021/03/31 MMT and the Green New Deal with Professor Yeva Nersisyan
https://twitter.com/rethinkecon/status/1374655772672602116?s=21
https://app.tevent.com/ticket_d771720b-075b-4213-a7d9-1ce30908e7a5
Conclusion
• Keynes believed his proposal would “snatch from the exigency of war positive social improvements... an advance towards economic equality greater than any which we have made in
recent times." (1940, iii-iv)
• The GND promises a similar outcome, as the benefits go far beyond the reversal of climate change.
· MMT sets out a framework for analyzing the "cost" of the GND that is actually useful for evaluating its affordability.
· Estimates are uncertain, but the methodology is what's important.
結論
- ケインズは、自分の提案が「戦争という緊急事態から、積極的な社会的改善......経済的な平等に向けた最近のどの時代よりも大きな前進を奪う」と考えていた。(1940, iii-iv)#9-445☆
- GNDは同様の結果を約束しており、その利益は気候変動の逆転をはるかに超えるものである。
- MMTは、GNDの「コスト」を分析するためのフレームワークを示しており、それは実際にその余裕を評価するのに有用である。
- 推定値は不確かなものだが、その方法論こそが重要なのである。
#9-445
私は戦争という緊急事態に際して、積極的な社会
改革を描き出すように努めたのである。ここで提案される完全な計画は、現金で支払われる包括的な家族手当てや、
労働者階級の管理を受けた労働者階級の富の蓄積、生活必需品の低廉な配給、戦後の資本課徴金(あるい は資本課
税)を含むものであって、経済的平等化に向かって、最近では最大級の前進を実現することだろう。
How to Pay for the Green New Deal
Levy Economics Institute, Working Papers Series 931 (2019)
56 Pages Posted: 14 Jun 2019
Date Written: June 4, 2019
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3398983
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_931.pdf
GMT グリニッジ標準時 UTC+0000 の 2021年03月27日(土) 16:00 は JST 日本標準時 UTC+0900 の 2021年03月28日(日) 01:00 です。 時差9時間
You've just received a Tevent ticket! |
Modern Monetary Theory Showcase |
March 27, 16:00PM - March 27, 18:30PM GMT |
All the talks from our MMT showcase are now live on youtube!
Whether you are looking for an introduction to the approach, or how it intersects with different policy proposals, check out our latest videos here - https://t.co/BHrxru2Xtm.
https://twitter.com/rethinkecon/status/1377168398690394115?s=20
Introduction to MMT with Professor L. Randall Wray
MMTpoem and the Job Guarantee with Professor Fadhel Kaboub
for anyone just joining us uh we have professor yaeva nisbistian.
you'll be talking with us about mmt and the green new deal um if i'm not mistaken uh your professor at franklin and marshall college pennsylvania um and you're also part of the global institute for sustainable prosperity which along with uh fidel kaboom in the other room as well i think um so yeah uh handing over to you know if you just uh click over to your slides to share empty there it's working fine okay.
all right so um i'm going to talk about the green new deal and my focus is going to be mostly on the united states um because this presentation is based on a paper that randy and i wrote a while back trying to evaluate the affordability of the green new deal from the mmt perspective and um this question in a way came up because people like paul krugman were saying well mmt doesn't really help even if you don't have to you know even if the government is not financially constrained you still have to raise taxes because of other reasons such as inflation and so on if you want to engage in major government spending programs.
so we wanted to see whether it's true whether a green new deal would actually be inflationary and and that's the way we wanted to evaluate its affordability.
um so i'm going to present some numbers here but uh the numbers there's a lot of uncertainty around the numbers because we're talking about major changes to the economy over a long period of time and so the numbers are of course um because of that the numbers are going to be uncertain what where what um i'm going to argue for is the methodology that we use um and so even if the numbers aren't completely accurate the methodology is solid and more useful than the mainstream methodology for evaluating the affordability of the green new deal now before i start i want to make sure we all know what we're talking about when we talk about the green new deal because different people mean different things by it and because um you know um the new deal itself was a euro what was an american thing i just want to make sure we all know what that is and the new deal refers to the comprehensive set of reforms implemented by the roosevelt administration in the united states during the great depression this included financial regulations such as the glass-steagall act which has of course been since repealed it established a social security system in the united states to provide retirement security for the elderly as well as benefits to the disabled the firm and so on of course it also had a public works programs which were very uh successful and they were green to some extent as well because there were a lot of what we would today call green jobs involved there so the green new deal echoes the original new deal uh in that it it's also a set of comprehensive reforms uh for uh reforming our economy making it greener but also making it more equal increasing the affordability of housing access to health care affordable education child care food and so on and so forth so it's very comprehensive at least the version that was introduced by a u.s congresswoman alexandre ocasio-cortez and that's the version we stick to in our paper and that's what i'm going to refer to in this presentation so it also includes a job guarantee which is what fadal is talking about in the other session and a job guarantee has of course been an important component of modern money theory uh for various reasons uh such as you know surprise stability among other things so um i'm going to uh talk about three main parts of the green new deal greening the economy over 10 years which is a very ambitious ambitious plan um oftentimes people talk about winning it over 30 years so achieving some kind of green economy by 2050 we're sticking to a shorter timeline 10 years we're also going to talk about universal health care now in european context many countries already have universal health care in the us it's you know we call it a medicare for all because we already have universal health care for the elderly people over 65 but we don't have it for everyone uh so that's the medicare program uh so medicare for all is basically universal health care and european countries have it to some extent um they also have you know some kind of child care access to child care or subsidies for child care access to free or subsidized public education and so on so things that we don't have in the united states so in the u.s context those things would be included in the green new deal while in european context when people talk about the green new delay are largely sticking to transitioning to a greener economy renewable energy and so on and so forth so um these are the three main components of the green new deal that i'm going to talk about uh today so when the resolution the green usual resolution was introduced uh the economy started and think tank started crunching numbers are we going to be able to afford it and one of the often cited numbers was this 93 trillion dollar number from a conservative think tank which added up all the costs of the different programs so estimate the cost of medicare for all greening and others and just add them up and come up with this outrageous number 93 trillion trillion dollars over 10 years and say that of course it's not affordable and that then calculate the average increase or the per capita increase in taxes so how much the average american needs to pay in taxes to be able to afford it and of course it comes to a very high number um so that was one objection to the green new deal the other one which is more reasonable is the objection that it could be inflationary well why would it be inflationary so if the green new deal if you're implementing it pushed the aggregate spending in the economy above the economy's potential then it could potentially be inflationary so in this case the blue line is the measure of economies potential gdp and there are many issues with estimating potential gdp if i have time i'll get to some of those at the at the end and this is our actual gdp so if actual gdp is below potential we have unemployment and this is usually because there is not enough spending in the economy so if there is not enough spending not enough production happens and not enough people are employed while on the other hand if um the actual gdp goes above potent the potential of the economy then there could be some inflation and of course this is what was happening before covet and inflate we didn't really see that much more inflation so you know this is the framework that people use when they think about why the green adult could be inflationary but it's not an ideal framework there are many issues with this now how does mmt help so going back to krugman's point that mmt does not really help well mmt helps by putting the financial considerations aside right saying that for a country with its sovereign currency uh such as the united states but also the uk money is not an issue finances that are constrained households and firms are currency issuers they are financially constrained the government currency users i'm sorry while the government is the currency issuer and therefore it's not financially constrained as randy explained government spends money into existence uh and that amounts to changing numbers on a computer in the kind of electronic monetary system that we have today so um for countries with their own sovereign currency finance is not an issue what is what is at issue here is whether they have the real resources they need to um implement such programs because uh to green the economy of course we need to have more wind turbines and more solar panels and we need workers to build them and then we need workers to install them and then we need to uh reform our electric greed and then we need to reform our transportation system so we need a lot of resources for that and that is that includes human resources such as workers but also others so the question from the mmt perspective this is the important question do we have the resources and do we have the technological know-how to implement these programs and if we don't money is not going to be very helpful and if we do then finance is not really a constraint for the government so um this is the mmt approach to any kind of government spending right and and in this case we're applying that to uh the green new deal so we're asking the question of whether the green new deal is going to require uh more resources than we can spare right and if and if the answer is yes then what can we do about it okay do we need to raise taxes do we need some other measures to do it that's really the question so to answer this question however we can't just um say oh well you know if if if we're going to spend so much then it's going to be inflationary um we need to do more careful study for that and that's what we tried to do in our paper with randy we tried to estimate whether the green new deal would actually require more resources than than we we can spare and whether all of the green new deal programs all of the components that i mentioned at the beginning whether they're all going to need resources or whether some of them will actually release resources to be used in the others and it seems abstract now when i talk about it but i will explain further when i get to the individual programs components of the green new deal and hopefully it will be clearer so the first component that i mentioned was greening the economy and of course greeting the economy is going to use resources and in our paper we um we are using the amount of spending as a proxy for resources right so if we're going to be spending more uh to hire workers then we're using human resources right so that's a use of resources so we're looking at the level of spending as a proxy for resource use it's not ideal but um it's it's what's possible given that we're going to talk about different kinds of programs so there are different estimates of how much it's going to cost to completely green the economy and we took we took the highest three uh estimates and um we took an average of that and then we just subtracted how much we currently spend on uh fossil fuels right because if we're going to green the economy that means we're no longer going to spend on fossil fuels we're no longer going to invest in that sector so that's going to free up some resources so for example if we're not going to need workers to dig up you know oil from the ground then those workers will be available to build wind turbines and install solar panels and so on right so that's just a simple example of that so um and that's why the fossil fuel investment that we're currently engaging in enters into the equation with the negative sign because uh yes on the one hand we're going to need 5.6 of our gdp um per year for 10 years that's how much we need to spend to grind the economy on the other hand we are releasing 0.65 percent of gdp worth of resources because we're no longer investing in fossil fuels so on net the uh greening the economy costs about five percent of you know us gdp uh for ten years so five percent every year for ten years and that seems like a very high number and if you just look at it and if the economy is already close to full employment you might say well then this could be inflationary for certain right and and therefore even from the mmt perspective it's unaffordable because it's inflationary however there are other components of the green new deal such as the job guarantee and medicare for all which may actually be a source of resources not the use of resources so the job guarantee is sort of in the middle as i will explain and medicare for all will actually release resources as i will explain when i get to that so what is the job guarantee uh very simply it's a federally funded government program that says anyone who wants a job can get one the government pays for it but it's implemented at the local level through local governments through non-government organizations which are on the ground and therefore they know better what the community needs now from the financial perspective of course the job guarantee is a cost right so if you just look at it as a financial thing you say well it's going to cost the government more right it's going to have to pay workers their salaries their benefits and so on so we're going to as a society be spending more on on on this program and of course then these workers are going to buy food and other stuff clothing right pay for housing and so on so they're going to be taking some resources right so from that perspective it's going to use resources but on the other hand we can employ some of these job guarantee workers in um greening projects such as retrofitting houses for example right so things that don't require necessarily require a lot of skill because the assumption is that the job guarantee workers would be the ones who don't have a lot of the skills or at least they don't have the skills that the private sector requires so if we use half of the job guarantee workers towards greening projects then that means um you know we need we're let's say if we're spending two percent of gdp on the job guarantee but then we're taking half of that back into the greening projects then the net cost of the job guarantee will only be one percent of gdp okay all right now with medicare for all and that's again universal health care um in the united states we actually can release resources and here is a chart of how much different nations spend on their health care and um you know you might not be able to see the labels but you don't even need to to know that this is the united states right we are spending a lot more than other developed countries on healthcare the next country that's you know closer to us is switzerland and it's only spending about 12 of his gdp on healthcare in case of the u.s that number is was 17 today's probably higher closer to 18 or and it's projected to uh keep increasing at a pretty fast pace so um if we were to use if we were to have a universal health care system we could actually reduce our spending right and a simple way to do this would be to say well if we just take this to the level that's that other countries that have a single-payer system have so some kind of an average of european nations right um so if we could lower it from say 17 to even 12 which is the switzerland right then we are re we are taking five percent worth five percent of gdp worth of spending out of the economy right um so um that then releases resources that can be used in other other projects but that's not the route we went we just looked at some other estimates of um how much a medicare referral would save us and the savings range from about 1.6 percent of gdp to 4.5 percent of gdp depends on the assumptions .
