Was MMT Right About Inflation? | Stephanie Kelton (The Deficit Myth)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 чер 2024
- For access to econ community, consider / moneymacro or consider buying me a 'coffee' at ko-fi.com/moneymacro
LIKE CHATTING ECON WITH ME?
△ Follow me on Twitter: / joerischasfoort
△ Follow me on LinkedIn: / joeri-schasfoort
△ I have a private Discord server for Senior and Chief economist Patrons / members.
Otherwise I sometimes hang out in two Discord servers:
△ Unlearning Economics's server: / discord
△ Capitalists server: / discord
MAIN CHANNEL:
/ moneymacro
Timestamps:
0:00 - introduction
1:24 - is MMT still relevant?
4:05 - Biden stimulus package
6:42 - the Covid inflation spike
19:18 - Biden's unpopular economy
27:07 - government is no household
29:10 - Northern Europe's Deficit Obsession
31:52 - MMT on Inflation post Covid
36:17 - inflation targeting government
38:57 - role of the central bank
42:10 - monetary policy induced disinflation?
46:16 - higher rates more inflation?
57:53 - government cb cooperation
1:00:14 - The UK experience
1:04:00 - MMT outside the USA
1:07:20 - wrapping up
Guest:
Host: Dr. Joeri Schasfoort @Money & Macro
Professor Stephanie Kelton
If you appreciate my work, consider buying me a 'coffee' at ko-fi.com/moneymacro or supporting long-term for membership benefits via: www.patreon.com/moneymacro
Here's the thing though, the progressive politicians around the world were pushing the pandemic hysteria. Therefore, they were most responsible for the supply chain issues. I agree with here about the corporations. That's why oil companies were having record profits during the pandemic, because they were trying to hide price gouging in inflation. But again, it's because of progressive hysteria over the so called pandemic, that caused inflation. In addition to that, the pandemic lockdowns, destroyed hundreds of thousands of small businesses in the U.S.
The problem with discussions of inflation is that people are not taking into account how monopolize the US economy has become.
Ronald Reagan stopped enforcing the Federal antitrust laws 50 years ago. Every major industry in the United States has add a steadily decrease in number of corporations participating. There are the maximum of four or five players in every major industry. This sort of consolidation allows price-fixing without any actual communication between the companies.
When inflation was first announced after the onset of the covid pandemic, I looked up what was happening with corporate profits.
Corporate profits were rising steadily. That is when I knew now what they were calling inflation was not actually inflation.
Inflation occurs when the cost of producing goods rises so the price for the finished good has to increase as well.
But if profits are soaring, clearly the cost of producing the good is not increasing.
So it look like most companies were using the excuse of the pandemic to increase prices.
There is no effective competition to prevent this.
At least she places inflation solely on the back of the Democrats and Joe Biden. If you are still talking about healthcare then you are talking about the complete failure of Obamacare.
You didn't do even a very basic amount of homework on the subject before you made this video. It is clear you failed to do so because if you did you would understand that Kleton made the statement just year or so before it that the inflation were seeing was result of "growing pains" in the economy and was "transient".
Now she is hiding from admitting it and pretending that MMt predicted it.
You would also have realised that MMT says all money comes from the government and the government must spend first before taxes can be paid when the reality is most (about 90% or more) is created by private bank lending and does not come from the government at all and this money is used to pay taxes such as income tax, sales taxes and excise tax.
What’s scary is knowing that she’s involved with writing monetary policy.
I feel safe knowing that you are not. Rflol
@@phil20_20 you say that now.
@@phil20_20 You sound like a turkey wishing for Thanks Giving. 😂
I’ll bet you $100 that you don’t understand the difference between monetary policy & fiscal policy.
@@katiecannon8186 Did you just google that and now feel clever?
It would be great to have Stephanie Kelton debate an economist who is against MMT.
She used to be skeptical and investigated to debunk it before becoming it’s champion according to Mosler.
MMT is a description , it isnt a policy , i just describes the plumbing , reserve adds / reserve drains etc
@@Phil_D_Waller The problem is that in reality no government is willing to raise taxes for fear of losing voter support. Therefore, the government will use inflation to deal with the debt/deficit. Printing more and more money increases asset prices which greatly benefit the top-tier wealthy people. Thus the wealth gap has widened tremendously in the recent years.
@@IKTGWIW Thats the thing , taxes are already an automatic stabiliser . No one is saying inifinite money creation, they are saying that we have the ability to create an economy for all , not for a few. I really dont know where this all got lost tbh. If sticking a few extra quid in peoples pockets to help them pay back huge debt, pay off bills, rents , mortgages etc or we could just continue to cripple people with debt and expect a booming economy with a lack of aggr demand , i dont know how you reconcile those two. thats why european countries economies are stagnating.
@@Phil_D_Waller The problem is no government will follow MMT properly. Money printing inflates asset prices and massively enriches the top-tier rich peoples while inflation causes more hardship for the middle-class and poor. The wealth gap has widen tremendously since the introduction of QE.
As a German I can only cry 😢
Yes, high inflation + no extra government investment. Truly the worst of both worlds.
same in the UK. Austerity already very visibly fucked us over after one financial crisis, and now everyones talking like doing the same thing again is the only possible solution to this new crisis.
What happened in Germany
Feel the same 😱😭🇩🇪especially since Germany IS de facto souveteIgn enough, despite the EZB, since it has a major weight
@001sander2 they gave up their monetary sovereignty and now use the Euro
The Dollar lost 25% of its purchasing power in a few years…the effect of monetary expansion is very real.
How do you know it was the deficit spending that caused it?
@@Vroomfondle1066Because its been proven through all of economic history that monetary expansion leads to inflation. Furthermore, its been exploding for 15 years. They don't control where it goes. First it went into housing, then equities, now its moved into goods and services. And you can have inflation and deflation at the same time in different sectors. The woman is a fucking brainless ignoramus, or a literal nutcase. It takes literally a read of economic history and a basic understanding of business macroeconomics to get this. What shes saying is literally fucking insane to anyone who has ever run a business or traded currency. Its the equivalent of someone who has read popular mechanics for a few years and decided they are a master mechanic. The real inflation began with the bailout of LTCM. This woman is EVERYTHING wrong with economics in the U.S.
@@Vroomfondle1066 That is monetary expansion, genius.
@lukeasacher No doubt monetary expansion had some impact, but we can’t overlook major destabilizing world events as well. The world basically cut off Russian oil supply, and simultaneously, Saudi Arabia cut production by a huge factor. Given that oil prices are literally involved in every aspect of production, agriculture, logistics, infrastructure management, etc., inflation is nearly guaranteed. The US is at an all-time high for oil production, and still only helping to fill the global vacuum left by other producers. With US consumers feeling the pain at the pump, at their grocery store, etc, it’s no wonder consumer sentiment remains so low, even as inflation is beginning to slow. We need either energy independence, or at least a reduced dependence on OPEC and specifically Saudi Arabia, who haven’t exactly done us any favors recently. Otherwise we leave ourselves open to more of these huge whiplash effects in the future.
