彼らの方向に動かす能力とそれは複雑な質問です絶対にそうですが、それは非常に重要です。木々の間から森を見ることができるようになったことを感謝します。インフレ自体が非常に複雑な話であるかのように、私を助けてくれているのです。について話し合い、それからしましょうそれはさておき、台所のテーブルで実際に重要なことに焦点を当てましょう。そうすれば、実際にこれをより具体的にすることができるかもしれません。たとえば、問題を取り上げましょう。具体的には、たとえば教育がプッシュされているとしましょう。私たちはこの国でより手頃な高等教育を受けたいと主張し、それは高額であるため、政府に多額の費用がかかるため、政策立案者にアドバイスしていたとしましょう。あなたの人生の何年もの間、あなたは実際の費用をどのように説明しますか、または政治家への結果をどのように説明し、私が紙にそれを手に入れるように見えると言いますこのお金は教育のために支払うための大きな数字のように見えますしかし、あなたは間違った方法で考え直してください私はあなたがそのドルの金額を脇に置く必要がありますあなたがうまくいくならあなたはどのように売り込みを得るのですか私はあなたが最初から始めるならあなたがあなたの価値観でリードしなければならないと思います誰もがあなたの数字をバラバラにするので、あなたの数字は悪い場所に行き着くでしょうあなたのコスト見積もりはあなたの収入見積もりから外れますすべては非現実的であり、誰もがあなたがどれだけ現実的であるかを知っているあなたが推定コストを知っていることを知って争い始めますええとなどですので、私がそうしていると信じているなら、ええと教育です」公共財であり、国民が全国の公立大学に授業料なしで通う能力を持っているべきであるということです。問題は、お金が私が本で強調しようとしていることをあなたが知っている最も簡単な部分は、私たちが私たちの時間の多くを、あなたがそれをどのように支払うのか、どこで私たちから収入が得られるのかで行き詰まっているということです」私が今提案した本当の課題である質問に注意を払わずにほとんどすべての間違った質問をすることは、大学教育を望むこの国のすべての人が公立大学に行くことができると約束した場合、どのようにそれを調達するかです。大学の授業料は無料で、4年間の学位を取得するにはどうすればよいですか？言い換えれば、教員は教室に十分な座席があり、駐車する場所はありますか、寮はありますか、ラボはありますか？大学院のティーチングアシスタントは、図書館には実際のリソース容量である容量があり、その約束を果たすために、教室での実際の教育である約束したものを提供できるようにする必要があります。学部などとお金を」s最も簡単な部分であり、それは常に私たちを悩ませている部分です。それは本当に、あなたが知っていることを想像できるかどうかを知っているまったく異なる地形に議論を移すことです。それはあなたが持っているゲームボードを想像しようとしているようなものです。ピースを正しく配置し、移動しようとしている場所に到達するためにピースを移動する必要があります。十分なピースがない場合は、ピースが必要になるため、戦略の一部に含まれる可能性があります。十分な数の教員と十分な数の追加のトレーニングと雇用管理者、または無料の公立大学を設置するために知っておく必要のあるものは何でもよく言われるので、大丈夫かどうか視聴者からいくつか質問がありました。私たちはそれをオンにするのが大好きなので、私たちはええとええとシャンカーベンカトラマンとチェルシーを持っていますええと私はチェルシージャコブが大好きです私はあなたの質問を1つにまとめたいと思いますインフレがバックストップのように直接影響を受けないのであれば、政府は自由にお金を印刷しません。その時点まで、政治家がこのシーケンスを取得するのを妨げているものを知りたいと思います。スタブ対タブモデルをご存知だと思いますが、これらの質問は、プロのポリシープロセスのようなものに関連しているように感じます。昨年の議会の取り組みに注目し、今日は何をしているのかcovidが本当に私たちに1年間これをやっていると私たちに打撃を与えて以来、毎年3月に行進し、議会は大丈夫、法案支出法案の後に法案を次々とスピンアウトしました。彼らは一緒に支出パッケージに投票しました彼らは支出ブームを承認しましたドルが出て行くあなたが今よく言わなかったタブモデルを考えているなら増税はありませんでした彼らが今言っていない増税はありません私たちはこれらのドルをどこで借りるつもりですか中国はそれを資金調達すると思いますか議会は財布の力を持っていますそして投票があれば資金はそこにありそして議会はこれを知っています私たちはあなたが私を知っている今、調整されている人々は、昨日、上院が、2のケア法を通過した以前の法律のすべての追加の直後に来る1.9兆ドルのコベント救済パッケージで前進したことを知っていると確信しています。昨年12月に移転された2兆9000億ドルなので、答えは、支出に資金を提供するのに必要なのは投票だけであり、投票があればお金であるという十分に高い優先順位があると彼らが考えるとき、彼らは知っているということです。そこにいるので、彼らは支出が最初で他のすべてが二次的であることを知っていると私を信じていますそしてあなたは将来議会が別の方法で法律を書き始めることができる方法があることを知っています何ドルものインフラストラクチャ支出と私たちはまた、彼らがそれを行うことができる支出を相殺するためにさまざまな税金を引き上げたいと思っていますが、彼らはそうしませんインフレーションについてのあなたの質問は重要です。昨年に行われたこのすべての支出は、これらの救済法案のすべてが、に送信された一連の指示を純粋に費やしているためです。政府の銀行連邦準備制度は、これらの支払い会議を行うことを承認しました。あなたの仕事は、米国財務省に代わって支払いを行うことです。連邦準備制度は、これらの支払いをどのように実行しますか。コンピューターのキーボードを使用し、新しいデジタルドルが生まれた銀行口座それが今起こっていることです。質問をしている人は、どの時点でこれが問題になるのかを言うのは非常に正しいです。1400の小切手を再送信する理由14000の小切手なぜ140000の小切手議会がお金を生み出すことができるのなら、なぜそんなにけちなのか、なぜあなたは100を知らないのか、そして私が望む答えは明白です。ある時点で、あなたは私たちの手にあまりにも多くのお金を入れる可能性があり、私たちは振り返って、そのすべての需要を満たすための供給を生み出す生産能力がない経済にそのお金を費やそうとする可能性があります。需要はここまで上昇し、供給はその罰をうまく維持するのに苦労しているので、インフレは非常に興味深いものになるでしょう。議会がこれとお金を知っているように、私はあなたのポイントへのフォローアップをしました。投票があった場合、それはなぜですか。あなたの本でこれについて少し話します。教育医療やインフラストラクチャなどに関しては、常に支出制限について話しているようですが、めったに好きではありません。私はアフガニスタンに送られました。減税について話し始めたとき、またはあなたが私たちがしなかった切望する刺激を言ったように、あなたが知っている費用について誰も話していませんでした。キャピトルヒルでのあなたの時間のように、支出の議論を推進する特定の問題についてのようなもののようなものの増税のようなものについて本当に話しますなぜそれは教育インフラストラクチャヘルスケアのようなものですか？私たちはイデオロギー的に異なっているので、引用なしの財政保守主義者の精査をうまく引き出します私たちは異なる価値観を持っています私たちは資金調達に関して同じコアバリューを共有していません特別な種類のカテゴリは、国防費に対する超党派の支持が広くあり、毎年国防再認可法が制定されると、7200億ドルを要求しているようです。私たちはあなたに7380億を与えたいと思っているので、あなたが望むすべては、文字通り、ホワイトハウスとペンタゴンが一定の金額を要求し、100人の上院議員がドアを通り抜けて、それはないと思うと言うことを意味します十分に私はそれがもう少しあるべきだと思うはずだと思うそして彼らはホワイトハウスが要求したよりもさらに多くを承認するためにさらに多くに投票するでしょうそしてこれらは8992票で合格するのでこれはこれです幅広い超党派の支持を持っている予算項目ええと、私はイデオロギーの分裂があることを示唆したくありませんはい、それは両方の当事者からのたくさんの支持があるものの1つですが、確かにさまざまなことについて二者はあなたが彼らが何ドルか知っているという点で根本的に異なりますd予算の特定の部分を割り当てたり、それらを取り除いたりするのが好きなので、議会には、助成金を2倍にし、教育や資金調達などのサポートを増やすことができる財布の力がありますが、約半分です。私たちの上院はしません」あなたが知っていることをやりたいと思っています、そして私たちは他のええと支出のカテゴリーと一緒にリストを下に行くことができたのでとても興味深いです私はこのトピックがあなたの本を読んだときに私が持っていたときからちょうどええと驚異的であることを意味しますさまざまな方法で私の視点を持っているので、私は非常に重要だと思うものに行きたいと思っています。チャットを通じて実際にかなりの数の質問があったことは知っていますが、私が信じていることに少し移りたいと思います。正直に言って、私があなたを招待した理由は、連邦政府の雇用保証のこの政策提案です。これは、私の価値体系と同じように、それについて聞いたときのように、クリックしただけです。連邦政府の雇用保証が実際に何であるか、そしてそれが今日私たちに役立つかもしれない理由について少し話していただけませんか？s日と年齢だから、人々がええとヘルスケアについて話すのをどのように聞くかを知っていることを確認してください、そして何人かの人々はあなたがあなたのヘルスケアをこのように提供したいのなら政府が言うヘルスケアの公的選択肢があるべきだとよく言いますテーブルでのオファー仕事の保証は労働市場での公的なオプションです。これは標準的な賃金と福利厚生パッケージでの雇用のオファーです。したがって、15時間の支払いがあり、これらの福利厚生が付いている仕事が必要な場合は、できません。あなたに合った経済のどこかで他のものを見つけてくださいあなたはいつもこれを準備ができていますそれはあなたのためにそこにありますあなたがいない時間制限はありません」資格を得る必要がありますそれは誰もがいつでもそれを手に入れることができるという保証ですそれはそれが非常に多くの異なることをするのでそれは私たちが資本主義経済であることを知っているので経済全体を安定させるための本当に強力な方法です市場経済と市場経済はダイナミックであり、ブームの時期を経て、その後、回復と不況の時期を迎えます。常に浮き沈みが続く景気循環をなくすことはできません。ですから、仕事の保証はこのプログラムであり、何らかの理由で私が持っている労働者と一緒にそれを成し遂げることができないとわかった理由が何であれ、雇用主としての亀裂を通してあなたが知っている転倒者を捕まえるのを待っています。おそらく正当な理由で労働者を解雇するつもりですが、あなたの雇用主があなたを失業させたり、あなたの時間を短縮したりして、あなたが必要な利益と収入を持っていない場合、あなたは常にアクセスできる何かが待機しています不況の不況では、これは非常に重要です。何百万人もの人々が失業し、不況が長く深くなる代わりに、人々が失業している時間が長くなるのではなく、ジャネット・イエレンのような人々が私たちの財務長官があなたの傷跡の影響について話すのを聞くでしょう。失業によって人々が被害を受けることを知っているのはあなたが知っているだけではありません私は失業していて落ち込んでいて家族を養うことができないので気分が悪くなります失業に関連する社会的および経済的コストが長くなります君は'仕事を休むことで、社会的、精神的、経済的であるという点で、これらのコストがより深くなり、ある時点で失業する雇用主は、長期間仕事を休んでいる人を雇うことを好まない。時間の経過とともにあなたの仕事の習慣が悪化するなど、これはあなたがすぐに再雇用するのを捕まえる場所ですあなたはあなたのスキルを維持し続けますアップグレードスキルは追加のトレーニングを提供し、あなたがコミュニティに役立つ何かをすることを可能にしますそれは連邦政府が資金提供するプログラムです地域で管理されているため、コミュニティはこれらが私たちにとって価値のあるものであり、人々はコミュニティの大小を知っている方法で貢献することができ、それを行うために生活賃金を得ることができ、経済が回復すると民間部門で仕事に戻ることができます彼らはそのプログラムから民間部門に戻ることができるので、それはあなたの車のショックアブソーバーのように機能し、それは乗り心地をよりスムーズにし、経済がこれらの避けられない浮き沈みを経験するときあなたはよりスムーズな乗り心地を得るようにそれはより人道的な人々です雇用を維持する機会を知っていますか？彼らの収入は彼らの利益を保護し、彼らはプログラムにとって単なるさまざまな利益であるため、ええと、私たちは不況を経験し、連邦政府の雇用保証があり、回復し始め、私たちの国の価値観には、駐車場を建設するために人々を雇うために得た国の教育計画が必要であると判断しました。ピークアンドパーク大学は、あなたが以前に取り組んだすべての制限を、ある時点で、中小企業が労働市場で競争することを実際に難しくしている政府のプロジェクトで実際に労働市場を歪めているのではありませんか？このプログラムの特徴は、準備が整っていることを維持することです。このプログラムの特徴の1つは、民間部門がいつでも持つことができる熟練した雇用者の準備が整ったプールを維持していることです。彼らがしなければならないすべての準備ができているのは、彼らをこのプログラムから外して民間部門の手に渡すために少額の保険料を支払うことです。それはその一部ではなく、腐敗して役に立たなくなることはありません。失業者という用語は、労働力の傷などが正直に言って、あなたが思いつくことができる最もプロの種類のビジネスで私に来ることを知っていると言った場合すべてのプログラムのメディケアを使用すると、民間雇用者の帳簿からヘルスケアを取り除いており、仕事の保証を使用すると、彼らが常にできることを確認しているので、私はおそらくあなたがすべてのメディケアと仕事の保証を知っていると思います彼らがいるときに彼らが浸ることができる雇用された労働者のプールへのアクセスを持っている準備ができたら、雇用と生産の立ち上げが容易になるように準備を整えてください。そうすれば、従業員と雇用主の両方にメリットがあり、プログラムの目的は、強化する民間部門と競争することではないと思います。