2022/02/01 ケルトンInternational Week Keynote | Sustainability Council
参考
THE NEW MONETARY POLICY
Reimagining Demand Management and Price Stability in the 21st Century,
authored by @NathanTankus and edited by @mrbrnn,
in partnership with @themmtnetwork and @ourmoneyus.
Stephanie Kelton - How can we afford the future?
2022/02/01(28公開)
International Week Keynote
How can we afford the future we must build together?
The world is moving toward decarbonization. The question is, will Alberta move with it, or will we be left with stranded assets and a devastated economy? Join renowned economist Stephanie Kelton, who will discuss how Alberta can join global decarbonization efforts on our own terms.
To build the future we need, we must begin by firmly establishing a mission. Stephanie Kelton argues that instead of asking "What can we afford to do?", we must ask, "What is it we want to accomplish?" Money—or a perceived lack thereof—is too often seen as an obstacle to ambitious policymaking.
Alberta needs a mission-oriented strategy to guide the transition away from non-renewable resource extraction to a more diversified and resilient economy. Stephanie Kelton will discuss how this requires a break with old habits of thought, a new approach to budgeting national resources, and a firm commitment to a just transition and good jobs for all.
Sponsored by:
Kelton:
well thank you uh very much it's very
nice to be with all of you.
i can see
there are a lot of people logged on for
this i imagine all over
uh probably canada and the us and and
outside the u.s some i know very early
in the morning or very late at night um
so thank you very much it's it's nice to
have an opportunity to talk with you i
know that you have an exciting week of
speakers.
i had an opportunity to look at
some of the people who will be following
this talk uh later in the week and i
know that you're going to have a very
successful program and and hear from a
number of uh real experts on climate
related issues and let me just start by
saying that the caveat here is that i am
not a climate expert i'm not an
environmental economist and i don't have
any real expertise in
the science of
climate change or anything else okay so
i want to make clear that i'm going to
stay in my lane
and i'm going to lean into what we
understand from the scientific
community and give some ideas about how
we can get where it is that i think it's
fairly clear that we need to be going
the path that we need to be on and i'm
gonna do it from the perspective of an
economist addressing as you heard in the
introduction
this nagging question about how can we
afford to do what needs to be done okay
so i'm going to share my screen and jump
right in
and
i am not actually going
to be talking very specifically about
the challenges facing alberta because i
as i said i'm going to try to stay in my
lane and i'm not an expert on the region
but
um i think that the kinds of things that
i'm going to say will hopefully provide
a framework for all of you to think
through the various challenges whether
you're in a province whether you're in
an individual state in the u.s whether
you're somewhere in europe uh and and
think about what it is that governments
can do what role can they play
in leading the way right uh to
addressing this incredible challenge
that we face globally which is the
threat of climate change.
so i want to
start by
getting our minds in the same place okay
this is going to seem really strange and
very simple but i promise it's important
i want us to all channel
this little beaver
okay i want you to put this question in
your mind and keep it in your mind
throughout the entire talk and the
question is this
how will i resource it
now if you're thinking oh financial
resources she's going to talk about how
to pay for
all of the kinds of investments we need
to deal with climate change you're wrong
that is not what i'm going to talk about
in fact i'm specifically going to ask
you to set aside for the moment
questions about money and just focus on
this question about how we will resource
it
so this little beaver is a lucky guy
right because he doesn't have to deal
with the nagging questions associated
with financing his endeavors he doesn't
have to go off to the riverbank and sit
down with the loan officer and apply for
a loan and take out the financing to
embark on this venture
he just
sorry stephanie yesterday the
interruption so you're your slide is not
in oh it's not playing i see it's there
we go
yeah perfect okay thank you sorry about
that are we good did you see did
everybody get a chance to see the beaver
in the question
okay all right so look the beaver gets
the easy job which is to clear
clear away all of the nagging questions
about finding the money and dealing with
the permitting and all of the rest of it
right the beaver says i have a mission i
am out to build a safe habitat for
myself and for those that i'm occupying
this dwelling with
i got to find a place to do it and i
need raw materials i need the resources
so what does the beaver do locates a
tree fells the tree and begins
chopping the tree up and coming up with
the pieces of wood that are necessary to
begin the construction process right so
the beaver is an architect he's an
engineer he's a worker and the beavers
set about and they build this habitat
they have a safe place safe from
predators a place to keep them safe from
the elements of the climate and and the
rest of it right this is the mission of
the beaver and i want us to think like
this beaver okay
so
we've seen this done before and i don't
know how many of you have seen this
video but this was a
this image that i'm showing you here was
taken from a video that was put out
three four years ago maybe five years
ago now and it imagined the future that
we could build together which is the
title of this talk
and it was narrated by congresswoman
alexandria ocasio-cortez
and
what the video did that was
quite
brilliant and moving and inspiring i
thought was that it asked us to see the
world as it could be
right imagine a world
in which we made the choices to tackle
climate change together
on a scale right the scale the ambition
on the scale that the climate community
scientific community tells us we must
act with boldness and with a you know
broad scale of ambition and to do it in
a way that centers economic and social
and racial justice that leaves no one
behind
so we're tackling climate change but
we're building a care economy along the
way we're ensuring that we have jobs for
those who have to transition out of the
fossil fuel industry and other
occupations into the green economy you
ensure that there is a pathway for those
folks at good wages right with benefits
that include in our case we would have
to say things like health care um
a secure retirement that sort of broad
vision of what it would look like if we
acted within 10 years time
to transform
everything and this is what they say in
the video we have to change not just the
way we generate electricity and transmit
power and so forth
the way we live
right our housing the way we move around
public transportation needs to become
much more important the way we eat right
the way we grow and distribute food
the way we live the way we work the way
we eat the way we move around it means
touching almost every part of our
economy
and that is transformative and it's
expensive and usually it's the price tag
that enters the picture first where will
the money come from to do these things
i've asked you to set that aside and
stay focused on
the resources the real resources you
need to embark on this endeavor and to
carry out the mission define the mission
figure out what you need in real terms
to get there and then resource the
mission and then we'll talk about the
money piece so it's not just a pipe
dream okay and i know that they're in
canada and in countries around the world
europeans have a
green new deal idea
we've had green new deal proposals here
i know that you've had across canada a
range of climate related um bold
ambitious proposals to to deal with the
impacts of climate change and so i'll
just tell you some of the things that
have been proposed here in the u.s just
very recently a senator from
massachusetts and a house member from
the state of michigan got together with
other members of congress and introduced
what they called the thrive act
centering four things climate right it
is a climate a piece of climate
legislation
jobs a care economy and justice and
putting those four together and saying
this is a way to address the challenge
of climate change while
generating 15 million good jobs along
the way
centering economic social racial justice
and all the rest of it how much would it
cost now we get to the to the price tag
they said we ought to invest 10 trillion
dollars over the decade so about a
trillion dollars a year
senator bernie sanders for whom i worked
uh in the senate and and after as an
adviser to the campaign had his own
proposal and what he called for was 16
trillion dollars again a climate and
care with jobs at the center where you
literally say the federal government
will ensure
a good paying job for everyone who wants
to lend a hand who wants to work and
contribute this is an all hands on deck
moment and so you want to bring everyone
in who is ready willing and able to work
and wants to contribute in some way you
want to provide a pathway in to help us
this is going to take all of us together
he said 16 trillion dollars
representative ocasio-cortez and others
just last year were calling for 10
trillion dollars for the build back
better agenda the biggest piece of that
would have been climate and then money
for a whole range of other initiatives
that were also
part of president biden's agenda so
these are big numbers right but
look at what you can accomplish in terms
of the un's sustainable development
goals
just by centering your focus on one area
if you just start with this one right
the eighth on the list
decent work now i want to set aside the
growth objective
and and say
like my former boss senator sanders the
focus should not be growth for the sake
of growth okay we got to stay focused on
you know
sustainable growth and we can talk if
there's time about what that looks like
but focus on the jobs focus on the
employment and then see where you can go
through that so if you are centering
your climate
and care package around employment
opportunities for all and making
strategic investments in the economy to
deal with the impacts of climate change
you're building a care economy where the
jobs are oriented around caring for the
climate for the planet for your
communities and for your people so where
does that take you well you get to the
climate you can tick that box
you have centered economic racial and
social justice
you're ensuring that jobs are available
for all that there is gender equity and
pay equity
you are reducing inequality because
you're creating jobs from the bottom up
you're lifting from the bottom up you're
dealing with income and wealth
inequality you're tackling the problem
of clean energy because you are building
out a green economy making the
investments in the trends in the
energy transmission in
sustainable housing in agriculture and
clean water all the rest of it you're
ensuring quality education part of the
care work can be in
early childhood education right you're
providing elder care you're lifting
incomes up these are good paying jobs
and so by definition you're tackling the
problem of poverty along the way and
you're ensuring that these are good jobs
which means they come with good benefits
like health care and ensuring people's
well-being so what i've done is just
start with one thing the idea of
ensuring employment with decent pay and
good benefits and then showed you how
many of the other
goals
feed into that one objective and i could
have done i could have done more now all
right it sounds great sounds wonderful
the video is inspiring the proposed
legislation uh is is bold and on the
scale that is needed but of course
you don't just wave a magic wand and
pass legislation and start uh embarking
on these endeavors you have to find the
votes you have to have the political
will you have to have the public on your
side there has to be buy-in and the
public has to believe that if they go
along for this ride that the government
is genuine and sincere in its commitment
to safeguarding people's livelihoods so
that if you have to transition out of an
occupation that is no longer going to be
viable that there is a good paying job
on the other side that allows you to
keep your home to keep your standard of
living to care for your family and
yourself in retirement and all the rest
of it so you need buy-in from the
elected officials from the population
and so forth and there's clearly going
to be a lot of opposition
industries that perceive these things to
be threats to their own profitability
and economic longevity will obviously
push back as will many others and
congresswoman ocasio-cortez anticipates
this in that narrated video she says we
knew that we had to save the planet and
we knew that we had the technology and
the capabilities and the resources to do
it but people were scared to come along
for the ride they were scared
why were they scared because they were
turning on the tv turning on the radio
picking up the newspaper listening to
people who said
it's too big
it's
it's unmanageable it's not it's pie in
the sky right it's it's not practical
she said they will use networks of
lobbying groups and think tanks to
create doubt and sow the seeds of denial
about what it is we can actually
accomplish together there will be a
messaging right uh
push against trying to get where we need
to go
and so
when these uh sort of things happen one
of the first groups that are usually
trotted out to help oppose to provide a
narrative to help oppose doing things on
a bold ambitious scale are of course the
economists we can be very useful in this
way and so you will see this is you know
from fox news which is a conservative uh
network i know you're all probably all
aware this is douglas holtzkin
holdseeken is a conservative economist
he was the director of the congressional
budget office at one point which is sort
of the score keeper for um
determining in a sense whether proposed
legislation like a green new deal has
any chance at all of making it to the
floor for a vote and becoming uh a bill
right and signed into law and so
somebody like douglas douglas holdsaken
goes on television and starts
sowing the seeds of doubt and fear and
says this thing will bankrupt the nation
i looked at it i think it would cost
like 93 trillion dollars to do what
these democrats are talking about doing
and people hear these numbers and their
heads explain they say what in the world
are they thinking 93 trillion dollars
they want to bankrupt the nation and all
this kind of stuff
senator joni erst ernst from iowa hears
this number
and grabs on to it and then goes out and
starts repeating it and says the green
new deal would cost more than the entire
recorded spending of the united states
since the constitution went into effect
it's impossible you know they're just
saying it's impossible here are just a
few more examples from conservative
think tanks so you can have people from
the heritage institute on the one hand
at the top saying this is fiscally
irresponsible and all the rest you can
have sort of centrist left
whatever bloggers out there saying these
proposals would spend the nation into
oblivion
larry summers doing what larry summers
uh has been doing of late as well which
is going out and pushing back against
proposed legislation and challenging the
feasibility and says this is you know
i've looked the numbers this is not a
realistic calculus this this can't be
done what these uh members of congress
are proposing
so you have people who are willing to
think big the senator sanders the
senator markies the elizabeth warrens
the aoc's and the like there are people
who are prepared to move forward with a
bold ambitious
package a suite of policies to address
these problems that we face but the
first question out of everyone's mouth
is always
but how will you pay for it how will you
pay for it where will the money come
from right and then it basically becomes
not you can't have what you can't see
what you can't imagine but you can't
have what you can't afford so they just
simply tell us that it costs too much
that it's impossible to finance
uh and you might as well give up and so
this is the twitter arm of the
republican party uh the senate
republicans just tweeting out you know
senator sanders markey aoc these people
pushing this green new deal their
proposals are unaffordable right maybe
that's why we don't have it they say
maybe that's why no one will vote for it
now
we went from 16 trillion to 10 trillion
talking about doing bold things to
really transform
every aspect of the economy
transportation housing agriculture uh
energy all of it to something much more
modest which came in the form of
president biden's build back better
agenda
when the democrats first started coming
to
some sort of agreement coalescing around
a number
the number was 3.5 trillion
3.5 trillion spread out over 10 years
is 350 billion a year
that's
not a huge amount of money it's
certainly nowhere close to 10 or 16
trillion
lawmakers couldn't agree on three and a
half trillion and maybe you heard some
of the names here uh we had senator from
arizona senator from west virginia both
had different reasons for opposing what
president biden was trying to do and the
numbers started getting talked down so
he went from three and a half trillion
to something closer to 1.8 trillion and
then there were supposedly negotiations
that were taking place in good faith on
all sides to see if a deal could be
struck to do
build back better at 1.8 trillion or so
of that
555 billion would have been climate
investments climate-related investments
in research related to climate now it
would have been the biggest climate
investment in the history of the united
states of america so it was not nothing
but
it was not the trillions of dollars that
experts tell us we should be investing
in all of these different ways
to
ensure that we hit the targets and that
we avoid increasing uh temperatures
allowing warming to increase above one
and a half degrees celsius and so but it
sounded like a lot and it would have
been better than nothing to be sure
okay
so of that
555 billion though
more than 300 billion of that
was
kind of
carrots incentives to get the private
sector private consumers private
businesses
to change their behaviors to act in ways
that
reduced emissions right so you say we
want to kind of nudge them along we'll
offer rebates to get people to buy
electric bikes and electric vehicles and
tax breaks for companies to invest in
renewable energy capacity they have to
build out a lot of the infrastructure
we'll offer tax breaks and then sit back
and hope
that if we take some of the risk off the
table if we do this de-risking
that the private sector will say yeah
it's probably a reasonable thing i think
i can be profitable i'm getting a little
incentive from the federal government uh
i'll go in and i'll make some of these
investments but there are no guarantees
right with these nudges and this leaning
so heavily on the private sector and
hoping
that the incentives are sufficiently
strong that they generate the
decision-making and the actions that
you're after so you sit and you wait
okay but this is the way that the biden
administration decided to push a climate
spending package that was quote unquote
fully paid for
because they decided that they didn't
want to do it the way that they had just
done the way the government had just
done
five trillion dollars of covet spending
from march of 2020 to march of
2021 congress passed three big pieces of
legislation
in total kicking out
five trillion dollars to support the
economy and deal with the effects of the
pandemic and so forth none of it was
quote unquote paid for there's just
congress sitting down and writing bills
committing to spending money in certain
ways and that money goes out the door
and yes it increased the deficit yes it
increased this thing we call the
national debt but everybody was okay
with that everybody voted for it then we
get to build back better
and the byte administration says no more
of that okay this time we're going to
fully offset the spending we don't want
any of it to increase the deficit and
this is where things started to fall
apart
okay this commitment to trying to keep
the spending deficit neutral by raising
a bunch of new revenue which required
increasing a lot of taxes which turns
out the democrats didn't have support
for
trying to cut other types of spending
like negotiating prescription drug
prices to bring that out turns out you
don't have all the votes you need to do
that and so the deal fell apart and we
heard just earlier today from senator
manchin build back better his words it's
dead
so now everybody's sort of shrugging and
saying is this the last chance we have
at climate is it slipping through our
fingers we have midterm elections this
year
um if legislation doesn't pass if
something doesn't pass
before november
then i think the realistic calculus is
that the democrats no longer have the
house
and then who knows how many years go by
before you have another opportunity to
do something substantial to deal with
climate change so it's dispiriting and i
think a big part of the reason that we
ended up where we are that this
legislation ended up
being killed and maybe they'll break it
up and pass some small things along the
way but i
don't see much chance at all of a a
really
you know significant piece of climate
legislation coming out before november
it just doesn't strike me as likely why
because we're all hung up on all the
wrong things where will you find the
money whose taxes have to go up and by
how much and do you have the votes to do
that how do we stop you know the
spending from adding to the deficit or
the debt and what about this inflation
we currently have and we can't do
anything because inflation is here and
so we are in a real trap
and i know that i'm saying all of this
in the u.s context but what i want to do
now is to make it clear to you
that
uh i want you to draw parallels for
canada and for wherever you might be
watching this from that this is not a
