Is the US Currently Conducting an MMT Lite Experiment?

Note to readers: The article below was prompted by the input my daughter gave me in a recent interview I posted here on the blog. I thought she had some thoughtful comments and raised some worthwhile issues to consider on the fairness of various economic systems that I believe are on the minds of many millennials today. With that in mind, I offer the article and questions below for your consideration in an effort to encourage an honest discussion of these issues for anyone interested in them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, I have commented on this blog that it seemed to me that the US is already implementing a version of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) with the central bank/government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Perhaps another way to approach this is to ask: Is the US currently conducting an MMT lite experiment? We have the Federal Reserve stating that they plan to be near zero bound on interest rates for as far as we can see into the future. We have the Federal Reserve stating that their capacity to supply liquidity to the system in response to the current crisis is "unlimited". We have the Federal Reserve directly intervening in all kinds of markets with asset purchases.

I came across this article from last year in The New Yorker that examines the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) as proposed by economist Stephanie Kelton. I encourage readers here to read this full article. Below I have extracted a few excerpts and further below I added a few thought questions that arose from reading this article along with a few comments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . "the basic principle of M.M.T. is seductively simple: governments don’t have to budget like households, worrying about debt, because, unlike households, they can simply print their own money. So M.M.T. proposes that the constraint on government spending shouldn’t be debt but inflation: How much new money can you pump into the economy before prices rise?"

. . . . 

"Onstage, Kelton lamented, “There’s so much pressure on candidates to pay for everything. I don’t see anyone—I mean, I’ll just be honest, I don’t really see any Presidential candidates putting forward ambitious agendas and saying, ‘We’re not going to try to pay for any of this.’ ”

. . . 

"Kelton often hears the same concerns about M.M.T., and most are about inflation. How soon will we become Zimbabwe, which printed so many Zimbabwean dollars that inflation peaked, in 2008, at an annual rate of ninety sextillion per cent? Never, according to Kelton; under M.M.T., the focus is sustainable inflation, whereas fiscal traditionalists worry about the deficit and don’t consider inflation at all. Doesn’t M.M.T. then require accurate forecasting of inflation risk? Yes, and, Kelton conceded at the festival, the models aren’t perfect, “but we can do a pretty good job.” And, anyway, government spending, she believes, is responsible for just a small part of inflation."


. . . 


"John Carney, is an economics columnist at Breitbart, who considers himself a “fellow-traveller” of the M.M.T. movement. “I think, functionally, Donald Trump has a lot of M.M.T. in him,” Carney told me. “He doesn’t think we need to cut Social Security. He doesn’t think that the deficit is a problem for the United States government right now. He thinks that if you can borrow cheaply you should and that interest rates should be low. Those are all positions that the M.M.T. people would agree with.” The idea for the job guarantee, he added, is “very close to what Make America Great is. We don’t want welfare, we don’t want handouts, we want good jobs for the American people.” Carney predicted more support for M.M.T. from the right once politicians realize that it can justify deep tax cuts.

This shift, if it is to occur, seems far off. Earlier this year, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez publicly expressed interest in M.M.T. Subsequently, five Republican senators, led by David Perdue, of Georgia, introduced a resolution that sought to offer an official condemnation of M.M.T. The resolution demonstrated M.M.T.’s growing clout, but it also underscored the fact that Kelton’s battle is over M.M.T.’s legitimacy, not its politics. Allies are valuable. “Maybe just the fact that she’s e-mailing with a Breitbart editor is a sign that she wants a broad evangelism for M.M.T. and not just to be a darling of the left,” Carney said. But he noted that there are fraught political decisions to be made. “The way I put it is, can the government build a gun range? Is that an O.K. job-guarantee job? Can the job guarantee be used to build a border wall?

I asked Kelton if she worries at all about these fights, further over the horizon. “At the end of the day, what I really hope for is just a better debate,” she told me. “Let both sides put forward their best ideas.”

