There are other examples, but listing them would be wasteful — of your time and mine.
I looked online for claims about federal government wasteful spending. Here are a few of the hundreds I found:
Camo Uniforms for the Afghan Army: The Pentagon spent $28 million on camouflage uniforms for the Afghan National Army that were unsuitable for the desert environment.
Hipster Anti-Smoking Campaign: The National Institutes of Health spent $5 million on a campaign targeting hipsters to stop smoking, including paying them to blog about quitting.
Quail Cocaine Study: Over $500,000 was spent to study how cocaine affects the sexual behavior of Japanese quails.
Hamster Fights: More than $3 million was spent on research involving hamster fights to study aggression1.
Solar Panels for Veterans Affairs: The Department of Veterans Affairs spent $8 million on solar panels that were never used.
The Federal Register–every member of Congress automatically receives a new copy every day, at a $1 million annual cost, even though the contents are available for free online.
I could waste time listing dozens more, but these alone “waste” about $45.5 million a year, which is sufficient to outrage a Congress that voted for these expenditures and the media, which wasted time writing about them, but only on slow news days.
Before I comment further, perhaps we should try to agree on something fundamental: What is “waste”?
I suggest waste is anything that costs significantly more than its benefits over any agreed-upon period.
For instance, let me start with the gross basics: When a bear poops in the woods, is that poop considered waste?
No, because it costs the bear nothing and benefits the forest by providing growth nutrients.
Based on that definition, are the above examples of waste truly waste, or are they more like that cost-free, beneficial bear poop?
This is not a dollar. It is a bearer instrument saying the bearer owns a dollar. The dollar itself is just a number in an account.
Let’s assume there was no benefit to those cameo uniforms, anti-smoking campaigns, quail cocaine studies, etc.
Did they fall under the costs-more-than-its-benefits criterion for waste?
I say, “No.”
Every one of them took dollars from a federal government that has the infinite ability to create unlimited dollars at the touch of a computer key.
So the cost was negligible — perhaps similar to the bear’s cost in expending the effort to squat.
As former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said, “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
But what was the benefit? Every one of those endeavors added dollars to the Gross Domestic Product.
Not only did they grow the economy as a whole, but they benefitted specific individuals. Businesses employed people to create those uniforms, the solar panels, and the printed federal register.
People were paid dollars to run the hamster and cocaine studies.
Those people used their newly earned dollars to buy things from other businesses with employees. The new money flowed through the economy, benefiting thousands and then thousands more.
It is quite possible that down the line, you yourself might have received dollars that began with the quail cocaine study.
Should he be afraid to waste sand?
One might object, “Taxpayer dollars were spent. The money came from somewhere.”
In reality, not one dollar, not even one cent, of taxpayer money was spent.
The federal government (unlike state and local governments) pays all its bills with newly created dollars.
Like the first U.S. dollars, created from thin air in 1794, and all subsequent trillions of dollars, the dollars that paid for “wasteful” federal spending were created at no cost, from thin air.
Here’s how it’s done now:
To pay an invoice, the federal government creates instructions (not dollars) from thin air. The instructions are in the form of a check or wire.
The instructions tell the creditor’s bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account (“Pay to the order of _____.”)
The bank obeys those instructions by pressing computer keys. The instant the bank presses those keys, new dollars appear out of thin air and are added to the M2 money supply.
The instructions then are passed to the Federal Reserve which first “clears” them by tallying them against the government’s checking account ( Treasury General Account).
Finally, the creditor’s bank is informed that the check has cleared so it can balance its books.
Everything is just numbers in accounts based on instructions and laws. So long as the federal government can create laws, it can create instructions and dollars. The government has no limits other than the self-imposed.
Many people don’t understand that all dollars are just numbers in accounts. There are no physical dollars. Even a dollar bill is not a dollar. It is the title to a dollar. Just as a house title is not a house, and a car title is not a car, a dollar bill is not a dollar. It is a bearer instrument saying, in essence, “The bearer of this bill is the owner of a dollar.”
