MMT Responds to Brad DeLong’s Challenge

In recent days MMT has captured the attention of anyone who can fog a mirror—even those long thought dead.

最近几天，MMT 吸引了所有能够让镜子起雾的人的注意力，甚至包括那些长期被认为已经死亡的人。

The critics are out in full force—from the crazy right to the insular left.

从疯狂的右翼到狭隘的左翼，批评者们倾巢而出。

A short list includes Doug Henwood, Jerry Epstein, Josh Mason, Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, Ken “Mr Spreadsheet” Rogoff, Bill Gates, Larry Fink, George Selgin, Noah Smith, and Fed Chairman Powell.

候选名单包括道格·亨伍德、杰里·爱泼斯坦、乔什·梅森、保罗·克鲁格曼、拉里·萨默斯、“电子表格先生”肯·罗格夫、比尔·盖茨、拉里·芬克、乔治·塞尔金、诺亚·史密斯和美联储主席鲍威尔。

After laboring for a quarter century in the wilderness, the developers of MMT are pilloried for unleashing a theory that is “crazy”, “disastrous”, “hyperinflationary”, “nonsense”, “garbage” and just plain “wrong”.

在荒野中奋斗了四分之一个世纪之后，现代货币理论的开发者因推出了一种“疯狂”、“灾难性”、“恶性通货膨胀”、“无稽之谈”、“垃圾”和纯粹“错误”的理论而受到嘲笑。

[1] Summers here ; Rogoff here ; Powell here ; Krugman here ; and here for Kelton Response

[1] 夏天在这里；罗格夫在这里；鲍威尔在这里；克鲁格曼在这里；这里是凯尔顿回应

What all the critics have in common is that they have not bothered to read the MMT literature.

所有批评家的共同点是他们没有费心去阅读 MMT 文献。

Oh, it is just too much effort for the lazy critics!

哦，对于那些懒惰的批评家来说，这实在是太费劲了！

So they imagine what it must say, conjuring up the most ridiculous thing they can imagine, and then tear apart ideas so stupid that no one could possibly hold them.

所以他们想象它必须说的话，想象出他们能想象到的最荒谬的事情，然后撕碎那些愚蠢到没人能接受的想法。

And here’s the hilarious thing: every time we try to correct them, they say we are changing our arguments.

有趣的是：每次我们试图纠正他们时，他们都会说我们正在改变我们的论点。

Or, even funnier, they claim they’ve always held the crazy ideas and so we are saying nothing new.

或者，更有趣的是，他们声称自己一直持有疯狂的想法，所以我们并没有说什么新东西。

MMT claims that the earth is flat, and that the sun goes ‘round the earth.

现代货币理论声称地球是平的，太阳“绕着地球转”。

The first claim is false and everyone already knows the second.

第一个说法是错误的，第二个说法大家都知道。

Heck, I’ve been arguing for two decades that the sun goes ‘round the earth.

哎呀，二十年来我一直在争论太阳“绕着地球转”。

To prove it, I sat in my lawn chair last summer and saw the sun come up on the left, travel across the sky, and set on the right.

为了证明这一点，去年夏天我坐在草坪椅上，看到太阳从左边升起，穿过天空，然后在右边落下。

It was hot but I persevered in the name of science.

天气很热，但我以科学的名义坚持了下来。

Most of what MMT says is false, and what it says that’s true is not new.

MMT 所说的大部分内容都是错误的，而它所说的真实内容并不新鲜。

No folks.

没有人。

What you claim to be MMT is not MMT; what you claim you’ve always known to be true is neither MMT nor true.

你声称的 MMT 并不是 MMT；你声称你一直都知道是真实的东西既不是现代货币理论，也不是真实的。

I already offered a response to Doug Henwood’s here embarrassing critique (I notice that even most of his followers chastised him for his attack); Bill Mitchell responded to Professor Epstein’s neoliberal-like rant against MMT here (I might have more to say about it later); Stephanie Kelton has done yeowoman’s work battling the slippery Paul Kruman (demonstrating that he’s not only got MMT wrong, but his prognostications on the way the world works have been consistently wrong, to boot here ); and I have a response to mainstreamers Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, Ken Rogoff (hey, Ken, have you figured out what a credit default swap is, yet?), and Chairman Powell in The Hill .

我已经对道格·亨伍德的令人尴尬的批评做出了回应（我注意到甚至他的大多数追随者也因他的攻击而谴责他）；比尔·米切尔（Bill Mitchell）在这里回应了爱泼斯坦教授对现代货币理论的新自由主义式的咆哮（我稍后可能会对此有更多的阐述）；斯蒂芬妮·凯尔顿（Stephanie Kelton）完成了与狡猾的保罗·克鲁曼（Paul Kruman）的斗争（证明他不仅弄错了现代货币理论，而且他对世界运作方式的预测一直都是错误的，首先是这里）；我对主流人士保罗·克鲁格曼（Paul Krugman）、拉里·萨默斯（Larry Summers）、肯·罗格夫（Ken Rogoff）（嘿，肯，你知道什么是信用违约掉期了吗？）以及国会山主席鲍威尔做出了回应。

Here I want to respond to a challenge made by Brad DeLong (at the instigation of Noah Smith who garners undeserved attention for cribbing simplistic ideas from intro economics textbooks and passing them along as wisdom).

在这里，我想回应布拉德·德隆（Brad DeLong）提出的挑战（在诺亚·史密斯（Noah Smith）的怂恿下，他因抄袭经济学入门教科书中简单化的想法并将其作为智慧而传播而受到了不应有的关注）。

Brad has often weighed-in quite reasonably on issues surrounding MMT so I’ll take his challenge seriously.

Brad 经常对 MMT 相关问题进行相当合理的权衡，所以我会认真对待他的挑战。

I do not twit or tweet but these two twits were sent to me and will provide the background to his challenge.

我不发推文或推文，但这两条推文是发给我的，将为他的挑战提供背景。

To summarize, we have Noah Smith complaining: if we decide to call something MMT, they will just tell us it is not MMT.

总而言之，诺亚·史密斯（Noah Smith）抱怨道：如果我们决定将某种东西称为 MMT，他们只会告诉我们这不是 MMT。

Poor (Josh) Mason and Jayadev “wrote …

可怜的（乔什）梅森和贾亚德夫“写道……

about how MMT implied that fiscal policy should be used for price stability.

关于现代货币理论如何暗示应该利用财政政策来稳定价格。

They were told that no, MMT has other tools for price stability.”

他们被告知不，现代货币理论还有其他稳定价格的工具。”

Brad DeLong responds: “In which case M&J…should have gone all medieval on their critics—said ‘you can make your arguments or you can play word games to make people believe that the US can have Swedish levels of government spending without Swedish levels of taxes”.

布拉德·德隆回应道：“在这种情况下，M&J……应该对他们的批评者采取完全中世纪的态度——说‘你可以提出你的论点，或者你可以玩文字游戏，让人们相信，美国可以拥有瑞典水平的政府支出，而无需瑞典水平的税收”。

I’m currently writing a longer piece with Yeva Nersisyan on costing and “paying for” the Green New Deal, so I’m not taking up Brad’s argument that we need “Swedish levels of taxes” here.

我目前正在与 Yeva Nersisyan 一起写一篇关于绿色新政的成本和“支付”的较长文章，所以我不会在这里采纳布拉德的论点，即我们需要“瑞典水平的税收”。

(Hint: We do not need higher taxes to pay for “Swedish levels of spending”—but we do need high taxes on the rich to reduce their power.)

（提示：我们不需要更高的税收来支付“瑞典的支出水平”，但我们确实需要对富人征收高税以削弱他们的权力。）

What I’ll focus on here is Mason and Jayadev’s “best understanding” and Brad’s challenge to accept or deny his characterization of MMT as Knapp+Lerner+Minsky+Vertical IS curve.

我在这里将重点关注梅森和贾亚德夫的“最佳理解”，以及布拉德对接受或否认他将 MMT 描述为纳普+勒纳+明斯基+垂直 IS 曲线的挑战。

First, a bit more background.

首先，多一点背景知识。

I was on the EEA panel with Mason where he presented his “best understanding” of MMT.

我和梅森一起参加了 EEA 小组，他在会上展示了他对 MMT 的“最佳理解”。

He claimed that MMT is not a “settled body of thought” and decided that he can treat its components separately.

他声称现代货币理论不是一个“固定的思想体系”，并决定可以单独对待其组成部分。

He then proceeded to reduce MMT to the old Bastard Keynesian “pump priming” version of Functional Finance: just use fiscal policy to pump up aggregate demand until you get to full employment.

然后，他继续将现代货币理论简化为旧的混蛋凯恩斯主义“泵启动”版本的功能金融：只需使用财政政策来拉动总需求，直到实现充分就业。

He then criticized us for supposedly believing that then you’d need to pass tax hikes to fight the inflation set off by full employment.

然后他批评我们认为我们需要通过增税来对抗充分就业引发的通货膨胀。

That’s supposed to be MMT.

这应该是MMT。

I objected to this characterization, showing my powerpoint slide from the year 2000 that laid out the various strands of thought incorporated in MMT up to that point.

我反对这种描述，并展示了我 2000 年的幻灯片，其中列出了迄今为止 MMT 中包含的各种思想。

Here’s the slide I showed (with an update noted):

这是我展示的幻灯片（注明了更新）：

Notably missing was reference to functional finance.

值得注意的是，缺少对职能财务的提及。

In fact, the core of MMT was developed before Lerner was brought into it (by Mat Forstater and Stephanie Kelton in the late 1990s).

事实上，MMT 的核心是在 Lerner 引入之前就已经开发出来的（由 Mat Forstater 和 Stephanie Kelton 在 20 世纪 90 年代末期）。

Most importantly, we ALREADY had our full employment policy: the Job Guarantee (also called employer of last resort, public service employment and buffer stock employment).

最重要的是，我们已经有了充分的就业政策：就业保障（也称为最后雇主、公共服务就业和缓冲库存就业）。

It was from the very beginning THE central stabilizing component of MMT.

它从一开始就是现代货币理论的核心稳定组成部分。

Many of our neoliberal critics (who HATE full employment) have always tried to separate the JG from MMT.

我们的许多新自由主义批评家（他们讨厌充分就业）一直试图将 JG 与 MMT 分开。

Josh follows in that tradition.

乔什继承了这一传统。

We have always insisted that the JG is inseparable from MMT.

我们一直坚持JG与MMT密不可分。

What do you get if you take the JG out?

如果把JG拿出来你会得到什么？

Josh’s neoliberal interpretation of MMT.

乔什对现代货币理论的新自由主义解释。

MMT DOES NOT rely on aggregate demand pump priming to get to full employment.

现代货币理论并不依赖总需求泵启动来实现充分就业。

Never has.

从来没有。

Never will.

永远不会。

That will not work.

那是行不通的。

In 2005 Bill Mitchell and I argued that if desired, JG can be implemented to achieve full employment WHILE REDUCING AGGREGATE DEMAND.

2005 年，比尔·米切尔和我认为，如果需要的话，可以实施 JG 以实现充分就业，同时减少总需求。

[2] To be sure, we’d recommend that only in very special circumstances, where the economy was already operating beyond full capacity—ie in a major war like WWII.

[2] 可以肯定的是，我们建议仅在非常特殊的情况下才这样做，即经济已经超出了满负荷运转，即在第二次世界大战这样的重大战争中。

Why would you need the JG if you were beyond full capacity?

如果您超出了满负荷，为什么还需要 JG？

Because even when aggregate demand is very high, some get left behind.

因为即使总需求非常高，仍有一些人被抛在后面。

We do not think anyone should be left behind—if anyone wants to work at the program wage, he/she should receive a job offer.

我们认为任何人都不应该被抛在后面——如果有人想以计划工资工作，他/她应该获得工作机会。

Only a JG can ensure this human right—the right to work.

只有联合政府才能确保这项人权——工作权。

Let me be clear.

让我说清楚。

In the neoliberal era we chronically operate below full employment.

在新自由主义时代，我们长期处于充分就业之下。

That is very obvious in Euroland, which is probably operating 25% or more below full capacity.

这在 Euroland 中表现得非常明显，其运营能力可能比满负荷运行 25% 或更多。

Even the US today has substantial excess capacity—maybe on the order of 10%, maybe more (maybe less).

即使是今天的美国也存在严重的产能过剩——也许是 10%，也许更多（也许更少）。

We won’t know until we ramp it up.

在我们加大力度之前我们不会知道。

Further, operating close to full capacity will bring forth investment and more capacity.

此外，接近满负荷运转将带来投资和更多产能。

I have little doubt that we could achieve Chinese growth rates if we put our minds to it—and sustain them for at least several years.

我毫不怀疑，如果我们下定决心，我们一定能够实现中国的增长率，并至少维持几年。

However, we will need well-targeted spending to do that without sparking inflation.

然而，我们需要有针对性的支出才能做到这一点而不引发通货膨胀。

It is hard to imagine how you’d do a general pump-priming; and you really wouldn’t want that even if you could.

很难想象如何进行一般的泵启动；即使你可以，你也不会真的想要这样。

There are no doubt many sectors of our economy that really are at full capacity.

毫无疑问，我们经济的许多部门确实已经满负荷运转。

Others lag far behind with substantial excess capacity.

其他企业则远远落后，产能严重过剩。

The problem with the kind of pump-priming we took in the past (mostly through “military Keynesianism”) is that the spending was targeted to the most advanced sectors, with high unionization and oligopoly or monopoly pricing.

我们过去采取的那种刺激措施（主要是通过“军事凯恩斯主义”）的问题在于，支出针对的是最先进的部门，工会化程度高，寡头垄断或垄断定价。

Wages and prices there rose and boosted measured inflation rates.

那里的工资和物价上涨并推高了通货膨胀率。

That is precisely what we want to avoid.

这正是我们想要避免的。

As I said it is hard to think of a general pump-priming; except perhaps sending a $5000 check to every resident.

正如我所说，很难想象一种通用的泵启动方式。除非向每位居民寄一张 5000 美元的支票。

But even this wouldn’t affect all sectors equally.

但即便如此，也不会平等地影响所有行业。

Most Americans, suffering under huge debt loads, would probably pay down some debt.

大多数背负巨额债务的美国人可能会偿还一些债务。

The comfortably well-off would splurge on fancy restaurants and expensive spas that already have long waiting lists.

富裕的人会在高档餐厅和昂贵的水疗中心挥霍，而这些地方的等候名单已经很长了。

Or add a gold-plated toilet bowl to their third yacht.

或者为他们的第三艘游艇添加一个镀金马桶。

I’ve long argued that rising tides raise all yachts—not the little dinghies.

我长期以来一直认为，涨潮会抬高所有游艇，而不是小艇。

here and here As Pavlina Tcherneva’s empirical work has proven here , that turns out to be true.

这里和这里正如 Pavlina Tcherneva 的实证研究所证明的那样，事实证明这是正确的。

More than all the gains from growth now go to the tippy top of the income distribution.

现在，增长带来的所有收益都流向了收入分配的顶端。

No wonder the Neoliberals hate the JG approach and love the pump-priming approach.

难怪新自由主义者讨厌 JG 方法而喜欢泵启动方法。

As Tom Palley complains, the JG would give income directly to the poor and they’d want food.

正如汤姆·帕利 (Tom Palley) 抱怨的那样，JG 将直接向穷人提供收入，而他们需要食物。

Neoliberals love unemployment—it keeps the “help” hungry and cheap.

新自由主义者喜欢失业——它让“帮助者”保持饥饿和廉价。

They are our inflation-fighting force to keep the comfortable classes comfortable.

他们是我们对抗通货膨胀的力量，让富裕阶层过上舒适的生活。

To sum up my response to Noah Smith.

总结一下我对诺亚·史密斯的回应。

Yes, MMT does have another tool to maintain price stability.

是的，MMT确实有另一个工具来维持价格稳定。

It is the JG approach to full employment.

这是 JG 实现充分就业的方法。

It has always been a core element of MMT.

它一直是 MMT 的核心要素。

We have never relied the simplistic version of Functional Finance that was presented by Mason.

我们从来没有依赖过梅森提出的功能财务的简单版本。

It would take about five minutes of actual research to demonstrate this.

需要大约五分钟的实际研究来证明这一点。

We do often refer favorably to several arguments of Lerner.

我们确实经常赞成勒纳的几个论点。

His “money is a creature of the state” provided a clear summary of Knapp’s approach (actually best explained in the 1913 and 1914 articles by A.

他的“金钱是国家的产物”清晰地总结了纳普的方法（实际上最好的解释是 A. 1913 年和 1914 年的文章）。

Mitchell Innes); this was always in MMT even from before the beginning as I had read Knapp in 1986 and put him in my 1990 book).

米切尔·英尼斯）；即使从一开始，这一点就一直存在于 MMT 中，因为我在 1986 年读过纳普，并将他放入我 1990 年的书中）。

Indeed we view that as the other side of the coin to the JG.

事实上，我们认为这是 JG 的另一面。

What we really like was Lerner’s application of Functional Finance to the budgeting process .

我们真正喜欢的是勒纳将功能财务学应用于预算流程。

The budget should be functional, not sound .

预算应该是实用的，而不是健全的。

That is, to achieve a functional purpose rather than to balance taxes and spending.

也就是说，是为了实现功能性目的，而不是为了平衡税收和支出。

I never liked the steering wheel metaphor see here —although it can be useful in arguing that it is crazy policy to just let the “market” economy swing from speculative excess to deep depression.

我从来不喜欢这里看到的方向盘比喻——尽管它可以用来论证让“市场”经济从投机过度转向深度萧条是疯狂的政策。

But economies are far too complex to “steer” like a car.

但经济过于复杂，无法像汽车一样“驾驶”。

We can attenuate the swings, but capitalist economies will still swing.

我们可以减弱波动，但资本主义经济仍将波动。

That’s the Minsky in MMT.

这就是 MMT 中的明斯基。

Stability is destabilizing.

稳定就是不稳定。

Our job is never done.

我们的工作永远不会完成。

Let me be fair to Josh.

让我公平地对待乔希。

When I presented my argument on the panel at EEA, Josh Mason graciously accepted it and said he’d look into the MMT position more deeply.

当我在欧洲经济区的小组上提出我的论点时，乔什·梅森慷慨地接受了它，并表示他会更深入地研究现代货币理论的立场。

It won’t take much digging.

不需要太多挖掘。

Turning to Brad’s challenge, some of the answers will now be obvious.

谈到布拉德的挑战，一些答案现在已经很明显了。

Do we accept the elements he lists as fundamental to MMT?

我们是否接受他列出的现代货币理论的基本要素？

Knapp : yes indeed.

纳普：确实是的。

He’s always been there.

他一直都在那里。

But as noted above, I’d refer readers to Innes instead—simpler, and he much more clearly links State Money to Credit Money.

但如上所述，我建议读者参考英尼斯——更简单，而且他更清楚地将国家货币与信贷货币联系起来。

(That shapes our response to another set of critics—who disingenuously claim we ignore private monies.

（这决定了我们对另一批批评者的反应——他们不诚实地声称我们忽视私人资金。

I’d wager there are very few economists who have written more about the private financial system than me—except my colleague Bill Black–but I’m not pursuing that here.)

我敢打赌，很少有经济学家比我写得更多关于私人金融体系的文章——除了我的同事比尔·布莱克——但我在这里不追求这一点。）

Lerner : dealt with above.

勒纳：上面已经处理过了。

What we reject is the aggregate demand approach to full employment and price (and financial) stability.

我们反对的是实现充分就业和价格（和金融）稳定的总需求方法。

As Minsky argued in the 1960s, pump-priming might get you to full employment but it will never produce sustainable full employment because it will generate financial and price instability.

正如明斯基在 20 世纪 60 年代所说，泵启动可能会让你实现充分就业，但它永远不会产生可持续的充分就业，因为它会导致金融和价格不稳定。

You have to use the JG.

你必须使用JG。

He was right then, and he’s right now.

他当时是对的，现在也是。

To be sure, the inflation constraint is far less binding now than it was in the late 1960s.

平心而论，现在通胀约束的约束力远不如 20 世纪 60 年代末那样。

Further, once we have the JG in place, its stabilizing features will allow us to operate with higher aggregate demand without fueling inflation.

此外，一旦我们建立了联合政府，其稳定功能将使我们能够在不加剧通胀的情况下以更高的总需求运作。

The base wage plus the pool of labor ready for hire out of the JG will stabilize wages and prices at higher aggregate demand; and the access to decent wages will reduce necessitous borrowing thereby reducing financial instability.

基本工资加上准备从联合政府中雇用的劳动力池将在总需求较高的情况下稳定工资和价格；获得体面工资将减少必要的借贷，从而减少金融不稳定。

Minsky .

明斯基。

Yep, he was there from the beginning.

是的，他从一开始就在那里。

In fact he was there before the beginning—I studied with him in the early 1980s and that is where I first came across the JG (he called it ELR) and the concept that taxes-drive-money.

事实上，他在开始之前就已经在那里了——我在 20 世纪 80 年代初和他一起学习，那是我第一次接触到 JG（他称之为 ELR）和税收驱动金钱的概念。

And then there’s our approach to financial instability.

然后是我们应对金融不稳定的方法。

He’s indispensable.

他是不可或缺的。

Vertical IS .

垂直IS。

Now that is a leap.

现在这是一个飞跃。

The ISLM framework is completely incoherent.

ISLM 框架完全不连贯。

It is not stock-flow consistent.

库存流量不一致。

Even its creator—John Hicks—said he could no longer make any sense of it.

就连它的创造者约翰·希克斯也表示他再也无法理解它了。

I think Paul Krugman and Tom Palley are the only economists who still use it.

我认为保罗·克鲁格曼和汤姆·帕利是唯一仍在使用它的经济学家。

I doubt Brad uses it, at least, hope not.

我怀疑布拉德会使用它，至少希望不会。

I have never used it.

我从来没有用过它。

I reject all mainstream models (an exasperated Wynne Godley came into my office a couple of decades ago and announced that every one he had looked at was incoherent).

我拒绝所有主流模型（几十年前，愤怒的温恩·戈德利走进我的办公室，宣布他看过的每一个模型都是语无伦次的）。

But I think all Brad means is that MMT rejects the notion that by changing interest rates the central bank can move the economy to full employment by stimulating interest-sensitive spending.

但我认为布拉德的意思是，现代货币理论拒绝接受这样一种观念，即央行可以通过改变利率来刺激利率敏感的支出，从而使经济实现充分就业。

And if that is what he means, I whole-heartedly agree.

如果这就是他的意思，我完全同意。

Unlike Krugman, MMT argues this impotence is not restricted to the “lower bound” of zero interest rates.

与克鲁格曼不同的是，现代货币理论认为这种无能为力并不局限于零利率的“下限”。

What MMT has always argued is that when the Fed lowers its rate target, we cannot say for sure whether the Fed is stepping on the gas or hitting the brakes.

现代货币理论一直认为，当美联储降低利率目标时，我们无法确定美联储是在加速还是在踩刹车。

It depends.

这取决于。

One factor that matters a lot is what is the ratio of government debt to nongovernment debt.

一个非常重要的因素是政府债务与非政府债务的比率。

If you are Japan (high government debt, low household debt), lowering rates almost certainly slows the economy (by sucking interest income out).

如果你是日本（政府债务高，家庭债务低），降低利率几乎肯定会减缓经济发展（通过吸走利息收入）。

I did a paper with my UMKC colleague Linwood Tauheed that showed that with low private debt, plausible spending propensities, and government debt above 60% of GDP it is possible that raising rates would stimulate the economy.

我与 UMKC 同事 Linwood Tauheed 合作发表了一篇论文，该论文表明，在私人债务较低、支出倾向合理且政府债务占 GDP 超过 60% 的情况下，加息可能会刺激经济。

[3]

[3]

Now, that does NOT describe today’s US economy—where nongovernment debt is something like 400% of GDP.

现在，这并不能描述当今的美国经济——非政府债务约占 GDP 的 400%。

I believe that “normal” changes of the Fed’s target rate (up or down) have very little impact on the US economy.

我认为美联储目标利率的“正常”变化（上调或下调）对美国经济影响很小。

However a huge Volcker-like hike does have a big effect—but not due to interest-sensitivity of spending.

然而，类似沃尔克式的大幅加息确实会产生很大的影响，但并不是因为支出对利率敏感。

It works through a present value reversal: the returns to holding real assets go negative.

它通过现值逆转来发挥作用：持有实物资产的回报变为负值。

No one will invest in new ones.

没有人会投资新的。

Debtors with floating rates go bankrupt.

浮动利率的债务人破产。

Financial institutions go massively insolvent.

金融机构大规模破产。

Volcker monetary policy “works” by causing a debt crisis.

沃尔克货币政策通过引发债务危机来“发挥作用”。

Otherwise, raising rates gradually in a boom (like the Fed did after 2004) doesn’t work; it does not reduce the demand and supply of loans, it just puts the debtors in a more precarious situation and shifts more income to the creditors.

否则，在繁荣时期逐步加息（就像美联储在 2004 年之后所做的那样）是行不通的；它不会减少贷款的需求和供给，只是使债务人处于更加不稳定的境地，并将更多的收入转移给债权人。

It is a dangerous policy.

这是一项危险的政策。

And no central bank official would admit they’d even consider such a policy.

没有哪个央行官员会承认他们会考虑这样的政策。

They prefer the myth that small adjustments to rates affect spending decisions.

他们更喜欢这样的神话：利率的小幅调整会影响支出决策。

A myth with no evidence behind it, but so widespread that no one seeks evidence.

这是一个没有任何证据支持的神话，但却如此广泛，以至于没有人寻求证据。

So, MMT has always recommended abandoning any attempt to fine-tune the economy through central bank interest rate policy.

因此，MMT一直建议放弃任何通过央行利率政策微调经济的尝试。

We prefer a permanently fixed rate.

我们更喜欢永久固定的利率。

Many MMTers prefer permanent ZIRP.

许多 MMT 爱好者更喜欢永久 ZIRP。

I’m a bit of a fence-sitter.

我有点骑墙派。

I’d like ZIRP but I’d also accept a policy of paying a higher rate on retirement savings—but that is easily handled through US savings bonds, with personal limits on accumulations receiving the favorable rates.

我想要零利率政策，但我也接受为退休储蓄支付更高利率的政策——但这很容易通过美国储蓄债券来处理，对获得优惠利率的积累有个人限制。

This rate should not be discretionary and should not be used as an inflation-fighting tool, rather as a supplement to Social Security until we can reform that system to provide a decent retirement for all.

这个利率不应该是任意的，也不应该被用作对抗通货膨胀的工具，而应该作为社会保障的补充，直到我们能够改革该制度，为所有人提供体面的退休生活。

For me it is the permanent fixing that really matters, and I like a low rate but do not insist on zero.

对我来说，真正重要的是永久固定利率，我喜欢低利率，但不坚持零利率。

So there you go, Brad, the ball’s in your court.

所以，布拉德，球在你的球场上。

We seem to be on the same page.

我们似乎意见一致。

And by the way, I like Brad’s recent call for all the neoliberal Democrats to step aside and let the progressives following MMT take over.

顺便说一句，我喜欢布拉德最近呼吁所有新自由主义民主党人下台，让现代货币理论之后的进步派接管。

See Bill Black’s analysis here

请参阅此处 Bill Black 的分析

[1] Blanchard announced he’s writing a piece( here ); McCulley’s supportive article is here , and he argues MMT provides a “robust architecture for a fiat currency world”; Fink called MMT “garbage”.

[1] 布兰查德宣布他正在写一篇文章（此处）；麦卡利的支持文章在这里，他认为现代货币理论为“法定货币世界提供了一个强大的架构”；芬克称现代货币理论为“垃圾”。

[2] Mitchell, W.F.

[2] 米切尔，W.F.

and Wray, L.

和雷，L.

R.

R。

2005 “In defense of employer of last resort: a response to Malcolm Sawyer” Journal of Economic Issues .

2005 年“为最后雇主辩护：对马尔科姆·索耶的回应”《经济问题杂志》。

[3] Wray, L.R.

[3] 雷，L.R.

and Linwood Tauheed) Chapter 3: “System dynamics of interest rate effects on aggregate demand”, pp.

和林伍德·陶希德 (Linwood Tauheed)）第 3 章：“利率对总需求影响的系统动力学”，第 173 页。

37 in edited volume (Wray with Mathew Forstater), Money, Financial Instability and Stabilization Policy , Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006.

37 编辑卷（Wray 与 Mathew Forstater），货币、金融不稳定和稳定政策，Edward Elgar Publishing，2006 年。