労働市場の機能と景気循環をスムーズにするために私はそれが好きですそしてそして私はショックアブソーバーのアナロジーの両方を感謝しますええと、困難な時期に乗り心地を少しでこぼこにするような手段としてそれはそうだと思います本当に鋭敏な観察ええと、チャットを通じて明確な明確な質問がありました。これらは連邦政府と州の仕事だけでいいのでしょうか。企業にもポジションを確保するように求めています。そうだと思います。」このプールでの請負業者の仕事のようなものは、実際にはw-2連邦州や地元の従業員のようなものであるため、政府と契約しているという文脈で興味深いのは、あなたの質問は、それが連邦の雇用保証の一部ではない民間の雇用者によって雇われたumの人々を数えていないということではありません、言い換えれば私たちは民間部門が労働者を雇うべき労働者を雇いたいのであれば、民間部門の雇用を助成しようとしないでください。これは、民間部門が現在権利を利用していない人々に選択肢を提供することを知っているプログラムです。民間部門が自分で雇用したくないと決めた人々は、雇用保証がそれらの人々を雇用し、雇用を維持し、民間部門がそのプログラムから雇用する準備ができたら、私自身納税者として民間部門に解放します私は私の政府サービスに多くのことを期待しています、そしてこれらの人々がそうでないなら私たちの政府のために何ができるかなどの民間部門で雇用可能これらの仕事のいくつかはどのように見えるかを探していますiiつまり、あなたの想像力は、やらなければならない仕事がたくさんあるという点で限界だと思いますあなたはこの国中のコミュニティを通り抜けて、自分の目ですぐに見ることができますええと、おそらく無視されたばかりの有用なことができることに気づかなかった何十、何百ものことをあなたはこれを見たい人々のために知っています彼ら'私の本でそれについて少し話しますが、私の本は仕事の保証に焦点を当てていませんが、人々がどのような仕事をすることができるかという質問に答えます。連邦雇用保証完全雇用への道の人々は答えを探すためにそれを見ることができますそしてあなたはまた私と同じ頃にパヴリーナ・チェルノバという名前のmmtエコノミストによって出版された本を見ることができますそして彼女の本はすべて連邦雇用保証についてですだから彼女は実行される仕事の種類についてこれらの質問に非常に深く入りますが、大まかに言えば、ここで答えは、仕事はすべて、コミュニティを世話する人々を世話する人々を世話するケア経済を構築することに何らかの形で向けられていると考えています惑星今それはかなり大きなテントのようなものです」広いネットをキャストしているので、コミュニティの世話をするときに何をしますか？要点は、連邦政府がプログラムに資金を提供しますが、地元のコミュニティは彼らにとって何が価値があるかを決定するということです連邦政府はしません北東オクラホマに住む人々が何を必要としているのかを知る北東オクラホマに住む人々は彼らが何を大切にし、彼らの独特のニーズが何であるかを知っているので、仕事は州政府の役人と協力してコミュニティ地方自治体に住むボトムアップの人々から来ることになっています仕事を承認すると、それらの仕事が実行されますが、侵入種を監視する気候変動を扱うケアワークエルダーケアチャイルドケアコミュニティガーデンを考えてください。そうすることで、農民は、彼らの作物が侵入し、作物が失われることを知っていることからあなたが知っています。そうです、私たちは行くことができ、これらのプログラムの人々ができることの種類について考えるだけで何時間もかかるということですが、アイデアはそれがsコミュニティが言ったので、仕事はコミュニティのメンバー自身から来ているので、私たちの社会の失業者を民間部門のものにすることができると私に言っているので、私たちはコミュニティにとって価値があります経済的またはスキルセットが賢明に採用しないことを選択した理由は何であれ、コミュニティによって決定されたコミュニティの問題を実際に助ける仕事を彼らに与えることができ、私たちの国へのコストはインフレであり、私たちはそれが私たちの価値についてであることを知っていますシステムと私は仕事よりも価値観でアメリカ人のことを考えることはできません仕事はあなたがこの国であなたのヘルスケアをどのように得るかあなたがこの国であなたの退職をどのように得るかという手段ですs仕事のようにこの国で税金を支払う方法は、私たちがすべての構成要素のようなものですなぜこれはまだ行われていないのですか？これが現実になるのを妨げるものは何ですか？すべてがプログラムに資金を提供する投票に戻ってくるので、十分な投票が必要です。誰かがこのようなアイデアを開始する必要があります。実際には先週かそこらで、国会議員に連邦雇用保証の決議を紹介してもらいました。連邦政府の雇用保証の決議案を提出したのは国会議員のアヤナ・プレスリーでした。彼女はそれをレイアウトしました。彼女はこれが私が目指す方向であると言ったので、決議案はそうではありません。すぐに来る支出法案ええと、私は彼らがそれに取り組んでいることを知っていますが、私たちは家の中でこのようなサポートがどのようなものであるかがわかりますが、fdrを使用すると、仕事のプログラムのアルファベットスープがありましたが、大恐慌があり、何百万人もの人々が失業していて、絶望しています。あなたがあなたの手に本当の混乱を持っているときに創造性を育ててください人々はかなり創造的になることができますそしてあなたは私が何百万人もの失業者をたくさんの失業者を得たと言いますええとこれはそうではありませんうまく終了するために、私たちはこれらの人々がやるべきことを理解する必要がありました。市民保全部隊と公共事業促進局があり、全国青年協会が若者の仕事のためのニャーを持っていたので、人々が創造的になることができることを知っています彼らが危機と必要性があると感じたとき、しかし私たちはそれを待つ必要があります。なぜなら、すべての失業者は価値があり、失業の道を望んでいることを知っているからです。定義上、有給の仕事を探している人です。彼らは貢献したいと思っており、何かをしたいと思っていて、そこに道を見つけることができないので、失業は私たちができる費用がかかることを知っておくべきです。コストとインフレについておっしゃっていたと思いますが、これをモデル化した賦課金レポートについては、連邦政府が実際に何人の人が参加するかを保証しているとしたら、どのくらいの費用がかかり、マクロ経済はどうなるかを説明しました。このようなプログラムを実行した場合の影響、そして私たちが行ったことは、これを大規模なマクロシミュレーションで実行し、さまざまな経済指標、実質gdp成長インフレ金利などに何が起こるか、そして私たちが見つけたものを教えてください。このプログラムは平均して約1500万人を雇用し、このプログラムに資金を提供することができます。連邦政府は、ドアを通り抜けるすべての人々を雇用し、インフレへの影響を最小限に抑えるのに役立つ何かを提供します。インフレとその影響は非常に短期的ですあなたは基本的に賃金と価格の一時的な上昇を手に入れ、それからそれは衰退します、そしてそれはインフレではありませんそれはあなたに財政破滅または私たちが政府に資金を提供しているソブリン通貨を持つ政府について話しているようなことをあなたに知らせませんプログラムとあなたはこれを行うことのすべての経済的利益を得るので、私たちがそれをモデル化したことを知っていますそしてあなたはこのようなことをすることから途方もない利益を得る私たちが連邦政府の仕事で99ページに書いたラップソングを見て、私たちはこの問題を大いに気にかけていますそれはアメリカの権利ですこれは配布物ではありませんこれはアメリカの手渡しですそれはまさにそのような常識的な政策のようです私は私の理想主義とあなたの本への愛情に目がくらむかもしれませんが、ええと、私はあなたがこの問題を宣伝していることをとてもうれしく思います。非常にエキサイティングです。それであなたの仕事に感謝します。私が知っているように、私たちは今多くの人々が見ているように私はええと、誰かがしたいのかどうかのように興味があります。参加するということは、私たちが実際にチャットに記事を投稿した議員に電話することをお勧めします。先に進んで、議員プレスリーの提案を発表しているのを見てください。それを見て、議員に電話してください。彼らは、ケルトン博士の後、彼らが問題のどこにいるのかを知りたいと思っています。私たち平均的なアメリカ人がこの問題に関与してサポートするためにできることは何ですか。つまり、平均的なアメリカ人は皆、あなたがしていることを見て違うということです。私'私は自分自身を平均的なアメリカ人だと思っているので、私は自分が正しいことをするので、ツイートする私は書く私はインタビューをします私はできる限りの方法で限界を押し広げようとしますそしてあなたはあなたが知っている本当に良い可能性を上げました人々が理解していない場合、または多くの人々があなたの議員に個人的に連絡することの価値を割り引いていると思う場合は、議員に手紙を書いてください。彼らが重要であるかどうかにかかわらず、彼らは非常に重要であり、電話回線が爆発し、電子メールが爆発しているとき、それは彼らが無視するものではありません私は上院で働いていたことを知っています私はスタッフが殺到したときにそれが与える影響を知っています電話をかけ、メンバーにこの問題について伝える必要があります。この問題について人々が一日中電話をかけていることが重要です。そのため、メンバーに連絡するのに1日のうち2分かかることを知っており、これを聞いてください。今何かを見たあなたは上院が昨日通過した1.9兆ドルのコベント救済パッケージに含まれていない15時間の最低賃金であなたの問題を抱えることができますええとあなたはその法律の他の部分で問題を起こすことができますがそれはかなり大きかったです2の後の12月の9000億の後の平均1.9兆。2兆のケア行為は、これが金融危機と基本的に1つの大きな法案による最後の不況の後に得られたものよりも大幅に改善されていることを知っていることを意味します。その後、議会は私たちが行ったようでした。私たちが止めているお金がなくなったと私たちが考える赤字と私たちは連邦準備制度にすべての負担をかけるつもりです私たちは今度は請求書を次々と請求するのではなく私たちの分担をしたので彼らにそれを理解させますビデン大統領が次に望んでいるのは回復パッケージであり、私たちが今得ているのは頭金であると彼は言った。彼は回復を望んでいるのは安心だ。彼は包括的で持続可能な回復の基礎を築く別のパッケージを望んでいる。特に教育や介護などのインフラストラクチャの気候について、潜在的に数兆ドル以上について話しているので、どこに行き、ここに行くのか」sあなたが知っている質問がとても重要なのは、この法案が通過しなければならなかった理由の一部であり、議員が知っていて、あなたが知っているすべての民主党員が投票してこれを通過したのは、誰もが望んでいたので、民主党員が望んでいたからです独立派は、共和党員が人口の60人以上であることがこの法案を支持することを望んでいたので、次のパッケージが来て、彼らの一部が値札や代金や赤字などについて争い始めたとき、私たちは彼らの立場を維持するためにあなたが彼らを直立させておく必要がありました。彼らはあなたが彼らが放棄するといういくつかのリスクがあることを知っているでしょうそして彼らは私たちが彼らの後ろにいることを知る必要がありますそして私たちはあなたが非常に多くの異なるもので長い間無視されてきた支出の種類を知っているあなたにその票を投じて欲しいです地域の教育とインフラストラクチャ、そして気候これらに取り組む必要がありますあなたが知っている問題私は私の本の中に重要な赤字と呼ばれる章を持っています、そしてそれはただ救済で止まるだけでは十分ではありません私たちはあなたが長年の不平等と不足を補うために私たちの経済へのいくつかの本当に戦略的な投資を知っている必要がありますはい、私たちはあなたが知っていることに取り組むつもりです、そして実際に私たちは連邦政府の仕事の保証を離れる前にチャットに来る素晴らしい質問をしましたええとgitaはこれらの短期雇用はしないと尋ねます人々が他のより賃金の高い仕事を見つけると、機会は混乱を引き起こします。これは興味深い質問だと思います。たとえば、インフラストラクチャや気候変動など、解決する価値のあるこれらの問題の多くは、解決するのに数十年かかる問題であり、だからレッツのように連邦政府の雇用保証があり、不況に陥っていると言って、たくさんの人を雇い、大規模なインフラプロジェクトに取り組み始めますが、その後、経済は回復し、彼らはちょっと待ってください。民間部門に行くことができるのは、これらのインフラストラクチャプロジェクトや、人々が民間部門を離れて行くときに連邦政府の雇用保証を元々持っているこれらの長期プロジェクトをどのように維持するかなど、外部でより多くのお金を稼ぐことができるからです。これらのプロジェクトを浮かび上がらせておく理由はなぜ停滞しないのかということです。それは重要な質問です。プログラムやプロジェクトに人を雇いたくないので、彼女が尋ねてくれてうれしいです。半分建てられた病院あなたがしていることではないので、仕事の保証は、通常の政府支出であるその種のインフラストラクチャ投資のためではなく、私が話している次の議会パッケージについて話していたようなインフラストラクチャプログラムのように、私は通常の昔ながらのことをすることについて話している政府が民間部門と契約し、コミュニティヘルスセンターを建設し、高速鉄道を行い、ブロードバンドを行い、それを行うインフラストラクチャ支出は、連邦政府の雇用保証プログラムではなく、政府資金によるインフラストラクチャ投資です。ですから、恒久的に行う価値のあることは、政府が資金を提供する恒久的な仕事である必要があることを知っています。sほぼ何であるか私はあなたが何をしているのかを推測しますあなたは価値を生み出しているが、
ケルトン：
wpaプロプログラムの公共事業促進局のことはあなたがストリートパフォーマーを持っていたので少し変動することは許容できます外出できるwpaの一部である劇場があり、ミュージシャンの演奏やアーティストの演奏を見ることができ、コンサートなどを開催しました。家族をコミュニティスペースに連れて行くことができるのは素晴らしいことです。ある種の交響曲の制作か何かを知っているのを楽しんでください。しかし、ある時点で、フルーティストや他の人を失う可能性があることを知っているかもしれませんが、それは永続的な機能ではないかもしれませんが、コミュニティはそれを見逃しますが、そうではありません消えるようなもの」重要な公共サービスの機能を破壊するのは、
M：
