The new mainstream macro consensus is that deficit spending makes sense now: we can “go big” and borrow because interest rates are low. And, while the public debt is not an issue now, it could be long term.
Only one problem: like the old consensus, the new one is pure bullshit.
Long time deficit hawks, including Fed chairs and Treasury Secretaries, pat themselves on the back to growing accolades of supporters.
But, like most of mainstream macro, the consensus and its broad acceptance is downright embarrassing and detrimental to the nation’s future.
Nothing epitomizes this embarrassing state of affairs quite like a former Fed chair and current Treasury secretary “losing sleep” over the public debt.
Mindless nonsense like this is red meat to those who would shut down deficit spending for public purpose as soon as possible.
A public official wringing hands over the public debt provides fodder for those enamored of debt clocks, as count-down warnings of the nation’s impending doom, when in fact they measure the nation’s savings account.
It’s a sad unmistakeable sign that our leaders are clueless.
What could be worse, as a nation with existential challenges faces growing resistance to desperately needed, expanded, long term deficit spending, than false pontifications about the long run danger of public debt?
From supposedly expert leaders who don’t know wtf it really is?
The public and policymakers can be excused for being misled by this nonsense.
But, if you’re an economist, and still believe, preach, teach, and behave as if the U.S. government must borrow the dollars it creates in order to spend, you should be ashamed.
Educate yourself ffs.
As short and sweet as it gets:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It shatters the faulty, destructive consensus about money, interest rates, deficits, and debt that mainstream economics has allowed to metastasize and block public purpose spending.
Don’t let ass-covering naysayers gaslight you otherwise.
Naysayers insisting that the policy prescriptions found in “The Deficit Myth” can mostly be found also in mainstream sources, and woven into a similar narrative is a curious self-own.
Since they were INSTEAD used to build the false mainstream narrative the book seeks to debunk!
Mainstream narrative: the nation is broke; deficits raise interest rates, crowd out investment, cause inflation; public debt is too high, burdens future generations, must be paid back.
Suppose a large new federal program can be implemented by deficit spending alone (with no tax increases) without causing inflation.
Would you nevertheless require its proponents to identify tax increases to “pay for” the program, knowing that such taxes would be deflationary?
Of course not. But that’s exactly what M4A proponents are being required to do by centrist Dems and the MSM.
See, it’s not at all clear that deficit spending to implement M4A w/o tax increases would necessarily cause inflation.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is just guessing.
The purpose of “pay for” rules is to prevent inflationary deficit spending. Implementing M4A w/o taxes may be inflationary.
But assuming that spending must be matched dollar-for-dollar with tax increases up front to prevent inflation is economically and politically illiterate.
What to think about mainstream economists who warned against the dangers of deficits and debt now proposing adding trillions of dollars to each because infrastructure “pays for itself?”
Something stinks in mainstream Econ. Don’t fall for the “this time it’s different” bullshit.
Same goes for “financing” a GND. Throughout the decades that mainstream Econ vilified deficits & debt, it ALWAYS made sense to deficit spend (& increase public debt) for infrastructure and climate change. As well as ALL public purpose spending.
The fear mongering was ALWAYS BS.
The last vestige of mainstream Econ bullshit is that doing so requires “borrowing” private sector funds. So “the debt” might still be used in the future as a cudgel to thwart other public purpose spending.
But the spending doesn’t require borrowing private sector funds AT ALL.
When Congress authorizes and appropriates to finance, say, a GND, the Treasury doesn’t gather up some of our tax dollars (which don’t exist btw) or borrow some of our untaxed dollars to do so. That’s pure fantasy.
It just spends the necessary money by creating it.
That’s REAL.
That’s the way it’s happened for the last 100 years or so.
Critics of MMT would have you believe otherwise. That the USG spent our tax money or borrowed our untaxed money to spend.
That’s fantasy. Buy that and you don’t belong in a policy conversation about the future.