Money Flow paradigm

The Money Flow paradigm recognizes that people are our most essential economic resource in both production and consumption. They are motivated to enhance their self-worth through activities that give them a sense of purpose. Money flow is a key ingredient in both production and consumption activities. In order for people to be fully employed and to fully benefit from economic activity, money must flow efficiently and effectively to everyone throughout the economy.

Just as a healthy body requires that blood flows throughout the body so that no part of the body is deprived of adequate blood for any length of time, money must flow to everyone so that they can contribute to the best of their abilities in production and consumption. However, as George Cooper made clear in his book “Money, Blood and Revolution,” just as the heart is essential to blood flow throughout the body, government is essential in the free enterprise system to keep money flowing to all corners of the economy including to people in the inner cities and distance rural communities.

We have failed to appreciate the central and essential role of government in maintaining a healthy economy through proper money flow. The many variations of neoclassical, monetarist, Keynesian and other economic paradigms have seen the role of government as primarily passive with only occasional need to intervene in response to unanticipated economic instability. None of these earlier paradigms see government as continuously monitoring, adjusting and guiding the flow of money.

Our failure to recognize the proper role of government has led to the dangerous and distorted money flow that is undermining productivity and economic growth and leading to cycles of economic instability and collapse. In particular, large amounts of money are accumulating in financial markets and company coffers due to a highly distorted money flow that directs a disproportionate amount of money to wealthier individuals and corporations. This wealthy savings bubble is one of three bubbles recognized by the Money Flow paradigm.

The second bubble is the middle class debt bubble where credit card debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt, home equity debt as well as health care and other unexpected costs have created a situation where workers are unable to buy back the goods and services they are producing without the help of government. To keep money flowing and avoid financial collapse, government engages in unpaid for tax cuts and unpaid for expenditures that lead to the third and final bubble: the federal debt bubble.

The Money Flow paradigm sees the income and wealth inequality as an inherent problem in the continuous transitioning from a variable cost (e.g. unskilled labor) economy to a fixed cost (e.g. physical and human capital) economy that is greatly exacerbated by “pay-to-play” politics that rigs the rules and regulations in favor of special interests. As technological change speeds up, with millions of blue collar and white collar jobs being automated, the central role of government as the heart of the free enterprise system is ever more important.  Government can no longer wait until disaster strikes, but must anticipate and continuously proactively intervene in the economy to maintain adequate money flow to all parts of the economy. This is the key message of the Money Flow paradigm.

For additional details see 2018 paper presented at 2019 American Economic Association conference in Atlanta, GA:
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2019/preliminary/paper/FT7A95eS

___________________________________

The author has agreed to forgo his book royalties so that the full purchase price ($24.95) will go into the student scholarship fund when purchased through Avila University Press at the link:  https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh

Listen to audiobooks for free via University or Public Library via Hoopla

Public libraries now allow free 21-day access to audiobooks via Hoopla. Now you can listen to “Optimal Money Flow: How a Dynamic-Growth Economy Can Work for Everyone” on your smartphone for free when you exercise, drive or just hang out. Here is the Hoopla link for free audiobook (click on book image for book description): https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/13557352

The Deadweight Loss of Christmas (revisited)

To sign up for this free monthly Money Flow Newsletter =>  click here.

Economics is about the efficient allocation of resources. But gift giving is anything but efficient. From a purely transactional point of view, wouldn’t Uncle Jim be better off if you just handed him $50 than spending that $50 on another ugly sweater for him?  Why guess what the other person wants?  Perhaps a $50 gift card from Walmart might work, but what if what Uncle Jim really wants is not sold at Walmart?  Instead, what if you just give him $50 and he gives you $50?  Wouldn’t that be the most efficient gift exchange of all? 

Joel Waldfogel presented and analyzed this problem in the December 1993 issue of The American Economic Review in an article entitled: “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas.” For close relationships such as a good friend or significant other, the loss of efficiency from gift giving may average about one-tenth of the value of the gift; whereas, for more distant relatives or friends, the loss of efficiency may average closer to a third of the value of the gift. 

It is clear that social relationships are different from economic relationships. The problem is that economics students are taught to view the world from a purely transactional point of view. This doesn’t mean that we don’t care about other people, but just that economists don’t generally consider “intent” as important. But it is important. Meaning may be imbued into a gift by virtue of the fact that the gift-giver meant well, even if the gift was not optimal to the recipient given the amount paid for the gift. Gift giving is associated with good intent, but behavior can also be distorted by bad intent. Having your car dented in a hail storm is much less upsetting that someone denting it with a hammer. 

How about all those great Thanksgiving dinners your mother-in-law made in years past? As you left, did you give her a tip, or pull $50 out of your wallet to pay her for the great meal? People who are trying to build or strengthen a relationship don’t want to be simply paid off for their efforts in some sort of quid pro quo manner. Social (noncognitive) skills are often more important than technical (cognitive) skills in navigating the real world. Unfortunately, most economic textbooks in the past have tended to ignore such considerations.

