By Gareth Vaughan
Mainstream economics courses teach students money is a scarce resource and nature has boundless capacity to be exploited when in fact it's the other way around, argues Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) economist Steven Hail.
Advocates say you don't do MMT, rather it's a description of how the monetary system works. And countries like New Zealand, where the Government - via the Reserve Bank - is the monopoly issuer of a fiat currency, are monetary sovereigns and thus can't run out of money.
"We think the monetary system is central to the way modern economies work. And so it's really important to base a discussion of macroeconomics and public finance on having a proper description of the monetary system," Hail says in the latest episode of interest.co.nz's Of Interest podcast.
"When the Government has plans to invest in healthcare, transportation, climate change, housing, anything else that they're going to be spending on, when people say where are you going to get the money, that's the wrong question to ask. The question that we need to ask about national government spending is always where are the productive resources coming from? Where are the people? Where are the materials where's the technology? Where's the institutional capacity, which businesses have spare capacity to meet the Government's demand for what it wants to do? And that transforms your discussion about government economic policy," Hail says.
I first interviewed Hail in 2020 as Covid-19 swept the globe, as one of a series of interviews trying to make sense of what was going on and what it all meant. A recurring theme in these interviews, as governments spent lots more money than they had in decades, was MMT. Hail was then a lecturer at the University of Adelaide School of Economics. He now runs Modern Money Lab, a not-for-profit, in partnership with Torrens University.
Looking back now, to what extent does he think the massive government spending contributed to the subsequent global inflation surge?
"Well, the first thing to say is that we've just been through about three of the four horses of the apocalypse. So if the worst problem we're going to have in terms of reacting to that is a temporary increase in the inflation rate in New Zealand to just over 7% per annum, we've done pretty well...The second thing to say is what was the alternative to supporting businesses and supporting people during the pandemic and during lockdowns?" Hail asks.
"Did the spending contribute to inflation? Well, to an extent. But every major central bank in the world that's researched the drivers of inflation following the pandemic said that most of it was to do with the supply side. That's not surprising, is it? We built a global economy with very fragile, incredibly complex supply chains, and they just collapsed during the pandemic. And subsequently, of course, once we got over the worst of that, we then had the Russia-Ukraine war driving energy prices up and food prices, too."
"You can argue that some of the government spending was not as effective or efficient as it might otherwise have been. But we're talking about what immediately before would have seemed almost an unimaginable catastrophe that governments were having to react to overnight," says Hail.
And what about the role of quantitative easing (QE), through which the Reserve Bank spent $53 billion buying government and local government bonds on the secondary market from banks during 2020-21? Used for the first time in NZ during the pandemic, QE had been used by central banks in other countries such as Japan, the United States, Europe and Britain for years before that.
"Now, in all those other countries where quantitative easing was used to a very large extent over many years prior to the pandemic, it caused a significant increase in inflation, or it caused an uncontroversial so that everybody accepts it significant increase in total spending in the economy, on precisely no occasions. And there's a good reason for this, which is that quantitative easing is not really the creation of new money," says Hail.
"It's certainly not giving money away. It's an asset swap, and it's actually an asset swap of two very similar assets these days. Because, after all, central banks pay interest on the reserves private banks hold at central banks, and most central banks are part of the broadly defined government sector. So those reserves are an interest bearing financial liability of the government, really. And when central banks buy treasury bonds from private banks, what are they buying? Well, those treasury bonds. What are they? Interest bearing liabilities of the government sector."
"So when you practise quantitative easing, you're really swapping apples for very similar apples. You are not adding to the net financial assets of the private sector. What you are doing is putting a little bit of downward pressure on long-term interest rates."
Still Adelaide-based, Hail is visiting New Zealand during August to run an interactive seminar in Auckland, and show the documentary Finding the Money - featuring Hail's friend and high profile US MMT economist Stephanie Kelton - in both Auckland and Wellington. As well as an introduction to MMT, the seminar will look at the economy as a subsystem of the natural environment and probe human behaviour, inequality and global trade. It'll also cover planetary boundaries and climate change.
Listen to more on these topics and others, including economic growth, sustainability and reducing our impact on the environment, in the podcast audio.
43 Comments
"when people say where are you going to get the money, that's the wrong question to ask."
Bzzzz. Fail.
That is exactly the right question. Because unless we ask it, then expect WW3 to head down the track. Money, Debt, becomes irrelevant under MMT and so worthless, and those who want 'stuff' can't pay for it (whose going to take worthless money; our NZ$ say, in exchange for real goods?) and so they'll just come and take them from whoever has them - by force.
'But you don't understand. MMT is actually what we have today, already' - and that is exactly why we have to get our collective heads around why we have to return value to money/debt. Because unless we do, then the whole system is going to fall apart, as it has done so many times in history before. We are not cleverer now; have more sophisticated tools now to manage the risks. We are fundamentally the same.
In an isolated system, it may have had its place 70 odd years ago. But not in today's interconnected World.
"According to a very popular story spread across the economic literature, the issuance of Guernsey pound
prospered the island as some kind of a magic cure"
"when people say where are you going to get the money, that's the wrong question to ask."
It is indeed the wrong question to ask...real resources and capacity/capability are the limiting factors, unfortunately one of the statements made in the article IS incorrect....
"And countries like New Zealand, where the Government - via the Reserve Bank - is the monopoly issuer of a fiat currency, are monetary sovereigns and thus can't run out of money. "
The RBNZ is NOT the monopoly issuer of currency in NZ but even if it were it is the only the NZD it can issue, and the NZD is unable to purchase all of the resources needed to maintain a modern economy....and therein lies the problem with the theory.
It did....not sure what your point is?
The problem with the reinvention of the theory is its modern iteration was developed in the U.S. where the prominence of USD in global trade (currently around 85% of trade if I recall correctly) and consequently many of the observation are not applicable outside the U.S.....and are almost certain to be inapplicable for the U.S. in the future as reserve currency status is eroded, as happens to all hegemon's eventually.
I think Steven is using fiat to describe the amount of money that is explicity backed by Govt. So, for example, NZ Govt has about $45bn of settlement account liabilities and about $10bn of cash in circulation. The money that commercial banks have created when they made loans (and created bank deposits) currently totals around $550bn. This money is not backed by Govt - it is the liability of commercial banks. If the banks go pop, the money has gone.
That is well and good but the NZD IS nominally backed by the NZ Govts ability to regulate and tax the resources of its domain...but more importantly is what that currency can purchase (or be traded for) especially outside that domain and that is controlled by demand.
Our domain has few of the resources required to maintain our (current) systems and consequently the demand for OUR fiat is paramount....or we can develop systems that do not require outside resources (above a level that demand does not support)....and that is the key point that is lost in the case of MMT.
Try and imagine your best NZ without any (or very few) imports and you are looking at a NZ that ignores that currency demand....it may happen anyway but Id suggest what you can imagine will never be willingly supported by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this domain.
I think you are arguing against points that I (and Steven) haven't made. I agree that fiat currencies are valid because you can use them to pay your taxes. Yes, Govt law, regulation etc also set the currency used to settle contracts etc. As Minsky said, anyone can create money, it is getting it accepted that is the challenge.
MMT economists like Steven make exactly the same point as you do above in relation to imports and exports. Having a top tier currency, and highly tradable (liquid) Govt bonds confers massive advantages on NZ (without that credibility, we would be a third world country).
So what specifically is the point in Stevens interview that you disagree with?
Go back to the original post in this thread and my point of objection is quite clear....the government CAN run out of money (or access to acceptable currency) and that very point undermines the fundamental premise of the argument....NZ can issue as much NZD as it likes but if NZD dosnt buy the required resources then it may as well be toilet paper.
MMT models a closed economy not a trading world with multiple variable currencies....not to mention shadow banks.
You are saying that (a) NZ Govt can issue as much NZD as it likes and (b) the Government can run out of money? You can understand why I was a bit confused.
