Ray Dalio: History Teaches us that Inequality is Dangerous

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ca9uu36w_Vo” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>
45:36
the references you make here goes to 30s
and referencing cow you know the top 1%
in the 30s versus today you know you
showed this that the top 1% in the 30s
versus today you know top 1% income
share has the same amount as the bottom
90% in the last time it was like that in
the authorities are you kind of
suggesting that we may be facing what
happened in the 30s years or no yes I’m
saying you so that is why I’m saying
there are three major divisions okay
three major forces and that force which
i think i emphasized the opportunity gap
not just the wealth gap but they both
matter if you look at history across
countries across timeframes
and you say when there’s a large income
and wealth gap and you have an economic
downturn you have a dangerous fight on
your hands you have a dangerous set of
circumstances history has taught us that
you said in April income inequality is
the biggest crisis we have in America on
60 minutes and I think in recent a
couple months ago you said wealth
inequality those are the two main things
that we ought to become I’m not saying
an even more fundamental those are the
outcomes and even more fundamental is
opportunity in quality and production
inequality because at the end of the day
just like you said we have to find how
47:05

Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio Discusses the Impact of China’s Growth on the World Economy

Over the last 40 years, China’s rapid economic expansion has altered the world’s geopolitical and economic landscape. Bridgewater’s Founder, Co-CIO and co-Chairman Ray Dalio joins Bridgewater’s Senior Portfolio Strategist Jim Haskel to discuss the historical arc of this growth and why the portfolio characteristics of China’s markets are attractive and diversifying despite escalating global tensions. To learn more visit: https://www.bridgewater.com/china/ To skip to specific sections in the video please find chapters marked below: The US-China Conflict – 4:38 Investing in China – 11:30 Public and Private Markets in China – 20:32 Portfolio Characteristics of Chinese Markets – 24:47 Looking Ahead – 27:53
To skip to specific sections in the video please find chapters marked below: The US-China Conflict – 4:38
Investing in China – 11:30
Public and Private Markets in China – 20:32
Portfolio Characteristics of Chinese Markets – 24:47
Looking Ahead – 27:53

Modern Monetary Inevitabilities

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA – In a recent Project Syndicate commentary, James K. Galbraith of the University of Texas at Austin Modern Monetary Theory and corrects some misunderstandings about the relationships among MMT, federal deficits, and central-bank independence. But Galbraith does not explore what is perhaps the most important issue of all: the political conditions needed to implement MMT effectively.

MMT owes its newfound relevance to the fact that deflation, rather than inflation, is becoming central banks’ main concern. For a high-debt, high-deficit economy like the United States, deflation is an especially serious threat, because it delays consumption and increases debtor anxiety. Consumers forego major purchases on the assumption that future prices will be lower. Homeowners with mortgages cut back their spending when they see home prices falling and the equity in their homes declining. These cutbacks worry the Federal Reserve, because they add to deflationary pressures and could trigger deeper spending cuts, stock-market declines, and widespread deleveraging.

The Fed’s inability so far to reach its 2% target for annual inflation suggests that it lacks the means to overcome persistent disinflationary forces in the economy. These forces include increased US , which diminishes aggregate demand by weakening employee bargaining power and increasing income inequality; population aging; inadequate investment in infrastructure and climate-change abatement; and technology-driven labor displacement. Making matters worse, US political gridlock assures continued commitment to economically exhausted strategies such as tax cuts for the rich, at the expense of investment in education and other sources of long-term growth. These conditions cry out for significant changes in US government spending and tax policies.

MMT is seen as a way to accomplish the needed changes. It holds that a government can spend as much as it wants if it borrows in its own currency and its central bank can buy as much of the government’s debt as necessary – as long as doing so doesn’t generate unacceptably high inflation. Both tax-cut advocates and supporters of public investment find little not to like.

MMT has been roundly criticized by economists across the political spectrum, from Kenneth Rogoff and Lawrence H. Summers of Harvard University to Paul Krugman of the City University of New York. All contend that it is a political argument masquerading as economic theory. But Galbraith and Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates see MMT differently. Dalio argues that MMT is real and, more to the point, it is an inevitable policy step in historically recurring debt-cycle downturns.

In his book Principles for Navigating Big Debt Crises, Dalio documents the steps that central banks have historically taken when faced with a booming economy that suddenly crumples under the weight of debt. The first step (Monetary Policy 1, or MP1) is

  1. to cut overnight official rates to stimulate credit and investment expansion. The second (MP2)
  2. is to buy government debt (quantitative easing) to support asset prices and prevent uncontrollable waves of deleveraging. If MP1 and MP2 are insufficient to halt a downturn, central banks take step three (MMT, which Dalio calls MP3) and
  3. proceed to finance the spending priorities that political leaders deem most essential. The priorities can range from financing major national projects to “helicopter money” transfers directly to consumers.

Achieving political agreement on what to finance and how is essential for implementing MP3 effectively. In a financial meltdown or other national emergency, political unity and prompt action are essential. Unity requires a strong consensus on what should be financed. Speed requires the existence of a trusted institution to direct the spending.

In the early 1940s, when the US entered World War II and winning the war became the government’s top priority, the Fed entered full MP3 mode. It not only set short- and long-term rates for Treasury bonds, but also bought as much government debt as necessary to finance the war effort. MP3 was possible because the war united the country politically and gave the Roosevelt administration near-authoritarian rule over the economy.

The core weakness of MP3/MMT advocacy is the absence of an explanation of how to achieve political unity on what to finance and how. This absence is inexcusable. Total US debt (as a share of GDP) is approaching levels associated with past financial meltdowns, and that doesn’t even account for the  associated with infrastructure maintenance, rising sea levels, and unfunded pensions. For the reasons Dalio lays out, a US debt crisis requiring some form of MP3 is all but inevitable.

The crucial question that any effort to achieve political unity must answer is what constitutes justifiable spending. Alexander Hamilton, America’s first Secretary of the Treasury, offered an answer in 1781: “A national debt,” he wrote, “if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing.” A government’s debt is “excessive” if it cannot be repaid because its proceeds were spent in ways that did not increase national wealth enough to do so. Debt resulting from tax cuts that are spent on mega-yachts would almost certainly be excessive; debt incurred to improve educational outcomes, maintain essential infrastructure, or address climate change would probably not be. Accordingly, it will be easier to achieve political unity if MP3 proceeds are spent on priorities such as education, infrastructure, or climate.

The political test for justifying MP3-financed government spending, is clear: Will future generations judge that the borrowing was not “excessive”? Most Americans born well after WWII would say that the debt incurred to win that war was justified, as was the debt that financed the construction of the Interstate Highway System, which literally paved the way for stronger growth.

As the 1930s and 1940s show, MP3 is a natural component of government responses to major debt downturns and the political crises they trigger. We know much more about what contributes to economic growth and sustainability than we did in the first half of the twentieth century. To speed recovery from the next downturn, we need to identify now the types of spending that will contribute most to sustainable recovery and that in hindsight will be viewed as most justified by future Americans. We need also to design the institutions that will direct the spending. These are the keys to building the political unity that MMT requires. To know what to finance and how, future Americans can show us the way; we need only put ourselves in their shoes.