A Modern Money Explanation

Since the Democrat’s presidential debates, the attacks on progressive candidates for their “unrealistic” proposals to address the biggest challenges we face as a collective society have intensified dramatically.

自民主党总统辩论以来，对进步候选人的攻击急剧加剧，因为他们提出了“不切实际”的建议来解决我们作为一个集体社会​​面临的最大挑战。

The primary criticism is the enormous price-tag associated with each of the big-ticket issues they propose to undertake: universal healthcare, mitigating climate-change, eliminating college debt, free pre-school daycare, re-envisioning and rebuilding America’s infrastructure, a job guarantee and a universal basic income for every citizen.

主要的批评是与他们提出的每一个重大问题相关的巨大代价：全民医疗保健、缓解气候变化、消除大学债务、免费学前日托、重新设想和重建美国的基础设施、就业保障和每个公民的普遍基本收入。

The attacks come from both conservative Republicans and centrist Democrats, each of whom are avowed believers in fiscal “responsibility” and balanced federal budgets.

这些攻击来自保守派共和党人和中间派民主党人，他们都公开宣称相信财政“责任”和平衡的联邦预算。

Unfortunately, while there is growing sympathy with the progressive goals themselves, the advocates of those goals still don’t have a convincing explanation or formula for how the federal government will pay for it all.

不幸的是，尽管人们对进步目标本身越来越表示同情，但这些目标的倡导者仍然没有令人信服的解释或公式来说明联邦政府将如何支付这一切。

The best they can come up with is that we’ll increase taxes on the super-wealthy and the big corporations—or that it’s simply unacceptable, conceptually, that the world’s richest democracy cannot manage to achieve these goals for a healthy society.

他们能想出的最好办法就是我们对超级富豪和大公司增加税收——或者从概念上讲，世界上最富有的民主国家无法实现这些健康社会的目标，这是完全不可接受的。

So long as these are the progressive narratives—even if they manage to win the upcoming elections—the goals will never be achieved.

只要这些都是进步的叙述——即使他们设法赢得即将到来的选举——目标就永远不会实现。

To create genuine, wide-spread support for undertaking the big-ticket issues we face, it will be necessary to explain to America how its monetary system actually works.

为了为解决我们面临的重大问题创造真正的、广泛的支持，有必要向美国解释其货币体系的实际运作方式。

So, how do we get there?

那么，我们如何到达那里呢？

So far, the Modern Money narrative is bumping hard against an even harder ceiling of disbelief.

到目前为止，现代货币的叙述正在猛烈地冲击着更难以相信的天花板。

Even the progressive political advocates themselves cannot—or will not—make a direct attempt to explain it.

即使是进步的政治倡导者自己也不能——或者不会——直接尝试解释它。

This, of course, is pragmatically understandable: the first candidate who makes the attempt will likely not survive the pushback of public ignorance and misinformation.

当然，从务实角度来看，这是可以理解的：第一个进行尝试的候选人很可能无法在公众无知和错误信息的推动下幸存下来。

Nevertheless, until this challenge is tackled, we can write off the “progress” in “progressivism.” A strategy needs to be established and implemented to create a Modern Money Explanation and frame it to be easily understood and politically palatable.

然而，在解决这一挑战之前，我们可以取消“进步主义”中的“进步”。需要制定并实施一项战略来创建现代货币解释，并将其框架化为易于理解和政治上可接受的。

I recently watched the blood drain from Erin Burnette’s cheeks as she announced on CNN, with one of her most consternated expressions ever, that Bernie Sanders had “admitted” his Medicare-for-All program would “cost” $40 trillion.

最近，当艾琳·伯内特 (Erin Burnette) 在 CNN 上宣布伯尼·桑德斯 (Bernie Sanders) “承认”他的全民医疗保险计划将“耗资”40 万亿美元时，我看到她脸颊上的血流干了，这是她有史以来最惊愕的表情之一。

Her blanched expression said it all: How could he even be dreaming that the federal government was going to pony up $40 trillion to pay for America’s healthcare?

她苍白的表情说明了一切：他怎么可能梦想联邦政府要拿出 40 万亿美元来支付美国的医疗保健费用？

I’d like to up the ante: it won’t “cost” $40 trillion, but $320 trillion!

我想加大赌注：它不会“花费”40万亿美元，而是320万亿美元！

The narrative we’re trying to create must help Erin (and everyone else) wrap their intelligence around that scale of number—and realize that, in and of itself, it is both immensely meaningful and totally meaningless.

我们试图创造的叙述必须帮助艾琳（和其他人）将他们的智慧包裹在这个数字范围内，并认识到，它本身既非常有意义又完全没有意义。

How do I figure?

我怎么算？

First, Bernie’s $40 trillion price tag is calculated for a 10-year period.

首先，伯尼的 40 万亿美元标价是以 10 年为周期计算的。

But why arbitrarily use a decade’s calculation?

但为什么要武断地用十年来计算呢？

Are people going to stop needing healthcare ten years from now?

十年后人们会不再需要医疗保健吗？

A more meaningful calculation, I would argue, is over a lifetime—so I’m figuring 80 years.

我认为，更有意义的计算是一生——所以我计算的是 80 年。

Let’s proclaim it then: at today’s prices, Medicare-for-All will require a payment of $320 trillion for each generation of Americans!

那么让我们宣布：按照今天的价格，全民医疗保险将需要为每代美国人支付 320 万亿美元！

Next, we must consider in what sense this number has meaning.

接下来，我们必须考虑这个数字在什么意义上具有意义。

Erin’s facial capillaries are clearly responding to the egooptic (a word I just made up) perception that when I “spend money” what happens is that, first, I have to get it from somewhere, second I spend it in exchange for something else and, third, I consequently don’t have it any more.

艾琳的面部毛细血管显然是在回应自我光学（我刚刚编造的一个词）的看法，即当我“花钱”时，会发生的事情是，首先，我必须从某个地方得到它，其次我用它来换取其他东西，第三，我因此不再拥有它。

From an egooptic point of view, this is clearly what happens.

从利己主义的角度来看，这显然就是所发生的事情。

Erin’s mistake, however, is imagining that the currency issuing U.S. federal government is an egooptic entity—like a person, or a family, or a business.

然而，艾琳的错误在于，她认为发行货币的美国联邦政府是一个以自我为中心的实体——就像一个人、一个家庭或一家企业。

This factually is not the case.

事实上并非如此。

To see why, first consider what the $320 trillion represents.

要了解原因，首先要考虑 320 万亿美元代表什么。

Does it represent a finite amount of some thing the federal government needs to get its hands on—or does it represent the measurement of something, as in “three hundred feet of ribbon”?

它是否代表了联邦政府需要掌握的某种东西的有限数量，或者它是否代表了某种东西的尺寸，例如“三百英尺的丝带”？

If America were still on the gold-standard, and the government had to be able to redeem every U.S. dollar for 32oz of precious metal, then $320 trillion would factually represent a finite amount of gold (which would vaporize Medicare-for-All in an instant, because there is not anywhere close to $320 trillion worth of gold on the planet).

如果美国仍然实行金本位制，并且政府必须能够将每一美元兑换成 32 盎司的贵金属，那么 320 万亿美元实际上代表了有限数量的黄金（这将立即蒸发全民医疗保险，因为地球上根本不存在价值接近 320 万亿美元的黄金）。

If, instead, $320 trillion is a measurement of something, two questions arise: (a) What is being measured?

相反，如果用 320 万亿美元来衡量某物，就会出现两个问题：(a) 衡量的是什么？

And (b) is it possible for that thing to get so large that we run out of units of measurement?

(b) 这个东西是否有可能变得如此之大以至于我们用尽了测量单位？

Can a ribbon get so long that we run out of “feet”?

丝带会变得太长以至于我们没有“脚”了吗？

The answer to the first question is: our calculated $320 trillion represents and measures the amount of healthcare services a generation of American citizens will need to obtain over their lifetime.

第一个问题的答案是：我们计算出的 320 万亿美元代表并衡量了一代美国公民一生中需要获得的医疗保健服务的数量。

Whether you think it’s an absurdly big number is irrelevant.

你是否认为这是一个大得离谱的数字并不重要。

It is what it is, and there are only two ways it could be made smaller: (1) reduce the amount of healthcare services the generation will need, or (2) change the unit of measurement—i.e. define the “foot” to be longer so the ribbon is, say, only 200 feet long when you measure it instead of 300.

事情就是这样，只有两种方法可以让它变得更小：(1) 减少这一代人所需的医疗服务数量，或者 (2) 改变计量单位，即改变计量单位。将“英尺”定义为更长，这样，当您测量时，丝带只有 200 英尺长，而不是 300 英尺。

The answer to the second question is established by the U.S. Federal Reserve Act (established, in other words, by “fiat”).

第二个问题的答案是由美国联邦储备法确定的（换句话说，是由“法定货币”确定的）。

This democratically imposed component of the American social contract gave the Federal Reserve (American’s central bank) the authority to create units of measurement—U.S. currency— as needed to measure whatever length of ribbon the American people choose to produce and consume.

美国社会契约中这一民主强加的组成部分赋予美联储（美国中央银行）创建计量单位的权力——美元。货币——根据需要来衡量美国人民选择生产和消费的丝带长度。

It was not always the case this could be made to happen.

情况并非总是如此。

Prior to the U.S. Federal Reserve Act, when the U.S. (at the demand of east-coast financiers) was returning to the gold-standard after the civil war, southern and western farmers in America produced, at every harvest, ribbons and ribbons of corn and cotton which they could not sell for the simple reason there was not enough currency to measure it—creating, year after year, extraordinary hardships and economic crisis.

在美国联邦储备法案出台之前，当美国（应东海岸金融家的要求）在内战后恢复金本位制时，美国南部和西部的农民在每次收获时都会生产出一缕缕玉米和棉花，但他们无法出售，原因很简单，没有足够的货币来衡量——年复一年地造成了巨大的困难和经济危机。

The Federal Reserve Act changed that.

美联储法案改变了这一点。

Which means that if a generation of American citizens decides they want or need to consume $320 trillion worth of healthcare services, the Federal Reserve is authorized to create the U.S. currency necessary to enable it to happen .

这意味着，如果一代美国公民决定他们想要或需要消费价值 320 万亿美元的医疗服务，美联储就有权创造实现这一目标所需的美元。

The only impediment would be if there aren’t enough doctors, nurses, radiologists, examination rooms, surgical suites, bandages, drugs, etc. available to provide for the demand—in which case the citizens will, obviously, only consume what’s available (and the Federal Reserve will create the commensurate amount of currency).

唯一的障碍是，如果没有足够的医生、护士、放射科医生、检查室、手术室、绷带、药品等来满足需求——在这种情况下，公民显然只会消费可用的东西（美联储将创造相应数量的货币）。

In other words, just because we have a theoretically infinite number of “feet” to measure ribbon with doesn’t in itself produce an infinite amount of ribbon.

换句话说，仅仅因为理论上我们有无限数量的“英尺”来测量色带，其本身并不会产生无限数量的色带。

Or, to put it another way: the issue isn’t whether there’s enough “feet” to measure (i.e. pay for the production and consumption of) our ribbon, but rather how much ribbon is actually available to be measured.

或者，换句话说：问题不在于是否有足够的“英尺”来测量（即支付生产和消耗的费用）我们的色带，而在于实际有多少色带可供测量。

Erin’s real concern, therefore, should be whether America’s boundaries contain enough real resources that can be marshalled to provide $320 trillion worth of healthcare over the course of a generation.

因此，艾琳真正关心的应该是美国的边界是否包含足够的实际资源，这些资源可以在一代人的时间内提供价值 320 万亿美元的医疗保健。

This brings us to the second aspect of why Erin should let her cheeks return to their rosy blush: From a non-egooptic perspective (shall we call it, “sociooptic”?) the $320 trillion price tag for a generation of healthcare doesn’t represent a cost, it represents an earnings.

这给我们带来了为什么艾琳应该让她的脸颊恢复红润的第二个方面：从非利己主义的角度来看（我们可以称之为“社会光学”吗？），一代医疗保健的 320 万亿美元的价格标签并不代表成本，它代表收益。

Specifically, it represents what a very large sector of American businesses and citizens are going to EARN by the act of providing healthcare services to America.

