fbpx

The Democrats’ Paranormal Economics

US government debt now stands at $20 trillion, or roughly 100% of GDP. This should be a concern, but Democratic economists are not worried. A much-discussed November 30 paper by former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Jason Furman suggests that Democratic thinking has veered into the paranormal, with an emphasis on levitation. Governments will be able to borrow and spend as much as they want for whatever purpose they want, the authors argue in so many words, and interest rates will remain low forever.

As Washington Post editorialist Charles Lane commented Dec. 7, “Far from burdening future generations, governments have a golden opportunity to fund long-standing needs by borrowing for investments in future prosperity—the list includes child care, early education, job training and clean water.”

The argument so easily refuted by casual reference to the facts that it takes a doctorate from Harvard (which both Summers and Furman hold) to suspend disbelief in the obvious. The authors aver:

We note that with massive increases in budget deficits and government debt, expansions in social insurance, and sharp reductions in capital tax rates, one would have expected to see increasing real rates if private sector behavior had remained constant. We suggest that changes in the supply of saving associated with lengthening life expectancy, rising uncertainty and increased inequality along with reductions in the demand for capital associated with demographic changes, demassification of the economy, and perhaps changes in corporate behavior have driven real interest rates down.

This characterization is rather like Hamlet without the Ghost, for the ghost in the interest machine during the past decade has been the Federal Reserve Board’s multi-trillion-dollar purchases of Treasury and agency securities. Summers and Furman do not mention this in their 50-page excursus.

It surely is the case that the aging of the industrial nations’ population prompts people to save more, and that higher savings rates depress interest rates, but the collapse of real Treasury yields to the negative 1% range during the course of 2020 had nothing to do with the savings rate, but rather with the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented purchases of public debt.

No deleterious consequences attach to the explosion of public debt, according to Summers and Furman, who

… reconsider traditional views about the dangers of debt and deficits. We note that in a world of unused capacity and very low interest rates and costs of capital, concerns about crowding out of desirable private investment that were warranted a generation ago have much less force today. We argue that debt-to-GDP ratios are a misleading metric of fiscal sustainability that do not reflect the fact that both the present value of GDP has risen and debt service costs have fallen as interest rates have fallen. Instead we propose that it is more appropriate to compare debt stocks to the present value of GDP or interest rate flows with GDP flows.

But it is perverse to use “interest rate flows” as a benchmark, because the interest rate is manipulated downward by the Federal Reserve (which, as noted, the authors do not mention). The collapse of real yields during quantitative easing, moreover, puts the US dollar and the whole currency system at risk. This is reflected in the price of gold, which roughly tripled during quantitative easing, and tracked the fall in real Treasury yields closely.

The 10-year TIPS yield explains about 80% of the change in the gold price during the past thirteen years (the r2  of regression of gold against the 10-year TIPS yield is 0.8). That is no surprise, because the two assets have similar functions.  Gold is not a currency (because most governments do not make it legal tender), but it is a sort of shadow currency, a “primitive relic” (Keynes) to which countries must fall back if the value of fiat currency collapses. In effect, gold is an insurance policy against currency collapse. Inflation-indexed Treasuries perform a similar function; if the dollar collapses and inflation rises sharply, they will protect investors. They also offer protection in the case of extreme deflation (because their coupon rise when the Consumer Price Index rises, but does not fall if the Consumer Price Index turns negative).

The close relationship between real interest rates and gold makes clear that the risk to the monetary system has increased drastically as the deficit rose during the past decade and a half.  The decline in real interest rates thus reflects a higher price for hedges against extreme movements in the value of the national currency (as the price of inflation-indexed securities rises, the yield falls). We observe the same pattern in the long-term relationship between the US federal deficit (expressed as a percentage of nominal GDP) and gold. The greater our deficit, the more the world is willing to pay for insurance against the collapse of our currency.

