by I confess I expected better. Paul Mason misses the fact that it is not ‘hit and hope’ it is actually the way money IS created – the neoliberal deceit is the ‘fact’ that we tax and spend. The Treasury has after all, admitted as much as, indeed, have the Bank of England in September 2017: “Regarding whether taxation is necessarily required to finance government spending the answer is no, it is not. Along with raising money by taxation, governments can borrow money and they can create money outright.”… Actually, money is created outright as credit. Banks extend loans that create deposits by crediting deposit accounts. Governments that are currency issuers create tax credits denominated in the currency as the unit of account and use them to credit nongovernment accounts, nowadays usually
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Bank of England, British Treasury, MMT, money creation, Paul Mason
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes Jared Bernstein, total idiot. You have to see this to believe it.
Steve Roth writes MMT and the Wealth of Nations, Revisited
Matias Vernengo writes On central bank independence, and Brazilian monetary policy
Frances Coppola writes What was the real reason for the Bank of England’s gilt market intervention?
I confess I expected better. Paul Mason misses the fact that it is not ‘hit and hope’ it is actually the way money IS created – the neoliberal deceit is the ‘fact’ that we tax and spend.
The Treasury has after all, admitted as much as, indeed, have the Bank of England in September 2017: “Regarding whether taxation is necessarily required to finance government spending the answer is no, it is not. Along with raising money by taxation, governments can borrow money and they can create money outright.”…Actually, money is created outright as credit. Banks extend loans that create deposits by crediting deposit accounts. Governments that are currency issuers create tax credits denominated in the currency as the unit of account and use them to credit nongovernment accounts, nowadays usually through the central bank as the government's fiscal agent.
According to the "law of reflux" money returns to its source. Credits that banks create through lending are used to pay down loans, which destroys the funds created by the deposit. Payment of tax credits to the government in payment of tax obligations destroys the funds created by the initial issuance. Of course, this is in aggregate, taking flows over time into account.
Spending and taxing are separate different fiscal operations for a currency issuer. Spending must logically precede taxation. Taxation, as well as payment of fees, fines and tariffs, destroy funds created through issuance, which occurs through government spending including transfers.
Spending is therefore offset by taxation and, in terms of "funds" spending with respect to sources and uses, but taxation is not used operationally to "pay for" spending. Spending and taxation are a separate fiscal operations, and tax policy is separate from spending policy. Taxes don't "pay for" spending — ever — under any circumstances.
Hence, it makes no sense to say that taxes are needed to "afford" spending, or that spending without offsetting taxes is "living beyond our means," or that liabilities are "unfunded." In terms of accounting statements, funding is simply a matter of accounting entries ("keystrokes on spreadsheets") that balance the books.
For a full explanation of the MMT POV on money and banking and finance, see Eric Tymoigne's book draft, The Financial System and the Economy.
Progressive Pulse
Paul Mason demonstrates all too clearly why much of Labour don’t ‘get’ money