I think what you mean is that the value of the NZD (relative to other currencies) would be negatively impacted if the Govt spent too much NZD into existence doing stupid things. For example, if the Govt gave everyone an $80,000 voucher to go and buy a new EV tomorrow, we would blow our trade deficit to the moon, quickly overload our electricity infrastructure, and all of the above might adversely affect the value of our currency.
MMT economists have published stacks of papers exploring exchange rate and trade dynamics between monetary systems. Given their obsession with how things actually work, you'd expect that, right? I would argue therefore that your assertion that 'MMT models a closed economy' is misinformed.
Im sorry JFoe, but you and Kelton et al mss the point entirely....who decides what is money?
We (the NZ public and Gov) can determine that the NZD is a valid unit of exchange and store of value, but if no one else wants it, is it 'money'?
Who decides what is money and /or its value?....the party on the other side of the exchange.
Kelton speaks of monetary sovereignty in one breath and acknowledges the arbitrary nature of the concept in another. The reasons for rejection of a currency are manifold and potentially arbitrary, it dosnt require poor policy decisions or persistent trade imbalances (looking at ourselves) though they certainly are unlikely to help...as Argentina has (again) discovered.
That is why I submit MMT is modelled on a closed economy.
Kelton speaks of monetary sovereignty in one breath and acknowledges the arbitrary nature of the concept in another.
Kelton also neglects to frame this monetary sovereignty as really only being available to the US and its allies - over the barrel of a gun and USD's privilege as a global currency.
While I know it's not prescriptive, applying MMT to Global South countries doesn't seem to apply. That is why the IMF gets to assert control when public finance issues arise. Remember South Korea as well.
I am struggling to see your point here - you are violently agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
Steven is basically saying that what is important is the real stuff and economies should manage their money in a way that recognises that. So, govt shouldn't spend money (create 'debt') if there are not the real resources available to buy, and the financial sector should be similarly constrained by regulation etc. The monetary system should be harnessed to achieve the goals of the country, not to line the pockets of the few, nor keep demand low enough to ensure we have hundreds of thousands of people desperate to accept precarious work on crap wages.
The trouble with MMT and why I never reference it (despite being reasonably well read on it) is that people have created a meme / strawman of it.. 'it's QE, print money, zimbabwe tried it blah'. When you hear two well-informed people debate MMT - one for and one against - the argument often boils down to how much elected Govt should be 'trusted' to choose a level of spending, be restrained enough to manage inflation risks etc. My view is that what is exactly what Govts are elected for.
...and Govts have previous history wilfully making massive wrong calls in their own political self interest meaning no one in their right mind should ever trust them managing inflation without an independent referee holding an OCR blunt instrument. (cf. NZ 1970-1990).
There is no free lunch.
Advocates say you don't do MMT, rather it's a description of how the monetary system works. And countries like New Zealand, where the Government - via the Reserve Bank - is the monopoly issuer of a fiat currency, are monetary sovereigns and thus can't run out of money.
This question is embarrassing for post-Keynesians (nowadays rebranded "MMT"). It's premised on the false claim the CB=gov't. The answer: 1) US presidents who tried to issue state money got shot (by bond coupon rentiers. 2) So gov'ts don't issue money but borrow it at interest. Link
I know you watch this data daily, and I know you understand it better than me. So, surely you can see the explicit, hand-in-glove coordination between RBNZ and Treasury? As Steven infers in the interview, they are effectively the same organisation once you pull back the veil.
Great topic.
The primary truth is the resources ve money bit.
Which extrapolates to this Government - and it's lackeys - being wrong.
WRONG yes, it needs shouted. Growth is behind us, and we need to address the future, the one which doesn't have it. Of course, the indoctrinated/vested-interests will appear, denigrating shallowly, but that's the big Cahuna.
MMT is a subset of Imperialism. Deficits don’t matter when you are the hegemon, where the world needs your currency to buy oil and conduct international trade, and where rules are made by you.
