Sovereign currency and non‐sovereign budgets the modern money theory approach L. Randall Wray
By: Wray, Larry Randall
.
Material type: 





Item type | Current location | Home library | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artículos | IEF | IEF | OP 1716/2020/3-2 (Browse shelf) | Available | OP 1716/2020/3-2 |
Browsing IEF Shelves Close shelf browser
No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
OP 1716/2020/2-1 Interlocal collaboration and local fiscal structure | OP 1716/2020/3 Public Budgeting and Finance | OP 1716/2020/3-1 Who is afraid of the big bad debt? | OP 1716/2020/3-2 Sovereign currency and non‐sovereign budgets | OP 1716/2020/3-3 When the interest rate on the national debt Is a policy variable (and “printing money” does not apply) | OP 1716/2020/3-4 Post‐Keynesian public budgeting & finance | OP 1716/2020/4 Public Budgeting and Finance |
Resumen.
Bibliografía.
This paper will present the Modern Money Theory approach to government finance. In short, a national government that chooses its own money of account, imposes a tax in that money of account, and issues currency in that money of account cannot face a financial constraint. It can make all payments as they come due. It cannot be forced into insolvency. While this was well‐understood in the early post‐war period, it was gradually “forgotten” as the neoclassical theory of the household budget constraint was applied to government finance. Matters were made worse by the development of “generational accounting” that calculated hundreds of trillions of dollars of government red ink through eternity due to what neoconservatives label “entitlements” (largely, Medicare and Social Security). As austerity measures were increasingly adopted at the national level, fiscal responsibility was shifted to state and local governments through “devolution.” A “stakeholder” approach to government finance helped fuel white flight to suburbs and produced “doughnut holes” in the cities. To reverse these trends, we need to redevelop our understanding of the fiscal space open to the currency issuer—expanding its responsibility not only for national social spending but also for helping to fund state and local government spending. This is no longer just an academic debate, given the challenges posed by climate change, growing inequality, secular stagnation, and the rise of Trumpism.
There are no comments for this item.