Modern Monetary Theory is On the March

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) continues to advance rapidly.

现代货币理论（MMT）继续快速发展。

We are past the first phase of reaction (first they ignore you), deeply into the second phase (then they attack you), and expanding the ranks of the third phase (then you win).

我们已经过了第一阶段的反应（首先他们不理你），深入到第二阶段（然后他们攻击你），并扩大了第三阶段的队伍（然后你赢了）。

We are very early in the third phase, winning with increasing numbers of people, but still a minority view.

我们还处于第三阶段的早期阶段，赢得胜利的人越来越多，但仍然是少数人的观点。

One of the proofs of MMT’s advances is a nearly respectable treatment by the Wall Street Journal as the feature of a news article.

MMT 进步的证据之一是《华尔街日报》作为新闻文章的专题报道，给予了近乎尊敬的待遇。

The other major proof is the pathetic efforts of MMT critics quoted in the article to attack MMT.

另一个主要证据是文章中引用的现代货币理论批评者为攻击现代货币理论所做的可悲的努力。

The article, implicitly, admits that MMT scholars have repeatedly proved correct in their predictions that the existing and projected U.S. fiscal budget deficits would not trigger damaging shortages of real resources that will cause damaging levels of inflation.

这篇文章含蓄地承认，现代货币理论学者的预测一再被证明是正确的，即美国现有和预计的财政预算赤字不会引发破坏性的实际资源短缺，从而导致破坏性的通货膨胀。

The article, implicitly, admits that nations with fully sovereign currencies are vastly less vulnerable to economic injury from budget deficits.

这篇文章含蓄地承认，拥有完全主权货币的国家更不容易受到预算赤字造成的经济损害。

The article implicitly admits that MMT opponents’ predictions have failed and that reality has repeatedly falsified their archaic monetary theories that described nations living under the gold standard and therefore lacked a fully sovereign currency.

这篇文章含蓄地承认，现代货币理论反对者的预测失败了，现实一再证伪了他们古老的货币理论，这些理论描述了生活在金本位制下的国家，因此缺乏完全主权的货币。

In theory, high debt levels should cause interest rates to rise.

从理论上讲，高债务水平应该会导致利率上升。

That’s because investors will demand higher returns to compensate for the risk they take on when the government borrows at unsustainable levels or because they worry that so much debt could trigger inflation.

这是因为投资者会要求更高的回报，以补偿当政府借贷水平不可持续时他们所承担的风险，或者因为他们担心如此多的债务可能引发通货膨胀。

The need to finance such high levels of debt also makes less money available for other investments.

为如此高水平的债务融资的需要也使得可用于其他投资的资金减少。

In practice, investors are happy to keep lending to the U.S. in good times and bad, regardless of how much it borrows.

实际上，无论经济景气还是经济萧条，投资者都乐意继续向美国提供贷款，无论美国借了多少钱。

In 2009, for instance, when the Obama administration’s stimulus efforts sent federal deficits rising to almost 10% of GDP, the highest since World War II, the interest on 10-year Treasury securities remained below where it had been before the recession.

例如，2009年，当奥巴马政府的刺激措施导致联邦赤字上升至二战以来最高水平的GDP的近10%时，10年期国债的利息仍低于经济衰退前的水平。

Many Republicans warned the U.S. was pushing itself to the brink of a fiscal crisis and pressed Mr. Obama to rein in spending.

许多共和党人警告称，美国正将自己推向财政危机的边缘，并敦促奥巴马控制支出。

Economists debated how much debt a nation could hold before it crimped growth.

经济学家们争论一个国家在抑制增长之前可以持有多少债务。

In one paper, Harvard University economics professor Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, found that countries with debt loads greater than 90% of GDP tended to have slower growth rates.

哈佛大学经济学教授卡门·莱因哈特和国际货币基金组织前首席经济学家肯尼思·罗格夫在一篇论文中发现，债务负担超过 GDP 90% 的国家的增长率往往较慢。

Those three paragraphs demonstrate the falsification of archaic monetary theory.

这三段论证了古老货币理论的证伪。

First, in the most important policy predictions in the lifetime of virtually all living economists, the archaic theory failed every predictive test and led to policy proposals that were spectacularly harmful.

