I have been thinking a lot lately about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – the economic principle that the US has defacto adopted as part of the COVID-19 stimulus package. One could argue that we had adopted it prior to COVID, but the record money printing that the US did in early 2020 cements our place in the MMT camp.

Wikipedia has a good summary of the principles of MMT. This table of the main tenents is the most enlightening. A government that has the power to issue its own currency:

1. Can pay for goods, services, and financial assets without a need to collect money in the form of taxes or debt issuance in advance of such purchases;
2. Cannot be forced to default on debt denominated in its own currency;
3. Is only limited in its money creation and purchases by inflation, which accelerates once the real resources (labour, capital and natural resources) of the economy are utilized at full employment;
4. Can control demand-pull inflation^[6] by taxation and bond issuance, which remove excess money from circulation (although the political will to do so may not always exist);
5. Does not need to compete with the private sector for scarce savings by issuing bonds.

So if I understand this right – as long as there is no inflation, the government can print as much money as it wants. Deficits truly don’t matter. I can see why this is so attractive to governments around the world.

A few issues I have with this. It’s pretty clear that as the government has run up huge budget deficits in the last 10 years – the money has gone into the stock market – not the economy. So the only inflation that has occurred is in financial assets, which I assume is excluded from the traditional measure of inflation. Now maybe that is because of the way the government has been distributing all this excess cash. If over the last 10 years the focus had been to to get the money to the public rather than work through the banking system, maybe these excess dollars would be showing up in the economy as inflation.

The other issue I have with this (as does the author of these points apparently) is item #4. The assumption is that when inflation does arrive, the government will raise taxes to slow the economy. I find that uh.. very unlikely – as there will be no political will to do so, especially when workers are seeing their paychecks erode during inflationary periods. Unless of course the taxes are raised on financial assets and investments – and we know there is no political will to do that. We can even look so far as the latest CBO Budget estimate to see there is no projection to deal with budget deficits through 2030:

Perhaps the assumption is there will be no inflation for the next 10 years – in that case – the good times are here.

Nobody knows how this will ultimately play out. if no inflation does occur in the next few decades, I will have to admit the Modern monetary theorists were probably right. If we do start to see inflation, and see rising interest rates increase the debt service in our annual budget, I will be interested to see if the Modern Monetary Theorists stick to the plan when it becomes politically difficult.

APPIP ERROR: amazon-search[

]

One of the most under-reported economic stories of 2019 was the problems with the Repo Market and ‘Not QE’.  This article does as good as job of any as explaining whats going on.  This is a complicated topic, which is why it hasn’t been covered outside of the financial press, but it seems to me this will have huge implications in the coming years.

Starting in October, largely due to all the government securities being issues, the Fed stepped in and became a net buyer of Treasury securities. Wall Street & the banks treat treasury securities like liquid assets – the problem now being there are so many treasury securities in the market, the appetite is dwindling. Banks are stuffed with treasury securities, foreign interest is stalled. It seems everyone who wants to own a treasury bill has one.

Prior to this, starting in late 2017, the Fed had been (slowly) trying to drain off all the debt it added over the last 10 years. One could argue this was a major factor in the stock market ending down in 2018, with its low in December when the Fed raised rates, and signaled more to come in 2019. In January, the Fed reversed course and signaled lower rates, juicing the stock market to new highs. Now that the Federal Reserve is keeping rates low, they added fuel to the fire by injecting (printing) more money into the system, which has the effect of ending up in the stock market directly. It would seem this is what might be fueling the recent highs in the market.

Another longer term ticking time bomb is all the retirement assets accumulated by baby boomers. As boomers quit accumulating wealth (or die), and they become net sellers of financial assets, that money will be passed back into the economy, flooding the economy with all these T-bills that have been hoarded in these retirement funds. I think this may finally lead to the inflation that has been long predicted by economists when government runs large deficits. Once that money leaves the hands of old savers, and into younger spenders, a lot more money will be chasing the same goods which is a recipe for inflation.

Historical economic theory would assume that rising federal debt would lead to higher interest rates, as supply of debt exceeds demand. So far that hasn’t happened. I think this has been distorted by the huge Baby Boomer appetite for savings, and recent Fed policy is distorting markets by ‘hiding’ this debt on the balance sheet. And because it appears to the public and politicians that ‘deficits don’t matter’, there is no appetite to reign in all the federal debt. So far, its working. But I believe deficits do matter. How long the government can continue to print paper to cover these debts is anybody’s guess. At some point one can assume markets will care? And what will happen when markets do care? That is a question that will be have to be answered sooner or later.

The recent 2020 campaign discussions on billionaire taxation are bringing about an interesting discourse, but I wish someone would bring up problems with current philanthropy rules. It seems to me an easy step for someone to take would be to tighten the loopholes of big charitable giving.

This article does a great job discussing The Perils of Billionairre Philanthropy. It seems to me that charitable giving has surreptitiously become primarily a tax avoidance tool for the wealthy. A great stat from this article:

In the early 2000s, households earning $200,000 or more made 30 percent of all charitable deductions. By 2017, this high-earner group accounted for 52 percent of donations. And the total share of charitable deductions from households making over $1 million dollars grew from 12 percent in 1995 to 30 percent in 2015, according to IRS data.

Why the change? A couple reasons in my opinion.

1. Donation of appreciated stock. A hidden gem of tax avoidance for anybody who has stock that has greatly appreciated. When you donate stock to charity, you get to take the charitable donation credit on the full value of the stock, without taking the capital gain. A couple great examples here. Bill Gates donated $4.6 billion dollars of stock to his foundation in 2017 without paying any capital gains. Lets assume his cost basis on that stock is near zero, and he is in the tax bracket that would pay 20% capital gains tax. By doing this, he was able to avoid paying roughly $920 million in capital gains in 2017. In 2018, Warren Buffet donated 3.6 billion in stock to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Using the same math, I count that as $520 million avoided in capital gains taxes. That’s $1.5 billion in lost taxes in these two examples alone. Yes the money goes to philanthropic ventures, but is that equitable? Now.. it is a pain to donate stock to charity.. which leads me to #2.
2. The rise in Donor Advised Funds. Donor advised funds are a great tool to give to charity for the wealthy (and upper middle class) to get a tax break. The game here is instead of giving directly to charity every year, every few years to give a lump sum to a Donor advised fund, which is essentially a pool of charitable money that can then be distributed to a different charity at any time. By giving a lump sum, people who do not hit the threshhold for itemizing their taxes can now get a charitable tax break. An Example: Lets say a married couple earns $16000 in taxes, and gave $3000 in charitable gifts in a year. Given the standard deduction is over $20k it makes sense to just take the standard deduction and not take itemized deductions, thus losing your charitable deduction. However, if instead of giving $3k to charity every year, you give $15000 to a Donor advised fund every 5 years. This gives you a $12,000 write-off every 5 years for charitable contributions because you can itemize that lump sum every 5 years. The kicker of course is, if you have appreciated stock, you can contribute your appreciated stock (see #1 above) to the fund to further leverage your contribution and take advantage of tax rules. Then, thoughout the year you dole out your money to your favorite charities from your balance in your Donor Advised Fund. These funds are very easy to set up and use – but how many people can take advantage of them?

It occurred to me that companies that have a 401k must follow strict IRS guidelines to ensure their plan is equitable by ensuring employees participate from all income levels. These charitable donation loopholes have been around for years, so they likely have bipartisan support because they encourage charitable giving. But how hard would it be to look at the above issues to make them equitable? Either change the rules to either cap tax free contributions, or change the rules so people from all income levels can take advantage of these tools.

When I read these two articles, I was reminded of the Seinfeld episode where George realized that he has been making bad choices all his life – so he should do the opposite of what he thinks is right.

Case in point:  This article discussing how the budget deficit is now increasing due to stimulus points how how the government has been making bad choices.

The uptick, which had been projected last winter by government analysts, largely reflected the revenue loss from expiring tax breaks for businesses and individuals that Congress extended in December.

Wait a minute..  I thought lower taxes were supposed to trickle down and result in increased tax receipts – how could that happen?  And all you Keynesian government economists out there – what are you thinking?  We are supposed to stimulate the economy with deficit spending during downturns, and recapture that excessive spending during the good times.  Are these not good times?  How low to employment rates need to go before we are in good times?  If not now,  when?

Just like George – I think they need to rethink their choices.

Now lets move onto the Fed.  Now, the thinking is,  maybe low rates are hurting the economy!

In the minutes for the central bank’s Federal Open Markets Committee September meeting, several higher-ups at the Fed hinted that the policy of historically low interest rates was doing more harm than good to the economy.

After several years of keeping rates at or near zero to grow the economy – they now wonder if low rates are stifling growth?  Perhaps their models did not take into account the huge demographic of baby boomers who are trying to save for retirement are getting no interest income, causing them to try to save more and not stimulate the economy.  Well, at least now they are thinking about it.

I think the next step is to take a page out of the Costanza playbook.