@@lukeasacher
You just hate when our government reduces your reliance on bank loans by paying for stuff that helps you when it issues our currency.
I don’t know why so many Americans are masochistic in this way. But here you are.
Kelton is a court apologist for money printing. MMT is just a new name for the ancient practice of seigniorage which has perfect track of failure.
All money has been created out of nothing by governments and private banks since the year dot. Should they all be apologising too?
And yet many economies like the old monarchies had split sticks as credit that was a debt owed and when you paid it back (you had 1/2 the split stick and the monarch kept the other), they were both then matched up and then burnt. Taxes never paid for anything. Look up the burning of parliament.
@@McfreddoTally sticks.
@@Mcfreddo Only the British monarchy, if I remember correctly. And the tally sticks... paid back with what? Gold and silver. The tally stick was a money substitute.
@@lukeasacher You have 1/2, the debt giver has the other. When you pay your loan, by a service or product, both were destroyed when matched up. It is not only the British monarchy , you are incorrect. Some small nations used stones, for example. Note money or on a number on a computer has no intrinsic value. Gold is the same. It has no intrinsic value. The treating of it as valued, has to be created. Governments, aka the central bank, is the creator and you pay tax on it and that gets you to treat it with value. In the end, it's all about a ledger balance.
The deficit inflates the prices of assets. The fact that it is not calculated in the CPI obscures the effects of public spending. You may call it inflation or currency debasement but it does not change the fact.
...then the asset holders demand extra profit from real goods and services as rents and dividends based on the inflated values- that's how it manifests in the CPI.
*the so called deficit would only inflate assests is it was spent on those assets (eg housing) to bid up their prices.
Which happens.
Right! Thanks mate🤜
lol.
Never mind that banks create most of our money supply.
Banks think you’re adorable because you have no idea where the dollars you use to pay your bank back come from.
I would really like to see push back on what shes saying.
Absolutely! She just asserts and asserts ideas and her main support seems to be that politicians love to spend money to accomplish their noble and righteous objectives so it is all good.
Just listen to the austrian school economists, they've completely debunked MMT
@@RaRd8z It appears that the Austrians are debunked by MMT.
@@livingmombirth4005
With what statements do you have a problem/would like to see her pushed?
@@RaRd8z
Can you name me an austrain school economist that debunked it, their approch to taxes hasnt seemed to have workered very well in modern times.
This is my issue. I read her book when it came out, and I agree with the basic premise, that deficit spending is acceptable, and even desirable, unless you see troubling inflation emerge. I read that and agreed completely, if you can spend money and induce productivity then you have more money chasing more goods and you should achieve growth this way. But what I see is modern monetary theorists unwilling to admit when they have printed too much, which wouldn't even be a violation of their theory. Which is why I am concerned, it seems the MMT people are using their theory to support their desire to deficit spend without limit. Here's the kicker for me, at the 16:00 mark he asks, 'would you be comfortable saying that fiscal policy played a role (in causing inflation), like 1/5th or something', and she says, 'I have not taken the effort to try to sit down personally go through and try to identify how much of the inflationary pressure... I trust people with large staffs'. She seems to be unconcerned in even examining how much the fiscal stimulus caused inflation even though she helped write the bill and wrote the book about the subject. It seems she is in violation of the strategy laid out in her own book.
Did you watch moments after that where she cited central bank analysis on how much the stimulus is likely to have contributed to inflation?
The government now issues a trillion in debt but only gets a increase in gdp of half that amount. I have a difficult time figuring how this works other than a huge increase in inflation.
She said she trusted the numbers Central banks released previously, which, fair lol
@gregbrauch not all govt spending ends up circulating and contributing to inflation. Some of its saved, not spent.
She literally says she didn't do the research herself, the central bank did, and she trusts them. And they said it contributed very little, much less than what he was suggesting. She's sharp and experienced.
The dangers of mixing fantasy and fact together.
The difference between Germans and Americans is: Germany is part of The EU Monetary Confederacy, While America is it's own Monetary Federation. The Equivalent to Germany in monetary sovereignty are US States, who do have to balance their budgets.
The United States don’t balance budgets mate.. where is the evidence for that 😂🤣
@@psychocybernetics1347 The continued solvency of most of our states? Most States in The United States balance their budgets most years. There can be a small deficit some years as long as there is a surplus next year. But the point is: for state governments, they can't just print money like The Federal Government can get The Federal Reserve to do for them. At best, they can get grants from The Federal Government, through their representatives.
@@psychocybernetics1347The federal government balances the economy not the books. He's not wrong saying the equivalent of states balancing their budgets, known as currency users.
@@psychocybernetics1347 State constitutions frequently require balanced budgets. The states don't borrow in the same way as The Federal Government. Look it up, laughing boy.
Prof Kelton claims that 1.9 Tr covid package had no effect on the ensuing inflation and that the inflation was already in place prior to this package. So where did this inflation arise - how did this inflation occur after 40 years of declining interest rates? Surely this fundamental question needs to be addressed before you implement any other economic models (e.g. MMT). If the key restraint on MMT is inflation surely you must have a full understanding of the drivers. In addition if the inflation was already in place prior to the pandemic then it was not driven by supply side constraints. Many contradictions in this chat.
MMT is the only school of economic thought which directly identifies the source of the price level: the prices government is willing to pay when it spends. All other schools can do is discuss relative prices. The source of the price level does not fully define the full prices of 'things' but acts as a base case for analysis. Sam Levey has mathematically modelled this point successfully.
Did you not watch the video? She plainly discussed this and cited empirical analysis.
Huh? she clearly stated stimulus packages have had an impact. There's just many factors involved. Plenty countries without (major) stimulus packages still suffered inflation spikes, and much higher than the U.S.
@@ericdane7769 If they were stimulus packages - that clearly implies post pandemic or during the pandemic. However the Professor claims the inflation was in place prior to the pandemic. Which, in turn, clearly negates the supply side inflation cause - as if the inflation was there before the pandemic there were no supply side effects in operation at that time. Yet Prof Kelton clearly sheets the blame of the inflation to supply side - however before the pandemic these supply side effects were not in place. But clearly yourself (ericdane) cannot comprehend this basic concept.
@@jacksonwinter5110 Yes I did. But you failed English comprehension 101. Her explanation is the whole point of my reply.
She emphatically claims that the inflation was in place prior to the pandemic - yet she sheets the blame to supply side inflation.
Therefore if the inflation was there prior to the pandemic (before the stimulus packages) there was no supply effects at that time - so this a clear contradiction to her analysis. So at least try and understand before you make stupid comments.
World historical tragedy that one of the worst communicator-presidents ended up being the first to deliver on peace-time MMT when the president he was VP to was one of the greatest communicator-presidents in U.S. history & he kept within the old way of doing things.
As a rare fiscal conservative democrat, I think that Obama left us with a path out of the debt trap by reducing the deficit to a reasonable amount. Unfortunately, the Trump tax cuts blew up the deficit and Biden didn't increase revenue much and increased spending substantially. I currently don't see a path or candidate that provides a viable future. Sigh!
