Robert Solow on 'Why Economies Grow'

As a follow-up and companion piece to my previous post, I decided to publish a transcription of a lecture on economic growth by Robert Solow that I transcribed originally as an aid for friends and colleagues who were studying economics. Although the lecture was given by Prof. Solow a few years ago during the height of the financial crisis, it contains loads of timeless insights, some of which is useful to be reminded of in the current situation, as discussions about the output gap resume in the next few years (see chart).

However, it's extremely important to keep in mind that in our current predicament as a result of covid potential GDP will also likely take a huge hit, as businesses and employees require some catching up in terms of business practices (misaligned with changing consumer preferences) and job training (due to skills entropy from employees being on furlough), to name only a few aspects that are likely to be impacted. In many ways, the post-covid period will bring us back to the type of economic analysis that used to occur a long time ago when natural catastrophes had significant and frequent impacts on economies' productive capacities.

The video of the lecture is included down below, though the sound quality is very bad, which is why I recommend reading the transcription instead (and you'll get through the transcript much faster by reading it).

Key insights are highlighted in bold font. Enjoy!

The business of this course is the long run. What are the sources of economic growth in the national economy or in the larger economy? Where does growth come from? And the policy implication – well, not implication, but policy question – is ‘How do you get an economy to grow rapidly and to have that growth widely shared in the nation?’
But there is a problem – it is a problem that appeared in the slides that Prof Newstone showed. It is a problem about getting there from here. So I’m going to start by talking a little bit about right now – this is not going to be the usual stuff about the financial crisis and all that – I have something else in mind.

There is something very odd about our economic situation in the US today. I read just recently an estimate from the Federal Reserve that about $7 trillion worth of wealth has been destroyed in the last year or year in a half (in 2008-2009). The country, so to speak, is $7 trillion poorer than it was.

When I wasn’t having a conversation with Cathy in the car, I was trying to divide 7 trillion by 300 million--the population of the US--in my head. It comes to about $23,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Some, of course, have lost more, some have lost less.

What I want to point out is how strange that is: $7 trillion of wealth has gone down the drain but the productive capacity of the US economy – the capacity of our system to produce goods and service for its people – hasn’t diminished at all. In fact, it is undoubtedly higher than it was a year ago or 18 months ago: the labour force is a couple percent larger, the skills and education and training of the population is certainly not deteriorating and have probably gained. The net investment in capital has been positive – it’s been declining – but has been positive.

So we have a bigger stock of productive capital in the economy now than we did a year ago or 18 months ago. So the productive capacity of this economy is bigger than it was, despite of this $7 trillion of disappearance of wealth. If you are thinking of buying the US economy as a gift for your boyfriend or girlfriend, it would be worth just as much as it was worth – you know, like a used car – it would be worth just about as much as it was worth a year ago.

So in that sense we haven’t lost anything at all. But, of course, the point is we are in a recession. It is one year old according to pundits. And according to other pundits, or the same pundits, it’ll continue for at least until the second half of this year and maybe beyond. And the point is we are not using the productive capacity that we have.

You saw the unemployment numbers that Professor Newstone showed you. It is a lot harder to measure excess capacity in industry than it is to measure unemployment, but there are such figures, and they show an increase in unused capacity. So we have this machine for producing the goods and services for the population and we are not making full use of it. And that under-use of economic capacity, of productive capacity will go on for a long time. Even if the economy turns up in the second half of this year we will undoubtedly finish 2010 still with some slack in the economy because the slack disappears only gradually. 

So if you are interested – now, this is the point, this is why I started this way – if we are thinking about the long run growth of the economy (which means the long run growth of its capacity to produce), it’s not a separate but it’s an analytically slightly different problem to make sure that that capacity is used.

As long as we are not using all of the capacity that we have, the economy and the decision-makers in the economy are not likely to be motivated to do the things that increase potential output, that increase the productive capacity very rapidly.

So the short-run order of business – policy business – for us and every other rich country in Europe or Asia right now is to close that gap or narrow that gap between productive capacity and actual output, which means fundamentally trying to increase the demand for goods and services. And to do that in a way that at least doesn’t create obstacles to the long-run growth of the economy once the gap is closed, and maybe does some things that will help it.

So, imagine it is now January 2011 and the American economy and the economies of the other rich countries – developed countries of the world – are prospering reasonably well, are using their capacity, have closed that gap. Then the question is: What makes them grow? What economic activities that take place have the effect of increasing the capacity of the economy to produce useful goods and services? 

Now, you won’t be surprised – in fact, I’m staring at this monitor here and it says: so what determines the rate of economic growth in the economy? And that’s the question that I want to come to now, and it becomes relevant after we have done the short run task of closing that gap. There isn’t any one word or two word answer to that question. 

And I should make it explicit that I am thinking now about what determines the rate of economic growth in a rich economy, in an advanced industrial economy. I am not thinking about developing economies where the answers are related but the answers are somewhat different.

And the truth is that for an advanced economy the answers to that question – what are the sources of growth of national output, of productive capacity – are really the usual suspects. They are things we have known about now for quite a long time. And basically, what matters is what you might describe as investment in a very broad sense. I have to emphasize “in a very broad sense”.

What increases the productive of an economy like ours is investment in physical capital, in machinery, in computers and all the rest of that, investment in what economists call human capital, meaning skills and capacities of workers and people who work in the economy, and investment in new technology.

And here there is a slight difference between the US and even most of the countries in Europe. Not quite across the board but in most branches of industry the US is the technological leader. The gap was very big at the end of the Second World War and has closed considerably. But still, if you look at sector by sector, with some exceptions, the US is the technological leader.

Other countries of the world, that were even fairly rich countries have the luxury of being able to acquire technology by innovation, essentially by adopting, using what is already known. This country (i.e., the US) is in the position of having – so to speak – to invent its own future.

So basically, if we are looking now at the US, the things we have to look after in order to have a successful fairly high rate of growth (we can talk about the equity issues later) are a high rate of savings and investment in plant and equipment. I’d rather have the saving done here than abroad so that, in effect, the capital equipment that is built by investment in this country is owned in this country, and the returns to it stay in this country. It’s not necessary but it’s probably desirable. 

We need an extraordinary amount of emphasis – and we’ll talk more about this later – on investment in human capital, on producing the labour force that has the skills that are necessary to successfully operate that plant and equipment. And that is especially important because a country like this also has to invest in new technology. There is no place it can copy from – it has to in most cases create it itself.

Now, when I say new technology, the phrase tends to have a “high tech” air about it. But I don’t mean it that way.  New technology needn’t be high tech. It turns out that – in many ways – the most important contributors to productivity in the US over the last decade or two have been the application of information technology to wholesale trade, retail trade and financial services.

In fact, there are studies trying to understand why the major, big European economies, Germany, France, UK and Italy have lagged behind the US in productivity terms, general productivity terms. And the common answer seems to be that they have been slow to adapt the information technology to the service sectors. In manufacturing, there is very little gap, if any. But the gap is in the service sectors. 

So, this is extremely important. And I want to emphasize it, even at the risk of some repetition. One of the standard, valid, almost universal generalizations about the way people behave economically is that technically the income elasticity of the demand for services is high. All over the world, as incomes rise, personal incomes rise, people want to spend, [and] choose to spend a larger fraction of that income on services rather than goods. And you can understand why that should be so.

So this means that most of the rapidly growing advanced economies grow more rapidly in the service-producing sectors than in the goods-producing sector. There are exceptions to that. A country like Germany – to a lesser extent Japan, or formally Japan, not so much anymore – has a strong bias toward trying to make its living from simply exporting high quality manufactured goods. You notice I said exporting because the population of Germany, like the population of anywhere else, wants to consume services as it gets rich, not goods.

So those are the things, the essentially important things that a country like the US needs to do to generate long-run growth of productive capacity. 

I should say, in terms of policy, that you should beware of any universal advice like “well, the market will take care of that”. You know, if the alternative to the free-market economy is some kind of central planning, there is no question to where the advantage lies. But there is absolutely no evidence in the historical record of the advanced economies that zero regulation or weak regulation of industry is somehow conducive to rapid growth, or that minimal involvement of the government in the economy is conducive to rapid growth.

The functions of the government in terms of long run growth are just what you would deduce from what I have already said: promoting research and development, providing incentives for investment when they are lacking, taking care of education, and looking after mobility. By the way, it is probably also true that a country – there is less evidence for this generalization, but it’s probably also true – that business cycle instability is bad for economic growth.

For countries that are given to wide fluctuations like the ones we were looking at a few minutes ago, that’s not helpful for long-run growth because it adds to uncertainty. The likelihood of broad fluctuations adds to uncertainty is bad for all forward looking activities, like investment, like mobility, like education.

I wanted to say one more thing about the issue of mobility. When I say mobility, I mean industrial mobility and occupational mobility. In a rapidly growing, technologically-based economy, people have to change the nature of their jobs frequently and capital has to flow freely from obsolescent industries to new industries.

It is very important when you come in this course to talk about issues of equity. I think it is very important to find ways so that the burdens that are associated with necessary mobility don’t fall on workers and other people who are ill-equipped to prepare them [for that eventuality].

Dislocation and sometimes dislocation is probably an inevitable part of fast, mainly technologically-based growth. But it is the task of economic policy to find ways of combining that with income security, up to now, where it’s mostly below the median for incomes.

Paul Krugman on currency independence, circa 1999

If there's one macroeconomic observation that has gone from obscure to remarkably mainstream in recent years, it's that a nation that has given up its currency independence is at a big disadvantage relative to nations with independent, sovereign currencies, especially when it comes to options for addressing economic downturns and overcoming the aftermath of financial crises.

Paul Krugman has been a main proponent of this view. And he's been at it for a while.

Here's an excerpt from a classic piece by Krugman from 1999 on the ills faced by Argentina after it experimented with dollarization in the 90s:

The problem, you see, is that the same rules that prevent Argentina from printing money for bad reasons--to pay for populist schemes or foolish wars--also prevent it from printing money for good reasons such as fighting recessions or rescuing the financial system. [...] 

Now, these problems with a rigidly fixed exchange rate are not news. But for a while, currency-board enthusiasts managed to convince themselves that they weren't significant. They argued that as long as governments themselves followed stable policies--and as long as the economy was sufficiently 'flexible' (the all-purpose answer to economic difficulties)--there would be few serious recessions. 

But it turns out that history does not stop just because the currency is stable. And faced with a politically inconvenient recession, the Peronists find that there is nothing they can do. They cannot print money. They cannot even borrow money for some employment-generating public spending, because fiscal indiscipline would undermine the peso's hard-won credibility.

Read the entire column here.

Reference 

Krugman, P., Don't laugh at me Argentina, Slate, July 20, 1999

Does the concentration of finance matter?

It may sound like a strange question in light of all the talk about "too big to fail" during the last few years. But, believe or not, the idea that bank concentration has an impact on real economic activity isn't the standard view. Here's from a recent blog post by NY Fed economists Mary Amiti and David Weinstein:

The notion that financial institutions are large relative to the size of economies is not something that plays a prominent role in traditional economic theory. Macroeconomic textbooks tend to treat economies as composed of representative firms that are infinitesimal in size compared to any given market. As a result, positive and negative idiosyncratic shocks [movement in bank loan supply net of borrower characteristics and general credit conditions] to financial institutions cancel out due to the law of large numbers. 

However, this representation stands in stark contrast with the reality of concentration in financial markets. A striking regularity is that a few banks account for a substantial share of an economy’s loans.

Starting from this basis, Amiti and Weinstein have examined Japanese aggregate bank lending data and other aggregates and were able to demonstrate the following: banks matter, bank concentration matters, bank lending matters. No small feat.

On the issue of bank concentration and aggregate lending, they found that

...if markets are dominated by a few financial institutions, cuts in lending due to some change in financial conditions in just a small number of banks have the potential to substantially affect aggregate lending. Moreover, if firms find it hard to find good substitutes for loans like issuing equity or debt, then it is possible for their investment rates to fall as well. 

