The news today was full of stories about rising interest rates. Rates are said to be rising because of a growing economy. The impacts of interest rates are one of the most complicated and misunderstood aspects of macroeconomics. Consider the popular discussions about interest rates over the last several years:
· Interest rates rose before the onset of the current recession – that was bad.
· Interest rates fell as the recession took hold. That too was bad.
· The Fed instigated a policy to reduce interest rates further and that was good.
· Interest rates are rising now and that is bad.
You might be saying – how can all that be true? It is possible only if you understand a little about cause and effect. Here comes some macrofun! First, interest rates are fundamentally driven by changes in the demand and supply of credit. Whenever the demand for credit (borrowing) outstrips the supply (saving), interest rates rise as borrowers compete in a market that has an insufficient amount of saving available for their needs. The borrowers include households, firms, and the government.
Second, interest rates reflect the impacts of inflationary expectations and risk. If inflationary expectations rise or if financial risk rises – the savers demand a higher interest rate to compensate them for reductions in buying power associated with higher expected inflation and increased risk.
Third, while the above factors cause changes in interest rates, interest rates cause changes in the economy. Economists might use words like – “once interest rates change they create impacts in other markets for goods, services, equities, foreign exchange, etc”. So a full discussion of the impact of interest rates would include all the following:
· X changes and impacts credit demand and/or supply
· Interest rates change
· Interest rate changes cause changes in spending, exchange rates, output, employment, etc
With this information and $3 you can get a coffee at Starbucks. You can also see why it is difficult to characterize and forecast interest rate issues. For example, interest rates were rising before the recession largely because spending in the economy was so strong that it created huge demands for credit. That might be considered a good thing because along with the higher interest rates was a very low unemployment rate. We like low unemployment, right? But wait, interest rates were also high because inflation and expectations of inflation were rising and the risk of a financial bubble were increasing. So the Fed decided to tighten the money supply and slow things down a bit. To do so the Fed drained money from the economy by selling government bonds. That added to the demand for credit even further and raised interest rates. The result was a clear realization by us all that housing and stock prices had peaked which quickly created a whole host of negative impacts on both Wall Street and Main Street. THE FED POLICY WORKED in the sense that it stopped the problem of rising spending. Of course, it worked too well since the unintended impacts on a very leveraged and interconnected global financial sector was a financial and real crash. Summary – rising interest rates were a sign of an economy growing too strong and they were bad because they led to a deep and long recession as well as a very weak recovery after the recession. Whew—all that makes me hungry. Reward yourself with a trip to the refrigerator.
The above sequence of events led to very low interest rates – a mirror image of what came before – falling and low interest rates as a consequence of very weak aggregate demand, lower inflationary expectations, and a Fed that was buying bonds faster than a fox can eat lunch in a Kentucky Fried Chicken Store. Low interest rates were bad because they were associated with insufficient borrowing, weak demand, and the resulting very high unemployment rate. The lower rates were thought to be good because the Fed’s policy appeared to be necessary to resuscitate spending and the economy.
So let’s jump to today’s headlines which announce higher interest rates. Is that good or bad? You might be guessing from the above logic (optimistically assuming that you are still awake) that the answer is yes AND no. And you would be correct. Today’s higher interest rates are the direct result of a stronger economy and rising demands for credit. That’s good. Of course, today’s higher rates are also the consequence of rising inflationary expectations. That’s good news too if you worry that inflation is too low. Of course, if you look at any chart of inflation rates over the last 50 years you will notice that inflation has a tendency to rise beyond its goal value once it gets started moving upward. It isn’t the kind of thing that you can easily manipulate. It is a bit like that potato chip thing. Once you eat one salty, crispy chip with onion dip there goes Idaho. So rising inflation is considered by some of us to be a problem. Not because we love Idaho but because without better policy we might be back where we were before the latest calamity hit.
Could today’s small interest rate rise really warrant all this concern? After all, Mr. Bernanke says that inflation is below target and we have lots of economic slack and high unemployment. Bernanke might say – let’s wait until we see that we are clearly growing too fast. But that’s exact the issue. First there is the Idaho thing.
Second, we have an unprecedented amount of liquidity just waiting to be spent thanks to the Fed’s policies the last years. Third, our government has an unprecedented amount of fiscal stimulus interacting with rising private demands. The firecracker might be wet and hard to light how. But watch out when the sun comes out.
It reminds me of the joke about the guy who falls off the top of a very tall building and as he is flying by the 10th floor on his way down to the street a person sticks his head out of a window and asks “how are things going?” The guy responds that “things are fine so far.” Well things are going fine right now as interest rates begin rising. I just hope Mr. Bernanke and our federal government don’t wait until too late to reverse engines. If not for America than please think about the potatoes in Idaho.
From a consumer’s point of view inflation has already arrived with the volatile food and gas purchases. Shortly those items will cause prices to rise in other areas that are less volatile. The Fed is buying back bonds and thereby flushing huge sums of cash in an otherwise lethargic marketplace (USA). This cash is in addition to the stimulus job saving cash and the tax breaks. Unless there are economically feasible uses for that cash (earning power and high dollar turn) the cash will be worth less (inflation) and things will cost more. However, the consumer and the businessman may or may not want to borrow because of rising interest rates or because their ROI with borrowed or leveraged capital may not be feasible. If the US continues to celebrate dependence on the service industry and neglect its manufacturing sector the ROI will probably be even lower and we may see another dip. I believe attention-real attention- needs to be directed to reducing the US debt ratio and building a more sustainable manufacturing base.