Please click here and read the full article in The New Yorker

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My added comments: After reading this article, the following thought questions came to mind:

1- Are the policies being implemented right now by the Federal Reserve in response to the pandemic crisis a "lite" version of MMT?

2- Is President Trump actually somewhat in agreement with some of the basic tenets of MMT as this article in The New Yorker suggests?

3- What is the wealth gap? What do the latest stats show about this gap? (you can explore that question by various categories using these pretty current graphs from the Federal Reserve)  -- (distribute the graph by generation to see why many millennials feel left out)

4- Do the current easy money policies of the Federal Reserve distort markets? If so, do we really have "free markets" Or do we have artificial markets propped up by central bank intervention (stock market, real estate, etc)?

5- Do these central bank monetary policies/interventions create artificial winners and losers and contribute to the "wealth gap"? If so, is that a true "free market capitalist" system?

6- How long can we use "unlimited money creation" policies before markets and the general public lose confidence in our currency and/or the monetary system itself? Years? Decades? Forever? (Stephanie Kelton says forever).

These are just some questions that come to mind. 

One thing we have learned here in our multi year study of these issues is that our present system is based primarily on public trust and confidence. Our currency itself is not anchored to anything in the real economy and floats adrift in a sea of exchange rates. We have lots of ongoing debate about that situation and also a lot of ideas on how to reform the present system if that is needed in the future.

So, in our view here, the real debate over MMT or other economic proposals is not as much about the actual technical policy alternatives as it is over - Who Do You Trust?

It all seems to come back to a fundamental question of human nature. Do you trust central planning authorities and experts or do you believe that human nature is somewhat flawed and that any system is vulnerable to abuse and corruption due to the flaws of human nature? 

If you lean towards the first camp, you are more likely to accept the idea that we can give governments and central planning authorities the power of "the unlimited ability to create money" and then trust that they will use that power responsibly and fairly. If you have a basic distrust of too much concentrated power in the hands of central planners, you will not likely trust them to administer any system responsibly or fairly and will seek ways to limit that power (this was the prevailing view of those who founded the United States).

This fundamental question is very important. Today we see much discussion about a "wealth gap". This wealth gap is viewed by many as fundamentally unjust and something that society must deal with. On the progressive side of the debate, we see a belief that if we will turn over power to central planners (such as the power to create unlimited money), they will use that power to fairly and responsibly rectify problems like the wealth gap. Opponents will counter that central planners are not inherently more moral or just than anyone else and cannot be trusted with that much power. They will say that those in power will tend to favor certain interest groups over others rather than to be impartial and the eventual result will be an even worse wealth gap.


Perhaps one way to address this debate is to just raise the thought questions below and leave it to readers to decide for themselves:

1- If we look at history, how have economies based on powerful central planners performed? Have they tended to improve the lot of the average person or not? Have they resulted in a more fair and just society or a less fair and just society?


2- Can we trust people in power (central planners) to be fair and impartial and not favor their political friends over their political enemies when making public policy? Can we trust them to make decisions without any personal bias? Can we trust that politics will not impact decisions that are made by powerful central planners? 


3- Using our present US monetary system as an example, have the policies of the Federal Reserve (our current central planner for monetary policy) resulted in free and fair markets and impartial results for the general public? Asked another way ---- Have the policies of the Federal Reserve tended to favor one segment of society over another and contribute to the current perceived wealth gap?

4- Does the soundness of our currency (its ability to retain its purchasing power over time) matter and does it impact the wealth gap; and therefore how fair our system is?


Economists will tend to argue over the merits of one set of economic proposals or another as being more "fair". At the end of the day, how we answer the fundamental questions above about who we trust and how we view human nature will determine our fate. That is our view here. We will continue to follow events and see what happens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added note: This is the second article in a series of three related to how millennials view our economy and monetary system, how the wealth gap impacts them, and how to assess all the various political proposals they will see that are supposed to "fix" things (reduce the wealth gap). 

