Modern Money Theory (MMT) has recently surged into public discourse, igniting fervent debates among economists and policymakers alike. Despite its growing prominence, MMT remains shrouded in misunderstanding and often misrepresented in mainstream discussions. This article aims to provide a clear and concise explanation of Modern Money Theory, address common criticisms, and separate fact from fiction surrounding this increasingly relevant economic framework.
At its core, MMT offers a different perspective on how sovereign governments, particularly those like the United States, operate financially. It challenges conventional understandings of government spending, deficits, and debt, proposing that a country that issues its own currency faces unique financial flexibilities. To understand MMT, it’s essential to grasp its fundamental principles and how they diverge from traditional economic thought.
To clarify the essence of MMT, let’s outline its core tenets, which we can consider as macroeconomics grounded in reality.
Key Principles of Modern Money Theory
-
Jobs are a Societal Imperative: A foundational premise of MMT is that there’s no inherent economic reason for involuntary unemployment. The private sector, driven by profit motives, naturally seeks to minimize labor costs. This isn’t a flaw, but simply how it operates. However, this inherent characteristic means the private sector alone cannot guarantee full employment.
-
Abundance of Productive Capacity: Humanity has achieved unprecedented levels of productivity. We possess the capacity to produce goods and services at scales unimaginable in previous eras. In a world of such abundance, widespread deprivation due to unemployment is not only economically illogical but also ethically unacceptable.
-
The Desire to Contribute: As famously stated, people want to work and contribute meaningfully to society. Employment provides not just income, but also purpose, dignity, and social connection.
-
Money is a Public Monopoly: In modern economies, money is fundamentally a creation of the state. Governments, through their central banks and treasuries, have the power to create money. This isn’t to say money creation is limitless or without consequence, but understanding its origin is crucial. Both the private and public sectors create money, albeit through different mechanisms.
-
Government Spending is Money Creation: Crucially, MMT posits that sovereign governments finance their spending through money creation. This isn’t some radical new idea, but a description of operational reality. The US Treasury, in coordination with the Federal Reserve, effectively creates new money when it spends. This process is routine and ongoing.
-
Real Resource Constraints: While financial constraints are less binding for currency-issuing governments, real resource constraints are paramount. The limits to what an economy can produce are determined by available resources – labor, raw materials, technology, and productive capacity. We cannot simply conjure up unlimited real resources. For example, doubling the US workforce overnight is physically impossible, regardless of financial capacity.
-
Sovereign Default is a Choice, Not a Necessity: A nation that issues its own currency cannot be forced to default on debts denominated in that currency. This is not merely theory, but a legal and operational reality. The US government, for instance, can always create the dollars needed to pay its dollar-denominated debts. Default becomes a policy choice, not an unavoidable outcome.
-
Deficits as Private Surpluses: Government deficits are, by accounting identity, private sector surpluses. If government spending exceeds taxation, the net difference flows into the private sector as income and savings. Conversely, government surpluses mean the private sector is, in aggregate, spending more in taxes than it receives in government spending, leading to net financial drain. This is why periods of government surpluses, like the Clinton era, often coincide with increased private sector borrowing to maintain economic activity.
-
Unlocking Idle Resources: When an economy has idle resources, particularly unemployed labor, the government can and should utilize its money-creating capacity to mobilize these resources. Creating money to employ idle workers to address unmet social needs is not inherently inflationary and can boost overall economic output.
-
Moral Imperative to Act: When people are willing and able to work, and there are unmet social needs, it is arguably a moral failing of government to not employ its fiscal and monetary tools to connect these two realities. If the private sector cannot profitably employ everyone, the public sector should step in.
-
The Public Sector’s Role: The public sector has a vast array of socially valuable tasks that are not driven by private profit, such as national defense, public safety, infrastructure, education, environmental protection, and elder care. These areas offer ample opportunities for productive employment. Profit-generating activities are best left to the private sector, but essential public services and social needs are the domain of government action.
-
Existing Practices in Line with MMT: Many government actions already align with MMT principles. Governments routinely create money to finance budget deficits, implement policies to stimulate employment, and manage large national debts without crisis. MMT is less a radical departure and more a coherent framework for understanding and optimizing existing government financial operations. It’s a reframing and re-organization of policies already in use.
