All posts in category Nominal Income Targeting

Guest blog: Growth or level targeting? (by David Eagle)

We continue the series of guest blogs by David Eagle on his research on NGDP targeting and related topics.

See also David’s first guest post “Why I Support NGDP Targeting”.

Enjoy the reading.

Lars Christensen

—————————-

Guest blog: Growth vs. level targeting

by David Eagle

In my first guest blog for “The Market Monetarist” I stated that I am in favor of targeting the level of Nominal GDP (NGDP) and not the growth rate of NGDP.  Some economists such as Bennett McCallum (2011) are in favor of NGDP-growth-rate targeting (ΔNT) over NGDP Targeting (NT).

I have long opposed inflation targeting (IT) and I view ΔNT as almost as bad as IT because both cause what we call negative NGDP base drift. In order to understand my arguments against ΔNT and against IT, we need to understand the concepts of NGAP and NGDP base drift.

In this blog, I use an example to illustrate these concepts and the difference between NT and ΔNT.  It also uses another example to help us understand the concepts of PGAP and price-level base drift, and the difference between price-level targeting (PLT) and IT.

Growth vs. Level NGDP Targeting

To see the similarities and differences between targeting the growth rate of NGDP (ΔNT) and the level of NGDP (NT), assume the central bank’s target for NGDP growth  would be 5%.  As long as the central bank (CB) meets that target, NGDP would follow the path Nt = N0 (1.05)t where N0 is the NGDP for the base year and Nt is the NGDP occurring t years after the base year.

For consistency, assume that the CB’s target for NGDP (if it targets the NGDP level) would be Nt* = N0 (1.05)t.  Hence, as long as the central bank meets its target, then NGDP will be the same whether the central bank targets the growth rate or the level of NGDP.

The difference between growth rate targeting and level target occurs when the central bank misses its target.  Assume for example N0 = 10.  Initially, both NT and ΔNT have the same intended NGDP trajectory of Nt = 10(1.05)t; in particular, both NT and ΔNT aim for N1 to be 10.5.  However, assume the central bank misses its target and N1 = 10.08, which is 4% below its targeted level of NGDP.  We define NGAPt as the percent deviation at time t of NGDP from its previous trend; hence in this example NGAP1 = -4%.  Under NT, the central bank will try to make up for lost ground to reduce NGAP to zero and return NGDP back to its targeted path of Nt = 10(1.05)t.

In contrast, under NGDP growth targeting, the central bank will only try to meet its targeted NGDP growth rate of 5% in the future. Hence, under NGDP growth targeting, the central bank will shift its NGDP trajectory to Nt = 10.08(1.05)t-1, which is 4% below the initial NGDP trajectory of Nt = 10(1.05)t. In other words, under NGDP growth targeting, the central bank would let the 4% NGAP continue indefinitely. NGDP base drift occurs when the central bank allows NGAP to continue rather than trying to eliminate that NGAP in the future.

Price Level Targeting vs. Inflation Targeting

The concept of NGDP base drift is related to the concept “price-level base drift,” which many economists such as Svensson (1996) and Kahn (2009) have long recognized to be the theoretical difference between price-level targeting (PLT) and inflation targeting (IT).

In particular, Mankiw (2006) states, “The difference between price-level targeting and inflation-targeting is that price-level targeting requires making up for past mistakes,” while Taylor (2006) states, “Focusing on a numerical inflation rate tends to let bygones be bygones when there is a rise [or fall] in the price level” [brackets added].

Also, Meh, et al (2008) state, “Under IT, the central bank does not bring the price level back and therefore the price level will remain at its new path after the shock.” They go on to say that under PLT, “the central bank commits to bringing the price level back to its initial path after the shock.”

To see the similarities and differences between PLT and IT, assume the central bank’s target for inflation (if it follows IT) would be 2%.  Then the CB’s trajectory for the price level will be Pt = P0 (1.02)t where P0 is the price level for the base year and Pt is the price level occurring t years after the base year.  Similarly assume that the central bank’s price-level target (if it follows PLT) would be Pt* = P0 (1.02)t.  Hence, when the central bank meets its target, the price level will be the same regardless if the central bank follows PLT or IT.

The difference between PLT and IT occurs when the central bank misses its target.  For this example, assume P0 = 100.  Initially, both PLT and IT have the same price-level trajectory of Pt = 100(1.02)t.  In particular, under both PLT and IT, the CB is aiming for Pt  to be 102 at time t=1.  However, assume that the central bank misses its target and Pt = 100.47, which is 1.5% less than its targeted price level of 102.  We define PGAPt to be the percent deviation of the price level at time t from its previous trend; hence, in this example; PGAP1 = ‑1.5%.

Under PLT, the central bank will try to return PGAP back to zero by increasing the price-level back up to its targeted price-level path of Pt = 100 (1.02)t.  Under IT, the central bank will “let bygones be bygones” and merely try to meet its inflation target of 2% in the future.  Hence, under IT, the central bank shifts its price-level trajectory to Pt = 100.47 (1.02)t-1, which is 1.5% below its initial trajectory.  In other words, the central bank lets the -1.5% PGAP continue into the foreseeable future.  Price-level base drift occurs when the central bank allows PGAP to continue rather than trying to eliminate that PGAP in the future.

Price-level base drift implies NGDP base drift

Because IT leads to price-level base drift, it also leads to NGDP base drift.  To illustrate with an example, assume the long-run growth rate in real GDP (RGDP) is 3% and RGDP in the base year is Y0 = 10 trillion dollars.  Therefore, when the central bank expects RGDP to grow at its long-run growth rate, it expects Yt = 10(1.03)t.

Initially in this example when the central bank has a 2% inflation target, the central bank’s trajectory for the price level under inflation targeting is Pt = 100 (1.02)t.  Since Nt=PtYt/100 when we use 100 as the price level in the base year, this means that the CB’s trajectory for NGDPt is Nt = 10 (1.02)t(1.03)t.  When it turned out that P1 was 100.47 instead of 102, the central bank following IT would shift its price level trajectory to Pt = 100.47 (1.02)t-1 and its NGDP trajectory to Nt = 10.047 (1.02)t-1(1.03)t, which is 1.5% below its initial NGDP trajectory.  Therefore, NGAP under this trajectory will be -1.5%, which means a negative NGDP base drift.

“Inflation targeting” can be many things

In practice, inflation targeting is not as simple as I described above or even as several of the economists I quoted described it.   In practice, central banks following inflation targeting target a long-run rather than a short-run inflation rate.  They also try to target “core inflation” rather than general inflation.  Also, they do consider output gap and unemployment as well as inflation.  Therefore, the question whether IT in practice leads to NGDP base drift is primarily an empirical one.

According to my empirical research that I plan to report in a later blog, past U.S. monetary policy has on average resulted in a significant negative NGDP base drift.  Also, that research indicates that the primary reason for the prolonged high unemployment following a recession is this negative NGDP base drift.

References:

Kahn, George A. (2009). “Beyond Inflation Targeting: Should Central Banks Target the Price Level?” Federal Reserve Bank Of Kansas City Economic Review (Third quarter), http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/pdf/09q3kahn.pdf

Mankiw, Greg (2006). “Taylor on Inflation Targeting,” Greg Mankiw’s Blog (July 13) http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/07/taylor-on-inflation-targeting.html

McCallum, Bennett, “Nominal GDP Targeting” Shadow Open Market Committee, October 21, 2011, http://shadowfed.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/McCallum-SOMCOct2011.pdf

Meh, C. A., J.-V. Ríos-Rull, and Y. Terajima (2008). “Aggregate and Welfare Effects of Redistribution of Wealth under Inflation and Price-Level Targeting.” Bank of Canada Working Paper No. 2008-31, http://www.econ.umn.edu/~vr0j/papers/cvyjmoef.pdf

Svensson, Lars E. O. (1996). “Price Level Targeting vs. Inflation Targeting: A Free Lunch?” NBER Working Paper 5719, http://www.nber.org/papers/w5719.pdf, accessed on January 4, 2012.

Taylor, John (2006). “Don’t Talk the Talk: Focusing on a numerical inflation rate tends to let bygones be bygones when there is a rise in the price level.” The Economist (July 13), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115275691231905351.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

© Copyright (2012) David Eagle


10 Comments
by Lars Christensen on January 9, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in David Eagle, Guest blog, Guest post, Inflation Targeting, McCallum, MM Research agenda, Monetary institutions, Monetary policy, Monetary policy rules, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting

Posted by Lars Christensen on January 9, 2012

https://marketmonetarist.com/2012/01/09/guest-blog-growth-or-level-targeting-by-david-eagle/

The biggest cost of nominal stability is ignorance

Anybody who has visited a high inflation country (there are few of those around today, but Belarus is one) will notice that the citizens of that country is highly aware of the developments in nominal variables such as inflation, wage growth, the exchange rates and often also the price of gold and silver.

I am pretty sure that an average Turkish housewife in the Turkish countryside in 1980s would be pretty well aware of the level of inflation, the lira exchange rate both against the dollar and the D-Mark and undoubtedly would know the gold price. This is only naturally as high and volatile inflation had a great impact on the average Turk’s nominal (and real!) income. In fact for most Turks at that time the most important economic decision she would make would be how she would hedge against nominal instability.

The greatest economic crisis in world history always involve nominal instability whether deflation or inflation. Likewise economic prosperity seems to be conditioned on nominal stability.

The problem, however, is that when you have massive nominal instability then everybody realises this, but contrary to this when you have a high degree of monetary stability then households, companies and most important policy makers tend to become ignorant of the importance of monetary policy in ensuring that nominal stability.

I have touched on this topic in a couple of earlier posts. First, I have talked about the “Great Moderation economist” who “grew” up in the Great Moderation era and as a consequence totally disregards the importance of money and therefore come up with pseudo economic theories of the business cycle and inflation. The point is that during the Great Moderation nominal variables in the US and Europe more or less behaved as if the Federal Reserve and the ECB were targeting a NGDP growth level path and therefore basically was no recessions and inflationary problems.

As I argued in another post (“How I would like to teach Econ 101”) the difference between microeconomy and macroeconomy is basically the introduction of money and price rigidities (and aggregation). However, when we target the NGDP level we basically fix MV in the equation of exchange and that means that we de facto “abolish” the macroeconomy. That also means that we effectively do away with recessions and inflationary and deflationary problems. In such a world the economic agents will not have to be concerned about nominal factors. In such a world the only thing that is important is real factors. In a nominally stable world the important economic decisions are what education to get, where to locate, how many hours to works etc. In a nominally unstable world all the time will be used to figure out how to hedge against this instability. Said in another way in a world where monetary institutions are constructed to ensure nominal stability either through a nominal GDP level target or Free Banking money becomes neutral.

A world of nominal stability obviously is what we desperately want. We don’t have that anymore. The great nominal stability – and therefore as real stability – of the Great Moderation is gone. So one would believe that it should be easy to convince everybody that nominal instability is at the core of our problems in Europe and the US.

However, very few economists and even fewer policy makers seem to get it. In fact it has often struck me as odd how many central bankers seem to have very little understanding of monetary theory and it sometimes even feels like they are not really interested in monetary matters. Why is that? And why do central bankers – in especially Europe – keep spending more time talking about fiscal reforms and labour market reform than about talking about ensuring nominal stability?

I believe that one of the reasons for this is that the Great Moderation basically made it economically rational for most of us not to care about monetary matters. We lived in a micro world where there where relatively few monetary distortions and money therefore had a very little impact on economic decisions.

Furthermore, because monetary policy was extremely credible and economic agents de facto expected the central banks to deliver a stable growth level path of nominal GDP monetary policy effectively became “endogenous” in the sense that it was really expectations (and our friend Chuck Norris) that ensured NGDP stability . Hence, during the Great Moderation any “overshoot” in money supply growth was counteracted by a similar drop in money-velocity (See also my earlier post on  “The inverse relationship between central banks’ credibility and the credibility of monetarism”).

Therefore, when nominal stability had been attained in the US and Europe in the mid-1980s monetary policy became very easy. The Federal Reserve and the ECB really did not have to do much. Market expectations in reality ensured that nominal stability was maintained. During that period central bankers perfected the skill of looking and and sounding like credible central bankers. But in reality many central bankers around the really forgot about monetary theory. Who needs monetary theory in a micro world?

We are therefore now in that paradoxical situation that the great nominal stability of the Great Moderation makes it so much harder to regain nominal stability because most policy makers became ignorant of the importance of money in ensuring nominal stability.

Today it seems unbelievable that policy makers failed to see the monetary causes for the Great Depressions and policy makers in 1970s would refuse to acknowledge the monetary causes of the Great Inflation. But unfortunately policy makers still don’t get it – the cause of economic crisis is nearly always monetary and we can only get out of this mess if we understand monetary theory. The only real cost of the Great Moderation was the monetary theory became something taught by economic historians. It is about time policy makers study monetary theory – it is no longer enough to try to look credible when everybody know you have failed.

PS there is also an investment perspective on this discussion – as investors in a nominal stable world tend to become much more leveraged than in a world of monetary instability. That is fine as long as nominal stability persists, but when it breaks down then deleveraging becomes the name of the game.

4 Comments
by Lars Christensen on January 8, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Chuck Norris, Chuck Norris Effect, Monetary institutions, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting, The Great Moderation
Tagged

Posted by Lars Christensen on January 8, 2012

https://marketmonetarist.com/2012/01/08/the-biggest-cost-of-nominal-stability-is-ignorance/

Guest post: Why I Support NGDP Targeting (by David Eagle)

Welcome to David Eagle

I am extremely happy that professor David Eagle have accepted to write a series of guest blogs on my blog. I only recently became aware of David’s impressive research, but consider it to be truly original and in my view his research presents an extremely strong theoretical and empirical case for Nominal GDP level targeting, which of course is at the core of Market Monetarist thinking.

I have already written a number of posts on David’s research and even tried to elaborate on his research specifically in terms of suggesting a method – based on David’s research – to decompose inflation between demand inflation and supply inflation based on what I strongly inspired by David has termed a Quasi-Real Price Index (QRPI) and it is my hope that my invitation to David to write the guest blogs will help give exposure to his very interesting research. Furthermore, I hope that other researchers will be inspired by David’s truly path-breaking research to conduct research into the advantages of NGDP level targeting and related topics.

So once again, thank you David. It is an honour to host your guest blogs.

Lars Christensen  

 

Why I Support NGDP Targeting

By David Eagle

Nominal GDP (NGDP) represents the total spending in the economy, which in essence is the total aggregate demand in the economy.  The term “nominal” means that we ignore the effect of inflation on the value of the spending.  If we adjust for the effect of inflation, we then get a “real” value.  In particular, real GDP (RGDP) represents the total spending adjusted for the effect of inflation on the purchasing power of that spending.  RGDP also represents the conventional measure of total real supply in the economy because usually demand equals supply in a free economy.  I believe that, for most contingencies in the economy, both monetary policy and fiscal policy (as far as its aggregate-spending effects) should focus on targeting the total spending in the economy as measured by NGDP.  That way we will (i) reduce the prolonged high unemployment that has usually followed past recessions, (ii) minimize the demand-caused inflation uncertainties people experience while maintaining the role inflation or deflation plays in the sharing of aggregate-supply risk, (iii) reduce the likelihood of the economy experiencing a liquidity trap, and (iv) eliminate the “stimulate-the-economy” excuse for perpetual fiscal deficits when NGDP is at or above its target.

While I support nominal-GDP targeting (NT), I do not support nominal-GDP-growth-rate targeting (ΔNT).  I have long been an opponent of inflation targeting (IT), and I view ΔNT to be almost as bad as IT.  Both ΔNT and IT expose the economy to negative NGDP base drift, which is the source of several economic problems: (i) prolonged unemployment following recessions, (ii) greater uncertainty for borrowers, lenders, and other payers and receivers of fixed nominal future payments, and (iii) price-level indeterminacy, which can manifest itself in a liquidity trap like what many central banks throughout the world are currently facing.

I also am an opponent of price-level targeting (PLT) even though the NGDP base drift under PLT will be substantially less than under IT.  The reason is because Pareto efficiency requires people with average relative risk aversion to proportionately share in the risks of changes in real aggregate output.  Nominal contracts under NT naturally lead to this proportionate sharing.  However, PLT circumvents that proportionate sharing so that borrowers and other payers of fixed nominal payments absorb all the aggregate-supply risk of those payments in order to protect lenders and other receivers of fixed nominal payments from this risk.

I find that NT Pareto dominates PLT, IT, and ΔNT.  The only reason why NT is not Pareto efficient is a central bank cannot always meet its NGDP target.  I also find through empirical simulations that NT can eliminate the vast majority of the higher-than-normal, long-term unemployment that has usually plagued our economies following recessions.  Hence, I look at NT as the most desirable targeting regime from both a theoretical, Pareto-efficiency standpoint and from an empirical standpoint.

In the upcoming weeks, I plan to write several more guest blogs for “The Market Monetarist” to explain the theoretical and empirical justification for the points I have made in this introduction.  In some cases I will explain the full basis for that justification; in other cases, I will refer to other papers I or others have written.  My proposed blogs (which may change as I write this blogs) are as follows:

  1. Understanding NGAP, NGDP Base Drift, and Growth Vs. Level Targeting
  2. The Two Fundamental Welfare Principles of Monetary Economics
  3. Why Price-Level Targeting Pareto Dominates Inflation Targeting
  4. NGDP Base Drift – Why Recessions are followed by Prolonged High Unemployment
  5. NGDP Base Drift, Price Indeterminacy, and the Liquidity Trap
  6. Three Reasons to Target the Level of rather than the Growth Rate of Nominal GDP

My second blog will use examples to explain the concepts of NGAP, NGDP base drift, and the difference between targeting the level of NGDP and Targeting the growth rate of Nominal GDP.  This blog will also summarize the difference between price-level targeting and inflation targeting, and discuss the concepts of PGAP and price-level base drift.

© Copyright (2012) David Eagle

 

11 Comments
by Lars Christensen on January 5, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in David Eagle, Guest blog, MM Research agenda, Monetary institutions, Monetary policy, Monetary policy rules, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting, Quasi-Real Indexing, Quasi-Real Price Index, Reading recommendations
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Lars Christensen on January 5, 2012

https://marketmonetarist.com/2012/01/05/guest-post-why-i-support-ngdp-targeting-by-david-eagle/

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard once again endorses Market Monetarism

Here is the Daily Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

“Central banks have the means to prevent a 1930s outcome, even with rates at zero, if willing to deploy Fisher-Friedman monetary stimulus with conviction, buying assets from non-banks and targeting nominal GDP growth of 5pc. But policy defeatism is in the air, and Austro-liquidationists are winning the popular debate.”

Ambrose continue to be the most outspooken British commentator in favour of NGDP targeting – Market Monetarist style.

See also my earlier post on Ambrose’s views.

 

5 Comments
by Lars Christensen on January 3, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting
Tagged , ,

Posted by Lars Christensen on January 3, 2012

https://marketmonetarist.com/2012/01/03/ambrose-evans-pritchard-once-again-endorses-market-monetarism/

NGDP targeting would have prevented the Asian crisis

I have written a bit about boom, bust and bubbles recently. Not because I think we are heading for a new bubble – I think we are far from that – but because I am trying to explain why bubbles emerge and what role monetary policy plays in these bubbles. Furthermore, I have tried to demonstrate that my decomposition of inflation between supply inflation and demand inflation based on an Quasi-Real Price Index is useful in spotting bubbles and as a guide for monetary policy.

For the fun of it I have tried to look at what role “relative inflation” played in the run up to the Asian crisis in 1997. We can define “relative inflation” as situation where headline inflation is kept down by a positive supply shock (supply deflation), which “allow” the monetary authorities to pursue a easy monetary policies that spurs demand inflation.

Thailand was the first country to be hit by the crisis in 1997 where the country was forced to give up it’s fixed exchange rate policy. As the graph below shows the risks of boom-bust would have been clearly visible if one had observed the relative inflation in Thailand in the years just prior to the crisis.

When Prem Tinsulanonda became Thai Prime Minister in 1980 he started to implement economic reforms and most importantly he opened the Thai economy to trade and investments. That undoubtedly had a positive effect on the supply side of the Thai economy. This is quite visible in the decomposition of the inflation. From around 1987 to 1995 Thailand experience very significant supply deflation. Hence, if the Thai central bank had pursued a nominal income target or a Selgin style productivity norm then inflation would have been significantly lower than was the case. Thailand, however, had a fixed exchange rate policy and that meant that the supply deflation was “counteracted” by a significant increase in demand inflation in the 10 years prior to the crisis in 1997.

In my view this overly loose monetary policy was at the core of the Thai boom, but why did investors not react to the strongly inflationary pressures earlier? As I have argued earlier loose monetary policy on its own is probably not enough to create bubbles and other factors need to be in play as well – most notably the moral hazard.

Few people remember it today, but the Thai devaluation in 1997 was not completely unexpected. In fact in the years ahead of the ’97-devaluation there had been considerably worries expressed by international investors about the bubble signs in the Thai economy. However, the majority of investors decided – rightly or wrongly – ignore or downplay these risks and that might be due to moral hazard. Robert Hetzel has suggested that the US bailout of Mexico after the so-called Tequila crisis of 1994 might have convinced investors that the US and the IMF would come to the rescue of key US allies if they where to get into economic troubles. Thailand then and now undoubtedly is a key US ally in South East Asia.

What comes after the bust?

After boom comes bust it is said, but does that also mean that a country that have experience a bubble will have to go through years of misery as a result of this? I am certainly not an Austrian in that regard. Rather in my view there is a natural adjustment when a bubble bursts, as was the case in Thailand in 1997. However, if the central bank allow monetary conditions to be tightened as the crisis plays out that will undoubtedly worsen the crisis and lead to a forced and unnecessarily debt-deflation – what Hayek called a secondary deflation. In the case of Thailand the fixed exchange rate regime was given up and that eventually lead to a loosening of monetary conditions that pulled the

NGDP targeting reduces the risk of bubbles and ensures a more swift recovery

One thing is how to react to the bubble bursting – another thing is, however, to avoid the bubble in the first place. Market Monetarists in favour NGDP level targeting and at the moment Market Monetarists are often seen to be in favour of easier monetary policy (at least for the US and the euro zone). However, what would have happened if Thailand had had a NGDP level-targeting regime in place when the bubble started to get out of hand in 1988 instead of the fixed exchange rate regime?

The graph below illustrates this. I have assumed that the Thailand central bank had targeted a NGDP growth path level of 10% (5% inflation + 5% RGDP growth). This was more or less the NGDP growth in from 1980 to 1987. The graph shows that the actually NGDP level increased well above the “target” in 1988-1989. Under a NGDP target rule the Thai central bank would have tightened monetary policy significantly in 1988, but given the fixed exchange rate policy the central bank did not curb the “automatic” monetary easing that followed from the combination of the pegged exchange rate policy and the positive supply shocks.

The graph also show that had the NGDP target been in place when the crisis hit then NGDP would have been allowed to drop more or less in line with what we actually saw. Since 2001-2 Thai NGDP has been more or less back to the pre-crisis NGDP trend. In that sense one can say that the Thai monetary policy response to the crisis was better than was the case in the US and the euro zone after 2008 – NGDP never dropped below the pre-boom trend. That said, the bubble had been rather extreme with the NGDP level rising to more than 40% above the assumed “target” in 1996 and as a result the “necessary” NGDP was very large. That said, the NGDP “gap” would never have become this large if there had been a NGDP target in place to begin with.

My conclusion is that NGDP targeting is not a policy only for crisis, but it is certainly also a policy that significantly reduces the risk of bubbles. So when some argue that NGDP targeting increases the risks of bubble the answer from Market Monetarists must be that we likely would not have seen a Thai boom-bust if the Thai central bank had had NGDP target in the 1990s.

No balance sheet recession in Thailand – despite a massive bubble

It is often being argued that the global economy is heading for a “New Normal” – a period of low trend-growth – caused by a “balance sheet” recession as the world goes through a necessary deleveraging. I am very sceptical about this and have commented on it before and I think that Thai experience shows pretty clearly that we a long-term balance sheet recession will have to follow after a bubble comes to an end. Hence, even though we saw significant demand deflation in Thailand after the bubble busted NGDP never fell below the pre-boom NGDP trend. This is pretty remarkable when the situation is compared to what we saw in Europe and the US in 2008-9 where NGDP was allowed to drop well below the early trend and in that regard it should be noted that Thai boom was far more extreme that was the case in the US or Europe for that matter.

1 Comment
by Lars Christensen on January 3, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Austrian economics, Bubbles, David Eagle, Deflation, Economic and monetary history, Emerging Markets, Exchange rate policy, George Selgin, Hayek, Inflation, MM Research agenda, Monetary institutions, Monetary policy, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting, Productivity Norm, Quasi-Real Indexing, Quasi-Real Price Index, Robert Hetzel
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Lars Christensen on January 3, 2012

https://marketmonetarist.com/2012/01/03/ngdp-targeting-would-have-prevented-the-asian-crisis/

David Davidson and the productivity norm

Mattias Lundbeck research fellow at the Swedish free market think tank Ratio has an interesting link to a paper by Gunnar Örn over at Scott Sumner’s blog. The paper is from 1999 and is in Swedish (so sorry to those of you who do not read and understand Scandinavian…).

The paper reminded me that David Davidson – who was a less well known member of the Stockholm School – was a early proponent of a variation of the productivity norm. Davidson suggested that the monetary authorities should decompose the price index between supply factors and monetary/demand factors. Hence, this is pretty much in line with what I recently have suggested with my Quasi-Real Price Index (strongly inspired by David Eagle). Davidson’s method is different from what I have suggested, but the idea is nonetheless the same.

George Selgin has discussed Davidson’s idea extensively in his research. See for example here from “Less than Zero”:

“In his own attempt to assess the wartime inflation Swedish economist David Davidson came up with an ‘index of scarcity’ showing the extent to which the inflation was due to real as opposed to monetary factors (Uhr, 1975, p. 297). Davidson subtracted his scarcity index from an index of wholesale prices to obtain a residual representing the truly monetary component of the inflation, that is, the component reflecting growth in aggregate nominal spending.”

I hope in the future to be able to follow up on some of Davidson’s work and compare his price decomposition with my method (I should really say David Eagle’s method). Until then we can hope that some of our Swedish friends will pitch in with comments and suggestions.

——-

Mattias has a update on his blog on this comment. See here (Swedish)

 

1 Comment
by Lars Christensen on January 2, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in David Davidson, David Eagle, George Selgin, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting, Productivity Norm, Quasi-Real Indexing, Quasi-Real Price Index, Scott Sumner
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Lars Christensen on January 2, 2012

https://marketmonetarist.com/2012/01/02/david-davidson-and-the-productivity-norm/

Guess what Greenspan said on November 17 1992

This is then Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan at the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee on November 1992:

“Let me put it to you this way. If you ask whether we are confirming our view to contain the success that we’ve had to date on inflation, the answer is “yes.” I think that policy is implicit among the members of this Committee, and the specific instruments that we may be using or not using are really a quite secondary question. As I read it, there is no debate within this Committee to abandon our view that a non-inflationary environment is best for this country over the longer term. Everything else, once we’ve said that, becomes technical questions. I would say in that context that on the basis of the studies, we have seen that to drive nominal GDP, let’s assume at 4-1/2 percent, in our old philosophy we would have said that [requires] a 4-1/2 percent growth in M2. In today’s analysis, we would say it’s significantly less than that. I’m basically arguing that we are really in a sense using [unintelligible] a nominal GDP goal of which the money supply relationships are technical mechanisms to achieve that. And I don’t see any change in our view…and we will know they are convinced (about “price stability”) when we see the 30-year Treasury at 5-1/2 percent.“

So in 1992 the chairman of the Federal Reserve was targeting 4.5% NGDP growth and 30-years yields at 5.5% and calling it “price stability”. Imagine Ben Bernanke would announce tomorrow that he would conduct open market operations until he achieved the exact same target(s)?

PS I got this from Robert Hetzel’s great book on the history of the Fed “Monetary Policy of the Federal Reserve – A History”.

 


11 Comments
by Lars Christensen on December 30, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve, Monetary policy, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting, Robert Hetzel
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Lars Christensen on December 30, 2011

https://marketmonetarist.com/2011/12/30/guess-what-greenspan-said-on-november-17-1992/

The Economist comments on Market Monetarism

The Economist has an interesting article on Market Monetarists as well as would the magazine calls “Heterodox economics” – Market Monetarism, Austrianism and “Modern Monetary Theory” (MMT).

I am happy to see this:

“Mr Sumner’s blog not only revealed his market monetarism to the world at large (“I cannot go anywhere in the world of economics…without hearing his name,” says Mr Cowen). It also drew together like-minded economists, many of them at small schools some distance from the centre of the economic universe, who did not realise there were other people thinking the same way they did. They had no institutional home, no critical mass. The blogs provided one. Lars Christensen, an economist at a Danish bank who came up with the name “market monetarism”, says it is the first economic school of thought to be born in the blogosphere, with post, counter-post and comment threads replacing the intramural exchanges of more established venues.” (Please have a look at my paper on Market Monetarism)

There is no doubt that Scott is at the centre of the Market Monetarist movement. To me he is the Milton Friedman of the day – a pragmatic revolutionary. Scott does not always realise this but his influence can not be underestimated. Our friend Bill Woolsey is also mentioned in the article. But I miss mentioning of for example David Beckworth.

One thing I would note about the Economist’s article is that the Austrianism presented in the article actually is quite close to Market Monetarism. Hence, Leland Yeager (who calls himself a monetarist) and one of the founders of the Free Banking school Larry White are quoted on Austrianism. Bob Murphy is not mentioned. Thats a little on unfair to Bob I think. I think that both Yeager’s and White’s is pretty close to MM thinking. In fact Larry White endorses NGDP targeting as do other George Mason Austrians like Steven Horwitz. I have written the GMU Austrians about earlier. See here and here.

And see this one:

“Austrians still struggle, however, to get published in the principal economics journals. Most economists do not share their admiration for the gold standard, which did not prevent severe booms and busts even in its heyday. And their theory of the business cycle has won few mainstream converts. According to Leland Yeager, a fellow-traveller of the Austrian school who once held the Mises chair at Auburn, it is “an embarrassing excrescence” that detracts from the Austrians’ other ideas. While it provides insights into booms and their ending, it fails to explain why things must end quite so badly, or how to escape when they do. Low interest rates no doubt helped to inflate America’s housing bubble. But this malinvestment cannot explain why 21.8m Americans remain unemployed or underemployed five years after the housing boom peaked.”

Market Monetarists of course provide that insight – overly tight monetary policy – and it seems like Leland Yeager agrees.

It would of course have been great if the Economist had endorsed Market Monetarism, but it is great to see that Market Monetarism now is getting broad coverage in the financial media and there is no doubt that especially Scott’s advocacy is beginning to have a real impact – now we can only hope that they read the Economist at the Federal Reserve and the ECB.

—-

See also the comments on the Economists from Scott Sumner, Marcus Nunes, David Beckworth, Luis Arroyo (in Spanish) and Tyler Cowen.

1 Comment
by Lars Christensen on December 30, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Austrian economics, Bill Woolsey, Bob Murphy, Free Banking, Larry White, Leland Yeager, Milton Friedman, MM Research agenda, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting, Scott Sumner, Steven Horwitz
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Lars Christensen on December 30, 2011

https://marketmonetarist.com/2011/12/30/the-economist-comments-on-market-monetarism/

The Integral Reviews: Paper 1 – Koenig (2011)

I am always open to accept different guest blogs and I therefore very happy that “Integral” has accepted my invitation to do a number of reviews of different papers that are relevant for the discussion of monetary theory and the development of Market Monetarism.

“Integral” is a regular commentator on the Market Monetarist blogs. Integral is a pseudonym and I am familiar with his identity.

We start our series with Integral’s review of Evan Koeing’s paper “Monetary Policy, Financial Stability, and the Distribution of Risk”. I recently also wrote a short (too short) comment on the paper so I am happy to see Integral elaborating on the paper, which I believe is a very important contribution to the discussion about NGDP level targeting. Marcus Nunes has also earlier commented on the paper.

Lars Christensen

The Integral Reviews: Papers 1 – Koenig (2011)
By “Integral”

Reviewed: Evan F. Koenig, “Monetary Policy, Financial Stability, and the Distribution of Risk.” FRB Dallas Working Paper No.1111

Consider the typical debt-deflation storyline. An adverse shock pushes the price level down (relative to expected trend) and increases consumers’ real debt load. This leads to defaults, liquidation, and general disruption of credit markets. This is often-times used as justification for the central bank to target inflation or the price level, to mitigate the effect of such shocks on financial markets.

Koenig takes a twist on this view that is quite at home to Market Monetarists: he notes that since nominal debts are paid out of nominal income, any adverse shock to income will lead to financial disruption, not just shocks to the price level. One conclusion he draws out is that the central bank can target nominal income to insulate the economy against debt-deflation spirals.

He also makes a theoretical point that will resonate well with Lars’ discussion of David Eagle’s work. Recall that Eagle views NGDP targeting as the optimal way to prevent the “monetary veil” from damaging the underlying “real” economy, which he views as an Arrow-Debreu type general equilibrium economy. Koenig makes a similar observation with respect to financial risk (debt-deflation) and in particular the distribution of risk.

In a world with complete, perfect capital markets, agents will sign Arrow-Debreu state-contingent contracts to fully insure themselves against future risk (think shocks). Money is a veil in the sense that fluctuations in the price level, and monetary policy more generally, have no effect on the distribution of risk. However, the real world is much incomplete in this regard and it is difficult to imagine that one could perfectly insure against future income, price, or nominal income uncertainty. Koenig thus dispenses of complete Arrow-Debreau contracts and introduces a single debt instrument, a nominal bond. This is where the central bank comes in.

Koenig considers two policy regimes: one in which the central bank commits to a pre-announced price-level target and one in which the central bank commits to a pre-announced nominal-income target. While the price-level target neutralizes uncertainty about the future price level, it provides no insulation against fluctuations in future output. He shows that a price level target will have adverse distributional consequences: harming debtors but helping creditors. Note that this is exactly the outcome that a price-level target is supposed to avoid. By contrast a central bank policy of targeting NGDP fully insulates the economy from the combination of price and income fluctuations. It will not only have no adverse distributional consequences, it obtain a consumption pattern across debtors and creditors which is identical to that which is obtained when capital markets are complete.

At an empirical level, Koenig documents that loan delinquency is more closely related to surprise changes in NGDP than in P, providing corroborating evidence that it is nominal income, not the price level, which matters for thinking about the sustainability of the nominal debt load.

Koenig’s conclusion is succinct:

“If there are complete markets in contingent claims, so that agents can insure themselves against fluctuations in aggregate output and the price level, then “money is a veil” as far as the allocation of risk is concerned: It doesn’t matter whether the monetary authority allows random variation in the price level or nominal value of output. If such insurance is not available, monetary policy will affect the allocation of risk. When debt obligations are fixed in nominal terms, a price-level target eliminates one source of risk (price-level shocks), but shifts the other risk (real output shocks) disproportionately onto debtors. A more balanced risk allocation is achieved by allowing the price level to move opposite to real output. An example is presented in which the risk allocation achieved by a nominal-income target reproduces exactly the allocation observed with complete capital markets. Empirically, measures of financial stress are much more strongly related to nominal-GDP surprises than to inflation surprises. These theoretical and empirical results call into question the debt-deflation argument for a price-level or inflation target. More generally, they point to the danger of evaluating alternative monetary policy rules using representative-agent models that have no meaningful role for debt.”

