Showing posts with label overt money financing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label overt money financing. Show all posts

Friday, September 21, 2018

John Weeks — Why the public debt should be treated as an asset


Overt money financing.

Open Democracy
Why the public debt should be treated as an asset
John Weeks | Professor Emeritus, School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London, and author of 'Economics of the 1%: How mainstream economics serves the rich, obscures reality and distorts policy', Anthem Press

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Rusvesna — Russian Central Bank buys 100% of the gold mined in Russia


This not only adds to gold reserves but it also pumps rubles into the economy without "debt financing" or taxation to "balance the budget."

Fort Russ
Russian Central Bank buys 100% of the gold mined in Russia
Rusvesna - translated by Inessa Sinchougova

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Clint Ballinger — OMFG, MMT & Positive Money Get Along

The crucial fact about the vertical side is that the fact that a nation is not like a household is evident regardless of the operational details. Positive Money is wrong in their belief the current system must be changed to achieve the type of government spending they want.

However, this does not mean that Positive Money is flat out wrong. Key MMT people would be perfectly happy to spend vertically in the way Positive Money wants, which is just PQE/OMF by another name. This is especially so given that OMF procedures would be transparent and thus politically advantageous.
MMT scholars just do not believe it is remotely as urgent as Positive Money because they realize the current system is already capable of spending into the economy in the same way the PM wants to (Wray 2001, Fullwiler 2013). Also, many have rejected PM more or less out of hand because of Positive Money views or perceived views on the horizontal system [which we turn to below].
At any rate, regarding the vertical system – The crucial thing is to get the vertical system to do what is good for the economy – functional finance – regardless of the operational details.
From a political point of view it is better to have a clearer more straightforward system [PQE/OMF]. This is a substantially less fundamental problem, however, than what Positive Money thinks it is doing; in saying that, however, the practical and strategic importance of making the changes to a straightforward system perhaps should not be underestimated.
Scott Fullwiler himself has noted the fundamental agreement on vertical money issues:
“interestingly, understanding how DFM [Debt Free Money] works also illustrates the MMT view of government spending and government bond issuance. Logically we should expect that DFM supporters could join MMT in rejecting otherwise widespread concerns about government solvency, China refusing to purchase US national debt, the financial sustainability of entitlement programs, and so forth.” (Fullwiler 2014)….
Clint Ballinger
OMFG, MMT & Positive Money Get Along

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Bill Mitchell — Central banks still funding government deficits and the sky remains firmly above

There was an article in the Financial Times last week (August 16, 2017) – Central banks hold a fifth of their governments’ debt – which seemed to think there was a “challenge” facing policymakers in “unwinding assets after decade of stimulus”. The article shows how central banks around the world have been buying huge quantities of government (and private) bonds and holding them on their balance sheets. Apparently, these asset holdings are likely to cause the banks headaches. I don’t see it that way. The central banks, in question, could write the debt off any time they chose with no significant consequence. Why they don’t is the question rather than whether they will become insolvent if the values crash (they won’t) or whether the yields will skyrocket if they sell them back into the non-government sector (they won’t). Last week (August 15, 2017), the US Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board put out their updated data on Foreign Holders of US Treasury Securities. Other relevant data was also published which helps us trace the US Federal Reserve holdings of US government debt. Overall, the US government holds about 40 per cent of its own total outstanding debt – split between the intergovernmental agencies (27.6 per cent) and the US Federal Reserve Bank (12.4 per cent). In some quarters, the US central bank has been known to purchase nearly all the change in total debt. That folks, is what we might call Overt Monetary Financing and the sky hasn’t fallen in yet as a consequence.
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Central banks still funding government deficits and the sky remains firmly above
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Philip Arestis and Malcolm Sawyer — Quantitative Easing vs. Fiscal Policy

… when people pay taxes their bank accounts are debited and correspondingly the government account at the central bank is replenished. During an accounting period, government expenditure will have been funded by tax revenues received, sale of bonds to the private sector, plus the increase in central bank money....
I am not sure from reading this whether the authors hold that taxes fund spending and debt issuance finances deficits in the accounting sense of "fund" and "finance," or that such funding/financing is operationally necessary before spending can take place. The former is consistent with the MMT view, but not the latter.

From the MMT point of view, the central bank creates government liabilities by crediting accounts with bank reserves, which increases the monetary base. Funds in the Treasury's general account (TGA) do not count toward either the monetary base or the money supply. 

In the US, when the Treasury spends in accordance with appropriations, it directs the Fed to credit bank's account in the payments system with settlement balances aka "bank reserves." This increases base money. When taxes are paid, base money is reduced by that amount and taxpayers deposit accounts at banks are reduced. The spending and taxation are reflected in the government fiscal balance.

Similarly, when government securities are issues, the auction is paid for with settlement balances, the monetary base is reduced by that amount, and purchasers's deposit accounts at banks are reduced.

This simply involves crediting and debiting various accounts on the government's books (Treasury and central bank), banks' books, and bank customers books. There is no operational need for funding for the government to spend prior to spending than for banks to secure funding before extending credit by making loans and crediting deposit accounts. 

In the process, the LHS and RHS balance, which is what "funding" means in an accounting sense. For banks, the corresponding entry in a deposit account "funds" the loan. For government, the entries in accounts recording tax payments and debt issuance "fund" spending. 

With respect to government, the ratio between money creation that adds to the monetary base and money withdrawal through taxation and securities issuance that reduces the money base determines the fiscal balance. 

The difference between taxation and securities issuance is that taxation "destroys" money in the sense  that the monetary based and M1 are reduced, decreasing non-government net financial wealth in aggregate, while securities issuance shifts funds from the monetary base and deposit accounts to government securities without changing non-government net financial wealth in aggregate. Only the term changes and not the amount. 

MMT calls the issuance of government securities "draining the monetary base." It is a monetary operation that is not necessary operationally, but rather it is an optional tool operationally that is convenient for conducting monetary policy when the central bank chooses to set the interest rate above zero and is not paying interest on excess reserves. Draining the monetary base with securities issuance reduces the needs to open market operations (OMO) using repurchase agreements (repo).

However, instead of the Treasury issuing securities, the central bank could simply book loans to the Treasury directly. This is permitted in some jurisdiction, but it is prohibited politically in the US. This is a voluntary political choice that doesn't involve the US government needing to obtain funding from nongovernment in order to spend. In actuality, spending funds both tax payments in aggregate and securities purchases in aggregate, since the funds that government spends are offset on the governments' books by taxes and sale of government securities, both of which reduce the monetary base. The monetary base consists of government liabilities that only the central bank can create and that must already be available for tax payment and securities purchases. 

In this sense, government spends first which creates the funding for it similar to the way that the extension of a loan as an account receivable that is bank asset creates the corresponding funding in the form of a credit to a customer deposit account, which is a bank liability. Similarly, when government spends, the money base as a liability of the central bank increases and the TGA is debited. Debiting the TGA doesn't affect any of the measures of money.  When taxes are paid, monetary based decreases, which is the same as saying that the central banks' liabilities decrease. The TGA is credited but this credit doesn't count toward any measure of money. Thus tax payments "destroy money." The Treasury does not have money to spend. It simply has a credit that is used in determining the fiscal balance.

Based on spending appropriations and tax policy determined by the fiscal authority, generally the legislative branch, the Treasury and central bank coordinate operations to accommodate both the fiscal operations of the Treasury conducted by the central bank as the government's fiscal agent with the monetary operations of the central bank. This is coordinated so that all accounts stay in balance, which means that spending is always funded using government liabilities as the spending occurs.

The key to understanding this is that "the government neither has not does not have money." The government as monetary and fiscal authority issues the currency, determines monetary and fiscal policy, using its agents, the Treasury and central banks to carry it out in accordance with law and regulation.

Central banks are usually delegated as the fiscal agent of government having the authority and responsibility for issuing the currency. This means that the central bank is not limited in the amount it can credit to its liabilities. That is, as the currency issuer the central bank does not have to get money elsewhere. 

The Treasury does not have money either since credits to its account at the central bank do not count toward any measure of money. Moreover, the doesn't have to get money from the central bank to spend. The Treasury directs the central bank to credit non-government accounts in accordance with the government appropriations. Like the liabilities of the central bank that constitute bank reserves, the numbers in the TGA are simply accounting entries used to compute the fiscal balance from the income statement and balance sheet and show sources and uses of funding. 

The Treasury and central bank coordinate operations to ensure that accounts balance as operations are conducted. From the logical point of view, spending must precede taxation and securities purchases, since government only accepts its own liabilities in the payments system operated by the central bank. Currency users have to get these liabilities, whereas government is the currency issuer. From the temporal point of view, accounts are debited and credited simultaneously so that they are always in balance. There is some intra-day leeway but all accounts must balance at the close. 

Another key point is that government liabilities held by non-government are non-government financial assets. Since the liability is on the side of government, these financial assets held by non-government constitute non-government net financial assets in aggregate, that is to say, non-government financial wealth the funding of which is government liabilities.

Triple Crisis
Quantitative Easing vs. Fiscal Policy
Philip Arestis and Malcolm Sawyer

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Bill Mitchell — Helicopter money is a fiscal operation and is not inherently inflationary

There was a Project Syndicate article (September 2, 2016) – The Unavoidable Costs of Helicopter Money – claiming that “In fact, there are major downsides to helicopter money”. Hmm. Should I read this article was my thought at the the time. Waste a few minutes of my life. I wondered if I could pen the article in advance and then check to see how close I was. The theme would be inflation. In that I was correct. But the author really innovated a bit and, in doing so, undermined his own argument. What we learn is fairly straightforward. If a government continues to increase nominal spending growth ahead of the growth in productive capacity then there will be inflation. The argument presented is, in fact, nothing to do with the monetary operations that accompany government spending – helicopter or otherwise. The inflation risk is in the spending. If private investment expenditure outstripped the capacity of the supply-side to produce the capital equipment demanded then the same outcome. Should we caution against such expenditure? Should be make it taboo? Obviously not.…
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Helicopter money is a fiscal operation and is not inherently inflationary
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia


Thursday, August 18, 2016

Stephen Cecchetti and Kim Schoenholtz — A primer on helicopter money

Helicopter money is not just another version of unconventional monetary policy. Using simple central bank and government balance sheets, this column explains how helicopter money today is different from what Milton Friedman imagined back in 1969 – it is expansionary fiscal policy financed by central bank money.
Vox EU
A primer on helicopter money
Stephen Cecchetti, Professor of International Economics at the Brandeis International Business School, and Kim Schoenholtz, Professor of Management Practice, NYU Stern School of Business

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Peter Cooper — ‘Overt Monetary Financing’ in Terms of Simplicity and Transparency

Government spending has two immediate and direct macro effects. It:
adds to the net financial assets held by non-government;
creates income equal to the amount spent.

This is the case whether the central bank is (A) permitted to purchase government bonds directly from the fiscal authority (‘overt monetary financing’) or instead (B) is required to buy them from the private sector (currently the procedure under “normal” circumstances in many countries). It is also true if (C) the government simply spends without issuing bonds and pays its policy rate (which can be zero) on reserve balances.
Procedure B is far more convoluted than either of the alternatives, for no real public purpose. An earlier post traces through six steps (identified by Scott Fullwiler) that are involved when the US government requires itself to match net spending with bond sales to the private sector. The effects are presented in terms of simplified balance sheets of government agencies (the central bank and fiscal authority) and members of the non-government (primary dealers, commercial banks, spending recipients).…
heteconomist
‘Overt Monetary Financing’ in Terms of Simplicity and Transparency
Peter Cooper

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Bill Mitchell — Overt Monetary Financing would flush out the ideological disdain for fiscal policy

There was an article (May 24, 2016) – Helicopter money: The illusion of a free lunch – written by three institutional bank economists (two from the BIS, the other from the central bank of Thailand), which concluded that Overt Monetary Financing (OMF), where the bank provides the monetary capacity to support much larger fiscal deficits with no further debt being issued to the non-government sector, was “too good to be true”, in the sense that it “comes with a heavy price” – summarised as “giving up on monetary policy forever“. The argument they make is very consistent with the work that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) proponents have published for more 20 years now, which is now starting to penetrate the mainstream banking analysis. However, the conclusion they draw is not supported by the original MMT proponents who would characterise OMF as a highly desirable policy development, more closely representative of the intrinsic monetary capacity of the government. The article also raises questions of what we mean by a “free lunch”, a term which was popularised (but not invented) by Monetarist Milton Friedman. Its use in economics is always loaded towards the mainstream view that government interventions are costly. But if we really appraise what the term “no such thing as a free lunch” really means then, once again, we are more closely operating in the MMT realm which stresses real resource constraints and exposes the fallacies of financial constraints that are meant to apply to currency-issuing governments.…
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Overt Monetary Financing would flush out the ideological disdain for fiscal policy
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

See also
Below we present selected excerpts from Koo's full "cost-benefit analysis" of helicopter money, and specifically the four forms it could take, and why each of them is ultimately doomed.
Zero Hedge
Richard Koo: If Helicopter Money Succeeds, It Will Lead To 1,500% Inflation

Saturday, January 2, 2016

Bill Mitchell — Bond issuance does not sterilize government spending; overt money financing is not necessarily inflationary


Question 1:

Issuing government debt reduces the risk of inflation arising from deficit spending because the private sector has less money to spend. 
The answer is False.
Bill explains why this is so.

This objection keeps coming up, it seems. This is nice short explanation to save for the occasion.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Saturday Quiz – January 2, 2015 – answers and discussion
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Bill Mitchell — Overt Monetary Financing – again

Adair Turner has just released a new paper – The Case for Monetary Finance – An Essentially Political Issue – which he presented at the 16th Jacques Polak Annual Research Conference, hosted by the IMF in Washington on November 5-6, 2015. The New Yorker columnist John Cassidy decided to weigh into this topic in his recent article (November 23, 2015) – Printing Money. The topic is, of course, what we now call Overt Monetary Financing (OMF), which simply means that all of the unnecessary hoopla of governments matching their deficit spending with bond-issuance to the private bond markets, as if the latter are funding the former, is dispensed with. That artefact from the fixed exchange rate Bretton Woods system is maintained as a voluntary procedure by fiat-currency issuing governments but only provides financial assets to the non-government sector in the form of ‘corporate welfare’. The debt issuance of debt has nothing to do with funding the spending and is used by all and sundry to attack such spending for creating so-called ‘debt mountains’. OMF brings together the central bank and the treasury functions of government into a coherent framework whereby the central bank merely credits private bank accounts on behalf of the government to indicate the spending initiatives implemented by the Treasury.…
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Overt Monetary Financing – again
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Monday, November 16, 2015

John Cassidy — Printing Money


Mostly about Adair Turner but mentions MMT.

Looks like overt money financing has gone mainstream.

The New Yorker
Printing Money
John Cassidy
ht Mark Thoma at Economist's View

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Adair Turner — The Case for Monetary Finance – An Essentially Political Issue

My aim in this paper to assess the possible and appropriate role for monetary finance of fiscal deficits . And I will argue that all the really important issues are political, since the technical issues surrounding monetary finance are already well understood (or should be) and that the technical feasibility and desirability in some circumstances of monetary finance is not in doubt . Monetary finance of increased fiscal deficit will always stimulate aggregate nominal demand: in some circumstances it will be a more certain and/or less risky way to achieve that stimulation than any alternative policy lever: and the scale of stimulus can be appropriately calibrated and controlled – there is no knife edge nonlinearity which makes dangerously high inflation inevitable. 
But it is also clear that great political risks are created if we accept that monetary finance is a feasible policy option: since once we recognise that it is feasible, and remove any legal or conventional impediments to its use, political dynamics may lead to its excessive use. The most important question relating to monetary finance is therefore whether it is possible to construct a set of rules and responsibilities which will guard against its dangerous misuse, while still enabling its use in appropriate quantities and in appropriate circumstances. But the majority of this paper is still devoted to making the technical case, since the fact of technical feasibility and desirability is still not universally accepted within the economics profession, and needs to be if we are to move on to the crucial issues of political economy.
Paper presented at the 16th Jacques Polak Annual Research Conference
The Case for Monetary Finance – An Essentially Political Issue
Adair Turner, Institute for New Economic Thinking
ht Ralph Musgrave

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Ellen Brown — Time for the Nuclear Option: Raining Money on Main Street

Predictions are that we will soon be seeing the “nuclear option” — central bank-created money injected directly into the real economy. All other options having failed, governments will be reduced to issuing money outright to cover budget deficits. So warns a September 18 article on ZeroHedge titled “It Begins: Australia’s Largest Investment Bank Just Said ‘Helicopter Money’ Is 12-18 Months Away.”…
Nice one from Ellen.

Web of Debt
Time for the Nuclear Option: Raining Money on Main Street
Ellen Brown

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Richard Wood — The failed policy response to the Global Crisis

The Global Crisis triggered a series of medium-term policy changes. This column reviews the effectiveness of some of these monetary, fiscal policies, and internal devaluation policies. Policymakers anchored their strategic thinking in paradigms that became inapplicable to the new problems. An alternative set of macroeconomic policies is suggested.
"Overt Money Financing" through direct issuance by either the central bank or Treasury.

Vox.eu
The failed policy response to the Global Crisis
Richard Wood