Summers on growth and stimulus - Barokong

August 15, 2020    Comment   

Summers on growth and stimulus - Barokong

Larry Summers has an important, and 95% excellent, Financial Times column. Larry is especially worth listening to. I can't imagine that if not a main Hilary Clinton adviser he will surely be an eminence grise on its economic policies. He's saying loud and clear what they are, so far, not: Focus on growth.

The title "the progressive case" for growth, is interesting enough. Perhaps Larry now uses the word "progressive" to describe himself. More importantly, Larry's audience here is the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party. He's saying loud and clear: you're not paying enough attention to growth, and growth ought to be at the center of the party, and the new Administration's, economic plans.

...many people, in their eagerness to focus on fairness, neglect the single most important determinant of almost every aspect of economic performance: the rate of growth of total income,

Hooray. Not only is this vitally important and factually correct, a growth oriented policy, if sold without the usual demonization, could well attract bipartisan support. That sentence could come from Paul Ryan's a better way

Alas, Larry blows that spirit right off the bat with a sentence that take a gold medal for convoluted calumny and bombastic bulverism:

Because those who champion strategies that centre on business tax-cutting and deregulation and favour the wealthy have placed the most emphasis on growth over the past 35 years, the objective of increasing growth has been discredited in the minds of too many progressives.

Translated into something approximating English: because people whose only and base motive was "favoring the wealthy" happened to advocate growth to sell their (as later described) useless tax-cutting and deregulation strategies, the goal of growth has become tarnished in the minds of good progressives.

This is below Larry -- in person I have always known him to recognize that conservatives and free-marketers have exactly the same dispassionate goal, advocate growth primarily to help the less well off, and tax-cutting and deregulation as time-proven policies that improve growth.  But, again, his audience is to the left, so perhaps one can excuse some I-hear-you agreeing with common demonizations.

But then he gets to well written and praiseworthy work, so good I must quote it in entirety:

It can hardly be an accident that the decades of maximum growth, the 1960s and 1990s, also saw the most rapid job growth and most rapid increase in middle-class living standards.

Growth provides the wherewithal for increased federal revenue and so encourages the protection of vital social insurance programmes such as Social Security and Medicare....

Tight labour markets are the best social programme, as they force employers to hire and mentor inexperienced people in order to be adequately staffed. Some years ago, I estimated that for each 1 per cent point increase in adult male employment, the employment of young black men rose 7 per cent. More recent research confirms economic growth has an outsized benefit for younger people and minorities.

Rising growth has other benefits, as well. It strengthens the power of the American example in the world. It obviates the need for desperation monetary policies that risk future financial stability. Greater growth also has historically operated to reduce crime, encourage environmental protection and contributes to public optimism about the country that our children will inherit.

The reality is that if American growth continues to have a 2 per cent ceiling, it is doubtful that we will achieve any of our major national objectives.

If, on the other hand, we can boost growth to 3 per cent, interest rates will normalise, middle-class wages will rise faster than inflation, debt burdens will tend to melt away and the power of the American example will be greatly enhanced.

...the vast majority of job creation and income growth comes from the private sector. If the next president is lucky enough to oversee the creation of 10m jobs from 2017-20, more than 8m of them will surely come from businesses hiring in response to profit opportunities.

All true, excellent, well-stated, and bipartisan (at least for the pre-Trump era). Jeb Bush's 4%, Paul Ryan's opportunity society agree totally. Heck, even Gary Johnson might find little to quibble with here. If growth could be the mantra for the Hilary Clinton administration, and if Larry can persuade his fellow "progressives," great things could follow.

And now to the remaining 5%:

There is no case for reducing already low corporate taxes or removing regulations unless it can be shown that these have costs in excess of benefits.

What is needed is more demand for the product of business. This is the core of the case for policy approaches to raising public investment, increasing workers’ purchasing power and promoting competitiveness. No case? Really? The higher taxes, steadily more convoluted tax code, vast expansion of regulation (Dodd-Frank, Obamacare are just the start) that coincided with our epic slow growth, have nothing at all to do with that sorry experience?   There is absolutely nothing wrong with the microeconomics of the American economy and its vast administrative, judicial and regulatory state, we just need a bit more "demand?"

Leave aside the last 30 years of growth theory, which is silent on "demand," we can do nothing better than move around 1970s era IS and LM curves, and revive ideas from the 1930s?

Read the second paragraph carefully. "More demand" is the ""core of the case for policy approaches to raising public investment, increasing workers’ purchasing power and promoting competitiveness."

That "more demand" is the "core of the case" for (The Federal Government to borrow a lot of money and spend it on things labeled as) "public investment" admits up front that the actual value of such investment is at best secondary. Public investment in a great Ice Wall of Westeros on the southern border, or for high-speed trains from Tonopah to Winemucca, do just as well in boosting "demand."

What is needed is a serious negotiation: Fund needed infrastructure investment, but put in serious cost-benefit analysis,  buy it at reasonable prices, and so forth. That negotiation should start by abandoning the whole idea that we're doing it to provide "jobs" and "demand." If you're not wiling to do that, at least be honest and state that Mr. Trump's wall provides the same "demand."

Then explain to us how Japan has been at this for 20 years, producing no great shakes of growth.

"policy-approaches to... increasing worker's purchasing power" is another classic hidden-subject clause. I presume it means [The Federal Government, by legislation, regulation, or threat, will force companies to pay workers more, and then control employment to make sure those companies don't just fire workers or select better ones in order to ] increase [some] worker's purchasing power." Gary Johson's program also increases worker's purchasing power, and I don't think that's what Larry has in mind. I'm also curious where in modern economics forced transfers increase employment and long-run growth.

But in context, this is a small complaint. If Larry can persuade Mrs. Clinton and the "progressives" in the Democratic Party to focus on growth, to state goals for growth, and to hold themselves accountable for growth, then we can have an honest and very productive conversation about what's stopping growth and what steps can further it.

Interview, talk, and slides - Barokong

August 14, 2020    Comment   

Interview, talk, and slides - Barokong

I did an interview with Cloud Yip at Econreporter, Part I and Part II, on various things macro, money, and fiscal theory of the price level. It's part of an interestingseries on macroeconomics. Being a transcript of an interview, it's not as clean as a written essay, but not as incoherent as I usually am when talking.

On the same topics, I will be giving a talk at the European Financial Association, on Friday, titled  "Michelson-Morley, Occam and Fisher: The radical implications of stable inflation at the zero bound,"slides here. (Yes, it's an evolution of earlier talks, and hopefully it will be a paper in the fall.)

And, also on the same topic, you might find useful a set of slides for a 1.5 hour MBA class covering all of monetary economics from Friedman to Sargent-Wallace to Taylor to Woodford to FTPL.  That too should get written down at some point.

The talk incorporates something I just figured out last week, namely how Sims' "stepping on a rake" model produces a temporary decline in inflation after an interest rate rise. Details here. The key is simple fiscal theory of the price level, long-term debt, and a Treasury that stubbornly keeps real surpluses in place even when the Fed devalues long-term debt via inflation.

Here is really simple example.

Contrast a perpetuity with one period debt, and a frictionless model. Frictionless means constant real rates and inflation moves one for one with interest rates

$$ \frac{1}{1+i_t} = \beta E_t \frac{P_t}{P_{t+1}} $$

The fiscal theory equation, real value of government debt = present value of surpluses,  says

$$\frac{Q_t B_{t-1}}{P_t} = E_t \sum \beta^j s_{t+j}$$

where Q is the bond price, B is the number of bonds outstanding, and s are real primary surpluses. For one period debt Q=1 always. (If you don't see equations above or picture below, come back to the original here.)

Now, suppose the Fed raises interest rates, unexpectedly,  from \(i\) to \(i^\ast\), and (really important) there is no change to fiscal policy \(s\). Inflation \(P_{t+1}/P_t\) must jump immediately up following the Fisher relation. But the price level \(P_t\)might jump too.

With one period debt, that can't happen -- B is predetermined, the right side doesn't change, so \(P_t\) can't change. We just ramp up to more inflation.

But with long-term debt, any change in the bond price Q must be reflected in a jump in the price level P. In the example, the price of the perpetuity falls to

$$ Q_t = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{1}{(1+i^\ast)^j} = \frac{1+i\ast}{i^\ast}$$

so if we were expecting P under the original interest rate i, we now have

$$\frac{P_t}{P} = \frac{1+i^\ast}{1+i} \frac{i}{i^\ast}$$

If the interest rate rises permanently from 5% to 6%, a 20% rise, the price level jumps down 20%. The sticky price version smooths this out and gives us a temporary disinflation, but then a long run Fisher rise in inflation.

Do we believe it? It relies crucially on the Treasury pigheadedly raising unchanged surpluses when the Fed inflates away coupons the Treasury must pay on its debt, so all the Fed can do is rearrange the price level over time.

But it tells us this is the important question -- the dynamics of inflation following an interest rate rise depend crucially on how we think fiscal policy adjusts. That's a vastly different focus than most of monetary economics. That we're looking under the wrong couch is big news by itself.

Even if the short-run sign is negative, that is not necessarily an invitation to activist monetary policy which exploits the negative correlation. Sims model, and this one, is Fisherian in the long run -- higher interest rates eventually mean higher inflation. Like Friedman's example of adjusting the temperature in the shower, rather than fiddle with the knobs it might be better to just set it where you want it and wait.

Micro vs. Macro - Barokong

August 13, 2020    Comment   

Micro vs. Macro - Barokong

The cause of sclerotic growth is the major economic policy question of our time. The three big explanations are 1) We ran out of ideas (Gordon); 2) Deficient "demand," remediable by more fiscal stimulus (Summers, say) 3); Death by a thousand cuts of cronyist regulation and legal economic interference.

On the latter, we mostly have stories and some estimates for individual markets, not easy-to-use  government-provided statistics. But there are lots of stories.

Here is one day's Wall Street Journal reading while waiting for a plane last Saturday:

1)Holman Jenkins,

... unbridled rent seeking.  That’s the term economists use for exercising government power to create private gains for political purposes.

