A Conspiracy Against MMT? Chicago Booth’s Polling and Trolling

MMT continues to inflame hysterical attacks.

现代货币理论继续煽动歇斯底里的攻击。

Who would have thought that it would take MMT to bring together everyone from the crazy right to the insular left to unite in common cause against an obscure theory of money and government finance?

谁会想到现代货币理论需要将所有人从疯狂的右翼到孤立的左翼聚集在一起，为了共同的目标而团结起来，反对晦涩难懂的货币和政府财政理论？

The attacks seem to be so concerted and coordinated that one starts to think there just might be a conspiracy behind them.

这些袭击似乎是如此一致和协调，以至于人们开始认为它们背后可能有一个阴谋。

But why?

但为什么？

Bill Black’s recent column The Day Orthodox Economists Lost Their Minds and Integrity exposes the dishonesty of MMT’s critics on shocking display in a newly released poll of mainstreamer economists on two questions that supposedly are based on MMT’s teachings.

比尔·布莱克 (Bill Black) 最近的专栏《正统经济学家失去理智和正直的日子》揭露了现代货币理论批评者的不诚实行为，在一项新发布的主流经济学家民意调查中令人震惊地展示了这两个问题，这两个问题据称是基于现代货币理论的教义。

The poll was put together by the Chicago Booth School of Business whose motto goes like this: “Since 1898, we have produced ideas and leaders that shape the world of business.

这项民意调查是由芝加哥布斯商学院发起的，该商学院的校训是这样的：“自 1898 年以来，我们培养了塑造商业世界的想法和领导者。

Today, we empower bold thinkers and inquisitive minds to dig deeper, discover more, and shape the future.”

今天，我们让大胆的思考者和好奇的头脑能够更深入地挖掘、发现更多并塑造未来。”

No they don’t.

不，他们没有。

They design surveys to quash “bold thinkers” and “inquisitive minds”.

他们设计调查来压制“大胆的思考者”和“好奇的头脑”。

Their poll is just plain troll.

他们的民意调查简直就是恶搞。

“We decided to put the ideas to our US panel of economic experts by asking them whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statements, and if so how strongly and with what degree of confidence:

“我们决定将这些想法提交给我们的美国经济专家小组，询问他们是否同意以下陈述，如果同意的话有多强烈以及信心程度如何：

(a) Countries that borrow in their own currency should not worry about government deficits because they can always create money to finance their debt.

(a) 以本国货币借款的国家不应担心政府赤字，因为它们总是可以创造货币来为其债务融资。

(b) Countries that borrow in their own currency can finance as much real government spending as they want by creating money.”

(b) 以本国货币借款的国家可以通过创造货币来为自己想要的实际政府支出提供资金。”

As Bill argued in his piece, you will not find an economist anywhere on the planet who would agree with these statements.

正如比尔在他的文章中所说，你在地球上任何地方都找不到一位经济学家会同意这些说法。

The MMT position, in fact, is precisely the opposite to what has been posed by Booth.

事实上，现代货币理论的立场与布斯的立场恰恰相反。

Given the questions, the results were a foregone conclusion:

有了问题，结果已成定局：

“Of our 42 experts, 38 participated in this survey.

“在我们的 42 名专家中，有 38 名参与了本次调查。

On the first statement, only 1 expressed no opinion, 15 disagreed and 22 strongly disagreed.

对于第一个声明，只有 1 人表示无意见，15 人不同意，22 人强烈不同意。

On the second statement, 3 expressed no opinion, 11 disagreed and 24 strongly disagreed.”

对于第二个声明，3人表示无意见，11人不同意，24人强烈不同意。”

Now, to be sure, these “experts” consist mostly of a rogue’s gallery of the clueless.

现在，可以肯定的是，这些“专家”大多是无知的流氓画廊。

Still, surprisingly, many who disagreed with the statements offered commentary that any MMTer would agree with, or at least be sympathetic with.