Economists create a fantasy world where everything is about money and market relationships. In the past economics professors have tended to ignore aspects of life that cannot be measured or understood in terms of money. But this ignores the most important relationships of all. The problem boils down to prediction. Neurologists frequently point out that the primary purpose of the human brain is prediction. In primitive times knowing what to expect in different circumstances was often a matter of life or death. Even today, accurate prediction is often the key to success or failure. If people are motivated by things other than money, then an economic prediction methodology based primarily on money may lead us seriously astray if people tend to deviate from gaining the highest monetary return because they are willing to sacrifice money for other less tangible and less measurable objectives. 

Remember over this holiday season, that it is not the gift that counts, but the thought behind it that matters. (And that there is sometimes more truth in old cliches, than in that Principles of Economics textbook.)

______________________________________________
Lawrence C. Marsh is Professor Emeritus in Economics at the University of Notre Dame and author of the 2020 book: Optimal Money Flow: A New Vision on How a Dynamic-Growth Economy Can Work for Everyone
_______________________________________________
You can donate the entire purchase price of the book to student scholarships by buying a hard-bound copy of the Optimal Money Flow book at the Avila University Press website at:  https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh  
_______________________________________________
For a limited time (21 days) listen to Optimal Money Flow for free on your smartphone or computer from here:  https://www.hoopladigital.com/artist/7090137015 
_________________________________________________
Please provide your insights and comments on the Deadweight Loss of Christmas (revisited) at:
https://sites.nd.edu/lawrence-c-marsh/ 
_________________________________________________
To sign up for this free monthly Money Flow Newsletter =>  click here.
_________________________________________________
For additional details see the Optimal Money Flow book website at:
http://optimal-money-flow.website or my 2018 paper presented at 2019 American Economic Association conference in Atlanta, GA:
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2019/preliminary/paper/FT7A95eS___________________________________The full purchase price ($24.95) will go into the student scholarship fund when purchased through Avila University Press at the link:  https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh

Should the income tax be replaced with a progressive consumption tax?

To sign up to receive this monthly Money Flow Newsletter => click here.

Conservatives love to complain about the income tax. They say that taxing income undermines incentives and suppresses innovation and economic growth. Why should you work hard if the government is just going to take away a substantial portion of your hard-earned income? 

Instead, some propose the so-called “Fair Tax” which replaces all personal federal taxes with a national sales tax. To raise comparable revenue such a tax would need to be about 30 percent of the pre-tax price. Such a tax would be very regressive. In other words, it would take a much higher percentage of income from low income people than from high income people. Such a tax would be certain to draw the ire of the working class and middle class and be a nonstarter politically. So forget about the “Fair Tax” which imposes tax on purchases directly.

But what about a progressive consumption tax?  This tax would allow all earned income to be nontaxable as long as it went directly into savings and stayed in savings. It would be essentially an unlimited traditional individual retirement account (IRA). In other words, you could put your earned income directly into a savings account, buy certificates of deposit or stocks and bonds without paying income tax.  However, any withdrawal of money from any of these forms of savings would be progressively taxed annually at rates higher than the current income tax rates. Basically, as under the current income tax, you could probably cover a modest monthly rent and essential food expenditures while paying little or no tax. However, a high flying life style of buying exclusive properties, frequently eating out at the most expensive restaurants, and traveling around the world on costly vacations would cost you an arm and a leg in tax payments, because it would require withdrawing a lot of money from your savings. 

In theory there could be some real advantages to a progressive consumption tax. First, it would not undermine work incentives as much as the income tax, at least not directly. It would encourage frugality. You could earn a lot of money and not pay a penny in tax as long as you saved most of it. Since wealthy people have more money than necessary to meet basic needs, they often purchase items that do not involve producing more goods, such as in buying exclusive real estate or rare artifacts such as famous paintings. Their motivation is more in displaying their relative wealth and in accumulating more wealth than other wealthy people. A consistently and evenly applied progressive consumption tax would reduce absolute wealth but not relative wealth so their incentives would not be undermined by a progressive consumption tax. A progressive consumption tax would not bump anyone from their position on the Forbes list of wealthiest people unless they consumed relatively more than their peers. 

Second, a progressive consumption tax would encourage savings. Certainly, getting people to save more would help reduce the severity of recessions. Instead of cutting back dramatically on expenditures with a reduction in overtime pay, a reduction in work hours generally, or a temporary layoff, people could draw on their savings to maintain their basic expenditures when the economy slowed.  Moreover, with more money saved, they would have a more secure retirement. Overall, this would certainly serve as an automatic stabilizer and keep the economy from experiencing deep recessions.  

All this sounds good. If a progressive consumption tax was applied in the decades after World War II when interest rates on savings were higher and consumer demand was very strong relative to aggregate supply, it might have worked, although higher estate and inheritance taxes might have had to be added to maintain adequate revenues.

