American Financial Leviathan Hinders Reindustrialization 2: Advantages of MAC

The proposal by John R. Hansen, examined in the previous article, to establish a Market Access Charge (MAC) aims at defunding and reindustrialization and offers the following macroeconomic advantages and benefits in the current situation:

1. Combating currency imbalance — MAC will control the inflow of foreign currency, which undermines the competitiveness of goods produced in America both domestically and abroad.
2. The possibility in the future to eliminate the budget deficit, reduce America's public debt, and decrease interest payments on the debt. Currently, interest payments on the debt alone drain nearly two billion dollars daily from the federal budget, and about forty percent of America's total public debt is held by foreigners.
3. Enable the US government to implement and support important programs — investments in enhancing national security, infrastructure, environmental protection, social programs, and more — without raising taxes or increasing public debt.
4. More active anti-inflationary policy with less risk of recession. The Fed will be able to raise the discount rate by smaller amounts to curb inflation, and foreigners will have less temptation to invest in dollar assets. (Incidentally, Russia currently has the opposite situation. The Central Bank of Russia raised the key rate so vigorously that it turned the ruble into the highest-yielding currency of 2025, ensuring a high ruble exchange rate despite unfavorable external economic conditions for Russia, problems with energy exports, and economic stagnation.)
5. Increasing domestic and foreign demand for goods produced in America. A cheaper and more competitive dollar will create at least 3-5 million high-paying jobs for the middle class not only in manufacturing and related sectors but also in sectors producing goods sold on international markets, such as agricultural products and other natural resource-based products, as well as services like film production and other areas of the creative economy with a high share of intellectual property.
6. Stimulating real domestic and foreign investments in American manufacturing or the opportunity to change the existing unfortunate 1:99 balance between real and financial investments in favor of the former. For example, even a modest increase in the share of real investments to 10% would mean a powerful impetus for creating and expanding real physical production capacities. A sharp influx of real investments will boost American economic productivity, which should lead to lower prices, reduced inflation, increased competitiveness, faster economic growth, higher living standards, increased incomes, and balanced budgets.
7. Accelerating economic growth. The substantial economic change agreement (MAC) will stimulate domestic production and exports while reducing excessive dependence on imports. With the adoption of MAC, America could roughly double its current economic growth rates.

Specific advantages of MAC compared to tariffs:

• They are far more effective than customs duties in reducing the overall US trade deficit with countries like China. Tariffs can be easily circumvented using well-known tricks such as shipping through third countries, rebranding, and undervaluing goods in invoices. In contrast, it is almost impossible to circumvent the exchange rate.
• Provides a 20–30 times greater fiscal effect, since the tax base is $90 trillion, not 3–4 trillion dollars of US goods imports.
• Increases affordability of goods for all Americans. Americans as consumers inevitably pay import tariffs (at least partially), while MAC is paid only by foreigners. It is impossible to shift the payment of MAC to consumers.
• Increases exports of goods and services, rather than just reducing specific types of imports.
• Increases the number of jobs in manufacturing and a wide range of industries, including suppliers of raw materials and materials for manufacturers, such as agriculture and transportation.
• Ensures a level playing field — the same rate for all goods, producers, countries, etc., instead of widely varying tariff rates.
• Practically eliminates the risk of retaliatory measures.

The author of the proposal, Dr. Hansen, claims that MAC is a fully legal instrument under US and IMF rules, can be implemented within weeks through legislation or by the president under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). No new administrative structures will be required. Existing US correspondent banks will be instructed to:

1. collect MAC as part of the standard SWIFT payment processing procedure and similar international payment orders;
2. immediately transfer the collected funds, minus a small processing fee, to the US Treasury. Since a single MAC rate will apply to all inflows, no additional time or expertise will be required for border processing.

MAC, unlike tariffs, meets the four IMF criteria for capital flow management measures (Capital Flow Management measures, CFM).

CFM also implies the use of a market access tax, but as a temporary measure aimed at stabilizing a country's economy during crises. CFM measures may include capital movement controls to manage capital flows and protect foreign exchange reserves. CFM may provide for restrictions on foreign exchange operations to stabilize currency value. These measures are often linked to IMF lending programs and economic reform conditions. CFM is designed to prevent excessive volatility in financial markets and promote economic stability. They are usually reviewed and adjusted based on progress in the country's economic recovery.

MAC is proposed for use on a permanent basis, and in this sense, the IMF will either need to add provisions to its regulations or refuse to do so, which, however, will not prevent the US from taking this step if the country's financial authorities decide to do so. We will discuss what other economists and politicians think about this proposal in the next article.