Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit? (Secular stagnation edition)

Over 50 years ago, James Tobin wrote an article for the New Republic entitled "Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit" (1963) that explains why the US federal government almost always needs to run a budget deficit.

The article is a gem. It has everything a good macroeconomics article should have: lots of debunking, all the relevant data, and a good dose of policy recommendations.

Unfortunately, the article is nowhere to be found on the internet. This post seeks to fix that by providing some key excerpts. Another purpose of this post is to use Tobin's analytical framework in that article and apply it to today's economic environment in the US.

Tobin on US Sectoral Financial Balances, circa 1963

The article starts off by describing the fundamental (iron?) law of financial balances:

For every buyer there must be a seller, and for every lender a borrower. One man's expenditure is another's receipt. My debts are your assets, my deficits your surplus. 

If each of us was consistently "neither borrower nor lender," as Polonius advised, no one would ever need to violate the revered wisdom of Mr. Micawber. But if the prudent among us insist on running and lending surpluses, some of the rest of us are willy-nilly going to borrow to finance budget deficits. 

In the United States today one budget that is usually left holding a deficit is that of the federal government. When no one else borrows the surpluses of the thrifty, the Treasury ends up doing so. Since the role of debtor and borrower is thought to be particularly unbecoming to the federal government , the nation feels frustated and guilty. 

Unhappily, crucial decisions of economic policy too often reflect blind reactions to these feelings. The truisms that borrowing is the counterpart of lending and deficits the counterpart of surpluses are overlooked in popular and Congressional discussions of government budgets and taxes. Both guilt feelings and policy are based serious misunderstanding of the origin of federal budget and surpluses. (1963:10)

Tobin then goes on to explain that both the household and financial sectors were running large financial surpluses (worth $20 billion combined in 1963):

American households and financial institutions consistently run financial surpluses. They have money to lend, beyond their own needs to borrow. As a group American households and non-profit institutions have in recent years shown a net financial surplus averaging about $15 billion a year -- that is, households are ready to lend, or to put into equity investments...more than they are ready to borrow. [...] In addition, financial institutions regularly generate a lendable surplus, now of the order of $5 billion a year. For the most part these institutions -- banks, saving and loans associations, insurance companies, pension funds, and like -- are simply intermediaries which borrow and relend the public's money. Their surpluses result from the fact that they earn more their lending operations than they distribute or credit to their depositors, shareowners, and policyholders. [...]

The article goes on to list the sectors of the economy that must borrow the $20 billion in surplus funds available from households and financial institutions:

State and local governments as a group have been averaging $3-4 billion a year of net borrowing...Unincorporated businesses, including farms, absorb another 3-4 billion a year. To the rest of the world we can lend perhaps $2 billion a year. We cannot lend abroad -- net -- more than the surplus of our exports over our imports of goods and services, and some of that surplus we give away in foreign aid. [...]

The remainder -- some $10-12 billion -- must be used either by nonfinancial corporate business or by the federal government. Only if corporations as a group take $10-12 billion of external funds, by borrowing or issuing new equities, can the federal government expect to break even. [...]

Tobin then follows into a discussion about the policy implications of these lending and borrowing dynamics:

The moral is inescapable, if startling. If you would like the federal deficit to be smaller, the deficits of business must be bigger. Would you like the federal government to run a surplus and reduce its debt? Then the business deficits must be big enough to absorb that surplus as well as the funds available from households and financial institutions. 

That does not mean business must run at a loss -- quite the contrary. Sometimes, it is true, unprofitable business are forced to borrow or to spend financial reserves just to stay afloat; this was a major reason for business deficits in the depths of the Great Depression. But normally it is business with good profits and good prospects that borrow and sell new shares of stock, in order to finance expansion and modernization...The incurring of financial deficits by business firms -- or by households and governments for that matter -- does not usually mean that such institutions are living beyond their means and consuming their capital. Financial deficits are typically the means of accumulating nonfinancial assets -- real property in the form of inventories, buildings and equipment. 

When does business run big deficits? When do corporations draw heavily on the capital markets? The record is clear: when business is very good, when sales are pressing hard on capacity, when businessmen see further expansion ahead. Though corporations' internal funds -- depreciation allowances and plowed-back profits -- are large during boom times, their investment programs are even larger. [...]

Recession, idle capacity, unemployment, economic slack -- these are the enemies of the balanced government budget. When the economy is faltering, households have more surpluses available to lend, and business firms are less inclined to borrow them. (1963:11)

The Corporate Sector: From Deficits to Large Surpluses

Of course, at the time Tobin wrote this article, US financial balances weren't exactly the same as they are today. Households as a group were running financial surpluses, the US was mostly a net lendor to the rest of the world, and the corporate sector was a net borrower of funds. Essentially, three things have changed since the mid-1980s with respect to financial balances (see charts below, double-click to enlarge).

First, starting in the mid-1980s, the US has become a net borrower to the rest of the world. Second, since the early 1990s and until the financial crisis, households were net borrowers to other sectors; since 2007, the household sector has returned to its traditional role of being a net lender. Finally, since the 1990s, the corporate sector has been at different times either a net lender or net borrower. However, since 2009, the corporate sector has been running a very large net financial surplus.*

What is the main policy implication to take-away from this state of affairs?

I would venture that the main take-away is that it's unlikely the US federal government will balance its budget any time soon unless households and/or firms start spending again.

In a recent article for an IMF publication entitled "Secular Stagnation: Affluent Economies Stuck in Neutral", economist Robert Solow (MIT) discussed the business sector's net lending position as a possible sign that there may be a "shortage of investment opportunities yielding a rate of return acceptable to investors" or, stated differently, that the "real rate of interest compatible with full utilization is negative, and not consistently achievable", a situation associated with the notion of "secular stagnation":

In the United States, at least, business investment has recovered only partially from the recession, although corporate profits have been very strong. The result, as pointed out in an unpublished paper by Brookings Institution Senior Fellows Martin Baily and Barry Bosworth, is that business saving has exceeded business investment since 2009. The corporate sector, normally a net borrower, became a net lender to the rest of the economy. This does smell rather like a reaction to an expected fall in the rate of return on investment, as the stagnation hypothesis suggests. (see chart below)

Source: Baily and Bosworth, 2013

Secular Stagnation

So what can be done? Paul Samuelson and Anthony Scott asked a similar question in the 1971 Canadian edition of their Economics textbook:

What if our continental economy is in for what Harvard's Alvin Hansen called "secular stagnation"? - which means a long period in which slowing population increase, [...], high corporate saving, the vast piling up of capital goods, and a bias toward capital-saving inventions will imply depressed investment schedules relative to saving schedules? Will not active fiscal policy designed to wipe out such deflationary gaps then result in running a deficit most of the time, leading to a secular growth in the public debt? The modern answer is "Under these conditions, yes; and over the decades the budget should not necessarily be balanced." (1971:436-7)

In my next post, I'll write more about secular stagnation and policy responses to address its possible eventuality.

* This post by Brian Romanchuk contains many useful charts and information on financial balances, as well as discusses secular stagnation from a stock-flow consistent perspective.

Update: I added charts on 2014-10-14, following a comment by Ramanan.

References

Baily, M. N., B. Bosworth, "The United States Economy: Why such a weak recovery", September 11, 2013, Brookings Institution, Washington DC.

Samuelson and Scott, Economics, 3rd Canadian Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1971

Solow, R., "Secular Stagnation: Affluent Economies Stuck in Neutral", in Looming Ahead, Finance and Development, vol. 51 , no.3. September 2014.

Tobin, J., "Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit?", New Republic, January 19, 1963

When the Fed supported a Job Guarantee policy (and the economist who made it happen)

Circuit here. I'm back from a few months hiatus following the birth of my second child, a baby girl. Thanks to all readers for your continued interest in this blog.

A few weeks ago, Rolling Stone magazine ran a piece by Jesse Myerson supporting the idea that the government should guarantee a job to anyone who is willing to work. In their recent work, Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein also give support to this policy proposal. Randy Wray, Warren Mosler and other modern money (MMT) economists have been pushing for this idea for a long time. On the center-right and right, the idea is being promoted by Peter Cove and Kevin Hasset.

This is good news. I certainly welcome a good debate on this idea. That said, it's too bad that commentators who are skeptical of the idea simply dismiss it as a non-starter for policymakers.

This, of course, is overstating the case somewhat. It's worth recalling that in the 1970s none other than the Chairman of the Federal Reserve supported the idea that the federal government should be the "employer of last resort". Here's the former Fed Chairman Arthur Burns back in 1975:

I believe that the ultimate objective of labor market policies should be to eliminate all involuntary unemployment. This is not a radical or impractical goal. It rests on the simple but often neglected fact that work is far better than the dole, both for the jobless individual and for the nation. A wise government will always strive to create an environment that is conducive to high employment in the private sector. Nevertheless, there may be no way to reach the goal of full employment short of making the government an employer of last resort. This could be done by offering public employment -- for example, in hospitals, schools, public parks, or the like -- to anyone who is willing to work at a rate of pay somewhat below the Federal minimum wage. 

Burns

With proper administration, these public service workers would be engaged in productive labor, not leaf-raking or other make-work. To be sure, such a program would not reach those who are voluntarily unemployed, but there is also no compelling reason why it should do so. What it would do is to make jobs available for those who need to earn some money. 

It is highly important, of course, that such a program should not become a vehicle for expanding public jobs at the expense of private industry. Those employed at the special public jobs will need to be encouraged to seek more remunerative and more attractive work. This could be accomplished by building into the program certain safeguards -- perhaps through a Constitutional amendment -- that would limit upward adjustment in the rate of pay for these special public jobs. With such safeguards, the budgetary cost of eliminating unemployment need not be burdensome. I say this, first, because the number of individuals accepting the public service jobs would be much smaller than the number now counted as unemployed; second, because the availability of public jobs would permit sharp reduction in the scope of unemployment insurance and other governmental programs to alleviate income loss. To permit active searching for a regular job, however, unemployment insurance for a brief period -- perhaps 13 weeks or so -- would still serve a useful function.

The idea was even supported by one of the most respected names in economics at the time: Franco Modigliani.  When asked to comment on Chairman Burns's proposal during a testimony before the Congressional Banking committee in 1976, Modigliani said the following:

...the idea of a public employment program as an employer of last resort, which is an alternative to unemployment compensation, strikes me as a very sound idea (p. 110).

Interestingly, the economist who got Burns and the Fed to put serious thought into the idea of a job guarantee was another well-respected contributor to US public policy during that period: Eli Ginzberg.

Job Creation through Public Service Employment

Eli Ginzberg was a Professor of Economics at Columbia University and author of numerous books on human resources and manpower economics. He was also -- in the language of Harold Wilensky and organizational sociology -- a "contact man", a person who provides ideas and furnishes intelligence to decision-makers on the political and ideological tendencies in the society at large. Ginzberg played this role throughout his career as presidential adviser for many administrations and through his affiliation with the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), which recently marked its 40th year of operation.

Ginzberg was an institutional economist in the tradition of John M. Clark and Wesley C. Mitchell who believed fervently that "people, rather than physical or financial capital, were the principal source of productivity and wealth" (1987:107). For this reason, Ginzberg believed it was critical for the government to eliminate unemployment as quickly as possible through the use of a publicly-funded jobs program.

Another reason why Ginzberg believed the government ought to be employer of last resort is that he understood that economies sometimes face a shortfall in jobs that makes it impossible for all unemployed workers to find work:

Just as reality has mocked the ethos of equality of opportunity for many minority children, the counterpart doctrine that adults are responsible for their own support and that of their dependents has been undermined by the continuing shortfall in jobs. The existence of high unemployment rates make it socially callous, even reprehensible, for a society to continue to affirm the doctrine that all adults who need income should work and then not provide adequate opportunities for many of them to fulfill this imperative. 

Although the US experimented with federally financed job creation in the 1930s and again in the 1970s, the record in retrospect must be viewed as equivocal. Most students believe that on balance the New Deal was right to put large numbers of the unemployed to work on governmentally financed programs rather than to keep them on the dole as the British did. (1987:162) 

Ginzberg

On this last point concerning whether income transfers or guaranteed work should be the centerpiece of US social policy, Ginzberg's view was informed by the work he did during the Great Depression. Here's how Ginzberg summarized the conclusions of a 1947 book entitled The Unemployed that he co-authored on the topic of unemployment during the Great Depression:

The principal lessons I extracted included the superiority of work relief over cash support...; the cause of unemployment being rooted in a shortfall in demand for labor, not in the inadequacies of the unemployed; the centrality of work and self-support for the integrity of the individual worker, his family, and the community. By the time our investigation was concluded, [we] were convinced that no society concerned about its security and survival could afford to remain passive and inert in the face of long-term unemployment. We argued that in the absence of an adequate number of private sector jobs, it was the responsibility of government to create public sector jobs. (1987:111)

Ginzberg also believed that guaranteed work for those who are able and willing would find greater acceptability among Americans than a policy that would require government providing a guarantee income to everyone. According to Ginzberg, providing guaranteed income to everyone would conflict with the powerful American ethos of self-reliance and the American population's highly favorable view toward the culture of work:

There is no simple way, in fact, there is no way to square the following: to provide a decent minimum income for every needy person/family in the US, given the differentials in living standards, public attitudes, and state taxing capacity, and at the same time avoid serious distortions in basic value and incentive systems that expect people to be self-supporting through income earned from paid employment. (157)

For this reason, Ginzberg believed that a job guarantee should play a key role in social policy:

Accordingly, I would like to shift the focus from welfare to work, from income transfers to the opportunity to compete, from dependency status to participation in society. In advocating this shift toward jobs and earned income and away from unemployment and income transfers, the planners must focus on two fundamentals: the developmental experiences that young people need in order to be prepared to enter and succeed in the world of work; and the level of employment opportunities that a society must provide so that everybody able and willing to work, at least at the minimum wage, will be able to do so. (157)

In the 1970s, Ginzberg held the position of Chairman of the National Commission for Manpower Policy, a government-mandated commission that produced some of the best policy-oriented research on the topic of public service employment, including an excellent paper entitled "Public Service Employment as Macroeconomic Policy" by Martin Neil Baily and Robert Solow (1978) that explains how public service employment (PSE), while not necessarily more stimulative than the normal kind of fiscal policy (e.g., government spending on goods and services and tax measures), can be a perfectly sensible policy if the program is well-administered and the jobs that are created provide useful social output:

Solow and Baily

We conclude that the main advantages of PSE over conventional fiscal policy are: (a) that it can be targeted to provide jobs for hard-to-employ groups in the labour force, and for especially depressed cities and regions; (b) that PSE employment, correctly targeted, may be slightly less inflationary than the same amount of ordinary private sector employment, so that total employment can safely be a little higher with a PSE component; and (c) that PSE can be coordinated with other forms of social insurance -- public assistance and unemployment insurance, for instance -- to make them perhaps more effective and certainly more acceptable to public opinion. (1978:30)

Solow later revisited the issue of public service employment in Work and Welfare (1998), in which he argued that any attempt to reform the welfare system in order to get the unemployed back to work would only succeed if every able and willing worker is given access to a job through public service employment and/or by offering incentives to businesses to hire the unemployed.

