Monetary Finance

Brian Galle, Yair Listokin
{"title":"Monetary Finance","authors":"Brian Galle, Yair Listokin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3885966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conventional economic wisdom holds that governments cannot pay their bills by printing money. Running the printing press—or, at modern central banks, tapping a few keys to create electronic funds—causes inflation, and inflation can destroy economies. Yet as it turns out, since 2008 developed countries throughout the world have in effect printed trillions of dollars’ worth of new money without any real hint of inflation. In the United States, for example, this “monetary finance” has amounted to ⅓ of all deficit spending over the last decade. The power of central banks to finance government at this scale should transform how we think about the fiscal state, our system of taxing and spending. Yet because this phenomenon is new, runs contrary to decades of theory, and is not yet fully understood, little scholarship yet grapples with how governments should use monetary finance. Most nations’ basic architectures for revenue and spending decisions assume that taxes and government borrowing are the primary sources of government finance. What should happen to fundamental legal rules, such as balanced-budget requirements, debt ceilings, or the tax legislative process, when central banks are also key players in financing national expenditures? And how should the structure of central banks change to reflect this new power, which could turn into a dangerous temptation? We explore those questions here, and our answers in large part depend on our unique position in the monetary finance debate. A group of heterodox scholars, known collectively under the banner “Modern Monetary Theory,” claim that central banks can essentially print money endlessly without cost, and that taxes serve at most a secondary role in government finance. We disagree. Instead, we argue, the conditions under which monetary finance offers an attractive alternative to taxation occur only rarely and for a limited time, though that time happens to be right now. Our key structural recommendations thus turn on what we see as the contingent nature of seigniorage. Opportunities to finance government cheaply without serious inflation risk are like mineral wealth: valuable but limited. We therefore propose institutions that treat monetary finance opportunities much as oil-rich countries treat their oil revenues. And we sketch ways in which central banks can decide when to employ monetary finance, while preserving their independence from political actors who would exploit it for temporary gains.","PeriodicalId":231496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3885966","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Conventional economic wisdom holds that governments cannot pay their bills by printing money. Running the printing press—or, at modern central banks, tapping a few keys to create electronic funds—causes inflation, and inflation can destroy economies. Yet as it turns out, since 2008 developed countries throughout the world have in effect printed trillions of dollars’ worth of new money without any real hint of inflation. In the United States, for example, this “monetary finance” has amounted to ⅓ of all deficit spending over the last decade. The power of central banks to finance government at this scale should transform how we think about the fiscal state, our system of taxing and spending. Yet because this phenomenon is new, runs contrary to decades of theory, and is not yet fully understood, little scholarship yet grapples with how governments should use monetary finance. Most nations’ basic architectures for revenue and spending decisions assume that taxes and government borrowing are the primary sources of government finance. What should happen to fundamental legal rules, such as balanced-budget requirements, debt ceilings, or the tax legislative process, when central banks are also key players in financing national expenditures? And how should the structure of central banks change to reflect this new power, which could turn into a dangerous temptation? We explore those questions here, and our answers in large part depend on our unique position in the monetary finance debate. A group of heterodox scholars, known collectively under the banner “Modern Monetary Theory,” claim that central banks can essentially print money endlessly without cost, and that taxes serve at most a secondary role in government finance. We disagree. Instead, we argue, the conditions under which monetary finance offers an attractive alternative to taxation occur only rarely and for a limited time, though that time happens to be right now. Our key structural recommendations thus turn on what we see as the contingent nature of seigniorage. Opportunities to finance government cheaply without serious inflation risk are like mineral wealth: valuable but limited. We therefore propose institutions that treat monetary finance opportunities much as oil-rich countries treat their oil revenues. And we sketch ways in which central banks can decide when to employ monetary finance, while preserving their independence from political actors who would exploit it for temporary gains.
货币金融
传统的经济学观点认为,政府无法通过印钞来支付账单。开动印钞机——或者,在现代央行,敲击几个键来创造电子基金——会导致通货膨胀,而通货膨胀会摧毁经济。然而,事实证明,自2008年以来,世界各地的发达国家实际上已经印刷了价值数万亿美元的新货币,而没有任何真正的通胀迹象。例如,在美国,这种“货币融资”在过去十年中占所有赤字支出的三分之一。中央银行为如此规模的政府提供资金的权力,应该会改变我们对财政状况、税收和支出体系的看法。然而,由于这是一种新现象,与几十年来的理论背道而驰,而且尚未被完全理解,因此很少有学术研究关注政府应该如何使用货币融资。大多数国家收入和支出决策的基本架构都假定税收和政府借款是政府财政的主要来源。当中央银行也是国家支出融资的关键角色时,平衡预算要求、债务上限或税收立法程序等基本法律规则应该发生什么变化?央行的结构应该如何改变,以反映这种可能变成危险诱惑的新力量?我们在这里探讨这些问题,我们的答案在很大程度上取决于我们在货币金融辩论中的独特地位。一群以“现代货币理论”(Modern Monetary Theory)为名的非正统学者声称,央行基本上可以毫无成本地无休止地印钞,而税收在政府财政中顶多只是次要角色。我们不同意的状况。相反,我们认为,货币融资提供有吸引力的税收替代方案的条件很少发生,而且是在有限的时间内,尽管这个时间恰好是现在。因此,我们的关键结构性建议取决于我们所认为的铸币税的偶然性。在没有严重通胀风险的情况下为政府提供廉价融资的机会就像矿产财富:有价值但有限。因此,我们建议各机构像石油富国对待石油收入那样对待货币融资机会。我们还概述了央行可以决定何时使用货币融资的方法,同时保持其独立性,不受政治行为者的影响,因为政治行为者会利用货币融资获得暂时利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信