... the Wizard of MMT, Professor Stephanie Kelton. In her June 2020 book The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy ...
Kelton argues that the federal government can and should run large budget deficits as long as inflation remains subdued.
MMT maintains that the federal government can achieve both full employment and stable inflation with an appropriate amount of deficit-financed spending. But what happens when the economy hits the wall of full utilization of resources, causing inflation to heat up? Any additional government spending beyond full resource utilization is inflationary. But never fear: MMT theorizes that inflation can easily be taxed away!
MMT advocates dismiss NAIRU given their stance that it’s possible to balance full employment (i.e., literally zero unemployment) with stable inflation. If done right, the theory goes, MMT can take the resources that are underutilized in the private sector and put them to work in the public sector.From an MMT point of view, “we should rely on adjustments in taxes and spending (fiscal policy) rather than interest rates (monetary policy)” to balance our economy.[130] i Kelton argues, as Keynesians do, that fiscal policy is better equipped for this task than monetary policy, mainly because the Federal Reserve cannot force borrowing to boost spending; it can only reduce the cost of borrowing. Fiscal spending directly targets areas of the private sector that need a boost.
MMT is based on an accounting identity, as every surplus (deficit) in one sector of the economy is offset by a deficit (surplus) in another sector of the economy. According to MMT, there arethree main “buckets” in the economy: the public sector, the private sector, and the foreign sector. The financial balance for any of these sectors at a given time all must total to zero. As Kelton observes: “Fiscal surpluses suck money out of the [private] economy. Fiscal deficits do the opposite.”[131]Fiscal deficits also serve to keep the US private sector from falling into a deficit when the foreign sector runs at a surplus, Kelton maintains. More specifically, “the government must runbudget deficits that exceed the US trade deficit.”[132] The US consistently runs a trade deficit with the foreign sector as it imports more than it exports, bringing in goods and services and sending US dollars abroad.
Kelton’s readers can easily detect her political leanings. Her agenda focuses on how the nation’s real resources should be allocated by government programs rather than how extensive and big those programs should be or how they should be financed. Kelton contends that, rather than focusing on the fiscal deficit, politicians should focus on the real deficits in our economy. According to Kelton, these deficits can be addressed with fiscal policies (andspending) as follows: a good-jobs deficit (a minimum standard of living), a household-savings deficit (free higher education and affordable childcare), a healthcare deficit (insurance for all and more real healthcare resources), an education deficit (retire all student debt), an infrastructure deficit (fix it), an inequality deficit (taxes and redistribution).
As we see it, one of the major flaws of MMT is that excessive spending that causes inflation would have to be offset with higher taxes for the private sector. Kelton herself admits that if the government wants to boost spending in a targeted area, it may “need to remove some spending power from the rest of us to prevent its own more generous outlays from pushing up prices.” One way to create this room is through higher taxes. Taxes are also a “powerful way for governments to alter the distribution of wealth and income.” Governments can also use taxes “to encourage or discourage certain behaviors.”
Kelton envisions a “universal right of employment” whereby a “Public Service Employment (PSE) program” would offer “paid work at a living wage” of $15 per hour “with a basic package of benefits that include health care and paid leave.”[139] “Think of it” as binders on a shelf “filled with a wide variety of available jobs.” Enough jobs to “allow people with different skills and interests to walk in without a job and walk out with one that fits them.” The program would be focused on utilizing workers to build a “care economy” oriented around our aging society.
This remarkably ambitious program would automatically stabilize fiscal spending to where it needs to be to balance full employment with stable inflation. When the economy hits a recession (or recovers), the PSE program ramps up (or down). This raises some obvious questions. If people are content with their government job, why would they leave? What about workers who say they want to work but are routinely absent? How do you address structural problems like mismatches between the government’s skill needs in a particular region and their availability in the local job market?
aufgebläht.....:
![[smilie_blume]](https://goldseiten-forum.com/wcf/images/smilies/smilie_blume1.gif "smilie_blume"){kind=small}
Da teilt Ihr vermutlich die Begabung zu ähnlich messerscharfen Marktanalysen. Z.B. die, dass die Ausweitung der Geldmenge Gift ist für Fiat-Money alle Non-Goldinvestments.