MMT and its Discontents: Again (Wonkish and Longish)

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has been in the news again, and for good reasons. I actually had a post with the same title back in February of 2012, hence the again in the title. But now, with the irruption of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the political scene ,and with the discussion of a Green New Deal (discussed here 7 years ago) and the feasibility of higher taxes (here, also long ago, among the many on the topic) taking the center of the political debate, MMT has become trendy. The rise of democratic socialist ideas, since Bernie's 2016 campaign, has brought the fiscal feasibility or responsibility, in the more conservative terminology, of such progressive  plans into the center of economic policy debates. Also, the fact that Stephanie Kelton a prominent MMTer is an advisor to Bernie, has brought significantly more attention on their views.

I have discussed Modern Monetary Theory in this blog for years (going back to April 2011, when I first found use of the term, to the most recent earlier this year after Olivier Blanchard American Economic Association presidential address last January), and have known the main MMTers going back to at least the mid-1990s, when I was at the New School and working as research assistant to Wynne Godley at the Levy Institute. I guess, I can be seen, to use the term employed by Doug Henwood in his recent Jacobin piece, as a fellow traveller (like Jamie Galbraith), even though I've been critical of some aspects, in particular when applied to developing countries (more on both Henwood and MMT issues in developing countries below).

There are many critiques, which deal with both theoretical issues, mostly concerned with the Functional Finance aspects of MMT, and with the policy and political effects of MMT advising to the left of center Democratic presidential candidates. Note that I will not try to define MMT precisely, since it is a hybrid of economic theories and policy proposals. I would assume that at core it is composed by the ideas of Chartalist and Endogenous Monetary views, Functional Finance, and an Employer of Last Resort (ELR) program as suggested by Greg Hannsgen in his recent presentation at the Eastern Economic Association (EEA), in sessions we co-organized (with the presence of Randy Wray presenting Stephanie Kelton's slides and Josh Mason; Stephanie was with Bernie at the rally in Brooklyn).

My comments will be, for the most part, directed at issues that fall within the Functional Finance part of MMT, and mostly about developed economies like the US (although, I'll have something to say about developing countries like Argentina or Brazil). I might add that Randy suggested that Functional Finance was a late addition to MMT, since this ideas were not known by MMTers in the mid-1990s or so. I think that the original source for the Functional Finance story was Ed Nell, who organized a conference at the New School back in 1997, I think, with Bob Eisner, and many other Old Keynesians. I had read Abba Lerner and Evsey Domar foundational papers in Ed's classes, and I think his influence on MMTers in this area is reasonable to assume.

Let me start with Paul Krugman's critiques of MMT, which have been clear and perhaps the most widely read (but there are many, including critiques by Tom Palley and Sergio Cesaratto here in the blog). So Krugman, in one of his most recent posts, starts by showing that there are many levels of the fiscal deficits that are compatible with full employment (not sure who thinks that this is wrong; I would add the same is true about the rate of interest, and that there is no natural or neutral rate of interest, a point that Keynes made back in the 1930s, and that is coherent with the capital debates, and, hopefully, it will be clear why this is relevant below). Then he argues more problematically, in my view, that crowding out is a serious concern, in his words: "The question then becomes one of tradeoffs: would the things the government could buy with a higher deficit be worth the lost private investment due to a higher interest rate?" But he knows well that the crowding out effect is empirically (if not theoretically) irrelevant, since investment is not particularly responsive to interest rates (he knows it's all about the accelerator); then he moves to the issue of the natural rate itself.

He seems to think two things (he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong). One, that MMT requires that you use monetary policy in order to achieve full employment. Two, that if you are in a situation of like the zero-lower bound, then the central bank cannot bring you back to full employment. That is, her assume that, using his own graph, the economy would be in position A.

Note that by his own argument you can go back to a point like B, with full employment by pursuing expansionary fiscal policy (be that an ELR or something else like traditional fiscal policy to expand infrastructure spending, for example; on this I should say that Randy suggested that he thinks traditional fiscal policy might be inflationary, and that's something perhaps would be compatible with Krugman; he noted how Minsky suggested that an ELR can be used as a buffer to control inflation). That is the IS would move up.

So it's unclear what the fuss is all about. If it is because the Fed could, in the MMT story (not sure Functional Finance authors would say that), print money to finance the deficits and bring the economy back to full employment, then the concern might be that it would be inflationary, in a Monetarist sense that printing money might be the cause of inflation. But that does not seem to be his preoccupation (I dealt with the issue of monetization of debt back in May 2011 in a reply to Krugman, who was back then, not surprisingly, criticizing MMT). His concern seems to be that the rate of interest would not go up. But of course, there could be a flat interest rate close to zero, a horizontal monetary policy (MP) line, and the expansion of the IS could be achieved bringing the economy to full employment (right below the C and B points with a zero interest rate).

But that doesn't seem to be the issue either. My guess is that he thinks that the problems is more like the one below, from an older post by him, in which the natural rate of interest is negative (my discussion of that here), and the Fed cannot lead the economy to full employment.

So his point is that the Fed cannot make it because it cannot bring the economy to the natural rate of interest, the one that is compatible with full employment and stable prices. He then goes on to criticize Stephanie on her critique of the natural rate, and tells us that: "So what purpose does claiming that the natural rate is a meaningless concept serve? It looks to me like sophistry – word games intended to confuse what should be a simple issue."

I'm not sure what Stephanie said about the natural rate, but I think it is well-established that the natural rate concept is problematic (note that on this some MMTers have said things I would disagree;  e.g. Forstater and Mosler suggest here that the natural rate of interest is zero; my discussion of that here). So I think the position that Krugman attributes to her is correct. Paul Samuelson would agree, as he did when he admitted that the capital debates had shown that neoclassical parables cannot hold (on the capital debates read this old post). So let me explain it briefly. There is no sophistry, just pure logic.

The capital debates show that with factor price reversals, when one good can be said to be capital-intensive at one level of the wage-profit ratio, and labor intensive at another level of the same ratio, there is no monotonic inverse relation between investment and the rate of interest. The investment schedule could look like the one below (my graph), with portions that have a negative slope and some in reverse, and if savings (determined by the level of income as in Keynes' principle of effective demand, rather than a Ramsey inter-temporal model) is given as in the graph below, then there might be no natural rate of interest. Keynes was explicit about that in the General Theory. That means that the monetary authority can set the rate of interest, what Keynes referred to as the normal rate, that was conventional, and that fiscal policy can be used to bring the economy to full employment. Btw, I think that overall Krugman and Kelton agree on that. Krugman says he's defending the theory, not the policy proposals, since he thinks they agree on that.

