Net Financial Assets v. ‘Net Debt Financial Assets’

Whenever MMTers (proponents of Modern Monetary Theory) say that the ‘gov’t deficit equals our non gov’t savings’, or ‘the gov’t red ink is our black ink’, the technical term for that ‘black ink’, those ‘savings’, is Net Financial Assets (NFA). Those that are uninitiated to MMT don’t use the term NFA—whenever the mainstream talks about the cumulative amount of all federal gov’t deficit spending-to-date, their technical term for it is ‘The National Debt’.
 
Net Financial Assets (NFA) are USUALLY created ONLY by the federal gov’t (‘exogenously’ / ‘vertically’) when deficit spending, and not by banks (‘endogenously’ / ‘horizontally’); BUT, there is an exception. In a 03/25/17 Real Progressives broadcast, Warren Mosler pointed out that banks CAN and DO, on many occasions, actually add Net Financial Assets (unintentionally) when they have negative capital (when a bank loan defaults). A bank loan default acts as ‘synthetic’ federal gov’t deficit spending adding NFA because monies were lent out endogenously and will NEVER be paid back. In other words, banks occasionally go out of their lane and bank money is created without *actual* debt attached, as if it was created like the federal gov’t, the sole monopoly issuer of money, creates money—with very little intention of ever being paid back.
 
The Bush economic ‘expansion’ was fueled by ‘synthetic federal gov’t deficit spending’ (questionable private sector subprime loans and financial derivatives that all defaulted).
 
The Clinton ‘boom’ was fueled by ‘synthetic federal gov’t deficit spending’ (private sector loans that defaulted because of the dot-com bust).
 
The Reagan ‘miracle’ was fueled by ‘synthetic federal gov’t deficit spending’ (almost a trillion dollars in defaulted private sector loans during the S&L debacle, THE ENTIRE SIZE OF THE TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT AT THAT TIME).
 
The ‘roaring’ twenties was fueled by ‘synthetic federal gov’t spending’ (private sector loans using leverage that financed stock speculation with minuscule margin requirements that all went bust).
 
Mr. Mosler muses that he “can’t think of a single boom year that WASN’T attributable to either out of control or outright fraudulent bank lending to the private sector that would never have been allowed with proper hindsight!”
 
In other words, instead of ‘synthetic’ federal gov’t deficit spending (additions of ‘synthetic’ NFAs into the banking system), “we could have had those economic booms legally, easily, and simply, by just increasing federal gov’t deficit spending with proper foresight,” Mr. Mosler added.
 
MMTers can go beyond the ‘NFAs can only be created by the federal government’ meme if MMTers can accept that synthetic NFAs like in the examples above are possible.
 
Nick “MineThis1” Hionas, a co-creator of Pure MMT for the 100% (along with co-contributor Charles “Kondy” Kondak), makes an interesting posit that synthetic NFAs, or as he calls them, ‘Net Debt Financial Assets’ (NDFA) are created in the non federal gov’t, by the rest of us, when we borrow dollars (when we deficit spend). The default instances mentioned above, since they were all horizontally created by the non federal gov’t (by the banks in the private sector), are all great examples of ‘NDFA’ (or, ‘permanent NDFA’) that, just like actual NFAs created vertically by the federal gov’t, are dollars permanently existing in the banking system today because they weren’t paid back (nor will they ever be paid back).
 
Although it is a fact that nonfederal gov’t borrowing has actual debt attached to the loans (that all nonfederal gov’t loans ‘net-out’), the MineThis1 insight here is that the moment bank loans create those dollars—as soon as those dollars go into circulation—they are ‘NDFA’. More specifically, the instant those nonfederal gov’t dollars are newly-created, they are ‘temporary’ NDFA; and as soon as the loan is paid off, they are not NDFA anymore, those dollars are newly-destroyed. The key takeaway here is that while NDFA technically ‘nets-out’, that could take awhile (and in the meantime, those newly-created $$$, those ASSETS, are circulating in the economy).
 
If in the event, as Mr. Mosler described above, that borrowers default on any bank loan, then those newly-created $$$s are never destroyed (they will never ‘net-out’)—and they become permanent NDFA.
 
Keep in mind that similar to the nonperforming loan that defaults (becomes permanent NDFA), even the healthy loans that do not default (temporary NDFA) are usually not paid off for quite awhile. These assets are ‘pumping the economic prime’ for a very long time. Just like a consumer 30-year mortgage on Main Street in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or an institutional debt obligation on Wall Street that is perpetually rolling over in the hundreds of millions of dollars, many healthy loans take many years to ‘net-out’.
 
