Bernie Sanders’ 2016 Advisor On Trump’s Economy And Modern Monetary Theory

Bernie Sanders’ 2016 Advisor On Trump’s Economy And Modern Monetary Theory


The only potential risk with the
national debt increasing over time is inflation and to the extent that you
don’t believe the US has a long term inflation problem you shouldn’t believe
that the US is facing a long term debt problem. So I’m not looking for a recession. I don’t think there are very strong indicators that a recession is imminent. I think that the U.S. economy continues to chug along the way
that it has now for about 10 years. Growth is fairly modest but maybe
it will pick up a bit in 2019. So the U.S. economy has shown itself to be
extraordinarily resilient and I don’t see reasons to be concerned that in
the next year or two things are likely to turn around. When it comes to headwinds
of course anything could happen. Maybe the Fed moves too quickly. If
suddenly the Fed decides that it wants to get more aggressive than
it has previously indicated that it’s looking to get with respect
to interest rates that could certainly pose a potential risk. You know, the Fed has indicated that it is about
at the end of its rate hiking cycle and you know if there were to
be a couple of quarters let’s say in 2019 that came in really strong
and they began to worry about an acceleration in wages or something like that
that led them to jump on another rate hike or two, then
I think things could potentially get very different. I mean unexpected events can always
surprise. Maybe even with emerging markets. You know the global slowdown is
a real thing it’s just that for right now the U.S. continues to look pretty strong to me. So when I look at the Republican
tax plan. Is it really a significant stimulus or is it not? So that’s sort of the question. Right?
In terms of the raw numbers, it looks like a significant stimulus. I think the latest estimates are
that the Republican tax cuts will add something like 1.9 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years. But of course for the word stimulus
to have much meaning the tax cuts have to actually produce broader economic
activity. They have to do something to jolt the economy. They have to lead to higher
spending more sales, more hiring, more investment. That’s what stimulus
is supposed to be. So because of the way the
tax cuts were structured, they disproportionately benefit the folks at the
very top of the income distribution who probably don’t have
a very high propensity to spend. The Republican tax cuts they don’t
seem to be doing a lot to jolt the economy. So they helped growth has picked up a bit. But I don’t think that I would call
them a giant stimulus in spite of the price tag. New questions about the sugar high
we have seen from corporate tax cuts. We may be seeing a kind of sugar high. I think you get a sugar high from a tax cut. The sugar high thing is a little puzzling
to me because this was not a one off. This was not a one year tax cut event. This is something that’s been phased
in and will continue to be phased in. And so we’ve got many years ahead
where we’re going to be feeling the effects of the Republican tax cuts. I mean people are beginning to file
taxes now for the first time under the new tax laws right. So some people I think are
going to turn out very pleasantly surprised. Other people are gonna be
very surprised in a negative way. Especially some middle income higher
middle income folks in blue states are already discovering that they’re
paying more, in some cases, much more than they were paying last year. So on balance we’re going to have to wait and see. And this is going to be I think a pretty good test year to see how the Republican tax cuts actually affect
the broad swath of Americans. So I don’t think it’s a sugar high. I’m waiting to see how it all nets
out after the end of this year and there’s a potential boost
in the years ahead. An unconventional economic theory is
gaining some traction thanks to the policy teams of Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. I think the first thing that we need
to do is break the mistaken idea that taxes pay for 100% of government expenditure. My critics say you know
Bernie that’s a great idea. You’re into all this free stuff. How you’re gonna pay for it? So MMT starts with a simple observation and that is that the U.S. dollar is a simple public monopoly. In other words, the United States
currency comes from the United States government. It can’t come from anywhere else. So what that means is that the
federal government is nothing like a household. In order for households or
private businesses to be able to spend they’ve got to come
up with the money right. And the federal government it can
never run out of money. It cannot face a solvency problem
bills coming due that it can’t afford to pay. It never has to worry about finding the
money in order to be able to spend. So the deficit definitely matters. So it’s just that it matters in
ways that we’re not normally taught to understand. Normally, I think people tend to
hear deficit and think it’s something that we should strive to eliminate.
That we shouldn’t be running budget deficits. That they’re
evidence of fiscal irresponsibility. And the truth is the deficit can be too big. Evidence of a deficit that’s too
big would be inflation but the deficit can also be too small. It can be too small to support demand in the economy. And evidence of a deficit that
is too small is unemployment. So if you think of the government deficit as the difference between what the government spends into the
economy and what it taxes back out. Then, imagine a government that
spends one hundred dollars into the U.S. economy but it only taxes 90
of those dollars back out. We label that a government deficit
and we record that on the government’s books. But what we forget to do is
pay attention to the fact that there’s now $10 somewhere in the
economy that wouldn’t have been there otherwise that is put
there by the government’s deficit. In other words, their
deficits become our surpluses. And so when we talk about red
ink and the government having all of this red ink, we have to remind
ourselves that their red ink becomes our black ink and their
deficits are our surpluses. And the question is then
should you expand fiscal policy? Should you run bigger budget deficits
in order to boost growth? So what is the objective? What is the proper policy goal? And I think the the right policy
goal is to maintain a balanced economy where you’re at full
employment, your guarding against an acceleration in inflation risk. And economists tend to understand that
the kinds of things that you can do to boost longer term
growth are investments in things like education, infrastructure, R&D. Those are the sorts of things
that tend to accelerate productivity growth so that longer term real
GDP growth can be higher. So there are ways in which
the government can make investments today, that increase deficits today, that
produce higher growth tomorrow and build in the extra capacity
to absorb those higher deficits. So it’s impossible really to put a number. Nobody can. How much debt is too much debt? If you look at Japan today, you see
a country where the debt to GDP ratio is something like 240%.
well above, orders of magnitude above, where the U.S. is today or even where the U.S. is forecast to be in the future. And so the question is how is Japan
able to sustain a debt of that size? Wouldn’t it have
an inflation problem? Wouldn’t it lead to
rising interest rates? Wouldn’t this be destructive
in some way? And the answer to all of those questions as Japan has demonstrated now for years is simply no. Japan’s debt is close to 240% of GDP almost a quadrillion. That’s a very big number. Yen. long term interest rates
are very close to zero. There’s no inflation problem. And so despite the size of
the debt, there are no negative consequences as a result and I
think Japan teaches us a really important lesson. If you think about what happened after
World War II. When the US national debt went in excess of 100% close to 125% of GDP. If we were talking about it the
way we talk about it today. As burdening future generations. As posing
a grave national security risk, we would have to scratch our
heads and say “wait a minute.” Do we think that our grandparents
burdened the next generation with all of those bonds that were sold during
World War II? To win the war, build the strongest middle class,
produced the longest period of peacetime prosperity, the golden
age of capitalism. All of that followed in the wake
of fighting World War II, increasing deficits, massively increasing the size of
the national debt and of course the next generation
inherits those bonds. They don’t become burdens to the
next generation, they become their assets. The only potential risk
with the national debt increasing over time is inflation and to the
extent that you don’t believe the U.S. has a long term inflation
problem you shouldn’t believe that the US is facing a long term debt problem. So the best defense against
inflation is a good offense. And what MMT does is to try to be I think kind of hypersensitive to the risks of inflation. I don’t see any other macro
school of thought pay as careful attention as we do to the inflation risk question. And so what we would say is look
“if you are Congress and if you are considering a new spending bill.” Instead
of thinking about the ways in which that new spending will add to
the deficit or add to the debt, you should be thinking about the ways
in which that new spending has the risk of accelerating inflation
and then avoid doing that. So instead of going to the
Congressional Budget Office and saying “we’d like to know what this bill will
do to the debt and the deficit over time?” Instead go to the
Congressional Budget Office or other government agencies and say we’re
considering passing this trillion dollar investment in infrastructure. This is our bill would you look at
it and we plan to do this spending over the course of the next five years. Tell us if that would create
problems in the real economy. Evaluate the inflation risk and come back
to us and give us some feedback. That’s the kind of responsible
budgeting that I think that I would like to see Congress begin to move towards. So the question about “what to do
if inflation becomes a problem?” is a different one. And I think the first thing you have
to do is say what is driving the inflation. Because to think that the inflation
that is going to become important at some future date is likely to be the result of too much aggregate spending is really hard to believe. I mean the U.S. economy hasn’t experienced what we
might call demand pull inflation for almost a century. The types of inflation that have been
important in the US have almost always come on the cost side. What we call “cost push inflation.”
They come about because of things like oil price shocks. You might
see increases in headline inflation rates because the housing
component or health care. And so when you think about how
to fight inflation if you’ve got inflation resulting from energy price
increases it’s probably not going to do much to have the Fed
raise interest rates or even to have Congress raise taxes. You’ve got to do something else that’s going to work. So I reject the idea that MMT
is about using taxes to fight inflation. That’s a mischaracterization
of pretty much everything we’ve written. But people say it all the time. Hillary Clinton called you the king of debt. Well, no she didn’t call me. I
call myself the King of debt. I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. You know after initially worrying about
the national debt. We got 18 trillion in debt. We
got nothing but problems. As a candidate, he talked about
the need to possibly negotiate. You’ve also renegotiated debt agreements over the years. Do you believe that we in terms of the United States
need to pay 100 cents on the dollar or do you think there’s
actually ways that we could renegotiate that debt? Yeah, I think- look I’ve- I’ve
borrowed knowing that you can pay back with discounts. Now we’re in a different situation with the country. But I would borrow knowing that if
the economy crashed, you could make a deal. And there was a lot of backlash against those comments. And I think he had a
really important conversation with someone and then he changed his narrative and he came
out and he said let me tell you. You don’t have to negotiate with your creditors. OK I hate to tell you but we print the money. First of all you never have to default because you print the money. I hate to tell you. OK. OK I hate to tell you there’s never gonna be a default But these people are crazy. This is the United States government. And he just kept repeating “I hate to tell you. I hate to tell you. We print the money.There’s never gonna be a default.” So I think the king of debt figured out that there’s a difference between taking on debt to finance
casinos and real estate in your personal capacity or in your capacity
as a business and selling Treasuries and having a national debt
and being able to afford to make every payment on time in perpetuity. Well he knew what he wanted to do. He already had an agenda laid out
before the two of us even met for the first time. He had a 12 point agenda that became sort of the bedrock for his presidential run. And so I was useful to him where I could be. But the big policy ideas had taken shape really before I got involved. Bernie Sanders proposing an estate tax
that would be the highest in over 50 years. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plan to tax the super rich. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is calling on America’s uber wealthy to pay a bigger share in taxes. I think it’s a couple of things. OK. I think that for some of the
candidates there is a real desire to do something on the tax side to
impact distribution to say look the concentrations of wealth and
income in the U.S. today look very much like they did in
the late 1920s. That there is a belief that somehow this is problematic
for both economic reasons and for democracy itself and that there
is interest in trying to rebalance the distribution of wealth and
income in this country and that the tax code is seen by some
of these individuals as one way to go about doing that. So I do think it’s got something
to do with a desire to impact distribution. On the revenue side,
this gets interesting because the way the Congress forces itself to
operate today and you know the House has reinstated PAYGO rules recently.
Which means that any new spending has to be fully offset either
by finding new revenue or by cutting some other part of the budget. And so if you want to do anything
you have to quote unquote pay for it. And because Democrats in particular are
starting to think about really big policy ideas really ambitious stuff
the price tags tend to be very large. And so where do you go when you need a lot of money. It’s sort of natural I think for
Democrats to turn to the very wealthy and to view them in a sense as their pay for. You’ve got all the money. So we’ve got to come and we’ve got
to raise taxes. Both to deal with the fact that you’ve got all the money
and to get the revenue that we need in order to write the legislation, get
it to the floor, get a vote and ultimately pass it. I just look at the field you know
of people who have entered so far and I see Democrats kind
of swinging for the fences. I think that you’re seeing more
ambitious policy proposals this time than you would have seen probably if
the way hadn’t been paved for this kind of thing in 2016. So there are a lot of people.
Senator Booker’s got a big proposal for doing something called “Baby Bonds.” Senator Harris is talking about very
big tax cuts for the middle class. Senator Warren’s talking about
a Green New Deal. Senator Sanders has talked about a
job guarantee. So there’s just all kinds of big stuff out there and
I think there’s just going to potentially be a lot of excitement
in the Democratic Party around some of these big ideas. Are you working with any of the
2020 candidates on the Democratic side currently? Yes. Mhmm. And you’ll just leave it at that. I better because if they don’t go
public then I don’t go public. OK, Stephanie. Thank you so much.

100 Comments on "Bernie Sanders’ 2016 Advisor On Trump’s Economy And Modern Monetary Theory"


  1. Do you think the government spending more money than it raises in taxes is a problem by itself, or only if it results in inflation, as Stephanie Kelton thinks?

    Reply

  2. They implemendted the new rule "pay for it" to block the progressive agenda. Dirty move, but effective move. As an European it feels kind of like watching a long-term TV-Series when I look at your oligarchy, always excited for new stuff 😀

    Reply

  3. That's why Congress voted to sell bonds for deficit spending instead of just doing it. That was so long ago it was even before I was born.

    Reply

  4. Well, we do have a long term inflation problem! In the 80's, janitors could by good sized houses, now they can't! College costs have 15x'ed and income has, maybe, doubled or tripled!

    Reply

  5. The only time Democrats talk about the debt problem is when Republicans are in office isn't that strange😆

    Reply

  6. She said there was not inflation. Really, student tuition up, Gas prices up 40 percent, housing and rents up 10 to 15 percent, Property taxes up 10 percent. Sounds like inflation to me.

    Reply

  7. What she does not say about defacits is that most of that money is going to transfer payments and entitlments. Not investments in infrastructure and tangible things. That money disappears for ever.

    Reply

  8. Whenever she is talking about mmt her body language and voice gets nervous. She doesn't believe what she is saying.

    Reply

  9. She claims that debt to GDP in Japan is 'orders of magnitude' above debt to GDP in the U.S.A. 7:55. A debt to GDP of 236% is not 'orders of magnitude' above 105%. An 'order of magnitude' in our number system is a factor of ten not a factor of 2. And 'orders of magnitude' (plural) would need to be at least 100 times greater.

    Reply

  10. She used one data point (Japan) to dismiss government debt. Venezuelan debt to GDP ratio is about 35% and they are going through hyperinflation. Which one is correct?

    Reply

  11. If you believe politics should be about what's best for "society" rather than the individual then there is no limit on how much of other people's stuff can be taken away from them to pay for a particular cause

    Reply

  12. There is massive inflation and price manipulation by the US central bank. That's total nonsense. Hedonic adjustments my ass.

    Reply

  13. Saying there is no problem in Japan currently is a lie. Wages are low and the cost of living is high. I live in the countryside and the economy out here is terrible. Is that due to the national debt? Hard to say, probably a lot of factors contribute to that, but it doesnt help.

    Reply

  14. Inflation is a tax. Most people don't understand this. Modern day income/estate taxes truly are not necessary. The government could simply print the money they need as long we agree to keep using it through the inflation. She doesn't totally get to the point about what she is suggesting here.

    The one thing income/estate taxes do is allow them to "balance" society through progressive tax rates.

    The problem these democratic socialists (they are socialists but nay) don't want to address is that, if they think it's ok to say "yeah we don't really have the money but it's ok we just print it and that is a tax (via inflation)", there is a line somewhere (you see this in housing, costs of school, child care, basically all avenues of life. Right now they are getting increasingly expensive for the average person. THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT DEBT SHE SAYS IS OK). We don't know exactly where that line is, but it is there. In Greece they crossed that line. Over half the country was employed by the government.

    The US is more resilient because the US dollar is the exchange currency of the world, so we can better weather these storms. But still. It's not all rainbows and candy…

    Reply

  15. We do have a long term inflation problem. The federal government has just found they can doctor the numbers so they declare a inflation rate <2% when it is actually >6%. Since the 1980’s inflation has been declared consistently low, but major products people purchase have gone up 5 to 10 fold. My parent bought a loaded Cadillac in the late 1970 for less than $10,000 now what does a loaded Cadillac cost now? I bought my house in California in 1995 for $180,000 they are now selling for $650,000. Gasoline was ~$.40-.50/gallon it is now $3.00-4.00/gallon. Inflation is the greatest factor in income inequality.

    Reply

  16. The u.s. government doesn't print the money! A private central bank, called euphemistically the Federal Reserve Bank, prints money and loans it at interest to the government and major banks. The debt is inextinguishable because they have to print more money just to pay the interest. In 1913 a ponzi scheme was enacted by the congress of the u.s and signed into law by president Woodrow Wilson. Famous Sir Josiah Stamp Quote
    “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.”
    ~ Sir Josiah Stamp
    (1880-1941) President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain
    Speaking at the Commencement Address of the University of Texas in 1927
    Ref: The Legalized Crime of Banking (1958) by Silas W. Adams "Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
    ― Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom

    Reply

  17. ill just say this. look at gold in terms of yen… that being said as a holder of gold. please make my day implement MMT so i can retire young

    Reply

  18. When the US looses its privilege of being able to export it's true inflation value like it has with the Petrodollar, there will be hyperinflation on scales never seen before. Loss of the Petrodollar(researve currency) will be the death of this country

    Reply

  19. FINALLY!! A mainstream media company covering the truth about fiscal economics! So SICK of this bs about governments spending "on the credit card", as Obama said, as though a government is like a household. And using the deficit and govt. debt as an excuse – it's only that – for not spending on social services!

    Reply

  20. How do we know this woman is a fraud? Because she is allowed a voice in mainstream media like CNBC

    Reply

  21. Very weird understanding of deficit.. but okay.. and no other school of economics.. What about Austria?

    Reply

  22. The reason for taxing the rich is because they make terrible investments with the money they have. They put it into things that do nothing for the economy such as the stock market, real estate and bonds. If taxes are high enough that will cause a shift from paying themselves more to paying their workers more. The employer class started taking over in the 1970s and Reagan put it on steroids. If we reverse tax policy and the disastrous business legislation that created this mess in the first place we can get back to better times. The business class may be too powerful to overthrow at this point however without another economic cataclysm to wake the masses.

    Reply

  23. Modern Monetary Theory does not seem to worry too much about the fundamental difference between “money” and “currency”. How about you? Do you know the difference between a “lavish lifestyle” and an “extravagant lifestyle”?

    Reply

  24. The U.S. currency is backed by U.S. citizens, nothing else. This is much better than gold, silver or platinum. U.S. citizens are more reliable than those rare precious metals. U.S. citizens can grow and enhance our currency.

    Reply

  25. The genius Karl Marx had the answers to the problems of capitalism 1867 in the greatest book (actually 3 volumes) ever written< Das Kapital!

    Reply

  26. 02:54 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    04:10 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    05:25 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    06:37 – One Side Up —- One Side Down SEE —— SAW
    07:55 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    10:16 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    11:45 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    13:00 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    14:35 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    15:04 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency
    17:15 – . . . Federal Government which issues the Unit of Currency

    Reply

  27. The Netherlands Central bank has just completed an inquiry into loose money policy and found that it strongly increses the top 1% 's income and vice versa. A a result of the expansion of money policy shock the share of national income held by the richest 1% increases by 1 to 6 percentage points. Hardly what Kelton is saying and in Fact the reverse.

    Reply

  28. If you let more people die off than the government has less to pay for and the loss of human capital could be seen as net growth. Fewer mouths to feed leads to higher yields for those who still live. A sort of economic Streisand effect.

    Reply

  29. Where does this idiot live?. The nations infrastructure is in terrible shape. Tens of thousands are homeless. She obviously doesn't shop for food or clothing. She obviously hasn't bought a car or truck. More CNBC propaganda.

    Reply

  30. Why don't we ask venezuela if a government can spend too much.
    How's that black ink working?
    Who bekieves this?

    Reply

  31. It is easy for this topic to get very complicated. I think the main takeaway is to focus on what people can produce in terms of goods and services for the good of mankind and less on the economic indicators of inflation, deficits, profits, losses, etc.

    Reply

  32. If Americas government can never run out of money then why do they allow any of their citizens to live in poverty?
    If no one lived in poverty wouldn't that make for a better economy, let alone the fact that no one would ever live in poverty?
    I don't understand why we allow poverty to exist if we have the technology and resources to ensure that it doesn't?

    Reply

  33. MMT supporters claim that the promoters of the MMT are aware of the different types of money but I have many videos where they say: "MONEY COMES FROM THE GOVERNMENT". Anyone that does not acknowledge the bulk of money that is created by private commercial banks have a faulty theory.

    Look at the present data, base money stands at 1.70 trillion and M2 at 14 trillion. Looking further at data we could see that the newly created bank money (called endogenous money by some economist) DOES NOT COME FROM LENDING DEPOSITS. This means that the Fractional Reserve lending model of money expansion is wrong because fractional reserve lending uses deposit as their catalyst. What is really happening is that banks are hemorrhaging inflationary money by converting IOUs into cash. In order for Gold/ Silver certificates to become legal tender the courts stated that an unconditional promise to pay is exactly the same as cash.

    The commercial banks took this idea a bit further. Unless you close that spigot of inflationary and deflationary cash your MMT theory is utter crap.

    here is the sentiment of the courts regarding promissory note. Nearly every court system in the world have this kinds of ruling. They don't address consideration but here it is: Lord denning stated "We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a Promissory Note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary" (see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar [1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA) Another of Lord denning’s rulings stated that a bill of exchange once tendered has to be treated as cash. The principle is that a bill, cheque or note is given and taken in payment as so much cash, and not as merely given a right of action for the creditor to litigate a counterclaim (see Jackson v Murphy [1887] 4 T.L.R. 92). First of all it is important to remember that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (and many Statutes subsequently) consider a Promissory Note to be the same thing as "cash". BTW do you guys get paid by banks to side track people?

    Reply

  34. Beyond all the MMT debate, I think we can all agree that Trump is an idiot, and he had that scalp operation thing done pretty early in life.

    Reply

  35. That's like saying: having a whole in your boat isn't a problem until you actually sink…

    Reply

  36. Japan's debt to GDP ratio is not an order of magnitude larger than the US's debt to GDP ratio.

    Reply

  37. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EbG6rLgw7_Y Mmt doesn’t really exist, it’s a fantasy and can never work.

    Reply

  38. The reason we don't have inflation is because, in a perverse sort of way, the government is still not spending enough "free" money.

    Inflation is hidden, masked by a decline in wages and other spending related societal constructs. As real wages have gone down, it has been counteracting the natural impetus toward inflation normally commensurate with deficit spending. Instead of going to the consumer class, too much of the wealth created by our deficit spending is being absorbed by the uber wealthy who do not spend it in a stimulative manner – driving the stock market and foreign bourses to unnaturally high levels in the process, by the way – and as that money is sucked out of the economy, neither real wages nor inflation can go up. And collaterally with this, our infrastructure is crumbling, cities are overwhelmed with homeless families and unhoused mentally ill, schools are underfunded and our kids' education is falling behind, health care is becoming impossibly expensive, etc.

    And another corollary of this phenomena is the growing wealth and income gap, which has serious and deleterious efffects on social stability and general well-being.

    Bottom line, we can continue to let our infrastructure and essential structures continue to decline, or we can start building some real impetus to inflation in the economy by upping government spending to where it should be. And when you do that, suddenly all that supposedly harmless debt is going to become a real problem…

    Reply

  39. So what about the fact that the US dollar is tied to oil? What if Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela with this largest oil reserves, decide to create their own market?

    Reply

  40. I like the format of this type of video journalism where it's more about the content of the answers than the interviewer.

    Reply

  41. Haha that is a load of crap. Government doesn't create the currency. Privite central banks lends it to government with interest… then commercial banks expend it to infinity thru loans. Inflation is much bigger than the government bs numbers that goesn't include energy, food or real estate…and by the way all this money does create inflation, it's called financial sector(stocks) and real estate bubble.

    Reply

  42. You know what MMT gets you? Venezuela. It's not a theory, it's been tried with absolute failure. That's all they've done, print. print. print. Even if it's phony, you still can't print your way in to prosperity, the laws of economics will sooner or later come home to roost. Bad, bad ideas.

    Reply

  43. Here's another fallacy. The wealthy don't just hang on to their money, they spend it, like any smarter person they invest in to things that will hopefully bring a return and the reason why poor people are not seeing much of a break because they pay no income taxes effectively to start with. So, it's only reasonable that higher earners are saving more from the tax cut. Ironically whatever they're saving probably will be spent on tariffs and inflation so for more financially savvy people, they're investing a little more cautiously. Like with out company because of the tax savings they gave us all a $2 dollar raise. That counts for something in my book.

    Reply

  44. The more I look at the candidates for president in 2020, the only one I see standing out and knowing how to fix this country is Bernie Sanders!!!!!!! BERNIE SIMPLY MUST GET THE DEMOCRAT NOMINATION NEXT YEAR!!!!!!!

    Reply

  45. This lady commentator is a lunatic psychopath period, distributes propaganda, This lady commentator is full of Crap. Stephanie K this is Lunatic is paid to gives false information and data, she is total idiot. Who.the.else care what she says average citizens is not meeting their.needs. Shut up lady.

    Reply

  46. Thanks for reminding us by Bernie Sanders is so dangerous. The irony here is this lady is making a compelling case for Trump by saying the economy is good, when, in fact, it isn't good. Let's not conflate rising prices with rising earnings and rising rates of return. Inflation isn't synonymous with economic growth. Inflation is incredibly injurious to the economy, and we have been suffering from uber loose monetary policy (which both Kelton the crank and Trump the crank support) for quite some time.

    Reply

  47. She's right that there's a difference between a private debtor and the government, in that the government uses a central bank to wipe us all out by bankrupting the currency itself.

    Reply

  48. If this Stephanie Kelton is Bernie Sanders's economic advisor – then why does he never mention her name ???

    Reply

  49. Reagan, Bush Jr, and now Trump have all passed massive tax cuts to the super-elites. Maybe this time the Republican voters will finally realize that tax cuts to the super-elites does not stimulate the economy.

    Reply

  50. There is no need to debate the issue. History and the real world has shown us REPEATEDLY what happens when a government
    "prints" money to deal with the stupidity of politicians who SPEND MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN in revenue. We saw it in Weimar
    Germany of the 1920's. We saw it in Zimbabwe in the late 1990's and early 2000's and we are seeing RIGHT EFFING NOW in
    Venezuela. In ALL of those cases the currency RAPIDLY devolved to the point where it was WORTHLESS. And the EXACT SAME THING will happen to the US if brain dead idiots like Sanders and Occasionally-Conscious are allowed free rein.

    Reply

  51. That makes no sense, just because someone has good credit, they should spend away without worry about being able to pay the debt? We do still sell bonds to other countries right? The deficits lender is not US citizens, so if they get liquidated, dollars will fall.

    Reply

  52. Interesting video!

    The more I hear people talk about the economy, The more convinced I am that the vast majority don't understand what money is, So if people don't understand what money is, they can't really discuss what tax is then people are not on the same page and then ideas get pulled in different directions.

    People tends to learn economics from textbooks and that is fine for basic stuff, but to understand it at a deeper level people should start learning more Psychology, Philosophy and Math.

    Reply

  53. Greenspan's theories about the economy helped cause the Great Recession. He was heavily influenced by the author of Atlas Shrugged. https://www.salon.com/2018/11/26/how-author-ayn-rand-contributed-to-americas-greed_partner/

    Reply

  54. Brooksley Born was the regulator we needed. She was blocked from doing the job she was hired to do. The Great Recession followed. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-warning-brooksley-borns-battle-with-alan-greenspan-robert-rubin-and-larry-summers-2009-10

    Reply

  55. https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats

    Reply

  56. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/higher-taxes-rich-wont-suffocate-innovation/580642/

    Reply

  57. The Fatal flaw in MMT is the fact that international involvement in this monetary system is rarely mentioned. The world is already starting to move away from the dollar (Russia and China leading the charge) and all this printed money which we sent overseas will come home to roost. It's enough that the dollar is the biggest heist in history, taking it to the level of MMT will only expedite the fall of the dollar and thus no one wants to sell us anything using a useless currency.

    Reply

  58. Funny to use Japan's example where the buyers of the state bonds are Japanese institutions and investors. For US – at least so far – external investors, central banks (China, etc.) bought a very significant portion of the debt. The two are not comparable at all.

    The QE1-2-3 created massive asset inflation (for the rich) – once they do QEs for the bottom 99,9% of US inflation is inevitable. It feels like they are happy for "discovering" something super basic which by the way never ever worked, tried 100x through history. Nonsense.

    Reply

  59. The issue with inflation, as I see it for the US dollar, is that there is the possibility (however remote) that the USD can be dumped as the global reserve currency, leading to overloading of the currency into the domestic market.

    Reply

  60. Whilst I agree that the government doesn't need to account for every dollar it spends, I also think that some of the ways we can raise money – taxing wealth, cutting military spending, perhaps even taxing Wall Street speculation – are beneficial in and of themselves.
    My question would be: is the US government in any way unique in its ability to deficit spend without large negative consequences? Japan was used as a positive example here, are all national governments (who print their own currency) equally able to do this?

    Reply

  61. This is an example of one of those academics that has their head buried so far into a book that they forget about how money works in the real world. Unbounded growth of Debt/GDP?!?! But the video looks professional and she sounds smart so people believe this is a smart idea.

    Reply

  62. Total idiot MMT never takes debt into account all they watch is inflation. Paying no attention to the true health of the economy. They are why we are in this mess. Trying to tinker with the economy.

    Reply

  63. Yeah but the Yen is a highly depreciated money and I'm guessing that has something to do with their ability to sustain these debts. Anyways, I get the gist of her argument but government spending usually ends up being devalued capital and assets, and the savings to buy the produce of those assets just aren't there. I don't think the current debt is a big issue but you guys need to get deficit under control.

    Reply

  64. MMT is another way of saying a a fool and his money are easily parted or for a socialist….you never run out out of other people's money.

    Reply

  65. My takeaway: Print and spend as much money as you want and when you have inflation figure out why you have inflation? I will keep looking into this! Maybe she has a better way of explaining it…

    Reply

  66. Bait and switch tactics. Where’s the beef? I hear nada zip zero zilch about MMT. You’re clueless. You’re the female standing on the corner dressed in red my mother warned me about. Get a job. Thx

    Reply

  67. No Negative consequences in Japan… the country known worldwide for people dying from overwork. The country where rural houses are given away for free despite the whole country only being a small island. Japan, the country whose last major export is cars and radiation. Japan, the country that says "This isn't dumb, Donald Trump is doing it!"… Sorry, that last one was Stephanie Kelton, not Donald Trump. Sorry, got confused again it was Stephanie Kelton not Japan.. My mistake. Too many dumb things all in one place I get them mixed up. Anyways.. Nope, no issues in Japan at all and there's no reason to believe that nothing wrong will get worse during the global slowdown that you admit is happening right now.

    Reply

  68. So she points out that R&D, education and infrastructure are well worth the deficit. And yet, if her boss had a say in it, R&D and infrastructure would get thoroughly ruined in no time, education had already been ruined by the Obama administration. Maybe she should switch sides… (and let AOC become Sanders' advisor – D. Trump would love that!)

    Reply

  69. For all of you who look to Japan to think that it's alright to keep mounting debt. Americans are NOT Japanese. Japan is NOT a consumer based economy, like US is. Japanese don't like spending money, and they are still cash hoarding society. Their not having inflation is because of this, people generally not spending or wasting their money around. US is completely the opposite. First thing that American people do after getting pay check is to go out and spend it all. IF US debt deficit mounts to as high as Japanese, US WILL have inflation problem like never before.

    Reply

  70. Great. pay bills by printing money. What could possibly go wrong? This was done by Germany from end of ww1 to the 1930s.

    Reply

  71. population is an issue. however company's don't want the issue addressed as they want more people= more customers. War was used to solve this problem in the past but the atom bomb has suppressed this as an option. We need major education, empower women and money incentives to smaller families or having no kids.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *