Why Moscow Mitch needs MMT

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 19/08/2019 - 6:11pm in

By J.D. ALT Mitch McConnell is desperate to find investment funds and businesses that will create jobs for his Kentucky constituents. America, it seems, is mostly incapable of being a source for either. Such is the diminishment of our impoverished … Continue reading →

The post Why Moscow Mitch needs MMT appeared first on New Economic Perspectives.

A Modern Money Explanation

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 12/08/2019 - 6:22pm in

By J.D. ALT Since the Democrat’s presidential debates, the attacks on progressive candidates for their “unrealistic” proposals to address the biggest challenges we face as a collective society have intensified dramatically. The primary criticism is the enormous price-tag associated with … Continue reading →

The post A Modern Money Explanation appeared first on New Economic Perspectives.

Modern Monetary Theory: Coming Your Way Soon (Unless Big Changes Are Made)

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 10/08/2019 - 12:26am in

Published in the Nikkei Asian Review 6/8/2019

Japanese leaders have, in the past, often railed against public criticism of their policies by overseas economists. Never before, though, have they issued strongly worded rebuttals of foreign praise. Yet this is what happened when Professor Stephanie Kelton of Stony Brook University voiced her approval of government economic policy during her recent visit to Japan.

Professor Kelton is an advocate of Modern Monetary Theory, known as MMT, a heretical challenger to mainstream economics which maintains that the only constraint on public spending is inflation. In fact, the theory goes, there is no need for government spending to be financed by bond issuance at all. The central bank can simply create as much money as it likes until inflation becomes a problem.

 Professor Kelton in Japan
Professor Kelton in Japan

Many supporters of MMT view Japan’s “Abenomics” as a case study that bolsters their argument. And that is exactly why the Japanese establishment has reacted as if being accused of membership in some wacky religious cult.

Finance Minister Taro Aso called MMT “an extreme and dangerous idea that weakens fiscal discipline” and Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda expressed “no sympathy whatsoever” with the theory.

The reaction amongst mainstream economists overseas has been similarly hostile. According to Larry Summers, MMT is “the voodoo economics of our time.” Kenneth Rogoff calls it a threat “to the entire global financial system.” Even Bill Gates dismissed it as “crazy talk.”

The nay-sayers’ main beef appears to be the risk of hyper-inflation as experienced by several Latin-American and African countries. MMT-ers riposte that such criticism caricatures their approach. Indeed, theoretically it could be compatible with inflation targeting as practiced in most developed countries today.

Professor Kelton is a former advisor to Bernie Sanders, the veteran left-winger once more seeking nomination as Democratic Party presidential candidate. A much younger radical American politician, Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez, has also shown strong interest in MMT. The theory has obvious attractions for the left because it seems to offer the prospect of limitless and costless public spending. In fact, though, it is closely linked to the “helicopter money” proposed by free-market enthusiast Milton Friedman as a cure for deflation.

Such money need not be spent by the government. It could be simply mailed to citizens to spend as they like.

Indeed, there is another potential recruit to the MMT cause on the other side of the American political spectrum. In “Fear: Trump in the White House”, author Bob Woodward recounts an argument between Trump and Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary at the time. Trump suggests issuing a large amount of bonds to take advantage of historically low interest rates. Cohn slams the idea of breaching the politically-created “debt ceiling” as being harmful to US growth. Trump replies “Just run the presses – print money.” Woodward takes this as evidence of Trump’s ignorance. In fact, the president was probably referencing the latest economic theory.

Happier times - President Trump with Gary Cohn Happier times – President Trump with Gary Cohn

In many fields of intellectual enquiry, what was once heresy is now orthodoxy. Economics is no exception. The last time a paradigm shift occurred in macro-economic policy was in the 1970s, when monetarism, which placed emphasis on control of the quantity of money, displaced the post-war Keynesian consensus, which viewed fiscal policy as the key determinant of demand.

At the time, monetarism was a controversial fringe movement with little support amongst mainstream academics and policy-makers, but it seemed to offer a solution to a serious real world problem that the Keynesians had not anticipated and could not explain – the co-existence of high inflation and high unemployment.

A similarly puzzling phenomenon is visible in today’s world – this time the co-existence of low unemployment and low or no inflation (and likewise wage growth) in many developed countries. As in the 1970s, the Phillips curve, which purports to establish a reliable relationship between employment and inflation, has gone missing. And just as the monetarists brought in a radical new approach, now we have the MMT-ers advocating unfunded fiscal expansion.

Does the Japanese experience validate MMT, as Professor Kelton implied? Perhaps. It certainly raises serious doubts about the “fiscal discipline,” strongly advocated by Kenneth Rogoff, Christine Lagarde and many other experts and policy-makers since the global financial crisis of 2008. For Japan has been running large fiscal deficits for the past twenty years and has consequently amassed a Mount Fuji-sized pile of outstanding government debt, equivalent to 230% of Japanese GDP. Far from triggering a bond market rebellion and soaring interest rates, as doomsters consistently predicted, Japanese interest rates have fallen to vanishing point.

Since the start of Abenomics in 2013, the story gets even more interesting. Thanks to the quantitative easing programme of bond purchases introduced by Bank of Japan Governor Kuroda, some 40% of all outstanding Japanese government bonds now sit on the BoJ balance sheet. In other words, one arm of government owes a vast sum of money to another arm of government – which means that no debtor-creditor relationship exists. Despite the strident disclaimers of the Japanese authorities, this is not far removed from the world of MMT.

Happier days - President Trump with Gary Cohn

Having said that, the major cause of Japan’s public deficits was not fiscal expansion, but the collapse in tax revenues that happened during the two “lost decades.” In the first year of Abenomics, the government did increase public spending and the economy rebounded and inflationary expectations soared accordingly. Since then, however, fiscal policy was tightened. With one unnecessary and counter-productive tax hike being followed by another this autumn, it is no surprise that inflationary expectations have collapsed.

Before the global financial crisis, Japan’s rock bottom interest rates appeared to be a bizarre and unique phenomenon. No longer. Now there are over twelve trillion dollars of negative yielding bonds in the world, including some corporate bonds. In many countries the stimulatory effect of lower interest rates has already passed the point of exhaustion, raising the question of what governments will do to counter the next recession.

What the markets are asking them to do is clear – take advantage of these unprecedentedly low interest rates to issue boatloads of bonds and pump money into their economies. The Austrian government has just launched a tranche of its 100 year bond at an interest rate of 1.2%. Judging by the comparative yields of their 30 year bonds, Japan could probably borrow one hundred year money for less than 1%.

Instead of raising taxes on consumption and damaging growth, it could be investing in infrastructure, clean energy and fertility incentives that would increase the expected population and revive sadly depopulated regions.

Not every country is in the same position as Japan, which is the world’s largest creditor nation and has been clocking up current account surpluses since the early 1980s. But it is fairly clear that in many countries a combination of monetary easing and fiscal expansion, as well as tax reform (not hikes), is required to revive growth. If mainstream politicians and technocrats do not rise to the challenge, then the populists will fill the gap.

That could be dangerous because MMT has so far little to say about the varying financial conditions of different countries and the magnitudes of stimulus that are required for the remedy to work. It is all too easy to imagine countries that are, unlike Japan, already under-saving and over- consuming going too far – and ending up with out-of-control inflation.

Presenting At 3rd Annual MMT Conference

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 07/08/2019 - 11:00pm in



I will be presenting at the 3rd Annual MMT Conference (September 27-29; I am early on the 27th) in a session entitled "MMT: Who Is Listening?". Link to conference website:

I will have to think about my presentation, but I believe I will be covering why MMT is useful from a financial market practitioner's perspective. Since it's been awhile since I'm in markets, it will probably somewhat more general.

I will probably do a sketch of my thinking in the next week or two. Since there is meant to be a fair amount of Q&A, the less blathering I do using slides the better, so I will probably just stick to a couple generic points that can be expanded later.

Bloomberg Interview: Wray on Modern Monetary Theory

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 31/07/2019 - 11:33pm in

Bloomberg Businessweek‘s Cristina Lindblad and Peter Coy sat down with L. Randall Wray for an in-depth interview on Modern Monetary Theory:

Bloomberg Interview: Wray on Modern Monetary Theory

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 31/07/2019 - 11:33pm in

Bloomberg Businessweek‘s Cristina Lindblad and Peter Coy sat down with L. Randall Wray for an in-depth interview on Modern Monetary Theory:

The barbarians may be inside the gates, but we can still defeat them

Hand reaching towards the sunrise over a lakePhoto by Marc-Olivier Jodoin on Unsplash

The French have a saying “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” With the events of the last few days, one might consider that nothing had changed; the Tories are still in the driving seat albeit with a new leader. However, with the election of Boris Johnson to the post of Prime Minister, followed by an ignominious line up of hard right, heavily male, privately-educated Cabinet appointments one can say, at least for those of us with a progressive disposition, that the country has reached a moment of even more uncertainty and fear for the future.

