Tag Archives: chartalism

Of Bitcoins and Balance Sheets: The Real Lesson From Bitcoin

Posted on by under Bitcoin, Circuitism / MCT / Keen / Bank Reform / Credit Money, Cryptocurrency, Economic History, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

The monetary systems of nations operate on two types of balance sheet expansion:

  1. National, where the government spends into the economy expanding a national balance sheet
  2. (The sum of) banks’ balance sheet expansions, where bank loans create deposits

The asset side of both of the above are traded around as “money”.

The national government creates the numeraire for the system (the “Dollar” in the US, the “Pound” in the UK etc.) and in addition to spending directly in to the economy in that numeraire, the government allows a public/private system (publicly regulated private banking system) to operate with the same numeraire. This creates a single system for the public but in fact arises from two separate but linked balance sheet expansions.

But why do the tokens from either of these balance sheet expansions have and maintain value?

The government maintains the value of its balance sheet tokens by demanding that some of its tokens, once a year, must be paid back to the government. This guarantees that everyone in that nation will accept and value the tokens from the national balance-sheet expansion.

The tokens that arise from the public/private bank balance-sheet expansion maintain their value analogously – by the obligation to repay bank loans.

Together, the obligation to pay taxes and the obligation to repay bank loans maintain the value of a currency. Note that both of these rest on the government/legal system of a nation.

An organized, effective government with a sound legal system that does not use foreign currencies can always maintain the value of its currency. (Hyperinflations are always the result of governments and their legal systems becoming corrupted or destroyed in some way, and never the result of runaway money creation).

What does this mean for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies?

Bitcoin is not the result of a balance sheet expansion. There is no inherent obligation for repayment of bitcoin to any government (taxes) or to extinguish private debt (banking system). There is no in-built demand for bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency).

Bitcoin is worth zero dollars (or Yen or Pounds etc).

National currencies will always do two things 1) extinguish tax obligations and 2) extinguish private debt obligations. Even if you have neither, there are always enough people with tax and bank debts that you can be sure that your money will be voraciously sought after by merchants of all types. Unless we are in Mad Max territory, they will give you a loaf of bread for it.

Bitcoin is not part of a balance sheet. It does not inherently extinguish debt of any kind – neither a tax obligation nor a bank debt. Nor do other cryptocurrencies. Once the fad for them subsides, the realization that you can’t pay taxes or repay a debt with them will become evident and their true value of 0 will become evident.

Because they don’t understand money or balance sheets, bitcoin collectors and cryptocurrency creators don’t understand why their tokens are inherently worthless. They won’t understand why, when the fad passes, no one will be willing to take their play tokens for real goods.

The only benefit from the bitcoin fad may be a better understanding of the balance-sheet nature of national economies, and the relationship of this to the real resources of a nation. This will prove to be the real lesson from bitcoin. The sooner it is learned the sooner nations can get on with the real work of using their national balance sheets and good legal environments to improve the real economy.

_______

P.S.  A common refrain is that yes, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are worthless, but Blockchain is really a big deal.

Well, not so much…

The blockchain paradox: Why distributed ledger technologies may do little to transform the economy

Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain

As I have said before – blockchain is going to turn out to be the Wankel engine of the finance world. Interesting concept but not that useful in real life, never quite filling a real need.

Check out my new book “1000 Castaways: Fundamentals of Economics,” Aetiology Press. 

A renegade band of Modern Monetary Theorists has overturned mainstream economics in part by emphasizing that there is not one, but two systems of modern money, the “vertical” and the “horizontal.” They conclusively demonstrate how unifying our understanding of these is crucial for grasping modern economics.

“the key to understanding Modern Monetary Theory is this vertical-horizontal relationship”

(Warren Mosler)

1000 Castaways develops Mosler’s statement into a concise, book-length treatment that is accessible to all readers, starting from first principles and, step-by-step, leading the reader up to the complexities of the real world.

Our one thousand castaways develop, before our eyes, a “perfect” economy, and demonstrate how the horizontal and vertical systems of money naturally emerge from even more fundamental organizational needs of a large society.

1000 Castaways then contrasts the Island’s “economics” with real-world “economics,” in an enlightening illustration of the last few steps in our common economic understanding that we must take in order to run our modern economies in a way that maximizes wellbeing.

Paperback $9.99 Kindle $2.99 Hardback $21.99 Also available as Barnes and Noble Nook, Kobo etc.

TOWARDS A PURE STATE THEORY OF MONEY

Posted on by under Full Reserve Banking, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

Knapp State Theory of Money cover, 1905[Prologue to this post]

MODERN MONETARY THEORY (MMT) notes correctly that money is a creature of the state, and that important macroeconomic and policy conclusions follow from this understanding, e.g., sovereign states are not revenue constrained and spending is primarily limited by inflation. Taxes give value to state money and maintain its value (i.e., inflation can be controlled through taxes).

One (among many) key policy insight is that a job guarantee is possible. A job guarantee not only achieves what many think should for myriad social reasons be a primary goal of macroeconomics but also further creates a buffer stock (the most useful one of any imaginable given the social reasons just mentioned) that achieves an additional primary macroeconomic policy goal – stability.

However, there is no state that operates under a pure state system of money. Most of what serves as money in most banking systems in the world is privately created credit money.

We can compare the current most common banking system with a pure state system of money:

PURE STATE SYSTEM OF MONEY

 

CURRENT SYSTEM

Money is a creature of law.

Money is a creature of law.

Money is valued because it can be used to extinguish debt to its issuer.

Money is valued because it can be used to extinguish debt to its issuer.

The issuer is the state.

The issuers are the state and private banks.

Taxes move resources into the public sector

Taxes move resources into the public sector.      Loan repayments move resources into the private (often finance) sector

This raises important questions. If the state is not a monopoly issuer of money, do other neo-chartalist/functional finance/MMT insights hold?

A sovereign currency issuer is still not revenue constrained. And it can still spend towards full employment and other public purposes.

One major worry, however, is whether, because the state does not have a monopoly on money creation, it can set prices in the ways MMT argues. Especially, trying to do so while not having a monopoly on money creation may be inflationary even with otherwise appropriate taxation.

So what are the possibilities? Let’s imagine a system where the state truly has a monopoly on money creation. The state creates money and a payment system. There can still be loans and borrowing, but borrowing will be from someone else giving up use of their money, just as if you loaned a friend a tenner from your pocket. The risks and rewards of this can be pooled for large capital projects.

Let’s ignore the sometimes heard first criticism of this: “deflation!”. Imagine moving to this system in a portfolio neutral way, so that essentially all M’s (M2 and beyond) are, through bookkeeping entries, changed to M1 in a one-off system change. (There are also worries that this “creation” of M1 would be inflationary by others; they seem not to understand what “portfolio neutral” means.)

The obvious advantage is that bank runs will be a thing of the past – assuming a few other obvious regulatory moves (on securities and such) and all bad loans will be losses to individual investors, never systemic (this incidentally puts the incentives for loan quality and underwriting in the right places, raising the quality of loans in the first place). If Joe doesn’t pay you back his tenner, you are the only loser and there is no amplification of this loss. Cascading liquidity crises simply are not possible under this system.

THERE ARE THEN TWO RELATED objections – first, that without continued private credit money creation, this new system would still be deflationary. The related objection is that the “dynamic” private credit money system is behind much innovation and growth, and this would be lost.

On the first – this is interesting as it highlights a major question on the purpose and effectiveness of government. If money is a creature of the state, and a sovereign government cannot be insolvent, then it cannot be that a pure state money system will be deflationary because there is not enough money. The state can create as much money as it needs to re-inflate an economy.

The worry, then, must be that somehow the state will not be able to get the money it can endlessly create into the right hands, while somehow the private credit money system does. This highlights the fact that the worries about abolishing private bank credit money creation cannot truly be about the quantity of money or credit but about how and by whom the money and credit needed to keep the economy from deflation is created and spent into the economy.

This gets to much of what is the core concern of a pure state money system by both advocates and detractors alike, although often they are not nearly as clear as they could be about it.

What serves the public purpose more- having only the state create and spend money and credit into the economy, or allowing the private sector to control part of this public utility?

We already saw that one concern is that private credit money may force a tradeoff between public spending and inflation. What are some other potential costs? What is the real value and real cost of funding borrowers’ needs by allowing credit money to be created privately?

Costs

– We already mentioned policy space – the current system of substantially privatizing a public utility seems to move many resources into the private finance sphere, arguably reducing the policy space for public purpose (job guarantee, education, health care, etc.).

– A major tenet of MMT/Functional Finance is that it is how we utilize real resources now that matters, not deficits, and that we cannot borrow from the future. Money creation through credit likewise does not magically transport future resources to the present, it can only redistribute existing resources. Ceteris paribus (on taxes, policies, and who is utilizing the money) there is X amount of money that can be spent into an economy without inflation. Credit money creation can only redistribute this X amount of money and the real resources it affords (or cause inflation), and it is not clear that the private system does this in an equitable, nor necessarily the most efficient, manner.

– Where private money creation is combined with maturity transformation, as in the shadow banking system, money market and many bond funds, there is a distorted yield curve on interest rates. Some, especially Austrians, view this as leading to market inefficiencies in the long run, in addition to being severely unstable. This system allows narrow private benefits at the expense of widespread socialized costs and chronic instability (Maurice Allais’s non-Austrian work on this seldom receives the attention it merits, especially in the English speaking world.)

– Instability – allowing credit money has time and again led to intense and highly damaging episodes of instability. Diamond & Dybvig formalized the multiple equilibrium nature of banks runs; there is no stable equilibrium of credit-money creating banks without a lender of last resort. The true costs of instability are seldom weighed as a whole, nor presented in a way the general public can understand. What is the true and total cost to the public of the crises of 1907, 1929, 2008, the many smaller crises such as S & L, the Japanese asset price bubble, LCTM, banking crises in Finland, Sweden, Asia, Russia, Mexico, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay, and throughout Europe, the dot.com and housing bubbles, the bailouts of AIG, Northern Rock etc.? Is it truly, with proper accounting, worth the growth that some defend the current private system as promoting? On balance, a stable economy without socialized losses may be more dynamic and productive and allocate the real resources of the economy more efficiently than the current system, if judged with proper accounting standards.

– This leads to another point: Reality. The government already funds the banking system, both with occasional trillion dollar bailouts and on a daily basis. “Private” systems have shown time and again to be backstopped by governments (e.g., the U.S.and U.K.bailouts). The US government has proven to de facto guarantee the entire U.S. financial system (and the UK government the British system and so on), and lenders know it, much to their advantage (and distortion of the real economy). As someone else has written* “When A guarantees B’s liabilities, B needs to be on A’s balance sheet. This is accounting 101, folks.”

– MMT very correctly insists that an economic theory, to be worth considering at all, must at a minimum match real bookkeeping. To meet basic standards of accounting we would have to “[c]onsolidate the entire financial system onto USG’s balance sheet. While we’re at it, merge the Fed, Treasury, Social Security and Medicare into one financial entity. Clean up the whole mess of interlocking quasi-corporations. The US government is one operation. It should have one balance sheet.”* Again,  this is Accounting 101.

