OMFG, MMT & Positive Money Get Along

Posted on November 2, 2017 by clintballinger under Circuitism / MCT / Keen / Bank Reform / Credit Money, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

_

{OMFG = Overt Monetary Financing of Government}

Introduction

Economies run on tokens from two balance sheet expansions:

(The sum of) Banks’ balance sheet expansions, where bank loans create deposits (also called “horizontal” money)
National, where the government spends into the economy expanding the national balance sheet (aka “vertical” money)

Two observations:

1) It is desirable, especially evident after 2008, to more carefully regulate the horizontal sector, which would also reduce its overall size significantly.

2) In the current economic climate it is desirable to expand the vertical balance sheet, both to maintain/increase aggregate demand and to foster activities that the public desires that increase the public’s well-being (infrastructure, education, healthcare etc.).

Note that although more carefully regulating the horizontal side would decrease aggregate demand (especially given the overheated credit impulse/acceleration Steve Keen has so usefully highlighted) this would be balanced by increasing the vertical side.

What do MMT economists and Positive Money propose regarding these two systems?

Both agree that the vertical side should be larger and the horizontal side more regulated with the resulting smaller horizontal component made up for by expanding the vertical side.

On The Vertical Side

The crucial fact about the vertical side is that the fact that a nation is not like a household is evident regardless of the operational details. Positive Money is wrong in their belief the current system must be changed to achieve the type of government spending they want.

However, this does not mean that Positive Money is flat out wrong. Key MMT people would be perfectly happy to spend vertically in the way Positive Money wants, which is just PQE/OMF by another name. This is especially so given that OMF procedures would be transparent and thus politically advantageous.

MMT scholars just do not believe it is remotely as urgent as Positive Money because they realize the current system is already capable of spending into the economy in the same way that PM wants to (Wray 2001, Fullwiler 2011 ). Also, many have rejected PM more or less out of hand because of Positive Money views or perceived views on the horizontal system [which we turn to below].

At any rate, regarding the vertical system – The crucial thing is to get the vertical system to do what is good for the economy – functional finance – regardless of the operational details.

From a political point of view it is better to have a clearer more straightforward system [PQE/OMF]. This is a substantially less fundamental problem, however, than what Positive Money thinks it is doing; in saying that, however, the practical and strategic importance of making the changes to a straightforward system perhaps should not be underestimated.

Scott Fullwiler himself has noted the fundamental agreement on vertical money issues:

“interestingly, understanding how DFM [Debt Free Money] works also illustrates the MMT view of government spending and government bond issuance. Logically we should expect that DFM supporters could join MMT in rejecting otherwise widespread concerns about government solvency, China refusing to purchase US national debt, the financial sustainability of entitlement programs, and so forth.” (Fullwiler 2014)

(relatedly and importantly, both Positive Money and many MMT economists propose ZIRP; another post for that though)

On The Horizontal Side

As noted, MMT rejects Positive Money mainly because of PM views on the horizontal side – in the past PM stated they wanted to eliminate the horizontal altogether and essentially create a loanable funds system. Contrast this to MMT, for which overall pre-2007 regulating the horizontal side was not a primary focus (not to ignore the Minsky-Wray connection and other pre 2007 work of course, but banking regulation was/is not the overarching focus of MMT). [Update: please see Scott Fullwiler’s comments on pre-2007 bank regulation/MMT)

However, both sides have moved closer together on horizontal money, to the point where in practice the horizontal systems they advocate would be similar.

MMT increased the emphasis on limiting the horizontal after 2007 (Mosler 2009, Mitchell 2009, Mitchell 2010, Wilson 2017). Crucially, the Mosler/Mitchell/Wilson proposals would be far more significant and profound in their effects than they are given credit for. Easily enforced common sense rules (that did not exist in 2008) to force banks to hold the loans they make, operate on a single balance sheet, and not accept financial collateral already clears up most of the problems with banking and would leave a drastically shrunk but drastically more healthy horizontal money and funding system in place.

Simply put, this puts MMT closer to the goals of PM on horizontal money than is generally recognized.

Conversely – Positive Money has moved to allow what is in effect horizontal money creation (whether “nationalized” or not makes little difference if regulated in the proposed ways). This pushes PM substantially towards the same horizontal system that would result were the Mosler/Mitchell/Wilson proposals to be put into practice.

