More on MMT in the Tropics: or Can exchange rate instability, and zero interest rates, guarantee prosperity in the periphery?

 

Lance Taylor, Wynne Godley and myself in March 1999

Back in the 1990s (from late 1996 to early 1999 to be precise), I worked for Wynne Godley at the Levy Institute. Minsky, that I saw in Brazil once, had just passed away. Randy Wray was at the Levy at an office not far from Wynne's, where we worked on his model. I was, also, in Ed Nell's study group (Matt Forstater was a frequent visitor), that met regularly and discussed functional finance. In fact, one of the few topics that I was first exposed at the New School, rather than at my alma mater in Brazil.

Ed organized a conference on functional finance in 1997 (if memory doesn't fail me), then published as a book (see here), which in many ways was the beginning of what later would be called Modern Money Theory (note that at the core was Abba Lerner's functional finance). At dinner (at the Orozco Room) I sat at a table with Musgrave, Duesenberry, and, for a brief moment, Eisner, that had to leave early.* I think that was the first time I met Mosler.** Randy's MMT book came next year, in 1998 (I should note that I paid less attention to that book than his previous one, based on his PhD dissertation under Minsky, since I was at the time writing my own dissertation under Wynne and Lance Taylor, both pictured above on the day of my defense).

I start this, just to explain what should be obvious, that functional finance, endogenous money, and a preoccupation with full employment not only are part of my concerns, but that I learned, at least in part, some of these ideas more or less at the same time that they were being discussed and the MMT school was being formed. Mind you the notion of effective demand, and the perils of the external constraint, were things I already knew, but some of the issues with value theory and its importance for policy I also learned with Ed, and John Eatwell, at the New School. Further, on a personal note, I should clarify that while I worked for Wynne, who at the time was concerned with the growing external imbalances of the US, and the consequences for the international position of the dollar, I tended, on this topic to be closer to Randy's views, since it was clear for any one that came from the Federal University in Rio, and who had been influenced by Maria da Conceição Tavares, that the dollar was under no danger, and the US by definition didn't have an external constraint.

All of this to say, again, that in general, I do agree with the notion that autonomous spending determines income, and taxes being charged out of income, are the result of spending, and, as a result, the limit to fiscal policy is essentially political in nature. That is something that MMT has been instrumental in popularizing in the United States, and whenever I can, I do help on that (see my podcast with Stephanie Kelton, who was at Levy when I worked there, and started her PhD at the New School slightly after I did). She was here at Bucknell to discuss the documentary Finding the Money.

 

Stephanie at the Campus Theatre, Bucknell last March

This introduction, longish and winding, is to explain why it is somewhat weird to discuss this paper by Arturo Huerta, who I have met in Mexico, but do not know very well. This is difficult because it is a misrepresentation of the differences I do have with MMT. His paper is supposedly a rebuttal to some arguments that we have made with Esteban Pérez on Modern Money Theory (MMT). The paper is a mix of name calling (essentially that we are conventional or orthodox, read, neoclassical, and that we are neoliberals or aligned with them) and a series of arguments in defense of flexible exchange rate regimes as a solution for unemployment problems in peripheral countries. The title, "Exchange-Rate Stability Causes Deterioration of the Productive Sphere and Destabilizes Developing Economies," seems to go even further and advocate for exchange rate instability. For Minsky financial stability was destabilizing, for some MMT authors exchange rate stability causes underdevelopment and is also destabilizing.

In fact, this seems to be more a response to the critique, mine more than Esteban's, to Warren Mosler's proposal for Argentina (see below),* which would definitively cause more exchange rate instability,  inflation and a huge recession, than to our original discussion of MMT in developing countries. In fact, Huerta does not cite that paper, but our response to a poorly developed and somewhat misleading paper by Agustin Mario, that I discussed here, who said without any evidence that we defended supply side views of economic growth.

Mosler's plan consists of free float (which he says retains foreign reserves), a zero (yep, that is zero) interest rate irrespective of the rate of interest in the United States, and a Job Guarantee (JG) program. The rest is less relevant, at least for our purposes. I also assume some expansionary fiscal policy on top would be necessary for the JG.

 

Mosler's policy proposal for Argentina

Huerta's main point is that a flexible exchange rates would free the country to spend in domestic currency, very much like Mosler suggests, without loss of reserves, which developing should not be concerned with in the first place. He essentially argues along Wray's lines according to which: "a government does not need to fear that it will run out of foreign currency reserves (or gold reserves) for the simple reason that it does not convert its domestic currency to foreign currency at a fixed exchange rate" (from Wray's Modern money theory: a primer on macroeconomics for sovereign monetary: p. 161. It is still exactly like that in the 2024 edition).

The notion is that: "a floating currency provides more policy space – the ability to use domestic fiscal and monetary policy to achieve policy goals. By contrast, a fixed exchange rate reduces policy space" (Ibid.). Of course, a fixed exchange rate is not necessarily the same that a stable one, and the notion that allowing big devaluations is counter-productive. MMTeers may say, as I'm sure they will, we do not defend big devaluations. Maybe not explicitly, but if you keep low (zero interest rates), and do not intervene in the exchange rate market, that is, unavoidably, the consequence. Doing that will not retain reserves, and central banks should be concerned about reserves. Btw, Milei was able to reduce inflation drastically because he did intervene both in the official and the parallel exchange rate markets (and the loan from the IMF is essentially about recomposing reserves; more on that in another post).

Then comes the question of why you should be concerned with reserves, and here Huerta's position is somewhat puzzling, particularly for someone coming from a developing country. I quote here, he says: "Vernengo and Pérez (2021) do not consider that purchases of imported goods are paid for in the importing nation’s currency, accepted by the exporters so that they can make investments, acquire financial assets, and make purchases in that nation." He suggests that they would accept pesos. In this view, a country that is an oil importer, that cannot function without energy, can import oil in domestic currency. Good luck with that!

But even if we leave the realm of Latin American magical realism, an the notion that developing countries can import in its own currency the basic capital and intermediary goods that they need to maintain normal levels of activity, his view is full of problems. He accepts very conventional views about the exchange rate (while claiming that I do have orthodox views, which I never did, on fiscal austerity; on that, note that The Guardian quotes me twice, here and here, as being against austerity when many heterodox economists, some even arguably MMTeers, I might add, have been for austerity in Argentina, saying that the mistake of the Kirchners was their fiscal excesses).

His main argument is that a "flexible exchange rates are important ... for increasing the competitiveness of national productivity and reducing pressures upon the external sector." He repeats it,  saying that: "A flexible exchange rate improves competitiveness and promotes economic growth, thereby reducing the current account deficit." In other words, the flexible exchange rate does solve the external problem (Randy is always more careful about that, and I have not seen that argument in his work).

He says that: "the reason for MMT’s advocacy of flexible exchange rates is so that the exchange rates may adjust to differences between domestic prices and those of the principal trading partners. By allowing those adjustments, a nation can avoid the relative-price distortions that would affect national production." *** He notes, as I suggested above, that they are not for depreciation per se (yeah, but with a zero interest rate...), but that: "the predominant exchange rate stability (achieved by maintaining high interest rates, in order to promote capital inflow) has led to exchange rate appreciation, which is detrimental to the competitiveness of national production." In this, as we noted in our original paper with Esteban, they are very similar to Bresser-Pereira's New Developmentalism. In the concern with a competitive exchange rate, but with a tolerance, if not a promotion of exchange rate instability, which is inevitable with very low interest rates.

There are many other issues, which again reveal actual use of marginalist thinking, for example, he says: "In saying that low interest rates generate inflation, these authors presuppose that low rates increase demand, and that the economy is in full employment. However, Vernengo and Pérez do not consider the fact that low interest rates favor the growth of investment, production, and productivity." First of all, that misrepresents our views. Low interest rates, leading to a negative interest rate differential (when the local rate is lower than the US rate adjusted for risk) leads to depreciation, and higher costs of imported goods, and inflation even if the economy is below full employment (I published the model in a book edited by, wait for it ... Forstater and Wray). Inflation comes from distributive conflict, and a depreciation, by affecting the costs of production and reducing real wages, stokes inflation. Second of all, his point is that lower interest rates lead to higher investment, which is a marginalist view that associates the intensity of the use of capital with its remuneration, a problem Huerta and many Post Keynesians share with Keynes.**** I follow Sraffians and prefer to abandon marginalist principles.

Huerta puts emphasis on the role of investment as central for growth, and in the need of very low interest rates for that, irrespective of their effect on exchange rate instability. He actually says several times that exchange rate stability is a problem, and argues that: "economies that give priority to exchange-rate stability cannot employ flexible monetary and fiscal policies to stimulate growth." On this, my views are closer to Ricardo Summa, that notes that investment is not so unstable, and follows the accelerator, and that autonomous demand (the non capacity generating part of it) is central for explaining growth.

So one needs a managed exchange rate, to avoid the inflationary pressures, and one needs to be concerned with reserves to be able to avoid the perils of not being able to import essential goods, that would cause bottlenecks an impede growth. But Huerta knows that, as a friend noticed (see below).

As he says in his tweets, what would Mexico do if it runs out of dollars to buy corn? Why not use pesos instead then? I mean, I get that Vernengo did not consider that, but he is an orthodox economist, isn't he?

In other words, sometimes, and certainly not always, developing countries cannot pursue expansionist fiscal policies because they do NOT HAVE DOLLARS (there is a reason every country, even China, accumulated humongous reserves of dollars after 2008-9). In order to be able to do it, sometimes, higher rates are needed in the periphery (not so much in the US). Then expansionary fiscal policy can be pursued even with higher interest rates, and the economy would be able to grow (as would investment that would respond, not to the higher interest, but to higher levels of demand). Exchange rate competitiveness is not central for growth, and Latin America did its State-led, import substitution industrialization (that Huerta cites all the time) during Bretton Woods with a stable nominal exchange rate (Mexico had a fixed rate from 1954 to 1976; they call it stabilizing development). It was a period of high growth, and relatively stable and appreciated exchange rate.

* I did co-edit a book, that had what I think was the last paper written by Eisner and can be seen as a follow up to that conference (ours what out of a few sessions we co-organized at the Easterns in DC in 2004, on functional finance issues.

** Mosler was in Argentina and presented this in several venues, including, at the University of Moreno, where someone questioned the idea that flexible rates with zero interested was feasible, and correctly noted that it would be inflationary and contractionary. He proceeded to ask if the person worked with me, as the story was related to me. As if my position on this is somewhat unique and someone that suggests that it doesn't make sense is my disciple.

*** Note that for Huerta exchange rates change relative prices and allow to fix distortions, in typical marginalist fashion. The emphasis is not on the effects on distribution and through that on quantities, as in structuralist views.

**** This blog is known for emphasizing the Sraffian critique of the marginalist theory of investment (very old post on that).

Heilbroner, Minsky and Heterodox Economics at UNAL Radio

Radio show in Spanish at the website of Universidad Nacional de Colombia. In Spanish of course. A short summary of one of my talks at the conference last week. Thanks to Diego Guerrero and Óscar Morillo.

Corporate Debt in Latin America and its Macroeconomic Implications

New paper by Esteban Pérez and co-authors published by the Levy Institute. From the abstract:

This paper provides an empirical analysis of nonfinancial corporate debt in six large Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru), distinguishing between bond-issuing and non-bond-issuing firms, and assessing the debt’s macroeconomic implications. The paper uses a sample of 2,241 firms listed on the stock markets of their respective countries, comprising 34 sectors of economic activity for the period 2009–16. On the basis of liquidity, leverage, and profitability indicators, it shows that bond-issuing firms are in a worse financial position relative to non-bond-issuing firms. Using Minsky’s hedge/speculative/Ponzi taxonomy for financial fragility, we argue that there is a larger share of firms that are in a speculative or Ponzi position relative to the hedge category. Also, the share of hedge bond-issuing firms declines over time. Finally, the paper presents the results of estimating a nonlinear threshold econometric model, which demonstrates that beyond a leverage threshold, firms’ investment contracts while they increase their liquidity positions. This has important macroeconomic implications, since the listed and, in particular, bond-issuing firms (which tend to operate under high leverage levels) represent a significant share of assets and investment. This finding could account, in part, for the retrenchment in investment that the sample of countries included in the paper have experienced in the period under study and highlights the need to incorporate the international bond market in analyses of monetary transmission mechanisms.

Read full paper here. 

Minsky's financial instability hypothesis

From Boom, Bust, Boom. Not the best explanation, but accessible. In this version is all about confidence, which is not particularly heterodox. Btw, slow posting will continue until mid-August.

Boom Bust Boom and the South Sea Bubble

Terry Jones documentary Boom Bust Boom has been out for a while. Worth watching too. The Economist gave it a reasonable review. And there are Minsky and Galbraith puppets.

Above a brief, and simple discussion of the South Sea Bubble. I think role of trade with Spanish America is exaggerated. The most relevant part of the scheme was the public debt swap. Dale's The First Crash provides an interesting account of it.

Book Review of Foster & McChesney's "The Endless Crisis: How Monopoly-Finance Capital Produces Stagnation and Upheaval from the USA to China"

The Endless Crisis: How Monopoly-Finance Capital Produces Stagnation and Upheaval from the USA to China. John Bellamy Foster & Robert W. McChesney Hardcover: 224 pages. Publisher: Monthly Review Press (September 1, 2012). Language: English. ISBN-13: 978-1583673133

By David Fields

Over-accumulation stemming from the so-called golden age of global capitalism has ensued an era of underconsumption as exemplified by low profit rates and chronic excess capacity. As such, what has taken place is an historical transformation towards the process of financialization. With an inability to absorb effectively economic surpluses, concerning the promotion of rising wages along with productivity, NFCs, or non-financial corporations, are coerced to paying a larger share of their internal funds, specifically via debt leveraging (including consumers), to financial institutions. These financial institutions, which are increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, have become some of the most powerful actors. Increasing concentration of control within the financial sector lends credence to Marx's (1894: 544-45) argument that what Foster & McChesney call the age of monopoly finance capital is one in which

[t]he credit system, which as its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money lenders and usurers surrounding them, constitutes enormous centralization, and gives this class of parasites the fabulous power, not only to periodically despoil industrial capitalists, but also to interfere in actual production in a most dangerous manner-and this gang knows nothing about production and has nothing to do with it.

Read rest here.

Krugman is actually right on ISLM and Minsky

I tend to disagree a lot with Krugman, at least on theoretical issues. His brand of Keynesianism supposes that the system doesn't work because of imperfections. For him, the current slow recovery is due to the fact that the natural rate of interest is basically negative and you cannot use monetary policy to stimulate the economy (see critique of this here). However, on his recent debate with Lars Syll (and here; Brad De Long also posted here), a post-Keynesian, with whom I probably share a more radical interpretation of Keynes and its relevance for economic theory, Krugman seems to get things right.

