2021/07/17 ケルトン Temporary Inflation a Sign of Growing Pains: Economist Kelton
https://love-and-theft-2014.blogspot.com/2021/07/20210717-temporary-inflation-sign-of.html @"the growing pains of an economy"
成長痛という言葉が一部反感を生んだようだが、
ケルトンの論旨は長期的視点が重要だということだ。70年代インフレを一般化(主流派はインフレを個別要因で見ない)することでケインズが失墜したが同じ過ちを犯してはならない。
参考：
https://twitter.com/stephaniekelton/status/1417170027124494347?s=21
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1417157425241731078?s=21
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2021/07/17 Temporary Inflation a Sign of Growing Pains: Economist Kelton
kelton：
when i look at the data
what i think mostly this looks like are
the growing pains of an economy that's
emerging from a pandemic and reopening
and we see a lot of idiosyncratic
pressures and supply chain issues and
um backlogs and that sort of stuff so i
think by
and large what it looks like to me is
the kind of thing that
frankly we anticipated right coming out
of the pandemic and
so it's pretty hard for me to see the
kinds of things that i think you would
need to be in place in order to get the
sort of entrenched inflation that begins
to feed on itself
so i i guess i situate myself pretty
squarely in the
uh in the transitory camp.C：
yeah and
there's certainly
an element of the inflationary pressures
we have that were certainly predictable
uh given uh just how volatile the
economic crisis was the covet crisis and
how volatile things have been coming out
of it here but as we sort of get to the
other side
of this economic cycle there's a lot of
debate right now about
additional fiscal spending additional
fiscal stimulus whatever you want to
call it
is it just throwing another log on the
fire of an economy that's already hot or
is this
something that maybe has a place here in
our policy and in the way we spend
government money?
kelton：
well i think it's the latter i think
that most of what we're hearing about
right now right we're hearing about
maybe uh three and a half
trillion dollar um human infrastructure
bill
coming maybe alongside the more
traditional
so-called hard infrastructure and i
don't think the administration is
thinking of this
as as stimulus i'm certainly not
thinking of this as stimulus i'm
thinking of this
more the way i think they are which is
you know doing
things that will strengthen some of the
uh fragility that's been baked into our
system by
you know long-standing uh policy
decisions
trying to redress uh some things fix
some of the deficits
in the real economy and lay a foundation
for a really sustainable and inclusive
recovery so i think
they're looking at this as an
opportunity to strengthen the social
safety net make investments
in things like education and health care
just places where we have underinvested
for decades.
kelton：
データを見ると、ほとんどの場合、パンデミックから抜け出して再開した経済の成長痛のように見えますし、多くの特異な圧力やサプライチェーンの問題、UMバックログなどが見られます。ですから、私にとっては、パンデミックの直後に予想していたようなことが起きています。ですから、定着したインフレを起こすために必要なものを見出すのはかなり難しいと思います。
C：
経済危機がいかに不安定であったか、そしてそれからいかに不安定になったかを考えれば、現在のインフレ圧力は確かに予測可能な要素ではありますが、この経済サイクルの反対側に行くにつれて、追加の財政支出、追加の財政刺激、どのように呼んでもいいのですが、これはすでに熱くなっている経済の火に新たな薪を投げ入れるだけなのか、それとも我々の政策や政府のお金の使い方の中で、このようなものが必要なのでしょうか？
ケルトン：
今、私たちが耳にしているほとんどの話は、3兆5000億ドル規模のヒューマンインフラ法案が、従来のいわゆるハードインフラと一緒に提出されるというものです。私は、政権がこれを景気刺激策として考えているとは思いません。私が考えているのは、彼らが考えているように、長年の政策決定によって私たちのシステムに組み込まれた脆弱性を強化するようなことです。 つまり、社会的セーフティーネットを強化し、教育や医療など、何十年にもわたって投資が行われてこなかった場所に投資する機会だと考えているのです。
www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。
C：
and we've heard that message
of course from the biden administration
and
some of his allies in congress we've
also heard this idea here that
sort of inequalities need to be
addressed particularly inequalities that
were sort of laid bare based on the
policies coming out of the last big
financial crisis
in 2008 2009 2010 here
what type of steps do you think that the
biden administration and hopefully
congress can sort of take
so that we don't repeat some of those
same mistakes.
kelton：
well i think that what
we're hearing articulated from the
administration
right is that the goal is to make
investments
at the bottom that grow from the middle
out so instead of
you know this sort of top-down
trickle-down sort of
uh you know policy prescription that
we've tried again
and again uh and and watched fail that
this time is different that this time we
want to see the government making
investments in things like early
childhood education
and the caring economy um you know
broadening the scope for infrastructure
investment
college education elder care and and the
rest of it so i think
you know we're looking at the potential
for millions and millions of good
paying jobs many of them for people in
fact most of them for people
with um little if any college education
so this really is an opportunity
to you know provide a good
solid foundation for a recovery that
aims squarely
at those at the bottom in the middle of
of the
economic income distribution so
professor you mentioned.
