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.

New Monetarists, scientists or engineers?

Back in 1994, when the New Keynesian (NK) label, if not the models, were relatively new, Ball and Mankiw argued that Milton Friedman was closer to the NK approach than the New Classical (NC)/Real Business Cycle (RBC) one. For them (see here, 1994, p. 9):

"although traditionalist are often called 'new Keynesians,' this label is a misnomer. They could just as easily be called 'new monetarists.'"

The whole point was that monetarists believed in the non-neutrality of money in the short run and in sticky prices, like NKs. Now there is an explicit New Monetarist model with sticky prices here, and a growing literature surveyed by Stephen Williamson and Randall Wright here. Williamson has a blog here.

New Monetarists seem to build on ideas developed by Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace in the early 1980s (here, for example). A simple introductory presentation is given by Champ and Freeman (here). The theoretical framework is in general based on overlapping generations models, in which monetary policy can affect relative prices and, as a result, change the intertemporal consumption, labor supply, and investment decisions of rational maximizing agents.

As Williamson says:

"Monetary policy matters due to distortions in intertemporal prices, for example the anticipation of higher money growth and higher inflation acts as a tax on labor supply and reduces output."

Not sure if he thinks that the current slow growth is to be blamed on the expansion of the money supply after the recession, and higher inflationary expectations, leading to an increase in the demand for leisure time (a reduction on labor supply, that will be taxed by the higher inflation). That would explain why he thinks that the Fed should sell bonds, and raise the interest rate (not a joke!). At any rate, the whole New Monetarist approach is fundamentally, like New Classical authors in general, concerned with microfoundations. In this case, microfoundations in the money market.

This kind of approach reminds me of another Mankiw paper on the nature of macroeconomic research. For him macro, from the Keynesian Revolution until the rise of Lucas and the New Classical school, was dominated by what he calls engineers, that is problem solvers. From Lucas on it has been dominated by scientists, meaning those that search first principles.

So the first group was concerned with empirical regularities, like Okun's Law, while the latter emphasized rational intertemporal maximizing economic agent models, like in the Ramsey model. New Monetarists are clearly in the latter camp. So are we better off with the rise of the "scientific" macroeconomists? Here is why Mankiw's paper is so important. He candidly tells us (p. 19):

"The sad truth is that the macroeconomic research of the past three decades [the 'scientific' micro-founded stuff] has had only minor impact on the practical analysis of monetary or fiscal policy. The explanation is not that economists in the policy arena are ignorant of recent developments. Quite the contrary: The staff of the Federal Reserve includes some of the best young Ph.D.’s, and the Council of Economic Advisers under both Democratic and Republican administrations draws talent from the nation’s top research universities. The fact that modern macroeconomic research is not widely used in practical policymaking is prima facie evidence that it is of little use for this purpose. The research may have been successful as a matter of science, but it has not contributed significantly to macroeconomic engineering."

No kidding, great science that has nothing to say about the reality of how to solve actual economic problems. The rise of sci-fi macroeconomists. Welcome to the Twilight Zone!

Neo-Wicksellian macroeconomics

Modern macro has more to do with Wicksell's Interest and Prices than with Keynes' General Theory. For one, the idea of a natural rate of unemployment derives directly from Wicksell's natural rate of interest, as Friedman noted. So here is a brief explanation of Wicksell's main argument in that book.

Wicksell distinguished between the natural rate of interest (R*) and the monetary or bank rate of interest (R). The former was determined by the marginal productivity of capital (I) and the intertemporal decisions of consumption (leading to savings S), along the lines of what became known as the loanable funds theory. The monetary rate was determined by bank decisions. That is, banks supplied credit (Ms) at the chosen rate of interest (R), according to money demand (Md). Monetary equilibrium occurred when the two rates coincided (see figure below). The natural rate is the gravitational center around which the bank rate fluctuates. Real and monetary shocks could cause deviations of the bank rate from equilibrium.

Wicksell assumes that a positive productivity shock raises the natural rate of interest, and that banks maintain the initial monetary rate. Thus, with a low bank rate, investment exceeds savings and once the system reaches full employment prices would go up. However, continuous lending would reduce bank reserves, and as a result banks would be forced to increase the monetary bank until a new equilibrium was reached. Inflation resulted from a bank rate that was too low, as much as deflation (and temporary unemployment) from a bank rate that was too high.

The low bank rate implies overinvestment, and the need for additional savings. The inflationary process by reducing the ability of consumers to spend provides the additional 'forced savings.' Inflation acts as a tax that provides the additional resources needed to finance investment. The business cycle can be explained by exogenous shocks to productivity (the I curve), changes in consumers preferences (shocks to S), or by the misconduct of the banking sector (shocks to Ms). Wicksell, as much as the modern Real Business Cycle (RBC) School, favored the former.

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.