The Sifted Bookshelf: Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds

In one memorable scene from The Matrix, a boy apparently bends a spoon with his mind, and then gives Neo advice on how it’s done: by realizing that there is no spoon.

At first “there is no spoon” sounds like mystic mumbo-jumbo, but eventually you come to understand that it is literally true: The world the boy and Neo share is a computer simulation, and the apparent spoon is just a pattern of data. If you believe it is a solid object, you expect it to obey physical laws and not bend. But if it is a pattern of data, why couldn’t it be a different pattern of data — a bent spoon — instead?

As you watched that scene, you may not have realized you were learning about economics, but you were. If you need that idea spelled out more clearly (as I did) you should read a down-to-earth little book that is available for free on the internet: The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy by Warren Mosler. (Don’t let the blank first page confuse you. Keep scrolling.)

The deadly frauds, which very serious pundits and politicans tell you every day (innocently, because they don’t know any better) are:

  1. The government must raise funds through taxation or borrowing in order to spend. In other words, government spending is limited by its ability to tax or borrow.
  2. With government deficits, we are leaving our debt burden to our children.
  3. Government budget deficits take away savings.
  4. Social Security is broken.
  5. The trade deficit is an unsustainable imbalance that takes away jobs and output.
  6. We need savings to provide the funds for investment.
  7. It’s a bad thing that higher deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow.

Now, chances are all seven of those seem like common sense to you, just as the spoon looked very solidly spoonlike to Neo. What people have trouble grasping, Mosler explains, is what dollars are: Dollars are numbers on a spreadsheet at the Federal Reserve. Dollars are a pattern of data, and (like Neo’s spoon) could just as easily be a different pattern of data.

When, for example, the government pays my Dad’s monthly Social Security benefit, the Fed just increases the balance in the account of Dad’s bank. No object of any real-world value moves or changes.

Where else do we see this happen? Your team kicks a field goal and on the scoreboard, the score changes from, say, 7 points to 10 points. Does anyone wonder where the stadium got those three points? … Do you think all bowling alleys and football stadiums should have a “reserve of points” in a “lock box” to make sure you can get the points you have scored? …

Just keep this in mind as a starting point: The federal government doesn’t ever “have” or “not have” any dollars. It’s just like the stadium, which doesn’t “have” or “not have” a hoard of points to give out. When it comes to the dollar, our government, working through its Federal agencies, the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. Treasury Department, is the score keeper.

Not bankrupt. So Mosler immediately discards any notion that the U. S. government might “go broke”. Paying interest or redeeming a bond means changing the numbers in the spreadsheet, not coming up with real assets that are conserved by physical laws.

Ditto for parts of the government going bankrupt. If the Social Security Trust Fund “runs out”, that just means that the corresponding entry in the spreadsheet is zero and about to go negative, not that some real cupboard is now bare.

Taxes and inflation. The purpose of taxing is not to acquire assets that the government needs to fund its programs (because the government never has or doesn’t have any dollars). It is to take dollars out of circulation so that they don’t cause inflation.

Inflation happens when the real economy isn’t able to produce enough goods to satisfy all the people who have money to spend. So consumers bid up the price of scarce goods and businesses bid up the wages of scarce workers.

Seen any scarcities of goods or workers lately? There are occasional bottlenecks (like gasoline), but in general the economy has plenty of room to produce more goods to cover more dollars. There is no good reason not to create those dollars so that more people can work and spend.

What about saddling future generations with government debt? Again, the problem is our mis-framing of what money and debt means: Everything produced in the future will be consumed in the future, not sent back in time to pay for our spending today.

Some day it will be our children changing numbers on what will be their spreadsheet, just as seamlessly as we did, and our parents did, though hopefully with a better understanding!

There are many more quotable passages, but I’ll limit myself to this one, where Mosler answers the people who think that we need to change Social Security because the worker-to-retiree ratio is shrinking.

Let’s look at it this way: 50 years from now when there is one person left working and 300 million retired people (I exaggerate to make the point), that guy is going to be pretty busy since he’ll have to grow all the food, build and maintain all the buildings, do the laundry, take care of all medical needs, produce the TV shows, etc. etc. etc. What we need to do is make sure that those 300 million retired people have the funds to pay him??? I don’t think so! This problem obviously isn’t about money.

Mosler’s book falls into three parts: the explanation of the seven frauds (56 easy-to-read pages), the story of his career as a banker and fund manager (entertaining if you like business stories, but not necessary to get the point), and his prescription for the economy (which I’ll cover next week).

Another common-sense story that explains money-supply issues is Paul Krugman’s 1998 article about a baby-sitting co-op whose “money” consisted of coupons the participating parents traded when they baby-sat for each other.

Now what happened in the Sweeneys’ co-op was that, for complicated reasons involving the collection and use of dues (paid in scrip), the number of coupons in circulation became quite low. As a result, most couples were anxious to add to their reserves by baby-sitting, reluctant to run them down by going out. But one couple’s decision to go out was another’s chance to baby-sit; so it became difficult to earn coupons. Knowing this, couples became even more reluctant to use their reserves except on special occasions, reducing baby-sitting opportunities still further.

In short, the co-op had fallen into a recession.

They got out of the recession by printing and distributing more coupons, which worked because their “economy” was willing and able to produce more nights-out and more hours of babysitting.

A related discussion this week has concerned a novel solution to the debt-ceiling “crisis”. The Pragmatic Capitalism blog claims that the Treasury, which unlike the Fed is completely under the President’s control, has unlimited authority to produce palladium coins. Treasury could strike a small coin, stamp $1 trillion on it, and use it to redeem $1 T worth of bonds, thereby creating $1 T of space under the debt ceiling.

Independent of whether this is good economic policy, it completely avoids the current hostage situation. Even skeptics like Matt Yglesias are coming to believe that this would work.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Jordan  On July 19, 2011 at 6:35 am

    I’m not sure the soccer-score analogy works quite the way Mosler wants it to. The score on the scoreboard isn’t a real thing, just information, as he points out. But it represents a real-world event: the ball entering the net. Imagine the mayhem that would ensue if the scorekeepers just added to the score at their whim. I think the money supply works the same way: it represents the goods and services running around the economy.

    We’ve learned that some interesting things happen when you manipulate the money supply in ways not directly tied to goods and services; some of those effects are good and some of those effects are bad. Perhaps that explains the ideological differences in economic policies: liberals believe that intelligent people can improve the situation by judicious use of policy, conservatives believe that people are too stupid (or to venal?) to use policy for the public good.

    Maybe I just need to read the book…

  • J. Rhett Aultman  On July 19, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    I’m reading the book right now. It does explain a number of things about how the issuer of fiat currency works, and they are counterintuitive, but I really wish that he’d written something more rigorous than he has.

    Call me a cynic, but I’ve seen a lot of self-published works with a fairly low footnote count that carefully construct thought experiments so that you don’t notice all the tricks you’re agreeing to. That’s actually how Austrian economics retains its place in public discourse.

    Incidentally, I’d love it if you’d bring back the OpenID authenticator. I’d rather authenticate with my blog than my Facebook account.

  • weeklysift  On July 20, 2011 at 8:55 am

    J. Rhett Aultman: I’m still figuring out how the WordPress comments work. I thought I had made the system as open as possible by unchecking everything the Settings page lets me uncheck. I’ll keep working on it.

  • weeklysift  On July 20, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Jordan: Mosler uses the scoreboard analogy to represent the idea that the U. S. government will never run out of dollars, in the same way that the scoreboard will never run out of points. The fallacy that runs through all seven frauds is that dollars represent fixed physical objects that have to obey conservation laws — that if the government spends a dollar, that dollar had to “come from somewhere”.

  • Butt when insuring your car, numerous times this will be the
    last thing you would thnk of doing. Insurance cann be
    quite cstly andd can vary greatly between companies.
    Your premium wil be lower the more sarely you drive.

  • content generating  On September 2, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    I have fun with, result in I discovered exactly what I used
    to be looking for. You have ended my four day lengthy hunt!
    God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

  • pakar seo  On September 28, 2016 at 2:09 am

    Hey there, You have done an excellent job. I will certainly
    dogg it and personally suggest to myy friends. I’m confident they’ll be
    benefited from this web site.


  • By Spoonless « The Weekly Sift on July 18, 2011 at 11:57 am

    […] The Sifted Bookshelf: The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. Warren Mosler’s short, free, and very readable book explains why all the common-sense things you know about the economy are wrong. In particular, dollars (like Neo’s spoon) are just patterns of data. […]

  • By “Hear that, Fido?” « The Weekly Sift on July 25, 2011 at 11:06 am

    […] promised a follow-up on last week’s review of Warren Mosler’s Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, where I would describe […]

  • By The Mosler Proposals « The Weekly Sift on August 1, 2011 at 10:58 am

    […] Two weeks ago I introduced you to Warren Mosler’s Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy, a short and insightful book you can read for free. […]

  • […] Mosler’s Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy (my two-part review was here and here) was one big take-down of the metaphor of money as something solid. If you think that way, […]

  • […] Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy by Warren Mosler (reviewed in two parts: first, second), Why Marx Was Right by Terry Eagleton, The Lights in the Tunnel by Martin Ford, […]

  • […] Deficit. Elsewhere I’ve presented the idea that the deficit is not the doomsday device many would have you […]

  • By If Not ObamaCare, What? « The Weekly Sift on June 18, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    […] during a financial crisis. And since dollars are created by the Federal Reserve, it is literally impossible for the federal government to go bankrupt as long as it owes […]

  • […] it in the government’s account at the Federal Reserve has been around for a while now. (I first noticed it in July, 2011.) It sounds ridiculous because it is. (Even people who favor the idea understand that.) It’s […]

  • By Too Simple « The Weekly Sift on January 14, 2013 at 11:22 am

    […] is coming to understand how money really works. Long-time Sift readers have had cause to remember my review of Warren Mosler’s book in the summer of […]

  • […] Facts vs. visions. I believe liberals actively shy away from this big-picture mythologizing because of our disgust at how conservatives abuse it: They must talk about their grand vision, because when you get down to the nitty-gritty of facts, they are just plain wrong. Rape causes pregnancy. The globe is warming. The rich are getting all the money. The economy has a demand problem. Taxes are low, spending is not out of control, and the federal government can’t go bankrupt. […]

  • By Taking Chances | The Weekly Sift on March 4, 2013 at 1:15 pm

    […] (or the Native American genocide, which Gohmert seems to have forgotten). And second, I go back to Warren Mosler’s point: All the goods and services produced in the future will be consumed in the future. Our […]

  • By Prosperity Without Growth? | The Weekly Sift on May 6, 2013 at 10:58 am

    […] Not a lone voice. Another striking thing about Enough is Enough is the extent to which it builds on the work of many others. For example, the view of money, debt, and banking will be familiar to Sift readers from David Graeber’s Debt: the first 5,000 years and Warren Mosler’s Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. […]

  • […] For a completely different view of the meaning of the national debt, see Warren Mosler’s Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy. […]

  • By The 2016 Stump Speeches: Ben Carson | The Weekly Sift on September 14, 2015 at 9:06 am

    […] you honestly think that the national debt is our country’s worst problem — I don’t — then you need to talk about the budget, which Carson has not done. You need to specify […]

  • By Instead of Dumbing Down | The Weekly Sift on September 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    […] about why it’s so hard to see your own privilege, the difference between bigotry and hatred, how the Fed creates money, how liberal reporters can wind up slanting the news in a conservative direction, and a bunch of […]

  • […] if you think the deficit is a real problem — not everybody does — you ought to be seriously […]

  • By Doing Putin’s Job | The Weekly Sift on February 5, 2018 at 11:03 am

    […] to be worried about this or have any plan to do anything about it. I’ve explained in the past why I don’t believe the federal debt is a big problem, but it certainly looks like a big problem, so you can be sure that eventually we’ll be told […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: