Filter by
“A New Frontier of Economic Nonsense”
by Michael Stephens
In an interview with Helen Artopoulou that was posted on Capital.gr, Levy Institute president Dimitri Papadimitriou discusses the failure of the austerity policies imposed on Greece and the uncertain future of the euro project. Q. The political impasse in Greece, largely the outcome of the recent elections, had led to some reconsideration of the austerity policy measures being currently implemented in the indebted countries of the Eurozone. In fact, it seems that a number of public officials have shifted their position, calling now for a growth-oriented economic policy. Given the reality of Greece, how easy is to stir economic growth, and why didn’t the EU follow the growth path to economic recovery in the first place but relied instead on fiscal consolidation and draconian austerity measures? Economic growth is dependent on public policy aiming at deploying the resources available, that is, labor and capital. Presently, in Greece, there is an abundance of labor, but no capital from either the private or public sectors. It will be some time before the economy becomes friendlier to private investment, markets offering increasing liquidity, and for the private sector to gain confidence in the country’s economic stability. The time horizon for these things to happen will be long so, the responsibility falls on the public sector to do the investing in the key sectors of… Read More
Did Tax Reform Contribute to Soaring CEO Pay?
by Michael Stephens
Mark Thoma has posted the English transcripts of a three–part interview of James Galbraith by the German website NachDenkSeiten. In the first interview there is a brief exchange with Roger Strassburg in which Galbraith discusses the idea that the 1986 tax reforms, which followed the “lower the rates, broaden the base” mantra that we’re still hearing from lawmakers, may have contributed to dramatic increases in executive salaries: JG: In the U.S. In the 1980’s, the progressive reform which was developed by Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt in Congress was to reduce the top tax rates by extending the base, because the system of very high marginal rates was so riddled with loopholes and exemptions that top earners by and large didn’t pay it unless they were of a very peculiar type, for example a celebrity athlete like Bill Bradley himself or Jack Kemp, who was also in the Congress at the time. They paid very high rates on that sort of straight salary income that they had. But if you were in any kind of business activity, you had a depletion allowance or timber allowance or some other damn thing that got you out of that. RS: That seems to kind of be the way that things always run, though, that wages and salaries end up getting taxed higher than… Read More
Galbraith Appears Before Ron Paul Hearing on the Federal Reserve
by Michael Stephens
Congressman Ron Paul held a subcommittee hearing on reform of the Federal Reserve system a couple days ago that featured testimony from Senior Scholar James Galbraith, Alice Rivlin, John Taylor, Jeffrey Herbener, and Peter Klein. There were a wide variety of topics addressed, including the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, proposals to make the Fed an arm of the Treasury, and changes to FOMC governance. Also raised was the question of whether to (formally) drop the employment side of the Fed’s dual mandate (because with unemployment at the dangerously low level of 8 percent and inflation sky high around 2 percent, clearly we’d be better off if the Fed were more like the ECB …). As Galbraith recounts, he himself was part of the team that drafted the Humphrey-Hawkins Act (“at a time of acute theoretical conflict in economics,” he points out), and he offers his defense of the dual mandate here: As for the decided and observable tilt toward the price stability arm of the dual mandate, Galbraith collaborated on a working paper a few years back that identified the “real reaction function” of the Fed: an aversion to full employment (“after 1983 the Federal Reserve largely ceased reacting to inflation or high unemployment, but continued to react when unemployment fell ‘too low.’”). Although the working paper only… Read More
Will Greece “Muddle Through”?
by Michael Stephens
The recent Greek elections, which did not produce a party (or a viable coalition) with a majority in Parliament, have occasioned a lot of excited speculation about Greece either leaving the eurozone or being nudged out. Dimitri Papadimitriou comments today in a CNN Money piece about this possibility and offers a slightly more sober assessment, suggesting there are signs that European leaders may give Greece more leeway. Read it here.