-
Inflation as the Real Constraint: The primary constraint on government spending, according to MMT, is inflation. If government spending pushes aggregate demand beyond the economy’s real productive capacity (full employment of resources), inflation can become a problem. However, targeting full employment is the goal, and spending should be calibrated to achieve this without overstraining resources and triggering excessive inflation. Like inflating a tire, you stop adding air when it reaches the desired pressure, not before.
Alt text: The United States Treasury building in Washington, D.C., symbolizing government finance and monetary policy central to Modern Money Theory.
Addressing Mainstream Criticisms
Despite its grounding in operational realities, MMT has faced significant criticism from mainstream economists. Let’s examine some prominent critiques and MMT’s responses:
Paul Krugman: Krugman’s critique often centers on the idea that lower interest rates stimulate aggregate demand. He argues that MMT’s policy prescriptions might lead to excessive money printing and inflation. However, MMT proponents argue that empirical evidence suggests demand is not always highly sensitive to interest rate changes, challenging the effectiveness of interest rate manipulation as a primary policy tool. Furthermore, MMT emphasizes managing inflation through real resource management and fiscal policy, not solely relying on interest rate adjustments. Krugman’s reliance on simplified models like IS-LM, which even its creator questioned for real-world applicability, is also seen as a limitation in his critique of MMT.
Lawrence Summers: Summers labels MMT as “supply-side economics of our time,” suggesting it’s a “free lunch” fallacy. He argues that government money creation to finance deficits is unsustainable and inevitably leads to hyperinflation and currency collapse, citing examples from emerging markets and historical episodes. MMT counters that the “free lunch” exists when an economy operates below its full production capacity. Employing idle resources is not a burden but an economic benefit. Summers’ inflation concerns are addressed by MMT’s emphasis on managing spending in relation to real resource availability and productive capacity. MMT also distinguishes between currency-issuing sovereign nations and currency-using nations or those with fixed exchange rates, arguing that the experiences of emerging markets with currency crises are not directly applicable to countries like the US, UK, Japan, or Canada, which issue their own floating exchange rate currencies. The historical examples Summers cites, like Mitterrand’s France and Schröder’s Germany, and crises in the UK and Italy in the 1970s, are debated by MMT proponents as not being clear-cut cases of MMT failure, and often involved fixed exchange rate regimes or external constraints not present in the MMT framework for sovereign currency issuers.
Kenneth Rogoff: Rogoff expresses concern that MMT advocates might view the Federal Reserve as a “cash cow” to fund social programs, potentially leading to inflation and investor reluctance to hold government debt and currency. MMT proponents clarify that the goal is not to endlessly print money, but to strategically utilize government finance to achieve full employment and address social needs within real resource constraints. Rogoff’s concern about investor reluctance to hold debt is questioned by MMT, as a fully employed economy is generally seen as more creditworthy, not less. The fear of inflation driving investors away is again addressed by MMT’s focus on managing aggregate demand relative to real productive capacity, not simply unrestrained money creation. Rogoff’s reference to centrally planned economies is seen by MMT advocates as a mischaracterization of their policy proposals, which operate within a market economy framework, utilizing government spending to complement, not replace, private sector activity. The comparison to Reinhart and Rogoff’s debt research, which was later found to have spreadsheet errors, highlights the importance of rigorous empirical analysis and challenges the assumption that high debt-to-GDP ratios automatically lead to negative economic outcomes, a point central to MMT’s perspective on sovereign debt.
Conclusion
Modern Money Theory offers a significant challenge to orthodox economic thinking. It compels a re-evaluation of long-held assumptions about government finance and macroeconomic policy. While criticisms exist, MMT provides a framework rooted in the operational realities of modern monetary systems, particularly for sovereign currency issuers. Understanding MMT requires shifting away from outdated analogies of household finance applied to government budgeting and recognizing the unique capacities of nations with monetary sovereignty.
The core message of MMT is not about advocating for limitless spending, but for a more informed and effective approach to managing a nation’s economy to achieve full employment and address societal needs without unwarranted fear of deficits or debt in a fiat currency system. As economic discourse evolves, engaging with MMT’s insights is crucial for a more nuanced and realistic understanding of macroeconomic possibilities and constraints. Like Keynes urged, escaping from “habitual modes of thought” is essential to grasp new economic paradigms. MMT, in its essence, calls for such a paradigm shift in how we perceive and manage money in the modern era.
