(i) Pavlina Techerneva: eskuragarritasuna
Reframing the Affordability Debate1
“Professor Pavlina Tcherneva discussing what “affordability” means in the context of Modern Monetary Theory. When you realize that the government can buy anything that’s for sale, the question becomes what are our priorities.”
(ii) Warren Mosler: inportazioak eta esportazioak
Real Terms Of Trade: Imports Are Good And Exports Are Bad2
“Warren Mosler and Professor Stephanie Kelton discussing the real terms of trade. When we import something from a foreign country, we get the thing and they get dollars. When we export something to a foreign country, they get the thing and we get their currency. Which one is better for us? Imports are goods and services that we can consume but didn’t have to work to produce, while exports are goods and services that we had to work to produce but don’t get to consume. So from the point of view of our society as a whole, exports are a cost, while imports are a benefit.
If we are net exporting (meaning we’re exporting more than we import) then the amount we produce but don’t consume is greater than the amount we consume but don’t produce. This is called a trade surplus, and from a “real” point of view, it is a burden. If we are net importing (meaning we’re importing more than we export) then the amount we produce but don’t consume is less than the amount we consume but don’t produce. This is a trade deficit, and from a “real” point of view, it is a benefit.
People sometimes say we should run a trade surplus so that our exporters can sell more abroad, and therefore create more jobs, known as “market advantage,” and that this is good for the workers and the economy. Well, if the choice for the workers is exporting or unemployment, then maybe it is, but there’s no reason we have to be forced into only those two options. To eliminate unemployment, the government could implement a Job Guarantee program, and put the unemployed to work doing useful tasks in their communities. (Learn more about that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSw0R…)
Also, under a gold standard there was a fear of running trade deficits, because countries would transfer gold to pay for trades. So running a trade deficit meant you were slowly (or rapidly) losing gold reserves to other nations. But since we abandoned the gold standard in 1971, this isn’t a concern anymore. If we run a trade deficit, other countries accumulate dollars, in the form of reserve accounts at the Federal Reserve. We get goods and services, they get numbers on a spreadsheet.
So in that case, a trade surplus is clearly a net negative for society, and only a benefit to the profits of our exporting firms”
(iii) Randall Wray: Estatua
The Barter System Is A Myth: The State Is Always Involved In Money3
“Professor L. Randall Wray on the Thom Hartmann show discussing the origin of money. Even though economics textbooks like to give the narrative of barter evolving into a monetary market, there is actually ZERO historical evidence that this has ever happened, ANYWHERE, EVER. Rather, the historical record supports the MMT claim that money systems evolved as a method for rulers to claim resources from private citizens without just taking it.”
(iv) R. Wray: zergak eta gizarte segurantza
Taxes Do Not Fund Social Security, Investment Does4
“Professor L. Randall Wray discussing the distribution of resources involved with Social Security. Although individuals can save some of their income in order to have money later, the economy as a whole cannot do this. Because the total income over the whole economy is equal to the total spending, if we try to “save” by spending less, this only reduces income, and doesn’t actually result in savings. Money is not a finite, scarce resource in the same way that clothes and houses are. Any amount of money necessary can be created and given to people if that’s necessary to fulfill a financial promise. What’s less clear is how those dollars will exchange for real goods and services. If we have promised many dollars to an aging population, but have not also invested in the factories, training, and increases to productive capacity that’s necessary to make the stuff that those people are going to buy, then there will be shortages, which will only lead to rising prices (inflation).
So, the way to prepare for an aging generation is NOT to raise taxes now. It is actually to spend MORE to build up our productive capacity so that we can supply the goods and services necessary to meet the needs of the elderly.
Another way to think about it is like this: if we have an aging population, then we have more people who are consuming without producing. This means that the remaining workers will have to produce MORE in order to produce both for themselves and for the additional retirees. So the necessary step to prepare for that is to bolster up those workers, make sure they have the skills and technology to be as productive as they can in order to meet the increased demand. There is no financial constraint, the federal government can always make any and all payments on-time, since the US government is the issuer of the US dollar, and it can’t run out.”
(v) Deficit Owls
“Professor Stephanie Kelton (former Chair of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and economic advisor to Bernie Sanders) explains the term “Deficit Owls,” which she coined. Deficit Owls, mostly proponents of Modern Money Theory, recognize that in our current floating exchange-rate system, government deficit spending is the only way for the non-government sector to gain net financial assets. As such, any sovereign currency-issuing government should be deficit spending most of the time.”
(a) Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXK9JQnvVLo
(b) Bideo laburrak: Randall Wray, Warren Mosler, Pavlina Tcherneva, Stephanie Kelton, Bill Mitchell, …