22 Comments
by Lars Christensen on December 27, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in "Integral", David Eagle, Evan Koeing, MM Research agenda, Monetary policy, Monetary policy rules, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting, Reading recommendations
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Lars Christensen on December 27, 2011

https://marketmonetarist.com/2011/12/27/the-integral-reviews-paper-1-koenig-2011/

Boom, bust and bubbles

Recently it has gotten quite a bit of attention that some investors believe that there is a bubble in the Chinese property market and we will be heading for a bust soon and the fact that I recently visited Dubai have made me think of how to explain bubbles and if there is such a thing as bubbles in the first bubbles.

I must say I have some experience with bubbles. In 2006 I co-authoured a paper on the Icelandic economy where we forecasted a bust of the Icelandic bubble – I don’t think we called it a bubble, but it was pretty clear that that is what we meant it was. And in 2007 I co-authored a number of papers calling a bust to the bubbles in certain Central and Eastern European economies – most notably the Baltic economies. While I am proud to have gotten it right – both Iceland and the Baltic States went through major economic and financial crisis – I nonetheless still feel that I am not entire sure why I got it right. I am the first to admit that there certainly quite a bit of luck involved (never underestimate the importance of luck). Things could easily have gone much different. However, I do not doubt that the fact that monetary conditions were excessive loose played a key role both in the case of Iceland and in the Baltic States. I have since come to realise that moral hazard among investors undoubtedly played a key role in these bubbles. But most of all my conclusion is that the formation of bubbles is a complicated process where a number of factors play together to lead to bubbles. At the core of these “accidents”, however, is a chain of monetary policy mistakes.

What is bubbles? And do they really exist? 

If one follows the financial media one would nearly on a daily basis hear about “bubbles” in that and that market. Hence, financial journalists clearly have a tendency to see bubbles everywhere – and so do some economists especially those of us who work in the financial sector where “airtime” is important. However, the fact is that what really could be considered as bubbles are quite rare. The fact that all the bubble-thinkers can mention the South Sea bubble or the Dutch Tulip bubble of 1637 that happened hundreds years ago is a pretty good illustration of this. If bubbles really were this common then we would have hundreds of cases to study. We don’t have that. That to me this indicates that bubbles do not form easily – they are rare and form as a consequence of a complicated process of random events that play together in a complicated unpredictable process.

I think in general that it is wrong to see any increase in assets prices that is later corrected as a bubble. Obviously investors make mistakes. We after all live in an uncertain world. Mistakes are not bubbles. We can only talk about bubbles if most investors make the same mistakes at the same time.

Economists do not have a commonly accepted description of what a bubble is and this is probably again because bubbles are so relatively rare. But let me try to give a definitions. I my view bubbles are significant economic wide misallocation of labour and capital that last for a certain period and then is followed by an unwinding of this misallocation (we could also call this boom-bust). In that sense communist Soviet Union was a major bubble. That also illustrates that distortion of  relative prices is at the centre of the description and formation of bubbles.

Below I will try to sketch a monetary based theory of bubbles – and here the word sketch is important because I am not actually sure that there really can be formulated a theory of bubbles as they are “outliers” rather than the norm in free market economies.

The starting point – good things happen

In my view the starting point for the formation of bubbles actually is that something good happens. Most examples of “bubbles” (or quasi-bubbles) we can find with economic wide impact have been in Emerging Markets. A good example is the boom in the South East Asian economies in the early 1990s or the boom in Southern Europe and Central and Eastern European during the 2000s. All these economies saw significant structural reforms combined with some kind of monetary stabilisation, but also later on boom-bust.

Take for example Latvia that became independent in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After independence Latvia underwent serious structural reforms and the transformation from planned economy to a free market economy happened relatively fast. This lead to a massively positive supply shock. Furthermore, a quasi-currency board was implemented early on. The positive supply shock (which played out over years) and the monetary stabilisation through the currency board regime brought inflation down and (initially) under control. So the starting point for what later became a massive misallocation of resources started out with a lot of good things happening.

Monetary policy and “relative inflation”

As the stabilisation and reform phase plays out the initial problems start to emerge. The problem is that the monetary policies that initially were stabilising soon becomes destabilising and here the distinction between “demand inflation” and “supply inflation” is key (See my discussion decomposion demand and supply inflation here). Often countries in Emerging Markets with underdeveloped financial markets will choose to fix their currency to more stable country’s currency – for example the US dollar or in the old days the D-mark – but a policy of inflation targeting has also in recent years been popular.

These policies often succeed in bringing nominal stability to begin with, but because the central bank directly or indirectly target headline inflation monetary policy is eased when positive supply shocks help curb inflationary pressures. What emerges is what Austrian economists has termed “relative inflation” – while headline inflation remains “under control” demand inflation (the inflation created by monetary policy) increases while supply inflation drops or even turn into supply deflation. This is a consequence of either a fixed exchange rate policy or an inflation targeting policy where headline inflation rather than demand inflation is targeted.

My view on relative inflation has to a very large extent been influenced by George Selgin’s work – see for example George’s excellent little book “Less than zero” for a discussion of relative inflation. I think, however, that I am slightly less concerned about the dangers of relative inflation than Selgin is and I would probably stress that relative inflation alone can not explain bubbles. It is a key ingredient in the formation of bubbles, but rarely the only ingredient.

Some – George Selgin for example (see here) – would argue that there was a significant rise in relatively inflation in the US prior to 2008. I am somewhat skeptical about this as I can not find it in my own decompostion of the inflation data and NGDP did not really increase above it’s 5-5.5% trend in the period just prior to 2008. However, a better candidate for rising relative inflation having played a role in the formation of a bubble in my view is the IT-bubble in the late 1990s that finally bursted in 2001, but I am even skeptical about this. For a good discussion of this see David Beckworth innovative Ph.D. dissertation from 2003.

There are, however, much more obvious candidates. While the I do not necessarily think US monetary policy was excessively loose in terms of the US economy it might have been too loose for everybody else and the dollar’s role as a international reserve currency might very well have exported loose monetary policy to other countries. That probably – combined with policy mistakes in Europe and easy Chinese monetary policy – lead to excessive loose monetary conditions globally which added to excessive risk taking globally (including in the US).

The Latvian bubble – an illustration of the dangers of relative inflation

I have already mentioned the cases of Iceland and the Baltic States. These examples are pretty clear examples of excessive easy monetary conditions leading to boom-bust. The graph below shows my decompostion of Latvian inflation based on a Quasi-Real Price Index for Latvia.

It is very clear from the graph that Latvia demand inflation starts to pick up significantly around 2004, but headline inflation is to some extent contained by the fact that supply deflation becomes more and more clear. It is no coincidence that this happens around 2004 as that was the year Latvia joined the EU and opened its markets further to foreign competition and investments – the positive impact on the economy is visible in the form of supply deflation. However, due to Latvia’s fixed exchange rate policy the positive supply shock did not lead to a stronger currency, but rather to an increase in demand inflation. This undoubtedly was a clear reason for the extreme misallocation of capital and labour in the Latvian economy in 2005-8.

The fact that headline inflation was kept down by a positive supply shock probably help “confuse” investors and policy makers alike and it was only when the positive supply shock started to ease off in 2006-7 that investors got alarmed.

Hence, here a Selginian explanation for the boom-bust seems to be a lot more obvious than for the US.

The role of Moral Hazard – policy makers as “cheerleaders of the boom”

To me it is pretty clear that relative inflation will have to be at the centre of a monetary theory of bubbles. However, I don’t think that relative inflation alone can explain bubbles like the one we saw in the Latvia. A very important reason for this is the fact that it took so relatively long for investors to acknowledge that something wrong in the Latvian economy. Why did they not recognise it earlier? I think that moral hazard played a role. Investors full well understood that there was a serious problem with strongly rising demand inflation and misallocation of capital and labour, but at the same time it was clear that Latvia seemed to be on the direct track to euro adoption within a relatively few years (yes, that was the clear expectation in 2005-6). As a result investors bet that if something would go wrong then Latvia would probably be bailed out by the EU and/or the Nordic governments and this is in fact what happened. Hence, investors with rational expectations rightly expected a bailout of Latvia if the worst-case scenario played out.
The Latvian case is certainly not unique. Robert Hetzel has made a forcefull argument in his excellent paper “Should Increased Regulation of Bank Risk Taking Come from Regulators or from the Market?” that moral hazard played a key role in the Asian crisis. Here is Hetzel:

“In early 1995, the Treasury with the Exchange Stabilization Fund, the Fed with swap accounts, and the IMF had bailed out international investors holding Mexican Tesobonos (Mexican government debt denominated in dollars) who were fleeing a Mexico rendered unstable by political turmoil. That bailout created the assumption that the United States would intervene to prevent financial collapse in its strategic allies. Russia was included as “too nuclear” to fail. Subsequently, large banks increased dramatically their short-term lending to Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea. The Asia crisis emerged when the overvalued, pegged exchange rates of these countries collapsed revealing an insolvent banking system. Because of the size of the insolvencies as a fraction of the affected countries GDP, the prevailing TBTF assumption that Asian countries would bail out their banking systems suddenly disappeared.”

I would further add that I think policy makers often act as “cheerleaders of the boom” in the sense that they would dismiss warnings from analysts and market participants that something is wrong in the economy and often they are being supported by international institutions like the IMF. This clearly “helps” investors (and households) becoming more rationally ignorant or even rationally irrational about the “obvious” risks (See Bryan Caplan’s discussion of rational ignorance and rational irrationality here.)

Policy recommendation: Introduce NGDP level targeting

Yes, yes we might as well get out our hammer and say that the best way to avoid bubbles is to target the NGDP level. So why is that? Well, as I argued above a key ingredient in the creation of bubbles was relative inflation – that demand inflation rose without headline inflation increasing. With NGDP level targeting the central bank will indirectly target a level for demand prices – what I have called a Quasi-Real Price Index (QRPI). This clearly would reduce the risk of misallocation due to confusion of demand and supply shocks.

It is often argued that central banks should in some way target asset prices to avoid bubbles. The major problem with this is that it assumes that the central bank can spot bubbles that market participants fail to spot. This is further ironic as it is exactly the central banks’ overly loose monetary policy which is likely at the core of the formation of bubbles. Further, if the central bank targets the NGDP level then the potential negative impact on money velocity of potential bubbles bursting will be counteracted by an increase in the money supply and hence any negative macroeconomic impact of the bubble bursting will be limited. Hence, it makes much more sense for central banks to significantly reduce the risk of bubbles by targeting the NGDP level than to trying to prick the bubbles.NGDP targeting reduces the risk of bubbles and also reduces the destabilising impact when the bubbles bursts.

Finally it goes without saying that moral hazard should be avoided, but here the solutions seems to be much harder to find and most likely involve fundamental institutional (some would argue constitutional) reforms.

But lets not worry too much about bubbles

As I stated above the bubbles are in reality rather rare and there is therefore in general no reason to worry too much about bubbles. That I think particularly is the case at the moment where overly tight monetary policy rather overly loose monetary policy. Furthermore, contrary to what some have argued the introduction – which effective in the present situation would equate monetary easing in for example the US or the euro zone – does not increase the risk of bubbles, but rather it reduces the risk of future bubbles significantly. That said, there is no doubt that the kind of bailouts that we have see of certain European governments and banks have increased the risk of moral hazard and that is certainly problematic. But again if monetary policy had follow a NGDP rule in the US and Europe the crisis would have been significantly smaller in the first place and bailouts would therefore not have been “necessary”.

——

PS I started out mentioning the possible bursting of the Chinese property bubble. I have no plans to write on that topic at the moment, but have a look at two rather scary comments from Patrick Chovanec:

“China Data, Part 1A: More on Property Downturn”
“Foreign Affairs: China’s Real Estate Crash”

 

 



23 Comments
by Lars Christensen on December 27, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Austrian economics, Bubbles, Central and Eastern Europe, China, David Beckworth, David Eagle, Economic and monetary history, Emerging Markets, Exchange rate policy, Federal Reserve, General economic theory, George Selgin, Iceland, Inflation, Inflation Targeting, Luck, MM Research agenda, Monetary institutions, Moral Hazard, NGDP Targeting, Nominal Income Targeting, Quasi-Real Price Index, Robert Hetzel, The Great Recession
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Lars Christensen on December 27, 2011

https://marketmonetarist.com/2011/12/27/boom-bust-and-bubbles/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »