We are all
conservatives now! I knew that would get your attention. No, I am not into my
third JD of the evening. But something is going on out there – or not going on
out there – that supports my wild contention.
First, I am
focused on financial conservatism – not the social variety. Second, I am
speculating about conservatism as it plays out in macroeconomics policy. This idea has
been ruminating in the dark recesses of my brain and jumped to the surface this
week after I read one brief article online worrying over the uncertainty
about US policy under Trump and then read another lengthier piece about the global economy by the
International Monetary Fund.
The shorter Bloomberg article thought that stalling new policies for infrastructure
spending and tax reform would injure corporate profits and lead to a slower
economy. The IMF piece – a magnum opus on the world’s future output growth
published this month – was more sanguine and predicted that the world and US
economies would grow faster in 2017 and 2018. http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2017/04/04/world-economic-outlook-april-2017
These two
recent pieces see different futures but agree on one thing – it is the lack of traditional policy that underlies our economic futures. In macro, we learn two opposing schools
of thought. The conservative macros believe good macro outcomes are the result of
less government intervention. The liberal macros believe the opposite. The liberal
macros believe that activism known as monetary and fiscal policy are necessary
to rev up spending and will lead to full employment and strong economic growth. This liberal belief has become traditional.
While the
IMF often shows a liberal tilt in their outlook reports, much of what they say in the April installment is lacking in liberal spirit.
From this I conclude that we are in a new economic policy conservative era
– at least for a while.
While the
IMF is forecasting marginal improvements in economic growth around the world, they
mostly see an economy stuck in neutral and not ready for the next drag race.
Summarizing from a long and technical report, the IMF describes an economy hampered by dismal expectations. The usual monetary and fiscal policies are having
little effect on spending, and the more they fail to work, the more pessimistic
we become. And therefore the policies have even less impact and we become even more dismal.
Low and negative interest rates spurred some activity in housing and autos but
firms are sitting on their hands when it comes to expansions and
modernization. Despite record amounts of fiscal stimulus, there is little bump
to spending in the economy. The more the government lingers with these policies, the more dismal people become. The IMF wishes that governments could magically
raise optimism. But how do you do that when the usual policies are not working?
What is refreshing
is that the IMF is recommending some very conservative policies—policies that
could be called supply-side. Imagine that. They admit that government is out of
bullets. In fact they admit that there is already too much money outstanding
and too little fiscal space (too much high debt) for most countries to resort to the
usual policy practices.
The IMF names two major trends that are holding back the advanced countries. The
first is a decline in the labor force participation rate. People are not wanting to work as
much as in the past. Various reforms could help on that score but these reforms
have nothing to do with the usual macro policies. They focus on the reward to work and on labor market mismatches. The second major challenge is in firms' willingness to buy new capital and to innovate. Firms are reluctant because of
a dismal outlook but there are many ways that government can try to raise the return
to capital without resorting to demand management. Reforms with respect to
regulations and tax rates could go a long way to creating a more sanguine
future for business firms. Raising the reward to work and to buy new capital will make firms more productive and profitable and should improve the growth rate of the economy.
In addition to
these trends are two global factors that dent our ability to grow faster. The
first is recovery and reform in China. As these reforms start to work, China will resume its role as a locomotive pulling the rest of us along with them. Finally, there are the lingering impacts of commodity and energy prices. While we all love a low
price of gasoline, the low prices of energy have stunted exploration and
development of oil and gas. Emerging markets prospered with high energy and commodity prices. They tanked with low ones, and the
contagion was global.
None of the
above supports a role for the usual liberal macro policies of monetary accommodation
or fiscal expansion. In fact, making people more optimistic might involve admitting
the ineffectiveness of these old tools – and thus we come away thinking that
monetary normalcy and budgetary restraints are the key to optimism and
spending. But better than that is the simple idea that policy should fit the
nature of our problems. Right now our problems are from the supply side. Demand
is low BECAUSE supply is low and because global challenges add to an uncertain outlook. Policies that directly target supply issues are
what the IMF is recommending. What a refreshing change of message!
I though that is supply is low then it is either because there is low demand or lower resources to provide supply. Demand is definitely low.
ReplyDeleteThe question is -- which is causing which. I am arguing that demand is low because supply is low. Supply is low because of supply-side factors affecting the cost and profitability of enterprise.
DeleteI heard that Paul Krugman has put out a hit on you.
ReplyDeleteHe has a Nobel Prize and I am a humble former bumble bee.
DeleteNowadays, that's a dubious distinction, at best. All things considered, being a former bumble bee tops it by miles.
DeleteSurprisingly sensible for you. If IMF planner economists show a modicum of sense they will likely return to the norm soon and discuss why more statist policies are needed.
ReplyDeleteI have my good days and bad. It might take a while for IMF to return to liberal macro policy advice given the amount of money out there and the outsize of government deficits in most places.
DeleteDear LSD. Yep, verwy verwy curious—the apparent shift from “traditional” econ policy to one seemingly more conservative. I’m feeling optimistic that “traditionalists” have now seen the lite.
ReplyDeleteO-o-o-o-o-p-s—sorry, got lite-headed/silly there for a nano-second. Reality just slapped me upside de ol noggin—they’ll never ever see the lite. It’s a ruse—they’ll return with vengeance to promote tax n’ spend if DJT’s proposed tax plan doesn’t get passed in its entirety and the economy doesn’t expand as quickly as he/his advisors say it will/should. Yepper—count on more stimulating speak from Ds for more simulative spending—deficit/debt be damned!
If DJT et al are successful in lowering the cost of doing biz and job growth continues to increase I think we’ll see favorable supply-side outcomes.
You should do your part, too . . . increase your supply of and consumption of JD from 2-3 boddles per week to 4-5. You’ll be happy and so will we all!
Airline size boddles. I'm happy to pitch in for the country.
Delete