The point is NOT that the state can do whatever it wants, even though it has a lot of space, but that at the end of the day monetary policy is central for the ability to pursue fiscal policy, and the monetary authority can keep (unless it's forced by law not to do it; and that would bring up the discussion about the rise of the neoliberal idea of independent central banks) interest rates low enough to allow for fiscal expansion without debt growing at a very fast pace. Think of Marriner Eccles during the New Deal (chairman of the Fed at that time; search the blog for more on that). This is the argument that Josh Mason did, in a different way in our session with Randy at the Easterns. Note, also, that even though politically it was acceptable for the Fed to keep interest rates low, at 2.5 percent during the Depression and World War II, by the 1950s political pressures by financial markets and rentiers forced the Fed-Treasury Accord, and things changed (even though rates remained relatively low).

I'll comment briefly on two additional critiques of MMT, the one by Larry Summers, the ex-Treasury Secretary and advisor to the Clintons and Obama, and the one by Doug Henwood, an influential Marxist (see my discussion of his comments, and others, on Marx for the New York Times here), and writer of a very good book on Wall Street. I am sorry to say that both have too many arguments of authority and ad hominem attacks on some MMT authors, which I'm not interested in discussing. But there are a few substantive issues. One is the danger of inflation (that I'm glad Krugman seemed less keen on) and the others are on MMT and developing countries, and the political relevance and practicality of MMT proposals (here most critics have in mind the Bernie/Ocasio agenda of Medicare for all, cheap or free college tuition in public institutions, a jobs guarantee, and a Green New Deal).

I'll start with Henwood. His major issue is inflation, I would say. He says: "That brings us to the next problem: inflation. When the printing presses run freely, it’s not only reactionaries who think that runs the risk of spiraling prices. As I was researching this piece, many people to whom I described MMT, from Democrats to Marxists, brought it up as a worry. MMTers are coy about the topic — they never say how much is too much, and they profess great confidence in their ability to control it." Let me start by saying that inflation has not been a problem in 40 years, while wage stagnation is a central one. But if one is concerned about it, at least one should get the correct analytical tools to discuss it.

He tells us that: "The standard view of the Weimer inflation is that the German economy, severely damaged by World War I and forced to make huge reparations payments to the victors, wasn’t up to the task — it just didn’t have the productive capacity, and its citizens were both unwilling and unable to pay the necessary taxes. So instead the government just printed money and spent it, not only to pay its own bills, but to support bank lending to the private sector." First, that's NOT the standard view of the hyperinflation in Germany. You can read here the standard story, and I cite even a conservative historian like Niall Ferguson admitting that the monetarist story embraced by Henwood is NOT the dominant view among historians. The notion that the economy was at full capacity (didn't have productive capacity) and that printing money caused inflation is what Cagan thought about it. A more refined and somewhat structural story is the dominant view actually. In my view, it is clear that debt in foreign currency (not domestic), and, hence, the external problems of the current account, that forced depreciation, together with wage resistance are at the core of the hyper., German and many others.

In addition, it's worth emphasizing that the US is not Weimar Germany, in the sense that even with much larger fiscal deficits, debt would still be in domestic currency, and no significant pressure for depreciation would arise. The role of the dollar as reserve currency is not really under significant jeopardy. Certainly, there might be questions of inflation if we reach full employment, and that's a different issue (I'll come back to the topic below when I discuss Summers and the political feasibility of MMT sponsored plans). But the kind of alarmism of even suggesting that the US would be on the verge of hyperinflation is not serious. I won't comment on other primary mistakes like the notion that the rise of Nazism is associated to the hyper, when it is clearly connected to the Depression and deflation a decade later.

Henwood is on firmer ground, actually, when he discusses the external limits. Yes, indeed, for most developing countries like Argentina or Brazil, the ability to pursue expansionary fiscal policy is severely limited by the balance of payments constraint. Considerably before full employment, the patterns of consumption and investment may require too many imports, particularly of intermediary and capital goods, and even with capital controls, interest rates might be hiked to avoid capital flight and depreciation. Depreciation does solve the external problem, often by throwing the economy in a recession, and not because it stimulates exports. There is extensive discussion of that in the blog about it. Sometimes MMTers sounded like New Developmentalists in Latin American suggesting that depreciation would solve the external constraint and that capital controls were not even necessary. I don't think Randy believes that (or Stephanie), but it was certainly something that Warren Mosler believed in the past (whether he changed his mind I can't tell). But again the debate seems to be about the feasibility of MMT in the US (that's why I didn't emphasize in my comments on the roundtable the differences of debt in domestic and foreign currency, something I always do, as noted by Josh).

So that leads me to the last critique, the one by Larry Summers in his recent piece in WAPO. Summers says that: "Modern monetary theory... is the supply-side economics of our time" and that "these new ideas [about the importance of fiscal deficits] are being oversimplified and exaggerated by fringe economists who hold them out as offering the proverbial free lunch: the ability of the government to spend more without imposing any burden on anyone." He also says in Monetarist fashion that printing money would lead to hyperinflation. In his words: "As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation. Indeed, in emerging markets that have practiced modern monetary theory, situations could arise where people could buy two drinks at bars at once to avoid the hourly price increases. As with any tax, there is a limit to the amount of revenue that can be raised via such an inflation tax. If this limit is exceeded, hyperinflation will result." Again, emerging markets, like Germany, borrowed in foreign currency, that they cannot print. It was often the depreciation of the currency, the increase in the prices of imported goods, and the wage resistance of workers that led to hypers, and the central bank printed money afterwards, with money being endogenous. A foreign debt or external problem, not a fiscal one.

But there might be a danger of inflation (not hyper) if Bernie wins the election and manages to pass Medicare for all, free college, a Job Guarantee and actually spend some money on infrastructure, and to do something about global warming, without significant reshuffling of spending. Here is where I think the question of the supposed naïveté  of MMTers comes to play, with Henwood suggesting that they shirk the question of fiscal choices, and with Summers saying they resemble voodoo economics, the supply-side of the left (mind you supply-siders are many things, but certainly not naïve). I think, first of all, that the dangers of inflation are exaggerated, for several reasons. First, the labor market is not as tight as normally suggested. The number of people discouraged and out of the labor force is relatively large. Second, there are positive effects of growth on productivity (the Kaldor-Verdoorn effect, search on the blog too), so the supply constraint is not fixed, rigid at one given level (people said the natural rate of unemployment was 5 percent or higher just a few years back; again check past blog posts). Third, the bargaining power of unions, and workers in general, is not particularly strong, and it would take sometime to pick up.

More importantly, there is no chance that a Bernie presidency (and that's in and of itself a big if) would have both houses and could implement even a little bit of the program presented. Mind you if it happened we would probably get to full employment in a couple of years, and get increases in wages, and perhaps some inflation. But some inflation might be good, in particular if it allows for higher real wages, something sorely needed. How much inflation? Difficult to say, but the structure of the Fed is not going to vanish, and higher rates would be used to discipline the labor class, with the support of many neoliberal Dems. The limit will come probably before full employment and the capacity limit of the economy is reached (yes inflation happens before the capacity limit, because it's often cost push, and the sort of demand pull stuff Summers and Henwood are afraid about is not that common). In other words, the limits to fiscal expansion would be political, not economic, and there is no reason for the left to be up in arms against an imaginary enemy. Hyperinflation is like the the windmills for the Quijote. The giants to attack are actually the ones pointed out in the progressive agenda, like lack of spending on health, education and the environment, and MMTers have been instrumental in getting these ideas in the political discourse, and moving the Dems to the left.

But taxes matter too. Here is where the MMTers refusal to acknowledge that taxes on the wealthy are necessary is a political mistake (not all I've been told, but some for sure, as I've heard that criticism). Note that from the logical point of view they are not incorrect in suggesting that causality goes from spending to taxes, like it goes from investment to savings. It's implicit in the Keynesian/Kaleckian model in which autonomous spending (government spending is in there) determines income through a multiplier process. And taxes, like savings, grow with income. But it is important to note that politically (again this is not analytically, but politically) countries that went for a more ample Welfare State opted to tax their citizens, particularly their more wealthy citizens, at a higher rate. Tax increases on the wealthy should be (and are) part of the progressive agenda. It has an important distributive effect, and it makes the spending politically acceptable. At this juncture, however, even Blanchard says that we should just borrow, since interest rates are low, and will remain low.

The crucial point is that overall MMTers have been helpful in moving the Dems in the right direction (the right direction is to the left), and that is a good thing. The problem with Dems is not the existence of a few social democrats or socialists in their midst. In fact, even being generous there will probably be just three democratic socialists in the presidential primaries (Bernie, and, perhaps, Warren and Tulsi). The problem is the vast majority of neoliberals that still dominate the party. The same could be said about MMT. The problem is not the exaggerated propositions of MMTers, but the excessive fear of inflation when there are too many relevant problems to be concerned with.

Trumponomics and the next recession

Progressives for balanced budgets and free trade

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. Or that is what you would think if you follow the economics press lately. Sebastian Mallaby has a column on Trumponomics a while ago, suggesting Trumponomics is not working. I wouldn't disagree with the verdict, but the explanation is far from correct, and that is a common feature of discussions of Trumponomics in the media, and frankly by many progressive (not just liberal, in the US sense of the word) economists. On the other hand, you can expect a lot of praise in conservative circles (and bragging from the Trumpsters) about the unemployment level reaching 3.7%, the lowest since the Kennedy/Johnson boom of the 1960s. Many would say we are at full employment, and in a sense they might not be wrong (I think it's debatable; more on that below).

The question is then how things can be both good and bad. First, let me explain the more obvious, the labor market story. The recovery from the 2008 crisis has been long and slow, as it is well-known. And it is unclear what impact Trump's tax cuts will have, but it is highly unlikely that they would lead to any significant acceleration of growth, if past evidence is a good guide. So the current low unemployment level is the result of a process that started with the Obama fiscal package and has proceeded at a slow pace pushed essentially by consumption (after the initial fiscal stimulus). And that's why it has not been a more robust recovery (it remains very slow, even in the two Trump years).

This is reflected in an employment to population ratio that is still below the previous peak, even if now recovering. In other words, the participation rate in the labor market remains relatively low. And, hence, wages have not yet started to pick up significantly, and inflation remains subdued, which casts at least doubts about the meaning of full employment.

This suggests that we would need more fiscal stimulus, and not austerity. That's one concern I have with some critics of Trumponomics. That they presume that fiscal deficits and Trump's tax cuts are both bad. I would suggest that the latter is certainly bad, for distributive reasons. But deficits in the current situation in which the recovery has not raised all boats is far from a problem. I think it was Barbara Bergmann (citing Alvin Hansen) that said that the full employment deficit was the fiscal deficit necessary to bring the economy to full employment. We are probably not there yet. Btw, this is what used to be called functional finance and Trump's critics should learn about it.

Some critics, like Mallaby, are concerned with the trade wars. Here too I'm a bit worried about the positions taken by critics. Progressives have complained about Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) for a long while now. And also criticized the concept of Free Trade (see here for a list of entries in this blog). Mallaby, for example, suggests that the trade war with China, and the new version of NAFTA (USMCA now), which is worse for him than the original (the name for sure, Moreno-Brid suggested at a conference in Mexico this week MEXCUSA, a good pun in Spanish), would reduce productivity and growth.

I still don't have a full picture of the USMCA deal, but it seems that beyond the clauses about North American content and percent being produced with higher wages in the auto industry (both clauses that seem to favor the US and not Mexico), the liberalization of Canadian dairy industry, and tighter restrictions on generic medications (all of which seem to favor US corporations against Canadian citizens), the most important is the one that allows any member country to essentially veto free trade agreements with non-member countries. That is, most likely, a clause for the US to veto FTAs with China.

In that sense, USMCA is just an extension of the trade war with China. I don't want to write much on this, but it seems to me that the US finally decided to revert the opening policy towards China, that harks back to Nixon, and to take the Chinese challenge (and at this point it's just that; I don't see a Sinocentric world any time soon) seriously. In all fairness, it seems to make a lot of sense, from an American security position to make it difficult for Chinese firms to go about the process of catching up, which includes acquiring companies, reverse engineering, violations of copyrights and patents, industrial espionage and more. And yes, there will be disruption of the commodity chains. For example, maybe Apple will move some of its i-Phone production out of China into other developing countries in the region (don't think many manufacturing jobs will return to the US though). But productivity won't suffer much.

If you're concerned with productivity, fiscal policy and its impact on growth should be a greater concern to you. Expansion of demand is what pushes labor productivity (productivity is not the cause of growth, but the result; search the entries on Kaldor-Verdoorn Law in the blog). The slow recovery is the problem.

Finally, I'm still unsure about when the recession will come, but neither the fiscal or trade fronts, which are the ones attacked mostly by Trump's critics seems to be the crucial problem. Monetary policy might be though. If the Fed continues to raise rates, something they suggested they would do, then there is a serious possibility of a crisis ahead. Higher rates would affect the already overextended American consumer, and lead to a recession. Nothing like the last one, I think. And the Fed would be forced to reverse course pretty soon. But the Fed remains independent, also something that old critics of the concept have embraced in the Trump era.

Technological progress is NOT the cause of unemployment and inequality

Or that is what the recent Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Report by Lawrence Mishel and Josh Bivens says. Their study is essentially a critique of a recent study by Acemoglu and a co-author that suggests that robotization would have a large effect on employment generation. Note that this is not a requirement in mainstream neoclassical (marginalist) theory. Actually, technological progress should generate higher real wages and higher employment in the conventional model of the labor market (which is fraught with logical problems; yep capital debates apply here).

The reason, I mean the probable underlying ideological reason, for the narrative about robotization is that one cannot blame unemployment and inequality (wage stagnation) on policy decision made by conservative (neoliberal)   policy makers. It's the result of the inevitable changes in technology that are dictated by competition. The argument is not very different from the idea that it was not trade, but skill biased technical changed that caused most of the disruptions related to globalization. At any rate, below you can see the growth in labor productivity has actually slowed down in the last decades, and capital investment that incorporates the new technologies slowdown in tandem with productivity.

As Mishel and Bivens note, if automation and robotization were behind lower growth of output and employment you would need an acceleration of those trends in the recent period. Actually, productivity and investment were higher in the 50s and 60s, the Golden Age of capitalism, when employment growth was relatively high. There are many reasons for that, and I would point to the Kaldor-Verdoorn Law as the relevant regularity that explains why productivity is structurally connected to economic growth and employment generation.

Economic Regularities and "Laws" and the Riksbank Prize too

I've been reading The Nobel Factor: The Prize in Economics, Social Democracy, and the Market Turn by Avner Offer, Gabriel Söderberg, an interesting critique of the use of the Nobel Prize to undermine the Welfare State, essentially by conservative groups in Sweden, that were influential within the Central Bank (Riksbank), that disliked the Social Democratic policies in place in the 1960s. I have been critical of the Riksbank prize before (see, for example, here or here; check also Lars Syll's blog who often discusses the limits to the Nobel in economics), and this book is an interesting discussion of the socio-political forces behind the creation of the prize. I highly recommend it.

Having said that, I should note that the alternative to mainstream marginalist (neoclassical) economics is not Social Democracy. I guess one can actually be Social Democratic (Liberal in the US  New Deal sense of the word) and neoclassical. A good chunk of the Old Keynesians of the Neoclassical Synthesis sort were, and there are a few New Keynesians that are like that (many are simply Neoliberal). The alternative to marginalism, in my view, is a combination of the old surplus approach (classical political economy), particularly regarding value and distribution, and the Keynesian (and Kaleckian) analysis, regarding macro.

Also, I'm somewhat troubled by Offer and Söderberg tendency to read the Kuhnian ideas on the growth of knowledge in a nihilistic way, suggesting that economics cannot be seen as 'scientific' (surely a loaded term with more than one definition), and that there are no regularities in economics. They, for example, say that:

Feynman began by ‘looking for a new law’. But after three centuries, economics has yet to come up with a single non-obvious ‘law’, or universal regularity.

Don't get me wrong, regularities in economics are historically constrained, but there are more than a few. As any regular reader of this blog would know, I'm particularly fond of Okun's Law (and also of its inseparable fraternal twin Verdoorn's Law). I do think there is an important regularity behind the so-called Thirlwall's Law (that developing countries without a reserve currency face a balance of payments constraint more often than not), even if I don't think it is a "law" like the other two. In particular, I think that if one thinks of the persistent forces that operate within a particular mode of production, there are many other regularities that should (and to some extent are) part of economic analysis.

There are many mechanisms that capture the workings of those regularities in the economic system, like the multiplier and the accelerator. Theoretical constructs that are measurable, even if that is difficult and open to criticism. I guess I'm okay with the use of the term economic law, in a certain context. I suppose Marx also thought that capitalism, and other modes of production, were to some extent amenable of analysis on the basis of certain regularities, certain laws of motion, if one prefers (and, yes, that opens a discussion about determinism, but I'll leave that for another post).

Kindleberger (who I was lucky to see giving a talk in honor of Heilbroner years ago) wrote a little book on economic laws. The Iron Law of Wages, that Kindleberger discusses in his book, is very problematic (some discussion of that here), like the law of supply and demand, or the law of diminishing returns (they are not laws in my view, if that needs to be clarified). The other two Kindleberger discusses are much better, namely: Engel's Law and Gresham's Law. At any rate, for what is worth, I do think that there are many regularities that make economics scientific. Yes, sure social sciences are not like the hard sciences, but we do not live in post-modern world in which no regularities exist. But that does not undermine the authors' critique of the Riksbank prize, I might add.

On the AS/AD model and the micro/macro relation

I promised to discuss Nick Rowe's claim that one must start with Aggregate Demand and Supply (AS/AD) to explain macroeconomics. Nick's argument is that the AS/AD model is useful to analyze monetary economies, and he quite correctly points out that money must be part of the discussion from the start. In his words:

And if you don't start with money, monetary exchange, and AD and AS, you are doing macro wrong. Because the only thing that makes macro different from micro general equilibrium theory is the fact that macro incorporates the fact of monetary exchange, which microeconomists ignore.

While I tend to agree that macro should deal directly with monetary economies, it's far from clear that the only difference between macro and General Equilibrium (GE) micro is the existence of money. But before I get to that a few things about the AS/AD model in general and Nick's suggestions.

Sure money matters, but it's worth remembering that the basic macro principle, the idea of effective demand and the multiplier can be described without directly discussing money. Sure, Keynes noted that effective demand works in a monetary economy of production, and suggested that it was similar to Marx's capitalism (M-C-M') in the drafts of the General Theory (GT). But that was just to note that that the process of production is not about consumption, but about accumulation, something relevant for debunking Say's Law.

But the idea that investment (in this case as a proxy for autonomous spending) determines savings, and the adjustment process results from increases in income, does not require a previous discussion of money. So much so that Keynes himself suggests that he only came up with the theory of liquidity preference, and the monetary rate of interest, after the development of the multiplier (and his version the psychological law, and the propensity to consume below one; Kalecki does it by the share of income going to wages below one, and with workers consuming all their income).

So why is AS/AD important in my view, you may ask. I actually start with the Quantity Theory of Money to provide an AD curve (as suggested by Nick; but he prefers to make M endogenous as in a Wicksellian model), and a simple production function and labor market story for a vertical AS at the natural level of output to describe the neoclassical model. Exactly to show that in this case output is supply constrained and money does not matter. And that would contrast with the Keynesian view of a demand determined level of income and employment, and a world in which money matters.*

The worst part of using the AS/AD framework is that most students will mechanically believe in something along those lines, and in particular the notion that the two curves are independent. And even though by the end of the course I try to emphasize that the AS (potential output) can be moved by changes in the AD, along the lines of the Kaldor-Verdoorn, it is harder once they have been using both curves independently.

That leaves the issue of the micro/macro relations and Nick's notion that money, which he sees as a medium of exchange in typical neoclassical fashion rather than as a unit of account that represents the power of the State, is the main difference with micro. In my course, the first thing I discuss is the different views of what macroeconomics is, simply the aggregation of individual rational behavior, or as in Keynes' notion of the fallacy of composition something beyond simple aggregation. One example I use is Keynes' notion of financial markets as a beauty contest, that is, the idea that agents in financial markets are concerned with the average view of where the markets should be. So the behavior of one agent affects the behavior of others.

But the main problem with the notion of conventional neoclassical micro is more complicated than the lack of interdependence of preferences, or the lack of money for that matter, but the very core notion of the principle of substitution. I only discuss this in my course, briefly when I have to deal with investment behavior and Keynes' acceptance of the marginal efficiency of capital. And yes, that requires some understanding of the capital debates.

* I should add that I make the distinction that you could have short run effects of money in the simple neoclassical story, but not in the long run, in which cycles are dominated by technological shocks (phlogiston as Romer would aptly call them). In my view, in the long run the main effect of money would be on the level of the normal rate of interest, and it's impact on income distribution and the dynamics of debt. But those are discussed only cursorily in the undergraduate course.

Can Trumponomics work?

Work for whom?

That's what Martin Sandbu (subscription required) asks in the Financial Times. In his view, it might. He cites Ken Rogoff -- of spreadsheet fame -- who also has said that it's a possibility. Sandbu cites Summers doubts on Trumponomics, which are all based on supply side factors, but has very little to say about that.* Like Rogoff, Sandbu thinks that what matters is private investment that matters, meaning demand, and, as it must be in these cases, the confidence fairy makes an appearance. In his words:

"What matters, of course, is whether business investment will increase under a Trump economic policy. If it does, it could be because regulations are made business-friendly, because fiscal stimulus boosts aggregate demand and expectations of future demand growth, simply because there is something about Trump that changes the "animal spirits" of investors and business decision makers."

Keynes' animal spirits, also valued by New Keynesians, become relevant. However, the really relevant stuff in there is the fiscal stimulus and how much in terms of actual spending rather than tax cuts for the wealthy, and on what he will spend (e.g. infrastructure). On that, by the way, Trumponomics remains a mystery. But he is right that if: "if a greater fiscal deficit would have boosted growth under a president Hillary Clinton, it should also boost growth under a president Trump."
But the important point Sandbu makes is that:

"Whether greater spending leads to greater (sustained) growth depends on, as Rogoff rightly points out, whether there is much spare capacity in the economy today, or more intriguingly, whether supply capacity itself responds with faster productivity increases in a 'high-pressure economy' of strong demand."

Note that Rogoff only makes the point about spare capacity, and the intriguing idea that the supply constraint responds to demand is Sandbu's own. In other words, he argues that some sort of Kaldor-Verdoorn Law might be at work in the economy. And yes, that's absolutely right.

So can it work? Sure, but for whom is the important question you should ask. And it will be for the few? A boost to infrastructure spending would certainly help, and even military spending (and I'm not discussing the foreign policy implications of a Trump presidency), which is the way the US promotes industrial policy, might stimulate growth. But I would expect after his choices for the economic positions in the cabinet, including his last very anti-union Labor Secretary (and his twitter rant against the Carrier union leader) that the benefits will not be very well distributed.

* Rogoff thinks the economy is not growing less because of secular stagnation, as Summers, meaning it's not a permanent supply-side problem (negative natural rate of interest, or whatever version of the argument you prefer), but the result of debt overhang (more on this for a later post).

Cassidy on the productivity puzzle

John Cassidy is one of the best economic journalists around (together with Jeff Madrick probably). And not only because he has written about one of my mentors, Wynne Godley. In his last column he tackles the issue of productivity. And again I should say he is on the right track. He first gives a simple example of technological change from the donkey to the truck delivery system. Almost imperceptibly he tells you that you would change from one to another technology if: "you can find enough customers." Exactly, why would you invest in the new technology, the truck, if nobody is demanding more deliveries which would make the truck cost effective.

At any rate, he suggests three explanations for the current productivity slowdown (or the new concerns about it, since the Great Recession; this had temporarily vanished in the late 1990s when productivity picked up as a result of the so-called New Economy, i.e. information technology). The first, is that it's all a measurement problem, which in all fairness is not very credible. Then there is the Robert Gordon story that the third Industrial Revolution is less technologically dynamic. A supply-side story. And lastly, he hits the nail with the Kaldor-Verdoorn story. It is the slowdown in growth, mostly resulting from austerity. As the figure below shows productivity and GDP growth are highly correlated, and the question is whether you believe Gordon (with causality from productivity to GDP) or vice-versa, like Kaldor (Godley's intellectual hero, btw).

On Marx and other 19th century critical economists he might be wrong. But that is a topic for another post. On the calculations for Kaldor-Verdoorn go here (my method avoids the need to calculate potential GDP; on potential GDP see this interesting posts here, here and here by JW Mason).

John Cochrane on economic growth

There are three kinds of lies, "lies, damned lies, and statistics," supposedly said Benjamin Disraeli. This applies to John Cochrane piece in the Wall Street Journal today. Cochrane says that:

"Sclerotic growth is America’s overriding economic problem. From 1950 to 2000, the U.S. economy grew at an average rate of 3.5% annually. Since 2000, it has grown at half that rate—1.76%. Even in the years since the bottom of the great recession in 2009, which should have been a time of fast catch-up growth, the economy has only grown at 2%. Last week’s 0.5% GDP report is merely the latest Groundhog Day repetition of dashed hopes."

That is all true, and I myself complained about slow growth last week. However, this gives a false impression that the slowdown is a very recent thing, of the 2000s. In all fairness there has been a slowdown in growth going back to the 1970s or at least the 1980s. Growth since 1973 has been around 2.8%, and 2.6% since 1980, the years of the first oil shock and the productivity slowdown, and the beginning of the Reagan revolution respectively.

Yes, it is true that growth has further slowed down since the last recession (1.8% since 2000, and 1.2% since 2008), but growth has not only been slower over the last three decades (which, by the way go hand in hand with worsening income distribution), but also it has been more dependent on financial bubbles. And the last three recessions have been associated to the burst of a bubble. And given the structural conditions of the US economy, it seems that only with a bubble we will have healthier growth again.

The point is that an economy that depends on excessive accumulation of private debt, and debt-driven consumption bubbles is more volatile and prone to crisis. And that is associated both to financial deregulation and worsening income distribution. Certainly not to what Cochrane sees as the main American problem: "that the U.S. economy is simply overrun by an out-of-control and increasingly politicized regulatory state. If it takes years to get the permits to start projects and mountains of paper to hire people, if every step risks a new criminal investigation, people don’t invest, hire or innovate."

The notion that further deregulation would lead to a spurt of growth is preposterous. Yeah, because deregulating the financial sector has worked so well.  By the way, investment is a result of growth (accelerator) as well as innovation (Kaldor-Verdoorn). The problem is not enough spending on a sustainable basis, because party politics impedes public investment, and income inequality makes private spending more unstable. Austerity and inequality, not excessive regulation are behind low growth. But at least he is right that growth did not slowdown because of lack of innovativeness or a savings glut.

Some brief thoughts on technical change

Engelbart's mouse

I have discussed some of these issues before (here, for example, or here). But it is the last week of my intermediate macro class, and I often end up with some discussion of growth. Mostly the Solow model, and some alternative demand-led growth model. I do only the simple models, Joan Robinson's banana model and Thirlwall's balance of payments constraint, to contrast with neoclassical supply constrained stories of growth.

But in the middle of that discussion, supply constraint versus demand led growth, a conversation about the nature of technological change is always inevitable. No, I'm not going to talk about Kaldor-Verdoorn now. There are two interesting aspects of technology that are often misrepresented in mainstream models.

First, in the Solow model technology is akin to a public good, meaning is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. So technology is relatively easy to acquire, difficult to preclude others from obtaining it, and the access to it by one group does not limit its availability to others. That, by the way, is the reason patents and copyright are supposedly needed, to preclude technology to spread too easily and to provide the incentive for innovators.

However, technology seems to be considerably more difficult to acquire than what the canonical neoclassical model presumes. I always tell students that technology acquisition resembles building IKEA chairs. You have the blueprint, but even then it is hard to interpret it, and the first one is always a bit wobbly, while the process of building new chairs implies that by the time you are done with the last (perhaps the third or fourth one) the process is completely mastered.

The second element of technology that is often misrepresented, and this also true of some neo-Schumpeterians, is the role of the entrepreneur, the innovator. There is overpraise of their role in the process of technological change. The flash of genius which allows the innovator to transform the whole world is glorified. In reality, technological change is a slow process, in which several flashes are necessary to eventually produce any significant change.

For example, I asked my students what made Bill Gates the wealthiest man on the planet. Only one, by the way, said Windows, the operating system that followed DOS, and that was in every PC, after his contract with IBM (yes that contract, and the fact that he could pile his other software with the operating system, is the real source of the wealth). The operating systems were bought from another company, and essentially copied from Apple. And yes, Steve Jobs got most of his ideas from a visit to Xerox Parc. So the names of the several people that were central for the development of the graphical interface with multiple windows on a screen are hardly household names.

Walter Isaacson's The Innovators, which does overall a good job of showing that technological progress is a team sport, even if he does also idealize the role of innovators (yeah, it's in the title) tells the story of one of the them, Douglas Engelbart. About him he says (and yes there is a bit of hero worship in this):

"Over the next six years, culminating in 1968, Engelbart went on to devise a full-fledged augmentation system that he called 'oNLine System,' or NLS. In addition to the mouse, it included many other advances that led to the personal computer revolution: on-screen graphics, multiple windows on a screen, digital publishing, blog-like journals, wiki-like collaborations, document sharing, email, instant messaging, hypertext linking, Skype-like videoconferencing, and the formatting of documents. One of his technocharged protégés, Alan Kay, who would later advance each of these ideas at Xerox PARC, said of Engelbart, 'I don’t know what Silicon Valley will do when it runs out of Doug’s ideas.'"

Most of the time the several innovators needed to produce significant change are forgotten, and do not reap the financial benefits of their own innovations. In particular, because many times is difficult to sort out who had the original idea, where one innovation finishes and when the other starts. Technology more often than not develops as a result of a series of small steps, rather than by big leaps. Histories of technology should emphasize the role of institutions, like Bell Labs, and in particular for modern capitalist societies the role of the state.