Upcoming is the last article in this series which will take a deeper dive into the actual numbers released by the Federal Reserve that allow us to analyze the perceived wealth gap. If you are going to discuss and debate this issue, it is a good idea to do so using the actual data we have as opposed to common public perceptions. This data is the Distribution of US Household Wealth since 1989 by various categories including % of wealth owned (Top 10%, etc) and by generations. Wealth in this data is total assets less total liabilities in the private sector (excludes government liabilities and assets). 

You can preview the charts we will look at here  that are updated through the first quarter of 2020. Here are some teaser questions to think about based on this actual data:

-  Is the "wealth gap" a real thing? Is it really currently getting bigger? 

-  Has the wealth gap actually expanded in recent years? (the last three for example)

- How much percent of the nations wealth do millennials own? 

- How many millennials are there? What is their share of the total population compared to their share of US household wealth? Is this why many millennials feel the system has failed them?

My Daughter Offers Her Thoughts on How Millennials View our Monetary System

This blog is and has been devoted to watching for events that might lead to major changes in our monetary system. So far, we have not seen major changes to the US dollar based monetary system that is administered by central banks such as the Federal Reserve. This despite the fact that we have seen two major financial crises unfold in just the last 12-13 years.

One thing we have learned during this journey is that the ability to sustain any monetary system and any currency depends upon maintaining the public trust. Since modern fiat currencies no longer are anchored to anything related to the real world economy, public trust and confidence is everything.

As time goes by, my generation is starting to pass the torch over to a younger generation A generation that never lived during a time when national currencies were any different than they are today. So, it is clearly important to try and understand how this younger generation feels about our money and our monetary system. Do they trust it? Do they see it remaining unchanged for a long time to come? Do they see radical changes coming to it?

This blog has featured interviews with some of the leading experts in the world on these very same issues. This time I wanted to try and get some input from a non-expert from the upcoming generation. I believe this kind of input is invaluable because we need to understand what those who will take over from us are thinking and how they feel about the system we have and its prospects for the future.

I am happy to report that my daughter kindly agreed to do an interview with me to offer up at least one sample of opinion on these important issues. I was impressed with the time she took to think through the issues raised by these questions to offer her unvarnished, honest opinions. Below is the Q&A style interview with a few added comments just afterward.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think of as being money?

A: People my age have a reputation for "killing" lots of old industries and practices, and carrying physical cash is one of them. I'm accustomed to thinking of money in the abstract, represented by digital numbers and my plastic debit card as the tool to access them. Since I have an understanding of the fact that our money is no longer backed by the gold standard from growing up in your house and why that is problematic, I don't picture physical money when I think about our monetary system. I think it has evolved from everyone deciding what a certain piece of paper is worth to everyone agreeing that digital numbers on a screen are accurate.  I think of silver or gold as more like precious elements than money (more akin to diamonds) because they are so far removed from our monetary system.

Do you think the present economic system in the US is fair and provides equal opportunity for everyone? Why or why not?

A: I think no existing economic system is perfect and capitalism is no exception. As someone who values independence and self reliance, I believe capitalism is the best option available to us because it is the least restrictive. But I do think there are inherent problems and inequalities that emerge. For example, the inflated cost of education is crippling my generation and keeping us from building wealth. I also think that there is a cycle of poverty that exists in some communities or families not because of laziness, but because of lack of support or access to needed resources. I think major companies can quickly turn into monopolies and that wealth is concentrated within a small percentage of people. But I prefer those risks and challenges to the lack of opportunity available to me in other economic systems.

 It is worth noting that lots of millennials disagree with me, though. Because they feel oppressed by the system and economic hardships they have faced (many of us are underemployed for our degrees), they think a more socialist economy with built in support would benefit them. OR they genuinely think capitalism is harmful to certain populations and that socialism will better protect those populations. I disagree because I think no matter what type of system you have, there will always be inevitable greedy, selfish people who aren't concerned about the well being of others and would take advantage of any economic system, including socialism. I would rather have some people enjoy their concentrated wealth and leave me alone than govern or dictate what I do with my own money. So this question reflects my own personal outlook and I'm not sure if it represents the majority of my generation or not.

Do you trust that the money you have saved in the bank today will maintain its purchasing power five years from now?

A: Not at all. Inflation rises constantly. It might be a seemingly negligible amount over 5 years, but when you look at it over 20 years it is pretty shocking.

How does the high cost of obtaining a college education impact your life and your outlook for your future? 

A: My personal future is unique to this question because I studied hard and earned scholarships that covered the bulk of my education. My remaining debt still impacts me, but it isn't as utterly crippling as other students'. But only a small number of students are lucky enough to be awarded scholarships, so I'm going to focus on the problem as a whole instead of my own specific circumstances.

I personally believe this is one of the most devastating problems our generation faces, and until something changes it will make it difficult for all millennials to own homes, start families, or save for retirement. I think people from older generations don't always realize how expensive it is to obtain a college degree and how underpaid graduates are. According to https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/paying-for-college-infographic, the average cost of tuition and fees (not including housing, food, textbooks, etcc.) was $10,116 for the 2019 - 2020 school year. Multiply that by 4 and the cost for a Bachelor's Degree is $40,464. The average cost of tuition and fees at a private school for 2019 - 2020 was $36,801. That degree costs $147,204. That's the same price as a home, so imagine starting out your adult life with the same amount of debt as a mortgage, but without actually owning a home.

How much you can earn with that degree does depend on your field, which is a choice that you as an individual are responsible for. But as someone who has job hunted several times in the past few years, I can tell you confidently that there are thousands of jobs across multitudes of different fields that pay less than $40,000 per year and still require a Bachelor's degree. If earning a degree is the only entry ticket to your field and your family can't afford to pay $40,000 - $140,000 for your school, you are stuck with student loans. Those loans accrue so much interest that many students end up paying double the amount of the original loan and using half their lifetime to do so. It isn't sustainable. 

When you're stuck making payments of $200 - $300 per month for so many years (average student loan payment amount according to this source: (https://studentloanhero.com/featured/average-student-loan-payment-repayment-plans/), that impacts your ability to live comfortably or to save money for the future.

Is a college degree today worth starting out life with a large debt burden for the average student who must borrow significantly to pay for a college education?

A: It depends on your field. If you work in the STEM field, for example, it is worth it to earn a degree because your income will allow you to pay off your loans and still accrue wealth and save for the future. But if you aren't talented in a particularly well-paying field like that, I think a college education is becoming an unrealistic expense. I would advise students (and plan to advise my own children) that if scholarships are not available to them, they should earn a two-year degree at a community college in their field first. Then complete their Bachelor's Degree for two more years.

If their field of choice doesn't yield well-paying jobs, I definitely wouldn't advise them to earn a degree in that field. I do not think every student should waste money on college for an art or theatre degree for example if that isn't something they can already afford, because they won't be able to pay off their debt and live comfortably with a degree that doesn't offer them a lucrative career path. I would advise them to earn a trade certification or a different degree and pursue their passion alongside it rather than use money on it. I think a Bachelor's Degree has become more of a status symbol to some people than a tool, and it encourages students to waste their money on something that won't benefit them financially at all.

I value the experiences I had throughout my traditional 4 years away at school, but I think those experiences are more of a luxury than a necessity for starting out well in life. I'm speaking strictly from an economic perspective rather than an emotional one when it comes to the inherent value of a college degree. Until the price point changes or graduates' earning potential changes, I would advise anyone to proceed with caution before taking out too many student loans.

Do you think that the monetary policies of the central bank for the US (Federal Reserve) have any impact on your life? If so, in what way?

A: I'm sure they probably do, but I'm not well-versed enough in the policies to answer. I think most people younger than me (23 or so and below) would answer the same way. 

