Tuesday, May 8, 2018

The Tail is Wagging the Dog

Two weeks ago I proclaimed that macro was sleeping and wouldn’t you know it, all the news lately has been about macro policy. Much of the discussion among economists and journalists shows that macro must have one eye open. These policy discussions are as confused as I have ever seen them.

Here are some of the themes. First, the Fed is pretty sure that inflation is going to rise above the cherished 2% target, and they will have to attend to a potential inflation monster with a more aggressive monetary tightening. But then they admit that inflation is not roaring back yet and there is always the worry that a rough policy would lead us into a recession. Second, recent economic growth news from the UK and Germany have us worried that global growth may be in a new tailspin. Just days ago, we were worried that the world might grow too fast. Wham bam – now we are not so sure. Third, we might be headed into a global trade war pitting the US against China, Europe, and several far-off planets. Or maybe not.

Isn’t macro policy fun? It is true that all of us except for John Travolta cannot see the future, and economists always disagree about best policies for any given 7-minute time frame. But today we find ourselves more confused than ever. Why does macro seem so lame these days? What happened to our rocket science?

My explanation begins with the vivid notion that the tail is now wagging the dog. Nolan knows that a dog is supposed to wag its tail and not vice versa. The dog is short-term macroeconomic oscillation. The tail is everything else. It used to be that everything was about the dog. Central banks and treasuries are laser focused on short-term macro stuff. Is the consumer going to be happy this year and buy another car? 

Will tax cuts cause consumers and businesses to spend more? Are firms going to build inventories? Will rising oil prices rob consumers of money they could spend on JD and potato pancakes? In that world, the dog is our focus and we use monetary and fiscal policies to buff up spending when conditions are weak and the opposite when people are spending too much.

But the dog is a mere pussycat today. And the tail is roaring. The tail is the aftermath of the worst world recession that the Tuna can remember. The world economy never entirely exited that recession. We lumber along. Some wonder if capitalism is doomed. Others worry about the lack of enthusiasm firms have for buying new and exciting equipment. Then there is that debt overhang from beer-guzzling college students to pot-smoking boomers with hip pain.

This dragging tail of an economy is also weighed down by a disenchantment of both the young and old for the labor force and the nonchalant attitudes about investment and the resulting lagging productivity gains.

The sad fact is that our dog-oriented policy makers are in the dark when it comes to the tail. They know how to fix the dog and that’s where they focus their attention. If you are a hammer, then every problem is a nail! But dudes, it ain’t the dog. Focusing on the dog means you miss the point. Focusing on the dog means that you are confused by the macroeconomic data. John Maynard Keynes said that we are all dead in the long-run so we should focus on the short-run. But today the tables have turned. We seem to be very alive in the long-run, and the short-run will be a very dull and confusing place if we don’t take care of the future.

Like a 24-hour news cycle, the Fed is always in our thoughts. But the Fed has little to do with the long-run except to provide ample money for long-term growth. All this noise about whether they are going to raise rates 3 or 9 times this year sells soap but is mainly a distraction. Whack-A-Mole economic performance in the US and abroad is similarly uninteresting. The world economy is stuck in neutral, and it has everything to do with longer-term challenges.

We need to put Keynesian economics to bed. It’s hurting our sleep. Let’s require all decision makers at the Fed and in Congress to take a course in long-run macro. But that’s silly. I doubt most of them are smart enough to understand it. And none of our 24 hour news station would find it interesting enough. 

5 comments:

  1. Dear LSD. Keynesian has proven ineffective—so, yes, put it to bed. Krugman would disagree (boo-hoo). My take-a-way from your blog is that it’d nice—even wunnerful, ecstatic even—to be able to turn a few knobs and enjoy long-term economic stability for a long time—domestically and globally. But economists are like a referee trying to ref a football game and a soccer game simultaneously—the football game being monetary policy and the soccer game fiscal policy—two different situations each with its own set of rules. The Fed really doesn’t understand why or how inflation occurs and doesn’t know which of its tools/rules to apply to control it: Its knees are way out of joint from too much jerking. Congress, comprised mostly of congenital big spenders, can’t seem to implement effective fiscal (and trade) policy that would lead to steady, controlled growth—debt is not an issue, yet. The interconnectedness of globalization makes even more difficult the task of rationalizing monetary and fiscal policies.

    You’d think that with all the (almost) real-time domestic and international data on which to evaluate fiscal and monetary policies that decision-makers could do a better job of effecting steady, controlled growth. But the inherent conflict/tension between monetary, fiscal, and globalization make that impossible. And then there are the economists trying to figure out whether to impose a 15-yard penalty for roughing the passer or award an indirect free kick because the goalkeeper holds the ball for more than 6 seconds.

    Requiring the Fed/Congress to learn macro would be like tunas schooling mullets on how to taste good rather than being classy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good thoughts Tuna. My question is how we got to where we are where basically none of us have any respect for Fed or government policymakers. Much of it has to do with ideological emphasis on almost everything. Much has to do with the way we have turned 24 news into 24 hours of entertainment. The rest probably resides in JD.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, ours and other economies—‘cept China and other dictatorships—seem to be operated like driverless cars—no one is actually hands-on. How’d we git here?—ah-h-h-h-h, good ol bipartisanship and compromise.

      Delete
  2. Larry

    What are your thoughts on how a more modern North Korea might impact international trade and economies? Got to believe that they would be capable of providing a very cheap labour force, at the least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm guessing that even with massive inflows of assistance it will take 50 years for N Korea to be a modern nation. The population is only about 25 million so while low skill labor could attract some companies there the combination of overall backwardness and lows skills might not have much of an impact on the global economy. Think of the former East Germany. Did it become a great place for companies to do business even with the support of the former West German?

      Delete