In 2001-02, I served as president of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the oldest free-market educational institution in the United States.

When I arrive I felt at home immediately when I saw the photographs of three members of my faith who had served as members of the FEE board – Ezra Taft Benson (former Secretary of Agriculture), J. Reuben Clark, Jr. (former ambassador to Mexico), and Ernest L. Wilkinson (president of BYU).

Here is the story when Ezra Taft Benson came to FEE headquarters in May, 1977, and addressed supporters and then the board members.

In May 1977 Ezra Taft Benson addressed the board of the prestigious Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), of which he had previously served on the board of trustees (as had J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and Ernest L. Wikinson).  He warned that while America had become the world’s richest nation because of free enterprise, today’s citizen was learning to depend on the state, thus jeopardizing personal freedom.

The following day he was invited by the president of the foundation, Leonard E. Read, to attend a trustees meeting.  “The first question [they asked me] was on the Church, and they never left that theme,” President Benson wrote that night, “so I spent an hour answering questions, telling them about the Church, bearing my testimony to them and telling of Church policies and my experiences in the Cabinet.”  One board member lingered afterwards and told him, “I want what you have.  When we go home, I’m going to look up your church.”

Shortly thereafter President Kimball received a letter from Leonard Read, who wrote, “Last evening we had some 160 freedom friends to hear President Benson’s lecture, ‘The Productive Base of Society.’ Imagine the audiences and lectures I have arranged during…more than 31 years as President of FEE….Well, last evening was the best of all.  Never have a witnessed such interest, approval, esteem.  This forenoon, however, even topped last evening—this being an hour’s discussion with 26 of our Trustees and many guests.  All were profoundly moved by Ezra’s economic, intellectual, moral and spiritual insights.  Among my acquaintances in this and 22 foreign nations, I have never come upon his equal.”

President Benson sent an engraved copy of the book, Meet the Mormons, and a copy of the Joseph Smith story to each trustee of the foundation.

–“Ezra Taft Benson, A Biography,” by Sheri L. Dew (Deseret Book, 1987), p. 451.

This article was originally published on the FreedomFest Forum on October 10, 2020.

The year 2020 has been anything but a year of seeing clearly. It has been characterized by uncertainty, divisiveness, and conflicting views. In the January prediction issue of my newsletter, “Forecasts & Strategies,” I stated, “The outlook for stocks, gold and the dollar is positive as we enter 2020, but beware of a ‘black swan’ event that could derail the longest running bull market in history.” Indeed, the coronavirus not only derailed the bull market, but the entire economy and our society. Today, on 10-10 2020, I thought it would be appropriate to publish my top ten lessons learned from 2020.

1. “Trust the science but not the scientists.” We quickly learned that medical experts are subject to biases and weaknesses just like the rest of us. As Steve Forbes says, “You can’t always trust the experts.” In early 2020, prominent epidemiologists in the UK and the US published convincing articles predicting that the new virus would kill “millions.” Indeed, people began dying at alarming rates. Other medical experts dissented from the alarmists, saying that the coronavirus was far less lethal than previous influenzas such as the Hong Kong flu of 1969. As doctors have learned more about the virus, treatments have improved and death rates have dropped. But the panic continues.

2. “The cure turned out far worse than the disease.” Sir Harry Schultz has said, “Never underestimate the size of a panic or the power of a politician.” Government leaders overreacted to the virus scare by shutting down schools, sports, theaters, tourism, travel, churches, and business.   To use a metaphor from John Maynard Keynes, “We used a sledge hammer to crack a nut.” Only now are we finding out the devastating unintended consequences –bankruptcies and job losses, depression and suicides, domestic abuse and alcoholism, and permanent changes in our lifestyle and culture. Some studies suggest that more people are dying from the shutdown than from the disease itself. As I’ve traveled across the country over the past several weeks I’ve seen business after business closed down— whole areas of towns shuttered— no public bathrooms or places to eat— and I am appalled by what has happened to our country. What a tragedy! Sadly, none of the governors or mayors who imposed these draconian restrictions have apologized or taken responsibility for their blunders. Meanwhile, Sweden was one of the few countries that did not succumb to the scaremongering, and the virus is virtually finished there. It is becoming more and more apparent that locking down was the worst choice.