The price of insurance against a currency collapse has risen, but that does not mean such a collapse is inevitable. Why can’t the United States simply ignore the warning signals, as Furman and Summers propose, and continue to borrow and spend? Japan’s government debt now stands at 240% of GDP, more than twice the American ratio. Japan appears able to sustain a much higher debt burden. Why can’t the United States?

If the United States were to issue debt in order to rebuild its industrial base and reduce the current account deficit, increased debt might be justified. That is not the form that deficit spending is likely to take under a Biden Administration, which is likely to offer lip service to investment in technology while spending lavishly on social and environmental programs.

The difference is that Japan has a current account surplus and nearly $4 trillion in net foreign assets, while the US has a current account deficit and a net international investment position of negative $13 trillion. Japan finances its government debt by selling bonds to Japanese institutions and households. The dollar is the world’s principal reserve currency, which gives the United States the benefit of free or cheap credit from the rest of the world. Foreigners hold trillions of dollars of deposits in dollars to pay for transactions, and these constitute a loan to the United States.

I do not believe that the dollar’s reserve status is in immediate danger, but the world has shifted markedly away from dollars during the past several years. As of late 2020 the world cleared as many transactions in Euros as in dollars through the interbank SWIFT electronic transfer system.

The dollar may be overripe as a world reserve currency, but there is no easy replacement. Japan and Europe have economic problems of their own. Gold is extremely cumbersome as a substitute for electronic transfers, and digital currencies do not inspire the same confidence as fiat currencies backed by central banks and governments that can collect taxes. China’s RMB is a possible competitor to the dollar in the long term, but China has no intention to field its currency as a dollar substitute in the short- or medium-term. Its capital markets are too immature to support a global reserve instrument. A reserve currency is a mixed blessing, because it exposes the domestic financial system of the issuer to global pressures and volatility.

The fact that the reserve status of the dollar is no immediate danger should not lull us into complacency. China is not ready to field the RMB as a replacement for the dollar, but at present growth rates its economy will become larger than America’s in dollar terms by the mid-2020’s (it is already larger according to the International Monetary Fund’s measure of purchasing power parity), and it will seek a monetary status commensurate with its economic power. China may be cautious for the present, but its geopolitical and economic ambitions will give rise to a challenge to the dollar’s reserve status between five and ten years from now. We have a few years’ grace to get our house in order, but not a decade.

Within the time horizon of the next US election cycle, the likelihood is that the United States can continue to increase its debt. That, almost certainly, is what the Biden Administration will attempt to do. If the United States were to issue debt in order to rebuild its industrial base and reduce the current account deficit, increased debt might be justified. That is not the form that deficit spending is likely to take under a Biden Administration, which is likely to offer lip service to investment in technology while spending lavishly on social and environmental programs.

It is magical thinking to believe that the United States can run large deficits indefinitely. The closest equivalent to America’s position today is Britain during the 1970s, when the collapse of the pound’s reserve role forced a series of currency devaluations and budget cuts. China’s economy will be as large as America’s in dollar terms within a few years, and Beijing’s financial reforms are preparing the way for an eventual challenge to the dollar’s reserve status. If the Biden Administration listens to Furman and Summers, we shall have to burn that bridge when we come to it.

Fault lines in the financial system could produce a crisis in dollar funding much earlier. A crisis in the US government debt market nearly erupted in March, due to forced liquidation of Treasury securities by foreign investors. Germany and Japan have negative real interest rates, so their investors buy American bonds at positive real interest rates. But Germans and Japanese have to pay out Euros and yen, not dollars. Under the present regime of floating exchange rates, currency fluctuations can diminish the value of US dollar bonds held by foreign investors. These investments must be hedged against currency risk. Foreign portfolio investors go to their banks to swap dollar income into local-currency income. The banks borrow dollars in the United States, sell them in the forward market and receive Euros and yen.

European banks are running out of borrowing capacity. After five years of negative short-term rates, their profitability is low, their stock prices are falling and their credit is deteriorating. They can no longer borrow the dollars required to construct the hedges that local investors need.

Foreign exchange derivatives form the biggest mountain of obligations in the world financial system—a notional amount of about $90 trillion, up from $60 trillion in 2010. Breaking down the numbers, Bank for International Settlements (BIS) economists showed that the foreign exchange derivatives taken on by non-financial corporations tracked the growth of world trade, and the derivative obligations of nonbank financial institutions—money managers and insurance companies—tracked international securities investments.

Bank for International Settlements (BIS) economists noted three years ago that non-US banks now owe $10.7 trillion in US dollars, most of which reflects the hedging requirements of these global flows. The banks don’t report foreign exchange swaps with their customers on their balance sheets, but the BIS estimates that these obligations amount to $13 or $14 trillion.

For some time, international bank regulators and the International Monetary Fund have warned that the banking system no longer can support these enormous flows. The Federal Reserve is tightening liquidity in the US, and in a volatile market, European banks might not be able to roll over nearly $11 trillion of short-term obligations—and might default.

As the BIS warned in September 2017:

The combination of balance sheet vulnerabilities and market tightening could trigger funding problems in the event of market strains. Market turbulence may make it more difficult for banks to manage currency gaps in volatile swap markets, possibly rendering some banks unable to roll over short-term dollar funding. Banks could then act as an amplifier of market strains if funding pressures were to compel banks to sell assets in a turbulent market to pay their liabilities that are due. Funding pressure could also induce banks to shrink dollar lending to non-US borrowers, thus reducing credit availability. Ultimately, there is a risk that banks could default on their dollar obligations.

Something like this nearly happened in March 2020, when a global shortage of dollar liquidity hit European banks, who cut off funding for foreign-exchange hedges, forcing their customers to liquidate US Treasuries.

The Federal Reserve immediately made more than $1 billion of dollar liquidity available to European banks through swap lines, and the brief spike in Treasury yields disappeared. I believe that the Treasury and Federal Reserve have the resources to control such episodes for the time being, but they can’t do so forever.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on January 15, 2021 at 08:49:09 am

Figure 3 shows that
Clinton becomes president in 1993 and over the next 8 years turns a deficit into a surplus
Bush 2 then becomes president, and turns it back into a substantial deficit
Obama then becomes president and over the next 8 years gradually reduces it
Then Trump becomes president and the deficit increases again.
Yet this becomes a story of Democrat indiscipline?

read full comment
Image of Terence kealey
Terence kealey
on January 15, 2021 at 12:53:06 pm

excuse me but:

"Barack Obama (2009-2017): Under President Obama, the national debt grew the most dollar-wise ($8.6 trillion) but was fifth in terms of percentage: 74%. Obama fought the Great Recession with an $831 billion economic stimulus package and added $858 billion through tax cuts"
which far outpaced Bush 2's $1.55 trillion deficit.
And, Yes, The Trumpster is right up there at $6.7 trillion. Then again NO other President had the entire economy shut down by (primarily) Democrat politicians.

BTW: What happened to my first post?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 15, 2021 at 17:00:54 pm

If it was only as easy as that. Clinton benefited from the fact that the Cold War was won, so defense spending decreased from more than 5% of GDP to about 3.0 of GDP, and from one of the biggest stock market bull markets ever. During some of the Clinton years the revenues from capital gains taxes soared. Bush inherited the stock market bubble recession with 9/11 attack.

read full comment
Image of mark
mark
on January 16, 2021 at 21:10:34 pm

Republicans capture the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years, in 1995, and over the next six years, turns a deficit into a surplus.

read full comment
Image of Gene Schwimmer
Gene Schwimmer
on January 19, 2021 at 13:05:21 pm

It's not as much about the president as it is the congress. Congress holds the purse strings and sets tax and regulation numbers. Plus Clinton had the Dot.com boom and Obama had a 'recovery' after the world economy tanked, so most things looked better after deflation. Biden will not have that benefit and the new congress and their proposed (Biden inspired) tax increases will hamper growth.

read full comment
Image of Barr
Barr
on January 19, 2021 at 22:57:47 pm

Of course... a good conservative never tells the truth.

read full comment
Image of Subhash Garg
Subhash Garg
on January 15, 2021 at 09:44:18 am

I wish I had an MBA or that as a college kid I had taken more economics than Econ 101 and 102 and read more econ texts than "Economics: An Introductory Analysis" which, while I share the sentiments of the reviewer who called Samuelson's classic "colorfully written (and) the only enjoyable economics textbook I have ever come across," was inadequate to the task of explaining international monetary and fiscal policy.

So, I don't fully understand what Goldman said, but I think it's bad.

And if it's bad now, before Biden, I know, starting in five days, that with Biden it's going to get worse and then it's going to get "progressively" (adverbial irony) worse, worser and still more worse until, after four years of Biden, by Biden and for Biden, and after four years of the people for Biden, by the people for Biden and for the people for Biden, it will be the most worse for all the people, and that one nation ruled by and divided under Biden will have arrived at its nadir and Americans will "know the place for the first time."

From bad to most worse seems to be the state and fate of man in the Democrat polis.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on January 19, 2021 at 22:38:15 pm

Don't worry about a lack of formal education in Economics, I expect there are many far more read in Economics who had never ever "studied" negative interest rates until recently.

read full comment
Image of Mike McCune
Mike McCune
on January 15, 2021 at 10:14:29 am

I don't disagree with any of the major points of the article, but I believe there may be a mistake in the initial initial debt to GDP statistic, or at least a need for more clarity. The wording allows for the interpretation that the Federal Debt to GDP ratio is 200% when I believe it would be closer to 135% if we use Gross Federal Debt (my preference) and 100% if we use Net Federal Debt. If the author is referring to all government debt in the U.S., which I suspect is the case, I think the wording could be clearer so as not to cause confusion for some readers,

read full comment
Image of John R Visser
John R Visser
on January 15, 2021 at 17:03:08 pm

Net debt is the proper denominator.

read full comment
Image of mark
mark
on January 15, 2021 at 21:53:15 pm

Excellent clarification. The original text was lazy in defining its terms

read full comment
Image of Richard Harding
Richard Harding
on January 15, 2021 at 12:23:55 pm

Just a thought. I think most reasonable people can assume that shutting down production, by limiting the number of persons who are deemed to be necessary workers, even when the healthy are willing to mask themselves, - and then, creating an environment of fear, based on faulty science that puts up obstacles for treating those infected, with treatments that have been demonstrated to be safe and effective when used for other types of infections, as well as current infections, you can expect to see some types of business to prosper at the peril of others. Perhaps those who have been able to profit from Covid 19, would be willing to do a one time voluntary contribution to our Nation’s deficit, for the sake of The Common Good?

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on January 15, 2021 at 17:17:32 pm

I like that idea! A "common good" tax (John Roberts can call it a "contribution") of 70% (which was FDR's marginal income tax rate on the "wealthy") on annual income FROM ANY SOURCE and on increases in personal net asset worth that exceed $1 billion annually. That would affect all those Democrats vying for the title "richest.'' Might convert some of them into Republicans.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on January 15, 2021 at 13:02:54 pm

Like Paladin, I am untutored in economics.
What i take from this is the following:
1) Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the "paranormal" in Goldman's essay is the a posteriori justification for the out of control Welfare State and its ever increasing "entitlement" spending.
2) WE (and I include myself) often ascribe causation for the radical idiocies of Leftist politics to academics who promulgate the most facile solutions to our nations problems. BUT... it is often the case that the Academy serves another function for the political class. That is to provide philosophical cover, after the fact, for the policy preferences of the political class AND to either paper over or thoroughly DISMISS the previously accepted cautions against such "new" policies. MMT is just one example and as Goldman shows, Summers. et al MUST dismiss all previous and well established constraints, both philosophical and practical, upon the issuance of government debt obligations. It is the economic equivalent of Critical Race Theory both are used to cover up some rather noticeable defects in either policy or philosophy and ignore inconvenient facts.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 15, 2021 at 15:02:00 pm

