ケルトン他web動画
ケルトン他web動画 How Do We Fix The Economy? Modern Monetary Theory, Explained | The Probl...2022/02/24
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
参考：
2022/02 ケルトン出演podcast予告 The Problem With Jon Stewartさんのツイート
2022/02/15 Stephanie Keltonさんのツイート(＆2019/09/13 Kelton講演,ビーバーの比喩)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
この「Pワード」を聞いた後、反MMT派は全員、#MMTを極端な共産主義と同一視し、発言全体を意図的に無視すると思う。
なぜなら、その発言全体を考慮すれば、MMTについて100％間違っていることがわかるからです。
41:00
I am sure after listening to the "P word" the entire anti-MMT gang will foolishly equate #MMT to the extreme version of communism n deliberately ignore the entire statement, coz they know if they consider the entire statement they would be 100% wrong about MMT! @StephanieKelton pic.twitter.com/vOjvUH0pq2
— Ashish Barua आशिष बरूआ #MMT 📈📊 (@barua_ashish) November 2, 2022
And you're saying deficit spending is the way to address this, that people that deficit spending won't.
-- It's not a necessity that that drives inflation and it's not a necessity that it saddles future generations with debt. It's not a necessity that saddles future generations.
It is not the case that deficits are inherently inflationary but it is true that deficits can get too big. And one possible way for that to materialize is in the form of inflation. So, again, you can't spend willy nilly. You can't drive trillions and trillions too rapidly into a very narrow hole. You have to figure out over what period of time can I safely make these investments in infrastructure. And you have to be able to resource what it is you’re trying to do. Rohan said it earlier. If you want to do infrastructure, you have to be sure that you have available to you the the contractors, the engineers, the architects, the steel, the machinery.
But that you can get ahead of. That's the kind of thing that planning -
- Oh, oh, Jon.
- What?
- You said the P —
- Should I leave? I'm just gonna go. I should leave.
You said the P-word.
You're not getting invited back to the Christmas party now.
I apologize.
This is a scary word because you just said "planning." You have to plan. Yes. You have to plan for prosperity. And by the way, boardrooms are invented for the purpose of planning. That's what corporate America does. They go walk into the boardroom for the purpose of planning. So we have to be willing to plan for prosperity. We have to be willing to do that.
そして、あなたは、赤字支出がこれに対処する方法であると言っています。
-- インフレを引き起こすのは必然ではないし、将来の世代に借金を背負わせるのも必然ではありません。将来の世代に負担を強いる必然性はない。
赤字が本質的にインフレを引き起こすというわけではありませんが、赤字が大きくなりすぎることがあるのは事実です。そして、それが具体化する一つの可能性として、インフレという形があるのです。だから、繰り返しになりますが、無闇に使ってはいけないのです。狭い穴に何兆円も何十兆円も急激に突っ込んではいけないのです。どの程度の期間、安全にインフラ投資を行うことができるかを考えなければなりません。そして、何をしようとしているのか、リソースを確保する必要があります。先ほどRohanも言っていました。インフラを整備するのであれば、請負業者、エンジニア、建築家、鉄鋼、機械などを確実に確保しなければなりません。
しかし、それを先取りすることができる。それこそが、計画というものです。
- ああ、そうだ、ジョン。
- 何？
- Pって...
- 帰るか？ もう帰るよ 出てくよ
Pワードを言ったわね
もうクリスマス・パーティーには 呼ばれないぞ
失礼しました
"計画 "と言うからには怖いな 計画するんだ そうだ 繁栄のための計画を立てなければならない ところで、役員室は計画を立てるために作られたんだ。アメリカの企業はそうしているのです。彼らは計画を立てるために役員室に入っていくのです。ですから、私たちは繁栄のための計画を立てることを望まなければなりません。私たちはそれを進んで行わなければなりません。
2021/10/07 Rohan Grey @rohangrey What a trillion-dollar coin can teach us
This week on the podcast, @StephanieKelton and @rohangrey break down Jon’s conversation with former Fed chairman Thomas Hoenig. Economists, eat your heart out. https://t.co/Yhk4DqsRpz pic.twitter.com/7B5LrSWXog
— The Problem With Jon Stewart (@TheProblem) February 25, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2022/02/25 ケルトン The Problem With Jon Stewartさんのツイート
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ここで@rohangreyは、主流の経済的思考がインフレの原因について根本的に間違っている理由を説明しています。それはすべて、実際のリソースの可用性に関するものです。政府のバランスシートに何かが現れていないからといって、それがインフレを引き起こしていないわけではありません！ #MMT
Here @rohangrey explains that why mainstream economic thinking is fundamentally flawed about what causes inflation. It is all about the availability of real resources. Just coz something is not showing up on govt balance sheet doesn't mean it is not causing inflation! #MMT pic.twitter.com/32bg7sEspm
— Ashish Barua आशिष बरूआ #MMT 📈📊 (@barua_ashish) October 31, 2022
25:10
If you think about the way the inflation is showing up, you know, one of the things to look at is, where are the real resources there otherwise potentially being deployed? So if somebody comes to a bank and says, "I want to build a school." That's going to need laborers. It's going to need bricks. It's going to need other things. Say there's somebody else in the next booth at the bank and says, "I want to build a casino." It's the same labor. It's the same bricks. It's the same electrical engineers, et cetera.
Now we don't have a mechanism today to work out where we should put the blame, between a private loan, private credit, and public spending. We say, "Oh look, we spent a lot of money on school building and now there's inflation in construction." "It must be the schools." Meanwhile, all those casinos being built next door get off scot free because that's not taking place - on the government's balance sheet.
- Right.
So when we look at demand, we need to look at all the sources of demand, not just the public's balance sheet. Otherwise we're always inevitably going to blame the one thing that we changed this time. And of course, no one's saying we need to cut military spending by a third. That's not the part of the budget they're going to blame at the end of this. They're going to blame helping average people. If it's that we have the resources, but right now, private actors are hoarding them or using them in private markets, and they're not available for public use, we need to make them available.
You know, it always strikes me that,
25:10
インフレがどのように進行しているのかを考えるとき、一つのポイントは、本当の資源がどこに投入されているのか、ということです。誰かが銀行に来て、「学校を建てたい」と言ったとします。そのためには労働者が必要です。レンガも必要です。他にも必要なものがあるはずです。銀行の隣のブースで他の人が "カジノを作りたい "と言ったとする。同じ労働力です。同じレンガを使う。同じ労働力、同じレンガ、同じ電気技師、などなど。
民間融資、民間信用、公共支出の間のどこに責任を負わせるべきかを考えるメカニズムが、今の我々にはありません。私たちは、「学校建設に多額の資金を費やしたのに、建設にインフレが起きている」と言います。"学校のせいだろう" 一方、隣に建設中のカジノは、政府のバランスシート上、建設が行われていないため、無罪放免になります。
- なるほど。
ですから、需要を見るときは、公的なバランスシートだけでなく、すべての需要源を見る必要があります。そうでないと、どうしても今回変えたことのせいにされてしまいます。もちろん、誰も軍事費を3分の1にしろとは言いません。一般庶民を助けることを非難するつもりなのです。もし、資源があるにもかかわらず、民間人がそれを買い占め、あるいは民間市場で使っていて、一般に利用できないのであれば、それを利用できるようにする必要があるのです。
私はいつもそう思います。
。。。
Oh, okay. So, and these are the things that you're talking about. Energy prices, supply chain, bottlenecks, the, you know, problems related to the shutting down and reopening of different parts of the economy at different times. - These are kind of the inevitable growth pains. - So the correlation is not causation in this case. - That's exactly right. - Okay. But you're - you're right to say, you know, that there is a real risk that Keynesian economic policy and that the policy response this time, which was so much better than the policy response after 2008, will come away with a real black eye if people don't get a better understanding of why the inflation is up at the moment. If we start pointing our fingers and saying, "Well, this is what happens when you try to help people stay in their homes and be attached to their employers and have some income to pay the bills." Can't do that ever again. This was the punishment. Can't let that happen.
If you think about the way the inflation is showing up, you know, one of the things to look at is, where are the real resources there otherwise potentially being deployed? So if somebody comes to a bank and says, "I want to build a school." That's going to need laborers. It's going to need bricks. It's going to need other things. Say there's somebody else in the next booth at the bank and says, "I want to build a casino." It's the same labor. It's the same bricks. It's the same electrical engineers, et cetera.
25:35
Now we don't have a mechanism today to work out where we should put the blame, between a private loan, private credit, and public spending. We say, "Oh look, we spent a lot of money on school building and now there's inflation in construction." "It must be the schools." Meanwhile, all those casinos being built next door get off scot free because that's not taking place - on the government's balance sheet. - Right. So when we look at demand, we need to look at all the sources of demand, not just the public's balance sheet. Otherwise we're always inevitably going to blame the one thing that we changed this time. And of course, no one's saying we need to cut military spending by a third. That's not the part of the budget they're going to blame at the end of this. They're going to blame helping average people. If it's that we have the resources, but right now, private actors are hoarding them or using them in private markets, and they're not available for public use, we need to make them available.
You know, it always strikes me that,
when you talk about that policy, it's OK for the government to intervene. You know, you said earlier about winners and losers. It's always OK for the government to intervene on corporate behalf. For instance, you know, Wal-Mart is allowed to, or a lot of those companies, can pay less than subsistence wages. But the American taxpayer subsidizes that with social services. And food stamps is basically a subsidy program for Kraft. You know, it's government money. So we always make money available for corporate America. And it makes me come around to this idea of, you know, a universal basic income that is maybe smaller than what we thought about, you know, in other ways. But, we are subsidizing corporate malfeasance. Like that's where a lot of our money goes. So when you talk about our debt, or even, you know, the deficit that's running every year, a lot of that is base
あ、そうですか。それで、これらはあなたが言っているようなことなのです。エネルギー価格、サプライチェーン、ボトルネック、経済のさまざまな部分の停止と再開に関連する問題などです。- これらは、必然的な成長の痛みと言えます。- この場合、相関関係は因果関係ではありませんね。- その通りです。- しかし、あなたの言う通り、ケインズ主義的な経済政策や、2008年以降の政策対応よりもはるかに優れていた今回の政策対応が、なぜ今インフレが起きているのかを人々がもっと理解しなければ、本当の意味で黒目を見ることになる危険性があるのです。もし私たちが指をくわえて、"人々が家に住み、勤め先に愛着を持ち、支払いをするための収入を得られるようにすると、こういうことが起こるのだ "と言い始めたら。もう二度とそんなことはできません。これが罰だったのです。こんなことは許されません。
インフレがどのように進行しているのかを考えるとき、一つのポイントは、本当の資源がどこに投入されているのか、ということです。誰かが銀行に来て、「学校を建てたい」と言ったとします。そのためには労働者が必要です。レンガも必要です。他にも必要なものがあるはずです。銀行の隣のブースで他の人が "カジノを作りたい "と言ったとする。同じ労働力です。同じレンガを使う。同じ労働力、同じレンガ、同じ電気技師、などなど。
25:35
民間融資、民間信用、公共支出の間のどこに責任を負わせるべきかを考えるメカニズムが、今の我々にはありません。私たちは、「学校建設に多額の資金を費やしたのに、建設にインフレが起きている」と言います。"学校のせいだろう" 一方、隣に建設中のカジノは、政府のバランスシート上、建設が行われていないため、無罪放免になります。- なるほど。ですから、需要を見るときは、公的なバランスシートだけでなく、すべての需要源を見る必要があります。そうでないと、どうしても今回変えたことのせいにされてしまいます。もちろん、誰も軍事費を3分の1にしろとは言いません。軍事費を3分の1にしろとは言いません。一般庶民を助けることを非難するつもりなのです。もし、資源があるにもかかわらず、民間人がそれを買い占め、あるいは民間市場で使っていて、一般に利用できないのであれば、それを利用できるようにする必要があるのです。
私はいつもそう思います。
その政策について話すとき、政府が介入するのはOKなんです。先ほど、勝者と敗者についておっしゃいましたね。政府が企業のために介入することは常にOKなのです。例えば、ウォルマート、あるいは多くの企業が自給自足以下の賃金を支払うことを許されています。しかし、アメリカの納税者は社会サービスでそれを補助しているのです。フードスタンプは基本的にクラフト社への補助金プログラムです。政府のお金ですからね。つまり、私たちは常にアメリカ企業のためにお金を使えるようにしているのです。だから、ユニバーサル・ベーシックインカムという考えに行き着いたのですが、それは私たちが考えているよりも小さなものです。しかし、私たちは企業の不正行為に補助金を出しているのです。私たちのお金の多くがそこに流れているのです。ですから、私たちの負債や、毎年出ている赤字について話すとき、その多くは基本的なものなのです。
～～～～～～～～～～～～
ケルトン他web動画 How Do We Fix The Economy? Modern Monetary Theory, Explained | The Probl...
2022/02 ケルトン出演podcast予告 The Problem With Jon Stewartさんのツイート
2022/02 ケルトン出演podcast予告 The Problem With Jon Stewartさんのツイート
2022/02 ケルトン出演podcast予告 The Problem With Jon Stewartさんのツイート
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelton：
so i you know i listen to the podcast and i'm on twitter rowan's on twitter. and there was quite a bit of chatter about this you you guys pushed some buttons but you didn't push the buttons. that were pushed for me and i think for rowan. we were on the wrong buttons. no no no i think that a lot of uh the interest in some of the commentary was surrounding you know the impact potential impact of the fed's quantitative easing program on inequality but i wanted to take up a different part of the conversation and i listened to the whole podcast. and then i felt very sad and.
wow that's that's our goal.
anytime you can listen to the whole podcast and feel sad i've done my job. misery loves company so i reached out to rowan and i said i feel very sad and i would like you to experience the sadness with me would you listen to it together.
i'm going to give you guys a chance to unsadden yourselves by telling me what what i was getting wrong there and and where you thought the conversation should have gone what was it that that saddened you both as you were listening to me talk about uh fed policy with with thomas owning？
Kelton：
well i i don't think it was so much listening to you it was the missed opportunity of what you could have potentially pulled out of him had he given you i think you know more candid answers frankly. to the questions yeah okay and so they felt like missed opportunities but you were clearly on to something.
and you were asking probing questions and you're not a monkey. you're not a monkey john you had him you had him yeah i had him on the ropes but he didn't want to be as forthcoming as as both of us think that he should and could have been.
R:
yeah i mean i think the starting point is that um we often think of the fed as the sort of only institution in the federal government that has any monetary firepower right it's the sort of printing press it's the one that can do anything in a crisis but the reality is and i think covert has done a great job of demonstrating this that it's the fiscal firepower it's the budget side of things that really has the power to um actually save you know real people's incomes save industries to invest. and one of the big questions is if we accept that we can do things with the budget and we should be what is the role of the fed and how do they relate to each other and when it comes to things like protecting financial markets from having a liquidity crisis or regulating financial institutions yeah it makes sense the federal reserve might be the place you look to. but when you look at what the fed is doing when we say sort of fed injected trillions of dollars into the economy one of the things that it's doing is buying up assets. so the first thing to think about is there's always two assets involved there's the sort of money that goes in and there's whatever's coming back out going to the fed so if somebody said to me hey you've got trillions of dollars but all you can do is buy other dollars that's going to be very useless to me if i'm trying to protect homeowners or people who've lost their incomes so then the question i think we have to ask ourselves when we look at what the fed does with quantitative easing is what is it buying up.
私はトーマス・ホーニッヒという紳士にインタビューしました。彼はおそらくKCFの議長で、経済に大量の資金を投入する政策であるFRBの量的緩和に反対票を入れていました。彼と私は、経済学の知識も経済学の言語も経済学の表現もない私が、なぜFRBがこのマネーキャノンをアメリカの企業にだけ持ってきて、そうさせないのかを理解しようと、活発に議論しました。国民にお金の大砲の味を、少しばかり味あわせてやるのです。私たちはお金を印刷することができます。私たちはお金を印刷して資産を買うことができます。って感じなんだけど、猿と話してるみたいで、いや、猿と話してるみたいで、どうやったらこの猿とコミュニケーション取れるのか、いやいや、どうしたらいいのか、いやいや、すごくわかるよ、混乱するよね。そしてステファニーとローワンはそのことについてネット上で長いチャット形式でコメントするほど素敵な人たちでした。
Kelton：
私はポッドキャストを聴いているし、ロワンのツイッターも見ているのですが、この件に関してかなり話題になりました。しかし、私は会話の別の部分を取り上げたいと思い、ポッドキャスト全体を聴きましたが、とても悲しい気持ちになりました。
それが私たちの目標です。
だから、ローワンに連絡して、私はとても悲しい気分だから、その悲しみを一緒に味わってほしいって言ったの。
そして、その会話はどこに向かうべきだと思ったのか。私がトーマス・オウニングと連邦政府の政策について話しているのを聞いていて、あなた方が悲しくなったのは何だったのか。
Kelton：はい。
そうですね......あなたの話を聞いているというよりも、彼がもっと率直に答えてくれていたら、彼から何を引き出せたかという機会を逸していたのだと思います。
君は猿じゃないんだ ジョン、君は彼を捕まえた 君は彼を捕まえたんだ
彼は私たち二人が思っているほどには積極的に話そうとはしなかったんだ。
R:
しかし、現実には、財政的な力、つまり予算面において、実際に人々の所得を救う力があり、投資する産業を救う力があるのだということを、私はカバーットが見事に証明してくれたと思います。流動性危機から金融市場を守るとか、金融機関を規制するとかいうことであれば、連邦準備制度に目を向けるのは理にかなっていると言えるでしょう。しかし、連邦準備制度が何をしているかを見てみると、連邦準備制度が経済に何兆ドルも注入しているのは、資産を買い上げていることです。だから、まず最初に考えるべきことは、常に2つの資産が関わっているということだ。
～～～～～
あなたは猿じゃないジョン、がyoutube51分版ではない？
podcastでは21:44
～～～～
How Do We Fix The Economy? Modern Monetary Theory, Explained | The Probl...
2022/02/24
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
1:21:00
文字起こし Ladies and gentlemen,
welcome to the podcast.
We have an exciting, exciting podcast for ya.
Today's podcast is a rebuttal.
It is a further clarifying
of a former podcast that we did.
Our guests today,
very exciting.
Stephanie Kelton and Rohan Grey.
They are some of the leading authorities on what's called
Modern Monetary Theory,
which is kind of a new approach
to economics.
First, thank you for inviting
- both of us to come and talk to you about this. - I'm delighted.
Alright. So let me roll it back then
and we'll start a little bit at
my interest in this.
I did an interview with a gentleman named Thomas Hoenig who
I guess was chairman of the KC Fed,
and he had been voting “No" on quantitative easing from the Fed,
which is their policy of
of pumping a good deal of money
into the economy.
And he and I had a spirited discussion
where I,
without the knowledge of economics
or the language of economics
or the verbiage of economics,
was trying to understand
why the Fed can just
bring this money cannon
to corporate America
and not also maybe let,
as we say, in the old neighborhood,
let the people have a taste.
How 'bout a little taste?
A little something from the money cannon.
I guess I'm confused as
if we can print money,
you just said we're the only-
We can buy an asset.
OK.
Any asset by printing money.
- That is we- - But you can't pay
- debt by printing money?
You can buy debt by printing money.
- Or you- - So what are you just buy back our debt?
Well, because ...
all you're doing is-
I feel like I feel like
you're having trouble.
It's like talking to a monkey.
- No, no. - You’re like talking to a monkey and trying to figure out-
- Look it- - how do I communicate with this monkey?
- No, no. - I don't know what to do.
No, no, it. I totally.
I totally get it. It's confusing.
Stephanie and Rohan
were lovely enough to
comment on it on the internet
in a long chat form,
which made me think that neither of you
has a fulfilling life
because this is the part-
now we get to it.
How did this-
How did any of this come to your attention?
And explain to me how this came about.
So I, you know, I listen to the podcast
- and I'm on Twitter. - Yes. Stephanie.
Rohan's on Twitter,
- and there was quite a bit of chatter about this. - OK.
You, you guys pushed some buttons,
but you didn't push
the buttons that were pushed for me and I think for Rohan.
We were on the wrong buttons?
No, no, no.
I think that a lot of the interest
and some of the commentary
was surrounding,
you know, the impact,
potential impact
- of the Fed's quantitative easing program on inequality. - Correct.
but I wanted to take up a different part of the conversation
- and I listened to the whole podcast - OK.
and then I felt very sad.
- And you know- - Wow. That's-
that's our goal.
Any time you can listen to the whole podcast and feel sad,
I've done my job.
Misery loves company.
So I reached out to Rohan
and I said, “I feel very sad and I would like you to..."
"experience the sadness with me."
"Would you listen to it together?"
I'm going to give you guys a chance
to un-sadden yourselves by telling me
what I was getting wrong there
and where you thought the conversation should have gone?
What was it that that saddened you both
as you were listening to me talk about Fed policy with Thomas Hoenig?
Well, I don't think it was so much listening to you
It was the missed opportunity
of what you could have potentially pulled out of him
had he given you
- I think, you know, more candid answers, frankly, - A fair shake.
- to the questions. - Yeah.
- Yeah.
- OK.
Yeah, I mean, I think the starting point is that
We often think of the Fed as the sort of only institution
in the federal government that has any monetary firepower, right?
It's the sort of printing press.
It's the one that can do
anything in a crisis.