story that is uniquely you know american
governments around the world face these
challenges we're all in this global ship
together and the planet is warming all
of us so we've got to have global
solutions some nations are better
equipped to deliver the kind of bold
spending that is going to be needed to
address these problems than other
countries
currency issuing governments
like the us
like canada like australia like the uk
like japan like china like many other
countries
currency issuing governments
are in a
uniquely
well-positioned
position place
to
deal with these problems because as a
currency issuer you don't have to deal
with this nagging question
where will i find the money how will i
find the money here the currency issuer
the us dollar comes from the us
government it can't come from anywhere
else right you are the sole issuer
of the currency that's called the united
states dollar the canadian government is
the issuer of the canadian dollar japan
issues the yen nobody else can do it
right so you can't run out you can spend
too much but you can't be forced into
bankruptcy and you never have to borrow
your own currency from anyone you're the
issuer of the currency
if you are a province
okay if you are an individual state if
you are california new york arizona
you're in a different position you don't
issue the currency you are
financially constrained in ways that the
canadian government is not that the
united states government is not that the
japanese government is not so the
options are more limited if you are a
canadian province you are revenue
constrained that doesn't mean that you
don't have options to begin to do what
you can do
to transition away from fossil fuels and
to green your economy and to try to
support
just transition and so forth but you are
going to be dependent on revenue
in ways that the federal government that
the canadian government would not be
so
you are financially constrained in
important ways and that plays a part in
terms of the policy space what you can
actually afford to do is a real question
currency issuing governments can afford
to purchase whatever is available and
for sale in their own sovereign
currencies now the u.s dollar is
obviously globally accepted that gives
us a very large global marketplace into
which um to spend to to acquire
resources that we need other countries
have more limited capacity to be sure
okay but the point is you can afford to
buy whatever is available and for sale
in your own currency including
all available unemployed labor so you
can put every canadian who wants to
lean into the mission and lend a hand
you can employ them and put them to work
doing care for planet care for people
care for communities
all right so what matters is
you got the power of the purse but you
don't have infinite
capacity to spend in the sense that too
much spending will push inflation higher
so there are limits there are
constraints and again think of that
beaver
it's the real resources if the real
resources are lying around available
ready to be hired available to be
employed whether it's you know raw
materials labor whatever it is if it's
available for sale and nobody else is
bidding on it then
government can employ it and put it to
use and direct it to public purpose
aimed at dealing with climate challenges
building clean affordable housing and
all the rest of it okay but inflation is
the relevant constraint as keynes said
the famous british economist so many
years ago
anything we can actually do
we can afford
okay so if we can do it and we know this
because we faced this challenge before
we've done this we have literally
transitioned our entire economies
unexpectedly
right and we did it during the war
effort we did it with the bombing of
pearl harbor that drew the us into world
war ii and we transitioned our economy
from one that was oriented around
producing largely for consumers
to one that was largely oriented around
producing for the war effort we had to
change everything right factories that
had been manufacturing automobiles we're
told no more producing cars we need you
producing tanks and um aircraft carriers
and munitions and all the rest of it
uh garment industry that was previously
producing men's suits and ladies dresses
and and leather shoes and high-heeled
ladies shoes we're told we need you
producing uniforms and boots and all of
the rest of it right we transition the
entire economy and we did it very
quickly how did we do it
very successfully because the mission
was clear you got to win the war that
was the mission so what is it going to
take to carry out the mission to win the
war and here we go back to keynes again
and keynes writes this little pamphlet
this little book called how to pay for
the war the title is misleading because
you would think that keynes is writing
this down
to give advice about where to find the
money to carry out the war effort now
he's writing this for the british
government the u.s wasn't engaged yet in
world war ii
but he circulates this little
guidebook and it's basically
you know like a blueprint for how to
resource
the war effort where are you going to
get the real things that you need how
are you going to feed troops how are you
going to pull workers out of this type
of employment and shift them into the
military and what are the women going to
do and how do you shift them in and how
do you manufacture the things you need
the munitions and all the rest of it so
this was a plan and
it was a plan to undertake this trans
this transition of the whole economy to
a war economy how to do it with minimal
inflationary pressure it's not going to
be zero inflationary pressure it's
impossible you're changing everything
and you're doing it in a hurry but
keynes wanted to lay out and provide a
blue
oh you accidentally muted yourself
stephanie
is it good
yes
you're good what was the last thing you
heard me say okay so the point is you're
you're not going to do it with no
inflationary pressures it would be
impossible it's too uh it's it's too big
a thing it's too big an endeavor but the
point was to provide a blueprint for
policymakers to say hey this is the way
to go about thinking about how to carry
out this transition and my argument is
that we can learn a lot from going back
and looking at what keynes had to say
about transitioning the economy into a
war economy as we think about how to
deal with climate change if we think of
ourselves in a battle for our uh future
lives and the lives of those who will
come after us
so
i'm saying we've done this before we
know what needs to be done war planning
is about ensuring you have the real
resources you need and that you're
managing the inflationary pressures
along the way that's the best you can do
and he keynes was mindful that it be
done in a way that was as equitable as
possible that all of the hardship did
not fall on those with the lowest
incomes who are already you know most
likely to be in poverty lowest on the
income ladder and so forth he wanted to
do it in a as as much as possible a just
way so that the sacrifices that were
being made during the war effort that
delayed consumption and so forth that
there would be income for those groups
in particular on the other side of the
war when the recovery
uh took hold the u.s paid close
attention to what keynes was saying they
circulated memos and said we really got
to pay attention because this guy's
saying the whole game if we get drawn in
is going to be about managing
inflationary pressures and resourcing
the war and of course the us did get
drawn in and you can see there from the
graph on top that you know the
government as a share of the whole
economy was fairly modest you know after
the great depression
government programs ramped up under the
new deal but it was really the war
that exploded the size of government
government took almost half of the
entire gdp
and so you had a massive ramping up of
the government presence and directing
resource use in the economy and you can
see here what happened to inflation in
the uk where keynes had been advising
and here in the u.s where they were
listening to him inflation got high
i mean but it didn't we didn't have
hyper inflation it never got out of
control governments had a suite of
policies in place to manage inflationary
pressures through this transition and
what i'm suggesting is if we were to do
something
as ambitious as the kinds of things that
were being proposed under a senator
sanders or a senator markey or an aoc
if we were going that big and doing
transportation the way we live the way
we work the way we get around the way we
grow food then you need a suite of
policies ready to put in place and
managing those inflationary pressures is
really key because that's part of how
you maintain public support for what
you're doing and we can see that today
people don't like paying higher prices
for things so managing inflationary
pressure is really important so what do
you do if you want to embark on
something big you start off by saying
what is it i need think like a beaver
what are the real resources i need to
carry this out if i want to build 10 or
11
units of affordable
sustainable housing what do i need to
build 11 units of sustainable i need
construction workers i need lots of
concrete i need um you know
siting i need appliances i need lights i
need you know cable wiring i need i need
real resources if i want to do broadband
and ev charging stations and solar
panels those are the things i need so
you say what is it i need and then you
look at your resource capacity do i have
the technology to do this i hope the
answer is yes you shouldn't plan to do
things you don't have the technological
know-how to do but you can invest in r d
along the way and develop and innovate
new technologies and that's a big part
of of uh what people are proposing so
figure out what you need figure out what
your capabilities are how many resources
do you have available do you have the
technological know-how do you need to
seed some research in order to advance
certain uh things technologically and
then if i don't have everything i need
where do i get the rest how do i acquire
more capacity where do i get it
so
i'm going to speed up because i we're
reaching close to the end and i want the
q a so assess your resource needs so
here are some examples right
someone writing in forbes said we could
do a sort of climate bill for something
like three percent of gdp we could
retrofit buildings and have a smart
power grid and get to 100 renewable
energy and all this and this is what it
would cost in dollar terms but then you
look at this and you say but what would
it take in real resource terms to
upgrade all buildings so that their
energy you know
we electrify uh all units of housing and
everything is energy efficient what
would it take resource wise the next one
is much more ambitious five percent more
than five percent of gdp what would it
take to resource that so that's what you
need to do and then you look at your
existing capacity how many workers do we
have and not just these headline i'm
just giving you a quick sample here how
many unemployed people are there that we
could bring into this but then you have
to go closer right because some of these
you need people with particular skills
um and so you can look at unemployment
by occupation and say do i have the
unemployed construction workers that i
would need and if i don't can i train
them up can i get apprenticeships going
can i move them away from maybe some
other activity they're currently engaged
in and shift them into building you know
resilient housing or whatever the case
may be but you have to find that figure
out what your capacity is
use up all of the existing slack you
have
and then
free up capacity
where you need it if you don't have
enough capacity and so i've just put
down some ideas here about where you
would get the extra capacity if you
don't have the capacity you need here in
the us we don't have a a single-payer
healthcare system we have this patchwork
as you know
um system but if we transitioned to
something that was
more
efficient even
slightly more efficient
that would free up a lot of resources
because we have these huge
intermediaries
that
employ a lot of people use a lot of
resource capacity and if we streamline
the healthcare delivery system so that
those intermediaries were no longer
necessary it would free those people up
to do other things and i'm obviously i'm
talking about unemployment right it
would create some unemployment but
that's then how you resource other
endeavors you need other people you can
um think about what you can do using
credit controls
and there's a new paper
coming out i've got a copy it's
embargoed in front of me i think it's
going to be out
later this month
it's coming out nathan tankis is the
author it's called reimagining demand
management and price stability in the
21st century.
it's about 40 pages
lots of ideas here on ways to use credit
controls to free up resource capacity
using regulatory levers
if you believe that you have parts of
the budget that have
more funding than is necessary to
achieve certain goals perhaps in the
military budget you say i can free up
some real resources by shifting funds
into the green the for the greening of
you know the economy and so forth so the
point is there are lots of ways to think
about this we got two million or so
people um locked up in prisons and jails
all over this country we uh often hear
discussion about prison reform that
would allow uh non-violent you know drug
offen you know people who are in for
substance abuse of some you know
marijuana or something uh to come out
and be freed up
and available to lean in right lend a
hand with some of the climate uh
challenges and so forth so a lot of
folks including some of my colleagues
have looked at these kinds of things
here's a paper i don't have time to talk
about but the point is
it's the real resource capacity that
matters and inflation is the relevant
constraint can you place too much of a
strain
on your economy's productive capacity
yes you can you can try to spend more
money into the economy to accomplish all
of these things on a rapid
basis and the economy just can't keep up
it doesn't have the people it doesn't
have the factories it doesn't have the
machines it can't churn them out fast
enough and the punishment for trying to
push too fast will be some inflationary
pressure so this is a political
problem when inflation emerges and you
have to figure out
how to manage those pressures along the
way as keynes
described and how much of a trade-off
you're willing to tolerate in terms of
you know another percentage or two
percent inflation for the sake of
the planet so these are not answers that
i can give you these are political
questions and they're questions for a
population that must ultimately
bear some of the costs and ultimately
support the policy so
do you have to raise taxes and do you
have to be deficit neutral to do all of
this the answer is no you want to back
into the question of the offsets you
don't start with a commitment to offset
every dollar you want to spend
doing climate related investments you
want to say how much available slack how
much policy space is there that i could
carry out parts of my agenda before i
need to start thinking about offsetting
that spending and taxes are one way to
offset
spending but they're not the only way
and they may not even be the best way in
some cases so what do we know this is
the the last slide
you we know that we have
if we have the real resources and the
technological know-how then as kane said
anything we can actually do
we can afford the we there being
the currency issuer for for provinces
for states local governments and the
rest it is more challenging and that's
an important part of my message here so
the financing is the easy part if the
government is willing to commit the
funding the fiscal agent for the
government is the central bank the
central bank's job in part is to carry
out payments that are authorized by the
government on behalf of the treasury or
the finance ministry and that's what
they do checks don't bounce the relevant
constraint is inflation so you want to
start with the mission figure out where
you want to end up and back your way
into
the legislation being drafted so that
the
dollars are committed to deliver on the
mission itself managing inflationary
pressures along the way
so i'm going to stop
and
entertain some questions
okay great thank you very much that uh
you know having heard a lot about uh
modern monetary theory um but you know
the twitter version as opposed to really
digging in myself uh that's this was
really helpful
and um you know so i'm gonna start with
a question and then i'm going to dig
into those in the the chat and there are
a lot of them so just so people know we
probably won't get to all of them and um
i will look over we've got the list and
grab them as i go so if i miss your
question i'm sorry but uh
we've got a lot to choose from and um
so i'll start with this one um
you know am i correct then in
understanding a little bit that
this is a case of
you know normally when when economies
are a little slow uh central banks will
if you will dump a little extra money
into the economy
um you know through you know buying
bonds from banks and things like that is
this a case of saying doing the same
thing but redirecting it to specific
uses that we want to
achieve
you know certain goals with like climate
change
well okay
so i think
a lot of people
do what you just did which is they look
at what the central banks have done
with quantitative easing
central banks use their power to create
the currency
out of nothing more than their computer
keyboards and they buy financial assets
and they pay for them by crediting the
seller's account at the central bank
with reserves we say reserves
um clearing settlement balances right
and so it isn't putting money into the
economy it is trapping
reserves or settlement balances in the
financial system okay that's where they
go so it's it's completely different
from what the canadian government did
say sending out direct checks to support
people in the pandemic said you lost
your job your income is down you've
reported that you have suffered lost
income fill out this paperwork give us
the number we replace some lost income
we did that in the us too that's fiscal
policy that's a direct payment goes
right into the hands of the recipient
and so what you're really talking about
is um
the use of fiscal policy which is how
you know where how i focused my remarks
on
using
the federal government the power of the
purse to draft legislation define the
mission write a bill say this is what we
want to spend on in these ways we want
dollars to go here and we're going to
pay to build ev charging stations all
over the economy we're going to
provide a
job at a certain wage and benefits for
anybody who wants to be hired into this
program doing these kinds of jobs so
it's a different policy lever
yeah so you know i'm going to paraphrase
it there's at least two or three people
and i'm sure this is a question you've
heard before um who have asked you know
if if there's a lot of slack in the
economy this this would work it's a
suggestion but you know if things are
chugging along full tilt i think you
know we're at six or seven percent or
six percent unemployment right now and
going down uh here in alberta and in
other places it's lower
what then do we have to pull back or
what are the about those other
policy tools you mentioned
okay six percent unemployment is is
still quite high and
uh the official measures almost always
significantly underestimate the true
extent of the unemployment problem if
you want to reveal how much unemployment
is actually out there there's a really
good way to do it you announce that
anybody who wants a job and doesn't have
one can have a job at a whatever
announced wage it is and then you see
who shows up right and if you think
there are a million and a half
unemployed people and four million
people show up then that's taught you
something about the the true extent of
unemployment in in the economy but
you're quite right if uh
if you are you know an economy that is
approaching something that you might
reasonably call full employment you
think you're getting very close on its
own right the economy is private sector
is booming lots of job creation very low
levels of unemployment not a lot of
slack and you say uh but i want to roll
out a
massive green new deal that transforms
the whole economy well
you're gonna have to
uh
disrupt a lot of current economic
activity and
you know are you going to be able to do
that politically it's a political
challenge right your government can
start bidding workers away from their
current jobs but that's going to be
inflationary and the goal here is to
avoid that so this is why it was much
easier to do a green new deal
in the midst of the great depression and
then to have world war ii come along
when the economy was still significantly
depressed because there was so much
slack available in the economy so this
the choice before us is
you know
quite stark in the sense that
if we are
truly committed
to acting
on the time scale and with the scope of
ambition that the scientific community
tells us is necessary to avoid the worst
effects of climate change
then we have to collectively decide
that
we're going to support the
transformation
of
the agricultural and transportation and
energy and everything and we're gonna
understand that those dislocations are
coming and that it won't be perfect and
seamless and everybody won't
instantaneously fall perfectly into
you know
a new job at the same pay but you're
going to create pathways and safeguard
incomes and
it isn't
as easy at all
in a resource-constrained environment
but you have to be willing if you wanted
if you want to
deliver on the mission if you want to
carry out the mission you have to be
willing to
you know?
C:
yeah
deal with some of those challenges yeah
that sounds um i just want to confirm um
we have you till quarter 15 after the
hour correct that is correct okay good i
wanted to make sure that i had my timing
correct here um so here's another
question pedro asks um you know
countries all over the world compete for
investment dollars around the globe and
is there a risk if if countries uh began
to adopt this this approach of it
affecting their competitiveness on the
global stage.
Kelton:
well i wish i
i mean i wish i could hear a little bit
more about what uh
is it pedro is concerned about look you
cannot well
you you could depending on how far you
want to go in terms of
defending the exchange rate or something
like that but this is much more
challenging for countries that are
vulnerable to
wide swings in their exchange rate if
you are heavily dependent on the rest of
the world for vital imports if you are
not food independent if you are not
energy independent if you rely on the
rest of the world for imports of
medicines and technologies
you need to be able to
acquire those things to feed your
population to provide energy and so
forth or you'll have you know
social upheaval and riots and so forth
so if your
currency is vulnerable enough to a sharp
depreciation means you can't get the
things that you need that's a problem
and that's where the rest of the global
community i think comes into play
that we have to recognize that climate
is a global challenge much like the
pandemic and the response to the
pandemic frankly doesn't give me
a whole lot of
i don't know optimism in a sense with
respect to where we're going
collectively on climate because we have
to be there for nations that can't do
these things on their own we're going to
have to set up systems you know we had a
marshall plan
uh after world war ii we're going to
have to ensure that developing countries
can leapfrog the transition in energy
through the brown
uh
you know coal and fossil fuel we don't
want them to transition through that the
way we did when we were industrializing
and so forth we want them to be able to
leap frog as much as possible and get to
the clean energy technology sooner and a
lot of countries aren't going to be able
to to do that independently and that's
going to take um a global
coordinated effort
a wealthy industrialized countries can
can do this without
much concern of the kind he was raising
okay great thank you um
so we had kate roberts on uh for a talk
a couple of months ago and someone asks
here and i'm wondering if they had
attended that talk because
jay asks would you say a few words if
you believe
uh modern monetary theory and donut
economics are are compatible if these
things can can be integrated together so
maybe that's a question you haven't
heard before but uh oh i've heard it not
only are they compatible i think they're
inseparable
because i don't know how you achieve the
goals
of the donut economy
without a proper
framework an economic framework and
the the design of a monetary system that
allows you the capacity to achieve
those objectives of pulling everyone out
of the center of the donut so that there
is enough for viability and
life-sustaining needs and so forth but
not pushing beyond ecological
um planetary boundaries and so forth i
think
that the two go together if you can see
over my shoulder there's a little
owl with a little succulent a little
plant inside and on that stack of
horizontal books you'll see kate's book
uh
right behind me perfect
okay thanks um
someone asked here and i've kind of lost
the the statement so i'll just
paraphrase it but um
you know is is
the idea of you know pushing right to
the edges of growth a good idea um and i
think you know the the person asking
questions focusing on the notion of d
growth how much do we have to focus on d
growth versus these types of investments
well look it's
it's an important question it's one that
um dogs me i don't i don't know that i
know for sure
whether
d growth is
you that we ought to center that as an
objective it's possible that we should i
did say that i think growth for the sake
of growth is the wrong way to go
and when i say look at the resource
capacity and use what you have notice
i'm not suggesting that we use up all of
the fossil fuel capacity that we extract
every possible you know drop of oil and
frack every you know shale
it isn't that right it isn't growth for
the sake of growth it isn't um
extraction because you can
i'm just saying if you're trying to
achieve sustainability goals and you
want clean drinking water then you got
to get every lead pipe out and you have
to replace it with materials that will
deliver safe clean drinking water to
every person in the country and around
the world so you gotta have resources to
do that and part of what's gonna happen
in the process of doing that is some
economic growth right but we have to
decide how we're going to live going
forward i can't i don't get to play
king or queen or emperor or whatever
the case may be and make these decisions
these these are
decisions that societies have to make
and they're not easy ones and if we're
willing to say
um
we're living too excessively we consume
too much we need to you know change the
way we live and work and get around and
eat and a lot of that is going to
involve reducing the amount of
consumption that takes place that's
going to push us in the direction of
zero growth or potentially de-growth or
whatever so i think
um
that's my answer sure yeah no that
sounds good and i
you know i i agree with your frustration
around things like the lead pipes and so
on it seems like these are things that
we should be able to achieve fairly
easily given the size of our economy so
um one um
here's another one oh wait it moved on
me oh i know um so sky asks a question
how does the issuer of currency idea
work when the currency is bitcoin like
el salvador is doing can it work or does
that remove the power of government to
do this
well look if if you have a mayor or a
governor
or a president who
is not working with other elected
officials to direct resources and i'm
talking about real resources
in ways that are oriented around
delivering on a mission like
climate uh emissions abatement or
whatever then it's not going to happen
whether you have you know a sovereign
currency or whether you're embracing
crypto or anything else so
i don't think the purpose and the drive
of
those embracing crypto currencies as
they're probably wrongly named or
referred to have
the drive or the interest in
crafting
economic policy
i don't see any evidence of it at least
oriented around
dealing with climate change is sort of
quite the opposite
okay great thanks um a few people have
asked about the current state of
inflation and
um
one one individual says you know do we
have any idea when you know the current
inflation will ease so that modern
monetary theory can be applied and i
guess i'll add you know could it be
applied even in this state of inflation
and maybe your thoughts on what's
causing inflation and how it plays into
all of these types of things
all right so first thing is we don't
want to ask whether mmt can be applied
it's already here it's a description
right it's a framework it's a
description of the monetary system that
is in place in any country we can talk
about the countries that are part of the
emu okay their monetary system is very
different the greek government the
italian government the german government
they don't issue the euro
so they have a monetary system that by
virtue of the fact that they voluntarily
voluntarily gave up their sovereign
currencies
turned themselves into currency users
they're more like a province or an
individual state than like a nation
state right by virtue of of what they
did uh adopting the euro
so
um
what was the question again
oh just you know the oh the the the lens
and the framework so you don't adopt mmt
it's already here it's your framework
for analysis so you can look through the
mmt lens
at italy at greece at ecuador ecuador is
dollarized they just adopted the us
dollar so they have a very um hard
constraint in terms of the financial
constraint because the ecuadorian
government can't issue the us dollar
countries that adopted the euro have
these constraints so mmt is here and
present in all places it's a lens it's a
framework you can apply it to
identify the spending capacities
of governments that operate under
different monetary systems how does
government finance work with the
monetary system you have in any country
you want to look at so it's here
the inflation question is different
because you know i think what this
person is probably trying to say is
now that inflation is here part of the
question was how long
will we be dealing with this and when
will we have the space available again
to um embark on some of these kinds of
investments i think that might be what
the question is
um
so the answer to the inflation question
is i don't know and neither does anyone
else there is a raging debate happening
among economists and others market uh
participants and other people um
about you know what are the drivers of
the current inflation if you ask the
the chairman of the federal reserve
jerome powell he's out there giving
speeches and um remarks before congress
and he's saying look it's there are a
couple of things some of it is that
people have income to spend and
to some extent it's because of the
robust fiscal support that was provided
from congress in the form of all this
legislation i told you five trillion
dollars so people have had their incomes
protected through the pandemic not
everybody but a lot of folks and they
spent less and saved more along the way
and so uh we weren't going out and
spending a bunch of money in nail salons
and hotels and restaurants and bars and
theaters because of the pandemic so we
shifted the way we spend money and we
had kids that were you know home uh
doing virtual learning a lot of us were
told to stay home and work from home so
we had to buy tablets and computers and
furniture and turn our spare bedrooms
into a home office and so we tried to
buy durable goods and we saw what
happened with supply chains we all put a
lot of pressure on supply chains trying
to order things that have to be
manufactured that are manufactured parts
and pieces all over the global supply
chain and you got some inflation from
that
you also have the effects of the
pandemic right that contributed to the
inflationary pressures the supply side
the bottlenecks the backed up ports the
trucks that can't get moving and frayed
and all the rest of it so there are a
lot of things pushing on prices right
now and powell is saying it's mostly
coming from pandemic related supply side
bottle chain bottle uh supply chain
bottleneck pressures so
when will that ease and he basically
said in his remarks a couple of weeks
ago
it will really ease as the pandemic
abates you know as long as the pandemic
is raging and factories are shutting
down all over the world and there are
these disruptions and breaks in the
supply chain inflation will stick around
and it will begin to come down and i
most
analysts most economists financial
markets the bet is
that pressures ease this year
and that by the end of this year we've
seen inflation
fall off significantly the fed thinks
maybe we'll be down to something like
three and a half percent by the end of
the year that's still elevated by uh
historical um standards and also
uh elevated with respect to the fed's
target
but
do we have to wait ask yourself this
question if you took seriously the
threat of climate change and you
believed what the intergovernmental
panel on climate change and other
experts are telling us that we need to
act and act fast and act boldly and
we've got 10 years to really get going
on this and you're sitting there saying
i don't know i mean
four degrees warming
scientists say the carrying capacity of
the earth at four degrees warming is
about a billion people
so maybe over the course of time we lose
seven or eight billion people
but inflation you know if it's four or
five percent we can't really do anything
i mean the calculus to me is pretty
clear
with or without inflation running at
elevated levels
it's the planet it's the planet and we
don't have a lot of time so we've got to
find ways to to move forward even as in
even if um you know we're still dealing
with some inflationary pressures we can
handle those in other ways
um as a moderator i always try and keep
my opinions out of it but i i couldn't
agree more it's absolutely critical um
one last question i think we have time
for um and uh maybe it's a quick one
what about uh you know we currently
subsidize a lot of oil production and
fossil fuel production uh we currently
have a revenue neutral carbon tax in
canada
um would you know reducing subsidies and
and taxing fossil fuels give us uh you
know the opportunity to have some of
these funds to to use in the ways that
you're talking about
okay
who's we
alberta or canada i would say canada and
the federal government in the u.s so i
love this question because it takes us
full circle which is the little beaver
okay the little beaver is not worried
about the money the money is the easy
part the resources are
what matters and when you say
reducing subsidies to fossil fuel
or increasing taxes what those two
things can do
is
discourage the activity itself
and that means you free up real
resources if you pull permits and you
say you're not drilling offshore or
you're not allowed to frack we're
banning fracking or we're not going to
subsidize this and that other thing and
it becomes too costly for some firms to
continue to do those things then the
equipment is freed up the workers are
freed up so what you're doing is you're
helping to resource
the climate agenda it's not the money
that you're after it's the real
productive capacity that you can then
divert to other uses.
C:
excellent okay well i think we have
reached the end of our time so i'm going
to say thank you very much stephanie i
think that everyone probably learned a
lot today and i know a number of us i'm
sure we'll go off and continue to dig
into this more and learn more so i think
you've started a great discussion here
and uh i think we've got quite a few
people who have uh picked up some
knowledge so thank you very much i
appreciate it nice to be with you thanks
everyone thanks everyone all right um we
will see you and uh at one of our next
events over the week so please go online
and take a look at the calendar and
attend some of our other events bye
everyone.
ケルトン：
どうもありがとうございました。皆さんと一緒にいられてとてもうれしいです。
たくさんの人がログオンしているのがわかります。おそらくカナダと私たち、そして私たちの外では、早朝または深夜に知っている人がいると思います。ありがとうございます。あなたと話す機会を持つために、私はあなたがエキサイティングな一週間の講演者を持っていることを知っています。
週の後半にこの講演をフォローする人たちの何人かを見る機会がありました。あなたは非常に成功したプログラムを持ち、気候関連の問題について多くの本当の専門家から話を聞くでしょう。ここでの注意点は、私は気候の専門家ではなく、環境経済学者ではなく、気候変動の科学などの専門知識がないので、作りたいと思います。私は自分の車線にとどまり、科学界から理解していることに傾倒し、それがどこにあるのかを知る方法についていくつかのアイデアを与えることを明確にします。私たちが進む必要のある道と私は冒頭で聞いたように、エコノミストの観点からそれを行うつもりです。どうすれば必要なことを実行できるかについてのこのしつこい質問です。画面を共有してすぐに飛び込みますが、私はそうではありません。私が言ったように、私は自分の車線に留まろうとしているので、実際にはアルバータ州が直面している課題について非常に具体的に話します。私はこの地域の専門家ではありませんが、ええと、私はうまくいけば、あなたが州にいるかどうか、私たちの個々の州にいるかどうか、あなたがヨーロッパのどこかで、気候変動の脅威である私たちが世界的に直面しているこの信じられないほどの課題に取り組むために、政府がどのような役割を果たすことができるかを考えてみてください。
だから私は同じ場所に私たちの心を置くことから始めたいと思いますこれは本当に奇妙で非常に単純に見えるでしょうが私は私たちがこの小さなビーバーをすべてチャネルすることが重要だと約束します話全体を通してそれを心に留めておいてください、そして問題は、あなたが気候変動に対処するために必要なすべての種類の投資の支払い方法について彼女が話すつもりの財源を考えているなら、私は今それをどのように調達するのかということですあなたは間違っていますそれは私が話そうとしていることではありません実際私はあなたにお金についての今のところ質問を取っておき、私たちがそれをどのように調達するかについてのこの質問に焦点を当てるように特に頼むつもりです彼はそうではないので、幸運な男です彼の努力の資金調達に関連する厄介な質問に対処する必要があります彼は川岸に行ってローンオフィサーと一緒に座ってローンを申請し、このベンチャーに着手するために資金を調達する必要はありません彼はステファニーを申し訳ありません昨日中断したので、スライドが再生されていません。再生されていません。そこにあります。完璧です。申し訳ありませんが、申し訳ありません。質問でビーバーを見る機会がありましたか。ビーバーは簡単な仕事をしているので、お金を見つけて許可を処理することについてのしつこい質問をすべてクリアすることです。ビーバーは、私が構築する使命を持っていると言っています。私自身と私がいる人々のための安全な生息地この住居を占領している私はそれを行う場所を見つける必要があり、原材料が必要です。ビーバーが木を見つけるためにリソースが必要なため、木を伐採し、木を切り刻み、木片を考え出します。建設プロセスを正しく開始するために必要であるため、ビーバーは建築家であり、エンジニアであり、労働者であり、ビーバーは着手し、この生息地を構築します。彼らは捕食者から安全な場所を持ち、気候の要素から彼らを安全に保つ場所を持っています残りの部分はビーバーの使命です。このビーバーのように大丈夫だと思ってほしいので、これは以前に見たことがあります。このビデオを見た人の数はわかりませんが、これはこの画像私はここでお見せするmは、34年前、おそらく5年前に公開されたビデオから取られたものであり、この講演のタイトルである私たちが一緒に構築できる未来を想像し、議員のalexandriaocasio-cortezとビデオが行ったことは非常に素晴らしく、感動的で刺激的でした。
