14 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Posts
- You never can tell …
- The ‘Just One More’ Paradox (student stuff)
- Show me the way
- Brownian motion (student stuff)
- On the art of reading and writing
- Keynes — en ständigt aktuell inspiration
- Minnen som glömskan inte rår på
- The total incompetence of people in charge of the US economy
- Round About Midnight
- Ergodicity — a questionable assumption (wonkish)
- Monte Carlo simulation explained (student stuff)
- Vägval i finanspolitiken
- Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- We did it again!
- Susan Neiman on why left is not woke
Comments Policy
I like comments. Follow netiquette. Comments — especially anonymous ones — with pseudo argumentations, abusive language or irrelevant links will not be posted. And please remember — being a full-time professor leaves only limited time to respond to comments.
Recent Comments
Jan Milch on Keynes — en ständigt akt… rsm on Brownian motion (student … Nanikore on The total incompetence of peop… Bruce Wilder on The total incompetence of peop… rsm on Ergodicity — a questiona… Edward Fullbrook on Susan Neiman on why left is no… rsm on The non-existence of economic… fredtorssander on The non-existence of economic… Mel on Cutting-edge macroeconomics… fredtorssander on MMT — coming to an econo… Jan Milch on The Swedish for-profit ‘… rsm on The Swedish for-profit ‘… fredtorssander on What’s the use of e… rsm on What’s the use of e… fredtorssander on What’s the use of e… Reading List
Categories
- Economics (3,835)
- Education & School (273)
- Politics & Society (1,164)
- Statistics & Econometrics (937)
- Theory of Science & Methodology (501)
- Varia (1,624)
Archives
- May 2024 (14)
- Apr 2024 (27)
- Mar 2024 (35)
- Feb 2024 (30)
- Jan 2024 (28)
- Dec 2023 (34)
- Nov 2023 (25)
- Oct 2023 (32)
- Sep 2023 (38)
- Aug 2023 (34)
- Jul 2023 (49)
- Jun 2023 (46)
- May 2023 (48)
- Apr 2023 (42)
- Mar 2023 (36)
- Feb 2023 (31)
- Jan 2023 (31)
- Dec 2022 (35)
- Nov 2022 (25)
- Oct 2022 (26)
- Sep 2022 (29)
- Aug 2022 (32)
- Jul 2022 (29)
- Jun 2022 (29)
- May 2022 (26)
- Apr 2022 (33)
- Mar 2022 (26)
- Feb 2022 (33)
- Jan 2022 (41)
- Dec 2021 (45)
- Nov 2021 (40)
- Oct 2021 (31)
- Sep 2021 (44)
- Aug 2021 (38)
- Jul 2021 (50)
- Jun 2021 (49)
- May 2021 (51)
- Apr 2021 (35)
- Mar 2021 (60)
- Feb 2021 (47)
- Jan 2021 (33)
- Dec 2020 (46)
- Nov 2020 (41)
- Oct 2020 (55)
- Sep 2020 (37)
- Aug 2020 (44)
- Jul 2020 (50)
- Jun 2020 (49)
- May 2020 (68)
- Apr 2020 (61)
- Mar 2020 (51)
- Feb 2020 (65)
- Jan 2020 (41)
- Dec 2019 (54)
- Nov 2019 (71)
- Oct 2019 (61)
- Sep 2019 (53)
- Aug 2019 (75)
- Jul 2019 (72)
- Jun 2019 (68)
- May 2019 (84)
- Apr 2019 (93)
- Mar 2019 (76)
- Feb 2019 (71)
- Jan 2019 (55)
- Dec 2018 (52)
- Nov 2018 (62)
- Oct 2018 (69)
- Sep 2018 (53)
- Aug 2018 (50)
- Jul 2018 (44)
- Jun 2018 (63)
- May 2018 (63)
- Apr 2018 (61)
- Mar 2018 (59)
- Feb 2018 (40)
- Jan 2018 (62)
- Dec 2017 (46)
- Nov 2017 (44)
- Oct 2017 (53)
- Sep 2017 (47)
- Aug 2017 (42)
- Jul 2017 (37)
- Jun 2017 (44)
- May 2017 (48)
- Apr 2017 (44)
- Mar 2017 (46)
- Feb 2017 (35)
- Jan 2017 (54)
- Dec 2016 (62)
- Nov 2016 (58)
- Oct 2016 (42)
- Sep 2016 (44)
- Aug 2016 (40)
- Jul 2016 (56)
- Jun 2016 (43)
- May 2016 (45)
- Apr 2016 (41)
- Mar 2016 (70)
- Feb 2016 (58)
- Jan 2016 (39)
- Dec 2015 (32)
- Nov 2015 (51)
- Oct 2015 (58)
- Sep 2015 (47)
- Aug 2015 (34)
- Jul 2015 (42)
- Jun 2015 (50)
- May 2015 (48)
- Apr 2015 (44)
- Mar 2015 (54)
- Feb 2015 (41)
- Jan 2015 (54)
- Dec 2014 (51)
- Nov 2014 (50)
- Oct 2014 (54)
