ALTERNATIVE PATHS TO MMT

First I’ll clearly state what MMT is and then outline four paths that lead to MMT’s conclusions: history, logic, theory and practice.

首先我会清楚地说明什么是MMT，然后概述导致MMT结论的四个路径：历史、逻辑、理论和实践。

What is MMT?

什么是现代货币理论？

It provides an analysis of fiscal and monetary policy that is applicable to national governments with sovereign currencies.

它提供了适用于拥有主权货币的国家政府的财政和货币政策的分析。

There are four requirements that identify a sovereign currency: the national government

识别主权货币有四个要求： 国家政府

b) imposes obligations (taxes, fees, fines, tribute, tithes) in the money of account;

b) 以账户货币形式征收义务（税款、费用、罚款、贡品、什一税）；

c) issues a currency denominated in the money of account, and accepts hat currency in payment; and

c) 发行以账户货币计价的货币，并接受账户货币支付；和

d) if the National government issues other obligations, these are also payable in the national government’s own currency.

d) 如果国家政府发行其他债务，这些义务也应以国家政府本国货币支付。

There is a fifth consideration that follows from these: if a country pegs, adopts a gold standard, or dollarizes, it doesn’t really have a sovereign currency because it is committed to delivering that to which it pegs.

由此而来的第五个考虑因素是：如果一个国家与美元挂钩、采用金本位制或美元化，那么它实际上并没有主权货币，因为它致力于兑现与其挂钩的货币。

That can reduce policy space—unless if it accumulates enough of the foreign reserve.

这可能会缩小政策空间——除非它积累了足够的外汇储备。

What difference does a sovereign currency make?

主权货币有什么区别？

We argue that the sovereign currency issuer:

我们认为主权货币发行人：

Now what do our critics accuse us of?

现在我们的批评者指责我们什么？

Let’s look at the top claims.

让我们看看最重要的主张。

Because we say a sovereign government cannot “run out of money”, they claim we advocate that government spend without limit.

因为我们说主权政府不能“用完钱”，他们就声称我们主张政府无限制地支出。

As if the goal of MMT is to cause hyperinflation.

就好像现代货币理论的目标是引起恶性通货膨胀一样。

Because we say a sovereign can always meet obligations as they come do, critics claim we say that deficits don’t matter.

因为我们说主权国家总是可以履行义务，所以批评者声称我们说赤字并不重要。

Because we say that government spends by keystroking credits to bank reserves, critics claim we advocate forcing the Fed to print up money to pay for all government spending.

因为我们说政府支出是通过向银行准备金注入信贷来进行的，所以批评者声称我们主张迫使美联储印钞票来支付所有政府支出。

What we actually say is that current procedures adopted by the treasury, the central bank, and private banks allow government to spend up to the budget approved by Congress and signed by the President.

我们实际上说的是，财政部、央行和私人银行采用的现行程序允许政府支出不超过国会批准并由总统签署的预算。

No change of procedures is required.

无需更改程序。

What we emphasize is that sovereign governments face resource constraints, not financial constraints.

我们强调的是，主权政府面临的是资源约束，而不是财政约束。

We’ve always argued that too much spending—whether by government or by the private sector—can cause inflation.

我们一直认为，过多的支出——无论是政府还是私营部门——都会导致通货膨胀。

Finally, a favorite criticism adopted by our heterodox frenemies is that MMT doesn’t apply to many countries, such as Somalia.

最后，我们的异端亦敌亦友最喜欢的批评是，现代货币理论不适用于许多国家，例如索马里。

The Central African Republic.

中非共和国。

the Congo.

刚果。

Liberia.

利比里亚。

Zimbabwe.

津巴布韦。

Malawi.

马拉维。

Mozambique.

莫桑比克。

Ecuador.

厄瓜多尔。

Greece.

希腊。

Honduras.

洪都拉斯。

And because it does not apply to them, MMT is an America First fascist policy.

因为现代货币理论不适用于他们，所以它是美国优先的法西斯政策。

What do all those countries have in common?

所有这些国家有什么共同点？

They do not issue a sovereign currency.

他们不发行主权货币。

We’ve always made it clear what we mean by sovereign currency.

我们一直明确主权货币的含义。

MMT rigorously applies to sovereign currencies.

MMT 严格适用于主权货币。

That may be the minority in terms of numbers, but they probably account for three-fourths of global GDP.

从数量上看，这可能是少数，但他们可能占全球 GDP 的四分之三。

That doesn’t mean that MMT scholars have ignored countries without sovereign currencies—I recommend especially the work of Bill Mitchell and Fadhel Kaboub—but our main focus has been on sovereign currency.

这并不意味着现代货币理论学者忽视了没有主权货币的国家——我特别推荐比尔·米切尔和法德赫尔·卡布布的著作——但我们的主要关注点一直是主权货币。

I’m not going to go into the case of developing nations now.

我现在不打算讨论发展中国家的情况。

I’m going to move on to four paths to MMT.

我将继续迈向 MMT 的四种途径。

We usually begin our explication with logic, based on the assumption that economists are good at logic.

我们通常从逻辑开始我们的解释，基于经济学家擅长逻辑的假设。

One would think so – with all their models and math and deductive thinking.

人们会这么认为——考虑到他们所有的模型、数学和演绎思维。

However, with about 35 years of work in economics, 25 of those working on MMT, I have concluded that economists are terrible at logic.

然而，凭借大约 35 年的经济学工作经验（其中 25 年从事现代货币理论研究），我得出的结论是，经济学家的逻辑能力很糟糕。

So let’s begin with history.

让我们从历史开始吧。

But economists are not much better at history than they are at logic.

但经济学家在历史方面并不比在逻辑方面好多少。

So let’s try a recent, simple, and clear example – one provided by Farley Grubb, the expert on America’s colonial currency.

因此，让我们尝试一个最近的、简单且清晰的例子——由美国殖民地货币专家法利·格鲁布（Farley Grubb）提供的一个例子。

The American colonial governments were always short of British coins (but prohibited by the Crown from coining their own) so they each came up with their own money of account (for example the Virginia pound), imposed taxes in that money of account, issued paper notes in the money of account, spent the paper notes, collected those notes in taxes, and then burned their tax revenue.

美国殖民地政府总是缺乏英国硬币（但国王禁止铸造自己的硬币），因此他们各自拿出自己的记账货币（例如弗吉尼亚镑），用记账货币征税，用记账货币发行纸币，花掉纸币，将这些纸币收成税，然后烧掉他们的税收收入。

I told you it would be simple and clear.

我告诉过你这会简单明了。

A one-sentence history of sovereign currency in Colonial America.

美国殖民地主权货币的一句话历史。

If you want more details, read Grubb.

如果您想了解更多详细信息，请阅读格鲁布。

I like several things about this example.

我喜欢这个例子的几个方面。

First, it is clear that the colonies spent the notes first, then collected them in taxes.

首先，很明显，殖民地首先花掉了这些纸币，然后将其收税。

They could not possibly have collected paper notes in taxes if they had not first spent them because there were no other paper monies around.

如果他们没有先花掉纸币，他们不可能收集到税收中的纸币，因为周围没有其他纸币。

Second, the colonies did not spend the tax revenue received in the form of paper notes.

其次，殖民地并没有花掉以纸币形式收到的税收。

They burned the notes.

他们烧掉了笔记。

All of them.

所有的人。

In the tax laws they were called “Redemption Taxes” with the expressed purpose of “redeeming” the notes – removing them from circulation to be burned.

在税法中，它们被称为“赎回税”，其明确目的是“赎回”纸币——将它们从流通中移除并烧毁。

Our argument is that this is the way it has worked for the past 4000 years, at least, as Keynes put it.

我们的论点是，至少正如凯恩斯所说，这就是过去 4000 年以来的运作方式。

That is the Modern Money period to which MMT applies

这就是现代货币理论适用的现代货币时期

Again, let’s keep this simple.

再次强调，让我们保持简单。

Warren Mosler provides the following example.

Warren Mosler 提供了以下示例。

He wanted his kids to wash his car.

他希望他的孩子们帮他洗车。

To motivate them he offered to pay them using his own business cards.

为了激励他们，他提出用自己的名片付钱给他们。

“But dad, why would we want your cards – they are worthless.”

“但是爸爸，我们为什么要你的卡片——它们一文不值。”

Well, he answered, I’m imposing a tax of five business cards today if you want access to food, clothing and shelter.

好吧，他回答道，如果你想获得食物、衣服和住所，我今天将对五张名片征税。

“But how can we get the cards?” I’ll pay five business cards for washing the car.

“但是我们怎样才能拿到卡片呢？”我会付五张名片洗车费。

Note how all the logic we learned from the history of Colonial currency applies: Warren has to spend first before collecting the cards; no one can pay taxes until Warren spends; and redemption of the cards in taxes removes them from circulation.

请注意我们从殖民地货币历史中学到的所有逻辑是如何应用的：沃伦必须在收集卡片之前先花掉；沃伦花钱之前没有人可以纳税；用税收兑换卡后，它们就不再流通了。

The car gets washed and the kids get fed.

车被洗了，孩子们被喂饱了。

Taxes drive money and money mobilizes resources such as labor for car washing.

税收驱动金钱，金钱调动资源，例如洗车的劳动力。

In a nutshell, that’s our monetary system.

简而言之，这就是我们的货币体系。

In modern economies there’s a couple of degrees of separation between taxpayers and the treasury—I’ll come back to that.

在现代经济中，纳税人和财政部之间存在一定程度的分离——我会回到这一点。

MMT adopts the Knapp-Innes-Keynes State Money Theory outlined in the Treatise, the Marx-Keynes-Veblen MTP and its Theory of Effective Demand developed in the General Theory, Schumpeter’s Ephor theory of banking developed in the Franco-Italian Circuit approach, Kalecki’s theory of profits, and Godley’s sectoral balance approach.

现代货币理论采用了论文中概述的克纳普-因尼斯-凯恩斯国家货币理论、马克思-凯恩斯-凡勃伦MTP及其在通论中发展起来的有效需求理论、熊彼特在法意循环方法中发展起来的银行业埃弗理论、卡莱茨基的利润理论和戈德利的部门平衡方法。

Together these provide a coherent, stock-flow consistent heterodox theory of the role of money in the economy.

这些共同提供了一个关于货币在经济中的作用的连贯的、与股票流量一致的异端理论。

It stands in stark contrast to the Neoclassical loanable funds and ISLM approaches that are fundamentally, irredeemably incoherent.

它与新古典主义的可贷基金和 ISLM 方法形成鲜明对比，后者从根本上来说是不可挽回的不连贯。

As the endogenous money approach insists, “loans make deposits and deposits make reserves”.

正如内生货币方法所坚持的那样，“贷款产生存款，存款产生准备金”。

Banks can never “run out of money” since they create it when they make loans, and central banks can never “run out of reserves” since they lend them into existence.

银行永远不会“用完钱”，因为它们是在发放贷款时创造的，而央行永远不会“用完准备金”，因为它们借钱而存在。

So far, so good.

到目前为止，一切都很好。

I think every heterodox economist as well as most central bankers are now on board with this.

我认为每一位非正统经济学家以及大多数央行行长现在都同意这一点。

Bank money and central bank money are not scarce resources – we can have as much as we want (and we generally have more than is good for us as Wall Street’s banksters run wild).

银行资金和央行资金并不是稀缺资源——我们想要多少就可以拥有多少（而且，由于华尔街银行家的疯狂，我们拥有的资金通常超出了对我们有利的范围）。

Paradoxically, most heterodox and orthodox economists believe that the sovereign government, itself, faces a critical money shortage.

矛盾的是，大多数异端和正统经济学家都认为主权政府本身面临着严重的资金短缺。

Bankers cannot run out.

银行家不能用完。

The sovereign government’s central bank cannot run out.

主权政府的中央银行不能用完。

But government faces a strict budget constraint; exceeding it leads to disaster: Attacks by Bond Vigilantes.

但政府面临着严格的预算约束；超过它会导致灾难：邦德义务警员的袭击。

Insolvency.

破产。

Bankruptcy.

破产。

Hyperinflation.

恶性通货膨胀。

The largest and most powerful economic entity the world has ever seen – the US Federal Government – must get its fiscal house in order.

世界上最大、最强大的经济实体——美国联邦政府——必须整顿其财政部门。

It relies too much on lending by the Chinese!

它太依赖中国人的贷款了！

Any day now the supply of dollars to Uncle Sam will cut be cut off!

现在山姆大叔的美元供应随时都会被切断！

A run from the Dollar will reduce its international purchasing power to peanuts!

美元贬值将导致其国际购买力微乎其微！

Our profligate government is leaving hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt to our grandkids!

我们挥霍无度的政府给我们的子孙留下了数百万亿美元的债务！

If I say that the heterodox approach insists that injections are causally prior to leakages, you all recognize that from fundamental Keynesian theory.

如果我说非正统方法坚持注入是因果先于泄漏的，那么你们都从基本凯恩斯主义理论中认识到了这一点。

And if I say that government spending is an injection and taxes are a leakages, everyone understands.

如果我说政府支出是注入，税收是泄漏，那么每个人都明白。

But when I say that government spending is logically prior to taxes, heterodox economists suddenly get all dazed and confused.

但当我说政府支出在逻辑上先于税收时，非正统经济学家突然变得茫然和困惑。

If I say government has to spend first before taxes can get paid, I’m called crazy.

如果我说政府必须先支出然后才能纳税，人们会说我疯了。

Government spending cannot be financed out of taxes—it must precede taxes.

政府支出不能通过税收来融资——它必须先于税收。

It is one of the injections that creates income that can be used to finance leakages such as saving and taxes.

它是创造收入的注入之一，可用于为储蓄和税收等资金流失提供资金。

So Government spending cannot be financed out of savings, either—government spending must create the income that can be saved in the form of purchased government bonds.

因此，政府支出也不能通过储蓄来融资——政府支出必须创造可以以购买政府债券的形式储蓄的收入。

This is all just basic macroeconomics.

这只是基本的宏观经济学。

While an individual can pay taxes or buy bonds out of her savings, this is not possible at the aggregate level.

虽然个人可以纳税或用储蓄购买债券，但从总体水平来看这是不可能的。

Our heterodox frenemies all flunk first year macro theory.

我们的异端亦敌亦友，第一年的宏观理论都没有及格。

It is the US government’s deficit that is the normal injection that allows our domestic private sector to net save, and as well allows the rest of the world to net save dollars.

美国政府的赤字是正常的注入，使我们国内私营部门能够净储蓄，也使世界其他国家能够净储蓄美元。

Neither domestic saving nor foreign saving can be a source of finance for US government spending.

国内储蓄和外国储蓄都不能成为美国政府支出的资金来源。

The US government spends only dollars, in the form of reserves issued by the Fed and credited to private bank accounts at the Fed.

美国政府只花费美元，以美联储发行的准备金形式存入美联储的私人银行账户。

Tax receipts are almost solely received in the form of Fed reserves debited from private bank accounts held at the Fed.

税收收入几乎全部以美联储准备金的形式收到，从美联储持有的私人银行账户中扣除。

To the extent that foreign central banks hold dollars, they came from the US and are held in the form of reserve deposits at the Fed, US Treasuries, or Fed notes.

就外国央行持有的美元而言，它们来自美国，以美联储准备金存款、美国国债或美联储票据的形式持有。

The US government must supply dollars of reserves before it can receive them—just as banks must supply deposits before they can receive them in payment.

美国政府必须先提供美元储备，然后才能收到它们，就像银行必须先提供存款才能收到付款一样。

I’m going to be brief on institutional practice—this is something MMT has focused on since the very beginning.

我将简要介绍一下机构实践——这是现代货币理论从一开始就关注的内容。

Before we documented how the government really spends, no academic economist had any idea.

在我们记录政府的实际支出情况之前，没有任何学院派经济学家对此有任何想法。

Now it drives our critics crazy and they complain that every time they criticize MMT we go so deeply into the accounting details that it blows their challenged minds.

现在，它让我们的批评者发疯，他们抱怨说，每次他们批评现代货币理论时，我们都会深入研究会计细节，这让他们受到挑战的头脑大吃一惊。

In the old days, governments just notched tally sticks, minted coins, or printed paper money when they spent, then collected them in redemption taxes and burned or melted them.

过去，政府只是在消费时刻下记数棒、铸造硬币或印制纸币，然后以赎回税的形式征收，然后焚烧或熔化。

Today all modern governments use central banks to make and receive all payments.

如今，所有现代政府都使用中央银行来支付和接收所有付款。

That’s one degree of separation.

这是一种程度的分离。

Central banks make and receive all payments through private banks.

中央银行通过私人银行支付和接收所有付款。

That’s the second degree of separation.

这是第二度分离。

Two degrees of separation is so complicated that critics throw up their hands in exasperation when we insist that nothing significant has changed.

两度分离是如此复杂，以至于当我们坚持认为没有任何重大改变时，批评者会愤怒地举手。

Government spending is still financed by money creation, and taxes destroy money—in the form of central bank reserves.

政府支出仍然通过货币创造来融资，而税收则以央行储备的形式摧毁货币。

Instead of wooden sticks, we use electronic keystrokes.

我们使用电子击键代替木棍。

Government cannot run out.

政府不能耗尽。

The central bank will not say no. From its perspective, it never violates the prohibition against “lending” to the treasury.

央行不会说不。从其角度来看，它从未违反禁止向国库“借贷”的规定。

It simply ensures that the payments system functions smoothly.

它只是确保支付系统顺利运行。

Furthermore, government never needs to borrow its own currency.

此外，政府永远不需要借入本国货币。

Bond sales by a sovereign government are not really a borrowing operation—rather they offer a higher interest earning substitute for central bank reserves.

主权政府出售的债券并不是真正的借贷业务，而是为中央银行储备提供了更高利息收入的替代品。

This was Warren Mosler’s key contribution, recognized before there was an MMT, and it made him rich because he concluded that credit ratings agencies had no idea what they were doing when they downgraded sovereign government debt.

这是沃伦·莫斯勒的关键贡献，在现代货币理论出现之前就得到了认可，这让他变得富有，因为他得出的结论是，信用评级机构在下调主权政府债务评级时并不知道自己在做什么。

Government can make all payments as they come due.

政府可以在到期时支付所有款项。

Bond vigilantes cannot force default.

债券义务警员不能强制违约。

While their portfolio preferences could affect interest rates and exchange rates, the central bank’s interest rate target is the most important determinant of interest rates on the entire structure of bond rates.

虽然他们的投资组合偏好可能会影响利率和汇率，但央行的利率目标是整个债券利率结构中最重要的利率决定因素。

Exchange rates are more complexly determined, but Keynes’s interest rate parity theorem provides a guide.

汇率的确定更为复杂，但凯恩斯的利率平价定理提供了指导。

The Fed is a creature of Congress, and Congress can seize control of interest rates any time it wants.

美联储是国会的产物，国会可以随时控制利率。

In any event, bond vigilantes cannot hold the nation hostage—the central bank can always overrule them.

无论如何，债券治安维护者不能把国家当作人质——央行总是可以否决他们的决定。

In truth, the only bond vigilante we face is the Fed.

事实上，我们面临的唯一债券维护者是美联储。

And in recent years it has demonstrated a firm commitment to keep rates low.

近年来，它表现出了保持低利率的坚定承诺。

Finally, even if the Fed abandons low rates, the Treasury can “afford” to make all payments on debt as they come due, no matter how high the Fed pushes rates.

最后，即使美联储放弃低利率，财政部也可以“有能力”支付所有到期债务，无论美联储将利率推高到什么程度。

Affordability is not the issue.

负担能力不是问题。

The issue will be over the desirability of making big interest payments to bond holders.

问题在于是否愿意向债券持有人支付大笔利息。

This is a particularly inefficient form of government spending.

这是一种效率特别低的政府支出形式。

In the case of the US, half the bonds are held abroad and most of the rest are held by institutions.

就美国而言，一半债券在海外持有，其余大部分由机构持有。

There isn’t much “bang for the buck” that comes from spending on interest.

利息支出并没有多少“划算”。