Why Currency Sovereignty Matters

I often hear on the airwaves that the United States government is broke. You might get some reference to Greece and the Eurozone or maybe even the classic comparison of the government to a household. On face value, these comparisons seem rather valid. If no household can continually spend more than its income, why can the federal government? Unfortunately, the economic reality couldn’t be further from the truth.

Most of my readers (or anyone that casually reads the economic blogosphere) have probably heard many arguments against the government-household analogy from various economists, most notably Paul Krugman. So I thought I would approach this issue from a different angle, specifically a Monetary Realist/Modern Monetary Theory framework. The fact is, understanding that the US government is a currency issuer and the institutional structure of the US monetary system is vital if you want to understand monetary and fiscal policy.

When thinking about this issue, we must consider two institutions, the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. The US treasury is responsible to enacting fiscal policy, i.e managing the tax system and selling bongs to obtain funds for spending. The Federal Reserve is responsible for monetary policy, using a variety of methods that ultimately serve the needs of private banks (think “lender of last resort”).

The US government, specifically the US Treasury, uses operational accounts at the Federal Reserve. So in a sense, the Federal Reserve is the banker to the US government. It’s through these accounts that the US Treasury settles all of its transaction (in terms of taxing and spending) using bank reserves, a form of outside money i.e money created outside the private sector. However, the US Treasury must first obtain funds from the private sector in the form of inside money, i.e money created inside the private sector, before it can settle the funds in its reserve account. It does this by crediting the bank accounts of recipients. As L. Randall Wray puts it, “A sovereign government spends by crediting bank accounts of recipients; it taxes by debiting them. A budget deficit means that credits exceed debits.”  

So fiscal policy, in this case Government taxation, is best though of as a simple redistribution of inside money. When the US Treasury taxes and procures funds, it simply redistributes pre-existing inside money from the private sector. Cullen Roche provides a useful illustration:

When the US government taxes Paul, Paul pays with bank deposits or inside money. This inside money provides a credit to the Treasury’s Treasury Tax & Loan account at a commercial bank. The Treasury will settle this payment by having the Fed credit its account in what is called the Treasury General Account (the Treasury’s account at the Fed). This flow of funds from Paul allows the Treasury to then spend a bank deposit into Peter’s account. From start to finish, this process results in inside money in (taxation) and inside money out (government spending).

The important thing to think about here is that, although the US Treasury must collect fiscal receipts in order to spend (legally speaking), it isn’t constrained in its ability to obtain funds. In theory, the US government could utilize the Federal Reserve to create more money and finance the spending. The US government can’t actually “run out of money” as many politicians and journalists would have you believe. This is the key difference between the government and a household. A household or business are always limited in their ability to obtain funds. There is an actual solvency constraint. The same can be said of Greece and other countries in the Eurozone. Because of the structure of the Eurosystem, Greece isn’t a currency issuer and the ECB is essentially a foreign central bank. Again, there is a solvency constraint.

This process questions the very purpose of taxation. Taxes are often assumed to fund spending. But as it can be seen, the government doesn’t need taxes, it can just use the Federal Reserve (or any central bank) as a source for funds. Instead, the role of taxation is to control aggregate demand and inflation. When the government spends money, that spending will jump around the economy through a large number of transaction and when you have a lot of money chasing too few goods, you get inflation. But when the government taxes, that takes inside money out of the private sector, controlling aggregate demand and lowering inflation. Warren Mosler explains further:

The government taxes us and takes away our money for one reason – so we have that much less to spend which makes the currency that much more scarce and valuable. Taking away our money can also be thought of as leaving room for the government to spend without causing inflation. Think of the economy as one big department store full of all the goods and services we all produce and offer for sale every year. We all get paid enough in wages and profits to buy everything in that store, assuming we would spend all the money we earn and all the profits we make. (And if we borrow to spend, we can buy even more than there is in that store.) But when some of our money goes to pay taxes, we are left short of the spending power we need to buy all of what’s for sale in the store. This gives government the “room” to buy what it wants so that when it spends what it wants, the combined spending of government and the rest of us isn’t too much for what’s for sale in the store

As it can be seen, currency sovereignty really does matter when we analyze the US economy or any economy that has a central bank. So when David Stockman says that the “we’re broke” he doesn’t know what he is talking about and he is engaging in political rhetoric. Unfortunately, the same can be said of almost every politician on the right (and many on the left as well).


Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy

Understanding Modern Money: How a Sovereign Currency Works

Understanding the Modern Monetary System(To get a more detailed picture of Monetary Realism, read this very detailed paper by Cullen Roche. It’s where I got most of my information when writing this post)


Holding Ourselves Hostage Again

Why the USA Isn’t Going Bankrupt

What is a Sovereign Currency?

Dean Baker Says Taxes Don’t Fund Spending

More Musings on Modern Monetary Theory

The Reason for Taxation, and What a Deficit Really is

Fiat Money and its Social Significance



Filed under Economics, Home

4 responses to “Why Currency Sovereignty Matters

  1. Nice. MMT is basically right about the mechanics of money. The big question is how the dynamics of money result in the patterns we see- is it really that easy to implement the types of policies many MMT economists suggest? It is very time consuming to change tax regimes and implement large scale government spending (especially on big infrastructure).

    Further, should the government just respond to the swings of private sector investment and debt financing? Or should it more closely regulate the extension of debt from private banks as well?

    And that is ignoring the political realities of our time.

    The big question is whether there is some small policy change (or set of small changes) that has a chance of happening that could be pushed by the more knowledgable economists? What would they be?

    • is it really that easy to implement the types of policies many MMT economists suggest? It is very time consuming to change tax regimes and implement large scale government spending (especially on big infrastructure).

      You’re sounding like a Public Choice Theorist! But seriously, you bring up a legitimate point here and given the state of politics, especially here in the US, it’s something that I mostly agree with.

      On your last question, the first institution (at least one that could enact such a policy without much political constraint) that comes to mind is the central bank, so this would imply some type of monetary policy, but I’m not sure the power of monetary policy is able to deal with economic recessions like the one we have now. Then again, my knowledge on the different types of monetary policy and the channels that monetary policy works through isn’t that great, so I should probably stop talking.

  2. Blue Aurora

    Although I do agree with you that a nation’s ability to control its own currency does matter…does this post mean that you now fully endorse all the arguments made by L. Randall Wray, Warren Mosler and other advocates of “Modern Monetary Theory”?

    That stated -Greece shouldn’t have been let in because their politicians lied about the numbers (and IIRC, the political leaderships of other European nations like France and Germany did have more than just a strong suspicion that Greece didn’t meet the criteria). But that’s water under the bridge, unfortunately.

    From what I have gathered from news reports and people more knowledgable than I am on this matter, the only way to save the economic dimension of the European Union project (well, one could make the argument if that goes, then it’s quite possible that the worst of the worst case scenarios would happen to the entire European Union…it pretty much goes without saying that the European Union’s currency zone cannot afford to fail) is further integration. Specifically: a more unified system for public finance (i.e., tax policy and so forth), a more unified system for regulation (particularly for the banking system), and possibly a more unified political system at the supranational level.

    While fears that the worst of the worst-case scenarios being imminent have subsided (at least for all I know), I’d like to ask some questions.

    Even if there was a “push-comes-to-shove” moment, could the E.U. bureaucrats in Brussels and the political leaderships of just about every member-state of the E.U. (whether or not they use the euro) use the moment to make drastic changes in the right direction? Even if there was a personality involved in the politics of the European Union who had the capacity of a great statesman like Otto von Bismarck at the time of this “push-comes-to-shove” moment – I don’t think it could be done.

    Not much progress is being made, despite fears of the worst-of-the-worst seeming to have subsided.

    • Although I do agree with you that a nation’s ability to control its own currency does matter…does this post mean that you now fully endorse all the arguments made by L. Randall Wray, Warren Mosler and other advocates of “Modern Monetary Theory”?

      I generally agree with their positive statements on how our monetary system works. I’m not too keen on their policy recommendations. I’m also aware of the disagreements between MMT and MR, so I try to be tentative when talking about this stuff.

      Your points on the EU are taken. It’s unfortunate that things are such a mess down there, but it’s almost to be expected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s