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.
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.
ReplyDeleteYou’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.
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.
DeleteYeah, 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.
DeleteLarry
ReplyDeleteWhat 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.
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