What determines the price level is a theoretical topic that pops up in Mosler's White Paper on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT - link to my discussion). Mosler's argument is that only MMT provides a proper understanding of price level determination. That is a strong claim, and difficult to assess. However, the discussion of price level determination is a distinctive part of MMT, and should receive greater prominence in discussion....Bond Economics
The main lesson I want to draw from this post is (excluding being autarkic/poor or being in a monetary union):
If a country wants to maintain a fixed exchange rate, the country must accumulate a lot of foreign reserves to be sovereign (or maybe some capital controls?)
If a country wants to have floating exchange rates, it must convince its trading partners (or its trading partners’ trading partners) to hold its national currency as foreign reserves.losinterest
With human survival on the line the message needs to be loud, clear and repeated ad nauseam:
- The spending of a government like the UK which is a sovereign currency issuer is not constrained by its ability to collect tax. In other words, it is not like a household budget which needs income before it can spend. Whilst it is a good idea to review global corporate tax rules as a mechanism to redistribute wealth and resources more fairly Christine Lagarde’s claim that doing so will allow governments to spend on public services is just a part of the same orthodox narrative which prevails and is incorrect.
- A government which is a sovereign currency issuer like the UK cannot run out of ‘fiscal fire power’. The IMF’s claim that the public debt is so large as to constrain future spending to deal with future recessions is quite simply a falsehood. What will constrain the spending of any government, however, are the resources it has at its disposal. Its public policy choices define their distribution, how they will be used and in whose interests. A government’s economic record must be judged, not on its monetary discipline, but whether it served public purpose and created economic and social well-being. There is no other measurement.
- A currency-issuing government like the UK doesn’t have to issue debt in order to cover its deficit and the bond markets can never bankrupt such a nation. When the government sells bonds, it can always service those liabilities provided they are denominated in its own currency. As Professor Bill Mitchell says, ‘The bond markets are supplicants not a source of spending capacity’.
China needs to keep growth high enough to maintain social stability, but also must preserve external stability via the renminbi’s exchange rate. How China manages its currency during its economic policy shift could have important global consequences.
There is nothing more crippling to a bold policy agenda than the myth that the government can run out of money. This myth is behind every But how will you pay for it? objection to proposals such as a Green New Deal and Medicare for All. New House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has even proposed instituting self-defeating PAYGO (pay as you go) rules, which would require all new government spending to be matched with increased revenue, wrongly prioritizing the balancing of the budget over the well-being of the public.
Dispelling this myth is at the heart of an economic approach that is rapidly gaining a global following, known as modern monetary theory (MMT). MMT stresses that, in the modern world, where government-backed currencies are no longer backed by gold or other commodities, federal governments can’t run out of financial resources. Unlike states and municipalities (which have hard constraints on spending), for the federal government, all funding shortages are artificially created. Understanding this changes everything—from the economic possibilities before us to what the public can demand from our government.
Pavlina asserts that an ideology of fiscal rectitude, embodied in the How will we pay for it? mantra, places impossible barriers before progressive public spending initiatives. For a number of reasons, however, this isn’t quite right.…
There are a bunch of ways to justify additional public spending without recourse to MMT....In These Times
The rising popularity of modern monetary theory (MMT) has inevitably brought misconceptions. Critics across the political spectrum often claim that MMTers want sovereign governments to “just print money” with no concern for the national debt or, as Max B. Sawicky suggests, inflation. Some, especially on the Right, point to Venezuela and Zimbabwe as classic cases of hyperinflation.
But MMT points to a different primary cause of inflation in developing countries: not domestic spending, but foreign debt and a resulting lack of “monetary sovereignty.”...
President Trump banned a CNN reporter only to find his position overturned by the judicial system. Well CNN is guilty of at least one thing – publishing misleading and alarmist economic reports about Japan. In a CNN Business article last week (November 13, 2018) – Japan’s economy has a $5 trillion problem – readers were told that the Bank of Japan has no “dwindling options to juice growth if a new crisis hits” because “it’s now sitting on assets worth more than the country’s entire economy”. The real story should have been that the Bank of Japan continues to demonstrate the categorical failure of mainstream macroeconomics and, conversely, ratify the core principles of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). That is what the Japanese experience since the early 1990s tells us. And all the stories about special cases; cultural peculiarities, closed markets, etc that the mainstream economists wheel out when another one of their predictions about how Japan is about to sink into the sea as a result of its public debt levels, or that interest rates are about to go through the roof because of the on-going and substantial fiscal deficits; or that inflation is about to accelerate because of the massive monetary injections; and more, are just smokescreens to divert our attention from the poverty of their analytical framework. The Japanese 10-year bond trade is called the ‘widow maker’ because hedge funds who try to short it lose big. The Japanese monetary system is my real-time, non-linear economic laboratory which allows all the key macroeconomic propositions to play out live. And MMT is never very far off the mark. Try juxtaposing New Keynesian theory against Japan – total dissonance....Bill Mitchell – billy blog
The debt limit in the United States is currently not an object of worry, but it represents one possible avenue to default. From the perspective of a non-American, it is rather difficult to understand how such a strange custom could arise. This article outlines very briefly the history of the debt limit, and then moves to discuss the risks associated with it. This issue underlines the argument that default risk in floating currency sovereigns is political risk, not financial....Bond Economics
I have been toying with an idea of writing a book with the title "How Can a Floating Currency Sovereign Default?" As a follower of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), this is a bit of a joke, since the text of the book would just be: "They can't." The book can then be submitted to the World's Shortest Book Competition.
Thinking about this has led to me to the realisation that the usual way of discussing sovereign default is inherently defective. (This criticism extends to my earlier book Understanding Government Finance, unfortunately.) The usual technique is to describe the mechanisms for default, look at some models, and argue why a default is unlikely. This then runs into a hurricane of whataboutery - what about the external constraint, Russia, Iceland, etc.
I think we need to follow a different tack, and I expect to turn that into a somewhat longer book....
Sometimes there is clarity. Like when the Koch brothers-funded report on US health care came up with the ‘wrong’ conclusion – that is the right conclusion – $US2 trillion dollars worth of right conclusion. And like when a hard-core German economist breaks ranks and lays out the case for scrapping the Eurozone. Clarity. In the past week there have been some notable contributions to the debate about the viability of the Eurozone. Two German academics, coming from opposite directions, basically reach the same conclusion – the EMU is dysfunctional and prone to crisis and poor outcomes. And then in the same week, a third German, an economist basically breaks ranks with the Europhile reform lobby (neoliberal though it is) and sets out in fairly clear terms how the distrust between Member States is so high that reforms will always be cheated on and the intent derailed. He opposes the creation of a federal fiscal capacity because weak nations would overstate the extent of recession to get more money. Further, more money would be forthcoming to these nations as a perverse ‘reward’ for failing to deregulate their labour markets. His arguments demonstrate without doubt why functional reforms will not be possible in the EMU. It is time (way past that) to dissolve the disastrous experiment in an orderly manner.For those paying attention to goings-on in the EZ. Bill catches us up on the latest iteration of the debate, which is starting to shift toward the "this is not working and isn't workable" POV. The Germans are still being Germans and insisting on ordoliberalism.
In examining the implications for an exit from a currency union, one of the issues that arises is the proportion of public debt that is issued under foreign law. This is a separate issue to the implications of foreign-currency denominated debt. Both issues are problematic and compromise a government’s capacity to remain solvent. I covered the former issue to some extent in my 2015 book – Eurozone Dystopia: Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale – when I was considering different strategies for exit. There has been some further research on the question of foreign law debt issuance by the ECB and its Working Paper No. 2162 – Foreign-law bonds: can they reduce sovereign borrowing costs? – published June 2018, has relevance. It is clear that a government reestablishing its sovereignty has the upper hand, especially if it has issued debt under its own legal system. Which is why the likes of the IMF and the European Commission has been keen to increasingly pressure governments to issue debt under foreign laws under the ruse that this is a show of faith to the private bond markets. Once again the increasing bias towards foreign-law debt is all about privileging private capital over the interests of citizens in national states. What is absolutely clear is that a sovereign government should never issue debt instruments under any legal system other than their own. What is even clearer – such a government has no need to issue any debt at all.
Contrary to Western claims Russia in 2017 did not ‘run out of money’…
What is extraordinary is not that Russia has not run out of money. It is that supposedly serious people in the West ever thought it would.
The dismal truth is that no economic catastrophe in Russia is too farfetched to prevent some people in the West predicting it, whilst there is never any penalty for these people when regular as clockwork the predicted economic catastrophe fails to happen.The problem for Russia is that the Russian government think that this is a possibility to be guarded against.
The only difference between the money system we’ve imagined and the one we are actually using is the terminology we apply to it. We call the government’s particular fiat-money “U.S. dollars.” We call the “Citizen’s Net Gain” our federal budget “deficit.” We call the savings accounts the government makes available to citizens and businesses “Treasury bonds”—and we imagine the government is “borrowing” the dollars being deposited in them. Finally, we call the amount of fiat-money that has been sequestered in the Treasury bond savings accounts our “national debt.” Other than these minor differences in terminology, our American money system is exactly the fiat-money we’ve just imagined....New Economic Perspectives
According to ex-minister, the country will be forced to widen the use of the national currency in payments. "This sanctions story creates huge risks for transactions in more stable currencies. This will trigger the use of the ruble even if it turns out more expensive," he said.Russia should look east to China rather than looking west. China has this figured out.
One criticism of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that I hear very often is that it applies only to the US or the countries with hard currencies that can issue bonds on international bond markets....econoblog 101
The recent internet debates about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) have been interesting, but the various critics of MMT have largely missed the elephant in the room: automatic fiscal stabilisers. In my view (which may not reflect the official "MMT Party Line"), one of the keys strengths of MMT is that it is largely built around the importance of automatic stabilisers, and institutional details. The conventional view is to acknowledge the existence of automatic stabilisers, but otherwise pretend that they have no effect on the economy….Bond Economics
As I said, Italy, is now experimenting with paying for public services with tax credits. Presumably, this is happening because Italy doesn’t possess enough Euros to pay its citizens to provide all the goods and services needed to maintain and run the public sector of its social economy. And Italy can’t “create” the additional Euros it needs because that prerogative is the exclusive right of the EU Central Bank which Italy, even as a sovereign member of the EU, has no control over. But, as the news article explains, Italy still needs to have the grass mowed and the weeds pulled in its public gardens. So it has decided (out of desperation, the article implies) to pay the gardeners with tax-credits. The gardeners are willing to do the work in exchange for the government’s tax-credits, because it means the Euros they earn (in other ways) can then be used to purchase goods and services rather than for paying their taxes. So, in practical terms, it is “just like” getting paid in Euros.
This, in fact, is way more interesting than it seems. In fact, it might even be mind-expanding! Here’s why:Nice post that lays out a lot clearly in a few simple words. Well done.