As for their take on banks' impact on the real economy, the conclusion to their paper (on which their blog post in based) gives a good summary:

Our paper contributes to this literature by providing the first evidence that shocks to the supply of credit affect firm investment rates. We find that even after controlling for firm credit shocks, loan supply shocks are a significant determinant of firm-level investment of loan-dependent firms. This result is particularly surprising because our sample is comprised of listed companies that have, by definition, access to equity markets. Moreover, the fact that so much lending is intermediated through a few financial institutions means that idiosyncratic shocks hitting large financial institutions can move aggregate lending and investment. We show that about 40 percent of the movement in these variables can be attributed to these granular bank shocks. This means that the idiosyncratic fates of large financial institutions are an important determinant of investment and real economic activity.

And the implication for policy, according to Amiti and Weinstein, is significant. Here is the relevant excerpt of their blog post on this point:

...[P]olicymakers without detailed information on the major financial institutions are likely to have a difficult time understanding the causes of lending and investment fluctuations. A large portion of Japan’s aggregate economic fluctuations can be traced to the country’s banking problems. 

While many researchers have focused on the implications of banks being “too big to fail,” we show that even if large banks do not fail, granular bank shocks can have substantial impacts on aggregate investment. 

For example, reductions in bank capital at large financial institutions can cause investment declines by firms that would like to borrow, while recapitalization of the right institutions can stimulate investment. In sum, this study shows that what happens to large financial institutions is important for understanding aggregate investment behavior. 

While their paper looks specifically at Japanese data, the authors suggest that the overall conclusions are relevant to the situation in the US given that it too has a very concentrated banking sector.

Amiti, Mary and David Weinstein, How much do banks shocks affect investment: Evidence from matched bank-firm loan data, NY Fed staff paper 604, March 2013

Inequality in the recent business cycle

This is a good speech by Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin of the Federal Reserve (also available in audio here). It was given during the Hyman Minsky Conference held at the Levy Institute earlier this week.

The speech focuses on the obstacles to recovery associated with household debt deleveraging and the decline in wealth for low-income households since the financial crisis. That low- and middle-income households held a disproportionate share of wealth in housing prior to the crisis meant they were highly exposed by the decline in house prices.

Raskin notes:

...[W]hile total household net worth fell 15 percent in real terms between 2007 and 2010, median net worth fell almost 40 percent. This difference reflects the amplified effect that housing had on wealth changes in the middle of the wealth distribution. The unexpected drop in house prices on its own reduced both households' wealth and their access to credit, likely leading them to pull back their spending. In particular, underwater borrowers and heavily indebted households were left with little collateral, which limited their access to additional credit and their ability to refinance at lower interest rates. Indeed, some studies have shown that spending has declined more for indebted households

Although later in the speech Governor Raskin discusses the Fed's strategy to address these issues (mainly by the use of unconventional monetary policies aimed at lowering long-term interest and mortgage rates), there is unfortunately no mention of the possible role of the Fed's current quantitative easing (QE) strategy in amplifying wealth inequality via the use of unconventional policies.

Since the start of the Fed's asset purchases programs (i.e., QE), we have seen stock indexes recover their losses while the decline in house prices has stayed flat (see charts below - Note: Increases in the monetary base is a good indicator of the magnitude of QE). In a context where the Fed is also hoping QE to sustain economic activity through the "wealth effect" channel (whereby a rise in asset prices causes investors to feel more secure about their wealth and, consequently, spend more), it's only normal to question whether current strategy is contributing (albeit unintentionally) to the wealth gap.

Source: Federal Reserve

Source: Federal Reserve

The BIS's new long series on private non-financial credit

The Bank for International Settlements has introduced a new data series on total non-financial credit (loans and debt securities) covering 40 economies and spanning an average period of 45 years. The new series are intended to improve comparisons between different countries and across time. One interesting aspect of these new series is that they account for credit from all sources, not only that extended by domestic banks.

Here is a short article that gives a good overview of the new series. It contains several BIS signature-style charts and, for illustration purposes, provides a look at the evolution of total private non-financial credit worldwide:

While total credit has generally risen substantially relative to GDP, levels and trends in private sector borrowing have varied across countries to a surprising degree. For instance, in several economies, total credit-to-GDP ratios already significantly exceeded 100% in the 1960s and 1970s. Equally, in a number of countries, the share of domestic bank credit in total credit has actually increased substantially over the last 40 years – that is, banks have become more, not less, important. And finally, sectoral breakdowns show that there has been a general shift towards more household credit. In some countries, households now borrow even more than corporates.

Steve Keen on interest and capitalism's main dilemma

A few fine words from Steve Keen:

Interviewer: On a broader topic, is interest a kind of rent in the classical sense? Is it income without a cost of production?  

Steve Keen: Absolutely. This is why...I see the main dilemma in capitalism as being the conflict between financial capital and industrial capital. Industrial capital is ultimately productive. And if you look at workers and capitalists, they both ultimately benefit out of the technological developments over time and demands over wages. If unemployment is not gigantic, they benefit out of the improvements in current technology and out of productivity at the time as well. The real albatross around the neck of capitalism is financial capital [inaudible] when you let it get beyond the level necessary to simply finance working capital in some new investment. And it’s what happens every time capitalists take over...

...The thing I think we’re both in agreement on is we have to stop people, and particularly social classes, becoming dependent upon unearned income. Ultimately the only way to get a functioning capitalist society—or a society in general—is to have one where the source of income is earned, not unearned. And when you look at land speculation, or you look at any other form of speculation, people are trying to get income without earning it. That’s the real dilemma in capitalism. And if we direct ourselves toward that particular principle then we’re both on the same side. (Renegade Economists, April 21, 2010, at 13:30)

There's lots of good insight here. A fine glimpse of "Keensian" economics.  And I totally agree with the general point of the last sentence: "...then we're both on the same side". There's plenty of commonalities out there. We just need to focus on these.

PS: I'm entering a busy period at work. Posting will be limited and mainly consist of short thoughts on and snippets from economists I find interesting.

Evsey Domar's "On Deficits and Debt": A survival guide for making sense of today's economic challenges

As I look back to 2012, I'm reminded about how relevant the work of economist Evsey Domar, the late Professor of Economics at MIT and previously a Federal Reserve staff economist, is for making sense of the predicament facing the US and the world economies today.  Three news stories during the last year provided a good backdrop for presenting Domar’s views on public debt, budget deficits and economic growth.