Channelling Jefferson,

Mr. Obama’s bank policy dramatically consolidated the banking industry, which the government routinely sues for billions of dollars, with the proceeds partly distributed to Democratic activist groups.

His consumer-finance agency manufactured fake evidence of racism against wholesale auto lenders in order to facilitate a billion-dollar shakedown.

His airline policy, urged by labor unions, led to a major-carrier oligopoly, with rising fares and profits.

His FDA is seeking to extinguish small e-cigarette makers for the benefit of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma (whose smoking-cessation franchise is threatened by cheap and relatively safe electronic cigarettes).

His National Labor Relations Board, by undermining the power of independent franchisees, is working to cartelize the fast-food industry for the benefit of organized labor.

Summing up,

We could go on. Mr. Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisers complains about the increasing cartelization of the U.S. economy—as if this were not a natural output of regulation. In a much-noted Harvard Business Review piece this spring, James Bessen, an economist, lawyer and software entrepreneur, cites increased “political rent seeking” to explain the puzzle of rising corporate profits in the absence of job creation and economic growth.

The truth is, government playing neutral arbiter over the private economy doesn’t produce rents. A stable and predictable regulatory system produces only mingy or non-existent rents.

2)Uber class action buffet

Federal judge Edward Chen on Thursday rejected a $100 million settlement in a class action alleging that Uber misclassified drivers as independent contractors. That’s a big pot of cash, but the judge says the ride-hailing company can be raided for billions more....Judge Chen complained, however, that the settlement required class members to drop all employment-related claims (e.g., minimum wage, rest and meal breaks and workers’ compensation) ...he settlement would have pre-empted at least 15 lawsuits for employment-related claims as well as cases “before various administrative bodies such as the NLRB.”...the settlement would have scotched lawsuits brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act—known among businesses as the “bounty hunter law”—that lets private attorneys litigate labor, safety and health code violations on behalf of the state. California pays the lawyers’ fees and keeps 75% of the bounty. The state’s Labor & Workforce Development Agency carped that the statutory penalties against Uber could exceed $1 billion.

Uber brings flexible employment to thousands, and dramatically better and cheaper rides to consumers and businesses. Whatever you think of contractors vs. employees, nothing in this improves productivity and economic growth, or encourages the needed massive investment towards self-driving ubers.

3)You don't need a dentist to fill a cavity Whether (cheaper, less licensed) dental therapists will be allowed to provide basic services especially in poor areas where there are no dentists.

4)How Obama’s FDA Keeps Generic Drugs Off the Market

One of the biggest factors fueling the angst over drug prices in the U.S. is that some older medicines that should be sold cheaply as generics are still priced very high, often owing to a dwindling number of generic competitors ..in recent years the Food and Drug Administration has imposed on generic firms many of the same costly requirements that the agency applies to branded-drug makers.

In 2003...we estimated that it cost less than $1 million for a firm to file a generic-drug application. ...Today, filing a generic application requires an average of about $5 million and can cost as much as $15 million....

For generics filed in 2009, the median review time exceeds three years. Yet generics launched in 2015 took about four years for the FDA to approve, since less than 2% of applications were approved on their first submission.

A new FDA draft regulation...would force the generics to clutter their drug labels with defensive advisories to avoid “failure to warn” lawsuits. Legal fees stemming from the regulation would add over $5 billion to annual health-care costs, rising to $8.6 billion by 2024, ...

And this is just one morning's reading of one paper's opinion section while sipping coffee at the airport. Even the New York Times is waking up to the apres-Obama regulatory deluge.

As these stories make clear, the problem is not benevolent but ham-handed interventionism. The problem, much tougher, is best described as "cronyism." A veneer of public purpose stifles markets, to drive profits to connected parties in return for political support.

Can we really screw up every single market but make it all up with "demand?" The "ideas" and "stimulus" approaches presume everything else in the economy is working just fine. Is investment really slow only because there are, fundamentally, just no good ideas to invest in any more?

The deeper economic issue is whether "macro" and "growth" outcomes really can be separated from "micro" distortions in each market.

Testimony - Barokong

August 11, 2020    Comment   

Testimony - Barokong

I was invited to testify at a hearing of the House budget committee on Sept 14. It's nothing novel or revolutionary, but a chance to put my thoughts together on how to get growth going again, and policy approaches that get past the usual partisan squabbling. Here are my oral remarks. (pdf version here.) The written testimony, with lots of explanation and footnotes, is here. (pdf) (Getting footnotes in html is a pain.)

Chairman Price, Ranking Member Van Hollen, and members of the committee: It is an honor to speak to you today.

Sclerotic growth is our country’s most fundamental economic problem. If we could get back to the three and half percent postwar average, we would, in the next 30 years, triple rather than double the size of the economy—and tax revenues, which would do wonders for our debt problem.

Why has growth halved? The most plausible answer is simple and sensible: Our legal and regulatory system is slowly strangling the golden goose of growth.

How do we fix it? Our national political and economic debate just makes the same points again, louder, and going nowhere. Instead, let us look together for novel and effective policies that can appeal to all sides.

