2025年1月17日金曜日

池戸万作＠政治経済評論家さんによるXでのポスト

時刻: 0 件のコメント:

シェイブテイルさんによるXでのポスト

時刻: 0 件のコメント:

2025年1月16日木曜日

上越零細連さんによるXでのポスト

時刻: 0 件のコメント:

名探偵あらいゆか.うゆ🍼さんによるXでのポスト

時刻: 0 件のコメント:

2025年1月13日月曜日

🍛何食べ太さんによるXでのポスト　法人税

時刻: 0 件のコメント:

2025年1月11日土曜日



issuing bonds for a currency issuing government is a policy choice not an economic imperative it's a policy Choice here's Randy and Yea issuing bonds is voluntary operation that gives the public the opportunity to substitute non-interest earning government liabilities thank cash for interest bearing government liabilities T bills notes bonds which are credit balances in Securities Accounts at the same Central Bank if people believe the government needs to borrow to spend then you get into all of these debates who's going to buy them is the bid to cover ratio going to be adequate and all the rest of the kind of stuff but if you understand that bonds are voluntary operations then it becomes irrelevant these sort of debates whether there are takers for government bonds and whether they're owned by domestic or foreign citizens so we show most of the debates that take place are just rooted in fundamental myths and misunderstandings about what's really happening basically the operational side now there may be reasons to be concerned Warren touched on this the other day might it become an issue when you have a large enough stock of public debt and you have a central bank that is following a tailor rule or something like a tailor rule raising interest rates to try to fight inflation and you could potentially get into a sort of toxic situation where the rate hikes themselves begin to feed inflationary pressures 20 years ago I published a paper it was it appeared as a chapter in this book where I sort of uh Randy mentioned the other day something about laugher and the napkin I didn't put mine on a napkin either but I drew in it kind of looks like laugh laer curve right where the point is that if you're in a low Dead uh environment and a lot of the well there are certain conditions I'm not going to go into all of them let me just leave it at if you don't have a large stock of public debt and a few other things hold uh raising interest rates may have the usual conventional effect that is they would be contractionary but if the public debt gets large enough raising interest rates from say i1 to I2 could actually the stimulative at the macro level so we got to recognize that and if that's the case and it could create a sort of unsustainable situation in terms of the inflation impacts is there an answer to that the answer is sure you just keep the interest rate down because the interest rate has become the problem at that point so Scott fulweiler wrote about this and I should say Scott would have been here today but he couldn't make it and so this presentation we did together okay so it's it's the both of us we both work on it uh this paper was published by Scott in 2005 long before the FED started paying interest on reserve balances but Scott asked the question what would happen if the FED did what other central banks already do which is to pay interest on reserve balances so he wrote this paper and it's very good and it's short especially for Scott uh Fuller so Scott goes through this and he says you know we could issue bonds keep issuing bonds and have a zero interest rate policy or just manage the interest rate so it stays below the growth rate what would happen if we did that well we wouldn't have the problem with the intertemporal government budget constraint that all the mainstream economists use to tell us that fiscal policy is on an unsustainable trajectory so they use this macro model and they plug in uh the variables and they say based on the current outlook for interest rates and growth rates in the debt and so forth we're on an unsustainable trajectory we need to make changes and Scott said well if you think it's unsustainable just lower the interest rate below the growth rate and the debt will converge and the problem goes away that's basically this problem so Scott's saying the in the interest rate is a policy variable okay the mainstream treats the interest rate as what Market phenomenal right the market is doing it which is why the bond vigilante is matter but Scott's saying no set the interest rate so if it's a policy variable there's a very easy solution to this problem all right option three so the first two options were issue bonds issue bonds and let the Central Bank fiddle with the interest rate issue bonds and anchor the interest rate at zero now we're moving into don't issue bonds don't issue bonds and let the Central Bank play with the interest rate that's another option okay we could do that and once again Scott has that base covered he's very good at this so in this p in this piece paying interest on reserve balances more significant than you think Scott says uh with with interest on reserve balances eventually the entire national debt could be held exclusively as Reserve balances just leave it there simplifies monetary policy operations and the more significant point is that it makes it clear to everyone that interest on reserve balances demonstrates that the fed's operations are offsetting in nature not financing so that's the purpose of that paper all right option four no bonds and Zer zero interest rate or nearly zero kind of uh overnight interest rate Bill Mitchell says uh this is the preferred option from an mmt perspective no bonds and permanent zero interest rate policy now like I said that's a policy P it's a prescriptive policy right that's his position he would like to see no bonds issued to the non-government sector and interest rates permanently anchored at zero he calls it uh um omf overt monetary financing okay that's his preferred thing but he says it's you know the preferred option from an mmt perspect perspective government should not issue any public debt to the non-government sector as the benefits of doing so are small relative to the large opportunity costs all right so those are four options he goes on talk about helicopter money mm always understood QE as an asset swap with little or no transmission apart of apart from a placebo effect okay doesn't really do anything overt monetary financing he says Central Bank provides the monetary capacity to support larger fiscal deficits with no further debt being issued to the non-government sector so what bill has in mind is the central bank just buys the bonds directly from treasury credits A treasury's account treasury spends and you're of and running okay the original mmt proponents he says would characterize overt monetary financing as a highly desirable policy development because it makes a whole bunch of this stuff cleaner and clearer right next part what should we do to bond or not to bond that is the question right so what changes if we consider options three and four both of which involve not issuing treasuries at least to the non-government sector all right what changes well the big thing is public perception right if you're only issuing bonds to that are purchased by the central bank then the public understands that they're not being burdened by this debt stock that you don't have to worry about who's going to buy them and foreigners and all the rest of the stuff we often hear about no increase in public debt for he says this is Bill the Rabid Financial commentators to beat into a frenzy and push out predictions of insolvency it would get us all focused on inflation risk instead of solvency and the morality play borrowing driving us all into debt is immoral and all the rest of it who will buy them paying it back neuter the IMF the rating agencies they have nothing to complain about and all of that of stuff so he says there are major political advantages to moving to overt monetary financing all right I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't there's no clear winner here there's no way to entirely avoid criticism weaponization no matter what you do all right so I'm going to show you some of this if we continue to issue government bonds to the non-government sector the way we do today then we hear the usual stuff economists the Press policy makers they weaponize the dead they talk about burdening future Generations who's going to buy it they weaponize the sustainability models they talk about exploding Debt Service it doesn't converge you got people like Olivia Blanchard Larry Summers Jason Ferman all using this framework to make the argument that the US needs to reduce the deficit because it's on an unsustainable trajectory based on these models weaponized Bond vigil anes you'll lose control of rates and and all that sort of stuff but if we propose Zer which eliminates a lot of those problems then they weaponize something different they say well if you if you keep the interest rate at zero then you're depriving the Central Bank of its ability to find our star and so you'll hear stuff about fiscal dominance or one uh argument or another it's going to be inflationary and all that if we say don't issue bonds to the non-government sector then they'll just say your printing money is going to be inflationary so what's an mmti to do the hell are you supposed to do they're going to pick on you no matter which one you choose so we created this little table and we just sort of imagine you know under which of the four options do you avoid the most criticism okay where where is it the cleanest and as you can see there's not really a clear winner here okay if we do what we do today which is column one they weaponize at that they weaponize the uh intertemporal government budget constraint you hear about Vigilantes but you know at least you'd leave them with the interest rates so they wouldn't complain about interfering with the central bank and because you leave them with the bonds and the interest rate they're not going to complain about printing money you move to the next option and you got a different set of things I don't have time to go through each one of them okay but make the slides available but the point of this is to say there's not a clear winner in terms of the options okay so so I'm going to put my cards on the table because as I said when I first got involved in this project it was the descriptive stuff that interested me I liked it I liked learning about and digging into and arriving at a place where I thought I had pretty good Mastery of the monetary operations it felt good to understand so I like the descriptive stuff and that first paper I referred to earlier was descrip and then I went to work on the hill and I realized what a mess we're in because I was surrounded by people working as the chief Economist for the Democrats on the Senate budget committee that no one in the Senate and their staffers had the obvious idea how to understand the role of deficits or debt in the economy that they were all falling prey to these myths and misunderstandings so I would go around playing this game and I would ask them hey if you had a magic w wand and I told you you could wave the magic wand and it would eliminate the national debt would you wave the magic wand everybody said yes not even hesitation of course I would wave the wand I want the debt gone said okay well what if I give you a different wand and I say if you wave the wand you will eradicate the world of treasuries no bills notes bonds they're just all gone would you wave the wand and they would look at me like I had three horns you know coming out of my head say why would I do that why would I want to do that so they didn't even understand that the thing we call the national debt is nothing more than the stockpile right the stock of us Treasures held in portfol excuse me portfolios and all the rest of it right they didn't understand they want one to go away but they want to keep the other well I'm sorry you can't have it both ways so that started to shake my confidence in things and then I wrote the deficit myth and I talked about some of this I told these kind of stories was in the book and I said look I'm sort of agnostic on whether we issue bonds or don't issue bonds the problem seems to be the way we refer to them it's the word debt that has everybody hung up right and so maybe we just need to give it a different name Warren used to recommend calling it instead of the national debt having a giant Debt Clock Loom over people in New York City ticking away Warren would say you know just call it the interest rate maintenance account maybe everybody would just just calmed down a little bit we've said call it the dollar savings clock we've tried right marketing rebranding it's just that it didn't catch on and everyone is still very clearly worried about and weaponizing the national debt and then you see what happened in the UK with Liz trust and everybody believes that the bond market smacked her down and said you will not get the fiscal package that you are proposing we aren't willing to finance it and now labor is terrified and everybody looks at what happened to Liz truss and they view that as a lesson for future governments and so at some point you go you know maybe we're not going to win this fight maybe we're not going to get the policy response we need to deal with climate and housing and all the rest of it uh because we can't get Beyond where we are in our understanding of deficits and especially the debt so I did an interview with the ft and they asked me if you had five wishes or a magic wand and you could do five things what would you do Warren and I talked a little bit about it uh before I committed to all five of those and I made one of them I said no more bonds just don't do it they're more trouble than they're worth we're not going to educate people fast enough to get Beyond this to get the right policy so let's just stop right so that's kind of where I have arrived and I like my little play on words here which is if we were to do that if the UK were to do that it could enjoy guilt-free spending isn't that nice you know the German word for Deb is guilt right and we do feel guilty about increase in the deficit because it adds to the debt and we have this idea that this is a burden somebody's ultimately going to have to pay it back so let's just get let's just get over it let's stop issuing it the labor party's fiscal rules are clearly I think intention Within missions you want to build a lot of housing but you want to rely on the private sector to do it just spend and build the public housing leave the resulting pounds in the system let the bank of England decide what to pay on those Reserve balances and tell the market to pound sand that is my position uh as I stand here today so what can we do to De weaponize right uh to avoid this is Scott's line mass destruction de weaponized to avoid we got to have policy responses some of the very critical challenges that we are facing and we're having trouble getting there I think largely because we're still too hung up on what the national debt so-called means and the dangers the dangers that it poses so we have written a lot over the years trying to educate people trying to help people understand that there are options and that the way we understand things today has flaws and and there misunderstandings and so so forth again this is Bill Mitchell what would happen if a sovereign currency issuing government ran a fiscal deficit and didn't issue debt at all or sold bonds only to the central bank instead of the non-government sector what would happen if we did over monetary financing and he says uh with a fiscal deficit and no bond sales you get excess reserves in the cash system and the overnight interest rate Falls to zero or to the support rate we've explained this a million times I have Warren has Scot has ad nauseum the only difference between this and issuing bonds to drain the reserves is that the central bank has to use a different technique to hit its interest rate target that's all that changes and Larry got it Larry recognized it there's no difference between issuing the bonds or not issuing the bonds the difference is on Whose Ledger are you going to write down the liability on the central bank's Ledger or the treasuries and who's going to get I was going to say credit for but I don't want to say that who is going to pay the interest the central bank or the treasury that's what the difference comes down to all right so here's Scott fulweiler again from his 2005 paper deficits that are unaccompanied by Bond sales are viewed disapprovingly as monetization even though there's no meaningful difference between doing it the way we do it today issuing the bonds deficits always create net Financial Assets in direct proportion no matter which way you do it what matters isn't whether you sell bonds but whether the deficit is too large given the non-government desire to net save once you have interest bearing reserves it becomes obvious that Bond sales are offsetting interest rate maintenance not financing operations with interest on reserve balances eventually Scott says the entire national debt could be held exclusively as Reserve balances or as learner said issue bonds only in keeping with the principles of functional Finance so paying interest on reserves simplifies monetary policy frees the treasury and the fed from selling bonds to support the interest rate target it just makes it cleaner and more transparent otherwise it changes very little fundamentally again no difference between issuing government debt to the non-government sector and the Central Bank paying interest on Reserves at the Target rate they're identical but the politics can be different all right it doesn't make it less inflation AR if you issue bonds it doesn't alter the quantity of net Financial Assets in the non-government sector and it doesn't add jet fuel to the spending it doesn't make the deficit more stimulative because there's no difference between so-called Bond financed and money financed deficits there's no reason for the government to sell bonds at all that's from Full Wilder's pwor no further increase in the debt means no unnecessary and counterproductive debt sealing drama no fights about burning grandchildren all that sort of stuff all right this is just a image that Scott uses a lot because people don't understand they see the way the government arranges treasury auctions coupled with deficits I say oh well this is how we pay for things and I call this one on the left covert monetary financing and the one on the right overt monetary financing it's the same thing the Central Bank back stops the dealers and it all works the same way you end up in the same place whether you do it overtly or covertly that's the point here so would stopping Bond issuance undermine Central Bank Independence no if you've got interest bearing Reserve balances the central bank still has control of the overnight interest rates that's the policy rate if you moved away from that uh and oh you're not issuing bonds then government agency Securities or swaps could emerge as benchmarks you could still have something the private sector could use to price risk even without treasuries because you often hear well if you get rid of bonds that's the risk-free rate that's used to price risk for other Securities and lending and so forth you you'd have a huge problem if you got rid of bonds and Scott is saying no you wouldn't there are other ways uh to do that the transmission of monetary policy with interest bearing Reserve balances is identical to that uh with non-interest bearing Reserve balances and bonds to drain the excess balances treasury Securities could eventually be replaced the interest rate on the national debt would then be whatever interest rate the central bank is paying on reserve balances there's no inherent reason for treasury liabilities to exist across the entire term structure except to support operations for long-term interest rates if you want do it that way all right now how would you manage credit conditions without the tailor rule if you said to the central bank keep the interest rate at zero uh oh how do you conduct monetary policy how do you manage credit conditions oh Warren has a paper where he put forward I don't know 20 30 different proposals for how to change uh what the treasury the fed and the banking system everything from regulatory change changes to operational changes and so forth there a whole list of things that we've proposed over time about how to go about managing influencing credit conditions lending and all the rest of it but that's there Eric T Mo and Randy did an edited volume Randy's book on Minsky Eric's uh book on Central Bank and asset pric and all the rest of it it's all there uh bill has dealt with the question of well if you're not able to ra interest rates and you have a permanent zero interest rate policy won't you just get asset bubbles people say that all the time bills written about that uh and address those concerns everyone from the Federal Reserve to some mm legal Scholars Nathan tankus and others have written to answer this question how can you manage credit conditions if you're not relying on changes in the short-term interest rate the answer is there are 101 things that you can do all right if you look at uh what other countries have done this is a from a paper where they looked at um how many times countries have tightened or loosened policy using tools other than the overnight interest rate okay so loan to value debt to income other sorts of criteria being used to either loosen credit conditions or tighten credit conditions how many times have countries done that this looks at that this one tells you how effective it's been and the paper just makes the arrives at the conclusion that it's quite effective you can use other tools that daren't the overnight interest rate to manage credit conditions other countries do it and they do it very effectively mmt has an answer for every one of these weaponization we show that printing money as Scott says isn't a thing if they really understood the operations they wouldn't say it if you're not issuing debt it means you don't have to deal with the fiscal sustainability that comes out of the um intertemporal government budget constraint if you're at Zer or managing interest rates it means you don't have to worry about Bond vigilantes Mosler Minsky Mitchell Ray T Mo Etc have done research on as I just said macr credential other ways to influence credit Beyond using short-term interest rates functional Finance means fiscal policy has a strong counter cyclical role to play and yet we still have to recognize and be prepared for the fact that no matter which option we choose people are going to complain about one thing or another all right coming close to the end adding some additional concerns so we open a conversation and as I said you know the descriptive stuff we're aligned around but on a prescriptive side and on this question about whether we should continue to issue bonds whether we should only issue them directly to the central bank whether we should not issue them at all or whether we should carry on with current practice issuing bonds to match the deficit to the non-government sector we've been having these discuss it's important that we talk about this and that we understand one another's concerns so ry's raised uh some concerns around Financial fragility oh I'm sorry I'm not there yet this is a different one I'm about to get there uh all right mm have had their own additional reasons for favoring no bonds and or sir all right this is a different slide if you are doing things the way we do them today which is column one and you have a central bank following a tailor rule or otherwise using rate hikes to fight inflation the rate hikes might become inflationary so that's an issue if you do things the way we're doing it today Financial fragility Alam Minsky right the rate hikes leading uh highly lever um borrowers into potentially unsustainable speculative reponds and positions it's corporate welfare is what bill and Warren call it like Ubi for the rich or whatever so you have those issues if you stopped issuing bonds and or did serve then those problems disappear you're not going to cause Financial fragility if you're anchoring the interest rate at zero you're not going to have uh rate hikes becoming inflationary because you don't have uh the bond market any longer and so forth right so those problems go away why ISS you de at all if there's no compelling case to do so as Bill Mitchell says why do we keep doing it so I'm going to jump here to some of Randy's concerns that have been raised just in internal conversations and I think he's had a a paper just uh recently on some of this at believe Le right so he's asking look if we got rid of bonds completely would it really not matter matter would it create some problems maybe in terms of the Public's portfolio preferences would it compromise the business model of banking where could there potentially be problems there does a modern financial sector need risk-free collateral for liquidity it's important to deal with these questions right shouldn't be proposing something without thinking about all of the potential risks and things that you know you got to uh anticipate problems that you could create so we've dealt with these I think uh to some extent Scot and I were thinking them through on the saving vehicle issue if you just keep with current practice then there's no problem everybody has their risk-free asset and you've got your treasuries uh Bank costs and profits not a problem because banks have access to uh treasuries a risk-free return uh doesn't compromise the business model of banking you have no liquidity approaching but if you move to options three and four or and this is ry's question and maybe concern then do you start to get into uh a new set of problems right do you open yourself up to a new set problem and we're open to that possibility we're saying yeah it's worth thinking about right all right so what about two additional options ask yourself this question what if the Central Bank issued the Securities instead of the treasury there's an idea Central Bank can do that so central banks have a lot of options if the government stops issuing bonds you can have Central Bank Securities you could rely more on reverse repost time deposit accounts uh you could have fed accounts or central bank accounts and you could even make them available to the business Community or to individuals it's obvious if we do that that central banks can never run out of money Central Bank could issue its own liabilities at any maturity it desires if it did that it could announce the rates at each maturity there's a twoyear 5 year 10 year 20 whatever if you weren't doing zero interest rate then you could set rates across the entire term structure you have risk-free uh interest rates across the term structure for private lenders to price from if you're doing Z then you could set rates slightly higher or not Scott says that's his uh line you could have on tap Securities which would mean risk-free collateral is plal you just announce the price and let the quantity flow you'd avoid the stupid approach currently employed which assumes that the desired increase in collateral is whatever number happens to pop out of the budget box at the end of every year you get the number of treasuries that match the deficit the mainstream would say this infringes on Central Bank Independence but the reality is it gives them more tools if you were to do something like this so in conclusion some of you have seen the film finding the money and those of you who've seen it probably will never forget a particular scene in the film where a White House Economist is asked you know why is the government issue treasuries if you have if you have the ability to issue currency why do you borrow and he flubs the question okay and I think the question is more interesting in an era in which the central bank is paying interest on reserve balances it's like if bonds are about interest rate maintenance and that's why we were issuing bonds to drain off reserves to allow the central bank to achieve its interest rate target assuming the target is above zero now that we're paying interest on reserves now the Central Bank what's the further purpose of issuing treasuries it's it becomes almost duplicative at that point right so I added another column which is options five and six we could let the central bank issue Securities and then leave the central bank to set the interest rates at different maturities uh including the overnight interest rate or we could anchor the overnight interest rate at zero now does a more clear winner begin to emerge doesn't it maybe Warren says no so this is why we're doing this right because it opens up a conversation but when we think through the different issues and we just answered yes or no on each of these this is how the chart filled itself out okay so so uh I'm sure Warren will tell us why um this last option is no good but the point is that no matter what we propose it's going to be criticized okay and our view Scott's View and my view is that MNT is about making choices within the right framework and not avoiding choosing something because we're afraid of what the other side will say accusing us of printing money or compromising fed Independence or whatever that's not the right way for us to make a decision on this we ought to do so um in an mmt consistent