First, there was the surprising about face during the summer months when European leaders switched from advocating austerity to voicing their support for actions that promote growth.  Professor Domar would have most likely approved of this change of heart by Europe’s ruling elite given that, many decades ago, Domar authored “The Burden of the Debt and National Income” (1944), a paper which argues that “the problem of the burden of the debt is a problem of achieving a growing national income” rather than one associated with the size of the budget deficit or national debt.

E. Domar

Specifically, in his paper, Domar demonstrated that, in the long run, the ratio of debt to GDP will gradually approach the ratio of the fraction of GDP borrowed each year to the rate of growth of GDP.  So, for instance, the US federal government borrowed approximately 7 percent of GDP in 2012.  If the borrowing continued at the same rate and the GDP (in money terms) grows at 2 percent per year, the ratio of debt to GDP will approach 3.5; with a 3 percent growth, it will be 2.3.

Thus, Domar showed that "less attention should be devoted to the problem of the debt and more to finding ways of achieving a growing national income" (1945:415)

According to Domar, attempting to reduce the public debt by cutting government expenditures (thus removing a significant source of income and growth from the economy) is largely self-defeating and exactly the wrong course of action if undertaken when the economy is struggling.

Then, in the fall, there was the debate among economists and bloggers about the intergenerational burden of the public debt.  Had he been around, Professor Domar would have probably been disappointed to learn that issues addressed (and, for many, put to rest) decades ago are still being debated.

And now we're facing the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’, a metaphor depicting the slowdown facing the US economy as a result of the expiry of tax breaks enacted at a time when the US federal fiscal budget situation was in better shape.  In the face of such a situation, Domar would have understood that the last thing policymakers should do when the economy is weak is to increase taxes which take away purchasing power from the economy.

As we enter a New Year, it is worth remembering Domar’s views on these and other related issues.  And nowhere are these matters best addressed than in his short, three-page article “On Deficits and Debt” published in 1993.  In this article, Domar challenges many of the widely held beliefs about debt and deficits. 

First, the article begins by taking on the popular view that considers the US federal government debt as analogous to household debt:

Our old puritanical injunctions against running into debt remain valid when applied to a private person. He or she can disregard them only at his or her peril.  A large corporation has more leeway: it can borrow by issuing bonds, and replace them with new ones when they fall due. If many large corporations simultaneously decided to pay off their debts, our economy would collapse: it is based on credit, the inverse of debt. Still any corporation, however large can go bankrupt...But, the Federal government is in a class by itself: so long as its debt is expressed in dollars (which fortunately is the case), it can always print as many dollars as it needs to pay the interest, though nowadays it would issue bonds, sell them in the market and, if necessary, have the Federal Reserve repurchase them. The Federal government, the creator of the Federal Reserve System, is its own banker.

Then, Domar describes the merits of a budget deficit:

By definition, a budget deficit means that the government spends more money then it receives, or, in other words, that it creates more purchasing power by its expenditures than it destroys through taxes.  Is this good or bad? It depends. If the economy is working to capacity, the creation of extra purchasing power will do little good and much harm: it will cause an inflation, which is easy to start and hard to stop. But when the economy has plenty of unused resources, the additional purchasing power is welcome. At such a time, we should rebuild our physical infrastructure, improve our education, health, and environment, and intensify our scientific and industrial research efforts, without raising taxes and without reducing or eliminating other needed services, always keeping a watchful eye on economic barometers to make sure that we do not overdo it.

All this sounds nice and easy, perhaps too easy to avoid suspicion. Are we to get something for nothing, as the old saying goes? Is there such a thing as a free lunch, after all? The offer of a free lunch is strictly temporary; it lasts only so long as unused resources, and particularly unemployed labor, are available, because they can be put to use with little, if any, social cost. But one they are gone government expenditures, however, desirable, must be matched with revenue.

Later in the article, Domar explains that the true burden of the national debt is distributional in that it involves a transfer of resources from one group to another group within the economy:

Some early proponents of fiscal policy argued that the size of the debt and of interest payments on it are not important because “ we owe it to ourselves”...There is some truth in this argument, but it should not be exaggerated. Even if all the Federal bonds were owned by Americans and all interest on the debt received by them, problems created by the existence of a large debt and by the need to transfer [billions of dollars] from the taxpayers to the bondholders would remain...

On the other hand, this does not mean that the...interest paid on the debt represents a net loss to the country...[T]hat interest go to other Americans, directly or not and that much of it is subject to Federal income taxes. President Eisenhower, who disliked deficits and debts, is reported to have said, shortly before he left the White House, that every American baby born at the time carried on its neck a tag indicating its share of the Federal debt. Perhaps it did; but it must have also borne a second tag showing its share of the value of the Federal bonds.

The article then presents some interesting views about whether the country’s ratio of debt to GDP is an appropriate indicator of the state of the economy:

Does the ratio of the debt to GNP matter? Yes, it does. Other things being equal, I would prefer a smaller rather than larger ratio...Other things are not equal. There are times and conditions calling for a deficit. Without it, unemployment may rise and the GNP may fall, thus raising, rather than lowering the debt burden.

The article concludes with a comment on how to best address the “debt problem”:

The proper solution of the debt problem lies not in tying ourselves into a financial straight-jacket, but in achieving faster growth of the GNP, a result which is, of course, desirable by itself. To the Republican and other politicians who are hell-bent on reducing the deficit and even repaying the debt, I would like to address a very short and simple question: Why? Are we suffering from an excess of purchasing power now?

As we head into the New Year and get ready to face many of the same concerns as in 2012, I think it would be a good idea to keep in mind these points.

On that note, I wish all readers of this blog a very Happy New Year!

UPDATE: The third paragraph was revised on January 12, 2013.  It originally indicated that Domar demonstrated in his 1944 paper that the ratio of deficit to GDP would equal the ratio of the fraction of GDP borrowed each year to the rate of growth of the economy.  Rather, Domar focused on the ratio of debt to GDP.  I also added a subsequent paragraph (after paragraph 3) which includes a reference to Domar's article "The Burden of the Debt: A Rejoinder" (1945).

References

Domar, E., "The Burden of the Debt and the National Income", American Economic Review, 34(4), December 1944

Domar, E., "The Burden of the Debt: A Rejoinder", American Economic Review, 35(3), June 1945, pp. 414-418.

Domar, E., "On Deficits and Debt", American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52(4), October 1993, 475-478.

The Federal Reserve staff on the evolution of US household net worth and related financial flows during the last decade

The Federal Reserve released an informative discussion paper this week that presents background on the Integrated Macroeconomics Accounts (IMAs) of the US.  The IMAs is a long-term interagency project between the Fed and the Bureau of Economic Analysis aimed at linking saving, capital accumulation, investment in financial assets and balance sheet data within an integrated framework using consistent definitions, classifications, and accounting conventions.

In the IMAs, each of the sectors of the economy is depicted according to a consistent set of statistical accounts: the current account (production and distribution of income accounts), and the accumulation accounts (capital, financial, other volume changes, and revaluation accounts).  These accounts allow one to trace the factors leading to changes in the net worth position on the balance sheet of each sector.

The paper contains lots of useful information for those interested in the analysis of national income and flow of funds accounts.

As a way to help demonstrate the usefulness of the IMAs, the authors of the paper have included a section describing the evolution of household net worth and its components during the last decade, thus enabling the reader to understand some of the underlying causes and subsequent effects of the recent financial crisis. 

As you read the excerpt below, keep in mind the following basic rule of thumb: a key indicator of the demand generated by any sector of the economy is its net borrowing (i.e., the difference between its total spending and income).

Uses of the IMAs

The recent financial crisis has vividly shown that analyzing the change in net worth and its composition is critical to understanding the health, risks, and prospects of an economic sector.  Net worth is a broad measure of the wealth of a sector, often used in conjunction with other variables, such as income and interest rates, to study variables such as consumption and saving.

The IMAs enable one to analyze net worth and its composition, clarifying how the current balance sheet position came about by distinguishing between saving, borrowing, holding gains or losses, and other changes in volume.  As an example, we can look at the IMAs for the household and [Non-Profit Institutions Serving Households] sector.  In the first half of the last decade, the household sector shifted from being a major lending sector to a major borrowing sector, rivaled only as a borrower by the federal government sector. It was at this same time that the rest of the world sector became the predominant lending sector.

At the same time, household net worth surged rapidly and the ratio of household net worth to disposable personal income reached record levels (chart 1 -- click on chart to expand).  This surge was caused not by elevated savings, but by sizable capital gains both on housing wealth and on stock-market wealth (chart 2).

Chart 1

Chart 2

Indeed, the ratio of both housing wealth and stock market wealth to disposable personal income surged to historically unprecedented levels (chart 3).  Not surprisingly, household debt also ballooned.  The ratio of household debt to disposable personal income surged from around 90 percent at the beginning of the decade to an all-time high of around 130 percent in the middle of 2007 (chart 4).

Chart 3

Chart 4

This ratio dropped to 111 percent by the end of 2011 as consumers borrowed less and as a significant amount of mortgage debt was written off. [...] [T]he household sector shifted back to being a major net lender in 2008.

Net borrowing by the federal government, on the other hand, ballooned to over $1.3 trillion in both 2009 and 2010. In 2009, the rest of the world sector was a significant lender, along with the financial business sector. The nonfinancial corporate business sector, traditionally a net borrower, became a net lender in 2009, as capital expenditures remained relatively low and retained earnings elevated (Cagetti et al, 2012:6-8).

Reference

Cagetti, M., Elizabeth Ball Holmquist, Lisa Lynn, Susan Hume, McIntosh and David Wasshausen, The Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts of the United States, 2012-81, Finance and Economics Discussion Series Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C.

Another round of QE: More of the same?

I once had a boss who always asked for briefing material of "no more than 100 words". He'd also say "Give me charts, please. Charts!" Here's a snapshot of what he would get if I was asked to update him on the effect of the Fed's quantitative easing (QE) strategy.

Recall that the Fed implements QE by buying financial assets from banks and other private institutions in the aim of putting downward pressure on yields and thus reducing interest rates. QE as a policy measure is easily identifiable in charts since it increases massively the amount of excess reserves in the banking system.

Given that Chairman Bernanke announced a new round of QE last week, I thought these charts might be of interest.* Not all of these indicators are related to QE's stated objectives. Still, given the centrality of QE in the Fed's overall strategy, I think it's useful to include them.

So, to summarize, since the start of QE, bank lending standards have returned to normal...

 

...business loans have rebounded, though not at pre-QE levels...

...the rate of increase in manufacturers' new orders has normalized...

...corporate profits have continued to rise well beyond pre-QE levels...

...the cost of borrowing for businesses (as reflected in the rate of 10-year inflation protected securities) has come down...

...as did the 30-year conventional mortgage rate...

... and stocks have recovered.
 

On the other hand, home prices have remained depressed...

...the employment-population ratio has flattened...

...and, finally, the rate of unemployment is still stubbornly high.

In a speech earlier this year, the President of the San Francisco Fed, John Williams, called the level of unemployment in the US a "national calamity that demands our attention". From the charts above, it's clear that another round of QE is unlikely to do much to help create more jobs moving forward.

* All charts and data are from the St. Louis Fed, FRED.

Joseph Stiglitz on low interest rates as the cause of the crisis

Joseph Stiglitz takes on the argument that low interest rates caused the subprime crisis. It appears to be an old clip but I'm adding it to the file.

And, as I've noted previously, Robert Shiller agrees with Stiglitz on this.

Similarly, Barry Eichengreen also makes a great point when he argues that it's not only borrowers' frenzy for easy credit that's to blame for these types of problems. This is what Eichengreen has to say about who's at fault for the current European mess:

I’m not too big on the language of culpability. But it takes two to tango. For every reckless borrower there is a reckless lender. The Greeks may have borrowed too much, but someone lent them all that money. German banks and those who regulated them clearly played some role in the crisis.

See here for a more detailed analysis on the role of low interest rates during the lead up to the US subprime crisis.

Canada's fiscal stimulus: an interpretation

In a previous post, I suggested that Canada's fiscal policy response to the last recession consisted of an effective set of counter-cyclical economic measures.  To support this idea, I highlighted the fact that, as a result of these measures, Canada's level of public fixed investment increased to the highest level in three decades (see graph 1, click on graphs to enlarge).  Also, I suggested that this increase in fixed capital expenditures helped to mitigate the recession's effect on the level of employment.

