Conversation (in Spanish) about Trump's Tariffs at Central Económica from UNAL-Colombia

Listen to the audio.

Essentially a conversation about what are the real risks, at least so far. 

Ken Rogoff on Milei and the IMF

 

Another Excel... ent work*

This is from a few weeks ago, but only now I had some time to post about it. Ken Rogoff has been doing the rounds of podcasts, after the publication of his most recent book, Our Dollar, Your Problem. He was on Ezra Klein, where he claimed basically that Bernie is as bad as Trump on trade (essentially saying that Biden, that had moved in the direction of Bernie is as bad too; good for Klein that he pushed back on that point). More on that in another post.

He was also on Tyler Cowen's podcast were he discussed, very briefly, the Argentina case. Here a short clip.

Here is the transcript of that bit of the conversation.

COWEN: Is Milei going to make it succeed in Argentina? What does it depend upon?

ROGOFF: I hope so. I think he’s the best chance that Argentina’s had in a long time, which is, fair to say, a very low bar. The thing that he’s done that I have not seen before is balancing the budget. If you’re a big borrower and you keep defaulting, a starting point is figuring out how not to have to borrow money, and he’s managed to do that. I don’t know that all his libertarian visions necessarily will come to pass, but he’s provided some stability, bringing inflation down.

It’s so sad. Argentina, as you know, was one of the richest countries in the world by any measure at the turn of the 20th century in 1900. Now they’re a lower middle-income country. Their per capita income is below Brazil, which is hard to get your head wrapped around. I think there are many reasons, but certainly Peronism, socialism has not done well by Argentina.

COWEN: But has he balanced the budget? I know he announced a balanced budget, but this is April 2025, and they just borrowed $20 million from the IMF. It doesn’t sound like a very balanced budget.

ROGOFF: It’s counting the interest payments on the IMF, and yes, he inherited this big debt. They’re paying the interest. It’s very low interest on the big debt, and I don’t know how that’s ultimately going to get resolved. They have a lot of problems ahead, but there’s a lot of strength in Argentina if they can grow again. I don’t want to sound Panglossian about Argentina, but goodness, they had inflation of 200 percent when he took over. The economy was in free fall. Look, there’s no magic wand you can wave over the last 80, 90 years of Argentina and make everything right.

A few things, that I think are important to contextualize, in particular given the relevance of Rogoff, who was the chief economist at the IMF, and whose textbook, co-authored with Maurice Obstefeld, another ex-chief economist at the IMF, is one of the main graduate texts for international macroeconomics.

First, the notion here is that the problem was fiscal in nature, and the debt in domestic currency is what matters. Of course that is NOT a problem. Inflation was not caused by monetary emissions, and neither was Milei's stabilization. In fact, the IMF first, by forcing a devaluation while Massa was still the minister, and candidate, and then Milei in December of 2023 accelerated inflation. He only managed to stabilize prices so far, because he has held the exchange rate under control, and that has led to many complaints that the real exchange rate is overvalued (that's a topic for another discussion). The fiscal adjustment caused the recession in 2024. That is on Milei, as well as the initial collapse of real wages.

Second, Argentina was never a developed country. It did have a high level of income per capita, but that is true of Saudi Arabia now. Petro-States and Beef-States are not necessarily developed, even if some people might be very wealthy. Peronism (which cannot really be considered socialism) did not cause a decline, not only because there was no glorious past in which the country was developed, but also because it was not in power all the time. There were periods of industrialization with conservative-authoritarian regimes, like Ongania in the 1960s, that did not align with the liberalism that Rogoff seems to prefer.

In fact, Prebisch, the father of the intellectual defense of state-led, import substitution industrialization, was a well-known anti-Peronist, and supported the 1955 coup.

Finally, it is true that Milei inherited a large external debt in dollars, and no significant reserves in the central bank. But that debt was accumulated during the Macri administration, an ally of sorts of Milei, under the same economic team (both Caputo and Sturzenegger were in both governments). This was not caused by the excesses of Peronism (read the Kirchners), but by the excesses of neoliberalism.

