As anyone who has ever been responsible for legislative oversight of central bankers knows, they do not like to have their authority challenged. Most of all, they will defend their mystique — that magical aura that hovers over their words, shrouding a slushy mix of banality and baloney in a mist of power and jargon.
As a result, tormenting central bankers is great fun. John Maynard Keynes famously tormented Montagu Norman, the governor of the Bank of England (BOE) from 1920 to 1944.
Then-US representatives Wright Patman and Henry Reuss, who chaired the US House of Representatives Banking Committee in the 1970s, did the same to then-Federal Reserve chair Arthur Burns.
I know that Reuss enjoyed it; I assisted him at the time.
In our day, the voices of modern monetary theory (MMT) perturb the sleep not only of present central bankers, but even of those retired from the role.
They prowl the corridors like Lady Macbeth, shouting “Out damn spot!”
Two fresh cases are Raghuram Rajan, a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, and Mervyn King, a former BOE governor.
In recently published commentaries, each combines bluster and condescension (in roughly equal measure) in a statement of trite truths with which one can, for the most part, hardly disagree.
However, Rajan and King each confront MMT only in the abstract. Neither cites or quotes from a single source, and neither names a single person associated with MMT.
For example, King begins: “If you can’t explain something, try an abbreviation. The latest in economics is MMT — Modern Monetary Theory or, in other words, a magic money tree.”
Does King mention that there are whole books explaining MMT, including The Deficit Myth, a current best-seller by a fully credentialed economics professor, Stephanie Kelton?
He does not.
Nor does Rajan mention books by Pavlina Tcherneva of Bard College or L. Randall Wray of the Levy Institute, to mention just three prominent exponents of the MMT school.
The inconvenient fact that two leading advocates of MMT are women will perhaps have caught the reader’s notice.
Especially given the record of modern mainstream economics with respect to its female practitioners, it would be too generous to attribute the omission of names to a misplaced chivalry.
One rather suspects that King and Rajan know very well who Kelton and Tcherneva are. Both are forceful and formidable foes, of exactly the type that central bankers tend to fear.
King and Rajan characterize MMT as an argument about the low cost of “printing money.”
In King’s description, the thinking is that money created by the central bank can “be given to the public … to enable people to spend more, so raising output and employment.”
He then claims that such an approach has already been tried, “from Roman emperors through Henry VIII and the Weimar Republic to present-day Zimbabwe and Venezuela.” That does sound pretty bad.
However, those with long enough memories may recall the turbulent spring of this year, when in the face of the COVID-19 collapse, the US disbursed US$2.2 trillion in fresh money to the public to enable people to spend more, thereby raising output and employment.
The US economy did not have a great year this year; but it did not experience runaway inflation. It did not become Zimbabwe, Venezuela or the Weimar Republic.
Is it possible that King did not notice this? Rajan, to his credit, does not push quite so hard on the Zimbabwe string.
King and Rajan both complain that MMT is not new, and this is a sure “tell” that neither has done his homework.
MMT advocates do not claim novelty. Unlike their critics, they understand that “modern” and “new” are not precise synonyms.
The word “modern” in MMT is deployed in the precise sense used by Keynes in his 1930 Treatise on Money, in which he describes the nation-state’s prerogative to define what money is for those subject to its laws: “This right is claimed by all modern states, and has been so claimed for some four thousand years at least.”
It is a bit sad — even shocking — that King, one of my contemporaries at King’s College, Cambridge, has so thoroughly forgotten his Keynes.
What, then, is MMT?
Contrary to the claims of King and Rajan, it is not a policy slogan. Rather, it is a body of theory in Keynes’ monetary tradition, which includes such eminent thinkers as the US economist Hyman Minsky and Wynne Godley of the UK Treasury and the University of Cambridge.
MMT describes how “modern” governments and central banks actually work, and how changes in their balance sheets are mirrored by changes in the balance sheets of the public — an application of double-entry bookkeeping to economic thought.
Thus, as Kelton writes in the plainest English, the deficit of the government is the surplus of the private sector, and vice versa.
MMT shares Keynes’ view that a proper goal of economic policy in a sovereign and developed country is to achieve full employment, buttressed by a guarantee of jobs to all who might need them.
This is a goal that I helped write into law in the US under the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, along with balanced growth and reasonable price stability.
With occasional successes in practice, this policy objective, known as the “dual mandate,” has been the law of the land in the US ever since.
In short, as an example of good economics made popular, accessible and democratic, MMT represents what central bankers have always feared — as well they might.
James Galbraith, a former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee, is a professor of government and chair in government/business relations at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin.
Copyright Project Syndicate
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) earlier this month raised its travel alert for China’s Guangdong Province to Level 2 “Alert,” advising travelers to take enhanced precautions amid a chikungunya outbreak in the region. More than 8,000 cases have been reported in the province since June. Chikungunya is caused by the chikungunya virus and transmitted to humans through bites from infected mosquitoes, most commonly Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus. These species thrive in warm, humid climates and are also major vectors for dengue, Zika and yellow fever. The disease is characterized by high fever and severe, often incapacitating joint pain.
RSS