Regulation:

Let’s get past “too much” or “too little” regulation, and fix regulation instead.

Regulation is too discretionary – people can’t read the rules and know what to do. Regulatory decisions take forever. Regulation has lost rule-of-law protections. Agencies are cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled in to one. Most dangerous of all, regulation is becoming more politicized.

Congress can fix this.

Social programs

Let’s get past spending “more” or “less” on social programs, and fix them instead.

Often, if you earn an extra dollar, you lose more than a dollar of benefits. No wonder people get stuck. If we fix these disincentives, we will help people better, encourage growth and opportunity--and in the end we will spend less.

Spend more to spend less.

Spending is a serious problem. But moving spending off the books does not help.

For example, we allow a mortgage interest tax deduction. This is exactly the same as collecting taxes, and sending checks to homeowners – but larger checks for high income people, people who borrow a lot, and people who refinance often.

Suppose we eliminate the mortgage deduction, and put housing subsidies on budget. The resulting homeowner subsidy would surely be a lot smaller, help lower-income people a lot more, and be better targeted at getting people in houses.

The budget would look bigger. But we would really spend less -- and grow more.

Taxes

Tax reform fails because arguments over the level of taxes, subsidies, or redistribution torpedo sensible simplifications. We could achieve tax reform by separating its four confounding issues.

First, determine the structure of taxes, to raise revenue with minimal economic damages, but leave the rates blank. Separately negotiate the rates. Put all tax incentives in a separate subsidy code, preferably as visible on-budget expenditures. Add a separate income-redistribution code. Then necessary big fights over each element need not derail the others.

A massive simplification of the tax code is, I think, more important than the rates – and easier for us to agree on.

Debt and deficits

Each year the CBO correctly declares our long-term debt unsustainable. Yelling louder won’t work.

First, let’s face the big problem: a debt crisis, when the U.S. suddenly needs to borrow a lot and roll over debts, and markets refuse. This, not a slow predictable rise in interest rates and crowding out, strikes me as the biggest problem.  Crises are always sudden and unexpected, like earthquakes and wars. Even Greece could borrow at remarkably low rates. Until, one day, it couldn’t.

The answers are straightforward. Sensible reforms to Social Security and Medicare are on the table. Address underfunded pensions, widespread credit and bailout guarantees.

Buy some insurance. Like every homeowner shopping for a mortgage, the US chooses between a floating rate, lower initially, and a fixed rate, higher initially, but forever insulating the budget from interest rate risks, which are the essential ingredient of a debt crisis. Direct the Treasury and Fed to buy the fixed rate.

Above all, undertake this simple, pro-growth economic policy, and grow out of debt.

Concluding comments

You may object that fundamental reform is not “politically feasible.” Well, what’s “politically feasible” changes fast these days.

Winston Churchill once said that Americans can be trusted to do the right thing, after we’ve tried everything else. Well, we’ve tried everything else. It’s time to do the right thing.

EconTalk - Barokong

August 10, 2020    Comment   

EconTalk - Barokong

As in other recent projects (growth essay,testimony) I'm trying to synthesize, and also to find policies and ways to talk about them that avoid the stale left-right debate, where people just shout base-pleasing spin ever louder. "You're a tax and spend socialist" "You just want tax cuts for your rich buddies" is getting about as far as "You always leave your socks on the floor" "Well, you spend the whole day on the phone to your mother."

We did this as an interview before a live audience, at a Chicago Booth alumni event held at Hoover, so it's a bit lighter than the usual EconTalk. This kind of thought helps the synthesis process a lot for me.  Russ' pointed questions make me think, as did the audience in follow up Q&A (not recorded). Plus, it was fun.

I always leave any interview full of regrets about things I could have said better or differently. The top of the regret pile here was leaving a short joke in response to Russ' question about what the government should spend more on. Russ was kindly teeing up the section of thegrowth essay "there is good spending" and perhaps "spend more to spend less" ideas in several other recent writings. It would have been a good idea to go there and spend a lot more time on the question.

From the growth essay, I think the government could profitably spend a lot more money on the justice system. That so many of our fellow citizens rot in jail awaiting trials, that the vast majority never receive a trial anyway but a hasty plea-bargain, that their legal representation is so thin, is a disgrace -- and causing huge problems. If a wrongly accused young man spends two years in jail before charges are dropped, the consequences for him and his family are awful. Business relies on a speedy and efficient justice system to adjudicate commercial disputes, and that seems to be falling apart too, partly for lack of resources.  The cost here is peanuts compared to, say, peanut subsidies.

Our public infrastructure doesn't just consist of steel and asphalt. The public software needs investment as well, or more.

Public health is one of the most essential public goods. Of all the civilization-ending scenarios you can think of, nuclear war and a pandemics top my list. Many past pandemics followed a surge in globalization -- the plague of the 1350s, that wiped out half or more of the population; the smallpox that wiped out native America in the 1500s, the 1918 flu. (Larry Summers has a good article on this point.) We are ripe for antibiotics to stop working and new diseases to spread catastrophically, if not among humans among the plants and animals on which we depend. Don't count on the UN and the WHO.

The government can profitably fund basic research. "Yes, 95% of funded research is silly. Yes, the government allocates money inefficiently. Yes, research should also attract private donations. But the 5% that is not silly is often vital, and can produce big breakthroughs." (Basic research is not the same thing as subsidies for commercializing research.)

Yes, Martha, I should have said, there are public goods here and there.

Of course, more spending on things like these does not imply more spending overall. They're all remarkably cheap, and could easily be funded by spending a little less on some of the colossal waste. (Example: We spend $6 billion on the FBI and $13 billion on border control.) Of course, one must also spend wisely and use the results wisely. And one could add a lot to the list. But repeating a fun joke about spending is not the right answer.

Reis on the state of macro - Barokong

July 16, 2020    Comment   

Reis on the state of macro - Barokong

Ricardo Reis has an excellent essay on the state of macroeconomics. "Is something really wrong with macroeconomics?"

In substantive debates about actual economic policies, it is frustrating to have good economic thinking on macro topics being dismissed with a four-letter insult: it is a DSGE. It is worrying to see the practice of rigorously stating logic in precise mathematical terms described as a flaw instead of a virtue. It is perplexing to read arguments being boxed into macroeconomic theory (bad) as opposed to microeconomic empirical work (good), as if there was such a strong distinction. It is dangerous to see public grant awards become strictly tied to some methodological directions to deal with the crisis in macroeconomics.

There have been lots of essays lately bemoaning the state of macroeconomics. Most of these essays are written by people not actively involved in research, or by older members of the profession who seem tired when faced with the difficulty of understanding what the young whippersnappers are up to, or by economic journalists who don't really understand the models they are criticizing. I am old enough to feel this temptation and have to fight it.

Many bemoan the simplifications of economic models, not recognizing that good economic models are quantiative parables. Models are best when they isolate a specific mechanism in a transparent way.

Critics usually conclude that we need to add the author's favorite ingredients -- psychology, sociology, autonomous agent models, heterogeneity, learning behavior, irrational expectations, and on and on -- stir the big pot, and somehow great insights will surely come. This is the standard third-year PhD student approach to writing a thesis, and explains why it takes five years to get a PhD.

I'm a bit guilty too -- with "Discount Rates" and "Macro Finance" full of my ideas on how to stir the pot and maybe get somewhere that I can't quite work out yet. Ricardo captures the feeling well:

In turn, it would have been easy to share my thoughts on how macroeconomic research should change, which is, unsurprisingly, in the direction of my own research.

But at least I didn't argue that everyone else is wrong or bad or stuck, just these are my hunches on good things to try!

Others bemoan "too much math" in economics, a feeling that seldom comes from people who understand the math. The fact is, we have too little math in economics. There are so many phenomena we'd like to capture, so many frictions and real-world complications we would like to add and understand, but just don't have the tools to do it. Especially in finance, policy discussions go on and on about channels that we have very little clue to model.

Good economics is about answers, not questions; it's about finding the few simple ingredients that work. Economic models are so sensitive to ingredients that if you just pour and stir, you get garbage. Economics remains quite different from physics in that way. The underlying ingredients of (say) a climate or aircraft design model are very well understood, so you can make complex models that work. The underlying ingredients of economic models are not so well understood -- how much more will people work if their wages rise, how do they interpret statements by government officials, how do companies change their prices, and so on -- that small changes in the little ingredients make big differences in the economy-wide outcomes. Hence, good models are clear quantiative parables, not stone-soup melanges of popular ingredients.

Ricardo starts by evaluating current macroeconomics, empirically, by what active reasearchers are actually doing

... accurate measures of the state of macroeconomics are what the journals have recently published, or what the recent hires of top departments are working on.

After summarizing the research of 8 recent star new macroeconomics PhDs,

...this is all exciting work, connected to relevant applied questions, and that takes data and models seriously. In contrast, in the caricatures of the state of macroeconomics, there are only models with representative agents, perfect foresight, no role or care for inequality, and a cavalier disregard for financial markets, mortgage contracts, housing, or banks. Supposedly, macroeconomic research ignores identification and does not take advantage of plentiful microeconomic data to test its models, which anyway are too divorced from reality to be useful for any real world question.

Compare this caricature with the research that I just described: the contrast is striking. Not a single one of these bright young minds that are the future of macroeconomics writes the papers that the critics claim are what all of macroeconomic research is like today. Instead, what they actually do is to mix theory and evidence, time-series aggregate data and micro data, methodological innovations and applied policy questions, with no clear patterns of ideology driven by geography.

After summarizing some other critiques, more data

Table 3 reports the articles published in the latest issue of the top journal in macroeconomics, the Journal of Monetary Economics...These include: theoretical papers on sovereign debt crises and capital controls, applied papers on the interrelation between financial indicators and macroeconomic aggregates, papers looking at extreme events like catastrophes and liquidity traps, and even purely empirical papers on measuring uncertainty in micro data and on forecasting time series in the macro data. There is originality and plurality, and a significant distance from the critics’ portrayal of research.