In his first speech as PM, Johnson promised a ‘new golden age’. Given previous history and his leadership campaign, one must ask the question “a golden age for whom?” Johnson and his friends are dyed-in-the-wool, free market fundamentalists who favour a deregulatory free-for-all. They individually, or collectively, support capital punishment, fracking, GM crops, a watering down of employment rights and privatisation of key public services such as the NHS (although the latter, of course, is vociferously denied) and worse still are climate change deniers.

Unless they have had a collective Damascene moment, which seems highly unlikely, the golden age will be about continuing to serve their corporate masters and the further weakening of democracy, not the public purpose. With little mention of our failing public services, a fiscal stimulus maybe but in whose interests? Twenty thousand new policeman sounds good but with so many police stations closed, the time it takes to train police officers along with the need for training facilities and trainers to train them, this will be a dead duck in the water. Furthermore, Johnson has failed to address the consequences of the Conservatives’ austerity policies on society as a whole which, without doubt, has increased the pressures on law and order. It’s all nothing but rainbow coloured whitewash or is that hogwash?

In all this, one might think that the appointment of Jo Swinson to the leadership of the Liberal Democrats is a side story which is unconnected. And yet it is. Whilst most would jump immediately to the Brexit connection, given the stands of both parties on this issue, the reality is that it is that something far more insidious links them – economic ideology and austerity.

Some have, of course, claimed that austerity created the conditions for the Brexit vote, but the working-class discontent related to reduced standards of living and increased poverty and inequality predates 2010, going back over 30 years. It is as much linked to the ideological agendas pursued by successive governments since Thatcher as it is to the last 9 years of austerity.

This has been a bubbling cauldron of long-term dissatisfaction which has driven people to want change. Brexit has been the expression of that desire – a rejection of the economic orthodoxy which has deprived them of good, well paid jobs and security and a rejection of the political and economic structures which have brought it about and led dangerously to the rise of the extreme right and nationalism in the UK (as well as in the US and Europe).

It is regrettable, however, that in the political maelstrom which is dividing the country the subject of austerity and the reasons for people’s discontent have taken a back seat as Remainers and Brexiters fight it out in an increasingly vicious war of words which often fail to promote cogent reasons for either.

Boris Johnson and Jo Swinson have one thing in common – they voted for austerity. Their voting records and actions whilst in coalition government attest to that fact and we must not forget it. The Liberal Democrats enthusiastically supported the false belief engendered by George Osborne in the Treasury and David Cameron that the financial crisis had been caused by too much government spending by Labour, rather than being one created by bankers and speculators. Public sector workers as a consequence bore the brunt of cuts to public spending.

The party gave the Conservatives every helping hand they could, including supporting the government’s Health and Social Care Act which was yet one more step in the creation of a two tier American style healthcare model, went back on their promise to oppose increasing student tuition fees and put disabled people in the firing line of austerity cuts as the campaigner Frances Ryan notes in her new book ‘Crippled’ mentioned in last week’s MMT Lens. And these are just a few examples of the way in which the Liberal Democrats shamefully enabled the Tory political agenda. The words ‘thirty pieces of silver’ come to mind.

When asked during her leadership campaign, Swinson said that she had no regrets about her party’s role in austerity, claiming that there had been no alternative in order to get the country back on its feet. Never mind the realities of an economy which has shrunk by £100bn since 2010 or the pain, suffering and financial hardship that has been caused by those in acting in Coalition on the false notion that the public finances had to be put back in order and that the cuts were necessary.

And yet puzzlingly, in a tweet in May, she praised Jacinda Ardern’s well-being ‘budget’ saying:

“Economic transformation is about putting people and planet at the heart of our economy. We should be building on our existing work on wellbeing & making it central here too.”

A change of heart? One must question that in a world where politics is less about serving the people and more about gaining the power to pursue one’s own interests and serving global corporations through revolving doors. It is instructive that she accepted cash from a fracking businessman after having campaigned to save the environment. Her campaign tagline ‘Build an economy that puts people and the planet first’ seems a little less shiny with that knowledge in mind. She also failed to support proposals in Westminster aimed at fighting climate change and voted in favour of cutting the subsidy for electricity generated via renewable or low carbon schemes.

It is as if Swinson cannot or chooses not to make the connection between government deficit spending and delivering public purpose by putting the planet and people at the centre of economic, environmental and social policy. As Frances Ryan notes “austerity has harmed millions of people in Britain and continues to wreck lives.” Not to mention the economy!

Not only did she show herself to be impervious to the suffering caused by her party’s support for Tory policies, she also demonstrated the usual political ignorance about how the government’s finances work.

As the economist, Ellis Winningham said in a recent podcast (here)

“The only fiscal rule that should exist is one that targets prosperity. What I mean by that is plain and simple. Deficits should be targeted at full employment and public purpose. The people’s well-being should be looked after 100% at all times.”

Swinson’s words and actions have been in complete denial of this rule.

In these uncertain times, serving public purpose has been replaced with serving self-interest and in doing so well-being has been replaced by suffering and hardship. There cannot be many whose lives have not been touched in some way whether personally or via friends or family by government- imposed austerity. The collapse in social care and mental health services are just two examples. The lie of “care in the community” from support for elderly sick people being discharged from hospital to those suffering from mental health difficulties is being exposed on a daily basis and it is shameful. All of us hope that the services will be there in case of need, but increasingly they are not.

The social and economic impact of cuts to spending, both at national and local level, are leaving the most vulnerable without the care they need and leaving already financially hard-pressed families to take up the strain of looking after their loved ones. Those working in social care, which is often provided by private, profit seeking companies, are equally stressed with increasing workloads and poor pay and many are choosing to quit their jobs. In turn, local government with cuts to its budgets struggle to meet the costs of privately provided care and those care companies are increasingly thinking about exiting the sector as the public funding stream dries up along with their profits.

In mental health both for adults and children, the situation is equally grim. Premature discharge, either from community care or hospital, often leaves the vulnerable and marginalised to cope without adequate support or even any support at all. Sick people seen as troublemakers or attention seekers are abandoned to their own devices if they ‘fail’ to comply, or those with complex issues are off-loaded into private profit-driven facilities miles away from family and friends. In many cases families are left to take the strain.

In a target driven world where figures and balance sheets are more important than people’s lives, all serve to hide the actual scale of the problems being faced by people behind closed doors or on the street as a result of political and economic ideology. The health of the public finances has been used cruelly to justify austerity.

As noted in last week’s MMT Lens, we still have politicians, journalists and institutions who are living in fantasy land about public debt and deficit and woe betide any government that spends beyond its financial means. Fiscal Credibility Rules rule!

One such article appeared this week in the Guardian written by the economics editor Phillip Inman entitled “Labour and Tories both plan to borrow and spend. Is that wise?” Inman compares the British to the Italians who are proposing a fiscal stimulus on borrowed money, where of course no comparison can be made since Italy is the user of the euro as a foreign currency and has to issue debt in that currency to fund its spending, unlike the UK which has to do neither in order to spend.

Inman then proceeds to claim that whoever is making spending promises or tax cuts, Conservatives or Labour, it will require a huge increase in government borrowing. He claims that higher borrowing will put the public finances at risk and that in the light of worsening public finances and the coming ‘economic chill’ it would be better to ‘hunker down’.

With the nation mired in excessive household debt and the consequences of 9 years of austerity which has decimated public and social infrastructure, surely Phillip Inman might by now have come to the conclusion that hunkering down has not revitalised the economy. Instead, it has demolished it and worse harmed the lives of those who have had to live through it; from those who have the misfortune to be involuntarily unemployed to those with disabilities, the chronically or terminally ill, those without a roof over their heads and parents who struggle to feed their children. (For an excellent critique of Philip Inman’s article follow the link here.)

The public doesn’t need to take a degree course in economics to grasp the simple realities of how a government spends, or that it neither needs to get tax or to borrow before it can do so. These are elemental ideas. What the public does need to know is that government has deliberately made political decisions to cut investment in public infrastructure and spending on the services on which we all depend as well as deny those in need adequate financial support to live without fear.

The public needs to ask serious questions about why there is no money for the public purpose but plenty for buying arms, pursuing wars and bailing out banks, not to mention the many billions which find their way into private profit for delivering public services like the NHS. These are surely the clues that the public has been hoodwinked by a lie about balanced budgets being more important than the state of the economy and people’s lives. The answer to the question ‘where will the money come from’ is simple. The government spends it into existence. No tax or borrowing required.

Just imagine the revolution there would be if the public knew the truth. Just imagine how that knowledge could make the difference between saving or destroying the planet and creating a healthier, more well-balanced world for its citizens, where resources are more equally shared and political and economic solutions to poverty and inequality can be sought.

Modern Monetary Theory is but a description of how money works and of course, in itself, is not a magic bullet. There are no certainties. The rise of right-wing extremism in the US, the UK and Europe is worrying indeed, but that is no reason not to hope for something different. We have to start somewhere. Certainly, we can only work with what knowledge we have already, but that shouldn’t stop us using the full force of our human imaginations to create a better world for us all.

Note: If you want to learn more, GIMMS has a simple to read introduction to Modern Monetary Theory, along with plenty of other resources to inform and challenge the prevalent narratives of how money works. (link here)








Viber icon

The post The barbarians may be inside the gates, but we can still defeat them appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Labour Should Not Fall For The Tory-Led ‘Costing’ Trick – Here’s Why

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 15/07/2019 - 12:15am in

Ellis Winningham portraitAs the GIMMS team was busy preparing for its social event in Abergavenny this weekend we didn’t have time to write our usual MMT Lens. However, we are delighted to reprint a blog from the economist Ellis Winningham written in 2017 on the subject of costed budgets. Ellis explains why costing is nonsense and a fraud in a country like the UK’s which is monetarily sovereign.

Were Ellis an advisor to Jeremy Corbyn he would ask that he included this short passage in his speeches:

“Now then, the Tories wish for me to discuss costing. Fine. I will oblige them.
I should like for us all to ask what are the costs of seven long years of Tory-led austerity? What are the costs of long-term unemployment; of low-wage underemployment; of the rise in illness both mental and physical; of NHS privatisation efforts; of the number of deaths resulting from benefits sanctions; of the damage to our educational system; of the rise in crime rates and harm to our communities due to police reduction; of our crumbling infrastructure; of our nation’s real resources left deliberately idle?
If the Tories wish to discuss costing, then let us start there, shall we?”

Originally published here on June 1, 2017 .


This Tory-led ‘costing’ theme currently running rampant throughout the UK is pure political nonsense, the lot of it. Costing has absolutely nothing to do with anything when it comes to the UK.

The UK Government is monetarily sovereign. It has the exclusive, monopoly authority to issue British pounds. Pounds come from nowhere else. When the UK Government spends, it is literally spending pounds into existence to ‘pay for’ programmes. So, the question of ‘enough money’ is entirely irrelevant to the UK. When it comes to government spending, it is always a question of real resources: Enough workers, enough steel, enough food, enough hospitals, enough medicines, enough cars, enough of everything but ‘money’. Pounds are merely a voucher that the government manufactures to purchase goods and services created by the private sector.

Because the government taxes and declares a punishment for not paying the tax, people are then forced to obtain pounds. They do that by selling their goods and services to the UK Government and the government then manufactures pounds to pay for them. By being the sole, exclusive issuer of the Pound Sterling, the UK Government always ensures that it can purchase whatever it needs to function as government in perpetuity without fear of going ‘broke’. This is the entire point of the British pound – to provision the UK Government with goods and services.

Try to understand – a national government is set up with the intention of being durable, lasting into the ages. It has to be durable, otherwise the nation will no longer exist. Therefore, the responsibility falls upon the UK Government to find a way to obtain what it needs to survive throughout the ages. There are two ways the government can do this:


  1. It can simply walk into the private sector and take what it needs by force, or
  2. It can operate a monetary economy. It lays a tax payable in the government’s own currency (The Pound Sterling) and declares a harsh punishment for not doing so, which then causes the private sector to sell the government goods, services and labour in order to obtain the pounds necessary to pay the tax. Two things now happen:


  1. As long as the UK Government can enforce its tax collections, the private sector will demand pounds. Because the tax drives the demand for pounds, the UK Government can now purchase anything that it needs to function as government in perpetuity as long as it is for sale in Pounds Sterling.
  2. Since the private sector demands pounds to pay the tax and accepts the government’s pounds as payment for goods and services, wide-spread acceptance of British pounds is achieved and so the production of and the buying and selling of goods and services will take place in the private sector priced in Pounds Sterling.


In short, British pounds are manufactured by the UK Government when it spends to access the nation’s real resources, and then the pounds are used by individuals in the private sector to access those real resources for their own use. This is called a modern monetary economy and the UK Government alone commands both the pound and the economy. So, are there enough real resources for the UK Government to spend pounds into existence for the NHS, schools, benefits and other public purpose initiatives? The answer is yes. There always has been enough.

Since there are enough real resources, then should the government not spend enough pounds into existence, some of those resources will lay idle. Examples of idle resources are unemployment and vacant factories.

I wish to be very clear here: This ‘costing’ talk is utter nonsense, It is a sham; a fraud designed by the Tories to redirect discussion away from the need for a return to fully-funded public programmes such as the NHS, a return to full employment, and away from the damage done by seven years of Tory austerity.

Lastly, the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 had absolutely nothing to do with Labour’s spending. It is clear that the GFC was a global phenomenon that began in the US. Blaming Labour’s spending for the Global Financial Crisis was an outright fraud perpetrated by the Tories – full stop. The resulting austerity was opportunity-driven, conducted by the Tories with malice aforethought in order to privatise everything imaginable for the benefit of their wealthy friends.

This ‘costing’ nonsense is yet another Tory fraud; one in which the Murdoch-driven media is willfully complicit mind you. The intent is to force Labour to play on the defensive and to keep the voter confused and in the dark concerning the real issues facing the British economy, so that the Conservatives can finish the job they were paid to do by their wealthy friends many years ago: The butchery of Britain.

So, were I an adviser to Jeremy Corbyn, I would ask that he include this brief passage in his speeches:

“Now then, the Tories wish for me to discuss costing. Fine. I will oblige them.

I should like for us all to ask what are the costs of seven long years of Tory-led austerity? What are the costs of long-term unemployment; of low-wage underemployment; of the rise in illness both mental and physical; of NHS privatisation efforts; of the number of deaths resulting from benefits sanctions; of the damage to our educational system; of the rise in crime rates and harm to our communities due to police reduction; of our crumbling infrastructure; of our nation’s real resources left deliberately idle?

If the Tories wish to discuss costing, then let us start there, shall we?”








Viber icon

The post Labour Should Not Fall For The Tory-Led ‘Costing’ Trick – Here’s Why appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

New chapter on Euro Treasury and Job Guarantee

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 03/07/2019 - 12:44am in

Together with Esteban Cruz and Pavlina Tcherneva I have written a chapter in a book on the Eurozone. It has been published by Revista Economica and is available for download here (PDF). This is the abstract:

The problems with the design of the Eurozone came into focus when, late in 2009, several member nations– notably Greece – failed to re nance their government debt. The crisis that followed was not entirely asurprise. When the Euro was launched in 1999, many economists warned that the single currency was unworkable. Even Eurozone optimists argued that the Euro project would eventually need to be completed. More than 10 years after the crisis, unemployment rates remain elevated and continue to threaten the social, political and economic stability of the Eurozone. The institutional constraints of the single currency however preclude bold action to address these challenges. In this paper, we suggest that tackling thetwin problems of the Eurozone – its institutional aws and mass unemployment – could be addressed by creating a Euro Treasury that would nance a Job Guarantee program, which would eliminate massunemployment, enhance price stability, and foster social and economic integration across Europe.

Reposting a prior comment

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 29/06/2019 - 12:35pm in



Here’s a comment I wrote and posted several years ago. I’d like to add that I also see the Transition Job policy, along with a 0 rate policy, as what I call the ‘base case for analysis’ of a state currency:

“With ‘state currency’
There necessarily is,
Always has been,
Always will be,
A buffer stock policy.
Call that the MMT insight if you wish.

So it comes down to ‘pick one’-
1. Gold
2. Foreign Exchange
3. Unemployment
4. Employed/JG/ELR
5. Wheat
I pick employed/JG/ELR
As it works best as a buffer stock based on any/all criteria for a buffer stock.”


The post Reposting a prior comment appeared first on The Center of the Universe.