Budget Day Nonsense

For the last several budgets/autumn statements I have agreed to write an immediate response for some media outlet, and have therefore felt obliged to watch either the speech itself, or the media reports on the day. The good news is that no one has asked this year, and so I can ignore all budget coverage until tomorrow. This will leave me better off, because in macroeconomic terms most budget day coverage has over the last seven years been largely nonsense.

I can confidently forecast that today you will hear a great deal, at great length, about how the path of government borrowing has changed since the Autumn Statement. Journalists will ask endlessly whether he has done enough to reduce borrowing, or whether he had enough money to spend more. At the moment this is all utterly meaningless. In fact it is worse than that. It encourages people to think that government budgeting is just like household budgeting. It is, to be blunt, what gave us the disaster that was austerity.

What any macroeconomist should ask of this budget is has the Chancellor done enough to get UK interest rates off the zero lower bound: to get us out of what economists call a liquidity trap. When interest rates have gone as low as the Bank of England feels able to take them, then it has lost control of the economy. That is the situation right now. The only duty of the Chancellor in that situation is to give the Bank back control through a fiscal stimulus. [1] If he does do that the short term deficit and borrowing numbers that go with that stimulus are completely irrelevant. If he does not do that his budget has failed.

That is basic macroeconomics. But you will not hear any macroeconomics from the Chancellor, or most of the mainstream media. The idea that the Bank does macroeconomic stabilisation and the Chancellor does bookkeeping has become embedded in mediamacro, and even seven years in a liquidity trap has not been able to change this. Alas even the IFS, which is so brilliant at everything else, does not do macro and so reinforces the household budgeting metaphor.

Mediamacro will also spend hours talking about the OBR forecasts for this year and next. This too is pointless. I am sure the OBR will do what it normally does, which is put together a short term forecast that is not far from the average of other forecasters. To their great credit, they also forecast GDP per capita. It will be interesting to see who in the media picks that up. No doubt Brexiteers will go on about how great the economy has been in 2016 despite all the gloomy forecasts. There is a simple antidote to this, which any journalist can apply. Note that a great deal of the growth in GDP in 2016 was due to immigration, the same immigration that the Prime Minister has said was the cause of the Leave vote. [2]

What the better journalists focus on from the OBR is its forecast of where trend output is and how fast this trend will grow in the future. That is the only thing that will influence how much the Chancellor thinks he can borrow in future years. It is the only forecast that matters for future budgets, and as I have already noted it should have no influence on the current budget. Note particularly how the OBR has had to adjust its forecasts for future growth and tax receipts as a result of Brexit. (On this, see some good analysis by IPPR’s Catherine Colebrook.)

Of course the individual measures the Chancellor announces (either in his speech or elsewhere) are important. But even here a day’s reflection is useful, to deconstruct the spin and put the measures in context. (Once again, the OBR’s document can be very useful in that respect.) For pretty well anything the Chancellor does on the spending side, one important context is the extent to which he is just reversing the cuts his predecessor ordered. This is why the IFS wisely waits a day before presenting its post-budget analysis.

What I hate most about budget days nowadays is the constant repetition by government politicians, echoed by mediamacro, about not being able to afford improvements to public services. The reality, the detail of which Polly Toynbee sets out clearly, is that this government has managed to cut plenty of taxes which seem to have been affordable. But there is a deeper concern.

As I showed in this post, the performance of the economy since 2010 has been terrible. There has been no recovery, using the proper meaning of the word, from the Great Recession. All this time the Bank has been forced to keep interest rates at or near their floor, and use incredibly inefficient instruments like QE, because the government has kept on cutting spending. It is not normal to cut spending in what should be a recovery phase of the business cycle: at least not normal since the mistakes of the 1920s and 1930s.

In the years immediately following 2010 the government could claim its austerity policies were the international consensus, but no longer. In the Eurozone outside Greece austerity has come to an end and their recovery is gathering pace. In the US the central bank, for better or worse, is raising rates. Only in the UK does austerity continue and the economy continues to stagnate. Which is why I’m glad I do not have to watch lots of people completely ignoring all these points today.

[1] I’m not talking measures that might allow the Bank to raise interest rates by a quarter of 1%. I’m suggesting a stimulus such that members of the MPC say unequivocally rates will need to rise, and the only debate is by how much. Anything less than this just allows the economy to get blown back into a liquidity trap when something mildly bad happens.

[2] As background, GDP per capita increased by just over 1% in 2016, which does not sound so good. Average growth from 2010 to 2016 has been 1.2%, compared to 1997-2010 when the average was 1.4%, a period which included a global financial crisis and the worse recession since WWII. Having to get the deficit down is no excuse for this terrible performance, because fiscal consolidation need not reduce GDP if it is done outside a liquidity trap. This is the basic bit of macroeconomics that both this government and mediamacro fail to recognise.   

Whatever happened to the government debt doom spiral

A number of people, including the occasional economic journalist, are puzzled about why government debt at 90% of GDP seemed to cause our new Chancellor and the markets so little concern when his predecessor saw it as a portent of impending doom. I always argued that this aspect of austerity had a sell by date, so let me try to explain what is going on.

The 90% figure comes from a piece of empirical work which has been thoroughly examined, and found to be highly problematic. (Others have used rather more emphatic language.) Part of the problem is a lack of basic thinking. Why should the markets worry about buying government debt, beyond the normal assessment of relative returns. The answer is that they worry about not getting their money back because the government defaults.