But there are some serious difficulties with implementing a progressive consumption tax during the current period. In recent decades our money flow has become so distorted that huge amounts of money are being diverted to the financial markets as the wealthy get ever wealthier. In the face of weak consumer demand, most of this money is not going into real investments in our economy, but is instead used to increase dividends and stock buy-backs. So little money is being retained by consumers that they can no longer afford to buy back the value of the goods and services they are producing. The government has had to step in with deficit spending to make up the difference. Stock and bond prices have been driven up, while interest rates have fallen so low that it is hardly worth bothering with a savings account. Under current rates, even a modest level of inflation could significantly reduce the real value of your savings over time. 

What this all boils down to is that to create and maintain a healthy economy, we need to eliminate the tax loopholes and distortions that enable wealthy individuals and corporations from shifting the burden of taxation onto the middle class and pouring huge amounts of money into the financial markets. Instead we need to direct money to working class and middle class people who will actually spend that money on the goods and services they are producing. Higher tax revenues from either a progressive income or consumption tax would enable us to cut back and ultimately eliminate the federal deficit spending. With less money in financial markets, interest rates would rise, which, along with a progressive consumption tax, would encourage people to save more money, which in turn would strengthen our automatic stabilizers in keeping our economy healthy.  

Please add your insights and comments on the potential advantages and disadvantages of the progressive consumption tax below in the comment box.

To sign up for this free monthly Money Flow Newsletter =>  click here.
___________________________________________________________________________

Lawrence C. Marsh is Professor Emeritus in Economics at the University of Notre Dame
and author of the 2020 book: Optimal Money Flow: A New Vision on How a Dynamic-Growth Economy Can Work for Everyone. You can donate the entire purchase price of the book to student scholarships by buying a hard-bound copy of the Optimal Money Flow book at the Avila University Press website at:  https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh  
For a limited time (21 days) listen to Optimal Money Flow for free on your smartphone or computer from here: https://www.hoopladigital.com/artist/7090137015 

How to get on Bernie Sanders’ list of millionaires and billionaires

Click here to sign up for Dr. Marsh’s monthly Money Flow Newsletter.


You used to be able to afford a good retirement from a guaranteed pension earned on the job. In the decades following World War II there was a strong demand for workers in industrial jobs and the building trades. Unions were strong representing as much as 35 percent of our workforce. Unions had countered the power of companies to control block of jobs and drive down wages. By unionizing workers, wages moved back up closer to what would have been the equilibrium wage under free and fair competition. Under the Theory of the Second Best, union power countered company power to restore relatively efficient allocation of labor resources in our economy. Our economy’s productivity was rising and wages rose at about the same rate as productivity rose.

But then starting around 1975 all that changed. After the government brought in the military to break the air traffic controllers’ strike, unions began to decline. As revealed in “Optimal Money Flow” the second invisible hand of market power overcame Adam Smith’s first invisible hand of free and fair competition.  Union representation dropped to less than 10 percent of the workforce. Productivity continued to rise, but wages flattened out in real terms after adjusting for inflation. The money that would have gone to workers on Main Street was increasingly being diverted to the financial markets on Wall Street.

You are asking: What does this money flow distortion have to do with becoming really wealthy?  If you are already old, not much. But if you have young children or grandchildren, it is crucial to understanding the system, how it works, and how they could easily make a fortune over time.

It is hard to get rich the easy way (win the lottery), but easy to get rich the hard way (saving and investing every penny you can in the stock market). Capitalism won’t work very well for you if you don’t have any capital. But people have been discouraged from saving money because the flood of money into the financial markets has driven down interest rates. What is the point of saving money if you can’t earn much on your savings? The low interest rates have caused many people to go deep into debt with almost no savings at all. 

It is true that bonds and certificates of deposit, not to mention savings accounts, pay so little that it is hardly worth bothering with them. But what if you save every penny you can and put it into a broad-based stock index fund?  The difference is rather dramatic. With dividends and the rise in stock valuations, it is easy to average around 7 percent per year which allows you to double your money approximately every 10 years. Compound interest comes into play in using your wealth to build even more wealth all by itself. 

But won’t you feel guilty if you have millions of dollars while so many others are struggling to get by with many elderly having to taking jobs at hair salons or fast food joints to get by?  No doubt, you will. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are suffering from this sense of guilt and have been giving away a lot of money through the Gates Foundation. You may suffer the same fate if you carefully and consistently follow the “get rich game plan” and actually become wealthy yourself.

As long as the wealthy cannot find more lucrative places to put all their ever increasing wealth, the stock market will continue to rise over time. This does not mean a smooth and continual increase in valuations. What is most interesting about the stock market is that it will fluctuate for a while or even drift upward or downward a bit, before making a sudden and unexpected move upward to a new higher trading range. What this means is that trying to play the ups and downs of the market is generally a fool’s errand. Just keep putting money in month after month, year after year regardless of where the market is at, and in the long run you will get an enormous return. 