But the reality is,
and I think COVID has done a great job
of demonstrating this,
that it's the fiscal firepower,
it's the budget side of things that really has the power
to actually save, you know, real people's incomes,
save industries, to invest.
And one of the big questions is if we accept that
we can do things with the budget and we should be,
what is the role of the Fed and how do they relate to each other?
And when it comes to things like
protecting financial markets from having a liquidity crisis
or regulating financial institutions,
yeah, it makes sense the Federal Reserve might be the place you look to.
But when you look at what the Fed is doing, when we say it's
sort of Fed injected trillions of dollars into the economy,
one of the things that it's doing is buying up assets.
So the first thing to think about is there's always two assets involved.
There's the sort of money that goes in
and there's whatever's coming back out, going to the Fed.
So if somebody said to me,
“Hey.”
"You've got trillions of dollars, but all you do is buy other dollars.”
That's going to be very useless to me if I'm trying to protect homeowners.
- That's correct. - Or people who've lost their incomes.
So then the question I think we have to ask ourselves when we look at what the Fed does with quantitative easing is
what is it buying up?
And this is where I think you started to get on something really interesting.
Let me maybe formulate it this way.
There's a certain orthodoxy to how we have to get out of it.
Right?
Right.
A slow raising of interest rates.
A tightening of monetary policy.
Maybe they burn off some of the money.
Should there be a rethinking
of that orthodoxy?
And the reason why I ask it is
you talked about this debt.
Right?
Right.
To me, and clearly, I'm a layman and don't understand the intricacies of it.
It feels made up
that this monetary policy
feels like a delusion of some sort.
And why couldn't they just cancel that debt
and have the country carry less
and then tighten the policy
where it would be less-
if you raise interest rates and the-
on big debt, right?
-Right. - Then we've got all this pressure on making those payments.
And why not have the Fed cancel the debt
and then raise interest rates
to reset the playing field?
Well, the difficulty with that is, of course,
this is debt owed by the government.
So now you're going to
you have this debt
and you're just going to say,
I don’t-
I don't owe it anymore.
When Tom Hoenig did not meet you where you were at,
you know, he sort of said,
“Oh, it's very complicated, you silly little boy.”
You know, but I think the reality is you are identifying a real question, which is if the Fed can swap
Treasury debt.
For money
and it basically has very little effect-
And it can print money.
The Treasury is “printing” the Treasury debt,
- and the Fed is printing the money
- to buy up the Treasury's printed debt. - Correct.
It's it's like mum issues an IOU
and then dad takes it out and then gives you cash from your wallet.
What's the actual
thing going on there?
What's the effect on the economy,
and Tom says
“Well, if you understand it like I do because I'm a very serious economist, remember,”
“then all you're doing is swapping one kind of government IOU for another.”
“Money is an IOU. Treasury debt is an IOU. Therefore, all we’re doing,”
“is swapping yellow for green. It’s exactly the same.”
And on one level, he's not wrong.
- He's not a 100% wrong. - OK.
But on the other side,
you were not wrong either.
Which is, is there a difference between
Treasury debt and money? Yes.
Is that difference quite small at an economic level the way that Tom was saying?
Yes.
But is it big at a social level,
at a political level, as you were saying?
Absolutely.
So if we have trillions of dollars of government debt out there,
people hold that as money.
You ask Goldman Sachs what's in their “cash account,”
-They’ll think you're talking about Treasury debt. -OK.
Because for them, Treasury debt is money.
So if you're swapping
Treasury debt for dollars,
it's like taking money from your savings account
and putting it in your checking account.
Do you have less money? No.
But from a political point of view,
from a cultural point of view,
you've "solved the national debt."
We've solved our grandchildren's crisis.
-That was the point I was trying to make. -We’ve solved the borrowing from China.
So I was trying to ask him
who holds our debt?
He said, "Well, China holds our debt, all these other...."
You can't just stop paying on the debt.
No, but you could just... couldn't you just
quantitative ease our debt?
What's the difference of making that money available to Goldman Sachs
as it is to making that money available to China?
Only one would lessen our debt.
You just print that money and pay debt.
If this is money that we've created out of thin air anyway,
what's to stop us from creating ten trillion-
You know,
I used to make fun of Paul Krugman for his idea of trillion dollar coin
-Yeah. Right. -You know and now
-I feel myself saying, -You’re in it.
"Hey, man."
-"Well- let’s just get ten trillion dollar coins." -Right.
"Give one to China, one to Europe."
Are we square?
"Good."
And then we start again because this whole thing seems
manufactured.
Swap it for them, for the debt.
And then at the very least,
we now control.
We've bought back our mortgage.
So now we can never foreclose on it,
even if interest rates go up.
We have a lot more control over our debt.
Does that make sense?
I mean. I think
I think one of the most important things
-you were trying to get at with him -Right.
was the idea that this thing we call the national debt, and this is Rohan's point.
We have yellow paper and green paper.
We have dollars and we have treasuries,
but they're thought of very differently.
We don't think of the green paper
as debt conventionally,
but we think of the yellow paper,
-the government bonds, treasuries as debt. -And that’s what the Fed is buying?
They're buying treasuries.
They're buying bonds.
They're buying debt.
Yeah. In Tom's mind, they're the same
because he thinks up at that central bank level.
So for him, they're just different liabilities on a balance sheet.
But down with us, you know, with the public
these are entirely different worlds.
Do you know the stock of public money in circulation Jon?
How many people know that?
-There's the national debt counter. -Right.
There's no national money counter underneath. Nobody’s counting that--
And they're increasing that supply
by $120 billion a month.
Still.
Yeah no grandchildren involved.
No China involved.
No bond markets involved.
It reminds me of the way our government says you need to pay for.
So any time we have a crisis or something crucial that the public needs,
the government will say,
"I'm sorry. We have discretionary spending."
"It's this amount. If you want to add to that, we either have to take it away from somebody else..."
“or create a pay for.”
OK.
“Well, also, we want to go to war.”
“Oh, OK. So what's our pay for it?”
“Yeah, that we're not going to have a pay for.”
“What do you mean?”
"Yeah, we're just-"
Freedom pays for itself.
"that we're just going to put out there"
"and we're going to pay for it."
But we're not going to-
That's going to be just debt that we don’t even think about.
We don't add it to anything.
It just is.
And that's the part that seems like,
well, you just get to decide then
what goes on our budget
and what's just air.
That's the part that I was trying to figure out.
That's the politics.
And you're exactly right.
And the way that I usually try to say it is,
you know, there's all this conversation about finding the money
We want to have health care, child care or we want to have a Build Back Better agenda
and all the rest of it.
They say, “How are you going to pay for it?
“Where were you find the money?”
And I always try to say,
“Look, if the votes are there, the money is there.”
Because the votes are what kicked the money out.
So just as you said,
every time the Defense Authorization Act comes up every year, they kick the money out.
There's no handwringing.
They don't pause to have a big debate or discussion.
Manchin doesn't stand up and say,
-“Wait a minute, I'm concerned about grandchildren.” -No pay for. No nothing.
Almost all United States senators-
It's the most bipartisan thing they do is vote for the defense authorization each year.
And not only that. They say, you know,
“How much did the Pentagon request?
“Oh, we feel extra generous today. We want you to have $20 billion.”
- "It’s more than you asked for.” -
They gave 'em another $20 billion,
-Meanwhile-
-Always.
それが政治です。そして、まさにその通りです。私がいつも言っているのは、医療や育児、「より良い社会づくり」のための資金調達についてです。その費用をどうするんだ」と言われます。「どこでそのお金を見つけるの？私はいつも、「投票があればお金はある」と言うようにしています。なぜなら、票が金を追い出すからだ。だから、あなたが言ったように、毎年、国防認可法が上程されるたびに、お金が追い出されるのです。揉めることもない。大きな議論や討論をする間がないのです。マンチンは立ち上がって、「ちょっと待て、私は孫のことが心配だ」とも言いません。-金を払うこともない。何もしない。アメリカの上院議員のほとんどは、超党派で毎年国防費に賛成しています。それだけではありません。国防総省はいくら要求したのか」と言うんです。「今日は特別に気前がいいんだ。「今日は特別に気前が良くて、200億ドル欲しいんだ」 - 「要求額より多いですね」 -
彼らはさらに200億ドルを与えました。
-いつもです。
-we're trying to get veterans health care from exposure to burn pits.
You cannot believe the shit they’re putting these guys through
for pay fors. For other-
they're going to cheap them on the back end.
It's as though
that's not part of the cost of war.
It's crazy.
And I'm just talking about the Fed
and maybe it's not their purview or anybody else,
but why can't they do
a $120 billion of municipal bonds
for infrastructure?
If you're just buying bonds
and debt and treasuries
why not buy infrastructure?
Why not use that money
rather than just to keep banks hoarding cash?
Why not put it to use?
-退役軍人の健康管理をしようとしているんです。-焼跡にさらされたからです。退役軍人の健康管理をしようとしています。そのほかにも......バックエンドで安請け合いするんですよ。まるで、それが戦争の代償の一部ではないかのように。狂気の沙汰です。これはFRBの話ですが、FRBや他の人の権限ではないかもしれませんが、なぜ1200億ドルのインフラ用地方債を作れないのでしょうか？債券や負債、国債を買うだけなら、なぜインフラを買わないのでしょう？銀行が現金をため込んでいるより、そのお金を使ったらどうでしょう？なぜそれを使わないのか？
Many years ago,
I went to Washington, D.C., at the request of Republican Congressman, Ray LaHood,
-who went on,to be- -Sure.
-Transportation Secretary Right, Illinois. -Yup.
And LaHood wanted to do exactly what you just said.
I mean, the man really wanted to invest in America's crumbling infrastructure.
Make these investments.
And he said we ought to use the Fed, that the Fed ought to be buying these bonds
at zero - effectively zero interest rate and facilitating the financing and so forth.
And a colleague of mine, Randy Ray and I
we wrote something about this and then I was asked to go to DC and meet with officials at the Fed
and walk them through and talk about how this would all work.
And so I went, I got to sit in Alan Greenspan’s chair, we had a lovely chat.
But at the end of the day, they said to me, “We prefer to see it go through Congress.”
and I said, “But it's kind of being six of one, half a dozen of the other" in these ways
that I showed them through the balance sheet entries and so forth.
And they said, “Well, we prefer the half a dozen to the six because one keeps us out of it..."
“and the other one integrates us into this process.”
Explicitly says the Fed is now financing other kinds of things and they don’t want any part of it.
何年も前、私は共和党の下院議員、レイ・ラフッドの要請でワシントンDCに行ったことがある。-そうです ラフードはあなたが言ったとおりのことを したかったんです つまり、彼は本当にアメリカの 崩壊したインフラに投資したかったのです これらの投資を行うのです そして彼は、FRBを使うべきだと言いました。FRBはゼロ金利でこれらの債券を買い、資金調達などを促進するべきだ、と。そして私の同僚、ランディ・レイと私はこのことについて記事を書きました。それで私はワシントンDCに行き、アラン・グリーンスパンの椅子に座り、楽しいおしゃべりをしました。でも、バランスシートの記入方法などを通じて説明したように、「6つのうちの1つ、半ダースのうちのもう1つ」という感じです。すると彼らは、「6つより半ダースのほうがいい。「もう一つは、我々をこのプロセスに統合してくれるからです" FRBが他の種類のものに融資するようになったので、それに関わりたくないと明示したのです。
Yeah, there's a big commitment at the Fed to not be seen as picking winners or losers.
Which is why in COVID, when they did for the first time establish this municipal lending facility they hated it.
It was barely used.
They made it so difficult that only one or two states'
municipalities actually took advantage of it.
To go to your earlier question,
I think there is a little bit of a difference between government, federal treasury debt
and state and local debt in the sense that the federal government’s debt
is guaranteed by the same full faith and credit as the US dollar.
So it really is almost the difference between
-a large denomination bill- -Right,
and a small denomination bill.
With these others, you’re sort of
you’re sort of picking up the tab for state and local government.
-Which is a good thing. -But isn’t theother side of it
too, though, that state and local governments can't run a deficit
in the way that the federal government can.
-So if the Fed were going to do that, -Exactly.
it would actually be more impactful
and it would allow it because so much of
the federal spending
is really to cover holes
-that exist within state- -Absolutely.
and local municipal funding.
If you ask a federal Congress
members of Congress
whether or not New York City should run its own defense force,
I mean, putting aside the size of New York, NYPD,
they’d say no, that's a federal job.
-It's too important to be left to local governments- -National security for God’s sakes.
-state by state.
Well, then why not for infrastructure?
Why not for education?
-When the answer to why there’s some- -Health care.
Yeah, why there's something unique about the federal government?
-It has the power of the purse. -Right.
It has that printing press.
We're all using that system, right?
It's their world.
We just live in it.
So here's where we get into
where I thought-
This is sort of the difference and a very basic understanding I have of supply side economics and demand side economics.
And I'll explain it,
as best I can
without knowing what I'm talking about,
which is how I do things.
All right.
We've had supply side economics for,
I don't know, 40 years
and in the last probably 15 years
really hyped up with the Fed
pumping a tremendous amount of liquidity
into it, keeping interest rates down.
It's basically just
inflating larger assets
at the high level.
You're saying to people
saving your money means nothing,
but investing it in the stock market
or in real estate is everything.
If you keep interest rates low
and people can't get 4%, 5%, 6% on savings,
their only choice is the stock market or real estate or something else.
And generally,
money is flowing in there and inflating it.
The dividends and the buybacks and all those other things that are occurring
are creating
more and more inequality.
Now, supply side economics would say
"And that's going to trickle down
and create economic growth and development," right?
$1.9 trillion tax cut, 0% interest rates.
Total deregulation
and what did we gain in GDP or median income?
Very little.
And inflation doesn't do anything.
So basically all that supply side money doesn't seem to stimulate the economy in any way.
Now the pandemic occurs and we go,
“Just fucking give everybody $600 bucks.”
The economy goes 10%, 12% growth.
Suddenly, inflation is a problem.
It makes you think we could have been growing the economy
with far less artillery and keeping an eye-
It's only when workers get money
that inflation becomes a problem.
Explain to me in economic terms
what I just said and then grade me
and then just tell me if I'm going into the next year's class.
All right, so you're - what you're talking about,
are the two different policy levers.
The fiscal policy lever is what you described.
Giving people money,
-using Congress to pass legislation, what we just did. -Right.
- The thing you started with is monetary policy. - Correct.
It's the central bank.
It's the buying of assets.
It's the zero interest rate policy and all the rest.
And the deregulation and the tax cuts.
That's all very Thatcher, Reagan, supply side trickle down.
So you're quite right.
We have done this.
We have run this experiment over and over again
for some 40 years or so.
The evidence is in, and not just here in the US,
but around the world.
It does not work. It does work,
I think some might say, as it's designed to work,
- which is to widen income and wealth inequality, - Right.
but what it also does,
by shoveling all of the gains to the people at the very top,
who, by the way, don't tend to turn around
and spend that money back into the economy.
It gives us a slower growing, just crappier economy,
where fewer and fewer people get ahead.
Wage pressure isn't there because the labor market
never runs really hot because the economy
never really runs close to its, you know, kind of potential.
And so we have relied on central banks
to basically steer the economic ship.
You guys figure it out, you use your interest rates
and your, what did you call it, Rumplestiltskin skills.
- Your alchemy. Yeah. - You take care of it.
Yeah, your alchemy and fiscal policy.
We're just going to worry about trying to keep deficits down
and all of that sort of stuff.
So it is in large part, the reluctance to use that
fiscal policy lever and to leave all of the responsibility
to the central bank to try to engineer
some kind of economic growth.
And what do they have?
They have an interest rate tool. That's the primary tool.
So they do what they can,
which is lower and lower interest rate,
which if it works, Jon.
Monetary policy works by driving people into debt
because the purpose of cutting interest rates,
- is to induce the rest of us to borrow and spend. - Right. Right.
Whereas fiscal policy works by driving income into people,
- like you said, $600 bucks. - Demand.
Here you go. It's, you own it free and clear,
and you don't have to pay it back.
So they work very differently.
They serve different constituencies.
But Stephanie, the economy,
they say 70% of the American economy
is consumer spending.
Why would you stimulate it at the 15% of the economy,
when 70% of it is driven by spending?
You could stimulate that with such a smaller gun.
When you were talking about low interest rates
causing inequality and you mentioned
savers and people needing a place to put their,
to put their, you know, retirement money.
And I think this is a really important point,
because when you and I think of high interest rates,
it's a sort of double edged sword, right?
On one hand, our savings account is maybe earning more,
or things like that. But on the other side,
our mortgage is higher or our credit card interest rate
is higher or something like that.
And so there are ways around the world,
you know, I'm from Australia.
There are ways where you can create public pension systems,
public savings for consumers.
But what we have right now is a system where
if you want to pay a higher rate for,
you know, mom and pop savers, retirees,
those kinds of things.
You also have to pay a higher interest rate
on all of the hedge funds,
all of the other investment funds that hold Treasury debt.
And so you have this hostage situation
where low rates are seen to be the cause of A) inequality,
and B) starving savers and pensioners from their money.
Whereas the reality is, we should have high rates for them,
but maybe zero rates on all those investment vehicles.
- And there's no stipulation, so.
- No, there's not there's no distinction between the two. - Right.
It's not pension bonds and non pension bonds.
It's just bonds.
And a lot of them are held by investors
- who are not pensioners. - And I'll give you an example.
This easy money policy is what allowed
the American airline industry to become flush with cash.
And so during the time -- this is after 2008,
they become flush with cash.
They do a ton of stock buybacks just to,
you know, kind of re-enrich their shareholders.
And then the pandemic hits,
and they don't have the cash on hand.
So we've subsidized their golden parachutes,
but not the industry that we rely on for transportation.
So I think the really difficult like, line to try to draw,
is not to say we should just throw interest rates super high
because that can put people out of, you know, into,
bankruptcy from debt and things.
But we do want to not have that easy money
that you're talking about.
So how can we put tighter financial conditions,
more restrictions on Wall Street,
more restrictions on these big companies?
If the idea is we can print money when we need it,
but the only time we ever use that is when
the financial system or the big banks need it.
It's the only time we'll really print it, is for them.
In this pandemic, we did it on a more Keynesian level.
And suddenly, inflation ran amok.
Again, putting labor over a barrel,
which is to say, "See? We tried."
"We gave you guys a little money, and look what happened."
It doesn't take into account the externalities
of supply chain problems in a pandemic.
It doesn't take into account that we never got ahead of,
we never planned for that influx of money.
So it kind of had nowhere to go
other than consumer spending.
So how do you battle the, perception at least,
that when you do have a more Keynesian approach,
it immediately destroys commodities like
gas, groceries and everything else that the people
who are struggling rely on in the first place.
So one thing is you look around the world,
and you see countries that did far less than the United States.
We had a tremendous response in terms of fiscal policy,
right, to deal with the pandemic and the economic fallout.
About $5 trillion from March of 2020 to March of 2021,
was committed through Congress.
So you see all these countries that didn't go anywhere close
to where we've gone.
Germany has inflation running at a 40 year high.
- China has inflation at a near 40 year high. - Oh, okay.
So, and these are the things that you're talking about.
Energy prices, supply chain, bottlenecks,
the, you know, problems related to the shutting down
and reopening of different parts
of the economy at different times.
- These are kind of the inevitable growth pains. - So the correlation is not causation in this case.
- That's exactly right. - Okay.
But you're - you're right to say, you know,
that there is a real risk that Keynesian economic policy
and that the policy response this time,
which was so much better than the policy response
after 2008, will come away with a real black eye
if people don't get a better understanding
of why the inflation is up at the moment.
If we start pointing our fingers and saying,
"Well, this is what happens when you try to help people
stay in their homes and be attached to their employers
and have some income to pay the bills."
Can't do that ever again. This was the punishment.
Can't let that happen.
If you think about the way the inflation is showing up,
you know, one of the things to look at is,
where are the real resources there
otherwise potentially being deployed?
So if somebody comes to a bank and says,
"I want to build a school."
That's going to need laborers. It's going to need bricks.
It's going to need other things.
Say there's somebody else in the next booth at the bank
and says, "I want to build a casino."
It's the same labor.
It's the same bricks.
It's the same electrical engineers, et cetera.
Now we don't have a mechanism today
to work out where we should put the blame,
between a private loan, private credit, and public spending.
We say, "Oh look, we spent a lot of money on school building
and now there's inflation in construction."
"It must be the schools."
Meanwhile, all those casinos being built next door
get off scot free because that's not taking place
- on the government's balance sheet. - Right.
So when we look at demand, we need to look at all
the sources of demand, not just the public's balance sheet.
Otherwise we're always inevitably going to blame
the one thing that we changed this time.
And of course, no one's saying we need to cut
military spending by a third.
That's not the part of the budget they're going to blame
at the end of this.
They're going to blame helping average people.
If it's that we have the resources, but right now,
private actors are hoarding them
or using them in private markets,
and they're not available for public use,
we need to make them available.
You know, it always strikes me that,
when you talk about that policy,
it's OK for the government to intervene.
You know, you said earlier about winners and losers.
It's always OK for the government
to intervene on corporate behalf.
For instance, you know, Wal-Mart is allowed to,
or a lot of those companies,
can pay less than subsistence wages.
But the American taxpayer subsidizes that
with social services. And food stamps is basically
a subsidy program for Kraft.
You know, it's government money.
So we always make money available for corporate America.
And it makes me come around to this idea of,
you know, a universal basic income
that is maybe smaller than what we thought about,
you know, in other ways.
But, we are subsidizing corporate malfeasance.
Like that's where a lot of our money goes.
So when you talk about our debt, or even, you know,
the deficit that's running every year,
a lot of that is based on underemployment, undereducation,
and there being no constraints.
You know what it is?
We always talk about, "We live in a free market system."
But nothing about this system seems free market to me.
It seems to be intervened on at all different angles.
It's only that if you intervene on behalf of workers,
is that called socialism. Everything else? That's just,
you know, it's crony capitalism,
but it's never called that.
You know, we're going to subsidize in some respect.
The federal government is going to try to find ways
to deal with the inevitable problems of poverty.
The collateral damage of capitalism.
Right. But whether it comes in the form of food stamps,
or some other form of income payment,
I don't think that's fundamentally challenging
and getting at the issues of a Wal-Mart
being able to continue to underpay workers.
- The way you do that, I think, is to create - Right.
an alternative workplace, so that if you had something like,
let's say, a federal job guarantee, and everybody had a right
to a job at a good wage with decent benefits and the rest.
That's the way you apply the pressure
to the Wal-Marts and the other, you know,
- Amazons and so forth of the world to make structural changes. - But, Costco.
Doesn't Costco basically do the same thing as Wal-Mart?
They just pay better.
It's kind of the same business.
And this - this goes to your question.
You know, I think Stephanie and I both believe that,
you know, people who with the low incomes
should have more money. As a, you know, unequivocal point.
But in my opinion, when you think of the future
of a universal basic income, it's sort of that old line
people say, "It's easier to remember - to imagine,
the end of the world than the end of capitalism."
So imagine you've got an Amazon gift card forever.
That's a UBI, in a sense,
because you've got your money,
you can buy everything you want
and it all goes through the Jeff Bezos machine.
- It all goes through the Walmart machine. - Right.
Now, if you go back to the beginning of COVID,
there was a point - Remember the hand sanitizer shortage?
It seems so long ago now.
I started that, by the way. That was me.
- That was, that was my hoarding of hand sanitizer - That was you?
that caused a lot of that.
You and Donald Trump, right?
That's correct.
There was a - there was a serious conversation at that point
about whether or not we could repurpose perfume factories
because the underlying chemicals
and process was largely similar.
Now in that moment, is that socialism?
To take over Christian Dior and Chanel
to help people not die?
Or is that just a national defense of our lives policy?
And whether or not we're willing to do that,
I think is a really big question.
And if we can envisage a production side alternative
to these companies, not just a demand side,
we want more money in people's pockets,
but we want them to be producing.
So what's - what's the argument against that?
Is the argument against that that
A) The government will naturally not be
efficient enough and shouldn't own-?
Yeah, have you seen the Post Office?
And also that it will hold such a competitive advantage
against other companies?
But is there another way where you can hold companies...
Look, they get the benefit of our stability
and our infrastructure, but none of the
responsibility or accountability.
They can hold all their money offshore.
They can comparison shop for the lowest interest rates
around the world to hold their debt.
They can take their workers as long as they're not a service economy.
They can take their workers and shuffle them off to a place
where the standard of living is much lower.
They've got every advantage
and none of the responsibilities and accountability.
And so is there another way that isn't
coming up with a competitor for them.
Is it just holding them to account?
I think you can do both.
You can do both. And we should do both.
We have to - You know, these problems are so multifaceted.
The hollowing out of our communities through trade deals
- written over the years, the tax laws being rigged, - Right.
and written over the years, our labor laws,
our environmental standards, all of it.
- We need a holistic reform agenda. - By the way, we do that.
I didn't mean to say like, it's just overseas,
like we undercut each other in America.
One thing that I will give serious credit,
to the Biden administration. Their push on anti-trust
has been incredibly heartening to see.
Because one of the things you're talking about is,
if we're going to let you to have these benefits.
And I think one of the biggest benefits
that we never talk about is limited liability.
If you set up a corporation, you can take on all this risk.
And if that company goes under,
- You just walk away. - Right.
You just start another company.
That's one of the biggest handouts from the public.
It's socialism.
It's socialism of losses.
- They privatize their profits, - Yeah, that's right.
but they socialize their losses.
And the justification is we wouldn't have any investment.
You wouldn't have any risk taking if we didn't do it.
OK, so we're publicly subsidizing risk in the market
because we think that's a good thing.
What do we get in exchange?
What does the public get back for this?
Having that conversation, the quid pro quo.
If we're going to bail you out every time there's a crisis,
if we're going to give trillions of dollars
of lending and support services,
what are we getting back?
Do you think maybe we could get back
a slightly cheaper internet rate or something?
- You know. - That's a fantastic point.
And here's maybe something and you guys tell me
what you think of this.
Why don't we subsidize risk for people?
You know, one of the things
that makes it so difficult for people to
get out of their situation is child care, health care.
You don't want to leave your job because you're not
going to get health care.
We make it impossible for people to take risks
because they're treading water to just stay afloat.
Yet for corporations, we say if we don't backstop you,
you'll never take a risk.
So why don't we do that for people?
Why don't we view people as human capital to be invested in
in that same way?
This is what basically FDR wanted in the second bill
of economic rights.
To provide certain protections, safeguards for all Americans.
So health care, you mentioned, housing, education,
the right to a secure retirement,
the right to a job with a good, you know, wage attached to it.
These were the things that FDR fought for
and the Democratic Party for many years fought for
as part of the party platform.
You know, basic protection, safeguards, rights, economic,
an economic bill of rights. And it,
you know, the party just, sort of at some point,
stopped fighting for those things.
I mean, to give one example,
my wife is a second grade teacher.
She had to get a master's degree to even be qualified
because we want good quality people looking after our kids.
That - that master's degree at a public university in New York
ended up causing - incurring about $50,000 worth of debt.
Now, there's no way in hell she’s going to pay that back
relative to the interest rate,
and right now scholars like Luke Herrine
have shown that the Biden administration
could cancel tens of thousands of dollars of student debt,
all of it, if they wanted to with the stroke of a pen.
They cannot blame Republicans for that.
They cannot blame congressional intransigence for that.
That is purely an ideological commitment
to the idea that higher education and not just sort of
studying the classics under a tree,
you know, pondering philosophy and Plato,
but getting the skills you need to be
- a nurse, a doctor, an engineer to do those things. - Right.
you have to become a debt slave for the rest of your life.
And we could change that tomorrow
and they just don't want to.
So this is the flip side of easy money.
Educational institutions understand that-
they always tell you this.
If you don't get a bachelor's degree, man, your life is over.
Now, they don't mention that a high school —
a white high school graduate has more wealth
than a Black college graduate.
That's a whole separate conversation.
But basically a bachelor's degree is the ante.
And that's going to be $100,000, $200,000.
That's your ante to get into the world.
- And is it-
and we've seen an astronomical —
talk about inflation.
The inflation in education.
Is that —
Is that the danger of easy money?
Because they know
people have nowhere else to go
and they know they're going to do whatever
they've got to do to get there.
And they know they're going to have customers
who will desperately take out loans
and they can inflate their administrative costs
and they can inflate everything else.
And they can have an endowment of $3 billion
and still be inflating their year to year costs.
Well, you're right. I mean, the credentialization of everything
and it's not just the bachelor's degree.
They really get you with you need the extra letters
behind your name beyond the bachelor's degree.
- Master's is the new bachelor's degree. - Yeah.
And then they make it very, very easy to borrow
tens of thousands of dollars to to get those degrees.
But what they don't do is really anything to ensure
that there's a there's a job with an income
that's going to be high enough to allow you
to ultimately get out from under that debt on the other side.
So what's the foundation of what you guys would
recommend is the reset?
If you're recommending a reset
and what are the tent posts of that
in terms of what that would look like
when you think about monetary policy
and congressional appropriations
and
you know, corporate policy. What's — how does that work?
I think when it comes to higher education
I think this goes to the same point we were talking about
with the COVID crisis, which is do we want a system
where you have to go into debt servitude
to be able to get a higher education degree to do
you know, the basic services we think are necessary
like nursing and education?
If not, then at the very least
we need to commit to making that free
and cancel existing debt, say, "This was a huge mistake."
- "We went the wrong direction. We want to turn the page."
But the next day or even the same day,
we need to reform the way that we are financing higher education.
Right? People joke that Harvard University is a hedge fund
with a university attached for nonprofit status right?
We need to think about that process.
There are ways to provide you know, cheaper goods
for everybody that require us to take
a bit more active intervention in how those markets
and industries are structured.
Modern Monetary Policy is maybe an effective tool
or a new way of looking at things.
What's the reset for
how corrupt the system currently is,
and what are some of the tentposts
of what it would look like otherwise?
I don't think either one of you is just saying
"Yeah, we can just print money and use it for whatever we want."
But it's a reprioritizing and seemingly
being more agile and less doctrinaire
in how we use monetary policy
and legislative agenda.
Well, I mean, most of the focus is on fiscal policy.
So it's on what we can do legislatively through Congress.
And I think what we did and what we have seen
Congress accomplish over the course of the last 20 months
or so is just astonishing, right?
That you can with the stroke of a pen, one provision
in a single piece of legislation, the Child Tax Credit
that one provision lifted more than
40% of all the kids living in poverty out of poverty.
Which is why we had to end it, Stephanie. We had to end it.
We had we had to stop it.
You know. So, Jon, it's like we have
everywhere you look in the economy,
you will find deficits that matter.
You will find them in education,
you will find them in infrastructure,
you will find them in housing,
you will find them in child poverty,
and senior, you know, ability to retire with dignity
and all the rest of it and on and on. And you're quite right,
that you can't solve every problem with a piece of legislation,
but the budget is a way to express our values as a nation.
It is a way to prioritize and it is a way to begin to fund
some of the long standing, underfunded
and addressed deficiencies in our economy.
So we have to figure out what are our priorities are.
I would go back to that
economic bill of rights
that I referred to earlier,
I think is a very good blueprint
and a very solid place to start.
Start with the jobs,
start with a job with a good pay,
with healthcare and a right to housing and an education-
And you're saying deficit spending
is the way to address this, that people
that deficit spending won't --
It's not a necessity
that that drives inflation
and it's not a necessity
that it saddles future generations
with debt.
It's not a necessity that saddles future generations.
It is not the case that deficits are inherently inflationary
but it is true
that deficits can get too big.
And one possible way for that to materialize
is in the form of inflation.
So, again, you can't spend willy nilly.
You can't drive trillions and trillions too rapidly into a very narrow hole.
You have to figure out over what period of time can I safely make these investments in infrastructure.
And you have to be able to resource what it is you’re trying to do.
Rohan said it earlier.
If you want to do infrastructure,
you have to be sure that you have available to you
the the contractors, the engineers, the architects,
the steel, the machinery.
But that you can get ahead of.
That's the kind of thing that planning -
- Oh, oh, Jon. - What?
- You said the P — - Should I leave?
I'm just gonna go. I should leave.
You said the P-word.
You're not getting invited back to the Christmas party now.
I apologize.
This is a scary word
because you just said "planning."
You have to plan. Yes.
You have to plan for prosperity.
And by the way, boardrooms are invented for the purpose of planning.
That's what corporate America does.
They go walk into the boardroom for the purpose of planning.
So we have to be
willing to plan for prosperity.
We have to be willing to do that.
Let me ask you a question though, about
what you said about legislative priorities,
because there is a part of me
that feels that democracy,
and especially our system,
is analog in a new digital world,
and it's not agile.
And we did in the middle of a crisis,
do what we can.
But as far as the
the structure of capitalism
and the government
moving forward,
it doesn't seem particularly suited
to addressing the public's needs.
It seems more suited to status quo
and keeping those that are winning,
winning more
and keeping those that are losing entrenched.
Can we also use the power of monetary policy
for those kinds of
those kinds of effects that can help bridge that gap?
This is where I think your conversation with Tom to sort of go back to the beginning was so helpful
because until we're clear about what’s actually going on
and until the people who know how this works can
be honest with someone
like you asking very authentic questions,
we are not going to have those changes.
So take, for example,
let's make all fiscal spending, deficit spending, financed by new money creation.
The trillion dollar coin idea that you sort of laughed at ten years ago
now you come around
let's have that be the basis of all fiscal spending.
If the Federal Reserve wants to tighten financial conditions
or manage inflation,
let's make sure it has the right tools to do that.
Let's combine with other agencies
like the antitrust divisions,
like the planning divisions to make sure
we don't hit those inflationary barriers.
And let's simplify a lot of this stuff
to the level we can have conversations with the public
-so that it's not something- -Yes.
that the monkeys feel so dumb
they can't have an opinion on.
But don't you think it's purposefully complex
-and purposefully obtuse? -Yes.
They don't want transparency in any way.
And those central bankers- they're trained in the art
of very careful language.
-You make a central bank announcement, -Yeah.
all the markets pore over each word like it's
-a hermeneutic religious text. -Right.
So demystifying that through things like media
through things like this podcast is so important because otherwise
there's not- we're in that-
-We're in the Catholic Church speaking Latin. -Right.
We're in that phase of economic theory.
Although they were very good with fiscal policy
I have to admit, in terms of...
- They had great music. You got to give it to them. - Tremendous
How does what you're saying
differ from sort of more standard
Keynesian economics, or is it different?
It's different, Jon.
I think it's different
-almost from beginning to end. -OK.
It really is.
We are not talking about occasionally priming the pump
to get the economy back and running
and then turning everything back over to the central bank,
which is really what mainstream economics is about.
You turn to fiscal
to fiscal policy in a moment of crisis.
It's like on the wall with the glass through the thing in front of it -Yes.
-that says break glass in case of emergency. -Right.
Otherwise you do...
-You gotta...
-You gotta land the plane. -Yeah.
That's what they always say,
"Gotta land the plane."
Yeah. You do not touch fiscal policy.
You leave macro policymaking up to the technocrats at the central bank and you sit back
and you hope that by dialing the interest rate up and down,
you will somehow end up with
an economy that produces opportunity and good wages.
And so forth for everybody else.
You know, the kinds of educational opportunity.
And it won't work. It won't work.
But that is mainstream Keynesian economics
turn the dial mostly the interest rate dial
use fiscal policy for an emergency
put it back in the box,
work to bring down the deficit.
So we are
we are saying something completely different.
And when it comes to jobs, for example,
the mainstream central banker's theory for decades now
has been that there's a level of unemployment
that we have to tolerate.
It's sort of like saying, “Well, I’ve got a class and two out of 20 of my kids,”
“I'll never teach them, you know they’re unteachable. Let’s just give up on them.”
They call it the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment.
It was literally a way of saying
if we push unemployment below this level,
it's going to cause inflation.
So we're comfortable with calling 5% unemployment
full employment.
They just threw that 5% away
and they said, “Oh, that’s as good as we can get. So that is full employment.”
Why is it on the consumer level that when you stimulate that a little bit,
it creates this inflationary pressure,
but when you stimulate it at the corporate level,
there is no pressure.
It just makes sense then that they're just hoarding it.
The assumption there is that if the workers have more jobs,
then they'll be able to tell their boss
to go fuck themselves.
And demand a higher wage.
And if they do that,
then wages will translate into higher prices in consumer goods
because companies will take that higher wage cost
and put it straight into prices.
Let's not talk about their profit share,
which is often
many multiples of their labor cost.
They'll just translate it.
So that's the thing.
What's the lever you could use?
So to me, that's the only driver, right?
If people start doing better,
companies get used to
it's like when they say,
let's drop the corporate tax rate.
Well now that's the new high tax rate
they've become accustomed to.
So unless you drop it to zero –
I mean,
you almost foresee a point
where they're like, “Look, we'll pay you to stay here.”
“Don't worry about tax, we'll pay you.”
It's extortion.
So how do you get a company - if a Wal-Mart says, “Okay.”
“I’m going to pay these guys more, but the only way I can make it up is I’ve got to jack prices up.”
Why is that billion dollar profit
not in any way-
That's just that's the standard.
What are the levers that can deal with that?
We can regulate prices directly.
Right now, the Bank of England's governor, the Central Bank of England has literally said,
“Workers should try to ask for less wages to keep inflation down.”
So they're comfortable “regulating the price of labor.”
They’re saying the price of labor is too high.
We should keep it low,
but they will not regulate the profit margins of businesses directly.
So that's one thing we could do.
We could just say there's a there's a level of profits
beyond which we don't want to allow.
If it translates to higher prices.
It’s been done historically, excess profit taxes and so forth.
They do a luxury tax in baseball.
- You pay too much money on the thing, there's a luxury tax. - Yeah.
- If you make too much money, there should be a luxury tax. - Yeah.
They have a handicap in golf, you know.
You know, in Japan, their culture is very different, obviously.
But they do
there’s a practice that's pretty effective
and well known, and it's called jawboning.
And the government can quite literally
just sort of
say something that is in a sense, shaming companies for
you know, even thinking about raising prices.
They just go, you don't want to do that.
We're watching you.
That depends on a culture that can be shamed.
- I'm not so sure we have that. - Exactly.
Well, we do have the full muscle of the American federal government
- in the event that shaming doesn’t work. - But that's my point.
How the heck could they do $120 billion bond buys every month?
How could they do quantitative easing?
How could they do TARP
-and not have stipulations about- - Because we allow it.
- We allow it. - Yeah
- We allow it. We get the democracy
we deserve that kind of thing.
But Lina Kahn at the FTC for example,
is trying to start doing this.
So I think connecting what we are talking about
the the macroeconomic monetary level with that
- direct price market- - That’s-
that's the sweet spot
that micro antitrust
with the macro full employment
you know public goods
- that's the vision for the future. - and using-
monetary policy
as well as legislative impact,
I think is... that was the part
that I was trying to get to.
We've got this giant weapon
and we only use it in one direction
because we feel like politically,
if the stock market goes down,
it's devastating.
And B, that they'll just leave that oh, the corporations will just leave
if we don't, if we're not nicer to them.
Bonkers.
Yeah.
Alright, well, guys, is there anything else that you felt like
I really wanted to make sure that I
got through to this person
from his conversation with
Thomas Hoenig or about kind of the
the policies that we're talking about?
I think your initial instincts were good.
We can have nice things.
And this idea that we can, you know,
print money for the billionaires
or for the banks and not for the people is bad.
It's not a coherent idea.
And anyone that tells you so is gaslighting you.
The central bankers get very worried.
And, you know, when
when the bailouts happened after the financial crisis,
and it became so clear to everyone
that the central bank did have a money cannon
and that it could just unleash and, you know,
it was trillions of dollars in those years.
And people started to scratch their heads
and say exactly what you said.
Why for them?
Why do you aim the cannon only there?
And you started to hear people
across Europe and elsewhere say,
what about a people's quantitative easing?
What about QE for the people?
- And that's what really rattles the central bank. - Right.
Because people are starting to say it about the European Central Bank.
There are proposals to say, “Listen, we got a climate crisis.”
We have to have something like a Green New Deal.
Where are we going to get the trillions that that's going to require?
And they go, “Wait a minute. I remember.”
Mario Draghi, when he was the head of the ECB, said
that we can never run out of money.
I remember hearing him say that.
Neel Kashkari at the Minneapolis Fed last year said,
“We have an unlimited amount of dollars at the Fed.”
And I said, “When do you hear the word 'unlimited' coming from a central banker except to bail out the bankers?”
When Bernanke said,
- you can find this video online too- - Yeah.
and Bernanke said, “It’s not taxpayer money.”
“We just use the computer to mark up the size of the account.”
And people went,
“You use the computer? Well would you use the computer to mark up the size of my account?”
Oh, my Lord.
And that's when people like Jerome Powell have to remind us
that the Fed does not have the authority
to do that, that they could be given the authority.
But at present, they don't. The marking up of your account
can happen when Congress provides
the instructions to the Fed.
We're sending out checks.
Now go help us mark up these accounts.
And that's how it happens.
And these are the guys that are like,
"Crypto sounds like magic," you know?
Meanwhile, they're just like,
"Presto Change-o:
trillion dollars!"
Larry Summers is on the board
of a number of crypto and fintech firms.
But then he has got, you know,
nothing but contempt for sending out $600 checks-
Yeah. It's just, it's bonkers, right?
I really appreciate you guys coming on and engaging
with the conversation.
Thank you for having us.
Thank you, Jon.
ーーーーーーーーー
ご列席の皆様、ポッドキャストへようこそ。エキサイティングでエキサイティングなポッドキャストがあります。今日のポッドキャストは反論です。これは、私たちが行った以前のポッドキャストをさらに明確にするものです。今日のお客様、とてもエキサイティングです。ステファニーケルトンとロハングレイ。彼らは、経済学への新しいアプローチの一種である現代貨幣理論と呼ばれるものの主要な権威の一部です。まず、ご招待いただきありがとうございます。私たち二人とも、このことについてお話しします。- 喜んでいる。大丈夫。それで、それをロールバックさせてください。これについて少し興味を持って始めましょう。KC連銀の議長だったと思われるトーマス・ホーニグという紳士にインタビューしたところ、彼はFRBからの量的緩和に「いいえ」と投票していました。これは、経済に多額の資金を投入するという彼らの方針です。 。そして彼と私は活発な議論をしました。そこで私は経済学や経済学の言語や経済学の言い回しの知識がなくても、FRBがなぜこのお金の大砲をアメリカの企業に持ち込むことができ、多分許さないのかを理解しようとしていました。昔の近所では、人々に味わってもらいましょう。どのように '少し味がありますか？お金の大砲から少し何か。私たちがお金を印刷できるかのように私は混乱していると思います、あなたは私たちだけだと言っただけです-私たちは資産を買うことができます。わかった。お金を印刷することによるあらゆる資産。-それは私たちです-しかし、あなたは支払うことができません-お金を印刷することによって借金をしますか？あなたはお金を印刷することによって借金を買うことができます。-またはあなた---それで、あなたは私たちの借金を買い戻すだけですか？ええと…あなたがしているのは-あなたが問題を抱えているような気がするからです。猿と話しているようなものです。-いや、いや。-あなたは猿と話し、理解しようとしているようなものです---見てください---この猿とどのようにコミュニケーションをとるのですか？-いや、いや。-どうしたらいいのかわからない。いや、いや、それ。私は完全に。私は完全にそれを取得します。ややこしい。ステファニーとローハンは、インターネット上で長いチャット形式でコメントするのに十分なほど素敵でした。これは、これが一部であるため、どちらも充実した人生を送っていないと私は思いました。これはどのように行われましたか-これはどのようにしてあなたの注意を引いたのですか？そして、これがどのようにして起こったのかを私に説明してください。だから私は、あなたが知っている、私はポッドキャストを聞いています-そして私はTwitterにいます。- はい。ステファニー。RohanはTwitterにいますが、これについてはかなりおしゃべりがありました。- わかった。あなた、あなたたちはいくつかのボタンを押しました、しかしあなたは私のために押されたボタンを押さなかった、そして私はローハンのために思う。私たちは間違ったボタンを使っていましたか？ダメダメダメ。不平等に対するFRBの量的緩和プログラムの影響、潜在的な影響については、多くの関心とコメントの一部が取り巻かれていると思います。- 正しい。しかし、私は会話の別の部分を取り上げたかったのです-そして私はポッドキャスト全体を聴きました-OK。それから私はとても悲しくなりました -そしてあなたは知っています---うわー。それが私たちの目標です。ポッドキャスト全体を聞いて悲しくなるときはいつでも、私は仕事をしました。ミザリーは会社が大好きです。それでローハンに連絡して、「とても悲しくて、お願いします…」「一緒に悲しみを体験してください」「一緒に聞いてくれませんか？」と言いました。私がそこで何が間違っていたのか、そしてあなたが会話がどこに行くべきだと思ったのかを私に話すことによって、あなたたちにあなた自身を悲しませない機会を与えるつもりですか？トーマス・ホーニグとのFRBの政策について私が話しているのを聞いていたとき、あなたたち二人が悲しんだのは何でしたか？まあ、それはあなたの話をあまり聞いていなかったと思います。彼があなたに与えたなら、あなたが彼から引き抜くことができたかもしれないものの機会を逃したのです-率直に言って、もっと率直な答えだと思います-公正な揺れ。-質問に。- うん。- うん。- わかった。ええ、つまり、出発点は、FRBを、連邦政府で金銭的な火力を持っている唯一の機関だと考えることが多いということだと思いますよね？それは一種の印刷機です。それは危機の中で何でもできるものです。しかし現実は、COVIDはこれを実証する素晴らしい仕事をしたと思います。それは財政の火力であり、実際に人々の収入を節約し、産業を救い、投資する力を実際に持っているのは予算の側面です。そして、大きな問題の1つは、私たちが予算で物事を行うことができ、そうあるべきであると受け入れるかどうか、FRBの役割は何か、そしてそれらは互いにどのように関係しているかということです。そして、流動性危機から金融市場を保護したり、金融機関を規制したりすることになると、ええ、連邦準備制度があなたが期待する場所かもしれないことは理にかなっています。しかし、FRBが何をしているのかを見ると、FRBが経済に数兆ドルを注入したようなものだと言えば、FRBが行っていることの1つは資産の購入です。ですから、最初に考えるべきことはそこにあるということです。■常に2つの資産が関係しています。入ってくる種類のお金があり、FRBに行くために戻ってくるものは何でもあります。だから誰かが私に言ったら「ねえ」「あなたは何兆ドルも持っていますが、あなたがすることは他のドルを買うことだけです。」私が住宅所有者を保護しようとしているのなら、それは私には非常に役に立たないでしょう-それは正しいです-または彼らの収入を失った人々量的緩和とは何を買っているのでしょうか？そして、これはあなたが本当に面白いものに乗り始めたと思うところです。多分それをこのように定式化させてください。私たちがそれから抜け出さなければならない方法には一定の正統性があります。 。金利のゆっくりとした上昇。金融政策の引き締め。多分彼らはお金の一部を焼き尽くします。その正統性を再考する必要がありますか？そして、私がそれを尋ねる理由は、あなたがこの借金について話していたからです。右？右。私にとって、そして明らかに、私は素人であり、その複雑さを理解していません。この金融政策はある種の妄想のように感じられます。そして、なぜ彼らはその債務をキャンセルし、国の負担を減らしてから、金利を引き上げて多額の債務を抱える場合に、より少ない政策を強化することができなかったのでしょうか。-右。-それから、私たちはそれらの支払いをすることにこのすべての圧力をかけています。そして、FRBが債務をキャンセルし、金利を引き上げて競争の場をリセットしてみませんか？ええと、それの難しさは、もちろん、これは政府が負っている債務です。だから今あなたはあなたにこの借金を持っているつもりですそしてあなたはただ言うつもりです、私はしません-私はもうそれを借りていません。トム・ホーニグがあなたのいる場所であなたに会わなかったとき、彼は「ああ、それは非常に複雑です、あなたはばかげた小さな男の子です」と言ったのです。ご存知のとおり、現実には、FRBが財務省債務を交換できるかどうかという本当の問題を特定していると思います。お金のためにそしてそれは基本的にほとんど効果がありません-そしてそれはお金を印刷することができます。財務省は財務省の債務を「印刷」しており、連邦政府は財務省の印刷された債務を買い取るためにお金を印刷しています。- 正しい。それは、お母さんがIOUを発行し、それからお父さんがそれを取り出して、財布から現金を渡すようなものです。そこで起こっている実際のことは何ですか？経済への影響は何ですか。トムは、「私が非常に真面目な経済学者であるため、私のように理解している場合は、覚えておいてください」と述べています。「お金はIOUです。財務省債務はIOUです。したがって、私たちが行っているのは、「黄色を緑色に交換することだけです。まったく同じです。」そしてあるレベルでは、彼は間違っていません。-彼は100％間違っているわけではありません。- わかった。しかし、反対側では、あなたも間違っていませんでした。つまり、国債とお金の違いはありますか？はい。トムが言っていたように、その違いは経済レベルでは非常に小さいのでしょうか？はい。しかし、あなたが言っていたように、それは社会的レベルで、政治的レベルで大きいですか？絶対。したがって、数兆ドルの政府債務がある場合、人々はそれをお金として保持します。あなたはゴールドマンサックスに彼らの「現金口座」に何が入っているか尋ねます-彼らはあなたが国債について話していると思うでしょう。-わかった。彼らにとって、財務省の債務はお金です。したがって、財務省の債務をドルに交換する場合は、普通預金口座からお金を受け取り、当座預金口座に入れるようなものです。お金が少ないですか？いいえ。しかし、政治的観点から、文化的観点から、あなたは「国の債務を解決した」のです。私たちは孫たちの危機を解決しました。-それが私が目指していたポイントでした。-中国からの借入れを解決しました。それで私は彼に私たちの借金を持っている人を尋ねようとしていましたか？彼は、「まあ、中国は私たちの借金を抱えている、他のすべてのことは……」と言った。あなたは借金の支払いをやめることはできない。いいえ、でもあなたはただ...私たちの債務を量的に緩和することはできませんか？そのお金をゴールドマンサックスが利用できるようにすることと、そのお金を中国が利用できるようにすることの違いは何ですか？1つだけが私たちの借金を減らすでしょう。あなたはそのお金を印刷して借金を支払うだけです。これがとにかく私たちが薄い空気から作ったお金なら、私たちが10兆ドルを生み出すのを阻止するために何が必要なのか-ご存知のように、私はポール・クルーグマンが1兆ドルの硬貨を考えたことをからかっていました-ええ。右。-あなたは知っていますそして今-私は自分自身が言っているのを感じます-あなたはその中にいます。"ちょっと。" -「まあ、10兆ドルのコインを手に入れましょう。」-右。「1つを中国に、もう1つをヨーロッパに与えなさい。」私たちは正方形ですか？"良い。" そして、このすべてが製造されたように見えるので、もう一度やり直します。彼らのために、借金のためにそれを交換してください。そして、少なくとも、私たちは今、コントロールしています。住宅ローンを買い戻しました。ですから、金利が上がったとしても、今ではそれを差し押さえることはできません。私達は私達の借金に対してもっと多くのコントロールを持っています。それは理にかなっていますか？つまり。私は最も重要なことの1つだと思います-あなたは彼と一緒にやろうとしていました-そうです。これを国債と呼んでいるという考えでしたが、これがローハンのポイントです。黄色い紙と緑色の紙があります。私たちにはドルと財務がありますが、それらは非常に異なって考えられています。従来、グリーンペーパーは債務とは考えていませんが、イエローペーパー、つまり国債、財務省は債務と考えています。-そしてそれはFRBが購入しているものですか？彼らは国庫を買っています。彼らは債券を買っています。彼らは借金を買っています。うん。トムの考えでは、彼はその中央銀行レベルで考えているので、それらは同じです。したがって、彼にとって、それらは貸借対照表上の異なる負債にすぎません。しかし、私たちと一緒に、あなたが知っている、一般の人々と一緒に、これらは完全に異なる世界です。ジョンが流通している公的資金の在庫を知っていますか？何人の人がそれを知っていますか？-国の借金カウンターがあります。-右。下に全国のお金のカウンターはありません。誰もそれを数えていません-そして彼らはその供給を月に1200億ドル増やしています。まだ。ええ、孫はいません。中国は関与していません。債券市場は関与していません。それは私たちの政府があなたが支払う必要があると言っている方法を思い出させます。ですから、私たちが危機や国民が必要とする重大な何かを抱えているときはいつでも、政府は「ごめんなさい。私たちは裁量的な支出をしている」と言うでしょう。「これはこの金額です。それに追加したい場合は、他の誰かからそれを奪う必要があります...」「または支払いを作成します。」わかった。「まあ、また、私たちは戦争に行きたいです。」「ああ、わかりました。それで、私たちの報酬はいくらですか？」「ええ、私たちはお金を払うつもりはありません。」"どう言う意味ですか？" 「ええ、私たちはただ-」自由はそれ自体で報われます。「私たちはただそこに出すつもりです」「そして私たちはそれに対してお金を払うつもりです。」しかし、我々' 再しない-それは私たちが考えさえしない単なる借金になるでしょう。何にも追加しません。ただです。そして、それは、まあ、あなたは私たちの予算に何が行き、何がただの空気であるかを決めることができるように見える部分です。それが私が理解しようとしていた部分です。それが政治です。そして、あなたは正確に正しいです。そして、私がいつも言っているのは、あなたが知っているように、私たちがヘルスケア、チャイルドケア、またはビルドバックベターアジェンダとそれ以外のすべてを持ちたいお金を見つけることについてのこのすべての会話があります。彼らは言います ｢どうやってお金を払うの？「どこでお金を見つけましたか？」そして私はいつも「投票があればお金はそこにある」と言いたいのです。投票がお金を追い出したものだからです。あなたが言ったように、国防授権法が毎年施行されるたびに、彼らはお金を追い出します。手作業はありません。彼らは大きな議論や議論をするために一時停止しません。マンチンは立ち上がって、「ちょっと待って、孫のことを心配している」と言いません。-無料。いいえ、別に。ほとんどすべての米国上院議員-彼らが行う最も超党派的なことは、毎年国防授権法に投票することです。そしてそれだけではありません。彼らは言う、あなたが知っている、「国防総省はどれくらい要求しましたか？「ああ、今日はとても寛大だと感じています。200億ドルを持ってほしいのです。」-「それはあなたが求めた以上のものです。」-彼らはさらに200億ドルを彼らに与えました、-その間-常に。-私たちは退役軍人の健康管理を火傷の穴への暴露から得ようとしています。彼ら' バックエンドでそれらを安くするつもりです。それは戦争の費用の一部ではないかのようです。それはクレイジーです。そして、私はFRBについて話しているだけで、おそらくそれは彼らの権限や他の誰かではないかもしれませんが、なぜ彼らはインフラストラクチャーのために1200億ドルの地方債を発行できないのですか？債券や債務、財務省を購入するだけなら、インフラストラクチャを購入してみませんか？銀行が現金を蓄え続けるためだけでなく、そのお金を使ってみませんか？使ってみませんか？何年も前に、私は共和党議員のレイ・ラフッドの要請でワシントンDCに行きました。-運輸長官の権利、イリノイ。-うん。そして、LaHoodはあなたが今言ったことを正確にやりたかったのです。つまり、その男は本当にアメリカの崩壊しつつあるインフラに投資したかったのです。これらの投資を行います。そして彼は私達がFRBを使うべきであると言った、FRBはこれらの債券をゼロで購入する必要があります。つまり、実質的にゼロ金利であり、資金調達などを促進する必要があります。そして、私の同僚であるランディ・レイと私はこれについて何かを書いた後、DCに行き、FRBの当局者と会い、彼らを案内して、これがすべてどのように機能するかについて話すように頼まれました。それで私は行って、アラン・グリーンスパンの椅子に座りました、私たちは素敵なチャットをしました。しかし、一日の終わりに、彼らは私に、「私たちはそれが議会を通過するのを見たいと思っています」と言いました。貸借対照表の記入項目などで見せたところ、「でも、1つのうち6つ、もう1つは6つ」と言ったのですが、「まあ、5つは好きです。 1つは私たちをそれから遠ざけるので...」「そしてもう1つは私たちをこのプロセスに統合します。」FRBは現在、他の種類のものに資金を提供しており、その一部を望んでいないと明確に述べています。ええ、FRBには勝者や敗者を選ぶと見なされないという大きなコミットメントがあります。そのため、COVIDで初めてこの自治体の貸付施設を設立したとき、彼らはそれを嫌っていました。かろうじて使用されました。彼らはそれを非常に困難にしたので、1つか2つの州の自治体だけが実際にそれを利用しました。先ほどの質問ですが、連邦政府の債務は米ドルと同じ完全な信頼と信用によって保証されているという意味で、政府、連邦財務省の債務、州および地方の債務には少し違いがあると思います。ですから、それは実際には、-高額紙幣-右と小額紙幣のほとんどの違いです。これらの他の人と、あなたは、州や地方政府のタブを手に取っているようなものです。-これは良いことです。-しかし、それの反対側でもありません、しかし、その州と地方政府は連邦政府がすることができる方法で赤字を実行することができません。-それで、FRBがそうするつもりなら、-その通り。それは実際にはもっと影響力があり、連邦政府の支出の多くが実際に州内に存在する穴をカバーすることであるため、それを可能にするでしょう。と地方自治体の資金。ニューヨーク市が独自の防衛力を行使すべきかどうかを連邦議会議員に尋ねると、ニューヨーク市警の規模は別として、彼らはノーと言うでしょう、それは連邦の仕事です。-地方自治体に任せることはあまりにも重要です-神のために国家安全保障。-州ごとの州。良い、では、なぜインフラストラクチャーではないのでしょうか。なぜ教育のためではないのですか？-なぜあるのかという答えのとき-ヘルスケア。ええ、なぜ連邦政府に何かユニークなものがあるのですか？-それは財布の力を持っています。-右。その印刷機があります。私たちは皆そのシステムを使っていますよね？それは彼らの世界です。私たちはただそこに住んでいます。それで、ここで私たちが考えたところに入ります-これは一種の違いであり、私が持っているサプライサイド経済学とデマンドサイド経済学の非常に基本的な理解です。そして、私が何について話しているのか、それが私が物事を行う方法を知らなくても、できる限りそれを説明します。わかった。サプライサイド経済学は40年間ありましたが、過去15年間で、FRBが大量の流動性を注入し、金利を引き下げたことで、本当に盛り上がりました。これ' ■基本的には、より大きな資産を高レベルで膨らませるだけです。あなたは人々にあなたのお金を節約することは何の意味もないと言っています、しかしそれを株式市場または不動産に投資することはすべてです。あなたが低金利を維持し、人々が4％、5％、6％の貯蓄を得ることができない場合、彼らの唯一の選択肢は株式市場か不動産か何か他のものです。そして一般的に、お金はそこに流れ込み、それを膨らませています。配当や買い戻し、そして起こっている他のすべてのことは、ますます不平等を生み出しています。さて、サプライサイド経済学は「そしてそれはトリクルダウンして経済成長と発展を生み出すだろう」と言うでしょう？1.9兆ドルの減税、0％の金利。規制緩和の総量と、GDPまたは所得の中央値で何が得られたのでしょうか。ごくわずか。そしてインフレは何もしません。したがって、基本的に、そのすべての供給サイドのお金は、決して経済を刺激するようには見えません。今、パンデミックが発生し、私たちは「ただクソだけでみんなに600ドルを与える」と言います。経済は10％、12％の成長を遂げます。突然、インフレが問題になります。それは、私たちがはるかに少ない砲兵で経済を成長させ、目を離さなかったかもしれないとあなたに思わせます-労働者がお金を得るときだけ、インフレが問題になります。私が今言ったことを経済的な観点から説明し、それから私を採点し、それから私が来年のクラスに入るのかどうかを教えてください。さて、あなたが話しているのは、2つの異なるポリシーレバーです。財政政策のてこはあなたが説明したものです。人々にお金を与える-議会を使って法案を可決する、私たちがやったこと。-右。-あなたが始めたのは金融政策です。- 正しい。これ' s中央銀行。それは資産の購入です。それはゼロ金利政策と残りすべてです。そして規制緩和と減税。それはすべて非常にサッチャー、レーガン、供給側のトリクルダウンです。ですから、あなたはまったく正しいです。これを行いました。私たちはこの実験を約40年ほど何度も繰り返してきました。証拠は、ここ米国だけでなく、世界中にあります。それは動作しません。それは機能するように設計されているので、それは機能する、と言う人もいるかもしれませんが、それは所得と富の不平等を拡大することです。しかし、それはまた、一番上の人々にすべての利益をかき集めることによって、彼らは振り返ってそのお金を経済に戻す傾向がありません。それは私たちに成長の遅い、ただひどい経済を与え、そこではますます少数の人々が先に進みます。賃金圧力はありません」なぜなら、経済がその潜在力に実際に近づくことは決してないので、労働市場は決して熱くなりません。そのため、私たちは基本的に経済の船を操縦するために中央銀行に依存してきました。あなたたちはそれを理解し、あなたはあなたの金利とあなたの、あなたがそれを何と呼んだか、Rumplestiltskinスキルを使います。-あなたの錬金術。うん。-あなたはそれの世話をします。ええ、あなたの錬金術と財政政策。私たちは、赤字を抑えようとすることや、そのようなことすべてについて心配するつもりです。したがって、大部分は、その財政政策の手段を使用し、ある種の経済成長を設計しようとするすべての責任を中央銀行に任せることに消極的です。そして、彼らは何を持っていますか？彼らは金利ツールを持っています。それが主要なツールです。それで彼らは彼らができることをします、それはますます低い金利です、それがうまくいくなら、ジョン。金利を引き下げる目的は、私たちの残りの人々に借り入れと支出を促すことであるため、金融政策は人々を借金に追いやることによって機能します。- 右。右。財政政策は人々に収入をもたらすことによって機能しますが、あなたが言ったように、600ドル。- 要求する。どうぞ。それは、あなたがそれを無料で明確に所有していて、あなたがそれを返済する必要がないということです。したがって、動作は大きく異なります。彼らは異なる構成員に奉仕します。しかし、経済であるステファニーは、アメリカ経済の70％が個人消費であると彼らは言います。経済の70％が支出によって動かされているのに、なぜ経済の15％でそれを刺激するのでしょうか。あなたはそのような小さな銃でそれを刺激することができます。あなたが不平等を引き起こす低金利について話していたとき、あなたは貯蓄者と人々が彼らを置く場所を必要としていると言いました、あなたが知っている、彼らの退職金を置くために。そして、これは本当に重要なポイントだと思います。なぜなら、あなたと私が高金利について考えるとき、それは一種の両刃の剣ですよね？一方では、私たちの普通預金口座は多分もっと稼いでいるか、そのようなものです。しかし、その一方で、住宅ローンが高いか、クレジットカードの金利が高いか、そのようなものです。そして、世界中に方法があります、あなたが知っている、私はオーストラリアから来ました。あなたが公的年金制度、消費者のための公的貯蓄を作ることができる方法があります。しかし、私たちが今持っているのは、あなたがより高い料金を払いたいのなら、あなたが知っている、ママとポップの節約者、退職者、それらの種類のもののためのシステムです。また、すべてのヘッジファンド、財務省の債務を保有する他のすべての投資ファンドに対して、より高い金利を支払う必要があります。そして、あなたはこの人質の状況にあり、低料金がA）不平等、B）貯蓄者と年金受給者を彼らのお金から飢えさせている原因であると見られています。現実はそうですが、私たちはそれらに対して高いレートを設定する必要がありますが、それらすべての投資ビークルのレートはおそらくゼロです。-そして、規定はありません。-いいえ、2つの間に違いはありません。- 右。年金債や非年金債ではありません。それはただの絆です。そしてそれらの多くは、年金受給者ではない投資家によって保有されています。-そして、例を挙げましょう。この簡単な金融政策は、アメリカの航空業界が現金で一杯になることを可能にしたものです。そしてその間、これは2008年以降であり、彼らは現金で一杯になります。彼らは、株主を再び豊かにするためだけに、大量の株式買戻しを行っています。そして、パンデミックが発生し、そして彼らは手元に現金を持っていません。そのため、私たちは彼らのゴールデンパラシュートに助成金を支給しましたが、輸送に依存している業界には助成金を支給していません。ですから、線を引くのが本当に難しいのは、金利を超高額に引き上げるべきだと言っているのではないと思います。しかし、私たちはあなたが話しているような簡単なお金を持ちたくないのです。では、どうすればより厳しい財政状態、ウォール街へのより多くの制限、これらの大企業へのより多くの制限を課すことができるでしょうか？アイデアがあれば、必要なときにお金を印刷できますが、それを使用するのは、金融システムや大手銀行が必要なときだけです。私たちが実際にそれを印刷するのは彼らのためだけです。このパンデミックでは、よりケインズレベルでそれを行いました。そして突然、インフレは暴走した。また、バレルに労力をかける、つまり「ほら、やってみた」。「私たちはあなたたちに少しのお金を与えました、そして何が起こったのか見てください。」パンデミックにおけるサプライチェーンの問題の外部性は考慮されていません。それは私たちが決して先に進んだことがないことを考慮に入れていません、私たちはそのお金の流入を計画していませんでした。ですから、消費者支出以外に行くところはありませんでした。では、少なくとも、ケインズ派のアプローチを採用すると、ガスや食料品など、苦労している人々が最初に頼っているすべての商品がすぐに破壊されるという認識とどのように戦うのでしょうか。つまり、1つは、世界中を見渡して、米国よりもはるかに少ない国を見るということです。パンデミックと経済の落ち込みに対処するために、財政政策の面で非常に大きな反応がありました。2020年3月から2021年3月までの約5兆ドルは、議会を通じてコミットされました。ですから、私たちが行った場所の近くには行かなかったこれらすべての国を見ることができます。ドイツのインフレ率は40年ぶりの高水準です。-中国のインフレ率は40年近くの高さです。-ああ、わかりました。だから、そしてこれらはあなたが話していることです。エネルギー価格、サプライチェーン、ボトルネック、ご存知のとおり、さまざまな時期に経済のさまざまな部分をシャットダウンして再開することに関連する問題。-これらは避けられない成長の痛みの一種です。-したがって、この場合、相関関係は因果関係ではありません。-その通りです。- わかった。しかし、あなたはそうです-あなたは、ケインズ経済政策と今回の政策対応には本当のリスクがあると言うのは正しいです、それは2008年以降の政策対応よりもはるかに良かったです、人々が現在インフレ率が上昇している理由をよりよく理解していなければ、真の黒目で逃げることができます。私たちが指を指して、「まあ、これは、人々が家にとどまり、雇用主に愛着を持ち、手形を支払うためにいくらかの収入を得るのを助けようとすると起こることです」と言い始めます。二度とそれを行うことはできません。これが罰でした。それを起こさせることはできません。インフレがどのように現れているかを考えると、注目すべきことの1つは、他の方法で潜在的に展開されている実際のリソースはどこにあるかということです。だから誰かが銀行に来て「学校を建てたい」と言ったら。それには労働者が必要になるでしょう。レンガが必要になります。他のものが必要になります。銀行の次のブースに誰か他の人がいて、「軍事費を3分の1削減する必要があると言っています。それは彼らがこれの終わりに非難しようとしている予算の一部ではありません。彼らは平均的な人々を助けることを非難するでしょう。私たちがリソースを持っているということですが、現在、民間のアクターがそれらを買いだめしている、または民間の市場で使用していて、それらが公に利用できない場合は、それらを利用できるようにする必要があります。ご存知のように、その政策について話すとき、政府が介入しても大丈夫だといつも私は思います。あなたが知っている、あなたは勝者と敗者について以前に言いました。政府が企業に代わって介入することは常にOKです。たとえば、ウォルマートは許可されているか、それらの企業の多くは、自給自足の賃金よりも少ない賃金を支払うことができます。しかし、アメリカの納税者はそれを社会福祉で助成しています。そして、フードスタンプは基本的にクラフトの補助金プログラムです。あなたが知っている、それは政府のお金です。したがって、私たちは常に企業のアメリカのためにお金を利用できるようにします。そしてそれは、他の方法で、私たちが考えていたものよりもおそらく小さいベーシックインカムというこの考えに私を思い起こさせます。しかし、私たちは企業の不正行為を助成しています。そのように私たちのお金の多くが行くところです。ですから、私たちの債務について話すとき、あるいは、あなたが知っているように、毎年発生している赤字は、その多くが不完全雇用、過少教育に基づいており、制約はありません。あなたはそれが何であるか知っていますか？私たちは常に「私たちは自由市場システムに住んでいます」と話します。しかし、このシステムについては、私には自由市場のようには思えません。それはすべての異なる角度で介入されているようです。労働者に代わって介入した場合にのみ、それは社会主義と呼ばれるものです。ほかのすべて？それはただ、あなたが知っている、それは縁故資本主義です、しかしそれは決してそれと呼ばれません。ご存知のように、私たちはいくつかの点で助成金を支給するつもりです。連邦政府は、貧困という避けられない問題に対処する方法を模索しようとしています。資本主義の巻き添え被害。右。しかし、フードスタンプの形であろうと、その他の収入の支払いの形であろうと、それが根本的に挑戦的であり、ウォルマートが労働者に過小支払を続けることができるという問題に取り組むことはないと思います。-そうする方法は、作成することだと思います-そうです。代替の職場。たとえば、連邦政府の雇用保証のようなものがあれば、誰もが適切な福利厚生などを備えた高賃金で仕事をする権利があります。それか' ウォルマートやその他の世界のアマゾンなどに圧力をかけて構造を変える方法。-しかし、コストコ。コストコは基本的にウォルマートと同じことをしませんか？彼らはただよりよく支払う。それは一種の同じビジネスです。そしてこれ-これはあなたの質問に行きます。ステファニーと私はどちらも、低所得の人はもっとお金を稼ぐべきだと信じています。として、あなたが知っている、明白なポイント。しかし、私の意見では、ベーシックインカムの将来について考えると、「資本主義の終わりよりも世界の終わりを覚える方が簡単だ」と言われているようなものです。だから、あなたが永遠にアマゾンギフトカードを持っていると想像してください。それはある意味でUBIです、なぜならあなたはあなたのお金を持っているからです、あなたはあなたが望むすべてを買うことができます、そしてそれはすべてジェフ・ベゾスの機械を通り抜けます。-それはすべてウォルマートのマシンを通過します。- 右。さて、COVIDの最初に戻ると、ポイントがありました-手指消毒剤の不足を覚えていますか？とても昔のようです。ちなみに、私はそれを始めました。それは私でした。-つまり、それは私の手指消毒剤の買いだめでした-それはあなたでしたか？それは多くのことを引き起こしました。あなたとドナルド・トランプ、そうですか？そのとおりです。その時点で、基礎となる化学物質とプロセスがほぼ類似しているため、香水工場を再利用できるかどうかについて真剣な話し合いがありました。今その瞬間、その社会主義ですか？人々が死なないようにクリスチャンディオールとシャネルを引き継ぐために？それとも、それは私たちの生活政策の単なる国防ですか？そして、私たちがそれを喜んで行うかどうかにかかわらず、本当に大きな質問だと思います。そして、これらの企業に代わる生産側を想定できるのであれば、需要側だけでなく、人々のポケットにもっとお金を入れたいのですが、彼らに生産してもらいたいのです。それで、何ですか-それに対する議論は何ですか？それに対する反論はA）政府は当然十分に効率的ではなく、所有すべきではないだろうか？ええ、郵便局を見たことがありますか？また、他の企業に対してそのような競争上の優位性を保持するということですか？しかし、あなたが会社を保持することができる別の方法があります...見てください、彼らは私たちの安定性と私たちのインフラストラクチャの恩恵を受けていますが、責任や説明責任はありません。彼らはすべてのお金をオフショアに保管することができます。彼らは彼らの借金を保持するために世界中で最も低い金利を比較して買い物をすることができます。彼らは彼らがしている限り彼らの労働者を連れて行くことができます サービス経済ではありません。彼らは労働者を連れて行き、生活水準がはるかに低い場所に彼らをシャッフルすることができます。彼らにはあらゆる利点があり、責任や説明責任はありません。そして、彼らの競争相手を思い付かない別の方法もあります。それは彼らを説明するために保持しているだけですか？両方できると思います。あなたは両方を行うことができます。そして、両方を行う必要があります。私たちはしなければなりません-あなたが知っている、これらの問題はとても多面的です。貿易協定による私たちのコミュニティの空洞化-何年にもわたって書かれ、税法が不正にされています-そうです。そして何年にもわたって書かれた、私たちの労働法、私たちの環境基準、それらすべて。-全体的な改革アジェンダが必要です。-ちなみに、そうします。アメリカでお互いを切り詰めたように、海外だけだと言うつもりはありませんでした。私が真剣に評価することの1つは、バイデン政権に。彼らの独占禁止法への取り組みは、非常に心強いものでした。あなたが話していることの1つは、これらのメリットを享受できるようにするかどうかです。そして、私たちが決して話さない最大の利点の1つは、有限責任です。あなたが会社を設立するならば、あなたはこのすべてのリスクを引き受けることができます。そして、その会社が倒産した場合、-あなたはただ立ち去ります。- 右。あなたはただ別の会社を始めます。これは、一般からの最大の配布物の1つです。それは社会主義です。それは損失の社会主義です。-彼らは利益を民営化します-そうです。しかし、彼らは彼らの損失を社会化します。そして正当化は、私たちには投資がないということです。私たちがそれをしなければ、あなたはリスクを取ることはありません。わかりました。市場のリスクを公的に助成しているのは、いいことだ。何と引き換えになりますか？国民はこれに対して何を取り戻しますか？その会話をして、クイドプロクォー。危機が発生するたびにあなたを救済するつもりなら、何兆ドルもの貸付と支援サービスを提供するつもりなら、私たちは何を取り戻すのでしょうか？少し安いインターネット料金か何かを取り戻すことができると思いますか？- ほら。-それは素晴らしいポイントです。そして、ここに何かがあるかもしれません、そしてあなたたちはこれについてあなたがどう思うかを私に話します。人々のリスクを助成しませんか？ご存知のように、人々が自分の状況から抜け出すのを非常に難しくしているものの1つは、育児、健康管理です。あなたは健康管理を受けるつもりがないのであなたは仕事を辞めたくありません。私たちは人々がリスクを冒すことを不可能にします。ただ浮かんでいるために水を踏み直します。しかし、企業の場合、私たちがあなたを後押ししなければ、あなたはリスクを冒すことは決してないだろうと私たちは言います。では、なぜ私たちは人々のためにそれをしないのですか？人々を同じように投資される人的資本と見なしてみませんか？これは基本的にFDRが2番目の経済的権利法案で望んでいたことです。特定の保護を提供するために、すべてのアメリカ人に保護手段を提供します。ですから、あなたがおっしゃったように、ヘルスケア、住宅、教育、安全な引退の権利、それに付随する良い賃金を伴う仕事の権利。これらはFDRが戦ったものであり、民主党は党の綱領の一部として長年戦っていました。あなたが知っている、基本的な保護、保障措置、権利、経済的、経済的権利章典。そして、それは、あなたが知っている、ちょうど、ある時点で、パーティーはそれらのもののために戦うのをやめました。つまり、一例を挙げると、私の妻は2年生の先生です。私たちが子供たちの世話をする質の高い人々を求めているので、彼女は資格を取得するために修士号を取得する必要がありました。それは、ニューヨークの公立大学で修士号を取得した結果、約5万ドル相当の借金を抱えることになりました。さて、彼女が金利に比べてそれを返済する方法はありません。そして今、ルーク・ヘリンのような学者は、バイデン政権が何万ドルもの学生の借金をキャンセルできることを示しました。ペンのストロークでに。彼らはそのことで共和党員を非難することはできません。彼らはそのために議会の非情を非難することはできません。それは純粋に、高等教育であり、木の下で古典を勉強するだけではなく、哲学とプラトンを熟考しているという考えへのイデオロギー的なコミットメントです。しかし、あなたが必要とするスキルを身につけること-それらのことをするための看護師、医者、エンジニア。- 右。あなたはあなたの人生の残りの間借金奴隷にならなければなりません。そして、私たちは明日それを変えることができました、そして彼らはただそうしたくありません。つまり、これは簡単なお金の裏返しです。教育機関はそれを理解しています-彼らはいつもあなたにこれを言います。学士号を取得しなければ、人生は終わりです。今、彼らは高校について言及していません—白人の高校の卒業生は黒人の大学の卒業生よりも富を持っています。それはまったく別の会話です。しかし、基本的には学士号がアンティです。そして、それは$ 100,000、$ 200,000になります。それは世界に入るためのあなたのアンティです。-そしてそれは-そして私たちは天文学的なものを見てきました—インフレについて話します。教育におけるインフレ。それは—それは簡単なお金の危険ですか？彼らは人々が他に行くところがないことを知っていて、そこにたどり着くためにやらなければならないことは何でもするつもりだと知っているからです。そして、彼らは必死にローンを組む顧客がいることを知っており、彼らは管理費を膨らませることができ、他のすべてを膨らませることができます。そして、彼らは30億ドルの寄付金を持ち、それでも毎年のコストを膨らませている可能性があります。そうですね、その通りです。つまり、すべての資格を取得し、それは学士号だけではありません。彼らは本当にあなたを連れて行き、学士号を超えてあなたの名前の後ろに余分な文字が必要です。-修士号は新しい学士号です。- うん。そして、彼らはそれらの学位を取得するために何万ドルも借りることを非常に簡単にします。しかし、彼らがしないこと あなたが最終的に反対側のその借金の下から抜け出すことができるようになるのに十分高い収入を持つ仕事があることを確実にするために、本当に何でもあります。それで、あなたたちがお勧めするものの基礎はリセットです？あなたがリセットを勧めているなら、そしてあなたが金融政策と議会の歳出について考えて、そしてあなたが知っている、企業政策に関してそれがどのように見えるかという観点から、そのテントポストは何ですか。何ですか—それはどのように機能しますか？高等教育に関しては、これはCOVID危機で話していたのと同じポイントにあると思います。つまり、高等教育の学位を取得できるように、借金による奴隷状態に陥らなければならないシステムが必要ですか。看護や教育のような基本的なサービスが必要だと思いますか？そうでない場合は、そして、少なくとも、それを無料にし、既存の債務を取り消すことを約束する必要があります。「これは大きな間違いでした」と。-「間違った方向に進んだ。ページをめくりたい。」しかし、翌日、あるいは同じ日に、私たちは高等教育への資金提供の方法を改革する必要があります。右？ハーバード大学は非営利のステータスのために大学が付属しているヘッジファンドであると人々は冗談を言いますか？そのプロセスについて考える必要があります。これらの市場や産業がどのように構成されているかについて、もう少し積極的な介入を行う必要があるすべての人に、知っている安価な商品を提供する方法があります。現代貨幣政策は、おそらく効果的なツールまたは物事を見る新しい方法です。システムが現在どれほど破損しているかのリセットとは何ですか？それ以外の場合のシステムのテントポストにはどのようなものがありますか？私はしません どちらかが「ええ、お金を印刷して、好きなように使うことができます」と言っているだけだと思います。しかし、それは優先順位を付け直し、金融政策と立法議題をどのように使用するかについて、より機敏で、教義的ではないように見えます。つまり、焦点のほとんどは財政政策にあります。ですから、それは私たちが議会を通じて合法的に何ができるかということです。そして、私たちが行ったこと、そして議会が過去20か月かそこらの間に達成したことを見たことは、驚くべきことだと思いますよね？ペンのストロークでできること、単一の法律の1つの条項、1つの条項が貧困から貧困から生きているすべての子供たちの40％以上を持ち上げたという児童税額控除。ステファニー、それを終わらせなければならなかったのはそのためです。私たちはそれを終わらせなければなりませんでした。私たちはそれを止めなければなりませんでした。ほら。だから、ジョン、それは」経済のどこを見ても、重要な赤字が見つかるでしょう。あなたはそれらを教育で見つけ、あなたはそれらをインフラで見つけ、あなたはそれらを住宅で見つけ、あなたはそれらを子どもの貧困で見つけ、そしてあなたが知っている、尊厳を持って引退する能力とそれ以外のすべてを続けて。そして、あなたはまったく正しいです、あなたは法律の一部ですべての問題を解決することはできませんが、予算は国としての私たちの価値観を表現する方法です。それは優先順位を付ける方法であり、私たちの経済における長年の、資金不足で対処された欠陥のいくつかに資金を提供し始める方法です。ですから、私たちの優先事項は何かを理解する必要があります。先ほど言及した経済的権利章典に戻りますが、これは非常に優れた青写真であり、開始するのに非常に堅実な場所だと思います。仕事から始めて、医療費と住居と教育を受ける権利を備えた高給の仕事から始めましょう-そしてあなたは赤字支出がこれに対処する方法であり、赤字支出をしている人々はそうしないと言っています-それは必要ではありませんインフレを促進し、将来の世代に債務を負わせる必要はありません。将来の世代をサドルする必要はありません。赤字が本質的にインフレであるというわけではありませんが、赤字が大きくなりすぎる可能性があるのは事実です。そしてそれを実現するための一つの可能な方法はインフレの形です。ですから、繰り返しになりますが、ウィリーニリーを使うことはできません。非常に狭い穴に何兆もの何兆もの速さで追い込むことはできません。これらのインフラストラクチャへの投資を安全に行うことができる期間を把握する必要があります。そして、あなたはそれがあなたがやろうとしていることをリソースすることができなければなりません。ローハンは先に言った。インフラストラクチャを作成する場合は、請負業者、エンジニア、建築家、鉄鋼、機械を利用できることを確認する必要があります。しかし、あなたは先を行くことができます。それが計画のようなものです---ああ、ああ、ジョン。- 何？-あなたはPを言った-私は去るべきですか？私は行くつもりです。私は去るべきです。あなたはP-wordを言いました。あなたは今、クリスマスパーティーに招待されていません。謝罪します。「企画」と言っただけなので怖い言葉です。あなたは計画しなければなりません。はい。あなたは繁栄のために計画しなければなりません。ちなみに、会議室は計画を立てるために考案されました。それが企業のアメリカがしていることです。彼らは計画を立てるために会議室に足を踏み入れます。ですから、私たちは繁栄のために進んで計画しなければなりません。私たちは喜んでそうしなければなりません。しかし、立法上の優先事項についてあなたが言ったことについて質問させてください。民主主義、特に私たちのシステムは、新しいデジタル世界ではアナログであり、アジャイルではないと感じる部分があるからです。そして、私たちは危機の真っ只中に、できることをしました。しかし、資本主義の構造と政府が前進している限り、それは国民のニーズに対処するのに特に適しているようには見えません。それは現状を維持し、勝っている人を維持し、より多くを勝ち取り、負けている人を定着させ続けるのにより適しているようです。また、そのギャップを埋めるのに役立つような種類の効果に金融政策の力を利用することはできますか？これは、トムとの会話が最初に戻るのにとても役立ったと思います。実際に何が起こっているのかが明確になるまで、そしてこれがどのように機能するかを知っている人々が、あなたのような誰かが非常に本物であると正直になるまでです。質問ですが、これらの変更はありません。たとえば、すべての財政支出、赤字支出を、新しいお金の創出によって賄うようにしましょう。あなたが10年前に笑ったような1兆ドルのコインのアイデアが今あなたがやって来て、それをすべての財政支出の基礎にしましょう。連邦準備制度が財政状態を引き締めたり、インフレを管理したい場合は、それを行うための適切なツールがあることを確認しましょう。させて' ■計画部門などの独占禁止法部門などの他の機関と組み合わせて、これらのインフレ障壁にぶつからないようにします。そして、これらの多くを、一般の人々と会話できるレベルまで単純化してみましょう。そうすれば、それは何かではありません。-はい。サルはとても馬鹿げていると感じて、意見を述べることができません。しかし、それは意図的に複雑であり、意図的に鈍感だと思いませんか？-はい。彼らは決して透明性を望んでいません。そしてそれらの中央銀行家-彼らは非常に注意深い言語の芸術で訓練されています。-あなたは中央銀行の発表をします、-ええ。すべての市場は、解釈学的な宗教的テキストのように、各単語を熟読しています。-右。メディアのようなものを通して、このポッドキャストのようなものを通して、そうでなければ存在しないので、それをわかりやすく説明します。ラテン語を話すカトリック教会で再。-右。私たちは経済理論のその段階にいます。彼らは私が認めなければならない財政政策に非常に優れていましたが、...-彼らは素晴らしい音楽を持っていました。あなたは彼らにそれを与えなければなりません。-途方もないあなたが言っていることは、ある種のより標準的なケインズ経済学とどのように違うのですか、それとも違うのですか？違います、ジョン。私はそれが違うと思います-ほとんど最初から最後まで。-わかった。本当にそうです。私たちは時折、経済を元に戻して稼働させるためにポンプを準備し、それからすべてを中央銀行に戻すことについて話しているのではありません。これが主流派経済学の本質です。あなたは危機の瞬間に財政から財政への政策に目を向けます。まるで壁の前にあるものにガラスが通っているようなものです-はい。-それは緊急の場合にガラスを割ることを言います。-右。そうでなければあなたは.. 。-あなたはしなければならない...-あなたは飛行機を着陸させなければならない。-うん。それは彼らがいつも言うことです、「飛行機を着陸させなければならない」。うん。あなたは財政政策に触れません。あなたはマクロ政策立案を中央銀行のテクノクラートに任せ、腰を落ち着けて、金利を上下にダイヤルすることによって、どういうわけか機会と良い賃金を生み出す経済に終わることを望んでいます。他のすべての人のためになど。あなたが知っている、教育の機会の種類。そして、それは機能しません。動作しません。しかし、それは主流のケインズ経済学であり、主に金利ダイヤルは緊急事態のために財政政策を使用し、それを箱に戻し、赤字を減らすために働きます。つまり、私たちはまったく異なることを言っているのです。そして、例えば、仕事に関しては、主流の中央銀行家」何十年にもわたる理論は、私たちが許容しなければならない失業のレベルがあるというものでした。それは、「まあ、クラスがあり、20人の子供のうち2人がいる」と言っているようなものです。「私は決して彼らに教えません、あなたは彼らが教えられないことを知っています。それらをあきらめましょう。」彼らはそれを失業率の加速しないインフレ率と呼んでいます。文字通り、失業率をこの水準以下に押し下げると、インフレを引き起こすという言い方でした。したがって、5％の失業率を完全雇用と呼んでも問題ありません。彼らはその5％を捨てて、こう言いました。これが完全雇用です。」消費者レベルでは、それを少し刺激するとインフレ圧力が発生するのに、企業レベルで刺激すると圧力がかからないのはなぜですか。それなら彼らが ただそれを蓄えている。労働者がより多くの仕事を持っている場合、彼らは上司に自分で性交するように言うことができるだろうという仮定があります。そして、より高い賃金を要求します。そして、そうすれば、企業はその高い賃金コストを直接価格に反映するため、賃金は消費財のより高い価格に変換されます。彼らの利益分配については話さないでください。それはしばしば彼らの人件費の何倍にもなります。彼らはそれを翻訳するだけです。それが問題です。あなたが使用できるレバーは何ですか？だから私にとって、それが唯一のドライバーですよね？人々が上手くなり始めたら、企業はそれが彼らが言うときのように慣れます、法人税率を下げましょう。さて、それは彼らが慣れてきた新しい高税率です。したがって、ゼロに落とさない限り、つまり、それらがどのようなものであるかをほぼ予測します。「ほら、ここに滞在するためにあなたにお金を払うよ。」「税金を気にしないでください、私たちはあなたに支払います。」恐喝です。では、どのようにして会社を設立するのでしょうか。ウォルマートが「わかりました」と言った場合です。「私はこれらの人にもっと支払うつもりです、しかし私がそれを補うことができる唯一の方法は私が価格を上げなければならないことです。」なぜその10億ドルの利益は決してないのですか-それはまさにそれが標準です。それに対処できるレバーは何ですか？価格を直接規制することができます。現在、イングランド銀行の総裁であるイングランド中央銀行は、文字通り「労働者はインフレを抑えるために賃金の引き下げを求めるべきだ」と述べています。したがって、彼らは「労働力の価格を規制する」ことに抵抗がありません。彼らは労働力の価格が高すぎると言っています。私たちはそれを低く保つべきですが、彼らは企業の利益率を直接規制することはありません。それが私たちにできることの1つです。それを超えると私たちが許したくないレベルの利益があると言うことができます。それがより高い価格に変換される場合。これは歴史的に行われており、超過利益税などがあります。彼らは野球で贅沢な税金を払っています。-お金をかけすぎて、奢侈税がかかります。- うん。-お金を稼ぎすぎると、奢侈税がかかるはずです。- うん。彼らはゴルフにハンディキャップを持っています。ご存知のように、日本では、彼らの文化は明らかに非常に異なっています。しかし、彼らはかなり効果的でよく知られている慣習があり、それはジョーボーンと呼ばれています。そして、政府は文字通り、ある意味で、値上げを考えていても、企業を恥ずかしく思うようなことを言うことができます。彼らはただ行きます、あなたはそれをしたくありません。私たちはあなたを監視しています。それは恥ずべき文化に依存します。-それがあるかどうかはわかりません。- 丁度。まあ、私たちはアメリカ連邦政府の完全な筋肉を持っています-恥がうまくいかない場合に備えて。-でもそれが私のポイントです。一体どうやって彼らは毎月1200億ドルの債券購入をすることができるでしょうか？彼らはどのようにして量的緩和を行うことができるでしょうか？どうすれば彼らはTARPを行うことができますか-そしてそれについての規定はありません---私たちがそれを許可しているからです。-許可します。-ええ-許可します。私たちはそのようなものに値する民主主義を手に入れます。しかし、たとえばFTCのLina Kahnは、これを始めようとしています。ですから、私たちがマクロ経済の金融レベルについて話していることを、それと結びつけると思います-直接価格市場---それは-それはあなたが公共財を知っているマクロ完全雇用とのマイクロ独占禁止法のスイートスポットです-それは将来のビジョンです。-そして使用-金融政策と立法上の影響、私はそう思います...それは私が到達しようとしていた部分でした。私たちはこの巨大な武器を持っていますが、政治的に感じているので、一方向にしか使用していません。株式市場が下落した場合、それは壊滅的です。そしてB、彼らはただそれを去るだろう、私たちが彼らに良くなければ、企業は私たちがそうしなければただ去るだろう。ボンカー。うん。さて、皆さん、トーマス・ホーニグとの会話から、または私たちが話しているポリシーの種類について、私がこの人に確実に連絡したいと思ったことは他にありますか？あなたの最初の本能は良かったと思います。私たちは素晴らしいものを持つことができます。そして、私たちが、人々のためではなく、億万長者や銀行のためにお金を印刷できるというこの考えは悪いことです。それは首尾一貫した考えではありません。そして、あなたにそう言う人は誰でもあなたにガス灯を当てています。中央銀行は非常に心配します。そして、あなたが知っている、金融危機の後に救済が起こったとき、そして中央銀行がお金の大砲を持っていて、それがただ解き放つことができることが誰にでも明らかになったとき、そしてあなたが知っている、それは当時数兆ドルでした。そして人々は頭をかいて、あなたが言ったことを正確に言い始めました。なぜ彼らのために？なぜ大砲をそこだけに向けるのですか？そして、あなたはヨーロッパや他の場所の人々が言うのを聞き始めました、人々の量的緩和はどうですか？人々のための量的緩和についてはどうですか？-そしてそれが中央銀行を本当にガタガタさせるものです。- 右。人々が欧州中央銀行についてそれを言い始めているからです。「聞いて、気候危機に陥った」という提案があります。グリーンニューディールのようなものが必要です。何兆ドルもどこで手に入れるのか」必要ですか？そして彼らは行きます ｢ちょっと待って 私は覚えています。" マリオ・ドラギは、彼がECBの長であったとき、私たちがお金を使い果たすことは決してできないと言いました。彼がそう言うのを聞いたのを覚えています。昨年のミネアポリス連銀のニール・カシュカリ氏は、「FRBには無制限の金額がある」と述べた。そして私は、「銀行家を救済することを除いて、中央銀行家から「無制限」という言葉が聞こえるのはいつですか？」と言いました。バーナンキが言ったとき、-あなたはこのビデオもオンラインで見つけることができます---うん。そしてバーナンキは「納税者のお金ではない」と言った。「アカウントのサイズをマークアップするためにコンピューターを使用するだけです。」そして人々は行きました ｢あなたはコンピューターを使っていますか コンピューターを使って私のアカウントのサイズをマークアップしていただけませんか？」あらまあ。そしてそれは、ジェローム・パウエルのような人々が、FRBにはそれを行う権限がないことを私たちに思い出させなければならないときです、彼らに権限を与えることができると。しかし、現在、そうではありません。あなたのアカウントのマークアップは、議会がFRBに指示を与えるときに起こる可能性があります。小切手を発送します。では、これらのアカウントをマークアップするのを手伝ってください。そして、それが起こる方法です。そして、これらは「暗号は魔法のように聞こえます」のような人です、あなたは知っていますか？その間、彼らは「Presto Change-o：兆ドル！」のようなものです。Larry Summersは、多くの暗号通貨およびフィンテック企業の取締役を務めています。しかし、それから彼は、600ドルの小切手を送ることを軽蔑しているだけです-ええ。それはただ、それはばかげているですよね？皆さんが来て会話に参加してくれて本当に感謝しています。よろしくお願いします。ありがとう、ジョン。
00:00 Ladies and gentlemen, 00:00 welcome to the podcast. 00:01 We have an exciting, exciting podcast for ya. 00:05 Today's podcast is a rebuttal. 00:09 It is a further clarifying 00:11 of a former podcast that we did. 00:13 Our guests today, 00:14 very exciting. 00:16 Stephanie Kelton and Rohan Grey. 00:18 They are some of the leading authorities on what's called 00:21 Modern Monetary Theory, 00:24 which is kind of a new approach 00:26 to economics. 00:27 First, thank you for inviting 00:29 - both of us to come and talk to you about this. - I'm delighted. 00:31 Alright. So let me roll it back then 00:33 and we'll start a little bit at 00:36 my interest in this. 00:37 I did an interview with a gentleman named Thomas Hoenig who 00:41 I guess was chairman of the KC Fed, 00:45 and he had been voting “No" on quantitative easing from the Fed, 00:50 which is their policy of 00:52 of pumping a good deal of money 00:54 into the economy. 00:55 And he and I had a spirited discussion 00:57 where I, 00:58 without the knowledge of economics 01:00 or the language of economics 01:02 or the verbiage of economics, 01:04 was trying to understand 01:08 why the Fed can just 01:10 bring this money cannon 01:13 to corporate America 01:14 and not also maybe let, 01:17 as we say, in the old neighborhood, 01:19 let the people have a taste. 01:20 How 'bout a little taste? 01:21 A little something from the money cannon. 01:23 I guess I'm confused as 01:25 if we can print money, 01:26 you just said we're the only- 01:28 We can buy an asset. 01:30 OK. 01:31 Any asset by printing money. 01:34 - That is we- - But you can't pay 01:35 - debt by printing money? 01:36 You can buy debt by printing money. 01:39 - Or you- - So what are you just buy back our debt? 01:41 Well, because ... 01:43 all you're doing is- 01:44 I feel like I feel like 01:45 you're having trouble. 01:46 It's like talking to a monkey. 01:47 - No, no. - You’re like talking to a monkey and trying to figure out- 01:49 - Look it- - how do I communicate with this monkey? 01:51 - No, no. - I don't know what to do. 01:53 No, no, it. I totally. 01:55 I totally get it. It's confusing. 01:57 Stephanie and Rohan 01:58 were lovely enough to 02:04 comment on it on the internet 02:07 in a long chat form, 02:09 which made me think that neither of you 02:13 has a fulfilling life 02:14 because this is the part- 02:16 now we get to it. 02:18 How did this- 02:19 How did any of this come to your attention? 02:21 And explain to me how this came about. 02:25 So I, you know, I listen to the podcast 02:28 - and I'm on Twitter. - Yes. Stephanie. 02:29 Rohan's on Twitter, 02:31 - and there was quite a bit of chatter about this. - OK. 02:33 You, you guys pushed some buttons, 02:36 but you didn't push 02:37 the buttons that were pushed for me and I think for Rohan. 02:40 We were on the wrong buttons? 02:42 No, no, no. 02:43 I think that a lot of the interest 02:45 and some of the commentary 02:47 was surrounding, 02:48 you know, the impact, 02:50 potential impact 02:51 - of the Fed's quantitative easing program on inequality. - Correct. 02:55 but I wanted to take up a different part of the conversation 02:58 - and I listened to the whole podcast - OK. 03:00 and then I felt very sad. 03:02 - And you know- - Wow. That's- 03:03 that's our goal. 03:05 Any time you can listen to the whole podcast and feel sad, 03:08 I've done my job. 03:10 Misery loves company. 03:11 So I reached out to Rohan 03:13 and I said, “I feel very sad and I would like you to..." 03:16 "experience the sadness with me." 03:18 "Would you listen to it together?" 03:20 I'm going to give you guys a chance 03:22 to un-sadden yourselves by telling me 03:25 what I was getting wrong there 03:27 and where you thought the conversation should have gone? 03:30 What was it that that saddened you both 03:33 as you were listening to me talk about Fed policy with Thomas Hoenig? 03:39 Well, I don't think it was so much listening to you 03:42 It was the missed opportunity 03:44 of what you could have potentially pulled out of him 03:47 had he given you 03:49 - I think, you know, more candid answers, frankly, - A fair shake. 03:52 - to the questions. - Yeah. 03:53 - Yeah. - OK. 03:53 Yeah, I mean, I think the starting point is that 03:57 We often think of the Fed as the sort of only institution 04:00 in the federal government that has any monetary firepower, right? 04:03 It's the sort of printing press. 04:05 It's the one that can do 04:06 anything in a crisis. 04:07 But the reality is, 04:08 and I think COVID has done a great job 04:10 of demonstrating this, 04:11 that it's the fiscal firepower, 04:13 it's the budget side of things that really has the power 04:15 to actually save, you know, real people's incomes, 04:20 save industries, to invest. 04:22 And one of the big questions is if we accept that 04:24 we can do things with the budget and we should be, 04:26 what is the role of the Fed and how do they relate to each other? 04:29 And when it comes to things like 04:31 protecting financial markets from having a liquidity crisis 04:34 or regulating financial institutions, 04:36 yeah, it makes sense the Federal Reserve might be the place you look to. 04:40 But when you look at what the Fed is doing, when we say it's 04:42 sort of Fed injected trillions of dollars into the economy, 04:45 one of the things that it's doing is buying up assets. 04:48 So the first thing to think about is there's always two assets involved. 04:52 There's the sort of money that goes in 04:54 and there's whatever's coming back out, going to the Fed. 04:57 So if somebody said to me, 04:58 “Hey.” 04:59 "You've got trillions of dollars, but all you do is buy other dollars.” 05:04 That's going to be very useless to me if I'm trying to protect homeowners. 05:07 - That's correct. - Or people who've lost their incomes. 05:09 So then the question I think we have to ask ourselves when we look at what the Fed does with quantitative easing is 05:14 what is it buying up? 05:15 And this is where I think you started to get on something really interesting. 05:18 Let me maybe formulate it this way. 05:21 There's a certain orthodoxy to how we have to get out of it. 05:24 Right? 05:25 Right. 05:25 A slow raising of interest rates. 05:27 A tightening of monetary policy. 05:30 Maybe they burn off some of the money. 05:32 Should there be a rethinking 05:36 of that orthodoxy? 05:38 And the reason why I ask it is 05:40 you talked about this debt. 05:43 Right? 05:43 Right. 05:44 To me, and clearly, I'm a layman and don't understand the intricacies of it. 05:50 It feels made up 05:54 that this monetary policy 05:56 feels like a delusion of some sort. 06:00 And why couldn't they just cancel that debt 06:04 and have the country carry less 06:06 and then tighten the policy 06:08 where it would be less- 06:10 if you raise interest rates and the- 06:13 on big debt, right? 06:15 -Right. - Then we've got all this pressure on making those payments. 06:19 And why not have the Fed cancel the debt 06:22 and then raise interest rates 06:24 to reset the playing field? 06:27 Well, the difficulty with that is, of course, 06:31 this is debt owed by the government. 06:33 So now you're going to 06:34 you have this debt 06:37 and you're just going to say, 06:39 I don’t- 06:40 I don't owe it anymore. 06:42 When Tom Hoenig did not meet you where you were at, 06:45 you know, he sort of said, 06:46 “Oh, it's very complicated, you silly little boy.” 06:49 You know, but I think the reality is you are identifying a real question, which is if the Fed can swap 06:55 Treasury debt. 06:56 For money 06:57 and it basically has very little effect- 06:59 And it can print money. 07:01 The Treasury is “printing” the Treasury debt, 07:02 - and the Fed is printing the money 07:04 - to buy up the Treasury's printed debt. - Correct. 07:05 It's it's like mum issues an IOU 07:08 and then dad takes it out and then gives you cash from your wallet. 07:11 What's the actual 07:12 thing going on there? 07:13 What's the effect on the economy, 07:15 and Tom says 07:16 “Well, if you understand it like I do because I'm a very serious economist, remember,” 07:21 “then all you're doing is swapping one kind of government IOU for another.” 07:25 “Money is an IOU. Treasury debt is an IOU. Therefore, all we’re doing,” 07:30 “is swapping yellow for green. It’s exactly the same.” 07:34 And on one level, he's not wrong. 07:36 - He's not a 100% wrong. - OK. 07:38 But on the other side, 07:39 you were not wrong either. 07:41 Which is, is there a difference between 07:43 Treasury debt and money? Yes. 07:45 Is that difference quite small at an economic level the way that Tom was saying? 07:50 Yes. 07:51 But is it big at a social level, 07:53 at a political level, as you were saying? 07:55 Absolutely. 07:56 So if we have trillions of dollars of government debt out there, 08:01 people hold that as money. 08:03 You ask Goldman Sachs what's in their “cash account,” 08:05 -They’ll think you're talking about Treasury debt. -OK. 08:07 Because for them, Treasury debt is money. 08:10 So if you're swapping 08:12 Treasury debt for dollars, 08:14 it's like taking money from your savings account 08:16 and putting it in your checking account. 08:17 Do you have less money? No. 08:19 But from a political point of view, 08:21 from a cultural point of view, 08:22 you've "solved the national debt." 08:24 We've solved our grandchildren's crisis. 08:26 -That was the point I was trying to make. -We’ve solved the borrowing from China. 08:28 So I was trying to ask him 08:29 who holds our debt? 08:30 He said, "Well, China holds our debt, all these other...." 08:32 You can't just stop paying on the debt. 08:36 No, but you could just... couldn't you just 08:39 quantitative ease our debt? 08:42 What's the difference of making that money available to Goldman Sachs 08:47 as it is to making that money available to China? 08:50 Only one would lessen our debt. 08:52 You just print that money and pay debt. 08:55 If this is money that we've created out of thin air anyway, 08:59 what's to stop us from creating ten trillion- 09:03 You know, 09:04 I used to make fun of Paul Krugman for his idea of trillion dollar coin 09:07 -Yeah. Right. -You know and now 09:09 -I feel myself saying, -You’re in it. 09:11 "Hey, man." 09:12 -"Well- let’s just get ten trillion dollar coins." -Right. 09:15 "Give one to China, one to Europe." 09:17 Are we square? 09:19 "Good." 09:19 And then we start again because this whole thing seems 09:23 manufactured. 09:25 Swap it for them, for the debt. 09:27 And then at the very least, 09:29 we now control. 09:31 We've bought back our mortgage. 09:33 So now we can never foreclose on it, 09:35 even if interest rates go up. 09:36 We have a lot more control over our debt. 09:41 Does that make sense? 09:42 I mean. I think 09:42 I think one of the most important things 09:44 -you were trying to get at with him -Right. 09:46 was the idea that this thing we call the national debt, and this is Rohan's point. 09:52 We have yellow paper and green paper. 09:54 We have dollars and we have treasuries, 09:55 but they're thought of very differently. 09:57 We don't think of the green paper 09:59 as debt conventionally, 10:01 but we think of the yellow paper, 10:02 -the government bonds, treasuries as debt. -And that’s what the Fed is buying? 10:05 They're buying treasuries. 10:07 They're buying bonds. 10:08 They're buying debt. 10:09 Yeah. In Tom's mind, they're the same 10:10 because he thinks up at that central bank level. 10:12 So for him, they're just different liabilities on a balance sheet. 10:15 But down with us, you know, with the public 10:18 these are entirely different worlds. 10:20 Do you know the stock of public money in circulation Jon? 10:23 How many people know that? 10:24 -There's the national debt counter. -Right. 10:26 There's no national money counter underneath. Nobody’s counting that-- 10:29 And they're increasing that supply 10:32 by $120 billion a month. 10:35 Still. 10:36 Yeah no grandchildren involved. 10:38 No China involved. 10:39 No bond markets involved. 10:41 It reminds me of the way our government says you need to pay for. 10:44 So any time we have a crisis or something crucial that the public needs, 10:49 the government will say, 10:50 "I'm sorry. We have discretionary spending." 10:52 "It's this amount. If you want to add to that, we either have to take it away from somebody else..." 10:57 “or create a pay for.” 10:58 OK. 10:59 “Well, also, we want to go to war.” 11:01 “Oh, OK. So what's our pay for it?” 11:03 “Yeah, that we're not going to have a pay for.” 11:05 “What do you mean?” 11:06 "Yeah, we're just-" 11:07 Freedom pays for itself. 11:08 "that we're just going to put out there" 11:10 "and we're going to pay for it." 11:11 But we're not going to- 11:13 That's going to be just debt that we don’t even think about. 11:17 We don't add it to anything. 11:18 It just is. 11:20 And that's the part that seems like, 11:22 well, you just get to decide then 11:25 what goes on our budget 11:27 and what's just air. 11:30 That's the part that I was trying to figure out. 11:32 That's the politics. 11:33 And you're exactly right. 11:34 And the way that I usually try to say it is, 11:37 you know, there's all this conversation about finding the money 11:40 We want to have health care, child care or we want to have a Build Back Better agenda 11:44 and all the rest of it. 11:45 They say, “How are you going to pay for it? 11:46 “Where were you find the money?” 11:47 And I always try to say, 11:48 “Look, if the votes are there, the money is there.” 11:50 Because the votes are what kicked the money out. 11:52 So just as you said, 11:53 every time the Defense Authorization Act comes up every year, they kick the money out. 11:58 There's no handwringing. 11:59 They don't pause to have a big debate or discussion. 12:02 Manchin doesn't stand up and say, 12:04 -“Wait a minute, I'm concerned about grandchildren.” -No pay for. No nothing. 12:07 Almost all United States senators- 12:10 It's the most bipartisan thing they do is vote for the defense authorization each year. 12:15 And not only that. They say, you know, 12:17 “How much did the Pentagon request? 12:18 “Oh, we feel extra generous today. We want you to have $20 billion.” 12:22 - "It’s more than you asked for.” - They gave 'em another $20 billion, 12:24 -Meanwhile- -Always. 12:25 -we're trying to get veterans health care from exposure to burn pits. 12:29 You cannot believe the shit they’re putting these guys through 12:33 for pay fors. For other- 12:34 they're going to cheap them on the back end. 12:37 It's as though 12:38 that's not part of the cost of war. 12:41 It's crazy. 12:43 And I'm just talking about the Fed 12:45 and maybe it's not their purview or anybody else, 12:47 but why can't they do 12:49 a $120 billion of municipal bonds 12:52 for infrastructure? 12:54 If you're just buying bonds 12:55 and debt and treasuries 12:57 why not buy infrastructure? 12:59 Why not use that money 13:01 rather than just to keep banks hoarding cash? 13:06 Why not put it to use? 13:07 Many years ago, 13:08 I went to Washington, D.C., at the request of Republican Congressman, Ray LaHood, 13:13 -who went on,to be- -Sure. 13:14 -Transportation Secretary Right, Illinois. -Yup. 13:16 And LaHood wanted to do exactly what you just said. 13:19 I mean, the man really wanted to invest in America's crumbling infrastructure. 13:23 Make these investments. 13:24 And he said we ought to use the Fed, that the Fed ought to be buying these bonds 13:27 at zero - effectively zero interest rate and facilitating the financing and so forth. 13:32 And a colleague of mine, Randy Ray and I 13:35 we wrote something about this and then I was asked to go to DC and meet with officials at the Fed 13:40 and walk them through and talk about how this would all work. 13:42 And so I went, I got to sit in Alan Greenspan’s chair, we had a lovely chat. 13:46 But at the end of the day, they said to me, “We prefer to see it go through Congress.” 13:50 and I said, “But it's kind of being six of one, half a dozen of the other" in these ways 13:54 that I showed them through the balance sheet entries and so forth. 13:56 And they said, “Well, we prefer the half a dozen to the six because one keeps us out of it..." 14:01 “and the other one integrates us into this process.” 14:04 Explicitly says the Fed is now financing other kinds of things and they don’t want any part of it. 14:10 Yeah, there's a big commitment at the Fed to not be seen as picking winners or losers. 14:14 Which is why in COVID, when they did for the first time establish this municipal lending facility they hated it. 14:21 It was barely used. 14:22 They made it so difficult that only one or two states' 14:24 municipalities actually took advantage of it. 14:27 To go to your earlier question, 14:28 I think there is a little bit of a difference between government, federal treasury debt 14:32 and state and local debt in the sense that the federal government’s debt 14:36 is guaranteed by the same full faith and credit as the US dollar. 14:40 So it really is almost the difference between 14:43 -a large denomination bill- -Right, 14:44 and a small denomination bill. 14:46 With these others, you’re sort of 14:47 you’re sort of picking up the tab for state and local government. 14:50 -Which is a good thing. -But isn’t theother side of it 14:51 too, though, that state and local governments can't run a deficit 14:55 in the way that the federal government can. 14:56 -So if the Fed were going to do that, -Exactly. 14:58 it would actually be more impactful 15:01 and it would allow it because so much of 15:04 the federal spending 15:05 is really to cover holes 15:08 -that exist within state- -Absolutely. 15:09 and local municipal funding. 15:11 If you ask a federal Congress 15:14 members of Congress 15:14 whether or not New York City should run its own defense force, 15:17 I mean, putting aside the size of New York, NYPD, 15:19 they’d say no, that's a federal job. 15:21 -It's too important to be left to local governments- -National security for God’s sakes. 15:24 -state by state. 15:25 Well, then why not for infrastructure? 15:27 Why not for education? 15:28 -When the answer to why there’s some- -Health care. 15:30 Yeah, why there's something unique about the federal government? 15:32 -It has the power of the purse. -Right. 15:33 It has that printing press. 15:35 We're all using that system, right? 15:36 It's their world. 15:37 We just live in it. 15:38 So here's where we get into 15:40 where I thought- 15:44 This is sort of the difference and a very basic understanding I have of supply side economics and demand side economics. 15:49 And I'll explain it, 15:52 as best I can 15:54 without knowing what I'm talking about, 15:56 which is how I do things. 15:59 All right. 16:00 We've had supply side economics for, 16:03 I don't know, 40 years 16:05 and in the last probably 15 years 16:08 really hyped up with the Fed 16:10 pumping a tremendous amount of liquidity 16:12 into it, keeping interest rates down. 16:14 It's basically just 16:15 inflating larger assets 16:17 at the high level. 16:18 You're saying to people 16:20 saving your money means nothing, 16:23 but investing it in the stock market 16:25 or in real estate is everything. 16:27 If you keep interest rates low 16:29 and people can't get 4%, 5%, 6% on savings, 16:33 their only choice is the stock market or real estate or something else. 16:38 And generally, 16:40 money is flowing in there and inflating it. 16:42 The dividends and the buybacks and all those other things that are occurring 16:47 are creating 16:49 more and more inequality. 16:51 Now, supply side economics would say 16:54 "And that's going to trickle down 16:57 and create economic growth and development," right? 17:01 $1.9 trillion tax cut, 0% interest rates. 17:06 Total deregulation 17:07 and what did we gain in GDP or median income? 17:10 Very little. 17:12 And inflation doesn't do anything. 17:15 So basically all that supply side money doesn't seem to stimulate the economy in any way. 17:21 Now the pandemic occurs and we go, 17:24 “Just fucking give everybody $600 bucks.” 17:27 The economy goes 10%, 12% growth. 17:31 Suddenly, inflation is a problem. 17:33 It makes you think we could have been growing the economy 17:37 with far less artillery and keeping an eye- 17:43 It's only when workers get money 17:45 that inflation becomes a problem. 17:46 Explain to me in economic terms 17:49 what I just said and then grade me 17:53 and then just tell me if I'm going into the next year's class. 17:57 All right, so you're - what you're talking about, 18:00 are the two different policy levers. 18:02 The fiscal policy lever is what you described. 18:04 Giving people money, 18:05 -using Congress to pass legislation, what we just did. -Right. 18:08 - The thing you started with is monetary policy. - Correct. 18:12 It's the central bank. 18:13 It's the buying of assets. 18:14 It's the zero interest rate policy and all the rest. 18:16 And the deregulation and the tax cuts. 18:19 That's all very Thatcher, Reagan, supply side trickle down. 18:22 So you're quite right. 18:24 We have done this. 18:25 We have run this experiment over and over again 18:27 for some 40 years or so. 18:29 The evidence is in, and not just here in the US, 18:31 but around the world. 18:32 It does not work. It does work, 18:35 I think some might say, as it's designed to work, 18:38 - which is to widen income and wealth inequality, - Right. 18:41 but what it also does, 18:42 by shoveling all of the gains to the people at the very top, 18:46 who, by the way, don't tend to turn around 18:48 and spend that money back into the economy. 18:50 It gives us a slower growing, just crappier economy, 18:54 where fewer and fewer people get ahead. 18:56 Wage pressure isn't there because the labor market 18:59 never runs really hot because the economy 19:01 never really runs close to its, you know, kind of potential. 19:05 And so we have relied on central banks 19:08 to basically steer the economic ship. 19:11 You guys figure it out, you use your interest rates 19:13 and your, what did you call it, Rumplestiltskin skills. 19:17 - Your alchemy. Yeah. - You take care of it. 19:19 Yeah, your alchemy and fiscal policy. 19:21 We're just going to worry about trying to keep deficits down 19:24 and all of that sort of stuff. 19:25 So it is in large part, the reluctance to use that 19:30 fiscal policy lever and to leave all of the responsibility 19:34 to the central bank to try to engineer 19:36 some kind of economic growth. 19:37 And what do they have? 19:38 They have an interest rate tool. That's the primary tool. 19:41 So they do what they can, 19:42 which is lower and lower interest rate, 19:44 which if it works, Jon. 19:46 Monetary policy works by driving people into debt 19:50 because the purpose of cutting interest rates, 19:52 - is to induce the rest of us to borrow and spend. - Right. Right. 19:56 Whereas fiscal policy works by driving income into people, 20:00 - like you said, $600 bucks. - Demand. 20:02 Here you go. It's, you own it free and clear, 20:04 and you don't have to pay it back. 20:06 So they work very differently. 20:07 They serve different constituencies. 20:09 But Stephanie, the economy, 20:11 they say 70% of the American economy 20:13 is consumer spending. 20:15 Why would you stimulate it at the 15% of the economy, 20:21 when 70% of it is driven by spending? 20:23 You could stimulate that with such a smaller gun. 20:27 When you were talking about low interest rates 20:28 causing inequality and you mentioned 20:30 savers and people needing a place to put their, 20:32 to put their, you know, retirement money. 20:34 And I think this is a really important point, 20:36 because when you and I think of high interest rates, 20:39 it's a sort of double edged sword, right? 20:40 On one hand, our savings account is maybe earning more, 20:42 or things like that. But on the other side, 20:45 our mortgage is higher or our credit card interest rate 20:47 is higher or something like that. 20:49 And so there are ways around the world, 20:51 you know, I'm from Australia. 20:52 There are ways where you can create public pension systems, 20:55 public savings for consumers. 20:56 But what we have right now is a system where 20:59 if you want to pay a higher rate for, 21:01 you know, mom and pop savers, retirees, 21:03 those kinds of things. 21:04 You also have to pay a higher interest rate 21:06 on all of the hedge funds, 21:08 all of the other investment funds that hold Treasury debt. 21:11 And so you have this hostage situation 21:13 where low rates are seen to be the cause of A) inequality, 21:18 and B) starving savers and pensioners from their money. 21:21 Whereas the reality is, we should have high rates for them, 21:25 but maybe zero rates on all those investment vehicles. 21:28 - And there's no stipulation, so. 21:31 - No, there's not there's no distinction between the two. - Right. 21:33 It's not pension bonds and non pension bonds. 21:36 It's just bonds. 21:37 And a lot of them are held by investors 21:38 - who are not pensioners. - And I'll give you an example. 21:40 This easy money policy is what allowed 21:44 the American airline industry to become flush with cash. 21:47 And so during the time -- this is after 2008, 21:50 they become flush with cash. 21:52 They do a ton of stock buybacks just to, 21:57 you know, kind of re-enrich their shareholders. 21:59 And then the pandemic hits, 22:02 and they don't have the cash on hand. 22:04 So we've subsidized their golden parachutes, 22:09 but not the industry that we rely on for transportation. 22:14 So I think the really difficult like, line to try to draw, 22:17 is not to say we should just throw interest rates super high 22:20 because that can put people out of, you know, into, 22:22 bankruptcy from debt and things. 22:24 But we do want to not have that easy money 22:26 that you're talking about. 22:27 So how can we put tighter financial conditions, 22:30 more restrictions on Wall Street, 22:31 more restrictions on these big companies? 22:33 If the idea is we can print money when we need it, 22:39 but the only time we ever use that is when 22:42 the financial system or the big banks need it. 22:46 It's the only time we'll really print it, is for them. 22:49 In this pandemic, we did it on a more Keynesian level. 22:53 And suddenly, inflation ran amok. 22:57 Again, putting labor over a barrel, 23:01 which is to say, "See? We tried." 23:04 "We gave you guys a little money, and look what happened." 23:07 It doesn't take into account the externalities 23:10 of supply chain problems in a pandemic. 23:15 It doesn't take into account that we never got ahead of, 23:18 we never planned for that influx of money. 23:21 So it kind of had nowhere to go 23:23 other than consumer spending. 23:26 So how do you battle the, perception at least, 23:32 that when you do have a more Keynesian approach, 23:36 it immediately destroys commodities like 23:41 gas, groceries and everything else that the people 23:46 who are struggling rely on in the first place. 23:48 So one thing is you look around the world, 23:52 and you see countries that did far less than the United States. 23:55 We had a tremendous response in terms of fiscal policy, 23:59 right, to deal with the pandemic and the economic fallout. 24:02 About $5 trillion from March of 2020 to March of 2021, 24:06 was committed through Congress. 24:08 So you see all these countries that didn't go anywhere close 24:10 to where we've gone. 24:11 Germany has inflation running at a 40 year high. 24:15 - China has inflation at a near 40 year high. - Oh, okay. 24:18 So, and these are the things that you're talking about. 24:21 Energy prices, supply chain, bottlenecks, 24:24 the, you know, problems related to the shutting down 24:28 and reopening of different parts 24:29 of the economy at different times. 24:31 - These are kind of the inevitable growth pains. - So the correlation is not causation in this case. 24:37 - That's exactly right. - Okay. 24:38 But you're - you're right to say, you know, 24:40 that there is a real risk that Keynesian economic policy 24:43 and that the policy response this time, 24:45 which was so much better than the policy response 24:48 after 2008, will come away with a real black eye 24:51 if people don't get a better understanding 24:54 of why the inflation is up at the moment. 24:56 If we start pointing our fingers and saying, 24:59 "Well, this is what happens when you try to help people 25:01 stay in their homes and be attached to their employers 25:04 and have some income to pay the bills." 25:06 Can't do that ever again. This was the punishment. 25:09 Can't let that happen. 25:10 If you think about the way the inflation is showing up, 25:14 you know, one of the things to look at is, 25:16 where are the real resources there 25:18 otherwise potentially being deployed? 25:20 So if somebody comes to a bank and says, 25:22 "I want to build a school." 25:23 That's going to need laborers. It's going to need bricks. 25:25 It's going to need other things. 25:26 Say there's somebody else in the next booth at the bank 25:28 and says, "I want to build a casino." 25:30 It's the same labor. 25:31 It's the same bricks. 25:33 It's the same electrical engineers, et cetera. 25:35 Now we don't have a mechanism today 25:38 to work out where we should put the blame, 25:40 between a private loan, private credit, and public spending. 25:44 We say, "Oh look, we spent a lot of money on school building 25:46 and now there's inflation in construction." 25:48 "It must be the schools." 25:50 Meanwhile, all those casinos being built next door 25:53 get off scot free because that's not taking place 25:55 - on the government's balance sheet. - Right. 25:56 So when we look at demand, we need to look at all 25:59 the sources of demand, not just the public's balance sheet. 26:02 Otherwise we're always inevitably going to blame 26:05 the one thing that we changed this time. 26:06 And of course, no one's saying we need to cut 26:08 military spending by a third. 26:10 That's not the part of the budget they're going to blame 26:12 at the end of this. 26:13 They're going to blame helping average people. 26:14 If it's that we have the resources, but right now, 26:17 private actors are hoarding them 26:19 or using them in private markets, 26:21 and they're not available for public use, 26:23 we need to make them available. 26:24 You know, it always strikes me that, 26:27 when you talk about that policy, 26:30 it's OK for the government to intervene. 26:32 You know, you said earlier about winners and losers. 26:34 It's always OK for the government 26:35 to intervene on corporate behalf. 26:37 For instance, you know, Wal-Mart is allowed to, 26:41 or a lot of those companies, 26:42 can pay less than subsistence wages. 26:45 But the American taxpayer subsidizes that 26:47 with social services. And food stamps is basically 26:52 a subsidy program for Kraft. 26:54 You know, it's government money. 26:56 So we always make money available for corporate America. 27:01 And it makes me come around to this idea of, 27:03 you know, a universal basic income 27:05 that is maybe smaller than what we thought about, 27:08 you know, in other ways. 27:09 But, we are subsidizing corporate malfeasance. 27:15 Like that's where a lot of our money goes. 27:17 So when you talk about our debt, or even, you know, 27:22 the deficit that's running every year, 27:24 a lot of that is based on underemployment, undereducation, 27:30 and there being no constraints. 27:33 You know what it is? 27:34 We always talk about, "We live in a free market system." 27:37 But nothing about this system seems free market to me. 27:41 It seems to be intervened on at all different angles. 27:45 It's only that if you intervene on behalf of workers, 27:48 is that called socialism. Everything else? That's just, 27:53 you know, it's crony capitalism, 27:55 but it's never called that. 27:57 You know, we're going to subsidize in some respect. 27:59 The federal government is going to try to find ways 28:02 to deal with the inevitable problems of poverty. 28:05 The collateral damage of capitalism. 28:07 Right. But whether it comes in the form of food stamps, 28:10 or some other form of income payment, 28:13 I don't think that's fundamentally challenging 28:15 and getting at the issues of a Wal-Mart 28:18 being able to continue to underpay workers. 28:20 - The way you do that, I think, is to create - Right. 28:24 an alternative workplace, so that if you had something like, 28:27 let's say, a federal job guarantee, and everybody had a right 28:31 to a job at a good wage with decent benefits and the rest. 28:34 That's the way you apply the pressure 28:36 to the Wal-Marts and the other, you know, 28:39 - Amazons and so forth of the world to make structural changes. - But, Costco. 28:42 Doesn't Costco basically do the same thing as Wal-Mart? 28:45 They just pay better. 28:46 It's kind of the same business. 28:48 And this - this goes to your question. 28:49 You know, I think Stephanie and I both believe that, 28:51 you know, people who with the low incomes 28:53 should have more money. As a, you know, unequivocal point. 28:56 But in my opinion, when you think of the future 28:58 of a universal basic income, it's sort of that old line 29:01 people say, "It's easier to remember - to imagine, 29:03 the end of the world than the end of capitalism." 29:05 So imagine you've got an Amazon gift card forever. 29:08 That's a UBI, in a sense, 29:10 because you've got your money, 29:11 you can buy everything you want 29:13 and it all goes through the Jeff Bezos machine. 29:15 - It all goes through the Walmart machine. - Right. 29:17 Now, if you go back to the beginning of COVID, 29:18 there was a point - Remember the hand sanitizer shortage? 29:21 It seems so long ago now. 29:22 I started that, by the way. That was me. 29:24 - That was, that was my hoarding of hand sanitizer - That was you? 29:28 that caused a lot of that. 29:29 You and Donald Trump, right? 29:30 That's correct. 29:31 There was a - there was a serious conversation at that point 29:34 about whether or not we could repurpose perfume factories 29:37 because the underlying chemicals 29:39 and process was largely similar. 29:40 Now in that moment, is that socialism? 29:43 To take over Christian Dior and Chanel 29:46 to help people not die? 29:47 Or is that just a national defense of our lives policy? 29:51 And whether or not we're willing to do that, 29:54 I think is a really big question. 29:55 And if we can envisage a production side alternative 29:59 to these companies, not just a demand side, 30:02 we want more money in people's pockets, 30:03 but we want them to be producing. 30:05 So what's - what's the argument against that? 30:08 Is the argument against that that 30:10 A) The government will naturally not be 30:13 efficient enough and shouldn't own-? 30:14 Yeah, have you seen the Post Office? 30:16 And also that it will hold such a competitive advantage 30:19 against other companies? 30:21 But is there another way where you can hold companies... 30:26 Look, they get the benefit of our stability 30:30 and our infrastructure, but none of the 30:32 responsibility or accountability. 30:35 They can hold all their money offshore. 30:37 They can comparison shop for the lowest interest rates 30:43 around the world to hold their debt. 30:45 They can take their workers as long as they're not a service economy. 30:49 They can take their workers and shuffle them off to a place 30:52 where the standard of living is much lower. 30:54 They've got every advantage 30:57 and none of the responsibilities and accountability. 31:01 And so is there another way that isn't 31:06 coming up with a competitor for them. 31:08 Is it just holding them to account? 31:10 I think you can do both. 31:12 You can do both. And we should do both. 31:14 We have to - You know, these problems are so multifaceted. 31:19 The hollowing out of our communities through trade deals 31:22 - written over the years, the tax laws being rigged, - Right. 31:25 and written over the years, our labor laws, 31:27 our environmental standards, all of it. 31:30 - We need a holistic reform agenda. - By the way, we do that. 31:33 I didn't mean to say like, it's just overseas, 31:35 like we undercut each other in America. 31:38 One thing that I will give serious credit, 31:40 to the Biden administration. Their push on anti-trust 31:43 has been incredibly heartening to see. 31:45 Because one of the things you're talking about is, 31:47 if we're going to let you to have these benefits. 31:49 And I think one of the biggest benefits 31:50 that we never talk about is limited liability. 31:52 If you set up a corporation, you can take on all this risk. 31:55 And if that company goes under, 31:57 - You just walk away. - Right. 31:58 You just start another company. 31:59 That's one of the biggest handouts from the public. 32:02 It's socialism. 32:03 It's socialism of losses. 32:05 - They privatize their profits, - Yeah, that's right. 32:07 but they socialize their losses. 32:08 And the justification is we wouldn't have any investment. 32:11 You wouldn't have any risk taking if we didn't do it. 32:13 OK, so we're publicly subsidizing risk in the market 32:17 because we think that's a good thing. 32:19 What do we get in exchange? 32:20 What does the public get back for this? 32:22 Having that conversation, the quid pro quo. 32:24 If we're going to bail you out every time there's a crisis, 32:26 if we're going to give trillions of dollars 32:28 of lending and support services, 32:31 what are we getting back? 32:32 Do you think maybe we could get back 32:33 a slightly cheaper internet rate or something? 32:35 - You know. - That's a fantastic point. 32:37 And here's maybe something and you guys tell me 32:39 what you think of this. 32:40 Why don't we subsidize risk for people? 32:44 You know, one of the things 32:45 that makes it so difficult for people to 32:49 get out of their situation is child care, health care. 32:55 You don't want to leave your job because you're not 32:57 going to get health care. 32:58 We make it impossible for people to take risks 33:03 because they're treading water to just stay afloat. 33:06 Yet for corporations, we say if we don't backstop you, 33:11 you'll never take a risk. 33:13 So why don't we do that for people? 33:15 Why don't we view people as human capital to be invested in 33:22 in that same way? 33:23 This is what basically FDR wanted in the second bill 33:27 of economic rights. 33:28 To provide certain protections, safeguards for all Americans. 33:33 So health care, you mentioned, housing, education, 33:36 the right to a secure retirement, 33:38 the right to a job with a good, you know, wage attached to it. 33:41 These were the things that FDR fought for 33:43 and the Democratic Party for many years fought for 33:46 as part of the party platform. 33:48 You know, basic protection, safeguards, rights, economic, 33:52 an economic bill of rights. And it, 33:55 you know, the party just, sort of at some point, 33:57 stopped fighting for those things. 33:59 I mean, to give one example, 34:00 my wife is a second grade teacher. 34:02 She had to get a master's degree to even be qualified 34:05 because we want good quality people looking after our kids. 34:07 That - that master's degree at a public university in New York 34:10 ended up causing - incurring about $50,000 worth of debt. 34:14 Now, there's no way in hell she’s going to pay that back 34:16 relative to the interest rate, 34:18 and right now scholars like Luke Herrine 34:21 have shown that the Biden administration 34:22 could cancel tens of thousands of dollars of student debt, 34:25 all of it, if they wanted to with the stroke of a pen. 34:27 They cannot blame Republicans for that. 34:29 They cannot blame congressional intransigence for that. 34:32 That is purely an ideological commitment 34:35 to the idea that higher education and not just sort of 34:38 studying the classics under a tree, 34:40 you know, pondering philosophy and Plato, 34:42 but getting the skills you need to be 34:44 - a nurse, a doctor, an engineer to do those things. - Right. 34:47 you have to become a debt slave for the rest of your life. 34:51 And we could change that tomorrow 34:52 and they just don't want to. 34:54 So this is the flip side of easy money. 34:57 Educational institutions understand that- 34:59 they always tell you this. 35:02 If you don't get a bachelor's degree, man, your life is over. 35:06 Now, they don't mention that a high school — 35:08 a white high school graduate has more wealth 35:10 than a Black college graduate. 35:12 That's a whole separate conversation. 35:13 But basically a bachelor's degree is the ante. 35:19 And that's going to be $100,000, $200,000. 35:22 That's your ante to get into the world. 35:27 - And is it- 35:28 and we've seen an astronomical — 35:30 talk about inflation. 35:32 The inflation in education. 35:36 Is that — 35:37 Is that the danger of easy money? 35:41 Because they know 35:42 people have nowhere else to go 35:45 and they know they're going to do whatever 35:47 they've got to do to get there. 35:49 And they know they're going to have customers 35:51 who will desperately take out loans 35:54 and they can inflate their administrative costs 35:56 and they can inflate everything else. 35:57 And they can have an endowment of $3 billion 36:01 and still be inflating their year to year costs. 36:04 Well, you're right. I mean, the credentialization of everything 36:07 and it's not just the bachelor's degree. 36:09 They really get you with you need the extra letters 36:11 behind your name beyond the bachelor's degree. 36:15 - Master's is the new bachelor's degree. - Yeah. 36:17 And then they make it very, very easy to borrow 36:19 tens of thousands of dollars to to get those degrees. 36:23 But what they don't do is really anything to ensure 36:26 that there's a there's a job with an income 36:29 that's going to be high enough to allow you 36:31 to ultimately get out from under that debt on the other side. 36:34 So what's the foundation of what you guys would 36:36 recommend is the reset? 36:39 If you're recommending a reset 36:41 and what are the tent posts of that 36:44 in terms of what that would look like 36:46 when you think about monetary policy 36:49 and congressional appropriations 36:53 and 36:54 you know, corporate policy. What's — how does that work? 36:57 I think when it comes to higher education 36:59 I think this goes to the same point we were talking about 37:01 with the COVID crisis, which is do we want a system 37:04 where you have to go into debt servitude 37:06 to be able to get a higher education degree to do 37:08 you know, the basic services we think are necessary 37:10 like nursing and education? 37:11 If not, then at the very least 37:13 we need to commit to making that free 37:16 and cancel existing debt, say, "This was a huge mistake." 37:19 - "We went the wrong direction. We want to turn the page." 37:22 But the next day or even the same day, 37:24 we need to reform the way that we are financing higher education. 37:27 Right? People joke that Harvard University is a hedge fund 37:29 with a university attached for nonprofit status right? 37:32 We need to think about that process. 37:35 There are ways to provide you know, cheaper goods 37:37 for everybody that require us to take 37:40 a bit more active intervention in how those markets 37:42 and industries are structured. 37:43 Modern Monetary Policy is maybe an effective tool 37:50 or a new way of looking at things. 37:53 What's the reset for 37:55 how corrupt the system currently is, 37:59 and what are some of the tentposts 38:01 of what it would look like otherwise? 38:03 I don't think either one of you is just saying 38:05 "Yeah, we can just print money and use it for whatever we want." 38:08 But it's a reprioritizing and seemingly 38:14 being more agile and less doctrinaire 38:17 in how we use monetary policy 38:20 and legislative agenda. 38:21 Well, I mean, most of the focus is on fiscal policy. 38:24 So it's on what we can do legislatively through Congress. 38:27 And I think what we did and what we have seen 38:30 Congress accomplish over the course of the last 20 months 38:33 or so is just astonishing, right? 38:35 That you can with the stroke of a pen, one provision 38:39 in a single piece of legislation, the Child Tax Credit 38:43 that one provision lifted more than 38:46 40% of all the kids living in poverty out of poverty. 38:50 Which is why we had to end it, Stephanie. We had to end it. 38:53 We had we had to stop it. 38:55 You know. So, Jon, it's like we have 38:58 everywhere you look in the economy, 39:00 you will find deficits that matter. 39:02 You will find them in education, 39:03 you will find them in infrastructure, 39:05 you will find them in housing, 39:06 you will find them in child poverty, 39:08 and senior, you know, ability to retire with dignity 39:11 and all the rest of it and on and on. And you're quite right, 39:14 that you can't solve every problem with a piece of legislation, 39:19 but the budget is a way to express our values as a nation. 39:22 It is a way to prioritize and it is a way to begin to fund 39:27 some of the long standing, underfunded 39:30 and addressed deficiencies in our economy. 39:32 So we have to figure out what are our priorities are. 39:34 I would go back to that 39:37 economic bill of rights 39:38 that I referred to earlier, 39:39 I think is a very good blueprint 39:40 and a very solid place to start. 39:42 Start with the jobs, 39:43 start with a job with a good pay, 39:46 with healthcare and a right to housing and an education- 39:48 And you're saying deficit spending 39:51 is the way to address this, that people 39:54 that deficit spending won't -- 39:56 It's not a necessity 39:58 that that drives inflation 39:59 and it's not a necessity 40:01 that it saddles future generations 40:03 with debt. 40:04 It's not a necessity that saddles future generations. 40:07 It is not the case that deficits are inherently inflationary 40:10 but it is true 40:12 that deficits can get too big. 40:14 And one possible way for that to materialize 40:18 is in the form of inflation. 40:19 So, again, you can't spend willy nilly. 40:21 You can't drive trillions and trillions too rapidly into a very narrow hole. 40:26 You have to figure out over what period of time can I safely make these investments in infrastructure. 40:32 And you have to be able to resource what it is you’re trying to do. 40:35 Rohan said it earlier. 40:36 If you want to do infrastructure, 40:38 you have to be sure that you have available to you 40:40 the the contractors, the engineers, the architects, 40:43 the steel, the machinery. 40:45 But that you can get ahead of. 40:46 That's the kind of thing that planning - 40:48 - Oh, oh, Jon. - What? 40:51 - You said the P — - Should I leave? 40:52 I'm just gonna go. I should leave. 40:54 You said the P-word. 40:57 You're not getting invited back to the Christmas party now. 40:59 I apologize. 41:00 This is a scary word 41:01 because you just said "planning." 41:02 You have to plan. Yes. 41:03 You have to plan for prosperity. 41:05 And by the way, boardrooms are invented for the purpose of planning. 41:09 That's what corporate America does. 41:10 They go walk into the boardroom for the purpose of planning. 41:13 So we have to be 41:14 willing to plan for prosperity. 41:17 We have to be willing to do that. 41:18 Let me ask you a question though, about 41:21 what you said about legislative priorities, 41:24 because there is a part of me 41:25 that feels that democracy, 41:26 and especially our system, 41:27 is analog in a new digital world, 41:29 and it's not agile. 41:30 And we did in the middle of a crisis, 41:33 do what we can. 41:35 But as far as the 41:36 the structure of capitalism 41:38 and the government 41:39 moving forward, 41:40 it doesn't seem particularly suited 41:42 to addressing the public's needs. 41:46 It seems more suited to status quo 41:50 and keeping those that are winning, 41:52 winning more 41:53 and keeping those that are losing entrenched. 41:56 Can we also use the power of monetary policy 42:00 for those kinds of 42:05 those kinds of effects that can help bridge that gap? 42:10 This is where I think your conversation with Tom to sort of go back to the beginning was so helpful 42:14 because until we're clear about what’s actually going on 42:17 and until the people who know how this works can 42:20 be honest with someone 42:21 like you asking very authentic questions, 42:23 we are not going to have those changes. 42:25 So take, for example, 42:26 let's make all fiscal spending, deficit spending, financed by new money creation. 42:30 The trillion dollar coin idea that you sort of laughed at ten years ago 42:32 now you come around 42:34 let's have that be the basis of all fiscal spending. 42:36 If the Federal Reserve wants to tighten financial conditions 42:40 or manage inflation, 42:41 let's make sure it has the right tools to do that. 42:44 Let's combine with other agencies 42:46 like the antitrust divisions, 42:47 like the planning divisions to make sure 42:49 we don't hit those inflationary barriers. 42:52 And let's simplify a lot of this stuff 42:55 to the level we can have conversations with the public 42:58 -so that it's not something- -Yes. 42:59 that the monkeys feel so dumb 43:01 they can't have an opinion on. 43:02 But don't you think it's purposefully complex 43:05 -and purposefully obtuse? -Yes. 43:06 They don't want transparency in any way. 43:10 And those central bankers- they're trained in the art 43:13 of very careful language. 43:14 -You make a central bank announcement, -Yeah. 43:16 all the markets pore over each word like it's 43:18 -a hermeneutic religious text. -Right. 43:20 So demystifying that through things like media 43:23 through things like this podcast is so important because otherwise 43:26 there's not- we're in that- 43:27 -We're in the Catholic Church speaking Latin. -Right. 43:29 We're in that phase of economic theory. 43:32 Although they were very good with fiscal policy 43:34 I have to admit, in terms of... 43:35 - They had great music. You got to give it to them. - Tremendous 43:37 How does what you're saying 43:39 differ from sort of more standard 43:42 Keynesian economics, or is it different? 43:45 It's different, Jon. 43:46 I think it's different 43:47 -almost from beginning to end. -OK. 43:49 It really is. 43:50 We are not talking about occasionally priming the pump 43:54 to get the economy back and running 43:57 and then turning everything back over to the central bank, 43:59 which is really what mainstream economics is about. 44:02 You turn to fiscal 44:03 to fiscal policy in a moment of crisis. 44:05 It's like on the wall with the glass through the thing in front of it -Yes. 44:08 -that says break glass in case of emergency. -Right. 44:10 Otherwise you do... 44:11 -You gotta... 44:12 -You gotta land the plane. -Yeah. 44:13 That's what they always say, 44:14 "Gotta land the plane." 44:16 Yeah. You do not touch fiscal policy. 44:18 You leave macro policymaking up to the technocrats at the central bank and you sit back 44:23 and you hope that by dialing the interest rate up and down, 44:25 you will somehow end up with 44:28 an economy that produces opportunity and good wages. 44:32 And so forth for everybody else. 44:33 You know, the kinds of educational opportunity. 44:35 And it won't work. It won't work. 44:37 But that is mainstream Keynesian economics 44:40 turn the dial mostly the interest rate dial 44:42 use fiscal policy for an emergency 44:44 put it back in the box, 44:45 work to bring down the deficit. 44:46 So we are 44:48 we are saying something completely different. 44:49 And when it comes to jobs, for example, 44:51 the mainstream central banker's theory for decades now 44:54 has been that there's a level of unemployment 44:56 that we have to tolerate. 44:57 It's sort of like saying, “Well, I’ve got a class and two out of 20 of my kids,” 45:01 “I'll never teach them, you know they’re unteachable. Let’s just give up on them.” 45:05 They call it the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. 45:09 It was literally a way of saying 45:11 if we push unemployment below this level, 45:13 it's going to cause inflation. 45:14 So we're comfortable with calling 5% unemployment 45:17 full employment. 45:18 They just threw that 5% away 45:20 and they said, “Oh, that’s as good as we can get. So that is full employment.” 45:24 Why is it on the consumer level that when you stimulate that a little bit, 45:29 it creates this inflationary pressure, 45:31 but when you stimulate it at the corporate level, 45:34 there is no pressure. 45:35 It just makes sense then that they're just hoarding it. 45:38 The assumption there is that if the workers have more jobs, 45:41 then they'll be able to tell their boss 45:43 to go fuck themselves. 45:44 And demand a higher wage. 45:46 And if they do that, 45:47 then wages will translate into higher prices in consumer goods 45:51 because companies will take that higher wage cost 45:53 and put it straight into prices. 45:55 Let's not talk about their profit share, 45:56 which is often 45:57 many multiples of their labor cost. 45:59 They'll just translate it. 46:00 So that's the thing. 46:01 What's the lever you could use? 46:03 So to me, that's the only driver, right? 46:06 If people start doing better, 46:08 companies get used to 46:09 it's like when they say, 46:10 let's drop the corporate tax rate. 46:12 Well now that's the new high tax rate 46:15 they've become accustomed to. 46:16 So unless you drop it to zero – 46:18 I mean, 46:18 you almost foresee a point 46:19 where they're like, “Look, we'll pay you to stay here.” 46:22 “Don't worry about tax, we'll pay you.” 46:25 It's extortion. 46:26 So how do you get a company - if a Wal-Mart says, “Okay.” 46:32 “I’m going to pay these guys more, but the only way I can make it up is I’ve got to jack prices up.” 46:39 Why is that billion dollar profit 46:44 not in any way- 46:46 That's just that's the standard. 46:48 What are the levers that can deal with that? 46:50 We can regulate prices directly. 46:52 Right now, the Bank of England's governor, the Central Bank of England has literally said, 46:56 “Workers should try to ask for less wages to keep inflation down.” 46:59 So they're comfortable “regulating the price of labor.” 47:02 They’re saying the price of labor is too high. 47:03 We should keep it low, 47:04 but they will not regulate the profit margins of businesses directly. 47:08 So that's one thing we could do. 47:09 We could just say there's a there's a level of profits 47:11 beyond which we don't want to allow. 47:13 If it translates to higher prices. 47:14 It’s been done historically, excess profit taxes and so forth. 47:17 They do a luxury tax in baseball. 47:19 - You pay too much money on the thing, there's a luxury tax. - Yeah. 47:21 - If you make too much money, there should be a luxury tax. - Yeah. 47:24 They have a handicap in golf, you know. 47:26 You know, in Japan, their culture is very different, obviously. 47:30 But they do 47:31 there’s a practice that's pretty effective 47:33 and well known, and it's called jawboning. 47:35 And the government can quite literally 47:37 just sort of 47:38 say something that is in a sense, shaming companies for 47:43 you know, even thinking about raising prices. 47:45 They just go, you don't want to do that. 47:46 We're watching you. 47:48 That depends on a culture that can be shamed. 47:50 - I'm not so sure we have that. - Exactly. 47:54 Well, we do have the full muscle of the American federal government 47:57 - in the event that shaming doesn’t work. - But that's my point. 47:59 How the heck could they do $120 billion bond buys every month? 48:03 How could they do quantitative easing? 48:04 How could they do TARP 48:06 -and not have stipulations about- - Because we allow it. 48:08 - We allow it. - Yeah 48:10 - We allow it. We get the democracy 48:12 we deserve that kind of thing. 48:13 But Lina Kahn at the FTC for example, 48:15 is trying to start doing this. 48:16 So I think connecting what we are talking about 48:18 the the macroeconomic monetary level with that 48:21 - direct price market- - That’s- 48:23 that's the sweet spot 48:25 that micro antitrust 48:26 with the macro full employment 48:28 you know public goods 48:30 - that's the vision for the future. - and using- 48:32 monetary policy 48:33 as well as legislative impact, 48:35 I think is... that was the part 48:37 that I was trying to get to. 48:38 We've got this giant weapon 48:40 and we only use it in one direction 48:45 because we feel like politically, 48:48 if the stock market goes down, 48:49 it's devastating. 48:50 And B, that they'll just leave that oh, the corporations will just leave 48:55 if we don't, if we're not nicer to them. 48:57 Bonkers. 48:58 Yeah. 48:59 Alright, well, guys, is there anything else that you felt like 49:01 I really wanted to make sure that I 49:04 got through to this person 49:09 from his conversation with 49:10 Thomas Hoenig or about kind of the 49:14 the policies that we're talking about? 49:16 I think your initial instincts were good. 49:17 We can have nice things. 49:19 And this idea that we can, you know, 49:21 print money for the billionaires 49:22 or for the banks and not for the people is bad. 49:25 It's not a coherent idea. 49:26 And anyone that tells you so is gaslighting you. 49:28 The central bankers get very worried. 49:30 And, you know, when 49:32 when the bailouts happened after the financial crisis, 49:35 and it became so clear to everyone 49:37 that the central bank did have a money cannon 49:40 and that it could just unleash and, you know, 49:43 it was trillions of dollars in those years. 49:46 And people started to scratch their heads 49:47 and say exactly what you said. 49:48 Why for them? 49:49 Why do you aim the cannon only there? 49:52 And you started to hear people 49:54 across Europe and elsewhere say, 49:55 what about a people's quantitative easing? 49:57 What about QE for the people? 49:59 - And that's what really rattles the central bank. - Right. 50:02 Because people are starting to say it about the European Central Bank. 50:05 There are proposals to say, “Listen, we got a climate crisis.” 50:08 We have to have something like a Green New Deal. 50:10 Where are we going to get the trillions that that's going to require? 50:12 And they go, “Wait a minute. I remember.” 50:14 Mario Draghi, when he was the head of the ECB, said 50:17 that we can never run out of money. 50:19 I remember hearing him say that. 50:20 Neel Kashkari at the Minneapolis Fed last year said, 50:23 “We have an unlimited amount of dollars at the Fed.” 50:25 And I said, “When do you hear the word 'unlimited' coming from a central banker except to bail out the bankers?” 50:29 When Bernanke said, 50:31 - you can find this video online too- - Yeah. 50:32 and Bernanke said, “It’s not taxpayer money.” 50:35 “We just use the computer to mark up the size of the account.” 50:38 And people went, 50:39 “You use the computer? Well would you use the computer to mark up the size of my account?” 50:43 Oh, my Lord. 50:45 And that's when people like Jerome Powell have to remind us 50:49 that the Fed does not have the authority 50:52 to do that, that they could be given the authority. 50:55 But at present, they don't. The marking up of your account 50:58 can happen when Congress provides 51:00 the instructions to the Fed. 51:02 We're sending out checks. 51:03 Now go help us mark up these accounts. 51:05 And that's how it happens. 51:06 And these are the guys that are like, 51:07 "Crypto sounds like magic," you know? 51:10 Meanwhile, they're just like, 51:11 "Presto Change-o: 51:12 trillion dollars!" 51:13 Larry Summers is on the board 51:15 of a number of crypto and fintech firms. 51:17 But then he has got, you know, 51:18 nothing but contempt for sending out $600 checks- 51:21 Yeah. It's just, it's bonkers, right? 51:23 I really appreciate you guys coming on and engaging 51:27 with the conversation. 51:28 Thank you for having us. 51:29 Thank you, Jon.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