C：
the sort of
top-down nature of economic policy that
has been basically the dogma now
for several decades a lot of people have
bought into it
on both sides of the political spectrum
there's an argument to be made
that there has been a spate of
prosperity in this country that i guess
can be attributed
to that top-down policy is there a sense
here that the boom bust cycles we've
been through
over those last few decades since that
top-down policy
became the sort of dogma that that is a
contributor to it or is there something
else here
that maybe we should be looking at.
kelton：
well
i think there's something else i think
you know the
the reality is that we've got a a lot of
studies now and some pretty big ones
that have been done
looking at the longer term effects
of the supply-side policies and they
really have been a failure
these have not been successful policies
and they've been tried decades upon
decades.
C：
もちろん、バイデン政権や彼の同盟者である議会からもそのようなメッセージが聞こえてきます。また、不平等に対処する必要があるという考えも聞こえてきます。特に、2008年、2009年、2010年の前回の大規模な金融危機の際に出された政策に基づいて、むき出しになった不平等に対処する必要があると思います。
ケルトン：
政権から明確に示されているのは、下層部に投資して中層部から成長させることが目標だということだと思います。つまり、トップダウンのトリクルダウンのような政策の処方箋ではなく、下層部に投資して中層部から成長させるということです。 これまで何度も試みては失敗してきたトップダウンのトリクルダウン的な政策の処方箋ではなく、今回は違っていて、幼児教育や思いやりのある経済などへの投資を政府が行うことを望んでいるのです。私たちは、何百万人もの高給取りの雇用の可能性に目を向けています。その多くは、実際にはほとんど大学教育を受けていない人たちですから、これは、経済的所得分布の下層部と中層部の人々に真正面から狙いを定めた復興のための、しっかりとした基盤を提供する機会なのです。
C：
この数十年間、基本的にドグマとなってきたトップダウン式の経済政策。多くの人々が政治的にも社会的にもそれを信じてきました。この国の一連の繁栄は、おそらくトップダウン式の政策に起因しているという議論がありますが、トップダウン式の政策が一種のドグマとなって以来、この数十年間に経験してきた好況と不況のサイクルは、その一因となっているのでしょうか、それとも何か他の要因に目を向けるべきなのでしょうか。
ケルトン：
現実には、供給側の政策の長期的な影響について、多くの研究や大規模な研究が行われていますが、これらは本当に失敗していますし、成功した政策ではありません。
C：
and of course this is a debate and kind
of a generational debate here that
you yourself are largely credited at
least with sort of pulling out of the
wonky shadows academia and into
the public discourse of course with your
book the deficit myth it's a
conversation we're having.
but you're
actually now starting to see as you just
alluded to
some real implementation of some of
these ideas or at least an attempt to
are you surprised by that are you
surprised that we actually have folks in
washington
that are willing to actually experiment
with some of those ideas?
kelton：
no i mean i think that we're we are in
an experimental economy and we started
really in earnest with the experiments
after the global financial crisis
when you know mostly central banks got
very creative and we saw a lot of
experiments taking place there but after
this
crisis we really saw fiscal policy
engage in a way that it didn't after the
financial crisis and so we have been
experimenting we've done things with
payroll protection programs and expanded
unemployment compensation
and direct payments going out not once
not twice but three times
so a whole range of of bolder
experiments and i think we're just
uh looking at an administration that has
the sense that what they've been doing
has been working
and if you figure out that you've done
something that works you want to keep
doing it and do more of it
and that's what i think we're seeing and
and so i i'm encouraged by it.
C：
encouraged by it and of course we've
seen obviously a lot of this is an
outgrowth of the pandemic just the
the need and the necessity to actually
try some of these things
that maybe wouldn't have existed had the
pandemic not hit
when we talk about the fed and its
experimentation because it has
effectively
shifted tone at least and to a certain
extent practice
in the way that it approaches monetary
policy do you view that as lasting i
mean powell's term is going to be up
soon there obviously
could potentially be someone new there.
kelton：
we know that not every
governor on the fed agrees with some of
this shift here
do you think that we could maybe revert
back to some of the policies of old
which are still relatively entrenched in
a lot of economic circles
you know i suppose anything's possible
but at this point i think
the reality is that we have a fed
chairman
who has been very candid about the
importance of tight labor markets he has
said time and time again that
the the best thing the federal reserve
can do
for the working people of this country
is
to you know support the labor market to
allow unemployment
to move lower to get the labor market to
run hot and when
chairman powell says that he's laser
focused
on restoring um economic opportunity for
those who are looking for work and still
haven't found it
i think we ought to take him at his word
and i think that it's going to be pretty
difficult
for a future fed chairperson to
um in a sense reverse that policy and
say that we're going to in some sense
demote the importance of full employment.
C：
もちろん、これは議論であり、ある種の世代間の議論でもあります。少なくとも、あなた自身が、あなたの著書「赤字神話」によって、学術界の奇妙な影から公の場に引きずり出したという点で、大きく評価されています。
しかし、今、あなたが言及したように、これらのアイデアのいくつかが実際に実行されたり、少なくとも試みられたりするのを目にし始めていますが、あなたはそれに驚きましたか？
Kelton：
世界的な金融危機の後、実験が本格化しました。中央銀行が非常に創造的になり、多くの実験が行われましたが、今回の金融危機では、金融危機後には見られなかった方法で財政政策が行われました。私たちは、これまでやってきたことがうまくいっているという感覚を持った政権に注目しているのだと思います。
C：
もちろん、多くはパンデミックの結果であることは明らかですが、パンデミックが起きていなければ存在しなかったであろうことを、実際に試してみる必要性と必要性を感じています。
ケルトン：
FRBのすべての総裁がこの変化に同意しているわけではないことは承知していますが、多くの経済界でいまだに比較的定着している昔の政策に戻る可能性はあると思いますか？ 何でもありだと思いますが、現時点では、現実には、逼迫した労働市場の重要性について非常に率直な発言をしているFRB議長がいます。パウエル議長が、仕事を探しているのに見つからない人たちに経済的な機会を回復させることに焦点を当てていると言うなら、私たちは彼の言葉を信じるべきだと思いますし、将来のFRB議長がある意味でこの方針を覆して、完全雇用の重要性をある意味で後退させると言うのはかなり難しいと思います。
C：
one of the criticisms that jerome powell
faced this week before congress
one of the criticisms lobbied at the
biden administration one of the
criticisms also lobbied
at you and some of the other economic
thinkers who have embraced mmt is this
idea
of government overreach that once we go
down this path
it provides or it gives the government a
certain amount of control
and a certain amount of influence that a
lot of folks don't think the government
should have.
kelton：
well i a lot of folks want the policies
that are being put forward by this
administration they are
overwhelmingly popular and they're
popular on a bipartisan basis
right so it isn't mmt doesn't
uh give congress any new powers or
authorities they already have the power
of the purse they already have the
ability to write and pass legislation
as bold as they might choose to do the
the reality is that for too many years
i believe congress hasn't really taken
advantage
of the fiscal space that's been
available that's been damaging
to all of us right bad policy harms all
of us so we end up with an economy that
underperforms
we end up with fewer jobs than we
otherwise could have had with less
prosperity so
i think to the extent that congress is
uh waking up
to a new way of thinking about the way
it approaches the budgeting process and
the use of fiscal policy
um to help support the economy is
is going to end up being a pretty good
thing for
most everyone in this country.
C：
今週、ジェローム・パウエルが議会で直面した批判の一つは、バイデン政権に働きかけた批判であり、また、あなたやmmtを受け入れた他の経済思想家たちに働きかけた批判でもあります。
Kelton：
多くの人々は今の政権が打ち出している政策を望んでいます 圧倒的に人気があり、超党派で支持されています だから、mmtは議会に新たな権限や権力を与えるものではありません 彼らは既に財布の権限を持っています 彼らは大胆に法案を書いて通過させる能力を持っています 現実には、あまりにも長い間、議会は財政的余裕を利用してこなかったと思います。だからこそ、議会が予算編成プロセスへのアプローチや経済を支えるための財政政策ウムの利用についての新しい考え方に目覚めることは、この国のほとんどの人にとってかなり良いことだと思います。
＿＿
ケルトン：
私がデータを見ると、ほとんどこれがどのように見えるかは、パンデミックと再開から生じている経済の成長痛であり、多くの特異な圧力とサプライチェーンの問題とええとのバックログとそのようなものが見られるので、私は思う概して、私には、パンデミックからすぐに出てくると率直に予想していたようなものであるため、それ自体を養い始める一種の定着したインフレを得るので、私は一時的なキャンプのええと、かなり真っ直ぐに自分自身を位置づけていると思います。C：
ええ、確かに私たちが持っているインフレ圧力の要素は確かに予測可能でした。経済危機が切望された危機であり、ここからどれほど不安定なものが出てきたかを考えると、確かに予測可能でした。この景気循環の中で、現在、追加の財政支出について多くの議論があります。あなたが言いたいことは何でも、それはすでに暑い経済の火に別のログを投げるだけですか、これはおそらくここに場所があるものですか？私たちの政策と私たちが政府のお金を使う方法で？
ケルトン：
まあ、後者だと思います。私たちが今聞いていることのほとんどは、おそらく、より伝統的ないわゆるハードインフラストラクチャと一緒に来る、おそらく3.5兆ドルの人的インフラストラクチャの請求について聞いていると思います。政権がこれを刺激として考えているとは思わない私は確かにこれを刺激として考えていない私はこれを私が思うようにもっと考えているそれは、実体経済の赤字のいくつかを修正し、本当に持続可能で包括的な回復の基盤を築くために、いくつかのことを是正しようとする長年の政策決定を知っていることによって、私たちのシステムに組み込まれています。これを社会的セーフティネットを強化する機会と見なし、教育やヘルスケアなどに投資するのは、私たちが何十年も過小投資してきた場所です。
C：
もちろん、バイデン政権と議会の同盟国の一部から、ある種の不平等、特に出てきた政策に基づいて明らかにされた不平等に対処する必要があるというこの考えを聞いたことがあります。2008年2009年2010年の最後の大規模な金融危機について、ここでは、同じ過ちを繰り返さないように、バイデン政権とできれば議会がどのような措置を取ることができると思いますか。
ケルトン：
行政の権利から明確に言われているのは、目標は真ん中から成長する底部への投資を行うことであると私は思うので、あなたの代わりにこの種のトップダウンのトリクルダウンのようなものを知っています私たちが何度も何度も試みて見た政策処方箋は、今回は、政府が幼児教育や思いやりのある経済などに投資することを望んでいるのとは異なり、インフラ投資の範囲を広げていることを知っています。大学教育の高齢者ケアとそれ以外のことは、私たちが知っていると思います何百万もの高給の仕事の可能性を再検討します。それらの多くは人々のためのものであり、実際にはほとんどが大学教育を受けていない人々のためのものです。経済所得分配の真ん中の一番下にいる人たちを真っ向から狙っているので、あなたがおっしゃった教授。
C：
基本的に数十年の間今や教義であった経済政策の一種のトップダウンの性質は、政治的スペクトルの両側で多くの人々がそれに買い込んでいます。そのトップダウン政策に起因すると私が推測するこの国は、そのトップダウン政策が貢献者である一種の教義になった後、過去数十年にわたって私たちが経験したブームバストサイクルがここにあるという感覚がありますそれに、またはおそらく私たちが見なければならない何かがここにありますか？
ケルトン：
さて、私はあなたが現実を知っていると思う他の何かがあると思います私たちは今たくさんの研究を持っていますそしていくつかのかなり大きな研究は供給側の政策の長期的な効果を見て行われていますそしてそれらは本当にされています失敗これらは成功した政策ではなく、何十年にもわたって試されてきました。
C：
そしてもちろん、これはここでの議論であり、世代間の議論のようなものです。少なくとも、あなた自身が、少なくとも不思議な影の学界から抜け出し、もちろんあなたの本で公の言説に参加したことで、それは私たちの会話です。再持っています。
しかし、実際には、これらのアイデアのいくつかの実際の実装をほのめかしたり、少なくとも実際に実験してくれる人々がワシントンにいることに驚いたりしようとしているので、実際に見始めています。それらのアイデアのいくつか？
ケルトン：
いいえ、私たちは実験的な経済状態にあると思います。世界的な金融危機の後、ほとんどの中央銀行が非常に創造的になり、そこで多くの実験が行われていることを知っていたので、実験を本格的に開始しました。この危機は、金融危機後とは違った形で財政政策が行われているのを実際に見たので、私たちは、給与保護プログラムを使って実験を行い、失業補償と直接支払いを1回ではなく3回行ってきました。大胆な実験の全範囲で、私たちは彼らがやってきたことがうまくいっているという感覚を持っている政権を見ているだけだと思います、そしてあなたがあなたが望む何かをやったことがわかったらそれを続けて、それをもっとやる、そしてそれ」s私たちが見ていると思うので、私はそれによって励まされます。
C：
それによって励まされ、もちろん、これの多くはパンデミックの結果であり、話をしたときにパンデミックが発生しなかった場合には存在しなかったであろうこれらのことのいくつかを実際に試す必要性と必要性だけです。連邦準備制度とその実験については、少なくとも効果的にトーンをシフトし、金融政策に近づく方法である程度の慣行を行っているため、パウエルの任期がまもなく終了することを意味すると思いますか？明らかに誰かがいる可能性がありますそこに新しい。
ケルトン：
連邦準備制度理事会のすべての知事がここでこのシフトのいくつかに同意するわけではないことを私たちは知っていますあなたは私が何かが可能だと思う多くの経済界にまだ比較的定着している古い政策のいくつかに戻ることができると思いますかこの時点で、私たちには、連邦準備制度がこの国の労働者のためにできる最善のことを何度も何度も言っている厳しい労働市場の重要性について非常に率直な連邦準備制度理事会の議長がいると思います。失業率を下げて労働市場を熱くすることを可能にするために労働市場を支援することを知っていますか、そしてパウエル議長が仕事を探しているがまだ持っていない人々のために経済的機会を回復することに焦点を当てていると言ったとき私たちは彼の言葉を受け入れるべきだと思います。将来のFRBの議長が、ある意味でその方針を覆し、ある意味で重要性を下げると言うのはかなり難しいだろうと思います。完全雇用の。
C：
今週、議会の前にジェローム・パウエルが直面した批判の1つは、ビデン政権でロビー活動を行った批判の1つです。この道をたどると、それが提供するか、政府にある程度の統制と影響力を与え、多くの人々は政府が持つべきだとは思わないでしょう。
ケルトン：
多くの人々は、この政権によって提唱されている政策を望んでいます。彼らは圧倒的に人気があり、超党派ベースで人気があるので、議会にすでに持っている新しい権限や権限を与えることはありません。彼らが現実を選択するかもしれないのと同じくらい大胆な立法を書いて通過させる能力をすでに持っている財布の力は、議会が利用可能な財政スペースを実際に利用していないと私は信じています」私たち全員に損害を与えている正しい悪い政策は私たち全員に害を及ぼすので、私たちは経済を下回り、他の方法では繁栄がなかった場合よりも仕事が少なくなるので、議会が目覚めている程度だと思いますそれが予算編成プロセスにアプローチする方法についての新しい考え方と、経済を支援するための財政政策の使用は、この国のほとんどすべての人にとってかなり良いことになるでしょう。
ーー
ーー
kelton：
00:00
when i look at the data
00:03
what i think mostly this looks like are
00:06
the growing pains of an economy that's
00:08
emerging from a pandemic and reopening
00:11
and we see a lot of idiosyncratic
00:15
pressures and supply chain issues and
00:18
um backlogs and that sort of stuff so i
00:20
think by
00:21
and large what it looks like to me is
00:24
the kind of thing that
00:25
frankly we anticipated right coming out
00:27
of the pandemic and
00:29
so it's pretty hard for me to see the
00:32
kinds of things that i think you would
00:34
need to be in place in order to get the
00:36
sort of entrenched inflation that begins
00:38
to feed on itself
00:40
so i i guess i situate myself pretty
00:43
squarely in the
00:44
uh in the transitory camp.
C：
yeah and
00:46
there's certainly
00:47
an element of the inflationary pressures
00:49
we have that were certainly predictable
00:51
uh given uh just how volatile the
00:53
economic crisis was the covet crisis and
00:55
how volatile things have been coming out
00:57
of it here but as we sort of get to the
00:59
other side
00:59
of this economic cycle there's a lot of
01:02
debate right now about
01:04
additional fiscal spending additional
01:06
fiscal stimulus whatever you want to
01:07
call it
01:08
is it just throwing another log on the
01:09
fire of an economy that's already hot or
01:12
is this
01:12
something that maybe has a place here in
01:15
our policy and in the way we spend
01:17
government money?
kelton：
01:18
well i think it's the latter i think
01:19
that most of what we're hearing about
01:22
right now right we're hearing about
01:24
maybe uh three and a half
01:25
trillion dollar um human infrastructure
01:28
bill
01:29
coming maybe alongside the more
01:31
traditional
01:32
so-called hard infrastructure and i
01:34
don't think the administration is
01:36
thinking of this
01:37
as as stimulus i'm certainly not
01:39
thinking of this as stimulus i'm
01:41
thinking of this
01:42
more the way i think they are which is
01:44
you know doing
01:45
things that will strengthen some of the
01:49
uh fragility that's been baked into our
01:51
system by
01:52
you know long-standing uh policy
01:54
decisions
01:55
trying to redress uh some things fix
01:58
some of the deficits
01:59
in the real economy and lay a foundation
02:02
for a really sustainable and inclusive
02:06
recovery so i think
02:07
they're looking at this as an
02:08
opportunity to strengthen the social
02:10
safety net make investments
02:12
in things like education and health care
02:14
just places where we have underinvested
02:17
for decades.
C：
and we've heard that message
02:19
of course from the biden administration
02:21
and
02:21
some of his allies in congress we've
02:24
also heard this idea here that
02:25
sort of inequalities need to be
02:27
addressed particularly inequalities that
02:29
were sort of laid bare based on the
02:32
policies coming out of the last big
02:34
financial crisis
02:35
in 2008 2009 2010 here
02:38
what type of steps do you think that the
02:40
biden administration and hopefully
02:41
congress can sort of take
02:43
so that we don't repeat some of those
02:44
same mistakes.
kelton：
well i think that what
02:46
we're hearing articulated from the
02:48
administration
02:49
right is that the goal is to make
02:51
investments
02:53
at the bottom that grow from the middle
02:55
out so instead of
02:57
you know this sort of top-down
02:58
trickle-down sort of
03:00
uh you know policy prescription that
03:03
we've tried again
03:04
and again uh and and watched fail that
03:06
this time is different that this time we
03:09
want to see the government making
03:10
investments in things like early
03:12
childhood education
03:13
and the caring economy um you know
03:16
broadening the scope for infrastructure
03:19
investment
03:19
college education elder care and and the
03:22
rest of it so i think
03:24
you know we're looking at the potential
03:25
for millions and millions of good
03:28
paying jobs many of them for people in
03:30
fact most of them for people
03:32
with um little if any college education
03:35
so this really is an opportunity
03:37
to you know provide a good
03:40
solid foundation for a recovery that
03:42
aims squarely
03:43
at those at the bottom in the middle of
03:45
of the
03:46
economic income distribution so
03:48
professor you mentioned.
C：
the sort of
03:49
top-down nature of economic policy that
03:52
has been basically the dogma now
03:54
for several decades a lot of people have
03:56
bought into it
03:57
on both sides of the political spectrum
03:59
there's an argument to be made
04:00
that there has been a spate of
04:02
prosperity in this country that i guess
04:04
can be attributed
04:05
to that top-down policy is there a sense
04:08
here that the boom bust cycles we've
04:10
been through
04:11
over those last few decades since that
04:13
top-down policy
04:14
became the sort of dogma that that is a
04:17
contributor to it or is there something
04:18
else here
04:19
that maybe we should be looking at?
kelton：
well
04:21
i think there's something else i think
04:23
you know the
04:23
the reality is that we've got a a lot of
04:26
studies now and some pretty big ones
04:28
that have been done
04:29
looking at the longer term effects
04:32
of the supply-side policies and they
04:35
really have been a failure
04:36
these have not been successful policies
04:38
and they've been tried decades upon
04:40
decades.
C：
04:41
and of course this is a debate and kind
04:42
of a generational debate here that
04:44
you yourself are largely credited at
04:46
least with sort of pulling out of the
04:47
wonky shadows academia and into
04:49
the public discourse of course with your
04:51
book the deficit myth it's a
04:53
conversation we're having but you're
04:54
actually now starting to see as you just
04:56
alluded to
04:57
some real implementation of some of
04:58
these ideas or at least an attempt to
05:00
are you surprised by that are you
05:02
surprised that we actually have folks in
05:03
washington
05:04
that are willing to actually experiment
05:06
with some of those ideas?
kelton：
05:07
no i mean i think that we're we are in
05:09
an experimental economy and we started
05:12
really in earnest with the experiments
05:14
after the global financial crisis
05:16
when you know mostly central banks got
05:19
very creative and we saw a lot of
05:20
experiments taking place there but after
05:22
this
05:23
crisis we really saw fiscal policy
05:25
engage in a way that it didn't after the
05:27
financial crisis and so we have been
05:29
experimenting we've done things with
05:32
payroll protection programs and expanded
05:34
unemployment compensation
05:36
and direct payments going out not once
05:39
not twice but three times
05:40
so a whole range of of bolder
05:43
experiments and i think we're just
05:44
uh looking at an administration that has
05:47
the sense that what they've been doing
05:49
has been working
05:50
and if you figure out that you've done
05:52
something that works you want to keep
05:53
doing it and do more of it
05:55
and that's what i think we're seeing and
05:57
and so i i'm encouraged by it.
C：
05:59
encouraged by it and of course we've
06:01
seen obviously a lot of this is an
06:02
outgrowth of the pandemic just the
06:04
the need and the necessity to actually
06:06
try some of these things
06:07
that maybe wouldn't have existed had the
06:09
pandemic not hit
06:10
when we talk about the fed and its
06:12
experimentation because it has
06:14
effectively
06:15
shifted tone at least and to a certain
06:17
extent practice
06:18
in the way that it approaches monetary
06:20
policy do you view that as lasting i
06:22
mean powell's term is going to be up
06:23
soon there obviously
06:24
could potentially be someone new there？
kelton ：
06:26
we know that not every
06:28
governor on the fed agrees with some of
06:30
this shift here
06:31
do you think that we could maybe revert
06:33
back to some of the policies of old
06:34
which are still relatively entrenched in
06:37
a lot of economic circles
06:38
you know i suppose anything's possible
06:40
but at this point i think
06:42
the reality is that we have a fed
06:44
chairman
06:45
who has been very candid about the
06:48
importance of tight labor markets he has
06:50
said time and time again that
06:52
the the best thing the federal reserve
06:54
can do
06:55
for the working people of this country
06:57
is
06:58
to you know support the labor market to
07:01
allow unemployment
07:02
to move lower to get the labor market to
07:05
run hot and when
07:06
chairman powell says that he's laser
07:08
focused
07:09
on restoring um economic opportunity for
07:13
those who are looking for work and still
07:15
haven't found it
07:16
i think we ought to take him at his word
07:17
and i think that it's going to be pretty
07:19
difficult
07:20
for a future fed chairperson to
07:24
um in a sense reverse that policy and
07:27
say that we're going to in some sense
07:29
demote the importance of full employment.
C：
07:31
one of the criticisms that jerome powell
07:34
faced this week before congress
07:36
one of the criticisms lobbied at the
07:37
biden administration one of the
07:39
criticisms also lobbied
07:40
at you and some of the other economic
07:42
thinkers who have embraced mmt is this
07:43
idea
07:44
of government overreach that once we go
07:46
down this path
07:47
it provides or it gives the government a
07:49
certain amount of control
07:51
and a certain amount of influence that a
07:52
lot of folks don't think the government
07:54
should have?
kelton：
07:55
well i a lot of folks want the policies
07:58
that are being put forward by this
08:00
administration they are
08:01
overwhelmingly popular and they're
08:03
popular on a bipartisan basis
08:05
right so it isn't mmt doesn't
08:08
uh give congress any new powers or
08:11
authorities they already have the power
08:13
of the purse they already have the
08:15
ability to write and pass legislation
08:17
as bold as they might choose to do the
08:21
the reality is that for too many years
08:24
i believe congress hasn't really taken
08:27
advantage
08:28
of the fiscal space that's been
08:30
available that's been damaging
08:32
to all of us right bad policy harms all
08:35
of us so we end up with an economy that
08:36
underperforms
08:37
we end up with fewer jobs than we
08:39
otherwise could have had with less
08:41
prosperity so
08:42
i think to the extent that congress is
08:44
uh waking up
08:46
to a new way of thinking about the way
08:48
it approaches the budgeting process and
08:50
the use of fiscal policy
08:52
um to help support the economy is
08:55
is going to end up being a pretty good
08:57
thing for
08:59
most everyone in this country
英語 (自動生成)
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