I have my issues with the implied notion that laissez faire, both in the US, and even more so in the periphery, is a rational strategy for development. On this Rogoff seems out of sink with the times, that have rediscovered industrial policy, and state-led growth. And I also think that Milei can, in particular with the help of the IMF, hold exchange rates for a while (even longer if external markets help him) and ride a reelection as Menem did in the 1990s. But then things will eventually crash.

* On the Reinhart and Rogoff affair read the piece by Cassidy in the New Yorker.

Recession, Stagnation, Inflation, Debt Crises and more (with Franklin Serrano, Ricardo Summa, and Nathalie Marins)

Slow at posting. This should have been uploaded before, but it wasn't on my Zoom account. At any rate, I think the panel holds well even after a couple of months (from late February).

Policy Parlor with Franklin Serrano

My conversation with Franklin during his visit to Bucknell University. We talked about the supermultiplier and its applications to understanding real economies. The quality of the sound is better than I had expected, even if the camera is moving somewhat, and could be distracting.

Brad DeLong Principles of Stabilization Policy and their Application

The 8th Godley-Tobin Lecture in full. No edits, and not the best lighting, but audio and images of PowerPoint are clear.

Serrano, Summa and Marins on Inflation, and Monetary Policy

This is the full round table on Inflation and Monetary Policy organized by the Bucknell Institute for Public Policy (BIPP), with Franklin Serrano, Ricardo Summa and Nathalie Marins.

Inflation, real wages, and the election results

Almost everybody these days accepts at face value that the result of the election was heavily determined by negative perceptions about Bidenomics, and that, in turn, resulted from inflation. Inflation was high (it wasn't, at least not that much), and people were pissed off. This is not just Larry Summers, who had argued (incorrectly in my view) that inflation was caused the large fiscal packages of an excessive generous government.

In the heterodox camp, many have suggested that more should have been done to control greedy corporations, that caused inflation by hiking their mark ups. In this view, price controls might have been helpful (often some examples of other countries, like Spain are used). While some of these would have been good, they depend on the previous existence of national mechanisms to, for example, control the price of energy (even easier if one has a national oil company),  of a national Value Added Tax on food that could be reduced to alleviate cost pressures. As I noted in the INET video, the best policy would have been to try to increase wages above inflation, and perhaps the best national tool was the minimum wage, but Biden and the Dems in Congress failed to pass an increase (Trump and the GOP are against the existence of a minimum wage, let alone a higher one).

At any rate, as I noted before, real wages at the bottom of the income distribution did go up, going back at least to the Clinton era, as it can be seen below.

However, that about the relative position of the workers at the bottom, nor about the fact that during the Pandemic period (and at the beginning Trump was still the president) real wages for the non managerial workers basically stagnated (even fell a little bit from the peak).

And, as noted before, this does overlook the fact that real wages for an extended period, going back to the 1970s, has more or less stagnated (individuals, obviously, might be doing better, as they get promotions and so on; but people know that their parents could have a better life with a working class salary back in the 1970s).

The key is not inflation, but that real wages have not been growing enough to provide a sense that people's lives are improving. If the left clings to the demonization of inflation, the ultimate lesson would be that fiscal policy was the problem (not the greedy corporations, but the inefficient government; both stories are incorrect, see why on my Catalyst piece). And we will make it so much more difficult for the next Democratic administration and the progressives within that coalition. Many on the left took the wrong lesson from the 1970s, that inflation was a problem, and that balanced budgets were necessary to win elections. That certainly was reinforced by the Clinton administration. To conclude that inflation and excessive spending was the problem with Bidenomics will make things worse.

In terms of feasible strategies that would have positive economic effects, and generate immediate electoral advantages, Dems should concentrate on higher minimum wages as a catalyst for better labor market conditions (the effects spread to other wages, and it is a simple slogan that people readily understand, and Trump would have been forced to remain silent or come out against it).

Elon Musk (& Vivek Ramaswamy) on hardship, because he knows so much about it

I noted (here on the blog and also here) that I didn't think predictions about inflation acceleration and a recession as a result of a a second Trump presidency seemed probable. Yes, he would cut social spending, but would likely expand defense spending, and the tariffs would have a level effect on prices, but not a persistent one on the rate of change (inflation). This was before the rant by Elon Musk on spending cuts and the need for real hardship. Elon suggested cuts of 2 trillion dollars which would obviously, if they were to pass, cause a major recession (I discussed that on the Rick Smith Show). Now Elon and Ramaswamy suggest cuts of about 500 billion. Still a huge number, more than 1.5% of GDP, that would certainly provoke a recession. They say (read it in full here):

They suggest that the Pentagon doesn't know how it spends the money, which is true, but make no mistake, they are going for Medicare and Medicaid (particularly the latter; easier to take money from the poor than the elderly). I still doubt that they will cut spending significantly overall, and that there's anyone concerned with the deficits in the incoming administration. That's actually one of the few good things (although how they are going to spend, and tax, will cause a lot of pain).

On that, on the hardship, that is forthcoming, I'm reminded of this interview by Arthur Okun (yesterday a kid was presenting on his ideas in my history of thought class), on the push back on the higher taxes and sacrifice arguments within the White House early on the JFK administration. He said:

I do expect that some people will be forced to sacrifice. I'm still skeptical about the fiscal adjustment. But I have been wrong before.

PS: Note that back then, as now, extra spending for defense reasons encountered no real concern. The idea to raise taxes was a political gimmick from JFK's advisors. Not push back from Congress.

The second coming of Trumponomics

Donald Trump will be the first president since Grover Cleveland, also a New Yorker, to have two non consecutive terms in the presidency. The reasons for this are beyond my abilities to analyze, but it is clear that he did get the votes of people in the lower levels of income, that had voted for Biden in 2020 (but not for Hillary in 2016) and went decisively for Trump. One may say that the populist vote in favor of tariffs, often associated with working class interests, was part of the explanation. But Bidenomics (on that see this and this) had incorporated that and more.

I do think that economic factors were central for the outcome of the election. However, I think there is a simplification in suggesting it was inflation. Many people have suggested that, including many progressives, like, for example, Doug Henwood, which is correct in emphasizing the mistake of the Harris campaign in veering right (and that perhaps Dems will mistakenly veer even more to the right).

However, I tend to think that when people say that inflation is one of their main concerns, and that should be taken seriously, what they mean is that their wages are low. Nobody would care if inflation was even a bit higher if their wages increased significantly above inflation. And sure enough the minimum wage that has not increased since 2009 has been at historical lows. However, once we look at the earnings from those at the bottom, as shown below, we that while they did fall from May 2020, even before inflation accelerated, until June 2022, they have recovered and are higher than before the acceleration of inflation. However, they are essentially barely above the levels of the early 1970s.

In other words, real wages recovered, and have been growing more or less since the second Clinton administration, but they have been essentially stagnant, and there are many reasons for the working class to be angry. You could use other variables to show the same (without the issue of inflation), like the share of wages and salaries in Gross Domestic Income (below) that fell from about 50 to close to 42%. Bernie's insurgency on the left was no mere accident, and its interdiction within the Democratic Party has made it possible for a Era of Trumponomics, as it is now clear.

What working class people, that flocked to Trump in 2016 and now, and had voted for Biden in 2020 (and Obama in 2008, and also in 2012 when the candidate was Romney), are saying is our incomes are insufficient. Not that inflation is high. The working class is not Monetarist, even if some of their intellectuals are. Why my caution on inflation, you may ask. Because the main lesson from mainstream Dems will be that inflation caused the defeat (echoed by many progressives), rather than economic hardship and inequality, and that this, in turn, was caused by excessive fiscal expansion, and that balanced budgets are needed. Exactly the wrong lesson.

Inflation was not caused by the fiscal packages, it did not cause the defeat, and it actually is back down and, for the most part, excepting supply-side shocks, will remain low, since the bargaining power of the working class is weak (soon to be weaker), and there is NO significant distributive conflict (all stuff I said on my piece in Catalyst at the beginning of the inflationary bout in the summer of 2022).

In fact, the anti-labor stance (so much for his populist credentials) is the defining characteristic of Trumponomics. The tax cuts for the wealthy are recycled supply-side economics. The tariffs, which everyone sees as his hallmark, and something that he introduced in his first presidency, and in some ways has been maintained by Biden, are less relevant in some ways. First, contrary to some hyperventilating the tariffs will not reignite inflation, but would at worst increase the price level. Second, and more importantly, it is unclear that this is not like the infamous wall, that he would have built, and Mexico would have paid for, in his first term, more imaginary than real. His possible Treasury Secretary has already said in the Financial Times that: "Trump’s pledge to impose sweeping tariffs on imports as a 'maximalist' threat that could be altered during talks with trading partners." In his words: "It’s escalate to de-escalate."

Tariffs are just a tactic to deal with China. The anti-labor stance will be seen soon at full display in the National Labor Relations Board, that during Biden has been the most pro-labor since the 1960s, perhaps. Where we should expect a tremendous backlash, other than labor issues, is on health, and immigration, and these again have significant impact on the working class. His government will make things worse for workers, and will open the opportunity for left wing populism. If the Dems learn the lesson. A big if. Hope springs eternal.

Argentina on the verge

The big question in the case of Argentina, as always is when it will explode. If the current developments are an indicator of anything, it should be sooner rather than later. Note that the fundamental problems regarding the possible crisis and default are associated to the external debt in dollars (one has to repeat this all the time). It does not mean that there weren't other problems with the Argentine economy, but the domestic issues do NOT lead to a default (yes, that means the fiscal problems).

In spite of all the criticism of the Fernández government, and some of that is certainly correct (but not the fact that they didn't do fiscal adjustment or not enough industrial policy; it's the reserves idiot!), the increase in debt happened all during the Macri administration (2015-2019). Milei's 'plan' was to make a fiscal adjustment and devalue the official exchange rate to close the gap between it and the parallel exchange rate (the blue). The notion was that fiscal adjustment would solve the inflationary problem, caused in this view by monetary emissions to cover the fiscal deficits. Regarding the devaluation the logic was that the official rate was incompatible with the market determined one, and, hence, this was inevitable.

Milei depreciated the official exchange rate by more than a 100 percent, to reduce the parallel market premium, and implemented a draconian fiscal adjustment, that he claims has led to a balanced budget. In reality his adjustment is a bit of a sham, an accounting gimmick. For example, the distributor of electricity, privatized in the 1990s, has stopped payments to the producers, and the government is negotiating the bill, which will not be zero, even though that is what they show in the balances. Many other cuts are unsustainable. In this case, even the IMF has suggested that the measures have gone too far, and might have severe social consequences. Note that fiscal adjustment and depreciation are the traditional IMF policy prescriptions.

As a result of his measures, inflation accelerated to more than 25 percent per month in December right after the depreciation, and as the exchange rate depreciation moderated, inflation has decelerated, remaining for now more or less at the same level as before Milei’s inauguration, which corresponds to an annualized rate of about 180 percent. However, in the last month inflation increased again, from 4.2 percent in May to 4.6 in June.

More importantly, the exchange rate premium has started to increase again, as the parallel exchange rate depreciates more than the official one, and reaching a gap of 60 percent, before falling back to somewhere in the 40 something percent.

Of course the devaluation only managed to accelerate inflation, and reduce real wages, and the blue continued to devalue, since the expectations that the government will be able to stabilize the exchange rate are minimal, given the lack of reserves. The central bank is now intervening in the foreign exchange markets to reduce the gap. But all hinges on the ability to obtain dollars. And that's why we are on the verge of a crisis. The IMF will probably not pony up more dollars, even if Trump gets elected, which seems to be Milei's bet. And now Argentina will have to start make significant payments servicing the debt. Default is imminent, and there is an increasing need to acknowledge that the Argentine debt is unsustainable.

Bidenomics and other ugly ducklings

The media and a good chunk of the policy wonks are surprised that Biden does not get the deserved recognition for the relatively good state of the US economy, and that as a result he is suffering in the polls. There are two separate, but interrelated, causes for that. The most obvious can be defined in one word, inflation. The second, is related to the fact that, even though the recovery from the pandemic was fast, the economic situation for most working class people has not been great for a long while. In other words, the recovery from the pandemic brought back a situation with which most of the people at the bottom of the income distribution were struggling. I'll deal with inflation, which is the one that everybody is discussing in the news.

Regarding inflation, two things have been negative for Biden. A lot of the mainstream (liberal) and conservative media blames Biden's fiscal package in early 2021 and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the 2022 Inflation reduction Act, for the acceleration of inflation. As do many economists connected to the Dems, more prominently Larry Summers. That view also underpins the Fed's interest rate hikes.

