Krugman is right on Argentina

Fair is fair; I often point out when he is wrong, so I must admit he is 100% correct this time around (see my most recent comment on the topic here). By whatever measure you want Argentina has grown more than Brazil in the last decade. And yes (for the nuts in Krugman's comment section), Argentina has more inflation as a result of more nominal depreciation and more wage resistance. He did not say everything is perfect in Argentina, just better (much better, as a matter of fact) than with the neoliberal model. And that was the point of Matt Yglesias too.

Fed up with the full empoyment target?

The debate on Bernanke's views on inflation targeting -- whether it should be 2 or 4% -- as I noted in a previous post is peculiar, to say the least. After all the Fed has a dual mandate, and inflation preoccupations have to be tempered by the pressing question of unemployment. The preoccupation in some quarters is that the Fed has already accepted as a matter of fact that it has single mandate (see here and here). It seems to me that critics (e.g. Krugman, DeLong and others) are correct for the wrong reasons.

The graph below shows the effective Fed Funds rate in the last three recessions (represented by the shaded areas). The rate of interest falls in all three during or just before the recession.

Further, after the trough of the recession the Greenspan Fed took 46 and 35 months to start raising the rate in the previous two recessions. So far, 35 months after the last trough, the Bernanke Fed has not increased the rate. This time around it has done Quantitative Easing allowing for lower long term rates too, which was not done during the Greenspan era. If anything the Fed has done more now than under Greenspan, and unless you believe in the inflation expectations fairy, the old Eccles maxim is still true, monetary policy now is like pushing on a string.

So how is that critics of the Fed are correct and I believe that the dual mandate (full employment and inflation) is gone. Well look at the graph below. It shows the Fed Funds, again, with the 10 year Treasury bonds rate.

Notice that the Fed eventually raises the Fed Funds sufficiently to surpass the bond rate, and invert the yield curve. The point is to slowdown the economy, and avoid full employment. Even in the 1990s, when Greenspan allowed the bubble to continue and unemployment to fall below the then official limit of 6%, he eventually took action, when wages started to increase. Full employment has not been a target, but keeping workers demands for higher wages checked has been very much part of the reaction function. Jamie Galbraith has written about it (go here for a technical paper). So the Fed has a single target mandate, but is not an inflation target, it is a "fear of full employment target."

The Fed can do practical things like helping distressed borrowers (with defaulted or underwater mortgages), but it cannot directly increase spending, and in the absence of private spenders (domestic or foreign), or local governments, it must be the federal government. Bernanke is not the problem right now. Geithner is (and so is Congress).

PS: The New Keynesian view that if you increase expected inflation spending goes up is now defended by Brad DeLong. He says: "an extra $100 billion of quantitative easing boosts the expected price level ten years hence by 1%--and boosts expected inflation after the next decade by an average of 0.1%/year. That is enough to spur higher spending and a more rapid and satisfactory recovery." I'm not against QE per se, the idea of maintaining long term rates low. But the notion that it would lead to inflation (printing money generates inflation) and that expected inflation generates a boost in productive spending is clearly another confidence fairy story.

The inflation expectations fairy

There are confidence fairies and there is the inflation expectations fairy. It's a 4% fairy apparently. I'll explain. So Krugman correctly points out always that the more fundamentalist neoclassical economists (the Talibans that love price flexibility and instantaneous adjustment to full employment, not the moderates that also believe in a natural rate, but think it takes a while to get to it like Krugman himself) believe that the economy would recover if only a proper environment for investment was created. Hence, if confidence returned we would have a recovery.

They obviously invert causality between confidence and recovery. As noted by Marriner Eccles long ago: "confidence itself is not a cause. It is the effect of things already in motion. (...) What passed as a 'lack of confidence' crisis was really nothing more than an investor's recognition of the fact that new plant facilities were not needed at the time." Investment is the result of a growing economy, in which firms tend to adjust their capacity to demand. No demand for your goods no need to invest to create capacity to produce more. Plain and simple.

Now a dispute on what is the appropriate policy for the Fed, and what has been Bernanke's role has developed between Krugman and Bernanke (see here and here) [Ball has a more academic paper saying basically the same as Krugman here]. They argue that Bernanke has been correct in pursuing quantitative easing -- the buying of long term Treasury bonds to keep not just short, but also long term interest low -- and saving banks, but he has been reluctant to increase the inflation target to 4%. Blanchard has said pretty much the same about the need for a higher inflation target (this was hailed as new thinking in macroeconomics; with that criteria when Greenspan disregarded the 6% natural rate of unemployment level, believing it was somewhat lower, he was a radical innovator!). [I’ll leave for another post the question of why are we even talking about an inflation target in the US if the Fed supposedly doesn’t have one].

