Tom Friedman Just Noticed that the UK “Has Gone Mad” (Part 2)

Orthodox ‘modern macro’ is based on ‘microfoundations’ that implicitly assume that firms profit-maximize, that there are no negative externalities, that there is no market power, and that there is no control fraud or predation.

正统的“现代宏观”基于“微观基础”，隐含地假设企业利润最大化，不存在负外部性，不存在市场力量，也不存在控制欺诈或掠夺。

In sum, they assume out of existence reality and particularly the parts of reality that produce the “endemic” global financial crises that Friedman admits his favored model produce.

总之，他们假设现实不存在，特别是现实中产生“地方性”全球金融危机的部分，弗里德曼承认他最喜欢的模型会产生这种危机。

(See Parts 2A and 2B of this MMT Series for a much more detailed discussion of microfoundations.)

（有关微观基础的更详细讨论，请参阅本 MMT 系列的第 2A 和 2B 部分。）

Friedman, of course, loved both Blair and Brown.

当然，弗里德曼既喜欢布莱尔又喜欢布朗。

In the same April 22, 2005 column, Friedman described Brown as Blair’s “deft finance minister.” (Perhaps he meant to write ‘daft.’) In 2005, the UK was racing toward the GFC.

在 2005 年 4 月 22 日的同一专栏中，弗里德曼将布朗描述为布莱尔的“灵活的财政部长”。 （也许他想写“daft”。）2005 年，英国正在奔向全球金融危机。

It nosed Wall Street at the wire to ‘win’ the regulatory ‘race to the bottom’ that produced the epidemics of control fraud and predation in the U.S. and the UK that hyper-inflated bubbles and drove the GFC.

它向华尔街发出了“赢得”监管“逐底竞争”的信号，这种竞争在美国和英国造成了控制欺诈和掠夺的流行，导致泡沫过度膨胀并推动了全球金融危机。

The UK economy was sick in 2005.

2005年，英国经济陷入困境。

It was systematically misallocating capital.

它正在系统性地错误配置资本。

It was driven not by real industrial productivity gains, but by accounting scams in the City of London.

它不是由实际工业生产率的提高推动的，而是由伦敦金融城的会计骗局推动的。

The ethics of the City of London had fallen to sewer levels.

伦敦金融城的道德已经沦落到下水道的地步。

Its biggest banks had been specializing in predating on their customers for two decades.

二十年来，其最大的银行一直专注于掠夺客户。

Its most prestigious bankers were driving the two largest price-rigging cartels (Libor and Forex) in world history.

其最负盛名的银行家正在推动世界历史上两个最大的价格操纵卡特尔（伦敦银行同业拆借利率（Libor）和外汇市场）。

Even the sleaziest U.S. bankers at the ‘vampire squid’ (Goldman Sachs) based their worst, most rapacious predators in the City of London.

即使是“吸血鬼乌贼”（高盛）中最卑鄙的美国银行家，也将他们最恶劣、最贪婪的掠夺者驻扎在伦敦金融城。

On any real economic basis, many of the UK’s largest banks were insolvent because of their terrible asset quality.

在任何实际经济基础上，英国许多最大的银行都因其糟糕的资产质量而资不抵债。

The UK was only two years before the first large bank crisis of the GFC – the run on Northern Rock.

英国距离全球金融危机的第一次大型银行危机——北岩银行挤兑仅过了两年。

Only a government bailout saved the bank from immediate failure.

只有政府的救助才使该银行免于立即倒闭。

Friedman, the triple Pulitzer Prize winner supposedly the world’s expert on ‘globalization’ was oblivious to reality.

三重普利策奖获得者弗里德曼被认为是世界“全球化”专家，但他却忽视了现实。

He believed the financial CEOs who wine and dine him and receive his unctuous praise.

他相信那些招待他并接受他油腔滑调赞扬的金融首席执行官。

Friedman’s 2005 column called the UK economy “strong” and “vibrant.” He attributed this to Blair and Brown embracing Friedman’s mantra – we all need to “to firmly embrace the free market and globalization.” The Brits think we are incapable of irony, and perhaps they are right about Friedman.

弗里德曼 2005 年的专栏称英国经济“强劲”且“充满活力”。他将此归因于布莱尔和布朗拥抱弗里德曼的口号——我们都需要“坚定地拥抱自由市场和全球化”。英国人认为我们不会讽刺，也许他们对弗里德曼的看法是对的。

To state the obvious, the City of London’s leaders despises ‘free markets.’ They love control fraud and predation and price-rigging cartels.

显而易见的是，伦敦金融城的领导人鄙视“自由市场”。他们喜欢控制欺诈、掠夺和操纵价格的卡特尔。

Their business model is control fraud and predation plus price-rigging cartels.

他们的商业模式是控制欺诈和掠夺加上操纵价格卡特尔。

They love tax evasion, money laundering, and sanction busting.

他们喜欢逃税、洗钱和破坏制裁。

Those are sanctions against terrorism, which Friedman purports to love.

这些是针对恐怖主义的制裁，弗里德曼声称喜欢这种制裁。

They run criminal enterprises.

他们经营犯罪企业。

They assist other criminal enterprises and wealthy criminals evade the tax laws.

他们协助其他犯罪企业和富有的罪犯逃避税法。

These financial control fraud and predation drove the fiction of the “vibrant” UK economy, which was actually a predatory and wealth-destroying economy.

这些金融控制欺诈和掠夺推动了“充满活力”的英国经济的虚构，而这实际上是一个掠夺性和破坏财富的经济。

When the City of London reports enormous profits, we know that they are making the world poorer and sleazier.

当伦敦金融城报告巨额利润时，我们知道它们正在让世界变得更加贫穷和肮脏。

The City of London’s leaders, like Wall Street’s leaders, are the most powerful generators of the ‘Gresham’s’ dynamic.

伦敦金融城的领导人与华尔街的领导人一样，是“格雷沙姆”动力最强大的推动者。

George Akerlof explained and named the dynamic in his famous 1970 article on markets for ‘lemons.’

乔治·阿克洛夫 (George Akerlof) 在 1970 年关于“柠檬”市场的著名文章中解释并命名了这种动态。

[D]ishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market.

[D]不诚实的交易往往会将诚实的交易逐出市场。

The cost of dishonesty, therefore, lies not only in the amount by which the purchaser is cheated; the cost also must include the loss incurred from driving legitimate business out of existence.

因此，不诚实的成本不仅在于购买者被欺骗的金额，还在于购买者被欺骗的金额。成本还必须包括因合法业务不复存在而造成的损失。

Control fraud and predation mean that markets are neither ‘free’ nor efficient.

控制欺诈和掠夺意味着市场既不“自由”也不高效。

Control fraud and predation cause market forces to become perverse.

控制欺诈和掠夺会导致市场力量变得反常。

When cheaters prosper, markets harm consumers and honest business people.

当作弊者猖獗时，市场就会损害消费者和诚实的商人。

Finance is particularly important in this regard, for it ‘disciplines’ CEOs to maximize reported returns.

财务在这方面尤其重要，因为它“约束”首席执行官以最大化报告的回报。

Control fraud and predation are the easiest and surest ways to maximize reported returns.

控制欺诈和掠夺是最大化报告回报的最简单、最可靠的方法。

This means that finance tends to send enormous amounts of capital to the worst actors and deny it to the best, intensifying the Gresham’s dynamic in the real economy.

这意味着金融往往会将大量资本输送给最差的参与者，而拒绝向最好的参与者提供资金，从而加剧了实体经济中的格雷沙姆动力。

(Financial executives also rake off enormous profits for themselves, further reducing efficiency and growth.) Globalization means that the harmful effects of the Gresham’s dynamic can now dominate industries globally.

（财务高管还为自己谋取巨额利润，进一步降低了效率和增长。）全球化意味着格雷沙姆动态的有害影响现在可以主导全球各行业。

Again, finance is the whip hand of globalization’s most perverse incentives.

