Government spending is not limited by tax revenues or borrowing, but it isn’t limited by the productive capacity of the economy either.

 

When ministers, in response to demands for more public spending, declare there is no magic money tree they are in literal terms lying. One of the things that make governments that use their own national currency quite different from households is their unique ability to create money. This is no great economic revelation, as it has been taught to first year economics students for as long as there were first year economics students.

There is a very simple relationship between spending, taxation, borrowing and money creation. If we include paying the interest on its debt as part of government spending, then we can express that relationship in the form of an equation:

Government spending - taxes = new borrowing + new money creation

A great deal of confusion in popular writing about macroeconomics can be avoided if you just remember that equation. It is an identity, which means that no causation is involved. Governments are free to choose three of these four quantities, but not all four because the identity (the government’s budget identity) must hold. [1] 

When economists say that higher government spending is paid for (or funded by) higher taxes or more borrowing, they are simply talking about how this identity is satisfied. Equally when politicians say we cannot afford to spend more on the NHS, they mean they are not prepared to raise taxes, borrow more or create more money. 

Economists from the MMT school of economics are fond of pointing out that if the government chooses to increase spending but does nothing else, then this spending will be paid for by creating more money. However the practical relevance of this statement is zero, beyond confirming that the government can create money. This is because governments will generally respond to higher spending and that additional money creation by either increasing taxation or borrowing more.

Why is this? What stops UK governments making themselves very popular by increasing spending on the NHS, education and so on and paying for it by creating money? The short answer is that at some point this would become inflationary. Economists sometimes talk about this type of inflation being caused by too much money chasing too few goods. But my own view (and a monetarist might disagree) is that talking about too much money is again misleading. What causes the inflation is that the government has increased its demand for goods (produced domestically) or workers, the domestic private sector sees no reason to reduce their demand, and there is a limit on how many goods or workers can be provided (domestically). What really causes inflation in this case is not excess money creation but the aggregate demand for goods (or workers) exceeding the aggregate supply.

Why is this a better way of thinking about this type of inflation? [2] The most basic reason is that the problem would still arise if the government didn’t pay for the higher spending by creating money, but instead by borrowing from abroad. We would still at some point get excess aggregate demand for domestically produced goods or workers, and inflation would rise.

All this suggests that what limits aggregate government spending is the amount of goods the domestic economy is willing to supply, sometimes called productive capacity. [3] This is also a popular conclusion of the MMT school of thought. As Josh Ryan-Collins writes in the News Statesman: “The main constraint on public spending should be whether the economy has the productive resources and capacity to absorb such spending without it leading to excessive price rises.”

Thinking about things this way has its uses. It shows, for example, why in a recession there is every reason for governments to increase their spending, and finance this by raising borrowing or creating money. A recession is generally where there is an excess supply of goods and/or workers, so using those resources to produce stuff not only reduces unemployment (of machines and/or workers), but also makes everyone better off because they can benefit from higher government spending. Alternatively governments can keep spending unchanged but cut taxes in a recession, and this will not be inflationary.

This shows why deficit limits in a recession are a dangerous form of economic nonsense. Again this is no great economic revelation, but has been understood by economists for 80 odd years. If in the (very unlikely) event that governments cannot cover the extra spending or reduced taxation by borrowing, they can create money and this will not be inflationary, because there is an excess supply of goods and/or workers. That this basic macroeconomic truth was briefly ignored in many countries from 2010 onwards is a subject on which I once wrote a great deal.

Despite all this, it is not the case that productive resources and capacity are the main constraint on the amount government’s spend. Governments can spend more by persuading the private sector to spend less. In modern economies it can do this in two main ways. The first is by raising taxation. Suppose we start from a position where there is no excess aggregate supply or demand, so inflation is constant. The government can still spend more if it encourages the private sector to spend less by raising their taxes. [4]

The second way governments can reduce the private sector’s demand for goods is by raising interest rates. Higher interest rates encourage people to save more and spend less, making way for additional government spending without raising inflation. In countries with independent central banks targeting inflation this will happen because the central bank wants to keep inflation constant.

This second way of governments being able to raise spending (or cut taxes) raises a potential political problem in countries with independent central banks. Irresponsible governments may be tempted to raise their spending or cut taxes in popular ways (particularly before an election), pay for it by higher borrowing, and avoid the inflationary consequences because central banks raise interest rates. Higher interest rates might be unpopular with some (borrowers), but they will be popular with others (savers), and in any case it may be the central bank that gets the blame rather than the government.

Something along these lines seems to have happened in many countries from around the 1970s onwards, after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates when interest rates began to be used routinely for controlling inflation. This is known as deficit bias, and is why some countries adopted either fiscal rules for the size of government deficits or debt, and or fiscal councils like the OBR. It is important to understand that these fiscal rules would be unnecessary if governments were responsible, and that the harm that deficit bias does is long term, minor (raising interest rates higher than they need be) and largely irrelevant in the current era of very low long term interest rates. The idea that deficit targets somehow limit the amount governments can spend or tax year to year is economic nonsense, but that doesn’t stop some governments and many in the media pretending otherwise.

