Presidential Lecture Series: Stephanie Kelton
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ย. 2024
- "But How Will We Pay for It? Making Public Money Work for Us" - Oct. 15, 2018
Our nation’s finances are a blistering topic. Democrats blame Republicans for "blowing up the deficit" with tax cuts, while Republicans insist that programs such as Social Security and Medicare are the real drivers of our fiscal mess. As politicians fight over who’s at fault, an important debate is getting lost in the fog.
Professor Kelton casts a different light on these fiscal feuds and the budget deficit, arguing that both sides are missing the bigger picture when it comes to paying for our future.
Stephanie Kelton is a professor of public policy and economics at Stony Brook University. Before joining Stony Brook, she chaired the Economics Department at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, where she taught for seventeen years. She served as chief economist on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee (Democratic staff) in 2015 and as a senior economic adviser to Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign. She is a former editor-in-chief of the top-ranked blog New Economic Perspectives and member of the TopWonks network of the nation’s best thinkers.
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
Actually, they NEVER ask "How do we pay for it?" when it comes to war...
The left are now pro spending billions on foreign wars...
You pay for it, via inflation and taxes. So how are they gonna pay for that? By you having two-three jobs.
@@the_real_economics - No, the 2 criminal gangs approve insane amounts of war money because they have a massive EMBEZZLING SCAM set up which they have enabled for a very long time, so they know that much of that money they approved will enrich them and their criminal buddies, it does NOT actually get to where they tell us it is going.
Their major embezzling scam is "privatization", aka "public-private partnerships" and other cloaking terms.
War companies, big pharma and vax companies, prisons, healthcare insurance companies and more are "privatized". That is when corrupt people run a government-funded system or service so they OVERBILL the government, providing massive exec salaries and huge profits. They all know that we have FIAT government money, they just do not want the public to know, so they lie endlessly to keep us duped. But Wall Street knows - typically privatized companies go on the stock market, because all the corrupt people know that profits are guaranteed via fiat government money. And they all want to invest, including the corrupt politicians. The public is told there must be some "insider trading" going on, but it is just that they know that fiat money can be issued IN ANY AMOUNT, they know the info in the video lecture.
They are SUPPOSED to use fiat government money - aka "the power of the purse" to provide good lives for people, and a good country and a good economy. But they are sociopathic money ADDICTS who chase "money fixes" of fist government money, totally derelict in their duty and unfit to govern.
They also keep creating more and more "privatized" entities. The electronic prison they are finalizing to subjugate us has hundreds of privatized entities to run it - digital IDs, social credit, ESG, carbon tracking, and all the surveillance and data collection systems for 15-minute cities, and more. Their scheme was to get TRILLIONS from many governments FOREVER while ensuring we can't rise up to stop their corruption, tyranny and inhumanity.
Yes, they embezzle from many governments; the US sociopaths have been taking over countries since before WW2 to EMBEZZLE from more and more governments. Their most lucrative victims are probably the UK, Australia, Canada and NZ, which they took over in the 70s-80s.
@@the_real_economics No, we don't get inflation from gov. spending unless that spending exceeds the ability of the actual economy to absorb it. And your mention of "taxes" hints, to me, that you didn't bother to listen to Kelton at all.
When Stephanie is talking about the comments by Greenspan, I thought of what was said during WW II when the Governor of the Bank of Canada - Canada’s version of Greenspan and the Federal Reserve - was asked about the increasing debt for the war effort. He agreed with an MP who said that the debt was a private sector asset. The government’s “red ink” is the private sector’s “black ink.” The Cdn finance minister of the day, J. L. Ilsley, then said, “IF the govt debt is a private sector asset, how do we make it an asset of the people?” That last statement is the same as Greenspan’s last comment. And as Stephanie points out, that should be the topic to discuss. Not how to pay for things.
this is where UBI comes in. Instead of funding the rich and wealthy with our tax dollars, give every American 100/wk. See what happens with inflation then.
Money minted by the government has to stay in the economy for as long as possible. the best way to do that is to put it in the hands of the lowest income Americans
Such a shame about the microphone 😣
If whoever made this video wants to send it to me I can try and touch up the audio so it's not so painful to listen to.
So what I understood is, affordability depends on available real assets/resources, not on the paper currencies. It is the currency that is confusing everybody.
Saby Mondal you are exactly right it is the real resources the real stuff. And the productive capacity. The money the currency is the least of the problems. I hope you tell other people it's really important. Be well
And on manpower of services, I'm hearing.
And since we live in a time of over-productivity that actually utilizes mechanisms of artificial scarcity to keep profits at acceptable levels, then we could easily spend a lot more into our economy by several means, one being thru housing subsidies for lower income folks. Another being a pay-off of student loans now and expanding public education through college going forward.
but these days the west has been "selling jobs" to the east, and there is less produced. There are (usually lower cost) services, which does not really compensate. I do not believe that the "financial sector" actually produces anything "real": one cannot eat it, wear it, live in it, or anything. Financialization really just "spins around paper". At best it borrows from the future. I suspect that having added financial services into GDP was a way of hiding actual inflation. Clearly something(s) does not add up.
@@juhanleemet how would that hide inflation?
So... Basically everything I've been told was a lie.
The cake really is a lie...
KoiandDragon you are correct everything you've been told about debt and deficits and how our economy works was a lie. Please tell all the people be well
KoiandDragon she is the lie
@@dannywindham3295 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
@@hubblebublumbubwub5215 000ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppa1ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppapaapaaaaaapapappapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppapappapapapapapapapapappppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppappp1ippppppppppoppppppppppppppppppppppppppp3paaaapppapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppapapapapaaaapapapapapppppppapapapapapapapapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppaaaapppppyppapapapapapapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppapappppapappppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapappppppppppppappppppppppppppppppppppppppaapapppaaaapaapaapapapaapapapaaaapaapapppppppppppppppppppppapapapaaapapaapapapapapapapapaapapaaaaaaaaaaa1ppppppppafiippppppapaapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppapappppppapappppppppppapppppapapapapappapapappapapapapapapappapapapapapapapapapapppppappapapppap1pppppppppaaaaaaaapapapapapppppppapaapapppppapapapaapapapapapapapaaapapppppapapaapaaaapapapaaapaapapapaaapapapapappppapapapapappaapaaapppppaapapapapapaapapaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaqapapapapapapaaapapaaaapaaaapaaap1ppoppapapapapapapapapapapappppapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapap1papapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapappapapapapapapapapapapapapppapappapapapapaapaapaaaapapaapaapapapapaapaapapapapapappppap1papapapapapapapappppppppppppppppppppppppppapaapapapapq1p1p1pppaapappppppppppppqp1pppppppppppppppqpp1p1ppppappaaapaaaapapapapaaaapppppppppppppppppppppapappppppppppppapppppppppppppappppppp1pppp
@@hubblebublumbubwub5215 ppappppaappaapapapapapaapaaaapapaapapapppppppppppppppppppppapapaapapapapappapapaapapapapapapapappapapapapappaaapaaapaaapapapaaapapaapapapapapapaapappapaaaaaapaapapapapapapapapaapap1paapapaaapaapapaaaaaapappaaaaapppppppapapapppppapaapaapaapaapapapapppapappapapapaaapapapapaapapapapapapaaapapapapapapapapapaapaaapapapaaaaaappapapaaapaaapappaapaapapapapaáaaaaaaaaaaaapapppapapppapapapaapaapaappppppppppapapaapapapaapaappapapapappapaappapapapaappapapapapapaaaapaapaapaapapapapapapappapapapapapapapappapappppapaaappppppppaqppppapapppapppapappapaapapp1ppapappappapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapapaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapaaaaaaaaaaaaaapaaaaaaaaaaaapaaapaaapaaaaaaaapaaaaaaaaapaaaaaapaaaapapapapaaapapaaapapaaaaaapaaaapaaaaaaaaaapaaaaapaapapaaaaaaaapapapaapapapapapaaaaaaaaaaapaaaapppaapapapppaap1paapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapaaappppppppppaapaaaapapapppppppppppppppaaapaapaaapapapapapapapapapaapaapapapapapappppppppaapapppppaapapaaapapapaapapapapaaaaappapapapapapapapaapapappppppppapapapapaapappaaapapapaapapapapaapapaapapapaaapaaaaapapapapapaapappppapaaaapaapaaaapapaappppapapaapapapapapapaapappaapapapapaapapapaapapapapapapapapaaaapapapaaapaaaaaaapapaapapapapaapppapapapapappapapaaaapapppaappaaapapppppppppppppppppppapaaapapapapapapapaapaaaapaappppapapapapaappapppppppppppapaaaapaapapapapaapppaapapapapapapaapaapappppppppppppppppppppapapappapapapapapaapapappppppppapaaaapaaaapaaaaapaapaapapapapapapapppppapapapapaapappaaapapappappapppppppppppppppapaapapapapaaaaaaaaaapaaaaaaaaapaaaaaaapapaaapaapapapaapappaapapapapaapaaapaapppppaaaapapapaapaapaapaapapapaapapaapapapapapapaapapppppppaapaapaaapapappppppppppppppapaapapapaapapapaapapaapapapapapapapaapaapapapapapapapapapaapapapppppppaapaapapapapaapapapapapaapapapaapapapapapapapapaaapapapapapapapapappapapapapapappapapaapaapapaapapapaapapapp
Are we living in a sitcom?
That connected so many dots for me. Thank You.
This is such a breathe of fresh air
After all the years of fear mongering of deficit and debt I feel tremendously relieved
I hope this information is allowed to transform the monitory ideology within our society and that this information provides a framework for an agenda to lead our country forward
Thank you
I'm not sure I like the term Modern Monetary Theory. It makes it sound like this is a new concept, when in reality she is just explaining how federal spending has always worked. It would seem as though most politicians don't really know how the system works, either.
My understanding is that it did not work this way until 1971, after we got completely off of the gold standard, hence the word Modern in the the phrase.
@@AndyMorrisArt that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying.
@@AndyMorrisArt The US was off the Gold Standard domestically before WW2 and Beardsley Ruml (New York Fed Chairman) wrote a paper in 1946 entitled 'Taxes As Revenue Now Obsolete', where he outlined how if the war had taught 'us' anything, it was that taxes didn't fund spending, and it was now plain for everyone to see. He was largely ignored. You can find his paper online, it's an easy enough read.
There is a difference in the way we look at government spending. As the reserve currency and a currency issuer, the US Government can't default.
I love that she explains this like this is HOW our economy really is, while it isn't. We don't delete debt when the IRS receives the taxes. That's just idiotic.
This was amazing explanation. It's not how we are going to pay for it but for what should be paid.
Dr. Kelton and Warren Mosler have opened my eyes to how the economy really works. I inherently knew politicians were lying to us about the economy and MMT proved it. Now, citizens need to start asking the right questions because we now know how things will get paid for.
Why ask any questions? It's clear there is no need for wondering about limits to government spending. As long as its productive there is no reason to not hand out money right?
I'm not convinced that all of them were knowingly lying. They more than likely just don't understand.
Sure, MMT makes a lot of sense! 😄
Just wait and see what’s going to happen! And then maybe “Dr.Kelton”, not sure Dr. of what , can open your eyes even more..
@@ivolazarov7563 She has a PhD in economics
Colin
Great!! am an economist from Germany and this stuff sounds great but it’s a dream world! A world without limits!
This is the single most informative and important lecture for a citizen to understand. 46:02
Sounds like Jamie Dimon belongs in prison!
We (the American people) have been lied to!
Hmm but using the same logic ... If every country just printed its own currency and spent like hell .... What could be the result on the global economy...
Is it just the big name brands (USD $, UK £, EU €, and JPY ¥ that have all the fun? If Zimbabwe as a currency issuer isn't taken seriously, does that mean MMT only works really for the big 4 currency issuers?
There is some benefit to monetary unions (people more likely to trade in familiar and big currencies like the EU€, rather than small national ones like the old Netherlands guilder), but drawbacks too (inability for national govts in the monetary union to print more money to build infrastructure and fund social welfare, as in Greece and other EU members). Federal/Union grants per capita to each nation and subnational unit (provinces, regions) could help, but it would be inefficient (most are not per capita, but based off lobbying unequally).
That's the reason thi is all BS. Eventually nobody wants your garbage money.
See: BRICS
No more S's for you.
All joking aside, this is the most brilliant lecture I've seen in a while. Appreciate ya.
A couple of things you have to ask yourselves is why MMT may not be practical for us, since if no answer can be found, it is a sound path to embark on.
MMT's core fundamentals derive in part from Keynes' theories, which many would argue were an ideal set of monetary & fiscal policies that could help revive economies that collapsed due to a decrease in aggregate demand. However, Keynes himself argued that his theories where to be applied only under specific circumstances where AD fell and AS (aggregate supply remained constant) in which case the Government should increase their spending and create a fiscal deficit to consume the extra surplus in supply that would remain available in the economy in order to cut the bottom & later on the top from the business cycle. In order to do this, Keynes argued that governments should run a fiscal surplus during the boom years, reducing the monetary supply in the economy that had been introduced during the bust period. This is of course a huge oversimplification of his theories, however, few economists outside of the classical schools of economic thought found much issue in these recommendations, for which they were implemented by governments all over the world. The issue of course was that economic assumes that people are rational, at least to some extent, and that politicians want the best for their country, but as we all know, it is not from the goodness of the butcher's heart that we get meat to eat for dinner, it is due to their own self-interest. This meant that nations all over the world took Keynes idea's and kept only the part that was politically profitable, at the end of the day, who cared about the business cycle when elections creeped up in the corner, right? This has led nations all over the world to create huge fiscal deficits that they will never pay off. This has created different consequences for different nations since each situation is different. For those that borrowed in other country's currencies, the risk of default grew exponentially, causing many economical collapse along the years. For others, welfare states where implemented with the best of intentions to ensure that the people found themselves better off regardless of their faith, & slowly but surely these nation's cultures and motivations to continue innovating, continue growing (in terms of REAL GDP) and continue prioritizing their liberties over their paper money has subsided.
Now, where could MMT fail in the US? Let me start off by being clear, I am not sure whether it would work or not work, I am not sure whether it is desireable or not desireable, frankly, each individual's morality & ideology will lead them to a different conclusion, but I am sure that it is essential to question any theory or economical current that one seeks to adopt BEFORE doing so.
Firstly, for MMT to work the Federal Reserve would need to be politically independent in order to act in response to the levels of inflation and not to the demands of a president or congress seeking re-election. We know that on paper they indeed find themselves in this position, however, just a quick look at present times and at what has been historically done to Keynes' ideas can tell you that this is largely an idealistic utopian belief.
Secondly, The Federal reserve would need to have real time, exactly precise data on what the current monetary supply IN CIRCULATION is, the actual rate of price inflation in EACH AND EVERY INDUSTRY AND REGION since bubbles can form in all asset classes as well as all cities in the country, and one number reflecting all states and cities would not accurately do justice to the real situation on the ground. It would also have to find a way to inject or retrieve money from certain sectors of the economy and certain regions of the country without necessarily impacting all others, which would prove excruciatingly difficult in this era of special interests.
Thirdly, the individuals at the federal reserve would not only have to have even more power than they currently do, they should be expected to exercise this power absolutely perfectly, making all the right decisions at the exact right time with no margin of error whatsoever.
Fourthly, the currency value of the currency in foreign exchange markets would be expected to be analysed and controlled heavily to ensure that the country's exports remain competitive in the global outlook to ensure that more productive, supply generating companies and jobs are not lost as a result of government intervention, which would be considerably difficult since our currency follows the laws of supply and demand similarly to all other goods and services.
