billy blog Wed 2010-09-29 10:15 EDT

Budget deficits do not cause higher interest rates

Bill Mitchell

...An often-cited paper outlining the ways in which budget deficits allegedly push up interest rates is -- Government Debt -- by Elmendorf and Mankiw (1998 -- subsequently published in a book in 1999). This paper was somewhat influential in perpetuating the mainstream myths about government debt and interest rates...Their depiction of...Ricardian equivalence...alleges that: ``the choice between debt and tax finance of government expenditure is irrelevant...[because]...a budget deficit today...[requires]...higher taxes in the future...'' ...I have dealt with this view extensively...Ignoring the fact that the description of a government raising taxes to pay back a deficit is nonsensical when applied to a fiat currency issuing government, the Ricardian Equivalence models rest [on] several key and extreme assumptions about behaviour and knowledge. Should any of these assumptions fail to hold (at any point in time), then the predictions of the models are meaningless. The other point is that the models have failed badly to predict or explain key policy changes in the past. That is no surprise given the assumptions they make about human behaviour. There are no Ricardian economies. It was always an intellectual ploy without any credibility to bolster the anti-government case that was being fought then (late 1970s, early 1980s) just as hard as it is being fought now...So where do the mainstream economists go wrong? At the heart of this conception is the [pre-Keynesian] theory of loanable funds...where perfectly flexible prices delivered self-adjusting, market-clearing aggregate markets at all times...Mankiw claims that this ``market works much like other markets in the economy''...[assuming] that savings are finite and the government spending is financially constrained which means it has to seek ``funding'' in order to progress their fiscal plans. The result competition for the ``finite'' saving pool drives interest rates up and damages private spending. This is what is taught under the heading ``financial crowding out''...Virtually none of the assumptions that underpin the key mainstream models relating to the conduct of government and the monetary system hold in the real world...When confronted with increasing empirical failures, the mainstream economists introduce these ad hoc amendments to the specifications to make them more realistic...The Australian Treasury Paper [used advanced econometric analysis to find that] domestic budget deficits do not drive up interest rates. The long-run effect...is virtually zero. The short-run effect is zero!...toss out your Mankiw textbooks...

Billy Blog; budgets deficit; caused higher Interest rate.

Christopher Whalen Sat 2010-09-25 09:52 EDT

Double dip or global deflation?

Christopher Whalen

...Let's start with the term ``recession,'' which itself reflects the assumption that economic growth is always positive and the trend line is always upward sloping. While many economists in the U.S. remain convinced that this is an accurate descriptor, what Americans and many other people of the world need to consider is whether the assumption that the economy will grow endlessly is reasonable...much of what Americans think was real growth supported by real income and real work was, in fact, the result of deficit spending and reckless monetary expansion by the Fed, first under Alan Greenspan and now Ben Bernake...some of the leading experts in the housing sector believe that the U.S. is less than 25% through the restructuring of defaulted loans on commercial and residential real estate, and that the backlog is growing...Just as the housing sector and the related debt was the driver of the U.S. economy over the past several decades, I believe that the deflation of the housing market could spell an equally drastic period of shrinkage in economic activity in the U.S. and around the world...

Christopher Whalen; double dip; Global deflation.

The Economic Populist Mon 2010-09-20 19:16 EDT

"There Is No Economic Justification for Deficit Reduction" Galbraith to Deficit Commission

James K. Galbraith

...Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. In this respect, there are four major issues. First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction... Second, there is a question of leadership. A bipartisan commission should approach its task in a judicious, open-minded and dispassionate way...Senator Simpson has plainly shown that he lacks the temperament to do a fair and impartial job on this commission...Third, most members of the Commission are political leaders, not economists. With all respect for Alice Rivlin, with just one economist on board you are denied access to the professional arguments surrounding this highly controversial issue...Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare, raises the most serious questions...You are plainly not equipped by disposition or resources to take on the true cause of deficits now and in the future: the financial crisis. Recommendations based on CBO's unrealistic budget and economic outlooks are destined to collapse in failure. Specifically, if cuts are proposed and enacted in Social Security and Medicare, they will hurt millions, weaken the economy, and the deficits will not decline. It's a lose-lose proposition, with no gainers except a few predatory funds, insurance companies, and such who would profit, for some time, from a chaotic private marketplace...

deficit Commission; deficit reduction; economic justification; economic populist; Galbraith.

