How the broadcast media created mediamacro

If you do not watch Carlos Maza’s short commentaries on the US media you should. Here is his latest, on why comparisons between the investigations into Nixon and Trump fall short. The reason, quite simply, is Fox News. With Nixon most Republican voters were getting their information straight from one of the established networks. As a result, Republican politicians were coming under Republican voter pressure to impeach Nixon when the extent of the cover-up became clear. Today, Republican voters get aggressive attacks on the investigations into Trump and his associates, attacks which are completely divorced from reality. And Republican politicians, reflecting the views of their base, repeat the attack lines from Fox News.

In the UK we have our equivalent of Fox News, but because our aggressively partisan media is the press there is a chance for the broadcast media to modify its impact. That it did not do so over Brexit because it failed to call out the lies of the Leave campaign is why the vote went the way it did. But Brexit was not the first time this happened. As some of the essays in a new book show, austerity was also an occasion where the broadcast media reinforced rather than countered the lies of the right wing press.

Laura Basu and Mike Berry show how virtual hysteria about the UK budget deficit was strongest in the right wing press, but as Mike Berry writes:

“Whilst BBC coverage lacked the strident editorialising seen in the press, it still operated within a framework which stressed the necessity of pre-emptive austerity to placate the financial markets.”

Historians will find this extraordinary. It is standard textbook macroeconomics that tells you not to try and counteract the deficits that arise when taxes fall and spending rises as output growth declines in a business cycle: that is why they are called automatic stabilisers. Keynes taught us and modern theory confirms you particularly do not do this when interest rates are stuck at their effective lower bound. It was natural to expect record deficits because it was a record recession and because conventional monetary policy was impotent.

So why did the BBC and other broadcasters largely ignore this point of view, and instead promoted what I call mediamacro? This is the subject of my own contribution, and here is a very brief and partial summary

1. Journalists typically had no direct contacts with academic macroeconomists, with just one or two exceptions. The economists you tend to hear in the broadcast media are City economists, who for various reasons over-exaggerated the deficit problem.
   
   
2. The IFS do appear regularly in the broadcast media. But the IFS do not do macroeconomics, and there is no equivalent of the IFS for macroeconomics. Initially the IMF supported fiscal stimulus, but they became spooked by the Eurozone crisis.
   
   
3. The main way that academic expertise about the macroeconomy was filtered through to journalists was via the Bank of England. It should have been they who warned of the danger of austerity at the interest rate lower bound. However, in a then very hierarchical set-up, its governor Mervyn King was a strong supporter of austerity.
   
   
4. The message of probably a majority of academic economists, which was to focus on the recovery and stop worrying about the deficit in the short term, ran counter to journalist’s intuition, particularly after a financial crisis where financial panic had just brought down the economy.
   
   

There is a more conventional radical political economy point of view, which is set out in another essay by Aeron Davis. That is that the media, including the broadcast media, has a default position that supports an essentially neoliberal, financialised order. That position was disrupted by the financial crisis, but once that crisis had stabilised the media took the opportunity to return to where it was comfortable.

I do not think these two accounts are incompatible, as long as you do not see this political economy view as some kind of neoliberal conspiracy. Davis certainly does not see it that way. He describes, for example, why journalists often depend on City expertise: not because someone tells them that is what they have to do, but because they need readily available expertise that they themselves often lack. Try asking most academic economists to explain the latest retail sales data with virtually no notice. The fact that the expertise they receive is often presented as fact when the reason for market moves are generally unknowable is similar to the media’s attitude to macro forecasts.

We can make the same point about the role of central banks. There was no inevitability that they supported austerity, as the US experience under Ben Bernanke showed. Bernanke’s view made little difference in a highly polarised Congress, but I have often wondered whether a Bank of England warning of the dangers of austerity might have made a difference to the media’s coverage of austerity in the UK.

I was reminded of all this by the recent TUC march. After austerity we had the 2015 election, which I argued mediamacro won for the Conservatives. They did so by tending to affirm rather than critique the idea that the economy was ‘strong’, despite the fact that the data said quite clearly that it was in fact very weak. Once again we had a huge gulf between what workers and academic economists were saying and the message journalists were getting from City economists, and how journalists generally went with the latter. The BBC really needs to hold an inquiry into how they handle economics, similar to their inquiry into statistics, but I doubt it will happen under this government.

Economists versus bankers

Nearly a year and a half ago I wrote a post about encouraging dialogue between economists and other social scientists. I concluded with the following three paragraphs:

“Let me take a real world economic problem: the response to the financial crisis. Some have suggested that banks have become too large and need to be broken up, or that the activities of high street banking need to be separated from the activities of the casino. Your economic analysis tells you that networks of many small entities can be as subject to crises as networks involving a few large banks. You are also able to devise a system of Chinese walls that mean that the activities of the casino can be separated from those of the high street even within the same company, and your political masters seem to prefer this approach. You recognise that different assets differ in their liquidity, and so you devise complex weighting algorithms for computing capital ratios. Your suggestions form the basis of negotiations between officials and bankers, and a set of rules and regulations are agreed.

Over the next few years you watch in dismay as your complex system begins to unravel. The CEOs of the large banks seem to constantly have the ear of politicians, who in turn gradually compromise your elaborate controls to render them less and less effective. Those in charge of administering the rules find it much more lucrative to work for the banks, and so regulators gradually lose expertise and resolve.

And you realise that right from the start you made the wrong choice. You decided to focus on what you knew, which was how to design systems that worked well as long as those systems remained unchanged, but which were not robust to intervention by self-interested parties. In short, they were too open to rent-seeking. You realise that actually the best thing to have done was to break up the banks so that their political power was forever diminished. And you recall a conversation with your social science colleague when this all started, who might have been trying to tell you this if only you had understood the words he was using.”

I was afterwards asked whether I had one particular UK economist, John Vickers, in mind when I wrote this. He chaired, at the government’s request, a commission on banking reform. He has become increasingly vocal about how his original commission’s proposals (pdf) are being watered down and how the Bank of England appears to be putting public money at risk once again. (For his detailed assessment, see this paper. And here is what another commission member, Martin Wolf, thinks about the financial sector. Adam Barber details how the attitude of the UK government has changed. In the US this very issue became an important point of difference between Clinton and Sanders.)

The honest answer is that I did not have him in mind. It was a fictional account designed to make a point, and so I took elements from different debates which together apply to no one country or individual. The point is that in finance good reforms are those that can best resist political or economic manipulation by banks, and perhaps economists in general have been slower to see that than some of their colleagues in other social sciences..

It would probably be fair to say that before the financial crisis economists got on pretty well with the financial sector. There was a common interest in monetary policy (although the motivation for that interest might have been different) and the sector was a useful source of funds for conferences and (for a few) consultancy. Most economists did not look too hard at what the financial sector was actually doing, although those that did often raised serious questions. Behind this nice piece by Ben Chu is an army of academic research which suggests that fees paid to manage funds are a waste of money.

The situation changed after the financial crisis, for obvious reasons. Since then economists have increasingly questioned whether the whole business model behind banking is sound. In particular they have questioned why banks should be so different from other companies in terms of the amount of equity capital they hold in relation to their assets. These economists include the previous governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King. They have also questioned whether one of the side effects of current regulation is to maintain the monopoly power of big banks.

If all that was not bad enough, we have the influence that the financial sector has on monetary policy. Mainstream macro has put a lot of emphasis on the importance of day to day monetary policy being independent of politicians, and far too little on it being independent of the influence of finance and bankers. Paul Krugman has talked about the links between interest rates and bank profits and how that might ‘guide’ the views of bankers. If you want to see a clear case of that, read this FT op-ed by David Folkerts-Landau, chief economist at Deutsche Bank.

The article could not be more wrong. The reason the Eurozone has performed so badly compared to the US, Japan and even the UK is not because of lack of structural reform, but because of the relative reluctance of the ECB to stimulate the economy. Rates were raised in 2011, and Quantitative Easing delayed until 2015. The article is full of hopeless lapses in logic. If there is any sense here at all, it is that high unemployment is required as a political incentive to undertake structural reform. So the ECB “has become the number one threat to the eurozone” because it has allowed politicians to put that reform off.

Here I can do no better than quote Adair Turner. “Vague references to “structural reform” should ideally be banned, with everyone forced to specify which particular reforms they are talking about and the timetable for any benefits that are achieved. If the core problem is inadequate global demand, only monetary or fiscal policy can solve it.” In the Eurozone the core problem is lack of aggregate demand, as below target inflation shows.

Why this hostility from German bankers to low or negative rates? What the author does not tell you is that the profits of German banks, and the viability of other parts of the German financial system, are particularly (IMF pdf, box 1.3) vulnerable to low rates. (For those that can access it, Wolfgang Münchau in the FT provides an excellent summary.) And also that the profitability of Deutsche Bank is not great right now, as Frances Coppola notes. In the UK or US if this kind of nonsense from bankers appears in the press it gets a lot of kick back from economists - in Germany perhaps less so.

So who cares if economists have crossed swords with bankers? It matters because finance gets away with so much partly through a process of mystification. Mystification is how banks can perpetrate widespread fraud on consumers and businesses. When bankers say that being forced to ‘put aside’ more capital keeps money out of the economy it sounds plausible to many, even though it is completely false. (Admati and Hellwig (pdf) list 30 other similar false claims.) There is also a belief that because bankers are involved in financial markets, they must know something about how the macroeconomy works, a belief which the FT op-ed shows is clearly false. In all these cases, economists can provide demystification.

If we are ever to cut finance down to size (metaphorically, and perhaps also literally), economists are going to be vital in the battle to do so.

Central bankers and their irrational fear

Mervyn King said

“Central banks are often accused of being obsessed with inflation. This is untrue. If they are obsessed with anything, it is with fiscal policy.”

As an academic turned central banker, King knew of what he spoke. The fear is sometimes called fiscal dominance: that they will be forced to monetise government debt in such a way that means inflation rises out of control.

I believe this fear is a key factor behind central banks’ reluctance to think seriously about helicopter money. Creating money is no longer a taboo: with Quantitative Easing huge amounts of money have been created. But this money has bought financial assets, which can subsequently be sold to mop up the money that has been created. Under helicopter money the central bank creates money to give it away. If that money needs to be mopped up after a recession is over in order to control inflation, the central bank might run out of assets to do so. A good name for this is ‘policy insolvency’. [1]

There is a simple way to deal with this problem. [2] The government commits to always providing the central bank with the assets they need to control inflation. If, after some doses of helicopter money, the central bank needs and gets refinanced in this way, then helicopter money becomes like a form of bond financed fiscal stimulus, but where the bond finance is delayed. In my view that delay may be crucial in overcoming the deficit fetishism that has proved so politically successful over the last five years, as well as giving central banks a much more effective unconventional monetary instrument than QE. [3] But central banks do not want to go there, partly because they worry about the possibility of a government that would renege on that commitment.

The fear is irrational for two reasons. First, central banks already face the possibility that they may make sufficient losses on QE that they may require refinancing by the government. The Bank of England has requested and been given a commitment to cover those losses. There is no conceptual difference between this and underwriting a helicopter drop except probabilities.

The second reason is more basic. In today’s world, where in the major economies it is now well understood that interest rates need to rise in a boom to control inflation, it is hard to imagine a government that would make its central bank impotent by refusing to provide it with assets. If such a government ever existed, it would have long before ended central bank independence because it wanted to stop it increasing interest rates with the assets it already had. Under the government of central bank nightmares, the central bank would lose its independence before it could complain that the government was reneging on an earlier commitment to underwrite helicopter money.

The fear of fiscal dominance is itself not irrational, although it seems increasingly unlikely it would happen in a modern democracy. What is irrational is thinking that allowing helicopter money in a recession would make fiscal dominance more likely to happen. [4]

I have also argued that this irrational fear has already been costly. I have described how the widespread adoption of austerity at the beginning of the recovery represents the failure to politicians to follow basic macro. Here central banks become a policy intermediary between academia and politicians: they have the knowledge of how costly austerity can be when rates are zero. But what politicians heard from senior central bankers was not these costs, but encouragement to pursue austerity. An irrational fear of budget deficits may be one explanation for central banks being economical with the truth.