Graph 1: Consolidated government fixed capital, 1961-2011, Source: Statistics Canada

This view appears to have caught on.  In his recent budget plan, Canada's Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, links the labour market's performance during the downturn to the federal stimulus put forth by Stephen Harper's Government after the last recession (see here):

Economic developments since the introduction of the stimulus phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan underscore its success in protecting Canadian jobs through strong support to the domestic economy.  As a result...Canada has posted the strongest growth in employment among G-7 countries...

[G]overnment investments in infrastructure were key to the success of the Economic Action Plan...

The budget plan includes the following graphs to support the Government's case that its stimulus was effective in mitigating the impact of the recession:

Graph 2: Improvement in employment during recovery

Graph 3: Unemployment rate, Canada and United States, 2006-2011

Graph 4: Growth in real per capita disposable income, 2006-2010

In graph 2, we see that the improvement in Canada's rate of unemployment during the recovery was the highest among the G7 economies.  In graph 3, we see that the unemployment rate fared better in Canada than in the US.  In graph 4, we see that disposable income rose faster in Canada than in the other G7 countries during the recovery.

But is the increase in fixed capital expenditures really the result of federal government action?  In my earlier post, I was very careful not to associate the increase in fixed public investment in recent years solely with the policy measures put forth by the federal government.  Rather, I specified that it was the "combined success of the federal and provincial governments' stimulus measures" which contributed to the effectiveness of Canada's response to the recession.  In my view, suggesting otherwise would be misleading given that the data from the National Income and Expenditures Accounts shows that the largest share of fixed public investment in recent years has come from provincial and local governments (see graph 5).

Graph 5: Public fixed capital, all levels of government, 1961-2011, Source: Statistics Canada

That said, it would be equally incorrect to suggest that the federal government had no role to play in the recent increase in fixed public investment given that, in Canada, a large share of the income of provincial governments consists of fiscal transfers from the federal government to provinces.  As shown in graph 6, federal transfers represent an important source of income for provincial governments.  And interestingly enough, in recent years there has been a considerable increase in the amount of federal transfers to provincial governments.

Graph 6: Provincial government income from federal government, 1961-2011, Source: Statistics Canada

Does this suggest that the Harper Government is justified when it claims responsibility for the boost in capital expenditures in recent years?  It's hard to say for sure, but there is a good argument to be made that the Harper Government is partly responsible given this increase in federal transfers to provinces since the Tories took office.

Better yet, another explanation would be to propose that responsibility for the significant increase in public fixed investment in Canada in recent years rests instead with the fact that, between 2004 and 2011, the governments in power at the federal level were all minority governments, during which "concessions" were made to opposition parties on budget-related matters (i.e., in terms of additional program funding and increased federal transfers to provinces) as a way for these governments to remain in power. 

This view appears to be supported by the facts.  As you can see in graph 7, federal transfers to provinces increased significantly starting in 2005 following the election of Paul Martin's minority government.  The increase in federal transfers to provinces is especially noteworthy given that it resulted in the first significant increase in federal transfers to provinces (viewed as a ratio of total federal expenditures) since the early 1970s. 

Graph 7: Ratio of transfers to provinces/federal expenditures, 1961-2011, Source: Statistics Canada

Recall that, in 2005, the Martin Government required the support of the NDP to pass its budget, and that the "compromise" budget significantly increased the amount of funding for programs under provincial jurisdiction such as social housing and education.  But regardless of the nature of these transfers, this additional source of income increased the amount of financial resources available to provinces, enabling them to undertake increased investments in infrastructure and other fixed capital projects.

Now, the above is a very rough sketch.  A more detailed look at the data is necessary to get a better picture of the fiscal dynamics underlying these figures.  Still, I think it's fair to say that the increase in public fixed capital investment in recent years is not solely the result of the stimulus measures put forth by the federal government during and after the last recession.  Rather, as I wrote in my earlier post, it is more likely because of the combined efforts of the federal and provincial governments.

Reference

Courant, P., E. Gramlich, and D. Rubinfield. "The stimulative effects of intergovernmental grants: Or why money sticks where it hits", Fiscal Federalism and Grants-in-Aid, P. Mieskowski and W. Oakland (ed.), Washington: The Urban Institute, 1979.

Europe! It's not too late to reverse austerity

The following article was written by the author of the Classic Indeed blog.  The article is cross-posted on both blogs.  Readers are invited to post comments on either blogs.

Months ago we outlined the challenges that presented themselves to Italy and Greece, and to Germany, France and the United Kingdom.  We opted against austerity, trusting that the technocratic appointments of Messrs Monti and Papademos could transform governments in Italy and Greece, and enable their respective legislatures to both recommend alternative and optimal public expenditure policies and to restrain policymakers from endorsing imposed fiscal restrictions while constraining budgets any further.

Unfortunately for the global economy and markets, Messrs Monti and Papademos initiatives did the contrary.  They aspired towards the heroic in adhering to a sub-optimal detriment and have now emerged as the scapegoats for political and investment désenchantées.

More ironic is that both men had very little to do with the original debacle.  They were recommended to their nation’s legislatures to clean up a mess.  Instead, as a result of attempting to implement austerity measures, they have generated more anxiety in world markets than expected.

Unfortunately, the recent economic deterioration and rising social tensions within their respective economies has become their responsibility, and the political disenchantment surfacing within the electorate is also their responsibility.  Worse still, the time for apologetics is long past and is now irrelevant.  At jeopardy is their leadership, the credibility they endorse for their visions of the future and the overall well-being of their citizenry.

Mr. Draghi and Mrs. Lagarde have voiced a redemptive message.  Both had professed that the worst was over.  For instance, in a speech on March 26 of this year, Mr. Draghi said the following:

“I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with my assessment of the current situation in the euro area and shed light on recent signs of improvements in the overall outlook.  I would particularly like to draw your attention to the effectiveness of the policy measures implemented by the Eurosystem, the EU institutions and national authorities.  And to remind you of the measures that we all must continue to pursue over the coming months and years with great diligence in order to continue on this path of stabilisation.”

As for Mme Lagarde, on March 18 of this year, the Managing Director of the IMF sought to reassure the audience of the 2012 China Development Forum with the following statement:

“There are signs that strong policy actions—especially in Europe—are making a difference. Financial markets have become a little calmer…”

Yet, Spanish yields are rising, as are those of Italy and Greece, and there is more and more talk of a potential third bailout for Greece although the IMF and the ECB have reassured the investment communities that changes in Greece are being introduced as promptly as possible and will be enacted effectively.

Any remnant stress in markets, according to the institutional duo is a result of the misperception by the interested communities that the consolidations proposed by the ailing economies cannot be achieved.

The emerging doubt on behalf of investment communities and investors in general should not be surprising.  After all, it’s their money and it’s their perception that underscores investment decisions.

One daresay that the investment community saw the collapse of the system much earlier than either the IMF or the ECB, although the leadership of the latter two has been proactive in attempting to stabilize investor sentiment and mitigate between some form of restraint and investment in growth and employment.  Notwithstanding, the reassessment that further bailouts will be necessary is now the swan song of European austerity politics.

Unfortunately, European policymaker perceptions of the bond markets are completely skewed as a result of their own biases.  What is difficult for them to appreciate is that there is no basis left for growth.  Unemployment is up, with Spain leading at 23.6% followed by Greece at 21.0%.  And in those Eurozone countries where unemployment rates are low, many of the employed are part-time workers and, as such, susceptible to labour volatility during these turbulent times.

Moreover, capacity utilization in the manufacturing sector over the last four quarters is dropping across the Eurozone at alarming rates.  Order books are not being filled as quickly as desirable, and their durations and size are shorter than required to support additional investments.  As a result, business investment is stalling as management constrains expenditures and saves its liquidity for dividends in lieu of growth to stabilize share values, foreboding that equity markets react adversely to this dilemma and possibly falter.

What most pundits expected from the emerging markets may not be realized: trusting that BRIC plug the slowdown in Europe, with China leading the way.  Unfortunately, there is no plug.  Most informed observers now mitigate between a slowdown and an ease in aggregate demand, with China’s future growth rates in question.  Projections for the region suggest that China’s growth potential could be in the midst of a major contraction with rates dropping to 7.5% from anticipated 8% and over.

Given the above, the most difficult challenge in domestic politics is for any Government to admit that it followed the wrong track.  There is no shame in being part of a bigger bloc of nations that propound fiscal consolidations even if austerity is showing itself as being the ineffective solution to the Eurozone’s financial crisis, a crisis which is now becoming an economic and political crisis.

It actually takes great courage in admitting that the austerity programs recommended may not work out.  The experiences of other nations in the matter, elicit danger signals that can’t be overlooked.  In such a case, the consolation is that if one’s admission is timely, the Government may come out of an unfortunate situation looking respectful and remarkably diligent.  There is still time for Europe to turn back its political agendas before turning the wrong corner.

The FRB blog invites your comments. Please share your thoughts below.

ECB staff: Interest rate hikes decrease output, increase unemployment and widen public deficits

From a new working paper by the European Central Bank:

The impact of an interest rate tightening in our model is consistent with existing evidence for the euro area and with widely accepted theoretical prior: (i) output and prices decrease (the latter more persistently); (ii) consistent with a liquidity effect, money falls below the baseline; (iii) unemployment grows and labour productivity falls, resulting in a pro-cyclical response of the latter.

...The public deficit widens significantly after the restrictive monetary policy shock, in line with the expected budget worsening due to lower tax receipts following the slowdown in economic activity induced by the interest rate hike and with the outlays related to the automatic stabilizers at work. (Bonci, 2011:5-6) (emphasis added)

It wouldn't surprise me if Mario Draghi was given an advanced copy of this paper to read on his first day as head of the ECB. If so, it might explain why he was so decisive in lowering interest rates upon his appointment. In many respects, the findings in the paper appear to support the view that the decisions of Mr. Draghi's predecessor to raise interest rates earlier this year were ill-advised.

Indeed, while it does not explicitly aim to do so, the study provides evidence as to why Jean-Claude Trichet's final actions as ECB President may have had the effect of worsening the economic situation in Europe by increasing both unemployment and reliance on automatic stabilizers, and thus enlarging public sector deficits in a pro-cyclical manner. As far as I know, this is the first study examining the impact of interest rate policy on the different sectors of the economy within the euro area as a whole.

Bonci, Riccardo, "Monetary Policy and the Flow of Funds in the Euro Area", ECB Working Papers Series, No. 1402, December 2011

BoC: The euro area is experiencing a recession, deleveraging and fiscal austerity are dampening growth in advanced economies

The Bank of Canada (BoC) released today the December edition of its biannual Financial System Review. The report provides an excellent glimpse of the various trends now affecting the Canadian and world economies.

According to the BoC, the risks to the financial system are similar to those identified in the June report. However, the BoC judges that the overall level of risk has "increased markedly" over the past six months.

The main risks identified by the BoC in the report are:

• the spillovers associated with a further escalation of the European sovereign debt crisis;
• an economic downturn in advanced economies that could be amplified by remaining weaknesses in the balance sheets of global banks;
• a disorderly resolution of global current account imbalances;
• financial stress in the Canadian household sector; and
• a prolonged period of low interest rates, which may encourage imprudent risk-taking and/or erode the long-term soundness of some financial institutions.

While I don't agree with the entire assessment contained in the report (for instance, I disagree with the report's claim that the public debt-service burden in the US and Japan is a problem, and that global imbalances pose a high risk to the world economy), I found that the report has interesting and well-supported analyses on some of the key trends that policymakers should monitor in the coming months and years.

The section of the report on Canada's increased household indebtedness is particularly noteworthy. As I've previously highlighted, Canada's household debt-to-GDP is currently at a record high. According to the report, the situation could take a turn for the worse in the event of a significant decline in house prices and a sharp deterioration in labour market conditions (p.26). With Canada's unemployment rate increasing, business investment slowing and final domestic demand declining, I view the possibility of these risks materializing as being quite real.

Also, in regard to the situation in Europe, the report mentions that the euro area is now experiencing a recession and correctly points out that a comprehensive policy response is urgently needed to resolve the debt crisis. On this point, the report states:

The European sovereign debt crisis is acute, but it can be resolved if policymakers address the situation in a forceful manner. European authorities must take steps to restore confidence, which will create time to refound their monetary union based on credible fiscal arrangements and enhanced governance.