billy blog Wed 2010-09-08 19:04 EDT

Michal Kalecki -- The Political Aspects of Full Employment

...several readers have asked me whether I am familiar with the 1943 article by Polish economist Michal Kalecki -- The Political Aspects of Full Employment. The answer is that I am very familiar with the article and have written about it in my academic work in years past. So I thought I might write a blog about what I think of Kalecki's argument given that it is often raised by progressives as a case against effective fiscal intervention...[Job Guarantee concepts briefly summarized]...While orthodox economists typically attack the Job Guarantee policy for fiscal reasons, economists on the left also challenge its validity and effectiveness. In 1943, Michal Kalecki published the Political Aspects of Full Employment, in the Political Quarterly, which laid out the blueprint for socialist opposition to Keynesian-style employment policy. The criticisms would be equally applicable to a Job Guarantee policy...Kalecki's principle objection then seemed to be that ``the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.''...the major political blockages are no longer those that Kalecki foresaw. The opponents of fiscal activism are a different elite and work against the ``captains of industry'' just as much as they work against the broader working class. The growth of the financial sector and global derivatives trading and the substantial deregulation of labour markets and retrenchment of welfare states has altered things considerably since Kalecki wrote his brilliant article in 1943...

Billy Blog; full employment; Michal Kalecki; political aspects.

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis Thu 2010-08-26 15:11 EDT

"Contained Depression"

Michael Shedlock

Kevin Feltes, an economist for the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center, solicited my opinion on a couple of their recent articles. Levy comes down on the side of deflation, as do I. However, the devil is in the details...That Levy managed to come to what I believe is the proper overall conclusion stems from Levy's rock-solid case presented in section 2: Why Aggressive Monetary Policy Isn't Causing and Won't Cause Inflation...

contained Depression; Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis.

naked capitalism Tue 2010-08-24 20:02 EDT

Boston Fed's New Excuse for Missing the Housing Bubble: NoneOfUscouddanode

It is truly astonishing to watch how determined the economics orthodoxy is to defend its inexcusable, economy-wrecking performance in the runup to the financial crisis...From the Wall Street Journal Economics blog: Should economists and policy makers have identified the housing market bubble before it burst? The answer is most likely no, says the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, because economic theory was not up to the challenge... Yves: This recitation is truly embarrassing, in that the writers clearly see this abject failure as completely reasonable, as opposed to compelling evidence that the discipline is not qualified to provide policy advice. What could be more damning than admitting that economics was incapable of seeing the blindingly obvious?...

Boston Fed's New Excuse; housing bubble; missing; naked capitalism; NoneOfUscouddanode.

PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM Mon 2010-08-23 19:08 EDT

WHEN WILL THE BOND AUCTIONS BEGIN TO FAIL?

TPC

There's great concern over the sustainability of US deficits. Most of the fear mongering, hyperventilating, flat earth economists believe foreigners will at some point stop ``funding'' our spending. The hyperinflationist crowd likes to keep a very close eye on US government bond auctions hoping foreign demand for debt will dry up, auctions will begin to fail and interest rates (and inflationary pressures) will surge as the United States effectively defaults (which is technically impossible) and dies the death that so many of these people wish upon it. Unfortunately, 99% of the inflationistas have a very poor understanding of reserve accounting so their arguments have not only been wrong for a very long time, but they never really carried any weight to begin with (as one reader eloquently put it -- ``at some point being right has to count for something'' -- the inflationistas have been horribly wrong throughout this downturn). So what is really happening when the government auctions off bonds?...

BOND AUCTIONS BEGIN; fail; PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM.

billy blog Thu 2010-08-19 16:25 EDT

There is no credit risk for a sovereign government

Bill Mitchell

...UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong...likes to think of himself alongside Krugman as part of the ``Keynesian'' army against all the neo-liberals. Both are in fact New Keynesians. In that sense, they are not very dissimilar to Mankiw and his gang. Interestingly, they appear to be continually trying to one-up Mankiw as part of some internecine struggle within the American economics academy. But from a Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective, it is hard to tell their various narratives apart...a sovereign government is never revenue constrained because it is the monopoly issuer of the currency. That is a basic starting point in exploring the differences between spending and taxation decisions of a sovereign government and the spending and income-earning decisions/possibilities of the private sector entities (households and firms). The two domains -- government and non-government -- are very different in this respect and any attempt to conflate them as if both are subject to budget constraints is wrong and starts the slippery slide down into the total mispresentation of how the macroeconomics system operates...When a government runs a surplus it is not ``saving'' anything. The surpluses go nowhere! They are just flows that are accounted for and the aggregate demand which is drained by the surpluses is lost in that period forever...DeLong is actually teaching some bastardised course in Political Science here and only allowing the conservative side of the debate to be aired...HSBC economist Steven Major ...[writes in the Financial Times (FT)]...so contrary to what is being peddled each day in the financial press that a medal for bravery should be awarded...