In the meantime, along with NFAs created by the federal gov’t, these NDFAs created in the non federal gov’t are also working their long-term magic (they are the ‘smoking gun’ of good economies too), which is helping the bottom line of US households—that at last count have over $100T in net worth.
 
Note that is a “T” as in TRILLION and that is a NET amount. That is the amount that US households have AFTER all their loans ‘net-out’ (which is a far greater amount than the current running total of NFAs created by the federal gov’t).
Thanks for reading,
Follow us at Pure MMT for the 100% 
Follow MineThis1 and his REAL MACRO trading instructors
P.S. The sooner folks grasp Nick’s ‘NDFA’ insight, the better they will see and understand the moving pieces involved in money creation. Here’s another way of explaining ‘NDFA’: Unlike SURPLUS spending (where $$$ received are a wash with $$$ spent), when both the federal gov’t and the nonfederal gov’t DEFICIT spends, they are creating a ‘bond’ (a promise to pay back the money with interest). The creation of the federal gov’t bond, denominated in $$$ (which the gov’t is the issuer of and why it isn’t an actual ‘debt’), is the Net Financial Asset (NFA) getting added to the banking system; and the creation of the nonfederal gov’t ‘bond’ (which IS an actual debt because the nonfederal gov’t is not the issuer of $$$), is the Net Debt Financial Asset (‘NDFA’) being added to the banking system. That the federal gov’t (or any monetary sovereign spending their own fiat money) is never in actual ‘debt’ nor ever ‘goes broke’ is what MMTers know—and what Charles Darrow knew in 1933 when he wrote the rules for his version of The Monopoly Game. For example, servicing debt is an actual problem for the nonfederal gov’t (the Monopoly Players). The Monopoly Game doesn’t end because The Monopoly Bank (the ‘issuer’) runs out of money, The Monopoly Game ends because The Monopoly Players (the ‘users’) run out of money.
“The Bank never ‘goes broke’. If the Bank runs out of money, the Banker may issue as much more as may be needed by writing on any ordinary paper.”—The Monopoly Game rules, written by Charles Darrow, 1933
Note however, that The Monopoly Game DOES NOT allow The Players to borrow money from each other. In other words, only NFAs are added to the game (to ‘the money supply’)—meaning that all Monopoly Money comes only from The Bank (the federal gov’t). MMTers today should not confuse this with the reality of the modern monetary system and know that in addition to $$$s (NFAs) being supplied by the federal gov’t, a lot more $$$s (‘NDFAs’) are also being supplied by the nonfederal gov’t as well.
P.S.S.
July 4, 2019:
During a recent conversation with Mr. Mosler, he qualified his 2017 statement to make it clear that a bank-loan default is Net Financial Assets (that a bank can only create NFAs), “If the bank is insured, then the NFA goes back up [the original net addition of the creation is refunded]; so yes, that case of negative bank capital [restored by FDIC insurance] is NFA.”
For example, if you go into debt to buy a boat, that’s a creation (deficit spending / increase in NFA). If you default on your ‘bond’, then that’s the same as if the bank dipped into savings (shareholder equity), bought the boat and gave it to you, (surplus spending / no NFA). When the gov’t (FDIC) reimburses the bank, that reverts it back to deficit spending (the borrower’s debt is replaced by gov’t debt). Mr. Mosler disagreed with calling it ‘NDFA’. He says it’s NFA because that is a payment from the federal gov’t, or as he put it “loans that are written off are functionally state spending.” Fair enough, however, Mr. Mosler did say that “Your nonfederal gov’t deficit spending is also functionally state deficit spending [is also functionally NFA] as banks are functionally agents of the state.” In other words, Mr. Mosler is saying that he sees deficit spending (he sees new creations of $$$s) by households & businesses (by the nonfederal gov’t) as net additions of assets going into the banking system (as NFAs)—and so should you.
So what’s the difference between NFAs and ‘NDFAs’? One difference is the lifespan. Since the National ‘Debt’ has not been reduced since 1957, it is practically a given that federal-gov’t deficit spending (post-gold standard’s creations of NFAs) are not going to be ‘destroyed’ (are permanent NFAs). On the other hand, the creations of NDFAs, the nonfederal gov’t (household and business) deficit spending—because they ‘net-out’ with actual debt—DO get ‘destroyed’ routinely, so NDFAs have a much shorter time-frame than NFAs.
Another difference is that NDFAs are so-called pro-cyclical. Meaning that nonfederal-gov’t deficit spending (taking on household & business debt) usually rises and falls along with economic conditions; whereas NFAs, when best deployed, are ‘stabilizers’ that are designed to be counter-cyclical to smooth out economic bumps.
So exactly how much NFA and NDFA were created and entered into the banking system? By looking at the ‘debt clock’ (shown above), the amount of NFA is The National ‘Debt’. The amount of NDFA is all the household, business, state & local gov’t (the nonfederal gov’t) debt. Given that the total assets in the chart above is $150T, that means those NFA & NDFA $$$—to be expected—are working their magic and are now showing a nice capital gain.

