ケルトン 2022/03/02 Fadhel Kaboubさんのツイート Economics for the Clueless Scientist - How do we pay for it? with Stepha...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Economics for the Clueless Scientist - How do we pay for it? with Stepha...
2022年03月02日(水) 16:30 は
2022年03月03日(木) 06:30 です。
時差は 14時間 です。
～～
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
やわらかい政治家は、輸出ロビーの手にパテを持っています。
輸出はコストであり、輸入は利益です。 #MMTtrade #MMT
#fuelpoverty
～～～
Kelton:
well thank you very much and thank you
uh for inviting us both to be with you
this evening it is uh
look it's a great pleasure and i really
enjoy uh having an opportunity to engage
with groups like yours okay you're not a
group of economists don't sell yourself
short when you say i forget what you
build this uh event as but the clueless
or something listen i i'm quite
confident that you know a whole heck of
a lot about a lot of things that are
important than i will ever uh come close
to knowing so we may be clueless about
different things but i know that i'm
with a very smart group of people and
i'm happy to have an opportunity to talk
with you about
a little bit of what i consider my area
of expertise so let me dive in i'm not
going to do a slideshow presentation
those are all over the internet you can
google my name and find uh lord knows
how many you know public talks and i'm
standing there going through slides if
that's what you're
interested in after hearing some of what
i have to say there's lots out there you
can you can go and find including a ted
talk which might be interesting and
useful as a way of just distilling
the core concepts of mmt into something
like 12 minutes so
uh i just want to have kind of a
conversation and i'm most interested in
the exchange of ideas that will take
place after this so
i'll i'll talk for a little while i i
don't know if i'll eat up 30 minutes but
we'll see what happens
um
let me start by saying
what i think are the important
conclusions that i want to leave you
with
you know
one of the things that the pandemic did
i believe
is to demonstrate in just
all of its naked candor right
how the federal
government's budget works why it's not
like a household budget
how congress was able to conjure into
existence
more than five trillion dollars in the
span of 12 months
just a year or so after
uh lawmakers
told us that you know everything had to
be paid for and there was no money to do
big things and we had fiscal crises
looming into the future and that we all
needed to be very worried about budget
deficits and the debt and so forth you
know think back to
the presidential campaign right leading
up to the 2020 elections we all probably
watched many of these debates we saw a
very crowded field of democratic
hopefuls right what were there 17 19 at
one point in time
all vying to become a democratic nominee
and each of them had with varying
degrees of ambition
a platform that they ran on cancel a
little bit of student loan debt cancel a
good chunk cancel all of it do medicare
for all do a green new deal or do some
climate related investments do this do
that right everybody had a platform
and everybody had a way to pay for
all of the spending that they were
proposing to do
whether it was a 16 trillion dollar
green new deal or something far less
ambitious
democratic presidential hopefuls lined
up and everybody laid out a blueprint
for us and said
this is what we want to spend
and this is how we are prepared to pay
for it and almost all of it involved
raising a variety of taxes mainly on
higher income earning uh individuals
corporations uh and the very wealthy and
so forth and then we were told we would
be in a position to afford to do these
things to tackle some of our biggest
challenges
okay
so
fast forward just a period of months
right we get the election behind us
uh
well the pandemic happens even before
the election right
so the pandemic hits and in march of
2020
uh
we are told
before the election the pandemic hits
and we are told
that all of a sudden we can do 2.2
trillion dollars in the form of the
cares act right this fiscal package
the first big package that congress uh
passed
committing 2.2 trillion dollars where
did it come from how did they do it
there was no
dragging of their feet ringing of their
hands big uh you know
big debate about whose taxes were going
to increase to allow this to happen and
so forth the votes were there congress
wrote the bill passed the legislation
and the money went out
and then they followed it up at the end
of the year with 900 billion more
and then
biden is elected and after the
inauguration the democrats have the
house they have the senate they have the
white house and they deliver a 1.9
trillion dollar package in the form of
the american
rescue plan act right 1.9 trillion so
from march of 2020 to march of 2021 you
get some five trillion dollars committed
from congress to support the economy to
help us recover
support incomes and jobs and all the
rest of it and look at the results we
had the shortest recession in u.s
history now the shortest recession on
recovery
poverty fell for the first time the
economy went down
and instead of poverty increasing
poverty fell
during the downturn
we restore we are restoring jobs at the
fastest clip on record
we had a provision in the last major
piece of legislation that lifted about
40 percent of all the children who were
living in poverty in this country out of
poverty with just a single provision
called the child tax credit right
and the list goes on and on
we did all of these things and we did
them in ways that we were told were
essentially impossible spending must be
paid for adding to the deficit will
produce all of these terribly risky
outcomes including spiraling interest
rates and the risk of default and you
know you hearken back to what happened
to a number of countries in europe after
the financial crisis 2007 2008 and all
of the sorts of things
the myths that were drilled into our
heads over so many years and decades
about fiscal policy deficits the
national debt just sort of started to
fall away when the pandemic hit and i
think this was a very good thing right
imagine what the policy response would
have looked like if we had allowed
all of those things to hamstring us and
to force us to do less than we were
capable of doing which by the way
is what happened after the financial
crisis in 2007-2008
the policy response from congress i'm
talking about fiscal policy was nowhere
near as bold and ambitious as what we
got this time around and a big part of
the reason why had to do with concerns
about finding the money about increasing
deficits adding to the debt we were
watching this debt crisis unfold in
europe and we were looking over there
and you know we had leading economists
at the time telling us that if we don't
get our fiscal house in order the united
states of america we would end up like
greece we would be next so we did this
pivot to austerity where we started
hearing a focus on the need to reduce
deficits to avoid increasing the
national debt to get spending under
control and all of that sort of stuff
and what happened
what happened is that we had the most
anemic recovery on record coming out of
the financial crisis jobs came back very
slowly it took about seven years to
recover all of the jobs that were lost
in the great recession the fiscal policy
response was weak and as a consequence
the economic recovery was weak and then
you can draw conclusions about what
happened in subsequent election cycles
when after seven years you know we were
still clawing back jobs and the jobs
that were coming back were by and large
inferior to the jobs that were lost they
were lower pay lower hour jobs
americans were dissatisfied and
democrats lost
uh so we start off very differently this
time you know a much better fiscal
response the economy performs much
better in terms of the aggregates right
this is not to diminish um a lot of
hardship that many families continue to
face you know in terms of getting jobs
fully restored and and the rest of it
but if you watched the state of the
union address last night then you heard
what i heard which were six references
to the deficit
i'm talking about the government deficit
do you know how many references there
were to the deficit in the prior
four years of well the previous
administration those four state of the
union addresses
zero
in all four years donald trump did not
refer to the government deficit once
in any state of the union address he
referred to the trade deficit twice and
it referred to our infrastructure
deficit once
so in my book
i have a chapter chapter seven is called
the deficits that matter
and this is what i desperately hope that
people like you
uh you know getting hopefully you know
some new ways of thinking from foddle
and from me this evening and from others
that you're going to bring in to
participate in this
hopefully we're going to
find a way to center the deficits that
matter and to stay really focused on
you know delivering an economic and a
social agenda
uh
that recognizes that the number that
falls out of the budget box at the end
of every year is not the thing to be
preoccupied with it's not the thing that
matters what matters are the real
economic outcomes are we building and
delivering a healthy economy do we have
a balanced economy do we have enough
jobs for everyone who wants to work
can we keep inflation down can we keep
levels of income and wealth inequality
with intolerable bans i'm not saying
everything has to be perfectly equal
egalitarian distribution i'm saying
that the kind of inequities that exist
today are simply far too extreme they're
bad for the way our economy operates and
they're bad for the way our democracy
functions so we've got infrastructure
deficits and god knows the climate
deficit needs to top the list we had a
report from the intergovernmental panel
on climate change yesterday i'm sure you
know most if not all of you saw that
though the sirens are getting louder and
louder the warnings are getting more and
more dire
and
you know there was
555 billion dollars in the initial
proposed buildback buildback better act
for climate-related investments
that amounts to just 55 billion
or so annually
it would have been the
biggest investment in climate that we've
ever had in the united states of america
but at the same time
woefully inadequate given the magnitude
of the challenges we face so we need
five to ten times that amount and until
unless and until we are able to break
free
of
the old ways of thinking about the
government's budget and what it means to
be fiscally responsible and and the rest
of it we're just never going to get
there and you've already seen it right
we couldn't the the democrats couldn't
pass that bill and in part
uh concerns over deficits and the
national debt are a reason why senator
manchin in particular raising those
concerns so let me just back up a step
and tell you where mmt starts as a
framework of analysis right we're
economists this is the macroeconomic
framework
that provides the lens through which we
think about and evaluate analyze
economic policy
so in a country like the united states
like japan like the uk like canada right
like china well these are countries that
issue what we can call a sovereign
currency okay
so we have a monetary system in place
today
where the currency our currency the u.s
dollar is no longer tethered to gold and
we don't have a fixed exchange rate
system where the federal government says
we pledge to convert the currency the
dollar
into gold at a fixed price or into
anything else at a fixed price right we
don't have a currency that's tethered in
to something that we could run out of
something that's finite
we have a floating exchange rate fiat
currency
and
it's important because there is a degree
of policy space that opens up
when a country adopts a monetary system
like the one we have today leaving
behind
a fixed exchange rate system that
robs you of that degree of policy space
okay
so one of the things that you want to
recognize when you're talking about the
spending capacity of a country like the
united states is that you can never run
out of money you know after 2007 2008
financial crisis
i remember watching an interview with
then president barack obama and this is
as the crisis was just unfolding i mean
we were
right there on the verge of a major
economic meltdown deficits were
beginning to explode because the economy
was collapsing when the economy
collapses the government's deficit
automatically increases remember
the deficit is just the difference
between two numbers okay one of the
numbers is how many dollars the
government spends into the economy each
year and the other number is how many
dollars the government subtracts back
out mostly through taxation
so we have this idea that government
deficits are
inherently irresponsible that it's
evidence that the government is
mismanaging its finances something's
gone wrong why is the government budget
in deficit
don't don't fall for that okay
the government's budget
in deficit means that it's adding more
to the economy than it is subtracting
away so if the government has let's say
a trillion dollar
fiscal deficit
it means it is depositing a trillion
dollars into some other part of the
economy
every deficit every government deficit
is good for someone
the question is for whom and for what
are those deficits being used right
in whose interests are they
operating are we using deficits to deal
with our uh
you know the climate change and our
crumbling infrastructure and inadequate
housing and healthcare or we using
deficits to deliver windfalls to large
corporations and the people at top of
the income distribution which is what we
did
in 2017 republicans did this passing
these huge tax cuts that overwhelmingly
benefited those at the very top right
those who at least need the help but
make no mistake every deficit is good
for someone okay the questions for whom
and for what are we using deficits so
you look back at president obama
commenting as the economy was melting
down he's asked at what point do we run
out of money
and he actually said
to the american people on national
television we're out of money now
those are his exact words we're out of
money now
and
i remember that felt like a gut punch
right because i was among the people who
had
very high hopes uh for what the obama
administration and democrats would be
able to do with respect to a wide range
of uh challenges including climate and
as soon as those words came out of his
mouth i thought well
you know essentially there it goes uh
there goes the the hope and change sort
of um pitch just started to evaporate
right so you've got to understand why
being the issuer of the currency with a
monetary system like the one we have
today
means never having to ask how will we
pay for it
that's the easy part the easiest part of
all of this is coming up with the money
now
asterisk right
if the votes are there the money is
there and that's what we saw in 12
months time when congress voted not once
not twice but three times for major
packages that kicked out five trillion
dollars without increasing taxes without
handwriting about how to pay for it they
wrote the legislation the votes were
there and the money went out
so
what you have to realize is
if you can collect enough votes to pass
a piece of legislation the money will
always be there this is the easy part
the challenge right couple the two-fold
at least finding the votes securing the
votes when you have
people like senator manchin or senator
cinema
who don't want to vote for one reason or
the other
because there are things in the proposed
legislation that they don't like then
you obviously can't pass a bill if you
don't have the votes but suppose you get
the votes
then the challenge becomes
managing the spending in a way that is
responsible so saying that the
government doesn't have a financial
constraint like the rest of us do that
its budget doesn't work like a household
budget that it can just commit to
spending dollars that it does not have
is not the same as saying
the government can just spend whatever
it wants and never have to worry about
anything because it can't go broke like
a household or a private business no
okay there are limits
but the limit is not
financial it is not running out of money
it is not turning into greece the
relevant constraint the thing to watch
out for
with respect to the government and its
spending is inflation
we have real resource constraints on the
supply side of the economy there are
capacity constraints and if ever there
was a time to illustrate that it's now
right because we all see it every single
day we see the
ships you know uh trying to get in and
off load at ports we know that there are
problems in trucking and freight and
bottlenecks in the supply chain globally
you know semiconductors and computer
chips and all the rest of it so
we've we've gotten this very
kind of for horrible reasons a global
pandemic
a very beautiful illustration of both
what it's possible for congress and
governments around the world to do when
something is deemed a priority the money
can always be there
and a reminder of what where the real
constraints are they're in the supply
side in the productive capacity of our
economies you can't run out of money but
you can run out of things to buy
and what we're dealing with right now
are a number of challenges many of them
related to supply chain and bottlenecks
in production and the rest of it so i
don't mean to suggest that we have the
inflation problem we have today because
the deficits were too big in fact those
that have looked at this and analyzed
that economists and others who have been
doing this kind of research
are reaching the conclusion that
in fact the government fiscal policies
the packages that were passed did a
whole lot to hold the economy together
restore jobs and support uh the recovery
and so forth but in fact added very
little to inflationary pressures that
what's driving the current inflation is
about other things not about running
fiscal policy too hot but i am
recognizing that one of the risks in you
know running the government's budget
very aggressively to address climate
change and other challenges we face
is that you've got to be able to manage
the spending and manage the strain on
your productive capacity responsibly so
that you don't trigger
an inflation problem in your economy so
those are big uh sort of outline uh and
i'm gonna
stop and turn it over to my esteemed
colleague.
23:30
C:
uh yes
yeah before that i was just like to to
just share some uh resources with the
audience yes just for you know
to i guess expand or learn
our learning uh yeah let me just share
this
okay got it
yes yeah so i just want to highlight two
books that uh both our speakers have
contributed to first the deficit myth
uh written by professor kelton new york
times bestseller a great
and very easily readable resource on
modern monetary theory and i think it'll
be a great
purchase of a book if you want to uh
learn about mmt in simple language and
in a very easy fashion uh professor
pablo has also contributed to this
excellent
book on monetary oh sorry
sovereignty in 21st century africa if
you're interested in macroeconomics and
how it applies to the global south and
developing nations we'd also like to
share two books that are interested if
some of you would like to really go in
depth and learn more about
modern monetary theory one is a modern
money theory a primary macroeconomics
for sovereign monetary systems
by el randle ray who's an eminent
scholar of m t
and also
an excellent book
by stephen hale about economics for
sustainable prosperity which
draws on the intersection of
ecological economics and with the
modern monetary
theory
one last thing you know
uh if you attended this event we still
have three other upcoming events uh one
on april 1st about innovation finances
financialization in a pharmaceutical
industry another on april 7th
with another actually excellent mmt
scholar professor pavlina cerneva about
her inequality and a fourth event i saw
a question on the chat about carbon
credits and so on if you're if you're
interested in how to tackle climate
change and the details of the planning
and the financing for how to uh do that
session four on april 13th
is the event for you with the jesse
jenkins and robert hockett
and with that i'll
leave the floor for professor fadel
kabul
um thank you again for the invitation oh
go ahead at least oh sorry i was going
to do just a quick introduction
um
so yeah uh thank you for joining us
is a associate professor of economics at
denison university
and a president of the global institute
for sustainable prosperity his recent
work focuses on the political economy of
the uprisings in the middle east
dr khabib's regional expertise is on the
economies of the united states middle
east and north africa especially tunisia
he is also a co-author of the book we
showed uh previously economic and
monetary sovereignty in 21st century
africa so everybody please welcome dr
fedele kabu
thank you thanks again for for the kind
invitation and for organizing this uh
very important series i'm i'm excited to
be uh to be part of it um i'm sharing my
screen here can you confirm that you see
the the full screen
yes i can't see you so yes yes
okay wonderful so
um what i wanted to cover today after
stephanie's excellent introduction to to
mmt here is a little bit of a look at
the global south and at the climate
crisis from an mmt perspective
there's there's frequently this idea
that mmt only applies in a country like
the us
uh and and we're trying to challenge
this idea with with some specific
uh insight so here we go
see if we can do
so
the starting point for the analysis for
going into the global context is to
understand the concept of monetary
sovereignty and to understand that
different countries have a different
degree of monetary sovereignty you have
countries with no monetary sovereignty a
country like ecuador that completely
dollarized its economy and uses the
foreign currency as the national
currency and then you have countries
with very high degrees of monetary
sovereignty like the u.s like japan like
canada and so on and lots of other
developing countries sort of in between
and the question is what determines
where you sit on this spectrum of
monetary sovereignty this is really what
we're getting into
and then based on the degree of monetary
sovereignty it will determine the
spending capacity that the country has
before it starts hitting the inflation
pressure points so the higher the degree
of monetary sovereignty the more fiscal
spending capacity the government has
with always an eye towards the risks of
inflation which i'll discuss uh shortly
so a country with a high degree of
monetary sovereignty is a country that
issues its own national currency that's
the easy part the second
thing is that it's a country that
collects taxes in the same national
currency most countries can do this and
it gets really tricky with the third and
fourth conditions here
it's a country that only issues bonds
denominated in the national currency in
other words
don't borrow and promise to pay in
foreign currencies in dollars and euros
and other currencies and that is the
case for a lot of developing countries
we'll talk about why that is the case
and how we can
avoid
these traps and number four which is
related to the issue of external debt
that is a country
doesn't fix its exchange rate to the us
dollar or to the euro or to any
commodity like gold in other words you
have a floating exchange rate or a
flexible exchange rate and we'll see why
in many cases developing countries are
trapped into a situation
where they find themselves forced
into a fixed exchange rate system and
i'll talk about how we can undo these
traps and by undoing these traps i mean
gradually moving from a low degree of
monetary sovereignty to a higher degree
of monetary sovereignty so here we go
a key distinction that stephanie made a
few minutes ago that i'd like to
highlight is the distinction between
currency issuer and currency users so
don't try this at home this is not for
you know individuals to go into a
spending spree and it's not for states
or municipalities at the local level
where currency users to to think in
terms of monetary sovereign in terms of
spending capacity so this is for federal
government for a national government at
the at the national level
so a quick understanding of what
the situation is for developing
countries developing countries typically
have structural trade deficits which
lead to
high external debt meaning debt
denominated in foreign currencies
usually dollars or euros or british
bounds and so on and the major root
causes of this structural trade deficit
that leads to this high external debt
are three basic deficiencies one is high
levels of energy imports and that is
actually true even for countries that
are
big oil exporters uh oil and gas
exporters why because they typically
export crude oil and then re-import the
refined petrochemicals the higher value
added petrochemicals gasoline kerosene
and other petrochemicals for industrial
production number two high levels of
food deficit very high dependence on
imported food
and number three the structural
industrialization deficiency whereby you
have developing countries essentially
specializing in assembly line type of
manufacturing in other words they import
high value added content they import
capital they import the inputs the
intermediate components and then they
have low cost labor
racing to the bottom to set up assembly
line type of manufacturing or even worse
than that in terms of the lowest value
added content of of production it's
literally extraction of natural
resources for export with no value added
so when you add up these three traps you
end up with the structural trade deficit
that puts downward pressure on the value
of your currency relative to the dollar
so you have currency depreciation and
that currency depreciation literally
means that your currency is cheaper or
weaker relative to the dollar so
anything you're going to buy the next
morning whether it's food whether it's
medicine whether it's computers or
medical equipment all of that is going
to be imported at a much higher cost in
real terms which means you're importing
inflation so now you could face the
potential of social and political unrest
because people can't afford food can't
deport transportation or heating and
cooling and so on so that puts the
government in a very
difficult situation facing potential
social unrest this is where the
government has to intervene
artificially to keep the value of their
currency artificially stable and that
artificial stability is done basically
by
having the central bank or a foreign or
the ministry of finance essentially
borrow in in foreign currencies
hi buddy
can you go upstairs please
[Music]
okay later please can you go upstairs
um
so the
the currency depreciation essentially
forces the government to
stabilize the exchange rate by borrowing
dollars and euros and as a result
accumulating external debt in order to
stave off this potential instability
related to food and fuel price inflation
so the mainstream economic model has a
pretty standard answer to this and it's
basically austerity the government needs
to
reduce its spending reduce its debt
commitment reduce the social subsidies
for food and fuel and so on uh debt
restructuring when you reach levels of
external debt that become unsustainable
my own country tunisia is in this
situation as we speak negotiating with
the imf austerity plans and debt
restructuring plans
also on the table privatizing
state-owned enterprises where the
government would sell the airport or the
national airline company or whatever
industry the government controls and the
idea is to generate dollars to pay the
external debt
market labor market flexibility in other
words weaken labor unions lower wages to
attract more foreign investment into the
economy
foreign investment or foreign direct
investment fdi and export-led growth
become the key
strategies for developing countries that
follow the the mainstream approach the
imf recommendations typically the idea
here is to offer an attractive
investment environment for foreign
companies to come in and set up shop but
what are they looking for typically in
developing countries lower wages lower
regulation and all kinds of incentives
no taxes um cheaper electricity
subsidized electricity subsidized water
lower environmental standards so it's a
it's a race to the bottom but it's
actually worse than export-oriented
growth because foreign direct investment
not only brings the foreign capital and
the technology and imports the fuel to
run the industry but also takes the
profits at the end of the year and it's
usually
repatriated to the global north so it's
even more extractive than your standard
low value edit content manufacturing and
export lead growth
financial liberalization this is the
idea of essentially opening up your
financial market your stock market
liberalizing it for foreign investors
you typically end up doing this
artificially by raising interest rates
by deregulating the financial system and
you end up with the speculative bubble
we've seen this in south africa we've
seen this and uh in mexico and in turkey
and south korea and other places it
leads to a disaster because you get
speculators who are interested in buying
low and selling high and then leaving
the economy with the with the big crisis
tourism is a is a huge
problem that is often perceived as the
solution to these things why because
tourists come in and they create jobs
and they spend they bring dollars to the
economy but we often don't recognize
that the more tourism you have the more
food imports a country has to bring in
the more energy imports you have to
bring in to serve the tourists to heat
and cool the hotels to transport people
and so on so it ends up being a net
negative in many cases and this is
pre-covered of course so tourism itself
unless it's ecological tourism unless
we're talking about a country that has
renewable energy security that has food
sovereignty then tourism becomes a net
benefit but for most countries we're not
there yet
remittances reliance on workers
uh
working abroad and sending money back
home well this produces a brain drain as
most of you probably acknowledge here so
it's not a sustainable strategy to get
out of an external debt crisis so we end
up with a race to the bottom more
external debt and essentially more of
the same since the 1980s we've been in
this perpetual
external debt crisis for most developing
countries
so we're told there's no alternative but
what i'm suggesting here is that there
is an alternative to get out of these
structural traps
to give you just one example
this is the composition of bolivia's
exports and i could have picked any
other country a very similar situation
mostly raw materials uh very low value
added content of exports and then you
look at the import it's higher
value-added content it's uh
medical equipment it's cars it's a lot
of food imports a lot of energy imports
and so on so very typical trap for most
developing countries now you take this
on a global scale and you look at the
global south versus the global north
and you net out all global financial
transactions
including aid including
debt payments exports import foreign
direct investment remittances all of
those financial transactions the net
amount as you can see here
from
the uh the the green line right here and
i'm reading it on this axis right here
this is net resource transfers between
global north and global south that
number right there is two trillion
dollars and it's negative which means
two trillion dollars are moving from the
poorest countries in the world to the
richest countries in the world now this
is a big problem because presumably the
model of economic development was
designed to help developing countries
after independence catch up with the
industrialized world but what we're
seeing here not only there's no catching
up but we're getting deeper into the
trap notice this green line is going
further and further into the negative
territory now there is no way we're
going to put a dent in climate change or
any major issues unless we fix this this
is a broken
global financial architecture that sucks
trillions of dollars from the poorest
countries on a regular basis so that's
one of the pieces of information i want
to make sure here most of you are
familiar with this picture global
income distribution a major problem but
to to add the climate effects to it what
we find is that
most co2 emissions are actually done by
the richest uh countries and the richest
individuals in the world so there is a
there's an added responsibility for
repairing the damage to the financial
system repairing the damage when it
comes to the planet uh problem so now
back to this spectrum of monetary
sovereignty and let's see where the
global south is and where the global
north is the global south is typically
in this low degree of monetary
sovereignty end of the spectrum why
because of very high levels of external
debt
and
the following reasons so low degree of
monetary sovereignty uh the global south
is not responsible for climate change
high extern when you look at co2
emissions since the industrial
revolution has been mostly the global
north the global south has high
levels of external debt low productive
capacity to decarbonize the system and
build alternative
economic systems
low capacity for research and
development because it's not only about
building the new technology it's about
actually investing in material science
research energy efficiency so that we
decarbonize the system without
destroying more of the ecosystem in
terms of extraction of minerals and so
on producing a truly circular economy
requires a massive investment in
research and development
and the global south suffers from
neo-colonial extractive economic system
that i just described on the other hand
the global north
has oops this should say high degree of
monetary sovereignty it's on this end of
the spectrum it is responsible for
climate change when you look at most co2
emissions since the industrial
revolution
even if you take into account the recent
newcomers to the big emitters club china
and india they're also producing for
consumption in the global north so the
responsibility is still in the global
north low to no levels of external debt
for most countries on on this end of the
spectrum japan's ex japan's national
debt 100 in japanese yen u.s national
debt 100 in u.s dollars so no external
debt to speak of high productive
capacity high potential for research and
development
and benefits the global north clearly
has benefited and continues to benefit
from the extraction of resources
financial and real resources from the
global north and that's why
i'm talking here about a mechanism for
reparations repairing the broken
financial architecture that sucks two
trillion dollars from the global south
repairing the economic the global
economic infrastructure so that we allow
developing countries to truly develop
and build productive capacity and
gradually move from this end of the
spectrum
to a higher degree of monetary
sovereignty so i always think of this in
terms of reparations reparations for
climate debt reparations for colonial
debt and reparations doesn't mean simply
monetary compensation it starts with
debt cancellation for developing
countries
and then you actually have a transfer of
financial resources so that the two
trillion dollars that are moving in the
wrong direction start moving in the
right direction and number three
reparations in terms of actually
repairing the structures so that we have
productive capacity and resilient
economies with resilient energy
production renewable energy production
both in the global north and the global
south resilient agricultural sectors
