Blog

Since it’s Friday… This one is for every graduate student who’s been on the receiving end of a glazed/skeptical/bemused expression after trying to respond to a “so what’s your dissertation about?” query.  Your elevator pitch would go over much better if it were more kinetic.  Via GonzoLabs, Science magazine and TEDxBrussels are sponsoring a competition for PhD students in science-related fields for the best dissertation interpreted through dance.  There don’t seem to be many entries from economists (dismal, dismal), but these physics students look like contenders (incidentally, there’s still time for some last-minute, ill-considered choreographing.  The deadline is Oct. 10.): “For years I have been trying to explain to my mother what it is I do. This video was aimed at her. She now finally understands what the point of my research is. If I had known that all it would take was a little dancing, I would have done this a long time ago.”

According to Floyd Norris at Economix.  Norris includes this chart, comparing our ongoing shedding of state and local government jobs to the one in the early ’80s: I haven’t been looking at any employment reports lately, but I can only assume that this has sparked a massive boom in private payrolls.

The prevailing anxieties of elite opinion are focused relentlessly on the deficit and debt, with sporadic bouts of indigestion reserved for the slump in jobs.  This is a complete reversal of what ought to be the case.  But let’s say you really can’t get over the idea that there’s no major short-term economic problem currently being caused by high deficits.  Well then, if you are such a person, you ought to be deeply concerned that the economy is operating below potential. Rep. Chris Van Hollen recently requested an estimate from the CBO (hat tip TPM) regarding what portion of the federal deficit can be attributed to cyclical factors—e.g. the non-recovery in the job market.  The answer:  roughly a third.  There’s nothing new here, but it is an excuse for futile repetition of the following upshot:  attempts to cut the deficit right now are self-defeating, to the extent that they drag down growth and employment. Gennaro Zezza has been all over this.

Let’s look at the reasons to doubt that the big six are solvent. 1.The economy is tanking. Real estate prices are not recovering, indeed, they continue to fall on trend. No jobs are being created. Defaults and delinquencies are not improving. GDP growth is falling. Isn’t it strange that Wall Street has managed to remain largely unaffected? Finance is an intermediate good. It is like the tire that goes on a new Ford automobile. Auto sales are collapsing but somehow tire sales to auto manufacturers are doing just fine? Does that make sense? Banks are making no loans, yet, they remain profitable? 2.Not only are the financial institutions NOT doing any of the traditional commercial banking business—lending—they aren’t doing much of the investment banking business either (remember that the last two remaining investment banks were handed bank charters so that they could scoop up insured deposits as a cheap way to finance their business). How many IPOs have been floated? Corporate debt? Trading? Well, one of the two investment banks that survived, Morgan Stanley (the sixth largest bank—barely squeaking into my “dirty half dozen” biggest banks), just released a pretty poor trading outlook—blamed on “high costs, historically low interest rates and market volatility that has pushed clients to the sidelines”. (Reuters Global Wealth Management Summit News). 3.Europe is toast. US… Read More

By Gal Noir* In his Congressional testimony on October 4th, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke uncharacteristically praised the benefits of fiscal policy, calling it “of critical importance” and conveying concerns with the looming deficit reductions. He cautioned: “an important objective is to avoid fiscal actions that could impede the ongoing economic recovery.” Many economists expressed worry that such advocacy of fiscal policy will erode America’s (already) wavering confidence in the Fed and will further weaken their support for austerity measures. More troubling still, the economists said, was the possibility that the public may follow suit and start demanding from Congress bolder government action on the jobs front. A few dissenting scholars thought that it was high time for Bernanke to put his money where his mouth was, so to speak. Among them was Dr. Tcherneva, who had studied Bernanke’s academic proposals for government action during crises and his actual policy moves as Fed Chairman during the Great Recession (2011).**   “I am not at all surprised that Chairman Bernanke is making the case for fiscal policy” Tcherneva said. “I am only astonished that it took him so long. After studying his policy prescriptions for the case of Japan, I am left with the nagging conclusion that Bernanke actually favors fiscal policy over monetary policy. And while the reasons for this position… Read More

James Galbraith talks about the mechanisms by which obstacles are placed in the way of dissenting and original voices in economics, as well as the failure of most in the forefront of the profession to see the global financial crisis coming (via INET): Galbraith has written about this before; surveying the work of those who got it right, as well as the narrow parameters of prevailing doctrine:  “This is the extraordinary thing. Economics was not riven by a feud between Pangloss and Cassandra. It was all a chummy conversation between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. And if you didn’t think either Tweedle was worth much—well then, you weren’t really an economist, were you?” (read it here).

(continued at EconoMonitor)

“We’ve put this off for too long.  We need debt relief and jobs and until we get these two things, I think recovery is impossible”—Randall Wray, quoted in a Reuters article examining the possibility of negotiating massive consumer debt relief. Although household borrowing has been declining, debt burdens remain sky high: (from the latest Levy Institute Strategic Analysis)

Martin Wolf, in the Financial Times last week, “thinks the unthinkable” and inches toward what sounds distinctly like a Modern Money Theory approach:  “Alternatively, the government could fund itself from the central bank, directly. Better still, the government could increase its deficits, perhaps by slashing taxes, and taking needed funds from the central bank. Under any of these alternatives, the central bank would be behaving like any other bank, creating money in the act of lending.” Wolf goes on to argue that such a policy needn’t be inflationary, insisting on the absence of a necessary and immediate linkage between central bank money and the overall money supply:  “…the policy would be inflationary only if it led to chronic excess demand. So long as the central bank retains the right to call a halt, that need be no serious danger.” To learn more about MMT and its policy implications, this short working paper by Randall Wray is a good place to start.  Wray is also putting together an MMT primer over at New Economic Perspectives. Beyond the particulars of Modern Money Theory, would it be too naive to expect that the latest crises, convulsions, and lingering stagnation would prompt more economists and economic thinkers to move beyond “normal science” and begin, in a more general sense, thinking the unthinkable?

“It may come as a surprise to some, but the original scheme by Charles Ponzi did not make its money by providing seven decades of benefits to retirees before folding up shop and leaving town with a suitcase full of cash,” writes Benjy Sarlin.  In a new One-Pager Greg Hannsgen and Dimitri Papadimitriou display just how loopy it really is to compare Social Security to a Ponzi scheme.  The authors produce a graph tracing the long history of new taxpayers (“investors”), new beneficiaries, and those leaving the program (and this mortal plane); the picture that emerges is not one of a fraudulent money-making venture that is about to sneak out the back door with your savings. But let’s leave Charles Ponzi alone for the moment.  What about the looming shortfall in the program, you ask?  Citing testimony delivered last year by their Levy Institute colleague James Galbraith, the authors suggest that there are reasons to be skeptical of these projections.  To see why, have a look at this critique by Galbraith, Wray, and Mosler of the intergenerational accounting methods used to forecast fiscal doom in programs like Social Security (highlights here). I can tell by that glazed look in your eye that you’re still not convinced.  Alright:  even if the official projections pan out (and there is, as the authors… Read More

“The problem is that we have way too much money chasing way too few good assets. The total amount of financial bets out there is way over $600 trillion around the world. There just aren’t enough good investments to absorb that amount of money. So, what happens is they blow up–one asset after another. Then, those inevitably crash.”  Jumping off from his latest post, Randall Wray was interviewed at Benzinga regarding his arguments about a commodities bubble and the potential for a new crash. Wray suggests in this interview that, in the face of another crisis, Washington may be constrained in its ability to come to the rescue as it did in 2008: The Dodd-Frank legislation makes it very difficult to repeat that performance. I’m not saying that they won’t find a way around the rules, or they won’t find a way to do it again. They might, but it’s going to be very politically unpopular. I’m not sure they are going to be able to do it again. Once prices start tumbling, all of the asset markets are actually linked. Even though it’s not obvious, they really are. It will tumble across all of them. And it’s not clear that we will be able to stop it this time. At least, not as easily as last time.

Michael Hudson on the ECB and eurozone national central banks’ restricted abilities to purchase government debt: Their banks have perpetuated the “road to serfdom” myth that a central bank runs the danger of fueling inflation if it creates money – in contrast to commercial banks, which supposedly run no such danger if they create money on their own computer keyboards. It is not considered inflationary for them to charge interest to the government, which then needs to pay by taxing the economy at large. When you find this kind of distortion being popularized and even written into law, there always is a special interest at work. The supposed contrast between “bad” central banks and “good” commercial banks is a lobbying effort seeking to monopolize credit creation in the hands of commercial banks, by promoting a travesty of how central banks are supposed to act. The reality is that commercial banks have fueled an enormous asset-price inflation in recent years. The debt they have created imposes an interest burden that deflates the economy – even while adding to the cost of living and doing business. Meanwhile, central banks monetize government deficits that are supposed to spur recovery, not simply be giveaways to financial institutions and other vested interests. … Whether a bank is private or public, money and credit are created… Read More