私たちが必要としているのは詐欺師の組合であるということです。それが起こった場合、私はおそらく非常に小さな町の1つでコミュニティガーデンに署名する最初の人になるでしょう。
ケルトン：
提案された仕事は、私が図書館に入る図書館を知っているかもしれません。これは本棚が落ちているので、すべての本がこのようにスライドします。いくつかの基本的な大工仕事のスキルは、私たちに新しい本棚を構築するか、あなたが知っているペイントでこれらのものを支えるので、それが行われる必要がある永続的なものではない場合にのみそれを行う必要がありますが、メンテナンスの面で非常に多くあり、あなたは考えることができますコミュニティガーデン私はあなたが学校の遊び場を知っていることを意味しますバスケットボールコートコンクリート」sすべてが壊れていて不均一などなので、そこに入ってそれらの子供たちに素敵なレベルを与えてくださいええと、あなたはバスケットボールコートで遊んでそれをすることを知っていますが、それはあなたが知っている一度限りのことですそれはすべてが長続きしないわけではありません
M：
ある種のええと、それは非常に重要なことだと思います。その質問に感謝します。今週のええと、ケルビン博士は、金融政策の発表のように、パウエル会長を見て、私のポートフォリオを恐怖で見ていました。金利やみんなの話のような連邦準備制度端に座って、あなたは金融政策の管理を引き渡すことについてのあなたの本の中で本当に魅力的な章を持っていました、すなわち議会である私たちの財政政策の所有者に渡され、あなたはそれに沿って支出を自動化するような自動運転機能のようなものを提案しますデータに基づいて経済が必要なときに増加し、経済が必要ないときに減少することを確認するためのガードレールデータに基づいてそれを必要としているので、これについて少し話していただけますか？これは本当に前向きだと思ったので、クリエイティブなジュースがたくさん出てきたと思います。視聴者の何人かにそれを説明してもいいかもしれません。だから私ははっきりさせておきたいのですが、それは創造的なジュースを生み出すだけでなく、ジェロニモや他の人々を介して不安を引き起こす可能性があるからです。金融政策を持っていて、財政政策を持っている金融政策は連邦準備制度が行うことであり、ほとんどの場合それはツールキットが拡大し、FRBが量的緩和などを聞いたことがあるかもしれない他のさまざまなことを行うこのような時期に金利を変更することについてであるはずですが、通常の時間のほとんどの金融政策はちょうど約であるはずです連邦準備制度は、一晩金利と呼ばれる経済の非常に特別な価格を調整し、議会が連邦準備制度に与えたものを達成するために、その一晩金利を適切なレベルにしようとしています。私たちに高水準の経済活動を与え、多くの雇用と良好な成長をもたらし、インフレを低く抑えることは二重の使命であるため、議会は彼らがステアリングホイールを持っているバスを運転することになっています申し訳ありませんが、連邦準備制度理事会は金融政策レバーで運転することになっていると述べました。
55:00?
mmtが私の本で言っていることは、30年以上にわたってそれを試したが、それほどうまく機能していないようだということです。そして私たちがやったことは、私たちだけでなく世界中の他の中央銀行に過度の圧力をかけ、彼らに過度の責任を与え、彼らはそれを実現するのに十分な強力なツールキットを持っていないということです私たちが彼らにこの他のレバーについて何をするように頼んでいるのか財政政策と呼ばれるこの他のレバーがあります私たちはそれを使用し、それを関与させ、より積極的に使用する必要があります腕を組んでここに座って、私の問題ではないと言うでしょう」人々を借金に追いやることによって実際にもっと信頼できるツールの金融政策が機能しているので、あなたが従事しなければならなかったと言います連邦準備金ができることは、経済がより多くの雇用を創出するのを見たいときに金利を変更することですだから人々はもっとお金を借りるだろうなぜあなたがもっとお金を借りるなら借りる目的はおそらく使うことなので私たちの残りを借金に追いやることによって金融政策が機能するのであなたは金利を下げる私は今車を買うと思います私は危機に瀕しています私は人々に収入をもたらすことによって債務財政政策が機能しているので、1400ドルはそれをチェックします」何千万人ものアメリカ人の財政政策は、あなたがそれを自由に所有し、良い一日を過ごすためのチェックが来ているので、財政政策は、耐久性の点で人々を借金に追いやるよりも良い人々に収入をもたらすことによって機能します長期的な持続可能性なので、金融政策に役割がないと言っているのではなく、借り入れが悪いことを知っている私的であると言っているのではありません。これは財政政策であり、私たちはそれをもっと引っ張る必要がありますあなたは自動とハンドルを自分で回すということについて何かを言いましたs財政政策財政政策は政府支出の変化と税金の変化であり、それは議会の行動を通じてのみ起こります。議会の行動が乱雑に見えることは誰もが知っています。私が言う本は、議会が大騒ぎで、一緒に働きたくない、続けたいと思っていることをしたくない場合でも、政府予算の一部を自動的に動かすために自動安定装置を強化するために私たちができることは何でも言います議会がなくても休暇のための休憩と家経済情勢の変化に応じて予算の一部が自動的に移動するため、失業率が高く、人々が傷つき苦しんでいる労働市場の場合、予算は自動的にその方向にリソースを移動するため、引き続き人々をサポートします。それはあなたの車の中にあるようなものですあなたはハンドルを握って自分でそれをすることができるクルーズコントロールボタンを持っていますあなたは長い間支出法案の戦いを通過するのではなく支出法案を通過することができますクルーズコントロールボタンと突然、車が右に乗ってしまうようなもので、自動運転車を持っているかどうかはわかりません。車輪が自動的に回転し始め、腕を引っ張るだけです。戻って、あなたはあなたがええと知っているので大丈夫になるでしょう」s私たちが財政バージョンについて話していることええ、私たちは金融政策自体を奪いたくないのですが、金融政策はさまざまなことをし、より大きなumより効果的なツールキットを使用するかもしれませんが、権力や何かの供給を否定することはありません
それはとても面白いですあなたが知っているええと私は自動運転車を持っていませんええと私はスバルを手に入れましたそれは私をaからbに連れて行きますしかしいつか私はそうしますそして私は藻類でもそれを愛していますええとケレン博士私たちはとても感謝していますもう1つ質問したいのですが、ここ数分で実際にたくさんのチャットがありました。申し訳ありませんが、十分な数がありません。時間ええと、でも私はあなたがステフ・ドクター・ケルトンを気にしないのなら、私はあなたにいくつかの質問を送ってみたいと思いますそしてええと多分私たちのコミュニティに戻ってください」dは素晴らしいですが、私はあなたにあなたの本の最後の章で少し話してもらいたいと思います。これは私を本当に魅了したものです。あなたはケネディの月に男を着陸させるための行動の呼びかけについて話し合います。彼を安全に地球に戻してください。これは明らかに、mmtが実際に動いていて、私たちの国に大量の返還をもたらした素晴らしい例です。事前に予測または測定する方法がわからなかったので、mmtとiに関連してこれについて話してください。今日の議論を締めくくるのに素晴らしい方法だと思います。emmaをよく見てください。
ケルトン：57:30
mmtは私たちが何をすべきかを正確に教えてくれません。私たちが想像上の障害物を取り除くことができれば、私たちに何ができるかを示しています。進歩への障壁だと思いますお金を持っているああ私たちは壊れたかもしれないああ私たちはギリシャに変わるかもしれないああ中国あなたは窓を閉めることを知っているかもしれないそして私たちはもうお金をもらえないあああなたは私たちが次の世代に私たちの孫に負担をかけると言われているすべてのことを知っているああ借金ああ私たちを妨げているすべての神話を取り除き、本当の限界がどこにあるのかをはっきりと見ることができれば、限界がどこにあるのかをはっきりと見る必要がありますが、政府が費やす州それから私達はjfkのための私達の国の優先順位が何であるかという非常に異なった議論を始めることができました優先順位は月に人を上陸させることでしたそして彼はそれを優先させましたそして彼は議会に行きそして彼はスピーチをしましたそして彼は、この使命を達成するために私があなたに必要なものはここにあると言いました、そして彼はそれをするためのお金を求めました、そしてそれは」s mmtが私たちを引き寄せようとしているのは、このカバーされた救済パッケージにミッション指向の予算があったかどうかを知っているミッション指向のことを考えさせようとしていることです。この1.9兆の法律の一部は、今日貧困状態にあるすべての子供たちの半数が、使命志向のこの法案の結果として貧困から解放されると推定されています。私たちは、今から1年後にまだ失業しているすべての失業者について、なぜ彼らを雇用しないのか、なぜそうしないのかについて述べました。気候変動は、設定された目標がそれらを客観的かつ具体的にし、予算をミッションに適合させることを知らないのはなぜですか？私たちは予算をミッションに合わせて拡大しようとはしませんが、ミッションを予算に合わせて拡大するので、私たちはよく考えます2030年または20年までにカーボンニュートラルネットニュートラルを知ってもらいたいという野心的な目標を設定するのは間違った方法です。目標を設定し、予算をミッションに合わせます。これは、jfkがムーンショットで行ったことです。これは、このことについて考える必要がある方法です。実際の課題は、インフレリスクを管理することです。必要なのは、投票だけです。あなたはあなたの票を獲得しますお金はありますが、安全にお金を使うことができるように法律を構築し、経済に他の問題を引き起こすことなくその支出を安全に展開できるようにその言葉は安全に重要です。 mmtには、野心的で大胆で意欲的な方法を知っており、それらのムーンショットを実施する方法を知っているという点で、提供するものがたくさんあると思いますが、私たちが直面している制約は経済的ではないことを認識する方法でそれを行います」私たちの実際のリソースで私たちの生産能力を再確認するので、どのようにリソースを管理し、どのようにミッションを達成するのか、そしてあなたは私たちがこれを行うことができることを知っています。重要で、より生産的な議論をよく言い始めます。
1:01:07
M:
私は、予算をミッションに合わせてスケールするというフレーズが大好きです。ケルトン博士の予算へのミッションではありません。今日のショーにあなたを迎えることは光栄です。私は99歳です。ページクラブこれは私たちの2021年の本ですええと私たちはそれを軽く言いません私はあなたたちが私たちが作る使命を帯びているように少なくとも週に1冊の本のように時々2冊の本を読むように私たちを知っています楽しくて達成可能な読書で、これを一年で最も重要な本として選びました。1冊の本を読んだら、これは赤字神話のペーパーバックのリリースが3月9日に出てくるはずです。素晴らしい読み物私は個人的にそれが信じられないほど洞察力があり、私たち全員を狂わせる政治的すごいの両側から聞いたレトリックのようなこのログジャムを壊す方法だと思ったので、私はとてもこの本にケレン博士がいたことを誇りに思います。1つは明らかに本を手に取り、2つは連邦政府の仕事の保証のアイデアが好きなら、アヤンナ・プレスリーのええと議会の女性アヤンナ・プレスリーのええと法案をチェックしてください。 「彼らがこの問題についてどこに立っているのか、そしてなぜ関与するのかを知りたいと思っています。なぜなら、私たちがこの国で解決するのに苦労した人々に直面しましょう。」s私たち全員が所有権を取得するので、ケルム博士は私たちと一緒にいてくれてありがとう、そして今週のペーパーバックのリリースであなたに幸運を祈ります数週間後には、さらにいくつかのコンテンツでお会いしましょう。
00:00 california the reading capital of the 00:02 world today is a 00:03 very important broadcast tonight we are 00:06 speaking with author 00:07 professor and monetary policy expert dr 00:10 stephanie kelton about her book the 00:13 deficit myth 00:14 the 99 pages book club book of the year 00:17 2021 00:18 the paperback release comes out on march 00:20 9th and 00:21 look if there is just one book you read 00:23 this year it has to be the deficit myth 00:26 uh and we are just so proud to have her 00:28 on the show i'm a big believer in her 00:30 work and i think her 00:31 uh discussion her concepts her policy 00:34 proposals 00:35 are absolutely what our nation needs to 00:37 hear right now so dr kelton welcome to 00:39 the program 00:40 and congrats on your work thank you 00:42 thank you so much for having me 00:44 absolutely so you know stephanie i i i'd 00:47 love to just 00:48 start off with your narrative you know 00:50 what are the notable moments in your 00:51 life that 00:52 create one's career in in the profession 00:56 of modern monetary theory how do you get 00:58 to that position ?
kelton:
01:00 i mean i s i stumbled on economics by 01:03 accident 01:04 to be perfectly honest you know i think 01:06 i had as an undergrad 01:10 seven different majors i think over time 01:13 i mean 01:14 i yeah i didn't know what i wanted to do 01:17 i 01:17 i thought you know medicine i thought 01:20 law i thought accounting i thought 01:21 finance i i 01:23 bounced around for a good while and 01:26 i was doing an account i was starting on 01:28 my way on an accounting degree 01:30 and you have to take some economics and 01:32 i was pretty good at it 01:34 and um i stumbled into a course a micro 01:38 economic theory course of all things 01:39 right it was one of my 01:41 least favorite courses in terms of just 01:43 content because it's like 01:45 really you know micro theory you want me 01:47 to swallow what 01:48 all of this but i had this incredible 01:51 professor 01:52 and you know i'm sure that happens for a 01:54 lot of people you walk into the 01:55 classroom and 01:56 you just get lucky and you have somebody 01:59 who changes 02:00 the trajectory of your life and that's 02:02 what happened to me and 02:03 so i went from thinking i was an 02:05 accounting major to 02:08 taking this micro class which 02:11 was not inspiring in any way except that 02:13 he was 02:14 he was great in the classroom just 02:16 masterful and i wanted to take another 02:18 class with him because he was so amazing 02:20 and the next class i took was 02:22 the history of economic thought and then 02:24 it's like 02:25 okay you sold me right because that's 02:28 where you 02:29 he had us read the original works of you 02:31 know adam smith 02:32 and veblen and marx and keynes and 02:36 mill i mean just you know the whole 02:37 array and i was hooked on that stuff 02:40 so i ended up with a double major 02:43 in finance and economics with this 02:45 professor 02:46 who said to me you know you should go 02:49 undergraduate school 02:50 and that's the story you know i i went 02:52 on to graduate school and i 02:54 started off at the university of 02:56 cambridge and i was there in the 02:57 mid-1990s when 02:59 um there was so much debate taking place 03:01 about the launching the introduction of 03:03 the euro 03:04 and you know the maastricht treaty which 03:07 is the blueprint 03:08 for the euro this common currency that 03:10 was introduced in many countries in 03:12 europe 03:13 and there i was studying in england and 03:16 the british were saying 03:18 yeah i don't think we're going to join 03:20 you in adopting the euro i think we're 03:22 going to wait they took this wait and 03:24 see attitude 03:24 and they were saying to the rest of the 03:26 european countries you all go forward 03:29 we'll see how it goes we'll watch and 03:31 keep an eye if it looks okay we'll we 03:32 may join you later 03:34 and so i was there in the middle of 03:37 those debates and all of a sudden i 03:38 i was part of this you know wow why 03:42 would it matter so much if you 03:44 had your own currency or didn't have 03:45 your own currency and that was kind of a 03:47 pivotal 03:48 i think moment for me where uh i started 03:52 understanding um the monetary system and 03:56 why 03:57 having uh the pound and a floating 04:00 currency that you control versus giving 04:02 it up and joining this 04:04 other monetary arrangement was so 04:06 consequential .
04:08 so let's break it down to the bear like 04:11 101 uh of the thesis of your book and 04:14 i think maybe a good place to start is 04:16 to actually understand what exactly 04:18 is modern monetary theory and how do we 04:21 contrast that with 04:23 the gold standard i think we kind of 04:25 throw these terms out maybe uh you could 04:27 help us just for the average 04:29 citizen like what do these two terms 04:30 mean?
K:
04:32 well so if you're on a gold standard 04:34 then you 04:35 you know it's it's a particular monetary 04:38 system 04:39 it's a way to arrange your currency 04:42 where the government says 04:43 look uh i pledge to convert my currency 04:47 into gold at a fixed price you bring me 04:50 my currency i give you that many ounces 04:53 of gold 04:53 you bring me that many ounces of gold i 04:55 give you that many units of my currency 04:57 fixed 04:58 right it's it's a commitment and what 05:00 i'm saying to you is that i am promising 05:03 to convert my currency into something 05:05 that i can run out of 05:06 my gold is finite something i could run 05:08 out of so i 05:10 have to operate my budget very 05:12 differently 05:13 when i'm making that pledge to convert 05:16 my currency into something i can run 05:18 out of versus the kind of monetary 05:20 system that we have in the us 05:22 today or that britain has today or that 05:24 japan or 05:25 australia or canada or so many other 05:27 countries have.
05:28 so um you know the the nature of the 05:32 monetary system 05:33 really matters and you have degrees of 05:35 freedom 05:36 additional policy space you can do more 05:39 as a government 05:40 you have more freedom to operate your 05:42 budget in ways that are 05:44 not like a household when you're on a 05:46 gold standard 05:47 you have to be sort of miserly right you 05:49 have to be very careful about how much 05:51 of your currency you put out there 05:52 because every unit you put out there is 05:54 potentially convertible 05:56 into gold and you only have so much of 05:59 it so 06:00 you know that's the the fundamental 06:02 difference is 06:04 that one of them makes you behave a 06:05 whole lot more like a household 06:07 and the other one allows you to operate 06:09 your budget 06:10 like a big beefy strong currency issuer 06:13 that knows that it can never run out of 06:14 money.
M:
06:15 you know that's a wonderful transition 06:17 to i think one of the core thesis of 06:19 your book is like 06:20 the household and the government are two 06:23 very different ways of managing 06:25 a balance sheet if you will and one 06:27 interesting the 06:28 dichotomy you propose is this thesis 06:30 that we think that the government 06:32 must operate in a tabs tabs 06:36 framework which is first we're going to 06:38 tax and then we're going to borrow and 06:40 spend like 06:41 our spending and borrow was a function 06:43 of our ability to tax 06:44 but you actually offer a stab thesis 06:47 which is 06:48 first actually we gotta spend and then 06:51 we can 06:52 tax and borrow later spending is 06:55 actually the first 06:56 element can you explain what that means 06:58 and why it's different ?
K:
07:00 so you're right i and i say that you 07:03 know 07:03 this is a mnemonic it's just my way of 07:06 imagining 07:07 some helpful way for people to picture 07:10 the way we've been taught to think of 07:12 the government's finances and so when i 07:14 when you say the tabs model that's the 07:16 model i'm trying to debunk 07:18 right and tabs i put it in parentheses 07:21 t-a-b 07:22 the t-a-b is taxing and borrowing 07:25 and so what margaret thatcher said and i 07:27 quote her in the book because she said 07:29 it so plainly she said 07:31 the government has no money of its own 07:33 there is only 07:34 taxpayer money there is only the money 07:37 that 07:38 you the taxpayer earns we can take some 07:40 of that 07:41 and there is your savings and we can 07:43 borrow some of that 07:45 so we can tax you or we can borrow from 07:47 you 07:48 and after we do those things we have 07:51 money and once we have money we can 07:54 spend so spending comes last you have to 07:57 arrange your finances first 08:00 then you are in a position to spend and 08:03 what i 08:03 argue in the book and the whole you know 08:05 much of the point of mmt 08:06 is to get the sequencing right to show 08:09 people 08:10 how government finance actually works 08:11 how do government budgets really work 08:13 how does the government really spend 08:15 by logic right the government cannot 08:18 tax you and collect dollars or borrow 08:21 dollars from you until they have first 08:24 made the dollars 08:25 available because you can't create the 08:28 dollars they can't come from you they 08:30 can only come from government as the 08:31 issuer of the currency 08:33 so you know obviously the government 08:36 can't come to you 08:38 and demand that you pay dollars in taxes 08:41 until they have 08:41 made those dollars available to you they 08:43 can't borrow your dollars 08:45 until you have some dollars so the 08:47 spending has to come 08:49 first the currency issuer has to first 08:51 make its currency 08:52 available by spending or lending it into 08:55 existence before the rest of us can have 08:57 it 08:58 and use it to pay taxes or borrow so 09:01 it's just 09:01 you know it sounds like a subtle thing 09:04 just going from tabs 09:06 to stab where spend comes first and 09:08 taxing and borrow 09:09 comes later but it's extremely important 09:13 right in terms of understanding how it 09:16 all works and 09:17 when you hear politicians if they're 09:20 talking about 09:20 wanting to do big bold infrastructure or 09:23 climate or health care or education 09:25 whatever 09:26 they want to spend money on you know 09:28 that the big question they 09:30 always get they're confronted with from 09:32 some journalists or they're on tv and 09:34 they say 09:34 how are you going to pay for it how are 09:36 you going to pay for it what is that 09:37 question 09:38 that question is asking who's going to 09:40 pick up the tab and that's why i like 09:42 the tabs 09:43 thing right who's going to pick up the 09:45 tab where is the money going to come 09:47 from 09:47 and what i'm trying to do is say it's 09:49 not a gold standard you don't have to go 09:51 find the money you know we're not 09:52 digging in digging a hole in the ground 09:54 to do this anymore right 09:56 it's a different monetary system and it 09:58 works differently and we've got to get 10:00 the sequencing right 10:01 so that we can get the thinking right so 10:03 that we can get the policy right.
M:
10:05 super interesting so if we are talking 10:08 about inflation then 10:10 as the metric of what 10:14 government services cost in my head i 10:16 think well addition is kind of a 10:18 it's a it's a ratio right there's a 10:20 numerator and a denominator 10:23 and in my head and please feel free to 10:24 correct me if i'm wrong i'm obviously 10:25 not an expert here but 10:26 when i think of inflation uh we're 10:28 talking about the the 10:30 things costing more money right and 10:32 we're sort of dividing and i'm 10:34 kind of curious what this ratio is like 10:36 the change in the supply of dollars is 10:38 obviously one element of it 10:40 but what's the i guess that might be the 10:42 denominator 10:43 what's the numerator what is the value 10:45 that's actually that we're actually 10:46 dividing amongst more dollars?
K:
10:49 okay so i think we should we should set 10:52 that aside 10:53 okay please yeah not think in terms of 10:56 the money supply because i think this is 10:57 part of the problem 10:59 that you and i were both i'll bet you we 11:01 were both trained 11:02 to think exactly the way that you just 11:04 said somehow 11:06 inflation has to do with the supply of 11:08 money and if the supply of money goes up 11:11 then inflation somehow goes up because 11:14 more supply means 11:15 higher higher inflation somehow right 11:18 and this we can talk about where that 11:20 comes from and milton friedman and the 11:22 quantity theory of money and all this 11:23 kind of stuff let's put that aside 11:25 so done.
M:
to be honest my mba professors 11:29 would all tell you that i never got it 11:30 to begin with so
K:
11:33 i mean the thing is there is not a 11:36 person 11:36 on earth anywhere that you could sit 11:39 down and talk to 11:40 who could write down for you a model of 11:42 inflation 11:43 a a model that works to help you 11:45 forecast 11:46 understand explain inflation at all 11:49 moments in time we don't have it 11:51 it doesn't exist so inflation is 11:54 a complex dynamic phenomenon that is 11:57 meant to 11:58 um have us think about you know 12:02 a continuous increase in the price level 12:05 so what is that you can you point to the 12:07 price level can i i can point to the 12:09 price level it's not 12:10 i can't see the price level we try to 12:12 get a sense right 12:13 what is the price level so we construct 12:15 these things called price indices and 12:17 people have probably heard things like 12:19 the cpi 12:20 or you know um this is not hot stuff we 12:23 think 12:24 about on a daily basis most of us but 12:26 there are these 12:27 indices and this is how we try to 12:29 measure inflation 12:30 so you know very um 12:33 serious wonky people sit around and 12:36 build price indices 12:38 and they decide you know we want to try 12:40 to understand 12:41 what's happening to prices so that we 12:44 get a sense of 12:45 what the average consumer is facing 12:48 month over month 12:49 year over year what is the what is the 12:51 impact on the consumer budget 12:53 as prices change so we we construct an 12:56 index and we say well how does the 12:57 average person spend their income 13:00 well they spend a good bit of it on 13:02 health care they spend a good bit of it 13:03 on housing they spend a fair bit on 13:05 education and transportation and energy 13:08 we decide you know food entertainment 13:10 clothing 13:11 we build that basket to reflect the 13:15 consumption patterns of the average 13:18 consumer 13:19 the more important any one of those 13:21 items is 13:22 healthcare housing transportation 13:25 education 13:26 the greater weight we give it in the 13:27 basket and then we track 13:29 over time what's happening to the prices 13:32 of these things 13:33 we know some things become more 13:34 expensive over time and other things 13:36 become less expensive so it's about what 13:38 happens on balance 13:40 to the prices of the things that are in 13:43 that basket 13:44 and then we say is it becoming more 13:46 expensive to buy that basket of goods 13:48 over time 13:49 and if the basket is getting more and 13:51 more expensive over time and your wages 13:53 aren't keeping up 13:55 then in real terms you're 13:58 falling behind but if the basket is 14:01 getting more expensive and your wages 14:03 are climbing 14:04 you know commensurate with that then you 14:06 say well you're not falling behind right 14:08 so inflation's tough it's tricky 14:11 you can have inflationary pressure 14:13 because you know 14:15 rental you know costs a lot more for 14:17 housing costs a lot more for health care 14:19 and oil price shock drives energy 14:21 costs way up so inflation is tricky 14:25 and most of it is probably down to a 14:28 struggle over income shares it's about 14:30 you know how much goes to labor versus 14:33 capital and that struggle to 14:35 have pricing power to be able to protect 14:37 your profits 14:38 and um and move prices higher versus 14:42 workers ability 14:43 to move prices and wages in their 14:46 direction and 14:50 it's it's a complicated question.
M:
it's it 14:53 absolutely is but it's very important 14:55 and i appreciate you 14:56 have like kind of getting me to see the 15:00 forest 15:00 through the trees is really what you're 15:02 helping me do you know it's like if 15:04 inflation by itself is 15:06 is an incredibly complicated thing to 15:08 talk about and discuss 15:10 then let's put it aside let's focus on 15:11 what actually matters at the kitchen 15:13 table 15:13 and so it maybe we could actually make 15:15 this more tangible like let's take a 15:16 let's take an issue 15:18 uh specifically uh let's say education 15:21 for example there's a push 15:22 let's just generally say there's a push 15:24 that we want to have a more affordable 15:26 higher education in this country 15:28 and it's expensive it's going to cost 15:31 the government 15:32 on paper what looks like a lot of money 15:34 so as a pot let's say you were advising 15:36 a policy maker which by the way you did 15:38 for many years of your life and continue 15:40 to do 15:40 um how do you spell out the actual 15:44 cost or how do you spell out the 15:45 consequences to a politician 15:47 and say like look i get it on paper this 15:49 money looks 15:50 like a big number to pay for education 15:53 but you're thinking it in the incorrect 15:55 way i need you to put that dollar amount 15:56 aside how do you get the 15:58 what's the sales pitch if you will?
K:
well 16:01 i mean 16:01 i i think you have to lead with your 16:03 values if you're if you begin by 16:05 starting with 16:06 numbers you're gonna end up in a bad 16:08 place 16:09 because everyone will pick apart your 16:11 numbers your 16:12 your cost estimates will be off your 16:14 revenue estimates will be off everything 16:16 will be unrealistic and everyone will 16:17 start fighting over 16:19 you know how realistic your 16:22 you know estimated costs are uh and so 16:25 forth so 16:26 if you believe as i do that 16:29 um education's a public good and that we 16:32 ought to have 16:33 uh people ought to have the ability to 16:35 go to public colleges and universities 16:37 all across the country tuition-free then 16:40 the question is how do you resource that 16:43 right how do you deliver on that because 16:45 the money is the easiest part 16:47 that's the point you know that i'm 16:50 trying to emphasize in the book is that 16:52 we spend so much of our time bogged 16:55 down with how will you pay for it what 16:58 will it cost 16:59 where will the revenue come from we're 17:00 asking mostly all of the wrong 17:02 questions and not paying attention the 17:06 questions that are the real 17:07 challenges which i just suggested is how 17:09 do you resource it 17:10 if i promise that every person in this 17:14 country who 17:14 wants a a college education can go to a 17:18 public college or university 17:19 tuition-free and get a four-year degree 17:22 how do we resource it in other words do 17:25 i have 17:25 the faculty are there enough seats in 17:28 classrooms are there places for people 17:30 to park 17:31 are there dorms are there you know are 17:33 there labs are there 17:34 um graduate teaching assistants are 17:37 there light is does the library have the 17:39 capacity 17:39 that's the real resource capacity and to 17:42 make good on that promise 17:44 you've got to be able to deliver what 17:47 you're promising which is the actual 17:48 education 17:49 the experience in the classroom and with 17:51 the faculty and so forth 17:53 the money's the easiest part and that's 17:55 the part that always hangs us up 17:57 so it really is about shifting the 17:59 debate 18:00 in onto an entirely different terrain 18:03 where 18:04 you know if you could just imagine you 18:06 know uh 18:08 it's almost like trying to imagine a 18:09 game board where you have pieces 18:11 right and you have to move the pieces 18:14 around 18:15 to achieve where it is you're trying to 18:17 go 18:18 and if if you don't have enough pieces 18:20 you can't get there right you need the 18:22 pieces and so part of the strategy 18:24 might involve training and hiring uh 18:28 enough faculty and enough additional you 18:31 know administrators or whatever you need 18:33 you know to 18:34 get the capacity in place to have free 18:37 public college.
M:
18:38 well said so we got some questions 18:40 coming in from our viewers if it's okay 18:42 i'd love to turn it on 18:43 so we have uh and uh shankar 18:45 venkatrahman and 18:46 chelsea uh i would love chelsea jacob 18:48 i'd love to combine your question to one 18:50 because i think they're they're 18:51 uh related uh shucker asks uh so why 18:54 isn't the government 18:55 printing money at will if inflation 18:57 isn't going to be directly impacted like 18:59 what is that is the backstop 19:01 and i think you know to to that point 19:04 you know 19:04 we'd like to know what is stopping 19:06 politicians from getting this sequencing 19:08 right you know the 19:09 the the stab versus tabs model and i 19:11 feel like these questions are related 19:13 in their just very sort of like pro 19:16 policy process 19:18 uh implications could you speak to those 19:20 if that's okay?
K:
19:21 sure look i think that if we if we're 19:24 paying attention to what congress has 19:26 done 19:27 for the last year what is today 19:30 where it's march right year a year 19:34 since covid really hit the u.s that we 19:37 have been doing this for 19:38 one year and what has congress done okay 19:42 they have spun out bill after bill after 19:45 bill spending 19:46 spending legislation right congress has 19:48 committed trillions and trillions of 19:51 dollars 19:52 they got together they voted for a 19:54 spending package they authorized the 19:56 spending boom the dollars go out 19:58 there was no tax increase if you're 20:00 thinking of the tabs model 20:01 they didn't say well now whose taxes are 20:04 we going to raise to pull this off there 20:05 was no tax increase 20:06 they didn't say now where are we going 20:08 to borrow these dollars do you think 20:09 china will 20:10 finance it didn't happen congress has 20:14 the power of the purse 20:15 and if the votes are there the funding 20:17 is there and congress knows this so we 20:20 have 20:21 you know i'm sure people who are tuned 20:22 in now know that yesterday 20:24 the senate moved forward on a 1.9 20:27 essentially trillion dollar uh covent 20:30 relief 20:31 package which comes on the heels of all 20:34 of the additional 20:35 of the previous legislation that has 20:37 been passed the cares act of 2.2 20:40 trillion 20:40 the 900 billion that was moved in 20:42 december of last year 20:44 so the the answer is they know they know 20:48 that when they deem something a high 20:50 enough priority 20:51 that all it takes to fund the spending 20:54 are the votes 20:55 and if the votes are there the money is 20:57 there and so 20:58 they believe me they know the spending 21:01 comes first and everything else 21:04 is secondary and you know there are ways 21:07 that 21:08 in the future congress could start 21:10 writing legislation differently they can 21:12 write a bill that says 21:13 we are committed to doing two or three 21:15 trillion dollars of infrastructure 21:16 spending 21:17 and we also want to raise a variety of 21:20 taxes to offset that spending they can 21:22 do that 21:23 but they don't have to do that so your 21:25 question about inflation is important i 21:27 want to make sure to address it because 21:30 all of this spending that has taken 21:32 place over the last year 21:33 every one of these relief bills has been 21:36 pure spending 21:37 one set of instructions sent to the 21:40 government's 21:41 bank the federal reserve that said go 21:44 make these payments congress has 21:46 authorized them your job is to make the 21:48 payments on behalf of the u.s 21:49 treasury the federal reserve carries out 21:52 those payments how does it do that 21:55 well it marks the changes the numbers in 21:58 the appropriate bank accounts it uses a 22:00 computer keyboard 22:02 and new digital dollars are born okay 22:05 that's what's happening now 22:06 the person asking the question is quite 22:08 right to say 22:10 at what point would this become a 22:12 problem right then we're sending 22:14 1400 checks why not 14 22:17 000 checks why not 140 000 i mean 22:21 if if congress can just conjure the 22:24 money 22:24 into existence why be so stingy why not 22:28 you know 100 and the answer 22:29 i hope is obvious which is that 22:33 um there is a limit and at some point 22:36 you could put too much money 22:38 into our hands and we could turn around 22:40 and try to spend that money into an 22:42 economy 22:43 that doesn't have the productive 22:44 capacity to produce the supply to meet 22:47 all of that demand 22:48 and if you've got demand going way up 22:50 here and supply struggling to keep up 22:52 well the punishment 22:54 for that is going to be inflation.
M:
very 22:57 interesting 22:57 um i had a follow-up to your point about 23:00 like you know congress knows this and 23:01 the money's there if the votes are there 23:04 why is it then that 23:05 and you talk a little bit about this in 23:07 your book we always seem to talk about 23:10 the 23:10 spending limits when it comes to things 23:13 like education 23:14 health care uh and at times 23:17 infrastructure but 23:18 rarely like when i got sent to 23:20 afghanistan no one was talking about how 23:21 much it would 23:22 cost you know when we started talking 23:24 about tax cuts or even like you said the 23:26 covet stimulus we didn't 23:27 really talk about like increasing taxes 23:29 for any of those 23:30 like what is it about certain issues 23:33 that drive the spending 23:36 debate uh versus others like i mean in 23:38 your time at capitol hill like why is it 23:40 that 23:41 like education infrastructure health 23:43 care 23:44 uh things like that just draw the 23:46 scrutiny of uh 23:48 quote-unquote fiscal conservatives.
