Blog

Stephanie Kelton was interviewed on RT’s “Capital Account” with Lauren Lyster on the subject of Modern Monetary Theory:

Registration is now open for the Levy Institute’s fourth Hyman P. Minsky Summer Seminar, to be held on the Bard College campus in June 2013. The annual Summer Seminar provides a rigorous discussion of both the theoretical and the applied aspects of Minsky’s economics, and is geared toward recent graduates, graduate students, and those at the beginning of their academic or professional careers. Application deadline: March 31, 2013. Apply early, as space is limited. See here for more information.

Stephanie Kelton appeared on NPR’s “On Point” this week with Paul Krugman and Stan Collender to discuss (do I really need to finish this sentence?) the fiscal cliff. You can listen to or download the podcast here.  (Kelton enters at roughly the 13.20 mark)

James Galbraith and Randall Wray spoke about returning full employment to the policy agenda at an event in Helsinki on Monday organized by the Foundation for European Progressive Studies and supported by the Kalevi Sorsa Foundation and the Finnish Confederation on Trade Unions (SAK). Wray focused on Minsky’s under-discussed work on poverty and full employment (the Levy Institute is currently putting together a new book containing a collection of Minsky’s published and unpublished writings on the topic):  “Minsky wrote almost as much on poverty, unemployment, and employment policy as he had on financial instability.”  Video of the presentations is below: Video of the panel discussion can be seen here.

Last week, a short walk from the Brandenburg Gate, the Levy Institute held its most recent Hyman P. Minsky Conference on Financial Instability.  The two day conference in Berlin featured a mix of central bankers, academics, politicians, and financial practitioners and dealt with issues related to the eurozone debt crisis, the Federal Reserve, signs of instability in China, Dodd-Frank and financial reform, the payments system (including the threat of cyber attacks and the potential destabilizing effect of the development of alternative payments technologies), indexes of financial fragility, and a host of other intriguing topics. On the first day, Vítor Constâncio, Vice President of the European Central Bank, delivered a morning speech that highlighted the poverty of the dominant economic thinking underlying the flawed institutional design of the European Monetary Union, with its centralized monetary policy and decentralized fiscal and financial stability policy. “In the pre-EMU economic modelling world,” said Constâncio, “there was no need to counter financial imbalances and financial instability as the financial sector did not play a crucial role from a macroeconomic perspective.  Similarly, under the assumption of self-equilibrating markets, there was no need to monitor macroeconomic imbalances and disequilibria on the labour, product or financial markets.  With an assumed stable private sector, apart from exogenous shocks, the only source of instability acknowledged were governments and their fiscal profligacy.”  In… Read More

Levy Institute Senior Scholar James Galbraith was interviewed for a six-part series on the fiscal cliff by the Real News Network’s Paul Jay. Video of the first two parts of the interview are below; transcripts can be found here.

From 2009 to 2012, the US federal deficit shrank from 10.1% of GDP to 7% of GDP.  That’s the fastest deficit reduction we’ve seen in six decades—and all before the fiscal cliff has kicked in.  Here’s the chart from Jed Graham: Put this alongside a record-setting contraction of government employment and a 7.9 percent unemployment rate, and what you have is a portrait of fiscal irresponsibility.  A lot of this deficit reduction has to do with the fact that the economy is now growing (albeit feebly), instead of contracting, but looking at this chart should also reinforce how dangerous and unnecessary it is that we’ve decided to create an austerity crisis at this moment.  (This “austerity crisis,” by the way, should really be understood to include both the possibility of going over, and staying over, the fiscal cliff AND the possibility of the cliff being replaced by a “grand bargain” on deficit reduction.)  The last time the deficit was reduced at a faster rate was in 1937, when the government embraced a hard pivot to austerity and the economy tumbled back into recession. But don’t worry, we aren’t reliving the history of the 1930s.  Not exactly.  We are combining fiscal irresponsibility with regulatory negligence.  The Financial Stability Board (FSB) reported on Sunday that the shadow banking sector, after contracting in… Read More

Amity Shlaes, whose main claim to fame is an allegedly new history of the Great Depression, thinks we may be in trouble as a result of the election. Looking beyond her alarmingly alliterative title (“2013 Looks to be a Lot Like 1937 in Four Fearsome Ways!”  Oooh! Scary!) she has some valid points. Of course she is talking about the stock market not the real economy, which produces the jobs and the economic benefits most people rely on for a living. And, unfortunately, she doesn’t realize where she is right. But first, what are the four fearsome factors that will drive us to doom? First, a federal spending spree before the election. Shlaes uses “the old 19% rule” as a benchmark to argue that because federal government spending in 2012 “when the crisis was long past” was 24.3% of GDP, clearly the Obama administration was spending up a storm. To argue that the crisis is long past, one must be willing to ignore the employment crisis that still hasn’t left us, but let’s give her this one. Whether this is a problem given current economic conditions is another story. If it’s the debt implications you’re worried about, it is worth noting that revenues as a percentage of GDP are also quite low historically speaking, just over 15% for the last… Read More

The fiscal cliff is very easy to explain.  What many in Congress and the press are saying we should do about it is more confounding. If you were the sort of person who took expressions of policy preferences at face value, you would think that fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks would be ecstatic about this thing we’re calling the “fiscal cliff”—because contrary to our increasingly muddled popular dialogue, the fiscal event about which everyone is raising alarms is just a large and rapid reduction of the budget deficit (about $600 billion of spending cuts and tax increases scheduled for 2013).  Given the widespread deficit hysteria we’ve witnessed over the last few years, it is likely confusing to a lot of unsuspecting observers that so many in Washington and the mainstream press are dead set against this particular piece of deficit reduction. The American public has been ill-prepared for this consensus.  We’ve been told, ad nauseum, that fiscal “stimulus” didn’t and doesn’t work.  But the case for fiscal stimulus is simply the flip side of a case against austerity that few seem to realize (or are willing to recognize) that they are making.

Today Eurostat announced that the eurozone has plunged back into recession.  If you’re looking for a good explanation of the eurozone’s problems, you will only get so far by looking at the policy failures of particular countries.  The most fundamental problems—those that won’t go away with a mere shift in policy at the national level—are rooted in the very setup of the euro system. In October, the Columbia Law School-sponsored series “Modern Money and Public Purpose” held a seminar that featured Yanis Varoufakis and Marshall Auerback on the design defects of the eurozone.  Varoufakis began his presentation with these lines:  “Greece is not important enough to be occupying the headlines around the world for three years.  Imagine a situation where a crisis in the state of Delaware was threatening to bring the United States of America down.  If that happened, then the problem would not be with Delaware, it would have been with the United States of America.” (video below)

Randall Wray on quantitative easing and the accumulation of reserves: When the Fed buys assets, it purchases them by crediting banks with reserves. So the result of QE is that the Fed’s balance sheet grows rapidly—to, literally, trillions of dollars. At the same time, banks exchange the assets they are selling (the Treasuries and MBSs that the Fed is buying) for credits to their reserves held at the Fed. Normally, banks try to minimize reserve holdings—to what they need to cover payments clearing (banks clear accounts with one another using reserves) as well as Fed-imposed required reserve ratios. With QE, the banks have ended up with humongous quantities of excess reserves. As we said, normally banks would not hold excess reserves voluntarily—reserves used to earn zero, so banks would try to lend them out in the fed funds market (to other banks). But in the ZIRP environment, they can’t get any return on lending reserves. Further, the Fed switched policy in the aftermath of the crisis so that it now pays a small, positive return on reserves. So the banks are holding the excess reserves and the Fed credits them with a bit of interest. They aren’t thrilled with that but there’s nothing they can do: the Fed offers them a price they cannot refuse on the Treasuries and MBSs… Read More

As Dimitri Papadimitriou recently observed, the overwhelming push for austerity in the United States is partly driven by the sense that deficit reduction simply cannot wait: Many in Washington and the media are convinced that the recovery is well underway, and if spending cuts and tax increases are delayed for even a year it will be too late to tame inflation and tighten fiscal policy on a soaring economy. The urgency rests on unfounded optimism. We still have a very long way to go before the economy is anywhere near healthy enough to heat up. The GDP is now, and has long been, far below trend. Here’s how Papadimitriou and Greg Hannsgen illustrate the point in a recent policy brief: It is rather odd to be concerned about deficit reduction coming “too late” (i.e. that the black line will rise above the pink line), given how far we are from the historical growth trend.  As Papadimitriou and Hannsgen put it:  “Based on the present state of the economy, any notion that implementing better policy would be mostly a matter of precise timing is patently absurd.  The gap between recent real GDP growth and the historical trend is so large that the danger of overshooting the trend is hard to imagine.”* Many proposals in this budget battle, including some coming from… Read More