Even more points: Unelected officials will be given the remote control to our economy not only with the ability to create money like they currently do, but with the ability to decide or directly guide the taxation imposed upon the population regardless of the will of the people, since imposing taxes is vital in MMT's regulation of Inflation.
- In the event of that a given good's supply is reduced substantially, say Cars, the Fed would have to ensure that none of the money being introduced in the economy be directed towards the purchase of cars, since doing so would inherently become inflationary quite rapidly, for which they would have to greatly reduce the freedom independent adults have on what they want to do with the product of their work, going far beyond what we now consider the role of a government that believes in democracy and the will of the people.
- In the event that a mistake is made and inflation arises, taxation will have to be increased to levels much higher than what we currently consider reasonable, which will decrease motivation of production in the private sector thereby reducing aggregate supply of goods and reducing the amounts of goods available in the economy for money to purchase, creating more unemployment and either worsening inflation if people are subsequently employed by the job guarantee that MMT's superstars prescribe only to bid up the prices of these goods which are collapsing in supply, or creating mass suffering amongst people who have no job, have no money, have high demand for money since their tax obligations are high and are forced to see prices rise around them.
Many more things can be said about the theory but I've gotten quite tired as is. Again, I do not claim that these points are inherently valid or that MMTers cannot provide me an answer for them, as a matter of fact, that is exactly what I hope will happen as the reason I post this comment is to get some insight as to how you would combat these issues if MMT were to be implemented.
Personally I find many elements of MMT really insightful and extremely useful, whereas I struggle to grasp other elements of the theory like any other theory out there. Apart from the Job Guarrantee, I attempted to leave out policy prescriptions since they are for the most part absolutely appalling from my point of view, and it serves no purpose discussing them until we have reached a consensus on how MMT would actually work.
Whoever you are, & I plan to comment this on multiple videos to get more insight, I highly encourage to write your thoughts and comments on what I have just laid out, as well as any concern or alternative you have for the theory, please keep comments civil so we can learn and grow together, thank you!
Dr. Kelton argues that the government deficit is actually a surplus in the economy but makes no distinction as to how the "surplus" is used in the economy. If that "surplus" is consumed (e.g., used to protect banks from losses as in the quantative easing of the Obama administration) that will have a very different economic impact than a "surplus" invested (e.g., used to repair, replace, upgrade or build new infrastructure supporting economic life). So, whether or not the "surplus" still exists in the economy after it is spent by the government depends on whether the spending is consumption or investment.
Precisely. She's a typical Keynesian. Viva Mises. :)
QE is an asset swap, it doesn't expand the money supply. It banks swapping their bonds for reserves. On your other point yes it is important who gets the surplus, that's why it's important who gets voted in. Someone that will spend on infrastructure or invest in it people to obtain better education, support businesses, science. The question should not be how we going to pay for it but what should we spend our resources on, do we have capacity and do we have the people available for it.
MMT does work as designed. I causes massive inflation and economic disparity. Of course you can endlessly create money. But it goes to the rich and widens the gap between rich and poor. The only way to be successful in an MMT economy is to inflate along with it
This is open my eyes and completely change my view. thank you!
It definitely changes how you see the world doesn't it
Ty
Admirable that she is making such an effort to bring this story out. But the story is true... I read young people today posting messages like "our government is too indebted".Then I think, be happy that you can use the highway there, the train connection there,.... so much has been invested and it has helped the economy and our lifes a lot.
Infrastructure spending (as long as it's value-added) is a positive.
And to hell with High Speed Rail!
She seems to bring some sanity to defining a Fed deficit. As long as productivity increases (and you always leverage productive activities) a lot of things can be paid for. The value-added nature of the "Big Dig" cannot be underestimated by way of example.
So long as MMT is not paving a road to Zimbabwe I am interested.
Probably the best I've seen on MMT and refuting the obsession of the Right and Center of the policy spectrum. It is a huge paradigm shift though, and we need some key debates not just among Democratic candidates, where the questions from the panel of journalists were all, June 26th and 27th, 2019, all under the old assumptions, but between Professor Kelton and Larry Summers for example. How about Kelton and Wray vs Summers and Rogoff?
I reckon it is best to spread & argue for MMT without any political agenda first. When it is more excepted that this is really how it works and that is good (even if maybe some minor improvements or Offical inquires for conspiracy folk), then talk policy.
MMT can also be used to reduce Taxes and Promote & uphold Sovereignty in very significant ways**.
**e.g.1. Australia didn't bow to China's demand for shut down of COVID inquiry despite trade loss.
e.g.2 Countries would not need to continually and unsustainably increase their population for easy (& perhaps meaningless) economic growth (by immigration or exessive birth rate). Esp if they eat animal products, more population is very bad for the planet.
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this content cheers Frank
I am Japanese and live in Japan. My generation has been suffered by recession and deflation more than 30 years. I strongly believe this is the time that Japan can come back in the market with MMT. Don’t be afraid of debt and deficit. With budget cut policy Japan has controlled inflation more than 20 years. We validated MMT is right.
Atsushi Mori thank you so much for your validation
Japan doesn't do MMT. They aren't creating money for the purpose of targeted stimulation.
Japan is a train wreck and not an example for anyone, they pretty much do MMT anyway the amount of money printing in Japan is out of control, keep your policies to yourself
Every time I listen to Prof Kelton, I learn. And I’m further inoculated against more pernicious mainstream nonsense. I’ve compiled more of her videos - plus those of her fellow economists - at wecanhavenicethings.com
Ahh, that's sweet, Sherry. What do they say?
"wecanhavenicethings.com" - love it!
joe bongiovanni what does who say about specifically, what?
@@SherryEReson
Well, the videos. What do they say?
Or, is yours more the worker-bee task of organizing the online library ..... with its lovely title. Very good job on that.
Do the videos say you need to suppress logic and proportion in order for some of that MMT stuff to germinate?
Why not bring out Dr. Kelton's seminal paper on the Nuances of Reserve Accounting that we might peruse it's narrow conclusions for what they really are ? Proof of nothing at all.
Taxes and Bonds do fund the government.
Ask the government.
Our Treasury's financing operations are not impacted by the reserve accounting of the private Federal Reserve Banking System.
The Fed's failure makes no difference to Treasury, who swears they need taxes to fund spending.
I believe them.
You should too.
@@joebhed1 Are you sure they don't, in fact, swear that they're legally obligated to issue bonds equivalent to spending in excess of current tax receipts? Which is rather different. If they simply needed taxes to fund spending, there could be no deficit and we wouldn't even be talking about it.
So America can be a True Social Democratic Utopia! My eyes were opened 5 years ago JS.
So if the government merely needs to print money to pay its bills, then why bother with taxation at all?
Because the government doesn't just need to print money, she literally says that in the video. You might wanna watch this again, you clearly missed something. Or you're intentionally shit posting.
The Italians currently are at loggerheads with the European Union over their proposed Italian Budget which is in deficit beyond the EU’s guidelines. Here is the solution from non-other than a self-professed knower of all things economic. Simply throw out the Euro and recreate your own Italian currency and create all the Liras your heart desires. Of course, the world awaits to give you their goods for this vaulted currency based on nothing but your unending desire to spend. Venezuela, Cuba, and others you just need to create more of your valuable currency. You say no one wants your currency, they say it’s soft and has no value? Listen to this video and you will understand, you just need to create more.
I’m also so glad, in our hour of need, that this sound advice is available to US leaders as well. There’s no stopping us now!