The US monetary system is based on people having confidence in the US dollar as its currency. Do you have long term confidence in the US dollar as money? 

A: No, I think inflation and our national debt are too problematic. Everyone just pretends the debt doesn't exist, but that power could shift someday.

Ten years from now, do you think the US dollar will still be the currency used in the US?

A: I would still consider 10 years to be relatively short-term. I think the dollar will still be used as currency within 10 years, and I think most millennials would agree with that and would be shocked to consider the alternative. But I think it is certainly possible our economic instability could change things sooner than I anticipate.

There is general agreement that a "wealth gap" exists in the US today. A wealth gap meaning that more and more of the wealth of the nation is concentrated in fewer people's hands. Do you have thoughts on what may have caused this situation? 

A; I think it is just a natural outcome of capitalism.

Do you think any policies by the US government or the Federal Reserve have contributed to this so called "wealth gap"?

A: Possibly, but I would need more context or examples.

Some argue that massive money creation by the central bank can contribute to the wealth gap because more of the created money tends to flow towards those who already own more wealth and wealth related assets like stocks and real estate. The argument is that those assets get inflated due to money creation and benefit those nearer the top of the wealth spectrum the most. Especially billionaires who own huge corporations and lots of stock in those corporations that may benefit disproportionately from the monetary stimulus injected by the central bank. (eg, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, etc). (see this recent blog article for an example of this theory)

Do you have any thoughts on that theory?

A: That theory seems valid to me. I can't pretend to be an expert on exactly how the flow of money works within our economy, so this is totally based on my perception of things. But I do get the sense (Iike we referenced in other questions) that money tends to get concentrated amongst extrememly wealthy people, and the money creation/inflation seems like it could definitely be part of the reason why our capitalist economy has such a massive and unfair gap.        

Millennials face a challenge because the US debt burden has grown substantially in recent years and as the "Boomer" generation retires, there are massive entitlement programs that have to be funded (Social Security, Medicare, etc). Do you think the US debt and its future entitlement obligations is a real problem for younger people or nothing to really be concerned about? 

A: It is a huge problem, because if the United States can't sustain social security for such a large influx of people and continues to create more debt, our money becomes increasingly less valuable. That matters from a global perspective. 

In general, do you think millennials are supportive of our present financial and monetary system or would prefer it be significantly changed? 

A: I think most people would prefer it be significantly changed because they do not feel that the present system has supported their best efforts to basic things like income stability, home ownership, retirement savings, and general wealth.

What changes do you think most millennials would want, if any?

A: Many people want more government regulations for large companies on a variety of different things. Healthcare, environmental protection, certain human rights regulations like requiring businesses to offer maternity leave as one specific example. Many people believe in the Bernie Sanders-type ideology that heavily taxing the billionaires and redistributing that money within government programs is going to make an impact on their lifestyle or on general poverty. 

I am a mixture - I do think there are situations where one standard set by the government would be beneficial (like certain specific environmental or human rights regulations). But I think too many restrictions like that chokes capitalism. And I don't generally believe in wealth redistribution because I think the government will do that inefficiently. I don't trust politicians with that money any more than I trust billionaires with it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My added comments: Obviously this is one sample of opinion and in any group there will be diversity of opinion. However, I feel like many of these answers are very much in line with what I see over and over from younger people who offer up their thoughts on these kinds of issues. 

I want to thank my daughter Julie for taking time to do this interview and share her honest views for readers here. I will add that if you happen to visit the Dallas Texas area (if and when we get to visit places again), Julie authors a blog on off the beaten path places you might enjoy. You can find her blog here.

Added note: Next week I will have a followup article prompted by the comments in this interview and after that an article that takes a deeper dive into the US Household Distribution of Wealth.

Jim Rickards Discusses His New Book - "Aftermath"

Readers here know that I have followed Jim Rickards for many years because of his extensive understanding of the issues we cover here and because he has talked about the potential for major monetary system change. That is what this blog was created to watch for.

Jim has written a series of best selling books on these issues and in July 2019 will be releasing the latest one titled "Aftermath".  Jim kindly agreed to do a brief Q&A on the upcoming book which is just below. After that a brief summary will follow.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Should readers read your earlier books (Currency Wars, Death of Money, The New Case for Gold, and The Road to Ruin) before they read the new book "Aftermath"?

A: I'm grateful to all of the readers of my books, but there's no need to read them in any particular order. The books are a chronicle of the post-2009 period. There's a lot of economic and monetary history, but they track developments through Bernanke, Yellen and now Jay Powell. There's a cumulative element so reading Aftermath will incorporate many of the points touched upon in the earlier volumes, albeit in shorter form. Hopefully, someone reading Aftermath first will be encouraged to read the earlier books and complete the entire quartet.

Q: What were some main themes you wanted to cover in "Aftermath"?

A: Many of the trends identified in my earlier books have moved much closer to a critical threshold (point of collapse) and so deserved deeper analysis. These include passive investing, robo-investing, Chinese debt, gold accumulation by Russia and China and the role of crypto-currencies in a global monetary reset. Other new themes are the rise of Trump (not covered in the earlier books) and the exact dimensions of life in the aftermath of a new crisis. Currency Wars and The Death of Money warned that a crisis was coming. The Road to Ruin put you in the middle of a crisis and showed the official response function, (which I called "Ice Nine"). Aftermath takes you to the post-crisis environment as a way to show you what you can do now to survive it.

Q: For many years you have consistently forecast that we will some day another major crisis worse than the 2008-2009 crisis and that this could lead to major changes in the global monetary system. While working on "Aftermath", have you seen anything that would cause you to change that forecast?

A: No. All of the trends not only confirm a coming crisis, but suggest it may be worse than I expected. Reaction functions not only include closed banks and exchanges and frozen accounts, but also social unrest possibly requiring martial law. There are also serious infrastructure threats that could involve a collapsed power grid or internet. On top of that, cyber threats are real and cyber wars have already begun. We cover all of these developments in Aftermath.

Q: Do you plan any more books to follow "Aftermath" or will this one complete the series?

A: I expect to write more books, but there's nothing underway right now. After writing five books in eight years, I may just step back and develop new themes or topics. The international monetary quartet (Currency Wars, The Death of Money, The Road to Ruin and Aftermath) is done and stands on its own. I'm not sure how much more there is to say on the topic. It's all there in the books.


Q: Modern Monetary Theory is something new that has gotten a lot of attention lately. Do you discuss that theory in this new book? Do you think MMT will have a significant impact on our monetary future?

A: I have a full chapter on Modern Monetary Theory in Aftermath. It's called Free Money (Chapter 5). The best way to understand Modern Monetary Theory is to quote Gertrude Stein: "There's no there there."

Q: Is there anything else you would like readers to know about "Aftermath" or any other topic we discuss here from time to time?

A: Aftermath took longer to write than I expected when I started. That was partly due to other obligations and partly due to an injury I suffered in the summer of 2018 that required some time off for recovery. That said, I'm actually pleased with the publication date, July 23, 2019. That happens to be the exact 75th anniversary of Bretton Woods (July 23, 1944), which is appropriate because the book discusses the need for a new Bretton Woods. Also, it will come out in the middle of the 2020 election season. The book is not overtly political but it does discuss many subjects that will be a big part of the election debate including Modern Monetary Theory, debt and deficits, economic growth and the role of the Fed. Anyone interested in the presidential election cycle will be better informed if they read Aftermath.

