NGDP targeting is not a Keynesian business cycle policy

I have come to realize that many when they hear about NGDP targeting think that it is in someway a counter-cyclical policy – a (feedback) rule to stabilize real GDP (RGDP). This is far from the case from case and should instead be seen as a rule to ensure monetary neutrality.

The problem is that most economists and none-economists alike think of the world as a world more or less without money and their starting point is real GDP. For Market Monetarist the starting point is money and that monetary disequilibrium can lead to swings in real GDP and prices.

The starting point for the traditional Taylor rule is basically a New Keynesian Phillips curve and the “input” in the Taylor rule is inflation and the output gap, where the output gap is measured as RGDP’s deviation from some trend. The Taylor rule thinking is basically the same as old Keynesian thinking in the sense that inflation is seen as a result of excessive growth in RGDP. For Market Monetarists inflation is a monetary phenomenon – if money supply growth outpaces money demand growth then you get inflation.

Our starting point is not the Phillips curve, but rather Say’s Law and the equation of exchange. In a world without money Say’s Law holds – supply creates it’s own demand. Said in another way in a barter economy business cycles do not exist. It therefore follows logically that recessions always and everywhere is a monetary phenomenon.

Monetary policy can therefore “create” a business cycle by creating a monetary disequilibrium, however, in the absence of monetary disequilibrium there is no business cycle.

So while economists often talk of “money neutrality” as a positive concept Market Monetarists see monetary neutrality not only as a positive concept, but also as a normative concept. Yes, money is neutral in that sense that higher money supply growth cannot increase RGDP in the long run, but higher money supply growth (than money demand growth) will increase inflation and NGDP in the long run.

However, money is not neutral in the short-run due to for price and wage rigidities and therefore money disequilibrium and monetary disequilibrium can therefore create business cycles understood as a general glut or excess supply of goods and labour. Market Monetarists do not argue that the monetary authorities should stabilize RGDP growth, but rather we argue that the monetary authorities should avoid creating a monetary disequilibrium.

So why so much confusing?

I believe that much of the confusing about our position on monetary policy has to do with the kind of policy advise that Market Monetarist are giving in the present situation in both the US and the euro zone.

Both the euro zone and the US economy is at the presently in a deep recession with both RGDP and NGDP well below the pre-crisis trend levels. Market Monetarists have argued – in my view forcefully – that the reason for the Great Recession is that monetary authorities both in the US and the euro zone have allowed a passive tightening of monetary policy (See Scott Sumner’s excellent paper on the causes of the Great Recession here) – said in another way money demand growth has been allowed to strongly outpaced money supply growth. We are in a monetary disequilibrium. This is a direct result of a monetary policy mistakes and what we argue is that the monetary authorities should undo these mistakes. Nothing more, nothing less. To undo these mistakes the money supply and/or velocity need to be increased. We argue that that would happen more or less “automatically” (remember the Chuck Norris effect) if the central bank would implement a strict NGDP level target.

So when Market Monetarists like Scott Sumner has called for “monetary stimulus” it NOT does mean that he wants to use some artificial measures to permanently increase RGDP. Market Monetarists do not think that that is possible, but we do think that the monetary authorities can avoid creating a monetary disequilibrium through a NGDP level target where swings in velocity is counteracted by changes in the money supply. (See also my earlier post on “monetary stimulus”)

I have previously argued that when a NGDP target is credible market forces will ensure that any overshoot/undershoot in money supply growth will be counteracted by swings in velocity in the opposite direction. Similarly one can argue that monetary policy mistakes can create swings in velocity, which is the same as to say hat monetary policy mistakes creates monetary disequilibrium.

Therefore, we are in some sense to blame for the confusion. We should really stop calling for “monetary stimulus” and rather say “stop messing with Say’s Law, stop creating a monetary disequilibrium”. Unfortunately monetary policy discourse today is not used to this kind of terms and many Market Monetarists therefore for “convenience” use fundamentally Keynesian lingo. We should stop that and we should instead focus on “microsovereignty”

NGDP level targeting ensures microsovereignty

A good way to structure the discussion about monetary policy or rather monetary policy regimes is to look at the crucial difference between what Larry White has termed a “macroinstrumental” approach and a “microsovereignty” approach.

The Taylor rule is a typical example of the macroinstrumental approach. In this approached it is assumed that it is the purpose of monetary policy to “maximise” some utility function for society with includes a “laundry list” of more or less randomly chosen macroeconomic goals. In the Taylor rule this the laundry list includes two items – inflation and the output gap.

The alternative approach to choose a criteria for monetary success (as Larry White states it) is the microsovereignty approach – micro for microeconomic and sovereignty for individual sovereignty.

The microsovereignty approach states that the monetary regime should ensure an institutional set-up that allows individuals to make decisions on consumption, investment and general allocation without distortions from the monetary system. More technically the monetary system should ensure that individuals can “capture” Pareto improvements.

Therefore an “optimal” monetary regime ensures monetary neutrality. Larry White argues that Free Banking can ensure this, while Market Monetarists argue that given central banks exist a NGDP level targeting regime can ensure monetary neutrality and therefore microsovereignty.

This is basically a traditional neo-classical welfare economic approach to monetary theory. We should choose a monetary regime that “maximises” welfare by ensuring individual sovereignty.

A monetary regime that ensures microsovereignty does not have the purpose of stabilising the business cycle, but it will nonetheless be the likely consequence as NGDP level targeting removes or at least strongly reduces monetary disequilibrium and as recessions is a monetary phenomenon this will also strongly reduce RGDP and price volatility. This is, however, a pleasant consequence but not the main objective of NGDP level targeting.

—–

Marcus Nunes has a similar discussion here.

—-

UPDATE: There are two follow up article to this post:

“Be right for the right reasons”

“Roth’s Monetary and Fiscal Framework for Economic Stability”

About these ads
Leave a comment

28 Comments

  1. Morning Lars! You make a number of excellent points here, and I share the monetary disequilibrium view of recessions. But I disagree about how market monetarists should talk about monetary policy. The priority right now, in my view, is to bring more people in to the NGDP-targeting fold and that converting Keynesian types is possible on their own priors. Would love to hear what you think

    http://shewingthefly.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/how-should-market-monetarists-talk-about-monetary-policy/

    Cheers,
    Richard

    Reply
  2. Lars: Important typo. This sentence should read: “So when Market Monetarists like Scott Sumner has called for “monetary stimulus” it does [NOT] mean that he want[s] to [use] some artificial measures to permanently increase RGDP”

    Reply
  3. Nick, thanks – that was a pretty important typo. It is corrected now.

    Reply
  4. Lars
    I agree that the word “stimulus” is bad (pejorative), giving the impression that some temporary (stop gap) measure will be adopted to compensate for some failing.

    Reply
  1. Be right for the right reasons « The Market Monetarist
  2. Roth’s Monetary and Fiscal Framework for Economic Stability « The Market Monetarist
  3. This is what progress looks like « Shewing the fly
  4. Taylor fires at NGDP targeting – the Market Monetarists fire back « The Market Monetarist
  5. Adam Posen calls for more QE – that’s fine, but… « The Market Monetarist
  6. Six central banks take action, but where is Chuck Norris? « The Market Monetarist
  7. Selgin’s Monetary Credo – Please Dr. Taylor read it! « The Market Monetarist
  8. Monetary policy can’t fix all problems « The Market Monetarist
  9. Don’t forget the ”Market” in Market Monetarism « The Market Monetarist
  10. Market Monetarism vs Krugmanism « The Market Monetarist
  11. Boettke’s important Political Economy questions for Market Monetarists « The Market Monetarist
  12. Boettke's important Political Economy questions for Market … | Futures Market Updates/News
  13. Le dividende universel monétaire, une théorie fantaisiste ? | Tête de Quenelle !
  14. NGDP level targeting – the true Free Market alternative « The Market Monetarist
  15. Lets concentrate on the policy framework « The Market Monetarist
  16. Shewing the fly: the inevitable highlight reel « Shewing the fly
  17. Selgin’s challenge to the Market Monetarists « The Market Monetarist
  18. The NGDP level targeting – the true Free Market alternative (we try again) « The Market Monetarist
  19. An empirical – not a theoretical – disagreement with George, Larry and Eli « The Market Monetarist
  20. “Money neutrality” – normative rather than positive « The Market Monetarist
  21. Forget about “hawks” and “doves” – what we need is a “monetary constitution” « The Market Monetarist
  22. I don’t care who becomes BoJ governor – I want better monetary policy rules | The Market Monetarist
  23. Lars Christensen: NGDP level targeting – the true Free Market alternative | SeekerBlog
  24. ラルス・クリステンセン 「金融政策はあらゆる問題を解決するハンマーではない」 — 経済学101

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,043 other followers

%d bloggers like this: