�鶹��Ƶ

What if the way we talk about the economy is limiting what we imagine we can do?

That question shaped much of the conversation at The Economics of What’s Possible: An Evening with Stephanie Kelton, where economist and bestselling author Dr. Stephanie Kelton joined �鶹��ƵPresident and Vice-Chancellor Joy Johnson to explore some of the assumptions that influence how we think about money, deficits, inflation and public spending.

The event was part of When the Map is Useless, a series from SFU’s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue and �鶹��ƵPublic Square exploring how we navigate a world where familiar assumptions and ways of thinking may no longer be enough.

Kelton, author of and a leading voice associated with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), invited the audience to reconsider a question that often shapes conversations about public policy: when governments want to tackle a major challenge, what should we be asking first?  

From “How will we pay for it?” to “How will we resource it?”

When governments consider major investments in housing, infrastructure, health care or other public priorities, the conversation often turns quickly to cost: How will we pay for it?

Kelton proposed a different starting point: How will we resource it?

Consider housing. Building hundreds of thousands of new homes requires financing, but it also requires skilled workers, available land, lumber, concrete, appliances, permitting capacity and other resources. Looking at the challenge this way shifts attention from money alone to what is actually needed to get something done. Do we have enough workers? Are the necessary materials available? Is there sufficient infrastructure and capacity? 

For Kelton, these questions offer a different way of understanding what may constrain public policy and what might be possible.

Looking differently at deficits and debt

Kelton also invited the audience to think differently about government deficits.

A deficit describes the difference between what a government spends and what it collects over a given period. But Kelton suggested that focusing on that number alone can leave out an important part of the picture: where that spending goes and what it enables elsewhere in the economy.

She encouraged the audience to ask:

• Deficits for whom and for what? 

• What is the spending being used to accomplish? 

• Is it supporting housing, infrastructure, health care or other public priorities? 

• And what are the broader effects?

Rather than looking only at the size of a deficit, Kelton encouraged the audience to consider its purpose and outcomes. 

She also distinguished between deficits and national debt: a deficit refers to the gap between government spending and revenue over a particular period, while national debt reflects accumulated government borrowing over time.

Inflation requires a diagnosis

Inflation offered another example of why Kelton believes the diagnosis matters as much as the headline number.

She compared inflation to finding water in your basement. Knowing there is water tells you there is a problem, but it doesn’t tell you what caused it. Before deciding how to respond, you need to find the source.

Kelton applied the same reasoning to rising prices.

Inflationary pressures can emerge from different parts of the economy, including housing shortages, energy costs, supply constraints or limited productive capacity. In Kelton’s view, understanding those underlying pressures is essential because different causes may call for different responses. She questioned the use of interest-rate increases as a broad response to inflation regardless of its source, and made the case for considering a wider range of policy tools depending on what drive prices upward. 

What was on the audience’s mind? 

The conversation extended beyond the stage.

Throughout the evening, attendees shared questions and reflections through Slido as the discussion unfolded. The resulting word cloud offered a snapshot of what was on people’s minds: MMT, government, inflation, money, economic policy, debt, public spending and taxation.

What could economic resilience look like for Canada? 

When the discussion turned to Canada’s economic outlook, Kelton encouraged the audience to consider the resources and capacity the country already has.

“Look to your people, look to your productive capacity, what you have here.”

She pointed to Canada’s workforce, natural resources, technological knowledge and productive capacity as part of that picture. Rather than looking only at financial constraints, her comments brought the conversation back to a recurring theme of the evening: what resources are available, and how might they be used to respond to the challenges ahead?

Kelton also connected economic resilience to the systems and services people rely on in their everyday lives, including health care, energy, child care and employment. As economic conditions change, she emphasized the importance of considering how people experience those shifts alongside the broader economic indicators used to measure them. 

Universities as places where we “manufacture our futures” 

The conversation came closer to home when Johnson asked about the economic and social value of public universities. Kelton questioned the tendency to measure higher education primarily through the individual financial return of earning a degree.

“A university is where we manufacture our futures,” she said.

Universities educate future doctors, engineers, artists, nurses, teachers and other professionals. But Kelton described their value as extending beyond individual graduates, pointing to their role in research, culture, employment and civic life, as well as their ability to create spaces where people can encounter ideas, ask questions and learn from one another. It was a fitting reflection for an evening centred on public dialogue: a room full of people coming together to examine familiar ideas about how the economy works and consider where those ideas might lead us.

Expanding what we think is possible 

By the time the conversation opened to audience Q&A, there was no shortage of questions. Throughout the evening, Kelton returned to an important distinction in how she understands MMT: as a framework for describing how monetary systems work, rather than a prescription for which policies governments should pursue.

She compared it to a map. A map can show you the routes available to you. It cannot decide where you should go. That distinction captured much of the evening’s conversation. The discussion was not simply about spending more or less, running deficits or balancing budgets. It was about examining the assumptions behind those debates and asking what changes when we begin with a different set of questions.

At a time when affordability, housing and economic uncertainty are shaping conversations across Canada, Kelton’s remarks invited the audience to consider where the limits of public policy actually lie, which constraints are real and what choices remain available within them.

And perhaps that is where the idea behind When the Map is Useless becomes particularly relevant: before searching for a new route, it can be worth examining the map we have been using and the assumptions that shaped it. 

Watch the conversation 

Missed the event or want to revisit the discussion? Watch The Economics of What’s Possible: An Evening with Stephanie Kelton to hear the full conversation about money, deficits, inflation and the choices that shape what we understand to be possible.