Last modified on 31 August 2014, at 16:55

Modern Monetary Theory

Modern monetary theory (MMT or modern money theory), also known as neochartalism, is an economic theory that details the procedures and consequences of using government-issued tokens as the unit of money, i.e., fiat money. According to modern monetary theory, "governments with the power to issue their own currency are always solvent, and can afford to buy anything for sale in their domestic unit of account even though they may face inflationary and political constraints".[1]

MMT aims to describe and analyze modern economies in which the national currency is fiat money, established and created exclusively by the government. In MMT, money enters circulation through government spending. Taxation and its legal tender power to discharge debt establish the fiat money as currency, giving it value by creating demand for it in the form of a private tax obligation that must be met using the government's currency.[2][3] An ongoing tax obligation, in concert with private confidence and acceptance of the currency, maintains its value. Because the government can issue its own currency at will, MMT maintains that the level of taxation relative to government spending (the government's deficit spending or budget surplus) is in reality a policy tool that regulates inflation and unemployment, and not a means of funding the government's activities per se.

BackgroundEdit

Modern Monetary Theory synthesises ideas from the State Theory of Money of Georg Friedrich Knapp (also known as Chartalism) and Credit Theory of Money of Alfred Mitchell-Innes, the functional finance proposals of Abba Lerner, Hyman Minsky's views on the banking system and Wynn Godley's sectoral balance approach.[4]

Knapp, writing in 1924, argued that "money is a creature of law" rather than a commodity.[5] At the time of writing the Gold Standard was in existence, and Knapp contrasted his state theory of money with the view of "metallism", where the value of a unit of currency depended on the quantity of precious metal it contained or could be exchanged for. He argued the state could create pure paper money and make it exchangeable by recognising it as legal tender, with the criterion for the money of a state being "that which is accepted at the public pay offices".[5]

The prevailing view of money was that it had evolved from systems of barter to become a medium of exchange because it represented a durable commodity which had some use value, but proponents of MMT such as Randall Wray and Mathew Forstater argue that more general statements appearing to support a chartalist view of tax-driven paper money appear in the earlier writings of many classical economists,[6] including Adam Smith,Jean-Baptiste Say, J.S. Mill, Karl Marx and William Stanley Jevons[7]

Alfred Mitchell-Innes, writing in 1914, argued that money existed not as a medium of exchange but as a standard of deferred payment, with government money being debt the government could reclaim by taxation.[8] Innes argued:

Whenever a tax is imposed, each taxpayer becomes responsible for the redemption of a small part of the debt which the government has contracted by its issues of money, whether coins, certificates, notes, drafts on the treasury, or by whatever name this money is called. He has to acquire his portion of the debt from some holder of a coin or certificate or other form of government money, mid present it to the Treasury in liquidation of his legal debt. He has to redeem or cancel that portion of the debt...The redemption of government debt by taxation is the basic law of coinage and of any issue of government ‘money’ in whatever form.

— Alfred Mitchell-Innes, The Credit Theory of Money, The Banking Law Journal

Knapp and "chartalism" were referenced by John Maynard Keynes in the opening pages of his 1930 Treatise on Money [9] and appear to have influenced Keynesian ideas on the role of the state in the economy[6]

By 1947, when Abba Lerner wrote his article Money as a Creature of the State, economists had largely abandoned the idea that the value of money was closely linked to gold.[10] Lerner argued that responsibility for avoiding inflation and depressions lay with the state because of its ability to create or tax away money.[10]

Vertical transactionsEdit

Further information: Sectoral financial balances

MMT labels any transactions between the government sector and the non-government sector as a vertical transaction. The government sector is considered to include the treasury and the central bank, whereas the non-government sector includes private individuals and firms (including the private banking system) and the external sector – that is, foreign buyers and sellers.[11]

In any given time period, the government’s budget can be either in deficit or in surplus. A deficit occurs when the government spends more than it taxes; and a surplus occurs when a government taxes more than it spends. MMT states that as a matter of accounting, it follows that government budget deficits add net financial assets to the private sector. This is because a budget deficit means that a government has deposited more money into private bank accounts than it has removed in taxes. A budget surplus means the opposite: in total, the government has removed more money from private bank accounts via taxes than it has put back in via spending.