然而，令人惊讶的是，许多不同意这些说法的人提出了任何 MMT 人士都会同意或至少同情的评论。

These responses were not featured in the highlighted results, but it is worthwhile to take a quick look at them.

这些回复并未出现在突出显示的结果中，但值得快速浏览一下。

Thaler on Q2: I don’t like this question.

泰勒谈问题二：我不喜欢这个问题。

I guess it is true in some sense, but surely inflation looms at some point.

我想这在某种意义上是正确的，但通货膨胀肯定会在某个时候隐现。

Shimmer on Q1: The real value of the money supply is bounded above.

第一季度的微光：货币供应量的实际价值在上方。

At some point, this must create inflation.

在某些时候，这必然会造成通货膨胀。

Samuelson on Q1: Deficits can be financed by creating money, but still have disadvantages as well as advantages that should be carefully considered.

萨缪尔森谈第一个问题：赤字可以通过创造货币来弥补，但仍然有缺点和优点，应该仔细考虑。

And on Q2: Creating money can finance a great deal of spending, but incidents of hyperinflation, collapse and other crises indicate there are limits.

关于第二季度：创造货币可以为大量支出提供资金，但恶性通货膨胀、崩溃和其他危机事件表明存在局限性。

Nordhaus on Q1: Obviously, they should worry.

Nordhaus 关于第一个问题：显然，他们应该担心。

However, the open economy issues are less pressing, particularly with flexible exchange rates.

然而，开放经济问题并不那么紧迫，特别是在灵活汇率的情况下。

And on Q2: At some point hyperinflation would break it all apart.

关于第二季度：在某些时候，恶性通货膨胀将打破这一切。

However, this is an irrelevant question in an open world.

然而，在开放世界中，这是一个无关紧要的问题。

Maskin on Q1: Printing money causes its own problems, e.g., the risk of inflation

马斯金谈第一季度：印钞会带来自己的问题，例如通货膨胀风险

And on Q2: There will come a point where the currency is so debased that further spending becomes difficult if not impossible.

第二季度：货币将会大幅贬值，以至于进一步的支出即使不是不可能，也会变得困难。

Kashyap on Q1: Money financing yields some seigniorage, but also inflation and the inflation has costs and there are limits to seigniorage capacity

卡什亚普谈第一季度：货币融资会产生一些铸币税，但也会产生通货膨胀，而通货膨胀是有成本的，铸币税能力是有限的

Judd on Q2: Friedman wrote a book “There’s No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.” He also meant road or bridge or army or school or ANYTHING!

贾德谈第二个问题：弗里德曼写了一本书《天下没有免费的午餐》。他还指的是道路、桥梁、军队、学校或任何东西！

Hart on Q1: This kind of behavior can quickly lead to inflation or even hyperinflation once the economy is close to full capacity.

哈特谈第一季度：一旦经济接近满负荷，这种行为会迅速导致通货膨胀甚至恶性通货膨胀。

Eichengreen on Q1: The “not worry” phrase in the question is a bit vague admittedly.

Eichengreen 关于问题 1： 诚然，问题中的“不用担心”这句话有点含糊。

And on Q2: There are limits to capacity and no limits to wants.

第二季度：能力有限，需求无限。

Duffle on Q2: If this were true, each such country could finance the purchase of all of the world’s output, which is obviously impossible.

达夫尔谈第二个问题：如果这是真的，那么每个这样的国家都可以资助购买世界上所有的产出，这显然是不可能的。

You will note that this substantial subset of the surveyed mainstreamers explain that they disagree with the questions on the basis that unbridled spending would exhaust the supply of available resources and thus cause inflation.

你会注意到，接受调查的这一大部分主流人士解释说，他们不同意这些问题，因为无节制的支出会耗尽可用资源的供应，从而导致通货膨胀。

This has always been MMT’s point, too.

这也一直是现代货币理论的观点。

Their disagreement is not with MMT but rather with a proposal to spend without limit—which has never been an MMT proposal.

他们的分歧不在于现代货币理论，而在于无限制支出的提议——这从来就不是现代货币理论的提议。

It is also interesting that Nordhaus agrees with the MMT position that floating the currency increases policy space, while Judd goes on a tear about free lunches (ignoring the fact that employing previously unemployed capacity is indeed a free lunch).

同样有趣的是，诺德豪斯同意现代货币理论的立场，即浮动货币增加了政策空间，而贾德却对免费午餐赞不绝口（忽略了利用以前失业的能力确实是免费午餐的事实）。

So if the questions had been stated correctly it looks like many of the mainstreamers would have agreed with the MMT position.

因此，如果问题表述正确，看起来许多主流人士都会同意现代货币理论的立场。

As Bill argues, the poll was designed merely to smear MMT, not to actually survey opinions on what MMT actually says.

正如比尔所言，这项民意调查的目的只是为了抹黑现代货币理论，而不是真正调查人们对现代货币理论实际言论的看法。

This was recognized even by St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank Vice President Adolfatto, who wrote :

甚至圣路易斯联邦储备银行副行长阿道法托也承认这一点，他写道：

Was any MMT proponent included in the survey?

调查中是否包括 MMT 支持者？

Don’t be ridiculous, of course not (there were a couple from MIT though–perhaps they thought this was close enough).

别搞笑了，当然不是（不过麻省理工学院有几个人——也许他们认为这已经足够接近了）。

How would a typical MMT proponent have answered these two questions?

典型的现代货币理论支持者会如何回答这两个问题？

I am sure that most would have answered in the exact same way as other economists.

我相信大多数人都会以与其他经济学家完全相同的方式回答。

If this is the case, then why does Chicago Booth preface the survey with MMT?

如果是这样的话，那么为什么芝加哥布斯商学院要用 MMT 来作为调查的开头呢？

There are many possibilities, none of which are attractive for Chicago Booth.

有很多可能性，但没有一种对芝加哥布斯商学院具有吸引力。

Digging a little deeper, it is quite interesting that the Booth school credited the assistance of someone named Steve Klenow at Stanford University, who helped provide links to critics of MMT.

深入挖掘一下，非常有趣的是，布斯学派将斯坦福大学史蒂夫·克莱诺 (Steve Klenow) 的帮助归功于他，他帮助提供了 MMT 批评者的链接。

And credited the London School of Economics for providing expert PR assistance from a Mr Romesh VAITILINGAM, Press and Public Relations – Support, h ttp://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/staff/person.asp?id=2359 .

并赞扬伦敦经济学院提供了来自新闻和公共关系支持的 Romesh VAITILINGAM 先生提供的专家公关协助，h ttp://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/staff/person.asp?id=2359。

Wait.

等待。

They hired a PR assistant?

他们聘请了公关助理？

Stanford and LSE?

斯坦福大学和伦敦政治经济学院？

A Northern Atlantic Alliance to attack MMT?

北大西洋联盟攻击现代货币理论？

So there is real money in this campaign to discredit MMT?

那么这场抹黑现代货币理论的运动有真钱吗？

I had wondered why, after 25 years of laboring in the wilderness, suddenly all the knives have come out.

我想知道为什么在荒野里劳作了25年后，突然所有的刀都出来了。

Krugman cannot talk about anything else but MMT.

除了现代货币理论之外，克鲁格曼不能谈论其他任何事情。

Everyone from Summers to Powell, from Henwood to Epstein, has to join ranks to attack a theory created by half a dozen economists?

从萨默斯到鲍威尔，从亨伍德到爱泼斯坦，每个人都必须联合起来攻击六位经济学家创造的理论？

And they’ve all adopted the Trump tactic of lies, lies, and more lies?

他们都采用了特朗普的谎言、谎言、更多谎言的策略吗？

A sheer coincidence?

纯粹是巧合吗？

Or a carefully coordinated strategy?

还是精心协调的策略？

Make no mistake about it, as Bernie would say.

正如伯尼所说，不要搞错了。

This isn’t about MMT.

这与 MMT 无关。

And it isn’t, mostly, about Bernie, either.

而且这主要也不是关于伯尼的。

They are after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

他们正在追捕亚历山大·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯。

Just look at every report in the media on MMT—it will include her name.

只要看看媒体上关于 MMT 的每一篇报道就知道了——其中都会包括她的名字。

Google her name and you get MMT.

谷歌她的名字，你就会得到 MMT。

She’s the real danger, not us.

她才是真正的危险，而不是我们。

She must be stopped.

必须阻止她。

They will spare no expense, use any lie, go to any extreme.

他们会不惜一切代价，使用任何谎言，走任何极端。

For decades the neoliberals have used the threat of taxes to stop any progressive movement in its tracks.

几十年来，新自由主义者一直利用税收威胁来阻止任何进步运动的发展。

“How you gonna pay for it?” killed every proposal that came from the left.

“你打算怎么付钱？”扼杀了所有来自左翼的提案。

It is a foregone conclusion that if you link anything that would benefit the public to a tax hike, it will never make it out of committee.

一个已成定局的结论是，如果你将任何有利于公众的事情与增税联系起来，它永远不会被委员会通过。

The official left uses this tactic as a “go away and leave me alone” strategy: see, we’ve really been working hard for progressive policy but we just can’t get those rich people to line up and tax themselves to pay for it.

左翼官方人士将这一策略视为“走开，别管我”的策略：看，我们确实一直在为进步政策而努力，但我们就是无法让那些富人排队并向自己征税来支付费用。

Selfish bastards.

自私的混蛋。

But money grows on rich people and they don’t want to pay for all the goodies we’d like to get to help the poor.

但富人的钱越来越多，他们不想为我们想要帮助穷人的所有好东西买单。

So they’ll just have to stay poor a bit longer.

所以他们只能再继续贫穷下去。

Uncle Sam is broke.

山姆大叔破产了。

But tax cuts for the rich?

但为富人减税呢？

Oh, sure, why not.

哦，当然，为什么不呢。

Something might trickle down.

有些东西可能会滴下来。

Campaign contributions, probably.

可能是竞选捐款。

Keep those coming.

让那些人继续来。

AOC has cut through all that.

AOC 已经解决了这一切。

We don’t need their stinking money.

我们不需要他们的臭钱。

We’ve got MMT.

我们有现代货币理论。

A double whammy against the comfortably privileged.

对享有特权的人来说是双重打击。

We don’t need you.

我们不需要你。

We’re passing the Green New Deal.

我们正在通过绿色新政。

We’re saving the environment.

我们正在拯救环境。

Jobs for All.

所有人的工作。

Raising incomes of most people.

提高大多数人的收入。

And reducing yours.

并减少你的。

We don’t need the rich so we’re taking away your riches.

我们不需要富人，所以我们会夺走你们的财富。

We’ve got Uncle Sam’s purse.

我们拿到了山姆大叔的钱包。

AOC brought the right and the official left together.

AOC 将右派和官方左派结合在一起。

Make no mistake about it.

别搞错了。

They’ll spend billions, even hundreds of billions to stop all this “nonsense”, this “garbage”, this “crazy” theory.

他们将花费数十亿甚至数千亿来阻止所有这些“废话”、这种“垃圾”、这种“疯狂”理论。

Last time around the DNC decided they preferred Trump over Bernie.

上次民主党全国委员会决定他们更喜欢特朗普而不是伯尼。

This time they’re going to put their money on Biden and Beto.

这次他们要把钱押在拜登和贝托身上。

Old serial loser Uncle Joe with his checkered past and petroleum lubed Beto who cannot stake out a position on Coke vs Pepsi out of fear of offending someone.

老连环失败者乔叔叔有着曲折的过去，并用石油润滑了贝托，但由于害怕冒犯某人，贝托无法在可口可乐与百事可乐的比赛中表明自己的立场。

Trump’s going to chew up and spit out Biden, then use Boy Toy Beto to wipe up the mess on his mouth.

特朗普要把拜登嚼碎吐出来，然后用男孩玩具贝托擦掉他嘴上的烂摊子。

Humanity cannot afford another 4 years of Trump.

人类无法承受特朗普再执政四年。

Nor 4 years of Biden.

拜登也没有四年。

Delaying the Green New Deal by four more years virtually assures failure to reverse the worst effects of climate change.

将绿色新政再推迟四年实际上注定无法扭转气候变化的最坏影响。

The attitude of elites has always been Apres Moi Le Deluge .

精英们的态度一直是Apres Moi Le Deluge。

If they cannot have it all, bring on the deluge.

如果他们不能拥有一切，那就带来洪水。

Make no mistake about it—this is not just a Koch attitude.

毫无疑问，这不仅仅是科赫的态度。

Even Buffet—who never misses an opportunity to beg for a larger tax liability (knowing it ain’t going to happen, of course)—prefers the deluge and joined the attack on MMT.

就连巴菲特——他从来不放过任何一个乞求更大的纳税义务的机会（当然，他知道这不会发生）——也更喜欢洪水，并加入了对现代货币理论的攻击。

I mean AOC.

我的意思是AOC。

We have to approach this Green New Deal as the real MEOW.

我们必须将绿色新政视为真正的喵。

(As opposed to Jimmy Carter’s baby kitten meow.) Roosevelt’s New Deal was only a half measure.

（与吉米·卡特的小猫喵喵声相反。）罗斯福的新政只是一半的措施。

Even its best innovation—Social Security—is weighed down by the ball and chain of a payroll tax.

即使是其最好的创新——社会保障——也受到工资税的拖累。

Much of the rest of the New Deal didn’t even survive for a generation.

新政的其余部分甚至没有延续一代人的时间。

“Paying for it” was a big part of the problem.

“为此付出代价”是问题的一个重要部分。

Fear of offending the sensibilities of Southern Democrats was another.

另一个原因是担心冒犯南方民主党人的感情。

Opposition of the AMA to universal healthcare was a third.

第三个是美国医学协会反对全民医疗保健。

It was only WWII that freed the government’s budget on the necessary scale.

直到第二次世界大战才使政府预算达到必要的规模。

This was justified on the basis that there was no alternative—global subjugation to Nazis, or spending on an unprecedented scale.

这是合理的，因为没有其他选择——全球范围内对纳粹的征服，或者史无前例的大规模支出。

We chose survival.

我们选择了生存。

We learned that “taxes for revenue are obsolete” (as Ruml put it).

我们了解到“收入税已经过时”（正如鲁姆尔所说）。

And we came out of WWII stronger and richer than ever before.

二战结束后，我们比以往任何时候都更强大、更富有。

The task ahead of us is bigger.

我们面前的任务更加艰巨。

The stakes are bigger.

赌注更大。

The future of humanity lies in the balance.

人类的未来在于平衡。

Half measures will not do.

半途而废是行不通的。

It will take all of our available resources—and then some—to win this battle.

我们需要动用所有可用资源（甚至更多）来赢得这场战斗。

The experts (and I’m not one of them) say we’ve got most of the technology we need.

专家（我不是其中之一）说我们已经拥有了我们需要的大部分技术。

We’ve got unused resources to put to use.

我们有未使用的资源可以使用。

We can shift others from destructive uses to be engaged in constructive endeavors.

我们可以将其他人从破坏性用途转向建设性努力。

We can mobilize the population for greater effort with the promise of greater equality and a shared but sustainable prosperity.

我们可以动员人民做出更大的努力，承诺实现更大的平等和共享但可持续的繁荣。

First we have to shake off the neoliberals who’ve been destroying our country and our world for more than two generations.

首先，我们必须摆脱新自由主义者，他们两代人以来一直在摧毁我们的国家和世界。

They began in 1974 with the argument that an overspending government caused inflation.

他们从 1974 年开始就认为政府过度支出导致了通货膨胀。

Too much regulation and coddling of unions caused unemployment and slow growth.

过多的监管和对工会的溺爱导致了失业和经济增长缓慢。

In reality, OPEC caused both of our high inflation periods (early and late 1970s), and the adoption of austerity to fight oil price hikes slowed growth and led to unemployment.

事实上，OPEC 造成了我们的两个高通胀时期（1970 年代初期和后期），而为应对油价上涨而采取的紧缩政策则减缓了经济增长并导致失业。

The correct policy then—and now—is conservation and conversion to alternative energy sources.

当时和现在的正确政策是节约能源并转向替代能源。

Instead we got then—and now—austerity and ramped-up dependence on climate-killing carbon.

相反，我们当时和现在都采取了紧缩政策，并加大了对破坏气候的碳的依赖。

Neoliberals want to continue with the same-old same-old.

新自由主义者想要继续老一套。

More austerity.

更加紧缩。

More reliance on markets (carbon trading—that is, using the price system to try to resolve a problem created by the price system).

更多地依赖市场（碳交易——即利用价格体系来解决价格体系产生的问题）。

More half measures.

更多半措施。

More meow.

更喵。

MMT teaches that we can afford the real MEOW.

MMT 告诉我们，我们买得起真正的 MEOW。

If we tackle climate change as the moral equivalent of war, and if this really does take us to and beyond full employment of resources, we can adopt measures to counter inflation pressure.

如果我们将气候变化视为战争的道德等价物，并且如果这确实使我们达到并超越资源的充分利用，我们就可以采取措施来应对通货膨胀压力。

No one has a vested interest in high inflation—in spite of what the inflation worriers want you to believe.

没有人对高通胀有既得利益——不管通胀担忧者希望你相信什么。

We can work together—as we did in WWII—to put all our resources into the effort without stoking inflation.

我们可以共同努力——就像我们在二战中所做的那样——将我们所有的资源投入到努力中，而不会加剧通货膨胀。

Affordability is not the question.

负担能力不是问题。

MMT shows how to pay for it.

MMT 展示了如何支付费用。

There is some danger of inflation—not because of the manner in which the GND will be financed but because of potential pressure on resources.

存在一定的通货膨胀危险——不是因为 GND 的融资方式，而是因为资源的潜在压力。

Knowing that that is the real danger, we can formulate a strategy to prevent it.

知道这是真正的危险，我们就可以制定策略来预防它。

I saw in some commentary a plea for a simple statement of the main principles of MMT.

我在一些评论中看到有人呼吁对现代货币理论的主要原则进行简单的陈述。

Let’s try this.

让我们试试这个。

The great J.

伟大的J。

Fagg Foster said “Whatever is technologically possible is financially feasible”—a line I’ve often used.

法格·福斯特 (Fagg Foster) 说过，“技术上可行的事情在经济上也是可行的”——这是我经常使用的一句话。

If you think about it, there’s really no other reason to have a financial system.

如果你仔细想想，确实没有其他理由需要建立一个金融体系。

If you know how to build houses but your financial system can’t find a way to make them affordable, then you have to replace it with one that will.

如果你知道如何建造房屋，但你的金融系统无法找到一种方法让它们负担得起，那么你就必须用能建造房屋的方法来取代它。

MMT claims that we’ve got all the financial wherewithal we need already in the hands of our sovereign government to afford whatever is technologically possible.

现代货币理论声称，我们的主权政府已经掌握了我们所需的所有财政资金，可以承担技术上可能实现的一切。

We don’t need to go hat-in-hand to rich folks to get them to pay for it.

我们不需要向富人表示支持，让他们为此付出代价。

We don’t have to get the Fed to “print money” to pay for it.

我们不必让美联储“印钞”来支付费用。

All we need to do is to remove the self-imposed constraints, the myths, and the misplaced morality.

我们需要做的就是消除自我施加的限制、神话和错误的道德。

No new spending process is required.

不需要新的支出流程。

Follow the normal procedures that the Fed and Treasury have developed.

遵循美联储和财政部制定的正常程序。