What does this tell us about capitalism?  After all, in primitive times everything was thought to be owned by God so no one other than God owned anything. For native Americans, the spirit world owned everything. In reality, without the rule of law, the big guy owned everything. If you had a chicken, it was the big guy’s chicken. If you had a pear tree, those were the big guy’s pears. The King, the Pharaoh, the Emperor or the Czar then told us that God had granted them dominion over everything. You could not hunt deer in the forest or take fish from the stream without the approval of the King. 

The direct ownership of capital came about under John Locke’s conception of private property.  Locke’s idea was that you owned your own body so you could gain sweat equity over some resource from the woods by putting your work into cutting a tree branch into a spear and shaping a spear head from a stone. Your work with an object translated into the ownership of capital through sweat equity. This implied that hard work paid off. The incentives drove you to work harder to earn more capital. 

This worked great for a while as long as the craftsmen and craftswomen could afford to create their own tools which became their property as a result of their sweat equity in creating them and working with them. Land on the frontier in America became the farmer’s property through the sweat equity of working that land. But then bigger machines were needed that required more money to obtain than could be justified with one person’s sweat equity. The nobility or aristocracy stepped in to supply the water wheel or factory equipment. The ownership of capital then became separated from the sweat equity of using that capital. You could drive a truck for 40 years and gain no ownership stake in that truck or in the corporation that owned that truck no matter how hard you worked. The incentive structure broke down with no acquisition of capital through sweat equity.

What is the situation today?  You work hard in production, services, retail or delivery and earn no capital and get a rather modest return for your efforts. Those with capital (large portfolio of stocks) might spend a few minutes adjusting their stock portfolio each day, before heading out to the golf course. They are eager for you to work hard every day, so that their stocks will pay higher dividends and rise in value. After all, they have to be able to pay for their yacht, private jet or many vacation homes. Whether you are part of the rich getting richer or poor getting poorer really depends a lot on how little debt (if any) you have and how much stock (hopefully lots of stock) you own.    
________________________________________________

This Excel Spreadsheet shows how your money grows.
________________________________________________

To sign up for this monthly Money Flow Newsletter, go to:  https://optimal-money-flow.website/  Lawrence C. Marsh is Professor Emeritus in Economics at the University of Notre Dame and author of the 2020 book: “Optimal Money Flow: A New Vision on How a Dynamic-Growth Economy Can Work for Everyone.”   
You can donate the entire purchase price of the book to student scholarships by buying a printed hard-bound copy of the book at the Avila University Press website at:  https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh  
For additional details see the Optimal Money Flow book website at:
http://optimal-money-flow.website

or my 2018 paper presented at 2019 American Economic Association conference in Atlanta, GA:
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2019/preliminary/paper/FT7A95eS


The full purchase price ($24.95) will go into the student scholarship fund when purchased through Avila University Press at the link:  https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh

Is Federal Debt Too Big?: Public vs. Private Debt

Click here to sign up for Dr. Marsh’s monthly Money Flow Newsletter.


The cash in your wallet used to be government debt. What the government owed you before 1971 was an ounce of gold for $35. In 1971 President Richard Nixon took the United States off of the gold standard. Now the government owes you absolutely nothing for $35 or any amount of money. If you are nervous about using money that is backed by nothing, don’t use it.


Question 1: But what about US Treasury bills and bonds? Doesn’t the government owe you for the principal and the interest on those bills and bonds? Answer: They owe you the interest payment (coupon value) and the principal at maturity, but if you want to cash out any of your government-issued bills and bonds, just go into the New York financial markets and sell them for whatever price they are currently selling for.


Question 2: Does that mean that the government never has to pay back the debt that it has issued? Answer: As long as there is a market for government bills and bonds, the government doesn’t have to worry about it. As long as there is someone else willing to buy the debt, then it isn’t a problem. The government just issues replacement bills and bonds when the old ones reach maturity.


Question 3: Can’t government debt go bad just like private debt sometimes does? Answer: The analogy between public debt and private debt doesn’t hold up very well. Private businesses can’t print their own money or raise taxes to pay off their debt. Government has powers that go way beyond whatever a business might have. However, a government could get so carried away in monetizing its debt that it causes hyperinflation.


Question 4: How do we know when a government debt problem might be developing? Answer: When people start losing faith in government debt, the interest rates on government debt will begin to rise. A safe and secure debt can offer a low interest rate. Risky debt requires that the issuer pay a high interest rate. If the interest rate on government debt starts rising above that offered on corporate bonds, then it would be time to start worrying, mainly because the government would need to sell more and more debt to get the money to pay the interest rate on the increasing debt load. It is very unlikely that the government would let this get to the point where they couldn’t keep up. In an emergency the Federal Reserve would monetize some of the debt (buy up enough of it to alleviate the crisis) to bail out the government just as it bailed out the banks on Wall Street in 2008-2009.