Krugman notes that Greg Mankiw actually has sent a veiled (or not so veiled threat, as he is the advisor to Romney, which may or may not have something to do with Bernanke’s reappointment in the future), saying that “if Chairman Bernanke ever suggested increasing inflation to, say, 4 percent, he would quickly return to being Professor Bernanke” (originally published here, yep Mankiw also writes regularly for the NYTimes).

So what is the mechanism according to Krugman (and the ‘progressives’ like the IMF chief economist Blanchard) by which a higher inflation target would lead to a recovery. In Krugman’s own words:

"If the Fed were to raise its target for inflation — and if investors believed in the new target — expected inflation over the medium term, say the next 10 years, would be higher. … [and] higher expected inflation would aid an economy up against the zero lower bound, because it would help persuade investors and businesses alike that sitting on cash is a bad idea. "

So if the Fed says it’s willing to accept a higher level of inflation – without doing anything concrete and objective like intervening and forcing banks to refinance the mortgages of people in foreclosure – then if investors are persuaded they may be confident enough to spend more. And that’s not a fairy?! The problem with any theory, including the New Keynesian, that believes [or says it does in order to get published] that there is a tendency to full employment, is that it must end on some sort of confidence for spending story, since under normal conditions the system would actually do it anyways. The confidence fairy is dead; long live the inflation expectations fairy!

Not so Keen on Krugman

I have been critical of the theoretical positions held by Krugman for a while now, even if he and DeLong, and even Summers, have been useful for policy reasons. Now a lengthy debate between Krugman and Steve Keen, a very pragmatic and reasonable post-Keynesian (and I guess part of MMT tradition) that understands endogenous money has developed [a good summary with all the links here].

First, and foremost endogenous money implies that the rate of interest is exogenous and determined by monetary authorities. That per se is not necessarily in contradiction with a neoclassical/marginalist view according to which the rate of interest equilibrates investment to full employments savings, as Krugman clearly believes. Wicksell [see here] certainly did not think so either.

For Wicksell in a giro system, in which all transactions were recorded as debit/credit relations, credit could expand indefinitely, but in the real world, bank reserves would vanish and lending would eventually collapse if the bank rate remained below the natural rate for a long period. That is fundamentally the reason why Krugman does not understand the notion that banks can create reserves, and that loans cause deposits. In other words, what regulates the bank rate is, ultimately the natural rate of interest.

Further, the natural rate of interest is NOT a banking phenomenon in marginalist analysis, and, as a result, cannot be exogenous to the system. It results from the marginal productivity of capital and the intertemporal decisions of consumers. Krugman is in fact very clear that he supports the loanable funds theory of interest.

Hence, Peter Cooper is correct to point out that ultimately the debate with Keen must revolve around a notion of a long term normal rate of interest that is institutionally determined by the central bank independent of the marginalist notion of the natural rate. That can only be obtained with the proper critique of the neoclassical notion of capital.

Krugman is wrong about China

If you believe Krugman's last column, you would think that China is like the US (or Japan he says; I would add Spain or Ireland), i.e. growing as a result of a housing bubble. His analogy seems to follow from the 'weakness' of consumption, that is, the fact that consumption is only 35% of GDP. He says:

The obvious question is, with consumer demand relatively weak, what motivated all that investment? And the answer, to an important extent, is that it depended on an ever-inflating real estate bubble.

He forgot to check real wages. The graph below shows that, in contrast to the US, Chinese wages have expanded incredibly fast. Since the Asian crisis, real wages have grown at more than 10% per year.

Consumption as a share of GDP remains low simply because a lot of investment is State driven and exogenous, and incredibly large. Even if there is a real state estate bubble, growth is led by government spending and by rising real wages. And by the way, there is no significant foreign debt, so a collapse of a bubble could be handled by domestic authorities without a sweat. Krugman is just wrong on this one.

PS: Data is from the Economics Intelligence Unit (subscription required). Check also ILO's Global Wage Report.

Original Sin And The Euro Crisis

Krugman has now twice argued that Europe faces an original sin problem (here and here). Let me be absolutely clear. Europe does NOT have an original sin problem. The original sin, a term invented by Ricardo Hausmann (see here), is a situation in which the domestic currency cannot be used to borrow in international markets or to borrow long-term in domestic markets. By the way, a new name for an old problem that was well known by Raúl Prebisch and other Latin American structuralists at ECLAC back in the 1950s, who recommended avoiding excessive borrowing in  foreign currency.

It is true that there are no European bonds, and that Greece, as the other countries of the euro, do borrow in a currency they do not control. However, the ECB can buy Greek bonds, and does print euros. That is not the case in a developing country that borrows in foreign currency, and does have an original sin problem. In that sense, the problem in the Eurozone is the unwillingness of the ECB to monetize even small amounts of debt. Misplaced monetarism, not the original sin, is the problem in Europe.

Lucas in context, Keynes out of context

Krugman decided to try his hand at history of macroeconomic thought in one of his last posts. That's great, since history of thought is essential to understand how we got here. It's also bad, since Krugman is still very much a mainstream author, and misses the point of Keynes' contributions, and the limitations of neoclassical (or more properly, marginalist) approach. He suggests correctly that the New Classical (NC)/Real Business Cycle (RBC) project was a failure, but both the reasons for that and his interpretation of the Keynesian project are misguided.

The first proposition in Krugman's reassessment of the recent history of macroeconomics, is that Keynesian models were ad hoc, and assumed wage and price rigidity. The whole of chapter 19 of the General Theory (GT) is about the effects of price and wage flexibility, and how it does not produce full employment. It was with Franco Modigliani's PhD dissertation, done at the New School for Social Research under Jacob Marschak, that the sticky wage version of Keynesian theory that would dominate the neoclassical synthesis was concocted.

Keynes is actually quite explicit about the negative effects of wage reductions. He says (GT, ch.19-link above):

"A reduction of money-wages will somewhat reduce prices. It will, therefore, involve some redistribution of real income (a) from wage-earners to other factors entering into marginal prime cost whose remuneration has not been reduced, and (b) from entrepreneurs to rentiers to whom a certain income fixed in terms of money has been guaranteed.

What will be the effect of this redistribution on the propensity to consume for the community as a whole? The transfer from wage-earners to other factors is likely to diminish the propensity to consume. The effect of the transfer from entrepreneurs to rentiers is more open to doubt. But if rentiers represent on the whole the richer section of the community and those whose standard of life is least flexible, then the effect of this also will be unfavourable. What the net result will be on a balance of considerations, we can only guess. Probably it is more likely to be adverse than favourable."

Hence, the fix-wage version of Keynes' thought is the result of misconception, that suggests that if markets worked well, without imperfections, they would move to full employment. Unemployment is a disequilibrium, by definition a short run situation resulting from a rigidity.

The whole point of the neoclassical synthesis was to suggest that one could continue to teach that markets are efficient, and that supply determined the price and quantity of equilibrium in all markets including those of "factors of production" (i.e. the labor and capital markets), and as a result unemployment could only result  from rigidities in the labor market. Nothing revolutionary there, and in that case, as Keynes foresaw, people would think he was quite wrong or said nothing new.

By the way Krugman does not believe that rigid wages are behind our current lack of full employment (in his view it is the downward rigidity of the rate of interest; Keynes also did not believe in the liquidity trap as the cause of depressions), which makes it more difficult to understand why he defines Keynesians (Old and New) as pragmatic rigid price and wage modelers. You cannot blame then Laurence Kotlikoff for his confusion (here and Krugman's reply and here; Jamie Galbraith, also implicated, gives a better answer since he never said that Keynes is about wage rigidity; scroll down for Jamie's and Kotlikoff's back and forth).

Krugman's second point is that Friedman and Phelps in the 1960s were trying to provide microfoundations to wage and price rigidity. Actually, the microfoundations agenda had more to do with the theoretical development of theories for consumption (Modigliani, Friedman), investment (Eisner, Tobin) and money demand (Baumol, Tobin) behavior. The Phillips Curve (PC) debate and the Friedman-Phelps notion of a natural rate of unemployment is associated to the idea that there is a supply side constraint to the economy, and stimulating demand would ultimately have only effects on prices and not on quantities. The economy naturally moves to full employment, unless there are restrictions, and what is needed is to eliminate the restrictions not stimulate demand.

In other words, the monetarist approach of Friedman accepts the neoclassical synthesis notion that it is the rigidities that cause unemployment. It just proposes a different policy solution. By pointing out the existence of a natural rate of unemployment analogous to Wicksell's natural rate of interest (which Keynes' criticizes in the GT) Friedman was just emphasizing that if one believes in the neoclassical theory of value and there are no restrictions the system moves to full employment. In fact, Friedman's (1970) theoretical framework, an ISLM cum PC and natural rate model, is remarkably close to the neoclassical synthesis models.

In that sense, the Lucas Revolution and the subsequent move, after Kydland and Prescott's work, of most New Classicals , including Lucas, to the Real Business Cycles camp is a not a break with Friedman, and the New Keynesians (NK) that accept everything (including the natural rate) are part of the same tradition. The difference is that some emphasize the long run neoclassical principles and others the short run rigidities that demand policy action.

