MMT coming soon to an economy near you?

gcgang

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
1,571
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/ray...theory-favored-by-far-left-is-inevitable.html

Hedge fund maven Ray Dalio thinks the Modern Monetary Theory, favored by far left, will be irresistible to politicians seeking higher growth.

MMT is basically a belief that deficits don't matter as long as people accept the money you create. More traditional economists fear such a theory will precipitate violent inflation.

Hope I'm not still around if this happens.
 
Hmm, seems like whichever side is in power decides deficits don’t matter. Witness the last big tax cut and recent demands to lower interest rates. Nothing new here.
 
Last edited:
The US Dollar is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States. Essentially, the Dollar is backed by Treasury bonds. What is backing Treasury Bonds? the "full faith and credit" of the United States. What could possibly go wrong?

iu
 
The MMT theorists are interesting. They seem to be saying that a sovereign like the US can do all the infrastructure etc it wants by just printing money. The only constraint is inflation. If it starts climbing past acceptable limits back off. Seems to have worked OK during the Fed's quantitative easing phase.

I like Platinum Coin Seigniorage - the idea that the Executive Branch can bypass everybody to get around the insane debt ceiling by directing the US Mint to coin a trillion dollar coin and deposit it in the General Account. This seems like a variant of MMT. I wish someone would have the balls to try it the next time a debt ceiling default looms.
 
The US Dollar is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States. Essentially, the Dollar is backed by Treasury bonds. What is backing Treasury Bonds? the "full faith and credit" of the United States. What could possibly go wrong?

The US dollar doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It competes with other countries currencies. It’s not like other countries are significantly better off, in fact lately other countries haven’t been doing as well.
 
Tax Code Changes Needed

How is this different from today, exactly?

Not an expert, but my understanding is that, for MMT to work, it needs a system of taxation that responds quickly to inflation. I believe that a VAT could be such an animal. So, if MMT is being seriously considered, I think there would likely be big changes in the tax code.
 
It seems real fiscal responsibility is a thing of the past. I really hope I am wrong. With the current deficit being ~$1,109 Trillion, and 2020 predicted to be $1,103 Trillion. I cannot see the USA getting it's head above water in our lifetime without some serious belt tightening, and that is not a popular solution.
 
From the link in the OP:

In my opinion, for these MP3 [Monetary Policy 3] policies to work well, the system would have to be engineered in a way that decision making would be in the hands of wise, not politically motivated, and highly skilled people. It’s difficult to imagine how the system will be built to achieve that.

Yes, it is difficult to imagine how that would work.
 
The US dollar doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It competes with other countries currencies. It’s not like other countries are significantly better off, in fact lately other countries haven’t been doing as well.

+1

If total debt, or even debt to GDP ratio were the only criteria to judge a country's ability to repay its debt then East Timor, Libya and Afghanistan and Russia would be at top of people's places to invest.
 

Attachments

  • 30-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-debt-to-gdp-ratio.jpg
    30-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-debt-to-gdp-ratio.jpg
    511.9 KB · Views: 89
That map is deceptive. It portrays all countries as red or green. The missing color shades in between are relevant, IMO.

Not deceptive, there are percentages in the columns for the top 30 for each category
 
This is an interesting one. It compares Household Debt to Income. So if the majority of households have a high debt to income ratio it may be comparable to the countries debt too. The USA is higher than Japan and the others in this one.

This was just the first one I found when Googling the term, personal debt to income ratio in the USA.

https://www.creditloan.com/blog/americas-debt-to-income-vs-other-countries/
 
I've been pondering that if The Debt is mostly held by US persons it is not as worrisome an issue as otherwise. In a way this situation is like taking a loan against your own assets. The Debt is akin to the US Government printing money and giving it to citizens. If the citizens determine that is unwise, they can vote to give it back (via taxes).
 
So, if MMT is being seriously considered, I think there would likely be big changes in the tax code.

And that's why the term "being seriously considered" doesn't fit with today's real world.
 
The US Dollar is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States. Essentially, the Dollar is backed by Treasury bonds. What is backing Treasury Bonds? the "full faith and credit" of the United States. What could possibly go wrong?

The US Dollar in its current form is only backed by the capacity (of future generations) of the tax payer to service the debts/promises racked up by the "government". The only reason we don't have hyperinflation after the last 11 years of money printing is the world economies are all in a "race to the bottom" trying to devalue their currencies too.