- Sep 2014 (52)
- Aug 2014 (69)
- Jul 2014 (72)
- Jun 2014 (48)
- May 2014 (47)
- Apr 2014 (38)
- Mar 2014 (51)
- Feb 2014 (54)
- Jan 2014 (50)
- Dec 2013 (67)
- Nov 2013 (60)
- Oct 2013 (77)
- Sep 2013 (74)
- Aug 2013 (45)
- Jul 2013 (54)
- Jun 2013 (38)
- May 2013 (43)
- Apr 2013 (47)
- Mar 2013 (58)
- Feb 2013 (40)
- Jan 2013 (47)
- Dec 2012 (66)
- Nov 2012 (62)
- Oct 2012 (71)
- Sep 2012 (75)
- Aug 2012 (38)
- Jul 2012 (76)
- Jun 2012 (113)
- May 2012 (64)
- Apr 2012 (49)
- Mar 2012 (42)
- Feb 2012 (35)
- Jan 2012 (45)
- Dec 2011 (39)
- Nov 2011 (68)
- Oct 2011 (61)
- Sep 2011 (63)
- Aug 2011 (53)
- Jul 2011 (21)
- Jun 2011 (30)
- May 2011 (47)
- Apr 2011 (45)
- Mar 2011 (19)
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and Comments feeds.
Don’t be deceived by Kelton’s very slick presentation.
She fails to even begin to address the problems caused by government deficits and national debt.
Instead she pivots into a fuzzy dream where future needs and obligations can be met by extra infrastructure investment.
.
Regarding the national debt, there is no escaping the obvious fact that the state will be obliged to make future interest and redemption payments to bondholders. This is likely to result in extra spending by bondholders, which entails fewer resources available for spending by the rest of us, i.e. the general public, firms and government. So, in order to prevent inflationary excess demand, deficits/extra debt mean that in the future there will have to be higher taxes, reduced government spending and/or higher interest rates.
In other words, debt implies a future redistribution of after-tax incomes from the general public/taxpayers to bondholders.
.
MMTers sometimes make the specious argument that future debt obligations are not a problem because they can be simply refinanced or “rolled-over” through additional bond issues. However, debt rollover merely changes the financial portfolios of banks and wealthy individuals, with negligible effect on their spending on real resources.
.
Kelton attempts a different argument. She claims that there is no problem about paying for future needs (e.g. future debt obligations or the welfare of the elderly) because extra future resources can be made available through infrastructure investment using unemployed resources.
.
Kelton’s argument is fuzzy and probably very weak because she does not quantify how much extra investment is possible using currently unemployed resources. Nor does she quantify the future resources which such investment might produce. Arguably only a small proportion of future needs could be met in this way. As Ralph Musgrave points out, extra taxation is likely to be required.
.
But even if there are substantial unused resources today, future debt obligations would remain a very serious problem. This is because of opportunity costs.
Instead of the investments proposed by Kelton, there could extra spending today on welfare and other expenditures. Or there could be tax cuts/higher private consumption today.
And in the future, even assuming Kelton’s investments take place and are productive, compared with what would otherwise be possible, debt obligations would reduce the spending which is possible on benefits for the elderly, or for other purposes, or for tax cuts.
.
So while there is always a case for making the best possible use of unemployed resources, and while there never any ground for hysteria regarding the national debt, Kelton’s neglect of the future costs of deficits to the general public/taxpayers is deplorable.
Comment by Kingsley Lewis— 6 Apr, 2019 #
Such ominous bluster concerning “future debt obligations” is economic nonsense. When the government borrows money, selling a bond, that bond is exactly equivalent in nominal value (net present value) to the future stream of taxes that must be paid should the government choose to retire it.
.
The government in spending money may well marshal real resources — mobilizing resources to some purposeful production of public goods being among the normal purposes of public spending. But, when the government seeks to pay off the interest or capital of the debt in the future, it is not de-mobilizing resources. Resources are not involved. The government levies money taxes exactly equal to the money payment necessary to extinguish the outstanding debt. It would be terrible PR to do so outright, but without admitting it, the government by declaring itself owed taxes exactly equal in nominal value terms to its debt obligation might as well simply demand the bond and its coupon be returned in satisfaction of the tax debt.
.
The essential thing to notice is that the anticipated great burden of future debt obligation will be resolved on net when that future arrives by an exchange of paper alone. The government does not require that taxes needed to extinguish a debt be paid in bushels of corn. It asks for money. And the exact money to pay off the debt exists already in the form of the debt instruments themselves.
.
Comment by Bruce Wilder— 6 Apr, 2019 #
Bruce,
You are right. My recent comments on debt are garbage.
Bond sales, redemptions, roll-overs, quantitative easing, etc. don’t affect the net wealth of the private sector, so there are no significant effects on spending and no debt burden on taxpayers or anyone else,
Apologies to all for my garbage comments.
Comment by Kingsley Lewis— 7 Apr, 2019 #
Hopefully you are being sarcastic Kingsley. I have always found your comments to be intelligent and thought provoking, even if I disagree at times. Far from ‘garbage’. This is one of those times when I disagree with parts of what you wrote but what the hell- I disagree with everybody sometimes. Maybe wrongly at times. Well probably rather than maybe…
Keep commenting- it helps me learn.
Comment by Jerry Brown— 7 Apr, 2019 #
Good rebuttal of the more simple minded ideas about the debt being a problem. On the other hand her dismissal of the “how are we going to pay for it” question is too flippant (around 30 minutes in). The reality is that assuming the economy is at capacity, and for a given ratio of retiree income relative to average incomes, taxes DO HAVE to be increased to pay for a generous social security system. Why else is it that in countries with high levels of public spending relative to GDP, taxes are also high relative to GDP?
Comment by Ralph Musgrave— 4 Apr, 2019 #
Social stability, remember FDR couched S.S. in taxation to facilitate political friction, not on fundamental monetary concerns.
BTW saw you over at TJN of late and found your complaint curious, ditto above in retrospect.
Comment by skippy— 4 Apr, 2019 #
Nice presentation with good visuals
Emphasizes the public deficit/private surplus symmetry – the right way to do it
As opposed to the often referenced “government spends first” nonsense, which is neither necessary nor accurate to explain this stuff
It’s 99 per accounting – why mainstream barely has a clue
Might enhance credibility by avoiding overly simplistic language about “scorekeepers”, “points”, “savings accounts at the Fed”, etc.
Comment by JKH— 4 Apr, 2019 #
Yes I think that was a very good presentation.
JKH, I think you could agree that an analogy that was simplistic for you might still help a non-expert like me to understand something. Especially when encountering an idea for the first time. The points at a football game worked so well for me that I spent hundreds of hours trying to learn if it was indeed a good analogy or not. All in all, I think it is a good analogy as far as analogies go.
Comment by Jerry Brown— 4 Apr, 2019 #
OK
Sometimes analogies require an investment in order to pay dividends
e.g. Analogizing an analogy to a stock
: )
Comment by JKH— 4 Apr, 2019 #
Yeah, something like that 🙂 In my case the analogy spurred the subsequent investment. This is probably a situation where Investment should not be thought of as bringing forth Saving….
Comment by Jerry Brown— 4 Apr, 2019 #
A large part of the issue with debate is semantics and any ideological trip wires.
Comment by skippy— 4 Apr, 2019 #
Agreed: good presentation, but there’s a lot of semantics there.
Comment by Ralph Musgrave— 4 Apr, 2019 #
Ralph its incumbent on you to delineate such and show grounds to establish such delineations from a historical perspective.
Comment by skippy— 4 Apr, 2019 #
Lots of Sumerians?
Comment by skippy— 4 Apr, 2019 #