Tag: Monetary Policy

Must-read: Stan Fischer: “Monetary Policy, Financial Stability, and the Zero Lower Bound I”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: Very disappointing to me that both nominal GDP targeting and price path level targeting appear to be completely off of Stan Fischer’s radar:

Stan Fischer: Monetary Policy, Financial Stability, and the Zero Lower Bound I: “Are We Moving Toward a World With a Permanently Lower Long-Run Equilibrium Real Interest Rate?…

…Research that was motivated in part by attempts that began some time ago to specify the constant term in standard versions of the Taylor rule has shown a declining trend in estimates of r*. That finding has become more firmly established since the start of the Great Recession and the global financial crisis…. A lower level of the long-run equilibrium real rate suggests that the frequency and duration of future episodes in which monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB will be higher than in the past. Prior to the crisis, some research suggested that such episodes were likely to be relatively infrequent and generally short lived. The past several years certainly require us to reconsider that basic assumption….Conducting monetary policy effectively at the ZLB is challenging, to say the least….

The answer to the question ‘Will r* remain at today’s low levels permanently?’ is that we do not know….

Raising the Inflation Target…. The welfare costs of high and variable inflation could be substantial. For example, more variable inflation would make long-run planning more difficult for households and businesses….

Negative Interest Rates: Another possible step would be to reduce short-term interest rates below zero if needed to provide additional accommodation. Our colleagues in Europe are busy rewriting economics textbooks on this topic as we speak…. It is unclear how low policy rates can go before cash holdings rise or other problems intensify, but the European experience has certainly shown that zero is not the effective lower bound in those countries….

Raising the Equilibrium Real Rate: An even more ambitious approach to ease the constraints posed by the zero lower bound would be to take steps aimed at raising the equilibrium real rate. For example, expansionary fiscal policy would boost the equilibrium real rate…. The Federal Reserve’s asset purchases… have reduced the level of the term premium….

Eliminating the ZLB Associated with Physical Currency….

None of these options for dealing with the difficulties of the ZLB suggest that it will be easy either to raise the equilibrium real rate or to mitigate the constraints associated with the ZLB…

A semi-platonic dialogue about secular stagnation, asymmetric risks, Federal Reserve policy, and the role of model-building in guiding economic policy

Posted on by Brad DeLong
Sanzio 01 jpg 3 820×2 964 pixels

Sokrates: You remember how I used to say that only active dialogue–questions-and-answers, objections-and-replies–could convey true knowledge? That a flat wax tablet covered by written words could only convey an inadequate and pale simulacrum of education?

Aristoteles: Yes. And you remember how I showed you that you were wrong? That conversation is ephemeral, and very quickly becomes too confused to be a proper educational tool? That only something like an organized and coherent lecture can teach? And only something like the textbooks compiled by my lecture notes can make that teaching durable?

Aristokles: But, my Aristoteles, you never mastered my “dialogue” form. My “dialogue” form has all the advantages of permanence and organization of your textbooks, and all the advantages of real dialectic of Sokrates’s conversation.

Sokrates: How very true, wise Aristokles!

Aristokles How am I to take that?

Xanthippe: You now very well: as snark, pure snark. That’s his specialty.

Hypatia: This is all complicated by the fact that in the age of the internet real, written, permanent dialogues can spring up at a moment’s notice:

Sokrates: And with that, let’s roll the tape:

Other things linked to that are highly relevant and worth reading:

Things I did not find and place outbound links to, but should have:

  • Polya
  • Dennis Robertson
  • Donald Patinkin

Looking at the whole thing, I wince at how lazy people–especially me–have been with their weblog post titles. I should find time to go back and retitle everything, perhaps adding an explanatory sentence to each link…

Must-read: Olivier Blanchard et al.: “Macro Effects of Capital Inflows: Capital Type Matters”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Olivier Blanchard et al.: Macro Effects of Capital Inflows: Capital Type Matters: “Some scholars view capital inflows as contractionary…

…but many policymakers view them as expansionary. Evidence supports the policymakers. This column introduces an analytic framework that knits together the two views. For a given policy rate, bond inflows lead to currency appreciation and are contractionary, while non-bond inflows lead to an appreciation but also to a decrease in the cost of borrowing, and thus may be expansionary….

How can we reconcile the models and reality? [Our] answer… relies on… allowing for both ‘bonds’ (the rate on which can be thought of as the policy rate) and ‘non-bonds’… which are imperfect substitutes…. Capital inflows may decrease the rate on non-bonds and reduce the cost of financial intermediation…. Capital inflows may in this case be expansionary even for a given policy rate. In emerging markets, with a relatively underdeveloped financial system, the effect of a reduction in the cost of financial intermediation may dominate, leading to a credit boom and an output increase despite the appreciation. In more advanced economies, the appreciation may dominate, and capital inflows (even into non-bonds) may be contractionary (e.g. the Swiss case)….

The appropriate policies vis-à-vis capital inflows depend very much on the nature of the inflows.

Sterilised foreign exchange (FX) market intervention, if done through bonds (as is usually the case), can fully offset the effects of bond inflows…. When, however, sterilised foreign exchange intervention is used in response to non-bond inflows… FX intervention… by reducing upward pressure on the currency… increases capital inflows, and thus increases the effects of inflows on credit and the financial system….

The policymaker may have several objectives in mind – with respect to credit growth (given the risk of financial crisis); the currency (given the risk of Dutch disease); and output (given nominal rigidities in the system). The issue is really one of matching the policy instrument (there are three) to deliver on the most important objectives, without too much cost in terms of the other objectives…. If the central bank is worried about both appreciation and unhealthy or excessive credit growth, FX intervention or capital controls are preferable to the use of the policy rate in response to an increase in bond inflows…. In response to non-bond inflows, our framework suggests that if the goal is to maintain exchange rate stability with minimum impact on the return to non-bonds, capital controls do the job best, followed by FX intervention, followed by a move in the policy rate….

[We] use global flows to all emerging market countries together with the VIX as instruments…. We find that, while bond inflows have a negative effect on economic activity, non-bond inflows have a significant and positive effect. We also find that non-bond inflows (excluding FDI) have a strong positive effect on credit…. FDI inflows, while they increase output, have a negative impact on credit, perhaps because some of the intermediation which would have taken place through banks is replaced by FDI financing…

More musings on the current episteme of the Federal Reserve…

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Paul Krugman’s Respectable Radicalism politely points out (at least) one dimension along which I am a moron.

Let me back up: Here in the United States, the current framework for macroeconomic policy holds that the economy is nearly normalized, that further extraordinary expansionary and fiscal policy moves carry “risks”, and that as a result the right policy is stay-the-course. I was arguing that the Economist Left Opposition demand–for substantially more expansionary monetary and fiscal policies right now until we see the whites of the eyes of rising inflation–was soundly based in orthodox lowbrow Hicks-Patinkin-Tobin macro theory. That is the macro theory that economists like Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, and Stan Fischer taught their entire academic careers.

Paul Krugman points out—politely—that I am wrong.

The Economist Left Opposition framework contains at least one claim that is substantially non-orthodox: We claim that worries about the debt accumulation from expansionary fiscal policy right now are profoundly misguided. Under current conditions, the government’s borrowing money or printing money and buying stuff does not raise but lowers the debt-to-annual-GDP ratio. However large you think the influence of an outstanding debt burden on interest rates happens to be, interest rates in the future will be lower, the debt as a multiple of annual GDP will be lower, and thus the debt financing burden and all debt-related risks will be lower in the future with a more expansionary fiscal policy than baseline. This is definitely nonstandard. And it is embarrassing to note that this is my idea–or, rather, Larry Summers and I were the ones who did the arithmetic to show how topsy-turvy the macroeconomic world currently is with respect the fiscal policy. This was a really smart thing for us to do. And it is definitely not part of the standard orthodox policy-theory framework in the way that the rest of the Hicks-Patinkin Economist Left Opposition framework is.

As Paul writes:

Paul Krugman: Respectable Radicalism: “Hysteresis [in the context of very low interest rates]… is indeed a departure from standard models…

…But the [rest, the] case that the risks of hiking too soon and too late are deeply asymmetric comes right out of IS-LM with a zero lower bound… the framework I used….