Eventually, that paper instrument will be shredded, but dollars, having been created from thin air, are immortal until someone pays off a debt somewhere in the world, at which time dollars will be destroyed.
In summary, all dollars are digital entries—numbers, nothing else. There are no physical dollars. The federal government controls all those entries by passing laws.
To talk about federal waste is akin to saying that the federal government wastes numbers. It’s like worrying that the federal government will run short of the number “seven.”
The federal government can pass a law saying that the Social Security “Trust Fund” now has an additional ten trillion dollars, and those dollars would instantly exist.
It is illogical to claim that the federal government wastes the dollars it has the infinite ability to create. You cannot waste what is available in unlimited quantities.
The real federal waste comes not from faulty spending but from failure to use resources infinitely available.The real waste comes from statements like these:
The Social Security Trust Fund will run out of money in (year).
FICA funds Social Security and Medicare.
Federal trust funds pay for (program).
The Medicare Trust Fund will run out of money in (year).
The debt ceiling is a prudent way to (_____).
The federal government should live within its means.
The federal debt is too high.
The federal deficit is too high.
The federal debt or deficit is unsustainable.
Government spending causes inflation
The federal government can’t afford to pay for (program).
Federal taxes fund federal spending.
Federal funding of (program) is a waste of money
Federal funding of (program) is a waste of taxpayer money.
Federal benefits for (program) must be cut or taxes increased.
The federal government should lend, not give, money to (anyone or anything).
Federal finances are like personal, business, or local government finances
Not one of these commonly heard statements is correct. Not one.
They all mark the writer or speaker as ignorant about our government’s Monetary Sovereignty or as wanting to widen the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
When you read about federal government waste, remember this: When a Monetarily Sovereign government, having unlimited funds, doesn’t spend to feed the hungry, house the poor, or protect its people, that is the worst possible waste, the waste of the government’s power to do good.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/
……………………………………………………………………..
The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.
A reader of this blog is concerned about some people’s difficulty understanding Monetary Sovereignty (MS) and asks whether there is some way to present it so that the public can more readily understand it.
Of course, I’ve been attempting to do this for the past twenty-five years, with statements so simple that some economists tell me, “It’s not that simple.”
One risks omitting important details when they simplify an inherently complex subject.
The federal government can be viewed as a combination of Congress, the President, and the Federal Reserve. That combination can be compared to the Bank in the Game MONOPOLY, which, by rule and like the government, cannot run short of dollars.
If you skim through this blog, you will find repeated attempts at simplification.
I have concluded that any failures may be due to different ways of believing.
When I am contacted by someone who understands MS, the communication is cool and data-based. By contrast, I generally receive heat when I receive word from someone who doesn’t get it.
That’s natural, I thought. What is there to be angry about when you agree?
Months ago, I had another thought. It seemed to me that compassion is soft-spoken, while bigotry is angry.
Followers of Biden and now Harris seem to deal thoughtfully with facts, while followers of Trump seem to focus on passion, anger, and conspiracy theories.
Why?
Partly because bigotry is fear and fear is hatred, and those emotions lead to anger.
There is no calm reasoning with a bigoted MAGA who is shouting Fox News and QAnon lies
But I now believe it’s something even more than that. It is because admitting you have been wrong is too painful, even when the admission is secretly in your own mind.
It isn’t that Monetary Sovereignty is complex. It’s dead simple:
The federal government never can run short of its own sovereign currency.
Prices increase when products become scarce.
Raising interest rates increases business costs, which are reflected in price increases.
Deficit spending adds growth dollars to the economy.
Is that too complex for the average person? I think not.
Why do some people feel Monetary Sovereign is difficult to understand? It’s easy to understand, but it’s difficult to believe when you have been subject to many years of brainwashing.
And therein lies the difference.
I’ve spent years trying to help people understand Monetary Sovereignty when their problem is not one of understanding but of believing. That is a much more difficult problem; Reciting the facts won’t solve it.
