Stephanie Kelton Profile picture
Oct 27, 2020 14 tweets 3 min read Read on X
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.”

The team with the deficit loses the game.
We talk about Uncle Sam as if he’s just another player in the economic game. He’s not.

He’s not playing against the rest of us.
He doesn’t lose anything when he’s in deficit.
He’s the scorekeeper.
The scorekeeper sits *outside* the game. He can add and subtract points that appear and disappear from OUR scorecards.

His points are called “US dollars,” and he spends them into existence the same way the stadium awards points to the teams in the #WorldSeries
What we currently 🤦🏼‍♀️ label a government “deficit” is simply the difference between two numbers.

The first number tells us how many dollars Uncle Sam is adding to the game (economy).

The second number tells us how many dollars he’s subtracting away (mostly via taxation).
When he adds more dollars than he subtracts, we’re told that the government’s scorecard is “in deficit.” But that’s a meaningless concept.

The scorekeeper (like the stadium) neither has nor needs any points. The rest of us do!
The government can award points to help scientists develop vaccines/therapeutics to fight COVID-19. It can award points to people who are willing to build hospitals, schools, and bridges.

It can also award points to defense contractors and fossil fuel companies.
The CARES Act awarded $2.2 trillion points. Millions of people got 600 points/week in additional unemployment benefits, and nearly every American saw 1,200 points added to his/her scorecard.

Those points matter. They were a lifeline for tens of millions of struggling families.
CARES points were used to pay rent & utilities, buy food, and cover other household expenses. That spending helped to support other jobs in the economy. That is the game the rest of us are playing. The game of LIFE.
This year, the government’s so-called “deficit” came in at $3.1 trillion. That scares many people. It shouldn’t.

It just tells you that Congress contributed 3.1 trillion points to our scorecards, to help the rest of us play the game.
As long as the points can be exchanged for something of value (now or later), there is no reason for alarm.
Can Congress award too many points? Yes, but right now we have the opposite problem—not enough points!

There are limits-inflation-but we’re not close.

Can the points be allocated inefficiently? Sure!

Reasonable people can disagree about what is worthwhile government spending.
Bottom line:

The thing we 🤦🏼‍♀️ call “the deficit” is nothing more than the government’s FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION to a giant scorecard that matters for all of us who are the real players in the game.

• • •

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

Apr 20
🧵
20 yrs ago, Scott Fullwiler wrote this paper, comparing the (then extant) practice of hitting interest rate targets via day-to-day open-market operations and managing TT&L accounts with the yet-to-be-adopted practice of paying interest on reserves. 1/ papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Scott concluded that instead of replacing non-interest bearing reserves with interest-bearing Treasuries, it would be far "more direct and more efficient" to turn the non-interest bearing reserves into interest-bearing reserve balances (IBRBs). Treasury could then stop issuing securities altogether. 2/Image
But don't financial markets need Treasuries for a whole variety of reasons? Could we really just stop issuing them? Scott explains why the answer is yes. 3/Image
Read 7 tweets
Apr 7
"If we could wave a magic wand and wipe out Treasury interest payments, we would have a lot of desperate people who had lost the income from savings bonds, Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and the pension funds that were holding them... 1/2
This in turn would mean less spending on goods and services, less production, and less employment for a lot of other people." 2/2
~Robert Eisner (1994)
"It is sometimes argued that this involves a regressive redistribution of income, on the assumption that the rich receive interest income...
Read 5 tweets
Mar 29
If you see the MMT documentary, Finding the Money, you’ll hear about my struggle to make sense of @wbmosler’s ideas, including his argument that the three-sources view of public spending was wrong. 1/
Like any Econ student, I had been taught that government must choose how to pay its bills: Tax, borrow, or print.

@wbmosler argued that there was only one option. 2/
It didn’t seem right, but I worked through the mechanics of government finance (for the US) and eventually convinced myself that @wbmosler was correct. There is only one way to pay. 3/
Read 7 tweets
Mar 24
Sorting through materials for my next book and stumbled on this piece outlining the influence of MMT in Chinese policymaking circles. 1/ bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
"Modern Monetary Theory can inspire China to make sure central bank easing supports government spending, several prominent economists said, as Beijing turns to fiscal policy to boost economic growth." 2/
"China urgently needs to 'liberate' itself from traditional ideas that fiscal and monetary policy must be kept separate and that government deficits are bad, according to Liu Shangxi, head of the Chinese Academy of Fiscal Sciences, a think tank under the Ministry of Finance." 3/
Read 10 tweets
Jan 10
🧵
Gov spends $100 (G)
Non-gov sector now has $100
Gov taxes $90 (T)
(G-T) = gov deficit = $10
Deficit has added $10 to non-gov
Treasury sells $10 gov bonds
Non-gov swaps $10 for $10 bonds
NET RESULT: $10 increase in net financial assets to the non-gov sector (w/ or w/o bonds) 1/ Image
Without the bond sale, the $10 would stay in bank reserve accounts at the Fed, where it would earn whatever the Fed chooses to pay on overnight reserve balances (IOR). 2/
No one would refer to the interest payments the Federal Reserve is making as the “interest burden,” and no one would refer to the funds in reserve accounts as “government debt,” even though they are liabilities (debt) of the Federal Reserve. 3/
Read 6 tweets
Jan 3
$34 trillion!!! 😱 Run for the caves!

People have been writing versions of this article for the last 75+ years. It’s actually rather embarrassing.
1/nytimes.com/2024/01/02/bri…
Here’s a political cartoon from 1937, when the (so-called) national debt reached $36B. 2/ Image
This one is from 1988. 3/ Image
Read 6 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!

:(