The fundamental problem of the neoclassical/marginalist approach, and the importance of Keynes analysis, can ONLY be properly understood in light of the 1960s capital debates (for a good reference go here). The point, for the purposes of our discussion here, is that if there is unemployment and real wages fall, neoclassical theory tells you that according to the principle of substitution, more labor is demanded (the cheap thing that is in excess supply) and less machines (capital) are used, since they are relatively more expensive. However, since labor (which is cheaper) is used in the machine sector too their price should fall too, and is not generally true that there is a tendency for the full utilization of "factors of production" according to their relative scarcities. Further, even if the substitution effects go in the right direction, and more labor is used, the income effect of lower real wages tends to be large and have a negative effect on demand (put simply, workers cannot buy stuff), which implies that less of all "factors of production" are used. In other words, there is no natural tendency to full utilization of labor or capital, and both the natural rate of unemployment and its evil twin the natural rate of interest do NOT exist.

So it is peculiar that Krugman thinks that "NK economics [is] useful, if only as a way to check my logic, although it’s not really clear if it’s any better than old-fashioned Keynesianism." What logic? New Keynesian models assume a natural rate, and that the economy (without rigidities) moves to full employment! The problem with the NC/RBC/Lucas' type of theory is not that it failed to predict the 1980s recession or that they think that most crises are caused by real shocks (although both propositions are obviously wrong), as Krugman seems to believe, but that they do maintain the fiction of an efficient market that clears (in their case too fast for Krugman's taste) and that produces a natural rate. If he wants to move in the right direction Krugman should follow Galbraith and announce that it is time to ditch the natural rate hypothesis.

PS: That means that progress in economics is not linear, and that one can and should learn from old and forgotten traditions (classical political economy did not assume full utilization of resources).

If you’re surprised, that means that you were part of the problem

Back in July, in the midst of the debt-ceiling debate, Paul Krugman argued that those that were surprised by the GOP tactic of blackmailing the administration, threatening a default in exchange for cuts on social spending and the maintenance of the tax cuts for the rich were part of the problem. Normal was already not part of the GOP. I agree.

Now Krugman tells us that in this crisis a "lot of the blame goes to the economists, by the way, who abandoned what they used to know." But the thing is that the mainstream of the profession has been dominated by the academic equivalent of the Tea Party for a very long time. My point is that if you didn't know that economists forgot certain things about recessions, and never learned a few other things, you have not been paying attention and/or you must be part of the problem too.

Krugman knows this well, since he argued that:

“By the early 1980s it was already common knowledge among people I hung out with that the only way to get non-crazy macroeconomics published was to wrap sensible assumptions about output and employment in something else, something that involved rational expectations and intertemporal stuff and made the paper respectable. And yes, that was conscious knowledge, which shaped the kinds of papers we wrote. So you could do exchange rate models that actually had realistic assumptions about prices and employment, but put the focus on rational expectations in the currency market, so that people really didn’t notice. Or you could model optimal investment choices, with the underlying framework fairly Keynesian, but hidden in the background. And so on.”

That is, in order to publish (in 'respectable' journals) you had to wrap your reasonable assumptions in crazy models. So it should have been clear back then that rational expectations, real business cycles, supply siders, and their political counterparts in the Reagan administration were more dangerous that Old Keynesians and New Old Keynesians (or Old New Keynesians for that matter) were willing to admit.

The problem is not just that New Keynesians of all sorts and political affiliations (Ben Bernanke, Brad DeLong, Paul Krugman, Greg Mankiw, Christina Romer or Larry Summers) can be seen as equivalents to the old Neoclassical Synthesis, the modern equivalents of John Hicks and Alvin Hansen, trying to incorporate the Keynesian insights that lack of effective demand was behind the Great Depression (now our Great Recession), and that fiscal stimulus is necessary, while maintaining the contradictory argument that the price and quantity of all "factors of production", including labor, can be determined by the equilibrium in the labor market. [If this is true lower real wages should equilibrate the labor market and involuntary unemployment should vanish].

From a policy point of view this is certainly important, but it misses the more essential question that Keynes theory was not (at least was not intended to be) about imperfections, and arguably the inability of the Neoclassical Synthesis of overcoming that original contradiction is part of the reason of the rise of New Classical economics, and the acceptance by New Keynesians of the Friedmanian notion of a natural rate.  Can you blame the profession that believes in the self-adjusting nature of the system towards the natural rate (included in all New Keynesian models) that fiscal stimulus is only needed in the short run and that the economy is on its path to recovery?

Hansen (1938, p. 34), in the book depicted above, said that the profession was: "living in a time when economics stands in danger of a sterile orthodoxy." [The time, by the way, was the 1937-38 recession]. We are in that position again, and people like DeLong and Krugman, as I said before, the best within the mainstream, would miss the opportunity of providing a more solid foundation for economic theory if they do not recognize the importance of the heterodox contributions of the more radical disciples of Keynes and Kalecki. We do not need another Neoclassical Synthesis, and we should try not to miss this new opportunity to complete the Keynesian Revolution.

Further, although we have our Hansens, so to speak, we do not have our Lauchlin Currie or our Marriner Eccles.  That is, the real heterodox Keynesians within the administration. Currie, by the way, wrote an unpublished review of the General Theory, for the eyes of the Board only, that is far better than most responses in academia, which did not rely in either interest rate (liquidity trap) or real wage rigidity. In fact, Currie argues correctly that (following chapter 19 of the General Theory) falling wages would make things worse. If respectable economists in the mainstream, like Krugman and DeLong, miss this opportunity this period will be remembered as 'the years of low theory.'

PS: For a discussion of Eccles and Currie see here. The classic book on Currie is by Roger Sandilands here.

Lipstick on a Pig

While I understand the title may be culturally specific, almost surely the metaphor isn't.

The American Jobs Act, unveiled fairly vigorously by President Obama last night to a joint session of the Congress, is an attempt to dress up the employment disaster the US and other advanced economies are needlessly enduring.

The metaphor presumes that you share in the general notion that pigs lack pulchritude. The current lack-of-jobs status is about as ugly as it gets. And the address last night leaves it barely improved at best. This is the biggest economic crisis of the last four generations, and we get....lipstick?

It is conceivable that, if the program manages to survive the worst Congress in my memory, it could help. The various early modeling returns have it adding between 500K and 3 million jobs over three years. So Mark Thoma and Paul Krugman say it positively surprised them. How low have our expectations sunk? These normally very good economists know how to do much much better than this. C'mon guys, this practically stinks.

This is at least a 15,000,000 jobs BIG pig, and getting bigger every day.

Mr. President, this economy must have at least 400K net new jobs per MONTH to fulfill both the economic potential and the moral imperative to reduce the totally needless suffering of the unemployed. C'mon Mr. President. 400K net new jobs per MONTH, hell or high water.

Put away the lipstick. We need jobs. Lots of them, private and public.

Update: via Jared Bernstein, Mark Zandi's model speaks and we strain to listen: AJA => 1.9 million net new jobs. While better than no jobs, folks, this is a crisis, and requires crisis-worthy action. I realize the political challenges, but as soon as we have whatever crumbs can be pried from agreements with the 'pubs, it will be time to put maximum political pressure on them to do the right thing -- 400K jobs a month. C'mon Mr. President, less lipstick, more jobs.

Krugman believes the US economy is wage-led

This is one thing that Krugman got right, and several heterodox economists did not.  In his critique of the myth of an economic miracle in Texas, he notes that:

"at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs — because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem."

Which by the way, also means that soaking the rich, because they are job creators, makes a lot of economic sense.  It should be no surprise that jobless recoveries became common in the period in which real wages have stagnated!

I know, I know, I should be grading (or working on my diss), but c'mon Mr. President, 400K jobs a month!

A 1932 Low cartoon via Luke Ashworth via Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.




I promise I am grading, but Ken Rogoff was just sounding like a total idiot (sorry, nothing pejorative intended for those who truly deserve our support) arguing (need I even add badly?) with Paul Krugman on Fareed Zakaria's GPS. So I can't help myself.




We do need to do whatever possible to shake this President out of his torpor. Here is the beginning of a campaign I just posted on Economist's View, and will be posting wherever there are smart readers. Quoting




"C'mon Mr. President!!! 400,000 jobs a month. Private, public, we need them all. If Plouffe and Daley disagree, tell them to get with the program.

Listen to your economists, present and former. Romer in particular is showing the right brand of spunk ... watch her Bill Maher appearance... and has the economics right. Sperling has both the politics and the economics right. 400,000 pragmatic jobs a month. Hell or high water. You're the President. C'mon.

Here's just one of many links to Romer (this one from HuffPo):

Send the kids out of the room."

I am actually beginning to like Christy Romer in spite of past peccadilloes.


Ok, back to grading, but not before I pose a related question: How is that austerity thing going after the riots this week Mr. Prime Minister Cameron?

Dr. Krugman and the natural rate of interest



So I have said a few times here that, while Krugman has been extremely useful for Keynesians in recent policy debates, as a New Keynesian (neo-Wicksellian would be a better term for this school of thought), he is not properly a real Keynesian.  In a recent post he shows exactly my point.  He says:

"There is still a sufficiently low real interest rate that would produce recovery, but it’s a rate that’s hard to achieve."

In other words, there is a rate of interest that would increase investment and bring about the full employment level of savings.  In this post he surprisingly seems to say that liquidity traps or lower zero bound limits (rigidities) for nominal rates do not matter.

The reason seems to be connected to the fact that creditors must have a positive effect on their net wealth in a deflationary balance sheet recession, and their spending should go up.  Hence, creditors should spend more with a slightly lower interest rate.  Wealth effects have been the traditional neoclassical argument for a self-equilibrating economy since Pigou.  If this were true no fiscal policy would be actually necessary.

It's hard to believe that Wall Street bankers would spend sufficiently more for a recovery to follow.  And I doubt that Krugman believes that this effect is sufficiently strong in the real world.  But he does believe in some sort of natural rate, like Wicksell did, which is compatible with Friedman's natural rate of unemployment.

Keynes, on the other hand, thought that the very concept of a natural rate should be discarded.  In chapter 17 of the General Theory Keynes states that:

"In my Treatise on Money I defined what purported to be a unique rate of interest, which I called the natural rate of interest — namely, the rate of interest which, in the terminology of my Treatise, preserved equality between the rate of saving (as there defined) and the rate of investment. I believed this to be a development and clarification of Wicksell’s “natural rate of interest”, which was, according to him, the rate which would preserve the stability if some, not quite clearly specified, price-level. ... I had not then understood that, in certain conditions, the system could be in equilibrium with less than full employment.
I am now no longer of the opinion that the concept of a “natural” rate of interest, which previously seemed to me a most promising idea, has anything very useful or significant to contribute to our analysis."

So, in fact, there might be the case that NO long term rate of interest, a highly conventional one according to Keynes, would be compatible with full employment.  The socialization of investment, in Keynes' terms, then would be necessary.  In other words, effective demand matters in the long run, not just the short run, because there is no tendency for self-adjustment.

Since Friedman's infamous Presidential address to the American Economic Association the neo-Wicksellian approach has dominated macroeconomics.  In this view, the central bank pins the short run policy rate to the long run natural rate, and the economy (save for rigidities and imperfections) moves automatically to full employment.  No fiscal policy is necessary, again with the exception of short run imperfections.  That's why long term considerations about deficits and debt are important. 

My question is: should we be surprised that with this theoretical model as the dominant one, we are in a situation in which the administration is unable to understand and unwilling to promote the fiscal expansion necessary to get us to full employment (or at least lower levels of unemployment)?

PS: Keynes developed the ideas in chapter 17 on the basis of Sraff'a's critique of Hayek's theory of capital in 1932 (here; subscription required).  Note that while Keynes understood that the idea of a natural rate of interest that equalized investment to full employment savings had to be discarded, he did not get that his negatively sloped marginal efficiency of capital actually provided the basis for such a rate.

Mr. Krugman and the Ancients



The preliminary paper posted by Krugman for the Cambridge conference on the 75th anniversary of the publication of the General Theory (GT) is an interesting piece. Not fundamentally for what it says, which is nothing new if you read his blog. Something along the lines liquidity traps imply that you need fiscal policy, and we are at one right now. But it is revealing piece about what mainstream Keynesians understand about the evolution of macroeconomics, and how much knowledge has been lost with the rise to dominance of the neoclassical/marginalist approach.

First, it is important to note that by the time of the New Deal and the Keynesian Revolution American academia was dominated by institutionalism. Mitchell was the head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, John Maurice Clark at Columbia was one of the leading figures of the profession and was the president of the American Economic Association in 1935, and so on. Yes, neoclassical economics dominated in England, with Marshallian traditions in Cambridge, and there were several neoclassical economists in the US, like Irving Fisher, but in America they were still not dominant.

Also, Keynesians or proto-Keynesians like Marriner Eccles and Lauchlin Currie, and institutionalists like Adolph Berle and Rexford Tugwell, were instrumental in bringing a whole generation of economists that where like Clark a mix of institutionalists with Keynesians into the New Deal administration. John Kenneth Galbraith would be the most prominent example. It is important to note that none of these economists thought that Keynes’ ideas were related to wage or interest rate rigidities, or that the problem with the Depression was that wages were too high.

These ideas only became dominant after Hicks and Modigliani, and were popularized in Samuelson’s neoclassical synthesis. In fact, it was the neoclassical synthesis, and not General Equilibrium, that made neoclassical economics the dominant approach in the US. The new economists were trained basically in Marshallian micro (partial equilibrium consumer and production theory) and Keynesian macro (Keynesian cross and ISLM). Old institutionalism started to vanish. [And by the way that is fundamentally, with the addition of natural rate ideas, and a Phillips curve in the macro part, what is essentially taught to undergrads; General Equilibrium is a graduate thing].

Krugman correctly criticizes Barro for the interpretation that the problem for Keynes was high wages, and that monetary policy was the solution. But he says: “if that’s all that it was about, the General Theory would have been no big deal.” Note that neither is a correct interpretation of the GT. Krugman having been trained as an old Keynesian, in the neoclassical synthesis (even if it is very likely that Rational Expectations were already important in his graduate training), is okay with the notion that Keynes believed in some sort of rigidity. For him, contrary to Barro, the main rigidity is not in the labor market, but in the capital market. Namely: a rate of interest that is too low and cannot be reduced further.