具体来说，它代表了很大一部分美国企业和公民将通过向美国提供医疗保健服务的行为获得的收入。

In other words, unlike the egooptic perspective (after the spending occurs the money is “gone”!) the sociooptic view sees that in order for money to be EARNED it must first be spent.

换句话说，与利己主义观点（支出发生后，钱就“消失”了！）不同，社会光学观点认为，为了赚到钱，必须先花掉钱。

This may sound like a chicken-and-egg paradox—which happens first, does the money get spent, or does it get earned so that it subsequently can be spent?

这听起来像是一个先有鸡还是先有蛋的悖论——首先发生的是，钱是被花掉了，还是赚到了以便随后可以花掉？

From the Federal Reserve’s perspective, however, there is no paradox at all: if new money needs to be spent in America, the Fed simply creates it.

然而，从美联储的角度来看，这根本不存在悖论：如果美国需要花新钱，美联储只需创造它即可。

There are certain rules and procedures that must be followed, of course.

当然，必须遵守某些规则和程序。

It doesn’t happen arbitrarily because someone thinks it should happen.

它不会随意发生，因为有人认为它应该发生。

It happens in response to something.

它的发生是为了回应某事。

So, how does the Fed know when new money needs to be created?

那么，美联储如何知道何时需要创造新货币呢？

One way it knows is when, at the end of an American business day, there are more checks and interbank transactions to be cleared at the central bank than there are Reserves held in the various bank’s Reserve accounts.

它知道的一种方法是，在一个美国工作日结束时，中央银行需要清算的支票和银行间交易的数量多于各银行储备账户中持有的储备金。

This means the bank’s collectively have created more “bank-dollars” (which are claims on their Reserves) through loan operations than there are Reserves to back up the claims.

这意味着银行通过贷款业务创造的“银行美元”（即对其准备金的债权）总体上多于支持债权的准备金。

When this occurs, the Fed automatically creates new dollars to cover the shortfall.

当这种情况发生时，美联储会自动创造新的美元来弥补缺口。

(A shortfall is not ever allowed to occur because the entire U.S. financial system depends on the certainty that, at the end of every business day, all the legitimate claims on bank Reserves clear.)

（绝不允许出现短缺，因为整个美国金融体系都依赖于这样的确定性：在每个工作日结束时，对银行准备金的所有合法债权都已清零。）

But the Fed does not just give the new dollars to the bank’s Reserve accounts for free.

但美联储不仅仅将新美元免费存入银行的储备账户。

What happens is the Fed keystrokes the new dollars into the needful bank’s Reserve account in exchange for some collateral ponied up by the bank.

发生的情况是，美联储将新美元打入有需要的银行的储备账户，以换取银行支付的一些抵押品。

The Fed now holds the bank’s collateral, and the bank holds the new dollars in its Reserve account—which enables the claims on those Reserves, generated by its expanded loan activity, to be fulfilled.

美联储现在持有该银行的抵押品，而该银行则在其储备账户中持有新的美元，这使得其扩大的贷款活动产生的对这些储备的债权得以履行。

Voila!

瞧！

New money that American enterprise has demonstrated it needs—by virtue of the willingness of people and businesses to borrow, and the willingness of banks to loan—has been created.

美国企业已经证明其需要的新资金——凭借个人和企业的借贷意愿以及银行的贷款意愿——已经被创造出来。

Presumably, when the bank’s outstanding loan is repaid with interest, it will redeem its collateral from the Fed using the profits derived from that interest.

据推测，当银行未偿贷款连本带利地偿还时，它将利用从利息中获得的利润从美联储赎回其抵押品。

Private debt, then, driven by the expectations of PROFIT-MAKING enterprise, is one of the primary instigators of new money creation by the Federal Reserve.

那么，在盈利企业预期的推动下，私人债务是美联储创造新货币的主要推动者之一。

There is another driver, however, equally important, that is shrouded in even greater (if that is possible) and more obfuscating confusion: the creation of new money by the Fed’s purchase of U.S. treasury bonds on the open market.

然而，还有另一个同样重要的驱动因素，它笼罩在更大（如果可能的话）和更令人困惑的混乱之中：美联储在公开市场上购买美国国债而创造了新货币。

What our explanation needs to make clear is that this operation is not only a money-creating action, the dollars it generates are specifically targeted toward the NON-PROFIT enterprises of the public good.

我们的解释需要明确的是，这种操作不仅仅是一种赚钱行为，它产生的美元是专门针对公益非营利企业的。

The Treasury is the spending arm of the U.S. government.

财政部是美国政府的支出部门。

(If Medicare-for-All is implemented, the $320 trillion will be spent by the Treasury.) The dollars the Treasury spends come from two sources: (1) federal tax collections from America’s businesses and families; and (2) the issuing of U.S. treasury bonds (by the Treasury) in exchange for Reserves from the U.S. banking system.

（如果实行全民医疗保险，财政部将花费 320 万亿美元。）财政部支出的美元有两个来源：（1）美国企业和家庭的联邦税收；（2）联邦税收。 (2)（由财政部）发行美国国债以换取美国银行系统的储备金。

The first source is intuitively well understood by virtually everyone: the federal government wants to spend dollars for something, so it collects tax-dollars from citizens and businesses for the spending.

第一个来源几乎每个人都直观地理解：联邦政府想要花美元做某事，因此它向公民和企业收取税收以用于支出。

The second source arises from the situation where the federal government can’t even come close to collecting enough tax-dollars to cover the spending Congress has decided is both necessary and desirable for the public good.

第二个来源来自这样的情况：联邦政府甚至无法筹集足够的税款来支付国会认为对公共利益来说既必要又可取的支出。

So, what to do?

那么，该怎么办呢？

Answer: The Treasury issues U.S. treasury bonds and trades them for Reserves from the banking system to cover the spending shortfall.

答：财政部发行美国国债，并将其交易为银行系统的储备金，以弥补支出缺口。

This second source of new spending dollars for the federal government is not only misunderstood, it is willfully misunderstood (and the misunderstanding willfully manipulated) by politicians and ideological pundits seeking to control the American agenda.

联邦政府新支出的第二个来源不仅被误解，而且还被寻求控制美国议程的政客和意识形态专家故意误解（并且故意操纵这种误解）。

The misunderstanding is easy to encourage and nurture because, to a casual observer, it appears obvious that when the Treasury issues a bond, it is undertaking a debt it will have to repay with future revenues.

这种误解很容易被鼓励和助长，因为对于一个不经意的观察者来说，很明显，当财政部发行债券时，它正在承担一笔必须用未来收入偿还的债务。

Just like each one of us, personally, must calculate (or hope) that our future income will be adequate to pay off a debt we undertake, so must the federal government make the same calculation.

就像我们每个人个人必须计算（或希望）我们未来的收入足以偿还我们所承担的债务一样，联邦政府也必须进行同样的计算。

End of argument.

争论结束。

If the U.S. federal government takes on a debt, it will have to come up with future revenues (TAXES!!!) to pay it off.

如果美国联邦政府承担债务，它将必须拿出未来的收入（税收！！！）来偿还。

Framed this way, it doesn’t take mathematical sophistication to quickly “demonstrate” that America already has a far greater “debt” than it can ever hope to repay with future tax revenues.

按照这种方式，不需要复杂的数学就能快速“证明”美国已经背负的“债务”远远超过它希望用未来税收收入偿还的债务。

But this framing—which creates an unsolvable dilemma for American politics—hides a fundamental untruth in its logical premise.

但这种框架给美国政治造成了无法解决的困境，其逻辑前提隐藏着根本的谎言。

And it is this untruth, and our misapprehensions about it, that prevent us from confidently undertaking the big-ticket issues we face as a collective society—issues which private enterprise will not, or cannot, undertake because they do not fit into a profit-making business model.

正是这种谎言以及我们对此的误解，使我们无法自信地解决作为一个集体社会​​所面临的重大问题，而私营企业不会或不能解决这些问题，因为它们不适合营利性商业模式。

A thought experiment can reveal the untruth I’m referring to.

一个思想实验可以揭示我所指的谎言。

Ask yourself: could the Treasury pay for things—like, say, Medicare expenses—directly with treasury bonds, instead of first trading those bonds for Reserves, and then using the Reserves to pay the Medicare invoices?

问问自己：财政部是否可以直接用国债来支付诸如医疗保险费用之类的费用，而不是首先将这些债券换成储备金，然后使用储备金来支付医疗保险发票？

Assuming there’s no statute to prevent such payments, the only question is whether the Medicare providers would accept the treasury bonds as payment.

假设没有法规阻止此类付款，唯一的问题是医疗保险提供者是否会接受国债作为付款。

If they were, in fact, willing to do that, then the Treasury, when it created a bond, would not be creating a “debt,” but would be creating “money,” as it was needed, to fulfill the spending assignments appropriated by Congress.

如果他们实际上愿意这样做，那么财政部在发行债券时就不会发行“债务”，而是根据需要发行“货币”，以完成国会分配的支出任务。

But why would a Medicare provider—or a climate mitigation contractor, or a community college administrator, a pre-school daycare operator—agree to accept a treasury bond, for payments promised, instead of U.S. dollars?

但是，为什么医疗保险提供者、气候缓解承包商、社区大学管理人员、学前日托运营商会同意接受国债而不是美元来支付承诺的付款呢？

The answer is because U.S. treasury bonds have a liquidity that is virtually equal to cash: anyone who receives a treasury bond as payment can easily and quickly trade it for U.S. dollars.

答案是因为美国国债的流动性几乎等同于现金：任何收到国债作为付款的人都可以轻松快速地将其兑换成美元。

This interchangeability is unique to U.S. treasury bonds.

这种可互换性是美国国债所独有的。

Corporate bonds or municipal bonds do not have the same liquidity for the simple reason that they each entail some level of real risk that the entity issuing the bond will be unable to redeem it or make its promised interest payment.

公司债券或市政债券不具有相同的流动性，原因很简单，它们各自带来一定程度的实际风险，即发行债券的实体无法赎回债券或支付承诺的利息。

Why do treasury bonds and corporate-municipal bonds differ in this regard?

为什么国债和企业市政债在这方面有所不同？

To see why, consider that corporations and municipalities—like small businesses and households—must earn the dollars necessary to redeem their bonds.

要了解其中的原因，请考虑公司和市政当局（如小型企业和家庭）必须赚取赎回债券所需的美元。

If things don’t go as planned—if corporate profits fall, or local tax revenues decline—the future revenues the bond redemption depends on fail to materialize, and the bondholder loses all or some of his investment.

如果事情没有按计划进行——如果企业利润下降，或者地方税收收入下降——债券赎回所依赖的未来收入就无法实现，债券持有人就会损失全部或部分投资。

The corporation or the municipality cannot simply issue new dollars as necessary to make the bond good.

公司或市政府不能简单地根据需要发行新美元来保证债券的质量。

Which is precisely what the U.S. Federal Reserve can and does do, without fail, in the case of U.S. treasury bonds .

对于美国国债来说，这正是美联储能够而且确实会做的事情，而且毫无疑问。

The U.S. federal government, then, does not have to collect tax revenues in order to redeem treasury bonds.

那么，美国联邦政府就不必征收税收来赎回国债。

It does NOT depend on “future revenues” to repay its “debts.” If you want proof of this, simply consider that over the course of U.S. history, the federal government has issued and redeemed over $20 trillion worth of bonds which have not been repaid with tax revenues.

它并不依赖“未来收入”来偿还“债务”。如果你想证明这一点，只需考虑一下，在美国历史上，联邦政府已发行和赎回了价值超过 20 万亿美元的债券，而这些债券尚未用税收收入偿还。

How can the federal government do this while American families, businesses, corporations, and local governments cannot?

联邦政府怎么能做到这一点，而美国家庭、企业、公司和地方政府却做不到呢？

Our thought experiment shows us: When the U.S. Treasury issues its bonds, it is actually issuing new “money.” Whether that “money” is spent directly to the suppliers of goods and services—who then trade it for dollars from the banking industry—or is traded first to the banking industry for dollars, which are then spent by the Treasury, is an instance of Einstein’s “equivalence principle”: if you can’t tell the difference between two things, they are the same thing.

