Currency issuers and users

A few comments at MMT blogs on the subject of consolidating the nation's central bank and its treasury.

See here and here.

This argument could probably go on forever, but it is an interesting one. MMT's "general case" is one in which there is a government and at some sub-level a treasury and central bank. The government reigns supreme as a currency issuer since it consolidates both institutions. I don't know why this setup must be the "general case" and everything else anomalous. Why not call an independent central bank and a non-issuing treasury the "general case" and then reason from there? It seems ad hoc to me. I prefer thinking not in terms of hierarchies, nor in some sort of tiered progressions away from the general case, but in terms of poles. At one extreme is a totally independent central bank, at the other is a totally consolidated central bank. In the real world, every institutional setup lies somewhere in between.

This reminds me of an old argument I had back in 2010 at WCI.

Sproul v Glasner

Some comments on their theoretical differences here.

I think Mike Sproul and David Glasner would agree on 95% of monetary economic propositions, only disagreeing on how fiat money gets its value. David thinks there are two reasons for fiat money to have value: either people are irrational, or fiat money provides a real service - discharging of taxes. The latter is a chartal description of money. Mike has a "backing theory" of fiat money, which I think is broad enough to include the tax-discharge argument. I like Mike's because it is a more general theory. But I don't think the two are very far apart.

To tell them apart, ask this question. "If the US government ceased accepting Federal Reserve-issued liabilities to settle taxes and, say, required gold instead, would the US dollar lose its value?"

I think David and most chartalists would have to say yes. Without the ability to redeem it for taxes owed, the US dollar would be worthless. I think Mike would say no, because as liabilities of the Fed, even fiat money has some sort of claim on Fed assets, and this is enough to give it value.

Adam Smith: taxes contribute to fiat's liquidity premium, they don't drive its value

David Glasner had an article called Wicksteed on the Value of Paper Money.

David discusses the idea that it is the imposition of taxes by government, payable in fiat money tokens, that gives fiat money its value. This is chartalism, the very same idea that MMTers trumpet as their unique addition to economic discussion. This is one theory for why fiat money has value. Another is Mike Sproul's backing theory in which, just as a mutual fund's assets give its units value, a central bank's assets support the value of its liabilities. When it comes to explaining modern money, I'm partial to the latter. I'm not averse to the MMT explanation, but only as science fiction. I don't think any real monetary system has actually worked in this way.

David mentions that Adam Smith advocated the taxes-drive fiat money theory. Incidentally, Randall Wray says the same in his book Understanding Modern Money. I disagree. To make a long story short, in Smith's world, fiat money was any issue of paper money which was temporarily unredeemable and therefore circulated at a discount. In forcing people to pay taxes with this money, the sovereign created a built-in liquidity premium. But the tax obligation did not give the paper money it's original value - the probability of future redemption did. Here's the a better explanation that I left on David's blog:

I’ve read Smith pretty carefully on this. The offhanded comment comes after he talks about money that is no longer instantly convertible but redeemable at some future point in time. He uses as his example Scottish notes for which the option clause has been invoked and US colonial paper which is only redeemable after a few years.

Given deferred redemption, “such a paper money would, no doubt fall more or less below the value of gold and silver, according as the difficulty or uncertainty of obtaining payment was supposed to be greater or less, or the greater or less distance of time at which payment was exigible.”

The point being that Smith thought such money was valued according to its discounted probability of being redeemed at par.

Smith then brings up the point about taxes. 

“The paper of each colony being received in the payment of the provincial taxes, for the full value for which it had been issued, it necessarily derived from this use some additional value, over and above what it would have had, from the real or supposed distance of the term of its final discharge and redemption.”

Thus acceptability in payment of taxes added a liquidity premium to colonial paper. But it didn’t give that paper its original value. I read Smith as providing a chartal theory of the liquidity premium, and not an explanation for a positive value of fiat money.

Menger and the origins of money

Lord Keynes at the Social Democracy blog has an interesting post on Carl Menger.called Menger on the Origin of Money.

As I point out in my comments, Lord Keynes is mistaken in trying to recruit Menger to the chartalist side of the metallist vs chartalist debate. Menger always was a pure metallist:

So while Menger believed that the state might adopt metals as money, it could not legislate into existence a worthless item as money. The state could construct a system of coinage and thereby perfect an existing metallic monetary system, but not create a system based on intrinsically worthless materials.

MMT, history of thought, Locke, Berkeley, chartalism, free banking, and cooperative banking

heteconomist.com has a post on MMT's openness and political neutrality. See A Clarification on Political Openness.

Heteconomist: "I prefer to see MMT as an open framework (basically an understanding of the monetary system and national accounting) within which – or out of which – various policy approaches could be developed and pursued."

Reply:

I’m no expert, but I decompose the monetary component of MMT into chartalism and endogenous money. These ideas are so old… you can go back centuries to find the origins of chartalism in Locke and Berkeley (money as a ticket, agreement, or sign). Endogenous money’s roots traces to the banking school of the 19th century. MMT doesn’t own these individual ideas… they are diffused into the general body of economics.

There are no intrinsic reasons why the ideas of Locke, Berkeley, and the banking school need be associated with a particular political slant.

The chartalist version of Locke/Berkeley’s token theory of money surely appeals to big government types on the left and right. This is because it finds in the all-powerful state the basis of the entire monetary system.

But you can have endogeneous money + Stateless Locke/Berkeley token money. The political form of this, on the left at least, would be social credit and the cooperative banking movement. On the right it would be some form of free banking.

So in sum, I wouldn’t idealize MMT as being a neutral super structure on which to drape your policy prescriptions. There is politics at the core of the chartalist rendition of Locke/Berkeley.