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!

PDF

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

May 16
Will central banks initiate future future helicopter drops? IMF makes the case for targeted, central-bank-initiated stimulus checks (aka "Outright Transfers". 1/4
imf.org/en/Publication…
OT could be an alternative to "prolonged large scale asset purchases [which]...exacerbate already large pre-existing wealth inequalities, rely on new and
potentially excessive credit creation, distort relative prices, and give rise to concerns of fiscal dominance." 2/4
It's not intended as a first-line-of-defense policy response, but something that could be useful in certain situations. "[OT] should be reserved as a monetary
policy tool for stagnation traps, characterized by sizable slack and depressed interest rates." 3/4
Read 4 tweets
Feb 14
Ezra's piece is worth reading, though his description of MMT is puzzling. MMT is not about gov being able to spend what it wants b/c it can "print money to pay its debts." What MMT is actually about is, well, the substance of what @ezraklein calls "supply-side progressivism". 1/
As @M_C_Klein put it, The Deficit Myth "is ultimately a plea to use permanent wartime mobilization for civilian ends." 2/ barrons.com/articles/the-c…
In my book, I introduced the concept of "mission-oriented budgeting". The idea is to *start with where you want to end up* and then work backwards to show how you're actually going to get there. As Alec Stapp (quoted in Ezra's piece) put it, focus on "the ends of production." 3/
Read 12 tweets
Feb 8
“Where is the [Social Security] crisis? Just over the horizon…the promises that are being made to those now working cannot be honored.” nytimes.com/1996/10/20/boo…
“I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.” nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opi…
“The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.”
nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opi…
Read 9 tweets
Jan 18
Some nuggets from the post. Subscribe if you'd like to read the entire thing (it's long).
"As governments embraced the use of robust fiscal policy, a growing number of commentators started to assert that 'We Are All MMTers Now'.”
Read 12 tweets
Dec 31, 2021
What follows is a THREAD, posted on behalf of Professor James Galbraith, who is not on Twitter but who asked me to share his reaction to this.
"I'll bet that Paul Krugman has not read Isabella Weber's magisterial history, How China Escaped Shock Therapy, recommended by Adam Tooze in Foreign Policy, by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, and by yours truly in Project Syndicate, among many other plaudits and prizes...
If he had, Krugman might be aware that Professor Weber knows a great deal about price controls and their role in a larger policy setting. And not only in China, but also in the US, which Chinese reformers studied closely in coming to their decisions...
Read 7 tweets
Apr 13, 2021
Let’s play the “pay for” game. Suppose you want to spend $3-$10 trillion on a Build Back Better agenda. You’ve decided that you’re going to play the “pay for” game, which means you will show where every dollar you plan to spend is going to “come from.” 1/
The whole point is to appear “fiscally responsible,” showing that you can carry out your spending without adding to the deficit. In other words, for every dollar you want to spend INTO the economy, you have a plan to rip a dollar OUT of someone’s hands. 2/
The Biden administration has put forward their plan, which mostly relies on raising taxes on corporations. The president says it will raise more revenue (over 15 yrs) than he is proposing to spend (over 8 yrs). Don’t ask me why. 3/
Read 10 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(