that can produce food sovereignty in the
global south and that's where we can
actually start putting a dent in climate
change and start putting a dent in the
all the global inequities that we've
been talking about the question is how
do we pay for it where does the money
come from do we have the capacity to do
this without causing inflation without
bankrupting countries and and so on
so a global green new deal can we afford
it how do we pay for it this is where
the mmt analysis becomes uh critical so
the standard approach tells us well
governments are limited in terms of how
much they can spend they can tax they
can borrow maybe a little bit but beyond
that that's it we'll we'll have
hyperinflation and we have countries
going bankrupt what mmt is saying is
that we have this additional spending
capacity this bright yellow space that's
not infinite it's constrained it's
limited by the risk of inflation
so as as an m t i become obsessed with
the risk of inflation what actually
determines the risk of inflation and for
me it's
two things one is the lack of productive
capacity logistical capacity supply
chains capacity
labor skills available
those are the real resources when we run
out of those and we continue to spend
we'll have inflation the good news about
this productive capacity is that it's
producible we can create millions of
jobs and invest more to increase the
productive capacity in strategic areas
in renewables and research and
development in
transportation and agriculture
renewables and so on so that's the good
news the second component however that
causes inflation and can fuel and
exacerbate inflation pressure points is
what i call abusive
market power and abusive price setting
behavior that is to say when you have
key players in the system domestically
and internationally who can raise prices
simply because they can when you think
of the global food system we literally
have five global mega corporations that
control the entire
global food supply system
and of course they use their market
power and they abuse their market power
so
how do we tame that risk of inflation
that comes out of abusive market power
you don't reduce it by
not spending by implementing austerity
and saying there's nothing we can do you
tame the risk of inflation from abusive
market power by taxing and regulating
their abusive market power out of
existence
by applying antitrust laws by
democratizing those markets and making
them more competitive and that is
fundamentally a question of political
choice that is a question of democracy
do we have governments of the people by
the people for the people or governments
of the corporations for the corporations
and and so on
and it's
a question of democracy it's a question
of corruption it's a
question of
the influence the power and influence of
oligarchical powers in the democratic
process so these are the real
constraints it's not about finding the
money like stephanie kelton just
explained it's about finding finding the
votes to implement and fund the real
strategic
choices that includes spending
strategically where capacity is lacking
and taxing and regulating abusive power
when as as needed
and that's the paradigm shift that mmt
is is proposing now the issue of
inflation as i just explained
is not about finding the money is not
about any of this and yet we have
central bankers around the world since
the 2008 financial crisis essentially
admitting that they have no reliable
theory of inflation and yet they're
still convinced they can target
inflation even today what are we going
to do in the u.s and the rest of the
world everybody's saying we're going to
raise interest rates to tame the sources
of inflation and to fight this
covet-induced inflation when the actual
inflation pressure points that we're
experiencing right now are way outside
the jurisdiction of the central bank
in tunisia and most developing countries
the sources of inflation are food
imports and energy imports energy
imports controlled by opec
food imports are controlled by five
global corporations now how can the
central bank of a small developing
country raise interest rates
domestically and the hope that it will
convince opec to lower oil prices or in
the hope that it will convince the five
mega corporations that control food
prices that they should lower their
their prices it's got nothing to do with
it inflation is way outside their
jurisdiction and yet they believe that
they can cause so much economic pain to
to their own people
in the hope of targeting inflation and
aiming inflation so i usually use this
gift just to give you an idea of what
central bankers are are doing here's the
ecb trying to target inflation for a
decade and it's not even funny it's all
over the place these are the ecb
expectations or expected inflation
rates and this is the real inflation
rate it's got nothing to do with it it's
managed in in in uh and created in a
space that's way outside their their
jurisdiction so what i'd like to suggest
and this is counter-intuitive so bear
with me here is that from an mmt
perspective
increasing government spending can
actually fight inflation whereas the
mainstream is telling us if you have
more government spending it will cause
inflation they're blaming the covet
inflation that we're experiencing right
now on federal spending to help the poor
the unemployed people displaced with the
pandemic
and so hear me out here's the mainstream
narrative
they say this can't happen there's not
this doesn't make any sense so here's
how they explain it they say let's say a
country like tunisia wants to spend two
billion dinars on health and education
two important sectors in domestic
currency this is not external debt or
anything like that they say here's
what's going to happen more imports of
food and energy and medical equipment
we're going to have a larger trade
deficit it's going to lead to a weaker
exchange rate the dinar relative to the
dollar in the euro are we going to have
a pass-through inflation effect in other
words everything the country imports
food medicine and so on
it's going to be more expensive with the
effects of a weaker exchange rate
we're going to have more external debt
because now the central bank has to
fight this inflation and borrow more the
imf and foreign lenders will step in and
say spending cuts austerity you can't do
this you have a debt crisis so we're
going to have less investment in health
and education we're back to square one
and we're going to have more
unemployment more brain drain more
social economic political tensions more
of the same and they're gonna say we
told you there is no alternative haven't
you heard you know margaret thatcher
since the 80s saying there is no
alternative to austerity to all of this
stuff
now here's scenario number two the mmt
approach to actually fighting inflation
in a developing country
we're going to spend the same amount 2
billion dinars in the case of tunisia
except now we're going to spend 1
billion dinars on health and education
and then we're going to spend the second
billion dinars on increasing domestic
productive capacity
in food production renewable energy
production renewable energy efficiency
and crackdown on corruption abuse of
price setters importers of luxury goods
via taxation and regulation so the same
amount of spending
except with a different composition with
a different strategic focus here's the
impact fewer imports of food and energy
which means a lower trade deficit which
means stable or even stronger exchange
rate over time which means no imported
inflation which means lower external
debt higher credit ratings for the
country an increase in foreign currency
reserves which gives the central bank
more firepower more resilience to
external shocks in the future related to
food and energy prices and lower carbon
footprint because you're producing
renewables and you're producing
domestically more employment less brain
drain improved quality of life for all
now we're talking
so we spend more
to tame the sources of inflation not to
fuel the sources of inflation so now
what is the limit to the spending is it
actually two billion in ours maybe it's
three maybe it's four maybe it's seven
what determines the real limit of how
much the government can spend in this
particular case
is the availability of real resources do
we have the skilled labor do we have the
logistical capabilities do we have the
real resources do we have the
administrative uh managerial
capabilities to expand and scale up this
type of uh intervention and that's what
determines the real capacity of of uh of
spending it's not borrowing externally
it's not finding the money so to speak
the last thing i want to add here to
close this and kind of open up to a
broader conversation is the importance
of industrial strategies and this is
typically a problem for small developing
countries because you can't really
industrialize if you have a market a
domestic market of 10 million consumers
you need to hit economies of scale in
other words you need to produce on a
larger scale and when you do that you
don't have enough of your consumers
domestically so you have to export you
have to compete with germany and japan
and so on and it's too late to break
into those markets
today so how do you industrialize more
strategically and this is why i always
emphasize the importance of south south
strategic partnerships large trading
blocks in the global south with
complementary resources and capabilities
making a priority list for the
industries that they actually need for
their internal resilience and those
industries
will allow you to scale up to hit those
economies of scale and build these
horizontal linkages that allow you to
capture more and more value-added
content within the trading block and you
focus on collective resilience
you start with food security renewable
energy security water security education
training health care these are the
productive capacity priorities that you
need to prioritize on a regional scale
and if that means partnership with some
countries in the global north so be it
this doesn't have to be exclusive but it
has to be resilience based and it has to
be aimed at repairing the structural
damage that i described earlier and this
is how a country over time acquires a
higher degree of economic and monetary
sovereignty and if a country or regional
bloc lacks this very basic level of
resilience it has no bargaining chips it
can't walk away from a negotiation table
for trade agreements or anything with
the global north and it will continue to
lose its economic and and monetary
sovereignty so to conclude we have less
than 10 years to go maybe eight years to
transform the global economy to tackle
the the key problems that we have on on
the climate front and we're not going to
be able to do it with the current
policies the current uh climate corr
policies inequality cri we have all of
these multiple crises that require bold
transformative action and the current uh
climate jobs policies are too weak too
slow too expensive and effective and
dangerous literally dangerous when it
comes to the impact of climate change a
global green new deal so not the u.s
contact school in green
with climate and colonial reparations in
the in the sense that i described today
is possible desirable and affordable and
with that i'm happy to take any
questions thank you again
thank you so much for that presentation
that
[Music]
we have a lot of questions in the chat
so i'm going to
just read some of them off that have
like the uh the most like amount of
upvotes um please feel free to keep
sending questions to the chat and um
in regards to answering the questions
feel free either of you can feel free to
take the question both of you can answer
if one of you feels like one one answers
it uh sufficiently we can go on to the
next one um so just be very uh
conversational and casual how we handle
the questions so
okay so one question here uh from
lindsey fernandez is do you believe this
understanding of the deficit as
described by modern monetary theory is
something that our elected
representatives are already aware of and
generally
and genuinely skeptical of or something
that they reject as more of a talking
point
you want me to jump in with this one
stephanie.
Kelton：
well
so
the answer to the first part of the
question is an unequivocal yes it is
something that they are aware of
um
so after the
2020 election
the congressional progressive caucus
has a tuesday call just a routine call
every tuesday they often invite someone
in to join the call and speak with
members of the caucus the caucus has
about 100 members
and the first tuesday after
president after biden was uh elected
they invited me to join that call and to
talk mmt with members of the progressive
caucus now this was definitely not the
first time that i had talked with
members of the house or senate but it
was the largest single gathering right
i've presented in zooms to a couple of
dozen i've joined lawmakers
on the hill for dinners and
presentations and i've i've worked in
the senate and and so i know that there
are
many people who are
in one of three categories maybe you
know
aware and highly supportive
aware and interested in learning
aware
skeptical
okay four categories aware hostile and
so
uh the aware hostile the interesting
thing about the aware hostile group is
that they run economic policy as if
they've already embraced mmt
they just don't want
progressives or democrats
deploying the power of the purse in
pursuit of a progressive agenda or an
agenda that serves a broader
constituency
they like very much just you know
keeping this to themselves and doing
huge tax cuts and other things that make
use of the deficit to serve a narrow
constituency for whom they feel beholden
uh but they don't really want democrats
catching on to the game so i'm obviously
talking about tax cuts and so forth and
you know there was a uh small number of
republicans in the house and in the
senate who have more than once
introduced legislation to condemn
modern monetary theory the most recent
attempt in the senate was
an effort to condemn modern monetary
theory
by um
unanimous consent which means if you
introduce
a resolution like that and you ask for
unanimous consent if nobody comes
forward to object then it just passes
and it would be in the congressional
record that the united states senate had
voted with unanimous consent to condemn
modern monetary theory so there was uh
an intervention and in this case senator
bernie sanders went down and objected
and
so prevented that from happening but
anyway
there are a lot of people who
are extremely supportive i think i would
put at the top of the list the chairman
of the house budget committee john
yarmuth who has done more
in an open way
to publicly embrace
mmt than i think any other member of
congress but
uh there are lots and lots of people who
either quietly uh or not so quietly
are
are supportive of the work that we're
doing.
F:
yeah absolutely i'll just add one one
thing here which is you know the the 535
people that we're talking about here in
washington dc they have the power of the
purse and what we're saying is that they
can spend strategically
to tackle climate change inequality
child poverty and all of that but also
tax and regulate abusive market power
and that's the part that there some of
them at least are not willing to do
because you'll be
essentially
you know taxing and regulating super
pacs that
bankroll
the democratic party the republican
party and so many of your elections and
here it's a question of democracy this
is a question of is it a government of
the people by the people for the people
or not so when we're talking about you
know the power of the person all of
these things being actually within reach
the real obstacle is not finding the
money it's not about finding the
engineering capabilities and the raw
materials and and the logistical
capabilities to actually tackle climate
change and build a resilient grid we
know how to do this we put a man on the
moon we won world war ii we know how to
get big things done
even with very limited financial
resources and most people think limited
financial resources world war ii came
right after the great depression there
was no money to be taxed no money to be
borrowed how did we go from the most
miserable time to the biggest government
intervention in the history of the
universe and winning the biggest war of
all
right it wasn't because we taxed
somebody or borrowed somebody that was
the easy part of the question all the
economists and policy makers of the time
were thinking where are we going to find
the
aircraft manufacturers to produce enough
jet fighters and tanks and
ammunition to win this thing if we were
thinking during world war ii to go into
this thing in an incremental way like
many people say like send 10 000 troops
every other month and see if we can win
this thing
would be speaking german today
how did we do it we set the priority
straight we focused on the real
productive capacity we shut down detroit
and we told detroit stop producing cars
start producing tanks
and we did it
for for three years we completely
retooled the productive capacity then
the concern was the risk of inflation
all of those workers we hired to build
those tanks and airplanes we pay them
decent wages in a free country they
should be able to go out and buy a car
or house or whatever they want but they
couldn't because we didn't have new cars
new houses so the concern was how do we
tame that potential risk of inflation
well we leveraged the political mood of
the nation and we convinced them to
postpone their consumption until after
the war not because we needed their
money so yes they invested in freedom
bonds and war bonds not to fund the war
the war was already funded but to
postpone their demand for consumer goods
until after the war and what happened
after the war we had plenty of
capabilities to build homes and build
cars
but guess what we didn't have enough
productive capacity to produce furniture
to put in those homes so what did
boeing do after the war they converted
their productive capacity from producing
tanks and airplane engines to producing
furniture literally furniture so we know
how to manage big massive intervention
without causing inflation and with
achieving those those targets all of
those were political decisions
carefully
made strategic decisions it's just today
they told us oh we can't do that well we
just did it with covet right 2.2
trillion dollars appeared nobody
objected to it because it was a national
priority and the concern was
the availability of real productive
capacity doctors nurses hospital beds
vaccines that was the problem it wasn't
finding the money
and yet
today
two years later they look back and tell
us oh this inflation we're experiencing
it's not because
big you know cartels are raising prices
because they can because logistical
disruptions to the global supply chain
no no no we're gonna blame it on poor
kids that we supported with the tax
credit we're going to blame it on the
unemployed and people displaced
because we gave so much of that
government spending so it's very
important for us to
you know
not allow the narrative to be hijacked
yet again about what actually causes
inflation and call their bluff and mmt
shines this bright light and allows us
to call their bluff and allows us to
democratize the public policy making
process
truly democratize it not leave it in the
hands of power and influence of a
handful of lobbyists and corporate
influencers
who can convince a big chunk of the
senate of congress to do as they please
awesome thank you for that answer guys
um next question is
how is it exactly that the trade deficit
of a country leads to inflation does it
always do this
um and does it have to do with whether
the debt is uh based in a foreign
currency or not and again like why does
this deficit necessarily lead to
inflation in place
i'll take this one so a trade deficit
doesn't always lead to inflation so the
the countries i was describing um were
their trade deficit was forcing them
into a situation
to borrow in foreign currencies
in order to stabilize the exchange rate
and they had to do it because it was
concentrated in key areas of
vulnerability food imports energy
imports medical imports typically high
value added content of manufacturing but
a country like the us we have a large
trade deficit
and we never borrow and promise to pay
in foreign currencies
anything that's available for sale
in the world for us dollars we can
afford it as a as a nation so we don't
have a problem with the with the trade
deficit in in the u.s
countries
also that have relatively large trade
deficits but happen to be able to offset
them with foreign direct investment into
their financial system uh or or are able
to pay for their food deficits and
energy deficits with with other exports
they don't have to worry about this they
don't have to go into
a currency crisis they don't have to go
into an external debt crisis so that's
why i emphasize in the case of
developing countries you can't run an
economy without food you can't run an
economy without energy and if you don't
have the resilience
and the sovereignty in the food sector
and the energy sector you have to import
those and now you're in trouble because
the rest of your economy is not
productive enough to offset your need
for for imports i'll give you an example
saudi arabia is a big
energy exporter oil exporter
but it's also has very weak
vulnerability in the food sector very
weak productive capacity and almost
everything else
so it can temporarily or artificially
kind of hide its vulnerability as long
as there's oil revenues but if you take
away the oil sector
the saudi economy looks like most
developing countries has no food
sovereignty has low value added content
of manufacturing and its currency will
depreciate and it will quickly turn into
a
net energy importer
if if the rest of the world decarbonizes
and oil is no longer needed saudi arabia
will will turn into an energy importer
will have to decarbonize its economy and
will face currency depreciation will
face a debt crisis like many developing
countries
so
that doesn't mean that you have to be a
big energy exporter or a big food
exporter to build that resilience
but you have to balance your economy
based on
key factors of resilience that allow you
to withstand external shocks without
having to implement austerity measures
and throw your people under the bus
great thank you um
next question is why would the global
north want to change uh this system did
they benefit uh from so much in terms of
uh extraction from the global south um
how can we convince the u.s to take on
policies um that would change that
relationship
well actually the current situation
happening in the ukraine is case in
point had germany and western europe had
renewable energy
capacity had they started investing
massively and decarbonizing the system
we wouldn't be in this
pickle with
germany and western europe essentially
having to continue buying oil and gas
from russia despite the conflictual
relationship that they have in terms of
uh the invasion of the ukraine and so on
so that's one
it's just a geopolitical mess when you
have to depend on a country like russia
or any other country
and it completely changes your
sovereignty right from in terms of your
your political beliefs your
philosophical beliefs what of what's
right and what's wrong that's point
number one point number two there's a
concept that um
several colleagues for decades now have
been working on it's called the carbon
bubble right
you're familiar with the stock market
bubble overvalued assets well the carbon
bubble refers to stock market value or
financial assets that are over inflated
because of the impact of
the fossil fuel industry and with the
impact of climate change as we
decarbonize we're going to make those
assets what we call stranded assets
useless assets that will lose a bunch of
value for example if you invest today in
coastal properties and hotels and
resorts and coastal areas that will be
hit with the impact of climate change a
flooded hotel is worth nothing a flooded
hotel doesn't generate a revenue stream
so that becomes a stranded asset and
that its value will deflate that's
that's the carbon bubble all the oil and
gas infrastructure that we're building
as we speak today will become stranded
assets as we actually take action and
start to decarbonize the system so
there is a built-in incentive from the
financial aspect to actually
uh start deleveraging the balance sheets
of your pension fund of your university
endowment is probably packed with
climate risk as we speak
so there's an incentive in the global
north because the biggest impact of the
carbon bubble will be in the global
north number two there's a thing we call
climate refugees you know there's a few
you know hundred thousand refugees from
syria and other parts of the world
caused a panic in 2015 and 2016 in
europe just wait for
the actual impact of climate change and
this is not me saying it the the world
bank who are not known as the tree
huggers of the world
their estimates for
millions and millions of people from the
global south
will be moving in the next by 2050
because of the impact of climate change
do we have the resilient infrastructure
in the global north to welcome millions
of refugees the schools the the food
capacity the transportation the energy
the the housing capacity we're not even
close so yes we do have an incentive to
fix this and number three as i said
earlier it's the moral ethical
responsibility that we have we've caused
most of the damage in the global south
and we have the moral ethical
responsibility to fix it the good news
is that we do have
the
spending capacity as i explained the the
fiscal capacity we do have the research
and development capacity we do have all
that it takes to actually do the right
thing
and fix this broken system
awesome thank you um
next question is how would studying the
economic impact of legislation be done
differently in a world where mmt is
fully embraced as opposed to how it's
currently
done with the cbo.
Kelton：
well
so as somebody who
served on the senate budget committee
and
participated
in
drafting legislation and
working with other staffers who were
drafting legislation i can tell you this
in my time working in the senate
i do not believe i ever heard
once a staffer or a member of the united
states senate
talk about inflation in the same breath
as they were talking about
you know
whether to vote for a trillion dollar
infrastructure package or supported or
something like that it's not that it's
an afterthought it's that it is not
a thought at all isn't it's not part of
the calculus it's you know inflation is
the federal reserve's thing and congress
doesn't believe that it needs to pause
at any moment and think about
whether
major legislation that they're thinking
about voting for
carries inflation risk whether these
things they call pay fors
you know
the
this the way that we describe a pay for
is completely wrong-headed the idea is
when a bill is paid for it means if
you're proposing to spend let's say a
trillion dollars
doing infrastructure investments or
whatever that you have a plan
to remove a trillion dollars from some
other part of the economy either by
reducing spending in some other category
of the budget or by raising taxes so
that you generate a trillion dollars in
revenue so that you can go to the
congressional budget office say here's
my bill will you evaluate this and tell
me if it's a good bill.
but did i do a
good job and cbo takes it and cares
really about one big thing
what are the budgetary impacts of the
proposed legislation
so
if cbo's analysis shows that this can be
carried out
and it won't increase the deficit it
won't add to the debt
cbo assigns it a good score
and lawmakers think oh we did a very
good job we wrote a good bill it
fiscally responsible doesn't increase
deficit or add to the debt and mmt says
no no no you're this is this is the
wrong way to think about this right
what you want is to back your way into
these so-called pay fors and i would
stop calling them that because it's
misleading i would just call them
offsets you want to back your way into
the offsets i would start with the
presumption
that you may not need the offsets at all
there might be enough fiscal space
available to allow you to do whatever it
is you want to do
without the need to offset the spending
in any way start there right if it's a
small bill sometimes there are bills for
like a five billion dollar investment in
a youth job program or something
there's a very good chance that you can
do that without the need
for offsets but if you the bigger you
get is certainly as you move toward you
know green new deal or something like
that you're going to have to think a lot
harder and the offsets are going to
become important as you know depending
on what it is you're trying to
accomplish
so how do you do that
you evaluate the legislation
looking at the
impacts and strains and stresses on the
productive capacity you know if you if
you want to do a big infrastructure
program you know that you need
architects engineers construction
workers you know you need heavy
equipment and steel and concrete
so one of the things you want to do you
know in the old days they would do input
output analysis i would bring that back
i
and i can't get into that and still
allow other people to get questions in
but that's one way to start thinking
about this you got to vet the proposed
legislation
in a way that says can i carry this out
with the resource capacity
right that i have available
uh or do i need to create some offsets
to free up resources to prevent the
spending from being inflationary maybe i
have to turn a three-year infrastructure
program into a five year stretch it into
seven years depending on you know how
the analysis turns out and the same
would be true of you know free college
or anything else you need to do you've
got to ask the question how will you
resource it in real terms not how will
you pay for it and so we need just a
fundamental overhaul of the federal
budgeting process
vetting proposed legislation not for the
budgetary impacts but for the potential
inflation risk and you know i i still
think that one of the best places to
start with an analysis like that is with
the old input output
framework used to be adopted
during and after world war ii
some countries still do it brazil still
does a lot of input output analysis
absolutely i'll second that
oh yeah so
you know we're
i think
we've talked here about modern monetary
theater from i think more of a
progressive uh sort of left-wing
perspective but i think it applies to
the you know macroeconomics in general
and also someone who's might
have a more of a sort of a libertarian
or right wing lien
might also
you know kind of use modern mighty
theory to kind of push for their
uh policies so how would you say like
see something like a tax cut or
something more of a libertarian
policy proposal how would you see it
from an mmt uh
approach and how or how would you
support it from an mmt approach
i think
exactly the same way that you could
support any other policy you know we're
going to have differences of opinion
when it comes to how to best use the
available fiscal space
but you're quite right you know if if
mmt is a lens or a framework
if i'm an optometrist
my job is to
you know see patients and send them out
with vision that's as close to 20 20 as
i can get them i don't invite the
patient in and sit down and ask about
their politics and what they're going to
do when i fix their vision are they
going to go out and knock off a
convenience store are they going to go
help an old lady across the street right
i don't know what they're going to do
but my job is to give them a clearer
picture
and send them off and in a sense you
know with policymakers that's one thing
that we're trying to accomplish is to
just give a clearer picture of how how
the monetary system works the mechanics
of the federal budget
and how it all works where the real
limits are where the imaginary limits
are sort of clear
clear through the fog so that everybody
can see more clearly and we can have a
more productive debate but we're still
going to have a debate and
we live in a democracy we're going to
elect sometimes republicans will be in
control of the house the senate the
white house sometimes democrats will be
in control and we're going to get the
policies that our elected
representatives vote for at any future
point in time i think the
hope and the goal at least for me is
that mmt first pushes us to a place
where
more of us can participate
in a
democratic way right in the debates and
not be bamboozled by lawmakers who tell
us oh sure we'd love to be able to
tackle climate change and so forth but
there's no money right let's empower
people to have
an understanding of how it all works so
that they can participate more
effectively in those debates push back
against you know lawmakers who try to
pass that sort of a line
um but at the end of the day you know we
get the people and the policies
that
we vote for in a sense you know whatever
comes out of the electoral process and
and hopefully
we end up mmt helps us get into a
position where we understand how much
better off we could be how much more we
could do
to improve life and
uh and deal with the as i said the
deficits that matter
but
there's nothing to prevent someone from
applying the mmt lens in the pursuit of
building board you know build a wall or
whatever else they they don't need mmt
as a justification to do that
um
if the votes are there they can do that
regardless
one more question so
i think we mentioned a little bit you
know the federal reserve or central bank
could you speak a little bit about what
uh what a central bank does or the
federal reserve in the u.s what it does
within the the the financial system that
we have and what what do you think the
proper role of a central bank
should be in a in a system that's where
policymakers are informed by mmt
i can say something very quick and then
i think we should let foddle say
something right now
the fed mostly relies on an interest
rate
tool
to die try to dial up and down
uh economic activity the level of
economic activity targeting
inflation
and basically economic growth right
striving for some sort of balance
between the level of employment in the
economy and the inflation rate and they
mostly have
this tool called the interest rate that
they push up and down in the hope of
influencing the level of economic
activity
and what it basically results in is
holding a certain
subset of people in society
in
unemployment right for the purpose of
taming inflationary pressures and right
now what we see is the fed
basically saying inflation is too high
it's above target we're going to use our
tool to try to bring inflation down they
don't normally say as candidly as i'm
going to how they're going to do that
but how they're going to do that they
hope
is by slowing the economy
in a way that results in
a less tight labor market or in other
words
fewer people having jobs
so
in an mmt framework we would prefer
not to have the fed
using interest rates relying on interest
rates and unemployment to manage
inflationary pressures we would
introduce a federal job guarantee
program to provide an automatic
stabilizer that anchors the wage
provides some price stability
and
let the central bank
focus on things like regulating and
supervising the financial system okay
there are other tools that the fed can
develop
to manage inflationary pressures and
there's a new report out by nathan
tankis i think through the modern
monetary or modern money network people
can look at that report if they're
interested in a very beefy sort of
statement about how
you can think about
the fed and what monetary policy could
do differently
but fato what do you want to say.
F:
i
completely agree with everything you
said i'll just add a couple of things
that the fed uh can do on on the climate
front at least in within its
jurisdiction and there's the fed is has
a very
important regulatory role in terms of
regulating the the financial
institutions the speculative behavior
and the composition of their balance
sheets for example many people have been
arguing now for decades in the
green finance space that central banks
should change the capital adequacy
requirement which they regulate and
financial institutions must report to
the fed that is the composition of their
capital and we need to separate
the green capital requirements from the
fossil fuel-based capital requirement
which as i described earlier will be
impacted by climate change one of the
things that the fed can do tomorrow
morning is change that capital adequacy
requirement and by lowering the green
composition of that capital requirement
and keeping the same or raising the
fossil fuel based or the carbon-based
capital requirement and when you do that
you automatically create an incentive
for financial institutions to
de-leverage their investments in the
fossil fuel industry in the carbon-based
industry and to accelerate their
commitment and investment to a greener
more resilient uh economy because that
would make it more profitable and of
course banks are not going to do it
because
they're they want to save the world
they're only going to do it if you make
them and if you make it a standard all
of them have to compete based on the
same on the same standards so there are
so many things that the fed can do to
address some of these problems but the
biggest firepower and the biggest
inflation management capacity is
actually in the hands of the fiscal
authorities to tax and regulate to
invest strategically in productive
capacity the fed can't build renewable
energy capacity the fed can't tax and
regulate the power of pharmaceuticals
that's congress that's their
jurisdiction so
the fed can set up a much more efficient
inclusive financial system today we have
more than 30 million americans who are
excluded from the financial system the
unbanked and underbanked people the fed
can use the most
efficient available to us digital
infrastructure that we have today
digital wallets to set up
bank accounts for anybody and be able to
much more to be able to
create inclusivity in the financial
system and facilitate also fiscal policy
intervention during a pandemic
facilitate uh tax refund transfers
facilitate all kinds of things but this
idea that the fed will use the single
policy tool interest rates and will let
loose of everything else let the
financial system rule is is an
ideological setup that's been
established over the last few decades
that mmt is is challenging we're saying
you have firepower you have regulatory
power but the fiscal authorities have
much bigger regulatory powers much
bigger firepower in terms of its
intervention in the system and
you need both
it's not just the fed fixing the system
it's not just congress you need both to
coordinate
uh the policy action that we're
describing today
great um and i just wanted to ask uh
thank you for answering that i just
wanted to ask really quick if you guys
could just give some brief uh closing
remarks and then we'll be finished up uh
for today
well i'm brief his brief is okay i just
want to say thank you i
uh i
think that fuddle and i are both very
excited about
where we can go when we're able to bring
you know our expertise and insights into
how
the monetary system works and how the
government budget works to people like
you who have
maybe the big ideas that we all need
whether it's you know talking with
groups that work to advance you know an
agenda around
getting health care to every american or
whether it's talking with groups that
care passionately about climate and
um you know
inequality whatever the organization is
when we have an opportunity to step
outside of you know the narrow economics
discipline and engage with people like
you i think this is the most rewarding
i'll speak personally uh this is the
most remote rewarding part of what i get
to do because this is where the seeds
can really germinate and the future can
start to look very bright i hope so
thanks very much for
letting us come and spend some time with
you
i'll echo the same uh sentiment about
how important it is to cross fertilize
these ideas from from the mmt space into
into other areas especially science and
technology because when we talk about
the uh the real resources the productive
capacity the research and development
needs for the economy we're not saying
we can't afford it so we should stop all
research and development think of uh
when jfk said we're going to send a man
to the moon
and the science wasn't there but we made
it a national priority and we put the
brain power and the financial resources
to make it happen and look at all the
technological advances that came out of
that space program that wasn't even
intended from the beginning so we need
to think in a similar way today about
climate change about the big national
priorities
put the resources on the table put the
brain power and the research and
development capabilities to set that
priority as the ultimate
thing to save our lives literally to
save our lives and don't worry about
finding the money we know where to find
the money we know how to find the votes
the
current political system has hijacked
the narrative about the financial
capacity of the government so with a
webinar like this with
more people empowered with this mmt lens
you can call their bluff when they say
we don't have the money and you can push
back and say yes we do have
the
research and development capacity we
need the funding and now you need to do
your job to tax and regulate abusive
market power from the oligarchs who
support your campaigns and we need to be
able to call them out on this you need
to save democracy we need a clean new
deal in addition to a green new deal
when it comes to the democratic process
and once we have the priority straight
it doesn't matter who's republican and
who's democrat in washington dc as long
as we believe in the same values and i
think
most people believe in the same values
even fiscally conservative friends who
identify as republicans they know that
we can't afford all of this health
negative health effect associated with
climate change i mean wouldn't you
rather spend money up front for clean
energy and clean water sources or not do
it because it's too expensive because we
don't have the money and then pay for
cancer treatment for everybody for the
next 30 years
as if that's cheap and affordable we're
already paying for it with blood tears
and money so mmt is saying the cost of
doing the right thing is actually much
cheaper much more affordable and humane
than the cost of inaction which is what
we're doing right now so learning this
framework allows us to use this lens
shine a bright light on the actual world
of possibilities which is within reach
and call their bluff when they say we
can't afford it
thank you again
thank you guys so much for coming to
speak to our uh organization and the
audience at large and thank you to
everybody who turned out today uh this
was great and i'm so excited we got to
kick off the series with such two strong
uh talks
everybody have a good rest of your day
thank you so much.
https://youtu.be/yotXZtSOGYA
今日このイベントに参加する皆さんは、私たちのセミナーシリーズの最初のセッションと4部構成のセッションだと思います。無知な科学者のための経済学このイベントは、ペンシルベニア大学の科学政策と外交グループまたはpspdgpspdgが提供する学生グループによって組織されています。ペンシルベニア大学の学生や他の初期のキャリア科学者が科学コミュニケーション政策と外交の分野で実践的なトレーニングと経験を積む機会は、pspdg.comのウェブサイトにアクセスするか、u-penサイエンスポールのツイッターでフォローしてください。後でこれを参照したい場合に備えて、同じ小さなイントロをチャットに貼り付けています。今日はステファニーケルトンから始めます。ステファニー・ケルトンは、ストーニーブルック大学の公共政策と経済学の教授であり、サンダース研究所の創設者であり、2015年には平和と安全のための経済経済学者の理事長を務めました。彼女は米国上院予算委員会の主任経済学者を務めました。そして2016年と2020年に、彼女はバーニーサンダース大統領選挙運動の経済顧問を務めました。彼女の最新の学問の1つは、赤字の神話が即座にニューヨーク時代のベストセラーでした。ステファニーケルトンが政治家によってアメリカの政治の変革に貢献した全国のトップ50の人々なので、ステファニー・ケルシー博士を歓迎してください。上院予算委員会と2016年と2020年に、彼女はバーニーサンダース大統領選挙運動の経済顧問を務めました。彼女の最新の奨学金の1つは、赤字の神話が即座にニューヨーク時代のベストセラーでした。ステファニーケルトンがなぜ認められたのかは明らかです。ポリティコは、アメリカの政治の変革に貢献した全国トップ50の一人であり、ステファニー・ケルシー博士を歓迎します。上院予算委員会と2016年と2020年に、彼女はバーニーサンダース大統領選挙運動の経済顧問を務めました。彼女の最新の奨学金の1つは、赤字の神話が即座にニューヨーク時代のベストセラーでした。ステファニーケルトンがなぜ認められたのかは明らかです。ポリティコは、アメリカの政治の変革に貢献した全国トップ50の一人であり、ステファニー・ケルシー博士を歓迎します。
https://youtu.be/yotXZtSOGYA
ケルトン：
どうもありがとうございました。今夜私たち二人を一緒に招待してくれてありがとうございます。それはとても嬉しいことです。あなたのようなグループと交流する機会があることを本当に楽しんでいます。あなたはエコノミストのグループではありません。あなたがこのええとイベントを構築したことを忘れたと言うとき、あなた自身を短く売らないでください、しかし無知か何かが聞いてください私はあなたが私よりも重要な多くのことについてたくさんのことを知っていると確信していますええと、私たちはさまざまなことについて無知かもしれませんが、私は非常に賢い人々のグループと一緒にいることを知っています、そして私が私の考えていることの少しについてあなたと話す機会を持ってうれしいです専門分野なので、私は私に飛び込みましょうスライドショーのプレゼンテーションをするつもりはありません。インターネット上にあるものは、私の名前をグーグルで検索して、公開講演を知っている人の数を知っていることを見つけることができます。私が言わなければならないことの中には、mmtのコアコンセプトを12分程度に抽出する方法として面白くて役立つかもしれないテッドトークを含めて、あなたが行って見つけることができるものがたくさんあるので、ええと、私はちょうど欲しいですある種の会話で、この後のアイデアの交換に一番興味があるので、少し話をします。30分食べるかどうかはわかりませんが、何が起こるかを見てみましょう。私があなたに残したい重要な結論は、パンデミックが私が信じていたものの1つを知っているということから始めましょう。政府の予算はなぜそれが機能するのか家計のように、議会がわずか1年かそこらの12か月の間に5兆ドル以上の存在を生み出すことができたのは、ええと、すべてが支払われる必要があり、お金がなかったと立法者が私たちに言った後です。大きなことをし、将来に向けて財政危機が迫っていて、財政赤字や債務などについて非常に心配する必要があったことなど、2020年の選挙に至るまでの大統領選挙を振り返ってみてください。これらの議論の中で、非常に混雑した民主的な希望者の分野が、ある時点でそこにあったものを見て、すべてが民主的な候補者になることを争っていました。学生ローンの借金のかなりの部分をキャンセルするすべてをキャンセルするすべての人に薬を与えるグリーンニューディールを行うか、気候関連の投資を行うはるかに野心的ではない民主的な大統領の希望者が並び、誰もが私たちのために青写真をレイアウトし、これが私たちが使いたいものであり、これが私たちがそれを支払う準備ができている方法であり、そのほとんどすべてが主に高額でさまざまな税金を引き上げることを含んでいた収入を得ている個人企業や非常に裕福な人など、そして私たちは、私たちの最大の課題のいくつかに取り組むためにこれらのことをする余裕があると言われました。私たちの後ろの選挙ええと、パンデミックは選挙の直前でも起こります。パンデミックヒットと2020年3月に選挙前にパンデミックヒットと言われ、突然、ケアアクトの形で2.2兆ドルを実行できると言われました。今年度のパッケージは議会で最初の大きなパッケージです。ええと、2.2兆ドルをコミットすることを通過しました。それは、彼らがどのようにそれをしたのか、彼らの手を引きずることはありませんでした。議会が法案を書いて法案を可決し、お金が出て、年末にさらに9000億ドルでそれをフォローアップし、その後、バイデンが選出され、発足後、民主党は彼らが持っている上院を持っている家を持っていますホワイトハウスと彼らは1を提供します。アメリカの救済計画の形での9兆ドルのパッケージは、1.9兆ドルであるため、2020年3月から2021年3月まで、経済を支援するために議会から約5兆ドルがコミットされ、支援収入と雇用およびその他すべての回復を支援します。それのそして私達がuで最も短い不況を持っていた結果を見てください。歴史は今、経済が下落したときに初めて回復貧困の最短不況が落ち、景気後退の間に貧困が増加する代わりに、私たちは回復し、最後の主要な部分で規定した記録上の最速のクリップで仕事を回復していますこの国で貧困状態にあるすべての子供たちの約40％を、子供税の控除権と呼ばれる単一の条項で貧困から脱却させた法律とリストは続き、私たちはこれらすべてのことを行い、本質的に不可能だと言われた方法では、赤字を増やすために支出を支払う必要があり、金利の急騰やデフォルトのリスクなど、これらの非常にリスクの高い結果がすべて発生します。ヨーロッパの多くの国で起こったことに耳を傾けることができます。 2007年の金融危機後2008年、そして財政政策の赤字について何年も何十年にもわたって私たちの頭に掘り下げられたあらゆる種類の事柄は、パンデミックが襲ったときにちょうど一種の国家債務が崩壊し始めました、そしてこれは非常に良いことだったと思いますこれらすべてのことで私たちを困惑させ、私たちができることよりも少ないことを強制した場合、政策対応はどのようになるか想像してみてください。ちなみに、2007年から2008年の金融危機後に起こったことです。議会からの返答i '財政政策について話すことは、今回私たちが得たものほど大胆で野心的なものではなく、この債務危機が展開するのを見ていた債務に加えて赤字を増やすことについてのお金を見つけることについての懸念に関係しなければならなかった理由の大部分ヨーロッパでは、私たちはあそこを見ていました。当時、私たちには一流のエコノミストがいたことを知っています。アメリカの財政を整えるために、私たちは次のギリシャのようになってしまうので、緊縮財政へのこのピボットを行い、支出を得るために国債を増やすことを避けるために赤字を減らす必要性に焦点を当て始めました制御下にあり、そのようなものすべてと何が起こったのかというと、金融危機の仕事からの記録で最も不況の回復が非常にゆっくりと戻ってきたということです。大不況の財政政策対応は弱く、その結果、景気回復は弱かった。そして、7年後、私たちがまだ仕事と戻ってきた仕事を取り戻していることを知っているとき、その後の選挙サイクルで何が起こったのかについて結論を出すことができる概して、以前の仕事よりも劣っていたアメリカ人は不満を持っていて、民主党員は失ったので、今度は非常に異なった方法で始めます。今度は、経済が総計の点ではるかに優れた財政反応を示していることを知っています。多くの家族が直面し続けている困難は、仕事を完全に回復させることとそれ以外のことに関してあなたが知っていることですが、昨夜の一般教書演説を見ると、私が聞いたのは赤字への6つの言及でした。m政府の赤字について話す前政権の前の4年間の赤字への言及がいくつあったか知っていますか？これらの4つの一般教書演説は4年間すべてでゼロに対処します彼が貿易赤字に2回言及し、私たちのインフラ赤字に1回言及した一般教書演説のどの州でも、私の本には第7章が重要な赤字と呼ばれています。うまくいけば、あなたは今夜、私から、そしてあなたがこのうまくいけば私たちに参加するために持ち込むつもりである他の人たちから、いくつかの新しい考え方を知っていることを知っています重要な赤字を集中させ、あなたに本当に集中し続ける方法を見つけようとしています。毎年の終わりに予算枠から外れる数は問題ではないことを認識している経済的および社会的アジェンダを提供することを知っています。重要なのは、健全な経済を構築して提供することであるということです。バランスの取れた経済がありますか。働きたいと思うすべての人に十分な仕事がありますか。インフレを抑えることができますか。耐え難い禁止を伴う所得と富の不平等のレベルすべてが完全に平等である必要があると言っているわけではありません今日存在する不平等の種類は単純に極端すぎて、私たちの経済の運営方法に悪いと言っています彼ら'私たちの民主主義が機能する方法に悪いので、私たちはインフラストラクチャの赤字を抱えており、神は気候の赤字がリストのトップに立つ必要があることを知っています昨日気候変動に関する政府間パネルからの報告がありましたサイレンがどんどん大きくなっているにもかかわらず、警告はますます悲惨になっており、最初に提案されたビルドバックビルドバックには5550億ドルがあり、気候関連の投資に対して年間わずか550億ドル程度のより良い行動があったことを知っています。私たちが気候に投資した最大の投資はこれまで米国で経験したことがありますが、同時に、私たちが直面する課題の大きさを考えると、ひどく不十分であるため、その量の5〜10倍が必要であり、古い考え方から抜け出すことができるまでは必要です。政府の予算と財政責任を負うことの意味について、そしてそれ以外のことは決してそこにたどり着くことはなく、民主党がその法案を可決することはできませんでした。部分的には、赤字と国債に対する懸念が、特にマンチン上院議員がこれらの懸念を提起する理由です。それでは、一歩後退して、mmtが分析のフレームワークとしてどこから始まるのかをお話ししましょう。経済学者にとって、これは私たちが経済政策を考え、分析するためのレンズを提供するマクロ経済の枠組みです。したがって、日本のような米国のような国では、中国のようなカナダのような英国のように、これらは私たちが呼ぶことができるものを発行する国です。ソブリン通貨は大丈夫なので、今日、私たちの通貨である米ドルが金に縛られていない通貨システムがあり、連邦政府が通貨をドルに変換することを約束する固定為替相場制はありません。固定価格で金に、または固定価格で他の何かに、私たちは変動相場制のフラット通貨を持っている有限の何かを使い果たす可能性のあるものにつながれている通貨を持っていません」重要なのは、国が今日のような通貨制度を採用したときに開かれるある程度の政策空間があり、その程度の政策空間を奪う固定相場制を残しているからです。米国のような国の支出能力について話しているときに認識したいのは、2007年から2008年の金融危機後、あなたが知っているお金が不足することは決してないということです。当時のバラク・オバマ大統領とのインタビューを見たのを覚えています。危機はちょうど起こっていた、つまり、経済が崩壊するときに経済が崩壊していたために、主要な経済崩壊の赤字が爆発し始めていたということです。s赤字は自動的に増加します。赤字は2つの数値の差にすぎないことを覚えておいてください。一方の数値は政府が毎年経済に費やす金額であり、もう一方の数値は政府が主に課税を通じて差し引く金額です。政府の赤字は本質的に無責任であるというこの考えは、政府が財政を誤って管理しているという証拠であり、何かがうまくいかなかったのはなぜですか。それが差し引くよりも経済なので、政府がsは、1兆ドルの財政赤字は、経済の他の部分に1兆ドルを預けていることを意味します。すべての赤字は、すべての政府の赤字が誰かにとって良いことです。財政赤字を使って気候変動や崩壊しつつあるインフラストラクチャー、不十分な住宅や医療に対処しているのか、それとも赤字を使って大企業や所得分配の最上位の人々に急落をもたらしているのか、これは2017年に行ったことです。共和党はこれらの大幅な減税を通過させ、少なくとも助けを必要としているが間違いを犯さない右上の人々に圧倒的な利益をもたらしました。でオバマ大統領は、経済が崩壊しつつある中で、どの時点で私たちがお金を使い果たしているのかと尋ねられ、実際に国営テレビでアメリカの人々に私たちがお金を使い果たしていると言いました。そして、私はオバマ政権と民主党員が気候を含む幅広い課題に関して、そしてそれらが言葉が彼の口から出てきた私はあなたが本質的にそこに行くことをよく知っていると思いました私たちが今日持っているもののように、私たちがそれに対してどのように支払うのかを尋ねる必要がないことを意味します」s簡単な部分このすべての最も簡単な部分は、投票があればすぐにアスタリスクが付いたお金を考え出すことです。お金がそこにあります。これは、議会が2回ではなく、3回メジャーに投票した12か月の間に見たものです。支払い方法を手書きせずに増税せずに5兆ドルを蹴ったパッケージは、投票があり、お金が出たので、法律を通過するのに十分な票を集めることができるかどうかを理解する必要があります。上院議員のマンチンや上院議員の映画館のように、何らかの理由で投票したくない人がいる場合、少なくとも投票を確保するための投票を見つけることは、2倍の課題です。提案された法律には、彼らがしていないことがあるからです。そのように、あなたが投票を持っていない場合、あなたは明らかに法案を可決することはできませんが、あなたが投票を得ると仮定すると、政府には財政的制約がないと言って責任ある方法で支出を管理することが課題になります私たちの他の人たちと同じように、その予算は家計のようには機能せず、持っていないドルを使うことを約束することは、政府が好きなだけ使うことができ、心配する必要がないと言うことと同じではありませんそれができるので何でも」家庭や民間企業のように破産しました。制限はありませんが、制限は経済的ではありません。お金が不足していません。政府とその関連する制約に注意する必要があります。支出はインフレです経済の供給側には実際の資源の制約があります容量の制約がありますそしてもし私たち全員が毎日それを見ているのでそれが今正しいことを説明する時間があったとしても港での荷積みと荷降ろし私たちは、サプライチェーンのトラック輸送と貨物輸送に問題があることを知っています。世界的には、半導体やコンピューターチップ、その他すべてを知っているので、恐ろしい理由でこのようなものを手に入れました。世界的なパンデミック両方の非常に美しいイラスト何かが優先事項と見なされたときに世界中の議会や政府が行うことが可能であり、お金は常にそこにあり、私たちの経済の生産能力の供給側に実際の制約がどこにあるのかを思い出させることができます」お金が足りなくなりますが、購入するものが足りなくなる可能性があります。現在私たちが扱っているのは、サプライチェーンや生産のボトルネック、その他の問題に関連する多くの課題です。財政赤字が大きすぎたため、今日のインフレ問題があることを示唆することを意味します。実際、これを見て、この種の研究を行っている経済学者や他の人々は、実際には政府が結論に達していると分析しました。渡された財政政策は、経済をまとめて雇用を回復し、回復などを支援するために大いに役立ちましたが、実際には、現在のインフレを推進しているのは財政政策の実行ではなく他のことであるというインフレ圧力にほとんど影響を与えませんでした暑すぎるが、気候変動や私たちが直面している他の課題に対処するために政府の予算を非常に積極的に運用することを知っているあなたのリスクの1つはあなたが経済のインフレ問題を引き起こさないように、支出を管理し、生産能力への負担を責任を持って管理できるようにする必要があります。私の尊敬する同僚に。
23:30
C：
ええと、ええ、その前に、私はちょうどいくつかのええとリソースを聴衆と共有するのが好きでした。両方のスピーカーが最初に赤字の神話に貢献した2冊の本ケルトンニューヨーク時代のベストセラー現代貨幣理論に関する非常に読みやすい素晴らしいリソースです。必要に応じて本を購入することをお勧めします。ええと、簡単な言葉で、そして非常に簡単な方法でmmtについて学ぶために、ええと、パブロ教授は、マクロ経済学とそれが世界の南部と発展にどのように適用されるかに興味があるなら、21世紀のアフリカの金銭的なああ申し訳ありませんが主権に関するこの優れた本にも貢献しました私たちの国dまた、現代貨幣理論について深く掘り下げて学びたい場合に興味のある2冊の本を共有したいと思います。1つは現代貨幣理論であり、 mtとスティーブン・ハレによる持続可能な繁栄のための経済学についての優れた本は、生態学的経済学と現代貨幣理論の交差点を利用しています。このイベントに参加した場合、他に3つのイベントがあります。 1つ目は製薬業界の金融化に資金を提供する4月7日、もう1つは実際に優秀なmmt学者のパブリナ・セルネバ教授と彼女の不平等について、4つ目はカーボンクレジットなどについてのチャットで質問を見ました。気候変動への取り組み方や、4月13日のセッション4の計画と資金調達の詳細に興味がある場合は、ジェシー・ジェンキンスとロバート・ホケットとのイベントです。教授のためにフロアを離れるfadelkabul um招待してくれてありがとう持続可能な繁栄のためのグローバルインスティテュートの会長彼の最近の仕事は、中東の蜂起の政治経済に焦点を当てています。地域の専門知識は、米国中東および北アフリカ、特にチュニジアの経済に関するものです。彼は、21世紀のアフリカにおける以前の経済的および金銭的主権について示した本の共著者でもあるため、フェデレカブ博士を歓迎します。ありがとうございます。もう一度親切な招待状とこの非常に重要なシリーズを整理するために私はその一部になることに興奮していますええと私はここで私の画面を共有していますあなたはあなたが全画面を見ることができることを確認できますはい私はできますステファニーがここでmmtを紹介した後、今日取り上げたかったのは、世界の南を少し見て、mmtの観点から見た気候危機では、このアイデアが頻繁にあります。そのmmtは、私たちのような国にのみ適用されます。いくつかの具体的な洞察でこのアイデアに挑戦しようとしているので、ここでそれができるかどうかを確認します。グローバルな文脈に入る分析の出発点は、通貨の主権の概念を理解し、さまざまな国が金銭的主権の程度が異なるエクアドルのように経済を完全にドル化し、外貨を国の通貨として使用している国には、金銭的主権のない国があります。次に、カナダや日本のような日本のように、金銭的主権の程度が非常に高い国があります。などなど、他の多くの開発途上国はその中間にあります。問題は、この一連の通貨主権のどこに座るかを決定するものです。これが私たちの実際の目的です。通貨主権の程度に基づいて、インフレ圧力ポイントに到達する前に国が持っている支出能力を決定するので、通貨主権の程度が高いほど、政府は常に目を向けてより多くの財政支出能力を持っていますすぐに説明するインフレのリスクに向けて、金銭的主権の高い国は自国通貨を発行する国であり、簡単な部分です。2つ目は、同じ国で税金を徴収する国であるということです。ほとんどの国がこれを行うことができる通貨であり、ここでの3番目と4番目の条件では非常に注意が必要です。つまり、自国通貨建ての債券のみを発行する国です。ドル、ユーロ、その他の通貨で外貨を借りて支払うことを約束します。これは多くの開発途上国に当てはまります。その理由と、これらの罠を回避する方法と、関連する4番目の問題について説明します。国である外部債務の問題に対して、その為替レートを米ドル、ユーロ、または金のような商品に固定しない、言い換えれば、変動相場制または変動相場制があり、なぜ多くの場合、開発途上国は固定相場制に追い込まれている状況に陥っています。これらのトラップを元に戻す方法について説明します。これらのトラップを元に戻すと、低度の通貨主権から高度の通貨主権に徐々に移行することを意味します。ここでは、ステファニーが数分前に行った重要な区別について説明します。強調したいのは、通貨発行者と通貨ユーザーの違いです。家でこれを試さないでください。これは、個人が支出をまき散らすことを知っているわけではありません。■通貨利用者が支出能力の観点から金銭的ソブリンの観点から考える地方レベルの州または地方自治体のためではないので、これは国レベルの国家政府のための連邦政府のためであり、状況を迅速に理解する発展途上国向け開発途上国は通常、高い対外債務につながる構造的貿易赤字を抱えています。つまり、外貨建ての債務は通常、ドル、ユーロ、英国の境界などであり、この構造的貿易赤字の主な根本原因は、この高い対外債務につながります。 3つの基本的な欠陥があります。1つは高水準のエネルギー輸入であり、それは大規模な石油輸出国である国にも当てはまります。石油とガスの輸出国は、通常、原油を輸出してから精製石油化学品を再輸入するためです。高付加価値の石油化学品ガソリン灯油およびその他の工業生産用石油化学品は、輸入食品への依存度が非常に高い2番目の高レベルの食品不足、3番目は構造的な工業化の不足です。高付加価値コンテンツをインポートします資本をインポートします入力を中間コンポーネントにインポートし、次に低コストの労働力を駆使して組立ラインタイプの製造を設定するか、生産の最低付加価値コンテンツの点でそれよりもさらに悪いそれ'■文字通り、付加価値のない輸出用の天然資源の抽出。これら3つのトラップを合計すると、ドルに対する通貨の価値に下向きの圧力をかける構造的な貿易赤字になり、通貨の減価とその通貨が発生します。減価償却とは、文字通り、通貨がドルに比べて安いか弱いことを意味します。そのため、翌朝購入するものは、食品であれ、薬であれ、コンピューターであれ、医療機器であれ、すべてがはるかに高いコストで輸入されます。実質的には、インフレを輸入していることを意味するので、人々は食料を買う余裕がないため、社会的および政治的不安の可能性に直面する可能性があります。輸送や冷暖房などを移送することで、政府は潜在的な社会不安に直面する非常に困難な状況に置かれます。これは、政府が自国通貨の価値を人為的に安定させるために人為的に介入しなければならず、人為的な安定は基本的に中央銀行や外国人、あるいは財務省に基本的に外貨で借り入れてもらうこんにちはバディ2階に行ってください[音楽]後で2階に行ってください通貨の減価により政府は基本的に為替レートを安定させることができますドルとユーロを借りて、その結果、食料と燃料の価格インフレに関連するこの潜在的な不安定さを回避するために外部債務を蓄積することによって、主流の経済モデルはこれに対するかなり標準的な答えを持っています。s基本的に政府は支出を削減する必要があります債務のコミットメントを削減します食品や燃料などの社会的補助金を削減しますええと、持続不可能になる外部債務のレベルに達したときの債務の再構築政府が空港や国営航空会社、または政府が管理するあらゆる業界を売却する国有企業を民営化するための緊急計画と債務再編計画もあり、そのアイデアは外部債務市場の労働力を支払うためにドルを生み出すことです言い換えれば、市場の柔軟性は労働組合の賃金を弱め、より多くの外国投資を経済に引き付けるために外国投資または外国直接投資fdiと輸出主導の成長が発展途上国の重要な戦略になる主流のアプローチに従うimfの推奨事項通常、ここでのアイデアは、外国企業が参入して出店するための魅力的な投資環境を提供することですが、開発途上国で通常求められているのは、低賃金、低規制、あらゆる種類のインセンティブではありません。税金より安い電力助成電力助成水環境基準が低いので底辺への競争ですが、外国直接投資は外資と技術をもたらすだけでなく、産業を運営するための燃料を輸入するため、実際には輸出志向型の成長よりも悪いですしかし、年末に利益を得ることができ、通常は世界の北部に送還されるため、s標準的な低価値編集コンテンツの製造および輸出リードの成長金融自由化よりもさらに抽出的これは、本質的に金融市場を開放し、外国投資家のために株式市場を自由化するという考えです。金融システムとあなたは私たちが南アフリカでこれを見た投機的なバブルになってしまいますこれを見たことがありますが、メキシコ、七面鳥、韓国などで災害につながるのは、低価格で高価格で販売することに関心のある投機家がいるためです。観光客がやって来て雇用を創出し、彼らが経済にお金をもたらすために費やすので、これらの問題の解決策としてしばしば認識される大きな問題ですが、観光客が多いほど、国がより多くの食料を輸入していることを認識していません。より多くのエネルギー輸入をもたらすために、観光客がホテルを暖めたり冷やしたりして人々を輸送するのに役立つために持ち込む必要があるので、多くの場合それは正味のネガティブになり、これはもちろん事前にカバーされているので観光自体エコツーリズムでない限り、食糧主権を持っている再生可能エネルギーの安全性を持っている国について話すと、観光は正味の利益になりますが、ほとんどの国ではまだそこにいません。おそらくここで認めているので、対外債務危機から抜け出すのは持続可能な戦略ではないので、私たちは、1980年代以来、この永続的な対外債務を抱えてきたので、より多くの対外債務を底に追いやることになります。ほとんどの開発途上国にとって危機であるため、代替案はないと言われていますが、ここで私が提案しているのは、これらの構造的罠から抜け出すための代替案があり、これがボリビアの構成であるという一例です。s輸出と私は他の国を選ぶことができたかもしれませんが、ほとんどが原材料であり、輸出の付加価値の高いコンテンツであり、輸入を見ると、付加価値の高いコンテンツであり、医療機器であり、自動車であり、食品の輸入が多いです。多くのエネルギー輸入など、ほとんどの開発途上国にとって非常に典型的な罠です。これを世界規模で捉え、世界の南と北の世界を比較し、債務返済を含むすべての世界の金融取引を相殺します。外国からの直接投資は、これらすべての金融取引に正味額を送金します。これは、ここにある緑色の線と私からわかるようにです。mここでこの軸で読むと、これは南北問題と南北問題の間の純資源移転であり、その数は2兆ドルであり、マイナスであり、世界で最も貧しい国から最も裕福な国に2兆ドルが移動していることを意味します。おそらく経済発展のモデルは、独立後の発展途上国が先進国に追いつくのを助けるように設計されたので、今の世界はこれが大きな問題ですが、ここで私たちが見ているのは追いつかないだけでなく、私たちは罠に深く入り込んでいますこの緑色の線がネガティブな領域にどんどん進んでいることに注意してください。これを修正しない限り、気候変動や主要な問題に打撃を与えるつもりです。