Money and Debt

For economists

As regular readers will know, my advocacy of helicopter money (HM) does not depend on it being different from, or better (at stimulating demand) than, fiscal policy. [1] So, for example, when Fergus Cumming from the Bank of England said that if after HM the government recapitalised a central bank this “reduces the initial stimulus to a vanilla, bond-financed fiscal transfer”, then that sounds just fine to me. Except, of course, to note that HM is not just like fiscal policy because (a) HM may be quicker to implement than conventional fiscal policy, and speed matters (b) HM can bypasses both genuine debt fears and deficit deceit (c) with HM there is no chance of monetary offset.

Much the same is true for this Vox article by Claudio Borio et al. They argue that if interest is paid on all bank reserves, then HM is “is equivalent to debt-financing from the perspective of the consolidated public sector balance sheet”. Maybe, but why should that be a problem? It is only a problem if you set up a straw man which is that HM has to be more effective than a bond financed helicopter drop.

The reason some people think it is not a straw man is that, if you set up a model where Ricardian Equivalence holds and you have an inflation targeting central bank, a bond financed lump sum tax cut would have no impact. Then you would indeed want HM to do something more. And perhaps it could, if it led agents to change their views about monetary policy. While such academic discussions may be fun, I also agree with Eric Lonergan that “theoretical games being played by some economists, which masquerade as policy insights, are confusing at best.” A good (enough) proportion of agents will spend HM - at least as many as spend a tax cut - for perfectly sound theoretical reasons. [2]

The Bario et al article does raise an interesting question. When the central bank pays interest on all reserves, what is the difference between money and bond financing? Reserves would seem to be equivalent to a form of variable interest debt that can be redeemed for cash at any time. It is exactly the same question raised in a paper by Corsetti and Dedola, an early version of which I discussed here. The answer their model uses is that the central bank would never default on reserves, whereas debt default is always an option.

I think this all kind of misses the point. Base or high powered money (cash or reserves) is not the same as government debt, no matter however many times MMT followers claim the opposite. (For a simple account of why the tax argument is nonsense, see Eric Lonergan here.) Civil servants can frighten the life out of finance ministers by saying that they may no longer be able to finance the deficit or roll over debt because the market might stop buying, but they cannot do the same by saying no one will accept the money their central bank creates. [3] Money is not the government’s or central bank’s liability. (For a clear exposition, see another piece by Eric, or this by Buiter.) Money is not an obligation to make future payments. Money is valuable because, as Eric describes here, it is an established network.

Bario et al seem to want to claim that because central banks nowadays control interest rates by using the interest they pay on reserves, this somehow creates an obligation. Reserves are like variable rate, instant access debt that banks get for nothing.

I think we can see the problem with this line of argument by asking what happens if obligations are broken. If the government breaks its obligation to service or repay its debt we have default, which has extremely serious consequences. If the central bank decides on a different method to control short term interest rates because paying interest on reserves is too much like a transfer to banks, no one but the banks will notice.

So reducing the macroeconomics of helicopter money to fiscal policy is not an argument against it. Furthermore money created by the central bank is not the same as government debt, even if interest is paid on reserves.

[1] They would also know - unlike Jörg Bibow - that I do not think there is any kind of contest between fiscal policy and HM, because the fiscal authority moves first.

[2] The two main reasons some people will spend a tax cut is if they are borrowing constrained, or if they think there is a non-zero probability that the tax cut will be paid for by reducing government spending. An additional reason for spending HM is that it might be permanent if it avoids the central bank undershooting its inflation target.

[3] If the finance minister knows some macroeconomics they would of course realise that not being frightened by the second means you should not be frightened by the first. But that does not negate the conceptual difference.           

Postscript (8/6/16): This by Biagio Bossone provides a very good complement to my analysis, looking a why HM is not 'permanent' and discussing interest on reserves

Helicopter money and fiscal policy

Both John Kay and Joerg Bibow think additional government spending on public investment is a good idea, and that helicopter money (HM) is either a distraction (Bibow) or fiscal policy by subterfuge (Kay). They are right about public investment, but wrong about HM.

We can have endless debates about whether HM is more monetary or fiscal. While attempts to distinguish between the two can sometime clarify important points (as here from Eric Lonergan) it is ultimately pointless. HM is what it is. Arguments that attempt to use definitions to then conclude that central banks should not do HM because its fiscal are equally pointless. Any HM distribution mechanism needs to be set up in agreement with governments, and existing monetary policy has fiscal consequences which governments have no control over.

Here is where Kay and Bibow are right. At this moment in time, even if a global recession is not about to happen, public investment should increase in the US, UK and Eurozone. There is absolutely no reason why that cannot be financed by issuing government debt. Furthermore, in the event of a new recession, increasing ‘shovel ready’ public investment is an excellent countercyclical tool. Indeed there would be a good case for bringing forward public investment even if monetary policy was capable of dealing with the recession on its own, because you would be investing when labour is cheap and interest rates are low.

Where Bibow is wrong is that the existence of HM in the central bank’s armory in no way compromises the points above. HM does not stop the government doing what it wants with fiscal policy. Monetary policy adapts to whatever fiscal policy plans the government has, and it can do this because it can move faster than governments.

This goes part of the way to answering Kay, but he also suggests that HM is somehow a way of getting politicians to do fiscal stimulus by calling it something else. This seems to ignore why fiscal stimulus ended. In 2010 both Osborne and Merkel argued we had to reduce government borrowing immediately because the markets demanded it.

HM is fiscal stimulus without any immediate increase in government borrowing. It therefore avoids the constraint that Osborne and Merkel said prevented further fiscal stimulus. To put it another way, they did not say that increasing government spending or cutting taxes were bad in itself, but just that they were extremely unwise because they had to be financed by adding to government debt. HM is not financed by increasing government debt.

Many argue that these concerns about debt are manufactured, and that in reality politicians on the right pushing austerity are using these concerns as a means of achieving a smaller state: what I call here deficit deceit. HM, particularly in its democratic form, calls their bluff. If we can avoid making the recession worse by maintaining public spending, financed in part by creating money while the recession persists, how can they object to that? Politicians who wanted to use deficit deceit will not like it, but that is their problem, not ours.

There is a related point in favour of HM that both Kay and Bibow miss. Independent central banks are a means of delegating macroeconomic stabilisation. Yet that delegation is crucially incomplete, because of the lower bound for nominal interest rates. While economists have generally understood that governments can in this situation come to the rescue, politicians either didn’t get the memo, or have proved that they are indeed not to be trusted with the task. HM is a much better instrument than Quantitative Easing, so why deny central banks the instrument they require to do the job they have been asked to do.