This second way that governments might provide room for additional spending is hardly discussed by MMT economists, because they believe fiscal policy (or other measures) rather than interest rates should control inflation. If governments followed MMT and did this, then there would be no need for deficit targets. But nearly all governments nowadays do not do this, and have independent central banks controlling inflation (when they can) by varying interest rates. [5] As a result, as long as this is the case, appropriate deficit targets [6] have some place, but this place should never get in the way of fighting recessions or climate change.

In attacking the nonsense of analogies relating government finance to household budgets, MMT is on the side of the angels. But you do not need a new school of macroeconomics to do this, as the nonsense can, and was, easily exposed using either longstanding or more recent mainstream macroeconomic ideas and evidence.

In addition, when MMTers say that deficit targets are pointless, it is important to understand that this follows directly (and obviously) from their main departure from how most mainstream macroeconomists view demand management, which is a belief that fiscal policy rather than interest rate changes should manage aggregate demand in order to control inflation (outwith the lower bound for interest rates. At the interest rate lower bound, I think most mainstream macroeconomists would agree that fiscal policy has to take monetary policy’s place.)

Finally, MMT also favours combining fiscal stabilisation policy with keeping interest rates very low. If, as the evidence strongly suggests, higher interest rates reduce aggregate demand, then (outwith the lower bound) mainstream macroeconomic policy would allow more government spending for given levels of taxes or borrowing (or any other policy instruments) than an MMT policy would allow. This is because higher interest rates would reduce aggregate demand, making room for more government spending without increasing inflation. In this sense MMT’s choice of fiscal policy rather than interest rates for macroeconomic stabilisation lowers rather than increases the amount governments can spend.

[1] I now prefer to call this an ‘identity’ rather than a ‘constraint’ because it is not a constraint on spending, taxes or borrowing, precisely because governments can create money. Contrast this with a household’s budget constraint, where the money creation is not a legal option. But this is just language, not economics.

[2] Excess aggregate national demand is not the only reason national inflation can increase, of course. It can increase because of higher imported prices, such as the price of commodities like oil or gas.

[3] Productive capacity can also be a misleading term, because it suggests some kind of maximum for what the existing workforce and capital stock can produce. In reality most firms like to keep spare capacity in normal times to cope with unexpected but short term fluctuations in demand. The key measure is what firms are willing to supply at current rates of inflation.

[4] How much taxes need to rise depends on how permanent the tax increase is believed to be. If it is believed to be permanent, then taxes need to rise by about the same amount as the additional government spending. However if people believe the extra taxation is temporary, they may be tempted to pay some of the taxes from reduced savings. In this case the rise in taxation would have to be greater than the increase in spending to keep aggregate supply and demand in balance.

[5] For why most macroeconomists still think that, outwith the lower bound for interest rates, independent central banks using interest rate changes, rather than governments using fiscal policy, should control inflation see here.

[6] Unfortunately many deficit targets are badly formulated, and a bad fiscal rule can be worse than none at all. This is particularly true in the Eurozone, where national interest rates cannot control national inflation and so fiscal policy should, but this is made more difficult by deficit targets.

Monetary and fiscal cooperation: the case for a state dependent assignment

In December last year Mark Carney said

“In a global liquidity trap, central banks cannot be the only policy makers who do “whatever it takes.” There are clear gains from coordination, with other policies – particularly fiscal policy”

I of course agree, as would most academic macroeconomists. So would any sensible informed fiscal policy maker. But of course this didn’t happen in the Global Financial Crisis from 2010 onwards in some key major economies, including the UK.

Carney’s statement, which follows similar statements by the central bank governors of the Fed and ECB, goes against what I have called the ‘consensus assignment’. The consensus assignment has monetary policy looking after the stability of aggregate demand and inflation, while the fiscal authority looks after government debt. In the UK at least this consensus assignment is deeply embedded in the way the media thinks about policy.

In 2009 George Osborne gave a speech in which he said

“[New Keynesian] Models of this kind underpin our whole macroeconomic policy framework – in particular the idea that by using monetary policy to manage demand and control inflation you can keep unemployment low and stable. And they underpinned the argument David Cameron and I advanced last autumn – that monetary policy should bear the strain of stimulating demand….”

This is a statement of the consensus assignment. The irony of it was that shortly before the speech was given UK interest rates hit their lower bound.

Is the consensus assignment still the best way to run policy after short interest rates hit their lower bound? In 2010, in Europe and the UK at least, central banks acted as if it was. Indeed they went as far as to advise fiscal policymakers to embark on austerity. Carney’s statement is an implicit acknowledgement that central banks had been wrong to do that.

The trouble with unconventional monetary policy is not that it does not work, but it does not work reliably. The scandal in 2010 was that while the Bank of England was suggesting in public that unconventional monetary policy could replace conventional interest rate policy, in reality they had little clue how much effect any change in unconventional monetary policy would have. An unpredictable and unreliable instrument is not a good basis for a policy regime when a better instrument is available, and that better instrument is fiscal policy. I think negative interest rates fit into this category of unreliable instruments, simply because we cannot for obvious reasons assume linearity.

So how do we ensure as far as we can that fiscal policy makers will not repeat the mistakes of 2010 in the next recession? The first best would be to have better fiscal policy makers, but alas that is not always possible. There are three widely discussed possibilities.

