There Are Things Worse Than Inflation

Like an economic collapse in Europe, or worse.  Here is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on the latter possibility:

Chancellor Angela Merkel tells us that peace in Europe can no longer be taken for granted, and she is right. Her own Gothic actions and her inflexible imposition of 1930s Gold Standard contraction and debt-deflation on Southern Europe is itself preparing the ground for Europe’s civil war (hopefully pacific), a rebellion by the South against the North.

His point is that preserving the Eurozone in the way it is currently being done will only lead to a Eurozone rebellion that cannot end well.  In particular, he is appalled at the "great Euro Putsch" rolling over two European democracies:

The Greeks were ordered to drop their referendum on measures that reduce their country to a sort of Manchukuo, with EU commissars "on the ground", installed in each ministry, drawing up lists of state assets to be liquidated to pay foreign creditors. Europe had the monetary and fiscal means to contain the EMU debt crisis long enough for Greeks to give or withhold their crucial assent to this ultimatum in December. It chose - under German-Dutch pressure - not deploy those means. Instead it forced Greece to capitulate by cutting off an agreed loan payment. In Italy, the European Central Bank has engineered the downfall of Silvio Berlusconi by playing the bond markets, switching purchases on and off to enforce compliance with its written dictates ("La Lettera"), and ultimately allowing 10-year yields to spike to 7.45pc to drive him out.

What a sobering interpretation of recent events.  It brings to mind the famous 1997 Martin Feldstein article titled "EMU and International Conflict."  Here is the first paragraph:

To most Americans, European economic and monetary union seems like an obscure financial undertaking of no relevance to the United States. That perception is far from correct. If EMU does come into existence, as now seems increasingly likely, it will change the political character of Europe in ways that could lead to conflicts in Europe and confrontations with the United States.

There is an easier and more peaceful way to save the Eurozone.  It is letting loose the true firepower of the ECB.  Doing so would reduce the risk premium on troubled sovereign debt, raise inflation, and restore nominal incomes.  The first of these would give breathing room to sovereigns needing to work out their debt problems, the second would correct the real exchange rate imbalance within the currency union, and the last would reduce the drag of the debt burden.  The problem is that the Germans seem more concerned about inflation than the fallout that will come from staying on the Eurozone's current path.  If only there were a way to incentivize the Germans and the ECB to turn on the monetary spigot.  Actually, I think there is a way, but it will have to wait for another post.

The Fed Needs To Get Ahead of the Eurozone Crisis

Brad DeLong says what I have been thinking for some time:

Where is my fed announcement that it will not let chaos in Europe cause a double dip here?

Exactly.  The Fed needs to be proactive not reactive, otherwise it risks making the same mistakes it made in 2008.  Here is what I said along these same lines earlier this year:

Nick Rowe is concerned that the collapse of the Eurozone could lead to another Lehman-type event for the global financial system.  He is also wondering what central banks should be doing in preparation for such an event.  Nick is not the only one concerned.  Others have expressed concerned that financial contagion could arise from credit default swaps on Greek bonds or U.S. money market funds that are indirectly linked to the Greek economy through investments in the core Eurozone countries.  Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke expressed concern in his last press conference about the indirect exposure the U.S. economy has to Greek crisis:

 Answering a question during Wednesday's press conference about the U.S. financial system's exposure to Greece's problems, Bernanke went to great lengths to explain how U.S. institutions had very little "direct exposure" to Greece but considerable "indirect exposure" via their loans to European banks that have loaned to Greece. He drew attention to U.S. money market funds' "very substantial" holdings of European bank-issued commercial paper, which others have estimated to represent a whopping 40% of their assets
 ...
[M]emories of the chaos that followed the demise of Lehman Brothers in 2008 are strong and tend to color how investors, including U.S. money funds, respond to troubling events, such as the Greek crisis...The fear is that a default by Greece or a disorderly restructuring of the nation's debt could create contagion in the bond markets of other troubled sovereigns, thereby doing damage to the balance sheets of banks that have loaned to those governments. This could then raise fears about counterparty credit risks in short-term lending markets and, in a worst-case scenario, the paralysis of this vital source of bank funding. 

So what can the Fed do? Here is a suggestion: the Fed could say if total current dollar spending begins to plummet because concerns about the financial system are causing investors to rapidly buy up safe money-like assets (time and saving accounts, money market accounts, treasuries, etc.) then the Fed would begin buying up less-safe and less-liquid assets until the investors' demand for money-like assets is satiated such that they return total current dollar spending to its previous level. The Fed would need to stress the "until" part means it would purchase as many trillions of dollars of assets as necessary to restore total current dollar spending. Since this  process would take place over time, the Fed would also want to set a target growth rate for where it wanted the level of total current dollar spending to go.    