私たちが気候変動に一緒に取り組むことを選択した世界を想像してみてください。気候コミュニティの科学コミュニティが私たちに告げる規模で、私たちは大胆に行動し、幅広い野心を持って行動し、誰も取り残さない経済的、社会的、人種的正義を中心とする方法で行動しなければならないので、私たちは取り組んでいます気候変動ですが、私たちはその過程でケア経済を構築しています化石燃料産業やその他の職業からグリーン経済に移行しなければならない人々のために私たちが仕事を持っていることを確認しますヘルスケアのようなものは安全な退職であり、私たちが10年以内にすべてを変革するために行動した場合、それがどのように見えるかという幅広いビジョンのようなものであり、これは私たちが発電する方法だけでなく、私たちが変えなければならないビデオで彼らが言うことです電力などを伝達する私たちの住む方法公共交通機関を移動する方法私たちが成長する方法を正しく食べる方法と私たちが食べる方法を私たちが生きる方法私たちが生きる方法を分配する方法ははるかに重要になる必要があります私たちがその周りを移動する方法は、私たちの経済のほぼすべての部分に触れることを意味します変革的であり、高価であり、通常、最初に写真に入るのは値札です。これらのことを行うためのお金はどこから来るのでしょうか。それを脇に置いて、これに着手するために必要な実際のリソースに集中し続けるように依頼しました。努力し、ミッションを実行するために、ミッションを定義し、そこに到達するために実際に必要なものを理解し、ミッションにリソースを提供します。次に、お金の部分について話します。これは、単なる夢のようなものではなく、彼らがカナダと世界中の国々で、ヨーロッパ人はグリーンニューディールのアイデアを持っています。ここでグリーンニューディールの提案があります。カナダ全土で、気候に関連したさまざまな大胆な野心的な提案があり、気候変動とだから私はここで提案されていることのいくつかをお話しします。つい最近、マサチューセッツ州の上院議員とミシガン州の議員が他の議員と集まり、4つのことを中心に繁栄する行為と呼ばれるものを紹介しました。そして正義とそれらの4つを組み合わせて、これは気候変動の課題に対処する方法であり、経済的社会的人種的正義を中心とした道に沿って1,500万の良い仕事を生み出し、それ以外のすべての費用は今私たちが値札に彼らは私達が10年にわたって10兆ドルを投資するべきであると言ったので私が上院でええと働いた上院議員バーニーサンダースとその後キャンペーンの顧問として彼自身の提案と彼が何をしたか求められたのは再び16兆ドルでしたあなたが文字通り連邦政府が働きたいと思っている手を貸したいと思っているすべての人に良い給料の仕事を保証するとあなたが言うセンターでの仕事の気候とケアこれはすべてのハンズオンデッキの瞬間であり、あなたはみんなを連れて行きたいです喜んで働く準備ができていて、何らかの形で貢献したいと思っている人は、私たちを助けるための道を提供したいと思っています。より良い議題を構築するために10兆ドルを要求するその最大の部分は気候であり、それからバイデン大統領の議題の一部でもあった他のさまざまなイニシアチブのためのお金でした。 un'の観点から達成するs持続可能な開発目標は、1つの分野に焦点を当てるだけで、リストの8番目のディーセントワークから始めれば、成長目標を脇に置き、元上院議員のサンダースのように焦点を当てるべきではないと言います。成長のための成長大丈夫私たちは持続可能な成長を知っているあなたに焦点を合わせ続ける必要がありますそしてそれがどのように見えるかについて話し合うことができますが、仕事に焦点を当てて雇用に焦点を当て、そしてあなたがそれをどこで経験できるかを見てください気候変動とケアのパッケージをすべての人の雇用機会に集中させ、気候変動の影響に対処するために経済に戦略的投資を行っています。地域社会と人々のために地球の気候をケアすることに仕事が向けられているケア経済を再構築することで、経済的人種的および社会的正義を中心としたボックスにチェックを入れることができます。ジェンダーエクイティとペイエクイティが存在するすべての人に仕事が利用できるようにしているのは、不平等を減らしているからです。 「あなたはグリーン経済を構築しているので、クリーンエネルギーの問題に取り組んでいます。それは、農業とクリーンウォーターの残りすべての持続可能な住宅におけるエネルギー伝達のトレンドに投資するからです。」ケアワークの質の高い教育の一部を確保することは、幼児教育の権利であり、高齢者のケアを提供し、収入を増やします。これらは高給の仕事であり、定義上、あなたは途中で貧困の問題に取り組んでいます。 「これらが良い仕事であることを保証しているので、ヘルスケアや人々の幸福などの良い利益がもたらされることを意味します。私がやったことは、まともな賃金と良い利益で雇用を確保するというアイデアから始めて、それから示しました他の目標のいくつがその1つの目的につながるので、私はもっとできたはずです。今はもっとできたはずです。すばらしいサウンドです。ビデオは提案された法律に影響を与えています。大胆で、必要な規模ですが、もちろん、あなたはしません魔法の杖を振って法案を可決し、これらの取り組みに着手し始めましょう。政治的意志を持っている必要がある票を見つける必要があります。彼らがこの乗り物に賛成するなら、政府は人々の生活を守るという公約に誠実で誠実であり、あなたがもはや実行可能ではない職業から移行しなければならない場合、良い給料の仕事があると信じています反対側では、家を維持して、家族や退職後の自分の世話をするために生活水準を維持できるため、国民などから選出された役人からの賛同が必要です。明らかに、これらのことを自分たちの収益性と経済的長寿への脅威であると認識する多くの野党産業になるだろう。他の多くの人や下院議員のocasio-cortezも、私たちが地球を救うために、私たちはそれを行うための技術と能力とリソースを持っていることを知っていましたが、人々は乗車のために一緒に来るのを怖がっていました大きすぎると言った人の話を聞いて新聞をアップしますそれは手に負えないですそれは空のパイではありませんそれはそれです」実用的ではない彼女は、ロビー活動グループのネットワークを使用し、シンクタンクを使用して疑いを生み出し、私たちが実際に一緒に達成できることについて否定の種をまくと述べました。したがって、これらのようなことが起こった場合、大胆な野心的な規模で物事を行うことに反対するのを助けるために、反対者が物語を提供するのを助けるために通常はロビー活動を行う最初のグループの1つは、もちろん、このように非常に役立つエコノミストです。だからあなたはこれがあなたが私があなたを知っている保守的なええとネットワークであるフォックスニュースからあなたが知っているのを見るでしょうおそらくすべての人がこれを知っているでしょうダグラス・ホルツキン・ホールドシーケンは保守的なエコノミストであり、ある時点で議会予算局の局長を務めていました。投票のために床に着き、法案を正しくして法に署名したので、ダグラス・ダグラス・ホールドアケンのような誰かがテレビに出て、疑いと恐れの種をまき始め、これは私が見た国を破産させるだろうと言いますそれで私はこれらの民主党員がしていることについて話していることをするのに93兆ドルの費用がかかると思いますそして人々はこれらの数字を聞いて彼らの頭は彼らが国を破産させたいと思っている93兆ドルを世界で何を考えているかを説明しますある種の上院議員ジョニ・エルスターンストiowaはこの数字を聞いてそれをつかみ、それを繰り返し始め、憲法が施行されて以来、グリーンニューディールは米国の記録された支出全体よりも費用がかかると言います。ここでは、保守的なシンクタンクからの例をいくつか追加することは不可能です。そのため、一方では遺産研究所の人々に、これは財政的に無責任であると言ってもらうことができます。これらの提案は、国を忘却のラリーサマーズに費やし、ラリーサマーズが最近行っていることを実行します。これは、提案された法律に反対し、実現可能性に挑戦し、これはあなたが知っていることです」数字を見たが、これは現実的な計算ではない。これは、これらの議員が提案していることではできないので、上院議員が上院議員をサンダースし、エリザベス・ウォーレンがaocなどをマークすることを喜んで考える人々がいる。大胆な野心的なパッケージで前進する準備ができている人々は、私たちが直面するこれらの問題に対処するための一連のポリシーですが、誰もが口から出す最初の質問は常にですが、どのように支払うのですか？お金は正しいものから来て、それから基本的にあなたはあなたが想像できないものを見ることができないものを手に入れることができないようになりますがあなたはあなたが買うことができないものを手に入れることができないので彼らは単にそれが高すぎると私たちに言いますそのこと'ええと、あなたはあきらめたほうがいいかもしれないので、これは共和党のツイッター部門です。上院の共和党員は、サンダース上院議員がこのグリーンニューディールを推進していることを知っています。なぜ私たちがそれを持っていないのか彼らは多分それが誰もそれに投票しない理由だと言っています私たちは16兆から10兆になり、経済輸送住宅農業のあらゆる側面を本当に変えるために大胆なことをすることについて話しました民主党が最初にある種の合意に達し始めたとき、バイデン大統領のより良い議題の形でもたらされたはるかに控えめな数は3.5兆でした。10年間で3.5兆は年間3500億です。莫大な金額ではありませんが、確かに10兆または16兆に近い議員は、3.5兆に同意できませんでした。おそらく、ここで名前のいくつかを聞いたことがあります。バイデン大統領がやろうとしていたことに反対し、数字が話し合われ始めたので、彼は3.5兆から1.8兆に近いものになり、その後、すべての側で誠意を持って行われているかどうかを確認するための交渉が行われたと思われます1でより良いビルドバックを行うために取引が成立する可能性があります。その5550億ドルのうち8兆程度が気候投資であり、気候に関連する研究への気候関連投資であり、今では米国の歴史の中で最大の気候投資であったため、それは何もなかったが、専門家によると、目標を確実に達成し、気温の上昇を避けて温暖化を1.5℃以上に上昇させるために、これらのさまざまな方法すべてに投資する必要があると専門家が言っている数兆ドルですが、それは多くのように聞こえましたそして、その5550億については、何もないよりはましでしたが、そのうちの3,000億以上は、民間部門の民間消費者民間企業に、排出量を削減する方法で行動を変えるように行動を変えるようにさせる一種のニンジンのインセンティブでした。だからあなたは私たちが親切にしたいと言います人々に電気自転車や電気自動車を購入してもらうためのリベートと、企業が再生可能エネルギー容量に投資するための税制優遇措置を提供します。そして、リスクの一部をテーブルから外せば、民間部門がそう言うだろうというリスクを軽減することを願っています。それはおそらく合理的なことだと思います。私は利益を上げることができると思います。連邦政府から少しインセンティブを得ています。私は入って、これらの投資のいくつかを行いますが、これらのナッジには保証がなく、これは民間部門に大きく依存しており、インセンティブが十分に強力であり、意思決定と行動を生み出すことを望んでいますそのあなた'その後、あなたは座って大丈夫ですが、これは、バイデン政権が、見積もりが完全に支払われた気候支出パッケージをプッシュすることを決定した方法です。政府が2020年3月から2021年3月までの5兆ドルの欲求不満の支出を行った方法で、議会は経済を支援し、パンデミックの影響に対処するために合計5兆ドルを開始する3つの大きな法律を可決しました。それのどれもそこに支払われた引用符なしの引用符ではありませんでした」sただ座って、特定の方法でお金を使うことを約束する法案を書いている議会とそのお金は戸外に出て、はいそれは赤字を増やしましたはいそれは私たちが国債と呼ぶこのことを増やしましたしかし誰もがそれに投票したことで大丈夫でしたより良く構築するようになり、バイト管理は、今度はそれ以上のことは大丈夫だと言っています。今度は、赤字を増やすために支出を完全に相殺するつもりです。これは、物事が崩壊し始めた場所です。このコミットメントたくさんの税金を増やす必要のあるたくさんの新しい収入を増やすことによって支出赤字を中立に保とうとすることは、民主党員がそれを引き出すために処方薬の価格を交渉するような他のタイプの支出を削減しようとすることを支持していなかったことが判明しましたあなたはしません」それを行うために必要なすべての票を持っているので、取引は崩壊しました。今日、マンチン上院議員から、彼の言葉が死んでしまったと聞いたので、みんなが肩をすくめて、これが気候での最後のチャンスだと言っています。今年は中間選挙があります。11月までに法案が可決されない場合、11月までに何かが可決されない場合、現実的な計算は、民主党員がもはや家を持たず、何年経ったかを知っているということだと思います。気候変動に対処するために何か実質的なことをする別の機会がある前に、それは意気消沈します、そして私たちがこの法律が殺されてしまい、おそらく彼らがそれを破って通過するということで私たちが終わった理由の大部分を私は思います途中でいくつかの小さなことですが、私はしません11月より前に気候法の重要な部分が出てくることを本当に知っているので、多くの可能性があります。上昇する必要がありますそしてあなたはそれをするための投票を持っていますか私たちはあなたが赤字や負債に支出が追加されるのをどのように止めますかそして私たちが現在持っているこのインフレについてはどうですかそして私たちはインフレのために何もできませんはここにいるので、私たちは本当の罠にかかっています、そして私は私がこれのすべてをuで言っていることを知っています。sコンテキストですが、私が今やりたいのは、カナダの類似点を描いてほしいということを明確にすることです。これをどこから見ても、これは、周りのアメリカ政府を知っているユニークな話ではありません。世界はこれらの課題に直面しており、私たち全員がこのグローバルな船に乗っており、地球は私たち全員を暖めているので、グローバルなソリューションを用意する必要があります。他の国よりもこれらの問題私たちのようなカナダのようなカナダのようなオーストラリアのような英国のような日本のような中国のような他の多くの国のような通貨発行政府はこれらの問題に対処するためのユニークな位置にあります'このしつこい質問に対処する必要がありますどこでお金を見つけますかここでどのようにお金を見つけますか通貨発行者米ドルは米国政府から来ていますそれは他のどこからも来ることができませんあなたは通貨の唯一の発行者ですカナダドルと呼ばれるカナダ政府はカナダドルの発行者です日本は他の誰もそれを正しく行うことができない円を発行するので、あなたは使い果たすことはできませんあなたは多額の支出をすることができますあなたが州であるならあなたが通貨の発行者である誰からでもあなた自身の通貨を借りることあなたがカリフォルニアであるならあなたが個々の州であるなら大丈夫ですニューヨークアリゾナあなたはあなたが別の立場にいます」カナダ政府がそうではない方法で財政的に制約されている通貨を発行する米国政府は日本政府がそうではないということではないので、あなたがカナダの州である場合、あなたが収入に制約されているという意味ではないあなたがしないこと化石燃料から移行し、経済をグリーン化するためにできることを開始し、移行などをサポートしようとするオプションがありますが、カナダ政府がカナダ政府と同じように収益に依存することになります。政府はそうではないので、あなたは重要な方法で財政的に制約されており、それはあなたが実際にできることは政策空間の観点から役割を果たします通貨発行政府が利用可能なものを購入して独自に販売することができる本当の問題ですソブリン通貨は今u。ドルは明らかに世界的に受け入れられており、他の国が必要とする資源を獲得するために費やすことができる非常に大きな世界市場を私たちに与えてくれます。利用可能なすべての失業者を含む自国通貨での販売。これにより、ミッションに傾倒したいすべてのカナダ人を任命し、彼らを雇用して、コミュニティの世話をする人々の惑星の世話をするために彼らを働かせることができます。重要なのは、あなたは財布の力を手に入れましたが、あまりにも多くの支出がインフレを押し上げるという意味で、無限の支出能力がないので、制限があり、そのビーバーをもう一度考えてください」s実物資源が利用可能であり、雇用可能であり、雇用可能である場合、それが販売可能であり、他の誰もそれに入札していない場合、原材料労働を知っているかどうかにかかわらず、政府はそれを使用して置くことができますクリーンで手頃な価格の住宅を建設する気候変動の課題に対処することを目的とした公共の目的にそれを使用して向けることとそれ以外のすべては大丈夫ですが、ケインズが何年も前に有名な英国の経済学者が実際にできることは何でもできると言ったので、インフレは関連する制約です大丈夫です。私たちがそれを行うことができ、私たちがこれを知っているのは、私たちが前にこの課題に直面したからです。これを行った結果、文字通り経済全体が予想外に正しく移行しました。戦争中に真珠湾攻撃を行い、第二次世界大戦に突入しました。経済は、主に生産を重視するものから移行しました。消費者にとって、戦争の努力のために生産することを主な目的としたものに、私たちは自動車を製造していたすべての正しい工場を変更しなければならなかった。それは、以前はメンズスーツとレディースドレス、そしてレザーシューズとハイヒールのレディースシューズを製造していた衣料品業界です。ユニフォームとブーツを製造する必要があり、残りのすべてを正しく移行し、経済全体を移行しました。ミッションは、ミッションである戦争に勝つことが明確だったため、どのようにして非常に成功しましたか。だから、戦争に勝つための使命を遂行するために何が必要になるのか、そしてここで再びケインズに戻り、ケインズはこの小さなパンフレットを書いていますこの小さな本は戦争の支払い方法と呼ばれています戦争の努力を実行するためのお金をどこで見つけるかについてアドバイスを与えるためにこれを書き留めています今彼は私たちがまだ第二次世界大戦に従事していない英国政府のためにこれを書いていますが、彼はこの小さなガイドブックとそれを回覧しています」s基本的に、あなたは戦争努力をどのように調達するかについての青写真のように知っています。あなたは必要な本物をどこで手に入れようとしていますか。軍隊と女性は何をするつもりですか、そしてどのように女性をシフトインし、どのように軍需品とその他すべてを必要とするものを製造するので、これは計画であり、この移行を行う計画でした経済全体から戦時経済への最小のインフレ圧力でそれを行う方法それはゼロのインフレ圧力にはならないでしょうそれはあなたがすべてを変えることは不可能でありそしてあなたは急いでそれをしていますがケインズはレイアウトして青を提供したかったああ、あなたは誤ってステファニーをミュートしました。私が最後に聞いたのは大丈夫だと言ったので、要点は、インフレ圧力なしでそれを行うつもりはないということです。それは不可能です。重要なのは、政策立案者がこの移行を実行する方法について考える方法であると言うための青写真を提供することでした。私の主張は、戻ってケインズが移行について何を言わなければならなかったかを見ることから多くを学ぶことができるということです将来の生活と後を追う人々の生活のために自分たちのことを考えれば、気候変動にどう対処するかを考えると、経済は戦時体制になります。戦争計画を立てる必要があるのは、必要な実際のリソースを確保し、あなたができる最善の方法でインフレ圧力を再管理し、ケインズは、すべての困難がすでにあなたである最低所得の人々に降りかかることがないように、可能な限り公平な方法で行われることを心に留めていました収入のはしごなどで最も貧困状態にある可能性が最も高いことを知っている彼は、戦争の努力の間に行われていた犠牲が消費を遅らせたりするように、できるだけ正しい方法でそれをやりたかったのです。特に戦争の反対側での回復が定着したとき、私たちはケインズがメモを回覧したと言っていることに細心の注意を払い、この男のために本当に注意を払う必要があると言ったとき、それらのグループの収入になるでしょう」私たちが引き込まれた場合のゲーム全体は、インフレ圧力の管理と戦争の資源化に関するものであり、もちろん私たちも引き込まれました。上のグラフから、政府が大不況の政府プログラムが新しい契約の下で急増した後、経済全体はかなり控えめでしたが、政府の規模が爆発したのは実際には戦争であり、gdp全体のほぼ半分を占めたため、政府の存在と経済における資源使用の指示、そしてケインズが助言していた英国のインフレに何が起こったのかをここで見ることができます。ハイパーインフレが制御不能になることはありません政府は、この移行を通じてインフレ圧力を管理するための一連の政策を実施しました。私が提案しているのは、上院議員サンダースまたは上院議員マーキーまたはaocもし私たちがそんなに大きくなり、私たちが生きる方法で私たちが仕事をする方法で私たちが食べ物を育てる方法を回避する方法で輸送を行うなら、あなたは実施する準備ができている一連の政策を必要としますこれらのインフレ圧力を管理することは本当に重要です。なぜなら、それはあなたがしていることに対する公的支援を維持する方法の一部であり、今日の人々はそうではないことがわかります。物事に高い価格を支払うのが好きなので、インフレ圧力を管理することは非常に重要です。何か大きなものに着手したい場合は、何をする必要があるかを言うことから始めます。ビーバーのように考えて、運ぶ必要のある実際のリソースは何ですか。これは、手頃な価格の持続可能な住宅を10ユニットまたは11ユニット建設したい場合、持続可能な持続可能な住宅を11ユニット建設するために必要なものは何ですか？建設労働者が必要ですコンクリートがたくさん必要ですケーブル配線が必要ですブロードバンドやEVの充電ステーションやソーラーパネルを使いたい場合は、実際のリソースが必要です。これらは私が必要としているものなので、必要なものを言ってから、リソース容量を確認してください。これは答えがイエスであることを願っていますあなたはあなたがしないことをすることを計画するべきではありません技術的なノウハウはありますが、途中でrdに投資し、新しい技術を開発および革新することができます。これは、人々が提案しているものの大部分です。必要なものを把握し、能力がいくつあるかを把握してください。リソースはありますか技術的なノウハウがありますか特定の技術を進歩させるためにいくつかの研究をシードする必要がありますそして私が必要なものをすべて持っていない場合はどこで残りを得るのですか容量どこで入手できるので、スピードアップします。終わりに近づき、qaが欲しいので、あなたのリソースのニーズを評価してください。これは、フォーブスで書いている誰かが、建物を改造してスマートにすることができるgdpの3％のようなものに対して一種の気候法案を行うことができると言った例です。電力網と100の再生可能エネルギーに到達し、これはすべてドルベースでかかる費用ですが、これを見て、あなたは言いますが、すべての建物をアップグレードしてエネルギーを私たちが知っているようにするには、実際のリソースの観点から何が必要ですか？住宅のすべてのユニットに電力を供給し、すべてがエネルギー効率に優れています。次のユニットは、gdpの5％よりもはるかに野心的です。sあなたがしなければならないこと、そしてあなたは私たちが持っている労働者の数を見て、これらの見出しだけでなく、私たちがこれに持ち込むことができる失業者の数をここに簡単に示していますが、あなたはこれらの中には特定のスキルを持った人が必要なので、職業別に失業を見て、必要な失業中の建設労働者がいると言うことができます。できない場合は、彼らを訓練することができます。私は見習いをします。彼らが現在行っている他の活動から離れて、弾力性のある住宅やどんな場合でも知っている建物に移すことができますが、あなたはあなたの能力がすべてを使い果たしているかを理解する必要がありますあなたが持っている既存のたるみを取り除いてから、必要な場所で容量を解放します。十分な容量があるので、ここに必要な容量がない場合に追加の容量を取得する場所についていくつかのアイデアをここに示しました。私たちには単一支払者の医療システムがありません。ご存知のように、このパッチワークはシステムですが、より効率的なものに移行した場合、多くの人を雇用するこれらの巨大な仲介者が多くのリソース容量を使用するため、多くのリソースを解放します。医療提供システムを合理化して、それらの仲介者がもはや必要でなくなったので、それらの人々は他のことをすることができます。私は明らかに失業について話しているのですが、それは失業を生み出すでしょうが、それは」次に、他の人を必要とする他の取り組みにどのようにリソースを提供するかクレジットコントロールを使用して何ができるかを考えることができます新しい論文が出てきます私はそれが私の前で禁輸されているコピーを持っています私はそれが後で出てくると思います
今月発売されるネイサン・タンキスは、21世紀の需要管理と価格安定性の再考と呼ばれる著者です。■おそらく軍事予算で特定の目標を達成するために必要な資金よりも多くの資金を持っている予算の一部があると思われる場合、規制レバーを使用してリソース容量を解放するためにクレジットコントロールを使用する方法に関する約40ページの多くのアイデア経済などを知っているあなたの緑化のために資金をグリーンにシフトすることによって、私はいくつかの実際の資源を解放することができます。そして、この国中の刑務所では、刑務所改革についての議論をよく耳にします。これにより、非暴力的な薬物を知っていることがよくあります。右に寄りかかることができるので、気候のいくつかの課題などに手を貸すことができますですから、私の同僚の何人かを含む多くの人々がこの種のことを見てきました。これは私が話す時間がない論文ですが、重要なのは実際の資源容量であり、インフレはあなたが課すことができる関連する制約です経済の生産能力に大きな負担がかかるはい、これらすべてのことを迅速に達成するために、より多くのお金を経済に費やすことができます。 「それができる機械を持っていない工場を持っていない」十分に速くそれらを解き放ち、あまりにも速く押し込もうとした場合の罰はインフレ圧力になるので、これはインフレが発生したときの政治的問題であり、ケインズが説明したように、途中でそれらの圧力をどのように管理するかを理解する必要があります惑星のために別のパーセンテージまたは2パーセントのインフレを知っているという点であなたが許容できるトレードオフですので、これらは私があなたに与えることができる答えではありませんこれらは政治的な質問であり、最終的にはコストの一部を負担し、最終的には政策を支持する必要があるので、税金を引き上げる必要がありますか、そしてこれらすべてを行うために赤字中立である必要がありますか？気候関連の投資に費やしたいすべてのドルを相殺するというコミットメントから始めましょう。その支出を相殺することを考える前に、議題の一部を実行できるポリシースペースがどれだけあるかを言いたいのです。税金は支出を相殺する1つの方法ですが、それが唯一の方法ではなく、場合によっては最善の方法でもない可能性があります。したがって、これが、本物の場合に私たちが知っている最後のスライドであることがわかります。資源と技術的ノウハウは、ケインが実際にできることは何でも言ったように、州の地方自治体のための州のための通貨発行者がいる私たちに余裕があり、残りはより挑戦的であり、それは」sここでの私のメッセージの重要な部分なので、政府が政府の財政代理人に資金を提供する意思がある場合、資金調達は簡単な部分です。中央銀行の仕事の一部は中央銀行によって承認された支払いを実行することです。財務省または財務省に代わって政府が行うことで、関連する制約がインフレに跳ね返らないことを確認します。そのため、最終的にどこに行きたいのかをミッションで把握し、起草中の法律に戻る必要があります。ドルが途中でインフレ圧力を管理する任務自体を遂行することを約束するように、私はm立ち止まって、いくつかの質問を楽しませてくれます。現代貨幣理論についてたくさん聞いたことがあることを知っていただき、ありがとうございます。しかし、自分自身を掘り下げるのではなく、Twitterバージョンを知っています。これは本当に役に立ちました。知っているので、質問から始めて、チャットでそれらを掘り下げます。それらはたくさんあるので、人々はおそらくそれらすべてに到達することはないだろうと知っています。私たちがリストを持っているのを見て、私が行くときにそれらをつかむので、あなたの質問を逃した場合は申し訳ありませんが、ええと、私たちはたくさんの選択肢があります。私が正しいことを知っているこの1つから始めましょう。それから、経済が少し遅いときに中央銀行が少し余分なお金を経済に投じるなら、これは通常あなたが知っているケースであることを少し理解してください。銀行から債券を購入することなどを知っていますが、これは同じことを言っているのですが、達成したい特定の用途にリダイレクトすることで、気候変動などの特定の目標を知っているので、多くの人が中央銀行が量的緩和で何をしたかを見て、中央銀行はコンピューターのキーボードだけから通貨を作成し、金融資産を購入し、売り手にクレジットを与えることで支払います。 '準備金のある中央銀行の口座は、準備金が決済残高を正しく清算していると言っているので、経済にお金を入れていないので、金融システムに準備金や決済残高を閉じ込めています。カナダ政府は、パンデミックの人々を支援するために直接小切手を送ると、あなたは仕事を失ったと言いましたあなたはあなたの収入が減っていますあなたはあなたが失われた収入に苦しんでいると報告しました私たちでも、直接支払いである財政政策は、受取人の手に直接渡ります。本当に話しているのは、財政政策の使用です。これは、連邦政府を使用して法案を作成するための財布の力を定義する使命を定義するために私の発言をどこに集中させたかを知る方法です。これらの方法で私たちはここにお金を入れたいと思っていますそして私たちは経済全体にev充電ステーションを建設するために支払うつもりです私たちはこのプログラムに雇われたい人のために特定の賃金と利益で仕事を提供するつもりですこれらの種類の仕事は別のポリシーレバーですええ、言い換えると、少なくとも2、3人の人がいることを知っています。これは、ええと、経済には多くの緩みがあり、これはうまくいくだろう」提案ですが、物事がフルティルトに沿って動いているかどうかはご存知でしょう。現在、失業率は6、7％、6％で、ここアルバータ州や他の場所では失業率が低くなっています。戻って、またはあなたが言った他の政策ツールについてはどうですか？6％の失業率はまだかなり高いです、そしてあなたが実際にどれだけの失業率がそこにあるかを明らかにしたいのであれば、公式の措置はほとんど常に失業問題の真の範囲を大幅に過小評価していますそれを行うための本当に良い方法は、仕事を望んでいて、それを持っていない人は誰でも、発表された賃金で仕事をすることができると発表します。半数の失業者と400万人が現れます」sは、経済における失業の真の範囲について何かを教えてくれましたが、もしあなたが、あなたが完全雇用と合理的に呼ぶかもしれない何かに近づいている経済を知っているなら、あなたは非常に近づいていると思います。経済はそれ自体が民間部門で活況を呈しており、失業率は非常に低く、失業率はそれほど高くありません。ええと、現在の多くの経済活動を混乱させるために、あなたはそれを政治的に行うことができるだろうとあなたは知っていますそれはあなたの政府が彼らの現在の仕事から離れて労働者に入札し始めることができるのは政治的な挑戦ですがそれは」sはインフレになり、ここでの目標はそれを回避することです。そのため、大恐慌の真っ只中にグリーンニューディールを行い、経済が依然として大幅に落ち込んでいるときに第二次世界大戦を起こすことがはるかに簡単でした。経済には非常に多くの余裕があったので、私たちの前のこの選択は、私たちが時間スケールで行動することに真剣に取り組んでいる場合、科学界が私たちに言う野心の範囲で必要であるという意味で非常に厳しいことを知っています気候変動の最悪の影響を回避するために、私たちは農業、輸送、エネルギーなどすべての変革を支援することを集合的に決定する必要があります。完璧でシームレスで、誰もが瞬時に完全にあなたに完全に陥り、同じ賃金で新しい仕事を知っていますが、あなたは道を作り、収入を守るつもりです、そしてそれは資源に制約のある環境ではまったく簡単ではありませんが、あなたが望むならあなたは喜んでしなければなりませんあなたが知っていなければならない任務を遂行したいのなら、あなたは任務を遂行したいですか？
C：
ええ、それらの課題のいくつかに対処しますええ、ええと、私はちょうどええと、私はちょうど私が正しい時間の後に15分まであなたがいることを確認したいですそれは正しいですsペドロが尋ねる別の質問は、世界中の国々が世界中の投資ドルをめぐって競争していることを知っています。もし国々がこのアプローチを採用し始めたら、世界の舞台での競争力に影響を与えるリスクがあります。
ケルトン：
ええと、ペドロが見た目について心配していることについてもう少し聞きたいのですが、為替レートなどを守るためにどこまで行きたいかによっては、うまくいかない可能性がありますが、これははるかに困難です医薬品の輸入を世界の他の地域に依存している場合、食品に依存していない場合、エネルギーに依存していない場合、重要な輸入を世界の他の地域に大きく依存している場合、為替レートの大幅な変動に対して脆弱な国そしてあなたがそれらのものを取得することができるために必要な技術人口を養ってエネルギーなどを提供するか、社会の激変や暴動などを知ってもらうので、通貨が急激な下落に対して十分に脆弱である場合、必要なものを手に入れることができないことを意味します。それは問題です。気候はパンデミックと同じように世界的な課題であり、パンデミックへの対応は率直に言って私に楽観主義を知らないことを私たちが認識しなければならないと私が思う他のグローバルコミュニティが関与しているところで自分たちでこれらのことを行うことができない国のためにそこにいなければならないので、私たちが気候について集合的にどこに向かっているのかという感覚第二次世界大戦発展途上国が茶色のエネルギーの移行を飛躍できるようにする必要があります。石炭や化石燃料は、私たちが工業化していたときのように移行させたくないことを知っています。カエルを可能な限り飛躍させ、より早くクリーンエネルギー技術に到達することができ、多くの国がそれを独立して行うことができなくなり、それは裕福な先進国ができる世界的な協調努力を必要とするでしょう彼が育てていた種類をあまり気にせずにこれを行ってください。ありがとうございます。数か月前にケイト・ロバーツと話をしましたが、誰かがここで尋ねました。現代貨幣理論とドーナツ経済学は両立できると信じているのなら、ジェイがいくつかの言葉を言ってくれるので、彼らがその講演に参加したのだろうかと思います。ええと、互換性があるだけでなく、適切なフレームワーク、経済フレームワーク、およびそれを可能にする通貨システムの設計なしにドーナツ経済の目標を達成する方法がわからないため、それらは不可分だと思います。あなたは、ドーナツの中心からすべての人を引き抜いて、実行可能性や生命維持のニーズなどに十分であるが、生態学的な惑星の境界を超えないようにするという目的を達成する能力など、2つは一緒になると思いますあなたが私の肩越しに見ることができるならそこに」コキンメフクロウの中に少しジューシーな小さな植物があり、横向きの本のスタックの上に、ケイトの本が私のすぐ後ろにあります。言い換えれば、あなたが知っているのは、成長の端に向かって右に押すことを知っているという考えです。良い考えです。私は、dの成長の概念に焦点を当てて質問をしている人を知っていると思います。成長対これらのタイプの投資はよく見えますそれは重要な質問ですそれは私を犬にすることです私は私がそれを目的としてそれを中心に置くべきであるということを私が確かに知っているかどうかはわかりません」成長のための成長は間違った方法だと私が言うべきである可能性があります。私が言うとき、リソース容量を見て、あなたが気づいたものを使用するとき、私は私たちがすべてを使い果たすことを示唆していません私たちが可能な限り抽出する化石燃料容量あなたが知っているすべての石油とフラクを知っているすべてのシェールそれは正しくありませんそれは成長のための成長ではありませんそれはあなたが言うことができるのでum抽出ではありませんあなたは持続可能性の目標を達成しようとしていて、きれいな飲料水が欲しいなら、すべての鉛パイプを取り出して、それを国内および世界中のすべての人に安全できれいな飲料水を届ける材料と交換する必要があります。それを行うためのリソースとその一部を持っている必要があります」それを行う過程で起こるのは経済成長の権利ですが、私たちは今後どのように生きるかを決定する必要があります私は王や女王や皇帝などを演じることができませんそして、これらの決定を下すこれらは社会が下さなければならない決定であり、それらは簡単なものではありません。仕事をして、周りを回って食べてください。その多くは、ゼロ成長や潜在的な脱成長などの方向に私たちを押しやる消費量を減らすことを伴うので、私はそう思います」s私の答えは確かにそうですねそれはいいですねそして私はあなたが知っている私はあなたがリードパイプのようなものの周りのあなたの欲求不満に同意することを知っていますエルサルバドルのように通貨がビットコインである場合、空は通貨アイデアの発行者がどのように機能するのか、それは機能するのか、それとも政府の力を取り除くのか、市長、知事、または大統領が他の選出された役人と協力してリソースを管理しておらず、気候変動の排出削減などの使命を果たすことを目的とした方法で実際のリソースについて話している場合は、これをよく見てくださいまたはそれなら何でも」ソブリン通貨を知っているかどうか、または暗号通貨などを採用している場合は発生しないので、暗号通貨を採用する目的と推進力は、おそらく間違った名前が付けられているか、参照されているため、経済政策の策定への意欲や関心は、少なくとも気候変動への対処に向けられたという証拠は見当たりません。これはまったく逆です。ある個人は、現代貨幣理論を適用できるように現在のインフレが緩和されることを知っているとき、私たちは何か考えがあることを知っていると言います。何'sインフレを引き起こし、それがこれらすべてのタイプのものにどのように影響するかは問題ないので、最初に、mmtを適用できるかどうかを尋ねたくないのです。それはすでにここにあります。それは説明です。それはフレームワークです。エミューの一部である国について話すことができます彼らの通貨制度は非常に異なりますギリシャ政府イタリア政府ドイツ政府彼らはユーロを発行しないので彼らはそのおかげで通貨制度を持っています彼らが自発的に彼らのソブリン通貨をあきらめたという事実の彼らは彼ら自身を彼らの通貨ユーザーに変えました彼らがユーロを採用したという理由で、国の州のようではなく、州や個々の州のようになりました。 mmtを採用するそれはすでにここにある分析のためのフレームワークであるため、イタリアのmmtレンズを通して見ることができます。エクアドルのギリシャではドル化されています。エクアドル政府は、ユーロを採用した米ドルを発行することはできません。これらの制約があるため、mmtはここにあり、すべての場所に存在します。フレームワークを適用して、さまざまな通貨システムの下で運営されている政府の支出能力を特定できます。政府の財政は、どの国でも見たい通貨システムとどのように連携するのでしょうか。ここでは、インフレの問題が異なります。この人がおそらく言おうとしているのは、インフレがここにあるということだと思います。問題の一部は、これにどのくらいの期間対処するのか、そしていつこれらの種類の投資のいくつかに着手するためのスペースを再び利用できるようになるのかということでした。質問はええと、インフレの質問への答えは私ではないかもしれません」経済学者や他の市場の間で激しい議論が起こっていることは誰にもわかりません。参加者や他の人々は、連邦準備制度理事会のジェローム・パウエル議長に尋ねると、現在のインフレの原動力は何であるかを知っています。議会の前にスピーチとええとの発言をし、彼はそれがいくつかあると言っていますそれは人々が使う収入があるということですそしてある程度それはこれらすべての形で議会から提供された強力な財政支援のおかげです法律私はあなたに5兆ドルを言ったので、人々はパンデミックを通して彼らの収入を保護しました。パンデミックのためにネイルサロンやホテル、レストラン、バー、劇場に出かけてたくさんのお金を使うので、お金の使い方を変えて、家にいることを知っている子供たちが仮想学習をしていました家にいて家で仕事をするように言われたので、タブレットやコンピューター、家具を購入し、予備の寝室をホームオフィスに変えなければならなかったので、耐久性のある商品を購入しようとしました。グローバルなサプライチェーン全体で製造された部品である製造されなければならないものを注文しようとしているサプライチェーンでは、それからある程度のインフレがあり、供給側のインフレ圧力に貢献したパンデミック権の影響もあります。バックアップされたポートのボトルネックは、動いてほつれ、残りのすべてが今のところ価格を押し上げていることがたくさんあり、パウエルはそれが主にパンデミック関連の供給側のボトルチェーンボトルから来ていると言っています基本的に、数週間前の彼の発言で、パンデミックが激しさを増し、世界中の工場が閉鎖され、これらの混乱があり、サプライチェーンのインフレが続く限り、パンデミックが和らぐので、それは本当に楽になるだろうと述べましたほとんどのアナリスト、ほとんどのエコノミスト金融市場は、今年は圧力が緩和され、今年の終わりまでにインフレが大幅に低下するのを見てきました。年末までに3.5％程度まで下がるだろうが、それはまだ歴史的な基準によって引き上げられており、連邦政府の目標に対しても引き上げられているが、真剣に受け止めたのであれば、この質問を自問するのを待つ必要があるのだろうか。気候変動の脅威とあなたは、気候変動に関する政府間パネルや他の専門家が、私たちが行動し、迅速に行動し、大胆に行動する必要があると私たちに言っていることを信じていました。わからない、つまり4度の温暖化の科学者は、4度の温暖化での地球の環境収容力は約10億人だと言っているので、時間の経過とともに70〜80億人が失われるかもしれませんが、インフレは4かそれか5パーセントできる」私にとっての微積分は、インフレが高水準で実行されているかどうかに関係なく、かなり明確です。それは惑星です。それは惑星であり、時間があまりないので、前進する方法を見つける必要があります。たとえあなたがまだいくつかのインフレ圧力に対処していることを知っていても、私たちはモデレーターとして他の方法でそれらを処理することができます私は常に私の意見をそれから遠ざけようとしますが、私はそれ以上同意できませんでした質問私たちはええと、ええと、多分それのための時間があると思います」簡単に言えば、私たちは現在、多くの石油生産と化石燃料生産に助成金を出していることを知っています。現在、カナダには中立的な炭素税があります。助成金を減らし、化石燃料に課税することで、あなたが話している方法で使用するこれらの資金のいくつかを持っています私たちはアルベルタまたはカナダです私はカナダと私たちの連邦政府と言うでしょうそれは私たちに小さなビーバーである完全な円を取るので私はこの質問が大好きですさて、小さなビーバーはお金について心配していませんお金は簡単な部分ですリソースは重要ですそしてあなたが化石燃料への補助金を減らすか税金を増やすと言うときこれらの2つのことができることは活動自体を思いとどまらせることですそしてそれはあなたが解放することを意味しますあなたが許可を取得し、あなたがあなたが言った場合の実際のリソースオフショアで掘削しないか、水圧破砕を許可されていないか、水圧破砕を禁止している、またはこれやその他のことを助成するつもりはないため、一部の企業がこれらのことを継続するにはコストがかかりすぎて、機器が解放されます労働者は解放されているので、あなたがしていることは、気候アジェンダのリソースを支援しているということです。それは、他の用途に転用できる本当の生産能力になった後のお金ではありません。