Deficits don’t matter if the US dollar is the world reserve currency, where everyone stores their surplus wealth in USD demand or US paper, Treasuries, will remain buoyant. WW3, the mother of all wars, could sadly be inevitable because a threat to the USD is an existential threat to an economic model based on debt. US public spending accounts for 37% of the economy. Moreover, there are 80 trillion US dollars of unfunded liabilities. The situation in the EU is even more debt-dependent, with 50.5% of the eurozone economy supported by public spending.
https://www.worldtopinvestors.com/marc-faber-shares-his-frank-views/
Good grief. MMT just describes (correctly) how the monetary systems works. You don't 'do MMT'.
MMT economists / academics write regularly about monetary systems in counties from the UK to Kenya. They use their understanding to accurately describe the power dynamics and imbalances you reference above - they understand dollar hegemony. They also make recommendations for change based on that understanding. Google Fadhel Khaboub for example.
As I said above, the problem MMT has is that people always attack their strawman of MMT.
Good grief. MMT just describes (correctly) how the monetary systems works. You don't 'do MMT'.
What I posted is not a prescription. Are you saying that the monetary system works like it does in Sri Lanka as it does in the US?
Why is there any need for the IMF to save countries from themselves?
Why do we have the Euro? As is often stated, Greece should never had had a debt crisis if they had been the own sovereign issuer of their own currency.
I think what you're saying is the MMT describes how money works for a select group of countries with certain characteristics.
Logical sleight of hand at the start of his argument:
We've been through 3 of the 4 Horses of the Apocalypse, and inflation is only 7%
Phew, that's lucky!?
So, military conquest, famine, death, bloodshed.
In NZ we haven't had 1 or 2, and only smatterings of 3 and 4, certainly not to biblical proportions.
But wait, there's still 3 more Seals to open!
What's next for NZ:
- earthquake: the big one hitting a major centre
- war or confrontation between West and China, meaning we lose our biggest trading partner (remember when UK bailed and went to Europe?)
- tsunami, flood, some more "once in a 100 year" storms
- Covid-29
- foot and mouth outbreak
Some of these horses would be much worse than the advance party. Government and private sector would need to take on even higher debt, and this does need to be paid back. Or does MMT suggest we just ignore the debt repayments?
MMT economists would doubtless recommend investing in being ready for what is coming - paying particular attention to having the domestic onshore capacity to respond. The money is never the problem - it's always the real resources.
The problem people have with understanding MMT is how they conceptualise 'debt'.
When Govt spends money they create Govt debt. This debt is an asset for the private sector - literally new money in the bank for a household or business. When Govt collect taxes, they reduce private sector bank balances and the Govt debt is lowered.
So, the Govt deficit is just the net of Govt spending and taxes. So when you ask 'does MMT suggest ignoring debt repayments' the answer is no, of course not, govt spends and taxes everyday.
If we had a truly sustainable economy, would we be using money as a means of exchange? If so, then we will have 'debt'. All of the money in our bank accounts has been created by either Govt (the debt created when it spends) or banks (private sector debt created by banks when they make loans).
So, how much debt (money) should we have? And, how much of this debt (money) should be a Govt liability vs a private sector liability?
The money is never the problem - it's always the real resources.
This is also something I can't get my head around with MMT. In the case of Japan, it relies on "real resources" such as oil and gas imported from elsewhere. I'm not sure how this oil dependency applies to MMT because if Japan does not have "real resources", then MMT would suggest Japan "could" in a debt crisis? Right?
Maybe at an aggregate level over the whole world, or possibly if you are the United States, but interest repayments from NZ to be world system have to happen, and NZ gets punished by higher cost of debt if we start to print too much and look to be struggling as an economy. I'm not even sold on MMT as a way to explain the world system or large economies. But for a small economy like NZ it has even less explanatory power.
I'm not even sold on MMT as a way to explain the world system or large economies.
It make sense to me. As a theory. What I'm more interested is though are the limitations of the theory.
I think my suggestion that a kind of 'rules-based order' where deficits don't matter for the US and the Anglosphere nations applies, but doesn't apply to say African nations that have less power in setting the rules; influencing the world; and capital flows.
Might sound like a red herring, but If monetary systems are so organic as the MMTers suggest, why is NZD one of the most traded currencies on crosses?
Makes sense and also feeds my confirmation bias that MMT is more applicable to the US and the Anglosphere allies. It applies to Japan and I know the MMT camp likes to use the Japanese situation as an illustration of why sovereign currency issuers run no risk of default.
The issue of "real resources" is still troubling to me. As we know, the US is able to secure resources much more easily than 'poor nations'. Japan has access to and control over energy resources because of its relative industrial, economic, and consumption might.
You cannot 'value' a fiat-issued token, in the tokens themselves. Or comparisons thereof, following on logically.
Yet almost everything we do, say and contemplate, is expressed in token-related terms.
Look at that logically, and we can re-state it:
Societally, we choose to believe a lie.
One with existentially-threatening consequences.
I've read quite a bit on MMT but it is very obviously the trade area where there are the most questions. Indeed, two of the most significant MMT-aligned economists (Warren Mosler and Steve Keen) disagree strongly on whether imports are a cost (I am oversimplifying their debate).
I would argue though that MMT is not more or less applicable to currency-issuing countries with lower levels of monetary sovereignty. MMT still describes accurately how their monetary systems work. However, a country is limited in what it can do with that understanding by how much sovereignty it really has. For example, is RBNZ waiting for the Fed before it drops rates. Probably. Why? Because we have significant offshore debt denominated in NZD and RBNZ is not sure that it would have what it take to be able to defend our currency. We do not have full monetary sovereignty.
Appreciate your patient and knowledge with all this stuff Jfoe. There are people like you who have put in the effort to understand it; those who look at it on the surface level and reject it straight off the bat; and those who think they understand it theoretically but cannot rationalize it in a real-world sense (I consider myself to be in this camp).
I would argue though that MMT is not more or less applicable to currency-issuing countries with lower levels of monetary sovereignty. MMT still describes accurately how their monetary systems work.
The issue as I see it, and others have pointed out, is that MMT is still predicated on ever-increasing money supply (debt) being benign. You mention Steve Keen who is associated with MMT, but who also says that eventually we will need a debt jubilee as private sector debt becomes too onerous.
Also, thinking about the hypotheticals, here in Aotearoa, why cannot we have a world-class infrastructure and great affordable housing options through the expansion of public debt? S'pore managed and so did Japan. Both of those countries did not have the "real resources" like oil, iron ore, etc at their immediate disposal. Similar with China.
My thinking is that you can't live beyond your means and have all this great public investment simply because you're a currency issuer.
The idea that there must always be an ever increasing amount of debt seems to be a consideration of the implementation of MMT, rather than a core principle. Monetary and fiscal controls allow for there to be less aggregate money tomorrow than today, however this is fairly recessionary. Todays example is the bank balance sheet barely moving for nearly two years, meanwhile business and households are failing due to higher cost pressures
"But we're talking about what immediately before would have seemed almost an unimaginable catastrophe that governments were having to react to overnight," says Hail."
Nonsense. We have had various bad flu seasons last century that we didn't go batshit crazy over. Anybody who looked at the Diamond Princess data could conclude this was not an unimaginable catastrophe - more of an epic big pharma binge.
It is tempting to discount ideas like this out of hand when you have bought into the establishment. Especially when the MMT crowd are generally tied up with the extreme left or progressives have they have rebranded themselves. But I think it is good to take a breath and approach it with an open mind to see if there is anything in it. I think what he is saying is that the government can print and spend money freely as long as there is unutilized labor and resources with no negative consequences. if you have five Guys working being paid 10 bucks an hour and another one is unemployed you can print money and pay him pay him 10 bucks an hour as well and not cause inflation but as soon as you print and try and spend more than this, you'll be in trouble. would be interested to hear a counter opinion from an expert.
The missing piece of the puzzle.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor
If the world (major powers) could not agree in the immediate aftermath of a global conflict that destroyed millions of lives what chance in todays world?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.