Well said my friend. If spending (let's be honest and not call it investing) $1.9B will be the elixir that cures all our ills, why not $2.9B, or double it to $3.8B, then round off to a neat $4B. Washington's tool of choice is a hammer, and everything looks like a nail, and Biden is nothing if not a creature of Washington acting under cover conveniently provided by Summers and Furman. Furman has always been a snake, and Summers if he was not one before is now one also. We are in a heap of trouble.

read full comment
Image of Sheldon Katz
Sheldon Katz
on January 15, 2021 at 13:44:48 pm

I appreciate this thoughtful, evidentiary, sophisticated, and highly technical analysis. I too wish I understood better the issues here, which are far beyond introductory economics. But it seems to me the author makes a strong case. It defies common sense to think that debt can be increased forever without limit. Surely it's time to rescind the ill-advised Trump tax cuts, especially since the wealthy have done so well during the covid pandemic. I'm glad that the fiscally irresponsible Republicans are no longer in charge of the government.

read full comment
Image of Donald Marshall
Donald Marshall
on January 15, 2021 at 16:56:51 pm

And still....Even with a Democrat induced shutdown of the nations economy necessitating a massive relief package, the debt incurred by, I should say, generated by the Obama administration is 126% of the debt generated by The Trumpster's administration. Yes, it was only 4 years but more than 50% may be said to be related to ChiComm Flu Relief, ChiComm Flu vaccine AND the absolute destruction of tax generating businesses consequent to the lockdowns.
Blame the Trumpster but let us not forget The Wise and Omniscient Obama. He was no slouch when it came to "free" things, either.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 15, 2021 at 16:01:01 pm

On the matter of fiscal irresponsibility, Mr. Marshall ain't seen nothin' yet.
The worst is yet to come and soon to become the worst by far.

“And worse I may be yet: the worst is not So long as we can say 'This is the worst'.”
Edgar speaking to his blinded father, Gloucester, in King Lear.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on January 15, 2021 at 17:23:25 pm

One of the falsehoods about government debt is it is like personal debt. Unlike a human being, a government's debt never has to be paid off. It only needs to be serviced: paying the current liabilities. Because U.S. Treasuries are perhaps the biggest source of "riskless" assets, investors will always invest in them as long as the U.S. government can service its debt. When there becomes questions about the servicing, then we will see interest rates on the debt increase and a very solid question is without the central bank creating money and buying US securities, can the government actually service the debt.

We could be approaching that point.

read full comment
Image of mark
mark
on January 16, 2021 at 14:26:53 pm

And perhaps, as the result of all that has transpired as the result of Covid 19, The Holy Father may have the opportunity to finally do The Consecration Of Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, exactly as Our Blessed Mother requested, so that Her Immaculate Heart may triumph

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on January 16, 2021 at 14:28:20 pm
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on January 17, 2021 at 12:17:28 pm

A very useful source to reset the paranormal economics that is creating havoc in this Nation and the World.

https://covid19criticalcare.com/

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on January 17, 2021 at 15:00:47 pm

And did you know that THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT of all the DOLLARS ever issued by THE FEDERAL RESERVE were issued in 2020.

Sadly, the ONLY question far too many Americans are asking is: "Where is MINE?"

All I can say is, "Oh, IT'S coming, baby. It's coming!"

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 17, 2021 at 15:20:43 pm

Gabe and Paladin,

Your sense that your economic training is limited is apparently quite common and understandable, but I would suggest that it really is not much of a disadvantage in these discussions. I would offer that the key to resolving the economic disputes highlighted by Mr. Goldman is not some poorly understood but determinative principle, but rather in understanding that there is a dispute as to the subject of the dispute. It is not that trained economists disagree on the implications of agreed-upon principles, but rather that they will not agree to such principles. It is possible that the issue is not that you are insufficiently educated in economics to discuss the issue, but that economic education is not as helpful to that discussion as one would hope.

This situation may have any of several causes:

1. Economics is a discipline dominated by non-falsifiable hypotheses and wishful thinking that persist until chastened by harsh experience, which then begets further non-falsifiable hypotheses and wishful thinking;

2. Economics is a discipline that is inherently hampered by a lack of sufficiently reliable principles; what works in one place does not in another, or what worked at one time does not do so any more;

3. Economic theories are congenial to cognitive biases, political ideologies and deceptive abstractions.

Of these, I think that the second is most fundamental. This is because economics eventually is concerned with opinions, and consequently behavior. As radical as quantum theory was, it was based on undisputable observations regarding black body radiation and the photoelectric effect. The proposed explanations for these phenomena were radical, but logical. Economics on the other hand attempts to reason about changing phenomena, varying experiences where none would be expected, and innovations that beget new phenomena and paradoxes. This, I would offer is because economics is ultimately concerned not with immutable phenomena, but with changeable opinion. Note that there is a discipline of behavioral economics, but not one of behavioral physics.

I would offer that Mark makes a very crucial point in his comment regarding the difference between sovereign debt and personal debt. This point suggests two inter-related opinions that determine the fate various economic theories: the opinion as to what something is worth, and the opinion as to whether an entity will honor its obligations. These are really the only determinants of whether many of the economics theories will work as intended. If the opinion of whether the United States will be able to service its debt on consistent terms remains unchanged, then the U.S. will be able to print money without significant calamity. Note for instance that it is not the printing of money that is the concept that underlies "new" economic thinking, but rather who prints the money. If it were merely the quantum of cash that is in circulation that matters, it would not matter if that cash were printed by individuals on a laser printer rather than the federal government. The crucial distinction is that the latter is perceived as backed up the credibility of the government, and the former is not. The real issue is not the quantity of money, but the credibility behind it. Note, however that credibility is simply an opinion. It may perhaps be useful to ask what were the opinions (or, if you will, gullible beliefs) and the things that affected those opinions that led to the housing bubble. Why was Iceland willing to invest in real estate derivatives?

I would surmise that the real threat to the determinative opinions (as to the value of things and the reliability of sovereigns) is not that the U.S. will run out of money, or that it will default. The real risk, as with the housing bubble is not basic arithmetic, but "shenanigans," innovations and schemes that satisfy a balance sheet in theory but screw average people in practice. These are ultimately the determinants of opinion and consequently of behavior.

So, Paladin, I would opine that reading P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich gives sufficient background to understand what is being discussed in these economic discourses, and that is so because what is being discussed is largely not understood by anyone.

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on January 18, 2021 at 11:34:56 am

Z - an excellent response! "... economics eventually is concerned with opinions, and consequently behavior." And it is folly for anyone to believe they can predict that behavior for 300M people, with all of their human vagaries, who are making 10B+ economic decisions per day. And those of us who only vaguely remember our Econ 101 and 102 classes prior to Nixon taking us off the gold standard in 1971 were provided a jaundiced and flawed view of reality. I learned from Howard Rusk(?) in 1974 that the bugaboo of "inflation" was simply the RELATIVE quantity of money available to buy and sell some quantity of goods and services. And some years later I learned that money could be created out of thin air by bank loans, with or without supporting collateral to "back it up" (i.e., provide the actual value that was being stored or exchanged by said money).

And Gabe, even if 37% of $ issues by Fed were issued in 2020, Cullen Roche [ http://pragcap.com/mmt-critique ] explains that vastly more money has been/is created by banks on their own initiative. He also effectively pans MMT.

AS Z9Z99, Mark, and others appreciate, but it bears repeating: as a sovereign nation capable of generating its own money, the US can fully "service" its debt in nominal $ amounts, thereby technically meeting its fiduciary responsibilities. But if/when the value of those $ is drastically diminished [inflated] compared to the value of the initial "principal", some drastic reduction in wealth, quality of life, and possibly/probably quality of liberty, will ensue.

We are basically already bankrupt, but just not yet willing to admit it. We can see the inflation in the prices at the grocery store and in the real estate market, and in the unrealistic growth in our investment portfolios. Whether you take the debt as $20T, $28T, or the $50T to $200T in liabilities proffered by Professor Larry Kotlikoff, we are never going to repay that debt in real terms, and eventually even the interest levels will also become unmanageable "in real terms".

read full comment
Image of R2L
R2L
on January 18, 2021 at 11:51:38 am

We do know that without freedom, there cannot be innovation, and that innovation is instrumental in driving production.

read full comment
Image of N.D.
N.D.
on January 19, 2021 at 11:43:19 am

I hesitated to offer this facile "sound bite" as prognosis for what lies ahead. After reading Z9's and R2L's comments (BTW, good to see you back), I will.

It is said that US Securities are backed by the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States."
I am certain that they are. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that a delusional type, i.e., a Flat Earth proponent has absolute faith in the flatness of the earth. Not unlike the the fantasy based creation of unlimited Government (and Bank) securities generated under MMT, we observe a faith based that the world will conform to our peculiar conception of it's contours. This in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary, i.e., laws of geometry and physics in the former and laws of both economics and human behavior in the case of MMT.

Thus, it is NOT the "faith" of the United States about which I am concerned but the "faith" of both the citizenry (buyers of bonds) and foreign governments and investors in MMT generated securities.
What happens when the "faithful" no longer accept the new canons of MMT?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 19, 2021 at 12:43:25 pm

pitching the country into more and more debt thru stimulus provides only a transitory bump. the economy will grow at a slower and slower pace as debt becomes a drag on the system. this is a misallocation of capital and will severely penalize the younger generations. but why should Larry care, he won't be around. Lacy Hunt of Hoisington management lays out the same argument but by a slightly different course.

read full comment
Image of david
david
on January 19, 2021 at 23:36:56 pm

So here's a translation: if I have a rich uncle who is never going to broke, and he is happy to lend me as much as I want, as long as I can pay the interest, why should I get a job? That's what the Harvard profs are saying. Dr. Goldman is saying hold on, the rich uncle can't live forever. At some point he'll get Alzheimers or something.

read full comment
Image of Subhash Garg
Subhash Garg
Trackbacks
on January 16, 2021 at 18:40:42 pm

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 16, 2021 at 19:19:59 pm

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 16, 2021 at 19:36:11 pm

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 16, 2021 at 19:38:03 pm

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 16, 2021 at 19:38:22 pm

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 16, 2021 at 20:15:56 pm

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 16, 2021 at 21:25:46 pm

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 16, 2021 at 21:41:47 pm

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 17, 2021 at 05:49:35 am

[…] a new essay at Law and Liberty I characterize Bidenomics as “paranormal.” Here’s a […]

on January 17, 2021 at 10:28:20 am

[…] Source link […]

on January 17, 2021 at 12:58:43 pm

[…] On TwitterOn FacebookEmailPrintDavid P. Goldman, president of Macrostrategy LLC, writes the “Spengler” column for Asia Times Online and the “Spengler” blog at PJ Media, and is the author of You Will Be Assimilated: China’s Plan to Sino-Form the World (Bombardier Books) and How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying Too)(Regnery).MORE BY THIS AUTHO […]

on January 19, 2021 at 17:29:36 pm

[…] from Harvard (which both Summers and Firman have) to suspend disbelief in the obvious.   LawLiberty  This article seriously contemplates pertinent macro-economic theory, with six multi-colored […]

on January 20, 2021 at 17:22:47 pm

[…] Study Rotund Article » […]

on January 20, 2021 at 17:47:50 pm

[…] Read Full Article » […]

on January 22, 2021 at 07:12:39 am

[…] came out a week ago over on Law & Liberty, but I just stumbled across it, so here it is; The Democrat’s Paranormal Economics.  Excerpts, with my […]

on January 26, 2021 at 16:09:57 pm

[…] Details here. […]

on February 10, 2021 at 04:37:28 am

[…] gustando mucho el dólar, y siguen dispuestos a quedarse con todos los que se fabriquen. Pero, ¿le gustará para siempre? Este gráfico indica que el uso del euro (azul) en el sistema internacional de transferencias […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.