A Very Necessary Book: Kelton's "The Deficit Myth"

Back after the 2008 crisis, I had lost my job and was sitting around unemployed and I started to get interested in economics for the first time in my life. The reason was that for all my life to that point the broader economy had not really broken down during my lifetime. I had long considered myself a Marxist from the experience of being a worker at the point of the spear in the service economy. In food service you see the menu price and you know your price and there’s a huge discrepancy between the two.

I had a sense that in the shadow of that crisis that we were bounded by only being to push at the edge of the status quo. The bailouts, both TARP and ARRA were real money that had to be paid back, so the democratic-led government in 2010 and through pressure from their political opponents,  started to roll back the funding that was on offer through the state. “Austerity” was the name of the game and big debts were scary and more important than the mass of Americans who were still without jobs in the economy that had been showing “green shoots” every quarter for 18 months.

I was unemployed and reading as much as I could about economics and especially the crisis. There were scores of books written by commentators and economists trying to get their hands around just what happened and why it happened. But it was not the first crisis. I eventually found myself making my way through Keynes and Minsky – with some understanding but not 100% of it. Keynes had some integrals I just skipped over and hoped that he was explaining all of them in the text. It was during this time that I came up with what I thought was a fairly novel idea that the household metaphor that politicians used was completely wrong. The government lives forever, I said, and it creates money. A worker is constrained in the money they have and the only way to get more is to work more even if the can temporarily increase their spending by borrowing they eventually have to pay it off (or pass down the debt once they die). I created an imaginary currency called “EdgarBucks” and knew my biggest problem was making sure that people accepted these “EdgarBucks”.

My insight about the fallacy inherent in the household fallacy was not novel it seems. While politicians and many economists talked about spending money being the constraint, there was a then little-known school of thought who had fleshed out the idea that money is not the constraint in the economy, but real resources are that constraint. You cannot run out of money if you are a currency issuer, but you can run out of factories. It brings to mind Keynes looking at idle workers and idle factories and realizing that you can have suboptimal equilibria where resources are underutilized. But what this little-known school of thought had done was flesh out that idea, and it has a name – Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

The basics of MMT are that the real constraints are the real economy and in the book Professor Kelton works through the implications of the idea that money is more a record keeping device than some sort of fetishized commodity through simple, easy to understand metaphors. What is dangerous through the world as described through MMT is inflation and not debt, and the way to pull that back is to increase taxation. Also embedded in the structure is a call for a Job Guarantee to make sure that people have and can spend money. I personally am not for a Job Guarantee but lean more towards a Basic Income, but that is outside the realm of this review but I think within the realm of possible debates, so MMT is not strictly dogmatic.

I was receptive to the ideas of MMT because I was not a slave to the old orthodoxy and especially because I thought that the old orthodoxy was in a large part to blame for not preventing and not really being able to predict the crisis of 2008, I was ready to throw it all out and find an explanation for how capitalism worked and if possible how it could be made better for people if we were going to keep putting off the eventual worker’s revolution. MMT was, and still is centered on a couple of institutions like UMKC and Bard College in the US and has a couple of figureheads like Professor Kelton but also Warren Mosler and Scott Fullwiler. Despite this, MMT punches above its weight in policy discussion because it has many passionate adherents in both the blogosphere and on Twitter. It is, to me, also inherently commonsensical as we are not constrained by the amount of a shiny rock in the vaults of the Federal Reserve in New York or in Fort Knox. 

I was sitting, unemployed though the summer of 2011, smart and a hard worker and ready to be put to use so I could get money to pay my rent but no one was answering my applications. It was confounding and scary and just a total failure of policy because there were tens of thousands of people like me who wanted to work. But I was reading. The biggest problem for me when I was learning more about different economic schools in terms of learning about MMT was that there was no centralized place to start learning about it. People would talk about it in blog comments and you would ask where to go for more details and they would send you a link to a pdf or a self-published book on amazon and that did not inspire a lot of confidence. If someone was asking where to start to learn about Marxism you could point them to many different publishers who had put out versions of the Manifesto but this was like if the only resource available was Marxists dot org. What “The Deficit Myth” does is not just synthesize the ideas of MMT in a simple and easy to read format, but it also formalizes the school as something to be taken seriously by readers of levels. And for that reason, it is an especially important and necessary book.

Above the System: On General Laws of Capitalism

Capital starts with the commodity form of production, but Marx is not focused on the commodity in his grand work. Instead he is looking at the system which creates this commodity form, where there is a split between those who own the means of production and those who lend their hands in creating the only object that is not diminished by its use – labor power.  

Where the young Marx in 1848 would emphasize the importance of class struggle in the productive process, a more mature Marx looks at the system in Capital. He takes this to the point where he is analyzing how the system works in its totality such that he can offer up a general law of capitalist accumulation.  

What Marx illustrates in Chapter 25, “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation” in the capitalist system is a theory of the business cycle, how production ebbs and flows with the size of the labor force. To read Marx you must go through the thick jungle of nineteenth century prose, but you do get some gem phrases like “the juggernaut of capital” (19). And this is Volume One where he had time to edit it. More fire breathing Marx working under a deadline like in the Manifesto gives you more quotable phrases but less developed theses.   

In the Marxian system, the worker is not tied to the individual capitalist, but the system itself. In this chapter Marx is looking at the growth of capital in terms of its ratio to labor, how more fixed capital grows and there is relatively less variable capital as the factories grow larger and capital is more centralized. This growth does not free the working class, they are still tied to the system with a “golden chain” (4) even as wages grow. But the system is not defined through a continual process of growth, but this dynamic process in which the amount of surplus labor stolen from the worker changes “If the quantity if unpaid labour supplied by the working-class, and accumulated by the capitalist class, increases so rapidly that its conversion into capital requires an extraordinary addition of paid labor, then wages rise, and, all other circumstances remaining equal, the unpaid labor diminishes in proportion” (5). Then the cycle peaks and returns. All the while the capitalistic relation between the classes persists.  

This whole process is driven by centralization and accumulation as “larger capitals beat the smaller” (8), but what is really what makes the immiseration of the working classes possible and yoking their lives to the wheel of capital is the army of the unemployed, a “relatively redundant population of laborers” (11).  This population in turn through labor and the continued accumulation of capital create their own servitude through their social reproduction rendering themselves redundant, a “disposable industrial reserve army, that belongs to capital quite as absolutely as if the latter had bred it at its own cost. The reserve army thus is a “mass of human material always at the ready for exploitation” (12) which can be set in motion in times of growth and then discarded to the dung heaps as soon as there is a general glut. Capitalism is not possible without this army. Further, the quality of the workers changes as there is the capital accumulation. Men are replaced with women and women with children and the exploitation is pushed to its limits, pulling as much surplus value out of the working day as possible (13), becoming the entire “pivot” on how the law of supply and demand works (15). Foe Marx, the growth of wealth is not possible without this scheme, labor and poverty being one side of the coin that includes capital and wealth on the other side (19).  

What we have with Marx’s general law of capitalist accumulation is a model. And with any model we have necessary simplification that makes it false, but we also have the potential to learn about the world. What we can say is that the Marxian laws were built on an economy that looks a lot different from the one we see in modern America. Manufacturing in this one country has shrunk as a fraction of employment of the potential labor force. What this did not lead to was wide immiseration (though there is still gross inequality) but instead the economy shifted to a service-driven economy. So that on one hand makes it tempting to dismiss the Marxian framework. We have fewer factory workers and are the richest country in the history of the world. We must revisit Marx’s placing of all value creation in the labor power of the manufacturing worker. Many of this nation’s most valuable companies do not produce anything. Their products are replicated with low marginal cost. It is more like the story where a dollar was introduced to a small town and that single dollar was enough for everyone to pay off their debts. Labor might not be the fount of all wealth. This ignores all the goods we consume that are not made or grown in the United States, however. Or it is not possible to lay Marshall’s scissors over an LTV-driven commodity analysis.  

While we may not be able to see the manufacturing base working from the bottom up, the more general law of capitalist accumulation feels true as someone who has been both in and out of that reserve army of the unemployed. The structure of society is such that you are defined by your profession. When you are in school you are asked what you want to be when you grow up, and then when you are in college you are asked what your major is, and then when you are an adult you are what you do. I was a contestant on the television quiz show program Jeopardy! in 2011, filming when I did not have a job. They introduce you by two bits of biographical information, where you are from and what you do. My local has always been fraught, but even worse was that I did not have a job at that point. I was trying to figure out what my next job was going to be, but in discussion with the production staff, they would not let me be “unemployed.” I was denied that status even though it was the best reflection of what was going on with my relationship to the workforce. Even in the shadow of the recession, the reserve army existed but it was not mentioned in good company.  

The worst thing during that episode of unemployment was that I wanted to be exploited. There is no effective way beyond the system. It makes me think of Edwin Abbott’s “Flatland” where the characters are two-dimensional shapes and they can only conceptualize in their two dimensions or lower, but it is impossible to see in an extended dimension. In Flatland, a sphere is just another circle. That is what Marx is trying to get at. The general law is beyond the class struggle of the Manifesto, in trying to pull away and see the system from above it. I am not sure if he fully realized that (or if as Robinson suggests, the project of Capital was abandoned because all the parts were not reconcilable).  

  Cited 

Marx, K., Engels, F., Mandel, E., & Fowkes, B. (1990). Capital: A critique of political economy. London: Penguin in association with New Left Review.