by There appears to be confusion among those interested in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as to what the implications for a green transition that will fasttrack the transition to renewable energy will require by way of government. I regularly see statements that government deficits will have to be ‘massive’ for extended periods because the private (for profit) market entities will not move fast enough to deal with the climate emergency in any effective way. The confusion inherent in these claims is that they fail to separate the ‘size’ of government from any particular ‘net spending’ (deficit) recorded by government. The two outcomes are quite separable and have to be if government action is to achieve sustainable outcomes, not only in terms of environmental goals but also price stability
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes Weekly Indicators May 6 – 10 by New Deal democrat
Angry Bear writes A Bit of History by a Friend from Slate’s “The Fray”
Angry Bear writes Oil industry is Writing Executive Orders for Trump to Sign
Angry Bear writes 2024 SOCIAL SECURITY REPORT IS OUT THE MEDIA MISS THE POINT
There appears to be confusion among those interested in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as to what the implications for a green transition that will fasttrack the transition to renewable energy will require by way of government. I regularly see statements that government deficits will have to be ‘massive’ for extended periods because the private (for profit) market entities will not move fast enough to deal with the climate emergency in any effective way. The confusion inherent in these claims is that they fail to separate the ‘size’ of government from any particular ‘net spending’ (deficit) recorded by government. The two outcomes are quite separable and have to be if government action is to achieve sustainable outcomes, not only in terms of environmental goals but also price stability goals. So let’s work all that out. Failing to do so, leads MMT activists to make claims that open them up to criticism from those who understand the point I am making but have different ideological agendas. So they make erroneous claims such that ‘MMT just advocates big deficits’, or that ‘MMT thinks that deficits do not matter’. But they have been lured into that position, in part, by the social media behaviour of some MMT activists.
This is now going on at scale as capital resists the changes needed to address emergent challenges in a timely way. This is being worked out that the level of the world system in terms of the Global South/East confronting the five-hundred-year dominance of the Global North, which manifests historically at present as neoliberalism, and its attendant neo-imperialism and neocolonialism. The basis is economic (control of resources), political (control of territory), and social (confrontation of cultures and ideologies). There is no "solution" to this. The solution — the replacement of this moment of history with the next moment — is being worked out on the battlefield of history in the same way that such issues always have been and competing worldviews and interests collide.
William Mitchell — Modern Monetary TheoryA large government presence required for energy transition does not mean massive deficits are required
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia