Must-Read: Oregon Economic Forum

Must-Read: Oregon Economic Forum to examine the post-recovery economy: “The 2015 Oregon Economic Forum… will be held Thursday, Oct. 15, at the Portland Art Museum, 1219 S.W. Park Ave…

…Forum director Tim Duy, an economist at the UO, and Bruce McCain, chief investment strategist of Key Private Bank, kick off the hour-long event with a status update of Oregon’s and the country’s economies. They will take a closer look at the financial markets and preview the economic forecast for 2016. Moderator Brad DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, will then guide a broader conversation about Federal Reserve policy, the extent of any effect on the U.S. from China’s slowing economy and what is–or isn’t–happening to inflation….

Mark McMullen, state economist for Oregon, Tom Potiowsky, chair of the Department of Economics at Portland State University and former state economist, and Christopher Allanach, an economist in the Legislative Revenue Office, will look at the changing structure of the state’s economy and its revenue streams… [and] about what Oregonians can do to ensure a bright economic future.

Jim Tankersley of The Washington Post will delve into the current economic health of the middle class in the keynote address, ‘Reflections on the Middle Class in the Aftermath of the Great Depression’…

Monday DeLong Smackdown: Kevin Drum Asks a Question About the Attainability of a 4%/Year Inflation Target

\

A very effective smackdown, I must say:

Kevin Drum: 4%/Year Inflation: “Generally speaking, I’m in DeLong’s camp…

…But here’s my question: what makes him think that the Fed can engineer 4 percent inflation right now? And what would it take? I ask this because it’s conventional wisdom that a central bank can engineer any level of inflation it wants if it’s sufficiently committed and credible about it. And that’s true. But my sense recently has been that, in practice, it’s harder to increase inflation than it sounds. The Bank of Japan has been trying to hit the very modest goal of 2 percent inflation for a while now and has had no success. Lately it’s all but given up. ‘It’s true that the timing for achieving 2 percent inflation has been delayed somewhat,’ the BOJ chief admitted a few months ago, in a statement that bears an uncomfortable similarity to the emperor’s declaration in 1945 that ‘the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage.’

So I’m curious. Given the current state of the economy, what open market operations would be required to hit a 4 percent inflation goal? How big would they have to be? How long would they have to last? What other extraordinary measures might be necessary? I’ve never seen a concrete technical analysis of just how much it would take to get to 4 percent. Does anybody have one?

I think the answer is: We don’t know whether it is in fact possible for a central bank today to hit a 4%/year average inflation target via conventional ordinary quantitative easing. It might well require other tools. For example:

  • Miles Kimball’s negative interest rates.
  • Helicopter drops–that is, allowing everyone with a Social Security number to incorporate as a bank, join the Federal Reserve system, and borrow at the discount window, with the loan discharged by the individual’s death.
  • The Federal Reserve as infrastructure bank–an extra $500 billion/year of quantitative easing buying not government or mortgage bonds but directly-financing public investments.
  • Extraordinary quantitative easing–buying not the close substitutes for money that are government bonds but rather the not-so-close substitutes that are equities.

I say: If we could win the argument about what the goal is, we could then begin the discussion about what policies would be needed to get us there.

“Your Mom Isn’t Here” Jobs…

Live from (Outside of) New York ComicCon: We Have (Close to the Equivalent of) Replicators: So Why Do We (Still) Have Non Personal-Service Jobs?

We grow things–but fewer and fewer of us do. We make things–but fewer and fewer of us do. We provide personal services–non-information and information. What else do we do?

It strikes me that a huge proportion of jobs these days are really “your mom isn’t here!” jobs.

What proportion of jobs wouldn’t it be necessary if people would only behave–if people would reliably and properly drop the money they owe into the jar, would clean up if they spilled something, leave the place in the clean state it was when they arrived, would not break machines by trying to operate them when they do not understand them, and so on?

Must-Read: Matt Phillips: Bernanke: I’m not really a Republican anymore

Must-Read: As I have said before and will stay again, the Republican Party could be taking a victory lap right now with respect to monetary policy–pointing out that the most successful recovery in the North Atlantic from 2008-9 was engineered by a Republican following Friedmanite countercyclical monetary policies. But no! They would rather be Hayekians, predicting imminent hyperinflation…

Why? I think it’s the Fox News-ification of the Republican Party: terrify people in the hope that you will then gain their attention and they will give you money…

Matt Phillips: Bernanke: I’m not really a Republican anymore: “Ben Bernanke has publicly broken ranks with the Republican party…

…In one of the more revealing passages of… The Courage to Act… [he] lays out his experience with Republican lawmakers during the twin financial and economic crises….Continual run-ins with hard-right Republicans… pushed him away from the party that first put him in charge of the Fed….

[T]he increasing hostility of the Republicans to the Fed and to me personally troubled me, particularly since I had been appointed by a Republican president who had supported our actions during the crisis. I tried to listen carefully and accept thoughtful criticisms. But it seemed to me that the crisis had helped to radicalize large parts of the Republican Party….

The former Princeton economics professor said he had:

lost patience with Republicans’ susceptibility to the know-nothing-ism of the far right. I didn’t leave the Republican Party. I felt that the party left me.

He later concludes: ‘I view myself now as a moderate independent, and I think that’s where I’ll stay’…

Noted for the Evening of October 10, 2015

Must- and Should-Reads:

Might Like to Be Aware of:

In Which I Call for a More Optimistic Martin Wolf…

Live from Lima, Peru: Martin Wolf, can I get you to say something optimistic?

The last four times I have been in the same room with Martin Wolf, he has left me profoundly depressed. He has just done it again–by reminding me how many of the lessons of the 1930s have been lost, and how much the Federal Reserve needs to assume the role of global Kindlebergian hegemon that it is currently refusing. So I had a question to ask that I hoped would elicit an optimistic answer…

Alas! I did not get to ask it. But here it is:

Let me see if I can get you to agree with an optimistic view of emerging markets’ future–if and after we can resolve all the difficulties that Ken Rogoff calls the ongoing hangover of the debt supersupercyle…

Back before 1970 we had not just non-convergence but divergence: the Matthew 25:29 global economy, as the rest of the world grew much more slowly than the North Atlantic core plus the East Asian and Peripheral Europe convergence club. Since 1970 we have had China, and now India, plus on average not divergence but relatively stasis elsewhere. Does not this suggest that we would be seeing “convergencence” in the emerging world if not for the fact that China is bigfooting everybody else out of the niches for export-led convergence growth? And that the future looks relatively bright for emerging-market convergence as China transitions to a different growth model, and open up the export-led convergence growth space?

Can I get you to agree with that?

Noted for Lunchtime on October 9, 2015

Must- and Should-Reads:

Might Like to Be Aware of:

Must-Read: Bruce Bartlett: The Fed: Being Goaded into Raising too Soon?

Must-Read: I see three things going on in Federal Reserve desire to raise interest rates once there is even half an excuse to do so:

  1. A desire to placate members of the FOMC who believe that what is good for commercial bankers must be good for America, and who see higher interest rates now as good for commercial bankers.
  2. A belief that the normalization of the unemployment rate ought to carry with it a normalization of interest rates.
  3. Excessive trust in models with shaky empirical foundations that predict rising inflation in 2017 and beyond. As I have said, for too many members of the FOMC rising inflation is as tangible and visible and real as the peanuts handed out in small 70-calorie packages by Southwest Airlines pursers.

My suggestion: the Federal Reserve should invite Lars E.O. Svennson to come to every FOMC meeting and speak first. And the Federal Reserve should listen to him:

Bruce Bartlett: The Fed: Being Goaded into Raising too Soon?: “All year… markets have been expecting the… Federal Reserve to begin… normalising interest rates…

…An initial rise… expected in September… [was] derailed by a less-than-stellar jobs report. Now… December. The pressure to raise rates is a bit of a puzzle. Generally, the Fed raises rates… [to] curb inflationary pressures. But inflation is well-behaved, bordering on deflation… below the Fed’s own target of 2 per cent a year. And all the indicators of future inflation are signalling no sign of inflation…. So why is the Fed on the path to tightening? Some… believe… pressure… from banks having a hard time making money…. Another… the Fed has grown weary of the constant drumbeat of attacks from political conservatives who have been continuously warning about impending inflation, even hyperinflation…. When the Fed began its policy of quantitative easing… inflationary fears were often expressed here in the Financial Times by top Republican economists…. John Taylor… on March 24 2009…. On April 19 2009… Martin Feldstein…. Alan Greenspan… [on] June 26 2009 commentary…. [But] the policy that conservatives were concerned about was [the] textbook conservative macroeconomic[s of]… Milton Friedman… the conservative alternative to the Keynesian idea that government spending and deficits were needed….

What happened… conservatives… endors[ed] the ‘Austrian’ view propounded by Friedrich Hayek and others that the government should do nothing and just let economic imbalances right themselves. Friedman was always highly dismissive of the Austrian do-nothing policy, saying in a 1998 interview, it ‘has done the world a great deal of harm.’ The de facto adoption of the Austrian do-nothing policy by Republicans left no… Friedmanite[s]… except Ben Bernanke… [who] has detailed his frustration at repeated attacks on him and the Fed….

[T]he increasing hostility of the Republicans to the Fed and to me personally troubled me, particularly since I had been appointed by a Republican president who had supported our actions during the crisis. I tried to listen carefully and accept thoughtful criticisms. But it seemed to me that the crisis had helped to radicalize large parts of the Republican Party.

Today, Mr Bernanke no longer considers himself a Republican, having ‘lost patience with Republicans’ susceptibility to the know-nothing-ism of the far right’…. It’s rare for the Fed to tighten under macroeconomic conditions such as… today…. Perhaps the conservative critics are right, but it’s worth remembering that they have been predicting inflation for years and been proved wrong again and again…

Very Sorry That I Missed: Charles C. Mann and Annalee Newitz: From the Neolithic Era to the Apocalypse: How to Prepare for the Future by Studying the Past

Very Sorry That I Missed: Charles C. Mann and Annalee Newitz: From the Neolithic Era to the Apocalypse: How to Prepare for the Future by Studying the Past: “Thursday, October 8, 2015 5:00 – 7:00 pm 3-270…

…For thousands of years, humans have experienced cycles of empire building and retreat, from the neolithic settlers of Levant and the Indus Valley to the ancient Cahokia and Maya civilizations. What can new discoveries teach us about how to plan our next thousand years as a global civilization?… How ancient civilizations shed light on current problems with urbanization, food security, and environmental change.

Charles C. Mann is the author, most recently, of 1493, a New York Times best-seller, and 1491, winner of the National Academies of Science’s Keck award for best book of the year. His next project, The Wizard and the Prophet, is a book about the future that makes no predictions. An early version of the introductory chapter was a finalist for a National Magazine Award.

Annalee Newitz writes science nonfiction and science fiction. She’s editor-in-chief of Gizmodo.com and founding editor of io9.com. She’s the author of Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction, which was a finalist for a Los Angeles Times Book Award. Her work has appeared in publications from The New Yorker and Technology Review to 2600 and Lightspeed Magazine. Her next book is a novel about robots, pirates, and the future of property laws.

Weekend reading

This is a weekly post we publish on Fridays with links to articles that touch on economic inequality and growth. The first section is a round-up of what Equitable Growth has published this week and the second is work we’re highlighting from elsewhere. We won’t be the first to share these articles, but we hope by taking a look back at the whole week, we can put them in context.

Equitable Growth round-up

The unemployment rate is just above 5 percent, close to many economists’ estimates of its long-run level, but wage growth hasn’t picked up. Perhaps we need to look at new labor market measures. Enter: the Z-POP.

Wealth inequality in the United States is about more than the share of wealth captured by the top 0.1 percent of families—inequality by race and ethnicity is also quite profound. A new paper tries to understand the roots of the racial and ethnic wealth gap.

In our era of slow U.S. economic growth and declining productivity gains, many think that magic might be the only way to boost our future prospects. But while economists aren’t sure what exactly boosts growth, we aren’t entirely in the dark.

After the housing bubble burst during the Great Recession, the amount of time it took for a house to go through foreclosure increased significantly. Two economists show how these delays acted like an extension of credit, helping unemployed workers weather a lack of a job, and actually increased wages.

Links from around the web

“The effects of hysteresis — where recessions are not just costly but stunt the growth of future output — appear far stronger than anyone imagined a few years ago.” Larry Summers argues the case for expansion in an era of secular stagnation. [ft]

Recent debates about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and new research on the effects of trade are starting to crack an old consensus, says Noah Smith. “The simple logic of free trade, so familiar from Econ 101, is either failing or ceasing to be relevant.” [bloomberg view]

For decades, women in the United States participated in the labor market at rates that led the league tables for high-income economies. While women in Japan have historically participated in the labor market at much lower rates, their employment rate is now higher than the rate for U.S. women. Danielle Paquette looks into how this happened. [wonkblog]

If monopolies and market power have been increasing in the United States, does that have any influence on the decline in interest rates over the last several decades? Carleton University economist Nick Rowe looks into the possible connection. [worthwhile canadian initiative]

Policymakers, economists, and market participants have started to fear the global economy is slowing down. Digging out some charts from a report by Citibank, David Keohane sees inflation cooling off across the globe—and it’s not because of declining energy prices. [ft alphaville]

Friday figure

Figure from “Where is the U.S. labor market recovery for prime-age workers?” by Ben Zipperer.