0:07issuing bonds for a currency issuing government is a policy choice not an economic imperative it's a policy Choice
0:14here's Randy and Yea issuing bonds is voluntary operation that gives the public the opportunity to substitute
0:22non-interest earning government liabilities thank cash for interest
0:28bearing government liabilities T bills notes bonds which are credit balances in
0:33Securities Accounts at the same Central Bank if people believe the government needs to borrow to spend then you get
0:40into all of these debates who's going to buy them is the bid to cover ratio going
0:45to be adequate and all the rest of the kind of stuff but if you understand that bonds are voluntary operations then it
0:52becomes irrelevant these sort of debates whether there are takers for government bonds and whether they're owned by
0:58domestic or foreign citizens so we show most of the debates that take place are
1:05just rooted in fundamental myths and misunderstandings about what's really
1:11happening basically the operational side now there may be reasons to be
1:17concerned Warren touched on this the other day might it become an issue when
1:23you have a large enough stock of public debt and you have a central bank that is
1:29following a tailor rule or something like a tailor rule raising interest rates to try to fight inflation and you
1:36could potentially get into a sort of toxic situation where the rate hikes themselves begin to feed inflationary
1:44pressures 20 years ago I published a paper it was it appeared as a chapter in
1:50this book where I sort of uh Randy mentioned the other day something about laugher and the napkin I didn't put mine
1:56on a napkin either but I drew in it kind of looks like laugh laer curve right where the point is that
2:03if you're in a low Dead uh environment and a lot of the well there are certain
2:09conditions I'm not going to go into all of them let me just leave it at if you don't have a large stock of public debt
2:15and a few other things hold uh raising interest rates may have the usual
2:21conventional effect that is they would be contractionary but if the public debt gets large enough raising interest rates
2:27from say i1 to I2 could actually the stimulative at the macro level so we
2:33got to recognize that and if that's the case and it could create a sort of
2:39unsustainable situation in terms of the inflation impacts is there an answer to
2:44that the answer is sure you just keep the interest rate down because the interest rate has become the problem at
2:51that point so Scott fulweiler wrote about this and I should say Scott would have been here today but he couldn't
2:57make it and so this presentation we did together okay so it's it's the both of us we both work on it uh this paper was
3:04published by Scott in 2005 long before the FED started paying interest on
3:10reserve balances but Scott asked the question what would happen if the FED
3:15did what other central banks already do which is to pay interest on reserve
3:21balances so he wrote this paper and it's very good and it's short especially for Scott uh
3:27Fuller so Scott goes through this and he says you know we could issue bonds keep
3:33issuing bonds and have a zero interest rate policy or just manage the interest rate so it stays below the growth rate
3:41what would happen if we did that well we wouldn't have the problem with the
3:46intertemporal government budget constraint that all the mainstream economists use to tell us that fiscal
3:53policy is on an unsustainable trajectory so they use this macro model and they
3:59plug in uh the variables and they say based on the current outlook for
4:05interest rates and growth rates in the debt and so forth we're on an unsustainable trajectory we need to make
4:11changes and Scott said well if you think it's unsustainable just lower the interest rate below the growth rate and the debt will converge and the problem
4:18goes away that's basically this problem so Scott's saying the in the interest
4:23rate is a policy variable okay the mainstream treats the interest rate as what
4:29Market phenomenal right the market is doing it which is why the bond vigilante is matter but Scott's saying no set the
4:36interest rate so if it's a policy variable there's a very easy solution to this problem all right option three so
4:43the first two options were issue bonds issue bonds and let the Central Bank fiddle with the interest rate issue
4:49bonds and anchor the interest rate at zero now we're moving into don't issue
4:55bonds don't issue bonds and let the Central Bank play with the interest rate
5:00that's another option okay we could do that and once again Scott has that base covered he's very good at this so in
5:07this p in this piece paying interest on reserve balances more significant than you think Scott says uh with with
5:16interest on reserve balances eventually the entire national debt could be held
5:22exclusively as Reserve balances just leave it there simplifies monetary policy
5:28operations and the more significant point is that it makes it clear to everyone that interest
5:35on reserve balances demonstrates that the fed's operations are offsetting in nature not financing so that's the
5:42purpose of that paper all right option four no bonds and Zer zero interest rate
5:50or nearly zero kind of uh overnight interest rate Bill Mitchell says uh this
5:56is the preferred option from an mmt perspective no bonds and permanent zero
6:01interest rate policy now like I said that's a
6:07policy P it's a prescriptive policy right that's his position he would like
6:12to see no bonds issued to the non-government sector and interest rates permanently anchored at zero he calls it
6:20uh um omf overt monetary financing okay that's his preferred thing but he says
6:26it's you know the preferred option from an mmt perspect perspective government should not issue any public debt to the
6:32non-government sector as the benefits of doing so are small relative to the large opportunity costs all right so those are
6:40four options he goes on talk about helicopter money mm always understood QE
6:46as an asset swap with little or no transmission apart of apart from a placebo effect okay doesn't really do
6:53anything overt monetary financing he says Central Bank provides the monetary
6:59capacity to support larger fiscal deficits with no further debt being issued to the non-government sector so
7:06what bill has in mind is the central bank just buys the bonds directly from treasury credits A treasury's account
7:12treasury spends and you're of and running okay the original mmt proponents
7:19he says would characterize overt monetary financing as a highly desirable policy development because it makes a
7:25whole bunch of this stuff cleaner and clearer right next
7:30part what should we do to bond or not to bond that is the question right so what
7:36changes if we consider options three and four both of which involve not issuing
7:41treasuries at least to the non-government sector all right what changes well the big thing is public
7:47perception right if you're only issuing bonds to that are purchased by the central bank then the public understands
7:55that they're not being burdened by this debt stock that you don't have to worry about who's going to buy them and
8:01foreigners and all the rest of the stuff we often hear about no increase in public debt for he says this is Bill the
8:07Rabid Financial commentators to beat into a frenzy and push out predictions of insolvency it would get us all
8:14focused on inflation risk instead of solvency and the morality play borrowing
8:19driving us all into debt is immoral and all the rest of it who will buy them paying it back neuter the IMF the rating
8:26agencies they have nothing to complain about and all of that of stuff so he says there are major political
8:33advantages to moving to overt monetary financing all right I think we're damned
8:40if we do and damned if we don't there's no clear winner here there's no way to
8:46entirely avoid criticism weaponization no matter what you do all right so I'm going to show you some of this if we
8:53continue to issue government bonds to the non-government sector the way we do today then we hear the usual stuff
9:00economists the Press policy makers they weaponize the dead they talk about burdening future Generations who's going
9:06to buy it they weaponize the sustainability models they talk about exploding Debt Service it doesn't
9:13converge you got people like Olivia Blanchard Larry Summers Jason Ferman all using this framework to make the
9:19argument that the US needs to reduce the deficit because it's on an unsustainable
9:24trajectory based on these models weaponized Bond vigil anes you'll lose control of rates and and all that sort
9:31of stuff but if we propose Zer which eliminates a lot of those problems then
9:37they weaponize something different they say well if you if you keep the interest rate at zero then you're depriving the
9:42Central Bank of its ability to find our star and so you'll hear stuff about fiscal dominance or one uh argument or
9:49another it's going to be inflationary and all that if we say don't issue bonds
9:54to the non-government sector then they'll just say your printing money is going to be inflationary
10:00so what's an mmti to do the hell are you supposed to do they're going to pick on you no matter which one you choose so we
10:08created this little table and we just sort of imagine you know under which of
10:13the four options do you avoid the most
10:18criticism okay where where is it the cleanest and as you can see there's not really a clear winner here okay if we do
10:26what we do today which is column one they weaponize at that they weaponize the uh intertemporal government budget
10:32constraint you hear about Vigilantes but you know at least you'd leave them with
10:38the interest rates so they wouldn't complain about interfering with the central bank and because you leave them
10:44with the bonds and the interest rate they're not going to complain about printing money you move to the next option and you got a different set of
10:50things I don't have time to go through each one of them okay but make the slides available but the point of this
10:56is to say there's not a clear winner in terms of the options okay
11:03so so I'm going to put my cards on the table because as I said when I first got
11:09involved in this project it was the descriptive stuff that interested me I liked it I liked learning about and
11:15digging into and arriving at a place where I thought I had pretty good Mastery of the monetary operations it
11:22felt good to understand so I like the descriptive stuff and that first paper I referred to earlier was descrip
11:29and then I went to work on the hill and I realized what a mess we're in because I was surrounded by people working as
11:36the chief Economist for the Democrats on the Senate budget committee that no one
11:41in the Senate and their staffers had the obvious idea how to understand the role
11:48of deficits or debt in the economy that they were all falling prey to these myths and misunderstandings so I would
11:55go around playing this game and I would ask them hey if you had a magic w wand and I told you you could wave the magic
12:01wand and it would eliminate the national debt would you wave the magic wand
12:06everybody said yes not even hesitation of course I would wave the wand I want the debt gone said okay well what if I
12:13give you a different wand and I say if you wave the wand you will eradicate the world of treasuries no bills notes bonds
12:21they're just all gone would you wave the wand and they would look at me like I had three horns you know coming out of
12:27my head say why would I do that why would I want to do that so they didn't even understand that the thing we call
12:34the national debt is nothing more than the stockpile right the stock of us
12:40Treasures held in portfol excuse me portfolios and all the rest of it right they didn't understand they want one to
12:46go away but they want to keep the other well I'm sorry you can't have it both ways so that started to shake my
12:53confidence in things and then I wrote the deficit myth and I talked about some of this I told these kind of stories was
12:59in the book and I said look I'm sort of agnostic on whether we issue bonds or
13:05don't issue bonds the problem seems to be the way we refer to them it's the word debt that has everybody hung up
13:12right and so maybe we just need to give it a different name Warren used to recommend calling it instead of the
13:18national debt having a giant Debt Clock Loom over people in New York City
13:23ticking away Warren would say you know just call it the interest rate maintenance account maybe everybody
13:28would just just calmed down a little bit we've said call it the dollar savings clock we've tried right marketing
13:35rebranding it's just that it didn't catch on and everyone is still very clearly worried about and weaponizing
13:43the national debt and then you see what happened in the UK with Liz trust and everybody believes that the bond market
13:50smacked her down and said you will not get the fiscal package that you are
13:56proposing we aren't willing to finance it and now labor is terrified and everybody looks at what happened to Liz
14:02truss and they view that as a lesson for future governments and so at some point
14:07you go you know maybe we're not going to win this fight maybe we're not going to get the policy response we need to deal
14:14with climate and housing and all the rest of it uh because we can't get
14:19Beyond where we are in our understanding of deficits and especially the debt so I
14:25did an interview with the ft and they asked me if you had five wishes or a magic wand and you could do five things
14:31what would you do Warren and I talked a little bit about it uh before I committed to all five of those and I
14:38made one of them I said no more bonds just don't do it they're more trouble than they're worth we're not going to
14:43educate people fast enough to get Beyond this to get the right policy so let's just stop right so that's kind of where
14:51I have arrived and I like my little play on words here which is if we were to do
14:57that if the UK were to do that it could enjoy guilt-free spending isn't that
15:06nice you know the German word for Deb is guilt right and we do feel guilty about
15:14increase in the deficit because it adds to the debt and we have this idea that this is a burden somebody's ultimately going to have to pay it back so let's
15:20just get let's just get over it let's stop issuing it the labor party's fiscal rules are clearly I think intention
15:28Within missions you want to build a lot of housing but you want to rely on the private sector to do it just spend and
15:34build the public housing leave the resulting pounds in the system let the bank of England decide what to pay on
15:40those Reserve balances and tell the market to pound sand that is my position
15:46uh as I stand here today so what can we do to De weaponize right uh to avoid
15:53this is Scott's line mass destruction de weaponized to avoid we got to have policy responses some of the very
16:00critical challenges that we are facing and we're having trouble getting there I think largely because we're still too
16:07hung up on what the national debt so-called means and the dangers the
16:12dangers that it poses so we have written a lot over the years trying to educate
16:18people trying to help people understand that there are options and that the way
16:23we understand things today has flaws and and there misunderstandings and so so
16:29forth again this is Bill Mitchell what would happen if a sovereign currency issuing government ran a fiscal deficit
16:36and didn't issue debt at all or sold bonds only to the central bank instead of the non-government sector what would
16:43happen if we did over monetary financing and he says uh with a fiscal deficit and
16:48no bond sales you get excess reserves in the cash system and the overnight interest rate Falls to zero or to the
16:55support rate we've explained this a million times I have Warren has Scot has ad nauseum the only difference between
17:01this and issuing bonds to drain the reserves is that the central bank has to use a different technique to hit its
17:07interest rate target that's all that changes and Larry got it Larry recognized it there's no difference
17:14between issuing the bonds or not issuing the bonds the difference is on Whose Ledger are you going to write down the
17:20liability on the central bank's Ledger or the treasuries and who's going to
17:26get I was going to say credit for but I don't want to say that who is going to pay the interest the central bank or the
17:31treasury that's what the difference comes down to all right so here's Scott fulweiler again from his 2005 paper
17:39deficits that are unaccompanied by Bond sales are viewed disapprovingly as
17:44monetization even though there's no meaningful difference between doing it the way we do it today issuing the bonds
17:51deficits always create net Financial Assets in direct proportion no matter which way you do it what matters isn't
17:58whether you sell bonds but whether the deficit is too large given the non-government desire to net save once
18:05you have interest bearing reserves it becomes obvious that Bond sales are
18:11offsetting interest rate maintenance not financing operations with interest on reserve balances eventually Scott says
18:18the entire national debt could be held exclusively as Reserve balances or as
18:24learner said issue bonds only in keeping with the principles of functional
18:30Finance so paying interest on reserves simplifies monetary policy frees the treasury and the fed from selling bonds
18:37to support the interest rate target it just makes it cleaner and more transparent otherwise it changes very
18:42little fundamentally again no difference between issuing government debt to the non-government sector and the Central
18:49Bank paying interest on Reserves at the Target rate they're identical but the politics can be different all right it
18:57doesn't make it less inflation AR if you issue bonds it doesn't alter the quantity of net Financial Assets in the
19:03non-government sector and it doesn't add jet fuel to the spending it doesn't make
19:09the deficit more stimulative because there's no difference between so-called
19:14Bond financed and money financed deficits there's no reason for the government to sell bonds at all that's
19:21from Full Wilder's pwor no further increase in the debt means no
19:26unnecessary and counterproductive debt sealing drama no fights about burning
19:32grandchildren all that sort of stuff all right this is just a image that Scott
19:38uses a lot because people don't understand they see the way the
19:43government arranges treasury auctions coupled with deficits I say oh well this is how we
19:50pay for things and I call this one on the left covert monetary financing and
19:56the one on the right overt monetary financing it's the same thing the Central Bank back stops the dealers and
20:02it all works the same way you end up in the same place whether you do it overtly or covertly that's the point here so
20:11would stopping Bond issuance undermine Central Bank Independence no if you've
20:17got interest bearing Reserve balances the central bank still has control of the overnight interest rates that's the
20:23policy rate if you moved away from that uh and oh you're not issuing bonds then
20:30government agency Securities or swaps could emerge as benchmarks you could still have something the private sector
20:37could use to price risk even without treasuries because you often hear well if you get rid of bonds that's the
20:42risk-free rate that's used to price risk for other Securities and lending and so
20:48forth you you'd have a huge problem if you got rid of bonds and Scott is saying no you wouldn't there are other ways uh
20:54to do that the transmission of monetary policy with interest bearing Reserve balances is identical to that uh with
21:02non-interest bearing Reserve balances and bonds to drain the excess balances treasury Securities could eventually be
21:08replaced the interest rate on the national debt would then be whatever interest rate the central bank is paying
21:15on reserve balances there's no inherent reason for treasury liabilities to exist
21:20across the entire term structure except to support operations for long-term
21:27interest rates if you want do it that way all right now how would you manage credit
21:34conditions without the tailor rule if you said to the central bank keep the
21:39interest rate at zero uh oh how do you conduct monetary policy how do you
21:45manage credit conditions oh Warren has a paper where he put forward I don't know
21:5020 30 different proposals for how to change uh what the treasury the fed and
21:57the banking system everything from regulatory change changes to operational changes and so forth there a whole list
22:04of things that we've proposed over time about how to go about managing
22:09influencing credit conditions lending and all the rest of it but that's there Eric T Mo and Randy did an edited volume
22:16Randy's book on Minsky Eric's uh book on Central Bank and asset pric and all the
22:22rest of it it's all there uh bill has dealt with the question of well if you're not able to
22:28ra interest rates and you have a permanent zero interest rate policy won't you just get asset bubbles people
22:34say that all the time bills written about that uh and address those concerns everyone from the Federal Reserve to
22:41some mm legal Scholars Nathan tankus and others have written to answer this
22:47question how can you manage credit conditions if you're not relying on changes in the short-term interest rate
22:53the answer is there are 101 things that you can do all right
22:59if you look at uh what other countries have done this is a from a paper where
23:04they looked at um how many times countries have tightened or loosened
23:11policy using tools other than the overnight interest rate okay so loan to
23:17value debt to income other sorts of criteria being used to either loosen credit conditions or tighten credit
23:23conditions how many times have countries done that this looks at that this one tells you how effective it's been and
23:30the paper just makes the arrives at the conclusion that it's quite effective you
23:35can use other tools that daren't the overnight interest rate to manage credit
23:40conditions other countries do it and they do it very effectively mmt has an answer for every one of these
23:46weaponization we show that printing money as Scott says isn't a thing if they really understood the operations
23:52they wouldn't say it if you're not issuing debt it means you don't have to deal with the fiscal sustainability that
23:58comes out of the um intertemporal government budget constraint if you're at Zer or managing interest rates it
24:06means you don't have to worry about Bond vigilantes Mosler Minsky Mitchell Ray T
24:11Mo Etc have done research on as I just said macr credential other ways to
24:17influence credit Beyond using short-term interest rates functional Finance means fiscal policy has a strong counter
24:24cyclical role to play and yet we still have to recognize and be prepared for the fact that no matter which option we
24:30choose people are going to complain about one thing or
24:36another all right coming close to the end adding some additional concerns so
24:44we open a conversation and as I said you know the descriptive stuff we're aligned
24:50around but on a prescriptive side and on this question about whether we should continue to issue bonds whether we
24:57should only issue them directly to the central bank whether we should not issue them at all or whether we should carry
25:02on with current practice issuing bonds to match the deficit to the non-government sector we've been having
25:09these discuss it's important that we talk about this and that we understand one another's concerns so ry's raised uh
25:17some concerns around Financial fragility oh I'm sorry I'm not there yet this is a different one I'm about to get there uh
25:25all right mm have had their own additional reasons for favoring no bonds
25:31and or sir all right this is a different slide if you are doing things the way we
25:37do them today which is column one and you have a central bank following a tailor rule or otherwise using rate
25:44hikes to fight inflation the rate hikes might become inflationary so that's an issue if you do things the way we're
25:51doing it today Financial fragility Alam Minsky right the rate hikes leading uh
25:57highly lever um borrowers into potentially unsustainable speculative reponds and
26:03positions it's corporate welfare is what bill and Warren call it like Ubi for the
26:08rich or whatever so you have those issues if you stopped issuing bonds and or did serve then those problems
26:17disappear you're not going to cause Financial fragility if you're anchoring the interest rate at zero you're not
26:22going to have uh rate hikes becoming inflationary because you don't have uh the bond market any longer and so forth
26:29right so those problems go away why ISS you de at all if there's no compelling case to do so as Bill Mitchell says why
26:36do we keep doing it so I'm going to jump here to some of Randy's concerns that have been raised just in internal
26:43conversations and I think he's had a a paper just uh recently on some of this
26:49at believe Le right so he's asking look if we got rid of bonds completely would
26:56it really not matter matter would it create some problems maybe in terms of
27:01the Public's portfolio preferences would it compromise the business model of banking where could there potentially be
27:09problems there does a modern financial sector need risk-free collateral for liquidity it's important to deal with
27:16these questions right shouldn't be proposing something without thinking about all of the potential risks and
27:22things that you know you got to uh anticipate problems that you could create so
27:29we've dealt with these I think uh to some extent Scot and I were thinking them through on the saving vehicle issue
27:36if you just keep with current practice then there's no problem everybody has their risk-free asset and you've got
27:42your treasuries uh Bank costs and profits not a problem because banks have
27:47access to uh treasuries a risk-free return uh doesn't compromise the
27:52business model of banking you have no liquidity approaching but if you move to options three and four or and this is
27:58ry's question and maybe concern then do you start to get into uh a new set of
28:05problems right do you open yourself up to a new set problem and we're open to that possibility we're saying yeah it's
28:12worth thinking about right all right so what about two
28:17additional options ask yourself this question what if the Central Bank issued the Securities instead of the
28:23treasury there's an idea Central Bank can do that so central banks have a lot
28:28of options if the government stops issuing bonds you can have Central Bank Securities you could rely more on
28:34reverse repost time deposit accounts uh you could have fed accounts or central bank accounts and you could even make
28:40them available to the business Community or to individuals it's obvious if we do
28:45that that central banks can never run out of money Central Bank could issue its own liabilities at any maturity it
28:52desires if it did that it could announce the rates at each maturity there's a
28:57twoyear 5 year 10 year 20 whatever if you weren't doing zero interest rate
29:03then you could set rates across the entire term structure you have risk-free
29:09uh interest rates across the term structure for private lenders to price from if you're doing Z then you could
29:14set rates slightly higher or not Scott says that's his uh line you could have
29:20on tap Securities which would mean risk-free collateral is plal you just
29:25announce the price and let the quantity flow you'd avoid the stupid approach
29:31currently employed which assumes that the desired increase in collateral is
29:37whatever number happens to pop out of the budget box at the end of every year you get the number of treasuries that match the deficit the mainstream would
29:44say this infringes on Central Bank Independence but the reality is it gives them more tools if you were to do
29:51something like this so in conclusion some of you have seen the film finding the money and those of you
29:58who've seen it probably will never forget a particular scene in the film where a White House Economist is
30:06asked you know why is the government issue treasuries if you have if you have the ability to issue currency why do you
30:14borrow and he flubs the question okay and I think the question is more
30:19interesting in an era in which the central bank is paying interest on reserve balances it's like if bonds are
30:27about interest rate maintenance and that's why we were issuing bonds to drain off reserves to allow the central
30:33bank to achieve its interest rate target assuming the target is above zero now
30:39that we're paying interest on reserves now the Central Bank what's the further purpose of issuing treasuries it's it
30:46becomes almost duplicative at that point right so I added another column which is
30:52options five and six we could let the central bank issue Securities and then leave the central bank to set the
30:59interest rates at different maturities uh including the overnight interest rate or we could anchor the overnight
31:04interest rate at zero now does a more clear winner begin to
31:10emerge doesn't it maybe Warren says no so this is why
31:15we're doing this right because it opens up a conversation but when we think through the different issues and we just
31:22answered yes or no on each of these this is how the chart filled itself out okay
31:27so so uh I'm sure Warren will tell us why um this last option is no good but
31:32the point is that no matter what we propose it's going to be criticized okay
31:39and our view Scott's View and my view is that MNT is about making choices within the right framework and not avoiding
31:47choosing something because we're afraid of what the other side will say accusing us of printing money or compromising fed
31:54Independence or whatever that's not the right way for us to make a decision on this we ought to do so um in an mmt
32:02consistent way
時刻: 0 件のコメント:

Gower Initiative for Modern Money StudiesさんによるXでのポスト　ケルトン2024年7月

UK MMT Conference 2024 - Slides and videos - The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies

Stephanie Kelton - To Bond, or Not to Bond, that is the Question.








issuing bonds for a currency issuing government is a policy choice not an economic imperative it's a policy Choice here's Randy and Yea issuing bonds is voluntary operation that gives the public the opportunity to substitute non-interest earning government liabilities thank cash for interest bearing government liabilities T bills notes bonds which are credit balances in Securities Accounts at the same Central Bank if people believe the government needs to borrow to spend then you get into all of these debates who's going to buy them is the bid to cover ratio going to be adequate and all the rest of the kind of stuff but if you understand that bonds are voluntary operations then it becomes irrelevant these sort of debates whether there are takers for government bonds and whether they're owned by domestic or foreign citizens so we show most of the debates that take place are just rooted in fundamental myths and misunderstandings about what's really happening basically the operational side now there may be reasons to be concerned Warren touched on this the other day might it become an issue when you have a large enough stock of public debt and you have a central bank that is following a tailor rule or something like a tailor rule raising interest rates to try to fight inflation and you could potentially get into a sort of toxic situation where the rate hikes themselves begin to feed inflationary pressures 20 years ago I published a paper it was it appeared as a chapter in this book where I sort of uh Randy mentioned the other day something about laugher and the napkin I didn't put mine on a napkin either but I drew in it kind of looks like laugh laer curve right where the point is that if you're in a low Dead uh environment and a lot of the well there are certain conditions I'm not going to go into all of them let me just leave it at if you don't have a large stock of public debt and a few other things hold uh raising interest rates may have the usual conventional effect that is they would be contractionary but if the public debt gets large enough raising interest rates from say i1 to I2 could actually the stimulative at the macro level so we got to recognize that and if that's the case and it could create a sort of unsustainable situation in terms of the inflation impacts is there an answer to that the answer is sure you just keep the interest rate down because the interest rate has become the problem at that point so Scott fulweiler wrote about this and I should say Scott would have been here today but he couldn't make it and so this presentation we did together okay so it's it's the both of us we both work on it uh this paper was published by Scott in 2005 long before the FED started paying interest on reserve balances but Scott asked the question what would happen if the FED did what other central banks already do which is to pay interest on reserve balances so he wrote this paper and it's very good and it's short especially for Scott uh Fuller so Scott goes through this and he says you know we could issue bonds keep issuing bonds and have a zero interest rate policy or just manage the interest rate so it stays below the growth rate what would happen if we did that well we wouldn't have the problem with the intertemporal government budget constraint that all the mainstream economists use to tell us that fiscal policy is on an unsustainable trajectory so they use this macro model and they plug in uh the variables and they say based on the current outlook for interest rates and growth rates in the debt and so forth we're on an unsustainable trajectory we need to make changes and Scott said well if you think it's unsustainable just lower the interest rate below the growth rate and the debt will converge and the problem goes away that's basically this problem so Scott's saying the in the interest rate is a policy variable okay the mainstream treats the interest rate as what Market phenomenal right the market is doing it which is why the bond vigilante is matter but Scott's saying no set the interest rate so if it's a policy variable there's a very easy solution to this problem all right option three so the first two options were issue bonds issue bonds and let the Central Bank fiddle with the interest rate issue bonds and anchor the interest rate at zero now we're moving into don't issue bonds don't issue bonds and let the Central Bank play with the interest rate that's another option okay we could do that and once again Scott has that base covered he's very good at this so in this p in this piece paying interest on reserve balances more significant than you think Scott says uh with with interest on reserve balances eventually the entire national debt could be held exclusively as Reserve balances just leave it there simplifies monetary policy operations and the more significant point is that it makes it clear to everyone that interest on reserve balances demonstrates that the fed's operations are offsetting in nature not financing so that's the purpose of that paper all right option four no bonds and Zer zero interest rate or nearly zero kind of uh overnight interest rate Bill Mitchell says uh this is the preferred option from an mmt perspective no bonds and permanent zero interest rate policy now like I said that's a policy P it's a prescriptive policy right that's his position he would like to see no bonds issued to the non-government sector and interest rates permanently anchored at zero he calls it uh um omf overt monetary financing okay that's his preferred thing but he says it's you know the preferred option from an mmt perspect perspective government should not issue any public debt to the non-government sector as the benefits of doing so are small relative to the large opportunity costs all right so those are four options he goes on talk about helicopter money mm always understood QE as an asset swap with little or no transmission apart of apart from a placebo effect okay doesn't really do anything overt monetary financing he says Central Bank provides the monetary capacity to support larger fiscal deficits with no further debt being issued to the non-government sector so what bill has in mind is the central bank just buys the bonds directly from treasury credits A treasury's account treasury spends and you're of and running okay the original mmt proponents he says would characterize overt monetary financing as a highly desirable policy development because it makes a whole bunch of this stuff cleaner and clearer right next part what should we do to bond or not to bond that is the question right so what changes if we consider options three and four both of which involve not issuing treasuries at least to the non-government sector all right what changes well the big thing is public perception right if you're only issuing bonds to that are purchased by the central bank then the public understands that they're not being burdened by this debt stock that you don't have to worry about who's going to buy them and foreigners and all the rest of the stuff we often hear about no increase in public debt for he says this is Bill the Rabid Financial commentators to beat into a frenzy and push out predictions of insolvency it would get us all focused on inflation risk instead of solvency and the morality play borrowing driving us all into debt is immoral and all the rest of it who will buy them paying it back neuter the IMF the rating agencies they have nothing to complain about and all of that of stuff so he says there are major political advantages to moving to overt monetary financing all right I think we're damned if we do and damned if we don't there's no clear winner here there's no way to entirely avoid criticism weaponization no matter what you do all right so I'm going to show you some of this if we continue to issue government bonds to the non-government sector the way we do today then we hear the usual stuff economists the Press policy makers they weaponize the dead they talk about burdening future Generations who's going to buy it they weaponize the sustainability models they talk about exploding Debt Service it doesn't converge you got people like Olivia Blanchard Larry Summers Jason Ferman all using this framework to make the argument that the US needs to reduce the deficit because it's on an unsustainable trajectory based on these models weaponized Bond vigil anes you'll lose control of rates and and all that sort of stuff but if we propose Zer which eliminates a lot of those problems then they weaponize something different they say well if you if you keep the interest rate at zero then you're depriving the Central Bank of its ability to find our star and so you'll hear stuff about fiscal dominance or one uh argument or another it's going to be inflationary and all that if we say don't issue bonds to the non-government sector then they'll just say your printing money is going to be inflationary so what's an mmti to do the hell are you supposed to do they're going to pick on you no matter which one you choose so we created this little table and we just sort of imagine you know under which of the four options do you avoid the most criticism okay where where is it the cleanest and as you can see there's not really a clear winner here okay if we do what we do today which is column one they weaponize at that they weaponize the uh intertemporal government budget constraint you hear about Vigilantes but you know at least you'd leave them with the interest rates so they wouldn't complain about interfering with the central bank and because you leave them with the bonds and the interest rate they're not going to complain about printing money you move to the next option and you got a different set of things I don't have time to go through each one of them okay but make the slides available but the point of this is to say there's not a clear winner in terms of the options okay so so I'm going to put my cards on the table because as I said when I first got involved in this project it was the descriptive stuff that interested me I liked it I liked learning about and digging into and arriving at a place where I thought I had pretty good Mastery of the monetary operations it felt good to understand so I like the descriptive stuff and that first paper I referred to earlier was descrip and then I went to work on the hill and I realized what a mess we're in because I was surrounded by people working as the chief Economist for the Democrats on the Senate budget committee that no one in the Senate and their staffers had the obvious idea how to understand the role of deficits or debt in the economy that they were all falling prey to these myths and misunderstandings so I would go around playing this game and I would ask them hey if you had a magic w wand and I told you you could wave the magic wand and it would eliminate the national debt would you wave the magic wand everybody said yes not even hesitation of course I would wave the wand I want the debt gone said okay well what if I give you a different wand and I say if you wave the wand you will eradicate the world of treasuries no bills notes bonds they're just all gone would you wave the wand and they would look at me like I had three horns you know coming out of my head say why would I do that why would I want to do that so they didn't even understand that the thing we call the national debt is nothing more than the stockpile right the stock of us Treasures held in portfol excuse me portfolios and all the rest of it right they didn't understand they want one to go away but they want to keep the other well I'm sorry you can't have it both ways so that started to shake my confidence in things and then I wrote the deficit myth and I talked about some of this I told these kind of stories was in the book and I said look I'm sort of agnostic on whether we issue bonds or don't issue bonds the problem seems to be the way we refer to them it's the word debt that has everybody hung up right and so maybe we just need to give it a different name Warren used to recommend calling it instead of the national debt having a giant Debt Clock Loom over people in New York City ticking away Warren would say you know just call it the interest rate maintenance account maybe everybody would just just calmed down a little bit we've said call it the dollar savings clock we've tried right marketing rebranding it's just that it didn't catch on and everyone is still very clearly worried about and weaponizing the national debt and then you see what happened in the UK with Liz trust and everybody believes that the bond market smacked her down and said you will not get the fiscal package that you are proposing we aren't willing to finance it and now labor is terrified and everybody looks at what happened to Liz truss and they view that as a lesson for future governments and so at some point you go you know maybe we're not going to win this fight maybe we're not going to get the policy response we need to deal with climate and housing and all the rest of it uh because we can't get Beyond where we are in our understanding of deficits and especially the debt so I did an interview with the ft and they asked me if you had five wishes or a magic wand and you could do five things what would you do Warren and I talked a little bit about it uh before I committed to all five of those and I made one of them I said no more bonds just don't do it they're more trouble than they're worth we're not going to educate people fast enough to get Beyond this to get the right policy so let's just stop right so that's kind of where I have arrived and I like my little play on words here which is if we were to do that if the UK were to do that it could enjoy guilt-free spending isn't that nice you know the German word for Deb is guilt right and we do feel guilty about increase in the deficit because it adds to the debt and we have this idea that this is a burden somebody's ultimately going to have to pay it back so let's just get let's just get over it let's stop issuing it the labor party's fiscal rules are clearly I think intention Within missions you want to build a lot of housing but you want to rely on the private sector to do it just spend and build the public housing leave the resulting pounds in the system let the bank of England decide what to pay on those Reserve balances and tell the market to pound sand that is my position uh as I stand here today so what can we do to De weaponize right uh to avoid this is Scott's line mass destruction de weaponized to avoid we got to have policy responses some of the very critical challenges that we are facing and we're having trouble getting there I think largely because we're still too hung up on what the national debt so-called means and the dangers the dangers that it poses so we have written a lot over the years trying to educate people trying to help people understand that there are options and that the way we understand things today has flaws and and there misunderstandings and so so forth again this is Bill Mitchell what would happen if a sovereign currency issuing government ran a fiscal deficit and didn't issue debt at all or sold bonds only to the central bank instead of the non-government sector what would happen if we did over monetary financing and he says uh with a fiscal deficit and no bond sales you get excess reserves in the cash system and the overnight interest rate Falls to zero or to the support rate we've explained this a million times I have Warren has Scot has ad nauseum the only difference between this and issuing bonds to drain the reserves is that the central bank has to use a different technique to hit its interest rate target that's all that changes and Larry got it Larry recognized it there's no difference between issuing the bonds or not issuing the bonds the difference is on Whose Ledger are you going to write down the liability on the central bank's Ledger or the treasuries and who's going to get I was going to say credit for but I don't want to say that who is going to pay the interest the central bank or the treasury that's what the difference comes down to all right so here's Scott fulweiler again from his 2005 paper deficits that are unaccompanied by Bond sales are viewed disapprovingly as monetization even though there's no meaningful difference between doing it the way we do it today issuing the bonds deficits always create net Financial Assets in direct proportion no matter which way you do it what matters isn't whether you sell bonds but whether the deficit is too large given the non-government desire to net save once you have interest bearing reserves it becomes obvious that Bond sales are offsetting interest rate maintenance not financing operations with interest on reserve balances eventually Scott says the entire national debt could be held exclusively as Reserve balances or as learner said issue bonds only in keeping with the principles of functional Finance so paying interest on reserves simplifies monetary policy frees the treasury and the fed from selling bonds to support the interest rate target it just makes it cleaner and more transparent otherwise it changes very little fundamentally again no difference between issuing government debt to the non-government sector and the Central Bank paying interest on Reserves at the Target rate they're identical but the politics can be different all right it doesn't make it less inflation AR if you issue bonds it doesn't alter the quantity of net Financial Assets in the non-government sector and it doesn't add jet fuel to the spending it doesn't make the deficit more stimulative because there's no difference between so-called Bond financed and money financed deficits there's no reason for the government to sell bonds at all that's from Full Wilder's pwor no further increase in the debt means no unnecessary and counterproductive debt sealing drama no fights about burning grandchildren all that sort of stuff all right this is just a image that Scott uses a lot because people don't understand they see the way the government arranges treasury auctions coupled with deficits I say oh well this is how we pay for things and I call this one on the left covert monetary financing and the one on the right overt monetary financing it's the same thing the Central Bank back stops the dealers and it all works the same way you end up in the same place whether you do it overtly or covertly that's the point here so would stopping Bond issuance undermine Central Bank Independence no if you've got interest bearing Reserve balances the central bank still has control of the overnight interest rates that's the policy rate if you moved away from that uh and oh you're not issuing bonds then government agency Securities or swaps could emerge as benchmarks you could still have something the private sector could use to price risk even without treasuries because you often hear well if you get rid of bonds that's the risk-free rate that's used to price risk for other Securities and lending and so forth you you'd have a huge problem if you got rid of bonds and Scott is saying no you wouldn't there are other ways uh to do that the transmission of monetary policy with interest bearing Reserve balances is identical to that uh with non-interest bearing Reserve balances and bonds to drain the excess balances treasury Securities could eventually be replaced the interest rate on the national debt would then be whatever interest rate the central bank is paying on reserve balances there's no inherent reason for treasury liabilities to exist across the entire term structure except to support operations for long-term interest rates if you want do it that way all right now how would you manage credit conditions without the tailor rule if you said to the central bank keep the interest rate at zero uh oh how do you conduct monetary policy how do you manage credit conditions oh Warren has a paper where he put forward I don't know 20 30 different proposals for how to change uh what the treasury the fed and the banking system everything from regulatory change changes to operational changes and so forth there a whole list of things that we've proposed over time about how to go about managing influencing credit conditions lending and all the rest of it but that's there Eric T Mo and Randy did an edited volume Randy's book on Minsky Eric's uh book on Central Bank and asset pric and all the rest of it it's all there uh bill has dealt with the question of well if you're not able to ra interest rates and you have a permanent zero interest rate policy won't you just get asset bubbles people say that all the time bills written about that uh and address those concerns everyone from the Federal Reserve to some mm legal Scholars Nathan tankus and others have written to answer this question how can you manage credit conditions if you're not relying on changes in the short-term interest rate the answer is there are 101 things that you can do all right if you look at uh what other countries have done this is a from a paper where they looked at um how many times countries have tightened or loosened policy using tools other than the overnight interest rate okay so loan to value debt to income other sorts of criteria being used to either loosen credit conditions or tighten credit conditions how many times have countries done that this looks at that this one tells you how effective it's been and the paper just makes the arrives at the conclusion that it's quite effective you can use other tools that daren't the overnight interest rate to manage credit conditions other countries do it and they do it very effectively mmt has an answer for every one of these weaponization we show that printing money as Scott says isn't a thing if they really understood the operations they wouldn't say it if you're not issuing debt it means you don't have to deal with the fiscal sustainability that comes out of the um intertemporal government budget constraint if you're at Zer or managing interest rates it means you don't have to worry about Bond vigilantes Mosler Minsky Mitchell Ray T Mo Etc have done research on as I just said macr credential other ways to influence credit Beyond using short-term interest rates functional Finance means fiscal policy has a strong counter cyclical role to play and yet we still have to recognize and be prepared for the fact that no matter which option we choose people are going to complain about one thing or another all right coming close to the end adding some additional concerns so we open a conversation and as I said you know the descriptive stuff we're aligned around but on a prescriptive side and on this question about whether we should continue to issue bonds whether we should only issue them directly to the central bank whether we should not issue them at all or whether we should carry on with current practice issuing bonds to match the deficit to the non-government sector we've been having these discuss it's important that we talk about this and that we understand one another's concerns so ry's raised uh some concerns around Financial fragility oh I'm sorry I'm not there yet this is a different one I'm about to get there uh all right mm have had their own additional reasons for favoring no bonds and or sir all right this is a different slide if you are doing things the way we do them today which is column one and you have a central bank following a tailor rule or otherwise using rate hikes to fight inflation the rate hikes might become inflationary so that's an issue if you do things the way we're doing it today Financial fragility Alam Minsky right the rate hikes leading uh highly lever um borrowers into potentially unsustainable speculative reponds and positions it's corporate welfare is what bill and Warren call it like Ubi for the rich or whatever so you have those issues if you stopped issuing bonds and or did serve then those problems disappear you're not going to cause Financial fragility if you're anchoring the interest rate at zero you're not going to have uh rate hikes becoming inflationary because you don't have uh the bond market any longer and so forth right so those problems go away why ISS you de at all if there's no compelling case to do so as Bill Mitchell says why do we keep doing it so I'm going to jump here to some of Randy's concerns that have been raised just in internal conversations and I think he's had a a paper just uh recently on some of this at believe Le right so he's asking look if we got rid of bonds completely would it really not matter matter would it create some problems maybe in terms of the Public's portfolio preferences would it compromise the business model of banking where could there potentially be problems there does a modern financial sector need risk-free collateral for liquidity it's important to deal with these questions right shouldn't be proposing something without thinking about all of the potential risks and things that you know you got to uh anticipate problems that you could create so we've dealt with these I think uh to some extent Scot and I were thinking them through on the saving vehicle issue if you just keep with current practice then there's no problem everybody has their risk-free asset and you've got your treasuries uh Bank costs and profits not a problem because banks have access to uh treasuries a risk-free return uh doesn't compromise the business model of banking you have no liquidity approaching but if you move to options three and four or and this is ry's question and maybe concern then do you start to get into uh a new set of problems right do you open yourself up to a new set problem and we're open to that possibility we're saying yeah it's worth thinking about right all right so what about two additional options ask yourself this question what if the Central Bank issued the Securities instead of the treasury there's an idea Central Bank can do that so central banks have a lot of options if the government stops issuing bonds you can have Central Bank Securities you could rely more on reverse repost time deposit accounts uh you could have fed accounts or central bank accounts and you could even make them available to the business Community or to individuals it's obvious if we do that that central banks can never run out of money Central Bank could issue its own liabilities at any maturity it desires if it did that it could announce the rates at each maturity there's a twoyear 5 year 10 year 20 whatever if you weren't doing zero interest rate then you could set rates across the entire term structure you have risk-free uh interest rates across the term structure for private lenders to price from if you're doing Z then you could set rates slightly higher or not Scott says that's his uh line you could have on tap Securities which would mean risk-free collateral is plal you just announce the price and let the quantity flow you'd avoid the stupid approach currently employed which assumes that the desired increase in collateral is whatever number happens to pop out of the budget box at the end of every year you get the number of treasuries that match the deficit the mainstream would say this infringes on Central Bank Independence but the reality is it gives them more tools if you were to do something like this so in conclusion some of you have seen the film finding the money and those of you who've seen it probably will never forget a particular scene in the film where a White House Economist is asked you know why is the government issue treasuries if you have if you have the ability to issue currency why do you borrow and he flubs the question okay and I think the question is more interesting in an era in which the central bank is paying interest on reserve balances it's like if bonds are about interest rate maintenance and that's why we were issuing bonds to drain off reserves to allow the central bank to achieve its interest rate target assuming the target is above zero now that we're paying interest on reserves now the Central Bank what's the further purpose of issuing treasuries it's it becomes almost duplicative at that point right so I added another column which is options five and six we could let the central bank issue Securities and then leave the central bank to set the interest rates at different maturities uh including the overnight interest rate or we could anchor the overnight interest rate at zero now does a more clear winner begin to emerge doesn't it maybe Warren says no so this is why we're doing this right because it opens up a conversation but when we think through the different issues and we just answered yes or no on each of these this is how the chart filled itself out okay so so uh I'm sure Warren will tell us why um this last option is no good but the point is that no matter what we propose it's going to be criticized okay and our view Scott's View and my view is that MNT is about making choices within the right framework and not avoiding choosing something because we're afraid of what the other side will say accusing us of printing money or compromising fed Independence or whatever that's not the right way for us to make a decision on this we ought to do so um in an mmt consistent 


https://modernmonetarytheory2024.blogspot.com/2025/01/blog-post_11.html




現代_貨幣_理論 
通貨発行政府のために債券を発行することは、経済的な義務ではなく、政策の選択です。これは政策の選択です。ここでランディとはい、債券の発行は、国民に非利子収入の政府負債を置き換える機会を与える自発的な操作です。利息のある政府負債を現金に感謝します。同じ中央銀行の証券口座の信用残高であるT紙幣ノート債券。人々が政府が支出するために借りる必要があると信じている場合、あなたはこれらすべての議論に入ります。誰がそれらを買うのか、カバー率をカバーするための入札であり、残りはすべてこの種のものですが、債券は自発的な操作であることを理解すれば、政府債のテイカーがいるかどうか、国内または外国の市民が所有しているかどうか、この種の議論は無関係になります。したがって、発生するほとんどの議論は、基本的に何が起こっているかについての基本的な神話と誤解に根ざしていることを示しています。基本的に運用面は、先日、これについてウォーレンに触れたことを心配する理由があるかもしれません。公的債務の十分な量があり、中央銀行を持っているとき、それは問題になるかもしれません。それは、インフレと戦うために金利を上げるテーラールールまたはテーラールールのようなものに従っており、利上げ自体がインフレ圧力を助長し始める一種の有害な状況に陥る可能性があります。20年前、私は論文を発表しました。それはこの本の章として登場しました。そこで、ランディは先日、笑いとナプキンについて何か言及しました。私もナプキンに私のものを置かなかったが、笑いのレーアカーブのように見えます。あなたは低い死んだ環境にいて、多くの井戸には特定の条件があります。私はそれらすべてに入るつもりはありません。あなたが大きな公的債務の在庫を持っていない場合、そして他のいくつかのものを保持します。ええと、金利を上げることは、通常の従来の効果があるかもしれません。それは収縮的ですが、公的債務が十分に大きくなると、i1からI2への金利引き上げは実際にマクロレベルで刺激になる可能性があるため、私たちはそれを認識する必要があります。インフレの影響に関して、一種の持続不可能な状況を作り出す可能性があります。その答えはありますか？その答えは、金利が問題になっているので、金利を低く保つと確信しています。スコット・フルワイラーはこれについて書きました。スコットは今日ここにいたでしょうが、彼はそれを作ることができませんでした。だから、このプレゼンテーションは私たちが一緒にしました。さて、それは私たち二人です。ええと、この論文は、FEDが準備金に利息を支払い始めるずっと前の2005年にスコットによって出版されました。残高ですが、スコットは、FEDが他の中央銀行がすでにやっていること、つまり準備残高に利息を支払うことをした場合、どうなるかという質問をしました。彼はこの論文を書きました。それは非常に優れており、特にスコットにとって短いです。ええと、フラーなので、スコットはこれを経験し、債券を発行し続け、債券を発行し続け、ゼロ金利政策を持つか、成長率を下回るように金利を管理するだけで、うまくやればどうなるでしょうか。時間的な政府予算制約に問題はありません。すべての主流のエコノミストは、財政政策が持続不可能な軌道に乗っていると私たちに伝えるために使用しているので、彼らはこのマクロモデルを使用し、ええと、変数を差し込み、現在の金利の見通しと債務の成長率などに基づいて、私たちは持続不可能な軌道に乗っていると言います。変更を加える必要があります。スコットは、持続不可能だと思うなら、成長率を下回る金利を下げれば、債務が収束し、問題が解消されます。それが基本的にこの問題なので、スコットは金利は政策変数はさて、主流は金利を市場がそれを行っている市場が驚異的に扱うので、それが債券自警団が重要である理由ですが、スコットは金利を設定しないと言っているので、それが政策変数である場合、この問題に対する非常に簡単な解決策があります。オプション3は、最初の2つのオプションは、債券を発行し、債券を発行し、中央銀行に金利をいじり、金利をゼロに固定させることでした。今、私たちは債券を発行しない、債券を発行しない、中央銀行に遊ばせる金利は別のオプションです。OK、私たちはそれをすることができます。もう一度、スコットはその基盤をカバーしています。彼はこれが非常に得意です。だから、このpでは、この作品では、準備残高に利息を支払うことは、あなたが思っているよりも重要です。スコットは、ええと、準備残高の利息で、最終的に国家債務全体が準備残高として独占的に保持される可能性があります。金融政策の運用が簡素化されます。さらに重要な点は、準備残高の利息は、連邦準備金の運営が資金調達ではなく本質的に相殺されていることを示していることを皆にすることです。それがその論文の目的です。オプション4、債券なし、Zerゼロ金利、またはほぼゼロの種類の、一晩金利、ビル・ミッチェルは、ええと、これはmmtの観点から優先オプションです、債券なし、恒久的なゼロ金利政策、私が言ったように、それは政策P、それは規範的な政策です、それは彼の立場です、彼は非政府部門に債券を発行しず、金利が永久にゼロに固定されることを望んでいます、彼はそれをええと呼びます、うーん、公的な金融融資、オーケー、それは彼の好みですが、彼はそれがmmtの視点から、政府が非政府部門に公的債務を発行すべきではないという好ましいオプションは知っています。なぜなら、そうすることの利点は大きな機会コストに比べて小さいからです。だから、これらは4つのオプションです。彼はヘリコプターマネーについて話します。mmは常にQEをプラセボ効果とは別にほとんどまたはまったくない資産スワップとして理解していました。まあ、実際には何もしません。彼は中央銀行が非政府部門にこれ以上の債務を発行しないより大きな財政赤字をサポートするための金銭的能力を提供すると言います。ですから、法案が念頭に置いているのは、中央銀行が財務省のクレジットから直接債券を購入することです。財務省の口座は、財務省が支出し、元のmmtの支持者は、彼が公然の金融融資を非常に望ましい政策開発として特徴付けると言います。なぜなら、それは、この全体の束をよりクリーンで明確にするからです。次の部分では、債券を結社化するか、債券をしないか、それが質問です。オプション3と4を考慮すると、少なくとも非政府部門に財務省を発行しないことを含むオプション3と、どのような変更があります。正しく変わるのは、大きな問題は国民の認識です。中央銀行が購入した債券のみを発行する場合、国民はこの債務株に負担をかけられていないことを理解し、誰がそれらを購入するか、外国人、その他すべてのことは、公的債務の増加がないことについてよく耳にします。彼は、狂乱に陥りの金融コメンテーターのビルが狂乱に陥り、破産の予測を押し出すため、私たち全員がソルベンションリスクに集中すると言います。そして、道徳的な遊びの借り入れが私たち全員を借金に駆り立てることは不道徳であり、残りのすべては、IMFの格付け機関に返済し、彼らは文句を言うことはありません。だから彼は、明白な金融融資に移行することに大きな政治的利点があると言います。もし私たちが今日のやり方で非政府部門に国債を発行し続けるなら、私たちはいつもの物経済学者、報道政策立案者、彼らは死者を武器化し、それを買う将来の世代に負担をかけることについて話し、彼らは持続可能性モデルを武器にし、彼らは爆発的な債務返済について話します、それは収束しません。あなたはオリビア・ブランチャード・ラリー・サマーズ、ジェイソン・ファーマンのような人々がこの枠組みを使用して、米国が赤字を削減する必要があるという議論をしました。なぜなら、それはこれらのモデルに基づいて持続不可能な軌跡にあるからです。武器化された債券の警戒は、金利の制御を失い、そしてそのようなものすべてですが、これらの問題の多くを排除するZerを提案すると、彼らは何か別のものを武器にします。金利をゼロに維持すると、中央銀行が私たちのスターを見つける能力を奪うことになるので、財政の優位性や議論、インフレになるという話を聞くでしょう。非政府部門に債券を発行しないと言ったら、彼らはあなたの印刷金がインフレになると言うでしょう。あなたがどちらを選んでも、彼らはあなたを選ぶことになっているので、私たちはこの小さなテーブルを作りました。そして、私たちはあなたが4つのオプションのどれの下で、あなたが最も批判を避けていることを知っていることを想像するようなものです。さて、どこが最もクリーンですか。そして、あなたが見ることができるように、ここには本当に明確な勝者はいません。私たちが今日やっていることをすれば、それは列1です。彼らは武器にします。彼らは、ええと、時間間の政府予算の制約を武器にします。あなたは自警団について聞いたことがありますが、少なくともあなたは彼らを残すことを知っています。金利なので、彼らは中央銀行への干渉について文句を言うことはありません。そして、あなたが彼らに債券と金利を残すので、彼らはお金を印刷することについて文句を言うことはありません。あなたは次のオプションに移動し、あなたは別のもののセットを手に入れました。私はそれらのそれぞれを通過する時間がありません。大丈夫ですが、スライドを利用可能にしますが、これのポイントは、オプションに関して明確な勝者がいないということです。だから、私は最初に手に入れたときに言ったように、私のカードをテーブルに置くつもりです。このプロジェクトに関わったのは、私が興味を持った説明的なものでした。私はそれが好きでした。私は、金融操作のかなり良いマスターを持っていると思った場所について学び、掘り下げて到着するのが好きでした。理解するのは良い気分だったので、説明的なものが好きで、先に言及した最初の論文は説明でした。そして、私は丘で働きに行きました。そして、上院予算委員会で民主党のチーフエコノミストとして働く人々に囲まれていたので、私たちがどのように混乱しているかに気づきました。上院とそのスタッフは、経済における赤字や債務の役割を理解する方法について、彼らは皆これらの神話や誤解の餌食になっているという明白なアイデアを持っていたので、私はこのゲームをプレイして、魔法の杖を持っているかどうか尋ねました。魔法の杖を振ることができ、国家債務を解消できると言いました。魔法の杖を振ると、誰もが躊躇さえせず、誰もが「はい」と言いました。もちろん、私は杖を振ります。借金をなくしてほしいです。あなたは別の杖です、そして私はあなたが杖を振ると、あなたは宝庫の世界を根絶すると言います、請求書、紙幣、債券はありません、彼らはすべて消えています、あなたは杖を振って、そして彼らは私が3本の角を持っているように私を見るでしょう、あなたは私の頭から出てくることを知っています、なぜ私はそれをするのですか、なぜ私はそれをしたいのですか、それで彼らは私たちが国家債務と呼ぶものが備蓄にすぎないことさえ理解していませんでした、私たちの在庫、ポートフォリオに保有されている宝物、すみません、ポートフォリオ、ポートフォリオ、その他すべてそうです、彼らは理解していませんでした、彼らは一方が消えてほしいのですが、彼らはもう一方をうまく保ちたいと思っています、申し訳ありませんが、あなたは両方の方法を持つことができないので、それは物事に対する私の自信を揺るがし始めました、そして私は赤字神話を書きました、そして私はこれのいくつかについて話しました、私はこの種の物語が本の中にあったと言いました、そして私は見て、私は債券を発行するかしないかについて一種の不可知論者だと言いました、問題は私たちがそれらを参照する方法のようです、それは誰もが電話を切った債務という言葉です、そして多分ウォーレンは、国家債務の代わりに、それを呼び出すことを勧めた別の名前を付ける必要があります。ニューヨーク市の人々に巨大な債務時計が刻々と見えている。ウォーレンは、金利維持口座と呼んでください。おそらく誰もが少し落ち着くだろうと言います。私たちはそれをドル貯蓄時計と呼ぶと言いました。私たちは正しいマーケティングリブランディングを試しました。それはキャッチせず、誰もがまだ非常に明確に国家債務について非常に明確に心配し、武器化しています。そして、あなたは英国で何が起こったかを見ますリズの信頼と誰もが債券市場が彼女を叩きのめしたと信じており、あなたが提案している財政パッケージを手に入れることはできないと言いました。私たちはそれに資金を提供したくないです。そして今、労働は怖がっています。誰もがリズ・トラスに何が起こったのかを見て、彼らはそれを将来の政府への教訓と見なしています。そして、ある時点であなたは私たちがこの戦いに勝つつもりはないかもしれません。気候と住宅、そして残りのすべてに対処するために必要な政策反応を得ることができないかもしれません。赤字、特に債務の理解において私たちがいる場所を超えて、私はftとのインタビューをしました、そして彼らはあなたが5つの願いを持っているか魔法の杖を持っているかどうか私に尋ねました、そしてあなたは5つのことをすることができます、あなたは何をしますか、ウォーレンと私はそれについて少し話しました、ええと、私はそれらの5つすべてにコミットする前に、そして私はそれらのうちの1つを作りました、私はこれ以上の債券はないと言いました、ただそれをしないでください、彼らは価値があるよりも多くのトラブルです、私たちは正しい政策を得るためにこれを超えて得るのに十分な速さで人々を教育するつもりはありませんだから、それは私が到着した場所のようなものです。そして、私はここでの私の小さな言葉遊びが好きです。もし私たちがそうするなら、英国がそうするなら、罪悪感のない支出を楽しむことができます。デブのドイツ語の言葉は罪悪感です。赤字の増加は借金を増やすので、私たちは罪悪感を感じています。これは誰かが最終的にそれを返済しなければならない負担だという考えを持っています。それを発行する労働党の財政規則は、ミッション内で多くの住宅を建設したいが、民間部門に依存してそれをしたいと考えているが、公営住宅を費やして建設し、結果のポンドをシステムに残し、イングランド銀行にそれらの準備金残高で支払う金額を決定し、市場に砂を叩くように指示することは私の立場です。