2021/04/20 Biden can ‘go bigger’ with his infrastructure plan: Stephanie Kelton
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
「重要なのは、赤字への影響を最小限に抑えることではありません。重要なのは、インフレへの悪影響を最小限に抑えることです。」「赤字神話」の著者@StephanieKeltonインフラストラクチャの支払い方法について述べています。 「私はむしろ、彼らが非常に異なる方法でこれにアプローチすることを望んでいます。」
https://twitter.com/yahoofinance/status/1384235137504743433?s=21
kelton：
you know we had congress pass a series of spending packages right to deal with coronavirus and the economic fallout so of course we had the big cares act last march 2.2 trillion we got 900 billion in december. and then we had the 1.9 trillion dollar coveted rescue package last month now all of these were passed without offsets. in other words they weren't quote unquote paid for they were just pure spending bills so we get to infrastructure and now congress is deciding the biden administration is saying listen we want to do it differently this time we want to try to quote unquote pay for this so what does that mean it means that they want to try to offset the spending so that they can demonstrate that they have a plan to take a dollar out of the economy in the form of taxes that fall on someone for every dollar they want to spend into the economy. and the point of doing it this way is just to keep the thing deficit neutral that's really what this is about and you know from where i come from the point should not be to minimize the impact on the deficit the point should be to minimize any adverse impact on inflation so you know i'd much rather see them approach this in a very different way where you're trying to figure out how much low-hanging fruit remains in the economy how much fiscal space is still out there that you can take advantage of before you have to begin raising taxes and and when you wrote about this you said it should be recognized that raising taxes will do relatively little to offset the spending pressure so when you talk about the other things the government could do this gets to immigration this gets to making sure there is a supply not only of labor. but of the the input goods that are necessary to produce so that we get an outcome without driving prices up yeah that's exactly right and when you say you know that i said in that new york times piece that this raising taxes would do little to mitigate any inflationary pressure it's because of the particular kind of taxes that the biden administration is talking about raising when you say you're only going to increase taxes on people making more than 400 000 a year you're only going to increase taxes on corporations you're not really hitting the kind of people who were going to turn around and spend a lot of that income that you're taxing away from them so yeah the point is that if you're going to roll out a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure spending program what you need to make sure that you're doing is that you've got the real resources that you're going to need from start to finish through that roll out of that infrastructure spending you've got to have the construction workers the architects the engineers we're talking about care work you need to have people to do elder care and child care where you need people to put up ev charging stations and solar panels so you you have to manage the roll out of the infrastructure spending keeping in mind that you could possibly run up against some supply constraints along the way and that there are ways to mitigate that you mentioned inflat immigration as one i talk about that in the piece building capacity itself is a way to relieve strain on the productive capacity because as you build out your infrastructure of course you're adding more productive capacity into which you can grow with that higher spending and certainly that makes sense and a lot of the other things that you also laid out you also mentioned trade policies and some of the reforms that we could see there but stepping back just a little bit not so much specifically looking at the inflation impact that higher taxes could or potentially couldn't have but also just the fact of potentially raising taxes at a time like this when the economy is still recovering from the pandemic when there certainly is much uncertainty ahead is that a real risk do you think of derailing some of the progress that we have made. i mean it's it would be more of a risk if the taxes were going to fall on people who were actually going to be spending a lot of the income in helping to support jobs and helping to support the recovery because these particular tax increases again fall mostly on corporations and wealthier people uh it's less risky in that sense but i i hear you and i agree with you that the point of doing infrastructure spending is both to give us better infrastructure both human and physical infrastructure but why do anything that in any way counters the effectiveness of the stimulus if you don't have to so that's why i keep coming back to you know the low hanging fruit the fiscal space if you can do this without the offsets without doing anything that creates drag on the economy. then you know my position is take full advantage of the fiscal space that you have and don't do anything unnecessarily to create drag.
MC：
what's the likelihood that people on
capitol hill would even listen to this
discussion though.
kelton：
well i'm headed there tomorrow morning
and i've got meetings for three days so
i
i'm gonna say it's pretty high.
ケルトン
ご存知のように、私たちはコロナウイルスと経済の落ち込みに対処するため、議会に一連の歳出法案を可決させました。もちろん、昨年3月には2兆2000億ドルの大規模な救済措置がとられ、12月には9000億ドルが支払われました。そして先月には1兆9000億ドルの切望される救済措置がとられましたが、これらはすべてオフセットなしで可決されました。つまり、"quote for "ではなく、純粋な支出法案だったのです。今、議会は、バイデン政権は、「今回は違うやり方をしたい、"quote for "を試みたい」と決定しています。この方法で行うポイントは、ただ赤字を中立に保つことであり、それが本当の目的です。私の考えでは、ポイントは赤字への影響を最小限に抑えることではなく、インフレへの悪影響を最小限に抑えることです。 増税を始める前に、経済にどれだけの低空飛行の果実が残っているのか、どれだけの財政的余裕があるのかを把握しようとするものです。移民問題や、労働力だけでなく、生産に必要な投入財の供給を確保することで、価格を上げずに結果を得ることができます。その通りで、私がニューヨークタイムズの記事で、増税してもインフレ圧力の緩和にはほとんどならないと言ったのは、バイデン政権が増税しようとしている特定の種類の税金のためです。年収40万円以上の人にしか増税しないとか、企業にしか増税しないとか言っているのは、実際には、課税された収入の多くを使ってしまうような人たちを叩いているわけではないからです。 何兆ドルものインフラ支出プログラムを展開しようとする場合、確実にしなければならないことは、インフラ支出の展開を通じて最初から最後まで必要となる真のリソースを確保することです。建設労働者、建築家、エンジニア、そして介護の話ですが、老人介護や子供の世話をする人が必要です。インフラ支出の展開を管理する際には、その過程で供給の制約に直面する可能性があることを念頭に置き、それを緩和する方法があることを考えなければなりません。その一つとして移民の増加を挙げましたが、これについては本編で説明します。なぜなら、インフラを整備することで、より多くの生産能力が追加され、その高い支出によって成長することが可能になるからです。増税がもたらす可能性のある、あるいはもたらさない可能性のあるインフレへの影響を具体的に検討するのではなく、経済がパンデミックからまだ回復していないこの時期に増税を行う可能性があるという事実だけでも、これまでの進歩を台無しにしてしまう本当のリスクがあると思いますか？つまり、雇用を支え、景気回復に貢献するために、実際に多くの収入を使う人々に税金がかかるのであれば、よりリスクが高いと言えるでしょう。なぜなら、今回の増税は、ほとんどが企業や裕福な人々にかかっているからです。インフラ支出の目的は、人的・物的インフラを整備することにありますが、必要がなければ、景気刺激策の効果を損なうようなことをする必要はありません。私の立場は、今ある財政スペースを最大限に活用し、不必要に足を引っ張るようなことはしないということです。
司会
私は明日の朝、キャピトル・ヒルに向かいますが、キャピトル・ヒルの人々がこの議論に耳を傾ける可能性はどのくらいあるでしょうか。
ケルトン
明日の朝、私はそこに向かいます。
3日間のミーティングがあるので
かなり高いと言えるでしょう。
www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