European authorities are working to strengthen the capital of European banks and provide a more reliable funding backstop for euro-area sovereigns. But, judging from the lingering skepticism of investors, bolder action—including clear decisions and firm implementation—is needed to get ahead of the crisis. (p.14)

Finally, the report indicates that an economic downturn in advanced economies

would have a substantial impact on Canadian businesses, households and financial institutions. While the most obvious channel of transmission would be via the effects of deteriorating credit quality on bank capital bases, these effects could be amplified by significant vulnerabilities in the global economy, including an intensification of funding pressures and of fiscal strains. (p.14) (emphasis added)

According to the BoC, the risk described above is judged to be high and has risen since June, owing primarily to the deterioration in the global economic outlook.

All in all, the picture drawn in the BoC's report is bleak. Therefore, from a macroeconomic policy standpoint, it would be prudent for federal and provincial governments to abandon efforts to cut public expenditures and reduce fiscal deficits. Rather, governments should prepare for the worse and draw up plans to inject additional stimulus into the economy if the need arises in the coming months.

Crescenzi watch: Public investments boost our standard of living

In a previous post, I criticized Tony Crescenzi, author of PIMCO's Global Central Bank Focus column, for depicting Keynesian-inspired policy remedies as wasteful and ineffective. So I was surprised to discover that the November edition of Crescenzi's column contains one of the most spirited pleas in favor of increased public investment that I have read in recent weeks.

Here is an excerpt from Crescenzi's column,

The vigor and verve with which Franklin Delano fought the Depression today is sorely lacking in Washington, which through its self-aggrandizing and ignorance spits with contempt at fires that rage across the U.S. economic landscape, leading Americans to feel anxious and helpless. This anxiety is present throughout the world, which perceives U.S. leadership to be adrift and intensely polarized. The same goes for European leaders. [...]

U.S. policymakers made one of their first serious blunders in this crisis in 2009 when they crafted an economic stimulus plan targeting consumption rather than investment. The benefits of the stimulus therefore faded rather quickly, which is to say the stimulus had a low or negative fiscal multiplier. The money would have been better spent on investments, which tend to have longer-lasting benefits that boost the national standard of living. 

Consider this example. When Uncle Sam divvies out stimulus checks to consumers it leads to increased purchases of pants, socks, shoes, a hamburger, a garden hose, you name it, but the purchase of these and other everyday essentials do nothing for America’s long-run growth potential. Investments, on the other hand, have longer-lasting benefits. Consider the benefit of investing in a highway, or an energy grid – it lasts years. In other words, an investment of this sort has a relatively high fiscal multiplier – it is the gift that keeps on giving. (emphasis added)

I agree entirely with this view of public investment. In fact, the papers by economists David Aschauer and Alicia Munnell linked to my previous post support the claim that public investment results in a net benefit to society in the long-run.

That said, I am a somewhat puzzled by Crescenzi's contention that the recent US federal stimulus did not significantly enhance the level of public investment. As you can see from the charts below, whether you look at total (federal, state and local) nondefense public investment as a percentage of gross domestic product (Chart 1) or public investment as a percentage of private nonresidential investment (Chart 2), the US federal stimulus initiated at the onset of the last recession resulted in a very large increase in public investment.

Chart 1: Public investment as a percentage of GDP, Source: St. Louis Fed

Chart 2: Public investment as a percent of private investment, Source: St. Louis Fed

Finally, in regard to Crescenzi's point about public investment being more effective than measures that boost private consumption, one could argue that government intervention aimed at increasing private consumption is not necessarily detrimental if it is accompanied by a decline in household indebtedness (see Chart 3). As the great economist and disciple of Keynes, Lorie Tarshis, once wrote in relation to remedies for recession (or Depression):

The general objective is clear: to increase employment, we must either increase the propensity to consume or increase investment. And, as a matter of fact, there is no reason why we should not try to increase both. (1947:570) (emphasis added)

But, on the whole, I am willing to agree with Crescenzi that, given the current state of US public infrastructure, increasing public investment would be more beneficial than measures aimed at increasing consumption.

Chart 3: Financial Obligations and Debt service to income, Source: St. Louis Fed

Reference

Tarshis, L., The Elements of Economics (Riverside Press: Cambridge), 1947

Deficit myths (Part 2): The effect of deficits on macroeconomic stability

Paul Krugman is right in saying that the crisis in Europe has absolutely nothing to do with Europeans' preference for an extensive welfare state. As Krugman demonstrates, there is simply no reason to believe that the deterioration in the public finances of European nations now affected by the debt crisis was caused by the financial cost of welfare policies in those nations.

Indeed, I would add that the claim that welfare policies are somehow responsible for the current debt crisis in Europe is particularly implausible in the case of the Spanish government, which, prior to the financial crisis and ensuing recession, was actually running sizeable fiscal surpluses (see Chart 1). This fact alone should be sufficient to dispel the myth that the current European crisis was the result of uncontrolled and unsustainable government spending. (See Addendum below for data on Ireland and Iceland)

Chart 1: Cash Surplus/Deficit for Spain, Source: St. Louis Fed

In fact, in regard to the causes of macroeconomic instability, there is very little empirical evidence to support the view that public sector debt and deficits cause debt crises or have any significant impact on macroeconomic stability. This was demonstrated recently by the research staff of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the May 2010 edition of the IMF Fiscal Monitor (2010:67).

As you can see from the chart contained in the Fiscal Monitor (see below), the relationship between government debt as a percentage of GDP and macroeconomic volatility is extremely weak.* The reason for this is that financial crises can afflict nations with either small or large debt burdens. Examples of nations with relatively small debt burdens that were impacted by a financial crisis include those nations affected by the East Asian crisis in the late 90s.

Chart 2: Macroeconomic volatility and debt level, Source: IMF

* The purpose of the red horizontal line in the chart is to show that the level of volatility is more or less the same at any ratio of debt.

Reference

IMF, Fiscal Monitor: Navigating the fiscal challenges ahead, World Economic and Financial Surveys, May 2010

See here to read Part 1 of this series on deficit myths: The effect of deficits on interest rates

Addendum (added on November 11, 2011)

Central government debt: Ireland, Spain, Iceland, Source: St. Louis Fed

Central government surplus: Ireland, Spain, Iceland, Source: St. Louis Fed