K:
23:51 well because we have we are 23:54 ideologically 23:55 different we have different values we 23:58 do not share the same core values when 24:02 it comes to 24:03 funding you know i mean i will say with 24:06 respect to defense this one is a special 24:08 sort of category right because there is 24:10 widely bar bipartisan support 24:14 for uh the defense spending and every 24:18 year when the defense reauthorization 24:20 act comes up 24:21 it's like you want you're asking for 720 24:25 billion are you sure that's all you want 24:26 because we feel like we want to give you 24:28 738 billion 24:29 i mean literally that the white house 24:32 and 24:33 the pentagon will ask for a certain 24:35 amount of money 24:36 and a hundred senators will walk through 24:40 the door 24:40 and say i don't think it's enough i 24:42 think it should be 24:43 i think it should be a bit more and 24:44 they'll just vote for even more to 24:47 authorize even more than the white house 24:48 had requested 24:49 and these this will pass with 89 92 24:52 votes 24:53 so this is an a this is a budget item 24:56 that has 24:57 broad bipartisan support um so i don't 25:00 want to suggest that there 25:01 there are the ideological divisions yes 25:05 that's one of those where there's a 25:07 whole lot of uh 25:08 of support from both parties but yeah 25:11 obviously on 25:12 on a variety of things the two parties 25:15 just 25:16 fundamentally differ in terms of you 25:18 know how many dollars they'd like to 25:20 allocate or 25:21 or take away from certain parts of the 25:23 budget they're 25:24 they're different so you know congress 25:26 has the power of the purse 25:28 they could double pell grants and 25:30 provide more support for education 25:32 and funding and so forth but roughly 25:35 half of the us senate 25:36 doesn't want to do that you know and and 25:38 we could go down the list with 25:40 with other uh categories of spending so.
M: 25:44
25:44 super interesting i mean this topic is 25:46 just uh 25:48 kind of mind-blowing from when i had 25:50 when i read your book i was 25:51 it shifted my perspective in a lot of 25:55 different ways so 25:56 i want to get to something that i think 25:58 is very important and i know we actually 26:00 had quite a few questions coming through 26:02 the chat but i just want to move on a 26:03 little bit to 26:04 what i believe is honestly the reason 26:06 why i invited you on which is 26:08 this policy proposal of the federal 26:11 job guarantee uh this to me just 26:15 according like my value system just when 26:17 i heard about it it just 26:18 clicked um and i would like to just have 26:21 you introduce it 26:22 uh for a minute would you mind telling 26:23 talking a little bit about what the 26:24 federal job guarantee really is and 26:26 why it might help us in today's day and 26:28 age.
kelton:
26:29 so sure you know how you hear people 26:32 talk about 26:32 um health care and some people say well 26:35 we should have a public option 26:37 with in health care where the government 26:40 will say 26:41 if you want your health care delivered 26:42 this way there's always a standing 26:45 offer on the table the job guarantee is 26:48 a public option in the labor market 26:50 it is an offer of employment at 26:53 a standard wage and benefit package so 26:57 if you want a job that pays you 26:59 15 an hour and comes with these benefits 27:02 and you can't find 27:03 anything else anywhere in the economy 27:06 that suits you 27:07 you always have this at the ready right 27:09 it's standing by 27:10 it's there for you there's no time limit 27:13 you don't have to qualify 27:15 it is a guarantee anyone can have it at 27:18 any moment in time 27:19 so it works um it does so many different 27:23 things it is 27:24 a really powerful way to stabilize the 27:27 whole 27:28 economy because you know we're a 27:30 capitalist economy we are a market 27:32 economy and market economies are dynamic 27:34 we go through periods of boom and then 27:37 we go through periods of bust we have 27:39 recoveries and recessions and we can 27:40 we're 27:41 never going to eliminate the business 27:44 cycle we're always going to have our ups 27:46 and downs 27:47 so a job guarantee is this program 27:49 that's in place 27:50 ready and waiting to catch anyone 27:54 who falls you know through the cracks 27:57 in as an employer for whatever reason 28:00 finds that i i can't make it with the 28:03 workers i have i'm gonna 28:05 shed workers maybe for good reasons 28:07 maybe for not so good reasons 28:09 but if your employer lays you off or 28:12 cuts your hours and you don't have the 28:14 benefits and the 28:15 and the income that you need there's 28:17 something standing by 28:19 that you always have access to so in a 28:22 recession in a downturn this is really 28:24 important because 28:25 instead of millions and millions of 28:28 people becoming 28:28 unemployed and the longer and deeper the 28:31 downturn the longer people stay 28:33 unemployed you will hear people like 28:35 um janet yellen our treasury secretary 28:37 talk about scarring effects you know 28:39 people 28:40 get damaged through unemployment it's 28:43 not just 28:44 you know gosh i i feel bad because i'm 28:47 unemployed and i 28:48 i'm depressed and i can't support my 28:50 family.
there are a lot of 28:52 social and economic costs that are 28:54 associated with unemployment the longer 28:56 you're out of work the deeper those 28:58 costs become 28:59 right in terms of you know social and 29:01 mental and economic and 29:03 you at some point become unemployable 29:06 employers don't like to hire people 29:08 who've been 29:08 out of the um out of work for a long 29:11 period 29:12 of time your work habits deteriorate and 29:14 so forth 29:15 so this is a place that catches you 29:17 immediately re-employs you 29:19 keeps your skills maintained upgrade 29:21 skills provides additional training and 29:24 allows you to do something useful for 29:26 the community it's a 29:28 federally funded program that's locally 29:31 administered 29:31 so the community is saying these are 29:33 things of value to us 29:35 and people can contribute in ways you 29:38 know big and small in their communities 29:40 get a living wage to do that and as the 29:42 economy recovers they can return 29:45 to work in the private sector they can 29:47 transition out of that program back into 29:50 the private sector 29:51 and so it works like a shock absorber in 29:53 your car it 29:54 it makes the ride smoother so that when 29:57 the economy goes through these 29:59 inevitable ups and downs you get a 30:02 smoother ride 30:03 it's more humane people have you know 30:06 the opportunity to stay engaged stay 30:08 employed have their income protected 30:10 their benefits secured 30:12 um and they're just a variety of 30:14 benefits to the program.
M:
30:16 so is there not a point though like 30:18 let's say 30:19 uh that uh we go through a downturn we 30:23 have a federal job guarantee 30:25 and we start recovering and uh we decide 30:28 that our national values 30:30 require a national education plan we got 30:33 to hire people to build the 30:35 the the parking lots and the for the for 30:37 the university of peak and park 30:38 all the limitations that you addressed 30:40 earlier i mean at some point 30:42 aren't we actually distorting the labor 30:45 market 30:46 with governmental projects that actually 30:48 makes it harder for small business to 30:50 compete 30:51 in the labor market ?
Kelton:
no i mean the whole 30:54 point of this program 30:55 is to maintain a ready well i shouldn't 30:58 say the whole point 30:59 uh one of the features of this program 31:02 is that you are maintaining a buffer 31:05 stock a ready pool of skilled 31:07 employed people that the private sector 31:11 can have 31:11 any time they're ready all they have to 31:14 do is pay a small 31:15 premium to get them out of this program 31:17 and into the private sector's hands 31:20 so what you're doing is you're 31:22 maintaining the 31:23 liquidity of the labor market you're 31:25 keeping it liquid so that it doesn't 31:27 part of it doesn't 31:28 rot out and become unuseful right the 31:31 term unemployed where the labor scarring 31:33 and so forth 31:34 honestly if you said um you know come to 31:38 me with the most 31:39 pro sort of business 31:42 uh idea that you can come up with i'd 31:44 probably say 31:45 you know medicare for all and a job 31:47 guarantee because 31:49 with with a medicare for all program 31:51 you're taking health care 31:52 off of the books of private employers 31:55 and with a job guarantee you're making 31:58 sure that they can 31:59 always have access to a 32:02 pool of employed workers that they can 32:05 dip into 32:06 when they're ready so that it is easier 32:09 to 32:10 hire and ramp up production when they're 32:12 ready to do that so 32:13 i think it's it benefits both the 32:15 employee 32:17 and the employer and the purpose of the 32:19 program is not to compete with the 32:21 private sector 32:22 it's to enhance the functioning of 32:25 the labor market and to smooth the 32:27 business cycle.
M:
32:28 i like that it's it's and and i 32:30 appreciate both the analogy of the shock 32:32 absorber 32:33 uh as a means of like making the the 32:35 ride a little bit less 32:36 bumpy during the hard times i think 32:38 that's a really an astute observation 32:40 uh we had a clear clarifying question 32:41 coming through the chat that's okay will 32:43 these 32:43 be solely federal and state jobs are we 32:46 asking 32:47 businesses to set aside positions as 32:49 well uh and i think that's kind of 32:51 interesting in the in 32:52 in a context of say government 32:54 contracting like do those contractor 32:57 jobs kind of 32:58 count in this pool are these actually 33:00 like w-2 33:01 federal state and local employees?
Kelton:
33:05 so they're not uh the answer to the 33:07 first part of your question is 33:08 no that you are not counting um 33:11 people hired by private employers that 33:15 that is not part of the federal job 33:16 guarantee in other words we're not 33:17 trying to subsidize 33:19 private sector employment if the private 33:22 sector wants to hire workers they ought 33:24 to hire workers 33:25 and this is a program that you know 33:28 provides an 33:29 option for people that the private 33:31 sector 33:32 does not currently have a use for right 33:34 that those are the people that the 33:36 private sector has decided for itself 33:39 it does not wish to hire so 33:42 the job guarantee takes those folks 33:46 employs them keeps them employable and 33:48 releases them 33:50 to the private sector when the private 33:52 sector is ready to hire from that 33:53 program.
M:
33:54 so as a taxpayer myself i expect a lot 33:57 out of my government services and if 33:58 these people aren't employable by the 34:00 private sector like what can 34:02 they do for our government what are some 34:05 of these jobs looking for 34:06 what do they look like?
K:
well i 34:09 i mean i think your imagination is the 34:12 limit 34:13 in terms of there is so 34:16 much work that needs to be done you can 34:18 drive through communities 34:20 all over this country and see readily 34:23 with your own eyes 34:24 uh probably dozens or hundreds of things 34:28 that have been untended to useful things 34:31 that could be done 34:32 that have just been neglected so you 34:35 know 34:35 for people who want to look at this 34:37 they're i talk a little bit about it in 34:39 my book my book is not focused on the 34:41 job guarantee but i do answer the 34:43 question what kinds of jobs could people 34:45 perform 34:46 uh i co-authored a report that was 34:48 published by the levy economics 34:50 institute 34:51 on a federal job guarantee a path to 34:53 full employment people can look at that 34:56 uh for answers and you can also look at 34:59 a book that was published around the 35:00 same time as mine 35:02 by an mmt economist named pavlina 35:04 chernova and her book is 35:06 all about the federal job guarantee so 35:08 she gets very deep into these questions 35:10 about 35:11 the kinds of jobs that would be 35:13 performed but broadly speaking here's 35:14 the answer think of the jobs as all 35:17 being oriented in one way or another 35:19 around building a care economy caring 35:22 for people 35:23 caring for communities caring for the 35:25 planet now that's pretty big 35:27 tent kind of stuff right that's a you're 35:29 casting a wide net 35:30 so what do you what do you do when you 35:31 care for the community well the point is 35:34 that the federal government funds the 35:36 program 35:37 but the local communities the people 35:39 living in them they decide 35:41 what is of value to them the federal 35:43 government doesn't know 35:44 what people living in northeastern 35:46 oklahoma need the people living in 35:48 northeastern oklahoma know 35:50 what they value and what their unique 35:52 needs are so the jobs are supposed to 35:54 come 35:55 from the bottom up people living in the 35:56 communities local 35:58 governments in concert with state 35:59 government officials they approve 36:01 the jobs uh and then those jobs get 36:04 performed but 36:05 you know think of care work elder care 36:08 child 36:08 care community gardens dealing with 36:11 climate change monitoring 36:12 invasive species so that farmers are 36:15 protected 36:15 you know from uh having you know their 36:18 crops 36:19 uh invaded and and crop losses right i 36:22 mean we could go 36:23 and hours and hours just thinking about 36:26 the kind of things that people in these 36:27 programs could do 36:28 but the idea is that it's it is of value 36:32 to the community how do we know that 36:33 because the community 36:35 said so the jobs are coming from members 36:37 of the community themselves.