ReplyDeleteYou've been reading my suggested book, "The Seven Fat Years," haven't you? Everything you said agrees with what Mr. Bartley wrote. Once the inflation snowball started rolling under Johnson, it just got bigger and faster all the way through Carter's boondoogle, and it took about two years into Reagan's first term to even slow down. Look out, Ma! Here we go again! Bernanke looks like the proverbial deer in the headlights.
ReplyDeleteBTW, where do you come up with those analogies, e.g. "a fox eating lunch in a KFC store?" None of the foxes I know would be caught within a mile of a KFC. They all want Ruth's Chris.
Mr. LSD. Your nonsense makes clear that Big Ben and I-don’t-have-to-pay-taxes-Tim don’t have clue about inflation; they like the ostrich strategy. Unfortunately, by the time they are forced to acknowledge the gorilla-in-the-sports-car-inflation we will be paying $4.95 per gallon for gas and $6.00 per gallon for milk, oil will return to $150 barrel, and we’ll have to exchange Krugerrands for bread. Guess we’ll have to hope for the best 2012 election outcomes; the ultimate trifecta – WH, Senate, and House.
ReplyDeleteJames -- we agree on a lot but I doubt we can do much about regaining lost manufacturing -- especially low and medium skill work. Seems to me that we have a real comparative advantage in many services and very high value manufacturing. But let's let the market work. I don't trust our bureaucrats to pick the winners. The focus should be on reducing barriers to doing business.
ReplyDeleteCrash,
ReplyDeleteI didn't read that book yet but I am glad to hear that a smart guy like Bartlett and I agree on important things. As for foxes, it sounds like you are on the right track. The hot babes always go for the sexy pilots. Right?
Tuna,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that even guys like B and G should have learned something from the 60s and 70s. So while I am worried that they will be slow on the break, I am still a little hopeful that they might come around if only a little too late. But the clock is ticking. As for your dream of a united R government -- that doesn't reassure me much. The problem to me is not so much the D as it is the G. There is nothing more scarey to me as having a united government -- D or R -- thinking they are going to save the world.
Right! The sexy pilots....which is why I'm still going to KFC.
ReplyDeleteIt's Bartley not Bartlett. Bartley is the economist. Bartlett just writes quotes.
Well I just got back home in Tallahassee after picking up my new Sprinter van from the auction in W. Palm Beach. I stopped off at my brothers shop to do a little work on it; in a previous life it was an armored car and has kevlar in the walls and bullet proof glass all around and I need to do a lot of work to convert it into a camper.
ReplyDeleteWhat does all this have to do with inflation. Well the MB Sprinter vans have diesel engines and I had to fill it up with that volatile fuel to get around. Conventional wisdom is to get diesel from a truck stop because they pump a lot and it is fresher and hopefully cleaner.
Problem is that all the truck stops in Florida along I75 and I10 price their diesel North of $US3.70, with a lot at $US3.75, while the WalMart stations sell for between $US3.40 to $US3.45. Why the thirty cent difference in price; well my brother, who runs a fleet of about a dozen big rigs says they do it because they can. While my over sized Sprinter van can fit in a WalMart; the big rigs can't; they are forced to use a truck stop.
For me this is not such a big deal, I have the option of looking for cheaper fuel; and since I am an old retired guy who wants to carry around a bunch of expensive cameras in a bullet proof van there is not a lot of spill over.
Not so for the guys who drive the big rigs; and as an aside deliver not only those volatile food products we all eat, but just about every thing else as well.
So guess what happens to inflation when the truck stops gouge the truckers on fuel price?
Hi Larry! So what about the Fed's dual mission: keep unemployment and inflation in check. Given that the preponderance of macro theory says that those are diametrically opposed objectives, I'd say that reform is needed to remove these contrary objectives. I think inflation is the far bigger bogeyman versus unemployment because of it totally distorts the incentive to save & invest. And having two objectives for the Fed to "manage" also leads me to believe that it creates an incentive for the Fed to "do something" whenever a macro indicator looks like it might point to slowing economic growth. I say simplify the Fed's mission and reduce it to just maintaining a healthy price stability (i.e. try to keep inflation between 1 and 2 %).
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteWhile you point out the nub of a real controversy, many folks are more than happy for the Fed to have a dual mandate. Since fiscal policy seems at best awkward and too slow to be useful for Keynesians, monetary policy is quite nimble and fast. Therefore, there is a lot of resistance to leaving short-term demand management only to Reid, Boehner, and Obama.
One more point. Many times the unemployment rate is high because of high or rising inflationary expectations. In these cases a tight monetary policy is an effective tool for reducing unemployment. So long as the Fed ignores demand-driven short-term rises in unemployment and concentrates on longer term issues, it might in fact be the best solution for unemployment. Of course, this requires it to focus its attention on inflation -- as you said. So I am agreeing with you despite the political realities that dictate optimism about monetary policy as a short-term tool for high unemployment!