Central banks overcame one big psychological barrier when they undertook Quantitative Easing. That was the first, and perhaps the more important, stage in ending their primitive fear of fiscal dominance. They now need to complete the process, so we can start having rational discussions about alternatives to QE.

[1] A central bank cannot actually become insolvent, as this post explains.

[2] No one to my knowledge has ever proposed giving the central bank the legal power to collect a poll tax.

[3] A key feature of deficit fetishism is a concern about deficits in the short term. Politicians seem happy to take measures that cut deficits in the short term even if debt becomes higher in the longer term. Indeed the analysis presented by DeLong and Summers argues that hysteresis forces would not have to be that large before austerity would raise long run debt to GDP levels. We also know that deficit fetishism is specific to increases in debt caused by recessions: over the longer run if anything deficit bias implies rising rather than falling levels of government debt. So any form of fiscal stimulus that avoided an increase in debt in the short run but not in the long run would avoid deficit fetishism. That is what a money financed fiscal stimulus aka helicopter money aka People’s QE could do.

[4] Why am I confident that a government could not be so obsessed with its debt that it might renege on an underwriting pledge? It is because deficit fetishism is only politically attractive in a recession when individuals are themselves cutting back on their borrowing, and therefore feel the government should do the same. This will not apply when the recovery has taken place and inflation is in danger of exceeding its target.

Central bank advice on austerity

As I wrote recently, the economic debate on the impact on austerity is over bar the details. Fiscal contraction when interest rates are at their zero lower bound is likely to have a significant negative impact on output. Of course the popular debate goes on, because of absurd claims that recovering from austerity somehow validates it. Next time you get a cold, celebrate, because you will feel good when it is over! Which means more articles like this will have to be written.

An interesting question for an economist then becomes why austerity happened. There are some groups who have a clear self interest in promoting austerity: those who would like a smaller state, for example. While arguments for ‘less government’ are commonplace among the more affluent in the US, in Europe there is much less natural antagonism to government. As a result, as Jeremy Warner said, you can only really make serious inroads into the size of the state during an economic crisis. Large banks also have a direct interest in austerity, because they need low debt to make future bank bailouts credible, enabling them to carry on paying large bonuses from the implicit state subsidy that this creates. So, from a cynical point of view, for this and other reasons those close to finance will always talk up the danger of a debt funding crisis just around the corner.

However there is a large middle ground who genuinely believes austerity was required to prevent the chance of a funding crisis, particularly after Greece. Yet Quantitative Easing (QE) fundamentally changes this. If the central bank makes it known that QE drastically reduces the chance of a debt funding panic, and anyway they have the means to offset its impact if it occurred, any contrary advice from the financial sector might be defused. The middle ground might be persuaded that fiscal stimulus is possible after all.

Now this was never going to happen at the ECB. It takes every opportunity to promote austerity. It took two years of continuing crisis to get it to introduce OMT. I do not follow the US closely enough to know what, if anything, the Fed said about the impact of QE on the prospect of a bond market panic, but I do know Bernanke was not afraid to warn of the dangers of excessive austerity in his final days in charge of the Fed. Which brings us to the UK, and the coalition agreement of 2010. The Conservatives may well have advocated their austerity programme whatever the Bank of England had said: it was a golden opportunity to reduce the size of the state. However their coalition partners, the LibDems, had campaigned on a more gradual deficit reduction plan similar to Labour. Mervyn King’s advice during this period is often credited with helping persuade the LibDems to accept the Conservatives’ proposals. (See, for example, Neil Irwin, or for more detail Andrew Lydon).

So why did King advocate austerity, rather than telling politicians that with QE in place, a funding crisis was both much less likely and less damaging. We may get a clue from something recently published by the Bank, as part of its stress test scenario for UK banks (HT Britmouse). The application is to 2014 rather than 2010, but it may still indicate what the Bank’s thinking might have been four years earlier. It talks about “concerns over the sustainability of debt positions” leading to a “sharp depreciation in sterling and a build-up of inflationary pressures in the UK.” As a result, monetary policy is tightened and long term interest rates rise - presumably because QE stops.

In one of my first blog posts two and a half years ago I wrote that “austerity is not even a sensible precautionary policy when we have QE”. Does this scenario give me cause to doubt that verdict? It does not, for two reasons. First, what makes a funding crisis so scary when you cannot print your own currency is that it is a bit like being blown off a cliff. Once interest rates start rising because of fears of default, this in itself makes default more likely. We have a clear nonlinearity, such that it may become too late to retrieve the situation once the process begins, as periphery Eurozone countries found out. Depreciation in the exchange rate when rates are floating is not like that. The further the exchange rate falls, the more attractive the currency becomes, because trade in goods ties down the medium term level of the currency.

The second reason why a loss of confidence in a currency is not like a debt financing crisis is that the former cannot force default, whereas the latter can. That makes all the difference. Without QE the markets have to worry about what others in the market think. The government may not intend to default, but if they cannot roll over their debt, they do not get that choice. With QE the government cannot run out of money, so the markets no longer need to worry about a self-fulfilling market imposed default. All that matters is what the government will do, and there was never any serious chance that the UK would default on its debt whoever won the election.

However it is possible to see why the Bank might still have worried in 2010. Output had only just stabilised after the worst recession since WWII. They wanted to keep interest rates as low as possible to help a recovery. Yet inflation was more than 1% above target, partly as a result of the depreciation of 2008. The MPC believed their remit was to target 2% inflation two years ahead. If sterling had fallen further, they would have found it very difficult not to raise rates. Yet Mervyn King would not have wanted to go down in history as the Governor who raised rates during the depths of a recession.

I think this says a lot about whether we had the appropriate monetary policy framework. (For further discussion of the economics see this post and links therein.) But my main point is this. It is all speculation, because as far as I am aware the Bank said very little officially. The Governor let his views be known in private, and publicly endorsed the government’s austerity plan after the election (much to the annoyance of some MPC members), but there was no open debate about the issues. The Bank could have initiated this debate, but chose not to.

So when the next recession hits, and interest rates go to zero and budget deficits increase, will anything be different? The central bank is in a position to make it clear what the risks of a market panic really are when QE is in place - indeed you could say that it has a responsibility to do that. Or instead it can publically argue that it still has all the tools it needs to manage the economy, and advocate austerity in private. Mervyn King once said (pdf) “Central banks are often accused of being obsessed with inflation. This is untrue. If they are obsessed with anything, it is with fiscal policy.” Is this always going to be the case? 

Mervyn King

Mervyn King is about to retire as Governor of the Bank of England, and there have already been assessments (e.g. here). I will not attempt to do the same, but instead just add an anecdote, an observation and a small comment.

First the anecdote. Mervyn first taught in Cambridge, which in the early 1970s was a department with a large contingent of Marxist or Neo-Ricardian (i.e. anti-mainstream) staff. Mervyn gave tutorials in a third year option in economic theory, and one group he had consisted of just two students: one who would go on to achieve great things in academia and public service, and the other of more modest talents. The latter, having previously done little economics (his first year was spent reading maths), had become perhaps too impressed by the radicals, who had explained how mainstream economics was fundamentally flawed, ideologically tainted and doomed. Mervyn did not try to immediately disabuse him of these views, but instead said something like ‘OK, but have a read of these papers, such as this by Arrow on health, and see if you still think neoclassical economics has nothing to offer.’ It was a good strategy, and I’m grateful for it.

The anecdote has a point, which is that I think it is impossible to understand Mervyn King without also understanding how many academics work. We like clear principles and sound thinking derived from them. Arguments based on perceived knowledge from practical experience may be brushed aside if they cannot be reconciled with those principles, particularly if they may also just reflect limited vision or vested interests. This approach can be called arrogance. Take this paragraph from Neil Irwin’s assessment:

“King encouraged the bank to engage the city less on its own terms — understanding how things were working or not working, and where the bodies were buried — and more as what an academic economist might want the banking sector to be. I’m told that when there was a question of studying how gilts were to be issued, for example, King instructed his staff to consult some of the leading academic students of auction theory, not the people who actually traded UK government bonds all day.”