1. The first is MMT. This in effect reverses the conventional assignment, with fiscal policy doing the demand and inflation stabilisation in all states of the world. If that happens debt looks after itself. I am not in favour of MMT, because I think independent central banks have been very successful at controlling inflation, and a government using fiscal policy would be less successful.
   
   
2. The second is Helicopter Money. If you are prepared to call Helicopter Money (HM) monetary policy, this preserves the consensus assignment by giving the central bank a new tool. HM is more reliable than unconventional monetary policy, because HM is just like a tax cut, and we have a lot of data on the impact of tax cuts on consumers. Like tax cuts, HM will not work if all consumers are Ricardian, but they are not.
   
   

HM is only possible with the agreement of the government, preferably well before it is actually needed. Two key things have to be agreed. The first is the distribution mechanism, where I suspect some governments would prefer something other than a reverse poll tax. The second is an agreement to back the central bank, by which I mean supply it with the assets it requires to claw back at least some of the HM when the economy recovers. The only difference between HM and a bond financed fiscal expansion is that probably some or all of the bond issuance is delayed until after the economy recovers.

Central banks worry that governments will renege on their commitment to back the central bank. My response is that any government that would not back their central bank so it can fight inflation is also a government that would be prepared to abolish its independent central bank, so the concern is of no interest. I suspect also central banks think HM looks like fiscal policy to most people, and they shouldn’t be doing fiscal policy.

I would add a further point on HM. It will not stop a government using what I call ‘deficit deceit’ in a recession: pretending the deficit is too high and requires spending cuts, because the government wants to scare people into accepting a smaller state than would be popular otherwise. HM would avoid this fiscal consolidation influencing output because its demand effects would be offset by the central bank. But a shrinking of the state beyond anything that is popular in normal times is also almost certainly sub-optimal, and can have devastating political as well as economic implications, like those we have seen in the UK, and you could argue HM encourages this.

3. The third, and most likely, is central bank advice. If the central bank thinks that a recession is coming where rates will hit the lower bound, it advises the fiscal authority that some fiscal expansion is required. This is fine if we are trying to combat a fiscal authority that is just ignorant on these matters. The central bank could also convince a fiscal authority that was worried about financing its debt, by for example agreeing to monetise the expansion needed by doing the corresponding amount of QE, or more simply to neutralise any failure by private agents to buy debt.
   
   

My concern here is with a government that said thanks for the advice, but we prefer to focus on reducing the deficit using spending cuts. Would the central bank be prepared to make its advice public? It might not do so if it was concerned that the government would reciprocate by starting to tell the central bank what do so. You could therefore argue that this strategy could be either ineffective, or may threaten central bank independence.

So how can you stop a government that is determined to use the rising deficit in a recession to shrink the state? Of course you cannot, but you can try and create the conditions that will put maximum political pressure on it not to. I suggest above that HM fails to do this, and central bank advice is unlikely to either.

What would be more effective is for macroeconomists and central banks to start being honest about the consensus assignment. As a near optimal policy regime that assignment is dead. Instead macroeconomics suggests what could be called a ‘state dependent assignment’. In most states of the world, central banks stabilise the macroeconomy just as they do now. However in an economic downturn of sufficient size (where ‘sufficient’ is to be defined) the assignment flips, and fiscal policy makers are in charge of stabilisation. In non-technical language, fighting recessions becomes the government’s job.

I think this is something that most academic macroeconomists and some central bankers have accepted implicitly but not explicitly. One reason is I think pedantic. Of course in the state dependent assignment the central bank does not stop trying to stimulate demand in a recession by at least keeping rates low, but there are compelling political economy reasons to highlight the responsibility of governments in this respect.

Those familiar with Jonathan and my paper on fiscal rules will recognise our knockout when rates hit their lower bound as one operationalisation of a state dependent consensus assignment. But it is not an ideal mechanism because switching the assignment should depend on forecast events. Others, like the IPPR and Resolution Foundation, have suggested alternative schemes that come under the umbrella of a state dependent assignment. There is a great deal of work required to figure out the best mechanisms, and also to think about who has control over when switches (both on and off) happen, and whether there is a role for the central bank and/or fiscal council in advising the government on effective stimulus packages.

To conclude, central banks are now recognising that fiscal stimulus is required in significant economic downturns. This is in contrast to the GFC, when many fiscal policy makers enacted austerity. One of the reasons they were able to enact austerity was the dominance of the traditional consensus assignment in the mind of the public. Our most effective way of preventing this happening again is to make a state dependent assignment the new consensus assignment.

Bill Mitchell's fantasy about Labour's fiscal rule

My last post about outlandish attacks from some MMTers on Labour’s Fiscal Credibility Rule (FCR) was designed to be read by non-economists, and I didn’t want to bore them or waste space with all the fantasies Bill Mitchell has spread about the rule. But as I’ve had one of those fantasies tweeted back to me many times in response, I want to lay it to rest here.

That fantasy is that the Bank of England somehow has control of when the knockout happens. The knockout is when the rule is suspended and instead you have as much fiscal stimulus as is necessary to get the economy out of recession. It is triggered when interest rates hit their lower bound. At that point all monetary policy has left are unconventional policies, which are less reliable than fiscal policy, so it makes sense to go for a full fiscal stimulus. 