Thank you for taking time from a busy schedule to offer these comments as we await the launch of "Aftermath" this coming July. It follows a line of best sellers and I have no doubt that will continue with "Aftermath".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary: Jim Rickards has the ability to delve into complex topics in a way that most of us without an academic background in macro economics can easily understand. In the interview above Jim provides us with some interesting tidbits. His new book will include a full chapter on Modern Monetary Theory which is timely since that will surely be debated in the upcoming election cycle. Also, Jim just provided us with an update to his long standing forecast that changes that will impact our present monetary system are coming. Jim often says that forecasts can change over time as new data is received. In this case, he not only says his forecast for a new crisis leading to major change is still in play, he adds that the latest trends suggest to him that the crisis he predicts may be worse than he expected.

Anyone who has read any of Jim's books I think would confirm that they cover a lot ground and that you will learn some fascinating history. I have no doubt that the same will be true for "Aftermath". Readers can find "Aftermath" here.


Added note 5-13-19: With the US-China trade dispute flaring back up, readers may find this recent article by Jim of interest. --  "The Trade War is Back"

One Quarter into 2019 - Anything New to Report?

Readers here know that we have been reporting for some time that unless we see some kind of new major financial crisis, we don't expect to see any major monetary system reform in the near future. For this reason, we have somewhat moved into monitoring mode here and only try to produce a few articles a month when we see something that might be worthwhile for readers.

So, now that we are one quarter of the way into 2019, is there anything new to report?

Mostly no, but perhaps a few tidbits that might be of some interest based on a variety of input sources. Below are a few bullet point items.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- the political environment (which can impact change) seems pretty status quo. The country remains very divided and there are no signs that is likely to change any time soon. So long as President Trump remains in office, we can expect that without some kind of major economic problem, he will most likely continue along the same path without any major changes to the monetary system. 

- Modern Monetary Theory has become a hot topic lately, but more in the political arena than in actual policy making circles thus far. Without a major shift in political power, it seems unlikely that MMT will gain much traction with actual policy makers. It does appear likely that MMT will become part of the political debate heading into the 2020 election cycle. We won't cover it much here unless it gains more political traction since we try to focus on what actually happens.

- Central banks continue to study and talk about the idea of introducing central bank digital currencies, but again we have not seen much change in that direction so far. (as noted in the recent update from Agustin Carstens from the BIS). The IMF and World Bank did announce a project to explore the potential of blockchain technology.

From time to time I do hear from a variety of experts who do discuss various ideas and proposals for monetary system change. I can report that there is lot of interesting discussion that does go on related to this. Some of the issues I have seen discussed include:

- what rules should the monetary system follow?
- what is the best anchor for a currency to provide long term price stability?
- has the Fed monetary policy since the 2008 crisis been the appropriate response?
- was the initial Fed emergency response appropriate, but then carried too far later on?
- is modern monetary theory (MMT) an upcoming force for monetary system change?
- is there any real threat to the role of the US dollar as the global reserve currency?
- are Russia and China working on building a system to bypass the US dollar and the SWIFT system?
- is there any will inside the Trump Administration to propose significant monetary system reform?

One of the main goals of this blog has been to try and document a variety of ideas and proposals related to some of the questions raised above. Readers can find that here on this permanent page of the blog.

Other note: In May 2019 there will be panel discussion held in Fort Worth,Texas which will address the question of whether a free society should have a central bank, and if so, what monetary policies should it follow to be most consistent with liberty? (see 8 am panel discussion on Monday May 20th). 

The participants in this panel discussion include Warren Coats, Scott Sumner, John B. Taylor, and Lawrence H. White (not me, the Lawrence White from George Mason University). The panel discussion is part of a multi day conference co sponsored by the SMU/Cox O'Neil Center for Global Markets and Freedom and the Texas Tech University Free Market Institute.

This is obviously a great panel and the topic looks interesting in terms of what we follow here. Eliminating the Federal Reserve or significant changes to the rules it must follow would constitute the kind of monetary system change we watch for.

So, if I can find a way to obtain the contents of the panel discussion (video or text of the papers presented), I will try to cover that here for readers. Meanwhile, in May we will have two interviews upcoming that should be of interest to readers. One with Warren Coats and one with Jim Rickards.