SamSuka
citationsneededpodcast
citationsneededpodcast

patreon


Ep. 11, Part I: The Deficits Racket -- Single-Payer Propaganda War

The idea that we’re “running out of money” and have to “tighten our belts" is a common trope in US media; the premise that the US government is like a household that must balance its books, largely taken for granted by liberal and right-wing outlets alike.

But is this premise correct? Is it true that the United States is over-budget and ready to explode with insolvency? Where does this conventional wisdom come from and whom does it benefit? 

On this and next week's show we seek to answer some of the questions. In Part I: Single Payer Propaganda War, we examine the primary talking points against Single Payer and other big government programs and how to combat them with guest Stephanie Kelton. 

Show Notes

The Rock-Star Appeal of Modern Monetary Theory

Atossa Araxia Abrahamian | May 8, 2017  | The Nation 

What is Modern Monetary Theory, or “MMT”? 

Dale Pierce | March 11 2013 | New Economic Perspective

Outlets That Scolded Sanders Over Deficits Uniformly Silent on $700B Pentagon Handout

Adam H. Johnson | June 26 2017 | FAIR

Why don't deficit hawks care about the cost of military adventurism?

Adam H. Johnson | June 26 2017 | LA Times 

There are 3 types of single-payer 'concern trolls' — and they all want to undermine universal healthcare 

Adam H. Johnson | September 21 2017 | LA Times

The Debates Are Over, and No One Asked About Climate Change 

Adam H. Johnson | October 19 2016 | FAIR

The most important chart of 2014, explained in under a minute 

Matthew Yglesias and Joe Posner | December 23, 2014 | Vox

Deficit scolds are the most crazed ideologues in America 

Ryan Cooper | July 24, 2014 | The Week 

ABC and the ‘Family Budget’ Fallacy  

Peter Hart | February 14, 2012 | FAIR  

The Guest 

Stephanie Kelton is a professor at Stony Brook University and former Chief Economist at the U.S. Senate Budget Committee and Economic Advisor to Bernie 2016. She's also a fellow at The Sanders Institute and Chair of Board Economists for Peace and Security.

Ep. 11, Part I: The Deficits Racket -- Single-Payer Propaganda War

Comments

I just listened to this episode and I think the one issue that is glossed over is inflation. Yes, of course the US can create as many dollars as it wants so we will never "run out of money" as is claimed. But doing so reduces the value of the dollar. Sure you can promise to pay $X to pensions at a later date and simply make the money to cover that obligation, but those $X in the future won't buy anywhere near as much. Stephanie Kelton very briefly mentioned that you had to be careful to not affect markets by creating too much money but didn't really explore the inflation issue. While pegging to the dollar does create a constraint on the currencies of other countries, the other end of the spectrum is the potential for run-away or hyperinflation of currencies that aren't pegged. There have been a few examples of this in the 20th and 21st century, most notably Germany after World War I and Zimbabwe and Venezuela currently. This doesn't mean that every country needs to tie themselves to the dollar, but it does mean that over-creation of money can lead to devaluation of the currency, resulting in raised prices, thus leading to creation of more money. As an aside, since I'm a history buff, I'd like to point out that Kelton mis-characterized William Jennings Bryan's famous Cross of Gold speech. He wasn't advocating abandoning the gold standard and allowing the unlimited creation of money as our system allows currently. Instead he was advocating going onto a bimetal standard that included both gold and silver. Thus the money supply would still be constrained by something physical. While I agree with the notion that the US can simply create whatever amount of money it needs as was said in this episode there needs to be a discussion about the concerns over inflation, since it seems to undercut the premise that deficits don't matter.

I had the same thought surely there is some consequence or any expenditure could be justified.

On a second listen, I think a question that needed an answer in the context of this episode is to what extent is, or isn't, a growing deficit a concern? And why? Is there a danger limit where the national debt does, in fact, become a dangerously large figure?

Excellent episode!


More Creators