金融再次成为全球化最不正当激励措施的鞭子。

There is no such thing as natural “free markets.” A vibrant rule of law that effectively constrains control fraud and predation is essential to well-functioning markets.

不存在天然的“自由市场”。有效限制控制欺诈和掠夺的充满活力的法治对于市场运转良好至关重要。

The ‘race to the bottom’ of regulation that the City of London (barely) ‘won’ over Wall Street eviscerated effective financial regulation in the two financial epicenters of globalization.

伦敦金融城（勉强）“赢得”了华尔街的监管“逐底竞赛”，削弱了全球化两个金融中心的有效金融监管。

This supercharged the Gresham’s dynamic, which produces endemic control fraud and predation.

这加剧了格雷沙姆的活力，从而产生了地方性的控制欺诈和掠夺。

Blair and Brown were the two UK leaders most culpable for destroying any effective rule of law in finance.

布莱尔和布朗是对破坏金融领域有效法治负有最大责任的两位英国领导人。

Effective financial regulation is essential to creating an effective rule of law, and an effective rule of law is essential to block the Gresham’s dynamic.

有效的金融监管对于建立有效的法治至关重要，而有效的法治对于阻止格雷沙姆的动力也至关重要。

When we regulate finance effectively we make possible, not harm, “free markets.” Markets without effective financial regulation are neither free nor efficient.

当我们有效监管金融时，我们就使“自由市场”成为可能，而不是损害。没有有效金融监管的市场既不自由也不高效。

Blair and Brown did not hide from Friedman their zest for destroying regulation, particularly financial regulation, and ‘winning’ the race to the bottom against Wall Street.

布莱尔和布朗并没有向弗里德曼隐瞒他们破坏监管（特别是金融监管）以及“赢得”与华尔街的逐底竞争的热情。

I have written two articles about this point.

关于这一点我写了两篇文章。

Blair delivered his most famous speech attacking regulation only one month after Friedman’s April 22, 2005 column praising Blair.

就在弗里德曼 2005 年 4 月 22 日发表专栏赞扬布莱尔的一个月后，布莱尔发表了他最著名的攻击法规的演讲。

Blair most famously made public his war on regulation and his embrace of “winning” the regulatory race to the bottom in his May 26, 2005 speech on “Risk and the State.”

布莱尔最著名的一次演讲是在 2005 年 5 月 26 日的“风险与国家”演讲中，公开了他对监管的战争以及他对“赢得”监管竞争的拥护。

Blair explicitly cited regulatory restraints on financial control fraud that the U.S. adopted after the Enron-era control fraud epidemic as the exemplar of the rules he was most dedicated to never adopting.

布莱尔明确引用了美国在安然时代控制欺诈流行后采取的对金融控制欺诈的监管限制，作为他最致力于从不采用的规则的典范。

Blair admitted that because of his ‘light touch’ regulatory policies “the UK is very lightly regulated by international standards.” That was not sufficient for Blair.

布莱尔承认，由于他的“宽松”监管政策，“英国受到国际标准的监管非常宽松”。这对布莱尔来说还不够。

To ‘win’ the race to the bottom against Wall Street, Blair was dedicated to making the UK the weakest major financial regulator.

为了“赢得”与华尔街的逐底竞争，布莱尔致力于让英国成为最弱的主要金融监管机构。

Blair bragged in his speech that he had ordered “light touch” regulation be the standard.

布莱尔在演讲中吹嘘说，他已下令“宽松”监管成为标准。

The new inspectorates will be actively charged with ensuring those doing well get a light touch approach….

新的检查机构将积极负责确保那些表现良好的人得到轻松的处理方式……。

At a time when UK financial regulation, in reality, was effectively non-existent, and UK financial control fraud and predation were epidemic, Blair claimed with all his faux sincerity that the City of London fraudsters and predators were the honest victims of rapacious regulators.

在英国金融监管实际上不存在、英国金融控制欺诈和掠夺行为盛行的时候，布莱尔用他所有的虚假诚意声称，伦敦金融城的欺诈者和掠夺者是贪婪的监管机构的诚实受害者。

But something is seriously awry when …

但当……的时候，事情就严重不对劲了。

the Financial Services Authority that was established to provide clear guidelines and rules for the financial services sector and to protect the consumer against the fraudulent, is seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies that have never defrauded anyone….”

金融服务管理局的成立是为了为金融服务业提供明确的指导方针和规则，并保护消费者免受欺诈，但它被认为极大地抑制了从未欺骗过任何人的完全受人尊敬的公司的高效业务......”

The UK satirical magazine Private Eye aptly labeled the FSA the “Fundamentally Supine Authority.” There was no major UK bank whose officers had “never defrauded anyone.” The FSA did not even slightly inconvenience, much less “hugely inhibit” any UK bank.

英国讽刺杂志《私家侦探》恰如其分地将英国金融服务管理局称为“根本上仰赖的权威”。英国没有一家大型银行的官员“从未欺骗过任何人”。英国金融服务管理局甚至没有造成一点不便，更不用说“严重抑制”任何一家英国银行了。

The UK Parliamentary inquiry commission reported on a related and analogous disaster caused by “light touch” approaches.

英国议会调查委员会报告了一起由“轻触”方法引起的相关且类似的灾难。

The corporate governance of large banks was characterised by the creation of Potemkin villages to give the appearance of effective control and oversight, without the reality.

大型银行的公司治理的特点是建立“波将金村”，以提供有效控制和监督的表象，但实际上并非如此。

Friedman, the master of unintentional self-parody, celebrated how Blair had increased spending on “law and order.” Yes, at the same time that Blair and Brown eviscerated ‘law and order’ for elite white-collar criminals, they increased spending on ‘law and order’ for blue-collar criminals.

弗里德曼是无意识自我模仿的大师，他赞扬布莱尔如何增加“法律和秩序”方面的支出。是的，布莱尔和布朗在取消针对精英白领犯罪分子的“法律与秩序”的同时，也增加了针对蓝领犯罪分子的“法律与秩序”的支出。

Friedman cheered that combination.

弗里德曼对这种组合表示赞赏。

Friedman, as late as 2017, was writing that the U.S. had a critical “need” to “enact sensible deregulation.” He had seen U.S. deregulation produce the fraud epidemics that drove the savings and loan debacle, the Enron-era frauds, and the GFC, UK deregulation produce the epidemics of control fraud and predation that caused the GFC, Icelandic deregulation produce the fraud epidemics that drove its financial crisis, and Irish deregulation produce the fraud epidemics that drove its financial catastrophe.

弗里德曼直到 2017 年才撰文称，美国迫切“需要”“实施合理的放松管制”。他亲眼目睹了美国的放松管制导致了欺诈盛行，导致了储蓄和贷款崩溃；安然时代的欺诈和全球金融危机；英国放松管制导致了控制欺诈和掠夺的盛行，导致了全球金融危机；冰岛放松管制导致了欺诈盛行，导致了金融危机；爱尔兰放松管制导致了欺诈盛行，导致了金融灾难。

This is another example of Friedman’s central madness – the belief that heads of state should allow horrific “trends” to continue and merely ameliorate the worst aspects of those trends.

这是弗里德曼核心疯狂的另一个例子——相信国家元首应该允许可怕的“趋势”继续下去，而只是改善这些趋势中最糟糕的方面。

Friedman, however, wants to exacerbate the disastrous trend by increasing deregulation even though existing regulation is woefully weak.

然而，弗里德曼希望通过加强放松管制来加剧这一灾难性趋势，尽管现有的监管非常薄弱。

Part 2: The MMT Macroeconomic Critique of Blair, Brown, Obama, and Friedman

第二部分：现代货币理论对布莱尔、布朗、奥巴马和弗里德曼的宏观经济批评

The GFC and austerity devastated UK and U.S. growth.

全球金融危机和紧缩政策摧毁了英国和美国的增长。

Austerity drove the “Leave” vote in favor of Brexit.

紧缩政策推动“脱欧”公投支持脱欧。

Friedman and his heroes Blair, the Clintons, and Obama, betrayed the working class that was once the core of the Labour Party and the Democratic Party by adopting austerity in response to the GFC.

弗里德曼和他的英雄布莱尔、克林顿夫妇和奥巴马背叛了曾经作为工党和民主党核心的工人阶级，采取了应对全球金融危机的紧缩政策。

Obama, who told the congressional New Democrats caucus that he was a New Democrat, initially supported stimulus, but he quickly abandoned it.

奥巴马向国会新民主党核心小组表示，他是新民主党人，他最初支持刺激计划，但很快就放弃了。

That stimulus program was too small, but relative to the EU and the UK, it still set the U.S. on a path of a far quicker recovery from the GFC.

该刺激计划规模太小，但相对于欧盟和英国，它仍然使美国走上了从全球金融危机中更快复苏的道路。

By early 2010, Obama was working with Republicans to slash the safety net and increase the severity of austerity (the Grand Betrayal that he called the Grand Bargain).

到 2010 年初，奥巴马正在与共和党合作削减安全网并加大紧缩力度（他称之为“大背叛”）。

Fortunately, Tea Party Republicans were pretending to worry about deficits and they killed the Grand Betrayal because it did not do enough to rend the safety net.

幸运的是，茶党共和党人假装担心赤字，他们扼杀了“大背叛”，因为它不足以撕裂安全网。

These policies were all ‘mad.’

这些政策都是“疯狂的”。

Due to Blair and Gordon Brown, his chosen successor, the Labour Party was an enthusiastic promoter of severe austerity even before the GFC began.

由于布莱尔和他选定的继任者戈登·布朗的缘故，工党甚至在全球金融危机开始之前就一直是严格紧缩政策的热情推动者。

Friedman, of course, proclaimed this a stellar virtue.

当然，弗里德曼宣称这是一项杰出的美德。

[Blair] has made liberalism about …

[布莱尔]使自由主义成为……

embracing fiscal discipline.

遵守财政纪律。

By “liberalism,” Friedman means the American usage.

弗里德曼所说的“自由主义”是指美国的用法。

The three critical questions are: what does he mean by “fiscal discipline,” why does he think it is great, and why does he think American liberals should “embrace” it?

三个关键问题是：他所说的“财政纪律”是什么意思，为什么他认为它很棒，以及为什么他认为美国自由派应该“拥抱”它？

Friedman does not even try to answer any of these questions.

弗里德曼甚至没有试图回答这些问题。

To him, it is self-evident that “fiscal discipline” is a virtue next to godliness.

对他来说，“财政纪律”是仅次于敬虔的美德，这是不言而喻的。

MMT, however, demonstrates that the budgetary balance of nations with sovereign currencies are not matters of ethics.

然而，现代货币理论表明，拥有主权货币的国家的预算平衡不是道德问题。

The contents of the budget have great moral content.

预算的内容具有很大的道德内涵。

Spending massive amounts of money to invade Iraq is a grotesquely immoral budgetary policy.

花费大量资金入侵伊拉克是一项极其不道德的预算政策。

Failing to spend money to fix acute societal problems is inefficient and immoral.

不花钱解决严重的社会问题是低效且不道德的。

Failing to provide adequate stimulus in response to a GFC is self-destructive and immoral.

未能提供足够的刺激措施来应对全球金融危机是自我毁灭和不道德的行为。

Adopting austerity in response to a GFC is beyond stupid, self-destructive, and immoral.

采取紧缩政策来应对全球金融危机是愚蠢、自我毁灭和不道德的行为。

Friedman was particularly impressed that Blair’s surpluses “helped the government pay down its national debt.” Orthodox economists tend to believe that running a surplus during an economic upturn is obviously desirable.

弗里德曼对布莱尔的盈余“帮助政府偿还国债”印象尤其深刻。正统经济学家倾向于认为，在经济好转期间保持盈余显然是可取的。

MMT teaches that this is frequently not the case.

现代货币理论告诉我们，事实往往并非如此。

Budget surpluses are leading predictors of serious U.S. recessions and depressions.

预算盈余是美国严重衰退和萧条的主要预测因素。

There is nothing inherently virtuous about running a budget surplus even during a period of robust economic growth.

即使在经济强劲增长时期，保持预算盈余也没有什么本质上的好处。

A budget surplus may be a desirable as a means of reducing inflationary pressures when there is a shortage of real resources.

当实际资源短缺时，预算盈余可能是减少通胀压力的理想手段。

MMT explains why nations like the U.S. and UK with sovereign currencies cannot run out of their own money.

现代货币理论解释了为什么像美国和英国这样拥有主权货币的国家不能耗尽自己的钱。

Such nations are not remotely equivalent to ‘households’ when it comes to budgets and deficits.

在预算和赤字方面，这些国家与“家庭”相差甚远。

Blair, Brown, Obama, and Friedman illustrate the ignorance of money and the terrible harm that ignorance can cause.

布莱尔、布朗、奥巴马和弗里德曼说明了人们对金钱的无知以及无知可能造成的可怕伤害。

There is dumb, and then there is Brown’s appointee,

有哑巴，然后是布朗任命的人，

Liam Byrne, chief secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown, left a note for his successor that proved to be a gift for the Conservatives

戈登·布朗 (Gordon Brown) 领导下的财政部首席秘书利亚姆·伯恩 (Liam Byrne) 给继任者留下了一张纸条，事实证明这是送给保守党的一份礼物

The Tories, of course, made copies of the note and waved them at campaign rallies.

当然，保守党复制了这张纸条并在竞选集会上挥舞它们。

The UK has a sovereign currency.

英国拥有主权货币。

It had an unlimited amount of its own ‘money.’ Real resources, not a sovereign currency, can suffer real shortages and those shortages can be important, e.g., by driving harmful levels of inflation.

它拥有无限量的自己的“货币”。真正的资源，而不是主权货币，可能会遭受真正的短缺，而这些短缺可能很重要，例如，会导致有害的通货膨胀水平。

In a Great Recession, it is vital that a government with a sovereign currency adopt fiscal stimulus.

在大衰退中，拥有主权货币的政府采取财政刺激措施至关重要。

Real resources are rarely so scarce in a Great Recession that there is any risk of fiscal stimulus causing harmful inflation.

在大衰退期间，真正的资源很少如此稀缺，以至于存在财政刺激导致有害通胀的风险。

Stimulus is a win-win-win-win in those circumstances.

在这种情况下，刺激措施是双赢的。

It reduces unemployment, increases growth, reduces the ultimate deficit, and reduces the risk of a deflation trap.

它减少失业率，促进增长，减少最终赤字，并降低通货紧缩陷阱的风险。

New Democrats, New Labour, and Friedman, however, all favor austerity and think national budget deficits are immoral.

然而，新民主党、新工党和弗里德曼都赞成紧缩政策，并认为国家预算赤字是不道德的。

Here are key excerpts from Byrne’s efforts to explain why he wrote the note.

以下是伯恩解释他写这张便条的原因的主要摘录。

As one would expect from someone that would write such a note, his explanation is incoherent, delusional, and intended to excuse his failures.

正如人们对写这样一张便条的人所期望的那样，他的解释是不连贯的、妄想的，并且是为了为他的失败找借口。

His leadership of Britain and the G20 at the London summit stopped the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggering a global depression – an incredible achievement we should never have stopped shouting about.

他在伦敦峰会上对英国和二十国集团的领导阻止了雷曼兄弟倒闭引发的全球萧条 — — 这是我们永远不应该停止欢呼的令人难以置信的成就。

But the recession slashed Treasury tax receipts by over £40bn, forcing us to borrow to keep public services on the go and get Britain back on its feet.

但经济衰退使财政部税收收入减少了超过 400 亿英镑，迫使我们借债来维持公共服务的运转，让英国重新站稳脚跟。

And because the deficit was big, the responsible thing to do was draw up a long-term plan to cut spending.

由于赤字很大，负责任的做法就是制定一项长期计划来削减开支。

In government, it was my job to craft a plan.

在政府，我的工作就是制定计划。

As chief secretary, I spent bruising months negotiating £32bn of annual savings to help halve the deficit in just four years and set out in huge detail in our 2010 budget.

作为首席秘书，我花了几个月的时间谈判每年节省 320 亿英镑，以帮助在短短四年内将赤字减半，并在我们的 2010 年预算中详细列出。

Of course, the Conservatives attacked us – though it was the timetable they eventually delivered.

当然，保守党攻击了我们——尽管这是他们最终交付的时间表。

Those negotiations were tough and bruising.

这些谈判是艰难而痛苦的。

And so in my final hours of office, I was writing thank-you notes to my incredible team of civil servants.

因此，在我任职的最后几个小时里，我给我那令人难以置信的公务员团队写了感谢信。

And then I thought I’d write one letter more to my successor.

然后我想我应该再给我的继任者写一封信。

Into my head came the phrase I’d used to negotiate all those massive savings with my colleagues: “I’m afraid there is no money.”

我的脑海中浮现出我与同事谈判节省巨额资金时常用的一句话：“恐怕没有钱了。”

Nearly every phrase of his excuse is false.

他的借口几乎每句话都是假的。

Brown did not prevent a global depression – he was an important cause of the GFC.

布朗并没有阻止全球萧条——他是全球金融危机的一个重要原因。

Lehman’s failure did not cause the UK crisis; UK bankers and anti-regulators caused it.

雷曼兄弟的倒闭并没有引发英国危机；这是英国银行家和反监管机构造成的。

A government with a sovereign currency does not have to ‘borrow.’ It, routinely, creates money through computer keystrokes.

拥有主权货币的政府不必“借钱”。它通常通过电脑按键创造货币。

No, it does not follow that because a deficit is ‘large’ the ‘responsible thing’ is to plan to ‘reduce spending.’ The responsible thing is to increase spending, which can greatly speed the recovery and support future productive spending.

不，这并不意味着因为赤字“大”，“负责任的事情”就是计划“减少支出”。负责任的事情是增加支出，这可以大大加速复苏并支持未来的生产性支出。

It is insane, in response to a Great Recession, to cut spending to “halve the deficit in just four years.” Byrne is describing a plan for brutal, self-destructive austerity.

为了应对大衰退，削减支出“在短短四年内将赤字减半”是疯狂的。伯恩正在描述一项残酷的、自我毁灭性的紧缩计划。

Labour’s austerity was sure to turn much of the UK into an economic anti-opportunity zone, sowing the seeds of Brexit.

工党的紧缩政策肯定会让英国大部分地区变成一个经济反机会区，播下英国脱欧的种子。

The fact that Byrne used the same economically illiterate phrase repeatedly with the UK Labour cabinet without a single minister telling him he was illiterate tells us how pervasive the rot was among New Labour’s leadership.

事实上，伯恩在英国工党内阁中反复使用同样的经济文盲短语，却没有一位部长告诉他他是文盲，这一事实告诉我们，新工党领导层中的腐败现象是多么普遍。

I have written previously on this same rot infesting New Democrats.

我之前曾写过关于新民主党同样腐败的文章。

In fairness, Byrne’s note was strikingly similar to one of the all-time stupid statements of another official – President Obama.

公平地说，伯恩的说明与另一位官员——奥巴马总统的历史上愚蠢的声明惊人地相似。

In a C-SPAN interview that caused conservatives to chortle, Obama channeled his inner-Byrne.

在一次引起保守派嘲笑的 C-SPAN 采访中，奥巴马表达了他内心的拜恩。

MMT is not simply an Ivory Tower theory.

现代货币理论不仅仅是象牙塔理论。

Finance professionals use it because it produces superior predictive results.

财务专业人士使用它是因为它可以产生出色的预测结果。

If politicians like Blair, Brown, and Obama had studied MMT, they would have avoided many of their worst economic blunders that brought us Brexit and Trump.

如果像布莱尔、布朗和奥巴马这样的政客研究过现代货币理论，他们就可以避免许多最严重的经济错误，这些错误给我们带来了英国脱欧和特朗普上台。