The interest rate hikes could have caused a recession, but now that seems to have been clearly avoided. Traditionally the mechanism is through the impact of the interest rate on residential investment, which is critical for consumption patterns. The graph below show residential investment, that fell before every recession. There were two previous false alarms, in 1951 and 1967, where the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the spending associated to those, came to the rescue. Here, it seems the extra fiscal spending which was highly criticized came to the rescue. Also, the government shutdown, which was always a possibility, and would have reduced spending (and was my biggest fear in terms of a possible recession), never materialized.

The acceleration of inflation, as I discussed several times here (see this paper and this one too, or this INET video),  was caused by supply side constraints during the pandemic, and the shocks to key prices, particularly energy and food commodities after the war in Ukraine. Since there is no significant wage resistance, it was expected that inflation would recede and fall once the shocks passed. No surprises there. And wages are winning against inflation, ad can be seen below. The wages of non-supervisory workers were growing below CPI in the early phase of the inflation acceleration, and are recovering now.

So one may very well ask why are people so angry about inflation. If one looks at the BLS resports it is clear that energy prices, early in the war, and then rents, after the Fed hiked interest rates, had higher increases than the general CPI. The graph below shows that.

This is relevant, since, for lower income people, the impact of higher energy and rental prices impact more than proportionally their ability to spend. In other words, people have less money after paying for gas and housing (and gas impacts transportation and some food items). So most people have felt the inflationary acceleration and they had to tighten the belt somewhat to maintain the same life style.

PS: The yield curve is inverted, and has been for a while and that makes some people nervous. I discussed back in 2019 why an inverted yield curve might not necessarily imply an impending disaster.

The Argentina of Javier Milei

A seminar organized by the Association for Heterodox Economics with myself, Ramiro Álvarez and the Argentine Senator Carolina Moisés.

Atonella Stirarti's Godley-Tobin Lecture

There was a problem during the 7th Godley-Tobin Lecture. I disconnected everyone when I was trying to fix a problem with Professor Stirati's presentation, and I didn't notice until much later. The worst part is that the recording was lost. I'm posting here the PowerPoint presentation for those interested. We will also post the link for the published version of the lecture, which will be open also on the website of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE).

Podcast Failures: Friedman and Chile, Hume and Public Debt

I listen to a few podcasts during my commute. Two that I often appreciate are Know Your Enemy, associated with Dissent Magazine,* a series of interviews on mostly right wingers by Matthew Sitman and Sam Adler-Bell, and Past, Present and Future, a series of monologues by David Runciman, sponsored by the London Review of Books.  Both are always entertaining and informative. I'm not a specialist in most of the subjects they discuss. However, two recent episodes (or at least I listened to them recently), one from each, dealt with economic issues, and they did leave a lot to be desired, to say the least.

Very briefly, the issue with the interview with Jennifer Burns about her biography (in many ways, from this interview, and the one with Tyler Cowen, it is hard not to see it as a hagiography; more on that as soon as I read the book; it's been ordered. I hope that's just a perception and that the book provides a more balanced view of his contributions and political views) of Friedman is that the hosts accepted almost all of her very monetarist interpretation of the Allende government, and her whitewashing of Friedman's relation with the Pinochet regime (see on that this and this). In all fairness, at least one of the hosts (sorry, not sure that was Matt or Sam) questions (around 1:16) the validity of her interpretation of the relation of Friedman with the regime. But there seems to be a complacent view according to which inflation in Chile was caused by excessive monetary printing driven by the expansion of the welfare state.

The role of the US sanctions, and Nixon's infamous instruction to "make the economy scream" are never cited. And the lack of dollars was at the center of the depreciation of the currency, inflation and the collapse of the economy. Let alone that the Pinochet period wasn't that good (yes they do claim that it created the basis for future growth, a typical conservative trope, that I should write about; in another occasion). I also recommend this post by Tom Palley. On a general evaluation of the regime see this piece by Jim Cypher in Dollars & Sense.

