Tag: Monetarism

Money Demand a Function of Private Consumption Spending, Not Income

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Note to Self: I alway find it interesting that Friedman and the monetarists formulated money demand as a function of income rather than of private spending, or even of private consumption spending. You don’t need or want money when your income is high, unless you want to spend it.

And it seems highly likely that the ratio of desired money holdings to planned spending is much higher for consumption than investment. Money demand should therefore be a function of private sector consumption spending–and nominal interest rates–not a function of income. We thus have:

C = MV(i)/P

Y = C + I + G + (X-M)

And from this accounting framework it is very difficult indeed to make strong monetarist conclusions appear obvious facts of nature rather than weird and tendentious claims. Mankiw and Summers made this point back in 1982. And they were totally ignored—even though it was and is a very smart point…

Must-read: David Glasner: “What’s Wrong with Monetarism?”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: An excellent read from the very sharp David Glasner. I, however, disagree with the conclusion: the standard reaction of most economists to empirical failure is to save the phenomena and add another epicycle. Why not do that in this case too? Why not, as someone claimed to me that John Taylor once said, stabilize nominal GDP by passing a law mandating the Federal Reserve keep velocity-adjusted money growing at a constant rate?

David Glasner: What’s Wrong with Monetarism?: “DeLong balanced his enthusiasm for Friedman with a bow toward Keynes…

…noting the influence of Keynes on both classic and political monetarism, arguing that, unlike earlier adherents of the quantity theory, Friedman believed that a passive monetary policy was not the appropriate policy stance during the Great Depression; Friedman famously held the Fed responsible for the depth and duration of what he called the Great Contraction… in sharp contrast to hard-core laissez-faire opponents of Fed policy, who regarded even the mild and largely ineffectual steps taken by the Fed… as illegitimate interventionism to obstruct the salutary liquidation of bad investments, thereby postponing the necessary reallocation of real resources to more valuable uses…. But both agreed that there was no structural reason why stimulus would necessarily counterproductive; both rejected the idea that only if the increased output generated during the recovery was of a particular composition would recovery be sustainable. Indeed, that’s why Friedman has always been regarded with suspicion by laissez-faire dogmatists who correctly judged him to be soft in his criticism of Keynesian doctrines….

Friedman parried such attacks… [saying that] the point of a gold standard… was that it makes it costly to increase the quantity of money. That might once have been true, but advances in banking technology eventually made it easy for banks to increase the quantity of money without any increase in the quantity of gold… True, eventuaally the inflation would have to be reversed to maintain the gold standard, but that simply made alternative periods of boom and bust inevitable…. If the point of a gold standard is to prevent the quantity of money from growing excessively, then, why not just eliminate the middleman, and simply establish a monetary rule constraining the growth in the quantity of money? That was why Friedman believed that his k-percent rule… trumped the gold standard….

For at least a decade and a half after his refutation of the structural Phillips Curve, demonstrating its dangers as a guide to policy making, Friedman continued treating the money multiplier as if it were a deep structural variable, leading to the Monetarist forecasting debacle of the 1980s…. So once the k-percent rule collapsed under an avalanche of contradictory evidence, the Monetarist alternative to the gold standard that Friedman had persuasively, though fallaciously, argued was, on strictly libertarian grounds, preferable to the gold standard, the gold standard once again became the default position of laissez faire dogmatists…. So while I agree with DeLong and Krugman (and for that matter with his many laissez-faire dogmatist critics) that Friedman had Keynesian inclinations which, depending on his audience, he sometimes emphasized, and sometimes suppressed, the most important reason that he was unable to retain his hold on right-wing monetary-economics thinking is that his key monetary-policy proposal–the k-percent rule–was empirically demolished in a failure even more embarrassing than the stagflation failure of Keynesian economics. With the k-percent rule no longer available as an alternative, what’s a right-wing ideologue to do? Anyone for nominal gross domestic product level targeting (or NGDPLT for short)?

More musings on the fall of the house of Uncle Milton…

Posted on by Brad DeLong

This, from Paul Krugman, strikes me as… inadequate:

Paul Krugman: Why Monetarism Failed: “Right-wingers insisted–Friedman taught them to insist–that government intervention was always bad, always made things worse…

…Monetarism added the clause, ‘except for monetary expansion to fight recessions.’ Sooner or later gold bugs and Austrians, with their pure message, were going to write that escape clause out of the acceptable doctrine. So we have the most likely non-Trump GOP nominee calling for a gold standard, and the chairman of Ways and Means demanding that the Fed abandon its concerns about unemployment and focus only on controlling the never-materializing threat of inflation.

What about the reformicons, who pushed for neo-monetarism? We can sum up their fate in two words: Marco Rubio. There is no home for the kind of return to realism they were seeking…. The monetarist idea no longer serves any useful purpose, intellectually or politically. Hicksian macro–IS-LM or something like it–remains an extremely useful tool of both analysis and policy formulation; that tool is not helped by trying to state it in terms of monetary velocity and all that. And if you want macro policy that isn’t dictated by Ayn Rand logic, you have to turn to a Democrat; on the other side, there’s nobody rational to talk to.

Sad!

This is an issue I have worried at like a dog at a worn-out glove for a decade now. So let me worry at it again:

There were gold bugs and Austrians in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s too. But Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan and company kicked them up and down the street with gay abandon. And the Ordoliberal Germans would, when you cornered them, would admit that somebody else had to take on the job of stabilizing aggregate demand for the North Atlantic economy as a whole for their doctrines to work.

But in 2009 the Lucases and the Prescotts and the Cochranes and the Famas and the Boldrins and the Levines and the Steils and the Taylors and all the others and even the Zingaleses (but we can excuse Luigi on the grounds that if you are (a) Italian and (b) view Berlusconi as the modal politician a certain reluctance to engage in fiscal policy is understandable)–crawled out from their caves and stood in the light of day. And the few remaining students of Milton Friedman got as little respect as the Stewards of Gondor gave to the leaders of the Dunedain.

Yes, there is an intellectual tension between believing in laissez faire as a rule and believing in activist monetary management to set the market interest rate equal to the Wicksellian neutral interest rate. But why is that tension unsustainable? Once you have swallowed a government that assigns property rights, sustains contracts, and enforces weights and measures, why is this extra step a bridge too far?

The disappearance of monetarism

Posted on by Brad DeLong

I just hoisted a piece I wrote 15 years ago1—a follow-up to my “Triumph of Monetarism” that I published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. I think of it as my equivalent of Olivier Blanchard’s “The state of macro is good” piece…

However, it is, I now recognize, clearly inadequate. It is quite good on how today’s New Keynesians are really Monetarists and how today’s Monetarists are really Keynesians. But it misses completely:

  • How use of the DSGE framework was morphing from (a) a rhetorical step to emphasize that assuming that agents in models behaved “rationally” did not entail any laissez-faire inclusions to (b) an unhelpful methodological straitjacket.
  • How there were about to be no Monetarists—how the right wing of macroeconomics, the Republican Party in the United States, the Tory Party in England, and all of Germany were about to, when confronted with the choice between following Milton Friedman’s well-grounded and empirically based arguments on the one hand and a mindless lemming-like devotion to austerity on the other hand, reject both empirical evidence and coherent thought and plump enthusiastically for the second.

I am still not sure how that happened…