(‘Progressive’) good intentions that may have (‘neoliberal’) unintended consequences

Bill Mitchell was pointing out an inconvenient truth when he said “Progressives are neoliberals in disguise / Greens are neoliberals on bikes”!

One of the Pure MMT for the 100% insights is that political ‘prescription’ MMTers are unwittingly peddling policies that an actual ‘neoliberal’ would love too.

For example, the unintended consequence of the progressive ‘Wipe Out The Student Debt’ agenda is more dollars flowing to the top 5%.

“Student loan debt was never a crisis in terms of macroeconomics. If we had a high percentage of home loans delinquent, of credit cards delinquent, if we had 30% of auto loans in delinquency, we would see it, in the economy; but not for student loan debt, why, because those loans are tied to the federal gov’t and the federal gov’t is a bank that has unlimited ability to borrow —so there’s no concern about that, there’s no runs on private banks with student loan debt.”—Logan Mohtashami

Also note that Logan is NOT bashing the Wipe Out The Student Debt ‘prescription’. In fact, he goes on to say that it’s for the voters to decide (and he actually does think that over time the federal gov’t will provide some form of free college because it’s not expensive compared to the rest of the federal budget). What Logan concludes here, however, is what Pure MMT has been saying all along (warning about feeding $$$ into the saving bubble INSTEAD of creating a feedback loop out of the savings bubble).

“Here’s the problem with ‘Wipe Out The Student Debt’. If you don’t understand how data works, student debt looks like this daunting thing and you believe that college-educated Americans are sitting in little tents eating ramen.”

“Here’s the breakdown, 70% of all student loans is actually under $15k—not so daunting. People with over $70,000 of student loan debt is a very small portion of society. Of these people who do have 70k – 100k of student loan debt, they are usually rich people.”

“These are the people that make money, that have healthcare, that have homes, cars and a 401k. Don’t worry about these people. Trust me. They are the people that make the most money, the people that work the most, and the people that have the lowest unemployment.”

“The ones that have the highest student loan debt are the people that are the wealthiest. So in a sense, by saying ‘Wipe Out The Student Debt’, you are facilitating wealth inequality,” Logan adds.

In addition, which Logan is happy to see, the (‘progressive’) New York Times agrees:

Thanks for reading and HAPPY THANKSGIVING,

Follow us at Pure MMT for the 100% at https://www.facebook.com/PureMMT/

Follow Real Macro

at https://www.facebook.com/InvestingMMT/

P.S. Regarding the federal ‘job guarantee’ proposal, this was Warren Mosler’s tweet (a reply to a Global Institute for Sustainable Development’s tweet sharing a poll finding that says 52% of Americans support a federal JG, even more so if those jobs help mitigate and adapt to climate change. 66% support Green New Deal-style proposals):

“I see those jobs as ‘standard’ gov jobs with standard federal pay and benefits etc. The jg isn’t meant to replace/undermine ‘normal’ gov employment.”—Warren Mosler

Perhaps Mr. Mosler is now seeing what Jim ‘MineThis1’ Boukis and Charles ‘Kondy’ Kondak have been saying all along at Pure MMT for the 100%, which is that we already have a military and a civil service (we already have a federal ‘jg’) that could do those jobs.

It seems like Mr. Mosler (now that midterm elections, including his own, are over and he is back to thinking in clear economic ‘description’ MMT mode instead of political ‘prescription’ MMT mode) is getting concerned about MMTers framing their jg as being needed to do those jobs. Which would have the unintended (‘neoliberal’) consequence of replacing/undermining the military & civil service workforce—as well as all other (‘progressive’) automatic stabilizers already in place.

Political ‘Prescription’ MMTer Kids Say The Darnedest Things

These ‘scholars’ are so quick to downplay federal taxation when it comes to peddling their dopey policy proposals (like having the federal gov’t spend $500B creating make-work JG ‘jobs’—during a labor shortage), that if you dare question the merit of using federal taxes on their ideas (if you don’t think a certain progressive agenda’s spending proposal is a good use of surplus funds), then the political ‘prescription’ MMTer will reprimand you for not understanding that ‘taxes are a false narrative’ (that ‘taxes are irrelevant’) and that you need to stop being a ‘racist’.

