A thread (1/21)

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."
Standard definitions of a "deficit" include: Image
So a "deficit" (G > T) implies a "lack of" something, a shortfall, or a "deficiency."

e.g. If the government spends $100 but only collects $90 in tax payments, we're told that the government is "short" $10.
We're taught that the government "borrows" 10 dollars in to cover the "shortfall."

"Borrowing" happens when the government sells bonds (Treasuries in the US, gilts in the UK, JGBs in Japan, etc.)
When G > T and bonds are sold, we are told than the government's "borrowing" drives up the "national debt."

Then, of course, we're told that the "debt" has to be "paid back," and panic sets in.

I have a huge problem with all of this. Let me explain.
Here's an image from my book, The Deficit Myth. It illustrates a core tenet of MMT, namely that when G>T, the government is ADDING dollars (or pounds or yen, etc.) to the non-government part of the economy. publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/stephan… Image
The image adopts the conventional framing of G>T as a government "deficit." I think we should change that framing. Here's why: as @wbmosler likes to say, "the government neither has nor doesn't have money."
What that means, in my Two Bucket model, is that the government's bucket is special. Why? Because it is the currency-issuer. And that means it has an infinity bucket. ∞

(Take a deep breath, I know about inflation)
The government doesn't reach into its bucket and grab some pre-existing 💵 (or 💷, or 💴). The government spends its currency into existence when it buys goods & services from the non-government sector. Spending gives rise to new💵, which is added to the non-government bucket.
The government pulls something out of nothing. That is the power of the infinity bucket. (Otherwise known as the Congressional power of the purse.) Think of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, which conjured $2.2 trillion into existence from the infinity bucket.
When the government adds more dollars than it subtracts, it makes sense to say that the government is augmenting any *surplus* in non-government bucket. But does it make sense to describe the government bucket as being in *deficit* ?
Lots of people are getting anxious right now because the US government is expected to run a fiscal "deficit" of roughly $4 trillion (mostly due to the ~$3 trillion in added spending due to COVID-19).
But what, exactly, is the government "short"? The answer, is nothing. Think about it, what is $3 or $4 trillion subtracted from infinity? Answer: ∞
By the way, the same is true for G < T. Governments that are eager to restore fiscal "surpluses" are missing the point entirely. (Looking at you 🇦🇺)

What is the impact of, say, a $30 billion fiscal "surplus" when you add it to the infinity bucket? 🙃 It's still infinity!
As MMT shows, currency-issuing governments face no purely financial constraints (there is an inflation constraint). The government can't spend an infinite number of because there aren't an infinite number of goods and services available for sale in .
It can, however, purchase whatever is *available for sale* in its own currency, including all unemployed labor.

Bottom line: you can debit (or credit) the infinity bucket until the cows come home, but it will not alter the spending capacity of a monetary sovereign.
(Yes, I know about "confidence." Yes, there are historical examples of governments abusing these powers. A collapse of confidence (often after loss of war), means the supply of goods & services available for sale in the government's own currency collapses. MMT understands this.)
The bigger points:
G > T doesn't draw down the supply of available funds, and G < T doesn't top them up. It's a bottomless bucket that doesn't "hold" anything. Accounting conventions have us using words like "deficits" and "surpluses," but that really muddies the waters.
There is no deficit--i.e. no shortfall that has to be atoned for ("paid back") in the future. Spending from the infinity bucket creates the currency that pays for the spending. Everything is "paid for" at the point of purchase.
But what about "the debt"? More unfortunate terminology. Chapter 4 of my book is titled "The National Debt (That Isn't) The bonds are just the dollars that were spent into existence but not taxed away. They exist as part of the savings & wealth of the non-government sector.
We don't have a deficit problem (there is no deficit). We don't have a debt problem. We have a communication problem. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Stephanie Kelton

Stephanie Kelton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @StephanieKelton

21 Nov
MMT: The Clock that Keeps on Ticking


I’ll put the MMT record up against the stopped clock mainstream Keynesian record any day. Exhibit A brookings.edu/wp-content/upl…
If you’ve followed the headline Keynesians over the years, you know that they have twisted themselves into knots, trying to justify their ever-shifting views on fiscal sustainability.
They counseled Congress (and Obama) to steer clear of a bigger relief package, paving the way for an abysmal “recovery.” They leaned into Simpson Bowles and went on to warn that “A debt crisis is coming.” washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-deb…
Read 4 tweets
27 Oct
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.”

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.”

The team with the deficit loses the game.
Read 14 tweets
14 Oct
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
Read 4 tweets
25 Sep
What a load of utter garbage. These people are truly dangerous.
One of the worst ideas imaginable.
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.
Read 4 tweets
14 Sep
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. Image
Read 4 tweets
14 Aug
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.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!