Question 5: What if there was a situation (such as the current situation) where wealthy people and wealthy corporations had a huge amount of money in the financial markets and there were no reasonable real investment opportunities (except maybe overseas) so the money just drove up stock and bond prices and drove down interest rates? Answer: Yes, this is the current situation. There is a huge amount of money in the financial markets that is sitting idle. Corporations are using the money they get to issue stock buybacks and increased dividends and driving up stock and bond prices. Right now the chances that the interest rates on government debt are going to spike are next to none. It is definitely not an immediate problem.


Question 6: But what if the government went wild by issuing a huge amount of government debt? Answer: That would be a problem, because eventually all market interest rates would start to rise and private investment would be choked off. This is what is sometimes referred to as “crowding out.” But a moderate amount of “crowding out” is not a bad thing if the money is being used for important public investments such as infrastructure repair and other important priorities that voters have determined are more important than what the private sector would spend the money on. The term “crowding out” is prejudicial in that it implies that private spending is good and government spending is bad, but that is not always the case. Some reasonable amount of government spending is needed, even if it replaces private spending.


Question 7: What if the government issued the debt but didn’t spend the money? Answer: Although the chance that this would happen is absolutely zero, it is an interesting question. It would mean that the government was reducing the money supply. Controlling the money supply is supposed to be the responsibility of the Federal Reserve. But if the treasury department did it, the effect would be the same as the Fed purchasing securities in the financial markets. It would reduce the money in the economy and slow the economy, and, if extreme enough, cause a recession.


Question 8: The real question is how much money is flowing through our economy and where is that money going? Right now, there is too much money flowing into Wall Street and too little money flowing to the people on Main Street. The people on Main Street don’t have enough money to buy back the value of the goods and services they are producing so the federal government has to use deficit spending to make up the difference to keep the economy from falling into a recession. Deficit spending is here to stay until we correct the money flow problem (remove tax loopholes and inappropriate subsidies, etc.) where too much money is flowing to the wealthiest people and biggest corporations and too little money is going to everyone else.


______________________________________________________________________

Lawrence C. Marsh is Professor Emeritus in Economics at the University of Notre Dame and author of the 2020 book: “Optimal Money Flow: A New Vision on How a Dynamic-Growth Economy Can Work for Everyone.”


Many public libraries throughout the United States allow a free 21-day access to the audio book version of “Optimal Money Flow” via Hoopla. Listen to it for free at: https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/13557352.


You can donate the entire purchase price of the book to student scholarships by buying a printed hard-bound copy of the book at the Avila University Press website at AUPRESS.


For additional details see the Optimal Money Flow book website at http://optimal-money-flow.website/. or my 2018 paper presented at 2019 American Economic Association conference in Atlanta, GA: Marsh Money Flow paper.


___________________________________

The full purchase price ($24.95) will go into the student scholarship fund when purchased through Avila University Press at AUPRESS.


Link to my Notre Dame webpage http://sites.nd.edu/lawrence-c-marsh/home/.


============================================================ ** Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/larry.marsh) ** Twitter (https://twitter.com/ND_Prof_Marsh) ** Website (https://optimal-money-flow.website/) Copyright © *|CURRENT_YEAR|* *|LIST:COMPANY|*, All rights reserved. *|IFNOT:ARCHIVE_PAGE|* *|LIST:DESCRIPTION|* Our mailing address is: *|LIST_ADDRESS|* *|END:IF|* Want to change how you receive these emails? You can ** update your preferences (*|UPDATE_PROFILE|*) or ** unsubscribe from this list (*|UNSUB|*) . *|IF:REWARDS|* *|REWARDS_TEXT|* *|END:IF|*

Money Flow Paradigm

Click here to sign up for Dr. Marsh’s monthly Money Flow Newsletter.

 

The Money Flow paradigm recognizes that people are our most essential economic resource in both production and consumption. They are motivated to enhance their self-worth through activities that give them a sense of purpose. Money flow is a key ingredient in both production and consumption activities. In order for people to be fully employed and to fully benefit from economic activity, money must flow efficiently and effectively to everyone throughout the economy.

Just as a healthy body requires that blood flows throughout the body so that no part of the body is deprived of adequate blood for any length of time, money must flow to everyone so that they can contribute to the best of their abilities in production and consumption. However, as George Cooper made clear in his book “Money, Blood and Revolution,” just as the heart is essential to blood flow throughout the body, government is essential in the free enterprise system to keep money flowing to all corners of the economy including to people in the inner cities and distance rural communities.

We have failed to appreciate the central and essential role of government in maintaining a healthy economy through proper money flow. The many variations of neoclassical, monetarist, Keynesian and other economic paradigms have seen the role of government as primarily passive with only occasional need to intervene in response to unanticipated economic instability. None of these earlier paradigms see government as continuously monitoring, adjusting and guiding the flow of money.