Debts get repaid via three ways: growth, default, inflation (assuming inflation is faster than the rate of debt growth).



If the funds raised by issuing that debt is not invested such that the return on investment (growth) enables the future generation to repay, the debt won't get repaid (default).

Its a game of musical chairs. The music will stop sometime. The bankers have their seats reserved. What are you going to be left to sit on?
 
In a recent interview, this is what Dr Lacy Hunt had to say with regard to the practicality of MMT ------


Dr. Hunt: Well, there are some folks out there, mainly the modern monetary theorists, that want to make the liabilities of the Federal Reserve legal tender. In other words, allow the Fed’s balance sheet to sort of operate as a cash cow and to pay for the Treasuries bills.
The Federal Reserve does not have that authority at present. The [Federal Reserve] 1937 Act, the principal author was Senator Carter Glass of Virginia, who also wrote the Glass-Steagall Act, did not intend to give them that authority. He consulted with Irving Fisher of Yale and other great monetary thinkers of the time, and they did not give the Fed that authority.
The Fed can only use its balance sheet to buy a select group of assets from the banks, government, and agency securities – and then those proceeds have to be held at the Federal Reserve bank. So the money supply is equal to the monetary base and the money multiplier, which is endogenous and which the Fed does not control.
And, regardless of what you have heard – and there was once a statement, which was eventually corrected, from Ben Bernanke that in quantitative easing the Fed was printing money – but the Fed does not have that capacity. It doesn’t have the mechanism or the tools to print money. For them to be able to print money you would have to rewrite the Federal Reserve Act.
Now you could go down that route. But what would happen in that case is in very, very short order we would get hyperinflation. Because the aggregate demand curve would shift upwards, the money multiplier would no longer be relevant, and prices would rise as fast as the increase in the money supply and eventually faster.
And something called Gresham’s Law would take effect. The bad money would chase out the good money. People would not be willing to exchange money for commodities, return to barter. There would be massive inefficiencies.


https://www.macrovoices.com/podcast...l-continue-to-decline-for-the-balance-of-2019
 
In a recent interview, this is what Dr Lacy Hunt had to say with regard to the practicality of MMT ------

....
And, regardless of what you have heard – and there was once a statement, which was eventually corrected, from Ben Bernanke that in quantitative easing the Fed was printing money – but the Fed does not have that capacity. It doesn’t have the mechanism or the tools to print money. For them to be able to print money you would have to rewrite the Federal Reserve Act.
...

https://www.macrovoices.com/podcast...l-continue-to-decline-for-the-balance-of-2019

Thats a little bit of "toMAYto/toMAHto". It's still a red fruit used to make ketchup. The Fed extends new credit generated out of thin air (a spreadsheet entry) to banks which the banks use to buy Treasuries... then the banks put the Treasuries at the Fed as reserves where they sit on the Feds balance sheet. They didn't physically print money, technically they only issued new credit that somebody else then spent on their behalf.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-is-the-fed-monetizing-debt-3306126



Which is why some are sarcastically asking "how is MMT any different than what we're doing now?"
 
Thats a little bit of "toMAYto/toMAHto". It's still a red fruit used to make ketchup. The Fed extends new credit generated out of thin air (a spreadsheet entry) to banks which the banks use to buy Treasuries... then the banks put the Treasuries at the Fed as reserves where they sit on the Feds balance sheet. They didn't physically print money, technically they only issued new credit that somebody else then spent on their behalf.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-is-the-fed-monetizing-debt-3306126
Which is why some are sarcastically asking "how is MMT any different than what we're doing now?"


Reading deeper into the interview he says ---


Now you might do something like this: You might say, well, we’ll have an announcement from the Fed that they will increase the balance sheet – if the deficit is going to be $2 trillion or $3 trillion, they’ll increase the Fed’s balance to $3 trillion.
But we already really tried that in 2012 and 2013. The increase in the Fed’s balance sheet in those two years equaled the budget deficit. But, you see, in that particular case, existing under the Federal Reserve Act, the money supply is still equal to the base times little m, the money multiplier.
So you would have the Fed buy the government’s securities. But the banks would not be able to employ it unless they had the capital to utilize the excess reserves, which was the same problem that constrained the banks from turning the balance sheet into an acceleration in money supply growth.
So when we had quantitative easing, the Fed’s balance sheet quadrupled but the money multiplier dropped from 9 to 3. And the rate of growth in money supply did not accelerate.
The only thing that would really be different would be if there was a concerted effort to make the Fed’s liabilities legal tender. And my read is that that requires a rewrite of the Federal Reserve Act and also some other companion legislation as well.
keep in mind that even advocates of greater budget deficits, such as Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, have said that modern monetary theory is not workable. There is on outstanding article by Ken Rogoff at Harvard about the unworkability and what it would mean for higher inflation. So I don’t see mainstream academic economists supporting it. And I certainly don’t see the Federal Reserve community – Chairman Powell has come out against it. It would take a cataclysmic political shift to want to rewrite the Federal Reserve Act to do that.


PS - The Ken Rogoff article to which he is referring -


https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...tary-theory-dangers-by-kenneth-rogoff-2019-03
 
Last edited:
MMT is going to happen, it is in reality already happening. It will happen because when there is an ability to get something for nothing it will be offered and accepted.

The basic idea is simple,

Simple example is say a bullet train line is needed between Chicago and New York. Normally funds would need to be raised and there would be municipal bonds and someone to run the organization usually thought being a profit.

If the economy is not at full employment, instead the government issues bonds, the Treasury purchases the bonds, and the construction project will cause some of the unemployed to be employed. The debt will exist as a future liability useful in the elimination of inflation.

If in the future inflation was heating up, the government could sell the bullet train line and use the proceeds to reduce debt, reducing the public outstanding money supply by the amount of the purchase. The government could also sell its gold and do the same thing. Merely stopping of government programs financed by debt would also slow things down as once this process starts the economy will be dependent on it and ending programs is the equivalent of a fiscal cut as the economy will be set up to take advantage of the new government economy.

If the government controls interest rates by buying most of the outstanding government bonds, it can do this forever and control the market economy and never pay any interest on their debt.
 
Last edited:
It is always fun and games while the music is playing.

Underneath it all, money (and wealth as represented in fiat currency form) represents trust in a system where you are willing to forgo current consumption for the promise of future consumption.

That is what everyone here on this site is relying on by savings for retirement, which is to say I will not consume all my earning power for the promise that I can use that saved earnings to consume after I stop producing goods or services.

The creation of money can go on as long as most in the game believe that their retained buying power can someday be used. If that trust is lost, the system is lost. As has been seen historically, when it happens, it can happen quickly.

But will it happen? As a earlier poster stated, a funny thing happened in the great recession. The effect of money (thanks Econ 68 - Money and Banking from long ago) isn't just based on the amount of money in circulation (whether physical or digital), but also a function of the velocity (turnover) of money. In the great recession, the investment thesis changed from "Return on Capital" to "Return OF Capital", so having money to loan is meaningless if you are afraid to loan. That is why all the excess money in the system did not result in a huge wave of inflation.

I've been thinking about this (yes, that is dangerous). What is helping keep inflation down has been globalization (and thus the increase in labor supply). Along with this, the exponential growth of technology is deflationary, and deflationary across a wide swath of industries (not just high tech firms). The result is 'surprises' even in this fast(er) growing economy where inflation is lower than expectations.
 
MMT is going to happen, it is in reality already happening. It will happen because when there is an ability to get something for nothing it will be offered and accepted.

The basic idea is simple,

Simple example is say a bullet train line is needed between Chicago and New York. Normally funds would need to be raised and there would be municipal bonds and someone to run the organization usually thought being a profit.

If the economy is not at full employment, instead the government issues bonds, the Treasury purchases the bonds, and the construction project will cause some of the unemployed to be employed. The debt will exist as a future liability useful in the elimination of inflation.

If in the future inflation was heating up, the government could sell the bullet train line and use the proceeds to reduce debt, reducing the public outstanding money supply by the amount of the purchase. The government could also sell its gold and do the same thing. Merely stopping of government programs financed by debt would also slow things down as once this process starts the economy will be dependent on it and ending programs is the equivalent of a fiscal cut as the economy will be set up to take advantage of the new government economy.

If the government controls interest rates by buying most of the outstanding government bonds, it can do this forever and control the market economy and never pay any interest on their debt.
Let's say that 95% of the people who will build the bullet train are already employed at something else.

And, they happen to have more valuable job skills than the 5% who are not currently employed.

It seems to me that building the bullet train means taking that 95% away from the other stuff they are doing. That other stuff won't get done. I don't see "something for nothing" here.
 
Back
Top Bottom