This is always the focus. But that's not her argument at all... She says we need not worry about debts/deficits... she does say inflation is a concern. That the focus should be on making the economy strong productive enough to keep quantity of goods high enough to keep the new currency in use (and thus stave off inflation). This is what she says we should be focused on. The effects of the spending, rather than where the money is coming from.
th-cam.com/video/WS9nP-BKa3M/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/WS9nP-BKa3M/w-d-xo.htmlm4s The right debate, as she defines it
I don't get it. If deficits don't matter why even levy taxes and why sell treasury bonds?
aquapurity one of the most important purposes of taxes is to control inflation. Taxes add value to the currency taxes incentivize disincentivize certain behaviors. Treasury bills are left over from the gold standard they absolutely do not Finance government spending
Republicans love using the deficit to lower taxes. It’s amazing
Carmine DAuria-Gupta it is amazing what is all so amazing. Is that the dishonest economist and politicians. Who promoted these lies. Will never pay a price for what they've done that is also amazing.
Taxes control inflation. The issuance of Treasuries versus spending the money wisely into the foundational economy is a subject for serious debate.
The main point of Professor Kelton's talk is that she would like to shift the discussion on fiscal policy from that of deficit spending to maximum utilization of resources without causing inflation. This is a fair, albeit basic, point. Note however that this is also already well encoded into monetary policy via the Fed mandate (maximum employment + low inflation). Therefore this is just a shift for those that decide fiscal policy - politicians. Sadly, what is not addressed by the professor is true wealth. Wealth can be destroyed (war) and created (tech industry productivity gains). Real wealth is simply what can be created with resources and one's time and mind. As long as there are such massive inequities in real wealth that exist between economies, wealth will simply transfer to those who have more incentive to do useful work (China) than those who do not (US). Is this wealth transfer bad? Perhaps not - it is certainly natural. For now we have an unlimited checkbook but this will change. The moral goal is to attempt to maximize a person's time relative to the real wealth they create. The federal government can aid in this endeavor but its tools are crude and its track record is poor. Ultimately the wealth transfer will continue until more balance is attained.
When you can pay your rent with 'tech industry productivity gains', lemme know. :p
Fabulous lecture Stephanie :)
What is Modern Monetary Theory (explained for non-Economists)?
MMT is an explanation of the money system.
In a full paper-money system, there are two ways a state can create money. It does so by either government spending with the treasury or providing funds for bank-loans in the interbank system. (bank loans make up the great majority of money in circulation)
Neoclassical economists don´t understand how money creation actually works. The central bank doesn´t need to borrow money from anyone, it creates money by spending in the economy (government spending) and by providing banks with loanable money. These funds are created out of nothing, from scratch, since we live in a paper money system, in which the paper-bill money has no intrinsic value. The central bank simply funds accounts by digital entires and acts as a scorekeeper in the economy. On the opposite accounting side, when bank loans are extinguished and taxes are collected, removal of money from the economy takes place (destruction of money).
In that sense it is absurd to speak of borrowing when talking about funding government activities. The government is the sole creator of money, from whom should it borrow?? It makes no sense.
The national debt is something completely different from money creation, it is the outstanding amount of bonds. Bonds are kind of a relic from the gold-standart era as government spending has to be matched by new bond-issuance. They can be seen as a tool for the central bank to control the money supply and also help to drain money from the interbank system. Bonds have nothing to to with the creation of money since first the money is created by the state and that money is used to buy bonds! It follows that a goverment doesn´t need bonds for its financing and is never costrained in spending, since it creates money out of nothing. (That doesnt mean that MMT advocates spending (deficits) do not matter! Price stability and equilibrium in supply and demand is the position of mmt.)
It also follows that taxation is not needed to fund spending at a federal level (at the state level it it is). Taxation is the tool to have price control in check and enforce the currency. Spending and encouraging loans act as the gas-pedal; whereas a budget surplus(cutting back spending) and taxation acts as the brake-pedal. The aim is the balance between supply and demand, which results in near full employment.
Inflation is only created when we are at full capacity and we still continue with the gas pedal (spending). It is important to understand that a paper money currency can never be “inflated” or “diluted” through an excessive supply of money. Only the results in the economy will tell us if there is inflation, that is, excessive demand on the productive means of a country. If we are at full capacity we run a budget surplus (tax more than spend), so we cool the economy down.
On the contrary, in a recessive period, we have to stimulate the economy by spending and stimulating loans, since demand is lacking due to the consumer not spending.
But again, inflation only arises when the productive means are not able to accomodate demand. And in out advanced economies WE ARE PERFORMING UNDER THE TRUE PRODUCTION CAPACITY FOR THE LAST DECADES! The truth is that inflation is simply not easy to create as japan has shown in the last decades.
These conditions dont apply for the euro-countries, which have no influence in the ecb. They can technicly default unlike the countries with a sovereign sovereign currency.
I see TYPO's
>>In that sense it is absurd to speak of borrowing when talking about funding government activities. The government is the sole creator of money, from whom should it borrow?? It makes no sense.
It makes a LOT of sense. Just b/c you make something doesn't mean you own all of it and can't borrow some. Bonds/Tbill sales are a classic method of reducing money supply (monetary policy) and you failed to address that the government must service that debt, else default and cause a currency crisis. So you are such servicing the massive debt this blank-check scheme would cause, (due to inflation) at the same time you need to reduce the money supply with growth-killing taxes. This is a joke.
>>Inflation is only created when we are at full capacity and
FAIL - lookup 'stagflation' and try to understand why your theory is full of holes patched in all reasonable theories 4+ decades ago.
@@fraxus yep that's correct, in a strong economy with increases in productivity there is downward pressure on prices. The upward pressure comes from increases to the money supply. This is evidenced by the contrast of the CPI in the 19th century and the 20th century.
Prices are effected by demand in the short term not the long term.
I really do want to believe that MMT works as its the only way to believe that our monetary system will survive. However history shows that this FIAT based system is destined to blow up eventually.
MMT today, MMT tomorrow and MMT forever.........ignorance has a cure, yet stupidity is terminal
Frank Triana all presidents bee live in MMT just none are willing to admit it. Trump loves it because he can pass tax cuts for his friends without the deficit affecting the economy
@@carminedauria-gupta2561 At the end of the day to can only consume GDP plus any GDP other nations loan you.
@@frank3478 According to your reasoning, since we're currently at 36% of GDP we can easily spend twice as much with room to spare . www.usgovernmentspending.com/percent_gdp
Unfortumately those who blindly follow MMT as any workable theory when it is so heavily faulted that you will have to face their own stupidity sooner or later.
@@Rob-fx2dw I think those faults that you mention are in the 'policy implications' of MMT, and they are not ignored by MMT theorists. My question is this. As a description of how sovereign money states spend and tax etc, is MMT correct? If not, how so?
"Don't spend money ya ain't got." Quote from 'Thag the caveman' 12,000 BC
derp
That applies to the currency users not the currency issuers.
If memory serves me, he traded in goats. MMT is difficult to use in goat barter systems...😋
What limit is there on the budget deficit? Does the deficit have any relavence at all? Is a 100 trilllion dollar deficit mean anything? Is there any reason to be concerned about a deficit at all?
she is crazy.....she doesn't run her own financial household the way she is advocating we do the nation
You missed the point that federal budgets are totally different than a household budget: The fed can print money till inflation rises significantly, then tax back enough to reduce inflation. Read her easy-to-understand book "The Deficit Myth."
You can't treat government like a household. Government are currency issuers, households are currency users. The money that we all use in the economy is government issued money. That gets recorded on the government books as national debt.
it is high time that ALL the lies are dispelled. the truth will surely set us free...
Seeking the truth will be the "suicide" of us.
WOW.. I had no idea that debt actually means asset... and interest payments are a good thing... I had no idea we were doing so well...
Shes smart and right. Love her
welp now you know... only you didn't get it quite right. I'd suggest listening a few more times, until the light bulb goes off
Yes, debt on one side of the ledger is an asset on the other side. When I look at my rent account, which I've paid in advance, it says negative 2,000. My asset (rent paid in advance) reads as a deficit on the landlord's ledger. It's double-entry bookkeeping. This is not a controversial idea.
Public debt is private surplus. The money just goes on someone else’s ledger, it doesn’t magically disappear.
Twist on words, Debt isn’t good.
