Back in January, I wrote about the $42 trillion price tag of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal.
To pay for this massive expansion in the burden of government spending, some advocates have embraced “Modern Monetary Theory,” which basically assumes the Federal Reserve can finance new boondoggles by printing money.
I debated this issue yesterday on CNBC. Here’s a clip from that interview.
Wow, this Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) reminds me of the old joke about “I can’t be out of money. I still have checks in my checkbook.”
I don’t know how far Ms. Kelton would go with this approach. I know from previous encounters that she’s a genuine Keynesian and thus willing to borrow lots of money to finance a larger public sector. But her answer at 2:45 of the interview also suggests she’s okay with using the Federal Reserve to finance bigger government.
In either case, our debate is really about the size of government.
And anybody who wants a bigger burden of government is at least semi-obliged to say how it would be financed. The MMT crowd stands out because they basically say the Federal Reserve can print money.
To help understand the various options, I’ve created a helpful flowchart.
It’s possible, of course, for my statist friends to say “all of the above,” so these are not mutually exclusive categories.
Though the MMT people who select “Print money!” are probably the craziest.
And I hope that they are not successful. After all, nations that have used the printing press to finance big government (most recently, Venezuela and Zimbabwe) are not exactly good role models.
I noted in the interview that MMT is so radical that it is opposed by conventional economists on the right and left.
For instance, Michael Strain of the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute opines that the theory is preposterous and nonsensical.
…modern monetary theory…freshman Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke favorably about it earlier this month. …MMT is…sometimes a theory of money. MMT is also being discussed in the context of a political program to justify huge increases in social spending.
Finally, there is its role as a prescription for macroeconomic policy. …The bedrock observation of MMT is correct: Any government that issues its own currency can always pay its bills. …this is about all that can be said favorably regarding modern monetary theory. …it is in its ideas about macroeconomic policy that MMT fully earns its place on the fringe. …what does MMT have to say about inflation when it does materialize? …it falls to the institution with authority over tax and budget policy — the U.S. Congress — to make sure prices are stable by raising taxes… MMT seems to call for tax increases in order to restrain inflation. …Modern monetary theory…if enacted it could cause great harm to the U.S. economy.
From the left side of the spectrum, here’s some of what Joseph Minarik wrote on the topic.
MMT rests on simplistic observations that have just enough truth to take in those who need to believe. Believers in MMT see crying societal needs… By common reckoning, government lacks the resources to address all of those needs immediately. MMT solves that problem with a simple and (literally) true observation:
The federal government can just print the money. …And that is what willing policymakers choose to hear: Anything. Without limit. It is so convenient — “too good to check.” …to MMT adherents, the Federal Reserve and all other inflation “Chicken Littles” are and forever have been totally wrong. There has not been rapid inflation for 20 years or so. Therefore, there never will be inflation again. …Yes, inflation is low. But it always is before it rises. And once inflation begins, slowing it is hard and painful. MMT is the perfect theory for the video game generation, which never saw the 1960s economic miscalculations so much like what MMT advocates today, and apparently believes that such mistakes can be reversed painlessly by just hitting the reset button. …the consequences could be catastrophic.
Catastrophic indeed.
Letting the inflation genie out of the bottle is not a good idea. And the policies of the MMT crowd presumably would lead to something far worse than what America experienced in the 1970s.
Rescuing the economy from that inflation was painful, so it’s not pleasant to imagine what would be needed to salvage the country if the MMT people ever got their hands on the levers of power.
Let’s wrap this up. Earlier this week, I presented a guide to fiscal policy based on six core principles.
If Modern Monetary Theory gains more traction, I may have to add a postscript.
P.S. If ever imposed, I suspect MMT would be very good news for people with a lot of gold and/or a lot of Bitcoin.
[…] Monetary-financed spending is bad for prosperity. […]
[…] A nation victimized by a version of modern monetary theory. […]
[…] A nation victimized by a version of modern monetary theory. […]
[…] bank buys government bonds in order to help finance additional government spending (the crazy Modern Monetary Theory agenda). Perhaps I am being too charitable, but I don’t think that’s the reason for the Federal […]
[…] bank buys government bonds in order to help finance additional government spending (the crazy Modern Monetary Theory agenda). Perhaps I am being too charitable, but I don’t think that’s the reason for the […]
[…] Simply stated, if we leave fiscal policy on auto-pilot, government spending is going to consume an ever-larger share of America’s economy. Which means some combination of more taxes, more debt, and more reckless monetary policy. […]
[…] Simply stated, if we leave fiscal policy on auto-pilot, government spending is going to consume an ever-larger share of America’s economy. Which means some combination of more taxes, more debt, and more reckless monetary policy. […]
[…] So long as the burden of government is expanding faster than the private sector, that’s a recipe for higher taxes, more debt, and reckless monetary policy. […]
[…] some degree, Argentina is an example of why “modern monetary theory” is a bad idea. Simply stated, it’s not a good idea to finance big government via […]
[…] This is what’s know as Modern Monetary Theory. […]
[…] P.P.P.S. On the topic of basket-case economies, let’s hope that the American policy makers don’t embrace “modern monetary theory.” […]
[…] P.P.P.S. On the topic of basket-case economies, let’s hope that the American policy makers don’t embrace “modern monetary theory.” […]
[…] If I had more time, I could have talked about additional threats, such as the crackpot idea of “modern monetary theory.” […]
[…] At the risk of understatement, I agree with his concerns. […]
[…] At the risk of understatement, I agree with his concerns. […]
[…] Financing government with the printing press won’t work any better than financing it with taxes and […]
[…] Amazingly, it gets even worse. The authors want more debt-financed spending and they even endorse the perpetual motion machine of “modern monetary theory.” […]
[…] And that’s true regardless of whether the additional spending is financed with new taxes or new debt (or printing money). […]
[…] By contrast, proponents of “Modern Monetary Theory” argue governments can finance ever-growing government by printing money. For what it’s […]
The ultimate Source of all your problems goes back to Karl Marx, however, more recently, was devised as a course of action in the Cloward-Piven Plan in 1966.
📖 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy
I don’t agree at all with MMT, but I at least see what they’re saying.
The idea that the government’s debt is the private sector’s assets is based on the identity of the national accounts, where the equation can be rearranged to yield (G-T) = (S-I) + (X-M).
The question is: why should we care? The fact that all private assets are also private liabilities is just a simple aspect of how accounting works. Introducing banks and an increase in private debt into the equation does not change this basic tautology, since the bank’s and borrower’s assets still net to zero. The federal government isn’t much different. It still has to have credibility in its assets to convince investors to hold its liabilities, which I don’t believe it’s at risk of losing anytime soon (barring a serious disaster) – but even Stephanie believes inflation is a problem! She will support raising taxes to deal with the problem, while monetarists and Keynesians will support using a combination of the Fed and deficit reduction to contract.
MMT scholars pay lip service to the inflation threat, but always tend to argue that we have room to expand (even when the economy is at full employment!). The fact that unemployment is 4% and industrial capacity at 80% doesn’t mean we need to run a deficit. The “unused capacity” in the economy is constantly changing as entrepreneurs and business owners start up and fail, the market seamlessly transferring capital to new ideas and creating new jobs. If the market is running slower than usual, it could be a sign business confidence has been worn down by policy uncertainty and years of overreach.
The “video game generation” thing from Minarik is rather silly considering it’s video gamers who are most familiar with the concept of an unchecked increase in money supply. Just ask anyone who plays online games about price inflation on auction house items. Gaming communities are so in-tune with this that companies like Valve and CCP have PhD economists on-staff to avoid the issue of runaway inflation in virtual economies and they’re very well in-tune with the fact that the primary driver of inflation is money expansion.
Minarik and other economists probably should play more games to get an idea of what happens when the money supply is in a perpetual state of increase.
Traditional thinking is that supply of money should match the supply of products.
If you increase the supply of products (through investment or efficiencies) and fix the supply of money, prices will fall. Or, you can increase the supply of money to match the supply of goods and prices will stay stable.
MMT believes that if you increase the supply of money, somehow the supply of goods will rise. This might occur for a short time, until suppliers realize that demand was artificially induced, clearing the shelves. As costs rise, prices rise, and to create further demand you must create more money and inflation is off to the races.
MMT is something for nothing. Life doesn’t work that way. There is always a price to pay.
Reblogged this on Worldwide Blog.