The issues with Runciman's podcast are considerably more problematic. They don't entail a misrepresentation of the ideas of a crucial intellectual, in this case, David Hume. In fact, Runciman is relatively correct when it comes to Hume's essentially negative views of public debt (which were not all that different than those of Adam Smith, at least according to Donald Winch**; btw it was called public credit at that time, so nothing weird about it). He makes to much of Hume's drastic solution, default, for public debt, and its comparison with suicide, for the nation not the individual. And he does recognize that events essentially proved Hume wrong.

But then he commits all of Hume's (and modern mainstream economics). Presumes that the only way out of debt is to run persistent surpluses, printing money and reducing its value in real terms (endorsing a Monetarist view of inflation; it's amazing how pervasive it is), and default. He misses that debts can fall as a share of income (GDP), that is, the ability to repay, if the economy grows faster than debt (the rate of interest), and that most debt consolidations actually happened that way, while running deficits. He also gives Argentina as an example of a country that has defaulted without noticing the differences between debt in domestic and foreign currency. It's a mess. Worse, in an environment in which many conservatives want to promote default in the US he suggest that talking about it would be reasonable. He is out of his depth, should apologize and invite someone to explain the problems with his analysis.

Again, I'm only commenting on these two episodes, because they do seem off, when compared to the quality of both podcasts in general.

* I published almost 20 years ago on Dissent. Because of this I did search their online archive and my piece, and my name was misspelled. Also, it was published in the Winter of 2004, and not of 1984. In the original magazine it was spelled correctly. Oh well.

** See Donald Winch, "The political economy of public finance in the 'long' eighteenth century," in John Maloney (ed.), Debt and Deficits: An Historical Perspective, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1998.

A short note on Argentina's depreciation, inflation and possible dollarization

That Argentina is in for a major crisis is, I think, pretty clear and well-known. I won't delve too much on the political aspects of what Finchelstein refers to as wannabe Fascistic tendencies of the new president.  Today a major protest should take place, and the same people that suggested that Peronists groups forced the recipients of social transfers to participate (something that was never proved) under threat of being cutoff, are threatening to cutoff those that participate. You know, because they defend individual liberties and all.

First of all, the economic plan (and many heterodox authors had been calling for what exactly done) was simply maxi-depreciation, of 100 percent, of the official exchange rate, to try to close the gap with the parallel market (or blue) rate, and the announcement of a massive fiscal adjustment, supposedly of about 5 percent of GDP. As discussed here several times, the effects of these policies are certainly a significant acceleration of inflation, and a massive recession. These are well-known effects of a maxi-depreciation. Prices will adjust to the massive increase in the cost of imported inputs, and the increase will reduce real wages (that, by the way, is one of the main reasons for the measure), and have a contractionary effect on spending, that will be compounded by the fiscal adjustment.

Two brief technical things. The adjustment may not per se improve the fiscal accounts, since the economic collapse will reduce revenue too. It is a well-known rule that consolidations (reductions of debt and of deficits, the results of policies) tend to be more successful with a growing economy, and without a massive adjustment (reduction in spending and/or higher taxes, the direct policies).* Second, the reduction in the exchange rate premium (the gap between official and parallel rates) is not an indication that things are better, if it is done, as it was, by depreciating massively the official rate. In particular, the question is what will happen with the parallel premium in the near future. The official exchange rate will be on a crawling peg, if the announcement of the new minister is believable. And the premium has been very high, because of the interest rate differential between returns in pesos and in dollars, adjusted for risk (see figure below, which shows the interest rate in pesos compared to the actual depreciation of the currency, plus the US rate and the EMBI from JP Morgan). The remuneration in dollars is always higher.

The government has also announced a plan to essentially transform the central bank bonds (Leliqs) into treasury bonds. And the interest rate on the central bank bonds were kept low, presumably to get everybody into the treasury ones. However, the treasury bonds will have to pay a very high rate, since the the expected depreciation is large, and the government announced it will continue. That suggests that they are expecting people to continue to go to dollars, and that might actually lead to a persistence or increase of the exchange rate premium. In particular, if there is significant wage resistance, to be expected after this massive depreciation, and inflation accelerates.

In the absence of dollars, there is little chance of a stabilization. The government may very well be trying to accelerate inflation to create the conditions for a dollarization later on.

* Most economists confuse adjustment and consolidation of fiscal accounts. In part to cloud the fact that consolidation does not require adjustment. The US reduced its massive debt accumulation during World War II, without adjustment, by growing fast in the post-war era, in which the government did run deficits frequently and the welfare state was actually expanded, particularly in the 1960s.

Lucas Teixeira on Inflation

The talk here. Recording is not the best, and the Power Point cannot be seen. It is available here for those interested.

Paper is here. From the abstract:

In the overlapping global emergencies of the pandemic, climate change and geopolitical confrontations, supply shocks have become frequent and inflation has returned. This raises the question how sector-specific shocks are related to overall price stability. This paper simulates price shocks in an input-output model to identify sectors which present systemic vulnerabilities for monetary stability in the US. We call these prices systemically significant. We find that in our simulations the pre-pandemic average price volatilities and the price shocks in the COVID-19 and Ukraine war inflation yield an almost identical set of systemically significant prices. The sectors with systemically significant prices fall into three groups: energy, basic production inputs other than energy, basic necessities, and commercial and financial infrastructure. Specifically, they are “Petroleum and coal products”, “Oil and gas extraction”, “Utilities”, “Chemical products”, “Farms”, “Food and beverage and tobacco products”, “Housing”, and “Wholesale trade”. We argue that in times of overlapping emergencies, economic stabilization needs to go beyond monetary policy and requires institutions and policies that can target these systemically significant sectors.

Serrano on conflict inflation and inertia (in Portuguese)

Must see video (but I'm sorry to say in Portuguese). The talk at the last Demand-led Growth conference not yet available was in English, but much shorter. Once that is published I'll link it here.

Inflation Paranoia and the Return of the New Consensus in Macroeconomics

 

 

And inflation will remain high, very high

This was published a while ago. I forgot to link it here. Their summary:

Economists have proposed two main theories to explain the recent spike in prices. Progressives have attributed the rise in inflation to corporate greed and have suggested price controls in response. Other economists have turned back to the New Consensus in Macroeconomics that arose in the 1970s in response to steep inflation blamed on the large Keynesian fiscal expansion of the preceding decades. Matías Vernengo writes that neither camp has correctly diagnosed the problems with current inflation. Proponents of Greedflation overlook the price stability of the last few decades even as market concentration increased. On the other hand, advocates of the New Consensus similarly forget their history and the commodity shocks and price-wage spiral that were the real culprit for inflation in the 1970s. 

From my conclusion:

The inflation acceleration of the 1970s did not show that Keynesian policies were inefficient or had caused the acceleration of prices. As noted by James Tobin back then, inflation resulted from the oil shocks and the price-wage spiral. But inflation reinforced the social problems that led to the collapse of the old New Deal coalition and the Keynesian Consensus, ushering the Conservative Revolution and the New Consensus in Macroeconomics. The Pandemic inflation acceleration has undermined the revival of Keynesian ideas, and the revision of the New Consensus model that was under course. Instead of the concern with secular stagnation, we are back to inflation paranoia.

What’s driving inflation? Bucknell prof says maybe not what you think

My interview with Scott LaMar from WTFI, on inflation and the problems with demand-pull and oligopolistic inflation, for those interested in another iteration of the same. It's a bit longer than previous ones, and we go on some additional detail.

Unmasking Inflation: Why the Conventional Wisdom is Failing Us

Interview I gave for INET in January. From their website:

Matías Vernengo navigates the complex topic of inflation, discussing its implications on workers, and the economic policies that can potentially mitigate these effects. He explains the inflation of the 1970s and compares it to the more recent inflationary scenario provoked by global events. Vernengo evaluates the mainstream explanations - demand-pull and cost-push theories - and presents an alternative, heterodox explanation that views inflation as a result of distributive conflict and corporate power. While he acknowledges the role of corporations, he emphasizes that it’s the effects of inflation, primarily on workers’ real wages, that require addressing. He argues that the best policy would be to compensate workers for these effects. Vernengo’s analysis covers not just the American context, but also examines inflation in peripheral economies like Argentina and Turkey, identifying a link to exchange rates. He also critiques the “one-size-fits-all” theory approach to understanding inflation, underscoring the need for a heterodox economics perspective that could offer more nuanced insights and potential solutions.