By Rohan Grey and Raúl Carrillo
Orthodox economists are often inclined to think of law as an external force that ‘intervenes’ to regulate otherwise naturally occurring economic phenomena. In contrast, Modern Monetary Theory and its antecedent intellectual traditions have long recognized that law in fact constitutes and shapes modern economies and the monetary regimes that underpin them. For example, Knapp argued explicitly that money was a “creature of law.” Similarly, Keynes, in A Treatise on Money, stated:
“The State…comes in first of all as the authority of law which enforces the payment of the thing which corresponds to the name or description in the contracts. But it comes in doubly when, in addition, it claims the right to determine and declare what thing corresponds to the name, and to vary its declaration from time to time-when, that is to say, it claims the right to re-edit the dictionary. This right is claimed by all modern states and has been so claimed for some four thousand years at least.”
Today, many of the core propositions of MMT can be understood as essentially legal arguments. Here are a few examples:
- MMT’s determination that that a Job Guarantee is necessary because the state creates unemployment by imposing a non-reciprocal liability (i.e. a tax) that can only be satisfied by obtaining its tokens (i.e. tax credits), and thus owes individuals the ability to work for those tokens, is an argument about legal systems design. That is to say, the Job Guarantee is a legal remedy to the problem of legally-created unemployment. This framing echoes the legal arguments made by the British peasantry in response to the 18th century enclosure movement. When the state privatized farming and hunting lands previously considered part of the commons, peasants demanded compensation. Although the enclosure story focuses on the coercive creation of private property rights and the Job Guarantee story focuses on taxation , the underlying legal reasoning is the same: when the state prevents its subjects from subsisting independently from the state-controlled, monetarily driven, social provisioning process, it cannot exclude them from equitable participation in that process.
- MMT’s observation that the state has a “monopoly” over money can be understood in relation to the longstanding legal prohibition against counterfeiting–not only of currency, but also of private monetary instruments issued under state sanction. For example, laws against securities and wire fraud, as well as regulations prohibiting non-banking institutions from issuing demand deposits, are all examples of the state’s power to delineate the scope of legitimate monetary transactions. From this perspective, the notion that money is a public monopoly supports, rather than contradicts, Minsky’s famous dictum that “anyone can create money, the challenge is to get it accepted.” After all, the question of acceptance is, ultimately, one of legal legitimacy. Indeed, we see this quite clearly in current regulatory debates over financial technologies. For example, while the U.S. Treasury has classified bitcoin as a “currency,” the Commodity Futures Trading Commission continues to treat it as a “commodity,” and the Internal Revenue Service taxes it as “property.” Together, these legal classifications determine bitcoin’s ‘moneyness’ by establishing the boundaries of its legitimate commercial use.
- MMT’s recognition that certain operational constraints on macroeconomic policymaking are merely “self-imposed,” rather than intrinsic to the monetary system, reflects a sophisticated legal understanding of the varying malleability of constitutional versus statutory provisions, as well as administrative rules, regulatory guidances, and mere informal conventions. For example, while the minutiae of the Federal Reserve Act may be highly restrictive to the day-to-day activities of a bureaucrat operating in the bowels of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, they don’t present any ‘deep’ constitutional barrier to a member of Congress contemplating reform of the Federal Reserve System itself. With these distinctions in mind, MMT’s tendency to analyze Treasury-Central Bank operations from both a “consolidated” as well as a “deconsolidated” approach is not a technical weakness but a visionary strength. MMT economists are not ignoring institutional granularity, they are appropriately acknowledging the plasticity of law and the power we have to change it.
- Finally, MMT’s embrace of Minsky’s balance sheet view of the monetary economy and its commitment to stock-flow consistent models implies recognition that finance is governed by man-made accounting laws, rather than natural laws. These accounting laws are ultimately subject to the same legislative, administrative, and judicial input as any other laws. They are also subject to constant manipulation: a notion intrinsic to the concept of control fraud. . Whereas it is mathematically impossible to make 2+2=5 in the real world, such an outcome is easily achievable in the nominal realm of legal accounting and thus throughout the financial system and the monetary economy overall.
At the same time, the dialogue between MMT and the law is a two-way street. Indeed, modern money theorists have historically found mainstream lawyers far more eager to grasp and grapple with the radical political implications of their insights than mainstream economists. For example, Innes, who, according to Randy Wray, wrote “two of the best pieces written in the 20th Century on the nature of money,” chose to publish his ideas in the Banking Law Journal. Similarly, Beardsley Ruml, President of the New York Federal Reserve and author of the excellent proto-MMT Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete, first presented his argument to the American Bar Association.
In 2012, in recognition of this natural pairing between MMT and certain kinds of legal thinking, several of us formed the Modern Money Network (MMN), a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of money and finance. From our initial beginnings as a student group at Columbia Law School in New York City, we have grown into an international organization with affiliates and supporters in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere.
In recent years, many progressive and radical lawyers and legal academics have embraced MMT’s core ideas and arguments. For some, this is a result of direct engagement with MMN and/or the broader MMT community. Others have arrived here on their own, using independent thinking to reach similar technical and normative conclusions. For example, as University of Maryland Law Professor Frank Pasquale observed in 2014:
“[A] renewed emphasis on a key legal insight (the government cannot default on debt it issues in its own currency) can lead to an adjustment to economic theory (MMT), which in turn informs a new legal proposal to get past the current, futile […] debate. It’s a movement from legal insight to economic insight back to legal insight, or L – E – L. … The legal foundations of MMT make it both scientifically, and normatively, a better theory of our economic system than the dominant paradigms of monetary policy.”
Similarly, University at Buffalo Law Professor Martha McCluskey noted in 2016:
“Modern money theory explains that political and legal systems for creating, regulating, and distributing money are fundamental to economic prosperity and stability, necessarily shaping (not “distorting”) and facilitating private exchanges of goods and services. … the economic costs and benefits of public money creation depend on the contingent, complex value-laden questions of how that money is spent and invested and how effectively taxes and other forms of regulation help steer economic and political activity toward the productivity, stability, and legitimacy that will help maintain currency value.”
Developments like these have been both validating and deeply encouraging. At the same time, MMN continues to relentlessly promote MMT in the legal world, through organizing widely attended educational events, and bringing economists and lawyers together with the explicit purpose of building a truly transdisciplinary theoretical and policy framework for achieving social and economic justice. Some MMN highlights during this period include:
- A seminar on bridging legal and economic perspectives on money, ft. David Bholat from the Advanced Analytics Division of the Bank of England and MMTer Pavlina Tcherneva;
- A seminar on the federal budget at Harvard Law School, ft. Amar Reganti, former Deputy Director of the Office of Debt Management at U.S. Treasury, and MMTer Stephanie Kelton;
- A seminar on money markets, ft. New York Federal Reserve Bank Legal Counsel Joseph Sommer, former U.S. Treasury Department Senior Advisor Zoltan Pozsar, and MMTer Marshall Auerback;
- A seminar on central banking as part of a series on the “law-money nexus,” ft. former U.K. Financial Services Authority Chairman Adair Turner, former Central Bank of Argentina Economic Research Director Matias Vernengo, former Assistant U.S. Treasury Secretary Richard Clarida, and MMT fellow traveler James K. Galbraith;
- A symposium on the future of Greece and the Eurozone, ft. the now-Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras, Greek Alternate Minister for Combatting Unemployment, Rania Antonopoulos, Rutgers Law Professor and author of Rep. John Conyers H.R. 1000 full employment bill, Philip Harvey, and MMTer Mathew Forstater;
- Panels on public banking, the legal architecture of economic institutions, and the role of economic models in public policymaking, at the student-organized Rethinking Economics New York conference at Columbia and New York University Law Schools and the Economics Department of the New School;
- Panels on public money and financing the criminal legal system at the annual Rebellious Lawyering Conference at Yale Law School, the nation’s largest student-run public interest law conference;
- A 1-credit, student-driven course on law, money, and finance at Columbia Law School;
- Three chapters in an upcoming law school casebook, authored by the Association for the Promotion of Political Economy and Law (APPEAL), exploring the legal architecture of public and private money, the legal foundations of the job guarantee, and the law of derivatives regulation;
And these are just the tip of the iceberg. For anyone, regardless of experience or background, who is interested in learning more about MMN’s forays in the legal world, please join us and the rest of the MMT community at the historic 1st International MMT Congress at the University of Missouri-Kansas City in September. To borrow a phrase, we believe that anyone can create law, the only challenge is to get it accepted. We look forward to rising to that challenge with you all, together.
See you there!
Your statement:”…the state creates unemployment by imposing a non-reciprocal liability (i.e. a tax) that can only be satisfied by obtaining its tokens (i.e. tax credits), and thus owes individuals the ability to work for those tokens,…” is an interesting and useful way to frame a job but here is another way to frame a job. A job is a license to help others. All “useful jobs” result in helping others and wages are earned in recognition of the help that has been provided to others. This can be contrasted with the options available to the unemployed. The unemployed have three options; go on the dole, mooch off of family and friends or resort to crime. All three options are exploited by the unemployed and all three options harm rather that help others making the state of unemployment diametrically opposite, in a social sense, to being employed and having a job that gives the holder of the job a license to help others. This is not a framing for a legal argument but it is a very strong framing for a moral and social welfare argument.
The Modern Money Network website has no contact information for its principals. With whom can one discuss ways to develop multipliers that can spread a broad understanding and application of the basics of modern money?
The key question we need to answer, which is really a legal one, is why people pay taxes.
Why do people obey any law for that matter?
The counterargument we’re starting to encounter is that we need the ‘taxes pay for things’ myth or people will stop paying taxes. Or worse, from the Tax Justice crowd, that paying taxes are a devotion that demonstrate your moral superiority and that they create civil society and democracy.
Where as I prefer the notion that there is no law without enforcement, and that marginal enforcement of taxation is sufficient to maintain majority compliance and stop the social norm drifting to non-payment. The “I have to pay so you’re going to pay” mechanism for compliance.
Money is one half of the economic transaction. The other side is the good or service being sold. Selling implies ownership and property rights. Any history of any legal system begins with property rights: defining and enforcing property rights is what governments do, Laws define what you can and cannot do with goods and services. Where there is no government, there are no property rights and there is no economy. Libertarians spent decades trying to work out the “economics” of privately produced and provided police and law courts. The results were always Hobbes’ war of all upon all. The economy is a creature of the state. I suspect that some economists have a hard time admitting this in that it puts them in a subservient position to political scientists, who on the whole have themselves generally failed to grapple with this problem.
The economy lends itself to political construction – yes (as well as having other systematic possibly observable qualities). Did the Greeks have an economy? – that’s a good question. Money as one half of an exchange (except when it isn’t) – no. That sounds like the starting point for commodity-money theory.
But by treating money as a social relation (debt denominated as money of account) is so much more powerful as a concept – for example it let’s some ancient Greeks adopt & make use of money, and thousands of years later for modern capitalism to be described as a money economy. An historical perspective then gives money, government, property etc. a far wider applicability and consistency than the commodity idea.
Hi & thanks for this
Explicit discussion of law & law’s social functioning makes it easier to identify the social nature of money. Not to forget policy, technical systems, bureaucracy & its functioning, institutions, action, custom, politics and the rest of it – also being things that make money more than a number on a score board. Essential if we are ever going to take money out of the hands of the bankers & the wealthy & try and make it work for people in capitalism as a money economy. Clearly, money is more than the sum of its parts in a way that ‘the social’ generally is too. It’s interesting how fraud & criminality exposes some of this – Foucault said something about how studying the pathological lets us discover the workings of things (I’ve probably got that wrong). Asking the question for example, as to why senior bankers never went to prison really does expose the nature of ‘moneyness’ and its complex workings.
Look forward to more.
MMT is a combination of theories but it does not subscribe to any legal department not can it be governed by one.
Can we look at European attempts at de-cashing, then, as attempts to turn the public money utility into a private cartel for rent-seekers with high transaction fees and the old ability to cut off troublesome citizens from the company store? Can we look at it as a return to the more primitive state of affairs of private bank note creation before the Civil War brought the federal government to supremacy and dollarized the economy? Isn’t this the state of affairs to which Rand Paul and other voluntary segregationists want to return us when they talk about ending laws against private business discrimination?
Wall Street doesn`t want “The Market” Regulated by Law. They say that the Market “Corrects” itself. Wall Street and Congress have Rigged The Law and Markets, so that Corrections and Black Swan Events don`t impact their Bottom Lines. When the Big Banks get Caught by the Regulators, they accept a Fine, which is a Tiny Fraction of the Fraud. Plus No Criminal Charges. The SEC has been Gelded.
I think the question why are there taxes is interesting. Part of it may be tradition, held over from the time when the money supply of the sovereign was limited by the supply of precious metal used for money. In that instance, the sovereign needs taxes to get money to pay for government expenditures. This tradition continues after the adoption of fiat paper money because of thinking like “we did it yesterday that way and nothing has changed since yesterday to justify a change.” In addition peoples lives are directly affected by their local governments for schools and roads. Since these governments must balance their budgets, there is little concern , knowledge or attention about what can be done under MMT.
I have found many of the explanations offered by writers in this blog to justify taxation fascinating and want to read and hear from more readers of this blog.
Beardsley Ruml’s paper 1946 paper entitled “Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete” clearly defines the function of taxes in a fiat monetary system. I found the link to that paper here on NEP. Additionally, Milton Friedman’s “helicopter money” notion plus Bernanke’s adoption of the same notion and his addition to the monetary vocabulary of the terms “money funding” as opposed to “debt funding” of federal programs clearly endorses the reasoning that taxes are not necessary revenues to the federal government.
Good article. No mention of the essay here by Christine Desan, professor at Harvard, who beautifully makes the case for considering money as a legal institution?
This article makes an important overall point that both money and private property are manifestations of law and the authority that administers the law. Kudos.
But armed with that knowledge, I don’t understand how it’s possible to support the view that a job guarantee is the “necessary solution”.
When one recognizes that enslavement of Africans is not some product of natural human hierarchy, but a product of a (supposedly democratic) legal system that allows one human to be the property of another, is the “necessary solution” to ensure that slaves receive humane treatment from their masters?
Once something is recognized to be within the realm of law, it doesn’t really matter what “professional economists” think because the solution should not attempt to achieve increased productivity, lower prices, or even higher standard of living. The foremost goal should be equality under the law for all citizens.