tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post5113287336906424171..comments2024-03-29T12:16:15.785+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Unconventional Monetary Policy versus fiscal policyMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-74744845662513853232014-11-09T23:11:27.831+00:002014-11-09T23:11:27.831+00:00This is really a nice site as wel as informative a...This is really a nice site as wel as informative also. <br />If you need need case study help you can get <a href="http://courseanswer.com/tag/case-study" rel="nofollow">Essay Writing Help</a> from here!!!!!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-79007368146281049442014-09-10T15:47:57.014+00:002014-09-10T15:47:57.014+00:00hmmm ... must have been drunk when I wrote this.hmmm ... must have been drunk when I wrote this.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-8797331438927429752014-09-08T23:29:10.451+00:002014-09-08T23:29:10.451+00:00While I agree that MMs are indeed hostile to FP, t...While I agree that MMs are indeed hostile to FP, they tell a good story behind that belief.NGDP can be protected regardless of ZLB. At some point, the "buy the world" strategy will have the desired effect. More likely forward guidance (or better, an NGDP futures market target) eliminates the need for such moves. Efficacy established, the only question then is whether monetary policy has downsides ("financial instability"?) that are underweighted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-54141377197399897072014-09-08T17:16:39.354+00:002014-09-08T17:16:39.354+00:00On your last question, yes. It seems to me that mo...On your last question, yes. It seems to me that most macroeconomists are pretty clear that fiscal stimulus is only useful at the ZLB under flex rates. Those who advocate it for members of a currency union do so symmetrically. <br /><br />What is much more difficult to explain are those who insist that monetary policy is all you need even at the ZLB. As Tony Yates has suggested, extreme antagonism to fiscal policy is almost a defining characteristic of market monetarists:<br /><br />http://longandvariable.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/market-monetarist-views-are-a-mish-mash-of-the-good-and-the-silly-that-dont-belong-together-anyway/<br /><br />The point of the these two posts was to show that this is pretty irrational. Mainly Macrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-9116833048945762742014-09-08T15:45:01.722+00:002014-09-08T15:45:01.722+00:00I don't understand why liberals want to make g...I don't understand why liberals want to make government spending hostage to demand and supply shocks. Should we cut spending just because inflation got too high? If not, why would we increase spending because of say the Arab oil embargo?<br /><br />Why not have the government spend whatever money the public is willing to pay in taxes to do what only it can do?<br /><br />As long as monetary policy is able to address such shocks, why wouldn't we use it to do so?<br /><br />The Fed was NOT at ZLB in 2008 when things really started to go bad. It could have acted much more aggressively when NGDP started to slump. That's a counterfactual I'd love to have lived through.<br /><br />Am I too cynical to believe that those who love fiscal policy see it mostly as a way to spend more money (how many of them are willing to cut it when times change?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-91369415571519352902014-09-08T13:15:26.382+00:002014-09-08T13:15:26.382+00:00Nick Rowe: "But when the Treasury "advan...Nick Rowe: "But when the Treasury "advances" money to consumers, to deal with a temporary fall in AD, it will need to *tax* it back in future". Not really in a depressionary / liquidity trap / zero interest environment. You print money to reduce taxes and increase demand. As demand goes back to normality, interest rates go up to prevent economy's overheating. No need to tax money back.Marco Cattaneohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573325708700347277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7552507707456698382014-09-08T08:58:00.842+00:002014-09-08T08:58:00.842+00:00Suppose one day all the money was hoarded by one b...Suppose one day all the money was hoarded by one big American corporate job creator in an offshore bank (not invested in the U.S.) -- what would happen to the M-1 supply? If fiat currency isn't being circulated throughout the U.S. creating economic activity (because the hoarders control the promise of future goods and services with their cash holdings), how could the economy exist? Imagine it wasn't paper money (or digital dollars in a computer database) that they hold, but piles of gold. The Fed can't mine gold whenever their paper dollars disappear under someone's mattress, but they can print money.<br /><br />National and Household Debt - Apples and Oranges<br />http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2014/01/national-and-household-debt-apples-and.htmlBud Meyershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02065020063363023395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-15570490420348506302014-09-08T08:04:02.100+00:002014-09-08T08:04:02.100+00:00MF. QE is not being used to increase aggregate de...MF. QE is not being used to increase aggregate demand. It is intended for major investment and pension funds to go out and chase higher returns from investing in the "supply side" of the economy (NOT the demand side). The commercial banks are only intermediaries in this game, holding the new cash on deposit. Those deposits will be balanced by an equivalent increase in the commercial banks "reserves" (supplied by the BoE), to cover the banks new deposit liability; and, banks don't lend reserves in the retail market. There are no new "financial assets" being added to the economy they are just being swapped.<br /><br />Holding Treasury Gilts at 3 - 4% is safe. Swapping those Gilts for cash means no income stream so the BoE is making those funds get out there and invest in the guy who is going to invent the next Google or such like. Unfortunately, those funds are not keen on playing that game of risk. That's why they bought the Gilts in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-46500210694898355972014-09-08T07:21:49.395+00:002014-09-08T07:21:49.395+00:00Simon, effective monetary policy is not about *doi...Simon, effective monetary policy is not about *doing* anything, ... like adjusting rates, or QE, etc, it's about a state of mind. For example, I'm going to ease monetary policy right now ...<br /><br />[[[[... concentrating ...]]]]<br /><br />There! Did you feel it? Did you feel it ease a bit? ...No?... well don't get discouraged: you'll get the hang of it eventually. It takes some practice... even to just feel a change when it happens. And don't worry, I won't leave it all loose like this... I'll tighten it back up the way it was again before I go. :D<br /><br /><a href="http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=27456" rel="nofollow">http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=27456</a>Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-91216101570422279812014-09-08T04:55:28.637+00:002014-09-08T04:55:28.637+00:00Of course poll taxes are distorionary, rob - you&#...Of course poll taxes are distorionary, rob - you're just not looking at the right margin. They lower the utility of the living without lowering the utility of the dead, and hence make living less attractive relative to dying.<br /><br />More seriously and generally, the whole idea that lum sum transfers cannot affect behaviour has always seemd dubious to me. Real life people just don't think like that - they have these funny notions of "rights" and "just desserts" which lead to irrational notions of retribution, for a start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-35646392446977843242014-09-07T12:59:23.821+00:002014-09-07T12:59:23.821+00:00What you want to cause private investment in new p...What you want to cause private investment in new projects. Thus you can analyze the various measures by how they effect expected ROI. Expected inflation in combination with low rates is terrific. GDP growth is terrific. Anything that looks to increase numerator cash flows and while suppressing denominator discount rates is a good idea. QE and variants is less good. All it does is free up idle funds that could be reinvested in new projects, but probably won't because the equations are unchanged. Or nearly so. <br /><br />Cash is king. New cash by people who will spend it dominates ROI. <br /><br />johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01628063779348336042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-45990229987743942022014-09-07T11:58:26.008+00:002014-09-07T11:58:26.008+00:00I disagree that monetary policy is the best first ...I disagree that monetary policy is the best first response. Political agreement is that rapid automatic fiscal stimulus in the form of unemployment benefits (fiscal policy) is always the first & best immediate response to a recession. Every developed country has a robust unemployment insurance program because the work and are effective stimulus targeted to those with the greatest needs. Expansion of automatic stabilizers such as infrastructure banks would be another form of fiscal stimulus that is rapid, automatic and targeted to parts of the economy that most need help. Expansion of automatic stabilizers could smooth out the unemployment spikes that carry high social costs to an economy. At the other end, higher taxes are a better way to remove money from an overheated economy than high interest rates.<br /><br />Monetary policy to fight inflation does so at the expense of workers who suffer through unemployment. It is not without social costs. Monetary policy through QE as is currently practiced increases money in the hands of bankers and investors who already sit on piles of savings. QE is not being channeled in a way that increases the use of otherwise unproductive labor. It could be, but it would need to be coordinated with fiscal policy. Monetary policy targeted to fund public goods and services would be far more effective than untargeted efforts that put too much money where it is not needed and may even make matters worse if it leaks out of the domestic economy into foreign investments that offshore jobs or is invested in replacing labor with capital that we have seen in the latest recession.<br /><br />Monetary policy is governed by bankers and elites whose mission is to protect the banking system. The fascination with monetary policy is in part that it depends on a technocratic elite that supposedly can be persuaded to act for the common good. This is opposed to fiscal policy which is under the control of Yahoos elected from the rabble who may have little understanding of economics. Intellectuals can be more comfortable interacting with like minded elites than tangling with the messy sausage of politics. Monetary elites have a primary mission to protect the banking system (mostly from itself) and political constraints limit acceptable actions. Fiscal policy may be enacted by Yahoos, but the policies are generated behind the scenes at policy institutes, many funded by elite special interests. Monetary policy is mostly important in the finer nuances of guiding an economy. There are few big impacts of good monetary policy. The big impacts come from fiscal and regulatory policy. Even the best monetary cannot compensate for misguided or inadequate fiscal and regulatory policy.<br />-jonny bakhoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-17023354663346780082014-09-07T10:12:42.206+00:002014-09-07T10:12:42.206+00:00Is Brian Romanchuk's view of financial insolve...Is Brian Romanchuk's view of financial insolvency the consensus? Analyzing the counterfactual wherein monetary policy maintained the pathway of NGDP, and skipped direct liquidity support of financial institutions, seems outside the scope of modern economics. Similarly, the casual manner in which we use the term "bubble" seems to presume much of current analytical tools. We do know that housing prices crashed. So can we delineate the bubble portion? Is there obviously stationarity in particular valuation measures? Is there a sacrosant trend line? Can we confidently advise residents of Vancouver, Melbourne, London, San Francisco, and Manhattan to divest their landholdings (without the "if only" and "anytime now" caveats)? The consensus language just seems too confident, which makes me suspicious as to whether anything was really learned, or whether the consensus simply adopted new heuristics to guard against the last crisis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-42278674962136020692014-09-07T01:06:26.686+00:002014-09-07T01:06:26.686+00:00I wonder if Margaret Thatcher would have agreed a...I wonder if Margaret Thatcher would have agreed about poll taxes having absolutely no influence on people's behaviorrobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-79024838328682555482014-09-06T20:37:12.823+00:002014-09-06T20:37:12.823+00:00and there is something to be said, during times of...and there is something to be said, during times of inadequate demand, to just send checks to every citizen, which would again do very little to distort incentives.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040408582097904554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-53793484133510516102014-09-06T20:35:40.857+00:002014-09-06T20:35:40.857+00:00the only truly non-distortionary tax is a poll tax...the only truly non-distortionary tax is a poll tax; it has absolutely no influence on your behavior except perhaps to make you want to earn a bit more money. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040408582097904554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-86131282012521286982014-09-06T20:24:07.902+00:002014-09-06T20:24:07.902+00:00It seems like we agree mostly. Longer term problem...It seems like we agree mostly. Longer term problems and issues need deeper fixes. There was a problem in that they needed a bubble to maintain near-full employment. Was that "easy" money? Regulations were "easy."<br /><br />But there was a panic and credit crunch. That could have been moderated. As we approach full employment in the next decade, what's the bubble in this time? Credit conditions and regulations seem tighter.<br />Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08272747870634233567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-44170595378969978892014-09-06T19:26:46.162+00:002014-09-06T19:26:46.162+00:00.
Perhaps a guaranteed national income is a t....<br /> Perhaps a guaranteed national income is a type of stimulus whose time has come.<br /><br /> Time seems to have inured us to the extraordinary nature of the zero lower bound. <br /><br /> The zero lower bound may be a symptom of globalization and secular stagnation. The 90% of the population are no longer sharing in the GDP gains and thus causing a lack of demand.<br /><br /> A guaranteed national income, equal to perhaps 5% of GDP, split among all citizens and paid out from fiscal funds, would go a long way to reducing inequality and increasing demand.<br /><br /> QE, essentially stealth monetization, has been shown to not increase inflation in depressed economies and should be the other shoe of the policy, as long as inflation and demand are subdued.<br /><br /> The treatment depends upon the malady.<br />.<br /><br /> As a side note, one of the things that make social policy and economics difficult is a society with a fragmented self image. Judging from the rise of UKIP and the many apoplectic comments I see in UK media, there seems to be a bit of us versus them mentality in the UK. That sort of division makes it very hard to propose a policy that helps everyone. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01098498673510354088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-16796427691612595062014-09-06T18:20:13.763+00:002014-09-06T18:20:13.763+00:00"So, to use a bit of jargon, cutting interest..."So, to use a bit of jargon, cutting interest rates is first best, but if that first best was not available because nominal rates had hit zero then fiscal policy should be used."<br /><br />Maybe the opposite is true: fiscal policy should be used first.<br /><br />The idea that government involvement in the economy should be limited to a last resort is a cultural bias. The field of macroeconomics over the past 30 years has been strongly influenced by neoliberal doctrine, which also influenced the Keynesian schools. Economic students end up being indoctrinated with this cultural bias. But it is not founded on anything remotely resembling a scientific theory supported with hard evidence. <br /><br />If one compares economic indicators from the "inefficient" post-war Keynesian era — GDP growth, inequality, government debt, private debt, real wages and benefits — to the "efficient" neoliberal era of the past 30 years, the Keynesian era was obviously much more successful on all fronts. <br /><br />So it could be quite possible that the economic models being used today are woefully inadequate — like J.J. Thomson trying to model the atom based on classical theory when quantum theory was required. This would explain why the "inefficient" Keynesian era turned out to be much more efficient. <br /><br />So related to stimulus to increase aggregate demand: the fact is monetary policy is pretty far removed from the average person who needs to spend more to boost the economy. Lowering interest rates and purchasing corporate bonds takes a while to trickle down to the little people. <br /><br />Direct government spending on infrastructure and perhaps an increased VAT rebate, could very well not only be more effective, but have a similar lag time given how indirect monetary policy is.<br /><br />(On the supply side: Stiglitz demonstrates in "Freefall" that the financial sector is woefully inadequate in allocating capital in the real economy, despite loose monetary policy. Capital is invested in synthetic assets which are so complex banks don't know their own positions, let alone those of other banks, which causes interest rates to be higher. Money is not adequately used to finance business expansion and innovation that create sustainable GDP, jobs and productivity growth.)<br /><br />The idea that central banks are run by independent technocrats is also a fallacy. The 2% inflation target, e.g., is entirely arbitrary. An institution not governed by science and not democratically accountable will be governed by some other political agenda. The 2% inflation target appears to be more inclined to protect the wealth of the well off than the economic interests of the average person. Central banks have also used monetary policy in the past to "moderate" wages. But what forces determine how "moderate" they should be? Not science. Not democracy. Some unaccountable political agenda.<br />Ron Wallerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08120060083437508997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-7057281845937682692014-09-06T18:04:54.471+00:002014-09-06T18:04:54.471+00:00Nick,
Re your No.1, you’re attributing ideas to F...Nick,<br /><br />Re your No.1, you’re attributing ideas to Friedman which I don’t think he advocated. At least in his 1948 paper “A Monetary and Fiscal Framework….” he very definitely did not advocate having the state print money and buy up assets, which is what Market Monetarists advocate. He advocated having the state print money and spend it on the normal public sector items (education, roads, etc) – and/or cut taxes.<br /><br />Second I don’t agree with your claim that taxes are, as you put it, “distorting”. Obviously taxes CAN BE distortionary: e.g. a tax on red cars but not cars with a different color. But a flat percentage tax on everyone’s income would be almost completely distortion free.<br /><br />Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-37478907957909047382014-09-06T17:49:15.682+00:002014-09-06T17:49:15.682+00:00Simon,
You say, “One way of stimulating demand wh...Simon,<br /><br />You say, “One way of stimulating demand when interest rates are stuck at zero is to promise a combination of higher than ideal inflation and higher than ideal output in the future.” So why should anyone believe that promise? They’ll believe it if the authorities implement excessive stimulus, but that excessive stimulus ITSELF solves the problem: excess unemployment. Ergo the “promise” is irrelevant. <br /><br />Re your reference to Scott Sumner’s ideas as “rather strange”, I’d use much more abusive language, but that’s my style...:-)<br />Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-66342893155544389392014-09-06T17:44:44.584+00:002014-09-06T17:44:44.584+00:00Brian,
If by “single composite good” you mean co...Brian, <br /><br />If by “single composite good” you mean combining fiscal and monetary policy, then I agree. Having two bodies with a say on stimulus makes as much sense as having a car with two steering wheels controlled by a husband and wife in the middle of a matrimonial breakdown.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-8891526979530107832014-09-06T16:24:41.852+00:002014-09-06T16:24:41.852+00:00They may spend some of it, but we have no idea how...They may spend some of it, but we have no idea how much. Good policy instruments need to have predictable effects. Mainly Macrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-57387122706043336272014-09-06T16:12:39.430+00:002014-09-06T16:12:39.430+00:00yes, they are exchanging one form of wealth (thei...yes, they are exchanging one form of wealth (their asset) for another (money). but they will now have more money relative to other things (assets and other goods) after the exchange so they will spend some of it and start a process that will drive a change in AD.<br /><br />Of course giving people money will have the same effect achieved in a perhaps more direct way - but as Nick Rowe points out the real complexities and distortions come into play when the monetary authorities have to reverse out the policy via higher taxes later rather than just selling the assets they have bought.<br /><br />Obviously if QE doesn't work (fails to boost AD) then fiscal policy is the only show in town - but my question really was - why wouldn't QE work ? If my simple view is correct then how could it not work ?Market Fiscalistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-16576495970471896552014-09-06T16:11:20.904+00:002014-09-06T16:11:20.904+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.com