Billy Blog; credit Risk; sovereign Government.

Tue 2010-08-03 17:01 EDT

The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer

Dean Baker, published May 2006

...economist Dean Baker debunks the myth that conservatives favor the market over government intervention. In fact, conservatives rely on a range of ``nanny state'' policies that ensure the rich get richer while leaving most Americans worse off. It's time for the rules to change. Sound economic policy should harness the market in ways that produce desirable social outcomes -- decent wages, good jobs and affordable health care...

Conservative Nanny State; government; richer; stay rich; wealthy used.

zero hedge - on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero Fri 2010-07-30 15:41 EDT

China Has Been Covertly Funding A Housing Bubble Five Times Larger Than That Of The US: 65 Million Vacant Homes Uncovered

...a report [Fitch] released today titled Informal Securitisation Increasingly Distorting Credit Data, uncovers that China has in fact been massively underrepresenting the actual amount of new loans in the first half of 2010, courtesy of precisely the kinds of securitization deals that blew up half of our own banking system... [moreover, Yi Xianrong,] an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences noted estimates from electricity meter readings that there are about 64.5 million empty apartments and houses in urban areas of the country... China's banks are increasingly becoming more opaque in data presentation, which one can assume is due to their unwillingness to reveal the true state of affairs... [According to] Xianrong ``investment in the domestic property market has completely overturned China's traditional concepts of wealth management and investment and its price formation system'' [Chinese real estate bubble]

65; China; covert funding; dropped; housing bubble; long; survival rate; Time larger; Timeline; Vacant Homes Uncovered; zero; Zero Hedge.

Credit Writedowns Fri 2010-07-30 15:30 EDT

Subversive Economists

The economic research staff at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has been busy. Last week we wrote about the New York Fed's Staff Report No. 458 , which discussed the shadow banking system in the United States. Today we refer to two other new reports: Staff Report No. 457 , entitled ``Resolving Troubled Systemically Important Cross-Border Financial Institutions: Is a New Corporate Organizational Form Required?'', and Staff Report No. 463 , ``The Central-Bank Balance Sheet as an Instrument of Monetary Policy.'' After reviewing them, we are left to conclude that these three papers demonstrate that the research staff at the New York Fed is perhaps the most subversive group of working economists currently on the government payroll....The combination of these three papers seems to suggest that the Federal Reserve is conducting a serious re-evaluation of its traditional role in the new financial landscape. No. 458 acknowledges that the shadow banking system is huge, but largely beyond the regulatory reach--and backstopping help--of the Fed. No. 457 suggests that the complexity of a large, modern financial institution is not only a challenge for managers, but is also a challenge for regulators. It is a cri de coeur for simplicity. And No. 463 breaks new ground by explicitly including central bank balance sheet management as a part of the monetary policy model...

credit writedowns; Subversive Economists.

Credit Writedowns Thu 2010-07-29 17:00 EDT

James Montier does MMT

It seems that a lot of analysts have caught onto the MMT framework popularized by the late economist Wynne Godley and made topical in this downturn by Rob Parenteau of the Richebacher Letter...Now, it's James Montier's turn...He concluded: ``There is a danger the proposed fiscal tightening in the eurozone will lead to further deflation and economic collapse. The Spanish government faces what Mr Parenteau calls ``the paradox of public thrift'': the less it borrows, the more it will end up owing. It is unfortunate that it has taken a severe global recession to vindicate Prof Godley's macroeconomic analysis. If economic policymakers start to pay more attention to financial balances, they might forestall the next crisis. European politicians might also understand the potentially dreadful consequences of their new-found frugality.'' ...A downward shift in the government's net fiscal deficit means a downward shift in the private sector's net fiscal surplus -- totally doable except for this little thing called debt in places like Spain, the US, Ireland or the UK. Moreover, the savings rate is already incredibly low in countries like the U.S. and the U.K. If the government tries to pare its fiscal deficit, the result will not be less private sector savings to meet the lower public sector deficit, but rather lower aggregate demand and a larger deficit -- that's the paradox of thrift...

credit writedowns; James Montier; MMT.

Wed 2010-07-28 10:55 EDT

Economics: No, America lacks the necessary commitment to stimulus | The Economist

Richard Koo

...the US today is suffering from a balance sheet recession, a very rare ailment which happens only after the bursting of a nationwide debt-financed asset price bubble. In this type of recession, the private sector is minimising debt instead of maximising profits because the collapse in asset prices left its balance sheets in a serious state of excess liability and in urgent need of repair...fiscal stimulus becomes indispensible in a balance sheet recession. Moreover, the stimulus must be maintained until private sector deleveraging is over...When the deficit hawks manage to remove the fiscal stimulus while the private sector is still deleveraging, the economy collapses and re-enters the deflationary spiral. That weakness, in turn, prompts another fiscal stimulus, only to see it removed again by the deficit hawks once the economy stabilises. This unfortunate cycle can go on for years if the experience of post-1990 Japan is any guide. The net result is that the economy remains in the doldrums for years, and many unemployed workers will never find jobs in what appears to be structural unemployment even though there is nothing structural about their predicament...

America lacked; economic; Economist; necessary commitments; stimulus.

New Economic Perspectives Sat 2010-07-24 16:30 EDT

Deficit Doves Meet the Deficit Owls

Paul Davidson, James K. Galbraith and Lord Robert Skidelsky

...We support the central objective of the letter -- a full employment policy now, based on sharply expanded public effort..apart from the effects of unemployment itself the United States does not in fact face a serious deficit problem over the next generation, and for this reason there is no "necessity [for] a program to cut the mid-and long-term deficit." On the contrary: If unemployment can be cured, the deficits we presently face will necessarily shrink. This is the universal experience of rapid economic growth: tax revenues rise, public welfare spending falls...The long-term deficit scare story plays into the hands of those who will argue, very soon, for cuts in Social Security as though these were necessary for economic reasons...We call on fellow economists to reconsider their casual willingness to concede to an unfounded hysteria over supposed long-term deficits, and to concentrate instead on solving the vast problems we presently face. It would be tragic if the Evans letter and similar efforts - whose basic purpose we strongly support - led to acquiescence in Social Security and Medicare cuts that impoverish America's elderly just a few years from now.

Deficit Doves Meet; Deficit Owls; New Economic Perspectives.

New Deal 2.0 Thu 2010-07-22 15:54 EDT

The Summer(s) of Our Discontent

Marshall Auerback

Virtually every profile on Larry Summers tells us that he is one of the most brilliant economists of his generation...Only Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan played a more important role than Summers in promoting the deregulation and lax oversight that laid the foundations for the current crisis...the latest FT defense reflects Summers's fundamental lack of understanding of modern money. Contrary to his view, the late 90s surpluses was not the reason for that period's prosperity. The surpluses are what ended the prosperity. And until the public understands this, we should expect no fundamental improvement in economic policymaking from the Obama Administration...he violates one of Abba Lerner's key laws of functional finance: a government's spending and borrowing should be conducted ``with an eye only to the results of these actions on the economy, and not to any established traditional doctrine about what is sound and what is unsound.'' In other words, Lerner believed that the very idea of what good fiscal policy means boils down to what results you can get -- not some arbitrary notion of ``fiscal sustainability''...The government budget surplus meant by identity that the private sector was running a deficit. Households and firms were going ever farther into debt, and they were losing their net wealth of government bonds. Growth was a product of a private debt bubble, which in turn fuelled a stock market and real estate bubble, the collapse of which has created the foundations for today's troubles...

0; discontent; new dealing 2; s; summer.

Wed 2010-07-21 10:36 EDT

Economist's View: Is Galbraith Right that Deficits are Never a Problem?

Mark Thoma

Paul Krugman has a "wonkish" post on deficits rebutting Jamie Galraith's [alleged] contention that deficits are never a problem...

Deficit; Economist's View; Galbraith Right; problem.

Wed 2010-07-21 10:34 EDT

Paul Debates Jamie and MMT | Corrente

Paul Krugman, well-known for his opposition to the austerity concerns of the deficit terrorists and his advocacy of additional Government stimulus to lower unemployment and end the recession, just ignited a paradigm conflict which promises to clarify for many, the issues dividing ``deficit doves'' like Paul, from economists who take a Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) approach to economics, which holds, among other things, that Government deficits and surpluses are not, in themselves important, and that Government spending has to be evaluated relative to its impact on public purposes...this conclusion and also Paul's first post both set up a ``straw man,'' because Jamie never claimed that deficits are never a problem, and even pointed to circumstances (conditions of full employment) where deficits could lead to inflation. Given the comments on Paul's first blog, including a very clear comment by Marshall Auerback, it should have been clear to him that he was distorting the position of both Jamie and MMT. But evidently, Paul didn't want to admit that...Jamie and the MMT economists are opposed to the very idea, the very framing of Government's role in the economy in a way that makes everything subject to deficits, national debts, and debt-to-GDP ratios. The position of MMT is that these numbers are just endogenous consequences of real economic activity including Government fiscal activity, and that it is this activity that ought to drive them and not the other way around...

Corrente; MMT; Paul Debates Jamie.