Stephanie Kelton: The big myth of government deficits | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

When things break, we have an opportunity.

東西打破時，就給了我們一個機會。

We can pick up the pieces and put them back together the old way,

我們可以把碎片撿起來， 照原本的方式拼裝回去，

or we can look for better ways to build.

或者可以尋找更好的建造方式。

Covid broke everything.

新冠肺炎把一切都打破了。

It put a spotlight on the many deficits in our economy --

它讓我們經濟中的許多 赤字被呈現出來——

in employment, education, health care, housing --

包括就業、教育、

健康照護、住房——

and it showed how inequality made it all worse.

也呈現出不平等讓這些問題更嚴重。

Here in the US and around the world, governments did some extraordinary things.

在美國這裡及世界各地，

政府做了一些不尋常的事。

They sent money to people directly to help them buy food and pay rent.

它們直接發錢給人民，

協助人民購買食物和支付房租。

They provided free Covid testing

它們提供免費的新冠肺炎篩檢，

and expanded health care to cover more of the population.

並擴展健康照護，

照顧更多人。

They gave money to businesses to help keep them afloat

在大部分的經濟暫時性關閉時，

while much of the economy was temporarily shut down.

它們給企業錢來協助企業紓困。

They offered debt relief to millions of people

它們提供債務減免

給數百萬借錢讀大學的人。

who borrowed money to go to college.

They did all of this and more without raising taxes

它們做了這些以及更多其他更多，

卻沒有提高稅金，

or having a prolonged battle

也沒有針對這個 常見問題來打持久戰：

over the usual question of how to pay for it.

錢從哪裡來？

To me, this was exciting,

對我而言，這很讓人興奮，

and I'm an economist, so I don't say that a lot.

我是經濟學家，所以我不常興奮。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But as someone who's been trying to change the way we think

但身為不斷嘗試改變我們怎麼看待

about deficits and government spending,

赤字和政府支出的人，

I saw this as an opportunity

我把這視為一個機會，

to show why government budgets don't work like household budgets.

可以說明政府預算為什麼

和家庭預算有不同的運作方式。

Why all of their red ink is really our black ink.

說明為什麼政府的紅墨水

其實等於我們的黑墨水。

And why our nation can afford to keep investing in the things we need

說明為什麼我們的國家即使 在花了數兆美金對抗疫情之後，

even after spending trillions to fight the pandemic.

仍然能負擔得起不斷投資 我們所需要的東西。

For a while, it looked like the US and other countries

有段時間，看起來好像 美國和其他國家

were starting to break the mold on the old way of thinking

都開始打破關於赤字和稅務的

老式思考模型。

about deficits and taxes.

But now here we are,

但，現在的狀況是，

just a handful of months after all of that bold action,

那些大膽的行動才過了幾個月，

and we're sliding back into our old habits of thought.

我們又回到了過去 習慣的老式思考方式。

Can we build affordable housing and fix crumbling infrastructure?

我們能否建造平價的住房， 並修復損壞的基礎設施？

Can we expand Medicare to include dental, vision and hearing?

我們能否把聯邦醫療保險擴展，納入

牙齒、視力、聽力的補助？

Can we tackle our climate crisis?

我們能否處理氣候危機？

As Congress debates these questions, everyone is back to asking,

當國會在辯論這些問題時，

大家又開始問：

how will you pay for it?

錢從哪裡來？

It's the wrong question.

這不是正確的問題。

In fact, the right questions don't involve money at all.

事實上正確的問題根本不牽涉金錢。

Instead of worrying about where the financing will come from,

我們該做的不是擔心資金從哪裡來，

we should be asking, are these things worth doing

而是應該要問，這些事值不值得做？

and do we have the real resources, the people, the equipment,

我們是否有真正的資源、

人力、設備、

the raw materials and the technology to do them?

原料，以及技術來做到這些事？

Well, they make society better off.

它們能改善社會的境況嗎？

And do we have the political will to act?

我們是否有採取行動的政治決心？

I'm one of a handful of economists

我和少數經濟學家

who contributed to the body of academic scholarship

投身致力在一個學術領域中：

known as MMT or Modern Monetary Theory.