首先，在几乎所有在世经济学家一生中最重要的政策预测中，古老的理论未能通过每一项预测测试，并导致了极其有害的政策建议。

Second, and even more implicitly, MMT’s predictions proved correct and MMT scholars’ policy advice proved accurate and exceptionally helpful in reducing the severity and length of the Great Recession.

其次，更隐晦的是，现代货币理论的预测被证明是正确的，现代货币理论学者的政策建议被证明是准确的，并且对于减轻大衰退的严重程度和持续时间特别有帮助。

The article reports as if there were only one monetary theory – the archaic one.

这篇文章的报道似乎只有一种货币理论——古老的理论。

Third, the article does not explain that Reinhart and Rogoff’s ‘finding,’ as MMT scholars predicted and demonstrated was false.

第三，文章没有解释现代货币理论学者预测和证明的莱因哈特和罗格夫的“发现”是错误的。

The journalists should have given special kudos to graduate economic students at U.

记者们应该给予美国大学经济学研究生特别的荣誉。

Mass for demonstrating the falsity of what Reinhart and Rogoff “found.” Their data also showed, consistent with MMT and contrary to Reinhart and Rogoff, that nations with fully sovereign currencies showed far greater resilience.

弥撒以证明莱因哈特和罗格夫“发现”的虚假性。他们的数据还表明，与现代货币理论一致，但与莱因哈特和罗格夫相反，拥有完全主权货币的国家表现出更大的弹性。

Fourth, the first paragraph of the article quoted above inadvertently demonstrates the key weakness of archaic monetary theory substituting conclusory adjectives to ‘prove’ the point that their theory asserts.

第四，上述文章的第一段无意中表明了古老货币理论的主要弱点，即用结论性形容词来“证明”其理论主张的观点。

What are “high debt levels?” How much “higher” interest rates do government bond investors supposedly demand in response to “high debt levels?” (Note that the archaic model piles undefined adjective upon adjective to build their strawman arguments.) What supposedly represents “unsustainable levels” of government debt?

什么是“高债务水平”？为了应对“高债务水平”，政府债券投资者应该要求“高”多少利率？ （请注意，过时的模型将未定义的形容词堆放在形容词上，以建立稻草人的论点。）什么可以代表政府债务的“不可持续水平”？

Again, the one effort to convert these vague adjectives into a real standard produced Reinhart and Rogoff’s embarrassing fake fiscal cliff.

莱因哈特和罗格夫再次将这些模糊的形容词转化为真正的标准，结果造成了令人尴尬的虚假财政悬崖。

Fifth, the last sentence of the first paragraph quoted above wins the prize for piling on vague adjectival ipse dixits as a substitute for any evidence.

第五，上面引用的第一段的最后一句因堆砌模糊的形容词 ipse dixits 作为任何证据的替代而获奖。

The need to finance such high levels of debt also makes less money available for other investments.

为如此高水平的债务融资的需要也使得可用于其他投资的资金减少。

One, MMT shows that governments with fully sovereign currencies do not “need” to “finance” their debt.

第一，现代货币理论表明，拥有完全主权货币的政府并不“需要”为其债务“融资”。

Two, what does the phrase “such high levels of debt” mean?

第二，“如此高的债务水平”是什么意思？

Three, how much “less money” is “available.” Four, what “other investments” supposedly will lack “money?” MMT makes clear that a nation with a fully sovereign currency cannot lack “money” to undertake “investments.” MMT makes clear that real resource constraints can actually serve as constraints.

三、“可用”的“少钱”有多少。第四，哪些“其他投资”可能会缺乏“钱”？现代货币理论明确表示，一个拥有完全主权货币的国家不能缺少“钱”来进行“投资”。 MMT 明确指出，真正的资源约束实际上可以作为约束。

Scholars, and finance professionals, overwhelming agree with MMT on the issue of real constraints.

学者和金融专业人士在实际约束问题上绝大多数同意现代货币理论。

Five, the journalists did not inform their readers that MMT scholars correctly predicted that the fiscal stimulus program responding to the Great Recession would not “crowd out” access to finance.

第五，记者没有告知读者，现代货币理论学者正确预测应对大衰退的财政刺激计划不会“挤出”融资渠道。

The reality is that corporations are sitting on unprecedented amounts of cash and engaging in record stock “buybacks” – so the “crowding out” prediction of archaic monetary theorists was, again, falsified.

现实情况是，企业坐拥空前数量的现金，并进行创纪录的股票“回购”——因此，古老货币理论家的“挤出”预测再次被证伪。

The journalists then create two false contrasts – status and ideology.

然后，记者们制造了两个错误的对比——地位和意识形态。

They note that “prominent” economists agree that MMT scholars’ predictions proved correct.

他们指出，“杰出”经济学家一致认为，现代货币理论学者的预测被证明是正确的。

Now, some prominent economists say U.S. deficits don’t matter so much after all, and it might not hurt to expand them in return for beneficial programs such as an infrastructure project.

现在，一些著名经济学家表示，美国的赤字毕竟不那么重要，扩大赤字以换取基础设施项目等有益项目可能不会有什么坏处。

“The levels of debt we have in the U.S. are not catastrophic,” said Olivier Blanchard, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

彼得森国际经济研究所经济学家奥利维尔·布兰查德表示：“美国的债务水平并不是灾难性的。”

The journalists implicitly contrast Blanchard with Stephanie Kelton.

记者们含蓄地将布兰查德与斯蒂芬妮·凯尔顿进行了对比。

Some left-wing economists go even further by arguing for a new way of thinking about fiscal policy, known as Modern Monetary Theory.

一些左翼经济学家甚至更进一步，主张采用一种新的财政政策思维方式，即现代货币理论。

Note that MMT scholars are not “prominent,” even if like Kelton they have held high positions of authority and even if like Kelton, Randy Wray, Mat Forstater, and Scott Fullwiler they have predictive records, demonstrated for two decades; that are the envy of the most “prominent” economists in the world.

请注意，MMT 学者并不是“杰出的”，即使他们像凯尔顿一样拥有很高的权威职位，即使他们像凯尔顿、兰迪·雷、马特·福斯塔特和斯科特·福尔维勒一样拥有预测记录，并已证明了二十年；这是世界上最“杰出”的经济学家所羡慕的。

It is no insult to Blanchard to point out that each of the four MMT scholars that did key work at UMKC got the most important macroeconomic issues of our lives correct, while the IMF leadership largely got those issues wrong.

布兰查德指出，在 UMKC 从事关键工作的四位 MMT 学者中的每一位都正确地理解了我们生活中最重要的宏观经济问题，而国际货币基金组织领导层在这些问题上基本上都是错误的，这并不是对布兰查德的侮辱。

Note that Blanchard is at the Peterson Institute.

请注意，布兰查德在彼得森研究所。

Pete Peterson is a Wall Street plutocrat who created an institute to push his ultra-right wing deficit hysteria and odes to austerity in order to push for the privatization of Social Security – Wall Street’s greatest dream.

皮特·彼得森是一位华尔街富豪，他创建了一个机构来推动他的极右翼赤字歇斯底里和对紧缩的颂歌，以推动社会保障的私有化——华尔街最伟大的梦想。

Blanchard’s macroeconomic conversion based on reality falsifying Peterson’s worship of austerity speaks well of Blanchard.

布兰查德基于现实的宏观经济转型歪曲了彼得森对紧缩政策的崇拜，这充分说明了布兰查德的观点。

The journalists treat Blanchard as free of any ideology, while defining Kelton as exemplifying “left-wing economists.” Ideology does not define MMT or the scholars who identify with MMT.

记者们认为布兰查德没有任何意识形态，同时将凯尔顿定义为“左翼经济学家”的典范。意识形态并不能定义现代货币理论或认同现代货币理论的学者。

MMT began as an accurate description of how fully sovereign, partially sovereign, and non-sovereign currencies actually operate and the implications of those differences for proper policy.

现代货币理论一开始是对完全主权、部分主权和非主权货币的实际运作方式以及这些差异对适当政策的影响的准确描述。

MMT does not answer whether we should fund particular government projects – it addresses the capacity and results of funding such projects.