Haha so true
Been waiting for this one! Thanks for putting this content together.
great interview. I’ve been waiting for an explanation like this for a while
Love these interviews! Your guests always have great insights into the economic issues of the day.
Thank you! I didn't realize my view on covid inflation had a lot of assumptions and was not well-thought out
Not sarcasm, it is actually impressive to me when people realize that bc i see so many people who seem have formed views on that based on fears aroubd money alone.
What kind of assumptions?
What was your view on covid inflation?
I thought pumping money into the system from the stimulus would just devalue the currency, but it's more complicated than that
@@therationalist234 it does, ideally, devalue the currency, which is one of the reasons for inflation. The problem is people only use their sides talking points, which is why things will never be solved. One side says money printing causes inflation, no more no less, the other side said corporate greed, just stop them and fix inflation, when in reality there’s a lot of nuance. Many different factors cause inflation, and it’s not necessarily an easy fix, especially with how us Americans are accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and our govt. is addicted to “printing money.”
I also find it funny that people talk about corporate greed like it’s something new. I’m like, ok so they just barely started being greedy?
If supply shocks are the main cause of inflation, once those shocks are over, shouldn't we get major deflation back to close to where prices levels started? Once the factory and logistics problems are fixed, shouldn't these costs go back to close to normal and then prices follow that deflation?
Deflation only occurs when there is overproduction. Production would need to explode and that is not likely with geopolitical, climate and demography problems. Although there is deflation in china because europe can't buy enough of their stuff.
no
There is no competition in the American marketplace. Ronald Reagan stopped enforcing Federal antitrust law. Every industry has been monopolized to the point where there are only three or four large corporation dominating every industry. They don't even have to talk to each other to coordinate pricing.
We wish!
@@Madronaxyz Yup!
Stephanie says a lot of interesting things. But there are also many bold statements she makes that seems to be logically weak that goes unchallenged. Among some of the things I spot are:
1. British pound lost value because they are bullied by private markets. (how?)
2. Impossible trinity is not a thing. You just need enough political will. (howw?)
3. Inflation spike is mostly from a supply shock. Stimulus only contributed a very negligible role. (there are many sources that could challenge this)
4. Inflation spike can be contributed to some price gouging (how? also, the cost of "price gouging" is loss of market share so it can only be realistically done by companies with little competition).
4. There is no way inflation came down because of interest rate hikes. The lagged effect of interests against inflation is a story people tell. (many quant models would disagree, and that's how we found the lagged effect of 6-18 months historically).
5. Spending by the private sector is not sensitive to interest rates. (weak argument. consumers could use this opportunity to start saving more)
Not saying she is wrong and would be even more interesting if she got all of those right, but I would be very interested with a follow up to these strong but unchallenged arguments.
3. Price gouging doesn't lose market share in monopolies/oligopolies. Look at companies where corporate profits massively increased. Saw one food wholesale that increased 7 fold.
4b. Reagan/Volcker would disagree that rate hikes can break inflation.
Agreed! good comments.
@@tradeprosper5002 all companies maximize their profits through pricing. What is "gouging"? Apple is the worst "gouger" of them all. That simply means they have the highest margins. The point is "inflation" happens when prices go up. You can call it "gouging" or "inflation" or whatever, but its all the same.
@@Bradm027 With apple there is a choice, people choose to buy from them for crazy prices. In an oligopoly, there are a couple companies who control the market. They all kind of realize that they can all collectively raise prices. If you have 4 people its easy to get all of them to do something, this becomes much harder the more people there are.
One case of this is with airline junk fees.
Another example is meat processing, like 4 companies control 80% of the market. If one of them raises prices, there literally isn't enough capacity that exists for all of their customers to change to their competitors (because their competitors do not have that much excess capacity). And building a factory takes years, and even longer with covid supply disruptions. Vs. if there were more players, then you wouldn't control 20% of the market in the first place, so your customers could all go somewhere else, which keeps prices low.
So if you have relatively few competitors, you are much more comfortable raising prices because there is literally nowhere else for customers to go.
Inflation is when prices go up, but why are they going up? Is it because you have no competition so you can charge more, anti-trust laws exist for this very reason. It is a market distortion and unhealthy.
@@Bradm027 Why would inflation and gouging be equivalent? By definition, gouging is when prices are raised beyond the inflation levels of a given industry. There is empirical evidence which suggests that plenty of star firms have taken advantage of COVID-related supply shocks in order to gouge prices.
To bad that you never had a chance to talk about the way we calculate inflation and what we include and more importantly what we don't. That said, good talk
26:40 Can we get the source of this study that she is referencing?
+
+
Narnia. Nobody was happy in Argentina with low unemployment and 200% annual inflation.
@@LordSesshakuArgentina has a weak economy full of oligopolies in each sector. Companies basically set prices at will, while the people with money just exchange any pretty cash for a foreign currency (dollars), and that's a recipe for debacle.
Excellent conversation! Thank you
11:30 on inflation “it’s largely gone today, since the supply side has healed” 😂😂😂😂😂
Yeah, it's gone up every month since the interview.
@@surreal6643 During the pandemic, the US had a peak MoM inflation rate of over 9%. The current rate of inflation is nowhere near that and around ~3.3% which is above pre-pandemic levels but way below pandemic levels, and prices will never come back down, no matter what, because while you would ideally run your economy at exactly 0% inflation, you have to overshoot slightly because deflation is actually super destructive to your economy, so you have to avoid it as much as possible.
@@_yonas 2 years AFTER the pandemic it was 9%. It's now at 3.4% and the last time it was that high before the pandemic was in 2011.
@@_yonas And don't forget in the year 2021, Joe Biden said "it is going to pop up a little bit and then go back down. No one is talking about his great... great... great... big. y'know."
Which means they were wrong this entire time.
@@surreal6643 The rate at which prices rise might have slowed down, but prices are still much higher than before the pandemic. All the mainstream "economists" said that inflation is transitory, that it's mostly a supply issue due to lockdowns and the Russian war. If it were a supply issue, prices would have come down to levels before the pandemic since most supply issues have been solved. What also happened since 2020? Governments printed a lot of money and continue to operate with budget deficits which means more money printing, more inflation..
Thank you - really interesting. Prof Kelton mentions an article by Narayana Kocherlakota re. the Liz Truss 'event'. Do you have a link to that article you might be able to post?
This is so exciting! I haven't listened to the entire talk yet, but the start is already great!
Did the prices go back down to pre-Covid levels? Did I miss that???😂
No one claimed we had deflation. If inflation hit zero prices wouldn't go back.
Do you even know what inflation is?
Did companies make record profits from price hiking ?!
That would require deflation which is generally considered to be bad
This was an amazing interview. Steph is apparently capable of running circles around people, it's probably one of the best macro talks specific to inflation and MMT I've heard, and you did a great job interviewing with good questions. Thank you so much! I will circle back to this one in the future!
I am very happy to hear that!
shes a mental patient...
