the only potential risk
with the national debt increasing over
time
is inflation and to the extent that you
don't believe the us has a long-term
inflation problem
you shouldn't believe that the u.s is
facing a long-term debt problem.
[Music]
an unconventional economic theory is
gaining some traction thanks to the
policy teams
of alexandria ocasio-cortez and bernie
sanders.
《i think the first thing that we
need to do
is break the mistaken idea that taxes
pay for a hundred percent of government
expenditure.》
《my critics say
you know bernie that's a great idea
you're into all this free stuff
how you gonna pay for it.》
so mmt starts with a simple observation
and that is that the us dollar is a
simple
public monopoly in other words the
united states currency
comes from the united states government
it can't come
from anywhere else so what that means is
that the federal government
is nothing like a household in order for
households or
private businesses to be able to spend
they've got to come up with the money
right and the federal government it can
never run out of money
it cannot face a solvency problem bills
coming due that it can't afford to pay
it never has to worry about finding the
money in order to be able to spend.
so the deficit definitely matters it's
just that it matters in ways that we're
not
normally taught to understand normally i
think people tend to hear deficit
and think it's something that we should
strive to eliminate that
we shouldn't be running budget deficits
that they're evidence of
fiscal irresponsibility and the truth is
the deficit can be too big
evidence of a deficit that's too big
would be inflation
but the deficit can also be too small it
can be too small to support
demand in the economy and evidence of a
deficit that is too small
is unemployment so if you think of the
government
deficit as the difference between what
the government spends into the economy
and what it taxes back out then imagine
a government that spends
a hundred dollars into the us economy
but it only taxes
90 of those dollars back out we label
that
a government deficit and we record that
on the government's books
but what we forget to do is pay
attention to the fact that there's now
ten dollars somewhere in the economy
that wouldn't have been there otherwise
that is put there
by the government's deficit in other
words their deficits become
our surpluses and so when we talk about
red ink and the government having all
this red ink we have to remind ourselves
that their red ink
becomes our black ink and their deficits
are our surpluses
and the question is then should you
expand fiscal policy should you run
bigger budget deficits in order to boost
growth so what is
the objective what is the proper policy
goal and i think the
the right policy goal is to maintain a
balanced economy
where you're at full employment you're
guarding against an acceleration
in inflation risk and economists tend to
understand that the kinds of things that
you can do to boost
longer term growth are investments in
things like
education infrastructure r d those are
the sorts of things that tend to
accelerate productivity growth so that
longer term
real gdp growth can be higher so there
are
ways in which the government can make
investments today
that increase deficits today that
produce
higher growth tomorrow and build in
the extra capacity to absorb those
higher deficits.
so it's impossible really to put a
number nobody can
how much debt is too much debt if you
look at japan
today.
you see a country where the debt
to gdp ratio is something like 240
percent
well above orders of magnitude above
where the u.s
is today or even where the u.s is
forecast to be
in the future and so the question is how
is japan
able to sustain a debt of that size
wouldn't it have an inflation problem
wouldn't it lead to rising interest
rates wouldn't this be destructive in
some way and the answer to all of those
questions
as japan has demonstrated now for years
is simply no japan's debt is
close to 240 percent of gdp
almost a quadrillion that's a very big
number yen
long-term interest rates are very close
to zero
uh there's no inflation problem and so
despite the size of the debt
there are no negative consequences as a
result and i think japan teaches us a
really
important lesson if you think about what
happened
after world war ii.
when the u.s national
debt
went in excess of 100 close to 125
of gdp if we were talking about it the
way we talk about it today
as burdening future generations as
posing a grave
national security risk we would have to
scratch our heads and say wait a minute
do we think that our grandparents
burdened the next generation with all of
those bonds that were sold
during world war ii to win the war build
the strongest middle class
produce the the longest period of
peacetime prosperity the golden age of
capitalism
all of that followed in the wake of
fighting world war ii increasing
deficits
massively increasing the size of the
national debt and of course the next
generation
inherits those bonds they don't become
burdens to the next generation they
become
their assets the only potential risk
with the national debt increasing over
time
is inflation and to the extent that you
don't believe the u.s has a long-term
inflation problem
you shouldn't believe that the u.s is
facing a long-term debt problem.
[Music]
so the best defense against inflation is
a good offense
and what mmt does is to try to be
i think kind of hypersensitive to the
risks of inflation i don't see any other
macro school of thought pay as careful
attention
as we do to the inflation risk question
and so what we would say is look
if you are congress and if you are
considering a new spending bill
instead of thinking about the ways in
which that new spending will add to the
deficit or add to the debt
you should be thinking about the ways in
which that new spending
has the risk of accelerating inflation
and then avoid doing that so instead of
going to the congressional budget office
and saying we'd like to know what this
bill will do to the debt and the deficit
over time instead
go to the congressional budget office or
other government agencies
and say we're considering passing this
trillion dollar
investment in infrastructure this is our
bill would you look at it and we plan to
do this spending over the course of the
next
five years tell us if that would create
problems in the real economy evaluate
the inflation risk and come back to us
and give us some feedback
that's the kind of responsible budgeting
that i think that i would like to see
congress begin to move towards
so the question about what to do if
inflation becomes a problem
is a different one and i think the first
thing you have to do
is say what is driving the inflation
because to think that
the inflation that is going to become
important
at some future date is likely to be the
result
of too much aggregate spending is
really hard to believe i mean the u.s
economy hasn't experienced what we might
call
demand pull inflation for almost a
century
the types of inflation that have been
important in the us
have almost always come on the cost side
what we call
cost push inflation they come about
because of things like
oil price shocks you might see increases
in headline inflation rates because
the housing component or health care and
so
when you think about how to fight
inflation if you've got inflation
resulting from
energy price increases it's probably not
going to do
much to have the fed raise interest
rates or
even to have congress raise taxes you've
got to do
something else that's going to work so i
reject the idea that mmt is about
using taxes to fight inflation that's a
mischaracterization of
pretty much everything we've written but
people say it all the time.
If deficit spending does cause inflation,is raising taxes the right way to fight it? And is it even politically feasible?］
インフレに対する最善の防御は、攻撃です。
MMTが何をやるかというと、
インフレリスクに敏感になることです。
我々ほどインフレ問題に注意を払っている
マクロ派は他に見当たりません｡
もしあなたが議会で新たな支出を増やす時は､
赤字や負債が増えることを考えるのではなく、
その支出がインフレを加速させる影響があるかを考え、
それを避けるようにすることです。
財務省や別の機関に行ってこう言うべきです。
だから､財務省に行って「長期的に借金と赤字に
どのような影響を与えるか知りたい」と言うのではなく、
例えば「5年のインフラへの投資計画が実体経済に
どのような問題を生み出すか､また、この計画の
インフレリスクを評価してフィードバックをくれ」
これこそが責任ある予算編成であり、
私は議会がその方向に向かって動くのを見たいです。
もしインフレになった場合にどうするか
という問題は別の問題です。
最初にしなければならないことは、
インフレの原因を突き止めることです。
何故なら将来的に発生し得るインフレが、
過剰な支出の結果であるとは考えられません。
米国経済は100年前から、需要過剰による
インフレを経験していないからです。
米国でのインフレは、ほとんどの場合､
コスト面で発生してきました。
いわゆる原油価格ショックなどが原因によるものです。
もしくは住宅関連や医療が原因です。
エネルギー価格の上昇が原因でのインフレの場合、
FRBが金利を上げても、議会が増税をしても､
インフレ対策としてはあまり効果はないでしょう。
何か他の効果があることを
しなければなりません。
だから私のMMTは、インフレ対策の為の増税
という考え方には否定していますが、
これに関しては人は誤認しています。
588 回視聴 2021/01/24
■ドン・グッチからの一言 今回はMMT理論を広めた張本人、ステファニー・ケルトン氏によるMMTに関してのインタビュー。 基本的な概念は赤字（借金）は国の負債でなく、国の資産ということ。 そもそもお金とは何か？という所から理解しなければならないが簡単に説明すると、 ①家庭の場合、お金は労働や資産を売却するといった代償を支払い発生する。つまり、同価値のものと交換されてやっと生まれる。 ②しかしそのお金はそもそもどこから発生したのかを辿っていくと、無から。縄文時代には現在のお金はなかった。ではどのように作り出されたのか？借金。 ③借金をすると、通帳に預金額が記入される。 ④それを引き出すと、中央銀行がプリントしたお金が手元に入る。（市中に出回る） 無から現金が生み出された瞬間。 ⑤現金が増えれば人々の購買力はあがる。投資資金としても活用できる。 ⑥借金（つまり赤字）が景気向上の原動力（つまり資産）になった。 ・借金→市中にお金が回る→景気向上 ・銀行の融資の度合いが景気を左右する 現に、バブルは銀行への借金の増加が引き起こしたように、お金を生み出す信用創造（つまり借金）の増加と景気向上は連動する。（投機資産にお金が流れすぎ、信用創造の締め付けによりバブル破裂したが） 元王朝の皇帝フビライハンは貨幣システムを生み出し、貨幣を流通させ、貨幣を自ら発行し、お金に物を言わせて力をつけた。 ヨーロッパでは銀行家が貨幣システムを生み出し貨幣を発行し、各地の絶対君主よりも力をつけた。 貨幣は無から生まれたものなので、本来無限に発行できるもの。但しインフレに注意することや、GDPを向上させない生産性のない産業へのお金の流入には気を付けなければならない。 評論家は財政支出は税金から賄うべきと言いうが、家庭の消費を貯蓄から賄うこととは全く別物。紙幣を発行できること、できないこと。通貨発行権を握るということは相当な力だ。 ＃ステファニーケルトン＃MMT＃現代貨幣理論＃財政赤字＃お金＃マネー ----------------------------------------------- 引用元：CNBC https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvJJ... ◆DISCLAIMER -These videos have no negative impact on the original works (We believe that It would actually be positive for them) -We introduce original sources so that people can access. -These videos are also for educational purpose for Japanese people or people who learn Japanese . That's the reason we only put subtitles.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