Often we hear about how Modern Monetary Theory is neither modern nor monetary – I think this is a simplistic view.
We heard it from RBA Governor Phillip Lowe and similar from the former RBA Governor Ian MacFarlane. MacFarlane certainly has a better grasp of MMT than Phillip Lowe.
I said the following on John Quiggin’s review of the Mitchell, Wray, Watts textbook:
MMT uses the word ‘Modern’ in a polysemic way. ‘Modern’ is intended as Keynes used the word in A Treatise on Money and since the closing of the gold standard window in 1971.
It is monetary as in it is about how money instruments (currency) shifts real resources (not to be confused with monetary policy) and it is a theory in the scientific use of the word – an evidence-based framework.
Economists often seem unable to break free of jargon or the specialised definitions of their profession. The average person is likely to hear the everyday meaning of words like “government debt”, rather than the economic definition, which in this case would be “net money supply”. We need economists to communicate more directly if they are to enhance our education of economic topics that are constantly misrepresented in the media. For example, people probably think of all the following as “monetary stuff”: my bank deposit; the government securities in my superannuation portfolio (bonds); the (“fiscal”) spending by the government of the day. Yet economists would want to point out important distinctions between these phenomenon. We need simple, clear language to understand these distinctions.
Currently, the Modern Money view is being challenged by other progressives as noted here and parried and riposted here.
It has also been targeted as having an “anti-tax” agenda by some progressives. Sure they add a minor nuance to it as “movement MMT” but once again I think this is a misunderstanding which once again I hope I have clarified above.
To repeat what I have said previously. Governments can increase spending as much as they like with no need for an offsetting increase in tax revenue or non-fiscal offsets if there is little to no risk of politically unacceptable inflation. This is what these people mean and is perfectly compatible with ‘academic’ MMT and is neither anti-tax nor about weakening workers power, it is about courage, compassion, connection, hope, optimism and empowerment of workers – those currently working and those that are involuntarily not working that desire to do so.
It is a little US-centric but you can see it demonstrated quite successfully by Stephanie Kelton here:
From about the 26th minute
We only need to be better than today’s unemployment policy choice.
There are also many that seem obsessed with taxation revenue instead of building capacity.
“…so it’s usual to speak of public expenditure being paid for by taxes (or, better, tax revenues)…”
To say this is completely misleading to all except but perhaps well-heeled economists. Even as Quiggin wrote and intended to mean “…Taxes are the primary instrument by which resources are transferred from private to public expenditure…” or any other economist that uses a similar phrase.
Saying it is paid by tax revenues gives the wrong impression.
Reframing from money’s ‘how will you pay for it?’ to ‘how will you resource it?’ makes it much clearer and shows money itself is no object [also the title of a Stephanie Kelton presentation].
This itself exposes it is not about an increase in tax revenues but about access to resources and thus resource constraints (inflation) which is detailed informatively by Scott Fullwiler, Nathan Tankus and Rohan Grey at the Financial Times.
Again to repeat myself. MMT’s foundational point is taxes drive the currency. The point about not increasing taxes or tax rates from proponents is that it may not be required to raise them to use particular resources, especially if they are currently idle.
We constantly get comments about revenue/tax revenue as well but revenue raised is like a budget outcome is determined within the economic system. We use the fancy word ‘endogenous’ for that. As Beardsley Ruml wrote many years ago Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete and Tax Policies for Prosperity and he makes a very persuasive case.
Revenue raising evokes false frames for ways thinking about the Australian economy.