Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Howling Wolf

On October 13 Martin Wolf wrote a column in the Financial Times called Time has Come for Intelligent Policy Making (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f4d3fdce-f42f-11e0-bdea-00144feab49a.html#axzz1auKt9tCY ). He ends the article with the following quote:
There are two big points here. First, fiscal and monetary policy converge when interest rates are close to zero. The authorities have to co-operate closely, to prevent an unnecessary disaster. As Deng Xiaoping said: “It does not matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” Who cares if a policy is called fiscal or monetary, so long as it works? Second, without economic growth, it is almost impossible to deleverage an economy. The prime minister revels in his pre-Keynesian views. When weak demand is the immediate constraint on output that is simply terrifying.
What is terrifying is that Wolf, a very influential writer, fails to recognize facts and continues to render advice that will truly harm the world for many years to come. He makes two important errors. First he believes that the present macroeconomic problem is deficient demand. Second he thinks that if past stimulus policies have failed then it behooves government to try them again – now with bigger doses of policy and with more coordination between the government and the central bank.
His belief that the main macro problem is a deficiency of demand or spending is like believing that driving accidents involving drunk drivers result from speeding. It is true that these accidents are correlated to driving speeds just as economic malaise is heightened by under-spending. But correlation is not causation. The accidents were caused by people drinking too much. Our lack of spending derives from very specific causes like years of unsustainable debt, a housing and financial crisis, a European sovereign debt crisis, and the attendant effects these trends have had on both Wall Street and Main Street. Calling for policy to induce people to spend more is like putting up new speed limit signs for drunks. Neither of these solutions addresses the root problem and the result is that neither will work. To the extent that Wolf continues to advise governments to focus on deficient demand means policymakers who follow his advice continue to avoid progress on true causes and thus threaten to make things worse.  
It is interesting that Wolf does not appear to read Wolf. In other columns he is quite lucid about the financial roots of our problems and is instructive on the need for private investors and tax payers to share in the solution burdens. Why he avoids his own advice and keeps coming back to strongly advise stimulus policies aimed at deficient demand is an interesting question. Maybe he doesn’t understand cause and effect? Maybe he believes the situation is so dire that cause and effect seem to be less important than trying ANYTHING to solve the problems. This is not 2008. I just don’t understand why he is so willing to throw caution to the wind and grab at straws.
This brings me to my second point. Wolf wants to see more stimulus and he wants a coordinated monetary and fiscal policy. Apparently the past programs were not enough. But Wolf doesn’t really say how much would be enough. By most measures the past fiscal and monetary injections were huge. And while there may not have been explicit coordination, the Fed and the US government were doing plenty without sending texts or tweets to each other. In theory a solo fiscal policy might lead to higher interest rates as government borrowing crowds out private borrowing. But that didn’t happen this time. I have read nowhere that rising interest rates have prevented recovery. Wolf seems to believe that if the Fed buys the government bonds that will somehow provide even more spending oomph. But does he really believe interest rates are not low enough now for people to want to buy a home or for firms to buy another machine? Does he really believe that the simple announcement of a new, large, and coordinated stimulus will cause people to run in droves to Amazon.com and Walmart with confidence and zest?
Much of Wolf’s conclusions derive from his belief that deflation is a bigger problem than inflation. I will give him that. I do not see imminent inflation for the world economy. But I see that fact different from him. This higher probability of deflation today stems from a belief that monetary and fiscal policy are spent and are NOT the right way to solve our macro problems. The more people listen to Wolf the more worried they become. This worry shows up in uncertainty and a desire to retrench. They don’t spend more when stimulated. The more the government tries to help, the more it nibbles off its own foot. I suggest we keep this Howling Wolf out of the hen house. More stimulus and more coordinated stimulus are going to scare the Hell out of people. What we need is for government to address the causes of housing and financial distress. Only then will we see a resumption of growth in output and employment. A wolf howls at the moon to no avail. I hope the same is true for the Wolf named Martin.

6 comments:

  1. As I would have stated in response to the last blog but was too late:
    1. Home equity is negative for 40% of the home owners who are on time with mortgage payments. Home equity was ...since World War 2 the primary source of wealth for the middle class. This will continue for a long time. No source of spending here.
    2. People have learned how to not spend beyond their means and fear the consequences if they do. No spending here.
    3. The US.... in the mid part of the last decade had a GDP that was 3 times larger than the other four top countries in the G20. We were hooked on over spending. By the way a lot of that spending was on products and services from off-shore countries so little if any of the dollars stayed here.
    4. Efficiency in manufacturing have enabled the portion of GDP (wages) to shrink from 36% to 11% since 1986. Those lost jobs for the most part have shifted to service and pay less. Since 2000 wages have stagnated in both service and manufacturing but the cost of living has not..... so credit was used to make up the difference until many people got into trouble. No spending here.
    5. The unemployment rate does not show those who are no longer getting unemployment compensation or are underemployed. The actual rate is most likely 17% or larger. No spending here!
    6. The government already dumped $700B to $1.5B (depends on who is spinning the news) into the economy and what happened? Banks paid bonuses and stored the rest like squirrels, some government jobs were saved, cash for clunkers came and went but we have never returned to the hey-days of wild spending.

    Maybe ...jut maybe...we are seeing a new economy much more like some of our fellow industrialized countries have had for years. One not based on wild buying binges or bubbles? Maybe we are seeing the start of the transition into what we can expect from an economy based on high technology and communication services...and away from the economic model based on manufacturing and financial bubbles.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Methinks Mr. Wolf is dressed in sheep's clothing. While he uses Japan as an example, he seems to have omitted the fact that it tried numerous stimulus spending packages and still went into a 10+ year serious economic funk. I won't argue that he's an intelligent, well-versed economist, but he seems too much of the Keynesian ilk, and his strong support of government spending as a cure indicates his leftward ideological leanings. It would be nice if economists could just give us the facts/theory without skewing them toward a political opinion. I suppose that's why you are so refreshing, Dr. D.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear James,

    Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. The baby boom was loud and impactful every year since 1946. It won't stop until we are all dead! Most of it should have been predictable. Now we are stewing in our juices...

    Cheers,

    Larry

    ReplyDelete
  4. Big Al,

    Thanks for your generous comments! I owe all of my fun in economics to Bill Schaffer! He taught my first exposures to mico and macro! Wolf must have been taught by Mao. Cheers,

    Larry

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great column, Larry. Your last paragraph calls for the government to "address the causes of Housing and financial distress.". How about a follow-up column on what hat follow-up should be?

    ReplyDelete