Podcast appearances and mentions of randy wray

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 22, 2023 283:08

**Don't forget to check out our transcripts! There's one for every episode of this podcast, as well as a section of “extras” with links to relevant resources. Go to realprogressives.org/macro-n-cheese-podcast/ This week we're bringing you all three sessions of the Real Progressives Book Club on L. Randall Wray's Making Money Work for Us. RP Book Club is run by our volunteers with guest experts leading the discussion and taking questions from attendees. This is much longer than our usual episodes of Macro N Cheese, so we've included the time codes for each session. [1:43] — Session One Guest economist Eric Tymoigne Chapter 1, What is Money? Chapter 2, Where Does Money Come From? [1:14:35] — Session Two Guest economist Yeva Nersisyan Chapter 3, Can We Have Too Much Money? Chapter 4, Balances Balance Chapter 5, Life is Full of Trade-Offs [2:43:33] — Session Three Guest economist Randy Wray Chapter 6, The MMT Alternative Framework for Policy Chapter 7, MMT and Policy Use this link to order the book: Making Money Work for Us: How MMT Can Save America by L. Randall WrayEric Tymoigne is an Associate Professor of Economics at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon; and Research Associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. @tymoignee on Twitter. Yeva Nersisyan is an Associate Professor of economics at Franklin and Marshall College and a Research Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute. L. Randall Wray is a Professor of Economics at Bard College and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute.

money professor oregon portland economics associate professor book club making money research associate tradeoffs bard college mmt money work senior scholar clark college marshall college research scholar levy economics institute randy wray

Ep140 [1/3]: Scott Fullwiler: Modern Central Bank Operations: The General Principles [principles 1-2 of 10]