...Yet, according to De Grauwe (2009) “The science of macroeconomics is in deep trouble.” while Skidelsky (2009) thinks that there has already been a “...discrediting of mainstream macroeconomics”. These opinions express feelings more than facts, so it is hard to debate them.

Critics who bemoan rational expectations, DSGE, representative agent modeling, are largely complaining about what the young turks of the 1980s were doing, upsetting the Cambridge ISLM consensus of the 1970s. If you go to macroeconomics seminars today it's almost painful that every single paper has heterogeneous agents, some irrational expectations, and financial frictions galore. I actually long for the simplicity and transparency of the single agent rational expectations benchmark.

How about the charge that macroeconomic policy advice has been a failure?

Ricardo correctly points out that we are not nearly as influential as we think we are. (And policy makers are just as deaf to microeconomists, for example on free trade!)

macroeconomists are very far from running the world....Most macroeconomists support countercyclical fiscal policy, where public deficits rise in recessions, both in order to smooth tax rates over time and to provide some stimulus to aggregate demand. Looking at fiscal policy across the OECD countries over the last 30 years, it is hard to see too much of this advice being taken. Rather, policy is best described as deficits almost all the time, which does not match normative macroeconomics....Critics that blame the underperformance of the economy on economists vastly overstate the influence that economists actually have on economic policy.

I would double this observation for finance and the financial crisis. There is a trope in the media that efficient markets finance caused the crisis. This shows appalling ignorance. If you listen to efficient market finance, it says to invest passively in the market index, not risky tranches of mortgage backed securities pools, or the hedge funds that buy them.  And no academic told our regulators to set up the preoposterous system of mortgage subsidy and too big to fail bailouts.

One area where macroeconomists have perhaps more of an influence is in monetary policy. ...Looking at the major changes in the monetary policy landscape of the last few decades —central bank independence, inflation targeting, financial stability—they all followed long academic literatures. ...In the small sub-field of monetary economics, one can at least partially assess its successes and failures in the real world by judging how central banks have done over the past few decades....Every central bank that I know of in the developed world is in charge of keeping inflation low and stable.

Everyone loves to complain about the Fed. But their mandate is price level stability, now interpreted as less than 2% inflation, maximum employment, at least as much as money can affect it, and low interest rates. Check, check, check. I'm not sure how they did it, but it's hard to get too excited.

Mostly, by learning the lessons of history and not screwing up:

following the collapse of Lehman or the Greek default, news reports were dominated by non-economists claiming that capitalism was about to end and all that we knew was no longer valid, while economists used their analytical tools to make sense of events and suggest policies. In the United States in 2007-08, the Federal Reserve, led by the certified academic macroeconomist Ben Bernanke, acted swiftly and decisively.... While the recession was deep, it was nowhere as devastating as a depression. The economic profession had spent decades studying the Great Depression, and documenting the policy mistakes that contributed to its severity; these mistakes were all avoided in 2008-10.

Furthermore, macroeconomics is not special in its strengths and weaknessses

A separate criticism of macroeconomic policy advice accuses it of being politically biased....Yet, labor economics also has a history of heated debates and strong ideological priors, as well as continuous re-examination of truths previously held as obvious, such as the effects of the minimum wage on employment or of immigration on wages.  ..Macroeconomics does not stand out from labor and public economics in the features that the critics point out as the source of its crisis...macroeconomics is not all that special relative to the other fields. Economists across all fields were in part surprised by the crisis, but also eager to study it and analyze it.

Ricardo goes on to describe some frustration with how macroeconomics is taught and here I think he falls a bit into the temptation that befell those he criticizes. This is really, I think, a call for synthesis, for us all to spend some time seeing what the robust and teachable lessons are of the new models. Distillation is research. It took a long time for economists to figure out what Keynes' book really meant.

Ricardo calls for

...one could teach a macroeconomics class where the baseline model has (i) finite lives with overlapping generations, (ii) preferences over non-durables and housing, (iii) naive hyperbolic discounting, (iv) sticky information in forming expectations, (v) incomplete markets for individual income risk with maximally tight borrowing constraints, (vi) monopolistic competition and firm entry with fixed costs, (viii) nominal rigidities, (viii) simple banks with a net worth constraint (ix) distortionary taxes and government spending, and (x) a desire for liquidity for exchanges in decentralized markets.

Yes, but, there is some wisdom in the old joke of the drunk who looks for his car keys under the light, not near the car where he dropped them. The simple stochastic growth model has clear intuition and lessons. Each of these frictions adds a departure from that simple model. Just what basic intuitions emerge from the soup of all these ingredients is still something that we, as researchers, have not accomplished. And that is a sign of vibrancy too. Having accomplished a lot that still needs distillation is a sign of a vibrant field.

A big strain of macro and finance criticism berates us for not forecasting the great recession and financial crisis. Ricardo ends with a good reiteration of why prowess at unconditional forecasting is not a measure of economic science. The theory is efficient markets, not clairvoyant markets. That's like berating climate science because weather forecasters can't tell you if it will rain two weeks from now. It's worse, as most theories, especially in finance, predict with great clarity that crises and consequent recessions will not be predictable. It's like saying probability theory is wrong because you can't use it to outsmart the slot machines at Las Vegas. Ricardo has a lovely analogy, that medicine is quite useful even though your doctor can't predict the date of your death with great accuracy.

In sum, a nice closing paragraph

Current macroeconomic research is not mindless DSGE modeling filled with ridiculous assumptions and oblivious of data. Rather, young macroeconomists are doing vibrant, varied, and exciting work, getting jobs, and being published. Macroeconomics informs economic policy only moderately and not more nor all that differently than other fields in economics. Monetary policy has benefitted significantly from this advice in keeping inflation under control and preventing a new Great Depression. Macroeconomic forecasts perform poorly in absolute terms and given the size of the challenge probably always will. But relative to the level of aggregation, the time horizon, and the amount of funding, they are not so obviously worst than those in other fields. What is most wrong with macroeconomics today is perhaps that there is too little discussion of which models to teach and too little investment in graduate-level textbooks.

Summers tweet stream on secular stagnation - Barokong

June 14, 2020    Comment   

Summers tweet stream on secular stagnation - Barokong

Larry Summers has an interesting tweet stream (HT Marginal Revolution) on the state of monetary policy. Much I agree with and find insightful:

Can central banking as we know it be the primary tool of macroeconomic stabilization in the industrial world over the next decade?...There is little room for interest rate cuts..QE and forward guidance have been tried on a substantial scale....It is hard to believe that changing adverbs here and there or altering the timing of press conferences or the mode of presenting projections is consequential...interest rates stuck at zero with no real prospect of escape - is now the confident market expectation in Europe & Japan, with essentially zero or negative yields over a generation....The one thing that was taught as axiomatic to economics students around the world was that monetary authorities could over the long term create as much inflation as they wanted through monetary policy. This proposition is now very much in doubt.

Agreed so far, and well put. "Monetary policy" here means buying government bonds and issuing reserves in return, or lowering short-term interest rates. I am still intrigued by the possibility that a commitment to permanently higher rates might raise inflation, but that's quite speculative.

and later

Limited nominal GDP growth in the face of very low interest rates has been interpreted as evidence simply that the neutral rate has fallen substantially....We believe it is at least equally plausible that the impact of interest rates on aggregate demand has declined sharply, and that the marginal impact falls off as rates fall.  It is even plausible that in some cases interest rate cuts may reduce aggregate demand: because of target saving behavior, reversal rate effects on fin. intermediaries, option effects on irreversible investment, and the arithmetic effect of lower rates on gov’t deficits

Central banks are a lot less powerful than everyone seems to think, and potentially for deep reasons. File this as speculative but very interesting. Larry has many thoughts on why lowering interest rates may be ineffective or unwise.

The question is just how bad this is? The economy is growing, unemployment is at an all time low, inflation is nonexistent, the dollar is strong. Larry and I grew up in the 1970s, and monetary affairs can be a lot worse.

Yes, the worry is how much the Fed can "stimulate" in the next recession. But it is not obvious to me that recessions come from somewhere else and are much mitigated by lowering short term rates as "stimulus." Many postwar recessions were induced by the Fed, and the Great Depression was made much worse by the Fed. Perhaps it is enough for the Fed simply not to screw up -- do its supervisory job of enforcing capital standards in booms (please, at last!) do its lender of last resort job in financial crises, and don't make matters worse.

But how bad is it now? Here Larry and I part company. Larry is, surprisingly to me, still pushing "secular stagnation"

Call it the black hole problem, secular stagnation, or Japanification, this set of issues should be what central banks are worrying about...We have come to agree w/ the point long stressed by Post Keynesian economists & recently emphasized by Palley that the role of specific frictions in economic fluctuations should be de-emphasized relative to a more fundamental lack of aggregate demand.

The right issue for macroeconomists to be focused on is assuring adequate aggregate demand.

My jaw drops.

The unemployment rate is 3.9%, lower than it has ever been in a half century. It fell faster after about 2014 than in the last two recessions.

Labor force participation is trending back up.

Wages are rising faster and faster, especially for less skilled and education educated workers.

There are 8 million job openings in the US.

Why in the world are we talking about "lack of demand?

Larry had a point about secular stagnation in about 2014. The Great Recession was dragging on seemingly forever. There was a good debate about "secular stagnation" vs. sand in the gears -- the cumulative effects of Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and the regulatory war on capital. But those days are over. How can anyone be seriously talking about "lack of demand" now?

Yes, despite the clearly full employment labor market, GDP is growing more slowly than I think is possible, and I can infer Larry agrees. But at full employment slow GDP growth comes from too slow productivity growth.

Let me suggest the alternative:

The right issue for macroeconomists to be focused on is assuring adequate aggregate supply.

[This is me, not Larry]. We need now a "pro-growth" agenda. When you're out of recession and financial crisis, further growth comes from "supply." And there is plenty to work on there. Alas, supply requires a Marie Kondoing of our public life, not a grand new initiative. Fix all they little things: zoning, agricultural policy, tax reform, reducing disincentives of social programs, continued regulatory reform, cutting tariffs, occupational licensing, and on and on. Macroeconomists (and growth economists) should be focusing on microeconomics.

Larry goes utterly in the opposite direction:

Obviously fiscal policy needs to be a major focus, especially given what low or negative interest rates mean for the sustainability of deficits.

But the level of demand is also influenced by structural policies: e.g. pay-as-you-go social security, higher retirement ages, improved social insurance, support for private infrastructure investment, redistribution from the high-saving rich to the liquidity-constrained poor.

OMG. In case you can't read between the lines, the first paragraph means deliberate even larger deficits. "infrastructure investment" in the US today means more $4 billion per mile subways and high speed trains to nowhere. Redistribution to the liquidity constrained means forcibly taking away hard earned money to give it to people who have maxed out their credit cards.

(The latter is an especially pernicious argument. If the point is to give money to those who will consume it more effectively than us hopelessly frugal savers, then give it to the liquidity constrained rich too, and do not give it to the frugal poor.  This is a classic case of an answer in search of a question, as the question does not lead to income-based redistribution.)

Larry isn't quite at the Magical Monetary Theory and Green New Deal blowout here. But I only infer that from his previous statements critical of those for going too far. This is darn close and all in the same direction.

One might defend Larry that previously he was talking about contingency plans for stimulus in a recession. But these are permanent, structural policies that come and stay for a generation.

I thought of Larry as the epitome of centrist, sensible, technocratic Democratic Party stalwarts, alongside say Alan Blinder, who wrote quite sensibly in the WSJ warning against the excesses of Green New Deal and health care for all. I still have hope that that sensible wing of the party will prevail, and join with the sensible wing of Republicans (there still is one) to fix the supply end of our country. But this is an amazing sharp left turn.

Larry's closers with another intriguing thought.

The high inflation and high interest rates of the 1970s generated a revolution in macroeconomic thinking, policy and institutions. The low inflation, low interest rates and stagnation of the last decade has been longer and more serious and deserves at least an equal response

Well put and yes indeed. But in my view, Alvin Hansen's 1939 speculations about eternal lack of demand and a soft version of AOC-Sanders-Warren deficit financed spending blowout and "redistribution" aren't it. Marie-Kondoing the massive clutter and disincentives on the growth side of our economy is.

Unemployment insurance pandemic conundrum - Barokong

May 25, 2020    Comment   

Unemployment insurance pandemic conundrum - Barokong

Should the government make unemployment insurance more generous and easier to get in the pandemic recession? Well, yes, but it's not ideal, and a good point on which to ponder the difference between a pandemic recession and a conventional recession.

To get unemployment insurance, you have to actually lose a job (in most cases) and you are supposed to be looking for a new job. In the pandemic recession, lots of people will be temporarily furloughed - -think airline pilots or flight attendants. But assuming, and helping to ensure, that the economy comes roaring back, we don't want airlines to fire pilots and flight attendants, and we don't want them walking around looking for new jobs at other shut down businesses. It would be  much harder for airlines to get going again; the employees lose health insurance (!) and other benefits, and people out looking for work are spreading viruses around.

Yes, there are some open jobs now. Amazon is looking for workers, as much activity moves online. Anyone with medical skills should be helping at hospitals. And face-mask and sanitizer companies are hiring. But this cannot make up for the large number of Americans who will be sitting on the sidelines for a few months.

So, we want unemployment and other benefits for people who aren't technically unemployed, but whose companies are shut down for the virus and can't afford to keep paying them.

Why don't we always have that, you might ask? Well, our social programs have a lot of rules and for good reasons -- to manage the inevitable unintended consequences and moral hazards of normal times and normal recessions. Government paying salary and health benefits of furloughed workers would give companies a big incentive to routinely furlough employees instead of giving them vacations. Around the world, unemployment insurance and many other benefits are  coupled with job search or training requirements, to avoid the massive overuse experienced before those requirements were put in place. But we don't want them now.

So our problem is that a pandemic shutdown requires a different set of detailed micro rules and regulations about who get what when. Good old Keynesian stimulus and standard automatic stabilizers are completely inappropriate. Incentives matter, now as much as ever, not just cash.

Here we economists are very clever. Marginal revolution links to many clever ideas to get us through the crisis, new programs and new rules and new ways of getting money to where it is needed. I've blogged a few dozen clever ideas too.

But it is nearly impossible to ask bureaucracies to make things up on the fly in a crisis, and invent an implement new rules in a matter of weeks, even if politicians could agree what those programs should look like. This is the lesson of Graham Allison's Essence of Decision masterpiece on the Cuban missile crisis. (If you're looking for good self-isolation reading this is a great one. It also shows how important it is to have a President who can make cool decisions in a crisis, when all his or her advisers are screaming nonsense. The many pandemic books are also great reading. We have been here many times before and it's always the same chaos.) That is the lesson of 2001, when we discovered that half the emergency responders didn't have the other half's phone numbers. That's why when this is over, we need a serious pandemic economic plan, one that gets practiced and refined, and not just another big report that gets shelved and forgotten.

At the cost of repetition, there will be other pandemics.