36:30 - "The US government is never gonna run out of US dollar." - You are right, but it is running out of PURCHASING POWER!!!
If deficits don't matter, reduce taxes to zero. Think of the stimulus.
And if deficits don't matter why even sell treasury bonds?
damn, thats a good point
Why stop at zero? Wellfare checks for everyone! Heck, may as well go full collectivism, let the government, in their wisdom, dictate all economic activity and assign us all to jobs and projects. Central planning is back and it's called MMT!
She gets at it just barely in this (50:03), but in much more detail here: th-cam.com/video/6IBEoWSiTHc/w-d-xo.html
If we reduce tax to 0, that will mean the burden of inflation will exactly be same on poor and reach people. Which means in the next year the poor people will get poorer, and rich people will get richer (why is that: I can explain it by simple asthmatics). We need to keep inflation under control by taxing, and taxing rich people lot more than poor people. Whether there is tax, or there is no tax, the total amount of real assets/resource in the country will remain unaffected.
I know it has been a few years since this video ago but I think Milton Freedman would give her that skepticle look then laugh his ass off.
shes good, its crazy that people cant seem to grasp this concept.. honestly as long as you watch the money flow it can be controlled well for a long time, if the nation isn't spending, the Government shouldn't either and then it should drop the interest rates so that the nation begins to barrow and spend, when the nation begins to spend the government can begin to spend, i'm also sure that if you invest in the public you'll get consistent spending when the job market dries up because everyone has a job slow down on spending. It's all a task to keep the economy strong during recessions. when presidents come in they need to be aware of the next trend in the economy, How can you owe yourself? the government is a monopoly.
When politicians say "we" I try to not spit up. The number of times that has been said over centuries is incredible and then I realize it will never change. The current policy from both sides is amounting to alot of nothing. That will have to stop for our grandkids to be able to have a good future. Lily Tomlin said " I try to be cynical, but it's hard to keep up" Politicians have more complaints than solutions.
In summary: everyone works for us because they believe they need a peace of paper
Money is simply "drawing rights" on goods and services. Government prints these drawing rights. The problem is, how do you get "drawing rights" to productive agents that cause the production of the "stuff and services" that folks need. Money is the incentive to get the work done!
We need to set up medical schools, dental schools, nursing schools, technical schools to prepare the service providers and stuff makers without putting these people in life long debts.
We need a humanistic, socialistic capitalism that puts the health and happiness of the population first. Guess old Bill is dreaming again.###*!
👏👏👏👏👏
Right hence the reason we are currency users and the government is the currency issuer.
So the real deal internationally is the dominance of the dollar... As long as that's kept the US has the upper hand, but that also creates real economic and political constraints.
correct, not constraints, we just have to be vigilent and always makes sure that whoever is running the Federal Reserve knows what they are doing. Also oil is important because we need oil to always be denominated and sold in dollars. the outside purchase that most countries ever make is when they buy oil and oil is old in the world's currency which is the dollar. now, some bad player comes along and trying to buy oil in Russian Rubles for example, and that's what the military is for. Starting to see the cycle now?
What Zimbabwe followed is not MMT?
This brilliant woman is Bernie Sanders top economic adviser. ❤️
Bretton Woods United news video on TH-cam world economic peace treaty promise to the troops 3 weeks after D-Day worked.
Yes and it is all completely and utterly irrelevant because with the stabilization of world currencies money moves out of the forex putting the profits into tax havens and back into the local communities again as it did in the 1945 to 71 period.
Who's Bernie's top economist now?
@@neilanderson891 I don't know. Honest economics is extremely simple. And stabilization of world currencies reduces debt and national debts
wish he had (would) listen to her, instead of playing the oppositions game of "where will the money come from"
Light
If you only inject, inject money into the economy aren’t you still missing the production side of that equation?
I'm really starting to feel that nobody watched the video.... Yes, you still have mind inflation and make sure currency availability doesn't outpace goods availability (inflation)... That's the debate we should be having she says... I do wish she would get into that earlier in her talks as I don't think the half an hour of explaining how government debt works is really necessary. th-cam.com/video/WS9nP-BKa3M/w-d-xo.htmlm4s
@@carlwhite4233 I watched it. Even tough it is a pain to hear Stephanie Kelton's condescending tone! So, don't also be condescending.
Carl White Eden! The US really, is heaven, and money grows on trees!
Alan Watts said the same thing about inches.
Stephanie giving a wonderful presentation.
I was wondering whether any developing country which has a sovereign currency can make use of such a policy, or it is only meant for advanced countries like US, Japan etc. The reason i am asking this question is that despite the fact that developing countries have sovereign currency, but to pay for imports, they need foreign currency. So in addition to inflation, current account deficit and level of foreign exchange reserves are additional constraints. Can someone explain it?
Steve grumbine with real progressives can answer those questions real progressives has many many resources
After watching this video 3 times and listening very carefully...
We cant afford to ever let these people be in charge.
It's not that we can't "afford" it.
It's that there's no "there", there.
You do understand she is explaining how our monetary system works and has worked since Nixon completely took us off the Gold Standard in 1971. This isn't voodoo economics. How do you think the defense fund gets paid it is not your little tax dollars. Deficits are just the amount of funds not collected back in taxes from the federal Gov left in the public someone is using those dollars or in someone's savings account. Debt is the number of treasuries the federal gov is holding. So basically you're saying it is ok for them to keystroke your SS check to your account and keystroke funds to the defense fund but you don't think it is a good idea for anyone to receive healthcare or they should help a company going underpay their pension that is becoming insolvent? WOW talk about being against the people
@@robinbennett484
Sorry, Robin, but criticising anyone's understandings of the money system based on how you think MMT explains things, is rather pompous, if not just cavalier.
So, .....
1. "You do understand she is explaining how our monetary system works and has worked since Nixon completely took us off the Gold Standard in 1971."
No. Nothing changed about the national money system when Nixon negated the Bretton Woods $US -gold exchange peg.
Nothing. Bretton Woods had NOTHING to do with our Domestic Economy, from which all 'public policy space' must evolve.
2. "This isn't voodoo economics."
Yes, MMT is voodoo economics. When Mitchel and Wray had their new MMT textbook reviewed, one of the reviewers called them 'monetary cranks'. Which is a much-abused term that, in this case, fits.
The government does not create new money by spending. It doesn't happen. THAT is the VooDoo Economics part.
3. "How do you think the defense fund gets paid it is not your little tax dollars."
No, it is your little old 'public-debt financing of deficits.' In your name, our government BORROWS the money created by the Bankers to pay for the Military. How do YOU think they do it?
4. ""Deficits are just the amount of funds not collected back in taxes from the federal Gov left in the public someone is using those dollars or in someone's savings account.""
Excuse me? Care to re-write that ?
The deficit is by definition - the difference between tax revenues collected and the total amount of expenses - in the budget. So, you can say that this difference matches the amount that MUST BE BORROWED from the bankers and wealthy, and that must be PAID BACK to the bankers and the wealthy, with tax payments, or 'other sources of income' to the Treasury.
So, as to the as-yet-uncollected taxes - being used by 'someone', or in 'someone's savings account ..... think banker and wealthy, not union bricklayer. Every dollar borrowed by government must be paid back.... not once..... not twice, .... but forever. Bankers and the Wealthy, and MMT for some reason, LOVE the increasing and perpetual wealth-concentrating potential of public debt.
For some reason.
5. "Debt is the number of treasuries the federal gov is holding."
Very bad. LOL. And totally wrong.
Our public debt is about $21 Trillion. That is how much our federal govenment "owes". Most of it is owed to domestic and foreign bankers and Billionaires
www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-who-owns-a-record-2121-trillion-of-us-debt-2018-08-21
Treasury actually 'owns' about $5.7 Trillion of that debt - used to shore up funds and accounts needed for the future. The rest is privately held. Even some by the Fed banks.
But eventually, the government will NEED all of that money for current payments, and the Bonds will be sold on the open-market, and the private Buyer of those $5.7 Trillions in Bonds will receive from the taxpayers the interest on the paper, forever, and the entire principal amount... however financed.
The private Federal Reserve Banks holdings of $2.38 Trillion were acquired in "Swap Agreements" with banks that received federal reserve assets (created out of nothing), and at some point it will become necessary to return those Bonds to the open-capital- markets for trading via the banks, offsetting the return of those CB reserves. The 'unwinding' of the FR Balance Sheet is needed to actually put any semblance of an ending to the Financial Crisis GFC.
6. ""So basically you're saying it is ok for them to keystroke your SS check to your account and keystroke funds to the defense fund but you don't think it is a good idea for anyone to receive healthcare or they should help a company going underpay their pension that is becoming insolvent? ""
When trying to arrive at an understanding about money, and instead of dealing with what someone is saying, the commenter says "So basically what you're saying is ...", you can count on what follows NOT being what you are basically saying.
Warning: (MMT 'knowledge management' tactic at play.
"Keystroking" for instance ,is the accepted MMT term of 'art' that implies somebody can spend money they don't have.
So, absolutely not true for either my SS check, or the military budget. In both cases, budgeted and funded spending items. Why don't you look it up in the Budget?
Then, to use that false claim to infer something else you might be 'thinking' ...... 'but you don't think it is a good idea for anyone to receive healthcare'(?) ......ummmmmm..... excuse me ..... why would you think that is what anyone is 'thinking'??. Why
Or, even worse a human being ....you think ..."they should help a company going underpay their pension that is becoming insolvent? ""
Excuse me? Does anyone know what that means (?) ... even by reference?
Then, the Crunch.
7. ""WOW talk about being against the people""
Were we?
What I would like to talk about one of these days is why does MMT continuously pitch the people to be against their government? Or, haven't you noticed? And, why is THAT ?
I would be glad to elaborate.
I couldn't agree more. Thank God for crypto
The MIC has to be a major waste as they don't produce anything?
She misses out the 1945-71 period where us national debt would have stabilized.and us production increased.
Intentionally.
Also the 1920-21 depression which ended in 18 months due to cutting government spending
@@the_real_economics sadly it really is propaganda for the Forex and tax havens.
It's like standing out side a bank talking about bank notes are made while bank robbers nip in and out as they please and she doesn't mention them.
Only International Speculators in tax havens are allowed to discuss International economics ordinary people have to be spoon fed fairy tales .
Good point - especially considering that the post war gilded age came about as a result of a keynsian consensus, and there's considerable crossover between the ideas of contemporary keynsians and MMT proponents
@@5ynthesizerpatel Churchill taught Keynes the importance of Stabilization of world currencies as a foundation for a lasting peace that Keynes opposed in 1925..
But after a wall street bonanza for the very very very very very very few and crash for the many
Hitler Blaming innoccent poor people and migrants a HOLOCAUST and world war by 1944 he had come around to Churchill s ideas in1925 formulation of in the world economic peace treaty of Bretton Woods promised to the troops 3 weeks after D-Day for stabilization of world currencies as a foundation for a lasting peace.
Isn't it a$7 TN a day Forex and $700 TN derivatives markets now?
Playing American Jesus on violin as background music for a political talk on economics.
Dr. Kelton has a knack for explaining difficult topics in terms easily understood by everyone. What is described by MMT analysis should be weaponized by Progressives and used to combat the Neoliberalism that is quite literally killing us.
But it ain't exactly true.
Is it?
I mean, the post-Keynesian stuff certainly is, but the MMT stuff ?
Government creates new money just by spending it, even when it doesn't have it ?
You think the Senators bought much of that line when they were too scared to boost the debt? They didn't just spend it because they couldn't. Because their budget revenues must match their expenses.
Like the rest of us.
Because that's what governments do.
Ask any of 'em.
It's about how we pay for the deficit.
Reformers say money creation.
MMT says borrow it.
Debt is good.
Because it's somebody else's asset.
That must be good, eh ?
Can you point out where, exactly, "MMT says borrow it," Joe?
bing! couldn't have said it better myself. Way too many "progressives" stare at MMT as deer stare at headlights. I get too many blank stares when I mention MMT. So, yes, we need to weaponize MMT which leads us to winning more elections.
@@markfabian742
I'll google it up for you, Mark.
"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the National Debt.'
Stephanie Kelton and banker Frank Newman.
th-cam.com/video/Ae7PO-j7TIc/w-d-xo.html
HEY ! That public DEBT is a private asset.
Nice revolution there's gonna come from growing private financial assets.
To the Barricades !
Net Financial Assets R US.
forward ?
Yep - It ain't exactly true at all. In fact it is what is known as False !! - a A lot of fallacies and confused concepts jumbled on top of each other.
For instance Mr Mosler and Mr Randal Wray - Taxes are obsolete to provision government. Then later Taxes drive the dollar ! So whch is is it ? it cannot be both. Mr Mosler ??
Greenspan: “We can guarantee cash benefits as far out and whatever size you like, but we cannot guarantee it’s purchasing power”
Currency/cash are claims to good or services in the future. Government spending money does not produce more resources, spending consumes resources.
This is the fundamentals of money that MMT apparently doesn’t realize or just fail to mention.
US debt/GDP is going up mighty fast, and interest payments are only at a manageable level because of very low interest rates. When it rises, and it will, US taxpayers will see an increasing share of their taxes go to covering the interest payments.
19:00 "Default free," that's bullshit. Any debtor can default, even the U.S. government.
This would be true if the US Dollar were still pegged to the gold commodity; however, that ended in 1971 when the US Dollar became a fiat currency. Hence, the US Government's red ink is the private sector's black ink. The U.S. Government is the monetary sovereign currency issuer of the US Dollar and cannot become insolvent. You and I in the private sector are currency users. Congress has the purse strings. The only limitations are: those self-imposed by Congress, the availability of the idle physical resources, the and available labor.
Actually no. Under the current system the U.S. can't physically run out.
@@ntc_108 Thank you for being intelligent.
So why do I pay taxes again???
To stay out of jail 😂
Mainly to control inflation and drive the need for the currency
Amongst funding more government spending it is to pay off the treasury bonds Kelton talks about when they mature with interest because government don't pay off anything - they just tax others to pay off their debts.
Taxes do not put a value into the currency and this is proven by the fact that in al countries where inflation led to an utterly valueless money there were also taxes that did nothing to put any value into it or create any demand for it. Even their own governments dumped their own currency as a method of payment because it had become worthless.
Excellent analysis.
Economic made simple.
Economic made stupid. She is stupid as hell.
The whole video I was "yup... yup... yup..." and then I was "wait, she should really address inflation"... and then she does! XD
33:48 At the cost of inflating the current monetary supply, no?
No.
Stephanie is a dangerous demagogue. Unfortunately average person is not able to comprehend it and claps to her nonsense, without realizing that what she is telling is the following: We will give you anything you want but you have to pay the inflation tax.
Now try to explain purchasing power to an average person. I bet most people do not even know what it is.
@@TheTazzietiger Depends on:
A/ if you understand the difference between monetary base and money supply, minimum and excess reserves of commercial banks.
B/ what you understand as inflation. For me it is increase in monetary base or money supply which eventually will be reflected sooner or later in the prices. Then how you measure the inflation - using some statistically manipulated indices or are you really interested in the increase of prices - I mean ALL prices (not just some cherry-picked prices), because everything can be measured in prices but not every price is under the scrutiny of inflation measurement. You know what they say - give me the results and I will do the statistics for you.
My grandfather voted for FDR and I STILL have not gotten a bill from him for all that money they spent in order to win WW2.
Yes you have. You are just too badly informed to know it.
Stephanie for the win! 👍✌️💜
This is a very interesting talk, but the only thing I don’t understand is how will this kind of thinking and spending prevent that the interest payments on treasury bonds become too large and result in a debt spiral?
When the Bonds mature the Fed simply types in the interest. Tax dollars are not paying that interest that is not the purpose of taxes at the federal level.
I'm 30 minutes in and no mention of inflation. Resources are limited and prices adjust, "can we afford it?" is not just about dollars like she claims.
And she just showed a correlation between budget surpluses causing depressions, every single example was during a time when dollars were NOT created out of thin air like all her demonstrations, they were backed by real gold that the government couldn't create at will.
Edit: Ok, 36 minutes and finally she addresses inflation and this was her actual point. That took way too long, I almost gave up on the talk.
Edit: This is not a novel idea, it's what's implied by "can we afford it". Things that aren't readily available are more expensive and dominate the cost of your project. This whole talk is just a strawman argument.
I cannot agree - it is explaining how the system works (based on actual state-based accounting operations), which is very different to how we imagine it works based on what we are taught about money as currency users, and assuming money is works the same way as it did before 1971. It is a little difficult sometimes to understand at first but it does actually makes more sense - I put to you.
If your interested for answers to your specific questions, then I suggest looking them up on Deficit Owls TH-cam channel + the keywords of your inquiry. That channel focuses on people who are Economics Professors & Experts specializing in MMT, which I think is good because I hear lots of straight out misinformation on what MMT is saying.
thanks,
Platypus
Agreed, was listening to this as someone in the 3rd world looking for solutions. This is just convoluted economic sophistry with no empirical evidence to support any of these assertions. And where she attempts to show some data she neglects the economic context of fiat vs gold standard monetary policy. It also makes no clear policy propositions except to say we can continue with perpetual deficts because government cant go broke. If this is MMT then it is piss poor to say the least.
@@32battalion24 She neglects the context of "gold standard monetary policy"-- which hasn't existed for over half a century? You expect an awful lot from a 50-minute talk.
suppose the govt has taken back 30% money from economy through tax
and 30% through treasury bond.
what about the rest 60% money circulating in economy
and how does govt generate interest on treasury bond?
And the people watching the Emperor’s parade have no clothes
Debbie Doyle my dad told me that parable when I was 12 and we were attending a postmodern art exhibit, my eyes were opened.
To try to address the legimate criticisms. The video does say inflation is a issue if productivity does not keep up with government spending injecting cash into the economy. So, how do we address that. This is a problem the speaker agrees with many of you on- she is promoting we address the actual problem (inflation and usefulness of spending) vs the debt. Perhaps there should be another limit on government spending besides the debt (not that the debt is working anyway)... The big social democracies of Europe tax something like 60% of their GDP back... We tend to keep it closer to 20% here in the states... So maybe if we had a constitutional limit on spending plus debt at some compromise between these two numbers... Before they can spend more, they have to spend a year paying down the down (even if they are just doing so out of the inkwell). Then they next year they can spend and/or borrow more, but never more than X% of GDP... if they want to spend more GDP must grow to make X% bigger.
If government deficits (21 trillions) is everyone’s else surplus, then why is everyone (citizens) in debts?
everyone? dont forget the billionaires. btw: have u never heard of a wealth-gap in yor country? did u never see inequality?? the top one percent received more than 90percent of all economic gains in the last decade(s)
freydenker Everyone can identify the problems but no one can fix it. Sad
Most money that people transact - the vast majority of it - is not government money (cash, treasury bonds). It's another tier of money created by private banks when they make loans. It's the private banks that people are in debt to. There is no discussion of this in the talk. Positive Money are a UK group campaigning on this issue positivemoney.org/
@@squirrelpatrick3670 That is because it is not part of the topic, but it is a natural outcome of the argument. Actually it was touched on when referring to Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Just extrapolate from that. Well crafted policies designed to help average americans (instead of donors) rooted in MMT, with mechanisms built in to avoid inflation is the natural extension of Kelton's argument. She is simply giving the framework to change the basic premise of the policy conversation.
freydenker American citizens are in debt to the rich aka corporations.
Came here after listening to Warren Mosler. Love you 😘😘😘
Great lecture! Everyone can understand this.
Great lecture, but... when billionaires are paying less of their "income" percentage in taxes than most of us... (often it is not wages, but more tax efficient sources of income because they can engineer it that way) would it not be beneficial for the country to tax ALL of their income and spend those funds to increase production of infrastruction, and or other things that benefit everyone who lives here?
fantastic. i have so much to learn
This is MADNESS
To assume the Federal Government can create money without limitations on spending is balderdash without considering the productivity limits of the economy. The electronic spending is entries from the Federal Government Treasury Account at the Federal Reserve. The Treasury's Account at the Federal Reserve is increased by tax collections and issuing bonds for cash.
"Group Therapy," brilliant.
No, not brilliant, a joke.
Works like a charm!
You can't control where the liquidity is going?
This again fortified my point about the necessity of M4A and public education. Healthy, educated workforce is more productive, than sick and stupid. That's why tax cuts are a small bandage on a broken leg. Progressive policies are long-term investments.
Pp
Pp Ll
Pl
Ll
Pp pp l
Really insightful talk. The only annoying thing about it is the sound quality. Microphone guy did a horrible job.
05:12 - Learning of & learning how the model that accurately represents the movement of money will bring us closer to FDR's Dream of FREEDOM FROM WANT, EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
07:16 - There's no need to loose face if you were taught a well-meaning mistake in any of the scholastic disciplines. Joy comes in being fortunate to learn what is real and what mistake need never be made again.
Highly unlikely without stabisation of currencies you won't something Roosevelt Truman Clement Attlee Bevan Beveridge de Gaulle Churchill all agreed.
And you don't need any system other than to recognise the absolute obviousspeculating on currencies is highly dangerous because it can cause wars and poverty and it is gamblng.
You can't walk into a casino in Los Angeles with 5 trillion so why should be able to walk into the international currency markets with 5 trillion dollars cause an international crisis and a currency to fall and perhaps a war or World War economic crash with no regulation.
It's gambling it's dangerous and it's stupid, and look at the most stupid currency crypto currenciesthat finance violent crimes against children on the dark Web and people turn their backs to it. Unbelievable it is so obvious from history that these massive speculations on cause poverty migrations fascism Holocaust and war putting profits in tax havens not into local communities for use in sensible things like eco-friendly growth that means the forex doesn't have to keep attacking third world Nations just to keep them poor.
no does the forex need to deny global warming in case there is cooperation in the United Nations about honouring the peace treaty to the war dead that was highly successful from 1945 to 1971. Stabilization of world currencies.
It's not really true that the sovereign issuer of a currency cannot go broke. Just in recent years Venezuela, Argentina, Greece, Belarus, Belize, Jamaica, Ukraine, and maybe others I cannot think of have faced bankruptcy. Well, they're not the United States you say. That's right. A century ago Argentina was more prosperous than the United States but the country's leaders adopted economic policies that look much like those being touted by Dr. Kelton.
I’m sorry. I don’t understand your point. Could you please elaborate?
The most enlightening economics lecture I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot.
Geeeeez she's freakin awesome. We need people running our govt with this kind of intelligence.
There is no free lunch therefore continuous deficit leads to huge FED free money and inflation will go up dramatically when China stops supplying US its cheap goods hence even the middle class cant afford to buy there essential needs
Yes you raise a good point. As the Chinese population are already starting to use its own products more of Chinese resources will be used for Chinese residents pushing up the prices. The US will need to pick up the productive slack by doing more of the manufacturing in other countries or in the US itself.
Ok, I have a problem with this. There is basically unlimited labor out there (China has 1.4 billion, India over 1 billion and so on). There is also pretty much unlimited (at least in the short run) resources. There's not problem getting cement, timber, steel etc. So this means if we have unlimited money, then we can build or do anything we like, with no handbrake.
If resources or labor do git a bit scarcer, and so a bit more expensive, it doesn't matter because we can just issue more money. Cost of steel doubles? No worries, just 'print' more money. Labor costs go up, no worries, just 'print' more money...
Surely this can't be right?
It's not about just printing more money. The point is it is about real resources the money is just a means of Exchange. If inflation takes up you tax back some of that money to cool off the economy. The whole point of the video is to do away with the lies in the myths about how our economy works
@@dannywindham3295 But I didn't say it was about just printing money. I'm saying there are pretty much unlimited resources out there.
@@davidblake8612 no you're absolutely correct resources aren't Unlimited. I think that's really the point of the video is to show people. That Finance the money it's not the issue. Is the real resources that count.
@@dannywindham3295 You say I"m correct resources aren't unlimited. Did you mean to say that? I'm saying they pretty much are in fact, unlimited. Not entirely of course, there's only so much gold in the ground etc. But we have sooooooo many people available for work, and such large capacities for extracting resources out of the earth, that while there will be a limit on each and every resource, they'd be very very large limits i.e. we will never practically run out in say the next 100 years.
@@davidblake8612 you fooled me for a minute gold-bug go talk to Ron Paul
Wonderful talk! Can we call the government debt the money supply?
While it makes sense that the government can always create more money, I think MMT has a problem failing to recognize that unlimited treasuries out in the world are not going to bite us at some later date. When the world cashes in treasuries, they are creating our money supply in the same way that the government is when it spends the money into circulation. We can control how the money spent by the government can be invested/spent in ways that won't incur inflation, we don't have that same control over the how investors cashing in their treasuries spend their money.
Jill Harrison just stop selling the treasuries
surplus means more money in the household means less value for money..means more expensive things become as time goes on meaning people have to earn twice to keep up with expenses..how are fixed income people supposed to survive?
Her inflation thing makes you think of automation a bit different, need more AI AND AUTOMATION and a better social saftey net.
MMT assumes that government spending is always done in a moral and ethical way, that corruption is minimal or non-existent. Productivity will drop when workers see that unproductive people are being rewarded based on political connections.
There is nothing modern about MMT. It has been the standard economic policy in the US since 1971.
Yes, the government can "print" as much money as they need but at what cost?
sounds like you’re down for the reconstruction of our government and transference of ownerships MOP to the working class :)
Kelton has recently been putting out TH-cam videos which don't allow comment. Why? Because she can't handle people who can prove her theory is totally wrong.
It spoils the false misleading claims she is putting across as economics but is really just propaganda.
MMt'ers should step up and pay the Interest on the National debt............Im done paying it.........
You has to know that most of the intrest is payed to the FED.
Did you all catch the song was "American Jesus by Bad Religion"
Stephanie Kelton is a prime example of what happens when our universities prioritize idealism and feelings over facts and evidence.
Yeah - it's amazing how people will completely reject MMT out of hand - and go out of their way to completely misrepresent it - when the fundamentals of it, which are central bank / sovereign operations - are 100% empirically correct - verified by every economist and central banker on the planet with any expertise in the subject.
The real debate is what we can do to apply these facts and how far we can take the applications - but no one wants to have that discussion.
I think the central notions of it are so hurtful to right wingers feelings that they just can't take it and refuse to face the facts - and we all know what happens when right wingers get even more emotional then their usual overly emotional resting state
Asinine comment
She talks about inflation and printing lots of money. All resources within an economy are in use, some are just being stored and not used at this moment by their owners. Her scheme will cause the crowding out of the private sector in the market, and is a back door method to destroy capitalism. When a private firm can't buy concrete because the government can spend whatever it wants on that item, it will cause the private firm to not do the job, making it poorer.
That's not at all what she says. The government spends ideally only when the private sector has vastly underutilized assets (workers, raw materials, etc.). If the government spends when the economy is fully employed and utilized, that indeed will be competing with the private sector to the latter's detriment and causing inflation. She stresses there are definite limits here. It's about policy, not ideology.
@@slowpainful You know how something signals it's being underutilized in a market economy? It's cheap. Then again, maybe that job or product is obsolete or it needs some entrepreneur to come up with a new use for it. Either way the government has no business intervening. Millions of imaginations are better at coming up with solutions for these problems than a small group of politicians.
Thé upshot of listening to this is That there are no négative conséquences to bé feared from Government's déficit spending... But What set off thé Great Dépression was (as someone in thé comments already mentioned) à small group of international bankers That decided, all at thé same Time, after à prolonged period of easy lending/spending, to start calling in debts. Do You think their modern counterparts wouldn't do it again? And profit from financial chaos by buying up other people's, and Government's, assets for pennies on thé dollar ? Assets people would have to sell just to live-- and pay taxes. MMT strikes me as semantical slight of Hand, something liké Slick Willie's claim to have balanced thé budget... As a child, I was taught That if something sounds too good to bé true, that's because it usually is...
A bit part of her point is that we should quit borrowing the money, and just print it instead... We should keep tabs on inflation, and make sure we're spending the money on productive things... but why ALSO hamstring ourselves by giving a money lender claim over us TOO.
Your first sentence is off. Inflation is what we have to fear. What is an acceptable level of debt.. answer... when inflation is uncomfortable were spending too much
@@ChalrieD Yes but the govt doesn't determine it's spending entirely on it's own. Debtors can claim debts, tragedies can occur, elderly need to be looked after etc. The govt doesn't exist in the abstract. Worse, politicians buy votes. They are not motivated to care about long term impacts. The idea that it can tune it's spending like a valve, just isn't true.
Nor has any government demonstrated sound industry investment on a consistent basis - a prerequisite for MMT - sound, long term, targeted stimulus.
You are asking people who only care about keeping their jobs and their ideologies, who have no financial investment backgrounds to be sound long term investors with national interests truely at heart.
Iris Dogma you think that the government couldn’t spend money wisely because they aren’t invested is that your theory? Is that ayn randian type narrative bias or is it statistically shown in a serious study somewhere? And if it isn’t perfectly efficient how inefficient is it compared to the mindless crap bankers and large corporations do? Not sure I can get on board with that framing if it’s indeed what you intended.
@@ChalrieD Nothing that convoluted. When there is a recession stimulus packages are untargetted and hit and miss. Govt's mismanage state owned enterprises. There's just nothing in the history of what I've seen with govt's that suggests they possess either motivation or knowledge for what is required for MMT (targeted, narrow stimulus investment yeilding long term economic growth). Voters vote politicians in for things like free healthcare and tax cuts - voters are more interested in short term generally too. I just don't see how stable, careful long term investment suits our political system. Or at least I see no evidence that it does.
It's rather different from what corporations do, corporations aren't printing money.This really isn't apples to apples at all.
They don't have to tax the bejesus out of everyone if inflation rises (which is what MMT requires if stimulus doesn't produce good enough growth). The whole theory is predicated on intelligent management. I'm not sure I've heard of many economically intelligent politicians, and in terms of principles, well....
I mean if politicians could effectively manage investing, they could run competively profitable state owned enterprises, and they wouldn't need to even tax us, or borrow. They could be self-sufficient. They could be highly automated industries requiring very little labour, low cost, high yeild. I just don't see anything in the calibre produced by current systems that they could handle that.
Or in short, this new economic theory seems useless without a companion overhaul to the entire political system. Perhaps even reducing the influence of voting (where as I say, people tend to think short term personal gain). Corporations at least have a competitive feild, to improve effeciecy. What immediate penalty would politicians get for not managing stimulus in an intelligent manner? (and remember, voters won't have a clue about this either). It's just a whole side pickle of systems that would need to be changed that nobody proposing this is every addressing.
It reminds me of many other forms of idealism, like the UBI. It needs MORE change, MORE detail.
Am I the only one who was ready for him to say Introducing
"Dr. Samuel L. Jackson" lol
The only thing Bernie Madoff owed his clients was monthly statements........yeah, that worked out.
Man you are good
What part of governments are different from individuals did you not get?
MMT is in a nutshell the same thing as going to a drug addict and telling him "last time you tried to give up drugs you felt miserable so taking drugs is good and we will give the theory of drugs-good a three letter acronym"