Being an official… can create a conviction that you and your colleagues know more than is in the textbooks…. But… [at the] zero-lower-bound… world nobody not Japanese [had] experienced for three generations, theory and history are much more important than market savvy. I would have expected current Fed management to understand that; but apparently not.

I wrote about Rawls’s reflective equilibrium idea yesterday, so let me just cut and paste: Are models properly idea-generating machines, in which you start from what you think is the case and use the model-building process to generate new insights? Or are models merely filing systems–ways of organizing your beliefs, and whenever you find that your model is leading you to a surprising conclusion that you find distasteful the proper response is to ignore the model, or to tweak it to make the distasteful conclusion go away?

Both can be effectively critiqued. Models-as-discovery-mechanisms suffer from the Polya-Robertson problem: It involves replacing what he calls “plausible reasoning”, where models are there to assist thinking, with what he calls “demonstrative reasoning”. in which the model itself becomes the object of analysis. The box that is the model is well described but, as Dennis Robertson warned,there is no reason to think that the box contains anything real. Models-as-filing-systems are often used like a drunk uses a lamp post: more for support than illumination.

In the real world, it is, of course, the case that models are both: both filing systems and discovery mechanisms. Coherent and productive thought is, as the late John Rawls used to say, always a process of reflective equilibrium–in which the trinity of assumptions, modes of reasoning, and conclusions are all three revised and adjusted under the requirement of coherence until a maximum level of comfort with all three is reached. The question is always one of balance.

What I think Paul Krugman may be missing here is how difficult it is to, as Keynes wrote:

The composition of this book has been for the author a long struggle of escape… from habitual modes of thought and expression. The ideas which are here expressed so laboriously are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds…

In this case, the old ideas with respect to the budget deficit are those of various versions of fiscal crisis and fiscal price level theory developed largely out of analysis of Latin American and southern European experience, and those of various versions of monetarist theory based upon the experience of the 1970s. How difficult this is is illustrated by one fact I find interesting about Paul Krugman (1999): Back then, his analysis of the liquidity trap and fiscal policy back in 1999 was… very close to Ken Rogoff’s analysis of the liquidity trap and fiscal policy today:

Paul Krugman (1999): Thinking About the Liquidity Trap, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 14:4 (December), pp. 221–237: “The story… [of] self-fulfilling pessimism is… a multiple equilibrium story…

…with the liquidity trap corresponding to the low-level equilibrium…. Over some range spending rises more than one-for-one with income. (Why should the relationship flatten out at high and low levels? At high levels resource constraints begin to bind; at low levels the obvious point is that gross investment hits its own zero constraint. There is a largely forgotten literature on this sort of issue, including Hicks (194?), Goodwin (194?), and Tobin (1947))….
Thinking about the liquidity trap

Multiple equilibria… allow for permanent (or anyway long-lived) effects from temporary policies. There may be excess desired savings even at a zero real interest rate given the pessimism that now prevails… but if some policy could push the economy to a high level of output for long enough to change those expectations, the policy would not have to be maintained…. Balance-sheet problems… may involve an element of self-fulfilling slump: a firm that looks insolvent with an output gap of 10 percent might be reasonably healthy at full employment….

‘Pump-priming’ fiscal policy is the conventional answer to a liquidity trap…. In either the IS-LM model or a more sophisticated intertemporal model fiscal expansion will indeed offer short-run relief…. So why not consider the problem solved? The answer hinges on the government’s own budget constraint….

Ricardian equivalence… is not the crucial issue…. Real purchases… will still create employment…. (In a fully Ricardian setup the multiplier on government consumption will be exactly 1)….

The problem instead is that deficit spending does lead to a large government debt, which will if large enough start to raise questions about solvency. One might ask why government debt matters if the interest rate is zero…. But the liquidity trap, at least in the version I take seriously, is not… permanent…. [When] the natural rate of interest… turn[s] positive… the inherited debt will indeed be a problem….

Fiscal policy [is] a temporary expedient that cannot serve as a solution [unless]….

First, if the liquidity trap is short-lived… fiscal policy can serve as a bridge… after [which]… monetary policy will again be able to shoulder the load… a severe but probably short-lived financial crisis in trading partners… breathing space during which firms get their balance sheets in order….

[Second, if] it will jolt the economy into a higher equilibrium…. If this is the underlying model… one must realize that the criterion for success is quite strong…. Fiscal expansion… must lead to… increases in private demand so large that the economy begins a self-sustaining process of recovery….

None of this should be read as a reason to abandon fiscal stimulus…. But fiscal stimulus… [is only] a way of buying time… [absent] assumptions that are at the very least rather speculative…

Since 1999, Paul has changed his mind. He has become an aggressive advocate of expansionary fiscal policy as the preferred solution. Why? And is he right to have done so? Or should he have stuck to his 1999 position, and should he still be lining up with Ken today?

One part of the reason, I think, is–and I say this with whatever modesty I have ever had still intact–that DeLong and Summers (2012) has provided one of the very very few additions of conceptual value-added to Krugman (1999). We pointed out that with a modest degree of “secular stagnation”–a modest fall in safe real interest rates over the long run–and a slight degree of hysteresis, fiscal expansion in a liquidity trap does not worsen but improves the long-run fiscal balance of an economy in a liquidity trap. This was something that Krugman missed in 1999. It is something that people like Rogoff continue to miss today.

This has consequences: The more scared you are of some long-run collapse of the currency from excessive government debt relative to annual GDP, the stronger you should advocate for more expansionary fiscal policy when the economy is in a liquidity trap. The more you think that real interest rates in the long run are coupled to high values of government debt relative to annual GDP, the stronger you should advocate for more expansionary fiscal policy when the economy is in a liquidity trap. The more you worry about debt crowding-out useful and productive government spending in the long run, the stronger you should advocate for more expansionary fiscal policy when the economy is in a liquidity trap. This whole line of thought, however, was absent from Krugman (1999), and is absent from Rogoff and company today.

A second part of the reason is that even modest “secular stagnation” does more than (with even a slight degree of hysteresis) reverse the sign on the relationship between fiscal expansion today and long-run government-debt burdens. It also undermines the effectiveness of monetary policy as an alternative to fiscal policy. Monetary expansion–in the present or the future–needs a post-liquidity trap interest-rate “normalization” environment to have the purchase to raise the future price level that it needs to be effective in stimulating production now. Secular stagnation removes or delays or attenuates that normalization.

Third comes the credibility problem.

Fourth, there is a sense in which Paul has not shifted that much. Look at his analysis of Japan…

Third comes the credibility problem. Back in the days of Krugman (1999), he at least had little doubt that a central bank that understood the situation would want to generate the expected inflation needed. That was the way to create a configuration of relative prices consistent with full employment. That was what a competent central bank would wish to do. And a central bank that wished to create expectations of higher inflation would have a very easy time doing so.

The mixed success of Abenomics, however, has cast doubt on the second of these—on the ability of central banks to easily generate higher expected inflation. Japan today appears to be having a significantly harder time generating expectations of inflation than I had presumed. And

With respect to the first—the desire to create higher expected inflation—Ben Bernanke, while chairman of the Federal Reserve, repeatedly declared that quantitative easing policies were not intended to produce any breach of the 2% per year inflation target upward. These declarations were not something that I expected, and were not something that I understood. They still leave me profoundly puzzled.

Fourth, there is a sense in which Paul has not shifted that much. Look at his analysis of Japan today. In his view, fiscal expansion today is needed to create the actual inflation today that will (i) raise the needle on future expected inflation, and so (ii) allow for a shift to policies that (iii) will amortize rather than grow the national debt. Inflation someday generated by the fiscal theory of the price level and high future interest rates generated by the risks of debt accumulation still have their places in his thought.

Musings on the current episteme of the Federal Reserve

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Larry Summers attributes the Federal Reserve’s decision to tighten policy, in what appears to him and to me to be a weakly-growing and high-slack economy, to four mistakes, which are themselves driven by a fifth, overarching mistake. The four mistakes are:

  1. The Fed has much too much confidence in its models that tell it that the unemployment rate takes the temperature of the labor market and the Phillips Curve now still has the slope it had in the 1970s.
  2. The Fed operates as though FOMC members are tased whenever inflation rises above 2%/year, with no countervailing painful consequences of low inflation, low employment, or low output.
  3. The Fed believes–without empirical support anywhere that I can see–that quick sharp moves up or down in interest rates have larger effects in total than the same interest-rate change made gradually and over a longer term.
  4. The Fed thinks–without theoretical support that I can see–that zero interest rates are not a reflection of an economy in a pathological state, but rather a cause of economic pathology that is dangerous now that the economy is once again “normal”.

And Summers sees the fifth, overarching mistake the Fed is making right now as:

(5) The Fed is excessively committed to “existing models and modes of thought… in the thrall of orthodoxy”:

Larry Summers: My Views and the Fed’s Views on Secular Stagnation: “First, the Fed assigns a much greater chance that we will reach 2 percent core inflation…

…than is suggested by most available data…. Second, the Fed seems to mistakenly regard 2 percent inflation as a ceiling not a target…. Third, the Fed seems to be in the thrall of notions that… do not… have analytic support premised on the idea that the rate of change of interest rates, as distinct from their level, influences aggregate demand…. I know of no model in which demand will be stronger in say 2018 if rates rise and then fall than if they are kept constant at zero. Nor… do I know of a reason why recession is more likely if the changes are backloaded…. The argument… is in the category with the argument that I should starve myself in order to have the pleasure of relieving my hunger pangs. Fourth, the Fed is… overestimating the neutral rate…. The desire to raise rates reflects… a sense that zero rates are a sign of pathology and an economy creating 200,000 jobs a month is not diseased….

Why is the Fed making these mistakes if indeed they are mistakes? It is not because its leaders are not thoughtful or open minded or concerned with growth and employment.  Rather I suspect it is because of an excessive commitment to existing models and modes of thought…

I do think–confidently–that Summers is absolutely 100% correct in his identification of the four component intellectual errors that the Federal Reserve is currently making. And it is certainly true that these are the result of an excessive commitment to some current modes of thought–there are, after all, a lot of people who join the Fed in thinking that zero interest rates are a cause rather than the proper treatment of pathology right now, that the Fed needs to raise rates now to give it the space to lower them if need be later, that it is dangerous for inflation to rise above 2%/year ever, that the Phillips Curve somehow has a steeper slope than the recent evidence of the past generation can justify belief in, and that the unemployment rate rather than the detrended employment-to-population ratio gives the temperature of the labor market.

But do these beliefs on the part of the Fed really reflect an excessive commitment to existing models? There I have my doubts. Or, rather, it depends on what you think the proper function of economic modeling is. Are models properly idea-generating machines, in which you start from what you think is the case and use the model-building process to generate new insights? Or are models merely filing systems–ways of organizing your beliefs, and whenever you find that your model is leading you to a surprising conclusion that you find distasteful the proper response is to ignore the model, or to tweak it to make the distasteful conclusion go away?

Both can be effectively critiqued. Models-as-discovery-mechanisms suffer from the Polya-Robertson problem: It involves replacing what he calls “plausible reasoning”, where models are there to assist thinking, with what he calls “demonstrative reasoning”. in which the model itself becomes the object of analysis. The box that is the model is well described but, as Dennis Robertson warned,there is no reason to think that the box contains anything real. Models-as-filing-systems are often used like a drunk uses a lamp post: more for support than illumination.

In the real world, it is, of course, the case that models are both: both filing systems and discovery mechanisms. Coherent and productive thought is, as the late John Rawls used to say, always a process of reflective equilibrium–in which the trinity of assumptions, modes of reasoning, and conclusions are all three revised and adjusted under the requirement of coherence until a maximum level of comfort with all three is reached. The question is always one of balance.

But it is clear to me that if you give even minor weight to the first–see well-founded models as a way of generating new insights rather than just organizing old beliefs–that the line of work into the economics of the liquidity trap that I see as well-represented by Krugman’s (1999) “Thinking About the Liquidity Trap” tells us, very strongly, that the Federal Reserve is on the wrong track intellectually right now. It tells us that what is out of whack has not been and is not the real money stock, but is instead the expected inflation rate. Or, rather, that because the expected inflation rate is too low, there is no value of the real money stock consistent with full employment equilibrium. If expected inflation were higher, the existing money stock would be ample, or even require shrinking.

This is the conclusion of Krugman (1999): that the economy needs higher expected and actual inflation, and that the free-market economy with full price flexibility would deliver that inflation. But the Fed does not appear to acknowledge either that the economy needs higher inflation, that the flexible-price benchmark would deliver this inflation, or that the job of the Fed is to mimic that full employment-generating price structure as closely as possible.

Moreover, the Fed does not engage in reflective equilibrium. It rejects the conclusions of what I regard as the standard Patinkin-style existing model of Krugman (1999). But it does not propose an alternative model. There seems to me to be no theoretical ground, no model even considered as a filing system, underpinning the “orthodox” modes of thought that the Fed believes. And it does not seem to feel this absence aaa a problem. I find that somewhat disturbing.

Must-read: Mark Thoma: “On Summers: My Views and the Fed’s Views on Secular Stagnation”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: I would say that if monetary policy makers wish to place limits on what can be expected from monetary policy, they need to also be making loud and constructive arguments about what will do the stabilization policy job if monetary policy is not going to push the envelope. I don’t think Plosser ever made loud and constructive arguments directing other policy makers to do a constructive job…

Mark Thoma: On Summers: My Views and the Fed’s Views on Secular Stagnation: “The Fed’s job would have been, and will be a lot easier if fiscal policy makers would help…

…I disagree with Charles Plosser’s view on monetary policy, but I have some sympathy for the view that many people have come to expect too much from monetary policy:

On the monetary policy side central banks have clearly pushed the envelope in an effort to stabilize and then promote real economic growth. The pressure to do so has come from inside and outside the central banks… raised expectations of what the central bank can do…. It is not clear that this is wise or prudent.  Many have come to fear that without substantial support from monetary policy our economies will slump into stagnation. This would seem to fly in the face of nearly two centuries of economic thinking…

If secular stagnation is real, the Fed cannot overcome it by itself. Fiscal policy will have to be part of the solution…. Monetary policy — and fiscal policy too — can have a permanent impact on the natural rate of output by helping the economy to recover faster. The faster the recovery, the less the natural rate is lowered. So I agree with Summers that monetary policy needs to take the possibility of secular stagnation into account, I just wish he’d put more emphasis on the essential role of fiscal policy — something he has certainly done in the past, e.g.:

I believe that it is appropriate that we go back to an earlier tradition that has largely passed out of macroeconomics of thinking about fiscal policy as having a major role in economic stabilization…

The 6 major adverse shocks that have hit the U.S. macroeconomy since 2005

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Talk to people at the Federal Reserve these days about how they feel about the institution’s performance during the seven very lean years from late 2008 to late 2015, and they tend to be relatively proud of how the institution performed. Almost smug.

Why? Well, let me pull out my old workhorse-graph of the four salient components of U.S. aggregate demand since 1999:

FRED Graph FRED St Louis Fed

And let me run through the six major adverse shocks to the U.S. macroeconomy since 2005:

(1) The collapse of residential investment after the end of the mid-2000s housing bubble, in order of their size (-3.8% of potential GDP):

FRED Graph FRED St Louis Fed

(2) The wave of austerity–mostly state-and-local, but considerable at the federal level as well–hitting government purchases (-3.0% of potential GDP):

FRED Graph FRED St Louis Fed

(3) The collapse of business fixed investment in the aftermath of the financial crisis (-2.9% of potential GDP):

FRED Graph FRED St Louis Fed

(4) The blockage of the credit channel that prevented there from being much significant bounce-back to normal in residential construction (-1.8% of potential GDP):

FRED Graph FRED St Louis Fed

(5) The (closely-associated with (3)) collapse of exports as the effects of the financial crisis spread beyond U.S. borders (-1.8% of potential GDP):

FRED Graph FRED St Louis Fed

And (6) on a different graph (since it is not one of the four salient components), and also closely-associated with (3), the adverse shock to consumption as it became clear first that there was going to be a deep and then a long downturn (-1.8% of potential GDP):

Graph Real Potential Gross Domestic Product FRED St Louis Fed

Those at the Federal Reserve these days put to one side (1) the extraordinary failure of foresight that led to the adoption of a 2%/year inflation target that nobody who had any inkling of what 2008-2015 would be like would ever have adopted; (2) truly massive failures of prudential regulation of housing finance and derivatives markets before 2008; and (3) bobbling the initial crisis response in the year starting October 2007. They deeply regret the hysteresis-driven damage to the long-run growth of the economy produced by the Lesser Depression–the physical investments not made, the new business models not experimented with, the organizational destruction unaccompanied by the “creative” part of the Schumpeterian process, the human-capital investments not made, the worker attachments to the labor market lost. And they say: given those six shocks and their magnitude, haven’t we done rather well at stabilizing the economy? Haven’t we certainly done much better than the BoJ, or the ECB, or the Bank of England?

And they are right: they have.

Since late 2008, the Federal Reserve has a lot to be proud of.

Must-read: Paul Krugman (2014): “The Limits of Purely Monetary Policies”

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: The arguments for quantitative-easing-as-stimulus were always twofold: (1) Taking duration risk off of private-sector balance sheets is a thing, even if a small thing. (2) It is unreasonable for markets to believe and for liquidity injections this large to be completely unwound at the end of the day when the long-run comes and the sea is calm and flat again. (1) appears to be small. And (2) appears to be false. But is (2) false because markets expect quantitative easing to be totally unwound? Or is it because markets don’t have “expectations” of anything the way we economists think they do? Moreover, I had an argument (3)–that the liquidity trap only emerged because financial disruption destroyed the risk-bearing capacity of the market, and that quantitative easing would (a) provide some of that risk-bearing capacity directly via the government, and (b) lure private-sector risk-bearing back into the marketplace. Why is it wrong?

Paul Krugman (2014): The Limits of Purely Monetary Policies: “But, asks Evans-Pritchard, what if the central bank simply gives households money?…

…Well, that is, as he notes, really fiscal policy…. [And] central banks aren’t in the business of just giving money away… [but] of asset swap[s]…. Still, isn’t this just theory? Well, no. Huge increases in the monetary base in previous liquidity trap episodes had no visible effect…. I have supported QE in both Britain and the US, on the grounds that (a) central bank purchases of longer-term and riskier assets may help and can’t hurt, and (b) given political paralysis in the US and the dominance of bad macroeconomic thinking in the UK, it’s all we’ve got. But the view I used to hold before 1998–that central banks can always cause inflation if they really want to–just doesn’t hold up, theoretically or empirically.

Paul Krugman (2014): The Simple Analytics of Monetary Impotence: “If we have rational expectations and frictionless capital markets…

…which we don’t, but let’s see what would happen if we did… [plus] logarithmic utility… then…

C = C(P/P)/(1+r)…

an Euler equation that lets us read off current consumption from future consumption, current and future price levels, and the interest rate…. Now suppose that we’re in a New Keynesian world in which prices are temporarily sticky; so P is given. And… we’re at the zero lower bound, so r=0. Then there’s only one moving part here: the expected future price level. Anything you do–monetary or fiscal–affects current consumption to the extent, and only to the extent, that it moves the expected future price level. Full stop, end of story. An immediate implication is that the current money supply doesn’t matter…. Don’t talk to me about monetary neutrality, or how it stands to reason that money must matter, or helicopter money, or even money-financed deficits; we’ve taken all of that into account….

Now, if we let households be liquidity-constrained, giving them transfer payments can affect current spending; but that’s a fiscal point…. Another perhaps less immediate implication is that there is no crowding out from temporary fiscal expansion…. Notice that this is in an approach with full Ricardian equivalence; so every economist who claimed that Ricardian equivalence makes fiscal expansion ineffective has actually shown that he doesn’t understand the concept….

I’m not claiming that this Euler equation is The Truth. If you want to make arguments about policy that rely on… imperfect capital markets, fine. But that’s not what I hear in most of this discussion; what I hear instead are attempts to talk things through that end up being, unintentionally, word games… reason[ing] in terms of concepts like monetary neutrality that aren’t as well-defined as [people] think… fooling themselves into believing that they’ve demonstrated things they haven’t.

Now, one good exception is Brad DeLong’s argument that money does too work in a liquidity trap because such traps are always the result of disrupted financial markets. What I’d say is that they are sometimes caused by financial disruption. But is this one of those times?…. If you disagree, please try to put your argument in terms of what the people in your model are doing–not in terms of catchphrases.

Must-Read: Simon Wren-Lewis: The Knowledge Transmission Mechanism and Austerity

Posted on by Brad DeLong

Must-Read: A good wrestle with a very tough intellectual problem by the truly excellent Simon Wren-Lewis:

Simon Wren-Lewis: The Knowledge Transmission Mechanism and Austerity: “How do economic policy mistakes happen?…

…Policy makers want to do the right thing (although they have political preferences), and the academic consensus is correct, but policy makers do not follow it because they rely on imperfect intermediaries….

In contrast to the 1930s, the key features of the current situation are explicable in terms of textbook macroeconomic theory. Governments are actively trying to reduce their budget deficits through fiscal austerity, and this is having a predictably negative impact on economic activity when monetary policy is unable to offset its effects. So the current macroeconomic crisis does not seem to be the result of lack of macroeconomic understanding….

[The] folk story… often told by policy makers [has basic problems. It is that] in response to the Great Recession… some countries had employed a limited fiscal stimulus… this intervention, the recession itself and earlier failures of governments to be fiscally prudent led to a debt-funding crisis. Economies realised that they too could become like Greece, and so were forced to embark on a sharp fiscal contraction, commonly called austerity…. [But] there is no clear evidence that there were serious fiscal problems [outside of Greece] before the financial crisis… debt increased… because of the impact of the recession itself… no evidence whatsoever of a debt-funding crisis outside the Eurozone… if anything a shortage of debt…. How can I blame the second Eurozone recession on fiscal austerity with such confidence?… First, it is what basic macroeconomics – the macroeconomics taught to every undergraduate and post-graduate around the world, including in Germany – tells us. Second, it is what every independent model based exercise that I have seen also tells us….

Things have gone wrong in the Eurozone not because of any inadequacies in macroeconomic theory, but because that theory was ignored by policymakers…. I think it is worth exploring [the] alternative: that policy has gone wrong because the knowledge transmission mechanism (KTM) has failed…. Why might [policymakers] have been getting the wrong advice? One response is that they asked the wrong people…. The expansionary austerity line… appeared to be the one that many policymakers adopted. If the KTM had been working, then this result could only have been a consequence of policy makers willfully choosing to adopt a minority academic point of view for political ends…. Political commentators… unlikely to be economists… relate to… financial bookkeeping. It is… easy… to tell stories about excessive borrowing, but rather more difficult to talk about multiplier effects and the ZLB…. There are also important interactions between economists working in the financial sector and the media…. There is a saying in financial markets: “bond economists never saw a fiscal tightening they didn’t like”….

Among the governors of the three major central banks, only Ben Bernanke seemed prepared to say publicly that a severe fiscal contraction would make his job much more difficult. Central banks also seem far too optimistic, at least when they talk publicly, about the impact of unconventional monetary policy measures…. It seems to me that the main reason why central banks failed to give good advice on fiscal consolidation is that, among their leaders at least, there is a deep seated fear of fiscal dominance. They fear that if deficits are large, then at some stage they will be asked (or required) to monetise those deficits and that inflation will increase as a result. As Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England in 2010, once said: “Central banks are often accused of being obsessed with inflation. This is untrue. If they are obsessed with anything, it is with fiscal policy.”… It possible to argue that King’s role in 2010 was actually quite pivotal…. Central banks therefore played a crucial role in the failure of the KTM in 2010. They were naturally seen as a source for macroeconomic received wisdom, and indeed they were, if those seeking advice had talked directly to those involved in modelling the business cycle. In practice, however, advice was received from central bank governors, and in most part that did not convey received macroeconomic wisdom…

But…

My memory of what the bulk of policy-oriented macroeconomists were saying in 2008-10 is:

  1. Central banks are not tapped out at the zero-lower bound.
  2. Even at the zero lower bound, fiscal multipliers are relatively low.
  3. Debt issued now will have to be refinanced later at high interest rates.
  4. Hence expansionary fiscal policy can be a temporary bridge, but is not a solution.
  5. North Atlantic economies recover robustly and rapidly from demand shocks on their own.