I should say here that it is a bit amazing that the discussion does not even include a footnote on Keynes and Pigou effects, and how wealth effects according to the neoclassical authors reestablished the notion of full employment equilibrium, and Keynes’ own views in chapter 19, and Kalecki’s famous reply to Pigou. Not even a footnote on Patinkin’s work on the topic. And that in a nutshell is the problem with Krugman’s paper. He gets stuck with two interpretations the uncertainty version of chapters 12 and 17, and the neoclassical synthesis of chapter 18, but he never bothers with chapter 19, the first in the whole book in which flexible wages and prices are allowed, and still no full employment is reached.

That’s why is weird that he thinks that Keynes didn’t say anything about debt. In chapter 19 Keynes says:

“the depressing influence on entrepreneurs of their greater burden of debt may partly offset any cheerful reactions from the reduction of wages. Indeed if the fall of wages and prices goes far, the embarrassment of those entrepreneurs who are heavily indebted may soon reach the point of insolvency, — with severely adverse effects on investment.”

Debt deflation is integral to Keynes' analysis. And that’s why Krugman has to reinvent what was already known (redundant originality one could call it), but put it into a New Keynesian model (his paper with Eggertsson cited in p. 18), which further complicates the issues, since New Keynesian models assume a natural rate and a tendency to it, that is not reached because of some sort of rigidity. Krugman never learnt the ancients (and I’m not even talking about the surplus approach, but just the old Keynesian tradition).

Don’t get me wrong, as I said about the DeLong in another post, Krugman has been essential to debunk a lot of crazy ideas, and support adequate policies. But it is a problem when the reasonable people in the mainstream still use a model that is basically self-adjusting to full employment.

I would not venture a full explanation of why this happened. But my hunch is that the defeat in the capital debates of the 1960s, admitted by Paul Samuelson, which among other things showed the impossibility of having a natural rate of interest (the existence of a rate of interest low enough that would provide full utilization of capital, something that Keynes knew it was important, saying so in the GT, but was unable to obtain because of his insistence on the concept of a marginal efficiency of capital), the dominant approach turned to eclecticism. This meant that Arrow-Debreu General Equilibrium (a short run equilibrium solution) provided the totem for the idea that markets work and are efficient (freeing the radical market fundamentalists to unleash the Rational Expectations revolution, for which markets always clear), while more reasonable authors (still within the mainstream, like Krugman) developed several research agendas on the basis of finding imperfections.

While one might agree with several policy propositions by the more reasonable mainstream authors (we need fiscal stimulus and the debt ceiling is not a real problem being two of those), it is important not to forget that their theoretical stance is deeply flawed. For more on this see my paper on a forthcoming edited book on the 75th anniversary of the GT.

Krugman on manufacturing deficits



Krugman correctly points out that depreciation has had a role in the reduction of the manufacturing trade deficit in the US (above).  However, he forgets to say that the recession was also instrumental in reducing the deficit.  While he is correct that those that are afraid that depreciation would lead to the collapse of the dollar (a hysterical exaggeration), and do not see the positive role of a depreciation, it is also true that the reduction of the deficit is not all good news. A reduction that results from a recession is hardly good news.

Note also that it is important to explain why the manufacturing sector is key for the economy. Nicholas Kaldor used to argue that it is manufacturing growth that drives productivity change (and that productivity in agriculture and services is derived). In that sense, as I noted before, even though employment in the sector have shrunk and the trade balance in the sector has been perennially negative, the US is still the leading innovator in the sector.

Monetization of debt: what does it do? Krugman and Rognlie on MMT

Again in a previous post I suggested I would deal with the issue, which seems to be apropos, since there has been a certain discussion in the blogosphere about the so-called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) approach (see here, here and here). First, I should clarify that the discussion to which I refer tends to conflate two different issues. One is the question that I will deal here, what are the constraints faced by the government in managing its budget, and the approach associated with MMT in this case is basically what used to be called functional finance, a tradition that harks back to Abba Lerner and Evsey Domar, and to which Keynes eventually agreed.

The other issue is related to the causality between money and economic activity, and is part of what in more modern times has been called endogenous money. The debates on this issue are older than the Bullionist/Anti-bullionist and Currency/Banking schools, and in modern times the endogenous money (anti-bullionist-banking) view was developed by Nicholas Kaldor and Basil Moore among other names. The reason the two issues tend to be conflated is that printing money is one way to finance government spending, and there is a traditional connection between sound finance and monetarist (exogenous money) views.

First, it is clear that if debt is denominated in domestic currency default per se is NOT possible, simply because the government can always monetize the debt. So the question is not whether the government has a budget constraint (what’s the meaning of a constraint if you can print money anyway), as Matt Rognlie says (he gets worked up by this, and affirms that: “MMT is wrong on money … The government does have a budget constraint”). Unless he denies monetization of debt is always possible (there might be political problems, but it is technically possible) in domestic currency, he needs to explain what is the constraint. Otherwise the question is really related to the consequences of monetization. By the way, that is the same confusion made by Krugman. He says:

“As I understand the MMT position, it is that the only thing we need to consider is whether the deficit creates excess demand to such an extent to be inflationary. The perceived future solvency of the government is not an issue.”

Again, what could be the solvency issue if the debt is denominated in a currency that the government controls? He may have issues with the consequences of printing money, but not with the fact that money can be printed. So solvency is NOT, and cannot be an issue. What are the consequences of monetizing debt then?

Long ago the authors of the Banking school (e.g. Thomas Tooke) noted that if more money is pumped into the system agents would spend the money or pay their debts (the second case is known as the reflux mechanism). If they pay previous debt, the money has no effect on the level of activity. On the other hand, if they spend and firms have extra capacity output must increase. Note that firms normally have extra capacity, and can produce more at the same price, contrary to the textbook (U-shaped) cost curves.

But what if the economy is at full capacity? Then it is clear that excess demand may have an impact on prices (or, if instead of monetization, the government prints more debt agents may demand higher rate of interest to hold it). The question then is whether the economy is at full employment and what determines full capacity, not whether monetization is always inflationary (which clearly would only be the case if the economy was always at full capacity; unless Krugman and Rognlie agree with Lucas, this could not be the case for them).

However, note that it has been accepted that the supply constraint is variable (the mainstream refers to it as the Time Varying Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment or TV-NAIRU). The important question regarding monetization is what determines this supply constraint that imposes an inflation barrier to demand expansion, what Friedman referred to as the natural rate of unemployment (note that natural was meant to suggest that policy cannot affect it).

Here it is also important to note that one component of demand, investment, does have an impact on the supply side. In other words, investment has a dual effect, it is a component of demand (more sales of equipment) and it creates more supply capacity in the future (when the equipment is installed). So, as the economy grows, firms try to adjust their capacity to demand, so as to keep up with the economy, and avoid loosing market share to competition. This suggests that one of the reasons for the variation of the supply constraint is the expansion of demand itself.

It should be noted that this does not mean that the supply constraint is never reached, but it is clearly a rare phenomenon. The graph below shows unemployment in the United States from 1929 to 2011. Only in four occasions did the annual average unemployment fall below 4%, in the mid-1940s, the early 1950s, the late 1960s and the late 1990s (all during Democratic administrations, by the way, with the exception of 1953).

Inflation did accelerate in the first three, when the economy, because of war efforts (WW-II, Korea and Vietnam), was most likely close to full employment (I’m more skeptical about the 1960s, since inflation really picks up in the 1970s, and oil shocks where more important than full employment), but not in the last. Even in those cases, only in the first public debt was actually growing, and the size of the deficits (more than 20%) was incredibly large.  Interest rates did not increase significantly in any of these episodes either (this seems to be Rognlie bone with MMT).

This is the evidence that is used to suggest that governments have a constraint and beyond that inflation ensues? And that is taken as serious thinking on money and deficits! I would agree with Robert Vienneau that this is “unjustifiably arrogant” dismissal of MMT, to say the least.  Part of what I have referred to as the incredible persistency of monetarist views (even among more progressive economists).

The collapse of the dollar

Krugman wrote a very sensible post on why the dollar is not a problem (unemployment is). He says:

"Dollar declines haven’t brought woe in their wake in the past: neither the huge decline after 1985 nor the sustained decline during the Bush years — both of them dwarfing anything we’ve seen recently — brought catastrophe; in fact, both were associated with OK economic growth and mild inflation. In some cases, currency declines have caused major balance sheet problems — but that’s because highly leverage players have large debts in foreign currency. US households are plenty indebted — but those debts are in dollars."

Worth reading too on the same topic this (full disclosure: I'm favorably biased by what this guy says).

Dean Baker vs. Paul Krugman

I often tend to agree with Dean, and its no different this time around, but it should be remembered that Volcker not only caused pain domestically with unemployment, he caused the debt crisis by hiking interest rates to the stratosphere.

Dean is right that the US will not be Greece, and that common currencies, like the euro (or dollarization in Latin American countries like Ecuador or El Salvador) imply that external imbalances must be adjusted with lower levels of output growth and higher unemployment.   But it is important to note that the US will also not be Zimbabwe. Hyperinflation is not about monetization of public debt. The German and Latin American cases show that is about being unable to keep the external value of the currency when faced with a balance of payments crisis.

If the US monetizes debt, and the economy is not at full employment, the level of activity should increase. If hypothetically it gets to full employment, monetization of public debt may lead to private agents using money to repay existing debts, to some currency substitution, and to some excess demand (which would force business to invest to adjust capacity to demand).

The last two may lead to some demand inflation.  Certainly during World War II, when unemployment reached 1.2%, and in the late 1960s, when unemployment fell below 3.5%, some demand pull inflation forces were at work.  But Zimbabwe is not related to that at all!!!