| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2023年春刊行予定。
How Was Money First Created? 2016
https://youtu.be/B9S0SWC3mAU
How to find your path in economics | Rethinking with... Heske van Doornen 2021
Professor Randall Wray - Modern Monetary Theory in the Time of Inflation
2022/10/17
[Music]
thank you so much for coming to the csap talk today um I'm joined with Dr vandory one of the
developers of modern money theory he is a 2022-23 to poet a distinguished
visiting professor at William at University and has taught at Bard College the University of Missouri
Kansas sorry the University of Missouri Kansas City and the University of Denver
today he has joined us to discuss modern money Theory how it has been used and
how mmt is related to the current levels of high inflation we are seeing today Dr Ray it is a real honor to speak to
you today and we look forward to your presentation.
well thank you for the invitation
um let me see yes okay so I'm going to be
talking about money uh I've got a bit of an echo coming
through Maybe okay that's good thanks
um so money is a scary topic when I wrote understanding modern money that
was published in 1998 I had sent the manuscript to Robert heilbroner uh many
of you will recognize the name um and uh he didn't know me but somehow
he got my phone number and he called me on the phone I had asked him if he might look at the
manuscript and write a blurb for the book cover and uh and the calmest nicest voice he
told me I cannot write a blurb for your book your book is on the topic of money and
it will scare the hell out of everyone and uh so we've been scaring people
a talking about money for over 25 years now and I'm going to try to make it a little
bit less scary.
so what is mmt it's a framework for
analyzing Sovereign currency and by a sovereign currency Nation what we mean
is that the national government chooses a money of account it issues its own
currency denominated in the money of account it imposes obligations today that's
mostly taxes although in the past there were other kinds of obligations such as fees and fines
payable in its own currency you have it issues other debt that is
also payable in its own currency otherwise it would be committed to
delivering another currency so uh by sovereignty we also imply a floating
currency for full sovereignty um the implication is that government
cannot run out of its own currency it cannot be forced to default
involuntarily it can make all payments as they come due in its own currency and
therefore it is not financially constrained although it faces resource constraints and it can also face
political constraints and self-imposed constraints and possibly exchange rate constraints but it is not financially
constrained.
I want to contrast that with
um the Orthodox View which is that in normal times you should
tax and then spend limited borrowing might be okay in a recession so you can run a deficit
temporarily you should balance that over the course of the cycle with surpluses
in Good Times government is subject to a sustainability constraint which is the
economic growth rate must be above the interest rate otherwise the debt could
grow without limit toward Infinity um increasing government spending slows
economic growth then raises the interest rate which makes it more difficult to
achieve the sustainability condition the debt burdens the grandkids who will
have to pay it back and the result of slower growth and
higher interest rates because of excessive government spending is secular
stagnation the government does have one other option to borrowing which is printing
money but that causes inflation and that doesn't necessarily increase government's purchasing power as prices
rise uh as quickly as they can print the money and so we're off to Zimbabwe land
with hyperinflation in an interesting interview that uh Paul
Samuelson gave to Mark blaug I think about 1974. you can google and find it
uh I have the long quote from Samuelson but let me just quickly summarize it
um and so he's saying can you keep a secret the necessity of balancing the budget
is the old-time religion uh it's like the Grimm's Fairy Tales that we tell our
children uh we argue that you need to balance the budget because we want to
scare politicians and the population to behave themselves we know that this isn't true
um Samuelson is implying and we can also find recent heads of the Federal Reserve
Bank of the United States who seem to recognize this uh Bernanke
was grilled by Congress after the FED at Linton spent 29
trillion dollars and Congress wanted to know is that taxpayer money that the FED is spending
and lending and Bernanke said no it's not tax money we simply use the computer to mark up
the size of the account it's just keystrokes we're not spending tax money he was talking about The Fad but in just
a second I'll make it clear uh that the same would be true of Treasury spending
uh Alan Greenspan was grilled uh by Paul Ryan who was asking him
isn't Social Security which is our uh retirement system isn't Social Security going to go bankrupt uh and he said no
no the United States can pay any debt it has because we can only print money to do that
uh so there's zero probability of default okay I don't like this print
money but uh in the modern economy what this means is keystrokes.
so how does a modern government spend in the old days governments actually did
print out paper notes and spent them into the economy and then taxed them back but today all modern governments
make payments through their Central Bank and receive payments through the central
bank so the treasury will signal to the central bank to make a payment on its
behalf the central bank will credit the reserves of a private bank and that private bank will credit the deposit
account of the recipient of the government spending so we have two degrees of separation
between the public and the government that obscures the reality a bit
um but it is still true that uh the government is spending
by creating money and taxing just reverses that process
the taxpayer writes a check on a deposit account the bank debits the taxpayers
account the Central Bank debits the private Banks reserves end credits the
account of the treasury so the operation is just in Reverse it's sort of a reverse keystroke that debits accounts
this is how modern governments spend and how modern governments tax.
so the way that mmt sees money is that money is not a thing
uh money is really just score keeping and uh this is a baseball scoreboard uh
I don't know how qriket works but I suppose there is some kind of scorekeeping in qriket too so here we
have the uh the guest team has 21 runs in baseball and the home team has 14. uh
if the home team hitter hits a home run the scorekeeper will credit the account
of the home team and raise that number to 15. where does the scorekeeper get
that score to add to the home team's scores uh it's a keystroke it's out of
thin air so you can never run out of innings in baseball
you uh sorry you can run out of innings in baseball you can run out of time in
um in football but you cannot run out of runs you can't run out of scores and we argue that the
same thing is true for money.
um the way that we look at government debt is not that
um uh this is something we have to pay back we look at government dad as our
financial wealth so government debt is really government owes uses
government debt is not something to be feared or something to be avoided it is
something to be celebrated the government's ious are actually government owes uses and
that is good for the private sector.
if we plot the sectoral balances this
actually comes from when Godley who was from Cambridge um the it must be true at the aggregate
level that total spending equals total income if we divide the economy into two
sectors a non-government sector and a government sector uh if one of those
sectors spends more than its income the other sector must be spending less than its income if the government is spending
more than its tax revenue that means the non-government sector must be net saving
running a surplus this graph shows the government balance in red this is for
the United States you can see that the government sector taken as a whole is always spending more than its income tax
revenue so it is below the line and you can see that the non-government sector
is almost always running a surplus above the line and uh
it's very easy to see it's a mirror image which must be true by definition
if it were not a mirror image we have simply made a mistake in tallying up the
credits and debits of the two sectors they must balance.
back in 1999 President Clinton uh maybe you've heard of him or even remember him
um had gone on television because our government for the first time since
1929 had been running a budget surplus
spending less than tax revenue and uh he announced that the federal
government was going to continue to run a budget surplus for the next 15 years and over that
period of time it would be able to retire all of the outstanding government debt so he took his magic marker out and
he continued the blue trend line by drawing the black line showing the U.S
government debt free and uh this was celebrated by virtually
all economists and by all uh the media in the United States finally we are
going to get the government out of debt but of course what would that mean that would mean that for the next 15
years our private sector would be forced uh to run a deficit to offset the
government surplus and uh by removing all that government debt
the government would be destroying our net Financial wealth
uh and it's not just any kind of net Financial wealth it's the safest net
Financial wealth in the world U.S government bonds
needless to say this did not happen and at the time when Godly was at the levy
Institute with me and we wrote several pieces together arguing that this cannot
happen the private sector cannot run okay deficit year after year because it
will get more and more deeply into debt and that is going to cause a financial
crisis which soon enough it did.
um I'll contrast uh this view of Clinton with a a congressman who it was the head of the budget Committee in the house who came across mmt and had me testify had Stephanie Kelton testify before his committee and then he gave a uh very unusual interview on CNN in which he demonstrated he had fully embraced the ideas of mmt.
he said we issue our own currency and we can spend enough to meet the needs of the American people.
he said historically what we've always done is we said can we what can we afford to do in other words questioning affordability of government programs and he says that's not the right question the right question is what do we need the American people.
uh sorry what do the American people need us to do he says once you've answered that then you say how do you resource that need and by resource.
he did not mean Finance amen how do you find the real resources that are required to meet the need of the public.
how do you serve the public by finding the resources required the question is not money it is resources.
（クリントンのこの見解と、下院予算委員会の長であったある下院議員を対比してみましょう。彼はmmtに出会い、私に証言させ、ステファニー・ケルトンに彼の委員会で証言させました。そして彼はCNNで非常に珍しいインタビューを受け、mmtの考えを完全に受け入れたことを示しました。
自国通貨を発行し、アメリカ国民の必要を満たすのに十分な支出をすることができると言いました。
彼は、歴史的に我々が常に行ってきたことは、我々は何ができるか、何をする余裕があるかと言うことであり、言い換えれば、政府のプログラムの余裕を問うことであったと言った。
アメリカ国民は私たちに何を必要としているのか。
彼は、国民のニーズを満たすために必要な本当の資源をどうやって見つけるか、という意味の金融アーメンを言ったのではありません。
必要な資源を見つけることで、どうやって国民に奉仕するか。問題はお金ではなく、資源です。）
okay when the um uh coveted pandemic hit
very unusually in the United States and in other countries
uh government responded with huge amounts
of relief spending without worrying about where the money is going to come
from and there were lots of references by policy makers and in the media that oh
governments are going to try mmt now and they equated mmt with printing up
money which it takes the form of cutting checks and mailing out checks for covet
relief so far so good uh this wasn't actually
the policy that we recommended and I'll explain why but at least they realize
affordability was not the right question however a couple of years later we
started getting inflation and now they're all saying see that's the problem with mmt mmt caused inflation so
what I want to go through is what I think the actual causes of inflation are
I'll say a little bit about what mmt recommended at the time instead of just
sending out uh checks to everybody and I will also tackle the response of central
banks most importantly the FED to the inflation problem which I think that
they misread so anyway uh the mainstream View
is that inflation is almost always a demand side problem
on the other hand slow economic growth is a supply side problem
for reasons that I'll explain I think they have that exactly backward
um before covid many mainstream economists economists
most notably uh Krugman and Larry summers in the United States had been
arguing that we have secular stagnation and that is due to problems on the
supply side I think that was a complete misreading but this is their View
now excessive covet relief caused a demand sight problem and that is why we
have inflation my belief is that in reality inflation is almost always a supply side problem
that 50 years of neoliberalism from the time of uh Ronald Reagan and Margaret
Thatcher on has caused chronically insufficient aggregate demand and that
is what has led to the secular stagnation the coveted recession collapsed the
supply side led to the deepest and quickest recession
since the Great Depression and the coveted response which was
trillions of dollars uh between 5 trillion and 9 trillion in the United
States depending on what you want to count uh as uh relief spending that was
allocated not all of that spent um did help to lead to the fastest
recovery ever so we had the deepest uh drop off
uh right off the cliff into a recession and then the fastest recovery that we've
ever had the problem was that it was not well targeted spending.
（アメリカや他の国々で貪欲なパンデミックが発生したとき 政府はそのお金がどこから来るか心配することなく 巨額の救済支出で対応しました 政策立案者やメディアはたくさん言及しました ああ政府は今mmtを試そうとしている 彼らはmmtをお金の印刷と同一視しました それは貪欲救済のための小切手を切って郵送する形です ここまでは良かったのですが これは実際に私たちが推奨した政策ではなかったので その理由は説明しますが 少なくとも彼らは余裕が正しい質問ではなかったと気づきました ところがです数年後、インフレが始まりました そして今、彼らは皆、mmtの問題だmmtがインフレを引き起こしたと言います そこで、私が考えたいのは、インフレの実際の原因は何かということです 当時、mmtが皆に小切手を送る代わりに何を推奨したかについて少しお話しします そして、インフレ問題に対する中央銀行、特にFEDの対応についても取り組みます それは彼らが読み違えていると思います とにかく... 主流と言える見解は、インフレはほぼ常に需要側の問題であり 一方の遅い経済成長については理由があって供給側の問題であるとすることですコビッドの前に、多くの主流の経済学者、特に米国のクルーグマンとラリー・サマーズが、世俗的な停滞があり、それは供給側の問題によるものだと主張していたのですが、これは完全に誤読だと思います。これは彼らの見解です。過度の貪欲な救済が需要サイドの問題を引き起こし、それがインフレを引き起こしているというのが私の考えです。その結果、供給サイドが大恐慌以来の最も急速な不況を招き、その対応策として何兆ドルもの資金が投入された。そのすべてが使われたわけではありません。しかし、その結果、私たちは崖から落ちて不況になり、その後、最速で回復しました。）
and we've had continuing supply side uh problems the coveted disruptions have
continued far longer than I expected and I think that uh almost anyone expected
we bungled the response to covid which was part of our problem and why
um the disruptions have continued we had been practicing just in time
production uh over the past 50 years and that made responding to the covid
pandemic much more difficult I could just point to the example of masks we
knew a pandemic would come and we were completely unprepared because we didn't
have anything in the inventories to deal with a pandemic.
um meanwhile the supply chains that were developed as part of neoliberalism
uh got severely disrupted and that meant that we couldn't uh
import the things that we needed we've had price gouging we've had
continuing lockdowns in China with the zero coveted policy I'm not necessarily
criticizing their policy but the reality is that it is affecting
all of us and then the Ukraine war so all of these have conspired all of these
disruptions on the supply side have conspired to produce High inflation.
the problem really is not covered relief that ended months ago
the first round of covert relief that came under President Trump uh it did not uh produce any inflation
problems because that mostly was not spent it was saved by those whose
income was not much affected by covid and it was spent by those whose income
was affected by covid to pay down bills so it didn't really lead to a burst of
spending the second round that came with President Biden by then
uh a lot of the uncertainty had began to fade away the lockdowns were uh
loosening up and so people were spending the composition of spending was very
strange because it was heavily uh biased toward Goods instead of towards Services.
um and it was biased toward Goods that could be delivered to the home so we we
had severe shortages of some goods and that
allowed for uh price hikes and price gouging.
and so on
the um fairly quick recovery allowed tax revenue to recover much quicker than it
usually does after recession and that started sucking demand out of the economy so we have removed about 2
trillion uh dollars worth of demand out of the economy as we recovered as
the relief spending petered out and as tax revenue increased.
（そして、供給サイドの問題が続いています。切望していた混乱は、私が予想していたよりもずっと長く続きました。そして、ほとんど誰もが予想していたと思いますが、コヴィッドへの対応を誤ったことが、問題の一部であり、混乱が続いている理由です。過去50年間、ジャストインタイム生産を実践してきましたが、それがコビドへの対応をより困難にしていました。
um 一方、新自由主義の一環として開発されたサプライチェーンは、uhひどく破壊され、必要なものをuh輸入できないことを意味し、価格高騰が起こり、中国ではゼロ・コヴェット政策でロックダウンが続いています。
問題は、数カ月前に終了した救済措置ではありません。トランプ大統領の下で行われた最初の救済措置は、インフレ問題を引き起こすことはありませんでした。しかし、その構成は非常に奇妙で、サービスではなく商品に大きく偏っていたのです。
そのため、一部の商品で深刻な品不足が発生し、それが値上げや価格高騰を可能にしました。
そして、かなり早い回復により、税収は景気後退後の通常よりもはるかに早く回復し、経済から需要を吸い上げ始めました。）
so these have produced uh significant fiscal headwinds through fiscal policy
looking to the source of inflation uh the uh initial impetus to inflation was
due to three items oil food and shelter prices
uh oil prices this is in part because there had been a huge drop off in demand
for oil and so refineries went offline and uh then with recovery people started
driving again and um the demand for oil Rose
food is about something like 70 percent uh oil so Rising oil prices increase the
price of food and then shelter in the United States is
sort of a bizarre um component it includes rental
uh because we had limited uh rent increases during
the early stages of the pandemic uh rents are playing catch-up and we have a
severe housing shortage in the United States.
because we had very little housing built since the global financial
crisis so when you you add in the ability to
finally raise rents uh and a housing shortage you start to
get Rising rents they go up very quickly and the main component of shelter is
actually owner occupied housing and that components price is imputed uh based on
rents so as those go up that will tend to increase the the home owner occupy
component too and so these are rising quickly this has always been true in the United
States all of our high inflation periods uh most of the inflation is due to these
three components however you have to remember oil goes into the production of everything and so
Rising oil prices will continue to affect other prices
uh with possibly a very long lag because
the producers still have to recover the high price of oil that they paid in the
earliest stages of production um we in addition to this we have price
gouging uh president uh Biden has a group that is uh looking at the markups
that uh the the firms with Market power are using.
and um they've shown that
those have increased tremendously um and the board meetings the top
management of the corporations are proudly boasting of their ability to jack up prices so there's a lot of
rising prices due to the rising markups taking advantage of pricing power and
taking advantage of what the the board members say is the the consumer
willingness to tolerate price increases then we also have some idiosyncratic uh
sources of inflation such as the shortage of chips to go into automobile
production which leads to an increase in the demand for used cars which causes
those prices to Skyrocket and that adds to the overall price increase as shown in the CPI
however at least in the United States while inflation is high uh eight percent
and above year on year there's no evidence of a wage price
spiral at least yet wages are still playing catch-up so real wages actually
are going down in the U.S chairman Powell was patient for a very
long time much longer than I thought he would be it was the best policy but
finally patients ran out and the FED has been raising rates my argument is that
raising rates is not helpful so supposedly we're going to raise rates
in order to get consumers to postpone borrowing
to purchase consumption Goods.
but uh our sources of uh inflation our
rent uh food and oil and normally consumers do not borrow to make those
payments spending is not generally very interest sensitive uh it might impact uh
investment but we really don't want investment in
building new rental units to be curtailed we need more rental
units we need more housing built and so on
um the interest is a cost of doing business uh for many kinds of firms it's
number one or number two in terms of the cost and so raising rents can actually
add to inflation pressures through uh cost feed through effects and then
finally there is the possibility that uh Rising interest income especially
interest paid on government debt which is over 100 percent of GDP could
possibly fuel more spending I don't think that that's important for the United States because uh that is more
than offset by uh the um uh impact of
higher interest payments by highly indebted private sector firms and households.
anyway I believe that the
answer to supply side inflation is not to reduce demand but to focus on
trying to increase Supply uh President Biden was on the right track when he fought for build back better he wasn't
able to get that through he has a much smaller bill that is supposed to try to
constrain inflation and he is touting the possibility of promoting supply-side
investments in order to reduce inflation pressure and I think that uh it's
unlikely that it's going to do that much good because it hits too small and it's not well focused enough but at least it
is on the right track to argue that what we need to do is increase Supply capacity
okay I'm gonna present some data I'll go through it um uh pretty quickly.
（インフレの原因を考えてみると、財政政策によって大きな財政的逆風が吹いています。そして、米国におけるシェルターは、奇妙な構成要素で、賃貸を含んでいます。米国では深刻な住宅不足に陥っています。
世界的な金融危機以来、住宅はほとんど建設されなかったので、最終的に家賃を上げることができ、住宅不足が加わると、家賃の上昇が始まります。しかし、石油はあらゆるものの生産に使われるため、石油価格の上昇は他の物価に影響を及ぼし続けます。
そして、取締役会では、企業のトップマネジメントが価格を引き上げる能力を誇らしげに自慢している。しかし、少なくとも米国では、インフレ率が前年比8％以上と高いにもかかわらず、賃金価格スパイラルの証拠はないのです。しかし、少なくとも米国では、賃金はまだキャッチアップしており、実質賃金は低下している。パウエル議長は、私が思っていたよりもずっと長い間、辛抱強く、それが最善の政策であった。
しかし、私たちのインフレの原因は、家賃、食料、石油で、通常、消費者はこれらの支払いのために借金をしません。そして最後に、金利収入の増加、特にGDPの100％を超える国債に支払われる金利が、支出を増加させる可能性があるということです。
しかし、この法案を通過させることはできませんでした。しかし、インフレを抑制するために、より小規模の法案を提出し、インフレ圧力を減らすために供給サイドの投資を促進する可能性を宣伝しています。しかし、少なくとも、私たちがすべきことは供給能力を高めることであると主張する正しい方向性を示しています。
）
I know this is a complicated graph it's a bit hard to read but it shows that early in the pandemic uh in late
2020 and 21 as inflation starts to increase it's largely driven by oil uh
later on we start to see that more of the components are adding to inflation
but still housing is the most important contributor
to inflation especially after oil prices have turned
around and actually been declining um but people are worried because
we're getting more inflation from other components but as I said that just
reflects past oil prices and um it's possible and I think
more than possible that the inflation pressures are going
to dissipate on their own if oil prices stay down.
um the FED seems to have impeccable timing this graph shows fed funds Target
rates so this is the uh the policy rate in the United States is always increased
several months six months before we go into recession
so as the economy has reached the business cycle Peak and is poised to go
toward a recession the FED always adds headwinds by raising interest rates
and as Greenspan used to always say if the past is a guide
then we should expect a recession as the FED has started to raise rates because that is what has always happened in the
past.
the argument is that it's up to central banks to take away
the punch bowl because the uh in the U.S it's the Congress in Britain it would be
the parliament um it is always prone to uh approving too much spending and they
elected representatives like to have a booming economy it's good for them uh
when it comes election time and so it has to be the central bank that takes
away the punch bowl to end the good times so when the government spends too much the central bank is supposed to be
reducing demand too much spending increases the deficit and debt raising interest rates and causing uh inflation
the problem with this argument is the Fed always raises rates as the deficit
is falling which I'll show you in a second interest rates are not pushed up by deficits they are pushed up by
monetary policy uh government deficit and debt need not cause inflation and
our high inflations are always driven by the supply side not by the demand side so that's the argument with saying
central banks need to take away the punch bowl I'm going to just be showing U.S data but I think that it's
consistent with my arguments.
so here are Fed rate hikes so supposedly
what the FED is fighting is inflation uh the Fed rate hikes this is repeated from
the previous graph are the red line inflation is the blue line so what we
see is the Fed always raises rates going into a recession and it is not very well
correlated uh with inflation we have had declining and very stable inflation for
a very long time but the FED has remained active fighting something but
not inflation because inflation has not been a problem
foreign.
the FED is not fighting uh Rising deficits that are supposed to
cause an excess argument and inflation if you look at the correlation what you
find is that as the deficit goes down that's when the FED uh raises rates
the debt when the deficit is declining the blue line is moving towards zero uh
when it goes above zero that's a surplus so you can see that what the FED actually does is it raises rates as
deficits go down exactly the opposite of what taking away the punch bowl is
supposed to be doing.
government debt does not push up interest rates uh you can see that we've
been on a long-term Trend since the um early 70s of rising debt ratios uh with
the exception of the Clinton years and uh at the same time the interest
rates have been going down both the central bank's Target rate and the 10-year treasury rate are on a downward
Trend so they're moving in the opposite direction what that indicates is that it's not debt and deficits that push
interest rates up it is the central bank that does it.
government debt doesn't need to cause
inflation uh as the dead has been rising on Trend over time inflation has been
going down on Trend over time up to the present I realize of course.
and then finally we don't really have um evidence of excess demand in the United States what
we have is a long-term downward trend of capacity utilization rates which is
consistent with a secular stagnation argument if it's accepted that our problem is not
enough demand so we don't have enough demand which leads to excess capacity
which depresses the incentive to invest which adds to our secular stagnation
Trend I think that that explains our past half century of low rates of
economic growth.
okay what about the current inflation it's unusual the pandemic recession
began as a collapse of the supply side and that morphed into a collapse of
demand normally recessions are caused by a collapse of demand but in this case it
was a collapse on the supply side and then as people lost their job uh demand
declined coveted relief spending as I said the first round paid bills increased savings
say around and restored spending but we faced continuing supply side
pressures I mentioned the supply chains price gouging and then the war and
sanctions we still have no wage price spiral wages are only playing catch up
expectations of inflation remain reasonably well anchored they have come
up but they're still reasonably anchored surveys show that businesses are not
facing abnormal demand capacity utilization is still far below
previous Peaks inventories uh have recovered so none of
these things would indicate that we have too much demand uh even though we have inflation hiking
rates is the wrong medicine what we need to do is ramp up investment increase domestic capacity and replace uh don't
just repair but replace long and fragile Supply chains.
we are in danger of um having the combination of high
unemployment and continued inflation uh if we continue to have problems on
the supply side while the FED continues to raise interest rates to depress the
demand side um just very quickly uh this is ancient
history for uh students I realize uh this is what happened in the 1970s we
had inflation spiking early in the 1970s late in the 1970s it was caused
initially by oil prices that fed through the Grain and then we also had a shelter
components uh rising in price it was fought by austerity both fiscal and
monetary policy just like now this generated stagflation it clearly was not a problem of excess
demand many people including chairman Powell celebrate what volcker did they gave him
credit for uh killing the inflation by hiking rates above 20 percent that led
to a deep recession in the United States and a deep financial crisis that destroyed our Thrift sector Savings and
Loans and that was followed by a developing country debt crisis and then
blowback hit the United States as developing countries defaulted on their
debt that affected our biggest banks and they became insolvent by the 1990s
probably more credit should be given to deregulation of natural gas which is
what relieved the pressure of oil prices in the United States
um rather than to Volker for ending our high inflation in any case uh full
recovery took a quarter of a century and I think that demonstrates the
problem of tackling the supply side when you have inflation
uh because uh sorry tackling supply side Problems by reducing demand could
re-produce stagflation.
Larry Summers uh recently said I'm aware
of no major example in which the Central Bank reacted with excessive speed to inflation at large cost was paid I think
I just explained one such episode and we are seeing another one right now so I think uh as usual uh Larry has got
this wrong.
the fed's latest projections are that under appropriate monetary policy this
is quoting the FED Americans can now expect to be three percent poorer at the
end of uh 2023 compared to what had been projected before the pandemic and to
remain permanently worse off in the years of follow compared to the June 21 projections the level of real GDP at the
end of 23 has been reduced by five and a half percentage points uh that's worse
than the hit from the pandemic itself policy makers now expect the jobless
rate to rise from 3.5 to 4.4 by the end of next year and while Powell denied that anyone at
the FED wants workers to lose their jobs he's clear that we need to have a sharp slowdown in growth and that fed
officials would accept a lot of economic pain somebody else's pain I presume they
mean not their own.
um what the FED is doing uh I think the
Powell was uh pressured by conventional wisdom that the FED had to do this the
the Fed was left with no choice and this is because of Orthodox economics group think uh the the feds uh Jeremy Rudd
recently published a paper that I think uh really got this conventional group
thing uh completely correct so this is the Fed itself nobody thinks clearly no matter what
they pretend even the goofiest opinion seems wonderfully clear sane and self-evident Rudd goes on to examine the
foundations of Orthodoxy that he says everyone knows to be true that are actually errant nonsense.
none has any
sort of empirical foundation and each is seriously deficient on theoretical grounds yet economists continue to rely
on these to organize their thinking so practically the the the entire Corpus of
Orthodox economics is fraud he then goes on to criticize the fed's approach to
policy now this was before the FED started raising raids he said it's based on errant nonsense.
so we Face multiple existential crises
uh the climate catastrophe this virus and probably many
more to come or inequality uh refugees a lot of those are climate refugees and
anti-democratic movements in many countries including my own
coordinating concerted effort by the richest Nations is required they're the
source of most of production and that means most of the environmental
destruction and they they have to be responsible for
helping the rest of the world to transition to sustainability that means the age of austerity has to
end we can learn from the experience of War When government absorbs 50 or more of
national production uh and take that experience to move toward a
comprehensive Green New Deal of the magnitude that people like Bernie
Sanders was promoting.
resources not Finance is the true
constraint attacking tackling those pandemics comes down to mobilizing the
unemployed resources which are substantial uh even before the pandemic
shifting those that are already employed and creating new ones how do we shift them we can use taxes postpone
consumption patriotic saving rationing regulations all of those things were used by your country and by mine in
World War II that is how you create the policy space to allow the government to
spend to allocate the resources to achieve the public purpose the taxes don't pay for anything what
they do is they release the resources.
so let me conclude the lesson from the covert response is
that uh you can spend nine trillion dollars if you want to you don't have to
change any procedures all you have to do is authorize the spending and Central Bank treasury know how to finance it
none of the treasury's checks bounced the ultimate constraint is resources not
Finance uh you need to focus on finding releasing and creating resources uh we
didn't do a great job on that uh in the response to the pandemic but in any
event we have the procedures to do it we just need to focus our spending monetary
policy is really not helpful in any of these Endeavors it's going to require more use of fiscal policy so we have to
reverse the past 50-year Trend which was to reduce the importance of fiscal
policy and uh increase the importance of monetary policy that's the wrong way to
do it inflation can be avoided by policy focused on mobilizing resources at least
seeing them budgetary outcome is neither discretionary nor worrying interest
rates are not determined by Central Bank policy are determined by Central Bank policy not Vigilantes and raising
interest rates is counterproductive and could generate financial crisis as well
as reproduce stagflation.
uh thanks these are my two um
uh forthcoming books the the one on the left making money work for us I think
might be available in the UK right now.
and then there's going to be an
illustrated guide to mmt that will come out next spring uh that is illustrated
by Heske van Doornen.
so thank you I will stop.
[音楽]
今日の csap トークに来てくれてありがとう。ええと、現代のお金理論の開発者の 1 人である vandory 博士と一緒にいます。ミズーリ大学カンザス大学、申し訳ありませんが、ミズーリ大学カンザスシティ校とデンバー大学は、今日、彼が私たちに参加して、現代のお金の理論について話し合い、それがどのように使用されてきたか、現在の高インフレのレベルに mmt がどのように関連しているかについて話し合っています。本日は皆様とお話しできることを大変光栄に思います。皆様のプレゼンテーションを楽しみにしています。
招待してくれてありがとう ええと ではお金の話をしようと思います 少し反響がありました たぶん大丈夫です ありがとうございます1998年に出版された現代のお金 私は原稿をロバート・ハイルブロナーに送った ええと、あなたの多くは名前を知っているでしょう ええと、彼は私を知りませんでしたが、どういうわけか彼は私の電話番号を知り、私が彼に尋ねた電話で私に電話をかけました彼が原稿を見て本の表紙の宣伝文句を書いたら、ええと、最も穏やかな素敵な声で、彼は私にあなたの本の宣伝文句を書くことはできないと言いました。ええと、私たちは25年以上にわたってお金について話すことで人々を怖がらせてきました。
つまり、それは主権通貨を分析するためのフレームワークであり、主権通貨国家によって、私たちが意味するのは、中央政府が勘定科目を選択し、勘定科目で建てられた独自の通貨を発行し、今日の義務を課すということです。主に税金ですが、過去には自国通貨で支払われる手数料や罰金などの他の種類の義務がありました。自国通貨で支払われる他の債務を発行します。そうでなければ、主権によって別の通貨を提供することを約束します。私たちはまた、完全な主権のための変動通貨を暗示しています。つまり、政府は自国通貨を使い果たすことはできません。無意識に債務不履行を余儀なくされることはありません。すべての支払いを自国通貨で行うことができるため、財政的に制約されることはありませんが、資源の制約に直面し、政治的な制約や自主的な制約、さらには為替レートの制約にも直面する可能性がありますが、財政的な制約はありません。
正統派の見解と対比したいのですが、通常は課税してから限られた借入を行うべきであり、不況時には一時的に赤字を出すことができるので、循環の過程で黒字とのバランスを取る必要があるということです。グッドタイムズ政府は、経済成長率が金利を上回らなければならないという持続可能性の制約を受けます。そうしないと、負債が無限に向かって無制限に増加する可能性があります。政府支出の増加は経済成長を鈍化させ、金利を引き上げます。持続可能性条件 借金は返済しなければならない孫たちに負担をかけ、過剰な政府支出による成長の鈍化と金利の上昇の結果は長期停滞であり、政府には借り入れのもう1つの選択肢があります。お金を印刷することはインフレを引き起こしますが、それは必ずしも政府の購買力を高めるわけではありません。価格が上昇するのは、彼らがお金を印刷できるのと同じくらい速いからです。
ポール・サミュエルソンがマークに行った興味深いインタビューで、私たちはハイパーインフレでジンバブエの土地に向かいます。ブラウグ 1974 年のことを考えています。Google で見つけてください。サミュエルソンからの長い引用がありますが、簡単に要約させてください。彼は、予算のバランスをとる必要性は昔からの宗教である秘密を守ってもらえますか、と言っています。私たちが子供たちに言うのはグリム童話のようなものです。予算のバランスを取る必要があると主張します。なぜなら、私たちは政治家を怖がらせ、人々に行動を起こさせたいからです。サミュエルソンがほのめかしているのは真実であり、最近の米国連邦準備銀行の頭取も、リントンの FED が 29 兆ドルを費やし、議会が知りたがっていたのは、バーナンキが議会によって厳しく追及されたことを認識しているように見えることです。 FEDが使ったり貸し出したりしているお金、そしてバーナンキはノーと言った。我々は単にコンピュータを使って口座のサイズをマークアップするだけで、税金を使っているのではなく、ただのキーストロークだ。彼は流行について話していたが、ほんの一瞬財務省の支出についても同じことが当てはまることを明確にします.アラン・グリーンスパンはポール・ライアンによって厳しく非難されました.t 社会保障は破産するだろうと彼は言った.私たちはそれを行うためにお金を印刷することしかできないので、米国は負債を支払うことはできないと彼は言った.デフォルトの可能性はゼロです.現代の経済では、これが意味するのはキーストロークです。
では、現代の政府は昔、政府が実際に紙の紙幣を印刷して経済に費やし、税金を還付していましたが、今日ではすべての現代政府が中央銀行を通じて支払いを行い、中央銀行を通じて支払いを受け取るので、国庫中央銀行に代わって支払いを行うよう合図する 中央銀行は民間銀行の準備金を貸方に記入し、その民間銀行は政府支出の受取人の預金口座に貸方記入するので、国民の間に2段階の分離があるそして、政府は現実を少し曖昧にしていますが、政府がお金を作成して課税することで支出していることは依然として真実です。納税者が預金口座に小切手を書くというプロセスは逆です。民間銀行の準備金は財務省の口座に貸方記入されるので、操作はちょうど逆になります。これは、口座を引き落とす一種の逆のキーストロークです。
mmt がお金を見る方法は、お金はものではないということです。お金は本当にただのスコア管理であり、これは野球のスコアボードです。qriket がどのように機能するかはわかりませんが、qriket にも何らかのスコア管理があると思います。ここでは、ゲスト チームが野球で 21 ランを記録し、ホーム チームが 14 ランを記録しています。ホーム チームの打者がホーム ランを打った場合、スコアキーパーはホーム チームのアカウントを記録し、その数を 15 に上げます。スコアキーパーはそのスコアを取得して、ホーム チームのスコアに追加します。ええと、キーストロークです。何もないので、野球でイニングが不足することはありません。申し訳ありませんが、野球ではイニングが不足する可能性があります。ええと、時間切れになる可能性があります。サッカーは失点することはできませんが、スコアを使い果たすことはできません。同じことがお金にも当てはまると私たちは主張します。
ええと、私たちが政府債務を見る方法は、ええと、これは私たちが返済しなければならないものであるということではありません。私たちは政府のお父さんを私たちの金融資産と見なしているので、政府債務は実際には政府が借りているものです。避けるべきことは祝賀すべきことであり、政府の責任は実際には政府が使用する義務があり、それは民間部門にとって良いことです。
部門別の収支をプロットすると、これはケンブリッジ出身のゴドリーが実際に示したものです。経済を非政府部門と政府部門の 2 つの部門に分割した場合、総支出が総所得に等しいというのは総計レベルで真実でなければなりません。これらの部門の 1 つが収入よりも多く支出している場合、他の部門は収入よりも支出が少ないに違いありません。政府が税収よりも多く支出している場合、非政府部門は純貯蓄で黒字を維持している必要があります。このグラフは政府の収支を示しています。赤で示したのは米国です。全体として見ると、政府部門は常に所得税収入よりも多くの支出を行っていることがわかります。したがって、それは境界線を下回っており、非政府部門はほぼ常に黒字を出していることがわかります。線の上にあり、非常に見やすい」定義上、真でなければならない鏡像は、鏡像ではない場合、バランスを取る必要がある 2 つのセクターの貸方と借方の計算を間違えただけです。
1999 年にさかのぼると、クリントン大統領のことを聞いたことがあるかもしれませんし、テレビに出たことを覚えているかもしれません。なぜなら、1929 年以来初めて、私たちの政府は税収よりも少ない予算の黒字支出を行っていたからです。次の 15 年間は財政黒字が続き、その間に未払いの政府債務をすべて返済できるので、彼は魔法のマーカーを取り出し、黒を引いて青いトレンド ラインを維持しました。 Uを示す線.政府の債務がなくなり、事実上すべてのエコノミストと米国のすべてのメディアがこれを祝った。最終的には政府を債務から解放しようとしているが、もちろん、それは今後15年間、私たちの民間部門は、政府の黒字を相殺するために赤字を実行することを余儀なくされ、政府の債務をすべて削除することで、政府は私たちの純金融資産を破壊します。世界でU.言うまでもなく、S 国債はこれが起こらなかったことは言うまでもありません.Godly が私と一緒に徴税研究所にいたとき、私たちは、これは起こり得ないと主張するいくつかの記事を一緒に書きました。より深刻な負債に陥り、それが金融危機を引き起こし、それはすぐに起こりました。
このクリントン氏の見解を下院の予算委員会の委員長である下院議員と対比させてくださいCNN で彼は、MMT のアイデアを完全に受け入れていることを示しました。彼は、私たちは独自の通貨を発行しており、アメリカ国民のニーズを満たすのに十分な支出ができると述べました。言い換えれば、政府プログラムの手頃な価格に疑問を呈し、彼はそれは正しい質問ではないと言います。正しい質問は、アメリカ人に何が必要かということです。申し訳ありませんが、アメリカ人は私たちに何をする必要がありますか?ve は、あなたはその必要があるリソースをどのように言うのかと答えましたが、彼はリソースという意味ではありませんでした。財務アーメン 公共のニーズを満たすために必要な実際のリソースをどのように見つけますか?問題はお金ではなく、資源です。
ええと、切望されたパンデミックが米国で非常に異常な打撃を与えたとき、そして他の国では、ええと、政府はお金がどこから来るのかを心配することなく、莫大な額の救済支出で対応し、政策立案者や世界で多くの言及がありましたメディアは、政府が今mmtを試みようとしていると彼らはmmtをお金を印刷することと同一視しました. 「理由を説明しますが、少なくとも彼らは手頃な価格が適切な質問ではなかったことを理解していますが、数年後、インフレになり始めました。そして今、彼らは皆それを見てくださいと言っています。」mmtの問題はインフレを引き起こしたので、私がやりたいのは、インフレの実際の原因は何だと思いますか?みんなに小切手を送るだけでなく、その時にmmtが推奨したことについて少しお話しします。また、最も重要な中央銀行の対応にも取り組みます。最も重要なのは、彼らが誤解していると私が思うインフレ問題への FED です。いずれにせよ、主流の見解では、インフレはほとんど常に需要側の問題であり、一方で経済成長の鈍化は供給側の問題であるというものです。という理由で説明しますが、彼らはそれを正確に後退させていると思います.多くの主流経済学者の経済学者、特に米国のクルーグマンとラリー・サマーズは、私たちには長期的な停滞があり、それは供給側の問題によるものであると主張していました。完全な誤解ですが、これは彼らの見解です 現在、過剰な切望の救済が需要の視力の問題を引き起こし、それが私たちがインフレを引き起こしている理由です 私の信念は、実際にはほとんどの場合、インフレは供給側の問題であり、ロナルド・レーガンとロナルド・レーガンの時代からの50年間の新自由主義です。マーガレット・サッチャーは総需要が慢性的に不十分であり、それが長期停滞につながった理由です切望された景気後退は崩壊し、供給側は大恐慌以来最も深刻で急速な景気後退につながり、切望された対応は数兆ドルでした何を数えたいかにもよりますが、米国では5兆ドルから9兆ドルです崖っぷちから不況に突入した後、これまでで最も急速に回復したのは、支出が的を絞っていなかったことです。
そして、私たちは供給側の問題を抱え続けています.切望されていた混乱は私が予想したよりもはるかに長く続いています.ほとんどの人は、私たちが問題の一部であったcovidへの対応を失敗したと予想していたと思います.そして、なぜ混乱が続いているのか.過去50年間ジャストインタイム生産を実践しており、それがcovidパンデミックへの対応をはるかに困難にしました.パンデミックが来ることを知っていたマスクの例を挙げれば、何も持っていなかったために完全に準備ができていませんでした.パンデミックに対処するための在庫は、新自由主義の一部として開発されたサプライチェーンがひどく混乱したため、必要なものを輸入することができなくなりました。私は必ずしも彼らの政策を批判しているわけではありませんが、現実には、それは私たち全員に影響を与えており、ウクライナ戦争に影響を与えているため、これらすべてが供給側のこれらすべての混乱を共謀しています。高インフレを生み出すために陰謀を企てた 問題は実際にはカバーされていない 数ヶ月前に終了した救済は、トランプ大統領の下で行われた最初の秘密の救済ラウンドでした ええと、インフレの問題は発生しませんでした。 covidの影響をあまり受けておらず、収入がcovidの影響を受けた人々が請求書を支払うために費やしたので、そうではありませんでした。それまでにバイデン大統領に伴う第 2 ラウンドの支出が爆発的に増加し、多くの不確実性が薄れ始め、ロックダウンが緩和され、人々が支出していた支出の構成は非常に奇妙でした。サービスではなく商品に大きく偏っており、自宅に配達できる商品に偏っていたため、一部の商品が深刻に不足し、値上げや値上げなどが発生し、かなり迅速な回復が可能になりました。不況後の通常よりもはるかに迅速な税収の回復を可能にし、それが経済から需要を吸い上げ始めたため、救済支出が次第に減少し、税金として回復するにつれて、経済から約2兆ドル相当の需要を取り除きました。収益が増加しました。
これらは、インフレの原因に目を向けた財政政策を通じて、かなりの財政的逆風を生み出しました.ええと、インフレの最初の推進力は、3つの品目の油の食糧と避難所の価格によるものでした.ええと、石油価格は、石油の需要と製油所がオフラインになり、その後回復すると、人々は再び運転を開始し、石油の需要はバラの食料の約70％であり、石油価格の上昇により食品の価格が上昇し、米国の避難所はパンデミックの初期段階で家賃の値上げが限られていたため、賃貸料が含まれる一種の奇妙な要素です。家賃は追いついてきており、それ以来、住宅がほとんど建設されていないため、米国では深刻な住宅不足が発生しています。世界的な金融危機のため、あなたが最終的に家賃を引き上げる機能を追加すると、住宅不足が発生し始めます。家賃の上昇は非常に急速に上昇し、シェルターの主な構成要素は実際には所有者が占有する住宅であり、その構成要素の価格は家賃に基づいて帰属されるため、それらが上昇するにつれてこれは、住宅所有者占有コンポーネントも増加させる傾向があるため、これらは急速に上昇しています。これは、米国では常に当てはまりました。これは、すべての高インフレ期間であり、ほとんどのインフレはこれら 3 つのコンポーネントによるものですが、石油を覚えておく必要があります。石油価格の上昇は他の価格に影響を与え続けます.生産者は生産の初期段階で支払った高い石油価格を回収しなければならないため、非常に長い遅れが生じる可能性があります。これは私たちが価格をつり上げている ええと 大統領 ええと バイデン市場支配力のある企業が使用しているマークアップを調べているグループがあり、それらが途方もなく増加していることを示しており、取締役会で企業の経営陣がジャックする能力を誇らしげに自慢しています。値上げだからそこに」マークアップの上昇による多くの価格上昇は、価格決定力を利用し、取締役会のメンバーが言うことを利用して、価格上昇を許容する消費者の意欲を利用しています。また、チップの不足など、いくつかの特異なインフレの原因もあります。自動車生産に参入することで中古車の需要が増加し、それらの価格が急騰し、CPI で示されるように全体的な価格の上昇に加わりますが、少なくとも米国ではインフレが 8% と高く、少なくとも賃金価格のスパイラルの証拠はありませんが、賃金はまだ追いついています.S議長のパウエルは、私が思っていたよりもはるかに長い間辛抱強く待っていました。それが最善の政策だったのですが、最終的には患者がなくなり、FEDは利上げを続けてきました。私の主張は、利上げは役に立たないということです。消費財を購入するために消費者に借り入れを延期させるために金利を上げることですが、ええと、私たちのインフレの源は、私たちの家賃であり、ええと、食料と石油であり、通常、消費者はそれらの支払いを行うために借りることはありません。支出は一般的にあまり金利に敏感ではありません。投資ですが、新しい賃貸ユニットを建設するための投資が削減されることを本当に望んでいません。より多くの賃貸ユニットが必要です。より多くの住宅を建設する必要があります。コストの面では1位か2位であり、家賃の値上げは実際にはコストフィードスルー効果を通じてインフレ圧力を高める可能性があり、最終的には利子所得の上昇、特に100％を超える政府債務の利子が増加する可能性があります。 GDP の増加は、おそらくより多くの支出を促進する可能性があります.それは米国にとって重要ではないと思います.なぜなら、それは、非常に負債の多い民間部門の企業や家計による利払いの増加の影響によって相殺される以上だからです.とにかく、私は答えが供給サイドのインフレとは、需要を減らすことではなく、供給を増やすことに集中することです。
バイデン大統領は、より良い再建のために戦ったとき、正しい軌道に乗っていました。それを理解することはできません.彼はインフレを抑制しようとするはずのはるかに小さな法案を持っており、インフレ圧力を減らすために供給側の投資を促進する可能性を宣伝しています.ヒットが小さすぎて十分に焦点が合っていないため、これは非常に良いことですが、少なくとも、私たちがする必要があるのは供給能力を高めることであると主張するのは正しい軌道に乗っています。かなり早く。十分に焦点を合わせていませんが、少なくとも、私たちがする必要があるのは増加することであると主張するのは正しい軌道に乗っています。十分に焦点を合わせていませんが、少なくとも、私たちがする必要があるのは増加することであると主張するのは正しい軌道に乗っています。
これは複雑なグラフで、少し読みにくいことは承知していますが、2020 年後半と 21 年のパンデミックの初期にインフレが増加し始めたことを示しています。それは主に石油によって引き起こされています。後で、より多くのコンポーネントがインフレに追加されますが、特に石油価格が好転し、実際に下落した後、住宅は依然としてインフレの最も重要な要因です.ええと、人々は他の要素からより多くのインフレを得ているので心配していますが、私が言ったように、それは過去の石油価格とええと、可能性はありますし、原油価格が下がれば、インフレ圧力が自然に解消される可能性は十分にあると思います。
FED は非の打ちどころのないタイミングを持っているようです このグラフはフェデラル ファンドの目標金利を示しています。つまり、これは、経済がビジネス サイクルのピークに達したときに、景気後退に入る 6 か月前に、米国の政策金利が常に数か月引き上げられるということです。 FED は常に金利を引き上げることで逆風を加える準備ができており、グリーンスパンが常に言っていたように、過去がガイドである場合は、FED が利上げを開始したため、不況を予想する必要があります。過去に。
議論は、パンチボウルを取り除くのは中央銀行次第だということです。なぜなら、米国では議会であり、英国では議会であり、議会は常に過大な支出を承認する傾向があり、彼らは選出された代表者が活況を呈している経済は、選挙の時期になると彼らにとって良いことであり、良い時代を終わらせるためにパンチボウルを奪うのは中央銀行でなければならないので、政府が支出しすぎると、中央銀行は需要を減らしすぎているはずです支出は赤字を増やし、債務は金利を上げ、インフレを引き起こします。この議論の問題は、赤字が減少するにつれてFRBが常に金利を上げることです.金利は赤字によって押し上げられたのではなく、金融政策によって押し上げられたものであることを次に示します。ええと、政府の赤字と債務がインフレを引き起こす必要はなく、私たちの高インフレは常に需要側ではなく供給側によって引き起こされるので、それが議論です中央銀行はパンチボウルを取り除く必要があると言って、私は単に米国のデータを示すつもりですが、それは私の主張と一致していると思います.
これがFRBの利上げです。おそらくFEDが戦っているのはインフレです。FRBの利上げは前のグラフから繰り返されています。赤い線はインフレであり、青い線です。つまり、FRBは常に利上げを行って不況に陥っています。そして、それはインフレとの相関関係があまり良くありません。非常に長い間、インフレが低下し、非常に安定していましたが、FEDは何かと積極的に戦っていますが、インフレは海外では問題にならなかったため、インフレではありません。
FEDは戦っていない 赤字の増加は過剰な議論とインフレを引き起こすと思われます 相関関係を見ると、赤字が減少すると、赤字が減少しているときにFEDが債務を引き上げるということがわかります 青ラインはゼロに向かって動いています。これは黒字です。つまり、FED が実際に行うことは、赤字が減少するにつれて金利を引き上げることであり、パンチ ボウルを取り除くこととは正反対です。
政府債務は金利を押し上げません.ええと、70年代初頭以来、長期的な傾向にあることがわかります.クリントン時代を除いて、ええと、同時に金利は上昇しています.中央銀行の目標金利と 10 年国債利率の両方が低下傾向にあるため、逆方向に動いていることを示しているのは、金利を押し上げているのは債務や赤字ではなく、中央銀行であるということですそれはそれを行います。
政府の債務はインフレを引き起こす必要はありません ええと 死亡者数が増加している 時間の経過とともにインフレ率が低下している 時間の経過とともに現在までの傾向 私はもちろん理解しています.
そして最後に、米国での過剰需要の証拠は実際にはありません。私たちの問題が十分な需要ではないことが受け入れられた場合、長期停滞の議論と一致する設備稼働率の長期的な下降傾向があります。そのため、十分な需要がなく、過剰生産能力につながり、投資へのインセンティブが低下し、長期停滞に拍車がかかります トレンド これが、過去半世紀にわたる低成長率の理由だと思います。
オーケー、現在のインフレについてはどうでしょうか。パンデミック不況が供給側の崩壊として始まり、それが需要の崩壊に変化したのは珍しいことです。通常、景気後退は需要の崩壊によって引き起こされますが、この場合は供給側の崩壊であり、その後人々が職を失うにつれ、切望されていた救援支出が減少しました。最初のラウンドで請求書が支払われ、貯蓄が増加し、支出が回復しましたが、供給側の圧力に直面し続けていました。賃金価格スパイラル 賃金は追い上げを果たしているにすぎないまだ合理的に固定された調査は、企業が異常な需要に直面していないことを示しています 設備稼働率は以前のピークの在庫をまだはるかに下回っています ええと、回復しているため、これらのいずれも、インフレ率が上昇しているにもかかわらず、需要が多すぎることを示すものではありません 間違った薬です私たちがする必要があるのは、投資を増やし、国内の生産能力を高め、交換することです。修理するだけでなく、長くて壊れやすいサプライチェーンを交換してください。
高い失業率と継続的なインフレが組み合わさる危険にさらされています。連邦準備制度理事会 (FED) が需要側を押し下げるために金利を上げ続けている間に、供給側で問題が発生し続ければ、ええと、これは非常に古い歴史です。学生の皆さん、これが 1970 年代に起こったことだと理解しています。1970 年代の初めにインフレが急上昇しました。1970 年代の終わりには、最初は穀物を介して供給された石油価格が原因でした。その後、避難所の構成要素も価格が上昇し、戦いました。
財政政策と金融政策の両方の緊縮によって、今のようにスタグフレーションが生じたのは明らかに過剰需要の問題ではなかった.米国の深刻な景気後退州と深刻な金融危機が貯蓄セクターの貯蓄とローンを破壊し、その後発展途上国の債務危機が続き、発展途上国が最大の銀行に影響を与え、1990年代までに債務不履行になったため、打撃が米国を襲った。おそらく、米国の石油価格の圧力を緩和した天然ガスの規制緩和に、より多くの功績が認められるべきです.ええと、高インフレを終わらせたフォルカーよりも、いずれにせよ完全な回復には四半世紀かかりました.インフレがあるときに供給側に取り組む問題を示しています。なぜなら、需要を減らすことによって供給側の問題に取り組むと、スタグフレーションを再現する可能性があるからです。
ラリー・サマーズは最近、中央銀行が過度のスピードでインフレに反応し、多額の費用が支払われたという主要な例を認識していないと言いました.私はそのようなエピソードを1つ説明したと思います.いつものラリーはこれを間違えた。
連邦準備制度理事会の最新の予測は、適切な金融政策の下で、これは連邦準備制度理事会 (FED) を引用しているということです。アメリカ人は、パンデミック前の予測と比較して、2023 年末には 3% 貧しく、その後も永久に悪化し続けると予想できます。 6 月 21 日の予測と比較して、23 年末の実質 GDP のレベルは 5.5% 低下しています。これは、パンデミック自体の打撃よりも悪いです。政策立案者は現在、失業率がパウエルは FED の誰もが労働者が職を失うことを望んでいることを否定したが、彼は成長を急激に減速させる必要があり、FRB 当局者は多くの経済的苦痛を受け入れるだろうと明言している。自分のものではありません。
FED は何をしているのか パウエルは、FED がこれをしなければならないという社会通念に圧力をかけられたと思います。私が思う論文は、この従来のグループのことを本当に完全に正しいと思うので、これはFRBそのものです.彼らが何をふりをしても、誰も明確に考えていません.彼は、誰もが真実であることを知っているが、実際には誤ったナンセンスであると言います。
いかなる種類の経験的根拠も持たず、それぞれが理論的根拠に深刻な欠陥を抱えていますが、経済学者は思考を整理するためにこれらに依存し続けているため、事実上、正統派経済学のコーパス全体は詐欺であり、FRBの政策へのアプローチを批判し続けていますこれは、連邦準備制度理事会 (FED) が強制捜査を開始する前のことであり、彼はそれが誤ったナンセンスに基づいていると述べました。
だから私たちは複数の実存的危機に直面しています ええと このウイルスとおそらくさらに多くの気候の大惨事が来るか、不平等です ええと 難民 それらの多くは気候難民であり、多くの国での反民主主義運動です。彼らは生産の大部分の源であり、それは環境破壊のほとんどを意味し、彼らは世界の残りの部分が持続可能性に移行するのを助ける責任を負わなければなりません。戦争 政府が国内生産の 50 以上を吸収し、その経験を利用して、バーニー サンダースのような人々が推進していた規模の包括的なグリーン ニューディールに向けて動き出す.
資金ではなく資源が真の制約です これらのパンデミックへの取り組みを攻撃することは 実質的な失業者の資源を動員することに帰着します パンデミックがすでに雇用されている人々をシフトさせ、新しいものを作成する前でさえ 税金をどのように使用することができますか 消費を延期します 愛国的な貯蓄の配給規制 これらはすべて、第二次世界大戦であなたの国と私のものによって使用されました。これは、政府が公共の目的を達成するためにリソースを割り当てるために費やすことを許可する政策スペースを作成する方法です。彼らはリソースを解放します。
秘密裏の対応から学んだことを結論付けさせてください。必要に応じて 9 兆ドルを使うことができます。手順を変更する必要はありません。必要なのは支出を承認することだけであり、中央銀行の財務省はそれを資金調達する方法を知っています。財務省の小切手はどれも跳ね返されませんでした 究極の制約は財務ではなくリソースです ええと、リソースのリリースと作成に集中する必要があります ええと、パンデミックへの対応において、私たちはそれについて素晴らしい仕事をしませんでしたが、いずれにせよ、私たちは手順を持っていますそのためには、支出に集中する必要があります 金融政策は、これらの努力のいずれにおいても実際には役に立ちません 財政政策のより多くの使用が必要になるため、財政政策の重要性を低下させていた過去 50 年間の傾向を逆転させる必要がありますそして、ええと、金融政策の重要性を高めます。間違ったやり方 インフレはリソースの動員に焦点を当てた政策によって回避できる 少なくとも予算の結果は自由裁量でも心配でもない 金利は中央銀行の政策によって決定されない 自警団ではなく中央銀行の政策によって決定され 金利の引き上げは逆効果であり、金融危機を引き起こしたり、スタグフレーションを再現したりする可能性があります。
ええと、これらは私の 2 冊のええと、近日中に出版される予定の本です。左側にあるのは、私たちのためにお金を稼いでいるものです。現在、英国で入手できる可能性があると思います。
それから、来春に出てくる mmt の図解ガイドがあり、Heske van Doornen によって図解されています。
ありがとうございます、やめます。
Ｑ：
thank you so much for that um that was really really fascinating and I'm sure the audience members have
gained a lot of new insights and perspectives on the topic on that note I'd like to open up the floor to a q a
I'm going to start with some questions myself and then I'm sure the audience have many more to ask themselves
um so just starting off um you talked a lot about um America and the UK and kind of a lot
of developed countries but I was wondering what their relevance was for mmt for kind of developing countries
countries who don't have as fiscally responsible governments and a lot of corruption and then also maybe like
countries which are going through conflict like Ukraine?
W:
okay
um yes uh many developing countries are not going
to fit the definition that I uh present at the very beginning what a sovereign
currency means so they have pegged to uh a dollar they have a currency board uh
or they have a managed exchange rate that is going to limit their domestic fiscal policy space and monetary policy
space too uh right now because the FED is uh hyped to rates there's pressure on
all these countries that are linked to the dollar so they've got to raise uh
interest rates they're not monetarily Sovereign
and so it constrains what they can do and I think the FED should be more responsible
and should pay attention to what is happening to the developing world when
we raise rates it you know the United States uh might get a cold or even a flu
but the rest of the world is going to suffer much more than we will that's what happened with volker's rate hikes
too it had a huge impact on the developing world do I recommend that every country in the
world float their currency uh no not necessarily okay but uh that does mean that you
don't have domestic uh policy space as much as you would have with a
floating currency so you have to weigh that against uh the decision to float your currency or not uh
China has managed its currency and I I think it it it probably was a
pretty good policy and it was very successful I think that that China will float
um uh probably not too far into the future they will abandon and that will
give them more domestic policy space too um so anyway on the the corruption thing
I was at a um a a conference of central Bankers
um in uh Brazil and uh Jamie Galbraith many of you will have heard of uh Jamie
and his father John kind of Galbraith um we're in the audience and we're listening to um representative after
representative from central banks in uh in the from the developing World
largely and uh so speaker after speaker would say well you guys in the United
States uh you know you can do all these things all these nice things that you talk about you know you can have a job
guarantee program and all this stuff we can't do it because of the corruption and when it was Jamie's term to talk uh
he said that uh listen I worked in Washington and I can assure you the
corruption of Washington is far beyond anything you have in your country
okay corruption is everywhere there are different kinds of corruption
I think the the day-to-day sort of corruption where you have to bribe the
motor vehicle department uh to get your driver's license uh that's probably more
common uh in the rest of the world that's not very common in the United States
we have much more serious corruption than that okay our corruption is at the
very highest levels of our government and our uh business sector
so I think corruption is always there uh yes you need to fight it yes it's a big
bother but it should not prevent you uh from trying to implement policy.
Q:
um yeah that makes sense um and one last question for me I'm sure you've had recently about the UK's um
mini budget by distrusts and high economic policies cutting taxes she was criticized a lot by the IMF they said it
could lead to growth but they said it was just basically really irresponsible because it would put the UK in a lot of
debt and the pound crashed and so I'm wondering kind of what your perspective was on that because the main criticism
was that they wouldn't be able to afford it but you're saying that the government could afford it so yeah just what do you
think?
Wray:51:25
yeah so was it a good policy uh it sure doesn't look like a good policy so
you know we we've tried the the lafferent curve before uh which is the
idea you cut tax rates on the rich and that stimulates the economy so much
that tax revenue increases and you actually end up balancing your budget
uh it doesn't work the reason it doesn't work is because tax cuts for the rich do
not stimulate your economy they don't run out and start investing what what would lead to investment is
increasing demand from lower income people so tax cuts for the poorest people
probably would stimulate the economy tax cuts for the rich are not going to do it so it's a bad policy I'm not trying to
support the policy at all but uh increasing the size of the
deficit or debt is that a problem no that's not a problem how you increase the deficit and debt is
important so if you're increasing your uh deficit and debt by implementing a
massive new inclusive uh Green New Deal
they would create lots of jobs and higher wages at the low end if that led
to a deficit I wouldn't worry about it at all okay uh because it's it's going to um
you know improve people's lives that's what's important so I think that they're
uh their right to criticize the policy but their explanation of what's wrong
with it is is um not on target at all uh
look the with the FED raising rates the bank of England is going to have to
follow along unfortunately uh I think this is the problem and so the markets
are predicting that the bank of England is going to have to raise rates
and uh so they're expecting rates to go up in the future which means then there
is a problem with holding longer-term bonds including government bonds and so
you're going to try to get out of those things I I think there's also a a story
that will get told it's not clear right now but there there is a story of um
Pension funds that are being forced to sell out be because of positions they've
taken and obscure derivative products in the shadow banking sector so someone's
going to write that story we're going to find out a lot more about what really is going on it's not the people that
bondholders are worried that the debt ratio is going to go up and Britain is going to have to default on its debt no
one in their right mind is thinking that except maybe economists uh because that's not going to happen everyone
knows it won't happen there there's no risk in a British government debt
okay but that doesn't mean you don't sell the debt so people are selling it
but it has nothing to do with that.
Q:
um I've got a few questions in the chat um I'm just gonna read the first one out
from Greg geisset um I spent long so if accurate holders were confident in the financial
management policies of public fiscal public fiscal and monetary authorities
having full discretion to deal with Fiat money why would cryptocurrencies exist with increasing portfolio allocations
made to such by institutional investors over time mmt amounts to a utopian rationalization
of Hope over experience in having one's cake and eating it too what would you
like to say to that?
Wray:
well um probably you don't know uh PT Barnum so
he was a a famous uh huckster uh fraudster
um in the United States and he said a sucker is born every
minute and it adds up if the one is born every minute by the end of the year you're
gonna have a lot of suckers and there are a lot of suckers who have bought into this into the crypto coin uh bubble
I I don't have anything more to say about that uh it's uh you know as as
pure speculation um a lot of it driven uh by fraud but a lot
driven by hopeful thinking okay I I don't see any reason to have any
more explanations on that there are lots of suckers in the world.
Q:
um Tara's got a question in the chat so um do you personally believe that the Orthodox economic view will ever be
overturned in policy making also what role would mmt play in effectively tackling stagnation especially in the
context of the UK at the moment?
Wray:
okay um well
I can tell you 25 years ago when uh we we started mmt
um and so we're figuring out how does the government really span what are those operations like between the
treasury and the central bank that allows the government to spend and so on
um we thought that you know once we explained this how it really works
that um uh everyone will join
that turns out not to be true and I think those quotes from J from
Rudd from the FED I provide you know some uh explanation as to why it's not
true uh think about what it takes to get a PhD
so a lot of you are prepared you know on that track um so somewhere between seven years and
maybe 10 years of your life devoted to getting the PHD
and to getting your faculty position
and then in the United States another six years to get tenure so that you're safe
so that you can do what you really want to do but for all that period until you get
tenure you have to play the game okay and that game is going to be an
orthodox game almost anywhere that you study for a PhD so you got to play the Orthodox game
and uh you're you're so invested in the
uh the the topic you choose for your dissertation and usually your first set
of articles that you publish they're going to be based on the work you did for your dissertation that
um you've invested a lot of your life in doing this it's very very difficult to shift gears
and it's very scary to do that because you will be uh subjected to
ridicule you will be banished you know from the groups that you you've been
hanging out with you will no longer be invited to give talks so uh
there are tremendous risks in changing direction
um and and I I think that our experience in in trying to uh to move people a bit
in another Direction uh it shows that that it's just too scary if you talk to a politician which over
the past 25 years I've had the opportunity many times to do this and you sit down with them behind closed
doors and you explain how money really works and they say yeah okay I get that
they say but I can never say that in public because I have to win elections and I
have to get campaign money and people will think I'm completely insane so they can't say it in public
this John Yarmouth who I quoted you know that's really other than uh AOC
you know that that's the first really respected conventional politician who's
ever said it in public uh to the degree that he just did no one else has done it
but I've heard him behind closed doors and I when I met with him he told me many of the Democrats on his committee
completely understood all of this but you don't hear them saying it in public
um so it's very difficult for politicians to uh to tell the truth to
tell what they know to be true um okay now have we made progress yes we have
okay and the trillions of dollars of coveted relief is proof
so Congress back in the global financial crisis this was the worst uh crisis we had had
since the 1930s uh President Obama comes in and he's got
to deal with it he wants a fiscal rescue package
okay and uh I was in meetings with with people who are trying to provide advice
uh to his economists that were surrounding him and during a meeting we got a phone call
from them and they said the number is going to be 800 billion
say 800 Bill like why because it's not one trillion
we cannot say one trillion is too scary we can't even consider talking about a
trillion dollar rescue package it can only be 800 billion and that's over two years so it's only 400 billion a year
all of them knew it was not enough money okay there was no one in the Obama Administration who believed that 800
billion was enough to get us out and it wasn't and we didn't get out okay this time around trillions
that shows that there has been a change okay the the idea that the government
cannot run out of money uh I think is accepted now uh and uh
that's progress I I think the idea that inflation is the
real Danger uh that's a success too okay that we've transitioned away from
affordability to uh oh if the government spends too much we get inflation that's progress
if we can uh you know continue and then say okay well the way we avoid inflation
is we make sure the resources are available okay then we finally completed it focus
on resources and make sure that you don't uh increase
demand for the resources beyond your capability then go ahead and spend
once we reach there whether they want to call it mmt or not doesn't matter at all to me
if they just recognize that is your true constraint a resource constraint then
then mmt is one whether or not they say it's mmt I don't care.
Q:
yeah and Lindsay I can see you've got your hand up would you like to ask a question.
L:
yeah if you don't mind um my questions related to the exact thing you were just talking about with
resources like finding releasing creating resources um specifically so if mmt is concerned
with the constraints on real resources considering if we're on a finite planet with only so many resources what's the
kind of theoretical approach to like finding resources when we're going to be
running out of them like if we think about peak oil or I've read a bit on like Bill Mitchell and mmt and like
getting the economy to full capacity um to Full Employment when I when I
think about that when I read about that I think of like higher consumption and like that being more
um problematic for the environment and this is also coming from as a master's
student um studying D growth so big fan of mmt but like what what does it look
like when we start to actually have those finite resources and the supply side is really limited by the actual
resources?
Wray:
yeah okay so uh
I think the problem with oil is we have too much I'm not worried about peak oil I want to
stop using oil we should not pull any more out of the ground leave it all there
we will completely cook the planet long before we run out of oil
and I I take what you're saying about finite
resources um I I don't think that they're that finite
though I think we can find Alternatives uh which is what we did with oil we we
run out of whales and so then we moved to petroleum
we uh we need to stop using oil we will move to something else but what we have
to do is do it in an environmentally sustainable way okay
so I'm not so worried about running out of resources I'm worrying about destroying the planet and uh
extinguishing life on Earth rather than the finiteness of resources
so we have to move to sustainability I
agree that we need degrowth in the sense
of we have to reduce inputs
into our production process the the inputs that are damaging the environment
either because of the the pollution cause or because uh mining or cutting
for us whatever is destroying the planet
um so reduce the inputs that are damaging instead of D group
um so there there's a a long discussion of whether you can have capitalism without
growth okay uh I don't think so
but growth means nominal growth
growth of money value it doesn't mean growth of resource inputs it doesn't
even mean growth of physical output it means growth of money output
so MC and Prime as my Marx puts it I think capitalism has to have that now
what we can do is remove the scope for capitalism
okay I don't think that we need capitalism uh to be involved in supplying uh the
necessities of life uh we don't need capitalism involved in
providing Health Care housing uh most of our food supply
child care uh these don't have to be for-profit
activities we can do the we can provide these as
public goods Public Services the public sector and
um public sector doesn't have to grow okay we just the public sector has to
meet people's needs but it doesn't have to grow year after year so if you reduce the scope
for the capital sector make it smaller I it will still grow
but you reduce the kinds of activities that you allow the private sector
to completely control you can reduce the necessity for growth of your economy as
a whole we could be shrinking the economy but letting capitalism grow in their own little tiny sphere
um I think that that's uh one answer uh another answer is that um
look the most important resource that we have by far is
most people are going to be working in that area Okay using their brains.
1:09:14
Q:
um sorry Professor I don't know if you can uh you've lagged a little bit could you please repeat the last like sentence
or two.
Wray:
you couldn't hear me?
Q:
yeah you've just been lagging a little bit.
Wrby:
okay the um so
human brains human uh uh contribution to production uh that can
increase in value there's no reason why we can't uh increase the the pay for
people who are working with their brains and increase the number of people that
are working with their brains as we go through time um so
growth can be in nominal terms and it doesn't necessarily have to use
inputs other than human labor in the form of thinking and
I think that uh you know not only is that desirable that's the direction that
we're going so um I think I'm agreeing with you for the
most part just uh trying to change the way that the economy operates and the
way that we view economic growth I know that degrowth people will say but if we look back in time as GDP goes up
uh it always uses more input from nature okay that is true I'm not
disputing that what I'm saying is we can choose a different future okay we can delink growth of money
values to uh the damage of the environment that
has always been linked to it in the past we need to move in a different direction.
M:
yes uh thanks thanks for your uh your presentation I just uh taking it back to
the current uh developments if you're at the range both
on the fiscal side and on the monetary side what concrete actions would you take to
to tackle current bout of inflation what what would you do both fiscally and
monetary?
Wray:1:11:40
yeah okay my answer might be uh U.S Centric
because I don't know uh the situation in other countries so in the U.S it's it's clear that a lot
of our inflation is coming from price gouging and Market power and the
president has the evidence okay now of course we have a problem
with Congress and it's not easy uh to get laws through but uh when President
Kennedy faced a similar situation so we had inflation it was driven by price gouging and Kennedy uh went out and
pointed his finger at the firms that were causing the inflation
okay and Biden now has the evidence and he can do that so he can get on TV or
whatever the equivalent is today uh and uh you know start pointing fingers at
the firms that have been uh increasing their markups okay uh I don't know what
kind of threats he can use uh but um uh if possible threaten them with some kind
of actions that the government's going to take.
um uh we should not raise interest rates
it's not going to help the U.S fight inflation and it's devastating for the rest of the world so I would stop that
uh as quick as I could we don't necessarily have to lower rates because
um uh you know once we've got them here maybe just leave them but I wouldn't
raise them anymore and I wouldn't have raised them in the first place we we do need to try to push through uh
uh spending that will promote the supply side and promote domestic production.
um Biden did some very good things they they did help to um
relieve the uh uh congestion of the docks so the
shipping uh is Flowing a lot better than it was
um and uh that has helped uh reduce the the delays of the ports.
so we we're
getting the the products and the inputs into the production process
we clearly need uh to invest as much as
we can in low income housing so we need to start building low-income housing in
uh much of the United States we have severe shortages we have um
shortages of uh owner occupied housing two and raising
rates doesn't help that uh I'm not sure that the the government
needs to promote it.
but uh we shouldn't try to hinder it by
raising interest rates so we need housing um we need protection
for uh low to moderate income people against inflation and there has been
some talk in other countries I haven't seen it in the United States.
uh
uh you know we can subsidize the uh consumption of low to moderate
income people to compensate for the inflation that helps to reduce the political
problems inflation is largely a political problem and a distribution problem
it's not really an economic problem even at eight percent inflation is not
an economic problem okay the the problem is distributional it hits low-income people
uh food was already not affordable and now it's very unaffordable
okay they already really couldn't afford to put the gas in their cars.
and now
they really can't afford it and people actually are borrowing to buy food and gas they're going into
debt to buy food and gas so even if we can't get the uh companies
to lower the prices we can Target government spending to load to
middle-income people which is what we should have done in the very beginning instead of mailing checks to everyone
so we can supplement their incomes to cushion the impacts of inflation
and then that helps to to reduce the pressure on them and then also reduces the political pressure.
which is the
other problem with inflation everybody hates inflation you know you don't you don't meet people high income or low
income who like inflation so it's a political problem
and we can solve that well we can reduce it we can't solve it we can reduce it by
helping people out and need help uh you probably know in the United States they just announced that Social Security
payments are going to go up by over 8 percent uh that's a huge uh help to seniors but
we we don't have to limit the help just to seniors Let's help people of all ages
Let's Help families with young children because hunger in the U.S already was
high and it's going to get higher because of the price of food.
okay and then just finally everything
that you can do to to help the supply side uh is going to be useful
um in um reducing inflation pressures and that that means
uh more productive capacity but it also means uh reducing uh the uh oligopoly power
and promoting more competition so I our our problem is so so many
sectors of the economy there is no real competition there are two or three firms
that Dominate and they they don't have to illegally conspire all they have to
do is uh you know watch each other and um uh follow the example you raise your
price I raise my price um and take advantage of the um the
ability to mark up without competition.
（M:
はい......ありがとうございます......あなたのプレゼンテーションに感謝します......ただ......現在の状況に戻しますが、もしあなたが財政面でも金融面でも、現在のインフレ率に対処するためにどんな具体策を取るでしょうか......財政的にも金融的にも何をするつもりでしょうか？
Wray:
私は他の国の状況を知らないので、私の答えは米国中心かもしれません。しかし、ケネディ大統領が同じような状況に直面したとき、インフレは価格操作によって引き起こされ、ケネディはそのインフレを引き起こしている企業を指さしたのです。バイデンは今、証拠を持っていて、それを使って、テレビかそれに相当するものに出演して......マークアップを増やしている企業を指弾し始めることができます......どんな脅しを使えるかわかりませんが、できれば、政府が取ることになる何らかの行動で彼らを脅してください。
金利を上げるべきではありません。それはアメリカのインフレ対策になりませんし、他の国々にとっても破壊的です。ですから、私はできるだけ早く金利を下げることを止めます。
バイデンは非常に良いことをしました。彼らは港の混雑を緩和するのを助けました。
そのため、私たちは製品や生産プロセスへのインプットを得ることができます。私たちは明らかに、低所得者向け住宅にできる限り投資する必要があります。
しかし、金利を上げることによってそれを妨げようとすべきではないでしょう。
インフレを補うために低・中所得者の消費に補助金を出せば、政治的な問題を減らすことができます。
だから、たとえ企業に値下げをさせることができなくても、政府支出を中所得層への負担に振り向けることは可能です。
インフレのもう一つの問題は、誰もがインフレを嫌っていることです。高所得者であれ低所得者であれ、インフレを好む人に出会うことはありません。アメリカでは社会保障費が8％以上上がると発表されたばかりです。米国ではすでに飢餓が深刻で、食料価格の高騰により、さらに深刻になりそうです。
そして最後に、供給側を助けるためにできることはすべて、インフレ圧力を減らすために役立つと思います。本当の意味での競争はなく、2つか3つの企業が独占しており、彼らは違法に共謀する必要はありません。）
M:
thanks.
Q:
uh thank you and uh we've got a question about uh from Bon.
it says what does mmt
mean by real resources in concrete terms especially in the context of developing where emerging economies?
Wrby:
okay well our most important resource is labor that's why mmt Always focuses on
unemployment um so we we don't want to reduce unemployment we want to eliminate it
okay it's your most valuable resource it's an insane policy to keep people
unemployed uh but that insane policy is the policy most economists promote
so what is the Fed saying they want to do what is Larry Summers saying the FED
has to do increased unemployment okay so it's not an accident
so you know they're they're raising rates and oh accidentally some people lose their jobs no no no
that is what they're trying to do and they tell us that okay they tell us they're trying to
raise Unemployment uh Larry Summers Target is double the fed's target he's
saying the FED is going to have to go twice as high as what they're saying um and and maybe they will
uh but the point is uh that's crazy that's a crazy policy why would you want
people unemployed it's your most valuable resource we want to put them to work they want to work
okay so why not put them to work and our our policy is the job guarantee because
uh with a job guarantee program you can achieve True full employment
without uh causing inflation to go up
in fact it helps to dampen inflation so this is a long argument a theoretical
argument
uh Bill Mitchell has his notion of the the neighbor instead of the nehru
you use the employed labor in a job guaranteed program as an employed buffer
stock that helps to buffer price and wage pressures instead of using an
unemployment buffer stock where you use unemployed people to try to buffer wage
and price pressures uh and we believe and and bill has strong arguments as to
why this is true that uh the employed buffer stock will work much better than the unemployed
buffer stock to reduce price and wage pressures
okay so that's our most important resource we need to fully employ it no
unemployment or labor at all and any country that has its own currency
can always do this they can always afford it because by
definition an unemployed person wants to work
for money okay that's the definition of unemployment and um so you can always use your own
money to achieve full employment now there can be consequences from that
uh in the case of a developing country the big fear is
that if everybody is fully employed then Imports will go up and that's going
to have consequences especially if we are pegging our exchange rate
we there may be pressure on the exchange rate so I'm not saying that
there won't be consequences but what I'm saying is you can afford it you can
afford to put those resources to work and then you have to consider the
consequences and try to figure out is there some way to minimize the
negative consequences that come from that for example on the exchange rates well what can you do to try to avoid
having Imports go up so much that it's going to pressure your
exchange rate okay can you try you know the traditional import substitution use
those workers to produce the kinds of stuff that you're importing now
so that you won't have to increase Imports so when you put uh people who
formerly were unemployed uh you know what do they need they're going to need
food so uh Fidel kabub who's an mmt
um uh Economist who focuses on developing countries says what you want to do is put those
people to work to increase your capacity to become food
self-sufficient okay so that's what their job will be to help you become food self-sufficient so that you don't
have to increase the import of food or you you might just restrict Imports
if your Imports are luxury goods uh then what you want to do is restrict
the Imports through tariffs taxes uh whatever
um so it depends on on what what the Imports are what you're going to do all
right and then uh more broadly uh whatever resources you have in your
country you can mobilize with your own currency okay so that's what mmt says and that is
how mmt is applicable beyond the United States and Beyond the
UK Beyond China Beyond Japan um that
you can at least mobilize your own resources whatever you have
using your own currency doesn't mean that you have access to
resources outside your border not necessarily okay the rich countries do so all the
rich countries uh face and external demand for their currency
so not only can they mobilize their own domestic resources they can mobilize uh
rest of World Resources too with their own currency not all countries can do
that so many countries are much more constrained than the countries that issue
International Reserve currencies so we recognize that uh that um developing
countries typically can't do that but they can at least mobilize their own domestic resources and and do the best
they can um beyond that uh you know we do need
International Help for the developing world and um you know
we sh the rich countries should never worry about affordability so you know the the United States
doesn't live up to agreements that it's already made for how much uh Aid it's
going to give to developing countries and the reason is because well we can't afford it which is absolutely crazy of
course we can afford it and in fact if we are sending money to a developing
country to let them spend uh it's much less likely to cause
inflation than sending money to Americans to let them spend
right because the spending is not going to be occurring in the U.S now there
might be some demand for U.S output uh so U.S exports might go up a little bit
uh which conceivably if the whole developing world was demanding more U.S
products okay maybe we could get some inflation uh from it
but most Americans would celebrate if exports went up
to be the most popular program any president could Implement to create jobs
in America because the rest of the world wants to buy our exports this is the goal of every Administration
um so it would be seen as a success but we don't do it why well we can't
afford it we'll run out of dollars uh which is absolutely absolutely crazy of
course we can live up to all International agreements and uh we can increase all of our uh commitments to
the rest of the world uh send them more dollars to help them develop and and that's how they can
avoid the negative impacts on their exchange rates they will have dollars going in
okay that's probably enough on that one um just last question for today
um well um Michael's asking what implications would a full adoption of mmt by a government have on private
credit creation would we need different rules or constraints Etc on the amount of credit commercial Banks can create
well so mmt uh is uh generally focused on
um the the government's money uh fiscal policy and monetary policy uh
related to government spending the public purpose achieving full employment
uh all of those questions and so sometimes critics actually have
criticized us saying well you're ignoring uh the private money which is
many times bigger than government's money
um and you're you're ignoring what uh you know the role that the banks have
played in causing our financial crises that make the
recession so much worse well it's not that we're ignoring them
I I don't think
there are very many economists uh alive who've written more than I have on the
private financial sector following the work of Hyman Minsky who was my
professor so it's not that we're not concerned with it it's just that uh mmt
by itself doesn't have that much to add to the work that is done by people like
Minsky okay there's no inconsistency at all between mmt and the people who do
work on financial instability and how to reform the banks I had a four-year Ford
Foundation Grant on the topic um so we're very uh concerned with it
but the the only aspect of mmt
that uh sort of is interlinked with this is that
uh so many economists and politicians think that
Finance is a scarce resource you know they you can run out of finance
and we say no you can't you can't run out of Finance whether it's government Finance or private sector Finance it's
not a scarce resource it's not related to saving so the old loanable funds idea
is incorrect Banks create money with keystrokes just
like the Central Bank creates money with keystrokes you can't run out our problem is not that we don't have
enough Finance our problem is that we have way too much private sector Finance
orders of magnitude too much probably 95 percent of all the stuff
that the Private Financial system is doing is not only unnecessary it's
dangerous and damaging okay so what I would do uh from the
perspective that Finance is not a scarce resource that actually it's a excessive is I would reduce the role of Finance in
the economy because we don't need it and to finance private activity
we don't need it to finance growth uh what we need is the public sector to
take a bigger role and the private sector to take a smaller role in part
for the the D growth reasons that I was talking about facing all of these pandemic challenges
that we Face the government has to play a bigger role in the economy and
um so we don't need to rely so much on you know uh
catering to the private interests to try to achieve economic growth so
that we don't have unemployment and poverty the government can tackle those problems without the private sector and
furthermore most of what Finance does uh doesn't promote economic growth anyway
it is uh just serving itself
it is moving more and more of corporate profits into the financial sector.
in the United States 40 percent of all
corporate profits go to the financial sector which is completely insane okay it's supposed to be an intermediate
good it's not a final product um it would be like the tires on the car get 40 of all the profits of car
production that would be crazy okay but that's what Finance is like at best
uh most of what Finance does is damaging
to the economy uh not uh useful at all so I would greatly downsize it
but uh okay I mean I could say most of what I just said without knowing
anything about mmt so that's that's why
um a lot of the times we're focusing on what mmt can helpfully advise
okay it's going to be with respect to government operations monetary fiscal
policy um we don't really need to go much into mmt to argue that our financial system
needs to be greatly downsized because it is harmful and dangerous
all right I hope that answered it.
Q:
thank you so much um thank you so much for your responses
they're really insightful very interesting to hear in your presentation as well we've all learned a lot
um amazing presentation overall thank you so much um it was a pleasure having you at cset
and we look forward to having you again soon thank you so much everyone for coming and have a great day thank you.
Ｑ：
ありがとうございました 本当に本当に魅力的でした そして聴衆はそのメモのトピックについて多くの新しい洞察と視点を得たと確信しています 私はaqaにフロアを開放したいと思います.私自身にいくつかの質問をすることから始めて、それから聴衆はもっと多くのことを自問する必要があると確信しています。最初に、あなたはアメリカと英国、そして多くの先進国について多くのことを話しましたが、私は彼らが何をしているのか疑問に思っていました.関連性は、財政的に責任のある政府と多くの汚職を持たない一種の開発途上国の国、そしておそらくウクライナのような紛争を経験している国のようなものでしたか?
W:
わかりましたええと、そうですええと、多くの発展途上国は、私が最初に主権通貨の意味を提示した定義に適合しません。そのため、彼らは通貨ボードを持っているか、管理された為替レートを持っているので、ドルにペッグしています。国内の財政政策の余地と金融政策の余地を制限しようとしています.FRBは金利を誇張しているので、ドルにリンクしているこれらすべての国に圧力がかかっているため、金利を引き上げる必要があります.FEDはもっと責任を負うべきであり、金利を引き上げるときに発展途上国に何が起こっているのかに注意を払うべきだと思います.米国が風邪をひいたり、インフルエンザですが、世界の残りの部分は私たちが思う以上に苦しむことになります。それはボルカーの利上げで起こったことでもあり、発展途上国に大きな影響を与えました。世界のすべての国が通貨を変動させることをお勧めします。必ずしもそうとは限りませんわかりましたが、それはあなたがそうしていないことを意味します変動通貨の場合と同じくらい国内に政策の余地があるので、通貨を変動させるかどうかの決定と比較検討する必要があります。中国は通貨を管理しており、おそらくかなり良い政策だったと思います。そして、それは非常に成功しました.中国が浮かんでいると思います.ええと、おそらくそう遠くない将来に彼らは放棄し、それは彼らに国内政策の余地を与えるでしょう.
ブラジルのセントラルバンカーズとジェイミー・ガルブレイスです。ジェイミーと彼の父ジョンのことを聞いたことがある人も多いでしょう。私たちは聴衆の中にいます。ええと、開発途上国の中央銀行の代表者の話を聞いています。主に発展途上国の中央銀行の代表者の話を聞いているので、スピーカーの次から次へと言うでしょう。あなたは雇用保証プログラムを持つことができますが、汚職のために私たちができないこれらすべてのことを知っています.Jamieの話の任期だったとき、ええと、私はワシントンで働いていました.ワシントンはあなたの国にあるものをはるかに超えています オーケー 汚職はどこにでもあります さまざまな種類の汚職があります 運転免許証を取得するために自動車部門に賄賂を払わなければならない日常的な種類の汚職だと思います世界の他の地域ではより一般的です。米国ではあまり一般的ではありません.それよりもはるかに深刻な汚職があります.オーケー.私たちの汚職は私たちの政府と私たちのビジネス部門の最高レベルにあるので,汚職は常にそこにあると思います.非常に面倒ですが、ポリシーを実装しようとすることを妨げるべきではありません。
Q:
ええと、それは理にかなっています。ええと、私にとって最後の質問です。最近、不信感と高度な経済政策による減税による英国の最小予算について、IMFから多くの批判を受け、成長につながる可能性があるとのことでした。しかし彼らは、それは英国に多額の債務を負わせ、ポンドが暴落することになるので、それは基本的に本当に無責任だと言いました。それを買う余裕はありますが、あなたは政府がそれを買う余裕があると言っているので、どう思いますか?
レイ:51:25
ええ、それは良い政策でしたか、確かに良い政策のようには見えないので、私たちは以前にラファレント曲線を試しました。これは、富裕層の税率を引き下げ、経済を大いに刺激するという考えです税収が増加し、実際に予算のバランスを取ることになります ええと、うまくいきません それがうまくいかない理由は、金持ちの減税が経済を刺激しないからです 彼らは尽きず、何がつながるかを投資し始めます投資への投資は低所得層からの需要を増やしているので、最貧層への減税はおそらく経済を刺激するでしょう 金持ち層への減税はそうしないので、それは悪い政策です 私は政策をまったく支持しようとはしていませんが、ええと赤字や負債の規模を拡大することは問題ではありません。赤字と債務をどのように増やすかは問題ではありません。
大規模で新しい包摂的なグリーンニューディールを実施して赤字と債務を増やしている場合、それが導かれた場合、ローエンドで多くの雇用とより高い賃金が生み出されるでしょう。赤字になるまではまったく心配しません大丈夫ですええと、人々の生活を改善することが重要であることを知っているので、彼らには政策を批判する権利があると思いますが、政策の何が問題なのかについての説明は彼らにあると思いますこれはまったく目標に達していません.FEDの利上げに伴い、イングランド銀行は残念ながら従わなければなりません.これが問題だと市場は予測しています.レートを上げるために、ええと、彼らは'将来的に金利が上昇すると予想しているということは、国債を含むより長期の債券を保有することに問題があることを意味するので、それらから抜け出そうとすることになるでしょう。現時点では明確ではありませんが、年金基金が売り切れを余儀なくされているという話があります。これは、彼らが取ったポジションと、影の銀行セクターのデリバティブ商品を曖昧にするためです。誰かがその話を書くでしょう.実際に何が起こっているかについてもっと多くのことを調べてください。債券保有者が債務比率が上昇し、英国が債務不履行を余儀なくされることを心配しているのは人々ではありません。エコノミスト ええと、それは起こらないので、誰もがそうなると知っています.たまたま、英国政府の債務にリスクはありませんが、それは債務を売却しないという意味ではなく、人々はそれを売却していますが、それとは関係ありません.
Q:
ええと、チャットでいくつか質問がありますええと、グレッグ・ガイセットから最初の質問を読んでみます私が長い間費やしたので、正確な所有者が公的財政の財務管理方針に自信を持っていれば、財政および金融当局は完全に法定通貨を扱う裁量 時間の経過とともに機関投資家によるそのようなポートフォリオへの割り当てが増加しているのに、なぜ暗号通貨が存在するのでしょうか mmt は、自分のケーキを食べたり食べたりする経験よりも、希望のユートピア的な合理化に相当します。
レイ:
ええと、おそらくあなたは知らないでしょう PT Barnum ということは、彼はアメリカで有名なハックスターであり、ええと、詐欺師であり、彼は、吸盤は毎分生まれていると言いました。今年はたくさんの吸盤を持っているだろうし、これを仮想通貨コインに買い入れた吸盤がたくさんいる ええと、バブル II それについてはこれ以上言うことはありません。その多くは詐欺に駆り立てられていますが、多くは希望に満ちた考えに駆り立てられています。世界にはたくさんの吸盤がいるということについて、これ以上説明する理由はありません.
Q:
タラのチャットで質問がありましたが、あなたは個人的に、正統派の経済的見解が政策決定において覆されると思いますか?また、特に現在の英国の状況において、停滞に効果的に取り組む上で mmt はどのような役割を果たすと思いますか?
レイ:
ええと、25 年前に私たちが mmt um を始めたとき、私たちは政府がどのように国庫と中央銀行の間で政府の支出を許可するような操作を実際にどのように行っているかを把握しています。ええと、私たちは、これが実際にどのように機能するかを説明したら、それが実際にどのように機能するかを知っていると思いましたが、それは真実ではないことが判明しました.
FEDのラッドのJからの引用は、理由についての説明を知っていると思います.それは真実ではありません.博士号を取得するために何が必要かを考えてみてください.多くの人は準備ができています.そのトラックで知っています.7年から10年の間のどこかで.その後、米国でさらに 6 年間の在職期間を取得して、あなたが本当にやりたいことをすることができるように安全ですが、テニュアを取得するまでのすべての期間、ゲームをプレイする必要があります。正統派のゲームをプレイし、ええと、あなたは非常に投資しています。あなたが論文のために選択したトピックと、通常、あなたが公開する最初の一連の記事は、あなたがあなたのために行った仕事に基づいています。あなたはこれを行うために多くの人生を費やしてきたという論文 ギアを変えるのは非常に困難であり、それを行うのは非常に恐ろしいことです。あなたと付き合ってきた私たちは、もはや講演に招待されません.だから、方向を変えることには大きなリスクがあります.ええと、人々を少し別の方向に動かそうとした私たちの経験は、それが.過去25年間に何度も政治家と話をする機会があり、密室で彼らと一緒に座って、お金が実際にどのように機能するかを説明し、彼らがそう言うなら、あまりにも怖い.彼らは言いますが、私は選挙に勝たなければならず、選挙資金を得る必要があり、人々は私が完全に狂っていると思うので、公の場でそれを言うことはできません。
本当にええと、AOC 以外では、それが本当に尊敬されている最初の伝統的な政治家であることを知っています。彼が公の場でそれを言ったことはありませんが、他の誰もそれをやったことがありませんが、密室で彼の話を聞いたことがあります.これはしかし、彼らが公の場でそれを言っているのを聞いたことがないので、政治家が真実を語って、彼らが真実であると知っていることを伝えることは非常に困難です。切望された救済はその証拠であり、議会は世界的な金融危機に戻った.これは1930年代以来最悪の危機だった.オバマ大統領がやって来て彼は.彼はそれに対処しなければならない.彼は財政救済パッケージを望んでいる.私は彼の周りにいる彼のエコノミストにアドバイスを提供しようとしている人々と会っていた.会議中に彼らから電話があり、彼らは言った.その数は 8000 億になるだろう 800 ビルと言う理由は 1 兆ではないから 1 兆が怖すぎるとは言えない 1 兆ドルの救済パッケージについて話すことさえ考えられないつまり、年間わずか 4,000 億ドルであり、十分なお金ではないことは全員が知っていました。
オバマ政権には、8,000 億ドルで私たちを追い出すのに十分であると信じている人は誰もいませんでした。今回は何兆ドルも出てきて、変化があったことを示しています 政府がお金を使い果たすことはできないという考えは、今では受け入れられていると思います それは進歩です インフレは本当の危険であるという考えそれはあまりにも成功です 私たちは手頃な価格からへと移行しました 政府があまりにも多くを費やした場合、私たちはインフレを得ることができます.利用可能です。ようやく完了しました。リソースに焦点を当て、自分の能力を超えてリソースの需要を増加させないことを確認してから、先に進んで、彼らがそれを mmt と呼びたいかどうかにかかわらず、そこに到達したら支出してください。それがあなたの本当の制約であるリソースの制約であることを彼らが認識していれば、私にとってはまったく問題ではありません.mmtは気にしません.
Q:
はい、リンゼイ、手を上げているのがわかります。質問はありますか。
L:
ええ、気にしないなら、あなたがリソースについて話していた正確なことに関連する私の質問は、具体的にはリソースの作成を解放するのを見つけるようなものです.mmtが実際のリソースの制約に関心がある場合は、非常に多くの資源しかありません ピークオイルについて考えたり、ビルミッチェルやmmtのように少し読んだり、経済を手に入れたりするのと同じように、資源が不足しそうになったときに資源を見つけるような理論的アプローチは何ですかそれについて読んだとき、私はそれについて考えるとき、私はより多くの消費を考え、それが環境にとってより問題であると考えます。これはマスターとしても来ています。D growth を勉強している s の学生は mmt の大ファンですが、実際に有限のリソースを持ち始め、実際のリソースによって供給側が実際に制限されるとどうなるでしょうか?
レイ:
ええ、わかりました、ええと、石油の問題は私たちが過剰に持っていることだと思います。
私はピークオイルについて心配していません私は石油の使用をやめたいです。
私たちはこれ以上地面から引き出すべきではありません。
それをすべて残してください私たちは地球を完全に長く調理します。
私たちが石油を使い果たす前に、有限の資源についてあなたが言っていることを理解してください。
ええと、それらがそれほど有限であるとは思いませんが、私たちは代替品を見つけることができると思います。それで私たちは石油に移行しました。石油の使用をやめる必要があります。何か他のものに移行しますが、私たちがしなければならないことは、環境的に持続可能な方法でそれを行うことです.資源の有限性よりも、地球を破壊し、地球上の生命を消滅させることを心配しているので、持続可能性に移行する必要があります 生産プロセスへの投入を削減しなければならないという意味で、脱成長が必要であることに同意します。環境は、汚染の原因によるものか、地球を破壊している採掘や伐採によるものなので、Dグループの代わりに有害な投入を減らしてください。成長なしで資本主義を持てるかどうかについて長い議論があります。ええと、そうは思いませんが、成長とは名目上の成長を意味し、貨幣価値の成長を意味します。それは資源投入量の成長を意味しません。
物的生産量の増加を意味することでさえ、それは貨幣生産量の増加を意味するので、私のマルクスが言うように、MCとプライムは資本主義に必要だと思います。今私たちができることは、資本主義の範囲を取り除くことです。生活必需品の供給に関与すること ヘルスケア住宅の提供に関与する資本主義は必要ありません 私たちの食料供給のほとんどは育児 ええと これらは営利目的である必要はありません 私たちができることはできますこれらを公共財として提供します 公共サービス 公共部門とええと、公共部門は成長する必要はありません 公共部門だけが人々のニーズを満たす必要がありますが、そうではありません年々成長する必要があるので、資本部門の範囲を縮小すれば、それはまだ成長しますが、民間部門が完全に制御できるようにする活動の種類を減らすことで、資本部門の成長の必要性を減らすことができます。経済全体として、私たちは経済を縮小することができますが、資本主義を独自の小さな領域で成長させることができます。ええと、それが1つの答えだと思います。もう1つの答えは、ええと、私たちが持っている最も重要な資源は、ほとんどの人がそうしようとしているということです。彼らの頭脳を使って大丈夫です。ええと、もう一つの答えは、ええと、私たちが持っている最も重要なリソースを見てください。ほとんどの人がその分野で働くことになるでしょう。ええと、もう一つの答えは、ええと、私たちが持っている最も重要なリソースを見てください。ほとんどの人がその分野で働くことになるでしょう。
1:09:14
Q:
すみません、先生、少し遅れましたので、最後の 1 文か 2 文を繰り返していただけますか。
レイ:
あなたは私を聞くことができませんでしたか？
Q:
ええ、あなたは少し遅れています。
ワービー:
ええと、人間の脳は人間の生産への貢献であり、価値を高めることができます。脳を使って働いている人々の賃金を上げたり、自分の脳で働いている人々の数を増やしたりできない理由はありません。つまり、成長は名目上のものである可能性があり、思考という形で人間の労働以外のインプットを必ずしも使用する必要はありません。経済の運営方法と経済成長の見方を変えようとしているということは、大部分はあなたに同意していると思います。 GDP が上がると、常に自然からのインプットが増えます。それは本当です。私が言っていることは、私たちが別の未来を選ぶことができるということであることに異議を唱えるつもりはありません.お金の価値の成長と、過去に常にそれに関連していた環境の損傷を切り離すことができます.私たちは別の方向に進む必要があります.
母：
はい、ありがとうございます。プレゼンテーションをありがとうございます。現在の展開に戻ります。財政面と金融面の両方で範囲内にある場合、現在のインフレに取り組むためにどのような具体的な行動をとりますか。財政的にも金銭的にも何をしますか?
レイ:
ええ、わかりました。私の答えは、ええと、米国中心かもしれません。他の国の状況がわからないので、米国では、インフレの多くが価格の高騰と市場支配力から来ていることは明らかであり、大統領は証拠を持っています。もちろん、私たちは議会に問題を抱えており、法律を通過させるのは簡単ではありませんが、ケネディ大統領が同様の状況に直面したとき、価格の高騰によって引き起こされたインフレがあり、ケネディは外に出て、インフレの原因は大丈夫で、バイデンは証拠を持っているので、彼はそれを行うことができるので、彼はテレビに出演したり、今日の同等のものに出演したりできます。彼がどのような種類の脅威を使用できるかはわかりませんが、可能であれば、政府がとる何らかの行動で彼らを脅します.ええと、金利を上げるべきではありません。
世界の残りの部分なので、私はできるだけ早くそれをやめます。必ずしも金利を下げる必要はありません。しませんそもそもそれらを調達したので、供給側を促進し、国内生産を促進する支出を推し進める必要があります.ええと、バイデンは彼らが行ったいくつかの非常に良いことをしました.ええと、混雑を緩和するのに役立ちました.ドッキングしているので、出荷は以前よりもはるかに順調に進んでおり、港の遅延を減らすのに役立ちました。製品と生産プロセスへのインプットを取得しているため、明らかに投資する必要があります。低所得者向け住宅でできる限りのことを行うため、米国の大部分で低所得者向け住宅の建設を開始する必要があります。米国の大部分で深刻な不足があります。所有者が占有する住宅 2 が不足しており、料金を引き上げても、それは役に立ちません。政府がそれを促進する必要があるかどうかはわかりませんが、そうすべきです」金利を上げてそれを妨げようとするので、住宅が必要です。低所得者から中所得者をインフレから保護する必要があります。他の国ではいくつかの話があります。米国では見たことがありません。低所得者から中所得者の消費を補助して、政治問題を軽減するのに役立つインフレを補うことができます インフレは主に政治問題であり、分配の問題です 実際には経済問題ではありません。
8％のインフレでも経済問題ではありません OK問題は分配の問題であり、低所得層の人々に影響を与えています.ええと、食べ物はすでに手頃な価格ではありませんでしたが、今では非常に手頃な価格ではありません。それを買う余裕はなく、人々は実際に食料とガスを買うために借金をしている彼らは食料とガスを買うために借金をすることになるので、たとえ企業に価格を下げるようにさせることができなくても、政府支出の対象を中所得層に向けることができるこれは、すべての人に小切手を郵送する代わりに、私たちが最初にすべきことでした。そうすることで、インフレの影響を緩和するために彼らの収入を補うことができます。そうすることで、彼らへの圧力を軽減し、政治的圧力も軽減することができます。
インフレに関するもう1つの問題は、誰もがインフレを嫌うということです。高所得者も低所得者もインフレが好きな人には会わないので、これは政治的な問題であり、私たちはそれを解決することができ、それを減らすことができます.それを解決するには、人々を助けることでそれを減らすことができ、助けが必要です.おそらくご存知のように、米国では、社会保障の支払いが8％以上増加すると発表されました。これは、高齢者にとって大きな助けですが、 「助けを高齢者だけに限定する必要はない あらゆる年齢の人々を助けよう 幼い子供を持つ家族を助けよう食品の価格が高騰することは問題ありませんが、最終的には、供給側を支援するためにできることはすべて役に立ちます。つまり、インフレ圧力が低下するということです。
つまり、生産能力が向上するということです。つまり、寡占力を減らし、より多くの競争を促進することを意味します。つまり、私たちの問題は、経済の非常に多くのセクターに本当の競争がないことです。2つか3つの企業が支配的であり、彼らはすべてを違法に共謀する必要はありません。しなければならないのは、お互いに見て、価格を上げる例に従ってください。私は価格を上げて、競争なしでマークアップする能力を利用します。彼らがしなければならないのは、違法に陰謀を企てる必要があるということだけです。お互いを監視し、あなたが価格を上げる例に従ってください。彼らがしなければならないのは、違法に陰謀を企てる必要があるということだけです。お互いを監視し、あなたが価格を上げる例に従ってください。
母：
ありがとう。
Q:
ええと、ありがとうございます。ええと、ボンから質問があります。具体的に言えば、特に新興経済の発展という文脈において、mmt とは具体的に何を意味するのでしょうか?
ワービー:
わかりました、私たちの最も重要な資源は労働力です。だからこそ、mmt は常に失業に焦点を当てているのです。だから私たちは失業を減らしたくありません。失業をなくしたいのです。わかりました。それはあなたの最も貴重な資源です。人々を失業させ続けるのは非常識な政策ですが、その非常識な政策です。ほとんどのエコノミストが推進している政策なので、FRBは何をしたいと言っているのですかラリー・サマーズはFEDが失業を増やす必要があると言っているのはわかりました。それは事故ではありません。仕事を失ういいえいいえそれが彼らがやろうとしていることであり、彼らは私たちに言っています、彼らは失業率を上げようとしていると言っていますええとラリー・サマーズ目標はFRBの目標の2倍です彼はFEDが行かなければならないと言っています彼らの2倍の高さええと、おそらく彼らはええと言っていますが、要点は、それはクレイジーです、それはクレイジーなポリシーです。なぜ人々を失業させたいのですか？私たちはあなたの最も貴重なリソースを彼らに働かせたいと思っています.彼らは大丈夫です.実際に上がることはインフレを抑えるのに役立つので、これは長い議論です 理論的な議論
ええと ビル・ミッチェルはネルーではなく隣人という概念を持っています あなたは雇用保証プログラムで雇用された労働者を雇用された緩衝在庫として使用します失業者を使って賃金と物価圧力を緩衝しようとする失業緩衝在庫を使用する代わりに、価格と賃金圧力を緩衝する。失業者の緩衝在庫よりも価格を下げ、賃金圧力は大丈夫だから、それは私たちがそれを完全に雇用する必要がある私たちの最も重要なリソースです失業や労働はまったくありませんそして独自の通貨を持っている国はいつでもこれを行うことができます彼らはいつでもそれを買う余裕がありますなぜなら定義上、失業者はお金のために働きたいからですそれが失業の定義であり、いつでも完全雇用を達成するために自分のお金を使うことができます。
発展途上国の場合、大きな懸念は、誰もが完全に雇用されている場合、輸入が増加し、特に為替レートをペッグしている場合、為替レートに圧力がかかる可能性があるため、影響がないとは言いませんが、私は、あなたはそれらのリソースを機能させる余裕があると言っています。そして、その結果を考慮し、それから生じるマイナスの結果を最小限に抑える方法があるかどうかを理解しようとする必要があります。為替レートに圧力がかかるほどの輸入高を回避するためにできることはありますか?伝統的な輸入代替品は、それらの労働者を使用して、現在輸入している種類のものを生産することを知っていますか? 「輸入を増やす必要はないので、以前は失業していた人々を入れると、彼らが何を必要としているのかがわかります。彼らは食料を必要とするので、フィデル・カブブは誰ですか」発展途上国に焦点を当てているエコノミストは、あなたがしたいことは、あなたが食糧自給自足になる能力を高めるためにそれらの人々を働かせることだと言っています。食品の輸入を増やす必要はない、または輸入品がぜいたく品である場合は輸入を制限するだけでよいということです輸入はあなたがやろうとしていることであり、それからもっと広く、あなたの国にあるどんな資源でも、あなた自身の通貨で動員することができます。
それがmmtの言うことであり、それがmmtが米国を超えて、英国を超えて適用される方法です中国を超えて日本を超えて、少なくとも自分のリソースを動員できるということは、自分の通貨を使用してリソースにアクセスできるという意味ではありませんあなたの国境の外では必ずしも大丈夫ではありません 裕福な国はそうするので、すべての裕福な国は直面しており、自国の通貨に対する外需もあります。非常に多くの国が国際準備通貨を発行している国よりもはるかに制約を受けているため、発展途上国は通常、そうすることができると認識しています。そうすることはできますが、少なくとも自国の国内資源を動員し、それ以上に最善を尽くすことはできます。発展途上国のために国際的な支援が必要であることはわかっています。豊かな国は手頃な価格について心配する必要はありません。米国は、開発途上国にどれだけの援助を提供するかについて、すでに合意した合意を守っていないことを知っています。その理由は、それを支払う余裕がないためです。実際、発展途上国にお金を送って彼らに使ってもらう場合、アメリカ人にお金を送って正しく使ってもらうよりも、インフレを引き起こす可能性ははるかに低いです。米国の生産に対する何らかの需要があります。アメリカの輸出が少し上がるかもしれません.発展途上国全体がより多くの米国製品を要求していれば、おそらくそれからいくらかのインフレを得ることができます.世界の他の国々が私たちの輸出品を買いたがっているので、アメリカで雇用を創出すること。これはすべての政権の目標なので、成功と見なされるでしょうが、私たちはそれをしません。もちろん、すべての国際協定を遵守することができます。そして、世界の他の地域へのコミットメントをすべて増やすことができます。彼らが発展するのを助けるために、より多くのドルを送ることができます。為替レートへのマイナスの影響をどのように回避できるか ドルは順調に進むでしょう 今日の最後の質問はおそらくこれで十分です ええと ええと マイケルは、政府による mmt の完全な採用がプライベートにどのような影響を与えるかを尋ねています信用創造には別の規則や制約が必要でしょうか 商業銀行が生み出すことができる信用の量などについて 政府の資金 財政政策と金融政策 政府支出に関連するもの 完全雇用を達成する公共目的ええと、これらすべての質問と、時には批評家が実際に私たちを批判し、政府のお金よりも何倍も大きい民間のお金を無視していると言って、あなたはあなたです.銀行が金融危機を引き起こし、不況をさらに悪化させた役割を無視していることを無視している.銀行が銀行を無視しているわけではない.書いた経済学者はあまりいない.