The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
I am SO THRILLED you are interviewing Stephanie Kelton!
29:00 or military. no one ever blinks at triln dollar military spending. _JC
no problem with that. it could be argued to be too small.
the real problem is the rediculous ineffeciency of the millitary industrial complex
There is a theory that says military spending is "an investment at stabilizing currency volatility" or "price you pay to maintain reserve status".
Indeed, if you looked into history, Dutch & British used to hold reserve currencies. There are also highest military spenders during their tenure of reserve status.
The only thing negative about this brilliant talk was that it was actually too short, there was so much more to explore! Please consider inviting Kelton back onto the show for a part 2!
The deficit is excess spending. Excess spending leads to high levels of debt. High levels of debts lead to high interest expenses. High interest expenses lead to fiscal dominance and less productive debt/deficits. The US has three options:
1) Increase GDP: growth faster than government spending
2) devalue the currency and allow the debt to burden to inflate away
3) Continue servicing old debt with an ever growing issuance of new debt.
Unfortunately #1 is outside the ability of our political system, its too easy to spend more and too hard to go the other way.
Let's see. 10% inflation for one year is $2.5 trillion, which is more than $1.7 trillion. There is literally no free lunch.
MMT gives emancipation to some people only consuming but not laboring in exchange of
taking enslavement of some people only labouring not consuming.
Max Weber depicted
"Ancient Greek, Athens became pensionopolis with consuming citizens".
goods and services were produced by slaves and foreigners.
In the globalised world only political factions who have violent power to make money out of nowhere are mattered,
whereas economics is reduced to slavery like ancient Greek.
Economics tries to Analyze and model economies. MMT is not really a theory it explains how money is created by Governments with a sovereign currency. This includes Government spending more than it taxes and private banks lending money or creating money out of thin air (took me a while to get that concept straight in my head). Therefore what Stephanie is trying to explain is that we as a collective can have a world we can envision depending on our collective resources and competency, that what I think she means by capacity. What we have instead is corrupt politicians who control the money tree and launder money for their mates. It comes down to how we want to live, what is important, how we organise, it never comes down to how we pay for it. How we pay for it is how the system controls the masses, we need to become enlightened.
YES, yes, yes. You understand.
Just need to keep promoting the message
Very stoked on this talk!
There were several surreal movements in this …Kelton going on about interest revenue as an inflation channel before finally getting on to the far more obvious channel of interest expense per se, almost as am afterthought…no talk of the bank money creation mechanism which is the whole reason for monetary policy (but which is always entirely missing from MMT analysis) and finally most amazingly, no mention of oil price hikes after the Ukraine invasion which was surely one of if not the major contributor to inflation, which if I’m not mistaken was noted as such by warren Mosler when he was interviewed on this channel.
Very sharp observations. I really wanted to get into private bank money creation at the end. However, we were almost at the end of the agreed upon time and so I chose to give a nod to my hosts (being in the UK) and therefore opted to talk about the UK Gilt crisis instead. Didn't we mention Ukraine at all? I thought it was mentioned... otherwise I think it was implied as 'other shocks.'
Yes, overall I thought she made a lot of sense and I learned a lot, up until she started talking about how the Fed raising interest rates doesn't slow the economy (around the 45-minute mark). That part I disagree with.
Also, the policy recommendations where the CBO and Congress would control inflation instead of the Fed doesn't make much sense to me. Congress moves too slowly, is too political, and the fiscal tools are a lot blunter and more imprecise. Monetary/credit policy may not always work, depending on the situation, but it's a lot quicker, more precise and more flexible than trying to pass legislation through Congress. Also, in some extreme situations, fiscal policy will work better than monetary/credit policy but sometimes, fiscal policy won't work and monetary/credit policy will. Different tools for different situations.
Anyway, great interview and it was very nice of her to sit down with you for an hour, so thanks to her.
With all due respect, but it'd be questionable in terms of what you've read if you're making the argument that MMT leaves out bank money creation. Description of the monetary system, including banks, is up front and center of MMT's analysis. One of it's major proponents, Randall Wray, was a student of Minsky, co-authored the Macroeconomics text book and there's a whole chapter dedicated to the banking sector.
@@bradleywalsh8571 that could be for sure. But, it isn't talked about much in Kelton's book. So, I would have loved to talk about it with her.. Maybe next time
They can't go over everything you want lmao they touched on a lot here.
Interesting that Stefanie thinks that the consumer is resilient. Debt is at all time highs, loan delinquincies are up, bankruptcies are exploding.
Yes. But Capital accs can also cause bankrupcy, not only the public sector.
She’s referencing consumer confidence which has returned to normal rates.
@@joshuamendez9959 Confidence does not equal reality.
@@joshuamendez9959 No, it hasn't. It's almost back to the point it was when covid hit. And I mean at the end of the shutdown. When it dropped down below 90.
9:11 sorry, not an economist but isn't too much money always relative to the amount of goods? What would have hapoened without the stimulus?
Yes absolutely. Without the stimulus there would likely have been a contraction of goods and money. So, in that case you would expect more stable prices. But, a very deep recession.
@@MoneyMacroTalks but this is talking about two extremes right? Is there no stable middle ground? Would the system always run into one of those extremes or it is clear in hindsight that the stimulus was too large and it should have been smaller/slower delivered?
@@wilhelmvanbabbenburg8443 I mean you're implicitly assuming that these are both extremes - you need to ask if the stimulus is an 'extreme' before asking this question. At 16:10 "the $1.9 trillion package probably added 0.3% (ppt) to the inflation", which seems to indicate it was not a very extreme approach.
@@weirdblackcat true... My definition of extreme was a little lose... But 'strong' increase of inflation due to a 'small' impulse sounds still like the impulse was not small. By extreme I meant the state of recession (if nothing is done) or high inflation (if a stimulus is given)... I guess this shows the complex dynamics of an economy 😂
@@weirdblackcat she side stepped the question there with that answer, his question wasn't how much affect did Biden's spending package increase inflation, it was how much did the fiscal spending as a whole lead to inflation. either she consciously lied by omission or didn't understand his question. but there were many times that she didn't really answer his questions and answered a different question that was never asked. she came off negatively to me
She talks about how monetary policy is blowing out the deficit but ignores what inflation will occur when demand spikes if rates drop before more stress is placed on the labor market. Very selective attention.
The debt is still dangerous any way you look at it. You have to look at it in more simple terms. The stimulus was necessary, but the Fed realizes that the deficit, and thereby debt, is unsustainable. It must be paid down to avoid a downward spiral of interest payments causing uncontrollably increasing debt. The best scenario is to bring up GDP more than to increase taxes on the lower income classes. Higher taxes on the wealthy were already proven sustainable before we got into the oil wars during the Carter years. I still think Reagan's goal was to break the Soviet economy. We did not need to give tax breaks to the rich for any other legitimate reason.
Neither of these people seems able to understand that in relation to "inflation" (defined as rising prices), what counts is NOT the magnitude of the deficit, but rather how the deficit is financed.
If we finance the deficit by taxing or by borrowing from individuals or foreigners, deficits have pretty much no effect on rising prices.
If however we finance the deficits by raising the ratio of the amount of money in circulation to GDP (monetary inflation), that has massive influence on rising prices, simply by the Law of Supply and Demand!
Sure, but if we finance the deficit by taxing, there is no deficit because the deficit is spending minus taxation. And if the Ukrainian wheat harvest fails for some reason, say Russia invaded for instance, then the global wheat price is going to rise no matter how perfectly domestic governments balance their budgets. And thus the prices of all products made from wheat will rise too. That too is the Law of Supply and Demand.
@@DerekRoss1958 Absolutely correct.
More the fact that the law of supply and demand has 2 sides. If we increase supply as we increase demand there's no problem.
And basically, if people can afford things they used to not be able to afford (could be a car or food, or anything else) prices will go up with more people competing for the same thing.
However, there is the question of whether sustained high demand would increase manufacturing capacity and thus there would be more supply and your problem would largely go away.
you have no clue how finance work, nonsense talking
Taxing and borrowing from individuals, etc has limits... You can only tax up to 100%, and then what? Increasing the money supply has theoretically no limit...only inflation and political destabilization can keep them from pushing too much either one of those strategies. MMT is nonsense in the end anyways.
Good one…lots to think about and observe going forward.
So deficits can work as long as the spending is into a productive asset.
What happens when the asset is a non productive boondoggle ?
Hopefully we don’t go there 🙏
Note inflation is coming down but the prices have not come back down they are just rising less. How can this be a good policy ?😳
The stimy money went into housing and the stock market also both of which went up up up.
Seems to me the stimy worked for those who held assets and stocks. Mainly the rich. Not so much for us working class folk who now have to struggle for pay rises or worse still if we are on fixed income pensions. 😤 these people understand what was done and are mad.
Savers officially subsidized financial markets in the 1980’s with the accords that were negotiated by so called conservatives….. workers do best right before the Wall Street rugpulls
the entirety of the economy is run for the benefit of the rich. ironically to your beliefs, it is actually investment in non profitable ventures, like mass housing or free/affordable child care which benefit real human beings. the profit incentive and a profit based economic model bars this from happening
@@hajihajiwa agreed but these things are not free and must be paid for. They should at least be able to cover their investment cost and operating cost.
No need to worry about boondoggles because we all know the the US federal government is incredibly capable at making sure that the money that they allocate goes to only the most worthiest of causes that will ensure the well being and prosperity of the economy, the country and the ordinary citizen.
Just wanted to notify Joeri that Stephanie Kelton is featured in a documentary called "Finding the Money," which is available on demand on May 3rd.
Thank you Sam
Thanks samkonto!
*if china had a minimum wage in line w inflation, wouldnt that fix any defltn spiral home mkt concerns?* or indeed any country? _JC
Another Excellent video on "Was MMT right About Inflation? Kelton argues that the inflation we are currently experiencing is not caused by government spending, but by supply chain disruptions and other factors. She also argues that MMT can be used to address these supply chain disruptions by investing in infrastructure and other productive capacity.
companies did that during covid already when they found weaknesses in their suppliers... but are you talking in general level pre covid and how tightly competed those margins were that nobody would invest in supply chains.... Also as supply chains are global, how can MMT(I take she speaks from government viewpoint, not private company) help with bottlenecks eg in asia some location , some part for a product is having issues lets say in japan that producer.
She is insane. There's a general consensus about massive stimuli as being one of the primary causes of inflation. She is either lying or ignorant. Proposing MORE MMT to solve the problems that MMT policies created in the first place is complete madness.
@@zafiroshinit can help somewhat.... 0% inflation or deflation and 0% interest rates are toxic for economy despite look good.... though not many mention how many trillions was given to wallstreet and regular people got peanuts ion stimcheck and also 6-9months later when inflation and shortages had already hit. Some economists suggest stagnation, halted economy it helps to give regular people stimchecks, but ofc it doesnt help if same time companies get stock market boost and can hoard houses and other products out of market or raise pricelevels substantially for people. Although housing market is somehow not good now, they need to find targeted fixes for that. What you says suggests they deliberate made inflation+supply shock, coz it flows back to companies profits(many company did record results 2021).
@@zafiroshinConsensus doesn’t mean truth. Consensus under kne set of circumstances may prove to be untenable under different conditions. Kelton and MMT acknowledges what the “consensus” baseline is and then sets about debunking it. Kelton started off being an MMT sceptic, so it’s not like she was this rabid MMT lifer. You say she’s “insane” but tell us what exactly about her views you find so objectionable? If it’s simply “well, it’s against the consensus” then that isn’t persuasive at all.
"Kelton argues that the inflation we are currently experiencing is not caused by government spending, but by supply chain disruptions and other factors. " so as long as those dont move, we can print infinity money and inflation wont happen!
There's something to what she said about "seller's flation". Europeans forget that when the Euro replaced national currencies, prices actually went up overall as sellers got away with simply rounding up prices. Why? Because they could easily get away with it, many had already expected it beforehand.....
Kelton's comments at 51.53 about te national debt - " At some point the debt is large enough... there is a risk ." That is despite her previously often repeated statement that the government can quote:- 'never run out or money' and 'never go broke' and 'pay for whatever is for sale in U.S.dollars.' The two statements contradict each other which is an all common thing in MMT that shows it is poorly thought out and largely just a wishful fantasy designed to support a political grab for power.
Great information as always. Loved your Guest!
Have you thought about doing a piece on Ingo Sauer's recent paper on the influence of the central banks assets on inflation?
She talks a lot of "supply management", supply constrained economy.... dont know US that much but in europe we have one aspect of this which is often in imbalance and nobody seems to account it: if you bring more immigrants to do work (understandable from business side), that puts demand in housing. Idk how this applies to more complex examples but I take whole economy is complex web like this with lot of moving parts.
Yep, this immigration phenomenon is happening all over Europe and there are some people who still deny it.
i love this point because the answer is so simple in common sense but impossible under a profit based economic model. in a sane world, you simply build more houses and expand public transit in a smartly planned way which incorporates the new communities into existing local economies.
this is however incongruent with profit, it is not profitable to build smartly planned cities which are economic drivers long term because they hurt short term profit and because migrants are poor, thus undeserving on anything in todays neoliberal global economy
@hajihajiwa and thus we need social governmental investments in people, that still allow them to be free.
What a beautiful conversation, in the context of India, this is such a beautiful topic to have
This discussion is ignoring the Federal Reserves actions over the last few years that gobbled up private debt, the amount of private debt reversed contributed to Inflation
Exactly - Government creates debt and passes it on to the public because government is net borrower of the public's money - taxation and deficit spending and more of that tax to pay for the debt.
You are right that I would have loved to talk to her more about the effects of QE. Most research indicates it contributed only a little to inflation because it created money,(reserves) that could only be spent on financial assets, potentially contributing to asset price inflation.
You're such a good interviewer, man. Great questions and exploration of the concept. I don't often listen to podcast style stuff, but really enjoyed this one. Thanks!