我们的思想实验向我们表明：当美国财政部发行债券时，它实际上是在发行新的“货币”。无论这些“钱”是直接花给商品和服务的供应商——然后由银行业将其换成美元——还是首先用银行业换成美元，然后由财政部花掉，都是爱因斯坦“等价原则”的一个例子：如果你无法区分两个事物之间的区别，那么它们就是同一件事。

U.S. treasury bonds, then, are nothing more than “future dollars” that have value today precisely because their future value, and the interest premium they bear, is the most ironclad, risk-free, guarantee that exists in the modern world today.

那么，美国国债只不过是“未来的美元”，它们在今天具有价值，正是因为它们的未来价值以及它们所承担的利息溢价是当今现代世界存在的最铁定的、无风险的保证。

And the U.S. Treasury is authorized to create these “future dollars,” as needed, to pay for any expenditures authorized by Congress.

美国财政部有权根据需要创造这些“未来美元”，以支付国会授权的任何支出。

For all of that, our thought experiment turns out to be unnecessary because a very simple operation— coordinated between the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve banking system—makes it possible for the Treasury to spend today the future dollars it creates with its treasury bonds.

尽管如此，我们的思想实验被证明是不必要的，因为一个非常简单的操作——美国财政部和美联储银行系统之间的协调——使财政部今天可以花掉它用国债创造的未来美元。

I’ll make this short:

我将简短地说：

End result: The Treasury has new spending money equal to the value the treasury bond just issued.

最终结果：财政部获得了与刚刚发行的国债价值相等的新支出资金。

The bank is returned to the same position it originally held.

银行恢复到原来的位置。

The Fed has on its balance sheet the newly issued treasury bond.

美联储的资产负债表上有新发行的国债。

The Fed now “owns” something it logically doesn’t need at all, ever—future dollars.

美联储现在“拥有”它在逻辑上根本不需要的东西——未来的美元。

If you want to run your own thought experiment, I’ll leave it to you to think that one through.

如果你想进行自己的思想实验，我会让你自己思考。

(Hint: why does it need something it creates, as needed with keystrokes?) The important work our explanation needs has already been accomplished:

（提示：为什么它需要它根据击键创建的东西？）我们的解释需要的重要工作已经完成：

The U.S. Treasury has created the money it needs to buy (from the American people themselves) the non-profitable goods and services that Congress has determined, through its democratic processes, are in the best interests of America’s collective society.

美国财政部创造了（从美国人民自己那里）购买国会通过其民主程序确定的非盈利商品和服务所需的资金，这些商品和服务符合美国集体社会的最佳利益。

Is America rich because we have a lot of wealthy people and giant corporations our government can levy taxes on?

美国富裕是因为我们有很多富人和政府可以征税的大公司吗？

Is it rich because we have huge capital markets our government can borrow dollars from to pay for our collective needs?

它之所以富有，是因为我们拥有庞大的资本市场，我们的政府可以从中借入美元来满足我们的集体需求吗？

Modern Money shows that neither of these are the reason.

现代货币表明，这些都不是原因。

America is truly rich because, first, it possesses abundant real resources—trained, educated, and creative labor, advanced technologies, water, forests, minerals, fertile soils and temperate growing seasons—and, second, because it possesses and manages a sovereign monetary system that enables us to pay ourselves whatever dollars are necessary to marshal those real resources for our collective benefit.

美国之所以真正富有，是因为，首先，它拥有丰富的实际资源——训练有素、受过教育和创造性的劳动力、先进技术、水、森林、矿产、肥沃的土壤和温带的生长季节——其次，因为它拥有并管理着一个主权货币体系，使我们能够为自己支付所需的任何美元，以调动这些实际资源，为我们的集体利益服务。

The big-ticket issues we confront, then, are not something to be afraid of.

因此，我们面临的重大问题并不值得害怕。

They are something we can afford to pay ourselves to do—and should celebrate the doing of.

这些是我们有能力付钱去做的事情，并且应该庆祝这些事情。