今日ここに立っているので、武器化するために何ができますか？ええと、これを避けるために、スコットのラインの大量破壊は回避するために武器化です。私たちは政策対応をしなければなりません。私たちが直面している非常に重大な課題のいくつかは、そこにたどり着くのに苦労しています。主に、いわゆる国家債務の意味とそれがもたらす危険にまだ執着しすぎているからだと思います。だから、私たちは長年にわたってたくさん書いてきました。人々に教育し、人々が選択肢があり、今日の物事を理解する方法には欠陥や誤解などがあることを理解しようとします。これはビル・ミッチェルです。ソブリン通貨発行政府がどうなるでしょうか。財政赤字を実行し、債務をまったく発行しなかったか、または非政府部門ではなく中央銀行にのみ債券を売却した場合、金融融資を行った場合、彼は財政赤字と債券販売なしで現金システムで過剰準備金を取得し、一晩金利がゼロまたはサポートレートに低下すると言います。私たちはこれを100万回説明しました。ウォーレンはスコットは吐き気を催しています。これと準備金を排出するために債券を発行することの唯一の違いは、中央銀行が使用しなければならないということです。金利目標に達するための異なるテクニックは、それがすべて変化であり、ラリーはそれを理解しました。ラリーは債券を発行するか発行しないかに違いがないことを認識しました。違いは、中央銀行の元帳または財務省の負債を帳書きするつもりですか、そして誰が得るつもりですか、私は信用を言うつもりでしたが、誰が中央銀行または財務省に利息を支払うのかを言いたくありません。それが違いに帰着するものです。債券販売を伴わない2005年の紙の赤字は、今日のやり方で行うこととの間に意味のある違いはないにもかかわらず、非承認のアモネティ化と見なされます。債券の赤字は、どの方法で行っても、常に正比例して純金融資産を作成します。重要なのは、債券を売却するかどうかではなく、赤字が大きすぎるかどうかです。利息付き準備金を持つと、債券の利息で事業の資金調達ではなく、純貯蓄への非政府の願望を考えると、赤字が大きすぎるかどうかです。最終的にスコットは、準備金の利息の維持を相殺していることが明らかになります。最終的に、国家債務全体が準備金残高として独占的に保有するか、学習者が言ったように、機能金融の原則に従ってのみ債券を発行します。そのため、準備金に利息を支払うことは、金融政策が簡素化され、金利目標をサポートするために、財務省と連邦が債券の販売から解放されます。これにより、よりクリーンでより透明になります。そうでなければ、政府債務を根本的に発行することはほとんど変わりません。また、非政府部門への政府債務の発行と、中央銀行が目標金利で準備金に利息を支払うことの間に違いはありません。彼らは同じですが、政治は異なる場合があります。発行すれば、インフレARを減らすことはありません。債券は、非政府部門の純金融資産の量を変えず、支出にジェット燃料を追加しません。いわゆる債券融資とマネー融資赤字の違いがないので、赤字をより刺激しません。政府が債券を売却する理由はまったくありません。それはフルワイルダーのpworからのものです。債務のさらなる増加は、不必要で逆効果な債務シールドラマがないことを意味します。孫を燃やすことについての戦いはありません。これはスコットがよく使う単なるイメージです。なぜなら、人々は彼らが見ることを理解していないからです。政府が赤字と相まって財務オークションを手配する方法は、ああ、これは私たちが物事を支払う方法です。私はこれを左側の秘密の金融金融融資と右の公的な金融金融と呼んでいます。それは同じことです。中央銀行がディーラーを阻止し、それはすべて同じ方法で機能します。あなたがそれを公に行うか秘密に行うかにかかわらず、同じ場所に終わるのは同じ方法で終わります。それがここでのポイントです。債券の発行を停止することは、中央銀行の独立性を損なうでしょう。いいえ、利息が準備金残高を持っている場合、中央銀行はまだ管理しています。一晩の金利は、あなたがそれから遠ざかった場合、政策金利です。ああ、ああ、あなたは債券を発行していない場合、政府機関の証券またはスワップはベンチマークとして浮上する可能性があります。あなたはまだ、民間部門が財務省がリスクの価格設定に使用できるものを持っている可能性があります。なぜなら、債券を処分した場合、他の証券や融資などのリスクの価格設定に使用されるリスクフリーレートである債券を処分すると、大きな問題が発生することがよくあります。スコットは、そうしないと言います。有利子のある準備残高による金融政策の伝達は、余剰残高を排出するための非有利子準備残高と債券と同一であること。国債は最終的に置き換えられる可能性があり、国家債務の金利は、中央銀行が準備残高に支払っている金利が何であれ、長期金利の運用をサポートすることを除いて、財務負債が期間構造全体に存在する固有の理由はありません。中央銀行に金利をゼロに保つ、ええと、金融政策をどのように実施しますか、信用条件をどのように管理しますか、ああ、ウォーレンは彼が提出した論文を持っています、私は変更方法について20 30の異なる提案を知りません、ええと、財務省、連邦、銀行システム、規制の変更から運用変更など、信用条件の融資に影響を与える方法、およびその他すべてを管理する方法について、私たちが時間をかけて提案したことの全体のリストがありますが、それはそこにあります。エリック・T・モーとランディがしましたミンスキー・エリックの編集されたボリューム、中央銀行と資産価格に関するランディの本、そしてそれのすべては、すべてがそこにあります。ええと、法案は、金利をraすることができず、恒久的なゼロ金利政策を持っている場合、資産バブルを手に入れません。人々は、いつもそれについて書かれた法案は、連邦準備制度からいくつかのmmの法律学者ネイサン・タンクスまで、これらの懸念に対処し、この質問に答えるために書いています。短期金利の変化に頼らず、答えは、他の国が何をしたかを見れば、あなたがすべてできる101のことがあるということです。これは、彼らが見た論文からのものです。うーん、国が一晩の金利以外のツールを使用して政策を何回引き締めたり緩めたり、緩和したりしたか、ローンから収入への負債を評価したり、信用条件を緩和したりするために使用されている他の種類の基準は、国が何回やったかを見て、これはそれがどれほど効果的であるかをあなたに伝えますと論文は、それが非常に効果的であるという結論に達するだけです。あなたは、一晩の金利を敢えてしない他のツールを使用して、信用条件を管理することができます。他の国はそれをし、彼らはそれを非常に効果的に行います。mmtは、これらの武器化のすべてに対する答えを持っています。スコットが言うように、彼らが本当に操作を理解していれば、彼らはそれを言わないでしょう。あなたが債務を発行していない場合、それは、時間政府予算の制約から出てくる財政の持続可能性に対処する必要がないことを意味します。Zerまたは金利の管理は、債券自警団について心配する必要がないことを意味します。モスラー・ミンスキー・ミッチェル・レイ・T・モなどは、私が言ったように、短期金利機能金融を使用する以外に、信用に影響を与える他の方法について調査を行っています。金融は、財政政策が強力な反周期的な役割を果たすことを意味します。しかし、私たちがどのオプションを選択しても、人々は何らかのことについて不平を言うという事実を認識し、準備する必要があります。会話と私が言ったように、あなたは私たちが調整している説明的なものを知っていますが、規範的な側では、債券を発行し続けるべきかどうか、中央銀行に直接発行すべきかどうか、まったく発行すべきではないべきか、または非政府部門への赤字に一致するように債券を発行する現在の慣行を継続すべきかどうかについて、これらの議論してきました。これについて話し合い、お互いの懸念を理解することが重要です。しかし、これは別のものです。私はそこに着きようとしています。ええと、大丈夫、mmは、債券を好まない独自の追加の理由がありました。また、サー、これは別のスライドです。あなたが今日私たちがやっているように物事を行っているなら、それは列1であり、あなたは中央銀行がテーラールールに従うか、そうでなければインフレと戦うために利上げを使用しています。利上げはインフレになる可能性があるので、今日の私たちのやり方で物事を行うなら、それは問題です。金融の脆弱性、アラム・ミンスキーは正しいです。利上げは、ああ、非常に借り手を潜在的に持続不可能な投機的な対応と立場にレバレッジします。それは企業福祉です。ビルとウォーレンはそれを金持ちのためのUbiと呼んでいます。債券の発行を停止したり、サービスを提供したりした場合、それらの問題は消えます。金利をゼロに固定している場合、金融の脆弱性を引き起こすことはありません。あなたは、ええと、利上げがインフレになることはありません。なぜなら、ええと、債券市場がもう持っていないからです。これらの問題は消えます。説得力のあるケースがない場合、なぜISSですか？ビル・ミッチェルが言うように、なぜ私たちはそれをやり続けるのですか？だから、私はここで、内部会話だけで提起されたランディの懸念のいくつかに飛びつくつもりです。そして、彼は最近、これのいくつかについて、このいくつかについて、Leが正しいと信じているので、私たちが債券を完全に処分したかどうかを見て、それは本当に問題ではないかどうか、それは問題を引き起こすでしょうか、おそらく一般のポートフォリオの好みの観点から、それは潜在的な問題がある可能性のある銀行のビジネスモデルを侵害するでしょうか、現代の金融セクター流動性のためにリスクフリーの担保が必要です。これらの質問に正しく対処することが重要です。すべての潜在的なリスクやあなたが作成できる問題を予測しなければならないことを考えずに何かを提案するべきではありません。私たちはこれらに対処しました。ええと、ある程度、スコットランドと私は貯蓄車両の問題についてそれらを考えていたと思います。現在の慣行を続けるだけなら、問題はありません。誰もがリスクフリーの資産を持っており、あなたは財務省を持っています。銀行のコストと利益は問題ではありません。なぜなら、銀行はリスクフリーのない財務機関にアクセスできるからです。リターンは、銀行のビジネスモデルを妥協しません。流動性が近づいていませんが、オプション3と4に移動した場合、これはryの質問であり、おそらく懸念事項です。新しい問題のセットに入りますか？新しい問題セットに自分自身を開放しますか？私たちはその可能性にオープンです。ええ、それは考える価値があると言っています。2つの追加のオプションはどうですか？この質問を自問してください。中央銀行が財務省の代わりに証券を発行した場合、中央銀行ができるアイデアがあります。そうすれば、政府が債券の発行を停止した場合、中央銀行は多くの選択肢があります。中央銀行証券を持つことができます。リバースポストタイム預金口座にもっと頼ることができます。ええと、あなたはフィードアカウントや中央銀行口座を持つことができ、ビジネスコミュニティや個人にそれらを利用できるようにすることさえできます。私たちがそうすれば、中央銀行がお金を使い果たすことができないことは明らかです。中央銀行は、満期ごとに独自の負債を発行することができます。20年目、ゼロ金利を行わなかった場合、期間構造全体にレートを設定することができます。Zをやっている場合、プライベート貸し手が価格を設定するための期間構造全体にリスクフリーの金利があります。少し高い金利を設定することができます。スコットは、それは彼のuhラインであると言います。あなたはタップ証券を持つことができます。リスクのない担保がplalであることを意味します。価格を発表し、数量の流れを許します。現在採用されている愚かなアプローチを避けることができます。担保の望ましい増加は、どのような数字でもポップアップすると仮定します。毎年の終わりに予算ボックスの赤字に一致する財務省の数を取得します。主流は、これが中央銀行の独立性を侵害すると言うでしょうが、現実には、このようなことをすれば、より多くのツールが提供されます。結論として、映画「お金を見つける」を見た人もいます。それを見た人は、おそらく、ホワイトハウスのエコノミストが、なぜ政府が財務省を発行するのか、能力があるかどうかを尋ねる映画の特定のシーンを決して忘れないでしょう。通貨を発行するために、なぜあなたは借りるのですか、そして彼は質問を混乱させます、そして、中央銀行が準備残高に利息を支払っている時代には、この質問はより興味深いと思います、債券が金利維持に関するもののようなものです、そしてそれが私たちが準備金を枯渇させる債券を発行していた理由です、中央銀行が金利目標を達成できるように、目標がゼロ以上であると仮定すると、今私たちは準備金に利息を支払っています、中央銀行は、財務省を発行するさらなる目的は何ですか、その時点でほぼ重複しますオプション5と6の別の列を追加しました。中央銀行に証券を発行してもらい、中央銀行に別の満期金利を設定するように任せることができます。一晩の金利を含む、または一晩の金利をゼロに固定することができます。今、より明確な勝者が現れ始めます。ウォーレンはノーと言うかもしれません。これが私たちがこれを正しくやっている理由です。なぜなら、それは会話を開くからです。しかし、さまざまな問題を考え、これらのそれぞれについてイエスまたはノーと答えると、これがチャートの方法です。それ自体が記入されたので、ええと、ウォーレンはなぜ、ええと、この最後のオプションが良くないのかを私たちに教えてくれると確信していますが、ポイントは、私たちが何を提案しても、それは批判されるということです。私たちの見解は、スコットの見解であり、私の見解は、MNTは適切な枠組みの中で選択することであり、相手側がお金を印刷したり、連邦の独立を侵害したり、私たちがこれを決定するための正しい方法ではないと非難することを恐れているため、何かを選択することを避けないということです。一貫したmmtで