Our failure to recognize the proper role of government has led to the dangerous and distorted money flow that is undermining productivity and economic growth and leading to cycles of economic instability and collapse. In particular, large amounts of money are accumulating in financial markets and company coffers due to a highly distorted money flow that directs a disproportionate amount of money to wealthier individuals and corporations. This wealthy savings bubble is one of three bubbles recognized by the Money Flow paradigm.

The second bubble is the middle class debt bubble where credit card debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt, home equity debt as well as health care and other unexpected costs have created a situation where workers are unable to buy back the goods and services they are producing without the help of government. To keep money flowing and avoid financial collapse, government engages in unpaid for tax cuts and unpaid for expenditures that lead to the third and final bubble: the federal debt bubble.

The Money Flow paradigm sees the income and wealth inequality as an inherent problem in the continuous transitioning from a variable cost (e.g. unskilled labor) economy to a fixed cost (e.g. physical and human capital) economy that is greatly exacerbated by “pay-to-play” politics that rigs the rules and regulations in favor of special interests. As technological change speeds up, with millions of blue collar and white collar jobs being automated, the central role of government as the heart of the free enterprise system is ever more important.  Government can no longer wait until disaster strikes, but must anticipate and continuously proactively intervene in the economy to maintain adequate money flow to all parts of the economy. This is the key message of the Money Flow paradigm.

For additional details see the Optimal Money Flow book website at:
http://optimal-money-flow.website

or my 2018 paper presented at 2019 American Economic Association conference in Atlanta, GA:
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2019/preliminary/paper/FT7A95eS

___________________________________

The author has agreed to forgo his book royalties so that the full purchase price ($24.95) will go into the student scholarship fund when purchased through Avila University Press at the link:  https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh

Why Doctors and Nurses Should Not Ignore Anecdotal Evidence

Randomized trials may not be definitive even when they show clear and indisputable evidence of both a statistically significant and practical difference between the average in the treatment group and the average in the control group. Statistically significant randomized trial results are not always useful to a doctor or nurse when there is substantial practical variation within the treatment group. That is why a statistically significant randomized trial is not definitive proof of causation. Think of a situation where the randomized trial ignores gender. What if a treatment works really well for men but actually does a little bit of harm to women with no benefit. The “average person” may do fairly well with the treatment and even show statistically significant improvement. But the “average person” does not exist. There are only men and women in the trial. The “average person” represents no one. The solution is to use control variables (such as gender) in a randomized trial in order to zero in on the subsets within the treatment group in order to sort out who will really benefit from the treatment and who will not benefit. This means using regression analysis (or analysis of covariance) on data from randomized trials. Hopefully, the new generation of doctors and nurses understand this and are not led astray by “highly significant” results from some randomized trials. This opens the door to the use of anecdotal evidence as useful in alerting a doctor or nurse that the results of a particular randomized trial may not be definitive for some types of patients.

Federal Reserve individual “My America” smartphone bank accounts

Click here to sign up for Dr. Marsh’s monthly Money Flow Newsletter.

From pages 149-153 in “Optimal Money Flow: A New Vision on How a Dynamic-Growth Economy Can Work for Everyone” by Lawrence C. Marsh. (Avila University Press, 2020)

Have Fed Create Individual “My America” Accounts

The Federal Reserve can stop excessive inflation quite effectively by raising interest rates. However, as mentioned earlier, when the economy is in a recession, the lowering of interest rates by having the Federal Reserve purchase Treasury securities in the New York financial markets is sometimes referred to as “pushing on a string,” in not being very effective in quickly stimulating demand for goods and services. To provide the Federal Reserve with the ability to inject monetary stimulus more quickly and more directly into the far reaches of the economy, every person over the age of 18 with a Social Security number would be assigned a bank account directly with the Federal Reserve Bank. Such accounts could be called “My America” prosperity accounts to encourage their use. An initial $1,000 would be placed in each account, which would be treated as a minimum deposit that could not be withdrawn until after age 70. To help people become familiar with their account, all Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax refunds would be deposited into these accounts. An individual could deposit additional money into their account up to a maximum annual limit, which could be adjusted from year to year depending upon the state of the economy.

To avoid disrupting commercial banking and to focus on the less affluent, the interest rate would only be applied to the first $10,000 of the account value. Funds above $10,000 would earn no interest. Most people have checking accounts with very little money in them, so the banks would not lose much in investible funds in phasing out paper checking accounts. At this point the $1,000 initial amount and the $10,000 upper limit are arbitrary. These numbers may be changed after more careful analysis and remain subject to change depending on economic conditions.

Each smartphone would be preregistered with the Federal Reserve through any post office. Transactions would be verified by both smartphone identification and a user-selected password, as well as fingerprint and/or iris recognition using the camera on the smartphone. In addition, there would be a 60-digit alphanumeric security code generated by an algorithm unique to the user and coordinated with the corresponding algorithm for that account at the Federal Reserve. After each transaction, the 60-digit security code would change both on the smartphone and in the corresponding Federal Reserve account so that no security code would be used more than once. A blockchain across all the account holder’s communication devices (smartphone, laptop computer, desktop computer, etc.) could record each verified transaction in sync with their “My America” Federal Reserve Bank account.