これは壊れた世界的な金融アーキテクチャであり、最貧国から定期的に数兆ドルを吸い上げているので、これは私が確認したい情報の1つです。ここであなたのほとんどはこの絵の世界的な所得分布に大きな問題を知っていますが、それに気候の影響を加えるために私たちが見つけたのは、ほとんどのco2排出は実際には世界で最も裕福な国と最も裕福な個人によって行われているということです金融システムへの損害を修復するための追加の責任があります。地球の問題に関しては、損害を修復するので、今度はこの金融主権のスペクトルに戻ってみましょう。sグローバル南がどこにあり、グローバル北がグローバル南であるかを見ると、通常、対外債務のレベルが非常に高く、次の理由により、南北問題が非常に低いため、このスペクトルの低度の通貨主権の終わりにあります。産業革命は主に世界の北であったため、南北問題は気候変動の原因ではありません。南北問題は対外債務のレベルが高く、システムを脱炭素化し、代替経済システムを構築するための生産能力が低いため、それは新しい技術を構築することだけではないので、研究開発物質科学研究のエネルギー効率に実際に投資して、鉱物の抽出などの観点から生態系を破壊することなくシステムを脱炭素化することについて、真のサーキュラーエコノミーを生み出すには、研究開発への巨額の投資が必要であり、南北問題は一方、私が今説明した新植民地時代の採掘経済システムは、南北問題を抱えています。これは、高度な金銭的主権を意味するはずです。これは、産業以来のほとんどのCO2排出量を見ると、気候変動の原因です。ビッグエミッタークラブの中国とインドへの最近の新参者を考慮に入れても革命また、世界の北で消費するために生産しているので、責任は依然として世界の北にあり、ほとんどの国の対外債務のレベルはありません。ドルなので、高い生産能力と言えば対外債務はなく、研究開発の可能性が高く、世界の北に利益をもたらすことは明らかです。mここで、壊れた金融アーキテクチャを修復するメカニズムについて話します。これは、開発途上国が真に生産能力を開発および構築し、この終わりから徐々に移動できるように、世界の南から2兆ドルを吸い込み、経済を修復します。より高度な金融主権へのスペクトルなので、私は常にこれを気候債務の賠償の観点から考えています植民地債務の賠償と賠償はそうではありませんつまり、開発途上国の債務のキャンセルから始まる単純な金銭的補償であり、実際には財源の移転があり、間違った方向に進んでいる2兆ドルが正しい方向に動き始め、実際には3番目の補償があります。構造を修復して、生産能力と弾力性のある経済を実現し、弾力性のあるエネルギー生産を実現する気候変動の中で、私たちが抱えるすべての世界的な不平等に打撃を与え始めます問題について話してきたのは、どのようにお金を払うのかということです。お金はどこから来るのでしょうか。国を破産させることなくインフレを引き起こすことなくこれを行う能力があるのでしょうか。これは、mmt分析が非常に重要になる場所であるため、標準的なアプローチでは、政府は、税金を支払うことができる金額が制限されていることを示していますが、それを超えると、それ以上になります。ハイパーインフレが発生し、国が破産することになるmmtが言っていることは、この明るい黄色のスペースには無限ではないこの追加の支出能力があり、それが制約されているということです。sインフレのリスクによって制限されるため、mtiがインフレのリスクに取りつかれるようになると、実際にインフレのリスクを決定します。私にとっては、生産能力の欠如です。ロジスティック能力サプライチェーン能力労働スキルが利用可能です。それらを使い果たしてインフレを続けると、実際のリソースが増えます。この生産能力についての朗報は、再生可能エネルギーと研究の戦略的分野で生産能力を高めるために、何百万もの雇用を創出し、より多くの投資を行うことができるということです。輸送や農業の再生可能物などの開発。良いニュースしかし、インフレを引き起こし、インフレ圧力ポイントを煽って悪化させる可能性のある2番目の要素は、私が言うところの虐待的な市場支配力と虐待的な価格設定行動です。グローバルな食品システムについて考えると、文字通り5つのグローバルなメガ企業があり、グローバルな食品供給システム全体を管理しています。もちろん、彼らは市場支配力を利用し、市場支配力を乱用しているので、インフレのリスクをどのように抑えるのでしょうか。それは、市場支配力の乱用から生じたものであり、厳格さを実行し、そこにあると言って支出しないことによってそれを減らすことはありません。虐待的な市場支配力に課税し、それらの市場を民主化して競争力を高めることによって独占禁止法を適用することにより、その存在を規制することによって、虐待的な市場支配力によるインフレのリスクを抑えることはできません。これは基本的に政治的選択の問題です。民主主義の問題私たちは人々のための人々による人々の政府または企業のための企業の政府などを持っていますかそれは民主主義の問題ですそれは腐敗の問題ですそれは権力と影響力の影響の問題です民主主義のプロセスにおける政治的支配力のおかげで、これらは本当の制約であり、ステファニー・ケルトンが説明したようにお金を見つけることではありません」s能力が不足している場合に戦略的に支出し、必要に応じて虐待的な力に課税および規制することを含む、実際の戦略的選択を実施および資金提供するための票を見つけることについて、それはmmtが現在提案しているインフレの問題です。説明は、お金を見つけることではなく、これについてではありませんが、2008年の金融危機以来、世界中に中央銀行があり、信頼できるインフレ理論がないことを本質的に認めていますが、今日でもインフレをターゲットにできると確信しています私たちと世界の他の地域で何をするのか誰もが、実際のインフレ圧力が私たちを指しているときに、金利を引き上げてインフレの源を飼いならし、この切望されたインフレと戦うつもりだと言っています現在の経験は、チュニジアの中央銀行の管轄外であり、ほとんどの発展途上国は、食品の輸入とエネルギーの輸入です。小さな発展途上国は国内で金利を引き上げ、それがオペックに石油価格を下げるよう説得するか、食料価格を管理する5つのメガ企業に彼らの価格を下げるよう説得することを期待している。インフレは彼らの管轄外であるが、彼らはインフレを目標とし、インフレを目指すことを期待して彼ら自身の人々に非常に多くの経済的苦痛を引き起こす可能性があると信じているので、私は通常あなたに与えるためだけにこの贈り物を使用します中央銀行がここで何をしているのかという考えは、10年間インフレを目標にしようとしているecbであり、これはecbの期待値または予想インフレ率であり、これは実際のインフレ率とは何の関係もありません。それはええとで管理され、彼らの管轄外のスペースで作成されたので、私はd提案したいのですが、これは直感に反しているので、mmtの観点からは、政府支出の増加は実際にインフレと戦うことができますが、主流は、政府支出が増えるとインフレを引き起こし、彼らが切望していると非難していると言っています貧しい人々を支援するために連邦政府が現在経験しているインフレは、パンデミックで避難しているので、これは起こり得ないと彼らが言う主流の物語です。これは意味がないので、ここに方法があります彼らは、チュニジアのような国が国内通貨で2つの重要なセクターを健康と教育に20億ディナールを費やしたいと言っていると説明します。これは対外債務ではなく、ここにあると彼らが言うようなものではありません。食料、エネルギー、医療機器の輸入が増えると、貿易赤字が大きくなり、ユーロのドルに比べてダイナールの為替レートが低下します。パススルーが発生します。インフレ効果、言い換えれば、国が食品医薬品を輸入するすべてのものなど、為替レートの低下の影響でより高価になり、中央銀行はこのインフレと戦い、より多くを借りなければならないため、対外債務が増えることになりますインフレと外国の貸し手が介入し、支出が厳格さを削減すると言うでしょう。これはできません。債務危機があるので、健康と教育への投資を減らすことができます。より多くの失業率、より多くの脳がより多くの社会経済的政治的緊張を同じように排出するようになるでしょうそして彼らは私たちがあなたが緊縮財政に代わるものはないと言っている80年代以来マーガレットサッチャーを知っていると聞いたことがないだろうとあなたに言ったでしょうこれらすべてに、今ここでのシナリオ2は、発展途上国で実際にインフレと戦うためのmmtアプローチです。チュニジアの場合は、10億ダイナーを費やす以外は、同じ金額の20億ダイナーを費やします。健康と教育そしてそれから私達は食品生産における国内生産能力の向上に20億ディナールを費やす再生可能エネルギー生産再生可能エネルギー効率と税制と規制による高級品の価格設定輸入者の腐敗乱用の取り締まりここでの別の戦略的焦点は、食料とエネルギーの輸入の減少の影響です。これは貿易赤字の減少を意味し、長期にわたって安定した、またはさらに強い為替レートを意味します。つまり、輸入インフレがないことを意味します。あなたが再生可能物を再生産し、国内でより多くの雇用を生み出し、頭脳流出を減らし、生活の質を向上させています。支出は実際には私たちの20億ドルかもしれません3かもしれません4かもしれません4かもしれません7この特定の場合に政府が費やすことができる金額の本当の限界を決定するのは実際の資源の利用可能性です能力私たちは実際のリソースを持っていますか私たちはこのタイプのええと介入を拡大し拡大するための管理的なええと管理能力を持っていますそしてそれはそれが外部から借りていない支出のええとの本当の能力を決定するものですこれを閉じて、より広い会話を開くためにここに追加したい最後のことは、いわばお金を見つけられないことです。これは、産業戦略の重要性であり、これは、実際にはできないため、通常、小さな発展途上国にとって問題です。国内市場に1,000万人の消費者がいる場合は、規模の経済に打撃を与える必要があります。つまり、より大規模に生産する必要があります。そうすると、国内に十分な消費者がいないため、輸出はドイツや日本などと競争しなければなりません。今日これらの市場に参入するには遅すぎます。どのようにしてより戦略的に産業化するのでしょうか。これが、補完的なリソースと機能を備えた南南の戦略的パートナーシップの重要性を常に強調している理由です。彼らは実際に内部のレジリエンスを必要としており、これらの業界では、スケールメリットに合わせてスケールアップし、トレーディングブロック内でより多くの付加価値コンテンツをキャプチャできるようにするこれらの水平方向のリンクを構築し、集合的なレジリエンスに集中することができます。食品安全保障再生可能エネルギー安全保障水安全保障教育訓練ヘルスケアから始めるこれらは、地域規模で優先する必要がある生産能力の優先事項であり、それが一部の国とのパートナーシップを意味する場合グローバルノースなので、これは排他的である必要はありませんが、レジリエンスに基づいている必要があり、前述の構造的損傷の修復を目的としている必要があります。これは、国が時間の経過とともにより高度な経済を獲得する方法です。金融主権と、国または地域のブロックがこの非常に基本的なレベルの回復力を欠いている場合、貿易協定または世界の北部との交渉テーブルから離れることができず、経済的および金融主権は、私たちが気候の最前線で抱えている主要な問題に取り組むために世界経済を変革するために、おそらく8年かかると結論付けるために10年未満であり、私たちは現在の政策ではそれができないだろう現在の気候変動政策の不平等の危機大胆な変革行動を必要とするこれらの複数の危機のすべてがあり、現在の気候変動の雇用政策は弱すぎ、遅すぎ、費用がかかり、効果的であり、気候変動の影響に関しては文字通り危険であり、世界的なグリーンニューディール政策であるため、今日説明した意味で、気候と植民地の補償についてグリーンで学校に連絡することはできません。ご不明な点がございましたら、お気軽にお問い合わせください。そのプレゼンテーションをありがとうございました。[音楽]チャットで質問がたくさんあるので、私は賛成票の数が最も多いもののいくつかを読み上げるつもりです。チャットに質問を送信し続けてください。質問への回答については、お気軽にどちらでも構いません。どちらか一方が答えたように感じたら、両方の質問に答えることができます。次の質問に進むことができます。質問の処理方法は非常に会話的でカジュアルです。ここで1つの質問をリンジーフェルナンデスから現代貨幣理論で説明されている赤字のこの理解は、私たちの選出された代表者がすでに認識しており、一般的かつ真に懐疑的であるか、またはあなたが私にこれで飛び込んでほしい話のポイントとして拒否するものであると思いますか？ 1つのステファニー。
ケルトン：
さて、質問の最初の部分への答えは明白ですはい、それは彼らがええと知っていることですので、2020年の選挙後、議会の進歩的な党員集会は火曜日に電話をかけます党員集会のメンバーとの電話と会話コーカスには約100人のメンバーがおり、バイデンが選出された後の最初の火曜日に、彼らは私をその電話に参加し、進歩的な党員集会のメンバーと話し合うように招待しました。私が家のメンバーや上院議員と話をしたとき、それは私が夕食とプレゼンテーションのために丘の上の議員に加わった数十人にズームで提示した最大の単一の集まりでした。上院で働いたことがありますので、3つのカテゴリーのいずれかに属する多くの人々がいることを知っています。認識している敵対的なグループについては、彼らはすでにmmtを受け入れているかのように経済政策を実行しているということです。これを自分たちで守り、赤字を利用して、彼らが見守られていると感じる狭い構成員にサービスを提供するために、大幅な減税やその他のことをしていることを知っているだけですが、彼らは民主党員がゲームに追いつくことを本当に望んでいないので、私はm明らかに減税などについて話しているのですが、家と上院には、現代貨幣理論を非難する法律を何度も導入した少数の共和党員がいたことを知っています。上院での最近の試みは、現代貨幣理論を全会一致で非難します。つまり、そのような決議を導入し、誰も反対しない場合は全会一致の同意を求めると、それは通過し、米国上院が全会一致で投票したのは議会の記録になります。現代貨幣理論を非難することに同意したので、介入がありました。この場合、上院議員のバーニー・サンダースが降りて反対し、それが起こらないようにしましたが、とにかく非常に協力的な人がたくさんいます。リストリスト下院予算委員会のジョン・ヤーマス委員長は、他のどの議員よりも公にmmtを受け入れるためにオープンな方法で多くのことを行ってきましたが、ええと、静かに、またはそれほど静かにではない人々がたくさんいます。私たちがやっている仕事。
F：
ええ、絶対にここに1つ追加します。それは、ワシントンDCでここで話している535人の人々が財布の力を持っていることを知っているということです。私たちが言っているのは、彼らが戦略的に取り組むことができるということです。気候変動の不平等な子どもの貧困とそのすべてだけでなく、虐待的な市場の権力に課税して規制する共和党とあなたの選挙の多くの党そしてここでそれは民主主義の問題ですこれは問題ですそれは人々のための人々による人々の政府であるかどうか私たちがあなたのことを話すと、これらすべてのものが実際に実際に障害に到達している人の力はお金を見つけることではありませんそれは実際に気候変動に取り組み、構築するためのエンジニアリング能力と原材料、そしてロジスティック能力を見つけることではありません弾力性のあるグリッド私たちはこれを行う方法を知っています私たちは第二次世界大戦に勝った月に男を置きます私たちは非常に限られた財源でさえ大きなことを成し遂げる方法を知っていますそしてほとんどの人は第二次世界大戦が大不況の直後に起こったと考えています課税されるお金も借りられるお金もありませんでした私たちはどのようにして最も悲惨な時代から宇宙の歴史の中で最大の政府介入に行き、それがそうではなかった最大の戦争に勝ったのですか？誰かに課税したり借りたりしたので、当時のすべてのエコノミストと政策立案者は、このことを勝ち取るのに十分なジェット戦闘機と戦車と弾薬を生産する航空機メーカーをどこで見つけるかを考えていました。第二次世界大戦中、多くの人が隔月で1万人の軍隊を派遣し、このことを勝ち取ることができるかどうかを確認するように、段階的にこの問題に取り組むことを考えていました。まっすぐに私たちはデトロイトをシャットダウンした実際の生産能力に焦点を当て、デトロイトに自動車の生産を停止してタンクの生産を開始するように伝え、3年間それを行い、生産能力を完全に改造しました。私たちが支払うそれらの戦車や飛行機を作るために彼らは自由な国でまともな賃金を出し、車や家などを購入できるはずですが、新しい車がなかったために購入できなかったので、その潜在的なリスクをどのように抑えるかが懸念されましたインフレについては、国の政治的ムードを活用し、戦争が必要だったからではなく、戦後まで消費を延期するように説得しました。そうです、彼らは自由債券と戦争債券に投資して、戦争に資金を提供していませんでしたが、戦後まで消費財の需要を延期するために、そして戦後に何が起こったのか、私たちは家を建てたり車を建てたりするための十分な能力を持っていましたが、私たちが何をしなかったかを推測しますそれらの家に置くための家具を生産するのに十分な生産能力を持っているので、戦後、boeingは生産能力をタンクや飛行機のエンジンの生産から文字通り家具の生産に変換したので、インフレを引き起こさずに大規模な介入を管理する方法を知っています。それらの目標を達成することで、それらはすべて政治的決定であり、慎重に戦略的決定を下しました。今日、彼らは私たちにそれをうまくやることはできないと言いました。懸念は、実際の生産能力の医師、看護師、病院のベッドワクチンの入手可能性でした。これは、お金が見つからなかったという問題でしたが、2年後の今日、彼らは振り返って、このインフレについて教えてくれました。カルテルが値上げをしているのは、世界のサプライチェーンへのロジスティックの混乱が原因で、カルテルが値上げしていることを知っているからではありません。私たちがその政府支出の多くを与えたので、失業者と人々は避難しました。私たちにとって非常に重要なことは、実際にインフレを引き起こし、彼らのブラフと呼ぶものについての物語が再びハイジャックされることを許可しないことです。mmtはこの明るい光を照らし、彼らのブラフと呼ぶことができ、公共政策決定プロセスを真に民主化することができますそれを民主化して、権力と一握りのロビイストと企業の影響力の手に委ねないでください。彼らは議会の上院議員の大部分を説得することができます。彼らは素晴らしい答えをありがとうございます。次の質問はどうですか。ある国の貿易赤字がインフレにつながるということは、それが常にこのことをしているのか、そして債務が外貨に基づいているかどうかに関係しているのか、そしてなぜこの赤字が必然的にインフレにつながるのかということです。 「これを取るので、貿易赤字はありません」常にインフレにつながるので、私が説明した国々は貿易赤字が為替レートを安定させるために外貨で借りる状況に追い込まれ、脆弱性の主要分野に集中していたためにそれをしなければなりませんでした食品輸入エネルギー輸入医療輸入は通常、製造の付加価値の高い内容ですが、私たちのような国は大きな貿易赤字を抱えており、世界で販売可能なものを私たちが支払うことができるドルで借りたり、外貨で支払うことを約束したりすることはありません国家としてのそれなので、米国の貿易赤字に問題はありません。貿易赤字が比較的大きいが、たまたま金融システムへの外国直接投資で相殺できる国、または食料赤字やエネルギー赤字を他の輸出で支払うことができる国も、心配する必要はありません。これについて、彼らは通貨危機に陥る必要はありません。彼らは対外債務危機に陥る必要はありません。そのため、開発途上国の場合、実行できない食糧なしでは経済を実行できないことを強調します。エネルギーのない経済であり、食品部門とエネルギー部門に回復力と主権がない場合は、それらを輸入する必要があります。残りの経済はニーズを相殺するのに十分な生産性がないため、今は問題を抱えています。輸入のために私は '例を挙げましょう。サウジアラビアは大きなエネルギー輸出国の石油輸出国ですが、食品部門の脆弱性も非常に弱く、生産能力が非常に弱いため、石油収入がある限り、一時的または人為的に脆弱性を隠すことができます。しかし、石油セクターを取り上げると、サウジ経済はほとんどの開発途上国に食料主権がなく、製造の付加価値が低く、その通貨が下落し、世界の他の地域が脱炭素化した場合、すぐに純エネルギー輸入国に変わるように見えます石油はもはや必要ありませんサウジアラビアはエネルギー輸入業者になり、経済を脱炭素化する必要があり、通貨の下落に直面するでしょう。多くの開発途上国のように債務危機に直面するでしょう。つまり、そのレジリエンスを構築するには、大規模なエネルギー輸出国または大規模な食品輸出国である必要がありますが、緊縮政策を実施して人々を投げ出すことなく、外部からの衝撃に耐えることができるレジリエンスの主要な要素に基づいて経済のバランスをとる必要がありますバスの下で、次の質問は、なぜ世界の北が変更したいのかということです。このシステムは、世界の南からの抽出という点で、どのように私たちに政策をとるよう説得することができるのでしょうか。ドイツと西ヨーロッパが大規模な投資を開始し、システムの脱炭素化を開始した場合、ドイツと西ヨーロッパに再生可能エネルギーの容量があった場合、実際にウクライナで起こっている現在の状況はその関係をうまく変えるでしょう。ドイツと西ヨーロッパは、ウクライナの侵略などの点で対立関係にあるにもかかわらず、本質的にロシアから石油とガスを購入し続けなければならないので、これは地政学的な混乱です。ロシアや他の国のような国に依存し、それはあなたの主権をあなたの政治的信念の観点から完全に変えますあなたの哲学的信念何が正しいか何が間違っているかそれはポイントナンバーワンポイントナンバー2何人かの同僚がいるという概念があります何十年もの間、これはカーボンバブルと呼ばれるものに取り組んできました。株式市場のバブルの過大評価された資産に精通しているカーボンバブルとは、化石燃料産業の影響と、脱炭素化の際の気候変動の影響により、過剰に膨らんだ株式市場の価値または金融資産を指します。座礁資産と呼ばれるこれらの資産は、たとえば、気候変動の影響を受ける沿岸の不動産やホテル、リゾート、沿岸地域に今日投資した場合、多くの価値を失うことになる無用な資産です。ホテルは収益の流れを生み出さないため、座礁資産になり、その価値が低下します。それが、私たちが抱えるすべての石油とガスのインフラストラクチャであるカーボンバブルです。今日話しているように再構築することは、実際に行動を起こし、システムの脱炭素化を開始するため、座礁資産になります。そのため、大学基金の年金基金のバランスシートのレバレッジ解消を実際に開始するという財務面からのインセンティブが組み込まれています。私たちが話すようにおそらく気候リスクに満ちているので、炭素バブルの最大の影響は世界の北の第2にあるので、世界の北にインセンティブがあります。シリアや世界の他の地域からの10万人の難民が、2015年と2016年にヨーロッパでパニックを引き起こしたことを知っている人はほとんどいません。気候変動の実際の影響を待つだけです。これは、世界銀行として知られていない世界銀行だと言っているのではありません。世界のツリーハガーは、気候変動の影響により、南北の何百万人もの人々の推定値が次の2050年までに移動する予定です。食糧容量輸送エネルギーエネルギー私たちが近くにない住宅容量だからそうです私たちはこれを修正するインセンティブを持っていますそして私が前に言ったように3番目は私たちが持っている道徳的な倫理的責任です世界の南部でほとんどの被害を引き起こしました。私たちにはそれを修正する道徳的倫理的責任があります。良いニュースは、私たちが持っている財政能力には私たちが持っているすべての研究開発能力があると説明したように、私たちには支出能力があるということです。実際に正しいことを行い、この壊れたシステムを修正するのに必要なことは素晴らしいです。次の質問は、mmtが完全に受け入れられている世界で、現在cboで行われている方法とは対照的に、法律の経済的影響の研究がどのように異なる方法で行われるかです。 。
ケルトン：
上院予算委員会の委員を務め、法案の起草に参加し、法案を作成していた他のスタッフと協力した人のように、上院で働いているときにこれを伝えることができます。米国上院議員は、インフレについて話していたのと同じように、1兆ドルのインフラストラクチャパッケージに投票するか、サポートするか、またはそのようなものに投票するかどうかを知っています。それは計算の一部ではありませんが、インフレは連邦準備制度の問題であり、議会はそれがいつでも一時停止する必要があるとは考えておらず、主要な法律が投票について再考すると、インフレリスクが発生します。彼らが支払うものと呼ばれるものが、私たちが支払うものを説明する方法が完全に間違っていることを知っているかどうか。たとえば、インフラ投資を行っている1兆ドル、または他のカテゴリの予算への支出を減らすか、税金を引き上げて1兆ドルを生み出すことにより、経済の他の部分から1兆ドルを取り除く計画があるとしましょう。あなたが議会の予算事務所に行くことができるように収入はここに私の請求書があると言いますあなたはこれを評価してそれが良い請求書であるかどうか教えてくれますか。インフラ投資に1兆ドルを費やすなど、経済の他の部分から1兆ドルを削減する計画がある場合は、予算の他のカテゴリでの支出を減らすか、税金を引き上げて、あなたが議会の予算事務所に行くことができるように、1兆ドルの収入があります。これが私の請求書です。これを評価して、それが良い請求書かどうか教えてください。インフラ投資に1兆ドルを費やすなど、経済の他の部分から1兆ドルを削減する計画がある場合は、予算の他のカテゴリでの支出を減らすか、税金を引き上げて、あなたが議会の予算事務所に行くことができるように、1兆ドルの収入があります。これが私の請求書です。これを評価して、それが良い請求書かどうか教えてください。■私の請求書はこれを評価し、それが良い請求書であるかどうか教えてくれますか。■私の請求書はこれを評価し、それが良い請求書であるかどうか教えてくれますか。
しかし、私は良い仕事をしましたか？cboはそれを受け入れ、提案された法律の予算への影響を本当に気にかけているので、cboの分析がこれを実行でき、赤字を増やさないことを示した場合、それはしません債務に追加cboはそれに良いスコアを割り当て、立法者は私たちが非常に良い仕事をしたと考えていますそれは財政的に責任があるので赤字を増やしたり債務を増やしたりすることはありませんこの権利について考えるのは間違った方法です。あなたが望むのは、これらのいわゆる支払いに戻ることです。誤解を招く可能性があります私はそれらをオフセットと呼びますオフセットに戻したいオフセットをまったく必要としないかもしれないという仮定から始めますあなたがやりたいことを何でもするのに十分な財政的スペースがあるかもしれません支出を相殺する必要なしに、それが小さな請求書である場合は、そこから始めましょう。若者のジョブプログラムへの50億ドルの投資などの請求書がある場合もありますが、必要なしにそれを実行できる可能性は非常に高いです。オフセットの場合ですが、あなたが大きくなると、グリーンニューディールなどを知っているので、もっと深く考える必要があります。オフセットは、それが何であるかによって、あなたが知っているように重要になります。あなたです'大規模なインフラストラクチャプログラムを実行する場合は、知っている建築家、エンジニア、建設労働者が必要であることがわかっている場合は、生産能力への影響、負担、およびストレスを調べて、法律をどのように評価しますか。重機と鉄鋼とコンクリートが必要なので、昔は彼らが入力出力分析を行うことを知っていました。私はそれを持ち帰りましたが、私はそれに入ることができず、他の人が取得できるようにします質問がありますが、それは」これについて考え始める1つの方法は、提案された法律を精査し、利用可能なリソース容量でこれを実行できるか、またはリソースを解放してリソースを解放するためにオフセットを作成する必要があるかを確認する必要があります。インフレからの支出多分私は3年のインフラストラクチャプログラムを5年に変えなければなりません分析がどうなるかを知っているかどうかに応じてそれを7年に伸ばしますあなたは'予算の影響ではなく、潜在的なインフレリスクとあなたのために提案された法律を審査する連邦予算プロセスの根本的な見直しが必要です。知っているiiまだ、そのような分析を開始するのに最適な場所の1つは、第二次世界大戦中および戦後に採用されていた古い産業連関フレームであると考えています。第二に、そうそう、私たちはここで現代貨幣理論について話し合ったと思います。私は、より進歩的なええと、左翼の視点のようなものだと思いますが、それは一般的にマクロ経済学を知っているあなたに当てはまると思います。また、sは、ある種のリバタリアンや右翼のリエンを持っているかもしれません。また、現代貨幣理論を使って彼らのuhポリシーを推進することを知っているかもしれません。リバタリアンの政策提案mmtuhアプローチからそれをどのように見ますか、そしてmmtアプローチからそれをどのようにまたはどのようにサポートしますか利用可能な財政スペースを最大限に活用する方法についてですが、mmtがレンズなのかフレームワークなのか、私が検眼医の場合、私の仕事は患者に会い、次のようなビジョンを持って患者を送り出すことです。 20 20に近い私は彼らを得ることができるので、私は患者を招待せずに座って彼らの政治と彼らが何をしているのか尋ねます私が彼らのビジョンを修正するときにやり直します彼らは外に出てコンビニをノックオフします彼らは通りの向こう側の老婦人を助けに行きます私は彼らが何をしようとしているのか分かりませんが私の仕事は彼らに明確な絵を与えて送り出すこと、そしてある意味であなたが政策立案者に知っていることは、私たちが達成しようとしていることの1つは、通貨制度が連邦予算の仕組みとどのように機能するかについてより明確な絵を与えることです。それはすべて、実際の限界が霧を通してはっきりとはっきりしている場所で機能するので、誰もがよりはっきりと見ることができ、より生産的な議論をすることができますが、それでも議論があり、私たちは私たちの民主主義共和党が下院を支配することもあれば、上院議員が民主党を支配することもあります。私たちは、選出された代表者が将来の任意の時点で投票する方針を取得する予定です。少なくとも私にとっての目標は、mmtが最初に私たちを、より多くの私たちが議論に民主的な方法で参加できる場所に私たちを押しやることであり、気候に取り組むことができるようになりたいと私たちに言っている議員に惑わされないことです変更などがありますが、お金はありません。sは、すべてがどのように機能するかを人々が理解できるようにすることで、これらの議論に効果的に参加できるようにします。選挙プロセスから出てくるものは何でも知っているという意味で私たちが投票する人々と政策、そしてうまくいけば、mmtは私たちがどれだけ多くのことができるかを理解するのに役立ちます人生を改善し、ええと、私が言ったように、重要な欠陥に対処しますが、誰かが壁を作ることを知っているボードを構築するためにmmtレンズを適用することを妨げるものは何もありません。投票があれば、もう1つの質問に関係なくそれを行うことができるので、連邦準備制度や中央銀行について少しお話ししたと思います。中央銀行は、私たちが持っている金融システム内で何をしているのか、そして私たちの連邦準備制度は何をしているのか、そして中央銀行の適切な役割は、そのシステムの中で何をすべきだと思いますか？s政策立案者がmmtから通知を受けた場合、私は非常に迅速に何かを言うことができます。それから、今すぐに何かを言わせるべきだと思います。インフレと基本的には経済成長を目標とし、経済における雇用水準とインフレ率の間のある種のバランスを目指して努力し、彼らは主に、経済水準に影響を与えることを期待して上下に押し上げる金利と呼ばれるこのツールを持っています活動とそれが基本的にもたらすのは、インフレ圧力を抑える目的で、社会の特定のサブセットの人々を失業させていることです。私たちのツールを使ってインフレを下げようとすると、彼らは通常、私がそうする方法に行くほど率直に言うことはありませんが、彼らが望む方法は経済を減速させることです労働市場の逼迫が緩和される、つまり仕事をする人が少なくなるという意味で、mmtの枠組みでは、インフレ圧力を管理するために金利と失業に依存する金利を使って連邦政府を導入したくないと考えています。賃金を固定する自動安定装置を提供する雇用保証プログラムは、ある程度の価格安定性を提供し、中央銀行が金融システムの規制や監督などに集中できるようにします。インフレ圧力を管理するために連邦政府が開発できる他のツールがあります。ネイサン・タンキスによる新しいレポート現代の金融または現代のマネーネットワークを通じて、人々は、FRBについてどのように考えることができるか、そして金融政策がどのように異なることができるかについての非常に強力な種類のステートメントに興味がある場合、そのレポートを見ることができると思いますしかし、あなたは何を言いたいのか。
F：
私はあなたが言ったことすべてに完全に同意します私は、少なくともその管轄内で、連邦準備制度理事会が気候の最前線でできることをいくつか追加します」■連邦政府は、金融機関の投機的行動とバランスシートの構成を規制するという点で非常に重要な規制の役割を担っています。彼らが規制する適切性要件と金融機関は、資本の構成である連邦政府に報告する必要があり、グリーン資本要件を、前述のように気候変動の影響を受ける化石燃料ベースの資本要件から分離する必要があります。連邦政府が明日の朝にできることは、その自己資本要件を変更し、その自己資本要件のグリーン構成を下げ、それを維持するか、化石燃料ベースまたは炭素ベースの自己資本要件を上げることです。そうすることで、金融機関が炭素ベースの産業における化石燃料産業への投資を活用せず、より環境にやさしい、より回復力のある経済へのコミットメントと投資を加速するインセンティブを自動的に作成します。収益性が高く、もちろん銀行は世界を救いたいのでそれをやろうとはしません。彼らはあなたが彼らを作った場合にのみそれをやろうとしているのです。同じ基準であるため、これらの問題のいくつかに対処するために連邦政府ができることはたくさんありますが、最大の火力と最大のインフレ管理能力は、実際には、生産能力に戦略的に投資するために課税および規制する財政当局の手に委ねられています供給された缶」連邦準備制度が課税し、議会である医薬品の力を規制することができない再生可能エネルギー容量を構築する連邦準備制度がはるかに効率的な包括的金融システムを設定できるように彼らの管轄権は、今日、金融システムから除外されている3000万人以上のアメリカ人がいます。今日、誰のために銀行口座を設定するためのデジタルウォレットを持っており、金融システムに包括性を生み出し、パンデミック中の財政政策介入を促進することができるようになります。連邦準備制度は単一の政策ツールの金利を使用し、他のすべてを解放します。金融システムのルールは、過去数十年にわたって確立されたイデオロギーの設定であり、mmtは私たちに挑戦しています。あなたは火力を持っていると言いますが、あなたは規制力を持っていますが、財政当局はシステムへの介入に関してはるかに大きな火力を持っていますそしてあなたは両方を必要としますええと、今日私たちが説明している政策行動は素晴らしいええと、私はただあなたに答えてくれてありがとうと言いたかったのです。ええと、今日は簡単です。彼の概要は大丈夫です。ありがとうと言いたいのですが、私は混乱していると思います。通貨制度がどのように機能するか、そして政府予算がどのように機能するかについての専門知識と洞察をあなたに知らせることができます。すべてのアメリカ人にヘルスケアを提供することに関する議題、または気候に情熱を注ぐグループと話し合っているかどうか、または組織がどんなものであれ、あなたの外に出る機会があるときに不平等を知っているかどうかは、狭い経済学の分野を知っていて、あなたのような人々と関わりますこれが最もやりがいのある私だと思います」個人的に話しましょうええと、これは私がやることの中で最も遠いやりがいのある部分です。なぜなら、これは種子が本当に発芽し、未来が非常に明るく見え始めることができる場所だからです。これらのアイデアをmmtスペースから他の分野、特に科学技術に相互受精させることがいかに重要であるかについて、同じええとの感情を繰り返します。なぜなら、ええと、実際のリソースについて話すとき、研究開発に必要な生産能力があるからです。経済のために私たちはそれを買う余裕がないと言っているわけではないので、jfkが人を月に送るつもりで科学がなかったと言ったとき、私たちはすべての研究開発をやめるべきですそこにありますが、私たちはそれを国家の優先事項とし、それを実現するために頭脳と財源を投入し、当初から意図されていなかったその宇宙計画から生まれたすべての技術的進歩を検討する必要があります。今日の気候変動について同じように考えて、国の大きな優先事項についてリソースをテーブルに置き、その優先順位を文字通り私たちの命を救い、命を救うための究極のものとして設定するための頭脳の力と研究開発能力を置きます。私たちが知っているお金を見つけることを心配しないでください私たちが知っているお金を見つける方法私たちが知っている投票を見つける方法現在の政治システムは政府の財政能力についての物語を乗っ取ったので、このmmtレンズでより多くの人々に力を与えたこのようなウェビナーであなた彼らが私たちにお金がないと言ったときに彼らのブラフを呼ぶことができますそしてあなたは私たちが資金を必要とする研究開発能力を持っているとあなたは押し戻して言うことができますそして今あなたはあなたのキャンペーンをサポートするオリガルヒと私たちはこれについて彼らに声をかけることができる必要がありますあなたは民主主義を救う必要があります私たちは民主主義のプロセスに関してはグリーンな新しい取引に加えてクリーンな新しい取引が必要です誰が共和党で誰が」私たちが同じ価値観を信じている限り、ワシントンDCの民主党員であり、ほとんどの人が同じ価値観を信じていると思います。変化私たちがお金を持っていないので高すぎるので、きれいなエネルギーときれいな水源に前もってお金を使うのではなく、それをしないのではないでしょうか。それは安くて手頃な価格で、私たちはすでに血の涙とお金でそれを支払っています。したがって、mmtは、正しいことをするためのコストは、実際には、私たちがしていることである不作為のコストよりもはるかに安くて人道的だと言っていますこのフレームワークを学ぶことで、このレンズを使用して、手の届く範囲にある実際の可能性の世界に明るい光を当て、余裕がないと言われたときにブラフと呼ぶことができます。ありがとうございました。私たちの組織と聴衆全体に話しに来て、今日判明したすべての人に感謝します。これは素晴らしかったです。私はとても興奮しています。このような2つの強力な話でシリーズを開始することができました。あなたの日はどうもありがとうございました。とても興奮して、私たちはこのような2つの強力なええと話でシリーズを開始することができました。とても興奮して、私たちはこのような2つの強力なええと話でシリーズを開始することができました。
the
00:26
university of pennsylvania to get
00:27
hands-on training and experience in the
00:29
fields of science communication policy
00:32
and diplomacy you can visit our website
00:34
at
00:35
pspdg.com or follow us on twitter at
00:37
u-pen
00:38
science poll and i have the same little
00:41
intro stuck into the chat just in case
00:43
you want to reference this later
00:46
and today we are going to be starting
00:47
off with stephanie kelton's talk
00:50
stephanie kelton is a professor of
00:52
public policy and economics at stony
00:55
brook university and a founding fellow
00:57
at the sanders institute and a board
00:59
chair of uh economic economists for
01:01
peace and security in 2015 she served as
01:04
the chief economist for the u.s senate
01:06
budget committee and in 2016 and 2020
01:09
she served as an economic advisor to the
01:11
bernie sanders presidential campaign
01:13
one of her most recent pieces of
01:15
scholarship the deficit myths
01:17
was an instant new york times bestseller
01:20
all in all it's clear why stephanie
01:21
kelton was recognized by politico as one
01:23
of the top 50 people nationwide who have
01:25
helped transform american politics
01:27
so everybody please welcome dr stephanie
01:30
kelsey
01:32
Kelton:
well thank you very much and thank you
01:36
uh for inviting us both to be with you
01:39
this evening it is uh
01:41
look it's a great pleasure and i really
01:44
enjoy uh having an opportunity to engage
01:47
with groups like yours okay you're not a
01:50
group of economists don't sell yourself
01:52
short when you say i forget what you
01:54
build this uh event as but the clueless
01:57
or something listen i i'm quite
01:59
confident that you know a whole heck of
02:01
a lot about a lot of things that are
02:03
important than i will ever uh come close
02:06
to knowing so we may be clueless about
02:08
different things but i know that i'm
02:10
with a very smart group of people and
02:12
i'm happy to have an opportunity to talk
02:15
with you about
02:17
a little bit of what i consider my area
02:19
of expertise so let me dive in i'm not
02:22
going to do a slideshow presentation
02:25
those are all over the internet you can
02:27
google my name and find uh lord knows
02:30
how many you know public talks and i'm
02:32
standing there going through slides if
02:33
that's what you're
02:35
interested in after hearing some of what
02:37
i have to say there's lots out there you
02:38
can you can go and find including a ted
02:41
talk which might be interesting and
02:43
useful as a way of just distilling
02:45
the core concepts of mmt into something
02:48
like 12 minutes so
02:50
uh i just want to have kind of a
02:53
conversation and i'm most interested in
02:55
the exchange of ideas that will take
02:58
place after this so
03:00
i'll i'll talk for a little while i i
03:02
don't know if i'll eat up 30 minutes but
03:04
we'll see what happens
03:05
um
03:06
let me start by saying
03:08
what i think are the important
03:10
conclusions that i want to leave you
03:12
with
03:13
you know
03:15
one of the things that the pandemic did
03:17
i believe
03:18
is to demonstrate in just
03:21
all of its naked candor right
03:24
how the federal
03:26
government's budget works why it's not
03:29
like a household budget
03:31
how congress was able to conjure into
03:33
existence
03:35
more than five trillion dollars in the
03:37
span of 12 months
03:39
just a year or so after
03:42
uh lawmakers
03:44
told us that you know everything had to
03:46
be paid for and there was no money to do
03:48
big things and we had fiscal crises
03:51
looming into the future and that we all
03:54
needed to be very worried about budget
03:55
deficits and the debt and so forth you
03:58
know think back to
04:00
the presidential campaign right leading
04:03
up to the 2020 elections we all probably
04:07
watched many of these debates we saw a
04:09
very crowded field of democratic
04:11
hopefuls right what were there 17 19 at
04:14
one point in time
04:15
all vying to become a democratic nominee
04:19
and each of them had with varying
04:21
degrees of ambition
04:23
a platform that they ran on cancel a
04:26
little bit of student loan debt cancel a
04:29
good chunk cancel all of it do medicare
04:32
for all do a green new deal or do some
04:35
climate related investments do this do
04:37
that right everybody had a platform
04:40
and everybody had a way to pay for
04:44
all of the spending that they were
04:45
proposing to do
04:47
whether it was a 16 trillion dollar
04:49
green new deal or something far less
04:52
ambitious
04:53
democratic presidential hopefuls lined
04:55
up and everybody laid out a blueprint
04:57
for us and said
04:59
this is what we want to spend
05:01
and this is how we are prepared to pay
05:03
for it and almost all of it involved
05:07
raising a variety of taxes mainly on
05:11
higher income earning uh individuals
05:13
corporations uh and the very wealthy and
05:16
so forth and then we were told we would
05:19
be in a position to afford to do these
05:20
things to tackle some of our biggest
05:23
challenges
05:24
okay
05:25
so
05:26
fast forward just a period of months
05:30
right we get the election behind us
05:33
uh
05:34
well the pandemic happens even before
05:36
the election right
05:38
so the pandemic hits and in march of
05:41
2020
05:42
uh
05:43
we are told
05:45
before the election the pandemic hits
05:47
and we are told
05:49
that all of a sudden we can do 2.2
05:52
trillion dollars in the form of the
05:54
cares act right this fiscal package
05:57
the first big package that congress uh
06:00
passed
06:02
committing 2.2 trillion dollars where
06:04
did it come from how did they do it
06:06
there was no
06:08
dragging of their feet ringing of their
06:10
hands big uh you know
06:14
big debate about whose taxes were going
06:16
to increase to allow this to happen and
06:18
so forth the votes were there congress
06:20
wrote the bill passed the legislation
06:23
and the money went out
06:24
and then they followed it up at the end
06:26
of the year with 900 billion more
06:29
and then
06:30
biden is elected and after the
06:33
inauguration the democrats have the
06:35
house they have the senate they have the
06:36
white house and they deliver a 1.9
06:40
trillion dollar package in the form of
06:43
the american
06:44
rescue plan act right 1.9 trillion so
06:48
from march of 2020 to march of 2021 you
06:51
get some five trillion dollars committed
06:55
from congress to support the economy to
06:58
help us recover
07:00
support incomes and jobs and all the
07:02
rest of it and look at the results we
07:05
had the shortest recession in u.s
07:07
history now the shortest recession on
07:09
recovery
07:10
poverty fell for the first time the
07:13
economy went down
07:15
and instead of poverty increasing
07:17
poverty fell
07:19
during the downturn
07:21
we restore we are restoring jobs at the
07:24
fastest clip on record
07:26
we had a provision in the last major
07:29
piece of legislation that lifted about
07:31
40 percent of all the children who were
07:33
living in poverty in this country out of
07:35
poverty with just a single provision
07:37
called the child tax credit right
07:40
and the list goes on and on
07:42
we did all of these things and we did
07:44
them in ways that we were told were
07:46
essentially impossible spending must be
07:49
paid for adding to the deficit will
07:51
produce all of these terribly risky
07:54
outcomes including spiraling interest
07:57
rates and the risk of default and you
08:00
know you hearken back to what happened
08:01
to a number of countries in europe after
08:04
the financial crisis 2007 2008 and all
08:09
of the sorts of things
08:12
the myths that were drilled into our
08:14
heads over so many years and decades
08:17
about fiscal policy deficits the
08:20
national debt just sort of started to
08:23
fall away when the pandemic hit and i
08:27
think this was a very good thing right
08:30
imagine what the policy response would
08:32
have looked like if we had allowed
08:35
all of those things to hamstring us and
08:38
to force us to do less than we were
08:41
capable of doing which by the way
08:44
is what happened after the financial
08:46
crisis in 2007-2008
08:48
the policy response from congress i'm
08:51
talking about fiscal policy was nowhere
08:54
near as bold and ambitious as what we
08:57
got this time around and a big part of
09:00
the reason why had to do with concerns
09:03
about finding the money about increasing
09:06
deficits adding to the debt we were
09:08
watching this debt crisis unfold in
09:11
europe and we were looking over there
09:14
and you know we had leading economists
09:16
at the time telling us that if we don't
09:19
get our fiscal house in order the united
09:22
states of america we would end up like
09:24
greece we would be next so we did this
09:27
pivot to austerity where we started
09:30
hearing a focus on the need to reduce
09:33
deficits to avoid increasing the
09:35
national debt to get spending under
09:38
control and all of that sort of stuff
09:40
and what happened
09:41
what happened is that we had the most
09:43
anemic recovery on record coming out of
09:47
the financial crisis jobs came back very
09:50
slowly it took about seven years to
09:53
recover all of the jobs that were lost
09:56
in the great recession the fiscal policy
09:58
response was weak and as a consequence
10:01
the economic recovery was weak and then
10:04
you can draw conclusions about what
10:07
happened in subsequent election cycles
10:10
when after seven years you know we were
10:13
still clawing back jobs and the jobs
10:15
that were coming back were by and large
10:18
inferior to the jobs that were lost they
10:20
were lower pay lower hour jobs
10:23
americans were dissatisfied and
10:25
democrats lost
10:27
uh so we start off very differently this
10:31
time you know a much better fiscal
10:32
response the economy performs much
10:35
better in terms of the aggregates right
10:38
this is not to diminish um a lot of
10:41
hardship that many families continue to
10:44
face you know in terms of getting jobs
10:46
fully restored and and the rest of it
10:49
but if you watched the state of the
10:51
union address last night then you heard
10:54
what i heard which were six references
10:57
to the deficit
10:59
i'm talking about the government deficit
11:01
do you know how many references there
11:03
were to the deficit in the prior
11:06
four years of well the previous
11:08
administration those four state of the
11:09
union addresses
11:11
zero
11:12
in all four years donald trump did not
11:15
refer to the government deficit once
11:18
in any state of the union address he
11:21
referred to the trade deficit twice and
11:23
it referred to our infrastructure
11:25
deficit once
11:26
so in my book
11:28
i have a chapter chapter seven is called
11:31
the deficits that matter
11:33
and this is what i desperately hope that
11:36
people like you
11:38
uh you know getting hopefully you know
11:40
some new ways of thinking from foddle
11:43
and from me this evening and from others
11:46
that you're going to bring in to
11:47
participate in this
11:48
hopefully we're going to
11:50
find a way to center the deficits that
11:53
matter and to stay really focused on
11:56
you know delivering an economic and a
11:59
social agenda
12:01
uh
12:02
that recognizes that the number that
12:04
falls out of the budget box at the end
12:06
of every year is not the thing to be
12:09
preoccupied with it's not the thing that
12:11
matters what matters are the real
12:14
economic outcomes are we building and
12:16
delivering a healthy economy do we have
12:19
a balanced economy do we have enough
12:21
jobs for everyone who wants to work
12:24
can we keep inflation down can we keep
12:28
levels of income and wealth inequality
12:30
with intolerable bans i'm not saying
12:33
everything has to be perfectly equal
12:35
egalitarian distribution i'm saying
12:38
that the kind of inequities that exist
12:40
today are simply far too extreme they're
12:43
bad for the way our economy operates and
12:46
they're bad for the way our democracy
12:48
functions so we've got infrastructure
12:51
deficits and god knows the climate
12:52
deficit needs to top the list we had a
12:56
report from the intergovernmental panel
12:58
on climate change yesterday i'm sure you
13:01
know most if not all of you saw that
13:03
though the sirens are getting louder and
13:06
louder the warnings are getting more and
13:08
more dire
13:10
and
13:10
you know there was
13:12
555 billion dollars in the initial
13:15
proposed buildback buildback better act
13:18
for climate-related investments
13:20
that amounts to just 55 billion
13:24
or so annually
13:26
it would have been the
13:27
biggest investment in climate that we've
13:31
ever had in the united states of america
13:33
but at the same time
13:34
woefully inadequate given the magnitude
13:37
of the challenges we face so we need
13:40
five to ten times that amount and until
13:44
unless and until we are able to break
13:48
free
13:49
of
13:49
the old ways of thinking about the
13:52
government's budget and what it means to
13:55
be fiscally responsible and and the rest
13:58
of it we're just never going to get
13:59
there and you've already seen it right
14:01
we couldn't the the democrats couldn't
14:03
pass that bill and in part
14:06
uh concerns over deficits and the
14:08
national debt are a reason why senator
14:11
manchin in particular raising those
14:13
concerns so let me just back up a step
14:17
and tell you where mmt starts as a
14:21
framework of analysis right we're
14:23
economists this is the macroeconomic
14:26
framework
14:27
that provides the lens through which we
14:31
think about and evaluate analyze
14:34
economic policy
14:36
so in a country like the united states
14:39
like japan like the uk like canada right
14:42
like china well these are countries that
14:46
issue what we can call a sovereign
14:47
currency okay
14:49
so we have a monetary system in place
14:52
today
14:53
where the currency our currency the u.s
14:56
dollar is no longer tethered to gold and
15:00
we don't have a fixed exchange rate
15:02
system where the federal government says
15:05
we pledge to convert the currency the
15:08
dollar
15:08
into gold at a fixed price or into
15:11
anything else at a fixed price right we
15:14
don't have a currency that's tethered in
15:16
to something that we could run out of
15:18
something that's finite
15:20
we have a floating exchange rate fiat
15:22
currency
15:23
and
15:25
it's important because there is a degree
15:28
of policy space that opens up
15:32
when a country adopts a monetary system
15:35
like the one we have today leaving
15:37
behind
15:38
a fixed exchange rate system that
15:41
robs you of that degree of policy space
15:44
okay
15:45
so one of the things that you want to
15:47
recognize when you're talking about the
15:49
spending capacity of a country like the
15:51
united states is that you can never run
15:54
out of money you know after 2007 2008
15:58
financial crisis
16:00
i remember watching an interview with
16:03
then president barack obama and this is
16:06
as the crisis was just unfolding i mean
16:08
we were
16:10
right there on the verge of a major
16:13
economic meltdown deficits were
16:15
beginning to explode because the economy
16:18
was collapsing when the economy
16:20
collapses the government's deficit
16:23
automatically increases remember
16:26
the deficit is just the difference
16:28
between two numbers okay one of the
16:30
numbers is how many dollars the
16:32
government spends into the economy each
16:35
year and the other number is how many
16:37
dollars the government subtracts back
16:39
out mostly through taxation
16:41
so we have this idea that government
16:43
deficits are
16:45
inherently irresponsible that it's
16:47
evidence that the government is
16:48
mismanaging its finances something's
16:50
gone wrong why is the government budget
16:52
in deficit
16:53
don't don't fall for that okay
16:56
the government's budget
16:58
in deficit means that it's adding more
17:01
to the economy than it is subtracting
17:03
away so if the government has let's say
17:06
a trillion dollar
17:08
fiscal deficit
17:09
it means it is depositing a trillion
17:12
dollars into some other part of the
17:14
economy
17:15
every deficit every government deficit
17:18
is good for someone
17:19
the question is for whom and for what
17:23
are those deficits being used right
17:26
in whose interests are they
17:29
operating are we using deficits to deal
17:32
with our uh
17:33
you know the climate change and our
17:36
crumbling infrastructure and inadequate
17:38
housing and healthcare or we using
17:40
deficits to deliver windfalls to large
17:43
corporations and the people at top of
17:45
the income distribution which is what we
17:48
did
17:48
in 2017 republicans did this passing
17:52
these huge tax cuts that overwhelmingly
17:55
benefited those at the very top right
17:58
those who at least need the help but
17:59
make no mistake every deficit is good
18:01
for someone okay the questions for whom
18:03
and for what are we using deficits so
18:07
you look back at president obama
18:10
commenting as the economy was melting
18:13
down he's asked at what point do we run
18:15
out of money
18:16
and he actually said
18:18
to the american people on national
18:20
television we're out of money now
18:23
those are his exact words we're out of
18:24
money now
18:26
and
18:27
i remember that felt like a gut punch
18:29
right because i was among the people who
18:32
had
18:33
very high hopes uh for what the obama
18:37
administration and democrats would be
18:39
able to do with respect to a wide range
18:42
of uh challenges including climate and
18:45
as soon as those words came out of his
18:47
mouth i thought well
18:49
you know essentially there it goes uh
18:52
there goes the the hope and change sort
18:54
of um pitch just started to evaporate
18:58
right so you've got to understand why
19:02
being the issuer of the currency with a
19:04
monetary system like the one we have
19:06
today
19:07
means never having to ask how will we
19:10
pay for it
19:11
that's the easy part the easiest part of
19:14
all of this is coming up with the money
19:17
now
19:19
asterisk right
19:21
if the votes are there the money is
19:23
there and that's what we saw in 12
19:26
months time when congress voted not once
19:29
not twice but three times for major
19:31
packages that kicked out five trillion
19:34
dollars without increasing taxes without
19:37
handwriting about how to pay for it they
19:39
wrote the legislation the votes were
19:41
there and the money went out
19:43
so
19:44
what you have to realize is
19:46
if you can collect enough votes to pass
19:49
a piece of legislation the money will
19:51
always be there this is the easy part
19:54
the challenge right couple the two-fold
19:57
at least finding the votes securing the
20:00
votes when you have
20:02
people like senator manchin or senator
20:04
cinema
20:06
who don't want to vote for one reason or
20:08
the other
20:09
because there are things in the proposed
20:11
legislation that they don't like then
20:13
you obviously can't pass a bill if you
20:15
don't have the votes but suppose you get
20:17
the votes
20:18
then the challenge becomes
20:20
managing the spending in a way that is
20:23
responsible so saying that the
20:26
government doesn't have a financial
20:28
constraint like the rest of us do that
20:30
its budget doesn't work like a household
20:32
budget that it can just commit to
20:34
spending dollars that it does not have
20:37
is not the same as saying
20:39
the government can just spend whatever
20:41
it wants and never have to worry about
20:44
anything because it can't go broke like
20:45
a household or a private business no
20:48
okay there are limits
20:50
but the limit is not
20:52
financial it is not running out of money
20:55
it is not turning into greece the
20:57
relevant constraint the thing to watch
20:59
out for
21:00
with respect to the government and its
21:02
spending is inflation
21:05
we have real resource constraints on the
21:08
supply side of the economy there are
21:10
capacity constraints and if ever there
21:13
was a time to illustrate that it's now
21:15
right because we all see it every single
21:17
day we see the
21:19
ships you know uh trying to get in and
21:23
off load at ports we know that there are
21:25
problems in trucking and freight and
21:28
bottlenecks in the supply chain globally
21:31
you know semiconductors and computer
21:33
chips and all the rest of it so
21:36
we've we've gotten this very
21:39
kind of for horrible reasons a global
21:41
pandemic
21:42
a very beautiful illustration of both
21:46
what it's possible for congress and
21:48
governments around the world to do when
21:51
something is deemed a priority the money
21:53
can always be there
21:54
and a reminder of what where the real
21:58
constraints are they're in the supply
22:00
side in the productive capacity of our
22:02
economies you can't run out of money but
22:05
you can run out of things to buy
22:07
and what we're dealing with right now
22:10
are a number of challenges many of them
22:13
related to supply chain and bottlenecks
22:16
in production and the rest of it so i
22:18
don't mean to suggest that we have the
22:20
inflation problem we have today because
22:23
the deficits were too big in fact those
22:26
that have looked at this and analyzed
22:27
that economists and others who have been
22:30
doing this kind of research
22:32
are reaching the conclusion that
22:34
in fact the government fiscal policies
22:38
the packages that were passed did a
22:40
whole lot to hold the economy together
22:42
restore jobs and support uh the recovery
22:45
and so forth but in fact added very
22:47
little to inflationary pressures that
22:49
what's driving the current inflation is
22:52
about other things not about running
22:55
fiscal policy too hot but i am
22:57
recognizing that one of the risks in you
23:00
know running the government's budget
23:02
very aggressively to address climate
23:04
change and other challenges we face
23:06
is that you've got to be able to manage
23:08
the spending and manage the strain on
23:11
your productive capacity responsibly so
23:14
that you don't trigger
23:17
an inflation problem in your economy so
23:20
those are big uh sort of outline uh and
23:23
i'm gonna
23:24
stop and turn it over to my esteemed
23:27
colleague.
C:
23:32
uh yes
23:34
yeah before that i was just like to to
23:37
just share some uh resources with the
23:40
audience yes just for you know
23:43
to i guess expand or learn
23:46
our learning uh yeah let me just share
23:49
this
23:50
okay got it
23:54
yes yeah so i just want to highlight two
23:57
books that uh both our speakers have
24:00
contributed to first the deficit myth
24:03
uh written by professor kelton new york
24:05
times bestseller a great
24:08
and very easily readable resource on
24:11
modern monetary theory and i think it'll
24:15
be a great
24:16
purchase of a book if you want to uh
24:20
learn about mmt in simple language and
24:23
in a very easy fashion uh professor
24:26
pablo has also contributed to this
24:28
excellent
24:30
book on monetary oh sorry
24:33
sovereignty in 21st century africa if
24:36
you're interested in macroeconomics and
24:38
how it applies to the global south and
24:41
developing nations we'd also like to
24:43
share two books that are interested if
24:46
some of you would like to really go in
24:47
depth and learn more about
24:50
modern monetary theory one is a modern
24:52
money theory a primary macroeconomics
24:54
for sovereign monetary systems
24:56
by el randle ray who's an eminent
24:59
scholar of m t
25:01
and also
25:02
an excellent book
25:05
by stephen hale about economics for
25:07
sustainable prosperity which
25:10
draws on the intersection of
25:12
ecological economics and with the
25:16
modern monetary
25:18
theory
25:19
one last thing you know
25:21
uh if you attended this event we still
25:24
have three other upcoming events uh one
25:29
on april 1st about innovation finances
25:32
financialization in a pharmaceutical
25:34
industry another on april 7th
25:38
with another actually excellent mmt
25:40
scholar professor pavlina cerneva about
25:43
her inequality and a fourth event i saw
25:47
a question on the chat about carbon
25:49
credits and so on if you're if you're
25:52
interested in how to tackle climate
25:54
change and the details of the planning
25:56
and the financing for how to uh do that
25:59
session four on april 13th
26:02
is the event for you with the jesse
26:05
jenkins and robert hockett
26:08
and with that i'll
26:10
leave the floor for professor fadel
26:14
kabul
26:16
um thank you again for the invitation oh
26:18
go ahead at least oh sorry i was going
26:20
to do just a quick introduction
26:22
um
26:27
so yeah uh thank you for joining us
26:32
is a associate professor of economics at
26:34
denison university
26:36
and a president of the global institute
26:38
for sustainable prosperity his recent
26:40
work focuses on the political economy of
26:43
the uprisings in the middle east
26:45
dr khabib's regional expertise is on the
26:47
economies of the united states middle
26:49
east and north africa especially tunisia
26:52
he is also a co-author of the book we
26:54
showed uh previously economic and
26:56
monetary sovereignty in 21st century
26:58
africa so everybody please welcome dr
27:01
fedele kabu
27:03
thank you thanks again for for the kind
27:05
invitation and for organizing this uh
27:08
very important series i'm i'm excited to
27:10
be uh to be part of it um i'm sharing my
27:13
screen here can you confirm that you see
27:14
the the full screen
27:18
yes i can't see you so yes yes
27:23
okay wonderful so
27:25
um what i wanted to cover today after
27:28
stephanie's excellent introduction to to
27:30
mmt here is a little bit of a look at
27:34
the global south and at the climate
27:36
crisis from an mmt perspective
27:38
there's there's frequently this idea
27:41
that mmt only applies in a country like
27:43
the us
27:44
uh and and we're trying to challenge
27:46
this idea with with some specific
27:49
uh insight so here we go
27:52
see if we can do
27:54
so
27:55
the starting point for the analysis for
27:57
going into the global context is to
27:59
understand the concept of monetary
28:01
sovereignty and to understand that
28:03
different countries have a different
28:05
degree of monetary sovereignty you have
28:07
countries with no monetary sovereignty a
28:09
country like ecuador that completely
28:11
dollarized its economy and uses the
28:13
foreign currency as the national
28:15
currency and then you have countries
28:16
with very high degrees of monetary
28:18
sovereignty like the u.s like japan like
28:20
canada and so on and lots of other
28:23
developing countries sort of in between
28:25
and the question is what determines
28:27
where you sit on this spectrum of
28:29
monetary sovereignty this is really what
28:31
we're getting into
28:33
and then based on the degree of monetary
28:35
sovereignty it will determine the
28:38
spending capacity that the country has
28:41
before it starts hitting the inflation
28:43
pressure points so the higher the degree
28:46
of monetary sovereignty the more fiscal
28:48
spending capacity the government has
28:51
with always an eye towards the risks of
28:54
inflation which i'll discuss uh shortly
28:57
so a country with a high degree of
28:59
monetary sovereignty is a country that
29:00
issues its own national currency that's
29:03
the easy part the second
29:05
thing is that it's a country that
29:07
collects taxes in the same national
29:09
currency most countries can do this and
29:11
it gets really tricky with the third and
29:13
fourth conditions here
29:15
it's a country that only issues bonds
29:17
denominated in the national currency in
29:20
other words
29:21
don't borrow and promise to pay in
29:24
foreign currencies in dollars and euros
29:26
and other currencies and that is the
29:27
case for a lot of developing countries
29:29
we'll talk about why that is the case
29:32
and how we can
29:33
avoid
29:34
these traps and number four which is
29:37
related to the issue of external debt
29:40
that is a country
29:42
doesn't fix its exchange rate to the us
29:46
dollar or to the euro or to any
29:47
commodity like gold in other words you
29:50
have a floating exchange rate or a
29:52
flexible exchange rate and we'll see why
29:54
in many cases developing countries are
29:56
trapped into a situation
29:59
where they find themselves forced
30:01
into a fixed exchange rate system and
30:03
i'll talk about how we can undo these
30:05
traps and by undoing these traps i mean
30:08
gradually moving from a low degree of
30:10
monetary sovereignty to a higher degree
30:13
of monetary sovereignty so here we go
30:17
a key distinction that stephanie made a
30:19
few minutes ago that i'd like to
30:20
highlight is the distinction between
30:22
currency issuer and currency users so
30:25
don't try this at home this is not for
30:28
you know individuals to go into a
30:30
spending spree and it's not for states
30:32
or municipalities at the local level
30:34
where currency users to to think in
30:37
terms of monetary sovereign in terms of
30:39
spending capacity so this is for federal
30:42
government for a national government at
30:44
the at the national level
30:46
so a quick understanding of what
30:49
the situation is for developing
30:51
countries developing countries typically
30:54
have structural trade deficits which
30:57
lead to
30:58
high external debt meaning debt
31:00
denominated in foreign currencies
31:02
usually dollars or euros or british
31:04
bounds and so on and the major root
31:06
causes of this structural trade deficit
31:08
that leads to this high external debt
31:10
are three basic deficiencies one is high
31:14
levels of energy imports and that is
31:17
actually true even for countries that
31:19
are
31:20
big oil exporters uh oil and gas
31:22
exporters why because they typically
31:24
export crude oil and then re-import the
31:27
refined petrochemicals the higher value
31:30
added petrochemicals gasoline kerosene
31:33
and other petrochemicals for industrial
31:35
production number two high levels of
31:38
food deficit very high dependence on
31:41
imported food
31:42
and number three the structural
31:45
industrialization deficiency whereby you
31:48
have developing countries essentially
31:50
specializing in assembly line type of
31:53
manufacturing in other words they import
31:55
high value added content they import
31:58
capital they import the inputs the
32:00
intermediate components and then they
32:02
have low cost labor
32:05
racing to the bottom to set up assembly
32:08
line type of manufacturing or even worse
32:10
than that in terms of the lowest value
32:12
added content of of production it's
32:15
literally extraction of natural
32:16
resources for export with no value added
32:19
so when you add up these three traps you
32:21
end up with the structural trade deficit
32:24
that puts downward pressure on the value
32:27
of your currency relative to the dollar
32:29
so you have currency depreciation and
32:32
that currency depreciation literally
32:33
means that your currency is cheaper or
32:36
weaker relative to the dollar so
32:38
anything you're going to buy the next
32:40
morning whether it's food whether it's
32:41
medicine whether it's computers or
32:43
medical equipment all of that is going
32:45
to be imported at a much higher cost in
32:48
real terms which means you're importing
32:50
inflation so now you could face the
32:52
potential of social and political unrest
32:55
because people can't afford food can't
32:56
deport transportation or heating and
32:58
cooling and so on so that puts the
33:01
government in a very
33:03
difficult situation facing potential
33:06
social unrest this is where the
33:08
government has to intervene
33:10
artificially to keep the value of their
33:13
currency artificially stable and that
33:15
artificial stability is done basically
33:19
by
33:20
having the central bank or a foreign or
33:23
the ministry of finance essentially
33:25
borrow in in foreign currencies
33:28
hi buddy
33:30
can you go upstairs please
33:31
[Music]
33:33
okay later please can you go upstairs
33:38
um
33:39
so the
33:40
the currency depreciation essentially
33:42
forces the government to
33:44
stabilize the exchange rate by borrowing
33:47
dollars and euros and as a result
33:48
accumulating external debt in order to
33:51
stave off this potential instability
33:54
related to food and fuel price inflation
33:58
so the mainstream economic model has a
34:00
pretty standard answer to this and it's
34:03
basically austerity the government needs
34:05
to
34:06
reduce its spending reduce its debt
34:09
commitment reduce the social subsidies
34:11
for food and fuel and so on uh debt
34:14
restructuring when you reach levels of
34:16
external debt that become unsustainable
34:19
my own country tunisia is in this
34:21
situation as we speak negotiating with
34:23
the imf austerity plans and debt
34:26
restructuring plans
34:27
also on the table privatizing
34:29
state-owned enterprises where the
34:31
government would sell the airport or the
34:33
national airline company or whatever
34:36
industry the government controls and the
34:38
idea is to generate dollars to pay the
34:40
external debt
34:42
market labor market flexibility in other
34:45
words weaken labor unions lower wages to
34:48
attract more foreign investment into the
34:50
economy
34:51
foreign investment or foreign direct
34:53
investment fdi and export-led growth
34:56
become the key
34:58
strategies for developing countries that
35:00
follow the the mainstream approach the
35:02
imf recommendations typically the idea
35:05
here is to offer an attractive
35:08
investment environment for foreign
35:10
companies to come in and set up shop but
35:12
what are they looking for typically in
35:14
developing countries lower wages lower
35:16
regulation and all kinds of incentives
35:20
no taxes um cheaper electricity
35:23
subsidized electricity subsidized water
35:26
lower environmental standards so it's a
35:28
it's a race to the bottom but it's
35:30
actually worse than export-oriented
35:32
growth because foreign direct investment
35:34
not only brings the foreign capital and
35:36
the technology and imports the fuel to
35:38
run the industry but also takes the
35:40
profits at the end of the year and it's
35:43
usually
35:44
repatriated to the global north so it's
35:46
even more extractive than your standard
35:49
low value edit content manufacturing and
35:51
export lead growth
35:54
financial liberalization this is the
35:56
idea of essentially opening up your
35:58
financial market your stock market
35:59
liberalizing it for foreign investors
36:02
you typically end up doing this
36:03
artificially by raising interest rates
36:06
by deregulating the financial system and
36:09
you end up with the speculative bubble
36:11
we've seen this in south africa we've
36:12
seen this and uh in mexico and in turkey
36:16
and south korea and other places it
36:17
leads to a disaster because you get
36:19
speculators who are interested in buying
36:21
low and selling high and then leaving
36:23
the economy with the with the big crisis
36:25
tourism is a is a huge
36:28
problem that is often perceived as the
36:30
solution to these things why because
36:32
tourists come in and they create jobs
36:34
and they spend they bring dollars to the
36:36
economy but we often don't recognize
36:39
that the more tourism you have the more
36:41
food imports a country has to bring in
36:44
the more energy imports you have to
36:46
bring in to serve the tourists to heat
36:47
and cool the hotels to transport people
36:50
and so on so it ends up being a net
36:52
negative in many cases and this is
36:54
pre-covered of course so tourism itself
36:56
unless it's ecological tourism unless
36:59
we're talking about a country that has
37:01
renewable energy security that has food
37:04
sovereignty then tourism becomes a net
37:06
benefit but for most countries we're not
37:08
there yet
37:10
remittances reliance on workers
37:13
uh
37:14
working abroad and sending money back
37:16
home well this produces a brain drain as
37:19
most of you probably acknowledge here so
37:21
it's not a sustainable strategy to get
37:24
out of an external debt crisis so we end
37:26
up with a race to the bottom more
37:27
external debt and essentially more of
37:30
the same since the 1980s we've been in
37:33
this perpetual
37:35
external debt crisis for most developing
37:37
countries
37:39
so we're told there's no alternative but
37:42
what i'm suggesting here is that there
37:43
is an alternative to get out of these
37:46
structural traps
37:48
to give you just one example
37:50
this is the composition of bolivia's
37:52
exports and i could have picked any
37:53
other country a very similar situation
37:56
mostly raw materials uh very low value
38:00
added content of exports and then you
38:02
look at the import it's higher
38:04
value-added content it's uh
38:06
medical equipment it's cars it's a lot
38:08
of food imports a lot of energy imports
38:11
and so on so very typical trap for most
38:15
developing countries now you take this
38:17
on a global scale and you look at the
38:19
global south versus the global north
38:22
and you net out all global financial
38:24
transactions
38:26
including aid including
38:28
debt payments exports import foreign
38:30
direct investment remittances all of
38:32
those financial transactions the net
38:35
amount as you can see here
38:37
from
38:38
the uh the the green line right here and
38:41
i'm reading it on this axis right here
38:43
this is net resource transfers between
38:46
global north and global south that
38:48
number right there is two trillion
38:50
dollars and it's negative which means
38:52
two trillion dollars are moving from the
38:55
poorest countries in the world to the
38:57
richest countries in the world now this
38:59
is a big problem because presumably the
39:02
model of economic development was
39:05
designed to help developing countries
39:07
after independence catch up with the
39:08
industrialized world but what we're
39:10
seeing here not only there's no catching
39:13
up but we're getting deeper into the
39:15
trap notice this green line is going
39:16
further and further into the negative
39:18
territory now there is no way we're
39:20
going to put a dent in climate change or
39:22
any major issues unless we fix this this
39:25
is a broken
39:26
global financial architecture that sucks
39:29
trillions of dollars from the poorest
39:31
countries on a regular basis so that's
39:34
one of the pieces of information i want
39:36
to make sure here most of you are
39:38
familiar with this picture global
39:40
income distribution a major problem but
39:43
to to add the climate effects to it what
39:46
we find is that
39:48
most co2 emissions are actually done by
39:51
the richest uh countries and the richest
39:53
individuals in the world so there is a
39:56
there's an added responsibility for
39:59
repairing the damage to the financial
40:01
system repairing the damage when it
40:03
comes to the planet uh problem so now
40:06
back to this spectrum of monetary
40:08
sovereignty and let's see where the
40:10
global south is and where the global
40:11
north is the global south is typically
40:14
in this low degree of monetary
40:15
sovereignty end of the spectrum why
40:18
because of very high levels of external
40:20
debt
40:22
and
40:23
the following reasons so low degree of
40:25
monetary sovereignty uh the global south
40:28
is not responsible for climate change
40:31
high extern when you look at co2
40:32
emissions since the industrial
40:34
revolution has been mostly the global
40:35
north the global south has high
40:38
levels of external debt low productive
40:41
capacity to decarbonize the system and
40:43
build alternative
40:45
economic systems
40:47
low capacity for research and
40:48
development because it's not only about
40:51
building the new technology it's about
40:53
actually investing in material science
40:56
research energy efficiency so that we
40:58
decarbonize the system without
41:00
destroying more of the ecosystem in
41:03
terms of extraction of minerals and so
41:05
on producing a truly circular economy
41:08
requires a massive investment in
41:10
research and development
41:11
and the global south suffers from
41:13
neo-colonial extractive economic system
41:15
that i just described on the other hand
41:17
the global north
41:18
has oops this should say high degree of
41:21
monetary sovereignty it's on this end of
41:24
the spectrum it is responsible for
41:26
climate change when you look at most co2
41:28
emissions since the industrial
41:29
revolution
41:31
even if you take into account the recent
41:33
newcomers to the big emitters club china
41:36
and india they're also producing for
41:39
consumption in the global north so the
41:41
responsibility is still in the global
41:44
north low to no levels of external debt
41:47
for most countries on on this end of the
41:49
spectrum japan's ex japan's national
41:52
debt 100 in japanese yen u.s national
41:55
debt 100 in u.s dollars so no external
41:58
debt to speak of high productive
42:00
capacity high potential for research and
42:03
development
42:04
and benefits the global north clearly
42:07
has benefited and continues to benefit
42:09
from the extraction of resources
42:12
financial and real resources from the
42:14
global north and that's why
42:16
i'm talking here about a mechanism for
42:19
reparations repairing the broken
42:22
financial architecture that sucks two
42:24
trillion dollars from the global south
42:26
repairing the economic the global
42:29
economic infrastructure so that we allow
42:32
developing countries to truly develop
42:35
and build productive capacity and
42:37
gradually move from this end of the
42:39
spectrum
42:41
to a higher degree of monetary
42:42
sovereignty so i always think of this in
42:45
terms of reparations reparations for
42:47
climate debt reparations for colonial
42:50
debt and reparations doesn't mean simply
42:53
monetary compensation it starts with
42:55
debt cancellation for developing
42:57
countries
42:58
and then you actually have a transfer of
43:00
financial resources so that the two
43:02
trillion dollars that are moving in the
43:04
wrong direction start moving in the
43:06
right direction and number three
43:08
reparations in terms of actually
43:10
repairing the structures so that we have
43:13
productive capacity and resilient
43:15
economies with resilient energy
43:17
production renewable energy production
43:19
both in the global north and the global
43:21
south resilient agricultural sectors
43:25
that can produce food sovereignty in the
43:27
global south and that's where we can
43:29
actually start putting a dent in climate
43:31
change and start putting a dent in the
43:34
all the global inequities that we've
43:36
been talking about the question is how
43:38
do we pay for it where does the money
43:40
come from do we have the capacity to do
43:43
this without causing inflation without
43:44
bankrupting countries and and so on
43:48
so a global green new deal can we afford
43:50
it how do we pay for it this is where
43:52
the mmt analysis becomes uh critical so
43:56
the standard approach tells us well
43:58
governments are limited in terms of how
44:00
much they can spend they can tax they
44:02
can borrow maybe a little bit but beyond
44:04
that that's it we'll we'll have
44:05
hyperinflation and we have countries
44:07
going bankrupt what mmt is saying is
44:10
that we have this additional spending
44:12
capacity this bright yellow space that's
44:14
not infinite it's constrained it's
44:16
limited by the risk of inflation
44:19
so as as an m t i become obsessed with
44:22
the risk of inflation what actually
44:23
determines the risk of inflation and for
44:25
me it's
44:27
two things one is the lack of productive
44:30
capacity logistical capacity supply
44:32
chains capacity
44:34
labor skills available
44:36
those are the real resources when we run
44:38
out of those and we continue to spend
44:41
we'll have inflation the good news about
44:43
this productive capacity is that it's
44:45
producible we can create millions of
44:48
jobs and invest more to increase the
44:51
productive capacity in strategic areas
44:54
in renewables and research and
44:55
development in
44:57
transportation and agriculture
44:58
renewables and so on so that's the good
45:01
news the second component however that
45:05
causes inflation and can fuel and
45:07
exacerbate inflation pressure points is
45:09
what i call abusive
45:11
market power and abusive price setting
45:13
behavior that is to say when you have
45:15
key players in the system domestically
45:17
and internationally who can raise prices
45:20
simply because they can when you think
45:22
of the global food system we literally
45:24
have five global mega corporations that
45:26
control the entire
45:28
global food supply system
45:30
and of course they use their market
45:32
power and they abuse their market power
45:35
so
45:36
how do we tame that risk of inflation
45:38
that comes out of abusive market power
45:40
you don't reduce it by
45:42
not spending by implementing austerity
45:45
and saying there's nothing we can do you
45:47
tame the risk of inflation from abusive
45:49
market power by taxing and regulating
45:52
their abusive market power out of
45:54
existence
45:55
by applying antitrust laws by
45:57
democratizing those markets and making
45:59
them more competitive and that is
46:02
fundamentally a question of political
46:05
choice that is a question of democracy
46:07
do we have governments of the people by
46:10
the people for the people or governments
46:12
of the corporations for the corporations
46:15
and and so on
46:16
and it's
46:18
a question of democracy it's a question
46:20
of corruption it's a
46:22
question of
46:23
the influence the power and influence of
46:26
oligarchical powers in the democratic
46:29
process so these are the real
46:31
constraints it's not about finding the
46:33
money like stephanie kelton just
46:35
explained it's about finding finding the
46:38
votes to implement and fund the real
46:41
strategic
46:43
choices that includes spending
46:45
strategically where capacity is lacking
46:47
and taxing and regulating abusive power
46:50
when as as needed
46:52
and that's the paradigm shift that mmt
46:54
is is proposing now the issue of
46:57
inflation as i just explained
46:59
is not about finding the money is not
47:01
about any of this and yet we have
47:02
central bankers around the world since
47:05
the 2008 financial crisis essentially
47:07
admitting that they have no reliable
47:10
theory of inflation and yet they're
47:13
still convinced they can target
47:14
inflation even today what are we going
47:16
to do in the u.s and the rest of the
47:18
world everybody's saying we're going to
47:19
raise interest rates to tame the sources
47:21
of inflation and to fight this
47:23
covet-induced inflation when the actual
47:26
inflation pressure points that we're
47:28
experiencing right now are way outside
47:30
the jurisdiction of the central bank
47:32
in tunisia and most developing countries
47:35
the sources of inflation are food
47:36
imports and energy imports energy
47:38
imports controlled by opec
47:41
food imports are controlled by five
47:43
global corporations now how can the
47:45
central bank of a small developing
47:47
country raise interest rates
47:49
domestically and the hope that it will
47:51
convince opec to lower oil prices or in
47:54
the hope that it will convince the five
47:56
mega corporations that control food
47:58
prices that they should lower their
48:00
their prices it's got nothing to do with
48:02
it inflation is way outside their
48:04
jurisdiction and yet they believe that
48:06
they can cause so much economic pain to
48:10
to their own people
48:12
in the hope of targeting inflation and
48:14
aiming inflation so i usually use this
48:16
gift just to give you an idea of what
48:18
central bankers are are doing here's the
48:20
ecb trying to target inflation for a
48:23
decade and it's not even funny it's all
48:25
over the place these are the ecb
48:27
expectations or expected inflation
48:30
rates and this is the real inflation
48:32
rate it's got nothing to do with it it's
48:34
managed in in in uh and created in a
48:38
space that's way outside their their
48:40
jurisdiction so what i'd like to suggest
48:43
and this is counter-intuitive so bear
48:45
with me here is that from an mmt
48:48
perspective
48:49
increasing government spending can
48:51
actually fight inflation whereas the
48:53
mainstream is telling us if you have
48:55
more government spending it will cause
48:57
inflation they're blaming the covet
48:59
inflation that we're experiencing right
49:01
now on federal spending to help the poor
49:03
the unemployed people displaced with the
49:05
pandemic
49:06
and so hear me out here's the mainstream
49:08
narrative
49:10
they say this can't happen there's not
49:12
this doesn't make any sense so here's
49:14
how they explain it they say let's say a
49:16
country like tunisia wants to spend two
49:19
billion dinars on health and education
49:21
two important sectors in domestic
49:23
currency this is not external debt or
49:25
anything like that they say here's
49:26
what's going to happen more imports of
49:28
food and energy and medical equipment
49:30
we're going to have a larger trade
49:32
deficit it's going to lead to a weaker
49:34
exchange rate the dinar relative to the
49:36
dollar in the euro are we going to have
49:38
a pass-through inflation effect in other
49:40
words everything the country imports
49:42
food medicine and so on
49:44
it's going to be more expensive with the
49:47
effects of a weaker exchange rate
49:49
we're going to have more external debt
49:51
because now the central bank has to
49:52
fight this inflation and borrow more the
49:55
imf and foreign lenders will step in and
49:57
say spending cuts austerity you can't do
49:59
this you have a debt crisis so we're
50:01
going to have less investment in health
50:02
and education we're back to square one
50:05
and we're going to have more
50:06
unemployment more brain drain more
50:07
social economic political tensions more
50:10
of the same and they're gonna say we
50:12
told you there is no alternative haven't
50:14
you heard you know margaret thatcher
50:16
since the 80s saying there is no
50:18
alternative to austerity to all of this
50:20
stuff
50:21
now here's scenario number two the mmt
50:24
approach to actually fighting inflation
50:27
in a developing country
50:29
we're going to spend the same amount 2
50:32
billion dinars in the case of tunisia
50:34
except now we're going to spend 1
50:36
billion dinars on health and education
50:39
and then we're going to spend the second
50:41
billion dinars on increasing domestic
50:43
productive capacity
50:45
in food production renewable energy
50:48
production renewable energy efficiency
50:51
and crackdown on corruption abuse of
50:53
price setters importers of luxury goods
50:55
via taxation and regulation so the same
50:58
amount of spending
50:59
except with a different composition with
51:01
a different strategic focus here's the
51:04
impact fewer imports of food and energy
51:07
which means a lower trade deficit which
51:09
means stable or even stronger exchange
51:12
rate over time which means no imported
51:15
inflation which means lower external
51:18
debt higher credit ratings for the
51:20
country an increase in foreign currency
51:23
reserves which gives the central bank
51:24
more firepower more resilience to
51:27
external shocks in the future related to
51:29
food and energy prices and lower carbon
51:31
footprint because you're producing
51:33
renewables and you're producing
51:34
domestically more employment less brain
51:37
drain improved quality of life for all
51:40
now we're talking
51:42
so we spend more
51:44
to tame the sources of inflation not to
51:46
fuel the sources of inflation so now
51:49
what is the limit to the spending is it
51:51
actually two billion in ours maybe it's
51:53
three maybe it's four maybe it's seven
51:55
what determines the real limit of how
51:58
much the government can spend in this
52:00
particular case
52:01
is the availability of real resources do
52:03
we have the skilled labor do we have the
52:05
logistical capabilities do we have the
52:07
real resources do we have the
52:09
administrative uh managerial
52:12
capabilities to expand and scale up this
52:15
type of uh intervention and that's what
52:18
determines the real capacity of of uh of
52:22
spending it's not borrowing externally
52:24
it's not finding the money so to speak
52:27
the last thing i want to add here to
52:29
close this and kind of open up to a
52:31
broader conversation is the importance
52:33
of industrial strategies and this is
52:36
typically a problem for small developing
52:38
countries because you can't really
52:40
industrialize if you have a market a
52:42
domestic market of 10 million consumers
52:44
you need to hit economies of scale in
52:47
other words you need to produce on a
52:49
larger scale and when you do that you
52:51
don't have enough of your consumers
52:53
domestically so you have to export you
52:55
have to compete with germany and japan
52:57
and so on and it's too late to break
52:59
into those markets
53:01
today so how do you industrialize more
53:04
strategically and this is why i always
53:06
emphasize the importance of south south
53:09
strategic partnerships large trading
53:11
blocks in the global south with
53:14
complementary resources and capabilities
53:17
making a priority list for the
53:19
industries that they actually need for
53:21
their internal resilience and those
53:23
industries
53:25
will allow you to scale up to hit those
53:28
economies of scale and build these
53:30
horizontal linkages that allow you to
53:32
capture more and more value-added
53:35
content within the trading block and you
53:37
focus on collective resilience
53:39
you start with food security renewable
53:42
energy security water security education
53:44
training health care these are the
53:46
productive capacity priorities that you
53:49
need to prioritize on a regional scale
53:52
and if that means partnership with some
53:54
countries in the global north so be it
53:56
this doesn't have to be exclusive but it
53:58
has to be resilience based and it has to
54:01
be aimed at repairing the structural
54:04
damage that i described earlier and this
54:06
is how a country over time acquires a
54:09
higher degree of economic and monetary
54:11
sovereignty and if a country or regional
54:14
bloc lacks this very basic level of
54:16
resilience it has no bargaining chips it
54:19
can't walk away from a negotiation table
54:21
for trade agreements or anything with
54:23
the global north and it will continue to
54:25
lose its economic and and monetary
54:27
sovereignty so to conclude we have less
54:30
than 10 years to go maybe eight years to
54:32
transform the global economy to tackle
54:36
the the key problems that we have on on
54:38
the climate front and we're not going to
54:40
be able to do it with the current
54:41
policies the current uh climate corr
54:44
policies inequality cri we have all of
54:46
these multiple crises that require bold
54:49
transformative action and the current uh
54:52
climate jobs policies are too weak too
54:54
slow too expensive and effective and
54:57
dangerous literally dangerous when it
54:59
comes to the impact of climate change a
55:01
global green new deal so not the u.s
55:04
contact school in green
55:06
with climate and colonial reparations in
55:09
the in the sense that i described today
55:11
is possible desirable and affordable and
55:14
with that i'm happy to take any
55:16
questions thank you again
55:30
thank you so much for that presentation
55:32
that
55:33
[Music]
55:39
we have a lot of questions in the chat
55:41
so i'm going to
55:43
just read some of them off that have
55:44
like the uh the most like amount of
55:46
upvotes um please feel free to keep
55:47
sending questions to the chat and um
55:50
in regards to answering the questions
55:51
feel free either of you can feel free to
55:53
take the question both of you can answer
55:55
if one of you feels like one one answers
55:57
it uh sufficiently we can go on to the
55:59
next one um so just be very uh
56:01
conversational and casual how we handle
56:03
the questions so
56:15
okay so one question here uh from
56:18
lindsey fernandez is do you believe this
56:20
understanding of the deficit as
56:22
described by modern monetary theory is
56:24
something that our elected
56:24
representatives are already aware of and
56:27
generally
56:28
and genuinely skeptical of or something
56:30
that they reject as more of a talking
56:32
point
56:36
you want me to jump in with this one
56:39
stephanie.
Kelton：
well
56:42
so
56:42
the answer to the first part of the
56:44
question is an unequivocal yes it is
56:47
something that they are aware of
56:49
um
56:51
so after the
56:53
2020 election
56:55
the congressional progressive caucus
56:59
has a tuesday call just a routine call
57:02
every tuesday they often invite someone
57:05
in to join the call and speak with
57:07
members of the caucus the caucus has
57:09
about 100 members
57:11
and the first tuesday after
57:14
president after biden was uh elected
57:18
they invited me to join that call and to
57:20
talk mmt with members of the progressive
57:23
caucus now this was definitely not the
57:25
first time that i had talked with
57:27
members of the house or senate but it
57:28
was the largest single gathering right
57:31
i've presented in zooms to a couple of
57:34
dozen i've joined lawmakers
57:36
on the hill for dinners and
57:38
presentations and i've i've worked in
57:40
the senate and and so i know that there
57:43
are
57:44
many people who are
57:46
in one of three categories maybe you
57:48
know
57:49
aware and highly supportive
57:52
aware and interested in learning
57:56
aware
57:58
skeptical
57:59
okay four categories aware hostile and
58:02
so
58:03
uh the aware hostile the interesting
58:05
thing about the aware hostile group is
58:07
that they run economic policy as if
58:10
they've already embraced mmt
58:12
they just don't want
58:15
progressives or democrats
58:17
deploying the power of the purse in
58:20
pursuit of a progressive agenda or an
58:24
agenda that serves a broader
58:25
constituency
58:27
they like very much just you know
58:29
keeping this to themselves and doing
58:32
huge tax cuts and other things that make
58:34
use of the deficit to serve a narrow
58:37
constituency for whom they feel beholden
58:41
uh but they don't really want democrats
58:43
catching on to the game so i'm obviously
58:45
talking about tax cuts and so forth and
58:47
you know there was a uh small number of
58:51
republicans in the house and in the
58:53
senate who have more than once
58:56
introduced legislation to condemn
58:59
modern monetary theory the most recent
59:02
attempt in the senate was
59:05
an effort to condemn modern monetary
59:08
theory
59:09
by um
59:12
unanimous consent which means if you
59:15
introduce
59:16
a resolution like that and you ask for
59:17
unanimous consent if nobody comes
59:19
forward to object then it just passes
59:22
and it would be in the congressional
59:24
record that the united states senate had
59:26
voted with unanimous consent to condemn
59:29
modern monetary theory so there was uh
59:32
an intervention and in this case senator
59:35
bernie sanders went down and objected
59:38
and
59:38
so prevented that from happening but
59:40
anyway
59:41
there are a lot of people who
59:44
are extremely supportive i think i would
59:46
put at the top of the list the chairman
59:48
of the house budget committee john
59:49
yarmuth who has done more
59:52
in an open way
59:54
to publicly embrace
59:56
mmt than i think any other member of
59:59
congress but
60:00
uh there are lots and lots of people who
60:04
either quietly uh or not so quietly
60:07
are
60:08
are supportive of the work that we're
60:10
doing.
F:
60:12
yeah absolutely i'll just add one one
60:15
thing here which is you know the the 535
60:18
people that we're talking about here in
60:20
washington dc they have the power of the
60:22
purse and what we're saying is that they
60:24
can spend strategically
60:26
to tackle climate change inequality
60:29
child poverty and all of that but also
60:31
tax and regulate abusive market power
60:34
and that's the part that there some of
60:36
them at least are not willing to do
60:37
because you'll be
60:39
essentially
60:40
you know taxing and regulating super
60:42
pacs that
60:44
bankroll
60:45
the democratic party the republican
60:47
party and so many of your elections and
60:49
here it's a question of democracy this
60:51
is a question of is it a government of
60:53
the people by the people for the people
60:55
or not so when we're talking about you
60:58
know the power of the person all of
61:00
these things being actually within reach
61:02
the real obstacle is not finding the
61:05
money it's not about finding the
61:07
engineering capabilities and the raw
61:09
materials and and the logistical
61:11
capabilities to actually tackle climate
61:13
change and build a resilient grid we
61:15
know how to do this we put a man on the
61:17
moon we won world war ii we know how to
61:19
get big things done
61:21
even with very limited financial
61:24
resources and most people think limited
61:26
financial resources world war ii came
61:28
right after the great depression there
61:30
was no money to be taxed no money to be
61:32
borrowed how did we go from the most
61:33
miserable time to the biggest government
61:36
intervention in the history of the
61:37
universe and winning the biggest war of
61:39
all
61:40
right it wasn't because we taxed
61:42
somebody or borrowed somebody that was
61:44
the easy part of the question all the
61:46
economists and policy makers of the time
61:49
were thinking where are we going to find
61:51
the
61:52
aircraft manufacturers to produce enough
61:55
jet fighters and tanks and
61:58
ammunition to win this thing if we were
62:00
thinking during world war ii to go into
62:02
this thing in an incremental way like
62:04
many people say like send 10 000 troops
62:07
every other month and see if we can win
62:08
this thing
62:09
would be speaking german today
62:11
how did we do it we set the priority
62:13
straight we focused on the real
62:15
productive capacity we shut down detroit
62:18
and we told detroit stop producing cars
62:20
start producing tanks
62:22
and we did it
62:23
for for three years we completely
62:25
retooled the productive capacity then
62:28
the concern was the risk of inflation
62:30
all of those workers we hired to build
62:32
those tanks and airplanes we pay them
62:34
decent wages in a free country they
62:37
should be able to go out and buy a car
62:39
or house or whatever they want but they
62:41
couldn't because we didn't have new cars
62:43
new houses so the concern was how do we
62:46
tame that potential risk of inflation
62:49
well we leveraged the political mood of
62:51
the nation and we convinced them to
62:53
postpone their consumption until after
62:55
the war not because we needed their
62:57
money so yes they invested in freedom
63:00
bonds and war bonds not to fund the war
63:03
the war was already funded but to
63:05
postpone their demand for consumer goods
63:07
until after the war and what happened
63:09
after the war we had plenty of
63:11
capabilities to build homes and build
63:14
cars
63:15
but guess what we didn't have enough
63:17
productive capacity to produce furniture
63:20
to put in those homes so what did
63:22
boeing do after the war they converted
63:25
their productive capacity from producing
63:27
tanks and airplane engines to producing
63:30
furniture literally furniture so we know
63:34
how to manage big massive intervention
63:37
without causing inflation and with
63:39
achieving those those targets all of
63:42
those were political decisions
63:44
carefully
63:46
made strategic decisions it's just today
63:48
they told us oh we can't do that well we
63:50
just did it with covet right 2.2
63:52
trillion dollars appeared nobody
63:54
objected to it because it was a national
63:56
priority and the concern was
63:58
the availability of real productive
64:01
capacity doctors nurses hospital beds
64:03
vaccines that was the problem it wasn't
64:06
finding the money
64:08
and yet
64:09
today
64:10
two years later they look back and tell
64:12
us oh this inflation we're experiencing
64:15
it's not because
64:16
big you know cartels are raising prices
64:19
because they can because logistical
64:21
disruptions to the global supply chain
64:23
no no no we're gonna blame it on poor
64:25
kids that we supported with the tax
64:27
credit we're going to blame it on the
64:29
unemployed and people displaced
64:31
because we gave so much of that
64:33
government spending so it's very
64:35
important for us to
64:37
you know
64:37
not allow the narrative to be hijacked
64:40
yet again about what actually causes
64:42
inflation and call their bluff and mmt
64:45
shines this bright light and allows us
64:48
to call their bluff and allows us to
64:50
democratize the public policy making
64:53
process
64:54
truly democratize it not leave it in the
64:56
hands of power and influence of a
64:58
handful of lobbyists and corporate
65:01
influencers
65:02
who can convince a big chunk of the
65:05
senate of congress to do as they please
65:12
awesome thank you for that answer guys
65:15
um next question is
65:18
how is it exactly that the trade deficit
65:20
of a country leads to inflation does it
65:23
always do this
65:24
um and does it have to do with whether
65:28
the debt is uh based in a foreign
65:30
currency or not and again like why does
65:32
this deficit necessarily lead to
65:34
inflation in place
65:38
i'll take this one so a trade deficit
65:40
doesn't always lead to inflation so the
65:43
the countries i was describing um were
65:46
their trade deficit was forcing them
65:49
into a situation
65:50
to borrow in foreign currencies
65:52
in order to stabilize the exchange rate
65:55
and they had to do it because it was
65:57
concentrated in key areas of
66:00
vulnerability food imports energy
66:03
imports medical imports typically high
66:05
value added content of manufacturing but
66:08
a country like the us we have a large
66:10
trade deficit
66:11
and we never borrow and promise to pay
66:14
in foreign currencies
66:16
anything that's available for sale
66:19
in the world for us dollars we can
66:21
afford it as a as a nation so we don't
66:24
have a problem with the with the trade
66:26
deficit in in the u.s
66:28
countries
66:29
also that have relatively large trade
66:32
deficits but happen to be able to offset
66:34
them with foreign direct investment into
66:37
their financial system uh or or are able
66:40
to pay for their food deficits and
66:43
energy deficits with with other exports
66:46
they don't have to worry about this they
66:48
don't have to go into
66:50
a currency crisis they don't have to go
66:52
into an external debt crisis so that's
66:54
why i emphasize in the case of
66:56
developing countries you can't run an
66:58
economy without food you can't run an
66:59
economy without energy and if you don't
67:02
have the resilience
67:03
and the sovereignty in the food sector
67:06
and the energy sector you have to import
67:08
those and now you're in trouble because
67:10
the rest of your economy is not
67:13
productive enough to offset your need
67:15
for for imports i'll give you an example
67:17
saudi arabia is a big
67:20
energy exporter oil exporter
67:22
but it's also has very weak
67:26
vulnerability in the food sector very
67:28
weak productive capacity and almost
67:30
everything else
67:32
so it can temporarily or artificially
67:35
kind of hide its vulnerability as long
67:38
as there's oil revenues but if you take
67:41
away the oil sector
67:42
the saudi economy looks like most
67:44
developing countries has no food
67:47
sovereignty has low value added content
67:50
of manufacturing and its currency will
67:52
depreciate and it will quickly turn into
67:55
a
67:56
net energy importer
67:58
if if the rest of the world decarbonizes
68:00
and oil is no longer needed saudi arabia
68:03
will will turn into an energy importer
68:05
will have to decarbonize its economy and
68:08
will face currency depreciation will
68:10
face a debt crisis like many developing
68:12
countries
68:13
so
68:14
that doesn't mean that you have to be a
68:16
big energy exporter or a big food
68:19
exporter to build that resilience
68:21
but you have to balance your economy
68:24
based on
68:25
key factors of resilience that allow you
68:28
to withstand external shocks without
68:30
having to implement austerity measures
68:32
and throw your people under the bus
68:39
great thank you um
68:41
next question is why would the global
68:45
north want to change uh this system did
68:47
they benefit uh from so much in terms of
68:50
uh extraction from the global south um
68:52
how can we convince the u.s to take on
68:55
policies um that would change that
68:57
relationship
68:59
well actually the current situation
69:01
happening in the ukraine is case in
69:02
point had germany and western europe had
69:05
renewable energy
69:07
capacity had they started investing
69:09
massively and decarbonizing the system
69:12
we wouldn't be in this
69:14
pickle with
69:16
germany and western europe essentially
69:18
having to continue buying oil and gas
69:21
from russia despite the conflictual
69:25
relationship that they have in terms of
69:27
uh the invasion of the ukraine and so on
69:29
so that's one
69:30
it's just a geopolitical mess when you
69:33
have to depend on a country like russia
69:36
or any other country
69:37
and it completely changes your
69:39
sovereignty right from in terms of your
69:42
your political beliefs your
69:43
philosophical beliefs what of what's
69:45
right and what's wrong that's point
69:47
number one point number two there's a
69:49
concept that um
69:51
several colleagues for decades now have
69:53
been working on it's called the carbon
69:56
bubble right
69:57
you're familiar with the stock market
69:59
bubble overvalued assets well the carbon
70:01
bubble refers to stock market value or
70:05
financial assets that are over inflated
70:08
because of the impact of
70:10
the fossil fuel industry and with the
70:12
impact of climate change as we
70:14
decarbonize we're going to make those
70:16
assets what we call stranded assets
70:18
useless assets that will lose a bunch of
70:20
value for example if you invest today in
70:22
coastal properties and hotels and
70:24
resorts and coastal areas that will be
70:27
hit with the impact of climate change a
70:29
flooded hotel is worth nothing a flooded
70:32
hotel doesn't generate a revenue stream
70:34
so that becomes a stranded asset and
70:36
that its value will deflate that's
70:38
that's the carbon bubble all the oil and
70:41
gas infrastructure that we're building
70:43
as we speak today will become stranded
70:45
assets as we actually take action and
70:48
start to decarbonize the system so
70:51
there is a built-in incentive from the
70:54
financial aspect to actually
70:57
uh start deleveraging the balance sheets
71:00
of your pension fund of your university
71:02
endowment is probably packed with
71:04
climate risk as we speak
71:06
so there's an incentive in the global
71:08
north because the biggest impact of the
71:10
carbon bubble will be in the global
71:12
north number two there's a thing we call
71:15
climate refugees you know there's a few
71:18
you know hundred thousand refugees from
71:21
syria and other parts of the world
71:23
caused a panic in 2015 and 2016 in
71:27
europe just wait for
71:29
the actual impact of climate change and
71:31
this is not me saying it the the world
71:34
bank who are not known as the tree
71:35
huggers of the world
71:37
their estimates for
71:39
millions and millions of people from the
71:41
global south
71:42
will be moving in the next by 2050
71:45
because of the impact of climate change
71:47
do we have the resilient infrastructure
71:50
in the global north to welcome millions
71:52
of refugees the schools the the food
71:54
capacity the transportation the energy
71:57
the the housing capacity we're not even
72:00
close so yes we do have an incentive to
72:02
fix this and number three as i said
72:04
earlier it's the moral ethical
72:06
responsibility that we have we've caused
72:09
most of the damage in the global south
72:12
and we have the moral ethical
72:14
responsibility to fix it the good news
72:16
is that we do have
72:18
the
72:19
spending capacity as i explained the the
72:22
fiscal capacity we do have the research
72:24
and development capacity we do have all
72:27
that it takes to actually do the right
72:30
thing
72:31
and fix this broken system
72:38
awesome thank you um
72:40
next question is how would studying the
72:43
economic impact of legislation be done
72:45
differently in a world where mmt is
72:48
fully embraced as opposed to how it's
72:50
currently
72:51
done with the cbo
72:55
Kelton:
well
72:56
so as somebody who
72:58
served on the senate budget committee
73:01
and
73:03
participated
73:04
in
73:05
drafting legislation and
73:07
working with other staffers who were
73:09
drafting legislation i can tell you this
73:12
in my time working in the senate
73:14
i do not believe i ever heard
73:17
once a staffer or a member of the united
73:20
states senate
73:22
talk about inflation in the same breath
73:25
as they were talking about
73:27
you know
73:28
whether to vote for a trillion dollar
73:30
infrastructure package or supported or
73:33
something like that it's not that it's
73:35
an afterthought it's that it is not
73:38
a thought at all isn't it's not part of
73:40
the calculus it's you know inflation is
73:44
the federal reserve's thing and congress
73:46
doesn't believe that it needs to pause
73:49
at any moment and think about
73:51
whether
73:52
major legislation that they're thinking
73:55
about voting for
73:56
carries inflation risk whether these
73:59
things they call pay fors
74:01
you know
74:02
the
74:02
this the way that we describe a pay for
74:05
is completely wrong-headed the idea is
74:09
when a bill is paid for it means if
74:12
you're proposing to spend let's say a
74:14
trillion dollars
74:15
doing infrastructure investments or
74:17
whatever that you have a plan
74:20
to remove a trillion dollars from some
74:22
other part of the economy either by
74:24
reducing spending in some other category
74:27
of the budget or by raising taxes so
74:30
that you generate a trillion dollars in
74:32
revenue so that you can go to the
74:33
congressional budget office say here's
74:35
my bill will you evaluate this and tell
74:38
me if it's a good bill but did i do a
74:40
good job and cbo takes it and cares
74:42
really about one big thing
74:44
what are the budgetary impacts of the
74:47
proposed legislation
74:49
so
74:50
if cbo's analysis shows that this can be
74:55
carried out
74:56
and it won't increase the deficit it
74:58
won't add to the debt
75:00
cbo assigns it a good score
75:02
and lawmakers think oh we did a very
75:03
good job we wrote a good bill it
75:05
fiscally responsible doesn't increase
75:07
deficit or add to the debt and mmt says
75:10
no no no you're this is this is the
75:12
wrong way to think about this right
75:14
what you want is to back your way into
75:18
these so-called pay fors and i would
75:20
stop calling them that because it's
75:22
misleading i would just call them
75:24
offsets you want to back your way into
75:26
the offsets i would start with the
75:28
presumption
75:30
that you may not need the offsets at all
75:32
there might be enough fiscal space
75:35
available to allow you to do whatever it
75:38
is you want to do
75:39
without the need to offset the spending
75:42
in any way start there right if it's a
75:46
small bill sometimes there are bills for
75:48
like a five billion dollar investment in
75:50
a youth job program or something
75:53
there's a very good chance that you can
75:56
do that without the need
75:58
for offsets but if you the bigger you
76:00
get is certainly as you move toward you
76:03
know green new deal or something like
76:04
that you're going to have to think a lot
76:06
harder and the offsets are going to
76:08
become important as you know depending
76:10
on what it is you're trying to
76:11
accomplish
76:12
so how do you do that
76:15
you evaluate the legislation
76:18
looking at the
76:20
impacts and strains and stresses on the
76:23
productive capacity you know if you if
76:25
you want to do a big infrastructure
76:27
program you know that you need
76:30
architects engineers construction
76:32
workers you know you need heavy
76:34
equipment and steel and concrete
76:38
so one of the things you want to do you
76:40
know in the old days they would do input
76:42
output analysis i would bring that back
76:44
i
76:45
and i can't get into that and still
76:48
allow other people to get questions in
76:50
but that's one way to start thinking
76:51
about this you got to vet the proposed
76:53
legislation
76:55
in a way that says can i carry this out
76:58
with the resource capacity
77:01
right that i have available
77:03
uh or do i need to create some offsets
77:06
to free up resources to prevent the
77:09
spending from being inflationary maybe i
77:11
have to turn a three-year infrastructure
77:14
program into a five year stretch it into
77:16
seven years depending on you know how
77:18
the analysis turns out and the same
77:20
would be true of you know free college
77:23
or anything else you need to do you've
77:24
got to ask the question how will you
77:26
resource it in real terms not how will
77:29
you pay for it and so we need just a
77:31
fundamental overhaul of the federal
77:34
budgeting process
77:36
vetting proposed legislation not for the
77:39
budgetary impacts but for the potential
77:42
inflation risk and you know i i still
77:45
think that one of the best places to
77:48
start with an analysis like that is with
77:50
the old input output
77:53
framework used to be adopted
77:56
during and after world war ii
77:59
some countries still do it brazil still
78:00
does a lot of input output analysis
78:06
absolutely i'll second that
78:12
oh yeah so
78:14
you know we're
78:15
i think
78:16
we've talked here about modern monetary
78:19
theater from i think more of a
78:20
progressive uh sort of left-wing
78:23
perspective but i think it applies to
78:26
the you know macroeconomics in general
78:28
and also someone who's might
78:30
have a more of a sort of a libertarian
78:32
or right wing lien
78:34
might also
78:36
you know kind of use modern mighty
78:38
theory to kind of push for their
78:41
uh policies so how would you say like
78:44
see something like a tax cut or
78:46
something more of a libertarian
78:49
policy proposal how would you see it
78:51
from an mmt uh
78:54
approach and how or how would you
78:56
support it from an mmt approach
79:00
i think
79:02
exactly the same way that you could
79:03
support any other policy you know we're
79:06
going to have differences of opinion
79:09
when it comes to how to best use the
79:12
available fiscal space
79:14
but you're quite right you know if if
79:17
mmt is a lens or a framework
79:20
if i'm an optometrist
79:22
my job is to
79:24
you know see patients and send them out
79:26
with vision that's as close to 20 20 as
79:29
i can get them i don't invite the
79:30
patient in and sit down and ask about
79:32
their politics and what they're going to
79:34
do when i fix their vision are they
79:36
going to go out and knock off a
79:37
convenience store are they going to go
79:40
help an old lady across the street right
79:41
i don't know what they're going to do
79:43
but my job is to give them a clearer
79:46
picture
79:49
and send them off and in a sense you
79:51
know with policymakers that's one thing
79:55
that we're trying to accomplish is to
79:57
just give a clearer picture of how how
80:00
the monetary system works the mechanics
80:02
of the federal budget
80:04
and how it all works where the real
80:06
limits are where the imaginary limits
80:08
are sort of clear
80:11
clear through the fog so that everybody
80:13
can see more clearly and we can have a
80:15
more productive debate but we're still
80:17
going to have a debate and
80:19
we live in a democracy we're going to
80:21
elect sometimes republicans will be in
80:24
control of the house the senate the
80:26
white house sometimes democrats will be
80:27
in control and we're going to get the
80:29
policies that our elected
80:31
representatives vote for at any future
80:34
point in time i think the
80:36
hope and the goal at least for me is
80:39
that mmt first pushes us to a place
80:41
where
80:42
more of us can participate
80:45
in a
80:46
democratic way right in the debates and
80:49
not be bamboozled by lawmakers who tell
80:52
us oh sure we'd love to be able to
80:54
tackle climate change and so forth but
80:57
there's no money right let's empower
80:59
people to have
81:01
an understanding of how it all works so
81:04
that they can participate more
81:06
effectively in those debates push back
81:08
against you know lawmakers who try to
81:10
pass that sort of a line
81:12
um but at the end of the day you know we
81:15
get the people and the policies
81:19
that
81:20
we vote for in a sense you know whatever
81:23
comes out of the electoral process and
81:26
and hopefully
81:28
we end up mmt helps us get into a
81:31
position where we understand how much
81:33
better off we could be how much more we
81:36
could do
81:37
to improve life and
81:39
uh and deal with the as i said the
81:41
deficits that matter
81:44
but
81:45
there's nothing to prevent someone from
81:47
applying the mmt lens in the pursuit of
81:51
building board you know build a wall or
81:53
whatever else they they don't need mmt
81:55
as a justification to do that
81:58
um
81:58
if the votes are there they can do that
82:00
regardless
82:04
one more question so
82:06
i think we mentioned a little bit you
82:08
know the federal reserve or central bank
82:10
could you speak a little bit about what
82:12
uh what a central bank does or the
82:14
federal reserve in the u.s what it does
82:17
within the the the financial system that
82:20
we have and what what do you think the
82:22
proper role of a central bank
82:26
should be in a in a system that's where
82:28
policymakers are informed by mmt
82:34
i can say something very quick and then
82:36
i think we should let foddle say
82:38
something right now
82:40
the fed mostly relies on an interest
82:43
rate
82:44
tool
82:45
to die try to dial up and down
82:49
uh economic activity the level of
82:51
economic activity targeting
82:53
inflation
82:54
and basically economic growth right
82:57
striving for some sort of balance
82:59
between the level of employment in the
83:02
economy and the inflation rate and they
83:05
mostly have
83:06
this tool called the interest rate that
83:08
they push up and down in the hope of
83:11
influencing the level of economic
83:13
activity
83:15
and what it basically results in is
83:18
holding a certain
83:20
subset of people in society
83:23
in
83:24
unemployment right for the purpose of
83:27
taming inflationary pressures and right
83:29
now what we see is the fed
83:32
basically saying inflation is too high
83:34
it's above target we're going to use our
83:36
tool to try to bring inflation down they
83:39
don't normally say as candidly as i'm
83:41
going to how they're going to do that
83:43
but how they're going to do that they
83:45
hope
83:46
is by slowing the economy
83:49
in a way that results in
83:52
a less tight labor market or in other
83:54
words
83:55
fewer people having jobs
83:57
so
83:58
in an mmt framework we would prefer
84:01
not to have the fed
84:03
using interest rates relying on interest
84:06
rates and unemployment to manage
84:09
inflationary pressures we would
84:12
introduce a federal job guarantee
84:14
program to provide an automatic
84:16
stabilizer that anchors the wage
84:18
provides some price stability
84:21
and
84:22
let the central bank
84:23
focus on things like regulating and
84:26
supervising the financial system okay
84:28
there are other tools that the fed can
84:30
develop
84:32
to manage inflationary pressures and
84:34
there's a new report out by nathan
84:36
tankis i think through the modern
84:38
monetary or modern money network people
84:40
can look at that report if they're
84:42
interested in a very beefy sort of
84:45
statement about how
84:49
you can think about
84:50
the fed and what monetary policy could
84:53
do differently
84:55
but fato what do you want to say.
F:
i
84:58
completely agree with everything you
84:59
said i'll just add a couple of things
85:01
that the fed uh can do on on the climate
85:04
front at least in within its
85:06
jurisdiction and there's the fed is has
85:09
a very
85:10
important regulatory role in terms of
85:13
regulating the the financial
85:15
institutions the speculative behavior
85:18
and the composition of their balance
85:21
sheets for example many people have been
85:24
arguing now for decades in the
85:26
green finance space that central banks
85:30
should change the capital adequacy
85:32
requirement which they regulate and
85:35
financial institutions must report to
85:37
the fed that is the composition of their
85:39
capital and we need to separate
85:42
the green capital requirements from the
85:45
fossil fuel-based capital requirement
85:46
which as i described earlier will be
85:48
impacted by climate change one of the
85:50
things that the fed can do tomorrow
85:53
morning is change that capital adequacy
85:56
requirement and by lowering the green
85:59
composition of that capital requirement
86:02
and keeping the same or raising the
86:04
fossil fuel based or the carbon-based
86:07
capital requirement and when you do that
86:08
you automatically create an incentive
86:11
for financial institutions to
86:13
de-leverage their investments in the
86:15
fossil fuel industry in the carbon-based
86:17
industry and to accelerate their
86:19
commitment and investment to a greener
86:21
more resilient uh economy because that
86:24
would make it more profitable and of
86:26
course banks are not going to do it
86:27
because
86:29
they're they want to save the world
86:30
they're only going to do it if you make
86:32
them and if you make it a standard all
86:34
of them have to compete based on the
86:36
same on the same standards so there are
86:38
so many things that the fed can do to
86:40
address some of these problems but the
86:43
biggest firepower and the biggest
86:45
inflation management capacity is
86:48
actually in the hands of the fiscal
86:50
authorities to tax and regulate to
86:52
invest strategically in productive
86:54
capacity the fed can't build renewable
86:57
energy capacity the fed can't tax and
86:59
regulate the power of pharmaceuticals
87:01
that's congress that's their
87:03
jurisdiction so
87:05
the fed can set up a much more efficient
87:08
inclusive financial system today we have
87:11
more than 30 million americans who are
87:13
excluded from the financial system the
87:15
unbanked and underbanked people the fed
87:18
can use the most
87:20
efficient available to us digital
87:23
infrastructure that we have today
87:25
digital wallets to set up
87:28
bank accounts for anybody and be able to
87:31
much more to be able to
87:33
create inclusivity in the financial
87:35
system and facilitate also fiscal policy
87:38
intervention during a pandemic
87:40
facilitate uh tax refund transfers
87:44
facilitate all kinds of things but this
87:46
idea that the fed will use the single
87:49
policy tool interest rates and will let
87:51
loose of everything else let the
87:53
financial system rule is is an
87:56
ideological setup that's been
87:58
established over the last few decades
88:00
that mmt is is challenging we're saying
88:03
you have firepower you have regulatory
88:05
power but the fiscal authorities have
88:09
much bigger regulatory powers much
88:11
bigger firepower in terms of its
88:13
intervention in the system and
88:16
you need both
88:17
it's not just the fed fixing the system
88:19
it's not just congress you need both to
88:21
coordinate
88:22
uh the policy action that we're
88:24
describing today
88:26
great um and i just wanted to ask uh
88:30
thank you for answering that i just
88:31
wanted to ask really quick if you guys
88:33
could just give some brief uh closing
88:35
remarks and then we'll be finished up uh
88:37
for today
88:41
well i'm brief his brief is okay i just
88:44
want to say thank you i
88:46
uh i
88:48
think that fuddle and i are both very
88:50
excited about
88:53
where we can go when we're able to bring
88:57
you know our expertise and insights into
89:01
how
89:01
the monetary system works and how the
89:03
government budget works to people like
89:06
you who have
89:08
maybe the big ideas that we all need
89:12
whether it's you know talking with
89:14
groups that work to advance you know an
89:17
agenda around
89:18
getting health care to every american or
89:21
whether it's talking with groups that
89:22
care passionately about climate and
89:26
um you know
89:28
inequality whatever the organization is
89:30
when we have an opportunity to step
89:32
outside of you know the narrow economics
89:35
discipline and engage with people like
89:38
you i think this is the most rewarding
89:41
i'll speak personally uh this is the
89:43
most remote rewarding part of what i get
89:45
to do because this is where the seeds
89:48
can really germinate and the future can
89:51
start to look very bright i hope so
89:53
thanks very much for
89:55
letting us come and spend some time with
89:57
you
89:58
i'll echo the same uh sentiment about
90:01
how important it is to cross fertilize
90:04
these ideas from from the mmt space into
90:07
into other areas especially science and
90:10
technology because when we talk about
90:12
the uh the real resources the productive
90:15
capacity the research and development
90:18
needs for the economy we're not saying
90:20
we can't afford it so we should stop all
90:22
research and development think of uh
90:24
when jfk said we're going to send a man
90:27
to the moon
90:28
and the science wasn't there but we made
90:31
it a national priority and we put the
90:33
brain power and the financial resources
90:35
to make it happen and look at all the
90:37
technological advances that came out of
90:39
that space program that wasn't even
90:41
intended from the beginning so we need
90:43
to think in a similar way today about
90:45
climate change about the big national
90:48
priorities
90:49
put the resources on the table put the
90:51
brain power and the research and
90:53
development capabilities to set that
90:56
priority as the ultimate
90:58
thing to save our lives literally to
91:00
save our lives and don't worry about
91:03
finding the money we know where to find
91:05
the money we know how to find the votes
91:08
the
91:08
current political system has hijacked
91:11
the narrative about the financial
91:13
capacity of the government so with a
91:16
webinar like this with
91:19
more people empowered with this mmt lens
91:22
you can call their bluff when they say
91:23
we don't have the money and you can push
91:25
back and say yes we do have
91:28
the
91:29
research and development capacity we
91:31
need the funding and now you need to do
91:33
your job to tax and regulate abusive
91:36
market power from the oligarchs who
91:38
support your campaigns and we need to be
91:40
able to call them out on this you need
91:42
to save democracy we need a clean new
91:45
deal in addition to a green new deal
91:47
when it comes to the democratic process
91:49
and once we have the priority straight
91:51
it doesn't matter who's republican and
91:52
who's democrat in washington dc as long
91:55
as we believe in the same values and i
91:57
think
91:58
most people believe in the same values
92:00
even fiscally conservative friends who
92:02
identify as republicans they know that
92:05
we can't afford all of this health
92:08
negative health effect associated with
92:10
climate change i mean wouldn't you
92:11
rather spend money up front for clean
92:14
energy and clean water sources or not do
92:16
it because it's too expensive because we
92:18
don't have the money and then pay for
92:20
cancer treatment for everybody for the
92:21
next 30 years
92:23
as if that's cheap and affordable we're
92:25
already paying for it with blood tears
92:27
and money so mmt is saying the cost of
92:30
doing the right thing is actually much
92:32
cheaper much more affordable and humane
92:34
than the cost of inaction which is what
92:37
we're doing right now so learning this
92:39
framework allows us to use this lens
92:42
shine a bright light on the actual world
92:45
of possibilities which is within reach
92:48
and call their bluff when they say we
92:49
can't afford it
92:52
thank you again
92:54
thank you guys so much for coming to
92:56
speak to our uh organization and the
92:58
audience at large and thank you to
92:59
everybody who turned out today uh this
93:02
was great and i'm so excited we got to
93:03
kick off the series with such two strong
93:05
uh talks
93:08
everybody have a good rest of your day
93:10
thank you so much.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