The MAGAs despise facts. They love conspiracy theories.
When you know you have truth and facts on your side, you might be frustrated by those who blindly accept “alternative facts,” as right-winger Kellyanne Conway famously expressed in defending Sean Spicer’s lies.
You may be frustrated, but not spit-in-your-face, physically-attack-Congress frustrated.
The gun-toting, hate-mongering MAGAs spew vitriol because they know they are wrong. They know Trump is lying to them, taking them for suckers, using them for his own personal gain, and secretly sneering at their ignorance when he’s not on stage.
(“I could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not lose any followers.” Are those the words of a man who respects his followers’ intelligence?)
So they are angry at being seen as dupes, especially in their own eyes.
They will double down against the obvious and do anything to build a barrier between reality and their foolishness.
They will cover their gullibility with bluster and blindness.
“Wha, wha, I won’t listen to you. I cover my eyes and ears. Your words can’t hurt me.”
To maintain their belief in what they know to be nonsense, they join a mob, scream loudly or even silently, and let the noise in their head cover the truth and their emotion to cover their shame.
Thus, they allow pure belief and worship to wash over them without the burden of honest evaluation.
Hatred and anger are their only defense.
But it is exhausting. As the harsh glare of reality reveals, Trump’s armor is rusty. Each day, more people see the emperor has no clothes.
There stands before them is a befuddled, pitiful, failing old man, mouthing the same lies and insults that no longer fool even the most naive,
He is an often bankrupt business failure, an often losing political failure, an often adulterous marriage failure, an often indicted and convicted moral failure, and a son not even respected by his own late father.
The thrill is gone.
The crowds thin.
Those few who remain look around in embarrassment at their own naivete.
At last, it ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/
……………………………………………………………………..
The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.
If an astronomer criticized a “star” for a bad performance, or a geologist confused a river bank with a savings bank, you might think they were addled. But in the world of economics, such word misuse and confusion is normal, even defended, and possibly intentional.
In this post, I’ll give you some words commonly misused by economics “experts,” who may or may not (you can decide) try to mislead:
1. Federal “BORROWING”: Typical misleading usage: “How does the federal government borrow money?.”
Would you lend me some sand?
The U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign.
It has the infinite ability to create its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.
For an entity having such power, borrowing dollars would be ridiculous, akin to someone in the Sahara borrowing sand.
And indeed, the U.S. government does not borrow dollars.
Yet some people falsely claim the government borrows dollars from them when they invest in Treasury bonds.
Borrowing occurs when some entity — person, business, government, etc. — needs something it does not have. But the U.S. government creates all the dollars it needs.
By the very act of spending and paying for things, the U.S. government creates dollars.
As former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said, “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.” (During a hearing before the House Budget Committee on March 2, 2005.)
We will say more about Treasury bonds later in this post.
2. Federal “DEBT”: Typical misleading usage: “The national debt is composed of distinct types of debt, similar to an individual whose debt may consist of a mortgage, car loan, and credit cards. The different types of debt include non-marketable or marketable securities and whether it is debt held by the public or debt held by the government itself (known as intragovernmental). Simply put, the national debt is similar to a person using a credit card for purchases and not paying off the full balance each month.”
Immediately, we see that the author (an employee of the U.S. Treasury Department!) either does not understand or doesn’t want you to understand the difference between a Monetarily Sovereign entity (the U.S. government) and a monetarily non-sovereign entity (states, counties, cities, businesses, you, and me).
Federal finances are the antithesis of private finances, and for a federal employee to say that federal debt is “similar to” individual debt is beyond the pale.
The misnamed “debt” merely is the total of deposits into T-security accounts the purpose of which is not to provide spending money for a Monetarily Sovereign government that already has infinite money.
The government’s purpose of T-security accounts is to provide a safe storage place for dollar users who are not currently spending all their dollars (e.g., China, etc.) and to help the Fed control interest rates—in short, to help stabilize the dollar, not to obtain more dollars.
As for the credit card analogy, it is false on many fronts, one of which is that the U.S. government pays in full for everything it buys. It does not use credit markets to pay for anything.
Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.” (You can find it in their publication titled “Why Health Care Matters and the Current Debt Does Not” from October 2011.)
3. Federal “BOND”: Typical misleading usage: “Proceeds from the sale of these bonds are used to repay outstanding U.S. debt.” (Copilot AI).
Federal debt is the total of federal bills, notes, and bonds, so the government cannot use bonds to repay “debt.” Saying an entity with unlimited funds can use debt to repay debtis a double oxymoron that only an economist could believe.
First, if you have infinite funds available to you, you don’t need help paying off debt, and you certainly don’t take on more debt to pay off existing debt.
Today, the federal government could pay off 100% of the debt (T-bills, T-bonds, T-notes) by crediting the depositors’ checking accounts. This could be done at the touch of a computer key.
In the private sector, a bond is evidence of a loanto a borrower. Since the federal government (unlike state and local governments) does not borrow, the word “bond” should more appropriately be replaced by the word “deposits.”
Federal T-NOTES and T-BILLS refer to deposits of shorter maturity than T-bonds.
As if that level of confusion wasn’t sufficient for those who call themselves “economists,” the paper receipts in your pocket are called “dollar bills” and “Federal Reserve notes.”
Those paper things should be called “titles,” for that is what they are—bearer documents showing that the bearer owns a certain number of dollars.
Just as a car title is not a car and a house title is not a house, a dollar bill is not a dollar. It is a title or a certificate demonstrating ownership.
4. Federal DEFICIT: Typical misleading usage: “The U.S. budget deficit is the amount the federal government spends annually more than it receives in revenue during that period.”
Technically, the word is correct, but it’s misleading for two reasons.
First, there is no financial connection between federal spending and federal receipts. The government pays for all its spending by creating new dollars ad hoc. The government does not spend tax dollars or use any other dollars it receives.
Even if the federal government collected zero taxes, it could continue spending and paying for things forever.
Alan Greenspan: “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print the money to do that.”
Second, the word “deficit” has pejorative connotations that fool the public into believing it should be reduced. Precisely, the opposite is true.
When the “deficit” is reduced, or worse yet, when the government runs a surplus, we have recessions and depressions.
You can see the reason by this formula: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports.
When the government runs a surplus, it takes dollars out of the economy, reducing GDP and causing a recession or depression. When the government runs a deficit, it adds growth dollars to the economy.
If economists wished to avoid public confusion, they would say, “The economy had an income of $_____,” rather than,”The government ran a deficit of _____.”
5. “BUDGET DEFICIT”: Typical misleading usage: “The budget deficit should be compared to the country’s ability to pay it back. That ability is measured by dividing the deficit by gross domestic product (GDP).”
This is one of the craziest concepts you will ever encounter. I assume the writer was trying to differentiate between “deficit” and “budget deficit,” so he/she invented a nonsensical definition.
The federal “budget” is just a prediction of how much money will come in and how much will go out. A “budget deficit” means that more went out and/or less came in than predicted.
A wrong prediction says nothing about the nation’s ability to pay for anything.
Now, let’s get to reality: The federal government’s ability to “pay it back” (whatever “it” may be) is not related to GDP.The deficit/GDP ratio only estimates what part of GDP is Federal Spending and what part is Non-federal spending and Net Exports.
I say “estimates” because GDP is a spending measure, not a deficit spending measure, so federal income is not considered. That said, if income (mostly taxes) increases, nonfederal spending will be forced to decrease. That’s where the money comes from.
All three terms contribute to GDP. So how does the fraction show the “country’s ability to pay it back” (again, whatever “it” is)?
It doesn’t. The U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can pay for anything that costs dollars. If you sent a legitimate invoice for a thousand trillion dollars to the federal government, it could pay it today without batting an eye.
Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
I suspect the writer was confusing deficit/GDP with Debt/GDP, another commonly referenced fraction that says nothing about the federal government’s ability to pay for anything.
It, too, is a useless fraction that describes nothing, predicts nothing, and evaluates nothing. Look at this list of national debt/GDP ratios, and you will not be able to discern anything about a nation’s financial health. The ratios tell you nothing.
When you hear or read about someone concerned about the debt/GDP or deficit/GDP fraction, that person spreads false information. They might as well be talking about the number of fairies dancing on the head of a pin.
6. “The federal government OWES“: Typical usage: “Who does the U.S. owe $31.4 trillion?”
Supposedly, the government owes the depositors in Treasury Security accounts those T-bills, T-notes, and T-bond we’ve discussed.
If those were real debts that were owed, the money would be used by the government, the supposed “borrower.” But it isn’t. The money is safely tucked away in T-security accounts, the contents of which remain wholly owned by the depositors.
Just as a bank doesn’t owe the contents of its safe deposit box to depositors, neither does the government owe the contents of T-security accounts.
Those dollars belong to the depositors, who retrieve them when the government sends them the contents of the accounts. This is not a financial burden for the federal government.
Again, even if the government owed that money, it has the infinite ability to create it.
7. “Spend taxpayers’ money.” Typical misleading usage: “Social security is the government’s single largest expense and where 22% of tax dollars go.”
As is irritatingly common, the article’s author seems to lack understanding of the differences between the Monetarily Sovereign federal government and the monetarily nonsovereign state and local governments.
Because state/local governments do not have the infinite ability to create U.S. dollars, they must use tax dollars or borrowed money to pay their bills. The federal government has the infinite ability to create dollars, so it does not use tax dollars for anything.
March 12, 2009 quotes from 60 Minutes:
Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.
The federal government destroys all the tax dollars it receives. Taxpayers take tax dollars from their checking accounts—the private sector’s M2 money supply measure—and when the dollars reach the Treasury, they cease to be part of any money supply measure.
They effectively are destroyed.
As we said earlier, even if the federal government collected $0 taxes, it could continue spending, forever. The purpose of federal taxes is to control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward.
This graph is misleading. It is based on the useless Debt/GDP fraction, and it provides no reason why the growth since 1794 has now become “unsustainable.”
Today’s tax laws help the rich become richer by widening the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
8. The use of the word, “unsustainable.” Typical misleading usage: The national debt will rise substantially over the coming decades.
There may be no word more commonly used by those who, by ignorance or intent, give you false information about federal finances than “unsustainable.”
This word generally is used as a replacement for evidence and proof.
Yes, the so-called “debt” will grow, which is a good thing. The only way our economy, i.e. our GDP, can grow is for the government to pump more dollars into it than it takes out.
But what evidence shows that this growth is “unsustainable”? There is none.
Federal “debt.” still sustainable.
We have “sustained” growth in the federal “debt” (cumulatively, the economic surplus) almost every year for the past 84 years.
In that time, the government ran a surplus (an economic deficit) only during the Clinton presidency, and that outflow of dollars caused a recession.
9. The federal government must “live within its means.”: Typical misleading usage: In an April 13, 2011 speech, President Barack Obama said, “We have to live within our means. We have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt.”
Obama was many good things, but his knowledge of economics was woefully lacking. Paying down the debt would cause a depression.
Every U.S. depression has been associated with federal surpluses.
1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.
The reason is simple algebra. Federal surpluses are economic deficits. They subtract dollars from GDP, and by formula, when you subtract dollars, the economy shrinks, which is the definition of a depression.
Living within one’s “means” describes a person whose income is sufficient to pay for his spending. However, the federal government’s finances are different from personal finances.
The federal government does not use income to pay for spending. It creates new dollars for that purpose. So the government has no “means” to live within, or more accurately, it has infinite means.
SUMMARY
No scientist should use contronyms and homographs without making sure confusion doesn’t result.
Yet economists do it repeatedly. The words “borrow, debt, deficit, owe, and bond” mean something different when referring to Monetarily Sovereign vs. monetarily nonsovereign entities.
Federal “debt” is not the debt most people understand. The federal government does not borrow dollars, and Treasury bonds are unlike corporate bonds. A federal deficit is an economic surplus, and the U.S. government does not owe anyone dollars, nor does it spend taxpayers’ dollars.
The government has no “means” to live within, and federal spending is infinitely sustainable.
These words have repeatedly been used to confuse the public and make false points. If you are confused, that is exactly what those at the upper level of income, wealth, and power want you to be.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/
……………………………………………………………………..
The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.
If you use ChatGPT and ask it, “What is the difference between Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Monetary Sovereignty (MS),” you might be told something like this direct quote from the AI:
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)Inflation Causes: MMT posits that inflation can be caused by excessive federal deficit spending, which increases aggregate demand beyond the productive capacity of the economy.When too much money chases too few goods, prices rise, leading to inflation.
Inflation Control: MMT advocates for using fiscal tools, such as taxation and government spending adjustments, to manage demand and control inflation.It also supports the use of monetary policy, including interest rate adjustments by the Federal Reserve, to help control inflation. By raising interest rates, the Fed can dampen borrowing and spending, reducing inflationary pressures.Mitchell’s Monetary SovereigntyInflation Causes:
According to Mitchell’s concept of Monetary Sovereignty (MS), all inflations are caused by shortages of key goods and services, not merely by aggregate demand exceeding supply.This perspective emphasizes that inflation results from supply-side constraints, such as disruptions in production, supply chain issues, or shortages of essential commodities.
Inflation Control: Mitchell’s approach argues that federal spending should be directed at alleviating these shortages to control inflation. For example, investing in infrastructure, technology, and education can increase productive capacity and address supply constraints.It opposes the use of interest rate hikes to control inflation, arguing that increasing interest rates raises business costs (e.g., higher borrowing costs), which can exacerbate inflation rather than cure it.
Key DifferencesSource of Inflation: MMT: Focuses on demand-pull inflation due to excessive spending.Monetary Sovereignty: Emphasizes cost-push inflation due to supply shortages.
Policy Tools for Inflation:MMT: Uses both fiscal policy (taxation and spending adjustments) and monetary policy (interest rate changes) to manage inflation.Monetary Sovereignty: Advocates for targeted federal spending to address supply shortages and improve productive capacity, rejecting interest rate hikes as counterproductive.
Implications for Economic PolicyFiscal Policy: Both MMT and Monetary Sovereignty agree that the federal government, as a monetary sovereign, can use fiscal policy effectively to manage the economy. However, the focus differs:MMT: Balances between managing demand and supply.Monetary Sovereignty: Focuses more on addressing supply-side issues directly.
Monetary Policy: MMT: Supports the use of interest rate adjustments alongside fiscal measures.Monetary Sovereignty: Criticizes interest rate hikes, suggesting they increase costs for businesses and can worsen inflation, advocating instead for supply-side interventions.
Practical ExamplesSupply Shortages: During the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions led to shortages of key goods, contributing to inflation. Mitchell’s approach would advocate for targeted investments to resolve these shortages, while MMT might consider both demand management and supply-side measures.
Interest Rate Policy: In periods of high inflation, MMT might support interest rate hikes to cool down demand, whereas Monetary Sovereignty would likely oppose such measures, focusing instead on increasing supply through strategic spending.
ConclusionUnderstanding the nuanced differences between MMT and Mitchell’s Monetary Sovereignty can lead to more informed and effective economic policies.
While MMT incorporates both demand and supply considerations and supports a combination of fiscal and monetary tools, Mitchell’s Monetary Sovereignty places greater emphasis on addressing supply-side constraints and rejects interest rate hikes as a tool for controlling inflation.
Both perspectives offer valuable insights into managing modern economies, highlighting the importance of context-specific approaches to economic policy.