Taking Finance Seriously in 2007
by Michael Stephens
“In late 2007,” writes Peter Orszag, “the midpoint of the range that the Fed projected for real gross-domestic-product growth in 2008 was more than 2 percent.” Most analysts were still expecting the fallout from the subprime crisis to be largely contained because, as Orszag puts it, their models “had at best a very rudimentary financial sector built into them.” What would it have looked like to have taken finance more seriously? In late 2007, Jan Kregel wrote the following in a Levy working paper: The stage is set for a typical Minsky debt deflation in which position has to be sold to make position—that is, the underlying assets have to be sold in order to repay investors. This will take place in illiquid markets, which means that price declines and, thus, the negative impact on present value will be even more rapid. In this environment, declining short-term interest rates can have little impact. . . . The damage from a debt deflation will be widespread—borrowers who lose their homes, hedge funds that fail, pensions that are reduced—so the net overall impact will be across a number of different sectors. However, in difference to what Alan Greenspan argued in defense of financial engineering to produce more complete markets—that it provided for a better distribution of risk across those who are willing… Read More
It’s Hard to Fix What You Don’t Think Is Broken
by Michael Stephens
In last week’s Bloomberg column, Peter Orszag (former head of CBO and OMB) lamented that most “official forecasters” relied (and still rely) on economic models that led them to completely underestimate the severity of the downturn that resulted from the subprime mortgage crisis. These “bad models,” as Bloomberg‘s headline writers call them, whiffed badly on the most critical economic question of the day, says Orszag, because they ignored financial leverage. Jared Bernstein points to Hyman Minsky as an economist whose work stands out for taking finance seriously. But although Minsky’s account of financial fragility is fairly well known nowadays, less attention is being paid to his related proposals for reregulating and restructuring the financial system. And as Jan Kregel and Dimitri Papadimitriou point out, there is an intimate connection between how we think about the generation of financial fragility and how we approach financial reform. The limitations of the Dodd-Frank approach to regulation, we might say, are in part a reflection of our continuing neglect of the implications of the endogenous creation of instability: As Minsky emphasized, you cannot adequately design regulations that increase the stability of financial markets if you do not have a theory of financial instability. If the “normal” precludes instability, except as a random ad hoc event, regulation will always be dealing with ad hoc events… Read More
Galbraith: Addressing Inequality Means Addressing Instability
by Michael Stephens
Levy Institute Senior Scholar James Galbraith was interviewed by the Washington Post‘s Brad Plumer about his new book Inequality and Instability: A Study of the World Economy Just Before the Great Crisis. Galbraith explains that the rises in inequality we’ve witnessed globally since the 1980s can be traced to changes in finance and the macroeconomy (“when something’s happening at the same time around the world, in different countries that are widely separated, that’s a macro issue”): Between the end of World War II and 1980, economic growth in the United States is mostly an equalizing force, and job creation isn’t dependent on rising economic inequality. But after 1980, economic booms and rising inequality go hand in hand. So what’s going on? In 1980, we really went through a fundamental transformation. We stopped being a wage-led economy with a growing public sector that was providing new services. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid were major drivers of growth in the 1970s. Instead, we became a credit-driven economy. What the evidence in the U.S. shows is that the rise in inequality is associated with credit booms, which are often periods of great prosperity. We had one in the late 1990s with information technology and one in the 2000s with housing, before everything fell apart. But this is also a sign of instability —… Read More
What’s Happening Now at the Fed?
by Greg Hannsgen
If there is a pundit on the topic of the Federal Reserve, surely William Greider is one. (Recall his famous book, Secrets of the Temple.) This recent piece from Greider in the progressive magazine the Nation offers some helpful historical perspective on the role of the nation’s central bank in recent years.
Martin Wolf’s Liquidity Traps and Free Lunches Through Fiscal Expansion
by L. Randall Wray
In a good blog post for the Financial Times that did get money (mostly) right, Martin Wolf promised a Part II on the topic of appropriate monetary and fiscal policy in a “liquidity trap,” which he has provided here. Wolf also indicated he would write a piece on Modern Money Theory, an approach he does not address in either of these two articles. I look forward to that. Meanwhile, let me say that I do not disagree with the substantive points made in his Part II—which examines an article by Brad DeLong and Larry Summers. The main argument is this: when there is substantial excess capacity and unemployed labor, fiscal expansion is a “free lunch”. There really should be no surprise about that—it was a major conclusion of J.M. Keynes’s 1936 General Theory, and indeed already had some respectability even before his book. Expansionary fiscal policy can put otherwise unemployed resources to work, so we can enjoy more output. So what DeLong and Summers do is to show that given assumptions about the size of the government spending multiplier as well as a link between income growth and tax revenues (so that economic growth increases revenues from income taxes and sales taxes, for example) then it is entirely possible for a fiscal expansion to “pay for itself” in the sense… Read More
How to Measure Financial Fragility
by Michael Stephens
We may not have a high degree of success at predicting precisely when a financial crisis will occur or exactly how big it will be, but what we can and should do, says Éric Tymoigne, is develop effective ways of detecting and measuring the growth of financial fragility in a system. “[S]ignificant economic and financial crises do not just happen,” he writes, “there is a long process during which the economic and financial system becomes more fragile.” One of the purposes of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) that was created by Dodd-Frank is to provide regulators with an early warning system regarding threats to financial stability. In light of this, Tymoigne provides his latest contribution to the construction of a measure of systemic risk and identifies specific areas in which we need better data. With the aid of Hyman Minsky’s theoretical framework, Tymoigne has developed an index of financial fragility for housing finance in the US, the UK, and France. The point is not to attempt to predict when a shock to the system is likely to occur, but to measure the degree to which such a shock would be amplified through a debt deflation. From the abstract of his latest working paper: … instead of focusing on credit risk … financial fragility is defined in relation to the… Read More
Where Will US Growth Come From If Austerity Reigns?
by Michael Stephens
That’s one of the questions the Levy Institute’s latest Strategic Analysis asks as it examines the Congressional Budget Office’s projections for growth and employment in the context of tighter and tighter government budgets. At the federal level alone we’re facing a well-publicized “fiscal cliff” in 2013, featuring large scheduled spending cuts and the expiration of a number of tax cuts. As Dimitri Papadimitriou, Gennaro Zezza, and Greg Hannsgen note, the CBO “expects real GDP to grow by 2.2 percent in 2012 and by only 1 percent in 2013, and to accelerate once most of the fiscal adjustment has taken place, with growth reaching 3.6 percent in 2014 and 4.9 percent in 2015. The unemployment rate is expected to rise to 9.1 percent with the slowdown in economic activity, and to fall rapidly from 2014 onward, once the economy recovers.” This is all expected to take place in the presence of shrinking government deficits (based on the CBO’s “current law” projections for the federal budget). Using the CBO’s numbers, the Institute’s macro team ran a simulation to find out what would have to happen in the rest of the economy to make this combination of budget austerity and even tepid-to-moderate growth possible. The answer: dramatic increases in private sector borrowing. Here’s their graph showing, through 2016, the rise in private sector… Read More
Godley’s Seven Unsustainable Processes
by Michael Stephens
Over at his Concerted Action blog, Ramanan has a post featuring some of Wynne Godley’s Levy Institute publications with special attention paid to Godley’s prescient “Seven Unsustainable Processes,” which appeared in 1999 as part of the Levy Institute’s continuing Strategic Analysis series. Ramanan (whose blog derives its name from Godley’s last Strategic Analysis [2008]) quotes this passage from “Seven Unsustainable Processes” in which Godley, in the context of the budget surpluses of the ’90s, contrasted his approach to macro modeling (and its policy upshots) with what he regarded as the “consensus view” at the time: The difference between the consensus view and that put forward here could not exist without a profound difference in the view of how the economy works. So far as the author can observe, the underlying theoretical perspective of the optimists, whether they realize it or not, sees all agents, including the government, as participants in a gigantic market process in which commodities, labor, and financial assets are supplied and demanded. If this market works properly, prices (e.g., for labor and commodities) get established that clear all markets, including the labor market, so that there can be no long-term unemployment and no depression. The only way in which unemployment can be reduced permanently, according to this view, is by making markets work better, say, by removing… Read More