3. “Technology made the lockdown easier to impose.” How it was possible for the government to shut down the economy and society so quickly? Why were Americans so compliant? Fear about the unknown properties of the virus were the initial reason, of course. But the months long shutdown was made more palatable because e-commerce and online technology made it easier for many to transition to working from home. College and university officials could shut down schools because it’s now possible to teach online and for students to be educated and entertained at home. White-collar workers could do their jobs online. Most products, even food and drink, could be delivered to people sequestering at home, largely because blue-collar jobs (manufacturing, retail and delivery) were deemed “essential” and the risk of the disease was deemed warranted.

4. “How quickly we lost our liberties.” Milton Friedman said, “Freedom is a rare and delicate flower.” Despite the safeguards guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, within days of the lockdown, we saw our First Amendment rights abridged, including the freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, worship, travel, and commerce. Education went online and borders were closed. In the past, quarantines were imposed on those who were actually sick and thus posed a threat, but now everyone was restricted by the fear that anyone could be a carrier, even without symptoms. Government officials in other countries imposed even more severe limitations on their citizens’ freedoms of movement and behavior. At the same time, certain groups were allowed to engage in mass protests without any limitation. But those who protested the lockdowns were cited, fined, and surveilled. Most law-abiding citizens were reluctant to defy the State and engage in civil disobedience, even when their new rules defy common sense.

5. “The Rise of Irrational Behavior.” I am amazed how willingly citizens conform to State mandates and prohibitions, giving up their liberties so quickly in order to be safe. Masks and physical distancing are the most obvious examples. I can understand why many people wish to protect themselves; let them make their own decisions about safety and risk. But the government and the media have been so effective in scaring people that we see people wearing masks inside their cars when they are driving, walking alone on the streets, and exercising in the gym (which is downright unhealthy). Jokes have been made about how intelligent the virus is, avoiding people while they’re sitting in a restaurant but attacking when they’re standing. The governor of California seriously suggested that people put on their face coverings in between bites when eating at a restaurant. The chief medical officer in Canada said with a straight face that partners should wear masks during sex, or try positions where they aren’t facing each other. Meanwhile, most Swedes have adopted sensible distancing protocols, but they don’t wear face coverings everywhere they go, and their businesses have remained open.

6. “Government at the federal and state level is out of control.” As a result of its own hysteria in shutting down the economy, governments at all levels face the worst financial crisis Americans have experienced in peacetime. States have used up their “rainy day” funds and many face bankruptcy if Washington does not bail them out. Of course, many municipalities were facing insolvency before the pandemic, but the shutdown has sped up and intensified the crisis as tax revenues lessen and demands for welfare and unemployment benefits increase. Major corporations and small businesses face the same dilemma. Lost revenues and increased spending have resulted in alarmingly high deficits. Central banks like the Federal Reserve are engaged in virtually unlimited buying of Treasury securities and other assets, generating fears of higher taxation and inflation in the future. In sum, Washington is like Humpty Dumpty – the egg has cracked, and it can’t be put back together again. As a result, socialism is on the march.

7. “Government executives have been given way too much emergency power.” George Washington is alleged to have said, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Over the years, the president, governors and mayors have been granted almost unlimited power to use “executive orders,” powers intended to be used sparingly, only in times of war or natural disasters. In 2020, they began using executive order to impose virtually any prohibition or mandate they wish. As Jorge “Tuto” Quirado, the former president of Bolivia, once said, “Now more and more everything is either prohibited or mandated.” In 2020, we see that representative democracy has been replaced by dictatorship. A few states limit these emergency orders to 30 or 60 days, during which time the governor must consult with the legislature to get their approval before continuing their mandates, but many have simply issued new orders after the expiration date. The courts have started to rule against these overreaching mandates, notably in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but the damage has been done.

8. “We need to encourage healthy living.” It seems the entire focus by medical and government authorities is to deal with the symptoms of the disease — to develop a vaccine to prevent the virus or medicines and treatments to make you better if you contract it. But the evidence is overwhelming that healthy and young people are not likely to get the virus. The most vulnerable victims are the elderly who suffer from obesity, diabetes, heart disease, or other diseases. Adding insult to injury (or hypocrisy to mandates), much of the rise in these conditions is a result of misguided and misleading federal nutrition guidelines since the 1980s, when fats were demonized and sugars were quietly substituted to create texture and flavor. The increase in sugar and processed carbs has weakened immune systems. It’s time for teachers and other leaders to encourage healthy living at all ages through proper diets, exercise, and a positive mental attitude. During the lockdown people have done more walking and biking, but the stay-at-home orders, coupled with the closing of gyms, parks, beaches and sporting events have led to a more sedentary and less healthy population. If herd immunity is the goal, having a healthy society is the best road to surviving this crisis.

9. “We have begun to live in fear, not faith.” In today’s Brave New World, masks have become a religious talisman, imbued with magical powers to ward off evil viruses even when they are often dirty and ill-fitting. Meanwhile, religious men and women who go to church are required to wear masks and not socialize—just hurry in and hurry out. Their pastors seem to have more faith in science and government leaders than they do in God. It saddens me when I see children recoil in fear as they pass strangers on the streets or in a store. What kind of message are we sending to our future generations when children are told that anyone could be a carrier—anyone could potentially kill them? Moreover, physical distancing requirements are repressing children’s ability to develop social skills and exercise their natural tendency toward play. Oh, ye of little faith!

10. “Know the signs of the times.” Bertrand de Jouvenel wisely said, “A forecast is never so useful as when it warns of a crisis.” The pandemic scare offers an important lesson in how we conduct our lives, our friendships, our businesses and our investment portfolios. We need to be alert and prepared for the unexpected. The coronavirus not only derailed the bull market, but the entire economy, politics, and our society. However, forecasting is a difficult business. It’s easier to prepare than to predict. I urge all to save regularly, avoid unnecessary expenses, build a strong cash position in their portfolio and retain earnings and reserves in their business.

Admittedly, many people have learned different lessons during this pandemic—they’ve resolved to spend more time with family and less time away from home, even after the pandemic ends. They’ve reconsidered career choices and school options and reevaluated how they spend money. I applaud those who have chosen to use this time productively. But for many hundreds of thousands of people, the loss of freedom and livelihood has been devastating. Both sets of lessons must be learned so that we don’t permanently lose our freedom to choose our paths.

By Mark Skousen
Chapman University
[email protected]

“Today, as in the past, a sound money system is the condition of man’s freedom and the key to his future.”

 — Jacques Rueff^[1]

Three heterodox economists William Mitchell and Martin Watts (both University of Newscastle, Australia), and L. Randall Wray (Bard College, New York) — hereafter referred to as MWW — have written a textbook entitled Macroeconomics, co-published this year by Macmillan International and Red Globe Press.  They promise a “comprehensive, university level study course in Macroeconomics from a Modern Monetary theory (MMT) perspective…grounded in real world institutions…and starts by putting the currency-issuing government at the forefront.”^[2]

Having analyzed economics textbooks in my career, I found it a valuable exercise to determine what this textbook includes and what it ignores in making the case for MMT.^[3]

In the introduction, they acknowledge that MMT grew out of the financial crisis of 2008 and the “cult of austerity” accompanying it.  They criticize the “neo-classical” economists for failing to “see it coming,” and wrongly predicting that inflation would accelerate after the monetary crisis due to quantitative easing.  MMT “rejects the main precepts of the orthodox neoclassical approach to macroeconomics” (13) and the self-interested “invisible hand” in microeconomics (6).

Thus, MWW see the need for a new Weltanschauung based on the heterodox theories of Marx, Veblen and Keynes.  They endorse the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to work and protection against unemployment, equal pay for equal work, and a minimum standard of living (9-11).

At times the authors appear nihilistic:  “…there is no single ‘right’ way to do economics….…the responsible social scientist is not seeking to establish whether the theoretical model is true, because that is an impossible task given there is no way of knowing what the truth is anyway” (3, 8).  And, they assert, “there is no scientific basis for the claim that ‘free markets’ are best” (pp. 3, 9).

“There are no financial constraints”

Despite this caveat, their conclusions are dogmatic:  “The most important conclusion reached by MMT is that the issuer of a currency faces no financial constraints.  Put simply, a country that issues its own currency can never run out and can never become insolvent in its own currency.  It can make all payments as they come due.  For this reason, it makes no sense to compare a sovereign government’s finances with those of a household or firm” (14).

For MWW, the budget and debt constraints that operate for an individual and household do not apply to the government.  They reject Adam Smith’s refrain, “What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.”^[4]  To the contrary, “the household budget analogy is false” (124) because unlike households and businesses, government has the power to tax and to print money (318).

They reject the “cult of austerity” (14).  Now that advanced countries are no longer constrained by the gold standard or fixed exchange rates, “currency-issuing governments such as those of Australia, Britain, Japan and the USA can never run out of money…for most governments, there is no default risk on government debt” (14, 15).

Furthermore, if a nation operates with a sovereign currency and avoids incurring debt in foreign currencies (a big if), “the national government can always afford to purchase anything…” (16).

The Principal Policy Goal:  Full Employment

To what purpose should the government run deficits and monetary inflation?  Fiscal policy should aim for full employment of labor and resources and guarantee everyone a job, either in the private or public sector.  They call it a Job Guarantee (JG) program.  In chapter 19, MWW “elaborate on why full employment should be the key macroeconomic policy goal” (291).  Not controlling inflation, not economic growth, not maximizing freedom.  But job guarantees for all, the “right to work” at a “living wage” (292, 295, 302).

Figure 1 below illustrates the classic Keynesian case of increasing aggregate demand (AD) to achieve full employment.

If there is chronic unemployment, “the government [can] always put them to productive use…to hire them to perform useful work in the public interest” (16), involving “direct job creation by government” (295).

But there’s more.  “There is no financial constraints to stop a currency-issuing government providing first class healthcare and/or pensions in the future” (127).

“An MMT frame considers the $x in the fiscal papers to be of little interest” (130).

They don’t mention it, but how about using government revenues to finance military adventures abroad?  At the beginning of World War II, ten million unemployed were suddenly employed as soldiers in the US armed forces.

Does this fiscal nirvana sound dangerous and irresponsible?  Is there method to their madness?

In a 5-page section on “mainstream fallacies,” they list eight myths of political economy, including a denial that fiscal deficits cause crowding out of private investments, higher taxes, inflation, or big government, or the need for a balanced budget rule or a “rainy day” fund (124-128).  They go out of their way to belittle any government leaders who speak out against “living beyond our means”… “spending like a drunken sailor”… “welfare dependency”… “burdening our grandchildren with the public debt”… or “national bankruptcy” (124).

Three Ways to Pay for Government Spending

There are three ways to finance a new government program.  MWW put it in the form of an equation:

G +iB = T + ΔB + ΔM

where

The most burdensome and politically unpopular method is direct taxation (T).  For them, the best policy is to “spend first, tax later” (323).  They ask, “Why not just eliminate taxes altogether?”  MWW reject that suggestion because it makes it more difficult for the government to borrow money without the threat of taxation (323), and progressive taxation helps reduce inequality (324).  Ideally, according to MWW, taxes should be “countercyclical,” increasing during an expansion and falling during a recession (323).

Deficits and the National Debt: “We Owe It Ourselves?”

The second way to finance government is to borrow the funds to pay for the program (ΔB).  It postpones the pain of paying directly through taxation.  But there is a price to pay down the road — the government has to pay back the principal to the bond holders and it has to pay interest, usually every six months (iB).

MMT proponents claim that government deficits are self-financing because sovereign nations can issue more debt, raise taxes, or print money.  Moreover, government borrowing is also an asset in the form of government bonds held by investors.  “The government’s deficit is always mirrored by an equivalent surplus in another part of the economy,” states Stephanie Kelton, economist at Stony Brook University.^[5]

This statement is, in essence, the old “we owe it ourselves” argument.  Robert Shiller calls it a “half truth.”  He states, “The claim would have been accurate only in an extreme, theoretical case:  if everyone had identical bond holds and paid identical taxes to cover the interest and principal that were paying themselves.  But we are never going to be in that situation in the real world.”^[6]

Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard debunked the “we owe it ourselves” argument:  “The crucial question is: Who is the ‘we’ and who are the ‘ourselves’?”  The bondholders (who tend to be wealthy individuals and institutions) are not the same as the taxpayers (who tend to be middle class.”  “For we might just as well say that taxes are unimportant for the same reason.”^[7]

National Bankruptcy: False Fear?

Advanced economies have been able to borrow huge amounts of money, more than most economists thought possible.