If a government cannot create the currency that it borrows in, then the risk of default is very real. Typically a large amount of debt will periodically be rolled over (new debt sold to replace debt that is due to be paid back). If that debt cannot be rolled over, then the government will probably be forced to default. Knowing that, potential lenders will worry that other potential lenders will not lend, allowing self fulfilling beliefs to cause default even if the public finances are pretty sound.

The situation is completely different for governments that can create the currency that the debt they sell is denominated in. They will never be forced to default, because they can always pay back debt due with created money. That in turn means that lenders do not need to worry about forced defaults, or what other lenders may think, so this kind of self fulfilling default will not happen.

Of course a government can still choose to default. It may do so if the political costs of raising taxes or cutting spending is greater than the cost of defaulting. But for advanced economies there is an easier option if the burden of the public finances gets too much, which is to start monetising debt. That is what Japan may end up doing, and what others may also do if QE turns out to be permanent. But this is a very different type of concern than the threat of default. And it does not, in the current environment, lead to the emergence of large default premiums and market panics.

How can I be so sure? Because with QE we have had actual money creation, and it has not worried the markets at all. It seems hard to tell a story where markets panic today about the possibility of monetisation in the future, but are quite sanguine about actual monetisation today.

So for economies that issue debt in currency they can create, there is no obvious upper limit anywhere near to current debt/GDP ratios when economies are depressed and inflation is low. Japan shows us that, and we must stop treating Japan as some special case that has no lessons for the rest of us. (How often did we hear of their lost decade in the 1990s that it couldn’t happen anywhere else.)

It was good that the IFS suggested Hammond has a look at Labour’s fiscal rule. As I explained in this post, Hammond’s new ‘rule’ is pretty worthless. But one key part of Labour’s rule that keeps being ignored but is crucial in today's environment is the knockout if interest rates hit their zero lower bound. It is for the reasons described above that this knockout is there and is perfectly safe: when interest rate policy fails you can completely and safely forget the deficit and debt and use fiscal policy to ensure the recovery. It is the basic macro lesson of the last 6 years that is fairly well understood among academic economists but still remains to be learnt by most people who talk about these things. Whether senior economists in the UK Treasury need to learn it or just keep quiet about it for other reasons I do not know.

A (much) better fiscal rule

Today the Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell will give a speech where he puts forward an alternative fiscal rule to George Osborne’s fiscal charter. It involves a rolling target for the government’s current balance: within 5 years taxes must cover current spending. It leaves the government free to borrow to invest. Investment cannot be unbounded, as there is a commitment to reduce debt relative to trend GDP over the course of a parliament.

No doubt we will hear the usual cries from the opponents of sensible fiscal rules: Labour plan to borrow billions more than George Osborne and they plan to go on borrowing forever. The simple response to that should be that it is right to borrow to invest in the country’s future, just as firms borrow to invest in capital and individuals borrow to invest in a house. Indeed, with so many good projects for the government to choose from, and with interest rates at virtually zero, it is absolute madness not to investment substantially in the coming years.

This part of the rule is similar to the main fiscal rule Osborne himself adopted under the Coalition, which in turn is not unlike previous rules adopted by Labour. What is new is that McDonnell’s rule involves what could be termed a ‘zero lower bound knockout’: if interest rates hit their lower bound following a recession, the focus of fiscal policy shifts from deficit targets to helping monetary policy support the economy. It reflects the knowledge we have gained since the global financial crisis.

Again critics will claim that the knockout would have meant building up even more debt after the last recession. But what matters with debt is its relationship to GDP, and it is far from clear whether more stimulus in 2009 and 2010 would have increased the debt to GDP ratio, because you are increasing GDP as well as debt. But even if debt to GDP did rise, this reflects the right choice. It means prioritising the real economy - jobs and wages - over an obsession with government debt.

We will no doubt be told by government supporters that this would have led to financial disaster, just as we are also told that the coalition saved us from disaster. We will be told this by some economists working in the financial sector - a sector that created the Great Recession. But there is no evidence for this impending disaster, and plenty of evidence that it is a complete myth. As Paul Krugman might say, in a country with its own central bank the bond vigilantes just keep failing to turn up.

Recessions come and go, you might respond, but higher debt will always be with us. That ignores two key points. First, prolonged and deep recessions cause lasting damage. UK GDP per head is currently over 15% below pre-recession trends. Does none of that have anything to do with the slowest UK recovery from a recession in centuries? Second using fiscal policy to end recessions quickly does not mean higher debt forever. The key point is that debt can be reduced once the recession is over and interest rates are safely above their lower bound. Doing that will be no cost to the economy as a whole, as monetary policy can offset the impact on demand. Obsessing about debt during a recession, by contrast, costs jobs and reduces incomes, as every economics student knows and as the OBR have shown.

The rule happens to mean that pretty well all of the additional austerity Osborne has detailed since the election is unnecessary. But that is a byproduct of adopting a sensible rule. If there is any ‘reverse engineering’ going on, it is with the fiscal charter, which some argue was adopted with the political purpose of making Labour look less prudent before the election. As McDonnell notes, no economist has attempted to defend Osborne’s fiscal charter.

Yet I know this point worries some Labour MPs and commentators. They say, quite rightly, that one of the main reasons the 2015 election was lost was because Labour were not trusted on fiscal policy. But the basic truth is that you do not enhance your fiscal credibility by signing up to a stupid fiscal rule. Apart from getting attacked for doing so by people like me, your collective heart is not really in it and it shows. You get trapped into proposing to shrink the state as Osborne is doing, or hitting the poor as Osborne is doing, or raising taxes which makes you unpopular. And if by chance it ever looks like you might be getting that trust back, Osborne or his successor will move the goalposts again.

The far more convincing way to get trust back is to adopt a fiscal rule that makes sense to both economists and the public (‘only borrowing to invest’), and actively talking about it. When the Conservatives accuse you of borrowing, you do not try and change the subject, but remind people that is what firms and consumers do. Borrowing is not a dirty word, particularly when it is on vital investment and you can do it for almost nothing! Indeed borrowing to invest shows you are optimistic about the future and are prepared to do things to make it better. In contrast those who would turn down these investment projects in order to reduce debt as fast as possible have a negative outlook that fears the future.

The Conservatives know they are vulnerable on public investment. Osborne tries to give the impression that he is doing a lot of it, but the figures do not lie. In the last five years of the Labour government the average share of net public investment in GDP was over 2.5%. During the coalition years it fell to 2.2%, and for the five years from 2015 it is planned to average just 1.6%. That is not building for the future, but putting it in jeopardy, as those whose homes have been flooded have found to their cost.[1]

[1] Besides cutting spending on flood prevention while part of the coalition, Damian Carrington revealed yesterday that UK funding for research on flooding has been cut by 62%! There can be no better indication of the madness of George Osborne’s deficit obsession.   

The 'strong case' critically examined

Perhaps it was too unconventional setting out an argument (against independent central banks, ICBs) that I did not agree with, even though I made it abundantly clear that was what I was doing. It was too much for one blogger, who reacted by deciding that I did agree with the argument, and sent a series of tweets that are best forgotten. But my reason for doing it was also clear enough from the final paragraph. The problem it addresses is real enough, and the problem appears to be linked to the creation of ICBs.

The deficit obsession that governments have shown since 2010 has helped produce a recovery that has been far too slow, even in the US. It would be nice if we could treat that obsession as some kind of aberration, never to be repeated, but unfortunately that looks way too optimistic. The Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) raises an acute problem for what I call the consensus assignment (leaving macroeconomic stabilisation to an independent, inflation targeting central bank), but add in austerity and you get major macroeconomic costs. ICBs appear to rule out the one policy (money financed fiscal expansion) that could combat both the ZLB and deficit obsession. I wanted to put that point as strongly as I could. Miles Kimball does something similar here, although without the fiscal policy perspective

Of course many macroeconomists do see the problem, but the solutions they propose are often just workarounds. Things like Quantitative Easing, or NGDP targets, or a higher inflation target. [1] None completely remove the basic difficulty created by the ZLB. (One proposal that does is negative interest rates coupled with eliminating paper money, which I will come back to.) As a result, these workarounds mean that in response to a sharp enough recession, we would still regret no longer having the possibility of undertaking a money financed fiscal stimulus.

I also think there is a grain of truth in the argument that ICBs created an environment where deficit obsession became easier. Take the UK for example. In the 2000s the organisation that came to dominate budget analysis was the IFS. They are excellent on both the microeconomics of particular budget measures and their costing. Before the Great Recession that meant that all the IFS needed was a macro forecast (of which there are many) and they had all they required to provide excellent budget analysis. The IFS did not have strong macro policy expertise, and sometimes this shows, but as long as the consensus assignment worked that did not matter.

One of the those working at the IFS during this Labour government period was Rupert Harrison. In 2006 he became chief of staff to George Osborne. He helped introduce, perhaps reflecting his IFS experience, two important and positive policy innovations: setting up the OBR (with some minor assistance from a certain UK academic), and a form of fiscal rule (a five year deficit target) which allowed debt to be a shock absorber. But he also appeared to bring the received wisdom on the consensus assignment untroubled by the ZLB, which meant that Osborne could give a speech in 2009 outlining the macroeconomic basis of his strategy in which the ZLB was not mentioned.

This is an example of a more general point, which Robert in comments reminded me I could have made to strengthen the strong argument still further. With ICBs, macroeconomic expertise can move from finance ministries to central banks, leaving finance ministries unprepared for what they may need to do in a major recession.

But this grain of truth runs up against a real difficulty, which is the major flaw in the ‘strong argument’ I set out in the earlier post. To see the flaw ask the following question: in the absence of ICBs, would our deficit obsessed governments actually have undertaken a money financed fiscal stimulus? To answer that you have to ask why they are deficit obsessed. If it is out of ignorance (my Swabian syndrome), then another piece of macro nonsense that ranks alongside deficit obsession is the evil of printing money in any circumstances. I suspect a patient suffering Swabian syndrome would also be subject to this fallacy. If the reason is strategic (the desire for a smaller state) the answer is obviously no. We would simply be told it could not be done because it would open the inflation floodgates.

Following my grain of truth idea you might counter that without ICBs the knowledge within or outside government that these excuses were without foundation would be greater, and so governments could not get away with them so easily. But you would still have plenty of economists from the financial sector telling you that not only did you need to reduce debt rapidly to appease the markets, but also that any government printing money would scare the markets even more. Indeed, would governments alone have had the courage to undertake the scale of QE that we have seen ICBs undertake?

As for the argument that macroeconomic expertise gets concentrated in central banks, surely the answer here is to allow that expertise into the public domain by making central banks more open, and to directly combat the forces that make some central bank leaders routinely argue for austerity when they can no longer effectively combat deflation.

The basic flaw with my strong argument against ICBs is that the ultimate problem (in terms of not ending recessions quickly) lies with governments. There would be no problem if governments could only wait until the recession was over (and interest rates were safely above the ZLB) before tackling their deficit, but the recession was not over in 2010. Given this failure by governments, it seems odd to then suggest that the solution to this problem is to give governments back some of the power they have lost. Or to put the same point another way, imagine the Republican Congress in charge of US monetary policy.

But if abolishing ICBs is not the answer to the very real problem I set out, does that mean we have to be satisfied with the workarounds? One possibility that a few economists like Miles Kimball have argued for is to effectively abolish paper money as we know it, so central banks can set negative interest rates. Another possibility is that the government (in its saner moments) gives ICBs the power to undertake helicopter money. Both are complete solutions to the ZLB problem rather than workarounds. Both can be accused of endangering the value of money. But note also that both proposals gain strength from the existence of ICBs: governments are highly unlikely to ever have the courage to set negative rates, and ICBs stop the flight times of helicopters being linked to elections.

      

These are big (important and complex) issues. There should be no taboos that mean certain issues cannot be raised in polite company. I still think blog posts are the best medium we have to discuss these issues, hopefully free from distractions like partisan politics.  

   

[1] Please do not misunderstand what I mean by workarounds. The workaround may be still be useful in its own right (I have argued that monetary policy should be guided by the level of NGDP), but it does not completely remove the problem of the ZLB.

 

The strong case against independent central banks

I personally think giving central banks the power to decide when to change interest rates (independent central banks, or ICBs) is a sensible form of delegation, provided it is done right. I know a number of the people who read this blog disagree. Sometimes, however, arguments against ICBs seem to me pretty weak. This is a shame, because there is I believe quite a strong case against ICBs. Let me set it out here.

In the post war decades there was a consensus, at least in the US and UK, that achieving an adequate level of aggregate demand and controlling inflation were key priorities for governments. That meant governments had to be familiar with Keynesian economics, and a Keynesian framework was familiar and largely accepted in public discourse. Here I am using Keynesian in its wide sense, such that Milton Friedman was also a Keynesian (he used a Keynesian theoretical model).

A story some people tell is that this all fell apart in the 1970s with stagflation. In the sense I have defined it, that is wrong. The Keynesian framework had to be modified to deal with those events for sure, but it was modified successfully. Attempts by New Classical economists to supplant Keynesian thinking in policy circles failed, as I note here.

The more important change was the end of Bretton Woods and the move to floating exchange rates. That was critical in allowing the focus of demand management to shift away from fiscal policy to monetary policy. The moment that happened, it allowed the case for delegation to be made. Academics talked about time inconsistency and inflation bias, but the more persuasive arguments were also simpler. Anyone who had worked in finance ministries knew that politicians were often tempted and sometime succumbed to using monetary policy for political rather than economic ends, and the crude evidence that delegation reduced inflation seemed strong.

That allowed the creation of what I have called the consensus assignment. Demand management should be exclusively assigned to monetary policy, operated by ICBs pursuing inflation targets, and fiscal policy should focus on avoiding deficit bias. The Great Moderation appeared to vindicate this consensus.

However the consensus assignment had an Achilles Heel. It was not the global financial crisis (which was a failure of financial regulation) but the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) for nominal interest rates. Although many macroeconomists were concerned about this, their concern was muted because fiscal action always remained as a backup. To most of them, the idea that governments would not use that backup was inconceivable: after all, Keynesian economics was familiar to anyone who had done Econ 101.

That turned out to be naive. What governments and the media remembered was that they had delegated the job of looking after the economy to the central bank, and that instead the focus of governments should be on the deficit. Macroeconomists should have seen the warning signs in 2000 with the creation of the Euro. There monetary policy was taken away from individual union governments, but still the Stability and Growth Pact was all about reducing deficits with no hint at any countercyclical role. When economists told politicians in 2009 that they needed to undertake fiscal stimulus to counteract the recession, to many it just felt wrong. To others growing deficits presented an opportunity to win elections and cut public spending.

Macroeconomists were also naive about central banks. They might have assumed that once interest rates hit the ZLB, these institutions would immediately and very publicly turn to governments and say we have done all we can and now it is your turn. But for various reasons they did not. Central banks had helped create the consensus assignment, and had become too attached to it to admit it had an Achilles Heel. In addition some economists had become so entranced by the power of Achilles that they tried to deny his vulnerability.

From 2010, as austerity began, the damage caused by ICBs became clear. One ICB, the ECB, refused to back its own governments and allowed a Greek debt financing crisis to become a Eurozone crisis. The subsequent obsession with austerity happened in part because governments no longer saw managing demand as their prime responsibility, and the agent they had contracted out that responsibility to failed to admit it could no longer do the job. But it was worse than that.

Economists knew that the government could always get the economy out of a demand deficient recession, even if it had a short term concern about debt. The fail safe tool to do this was a money financed fiscal expansion. This fiscal stimulus paid for by the creation of money was why the Great Depression could never happen again. But the existence of ICBs made money financed fiscal expansions impossible when you had debt obsessed governments, because neither the government nor the central bank could create money for governments to spend or give away. Central banks were happy to create money, but refused to destroy the government debt they bought with it, and so debt obsessed governments embarked on fiscal consolidation in the middle of a huge recession.

The slow and painful recovery from the Great Recession was the result. Economists did not get the economics wrong. Money financed fiscal expansion does get you out of a recession with no immediate increase in debt. But by encouraging the creation of ICBs, economists had helped create both the obsession with austerity and an institutional arrangement that made a recession busting policy impossible to enact.

I have tried to put the argument as strongly as I can. I think it is an argument that can be challenged, but that will only happen if macroeconomists first admit the problem it exposes.

Haldane on alternatives to QE, and what he missed out

Andrew Haldane, Chief Economist at the Bank of England, gave a typically well researched and thoughtful talk recently. The main subject matter was the problem of the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB): why we may hit it much more often than we would like, and why QE is not a great instrument for dealing with it. To quote:

“QE’s effectiveness as a monetary instrument seems likely to be highly state-contingent, and hence uncertain, at least relative to interest rates. This uncertainty is not just the result of the more limited evidence base on QE than on interest rates. Rather, it is an intrinsic feature of the transmission mechanism of QE.”

In the past I have emphasised the point about lack of evidence simply because it is obvious. But as Haldane’s discussion shows, the problems are more basic than that. Some people argue that we can always get the result we want with enough QE. Yet if the central bank and the public never know how effective any amount of QE will be, then lags make it a poor instrument. It is refreshing to see a senior member of the Bank finally acknowledge its limitations.

Haldane considers two alternative ways of dealing with, or avoiding, the ZLB: a higher inflation target and getting rid of cash so that negative interest rates of whatever size become possible. The first is obviously welfare reducing, but as Eric Lonergan argues the second is likely to be as well. (See also Tony Yates.) But what is really strange about Haldane’s analysis is what is missing from his discussion.

One omission is a discussion of the possibility that targeting something other than inflation might help. The other omission is any discussion of helicopter money. There are some basic contradictions in the Bank of England’s views on helicopter money, but because central bankers tend to talk to each other I suspect they remain concealed. One argument is that helicopter money will somehow reduce confidence in the currency, but then the Bank seems happy to research getting rid of cash and imposing negative rates on money as if this is all about technicalities. [Postscript - meant to link to John Cochrane's discussion, and here is a reply by Miles Kimball.] I should have referenced  Another argument is that helicopter money will threaten the Bank’s independence because it will have to rely on government to (if necessary) recapitalise it, when at the same time the Bank has already obtained an underwriting guarantee for losses on QE. Also strange is the argument that independence will be threatened once the Bank does a 'helicopter drop' because governments will want the money for themselves, as if politicians had not noticed the amount of money being created under QE. After all Jeremy Corbyn's proposal was a response to the reality of QE, not the possibility of helicopter money.

The really ironic argument is that helicopter money is too like fiscal policy, and that there should be democratic control over fiscal policy. This is what central bankers mean when they talk about blurring the lines between monetary and fiscal policy. The argument is ironic because I am sure that if you actually asked most people which they would prefer - being charged to hold money, 4% average inflation, or occasionally getting a cheque from the Bank - the answer would be emphatic. So we rule out helicopter money because its undemocratic, but we rule out a discussion of helicopter money because ordinary people might like the idea.

There is also an element of hypocrisy. It is sometimes argued that helicopter money is unnecessary because it has a very similar impact to conventional fiscal policy. This is true, but it deliberately ignores the fact that governments around the world have gone for fiscal contraction because of worries about the immediate prospects for debt. It is not as if the possibility of helicopter money restricts the abilities of governments in any way. If governments undertake fiscal stimulus in a recession such that helicopter money is no longer necessary, it will not happen.

So it is good that some people at the Bank are thinking about alternatives to QE, which is a lousy instrument with unfortunate, and potentially permanent, distributional consequences. It is a shame that the Bank is not even acknowledging that there is a straightforward and cost free solution to this problem. My last two posts have involved defending central bank independence, but with independence comes a responsibility not to exclude discussion of particular policy options simply because they break some kind of taboo.      

The Bank of England goes Underground

This is a short post to celebrate an important innovation at the Bank. They now have a blog, which not only has a great name (which those who have not been to London may need a subway map to understand), but looks like being an invaluable addition to the UK and economics blogging scene. As I suggested here, this is another in a long line of small innovations made possible by appointing Mark Carney as Governor. Those who experienced previous regimes can hardly believe it.

The blog promises a mix of posts in terms of both content and wonkishness, and to start we have an easily understandable discussion of the implications of driverless cars for the insurance industry, and a more technical piece on macro. The idea behind the macro post is however fairly simple. If interest rates cannot go below some lower bound, the distribution of forecast outcomes will be skewed. If bad things happen, things will be a lot worse than if good things happen. The novelty is to use what are called stochastic simulations of the Bank’s main macro model to quantify this (using, I have to add, a methodology proposed by one of my former Oxford PhD students – well done Tom). Here is a fan chart for inflation which I think is self-explanatory.

The blog does not discuss the policy implications, but they are pretty obvious. As Brad DeLong has recently pointed out (it’s a point that I and others have also made), with non-symmetrical outcomes like this, you should not choose the policy based on what is most likely to happen. Instead you bias your policy to shy away from the very bad outcomes. So in this case instead of aiming for 2% inflation as the most likely outcome, you aim for a policy where the most likely outcome is above 2%, to avoid a situation where the economy hits the lower bound for interest rates. To put it intuitively, when walking along a narrow path beside a cliff, it is natural and probably wise not to walk in exactly the middle of the path.   

Mediamacro myth 4: The immediate necessity of belt tightening

In previous posts in this series (0, 1, 2, 3) we have established that the large increase in the deficit in 2010 was a consequence of the recession and not Labour profligacy - the Labour government was clearly not profligate - and that this deficit was not causing any panic in the financial markets. But surely it is a good idea for the government to tighten its belt when it runs a large deficit, just as individuals who spend more than they earn need to take action? Mediamacro is fond of drawing this analogy.

The first point to clear out of the way is that individuals do not always try and ‘balance their books’. People generally spend more around Christmas, and make up any deficit through the rest of the year. You can think about deficits and surpluses that are just the result of the normal economic cycle in a similar way.

As the 2010 deficit was a consequence of the recession, can we therefore assume that it will correct itself as the economy recovers? The answer depends on the extent of the recovery. If we returned to the pre-recession trend level of output then roughly yes [1], but not many economists think that is likely. Instead organisations like the OBR assume that much of the impact of the recession on output will be permanent. We can call the additional deficit that arises from this permanent loss of output ‘structural’. The structural deficit will not go away without some government action.

A good rule for an individual with a ‘structural deficit’ is to take action to correct it sooner rather than later, particularly if there are limits to their ability to borrow. Our mediamacro myth is that the same applies to governments: the 'maxing out the national credit card' idea. This is something that every economics student learns is wrong in the first year of their studies. Cutting the government’s deficit reduces aggregate demand, which reduces output. An individual that cuts their spending does not need to worry about the impact their decision will have on the rest of the economy, but the government because it is so large does have to think about this. When the government is free to borrow more at no extra cost (which we have seen that in the UK it was), then it has an important choice about when to start reducing its deficit.

Is there ever a good time to reduce the deficit, if output will always take a hit? There are two reasons why some times are much better than others. First, there is now quite a lot of evidence that cutting deficits in a recession has a larger impact on output than cutting deficits at other times (see here and here). Second, theory tells us that cutting deficits need not in principle harm the economy at all if monetary policy can offset their deflationary impact. If the Bank of England can cut interest rates at the same time as the government cuts its spending, the net effect on the economy could be zero.

This is a crucial point. Indeed it is the half-truth on which the coalition’s policy of immediate austerity seems to have been based. Modern mainstream macroeconomics says that in normal times governments do not need to worry about the impact their fiscal decisions (like austerity) will have on the economy, because monetary policy will offset that impact. In a speech to the RSA in 2009 this was the idea that the future Chancellor put at the centre of his macro strategy.

There was only one problem, which turned out to be extremely serious. Just before he made that speech, UK short term interest rates hit 0.5%, and the Bank of England decided they could be cut no further. They had reached what economists call the ‘Zero Lower Bound’, sometimes described as a liquidity trap. As a result conventional monetary policy was unable to offset the deflationary impact of austerity, and 2010 austerity killed the recovery that seemed to have just started. We had to wait until 2013 for a period of sustained output growth. The Bank did have some unconventional policies that it tried - most notably Quantitative Easing - but as it had no idea how effective these were, they were hardly an adequate substitute for cuts in interest rates.

Was the problem of nominal interest rates hitting a floor and therefore not being able to offset the impact of fiscal austerity on output something economists had not foreseen? Is that why the Chancellor ignored this possibility in his 2009 speech? Far from it! Keynes had dealt with the problem in the Great Depression in the 1930s. More recently, the same problem had arisen in Japan in the 1990s. By 2009 a large number of articles had been written about this problem, which is why economists like Paul Krugman and myself were such strong critics of fiscal austerity the moment it was proposed.   

Most mediamacro myths in this series just need a look at the data and common sense to bust. In those cases it is natural to look at the media itself for the source of the mediamacro problem. In this particular case busting the myth requires some (entirely conventional) macroeconomics. The fact that this macroeconomics has not found its way into political discussion of fiscal policy may reflect other problems in the knowledge transmission mechanism, including the fact that outside the US central banks seem very reluctant to acknowledge the severity of the Zero Lower Bound/liquidity trap problem.

It is difficult to overstate the consequences of this. As we have seen, the prospective Chancellor in a 2009 speech setting out the theoretical framework behind his policy ignored the problem, even though it was in front of his eyes. Each household in this country lost on average at least £4000 as a result. Yet incredibly, the same person proposes to make exactly the same mistake after 2015, and it is largely left to a few academic bloggers to point this out.

 

Previous posts in this series

(0) UK mediamacro myths: an introduction

(1) 2010 Britain faced a financial crisis

(2) Labour profligacy

(3) The 2007 boom

[1] Not a complete yes, because although the deficits caused by this kind of recession would be temporary, they will have raised the level of debt, and the interest on that debt will add to future deficits. We can only ignore that if we soon expect a future boom of equal magnitude, which would be an unwise thing to do. 

A criticism of the IFS

Everyone agrees that the UK Institute of Fiscal Studies is great. It is perhaps best known for its commentary of macro budgetary issues, but it does a great deal of detailed top class research into the micro impact of different forms of taxation, and much more. Today it released its assessment of the different political parties’ plans for spending and taxation policy after the election. It makes two very important points: that the Conservatives plan much greater cuts than the other parties, and that there are important gaps in how much each party have told us about how they will achieve their aggregate plans (with probably the biggest ‘black hole’ with the Conservatives, although do not expect to hear that comment on the BBC).

At the same time as reading this document, I was also writing my next macromedia myths post, where I complain about the lack of media exposure given to the problem of the liquidity trap or Zero Lower Bound, and why this problem is central to the critique of austerity during a recession. So I thought I would just check that these terms appeared somewhere in the IFS document. They do not. All I can find is this paragraph:

“A lower level of borrowing would imply debt falling more quickly. This would have the benefits of leading to a lower level of debt interest payment and potentially leaving the UK better placed to deal with any future adverse event (such as the public finance challenge posed by an ageing population or any future recession). But reducing debt more quickly would also require more in the way of tax rises and/or spending cuts.”

If I have missed a section where the risks of rapid deficit reduction when interest rates are still so low are discussed, I shall remove this post. But if such a discussion is indeed absent, I think I can reasonably complain. Why has the IFS chosen to go long on numbers, and short on ideas? Their analysis is a key resource for the media, and so if the IFS do not even mention such basic macro points when discussing macro policy, it becomes a little less surprising that the media also ignores them.

I have always tried to emphasise that I regard the mediamacro problem as a system failure, rather than a problem with particular newspapers or journalists or editors. I have also tried to stress that I remain unclear as to what the critical drivers of this problem are: a biased print media, the role of the City or something else. That something else could potentially include, at least in the UK, the way academic ideas fail to be transmitted to the media by academic think tanks.

Osborne's failure

I've mentioned before the coalition economics website, where the academic economists who analysed the Labour government's economic record for the Oxford Review do the same for the Coalition. My analysis of the Coalition's record on fiscal policy is now up.

It starts by noting three similarities between how Brown and Osborne started their time in office. First, they both made important and progressive institutional changes: Brown established the Monetary Policy Committee and Osborne set up the Office for Budget Responsibility. Second, they both established fiscal rules that improved on past practice. Third, they both started with significant fiscal contractions.

So why will history judge Osborne so much more harshly than Brown? Why did Osborne's policy cost each UK household on average at least £4,000, while Brown's (inherited) contraction had no similar cost in terms of lost resources?

The answer, of course, is that the macro contexts were very different. Brown's fiscal contraction happened when the economy was relatively strong, and interest rates were above 6%. Osborne's austerity happened when the economy was just starting a recovery from a deep recession, and interest rates were at their then Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) of 0.5%. Mainstream macroeconomic theory says that these different contexts make all the difference: when interest rates are at the ZLB, monetary policy cannot counteract the negative impact of fiscal austerity on output.

Why did Osborne ignore this basic piece of macroeconomics? Was his policy based on an alternative macro theory? A remarkable speech he gave at the RSA in April 2009 suggests not. In that speech he said that his macro framework was based on New Keynesian theory, because that theory implied monetary policy should look after macro stabilisation and fiscal policy should focus on debt control. Yet New Keynesian theory also says that monetary policy becomes ineffective at the ZLB, and cutting government spending in that situation reduces output. Incredibly the speech makes no mention of the ZLB problem, even though UK interest rates had just hit 0.5%!  

Could it be that Osborne, or his economic advisers, had simply not done their homework properly? One simple piece of evidence suggests not: his proposals for more austerity after 2015 risks making exactly the same mistake again, with interest rates still at or near their ZLB. A much more plausible explanation for his actions were that the macroeconomic risks were understood, but were put to one side for political and ideological reasons. First the possibility of hitting Labour with a populist concern about the deficit was too great a temptation to resist for a Chancellor for whom political tactics are everything. Second, austerity was a means of implementing an unpopular policy of reducing the size of the state by the back door.

Now you may cynically say that in a contest between economics and politics/ideology, politicians will always choose the latter. However much that is true or false, when that choice costs each household at least £4,000, it would be very strange if that politician survived the judgement of the electorate.  

Sticky wages both sides of the Atlantic

At the beginning of last year, there were many who were predicting a rise in UK interest rates in 2014. By then UK unemployment had been falling for many months, and we had had four quarters of solid growth. However I said that if rates did rise in 2014 it would be extraordinary. One of the reasons I gave was that there was absolutely no sign of any increase in nominal wage inflation. I thought it would be particularly odd if UK rates rose before US rates, given that the UK’s recovery was lagging a few years.

Unemployment continued to fall rapidly. By June 2014 even the Bank’s governor, Mark Carney, was giving indications that rates might rise sooner than some were expecting. US monetary policymakers showed no signs that they were about to raise rates, and I still thought they should be the first to move, but I was worried that the MPC was sounding too itchy. Sure enough in August two MPC members voted to raise rates. But wage inflation showed no signs of increasing.

Move forward to March 2015, and the prospect of rate increases seem to be receding on both sides of the Atlantic. On Wednesday the FOMC revised down their forecasts for inflation, and also revised down their estimate for the natural rate of unemployment. The reason is straightforward: despite continuing falls in unemployment, wage inflation refuses to budge. John Komlos argues that this state of affairs is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Much the same seems to be true in the UK, as this excellent account from Andy Haldane makes clear. In the UK there is an additional twist. To quote Haldane: “Back in 2009, the MPC’s judgement was that the benefits of cutting rates below 0.5% were probably outweighed by their costs, in terms of the negative impact on financial sector resilience and lending. With the financial sector now stronger, the MPC judges there may be greater scope to cut rates below 0.5%.” It now looks like the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) may actually be zero.

Haldane goes through in great detail the possible reasons why wage inflation seems so sticky. Moving to the monetary policy implications, he talks about asymmetries, and many of the issues that I raised here he also raises. However he ends with something that I think is even more telling. The chart below shows an optimal interest rate path, using the Bank’s COMPASS model, and assuming a ZLB of zero.

What it does is confirm a suspicion that both Tony Yates and I had about the MPC’s current stance. The policy of doing nothing, and waiting for the inflation rate to gradually converge towards 2%, does not look optimal even if the Bank’s forecast is completely correct. 

Deflation, inflation, oil prices and asymmetries

When both headline and core inflation rose above target after the financial crisis, helped by rising oil prices, the Fed and Bank of England kept their nerve and did not raise interest rates. They saw through what was a temporary episode. The ECB’s judgement was not as good. Even in the UK it was close, with three out of nine MPC members voting for a rate increase for a few months. But it was the outcome that mattered - excess inflation was ignored because it was temporary. To what extent is what we are seeing right now just the mirror image of this period?

In terms of where inflation is and the monetary policy response, the situation today does indeed look like a mirror image. Headline inflation is or is about to be negative, and core inflation has fallen below target. As Tim Duy points out for the US, core inflation seems to be heading lower rather than returning to target. However I think that is where the symmetry ends. While the dangers of letting inflation rise above target because of temporary shocks are small, the dangers in the opposite direction are more serious. 

One of the arguments used by the inflation hawks when oil prices were high is that even if the impact of higher oil prices on inflation was itself temporary, there was a danger that inflation expectations would increase, and the central bank would lose its anti-inflation credibility. My response at the time was three-fold: first, the private sector can see the reason that rates are not being raised (the continuing recession), so credibility should not be in danger; second, the best indication that the expectations that matter have shifted is when nominal wage inflation starts to pick up (which it did not), and third when that happens it will be easy to restore credibility and reduce expectations by raising rates. [1]

None of these arguments apply with deflation today. Then unemployment was clearly too high. Today unemployment is not clearly too low. How far we are from the natural rate is unclear, but no one would argue that we are in a boom that is the mirror image of the recession a few years ago. The second argument is that we could use changes in nominal wages as a clear indicator that the inflation expectations that mattered had shifted. That argument is not symmetrical because of the well known resistance to nominal wage cuts. Finally if credibility does seem about to be lost, the central bank will find it very difficult to take action to restore it because of the Zero Lower Bound (ZLB).

Please allow me to get technical for just one paragraph, which can be safely skipped. As has often been pointed out, the ZLB means that there are two steady states in the economy associated with a given real interest rate: the ‘intended’ equilibrium with target inflation, and the ‘ZLB equilibrium’ when inflation is negative. I recently discussed a paper that treated agents views about which equilibrium was appropriate as a ‘belief’ and that perhaps the liquidity trap could be a manifestation that agents believed we were heading for the ZLB steady state. The controversial aspect of this analysis is the suggestion that this belief could be shifted by the monetary authorities raising rates. I find that very unconvincing, but it would be a mistake to dismiss the exercise completely on that account. In that post I did suggest an alternative rationalisation for why we might be heading for the ZLB equilibrium: agents no longer believed that the monetary authority had the means to stop it happening.

This last asymmetry is the one that troubles me the most, and why I am not as relaxed as monetary policy makers appear to be about deflation. There are three interpretations of this relaxed attitude to negative headline inflation. The first is the one I suspect monetary policy makers actually hold, which is that the beneficial impact of lower prices on demand will with a year or so push inflation back to target, so there is no reason for concern. [2] I think the probability is that they are correct, but good policy does not just think about the most likely outcome, but should also be robust to risks, particularly risks with large consequences.

The second interpretation that the private sector could give for the relaxed attitude by central banks in the US and UK is that deviations above and below 2% are not treated symmetrically. In theory this should be more of a concern in the US than the UK, because in the UK asymmetry is against the central bank’s mandate. However I’m not sure the private sector thinks that is as important as MPC members do. There is one obvious additional asymmetry between now and a few years ago: many of those calling for higher rates back then are still pushing for higher rates today.

The third interpretation about why central banks are doing nothing is there is nothing they can do. Quantitative Easing seems to have come to a permanent halt either because it has stopped having a useful effect, or because policy makers fear it is having undesirable consequences. Under this interpretation the inflation target loses credibility not because the private sector no longer believes policy makers’ stated objectives, but because they no longer believe they have the means to achieve them. 

This possibility is the one that should really be worrying central banks right now. It is a scenario that is quite consistent with what is currently happening, and it puts at risk central bank credibility in a most fundamental way. Quite simply, central bank credibility is destroyed because people believe they have lost the ability (rather than the will) to do their job, and there is very little central banks can do to get it back because of the ZLB. This is what should be giving central banks nightmares. Strangely, however, they seem to be sleeping just fine.

[1] A footnote for macroeconomists: this is why I have never been convinced by Cochrane’s worries about using the inflation target as a transversality condition.

[2] Resistance to nominal wage cuts may also dampen any the deflationary path, giving time for these positive effects to come through. However resistance to nominal wage cuts does not mean the ZLB equilibrium will never occur – in the paper I discuss in this post, it is the reason why that equilibrium is associated with high unemployment.