C:
私たちの時間の終わりに達したので、ステファニーに感謝します。今日はおそらくみんながたくさんのことを学んだと思います。私たちの多くは私たちの多くを知っています。そしてもっと学ぶので、あなたはここで素晴らしい議論を始めたと思います、そしてええと、私たちは知識を身につけてくださった方もたくさんいらっしゃいますので、よろしくお願いします。ありがとうございました。みなさん、ありがとうございました。今週の次のイベントでお会いしましょう。どうぞよろしくお願いします。オンラインにアクセスしてカレンダーを確認し、他のイベントに参加してください。
well thank you uh very much it's very
06:54
nice to be with all of you i can see
06:56
there are a lot of people logged on for
06:58
this i imagine all over
07:01
uh probably canada and the us and and
07:04
outside the u.s some i know very early
07:07
in the morning or very late at night um
07:09
so thank you very much it's it's nice to
07:11
have an opportunity to talk with you i
07:13
know that you have an exciting week of
07:16
speakers i had an opportunity to look at
07:18
some of the people who will be following
07:20
this talk uh later in the week and i
07:23
know that you're going to have a very
07:25
successful program and and hear from a
07:27
number of uh real experts on climate
07:30
related issues and let me just start by
07:32
saying that the caveat here is that i am
07:35
not a climate expert i'm not an
07:38
environmental economist and i don't have
07:40
any real expertise in
07:43
the science of
07:45
climate change or anything else okay so
07:47
i want to make clear that i'm going to
07:49
stay in my lane
07:50
and i'm going to lean into what we
07:53
understand from the scientific
07:56
community and give some ideas about how
08:00
we can get where it is that i think it's
08:03
fairly clear that we need to be going
08:06
the path that we need to be on and i'm
08:08
gonna do it from the perspective of an
08:10
economist addressing as you heard in the
08:12
introduction
08:14
this nagging question about how can we
08:17
afford to do what needs to be done okay
08:20
so i'm going to share my screen and jump
08:21
right in
08:23
and
08:24
i am not actually going
08:26
to be talking very specifically about
08:29
the challenges facing alberta because i
08:32
as i said i'm going to try to stay in my
08:33
lane and i'm not an expert on the region
08:36
but
08:36
um i think that the kinds of things that
08:38
i'm going to say will hopefully provide
08:41
a framework for all of you to think
08:44
through the various challenges whether
08:47
you're in a province whether you're in
08:49
an individual state in the u.s whether
08:51
you're somewhere in europe uh and and
08:54
think about what it is that governments
08:57
can do what role can they play
09:00
in leading the way right uh to
09:03
addressing this incredible challenge
09:06
that we face globally which is the
09:08
threat of climate change so i want to
09:10
start by
09:12
getting our minds in the same place okay
09:14
this is going to seem really strange and
09:17
very simple but i promise it's important
09:20
i want us to all channel
09:22
this little beaver
09:24
okay i want you to put this question in
09:26
your mind and keep it in your mind
09:28
throughout the entire talk and the
09:30
question is this
09:32
how will i resource it
09:35
now if you're thinking oh financial
09:37
resources she's going to talk about how
09:39
to pay for
09:40
all of the kinds of investments we need
09:42
to deal with climate change you're wrong
09:45
that is not what i'm going to talk about
09:47
in fact i'm specifically going to ask
09:49
you to set aside for the moment
09:52
questions about money and just focus on
09:55
this question about how we will resource
09:57
it
09:58
so this little beaver is a lucky guy
10:01
right because he doesn't have to deal
10:03
with the nagging questions associated
10:06
with financing his endeavors he doesn't
10:09
have to go off to the riverbank and sit
10:11
down with the loan officer and apply for
10:14
a loan and take out the financing to
10:17
embark on this venture
10:19
he just
10:20
sorry stephanie yesterday the
10:21
interruption so you're your slide is not
10:24
in oh it's not playing i see it's there
10:27
we go
10:28
yeah perfect okay thank you sorry about
10:29
that are we good did you see did
10:31
everybody get a chance to see the beaver
10:33
in the question
10:35
okay all right so look the beaver gets
10:37
the easy job which is to clear
10:41
clear away all of the nagging questions
10:43
about finding the money and dealing with
10:46
the permitting and all of the rest of it
10:47
right the beaver says i have a mission i
10:50
am out to build a safe habitat for
10:53
myself and for those that i'm occupying
10:56
this dwelling with
10:58
i got to find a place to do it and i
11:00
need raw materials i need the resources
11:03
so what does the beaver do locates a
11:05
tree fells the tree and begins
11:08
chopping the tree up and coming up with
11:10
the pieces of wood that are necessary to
11:13
begin the construction process right so
11:16
the beaver is an architect he's an
11:17
engineer he's a worker and the beavers
11:20
set about and they build this habitat
11:23
they have a safe place safe from
11:26
predators a place to keep them safe from
11:28
the elements of the climate and and the
11:31
rest of it right this is the mission of
11:33
the beaver and i want us to think like
11:37
this beaver okay
11:39
so
11:40
we've seen this done before and i don't
11:42
know how many of you have seen this
11:44
video but this was a
11:46
this image that i'm showing you here was
11:49
taken from a video that was put out
11:52
three four years ago maybe five years
11:54
ago now and it imagined the future that
11:58
we could build together which is the
12:00
title of this talk
12:01
and it was narrated by congresswoman
12:04
alexandria ocasio-cortez
12:07
and
12:08
what the video did that was
12:10
quite
12:11
brilliant and moving and inspiring i
12:15
thought was that it asked us to see the
12:18
world as it could be
12:20
right imagine a world
12:22
in which we made the choices to tackle
12:26
climate change together
12:28
on a scale right the scale the ambition
12:32
on the scale that the climate community
12:35
scientific community tells us we must
12:37
act with boldness and with a you know
12:41
broad scale of ambition and to do it in
12:44
a way that centers economic and social
12:48
and racial justice that leaves no one
12:50
behind
12:51
so we're tackling climate change but
12:54
we're building a care economy along the
12:57
way we're ensuring that we have jobs for
13:00
those who have to transition out of the
13:03
fossil fuel industry and other
13:05
occupations into the green economy you
13:08
ensure that there is a pathway for those
13:10
folks at good wages right with benefits
13:14
that include in our case we would have
13:16
to say things like health care um
13:19
a secure retirement that sort of broad
13:22
vision of what it would look like if we
13:26
acted within 10 years time
13:29
to transform
13:30
everything and this is what they say in
13:33
the video we have to change not just the
13:35
way we generate electricity and transmit
13:38
power and so forth
13:40
the way we live
13:41
right our housing the way we move around
13:45
public transportation needs to become
13:47
much more important the way we eat right
13:51
the way we grow and distribute food
13:55
the way we live the way we work the way
13:57
we eat the way we move around it means
13:59
touching almost every part of our
14:02
economy
14:03
and that is transformative and it's
14:06
expensive and usually it's the price tag
14:09
that enters the picture first where will
14:11
the money come from to do these things
14:13
i've asked you to set that aside and
14:15
stay focused on
14:17
the resources the real resources you
14:20
need to embark on this endeavor and to
14:23
carry out the mission define the mission
14:26
figure out what you need in real terms
14:29
to get there and then resource the
14:32
mission and then we'll talk about the
14:34
money piece so it's not just a pipe
14:36
dream okay and i know that they're in
14:38
canada and in countries around the world
14:41
europeans have a
14:42
green new deal idea
14:44
we've had green new deal proposals here
14:46
i know that you've had across canada a
14:48
range of climate related um bold
14:52
ambitious proposals to to deal with the
14:55
impacts of climate change and so i'll
14:57
just tell you some of the things that
14:58
have been proposed here in the u.s just
15:01
very recently a senator from
15:03
massachusetts and a house member from
15:06
the state of michigan got together with
15:08
other members of congress and introduced
15:10
what they called the thrive act
15:12
centering four things climate right it
15:15
is a climate a piece of climate
15:16
legislation
15:18
jobs a care economy and justice and
15:21
putting those four together and saying
15:24
this is a way to address the challenge
15:27
of climate change while
15:29
generating 15 million good jobs along
15:33
the way
15:33
centering economic social racial justice
15:36
and all the rest of it how much would it
15:38
cost now we get to the to the price tag
15:41
they said we ought to invest 10 trillion
15:43
dollars over the decade so about a
15:46
trillion dollars a year
15:48
senator bernie sanders for whom i worked
15:51
uh in the senate and and after as an
15:53
adviser to the campaign had his own
15:56
proposal and what he called for was 16
15:59
trillion dollars again a climate and
16:02
care with jobs at the center where you
16:06
literally say the federal government
16:08
will ensure
16:10
a good paying job for everyone who wants
16:12
to lend a hand who wants to work and
16:15
contribute this is an all hands on deck
16:18
moment and so you want to bring everyone
16:21
in who is ready willing and able to work
16:23
and wants to contribute in some way you
16:25
want to provide a pathway in to help us
16:28
this is going to take all of us together
16:31
he said 16 trillion dollars
16:33
representative ocasio-cortez and others
16:37
just last year were calling for 10
16:39
trillion dollars for the build back
16:42
better agenda the biggest piece of that
16:45
would have been climate and then money
16:47
for a whole range of other initiatives
16:49
that were also
16:50
part of president biden's agenda so
16:53
these are big numbers right but
16:56
look at what you can accomplish in terms
16:59
of the un's sustainable development
17:01
goals
17:03
just by centering your focus on one area
17:06
if you just start with this one right
17:09
the eighth on the list
17:11
decent work now i want to set aside the
17:14
growth objective
17:16
and and say
17:17
like my former boss senator sanders the
17:20
focus should not be growth for the sake
17:22
of growth okay we got to stay focused on
17:25
you know
17:26
sustainable growth and we can talk if
17:29
there's time about what that looks like
17:31
but focus on the jobs focus on the
17:35
employment and then see where you can go
17:37
through that so if you are centering
17:40
your climate
17:42
and care package around employment
17:45
opportunities for all and making
17:46
strategic investments in the economy to
17:49
deal with the impacts of climate change
17:51
you're building a care economy where the
17:54
jobs are oriented around caring for the
17:56
climate for the planet for your
17:58
communities and for your people so where
18:01
does that take you well you get to the
18:03
climate you can tick that box
18:05
you have centered economic racial and
18:08
social justice
18:09
you're ensuring that jobs are available
18:11
for all that there is gender equity and
18:14
pay equity
18:15
you are reducing inequality because
18:17
you're creating jobs from the bottom up
18:20
you're lifting from the bottom up you're
18:22
dealing with income and wealth
18:24
inequality you're tackling the problem
18:27
of clean energy because you are building
18:29
out a green economy making the
18:31
investments in the trends in the
18:34
energy transmission in
18:36
sustainable housing in agriculture and
18:39
clean water all the rest of it you're
18:41
ensuring quality education part of the
18:44
care work can be in
18:46
early childhood education right you're
18:48
providing elder care you're lifting
18:51
incomes up these are good paying jobs
18:53
and so by definition you're tackling the
18:55
problem of poverty along the way and
18:57
you're ensuring that these are good jobs
18:59
which means they come with good benefits
19:01
like health care and ensuring people's
19:03
well-being so what i've done is just
19:05
start with one thing the idea of
19:07
ensuring employment with decent pay and
19:09
good benefits and then showed you how
19:12
many of the other
19:14
goals
19:15
feed into that one objective and i could
19:17
have done i could have done more now all
19:20
right it sounds great sounds wonderful
19:22
the video is inspiring the proposed
19:25
legislation uh is is bold and on the
19:29
scale that is needed but of course
19:32
you don't just wave a magic wand and
19:34
pass legislation and start uh embarking
19:37
on these endeavors you have to find the
19:39
votes you have to have the political
19:41
will you have to have the public on your
19:43
side there has to be buy-in and the
19:45
public has to believe that if they go
19:48
along for this ride that the government
19:51
is genuine and sincere in its commitment
19:54
to safeguarding people's livelihoods so
19:56
that if you have to transition out of an
19:58
occupation that is no longer going to be
20:01
viable that there is a good paying job
20:04
on the other side that allows you to
20:06
keep your home to keep your standard of
20:08
living to care for your family and
20:10
yourself in retirement and all the rest
20:12
of it so you need buy-in from the
20:15
elected officials from the population
20:17
and so forth and there's clearly going
20:19
to be a lot of opposition
20:21
industries that perceive these things to
20:23
be threats to their own profitability
20:26
and economic longevity will obviously
20:29
push back as will many others and
20:31
congresswoman ocasio-cortez anticipates
20:34
this in that narrated video she says we
20:37
knew that we had to save the planet and
20:39
we knew that we had the technology and
20:42
the capabilities and the resources to do
20:44
it but people were scared to come along
20:47
for the ride they were scared
20:49
why were they scared because they were
20:51
turning on the tv turning on the radio
20:54
picking up the newspaper listening to
20:55
people who said
20:57
it's too big
20:58
it's
20:59
it's unmanageable it's not it's pie in
21:02
the sky right it's it's not practical
21:06
she said they will use networks of
21:09
lobbying groups and think tanks to
21:11
create doubt and sow the seeds of denial
21:14
about what it is we can actually
21:15
accomplish together there will be a
21:18
messaging right uh
21:21
push against trying to get where we need
21:24
to go
21:25
and so
21:26
when these uh sort of things happen one
21:29
of the first groups that are usually
21:31
trotted out to help oppose to provide a
21:33
narrative to help oppose doing things on
21:36
a bold ambitious scale are of course the
21:38
economists we can be very useful in this
21:42
way and so you will see this is you know
21:45
from fox news which is a conservative uh
21:48
network i know you're all probably all
21:50
aware this is douglas holtzkin
21:53
holdseeken is a conservative economist
21:55
he was the director of the congressional
21:57
budget office at one point which is sort
21:59
of the score keeper for um
22:02
determining in a sense whether proposed
22:05
legislation like a green new deal has
22:08
any chance at all of making it to the
22:11
floor for a vote and becoming uh a bill
22:14
right and signed into law and so
22:16
somebody like douglas douglas holdsaken
22:18
goes on television and starts
22:21
sowing the seeds of doubt and fear and
22:23
says this thing will bankrupt the nation
22:26
i looked at it i think it would cost
22:29
like 93 trillion dollars to do what
22:31
these democrats are talking about doing
22:33
and people hear these numbers and their
22:35
heads explain they say what in the world
22:37
are they thinking 93 trillion dollars
22:39
they want to bankrupt the nation and all
22:41
this kind of stuff
22:43
senator joni erst ernst from iowa hears
22:46
this number
22:47
and grabs on to it and then goes out and
22:50
starts repeating it and says the green
22:53
new deal would cost more than the entire
22:55
recorded spending of the united states
22:57
since the constitution went into effect
23:00
it's impossible you know they're just
23:02
saying it's impossible here are just a
23:04
few more examples from conservative
23:07
think tanks so you can have people from
23:09
the heritage institute on the one hand
23:12
at the top saying this is fiscally
23:13
irresponsible and all the rest you can
23:15
have sort of centrist left
23:18
whatever bloggers out there saying these
23:21
proposals would spend the nation into
23:23
oblivion
23:25
larry summers doing what larry summers
23:27
uh has been doing of late as well which
23:30
is going out and pushing back against
23:32
proposed legislation and challenging the
23:36
feasibility and says this is you know
23:37
i've looked the numbers this is not a
23:39
realistic calculus this this can't be
23:42
done what these uh members of congress
23:45
are proposing
23:46
so you have people who are willing to
23:49
think big the senator sanders the
23:51
senator markies the elizabeth warrens
23:53
the aoc's and the like there are people
23:56
who are prepared to move forward with a
23:59
bold ambitious
24:01
package a suite of policies to address
24:05
these problems that we face but the
24:07
first question out of everyone's mouth
24:09
is always
24:10
but how will you pay for it how will you
24:13
pay for it where will the money come
24:14
from right and then it basically becomes
24:19
not you can't have what you can't see
24:21
what you can't imagine but you can't
24:23
have what you can't afford so they just
24:26
simply tell us that it costs too much
24:28
that it's impossible to finance
24:31
uh and you might as well give up and so
24:33
this is the twitter arm of the
24:35
republican party uh the senate
24:37
republicans just tweeting out you know
24:39
senator sanders markey aoc these people
24:42
pushing this green new deal their
24:44
proposals are unaffordable right maybe
24:46
that's why we don't have it they say
24:48
maybe that's why no one will vote for it
24:50
now
24:51
we went from 16 trillion to 10 trillion
24:55
talking about doing bold things to
24:58
really transform
25:00
every aspect of the economy
25:03
transportation housing agriculture uh
25:06
energy all of it to something much more
25:09
modest which came in the form of
25:12
president biden's build back better
25:14
agenda
25:15
when the democrats first started coming
25:18
to
25:19
some sort of agreement coalescing around
25:21
a number
25:22
the number was 3.5 trillion
25:25
3.5 trillion spread out over 10 years
25:29
is 350 billion a year
25:32
that's
25:34
not a huge amount of money it's
25:36
certainly nowhere close to 10 or 16
25:39
trillion
25:41
lawmakers couldn't agree on three and a
25:44
half trillion and maybe you heard some
25:46
of the names here uh we had senator from
25:49
arizona senator from west virginia both
25:52
had different reasons for opposing what
25:55
president biden was trying to do and the
25:58
numbers started getting talked down so
26:00
he went from three and a half trillion
26:01
to something closer to 1.8 trillion and
26:04
then there were supposedly negotiations
26:07
that were taking place in good faith on
26:09
all sides to see if a deal could be
26:11
struck to do
26:13
build back better at 1.8 trillion or so
26:18
of that
26:19
555 billion would have been climate
26:23
investments climate-related investments
26:25
in research related to climate now it
26:28
would have been the biggest climate
26:30
investment in the history of the united
26:32
states of america so it was not nothing
26:35
but
26:36
it was not the trillions of dollars that
26:39
experts tell us we should be investing
26:43
in all of these different ways
26:45
to
26:46
ensure that we hit the targets and that
26:48
we avoid increasing uh temperatures
26:51
allowing warming to increase above one
26:53
and a half degrees celsius and so but it
26:56
sounded like a lot and it would have
26:58
been better than nothing to be sure
27:00
okay
27:02
so of that
27:03
555 billion though
27:06
more than 300 billion of that
27:09
was
27:10
kind of
27:12
carrots incentives to get the private
27:14
sector private consumers private
27:17
businesses
27:18
to change their behaviors to act in ways
27:22
that
27:24
reduced emissions right so you say we
27:26
want to kind of nudge them along we'll
27:28
offer rebates to get people to buy
27:31
electric bikes and electric vehicles and
27:34
tax breaks for companies to invest in
27:36
renewable energy capacity they have to
27:38
build out a lot of the infrastructure
27:40
we'll offer tax breaks and then sit back
27:42
and hope
27:43
that if we take some of the risk off the
27:46
table if we do this de-risking
27:48
that the private sector will say yeah
27:51
it's probably a reasonable thing i think
27:54
i can be profitable i'm getting a little
27:56
incentive from the federal government uh
27:58
i'll go in and i'll make some of these
28:00
investments but there are no guarantees
28:03
right with these nudges and this leaning
28:06
so heavily on the private sector and
28:08
hoping
28:09
that the incentives are sufficiently
28:11
strong that they generate the
28:14
decision-making and the actions that
28:16
you're after so you sit and you wait
28:19
okay but this is the way that the biden
28:22
administration decided to push a climate
28:27
spending package that was quote unquote
28:29
fully paid for
28:31
because they decided that they didn't
28:33
want to do it the way that they had just
28:35
done the way the government had just
28:37
done
28:38
five trillion dollars of covet spending
28:41
from march of 2020 to march of
28:44
2021 congress passed three big pieces of
28:48
legislation
28:50
in total kicking out
28:52
five trillion dollars to support the
28:54
economy and deal with the effects of the
28:56
pandemic and so forth none of it was
28:58
quote unquote paid for there's just
29:01
congress sitting down and writing bills
29:03
committing to spending money in certain
29:05
ways and that money goes out the door
29:08
and yes it increased the deficit yes it
29:11
increased this thing we call the
29:12
national debt but everybody was okay
29:14
with that everybody voted for it then we
29:16
get to build back better
29:18
and the byte administration says no more
29:20
of that okay this time we're going to
29:23
fully offset the spending we don't want
29:25
any of it to increase the deficit and
29:28
this is where things started to fall
29:29
apart
29:30
okay this commitment to trying to keep
29:33
the spending deficit neutral by raising
29:36
a bunch of new revenue which required
29:38
increasing a lot of taxes which turns
29:41
out the democrats didn't have support
29:42
for
29:43
trying to cut other types of spending
29:46
like negotiating prescription drug
29:48
prices to bring that out turns out you
29:50
don't have all the votes you need to do
29:52
that and so the deal fell apart and we
29:54
heard just earlier today from senator
29:56
manchin build back better his words it's
29:59
dead
30:00
so now everybody's sort of shrugging and
30:03
saying is this the last chance we have
30:06
at climate is it slipping through our
30:07
fingers we have midterm elections this
30:09
year
30:10
um if legislation doesn't pass if
30:14
something doesn't pass
30:16
before november
30:17
then i think the realistic calculus is
30:20
that the democrats no longer have the
30:23
house
30:23
and then who knows how many years go by
30:26
before you have another opportunity to
30:29
do something substantial to deal with
30:31
climate change so it's dispiriting and i
30:35
think a big part of the reason that we
30:37
ended up where we are that this
30:39
legislation ended up
30:41
being killed and maybe they'll break it
30:43
up and pass some small things along the
30:46
way but i
30:48
don't see much chance at all of a a
30:51
really
30:52
you know significant piece of climate
30:55
legislation coming out before november
30:57
it just doesn't strike me as likely why
31:00
because we're all hung up on all the
31:01
wrong things where will you find the
31:03
money whose taxes have to go up and by
31:06
how much and do you have the votes to do
31:07
that how do we stop you know the
31:09
spending from adding to the deficit or
31:11
the debt and what about this inflation
31:13
we currently have and we can't do
31:15
anything because inflation is here and
31:17
so we are in a real trap
31:20
and i know that i'm saying all of this
31:22
in the u.s context but what i want to do
31:25
now is to make it clear to you
31:27
that
31:28
uh i want you to draw parallels for
31:31
canada and for wherever you might be
31:33
watching this from that this is not a
31:36
story that is uniquely you know american
31:40
governments around the world face these
31:42
challenges we're all in this global ship
31:44
together and the planet is warming all
31:47
of us so we've got to have global
31:49
solutions some nations are better
31:52
equipped to deliver the kind of bold
31:56
spending that is going to be needed to
31:58
address these problems than other
32:00
countries
32:01
currency issuing governments
32:03
like the us
32:05
like canada like australia like the uk
32:08
like japan like china like many other
32:11
countries
32:12
currency issuing governments
32:14
are in a
32:16
uniquely
32:19
well-positioned
32:20
position place
32:22
to
32:24
deal with these problems because as a
32:27
currency issuer you don't have to deal
32:30
with this nagging question
32:32
where will i find the money how will i
32:34
find the money here the currency issuer
32:36
the us dollar comes from the us
32:38
government it can't come from anywhere
32:40
else right you are the sole issuer
32:43
of the currency that's called the united
32:46
states dollar the canadian government is
32:48
the issuer of the canadian dollar japan
32:51
issues the yen nobody else can do it
32:54
right so you can't run out you can spend
32:57
too much but you can't be forced into
32:59
bankruptcy and you never have to borrow
33:01
your own currency from anyone you're the
33:04
issuer of the currency
33:06
if you are a province
33:08
okay if you are an individual state if
33:10
you are california new york arizona
33:14
you're in a different position you don't
33:17
issue the currency you are
33:19
financially constrained in ways that the
33:21
canadian government is not that the
33:23
united states government is not that the
33:25
japanese government is not so the
33:27
options are more limited if you are a
33:30
canadian province you are revenue
33:32
constrained that doesn't mean that you
33:35
don't have options to begin to do what
33:38
you can do
33:40
to transition away from fossil fuels and
33:43
to green your economy and to try to
33:45
support
33:46
just transition and so forth but you are
33:48
going to be dependent on revenue
33:50
in ways that the federal government that
33:53
the canadian government would not be
33:55
so
33:56
you are financially constrained in
33:59
important ways and that plays a part in
34:02
terms of the policy space what you can
34:05
actually afford to do is a real question
34:08
currency issuing governments can afford
34:10
to purchase whatever is available and
34:13
for sale in their own sovereign
34:15
currencies now the u.s dollar is
34:17
obviously globally accepted that gives
34:19
us a very large global marketplace into
34:22
which um to spend to to acquire
34:25
resources that we need other countries
34:28
have more limited capacity to be sure
34:31
okay but the point is you can afford to
34:34
buy whatever is available and for sale
34:36
in your own currency including
34:38
all available unemployed labor so you
34:41
can put every canadian who wants to
34:45
lean into the mission and lend a hand
34:47
you can employ them and put them to work
34:50
doing care for planet care for people
34:53
care for communities
34:55
all right so what matters is
34:58
you got the power of the purse but you
35:01
don't have infinite
35:04
capacity to spend in the sense that too
35:07
much spending will push inflation higher
35:10
so there are limits there are
35:12
constraints and again think of that
35:13
beaver
35:15
it's the real resources if the real
35:17
resources are lying around available
35:20
ready to be hired available to be
35:22
employed whether it's you know raw
35:25
materials labor whatever it is if it's
35:28
available for sale and nobody else is
35:32
bidding on it then
35:34
government can employ it and put it to
35:36
use and direct it to public purpose
35:38
aimed at dealing with climate challenges
35:41
building clean affordable housing and
35:43
all the rest of it okay but inflation is
35:46
the relevant constraint as keynes said
35:48
the famous british economist so many
35:50
years ago
35:51
anything we can actually do
35:54
we can afford
35:55
okay so if we can do it and we know this
35:58
because we faced this challenge before
36:01
we've done this we have literally
36:04
transitioned our entire economies
36:07
unexpectedly
36:09
right and we did it during the war
36:11
effort we did it with the bombing of
36:13
pearl harbor that drew the us into world
36:16
war ii and we transitioned our economy
36:20
from one that was oriented around
36:23
producing largely for consumers
36:26
to one that was largely oriented around
36:28
producing for the war effort we had to
36:30
change everything right factories that
36:33
had been manufacturing automobiles we're
36:36
told no more producing cars we need you
36:38
producing tanks and um aircraft carriers
36:43
and munitions and all the rest of it
36:45
uh garment industry that was previously
36:48
producing men's suits and ladies dresses
36:51
and and leather shoes and high-heeled
36:53
ladies shoes we're told we need you
36:55
producing uniforms and boots and all of
36:58
the rest of it right we transition the
37:01
entire economy and we did it very
37:04
quickly how did we do it
37:06
very successfully because the mission
37:08
was clear you got to win the war that
37:11
was the mission so what is it going to
37:14
take to carry out the mission to win the
37:16
war and here we go back to keynes again
37:19
and keynes writes this little pamphlet
37:21
this little book called how to pay for
37:22
the war the title is misleading because
37:25
you would think that keynes is writing
37:27
this down
37:28
to give advice about where to find the
37:31
money to carry out the war effort now
37:33
he's writing this for the british
37:35
government the u.s wasn't engaged yet in
37:38
world war ii
37:39
but he circulates this little
37:42
guidebook and it's basically
37:44
you know like a blueprint for how to
37:47
resource
37:48
the war effort where are you going to
37:51
get the real things that you need how
37:53
are you going to feed troops how are you
37:55
going to pull workers out of this type
37:57
of employment and shift them into the
37:59
military and what are the women going to
38:01
do and how do you shift them in and how
38:03
do you manufacture the things you need
38:05
the munitions and all the rest of it so
38:07
this was a plan and
38:09
it was a plan to undertake this trans
38:13
this transition of the whole economy to
38:15
a war economy how to do it with minimal
38:19
inflationary pressure it's not going to
38:21
be zero inflationary pressure it's
38:23
impossible you're changing everything
38:25
and you're doing it in a hurry but
38:27
keynes wanted to lay out and provide a
38:30
blue
38:35
oh you accidentally muted yourself
38:37
stephanie
38:45
is it good
38:47
yes
38:48
you're good what was the last thing you
38:49
heard me say okay so the point is you're
38:52
you're not going to do it with no
38:54
inflationary pressures it would be
38:56
impossible it's too uh it's it's too big
38:59
a thing it's too big an endeavor but the
39:01
point was to provide a blueprint for
39:03
policymakers to say hey this is the way
39:05
to go about thinking about how to carry
39:09
out this transition and my argument is
39:12
that we can learn a lot from going back
39:14
and looking at what keynes had to say
39:16
about transitioning the economy into a
39:19
war economy as we think about how to
39:22
deal with climate change if we think of
39:24
ourselves in a battle for our uh future
39:29
lives and the lives of those who will
39:31
come after us
39:32
so
39:33
i'm saying we've done this before we
39:35
know what needs to be done war planning
39:38
is about ensuring you have the real
39:40
resources you need and that you're
39:42
managing the inflationary pressures
39:44
along the way that's the best you can do
39:47
and he keynes was mindful that it be
39:50
done in a way that was as equitable as
39:53
possible that all of the hardship did
39:55
not fall on those with the lowest
39:58
incomes who are already you know most
40:01
likely to be in poverty lowest on the
40:04
income ladder and so forth he wanted to
40:06
do it in a as as much as possible a just
40:09
way so that the sacrifices that were
40:12
being made during the war effort that
40:14
delayed consumption and so forth that
40:16
there would be income for those groups
40:18
in particular on the other side of the
40:20
war when the recovery
40:22
uh took hold the u.s paid close
40:24
attention to what keynes was saying they
40:26