MWW claim, “The government can consistently spend more than its revenue because it creates the currency” (15).  Technically bankruptcy is impossible.  “Treasury cheques never ‘bounce” due to insufficient funds” (327).

There is some truth to their statement.  American conservatives have cried wolf time and time again about the dangers of deficit spending, that it will lead to national bankruptcy.  I’ve heard it all my life, even now that the US federal debt is now over $21 trillion.

Murray Rothbard set the record straight when he debunked this myth about the national debt.  He wrote:  “Many opponents of public borrowing…have greatly exaggerated the dangers of the public debt and have raised persistent alarms about imminent ‘bankruptcy.’  It is obvious that the government cannot become ‘insolvent’ like private individuals–for it can always obtain money by coercion…by increasing the tax and/or inflation in society.”^[8]

Japan as an Example?

MWW point to Japan as an example of a nation where a country can engage in persistent fiscal deficits (pushing the national debt to an astonishing 235% of GDP) without igniting a sharp rise in interest rates or higher unemployment (27-31).  Interesting that the authors ignore the fact that accompanying these massive deficits is Japanese’s anemic economic growth rate since 1992 (an average real 0.9% a year) when they started to run massive unproductive federal deficits.

You can also look at the United States in this regard.  It is extraordinary that in a world where the largest economy in the world can run deficits of $1 trillion or more a year during times of full employment and strong economic growth and see interest rates continue to decline to historical lows.  I don’t know a single economist who predicted it.

Surprise, Surprise!  Governments Run Budget Surpluses!

The authors are also correct when they say, “Government deficits are normal, surpluses are atypical” (130).  The Keynesians used to favor a countercyclical “balanced budget” policy over time, running deficits during recessions and surpluses during boom times.  But as Milton Friedman commented, “Unfortunately, the balance wheel is unbalanced.”^[9]

But there are quite a few robust fully-employed economies that are running budget surpluses in an apparent reject of MMT, including:

Source:  https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-top-budget-surplus.html

The third way is the easy way out but also potentially more dangerous in destabilizing the economy — printing money.

How to Deal with the Threat of Inflation

MWW are opposed to “inflation targeting” because it imposes a high price of persistent high unemployment in order to keep price inflation in check (297-98, 315).  Instead, they propose an “employment buffer” policy, so that when private demand for labor declines, the federal government increases its job guarantees, and when private demand for labor increases, the government reduces its available job offers.  “This targeted approach to sustaining full employment is a powerful stabilizing force for aggregate demand, output, and prices” (302).

MWW introduce the “buffer employment ratio” (BER), defined as:

 BER = JGE/E,

 where

 JGE = Job Guarantee employment (by the government)

E = Total employment in the economy.

Thus, “BER rises when the JG pool expands and falls when the JG pool contracts” (304).

Why does this “buffer employment” policy control inflation?  When inflation threatens, MWW advocate tightening fiscal and monetary policy “to reduce the level of private sector demand.  Labour is then transferred from the inflating private sector to the fixed wage JG sector and the BER rises.  This will eventually ease the inflationary pressures arising from the wage-price conflict” (304).

Thus, full employment is achieved at all times while price inflation is held in check.

But will it work?  There are several potential problems.  First, how will labor productivity be affected in a managed economy where unemployment is virtually outlawed?  What incentives are there for workers to be efficient when they know they will be hired by the government if they are laid off by the private sector?

Second, wouldn’t workers in the private sector use the JG to demand higher wages?  MWW claim, “That would be unlikely,” because “the JG lowers the cost of hiring for firms because the JG workers do not experience the dislocation of unemployment and retain most, if not all, of their general and specific skills” (304).  Really?  Who’s to say the shifting from the private sector to public sector employment doesn’t involve dislocations and loss of skills?  And how easy would it be to shift back from public to private employment when the economy recovers?

Third, MWW assume that inflation is cost-push (wage pressure) rather than demand-driven, a dubious assumption in a managed economy that promises guaranteed employment, a living wage, full medical and retirement benefits.

A sharp rise in BER during a severe recession could create enormous burden on the public sector, as JG soar.  How would the government pay for all these JG?  Tax, borrow, print?

Finally, can inflation be stopped once it starts?  Studies show that once inflation gets started, it’s almost impossible to stop without causing a recession.

Fear of Runaway Inflation

MWW are well aware of the critics who fear MMT might lead to “creeping inflation” and ultimately “hyperinflation” (342).

“We acknowledge that the in the absence of appropriate oversight, a government can maintain an excessive rate of expenditure which leads to rising inflation.  But we show that the two popular examples of hyperinflation — the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe — were the result of increasing aggregate supply constraints rather than being driving by excessive fiscal deficits” (333).

According to MWW, Germany’s inflation problem in the early 1920s was caused by excessive demands of the Treaty of Versailles that could not possibly be paid for out of domestic taxation or exports.  And Zimbabwe’s collapse was due to state mismanagement of the commercial farms, which were confiscated by Mugabe’s ruthless regime and turned over to rebels who had “no background in running commercial agriculture” (345).

Still, there’s reason to be concerned that countries adopting MMT might mismanage the economy in other ways.  In response to a severe recession, the government would dramatically increase their JG program, which in turn might result in unproductive “make work” public projects.  The central bank would be pressured into printing more money even as the real economy shrinks.

Sebastian Edwards of the Hoover Institution did an in-depth study of four Latin American countries (Chile, Peru, Argentina, Venezuela) that had adopted varying aspects of MMT (financing large fiscal deficits and “job guarantee” programs through monetary expansion).  He concluded:  “The four experiments ended up badly, with runaway inflation, huge currency devaluations, and precipitous real wage declines.”^[10]

No Chapter on Economic Growth 

One of the surprising sins of omission in MWW’s Macroeconomics textbook is a chapter on growth theory.  I don’t know a single other textbook that ignores the importance of economic growth these days.  For years, the Keynesian influence after World War II was so strong that the focus in textbooks was on full employment and taming the business cycle based on Keynes’s “General Theory” of unemployed resources and aggregate demand failure.  Economic growth theory was a “special case” relegated to the back chapters.

Harvard professor Greg Mankiw created a counterrevolution in the early 1990s by putting the growth chapter up front in his Macroeconomics (Worth Publishers, 1994), and relegating Keynes’s theories to the back pages as a “special” case.^[11]

Now MWW want to go back to the good old days of Paul Samuelson “paradox of thrift” and Abba Lerner “functional finance“ theory of “crude” Keynesianism.

Real-World Alternatives to MMT

MWW contend that their textbook Macroeconomics is “grounded in real-world institutions,” yet I was surprised by their failure to cite real-world economies that have achieved strong economic growth and full employment without inflation using more classical economic principles.

Countries can achieve full employment and higher economic growth without inflation by encouraging greater productivity on the supply side, by cutting taxes and regulations, privatizing government-owned businesses and services, and championing saving, capital investment, technology and entrepreneurship.

Figure 2 demonstrates how the supply-side stimulus (AS) can achieve full employment with less inflation.

Note the difference between the Keynesian AD policy (figure 1 above) differs from the Supply-Side AS policy (figure 2 above) — the Keynesian deficit spending model increases output and inflation, while the Supply-Side productive model increases out and reduces inflation.

Here are several case studies that adopted the Supply Side Model (not discussed in MWW’s textbook):

Sweden:  In 1992, Sweden suffered a real estate banking crisis, credit crunch, and monetary crisis.  In response, the government guaranteed bank deposits and ran significant deficits.  After the crisis abated, they engaged in a series of reforms to reduce the size of a bloated welfare state by privatizing various government programs; converting their state pension to a defined-contribution plan; adopting school choice in education; cutting corporate and other taxes; and overall reduced the size of government while maintaining its generous welfare system.  Today Sweden has a modest budget surplus.  The average real economic growth in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) terms in nearly 3% a year.  Price inflation is low.  The unemployment rate is 6.7%, largely due to a generous immigration policy.  Sweden’s Economic Freedom Index has risen to #19 most free in the world.

Canada:  In 1994-95, Canada suffered from an oversized government, resulting in a budget deficit and currency crisis, with Moody’s downgrading Canadian debt.  The Liberal and Conservative parties agreed to severe budget cuts and federal layoffs, despite strong opposition by Keynesian economists.  Two years later, the budget was balanced, and the Canadian dollar made a strong recovery.  Then Canada adopted a series of supply-side tax cuts.  Today the corporate tax rate is only 15%.  The size of government has been reduced, economic growth is over 3% a year, inflation is less than 2% a year, but the unemployment is relatively high at 6.7%.  The budget did fall into deficit during the 2008 financial crisis, but none of the top five banks suffered serious losses.  Canadian budget has improved since then, although the Canadian dollar is weak.  Today Canada (#8) is ahead of the United States (#12) in the Economic Freedom Index.

Singapore:  Economic growth has averaged 3.5% in the past five years, inflation is less than 1%, and unemployment rate is 2%.  Singapore has accumulated substantial budget surpluses ($17.9 billion over the past three years), although it will run a deficit this year.  Singapore has the world’s best medical care system, a combination of health saving accounts (Medisave) and universal coverage of catastrophic illnesses (healthcare represents only 4.5% of GDP).  They have a flat maximum tax rate of 22% for individuals and 17% for businesses.  Singapore has a free-trade zone.  Though it is not a democracy, it is ranked #2 in the world’s Economic Freedom Index.

Chile:  Since Gen. Pinochet stepped down as dictator and Chile adopted democracy in 1990, Chile’s economy continues to do well.  Real economic growth is 2.2% over the past five years, and inflation is at a low 2.2% a year.  The unemployment rate is 7%, largely due to the slump in copper and commodity prices.  After running a surplus budget in 2011-12, the deficit returned but is a manageable 2.5% of GDP.  The maximum tax rate is 44% on individuals and 25% on businesses.  It is the highest rated country in Latin America in the Economic Freedom Index (#18 in the world).

These examples demonstrate that countries can achieve reasonable full employment, good economic growth, and low inflation without resorting to risky MMT policies.

Conclusion

There aren’t many cases where a broad range of economists, from Keynesian to Austrian, can agree on something, and MMT is one of them.  Vocal critics have included Paul Krugman, Robert Shiller, Kenneth Rogoff, Larry Summers, Steve Hanke and Robert Murphy.  All agree that MMT is a bad and even dangerous policy.

It seems that MMT advocates are determined to test the validity of Adam Smith famous refrain, “There is a great deal of ruin in a nation.”

I began with a quote from French economist Jacques Rueff.  I will end with his warning:  “No religion spread as fast as the belief in full employment, and in this roundabout way, allowed governments that had exhausted their tax and borrowing resources to resort to the phony delights of monetary inflation.”^[12]

^[1]   Jacques Rueff, The Age of Inflation (Regnery, 1964), translated by A. H. Meeus and F. G. Clarke, p. xiv.

^[2]   William F. Mitchell, L. Randall Wray, and Martin J. Watts, Macroeconomics (Macmillan International and Red Globe Press, 2019), preface.

^[3]   See Mark Skousen, Economics on Trial (Irwin Publishing, 1991), and my paper, “The Perseverance of Paul Samuelson’s Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives (1997), 11 (2): 137-152.  https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.11.2.137

^[4]  Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (Glasgow Edition, 1982), Book IV Chapter II, pp. 456-7, paras. 11-12.

^[5] Stephanie Kelton, “How We Think about the Deficit is Mostly Wrong,” New York Times, October 5, 2017.

^[6] Robert J. Shiller, “Modern Monetary Theory Makes Sense, Up to a Point,” New York Times, March 2, 2019.  He concludes, “Though increased spending on infrastructure, education, social welfare and the environment may be wise, and rising deficits may make sense some of the time, we really cannot borrow ceaselessly without risking real harm.”

^[7] Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy and State, 2nd ed. (Mises Institute, 2004 [1962]), p. 1027-1028.

^[8]   Ibid., p. 1028.

^[9]  Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 76.

^[10] Sebastian Edwards, “Modern Monetary Theory: Cautionary Tales from Latin America,” Economics Working Paper 19106, Hoover Institution, April 25, 2019.  https://www.hoover.org/research/modern-monetary-theory-cautionary-tales-latin-america

^[11]  See Mark Skousen, The Making of Modern Economics, 3rd ed. (Routledge, 2016), pp. 445-448.

^[12]   J. Rueff, “La Fin de l’ere keynesienne”, in ´Oeuvres completes de Jacques Rueff, vol. 3, Politique ´economique I (Paris, 1979), 178. This article, originally a lecture delivered to the Mont Pelerin Society, appeared in ` Le Monde on 19 and 20–21 Feb. 1976.  See also https://dailyreckoning.com/homage-to-jacques-rueff/