On the blogs

Graph For the Day: Is QE4 Far Away? -- Roger Farmer on why the Fed might be forced to intervene. This one is a bit old, but worth reading, even if you don't agree with Roger on the effect of the stock market on the unemployment rate

Lessons from the Crisis: Ending Too Big to Fail -- New head of the Minneapolis Fed, Neel Kashkari says that financial reform did not go far enough and some banks are still too big to fail

New Keynesian Orthodoxy and Hysteresis -- Robert Waldmann, at Angry Bear, on the Jerry Friedman versus establishment economists debate, and on the fact that with the Kaldor-Verdoorn law (he doesn't cite it, but that's the source of hysteresis), short run effects of macro stimulus have a more significant impact on growth

Crazy as Adam Smith: the Media Discovers the Kaldor-Verdoorn Effect

So Kevin Drum at Mother Jones discovers the Kaldor-Verdoorn effect, and the fact that growing demand might be the main cause of rising productivity, and idea as old as Adam Smith in his vent for surplus model (chapter 3 of the Wealth of Nations says that the division of labor, that is, productivity, which is the basis for development, is limited by the extent of the market, that is, by demand). I posted extensively on that here (all post by date here), and produced, as far as I know, the only methodology to separate the Verdoorn effect (long term trend effect) from the Okun effect (cyclical effect) with one of my graduate students long ago (see here). And yes this is in part why a Bernie type policy would actually lead to significant changes in employment and productivity.

More on Secular Stagnation

Mauro Boianovsky and Roger Backhouse have written a brief post on the topic, based on a longer paper. As I understand the modern version, due essentially to Larry Summers, it basically suggests that there are insufficient investment opportunities, or a savings glut to use Bernanke's hypothesis, discussed here before. I explained why it doesn't seem particularly compelling story in that previous post. If public spending picked up in the US, so would private investment, and the savings glut would vanish. Yes global imbalances would increase. That would be good. Global imbalances would solve the 'secular stagnation' problem.

Note that the Summers' view is different than the Robert Gordon's view, but not incompatible with it, according to which the innovations of the third industrial revolution are less transformative than those of previous waves of technological change. As noted before also, since I believe the evidence for demand driven technological innovation is strong (something called Kaldor-Verdoorn's Law) I don't think there is much to this argument either. The Gordon hypothesis assumes that innovations are supply side determined, like most neoclassical economists, including Schumpeter.

Boianovsky and Backhouse point out something that I didn't know, since I didn't read Hansen's original paper on this, I might add, that the Turner's hypothesis about the closing of the Western frontier played a role in Hansen's stagnationist hypothesis. Not sure what's the mechanism, so I'll check and report back on that. Also they seem to suggest that Domar's debt sustainability condition depends on the Harrod-Domar model. That result, as far as I understand it, is completely independent of the growth model.

I should also note that the only forgotten author in this revival of the stagnationist thesis, is the most interesting of them all, namely: Josef Steindl, author of the 1952 classic Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism. Stagnation resulted from the oligopolistic structure of mature capitalism, in his view. Steindl was famously wrong, in the sense that the 1950s and 1960s were not a period of stagnation.* But at least his explanation pointed out in the direction of social conflicts imposed by the productive structure of advanced economies. As I said on my previous post on the topic, there is no secular stagnation problem, associated to lack of investment opportunities, in my view. There is a political problem that precludes more fiscal expansion, or in Steindl's terms, it's stagnation policy.

* An issue he discusses in his 1979 Cambridge Journal of Economics paper (subscription required).

Is labor productivity still pro-cyclical? Okun's Law is still fine

So there has been some talk about productivity not being pro-cyclical anymore. This is based on the notion that labor productivity increased during the last few recessions. Robert Gordon is the main source of this view. That is, it would seem that labor productivity is now anti-cyclical. Note that pro-cyclical productivity is what is behind Okun's Law. So below the data, from Fred. Labor productivity, the difference between real GDP growth and civilian employment growth and real GDP growth itself.

It is hard to look at the graph and suggest that the two variables are not positively correlated, even for the post-1980s period. But it is true that if you look at the shaded areas, which represent recessions, it seems that productivity fell before, and was already recovering in that period, at least since the Bush senior recession. This is more about the timing of the recessions, and how these are measured by the NBER, than about the strength of the pro-cyclical relation between productivity and output.

There are a few additional problems with Gordon's views. Note that Gordon does not explicitly deal with the structural relation between labor productivity and growth, the so-called Kaldor-Verdoorn effect, and that's why he finds that the Okun effect is weaker overtime. I had written before on this here (or here), and noted that the Okun coefficient has always been around 2 (by the way, with updated data still is; more on that on a latter post).

The inability to separate the cyclical and structural components of the relation is what causes the change in the short run coefficient (the Okun one). It is still true that as economies grow, productivity picks up, since producers try to adapt to increasing demand by utilizing more effective methods of production.

On the blogs

‘What are economists for? To make people laugh’: vale, Charlie Hebdo’s Bernard Maris -- Steve Kates on the late Bernard Maris, a post-Keynesian economist and victim of the attack on Charlie Hebdo

Unemployment and Productivity Growth -- JW Mason on productivity growth and Verdoorn's Law among other things

Secular stagnation: a neo-paleo-Keynesian perspective -- Roger Farmer on secular stagnation, Larry Summers' style, and neo-paleo-Keynesian economics (wow, is that a thing now?!)

Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Ideology -- Krugman on orthodoxy and heterodoxy (as always he discusses something else, distorting the meaning of heterodox as being against formalization, and not the acceptance by the mainstream of the natural rate hypothesis and the need for imperfections; this was discussed here before and in many other posts)

The mystery of productivity: what mystery?

Another old one. Trying to catch up after the Thanksgiving break. Mainstream economists seem always puzzled by productivity. It is the source of growth and a mystery (Helpman has a book titled The Mystery of Economic Growth). They refer to trends in productivity as puzzles, in particular the slowdown after 1973.

 

Alan Blinder: reminds us that after the surge in productivity growth, that for a while at least was referred to as the New Economy, associated to information technologies, has collapsed to even lower levels than the 1973-1995 period. He is, as a good mainstream author, quite puzzled. In his words, "quite surprisingly and still somewhat mysteriously, productivity growth plummeted [after 1973]... We are all in the dark."

In Jeon and Vernengo (2008) we suggest that labor productivity is endogenous, explained essentially by the expansion of demand, and old idea, implicit in Adam Smith's vent for surplus, and part of a well established empirical regularity, the so-called Kaldor-Verdoorn Law. In other words, it is the weak recovery, caused by a contractionary fiscal stance, and the slow pace of private spending growth as employment increases, that explains the poor performance of productivity. In this sense, the causes are considerably simpler, connected to macro policy, rather than the long-term pessimism of Gordon and Summers, which now talk about secular stagnation (see also this book).

Perhaps the more interesting stuff in Blinder's piece is his discussion of what the 'serious people' in the mainstream consider the natural rate to be. He says:

"the 'central tendencies' in the Federal Open Market Committee’s latest published forecasts range from 5.2% to 5.5% for the 'full-employment' unemployment rate, and from 2% to 2.3% for the potential GDP trend."

Note that Blinder also thought that the speed limit was around 2% back in the late 1990s (here his debate with Bluestone and Harrison). And yes he is a Keynesian (a New Keynesian). With friends like this...

Baumol's disease Prize?

So Monday they'll announce the Sveriges Riksbank Prize (aka Nobel). Both The Guardian and Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution Blog bet on William J. Baumol, who was nominated for his work on entrepreneurism. Baumol would be a worthy winner for the 'Nobel.' But that's not his best work, in my view, since it relies on the same mainstream flawed supply-side stories to explain economic growth. But Baumol's Disease is an important insight, and one of the few regularities in economics treated like a scientific law and named after the economist that observed it, together with Okun's Law, Thirwall's Law, the Prebisch-Singer Effect, the Balassa-Samuelson Effect, and Kaldor-Verdoorn's Law.

PS: Baumol's contributions are extensive, from money demand, to history of ideas (including this paper on Say's Law, which is named after an economist, but is not a regularity and it's not really a law), to the analysis of productivity, including work with Marxist author Ed Wolff.

Kaldor-Verdoorn's Law for Latin America

The Kaldor-Verdoorn’s Law (KVL) suggests that the rate of growth of labor productivity is determined by the expansion of demand. In other words, KVL suggests that there is a strong correlation between the growth of labor productivity and the rate of growth of economic activity.

The graph shows KVL for 7 Latin American Economies between 1950 and 2006. For similar analysis for the US see this paper.

History versus equilibrium: a false dichotomy

The title comes from Joan Robinson's famous essay. However, the motivation is to clarify some comments on a previous post on what Keynes meant by unemployment equilibrium (sent to me, but not published). There is a relatively widespread notion among some post-Keynesians that neoclassical economics assumes always a single unique equilibrium, and that Keynes, or at least his closer followers like Robinson, believed in multiple equilibria. The idea is that post-Keynesians believe in an unstable, uncertain capitalist system in which full employment is only one possibility.

Beyond what one may think about equilibrium, there is no basis in the history of economic ideas for that view. Keynes was a Marshallian, and as such did believe in the notion of a single stable long run equilibrium of the system. The radical element in Keynes analysis is that such equilibrium might be suboptimal, that is, one in which resources are not fully utilized. He is very clear when he says in the General Theory that:

"it is an outstanding characteristic of the economic system in which we live that, whilst it is subject to severe fluctuations in respect of output and employment, it is not violently unstable. Indeed it seems capable of remaining in a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse. Moreover, the evidence indicates that full, or even approximately full, employment is of rare and short-lived occurrence. Fluctuations may start briskly but seem to wear themselves out before they have proceeded to great extremes, and an intermediate situation which is neither desperate nor satisfactory is our normal lot."

So what Keynes said is pretty clear, fluctuations around a normal equilibrium. Unemployment is the normal position, the long run equilibrium around which the system fluctuates. Like the old classical political economists (e.g. Smith, Ricardo, and Marx) and the marginalists of his time (e.g. Pigou, and Marshall) Keynes believed in a single stable long run equilibrium position. Note that nothing in Keynes analysis implies that the long run equilibrium is ever attained, or that it cannot be affected by the process by which it is approached, and, hence that it would be path-dependent [the supermultiplier story with a Kaldor-Verdoorn process is path dependent and is still a long run equilibrium position].

The problems associated to the negative impact of uncertainty, and failed expectations, and the institutions and conventions that are relevant in a certain historical context to minimize the effects of instability are all part of the normal operation of the economy for Keynes, and not, like in neoclassical models, superimposed on an essentially stable system. In other words, Keynes equilibrium theory is not a-historical, and hence does not require the addition of more realistic (historical?) elements to provide explanation of say why the system is stuck below full employment equilibrium.

For example, lack of demand (caused by stagnant wages and not enough fiscal stimulus) means that the US economy will the near future fluctuate around levels of unemployment that are above the previous normal levels. In the graph below (source) that is visible in a trend that was lower in the 1950s and 1960s, and goes up in the 1970s and 1980s, only to go down (as a result of a series of bubbles) in the 1990s, and, as I suggested, is likely to go up again. This trend represents the normal position to which Keynes alluded in the passage cited above. Unemployment fluctuates, but is not violently unstable (sometimes it might be; asks the Greeks). In the neoclassical model, in contrast, without imperfections, be that price rigidities or lack of information or any other kind, the system would move to full employment. That's why they often resort to change what the meaning of full employment is (the natural rate goes up; nudge, nudge; wink wink).

However, the interesting thing is that while the old neoclassical authors shared the classical political economists and Keynes notion of a stable long run equilibrium (optimal for the neoclassical, and not so for Keynes and the classical authors), they have departed from that view after the capital debates. In fact, it is in the Walrasian world of Arrow-Debreu's intertemporal equilibrium, that the notion of multiple equilibria becomes relevant (for the reasons why the mainstream changed their views on equilibrium go here; Garegnani classic paper titled "On a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent Work on Value" is the source of this idea). But in that world, anything could happen, it is wildly unstable and there no forces bringing the economy back to its normal position. Certainly not what Keynes thought, and also not an accurate description of the graph above.

More importantly, the very idea of long run equilibrium is central to our ability to theorize about the functioning of real, historically and institutionally specific economies. It is the fact that there are persistent forces, with regularities, which allows to say something meaningful about the functioning of the economy. If uncertainty rendered economic calculation impossible, then even Keynes' theory about how effective (autonomous) demand determines income, would be irrelevant, and in that case post-Keynesians would have (notice I said would have, since I don't think this is the right way to describe post-Keynesian economics) more in common with the modern neoclassical economists that have embraced multiple equilibria and all sorts of imperfections.