People Conversations by Citizens' Media TV

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2023 53:42

Welcome to episode 140 of Activist #MMT. Today I talk with Scott Fullwiler on his 2008 paper, Modern Central Bank Operations: The General Principles. Today's part one of a three-part conversation. Today in part one we discuss some generic but related topics, and then principles one and two. Next time in part two we cover principles three to six, and then in part three, principles seven to ten. My full and detailed question and summary list can be found at the bottom of these show notes (look below!). Also, be sure to check out the list of audio chapters to find precisely where each principle, and otherwise, can be found. (Here are links to parts two and three. A list of the audio chapters in this episode can be found right below the resources section in this post.) Today's principles one and two. Principle one is that reserves can only be used for two purposes: Settling payments between banks, and meeting reserve requirements. (There's actually a third purpose, which is it's the only thing that can ultimately settle tax obligations to the state.) Knowing these are its only possible uses, when you hear, for example, that more reserves somehow increase a bank's liquidity, and that this in turn encourages banks to lend more to customers, which then in turn increases economic activity in general… you know they're wrong. The same is true with the reverse: that less reserves somehow discourages lending and reduces economic activity. Principal two says that, because the central bank is the only entity capable of creating and deleting reserves, it has "a fundamental, legal obligation to promote the smooth functioning of the national payment system." Without a functioning payment system, society would, without exaggeration, break down. If a bank can't settle its payments with another bank, then everyone expecting a payment won't receive it, and everyone expecting payment from them also won't receive it. And on and on. Trillions of dollars go through the federal reserve system every day. More goes through this system in the United States each week then an entire year's worth of GDP. Not to mention, the US payment system is central to most of the payments for the entire world, and so the US payment system breaking down would have global implications. (As a brief side note, this latter point is leveraged by the United States to surveil and manipulate most nations around the globe. One example is how, when Iraq threaten to eject all US troops, the US responded by threatening to forbid Iraq from using its payment system, thereby potentially disconnecting it from the entire world. This is the big story that lurks behind the so-called petrodollar. Here is a fascinating video on this by the Wall Street Journal.) And now, onto my conversation with Scott Fullwiler. Enjoy. Resources Daily Treasury statement (original location) 2017 paper by Rohan Grey, Banking in a Digital Fiat Currency Regime 2015 paper by Perry Mehrling, Elasticity and Discipline in the Global Swap Network 2000 paper by Stephanie Bell (now Kelton), Do Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending? The updated version of this paper, from 2009, consolidates the original ten principles into around seven, and then adds some more. It's much longer, and is a chapter in the book (as co-edited by Scott) called Institutional Analysis and Praxis: The Social Fabric Matrix Approach. Audio chapters 5:06 - Hellos 6:55 - My boys 8:49 - Our meeting, and Twitter 11:27 - The plan 12:17 - The Federal Reserve and the banks are in charge of the government (not) 16:58 - How do you know what you know? 19:52 - How the paper came to be 23:08 - What would change about your paper if you could write it again? 25:25 - The horizontalists versus structuralists debate (plus circuitists and chartalism) 27:54 - MMT agrees more with horizontalists, but Randy Wray had one unexpected element of agreement with structuralists. 30:34 - Steve Keen's Debunking Economics opens with the false labor supply-demand curve 31:37 - Principle 1: Reserves can only be used for settling payments and meeting reserve requirements. 35:57 - Aside from banks and other central banks what other institutions and entities have reserve accounts? 38:24 - Principle 2: The primary directive of central banks is to preserve the stability of the payment system (which is necessary to have a functioning society) 40:54 - Principle 2 continued: parenting analogy 43:22 - Principle 2 is almost the most important one 44:23 - Relation between fractional reserve banking and money multiplier 47:27 - Principle 3: Outside a floor system, it's impossible for the central bank to target the quantity of reserves. 50:48 - Duplicate of introduction, with no background music (for those with sensitive ears) My full question and summary list I have some questions before we get into the ten principals: Pre-1: First, I'd like to start with a general question mostly unrelated to your paper: A common online theory is that the central bank doesn't answer to the government. Rather, the government answers to the central bank – and according to some, even directly to commercial banks. This means the government must borrow (in the personal sense!) from the CB or banks, which means the national debt and deficit, and bond vigilantes, are indeed a big deal. This also completely undermines MMT. We're going to get into lots of details, but in general, how would you respond to that person? (Assuming they really want to know better.) Is there any instance in history where, when it really came down to it, the central bank didn't do what Congress or Parliament demanded of it? Having a stable society requires a stable payment system, which, under our current institutional set up, only the central bank can do. Is it possible to have a stable society/payment system, and a dollar worth the same on both sides of the country, if the government had to answer to the central bank in that way? Pre-2: Your paper, written in 2008, is called Modern Central Bank Operations: The General Principles. Can you tell the backstory of how the paper came to be, as you briefly mentioned in email? Pre-3: As I understand it, horizontalists and structuralists agree that loans create deposits, but disagree on the how, where, and dwhy the reserves are obtained afterwards. Can you summarize the differences and the debate between the two camps, and also relate it to the chartalist view? Pre-4: How do you know what you know? You interviewed CB employees? Looked at their balance sheets? Just logically it must be true? Pre-5: It's been fourteen years and two major crises since you wrote your paper. How well do the ten principles stand up? If you wrote the paper again today, would there be any major changes? THE PRINCIPLES I'm going to summarize the ten principles in your paper as best I can, and describe some of their implications. Then I'll ask you to correct and elaborate as necessary. I'll also use some of the principles as an excuse to ask a question. PRINCIPLE ONE Reserves only serve two purposes: settling payments and meeting reserve requirements. Regarding the latter, there could be an arbitrary requirement that, for example, a bank must always hold an amount of reserves equal to 10% of the amount it has in deposits (perhaps immediately, or with a lag). In the absence of reserve requirements, the amount of deposits held by a bank is only very distantly related to the amount of reserves banks need to make settlement. This is because a newly created deposit for a newly created loan (or from new government spending): may not be spent right away, may not be spent in its entirety, at least some of it may be spent at (a company that banks at) the same bank. If it is spent at (a company that's a customer of) another bank, it's only one of many transactions taking place between those two banks. The net transactions between those banks may be small, or even in the opposite direction. (A simple example: if I owe you $1000 and you owe me $1050, then the net transaction to settle the whole thing is… you just give me 50 bucks.) Finally, the bank may already have sufficient reserves, or can cheaply borrow them from another bank. So again, the existence or creation of new deposits is only very indirectly related to the need for more reserves. A minor follow up: Banks require reserves to transact with entities other than itself. These other entities include other banks, and the government at all levels. What other institutions/entities require reserves for settlement? Foreign banks and governments? PRINCIPLE TWO As the only institution capable of creating and deleting reserves, the central bank has "a fundamental, legal obligation to promote the smooth functioning of the national payment system." As you say in the paper, "a nation's payment system is at the core of the infrastructure of the modern business world." According to the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors in 1990: "A reliable payments system is crucial to the economic growth and stability of the nation. The smooth functioning of markets for virtually every good and service is dependent upon the smooth functioning of banking in the financial markets, which in turn is dependent upon the integrity of the nation's payment system." The amount of transactions settled each day is enormous. In the US in 2005 it was $2.1 trillion. Today I believe it's closer to $5 trillion. So, a sixth of the annual GDP of the United States, is processed each day by the central bank. Further, this is only a portion of the nation's transactions, because more are directly settled between banks through side agreements and internal systems. The central bank is the only institution that can create reserves, and so, if we are to have a functioning society, it will provide the reserves needed by the banks, because it's the only thing that can settle those transactions. If a bank abuses these privileges (such as, they keep demanding more and more, because they keep committing crimes) then they could be shut down. An analogy is how parents are the only ones capable of providing their children with food. Ultimately, it's provided based on the needs of the children. Parents will provide enough food in order for their children to remain healthy and not dead (and so they don't have to go to jail). It also implies a power struggle, such as when the children whine about being hungry, not out of actual need but as a form of manipulation. Of course, unlike the banks and their central bank, in most normal families, the children haven't paid off their parents. Also unlike banks, a child can't be shut down if they consistently misbehave – unless the parent really wants to go to jail and lose all their children! PRINCIPLE THREE Before I summarize this principle, can you talk about how the money multiplier view and fractional reserve banking are two sides of the same thing? The principle: The money multiplier not only doesn't limit bank lending, it's impossible for the central bank to directly target reserve levels, or the monetary base, at all. It's only possible to directly target the price of that money – the interest rate. The monetary aggregate can only be indirectly targeted, which is inherently unreliable. Even if the central bank could magically manage the levels of reserves, since banks are not reserve constrained, it wouldn't have any direct effect on bank lending anyway. It's impossible for the central bank to control the level of reserves because there are many factors out of its direct control. This includes: fiscal policy (the government spending it's compelled to execute), taxation which is collected through the banking system foreign policy and foreign exchange, the public's desires for cash and coins, loans, and foreign products, calendar factors, such as paychecks at the end of each week and more cash spending on the weekends and vacation national holidays, crises, the trillions in daily transactions which must be settled, and the fact that the central bank doesn't just manage the payment system, it also manages "inflation" and "maximum employment"! As we're about to discuss in principle four, all these activities must be continually offset. Attempting to target specific reserve levels can only serve to degrade its ability to manage these offsets, and so its target rate, and ultimately, the payment system. PRINCIPLE FOUR As in the previous question, the central bank does many things unrelated to interest rate targeting, and many other things happen out in the world that aren't directly in its control. This results in reserve levels moving in an unpredictable fashion, all of which must be offset if the target rate is to be maintained. One of the things out of the central bank's control is government spending. The way the government spends occurs is mind twisting, and understanding it is key to understanding national accounting specifically and modern money in general. The government itself has a checking account at its central bank, which in the United States is called the Treasury's general account, or TGA. This is the account where a number is raised in response to new spending voted on via the passage of a new law. [CORRECTION: As (needlessly!) required by law, the TGA is not raised except after tax and bond revenue is received.] When that money is distributed to someone in the real economy, that same number is lowered once again. This is a very nature of government spending. Here's another example of this mind twisting: When the government sells a bond, it's paid for by the government. The government does this by withdrawing $1000 from its account, the TGA, and handing it to the central bank. So, to pay the bank – it's bank – it withdraws $1000 from that bank and hands it right back to the bank! Further, at some future date, the bank must then pay its profit to its shareholders, which is the government. How do they do this? By putting that money right back into that same government account! (Of course, no money is actually passed around, it's just a number going down there and going up here.) (Also, the government's account can go deeply negative without much real-world consequence, but since negative numbers stress uninformed people out, we cater to (and leverage) that ignorance by making sure it stays positive.) PRINCIPLE FIVE Reserve requirements are related to interest rate targets, not control of monetary aggregates. In one sense, what's having the purpose of having rules at all when it's guaranteed that the rule maker will do whatever it takes to ensure the rule followers always follow the rules? It seems reserve requirements are a tool to buffer against sudden volatility, in the same way that TT&L accounts (as stated on page 607 in Stephanie Kelton's 2000 paper, Do Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?) are used to buffer against volatility from government spending and redemption. These things don't stop the need for offsetting these activities (as in principle four), but it does make it possible to not have to do it at such quick, extreme, and unpredictable levels. In other words, these buffers don't change what the the central bank needs to do but it helps them see it coming. I'm going to ask a mostly unrelated question: Interest rates are for managing the target rate, which is for managing the stability of the payment system, which is for maintaining the stability of the entire nation. Yet, at the same time, the CB is also mandated to manage (some definition of!) inflation, and the only way it knows how to do this is by adjusting interest rates. How can these tasks not conflict? If it's critical to keep interest rates stable (near the target, ideally zero from our MMT points of view), then during the Volcker shock, how could you possibly keep interest rates stable at such a high level? In that situation, it seems that banks simply settling their payments each day would be so expensive, they would have to pass much of that cost onto their customers through higher interest rates. Raising interest rates: increases interest income on new bonds, further enriching the rich raises interbank borrowing costs for banks, which are passed onto its customers. The results in its business customers raising prices for its customers, which is just another way to further lower real wages. Anyone with a variable rate loan, whether the borrower is in or out of the country, suddenly has much greater difficulty paying it off. This includes global south countries colonized by powerful nations, such as via the IMF. PRINCIPLE SIX Volatility in the target rate is only possible between the discount window's penalty rate at a maximum and the interest rate paid on reserves at a minimum. The way you say it in your paper is, "Potential volatility is determined by the width of the corridor." Here's a question about the target rate and its corridor or band (with thanks to Andrew Chirgwin): Let's assume a corridor with a width of .5%. So the minimum, the interest on reserves (IOR), is 1.75%. The target rate is 2%, and the penalty/discount rate is 2.25%. So, they're all different values. If a bank is in need of reserves, it first turns to another bank. It may be a bank it needs to settle with, but maybe not. It may try to get all the reserves from one bank, or maybe a little from several. In order to turn a profit, the banks with excess will make an interest-rate offer to the bank-in-need. That rate will be somewhere within the band. It won't be higher than the penalty rate, because the bank-in-need could just turn to the central bank's discount window and pay less interest. It won't be lower than IOR, because no bank would deliberately choose to lose money (that is, make less from the bank-in-need, than they would from interest paid directly on their reserves). Within this narrow band, banks with excess may compete with one another in an attempt to get the business of the bank-in-need. So, although a bank may offer an interest rate of, say, 2.24%, which is just under the penalty rate, another could easily steal their business by offering 2.20%. The central bank is okay with this competition, because they know the interest rates will remain within the band. What I don't understand is, the CB defends that band so that it remains within the minimum and maximum. So, why is there a precise target at all – and consequently, what's the point of potentially setting it equal to IOR? Clearly I'm missing something, because it's stated at several points in your paper that setting the target rate equal to IOR does make an important difference. How does the central bank defend the precise target rate? A somewhat related thought experiment, which may just be absurd: What would some of the major consequences be if the discount window/penalty rate was set below IOR? (With the target rate between the two.) PRINCIPLE SEVEN In the context of monetary policy, the concept of "liquidity effect" is that extra reserves in the interbank market pushes down interest rates, which then stimulates banks to make more loans, which in turn increases economic activity. In other words, it's the false view that the interest rate is not something the central bank can arbitrarily decide, but rather something it can only control or defend by offsetting the effects of "market forces". Luckily, since the central bank is the largest currency user, it at least has a decent chance of success. (I know that's not what they mean but it's not far off!) Specifically, the "liquidity effect" is the false belief that the only way for the central bank to "choose", or defend, its target rate, is to inject a potentially vast amount of reserves into the banks' balances. This will encourage banks to increase lending, which in turn will increase economic activity. This is called "easing". (QE is just a ridiculous amount of easing.) Removing a large amount, called "tightening", will discourage lending and economic activity. In reality, the target rate is an arbitrary decision (a "policy variable") of the voting members of the central bank. The consolidated government has the infinite capacity to create and delete its own money and to sell and purchase its own bonds. This means it can effectively choose an interest rate for any bond at any maturity. The false "liquidity effect" view also asserts the mere existence of more reserves in a bank's account makes banks suddenly need them; makes them want to use them. It strongly suggests that reserves can be directly lent to customers, or can be used for some purpose beyond settlement (and meeting reserve requirements). If my bank dramatically increased my personal checking account, then sure, that would indeed cause me to pay off my mortgage and probably hire some contractors to do fixes and upgrades to my house that at the moment, we can only dream about. But that's only because, for average people, deposits can be used for almost any purpose. [CORRECTION: Me getting money in my bank account, outside a loan, is net financial asset – a grant. The back being reserved is always an even swap. That's totally different.] Beyond reserve requirements, the only possible use of bank reserves is to settle transactions – transactions that happened at some point in the past. It means the mere existence of more reserves has no direct influence on a bank's behavior. In other words, settlement – and therefore the amount of reserves needed – is endogenous. A bank's demand for reserves is vertical. It's decided on not by the government but by actual people choosing to take out a loan and a bank choosing to give them one A final point: The false idea of the "liquidity effect", that the mere existence of new reserves incentivizes banks to issue more loans, evokes the concept of Say's law. Say's law is the false idea that supply causes demand, as if a new product appearing on a store shelf magically and magnetically attracts a new customer – who didn't even know the product was existed – to want to go to that store and want to purchase that product. (As if consumers are unthinking puppets and businesses their puppeteers!) In reality, demand causes supply. In reality, loans create deposits. Those deposits will at some point likely result in some transactions with another bank, which the bank will need to settle. If they don't have enough in reserves, only then will they request more. PRINCIPLE EIGHT The quantity of reserve balances in circulation is primarily determined by the central bank's method of interest rate management. The only uses for reserves are to settle payments and meet reserve requirements. If there are no reserve requirements, then there's clearly less reasons to hold them. As a simple example, if the central bank chooses to penalize overdrafts severely at the end of each day, then banks will demand much more reserves in order to buffer against that possibility. If there were no reserve requirements, and both IOR and the penalty rate (and the target) were set to zero, then it seems there would be little to no uncertainty for banks. It would be free to purchase reserves from the discount window whenever needed. This seems close to, if not exactly, MMT's ZIRP. If all three were equal but set *above* zero, then banks would make a profit on their reserves, and when in need of more reserves for settlement (again assuming no reserves requirements), they would pay that same rate at the discount window. (There would be little need for banks to lend to each other, because they could do no better.) So, again, it seems there would be little concerns from banks to make settlement or fear overdrafts. The only difference is the perpetual risk-free, effort-free interest income! These are different methods the central bank can choose to manage the interest rate. What are some other important scenarios/methods and their practical differences, both from the banks and the central bank's points of view? PRINCIPLE NINE Under current operating procedures, the central bank's balance sheet expands and contracts endogenously while these changes neither create nor destroy net financial assets for the non-government sector. In your paper, you say: "neither reserve balances nor the monetary base can be expanded or contracted exogenously by the central bank as long as the central bank's target rate is above the rate paid on reserve balances." With our previous questions as background, can you elaborate on this? PRINCIPLE TEN This principle is basically distinguishing between the currency issuer and users Central banks interest rate "matters" because banks use reserve balances to settle payments. Banks and "market forces" do not control the interest rate. This is for the simple fact that banks must settle their transactions at the end of each day, those transactions can only be settled with reserves, and those reserves can only be supplied (created and deleted) by the central bank. Also: There's no use for reserves beyond settlement and reserve requirements, settling payments with anything other than risk-free reserves is obviously riskier than settling them with risk-free reserves, reserves are also the only thing that can settle tax obligations to the state; which can only be done through the banking system, and banks are legal extensions (franchises) of the state. If they tried to bypass the state (and its central bank) by entirely settling amongst themselves, the state would not take this lying down! The banks don't control the central bank and its interest rate any more than average people control the commercial banks at which they have a deposit. Even the most powerful currency user has no power over the currency issuer, because their power largely comes from that issuer! (They were issued a lot, while the rest were issued less.) Any power the user has over the issuer is only because the issuer chooses for it to be that way. FINAL QUESTIONS If you could have your dream government, what economic and financial appointments would you make? What position would you want? If those people got appointed, then what are some of the big changes we would see, particularly regarding monetary policy?

Ep140 [1/3]: Scott Fullwiler: Modern Central Bank Operations: The General Principles [principles 1-2 of 10]

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2023 53:41

Welcome to episode 140 of Activist #MMT. Today I talk with Scott Fullwiler on his 2008 paper, . Today's part one of a three-part conversation. Today in part one we discuss some generic but related topics, and then principles one and two. Next time in part two we cover principles three to six, and then in part three, principles seven to ten. My full and detailed question and summary list can be found at the bottom of these show notes (look below!). Also, be sure to check out the list of audio chapters to find precisely where each principle, and otherwise, can be found. (Here are links to parts two and three. A list of the audio chapters in this episode can be found right below the resources section in this post.) Today's principles one and two. Principle one is that reserves can only be used for two purposes: Settling payments between banks, and meeting reserve requirements. (There's actually a third purpose, which is it's the only thing that can ultimately settle tax obligations to the state.) Knowing these are its only possible uses, when you hear, for example, that more reserves somehow increase a bank's liquidity, and that this in turn encourages banks to lend more to customers, which then in turn increases economic activity in general… you know they're wrong. The same is true with the reverse: that less reserves somehow discourages lending and reduces economic activity. Principal two says that, because the central bank is the only entity capable of creating and deleting reserves, it has "a fundamental, legal obligation to promote the smooth functioning of the national payment system." Without a functioning payment system, society would, without exaggeration, break down. If a bank can't settle its payments with another bank, then everyone expecting a payment won't receive it, and everyone expecting payment from them also won't receive it. And on and on. Trillions of dollars go through the federal reserve system every day. More goes through this system in the United States each week then an entire year's worth of GDP. Not to mention, the US payment system is central to most of the payments for the entire world, and so the US payment system breaking down would have global implications. (As a brief side note, this latter point is leveraged by the United States to surveil and manipulate most nations around the globe. One example is how, when Iraq threaten to eject all US troops, the US responded by threatening to forbid Iraq from using its payment system, thereby potentially disconnecting it from the entire world. This is the big story that lurks behind the so-called petrodollar. Here is a fascinating .) And now, onto my conversation with Scott Fullwiler. Enjoy. Resources () 2017 paper by Rohan Grey, 2015 paper by Perry Mehrling, 2000 paper by Stephanie Bell (now Kelton), The updated version of this paper, from 2009, consolidates the original ten principles into around seven, and then adds some more. It's much longer, and is a chapter in the book (as co-edited by Scott) called . Audio chapters 5:06 - Hellos 6:55 - My boys 8:49 - Our meeting, and Twitter 11:27 - The plan 12:17 - The Federal Reserve and the banks are in charge of the government (not) 16:58 - How do you know what you know? 19:52 - How the paper came to be 23:08 - What would change about your paper if you could write it again? 25:25 - The horizontalists versus structuralists debate (plus circuitists and chartalism) 27:54 - MMT agrees more with horizontalists, but Randy Wray had one unexpected element of agreement with structuralists. 30:34 - Steve Keen's Debunking Economics opens with the false labor supply-demand curve 31:37 - Principle 1: Reserves can only be used for settling payments and meeting reserve requirements. 35:57 - Aside from banks and other central banks what other institutions and entities have reserve accounts? 38:24 - Principle 2: The primary directive of central banks is to preserve the stability of the payment system (which is...

united states modern iraq operations principal principle gdp federal reserve settling central banks reserves trillions mmt kelton hellos steve keen general principles debunking economics stephanie bell perry mehrling randy wray activist mmt

A 21st Century Bill of Rights with Harvey J. Kaye and Alan Minsky

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 69:28

This week, Harvey J. Kaye and Alan Minsky stop by the Macro N Cheese clubhouse to talk to Steve about the 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights. Kaye, a historian, brings stories of FDR's four freedoms and the impetus for what he called the 2nd Bill of Rights – an Economic Bill of Rights. Minsky brings his experience in progressive politics, both as a journalist and with Progressive Democrats of America. Of course, the Minsky name holds a special place in our MMT hearts – our own Randy Wray studied under Alan's dad, Hyman. When listening to Alan, one might suspect he's also related to friend-of-the-podcast Robert Hockett, who coined the term “metabolic optimism.” Whether or not we share Alan's optimism, we agree with his insistence that “our winning political hand is our economic message.” The economy is central to everyone's life and should be central to our agenda. He believes the 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights is the avenue to achieve that centrality in the left progressive program. As Harvey takes us through it, he adds historical details; many of these points can be traced back to FDR. 1. The right to a useful job that pays a living wage. 2. The right to a voice in the workplace through a union and collective bargaining. 3. The right to comprehensive quality health care. 4. The right to a complete, cost-free public education and access to broadband Internet. 5. The right to decent, safe, affordable housing. 6. The right to a clean environment and a healthy planet. 7. The right to a meaningful endowment of resources at birth and a secure retirement. 8. The right to sound banking and financial services. 9. The right to an equitable and economically fair justice system. 10. The right to recreation and participation in civic and democratic life. Roosevelt believed the American promise of “the pursuit of happiness” is not possible without economic security. FDR's agenda lived on after his presidency – though without much success. Harvey names Jimmy Carter as the president who dealt the death blow to the New Deal: “Let me make it clear, ever since the 1970's the Democratic Party has not simply turned its back on the FDR legacy – the Jimmy Carter presidency was the launching pad of neoliberalism in the United States. People like to talk about Reagan. They like to talk about Clinton in the 1990s. Jimmy Carter was the first neoliberal president. The deregulation of finance, the deregulation of transportation, it all stems from Carter's determination ... It's Carter who first used the term austerity to promote the neoliberal agenda.” Alan adds: “the truth is, as every listener to Macro N Cheese certainly knows, that one party has been willing to run up deficits, the other party generally has not.” Democrats have wrapped themselves in a mantle of fiscal austerity and would sooner lose elections than change. This episode gives you history, it gives you economics, it gives you policy, and it engages in ever-popular political speculation. Did we mention Bernie? Yeah, his name comes up a few times. Harvey J. Kaye is Professor Emeritus of Democracy and Justice Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and the author of the newly published "The Fight for the Four Freedoms: What Made FDR and the Greatest Generation Truly Great," "Take Hold of Our History: Make America Radical Again," and "FDR on Democracy." Alan Minsky is the Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America. Alan worked as a progressive journalist for the fifteen years before joining PDA. He was the Program Director at KPFK Radio in Los Angeles, and the coordinator of Pacifica Radio's national broadcasts. He was the creator and original producer for the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, as well as the political podcasts for The Nation and Jacobin Magazine. His many articles can be found at Common Dreams, The Nation, Truthdig and other platforms. Alan is the son of the late economist Hyman Minsky....

united states america american university internet los angeles executive director fight rights democrats bernie sanders democracy clinton 21st century democratic party program directors roosevelt franklin delano roosevelt professor emeritus jimmy carter pda bill of rights hyman mmt take hold progressive democrats wisconsin green bay minsky justice studies jacobin magazine common dreams pacifica radio truthdig harvey j kaye hyman minsky alan minsky robert hockett greatest generation truly great four freedoms what made fdr kpfk radio randy wray

Are we in the Mirror Universe?- Part 2 with Jackson Winter

historicly

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 19, 2022 55:30

Today's part two of my two-part conversation with Jackson Winter, on the 2001 edition of Karl Polanyi's 1944 book, The Great Transformation. This is also part two of a larger four-part series on the book. Jackson is co-writer and editor for PEGS Institute, which is a project to demystify and explain some commonly misunderstood realities of the modern world. Here's their YouTube channel.(A list of the "audio chapters" in this episode can be found at the bottom of this post. A link to all four parts in the series can be found in Part 1I'll summarize the book in next week's introduction. Even experienced MMTers can't know this stuff. You think you understand the foundation of our economy and society, but you don't. As described in The Great Transformation, there's another foundation underneath it.(Before we start the interview, I'm making an announcement at the request of a patron, and that is: the podcast Pod Save America, which is hosted by former Obama staffers, has millions of followers, many of who like to think of themselves as progressives. Unfortunately, although the hosts say many smart things, they still live solidly in a pay-for, scarcity, zero-sum world. Please consider contacting the hosts via Twitter and urging them to interview an MMT guest such as Stephanie Kelton, Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell, and Randy Wray. The Twitter handles for the podcast and its hosts can be found in the show notes, and in the social media shares for this episode. Thanks for your help in spreading the word!Here at the Twitter handles for Pod Save America and its hosts: Dan Pfiffer: [@danpfeiffer], Jon Favreau: [@jonfavs], Tommy Vietor: [@tvietor08], Jon Lovett: [@jonlovett])And now, let's get right back to my conversation with Jackson Winter. Enjoy.Audio chapters4:31 - Choosing to commodify other humans is a gamble that you won't become one of them7:37 - The gold standard was the glue that held the (belligerent and greedy) world together13:53 - Individual balance of power17:41 - Fascism is a consequence of the neglect and deprivation of neoliberalism20:41 - Thinking of a better economic and political system (and if we should)27:17 - Unregulated versus regulated teenager29:58 - Childhood memories and how we change31:59 - Protecting privilege, at all levels38:35 - We are all doing tiny little evils (because it's necessary in order to survive), that add up to a lot of evil.43:22 - Haute finance and arms dealers (I win capitalism)46:15 - My upcoming online course with Asad Zaman48:11 - Closing thoughts50:41 - Polanyi was a proto-MMTer52:48 - GoodbyesOther updates:Sorry for the delays. Our editor Esha Krishnaswamy fell on the subway platform and broke her nose. She is out of the hospital now, but unfortunately her insurance does not cover fixing her broken nose. So we are going to have to crowd source this. If you have already not become paid subscriber, please become one: You can also do a one off donation via paypal orVenmo Get full access to Historic.ly at historicly.substack.com/subscribe

Ep110[2/2,2/4]: Jackson Winter: Polanyi's Great Transformation (layperson discussion)

People Conversations by Citizens' Media TV

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2022 59:05

Welcome to episode 110 of Activist #MMT. Today's part two of my two-part conversation with Jackson Winter, on the 2001 edition of Karl Polanyi's 1944 book, The Great Transformation. This is also part two of a larger four-part series on the book. Jackson is co-writer and editor for PEGS Institute, which is a project to demystify and explain some commonly misunderstood realities of the modern world. Here's their YouTube channel. Parts one and two with Jackson is two smart layperson MMTers trying to come to terms with the depth of what we just read, and connecting it to our lives and MMT. Parts three and four are with Asad Zaman, a PhD economist with many lectures, papers, and posts on the topic (links to which you can find in the show notes to part one with Professor Zaman, next week). (A list of the "audio chapters" in this episode can be found at the bottom of this post. A link to all four parts in the series can be found in part one.) I'll summarize the book in next week's introduction. Even experienced MMTers can't know this stuff. You think you understand the foundation of our economy and society, but you don't. As described in The Great Transformation, there's another foundation underneath it. (Before we start the interview, I'm making an announcement at the request of a patron, and that is: the podcast Pod Save America, which is hosted by former Obama staffers, has millions of followers, many of who like to think of themselves as progressives. Unfortunately, although the hosts say many smart things, they still live solidly in a pay-for, scarcity, zero-sum world. Please consider contacting the hosts via Twitter and urging them to interview an MMT guest such as Stephanie Kelton, Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell, and Randy Wray. The Twitter handles for the podcast and its hosts can be found in the show notes, and in the social media shares for this episode. Thanks for your help in spreading the word! Here at the Twitter handles for Pod Save America [@PodSaveAmerica] and its hosts: Dan Pfiffer: [@danpfeiffer], Jon Favreau: [@jonfavs], Tommy Vietor: [@tvietor08], Jon Lovett: [@jonlovett]) And now, let's get right back to my conversation with Jackson Winter. Enjoy. Audio chapters 4:31 - Choosing to commodify other humans is a gamble that you won't become one of them 7:37 - The gold standard was the glue that held the (belligerent and greedy) world together 13:53 - Individual balance of power 17:41 - Fascism is a consequence of the neglect and deprivation of neoliberalism 20:41 - Thinking of a better economic and political system (and if we should) 27:17 - Unregulated versus regulated teenager 29:58 - Childhood memories and how we change 31:59 - Protecting privilege, at all levels 38:35 - We're all doing tiny little evils (because it's necessary in order to survive), that add up to a lot of evil. 43:22 - Haute finance and arms dealers (I win capitalism) 46:15 - My upcoming online course with Asad Zaman 48:11 - Closing thoughts 50:41 - Polanyi was a proto-MMTer 52:48 - Goodbyes 57:06 - Duplicate of introduction, but with no background music

Snippet: MMT Podcast ep110: Randy Wray: Unemployment is both the problem and solution

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 6, 2021 5:14

This snippet comes from around the 18 minute mark in episode 110 of MMT Podcast with L. Randall Wray, called Are We Living In An MMT World?

solution unemployment snippet randy wray

Snippet: MMT Podcast ep110: Randy Wray: Unemployment is both the problem and solution

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 6, 2021 5:15

This snippet comes from around the 18 minute mark in episode 110 of MMT Podcast with L. Randall Wray, called Are We Living In An MMT World?

solution unemployment snippet randy wray

Ep 70 [1/2]: Jane Ball: The problems with mainstream Marxism.

People Conversations by Citizens' Media TV

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2021 72:29

Welcome to episode 70 of Activist #MMT. Today I talk with second-year MMT activist and graduate student Jane Ball. Jane earned an undergraduate minor in international economics at a conservative business school during the heart of the Iraq war and the first George W. Bush administration. Jane enjoyed the philosophy, theory, and history of economics, but strongly disliked the math and calculus. Because of the latter, they decided against pursuing an economics PhD. In early 2019, Jane discovered MMT in an episode of a podcast called Season of the Bitch. Jane then branched out to a MMT Podcast and Money on the Left, and into academic papers by Randy Wray and Stephanie Kelton. Only then did Jane realize that it was not their understanding of mainstream economics and its math that was faulty or lacking, but the economics itself that made no sense. After describing their journey to MMT, Jane then talks about the flaws of Marxism. Not as it actually is, but as it is popularly understood. Jane says this is primarily due to supporters inappropriately accepting and attempting to work around mainstream assumptions instead of rejecting them outright. An example is the flawed belief that at its heart, money is a scarce commodity. This is despite Marx’s own monetary theory of production, or M-C-M’, which, as I understand it, in turn implies chartalism and the state theory of money. The monetary theory of production and chartalism, which is supported by the overwhelming body of historical evidence, is in direct contradiction to the a-historical idea of barter, in which money is a commodity, or a tangible and scarce thing. If money were indeed a commodity, then as Jane describes, it means that money is a purely economic phenomenon and is inherently separate from the political world, and therefore outside of direct human control. All that said, I have studied little to no Marxism, so take this with as big a grain of salt as you see fit. We are all learning together. In part two, Jane and I discuss two of their academic style posts. The first documents studies that demonstrate the benefits of existing UBI-like programs, including the $5000 a year paid every Alaskan citizen by a fossil fuel company. The regular payment is clearly beneficial to its recipients, with the cruel irony being that the payments are being made by companies which are viciously predatory to those very same recipients in the long run. The second is a fascinating post documenting how racist zoning has been official United States government policy, starting soon after the Russian revolution. The policies were a deliberate effort by the government to prevent a similar kind of popular uprising. This was done primarily and essentially by dangling a nice home in the faces of white people, and by keeping black and brown people out via redlining and discriminatory ordinances. So not only was this country built long ago on the backs and with the blood of black and brown people, that virulent racism continues today in active policy, all around the country. A couple notes before we get started: First, Jane is a voracious reader. Several books they mentioned are listed in the show notes. Second, I mention how even the poorest countries can distribute their resources equally. I have since learned that there are many complications related to this, centering around the sovereignty of developing nations and how they are deliberately sabotage by more powerful nations. I am still learning. Now onto my conversation with Jane Ball. This is part one of a two-part conversation. Enjoy. Resources My interview with Marxist academic Jim Kavanagh (recorded after this episode Jane): Episodes 58 and 59: Jim Kavanagh: A Marxist academic and MMTer. My recorded Apple ID scam phone call Stephanie Kelton’s August 2020 appearance on Mark Blyth’s podcast. My interview with Ryan Mathis: Part one: Episode 21a: Millennial, first-year law student, and 5th year MMTer: The left-wing project to recreate our corrupt political, media, and educational institutions. Part two: Ep 21 [2/2]: Ryan Mathis: There is nothing “natural” about society’s laws Doug Henwood’s 2019 criticism of MMT: Modern Monetary Theory Isn’t Helping. Three responses by MMTers can be found in this post: My chartalism post Roosevelt Institute UBI study Warren Mosler’s state theory of money story: There’s a guy at the door with a gun. John Harvey’s August 2020 lecture with Modern Money Australia, summarizing his book: Exchange Rate Theory: Is it as Horrifically Boring as it sounds? Pocket homes by Ross Chapin Books: Empire of Cotton, Sven Beckart Books by Sylvia Federici Henry George’s Progress of Poverty David Harvey: A Companion to Marx’s Capital Richard Rothstein’s Color of Law by David Freund’s Color of Property Racial Taxation, book and my interview with the author, Camille Walsh [parts one and two]. My related post: The many reasons *why* the idea that “taxes pay for stuff” is deeply sinister. Christian Parenti’s Radical Hamilton: Economic Lessons from a Misunderstood Founder American-Canadian Marxist political theorist and historian Ellen Meiskins Wood

united states money law phd russian left progress millennials color iraq bush bitch pocket mainstream george w bush marx alaskan cotton marxist marxism ubi mmt apple id stephanie kelton john harvey mark blyth doug henwood warren mosler christian parenti randy wray david freund activist mmt

Ep 70 [1/2]: Jane Ball: The problems with mainstream Marxism.

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2021 72:28

Welcome to episode 70 of Activist #MMT. Today I talk with second-year MMT activist and graduate student Jane Ball. Jane earned an undergraduate minor in international economics at a conservative business school during the heart of the Iraq war and the first George W. Bush administration. Jane enjoyed the philosophy, theory, and history of economics, but strongly disliked the math and calculus. Because of the latter, they decided against pursuing an economics PhD. In early 2019, Jane discovered MMT in . Jane then branched out to a and , and into academic papers by Randy Wray and Stephanie Kelton. Only then did Jane realize that it was not their understanding of mainstream economics and its math that was faulty or lacking, but the economics itself that made no sense. After describing their journey to MMT, Jane then talks about the flaws of Marxism. Not as it actually is, but as it is popularly understood. Jane says this is primarily due to supporters inappropriately accepting and attempting to work around mainstream assumptions instead of rejecting them outright. An example is the flawed belief that at its heart, money is a scarce commodity. This is despite Marx’s own monetary theory of production, or M-C-M’, which, as I understand it, in turn implies chartalism and the state theory of money. The monetary theory of production and chartalism, which is supported by the overwhelming body of historical evidence, is in direct contradiction to the a-historical idea of barter, in which money is a commodity, or a tangible and scarce thing. If money were indeed a commodity, then as Jane describes, it means that money is a purely economic phenomenon and is inherently separate from the political world, and therefore outside of direct human control. All that said, I have studied little to no Marxism, so take this with as big a grain of salt as you see fit. We are all learning together. In part two, Jane and I discuss two of their academic style posts. The first documents studies that demonstrate the benefits of existing UBI-like programs, including the $5000 a year paid every Alaskan citizen by a fossil fuel company. The regular payment is clearly beneficial to its recipients, with the cruel irony being that the payments are being made by companies which are viciously predatory to those very same recipients in the long run. The second is a fascinating post documenting how racist zoning has been official United States government policy, starting soon after the Russian revolution. The policies were a deliberate effort by the government to prevent a similar kind of popular uprising. This was done primarily and essentially by dangling a nice home in the faces of white people, and by keeping black and brown people out via redlining and discriminatory ordinances. So not only was this country built long ago on the backs and with the blood of black and brown people, that virulent racism continues today in active policy, all around the country. A couple notes before we get started: First, Jane is a voracious reader. Several books they mentioned are listed in the show notes. Second, I mention how even the poorest countries can distribute their resources equally. I have since learned that there are many complications related to this, centering around the sovereignty of developing nations and how they are deliberately sabotage by more powerful nations. I am still learning. Now onto my conversation with Jane Ball. This is part one of a two-part conversation. Enjoy. Resources My interview with Marxist academic Jim Kavanagh (recorded after this episode Jane): Episodes and : Jim Kavanagh: A Marxist academic and MMTer. Stephanie Kelton’s on Mark Blyth’s podcast. My interview with Ryan Mathis: : Episode 21a: Millennial, first-year law student, and 5th year MMTer: The left-wing project to recreate our corrupt political, media, and educational institutions. : Ep 21 [2/2]: Ryan Mathis: There is nothing “natural” about society’s laws ...

united states phd russian millennials iraq bush mainstream george w bush marx alaskan marxist marxism ubi mmt stephanie kelton mark blyth randy wray activist mmt

Radix: Do we need to increase taxes to pay for Covid Debt?

The Real Agenda Network

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 3, 2021 79:21

In this first episode of the news podcast series from Radix, we debate whether Britain will need to increase taxes to pay for Covid debt. It's a recording of a live event – our most successful to date - in which we have Randy Wray, one of the main proponents of Modern Monetary Theory, a controversial but increasingly influential school of economic thought, and Paul de Grauwe, a leading mainstream economist. We actually end up with a civil agreement; that we don't need to increase taxes at least for the time being, but to get there we civilly disagree about how the economy actually works. Civil Disagreement podcast is produced by Radix www.radix.org and distributed by The Real Agenda Network www.realagenda.org

covid-19 compassion economics climate change britain debt democracy taxes poverty inequality tax reform modern monetary theory living wage radix grauwe randy wray real agenda network

Imminent Collapse with L. Randall Wray

Reknr hosts: The MMT Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 12, 2020 53:45

Randy Wray joins us to discuss the country’s vast needs and Washington’s inadequate response.

washington pandemic crisis joe biden climate labor relief collapse stimulus imminent wray gfc randy wray

#61 Richard Murphy: The Treasury Is Choosing Death

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 29, 2020 91:51

Patricia and Christian talk to Professor Richard Murphy about monetary operations, tax justice, and the UK government’s standoff with the NHS regarding finances. Please help sustain this podcast by donating to our Patreon! Patrons get early access to our episodes and other patron-only content: https://www.patreon.com/MMTpodcast Richard’s articles: Some basic lessons for the Governor of the Bank of England, who seems to be in dire need of them: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/06/23/some-basic-lessons-for-the-governor-of-the-bank-of-england-who-seems-to-be-in-dire-need-of-them/ At long last the government can borrow straight from the Bank of England – as modern monetary theory has always suggested it should: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/03/23/at-long-last-the-government-can-borrow-straight-from-the-bank-of-england-as-modern-monetary-theory-has-always-suggested-it-should/ Modern monetary theory says that the state has the ability to create and maintain the value in money and most left of centre economists appear to be repulsed by that: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/06/14/modern-monetary-theory-says-that-the-state-has-the-ability-to-create-and-maintain-the-value-in-money-and-most-left-of-centre-economists-appear-to-be-repulsed-by-that/ Randy Wray on modern monetary theory and tax: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/10/15/randy-wray-on-modern-monetary-theory-and-tax/ From modern monetary theory to modern taxation theory: a debate to be had: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/10/07/from-modern-monetary-theory-to-modern-taxation-theory-a-debate-to-be-had/ Richard’s youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGlMOIZ1A3zluwLXTGpzZfw Our Job Guarantee / Transition Job episodes: Ep 4 (with Fadhel Kaboub): https://pileusmmt.libsyn.com/what-is-the-job-guarantee Ep 47 (with Pavlina Tcherneva): https://www.patreon.com/posts/36034543 Transcript of opening monologue: https://www.patreon.com/posts/39766883

death uk england blog modern bank economics governor banking nhs treasury mmt central banking richard murphy job guarantee pavlina tcherneva fadhel kaboub randy wray

Counterpoint: MMT’s Evaluation of AMI's Positive Money with L. Randall Wray

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2020 3508:30

Randy Wray takes us back to MMT basics while debunking AMI and “positive money.”

profit banking fed stocks evaluation sovereign treasury inequality taxation wray mmt counterpoint buybacks positive money greenbacks randy wray

Counterpoint: MMT’s Evaluation of AMI's Positive Money with L. Randall Wray

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2020 58:28

An alternate title for this episode could be “Back to Basics.” It reminds us why Randall Wray’s MMT Primer continues to be a definitive resource for the Macro & Cheese community. This 2017 interview came about when the American Monetary Institute (AMI) published an article critiquing MMT. Randy Wray was mentioned and quoted throughout, so Steve invited him on to set the record straight — and maybe shed some light on AMI and its theory of “positive money.” If you don’t come away with a clear understanding of it, it’s because Randy himself can’t always get to the bottom of AMIs logic. It turns out they have some less than pristine methodology. It’s hard to assess the strength of their theory when you can’t pin down the theory. They don’t even produce balance sheets. AMI wants the Treasury to print greenbacks because they posit that the Federal Reserve is private and independent, with full control over the US dollar. Randy explains that we do, indeed, have a sovereign currency, and suggests that we read the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Fed is a creature of government, under the control of the Congress. Its very limited independence consists of the freedom to set overnight interest rate targets. It’s easier for Randy to debunk AMI’s critique of Modern Monetary Theory, and a large part of the interview takes us through the fundamentals of MMT — how money is created, the differing roles of the Treasury and the Fed, the causes of hyperinflation, sectoral balances, and why the US will always have a trade deficit. In our lifetimes, at least. We end with a long discussion of solutions to inequality. Since taxing the rich is politically unfeasible, Randy says a better way to reduce their wealth is to attack it at its source, where vast wealth is amassed. He wants to forbid corporations from buying back their stocks. Corporate CEOs and upper management receive outsized compensation in the form of stock options. Corporations spend more on stock buybacks than on investment in plants and equipment, which would create jobs. The buybacks raise the value of the shares, then the CEOs exercise their stock options for huge amounts of money. There’s no reason to allow it. This is an episode you’ll want to listen to right before trying to explain MMT to your uncle. Better yet, send him the link. L. Randall Wray is a Professor of Economics at Bard College and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute. http://www.levyinstitute.org/scholars/l-randall-wray https://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html Steve Grumbine says this article changed his life. Check it out: https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/05/taxes-mmt-approach.html

professor congress economics ceos basics profit banking fed corporations stocks evaluation sovereign federal reserve treasury inequality taxation amis wray bard college modern monetary theory mmt counterpoint senior scholar buybacks positive money greenbacks federal reserve act levy economics institute steve grumbine randy wray american monetary institute ami

Snippet: Mark Collins: Securitization, not borrowing (with Randy Wray)

The Commercial Investing Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2020 21:48

This snippet comes from Activist #MMT episode 34 with Mark Collins, at around the 20 minute mark. This snippet contains a three minute dialogue between Randy Wray responding in Congress to Arkansas Republican Representative, Steve Womack.

congress borrowing snippet securitization mark collins randy wray activist mmt

178: Why Modern Monetary Theory Matters to Investors by Professor Dr. Randy Wray, Levy Economics

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 14, 2019 34:05

Jason Hartman talks with Dr. Randy Wray, one of the foremost experts in Modern Monetary Theory, about why Minsky the philosopher is important, what exactly MMT is and why it's relevant in today's monetary society. They especially tackle the job guarantee program that MMT espouses and what's coming up for the US in the economy for the next few years. Key Takeaways: [1:33] Who is Minsky and why is he someone we should concern ourselves with? [4:50] What is Modern Monetary Theory and why is it applicable? [10:38] The governments going back to the colonies spends money into existence and then taxes it back to avoid causing inflation [13:45] Has all the money that was put into the economy during Obama's term been taken back out by taxes or is it causing inflation? [17:58] The test you need to use to discover if you're doing monetary policy correct [21:55] Spending during The New Deal greatly helped move our nation forward and allowed us to become the richest, most developed nation on Earth [25:56] The job guarantee that Dr Wray is focusing on now would involve a lot of care work, and it would be decentralized [29:05] What's coming up, economically, for the United States Website: www.Levy.org

earth barack obama economics investors spending levy key takeaways new deal professor dr wray modern monetary theory mmt jason hartman minsky randy wray

268: Understanding Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) by Professor Dr. Randy Wray, Levy Economics

American Monetary Association

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 29, 2019 33:48

Jason Hartman talks with Dr. Randy Wray, one of the foremost experts in Modern Monetary Theory, about why Minsky the philosopher is important, what exactly MMT is and why it's relevant in today's monetary society. They especially tackle the job guarantee program that MMT espouses and what's coming up for the US in the economy for the next few years. Key Takeaways: [1:26] Who is Minsky and why is he someone we should concern ourselves with? [4:43] What is Modern Monetary Theory and why is it applicable? [10:31] The governments going back to the colonies spends money into existence and then taxes it back to avoid causing inflation [13:38] Has all the money that was put into the economy during Obama's term been taken back out by taxes or is it causing inflation? [17:51] The test you need to use to discover if you're doing monetary policy correct [21:48] Spending during The New Deal greatly helped move our nation forward and allowed us to become the richest, most developed nation on Earth [25:49] The job guarantee that Dr Wray is focusing on now would involve a lot of care work, and it would be decentralized [28:58] What's coming up, economically, for the United States Website: www.Levy.org

earth barack obama economics spending levy key takeaways new deal professor dr wray modern monetary theory mmt jason hartman minsky randy wray

Episode 13: Modern Monetary Theory (feat. Bill Mitchell)

Poliittinen talous

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 7, 2019 64:29

Recently, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has gained public attraction especially in the US. The rise of the heterodox economic theory is, partly, due to the fact that it has been associated with the Green New Deal, a state-led public investment program meant to transfer the US economy and tackle the climate crisis. MMT has provided progressive politicians with the means to answer the obvious question: how to pay for the GND? Timo Harjuniemi and Lauri Holappa are joined by one of the most influential MMT scholars, Bill Mitchell. Bill Mitchell is a professor of economics at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Mitchell talks with us about the foundations and history of MMT and addresses the criticisms hurled at it by mainstream economists. Moreover, we discuss how the crisis of the neoliberal era and mainstream economic thought relates to the rise of MMT. And what about the future? What does it hold for MMT? See Bill’s blog: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/ See also the new MMT textbook by Bill Mitchell, Randy Wray and Martin Watts: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?page_id=33139 Bill's Twitter: https://twitter.com/billy_blog

university australia newcastle green new deal modern monetary theory mmt bill mitchell randy wray lauri holappa

CW 1139: George Gilder & Modern Money Theory, A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems & Understanding Modern Money MMT by Professor Dr. Randy Wray, Levy Economics

Creating Wealth Real Estate Investing with Jason Hartman

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2019 45:52

Jason Hartman and Adam start off today's show discussing one of the keynote speakers for this year's Meet the Masters event, George Gilder. Gilder has quite the history and the two break down what he did back in the 90s, what he's doing now, and why he's still relevant. Then Jason talks with Dr. Randy Wray, one of the foremost experts in Modern Monetary Theory, about why Minsky the philosopher is important, what exactly MMT is and why it's relevant in today's monetary society. They especially tackle the job guarantee program that MMT espouses and what's coming up for the US in the economy for the next few years. Key Takeaways: [4:34] George Gilder is a thought leader today just like he was 20 years ago [7:31] When Gilder spoke back in the 90s the markets moved Dr Randy Wray Interview: [12:26] Who is Minsky and why is he someone we should concern ourselves with? [15:43] What is Modern Monetary Theory and why is it applicable? [21:31] The governments going back to the colonies spends money into existence and then taxes it back to avoid causing inflation [24:38] Has all the money that was put into the economy during Obama's term been taken back out by taxes or is it causing inflation? [28:51] The test you need to use to discover if you're doing monetary policy correct [32:48] Spending during The New Deal greatly helped move our nation forward and allowed us to become the richest, most developed nation on Earth [36:49] The job guarantee that Dr Wray is focusing on now would involve a lot of care work, and it would be decentralized [39:58] What's coming up, economically, for the United States Website: www.JasonHartman.com/Masters www.YouTube.com/JasonHartmanRealEstate www.Levy.org

Randy Wray on Krugman and the Frustration of the Heterodox

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 28, 2014 61:11

A broad-ranging discussion of conventional economics and the heterodox alternatives to IS/LM, Ricardian equivalence, etc.

economics frustration inequality stagnation wray mmt paul krugman kelton heterodox ricardian randy wray

Feb. 27 Podcast with Randy Wray

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2014 59:31

For the record.

mmt randy wray

Bill Black and Randy Wray

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 21, 2013 61:13

October 21, 2013 podcast. White collar criminologist, William K. Black, talks in depth about JP Morgan's (impending?) $13 billion settlement. Randy Wray talks post-shutdown policy and MMT.

black jp morgan mmt bill black randy wray

Randy Wray: The Taper, the Debt Ceiling and the Prospects for Growth