M:
36:39 so you're telling me that we can 36:42 take the unemployed people of our 36:45 society 36:46 the ones that the private sector has 36:47 either chosen for whatever reason 36:50 economic or skill sets wise have chosen 36:52 not to hire 36:53 we can give them jobs that will 36:56 actually help problems in our 36:58 communities dictated by the communities 37:01 and our the cost to our country is 37:04 inflationary we have we know it's about 37:06 our value systems and i can't think of 37:08 anything more 37:08 american in values than a job 37:12 right the job is the vehicle of how you 37:15 get your health care in this country how 37:16 you get your retirement in this country 37:17 it's how you pay taxes in this country 37:19 like the job is kind of kind of the 37:21 building block of 37:22 everything we are why is this not 37:27 done yet like what are the obstacles 37:29 what what what keeps this from becoming 37:30 a reality ?
kelton:
37:33 i mean you know you've got to have 37:35 enough it's the votes right 37:37 everything comes back to the votes fund 37:39 the programs 37:40 and someone has to initiate 37:44 the an idea like this and actually just 37:46 within the last 37:47 week or so we had a member of congress 37:50 introduce a resolution for a federal job 37:53 guarantee and it was pretty big deal 37:54 right it was congresswoman ayana presley 37:58 who introduced a a resolution for a 38:00 federal job guarantee and she laid it 38:02 out 38:03 and she said this is what this is a 38:05 direction i would like to move toward 38:07 so we that is a resolution is not a a 38:10 spending bill 38:11 that will come soon uh and i know that 38:13 they're working on that but we'll see 38:15 what kind of support 38:16 uh there is in the house for something 38:18 like this but you know 38:20 with with fdr you had an alphabet soup 38:23 of job programs but you had the great 38:25 depression and you had millions and 38:26 millions of people out of work 38:27 and desperation does breed creativity 38:30 right when you have a real mess 38:32 on your hands people can get pretty 38:33 creative and you say i got millions of 38:35 unemployed people 38:36 a lot of unemployed men uh this isn't 38:39 going to end well 38:40 we got to figure out something for these 38:42 folks to do 38:43 and you had the civilian conservation 38:45 corps and the works progress 38:46 administration you had a national 38:48 youth association an nya for jobs for 38:50 young people 38:51 so um you know people can 38:55 can get creative when they when they 38:58 feel like there is a crisis and a need 39:01 and but we should have to wait for that 39:04 because 39:05 you know every unemployed person is 39:08 uh his value is of value and wants a way 39:11 in 39:12 unemployment is by definition somebody 39:14 who's looking for paid work 39:16 they want to contribute they want to do 39:18 something 39:19 and they can't find a pathway in so why 39:21 not create a job lord knows there's 39:23 enough 39:24 uh valuable work to be performed out 39:26 there and we ought to 39:28 you know unemployment is costly we can't 39:30 think you you mentioned 39:32 uh the cost and inflation and you know i 39:34 mentioned that levy report earlier we 39:36 modeled this we said 39:37 what if the federal government actually 39:40 had a job guarantee how many people 39:42 would come in what would it cost and 39:44 what would be the macroeconomic effects 39:46 of running a program like this and so 39:49 what we did was run this through a 39:51 large-scale macro 39:54 simulation and ask the question tell us 39:57 what would happen 39:58 to a range of economic metrics real gdp 40:02 growth inflation interest rates and so 40:04 forth and what we found is that the 40:06 program would 40:07 um employ on average about 15 million 40:10 people 40:11 that you could finance this program 40:14 federally 40:14 hire all the people who come through the 40:16 door give them something useful to do 40:19 the impact on inflation is minimal i 40:21 mean 40:22 minimum not even a one percent jump in 40:24 inflation 40:25 and the impact is very short term 40:28 because you basically get a one-time 40:30 increase in wages and prices and then it 40:33 peters out 40:34 and so it is not inflationary it doesn't 40:38 lead to you know fiscal ruin or anything 40:40 like that we're talking about a 40:41 government with a sovereign currency 40:43 funding the program and you get all of 40:45 the economic benefits 40:46 of of doing this so you know we modeled 40:49 it out 40:50 and um and you get tremendous benefits 40:53 from doing something like this.
M:
40:54 oh man i'm uh i mean obviously everybody 40:57 knows you if you hopefully you've seen 40:58 the rap song we wrote 41:00 for 99 pages on the federal job 41:01 guarantee we care a lot about this issue 41:03 it's it's american right we want 41:05 like this is not a handout this is the 41:07 american hand up 41:08 like it just seems like such a common 41:10 sense policy i might be blinded by 41:12 my idealism and my affection for your 41:14 book but uh i'm so glad that you are 41:17 are promoting this issue is 41:18 exceptionally exciting so thank you for 41:20 your work on it 41:21 um like i know i mean we've got uh like 41:24 lots of people watching right now i'm 41:25 just curious like if 41:27 if somebody wants to get involved i mean 41:28 i encourage you to call your congressman 41:30 we've actually posted the article 41:32 uh in the chat so go ahead and take a 41:35 look at that uh 41:36 announcing uh congresswoman 41:39 presley's uh proposal so take a look at 41:41 it call your congress person see if 41:43 they're interested see where they are on 41:44 the issue 41:46 after that dr kelton what are some 41:47 things that just us average americans 41:49 can do 41:50 to uh to get involved and support this 41:51 issue?
K:
41:53 i mean every average american is 41:56 different look what you're doing i mean 41:57 i'll call you 41:58 you know i consider myself an average 42:01 american so i 42:02 do what i can right i tweet i write i do 42:06 um interviews i just try to push the 42:09 boundaries 42:10 in whatever way i can and you just 42:12 raised a really good possibility which 42:14 is 42:15 you know write your member of congress 42:17 if people don't understand or i think 42:19 many people 42:20 um discount the value of reaching out 42:24 personally to your member of congress 42:26 those phone calls 42:27 those emails do not think that those 42:29 don't matter they 42:30 do matter they matter a lot and when the 42:33 phone lines are blowing up and the email 42:35 is blowing up that is it is not 42:38 something they ignore i know i worked in 42:40 the senate i 42:41 know the impact that that has when 42:43 staffers are inundated with calls 42:46 and they have to tell their member this 42:47 issue is important people have been 42:49 calling all day 42:50 about this issue so you know you you 42:53 take two minutes out of your day 42:55 to reach out to your member and and tell 42:58 them you know this 42:59 listen we we just saw something now you 43:02 can 43:02 you can have your issues with the 15 43:06 an hour minimum wage not being in the 43:08 1.9 trillion dollar covent relief 43:10 package that the senate moved 43:12 through yesterday uh you can take issue 43:14 with other parts of that legislation but 43:17 that was pretty big i mean 1.9 trillion 43:20 after the 900 billion in december after 43:22 the 2.2 trillion in the cares act after 43:24 i mean 43:25 you know this is a significant 43:28 improvement 43:28 over what we got after the last uh 43:32 recession with the financial crisis and 43:34 basically 43:35 one big piece of legislation and then 43:37 congress was like we done 43:39 yeah no hands we are worried about 43:42 deficits we think we're out of money we 43:44 are stopping and we're going to put all 43:46 the burden on the fed 43:47 let them figure it out because we've 43:48 done our share 43:50 not this time bill after bill after bill 43:52 we all know that what president biden 43:55 wants next 43:56 is a recovery package he said this thing 43:59 we are getting now 44:00 is a down payment it's relief he wants 44:04 recovery he wants another package that 44:07 lays a foundation 44:08 for a inclusive and sustainable recovery 44:13 so he's talking about potentially 44:15 trillions of dollars 44:16 more on infrastructure climate 44:19 especially 44:21 in education and caregiving and so forth 44:24 so where are we gonna go and here's 44:25 where 44:26 your you know question is so important 44:29 because 44:30 i think that part of the reason that 44:32 this bill 44:33 had to get through and lawmakers knew 44:36 and every democrat you know gave their 44:39 vote and got this through 44:41 is because it was so popular 44:44 everybody wanted it democrats wanted it 44:46 independents wanted it 44:48 republicans were 60 of the population or 44:50 more 44:51 supported this bill so when the next 44:54 package comes 44:55 and some of them start squawking about 44:58 price tags and pay fors and deficits and 45:01 stuff 45:01 we got to keep their spot you got to 45:03 keep them upright 45:05 because they will um you know there is 45:08 some 45:08 risk that they will uh they will waiver 45:12 and they need to know that we are behind 45:15 them 45:15 and we want them to cast that vote for 45:18 um 45:19 you know the kind of spending that is 45:21 long neglected 45:22 in so many different areas education and 45:25 infrastructure and climate 45:27 we have to tackle these problems you 45:28 know i have a chapter in my book called 45:30 the deficits that matter 45:32 and it's not enough to just stop with 45:35 relief 45:36 we have to do you know some 45:39 really strategic investments in our 45:42 economy 45:43 to redress long-standing inequities 45:46 and and shortfalls and so whatever we 45:49 can do 45:50 to keep the pressure on.
M:
45:54 yes ma'am we're gonna work on it you 45:55 know and actually we had a great 45:56 question coming to the chat uh before we 45:58 leave the federal job guarantee 46:00 uh gita asks won't these short-term 46:02 employment opportunities cause 46:04 disruption when people find other 46:06 better-paying jobs and 46:08 i actually think this is an interesting 46:09 question because a lot of these problems 46:11 that 46:11 are worth solving namely infrastructure 46:13 for example or climate change 46:15 these are problems that are going to 46:16 take decades to solve sometimes 46:18 and so like let's say we have a federal 46:20 job guarantee and we're in a recession 46:22 we hire a bunch of people 46:23 and then we start work on a big 46:25 infrastructure project but then 46:26 the economy recovers and they're like 46:28 well wait a minute i'm gonna go to the 46:30 private sector because 46:31 i can go make more money outside like 46:34 how do we keep these infrastructure 46:35 projects or these long-term projects 46:37 that are 46:38 originally uh resourced with the federal 46:40 job guarantee when when 46:42 people leave and go to the private 46:43 sector like how do we keep these 46:45 projects 46:46 still afloat why what would keep them 46:48 from stagnating?
Kelton:
46:50 yeah so it's a it's an important 46:52 question i'm glad that 46:53 she asked it because you do not want 46:57 um to employ people in programs and 47:01 projects where if they left the project 47:03 you have a half 47:04 built hospital that's not what you do so 47:07 the job guarantee is not for that kind 47:09 of infrastructure 47:10 investment that is regular government 47:12 spending and in like the kind of 47:14 infrastructure program that we were just 47:16 talking about the next congressional 47:18 package 47:19 i'm talking about doing regular 47:21 old-fashioned 47:22 infrastructure spending where the 47:24 government will contract with the 47:25 private sector 47:27 and they will build um community health 47:29 centers and 47:30 they will do high-speed rail and they 47:32 will do broadband and they will do that 47:34 that is government-funded infrastructure 47:37 investment 47:38 not the federal job guarantee program so 47:41 you know anything that's worth doing 47:45 on a permanent basis ought to be a 47:47 permanent 47:48 government-funded job if that's the way 47:50 you want to do it.
M:
47:52 that makes a lot of sense got it so it's 47:54 a it's it's almost in 47:56 what so i guess what you do is you have 47:59 to look for 48:00 jobs that are creating 48:03 value but are acceptable to have a 48:07 little bit of fluctuation 48:08 as yeah things?
kelton:
in the 48:11 wpa pro program work progress 48:14 administration yeah under fdr you had 48:18 street performers you had theater that 48:20 was part of the wpa 48:22 where you could go out and you could see 48:24 musicians perform and artists perform 48:27 and they would put on concerts and so 48:29 forth 48:29 it's wonderful and amazing to have that 48:32 to be able to take the family into 48:34 a community space and enjoy you know 48:36 some sort of a 48:37 symphony production or something um but 48:40 at some point that might you know you 48:43 might lose 48:44 uh the flutists and the others 48:47 it's not going to be a permanent feature 48:49 maybe but the community will miss it 48:52 but it won't be the kind of thing that 48:54 disappears that's destructive 48:56 uh to the functioning of essential 48:58 public services you know what i mean 49:01 what we need is a union of flautists and 49:04 if that ever happens i'm gonna be the 49:06 first one to sign 49:08 community gardens maybe in a in a very 49:11 small town 49:12 one of the proposed jobs could be you 49:14 know the the library 49:15 i go into the library the bookshelf this 49:18 thing 49:18 is is falling down and so all the books 49:21 slide this way they don't 49:22 stand up what we need is somebody to 49:24 come in and a carpenter somebody with 49:26 some basic carpentry skills 49:28 build us a new bookshelf or shore these 49:29 things up paint you know paint so you 49:31 only have to do that once 49:33 it's not a permanent thing that needs to 49:35 be done but there's so much just in 49:37 terms of maintenance and 49:38 you can think of community gardens i 49:40 mean again you know the 49:42 playground at the school the basketball 49:45 court 49:45 the concrete's all broken up and uneven 49:47 and so forth so get in there and give 49:49 those kids a nice level 49:51 uh you know basketball court to play on 49:53 and and do that but that's a one-time 49:55 thing 49:55 you know it's not everything isn't 49:58 long-lived 49:59 kind of um.
M:
makes sense i i think that's 50:03 a very important 50:04 uh clarification so thanks for that 50:06 question that's awesome uh 50:07 look this week's uh dr kelvin i 50:11 was watching my portfolio in 50:14 horror as we were making like monetary 50:17 policy announcements watching 50:18 uh chairman powell chairman of the the 50:21 federal reserve like talk about interest 50:23 rates and everybody's sitting on the 50:24 edge 50:25 you had a really fascinating chapter in 50:27 your book 50:28 about handing control of monetary policy 50:32 namely the fed 50:33 over to our fiscal policy owners which 50:35 is congress 50:36 and you propose some like self-driving 50:40 functions that would sort of automate 50:42 spending 50:43 in line with guard rails to make sure 50:45 that we 50:46 increased when the economy needed based 50:48 on data and we decreased when the 50:50 economy didn't need it 50:51 based on data and so can you talk a 50:53 little bit about this because i thought 50:54 this was really forward-looking 50:56 and i think it got a lot of creative 50:57 juices going for me uh 50:59 maybe you could explain that to some of 51:01 our viewers?
Kelton:
51:02 okay so i want let me be clear because 51:06 not only does it maybe get some creative 51:08 juices going but it might also get some 51:10 anxiety running through geronimo 51:12 and other people the fed be we we do not 51:16 say 51:16 i i think that what you have are two 51:19 policy levers 51:20 you have monetary policy and you have 51:22 fiscal policy 51:24 monetary policy is the thing the federal 51:26 reserve does 51:27 and most of the time that's just 51:29 supposed to be about changing the 51:31 interest rate 51:32 in times like this the tool kit expands 51:35 and the fed does a variety of other 51:37 things 51:37 people might have heard quantitative 51:39 easing and stuff like that but mostly 51:41 monetary policy in normal times 51:43 is just supposed to be about the fed 51:45 adjusting 51:47 a very special price in the economy 51:49 called the overnight interest rate 51:51 and trying to get that overnight 51:53 interest rate at just the right level 51:55 to achieve what congress has given the 51:58 fed which is a dual mandate congress 52:00 said to the fed you have two jobs 52:02 give us high levels of economic activity 52:05 lots of employment lots of jobs and good 52:07 growth 52:08 and keep inflation low that's the dual 52:10 mandate 52:11 so congress is supposed to drive the bus 52:14 they have the steering wheel 52:15 i'm sorry i said congress the fed the 52:17 fed is supposed to drive 52:18 with monetary policy lever and what 52:22 mmt is saying what i'm saying in my book 52:24 is that doesn't seem to work all that 52:26 well we've tried that 52:27 for three plus decades and 52:30 what we've done is we've put too much 52:32 pressure on central banks not just ours 52:35 but other central banks around the world 52:37 we've given them too much responsibility 52:39 and they just don't have 52:41 a powerful enough tool kit to deliver on 52:44 everything we are asking them to do what 52:46 about this other lever there's this 52:48 other 52:48 lever called fiscal policy we should use 52:51 it and engage it 52:52 and use it more proactively instead of 52:55 saying to the fed 52:56 you fix the economy you manage it you 52:58 steer you drive 53:00 and congress will just sit here with his 53:01 arms crossed and say 53:03 not my problem we're saying you got to 53:06 be engaged because 53:07 you actually have the more reliable tool 53:10 monetary 53:11 policy works by driving people into debt 53:15 what the federal reserve can do is 53:18 change the interest rate 53:19 when it wants to see the economy create 53:22 more jobs 53:22 it lowers the interest rate why so 53:25 people will borrow more money 53:27 why because if you borrow more money the 53:29 purpose of borrowing presumably is to 53:31 spend 53:32 so monetary policy works by driving the 53:34 rest of us into debt 53:36 you lower the interest rate ooh credit 53:38 is cheap i think i'll buy a house i 53:39 think i'll buy a car 53:40 now i'm on the hook i have debt fiscal 53:43 policy works 53:45 by driving income into people so that 53:47 fourteen hundred dollar check that's 53:49 coming to 53:49 tens and millions of americans fiscal 53:52 policy is 53:53 a check is coming your way you own it 53:55 free and clear 53:56 have a good day right so fiscal policy 53:59 works by driving income into people 54:02 that's better than driving people into 54:05 debt 54:05 in terms of the durability and 54:08 long-term sustainability so you kind of 54:10 have both it's not to say that 54:12 monetary policy has no role and that 54:14 private you know borrowing is bad i'm 54:16 not saying that 54:17 i'm saying we need a better mix right 54:19 and then there's this other lever which 54:21 is fiscal policy and we ought to pull it 54:23 more now 54:24 you said something about automatic and 54:27 making the steering wheel turn on its 54:29 own yes 54:31 let's do that let's do more of that and 54:33 why 54:34 because fiscal policy requires congress 54:37 congress has to 54:38 act that's fiscal policy fiscal policy 54:40 is changes in government spending 54:42 and changes in taxes and that only 54:44 happens through 54:45 congressional action and we all know 54:48 what congressional action looks like 54:49 it's messy they don't act they drag 54:52 their feet 54:53 it takes months to get something done so 54:56 in the book i say 54:57 whatever we can do to strengthen 55:00 the automatic stabilizers to make parts 55:02 of the government budget move 55:04 automatically even if congress 55:06 is in a big huff and um unwilling to 55:09 to do anything it doesn't want to work 55:11 together and wants to go on recess and 55:13 home for the holidays even if congress 55:16 isn't working 55:17 parts of the budget will move 55:18 automatically in response to 55:21 changing economic conditions so if the 55:23 labor market 55:24 if unemployment is high and people are 55:26 hurting and struggling 55:28 then we continue providing support 55:31 for people because the budget will 55:33 automatically 55:34 move resources in that direction so you 55:37 know it's like in your car right you 55:38 have the cruise control button 55:41 you can take the steering wheel and do 55:42 it on your own you can pass a spending 55:44 bill not pass the spending bill 55:46 fight for a long time you know drive off 55:48 a cliff 55:49 or you can hit the cruise control button 55:52 and all of a sudden the car just sort of 55:54 like takes over right 55:56 and well i don't know uh maybe if you 55:59 have a self-driving car 56:01 uh the wheels start turning on its own 56:03 and you can just pull your arms back 56:05 and you'll you'll be all right you know 56:08 um so that's what we're talking about 56:10 fiscal version 56:12 yeah we don't want to take monetary 56:14 policy away per se 56:17 um might have monetary policy 56:20 do different things and and use a bigger 56:23 um 56:23 more effective toolkit but not to deny 56:27 the fed of any powers or anything like 56:30 that .
M:
56:31 that's super interesting you know uh i 56:33 don't have a self-driving car um.
K:
56:35 either.
M:
i got a subaru it gets me from a 56:38 to b 56:38 but one day i will and i love that in 56:41 algae too 56:42 uh dr kellen we are so grateful time we 56:44 have time for just one more question i'd 56:45 like to ask you and 56:46 uh i know we actually had a ton of chat 56:49 uh coming in here in the in the last few 56:50 minutes and i'm sorry we just don't have 56:52 enough time 56:52 uh but i will if you don't mind steph dr 56:54 kelton i'd love to just 56:56 send you some of the questions maybe and 56:57 uh maybe back to our community that'd be 56:59 great 57:00 um but i want to give you an uh i would 57:02 love for you to speak a little bit on 57:03 the final chapter your book because this 57:05 is what really gripped me uh you discuss 57:08 kennedy's call to action 57:09 to land a man on the moon and return him 57:12 safely to earth 57:13 uh to and this is obviously a great 57:15 example of mmt in action 57:17 that has created massive amounts of 57:19 return for our nation that 57:21 we had no idea how to predict or measure 57:23 beforehand 57:24 could you talk about this in relation to 57:26 mmt and i think it'd be a wonderful way 57:27 to close our discussion today?
kelton:
57:30 well look emma so mmt doesn't tell us 57:33 exactly what we should do 57:34 it shows us what we can do so if we can 57:38 get 57:39 you know rid of the imaginary obstacles 57:43 things that we think are barriers to 57:45 progress 57:46 oh we don't have the money oh we might 57:48 go broke oh we might turn into greece oh 57:51 china might you know close the window 57:53 and we don't get any more dollars 57:54 oh you know all the things that we're 57:56 told um 57:58 burdening the next generation our 57:59 grandkids oh the debt oh those if we 58:01 could get 58:01 rid of all of the myths that hold us 58:05 back 58:06 and see clearly what the where the real 58:09 limits are 58:10 right there are limits we have to see 58:12 clearly where they are 58:13 but get a fuller appreciation for the 58:16 capacity of the state 58:17 the government to spend then we could 58:20 start having a very different debate 58:22 like what are our 58:23 national priorities for jfk a priority 58:27 was landing a man on the moon 58:29 and he made it a priority and he said he 58:32 went to congress and he delivered a 58:34 speech and he said here's what i need 58:36 from 58:36 you to achieve this mission and he asked 58:39 for the money to do it 58:41 and that's the kind of thing that mmt is 58:44 trying to pull us toward it is trying to 58:46 get us to think 58:47 mission oriented you know if we had 58:49 mission-oriented budgeting 58:50 this covered relief package and we'll 58:52 come back to it again because it is a 58:54 significant piece of legislation this 58:56 1.9 trillion 58:58 it is estimated that half of all the 59:00 children who today are living in poverty 59:02 will be lifted out of poverty as a 59:04 consequence of this bill 59:06 that's mission oriented what if we said 59:08 why just half 59:10 why not all of them what if we said what 59:12 about all the unemployed people who are 59:14 still going to be unemployed a year from 59:16 now 59:16 to why not employ them why not wouldn't 59:19 climate change why not you know set 59:22 goals make them objective 59:24 and concrete and fit the budget to the 59:27 mission 59:28 so much of the time we try to 59:31 scale the budget not to the mission 59:34 but we scale the mission to the budget 59:36 so we say well we think we could 59:38 probably get away with spending another 59:39 trillion 59:40 how much could we do to you know impact 59:43 climate 59:44 on a trillion dollars that's the wrong 59:46 way 59:47 set an ambitious goal we want to be 59:50 you know carbon neutral net neutral by 59:53 2030 or 20 35 or 20 59:55 set the goal and then fit the budget to 59:58 the mission 59:58 that's what jfk did with the moon shot 60:01 that's the way we ought to think about 60:02 this stuff and then the real challenge 60:04 is managing the inflation risk because 60:07 the money can always be there all you 60:08 need are the votes 60:09 you get the votes you've got the money 60:11 but structuring the legislation 60:14 so that you can safely spend the money 60:17 and that word is important 60:18 safely so that you can safely roll out 60:21 that spending 60:23 without creating other problems in the 60:25 economy and that's where 60:26 well-designed you know piece of 60:29 legislation 60:30 i think mmt has a great deal to offer in 60:34 terms of 60:34 you know how we can be ambitious and 60:36 bold and aspirational and get those 60:39 moonshot 60:40 uh kind of policies in place but do it 60:43 in a way that recognizes that the 60:45 constraints we face 60:46 are not financial they're in our real 60:49 resource our productive capacity so how 60:51 do we manage the resources 60:53 how do we get the mission accomplished 60:55 and 60:56 you know we can we can do this we just 60:59 have to stop 61:00 fighting about the things that don't 61:01 matter and start having a better more 61:04 productive debate.
M:
61:05 well said and i love the phrase scale 61:08 the budget to the mission not the 61:10 mission to the budget 61:11 dr kelton it has been nothing short of 61:13 an honor to have you on the show today 61:15 i'm 99 pages club this is our 2021 book 61:18 of the year 61:19 uh we don't give that a word out lightly 61:21 i you guys know us like we read book 61:23 like at least a book a week sometimes 61:24 two books a week like we are 61:25 on a mission to make reading fun and 61:27 achievable and we picked this as the 61:28 most important book 61:30 for the entire year if you read one book 61:32 this should be it the paperback release 61:34 for the deficit myth comes out on 61:36 march 9th go to pick it up it's an 61:38 amazing read i 61:39 uh personally uh thought it to be 61:42 incredibly insightful and a way to sort 61:44 of 61:44 break them the log jam of this like 61:47 rhetoric that we hear from both sides of 61:48 the political wow that drives us all 61:49 insane 61:50 uh so i'm very proud to have had dr 61:52 kellen on this book two calls to action 61:54 one obviously pick up the book 61:55 and two if you like the idea of the 61:56 federal job guarantee go and check out 61:59 ayanna presley's uh congresswoman ayanna 62:01 presley's uh bill 62:02 call your congress person see if they're 62:04 interested find out where they stand on 62:05 the issue and 62:06 why get involved because let's face it 62:07 folks we got some pain in this country 62:09 to solve and 62:10 it's on all of us to take ownership of 62:12 it so dr kelm thank you for being with 62:14 us and best of luck to you on your 62:16 paperback release this week.
kelton:
62:17 thank you so much it was great to be 62:19 with you.
M
likewise all right 99 pages 62:21 we'll see you in 62:22 a couple of weeks with some more content 62:23 some great books y'all have a
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