Blog

Kenneth Rogoff placed an editorial in Wednesday’s Financial Times defending the Cameron government’s austerity policies as a kind of insurance against the possibility of investor flight from UK government debt. He concedes that the specific form of austerity that was implemented in the UK was ill-advised — public investments in infrastructure, he says, can be stimulative and pay for themselves. Nevertheless, he argues that in retrospect austerity in general was wise because we couldn’t have known for sure that the markets wouldn’t have panicked and ceased purchasing UK debt if the government had run higher deficits. Now, one thing we might want to recall is that the UK’s austerity policies have not been hugely successful at shrinking the debt-to-GDP ratio. What we’re looking at here is the “fiscal trap” phenomenon Greg Hannsgen and Dimitri Papadimitriou have written about. Austerity can be a pretty inefficient policy — assuming one’s goal is the reduction of debt ratios. (As Paul De Grauwe and Yuemei Ji recently found, this is clearly the case on the eurozone periphery: “more intense austerity programmes coincide with increasing government debt ratios.”) But even if UK austerity were more successful at shrinking public debt ratios, we would want a better sense of the probabilities and downsides involved in Rogoff’s “you never know,” market panic scenario. Just how valuable is… Read More

We’ve just returned from Rio de Janeiro, where the Levy Institute held a conference cosponsored by the Multidisciplinary Institute for Development and Strategies (MINDS), supported by the Ford Foundation. The two day conference dealt with global financial governance, financial reregulation, and development challenges in a Minskyan context — a lot of discussion of the regulation of global capital flows, Brazil’s economic prospects, and debate about whether China’s economy represents a development model to be imitated or a ticking time bomb of financial instability; along with the usual focus on banking regulation and reform. Paul McCulley, former PIMCO director and phrase-coiner (“Minsky moment” and “shadow banking”), delivered the keynote. Speakers and panelists included academics, financial market practitioners, and former and current government officials (Paulo Nogueira Batista, who sits on the Executive Board of the IMF, gave a fascinating inside glimpse at the coalitions and dynamics at the Fund and talked about how delays in implementing reforms designed to give emerging economies more sway in the structures of global financial governance risk creating a crisis of legitimacy). The full program, including speakers’ powerpoint presentations, is available. Audio clips can be accessed here (video may also be available in the near future). The next Minsky conference will be held in Athens, November 8-9.

Congressional Republicans may or may not suffer politically from the government shutdown and upcoming debt ceiling fight, but in terms of policy they have already secured a significant and lopsided victory in the battle over the budget, whether they realize it or not. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act seems pretty unlikely (not just because the President is wildly unlikely to repeal his signature legislation in return for something his opponents also claim to want — raising the debt limit — but also because he seems determined to learn from his 2011 mistake and is unlikely to grant any concessions in return for not defaulting on financial commitments). Still, below all the shutdown/debt limit/ACA drama, the discretionary budget number that Senate Democrats are offering to Republicans (the “clean” continuing resolution) represents a near-complete capitulation to GOP demands. Despite having lost the popular vote for the Presidency, Senate, and House, Republicans were not only able to extract major concessions on discretionary spending, but to exceed even their original demands, as Dylan Matthews observes: “So we’ve been cutting spending at a faster pace than Paul Ryan wanted to when Republicans took over Congress.” This figure by Michael Linden and Harry Stein illustrates the situation (they call this a “compromise,” but I’m not sure that’s the best choice of labels): What this means… Read More

I have recently signed the “Economists’ Warning” on the situation in the eurozone, which states that It is essential to realise that if the European authorities continue with policies of austerity and rely on structural reforms alone to restore balance, the fate of the euro will be sealed. The Economists’ Warning was published by the Financial Times (“European governments repeat mistakes of the Treaty of Versailles,” September 23), and a reply by Professor Gilbert of the University of Trento appeared in the Letters section on September 25. Professor Gilbert seemed to imply that the Economists’ Warning was advocating external support for Southern European countries in trouble — a position that is not apparent in the original document, which only advocated “concerted action” among eurozone members. My reply to Professor Gilbert was published late last week in the Letters section of the Financial Times. I argue that structural reforms have already been implemented in Italy: such reforms aimed at cutting pension payments to generate a structural reduction in the government deficit (matched of course by a reduction in the purchasing power of people in retirement) and increasing flexibility in the labor market. The chart below documents the dramatic drop in employment since 2007 — almost one million jobs, with a fall in full-time positions of 1.77 million partially compensated by 813,000… Read More

(first appeared in Social Europe) Never miss a party – especially one you’ve been desperately waiting for for so long. This much the authorities in Europe’s currency union clearly understand. As soon as Eurostat had released its first estimate for GDP growth in the spring quarter in mid August (1st estimate here), which was missing the by now customary negative sign, the champagne began to flow, it seems, accompanying all-round self-congratulatory shoulder slapping. For instance, Spain’s economy minister Luis de Guindos confidently noted that “Spain will show clearly the quality of the policies implemented in the eurozone” (FT.com 4 September 2013). And European Commission President José Manuel Barroso declared in his State of the Union Address on 11 September 2013 that “the facts tell us that our efforts have started to convince.” Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble also joined the chorus, just in time for the federal election, proudly announcing in The Financial Times that “while the crisis continues to reverberate, the eurozone is clearly on the mend both structurally and cyclically.” Dr Schäuble declared with poise that “what is happening turns out to be pretty much what the proponents of Europe’s cool-headed crisis management predicted. The fiscal and structural repair work is paying off, laying the foundations for sustainable growth,” and then went on to boast that “despite what… Read More

Stephanie Kelton recently sat down with L. Randall Wray to discuss, among other things, the news that the Federal Reserve will refrain for the time being  from tapering its asset purchases (QE). Wray took the occasion to elaborate on his view that quantitative easing is ineffective as economic stimulus and that — given the tools at its disposal — the Fed can’t actually carry out its dual mandate (on employment and price stability). One interesting wrinkle here is that Wray makes this case not just with regard to asset purchases — which even some QE supporters have admitted don’t accomplish much in and of themselves — but also the “expectations channel” (forward guidance). Kelton and Wray also touch on the latest debt ceiling showdown and the future of retirement security programs. Download or listen to the podcast here.

Regarding spurious policy arguments about “excessive growth of the money stock”: Ed Dolan posts helpfully to Economonitor on the more realistic approach suggested by the theory of endogenous money. In particular, I took note of the following passage, which brings up a point that I wrote about recently:  “Formally, a model that includes a minimum reserve ratio or target plus unlimited access to borrowed reserves would not violate the multiplier model, in the sense that at any given time, the money stock would be equal to the multiplier times the sum of borrowed and non-borrowed reserves. However, the multiplier would have no functional effect, since the availability of reserves would no longer act as a constraint on the money supply. Economists describe such a situation as one of endogenous money, by which they mean that the quantity of money is determined from the inside by the behavior of banks and their customers, not from the outside by the central bank.” In this simplified setting, the constant known as the “money multiplier” becomes the “credit divisor,” a concept defined in a short article I wrote recently for the forthcoming Elgar volume Encyclopedia of Central Banking. Using the divisor D, instead of bank reserves ×  M = money, one can write credit/D = bank reserves. The equation reflects a theory in which causality… Read More

The following table has been computed using data from the latest (April 2013) IMF World Economic Outlook database, with IMF estimates starting in 2013 for most countries. In my view, these projections are based on heroic assumptions and wishful thinking. The eurozone is supposed to improve its position, even though the current account balance of Germany is supposed to drop substantially (from 1.52 percent of US GDP in 2012 to 0.93 percent in 2018): Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain are all supposed to move from a current account deficit in 2012 to a surplus from 2013 onwards, and France is also supposed to reduce its current account deficit. It therefore seems that the IMF is assuming some equilibrating process inside the eurozone, but overall this area will either be importing less from abroad (while keeping its exports constant) or exporting more. In the former case, the eurozone will impart a deflationary impulse to its trading partners. In the latter case, which area is supposed to absorb the additional eurozone exports? Looking at the table, the candidates are either the United States, which is projected to see its current account deteriorate even further, or developing countries. If export-led growth from China – the only country in the BRICs for which the IMF projects an improvement in its current account – and… Read More

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released its new projections (pdf) for the long-term budget. A Bloomberg article titled “CBO Says Short-Term Deficit Cut Won’t Avert Fiscal Crisis” provided a fairly typical summary: [F]ederal spending will rise from 22 percent of GDP in 2012 to 26 percent in 2038 … The deficit [currently 3.9 percent of GDP] would be 6.5 percent of GDP in 2038, greater than any year between 1947 and 2008 … Even though tax receipts would grow …, the revenue increase wouldn’t be “large enough to keep federal debt” from “growing faster than the economy starting in the next several years,” according to the CBO report. Here’s another way of presenting those CBO numbers. Spending on actual government programs is projected to fall from its current 19.5 percent of GDP to 18.8 percent in 2023, before rising to 21.3 percent in 2038. And revenues are also projected to rise, from 17 percent to 19.7 percent of GDP by 2038. The result, according to the CBO, is that the primary budget balance (that is, excluding interest payments) shrinks from its current level of -2.5 percent of GDP to -0.3 percent in 2023, and then grows to -1.6 percent of GDP by 2038. In other words, a quarter-century from now, the primary deficit — the gap between tax revenues… Read More

As a member of the eurozone, Greece does not control its own currency and therefore cannot devalue said currency in an effort to promote an export-led recovery. Instead, Greece is stuck with the troika’s strategy of internal devaluation: seeking export growth through reducing unit labor costs (wages). As Dimitri Papadimitriou, Michalis Nikiforos, and Gennaro Zezza have pointed out, however, that strategy isn’t working (pdf). Two interesting pieces by J. W. Mason suggest that the option of leaving the eurozone, which would allow Greece to revert to and subsequently devalue the drachma, may not look much more promising, at least in terms of the prospects of generating an export-led expansion. Mason examines the experience of a number of countries following the 1997 Asian crisis and sees little evidence for the currency devaluation/export-led growth story: You can argue, I suppose, that without the devaluations export performance would have been even worse. But you cannot claim that faster export growth following the devaluations boosted demand, because no such faster growth occurred. It’s really remarkable how much the devaluation-export growth link is taken for granted in discussions of foreign trade. But in the real world, for whatever reason, the link is often weak or nonexistent. If that’s the case, Greece may truly be stuck — that is, without a major, and wildly unlikely, intellectual… Read More

In case you missed it, what with all the celebrating going on in the eurozone over the incredible success of austerity policies, the unemployment rate in Greece is now at 27.9 percent and the country is likely on its way to a third bailout. C. J. Polychroniou argues in a new one-pager that offering Greece another bailout package like the first two makes no sense, and he provides some much-needed (and daunting) perspective on how far Greece would need to climb — assuming its economy started growing, and wasn’t still contracting (Greek output shrank by “only” 3.8 percent in the second quarter of 2013) — just to get its economy back to where it was before its version of the Great Depression set in: “At this stage, in order for Greece to be able to service its debt and recapture its lost GDP and employment levels, one would have to rely on an outrageously optimistic scenario of economic growth: probably somewhere in the range of a long-term nominal GDP growth rate of 7–8 percent. While Greece may soon end up with wages comparable to those of China, the odds of its experiencing growth rates close to those of China are probably the same as achieving time travel.” C. J. Polychroniou, Fiscal Sadism and the Farce of Deficit Reduction in Greece

Back in 2009, Janet Yellen delivered a speech at the Levy Institute’s Minsky conference that explained how the financial crisis had changed her views about the role of central banks in handling financial instability. At the time she was the head of the San Francisco Fed. The focus of her 2009 remarks was the question of how (or whether) central banks should try to counteract bubbles in asset markets. (Yellen also recalled the unfortunate topic of her 1996 conference speech: supposedly promising new innovations in the financial industry for better measurement and management of risk.) Bursting suspected bubbles has become the topic du jour in US monetary policy discussions, as it currently stands as the fashionable justification for tightening despite low inflation and high unemployment. With the announcement that Larry Summers’ name has been withdrawn from consideration for the next Fed chair, the spotlight has turned to Yellen. Here (from the 2009 conference proceedings) is the text of her speech and a transcript of the brief Q&A that followed:   A Minsky Meltdown: Lessons for Central Bankers? (1) It’s a great pleasure to speak to this distinguished group at a conference that’s named for Hyman Minsky. My last talk at the Levy Institute was 13 years ago, when I served on the Fed’s Board of Governors, and my topic then… Read More