but what is really driving the excessive spending in the united states on health care and what's driving it is administrative costs and prices so price of drugs and that's very well known that in the united states medications cost a lot more than in other countries and that's because we don't have a single payer that can negotiate with uh pharmaceutical companies even medicare cannot negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices which is of course not the case in european countries that have um single-payer systems where the government does negotiate with drug companies and does reduce prices that way uh compensation of healthcare workers is of course also higher in the united states um and you know here are some numbers if you're interested and it's from this study that i mentioned here and you can find it in our paper and the other thing that contributes to higher costs in the united states is administrative costs which is about eight percent of total health care spending versus one to three percent in other countries so we're spending a lot more on administering our health care system because it's a very peculiar system with different participants so doctors offices have spent a lot on billing right trying to get payments from insurance companies trying to get payments from the government payments from patients to getting their co-pays and deductibles and all of those things um and also you know on the on the uh uh the private health insurance side right all of that adds costs because you know if insurance companies are to make money then you know well their income is someone's spending and that's you know all of us collectively spending the income that then the insurance companies are earning so if we take the insurance companies out of the equation of course that's then going to save us a lot as well now in practical terms right so translating this into resource use uh how does this help with say greening the economy how does this release resources for greening the economy well if you have admin workers who are now working administering the health care system right if we were to uh lower the spending on administrative costs then we would be um this workers would basically end up losing their jobs right um and so you know their income goes down their spending goes down and so on and so forth and it has ripple effects throughout the economy so um but thinking about it from the workers perspective if if these workers are no longer employed in the health insurance industry they can now be employed in um say administering the greener deal right or doing something else for greening the economy for instance so that's how a medicare for all or a single-payer system would end up releasing resources that could be used in other parts you know for other components of the green new deal so in other words not all of the components of the green new deal are going to enter the equation with a plus sign some of them will enter with a minus sign because they are leading to a decrease of spending in the economy not an increase right so a program that is decreasing spending in the economy is going to be deflationary not inflationary and when economies like krugman think about this from the financial perspective of course financially the government is going to be spending more but it doesn't matter whether the government is spending more what matters is the total level of spending right if the government's spending more but the private sector is spending less then it need not be inflationary so here is our summary table so we budget five percent per year for ten years for growing the economy the job guarantee on net adds another one percent um medicare for all by very conservative measures will save about 3.7 percent so it's going to lower spending to the tune of 3.7 percent of gdp we also have a provision for ending the forever wars that the us has been engaged in because uh people like bernie sanders who's also an advocate for the green new deal has been also advocating for um you know ending the four-hour wars and so have been the other advocates for the green new deal and we again conservatively project that that's going to save us another one percent of gdp uh per year for the next 10 years so the net resource cost then comes out to about 1.3 of gdp which is of course much less than the 5 that you look at and of course it's much less than you know the 93 trillion dollars that the conservatives think tank that i mentioned was estimating that that's how much it was going to cost us over over 10 years all right so um so this is the mmt approach to uh the gr to estimating the affordability of the growing new deal of course uh tackling the climate change is not the first time that um humans have faced with an existential crisis we can think back to world war ii which was uh also crisis which we um you know which required a lot of economic resources right it wasn't uh you know it was also an economic um crisis so to speak that required planning and required mobilization of resources um much more than what we need for the green new deal and fighting the climate change actually so uh this is why we turn to keynes and his approach in how to pay for the war a short pamphlet he wrote explaining how we can pay for world war ii uh and pay for here really is not about finance it's about resources as i will explain um and and his approach is very much like the mmt approach right so kent is basically saying that planning for the war is not a financial but a real resource problem the question is how much output can we produce how much of that we absolutely have to devote to the war effort whatever is left is what's left for consumption if we want to consume more than that we can't right because that's you know the the pie is limited it's fixed so we go from the age of uh plenty to the age of scarcity and now we actually need to try to ration this limited uh economic pie to prevent inflation because during the war more people are employed and uh incomes increase right so the amount that the government is spending right let's say it's um you know we're producing ammunition and the government is going to buy it right and and and people are employed in the production process they are an income but they cannot then turn and spend that income on buying ammunition right the government is going to buy that and so that income is just left and cannot find stuff to buy and if everybody tries to spend their income what's going to happen is that we're going to simply see inflation and in real terms people's standard of living is not going to improve they're going to spend their more of their nominal income buying the same amount of real stuff because the real stuff is fixed so keynes looks for solutions and he says well we can use taxes uh and you know we can tax away some of that income to prevent inflation but we cannot just rely on taxing the rich because the rich are not you know it's not going to be sufficient it's not going to take out sufficient amount of income from the economy to prevent inflation he says we can also try to rely on people saving voluntarily again not a great idea unless everybody does it and there is no guarantee that they will do because if i save and you don't and you spend the income that's still going to be inflationary and of course then the value of my savings is going to decrease in real terms as well prices go up workers demand higher wages which then simply play catch up with inflation and then workers are no better off in real terms so what case proposed and what was you what was implemented in the uk to some extent was deferred compensation or force saving so tax away income but put some of it well not put some of it but say that you know some of it is just taxes you lose it but some of it you're going to get back with interest after the war right and so after the war you can increase consumption and in that case you actually also avoid a post-war slump and i can't of course go more in detail into any of this if necessary if there are questions but i don't want to get too much into into that so um so the deferred compensation approach is something that we also say could be applied if necessary to decline your deal um advocates of the green new deal call for increasing taxes on the rich imposing taxes on financial transactions offshore income corporate profits on wealth and so on and this may be very good in fighting income inequality right and to the extent that that's also goal of the green new deal advocates then sure we should implement them but we should not make uh greening the economy or implementing universal healthcare conditional on these taxes right and these taxes are not going to be very useful in withdrawing income from the economy because the rich are too rich right and um you know even if you tax them a lot they still have a lot of wealth and a lot of income and they can still take a lot of the society's resources right so if the goal is to reduce resources taxing the rich is not necessarily going to do the trick on the other hand if you were to tax workers it would be very effective in withdrawing income because it would lead to lower consumption but of course that would also not be fair uh especially in the united states and in many other developed countries workers have not been doing very well in the last few decades productivity has gone up and worker you know wages have not and the average incomes have stagnated and so on and so forth so um we propose a payroll tax surcharge but but we also want to model it like keynes's deferred compensation so take more from workers today to reduce consumption today if necessary to fight inflation and then in the future uh give workers more more of that back in the form of um more generous retirement benefits okay um again this is all con this is all conditional because it's not really clear that the economy cannot cannot take in more spending um before we get to a point of true inflation and randy defined between you know true inflation in his presentation um if we do get to true inflation then we can use something like different compensation but we also have other methods that we use during world war ii pretty successfully because inflation rates were not too high even though we the degree of mobilization was enormous right um during world war ii so if we were to impose that payroll tax surcharge and we have the numbers in the paper then the net cost would actually be negative so the green you deal with a payroll tax or charge would actually be deflationary not inflationary okay um all right the one thing that i will say and this goes back to the question of potential gdp before i finish is that the economy's potential is not fixed right and this graph here shows the forecast for potential gdp the blue line in january of 2007 so when the economy was doing really well the forecast was that the uh this is how the economy's trajectory this is what the trajectory would be right um and then when the economy started not doing well because of the financial crisis and the great recession then the forecast for the potential was lowered up to the point where the green line was you know the forecast uh for potential gdp uh as of january 2019 and of course as you can imagine it was lowered again with the covet pandemic you know the potential forecast for potential gdp was lowered as well but the point is that if if we had uh kept demand high in the economy in the aftermath of the financial crisis and the economy had continued at this path this is where you know our potential gdp would be today right so higher than what our estimates for the potential are because of you know the economic mismanagement which led to the decrease in the potential and there are other issues with estimating you know potential gdp that i don't want to go into so just because you know spending surpasses the economy's potential doesn't as as as as measured uh conventionally doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to see inflation we've had many periods with um with with our actual gdp going over the potential gdp without seeing the kind of inflation that your the simple economic model predicts that we're going to see okay so in other words the economy's potential to absorb spending is not as um fixed and it's not as limited as as mainstream theory suggests and and the you know estimates that uh are based on this mainstream theory suggests as well um so um to summarize keynes believed that his proposal for financing for the war would snatch from the uh exigency of the war positive social improvements and advance towards economic equality greater than any which we have made in recent times and to some extent he was right um in the united states at least we had this economic boom after world war ii of course the golden age of u.s capitalism at least by econom you know based on economic indicators there were many issues back then of course uh you know social justice issues and so on um now the green new deal promises a similar outcome uh the benefits of course go far beyond the reversal of climate change if we do it right and i've as i said at the beginning i showed some numbers but the numbers aren't what's important what's important is the framework which mmt helps us create for understanding the affordability of government programs such as the green new deal you know the numbers may be uncertain but our methodology is solid and it's much more useful for evaluating the affordability of the green new deal than the traditional approach of just calculating financial costs and adding them up or calculating how much more the government is going to spend and then how much more taxes need to go up and so on and so forth so i will um stop here and see if there are any questions and i can go back to the uh powerpoint if need be okay uh yeah thanks for that professor that was really insightful i think um okay there's one question i can see here but i'll just before that one i'll ask a question actually lead into that um the criticism i've done quite a lot um particularly when uh initially launched their premium um from both the right and sort of non-mmt progressive was that oh it's not just a full investment program they're lumping in so they call it like a socialist wishlist rather than separating it out to get different constituencies on board for each of those individual things um well what i was trying to to explain is that a comprehensive approach is a better economic approach as well because um if you just implement say medicare for all right universal health care then um it can be deflationary right it can reduce spending from the economy um and and you know if and lower spending means lower income for others right because someone's spending someone else's income and that means fewer jobs and so on so it could lead to unemployment so if let's say you're cutting the health insurance sector you're lowering the amount we spend on administration right all of these workers would find themselves unemployed for instance uh while if you're combining that with the would say greening the economy on the other hand which is going to lead to um a demand on resources right we need more workers for that for for to implement that in other words it would be inflationary or it could be inflationary potentially if implemented on its own right so one is inflationary one is deflationary and the two together offset offset each other to some extent right so if we need five percent of gdp to green the economy but we are releasing 3.7 by implementing universal healthcare and of course we're going to end up with a better outcome than if we just did them uh separately but i would also say that the new deal itself right the reason why it's called a new deal is because uh it's supposed to be comprehensive right it's supposed to be progressive and it's supposed to include a lot of the stuff that are on the progressive wish list right now whether politically it's more appropriate to do them separately or individually uh apparently even the biden administration is currently struggling with with that whether to um you know introduce an infrastructure bill separately to get more support safe from republicans and then to introduce a separate bill for um you know paid leave and you know universal pre-k education and so on and so forth so they're also you know trying to separate them i would say from the mmt perspective at least it's better to combine them and um you know there are different versions of the green new deal some are more comprehensive others are less comprehensive um you know which one you choose i guess also depends on your on your ideology um but also you know on the politics question um i mean i can't really answer the ques the politics question right which one will be more appropriate or not politically that you know that i don't know like maybe it's you better to do the infrastructure plan separately and then worry about the rest right but economically speaking it's better to do them together i would say okay yeah um so just following on from that um as you say sort of the job guarantee is part of that green new deal proposal um ken is asked uh i i assume he's referring to the job guarantee component um when people are given jobs as part of that scheme um he's saying do we pay manual workers less than knowledge workers so i guess is is the job guarantee just you set it at like a minimum wage standard and that's no matter what sort of job you're allocated it would be the same or it does are you going to have different um different roles with different pay and benefits within that system well i think so we can distinguish between public employment right so people who will be who will become part of a more part of a bigger government because of a green new deal and then the job guarantee right so do we need more engineers sure are they going to be part of the job guarantee no right so you're going to hire a lot of workers to implement your green new deal right the job guarantee is for workers who cannot um oops people are saying they cannot hear the questions so i can re if people can hear me i can repeat the question then um so the question was do you pay different people yeah so the question was can you can you do you need to pay people with different skills in the job guarantee or is the job guarantee just for minimum wage workers right so my answer would be that the green new deal would lead to a bigger government and which is not necessarily more more workers employed by the government by the public sector which is not a part of the job guarantee right so if you need engineers you need to hire engineers um you know and so on so you're they're going to be hired by the government not as a part of the job guarantee but like the government hires anybody else that it needs right currently the workers who are unable to find that kind of employment or employment in the private sector then can be employed in the in the job guarantee so the job guarantees for people who are unable to find public or private employment right it's an employer of last resort in minsky's words so if you can't find that other kind of employment you're able to find employment there now the uh job guarantee proposal that we included in our paper is um modeled with a 15 an hour wage which would then become the new minimum wage i hope that answers the question uh yeah yeah i think so um okay there's another question here from uh eric um it's quite a long one um it does the green new deal and mmt take into account uh planetary boundaries and to what extent uh does it if so um and does it assume as mentioned by uh professor ray sustainable growth is uh necessary um so i sort of talked about the the ecological economics perspective uh there about the sort of d growth uh and green growth um does mmt sort of overlap with those perspectives or is there another approach to that kind of degrowth um perspective i think that's what he's kind of asking there i'm not sure yeah um shall i repeat the question in case people didn't hear it so the question was if mmt and the green new deal takes into account the ecological limits of of planet earth basically right um and then you know if it's compatible with d growth and green growth and so on uh i would say green new deal is green growth right so the economy will be growing but it will be doing so you know it will be green growth because we will be uh trying to green the economy now thinking about the ecological limits uh fighting climate change right is thinking about the ecological limits of the of the um uh of of the planet right that we cannot continue with our fossil fuel economy the way we have done um and even now it may be too late right if we started tomorrow and did it all for over 10 years i don't even know if that's not too late anymore because of you know the processes that have already been uh you know set in place and whether that's going to stop now um the the option i think the the option that we need to choose from right it's not that we're gonna go and leave like cavemen and women right versus the uh current economy so the um given the options that we have um a capitalist economy right which is not going anywhere anytime soon so working within that framework i i would say a green new deal is our best best option for trying to um prevent an ecological catastrophe um and to the extent that it leads to a more equitable distribution of income then it's better for everyone and probably for for the environment too now you can also um i mean it's so the green new deal can doesn't have to be the only thing right so if you don't want people to use plastics you can regulate that right you can try to get rid of plastics like some countries have have done so it's not a panacea if you want to do other things in addition to that you should right um so that would be my answer okay uh yeah i think we have time for one last question there i'm leaning in somebody's just saying my mic was quite quiet i think um should be better um so one last question is is education for trades or academics included within the green new deal i think i think it's because often people will think green new deal job guarantee it's kind of shovel ready um you know working on roads and that kind of old school new deal kind of jobs um do you see that green new deal would involve um other roles for uh yeah academics and education within that as well so not within the job guarantee right so again the job guarantee would be for those who are unable to find regular public or private employment uh but of course i mean we are going to need a lot of experts like we did during the the new deal and the new deal um you know recruited a whole host of uh academics and non-academics they also recruited people who were involved in planning world war one right um there was an understanding that the economy can just be left on its own it needs to be planned um if you want to do things like the new deal and later world war ii right there was a lot of planning that was happening so to some extent we need to bring break back planning right we need to um sit down and understand what we need to do and and who whose expertise we need we need for that of course we're going to need scientists right climate scientists uh people who work on renewable energy and so on like i'm no of course i'm no expert on that right i know very little about that on the other hand you also need economists right to to hopefully not mainstream um to to plan for the economic side of things so if that was the question then sure we're going to we're going to need that uh was there like a second part to the question that i missed um no i don't think so um yeah is it is education for trades or academics included uh within the green new deal um there's just one last question which i can think we can just squeeze in if you're okay um has inflation picked up in america after the large coveted spending packages and do you think that will be a problem i guess yeah well that that's been uh there's been a pretty big debate about that recently most people including mainstream economists are saying no there's not going to be a lot of inflation people like larry summers and even and oliver blanchard were the two prominent uh economists who were saying it could be inflationary summers i guess now he's saying there is an equal chance that it will be uh inflationary.
and it won't be inflationary and when they're talking about inflation they're talking about you know runaway inflation the kind that we saw in the 1970s the kind that the fed cannot tackle without and that they think the fed should tackle and cannot tackle without killing the economy like they did in the 1970s um what they forget is that the economy has changed we have this you know more globalized economy where we're able to tap into cheap labor in china and that's what's really in other countries and that's really kept prices low uh in the united states um and that um you know we haven't really seen a lot of inflation with the coveted stimulus packages and the inflation is you know for for the um if inflationary hawks inflation is always around the corner even when that prescription doesn't materialize it's again around the corner or on the next corner and so on but of course they never tire of predicting inflation hyperinflation um so my view. and i i would say randy probably shares that view too is that we're not going to see a lot of inflation will it go above the two percent to say three percent probably it's possible um is three percent and any you know a cost for concern i would say no and even the fed has signaled that they're not going to take action if inflation is above their two percent target for a limited amount of time they're going to look at some kind of an average inflation and if you look at an average at the average inflation rate since 1990 in the united states it's been about 2.2 percent right and it's not going to accelerate anytime soon i don't think okay all right excellent that brings us up to time so uh yeah i really appreciate you joining us today professor niccion.
