If MMTers were just doing standard Keynesian macro, then we would not have arrived at completely different conclusions (from mainstream Keynesians) re: the Bush tax cuts, the Clinton surpluses, the Euro, debt sustainability, interest rates (eg Japan vs Italy), the Trump tax cuts.
Our framework is grounded in Minsky, Godley, Lerner, (to name a few) and complemented/strengthened by interdisciplinary work, especially legal scholarship. If MMT was just Lerner's Functional Finance, we never would have gotten all the big stuff right.
No MMT economist urged lawmakers to return to PAYGO in 2007, complaining that the deficit was "driving down national saving." A mainstream Keynesians did.
No MMT economist ever argued that the Trump tax cuts would leave us incapable of responding to the next recession. A mainstream Keynesian did.
No MMT economist cheered the Clinton surpluses or claimed that the US could end up like Greece. Many mainstream Keynesians did.
No MMT economist urged central banks to purse QE as a potent "reflationist" policy. Mainstream Keynesians did.
No MMT economist is today arguing that tax increases will be necessary to deal with the debt overhang in the post-COVID-19 era. Plenty of mainstream Keynesians are.
So please spare me the continued efforts to conceal the many failures of mainstream Keynesianism. We are working with a fundamentally different macro framework, one that takes money/finance/monetary operations/law/institutions seriously.
MMT integrates and builds on the work of Minsky, Godley, Keynes, Kalecki, Lerner, Innes, and others. The MMT framework looks nothing like mainstream Keynesianism, which explains why it has led us to such different conclusions over the decades. /end
No MMT economist claims that interest rates are the best tool to fight inflation. Mainstream Keynesians do.
No MMT economist believes that the central bank should target the "natural rate of unemployment." Mainstream Keynesians do.
No MMT economist adheres to "loanable funds" theory of the interest rate. Mainstream Keynesians do.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I promise to stop when the battle is won. Until then, here’s another attempt to improve understanding and shift our broken thinking about government “deficits.”
THREAD
First, the word deficit. 🤦🏼♀️
It’s a terrible word because it suggests a shortfall.
A deficiency.
A problem.
It’s none of those things.
But that’s how we usually think of the word. Like when the announcer says, “If the Rays are going to come back and win this game, they’re going to need to overcome a three-run deficit against the Dodgers.”
I recently heard someone refer to MMT as “dangerous.” It is upsetting to those who prefer to stay nestled in the conventional discourse, where it is acceptable to change one’s answers to age-old questions but not to challenge the questions themselves. 1/4
Thus, “How much does the government *need* to tax vs borrow to pay for its spending?” can be answered differently by “reasonable” people. 2/4
Dangerous people change the questions: “What is the purpose of taxing and borrowing, and when/why should a currency-issuing government *choose* to do more of either?” 3/4
What a joke. The current crisis demonstrates exactly the opposite—i.e. that nothing you’ve carped on about has mattered one bit, nor did decades of rising debt and deficits prevent Congress from combating the COVID recession.
Let's talk about the "deficit" that isn't. The conventional way to talk about the government's fiscal position is to look at the difference between how much money the Government spends (G) and how much it collects via Taxation (T).
G > T means the government is spending more than it collects in tax payments. Convention has us refer to this as a fiscal "deficit."
G < T means the government is spending less than it collects in tax payments. Convention has us call this a fiscal "surplus."
They had me right up to the end. The last paragraph should have been omitted. The fiscal trajectory is not unsustainable. Planting those seeds just undermines the broader argument. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
Worth noting that Lew got this very wrong. 2017 tax cuts in no way constrained fiscal capacity in the face of COVID-19. Similarly, today's deficits don't pose any inherent risk looking ahead. If you're worried about inflation, say so. Otherwise, last para above just a throwaway.
Democrats should make it clear that there will be #NoCuts to Social Security or Medicare and that, once in charge, they will amend the legislative language to to ensure that the payment of program benefits is never constrained by any earmark or trust fund balances. 1/4
It would only require a few sentences here and there to grant OASI, DI, and HI the same treatment already afforded to SMI. And then none of us would ever have to hear about trust fund “solvency” ever again. neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/04/4-trus…
2/4
It would remove the single most potent weapon in the GOP arsenal—i.e. the illusion that the *financial ability* to pay out benefits is dependent on payroll tax receipts + trust fund balance(s). 3/4