Category Archives: Economics

Monetary Policy Isn’t the Channel through which You Want to Conduct Housing Policy

suburb housing

Robert Shiller has a column out (July 13) in The New York Times arguing against our longstanding national policy of incentivizing homeownership through direct and indirect subsidies. I’m very much of the persuasion that the benefits of homeownership that advocates have proclaimed, such as “planning, discipline, permanency and community spirit”, are outweighed by the costs of policies we’ve enacted to encourage it. So I agree with roughly 90% of what he has to say, especially with regards to getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction.

Unfortunately, continuing the troubling trend of reaching for policy ends with monetary policy other than full employment and moderate inflation, Shiller includes the Federal Reserve’s programs of quantitative easing (QE) among a list of programs and arrangements he is critical of.

These three rounds of QE that the Fed has implemented since the onset of the financial crisis operate under the theory that purchasing long-term bonds and mortgage-backed securities reduces long-term interest rates and spurs business investment. That’s a correct theory, and evidence of it being correct, while sadly underwhelming in the context of 7.6% unemployment and 1.2% inflation (core PCE), can be seen in interest rates on a myriad of long-term bonds. Moreover, as the Fed has begun formally discussing the conclusion of QE3 at recent FOMC meetings, market reactions have shown that investors are very susceptible to these bond buying programs.

10 year UST june 19

More generally speaking, and perhaps more intuitively from a consumer point of view, accommodative monetary policy boosts spending on durable goods that are dependent on consumer credit—cars and houses, etc. Reducing interest rates means that these items become more affordable, purchases of these goods increase, as does employment along their supply chains.

Along that line, ending the accommodative monetary policy at the Fed, QE, for the sake of stopping people from buying houses is insane. Again, unemployment is high and inflation is low. Effectively ending what meager recovery we’re having for the sake of traditionally non-monetary policy related objectives is an extremely bad proposal. It’s certainly the case that tighter money will diminish our collective ability to buy houses and stop another housing bubble from forming. That’s because tight money has the curious effect of reducing aggregate demand, reducing consumer spending, reducing investment, and increasing unemployment. Namely, it causes recessions.

While the risks and consequences of eventual knock on effects stemming from QE seem much more subdued than what many people such as Shiller have been saying, they are a possibility. But raising economy wide borrowing costs, eroding expectations of future growth, and pumping up the value of the dollar and consequently hurting our national export position so that people buy fewer houses is not something central bankers should be considering at a time of 7.6% unemployment and 1.2% inflation. And it’s not something that smart, Yale economists should be promoting.

Yet they are doing just that. It’s nuts.

Advertisements

Comments Off on Monetary Policy Isn’t the Channel through which You Want to Conduct Housing Policy

Filed under Economics

What Hath Austerity Wrought?

The politics of austerity is evolving and will continue to do so if the euro zone’s second biggest economy, France, elects a new government. Further evidence is on display in the Netherlands, where Mark Rutte recently tendered his resignation as support for his government’s newly proposed austerity budget collapsed.

Below is a chart from Business Insider showing the growth of real gross domestic product from 2003. Concentrating on the United Kingdom, I’ve added a line showing the clear shift away from stimulative fiscal policy to austere fiscal policy. Another thing this line clearly demarcates is the exact time of the 2010 parliamentary elections and the formation of a new Conservative government, headed by David Cameron, that swept into office on a campaign of reigning in government expenditures.

Note the cutoff in positive growth, the flattening of the line. Not surprising, really. You don’t magically increase aggregate demand in an environment in which private actors are overwhelmingly deleveraging by cutting the only type of spending your economy has going for it–government spending.

Now compare this recession to the Great Depression.

To put it plainly, the UK isn’t doing well. And neither are any other countries that have adopted policies of austerity in the aftermath of 2008, save perhaps Germany for dissimilar reasons.

Comments Off on What Hath Austerity Wrought?

Filed under Economics, Politics

All Quiet on the Monetary Front

From the FOMC’s latest statement:

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee expects moderate economic growth over coming quarters and consequently anticipates that the unemployment rate will decline gradually toward levels that the Committee judges to be consistent with its dual mandate. Strains in global financial markets have eased, though they continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook. The recent increase in oil and gasoline prices will push up inflation temporarily, but the Committee anticipates that subsequently inflation will run at or below the rate that it judges most consistent with its dual mandate.

To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee expects to maintain a highly accommodative stance for monetary policy. In particular, the Committee decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions–including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run–are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.

The Committee also decided to continue its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in September. […]

Arguments regarding credibility and how difficult it is to earn in the world of central banking are often brandished about. Central bankers often imply that it’s the most dear and precious thing, and that it should not be squandered at any cost. The Federal Reserve has a lot of said credibility insofar as they are really good at fighting inflation. But that’s where the problem presents itself: that inflation fighting credibility comes at the cost of unemployment fighting credibility (it doesn’t have to, and there are examples of this, but that’s been the popular policy stance in the U.S. and Europe).

Many observers expected a more hawkish stance from the Fed following the positive news of the past few months; that qualifies as bad central banking to me and displays a lack of the appropriate kind of credibility. If they’re going to make explicit remarks such as keeping rates near zero through 2014, which I think they should continue to do, they shouldn’t find it acceptable that people second-guess them. Especially now, when expectations are the primary policy tool! I would find it mighty troubling that an unambiguous and neutral statement–by the Fed’s standards–was interpreted to be good news simply because the bad decisions that were expected didn’t materialize.

Comments Off on All Quiet on the Monetary Front

Filed under Economics

*Most* Signs Point to Continuing Recovery

The economy added a healthy 227,000 net jobs in February, marking the third consecutive month of job growth exceeding 200,000.  The unemployment rate remained unchanged at 8.3%, as the number of newly employed was essentially canceled out by those rejoining the labor force. Perhaps just as important, revisions to previous months’ numbers were significant: an additional 78,000 net jobs were added in December and January than was previously measured. All good news.

So will that continue? Some think we’re in for a few months of less than impressive growth in GDP, which would presumably result in a similar story for labor. Others aren’t convinced of that. Real gross domestic product involves a fair amount of inherent haziness, especially regarding productivity gains and losses. It’s just as likely that a shift in composition and geography of labor in some sectors could contribute to these future reductions in RGDP growth without sacrificing a commensurate number of jobs. For example, rising wages in outsource-destination countries, as well as further decline of the dollar, could lead to a repatriation of some jobs. Hence reduced GDP and more jobs.

A larger concern of mine, however, is one that many commentators share. Barring unforeseen oil induced shocks (ahem, dropping bombs on Iran…ahem), the biggest threat to a sustained recovery is an overzealous Federal Reserve. With core inflation hovering around the Fed’s now explicit target of 2%, it’s to be expected that inflation hawks on the FOMC will start getting louder. Moreover, we should expect certain prices to rise faster than some; an unabated recovery will naturally precipitate higher rent and gasoline prices. This shouldn’t be seen as distressing, although it certainly will. It will be the natural result of i) increased demand for oil as business activity increases and more people drive to work, and ii) pent-up demand for apartments and houses, which was subdued as a result of stagnate new household formation during the recession. There has at least been talk of QE3, or “Sterilized” bond purchases–which is a really informative and helpful thing to call it. If the Fed really wanted to put us over the top, this is the course of action they’d take, especially now. Expectations of QE3 are nearly nonexistent considering the recent improvements in the labor market and economy writ large. That’s why such a move would be unequivocal: the Fed stands behind this recovery.

While I don’t think that’s likely, it’s my hope that they’ll remain at least neutral, rather than tighten policy at a tragic time. There should be enough non-maniacs voting at FOMC meetings at any given time to prevent that.

Comments Off on *Most* Signs Point to Continuing Recovery

Filed under Economics

Depression and Total War, in Color

The Library of Congress recently released a huge collection of color photographs, taken by the Farm Security Administration (FSA) and later the Office of War Information (OWI), from the late 1930s and 1940s. Stunning stuff.

It’s all quite àpropos of current circumstances. Mobilization, also know as large and sweeping direct government spending in some circles, finally brought us back to full employment.

Comments Off on Depression and Total War, in Color

Filed under Economics

Meaningful Long-term Budget Forecasts and Beating the Health Care Horse

When someone is talking about debt and deficits, they’re implicitly talking about future spending on health care. That’s the determining factor in forecasted long-run problems. Not trivialities like discretionary spending, not social security. Health care. But Mark Thoma asks whether or not those forecasts are logically sound. The math isn’t wrong, and it makes intuitive sense; extrapolating from where things stand now, health care spending will become an increasingly large part of the budget. But more fundamentally?

We can’t forecast very well beyond a 3 to 6 month horizon, yet we are relying upon projections for decades in the future as the basis for cutting social programs now. The CBO, for example, uses a 70 year projection for revenues and outlays, and that is the basis of a lot of the worry over the long-term budget picture. But, did we have any idea at all 70 years ago — in 1942 — what health care costs would be today?

The point is well taken. Hell, I’ll be very disappointed if I’m not half-machine by 2070. Essentially, a lot of things can happen to steer us off this path. We could suddenly stop consuming health care at the level we do now, meaning lower demand and prices. Technological progress could turn medicine into something vaguely resembling robiticized manufacturing—done by robots on the cheap.

So, what to make of all the talk of projections of this sort? This might sound slightly cynical, but… I think everyone sort of already understands this uncertainty on some level. Most of these fiscal doomsayers aren’t considering these forecasts as much more than political ammunition for propagating normative prescriptions.

Thoma goes on to quote Jeff Sachs, who rails against conservative tendencies in calling for an end to the welfare state based off this notion of imminent bankruptcy. Why bring pain to millions now because something might or might not happen seventy years from now?

One of the unshakable myths of the punditariat is that the federal government is going bankrupt because of entitlements spending, especially spending on Medicare and Medicaid. Each day we hear the drumbeat saying that either we cut entitlements now or we are finished as a nation.

I want to defend the obverse side of that coin. Why should we progressives wish to change health care as an institution? Maybe we’re in no danger of being run dry because of health care! Well, while we might not know how health care costs will manifest themselves seventy years from now, we do know, contra Thoma’s remark on our predictive capabilities, what it will cost ten to twenty years from now. I say that because regardless of what changes lay in front of us, minus the discovery of the fountain of youth, the health care sector is large and has inertia and won’t be radically and quickly changing course. Steering the Titanic, and all that. To wit, we know health care is going to stay expensive and get more expensive in the short- to medium-term. We should try to make that not so. The facts also show that our aggregate outcomes, in terms of better health, aren’t commensurate with our level of spending. That’s simply a waste of resources that could otherwise be directed to more socially beneficial undertakings. Secondly, and more importantly, the old standby: there is an immense amount of suffering and inequity that takes place in heath care markets—namely, insurance markets. Per the progressive view on the state and the role it should play in society, we can ameliorate this suffering and inequity.

Should the CBO and varying other parties even bother with these types of forecasts? Are they useful? In any prophetic way, not really. We don’t know how anything is going to play-out that far down the road. However, it’s useful in highlighting that we do suffer from a health care problem, even if its exigency is overstated. So, as they say, “When in Rome, use all estimates of future health care spending to your advantage.”

Comments Off on Meaningful Long-term Budget Forecasts and Beating the Health Care Horse

Filed under Economics, Health care

The United States of America Isn’t a Business

Atrios, stating the simple truth that being good at something doesn’t axiomatically make you good at something else, points to a Paul Krugman post regarding the ubiquitous sentiment that smart businessmen make good economic policymakers.

Leaving aside all the questions about what Mitt Romney did or didn’t do at Bain — and about his self-aggrandizing double standard — there’s an even broader question: why does anyone believe that success in business qualified someone to make economic policy?

For the fact is that running a business is nothing at all like making macro policy. The key point about macroeconomics is the pervasiveness of feedback loops due to the fact that workers are also consumers. No business sells a large fraction of its output to its own workers; even very small countries sell around two-thirds of their output to themselves, because that much is non-tradable services.

This makes a huge difference. A businessman can slash his workforce in half, produce about the same as before, and be considered a big success; an economy that does the same plunges into depression, and ends up not being able to sell its goods.

The answer to that question is probably rooted in the fact that [number far exceeding 90%] of people have never been privileged to a class on even rudimentary macroeconomics. (Also an explanation for why Ron Paul has so many followers when, literally, he has 19th century views on how the world operates).

I’m not saying that is necessarily a fault of their own. Contrarily, this chronic notion speaks to the continuing failures of American elites to be honest and forthright with the electorate.

That is, unless they actually believe this nonsense. That can’t be the case, though, right? 

Right?…

Comments Off on The United States of America Isn’t a Business

Filed under Economics

Sucker for Signs, cont.

This awesome sign brought to you by courtesy of Matt Yglesias.

Comments Off on Sucker for Signs, cont.

Filed under Economics

Sucker for Signs

Homerun! Some serious recruiting needs done, unfortunately.

Paul adds one caveat:

Small quibble: under current conditions, with a large debt overhang, the AD curve should be upward-sloping!

Comments Off on Sucker for Signs

Filed under Economics

Thoughts on Occupy Wall St. and Awesome Protest Signs

Since September 17th, the Occupy Wall St. protests have been slowly coming into focus. The public and news media are bearing witness to the disconcerting truth a lot of people are hurting out there and many of them blame it on callous and unreceptive policymakers. Along with the increased publicity has come, naturally, a dose of condescension regarding what exactly these “loony lefties’” complaints are and what they want out of these protests. I don’t want to get hung up on crucifying these people over the early handling of the protests since it’s irrelevant but I find the blatant contradiction on display humorous. Consider the rise of the Tea Party and how members of the press were literally attaching their own narratives to it in order to give the movement more salience, regardless of what all the tri-corner hats were actually saying.

I’m in agreement with a significant bloc of other liberals, as well as the protestors themselves, in not wishing for an exact and proper formulation of demands which upon compliance would be indicative of “success”. Throughout the recession and ensuing three years, palpable pressure has been seldom applied from the left in any cogent manifestation, and so it’s worth preserving and nurturing; a succinct set of demands and policy prescriptions would only serve to splinter the body into factions. That’s the consensus I’ve been hearing, at least. That could be a mistaken view, though, as it seems so far that there is little disagreement over the important part: whom will be subjected to their scorn. That’s the most consequential fact, not determining exact policies to get behind. While I think it’s silly to compare these protests to Tahrir Square, those Egyptians weren’t in the street drafting up a future constitution; they were just demanding that the status quo be abolished. Moreover, as Paul Krugman puts it, it’s not exactly the responsibility of the protesters to know exactly what to propose. That’s kind of the point of representative democracy.

That aside, if it’s a simple demand people want, I’m more than happy to oblige. I think almost everyone involved in these protests will agree that, prima facie, policymakers have an obligation to promote full employment. Insofar as the root cause of this movement has been a deficient policy response to current economic conditions, not to discredit the rightly felt notion that incredible malfeasance on the part of our Galtian Overlords has gone unpunished, it’s a perfectly direct and poignant request to want someone to actually do something about the millions of un- and underemployed in this country. Of course, many people in positions of power have been trying to resolve this problem. But, well…

In terms of what can be done, under current circumstances, political and otherwise, I must say that this sign really hits the nail on the head. Addressing unemployment at this stage in the game basically comes down to further easing by the Fed, and as such, a lot of ire should be directed at the Fed. Actions undertaken by Ben Bernanke and the FOMC, and more so the European Central Bank, have been negligent at best and pernicious at worst toward any economic recovery. They continue to twiddle their thumbs as the rest of the world burns. So, if we’re grasping for something with some relatively quick and tangible results, I’d recommend protesters start hollering outside the regional Fed banks.

But I mean c’mon! Look at that sign! You can’t say these people don’t have a clue when someone out there is holding this sign.

A lot of people are hoping this movement continues, and I’m definitely one of them. It may very well become impossible for political leaders to give anything less than a substantive response. The movement certainly has legitimacy. Many have already acknowledged it and have sided with the good guys. Others have castigated it. Things will most likely come to a boiling point eventually; let’s just hope that it isn’t the 99% getting burned this time, like always.

[Top photo by Ozier Muhammad for the NYT]

Comments Off on Thoughts on Occupy Wall St. and Awesome Protest Signs

Filed under Economics