2021/03/31 MMT and the Green New Deal with Professor Yeva Nersisyan:Rethinking Economics
経済学の再考（@rethinkecon）ツイート：
MMTショーケースからのすべての講演がYouTubeで公開されました！
このアプローチの紹介を探している場合でも、さまざまなポリシー提案とどのように交差するかを探している場合でも、最新のビデオをここでチェックしてください-https：//t.co/BHrxru2Xtm。
https://twitter.com/rethinkecon/status/1377168398690394115?s=20
2021/03/31
MMTとYevaNersisyan教授とのグリーンニューディール
参加したばかりの人には、yaevanisbistian教授がいます。
フランクリンとマーシャル大学のペンシルベニア大学の教授と間違えなければ、mmtとグリーンニューディールについて話し合うことになります。あなたはまた、フィデルカブームとともに、持続可能な繁栄のための世界的な研究所の一員でもあります。他の部屋でもそうだと思いますええと、スライドをクリックして空を共有するかどうかを知っています。それは問題なく機能しているので、グリーンニューディールについて話します。このプレゼンテーションはランディと私がしばらく前に書いた論文に基づいているので、私の焦点は主に米国に向けられます。mmtの観点からグリーンニューディールの手頃な価格を評価しようとしています。ポール・クルーグマンのような人々がよく言っていたので、mmtはあなたがしなくても本当に助けにはなりません政府が財政的に制約を受けていなくても、インフレなどの他の理由で増税しなければならないことを知っておく必要があります。主要な政府支出プログラムに参加したい場合は、グリーンかどうかを確認したかったのです。新しい取引は実際にはインフレであり、それが私たちがその手頃な価格を評価したかった方法ですので、ここでいくつかの数値を提示しますが、数値の大きな変更について話しているので、数値には多くの不確実性があります長期にわたる経済であり、そのため、数字はもちろんええと、私が主張しようとしているのは、私たちがええと使用する方法論であり、たとえ数字がなくても、どこで何を主張するのかが不確かになるからです。 '完全に正確な方法論は堅実であり、私が始める前にグリーンニューディールの手頃な価格を評価するための主流の方法論よりも有用です。グリーンニューディールについて話すときは、人によって意味が異なり、ニューディール自体がユーロだったので、アメリカのことを話します。ニューディールは、大恐慌の間に米国のルーズベルト政権によって実施された一連の包括的な改革を指します。これには、もちろん廃止されて以来、米国に社会保障制度を確立したグラス・スティーガル法などの金融規制が含まれていました。高齢者の退職保障や障害者の会社への利益などを提供する州など、もちろん、公共事業プログラムもあり、非常に成功しました。また、多くのことがあったため、ある程度グリーンでした。今日はグリーンジョブと呼びますそこに関与しているので、グリーンニューディールは元のニューディールと同じです。それは、経済をよりグリーンにするだけでなく、より平等に経済を改革し、医療費の手頃な教育の子供への住宅アクセスの手頃な価格を高めるための包括的な改革のセットでもあります。ケアフードなどなど、少なくとも米国下院議員のアレクサンドリア・オカシオ・コルテスによって紹介されたバージョンは非常に包括的であり、それは私たちが私たちの論文で固執するバージョンであり、それは私がこのプレゼンテーションで参照するものですだから、それはまた、ファダルが他のセッションで話していることである仕事の保証を含みます、そして仕事の保証はもちろん、あなたがとりわけ驚きの安定性を知っているなどのさまざまな理由で現代貨幣理論の重要な要素でした。 '非常に野心的な野心的な計画である、10年以上にわたって経済をグリーン化するグリーンニューディールの3つの主要部分について話します。多くの場合、人々は30年以上にわたってそれを獲得することについて話します。したがって、2050年までにある種のグリーン経済を達成することに固執しています。 10年という短いタイムラインで、今やヨーロッパの文脈で国民皆保険について話します。多くの国がすでに国民皆保険を持っています。私たちはすでに国民皆保険を持っているので、それをすべての人の医療と呼んでいます。 65歳以上の高齢者ですが、誰もが利用できるわけではありません。sメディケアプログラムええと、すべての人のメディケアは基本的に国民皆保険であり、ヨーロッパ諸国はある程度それを持っています。彼らはまた、チャイルドケアへのある種のチャイルドケアアクセスまたは無料または助成された公教育へのチャイルドケアアクセスのための助成金を知っています。米国ではないことなど、米国ではグリーンニューディールに含まれますが、ヨーロッパではグリーンニューディールについて話し合うと、グリーン経済への移行に固執します。再生可能エネルギーなどなど、これらは私が行うグリーンニューディールの3つの主要な要素です。今日はええと話しますので、緑の通常の決議が導入されたとき、経済が始まり、タンクが数を減らし始めたと思います私たちはそれを買う余裕がありますそしてよく引用される数の1つはこの93兆ドルの数でしたさまざまなプログラムのすべてのコストを合計した保守的なシンクタンクなので、すべての緑化などの医療費を見積もり、それらを合計して、10年間でこの法外な数93兆兆ドルを考え出し、もちろんそれを言います's手頃な価格ではなく、それから平均的な増加または一人当たりの税金の増加を計算するので、平均的なアメリカ人がそれを買う余裕があるために税金で支払う必要がある金額、そしてもちろんそれは非常に高い数になるので、それは1つの異議でしたグリーンニューディールにとって、より合理的なもう1つは、インフレになる可能性があるという反対意見です。なぜインフレになるのでしょうか。グリーンニューディールを実施している場合、経済の総支出が経済の潜在力を上回っています。インフレの可能性があるため、この場合、青い線は経済の潜在GDPの指標であり、時間がある場合は潜在GDPの推定に多くの問題があります。最後にそれらのいくつかに到達し、これは私たちの実際のGDPであるため、実際のGDPが潜在力を下回っている場合、失業が発生します。これは通常、経済に十分な支出がないためです。十分な支出がない場合、十分な生産がありません。一方で、実際のGDPが経済の潜在力を上回っている場合は、ある程度のインフレが発生する可能性があります。もちろん、これは、欲しがって膨らむ前に起こっていたことです。はるかに多くのインフレなので、これは人々がグリーンアダルトがインフレになる理由を考えるときに使用するフレームワークですが、理想的なフレームワークではありません。これには多くの問題があります。mmtはどのように役立つので、クルーグマンに戻りますか？mmtは実際にはうまく役立たないという点mmtは財政的考慮を脇に置いて、米国のようなソブリン通貨を持つ国にとっては、英国のお金は問題ではないということを指摘します。通貨発行者彼らは財政的に制約されている政府の通貨ユーザー政府が通貨発行者である間、申し訳ありません。ランディが説明したように、財政的に制約はありません。政府はお金を使って存在します。それは、今日私たちが持っている種類の電子通貨システムのコンピューターで数字を変更することになります。ここで問題になっているのは、そのようなプログラムを実装するために必要な実際のリソースがあるかどうかです。もちろん、経済をグリーン化するには、風力タービンとソーラーパネルを増やす必要があり、それらを構築するための労働者が必要です。それらを設置してから、電気欲を改革する必要があります。次に、輸送システムを改革する必要があります。そのためには、多くのリソースが必要です。つまり、労働者などの人的資源も含まれます。mmtの観点からの質問です。これは私たちにとって重要な質問ですリソースがあり、これらのプログラムを実装するための技術的ノウハウがありますか。お金がなければあまり役に立たないでしょう。もしそうなら、財政は政府にとって実際には制約ではないので、これはmmtです。あらゆる種類の政府支出権へのアプローチ、そしてこの場合、私たちはそれをグリーンニューディールに適用しているので、グリーンニューディールが私たちが権利を惜しまないよりも多くのリソースを必要とするかどうかという質問をしています。答えが「はい」の場合、それについて何ができるでしょうか。増税する必要がありますか。それを行うために他の対策が必要ですか。それは本当に問題なので、この質問に答えるには、まあまあ言うことはできません。私たちがそんなに多くを費やすつもりなら、それがそれであるかどうかを知っています」インフレになるだろう、それについてもっと注意深く研究する必要がある。それは私たちがランディと一緒に私たちの論文でやろうとしたことであり、グリーンニューディールが実際に私たちが節約できるよりも多くのリソースを必要とするかどうか、そしてすべてがグリーンニューディールプログラムの最初に述べたすべてのコンポーネントは、すべてのリソースが必要になるか、またはそれらの一部が実際に他のリソースで使用するためにリソースを解放するかどうかについて話しますが、それについて話すと抽象的に見えますが、グリーンニューディールの個々のプログラムコンポーネントに到達したときにさらに説明します。うまくいけば、それがより明確になるので、私が最初に述べた要素は経済の緑化であり、もちろん経済への挨拶は資源を使用する予定であり、私たちの論文では、支出額を資源の代用として使用しています。労働者を雇うためにより多くの費用を費やすつもりですそれから私たちは人的資源を正しく使用しているのでそれは資源の使用ですそれで私たちは資源使用の代用としての支出のレベルを見ていますそれは理想的ではありませんがそれは与えられた可能性があることです私たちがさまざまな種類のプログラムについて話し合うので、経済を完全にグリーン化するのにかかる費用の見積もりが異なります。私たちは最高の3つの見積もりを取り、その平均を取り、それからどのように差し引いたのか現在、私たちは化石燃料に多くを費やしています。なぜなら、経済をグリーン化する場合、つまり化石燃料に投資することはもうないので、そのセクターに投資することはないので、一部を解放することになります。たとえば、地面からの石油を掘り起こすために労働者を必要としない場合、それらの労働者は風力タービンの建設やソーラーパネルの設置などを行うことができます。これはその簡単な例です。だからこそ、私たちが化石燃料に投資しているのです。ええと、一方では10年間年間GDPの5.6が必要になるので、現在従事しているのは負の符号で方程式に入ります。それは他方で経済を粉砕するために費やす必要がある金額です。化石燃料に投資しなくなったため、GDP相当のリソースの0.65％をリリースしています。そのため、経済のグリーン化には約5％のコストがかかります。それは非常に高い数字のように思えます。それを見るだけで、経済がすでに完全雇用に近づいている場合、これは特定の権利のためにインフレになる可能性があり、したがって、mmtの観点からさえ、それは手ごろな価格ではありません。sインフレですが、雇用保証やすべての医療など、グリーンニューディールの他の要素があります。これらは実際には資源の使用ではなく資源の源である可能性があるため、雇用保証は私が説明して医療するように中間のようなものです。なぜなら、私がそれに到達したときに説明するように、実際にリソースを解放するので、仕事の保証とは何ですか？非常に簡単に言えば、それは連邦政府が資金提供する政府プログラムであり、仕事をしたい人は誰でも政府が支払うものを手に入れることができますが、それはで実装されています地方自治体を通じて、地方自治体を通じて、地上にある非政府組織を通じて、したがって、彼らは、財政的な観点から、コミュニティが今何を必要としているのかをよく知っています。もちろん、仕事の保証はコストがかかるので、あなたがそれを財政的なものとして見れば、よく言う」政府にもっと適切な費用をかけることになるので、労働者に彼らの給料を彼らの利益などに支払わなければならないでしょう。私たちは社会としてこのプログラムにより多くを費やし、そしてもちろんこれらの労働者は食べ物を買うでしょうと他のものの衣類は住宅などに正しく支払うので、彼らはいくつかの資源を正しく取るでしょう、その観点からそれは資源を使うでしょうが、一方で私たちはこれらの雇用保証労働者の何人かをum緑化プロジェクトに雇うことができますたとえば、住宅の改修として、必ずしも多くのスキルを必要としないものは、仕事保証労働者が多くのスキルを持っていないか、少なくとも彼らが持っていないものであると想定されているためです。民間部門が必要とするスキルを持っているので、緑化プロジェクトに雇用保証労働者の半分を使用する場合、つまり、gdpの2％を雇用保証に費やしているとしましょう。その半分を緑化プロジェクトに戻しています。そうすれば、雇用保証の正味コストはgdpの1％になります。今のところ、すべての人に医療を提供します。これも、実際にリリースできる米国の国民皆保険です。リソースとここに、さまざまな国が医療に費やしている金額のグラフがあります。ラベルが表示されない可能性があることはわかっていますが、これが米国であるということを知る必要はありません。ヘルスケアに関する他の先進国よりもはるかに多くの次の国」私たちに近いのはスイスで、彼のGDPの約12をヘルスケアに費やしているだけです。私たちの場合、その数は17でしたが、今日はおそらく18に近いか、かなり速いペースで増加し続けると予測されています。国民皆保険制度があれば、実際に支出を減らすことができます。これを行う簡単な方法は、これを単一の単一医療制度を持っている他の国と同じレベルに引き上げれば、うまくいくでしょう。 -支払者制度は、ある種の平均的なヨーロッパ諸国の権利を持っているので、それをたとえば17からスイスの権利である12にまで下げることができれば、GDPの5％に相当する5％の支出を行うことになります。経済の権利は、他のプロジェクトで使用できるリソースを解放しますが、それはそうです」私たちが行ったルートではなく、メディケアの紹介によってどれだけ節約できるかについての他の見積もりを調べました。節約の範囲は、GDPの約1.6％から4.5％であり、仮定によって異なります。
しかし、米国で医療への過剰な支出を実際に推進しているのは、管理コストと価格であるため、薬の価格であり、米国では、医薬品のコストが他の国よりもはるかに高いことはよく知られています。製薬会社と交渉できる単一の支払者はありません。メディケアが製薬会社と交渉して価格を下げることはできません。もちろん、政府が薬物と交渉する単一支払者システムを持っているヨーロッパ諸国ではそうではありません。企業とそのように価格を下げますええと、医療従事者の報酬はもちろん米国でも高くなっています。興味があれば、ここにいくつかの数字があります。私がここで言及したこの研究から、私たちの論文でそれを見つけることができます、そして米国でより高いコストに寄与する他のものは管理コストであり、それは他の国の1から3パーセントに対して総医療費の約8パーセントです医療システムは参加者が異なる非常に特殊なシステムであるため、医療システムの管理により多くの費用を費やしています。そのため、医師のオフィスは、保険会社からの支払いを取得しようとして、患者からの政府の支払いを取得しようとして、請求権に多くの時間を費やしています。彼らの自己負担額と控除額、そしてそれらすべてを手に入れるために、そしてまたあなたは、保険会社がお金を稼ぐべきかどうかを知っているので、あなたは彼らのことをよく知っているので、民間の健康保険側ですべてがコストを追加することを知っています収入は誰かですsの支出、そしてそれは私たち全員が保険会社が稼いでいる収入をまとめて費やしていることを知っているので、もちろん保険会社を方程式から外すとsそれから私たちも実際的にはかなり節約できるので、これをリソースの使用に変換しますええと、これは経済の緑化にどのように役立ちますか？現在働いている管理者がいる場合、経済を緑化するためのリソースをどのように解放しますか管理費の支出を減らすとしたら、医療システムを正しく管理することになるでしょう。そうすれば、この労働者は基本的に仕事を失うことになります。したがって、収入が減り、支出が減るなどです。経済全体に波及効果がありますが、労働者の観点から考えると、これらの労働者が健康保険業界で雇用されなくなった場合、より環境に配慮した取引を正しく管理するか、何か他のことをするために雇用できるようになります。たとえば、経済を緑化するこれが、すべてまたは単一の支払者システムのメディケアが、グリーンニューディールの他のコンポーネントのために知っている他の部分で使用できるリソースをリリースする方法です。つまり、グリーンニューディールのすべてのコンポーネントが実行されるわけではありません。プラス記号で方程式を入力するために、それらのいくつかはマイナス記号で入力します。なぜなら、それらは経済の支出を増加させるのではなく減少させるので、経済の支出を減少させるプログラムはインフレではなくデフレになるからです。そして、クルーグマンのような経済がこれを財政的観点から考えるとき、もちろん財政的に政府はより多くを費やすでしょうが、政府がより多くを費やしているかどうかは問題ではありません。s支出は多いが、民間部門の支出は少ないので、インフレである必要はないので、ここに要約表を示します。経済成長のために10年間年間5％の予算を立て、純額の雇用保証により、すべての人にさらに1％のメディケアが追加されます。非常に保守的な対策により約3.7％節約できるので、支出をgdpの3.7％にまで下げることができます。また、バーニーサンダースのような人々は、グリーンニューディールはまた、あなたが知っている4時間の戦争を終わらせることを提唱しており、グリーンニューディールの他の提唱者でもあり、私たちは再び保守的にそれを予測しています。今後10年間、年間GDPのさらに1％を節約できるので、正味のリソースコストはgdpの約1.3になります。これは、もちろん、あなたが見ている5よりもはるかに少なく、もちろんはるかに少ないです。あなたが知っているよりも、私が言及した保守派が考えるタンクは、10年以上にわたって私たちにどれだけの費用がかかると見積もっていたので、これは、GDPの手頃な価格を見積もるためのmmtアプローチですもちろん、気候変動に取り組むニューディール政策の拡大は、人間が実存的危機に直面したのは初めてではありません。第二次世界大戦を振り返ることができます。これは、多くの経済的資源を必要とした危機でもあります。そうではなかった」それは経済的な危機でもあったことをご存知でしょう。いわば、グリーンな新しい取引や気候変動との戦いに必要なものよりもはるかに多くの計画とリソースの動員が必要だったので、ケインズに目を向けるのはこのためです。戦争の支払い方法に関する彼のアプローチは、私たちが第二次世界大戦の支払い方法を説明する短いパンフレットを書いたものであり、ここで支払う方法は実際には財政ではなく、私が説明するように資源についてであり、彼のアプローチは非常に似ていますmmtのアプローチは正しいので、ケントは基本的に、戦争の計画は財政的ではなく、実際の資源の問題であると言っています。問題は、どれだけの成果を生み出すことができるかということです。それ以上消費したいのなら消費のためにそれを正しくすることはできません」パイが限られていることを知っているので、それは修正されているので、私たちはたくさんの年齢から不足している年齢になります、そして今、戦争中にもっと多くの人々が雇用され、ええと、収入は正しく増加するので、政府が正しく費やしている金額は、私たちが弾薬を生産していて、政府がそれを正しく購入することを知っているとしましょう。そして、人々は生産プロセスで雇用されていますが、彼らは収入ではありません。次に、その収入を回して、政府がそれを購入する予定の弾薬の購入に費やします。そのため、収入は残り、購入するものを見つけることができません。誰もが収入を使おうとすると、どうなるかというと、単純にインフレを見て、実際には人々の生活水準は向上しません。彼らは名目収入の多くを同じ量の本物を購入するために費やします。本物は固定されているので、ケインズは解決策を探し、税金を使うことができると彼は言います。インフレを防ぐためにその収入の一部を課税できることは知っていますが、金持ちは十分ではないことを知らないので、金持ちに課税するだけでは頼りにできません。インフレを防ぐために経済から十分な収入を引き出すことはできません。彼はまた、私たちが自発的に貯蓄する人々に頼ることもできると言います。誰もがそうしない限り、良い考えではありません。sは依然としてインフレになり、もちろん、私の貯蓄の価値は実質的に減少し、価格も上昇します。労働者はより高い賃金を要求し、それは単にインフレに追いつくだけで、労働者は実質的に良くなることはありません。どのようなケースが提案され、英国である程度実施されたのは、繰延報酬または強制貯蓄だったので、収入を課税しますが、一部をうまく入れないでください。それでも、戦後すぐに興味を持って戻ってくるものもあるので、戦後は消費を増やすことができます。その場合、実際には戦後の不振を回避することもできます。もちろん、これ以上進むことはできません。質問がある場合は必要に応じてこれのいずれかに詳細を説明しますが、私はしませんあまりにも深く入り込みたいので、繰延報酬アプローチは、必要に応じて取引を拒否するために適用できると私たちは言います。グリーンニューディールの支持者は、金融取引に課せられる豊富な税金に増税することを求めています。富などによるオフショア所得企業の利益。これは、所得の不平等と戦う上で非常に良いかもしれません。また、グリーンニューディール提唱者の目標は、それらを実施する必要があることを確認しますが、経済を緑化したり、これらの税金の権利を条件としてユニバーサルヘルスケアを実施したりするべきではありません。これらの税金は、経済から収入を引き出すのにあまり役立ちません。金持ちは金持ちすぎる権利であり、あなたが彼らにたくさん課税しても、彼らはまだたくさんの富とたくさんの収入を持っていて、彼らはまだ社会の多くを奪うことができます」sリソースが正しいので、富裕層に課税するリソースを削減することが目標である場合、必ずしもそのトリックを実行するわけではありません。一方、労働者に課税する場合は、消費の削減につながるため、収入を引き出すのに非常に効果的ですが、もちろん特に米国や他の多くの先進国では、過去数十年で労働者の生産性が向上し、賃金が上がらず、平均所得が停滞していることなど、それも公平ではありません。などなど、給与税の追加料金を提案しますが、keynesのようにモデル化することもできます。s延期された補償なので、インフレと戦うために必要な場合は、今日の労働者からより多くを取り、今日の消費を減らし、将来的には、より寛大な退職給付の形で労働者にもっと多くのことを返します。条件付きだから真のインフレと、彼のプレゼンテーションで真のインフレを知っている間に定義されたランディのポイントに到達する前に、経済がより多くの支出を受け入れることができないことは本当に明確ではありません。真のインフレに到達した場合は、別の補償のようなものを使用できます。しかし、第二次世界大戦中の動員の程度は非常に大きかったにもかかわらず、インフレ率はそれほど高くなかったので、第二次世界大戦中に使用する他の方法もあります。紙の数字の場合、正味コストは実際にはマイナスになるので、給与税や料金を扱うグリーンは実際にはインフレではなくデフレになります。私が終了する前のgdpは、その経済です」潜在GDPは正しく固定されておらず、このグラフは2007年1月の潜在GDPの青い線の予測を示しているため、経済が非常に好調だったときの予測は、これが経済のやり方であるというものでした。s軌道これは正しい軌道であり、その後、金融危機と大不況のために経済がうまくいかなくなったとき、潜在GDPは、緑色の線が予測を知っているところまで下げられました。ええと、潜在GDPについては、2019年1月の時点で、そしてもちろん、それが切望されたパンデミックで再び低下したことを想像できるように、潜在GDPの潜在予測も低下したことを知っていますが、ポイントは、もし私たちがええと、金融危機の余波の中での経済と経済はこの道を歩み続けていました。これは、潜在GDPが今日、潜在GDPが、潜在GDPの推定よりもはるかに高いことを知っている場所です。潜在力の低下と他の問題があります支出が経済の潜在力を上回っていることを知っているという理由だけで、私が入りたくない潜在GDPを知っていると見積もると、従来のように測定されたほどではありません。あなたの単純な経済モデルが私たちが大丈夫だと予測するようなインフレを見ることなく、実際のGDPが潜在GDPを超えているということで、多くの期間がありました。言い換えれば、経済が支出を吸収する可能性はそれほどではありません。ええと、それは修正されました。主流の理論が示唆するほど限定的ではなく、あなたが知っているように、ええとはこの主流の理論に基づいているとあなたは知っています。ポジティブな社会的改善と私たちが最近行ったものよりも大きな経済的平等に向けた前進、そしてある程度彼は米国で正義でした少なくとも私たちは第二次世界大戦後にこの経済ブームを経験しましたもちろん私たちの資本主義の黄金時代少なくとも経済指標に基づいて知っている経済指標では、当時は多くの問題がありました。もちろん、社会正義の問題も知っています。今では、グリーンニューディールは同様の結果を約束します。もちろん、メリットは気候変動の逆転をはるかに超えています。私たちはそれを正しく行い、私は」冒頭で述べたように、いくつかの数字を示しましたが、数字は重要ではありません。重要なのは、mmtが、数字が不確実である可能性があることを知っているグリーンニューディールなどの政府プログラムの手頃な価格を理解するために作成するのに役立つフレームワークです。私たちの方法論はしっかりしており、グリーンニューディールの手頃な価格を評価するのに、単に財務コストを計算してそれらを合計したり、政府が費やす金額を計算したり、税金をどれだけ増やす必要があるかを計算する従来のアプローチよりもはるかに便利です。上がるなどなど、ここで停止して質問があるかどうかを確認します。必要に応じてパワーポイントに戻ることができます。本当に洞察に満ちた教授に感謝します。質問私はここで見ることができますが私はその直前に質問をしますが、実際にそのumにつながります。特に、最初にプレミアムumを右から起動したときと、mmt以外のプログレッシブの種類の両方から、私がかなり多くの批判をしました。彼らがまとめている完全な投資プログラムなので、彼らはそれを分離するのではなく、社会主義のウィッシュリストのように呼んでいます。私が説明しようとしていたのは、包括的なアプローチはより良い経済的アプローチも同様です。なぜなら、あなたがすべての権利のユニバーサルヘルスケアのために言うメディケアを実装するだけなら、それはデフレの権利である可能性があり、それは経済からの支出を減らすことができます。誰かが他の誰かを費やしている」sの収入、つまり仕事が減るなど、失業につながる可能性があるため、健康保険セクターを削減しているとすると、管理に費やす金額を減らすことになります。たとえば、これらの労働者全員が失業していることに気付くでしょう。一方、それを経済の緑化と組み合わせると、資源への需要が高まることになりますが、それを実装するには、より多くの労働者が必要です。言い換えれば、インフレまたはそれ単独で実施された場合、潜在的にインフレになる可能性があるため、一方はインフレであり、一方はデフレであり、2つは互いにある程度相殺されているため、経済をグリーン化するためにgdpの5％が必要な場合、ユニバーサルヘルスケアを実装することで3.7をリリースしますそしてもちろん、私たちは別々にやった場合よりも良い結果が得られるでしょうが、新しい取引自体が新しい取引と呼ばれる理由は、包括的であるはずであり、進歩的であるはずだからです。政治的に個別に行うのが適切か、個別に行うのが適切かどうかにかかわらず、現在プログレッシブウィッシュリストにあるものがたくさん含まれているはずです。共和党からより安全な支援を得るために別々に請求し、次に有給休暇を知っていて、普遍的なpre-k教育などを知っているので彼らがそうするように別の請求書を導入するまた、それらを分離しようとしていることも知っています。少なくともmmtの観点からは、それらを組み合わせる方が良いと思います。グリーンニューディールにはさまざまなバージョンがあることを知っています。私はあなたのイデオロギーにも依存していると思いますが、政治の質問にもあなたは知っています私は政治の質問に本当に答えることができないということですインフラストラクチャ計画を個別に実行してから、残りのことについて心配する方がよいかもしれませんが、経済的に言えば、一緒にやったほうがいいですよねえええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええ人々がその計画の一部として仕事を与えられるとき、彼は私たちが知識労働者よりも手動労働者に支払うのは少ないと言っているので、最低賃金基準のようにそれを設定するだけで仕事の保証であり、それはあなたがどんな種類の仕事でもかまいません再割り当てされた場合は同じであるか、そのシステム内で異なる給与と福利厚生で異なる役割を担うことになりますか？公的雇用の権利を区別できるので、より多くの一部となる人々がグリーンニューディールとその後の雇用保証の権利のために大きな政府の一部なので、彼らが雇用保証の一部になることを確信しているより多くのエンジニアが必要ですか？あなたのグリーンニューディールを正しく実行するために多くの労働者を雇うつもりです仕事の保証は、人々が質問を聞くことができないと言っているので、人々が私を聞くことができれば私は質問を繰り返すことができます質問は、あなたは別の人に支払うのですか？問題は、仕事の保証でさまざまなスキルを持つ人に支払う必要があるのか、それとも最低賃金労働者のための仕事の保証であるのかということでした。取引はより大きな政府につながり、それは必ずしも公的部門によって政府によって雇用されるより多くの労働者ではなく、それは雇用保証の一部ではないので、エンジニアが必要な場合はあなたが知っているエンジニアを雇う必要があります。あなたは彼らです雇用保証の一部としてではなく、政府によって雇用される予定ですが、政府のように、現在必要な他の人を雇用しているので、そのような雇用や民間部門での雇用を見つけることができない労働者は、公的または私的な雇用を見つけることができない人々のために仕事が保証されるように、それはミンスキーの言葉で最後の手段の雇用者であるため、他の種類の雇用を見つけることができない場合は、そこで雇用を見つけることができます今、私たちの論文に含めたええと、雇用保証の提案は、15時間の賃金でモデル化されており、それが新しい最低賃金になります。ええと、それ」かなり長いものですが、グリーンニューディールを行い、mmtはプラネタリーバウンダリーを考慮に入れています。そうであれば、どの程度までそれを行いますか。教授が述べたように、持続可能な成長が必要であると想定しているので、私は一種の生態経済学の観点について話しました。そこでは、成長の種類について話しました。グリーン成長は、それらの観点と重複しているのでしょうか、それとも、そのような脱成長の観点への別のアプローチがあるのでしょうか。 「ええと、人々がそれを聞いていない場合に備えて質問を繰り返すかどうかわからないので、質問は、mmtとグリーンニューディールが基本的に地球の生態学的限界を考慮に入れているかどうかでした。s d成長やグリーン成長などと互換性があります。グリーンニューディールはグリーン成長であるため、経済は成長しますが、そうすることで、グリーン成長を目指します。経済は今、気候変動の権利と戦う生態学的限界について考えています。私たちが行ったように化石燃料経済を続けることはできないという地球の権利の生態学的限界について考えています。明日から始めて10年以上すべてをやったら、遅すぎます。すでに設定されているプロセスと、それが今停止するかどうかを知っているので、もう遅すぎないかどうかさえわかりません。ええと、オプション私たちが正しく選択する必要があるオプションは、私たちがそうすることではないと思います。洞窟人や女性のように、現在の経済とは対照的に行き来するので、すぐにはどこにも行かない資本主義経済の権利があるという選択肢が与えられたので、その枠組みの中で働くことは、グリーンニューディールは私たちの生態系の大惨事を防止しようとするための最良の選択肢であり、それが所得のより公平な分配につながる範囲で、それはすべての人にとって、そしておそらく環境にとってもより良いです。取引が正しいことだけである必要はないので、人々にプラスチックを使用させたくない場合は、その権利を規制することができます。一部の国が行っているように、プラスチックを取り除くことを試みることができます。それに加えて他のことをしたいのなら万能薬ではありませんそれは私の答えになるでしょうええとえええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええええ静かな私はええと、ええともっと良いはずだと思うので、最後の質問は、グリーンニューディールに含まれる貿易や学者のための教育です。あなたが道路で働いていることを知っている一種のショベルの準備ができている、そしてそのような古い学校のニューディールの種類の仕事ええと、グリーンニューディールはええと、その中での学者や教育のための他の役割を含むと思いますか？保証は正しいので、仕事の保証は通常の公的または私的な雇用を見つけることができない人のためのものですええと、もちろん私たちはニューディールとニューディールの間にしたように多くの専門家が必要になるでしょうたくさんの学者や非学者を採用したことを知っています。彼らはまた、世界戦争の計画に関与した人々も採用しました。経済はそれだけで任せることができるという理解がありました。必要に応じて計画する必要があります。ニューディールやその後の第二次世界大戦のようなことをする権利は、いくつかの人にそう起こっていた多くの計画がありましたブレークバック計画を正しく行う必要がある範囲私たちは座って、何をする必要があるのか、そしてそのために必要な専門知識を誰が必要とするのかを理解する必要がありますもちろん、科学者、適切な気候科学者、再生可能エネルギーなど私はもちろんその権利の専門家ではありません私はそれについてほとんど知りません一方、経済学者が物事の経済的側面を計画するために主流にならないことを願っていますだから、それが質問だった場合は、私たちが必要になることを確認してください。私が逃した質問の2番目の部分のようにそこにいたことはありません。学者は、グリーンニューディールに含まれています。最後の質問が1つだけあります。これは、あなたが大規模な切望された支出パッケージの後にアメリカでインフレが回復しました。それが問題になると思いますか。
そうですね、最近、主流派経済学者を含むほとんどの人がノーと言っていることについてかなり大きな議論がありました。ラリーサマーズのような多くのインフレの人々になることはなく、オリバーブランチャードもインフレの夏になる可能性があると言っていた2人の著名なエコノミストでした。ラリー・サマーズのようなインフレの人々はそれほど多くないだろうし、オリヴィエ・ブランチャードもインフレの夏かもしれないと言っていた2人の著名なエコノミストだった。ラリー・サマーズのようなインフレの人々はそれほど多くないだろうし、オリヴィエ・ブランチャードもインフレの夏かもしれないと言っていた2人の著名なエコノミストだった。
s再び角を曲がったところや次の角などですが、もちろん彼らはインフレのハイパーインフレを予測することに飽きることはありません。そしてiiは、ランディはおそらく、インフレ率が2％を超えることはないだろうという見方を共有していると思います。おそらく、3％である可能性があり、懸念のコストを知っている人は誰でも、ノーと言うでしょう、そして連邦政府でさえ、インフレが限られた時間の間彼らの2パーセントの目標を上回っているなら彼らは行動を起こさないだろうと合図します彼らはある種の平均インフレを見るでしょうそしてあなたが見るなら1990年以降の米国の平均インフレ率の平均は約2.2％であり、すぐに加速することはないだろう」
00:00 for anyone just joining us uh we have 00:02 professor yaeva nisbistian 00:04 you'll be talking with us about mmt and 00:07 the green new deal 00:08 um if i'm not mistaken uh your 00:13 professor at franklin and marshall 00:15 college pennsylvania 00:16 um and you're also part of the global 00:19 institute for sustainable 00:20 prosperity which along with uh fidel 00:22 kaboom in the other room as well i think 00:24 um so yeah uh handing over to you know 00:26 if you just uh click over to your 00:29 slides to share empty 00:33 there it's working fine 00:37 okay all right so um 00:41 i'm going to talk about the green new 00:43 deal and my focus is going to be mostly 00:46 on the united states 00:47 um because this presentation is based on 00:50 a paper that 00:51 randy and i wrote a while back trying to 00:55 evaluate the affordability of the green 00:57 new deal from the mmt 00:58 perspective and um 01:02 this question in a way came up because 01:04 people like paul krugman were saying 01:05 well 01:06 mmt doesn't really help even if you 01:08 don't have to 01:10 you know even if the government is not 01:11 financially constrained you still have 01:12 to raise taxes because of 01:14 other reasons such as inflation and so 01:16 on if you want to engage in major 01:18 government spending programs 01:19 so we wanted to see whether it's true 01:21 whether a green new deal would actually 01:23 be 01:24 inflationary and and that's the way we 01:27 wanted to evaluate its affordability 01:30 um so i'm going to present some numbers 01:32 here but 01:34 uh the numbers there's a lot of 01:35 uncertainty around the numbers because 01:37 we're talking about major 01:39 changes to the economy over a long 01:41 period of time 01:43 and so the numbers are of course um 01:46 because of that the numbers are going to 01:47 be uncertain what 01:48 where what um i'm going to argue for is 01:51 the methodology that we use 01:53 um and so even if the numbers aren't 01:56 completely accurate the methodology is 01:58 solid and more useful than the 01:59 mainstream methodology for evaluating 02:01 the affordability of the green new deal 02:03 now before i start i want to make sure 02:05 we all know what we're talking about 02:06 when we talk about the green new deal 02:08 because different people mean different 02:10 things by it and because 02:12 um you know um the new deal itself was a 02:16 euro what was an american thing i just 02:18 want to make sure we all know what 02:20 that is and the new deal refers to the 02:22 comprehensive set of reforms implemented 02:24 by the roosevelt administration in the 02:26 united states during the great 02:27 depression 02:29 this included financial regulations such 02:31 as the glass-steagall act which has 02:33 of course been since repealed it 02:36 established a social security system 02:38 in the united states to provide 02:40 retirement security for the elderly as 02:43 well as benefits to the disabled the 02:45 firm and so on 02:46 of course it also had a public works 02:50 programs which were very uh successful 02:53 and they were green to some extent as 02:56 well 02:56 because there were a lot of what we 02:58 would today call green jobs involved 03:00 there 03:00 so the green new deal echoes the 03:03 original new deal 03:04 uh in that it it's also a set of 03:07 comprehensive reforms 03:09 uh for uh reforming our economy making 03:12 it greener but also making it more equal 03:15 increasing the affordability of housing 03:19 access to health care affordable 03:21 education child care 03:23 food and so on and so forth so it's very 03:25 comprehensive at least 03:27 the version that was introduced by a 03:31 u.s congresswoman alexandre 03:32 ocasio-cortez and that's the version we 03:34 stick to 03:35 in our paper and that's what i'm going 03:37 to refer to in this presentation 03:39 so it also includes a job guarantee 03:42 which is what 03:43 fadal is talking about in the other 03:45 session 03:46 and a job guarantee has of course been 03:48 an important component of modern money 03:50 theory 03:51 uh for various reasons uh 03:55 such as you know surprise stability 03:56 among other things so 03:58 um i'm going to uh talk about three main 04:01 parts of the green new deal greening the 04:03 economy over 10 years which is a very 04:05 ambitious 04:06 ambitious plan um oftentimes people talk 04:09 about winning it over 04:11 30 years so achieving some kind of green 04:13 economy by 2050 04:15 we're sticking to a shorter timeline 10 04:17 years 04:18 we're also going to talk about universal 04:20 health care now 04:21 in european context many countries 04:24 already have universal health care 04:26 in the us it's you know we call it a 04:28 medicare for all because 04:29 we already have universal health care 04:32 for the elderly 04:33 people over 65 but we don't have it for 04:35 everyone uh so that's the medicare 04:37 program 04:38 uh so medicare for all is basically 04:40 universal health care 04:41 and european countries have it to some 04:43 extent um 04:45 they also have you know some kind of 04:48 child care 04:48 access to child care or subsidies for 04:50 child care 04:52 access to free or subsidized public 04:54 education and so on so things that we 04:56 don't have in the united states 04:58 so in the u.s context those things would 04:59 be included in the green new deal 05:01 while in european context when people 05:03 talk about the green new delay are 05:05 largely sticking to 05:06 transitioning to a greener economy 05:10 renewable energy and so on and so forth 05:12 so um these are the three main 05:13 components of the green new deal that 05:15 i'm going to talk about 05:17 uh today so when 05:20 the resolution the green usual 05:22 resolution was introduced 05:24 uh the economy started and think tank 05:26 started crunching numbers 05:27 are we going to be able to afford it and 05:30 one of the often cited numbers was this 05:32 93 trillion dollar 05:33 number from a conservative think tank 05:37 which added up all the costs of the 05:39 different programs so 05:40 estimate the cost of medicare for all 05:43 greening 05:44 and others and just add them up and come 05:47 up with this outrageous number 93 05:49 trillion trillion dollars over 10 years 05:51 and say that of course it's not 05:52 affordable 05:53 and that then calculate the average 05:56 increase or the per capita increase in 05:58 taxes so how much 05:59 the average american needs to pay in 06:02 taxes to be able to afford it and of 06:04 course it comes to a very 06:05 high number um so that was one 06:08 objection to the green new deal the 06:10 other one which is more reasonable 06:12 is the objection that it could be 06:14 inflationary well why would it be 06:16 inflationary 06:17 so if the green new deal if you're 06:19 implementing it 06:20 pushed the aggregate spending in the 06:22 economy above the economy's potential 06:25 then it could potentially be 06:26 inflationary so in this case 06:29 the blue line is the measure of 06:31 economies 06:32 potential gdp and there are many issues 06:35 with estimating potential gdp 06:37 if i have time i'll get to some of those 06:39 at the at the end and this is our actual 06:41 gdp 06:42 so if actual gdp is below potential we 06:45 have unemployment and this is usually 06:47 because 06:48 there is not enough spending in the 06:49 economy so if there is not enough 06:51 spending not enough production happens 06:52 and not enough 06:53 people are employed while on the other 06:56 hand if 06:56 um the actual gdp goes above potent the 07:00 potential of the economy then there 07:02 could be 07:03 some inflation and of course this is 07:05 what was happening 07:07 before covet and inflate we didn't 07:09 really see 07:10 that much more inflation so you know 07:13 this is the framework that people use 07:14 when they think about 07:16 why the green adult could be 07:18 inflationary but it's not an 07:20 ideal framework there are many issues 07:21 with this 07:23 now how does mmt help so going back to 07:25 krugman's point that mmt 07:27 does not really help well mmt helps by 07:30 putting the financial 07:31 considerations aside right saying that 07:34 for a country with its sovereign 07:35 currency 07:36 uh such as the united states but also 07:38 the uk 07:40 money is not an issue finances that are 07:42 constrained households and firms are 07:44 currency issuers they are financially 07:46 constrained 07:47 the government currency users i'm sorry 07:50 while the government is the currency 07:51 issuer and therefore it's not 07:53 financially constrained 07:54 as randy explained government spends 07:56 money into existence 07:58 uh and that amounts to changing numbers 08:00 on a computer 08:01 in the kind of electronic monetary 08:03 system that we have 08:04 today so um for 08:08 countries with their own sovereign 08:09 currency finance is not an issue 08:12 what is what is at issue here is whether 08:15 they have the real resources 08:17 they need to um implement such programs 08:20 because 08:21 uh to green the economy of course we 08:23 need to 08:25 have more wind turbines and more solar 08:28 panels and we need workers 08:29 to build them and then we need workers 08:31 to install them and then we need to 08:33 uh reform our electric greed and then we 08:35 need to reform our 08:36 transportation system so we need a lot 08:38 of resources for that and that is that 08:40 includes 08:41 human resources such as workers but also 08:44 others 08:44 so the question from the mmt perspective 08:47 this is the important question 08:48 do we have the resources and do we have 08:51 the technological know-how 08:52 to implement these programs and if we 08:56 don't 08:56 money is not going to be very helpful 08:59 and if we do 09:00 then finance is not really a constraint 09:03 for the government 09:04 so um this is the mmt 09:08 approach to any kind of government 09:10 spending right 09:11 and and in this case we're applying that 09:14 to 09:15 uh the green new deal so we're asking 09:18 the question of whether the green new 09:19 deal 09:21 is going to require uh more resources 09:23 than we can spare 09:25 right and if and if the answer is yes 09:27 then what can we do about it 09:29 okay do we need to raise taxes do we 09:31 need some other measures to do it 09:33 that's really the question so to answer 09:36 this question however 09:38 