Thank you so much. Very happy to hear that
@@MoneyMacroTalks How is it that you only reply to those who flatter you? It is so revealing of your thoughts.
@@Rob-fx2dw I am also happy to reply to constructive criticism. But, I indeed tend to ignore negative comments that don't contain any arguments or are rudely formulated. This comment policy has been inspired by the academic tradition in the Netherlands where criticism is encouraged, but only it it is constructive.
@@MoneyMacroTalks I asked simple straight question. You have not replied to it.
You say ypu are happy to reply to constructive criticism but who decides what is constructive ?
You or some independent body? Isn't that rather arrogant if it is you by pretending your motives are morally superior ?
@@Rob-fx2dw i should add. Sometimes I simply miss a question. I'm only human
Love this stuff. I'm intrigued by MMT and I do think that it's been proven sound even through the pandemic. Great interview!
Is she an economist or a politician?
I would say economist involved in politics. Pretty similar to e.g. Krugman or Larry Summers.
Why would you think there is a difference? Economics and politics are both about human interaction right?
An economist
@@MoneyMacroTalks oh, like an apparatchik.
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this very informative content cheers Frank 😊
Excellent interview questions and pace
Inflation is very simple: a government prints more money exceeding the economy's productivity increase, then inflation happens. Politics is injected when the winning party prints money to buy votes so that it can maintain its hold on power. This can go on only so long, as evidence by the malaise of 100-years in Argentina's economy, eventually leading to hyperinflation and a total collapse of the economy, as the case of the Weimar Republic.
Thank you for explaining inflation under a video where two experts discuss the topic in depth.
@@thebreadtable4880 Were you edified by their explanation? Let me know what you got out of it. I tend to get lost in their fancy explanations intended build up their self-brilliance rather than educate.
The winning party spent to restore lost productivity in the economy. That was the right thing to do. In 2009 Obama "ran out of dollars" and we got a lousy economy for years. The dismal result of the GR was part of the impetus for the effort to do better this time.
@@dankuo8561 I think you're the one trying to "build up their self-brilliance," but pop off king I ain't arguing w you all day 🤣
Climate change IS inflationary. So, spending to mitigate climate change can reduce inflation over time. Further, increasing energy efficiency is an improvement to productivity - which is a mitigant to inflation. Transitioning the economy to renewable energy inputs limits our exposure to the volatility of fossil fuel supply manipulations, which is also a mitigant against inflation.
I enjoyed your push back line of questioning
She talks about the media creating inflation expectations as a way to deflect away from the effects of government spending but doesn’t acknowledge how government spending helps feed into the narrative of inflation expectations.
At the 57 nin. point Prof. Keltion says that the central banks need to find better tools to regulate the economy. I've been a lay supporter of mMT for 12 years now., just so you know where I'm coming from. I have suggested that if the Fed cuts interest rates to 0.1% and maybe sets a -0.1% rate on reserves (which together makes the difference 0.2%), then the Fed needs some new tool to regulate the macroeconomy. It would be better if it had a Direct effect, and not the indirect effects and sometimes opposing effects that interest rates have. So, I have proposed that the Gov. have a variable "UBI", so call it "Universal Income Support Payment Program", and give the job of changing it to the Fed. For example, if it were set $100/week and it was paid to or for kids also, then that is (if the population is 340M people) $34B/week or $1.77T/year of additional income, less what taxes take back. If the Fed changes it by $10 up or down, this reduces it from $1.77T to $1.69T/yr or increases it to $1.95T/yr. Note that its purpose is not to give people a living income, but to allow the Fed to fine tune the demand side of the economy with direct payments, sort of like the stimulus checks.
With the fols standard, this program was unthinkable, and without computers it was impossible to do. Now with fiat currencies and computers it is at least possible to debate it
That's how you get hyperinflation. First of all, if the interest is close to 0% then the cost of money is negligible and asset prices will increase faster and faster. Then, by giving people "free" money all you do is telling them it's okay to depend of the government. Sure that 400$ a month is not much, but it won't stop there. The inflation caused the the first year or first few years will push people to ask for more which will revise it to 500$ a month or 600$ and so on and so forth.. 10 years down the line when people are getting 1500$ dollars a month will wonder why have prices gone up so much and the lefties will still say because of corporate greed and MMT-ers will still say it's a supply chain issue..
I don’t dispute MMT But I think that it will only work in the US due to the reserve currency status. If other country’s were to use MMT they run the risk of losing control of their currency hence inflation consequences.
If the US is the only Country that can FULLY utilise MMT then that would likely send the rest of the world into a depression through high interest rates (and the need to maintain control of their currencies). Very scary for the rest of the world me thinks but the USA probably aren’t going to worry about this too much until the rest of the world are forced to cease the usage of the USD to try to save their economies.
Not true. It currenly describes the functions in many different countries, like the UK, Australia, Japan, Canada and many others.
@@BridgeTheRetirementGap Why not true? Once a Country depletes its foreign reserves defending its currency then it’s all over! - you can’t MMT foreign reserves!
We too will eventually lose control. MMT is great in the short term, you get to spend above your means, everyone loves it! But in the very long game it will destroy our economy. So eat drink and be merry…
Greater and greater debts start to limit the options of those trying to keep the system going. Eventually it will crash.
@peterdorahy8331 Only matters if you need foreign reserves to defend your currency. A country which doesn't need to import food or energy can manage perfectly well. Life might get a bit less pleasurable when it can't import luxuries but life will continue as long as the essentials are covered. Hence why Russia is able to ignore sanctions so effectively but Venzuela couldn't.
@@rl192Nope MMT says that you can't live beyond your means. It says that if there's a food shortage then you're in trouble until your farmers grow more. Living beyond your means only happens when you are eating more than the country is growing. Or using more energy than the country can produce. The inflation caused by a food shortage or an energy shortage are signs that you're living beyond your means. But the money and taxes are essentially just a way for the government to reward people for growing more food or producing more energy and penalizing people for eating or using more than their fair share.
I recently saw a two part interview Professor Christian Rieck (a mathematician focusing on game theory) did with Ingo Sauer (an economist). They were discussing Ingo's research into hyperinflation. Both parts are in German, so most people won't understand them, but the research paper is in English. Can you look into this and give us your thoughts? Because Ingo has some pretty compelling evidence of why the text books are wrong on the mechanics of hyperinflation and why both MMT and it's critics focus on the wrong data points. Would love to have a third party viewpoint on that stuff.
It would make my day to have a federal reserve board lackey debat Peter Schiff On MMT, gold, and who will pay for ssi and 34t usa debt at intrest.
Inflation was higher than 9%. That is a manipulated figure not taking in account the increase in energy rent housing in general. It also does not measure food. It is ridiculous to take away the three most important things that a person needs to exist.
Sellers’ inflation has been proven to be the greatest cause of the post-Covid inflation. Price gouging on top of supply chain issues.
Source?
you are drinking the coolaid are not you? ah?
@@guydreamr The work of Isabella Weber
@@milo-qh7cv when did academic research become Kool-Aid® for you?
@@hatuxka What work, and what part of that work specifically?
Thank you so much for bringing up Stephanie and thus further promoting MMT🙏🙏😎🇩🇪
good one! i am not a pro and i have not understood it all, but stephanie seems like she knows what she is talking about.
maybe maybe not.. most economist give the impression they know what they
are talking about but you could easily find 100 economist who would argue she is
completely off base with your analysis.. so the question is what good are economist..
the answer.. no good
If the Fed had done nothing when inflation reached 9%, inflation expectations would've exploded and not be as well anchored as they are today.
The 2% inflation target is still hilarious since it's based on "vibes" LOL
It's not. 2% is the target because it gives central banks a safety net in case of deflation from a recession. This is because deflation hits an economy harder than inflation, so trying to keep some amount of inflation is seen as a good thing.
I for one don't agree with this outdated beliefs and believe it should be updated. I think 0.5-1% is a better inflation goal than 2% when employment is still high in large developed economies, because they have less variation. 0.5% gives enough of a buffer in case of a recession, but if you're a small developing economy, 3-4% should be the inflation goal.
@@Danielle_1234I would think if the US ever gets back to early post-World War Two levels of wage hikes and production growth, including levels of tax investment bringing lots of money into the private sector from public projects with many times a return per each dollar spent, a 3 to 4% inflation rate could become a new normal. Though perhaps not particularly harmful as everyone gets used to it over time. At least if the supply side is continually stressed for a while by high demand.
That high of a rate might not be such a bad thing in an accelerated economy. Then if the economy slows down there's room to cut rates closer to 2% keeping things stable and perhaps helping peoples dollars going a little further.
@Danielle_1234 Right so the size of the "safety net" is basically based on "vibes"...
What about Switzerland with their 0% inflation target?
The mistake that MMT economists made in their inflation analysis during Covid was in assuming that the new money would remain distributed within the 'economy of real goods and services'. It never does. It 'floats upwards' to the shareholder elites, who, having more money than they can spend on 'real goods and services'', spent it on inflating the price of pre-existing real estate and stock-market assets. Then they demanded rents and dividends based on the new inflated asset values. This is the actual cause of 'greedflation'.
This was entirely predictable and government should have pre-empted it by simultaneously applying super-tax onto the highest tax-bracket until all the new money was recovered and either recycled into the bottom end of the economy or debt paid down.
I'll take "things you'd say if you've never listened to an MMT economist for 30 seconds"
This is an EXCELLENT discussion, and reminds me of a counter-intuitive fact about economies: a wealthy economy where everyone can afford lots of stuff is consistent with low prices. A poor economy where very few people can afford stuff is consistent with very high prices.
“Without further ado” is a UA-cam cliché
her apparent bias towards the current administration in her speech makes me question anything she says. not that she's necessarily wrong. but she sounds like she clearly wants to push that the economy is doing great.
you can tell that she's not really answering his questions forthright and she is shifting the framing of her answers to respond to a question that was never really asked. like when she mentioned that real wages have increased higher than the inflation rate recently, which is true, but that doesn't discount the time where inflation outstripped wage increases. the increase of real wages now doesn't mean that people should no longer feel the effects of the higher inflation, it just means in the future people will get passed this. so her blaming the media for talking about inflation as the reason for the pessimism is just not true
@@BrianShhthe media has played a big role in inflation expectations, and then how much businesses choose to increase prices. It’s well known large companies have increased prices well above their costs, and if the media is pushing up inflation expectations then higher prices don’t seem out of the ordinary.
By world standards the US economy is doing very well. The world is in a period of very low growth yet the largest economy in the world grew at 3.3%. Bidens policies are working in this regard (moslty in red states), but Americans have a very pessimistic view of their own economy on average and obviously inequality increased a lot after the pandemic.
@@Alex-fm5ke life quality for most is getting markedly worse, especially in red states.
@@BrianShh In her answer at 20:15 she literally says that it appears as if people are only now feeling the effects of economy improving/recovering and that a portion of the population still needs help.
Her point about blaming media is IMO valid, but it's a very pyschoanalytic point - it's sort of an interesting topic for a discussion but not really something you can prove or disprove.
Funny how she acuses people of reverse wngineering narratives but seems so willing to do the same while ignoring all alternative explanations.
The biggest problem I see with MMT is the fact that you’re shifting a lot of the influence over inflation to the fiscal authority, which is a super political entity. The fed is a very independent and autonomous entity, and make their decisions with little influence over third parties. A fiscal authority is super influenced over their constituents and the political party their associated with.
You are not moving the influence, you simple realise where the influence have been all the time. It is like saying that the theory on gravity stopped us from being able to jump and not fall back down, it simply explained why you fall back down.
But I might have misunderstood what you meant, if so mb
I see the issue (which remains unsolved in all other economic schools) with taxation. MMT recognises that taxation reduces the money supply and cools down inflation.
Via fiscal policies, the poor and the working class (should?) benefit more than the rich. But over a longer period, these benefits crawl up to the land/productive asset owners. Unless we have a working mechanism of taxing the rich effectively (be it land, wealth, or other taxes), in the long term the rich will always benefit from inflation and hurt the working and "middle" class.
Fiscal policies and cash handouts, without a tax mechanism to give those at the top a periodic haircut, will always remain a temporary survival solution to barely keep the people from revolting. This is not a statement against government spending, but a statement FOR better taxation mechanisms.
I dont disagree with those things.... how about interest rates... as too cheap money (Some argue previous some administrations deliberate gave that knowing it would flow to richest group) allows buying more assets while banks as gatekeepers normally prevent that from poor(working class). It is also a subsidy to richer group. Also inflation or interest rates force undeemed zombie companies to fall down and risk to realize (unless bailouts are too easy to get, nullifying this again). In financial example, other bank can buy that fallen company pieces say 10cents a dollar, thus assets dont get destroyed. This makes sure also those with lot of assets need to work on them, not just sit on them causing stagflation risk(underinvestment in economy).
Some sign of this cheap money for "rich" is how predatory lending as business model has exploded, while not adding anything more to economy, just ripping a cut from working class salaries(based on cheap lending to some companies, while taking a big cut delivering that money to retail).
Another example is rentier class explosion with ungained value gain (which you sideline in that comment how to tackle).
@@danangelakov7247
The Fed was created by the "fiscal authority" and it could be closed down by the "fiscal authority" just as easily. In fact there are members of Congress who would like to do just that.
@@DerekRoss1958 Shutting down the fed could be done as easily as passing the law that created it?
This theory assumes government spends money responsibly.
It would be great if Stephanie Kelton can explain why the astronomical debt, deficit and fiscal dominance are not a concern. What are her solutions for these issues?
I recommend you read the excellent book she wrote to explain all of these, The Deficit Myth.
@@khkommonen Unfortunately, the astronomical debt, deficit and fiscal dominance are NOT a myth!
@@IKTGWIWhousehold economics does not work the same as a country. Thatcherite economics is bunk.
@@simplypodly I am talking about the US government debt, deficit and fiscal dominance, not household. I can see many people love MMT because it's ideal for facilitating largesse from the government.
@@IKTGWIW well in the case of the Us you will never actually have to pay it back. So yeah.
Inflation was primarily due to producers recognition of stimulus allowing them to raise prices.
Greedflation. Guaranteed.
This was an excellent discussion- considering multiple viewpoints on stimulus and deficits!
What I got out of this: "the Fed's gonna drop rates tomorrow!" 🤪🤪
- 2% and THEN leave it be. Even the Fed has other tools,...
Or even 2.5% interest for a PCE of 2.5% extending indefinitely, maybe. As you mention, there is some expendable income to be had from the interest rate.
Your taking a low level semi economist and putting her on a platform.
According to her stimulus didn't create inflation because "it couldn't have"
That's the answer. So so stupid
32:54 *STEPHANIE KELTON:* “The core of MMT is supply constraints…and it's not just…taking the supply constraints as given and then avoiding allowing demand to place excessive strain on the supply capacity. It's about building capacity…”
Is it worth naming it with an acronym MMT?
Really loved this
more government spending leads to more allocation of ressources to unproductive ressources with ultimately kills groth
Exactly and makes sure that buying a house while being just an average citizen and family man becomes nearly impossible. The American dream dies with all of these shenanigans. It is interesting to me that even the founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin (who did literally print currency) knew exactly the relationship between creating too much currency and inflation. This stuff is not rocket science. Obfuscating the truth only helps those trying to get power and money temporarily that then the successful powermongers always go too far and we all suffer.
Here’s my theory for modern economics. Each administration started cooking the books to make their work look good.
You wrote a book trying to understand the nonsense.
Then policy started steering into the madness citing your book.
Then the system burnt down.
If the government pays more interest to bond holders, it is not putting money into average people’s pockets, but stoking asset prices in the financial system. Money will only get pulled out of the financial system if people sell their assets and spend it into circulation on goods and services. The people most likely to be doing this are likely to be the wealthier ones. Though I can see how higher interest paid by companies that are highly leveraged could push prices higher, because to them, it would otherwise eat away at their profit margins.
Thank you for this. I've been thinking about how backwards the Fed Policy has been and Kelton has made me realize I am of the same mind as her. The Fed should lower rates and stop creating its own housing shortage which is the main thing driving inflation right now. It's almost as if the Fed is trying sabotage the economy, but it is more likely foolishness.
Ok so I'm only part way through but I have a question Stephanie Kelton just remarked about how much better we could have done after 2008 if we'd had the courage, if that's the case how does this fare with the idea that there are zombie companies that shouldn't exist because they're not competitive but have gotten by on cheap credit, now we're getting higher interest rates we should be seeing a recession right? This is all a bit confusing for a layman and I live in the uk where we seem to be in a second of two lost decades of stagflation similar to Japan, speaking of which how does that align with what Japan saw, they have a massive debt ratio yet little growth and little inflation, are they rife with zombie companies? Is it the targeted nature of the US investments? I also saw something about increase of 560 billion dollars in irs tax collection due to the American ira.
Like I say very confusing but very interesting
This is all very high level and well above any understanding I have of economics, after all I'm just a Plasterer but thank you for doing this work it let's the cogs in my brain turn and try to understand
Ok so this is kind of addressed towards the end but not about zombie companies and why if low interest rates are good we've had such an uncompetitive country vs the USA. I can't agree that Liz truss and the gilt crisis was down to a.lack of resolve I think it was clearly borrowing to allow for tax cuts, this doesn't in my eyes go against what she's saying but actually agrees with it in that earlier she was talking about the need for good management essentially and this was a bit of a banana Republic way of thinking.
So if I'm following correctly how does this.line up with the idea that in say the uk the bank of England doesn't need to be independent, I mean it wasn't unto the 90s as far as I know.
I think you should keep in mind people like her don't seem to consider profits to be an important part of the equation in assessing the economy. Just "spending." Efficiency altogether gets kind of squeezed out of their discussions.
Thanks!
Imagine if I said wait you mean writing rubber checks could have consequences.
To the convo around 26:00 - i think one thing missing is that high inflation it typically followed by worse times. So people’s current happiness might not be the best metric.
Like 5% inflation for a year or two is chill. But significantly higher inflation or 5% inflation for 10 years is less chill. And usually the measures required to reduce inflation also cause unemployment.
So inflation isn’t the root of all evil, but fear of it isn’t unfounded.
Good content! I’ll have to come back to finish it tho
Just want to start a discussion, if countries phase out USD on their trade and currency reserves, can we really say don’t worry about the deficit and increasing money supply?
Underrated moderation here. Well done sir. Subscribed!
if supply chains cant be managed, that company should fail (or Gvt best take over if that sector has been allowed to get to largely under multi natl corp control) _JC
Great show. What's never talked about is if the stimulus money was not pumped into the economy. Would the economy have come rebounding back as quickly and as strong as it did. Instead of dealing with inflation the problem would of been continued double digit decline in GDP and unemployment.
Mmt applies when a country has money sovereignty meaning it issues debts in its own currency, and has control of its currency.
It does Not matter if a country has no foreign debts because it's money will continue to fall in purchasing power if too much is created to fund governrment spending. What will happen is the price of imports will continue to rise (like the price of local goods) due to the increasingly adverse exchange rate when the economy has more money nut no more goods to match.
@@Rob-fx2dw unfortunately prices of goods and services will rise regardless if the currency is in a state of inflation or deflation, inflation is just a easy scape goat for justifying price increases because under capitalism line must go up (personally if you think the government creating money increases in prices you must also believe there is a fucking Jewish cabal running everything) If you want evidence look at the Yen which has been under a state of deflation for 25 years and prices have only increased during that time, also your forgetting or ignorant of the role taxes which is to control inflation.
@@Iandar1money “printing” will lead to inflation. It’s not the only component, but it is a big piece of the puzzle.
The market wants deflation, the fed wants inflation.
And inflation is a tax in itself.
I would suggest looking up NBER and there information on the causes of inflation.. First, all the MMT people said inflation was transient. Here we are years later and inflation is still hear. The reason for this is the early stages of inflation were do to supply issues. Over time inflation stayed because of demand issues. The reason the MMT people were not able to predict lingering inflation is because they dismiss the 6 trillion dollar stimulus.
NBER states
"The contribution of tight labor markets to inflation was initially quite modest. But as product market shocks have faded, the tight labor market and the resulting persistence in nominal wage increases have become the main factors behind wage and price inflation. This source of inflation is unlikely to recede without macroeconomic policy intervention."
The MMT can not accept the truth because it contradicts their theory. If you theory cannot predict what will happen then it is useless. They failed to predict inflation and now we are stuck with the negative consequences of people who deny reality.
Interesting point around 55:00 - she’s arguing that to solve housing shortages we need rates to stay lower so that housing costs and rent can increase?
I haven’t heard others say this and curious - is that a common viewpoint that to make housing more accessible we need housing prices and rent to INCREASE?