“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”
31 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in budget deficits, fiscal policy, macroeconomics, monetarism, monetary economics Tags: Joan Robinson
Joan Robinson thought German hyperinflation was not caused by monetary policy!!
Almost, but not quite.
Back in the days when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and Cambridge economists kept guard at the Temple of Keynes, Milton Friedman’s focus on inflation as a monetary phenomenon was a revelation—and an excellent one. Next to Joan Robinson’s surreal claims that printing money was not responsible for the German hyperinflation, Friedman’s version of monetary economics provided a very healthy dose of sanity. And as central banks across the world learned from the mistakes of the 70s and brought inflation under control, it became clear that the monetary authority indeed had the power to contain the price level via control of the money supply.
But it’s important to know what this account leaves out: how, exactly, do prices adjust? And over what length of time does this happen?
The modern view, backed up by impressive (though not entirely conclusive) empirical evidence, is that most prices are…
View original post 301 more words
The leads and lags on monetary policy are long and variable
25 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in business cycles, inflation targeting, macroeconomics, Milton Friedman, monetarism, monetary economics Tags: leads and lags on monetary policy, Milton Friedman, monetary policy
Many Keynesians, Friedman notes, advocate “leaning against the wind.” By this they mean, in some sense, that the monetary (and fiscal) authorities should try to balance out the private sector’s excesses rather than passively hope that it adjusts on its own.
There are large uncertainties about the size and timing of responses to changes in monetary policy. There is a close and regular relationship between the quantity of money and nominal income and prices over the years. However, the same relation is much looser from month to month, quarter to quarter and even year to year.
Monetary policy changes take time to affect the economy and this time delay is itself highly variable. The lags on monetary policy are three in all:
- The lag between the need for action and the recognition of this need (the recognition lag)
-
The lag between recognition and the taking of action (the legislation lag)
-
the lag between action and its effects (the implementation lag)
These delays mean that is it difficult to ascertain whether the effects of monetary policy changes in the recent past have finished taking effect. Secondly, it is difficult to ascertain when proposed changes in monetary policy will take effect. Thirdly, feedbacks must be assessed. The magnitude of the monetary adjustment necessary to deal with the problem at hand is thus never obvious. It is common for a central bank to act incrementally. The central bank makes small adjustments to monetary conditions over time as more information is available on the state of the economy and forecasts are updated.
The existence of lags may mean that by the time policy has its full effect, the problem with which it was meant to deal may have disappeared.
Milton Friedman (1959) tested the Fed’s success at leaning “against the wind” by checking whether the rate of money growth has truly been lower during expansions and higher during contractions. He admits that this method of grading he Fed’s performance is open to criticism, but he decided to go ahead and see what turns up. Friedman found that Fed has – for the periods surveyed – been unsuccessful.
By this criterion, for eight peacetime reference cycles from March 1919 to April 1958. Actual policy was in the ‘right’ direction in 155 months, in the ‘wrong’ direction in 226 months; so actual policy was ‘better’ than the [constant 4% rate of money growth] rule in 41% of the months.
Nor is the objection that the inter-war period biased his study is good since Friedman found that:
For the period after World War II alone, the results were only slightly more favourable to actual policy according to this criterion: policy was in the ‘right’ direction in 71 months, in the ‘wrong’ direct in 79 months, so actual policy was better than the rule in 47% of the months.
One of the best ways to parry a metaphor is with another metaphor. Keynesians have a host of metaphors in their rhetorical arsenal; one frequently voiced is that a wise government should “lean against the wind” when choosing policy. Friedman counters:
We seldom know which way the economic wind is blowing until several months after the event, yet to be effective, we need to know which way the wind is going to be blowing when the measures we take now will be effective, itself a variable date that may be a half year or a year or two from now. Leaning today against next year’s wind is hardly an easy task in the present state of meteorology.
Friedman’s remarks, as even his strong critics admit, are mighty and strike at the heart of any activist stabilisation policy. By meeting Keynesians on their own theoretical turf and scrutinising their practice, Friedman manages to produce objections that both Keynesians and non-Keynesians must take seriously. A key part of any response to Friedman rests on the ability of forecasters to do their jobs with tolerable accuracy.
Keynesian policies do not necessarily follow even if the Keynesian theory of the business cycle were conclusively proved. It must also be demonstrated that the government has the ability and willingness of the government to act as the theory prescribes. Friedman’s critique does not depend on the quantity theory of money.
New Keynesian macroeconomics as the triumph of monetarism
25 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in macroeconomics, Milton Friedman, monetarism, monetary economics Tags: Brad Delong, Milton Friedman, monetarism, New Keynesian macroeconomics
In The triumph of monetarism, Brad De Long wrote in the Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 14, Number 1—Winter 2000—Pages 83–94 that today’s new Keynesian" macroeconomists would include in any list of their key ideas and premises the five following propositions that:
- The key to understanding real fluctuations in employment and output is to understand the process by which business cycle-frequency shocks to nominal income and spending are divided into changes in real spending and changes in the price level.
- Under normal circumstances, monetary policy is a more potent and useful tool for stabilization than is fiscal policy.
- Business cycle fluctuations in production are best analysed from a starting point that sees them as fluctuations around the sustainable long-run trend (rather than as declines below some sustainable potential output level).
- The right way to analyse macroeconomic policy is to consider the implications for the economy of a policy rule, not to analyse each one- or two-year episode in isolation as requiring a unique and idiosyncratic policy response.
- Any sound approach to stabilization policy must recognize the limits of stabilization policy—the long lags and low multipliers associated with fiscal policy; the long and variable lags and uncertain magnitude of the effects of monetary policy.
De Long then went on to argue that the above research programme is the macroeconomic research programme of Milton Friedman in the mid-20th century.
Wrong from the start – Joseph Stiglitz
13 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in business cycles, global financial crisis (GFC), macroeconomics, monetary economics Tags: East Asian economic miracle, global financial crisis, Japan, Japanese banking system, Joseph Stiglitz, zombie banks
A man of his times, back in 1996, smoking Joe Stiglitz used to be an admirer of the Japanese banking system because of its long-range thinking and lending
Cooperative behaviour between firms and their banks was also evident in the operations of capital markets.
In Japan each firm had a long-standing relationship with a single bank, and that bank played a large role in the affairs of the firm.
Japanese banks, unlike American banks, are allowed to own shares in the firms to which they lend, and when their client firms are in trouble, they step in. (The fact that the bank owns shares in the firm means that there is a greater coincidence of interest than there would be if the bank were simply a creditor; see Stiglitz 1985.)
This pattern of active involvement between lenders and borrowers is seen in other countries of East Asia and was actively encouraged by governments.
That praise of the Japanese banking system in 1996 did not stop him criticising the Japanese Zombie banks in 2009. Shame, Stiglitz, shame.
Note: A zombie bank is a bank with an economic net worth of less than zero but continues to operate because its ability to repay its debts is shored up by implicit or explicit government credit support.
Does fiscal policy cause inflation?
11 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in budget deficits, fiscal policy, macroeconomics, Milton Friedman, monetary economics Tags: budget deficits, fiscal policy, inflation
David Hume on the long and variable lags on monetary policy
05 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in macroeconomics, monetary economics Tags: David Hume, lags on monetary policy, monetary neutrality
Brad Delong and Larry Summers on the ineffectiveness of fiscal policy in stimulating the economy
05 Jul 2014 3 Comments
If there is such a thing as a liquidity trap, bring it on!
04 Jul 2014 Leave a comment
in business cycles, fiscal policy, macroeconomics, Milton Friedman, monetary economics Tags: Allan Meltzer, JM Keynes, liquidity trap, Milton Friedman
In the Keynesian pipedream, in a liquidity trap, there is perfect substitutability of money and bonds at a zero short-term nominal interest rate. This renders monetary policy ineffective.
Keynesians claim that the demand for money may be so persistently high that the rate of interest could not fall low enough to stimulate investment sufficiently to raise the economy out of the depression. Allan Meltzer explains:
A liquidity trap means that increases in money by the central bank (monetary base) cannot affect output, prices, interest rates or other variables. Changes in the money stock are entirely matched by changes in the demand to hold money.
With a liquidity trap, the public simply hoards the money the central bank creates rather than attempting to run down additions to their cash balances with increased consumer expenditure. This limitless accumulation of money by the public is not a real world phenomenon. The public will not forever accumulate money.
Auerbach and Obstfeld noted in "The Case for Open-Market Purchases in a Liquidity Trap" that to the extent that long-term interest rates are positive short-term interest rates are expected to be positive in the future, trading money for interest-bearing public debt through open market operations reduces future debt-service requirements.
- A massive monetary expansion during a liquidity trap should improve social welfare by reducing the taxes required in the future to service the now much smaller national debt!!!!
- A quantitative easing during a liquidity trap is, in effect, as good as or even better than a lump sum tax.
Central banks perhaps should contrive liquidity traps because they can then buy back the public debt because of the unlimited demand for money.
The logic of the liquidity trap is people will without limit give up bonds for non-interest bearing cash. If monetary policy is impotent near the zero bound, the central bank should buy trillions of dollars of federal bonds and payoff the public debt. This is a logical implication of liquidity traps for an optimal fiscal policy!!!! Is my reasoning wrong?
In addition to D.H. Robertson, Jacob Viner, Milton Friedman, Philip Cagan, Don Patinkin, Auerbach and Obstfeld, Robert H. Lucas, Greg Mankiw, and Bernanke and Blinder as sceptics about a liquidity trap, Keynes wrote in 1936:
Whilst the limiting case might become practically important in future, I know of no example of it hitherto. Indeed, owing to the unwillingness of most monetary authorities to deal boldly in debts of long term, there has not been much opportunity for a test.
Meltzer, who wrote A History of the Federal Reserve, Vol. 1: 1913-1951 points to several periods when interest rates were at or close to zero:
“In 1954, interest rates were 0.5 percent or below, and we had no problem recovering,” he says. “In 1948 to 1949, we had zero interest rates. Also in 1937 to 1938. We had no problem recovering.”
The Pigou effect states that when there is deflation of prices, employment (and output) will be increased due to an increase in wealth (and thus consumption). The deflation increases the value of cash balances and therefore the wealth of consumers. They spend some of this additional wealth.
After reading the annual reports of the Fed in the 1920s and 1930s, Milton Friedman noticed the following pattern:
In the years of prosperity, monetary policy is a potent weapon, the skilful handling of which deserves the credit for the favourable course of events; in years of adversity, other forces are the important sources of economic change, monetary policy had little leeway, and only the skilful handling of the exceedingly limited powers available prevented conditions from being even worse
To avert a financial panic, central banks should lend early and freely to solvent banks against good collateral but at penal rates
19 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
in financial economics, global financial crisis (GFC), great recession, macroeconomics, monetary economics, Thomas M. Humphrey Tags: lender of last resort, Thomas Humphrey, Walter Bagehot
First. That these loans should only be made at a very high rate of interest. This will operate as a heavy fine on unreasonable timidity, and will prevent the greatest number of applications by persons who do not require it. The rate should be raised early in the panic, so that the fine may be paid early; that no one may borrow out of idle precaution without paying well for it; that the Banking reserve may be protected as far as possible.
Secondly. That at this rate these advances should be made on all good banking securities, and as largely as the public ask for them. The reason is plain. The object is to stay alarm, and nothing therefore should be done to cause alarm. But the way to cause alarm is to refuse some one who has good security to offer… No advances indeed need be made by which the Bank will ultimately lose. The amount of bad business in commercial countries is an infinitesimally small fraction of the whole business…
The great majority, the majority to be protected, are the ‘sound’ people, the people who have good security to offer. If it is known that the Bank of England is freely advancing on what in ordinary times is reckoned a good security—on what is then commonly pledged and easily convertible—the alarm of the solvent merchants and bankers will be stayed. But if securities, really good and usually convertible, are refused by the Bank, the alarm will not abate, the other loans made will fail in obtaining their end, and the panic will become worse and worse.
Walter Bagehot Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market (1873).
The classical theory of the lender of last resort stressed
(1) protecting the aggregate money stock, not individual institutions,
(2) letting insolvent institutions fail,
(3) accommodating sound but temporarily illiquid institutions only,
(4) charging penalty rates,
(5) requiring good collateral, and
(6) preannouncing these conditions in advance of crises so as to remove uncertainty.
Did anyone follow these rules in the global financial crisis? The Fed violated the classical model in at least seven ways:
- Emphasis on Credit (Loans) as Opposed to Money
- Taking Junk Collateral
- Charging Subsidy Rates
- Rescuing Insolvent Firms Too Big and Interconnected to Fail
- Extension of Loan Repayment Deadlines
- No Pre-announced Commitment
- No Clear Exit Strategy
…{the Fed’s} policies are hardly benign, and that extension of central bank assistance to insolvent too-big-to-fail firms at below-market rates on junk-bond collateral may, besides the uncertainty, inefficiency, and moral hazard it generates, bring losses to the Fed and the taxpayer, all without compensating benefits. Worse still, it is a probable prelude to a severe inflation and to future crises dwarfing the current one.
2014 Homer Jones Memorial Lecture – Robert E. Lucas Jr.
18 Jun 2014 Leave a comment
The first part of his lecture discusses how the Fed can influence inflation and financial stability.
Central banks can control inflation. Can central banks maintain economic stability’s financial stability? This is still an open question as to whether central banks can do that. The quantity theory of money makes certain sharp predictions about monetary neutrality which are well borne out by the cross country evidence.
In the second part of this lecture, Lucas discusses how central banks around the world have used inflation targeting to keep inflation under control.
What is the Fed to do with the stable relationship between money and prices? Inflation targeting is superior to a fixed growth monetary supply growth rule. This always pushes policy in the direction of the inflation rate you want. Central banks around the world have succeeded in keeping inflation low by explicitly or implicitly targeting the inflation rate.
In the last part of his lecture, Lucas discusses financial crises. he agrees with Gary Gordon’s analysis that 2008 financial crisis was a run on Repo. A run on liquid assets accepted as money because they can be so quickly changed into money. The effective money supply shrank drastically when there was a run on these liquid assets.
Lucas favoured the Diamond and Dybvig of bank runs as panics. The logic of that model applies to the Repo markets now was well as to the banking system. How to extend Glass–Steagall Act type regulation of bank portfolios to the Repo market is a question for future research.
Inflation targeting is working well but the lender of last resort function is yet to be fully understood.
Note: The Diamond-Dybvig view is that bank runs are inherent to the liquidity transformation carried out by banks. A bank transforms illiquid assets into liquid liabilities, subject to withdrawal.
Because of this maturity mismatch, if depositors suspect that others will run on the bank, it is optimal for each depositor to run to the bank to withdraw his or her deposit before the assets are exhausted. The bank run is not driven by some decline in the fundamentals of the bank. Depositors are spooked for some reason, panic, and attempt to withdraw their funds before others get in first. In this case, the provision of deposit insurance and lender of last resort facilities reassures depositors and stems the bank run
In the Kareken and Wallace model of bank runs, deposit insurance is problematic because of the incentives it gives to deposit taking institutions that are insured to take much greater risks. When there is deposit insurance, depositors don’t care about the greater risk in the portfolios of their banks. The greater risk taking leads to higher returns at no extra cost because if these risky investments do fail, the deposit insurance covers their losses
It is therefore necessary to regulate the portfolio of insured banks to ensure that they do not do this. That is the great dilemma for banking regulation because quasi-banks and other liquidity transformation intermediaries such as a Repo market spring up just outside the regulatory net.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments