Beautiful Virgin Islands

Thursday, Oct 30, 2025

The ideological bankruptcy of modern monetary theory

The ideological bankruptcy of modern monetary theory

If you can’t explain something, try an abbreviation. The latest in economics is MMT - Modern Monetary Theory or, in other words, a magic money tree.
It’s a simple idea. It costs almost nothing to print money: the cost of printing banknotes is negligible compared with their face value, and even lower when the Bank of England creates money electronically through its so-called ‘quantitative easing’ programme (QE). That money could be given to the public — either directly or indirectly via the government — to enable people to spend more, so raising output and employment. We are all better off.

Why didn’t we think of this before? Well, of course we did. From Roman emperors through Henry VIII and the Weimar Republic to present-day Zimbabwe and Venezuela, rulers have shown all those clever central bankers struggling to get inflation up to their 2 per cent target how to do it.

Unfortunately, they didn’t stop at 2 per cent but ended up in hyperinflations in which prices doubled in a day — equivalent to annual percentage inflation in the many trillions.

Needless to say, in such situations the economy tends to collapse. As my wife says when I praise the quality of a bottle of wine and suggest some more, ‘Moderation in all things’.The problem with the simple idea of MMT is that it belies the context to which it is applied. To be brutally honest, MMT is neither modern, nor monetary, nor a theory.

It is not modern because the ability to print paper (or, today, electronic) money has always raised the question of when to stop. And governments have always used deficit financing to support their wish to spend.

It is not monetary because the relevant questions concern fiscal policy: how should governments finance their deficits and what are the limits to those deficits? If deficits can always be financed by the printing of money by a compliant central bank, then we are in a world of ‘fiscal dominance’, to use the modern jargon. Inflation is then determined by government spending decisions. It was precisely to convince financial markets of the opposite that led to the independence of the Bank of England.

nd it is not a theory because the appropriate size of the government budget deficit and how much money to print depend entirely upon the context of the decision. There is no general theory that says printing money or running a government budget deficit is always either good or bad. MMT advocates are correct in saying that the national budget of a country that can print its own currency is different in nature from the budget of a household (as Keynes pointed out in 1936 and others before him).

But it does not follow that there is a magic money tree. If the government spends more and finances that by borrowing, the additional debt is a liability of the public sector. If the spending is financed by money printing, that too is a liability of the public sector and can be used, for example, to pay taxes. The smoke and mirrors of MMT violates the only iron law of economics — double entry bookkeeping: for every asset there is a corresponding liability.

To come down from high theory to the terrain of practical considerations, the real weakness of MMT is that it adds nothing to the existing toolbox of policy-makers. The Bank of England already prints money. The government already runs a (very large) budget deficit. MMT is not a new policy tool but simply an encouragement for them to go further. Whether that makes sense depends entirely upon the context in which that advice is given.

Conventional wisdom is to welcome the large injections of created money (QE) made by central banks since the start of this year but to worry about budget deficits and the sharp jump in national debt. The truth may be closer to the opposite.

To suppress the virus, the government shut down parts of the economy. This was a deliberate policy. Irrespective of the merits, it would be odd then to ask another branch of government to try to offset the policy by stimulating the economy, whether by monetary or fiscal means. People would love to spend more but they can’t. While businesses and governments have been borrowing at record levels, households have been saving.

The personal sector saving ratio has more than doubled during the course of 2020. Instead of general stimulus, the right response to the pandemic was to support businesses until all the restrictions could be lifted. Only then would we know which businesses have a viable future in the post-Covid world. Broadly speaking, this is what the government has done through the furlough and other support schemes.

The outcome of course is record--breaking budget deficits and a sharp jump in national debt. Many have jumped to the conclusion that we will need increases in taxes and/or further cuts in public spending to ensure sustainability of the public finances. Such a judgment is premature.

Because of fiscal prudence over the past decade, the UK entered this crisis with only a small budget deficit (the so-called primary deficit, after interest payments on the national debt, was less than 1 per cent of GDP). Once we emerge from the epidemic, we could return to that position provided two conditions hold. One is that there are no long-term ‘scarring’ effects of Covid-19 on the productive capacity of the economy. Clearly, some sectors and firms are likely to contract and others expand.

But it is far from obvious that size of the economy as a whole will be permanently affected. The key point, however, is that no one knows today how much permanent damage has been inflicted on the economy. Forecasts based on guesses of the scarring effect are an example of bogus quantification.

The second condition is that public spending is not ratcheted up but returns to its pre-Covid path. Unlikely, perhaps, given the pressures for the government to spend more on all sorts of worthy projects. But there is no need to pre-judge decisions of the next spending review.

The crucial difference between the positions in 2010 and today is the interest rate at which the government can borrow. Back then, the UK government could borrow for ten years at an interest rate of between 3 and 4 per cent a year; today, the interest rate is just above zero. Allowing for inflation, the government can borrow money today at a significantly negative real interest rate.

With a balanced budget — government income equals expenditure — borrowing is required only to pay interest and the national debt expands at the interest rate at which the government can borrow. At present, this rate is clearly well below any plausible estimate of the long-run growth rate of the UK economy. So even with a budget deficit of modest proportions it is likely that the national debt as a share of national income will therefore slowly but steadily fall without any need for 2010-style fiscal surgery.

It would take several, perhaps many, years for debt to return to its pre-Covid level, but what matters is that the trajectory is downward. Outside times of crisis, the aim should be to run a budget deficit small enough to keep the national debt-to-GDP ratio on a declining path.

ince there is enormous uncertainty surrounding what best to do about taxes and spending once we have returned to normality, it would be a mistake to do anything rash now. Higher taxes might be needed to finance extra government spending, but tax raids are not needed to ‘restore the public finances’.

There are no magic money trees and no new theories that eliminate hard choices. But there are good and bad policies. The choice requires careful analysis of the immediate context. The right strategy now is to keep options open. At the end of next year or in 2022 we will be able to assess the appropriate fiscal policy. The 2010s was a time for a degree of fiscal consolidation. Today isn’t.
Newsletter

Related Articles

Beautiful Virgin Islands
0:00
0:00
Close
UK and Vietnam Sign Landmark Migration Deal to Fast-Track Returns of Irregular Arrivals
UK Drug-Pricing Overhaul Essential for Life-Sciences Ambition, Says GSK Chief
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie Temporarily Leave the UK Amid Their Parents’ Royal Fallout
UK Weighs Early End to Oil and Gas Windfall Tax as Reeves Seeks Investment Commitments
UK Retail Inflation Slows as Shop Prices Fall for First Time Since Spring
Next Raises Full-Year Profit Guidance After Strong Third-Quarter Performance
Reform UK’s Lee Anderson Admits to 'Gaming' Benefits System While Advocating Crackdown
United States and South Korea Conclude Major Trade Accord Worth $350 Billion
Hurricane Melissa Strikes Cuba After Devastating Jamaica With Record Winds
Vice President Vance to Headline Turning Point USA Campus Event at Ole Miss
U.S. Targets Maritime Narco-Routes While Border Pressure to Mexico Remains Limited
Bill Gates at 70: “I Have a Real Fear of Artificial Intelligence – and Also Regret”
Elon Musk Unveils Grokipedia: An AI-Driven Alternative to Wikipedia
Saudi Arabia Unveils Vision for First-Ever "Sky Stadium" Suspended Over Desert Floor
Amazon Announces 14 000 Corporate Job Cuts as AI Investment Accelerates
UK Shop Prices Fall for First Time Since March, Food Leads the Decline
London Stock Exchange Group ADR (LNSTY) Earns Zacks Rank #1 Upgrade on Rising Earnings Outlook
Soap legend Tony Adams, long-time star of Crossroads, dies at 84
Rachel Reeves Signals Tax Increases Ahead of November Budget Amid £20-50 Billion Fiscal Gap
NatWest Past Gains of 314% Spotlight Opportunity — But Some Key Risks Remain
UK Launches ‘Golden Age’ of Nuclear with £38 Billion Sizewell C Approval
UK Announces £1.08 Billion Budget for Offshore Wind Auction to Boost 2030 Capacity
UK Seeks Steel Alliance with EU and US to Counter China’s Over-Capacity
UK Struggles to Balance China as Both Strategic Threat and Valued Trading Partner
Argentina’s Markets Surge as Milei’s Party Secures Major Win
British Journalist Sami Hamdi Detained by U.S. Authorities After Visa Revocation Amid Israel-Gaza Commentary
King Charles Unveils UK’s First LGBT+ Armed Forces Memorial at National Memorial Arboretum
At ninety-two and re-elected: Paul Biya secures eighth term in Cameroon amid unrest
Racist Incidents Against UK Nurses Surge by 55%
UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves Cites Shared Concerns With Trump Administration as Foundation for Early US-UK Trade Deal
Essentra plc: A Closer Look at a UK ‘Penny Stock’ Opportunity Amid Market Weakness
U.S. and China Near Deal to Avert Rare-Earth Export Controls Ahead of Trump-Xi Summit
Justin time: Justin Herbert Shields Madison Beer with Impressive Reflex at Lakers Game
Russia’s President Putin Declares Burevestnik Nuclear Cruise Missile Ready for Deployment
Giuffre’s Memoir Alleges Maxwell Claimed Sexual Act with Clooney
House Republicans Move to Strip NYC Mayoral Front-Runner Zohran Mamdani of U.S. Citizenship
Record-High Spoiled Ballots Signal Voter Discontent in Ireland’s 2025 Presidential Election
Philippines’ Taal Volcano Erupts Overnight with 2.4 km Ash Plume
Albania’s Virtual AI 'Minister' Diella Set to 'Birth' Eighty-Three Digital Assistants for MPs
Tesla Unveils Vision for Optimus V3 as ‘Biggest Product of All Time’, Including Surgical Capabilities
Francis Ford Coppola Auctions Luxury Watches After Self-Financed Film Flop
Convicted Sex Offender Mistakenly Freed by UK Prison Service Arrested in London
United States and China Begin Constructive Trade Negotiations Ahead of Trump–Xi Summit
U.S. Treasury Sanctions Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro over Drug-Trafficking Allegations
Miss USA Crowns Nebraska’s Audrey Eckert Amid Leadership Overhaul
‘I Am Not Done’: Kamala Harris Signals Possible 2028 White House Run
NBA Faces Integrity Crisis After Mass Arrests in Gambling Scandal
Swift Heist at the Louvre Sees Eight French Crown Jewels Stolen in Under Seven Minutes
U.S. Halts Trade Talks with Canada After Ontario Ad Using Reagan Voice Triggers Diplomatic Fallout
Microsoft AI CEO: ‘We’re making an AI that you can trust your kids to use’ — but can Microsoft rebuild its own trust before fixing the industry’s?
×