The Incoherence of a Serious Economist
Lawrence Summers, according to Lawrence Summers, is a “serious economist.” He has just written an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he seriously explains why Modern Money Theory—as proposed by “fringe economists,” as he calls them—is a recipe for disaster.
根据劳伦斯·萨默斯的说法，劳伦斯·萨默斯是一位“严肃的经济学家”。他刚刚在《华盛顿邮报》上写了一篇专栏文章，在其中他认真地解释了为什么现代货币理论——正如他所说的“边缘经济学家”提出的——是一场灾难。
I am going to leave it to the “fringe economists” to rebut Mr. Summers; (I’m confident that professors Wray, Kelton, Tcherneva, Tymoigne, and Fullwiler can take care of that job quite easily).
我将让“边缘经济学家”来反驳萨默斯先生。 （我相信 Wray、Kelton、Tcherneva、Tymoigne 和 Fullwiler 教授可以轻松完成这项工作）。
What I want to consider is something even more fundamental: How is it that someone who presents himself as a “serious economist” can get away with speaking incoherently while expecting us—the everyday citizens of America—to take what he is saying as true?
我想考虑的是更根本的问题：一个自称“严肃经济学家”的人怎么能在语无伦次的情况下逃脱惩罚，同时却期望我们——美国的普通公民——相信他所说的是真的？
Here is Summers’ first point about why MMT is a recipe for disaster: “Modern monetary theory…holds out the prospect that somehow by printing money, the government can finance its deficits at zero cost.
萨默斯关于为什么现代货币理论会引发灾难的第一点是：“现代货币理论……提出了这样一种前景：通过印钞，政府可以以零成本为其赤字融资。
In fact, in todays economy, the government pays interest on any new money it creates, which takes the form of its reserves held by banks at the Federal Reserve.
事实上，在当今的经济中，政府为其创造的任何新货币支付利息，这些新货币以美联储银行持有的准备金的形式存在。
Yes, there is outstanding currency in circulation, but because that can always be deposited in a bank, its quantity is not controlled by the government.
是的，流通中存在流通货币，但由于它总是可以存入银行，因此其数量不受政府控制。
Even money-financed deficits cause the government to incur debt.”
即使是货币融资的赤字也会导致政府负债。”
Yes, that’s very clear and logical, isn’t it?
是的，这非常清楚且合乎逻辑，不是吗？
The government “prints” money and then pays interest on it?
政府“印”钱然后支付利息？
The interest it pays become the “reserves” in the Federal Reserve system?
它支付的利息成为美联储系统的“准备金”？
And what exactly does that have to do with “outstanding currency in circulation”?
这和“流通中的货币”到底有什么关系呢？
And what is it exactly that happens when that “outstanding currency” gets deposited in a bank?
当“未偿还货币”存入银行时，到底会发生什么？
And if “money-financed” deficits cause the government to incur debt, maybe we should think about financing our deficits with something other than money?
如果“货币融资”赤字导致政府负债，也许我们应该考虑用货币以外的东西来融资我们的赤字？
These are all serious economic questions.
这些都是严重的经济问题。
Summers’ incoherent rambling reminds me of another case of incoherent ramblings reported, coincidentally, in the same edition of the Washington Post: Donald Trump’s CPAC speech as evaluated by columnist Eugene Robinson .
萨默斯语无伦次的胡言乱语让我想起《华盛顿邮报》同一版中巧合地报道的另一起语无伦次的胡言乱语：专栏作家尤金·罗宾逊评价唐纳德·特朗普的 CPAC 演讲。
Here are a few instances of Trump apparently giving his best impersonation of Lawrence Summers:
以下是特朗普明显模仿劳伦斯·萨默斯的几个例子：
“When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric.
“当风停止时，电力就结束了。
Let’s hurry up.
我们快点吧。
‘Darling—Darling, is the wind blowing today?
亲爱的——亲爱的，今天有风吗？
I’d like to watch television, Darling.’ No, but it’s true….
我想看电视，亲爱的。’不，但这是真的……。
Now Robert Mueller never received a vote, and neither did the person that appointed him.
现在罗伯特·穆勒从未获得过投票，任命他的人也没有获得投票。
And as you know, the attorney general says, ‘I’m going to recuse myself.
如你所知，司法部长说，‘我要回避。
I’m going to recuse.’ And I said, why the hell didn’t he tell me that before I put him in?
我要回避。’我说，为什么在我把他放进去之前他不告诉我呢？
How do you recuse yourself?”
你怎么回避？”
Lawrence Summers’ second point about the fallacy of MMT goes like this: “Contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default.
劳伦斯·萨默斯（Lawrence Summers）关于现代货币理论谬误的第二点是这样的：“与现代货币理论家的主张相反，政府不能简单地创造新货币来支付所有到期债务并避免违约。
As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation.
正如许多新兴市场的经验所表明的那样，超过某一点，这种做法就会导致恶性通货膨胀。
Indeed, in emerging markets that have practiced modern monetary theory, situations could arise where people could buy two drinks at bars at once to avoid the hourly price increases.
事实上，在实践现代货币理论的新兴市场中，可能会出现人们可以在酒吧一次购买两杯饮料以避免每小时价格上涨的情况。
As with any tax, there is a limit to the amount of revenue that can be raised via such an inflation tax.
与任何税收一样，通过此类通货膨胀税筹集的收入数额是有限的。
If this limit is exceeded, hyperinflation will result.”
如果超过这个限度，就会导致恶性通货膨胀。”
Really, that all must be true, because Summers is a serious economist.
确实，这一切一定是真的，因为萨默斯是一位严肃的经济学家。
Didn’t really know there were third world countries that have been practicing Modern Money Theory for a long time—but obviously it didn’t work out well for them.
我真的不知道第三世界国家长期以来一直在实践现代货币理论，但显然这对他们来说效果不佳。
And, clearly, you can’t tax people more than they possess, so that proves it: hyperinflation!
而且，显然，你不能向人们征收比他们拥有的更多的税，这证明了这一点：恶性通货膨胀！
Donald Trump had more to ramble about as well: “And they showed—they showed from the White House all the way down…There were people.
唐纳德·特朗普还有更多值得闲聊的地方：“他们展示了——他们展示了从白宫一路向下……有人。
Nobody has ever seen it.
没有人见过它。
The Capitol down to the Washington Monument—people.
从国会大厦到华盛顿纪念碑——人们。
But I saw pictures that there were no people.
但我看到照片上没有人。
Those pictures were taken hours before….
这些照片是几个小时前拍摄的……
They had to walk with high-heels, in many cases.
在很多情况下，他们不得不穿着高跟鞋走路。
They had to walk all the way down to the Washington Monument and then back.
他们必须一路步行到华盛顿纪念碑，然后再返回。
And I looked, and I made a speech, and I said, before I got on—I said to the people who were sitting next to me, ‘I’ve never seen anything like this.’”
我看了看，发表了演讲，在上车之前，我对坐在我旁边的人说，‘我从来没有见过这样的事情。’”
Lawrence Summers’ third denunciation of MMT is as follows: “Modern monetary theorists typically reason in terms of a closed economy.
劳伦斯·萨默斯对现代货币理论的第三次谴责如下：“现代货币理论家通常从封闭经济的角度进行推理。
But a policy of relying on central bank finance of government deficits, as suggested by modern monetary theorists, would likely result in a collapsing exchange rate.
但正如现代货币理论家所建议的那样，依靠央行为政府赤字融资的政策可能会导致汇率崩溃。
This would in turn lead to increased inflation, increased long-term interest rates (because of inflation), risk premiums, capital fleeing the country, and lower real wages as the exchange rate collapsed and the price of imports soared.”
这反过来会导致通货膨胀加剧、长期利率上升（由于通货膨胀）、风险溢价、资本外逃，以及随着汇率崩溃和进口价格飙升而导致实际工资下降。”
But of course!
但当然！
That’s all obvious, isn’t it?
这都是显而易见的，不是吗？
Mr. Summers is just pointing it out.
萨默斯先生只是指出这一点。
Exchange rates would collapse.
汇率将会崩溃。
It’s the most obvious thing any reader of his argument can easily grasp and understand—and that means “risk premiums” too (which clearly nobody wants).
这是他的论点的任何读者都可以轻松掌握和理解的最明显的事情，这也意味着“风险溢价”（显然没有人想要）。
At one point in his CPAC speech Donald Trump says this: “You know I’m totally off-script right now.
唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump) 在 CPAC 演讲中曾说过这样的话：“你知道我现在完全脱离了剧本。
And this is how I got elected, by being off-script.
这就是我通过脱稿当选的方式。
True.
确实如此。
And if we don’t go off-script, our country is in big trouble, folks.
如果我们不脱离剧本，我们的国家就会陷入大麻烦，伙计们。
Because we have to get it back.”
因为我们必须把它拿回来。”
What strikes me is that our country is, indeed, in big trouble—but it’s because the “script” that’s being read to us by our political leaders, commentators, and “serious economists” is nothing more than an incoherent babbling.
让我震惊的是，我们的国家确实陷入了大麻烦，但这是因为我们的政治领导人、评论员和“严肃的经济学家”向我们朗读的“剧本”只不过是语无伦次的胡言乱语。