The Bank, helicopter money and fiscal conservatism

I want to connect two apparently quite different blogs. The first is by Fergus Cumming from the Bank of England on helicopter money, and the second is by Labour MP Jon Cruddas on why Labour lost the election.

Eric Lonergan gives a detailed response to Fergus Cumming’s post. I will only make two basic points. Here is one critical sentence right at the beginning (my italics):

“This post discusses why such a policy is different to quantitative easing, why it is unlikely to have much impact relative to conventional fiscal measures and the pitfalls associated with pursuing it.”

Read it carefully – it says helicopter money will be shown to be different from QE, but will then be compared not to QE, but conventional fiscal measures. If this seems strange to you (the Bank implements QE and in most serious proposals would implement helicopter money, while governments do fiscal policy) you are correct, as I will argue.

Later, in talking about what might happen if (and it is an if) - after implementing helicopter money - the bank ran out of assets to sell, he writes:

“In some senses the central bank is now ‘insolvent’. [This is later described as 'policy insolvency'] Ordinarily, a government could recapitalise the central bank by gifting it government securities. But this requires issuing new debt, all else equal, which reduces the initial stimulus to a vanilla, bond-financed fiscal transfer.”

So helicopter money that is financed later by recapitalising the central bank is just like a normal fiscal stimulus, and is therefore presumably unproblematic from the central bank’s point of view. Perhaps for that reason it is not discussed further in the post, but that makes subsequent statements about the hazards of helicopter money almost beside the point. After all, the Bank has already addressed the issue of this ‘policy insolvency’ as a result of potential losses from QE, and its response was to get the government to commit to recapitalise. So the same solution for helicopter money is the obvious way to go. In other words, what’s the problem? It only makes sense to ignore this possibility because helicopter money is being compared to fiscal policy rather than QE, something that as we shall see makes little sense.

The key conclusion to the blog is

“For helicopter money to work, households and firms have to believe that all future central bankers and governments want to abandon inflation targeting.”

This does not follow from what has gone before. As we have already seen, helicopter money that is accompanied by subsequent recapitalisation if necessary avoids any inflation problems. In addition, this statement implicitly assumes that the central bank is always able to hit its inflation target. That is a bit like assuming your conclusion. If a combination of inflation and the output gap are below the level the central bank wants to achieve, then the right amount of helicopter money will not lead to ‘policy insolvency’, but instead the central bank being able to hit its targets.

Jon Cruddas presents opinion poll evidence about why Labour lost the 2015 election. The headline is “Labour lost because voters believed it was anti-austerity”. His evidence seems to be very simple. When voters are asked whether the agree or not with

“We must live within our means so cutting the deficit is the top priority”

most agree. The only positive thing you can say about a question like that it was well chosen to get the required result. It is a bit like asking whether people agree with the statement “the welfare system is out of control so the government needs to take action to reduce benefits”. How the response to this question justifies a headline that people believed Labour was anti-austerity is not clear. However I agree with Cruddas’ final conclusion, which is that

“We can seek to change the views of the public, but it’s best not to ignore them.”

Labour’s policy some time before the 2015 election seemed to be about trying to ignore the issue.

What is the connection between the two blogs? The implication that Cruddas draws is that voters are fiscally conservative. Indeed if you take the poll response at face value, voters would prefer balanced budgets even during recessions. If politicians follow/exploit that conservatism, it means that appropriate countercyclical fiscal policy will not occur during a severe recession, and an unhelpful procyclical policy is more likely. Given that, dismissing one version of helicopter money because it is just like these appropriate fiscal measures is bizarre.

Helicopter money has become popular because of the absence of the appropriate fiscal policy response and the inadequacies of QE. As long as most mainstream politicians continue to argue against sensible fiscal policy in a liquidity trap recession, critics of helicopter money should stop assuming that this sensible fiscal policy will happen. It is strangely hypocritical for those in a central bank which is implementing QE in part because of inappropriate fiscal actions to compare helicopter money not to QE but the very fiscal measures that are not happening, and then to ignore the case where helicopter money successfully substitutes for those measures. It is saying I'm doing the second best policy B because policy A is not happening, but I'm not going to do policy C because it can be just like policy A! I'm beginning to think the critics of helicopter money have no clothes.

A way forward for the centre left on deficits

When it comes to fiscal policy the politics of the right at the moment [1] could be reasonably described as deficit fetishism. The policy of the centre left in Europe could also with some justification be described as growing appeasement towards deficit fetishism. Given its success for the right in Europe, it seems unlikely that this side of the political spectrum will change its policy any time soon. [2] Things appear a little more malleable on the centre left. In the UK, in particular, we will shortly have new leaders of both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. In addition, the Scottish Nationalists have adopted the rhetoric of anti-austerity, even though their fiscal numbers were not far from the other opposition parties during the elections.

Attempts to get the centre left to avoid deficit fetishism need to fight on two separate fronts. First, politicians and/or their advisers need to be taught some macroeconomics. Academics too often assume that politicians either know more than they actually do, or have behind them a network of researchers some of whom do know some macroeconomics, or who have access to macro expertise. (I used to believe that.) The reality seems to be very different: through lack of resources or lack of interest, the knowledge of left of centre politicians and their advisers often does not extend beyond mediamacro.

The second front involves the politics of persuasion: how can politicians successfully persuade voters that deficit fetishism, far from representing responsible government, in fact represents a simplistic approach that can do (and has done) serious harm? I think for academics this is a far more difficult task for two reasons. First our skills are not those of an advertising agency, and we are trained to follow the scientific method rather than act as a lawyer arguing their case (although, if you believe Paul Romer, the scientific method is not universally adopted among macroeconomists). Second, the experience of the last five years on the centre left is that deficit fetishism helps win elections.

It my last post I tried to argue why the success of deficit fetishism was peculiar to a particular time: the period after the recession when households were also cutting back on their borrowing, and where the Eurozone crisis appeared to validate the case for austerity. In other times households try to borrow to invest in a house, and firms try to borrow to invest in good projects. As a result, once the debt to GDP ratio has begun to fall, and yet interest rates remain low, the power of alternative narratives like ‘it makes sense to borrow to invest in the future when borrowing is cheap’ will increase.

Yet responding to deficit fetishism by implying the deficit does not matter, or that we can print money instead, or even that we can grow our way out of the problem, is unlikely to convince many. [3] It just seems too easy, and contradicts people’s personal experience. The trick is to appear responsible on the deficit, but at the same time suggesting that responsibility is not equivalent to fetishism, and other things matter too. I think this provides a powerful motivation at this time for a policy that is designed to obtain balance on the current balance (taxes less non-investment spending) rather than eliminating the total deficit. This is far from ideal from a macroeconomic point of view, as I discuss here, but as a political strategy in the current context it has considerable appeal. In the UK it allows you to attack the ‘excessive and obsessive austerity’ of Osborne, who is ‘failing to invest in the future’, while following a policy that it is difficult to label irresponsible. [4]

Of course this policy was close to that adopted by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP at the last election, so many will just say it has already failed. I think this is nonsense for three reasons. First, the policy I’m advocating is a combination of targeting a zero current balance, and at the same time arguing aggressively against excessive austerity. Labour deliberately avoided being dubbed anti-austerity during the election. (The Liberal Democrats were handicapped by arguing for austerity for the previous 5 years as part of the coalition.) The only party to adopt an anti-austerity line was the SNP, and it did them no harm at all. Second, the reason Labour wanted to avoid pushing the policy at the election was that they felt they had tried this a few years before and failed, but as I argued in the previous post deficit fetishism only shrives in a particular context, and that context is passing. Third, what sank Labour on fiscal policy was that people swallowed the Conservative line that it was Labour’s profligacy that caused the need for austerity, essentially because this line went unchallenged for five years.

This last point is worth expanding on. Too many in the Labour party think that because many people now believe this idea, the best thing to do is pretend it is true and apologise for past minor misdemeanours (knowing full well it will be interpreted by everyone else as validating the Conservative line). This is almost guaranteed to lose them the next election. It will just confirm that the last Labour government was fiscally profligate, and the Conservatives will quote Labour’s apology for all it is worth. To believe that this will not matter by 2020 is foolish - it is the same mistake that was made in the run up to 2015. It is no accident that political commentators on the right are arguing that this is what Labour has to do. So the first task for Labour after the leadership election is to start to contest this view. They should follow the advice that Alastair Campbell is said to have given after 2010, and set-up an ‘expert commission’ to examine the validity of the Conservatives claim, and then follow through on the inevitable findings. [5]