0:07通貨発行政府の債券発行は政策選択であり、経済的義務ではなく、政策選択である
0:14これはランディとイェアの債券発行は、国民に代替する機会を与える自発的な操作です
0:22非利子収入政府負債利息現金ありがとう
0:28 信用残高であるT紙幣ノート債券を負っている
0:33同じ中央銀行の証券口座 人々が政府が使うために借りる必要があると信じているなら、あなたは得る
0:40これらのすべての議論に、誰がそれらを買うかは、比率をカバーするための入札です。
0:45は適切であり、その他の種類のものはすべてそうですが、債券は自発的な操作であることを理解すれば、それは
0:52国債のテイカーがいるかどうか、そしてそれらが所有しているかどうかのこの種の議論は無関係になります
0:58国内または外国人なので、行われる議論のほとんどは
1:05 本当のことについての基本的な神話と誤解に根ざしている
1:11は基本的に運用面で、今は理由があるかもしれません。
1:17懸念ウォーレンは先日これに触れましたそれが問題になるかもしれません
1:23あなたは十分に大きな公的債務の在庫を持っていて、あなたは中央銀行を持っています
1:29 テーラールールに従うか、インフレと戦うために金利を上げるテーラールールのようなものに従う
1:36利上げ自体がインフレを助長し始める一種の有害な状況に陥る可能性がある
1:44pressures 20年前、私は論文を発表しました。それは章として登場しました。
1:50この本は、ランディが先日、笑いとナプキンについて何か言及しました。
ナプキンにも1:56ですが、私はそこに描きました。笑いの曲線のように見えます。
2:03もしあなたが低いデッド環境にいて、多くの井戸が確実にあるなら
2:09条件 私はそれらすべてに入るつもりはありません。あなたが多額の公的債務を持っていないなら、私はそれをそのままにしておきます。
2:15といくつかの他のことは、ええと、金利の引き上げは通常のものかもしれません。
2:21従来の効果は、それらは収縮的であるが、公的債務が十分に大きくなると金利が上昇するということです。
2:27からi1からI2は実際にマクロレベルで刺激になる可能性があるので、私たちは
2:33それを認識する必要があります、そしてそれが事実であれば、それは一種の
2:39インフレの影響に関して持続不可能な状況に対する答えはありますか
2:44その答えは、金利が問題になっているので、金利を低く抑えているということです。
2:51その点、スコット・フルワイラーはこれについて書いた、そして私はスコットが今日ここにいただろうと言うべきだが、彼はできなかった
2:57それを作って、そして私たちが一緒にやったこのプレゼンテーションは、それは私たち二人です、私たちは両方ともそれに取り組んでいます、ええと、この論文は
3:04FEDが利息を支払い始めるずっと前の2005年にスコットによって出版されました
3:10準備残高ですが、スコットはFEDがどうなるかという質問をしました。
3:15は、他の中央銀行がすでにやっていることは、準備金に利息を支払うことです。
3:21バランスなので、彼はこの論文を書きました。それはとても良いですが、特にスコットにとっては短いです。
3:27フラーなので、スコットはこれを経験し、彼は私たちが債券を発行できることを知っていると言います。
3:33債券を発行し、ゼロ金利政策を結んだり、成長率を下回るように金利を管理したりする
3:41私たちがうまくやったらどうなるでしょうか？
3:46すべての主流の経済学者が財政を私たちに伝えるために使用する時間間の政府予算の制約
3:53ポリシーは持続不可能な軌道に乗っているので、彼らはこのマクロモデルを使用し、
3:59 変数を差し込むと、現在の見通しに基づいて彼らは言う
4:05 債務の金利と成長率など、私たちは持続不可能な軌道に乗っています。
4:11の変更とスコットは、持続不可能だと思うなら、成長率を下回る金利を下げるだけで、債務が収束し、問題になると言いました。
4:18は消えます、それは基本的にこの問題なので、スコットは利益のために言っています
4:23金利は政策変数です。主流は金利を何として扱います。
4:29市場は驚異的です。市場はそれをやっています。それが債券自警団が重要である理由ですが、スコットは設定しないと言っています。
4:36金利なので、それが政策変数である場合、この問題に対する非常に簡単な解決策があります。
4:43最初の2つの選択肢は、債券を発行し、債券を発行し、中央銀行に金利発行をいじらせることでした。
4:49債券と金利をゼロに固定し、今私たちは発行しない
4:55債券は債券を発行しず、中央銀行に金利を弄ばせる
5:00それは別のオプションです、わかりました、私たちはそれをすることができます、そしてもう一度、スコットはそのベースをカバーしました、彼はこれがとても得意です
5:07この作品のこのpは、あなたが思っているよりもリザーブ残高に利息を支払っています。スコットは、ええと
5:16準備残高の利息は、最終的に国家債務全体を保持することができます。
5:22 準備金残高は、金融政策を簡素化するだけなので、独占的に
5:28操作とより重要な点は、その関心をすべての人に明確にすることです。
5:35の準備金残高は、連邦の運用が本質的に資金調達ではなく相殺されていることを示しているので、それは
5:42その論文の目的すべての権利オプション4無債券とZerゼロ金利
5:50またはほぼゼロの種類の、ええと、一晩の金利、ビル・ミッチェルは、ええと、これは
5:56はmmtの観点から好ましいオプションです。債券と永久ゼロはありません。
6:01金利政策は今、私が言ったように、それは
6:07ポリシーPそれは規範的なポリシーの権利であり、それは彼が望む彼の立場です
6:12非政府部門に発行された債券がなく、金利が永久にゼロに固定されているのを見るために、彼はそれを呼びます
6:20uh um omf 公的な金融融資 わかりました、それは彼の好みですが、彼は言います
6:26mmtの視点から、政府は公的債務を発行すべきではないという好ましい選択肢を知っています。
6:32非政府部門は、そうすることの利点は、大きな機会コストに比べて小さいので、それらは
6:404つのオプション、彼はヘリコプターのお金について話しますmmは常にQEを理解していました
6:46 プラセボ効果とは別に、伝達がほとんどまたはまったくない資産スワップとして、OKは実際にはしません
6:53 中央銀行が金融を提供すると彼は言う、あらゆるあからかしい金融融資
6:59非政府部門にこれ以上の債務が発行されないより大きな財政赤字を支援する能力
7:06法案が念頭に置いているのは、中央銀行が財務省の口座から直接債券を購入するだけだということです。
7:12財務省は支出し、あなたは元のmmt支持者の大丈夫な実行です
7:19彼は、公的な金融融資を非常に望ましい政策開発として特徴づけると言います。なぜなら、それは
7:25この全体の束は、次のよりきれいでクリアです。
7:30パート ボンドするために何をすべきか、結合しないか、それが質問です。
7:36オプション3と4を考慮すると、どちらも発行しない
7:41少なくとも非政府部門への財務省は、何がうまく変わるのか、大きなことは公開です
7:47中央銀行が購入した債券のみを発行する場合、国民は理解します。
7:55彼らはこの債務株に負担をかけられていないので、誰がそれらを買うかについて心配する必要はありません。
8:01外国人と私たちがよく聞く他のすべてのものは、公的債務の増加がないことについて、彼はこれがビルだと言います。
8:07熱狂的な金融コメンテーターは、狂乱に打ち負かされ、破産の予測を押し出します。
8:14ソルベンシーの代わりにインフレリスクに焦点を当て、道徳は借りる
8:19私たち全員を借金に駆り立てることは不道徳であり、残りのすべては、IMFの格付けを中性に返済する人を買います。
8:26機関は文句を言うことは何もないし、そのすべてのものなので、彼は主要な政治があると言います
8:33明白な金融融資に移行することの利点は、大丈夫、私たちは呪われていると思います
8:40私たちがそうするなら、そして私たちがそうしなければ、ここには明確な勝者はいません、方法はありません
8:46あなたが何をしても、批判の武器化を完全に避けてください。
8:53今日のように非政府部門に国債を発行し続けると、通常の話を聞くことができます。
9:00エコノミスト、プレス政策立案者、彼らは死者を武器にし、未来の世代に負担をかけることについて話します。
9:06 それを買うために、彼らは持続可能性モデルを武器化し、彼らは爆発的な債務返済について話しているが、そうではない
9:13コンバージ、オリビア・ブランチャード、ラリー・サマーズ、ジェイソン・ファーマンのような人々がこのフレームワークを使用して
9:19米国は持続不可能であるため、赤字を減らす必要があるという議論
9:24これらのモデルに基づく軌跡は、ボンドの警戒を武器化し、レートの制御を失い、そのようなものすべて
9:31のものですが、それらの問題の多くを排除するZerを提案すると
9:37彼らは何か違うものを武器にしています。彼らは、あなたが金利をゼロに維持すれば、あなたは奪っていると言います。
9:42中央銀行は私たちのスターを見つける能力を持っているので、あなたは財政支配や1つのええと議論についてのものを聞くでしょう
9:49もう1つ、それはインフレになり、債券を発行しないと言ったら
9:54非政府部門に、彼らはあなたの印刷金がインフレになると言うでしょう
10:00だから、mmtiは一体何をするのですか？あなたがどちらを選んでも、彼らはあなたを選ぶでしょう。
10:08にこの小さなテーブルを作成し、私たちはあなたがどちらの下にいるかを想像するようなものです。
10:13あなたが最も避けている4つのオプション
10:18批判、わかりました、どこが最もきれいですか、そしてあなたが見ることができるように、ここには本当に明確な勝者はいません、私たちがそうするなら大丈夫です
10:26私たちが今日していることは、彼らが武器化している最初の列です。彼らは、ええと、時間間政府予算を武器化します。
10:32制約あなたは自警団について聞いたことがありますが、少なくともあなたはそれらを残すことを知っています
10:38金利は、彼らが中央銀行への干渉について文句を言わないように、そしてあなたが彼らを離れるので
10:44 債券と金利で、彼らはお金を印刷することについて文句を言うことはありません。あなたは次のオプションに移動し、あなたは別のセットを手に入れました。
10:50物事、私はそれらのそれぞれを通過する時間がありません、大丈夫ですが、スライドを利用可能にしますが、これのポイント
10:56は、オプションに関して明確な勝者がいないということです。
11:03だから、私は最初に手に入れたときに言ったように、私のカードをテーブルに置くつもりです。
11:09このプロジェクトに関わって、私が興味を持ったのは説明的なものでした。私はそれが好きで、学ぶのが好きで、
11:15 金融業務のかなりの習得があると思った場所に掘り下げて到着
11:22理解してよかったと感じたので、説明的なものが好きで、先に言及した最初の論文は説明でした
11時29分、それから私は丘の上で働きに行きました、そして私は働く人々に囲まれていたので、私たちがどんなに混乱しているかに気づきました
11:36上院予算委員会の民主党のチーフエコノミストは誰も
11:41上院とそのスタッフは、役割を理解する方法について明らかなアイデアを持っていました
11:48経済における赤字や債務は、それらがすべてこれらの神話と誤解の餌食になっているので、私は
11:55このゲームをプレイして、私は彼らに「魔法の杖を持っているかどうか」と尋ね、魔法を振ることができると言いました
12:01ワンド、それは国家債務を解消するでしょう、あなたは魔法の杖を振ってください
12:06 誰もが躊躇さえせずにイエスと言いました。もちろん、私は杖を振ります。私は借金をなくしたいと言いました。
12:13あなたに別の杖を与え、あなたが杖を振ると、あなたは宝物の世界を根絶すると言います、請求書、メモ、債券はありません
12:21彼らはすべていなくなった、杖を振ると、彼らは私が3つの角を持っているように私を見るでしょう、あなたは知っています
12:27私の頭は、なぜ私がそれをするのか、なぜ私はそれをしたいのかと言うので、彼らは私たちが呼ぶことを理解さえしませんでした
12:34国家債務は、私たちの株式の備蓄にすぎない
12:40ポートフォリオに保持されている宝物、すみません、ポートフォリオと残りのすべて、彼らは理解していなかった、彼らは1つを望んでいる
12:46離れて、しかし、彼らは他の井戸を維持したい、申し訳ありませんが、あなたは両方の方法でそれを持つことができないので、それは私を揺さぶり始めました
12:53物事への自信、そして私は赤字神話を書き、私はこれらの種類の話をしたこれらのいくつかについて話しました
12:59本の中で、私は債券を発行するかどうかについて不可知論者だと言いました。
13:05 債券を発行しないでください。問題は、私たちがそれらを参照する方法にあるようです。誰もが電話を切っているのは、借金という言葉です。
13:12そうです、そして多分私たちはそれに別の名前を与える必要があります、ウォーレンは代わりにそれを呼ぶことを勧めました
13:18ニューヨーク市の人々の上に巨大な債務時計が迫っている国家債務
13:23 ティック・アウェイ・ウォーレンは、金利維持勘定と呼んでください、おそらく誰もが
13:28少し落ち着いたら、私たちはそれをドル貯蓄時計と呼ぶと言いました、私たちは正しいマーケティングを試しました
13:35リブランディングは、それがキャッチしなかっただけで、誰もがまだ非常に明確に心配し、武器化しています
13:43国家債務、そしてリズ・トラストで英国で何が起こったかを見て、誰もが債券市場を信じています
13:50は彼女を叩きのめし、あなたが財政パッケージを手に入れないと言った
13:56提案は、私たちはそれに資金を提供する気がなく、今労働者は怖がっていて、誰もがリズに何が起こったのかを見ています
14:02トラスと彼らはそれを将来の政府への教訓と見なしているので、ある時点で
14:07あなたは行く、あなたは知っている、多分私たちはこの戦いに勝つつもりはない、多分私たちは私たちが対処する必要がある政策の応答を得るつもりはない
14:14気候と住宅、そして残りのすべて、ええと、私たちは得ることができないので
14:19赤字、特に債務に対する私たちの理解を超えて、私は
14:25にftとのインタビューを行い、彼らはあなたに5つの願いや魔法の杖があり、5つのことができるかどうか尋ねられました
14:31あなたはどうしますか？ウォーレンと私はそれについて少し話しました。ええと、私はそれらの5つすべてにコミットする前に、私は
14:38私はそれらのうちの1つを作りました。私はこれ以上の絆はないと言いました。ただそれをしないでください。彼らは価値があるよりも多くのトラブルです。私たちはしません。
14:43正しい政策を得るために、これを超えて得るのに十分な速さで人々を教育するので、すぐに止めましょう。
14:51私は到着しました、そして私はここで私の小さな言葉遊びが好きです、それは私たちがするならばです
14:57英国がそうするなら、罪悪感のない支出を享受できるでしょう
15:06 デブのドイツ語は罪悪感であり、私たちは罪悪感を感じています。
15:14赤字の増加は、それが借金を増やすためであり、これは誰かが最終的にそれを返済しなければならない負担であるという考えを持っています。
15:20ただ、ただ乗り越えよう、それを発行するのをやめよう、労働党の財政規則は明らかに意図だと思う
15:28ミッション内では、たくさんの住宅を建てたいが、それをするために民間部門に依存したい。
15:34公営住宅を建設し、結果として生じるポンドをシステムに残し、イングランド銀行に支払う金額を決定させます。
15:40それらの予備残高と市場に砂を叩くように伝えてください、それが私の立場です
15:46ええと、私は今日ここに立っているので、私たちは武器化するために何ができますか、ええと、避けるために
15:53これはスコットのラインの大量破壊が武器化され、政策対応を行わなければならないことを避けるためです。
16:00私たちが直面している重大な課題と、私たちがそこにたらたまに苦労しているのは、主に私たちがまだ
16:07いわゆる国家債務の意味と危険にハングアップ
16:12それがもたらす危険なので、私たちは教育しようと長年にわたってたくさん書いてきました
16:18人々は、人々が選択肢と方法があることを理解できるように助けようとしています。
16:23私たちは、今日物事には欠陥があり、誤解などがあることを理解しています。
16:29再び、これはビル・ミッチェルです。ソブリン通貨発行政府が財政赤字を発生した場合、どうなりますか？
16:36そして、債務をまったく発行しなかったり、非政府部門ではなく中央銀行にのみ債券を売却したりしました。
16:43もし私たちが金融資金をやり過ぎたら、彼は財政赤字でええと
16:48 債券販売なし、現金システムで超過準備金を取得し、一晩の金利がゼロまたは
16:55サポートレート、私たちはこれを何百万回も説明しました。私はウォーレンを持っています。スコットは吐き気を催しています。
17:01これと準備金を枯渇させるための債券の発行は、中央銀行が打撃をするために別の手法を使わなければならないということです。
17:07金利目標、それがすべての変化であり、ラリーはそれを手に入れました。ラリーは違いがないことを認識しました。
17:14 債券を発行するか発行しないかの違いは、誰の元帳に書き留めるかということです。
17:20中央銀行の元帳または財務省の責任と誰が
17:26私は信用を言うつもりでしたが、誰が中央銀行に利息を支払うのか、それとも
17:31財務省、それが違いに帰着するものなので、これが彼の2005年の論文からのスコット・フルワイラーです。
17:39債券販売に伴われていない赤字は、
17:44収益化は、今日の債券発行のやり方との間に意味のある違いはありませんが
17:51赤字は、どの方法でも、常に正の比例して純金融資産を生み出します。重要なのは
17:58あなたが債券を売却するかどうか、しかし、非政府が一度純貯蓄したいという願望を考えると、赤字が大きすぎるかどうか
18:05あなたは有利子準備金を持っています、それは債券の売上が
18:11 レートの維持を相殺し、準備残高の利息で事業に資金を提供しない、最終的にスコットは言う
18:18国家債務全体は、準備残高としてのみ保有されるか、または
18:24学習者は、機能の原則に従ってのみ債券を発行すると述べた
18:30金融は準備金に利息を支払うことで金融政策を簡素化し、財務省と連邦準備制度が債券の売却から解放されます。
18:37 金利目標をサポートするために、それはよりクリーンで透明になるだけです。そうでなければ、それは非常に変わります。
18:42 基本的に、非政府部門への政府債務の発行と中央部門に違いはありません。
18:49銀行は目標金利で準備金に利息を支払っています。それらは同じですが、政治は異なる場合があります。
18:57 債券を発行した場合、インフレAR は減少しません。純金融資産の量は変わりません。
19:03非政府部門とそれはそれが作らない支出にジェット燃料を追加しない
19:09いわゆる差がないため、赤字はより刺激的です。
19:14 債券融資とマネーファイナンスの赤字 政府が債券を売却する理由はまったくありません。
19:21フル・ワイルダーのpworから、債務のさらなる増加はノーを意味します
19:26不必要で逆効果な債務封印ドラマ 燃やすことについての戦いはありません
19:32孫、そのようなものはすべて大丈夫です、これはスコットの単なるイメージです
19:38人々は彼らが見る方法を理解していないので、たくさん使用します
19:43政府は赤字と相まって財務省のオークションを手配します。私はああ、これが私たちのやり方です。
19:50 物事に支払い、私はこれを左側の秘密の金融金融と呼んでいます。
19:56右側のあからかれた金融融資は、中央銀行がディーラーを阻止するのと同じことです。
20:02 それをあからかに行うか、秘密に行うかにかかわらず、すべて同じ場所で終わるのと同じ方法で機能します。それがここでのポイントです。
20:11債券発行の停止は中央銀行の独立性を損なうでしょう。
20:17 利息負担準備金残高 中央銀行はまだ一晩の金利をコントロールしています。
20:23ポリシーレート、もしあなたがそれから遠ざかった場合、ええと、ああ、あなたは債券を発行していません
20:30政府機関の証券またはスワップは、民間部門でまだ何かを持っている可能性があるベンチマークとして浮上する可能性があります。
20:37 債券を処分するとよく聞くことが多いので、財務省がなくてもリスクの価格設定に使用できます。
20:42他の有価証券や貸付などのリスク価格設定に使用されるリスクフリーレート
20:48フォース、あなたが債券を処分した場合、あなたは大きな問題を抱えています、そしてスコットはノーと言っています、あなたは他の方法があります、ええと
20:54 金利のある準備残高を伴う金融政策の伝達は、それと同じである
21:02 超過残高を排出するための非有利子準備残高と債券 財務省証券は最終的に
21:08 国家債務の金利を中央銀行が支払っている金利に置き換える
21:15準備金残高については、財務責任が存在する固有の理由はありません。
21:20長期業務のサポートを除く期間構造全体にわたって
21:27金利 そのようにしたいなら、今、どのように信用を管理しますか
21:34 中央銀行に言った場合、テーラールールのない条件
21:39ゼロの金利、ええと、どのように金融政策を実施しますか、どのように
21:45信用条件の管理、ああ、ウォーレンは彼が提出した論文を持っています、私は知りません
21:5020 財務省を変更する方法に関する30の異なる提案
21:57銀行システムは、規制の変更から運用の変更など、すべてのリストがあります。
管理方法について私たちが時間をかけて提案してきた22:04
22:09 クレジット条件の融資とその他すべてに影響を与えるが、それはエリック・T・モとランディが編集されたボリュームをそこにした
22:16ランディの本、ミンスキー・エリックの本、中央銀行と資産価格に関する本、そしてすべて
22:22残りはすべてそこにあります、ええと、ビルはあなたができないなら、よく問題に対処しました
22:28ra金利とあなたは恒久的なゼロ金利政策を持っています、あなたはただ資産バブルの人々を得ることはありませんか
22:34 それについて書かれたすべての時間の法案は、連邦準備制度からすべての懸念に対処すると言います。
22:41一部のmm法律学者ネイサン・タンクスらはこれに答えるために書いた
22:47質問 短期金利の変化に依存しない場合、信用条件をどのように管理できますか
22:53答えは、あなたがすべてできる101のことがあるということです
22:59 他の国が何をしたかを見ると、これは紙からのものです。
23:04彼らは、国が何回引き締まったり緩んだりしたかを調べた
23:11 一晩の金利以外のツールを使用するポリシーは、OKなので、ローン
23:17 信用条件を緩和したり、信用を引き締めたりするために使用されているその他の種類の基準に対する負債の対所得
23:23条件 国が何回やったか、これはこれを見て、それがどれほど効果的であったかをあなたに伝えます。
23:30論文は、それがあなたに非常に効果的であるという結論に達するだけです
23:35 クレジットを管理するために、一晩の金利を敢えてしない他のツールを使用できます
23:40条件 他の国がそれを行い、彼らはそれを非常に効果的に行います mmtはこれらのすべての答えを持っています
23:46武器化は、スコットが言うようにお金を印刷することは、彼らが本当に操作を理解していれば問題ではないことを示しています
23:52あなたが借金を発行していない場合、彼らはそれを言わないでしょう。それはあなたが財政の持続可能性に対処する必要がないことを意味します。
23:58は、あなたがZerまたは金利を管理している場合、時間政府予算の制約から外れています。
24:06は、ボンド自警団のモスラー・ミンスキー・ミッチェル・レイ・Tについて心配する必要がないことを意味します。
24:11Mo Etcは、私が今言ったように、macrクレデンシャルの他の方法について研究しました。
24:17インフルエンスクレジット短期金利機能を使用する以外に、金融は財政政策が強力なカウンターを持っていることを意味します
24:24 周期的な役割を果たす必要がありますが、どの選択肢があっても、私たちはまだその事実を認識し、準備する必要があります。
24:30選択する人は一つのことについて文句を言うか
24:36もう1つの大丈夫、終わりに近づいて、いくつかの追加の懸念が追加されます。
24:44私たちは会話を開き、私が言ったように、あなたは私たちが調整されている説明的なものを知っています
24:50頃ですが、規範的な側面と、債券の発行を継続すべきかどうかについてのこの質問について
24:57 それらを中央銀行に直接発行する必要があります。 それらをまったく発行すべきかどうか、または持ち歩くべきかどうか
25:02on現在の慣行では、非政府部門への赤字に合わせるために債券を発行しています。
25:09これらの議論は、私たちがこれについて話し、お互いの懸念を理解することが重要です。
25:17 財政の脆弱性に関するいくつかの懸念、ああ、申し訳ありませんが、私はまだそこにいません、これは別のものです、私はそこに着こうとしています、ええと
25:25all right mmには、債券を好まない独自の追加の理由がありました
25:31そして、またはサー、わかりました、これはあなたが私たちのやり方で物事をやっているなら、別のスライドです
25:37 列1である今日それらを行い、あなたはテーラールールに従うか、そうでなければレートを使用する中央銀行を持っています
25:44インフレと戦うためのハイキング、利上げはインフレになるかもしれないので、あなたが私たちのやり方で物事を行うなら、それは問題です
25:51今日それをする 財政の脆弱性 アラム・ミンスキーは、利上げがリードしている
25:57 潜在的に持続不可能な投機的な回答に借り手を非常にレバレッジし、
26:03ポジション、それは企業福祉であり、ビルとウォーレンはそれをUbiのように呼んでいるものです。
26:08リッチか何かなので、債券の発行を停止した場合、またはそれらの問題にサービスを提供した場合、それらの問題があります。
26:17消える 金利をゼロに固定している場合、金融の脆弱性を引き起こすことはありません。
26:22 債券市場がもうないので、利上げがインフレになります。
26:29そうです、それで、これらの問題は消えます、ビル・ミッチェルが言うように、そうする説得力のあるケースがない場合、なぜISSはまったく
26:36私たちはそれをやり続けるので、私はここで内部で提起されたランディの懸念のいくつかに飛びつくつもりです
26:43会話、そして私は彼が最近これのいくつかについて論文を持っていたと思います
26:49でLeが正しいと信じているので、彼は私たちが債券を完全に取り除いたかどうかを見て尋ねています
26:56それは本当に問題ではありません、それはいくつかの問題を引き起こすかもしれません
27:01 国民のポートフォリオの好みは、潜在的にある可能性のある銀行のビジネスモデルを危うくしますか
27:09問題 現代の金融セクターは流動性のためにリスクのない担保を必要としています。対処することが重要です。
27:16これらの質問は、すべての潜在的なリスクについて考えずに何かを提案すべきではありません。
27:22あなたがそう作り出すことができる問題を予測しなければならないことを知っているもの
27:29私たちはこれらに対処しました。ええと、ある程度、スコットと私は節約車両の問題でそれらを考えていたと思います。
27:36現在の練習を続けるだけなら、誰もがリスクのない資産を持っていて、あなたは
27:42あなたの財務省、ええと、銀行のコストと利益は問題ではありません。なぜなら、銀行は
27:47ええと、財務省へのアクセス、リスクのないリターン、ええと、妥協しません
27:52 銀行のビジネスモデルでは、流動性が近づいていませんが、オプション3と4に移行すると、これは
27:58ryの質問とおそらく懸念、あなたはええと新しいセットに入り始めますか
28:05問題ですよね、あなたは新しいセットの問題に自分自身を開放しますか、そして私たちはその可能性にオープンです、私たちはそう言っています
28:12 考える価値がある、大丈夫、それで2つはどうですか
28:17追加オプションは、中央銀行が代わりに証券を発行した場合、この質問を自問してください。
28:23財務省中央銀行がそれをすることができるというアイデアがあるので、中央銀行はたくさん持っています
28:28オプションの政府が債券の発行を停止した場合、あなたはより信頼できる中央銀行証券を持つことができます
28:34逆再投稿定期預金口座ええと、あなたは連邦口座や中央銀行口座を持つことができ、あなたも作ることができました
28:40ビジネスコミュニティまたは個人が利用できる場合は明らかです。
28:45 中央銀行が資金を使い果たすことは決してありません。中央銀行は、満期時に独自の負債を発行することができます。
28:52もしそうしたなら、満期ごとにレートを発表できると願っている。
28:572年5年10年20年あなたがゼロ金利をやっていなかったら何でも
29:03その後、リスクのない期間構造全体にレートを設定できます。
29:09uh 民間の貸し手のための期間構造全体の金利は、あなたがZをやっているなら、あなたはできる
29:14セットレートが少し高いかどうかスコットは、それはあなたが持つことができる彼のええとラインだと言います
29:20オンタップ証券は、リスクのない担保を意味します。
29:25価格を発表し、数量を流すと、愚かなアプローチを避けることができます。
29:31現在雇用されており、担保の望ましい増加が
29:37 毎年末に予算ボックスから飛び出した数字が何であれ、主流の赤字に一致する財務省の数を取得します。
29:44 これは中央銀行の独立性を侵害すると言いますが、現実は、あなたがそうするなら、それは彼らにより多くのツールを与えるということです
29:51このようなことなので、結論として、あなた方の何人かは映画「お金を見つける」と「あなたたち」を見たことがあります。
29:58 それを見た人は、おそらくホワイトハウスのエコノミストが出演している映画の特定のシーンを決して忘れないでしょう
30:06は、通貨を発行する能力があるなら、なぜ政府が国庫を発行するのか知っていますか？
30:14借りて、彼は質問を混乱させ、私は質問がもっと
30:19中央銀行が準備残高に利息を支払っている時代に興味深いのは、債券のようなものです。
30:27金利維持について、それが中央が許可するために準備金を枯渇するために債券を発行していた理由です
30:33銀行は、目標がゼロ以上であると仮定して、金利目標を達成する
30:39現在、中央銀行は準備金に利息を支払っています。国庫を発行するさらなる目的は何ですか？
30:46はその時点でほぼ重複するので、別の列を追加しました。
30:52オプション5と6、中央銀行に証券を発行しさせ、中央銀行に設定を任せることができます。
30:59 異なる満期の金利、ええと、一晩の金利を含む、または私たちは一晩を固定することができます
31:04ゼロの金利は今、より明確な勝者が始まります
31:10emergeはウォーレンがノーと言うかもしれないので、これが理由です
31:15私たちは会話を開くのでこれを正しくやっていますが、さまざまな問題を考えると、私たちはただ
31:22 これらのそれぞれに「はい」または「いいえ」と答えました。これはチャートが記入された方法です。
31:27だから、ええと、ウォーレンがなぜ、この最後の選択肢が良くないのか教えてくれると確信していますが、
31:32 ポイントは、私たちが何を提案しても、それは批判されるということです。
31:39そして私たちの見解スコットの見解と私の見解は、MNTは適切な枠組みの中で選択することであり、避けることではありません
31:47 相手がお金を印刷したり、連邦を侵害したりしていると非難することを恐れているため、何かを選択する
31:54独立か何か、それは私たちがこれについて決定を下すための正しい方法ではありません、私たちはmmtでそうすべきです
32:02一貫した方法

0:07issuing bonds for a currency issuing government is a policy choice not an economic imperative it's a policy Choice
0:14here's Randy and Yea issuing bonds is voluntary operation that gives the public the opportunity to substitute
0:22non-interest earning government liabilities thank cash for interest
0:28bearing government liabilities T bills notes bonds which are credit balances in
0:33Securities Accounts at the same Central Bank if people believe the government needs to borrow to spend then you get
0:40into all of these debates who's going to buy them is the bid to cover ratio going
0:45to be adequate and all the rest of the kind of stuff but if you understand that bonds are voluntary operations then it
0:52becomes irrelevant these sort of debates whether there are takers for government bonds and whether they're owned by
0:58domestic or foreign citizens so we show most of the debates that take place are
1:05just rooted in fundamental myths and misunderstandings about what's really
1:11happening basically the operational side now there may be reasons to be
1:17concerned Warren touched on this the other day might it become an issue when
1:23you have a large enough stock of public debt and you have a central bank that is
1:29following a tailor rule or something like a tailor rule raising interest rates to try to fight inflation and you
1:36could potentially get into a sort of toxic situation where the rate hikes themselves begin to feed inflationary
1:44pressures 20 years ago I published a paper it was it appeared as a chapter in
1:50this book where I sort of uh Randy mentioned the other day something about laugher and the napkin I didn't put mine
1:56on a napkin either but I drew in it kind of looks like laugh laer curve right where the point is that
2:03if you're in a low Dead uh environment and a lot of the well there are certain
2:09conditions I'm not going to go into all of them let me just leave it at if you don't have a large stock of public debt
2:15and a few other things hold uh raising interest rates may have the usual
2:21conventional effect that is they would be contractionary but if the public debt gets large enough raising interest rates
2:27from say i1 to I2 could actually the stimulative at the macro level so we
2:33got to recognize that and if that's the case and it could create a sort of
2:39unsustainable situation in terms of the inflation impacts is there an answer to
2:44that the answer is sure you just keep the interest rate down because the interest rate has become the problem at
2:51that point so Scott fulweiler wrote about this and I should say Scott would have been here today but he couldn't
2:57make it and so this presentation we did together okay so it's it's the both of us we both work on it uh this paper was
3:04published by Scott in 2005 long before the FED started paying interest on
3:10reserve balances but Scott asked the question what would happen if the FED
3:15did what other central banks already do which is to pay interest on reserve
3:21balances so he wrote this paper and it's very good and it's short especially for Scott uh
3:27Fuller so Scott goes through this and he says you know we could issue bonds keep
3:33issuing bonds and have a zero interest rate policy or just manage the interest rate so it stays below the growth rate
3:41what would happen if we did that well we wouldn't have the problem with the
3:46intertemporal government budget constraint that all the mainstream economists use to tell us that fiscal
3:53policy is on an unsustainable trajectory so they use this macro model and they
3:59plug in uh the variables and they say based on the current outlook for
4:05interest rates and growth rates in the debt and so forth we're on an unsustainable trajectory we need to make
4:11changes and Scott said well if you think it's unsustainable just lower the interest rate below the growth rate and the debt will converge and the problem
4:18goes away that's basically this problem so Scott's saying the in the interest
4:23rate is a policy variable okay the mainstream treats the interest rate as what
4:29Market phenomenal right the market is doing it which is why the bond vigilante is matter but Scott's saying no set the
4:36interest rate so if it's a policy variable there's a very easy solution to this problem all right option three so
4:43the first two options were issue bonds issue bonds and let the Central Bank fiddle with the interest rate issue
4:49bonds and anchor the interest rate at zero now we're moving into don't issue
4:55bonds don't issue bonds and let the Central Bank play with the interest rate
5:00that's another option okay we could do that and once again Scott has that base covered he's very good at this so in
5:07this p in this piece paying interest on reserve balances more significant than you think Scott says uh with with
5:16interest on reserve balances eventually the entire national debt could be held
5:22exclusively as Reserve balances just leave it there simplifies monetary policy
5:28operations and the more significant point is that it makes it clear to everyone that interest
5:35on reserve balances demonstrates that the fed's operations are offsetting in nature not financing so that's the
5:42purpose of that paper all right option four no bonds and Zer zero interest rate
5:50or nearly zero kind of uh overnight interest rate Bill Mitchell says uh this
5:56is the preferred option from an mmt perspective no bonds and permanent zero
6:01interest rate policy now like I said that's a
6:07policy P it's a prescriptive policy right that's his position he would like
6:12to see no bonds issued to the non-government sector and interest rates permanently anchored at zero he calls it
6:20uh um omf overt monetary financing okay that's his preferred thing but he says
6:26it's you know the preferred option from an mmt perspect perspective government should not issue any public debt to the
6:32non-government sector as the benefits of doing so are small relative to the large opportunity costs all right so those are
6:40four options he goes on talk about helicopter money mm always understood QE
6:46as an asset swap with little or no transmission apart of apart from a placebo effect okay doesn't really do
6:53anything overt monetary financing he says Central Bank provides the monetary
6:59capacity to support larger fiscal deficits with no further debt being issued to the non-government sector so
7:06what bill has in mind is the central bank just buys the bonds directly from treasury credits A treasury's account
7:12treasury spends and you're of and running okay the original mmt proponents
7:19he says would characterize overt monetary financing as a highly desirable policy development because it makes a
7:25whole bunch of this stuff cleaner and clearer right next
7:30part what should we do to bond or not to bond that is the question right so what
7:36changes if we consider options three and four both of which involve not issuing
7:41treasuries at least to the non-government sector all right what changes well the big thing is public
7:47perception right if you're only issuing bonds to that are purchased by the central bank then the public understands
7:55that they're not being burdened by this debt stock that you don't have to worry about who's going to buy them and
8:01foreigners and all the rest of the stuff we often hear about no increase in public debt for he says this is Bill the
8:07Rabid Financial commentators to beat into a frenzy and push out predictions of insolvency it would get us all
8:14focused on inflation risk instead of solvency and the morality play borrowing
8:19driving us all into debt is immoral and all the rest of it who will buy them paying it back neuter the IMF the rating
8:26agencies they have nothing to complain about and all of that of stuff so he says there are major political
8:33advantages to moving to overt monetary financing all right I think we're damned
8:40if we do and damned if we don't there's no clear winner here there's no way to
8:46entirely avoid criticism weaponization no matter what you do all right so I'm going to show you some of this if we
8:53continue to issue government bonds to the non-government sector the way we do today then we hear the usual stuff
9:00economists the Press policy makers they weaponize the dead they talk about burdening future Generations who's going
9:06to buy it they weaponize the sustainability models they talk about exploding Debt Service it doesn't
9:13converge you got people like Olivia Blanchard Larry Summers Jason Ferman all using this framework to make the
9:19argument that the US needs to reduce the deficit because it's on an unsustainable
9:24trajectory based on these models weaponized Bond vigil anes you'll lose control of rates and and all that sort
9:31of stuff but if we propose Zer which eliminates a lot of those problems then
9:37they weaponize something different they say well if you if you keep the interest rate at zero then you're depriving the
9:42Central Bank of its ability to find our star and so you'll hear stuff about fiscal dominance or one uh argument or
9:49another it's going to be inflationary and all that if we say don't issue bonds
9:54to the non-government sector then they'll just say your printing money is going to be inflationary
10:00so what's an mmti to do the hell are you supposed to do they're going to pick on you no matter which one you choose so we
10:08created this little table and we just sort of imagine you know under which of
10:13the four options do you avoid the most
10:18criticism okay where where is it the cleanest and as you can see there's not really a clear winner here okay if we do
10:26what we do today which is column one they weaponize at that they weaponize the uh intertemporal government budget
10:32constraint you hear about Vigilantes but you know at least you'd leave them with
10:38the interest rates so they wouldn't complain about interfering with the central bank and because you leave them
10:44with the bonds and the interest rate they're not going to complain about printing money you move to the next option and you got a different set of
10:50things I don't have time to go through each one of them okay but make the slides available but the point of this
10:56is to say there's not a clear winner in terms of the options okay
11:03so so I'm going to put my cards on the table because as I said when I first got
11:09involved in this project it was the descriptive stuff that interested me I liked it I liked learning about and
11:15digging into and arriving at a place where I thought I had pretty good Mastery of the monetary operations it
11:22felt good to understand so I like the descriptive stuff and that first paper I referred to earlier was descrip
11:29and then I went to work on the hill and I realized what a mess we're in because I was surrounded by people working as
11:36the chief Economist for the Democrats on the Senate budget committee that no one
11:41in the Senate and their staffers had the obvious idea how to understand the role
11:48of deficits or debt in the economy that they were all falling prey to these myths and misunderstandings so I would
11:55go around playing this game and I would ask them hey if you had a magic w wand and I told you you could wave the magic
12:01wand and it would eliminate the national debt would you wave the magic wand
12:06everybody said yes not even hesitation of course I would wave the wand I want the debt gone said okay well what if I
12:13give you a different wand and I say if you wave the wand you will eradicate the world of treasuries no bills notes bonds
12:21they're just all gone would you wave the wand and they would look at me like I had three horns you know coming out of
12:27my head say why would I do that why would I want to do that so they didn't even understand that the thing we call
12:34the national debt is nothing more than the stockpile right the stock of us
12:40Treasures held in portfol excuse me portfolios and all the rest of it right they didn't understand they want one to
12:46go away but they want to keep the other well I'm sorry you can't have it both ways so that started to shake my
12:53confidence in things and then I wrote the deficit myth and I talked about some of this I told these kind of stories was
12:59in the book and I said look I'm sort of agnostic on whether we issue bonds or
13:05don't issue bonds the problem seems to be the way we refer to them it's the word debt that has everybody hung up
13:12right and so maybe we just need to give it a different name Warren used to recommend calling it instead of the
13:18national debt having a giant Debt Clock Loom over people in New York City
13:23ticking away Warren would say you know just call it the interest rate maintenance account maybe everybody
13:28would just just calmed down a little bit we've said call it the dollar savings clock we've tried right marketing
13:35rebranding it's just that it didn't catch on and everyone is still very clearly worried about and weaponizing
13:43the national debt and then you see what happened in the UK with Liz trust and everybody believes that the bond market
13:50smacked her down and said you will not get the fiscal package that you are
13:56proposing we aren't willing to finance it and now labor is terrified and everybody looks at what happened to Liz
14:02truss and they view that as a lesson for future governments and so at some point
14:07you go you know maybe we're not going to win this fight maybe we're not going to get the policy response we need to deal
14:14with climate and housing and all the rest of it uh because we can't get
14:19Beyond where we are in our understanding of deficits and especially the debt so I
14:25did an interview with the ft and they asked me if you had five wishes or a magic wand and you could do five things
14:31what would you do Warren and I talked a little bit about it uh before I committed to all five of those and I
14:38made one of them I said no more bonds just don't do it they're more trouble than they're worth we're not going to
14:43educate people fast enough to get Beyond this to get the right policy so let's just stop right so that's kind of where
14:51I have arrived and I like my little play on words here which is if we were to do
14:57that if the UK were to do that it could enjoy guilt-free spending isn't that
15:06nice you know the German word for Deb is guilt right and we do feel guilty about
15:14increase in the deficit because it adds to the debt and we have this idea that this is a burden somebody's ultimately going to have to pay it back so let's
15:20just get let's just get over it let's stop issuing it the labor party's fiscal rules are clearly I think intention
15:28Within missions you want to build a lot of housing but you want to rely on the private sector to do it just spend and
15:34build the public housing leave the resulting pounds in the system let the bank of England decide what to pay on
15:40those Reserve balances and tell the market to pound sand that is my position
15:46uh as I stand here today so what can we do to De weaponize right uh to avoid
15:53this is Scott's line mass destruction de weaponized to avoid we got to have policy responses some of the very
16:00critical challenges that we are facing and we're having trouble getting there I think largely because we're still too
16:07hung up on what the national debt so-called means and the dangers the
16:12dangers that it poses so we have written a lot over the years trying to educate
16:18people trying to help people understand that there are options and that the way
16:23we understand things today has flaws and and there misunderstandings and so so
16:29forth again this is Bill Mitchell what would happen if a sovereign currency issuing government ran a fiscal deficit
16:36and didn't issue debt at all or sold bonds only to the central bank instead of the non-government sector what would
16:43happen if we did over monetary financing and he says uh with a fiscal deficit and
16:48no bond sales you get excess reserves in the cash system and the overnight interest rate Falls to zero or to the
16:55support rate we've explained this a million times I have Warren has Scot has ad nauseum the only difference between
17:01this and issuing bonds to drain the reserves is that the central bank has to use a different technique to hit its
17:07interest rate target that's all that changes and Larry got it Larry recognized it there's no difference
17:14between issuing the bonds or not issuing the bonds the difference is on Whose Ledger are you going to write down the
17:20liability on the central bank's Ledger or the treasuries and who's going to
17:26get I was going to say credit for but I don't want to say that who is going to pay the interest the central bank or the
17:31treasury that's what the difference comes down to all right so here's Scott fulweiler again from his 2005 paper
17:39deficits that are unaccompanied by Bond sales are viewed disapprovingly as
17:44monetization even though there's no meaningful difference between doing it the way we do it today issuing the bonds
17:51deficits always create net Financial Assets in direct proportion no matter which way you do it what matters isn't
17:58whether you sell bonds but whether the deficit is too large given the non-government desire to net save once
18:05you have interest bearing reserves it becomes obvious that Bond sales are
18:11offsetting interest rate maintenance not financing operations with interest on reserve balances eventually Scott says
18:18the entire national debt could be held exclusively as Reserve balances or as
18:24learner said issue bonds only in keeping with the principles of functional
18:30Finance so paying interest on reserves simplifies monetary policy frees the treasury and the fed from selling bonds
18:37to support the interest rate target it just makes it cleaner and more transparent otherwise it changes very
18:42little fundamentally again no difference between issuing government debt to the non-government sector and the Central
18:49Bank paying interest on Reserves at the Target rate they're identical but the politics can be different all right it
18:57doesn't make it less inflation AR if you issue bonds it doesn't alter the quantity of net Financial Assets in the
19:03non-government sector and it doesn't add jet fuel to the spending it doesn't make
19:09the deficit more stimulative because there's no difference between so-called
19:14Bond financed and money financed deficits there's no reason for the government to sell bonds at all that's
19:21from Full Wilder's pwor no further increase in the debt means no
19:26unnecessary and counterproductive debt sealing drama no fights about burning
19:32grandchildren all that sort of stuff all right this is just a image that Scott
19:38uses a lot because people don't understand they see the way the
19:43government arranges treasury auctions coupled with deficits I say oh well this is how we
19:50pay for things and I call this one on the left covert monetary financing and
19:56the one on the right overt monetary financing it's the same thing the Central Bank back stops the dealers and
20:02it all works the same way you end up in the same place whether you do it overtly or covertly that's the point here so
20:11would stopping Bond issuance undermine Central Bank Independence no if you've
20:17got interest bearing Reserve balances the central bank still has control of the overnight interest rates that's the
20:23policy rate if you moved away from that uh and oh you're not issuing bonds then
20:30government agency Securities or swaps could emerge as benchmarks you could still have something the private sector
20:37could use to price risk even without treasuries because you often hear well if you get rid of bonds that's the
20:42risk-free rate that's used to price risk for other Securities and lending and so
20:48forth you you'd have a huge problem if you got rid of bonds and Scott is saying no you wouldn't there are other ways uh
20:54to do that the transmission of monetary policy with interest bearing Reserve balances is identical to that uh with
21:02non-interest bearing Reserve balances and bonds to drain the excess balances treasury Securities could eventually be
21:08replaced the interest rate on the national debt would then be whatever interest rate the central bank is paying
21:15on reserve balances there's no inherent reason for treasury liabilities to exist
21:20across the entire term structure except to support operations for long-term
21:27interest rates if you want do it that way all right now how would you manage credit
21:34conditions without the tailor rule if you said to the central bank keep the
21:39interest rate at zero uh oh how do you conduct monetary policy how do you
21:45manage credit conditions oh Warren has a paper where he put forward I don't know
21:5020 30 different proposals for how to change uh what the treasury the fed and
21:57the banking system everything from regulatory change changes to operational changes and so forth there a whole list
22:04of things that we've proposed over time about how to go about managing
22:09influencing credit conditions lending and all the rest of it but that's there Eric T Mo and Randy did an edited volume
22:16Randy's book on Minsky Eric's uh book on Central Bank and asset pric and all the
22:22rest of it it's all there uh bill has dealt with the question of well if you're not able to
22:28ra interest rates and you have a permanent zero interest rate policy won't you just get asset bubbles people
22:34say that all the time bills written about that uh and address those concerns everyone from the Federal Reserve to
22:41some mm legal Scholars Nathan tankus and others have written to answer this
22:47question how can you manage credit conditions if you're not relying on changes in the short-term interest rate
22:53the answer is there are 101 things that you can do all right
22:59if you look at uh what other countries have done this is a from a paper where
23:04they looked at um how many times countries have tightened or loosened
23:11policy using tools other than the overnight interest rate okay so loan to
23:17value debt to income other sorts of criteria being used to either loosen credit conditions or tighten credit
23:23conditions how many times have countries done that this looks at that this one tells you how effective it's been and
23:30the paper just makes the arrives at the conclusion that it's quite effective you
23:35can use other tools that daren't the overnight interest rate to manage credit
23:40conditions other countries do it and they do it very effectively mmt has an answer for every one of these
23:46weaponization we show that printing money as Scott says isn't a thing if they really understood the operations
23:52they wouldn't say it if you're not issuing debt it means you don't have to deal with the fiscal sustainability that
23:58comes out of the um intertemporal government budget constraint if you're at Zer or managing interest rates it
24:06means you don't have to worry about Bond vigilantes Mosler Minsky Mitchell Ray T
24:11Mo Etc have done research on as I just said macr credential other ways to
24:17influence credit Beyond using short-term interest rates functional Finance means fiscal policy has a strong counter
24:24cyclical role to play and yet we still have to recognize and be prepared for the fact that no matter which option we
24:30choose people are going to complain about one thing or
24:36another all right coming close to the end adding some additional concerns so
24:44we open a conversation and as I said you know the descriptive stuff we're aligned
24:50around but on a prescriptive side and on this question about whether we should continue to issue bonds whether we
24:57should only issue them directly to the central bank whether we should not issue them at all or whether we should carry
25:02on with current practice issuing bonds to match the deficit to the non-government sector we've been having
25:09these discuss it's important that we talk about this and that we understand one another's concerns so ry's raised uh
25:17some concerns around Financial fragility oh I'm sorry I'm not there yet this is a different one I'm about to get there uh
25:25all right mm have had their own additional reasons for favoring no bonds
25:31and or sir all right this is a different slide if you are doing things the way we
25:37do them today which is column one and you have a central bank following a tailor rule or otherwise using rate
25:44hikes to fight inflation the rate hikes might become inflationary so that's an issue if you do things the way we're
25:51doing it today Financial fragility Alam Minsky right the rate hikes leading uh
25:57highly lever um borrowers into potentially unsustainable speculative reponds and
26:03positions it's corporate welfare is what bill and Warren call it like Ubi for the
26:08rich or whatever so you have those issues if you stopped issuing bonds and or did serve then those problems
26:17disappear you're not going to cause Financial fragility if you're anchoring the interest rate at zero you're not
26:22going to have uh rate hikes becoming inflationary because you don't have uh the bond market any longer and so forth
26:29right so those problems go away why ISS you de at all if there's no compelling case to do so as Bill Mitchell says why
26:36do we keep doing it so I'm going to jump here to some of Randy's concerns that have been raised just in internal
26:43conversations and I think he's had a a paper just uh recently on some of this
26:49at believe Le right so he's asking look if we got rid of bonds completely would
26:56it really not matter matter would it create some problems maybe in terms of
27:01the Public's portfolio preferences would it compromise the business model of banking where could there potentially be
27:09problems there does a modern financial sector need risk-free collateral for liquidity it's important to deal with
27:16these questions right shouldn't be proposing something without thinking about all of the potential risks and
27:22things that you know you got to uh anticipate problems that you could create so
27:29we've dealt with these I think uh to some extent Scot and I were thinking them through on the saving vehicle issue
27:36if you just keep with current practice then there's no problem everybody has their risk-free asset and you've got
27:42your treasuries uh Bank costs and profits not a problem because banks have
27:47access to uh treasuries a risk-free return uh doesn't compromise the
27:52business model of banking you have no liquidity approaching but if you move to options three and four or and this is
27:58ry's question and maybe concern then do you start to get into uh a new set of
28:05problems right do you open yourself up to a new set problem and we're open to that possibility we're saying yeah it's
28:12worth thinking about right all right so what about two
28:17additional options ask yourself this question what if the Central Bank issued the Securities instead of the
28:23treasury there's an idea Central Bank can do that so central banks have a lot
28:28of options if the government stops issuing bonds you can have Central Bank Securities you could rely more on
28:34reverse repost time deposit accounts uh you could have fed accounts or central bank accounts and you could even make
28:40them available to the business Community or to individuals it's obvious if we do
28:45that that central banks can never run out of money Central Bank could issue its own liabilities at any maturity it
28:52desires if it did that it could announce the rates at each maturity there's a
28:57twoyear 5 year 10 year 20 whatever if you weren't doing zero interest rate
29:03then you could set rates across the entire term structure you have risk-free
29:09uh interest rates across the term structure for private lenders to price from if you're doing Z then you could
29:14set rates slightly higher or not Scott says that's his uh line you could have
29:20on tap Securities which would mean risk-free collateral is plal you just
29:25announce the price and let the quantity flow you'd avoid the stupid approach
29:31currently employed which assumes that the desired increase in collateral is
29:37whatever number happens to pop out of the budget box at the end of every year you get the number of treasuries that match the deficit the mainstream would
29:44say this infringes on Central Bank Independence but the reality is it gives them more tools if you were to do
29:51something like this so in conclusion some of you have seen the film finding the money and those of you
29:58who've seen it probably will never forget a particular scene in the film where a White House Economist is
30:06asked you know why is the government issue treasuries if you have if you have the ability to issue currency why do you
30:14borrow and he flubs the question okay and I think the question is more
30:19interesting in an era in which the central bank is paying interest on reserve balances it's like if bonds are
30:27about interest rate maintenance and that's why we were issuing bonds to drain off reserves to allow the central
30:33bank to achieve its interest rate target assuming the target is above zero now
30:39that we're paying interest on reserves now the Central Bank what's the further purpose of issuing treasuries it's it
30:46becomes almost duplicative at that point right so I added another column which is
30:52options five and six we could let the central bank issue Securities and then leave the central bank to set the
30:59interest rates at different maturities uh including the overnight interest rate or we could anchor the overnight
31:04interest rate at zero now does a more clear winner begin to
31:10emerge doesn't it maybe Warren says no so this is why
31:15we're doing this right because it opens up a conversation but when we think through the different issues and we just
31:22answered yes or no on each of these this is how the chart filled itself out okay
31:27so so uh I'm sure Warren will tell us why um this last option is no good but
31:32the point is that no matter what we propose it's going to be criticized okay
31:39and our view Scott's View and my view is that MNT is about making choices within the right framework and not avoiding
31:47choosing something because we're afraid of what the other side will say accusing us of printing money or compromising fed
31:54Independence or whatever that's not the right way for us to make a decision on this we ought to do so um in an mmt
32:02consistent way

時刻: 0 件のコメント:
登録: 投稿 (Atom)

池戸万作＠政治経済評論家さんによるXでのポスト

国債発行に関して、正しい知識を浸透させるには、まずこの国債保有部門割合を示すことだと思います。私は三橋貴明さんが示された、この円グラフを見て、日本は財政危機国ではなかったことを知りました。この円グラフは保存して、ジャンジャン拡散して下さって構いません。 Xユーザーの池戸万作＠政治...