circulated memos and said we really got
40:29
to pay attention because this guy's
40:31
saying the whole game if we get drawn in
40:34
is going to be about managing
40:36
inflationary pressures and resourcing
40:38
the war and of course the us did get
40:39
drawn in and you can see there from the
40:43
graph on top that you know the
40:45
government as a share of the whole
40:47
economy was fairly modest you know after
40:51
the great depression
40:52
government programs ramped up under the
40:54
new deal but it was really the war
40:56
that exploded the size of government
40:58
government took almost half of the
41:01
entire gdp
41:03
and so you had a massive ramping up of
41:06
the government presence and directing
41:09
resource use in the economy and you can
41:11
see here what happened to inflation in
41:14
the uk where keynes had been advising
41:16
and here in the u.s where they were
41:17
listening to him inflation got high
41:20
i mean but it didn't we didn't have
41:22
hyper inflation it never got out of
41:24
control governments had a suite of
41:27
policies in place to manage inflationary
41:29
pressures through this transition and
41:32
what i'm suggesting is if we were to do
41:34
something
41:35
as ambitious as the kinds of things that
41:38
were being proposed under a senator
41:40
sanders or a senator markey or an aoc
41:44
if we were going that big and doing
41:46
transportation the way we live the way
41:47
we work the way we get around the way we
41:49
grow food then you need a suite of
41:52
policies ready to put in place and
41:55
managing those inflationary pressures is
41:57
really key because that's part of how
41:59
you maintain public support for what
42:01
you're doing and we can see that today
42:03
people don't like paying higher prices
42:05
for things so managing inflationary
42:07
pressure is really important so what do
42:10
you do if you want to embark on
42:11
something big you start off by saying
42:13
what is it i need think like a beaver
42:15
what are the real resources i need to
42:18
carry this out if i want to build 10 or
42:20
11
42:21
units of affordable
42:24
sustainable housing what do i need to
42:26
build 11 units of sustainable i need
42:29
construction workers i need lots of
42:31
concrete i need um you know
42:35
siting i need appliances i need lights i
42:38
need you know cable wiring i need i need
42:41
real resources if i want to do broadband
42:44
and ev charging stations and solar
42:46
panels those are the things i need so
42:48
you say what is it i need and then you
42:51
look at your resource capacity do i have
42:53
the technology to do this i hope the
42:55
answer is yes you shouldn't plan to do
42:57
things you don't have the technological
42:59
know-how to do but you can invest in r d
43:01
along the way and develop and innovate
43:04
new technologies and that's a big part
43:06
of of uh what people are proposing so
43:09
figure out what you need figure out what
43:11
your capabilities are how many resources
43:14
do you have available do you have the
43:16
technological know-how do you need to
43:18
seed some research in order to advance
43:20
certain uh things technologically and
43:24
then if i don't have everything i need
43:26
where do i get the rest how do i acquire
43:30
more capacity where do i get it
43:33
so
43:34
i'm going to speed up because i we're
43:36
reaching close to the end and i want the
43:38
q a so assess your resource needs so
43:42
here are some examples right
43:44
someone writing in forbes said we could
43:47
do a sort of climate bill for something
43:49
like three percent of gdp we could
43:52
retrofit buildings and have a smart
43:54
power grid and get to 100 renewable
43:56
energy and all this and this is what it
43:58
would cost in dollar terms but then you
44:01
look at this and you say but what would
44:02
it take in real resource terms to
44:05
upgrade all buildings so that their
44:07
energy you know
44:09
we electrify uh all units of housing and
44:13
everything is energy efficient what
44:14
would it take resource wise the next one
44:17
is much more ambitious five percent more
44:19
than five percent of gdp what would it
44:22
take to resource that so that's what you
44:24
need to do and then you look at your
44:26
existing capacity how many workers do we
44:29
have and not just these headline i'm
44:31
just giving you a quick sample here how
44:34
many unemployed people are there that we
44:36
could bring into this but then you have
44:38
to go closer right because some of these
44:41
you need people with particular skills
44:43
um and so you can look at unemployment
44:46
by occupation and say do i have the
44:48
unemployed construction workers that i
44:50
would need and if i don't can i train
44:52
them up can i get apprenticeships going
44:54
can i move them away from maybe some
44:57
other activity they're currently engaged
45:00
in and shift them into building you know
45:03
resilient housing or whatever the case
45:06
may be but you have to find that figure
45:08
out what your capacity is
45:10
use up all of the existing slack you
45:12
have
45:13
and then
45:14
free up capacity
45:17
where you need it if you don't have
45:19
enough capacity and so i've just put
45:21
down some ideas here about where you
45:23
would get the extra capacity if you
45:26
don't have the capacity you need here in
45:28
the us we don't have a a single-payer
45:31
healthcare system we have this patchwork
45:34
as you know
45:35
um system but if we transitioned to
45:37
something that was
45:39
more
45:40
efficient even
45:42
slightly more efficient
45:45
that would free up a lot of resources
45:47
because we have these huge
45:48
intermediaries
45:50
that
45:51
employ a lot of people use a lot of
45:53
resource capacity and if we streamline
45:56
the healthcare delivery system so that
45:58
those intermediaries were no longer
46:01
necessary it would free those people up
46:04
to do other things and i'm obviously i'm
46:06
talking about unemployment right it
46:08
would create some unemployment but
46:10
that's then how you resource other
46:12
endeavors you need other people you can
46:15
um think about what you can do using
46:17
credit controls and there's a new paper
46:20
coming out i've got a copy it's
46:21
embargoed in front of me i think it's
46:23
going to be out
46:24
later this month
46:26
it's coming out nathan tankis is the
46:28
author it's called reimagining demand
46:30
management and price stability in the
46:32
21st century it's about 40 pages
46:34
lots of ideas here on ways to use credit
46:38
controls to free up resource capacity
46:40
using regulatory levers
46:43
if you believe that you have parts of
46:46
the budget that have
46:48
more funding than is necessary to
46:51
achieve certain goals perhaps in the
46:53
military budget you say i can free up
46:56
some real resources by shifting funds
46:59
into the green the for the greening of
47:03
you know the economy and so forth so the
47:05
point is there are lots of ways to think
47:07
about this we got two million or so
47:10
people um locked up in prisons and jails
47:13
all over this country we uh often hear
47:16
discussion about prison reform that
47:18
would allow uh non-violent you know drug
47:22
offen you know people who are in for
47:24
substance abuse of some you know
47:25
marijuana or something uh to come out
47:28
and be freed up
47:30
and available to lean in right lend a
47:33
hand with some of the climate uh
47:35
challenges and so forth so a lot of
47:37
folks including some of my colleagues
47:40
have looked at these kinds of things
47:41
here's a paper i don't have time to talk
47:43
about but the point is
47:45
it's the real resource capacity that
47:48
matters and inflation is the relevant
47:50
constraint can you place too much of a
47:52
strain
47:53
on your economy's productive capacity
47:55
yes you can you can try to spend more
47:58
money into the economy to accomplish all
48:02
of these things on a rapid
48:04
basis and the economy just can't keep up
48:07
it doesn't have the people it doesn't
48:09
have the factories it doesn't have the
48:10
machines it can't churn them out fast
48:12
enough and the punishment for trying to
48:14
push too fast will be some inflationary
48:17
pressure so this is a political
48:19
problem when inflation emerges and you
48:22
have to figure out
48:23
how to manage those pressures along the
48:26
way as keynes
48:27
described and how much of a trade-off
48:30
you're willing to tolerate in terms of
48:33
you know another percentage or two
48:35
percent inflation for the sake of
48:39
the planet so these are not answers that
48:42
i can give you these are political
48:44
questions and they're questions for a
48:46
population that must ultimately
48:49
bear some of the costs and ultimately
48:51
support the policy so
48:53
do you have to raise taxes and do you
48:55
have to be deficit neutral to do all of
48:57
this the answer is no you want to back
48:59
into the question of the offsets you
49:02
don't start with a commitment to offset
49:05
every dollar you want to spend
49:07
doing climate related investments you
49:09
want to say how much available slack how
49:12
much policy space is there that i could
49:14
carry out parts of my agenda before i
49:17
need to start thinking about offsetting
49:19
that spending and taxes are one way to
49:22
offset
49:23
spending but they're not the only way
49:24
and they may not even be the best way in
49:26
some cases so what do we know this is
49:29
the the last slide
49:31
you we know that we have
49:33
if we have the real resources and the
49:35
technological know-how then as kane said
49:38
anything we can actually do
49:40
we can afford the we there being
49:43
the currency issuer for for provinces
49:45
for states local governments and the
49:48
rest it is more challenging and that's
49:50
an important part of my message here so
49:53
the financing is the easy part if the
49:56
government is willing to commit the
49:58
funding the fiscal agent for the
50:00
government is the central bank the
50:02
central bank's job in part is to carry
50:04
out payments that are authorized by the
50:06
government on behalf of the treasury or
50:08
the finance ministry and that's what
50:10
they do checks don't bounce the relevant
50:12
constraint is inflation so you want to
50:15
start with the mission figure out where
50:17
you want to end up and back your way
50:20
into
50:21
the legislation being drafted so that
50:24
the
50:25
dollars are committed to deliver on the
50:28
mission itself managing inflationary
50:31
pressures along the way
50:34
so i'm going to stop
50:35
and
50:37
entertain some questions
50:39
okay great thank you very much that uh
50:41
you know having heard a lot about uh
50:43
modern monetary theory um but you know
50:45
the twitter version as opposed to really
50:47
digging in myself uh that's this was
50:49
really helpful
50:50
and um you know so i'm gonna start with
50:52
a question and then i'm going to dig
50:53
into those in the the chat and there are
50:55
a lot of them so just so people know we
50:57
probably won't get to all of them and um
50:59
i will look over we've got the list and
51:02
grab them as i go so if i miss your
51:03
question i'm sorry but uh
51:05
we've got a lot to choose from and um
51:08
so i'll start with this one um
51:11
you know am i correct then in
51:12
understanding a little bit that
51:14
this is a case of
51:16
you know normally when when economies
51:17
are a little slow uh central banks will
51:21
if you will dump a little extra money
51:22
into the economy
51:24
um you know through you know buying
51:26
bonds from banks and things like that is
51:28
this a case of saying doing the same
51:30
thing but redirecting it to specific
51:31
uses that we want to
51:33
achieve
51:35
you know certain goals with like climate
51:37
change
51:39
well okay
51:40
so i think
51:41
a lot of people
51:44
do what you just did which is they look
51:46
at what the central banks have done
51:49
with quantitative easing
51:51
central banks use their power to create
51:55
the currency
51:56
out of nothing more than their computer
51:58
keyboards and they buy financial assets
52:01
and they pay for them by crediting the
52:04
seller's account at the central bank
52:07
with reserves we say reserves
52:09
um clearing settlement balances right
52:12
and so it isn't putting money into the
52:15
economy it is trapping
52:18
reserves or settlement balances in the
52:21
financial system okay that's where they
52:24
go so it's it's completely different
52:27
from what the canadian government did
52:30
say sending out direct checks to support
52:34
people in the pandemic said you lost
52:36
your job your income is down you've
52:38
reported that you have suffered lost
52:41
income fill out this paperwork give us
52:43
the number we replace some lost income
52:46
we did that in the us too that's fiscal
52:48
policy that's a direct payment goes
52:51
right into the hands of the recipient
52:53
and so what you're really talking about
52:55
is um
52:57
the use of fiscal policy which is how
52:59
you know where how i focused my remarks
53:02
on
53:02
using
53:04
the federal government the power of the
53:05
purse to draft legislation define the
53:09
mission write a bill say this is what we
53:12
want to spend on in these ways we want
53:14
dollars to go here and we're going to
53:17
pay to build ev charging stations all
53:19
over the economy we're going to
53:21
provide a
53:22
job at a certain wage and benefits for
53:25
anybody who wants to be hired into this
53:27
program doing these kinds of jobs so
53:30
it's a different policy lever
53:32
yeah so you know i'm going to paraphrase
53:35
it there's at least two or three people
53:36
and i'm sure this is a question you've
53:38
heard before um who have asked you know
53:41
if if there's a lot of slack in the
53:42
economy this this would work it's a
53:44
suggestion but you know if things are
53:45
chugging along full tilt i think you
53:47
know we're at six or seven percent or
53:49
six percent unemployment right now and
53:51
going down uh here in alberta and in
53:53
other places it's lower
53:54
what then do we have to pull back or
53:57
what are the about those other
53:58
policy tools you mentioned
54:00
okay six percent unemployment is is
54:03
still quite high and
54:05
uh the official measures almost always
54:08
significantly underestimate the true
54:10
extent of the unemployment problem if
54:12
you want to reveal how much unemployment
54:15
is actually out there there's a really
54:17
good way to do it you announce that
54:19
anybody who wants a job and doesn't have
54:21
one can have a job at a whatever
54:24
announced wage it is and then you see
54:26
who shows up right and if you think
54:29
there are a million and a half
54:31
unemployed people and four million
54:33
people show up then that's taught you
54:35
something about the the true extent of
54:38
unemployment in in the economy but
54:40
you're quite right if uh
54:43
if you are you know an economy that is
54:46
approaching something that you might
54:48
reasonably call full employment you
54:50
think you're getting very close on its
54:52
own right the economy is private sector
54:55
is booming lots of job creation very low
54:57
levels of unemployment not a lot of
54:59
slack and you say uh but i want to roll
55:03
out a
55:04
massive green new deal that transforms
55:07
the whole economy well
55:10
you're gonna have to
55:11
uh
55:13
disrupt a lot of current economic
55:16
activity and
55:18
you know are you going to be able to do
55:20
that politically it's a political
55:22
challenge right your government can
55:24
start bidding workers away from their
55:27
current jobs but that's going to be
55:28
inflationary and the goal here is to
55:31
avoid that so this is why it was much
55:33
easier to do a green new deal
55:36
in the midst of the great depression and
55:38
then to have world war ii come along
55:40
when the economy was still significantly
55:42
depressed because there was so much
55:45
slack available in the economy so this
55:48
the choice before us is
55:50
you know
55:52
quite stark in the sense that
55:55
if we are
55:56
truly committed
55:58
to acting
55:59
on the time scale and with the scope of
56:02
ambition that the scientific community
56:04
tells us is necessary to avoid the worst
56:07
effects of climate change
56:10
then we have to collectively decide
56:13
that
56:14
we're going to support the
56:17
transformation
56:18
of
56:19
the agricultural and transportation and
56:22
energy and everything and we're gonna
56:23
understand that those dislocations are
56:26
coming and that it won't be perfect and
56:28
seamless and everybody won't
56:31
instantaneously fall perfectly into
56:34
you know
56:36
a new job at the same pay but you're
56:38
going to create pathways and safeguard
56:41
incomes and
56:43
it isn't
56:44
as easy at all
56:46
in a resource-constrained environment
56:49
but you have to be willing if you wanted
56:51
if you want to
56:53
deliver on the mission if you want to
56:55
carry out the mission you have to be
56:57
willing to
56:59
you know?
C:
yeah
57:01
deal with some of those challenges yeah
57:03
that sounds um i just want to confirm um
57:05
we have you till quarter 15 after the
57:08
hour correct that is correct okay good i
57:10
wanted to make sure that i had my timing
57:11
correct here um so here's another
57:13
question pedro asks um you know
57:14
countries all over the world compete for
57:16
investment dollars around the globe and
57:18
is there a risk if if countries uh began
57:21
to adopt this this approach of it
57:23
affecting their competitiveness on the
57:25
global stage
57:29
well i wish i
57:31
i mean i wish i could hear a little bit
57:33
more about what uh
57:35
is it pedro is concerned about look you
57:38
cannot well
57:41
you you could depending on how far you
57:43
want to go in terms of
57:45
defending the exchange rate or something
57:47
like that but this is much more
57:49
challenging for countries that are
57:51
vulnerable to
57:53
wide swings in their exchange rate if
57:56
you are heavily dependent on the rest of
57:59
the world for vital imports if you are
58:02
not food independent if you are not
58:04
energy independent if you rely on the
58:07
rest of the world for imports of
58:10
medicines and technologies
58:13
you need to be able to
58:15
acquire those things to feed your
58:17
population to provide energy and so
58:19
forth or you'll have you know
58:21
social upheaval and riots and so forth
58:24
so if your
58:25
currency is vulnerable enough to a sharp
58:28
depreciation means you can't get the
58:31
things that you need that's a problem
58:33
and that's where the rest of the global
58:35
community i think comes into play
58:38
that we have to recognize that climate
58:41
is a global challenge much like the
58:43
pandemic and the response to the
58:46
pandemic frankly doesn't give me
58:48
a whole lot of
58:52
i don't know optimism in a sense with
58:54
respect to where we're going
58:56
collectively on climate because we have
58:59
to be there for nations that can't do
59:03
these things on their own we're going to
59:04
have to set up systems you know we had a
59:06
marshall plan
59:07
uh after world war ii we're going to
59:10
have to ensure that developing countries
59:13
can leapfrog the transition in energy
59:16
through the brown
59:18
uh
59:19
you know coal and fossil fuel we don't
59:21
want them to transition through that the
59:23
way we did when we were industrializing
59:25
and so forth we want them to be able to
59:28
leap frog as much as possible and get to
59:31
the clean energy technology sooner and a
59:34
lot of countries aren't going to be able
59:36
to to do that independently and that's
59:38
going to take um a global
59:41
coordinated effort
59:44
a wealthy industrialized countries can
59:47
can do this without
59:50
much concern of the kind he was raising
59:52
okay great thank you um
59:54
so we had kate roberts on uh for a talk
59:57
a couple of months ago and someone asks
59:58
here and i'm wondering if they had
60:00
attended that talk because
60:02
jay asks would you say a few words if
60:04
you believe
60:05
uh modern monetary theory and donut
60:07
economics are are compatible if these
60:09
things can can be integrated together so
60:13
maybe that's a question you haven't
60:14
heard before but uh oh i've heard it not
60:16
only are they compatible i think they're
60:19
inseparable
60:21
because i don't know how you achieve the
60:24
goals
60:26
of the donut economy
60:28
without a proper
60:30
framework an economic framework and
60:33
the the design of a monetary system that
60:37
allows you the capacity to achieve
60:40
those objectives of pulling everyone out
60:43
of the center of the donut so that there
60:44
is enough for viability and
60:46
life-sustaining needs and so forth but
60:48
not pushing beyond ecological
60:51
um planetary boundaries and so forth i
60:54
think
60:54
that the two go together if you can see
60:57
over my shoulder there's a little
60:59
owl with a little succulent a little
61:02
plant inside and on that stack of
61:04
horizontal books you'll see kate's book
61:07
uh
61:08
right behind me perfect
61:10
okay thanks um
61:12
someone asked here and i've kind of lost
61:13
the the statement so i'll just
61:15
paraphrase it but um
61:17
you know is is
61:19
the idea of you know pushing right to
61:21
the edges of growth a good idea um and i
61:23
think you know the the person asking
61:25
questions focusing on the notion of d
61:26
growth how much do we have to focus on d
61:29
growth versus these types of investments
61:33
well look it's
61:34
it's an important question it's one that
61:37
um dogs me i don't i don't know that i
61:41
know for sure
61:43
whether
61:44
d growth is
61:46
you that we ought to center that as an
61:49
objective it's possible that we should i
61:52
did say that i think growth for the sake
61:53
of growth is the wrong way to go
61:56
and when i say look at the resource
61:58
capacity and use what you have notice
62:02
i'm not suggesting that we use up all of
62:06
the fossil fuel capacity that we extract
62:09
every possible you know drop of oil and
62:13
frack every you know shale
62:16
it isn't that right it isn't growth for
62:18
the sake of growth it isn't um
62:20
extraction because you can
62:23
i'm just saying if you're trying to
62:26
achieve sustainability goals and you
62:28
want clean drinking water then you got
62:29
to get every lead pipe out and you have
62:31
to replace it with materials that will
62:33
deliver safe clean drinking water to
62:35
every person in the country and around
62:38
the world so you gotta have resources to
62:40
do that and part of what's gonna happen
62:43
in the process of doing that is some
62:45
economic growth right but we have to
62:48
decide how we're going to live going
62:51
forward i can't i don't get to play
62:54
king or queen or emperor or whatever
62:57
the case may be and make these decisions
62:59
these these are
63:01
decisions that societies have to make
63:04
and they're not easy ones and if we're
63:06
willing to say
63:07
um
63:08
we're living too excessively we consume
63:10
too much we need to you know change the
63:13
way we live and work and get around and
63:16
eat and a lot of that is going to
63:18
involve reducing the amount of
63:20
consumption that takes place that's
63:22
going to push us in the direction of
63:26
zero growth or potentially de-growth or
63:29
whatever so i think
63:31
um
63:34
that's my answer sure yeah no that
63:35
sounds good and i
63:37
you know i i agree with your frustration
63:39
around things like the lead pipes and so
63:40
on it seems like these are things that
63:42
we should be able to achieve fairly
63:44
easily given the size of our economy so
63:46
um one um
63:48
here's another one oh wait it moved on
63:50
me oh i know um so sky asks a question
63:53
how does the issuer of currency idea
63:56
work when the currency is bitcoin like
63:58
el salvador is doing can it work or does
64:00
that remove the power of government to
64:02
do this
64:06
well look if if you have a mayor or a
64:11
governor
64:12
or a president who
64:16
is not working with other elected
64:18
officials to direct resources and i'm
64:20
talking about real resources
64:22
in ways that are oriented around
64:25
delivering on a mission like
64:28
climate uh emissions abatement or
64:30
whatever then it's not going to happen
64:33
whether you have you know a sovereign
64:35
currency or whether you're embracing
64:38
crypto or anything else so
64:42
i don't think the purpose and the drive
64:44
of
64:46
those embracing crypto currencies as
64:49
they're probably wrongly named or
64:53
referred to have
64:55
the drive or the interest in
64:58
crafting
64:59
economic policy
65:01
i don't see any evidence of it at least
65:04
oriented around
65:06
dealing with climate change is sort of
65:08
quite the opposite
65:10
okay great thanks um a few people have
65:12
asked about the current state of
65:14
inflation and
65:15
um
65:16
one one individual says you know do we
65:18
have any idea when you know the current
65:20
inflation will ease so that modern
65:23
monetary theory can be applied and i
65:25
guess i'll add you know could it be
65:27
applied even in this state of inflation
65:29
and maybe your thoughts on what's
65:30
causing inflation and how it plays into
65:33
all of these types of things
65:35
all right so first thing is we don't
65:37
want to ask whether mmt can be applied
65:40
it's already here it's a description
65:43
right it's a framework it's a
65:44
description of the monetary system that
65:48
is in place in any country we can talk
65:50
about the countries that are part of the
65:52
emu okay their monetary system is very
65:55
different the greek government the
65:57
italian government the german government
65:58
they don't issue the euro
66:01
so they have a monetary system that by
66:04
virtue of the fact that they voluntarily
66:06
voluntarily gave up their sovereign
66:08
currencies
66:09
turned themselves into currency users
66:11
they're more like a province or an
66:14
individual state than like a nation
66:16
state right by virtue of of what they
66:19
did uh adopting the euro
66:21
so
66:22
um
66:24
what was the question again
66:26
oh just you know the oh the the the lens
66:29
and the framework so you don't adopt mmt
66:32
it's already here it's your framework
66:34
for analysis so you can look through the
66:36
mmt lens
66:38
at italy at greece at ecuador ecuador is
66:42
dollarized they just adopted the us
66:44
dollar so they have a very um hard
66:47
constraint in terms of the financial
66:49
constraint because the ecuadorian
66:51
government can't issue the us dollar
66:53
countries that adopted the euro have
66:55
these constraints so mmt is here and
66:58
present in all places it's a lens it's a
67:01
framework you can apply it to
67:05
identify the spending capacities
67:08
of governments that operate under
67:10
different monetary systems how does
67:12
government finance work with the
67:14
monetary system you have in any country
67:16
you want to look at so it's here
67:19
the inflation question is different
67:21
because you know i think what this
67:23
person is probably trying to say is
67:25
now that inflation is here part of the
67:27
question was how long
67:29
will we be dealing with this and when
67:32
will we have the space available again
67:35
to um embark on some of these kinds of
67:38
investments i think that might be what
67:41
the question is
67:42
um
67:43
so the answer to the inflation question
67:45
is i don't know and neither does anyone
67:47
else there is a raging debate happening
67:51
among economists and others market uh
67:54
participants and other people um
67:57
about you know what are the drivers of
67:59
the current inflation if you ask the
68:03
the chairman of the federal reserve
68:04
jerome powell he's out there giving
68:06
speeches and um remarks before congress
68:09
and he's saying look it's there are a
68:11
couple of things some of it is that
68:14
people have income to spend and
68:17
to some extent it's because of the
68:19
robust fiscal support that was provided
68:22
from congress in the form of all this
68:24
legislation i told you five trillion
68:26
dollars so people have had their incomes
68:28
protected through the pandemic not
68:31
everybody but a lot of folks and they
68:34
spent less and saved more along the way
68:36
and so uh we weren't going out and
68:39
spending a bunch of money in nail salons
68:42
and hotels and restaurants and bars and
68:44
theaters because of the pandemic so we
68:47
shifted the way we spend money and we
68:50
had kids that were you know home uh
68:53
doing virtual learning a lot of us were
68:55
told to stay home and work from home so
68:57
we had to buy tablets and computers and
69:00
furniture and turn our spare bedrooms
69:02
into a home office and so we tried to
69:04
buy durable goods and we saw what
69:07
happened with supply chains we all put a
69:09
lot of pressure on supply chains trying
69:12
to order things that have to be
69:13
manufactured that are manufactured parts
69:17
and pieces all over the global supply
69:19
chain and you got some inflation from
69:21
that
69:22
you also have the effects of the
69:24
pandemic right that contributed to the
69:27
inflationary pressures the supply side
69:29
the bottlenecks the backed up ports the
69:32
trucks that can't get moving and frayed
69:35
and all the rest of it so there are a
69:37
lot of things pushing on prices right
69:39
now and powell is saying it's mostly
69:41
coming from pandemic related supply side
69:44
bottle chain bottle uh supply chain
69:46
bottleneck pressures so
69:50
when will that ease and he basically
69:52
said in his remarks a couple of weeks
69:54
ago
69:55
it will really ease as the pandemic
69:58
abates you know as long as the pandemic
70:01
is raging and factories are shutting
70:03
down all over the world and there are
70:05
these disruptions and breaks in the
70:06
supply chain inflation will stick around
70:09
and it will begin to come down and i
70:11
most
70:13
analysts most economists financial
70:15
markets the bet is
70:17
that pressures ease this year
70:21
and that by the end of this year we've
70:23
seen inflation
70:24
fall off significantly the fed thinks
70:27
maybe we'll be down to something like
70:29
three and a half percent by the end of
70:30
the year that's still elevated by uh
70:34
historical um standards and also
70:37
uh elevated with respect to the fed's
70:39
target
70:40
but
70:41
do we have to wait ask yourself this
70:43
question if you took seriously the
70:45
threat of climate change and you
70:47
believed what the intergovernmental
70:49
panel on climate change and other
70:51
experts are telling us that we need to
70:52
act and act fast and act boldly and
70:55
we've got 10 years to really get going
70:58
on this and you're sitting there saying
71:00
i don't know i mean
71:02
four degrees warming
71:04
scientists say the carrying capacity of
71:06
the earth at four degrees warming is
71:09
about a billion people
71:11
so maybe over the course of time we lose
71:13
seven or eight billion people
71:15
but inflation you know if it's four or
71:18
five percent we can't really do anything
71:19
i mean the calculus to me is pretty
71:22
clear
71:24
with or without inflation running at
71:26
elevated levels
71:28
it's the planet it's the planet and we
71:30
don't have a lot of time so we've got to
71:32
find ways to to move forward even as in
71:37
even if um you know we're still dealing
71:40
with some inflationary pressures we can
71:42
handle those in other ways
71:45
um as a moderator i always try and keep
71:47
my opinions out of it but i i couldn't
71:49
agree more it's absolutely critical um
71:52
one last question i think we have time
71:54
for um and uh maybe it's a quick one
71:57
what about uh you know we currently
71:59
subsidize a lot of oil production and
72:01
fossil fuel production uh we currently
72:03
have a revenue neutral carbon tax in
72:05
canada
72:06
um would you know reducing subsidies and
72:09
and taxing fossil fuels give us uh you
72:12
know the opportunity to have some of
72:13
these funds to to use in the ways that
72:15
you're talking about
72:17
okay
72:18
who's we
72:19
alberta or canada i would say canada and
72:23
the federal government in the u.s so i
72:25
love this question because it takes us
72:26
full circle which is the little beaver
72:30
okay the little beaver is not worried
72:31
about the money the money is the easy
72:34
part the resources are
72:36
what matters and when you say
72:39
reducing subsidies to fossil fuel
72:42
or increasing taxes what those two
72:44
things can do
72:46
is
72:47
discourage the activity itself
72:50
and that means you free up real
72:52
resources if you pull permits and you
72:55
say you're not drilling offshore or
72:57
you're not allowed to frack we're
72:58
banning fracking or we're not going to
73:00
subsidize this and that other thing and
73:02
it becomes too costly for some firms to
73:05
continue to do those things then the
73:07
equipment is freed up the workers are
73:09
freed up so what you're doing is you're
73:11
helping to resource
73:13
the climate agenda it's not the money
73:17
that you're after it's the real
73:19
productive capacity that you can then
73:22
divert to other uses.
C:
73:24
excellent okay well i think we have
73:26
reached the end of our time so i'm going
73:27
to say thank you very much stephanie i
73:29
think that everyone probably learned a
73:31
lot today and i know a number of us i'm
73:33
sure we'll go off and continue to dig
73:35
into this more and learn more so i think
73:38
you've started a great discussion here
73:39
and uh i think we've got quite a few
73:41
people who have uh picked up some
73:43
knowledge so thank you very much i
73:44
appreciate it nice to be with you thanks
73:47
everyone thanks everyone all right um we
73:50
will see you and uh at one of our next
73:52
events over the week so please go online
73:54
and take a look at the calendar and
73:56
attend some of our other events bye
73:58
everyone.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