私の教授だったハイマン・ミンスキーの仕事に続いて、私が民間金融セクターについて持っている以上のものなので、私たちがそれに関心がないというわけではありません。ミンスキーのような人々によって行われました.mmt と、金融の不安定性に取り組んでいる人々と、銀行を改革する方法との間には、まったく矛盾はありません。非常に関心がありますが、これと関連している mmt の唯一の側面は、非常に多くのエコノミストや政治家が、金融は不足しているリソースであると考えていることです。政府の財政であろうと民間部門の財政であろうと、財政を使い果たすことはできませんか? それは希少な資源ではなく、貯蓄とは関係がないため、古い融資可能な資金の考えは正しくありません 銀行は、中央銀行がキーストロークでお金を作成するのと同じように、キーストロークでお金を作成します私たちの問題は、私たちが十分な金融を持っていないことではありません 私たちの問題は、民間部門が多すぎることです。不必要なだけじゃない」危険で損害を与えるので、金融は希少な資源ではなく、実際には過剰であるという観点から私がすることは、経済における金融の役割を減らすことです.成長に資金を提供する必要はありません。私たちが必要としているのは、公共部門がより大きな役割を果たし、民間部門がより小さな役割を担うことです私たちは、政府が経済においてより大きな役割を果たさなければならないことに直面しています。そのため、経済成長を達成しようとする個人の利益に応えることにあまり依存する必要はありません。失業と貧困があり、政府は民間部門なしでこれらの問題に取り組むことができます。さらに、金融が行うことのほとんどは経済成長を促進するものではありません。いずれにせよ、単に自分自身に奉仕しているだけです。
米国は全企業利益の40%が金融部門に流れており、これは完全に正気ではありません。これは中間財であるはずです。最終製品ではありません。車のタイヤが自動車生産の全利益の40%を占めているようなものです。それはばかげているだろうが、それは金融がせいぜいどのようなものかというと、金融が行うことのほとんどは経済に損害を与えているということです。 mmtについて何も知らずにええと、多くの場合、mmt が役立つアドバイスを提供できることに焦点を当てているのはなぜですか。それは政府の運営に関する金融財政政策に関してそうなるでしょう。ええと、私たちの金融システムが必要であると主張するために、mmt にあまり深く入り込む必要はありません。有害で危険なので大幅に小型化することは大丈夫です。
Q:
どうもありがとうございました。回答ありがとうございます。彼らは本当に洞察に満ちています。あなたのプレゼンテーションで聞くのは非常に興味深いものでした。また、私たちは皆、多くのことを学びました。全体的に素晴らしいプレゼンテーションでした。どうもありがとうございました。またお会いできることを楽しみにしております。ご来場くださった皆様、素晴らしい一日をありがとうございました。
／／／／／／
／／／／／
0:00
foreign [Music]
0:08
thank you so much for coming to the csap talk today um I'm joined with Dr vandory one of the
0:14
developers of modern money theory he is a 2022-23 to poet a distinguished
0:20
visiting professor at William at University and has taught at Bard College the University of Missouri
0:25
Kansas sorry the University of Missouri Kansas City and the University of Denver
0:31
today he has joined us to discuss modern money Theory how it has been used and
0:36
how mmt is related to the current levels of high inflation we are seeing today Dr Ray it is a real honor to speak to
0:43
you today and we look forward to your presentation well thank you for the invitation
0:51
um let me see yes okay so I'm going to be
0:57
talking about money uh I've got a bit of an echo coming
1:02
through Maybe okay that's good thanks
1:09
um so money is a scary topic when I wrote understanding modern money that
1:14
was published in 1998 I had sent the manuscript to Robert heilbroner uh many
1:20
of you will recognize the name um and uh he didn't know me but somehow
1:26
he got my phone number and he called me on the phone I had asked him if he might look at the
1:32
manuscript and write a blurb for the book cover and uh and the calmest nicest voice he
1:41
told me I cannot write a blurb for your book your book is on the topic of money and
1:50
it will scare the hell out of everyone and uh so we've been scaring people
1:59
a talking about money for over 25 years now and I'm going to try to make it a little
2:05
bit less scary so what is mmt it's a framework for
2:13
analyzing Sovereign currency and by a sovereign currency Nation what we mean
2:18
is that the national government chooses a money of account it issues its own
2:23
currency denominated in the money of account it imposes obligations today that's
2:29
mostly taxes although in the past there were other kinds of obligations such as fees and fines
2:35
payable in its own currency you have it issues other debt that is
2:40
also payable in its own currency otherwise it would be committed to
2:46
delivering another currency so uh by sovereignty we also imply a floating
2:53
currency for full sovereignty um the implication is that government
2:59
cannot run out of its own currency it cannot be forced to default
3:05
involuntarily it can make all payments as they come due in its own currency and
3:12
therefore it is not financially constrained although it faces resource constraints and it can also face
3:17
political constraints and self-imposed constraints and possibly exchange rate constraints but it is not financially
3:26
constrained I want to contrast that with
3:31
um the Orthodox View which is that in normal times you should
3:36
tax and then spend limited borrowing might be okay in a recession so you can run a deficit
3:43
temporarily you should balance that over the course of the cycle with surpluses
3:48
in Good Times government is subject to a sustainability constraint which is the
3:54
economic growth rate must be above the interest rate otherwise the debt could
4:00
grow without limit toward Infinity um increasing government spending slows
4:06
economic growth then raises the interest rate which makes it more difficult to
4:12
achieve the sustainability condition the debt burdens the grandkids who will
4:18
have to pay it back and the result of slower growth and
4:23
higher interest rates because of excessive government spending is secular
4:29
stagnation the government does have one other option to borrowing which is printing
4:37
money but that causes inflation and that doesn't necessarily increase government's purchasing power as prices
4:45
rise uh as quickly as they can print the money and so we're off to Zimbabwe land
4:51
with hyperinflation in an interesting interview that uh Paul
4:57
Samuelson gave to Mark blaug I think about 1974. you can google and find it
5:03
uh I have the long quote from Samuelson but let me just quickly summarize it
5:10
um and so he's saying can you keep a secret the necessity of balancing the budget
5:15
is the old-time religion uh it's like the Grimm's Fairy Tales that we tell our
5:22
children uh we argue that you need to balance the budget because we want to
5:27
scare politicians and the population to behave themselves we know that this isn't true
5:34
um Samuelson is implying and we can also find recent heads of the Federal Reserve
5:42
Bank of the United States who seem to recognize this uh Bernanke
5:48
was grilled by Congress after the FED at Linton spent 29
5:53
trillion dollars and Congress wanted to know is that taxpayer money that the FED is spending
6:01
and lending and Bernanke said no it's not tax money we simply use the computer to mark up
6:07
the size of the account it's just keystrokes we're not spending tax money he was talking about The Fad but in just
6:15
a second I'll make it clear uh that the same would be true of Treasury spending
6:21
uh Alan Greenspan was grilled uh by Paul Ryan who was asking him
6:27
isn't Social Security which is our uh retirement system isn't Social Security going to go bankrupt uh and he said no
6:36
no the United States can pay any debt it has because we can only print money to do that
6:42
uh so there's zero probability of default okay I don't like this print
6:47
money but uh in the modern economy what this means is keystrokes
6:57
so how does a modern government spend in the old days governments actually did
7:02
print out paper notes and spent them into the economy and then taxed them back but today all modern governments
7:11
make payments through their Central Bank and receive payments through the central
7:17
bank so the treasury will signal to the central bank to make a payment on its
7:25
behalf the central bank will credit the reserves of a private bank and that private bank will credit the deposit
7:31
account of the recipient of the government spending so we have two degrees of separation
7:37
between the public and the government that obscures the reality a bit
7:46
um but it is still true that uh the government is spending
7:51
by creating money and taxing just reverses that process
7:57
the taxpayer writes a check on a deposit account the bank debits the taxpayers
8:04
account the Central Bank debits the private Banks reserves end credits the
8:09
account of the treasury so the operation is just in Reverse it's sort of a reverse keystroke that debits accounts
8:17
this is how modern governments spend and how modern governments tax
8:24
so the way that mmt sees money is that money is not a thing
8:30
uh money is really just score keeping and uh this is a baseball scoreboard uh
8:37
I don't know how qriket works but I suppose there is some kind of scorekeeping in qriket too so here we
8:45
have the uh the guest team has 21 runs in baseball and the home team has 14. uh
8:53
if the home team hitter hits a home run the scorekeeper will credit the account
9:02
of the home team and raise that number to 15. where does the scorekeeper get
9:07
that score to add to the home team's scores uh it's a keystroke it's out of
9:14
thin air so you can never run out of innings in baseball
9:20
you uh sorry you can run out of innings in baseball you can run out of time in
9:27
um in football but you cannot run out of runs you can't run out of scores and we argue that the
9:34
same thing is true for money
9:39
um the way that we look at government debt is not that
9:45
um uh this is something we have to pay back we look at government dad as our
9:51
financial wealth so government debt is really government owes uses
9:59
government debt is not something to be feared or something to be avoided it is
10:05
something to be celebrated the government's ious are actually government owes uses and
10:13
that is good for the private sector if we plot the sectoral balances this
10:21
actually comes from when Godley who was from Cambridge um the it must be true at the aggregate
10:28
level that total spending equals total income if we divide the economy into two
10:34
sectors a non-government sector and a government sector uh if one of those
10:40
sectors spends more than its income the other sector must be spending less than its income if the government is spending
10:48
more than its tax revenue that means the non-government sector must be net saving
10:55
running a surplus this graph shows the government balance in red this is for
11:02
the United States you can see that the government sector taken as a whole is always spending more than its income tax
11:09
revenue so it is below the line and you can see that the non-government sector
11:14
is almost always running a surplus above the line and uh
11:21
it's very easy to see it's a mirror image which must be true by definition
11:27
if it were not a mirror image we have simply made a mistake in tallying up the
11:34
credits and debits of the two sectors they must balance
11:40
back in 1999 President Clinton uh maybe you've heard of him or even remember him
11:49
um had gone on television because our government for the first time since
11:56
1929 had been running a budget surplus
12:02
spending less than tax revenue and uh he announced that the federal
12:09
government was going to continue to run a budget surplus for the next 15 years and over that
12:16
period of time it would be able to retire all of the outstanding government debt so he took his magic marker out and
12:24
he continued the blue trend line by drawing the black line showing the U.S
12:30
government debt free and uh this was celebrated by virtually
12:36
all economists and by all uh the media in the United States finally we are
12:43
going to get the government out of debt but of course what would that mean that would mean that for the next 15
12:50
years our private sector would be forced uh to run a deficit to offset the
12:58
government surplus and uh by removing all that government debt
13:03
the government would be destroying our net Financial wealth
13:09
uh and it's not just any kind of net Financial wealth it's the safest net
13:14
Financial wealth in the world U.S government bonds
13:20
needless to say this did not happen and at the time when Godly was at the levy
13:25
Institute with me and we wrote several pieces together arguing that this cannot
13:32
happen the private sector cannot run okay deficit year after year because it
13:40
will get more and more deeply into debt and that is going to cause a financial
13:45
crisis which soon enough it did um I'll contrast uh this view of Clinton
13:54
with a a congressman who it was the head of the budget Committee in the house
14:01
who came across mmt and had me testify had Stephanie Kelton testify before his
14:09
committee and then he gave a uh very unusual interview on CNN
14:19
in which he demonstrated he had fully embraced the ideas of mmt
14:25
he said we issue our own currency and we can spend enough to meet the needs of
14:31
the American people he said historically what we've always done is we said can we
14:36
what can we afford to do in other words questioning affordability of government
14:42
programs and he says that's not the right question the right question is what do we need the American people uh
14:50
sorry what do the American people need us to do he says once you've answered that then you say how do you resource
14:58
that need and by resource he did not mean Finance amen how do you find the
15:04
real resources that are required to meet the need of the public how do you serve
15:11
the public by finding the resources required the question is not money it is
15:18
resources.
okay when the um uh coveted pandemic hit
15:27
very unusually in the United States and in other countries
15:32
uh government responded with huge amounts
15:39
of relief spending without worrying about where the money is going to come
15:45
from and there were lots of references by policy makers and in the media that oh
15:52
governments are going to try mmt now and they equated mmt with printing up
15:59
money which it takes the form of cutting checks and mailing out checks for covet
16:06
relief so far so good uh this wasn't actually
16:13
the policy that we recommended and I'll explain why but at least they realize
16:19
affordability was not the right question however a couple of years later we
16:26
started getting inflation and now they're all saying see that's the problem with mmt mmt caused inflation so
16:33
what I want to go through is what I think the actual causes of inflation are
16:40
I'll say a little bit about what mmt recommended at the time instead of just
16:46
sending out uh checks to everybody and I will also tackle the response of central
16:55
banks most importantly the FED to the inflation problem which I think that
17:01
they misread so anyway uh the mainstream View
17:07
is that inflation is almost always a demand side problem
17:12
on the other hand slow economic growth is a supply side problem
17:19
for reasons that I'll explain I think they have that exactly backward
17:24
um before covid many mainstream economists economists
17:29
most notably uh Krugman and Larry summers in the United States had been
17:36
arguing that we have secular stagnation and that is due to problems on the
17:41
supply side I think that was a complete misreading but this is their View
17:46
now excessive covet relief caused a demand sight problem and that is why we
17:52
have inflation my belief is that in reality inflation is almost always a supply side problem
18:00
that 50 years of neoliberalism from the time of uh Ronald Reagan and Margaret
18:07
Thatcher on has caused chronically insufficient aggregate demand and that
18:13
is what has led to the secular stagnation the coveted recession collapsed the
18:21
supply side led to the deepest and quickest recession
18:27
since the Great Depression and the coveted response which was
18:32
trillions of dollars uh between 5 trillion and 9 trillion in the United
18:38
States depending on what you want to count uh as uh relief spending that was
18:45
allocated not all of that spent um did help to lead to the fastest
18:51
recovery ever so we had the deepest uh drop off
18:56
uh right off the cliff into a recession and then the fastest recovery that we've
19:02
ever had the problem was that it was not well targeted spending
19:10
and we've had continuing supply side uh problems the coveted disruptions have
19:17
continued far longer than I expected and I think that uh almost anyone expected
19:25
we bungled the response to covid which was part of our problem and why
19:32
um the disruptions have continued we had been practicing just in time
19:38
production uh over the past 50 years and that made responding to the covid
19:46
pandemic much more difficult I could just point to the example of masks we
19:53
knew a pandemic would come and we were completely unprepared because we didn't
19:59
have anything in the inventories to deal with a pandemic
20:05
um meanwhile the supply chains that were developed as part of neoliberalism
20:12
uh got severely disrupted and that meant that we couldn't uh
20:17
import the things that we needed we've had price gouging we've had
20:26
continuing lockdowns in China with the zero coveted policy I'm not necessarily
20:32
criticizing their policy but the reality is that it is affecting
20:39
all of us and then the Ukraine war so all of these have conspired all of these
20:46
disruptions on the supply side have conspired to produce High inflation
20:52
the problem really is not covered relief that ended months ago
20:58
the first round of covert relief that came under President Trump uh it did not uh produce any inflation
21:05
problems because that mostly was not spent it was saved by those whose
21:13
income was not much affected by covid and it was spent by those whose income
21:20
was affected by covid to pay down bills so it didn't really lead to a burst of
21:27
spending the second round that came with President Biden by then
21:32
uh a lot of the uncertainty had began to fade away the lockdowns were uh
21:41
loosening up and so people were spending the composition of spending was very
21:46
strange because it was heavily uh biased toward Goods instead of towards Services
21:54
um and it was biased toward Goods that could be delivered to the home so we we
21:59
had severe shortages of some goods and that
22:05
allowed for uh price hikes and price gouging and so on
22:11
the um fairly quick recovery allowed tax revenue to recover much quicker than it
22:18
usually does after recession and that started sucking demand out of the economy so we have removed about 2
22:25
trillion uh dollars worth of demand out of the economy as we recovered as
22:32
the relief spending petered out and as tax revenue increased
22:38
so these have produced uh significant fiscal headwinds through fiscal policy
22:48
looking to the source of inflation uh the uh initial impetus to inflation was
22:57
due to three items oil food and shelter prices
23:03
uh oil prices this is in part because there had been a huge drop off in demand
23:09
for oil and so refineries went offline and uh then with recovery people started
23:16
driving again and um the demand for oil Rose
23:23
food is about something like 70 percent uh oil so Rising oil prices increase the
23:32
price of food and then shelter in the United States is
23:37
sort of a bizarre um component it includes rental
23:42
uh because we had limited uh rent increases during
23:51
the early stages of the pandemic uh rents are playing catch-up and we have a
24:00
severe housing shortage in the United States because we had very little housing built since the global financial
24:06
crisis so when you you add in the ability to
24:13
finally raise rents uh and a housing shortage you start to
24:20
get Rising rents they go up very quickly and the main component of shelter is
24:25
actually owner occupied housing and that components price is imputed uh based on
24:35
rents so as those go up that will tend to increase the the home owner occupy
24:42
component too and so these are rising quickly this has always been true in the United
24:48
States all of our high inflation periods uh most of the inflation is due to these
24:54
three components however you have to remember oil goes into the production of everything and so
25:01
Rising oil prices will continue to affect other prices
25:08
uh with possibly a very long lag because
25:13
the producers still have to recover the high price of oil that they paid in the
25:19
earliest stages of production um we in addition to this we have price
25:24
gouging uh president uh Biden has a group that is uh looking at the markups
25:33
that uh the the firms with Market power are using and um they've shown that
25:39
those have increased tremendously um and the board meetings the top
25:46
management of the corporations are proudly boasting of their ability to jack up prices so there's a lot of
25:54
rising prices due to the rising markups taking advantage of pricing power and
26:00
taking advantage of what the the board members say is the the consumer
26:06
willingness to tolerate price increases then we also have some idiosyncratic uh
26:12
sources of inflation such as the shortage of chips to go into automobile
26:18
production which leads to an increase in the demand for used cars which causes
26:24
those prices to Skyrocket and that adds to the overall price increase as shown in the CPI
26:31
however at least in the United States while inflation is high uh eight percent
26:39
and above year on year there's no evidence of a wage price
26:44
spiral at least yet wages are still playing catch-up so real wages actually
26:51
are going down in the U.S chairman Powell was patient for a very
26:56
long time much longer than I thought he would be it was the best policy but
27:03
finally patients ran out and the FED has been raising rates my argument is that
27:09
raising rates is not helpful so supposedly we're going to raise rates
27:14
in order to get consumers to postpone borrowing
27:19
to purchase consumption Goods but uh our sources of uh inflation our
27:28
rent uh food and oil and normally consumers do not borrow to make those
27:35
payments spending is not generally very interest sensitive uh it might impact uh
27:44
investment but we really don't want investment in
27:49
building new rental units to be curtailed we need more rental
27:55
units we need more housing built and so on
28:01
um the interest is a cost of doing business uh for many kinds of firms it's
28:07
number one or number two in terms of the cost and so raising rents can actually
28:13
add to inflation pressures through uh cost feed through effects and then
28:18
finally there is the possibility that uh Rising interest income especially
28:24
interest paid on government debt which is over 100 percent of GDP could
28:29
possibly fuel more spending I don't think that that's important for the United States because uh that is more
28:36
than offset by uh the um uh impact of
28:42
higher interest payments by highly indebted private sector firms and households anyway I believe that the
28:49
answer to supply side inflation is not to reduce demand but to focus on
28:55
trying to increase Supply uh President Biden was on the right track when he fought for build back better he wasn't
29:03
able to get that through he has a much smaller bill that is supposed to try to
29:08
constrain inflation and he is touting the possibility of promoting supply-side
29:17
investments in order to reduce inflation pressure and I think that uh it's
29:23
unlikely that it's going to do that much good because it hits too small and it's not well focused enough but at least it
29:30
is on the right track to argue that what we need to do is increase Supply capacity
29:35
okay I'm gonna present some data I'll go through it um uh pretty quickly
29:41
I know this is a complicated graph it's a bit hard to read but it shows that early in the pandemic uh in late
29:49
2020 and 21 as inflation starts to increase it's largely driven by oil uh
29:58
later on we start to see that more of the components are adding to inflation
30:06
but still housing is the most important contributor
30:12
to inflation especially after oil prices have turned
30:19
around and actually been declining um but people are worried because
30:25
we're getting more inflation from other components but as I said that just
30:32
reflects past oil prices and um it's possible and I think
30:41
more than possible that the inflation pressures are going
30:47
to dissipate on their own if oil prices stay down
30:53
um the FED seems to have impeccable timing this graph shows fed funds Target
31:01
rates so this is the uh the policy rate in the United States is always increased
31:09
several months six months before we go into recession
31:15
so as the economy has reached the business cycle Peak and is poised to go
31:22
toward a recession the FED always adds headwinds by raising interest rates
31:30
and as Greenspan used to always say if the past is a guide
31:36
then we should expect a recession as the FED has started to raise rates because that is what has always happened in the
31:43
past the argument is that it's up to central banks to take away
31:48
the punch bowl because the uh in the U.S it's the Congress in Britain it would be
31:55
the parliament um it is always prone to uh approving too much spending and they
32:04
elected representatives like to have a booming economy it's good for them uh
32:10
when it comes election time and so it has to be the central bank that takes
32:15
away the punch bowl to end the good times so when the government spends too much the central bank is supposed to be
32:21
reducing demand too much spending increases the deficit and debt raising interest rates and causing uh inflation
32:30
the problem with this argument is the Fed always raises rates as the deficit
32:35
is falling which I'll show you in a second interest rates are not pushed up by deficits they are pushed up by
32:42
monetary policy uh government deficit and debt need not cause inflation and
32:48
our high inflations are always driven by the supply side not by the demand side so that's the argument with saying
32:54
central banks need to take away the punch bowl I'm going to just be showing U.S data but I think that it's
33:01
consistent with my arguments so here are Fed rate hikes so supposedly
33:08
what the FED is fighting is inflation uh the Fed rate hikes this is repeated from
33:14
the previous graph are the red line inflation is the blue line so what we
33:20
see is the Fed always raises rates going into a recession and it is not very well
33:25
correlated uh with inflation we have had declining and very stable inflation for
33:32
a very long time but the FED has remained active fighting something but
33:37
not inflation because inflation has not been a problem
33:43
foreign the FED is not fighting uh Rising deficits that are supposed to
33:50
cause an excess argument and inflation if you look at the correlation what you
33:55
find is that as the deficit goes down that's when the FED uh raises rates
34:01
the debt when the deficit is declining the blue line is moving towards zero uh
34:07
when it goes above zero that's a surplus so you can see that what the FED actually does is it raises rates as
34:14
deficits go down exactly the opposite of what taking away the punch bowl is
34:19
supposed to be doing government debt does not push up interest rates uh you can see that we've
34:26
been on a long-term Trend since the um early 70s of rising debt ratios uh with
34:35
the exception of the Clinton years and uh at the same time the interest
34:41
rates have been going down both the central bank's Target rate and the 10-year treasury rate are on a downward
34:47
Trend so they're moving in the opposite direction what that indicates is that it's not debt and deficits that push
34:54
interest rates up it is the central bank that does it government debt doesn't need to cause
35:01
inflation uh as the dead has been rising on Trend over time inflation has been
35:07
going down on Trend over time up to the present I realize of course
35:13
and then finally we don't really have um evidence of excess demand in the United States what
35:21
we have is a long-term downward trend of capacity utilization rates which is
35:28
consistent with a secular stagnation argument if it's accepted that our problem is not
35:36
enough demand so we don't have enough demand which leads to excess capacity
35:42
which depresses the incentive to invest which adds to our secular stagnation
35:48
Trend I think that that explains our past half century of low rates of
35:55
economic growth okay what about the current inflation it's unusual the pandemic recession
36:02
began as a collapse of the supply side and that morphed into a collapse of
36:08
demand normally recessions are caused by a collapse of demand but in this case it
36:14
was a collapse on the supply side and then as people lost their job uh demand
36:19
declined coveted relief spending as I said the first round paid bills increased savings
36:24
say around and restored spending but we faced continuing supply side
36:29
pressures I mentioned the supply chains price gouging and then the war and
36:35
sanctions we still have no wage price spiral wages are only playing catch up
36:40
expectations of inflation remain reasonably well anchored they have come
36:46
up but they're still reasonably anchored surveys show that businesses are not
36:51
facing abnormal demand capacity utilization is still far below
36:56
previous Peaks inventories uh have recovered so none of
37:02
these things would indicate that we have too much demand uh even though we have inflation hiking
37:10
rates is the wrong medicine what we need to do is ramp up investment increase domestic capacity and replace uh don't
37:18
just repair but replace long and fragile Supply chains
37:25
we are in danger of um having the combination of high
37:32
unemployment and continued inflation uh if we continue to have problems on
37:40
the supply side while the FED continues to raise interest rates to depress the
37:45
demand side um just very quickly uh this is ancient
37:51
history for uh students I realize uh this is what happened in the 1970s we
37:58
had inflation spiking early in the 1970s late in the 1970s it was caused
38:03
initially by oil prices that fed through the Grain and then we also had a shelter
38:08
components uh rising in price it was fought by austerity both fiscal and
38:14
monetary policy just like now this generated stagflation it clearly was not a problem of excess
38:21
demand many people including chairman Powell celebrate what volcker did they gave him
38:28
credit for uh killing the inflation by hiking rates above 20 percent that led
38:34
to a deep recession in the United States and a deep financial crisis that destroyed our Thrift sector Savings and
38:41
Loans and that was followed by a developing country debt crisis and then
38:46
blowback hit the United States as developing countries defaulted on their
38:51
debt that affected our biggest banks and they became insolvent by the 1990s
38:59
probably more credit should be given to deregulation of natural gas which is
39:04
what relieved the pressure of oil prices in the United States
39:10
um rather than to Volker for ending our high inflation in any case uh full
39:16
recovery took a quarter of a century and I think that demonstrates the
39:21
problem of tackling the supply side when you have inflation
39:27
uh because uh sorry tackling supply side Problems by reducing demand could
39:36
re-produce stagflation
Larry Summers uh recently said I'm aware
39:42
of no major example in which the Central Bank reacted with excessive speed to inflation at large cost was paid I think
39:50
I just explained one such episode and we are seeing another one right now so I think uh as usual uh Larry has got
39:58
this wrong
the fed's latest projections are that under appropriate monetary policy this
40:04
is quoting the FED Americans can now expect to be three percent poorer at the
40:10
end of uh 2023 compared to what had been projected before the pandemic and to
40:16
remain permanently worse off in the years of follow compared to the June 21 projections the level of real GDP at the
40:23
end of 23 has been reduced by five and a half percentage points uh that's worse
40:28
than the hit from the pandemic itself policy makers now expect the jobless
40:33
rate to rise from 3.5 to 4.4 by the end of next year and while Powell denied that anyone at
40:41
the FED wants workers to lose their jobs he's clear that we need to have a sharp slowdown in growth and that fed
40:48
officials would accept a lot of economic pain somebody else's pain I presume they
40:53
mean not their own um what the FED is doing uh I think the
40:59
Powell was uh pressured by conventional wisdom that the FED had to do this the
41:05
the Fed was left with no choice and this is because of Orthodox economics group think uh the the feds uh Jeremy Rudd
41:13
recently published a paper that I think uh really got this conventional group
41:21
thing uh completely correct so this is the Fed itself nobody thinks clearly no matter what
41:28
they pretend even the goofiest opinion seems wonderfully clear sane and self-evident Rudd goes on to examine the
41:36
foundations of Orthodoxy that he says everyone knows to be true that are actually errant nonsense none has any
41:43
sort of empirical foundation and each is seriously deficient on theoretical grounds yet economists continue to rely
41:50
on these to organize their thinking so practically the the the entire Corpus of
41:57
Orthodox economics is fraud he then goes on to criticize the fed's approach to
42:02
policy now this was before the FED started raising raids he said it's based on errant nonsense
42:11
so we Face multiple existential crises
42:16
uh the climate catastrophe this virus and probably many
42:24
more to come or inequality uh refugees a lot of those are climate refugees and
42:32
anti-democratic movements in many countries including my own
42:37
coordinating concerted effort by the richest Nations is required they're the
42:43
source of most of production and that means most of the environmental
42:48
destruction and they they have to be responsible for
42:54
helping the rest of the world to transition to sustainability that means the age of austerity has to
43:01
end we can learn from the experience of War When government absorbs 50 or more of
43:07
national production uh and take that experience to move toward a
43:13
comprehensive Green New Deal of the magnitude that people like Bernie
43:19
Sanders was promoting resources not Finance is the true
43:25
constraint attacking tackling those pandemics comes down to mobilizing the
43:30
unemployed resources which are substantial uh even before the pandemic
43:37
shifting those that are already employed and creating new ones how do we shift them we can use taxes postpone
43:44
consumption patriotic saving rationing regulations all of those things were used by your country and by mine in
43:52
World War II that is how you create the policy space to allow the government to
43:59
spend to allocate the resources to achieve the public purpose the taxes don't pay for anything what
44:06
they do is they release the resources so let me conclude the lesson from the covert response is
44:13
that uh you can spend nine trillion dollars if you want to you don't have to
44:19
change any procedures all you have to do is authorize the spending and Central Bank treasury know how to finance it
44:25
none of the treasury's checks bounced the ultimate constraint is resources not
44:30
Finance uh you need to focus on finding releasing and creating resources uh we
44:37
didn't do a great job on that uh in the response to the pandemic but in any
44:43
event we have the procedures to do it we just need to focus our spending monetary
44:50
policy is really not helpful in any of these Endeavors it's going to require more use of fiscal policy so we have to
44:56
reverse the past 50-year Trend which was to reduce the importance of fiscal
45:03
policy and uh increase the importance of monetary policy that's the wrong way to
45:09
do it inflation can be avoided by policy focused on mobilizing resources at least
45:15
seeing them budgetary outcome is neither discretionary nor worrying interest
45:20
rates are not determined by Central Bank policy are determined by Central Bank policy not Vigilantes and raising
45:28
interest rates is counterproductive and could generate financial crisis as well
45:33
as reproduce stagflation uh thanks these are my two um
45:40
uh forthcoming books the the one on the left making money work for us I think
45:47
might be available in the UK right now and then there's going to be an
45:53
illustrated guide to mmt that will come out next spring uh that is illustrated
46:00
by Heske van Doornen so thank you I will stop.
Conclusion:
How to Pay for
Response to
Multiple
Pandemics
・Lesson from Covid Response: No change of procedures is required: authorize spending and the Central Bank and Treasury know how to "finance" it.
・Ultimate constraint is resources, not finance. Need to focus on finding, releasing, and creating resources.
Monetary policy is not helpful.
• Will require more use of fiscal policy-spending and taxing.
・Inflation can be avoided by policy focused on mobilizing resources and releasing them as necessary.
・Budgetary outcome is neither discretionary nor worrying. Interest rates are determined by Central Bank policy, not market vigilantes.
・Raising interest rates is counterproductive and could generate financial crisis as well as reproduce stagflation.
結論
の支払い方法について
対応
複数の
パンデミック
コビド対策からの教訓。手続きを変える必要はない：支出を承認すれば、中央銀行と財務省はその「資金調達」方法を知っている。
究極の制約は資源であり、資金ではない。究極の制約は資金ではなくリソース。リソースを見つけ、解放し、創造することに焦点を当てる必要がある。
金融政策は役に立たない。
- 金融政策は役に立たないので、財政政策（歳出と課税）をもっと活用する必要がある。
資源を動員し、必要に応じて放出することに焦点を当てた政策により、インフ レは回避できる。
予算の成果は裁量的でも心配でもない。金利は中央銀行の政策で決まるものであり、市場の自警団が決めるものではない。
金利の上昇は逆効果であり、金融危機の発生やスタグフレーションの再生産につながる。
46:08
thank you so much for that um that was really really fascinating and I'm sure the audience members have
46:14
gained a lot of new insights and perspectives on the topic on that note I'd like to open up the floor to a q a
46:20
I'm going to start with some questions myself and then I'm sure the audience have many more to ask themselves
46:26
um so just starting off um you talked a lot about um America and the UK and kind of a lot
46:32
of developed countries but I was wondering what their relevance was for mmt for kind of developing countries
46:37
countries who don't have as fiscally responsible governments and a lot of corruption and then also maybe like
46:44
countries which are going through conflict like Ukraine okay
46:50
um yes uh many developing countries are not going
46:55
to fit the definition that I uh present at the very beginning what a sovereign
47:01
currency means so they have pegged to uh a dollar they have a currency board uh
47:09
or they have a managed exchange rate that is going to limit their domestic fiscal policy space and monetary policy
47:17
space too uh right now because the FED is uh hyped to rates there's pressure on
47:24
all these countries that are linked to the dollar so they've got to raise uh
47:30
interest rates they're not monetarily Sovereign
47:36
and so it constrains what they can do and I think the FED should be more responsible
47:42
and should pay attention to what is happening to the developing world when
47:48
we raise rates it you know the United States uh might get a cold or even a flu
47:58
but the rest of the world is going to suffer much more than we will that's what happened with volker's rate hikes
48:04
too it had a huge impact on the developing world do I recommend that every country in the
48:10
world float their currency uh no not necessarily okay but uh that does mean that you
48:18
don't have domestic uh policy space as much as you would have with a
48:24
floating currency so you have to weigh that against uh the decision to float your currency or not uh
48:33
China has managed its currency and I I think it it it probably was a
48:40
pretty good policy and it was very successful I think that that China will float
48:47
um uh probably not too far into the future they will abandon and that will
48:52
give them more domestic policy space too um so anyway on the the corruption thing
48:59
I was at a um a a conference of central Bankers
49:05
um in uh Brazil and uh Jamie Galbraith many of you will have heard of uh Jamie
49:11
and his father John kind of Galbraith um we're in the audience and we're listening to um representative after
49:18
representative from central banks in uh in the from the developing World
49:25
largely and uh so speaker after speaker would say well you guys in the United
49:32
States uh you know you can do all these things all these nice things that you talk about you know you can have a job
49:39
guarantee program and all this stuff we can't do it because of the corruption and when it was Jamie's term to talk uh
49:48
he said that uh listen I worked in Washington and I can assure you the
49:56
corruption of Washington is far beyond anything you have in your country
50:01
okay corruption is everywhere there are different kinds of corruption
50:07
I think the the day-to-day sort of corruption where you have to bribe the
50:13
motor vehicle department uh to get your driver's license uh that's probably more
50:19
common uh in the rest of the world that's not very common in the United States
50:24
we have much more serious corruption than that okay our corruption is at the
50:30
very highest levels of our government and our uh business sector
50:36
so I think corruption is always there uh yes you need to fight it yes it's a big
50:44
bother but it should not prevent you uh from trying to implement policy
50:53
um yeah that makes sense um and one last question for me I'm sure you've had recently about the UK's um
50:59
mini budget by distrusts and high economic policies cutting taxes she was criticized a lot by the IMF they said it
51:06
could lead to growth but they said it was just basically really irresponsible because it would put the UK in a lot of
51:12
debt and the pound crashed and so I'm wondering kind of what your perspective was on that because the main criticism
51:17
was that they wouldn't be able to afford it but you're saying that the government could afford it so yeah just what do you
51:24
think yeah so was it a good policy uh it sure doesn't look like a good policy so
51:31
you know we we've tried the the lafferent curve before uh which is the
51:37
idea you cut tax rates on the rich and that stimulates the economy so much
51:44
that tax revenue increases and you actually end up balancing your budget
51:49
uh it doesn't work the reason it doesn't work is because tax cuts for the rich do
51:55
not stimulate your economy they don't run out and start investing what what would lead to investment is
52:01
increasing demand from lower income people so tax cuts for the poorest people
52:08
probably would stimulate the economy tax cuts for the rich are not going to do it so it's a bad policy I'm not trying to
52:16
support the policy at all but uh increasing the size of the
52:22
deficit or debt is that a problem no that's not a problem how you increase the deficit and debt is
52:31
important so if you're increasing your uh deficit and debt by implementing a
52:38
massive new inclusive uh Green New Deal
52:46
they would create lots of jobs and higher wages at the low end if that led
52:52
to a deficit I wouldn't worry about it at all okay uh because it's it's going to um
53:01
you know improve people's lives that's what's important so I think that they're
53:07
uh their right to criticize the policy but their explanation of what's wrong
53:12
with it is is um not on target at all uh
53:18
look the with the FED raising rates the bank of England is going to have to
53:24
follow along unfortunately uh I think this is the problem and so the markets
53:31
are predicting that the bank of England is going to have to raise rates
53:36
and uh so they're expecting rates to go up in the future which means then there
53:41
is a problem with holding longer-term bonds including government bonds and so
53:47
you're going to try to get out of those things I I think there's also a a story
53:52
that will get told it's not clear right now but there there is a story of um
53:59
Pension funds that are being forced to sell out be because of positions they've
54:05
taken and obscure derivative products in the shadow banking sector so someone's
54:12
going to write that story we're going to find out a lot more about what really is going on it's not the people that
54:20
bondholders are worried that the debt ratio is going to go up and Britain is going to have to default on its debt no
54:27
one in their right mind is thinking that except maybe economists uh because that's not going to happen everyone
54:33
knows it won't happen there there's no risk in a British government debt
54:40
okay but that doesn't mean you don't sell the debt so people are selling it
54:46
but it has nothing to do with that
54:51
um I've got a few questions in the chat um I'm just gonna read the first one out
54:57
from Greg geisset um I spent long so if accurate holders were confident in the financial
55:03
management policies of public fiscal public fiscal and monetary authorities
55:08
having full discretion to deal with Fiat money why would cryptocurrencies exist with increasing portfolio allocations
55:15
made to such by institutional investors over time mmt amounts to a utopian rationalization
55:23
of Hope over experience in having one's cake and eating it too what would you
55:28
like to say to that well um probably you don't know uh PT Barnum so
55:37
he was a a famous uh huckster uh fraudster
55:43
um in the United States and he said a sucker is born every
55:48
minute and it adds up if the one is born every minute by the end of the year you're
55:54
gonna have a lot of suckers and there are a lot of suckers who have bought into this into the crypto coin uh bubble
56:03
I I don't have anything more to say about that uh it's uh you know as as
56:10
pure speculation um a lot of it driven uh by fraud but a lot
56:19
driven by hopeful thinking okay I I don't see any reason to have any
56:25
more explanations on that there are lots of suckers in the world
56:30
um Tara's got a question in the chat so um do you personally believe that the Orthodox economic view will ever be
56:36
overturned in policy making also what role would mmt play in effectively tackling stagnation especially in the
56:43
context of the UK at the moment okay um well
56:50
I can tell you 25 years ago when uh we we started mmt
56:57
um and so we're figuring out how does the government really span what are those operations like between the
57:03
treasury and the central bank that allows the government to spend and so on
57:09
um we thought that you know once we explained this how it really works
57:16
that um uh everyone will join
57:21
that turns out not to be true and I think those quotes from J from
57:26
Rudd from the FED I provide you know some uh explanation as to why it's not
57:35
true uh think about what it takes to get a PhD
57:40
so a lot of you are prepared you know on that track um so somewhere between seven years and
57:50
maybe 10 years of your life devoted to getting the PHD
57:55
and to getting your faculty position
58:01
and then in the United States another six years to get tenure so that you're safe
58:08
so that you can do what you really want to do but for all that period until you get
58:14
tenure you have to play the game okay and that game is going to be an
58:21
orthodox game almost anywhere that you study for a PhD so you got to play the Orthodox game
58:28
and uh you're you're so invested in the
58:33
uh the the topic you choose for your dissertation and usually your first set
58:40
of articles that you publish they're going to be based on the work you did for your dissertation that
58:46
um you've invested a lot of your life in doing this it's very very difficult to shift gears
58:53
and it's very scary to do that because you will be uh subjected to
59:00
ridicule you will be banished you know from the groups that you you've been
59:05
hanging out with you will no longer be invited to give talks so uh
59:13
there are tremendous risks in changing direction
59:19
um and and I I think that our experience in in trying to uh to move people a bit
59:26
in another Direction uh it shows that that it's just too scary if you talk to a politician which over
59:34
the past 25 years I've had the opportunity many times to do this and you sit down with them behind closed
59:40
doors and you explain how money really works and they say yeah okay I get that
59:46
they say but I can never say that in public because I have to win elections and I
59:54
have to get campaign money and people will think I'm completely insane so they can't say it in public
1:00:01
this John Yarmouth who I quoted you know that's really other than uh AOC
1:00:12
you know that that's the first really respected conventional politician who's
1:00:18
ever said it in public uh to the degree that he just did no one else has done it
1:00:23
but I've heard him behind closed doors and I when I met with him he told me many of the Democrats on his committee
1:00:29
completely understood all of this but you don't hear them saying it in public
1:00:35
um so it's very difficult for politicians to uh to tell the truth to
1:00:41
tell what they know to be true um okay now have we made progress yes we have
1:00:47
okay and the trillions of dollars of coveted relief is proof
1:00:54
so Congress back in the global financial crisis this was the worst uh crisis we had had
1:01:02
since the 1930s uh President Obama comes in and he's got