The Deal 

It was in the 1970s that Ginzberg persuaded Chairman Burns to call on the US federal government to become the employer of last resort.  Here's Ginzberg's account of how he was able to get the Fed Chairman to support the job guarantee:

I made a deal with Arthur Burns when he was the head of the Federal Reserve, that I would try to control the amount of money we asked for from the Congress for manpower training if he would come out in favor of the government as the employer of last resort. And he did it. It took him a year, but I negotiated with him and he did it.

A final word. Although Ginzberg supported the idea of a job guarantee, he fully recognized the high budgetary cost that such a policy would entail and the practical challenges facing public administrators in terms of successfully implementing a public service employment program. To address these concerns, he believed the government authorities should make improvements to the program using trial and error and cautious experimentation. But the key, he would argue, is to ensure that the jobs created through these measures provide productive social output:

There is no big trick to put more and more people on public service employment. If that is the only thing that one is interested in, obviously, the Federal Government can create the money by fiat and put more people on public service employment. The question is what are the short- and long-run implications of doing that in terms of keeping our economy productive, competitive and innovative....So I do not think it is just jobs; it is productive jobs and that is another way of saying that the Federal Government can go only part of the way in terms of assuring that we have a productive economy. 

References

Baily, Martin N. and Robert Solow, "Public Service Employment as Macroeconomic Policy", National Commission for Manpower Policy, 1978

Ginzberg, Eli, The Skeptical Economist, Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1987

National Commission for Manpower Policy, "Job Creation through Public Service Employment: An Interim Report to the Congress", 1978

Solow, Robert, Work and Welfare, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998

On the (ir)relevance of the money multiplier model: The Fed view

It has long been known within the Federal Reserve System -- especially among economists who worked in the FRS in the 1970s and 1980s when much of the research agenda was directed at issues of monetary control -- that the money multiplier model of money stock determination is not the most realistic (or useful) way to understand how central banks conduct monetary policy.

Here is the former Fed Governor, the late Sherman Maisel, during a conference on the theme of 'Controlling Monetary Aggregates' in 1971:

It is clear that, as a matter of fact, the Federal Reserve does not attempt to increase the money supply by a given amount in any period by furnishing a fixed amount of reserves on the assumption that they would be multiplied to result in a given increase in money [...] 

Many unsophisticated comments and theories speak as if the Federal Reserve purchases a given quantity of securities, thereby creating a fixed amount of reserves, which through a multiplier determines a particular expansion in the money supply. Much of modern monetary literature is actually spent trying to dispel this naive elementary textbook view which leads people to talk as if (and perhaps to believe) the central bank determines the money supply exactly or even closely--in the short run-through its open market operations or reserve ratio. This incorrect view, however, seems hard to dislodge. (1971:153, 161)

Briefly, the money multiplier is basically a relationship between deposits (D) and reserves (R), D = mR, (or M = mB) where m is called the money multiplier (or M is money stock and B is the monetary base). According to the model, if banks keep excess reserves to a minimum and reserve requirements are applied to all deposits, then the multiplier can be constant and the central bank -- if it retains control of the volume of reserves -- can control the amount of deposits (Goodfriend and Hargraves, 1983:5). However, if the central bank does not exercise control over the amount of reserves, the multiplier model is inoperable and cannot be exploited for monetary control purposes.

The Classic Fed View

In the US, the Fed's inability to control the quantity of reserves in recent decades (before October 2008) is said to be because of the introduction of lagged reserve requirements in the late 1960s and the Fed's almost continuous use of an interest rate operating procedure.

Former St. Louis Fed economist, R. Alton Gilbert, discussed the impact of lagged reserve accounting on Fed operations in his article "Lagged Reserve Requirements: Implications for Monetary Control and Bank Reserve Management" (1980):

[Lagged reserve accounting] breaks the link between reserves available to the banking system in the current week and the amount of deposit liabilities that banks can create in the current week. If banks increase aggregate demand deposits liabilities in response to an increase in loan demand, they are under no immediate pressure to reduce their deposit liabilities...Under LRA, the Federal Reserve tends to adjust total reserves each week in response to the total deposit liabilities that banks created two weeks earlier. (1980:12)

With lagged reserve requirements in effect the volume of reserves is determined by banking system demand. Reserve demand is simply accommodated and required reserves serve only to enlarge the demand for reserves at any given level of deposits. Under LRA, the change in R occurs as a result of changes in D, the exact opposite of the money multiplier model.

Former Richmond Fed economist, Marvin Goodfriend, discussed the relevance of the money multiplier model when lagged reserve requirements are in effect in his paper "A model of money stock determination with loan demand and a banking system balance sheet constraint" (1982):

...[T]he discussion has shown that the money multiplier is not generally a complete model of money stock determination and is actually irrelevant to money stock determination for some monetary control procedures. Specifically, the money multiplier is irrelevant to determination of the monetary aggregates if lagged reserve requirements are in effect. (1982:15)

As for the other institutional factor relating to the Fed's use of an interest rate operating procedure, Robert Hetzel of the Richmond Fed highlighted the following in his paper "A Critique of Theories of Money Stock Determination" (1986):

Deposits and reserve demand are determined simultaneously with credit creation. As a consequence of defending its rate target, the monetary authority, by creating an infinitely elastic supply of reserves, accommodates whatever reserve demand emerges...In a regime of rate targeting, neither the quantity of reserves nor the desired reserves-deposits ratio of the banking system exercises a causal role in the determination of the money stock (1986:6) [...]

Interest rate smoothing by the monetary authority makes reserves and the money stock endogenous...Since [Chester] Phillips (1921), reserves-money multiplier formulas have been derived from a model of the banking sector summarized in the multiple expansion of deposits produced by an injection of reserves. The existence of markets for bank reserves, however, renders this model untenable. Phillips' model assumes that the individual bank is constrained by the quantity of its reserves and that its asset acquisition and deposit creation are driven by discrepancies between actual and desired reserves. Given the existence of markets for bank reserves, such as the fed funds and CD markets, however, individual banks are constrained by the price, rather than the quantity, of reserves they hold. (1986:20) (emphasis added)

A succinct and detailed discussion of the problems associated with multiplier models of money stock determination is found in the excellent article "Understanding the remarkable survival of multiplier models of money stock determination" (1992) by former Fed economist, Raymond Lombra:

Assuming textbook authors reveal their intellectual and pedagogical preferences and beliefs, a careful survey of the leading intermediate textbooks in money and banking and macroeconomics reveals a uniform and virtually universal consensus – the multiplier model of money stock determination is widely viewed as the most appropriate and presumably most correct approach to the topic...Since such consensus is not, in general, an enduring characteristic of monetary economics, one is tempted to “let sleeping dogs lie”. The problem is that the multiplier model, whether viewed from an analytical or empirical perspective, is at best a misleading and incomplete model and at worst a completely misspecified model. (Lombra, 1992:305) (emphasis added)

Lombra's article is especially useful because it groups together the different critiques of the multiplier approach into two categories (the article discusses a third set of critiques relating to the predictive accuracy of multiplier models but this issue is less relevant for this post). 

The first set of critiques identified by Lombra is that the multiplier model "is not structural but rather is a reduced-form", a point first made in the 1960s by proponents of the "New View" (including James Tobin in "Commercial banks as creators of "money")*. Lombra summarizes this critique as follows:

Succinctly stated, the critique emphasizes that the multiplier approach abstracts from the short-run dynamics of adjustments by banks and the public, leaves the role of interest rates implicit rather than explicit, and proceeds that the movements in the monetary base (or reserves) are orthogonal to fluctuations in the multiplier. The multiplier model, it is argued, implies that deposit expansion is quantity constrained through the Fed's control over the sources of bank reserves (chiefly, the Fed portfolio of securities). One of the most forceful and articulate crafters of the critique, Basil Moore, concludes that "as a result, the money multiplier framework is of no analytical or operational use".

The consensus view of the staff and policymakers within the Federal Reserve, as revealed in numerous publications, embraces much, if not all, of the critique advanced by Moore and others. In particular, the Fed adheres to the view that the system is equilibrated through the movements of interest rates, which through their effects on bank revenues and costs, determine banks' and the public's desired asset and liability positions. In this view, money is controlled by using open market operations to affect interest rates which in turn affect demand and thus the uses of bank reserves (chiefly, required reserves).  (307)

The second set of critiques discussed by Lombra concerns the issue of the endogeneity of reserves, that is, the notion that the quantity of reserves is in practice determined by the banking system:

This contention, which is related to the lagged reserve accounting scheme...and the Fed's interest rate operating procedure in effect for virtually all of the post-Accord period, implies the multiplier model is completely irrelevant for the determination of the money supply. (308)

Lombra's article concludes with a discussion on why, despite these important flaws, the multiplier approach continues to be popular among economists. The reason, he argues, is that when applied to longer term horizons the models track monetary growth reasonably well:

The model lives on with model-builders who are confirmed adherents to the Law of Parsimony and skilled in the use of Occam's Razor. The high correlations and identities so tightly linking reserves (or the base) and money over the longer run provide all the comfort most empiricists need to proceed as if the concerns noted above matter little. (312)

Still irrelevant?

Recently, Fed economists Seth Carpenter and Silva Demiralp concluded in their paper "Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?" that the money multiplier is not a useful means of assessing the implications of monetary policy for money growth or bank lending in the US.

Not only does their paper discuss the institutional factors that render the money multiplier inoperable (including those discussed above), it also demonstrates empirically that the relationships between reserves and money implied by the money multiplier model do not exist.

These conclusions should, however, be viewed with caution given that the period under investigation in the paper ends in 2008, just prior to the Fed's shift toward the use of unconventional monetary policies.

Interestingly, Robert Hetzel now believes that the money multiplier model has actually gained relevance since the Fed started with its large-scale asset purchases in 2008.

Here is an excerpt from Hetzel's recent book, The Great Recession:

Starting in mid-December 2008 when the FOMC lowered its funds-rate target to near zero with payment of interest on bank reserves, the textbook reserves-money multiplier framework became relevant for the determination of the money stock. The reason is that the Fed's instrument then became its asset portfolio, the left side of its balance sheet, which determined the monetary base, the right side of its balance sheet. As a result, from December 2008 onward, the nominal (dollar) money stock was determined independently of the demand for real money. Although the reserves-money multiplier increased because of the increased demand by banks for excess reserves, the Fed retained control of M2 growth. Even if banks hold onto increases in excess reserves, the money stock increases one-for-one with open market purchases. (2012:237) (emphasis added)

In other words, Hetzel is saying that, as a result of its ability to determine the monetary base (B), the Fed now exercises considerable control over the change in deposits (D). And by doing so, Hetzel is suggesting that the Fed -- in one way or another -- is currently exploiting the money multiplier framework.

Here's a chart that appears to support Hetzel's claim:

The chart shows that since 2008 changes in B -- resulting from Fed asset purchases -- are clearly associated with changes in M**. For the period prior to 2008, there is no such relationship.

Hetzel's claim about the relevance of the multiplier approach could help to explain why some commentators have found causal relationships between changes in the monetary base and other variables for the period since December 2008.

For instance, Market Monetarist proponent Mark Sadowski recently pointed to empirical evidence that changes in the monetary base have had some causal role since December 2008:

I’ve done Granger causality tests on the monetary base over the period since December 2008 and find that the monetary base Granger causes the real broad dollar index, the S&P 500, the DJIA, commercial bank deposits, commercial bank loans and leases, the PCEPI, and 5-year inflation expectations as measured by TIPS.

So what's the bottom line? Does this mean the money multiplier model is now relevant?

On the one hand, I'm not convinced the model is entirely applicable (for instance, the textbook treatment implies that banks keep excess reserves to a minimum, which is obviously not the case today). On the other hand, it's unlikely that Hetzel is somehow wrong here.

Fortunately, I don't think it matters much one way or another, unless perhaps you are a Fed technician or an econometrician. What does matter is that the Fed currently exercises control over the monetary base. This, in itself, is a significant development for understanding the policy options now available to the Fed.

One thing is for sure, this recent development provides an excellent illustration of a crucial point often highlighted in Raymond Lombra's work:

The specific procedures ("policy rule") employed by the Fed and the reserve accounting regulations governing bank reserve management play a crucial role in determining causal relationships and system dynamics. (1992:309)

------

* The 'New View' focused on the role of assets, both real and financial, and the relative price mechanism in monetary analysis. From an operational standpoint, it contended that the Fed has little control over the money stock and that the money stock plays only a minor role in the transmission mechanism linking Fed actions to the real sectors of the economy.

** It's clear that the monetary base is not pulled upward due to increased deposit creation by banks.

References

Carpenter, S and S. Demiralp, Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?", Finance and Economics Discussion Series Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C.2010

Gilbert, R.A., Lagged Reserve Requirements: Implications for Monetary Control and Bank Reserve Management", Monthly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis, 1980:

Goodfriend, M., A model of money stock determination with loan demand and a banking system balance sheet constraint", Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Working Paper, 1982

Goodfriend, M. and M. Hargraves, A historical assessment of the rationales and functions of reserve requirements, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Working Paper, 83-1, 1983

Hetzel, R., A Critique of Theories of Money Stock Determination, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Working Paper, 86-6, 1986

Hetzel, R., The Great Recession: Policy Failure or Market Failure, Cambridge University Press, 2012

Lombra, Raymond. Understanding the remarkable survival of multiplier models of money stock determination, Eastern Economics Journal, Vol 18, No 3, 1992

Maisel, S., Controlling Monetary Aggregates, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Conference Proceedings, 1971

Tobin, J., Commercial banks as creators of "money" 1963

The Old Keynesian prescription to get out of a deep recession

In my previous post, I highlighted an article that shows the most promising unconventional monetary policies for boosting ailing economies right now are overt monetary financing and the policy measures advocated by neo-chartalists.

It's worth mentioning that, from a practical standpoint, this is essentially what the traditional, Keynesian IS-LM model would prescribe in a context of high public debt combined with nominal interest rates at the zero lower bound.

A good example of the application of IS-LM toward this end is Robert Gordon's analysis of the difficulties facing Japanese policymakers in the 1990s:

If monetary policy is impotent because it cannot reduce the interest rate any further, a fiscal stimulus is required to end the slump and bring back the output ratio back to its desired level [...]

The low level of the Japanese interest rate created a policy dilemma in Japan. Monetary policy could not push interest rates appreciably lower, yet fiscal policymakers felt constrained in achieving a large fiscal stimulus by the high existing level of the fiscal deficit in Japan and by the fact that the public debt in Japan had reached 100 percent of real GDP. 

However, the IS-LM model suggests a way out of the Japanese policy dilemma... [:] a combined monetary and fiscal policy stimulus that shifts the LM and IS curves rightward by the same amount can boost real GDP without any need for a decline in interest rates [...]

Also, with such a combined policy there is no need for a further increase in the national debt held by the public, since to achieve its monetary expansion, the central bank can buy the government bonds issued as a result of the increased fiscal deficit [...]

Why did the Bank of Japan resist what seemed to be the obvious solution, which was that the Bank buy up the government bonds issued as a result of the fiscal stimulus? This solution, sometimes called "monetizing the debt", would be the real-world equivalent of shifting the LM curve rightward along with the IS curve, in contrast to the increased interest rates that would result if the IS curve were pushed rightward without a corresponding rightward LM movement. Bank of Japan policymakers retreated into the traditional fear of central bankers that monetizing the debt would undermine the Bank's independence and credibility, two goals that are embedded in the structure of beliefs of central bankers. In fact, as a result of rapid inflation after World War II, the Bank is legally banned from buying bonds directly from government, although it is still able to purchase government bonds indirectly through financial markets. 

The traditional reason for the historic reluctance of central bankers to monetize the debt and conduct a simultaneous monetary and fiscal expansion has been fear of inflation. Yet Japan's problem in the late 1990s was deflation, not inflation [...]

While the prescription of the IS-LM model in favor of a combined monetary-fiscal expansion seemed clear, implementing this policy recommendation was blocked by the reluctance of the Bank of Japan's to give up its historic commitment to price stability. (137-138) (emphasis added)

One final word. This type of policy solution goes back a long way. A variant of this mechanism -- minus the IS-LM language -- is even found in (Keynesian) Lorie Tarshis's textbook published in 1947.

Reference

Gordon, R., Macroeconomics, Eighth Edition, 2000.

Which unconventional monetary policies hold most promise?

Kudos to Biagio Bossone, Chairman of the Group of Lecce and former central banker (and circuit theorist par excellence), for his first-rate analysis (see here: part 1 and part 2) of the different types of unconventional monetary policy measures that have been implemented and proposed in the last few years!

Bossone's piece does a fantastic job of presenting the different policy proposals into six distinct categories based on their implied transmission channel and the degree of cooperation between the fiscal and monetary authorities that is required in order to implement the proposed measures.

The main take-away from the analysis is that Bossone finds the proposals that aim to boost aggregate demand via fiscal actions are the most promising. According to Bossone, the benefits of fiscal measures (with or without actions by the monetary authority) are that their effect is more direct than policy measures such as quantitative easing (which works indirectly via its impact on interest rates) or forward guidance (which works indirectly via its effect on the public's expectations on future interest rates).

In the concluding paragraph, Bossone writes,

...this result vindicates the proposed measures to expand the money supply via overt monetary financing or neo-chartalism, which aims to inject new money independently of central banks' interest-rate policies, especially if these are limited by the zero lower bound.

Reference

Bossone, B., Unconventional monetary policies revisited, Part 1 and Part 2, Vox, October 2013

Josef Steindl on why austerity fails: A Keynesian-Kaleckian view of stagnation policy and the endogenous budget deficit

This policy of stagnation is likely to continue, since governments are preoccupied with inflation and the public debt. Budget deficits can only disappear if private investment soars again. This is unlikely in view of excess capacity, which would only disappear if there were fiscal expansion. Josef Steindl (1979)

Surely the person who wrote the statement above would have no difficulty explaining what's wrong with the world economy today.

Josef Steindl was a great Keynesian-Kaleckian economist who was a master in the art of national accounts analysis. He was a close associate of Michal Kalecki and authored several articles on the important role of government and private debt in the economy. A quick glance at some of the titles of Steindl's work reveals that his articles on these issues might be of some relevance right now. (For more on Josef Steindl, see Nina Shapiro's excellent article published last year in Monthly Review)

Steindl's work was aimed primarily at uncovering the causes of economic stagnation. According to Steindl's "stagnation theory", one reason why economies trend toward stagnation is due to the behavior of firms when they refuse to reduce prices sufficiently relative to wages during periods of low demand. Low wages relative to prices lead to a fall in demand for goods and services, which in turn compels firms to reduce investment and creates a vicious cycle of falling profits and further cost reduction and reduced investment (resulting in additional unused capacity and unemployment and falling demand).

Steindl also argued that economies stagnate as a result of "stagnation policy", ill-advised government austerity measures intended to reduce or eliminate budget deficits when the economy is weak. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Steindl argued that austerity policies only make matters worse under such circumstances.

Steindl criticized austerity because he understood that the government's financial balance in the modern era was largely an endogenous variable that is determined primarily by changes in the financial position of other sectors of the economy, not by the autonomous policy decisions of the fiscal authorities. It is the influence of government automatic stabilizers and the growing importance of both consumer credit and foreign trade in the modern economy that render the government's financial balance largely endogenous.

The core of Steindl's approach to macroeconomic analysis is intuitive and similar to that of other Keynesian economists, including James Tobin (1963), Robert Eisner (1986) and Wynne Godley, all of whom analyzed the workings of the economy by examining how different sectors of the economy interact with one another. He divided the economy into four sectors (the government, households, businesses and the foreign sector) and examined how money flowed between them.

Steindl's analysis focused on credit flows and on how changes in one sector impacted other sectors. In doing so, Steindl basically applied an elementary principle of accounting to national economies: for every borrower there must be a lender. His method relied heavily on the use of national accounts data to identify trends and changes in financial flows. According to Steindl,

[t]he instrument for analysing the circular relations in an economy are the national accounts. They are a double entry book-keeping for the society, whole groups like households, business or government being represented by separate accounts, as are also activities like investment, consumption and so on. The systematic development of national accounting received its great impetus from Keynes and his theory [...] It offers a convenient way between the sterility of the Walrasian general equilibrium and the limited scope of the partial analysis of Marshall, because it is couched in terms of variables which are statistically measurable and at the same time relevant for national economic policy.(1985)

Steindl understood that, in terms of national accounts, the government deficit finds its counterpart in the surplus of at least one other sector of the economy. Since the surpluses and deficits of the various sectors (government, households, foreign and business) must balance, Steindl recognized that a huge deficit in one sector is always offset by surpluses elsewhere.

The endogenous budget deficit and the fallacy of austerity

Steindl was critical of the ("pre-Keynesian") tendency of many economists to view government budget deficits as an irritant to be eliminated. According to him, deficits in the modern era accomplished the opposite: they helped to boost aggregate demand when the economy is weak.

As mentioned above, Steindl viewed the budget deficit as a passive symptom of a weak economy rather than a problem to be actively addressed: actively trying to eliminating budget deficits would only worsen the situation. Steindl recognized that the size of the budget deficit is largely determined by the spending flows occurring among the other sectors of the economy. In this sense, he viewed the budget deficit largely as an endogenous variable that can't be easily controlled by policymakers. On whether the government has the ability to control the size of the budget deficit by changing its level of expenditures and/or revenue, Steindl argued the following:

While it is possible, in principle, to control the volume of government spending or taxation, the same is not true for the budget deficit. This is determined by the level of GDP resulting from the interplay of lending and borrowing of the various sectors. Let me refer to the well-known identity

( I – S_B) + (X – I) + (G – T) = (S_H – H)

Which says that the budget deficit G – T together with the borrowing of business I – S_B and of the outside world X – M equals the lending of households (i.e., excess of household saving S_H over investment in dwelling houses H) of households S_H – H.

Which of these sectors plays an active role depends on institutional circumstances. The budget deficit, in connection with Keynesian policies, used to be regarded as an active element, incurred on purpose by the government. In present circumstances it is more likely to play a passive role, and to be dominated by the other sectors. This is due to the large share of taxation in an additional GDP, to the strong and quick reactions of consumers to a change in income and to the fact that the foreign balance is more often dominated by outside influences than by domestic policy (by the GDP). In consequence attempts at reducing the budget deficit by retrenchment are mostly doomed to failure. [...]

If the foreign account is balanced, the budget deficit has simply to fill the gap between the household financial saving and the borrowing of business. This will apply to some approximation in countries where the role of the foreign balance is small as compared with that of other sectors. It will fully apply to all countries taken together because they form a closed system. For them the budget deficit given the financial surplus of the households, will be largely settled by the amount of private investment. On the other hand, in countries where the foreign balance can take large values it will, together with private investment, dominate the size (and sign) of the budget deficit. In both cases the budget deficit is predominantly suffered rather than contrived.