现代货币理论并没有回答我们是否应该资助特定的政府项目——它解决的是资助此类项目的能力和结果。

These are common, but unworthy journalistic tactics.

这些都是常见但毫无价值的新闻策略。

Here is the journalists’ response to Kelton’s explanation of MMT.

以下是记者对凯尔顿对现代货币理论解释的回应。

The response grudgingly admits that MMT scholars’ predictions about the most important macroeconomic issue of all living economists’ lives proved correct.

回应勉强承认，现代货币理论学者对所有在世经济学家生活中最重要的宏观经济问题的预测被证明是正确的。

So far the runup in government debt has not led to steep price increases.

到目前为止，政府债务的增加并未导致价格急剧上涨。

Inflation has stayed at or below the Federal Reserve’s target for most of the past quarter century.

在过去四分之一个世纪的大部分时间里，通货膨胀率一直保持在或低于美联储的目标。

Yes, “so far” (over a decade), but hyper-inflation might be right around the corner!

是的，“到目前为止”（十多年），但恶性通货膨胀可能即将来临！

Of course, interest rates on U.S. debt and inflation are both low and the Fed has been consistently unable to meet its (very low) inflation target goal because inflation and interest rates have been exceptionally low for over a decade despite increased federal debt.

当然，美国债务利率和通货膨胀率都很低，美联储一直无法实现其（非常低的）通货膨胀目标，因为尽管联邦债务增加，但通货膨胀和利率十多年来一直处于异常低的水平。

Notice that the journalists revert to misleading adjectives – “the runup in government debt has not led to steep price increases.” It has not led to any meaningful “price increases.” Indeed, inflation, for a decade after stimulus, remains so miniscule that the Fed views the inflation rate as too low – not too high.

请注意，记者们又重新使用了误导性的形容词——“政府债务的增加并没有导致价格急剧上涨。”它并没有导致任何有意义的“价格上涨”。事实上，在实施刺激措施后的十年里，通胀率仍然如此之低，以至于美联储认为通胀率太低——而不是太高。

The Fed, despite aggressive monetary policies designed to increase inflation to the Fed’s target rates, has consistently failed to do so.

尽管美联储采取了激进的货币政策，旨在将通胀率提高到美联储的目标利率，但始终未能做到这一点。

The best part of the article, however, was its implicit demonstration that MMT’s severest critics have nothing.

然而，这篇文章最精彩的部分是它隐含地表明，现代货币理论最严厉的批评者毫无根据。

Ad hominem attacks demonstrate that economists follow lawyers’ guidance – when the facts are strongly in my favor I pound the facts, when the law is strongly in my favor I pound the law, and when the facts and law are against me, I pound the table.

人身攻击表明经济学家遵循律师的指导——当事实强烈对我有利时，我敲打事实；当法律强烈对我有利时，我敲打法律；当事实和法律对我不利时，我敲桌子。

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley, says the MMT view “is just silly” and could lead to unwanted or unexpected inflation.

加州大学伯克利分校经济学家艾伦·奥尔巴赫 (Alan Auerbach) 表示，现代货币理论的观点“非常愚蠢”，可能会导致不必要或意外的通货膨胀。

Here is the great thing about attacking scholars’ theories that are “just silly” – it is simple to point out the theoretical and recurrent predictive failures that a “silly” theory inevitably produces.

攻击学者的“愚蠢”理论的伟大之处在于——很容易指出“愚蠢”理论不可避免地产生的理论和反复出现的预测失败。

Auerbach had his chance, but he pounded the table because he has nothing.

奥尔巴赫有机会，但他拍桌子，因为他一无所有。

The truth is that Auerbach has never read the MMT scholarly literature.

事实上，奥尔巴赫从未读过现代货币理论的学术文献。

We know this because Auerbach, like Blanchard, has moved increasingly into greater agreement with MMT’s precepts and policies .

我们知道这一点是因为奥尔巴赫和布兰查德一样，越来越认同现代货币理论的原则和政策。

Auerbach’s attacks on MMT are purely ad hominem because they are based on a strawman view of MMT of his own creation not informed by reading the scholarly MMT literature.

奥尔巴赫对现代货币理论的攻击纯粹是人身攻击，因为这些攻击是基于他自己创造的对现代货币理论的稻草人观点，而不是通过阅读学术现代货币理论文献获得的。

Next, the WSJ article went to the laziest critique – one that ignores MMT precepts to attack MMT.

接下来，《华尔街日报》的文章进行了最懒惰的批评——无视现代货币理论的戒律来攻击现代货币理论。

Meantime, Greece and Italy are two recent examples of countries that appear to have hit thresholds where high debt loads lead to higher interest rates and economic pain.

与此同时，希腊和意大利是最近两个似乎已经达到高债务负担导致利率上升和经济痛苦的国家的例子。

The U.S. may have such a threshold too, just not yet seen.

美国可能也有这样的门槛，只是还没有看到。

Greece and Italy do not have sovereign currencies.

希腊和意大利没有主权货币。

MMT scholars, particularly Kelton, predicted that the creation of the euro would cause great harm to European nations with weaker economies such as Greece and Italy.

MMT学者，特别是凯尔顿，预测欧元的创建将对希腊和意大利等经济较弱的欧洲国家造成巨大伤害。

Japan, which has had debt levels nearly three times recent U.S. debt ratios, cannot produce even modest inflation despite stringent efforts.

日本的债务水平几乎是美国近期债务比率的三倍，尽管采取了严格的措施，但仍无法产生温和的通胀。

The WSJ reduces itself to the equivalent of warning that there “may” be dragons beyond some point on the map!

《华尔街日报》将自己简化为相当于警告：地图上某个点之外“可能”有龙！

The journalists end with a ‘parade of horribles.’ If the dragons were they real, they would falsify ‘modern macro’ rather than MMT.

记者们以“恐怖游行”结束。如果龙是真实的，他们会伪造“现代宏观”而不是现代货币理论。

By continuing to run large deficits, says Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the U.S. is slowing wage growth by crowding out private investment, increasing the amount of the budget dedicated to financing the past and putting the country at a small but increased risk of a future fiscal crisis.

负责任的联邦预算委员会高级副总裁马克·戈德温表示，美国继续保持巨额赤字，排挤私人投资，增加专门用于过去融资的预算，从而减缓工资增长，并使美国面临未来财政危机的风险虽小但有所增加。

Market interest rate signals can be misleading and dangerous.

市场利率信号可能具有误导性且危险。

By blessing the U.S. with such low rates now, he says, financial markets just might be “giving us the rope with which to hang ourselves.”

他说，通过现在如此低的利率来祝福美国，金融市场可能只是“给了我们一根用来吊死自己的绳索”。

Goldwein has no known relevant scholarly record.

戈德温没有已知的相关学术记录。

He is a minor Pete Peterson operative.

他是皮特·彼得森的一名小特工。

His “crowding out” assertion is bunk in general and his compounding assertion that it explains weak wage growth compounds its baseless nature.

他的“排挤”主张总体上是无稽之谈，而他的复合断言“这可以解释工资增长疲软”的说法则加剧了其毫无根据的性质。

Nothing has crowded out private investment.

没有什么能够排挤私人投资。

Despite record low interest rates for over a decade, deliberate management choices not to invest in new plant and equipment and R&D and instead to do unprecedented levels of stock buybacks designed to raise the value of corporate CEOs’ shares have limited private investment.

尽管十多年来利率处于创纪录的低位，但管理层故意选择不投资新工厂、设备和研发，而是进行前所未有的股票回购，旨在提高企业首席执行官的股票价值，这限制了私人投资。

Goldwein does not even attempt to support his assertions with data or logic.

戈德温甚至没有试图用数据或逻辑来支持他的主张。

Instead, the facts force Goldwein into a startling charge that falsifies all of his neoclassical economic nostrums, not simply his Pete Peterson debt hysteria.

相反，事实迫使戈德温提出了一项令人震惊的指控，该指控歪曲了他所有的新古典主义经济秘方，而不仅仅是他的皮特·彼得森债务歇斯底里。

Neoclassical economics and finance predicts that creditors’ anticipation of future inflation largely drive present longer-term interest rates.

新古典经济学和金融学预测，债权人对未来通胀的预期很大程度上推动了当前的长期利率。

This is essential for modern macro’s bedrock rational expectations theory.

这对于现代宏观理性预期理论的基础至关重要。

In his desperate effort to resurrect the validity of his debt hysteria in the face of supposedly catastrophic debt levels producing exceptionally low long-term interest rates, Goldwein tosses neoclassical economics’ most sacred cows (efficient markets and rational expectations) into the trash by pronouncing that “market interest rate signals can be misleading and dangerous.”

面对所谓的灾难性债务水平导致极低的长期利率，戈德温不顾一切地努力恢复其债务歇斯底里的有效性，他宣称“市场利率信号可能具有误导性和危险性”，从而将新古典经济学最神圣的东西（有效市场和理性预期）扔进了垃圾桶。

Put aside for the moment the hypocrisy of the fact that debt hawks have proclaimed for decades that nearly every small increase in interest rates is a clarion signal that the markets believe that government debt has reached such high levels that severe inflation is imminent.

债务鹰派几十年来一直宣称，几乎每一次利率小幅上涨都是一个响亮的信号，表明市场认为政府债务已经达到如此高的水平，严重的通货膨胀即将来临，暂时搁置这一事实的虚伪不谈。

In every modern case, reality has falsified these myths.

在每一个现代案例中，现实都证伪了这些神话。

My colleagues and I have been making the point for decades that “market interest rate signals can be misleading and dangerous.” Interest rates for extremely risky and fraudulent loans are, prior to financial crises, frequently glaringly too low.

几十年来，我和我的同事一直强调“市场利率信号可能具有误导性和危险性”。在金融危机之前，高风险和欺诈性贷款的利率往往明显过低。

First, the overall level of interest rates for lending becomes too low when an asset-pricing crisis is growing.

首先，当资产定价危机加剧时，总体贷款利率水平变得过低。

Second, the risk ‘spread’ between highly risky and low risk assets typically falls to ludicrously low levels as an asset-pricing crisis nears the “Minsky moment.” The problem is not the capital markets’ inability to take into appropriate account future inflation, but the fact that markets encourage asset-pricing bubbles that render “interest rate signals …

其次，随着资产定价危机接近“明斯基时刻”，高风险资产和低风险资产之间的风险“扩散”通常会降至低得离谱。问题不在于资本市场无法适当考虑未来的通胀，而在于市场鼓励资产定价泡沫，从而产生“利率信号……”。

misleading and dangerous.” Markets are frequently grotesquely inefficient and rational expectations theory is irrational.

具有误导性和危险性。”市场常常极其低效，理性预期理论也是不合理的。

It would be wonderful if Pete Peterson’s operatives joined us in fighting neoclassical fictions that Peterson has long spread.

如果皮特·彼得森的特工们能和我们一起对抗彼得森长期以来传播的新古典主义小说，那就太好了。

It would be wonderful if Pete Peterson’s operatives joined us in fighting epidemics of “control fraud and predation” and warning against the bubbles that those pathologies hyper-inflate.

如果皮特·彼得森的工作人员与我们一起对抗“控制欺诈和掠夺”的流行病，并警告这些病态过度膨胀的泡沫，那就太好了。

It is these fraud epidemics that hyper-inflate bubbles that are the Achilles’ “heel” of capital markets, core neoclassical theories, and financial crises.

正是这些欺诈盛行导致了泡沫的过度膨胀，而泡沫是资本市场、新古典主义核心理论和金融危机的致命弱点。

The firms that finance the fraud-inflated asset bubbles fit the metaphor about giving the private sector the “rope” with which they will hang the economy.

为欺诈膨胀的资产泡沫提供资金的公司符合为私营部门提供悬挂经济的“绳索”的比喻。

Capital markets have not displayed recurrent critical failures in modern times about anticipated inflation.

现代资本市场并未在预期通胀方面反复出现严重失误。

The opposite is true.

事实恰恰相反。

One of the best predictors of serious recessions are inverted yield curves .

严重衰退的最佳预测因素之一是收益率曲线倒挂。

Yield curves invert overwhelmingly based on future expectations of overall interest rate movements, rather than asset-specific credit risks.

收益率曲线的反转绝大多数是基于对整体利率变动的未来预期，而不是特定资产的信用风险。