1:01:07
to deal with it he wants a fiscal rescue package
1:01:14
okay and uh I was in meetings with with people who are trying to provide advice
1:01:19
uh to his economists that were surrounding him and during a meeting we got a phone call
1:01:26
from them and they said the number is going to be 800 billion
1:01:31
say 800 Bill like why because it's not one trillion
1:01:37
we cannot say one trillion is too scary we can't even consider talking about a
1:01:43
trillion dollar rescue package it can only be 800 billion and that's over two years so it's only 400 billion a year
1:01:50
all of them knew it was not enough money okay there was no one in the Obama Administration who believed that 800
1:01:57
billion was enough to get us out and it wasn't and we didn't get out okay this time around trillions
1:02:06
that shows that there has been a change okay the the idea that the government
1:02:13
cannot run out of money uh I think is accepted now uh and uh
1:02:21
that's progress I I think the idea that inflation is the
1:02:27
real Danger uh that's a success too okay that we've transitioned away from
1:02:36
affordability to uh oh if the government spends too much we get inflation that's progress
1:02:43
if we can uh you know continue and then say okay well the way we avoid inflation
1:02:49
is we make sure the resources are available okay then we finally completed it focus
1:02:57
on resources and make sure that you don't uh increase
1:03:02
demand for the resources beyond your capability then go ahead and spend
1:03:08
once we reach there whether they want to call it mmt or not doesn't matter at all to me
1:03:13
if they just recognize that is your true constraint a resource constraint then
1:03:18
then mmt is one whether or not they say it's mmt I don't care
1:03:26
yeah and Lindsay I can see you've got your hand up would you like to ask a question
1:03:31
yeah if you don't mind um my questions related to the exact thing you were just talking about with
1:03:37
resources like finding releasing creating resources um specifically so if mmt is concerned
1:03:43
with the constraints on real resources considering if we're on a finite planet with only so many resources what's the
1:03:50
kind of theoretical approach to like finding resources when we're going to be
1:03:57
running out of them like if we think about peak oil or I've read a bit on like Bill Mitchell and mmt and like
1:04:03
getting the economy to full capacity um to Full Employment when I when I
1:04:08
think about that when I read about that I think of like higher consumption and like that being more
1:04:16
um problematic for the environment and this is also coming from as a master's
1:04:22
student um studying D growth so big fan of mmt but like what what does it look
1:04:28
like when we start to actually have those finite resources and the supply side is really limited by the actual
1:04:35
resources yeah okay so uh
1:04:42
I think the problem with oil is we have too much I'm not worried about peak oil I want to
1:04:48
stop using oil we should not pull any more out of the ground leave it all there
1:04:53
we will completely cook the planet long before we run out of oil
1:04:59
and I I take what you're saying about finite
1:05:06
resources um I I don't think that they're that finite
1:05:13
though I think we can find Alternatives uh which is what we did with oil we we
1:05:19
run out of whales and so then we moved to petroleum
1:05:24
we uh we need to stop using oil we will move to something else but what we have
1:05:32
to do is do it in an environmentally sustainable way okay
1:05:39
so I'm not so worried about running out of resources I'm worrying about destroying the planet and uh
1:05:47
extinguishing life on Earth rather than the finiteness of resources
1:05:53
so we have to move to sustainability I
1:05:59
agree that we need degrowth in the sense
1:06:04
of we have to reduce inputs
1:06:09
into our production process the the inputs that are damaging the environment
1:06:15
either because of the the pollution cause or because uh mining or cutting
1:06:22
for us whatever is destroying the planet
1:06:28
um so reduce the inputs that are damaging instead of D group
1:06:37
um so there there's a a long discussion of whether you can have capitalism without
1:06:45
growth okay uh I don't think so
1:06:51
but growth means nominal growth
1:06:57
growth of money value it doesn't mean growth of resource inputs it doesn't
1:07:03
even mean growth of physical output it means growth of money output
1:07:11
so MC and Prime as my Marx puts it I think capitalism has to have that now
1:07:18
what we can do is remove the scope for capitalism
1:07:24
okay I don't think that we need capitalism uh to be involved in supplying uh the
1:07:32
necessities of life uh we don't need capitalism involved in
1:07:38
providing Health Care housing uh most of our food supply
1:07:45
child care uh these don't have to be for-profit
1:07:51
activities we can do the we can provide these as
1:07:56
public goods Public Services the public sector and
1:08:02
um public sector doesn't have to grow okay we just the public sector has to
1:08:08
meet people's needs but it doesn't have to grow year after year so if you reduce the scope
1:08:14
for the capital sector make it smaller I it will still grow
1:08:22
but you reduce the kinds of activities that you allow the private sector
1:08:28
to completely control you can reduce the necessity for growth of your economy as
1:08:35
a whole we could be shrinking the economy but letting capitalism grow in their own little tiny sphere
1:08:43
um I think that that's uh one answer uh another answer is that um
1:08:50
look the most important resource that we have by far is
1:09:00
most people are going to be working in that area Okay using their brains
1:09:14
um sorry Professor I don't know if you can uh you've lagged a little bit could you please repeat the last like sentence
1:09:20
or two you couldn't hear me yeah you've just been lagging a little bit okay the um so
1:09:29
human brains human uh uh contribution to production uh that can
1:09:36
increase in value there's no reason why we can't uh increase the the pay for
1:09:44
people who are working with their brains and increase the number of people that
1:09:49
are working with their brains as we go through time um so
1:09:55
growth can be in nominal terms and it doesn't necessarily have to use
1:10:01
inputs other than human labor in the form of thinking and
1:10:07
I think that uh you know not only is that desirable that's the direction that
1:10:14
we're going so um I think I'm agreeing with you for the
1:10:21
most part just uh trying to change the way that the economy operates and the
1:10:28
way that we view economic growth I know that degrowth people will say but if we look back in time as GDP goes up
1:10:38
uh it always uses more input from nature okay that is true I'm not
1:10:45
disputing that what I'm saying is we can choose a different future okay we can delink growth of money
1:10:53
values to uh the damage of the environment that
1:11:00
has always been linked to it in the past we need to move in a different direction
1:11:12
yes uh thanks thanks for your uh your presentation I just uh taking it back to
1:11:18
the current uh developments if you're at the range both
1:11:24
on the fiscal side and on the monetary side what concrete actions would you take to
1:11:31
to tackle current bout of inflation what what would you do both fiscally and
1:11:37
monetary yeah okay my answer might be uh U.S Centric
1:11:44
because I don't know uh the situation in other countries so in the U.S it's it's clear that a lot
1:11:53
of our inflation is coming from price gouging and Market power and the
1:12:00
president has the evidence okay now of course we have a problem
1:12:05
with Congress and it's not easy uh to get laws through but uh when President
1:12:13
Kennedy faced a similar situation so we had inflation it was driven by price gouging and Kennedy uh went out and
1:12:21
pointed his finger at the firms that were causing the inflation
1:12:27
okay and Biden now has the evidence and he can do that so he can get on TV or
1:12:34
whatever the equivalent is today uh and uh you know start pointing fingers at
1:12:40
the firms that have been uh increasing their markups okay uh I don't know what
1:12:46
kind of threats he can use uh but um uh if possible threaten them with some kind
1:12:53
of actions that the government's going to take um uh we should not raise interest rates
1:12:59
it's not going to help the U.S fight inflation and it's devastating for the rest of the world so I would stop that
1:13:07
uh as quick as I could we don't necessarily have to lower rates because
1:13:13
um uh you know once we've got them here maybe just leave them but I wouldn't
1:13:19
raise them anymore and I wouldn't have raised them in the first place we we do need to try to push through uh
1:13:29
uh spending that will promote the supply side and promote domestic production
1:13:37
um Biden did some very good things they they did help to um
1:13:43
relieve the uh uh congestion of the docks so the
1:13:49
shipping uh is Flowing a lot better than it was
1:13:54
um and uh that has helped uh reduce the the delays of the ports so we we're
1:14:01
getting the the products and the inputs into the production process
1:14:06
we clearly need uh to invest as much as
1:14:12
we can in low income housing so we need to start building low-income housing in
1:14:19
uh much of the United States we have severe shortages we have um
1:14:25
shortages of uh owner occupied housing two and raising
1:14:31
rates doesn't help that uh I'm not sure that the the government
1:14:37
needs to promote it but uh we shouldn't try to hinder it by
1:14:43
raising interest rates so we need housing um we need protection
1:14:50
for uh low to moderate income people against inflation and there has been
1:14:58
some talk in other countries I haven't seen it in the United States uh
1:15:03
uh you know we can subsidize the uh consumption of low to moderate
1:15:12
income people to compensate for the inflation that helps to reduce the political
1:15:18
problems inflation is largely a political problem and a distribution problem
1:15:24
it's not really an economic problem even at eight percent inflation is not
1:15:30
an economic problem okay the the problem is distributional it hits low-income people
1:15:37
uh food was already not affordable and now it's very unaffordable
1:15:42
okay they already really couldn't afford to put the gas in their cars and now
1:15:48
they really can't afford it and people actually are borrowing to buy food and gas they're going into
1:15:55
debt to buy food and gas so even if we can't get the uh companies
1:16:01
to lower the prices we can Target government spending to load to
1:16:09
middle-income people which is what we should have done in the very beginning instead of mailing checks to everyone
1:16:15
so we can supplement their incomes to cushion the impacts of inflation
1:16:22
and then that helps to to reduce the pressure on them and then also reduces the political pressure which is the
1:16:29
other problem with inflation everybody hates inflation you know you don't you don't meet people high income or low
1:16:37
income who like inflation so it's a political problem
1:16:42
and we can solve that well we can reduce it we can't solve it we can reduce it by
1:16:49
helping people out and need help uh you probably know in the United States they just announced that Social Security
1:16:56
payments are going to go up by over 8 percent uh that's a huge uh help to seniors but
1:17:05
we we don't have to limit the help just to seniors Let's help people of all ages
1:17:10
Let's Help families with young children because hunger in the U.S already was
1:17:18
high and it's going to get higher because of the price of food okay and then just finally everything
1:17:25
that you can do to to help the supply side uh is going to be useful
1:17:31
um in um reducing inflation pressures and that that means
1:17:38
uh more productive capacity but it also means uh reducing uh the uh oligopoly power
1:17:49
and promoting more competition so I our our problem is so so many
1:17:55
sectors of the economy there is no real competition there are two or three firms
1:18:01
that Dominate and they they don't have to illegally conspire all they have to
1:18:07
do is uh you know watch each other and um uh follow the example you raise your
1:18:14
price I raise my price um and take advantage of the um the
1:18:19
ability to mark up without competition thanks
1:18:26
uh thank you and uh we've got a question about uh from Bon it says what does mmt
1:18:33
mean by real resources in concrete terms especially in the context of developing where emerging economies
1:18:39
okay well our most important resource is labor that's why mmt Always focuses on
1:18:45
unemployment um so we we don't want to reduce unemployment we want to eliminate it
1:18:53
okay it's your most valuable resource it's an insane policy to keep people
1:19:00
unemployed uh but that insane policy is the policy most economists promote
1:19:07
so what is the Fed saying they want to do what is Larry Summers saying the FED
1:19:13
has to do increased unemployment okay so it's not an accident
1:19:19
so you know they're they're raising rates and oh accidentally some people lose their jobs no no no
1:19:25
that is what they're trying to do and they tell us that okay they tell us they're trying to
1:19:32
raise Unemployment uh Larry Summers Target is double the fed's target he's
1:19:38
saying the FED is going to have to go twice as high as what they're saying um and and maybe they will
1:19:44
uh but the point is uh that's crazy that's a crazy policy why would you want
1:19:51
people unemployed it's your most valuable resource we want to put them to work they want to work
1:19:58
okay so why not put them to work and our our policy is the job guarantee because
1:20:05
uh with a job guarantee program you can achieve True full employment
1:20:12
without uh causing inflation to go up
1:20:18
in fact it helps to dampen inflation so this is a long argument a theoretical
1:20:23
argument uh Bill Mitchell has his notion of the the neighbor instead of the nehru
1:20:31
you use the employed labor in a job guaranteed program as an employed buffer
1:20:38
stock that helps to buffer price and wage pressures instead of using an
1:20:45
unemployment buffer stock where you use unemployed people to try to buffer wage
1:20:51
and price pressures uh and we believe and and bill has strong arguments as to
1:20:58
why this is true that uh the employed buffer stock will work much better than the unemployed
1:21:05
buffer stock to reduce price and wage pressures
1:21:10
okay so that's our most important resource we need to fully employ it no
1:21:16
unemployment or labor at all and any country that has its own currency
1:21:23
can always do this they can always afford it because by
1:21:29
definition an unemployed person wants to work
1:21:34
for money okay that's the definition of unemployment and um so you can always use your own
1:21:42
money to achieve full employment now there can be consequences from that
1:21:48
uh in the case of a developing country the big fear is
1:21:54
that if everybody is fully employed then Imports will go up and that's going
1:22:00
to have consequences especially if we are pegging our exchange rate
1:22:06
we there may be pressure on the exchange rate so I'm not saying that
1:22:12
there won't be consequences but what I'm saying is you can afford it you can
1:22:18
afford to put those resources to work and then you have to consider the
1:22:23
consequences and try to figure out is there some way to minimize the
1:22:30
negative consequences that come from that for example on the exchange rates well what can you do to try to avoid
1:22:39
having Imports go up so much that it's going to pressure your
1:22:44
exchange rate okay can you try you know the traditional import substitution use
1:22:51
those workers to produce the kinds of stuff that you're importing now
1:22:57
so that you won't have to increase Imports so when you put uh people who
1:23:03
formerly were unemployed uh you know what do they need they're going to need
1:23:10
food so uh Fidel kabub who's an mmt
1:23:15
um uh Economist who focuses on developing countries says what you want to do is put those
1:23:22
people to work to increase your capacity to become food
1:23:27
self-sufficient okay so that's what their job will be to help you become food self-sufficient so that you don't
1:23:34
have to increase the import of food or you you might just restrict Imports
1:23:40
if your Imports are luxury goods uh then what you want to do is restrict
1:23:47
the Imports through tariffs taxes uh whatever
1:23:54
um so it depends on on what what the Imports are what you're going to do all
1:24:00
right and then uh more broadly uh whatever resources you have in your
1:24:08
country you can mobilize with your own currency okay so that's what mmt says and that is
1:24:15
how mmt is applicable beyond the United States and Beyond the
1:24:21
UK Beyond China Beyond Japan um that
1:24:27
you can at least mobilize your own resources whatever you have
1:24:32
using your own currency doesn't mean that you have access to
1:24:38
resources outside your border not necessarily okay the rich countries do so all the
1:24:45
rich countries uh face and external demand for their currency
1:24:50
so not only can they mobilize their own domestic resources they can mobilize uh
1:24:58
rest of World Resources too with their own currency not all countries can do
1:25:03
that so many countries are much more constrained than the countries that issue
1:25:11
International Reserve currencies so we recognize that uh that um developing
1:25:19
countries typically can't do that but they can at least mobilize their own domestic resources and and do the best
1:25:26
they can um beyond that uh you know we do need
1:25:34
International Help for the developing world and um you know
1:25:39
we sh the rich countries should never worry about affordability so you know the the United States
1:25:47
doesn't live up to agreements that it's already made for how much uh Aid it's
1:25:53
going to give to developing countries and the reason is because well we can't afford it which is absolutely crazy of
1:25:59
course we can afford it and in fact if we are sending money to a developing
1:26:05
country to let them spend uh it's much less likely to cause
1:26:10
inflation than sending money to Americans to let them spend
1:26:15
right because the spending is not going to be occurring in the U.S now there
1:26:21
might be some demand for U.S output uh so U.S exports might go up a little bit
1:26:29
uh which conceivably if the whole developing world was demanding more U.S
1:26:35
products okay maybe we could get some inflation uh from it
1:26:40
but most Americans would celebrate if exports went up
1:26:46
to be the most popular program any president could Implement to create jobs
1:26:52
in America because the rest of the world wants to buy our exports this is the goal of every Administration
1:27:00
um so it would be seen as a success but we don't do it why well we can't
1:27:06
afford it we'll run out of dollars uh which is absolutely absolutely crazy of
1:27:11
course we can live up to all International agreements and uh we can increase all of our uh commitments to
1:27:18
the rest of the world uh send them more dollars to help them develop and and that's how they can
1:27:26
avoid the negative impacts on their exchange rates they will have dollars going in
1:27:32
okay that's probably enough on that one um just last question for today
1:27:38
um well um Michael's asking what implications would a full adoption of mmt by a government have on private
1:27:45
credit creation would we need different rules or constraints Etc on the amount of credit commercial Banks can create
1:27:53
well so mmt uh is uh generally focused on
1:28:03
um the the government's money uh fiscal policy and monetary policy uh
1:28:11
related to government spending the public purpose achieving full employment
1:28:16
uh all of those questions and so sometimes critics actually have
1:28:22
criticized us saying well you're ignoring uh the private money which is
1:28:30
many times bigger than government's money
1:28:36
um and you're you're ignoring what uh you know the role that the banks have
1:28:41
played in causing our financial crises that make the
1:28:48
recession so much worse well it's not that we're ignoring them I I don't think
1:28:53
there are very many economists uh alive who've written more than I have on the
1:29:01
private financial sector following the work of Hyman Minsky who was my
1:29:06
professor so it's not that we're not concerned with it it's just that uh mmt
1:29:14
by itself doesn't have that much to add to the work that is done by people like
1:29:20
Minsky okay there's no inconsistency at all between mmt and the people who do
1:29:28
work on financial instability and how to reform the banks I had a four-year Ford
1:29:35
Foundation Grant on the topic um so we're very uh concerned with it
1:29:41
but the the only aspect of mmt
1:29:47
that uh sort of is interlinked with this is that
1:29:54
uh so many economists and politicians think that
1:30:00
Finance is a scarce resource you know they you can run out of finance
1:30:05
and we say no you can't you can't run out of Finance whether it's government Finance or private sector Finance it's
1:30:13
not a scarce resource it's not related to saving so the old loanable funds idea
1:30:18
is incorrect Banks create money with keystrokes just
1:30:24
like the Central Bank creates money with keystrokes you can't run out our problem is not that we don't have
1:30:30
enough Finance our problem is that we have way too much private sector Finance
1:30:37
orders of magnitude too much probably 95 percent of all the stuff
1:30:43
that the Private Financial system is doing is not only unnecessary it's
1:30:49
dangerous and damaging okay so what I would do uh from the
1:30:57
perspective that Finance is not a scarce resource that actually it's a excessive is I would reduce the role of Finance in
1:31:04
the economy because we don't need it and to finance private activity
1:31:12
we don't need it to finance growth uh what we need is the public sector to
1:31:18
take a bigger role and the private sector to take a smaller role in part
1:31:24
for the the D growth reasons that I was talking about facing all of these pandemic challenges
1:31:31
that we Face the government has to play a bigger role in the economy and
1:31:37
um so we don't need to rely so much on you know uh
1:31:45
catering to the private interests to try to achieve economic growth so
1:31:53
that we don't have unemployment and poverty the government can tackle those problems without the private sector and
1:31:59
furthermore most of what Finance does uh doesn't promote economic growth anyway
1:32:08
it is uh just serving itself
1:32:13
it is moving more and more of corporate profits into the financial sector in the United States 40 percent of all
1:32:20
corporate profits go to the financial sector which is completely insane okay it's supposed to be an intermediate
1:32:26
good it's not a final product um it would be like the tires on the car get 40 of all the profits of car
1:32:34
production that would be crazy okay but that's what Finance is like at best
1:32:41
uh most of what Finance does is damaging
1:32:46
to the economy uh not uh useful at all so I would greatly downsize it
1:32:53
but uh okay I mean I could say most of what I just said without knowing
1:33:00
anything about mmt so that's that's why
1:33:05
um a lot of the times we're focusing on what mmt can helpfully advise
1:33:12
okay it's going to be with respect to government operations monetary fiscal
1:33:18
policy um we don't really need to go much into mmt to argue that our financial system
1:33:26
needs to be greatly downsized because it is harmful and dangerous
1:33:33
all right I hope that answered it thank you so much um thank you so much for your responses
1:33:39
they're really insightful very interesting to hear in your presentation as well we've all learned a lot
1:33:46
um amazing presentation overall thank you so much um it was a pleasure having you at cset
1:33:51
and we look forward to having you again soon thank you so much everyone for coming and have a great day thank you
1:33:57
okay thank you
okay thank you
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