2,181 Italians Pack a Sports Arena to Learn Modern Monetary Theory: The Economy Doesn’t Need to Suffer Neoliberal Austerity

By Michael Hudson

I have just returned from Rimini, Italy, where I experienced one of the most amazing spectacles of my academic life. Four of us associated with the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC) were invited to lecture for three days on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and explain why Europe is in such monetary trouble today – and to show that there is an alternative, that the enforced austerity for the 99% and vast wealth grab by the 1% is not a force of nature.

Stephanie Kelton (incoming UMKC Economics Dept. chair and editor of its economic blog, New Economic Perspectives), criminologist and law professor Bill Black, investment banker Marshall Auerback and me (along with a French economist, Alain Parquez) stepped into the basketball auditorium on Friday night. We walked down, and down, and further down the central aisle, past a packed audience reported as over 2,100. It was like entering the Oscars as People called out our first names. Some told us they had read all of our economics blogs. Stephanie joked that now she understood how the Beatles felt. There was prolonged applause – all for an intellectual rather than a physical sporting event.

With one difference, of course: Our adversaries were not there. There was much press, but the prevailing Euro-technocrats (the bank lobbyists who determine European economic policy) hoped that the less discussion of possible alternatives to austerity, the easier it would be to force their brutal financial grab through.

All the audience members had contributed to raise the funds to fly us over from the United States (and from France for Alain), and treat us to Federico Fellini’s Grand Hotel on the Rimini beach. The conference was organized by reporter Paolo Barnard, who had studied MMT with Randall Wray and realized that there was plenty of demand in Italian mass culture for a discussion of what actually was determining the living conditions of Europe – and the emerging financial elite that hopes to use this crisis as an opportunity to become the new financial lords carving out fiefdoms by privatizing the public domain being sold off by governments that have no central bank to finance their deficits, and are tragically beholden to bondholders and to Eurocrats drawn from the neoliberal camp.

Paolo and his enormous support staff of translators and interns provided an opportunity to hear an approach to monetary and tax theory and policy that until recently was almost unheard of in the United States. Just one week earlier the Washington Post published a review of MMT, followed by a long discussion in the Financial Times. But the theory remains grounded primarily at the UMKC’s economics department and the Levy Institute at Bard College, with which most of us are associated.

The basic thrust of our argument is that just as commercial banks create credit electronically on their computer keyboards (creating a bank account credit for borrowers in exchange for their signing an IOU at interest), governments can create money. There is no need to borrow from banks, as computer keyboards provide nearly free credit creation to finance spending.

The difference, of course, is that governments spend money (at least in principle) to promote long-term growth and employment, to invest in public infrastructure, research and development, provide health care and other basic economic functions. Banks have a more short-term time frame. They lend against collateral in place. Some 80% of bank loans are mortgages against real estate. Other loans are made to finance leveraged buyouts and corporate takeovers, but most new fixed capital investment by corporations is financed out of retained earnings, not bank credit.

And not from the stock market either. Textbook diagrams still depict the stock market as raising money for new capital investment. Unfortunately, it has been turned into a vehicle to buy out companies on credit (e.g., with high interest junk bonds), replacing equity with debt (“taking a company private” from its stockholders). Inasmuch as interest payments are tax-deductible – on the pretense that they are a necessary cost of doing business – corporate income-tax payments are lowered. And what the tax collector relinquishes is available to be paid out to the bankers and bondholders who get rich by loading the economy down with debt.

The upshot is that the flow of corporate earnings is diverted to the financial sector – not only to pay interest and penalties to banks, but for stock buybacks intended to support stock prices and hence the value of stock options that managers of today’s financialized companies give themselves.

Welcome to the post-industrial economy, financial style. Industrial capitalism has passed through a series of stages of finance capitalism, from Pension-Fund capitalism via Globalized Dollarization and the Bubble Economy to the Negative Equity stage, foreclosure time, debt deflation, and austerity – and now what looks like debt peonage in Europe, above all for the PIIGS: Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. (The Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have been plunged so deeply into debt that their populations are emigrating to find work and flee debt-burdened real estate. The same has plagued Iceland since its bank rip-offs collapsed in 2008.)

Why aren’t economists describing these phenomena? The answer is a combination of political ideology and analytic blinders. As soon as the Rimini conference ended on Sunday evening, for instance, Paul Krugman’s Monday, February 27 New York Times column, “What Ails Europe?” blamed the euro’s problems simply on the inability of countries to devalue their currencies. He rightly criticized the Republican Party line that blames social welfare spending for the Eurozone’s problems, and also criticized putting the blame on budget deficits.

But he left out of account the straitjacket of the European Central Bank (ECB) inability to monetize the deficits, as a result of junk economics written into the EU constitution:

“If the peripheral nations still had their own currencies, they could and would use devaluation to quickly restore competitiveness. But they don’t, which means that they are in for a long period of mass unemployment and slow, grinding deflation. Their debt crises are mainly a byproduct of this sad prospect, because depressed economies lead to budget deficits and deflation magnifies the burden of debt.”

There are two problems with this neoclassical trade analysis. First, currency depreciation lowers the price of labor, while raising the price of imports. The burden of debts denominated in foreign currencies increases in keeping with the devaluation. This creates problems unless governments pass a law re-denominating all debts in their own domestic currency. This will satisfy the Prime Directive of international financing: always denominate debts in your own currency, as the United States does.

Fortunately, sovereign nations can do this ex post facto. In 1933, for instance, Franklin Roosevelt nullified the Gold Clause in U.S. loan contracts, enabling banks and other creditors to be paid in the equivalent gold value. But any sovereign government can rule how debts are to be paid (or not paid, for that matter). In his usual neoclassical fashion, Mr. Krugman ignores this debt issue:

“The afflicted nations [the PIIGs], in particular, have nothing but bad choices: either they suffer the pains of deflation or they take the drastic step of leaving the euro, which won’t be politically feasible until or unless all else fails (a point Greece seems to be approaching). Germany could help by reversing its own austerity policies and accepting higher inflation, but it won’t.”

So the existing system could work, he contends, if only Germany would inflate its economy and more German tourists spend more in Greece – assuming that the Greek government would tax enough of this spending to balance its budget. If Germany does not bail out the failed and dysfunctional economic structure, Greece will have to withdraw – but devaluation will restore equilibrium.

This is typical neoclassical over-simplification. Leaving the euro is not sufficient to avert austerity, foreclosure and debt deflation if Greece and other PIIGs that withdraw still retain the neoliberal anti-government, post-industrial policy that plagues the Eurozone. However, if the post-euro economy has a central bank that still refuses to finance public budget deficits, forcing the government to borrow from commercial banks and bondholders. What if the government still believes that it should balance the budget rather than provide the economy with spending power to increase its growth? In this case the post-euro government will tie itself in the same policy straitjacket that the Eurozone now imposes.

Suppose further that the Greek government slashes public welfare spending, and bails out banks for their losses, or takes losing bank gambles onto the public balance sheet, as Ireland has done. For that matter, what if the governments do what the neoliberal Obama Administration in the United States has done, and refrains from writing down real estate mortgages and other debts to the debtors’ ability to pay, as Iceland and Latvia have failed to do? The result will be debt deflation, forfeiture of property, rising unemployment – and a rising tide of emigration as the domestic economy and employment opportunities shrink. The budget deficit and balance-of-payments deficit both will worsen, not improve.

Mr. Krugman’s second error of omission is his assumption that government budgets need to be balanced. He misses the MMT point that governments can finance deficits rather than relying on bondholders. The monetary effect is identical: credit-financed spending. But despite his counter-cyclical Keynesianism, Mr. Krugman shares in principle the neoliberal mythology that demonizes the public option for credit creation, while approving private sector debt financing (even in foreign currencies!). The upshot is to make economies behave as if they still were on the gold standard, needing to borrow savings (in “hard” assets). That world ended in 1971 when the United States went off gold. Since then, all currencies are state currencies – often backed by U.S. Treasury IOUs rather than their own money, to be sure.

So what then is the key? It is to have a central bank that does what central banks were founded to do: monetize government budget deficits so as to spend money into the economy, in a way best intended to promote economic growth and full employment.

This is the MMT message that the five of us were invited to explain to the audience in Rimini. Some attendees came up and explained that they had come all the way from Spain, others from France and cities across Italy. And although we did many press, radio and TV interviews, we were told that the major media were directed to ignore us as not politically correct.

Such is the censorial spirit of neoliberal monetary austerity. Its motto is TINA: There Is No Alternative, and it wants to keep matters this way. As long as it can suppress discussion of how many better alternatives there are, the hope is that the public will remain quiescent as their living standards shrink and wealth is sucked up to the top of the economic pyramid to the 1%.

The audience was vocally against remaining in the eurozone – to the extent that continued adherence to it meant submission to neoliberal pro-financial policies. (The proceedings were videotaped and will be transcribed and placed on the web. Pacifica broadcaster Bonnie Faulkner attended and is compiling a series of programs and will re-interview the speakers for her “Guns and Butter” program.) They had no naivety that withdrawal by itself would cure the problems that they originally hoped EU membership would solve: Italian political corruption, tax evasion by the rich, insider dealings, and most of all, the power of banks to siphon off the surplus and control the government, the mass media and even the universities in an attempt to brainwash the population to believe that financial control of resource allocation, tax policy and wealth distribution was all for the best to make the economy more efficient.

The audience requested above all more monetary and fiscal theory from Stephanie Kelton, who gave the clearest lecture on economics I have ever heard – a Euclidean presentation of MMT logic.

The size of the audience filling the sports stadium to hear our economic explanation of how a real central bank should operate to avoid austerity and promote rather than discourage employment showed that the government’s attempt to brainwash the population was not working. (For a visual of the magnitude, see this). The attempt to force TINA logic on the population is not working any better than it did in Harvard’s Economics 101 class, from which students recently walked out in protest against the unreaslistic parallel universe thinking. Its appeal is mainly to intelligent but ungrounded individuals (not yet post-autistic). They are selected as useful idiots and trained to draw pictures of the economy that exclude analysis of the debt overhead, rentier free lunches and financial parasitism. One needs to be very clever, after all, to imagine a system that “saves the appearances” of an unrealistic Ptolemaic system. Any positive role for government and a real central bank not oppressed under the thumb of private-sector bankers and financial engineers seeking to suck the economic surplus out of nations much as military conquerors did in past centuries.

There is a growing sense that Western civilization itself is at a critical juncture. It must choose between needless austerity or progress – but progress is blocked by the reluctance to write down the debt overhead. So as Prof. Kelton noted, economies face two different types of growth policy. Neoliberal policy promises to help the body politick grow by draining the blood from the body, ostensibly to help it grow more healthy and restore its balance (with all power to the wealthy 1%). The MMT policy is feed the body to help it grow healthy. This requires liberating the brain – the government and policy makers that implement an economic philosophy – from the financial sector’s control.


Now that summary videos have begun to be placed on the web, a Norwegian economist wrote to me:

I do not understand what is new about this:
governments can create money  … to promote long-term growth …
What IS new is that somebody finally listens.  There seems to a hunger out there for somebody (with the “right background”) to tell people plain simple common sense.

What MMT teaches today is indeed long-established knowledge and practice. The degree to which its logic has been excluded from the academic curriculum is testament to the neoliberal version of free markets: their policy only works if they can excluded discussion of any alternative

12 responses to “2,181 Italians Pack a Sports Arena to Learn Modern Monetary Theory: The Economy Doesn’t Need to Suffer Neoliberal Austerity

  1. I'm glad to find MMT here.However, I found that your idea is only partial. You said, government can monetize on deficits –  still on the same basis that money is something borrowed from somebody.Money should be social utility which eventually belongs to the society as a whole.So, whoever posseses money is regarded as holding money temporarily. Government should reserve the authority to print new bills to replace current bills any time to prohibite hoarding.We must have a clear definition of money.Money is: legal tender which can be used as method of payment without any fee or discount at the free will of the person who ownes it at the monent, such as central bank notes, coins held in poket, draw, safe and also deposits with banks which could be withdrawn or transferred any time during business hours and/or be spendable by on-line transactions. So banks should keep 100% of the total balances of deposit-on-demand either in its vault or as deposit with the central bank.There is no need to consider fractional reserve system or capital requirements for banks.All we need is a strickt audit/controll system for cash accounting.Money defined as above is considered same as [cash on hand + deposit-on-demand].Total amount of money in a specific currency zone must be calculated as total sum of money belongs to each and every person(individual, corporate, government, foreigners and central bank).Total amount of money in a sovereign economy must be fixed and only expanded by due process which could be agreed by the people. 

    • After listening for a while to these MMT guys and Warren Mosler in particular, I understand why it would be a horrific mess to “banks should keep 100% of the total balances of deposit-on-demand either in its vault or as deposit with the central bank”. That is like the equivalent of a “hard money” aka “Gold Standard” but with no ability to create credit, aka SUPER Austerity aka NO GROWTH.

      Capitalism, that is ideal industrial capitalism, and I think also socialism, is dependent on the ability of the economy to create credit NOW to manufacture (or grow) tangible wealth, and then pay back the credit (at low enough rates) to realize a profit, and continue.

      What you are proposing is to ABOLISH or outlaw CREDIT. A person or institution could engage in the risky process or lending out their precious base capital, but the greased ramp of credit creation that has engendered so much growth and technology (leaving aside govt spending such as Pentagon as contributing to tech R&D) would be abolished.

      That would mean either EXTREME Austerity, or else the National Government would have to become directly involved in allocating (and collecting) Credit Cards, Car Loans, Business Loans, etc. or simply ditch the loan process and have the Govt simply issue income for everyone. I think that resembles Marxism-Leninism, does it not?

      If we have ANY respect for the (so-called) Free Market — and the MMT, and Post-Keynesian, and Progressive etc. economists do — then the Market requires the lubrication and liquidity of Credit Creation. It just needs to be done sanely, and — you are correct — far more space needs to be allocated for public sector services and payments, which the wealthiest Capitalists quietly enjoy with impunity.

  2. Просто привет заходите на наш сайт, его так легко запомнить, на нем Вы найдете громадную коллекцию фильмов, всех жанров и направлений [url=http://qi-qi.ru] смотреть кино [/url] . Ежечасные обновления, старые, документальные, отечественные и зарубежные фильмы всех жанров. Рай для киноманов. Только лучшее, только для Вас!!!

  3. When the western governments printed money to bail out private financial entities, it exposed how the monetary system can be understood only in the context of game theory whose rules can be changed at a moments notice to benefit the financial elite and not some natural laws of economics which is governed by a natural equilibrium which insures that the economic system is fair to all. There is absolutely no reason that the money printed out couldn’t have been used to bail out homeowners rather than the banks holding the insolvent mortgages. Money functions both as a store of value and as medium of economic exchange and when economic policy is used to concentrate wealth to the extent that money as a store of value has handicapped money as a medium of exchange, the economic health and political legitimacy of nations are threatened. The time has come for nation states who are handicapped by debt and high unemployment to print money to restore their competitive advantage.

  4. Pingback: Un stade néochartaliste en Italie « Frapper monnaie

  5. “imbursments-rapidly/ Thanks for that awesome posting. It saved MUCH time 🙂

  6. Pingback: The Fiscal Summit Counter-Narrative: Part Two, Defining Fiscal Sustainability | | New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives

  7. Qui ci sono i video ufficiali del Summit:
    [ENG] – Summit Modern Money Theory, 24-26 Feb 2012 Rimini

  8. A report about italian MMT people:


  9. His book for sale on Amazon whenever asked his just what it the current governmental weather, Bo Dietl told her this is easily the most volitaile that he features viewed ends Two decades. He extended to convey the fact that forthcoming elections in 2012 will need to produce a clear cut champion while in the Congressional ethnic background along with the Presidental ethnic background for governmental office environment. Bo finished the job interview by means of saying that he’ll be keeping a detailed check out for the upcoming elections as well as campaigns during the entire united states.

  10. Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you
    may be a great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will often come back
    at some point. I want to encourage that you continue
    your great work, have a nice weekend!

    Also visit my weblog … monnaie virtuelle

  11. We stumbled over here from a different web page
    and thought I might check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you.
    Look forward to exploring your web page again.