The main points in Lars initial post, based on Minsky's book John Maynard Keynes is that traditional representations of Keynes do not emphasize the cyclical component of Keynes' theory and that true or fundamental (non-probabilistic) uncertainty is often ignored. Lars adds a little bit more on his response to Krugman and De Long, but essentially is the same argument. Keynes didn't like the ISLM (which is from a historical point of view difficult to defend, after all the only stuff he wrote on this, to Hicks, was quite positive, even if it is of little relevance), that it is static (not paying attention to cyclical or dynamic phenomena), and perhaps more interestingly that the interaction of real and monetary variables in the model is simplistic.

Krugman points out that the General Theory (GT) is NOT about cyclical fluctuations per se. It is about the determination of the long run level of output and employment, around which the economy fluctuates, and he correctly notes that cycles only appear as an afterthought in chapter 22 of the GT. And that is precisely correct. The GT is revolutionary because it suggests that with price flexibility (not price rigidity as in the old Neoclassical Synthesis or the New Keynesian stories) the system gets stuck in a situation of unemployment equilibrium. Emphasis on equilibrium. Yes, unemployment at less than full employment and output below its potential level are both together in an equilibrium situation.

Patinkin suggested that Keynes meant unemployment disequilibrium, since within the neoclassical framework, unless there is a rigidity of some sort, and the system should go to its long run equilibrium position with full employment. Minsky (1975, p. 268), in the book cited above, says that Keynesian economics should be seen as the: "economics of permanent disequilibrium." That has no basis on the GT. Actually, the GT would be a less radical book if it only said that with instability the system might be always in a disequilibrium position. Keynes was very radical since he argued that the very notion of a natural rate should be abandoned (on this Paul and Brad have a lot to learn). Some Post Keynesians tend to dislike the idea of equilibrium (echoes of Joan Robinson's late critique of the idea), which ends up making them closer in many respects to the modern mainstream authors with their dislike for long term equilibrium positions.

So the GT is not about cycles (Keynes' Treatise on Money, a very conventional and Wicksellian book was about cyclical disequilibrium caused by differences between the natural and banking rates of interest, which, interestingly enough is closer to Krugman's way of thinking than the GT, or than to Lars, who is aware of the limitations of the natural rate concept). But that's not all that Krugman got right this time.

He quotes the famous passage in which Keynes says that the system is not violently unstable (GT, p. 249). And while Post Keynesians are correct to note the relevance of fundamental uncertainty, it is important also to consider the stabilizing role of conventions and institutions, to which Keynes alludes. Expectations play a role, but investment is not completely volatile, and it was a problem for Keynes only when "the capital development of a country becomes the by product of the activities of a casino" (GT, p. 159). In fact, given the relevance of the accelerator in determining investment, the central role of expectations is about the level of demand. For example, in the US investment has been subdued since demand is not growing fast and there are not reasonable expectations that it will any time soon.

Where New Keynesians go wrong, and in this case is actually Brad, not Paul (but he would certainly agree) is on the relevance of the marginal efficiency of capital, criticized by Minsky (even though it's far from clear that Minsky abandoned it). Brad thinks that Minsky critique of it is myopic and basically a PR problem. He says that it is: 

"Short-sighted, in that it is not Hicks who would be Minsky’s long-run intellectual adversary but rather Freidman [sic], Lucas, and Hayek, and so building bridges to the Hicksians ought to be a very high priority."

Probably true, but from a policy point of view. From a theoretical point of view, Hicks use of the marginalist notion of an investment function inversely related to the rate of interest (something Keynes also used) implies that there would be a rate of interest low enough that would produce full employment, that is a natural rate, which would preclude Keynes' claim about unemployment equilibrium (and the absence of a natural rate). In other words, with the marginal productivity of capital you have that unemployment must be a disequilibrium situation caused by some imperfection that inhibits the system from reaching the natural rate.

And yes the capital debates are relevant since they show that the inverse relation is only possible in a one commodity world. No natural rate, and no need to think about imperfections. And that's why the comment by Lars on the connection between real and monetary variables being simplistic within the ISLM is right on the mark. The idea that the central bank controls a monetary rate, that may get out of whack with the natural, and that by manipulating it can affect real variables is limited at best.

PS: For my previous defense of a modified ISLM go here and here. 

Tom Palley on New Keynesianism as a Club

Tom Palley discusses the fact that New Keynesian have 'rediscovered' several of the ideas that other Keynesians, in particular the more heterodox sort (but not only, he includes James Tobin too), without properly acknowledging them. In his words:

"For almost thirty years, New Keynesians have dismissed other Keynesians and not bothered to stay acquainted with their research. But now that the economic crisis has forced awareness, the right thing is to acknowledge and incorporate that research."

Read rest here. By the way, Tobin, in his little book Asset Accumulation and Economic Activity, discusses why even with price flexibility the system does not have a tendency to full employment, being the closest to the alternative Keynesian ideas, or arguably to Keynes' own views. For Minsky's review of that book, in which he also criticizes Tobin for dismissing the research of post-Keynesians, go here.

A debate on Endogenous Money and Effective Demand: Keen, Fiebiger, Lavoie and Palley

The last issue of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE) has a debate between Steve Keen with Brett Fiebiger, Marc Lavoie and Tom Palley. Two papers are available for download (Keen and Lavoie's). Tom's paper is available as a working paper here.

The basis for Steve's defense of endogenous money is based on the works of Schumpeter, as developed by the latter's student Hyman Minsky. In his words:

"The proposition that effective demand exceeds income is not a new one: it can be found in both Schumpeter and Minsky (and arguably in Keynes's writings after The General Theory, though not in as definitive a form – see Keynes 1937*, p. 247). A difference between income and expenditure, with the gap filled by the endogenous creation of money, was a foundation of Schumpeter's vision of the entrepreneurial role in capitalism. Minsky's attempt to reconcile endogenous money and sectoral balances is the closest antecedent to the argument I make, but I will start in chronological order with Schumpeter's analysis."

I have noted before that the idea of endogenous money is NOT central for heterodox approaches, since Wicksell and the whole modern New Keynesian consensus adopts it. And perfectly conventional authors like Irving Fisher had introduced debt in their models too. I also noted that Schumpeter is essentially a Real Business Cycle (innovations are nothing but exogenous productivity shocks) author, which thought that both short-run output and employment and long-run growth were determined by supply-side factors. So in general I'm not a great fan of having Schumpeter as a staring point, or the notion that to introduce debt and endogenous money is per se a critique of the mainstream.

In that respect, I tend to agree with Tom's point that it is the way in which endogenous money and debt are introduced in the model that matters. Keen's use of a variation of Fisher's equation of exchange, as pointed out by Tom, is troublesome. In Tom's words:

"The Fisher equation constitutes the monetarist framework for macroeconomics. Income-expenditure accounting constitutes the Keynesian framework and it offers an alternative approach to understanding the AD, credit, endogenous money nexus."

In fact, in the equation of exchange framework the presumption is that demand would adjust (in Steve's approach with endogenous money) up to the point that it meets supply at the optimal level (also something that would be perfectly in line with  Schumpeter). The whole point of the income-expenditure framework is that it puts demand in charge of the level of activity.

At any rate, a good debate that it's worth checking out. Enjoy!

* J.M. Keynes (1937), "Alternative Theories of the Rate of Interest," 47, Economic Journal, pp. 241-252. Available here (subscription required).

Iren Levina: A Puzzling Rise in Financial Profits and the Role of Capital Gain-Like Revenues

New PERI working paper by my friend & colleague Iren Levina - From the abstract:

The paper provides an explanation for the puzzling decoupling between the rate of growth of financial profits and GDP in the 2000s. Drawing on the insights from Keynes, Minsky, and Hilferding, the paper identifies a peculiar type of profit – capital gain-like revenues that take the form of profits from underwriting, mergers and acquisitions, securitization, and trade in financial assets. These capital gain-like revenues come from the redistribution of monetary assets and lack a counterpart in current GDP. They can be thought of as wealth transfers. Based on an empirical analysis of revenues of U.S. bank holding companies, these capital gain-like revenues are shown to have contributed significantly to the decoupling between the rate of growth of financial profits and GDP. The paper identifies characteristics of these revenues that explain the puzzles around this decoupling – its very possibility, sustainability over long time, and lack of losses sufficient to offset the pre-crisis financial gains. These characteristics of capital gain-like revenues also allow one to reconcile two seemingly incompatible approaches to a rise in financial profits – as transfers (rent) and as an illusion (mirage). 

Read rest here. 

Palley's Keynesian critique of Keen and an alternative theoretical framework

New Paper by Tom Palley titled: "Effective demand, endogenous money, and debt: a Keynesian critique of Keen and an alternative theoretical framework."From the abstract:

This paper presents a Keynesian critique of Steve Keen’s treatment of the endogenous money – credit – aggregate demand (AD) nexus. It argues his analytic intuition is correct but is developed in the wrong direction. Keen’s fundamental relation describing determination of AD in an endogenous credit money economy suffers from two flaws. First, it neglects the core Keynesian problematic of leakages from and injections into the circular flow of income. Second, it falls into the theoretical morass regarding the black box of velocity of money via its adoption of a form of Fisher equation to determine AD. The paper contrasts Keen’s treatment with a Keynesian structural framework. 

Read it here.

Tokunaga & Epstein - Endogenous Finance of a Dollar-Based World-System: A Minskian Approach

Junji Tokunaga & Gerald Epstein 

From the Abstract:

Global financing patterns have been at the center of debates on the global financial crisis in recent years. The global imbalance view, a prominent hypothesis, attributes the financial crisis to excess saving over investment in emerging market countries which have run current account surplus since the end of the 1990s. The excess saving flowed into advanced countries running current account deficits, particularly the U.S., thus depressing long-term interest rates and fuelling a credit boom there in the 2000s. According to this view, the financial crisis was triggered by an external and exogenous shock that resulted from excess saving in emerging market countries, not the shadow banking system in advanced countries which was the epicenter of the financial crisis. Instead, we argue that a key cause of the global financial crisis was the dynamic expansion of balance sheets at large complex financial institutions (LCFIs)(Borio and Disyatat [2011] and Shin [2012]), driven by the endogenously elastic finance of global dollar funding in the global shadow banking system. The endogenously elastic finance of the global dollar contributed to the buildup of global financial fragility that led to the global financial crisis. Importantly, the supreme position of U.S. dollar as debt- financing currency, underpinned by the dominant role of the dollar in the development of new financial innovations and instruments, and was a driving force in this endogenously dynamic and ultimately destructive process.

Read rest here 

Palley on The Limits of Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis as an Explanation of the Crisis

I am not sure if this was posted before on Naked Keynesianism; nevertheless, here it is (from Monthly Review).

Thomas I. Palley sent John Bellamy Foster the following article in October 2009 for publication in Monthly Review, accompanied by this note: “I’m hoping it might provoke some discussion and also generate some dialogue and consensus between Marxists (like yourself) and structural Keynesians (like myself).” Palley’s piece addressed (along with much else) the article “Monopoly-Finance Capital and the Paradox of Accumulation” by John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney in the October 2009 issue of Monthly Review. In the same spirit of promoting dialogue between Marxists and Keynesians on the present crisis, we agreed to publish his contribution, together with a response by Foster and McChesney:

Aside from Keynes, no economist seems to have benefited so much from the financial crisis of 2007-08 as the late Hyman Minsky. The collapse of the sub-prime market in August 2007 has been widely labeled a “Minsky moment,” and many view the subsequent implosion of the financial system and deep recession as confirming Minsky’s “financial instability hypothesis” regarding economic crisis in capitalist economies.

For instance, in August 2007, shortly after the sub-prime market collapsed, the Wall Street Journal devoted a front-page story to Minsky. In November 2007, Charles Calomiris, a leading conservative financial economist associated with the American Enterprise Institute, wrote an article for the VoxEU blog of the mainstream Center for Economic Policy Research, claiming a Minsky moment had not yet arrived. Though Calomiris disputed the nature of the moment, Minsky and his heterodox ideas were the focal point of the analysis. In September 2008, Martin Wolf of the Financial Times openly endorsed Minsky: “What Went Wrong? The Short Answer: Minsky Was Right.” And in May 2009, Paul Krugman posted a blog titled “The Night They Reread Minsky,” which was also the title of his third Lionel Robbins lecture at the London School of Economics...

See rest here

Bernard, Gervorkyan, Palley, Semmler: A Review & Critique of Long Wave Theories

In a previous post (see here), I had argued that the capitalist world economy can be conceived as resting on the dependence of historically-specific hegemonic institutions, whose rise and fall follow the trajectory of long waves, what Giovanni Arrighi defined as systemic cycles of accumulation (SCA's), periods of approximately 40-60 years, separated by A phases and B phases (see here). Lucas Bernard, Aleksandr V. Gervorkyan, Thomas I. Palley, and Willi Semmler, however, offer a penetrating critique of this central tenant of the world-systems tradition.

From the abstract:

This paper explores long wave theory, including Kondratieff’s theory of cycles in
production and relative prices; Kuznets’ theory of cycles arising from
infrastructure investments; Schumpeter`s theory of cycles due to waves of
technological innovation; Goodwin`s theory of cyclical growth based on
employment and wage share dynamics; Keynes – Kaldor – Kalecki demand and
investment oriented theories of cycles; and Minsky’s financial instability
hypothesis whereby capitalist economies show a genetic propensity to boom-bust
cycles. This literature has been out of favor for many years but recent
developments suggest a reexamination is warranted and timely. 

Read rest here.

New Title: The Handbook of the Political Economy of Financial Crises

From the abstract:

The Great Financial Crisis that began in 2007-2008 reminds us with devastating force that financial instability and crises are endemic to capitalist economies that lack powerful and dynamically changing financial regulations that can keep the powerful forces of leverage and credit within sustainable bounds. Economists from Marx to Keynes, and Minsky to Kindleberger have well understood this profoundly important fact, yet the dominant mainstream economics of "rational expectations", "efficient markets" and "laissez-faire" that rationalized widespread financial liberalization and still dominates the economics profession has gotten it, literally, "dead wrong". The Handbook of The Political Economy of Financial Crises describes the theoretical, institutional, and historical factors that can help us understand the forces that create financial crises - with an emphasis on the crisis of 2007- 2008 - and the strengths and weaknesses of varying theoretical perspectives and policy approaches that have tried to comprehend and limit these financial tsunamis.

See more here.

NOTE: Although all of the chapters will be invaluable to the reader, one in particular that will be worth much perusing is by Prof. James Crotty on the irrelevance of efficient market hypothesis (EMH), which can preliminarily be seen here .

Must read from James Galbraith

In which he mostly decimates economists paddling in either fresh or salt water.  Jamie, self admittedly, prefers brackish water economics, but why not just let him tell the story.

Lars P. Syll On What’s wrong with IS-LM?

By Lars. P. Syll

Yesterday, David Fields of Naked Keynesianism wondered what was my position on the fact that many heterodox economists would consider the IS-LM framework “to still be relevant if given enough flexibility without neoclassical synthesized elements.”

I will sure come back on this when time admits a more thorough analysis, but let me start by giving at least a tentative answer — focusing on where I think IS-LM doesn’t adequately reflect the width and depth of Keynes’s insights on the workings of modern market economies.

Read the rest here.

Minsky's crises

Last week I taught a couple of classes on financial crises, including Minsky's ideas. Lance Taylor's paper (with Stephen O'Connell; subscription required) is probably one of the few discussions of Minsky in a mainstream journal (in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the working paper series of Harvard and MIT), and one of the last heterodox papers published on any topic, by the way. Lance's paper, as he admits leaves out a lot of the institutional richness of Minsky's ideas.

In Lance's model the crisis is fundamentally based on expectations about future profits, and the determination of economic growth is demand determined, but based on a Cambridge equation model in which profits determine investment. It's fundamentally a profit-led regime (for a critique of these kind of closures see here). In this view, the crisis is brought by a sudden decline in confidence (although a hike in the rate of interest would work too), which leads to a contraction of growth, and even lower expectations of future profits. Eventually, if the central bank continues to 'lean against the wind,' in this simple version by expanding money supply, the expected profits would pick up and the economy would recover.

The paper lacks the Minskian notion of firms and individuals getting increasingly indebted, with ever higher leverage ratios, as a result of competition, or worsening income distribution. Note that Godley's framework [Godley arrived at the Levy Institute, if I'm not wrong, right before Minsky passed away, so for a while they were both there] suggests that private debt accumulation was one, and the crucial, unsustainable process in the US economy. Keen provides a more recent formalization of Minsky's ideas worth looking, suggesting that is essential for understanding the Great Recession. Palley, on the other hand, suggests that while important Minsky's model does not provide the whole picture.

Macroeconomics and the financial cycle

Claudio Borio from the BIS has written a widely cited paper. The Economist has linked to it and suggested that so far his advice for including the financial cycle into macroeconomics has only been followed by a few. Besides Borio, Minsky, Godley and Lavoie and Keene are also cited by The Economist. The paper by Borio (he only cites Minsky), which has been a very influential voice suggesting that capital flows were pro-cyclical and more regulation was needed before the financial crisis, is somewhat underwhelming though.

For starters the definition of the financial cycle is based on individual perceptions. In his view, financial cycles result from "self-reinforcing interactions between perceptions of value and risk, attitudes towards risk and financing constraints, which translate into booms followed by busts." Then there is the question of the theoretical features for modeling the financial cycle according to Borio. There are three that are essential according to him. First, that financial cycles have endogenous causes, second, that debt must be present, and last but not least a different measure of the output gap. The last one is really the central theoretical modification in his scheme [note that heterodox models, like Kaldor's 1940 cycle model were endogenous, and Keynes had debt in the General Theory, in chapter 19 it is central, in fact].

The new output gap measure would include financial variables. He correctly notes that output gap measures take into consideration only inflation, when ascertaining whether the economy is above the potential or not, and that "it is quite possible for inflation to remain stable while output is on an unsustainable path" [and you can have inflation without being at full employment too, I would add]. His measure of the output gap would include information about asset price inflation too (property prices and measures of credit booms) and is shown for the US and Spain as the red line below.

Note that the new output gap shows the economy growing way beyond its potential in both the US and Spain before the crisis, more than in the alternative measures using a Hodrick-Prescott filter (green) and a conventional production function (blue). He concludes that: "potential output and growth tend to be overestimated" by conventional methods. Further, his point when arguing that the cycle is endogenous is that excessive booms are the cause of the collapse, so what is needed is to smooth out the boom. The prescription is to grow less and avoid to surpass the potential level, which is supply determined and exogenous presumably (since no word on this is uttered).*

He wants then to constrain booms, and macroprudential policies should be used for that aim. Further, while noting that in balance sheet recessions (following Koo) it is important to deal with agents losses head on, he suggests that "fiscal policy is less effective than in normal recessions" and that as a result of excessive monetary expansion after the bust "the central bank’s autonomy and, eventually, credibility may come under threat." So one really needs to kill booms, since nothing much beyond re-writing debt down and acting as lender of last resort with moderation can be done after.

I have several problems with these views, even if there are some good things, beyond good intentions, in Borio's paper. In fact, I think that there is significant evidence for the notion that potential output varies with demand expansion (Kaldor-Verdoorn Law), so that if a revision of the way potential output is measured it would be in the opposite direction. Mind you, if you check the chart above it means that Spain now is close to its potential level. I guess the natural rate of unemployment in Spain is around 20% or so (slightly below the current level). Note, also, that in Latin America we have been smoothing the boom with the consequence that our crises are not milder than Asia, but we end up growing less (see the paper by Pérez and Pineda linked here).

However, in my view the biggest flaw in the approach to financial cycles proposed by Borio is the absence of any discussion of how debt-deflation (the balance sheet recessions) affect and are affected by income distribution. There is no understanding of how wage stagnation in the center was as instrumental as financial de-regulation for the collapse, as noted by Barba and Pivetti (link here) or Jamie Galbraith's last book, not by chance called Inequality and Instability. This is again something that heterodox economists have known for a while and that the mainstream still has to learn.

* The reasons for the excess in the boom are associated to excessive finance [which he calls excess elasticity of the system], as in Shin's (2011) global banking glut, and not excessive savings, since he correctly points out that "expenditures require financing, not saving."

Ramblings on 21st century macroeconomics

Guillermo Calvo wrote a post on what he thinks is the new macroeconomics. Minsky gets cited, but that's pretty much the only concession to heterodox macroeconomics. The interpretation of what the "new" macro for the 21st century should be is basically New Keynesian price/wage rigidities models cum debt-deflation (the finance and Minsky part). But even the understanding of debt-deflation is limited to the notion of sudden stops (slowdown or reversal of capital inflows).

According to him:

"many of us have been involved in developing and testing theories in which imperfections in financial markets play a central role – and coining new terms like Sudden Stop and Phoenix Miracles. The dominant view, however, was that financial crises in EMs reflected weak institutions in that part of the world, and could not possibly take place in advanced economies. Unfortunately, the subprime crisis revealed, to the dismay of many in advanced economies, especially in Europe, that the world is more uniform than we thought!"

In other words, he seems to think that market imperfections are pervasive and that developed countries are vulnerable to sudden stops, like emerging markets (a terrible name popularized in the 1990s for developing countries, as if the only thing were the 'markets'). Note that while developing countries have not experienced sudden stops with the financial crash of 2008, and have used international reserves to insure against the volatility of financial markets (and often introduced capital controls too, when those were not already in place), no significant sudden stop affected the US, the epicenter of the crisis.

As noted by several heterodox economists the crisis in the US the deep causes of the crisis were associated to wage stagnation (worsening income distribution) and the associated increase in private debt, which led to a collapse of spending in the aftermath of the Lehman crisis. Mind you, at that point capital flows went into Treasury bonds, and no sudden stop affected the American economy (in contrast to say Argentina in 2002). So no, the world is not flat or "more uniform" that Calvo thought.

Just for those that might not remember, on dollarization this is what Calvo (paper with Carmen Reinhart) used to say back in 2000 (a few years before the Argentinean crisis; he was rumored as a possible finance minister at the time in Argentina, and the notion was that he was for dollarization):

"Exchange rate movements are costly in this environment. If policymakers take a hard look at the options for exchange rate regimes in emerging economies, they may find that floating regimes may be more of an illusion and that fixed rates--particularly, full dollarization--might emerge as a sensible choice for some countries, especially in Latin America or in the transition economies in the periphery of Euroland."

The sensible choice was dollarization (sic)! Note that his point was that with sufficient fiscal austerity, credibility would be restored, and capital would flow in the right direction (if you are from Greece, you should be afraid if this is the 'new' macro).

But back to sudden stops, which is the basis of his claim to have introduced financial markets into modern macro, here is what he had to say in his post, about the puzzles ahead:

"As recent empirical research has amply demonstrated, financial crisis follows credit boom; this is somewhat of a puzzle, but the most challenging puzzle in my opinion is that credit flows (both gross and net) increase in the run up of crisis, only to crash precipitously after the crisis' onset. ... In other words, if herding is the key word, forget about microfoundations of macroeconomics. I must confess that I am not ready to take such a radical stance. My view is that perhaps this very puzzling phenomenon is linked to liquidity and, more to the point, endogenous liquidity, a phenomenon that has been largely ignored in 20th century macroeconomics."

In other words, sudden stops are associated with collapse of liquidity, and those might be associated to herding behavior, which is irrational and is not amenable to formalizing microfoundations along conventional lines. There are so many misconceptions in this quote that one wonders when is he going to get the Sveriges Riksbank Prize (the often referred to as Nobel).

Endogenous liquidity, or endogenous money is no puzzle, and in fact, mainstream models that accept a Taylor rule have basically incorporated it, like Wicksell. Herding is not that complicated to understand, and is NOT the main problem with microfoundations. The problem with microfoundations is not lack of rationality of economic agents, but the fact that even with very rational (even by the limited mainstream standards) you cannot prove that markets lead to full utilization of resources, with flexible prices and full information (yes please go read on the capital debates).

Note that the effects of debt-deflation on demand are not discussed by Calvo. Or income distribution for that matter. Let alone the recognition that the idea of a natural rate is very difficult to defend, and I don't even mean logically, just empirically after this crisis. The essential information out of this piece is about the degree of confusion of the mainstream. It is increasingly clear that that we are living in a period of decadence of economics as a science, in which the profession is dominated by Vulgar economics.