 IF IT IS INDEED THOUGHT that the benefits of credit money creation are worth the instability and other costs this system incurs on society, this raises another question:

Can a government duplicate credit money creation while distributing the gains and losses more equitably (i.e., socialized gains as well as socialized losses, instead of the current system that is mostly private gain and socialized loss)?

As we noted, in the current system, in addition to the money that people and businesses already have, they often want more money for productive and socially useful purposes. We further noted that there are two ways to get this money:

1. through other people loaning money that they already have or

2. through private credit money creation.

The first is not problematic, while the second is.

Would it be possible for the state to maintain something like the current system operationally, just making the parts of it that already are backstopped by the state actually state? This raises questions: Could this system be kept apolitical? (this potential political downside has to be weighed against the already existing downside: our private system has already experienced extensive regulatory capture). Could it be kept as competitive as it is now? Would it be as unstable as now with a truly “risk-neutral non-liquidity-constrained economic agent” (that is, the government) behind it?

This system could be thought of in this way:  Individuals and businesses that desire more money for productive purposes than they can get from other money holders are granted the privilege of additional state money created just for them; alongside this special privilege they voluntarily accept an additional tax burden to maintain the value of the money system. Let’s add that (in bold) into the comparison we made above between a pure state theory of money and the current state/private hybrid system:

PURE STATE SYSTEM OF MONEY

 

CURRENT SYSTEM

Money is a creature of law.

Money is a creature of law.

Money is valued because it can be used to extinguish debt to its issuer.

Money is valued because it can be used to extinguish debt to its issuer.

The issuer is the state.

The issuers are the state and private banks.

Taxes move resources into the public sector

Taxes move resources into the public sector.       Loan repayments move resources into the private finance sector

Some businesses or individuals want to borrow money. There are two ways to do so. One is for others to loan their existing money. This may be too restrictive and keep growth at suboptimal levels. The other is for new money to be created. 

 

Some businesses or individuals want to borrow money. There are two ways to do so. One is for others to loan their existing money. This may be too restrictive and keep growth at suboptimal levels. The other is for new money to be created.

The government creates this new money. The individual or business pays an additional tax for this privilege.

  Private banks create this new money. The individual or business pays the bank interest for this privilege.

The “lender of last resort” is the lender of first resort. There are both private and social gains and corresponding private and social losses.

 

Privately created money is inherently unstable without a lender of last resort. The government is the lender of last resort. There are private gains and socialized losses
 As a monopolist over its currency, the state has the power to set prices, including both the interest rate and how the currency exchanges for other goods and services. As a monopolist, the state can fund a job guarantee and other public goods without causing inflation.  In a system with “redundant currencies” (Innes 1914) the state may not be able to achieve macro policy goals and prevent inflation simultaneously
 The system is inherently stable. Stability leads to optimal investment, insurance, and allocation decisions and optimal long-term growth and welfare. Redistribution of private and social gains and losses is minimized.  The system is inherently unstable and uncertain. Chronic instability and uncertainty leads to suboptimal investment, insurance, and allocation decisions and suboptimal long-term growth. The system continuously transfers unearned wealth into the private (often finance) sector, furthering suboptimal economic performance and incentivizing rent-seeking and regulatory capture.

 

Currently, many of the most important neo-chartalist/MMT functional finance insights are not applied in the US, UK, and other countries, and they are clearly desperately needed. However, even if they were applied, the private credit money system would still interfere, possibly greatly, and would still lead to the same type of instability it always and everywhere has. The ongoing “crash” of 2008 seems to be fundamentally and deeply related to issues of private credit money creation, not the equally important issues of state money that MMT has so usefully brought to light. A true state theory of money must address the fundamental instability and inequitable nature of what Innes (1914) called a situation of “redundant currencies”, a system of both state and private money creation, and to be fully consistent, integrate it into its framework completely. It is not enough to “agree with the MCT folks” (or vice versa). The two must be a seamless whole.

~~~

* This wording is by an arch-Austrian good with pithy wording; I am not “Austrian” but on this issue, at least, he has interesting observations.

(Previous post: TOWARDS A PURE STATE THEORY OF MONEY, PROLOGUE: A NOTE ON KNAPP & INNES )

TOWARDS A PURE STATE THEORY OF MONEY, PROLOGUE: A NOTE ON KNAPP & INNES

Posted on by under Full Reserve Banking, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

Neo-chartalists rightly look to Georg Friedrich Knapp and Alfred Mitchell-Innes as brilliant forefathers of a state and credit theory of money. However, Knapp and Innes* of course wrote in a different time and had their hands full with explaining the fallacies of metallism and explaining why money is credit.

Now, however, the problems of metallism and the idea of money as credit, and in turn the functional finance implications, are well understood. Besides the contributions of Knapp and Innes to these areas, what did they think about private credit money creation? There is, given their focus on metallism and other issues of the time, relatively little on private money creation in their work. The past century, as mentioned, has seen the development of more or less a full understanding of the implications of the ideas of Knapp and Innes. However, there have been numerous relatively small crises in the past century (just since the 1980s: Savings & Loan in the US, the Japanese asset price bubble, LCTM, banking crises in Finland, Sweden, Asia, Russia, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay, and throughout Europe) and two massive economic crises (1929, 2008) that have had much or most of their basis in the private credit money creation realm of the economy. In other words, although a great deal of the suboptimal performance (sustained unemployment, lack of investment in infrastructure, education, and healthcare) has been due to a failure to understand and apply readily implementable state money & functional finance insights, there has also been another major source of economic suffering, resulting from the non-state-money side of the economy. The worldwide private credit money system has caused untold suffering and misery for millions. This side of the equation must be integrated into any functional finance insights that arose from Knapp, Innes, and others (the subject of my next post).

Although the answers to questions about state and private credit money stand or fall on their own merit, it is perhaps useful to note what Knapp and Innes thought about the private credit money side of the financial system.

Knapp does not focus on this area, perhaps in part why subsequent neo-chartalist developments did not either. The most interesting passage in Knapp on the subject may be the following:

  “It is a great favour to the banking world that the State permits the issue of [bank] notes. As is well known, other business men may not issue notes, or private till-warrants. Certainly the State also controls the business by law, for it rightly counts it of public utility. But it is nevertheless remarkable that the profits which are increased by this means, of a magnitude only explainable by the note issue, should flow exclusively to the owners of the capital. The State is giving to the holders of bank shares a means of increasing their profits which it absolutely denies to other businesses.” (Knapp 1924 [1905], 136-137)

It seems somewhat surprising that many (by no means all) of the others who built on Knapp’s work did not focus more on integrating this “remarkable” “great favour” of the state to “the owners of capital” and the social and systemic implications for a state theory of money (again, some have; I think not enough).

ON INNES

Innes, of course, wrote from within the Anglo-American financial milieu, and, it is important to remember, immediately after the creation of the Federal Reserve and under the gold standard.

In his two influential papers (1913, 1914) in The Banking Law Journal he develops the credit theory of money which Wray (Wray, working paper**) and others show is consistent with and reinforces Knapp’s state theory of money. Innes only turns his attention to private credit money at the end of the second paper (1914).

Innes, before considering private credit money, discusses a mechanism for inflation of state money under the gold standard. He then goes on to argue that the system where government money is leveraged by private credit money creation amplifies this inflation significantly, and that this is “by far the most important factor” in inflation. (Innes uses the common yet mistaken “fractional reserve” argument for how this leveraging occurs. Considering how common this mistake is, and that he was writing only 1 year after the creation of the Fed, this is understandable in his case).

In my opinion it is difficult to tell where Innes is laying the blame here (and he warns that he does not fully understand this area of money). He uses the term “redundant currencies” several times (all quotes from Innes are from Innes 1914, p. 166-167), which implies he thinks that this mixed system is somehow flawed. It seems, however, that in one case the “redundant currency” is private money, and in another use, it is state money.

Innes makes clear, (in his notes and several other places) that he views private money creation as a natural state of affairs, although he also seems to see the modern mixing of the two systems as possibly problematic (“in old days…it was easy to draw a sharp distinction between government money and bank money”). He also, however, implies that it is merely the way the system is being used (“ignorance of the principles of sound money”) that may be the problem.

As mentioned, Innes cites “this redundant currency” in a way that it seems he is referring to private credit money in the first use. But in the second use of “redundant currency” he seems to be referring to HPM (state money) – a “redundant currency operates to inflate bank loans in two ways, firstly, by serving as a ‘basis’ of loans” (Innes is assuming a loanable funds system).

At any rate, I do not want to make a claim that Innes was against either state (in favor of some kind of free banking) or private money (in favor of some kind of narrow banking system that would soon be in vogue – e.g., by Soddy, The Chicago Plan, Fisher etc.).

But it is clear that Innes saw the state/private hybrid system, as it was in his time, as deeply problematic and the root of inflation.

“Just as the inflation of government money leads to inflation of bank money, so, no doubt, the inflation of bank money leads to excessive indebtedness of private dealers, as between each other. The stream of debt widens more and more as it flows.

That such a situation must bring about a general decline in the value of money, few will be found to deny. But if we are asked to explain exactly how a general excess of debts and credits produces this result, we must admit that we cannot explain. ” (Innes 1914, 166)

I do not want to misrepresent Innes, so I include the entire passage below, with what I see as some of the more relevant parts in bold. I do want to make clear that I am not making, nor do I think Innes actually meant to make, an anti-Fractional Reserve argument, but rather, had he understood that loans create deposits and reserves are not of much importance, Innes would simply have stated his concerns as being about the relation of private to state money.

“Again in old days the financial straits of the governments were well known to the bankers and merchants, who knew too that every issue of tokens would before long be followed by an arbitrary reduction of their value. Under these circumstances no banker in his senses would take them at their full nominal value, and it was easy to draw a sharp distinction between government money and bank money. To-day, however, we are not aware that there is anything wrong with our currency. On the contrary, we have full confidence in it, and believe our system to be the only sound and perfect one, and there is thus no ground for discriminating against government issues. We are not aware that government money is government debt, and so far from our legislators realizing that the issue of additional money is an increase of an already inflated floating debt, Congress, by the new Federal Reserve Act, proposes to issue a large quantity of fresh obligations, in the belief that so long as they are redeemable in gold coin, there is nothing to fear.

But by far the most important factor in the situation is the law which provides that banks shall keep 15 or 20 or 25 per cent, (as the case may be) of their liabilities in government currency. The effect of this law has been to spread the idea that the banks can properly go on lending to any amount, provided that they keep this legal reserve, and thus the more the currency is inflated, the greater become the obligations of the banks. The, importance of this consideration cannot be too earnestly impressed on the public attention. The law which was presumably intended as a limitation of the lending power of the banks has, through ignorance of the principles of sound money, actually become the main cause of over-lending, the prime factor in the rise of prices. Each new inflation of the government debt induces an excess of banking loans four or five times as great as the government debt created. Millions of dollars worth of this redundant currency are daily used in the payment of bank balances; indeed millions of it are used for no other purpose. They lie in the vaults of the New York Clearing House, and the right to them is transferred by certificates. These certificates “font la navette” as the French say. They go to and fro, backwards and forwards from bank to bank, weaving the air.

The payment of clearing house balances in this way could not occur unless the currency were redundant: It is not really payment at all, it is a purely fictitious operation, the substitution of a debt due by the government for a debt due by a bank. Payment involves complete cancellation of two debts and two credits, and this cancellation is the only legitimate way of paying clearing house debts.

The existence, therefore, of a redundant currency operates to inflate bank loans in two ways, firstly, by serving as a “basis” of loans and secondly by serving as a means of paying clearing house balances. Over ten million dollars have been paid in one day by one bank by a transfer of government money in payment of an adverse clearing house balance inNew York.

Just as the inflation of government money leads to inflation of bank money, so, no doubt, the inflation of bank money leads to excessive indebtedness of private dealers, as between each other. The stream of debt widens more and more as it flows.

That such a situation must bring about a general decline in the value of money, few will be found to deny. But if we are asked to explain exactly how a general excess of debts and credits produces this result, we must admit that we cannot explain. (Innes, 1914, 166-167)

Again, I am not sure on how precisely to interpret Innes’ argument or intentions here. He clearly felt something was wrong with the system but, as he says, he is not entirely sure what. Had Innes lived to see the demise of the gold standard and other developments in the financial sector, one can’t help but wonder what he might have thought about state money, private bank credit money, inflation, and financial instability.

 ~~~

* Although it seems his correct name was Aflred Mitchell-Innes, references to him as both Mitchell-Innes and Mitchell Innes can be found. Innes’ original Banking Law Journal articles did not use a hyphen, and in them, Innes allows himself to be addressed in a letter as “Mr. Innes”, so I will use the shorter of the two.

** L. Randall Wray.  “The Credit money, state money, and endogenous money approaches: A survey and attempted integration.”

Knapp, Georg Friedrich. (1924 [1905]. The State Theory of Money. Clifton: Augustus M. Kelley.

Mitchell-Innes, Alfred (1914), ‘The credit theory of money’,  Banking Law Journal, (Dec/Jan.), 151-68.


(Next post – TOWARDS A PURE STATE THEORY OF MONEY)

 

Question on Steve Keen/MMT Discussion, Total Size of Private Debt|FIRE Sector Bubble

Posted on by under Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

[No claim to originality in this post – just want some opinions on some common views on private debt, MMT, Keen’s work, and the FIRE sector]

Steve Keen argues that private debt was/is an important factor in the “Great Recession” and that aggregate demand equals income plus the change (or rate of change) in debt. (Keen presents a number of interesting GDP to debt, change in debt, employment and other comparisons, here is one example:)


(debtdeflation.com)

This has sometimes led to debates with MMTers (much of which is being resolved already) regarding private credit-money creation netting to zero and related accounting aspects. A crude example:

“This is justified with vague references to “endogenous money”, another Keen shibboleth, with reasoning roughly as follows: Since money is endogenous, the banking system can add to demand by creating money “out of thin air”, without reference to anyone’s income or savings.” (This is here, there is some useful debate however. Also see comments on  Steve’s page)

The debates seem to go a bit like this:

Keen’s statements on private debt.

Someone, usually an MMTer,  pointing out it nets to zero, so doesn’t matter.

Then two counterpoints made- that either 1. the disconnect between Keen and MMT is possibly due to different aspects of dynamic modelling v. accounting, and/or 2. that the fact that private debt nets to zero on the books is hiding inflated asset values (I am not saying these are or are not right here, just running through the points. I will get back to this important conciliation of Keen and MMT in a later post).

Here my question is different.

Regardless of the fact it nets to zero, to what extent is the total size of private debt, and especially its associated asset price increase and FIRE sector size – relative to the economy a problem? This seems to have very negative redistributive effects.

(source)

I know people like Hudson, Bill Black, Mosler, and many others from just about every “school” of thought have done work on this (sometimes with technical terms that can hide its relatedness to this discussion) and criticized the growth or dominance of the FIRE sector (as unproductive, unfair etc).

But somehow I do not see the point being associated to recent online debates concerning Keen’s emphasis on private debt and the MMT emphasis that it nets to zero (but that its total size is much larger than before).

The argument goes something like this:

It is common to see arguments that the larger economy suffers while the wealthy involved in the FIRE sector gain. Saying it nets to zero suggests that it is not so bad for the average Joe either – some win and some lose on mortgages, small business loans, and the many aspects of the financial sector that touch their lives, but it nets to zero.

Some asset price inflation effects are bad – instability is bad for almost everyone. But the point seems not to be made enough that the private debt|FIRE sector bubble is  especially bad for the truly disenfranchised – the lower quintile who, unlike the middle class, have almost no direct exposure at all to the financial sector – they aren’t in the game at all,  just left behind in a world of ever more Starbucks and middle and upper class goods that they have almost no connection to. No mortgages for them, even to lose out on, no business loans, etc. (They would probably love to be in bankruptcy court debating ownership of cars, houses, and credit card debt). Because private debt nets to zero, much of the middle class both loses and gains (at least sometimes) from financialization in complex ways. But at least they are in the game.

It seems those not even in the game of rising (but net zero) private debt just lose.

Again, no claim to originality in any of this. Just wanted to hear more about it in the context of debates on Keen/MMT and private debt netting to zero.

Clint

Private Debt to GDP ratios since 2006

(http://www.incrediblecharts.com/economy/keen_debt_gdp.php)

FIRE SECTOR

(To see clear & interactive graph, go here:  On FIRE: How the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Sector Drove the Growth of the Political One Percent of the One Percent )

Small c chartalism, sovereign money, & public policy space v. private profit space

Posted on by under Full Reserve Banking, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), Uncategorized

There is a high degree of disagreement, even within heterodox economics,  on the meaning and relations between monetary terms such as exogenous, endogenous, vertical, horizontal, chartal, monetarism, state, fiat, inside, outside, what money things are, is money debt, whether state money can be considered exogenous and on and on.

Part of the problem is that some try to define concepts through identifying historical examples, others through defining “ideal types” of the concepts and then relaxing or mixing these pure definitions to match real world systems, while still others define concepts based on the use of the words by past writers.

The degree of disagreement is so great as to pose a seemingly insuperable barrier to discussion between anything larger than the smallest of in-groups.

Not only is there immense disagreement on definitions of terms between schools of thought (understandable) but significant divergence of definitions and usage within heterodox and Post-Keynesianism (circuitiste, horizontalists, structuralists, Basil Moore, etc etc) and even within the various branches of these.

Just one example from comments on the last post: Ralph Musgrave writes

“First, I’m bothered about your use of the words fiat (as is Tom Hickey)…My Oxford Dictionary of Economics starts its definition of ‘fiat’ as follows. ‘Money which has no intrinsic value, but has exchange value because it is generally accepted.’ On that definition, central bank created and commercial bank created money is fiat. Thus your claim that ‘we do not have a true fiat currency’ is not correct: our existing system is 100% fiat.”

Yet Wray clearly distinguishes between fiat and bank credit-money, the latter of which

“can be thought as a type of ‘leveraging’ of fiat money” (Wray 1998, 111)

(Later Wray doesn’t even see modern money as fiat at all apparently;  he writes that

“The state’s money is not ‘fiat,’ but rather is ‘driven’ by the sovereign ability to impose tax liabilities…”

{Wray 2007; note, however, that the state imposes taxes by fiat}).

 The Way Forward

I think the only way to even begin discussing these issues is to agree on stipulative definitions that are based on ideal types rather than hagiographic discussions of past works. The latter is a prescription for factionalization; the former is a path to consensus and clarity. In such a complex and contested realm,  stipulative rather than descriptive and etymological definitions are needed. Define pure examples of a concept (even if they never existed) and when discussing mixed systems, just say so.

Example

A pure idea of a state theory of money would be to define it as a system where there is only intrinsically worthless currency decreed to be of value by the state, backed by its power to tax.

Alternatively, there can be commodity money.

Either commodity money or state money can be leveraged by private entities.

Separate names could be given to each type of mixed system (leveraged commodity money, leveraged state money).
If you want to call the latter mix “Chartalism” instead of reserving that term for a pure state theory of money, fine.

But then there should be some name for a system where the only money that circulates is state money.

A Pure State Theory of Money

Wray writes

“Modern money is state money…There is a pyramid of these liabilities, with nonsovereign money liabilities leveraging the sovereign’s currency.”    http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/Wray_Understanding_Modern.pdf

In this context Wray is calling private credit-money “nonsovereign money”.  Now Wray on sovereign government currency:

“In the US, the dollar is our state money of account and high powered money (HPM or coins, green paper money, and bank reserves) is our state monopolized currency. I prefer to expand the conventional definition of currency…[to] include HPM plus Treasuries as the government currency monopoly.” (Ibid.)

So “sovereign currency” is HPM plus Treasuries.

If you want to reserve the word “Chartalism” for a hybrid system of sovereign and nonsovereign money (sort of confusing to have a “State Theory of Money” that includes a massive amount of “nonsovereign money”, but whatever) then a system of “state money only” can be called a sovereign money system.

~~~

On private leveraging: In a commodity money system this may be useful.

However, there is no operational reason why state money needs to be leveraged.

A pure state money system is feasible.

MMT and Bank Credit-Money

I think part of the lack of emphasis in MMT on the (negative) role of private bank credit-money in our leveraged state money system stems from earlier bouts with non chartalists, especially metallists, who wanted to prove that money arose privately, and not from the state. As a result, chartalists have a natural tendency to downplay the role of private money in general, including privately created credit-money. Chartalist literature frequently (and often gratuitously, almost a tic)  turns to discussions of metallism. Simultaneously, in highlighting a state theory of money, chartalists needlessly minimize the utterly dominant role of private banks and private credit-money creation for many centuries, leveraging for private gain both commodity and state money in different places and times  (A pernicious dominance that I think vestigial in the current system, and should be excised). With stipulative rather than historical,descriptive definitions of a state money theory, one can recognize the role of private money both now and historically, without weakening a State Theory of Money in the least.

Note – A similar dynamic is evident in Bill Mitchell’s rejection of Full Reserve Banking, where he associates FullRB with the gold standard and Austrians (and says it would be deflationary, a peculiar thing to think considering a sovereign government can always issue currency, and would simply replace existing credit-money with state money with keyboard strokes), when there are plenty of arguments for stopping private credit-money creation that have nothing whatsoever to do with the gold standard or Austrian beliefs.

Sovereign money and public policy space versus private profit space 

There are good reasons to want to remove vestigial private-money creation from state money that have nothing to do with past state money v. private money discussions, debates on metallism etc.

It is hard to understand why a state system of money with private leveraging (a “leveraged state money system”) is somehow more desirable than a system of state money only, a true monopoly by sovereign money. MMT never tires of (correctly) saying that a currency issuer is always solvent. So why is there a need for private leveraging, when the state can always fulfill the money-creating role directly rather than expansion by private leveraging? (the investment and credit purposes of banks are easily carried out with no new credit-money creation).

Éric Tymoigne, in “Chartalism, Stage of Banking, and Liquidity Preference,” writes

“The demand for money-things…ultimately rests, because money-things are debts, on the capacity of their issuers to make them scarce. For the private sector money-things, this means the capacity of the issuers of money-things to make profit…” (Tymoigne 2005, 12).

What purpose is served by letting private entities profit from the public good that is sovereign money? The sovereign cedes policy space for public purpose to private space for private gain. Needlessly and inequitably.

___________________________________________________________

Tymoigne, Éric, 2005 “Chartalism, Stage of Banking, and Liquidity Preference”

Wray, L. Randall, 1998, Understanding Modern Money

Wray, L. Randall 2007 “Endogenous Money: Structuralist and Horizontalist” Levy Institute Working Paper No. 512

~~~

[This post is written partly in response to comments on https://clintballinger.edublogs.org/2013/01/03/mmt-can-address-operational-realities-or-analyze-a-chartalist-system-but-it-cannot-do-both/]

 

MMT can address operational realities or analyze a Chartalist system. But it cannot do both.

Posted on by under Full Reserve Banking, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

Yuan Dynasty Chao 鈔 – oldest known fiat currency

[First, to be clear, I think neoclassical economics is a non-starter, with the only real discussion of the economy being amongst various mainly post-Keynesian approaches.]

Summary: Both proper stock/flow accounting and chartalism must form a large part of any correct understanding of the economy, and MMT has been/is/will be central to this development. There are, however, some problems related to issues of productivity, foreign trade, and endogenous money. This post is on the latter.

The operational reality is we (the U.S., but really most any country) have a tiny state-money system dominated by a much much larger bank credit-money system.* MMT is usefully focused on the operational realities of this system (god knows the neoclassicals aren’t).

However, there are good reasons to believe that a true chartalist system would be a fairer, more stable, and more productive system (as well as more amenable to MMT analysis).

However, when it is suggested that changes should be made to the existing system to change it to true chartalism, a common response is that MMT is focused on operational realities, the system as it is, and anything else is just wishful thinking.

But this is disingenuous. As (especially) Scott Fullwiler never tires of mentioning, MMT is and has long been full of proposals for change – either changes in how the current system is utilized or changes to the system itself.

Although there is a pragmatic core focus on operational realities (an extremely good thing), MMT does indeed speculate and prescribe (also a good thing). The question, then, is why does MMT seem open to some changes and not others?

An obvious answer is that some changes are more important than others either because of value judgments, or because they seem to follow naturally from the logic of MMT, or both.

For example, the job guarantee seems to be both. Most people of any persuasion would agree that unemployment is not desirable. Additionally, the logic of MMT (and some other views) suggests we have to choose some buffer stock, and a full employment buffer stock is the best option if your goal is full employment and price stability with an overall goal of public purpose (I agree with the MMT JG).

But once the option for change is on the table, why not consider other MMT-friendly options, especially if they are at least as politically viable as the job guarantee? And what could be more neo-chartalist friendly than (true) chartalism?

MMT can either address operational realities, or analyze a chartalist system. But it cannot do both, because the operational reality is that we do not have a true fiat currency and are not operating in a true chartalist environment.

There may be moves away from this operational reality that lead to full employment, a  more just economic system, and greater price stability.  There is good evidence that a highly useful move would be to change to a true fiat currency system.

MMT would be a natural choice to lead this change.

___________________________________________

PS  This comment by Tom Hickey 1. demonstrates the standard first reaction when change is discussed to highlight that MMT has an important descriptive element (this is true, and useful, but besides the point in this case; MMT also has prescriptive elements, and therefore MMTers are choosing their prescriptions just like anybody else), 2. expresses the common view that MMT is not interested in Full Reserve Banking, which as I have pointed out,  is really a movement to implement a true fiat currency (whether Full Reservers realize it or not) and 3. lists proposals by Warren Mosler that come very close to creating a true fiat currency. Which makes me wonder why instead of the relatively complicated steps Mosler and other MMT plans call for, the relatively simple and neo-chartalist friendly step of just creating a true chartalist system is not on the table with MMTers.

* You can say “but the government could make this a true fiat system, they are just parceling out the public power of fiat to the private banks because we want to”. Fine, but still the operational reality is that we do not have a fiat system of money. (It may even be that we have reached/are reaching a point where politically the “operational reality” is that it is not realistic to believe a true fiat system could be enacted even if or when we decide we want one. The reality will be a permanent private credit-money dominated system in a plutocracy.) Oh, and don’t try to hand wave and say credit-money is not state HPM and so doesn’t count, or that it nets to zero and doesn’t count. Credit-money clearly functions as just “money” in the current system in ways that matter, accumulates in an inequitable and unstable way that additionally nourishes the problematic FIRE sector, and clearly causes problems.

 

Modern Monetary Theory & Full Reserve Banking: Connected by Fiat

Posted on by under Full Reserve Banking, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

[The fourth of a series of posts on MMT, ‘The Chicago Plan Revisited’, and related issues; see also part 1, part 2, & part 3]

Summary: MMT understands the monetary system in depth, particularly a fiat monetary system. “Full Reservers”, because they have not always fully grasped the significance of the fact there is no money multiplier and that the loanable funds model is wrong, often have a misplaced emphasis on the reserve ratio and sight deposits. Nevertheless, they can be understood ultimately to be worried about endogenous money, and in effect are arguing for a pure fiat money system. Steve Keen shows the magnitude of the negative effects of endogenous money on the economy. If Keen is properly understood, and what are in effect the anti-endogenous money policies of Full Reserve plans implemented, the end point is a pure fiat money system. And the starting point of a true chartalist system, the natural home for neo-chartalism.

There are actually two concerns most advocates of Full Reserves have

1. Solvency – there are few solvency issues with full reserves; not surprisingly a major concern in the 1930s for Simons, Fisher, The Chicago Plan etc.

2. (Endogenous) money creation

The second is much the more important, but the two are often confusingly conflated.
Partly this is because the significance of the fact that the loanable funds model is wrong and there is no money multiplier is not always fully appreciated by Full Reservers.

Banks do not make loans based on reserves or loanable funds but based on demand, perceived profitability, and the capital they hold. The government covers reserve requirements later. Raising reserve requirements can raise costs but does not stop money creation. Even the focus on sight deposits (i.e., PositiveMoney) misses the point – not only do reserve requirements not stop money creation, neither does stopping lending based on sight deposits. Banks loans pull money from the central bank, with the limit being the ratio of capital to risk-weighted assets.

So, unless Full Reservers are only worried about bank solvency, which is doubtful, they are really addressing concerns that have their root in endogenous money.

Anti endogenous  money, pro- true chartalism proposals

The main benefits of plans such as AMI, PositiveMoney, Kotlikoff, the Chicago Plan, Werner etc are, or would be with any needed tweaking, that:

Issuing fiat would be rightfully reserved for the issuer of the fiat decree: the government. A monopoly on money (but not on banks; entities that invest people’s money and distribute the gains would exist much the same as now). As L. Randall Wray notes, “money is a social creation. The private credit system leverages state money, which in turn is supported by the state’s ability to impose social obligations mostly in the form of taxes.” (Wray, 35)*. As the system stands, a public good is leveraged for narrow private gain, in a process that entails public costs through intrinsic systemic instability.

Implementing restrictions on the type of lending that leads to endogenous money creation would be “no big deal” according to Warren Mosler. (The details of how this would work, and why credit, investment in capital, and instruments for earning interest would still exist are in the various plans; Mosler suggests they would only be allowed to invest their equity capital. Some details are here).

The effect of this, however, would be a very big deal indeed. It would be the creation of a true fiat system of money, instead of the mixed state-credit financial system (as Steve Keen calls it) we have now. All money would be outside, exogenous, vertical, HPM.

Endogenous money creation is a vestige left over from older systems, where either banks were powerful enough to challenge sovereigns, or rich enough to buy off lawmakers, or where commodities actually were leveraged with bank notes. And before digital accounts, weakening banking regulation and related developments completely untethered credit-money creation from reality.

Whatever the past utility of endogenous money, in the modern economy it serves no socially useful purpose that could not be retained under a true chartalist,  pure fiat money system. Worse, endogenous money is increasingly understood to be extremely socially costly (especially in the work of Steve Keen).

Pro Full Reserve advocates, if the goals of their proposals and root of their worries are reviewed carefully and in light of the fact that loanable fund and money multiplier models are incorrect, are most concerned with the same problems Keen has also so clearly shown, that endogenous money is destabilizing and harmful.

It is evident that (neo)chartalist policies would work better under (true) chartalism than under the mixed state-credit financial system we operate under now.

That is why I say that Modern Monetary Theory & Full Reserve Banking are Connected by Fiat.

_______________
*L. Randall Wray “The Credit Money, State Money, and Endogenous Money Approaches: A Survey and Attempted Integration” Link

Although the simplifying assumptions are not perfect, Endogenous Supply of Fiat Money highlights some incentive problems with bank credit-money creation.

P.S. This post was partly inspired by a perceived lack of interest on the part of MMTers in full reserves, and vice versa (and downright hostility to MMT from the AMI Full Reservers). Good discussion here.

I see MMT, the aims of Full Reservers, and followers of the enlightening work of Steve Keen as natural allies.

Bob Mitchell (MMT), and Ralph Musgrave (pro-Full Reserve), both explicitly disagree, stating that MMT and Full Reserve have little in common. I will consider Bill Mitchell’s objections  in another post. In a nutshell though, Mitchell’s proposals (besides his analysis needlessly wading into the bogs that are Austrian thought) for banking are all very good, needed under any system, and I very much agree with him. However, they are to a large extent trying to undo the damage caused by an inherently flawed pseudo-chartalist system that has all the incentives wrong, a system that creates bank-credit-money bubbles that are the fundamental enablers of much bad activity in the financial sector. You might say that endogenous money adds fuel to the “FIRE” that Mitchell wants to extinguish. Excising endogenous money creation from our fiat money is needed to truly effect the changes Mitchell wants.

Modern Monetary Theory & International Trade

Posted on by under Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

A pretty old issue – Ancient silk road trade routes across Eurasia.

I had planned to do a somewhat longer Q & A type post on this topic, partly based on this exchange with Warren Mosler where Warren writes “And in any case, in general they all remain blind to the fact that imports are real benefits and exports real costs.”But really I think most of the issues are discussed so well by Sergio Cesaratto in the following links that there is  not too much to add:

NAKED KEYNESIANISM: The spurious victory of MMT

http://nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-reply-to-wray-part-i.html

and summarized so well here

Some Serious Criticism of MMT  (this includes good stuff from Bill Mitchell, the bit on Kazakhstan)

I will still post a few thoughts later, but if anyone has not read Sergio Cesaratto’s stuff (and the comments, especially by Neil Wilson) they will find them very enlightening.

Skip to toolbar