The way this simple rule has been spun by some is that it gives the Bank of England control over when the knockout is triggered. In reality the rule does no such thing. The Bank will have announced beforehand where the lower bound for rates is, and when a recession happens such that the Bank cuts rates to this lower bound the knockout is triggered. This is simple, unless of course you hate the rule because it is not MMT.

To see how MMters spin this as the Bank being in control of the knockout, you have to construct a fairy tale where the Bank is evil. Although they are supposed to do everything to end a recession, in this fantasy they have a higher calling, which is to impose austerity. So what the evil Bank does is announce that the lower bound is X, but when a severe recession hits they cut rates to X+0.25% and no further. They undertake all kinds of unconventional monetary stimulus but insist that rates are not at their lower bound, just because they do not want any fiscal stimulus.

What the fairy tale requires is that all 9 members of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), who actually set interest rates, collude to deceive the Chancellor and the public. In reality the M in MPC does not stand for Masonic - 4 of their members are external members. They would have to swear in public that the real lower bound is X and have to explain to parliamentary committees why rates have not been cut to X despite being in a major recession with rapidly rising unemployment and falling output.

I know many more past and current MPC members - both from the Bank and from outside - than I suspect Bill Mitchell does. What always impresses me is how seriously they respect the mandate they are given. They might have their individual views on fiscal policy, as Mervyn King did, but there is just no way they would collude to harm the economy because of those views. Most of those I have met are quite positive about the contribution fiscal policy can make in a severe recession, so they wouldn’t even want to deceive the public on this score even if they felt able to.

But let’s put all that to one side. After all I am sure MMTers would just say this shows I’m too much part of the elite, or I am incredibly naive, or whatever. Let’s just suppose this conspiracy happened. Each member of the MPC swore blind that rates were still not at their lower bound, and had concocted some kind of story about why rates should be kept above their lower bound despite rapidly rising unemployment and falling output etc etc.If all that happened, what would a Labour Chancellor do?

The Chancellor, together with much of the non-partisan press, would see what was going on. They would observe that in the middle of a recession the MPC were deliberately not cutting rates to the stated lower bound for no good reason other than a nefarious motive. The Chancellor would first embark on a temporary (less than 5 years) fiscal stimulus, which he is free to do under the FCR rule even without the backstop. If rates stayed at the same level for months as the recession continued, and the Bank embarked on all kinds of unconventional stimulus measures, the Chancellor would conclude, as any reasonable observer would, that the lower bound had been reached. The Chancellor would then invoke the FCR backstop, allowing him to expand on their original fiscal stimulus. Once the recession was over, I doubt very much that the current monetary framework would survive, which is yet another reason why no MPC would never embark on this fairytale.

MMters sometimes retort that the Chancellor would get political flack for triggering the backstop in this situation. In the middle of a recession with unemployment rising I doubt there would be much flack at all, besides the usual nonsense from the Tory press. But I find it supremely ironic that MMTers are prepared to use media reaction as an argument, as if the media reaction to any Chancellor adopting MMT would be all sweetness and light. Just imagine how abolishing the MPC, and saying taxes do not help finance spending, would go down with most journalists. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Mike Norman Economics, commenting on my earlier post, says compared to Bill Mitchell I’m out of my league. That would be the league for telling fairy tales I assume. While one part of the left indulges in polemic and spinning fantasies against Labour policy, thankfully we have another part that is getting on with the serious business of preparing for a transforming government that will finally reverse what neoliberalism really is.

Is Labour’s fiscal policy rule neoliberal?

That is the charge some on the left, particularly followers a movement called MMT, have laid against Labour's Fiscal Credibility Rule (FCR). MMT stands for nothing very informative, but it is a non-mainstream left-wing macroeconomic school of thought. Bill Mitchell, one of the leading lights of MMT, has run a relentless campaign against the FCR through his blog. As my own work with Jonathan Portes helped provide the intellectual foundation for the FCR, I will try and explain why I find the neoliberal charge nonsensical.

Although MMT has had its biggest impact in the US, it is increasingly discussed by those on Labour’s left (e.g. pro and con). Here I will give a lay person’s guide to only the aspects of MMT that lead to its dislike of Labour’s rule. MMT’s key idea is that fiscal policy (changing taxes and government spending) is better suited to stabilise the macroeconomy than a central bank setting interest rates.

Almost without exception, advanced economies use interest rates set by an independent central bank to control output and inflation. In the UK the Bank of England’s mandate (the inflation target and how quickly it has to be reached) is determined by the Chancellor. If the Chancellor wants to raise the inflation target or scrap it altogether they can do so. But the month to month task of actually choosing what interest rate is most likely to meet the Chancellors mandate is left to the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), who are either Bank insiders or outsiders appointed by the Treasury.

Why is the choice of setting interest rates delegated to the MPC? Getting this choice right is a highly technical task, requiring detailed discussions of different forecasts and macroeconomic models. If the MPC is working well, they bring strong expertise to the table to help make a decision.

These experts could just give their advice in secret to the Chancellor, leaving the Chancellor to accept or reject their advice. The danger in doing that is the Chancellor will allow party political motives to influence what they do, to the detriment of the economy. As one Treasury insider once told me in the years before the Bank of England (BoE) became independent, the Chancellor recognised that rates had to rise but there is no way it was happening before the party conference.

A fundamental problem with today’s way of doing things occurred during the Global Financial Crisis. Interest rates fell to a level that became their lower bound. Central banks thought that cutting rates any further was ineffective and risky. When that happens, something else needs to step in to stimulate the economy. The BoE tried various measures (like Quantitative Easing), but they were all rather hit and miss because they had not been used much before.

Under the Labour government in 2009 fiscal policy was used to provide the stimulus that monetary policy could no longer reliably give. But in 2010 the Coalition government was elected and decided fiscal stimulus had to become austerity, with disastrous results in the UK and other countries that adopted it. Most macroeconomists rejected austerity in 2010, and their number increased steadily as the impact of austerity became clear.

It is now received wisdom among academic economists that when interest rates hit their lower bound, fiscal policy needs to provide a large stimulus to the economy. Labour’s fiscal credibility rule is the first in the world to formalise this. If interest rates hit their lower bound, the normal rule is suspended and a fiscal stimulus occurs that is sufficient to end the recession. Labour’s rule is therefore designed to prevent austerity happening again.

MMT wants to go one step further. It wants to use fiscal policy to stabilise the economy at all times, and not just when monetary policy is out of action. This is not a ridiculous proposal. The question is whether it would work as well as the current regime. Most macroeconomists prefer using interest rates when possible because rates can be moved quickly. It also allows this decision to be easily delegated to experts, which avoids party political influence getting in the way of macro stabilisation. However an obvious drawback of the current regime is that it cannot work when rates hit their lower bound, so in a bad recession you have to switch to fiscal policy. Labour’s fiscal rule hardwires that switch into policy.

If you are still reading you have probably decided by now that the debate between MMT and mainstream macro about whether to use fiscal policy all the time or just when interest rates hit their lower bound is pretty technical and best left to macroeconomists. I think that conclusion is correct. But why do many MMTers, as they are known, call Labour’s rule neoliberal? To understand this, you have to understand that MMT is far from just another school of macroeconomics.

MMT is also a political movement of the left. Mitchell himself supports Lexit. They are therefore naturally indignant that a Corbyn led government has adopted a rule that is derived from mainstream economics rather than adopting MMT. Their aim is to win a political as well as an economic battle. Pretty much anything is fair game in this political battle, including describing those like myself who defend Labour’s fiscal rule as neoliberal. (To see how ludicrous this charge is, see here.)

These attacks do however raise a legitimate issue. Why the need for a fiscal rule at all? Why not let the Chancellor choose the deficit depending on the economic circumstances? The answer is provided by something called deficit bias, which preoccupied economic policy before the global financial crisis (GFC). In the 30 years before this crisis, the ratio of OECD government debt to GDP almost doubled for no justifiable reason.

Deficit bias happens because politicians like cutting taxes or raising spending through borrowing, because it puts off any obvious economic pain. But if deficit bias does substantially raise the debt to GDP ratio, as it did before the GFC, then more debt requires paying more interest which in turn requires higher taxes or lower spending. Deficit bias does not avoid the downside of cutting taxes or increasing spending, it just puts it off until a later date. Deficit bias has not gone away. Donald Trump cut taxes for the rich, but he avoided a lot of political flack by doing this through borrowing.

Contrary to many alarmists in the City, the world does not come to an end if you have deficit bias. Deficit bias just makes life harder for future governments. So it is good practice, and a sign of fiscal responsibility, for governments to follow a fiscal rule. Nothing about this good practice need be neoliberal.

You can certainly make a fiscal rule neoliberal through asymmetry (deficits matter, but surpluses do not) and saying the only spending should be cut and not taxes raised to reduce an excessive deficit. Labour’s fiscal credibility rule does neither of these things. It targets the current deficit, leaving public investment free to meet public needs and benefit from low borrowing costs. The target only needs to be met in 5 years time and this period rolls forward. As a result the rule is compatible with the Chancellor enacting a modest stimulus during a mild recession. In a severe recession a fiscal stimulus is mandatory, making austerity impossible.

MMTers like to suggest that government spending could be higher under MMT than under the FCR. This is simply false if the MPC is doing its job. Indeed if higher interest rates reduce demand, as most empirical evidence suggests, for given taxes government spending will be higher under the FCR than under an MMT policy.

MMTers might argue that leaving interest rates decisions to a central bank is neoliberal. That charge has less force for the UK, where the Chancellor has complete control of the Bank’s mandate, than in the Eurozone for example. Delegation of decisions to experts is hardly neoliberal. Is the UK organisation that decides whether drugs are cost effective, NICE, a neoliberal organisation? There is a legitimate issue of what happens when experts fail to do their job, but that is an issue for UK monetary policy that has nothing to do with Labour’s fiscal rule.

MMTers over the top criticisms of Labour’s fiscal rule do however raise some serious questions about MMT. MMT has been important in the US in helping to counteract excessive concern among many Democrats about budget deficits, and in fighting nonsense that says we cannot afford to tackle climate change. However both points can be made using entirely conventional macroeconomics, as my article on the Green New Deal showed. Yet MMT also wants to be a revolutionary movement that overthrows mainstream macroeconomics.

There have been two revolutions in macroeconomics in the last 100 years, but both have brought major and radical new ideas to the table. As yet, MMT only offers ideas that can easily be expressed as part of the mainstream. For example using fiscal rather than monetary policy was a big debate when I was studying as an undergraduate more than 40 years ago. That does not make MMT’s ideas wrong, but they are certainly not revolutionary and they will certainly not replace the mainstream, even if MMTers call all their opponents neoliberal.

Why should someone who is anti-austerity care about debt

Most of the posts I have written about austerity have been aimed at countering the idea that in a recession you need to bring down government deficits and therefore debt. But what if you accept all that (you are anti-austerity). Why should you care about debt at all? Why do we have fiscal rules based on deficits? Why not spend what the government needs to spend, and not worry that this resulted in a larger budget deficit?

The story often given is that the markets will impose some limit on what the government will be able to borrow, because if debt gets ‘too high’ in relation to GDP markets will start demanding a higher return. You can see why that argument is problematic by asking why interest rates on government debt would need to be higher. The most obvious reason is default risk. But for a country that can create its own currency there is never any necessity to default.

However there is another reason to demand a higher nominal interest rate on debt, and that is if you think there will be additional inflation in the country. Spending more without raising taxes will tends to increase inflation. But if the government or central bank is sure to raise interest rates to offset this inflationary pressure then the concern about inflation disappears.

In MMT inflation is also the fundamental constraint on how far you can raise spending without raising taxes. MMT also says that you do not need to worry about the deficit, but this is only true if - as they advocate - fiscal policy rather than monetary policy controls demand and inflation. Under MMT the link between the deficit and inflation is direct (assuming no change in the composition of either) .

When inflation is controlled using interest rates the situation is fundamentally different. There is now no single point at which the deficit is consistent with stable inflation. In the short term there are a whole range of interest rate/deficit combinations that keep inflation stable today (e.g. high deficit and high interest rates or low deficit and low interest rate). Does this mean we do not need to worry about the deficit and the debt it leads to because monetary policy will always take care of inflation?

The answer is no, if we think about dynamics. What happens if we choose a high deficit high interest rate combination because we want higher government spending without paying more in taxes? There are two important dynamic effects here. The most basic is that a high deficit raises the stock of government debt. Because of interest rate payments on that debt the deficit rises further. In addition raising interest rates to stop inflation will itself tend to raise debt interest payments. This is an unstable debt interest spiral. You cannot say why not fund the additional debt interest payments by creating money, because that will tend to reduce interest rates and raise inflation.

This means that over the longer term you have to adjust spending and taxes to keep government debt relative to GDP stable, That does not mean debt has to be stabilised at a particular level, but just that if there is not a compelling reason to do otherwise you need to keep debt stable rather than rising upwards. A recession is one such compelling reason, and there are others (like adding to the public sectors stock of assets).

Stability does not mean deficits have to be zero because we have to allow for the growth in GDP. The maths is simple (see [1]). Take the stock of debt to GDP as a fraction of GDP (say 0.8), multiply by the trend rate of growth of nominal GDP as a fraction (say 0.04), and you approximately have what the total deficit should be as a fraction of GDP to keep debt stable (0.032), which is a deficit of 3.2% of GDP. .

There is always the temptation for politicians to raise debt now, and let future governments stabilise debt at a higher level. In the past the US under Republicans and other countries (but not the UK) tended to let this happen in the 30 years before the GFC, and economists call it deficit bias. Fiscal rules began life because it was hoped they would reduce deficit bias.

So why not raise the level of debt by spending more for a period, and then stabilise it by cutting spending or raising taxes a generation later? Here we have to note that the stabilising deficit (the deficit that keeps debt to GDP stable) includes debt interest payment. What we call the primary deficit is the total deficit less interest payments, You should now be able to see the problem with allowing debt to increase and stabilising it later. If you raise the level of debt to GDP and then stabilise it, debt interest payments will be higher and the level of the primary deficit left over is smaller than the one you started with. This is one sense in which letting debt rise today takes from future generations. [2]

This is why it is never a good idea to increase the stock of government debt without good reason, as Trump is doing, because it either cuts spending or raises taxes in the long run. This logic does not mean that future GDP is any lower (although there may be other theoretical reasons why higher debt can reduce output), but it means that if debt to GDP is stabilised, debt interest rates will be higher and so something else has to adjust to compensate, which means higher taxes or lower spending. [3]

There is an important caveat to this dynamic, which becomes clear if you do the maths. You only get a debt interest spiral if the nominal interest rate exceeds the growth rate of GDP (call the difference between the two the ‘very real interest rate’). If the very real interest rate is negative, extra debt for a given deficit allows a higher primary balance. Journalists sometimes look at the level of debt interest as a share of GDP (currently 2% in the UK) and say government spending could be 2% of GDP higher (or taxes lower) if we didn’t have to pay interest on debt. But if you could somehow magic your debt to zero so debt interest rates were zero, the stabilising deficit would fall from a current level around 3% to 0, requiring a 3% fall in the primary balance. This reflects that the current very real interest rate is negative.

Does this mean we do not have to worry about the debt interest rate spiral, and therefore debt? Only if we know that the very real interest rate will stay negative. This is unlikely to happen, particularly if interest rates are having to rise to combat the inflationary effects of high deficits. Because debt levels should never be adjusted down quickly, it is best to act as if the very real interest rate will become positive at some point.

This is not the only reason why raising government debt to GDP in the long run can be detrimental, but this one is simple because it depends only on some basic economics, algebra and logic. This and other reasons will never be enough to justify cutting deficits in recessions, not even close. But being anti-austerity does not mean we can forget about debt completely, as long as we are using interest rates rather than fiscal policy to control demand. (On why you might want to do that see here.)

[1] G is government spending, T taxes, r is the nominal interest rate, and B the stock of debt. Little letters mean as a ratio of nominal GDP (Y). x is the growth rate of nominal GDP, delta means change in. We ignore money for reasons given in the text. The budget identity is

G - T + rB = deficit = delta B

So dividing by GDP gives

g - t + rb = deficit/Y

In continuous time (or approximately otherwise) we can write

deficit/Y = delta b + xb

So for delta b to be zero, deficit/Y = xb

Or equivalently g - t + (r-x)b = 0

[2] More strictly in this case it takes from future generations the benefits of public spending or adds to the cost of taxes, and transfers it to bond holders.

MMT and Labour’s fiscal rule

I’m afraid this will probably only interest those familiar with MMT, but in its favour it has to me at least a surprising end. Bill Mitchell has been criticising Labour’s fiscal rule for some time, and my work that lay behind it (with Jonathan Portes) in particular. In one posts he says “Wren-Lewis just should stick to Twitter. He seems to like that. It would save us the time reading the other stuff.” In his latest post on the subject, after he met John McDonnell and his team, involves general assertions that the rule is neoliberal, but he does have two concrete criticisms. He has the following objection to a current balance target.

“But as I’ve written many times in the past, if a nation encounters a serious recession that results in a significant deficit, and then within the last years of the rolling window, it may have to introduce major cuts in recurrent outlays in order to move the recurrent balance towards zero.”

Now that is a cogent criticism of a fixed date rule, which does suffer from the danger of a recession just before its time period ends. The only problem is that Labour’s current balance target involves a rolling window. It is a target for the current balance (what Mitchell calls the recurrent balance) over the next five years. One year later it remains a target for the next five years. That is what ‘rolling’ means. So you never get caught out by an event ‘just before the target date’. With a rolling target this criticism makes no obvious sense.

Incidentally, this rolling window allows the government to pursue a countercyclical policy if it wishes to do so. The standard assumption is that mild booms and downturns are reversed by monetary policy within 5 years, so as long as the fiscal stimulus was not planned to last more than 4 years it is quite consistent with a rolling target. Whether government would want to when interest rates are doing the stabilisation is another matter.

What about a more major recession, where rates hit their ZLB. The rule’s knockout then applies, and fiscal policy becomes the primary stabilisation tool. This brings us to his second criticism.

“I noted that this was another neoliberal aspect of the approach. The reason for that conclusion is that the rule as stated requires the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to indicate to the Treasury that its monetary policy instruments are no longer effective. So in effect, the elected and accountable Chancellor can only enjoy fiscal freedom when the technocrats in the Bank of England handover the imprimatur to him. That is a basic Monetarist tenet – that monetary policy has primacy over fiscal policy. That is neoliberal central. Moreover, the MPC may not indicate monetary policy ineffectiveness, even if the target interest-rate is at zero (the so-called zero bound). As we have seen in the recent years, central banks have been willing to explore all sorts of weird and wonderful policy interventions to remain relevant in the macroeconomic policy sphere.”

Again its a cogent criticism. But this time Bill must know he is not talking about Labour’s rule, because he talked to Labour’s team. The MPC is asked to indicate when interest rates have reached their lower bound, not when they think all monetary policy instruments are ineffective.

MMTers on twitter tried to defend this line by saying the Bank might deliberately deceive. But think what that would have to involve. In a major recession the MPC would keep rates deliberately high and claim that they could cut them if they wished, but they do not wish to do so. I think the concern in that rather fantastical scenario is whether the MPC is any longer fit for purpose.

For much of the time I was arguing with MMT twitter about all this Bill Mitchell was copied in, but he did not respond to my criticisms of his post. But at one point he did send me this about a particular tweet I wrote

“Stop slandering me or you will face the legal consequences. I have nothing to do with the way others behave on Twitter.”

This is a first for me at least. Given this threat I cannot tell you what I wrote that provoked that, or give you a link to it, because I cannot afford a court case. Of course Bill Mitchell is not responsible for what his twitter followers say, but he is responsible for his distortions about what Labour’s fiscal rule says. I have criticised the way he argues his case in his defence of Lexit here.

After that threat I did then take the opportunity of asking him why he distorted his description of the ZLB knockout in the way I describe above, but he never replied. I wrote this about MMT and its followers, and these events only confirm this view.

Interest rate vs fiscal policy stabilisation

One divide between mainstream and many heterodox economists is on whether monetary or fiscal policy should be used for macroeconomic stabilisation (controlling demand to influence inflation and output). What makes a good instrument in this context? As I have argued before, a key difference between the mainstream and MMT involves different answers to this question. I think the following issues are critical.

1. How quickly do changes in the instrument (e.g. increases in interest rates) influence demand?
   
   
2. How quickly can the instrument be changed? Are there limits to how far it can be changed?
   
   
3. How reliable is the impact of the instrument on demand? In other words how uncertain is the impact of a change in the instrument on demand?
   
   
4. How certain can we be that whoever has power over the instrument will use it in the necessary way?
   
   
5. Does changing the instrument have ‘side effects’ which are undesirable?
   
   

If we apply these questions to whether to use interest rates or some element of fiscal policy, what answer do we get?

Before doing that, it is worth noting this is all about the quickest and most reliable way to influence demand. It is quite separate to how demand influences inflation (as long as we are talking about underlying inflation).

The first question is important because long lags between changing the instrument and it influencing demand mess up good policymaking. Imagine how good your central heating would be if there was a day’s delay between it getting cold and the heating coming on. It is also perhaps the most interesting question for a macroeconomist. A full discussion would take a textbook, so to avoid that I’m going to suggest that the answer is not critical to why the mainstream prefers monetary to fiscal stabilisation.   

The second question is as important for obvious reasons. If an instrument can only be changed every year, that is like having very long lags before the instrument has an effect. On this question monetary policy seems to have a clear advantage given current institutional arrangements. Some of this difference is difficult to change: it takes time for a bureaucracy to move. As I noted with the fiscal expansion implemented by China after the crisis, about half of the projects were underway within a year. Others delays are in principle easier to change: there is no reason why tax changes need only happen during Budgets in the UK, for example.

The second part of the second question is a clear negative for interest rates, because they have a lower bound. This is not the case for fiscal instruments: you can always cut taxes further for example. Because this is a critical failure for interest rate policy, effectively the discussion in this post is just about what happens when interest rates are not at the lower bound. Even so, potentially having two different instruments for different situations is a count against monetary policy.

The third question is often not asked, but it is absolutely critical. Imagine raising the temperature on a room thermostat which not only had no calibration, but which acted in different ways each day or even each hour. OMT is a clear example of a poor instrument because central banks have far less idea of how effective it is than interest rate changes, partly because of less data but also because of likely non-linearities.

Are interest rate changes more or less reliable than fiscal changes? The big advantage of government spending changes is that their direct impact on demand is known, but as we have already noted such measures are slow to implement. Tax changes are quicker to makes, but many mainstream economists would argue that their impact is no more reliable than the impact of interest rate changes. In contrast some heterodox economists (especially MMTers) would argue interest rate changes are so unreliable even the sign of the impact is unclear.

The fourth question is only relevant if the power to change interest rates is delegated to central banks. Let me assume we have a UK type situation, where the central bank has control over interest rates but it has to follow a mandate set by the government. A strong argument is that, by delegating the task of achieving that mandate to an independent institution, policy is less likely to be influenced extraneous factors (e.g. there is no way interest rates rise until after the party conference/election) and therefore policy becomes more credible. (There is a whole literature involving similar ideas.)

This advantage for monetary policy simply follows from the fact that it can be easily delegated. However even if it is not delegated, fiscal policy has the disadvantage that changes are either popular (e,g, tax cuts) or unpopular (tax rises). In contrast interest rate changes involve gains for some and losses for others. That makes politicians reluctant to take deflationary fiscal action, and too keen to take inflationary fiscal action. So even without delegation, it seems likely that interest rate changes are more likely to be used appropriately to manage demand than fiscal changes.

The fifth and final issue could involve many things. In basic New Keynesian models the real interest rate is the price that ensures demand is at the constant inflation level. Therefore nominal interest rates are the obvious instrument to use. Changing fiscal policy, on the other hand, creates distortions to the optimal public/private goods mix or to tax smoothing.

So the case against fiscal policy as the main stabilisation tool outwith the lower bound might go as follows: it is slower to change and it cannot be delegated. Even if monetary policy is not delegated politicians may allow popularity issues to get in the way of effective fiscal stabilisation. While government spending changes have a certain direct effect, they are also the most difficult to implement quickly.

A potentially strong argument against monetary policy is the lower bound problem. You could argue that having monetary policy as the designated stabilisation instrument gets government out of the habit of doing fiscal stabilisation, so that when you do hit the lower bound and fiscal stabilisation is essential it does not happen. Recent experience only confirms that concern. I personally do not think mainstream macroeconomists talk enough about this problem.

The fiscal rule that Jonathan Portes and I developed, a version of which is Labour's fiscal credibility rule, does attempt to address this very issue. Switching from monetary to fiscal at the lower bound is a key part of the rule. It is also worth stressing that this rule does not prevent temporary changes in fiscal policy to counteract a downturn outwith the lower bound. (Anyone who says otherwise does not understand the rule.) For example if interest rates are already low, a fiscal expansion that is planned to last less than five years is consistent with the rule, and might be a sensible precautionary measure. (Public investment, which is outside the rule, could also be used in this way.) So Labour’s fiscal rule allows monetary policy to do its job, but fiscal policy is always there as a back up if needed.