we can't just um say oh well you know 09:41 if if if we're going to spend so much 09:44 then it's going to be inflationary 09:46 um we need to do more careful study for 09:48 that and that's what we tried to do in 09:50 our paper with randy we tried to 09:52 estimate whether 09:53 the green new deal would actually 09:55 require more resources 09:57 than than we we can spare 10:00 and whether all of the green new deal 10:02 programs all of the components that i 10:04 mentioned at the beginning 10:05 whether they're all going to need 10:06 resources or whether some of them will 10:09 actually release resources to be used in 10:11 the others 10:12 and it seems abstract now when i talk 10:14 about it but i will 10:15 explain further when i get to the 10:18 individual programs 10:19 components of the green new deal and 10:21 hopefully it will be clearer 10:23 so the first component that i mentioned 10:25 was greening the economy 10:27 and of course greeting the economy is 10:29 going to use resources 10:30 and in our paper we um 10:34 we are using the amount of spending as a 10:36 proxy for resources 10:38 right so if we're going to be spending 10:40 more uh to 10:41 hire workers then we're using human 10:43 resources right so that's a use of 10:45 resources so 10:46 we're looking at the level of spending 10:48 as a proxy for resource use 10:49 it's not ideal but um it's it's what's 10:52 possible given that we're 10:54 going to talk about different kinds of 10:55 programs so there are different 10:58 estimates of how much it's going to cost 10:59 to completely green the economy 11:02 and we took we took the highest three 11:06 uh estimates and um we took an 11:09 average of that and then we just 11:11 subtracted how much we 11:13 currently spend on uh fossil fuels 11:16 right because if we're going to green 11:18 the economy that means we're no longer 11:19 going to 11:21 spend on fossil fuels we're no longer 11:23 going to invest in that sector 11:25 so that's going to free up some 11:28 resources 11:30 so for example if we're not going to 11:31 need workers to 11:33 dig up you know oil from the ground then 11:35 those workers will be available to build 11:37 wind turbines and install solar panels 11:40 and so on right 11:41 so that's just a simple example of that 11:43 so um 11:44 and that's why the fossil fuel 11:46 investment that we're currently engaging 11:48 in enters into the equation with the 11:50 negative sign because 11:52 uh yes on the one hand we're going to 11:54 need 5.6 11:55 of our gdp um per year for 10 years 11:58 that's how much we need to spend to 12:00 grind the economy 12:01 on the other hand we are releasing 0.65 12:04 percent of gdp worth of resources 12:06 because we're no longer investing in 12:08 fossil fuels so on net 12:10 the uh greening the economy costs about 12:13 five percent of 12:14 you know us gdp uh for 12:17 ten years so five percent every year for 12:20 ten years and that seems like a very 12:22 high number and if you just look at it 12:24 and if the economy is already close to 12:26 full employment you might say well then 12:28 this could be 12:29 inflationary for certain right and and 12:31 therefore even from the mmt perspective 12:34 it's unaffordable because it's 12:35 inflationary 12:36 however there are other components of 12:39 the green new deal such as the job 12:40 guarantee and medicare for all 12:42 which may actually be a source of 12:45 resources 12:46 not the use of resources so the job 12:49 guarantee is sort of in the middle as i 12:51 will explain 12:52 and medicare for all will actually 12:54 release resources as 12:55 i will explain when i get to that so 12:56 what is the job guarantee 12:58 uh very simply it's a federally funded 13:01 government program that says anyone who 13:04 wants a job 13:04 can get one the government pays for it 13:07 but 13:08 it's implemented at the local level 13:10 through local governments through 13:12 non-government organizations which are 13:14 on the ground and therefore they know 13:15 better what the community needs 13:17 now from the financial perspective of 13:19 course the job guarantee is a cost right 13:21 so if you just look at it as a financial 13:23 thing you say well it's going to cost 13:25 the government more right it's going to 13:27 have to pay workers their salaries their 13:29 benefits and so on 13:31 so we're going to as a society be 13:33 spending more on on 13:34 on this program and of course then these 13:36 workers 13:37 are going to buy food and other stuff 13:40 clothing right pay for housing and so on 13:42 so they're going to be 13:44 taking some resources right so from that 13:46 perspective it's going to use resources 13:49 but on the other hand we can employ some 13:52 of these job guarantee workers 13:54 in um greening projects such as 13:58 retrofitting houses for example right so 14:00 things that don't require necessarily 14:01 require a lot of skill 14:03 because the assumption is that the job 14:05 guarantee workers would be the ones who 14:06 don't have a lot of the skills 14:08 or at least they don't have the skills 14:09 that the private sector requires 14:11 so if we use half of the job guarantee 14:14 workers towards greening projects then 14:17 that means um you know we need 14:20 we're let's say if we're spending two 14:21 percent of gdp on the job guarantee 14:24 but then we're taking half of that back 14:26 into the 14:27 greening projects then the net cost of 14:29 the job guarantee will only be 14:31 one percent of gdp okay 14:34 all right now with medicare for all and 14:37 that's again 14:38 universal health care um in the united 14:40 states 14:41 we actually can release resources and 14:44 here is a chart of 14:45 how much different nations spend on 14:47 their health care 14:48 and um you know you might not be able to 14:51 see the labels but you don't even need 14:53 to 14:53 to know that this is the united states 14:55 right we are 14:56 spending a lot more than other developed 14:59 countries on healthcare 15:01 the next country that's you know closer 15:04 to us is switzerland and it's only 15:05 spending about 12 15:07 of his gdp on healthcare in case of the 15:09 u.s that number is 15:11 was 17 today's probably higher closer to 15:14 18 15:15 or and it's projected to uh keep 15:17 increasing at a pretty fast pace 15:19 so um if we were to 15:22 use if we were to have a universal 15:26 health care system we could actually 15:27 reduce our spending 15:29 right and a simple way to do this would 15:31 be to say well if we just take this to 15:33 the level that's 15:34 that other countries that have a 15:37 single-payer system have so some kind of 15:39 an average of european nations right 15:41 um so if we could lower it from say 17 15:44 to even 12 which is the switzerland 15:47 right 15:47 then we are re we are taking 15:51 five percent worth five percent of gdp 15:53 worth of spending out of the economy 15:55 right um so um 15:58 that then releases resources that can be 16:01 used in other 16:02 other projects but that's not the route 16:04 we went we just looked at some 16:06 other estimates of um how much 16:10 a medicare referral would save us and 16:12 the savings range from about 1.6 percent 16:14 of gdp to 4.5 percent of gdp depends on 16:18 the assumptions 16:19 but what is really driving the excessive 16:21 spending in the united states 16:23 on health care and what's driving it is 16:25 administrative costs 16:26 and prices so price of drugs and that's 16:30 very well known that in the united 16:31 states medications cost a lot more 16:34 than in other countries and that's 16:35 because we don't have a single payer 16:37 that can negotiate 16:39 with uh pharmaceutical companies even 16:41 medicare cannot negotiate with 16:43 pharmaceutical companies 16:44 to lower their prices which is of course 16:46 not the case in 16:48 european countries that have um 16:51 single-payer systems where the 16:52 government does negotiate with drug 16:54 companies and does reduce prices that 16:56 way 16:57 uh compensation of healthcare workers is 16:59 of course also higher in the united 17:01 states 17:01 um and you know here are some numbers if 17:04 you're interested and 17:06 it's from this study that i mentioned 17:08 here and you can find it in our paper 17:10 and the other thing that contributes to 17:12 higher costs in the united states 17:14 is administrative costs which is about 17:16 eight percent of total 17:18 health care spending versus one to three 17:20 percent in other countries 17:22 so we're spending a lot more on 17:23 administering our health care system 17:25 because 17:25 it's a very peculiar system with 17:27 different participants so 17:29 doctors offices have spent a lot on 17:32 billing right trying to get payments 17:33 from insurance companies trying to get 17:35 payments from the government 17:36 payments from patients to getting their 17:39 co-pays and 17:40 deductibles and all of those things um 17:44 and also you know on the on the uh uh 17:48 the private health insurance side right 17:50 all of that 17:51 adds costs because you know if insurance 17:54 companies are to make money then 17:56 you know well their income is someone's 17:58 spending and that's you know all of us 18:00 collectively spending 18:01 the income that then the insurance 18:03 companies are earning so if we take the 18:04 insurance companies out of the equation 18:06 of course that's then going to save us a 18:08 lot 18:09 as well now in 18:12 practical terms right so translating 18:15 this into resource use 18:17 uh how does this help with say greening 18:19 the economy how does this release 18:21 resources for greening the economy 18:23 well if you have admin workers who are 18:25 now 18:26 working administering the health care 18:28 system right 18:29 if we were to uh lower the spending on 18:33 administrative costs then we would be 18:36 um this workers would basically end up 18:38 losing their jobs right 18:40 um and so you know their income goes 18:42 down their spending goes down and so on 18:43 and so forth and 18:44 it has ripple effects throughout the 18:45 economy so 18:47 um but thinking about it from the 18:50 workers perspective if 18:51 if these workers are no longer employed 18:54 in the health insurance industry they 18:56 can now be employed 18:58 in um say administering the greener deal 19:01 right 19:01 or doing something else for greening the 19:03 economy for instance 19:05 so that's how a medicare for all or a 19:09 single-payer system would end up 19:10 releasing resources that 19:12 could be used in other parts you know 19:14 for other components of the green new 19:16 deal 19:17 so in other words not all of the 19:20 components of the green new deal 19:21 are going to enter the equation with a 19:23 plus sign some of them will 19:25 enter with a minus sign because they are 19:27 leading to a decrease of spending in the 19:29 economy not an increase 19:30 right so a program that is decreasing 19:32 spending in the economy is going to be 19:34 deflationary 19:35 not inflationary and when economies like 19:38 krugman 19:39 think about this from the financial 19:41 perspective of course financially the 19:42 government is going to be spending more 19:44 but it doesn't matter whether the 19:45 government is spending more what matters 19:47 is 19:47 the total level of spending right if the 19:50 government's spending more but the 19:51 private sector is spending less 19:52 then it need not be inflationary so here 19:56 is our summary table 19:58 so we budget five percent per year for 20:01 ten years for growing the economy 20:03 the job guarantee on net adds another 20:06 one percent 20:08 um medicare for all by 20:11 very conservative measures will save 20:13 about 3.7 percent 20:15 so it's going to lower spending to the 20:17 tune of 3.7 percent of gdp 20:20 we also have a provision for ending the 20:22 forever wars that the us has been 20:24 engaged in because 20:25 uh people like bernie sanders who's also 20:27 an advocate for the green new deal has 20:29 been 20:30 also advocating for um you know ending 20:32 the four-hour wars and so 20:34 have been the other advocates for the 20:35 green new deal and we 20:37 again conservatively project that that's 20:39 going to save us another one percent of 20:41 gdp 20:42 uh per year for the next 10 years so the 20:45 net resource cost then 20:46 comes out to about 1.3 of gdp which is 20:50 of course much less than the 5 20:51 that you look at and of course it's much 20:53 less than 20:54 you know the 93 trillion dollars that 20:57 the 20:58 conservatives think tank that i 20:59 mentioned was estimating that that's how 21:01 much it was going to cost 21:02 us over over 10 years all right 21:06 so um so this is the mmt approach to 21:10 uh the gr to estimating the 21:12 affordability of the growing new deal 21:14 of course uh tackling the climate change 21:17 is not the first time that 21:18 um humans have faced with an existential 21:21 crisis 21:22 we can think back to world war ii which 21:24 was uh also 21:25 crisis which we um you know which 21:28 required a lot of economic resources 21:31 right it wasn't uh you know it was also 21:33 an economic 21:34 um crisis so to speak that required 21:37 planning 21:38 and required mobilization of resources 21:41 um much more than what we need for the 21:44 green new deal and fighting the climate 21:46 change 21:46 actually so uh this is why we turn to 21:51 keynes 21:51 and his approach in how to pay for the 21:54 war a short pamphlet he wrote 21:57 explaining how we can pay for world war 21:59 ii 22:00 uh and pay for here really is not about 22:02 finance it's about resources as i will 22:05 explain 22:06 um and and his approach is very much 22:08 like the mmt approach 22:09 right so kent is basically saying that 22:11 planning for the war is not a financial 22:13 but a real resource problem 22:14 the question is how much output can we 22:17 produce how much of that we absolutely 22:19 have to devote to the 22:20 war effort whatever is left is what's 22:22 left for consumption 22:24 if we want to consume more than that we 22:26 can't right because that's 22:28 you know the the pie is limited it's 22:30 fixed so we go from the 22:31 age of uh plenty to the age of scarcity 22:34 and now we actually need to try to 22:36 ration this limited 22:38 uh economic pie to prevent inflation 22:41 because during the war more people are 22:44 employed 22:45 and uh incomes increase right so 22:48 the amount that the government is 22:49 spending right let's say 22:51 it's um you know we're producing 22:53 ammunition and the government is going 22:55 to buy it right 22:56 and and and people are employed in the 22:58 production process they are an income 23:00 but they cannot then turn and spend that 23:02 income on buying ammunition 23:03 right the government is going to buy 23:05 that and so that income is just left and 23:08 cannot find stuff to buy 23:09 and if everybody tries to spend their 23:11 income what's going to happen is that 23:13 we're going to simply see inflation and 23:15 in real terms people's standard of 23:17 living is not going to improve 23:19 they're going to spend their more of 23:22 their nominal income buying the same 23:24 amount of real stuff 23:25 because the real stuff is fixed so 23:27 keynes looks for solutions and he says 23:29 well we can use taxes
23:31 uh and you know we can tax away some of 23:34 that income to prevent inflation 23:36 but we cannot just rely on taxing the 23:38 rich because the rich 23:40 are not you know it's not going to be 23:42 sufficient it's not going to take out 23:43 sufficient amount of income from the 23:45 economy to prevent inflation 23:48 he says we can also try to rely on 23:49 people saving voluntarily 23:51 again not a great idea unless everybody 23:53 does it 23:54 and there is no guarantee that they will 23:56 do because if i save and you don't 23:58 and you spend the income that's still 24:00 going to be inflationary and of course 24:02 then the value of my savings is going to 24:04 decrease in real terms as well 24:07 prices go up workers demand higher wages 24:09 which then simply 24:10 play catch up with inflation and then 24:14 workers are no better off in real terms 24:16 so 24:17 what case proposed and what was you what 24:19 was implemented in the uk to some extent 24:21 was deferred compensation or force 24:24 saving so 24:25 tax away income but put some of it 24:29 well not put some of it but say that you 24:31 know some of it is just taxes you lose 24:33 it but some of it 24:34 you're going to get back with interest 24:36 after the war 24:38 right and so after the war you can 24:39 increase consumption 24:41 and in that case you actually also avoid 24:43 a post-war slump and i can't of course 24:45 go more in detail into any of this if 24:48 necessary if there are questions but i 24:49 don't want to get too much into 24:52 into that so um 24:55 so the deferred compensation approach is 24:57 something that we 24:58 also say could be applied if necessary 25:02 to 25:02 decline your deal um advocates of the 25:05 green new deal call 25:06 for increasing taxes on the rich 25:09 imposing taxes on financial transactions 25:12 offshore income corporate profits on 25:15 wealth and so on 25:16 and this may be very good in fighting 25:19 income inequality right and to the 25:21 extent that that's also goal of the 25:23 green new deal advocates then 25:25 sure we should implement them but we 25:27 should not make 25:28 uh greening the economy or implementing 25:31 universal healthcare conditional on 25:33 these taxes right 25:34 and these taxes are not going to be very 25:36 useful in withdrawing 25:38 income from the economy because the rich 25:41 are too rich 25:42 right and um you know even if you tax 25:45 them a lot they still have a lot of 25:47 wealth and a lot of income and they can 25:49 still 25:51 take a lot of the society's resources 25:53 right so if the goal is to reduce 25:55 resources 25:56 taxing the rich is not necessarily going 25:58 to 25:59 do the trick on the other hand if you 26:02 were to tax workers 26:04 it would be very effective in 26:05 withdrawing income because it would lead 26:08 to 26:09 lower consumption but of course that 26:11 would also not be fair 26:12 uh especially in the united states and 26:15 in many other developed countries 26:17 workers have not been doing very well in 26:19 the last few decades 26:20 productivity has gone up and worker 26:24 you know wages have not and the average 26:26 incomes have stagnated 26:27 and so on and so forth so um we 26:30 propose a payroll tax surcharge but but 26:33 we also 26:34 want to model it like keynes's deferred 26:36 compensation so take more from workers 26:38 today 26:39 to reduce consumption today if necessary 26:42 to fight inflation 26:43 and then in the future uh give workers 26:46 more 26:46 more of that back in the form of um 26:50 more generous retirement benefits okay 26:53 um 26:54 again this is all con this is all 26:57 conditional because it's not really 26:58 clear that 27:00 the economy cannot cannot take in more 27:03 spending 27:04 um before we get to a point of true 27:06 inflation and randy defined 27:08 between you know true inflation in his 27:10 presentation 27:11 um if we do get to true inflation then 27:14 we can use something like different 27:15 compensation but we also have other 27:17 methods that we use during world war 27:19 ii pretty successfully because inflation 27:22 rates were not too high 27:23 even though we the degree of 27:25 mobilization was enormous right 27:27 um during world war ii so if we were to 27:30 impose that payroll tax surcharge and we 27:32 have the numbers in the paper 27:34 then the net cost would actually be 27:36 negative so the green you deal with a 27:37 payroll tax or charge would actually be 27:40 deflationary not inflationary okay 27:43 um all right the one thing that i will 27:46 say and this goes back to the question 27:48 of potential gdp 27:49 before i finish is that the economy's 27:51 potential is not fixed 27:53 right and this graph here shows the 27:55 forecast for potential gdp the blue line 27:58 in january of 2007 so when the economy 28:01 was doing really well 28:02 the forecast was that the uh this is how 28:05 the 28:05 economy's trajectory this is what the 28:08 trajectory would be 28:09 right um and then when the economy 28:12 started not doing well because of the 28:13 financial crisis and the great recession 28:15 then 28:16 the forecast for the potential was 28:18 lowered up to the point where the green 28:20 line was 28:21 you know the forecast uh for 28:24 potential gdp uh as of january 2019 28:28 and of course as you can imagine it was 28:29 lowered again with 28:31 the covet pandemic you know the 28:34 potential 28:34 forecast for potential gdp was lowered 28:36 as well but the point is that if 28:39 if we had uh kept demand high in the 28:42 economy 28:43 in the aftermath of the financial crisis 28:45 and the economy had continued at this 28:47 path 28:48 this is where you know our potential gdp 28:50 would be today right so 28:52 higher than what our estimates for the 28:54 potential are 28:56 because of you know the economic 28:58 mismanagement which led to the decrease 29:01 in the potential 29:02 and there are other issues with 29:03 estimating you know potential gdp that i 29:06 don't want to go into 29:07 so just because you know spending 29:10 surpasses the economy's potential 29:12 doesn't 29:13 as as as as measured uh conventionally 29:17 doesn't necessarily mean that we're 29:19 going to see inflation we've had 29:21 many periods with um 29:25 with with our actual gdp going over 29:28 the potential gdp without seeing the 29:30 kind of inflation that 29:32 your the simple economic model predicts 29:34 that we're going to see 29:35 okay so in other words the economy's 29:37 potential to absorb spending 29:39 is not as um fixed and it's not as 29:42 limited as 29:43 as mainstream theory suggests and and 29:46 the you know estimates that uh 29:48 are based on this mainstream theory 29:49 suggests as well um 29:51 so um to summarize keynes believed 29:55 that his proposal for financing for the 29:57 war would snatch from the 29:59 uh exigency of the war positive social 30:01 improvements 30:02 and advance towards economic equality 30:04 greater than any which we have made in 30:06 recent times and to some extent he was 30:08 right 30:09 um in the united states at least we had 30:11 this economic boom after world war ii of 30:14 course 30:14 the golden age of u.s capitalism at 30:17 least by econom
30:18 you know based on economic indicators 30:20 there were many issues back then of 30:22 course 30:23 uh you know social justice issues and so 30:25 on um 30:26 now the green new deal promises a 30:28 similar outcome uh the benefits of 30:30 course go 30:31 far beyond the reversal of climate 30:33 change if we do it right 30:35 and i've as i said at the beginning i 30:39 showed some numbers but the numbers 30:40 aren't 30:41 what's important what's important is the 30:43 framework 30:44 which mmt helps us create for 30:47 understanding the affordability of 30:49 government programs such as the green 30:51 new deal 30:53 you know the numbers may be uncertain 30:55 but our methodology is solid and it's 30:57 much more useful for evaluating the 30:59 affordability of the green new deal than 31:00 the traditional approach of 31:02 just calculating financial costs and 31:04 adding them up or calculating how much 31:06 more the government is going to spend 31:08 and then how much more taxes need to go 31:09 up and so on 31:11 and so forth so i will um stop here 31:14 and see if there are 31:18 any questions and i can go back to the 31:20 uh powerpoint if need be 31:23 okay uh yeah thanks for that professor 31:26 that was really 31:26 insightful i think um 31:29 okay there's one question i can see here 31:31 but i'll just before that one i'll ask 31:33 a question actually lead into that um 31:37 the criticism i've done quite a lot um 31:40 particularly when 31:41 uh initially launched their 31:44 premium um 31:48 from both the right and sort of non-mmt 31:51 progressive 31:52 was that oh it's not just a full 31:55 investment program they're lumping in so 31:57 they call it like a socialist wishlist 32:10 rather than separating it out to get 32:12 different 32:14 constituencies on board for each of 32:15 those individual things 32:20 um well what i was trying to to explain 32:24 is that a comprehensive approach 32:25 is a better economic approach as well 32:28 because 32:29 um if you just implement say medicare 32:31 for all right universal health care 32:34 then um it can be deflationary right it 32:37 can 32:37 reduce spending from the economy um and 32:40 and 32:41 you know if and lower spending 32:44 means lower income for others right 32:46 because someone's spending 32:47 someone else's income and that means 32:49 fewer jobs and so on so 32:51 it could lead to unemployment so if 32:53 let's say you're cutting the 32:55 health insurance sector you're lowering 32:57 the amount we spend on administration 32:59 right all of these workers would find 33:01 themselves unemployed for instance 33:03 uh while if you're combining that with 33:04 the would say greening the economy on 33:07 the other hand which 33:08 is going to lead to um a demand on 33:11 resources right we need more workers for 33:13 that 33:14 for for to implement that in other words 33:17 it would be inflationary or it could be 33:18 inflationary potentially if implemented 33:21 on its own 33:21 right so one is inflationary one is 33:23 deflationary and the two together offset 33:26 offset each other to some extent right 33:28 so if we need five percent of gdp 33:30 to green the economy but we are 33:32 releasing 3.7 33:34 by implementing universal healthcare and 33:37 of course we're going 33:38 to end up with a better outcome than if 33:39 we just did them uh 33:41 separately but i would also say that the 33:44 new deal itself right 33:46 the reason why it's called a new deal is 33:47 because uh it's supposed to be 33:49 comprehensive right 33:50 it's supposed to be progressive and it's 33:53 supposed to 33:53 include a lot of the stuff that are on 33:55 the progressive wish list right 33:57 now whether politically it's more 34:00 appropriate to do them 34:01 separately or individually uh apparently 34:05 even the biden administration is 34:06 currently struggling with 34:07 with that whether to um you know 34:10 introduce an infrastructure bill 34:12 separately to get more support safe from 34:15 republicans and then 34:17 to introduce a separate bill for um 34:21 you know paid leave and you know 34:24 universal pre-k 34:25 education and so on and so forth so 34:27 they're also you know trying to separate 34:29 them 34:30 i would say from the mmt perspective at 34:32 least it's better to combine them 34:34 and um you know there are different 34:36 versions of the green new deal 34:38 some are more comprehensive others are 34:40 less comprehensive 34:42 um you know which one you choose i guess 34:45 also depends on your 34:47 on your ideology um but also you know on 34:50 the politics question 34:51 um i mean i can't really answer the ques 34:55 the politics question right which one 34:56 will be more appropriate or not 34:59 politically that 35:00 you know that i don't know like maybe 35:02 it's you better to do the infrastructure 35:04 plan separately and then worry about the 35:06 rest right 35:08 but economically speaking it's better to 35:10 do them together 35:11 i would say okay yeah 35:15 um so just following on from that um 35:18 as you say sort of the job guarantee is 35:21 part of that green new deal proposal 35:23 um ken is asked uh 35:27 i i assume he's referring to the job 35:28 guarantee component um 35:30 when people are given jobs as part of 35:32 that scheme 35:33 um he's saying do we pay manual workers 35:37 less than knowledge workers so i guess 35:39 is 35:40 is the job guarantee just you set it at 35:42 like a minimum wage standard and that's 35:44 no matter what sort of job you're 35:46 allocated it would be the same or it 35:47 does 35:48 are you going to have different um 35:50 different roles with different pay 35:52 and benefits within that system 35:57 well i think so we can distinguish 36:00 between 36:01 public employment right so people who 36:04 will be 36:04 who will become part of a more part of a 36:07 bigger government 36:08 because of a green new deal and then the 36:11 job guarantee 36:12 right so do we need more engineers sure 36:16 are they going to be part of the job 36:18 guarantee no right 36:19 so you're going to hire a lot of workers 36:22 to 36:22 implement your green new deal right the 36:25 job guarantee 36:26 is for workers who cannot um 36:29 oops people are saying they cannot hear 36:32 the questions 36:35 so i can re if people can hear me i can 36:39 repeat the question then 36:40 um so the question was do you pay 36:42 different 36:43 people yeah so the question was can you 36:47 can you 36:47 do you need to pay people with different 36:49 skills in the job guarantee or is the 36:52 job guarantee 36:53 just for minimum wage workers right 36:56 so my answer would be that the 37:00 green new deal would lead to a bigger 37:02 government 37:03 and which is not necessarily more 37:06 more workers employed by the government 37:08 by the public sector which is not a part 37:10 of the job guarantee 37:11 right so if you need engineers you need 37:12 to hire engineers 37:14 um you know and so on so 37:18 you're they're going to be hired by the 37:20 government not as a part of the job 37:21 guarantee but like the government hires 37:23 anybody else that it needs 37:25 right currently the workers who are 37:28 unable to find that kind of employment 37:30 or employment in the private sector 37:33 then can be employed in the in the job 37:35 guarantee so the job guarantees for 37:37 people who are unable to find public or 37:39 private employment right it's an 37:41 employer of last resort in minsky's 37:43 words 37:44 so if you can't find that other kind of 37:46 employment you're able to find 37:47 employment there now the uh job 37:51 guarantee proposal that we included in 37:53 our paper 37:54 is um modeled with a 15 37:58 an hour wage which would then become the 38:00 new minimum wage 38:04 i hope that answers the question uh yeah 38:07 yeah i think so 38:09 um okay there's another question here 38:11 from 38:12 uh eric um 38:15 it's quite a long one um it does the 38:17 green new deal 38:18 and mmt take into account uh planetary 38:22 boundaries 38:23 and to what extent uh does it if so um 38:26 and does it assume as mentioned by uh 38:29 professor ray 38:31 sustainable growth is uh 38:34 necessary um 38:38 so i sort of talked about the the 38:41 ecological economics perspective uh 38:44 there about the sort of d growth uh and 38:47 green growth 38:48 um does mmt sort of overlap with those 38:52 perspectives 38:52 or is there another approach to that 38:55 kind of degrowth 38:56 um perspective i think that's what he's 38:59 kind of asking there 39:00 i'm not sure 39:04 yeah um 39:07 shall i repeat the question in case 39:10 people didn't hear it so the question 39:11 was 39:12 if mmt and the green new deal takes into 39:15 account the ecological limits of 39:17 of planet earth basically right um 39:20 and then you know if it's compatible 39:22 with d growth and green growth and so on 39:25 uh i would say green new deal is green 39:27 growth right so the economy will be 39:29 growing but it will be doing so 39:31 you know it will be green growth because 39:33 we will be uh trying to green the 39:35 economy 39:36 now thinking about the ecological limits 39:38 uh fighting climate change right 39:40 is thinking about the ecological limits 39:42 of the 39:43 of the um uh of 39:46 of the planet right that we cannot 39:48 continue with our fossil fuel economy 39:51 the way we have done um and even now it 39:54 may be too late 39:55 right if we started tomorrow and did it 39:57 all for 39:58 over 10 years i don't even know if 40:00 that's not too late anymore because of 40:02 you know the processes that have already 40:04 been uh you know 40:06 set in place and whether that's going to 40:08 stop now 40:10 um the the option i think the 40:15 the option that we need to choose from 40:16 right it's not that we're gonna go 40:18 and leave like cavemen and women right 40:21 versus 40:22 the uh current economy so the 40:25 um given the options that we have um 40:29 a capitalist economy right which is not 40:31 going anywhere 40:32 anytime soon so working within that 40:34 framework 40:35 i i would say a green new deal is our 40:38 best best option for trying to 40:40 um prevent an ecological catastrophe 40:44 um and to the extent that it leads to a 40:46 more equitable distribution of income 40:49 then it's better for everyone and 40:51 probably for for the environment 40:53 too now you can also um i mean it's 40:58 so the green new deal can doesn't have 41:00 to be the only thing right so if you 41:02 don't want people to use plastics you 41:04 can regulate that right you can 41:06 try to get rid of plastics like some 41:07 countries have have done 41:09 so it's not a panacea if you want to do 41:12 other things 41:12 in addition to that you should right um 41:16 so that would be my answer 41:20 okay uh yeah i think we have time for 41:22 one last question there i'm leaning in 41:24 somebody's just saying my 41:25 mic was quite quiet i think um should be 41:27 better 41:28 um so one last question 41:32 is is education for trades 41:35 or academics included within the green 41:38 new deal i think i think it's because 41:39 often people will 41:40 think green new deal job guarantee it's 41:42 kind of shovel ready 41:44 um you know working on roads and that 41:46 kind of old school new deal kind of 41:48 jobs um do you see that green new deal 41:50 would 41:51 involve um other roles for uh yeah 41:54 academics and education within that as 42:00 well 42:03 so not within the job guarantee right so 42:06 again the job guarantee would be for 42:08 those who are unable to find regular 42:10 public 42:11 or private employment uh but of course i 42:13 mean we are going to need a lot of 42:15 experts like we did during the 42:17 the new deal and the new deal um 42:21 you know recruited a whole host of uh 42:24 academics and non-academics they also 42:26 recruited people who were 42:27 involved in planning world war one right 42:30 um 42:31 there was an understanding that the 42:33 economy can just be left on its own it 42:35 needs to be 42:36 planned um if you want to do things like 42:38 the new deal and later 42:40 world war ii right there was a lot of 42:41 planning that was happening 42:43 so to some extent we need to bring break 42:45 back planning 42:46 right we need to um sit down and 42:49 understand what we need to do 42:51 and and who whose expertise we need we 42:54 need for that of course we're going to 42:55 need scientists right climate scientists 42:57 uh people who work on renewable 42:59 energy and so on like i'm no of course 43:02 i'm no expert on that right 43:04 i know very little about that on the 43:06 other hand you also need economists 43:07 right to 43:08 to hopefully not mainstream um 43:11 to to plan for the economic side of 43:14 things so if 43:15 that was the question then sure we're 43:17 going to 43:18 we're going to need that uh was there 43:20 like a second part to the question that 43:22 i missed 43:26 um no i don't think so um yeah is it is 43:29 education for trades or academics 43:31 included 43:32 uh within the green new deal um 43:37 there's just one last question which i 43:38 can think we can just squeeze 43:40 in if you're okay um has inflation 43:44 picked up in america after the large 43:46 coveted spending packages 43:50 and do you think that will be a problem 43:53 i guess yeah 43:57 well that that's been uh there's been a 44:01 pretty big debate about that recently 44:03 most people 44:04 including mainstream economists are 44:06 saying no there's not going to be a lot 44:08 of inflation 44:09 people like larry summers and even and 44:12 oliver blanchard 44:13 were the two prominent uh economists who 44:16 were saying it could be inflationary 44:18 summers 44:18 i guess now he's saying there is an 44:20 equal chance that it will be 44:22 uh inflationary and it won't be 44:24 inflationary 44:25 and when they're talking about inflation 44:26 they're talking about you know runaway 44:28 inflation the kind that we saw in the 44:30 1970s the kind that the fed cannot 44:33 tackle 44:34 without and that they think the fed 44:36 should tackle and cannot tackle without 44:38 killing the economy like they did in the 44:40 1970s 44:41 um what they forget is that the economy 44:43 has changed we have this 44:45 you know more globalized economy where 44:47 we're able to tap into cheap labor in 44:49 china and that's what's really 44:50 in other countries and that's really 44:52 kept prices low uh 44:54 in the united states um and that um 44:57 you know we haven't really seen a lot of 45:00 inflation with 45:01 the coveted stimulus packages and the 45:04 inflation is 45:05 you know for for the um 45:08 if inflationary hawks inflation is 45:11 always around the corner even when that 45:13 prescription doesn't materialize it's 45:15 again around the corner or on the next 45:17 corner and so on but of course they 45:18 never tire of 45:19 predicting inflation hyperinflation um 45:23 so my view and 45:26 i i would say randy probably shares that 45:28 view too 45:29 is that we're not going to see a lot of 45:32 inflation 45:32 will it go above the two percent to say 45:35 three percent 45:36 probably it's possible um is three 45:38 percent and any 45:40 you know a cost for concern i would say 45:42 no and even the fed has signaled that 45:44 they're not going to take action if 45:45 inflation is 45:46 above their two percent target for a 45:48 limited amount of time they're going to 45:50 look at some kind of an average 45:51 inflation 45:52 and if you look at an average at the 45:53 average inflation rate since 1990 in the 45:56 united states it's been about 2.2 45:57 percent 45:58 right and it's not going to accelerate 46:00 anytime soon i don't think 46:04 okay all right excellent that brings us 46:07 up to time so 46:08 uh yeah i really appreciate you joining 46:10 us today professor niccion 47:42
参考：
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/17/coronavirus-deficit-american-economy
Coronavirus has destroyed the myth of the deficit | Yeva Nersisyan and L Randall Wray
Only a month ago, a stimulus bill of $2tn would have been unthinkable. Indignant deficit scolds would have asked how one planned to pay for it, and complained about burdening our grandchildren with debt and bankrupting our country. Bernie Sanders bent over backwards to explain how he was going to pay for a Green New Deal or Medicare for All. These programs don’t seem as expensive any more. Suddenly the government is planning “helicopter drops” of cash. Larry Kudlow, who relentlessly attacked the Obama stimulus during the global financial crisis, is touting the current stimulus as “the single largest Main Street assistance program in the history of the United States”.
Nobody is seriously asking how we are going to pay for this stimulus – and they shouldn’t. It took a global pandemic to explode the myth that federal government spending has to be “paid for”.
The Covid-19 crisis has clearly demonstrated what should have been obvious already: provisioning society – whether with food, disinfecting wipes, toilet paper or medical supplies – is not a financial issue. If we can’t produce enough masks, ventilators or food, finance will not help. Society’s capacity to produce real output is what limits its ability to provision itself. And this is precisely what the virus threatens, as workers stay home, supply chains break down and businesses shut their doors.
On the financial side, a sovereign government can always afford to buy what is for sale in its currency, as Modern Money Theorists have long explained. It cannot run out of money because it simply credits bank accounts when it spends. This is not a prescription, but merely a description of what actually happens. In the United States, Congress passes the budget, while the Treasury, in cooperation with its fiscal agent, the Federal Reserve, makes the necessary payments. This happens through the thick and thin of the business cycle, crisis or not. If the US government wants to buy more ventilators or masks, finance cannot be an impediment.
But what happens when ventilators and masks are not available for sale even as companies are operating 24/7? More money may not solve the problem, but the government still has a role to play. During the second world war, the US quickly became “the arsenal of democracy” by repurposing its productive capacity to meet the needs of the war. Through diligent planning “[l]ipstick cases became bomb cases, beer cans went to hand grenades, adding machines to automatic pistols, and vacuum cleaners to gas mask parts”. We were able to cut “production time for Liberty Ships down from 365 days to 92, 62, and, finally, to one day”. We can mobilize our resources once again to build temporary hospitals, and to ensure a sufficient supply of medical equipment and whatever else is necessary to overcome the crisis.
Buying into the deficit myth, for generations we have been living below our means – paralyzed by the belief that finance is the constraint. Prolonged periods of slack and jobless recoveries have disincentivized investment and hurt our productive capacity and labor productivity. Even in good times our economy leaves millions unemployed or underemployed and a significant amount of our capacity idle (before the epidemic, our factories were only operating at three-quarters of capacity). We have underinvested in public healthcare, education and infrastructure and imposed extreme limitations on social assistance programs. As of this writing, the administration still plans to go through with its plan to kick 700,000 Americans off the food stamps program to save a measly $4.2bn over five years. We have been living in “poverty in the midst of plenty”, as John Maynard Keynes aptly noted in the Great Depression.
Once this crisis passes, the deficit scolds will be back at it again, trying to put roadblocks in front of progressive policies. We will be told we can’t afford Medicare for All, Jobs for All, College for All or halting climate change. The centrists will try to get us back to “normal” – ie an economy that leaves so many behind.
It is imperative that we resist. What progressives need to push for is creating a different kind of economy through a Green New Deal. To do so, we need to distinguish between the myths and real constraints, understanding “that what is technically feasible is financially possible” for a sovereign government. Affording the Green New Deal is about real resources and technology, not about finance.
The original New Deal was also dogged by concerns about excessive government spending. The second world war eliminated that obstacle, unleashing extraordinary economic mobilization and decades of prosperity. Hopefully the coronavirus crisis will not be as destructive as the Great Depression, but if there is one thing it should destroy, it’s the myth of the deficit.
Yeva Nersisyan is associate professor of economics at Franklin and Marshall College
L Randall Wray, author of Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems; Why Minsky Matters: An Introduction to the Work of a Maverick Economist; and Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability, is senior scholar at the Levy Economics Institute and professor of economics at Bard College
コロナウイルスは赤字の神話を破壊した｜Yeva Nersisyan and L Randall Wray
5 ～ 7 分
ほんの1ヶ月前には、2兆円規模の景気刺激策は考えられなかったでしょう。憤慨した赤字派の人たちは、どうやってそれを支払う予定なのかと尋ね、孫に借金を背負わせたり、国を破綻させたりするのではないかと訴えたことでしょう。バーニー・サンダースは、「グリーン・ニューディール」や「メディケア・フォー・オール」の費用をどうやって捻出するかを説明するために、身をかがめて説明しました。これらのプログラムは、もはやそれほど高価なものとは思えません。突然、政府は現金の「ヘリコプター・ドロップ」を計画している。世界的な金融危機の際、オバマ大統領の景気刺激策を執拗に攻撃したラリー・クドロー氏は、今回の景気刺激策を「米国史上最大のメインストリート支援プログラム」と宣伝している。
誰もこの景気刺激策の費用をどうやって捻出するのか真剣に聞いていないし、そうすべきではない。連邦政府の支出は「支払い済み」でなければならないという神話を崩壊させるには、世界的なパンデミックが必要だった。
食糧、消毒液、トイレットペーパー、医療品など、社会に必要なものを供給することは、財政的な問題ではないということです。マスクも人工呼吸器も食料も十分に生産できなければ、金融は役に立たない。社会の実生産能力が、自給自足の能力を制限するのです。労働者が家に閉じこもり、サプライチェーンが寸断され、企業が営業を停止することで、ウイルスはまさにこれを脅かしているのです。
金融面では、近代貨幣理論家が長い間説明してきたように、主権政府は自国通貨で販売されているものを常に購入する余裕があります。お金を使うと銀行口座に入金されるだけなので、お金が足りなくなることはありません。これは処方箋ではなく、実際に起こっていることの説明に過ぎません。米国では、議会が予算を可決し、財務省がその財政代理人である連邦準備制度理事会と協力して必要な支払いを行います。これは、危機があろうとなかろうと、景気循環の中で行われています。米国政府が人工呼吸器やマスクを買い足したいと思えば、金融が障害になることはない。
しかし、企業が年中無休で操業しているにもかかわらず、人工呼吸器やマスクが売れないとしたらどうなるでしょうか。お金をかければ解決するというものではありませんが、政府には役割があります。第二次世界大戦中、アメリカは生産能力を戦争のニーズに合わせて再利用することで、瞬く間に「民主主義の武器庫」となった。綿密な計画により、「口紅ケースは爆弾ケースに、ビール缶は手榴弾に、加算機は自動拳銃に、掃除機はガスマスクの部品に」なったのです。私たちは、「リバティー・シップの製造期間を365日から92日、62日、そして最終的には1日に短縮する」ことができた。仮設病院の建設や、医療機器など危機を乗り越えるために必要なものを十分に供給するために、再び資源を投入することができるのです。
赤字神話を信じて、私たちは何世代にもわたって身の丈に合わない生活をしてきました。長期にわたる景気低迷と雇用のない回復期は、投資意欲を失わせ、生産能力と労働生産性を低下させてきました。景気が良いときでも、何百万人もの失業者や不完全雇用者がおり、かなりの生産能力が遊休状態になっています（疫病が流行する前、日本の工場は生産能力の4分の3しか稼働していませんでした）。また、公的な医療、教育、インフラへの投資が不足しており、社会保障制度にも極端な制限が課せられています。この記事を書いている時点でも、政権は5年間で42億ドルしか節約できないという理由で、70万人のアメリカ人をフードスタンププログラムから追い出す計画を実行する予定です。私たちは、ジョン・メイナード・ケインズが大恐慌の際に適切に指摘したように、「豊かさの中の貧困」の中で生きてきました。
この危機が過ぎ去れば、財政赤字を嘆く人々が再びやってきて、進歩的な政策の前に障害物を設置しようとするでしょう。万人のためのメディケア、万人のための雇用、万人のための大学、気候変動を止める余裕はないと言われるでしょう。中道派は、私たちを「普通」に戻そうとするでしょう。つまり、多くの人を置き去りにする経済です。
私たちはこれに抵抗しなければなりません。進歩的な人々が推進すべきことは、グリーン・ニューディールを通じて、異なる種類の経済を創造することです。そのためには、神話と現実の制約を区別し、主権政府にとって「技術的に実現可能なことは財政的にも可能である」ことを理解する必要があります。グリーンニューディールを実現するには、金融ではなく、現実の資源と技術が必要です。
当初のニューディールは、政府の過剰支出を懸念していました。しかし、第二次世界大戦によってその懸念は払拭され、驚異的な経済力が発揮され、何十年にもわたる繁栄がもたらされました。コロナウイルス危機が大恐慌のような破壊的なものにならないことを祈りますが、破壊すべきものがあるとすれば、それは赤字の神話です。
Yeva Nersisyan氏は、フランクル大学の経済学准教授です。
www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。
☆
9-445
戦費調速論
刺激を受けて提起された多様な批判のうちには、幾つかの見るべき提案があった。本稿は改訂された版であるが
そのような諸提案は利用されて、内容面で豊かなものになっている。最初の草稿においては、私の主要な関心は財政
運営技術にあった。そうして、その技術によって道が開かれることになるはずの、社会的公正の十分な増大の確保に
ついては、十分意を用いようとはしなかった。したがって本稿では、私は戦争という緊急事態に際して、積極的な社会
改革を描き出すように努めたのである。ここで提案される完全な計画は、現金で支払われる包括的な家族手当てや、
労働者階級の管理を受けた労働者階級の富の蓄積、生活必需品の低廉な配給、戦後の資本課徴金(あるい は資本課
税)を含むものであって、経済的平等化に向かって、最近では最大級の前進を実現することだろう。この点について
は、どのような逆説も存在しないといえる。戦争時に要求される犠牲も、もっとも余裕のない人々に対しては寛大に一
扱うように、従来にも増して差し迫った注意が必要である。
このような類いの計画は、代替案と比較することなしには、正当に評価することができない。しかし、今までのと
ころわれわれは、どのような代替案があるのか、何も知らない。大蔵大臣は最近、下院に対して、生計費補助によっ
治 て賃金の上昇を抑止すべく努めている旨を説明した。包括的な計画の一構成要素としては、これは賢明な措置である
し、本書の中でも同様の措置の採用を勧告している。時間かせぎのための間に合わせの措置としては、賢明なやり方
である。しかし、それだけをとってみれば、それは解決策に反している。通貨の供給量を増加させている場合、それ
は、人々のポケットにある購入能力(spending power)と、そのうち消費のために支出しうる部分との間の 均衛に
2.
到達するという問題を、ますます難しいものとするのである。
大蔵大臣は、この結論に賛意を表わしている。したがって私としては、大臣が彼の政策全体を首尾一貫したものに
グローバル Web アイコン
返信削除アイカズ・コスタニャン - Wikipedia
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/アイカズ・コスタ...
1897年（または翌年 [3] ）、ロシア帝国 チフリス県 （ロシア語版） チフリスの貧しいアルメニア人の [4] 馬具職人の家庭に生まれた [2]。1905年にチフリスの ネルシシアン学校 （英語版） に入学し、1916年に卒業 [2]。
出生地: ロシア帝国チフリス県（ロシア語版）チフリ …
没年月日: 1938年2月13日
死没地: ソビエト連邦, ロシア・ソビエト連邦社会主義 …
生年月日: 1897年（または1898年）
グローバル Web アイコン
アルメニア・フィルハーモニー管弦楽団 - Wikipedia
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/アルメニア...
アルメニア ・フィルハーモニー管弦楽団（アルメニア語: Հայաստանի պետական ֆիլհարմոնիկ նվագախումբ ... 1986年 - 1987年 マルティン・ネルシシアン 1987年 - 1989年 ヴァハン・ラピアン 1989年 - 1998年 ロリス・チェクナヴォ ...
概要 · 演奏 · 歴代指揮者 · 著名な客演指揮者 · ディスコグラフィー · 外部リンク
グローバル Web アイコン
ハチャトゥル・アボヴャン - Wikipedia
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ハチャトゥル・ア...
トビリシにあるネルシシアン学校でアルメニア学や言語などを学んだ。 同校卒業後に学識を深めるため イタリア の ヴェネツィア に移るがほどなくアルメニアに帰国した。
略歴 · 著作 · 脚注 · 外部リンク
グローバル Web アイコン
イジェヴァン - Wikipedia
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/イジェヴァン
国 アルメニア 地方 タヴシュ地方 市制 1970年-市長 ヴァルジャン・ネルシシャン [1] 面積• 合計 20,500人 等時帯 UTC+4 (アルメニア時間) ウェブサイト イジェヴァンの情報ポータル 人口の情報源 …
歴史 · 地理 · 経済 · 教育と文化 · 観光 · スポーツ
グローバル Web アイコン
キリスト教／ロシア正教会モスクワ総主教キリル聖下が ...
https://christianity.charapedia.org/20190403d2
2019/08/03 · アルメニア使徒教会からは、ロシア・新ナヒチェヴァン教区長イェズラス・ネルシシャン大主教座下（His Eminence Archbishop Yezras Nersisyan, Primate of the Armenian Diocese of Russia and New Nakhichevan）が同行したようです。
グローバル Web アイコン
アルメニア・フィルハーモニー管弦楽団とは - goo Wikipedia ...
https://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/wiki/アルメニア...
アルメニア ・フィルハーモニー管弦楽団（アルメニア語: Հայաստանի պետական ֆիլհարմոնիկ նվագախումբ ... 1986年 - 1987年 マルティン・ネルシシアン 1987年 - 1989年 ヴァハン・ラピアン 1989年 - 1998年 ロリス・チェクナヴォ ...