Each year the IRS would deposit all tax refunds directly into these individual accounts.[1] Any money deposited by individuals into their accounts, any additional money injected into the accounts, and any interest earned could be withdrawn at any time. Only the initial $1,000 would have to be retained in the account until age 70.

This would allow for transactions between smartphones, similar to those used in Kenya’s M-Pesa system of smartphone money transfers. The interest earned could be designated as tax-free. These Federal Reserve accounts could take the place of the old, often unprofitable, paper checking accounts that are holdovers from the 20th century. Eventually, these accounts could also replace cash, as smartphones replace wallets in people’s pockets.

The Federal Reserve could then inject money directly into these accounts to provide stimulus as needed whenever a downturn developed, and recession threatened. These bank credits would be created by the monetary authority of the Federal Reserve out of “thin air”—with no taxation required. There would be no addition to the debt, because there would be no government securities issued. As long as the economy has unused capacity, the injection of cash would not trigger inflation. These cash payments could be referred to as tax refund equivalence payments, although everyone would get them, even those who paid no taxes. These accounts could be used to implement the late economist Milton Friedman’s proposal of a negative income tax, which would especially help the poorest Americans. Such an approach would make the “My America” accounts very powerful in stimulating consumer demand using the least amount of money, because the poorest Americans have the highest marginal propensities to consume.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street bankers prefer to have the stimulus money given to them, which they typically use to buy more stocks and bonds, which inflates stock and bond prices but does little to increase consumer demand for ordinary goods and services. During Japan’s economic slump, Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke suggested that the Japanese government provide direct cash payments to Japanese citizens to stimulate demand. By implication he raised the idea of direct cash payments to consumers as an alternative to giving money created out of “thin air” to Wall Street bankers by buying Treasury securities during an economic downturn. Wall Street supporters responded to the idea of giving cash payments directly to consumers by coining the phrase “helicopter Ben,” as if such a plan was equivalent to dropping money from helicopters. To belittle such “helicopter money” further, the bankers and their supporters posted “helicopter Ben” videos on YouTube. But the critics of quantitative easing (known as QE) and other Federal Reserve injections of cash into the economy warned of a great inflation that never happened. The critics were wrong! Not only did QE help revive the American economy without significant inflation, but also a substantial proportion of the Fed’s bond purchases was from European banks, so the Federal Reserve helped revive the Eurozone as well.

Direct cash payments through “My America” accounts would have a much quicker and bigger impact on consumer demand and require much less money than giving a lot of money to Wall Street bankers by having the Federal Reserve Bank buy Treasury securities in the New York financial markets. Consequently, it makes more sense to bypass the Wall Street bankers and give the money directly to the American people who know best how to spend the money and, thereby, directly stimulate the economy by increasing the demand for goods and services.

Conversely, when inflation threatened, these individual “My America” bank accounts could offer attractive interest rates to absorb funds directly from the public to take money out of the economy and reduce excess demand. The high interest rates would cause people to put off consumption now for the prospect of greater consumption sometime in the future. At the same time, the Fed could pursue a mixed strategy to stimulate business investment by lowering the federal funds rate (discount rate) that banks pay for overnight loans, as well as the interest rate the Fed pays on the reserve funds that banks have at the Fed. Offering higher interest rates to consumers would reduce excess demand, while the lower rates on bank funds would make investment money available for expansion of plant and equipment, which would also help ease price pressure by increasing the supply of goods and services. Together the reduction in demand and increase in supply (over time) can ease pressure on prices and fend off inflation. The Fed can also engage in open market operations to buy or sell government securities. Econometric analysis can provide the Fed with guidance on getting exactly the right mix of these policy tools to achieve the Fed’s objectives.

[1] Such accounts could also be used to deliver a universal basic income (UBI) if a UBI law is passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Redirect Money Flowing Inexorably to Top of Wealth Pyramid

Click here to sign up for Dr. Marsh’s monthly Money Flow Newsletter.

       Optimal Money Flow addresses the pile up of money at the top of the wealth pyramid which has driven up stock and bond prices and driven down interest rates toward zero. The low interest rates have discouraged savings and encouraged a large build up of debt for middle class and working class households. With high debt and little savings, a job loss, accident or illness can throw a household into financial distress with a sudden drop in consumption creating, in the aggregate, economic instability.
         In an economic downturn the Fed’s response of buying Treasury securities in financial markets boosts stock and bond prices but does little to stimulate investment in the real economy when businesses already cannot sell all they are producing in existing lines of production. The additional money flows into stock buybacks and dividends with little trickling down to the real economy.
       The money flow paradigm views the flow of money to the top of the wealth pyramid as inherent, inevitable, and inexorable to the free enterprise system. This paradigm requires that government assume its rightful responsibility to direct sufficient money flow from the top to the bottom (like a heart pumping blood throughout the body) in order to maximize employment, economic growth, and efficient resource allocation. In a healthy economy, the money then flows naturally back up to the top in a circulatory flow.
       Thus, the money flow paradigm that sees government as the heart of the free enterprise system where it does and should play an active part. Previous economic paradigms such as the neoclassical, Keynesian and monetarist paradigms saw government as an external, alien force outside of the system that was only called upon in response to an unexpected breakdown in the free market system.
        Optimal Money Flow calls for the creation of Federal Reserve smartphone bank accounts for every American, where the Fed can give money directly to consumers.  Using algorithms from machine learning and artificial intelligence the Fed can vary the amount of money flowing to consumers based on current and developing economic conditions.
          Conservatives appreciate that consumers, not government, will decide how to spend the money, which will not require an increase in taxes or add to the national debt, and will involve a lot less money to stimulate the economy, because the average consumer has a much higher marginal propensity to consume that the average Wall Street banker, who is more likely to put additional money right back into the financial markets or buy exclusive properties, rare paintings or expensive jewelry with little increase in new products or services. With more bang for the buck, much less money is needed to keep unemployment low without triggering excessive inflation.
            The author has agreed to forgo book royalties so that the entire book price will go for student scholarships when Optimal Money Flow is purchased through the Avila University Press website at:  https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh

Money Flow Dynamics in a Disequilibrium Economy

Static equilibrium analysis is insufficient for understanding and controlling our economy. Our economy does not transition smoothly from one well-defined equilibrium to another. Rather we experience periods of dynamic disequilibrium which require more careful analysis.

Moreover, the nature of the USA economy has changed fundamentally since the nineteen eighties. Earlier the economy was occasionally subject to bouts of strong consumer demand and constrained supply that led to excessive inflation. This was countered with tighter fiscal policy and higher interest rates in monetary policy which sometimes produced recession. The challenge was to keep inflation in check while providing enough stimulus to maintain full employment. During that period the Phillips curve with its trade-off between inflation and unemployment was a useful device for understanding the policy challenge. But this relationship has fundamentally changed in recent decades.

Many authors have documented our transition to extreme income and wealth inequality. Both pay-to-play politics and advances in technology have greatly increased the return to capital relative to labor. What has been less discussed and understood is how this has contributed to a disequilibrium state where consumer demand is constrained while money has piled up in financial markets driving up stock and bond prices while depressing interest rates. Money is readily available for investment but investment opportunities are limited. Investing in an additional production line doesn’t make sense if you are unable to sell all of the product from your first production line. A combination of rapid and extensive automation and massive global supply has overwhelmed consumer demand and driven prices down or at least greatly constrained potential price increases. Inflation has fallen below and stayed below our monetary policy target of two percent.

One aspect of this situation has proven to be especially important. The very low interest rates has discouraged savings and encouraged consumer debt. Little or no savings has greatly contributed to economic instability. Consumers have taken on massive amounts of debt in the form of mortgage debt, credit card debt, home equity debt, student loan debt and, in conjunction with our aging population, medical and health related debt. In fact, in our current state of economic disequilibrium the middle class can no longer afford to buy back the value of the goods and services it is creating.

With virtually no savings, members of the middle class are operating paycheck to paycheck with no safety net. This turns income and wealth inequality into inherent economic instability. Any accident or unanticipated medical issue, not to mention job loss, could mean a sudden drop in consumption of ordinary goods and services.

To compensate for what would otherwise be a shortfall in consumer demand, the Federal government has stepped in with unpaid-for tax cuts and increased expenditures that have substantially increased the Federal debt. The proponents of new monetary theory who generally dismiss the importance of this ever increasing national debt have implicitly understood the growing and essential role of the Federal government in supplementing the otherwise inadequate consumer demand.

But it is monetary policy that is partially to blame for this situation. The practice of buying Treasury securities in the New York financial markets has greatly contributed to stock and bond price bubbles, but, more importantly, to lower interest rates and the over-indebtedness of the middle class. In this way, with the help of the mathematics of compound interest, monetary policy exacerbates income and wealth inequality by making the rich even richer (higher stock and bond prices) and the middle class poorer (deeper in debt).

Forthcoming book “Optimal Money Flow” proposes creating “My America” Federal Reserve smartphone bank accounts for everyone with a Social Security number. When the economy slows, money can be injected directly into these accounts to avoid recession. This would be much more effective in reviving the economy and require much less money than the enormous amount of money given to Wall Street bankers, which is a waste of time when consumer demand is inadequate to justify adding another line of production when companies can’t sell all they are producing with their first line of production. Instead, Wall Street bankers just buy more stocks and bonds. Giving the money directly to consumers makes much more sense.

____________________________________
The author has agreed to forgo his book royalties so that the full purchase price ($24.95) will go into the student scholarship fund when purchased through Avila University Press at the link: https://www.avila.edu/aupress/optimal-money-flow-by-lawrence-c-marsh