JAPAN DOES MMT?

In recent days the international policy-making elite has tried to distance itself from MMT, often going to hysterical extremes to dismiss the approach as crazy.

最近几天，国际决策精英试图与现代货币理论保持距离，常常变得歇斯底里的极端，认为这种做法很疯狂。

No one does this better than the Japanese.

没有人比日本人做得更好。

As MMT began to gather momentum, its developers began to receive a flood of calls from reporters around the world enquiring whether Japan serves as the premier example of a country that follows MMT policy recommendations.

随着现代货币理论开始积聚动力，其开发者开始接到来自世界各地记者的大量电话，询问日本是否是遵循现代货币理论政策建议的国家的首要例子。

My answer is always the same: No .

我的回答总是一样的：不。

Japan is the perfect case to demonstrate that all of mainstream theory and policy is wrong.

日本是证明所有主流理论和政策都是错误的完美案例。

And that it is the best example of a country that always chooses the anti-MMT policy response to every ill that ails the country.

这是一个国家总是选择反现代货币理论政策来应对困扰该国的每一种弊病的最好例子。

Reporters find that shocking.

记者发现这令人震惊。

Biggest government fiscal deficits in the developed country world?

发达国家中最大的政府财政赤字？

Check.

查看。

Highest government debt ratios in the developed country world?

发达国家政府债务比率最高？

Check.

查看。

Nay, it is the perfect demonstration that all the mainstream bogeymen are false: big deficits cause inflation?

不仅如此，这完美地证明了所有主流的妖怪都是错误的：巨额赤字会导致通货膨胀吗？

No. Japan’s inflation runs just above zero.

不。日本的通胀率略高于零。

(See graph https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Growing-Modern-Monetary-Theory-debate-rattles-Japan-officials .)

（参见图表 https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Growing-Modern-Monetary-Theory-debate-rattles-Japan-officials。）

Big debts cause high interest rates?

高额债务导致高利率？

No. Japan’s policy rate is about -0.10 (negative rates).

不会。日本的政策利率约为-0.10（负利率）。

Big debts cause bond vigilante strikes?

巨额债务导致债券治安维护者罢工？

No. Japan’s government debt is hoovered up as fast as it can be issued.

不会。日本的政府债务一发行就被吸走。

(All the more true with the BOJ running QE and creating a “scarcity” in spite of the quadrillions of yen debt available.)

（尽管日本央行有数万亿日元债务，但仍实施量化宽松并造成“稀缺”，这一点更是如此。）

Critics of MMT counter that Japan is “proof” that big deficits kill investment and growth.

现代货币理论的批评者反驳说，日本“证明”了巨额赤字会扼杀投资和增长。

Well, it is true that Japan has been growing at just 1% per year—certainly nothing to write home about.

确实，日本每年的增长率仅为 1%——这当然没什么值得大书特书的。

However, investment grows at about a 2% pace, but is pulled down by lack of consumption growth—which has averaged just about zero over the past few years.

然而，投资以约 2% 的速度增长，但却因消费增长不足而拉低——过去几年消费增长的平均水平几乎为零。

Yet, unemployment clocks in at only 3%–in spite of slow growth—as the labor force shrinks due to an aging population.

然而，尽管增长缓慢，但由于人口老龄化导致劳动力萎缩，失业率仅为 3%。

Per capita GDP has been stuck at about $38,000 for years (not so bad, but not growing).

人均 GDP 多年来一直停留在 38,000 美元左右（还不错，但没有增长）。

And Japan’s current account surplus has surged from under 1% to 4% of GDP over the past few years (considered to be good by most commentators).

过去几年，日本的经常账户盈余占 GDP 的比重从不足 1% 飙升至 4%（大多数评论人士认为这不错）。

Unfortunately Trump’s trade war seems to have already hurt Japan’s exports and the prognosis for growth this year is rather dismal.

不幸的是，特朗普的贸易战似乎已经损害了日本的出口，今年的增长前景相当黯淡。

The April survey of consumer confidence showed it collapsing to the lowest level in three years.

四月份的消费者信心调查显示，其跌至三年来的最低水平。

( https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/japan )

（https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/japan）

From the MMT perspective, what Japan needs is a good fiscal stimulus, albeit one that is targeted.

从现代货币理论的角度来看，日本需要的是一项良好的财政刺激，尽管是有针对性的。

[i] Japan has three “injections” into the economy: the fiscal deficit (which has fallen from 7% of GDP to about 5% over the past few years—still a substantial injection), the current account surplus, and private investment.

[i]日本对经济进行了三项“注入”：财政赤字（过去几年占GDP的比例从7%下降到5%左右——仍然是一笔可观的注入）、经常账户盈余和私人投资。

But what it needs is stronger growth of domestic consumer demand—which would also stimulate investment directed to home consumption.

但它需要的是国内消费需求的更强劲增长，这也将刺激针对国内消费的投资。

So fiscal policy ought to be targeted to spending that would increase economic security of Japanese households to the point that they’d increase consumer spending.

因此，财政政策的目标应该是增加日本家庭的经济安全，从而增加消费者支出。

So what is Prime Minister Abe’s announced plan?

那么安倍首相宣布的计划是什么？

To raise the sales tax to squelch consumption and reduce economic growth.

提高销售税以抑制消费并降低经济增长。

This has been Japan’s policy for a whole generation.

这是日本整整一代人的政策。

Any time it looks like the economy might break out of its long-term stagnation, policy makers impose austerity in an attempt to reduce the fiscal deficit—and thereby throw the economy back into its permanent recession.

每当经济看起来可能摆脱长期停滞时，政策制定者就会实施紧缩政策，试图减少财政赤字，从而使经济重新陷入永久性衰退。

Clearly, this is the precise opposite to the MMT recommendation.

显然，这与 MMT 的建议完全相反。

And yet pundits proclaim Japan has been following MMT policy all these years.

然而专家们宣称日本这些年来一直遵循现代货币理论政策。

Why?

为什么？

Because Japan has run big fiscal deficits.

因为日本存在巨额财政赤字。

As if MMT’s policy goal is big government deficits and debt ratios.

好像现代货币理论的政策目标是巨额政府赤字和债务比率。

No .

不 。

We see the budget as a tool to pursue the public interest—things like full employment, inclusive and sustainable growth.

我们将预算视为追求公共利益的工具，例如充分就业、包容性和可持续增长。

To be sure, by many reasonable measures Japan does OK in spite of policy mistakes.

平心而论，尽管存在政策错误，但从许多合理的措施来看，日本的表现还是不错的。

Certainly in comparison to the USA, Japan looks pretty good: good and accessible healthcare, low infant mortality, long lifespans, low measured unemployment, and much less inequality and poverty.

当然，与美国相比，日本看起来相当不错：良好且容易获得的医疗保健、婴儿死亡率低、寿命长、失业率低、不平等和贫困少得多。

But Japan could do better if it actually did adopt the MMT view that the budgetary outcome by itself is not an important issue.

但如果日本确实采纳了现代货币理论的观点，即预算结果本身并不是一个重要问题，那么它可以做得更好。

But, no, the Japanese officials are falling all over themselves to make it clear that they will never adopt MMT.

但是，不，日本官员正在竭力表明他们永远不会采用现代货币理论。

Finance Minister Taro Aso called MMT “an extreme idea and dangerous as it would weaken fiscal discipline”.

日本财务大臣麻生太郎称现代货币理论是“一个极端的想法，而且很危险，因为它会削弱财政纪律”。

One wonders how a reporter could listen to that without bursting out in laughter.

人们不禁好奇，一名记者如何能够不笑出声来。

Japan’s “fiscal discipline” would be threatened by MMT?

日本的“财政纪律”会受到现代货币理论的威胁吗？

The debt ratio is already approaching 250%!

负债率已经逼近250%！

By conventional measures, Japan has the worst fiscal discipline the world has ever seen!

按照传统衡量标准，日本的财政纪律是世界上最差的！

But, wait, it gets even funnier.

但是，等等，这会变得更有趣。

“BOJ policy board member Yutaka Harada kept up the attack on MMT.

“日本央行政策委员会委员原田丰继续攻击现代货币理论。

The approach proposed by MMT will ‘cause [runaway] inflation for sure’.

现代货币理论提出的方法“肯定会导致[失控的]通货膨胀”。

“ https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Growing-Modern-Monetary-Theory-debate-rattles-Japan-officials

“ https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Growing-Modern-Monetary-Theory-debate-rattles-Japan-officials

The BOJ has done everything it could think of for the past quarter century to get the inflation rate up to 2%.

在过去 25 年里，日本央行竭尽全力将通胀率提高到 2%。

Quadrillions of QE.

数十万亿的量化宽松。

Negative interest rates.

负利率。

And the BOJ thinks MMT could produce runaway inflation?

日本央行认为现代货币理论可能会导致通胀失控？

I doubt that even Weimar’s Reichsbank could cause high inflation in Japan.

我怀疑即使是魏玛的德国央行也可能导致日本的高通胀。

What they do not understand is that there are two ways to produce a high deficit (and debt) ratio: the ugly way and the good way.

他们不明白的是，有两种方法可以产生高赤字（和债务）比率：丑陋的方法和好的方法。

MMT has been arguing this for a long time, but with little progress in promoting understanding.

现代货币理论对此争论了很长时间，但在促进理解方面进展甚微。

I think that the main reason is because we’ve been using plain English.

我认为主要原因是因为我们一直使用简单的英语。

Economists are not good at reading for comprehension.

经济学家不善于阅读理解。

They need pictures and math.

他们需要图片和数学。

Perhaps the following will help.

也许以下内容会有所帮助。

Yes, I gave it a name.

是的，我给它起了个名字。

There’s the Laffer Curve, the Phillips Curve, and now the Wray Curve.

有拉弗曲线、菲利普斯曲线，现在还有雷曲线。

I didn’t draw it on a cocktail napkin at a bar, but, rather, jotted it down on a note pad before bed last night.

我没有把它画在酒吧的鸡尾酒餐巾上，而是昨晚睡前把它记在记事本上。

Assume the economy is at Point A—for Japan this would represent a 5% deficit ratio and a 1% rate of growth.

假设经济处于 A 点——对于日本来说，这意味着 5% 的赤字率和 1% 的增长率。

Now PM Abe imposes a consumption tax, or the USA plummets into a downturn, reducing Japan’s growth rate.

现在安倍首相征收消费税，或者美国陷入低迷，从而降低日本的增长率。

The economy moves up and to the left toward Point B as growth slows and the deficit ratio rises.

随着增长放缓和赤字率上升，经济向左向上移动至 B 点。

Slower growth reduces tax revenue even as it scares households and firms, which reduce spending in an effort to build up savings.

增长放缓会减少税收收入，同时也会让家庭和企业感到恐慌，从而减少支出以增加储蓄。

The slower growth also reduces imports so the current account “improves” somewhat.

增长放缓也减少了进口，因此经常账户有所“改善”。

From the sectoral balance perspective, the government’s balance moves further into deficit (to, say, a 7% fiscal deficit), the current account surplus rises (say from 4 to 5%) and the private sector’s surplus grows to 12% (the sum of the other two balances).

从部门平衡的角度来看，政府的余额进一步变成赤字（比如说，财政赤字为7%），经常账户盈余上升（比如说从4%到5%），而私营部门的盈余则增长到12%（其他两个余额的总和）。

That’s the ugly way to increase a fiscal deficit.

这是增加财政赤字的丑陋方式。

It is the Japanese way.

这是日本人的方式。

It is like a perpetual bleeding of the patient in the hope that further blood loss will cure her ills.

这就像病人不断地流血，希望进一步失血能够治愈她的疾病。

What is the MMT alternative?

MMT 替代方案是什么？

Measured and targeted stimulus designed to restore confidence of firms and households.

精心设计、有针对性的刺激措施，旨在恢复企业和家庭的信心。

Ramp up the Social Security safety net to assure the Japanese people that they will be taken care of in their old age.

加强社会保障安全网，向日本人民保证他们的晚年会得到照顾。

Recreate a commitment to secure jobs and decent pay.

重新做出确保就业和体面薪酬的承诺。

Either promote births or encourage immigration to replace the declining workforce.

要么促进出生，要么鼓励移民来取代日益减少的劳动力。

Undertake a Green New Deal to transition to a carbon-free future.

实施绿色新政，过渡到无碳未来。

In that case we move along the curve from Point A toward Point C.

在这种情况下，我们沿着曲线从 A 点向 C 点移动。

The fiscal deficit increases in the “good” way, while growth improves.

财政赤字以“良好”的方式增加，而经济增长则有所改善。

Note, however, that the boost to the deficit will only be temporary.

但请注意，赤字的增加只是暂时的。

Households and firms will begin to spend and their surplus will fall.

家庭和企业将开始支出，其盈余将下降。

The current account surplus will fall, too, as imports rise.

随着进口的增加，经常账户盈余也将下降。

Tax revenues will increase—not because rates rise but because income increases.

税收收入将会增加——不是因为税率上升，而是因为收入增加。

The fiscal deficit will fall as the domestic private surpluses decline.

随着国内私人盈余下降，财政赤字将会下降。

Precisely how much the deficit will fall depends on the movement of the private surplus and current account surplus—with the deficit falling to equality with the sum.

赤字究竟会下降多少取决于私人盈余和经常账户盈余的变动——赤字会下降到与总和相等。

In terms of the graph above, the Wray Curve shifts out to the right.

就上图而言，雷曲线向右移动。

Point A will be consistent with a higher rate of growth for a given deficit ratio.

A 点将与给定赤字率的较高增长率一致。

There’s nothing “natural” about the deficit ratio at Point A—as it depends on the other two sectoral balances.

A 点的赤字率并不“自然”，因为它取决于其他两个部门的平衡。

For the USA, Point A is consistent with a higher growth rate but probably a similar deficit ratio to that of Japan.

对于美国来说，A 点与较高的增长率一致，但赤字率可能与日本相似。

Our current account balance is of course negative—which implies a higher fiscal deficit.

我们的经常账户余额当然是负数——这意味着更高的财政赤字。

However, our private sector’s surplus is smaller than Japan’s for any given growth rate—which implies a lower fiscal deficit.

然而，在任何给定的增长率下，我们私营部门的盈余都小于日本，这意味着财政赤字较低。

The two essentially offset one another to leave the US deficit ratio at about 5% but with higher growth than Japan.

两者实质上相互抵消，使得美国赤字率维持在5%左右，但增速高于日本。

Note that we are not proposing a sort of Reverse Laffer Curve.

请注意，我们并不是提出某种反向拉弗曲线。

Recall that the Laffer Curve says that tax cuts more than “pay for themselves”—trickle-down growth boosts revenue sufficiently to close a fiscal deficit.

回想一下，拉弗曲线表明，减税不仅仅是“收回成本”——涓滴增长足以增加收入，足以消除财政赤字。

I am not arguing that the stimulative increase of government spending will increase tax revenue so much that the deficit ratio returns to its original level (or less).

我并不是说政府支出的刺激性增长会大幅增加税收，导致赤字率回到原来的水平（或更低）。

Where it actually ends up depends on movements of the two other sectoral balances.

它的实际结果取决于另外两个部门余额的变动。

Not that the size of the deficit—by itself—is important.

赤字规模本身并不重要。

What is important is whether government budget policy helps in the pursuit of the public and private interests.

重要的是政府预算政策是否有助于追求公共和私人利益。

The deficit will always adjust to be “just the right size” to balance the other two sectoral balances.

赤字总是会调整到“恰到好处的规模”，以平衡其他两个部门的平衡。

But that equality can be consistent with any growth rate—including a rate that is too low (deflationary) or too high (inflationary).

但这种平等可以与任何增长率相一致——包括增长率过低（通货紧缩）或过高（通货膨胀）。

And the sectoral balance equality holds with any fiscal deficit ratio.

部门平衡平等对于任何财政赤字率都​​成立。

So while it is likely that a successful stimulus will shift the Wray Curve out to the right, we cannot predict exactly where the new fiscal deficit ratio will settle as the growth rate rises.

因此，虽然成功的刺激措施很可能会使雷曲线向右移动，但我们无法准确预测随着增长率上升，新的财政赤字率将稳定在哪里。

What is most important about this graph is the recognition that there are (at least) two different growth rates consistent with a given deficit ratio.

该图最重要的是认识到（至少）有两种不同的增长率与给定的赤字率一致。

We can achieve a particular growth rate either in the “ugly” way or in the “good” way—while generating the same deficit ratio.

我们可以通过“丑陋”的方式或“良好”的方式实现特定的增长率，同时产生相同的赤字率。

Japan continually operates its economy to produce “ugly” deficits—precisely because it fears fiscal expansion.

日本不断地经营其经济以产生“丑陋”的赤字——正是因为它担心财政扩张。

For further discussion of fiscal deficits along these lines, see the new textbook by Mitchell, Wray and Watts, Macroeconomics ( Macmillan International, Red Globe Press) , Chapter 8, and especially pp.

有关财政赤字的进一步讨论，请参阅 Mitchell、Wray 和 Watts 合着的新教科书《宏观经济学》（Macmillan International，Red Globe Press），第 8 章，尤其是第 11-17 页。

124-128.

124-128。

[1] Note: I am presuming that Japan is unhappy with zero growth, and that the country faces many unmet domestic needs.

[1] 注：我推测日本对零增长感到不满，并且该国面临许多未满足的国内需求。

I am not an advocate of “growth for growth’s sake”—especially in light of the growing recognition that humanity may well have only a decade or so left on planet earth unless we very quickly change our ways.

我并不是“为了增长而增长”的倡导者——特别是考虑到人们越来越认识到，除非我们迅速改变我们的生活方式，否则人类在地球上可能只剩下十年左右的时间了。

However, “changing our ways” will require major investments in a Japanese Green New Deal—so even with zero growth, there is a role for ramped up fiscal policy.

然而，“改变我们的方式”需要对日本绿色新政进行大量投资，因此即使增长为零，加强财政政策也可以发挥作用。