Summary of " The debt Myth" by Stephen kelton
the private sector might be reluctant to increase its indebtedness at various stages of the business cycle. Remember, households and businesses are currency users, not currency issuers, so they do need to worry about how they’re going to make their payments.
most Americans wanted to borrow less, not more. Millions of homeowners were underwater on their mortgages; they owed more than their homes were worth. After a long period of borrowing to finance spending in excess of its income, the private sector wanted relief from debt, not more debt. Without actually using the F-word (fiscal)
What matters is how the overall price of the basket changes from month to month and year to year, and whether average earnings are rising fast enough to keep up with rising prices.
People worry about
inflation because it can eat away at their real standard of living. You might
have no trouble affording the typical basket of goods today, but if the price
of that fixed basket starts rising, you may discover that you can no longer
afford to buy it. It depends what’s happening to your income. If the price of the basket keeps going up by 5 percent each
year while your annual earnings rise by just 2 percent, then in real
(inflation-adjusted) terms you’ll be 3 percent worse off each year. That
means a real loss in terms of the actual amount of stuff—real goods and
services—you can afford to buy.
A recession that could have been quickly reversed with the right fiscal prescription instead became the longest and most protracted downturn in the post–World War II era. To make sure that never happens again, MMT recommends a shift away from the current reliance on central banks to deliver on the twin goals of full employment and price stability
Functional finance
turned conventional wisdom on its head. Instead of
trying to force the economy to generate enough taxes to match federal spending,
Lerner urged policy makers to think in reverse. Taxes
and spending should be manipulated to bring the overall economy into balance.
That might require the government to add in (spend) more dollars than it
subtracts (taxes) away. It might even need to do this on an ongoing
basis, meaning sustained fiscal deficits over many years or even decades.
Lerner saw this as a perfectly responsible way to manage the government budget. As long as any resulting deficits didn’t push inflation
higher, the deficit shouldn’t be labeled overspending.
這一論點已經受到強烈挑戰, 2021年底10年國債飆升, 2021Q4 零售數字不如預期, 消費者受物價漲高影響, 2022年通膨可能繼續惡化
請先複習一下去年9月這篇
1960-70 年代發生過什麼 ! , 再回過頭看2020 ( 一 )
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/1959-all-over-again-why-this-could-be-another-historic-moment-for-the-market.html
The following table is sorted by Dividend Yield.
|
https://indexarb.com/dividendYieldSorteddj.html
SPDR Dow Jones
Industrial Average ETF - 21 Year Dividend History
In the history of yield-seeking investments, 1959 was a seminal year — the one in which bond yields and dividend yields flipped. The question investors must now contend with is whether they have finally flipped back.
It may not be one of those years that has widespread recognition among armchair market historians, such as 1929 or 1999, but 1959 was a critical one nonetheless. Before 1959, dividend yields on stocks were reliably above those of bonds. This made all the sense in the world in so far as stocks were seen as a riskier way to generate income; since they don’t come with the legal obligations that adhered to bond payments, dividend yields had to be higher as compensation for risk.
This is the simple explanation for the fact that whenever dividend yields slid to approach bond yields, as they did in 1898 and 1929, stock prices fell or bond prices rose such that the relationship between the one type of yield and the other was maintained.
It is no surprise, then, that when dividend yields approached bond yields again and actually rose above them in 1959, the old Wall Street hands had a clear prediction of what would happen.