一般所知的現代貨幣理論（MMT）。

MMT provides an accurate description

MMT 很正確地描述了

of how a fiat currency like the US dollar or the British pound actually works.

流通貨幣

如美金或英磅實際的運作方式。

It reminds us that we're no longer on a gold standard,

它提醒我們，我們不再 用金本位制度，

so finding the money to pay for the things we need

所以，找資金來支付我們需要的東西

is never an issue for countries like the US or the UK.

對美國或英國這類國家 從來就不是問題。

If we're going to fix what's broken in our economy,

如果我們要修復經濟 當中受損的部分，

we have to fix the way we think about the limits on government spending.

我們就得修復我們對

政府支出限制的看法。

Let me give you an example

讓我舉個例子，說明哪種

of the kind of broken gold standard thinking

有問題的金制度思考

that still permeates our discourse.

仍然充斥在我們的言談中。

Back in 1983, the prime minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher,

1983 年時，

英國首相柴契爾夫人

said these words:

說了這些話：

"If the state wishes to spend more,

「如果國家希望花更多錢，

it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more,

唯一的做法就是借用你的存款

或者向你收更多稅，

and it is no good thinking that someone else will pay.

認為別人會付錢是沒有幫助的。

That someone else is you.

『別人』就是你。

There is no such thing as public money.

沒有什麼公款。

There is only taxpayers' money."

只有納稅人的錢。」

Maybe you've heard the contemporary version of Thatcher's dictum.

也許你聽過柴契爾夫人 這段名言的當代版本：

"There is no magic money tree."

「沒有魔法搖錢樹。」

It's just another way of saying that everything must be paid for

這只是另一種說法，

意思就是一切都要付錢，

and that the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook

而最終，還是由納稅人來扛

for whatever the government spends.

所有的政府支出。

It sounds worrying.

聽起來很讓人擔心。

As individuals, we know that when we borrow money

我們都知道當個人

借錢去

to go to college, start a business or buy a home,

讀大學、創業，或買房子，

we're personally saddled with that debt.

我們本人就得肩負那些債務。

We have to find the money to pay it back.

我們得找錢來還債。

Taking on too much personal debt can lead to all sorts of problems.

背負太多個人債務可能會造成

各式各樣的問題。

Even small businesses and large corporations

就連小公司和大企業

have to walk a fine line when it comes to debt.

對於債務相關的事都得很小心拿捏。

But the federal government is fundamentally different.

但聯邦政府從根本上就不一樣。

Unlike the rest of us,

和我們其他人不同，

Congress never has to check the balance in its bank account

國會從來不用查看它的 銀行帳戶還有多少餘額

to figure out whether it can afford to spend more.

來判斷它能不能負擔得起更多支出。

As the issuer of the currency,

身為貨幣的發行者，

the federal government can never run out of money.

聯邦政府有永遠用不完的貨幣。

It can afford to buy whatever is available and for sale in its own currency.

它可以負擔得起任何能買到

且用它發行的貨幣所銷售的東西。

Now that might mean spending on roads and bridges,

那可能意味著把錢 用在道路和橋樑上、

a military arsenal or hospitals and schools.

軍備上，

或醫院及學校上。

Finding the votes to pass a spending bill can be hard,

尋求支持票

讓支出法案能夠通過可能很困難，

but finding the money

但要找到錢，

is never a problem.

從來不是問題。

They just create it.

印出來就好了。

So here's how it works.

所以，狀況是這樣的：

Whenever Congress and the president agree to spend more,

每當國會和總統同意支出更多時，

the government's bank, the Federal Reserve,

政府的銀行，也就是聯邦準備銀行，

works with the rest of the financial system

和金融體制的其他部分合作，

to get that money into our accounts.

把那些錢放到我們的帳戶中。

Everything's done electronically,

一切都是電子化的，

so there's no physical printing of money involved.

所以不用實際上印出鈔票。

If you got a 1,400-dollar check from the federal government

如果你在今年年初 拿到聯邦政府給你的

earlier this year,

一千四百美金支票，

or if your company received money to help cover payroll and other expenses,

或者你的公司拿到紓困金

來協助支付工資和其他費用，

then you received some of the newly minted digital dollars

那麼你就拿到了一些

新製造的數位美元，

that were created to support our economy.

其製造目的是要支持我們的經濟。

No taxpayers were involved in that process.

那個過程沒有涉及任何納稅人。

It was all done using nothing more than a computer keyboard.

只不過用一個電腦鍵盤就完成了。

So why are we hearing so much about the need to raise taxes

那麼，為什麼我們常常 聽到有人說需要增稅，

to pay for infrastructure and make other investments in our economy?

來支付基礎建設以及其他經濟投資？

In a word,

簡言之，

deficits.

赤字。

We've all been conditioned to worry about deficits,

我們都受到制約，會擔心赤字，

so lawmakers are looking for ways to spend more

所以立法者會想辦法花更多錢

without adding to the deficit.

但不要增加赤字。

That's what this whole pay-for game is about.

這就是整個「買帳」遊戲的重點。

Unfortunately, deficits have gotten a bad rap.

不幸的是，

赤字已經有了惡名。

They're almost always seen in a negative light.

赤字幾乎一定會被負面看待。

And I would like to change that.

我想要改變這一點。

When we hear the word "deficit,"

當我們聽到「赤字」這個詞，

we probably think of a deficiency or shortfall.

我們可能會想要短缺或不足。

A deficit always sounds ominous.

赤字聽起來總是很不祥。

So when we hear that the federal government

所以，當我們聽到聯邦政府

just ran a three-trillion-dollar budget deficit,

預算赤字達到三兆美金時，

it can sound worrying.

聽起來很讓人擔心。

And it can even anger people.

甚至可能會激怒人民。

But there's another way to think about government deficits.

但，可以從另一個角度 來看政府赤字。

Just as a six becomes a nine when we view it from a different angle,

就如同 6 可以變成 9，

只要換個方向看即可，

a government deficit becomes a financial surplus

政府赤字也可以變成財政盈餘，

when we look at it from another perspective.

只要我們能轉換觀點。

赤字主戰者在看這張圖時，

A deficit hawk might look at this picture

and see nothing but a sea of worrying red ink.

只看到一片讓人擔心的紅色墨水。

That's not how I look at it.

我卻不是這樣看的。

Here's what I see.

這是我看見的。

I see what's happening

我看到的是政府帳本的另一面。

on the other side of the government's ledger.

When the government spends more than it taxes away from us,

當政府的支出超過 它向我們課的稅時，

it makes a financial contribution to some other part of the economy.

會對經濟的其他部分

做出財務貢獻。

Their red ink is our black ink.

他們的紅墨水是我們的黑墨水。

When you look at it this way,

如果換成這種觀點，

it becomes clear that every deficit is good for someone.

就能清楚看到，

任何赤字都會對某人有益。

The question is for whom

問題是，受益的是誰？

and what are those deficits being used to accomplish?

以及那些赤字被用來達成什麼目標？

It matters how the money is spent

錢用在哪裡很重要，

and who ends up with the resulting surplus.

產生的盈餘給了誰也很重要。

Tax cuts that deliver huge windfalls for those at the top

減稅讓頂層的人省下一筆意外之財，

without sparking investment and opportunity

但若沒有為其他人

帶來投資和機會，

for the rest of the population

don't make good use of deficits.

就沒有好好運用赤字。

On the other hand,

另一方面，

spending trillions to support the economy during the pandemic

在疫情期間花數兆美金來支持經濟

put the deficit to good use.

就是善用了赤字。

We just had the shortest recession in US history.

我們剛走過美國歷史上最短的蕭條。

To me, that was fiscally responsible.

對我來說，那是很有財政責任感的。

Being responsible shouldn't mean running the government's finances

負責任並不表示

要像家庭一樣經營政府的財務。

like a household.

Instead of trying to keep the deficit in check,

國會不該試著控制赤字，

Congress should be focused on keeping inflation in check.

而應該把焦點改放在控制膨脹。

That's the real limit on spending

那才是真正限制支出，

and it's the thing to watch out for

這才是需要留心的重點，

if you're thinking about spending trillions

尤其是你要把數兆美金 花在比如基礎建設上、

on things like infrastructure, health care and free college.

健康照護上，及免費大學上。

Instead of asking, "How will we pay for it?,"

要問的不是「錢從哪裡來」，

Congress should be asking, "How will we resource it?"

國會該問的是

「我們要如何提供資源？」

To answer that question,

若要回答這個問題，

think of people, factories, equipment and raw materials like wood and iron.

想想看人力、工廠、設備，

以及木頭和鋼鐵等材料。

If we're going to build high-speed rail,

如果我們打算建高鐵，

fix crumbling infrastructure and green our economy,

修復出問題的基礎建設，綠化經濟，

then we'll need concrete, steel and lumber.

那我們就需要混凝土、鋼，和木材。

We'll need construction workers, architects and engineers.

我們會需要建築工人、 建築師，和工程師。

We'll need companies that can fill thousands of orders for solar panels,

我們會需要合作廠商能做到上千張

太陽能板、電動車充電店、 電動校車的訂單。

EV charging stations and electric school buses.

If our economy has the productive capacity to quickly supply all of those things,

如果我們的經濟有足夠生產能力

可以很快供應上述這些東西，

then we can easily resource it.

我們就能輕易將它們提供到必要的地方。

Or take health care or free college.

或者，以健康照護 或免費大學為例 。

Paying the bills to expand Medicare,

支付帳單來擴大聯邦醫療保險，

to include dental, vision and hearing is easy.

把牙齒、視力、 聽力都納入，這很容易。

The challenge is making sure

挑戰在於要確保有足夠的牙醫、

we have enough dentists, optometrists and audiologists

驗光師，和聽力學家，

to treat everyone who needs care.

來治療所有需要照護的人。

And if you want to resource free college,

如果你想提供資源來做免費大學，

then you need the faculty,

就會需要教職員工、

the classrooms and the dormitories to teach and house more students.

教室，和宿舍，

來教更多學生，並提供他們住處。

In a full-employment economy,

在充分就業的經濟中，

all of the resources you need are, well,

所有你需要的資源

fully employed.

完全被僱用了。

There's no spare capacity anywhere in the system.

體制中沒有任何地方 還有剩餘的能力。

So if the government suddenly tried to make all of these investments at once,

所以，如果政府突然試著 同時做所有這些投資，

it would quickly discover that it doesn't have the people

它很快就會發現，它找不到人力

or the building materials to do the work.

或建材來做完成工作。

To get the resources it needs,

要取得必要的資源，

it would have to compete with the private sector,

政府就得和私部門競爭，

bidding up wages and prices.

抬高工資和價格。

That would be inflationary and it would be fiscally irresponsible.

那就有通貨膨脹傾向了，

那就是沒有財政責任感。

We are a long way from full employment.

我們離充分就業還很遠。

We have the resources we need to begin repairing our broken systems.

我們有必要的資源

可以開始修理出問題的體制。

But we have to believe it's possible.

但我們得相信這是有可能辦到的。

We can't let words like debt and deficits hold us back.

我們不能被「債務」 和「赤字」這些詞給拖住。

With a better understanding of public money,

更了解公款、

where it comes from and how it works

它們來自何處，以及它們如何運作，

we can take aim at the many real deficits that are bearing down on us.

我們就能鎖定

許多真正壓著我們的赤字，

In every crisis lies an opportunity.

所有的危機中都有轉機。

We can pick up the pieces

我們能把碎片撿起來，

and try to reassemble the fragile systems that were in place before the pandemic

試圖重新組裝回 疫情之前的脆弱體制，

or we can build anew,

或者我們可以建造全新的，

shaping our bountiful resources into the kind of world we want to live in,

用我們充足的資源打造出

我們想要居住的世界，

one that cares for our people and our planet.

在乎人民在乎地球的世界。

I truly hope we choose to be bold.

我真心希望我們能選擇放膽去做。

Thank you.

謝謝。