Now I know nothing about this particular issue, but I have to note here that these were some of the same academic students of auction theory who helped the UK government raise £22.5 billion from the sale of the 3G spectrum - that is a few hundred pounds for each person in the country. To not consult them and follow conventional practice could have been very expensive.

One set of circumstances where this academic approach will founder is when the principles on which your view is based are wrong, and events decide to teach you a lesson. The financial crisis is the obvious example: I remember being told at the Bank at the very onset of the crisis that it might take the markets a few weeks to adjust relative prices to better reflect risk. But good academics also adapt their view when the facts change (as Keynes famously noted), and King’s subsequent criticisms of too large to fail banks have been very strong and public.

Which brings me to UK austerity in 2010. Before he became Governor, King made the following remark which I have always remembered: “Central banks are often accused of being obsessed with inflation. This is untrue. If they are obsessed with anything, it is with fiscal policy.” In public King encouraged the new coalition government in their austerity programme (see here, for example: HT PK). This in turn may have reflected an over optimistic view about how effective unconventional monetary policy could be in dealing with the consequences. For some that is enough to damn him, despite the clear success of the Bank in targeting inflation in the decade before the crisis. Of course we do not know exactly what was said in private advice, and in these circumstances believing politicians’ accounts can be very misleading. (For example, read Andrew Adonis on the negotiations that led to the current UK coalition government.) More important, from my own point of view, is that we do not know whether King’s view changed as evidence against austerity mounted. Many good economists made the wrong call in 2010, and have since had the courage to follow Keynes’s advice. What we do know is that in recent months King has voted for more monetary stimulus, and has been outvoted by his MPC colleagues. 

But I said I was not going to attempt an assessment. What I have liked is having an academic - a very good academic - running our central bank. In that, of course, I’m biased.

One more time – good policy takes account of risks, and what happens if they materialise

From the Guardian's report of Mervyn King’s press conference today, where the Bank of England lowers forecast UK growth this year to zero.

Paul Mason of Newsnight suggests that the Bank of England should stop trying to use monetary policy to offset the impact of chancellor George Osborne's fiscal tightening, and call for a Plan B instead.

King rejects the idea, saying that Osborne's plan looked "pretty sensible" back in 2010. Overseas factors have undermined it, he argues.

Now Mervyn King had little choice but to say this, but he is wrong (and probably knows he is wrong) for a simple reason. Even if the post-2010 Budget forecast of 2.8% growth in 2012 had been pretty sensible, there were risks either side. There always are, although the nature of the recession probably made these risks greater than normal. It is what you can do if those risks materialise that matters.

Now if growth had appeared to be stronger than 2.8%, and inflation becomes excessive, the solution is obvious, well tested and effective – the Bank of England raises interest rates. But if growth looked like falling well short of 2.8%, the solution – more Quantitative Easing - is untested and very unclear in its effectiveness. (And before anyone comments, the government knows it has no intention of telling the Bank to abandon inflation targets.) With this basic asymmetry, you do not cross your fingers and hope your forecasts are correct. Instead you bias policy towards trying as far as possible to avoid the bad outcome. You go for 3.5% or 4% growth, knowing that if this produced undesirable inflation you could do something about it. That in turn meant not undertaking the Plan A of severe austerity.

So all the talk about how much austerity, or the Eurozone, or anything else, caused the current UK recession is beside the point when it comes to assessing the wisdom of 2010 austerity. Criticising the Bank of England for underestimating inflation in the past is even more pointless – do those making the criticism really think interest rates should have been higher two or three years ago? Even if the Euro crisis has been unforeseeable bad luck for the government (although I think excessive austerity is having its predictable effect there to), the government should not have put us in a position where we seem powerless to do anything about it.

If you are sailing a ship near land, you keep well clear of the coast, even if it means the journey may take longer.  So the fact that the economy has run aground does not mean the government was just unlucky. You do not embark on austerity when interest rates are near zero. Keynes taught us that, it is in all the textbooks, and a government bears responsibility when it ignores this wisdom. To the extent that the government was encouraged to pursue this course by the Governor of the Bank of England, that responsibility is shared.