The conclusion is not pleasant to contemplate for the treasurer because it means that he can control the deficit, if at all, only by indirect routes: Business investment, and a fortiori the foreign balance, are not easy to control. (1983) (my emphasis)

That said, according to Steindl, there are circumstances in which the budget deficit can be made to decrease. Such favorable conditions are the same as those which lead to growth in private sector investment, namely, a satisfactory utilization of capacity and a growing market. In this regard, Steindl concludes that

[o]n certain conditions it would seem therefore that the best way to combat a deficit is to increase spending. The conditions are that there are unemployed resources, and that the additional spending is not drained away by imports. In these circumstances a policy of "reflation" should have a good chance of succeeding without adding to the budget deficit at all. On the one hand, the built-in stabilisers in modern welfare state are very strong. About half of the additional spending will come back to the treasury. On the other hand we have a modern destabiliser in the form of consumer's credit and durable goods consumption which will prevent the multiplier from being too low. This response of consumption will be very quick in contrast to the response of business investment which may take one or two years at least. In the interval business will merely accumulate additional saving. At the same time the consumers, owing to the expectation of a persistently higher level of income, will increase their spending on durables more than their disposable income has increased; they will therefore, taken all together, dissave (borrow) on balance, at the margin. (1983)

Now, it's important to point out that Steindl wrote the above at a time when growth in consumer credit could function as a way to counter the deflating effect of deficit reduction. Today, this is not the case, as consumers are seeking to repair their balance sheets following the financial crisis. This means that the only solution would be the one articulated in Steindl's quote found at the top of this post.

To conclude, there is growing appreciation these days among economists and commentators of the self-defeating nature of austerity and deficit reduction measures. The difficulties that many European nations are now facing in their quest to bring down deficits is consistent with Steindl's view that government austerity is exactly the wrong strategy for reducing the size of the budget deficit and bringing down debt during a period of slow growth.

PS: I recently stumbled upon this comment by economist Herbert Simon discussing Steindl's brand of economics:

It is pleasant, in an econometric world that has become idolatrous of mathematical "elegance," to encounter an author who thinks that mathematics is a tool - one of several - to aid in carrying out reasoning about economic matters.

References

Eisner, R., How Real is the Federal Budget? (New York: Free Press), 1986

Steindl, J., “The Role of Household Saving in the Modern Economy”, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, p.83, March, 1982

Steindl, J., "J.M. Keynes: Society and the Economist", Keynes' Relevance Today (London: MacMillan) 1985.

Steindl, Josef. “The Control of the Economy”, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, pp. 235-248, 1983

Shapiro, N., "Keynes, Steindl, and the Critique of Austerity Economics", Monthly Review, Vol 64, No.3, 2012

Simon, H., "Random Processes and the Growth of Firms: A Study of the Pareto Law" by Josef Steindl: Review, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 61, No. 316 (Dec., 1966), pp. 1232-1233

Tobin, J., Deficit, Deficit, Who's Got the Deficit, January 1963. New Republic, 1/19/63, Vol. 148 Issue 3, p10. 

Helicopter money: an operational view

Much has been written about Adair's Turner suggestion that central banks should consider financing public spending but I thought this short exchange between Adair Turner and economist Mario Seccareccia at an INET conference in 2011 is worth pointing out.

Here's Adair Turner's question:

[About Japan]...why wouldn't it been better still to do what Friedman said was the correct policy post facto in the 1930s, which is "helicopter money". Why wouldn't a better policy had been for the Japanese government to simply run fully, overtly, monetized deficits so that the last [inaudible] percent of GDP was not in the form of a debt contract held by the Japanese private sector but was in the form of absolute, categoric fiat money? (at 2:30 here)

This is Mario Seccareccia's response:

[About the] issue which had been raised about fiscal policy and the "helicopter drop" [vs conventional deficit spending]. That's a false dichotomy. I mean, deficit spending is -- in a sense -- monetization all the time. [Bond issuance is] how the central bank then behaves to clear or sterilize -- so to speak -- those reserves in the system in order to meet its interest rate policy. Period. There is no such thing as a "helicopter" doing this. It's always done through deficit spending fundamentally, I would argue. (at 9:00 here)

The point to remember when thinking about a central bank's ability to inject exogenous increases in reserve balances is that in a monetary regime such as Japan (and the UK for that matter) where the central bank targets an interest rate and the remuneration rate on reserves balances isn't set at the same level as its target interest rate, the central bank can't conduct offensive open market operations aimed at increasing the amount of reserve balances without simultaneously frustrating its goal of keeping its benchmark interest rate on target. Under such a regime the central bank's ability to control money growth is essentially limited to conducting defensive open market operations aimed at keeping its interest rate on target.

UPDATE: A very detailed look at the "helicopter drop" issue is found in Scott Fullwiler's article "Helicopter drops are fiscal operations" (2010). For a general discussion on offensive vs defensive open market operations, see Lombra, Herendeen and Torto, Money and the Financial System, page 425, 1980.

Does the endogenous nature of money weaken the case for NGDP targeting?

One charge that's often directed against those who espouse nominal GDP targeting within a quantity theory framework (e.g., market monetarists) is that they fail to take into account the endogenous nature of money in their analyses.

In my view, such a charge is misplaced, as there are economists within the quantity-theory tradition who support NGDP targeting and who acknowledge the endogenous nature of the money supply.

Take, for instance, Robert Hetzel, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and a strong advocate of NGDP targeting (and sometimes considered a precursor of today's market monetarists).  Hetzel has a deep understanding of the operational aspects of central banking and recognizes the implications for policy formulation posed by the endogenous nature of money.  Consider the following:

First, Hetzel understands that credit creation is at the root of deposit creation (i.e., "loans create deposits") and that the supply of reserve balances is demand-determined in a monetary regime where the central bank targets an interest rate.  Here is an excerpt from Hetzel's 1986 paper "A Critique of Theories of Money Stock Determination":

Deposits and reserve demand are determined simultaneously with credit creation. As a consequence of defending its rate target, the monetary authority, by creating an infinitely elastic supply of reserves, accommodates whatever reserve demand emerges...In a regime of rate targeting, neither the quantity of reserves nor the desired reserves-deposits ratio of the banking system exercises a causal role in the determination of the money stock (1986:6)

Second, Hetzel recognizes the inapplicability of the textbook money multiplier model of money stock determination in monetary regime where the central bank targets an interest rate and understands that the main constraint imposed on banks (for credit creation) under such a monetary regime is the price of reserve balances set by the central bank rather than their quantity:

Interest rate smoothing by the monetary authority makes reserves and the money stock endogenous...Since [Chester] Phillips (1921), reserves-money multiplier formulas have been derived from a model of the banking sector summarized in the multiple expansion of deposits produced by an injection of reserves.  The existence of markets for bank reserves, however, renders this model untenable.  Phillips' model assumes that the individual bank is constrained by the quantity of its reserves and that its asset acquisition and deposit creation are driven by discrepancies between actual and desired reserves.  Given the existence of markets for bank reserves, such as the fed funds and CD markets, however, individual banks are constrained by the price, rather than the quantity, of reserves they hold. (1986:20) (emphasis added)

Third, Hetzel recognizes the operational implications of endogenous money for monetary control. Consider the following excerpt from his 2004 article "How does the central bank control inflation?":

Because the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) uses the funds rate rather than the monetary base or bank reserves as its policy variable, money is endogenously determined. (2004:48) 

Stated differently, Hetzel recognizes that when the central bank uses an interest rate instrument the central bank cannot exogenously control the money supply:

[W]ith an interest rate as the policy variable, monetary control does not imply an exogenous money stock. (footnote at 48)...In the case of an interest rate instrument, the central bank privatizes control over reserves provision by turning the decision on the quantity of reserves over to the financial market...It takes direct control over the setting of the interest rate (55)

Finally, Hetzel understands that central bank purchases of government debt is not in itself inflationary.  Consider the following statement made recently by Hetzel during a presentation in Europe:

Somehow the Buba has this idea that if you buy government debt, that in itself is inflationary. Well, you gotta buy something to be able to create the monetary base that sustains money creation. So you gotta buy something. And you can buy baskets of government debt. But buying government debt is not inflationary. That's pursuing it far too much. (75 minutes)

So what differentiates Hetzel's views from the one of Keynesian-inspired economists who accept the endogenous nature of money (such as post-Keynesians)?

To answer this question and better understand how Hetzel is able to reconcile the above views with his attachment to the quantity-theory tradition, it's important to understand that Hetzel's framework for analyzing monetary policy relies on a natural rate (of interest) model, in which monetary control depends on how well the central bank can adjust its interest rate in a manner that tracks the natural rate of interest (i.e., the real interest rate that would exist in the absence of monetary disturbances*).  This is where Hetzel differs entirely from post-Keynesians.

In Hetzel's view, as mentioned above, in a context of endogenous money, the central bank doesn't control money creation via the textbook money multiplier process or by exogenous injections or withdrawals of base money.  Rather, Hetzel views money creation as the consequence of the central bank keeping its interest rate below the natural rate.  The reverse, money destruction, occurs when the central bank keeps its interest rate above the natural rate.  Hetzel explains the difference between his and the old monetarist description of money creation as follows:

The real world counterpart to the quantity theory conceptual experiment of an exogenous increase in money is a failure by the central bank to move its interest target in a way that tracks the natural rate (2004:51).

In other words, in Hetzel's quantity theory framework, money creation and the monetary transmission mechanism has little to do with adjusting the size of the monetary base or manipulating the textbook money multiplier in such a way as to expand the money supply by means of a multiple expansion of deposits.  (One exception is in today's case, where the Fed has the ability to control the amount of reserve balances.  In such a context, Hetzel considers the money multiplier model of money stock determination as relevant given that the money supply expands as a result of open-market purchases.)

So if it's not the money multiplier, what's the monetary transmission mechanism then?

Another point of divergence between Hetzel's view and the post-Keynesian view -- and this is important for understanding his framework for boosting NGDP (and thus enabling the central bank to hit its NGDP growth target) -- is that he holds a view emphasizing the central bank's ability to force portfolio rebalancing by the public and thereby control the public's dollar expenditures.  Liquidity or portfolio rebalancing involves the purchase by the public of illiquid assets such as consumer durables, equities, real estate, etc.  Hetzel explains the central bank's ability to foster portfolio rebalancing as follows:

Assume that the central bank purchases an illiquid asset, for example, shares in a mutual fund holding equities.  The public will rebalance its portfolio through the purchases of physical assets like land and equities.  The rise in their prices will raise their value as collateral and this facilitates the access to credit of the holders of these assets.  Increased liquidity from increased access to credit augments the portfolio rebalancing effect by decreasing the demand for the liquidity services of money.  The increase in the price of physical capital relative to its replacement cost stimulates investment. (2004:56)

There is no need to get into the other aspects of Hetzel's framework in support of NGDP targeting (e.g., role of central bank credibility and inflation expectations, establishment of a monetary rule...) since it is not altogether relevant to the basic point of this post, which is to say that the arguments about the irrelevance of the money multiplier or the endogenous nature of money that are sometimes made to counter the case in favor of NGDP targeting don't get to the core aspects of the debate, such as the issue of the natural rate.

Conclusion

The point of this post is simple: the arguments concerning the endogenous nature of money and the irrelevance of the textbook money multiplier do very little to challenge the case in favor of NGDP targeting (or inflation targeting, for that matter) and the general theoretical construct used by market monetarists.  As I've shown, the case for NGDP targeting can be made (at least theoretically) using a quantity theory approach that is consistent with the endogenous nature of money.

Therefore, from a debating standpoint, those who support a functional finance approach to economic policy (as I do) would gain more by focusing their efforts on challenging notions such as the natural rate of interest and in demonstrating the inadequacies of an approach to monetary policy whose monetary transmission mechanism relies largely on the portfolio balancing effect.  While the issue of the natural rate is largely a theoretical problem (Does it exist? Can it be measured?), the question of the portfolio balance effect is essentially an empirical issue (Is the portfolio rebalancing effect substantial? Can the central bank control it for policy purposes?)

As for the bloggers and economists who think that post-Keynesians and MMT economists are wrong about the endogenous nature of money and its implications for central bank operations, I would suggest they review the work of Robert Hetzel.  His take on these matters is in line with the post-Keynesian/MMT view.

* Another definition is "the real rate of interest consistent with keeping real aggregate demand in line with potential output" (see here).  Without getting into too many theoretical details, from a practical standpoint, central bankers tend to interpret decreases in rates of resource utilization (increases in the unemployment rate) as indicative of a real interest rate in excess of the natural rate (and vice-versa).

References

Hetzel, R., A critique of theories of money stock determination, Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 1986

Hetzel, R., How Do Central Banks Control Inflation?, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 2004

Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, The natural rate of interest, FRBSF Economic Letter, October 2003

Austerity in Canada: Then and Now

Canada's economic accounts for the third quarter of 2012 were released last week.  They show a very weak quarter.  Real gross domestic product barely stayed positive, growing by a mere 0.1 percent (see chart 1).  The details can be found here, courtesy of Statistics Canada (click on charts to expand).

Chart 1 Real GDP growth, quarterly % change

Many reasons have been given to explain the economy's weak performance, including the slowdown in China, the fiscal and financial situation in Europe, as well as tepid growth in the US during the summer months.

Of course, as usual, no one is pointing to the fact that Canada is currently undergoing its second most important (i.e., longest and sharpest) bout of public sector austerity in half a century.  One would think that commentators would highlight this reality in their analyses.

As you can see from the chart below, real (consolidated) government expenditure (excluding transfers) has been in decline since the fourth quarter of 2010.  Historically, such a decline in real government spending has only occurred once: during the period of fiscal restraint of the mid-1990s.

Chart 2: Real government expenditures, Source: Statistics Canada and author's calculations

The reason why commentators don't think of austerity as the potential cause of the current weak performance is that Canadians live under the illusion that government spending cuts have little or no impact on the economy.  This stems from the fact that the fiscal austerity put forth during the 1990s gave Canadians (and especially their political leaders) the false impression that cuts in government spending generally help to boost the economy.

Visually, this is how most commentators interpret Canada's experience with austerity in the 1990s (note: I'm not seeking to show a correlation between the two series. I'm simply overlapping both sets of data on a common timeline):

Chart 3: The vanishing deficit and the road to surpluses, Source: Statistics Canada

The standard view holds that fiscal austerity during the 1990s helped to shrink the deficit, thus enabling Canada to run a series of budgetary surpluses throughout the early- to mid- 2000s.  Also, this view holds that fiscal austerity played a crucial role in helping Canada recover from the recession of the early 1990s and contributed to Canada's strong economic performance during the period from the mid-1990s until the financial crisis. 

The problem with this interpretation is that it completely disregards the fact that the Canadian economy during the mid-1990s was impacted by a massive increase in demand stemming from the domestic household and external sectors.  Consider the following charts showing that, as fiscal austerity was undertaken, net borrowing by both the household and external sector exploded in Canada during that period:

Chart 3: Household sector falls into net financial deficit, Source: Statistics Canada and author's calculations

Chart 4: Increased foreign demand to the rescue, Source: Statistics Canada and author's calculations

Net borrowing is the difference between a sector's total spending and income.  It is a key indicator of the demand generated by any sector of the economy. 

Supported by a much easier monetary policy and falling exchanging rate (a consequence of US President Clinton's desire to "have a strong dollar"), the increased net borrowing generated by these two sectors was effective in offsetting the decline in net borrowing of the government sector caused by fiscal austerity.

The increase in net borrowing by the household sector between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s was unprecedented.  Between 1995 and 2007, net borrowing by the household sector increased by close to 10 percent of GDP (see arrow going down).  As for net borrowing of the foreign sector, it increased by approximately five percent of GDP.  Combined, this additional demand was more than sufficient to offset the decline in demand caused by fiscal austerity.

Today, unlike in the 1990s, the household sector is seeking to reduce its level of borrowing.  And the foreign sector, due to the strength of the Canadian dollar and the weakness of the world economy as a result of global austerity, cannot be a significant source of demand at this time.*

As a result, any attempt by Canada's policymakers to balance the budget in such a context is self-defeating and actually exacerbating the problem given that it is taking away purchasing power from households and firms.  And, as we are witnessing now, it is taking its toll and slowing GDP growth as a consequence.

Economist James Tobin said it best several years ago:

Deficit reduction is not an end in itself. It's rationale is to improve productivity, real wages and living standards of our children and their children. If the measures to cut deficits actually diminish GDP raise unemployment, and reduce future-oriented activities of government, business and households, they do not achieve the goals that are their raison-d'être; rather, they retard them. This perverse result is likely if deficit reduction measures are introduced while the economy is as weak and as constrained by effective demand as it is now.

It's time to think more clearly about these issues.  What "worked" in the past need not be the appropriate course of action today.  The Canadian economy now is not like the one that existed back then.  It's time to move forward.  Trying to relive the "success" of the 1990s will only make matters worse. 

Update:

Chart 2 should be entitled "Real consolidated government expenditures (all levels of government) (millions of chained 2002 dollars)". The title and headings in charts 3, 4 and 5 are accurate.  All data comprises expenditures on goods and services, as well as on capital formation. They exclude transfers.


*  The critical point to remember is that, as I've explained before, the government deficit cannot be reduced in isolation from the other sectors of the economy.  Public sector deficits are from an accounting standpoint the equivalent of surpluses in the private sector, plus additional net imports.  The reason for this is that government deficit spending adds to the net accumulation of private holdings of households and businesses (and/or the foreign sector, where applicable).

In other words, any reduction in government spending or tax increase has a direct impact on the financial position of the private sector.  To believe otherwise is wishful thinking.  If external demand and/or increased demand from another domestic sector (households or businesses) are not high enough to offset the demand shortfall created by reduced government expenditures, continued attempts at fiscal austerity will impose additional deflationary pressure on the economy.

Reference

Tobin, J., "Thinking straight about fiscal stimulus and deficit reduction", Challenge, March 1, 1993

Old Keynesian themes in Modern Monetary Theory

Readers of this blog know I'm generally supportive of the views espoused by proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). The reasons are fairly simple. First, MMT considers unemployment to be an important problem that must be quickly and effectively addressed by the government authorities.  I agree with that.  Also, MMT makes a good case on the important role of fiscal policy in ensuring stable and equitable economic growth.  Again, I agree with that.

But there is another reason I'm generally in agreement with MMT on many issues.  This has to do with the fact that MMT builds on some pretty solid economic thinking, much of which was well understood and accepted by earlier generations of Keynesian economists.  As someone who has a lot of respect for and who finds much insight from this earlier Keynesian tradition, I'm quite pleased to see MMT, a more recent school of thought, disseminate these views.

I was reminded of some of these - let's call them - "Old Keynesian" tenets in a recent blog post by Paul Krugman, in which he discusses a trifecta of issues relating to (1) the benefits of monetary sovereignty (i.e., where a nation issues and uses its own currency), (2) the debate on the supposedly inflationary nature of deficit spending financed via money creation or bond issuance and (3) the recent controversy regarding the potentially expansionary consequences of a "loss of confidence" in US government bonds by international investors .

The first of these views concerns monetary sovereignty, a central MMT theme.  This was also a well understood concept by earlier Keynesian economists.  For instance, monetary sovereignty was a key aspect highlighted in the work of economist Robert Eisner, who brilliantly described in his book The Misunderstood Economy (1994:74) why the US greatly benefits from being a currency issuing nation:

[One] point that is widely misunderstood or unrecognized is that this debt, relatively small as it is, is all owed in its own currency, US dollars.  We pay interest and principal in US dollars.  And our Treasury and Federal Reserve can always create all the dollars we need.  One may object that such money creation or the monetization of the interest-bearing debt may have undesirable consequences, particularly greater inflationary pressure.  But it may also have the desirable effect of stimulating the US economy if that is in order. In any event, the fact that US debt held by foreigners is virtually all denominated in US dollars rules out the possibility of unvoluntary default on US government obligations.

We are not in the position of many third world or other debtor nations that sadly had obligations in foreign currencies, frequently the US dollars.  The only way they could service their debt was to obtain foreign currencies. [...]

The "world's greatest debtor nation" gave the American public visions of the US going bankrupt.  Since the debt was essentially in our currency, however, this made no sense.  We could "print" out own money to pay it off or, in more sophisticated fashion, have the Federal Reserve create the money. (1994:74)

Several other Keynesian economists also held similar views, including economist Lorie Tarshis who emphasized this point in Elements of Economics (1947), the first Keynesian textbook to be published in the US.

Secondly, concerning the ever-lasting debate on the supposedly inflationary nature of deficit spending financed via money creation or bond issuance, MMT considers that the latter should be viewed as more inflationary than the former since the interest payments paid by government on its debt results in a greater expansion in the money supply (in the long run) than if the deficit is financed by money creation.

On this point, it may be instructive to recall that economists Alan Blinder and Robert Solow demonstrated long ago that the "potency" of deficit spending via money creation or bond issuance is not strictly related to the manner of financing.  In fact, Blinder and Solow demonstrate in "Analytical Foundations of Public Finance" (1974) that deficit spending financed via issuance of bonds has under normal, steady-state equilibrium conditions a greater fiscal multiplier than deficit spending via monetary financing in the long run:

When we correct an oversight committed by almost all previous users of the government budget constraint, a still more odd result emerges.  The error has been to ignore the fact that interest payments on outstanding government bonds are another expenditure item in the budgetary accounts. [...]

Under a policy of strict monetary financing, [in a stable system, the long-run government expenditure multiplier is simply the reciprocal of the marginal propensity to tax].  But the issuance of new bonds means a greater multiplier in the long run. (1974:50). (original emphasis)

Finally, as for Krugman's contention that a loss of confidence in US government bonds by investors may have potentially expansionary consequences for the US economy, economist Bill Vickrey presented a similar argument in his article entitled "Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism" (1996).  On whether a sell-off of US government bonds by foreign investors would have a detrimental effect on the US economy, Vickrey suggested the following:

It is not intended that the domestic government debt should be held in any large quantity by foreigners.  But should foreigners wish to liquidate holdings of this debt or any other domestic assets, they can only do so as a whole by generating an export surplus, easing the domestic unemployment problem, releasing assets to supply the domestic demand, and making it possible to get along with smaller deficits and a less rapidly growing government debt.  The same thing happens if domestic investors turn to investing in foreign assets, thereby reducing their drain on the domestic asset supply.

All that to say that, in my opinion, both Paul Krugman and proponents of MMT stand on solid ground regarding these issues.

References

Blinder, Alan and Robert Solow, "Analytical Foundations of Fiscal Policy," in A. S. Blinder, et. al., The Economics of Public Finance, The Brookings Institution, 1974, pp. 3-115.

Eisner, Robert, The Misunderstood Economy: What counts and how to count it, Boston: HBSP, 1994.

Tarshis, Lorie, The Elements of Economics, New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.

Vickrey, William. "Fifteen fallacies of financial fundamentalism: A disquisition on demand-side economies", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 95, No. 3, February 1998, pp. 1340-1347.