Therefore, budget deficits, add net financial assets to the private sector; whereas budget surpluses remove financial assets from the private sector. This is widely represented in macroeconomic theory by the national income identity:

(G−T) = (S−I) − NX

where G is government spending, T is taxes, S is savings, I is investment and NX is net exports.

The conclusion that MMT draws from this is that it is only possible for the private sector to accumulate a surplus if the government runs budget deficits (or there is a trade surplus)

MMT economists favour continual budget deficits for a growing economy that wants to avoid deflation or overreliance on credit, regarding budget surpluses as an unusual measure to quell inflation rather than a necessary aspect of balancing the government budget in the long run

Interaction between government and the banking sectorEdit

Modern monetary theory provides a detailed descriptive account of the "operational realities" of interactions between the government and the central bank, and the commercial banking sector, with proponents like Scott Fullwiler arguing that understanding of reserve accounting is critical to understanding monetary policy options[12]

A sovereign government will typically have a cash operating account with the central bank of the country. From this account, the government can spend and also receive taxes and other inflows.[13] Similarly, all of the commercial banks will also have an account with the central bank. This permits the banks to manage their reserves (that is, the amount of available short-term money that a particular bank holds).

So when the government spends, treasury will debit its cash operating account at the central bank, and deposit this money into private bank accounts (and hence into the commercial banking system). This money adds to the total reserves of the commercial bank sector. Taxation works exactly in reverse; private bank accounts are debited, and hence reserves in the commercial banking sector fall.

Government bonds and interest rate maintenanceEdit

Virtually all central banks set an interest rate target, and conduct open market operations to ensure base interest rates remain at that target level. According to MMT the issuing of government bonds is best understood as an operation to offset government spending rather than a requirement to finance it.[12]

In most countries, commercial banks’ reserve account with the central bank must have a positive balance at the end of every day; in some countries, the amount is specifically set as a proportion of the liabilities a bank has (i.e. its customer deposits). This is known as a reserve requirement. At the end of every day, a commercial bank will have to examine the status of their reserve accounts. Those that are in deficit have the option of borrowing the required funds from the central bank, where they may be charged a lending rate (sometimes known as a discount rate) on the amount they borrow. On the other hand, the banks that have excess reserves can simply leave them with the central bank and earn a support rate from the central bank. Some countries, such as Japan, have a support rate of zero.[14]

When a bank has more reserves than it needs to meet the reserve requirement, banks will try and sell their extra reserves to banks that are in deficit. This buying and selling is known as the interbank lending market. The surplus bank will want to earn a higher rate than the support rate that the central bank pays on reserves; whereas the deficit bank will want to pay a lower interest rate than the discount rate the central bank charges for borrowing, which is typically high. Thus they will lend to each other until each bank has reached their reserve requirement. In a balanced system, where there are just enough total reserves for all the banks to meet requirements, the short-term target interest rate will be in between the support rate and the discount rate.[14]

Under an MMT framework where government spending injects new reserves into the commercial banking system, and taxes withdraw it from the banking system, government activity would have an instant effect on interbank lending. If on a particular day, the government spends more than it taxes, then net financial assets have been added to the banking system (see vertical transactions). This will lead to a system-wide surplus of reserves. In that case, the attempted selling of excess reserves would force the short-term interest rate down to the support rate (or alternately, to zero if a support rate is not in place). This is due to the fact that when there is a surplus in the system, and all banks can meet their reserve requirements, there would not be any demand for these surplus reserves. The interest rate the banks charge on reserves would therefore fall to the support rate, at which point, the surplus bank will simply keep the reserves with their central bank and earn the support rate.

The alternate case is where the government receives more taxes on a particular day than it spends. In this case, there may be a system-wide deficit of reserves. As a result, surplus funds will be in demand on the interbank market, and thus the short term interest rate will rise towards the discount rate. Thus, if the central bank wants to maintain a target interest rate somewhere between the support rate and the discount rate, it must manage the liquidity in the system to ensure that there is the correct amount of reserves in the banking system.

The only way it can do this is by a vertical transaction—by buying and selling government bonds on the open market. On a day where there are excess reserves in the banking system, the central bank sells bonds and therefore removes reserves from the banking system, as private individuals pay for the bonds. On a day where there are not enough reserves in the system, the central bank buys government bonds from private individuals, and therefore adds reserves to the banking system.

It is important to note that the central bank buys bonds by simply creating money—it is not financed in any way. It is a net injection of reserves into the banking system. If a central bank is to maintain a target interest rate, then it must necessarily buy and sell government bonds on the open market in order to maintain the correct amount of reserves in the system.

Horizontal transactionsEdit

MMT economists describe any transactions within the private sector as "horizontal" transactions, including the expansion of the broad money supply through the extension of credit by banks.

MMT economists regard the concept of the money multiplier, where a bank is completely constrained in lending through the deposits it holds and its capital requirement, as misleading,[15] as the cost of borrowing funds from the interbank market (or the central bank) when lending in excess of its reserve and/or capital requirements (see interaction between government and the banking sector), represents a profitability consideration rather than a practical limitation on lending.

According to MMT, bank credit should be regarded as a "leverage" of the monetary base and should not be regarded as increasing the net financial assets held by an economy, with only the government or central bank able to issue high powered money with no corresponding liability.[15] Stephanie Bell argues that bank money is generally accepted in settlement of debt and taxes because of state guarantees, but that state-issued high-powered money sits atop a "hierarchy of money"[16]

.

The foreign sectorEdit

Imports and exportsEdit

MMT analyzes imports and exports within the framework of horizontal transactions. It argues that an export represents a desire on behalf of the exporting nation to obtain the national currency of the importing nation. The following hypothetical example is consistent with the workings of the FX market, and can be used to illustrate the basis of this aspect of MMT:

”An Australian importer (person A) needs to pay for some Japanese goods. The importer will go to his bank and ask to transfer 1000 yen to the Japanese bank account of the Japanese firm (person B). After looking up the relevant exchange rates for that day, the bank will inform him that this will cost him 100 dollars. The bank removes 100 dollars from the importer’s account, and goes to the FX market. It finds an individual (person C) who is willing to swap 1000 yen for 100 dollars. It transfers the 100 dollars to that individual. Then it takes the 1000 yen and transfers it to the Japanese exporter’s bank account.”

Thus, the transaction is complete. What made the transaction possible (i.e. acceptably priced to the importer) was person C in the middle of the FX swap. Thus MMT concludes that it is a foreign desire for an importer’s currency that makes importing possible.[17]

MMT proponents such as Warren Mosler argue that trade deficits need not be unsustainable and are beneficial to the standard of living in the short run.[18] Imports are an economic benefit to the importing nation because they provide the nation with real goods it can consume, that it otherwise would not have had. Exports, on the other hand, are an economic cost to the exporting nation because it is losing real goods that it could have consumed.[17] Currency transferred to foreign ownership, however represents a future claim over goods of that nation

Cheap imports may also cause the failure of local firms providing similar goods at higher prices, and hence unemployment but MMT commentators label that consideration as a subjective value-based one, rather than an economic-based one: it is up to a nation to decide whether it values the benefit of cheaper imports more than it values employment in a particular industry.[17] Similarly a nation overly dependent on imports may face a supply shock if the exchange rate drops significantly, though central banks can and do trade on the FX markets to avoid sharp shocks to the exchange rate.[19]

Foreign sector and commercial banksEdit

Although a net-importing nation will transfer a portion of domestic currency into foreign ownership, the currency will usually remain within the importing nation. The foreign owner of the local currency can either (a) spend them purchasing local assets or (b) deposit them in the local banking system. In each scenario, the money ultimately ends up in the local banking system.

Foreign sector and governmentEdit

Using the same application of vertical transactions MMT argues that the holder of the bond is irrelevant to the issuing government. As long as there is a demand for the issuer's currency, whether the bond holder is foreign or not, governments can never be insolvent when the debt obligations are in their own currency; this is because the government is not constrained in creating its own currency (although the bond holder may affect the exchange rate by converting to local currency).[20] Similarly, according to the FX theory outlined above, the currency paid out at maturity cannot leave the country of issuance either.

MMT does point out, however, that debt denominated in a foreign currency certainly is a fiscal risk to governments, since the indebted government cannot create foreign currency. In this case the only way the government can sustainably repay its foreign debt is to ensure that its currency is continually and highly demanded by foreigners over the period that it wishes to repay the debt – an exchange rate collapse would potentially multiply the debt many times over asymptotically, making it impossible to repay. In that case, the government can default, or attempt to shift to an export-led strategy or raise interest rates to attract foreign investment in the currency. Either one has a negative effect on the economy.[21] Euro debt crises in the "PIIGS" countries that began in 2009 reflect this risk, since Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. have all issued debts in a quasi-"foreign currency" – the Euro, which they cannot create.

Policy implicationsEdit

MMT claims that word "borrowing" is misnomer when it comes to a sovereign government's fiscal operations, because what the government is doing is accepting back its own IOUs, and nobody can borrow back their own debt instruments.[22] Sovereign government goes into debt by issuing its own liabilities that are financial wealth to the private sector. "Private debt is debt, but government debt is financial wealth to the private sector."[23]

In this theory, sovereign government is not financially constrained in its ability to spend; it is argued that the government can afford to buy anything that is for sale in currency that it issues (there may be political constraints, like a debt ceiling law). The only constraint is that excessive spending by any sector of the economy (whether households, firms or public) has the potential to cause inflationary pressures. MMTers argue though that generally inflation is caused by supply-side pressures, rather than demand side.

MMT also advocates replacing NAIRU unemployment (unemployment that is purposefully maintained to achieve price stability) with job guarantees that would achieve price stability by employing people in labor buffer stock. That would get rid of involuntary unemployment, as well as achieve better price stability because employers like to hire people that are already employed. A job guarantee program would also be a powerful automatic stabilizer to the economy, expanding when private sector activity cools down and shrinking in size when private sector activity heats up.[24]

CriticismsEdit

MMT has garnered wide criticism from a wide range of schools of economic thought. New Keynesian economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman argues that MMT goes too far in its support for government budget deficits and ignores the inflationary implications of maintaining budget deficits when the economy is growing.[25]

Austrian School economist Robert P. Murphy states that "the MMT worldview doesn't live up to its promises" and that it seems to be "dead wrong". He observes that the MMT claim that cutting government deficits erodes private saving is true only for the portion of private saving that is not invested, and argues that the national accounting identities used to explain this aspect of MMT could equally be used to support arguments that government deficits "crowd out" private sector investment.[26] Daniel Kuehn has voiced his agreement with Murphy, stating "it's bad economics to confuse accounting identities with behavioral laws [...] economics is not accounting."[27]

Murphy also criticises MMT on the basis that savings in the form of government bonds are not net assets for the private sector as a whole, since the bond will only be redeemed after the government "raises the necessary funds from the same group of taxpayers in the future".[26]

Economist Eladio Febrero argues that modern money draws its value from its ability to cancel (private) bank debt, particularly as legal tender, rather than to pay government taxes.[28]

Modern proponentsEdit

Economists Warren Mosler, L. Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, and Bill Mitchell are largely responsible for reviving the idea of chartalism as an explanation of money creation; Wray refers to this revived formulation as Neo-Chartalism.[29]

Bill Mitchell, creator of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity or CofFEE, initially at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, and now at the Charles Darwin University, Australia, refers to an increasing related theoretical work as Modern Monetary Theory. Scott Fullwiler has added detailed technical analysis of the banking and monetary systems[30]

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell's book Free Money[31] (1996) describes in layman's terms the essence of chartalism.

Some contemporary proponents, such as Wray, situate chartalism within post-Keynesian economics, while chartalism has been proposed as an alternative or complementary theory to monetary circuit theory, both being forms of endogenous money, i.e., money created within the economy, as by government deficit spending or bank lending, rather than from outside, as by gold. In the complementary view, chartalism explains the "vertical" (government-to-private and vice versa) interactions, while circuit theory is a model of the "horizontal" (private-to-private) interactions.[13][32]

Hyman Minsky seemed to favor a chartalist approach to understanding money creation in his Stabilizing an Unstable Economy,[33] while Basil Moore, in his book Horizontalists and Verticalists,[34] delineates the differences between bank money and state money.

James K. Galbraith supports chartalism and wrote the foreword for Mosler's book Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy in 2010.[35]

See alsoEdit

NotesEdit

  1. ^ Modern Money Theory: A Reply to Critics
  2. ^ "Soft Currency Economics" Warren Mosler, January 1994
  3. ^ "Chartalism and the tax-driven approach to money" by Pavlina R. Tcherneva, in A Handbook of Alternative Monetary Economics, edited by Philip Arestis & Malcolm C. Sawyer, Elgar Publishing (2007), ISBN 978-1-84376-915-6
  4. ^ Scott Fullwiler, Stephanie Kelton, L. Randall Wray MODERN MONEY THEORY: A RESPONSE TO CRITICS http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_251-300/WP279.pdf
  5. ^ a b Knapp, George Friedrich (1924), The State Theory of Money, Macmillan and Company 
  6. ^ a b (Wray 2000)
  7. ^ Forstater, Mathew (2004), Tax-Driven Money: Additional Evidence from the History of Thought, Economic History, and Economic Policy 
  8. ^ Mitchell-Innes, Alfred (1914). "The Credit Theory of Money". The Banking Law Journal 31. 
  9. ^ Keynes, John Maynard: A Treatise on Money, 1930, pp. 4, 6
  10. ^ a b "Lerner", Abba P. (May 1947). "Money as a Creature of the State". The American Economic Review 37 (2,). 
  11. ^ "Deficit Spending 101 – Part 1 : Vertical Transactions" Bill Mitchell, 21 February 2009
  12. ^ a b Modern Monetary Theory—A Primer on the Operational Realities of the Monetary System http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1723198
  13. ^ a b "Deficit Spending 101 – Part 3" Bill Mitchell, 2 March 2009
  14. ^ a b "Unconventional monetary policies: an appraisal" by Claudio Borio and Piti Disyatat, Bank for International Settlements, November 2009
  15. ^ a b "Money multiplier and other myths" Bill Mitchell, 21 April 2009
  16. ^ Stephanie Bell (2005) The Role of the State and the Hierarchy of Money, Cambridge
  17. ^ a b c "Do current account deficits matter?" Bill Mitchell, 22 June 2010
  18. ^ Mosler, Warren (2010). Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds. Valance. pp. 60–62. ISBN 978-0-692-00959-8. 
  19. ^ Foreign Exchange Transactions and Holdings of Official Reserve Assets, Reserve Bank of Australia
  20. ^ "Modern monetary theory and inflation – Part 1" Bill Mitchell, 7 July 2010
  21. ^ "There is no financial crisis so deep that cannot be dealt with by public spending – still!" Bill Mitchell, 11 October 2010
  22. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J0j5VwnD7I "Q:Why does government issue bonds? Randall Wray: Sovereign government really can't borrow, because what it is doing is accepting back its own IOUs. If you have given your IOU to your neighbour because you borrowed some sugar, could you borrow it back? No, you can't borrow back your own IOUs."
  23. ^ http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_603.pdf Does Excessive Sovereign Debt Really Hurt Growth? A Critique of This Time Is Different, by Reinhart and Rogoff by Yeva Nersisyan, L. Randall Wray, p. 15
  24. ^ http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2009/08/job-guarantee.html
  25. ^ Krugman, Paul (25 March 2011), "Deficits and the Printing Press (Somewhat Wonkish)", The New York Times, archived from the original on 17 July 2011, retrieved 17 July 2011 
  26. ^ a b Murphy, Robert P. (9 May 2011). "The Upside-Down World of MMT". Ludwig von Mises Institute. Retrieved 17 July 2011. 
  27. ^ Kuehn, Daniel (9 May 2011). "Murphy on the MMTers". Retrieved 17 July 2011. 
  28. ^ Febrero, Eladio (27 March 2008), "Three difficulties with Neo-Chartalism", Jornadas de Economía Crítica 11 
  29. ^ The Economist, 31 December 2011, "Marginal revolutionaries" neo-chartalism, sometimes called “Modern Monetary Theory”
  30. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=444041
  31. ^ Mitchell, Rodger Malcolm: Free Money – Plan for Prosperity, PGM International, Inc., paperback 2005, ISBN 978-0-9658323-1-1
  32. ^ "In the spirit of debate...my reply" Bill Mitchell, 28 September 2009
  33. ^ Minsky, Hyman: Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, McGraw-Hill, 2008, ISBN 978-0-07-159299-4
  34. ^ Moore, Basil J.: Horizontalists and Verticalists: The Macroeconomics of Credit Money, Cambridge University Press, 1988, ISBN 978-0-521-35079-2
  35. ^ Mosler, Warren: Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, Valance Co., 2010, ISBN 978-0-692-00959-8; also available in .DOC

BibliographyEdit

External linksEdit