“You’ll see me fighting against people saying ‘the taxpayer dollar’ because saying it is a racist xenophobic trope that is used to great precision.”—Green Party of Pennsylvania November Conference Keynote speaker Steve Grumbine

“‘Taxpayer funds’ is a false narrative.”— Francisco Flores (@FFlorescpa)

“The proceeds from federal tax collections are irrelevant.”—Ellis Winningham

BUT…

 
…if you listen to what these political ‘prescription’ MMTers also say about federal taxes when it fits their narrative, you’ll hear something like this:
 
“Number 9, federal taxation allows the US Government policy space to provision itself.”—Steve Grumbine, ’10 MMT truths’
 
“If inflation starts getting out of hand (say, approaches 4%), take action: Congress increases federal tax rates aggressively across the board…”—FFlorescpa, ‘Financing Economic Solutions to Unemployment and Accompanying Social Problems’
 
“MMT is quite extensive. It is not as simple as ‘Hey, federal taxes don’t fund federal spending’. So, to the activist I will say that if you only discuss this singular point endlessly, you are leaving a huge hole for people to drive a truck through. You are creating your own headaches.”—Ellis Winningham
 
And just like that, federal tax collections are relevant, taxpayer funds aren’t a false narrative, and if you are talking about taxpayer dollars then you aren’t a racist.

Thanks for reading,

Follow us at Pure MMT for the 100% https://www.facebook.com/PureMMT/

P.S. If you want to understand how money works, you need to understand how money trades; so stop watching the gains, and be a part of them…Follow MINETHIS1 and his Real Macro instructors at IMMT Investing https://www.facebook.com/InvestingMMT/

Once upon a time when MMT was the description not the prescription…

MMT & the Fourth Spark Plug: Descriptive vs. Prescriptive revisited

Once upon a time, before MMT was hijacked by ‘scholars’ that put themselves in charge of ‘solving’ your problems and ‘helping’ people, MMT was the description not the prescription.

As they keep trying to self-fulfill their gloom-and-doom prophecies (while capitalism solves our problems and people help themselves), political ‘prescription’ MMTers, who want to dismantle capitalism and replace it with a cradle-to-grave welfare state, keep pushing fake narratives like ‘The US economy is a junk economy’. Just like the stereotypical (untrustworthy) used-car salesman, they keep using slick stories, like the ‘unconnected spark plug’, to make their sale for the ‘Job Guarantee’ (a Universal Basic Income with a soviet-style, make-work requirement).

Rather than condemning those unemployed spark plugs into a $500B federally-funded Job GUARANTEE program (during a labor shortage and that by ‘prescription’ MMT design doesn’t compete with private sector jobs); perhaps a better idea would be to connect them with a job TRAINING program (that gives them the needed skills to get private sector jobs). Which is exactly what the current administration is doing right now AND we are seeing good results (i.e. record-low unemployment, increasing wage growth —above 3% —not seen since the recession and all this Fed unwinding because the economy is getting stronger).

NOTE: Just to keep this post apolitical, it’s fine if you don’t credit Trump for that (and let’s just instead credit all the presidents plus We The People because we are all in this together).

The political ‘prescription’ MMT notion of a ‘free lunch’ (don’t worry about How Are We Going To Pay For It…’because MMT’) ignores the unintended consequences of good intentions.

Do you really think that if tomorrow, the federal gov’t started assigning the unemployed with a ‘guaranteed’ chore and gave them a ‘living’ allowance (giving them a fish so they eat for a day), that *poof* they would be better off (versus teaching them the skills how to fish so they eat forever)…because MMT?

Do you really think that if tomorrow, the federal gov’t started paying for an uninsured’s healthcare, that *poof* they would start taking better care of themselves and begin living a healthier lifestyle (versus a plan where the federal gov’t annually funds your own personal tax-advantaged Health Savings Account starting at age 19 which creates a greater incentive to live a healthy lifestyle)…’because MMT’?

Do you really think that if tomorrow, the federal gov’t forgave someone’s student debt, that *poof* they would become financially responsible, make sound spending decisions and no longer rack up personal debts (versus having the federal gov’t relax/reform bankruptcy laws on nondischargeable debt)…’because MMT’?

If so, then I have a used car to sell you that’s “running terribly, sputtering and with little power” but don’t worry, the only thing wrong is that “one of the spark plug cables is simply unconnected”.

Thanks for reading,

Follow us at Pure MMT For The 100% https://www.facebook.com/PureMMT/

P.S. If you want to learn how money works, then you need to learn how money trades, so follow MINETHIS1 at REAL MACRO:

https://www.facebook.com/InvestingMMT/