The Economist and Argentina

Central Bank Independence is the rallying cry of the Economist againts Argentina's new law regulating the functioning central bank. Argentina will use the central bank as a piggy bank for the government, and that will lead to inflation. This is a bit ironic since it comes after the worse crisis in capitalism since the Great Depression and during the worst European Crisis after the launching of the euro, which threatens the very existence of the currency, and both should at least lead to some revision of central bank practices. Also, one should note the independence of the European Central Bank is part of the problem in the case of Europe, since if the ECB bought small amounts of Greek debt the draconian adjustment would be unnecessary.

The only thing worth about the piece is the brief objective description of what the central bank' new charter does, namely:

"It can now be required to transfer to the treasury cash equal to 20% of government revenues plus 12% of the money supply; to use its reserves (of $47 billion) at will to pay government debts; and to play a more active role in regulating banks and in steering credit to favored industries."

They mock the president of the bank, for suggesting that the bank will not print more money than needed. Mind you that is an old idea, going back to the anti-bullionists, the Banking School, the Radcliffe Committee, and many post-Keynesian authors that defended endogenous money (what is now referred to as MMT). Also, something accepted by any central bank that follows an interest rate rule, since they lend any amount at that rate of interest.

Bernanke would probably reply that the incredible increase in the monetary base, from around US$ 850 billion to around US$ 2.5 trillion in the 2007-2011 period, was what the market needed. The Economist obviously believes that hyperinflation is around the corner in the US too.

The use of reserves, which continues a policy already in place, just with more flexibility, is a way of reducing the need for borrowing in international financial markets. And since the current account is near balance, the only other alternative would be to borrow. Note that borrowing in international markets in foreign currency, has no connection with printing money and financing domestic spending in domestic currency, other than the fact that imports increase with the level of activity. By the way, the government is reducing spending and cutting subsidies, and, hence, promoting a fiscal adjustment and as one should expect the economy seems to be decelerating, so it is very unlikely that there will be overissue, whatever that is.

By the way, historically that is what central banks did. The Bank of England entire initial capital was lent to the government. And one thing that is generally agreed is that the ability to borrow money at relatively cheap rates was essential to explain the British rise to power in the XVIII century, and for the eventual defeat of the French hegemonic pretensions. Inflation, when it occurred was caused by changes in costs of production, and as Thomas Tooke, an often neglected author, suggested, in his monumental History of Prices, that bank issue responded to the needs of trade.

But given the ironic tone of The Economist, let me ironically finish by quoting Milton Friedman, who also opposed Central Bank Independence, albeit for different reasons than I do: ‘to paraphrase Clemenceau, money is too serious a matter to be left to the Central Bankers.’

MMT and its discontents

The Washington Post had a substantial profile on what is now termed Modern Monetary Theory (starts with Jamie Galbraith, and then goes on to the Kansas version of post Keynesian economics). A few reactions in the blogosphere. Two worth noticing are by Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein that provide qualified support.

Dean suggests that beyond fiscal deficits stimulus should also come from monetary policy (lower interest rate), and a more depreciated dollar. My guess is that, at least the Kansas MMTers would be fine with both, but suggest that lower rates of interest are not much in play now. But from what I understand a depreciated dollar has been seen as part of a solution by most progressive economists. Randy Wray, for example, is certainly less concerned with the size of a trade deficit than Dean, since the US is the issuer of the key currency [I have less confidence on flexible exchange rates as a way of solving balance of payments constraints in developing countries, but I'll leave that for another post].

My concern with Dean's notion of a more devalued dollar, which is generally fine and will not lead to the demise of the dollar in the near future, is that for the workers with low wages that depend on cheap imports at Walmart it implies higher prices and lower real wages. A boost to increase real wages would be necessary [see Jamie on that here]. So better income distribution should be the most important channel to boost consumption on a sustainable way.

Jared Bernstein fundamentally adds that taxes on the wealthy should be increased. Which he argues from a political standpoint, and I think it is quite reasonable, since that is one way (besides hiking minimum wages, and repealing right to work and other anti-labor legislation) to improve income distribution.

On a more personal level, my problem with the WaPo piece, and the general discussion of MMT, is that for the most part it sees MMT as just a policy program (the Kansas one is, for example, an Employer of Last Resort of some type, which is fine with me, by the way), and does not separate the theoretical discussions from the policy stuff.
Endogenous money, chartalism, and functional finance, are relevant because they fit the theoretical framework of a coherent heterodox alternative to the mainstream based on Keynes' Principle of Effective Demand [for a full alternative you need also long term pricing; in Kansas your man for that would be Fred Lee]. For my views on that go here. I think, hence, that a coherent alternative to the mainstream, beyond Keynesian economics, requires a good dose of the old and forgotten methods of classical political economy.

PS: My point about theoretical versus policy matters is driven by the fact that on certain policy issues, like the need for further fiscal stimulus, New Keynesians like Krugman and DeLong would be fundamentally in agreement with MMTers.

The inflation monster

Kids are afraid of monsters, and so are Republican candidates apparently. The inflation monster that is. It really makes it hard to teach macro, since lots of students still think, because of the unrelenting 24 hour media coverage of GOP debates that since money supply increased (from about 7.5 to close to 9.3 trillions from Dec. 2007 until last July, using M2) we are in for a huge increase in prices. Hyperinflation should be around the corner.

It's not. As anybody with common sense knows the velocity of circulation does change (fell from slightly more than 2 to around 1.7 for M2), and the increase in money supply has no effect on spending. Banks are not lending, since demand is not growing sufficiently (if in doubt search endogenous money, now known as MMT, Modern Monetary Theory). And inflation has been subdued as the graph below shows (2011 is an IMF forecast for CPI inflation), even more after the 2007-8 crisis.

Inflation has increased a little bit in 2011, fundamentally associated to higher energy and food prices, but the pass-through to general prices in the US is relatively small (black line is a three year moving average). As noted by Adam Posen, central banks should continue to maintain low rates of interest. Unless they believe in monsters!

PS: Funny coincidence, after I posted this I saw that Krugman uploaded a graph of M2 velocity after the 1960s here.

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 strange persistence of Monetarist history

The Monetarist view of history, as I noted in a recent post, is quite popular. The conventional wisdom on the Great Depression is that the Gold Standard forced contractionary monetary policies and the Great Contraction caused the recession. An open economy version of Milton Friedman’s story. The dominant view on the recovery from Great Depression, due to Christina Romer, is that the non-sterilized inflows of gold led to an increase of money supply. And the money supply brings the recovery. Forget the New Deal, that made things worse in the Monetarist alternative reality.

Krugman, that has otherwise done a great job of showing the anti-Keynesian bias in current discussions of the budget, also seems to have an inner Monetarist. He tells us in a recent post on taxes that: “the feds have the Fed, which can print money. But there are constraints on that, too — they’re not as sharp as the constraints on governments that can’t print money, but too much reliance on the printing press leads to unacceptable inflation. (Cue the MMT people — but after repeated discussions, I still don’t get how they sidestep the issue of limits on seignorage.)”

I guess we call endogenous money MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) now. If you print money and people spend, and there is capacity, there should be no inflation, but lower unemployment. Also, as people spend, firms tend to adjust capacity to demand. So the capacity limit is endogenous. The limit that most economies encounter is the balance of payments. As the economy grows and it imports more, eventually the current account deficit becomes too large, and depreciation fuels inflation.

But my concern is why even Krugman buys the notion that money causes prices. A graduate student told me that monetarism is a simple story that is ideologically convenient. That is true, but not ideologically convenient for progressives like Krugman. In his case and other progressives like him (there are even Marxists with Monetarist proclivities!), it seems, that the reasons have to do with the ability to convince people that certain events can only be explained by Monetarist ideas. That suggests to me that the power of institutions (universities, journals, press) that reproduce acceptable knowledge is incredible strong. Institution building should be at the top of the agenda for progressives.