(The similarity in views on this are evident in these quotes by MMT scholars and Positive Money:

“Right now, we have far more finance than we need. Exactly how much of it we could eliminate as unnecessary is up for debate. I wouldn’t be surprised if our economy would actually run better if finance was downsized by 90%”
L. Randall Wray 2014

“The correct approach, as highlighted by the MMT view, is to reduce bank lending by banning its use for anything that isn’t constructive. Bill Mitchell regularly suggests that 97% of financial transactions should be illegal.”
Neil Wilson 2014

“The central bank would be willing to create additional money, on demand, in response to banks that are able to lend that money to non-FIRE sector businesses. This protects the level of lending to businesses.”
Positive Money 2015)

Conclusion

There are two monetary systems, vertical and horizontal. Both MMT and Positive Money want to see the vertical increased in size to maintain aggregate demand and increase the general welfare; both MMT and Positive Money would like to see a more straightforward (PQE/OMF operations) vertical money system that would allow mainstream economists and the public to understand that a nation is not like a household (Positive Money makes the mistake of not realising that the current vertical system can already do what PM wants; MMT could perhaps make even clearer than they already do that the current system can do this without structural change).

Both MMT and Positive Money would like to shrink the horizontal system through reducing it to funding only real production. The two schools of thought come from utterly opposite directions on horizontal money; however in practice both of their suggested horizontal systems would be for all practical purposes the same – limiting banking to a completely safe payments system and to an investment-side that is regulated to only expand enough to fund productive investment but not to allow asset bubbles via a non productive FIRE sector. Whether the horizontal side is “nationalized” or not is merely a distraction – banks under the Mosler/Mitchell/Wilson rules providing for capital development based on solid credit analysis would operate the same regardless of their formal status vis-à-vis government. Positive Money is wrong to think this can be done in a loanable funds system (future post), but plain vanilla 1960s banking works fine.

~~~

March 28, 2019 UPDATE: The Intro to Economics textbook is finished! Live on Amazon here –

1000 Castaways: Fundamentals of Economics

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

Posted on January 12, 2013 by clintballinger 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)

(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 )

Post Keynesianism, MMT, & 100% Reserves Project, Post No. 2

Posted on December 22, 2012 by clintballinger under Full Reserve Banking, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

Bank of England

Taken from the comments on my last post on MMT/Chicago Plan/FRB & several similar pages the Questions below seem to be the central questions/objections between FullRB & MMT (or Post Keynesian, or MR).

QUESTIONS

Would Post Keynesians and/or Modern Monetary Theorists favor the elimination of endogenous money (bank credit-money creation)?
If so, by what means (FullRB or other)?
If not, why not? What positive or necessary purpose does endogenous money serve?
Do Full Reserves actually even stop credit-money creation? [Scott Fullwiler writes “(Aside from the fact that 100% reserves doesn’t eliminate banks’ abilities to create deposits out of thin air–but save that for another time after they’ve at least come to grips with accounting)”]
Does stopping credit-money creation have serous negative effects which outweigh the positive effects Benes & Kumhof, positivemoney.org etc. claim?

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON POST No. 1:

Pro-Full Reserve people. You would do well to abandon trying to claim money is not debt. It is not a needed argument, and not a winnable one. (I’m looking at you, Zarlenga/AMI).

[Update-After a comment by Musgrave—I am not referring to FullRB criticism of endogenous money being debt, more or less the raison d’être of AMI etc.; I am referring to criticisms of AMI & similar groups that they seem to think the government can somehow issue {exogenous} money that is not debt]

“(STF) If they would just say “govt money only” or “pvt debt free money” they wouldnt sound like they have no clue what they are talking about.” And “(“all they’d have to do is just have to stop saying “debt-free money.” What they want is a world of fiat money only and 100% reserves–is that so hard to just say?”

But MMT people, I think it is fair to recognize that under the system Full Reserve proposals call for, money would indeed act differently than what we usually think of as debt. Basically, the debt claim would hit a wall with the Government (or “the people”). In effect saying “we have created a common good by fiat and declare it to function not like debt” (and yes, this is do-able). Now, technically, ultimately it is a debt (and Zarlenga wrong), but that would only ever become evident if the (let’s say U.S.) Government became so weak (war, revolution, whatever) that it could no longer back up its claim that the circulating greenbacks had value simply “because-we-say-so-end-of-story” [& the power to tax of course, which amounts to the same thing]. As I pointed out before, Fullwiler likes the way the platinum coin resolution to the Fiscal Cliff highlights a basic MMT point about money. But I also think it highlights a basic Full Reserve point – we can essentially have the last word on debt by the Gov/people bound up in a symbolic platinum coin (to be clear, I am not advocating a “platinum standard”. The platinum coin is a just a somewhat hilarious loophole Beowulf taught us all about that technically would work, but could be achieved more directly by just letting Treasury issue notes). “The B~~uck~~ Debt Stops Here” in way, somewhat literally. Technically that platinum coin is a claim of trillions of dollars against the U.S. people, but in practice it represents the end of the line on debt claims for the greenbacks it would represent.

So on debt, I do think the two sides are talking past each other– yes money is always debt but yes a system can be made where fiat money acts as if it is the end of the line on debt claims and acts as if it were a token and can function as a token in a banking system. Indeed, Full Reserve people are saying that is what we need to have a stable, fair system.

Beowulf writes “It would make life simpler if Tsy issued consols [consolidated stock]— the lack of a guarantee to repay principal would seem to put outside the debt ceiling– which is nothing more or less than a cap on total amount of principal guaranteed repayment.

However, aside from political framing, it doesn’t really make a difference whether you call outstanding Treasuries “equity”, “debt” or (as banks are wont to do) “deposits”.”

~~~

Overall, I still don’t see where the split is once the details are looked at between much MMT and the smarter Full Reserve People (unless it is political – yes, Full Reserve people do want to smash the power of the banks, to make that clear, and it seems that at least some MMT people do not).

On MMT and FRB getting along – Scott Fullwiler writes in a comment “AMI’s policy proposals–as Neil points out above–could only work as they want them to in the context of monetary operations that MMT’ers have actually been arguing in favor of for some time.”

So what is the problem?

Every time I look closely at FullRB and MMT, it seems to me like they reinforce each other, not contradict each other. FullRB creates a simpler, more direct system to achieve MMT functioning; MMT principles fill-in the missing details of FullRB proposals.

A note on Post Keynesian/Steve Keen on FullRB

As far as Post Keynesian and/or Steve Keen’s position, I think it is worth emphasizing Keen’s position:

“There are many other proposals for reforming finance, most of which focus on changing the nature of the monetary system itself. The best of these focus on instituting a system that removes the capacity of the banking system to create money via “Full Reserve Banking”…

The former could be done by removing the capacity of the private banking system to create money.

Technically, [AMI and Positivemoney] proposals would work.”

Keen then goes on to list some objections that I think are pretty weak (that is for another post), I also agree with Ralph Musgrave on the weakness of those objections.

Post Keynesianism, MMT, & 100% Reserves Project: Question #1

Posted on December 18, 2012 by clintballinger under Full Reserve Banking, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

I HAVE DISTILLED THE KEY POINTS IN THIS POST TO A SET OF QUESTIONS IN POST No. 2 HERE (Also the thread here is long; easier to comment there)

US Treasury

[This is part of an ongoing effort to understand and explain differences and points of agreement between Modern Monetary Theory, Full Reserve Banking, Post Keynesianism, Steve Keen’s work, and related approaches in as simple of terms as possible (difficult, as the debates hinge on complex and subtle concepts at times, but I will try). The goal is to create a resource for the general public to better understand these areas of study and why neoclassical economics fails, and to foster clearer communication between MMT, FullRB, and PK proponents.]

Ever since the Financial crisis of ~2008, there has been a real opening for improving economic theory & the financial system.

An ongoing project here is to better understand (for myself) and help put into clear language (to help effect change and to help the public better understand economics in general) important areas of economic advancement.

Two important strands of economic understanding have been waxing lately, which is a very good thing. These are Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Full Reserve Banking (FRB).

A simple Google search will suffice to find numerous good MMT resources.

FullRB is a little more tricky.

There are innumerable monetary crackpots out there, especially in the blogosphere, and it can be difficult for the novice to judge the quality of discussions of our monetary system. This is of course true of the net in general. But it is especially a problem with any discussion of money.

Also, a significant number of informed people interested in economics have been dismissive of FullRB for a variety of reasons in the past.

However, there has been a marked trend towards more serious discussion of Full Reserve Banking. And recognition that FRB has long been highly regarded by very well-respected economists. It is important to note that these have spanned the ideological range of economics, from those with “progressive” views concerned with equitable distribution to arch- free-marketers (I think this is a hint that there is indeed something to FRB.) At any rate, the work associated with Laurence Kotlikoff (Boston U.), Richard Werner (Southampton), Jaromir Benes (IMF), Michael Kumhof (Modeling Division, IMF) and others, and recently the buzz-creating “The Chicago Plan Revisited” released under the auspices of the I.M.F. (almost shockingly to some, a “magic wand”), has helped put Full Reserve Banking back into respectable conversation.

In the future I will begin to outline this project from first principles for anyone to read. For the moment, however, I am going to jump right in.

QUESTION (for MMT & FRB proponents):

In a 2009 post by Scott Fullwiler (leading expert on the details of our banking system, something mainstream economists ignored at all of our peril, and one of the leading MMTists) is answering a number of questions about FRB (The main relevant previous comments are by “RebelEconomist” and “RSJ”)

Fullwiler, in the comments section, writes:

“Sorry for the delay responding, RSJ (and I’ll get to the others as time allows . . . apologies).1. Regarding 100% reserves, like Ramanan, I’m very skeptical that they will be able to constrain anything. Certainly under current operating procedures, they wouldn’t have any effect aside from the usual “tax effect” of RR, as the Fed provides reserves at stated rates. A much more constrained regime that required banks to only hold Tsy’s on the asset side would be different, but then you’ve just moved the endogenous creation of loans and their corresponding liabilities outside the banking system. The question there becomes who provides these latter institutions with overdrafts as they settle payments daily. If either banks or the Fed do, then you haven’t changed much, aside from regulatory structure. If nobody does, then you’ve set yourself up for a payments crisis at some point in the near future”

Fullwiler’s first point, so extemporaneous, seems worrisome for any FRB proponent. Does he have some argument that FRB just wouldn’t achieve what most view as its primary purpose, stopping the creation of vast pools of credit-money (that lead to asset inflation and instability among other problems?)

He then discusses a “much more constrained regime”. I think this shows what many see as a problem with some MMTists. Its followers rightly criticize mainstream economists for ignoring how the banking system works. MMT focuses on the real-world details because 1. they know they matter, and 2. because mainstream economists have neglected this critical area in the extreme. But sometimes MMT seems to fall in love so much with how the system actually is, and MMTists so tired of mainstream economists’ imaginary (delusional?) world, that they view negatively any imagined economy, even when, unlike mainstream economics, these possible economies are being designed on sound principles for good purposes. There is a big difference between the strange imaginary world of mainstream economists and the desire to change the Rube Goldberg dysfunctional system we have now. Back to FullRB – Of course the point is to make money creation no longer endogenous, i.e., to move the credit-money creating power out of the banking system That is where the benefit is! Fullwiler seems reluctant to move to it, I guess for the reason I mentioned, but I can’t imagine what he thinks Full Reserve s about if not that.

So, let us imagine we have changed to a system where banks are not creating their own (endogenous) money. An agency of the gov spends it into the economy, with the legal mandate to target inflation, which without endogenous money creation it can very effectively do. Taxes and spending work in MMT prescribed ways.

Fullwiler then writes “The question…becomes who provides these latter institutions with overdrafts as they settle payments daily. If either banks or the Fed do, then you haven’t changed much, aside from regulatory structure. If nobody does, then you’ve set yourself up for a payments crisis at some point in the near future”.

Now, I am pretty certain that The Chicago Plan (even the old versions like Fisher 1935 or Milton Friedman’s work {?} or Werner or others by 2009) have addressed these issues.

I am not sure, but I think part of the answer is that the part of the banking system that would be allowed to loan would operate separately, and with money largely obtained by others foregoing its use, so no “credit-money” is created. There is enough “play” in such a system as long as there are multiple entities that daily settlement is possible with no net credit-money creation (I know, “money like” instruments are always a problem, more on that later). So you have indeed “changed much” – radically much, a vastly more stable system, less risk of asset bubbles, and greatly facilitating the government’s ability to carry out other MMT approaches and keep inflation as close to zero as desired (basically, Milton Friedman’s monetarism actually works under a Full Reserve system – here we have the progressives and the free marketers happily combined). So as far as I can see, MMT and FRB get along just fine here.

At any rate, the question is:

Can pro- Full Reserve Banking people explain this better than I?

And/or, can Fullwiler or other Modern Monetary Theory proponents explain where the 2012 Chicago Plan or similar plans by Werner etc. are in error as Fullwiler 2009 believes above?

Cheers,

Clint Ballinger

UPDATE I have to note that the MR paper Cullen Roche suggests (this is from comments below) concludes “The Chicago Plan and Mosler/MMT both prescribe massive reserve funding of the negative state equity position. The difference is that the Chicago Plan focuses on the negative equity that has been created by the debt jubilee. The MMT plan focuses on the more typical balance sheet component created by deficit spending. Those two pieces are complementary and additive…”