If the above sounds reasonable to you, then you should be a fan of nominal GDP level targeting.  It is exactly what the U.S. economy needed in early 2008 when inflation expectations and velocity started falling.  And it is exactly what the  U.S. economy needs now. 

We now have two good reasons for the Fed to adopt a nominal GDP level target: one, it would restore robust nominal spending growth to the U.S. economy and two, it would better insulate the U.S. economy from the Eurozone crisis.  Time is of the essence, act now!

Scott Sumner Is Live At the WSJ

Supply Shocks and Nominal GDP Targeting

Adam P is a bit irritated with all the attention being given to nominal GDP targeting and has been tossing some "volatility critique" and "optimality critique" grenades our way.  Fortunately, the volatility critique grenade was a dud, though I am still am holding and sizing up the optimality one.  Hopefully, it doesn't blow up. Where is the love Adam P?

His latest bombardment on the nominal GDP camp comes in an attempt to critique what I think is one of the biggest benefits of nominal GDP targeting: how it deals with supply shocks.  This latest bombardment, however, is not a dud but ironically ends up blowing apart inflation targeting rather nominal GDP targeting.

Here is why.  Inflation is the result or symptom of underlying shocks to aggregate demand (AD) and aggregate supply (AS).  Monetary policy, however, can only meaningfully influence AD so that is where its focus should be.  This cannot happen with strict inflation targeting because it requires the central bank to respond to any change in inflation, regardless of whether it is caused by AD or AS shocks.  In other words, inflation targeting causes the central bank to respond to AS shocks when it should only be responding to AD shocks.  A nominal GDP target acknowledges this distinction and appropriately focuses monetary policy on the cause (AD shock) not the symptom (inflation).

Adam P., therefore, is therefore right to claim that monetary policy cannot "fix" a supply shock, but he has it completely backward when he claims that this does not happen with inflation targeting:

[T]he thing about supply shocks is that there really isn't anything monetary policy can do to "fix" the problem, one of the reasons that inflation or price level targeting is better [than nominal GDP targeting] is exactly because there is no attempt to fix a problem that is not amenable to a monetary solution.

On the contrary, a strict inflation-targeting central bank is forced to respond to AS shocks when they occur.   For example, assume a new technology makes computers significantly faster.  All else equal, this productivity-enhancing AS shock would create disinflation and put upward pressure on the natural (i.e. equilibrium) interest rate. A central bank adhering to a strict inflation target would be forced to respond to the disinflation by lowering its target interest rate.  This response, however, would push the target interest rate down just as the natural interest rate was increasing, a destabilizing development.  Stated differently, this response would add unwarranted monetary stimulus to an existing boom.  A nominal GDP target, on the other hand, would allow the inflation rate to fall and the target interest rate to rise with the natural interest rate. 

To make this example concrete, assume a nominal-GDP growth-rate target of 5 percent. This technology shock might temporarily result in 5 percent real economic growth and 0 percent inflation under this regime. In contrast, a rigid inflation target of say 2 percent in conjunction with the 5 percent real economic growth would require 7 percent nominal-GDP growth, or a potentially destabilizing surge in spending. Better to ignore the supply shock and allow the temporary disinflation than to have an unsustainable boom in spending. 

Now consider a negative AS shock caused by a super-virus that temporarily shuts down most computer systems. This negative shock would decrease productivity and increase prices. This might, for example, result in 0 percent real economic growth and 5 percent inflation. Here, a 2 percent inflation target would require a tightening of monetary policy that would further constrict an already weakened economy. A Federal Reserve that was targeting nominal GDP would not face this dilemma. It would simply keep total current-dollar spending stable at 5 percent growth and allow the supply shock to work itself out.  Yes, there would still be a recession and rise in unemployment, but nowhere near as pronounced as a central banking choosing to further strangle an economy just to maintain an inflation target.

Though not explicitly arguing for nominal GDP targeting, Lawrence Christiano, Roberto Motto, and Massimo Rostagno in this NBER paper raise the same criticism of inflation targeting.  They formally show that focusing "too narrowly on inflation may inadvertently contribute to welfare-reducing boom-bust cycles in real and financial variables." The authors show that if (1) there are positive productivity innovations and (2) monetary policy follows a standard Taylor rule that responds to deviations of inflation from its target then boom bust cycles can be generated. The authors explain that in

the equilibrium with the Taylor rule, the real wage falls, while efficiency dictates that it rise [following a productivity shock]. In effect, in the Taylor rule equilibrium the markets receive a signal that the cost of labor is low, and this is part of the reason that the economy expands so strongly. The ‘correct’ signal would be sent by a high real wage, and this could be accomplished by allowing the price level to fall. However, in the monetary policy regime governed by our Taylor rule this fall in the price level is not permitted to occur: any threatened fall in the price level is met by a proactive expansion in monetary policy.

In other words, these authors are arguing that by forcing monetary authorities to respond to changes in inflation that come from AS shocks, inflation targeting becomes destabilizing.  Now these authors say nothing about nominal GDP targeting, but their point above that the price level should be allowed to fall in response to a positive AS shock implies nominal GDP targeting--which allows for this very thing--would be better.  

This flaw with inflation targeting--treating all changes in inflation the same--is a big reason why the Fed added too much stimulus in the early-to-mid 2000s.  It misread the disinflationary pressures then as indicating weak AD rather than rapid productivity gains. This flaw also explains why the Fed failed to add monetary stimulus at its September, 2008 FOMC even when all signs where indicating a sharp collapse in AD.  As I said before, it is better to target the cause than to target the symptom.  

A Win-Win for Conservatives and Liberals

Ramesh Ponnuru and I have a new article in The New Republic where we argue that conservatives should embrace more aggressive monetary policy while liberals should not fear budget tightening.  Our point is that the Fed could be doing far more to restore robust nominal spending and if it did so, it would be possible to do fiscal consolidation without harming the economy. For example, if the Fed were targeting nominal GDP and government spending cuts proved to be contractionary, then the Fed would offset them so as to maintain a stable nominal GDP growth rate.  It is a win-win situation.  Conservatives get fiscal consolidation and liberals get a meaningful boost to aggregate demand.

Joe Weisenthall objects by arguing the following:

The biggest problem facing the economy is that the private sector is in too much debt. Americans are trapped in their homes, where they owe huge mortgages, and are generally paying off the big credit boom from the last few decades...If you can accept that this needs to come down, it seems ludicrous to think that the answer to the debt crisis is: cheaper loans!

Two responses.  First, nowhere have we argued that indebted households should take on additional borrowing.  Rather, monetary easing via a nominal GDP level target would make its biggest impact, in our view, via changes in expectations that would cause households to rebalance their portfolios in a way that would stimulate spending.  Bank lending and borrowing are not key to this story.  And yes, there is ample evidence that expectations do affect spending decisions. 

Second, while the buildup of household debt is a drag for debtors it does not have to be for the economy as a whole.  If the monetary authority is able to maintain stable nominal spending expectations--that is minimize uncertainty about future nominal income growth--then the creditors should provide a boost to spending that offsets the debtors' reduction in spending.  The "balance sheet recession" view ignores this possibility and ignores the historical examples where this actually happened.  Moreover, a closer look at household balance sheets reveals that the real problem constraining aggregate demand is on the asset side, not the liability side. That is, what best explains in a systematic manner spending changes is the household share of liquid assets not its debt to income ratio.  But even so, a rise in nominal income from adopting a nominal GDP target would make it easier for indebted households to service their liabilities.

Finally, Joe Wiesenthall is troubled with our claim that the fiscal policy multiplier is zero.  Let me explain this claim using this analogy I made in the past:

Scott Sumner once compared arm wrestling with his daughter to the relationship between monetary and fiscal policy.  Scott explained that no matter how hard his daughter tried to win the arm-wrestling contest he would always apply just enough pressure to offset her efforts and keep her in check.  Likewise, no matter how hard fiscal policy may attempt to stimulate aggregate spending the Fed has the ability to offset such actions and place aggregate demand where it so chooses.  In other words, the size of the fiscal multiplier ultimately depends on the stance of monetary policy.

Since the Fed could do more by its own admission and yet seems content doing nothing at the moment, it stands to reason that a fiscal policy stimulus that lead to enough rapid nominal spending growth to close the output gap would be quickly arrested by the Fed.  The problem, then, is with the Fed.  A nominal GDP level target would change the Fed's perspective so that it would allow enough nominal spending growth to return  nominal GDP to some pre-crisis trend.  Fiscal policy in such a setting would be more effective, but then it wouldn't be needed because the Fed itself would be pushing nominal GDP to its target growth path.  

For further comments on our article see Rameh Ponnuru's comments here and here. 

The Fed Gets Schooled Again: Swiss Central Bank Edition

I once argued that all incoming Fed officials should spend six months interning at the Swedish central bank given their relative success in stabilizing nominal GDP.  I was wrong.  What I should have said is that all incoming Fed officials should spend six months interning at the Swiss central bank.  Lars Christensen explains why:

Here is from The Street Light:

“You may recall that in September the Swiss National Bank (SNB) announced that it was going to intervene as necessary in the currency markets to ensure that the Swiss Franc (CHF) stayed above a minimum exchange rate with the euro of 1.20 CHF/EUR. How has that been working out for them?

It turns out that it has been working extremely well. Today the SNB released data on its balance sheet for the end of September. During the month of August the SNB had to spend almost CHF 100 billion to buy foreign currency assets to keep the exchange rate at a reasonable level. But in September — most of which was after the announcement of the exchange rate minimum — the SNB’s foreign currency assets only grew by about CHF 25 billion. Furthermore, this increase in the CHF value of the SNB’s foreign currency assets likely includes substantial capital gains that the SNB reaped on its euro portfolio (which was valued at about €130 bn at the end of September), as the CHF was almost 10% weaker against the euro in September than in August. Given that, it seems likely that the SNB’s purchases of new euro assets in September after the announcement of the exchange rate floor almost completely stopped.”

This is a very strong demonstration of the power of monetary policy when the central bank is credible. This is the Chuck Norris effect of monetary policy: You don’t have to print more money to ease monetary policy if you are a credible central bank with a credible target. (Nick Rowe and I like this sort of thing…) And now to the (not so) crazy idea – if the SNB can ease monetary policy by announcing a devaluation why can’t the Federal Reserve and the ECB do it?

Exactly. Instead of having a central bank that sets an explicit target and commits to doing whatever is necessary to hit it, we have a central bank that at best has a fuzzy inflation target and operates in a manner that does little to create certainty about the future path of monetary policy.  This lack of clarity was on display yesterday at the post-FOMC news conference when journalist pointed out to Bernanke that the Fed's forecast is worsening yet the Fed wants to wait for further information before acting.  These journalists wanted to know what would trigger the Fed to act and Bernanke could not give a clear answer.  This is because he is simply unable to make a conditional forecast of future monetary policy with no explicit target.  This is crazy.  Here we have the most powerful central bank in the world stumbling, tripping, and occasionally getting lost as it moves forward because it chooses not to set a clear, explicit path of where it wants to go.  If only we could learn from the Swiss...

Greg Ip Takes on Nominal GDP Targeting

Greg Ip has a long post criticizing nominal GDP targeting.  This is not the first time he has expressed skepticism about nominal GDP targeting so his response is not entirely surprising.  What is surprising is some of the arguments he makes.  Ip does not seem to understand the theory or evidence for nominal GDP targeting.  Fortunately, Ryan Avent, Nick Rowe, Scott Sumner, and Bill Woosley provide replies to many of Ip's criticisms.  I hope Ip reads them.  

Now let me add a few more points to the discussion.  One thing Greg Ip asks for is "evidence linking NGDP targeting to the behavior of private actors."  Now there have not been any explicit nominal GDP targeters from which to draw lessons, but we do have evidence on the importance of nominal GDP expectations and actual nominal GDP performance.  Based on this evidence it seems likely that Fed would pack quite a punch if it adopted a nominal GDP level target.

Greg Ip also claims that since "2007 the Fed has worked overtime to push employment higher and keep inflation from falling."  If the Fed has been working overtime then why did total current dollar  spending take its biggest postwar fall in late 2008, early 2009? The data clearly show that the Fed failed to fully respond to the fall in velocity starting in 2008. And it has failed to restored robust nominal spending ever since.  What Ip fails to appreciate here is the notion of a passive tightening of monetary policy.  Fed chairman Ben Bernanke takes it seriously.  Ip should too.

Finally, Greg Ip cites one study by Laurence Ball (1999) that theoretically finds problems with NGDP targeting. What he failed to mention is that the results of this study have been shown to be fragile.  Here is what I wrote before about this paper: 

Laurence Ball (1999) demonstrated theoretically in a widely-cited paper that nominal GDP targeting can lead to increased volatility of output and inflation.  Lars Svenson (1999) later reconfirmed Ball's findings. This made some observers questions whether nominal GDP had any future.  Bennett McCallum (1999), however, said not so fast.  He showed that their conclusions were based on special backward-looking IS and Phillip curve relations that are "theoretically unattractive" (because they are backward looking)  and whose results fail to hold up with more general specifications.  Richard Dennis (2001) later confirmed that Ball and Svenson's results were fragile.  Finally, Kaushik Mitra (2003) showed that even with adaptive learning, nominal GDP targeting remains a desirable objective for monetary policy.  Thus, there have been no robust studies that show nominal GDP targeting increases volatility.   

I hope Greg Ip wrestles with these points and those made by the other commentators replying to him.  If he does, I think he will better appreciate why more and more folks are becoming enamored with nominal GDP targeting.  Who knows, maybe he too will catch the nominal GDP targeting bug!