I can understand why it may seem easier right now to avoid all this, adopt deficit fetishism and ‘move on’. But to do this accepts the framing of economic competency as being equivalent to deficit fetishism, and therefore forfeits a key political battleground to the right. In addition, once you accept severe deficit reduction targets, it becomes much more difficult to argue against the measures designed to achieve them, as on every occasion you have to specify where else the money would come from. (In the UK, that partly accounts for the disaster we saw on the welfare bill. In Europe it leads to the travesty of what was recently done to Greece, where Greece was only allowed to stay in the Eurozone at the cost of adopting harmful additional austerity.) As we have seen in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, there is a large amount of popular support for an anti-austerity line, and if the centre left vacates that ground the vacuum will be filled by others. Arguing against deficit fetishism (or in more populist terms ‘obsessive austerity’) while pursuing fiscal responsibility through a balanced current budget can become a winning strategy for the centre-left in Europe over the next few years.

[1] It is easy to forget that there is nothing that makes this the inevitable policy of the right. George W. Bush took the reduction in the US deficit under Clinton as a cue to cut taxes and raise the deficit.

[2] This sentence is just for those who like to ask why I tend to write more posts giving advice to the centre-left rather than to the right on this issue.

[3] I have argued for ‘QE for the people’, but always as a more effective tool for the Bank of England to stabilise the economy and not as a more general way for governments to finance investment. (Even if this becomes ‘democratic’ along the lines suggested here, the initiative must always come from the Bank.) As for growing your way out of debt, this is much closer to the policies that I and many others have argued for, but it may unfortunately be the case that at the low point of a recession this line is not strong enough to counter deficit fetishism.

[4] It was also the main fiscal mandate of the last coalition government, of course. This could be supplemented by targets for the ratio of government investment as a share of GDP. As long as these are not excessive, an additional debt or deficit target seems unnecessary.

[5] The question should not be ‘did Labour spend too much before the recession’, because that is not the line that did the damage. The question should be more like ‘did the Labour government’s pre-2008 fiscal policy or the global financial crisis cause the 2009 recession and the subsequent rise in the UK deficit?’  

Is deficit fetishism innate or contextual?

In a couple of interesting posts, Jonathan Hopkin and Ben Rosamond, political scientists from the LSE and Copenhagen respectively, talk about ‘political bullshit’. They use ‘bullshit’ as a technical term due to Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt. Unlike lying, bullshit tells false stories that pay no heed to the truth. Their appeal is more to common sense, or what Tyler Cowen calls common sense morality. At a primitive level it is the stuff of political sound bites, but at a slightly more detailed level it is the language of what Krugman ironically calls ‘Very Serious People’.

The implication which can then be drawn is that because bullshit does not reside in the “court of truth”, trying to combat it with facts, knowledge or expertise may have limited effectiveness. The conditions under which this might be true, and the extent to which information technology impacts on this, are fascinating issues which the authors briefly discuss. But what makes their discussion even more interesting for me is that they use what they call ‘deficit fetishism’, and in particular the stories that the UK government told before the last election, as their subject matter.

In the case of fiscal policy, deficit fetishism as bullshit involves appeals to ‘common sense’ by invoking simple analogies with households, often coupled with an element of morality - it is responsible to pay down debts. The point in calling it bullshit (in this technical sense) is that attempts to counter it by appeals to facts or knowledge (e.g. the government is not like a household, as every economist knows) may have limited effectiveness. Instead it might be better to fight bullshit with bullshit, by talking about the need to borrow to invest, or even that it is best to ‘grow your way out of debt’. (If you think the latter is nonsense, you are still in the wrong court: the court of truth rather than bullshit. As long as the phrase contains what I have sometimes called a ‘half-truth’, it has the potential to be effective bullshit.)

If for the sake of argument we accept all this, I want to ask whether deficit fetishism will always be powerful bullshit, or whether its force is a symptom of a particular time, and what is more a time that may by now have passed. This, rather than discussions of the technical merits of particular fiscal policies, may be the crucial political discussion that needs to take place right now for all those in Europe that want to put an end to needless austerity. (In the US deficit fetishism, and also austerity itself, seems to be taking a breather or having a prolonged rest: which may depend on the forthcoming elections.) Just to be clear, I’m not discussing bullshit more generally, but just the appeal of the particular example of deficit fetishism.

At first sight deficit fetishism seems to be innate, because it appeals to the basic intuition of the household and the morality of good housekeeping. However households also borrow to invest (such as in a house), and most people understand that this is what firms also do. The reason why the bullshit involving paying back borrowing may have been particularly powerful over the last five years is that this is exactly what many households have also been doing.

Although the Great Recession may have started with a financial crisis, its persistence despite low real interest rates is often put down to what many economists call a balance sheet recession: individuals and firms cutting back on borrowing (or saving more) over a number of years. That process has been particularly evident in the US and UK, with sustained increases in the aggregate savings ratio. However that process now appears to have come to an end. As individuals start to borrowing again (or at least stop running down their debt), perhaps they will become more tolerant of governments doing the same.

To this we could add an obvious external factor. In 2010 and the following two years, deficit fetishism seemed to be validated by a superficial view of external events. The difficulties that some countries were getting into because their governments had ‘borrowed too much’ was top of the news night after night. In that context, is it any wonder that most people believed the bullshit?

One final indication that the power of deficit fetishism is contextual is what economists call deficit bias. Before the Great Recession, there was a tendency in many countries for government debt as a share of GDP to rise over time for no justifiable reason. Fiscal rules and then fiscal councils were created largely to prevent this. It is difficult to square this phenomenon with the idea that deficit fetishism is always powerful.

Many political parties on the centre left in Europe (such as the UK) currently seemed resigned to deficit fetishism remaining a powerful force that can sway elections. So, if you cannot beat them, join them (and never mind what is good macroeconomics). This assumption at the very least seems debatable.

Corbyn's popularity and relativistic politics

This is just a short gripe about some of the commentary around the Labour leadership contest. So many who write about this express their puzzlement about how someone from the left of the party can suddenly appear to be so popular. This can only mean, they suggest, that the Labour party membership must have moved to the left. (For example this, from the FTs Jim Pickard.)

This mistake reflects something that Paul Krugman has remarked upon in the US: the tendency of commentators to define the centre as simply today’s mid-point between the two main parties. So as Labour moves towards the Conservatives, according to this way of looking at it the centre also moves to the right.

Now if that is how you want to define the centre, so be it. Such is relativistic view is very post-modern, I guess. But when that idea is then used to say that Labour party members must have moved to the left, its limitations become self-evident. In reality all that might be going on is that the views of Labour party members have not moved at all, but they have become left behind as Labour MPs and other prospective leaders have moved to the right. I think we have clear evidence that this is more likely to be what is happening. [1]

The most obvious example is the welfare bill, and Labour’s shameful decision to abstain on this. But another that is close to my heart is austerity. Talk to some, and being anti-austerity has become synonymous with being well to the left. Of course in reality it is just textbook macroeconomics, but if we stick to measuring everything on a left right axis, then remember that it was only as far back as 2009 that the need for fiscal stimulus rather than deficit reduction was the position advocated by a centre/left Labour party in the UK, and the Democrats in the US. It cannot be surprising, therefore, that among a relatively well informed electorate that is the Labour party membership an anti-austerity position is still seen as a sensible policy. With an extreme relativistic view you could say that by sticking to this position these people have moved to the left, but please don’t appear surprised that this has happened.

[1] It is equally fallacious to think that those who vote for Corbyn agree with every one of his policies. Some of his popularity may be a form of protest not just at the policies of his competitors, but also their style: see the clip in the middle of this typically amusing article by Mark Steel.

The wheels on the bus

I have an image in my mind. Its a bus running downhill, and its brakes have failed. There are four men in the front cab. The two men in the middle are both trying to control the steering wheel to keep the bus on the road. The man to their right has control of the accelerator, and is pushing on the gas hoping this will crash the bus to the right. The fourth man to their left controls nothing, but as his pleas to stop pressing the accelerator fall on deaf ears, he begins to wonder whether it would be better for the passengers to grab the wheel and crash the bus to the left. The three other drivers do not agree on very much, except that it is all the fault of the guy on the left, and now appear to be thinking about throwing him off. As the bus hurtles downhill swerving from side to side, its passengers are battered, some injured, and a few are jumping off.

I do not need to explain the symbolism. I tried to change the image to explain why the man on the right refuses to stop pressing on the accelerator of growing primary surpluses, but gave up because the real reason is that he wants to crash the bus anyway. (The argument that the Eurozone’s rules do not allow debt write-offs is just nonsense.) Otherwise I think the image works well. The two men in the centre represent Tsipras and maybe Hollande. Hollande is saying that if only you would let me have the wheel (‘structural reform’) all would be well, but in truth the main reason the passengers are being injured (unemployment and welfare cuts) or are jumping (migration) is the speed of the bus.

The central question is whether the men in the middle are delusional. By keeping the Greek economy on the road that is the Eurozone are they only going to prolong the agony with the same inevitable crash which is Grexit?

There is only one reason for optimism that I can see, although it assumes yet further reductions in Greek living standards. The hill the bus is travelling along will begin to flatten out and the road might even start to rise as Greece becomes more competitive in terms of price. I outlined here why that has not yet boosted the Greek economy to the extent it has in Ireland, but if unemployment remains at or above 25% Greece should get even more competitive. Instability and unwise Troika interventions may delay the process, but eventually the tourists will come. The Eurozone does contain a natural correction mechanism: it is just slow and painful.

If this does eventually lead to sustained growth in Greece, it does not excuse what has gone before: recoveries do not justify recessions, and government profligacy does not have to imply a 25% fall in GDP! However this correction mechanism is not bound to succeed, if it is countered by another dynamic, which is one that has been and continues to be imposed by the Troika. That dynamic is austerity chasing primary surpluses when that austerity makes the economy shrink. Macromodels would probably tell us which dynamic will win out, but they will not factor in a deterioration in the financial position of banks (already not good as Frances Coppola points out) as the economy stagnates, and the deteriorating social and political situation that austerity brings.

So the eventual outcome still depends on the decisions of the Troika. It always has of course. The truth that their apologists find so uncomfortable is that the Troika has been in charge of the economy since 2010, and therefore is responsible for the mess we are now in. The idea that all would be well if only Greece had undertaken every item of structural reform they specified (and a lot was done) is just silly. Now it appears as if it is all the fault of the former Greek finance minister, because he dressed funny, or kept wanting to talk about economics, or did some contingency planning - it is so absurd you couldn’t make it up.

One ray of hope offered by Anatole Kaletsky is that now “ritual humiliation” has been achieved, the Troika will be more forgiving. I wish he was right, but this argument fails to account for the German finance minister who clearly believes that exit is the best option. He wants the bus to crash for the sake of the other cars on the road. An optimistic view would be that the shock [1] of what was done to Greece a few weeks ago will bring others to their senses, and Schäuble’s influence on the Eurogroup (and strangely the IMF) will decrease. I fear the larger truth is that the non-German bloc in the Eurozone does not have an alternative economic vision to offer (although it clearly exists), and will never face Germany down.

[1] Link added 31/07

An optimistic view: a UK investment led recovery

Someone wrote to me the other day to complain that my posts were always negative in tone. I understand where they were coming from, as there is a lot going on here in Europe to be negative about. However just to show that I can do positive, here is how the next few years could be relatively cheerful ones for the UK economy.

The important point about today’s GDP figures, showing 0.7% quarter on previous quarter growth (not annualised), is that this has happened despite what looks like being a relatively poor quarter for employment. The combination means that UK labour productivity growth may have finally resumed after its six year pause. This while nominal wage growth shows clear signs of increasing.

What we could be seeing is an investment led UK recovery. It all goes back to my favourite explanation for the UK’s productivity puzzle: that after the recession, high unemployment (both in the UK and Eurozone) pushed down UK wages, which led firms to put investment that would have led to labour productivity growth on ice, and just employ more people instead. (There may also have been direct labour for capital substitution of the kind beloved by macroeconomists.) With reasonable growth in demand this generated rapid employment growth, cutting the unemployment that helped cause stalling productivity.

It was my favourite productivity puzzle story, not because I was sure it was right, but because it was optimistic. It was optimistic because, as unemployment fell and labour shortages began to become common, the process would stop and investment would resume. Provided demand continued to increase, both actual growth and growth in productivity might continue above trend and we would find that at least some of that output which pessimists thought was lost forever after the recession would return. I also thought there were some grounds for this optimism: stories about the pre-2007 trend being artificially inflated by debt were, well, inflated, and productivity innovations do not take six year holidays.

The caveat about demand remaining strong was crucial, of course. Fiscal policy and you know who will not help beyond 2015, and neither has the recent strength in sterling. However lower oil prices go the other way. The big unknown is monetary policy. If nominal wages start rising before productivity growth resumes, that would be a trigger for the MPC to start putting on the monetary policy brakes too soon. They could still make that mistake, of course, but rising productivity growth coupled with core inflation below 1% should make them wait.

I should add in passing that if this does all happen, it in no way excuses what has gone before. Strong growth after a long recession does not make the recession OK! The cost in terms of lost output (at first compounded by the costs of high unemployment) has been huge, and you know why I think much of it could have been prevented.

I should also stress that this is an optimistic scenario, not a forecast. I know enough about unconditional macro forecasts not to do them. All manner of things could go wrong. But if this is how things do pan out, it will not just be good news, but it will also be fascinating from a macroeconomic point of view. It will show how you can have a prolonged demand deficient recession without persistent high unemployment, partly as a result of what economists call flexible labour markets. This was always something that could happen in theory, but I’m not sure we have many examples where it has happened. However, I should not allow my optimism to count chickens before they are hatched.

Should central bankers stick to talking about monetary policy?

Few disagree that the recent remarks on corporate governance and investment made by Andy Haldane (Chief Economist at the Bank of England) are interesting, and that if they start a debate on short-termism that would be a good thing. As Will Hutton notes, Hillary Clinton has been saying similar things in the US. The problem Tony Yates has (and which Duncan Weldon, the interviewer, alluded to in his follow-up question) is that this is not obviously part of the monetary policy remit.

Haldane gave an answer to that, which Tony correctly points out is somewhat strained. Perhaps I could illustrate the same issue by going down a better route that Haldane could have used. He could say that the causes of low UK productivity growth are clearly under his remit, and one factor in this that few dispute is low investment. If he was then asked by an interviewer what might be the fundamental cause of this low investment, Tony would argue that his reply should be that he couldn’t really comment, because some of those reasons might be too political.

I have in the past said very similar things to Tony when talking about the ECB, and their frequent advice to policymakers on fiscal rectitude and structural reforms. My main complaint is that the advice is wrong, and I puzzle over “how the ECB can continue to encourage governments to take fiscal or other actions that their own models tell them will reduce output and inflation at a time when the ECB is failing so miserably to control both.” But I have also said that in situations where fiscal actions have no impact on the ability of monetary policy to do its job (which is not the case at the moment), comments on fiscal policy are “crossing a line which it is very dangerous to cross”.

However I am beginning to have second thoughts about my own and Tony’s views on this. First, it all seems a bit British in tone. Tony worked at the Bank, and I have been involved with both the Bank and Treasury on and off, so we are both steeped in a British culture of secrecy. I do not think either of us are suggesting that senior Bank officials should never give advice to politicians, so what are the virtues of keeping this private? In trying to analyse how policy was made in 2010, it is useful to have a pretty good idea of what advice the Bank’s governor gave politicians because of what he said in public, rather than having to guess. (Of course private advice to politicians is never truly private, but this hardly helps, because with secrecy it allows politicians to hint that advice of a particular kind was given when it might not have been.)

The issues of MPC external member selection that Tony worries about are real enough, but perhaps that illustrates problems with the selection process. My guess is that the Treasury would be inhibited about choosing an MPC member who had previously been strongly critical of the government on other issues anyway. As I said my main complaint about the ECB is the nature and context of the advice they give, and at least by making it public we know about this problem.

It is often said that central bankers need to keep quiet about policy matters that are not within their remit as part of an implicit quid pro quo with politicians, so that politicians will refrain from making public their views about monetary policy. Putting aside the fact that the ECB never got this memo, I wonder whether this is just a fiction so that politicians can inhibit central bankers from saying things politicians might find awkward (like fiscal austerity is making our life difficult). In a country like the UK with a well established independent central bank, it is not that clear what the central bank is getting out of this quid pro quo. And if it stops someone with the wide ranging vision of Haldane from raising issues just because they could be deemed political, you have to wonder whether this mutual public inhibition serves the social good.