Long run money

Continuing in the Il Sole series on Italy and the Euro, Alberto Bagnai writes that the euro is a "big defeat for the economics profession'' here in English, here in Italian.  He takes particular issue with my earlier case for a common currency, here in English, in Italian, and blog post.

"John Cochrane’s idea that money is irrelevant for growth (economists say that money is “neutral”) not only clashes with major scientific results, such as Dani Rodrik’s analysis of the role of excessively strong exchange rates in slowing the growth of a country, but also with what the European institutions are finally admitting through clenched teeth: the reforms are causing deflation and failing to promote employment in any decisive way (footnote 23 in the above-mentioned ECB Economic bulletin).

The best economists had also addressed this point: the negative consequences of structural reforms on the productivity of labour were illustrated by Robert Gordon in 2008. For Cochrane, money is like oil in a motor. The metaphor is (unwittingly) correct. Bad management of oil has long-period consequences like bad management of currency: in the first case the head fuses and the motor stops; in the second a continent, and the world economy stops.

If De Grauwe is incoherent with data and Cochrane with theories,..."

I have long been accused of being theoretically pure but incoherent about the "real world." (As if the real world could ever conform to no theory, rather than a better theory). This is the first time I, or the proposition of long-run monetary neutrality, have been accused of theoretical incoherence.


First let's be clear what we're talking about. My article was clearly about long-run growth. And I wittingly made the oil comparison -- and also said that bad monetary policy, like not enough oil, can drag an economy down.

"For today, let's focus on the long-run question, leaving out for now the transition and any immediate benefits and costs...  

Remember first that monetary policy cannot substantially improve long-run growth. Long-run growth comes from people and productivity, how much each person can produce per hour of work.... Improvements in long-run growth come only from structural reform, not monetary machination. 

Money is like oil in a car. Bad monetary policy, like too little oil, can drag an economy down. But after a point more oil will not help you to go faster — you need a bigger engine."

We shouldn't be arguing about things I didn't say!

But to the substantive point.  How about "the idea that money is irrelevant for growth (economists say that money is “neutral”) not only clashes with major scientific results, such as Dani Rodrik’s analysis of the role of excessively strong exchange rates in slowing the growth of a country"

The clearly stated proposition is that money is irrelevant for long-run growth. Italy's postwar miracolo economico was not the result of a finely calibrated monetary policy under the Lira. The fact that Italians today are so much better off than their ancestors in 1917, 1817, or, heck, 1217, is just not centrally about better monetary policy under the Lira than under gold coins.

Rodrik? Sure. Out of whack anything can cause trouble for a while. A stack of dishes in the kitchen causes a spat. That's not a reason to divorce.

Structural reforms not working? What structural reforms? In my view, they haven't started. Call me when you can hire and fire people, government spending is under 50% of GDP, marginal tax rates are less than half, rent control is gone, it takes less than a decade to get a building permit, or when the World Bank ease of doing business ranking doesn't look like this

Update: Alberto Mingardi graciously came to my defense in the arguments following this post. Yes, I got rent control wrong (it was a big problem the last time I lived in Italy, but this tells you how long ago that was.) Alberto points out that it's still hard to evict people, as it is in the US. And he goes over a number of detailed sands in the Italian gears.  

Read more

Douthat and Feldstein on Euro

In case you missed it, this Sunday featured a creditable effort by the NY Times to look out of the groundhog hole. You have likely followed the explosion resulting from Bret Stephens' first column. Likewise, Ross Douthat tried to explain the attraction of Marine LePen.  I'm not a LePen fan, but appreciated his honest effort to explain how the other side say things.

I was interested in Douthat's views on the euro:

But on the other hand, our era’s “enlightened” governance has produced an out-of-touch eurozone elite lashed to a destructive common currency,..

There is no American equivalent to the epic disaster of the euro, a form of German imperialism with the struggling parts of Europe as its subjects... 

And while many of her economic prescriptions are half-baked, her overarching critique of the euro is correct: Her country and her continent would be better off without it.

Douthat does not pretend to be an economist, and I have no beef with his expressing such views. Because such views are commonplace conventional wisdom from our policy elite. And if the euro falls apart, they will bear a lot of blame for its passing. Be careful what you write, people might be listening.  No, when Germany sends Porsches to Greece in return for worthless pieces of paper, it is not Germany who got the better of the deal. And while you're at it, get rid of that silly common meter, and restore proper nationalism of weights and measures too. (Of course perhaps my admiration for the euro is wrong. Then they will deserve credit for the wave of prosperity that flows over Europe once it unleashes the shackles of the common currency dragging it down. )

As a concrete example, consider  Martin Feldstein writing in the Il Sole series on the Euro, (I don't mean to pick on Feldstein. He has been a consistent anti-euro voice, arguing the great benefits for Italy and Greece of periodic inflation and devaluation. But he is just a good sober example of the common view in Cambridge-centered economic policy circles.)


Topic sentences:

Although Italy was an enthusiastic adopter of the euro when the single currency began, the Italian experience of the past decade suggests that was a mistake.

...it seems plausible that Italy’s economy would be in better condition today if Italy, like Britain, had decided to keep its own currency and therefore to be able to manage its own monetary policy and its own exchange rate.

Analysis:

Advocates of adopting the euro argued at the time that members of the Eurozone would be forced by market pressures to converge to a high common level of productivity and a corresponding level of real wages. That never happened. Instead, Germany powered ahead with rising productivity that has resulted in real per capita income 30% higher than Italy’s, an unemployment rate that is less than half Italy's and a trade surplus that is 8 % of its GDP.

Huh? It is a new proposition in monetary economics to me that adopting a common currency forces countries to move to common productivity, any more than adopting the meter forces countries to do so.  Alabama and California share a currency and not productivity. Fresno and Palo Alto share a currency and not productivity.   A common market in products with free movement of capital and labor might force out economic, legal, and regulatory inefficiency, but that would happen regardless of the units of measurement.

The most basic proposition in monetary economics: The choice of monetary unit has no effect on long-run productivity or any other aspect of the long-run real economy. Using the euro vs. the lira has no effect on long-run productivity, any more than using the meter forces Italian tailors to cut Norwegian-sized suits, or that using the Kilo forces Italian restaurants to serve bratwurst and beer rather than pizza and wine.

The countries that adopted the euro never satisfied the three conditions for a successful currency union: labor mobility, flexibility of real wages, and a common fiscal policy that transfers funds to areas that experience temporary increases in unemployment.

This is another repeated truism. In my view the main condition for a currency union was present in the euro and the problem was forgetting about it when the time came. In a currency union without fiscal union, bankrupt governments default just like bankrupt companies. Neither labor mobility (which exists in Europe), flexibility of real wages (doubtful in the US) or common fiscal policy (also limited in the US) are necessary. Europe lived under a common currency -- the gold standard -- for hundreds of years. Sovereigns defaulted.

I suspect Feldstein means by "common currency" far more than I do. I mean, we agree to use a common currency. I suspect Feldstein means far more than that, including that no government debt may ever default and that the ECB must print money to ensure that fact. Like all disagreements perhaps this one simply reflects a difference in meaning of the words. If so, it would be good to say so. Objections to "the euro" are not objections to a common currency per se, but objections to the rest of the legal, regulatory, banking, fiscal, and policy framework that accompanies the euro.

To be fair, there is also a different underlying world view here. In Feldstein's world, national governments and central banks can be relied on to diagnose "shocks," and artfully devalue currencies just enough to "offset shocks" when and only when needed; in the european case likely imposing "capital controls" as well, but to do this rarely enough that investors will still buy government bonds, invest in their countries, and avoid the slide to banana republic inflation, repression, and trade and investment closure. In my world, as I think in the real world of Italy and Greece before the euro, national currencies are not such a happy tool of benevolent dirigisme. The commitment not to devalue, inflate, and grab capital after the fact is good for growth and investment before the fact. A government sober enough to use Feldstein's tools wisely is also sober enough to borrow wisely when offered low rates. A government not sober enough to borrow wisely when offered low rates is not sober enough to artfully devalue, inflate, grab capital "just this once" in response to shocks.

Read more

Long Run Lira?

Luigi Zingales inaugurated a series of essays in Il Sole 24 Ore, an Italian newspaper, on whether Italy should stay in or get out of the Euro, and graciously asked me to contribute. My view, here in English, here in Italian.

To be clear, I kept to Luigi's terms of the debate. This piece is only about whether Italy is better off in the long run, with a common currency. Whether it gets anything out of an exit, a devaluation, a default now is for another day. And this is just about currency, not about leaving the EU, not about debt or austerity, not about whether europe needs a fiscal union, or the rest of it. (Some subsequent correspondence verifies the wisdom, but also the difficulty, of talking about one thing at a time.)

Return to the Lira? A long-run view (Not very good English title)
The euro isn't perfect, but it isn't bad. (Much better Italian title)

Should Italy have her own currency, and run her own monetary policy? For today, let's focus on the long-run question, leaving out for now the transition and any immediate benefits and costs. When contemplating a divorce, it is wise to focus on what life will be like when everything is settled, not just who will have to wash today's stack of dirty dishes.

Remember first that monetary policy cannot substantially improve long-run growth. Long-run growth comes from people and productivity, how much each person can produce per hour of work. In turn, productivity comes from innovation, new companies, new ways doing business, and new products. Like Uber, consumers benefit and existing producers are disrupted. Improvements in long-run growth come only from structural reform, not monetary machination. Money is like oil in a car. Bad monetary policy, like too little oil, can drag an economy down. But after a point more oil will not help you to go faster — you need a bigger engine.


In the short run, monetary policy can also “stimulate” an economy. It's like an afternoon espresso — good when you're feeling a little sluggish, but not wise to drink all the time, and in the end no substitute for diet and exercise. And that is the major advantage offered for an independent currency and monetary policy — the possibility that a wise monetary authority can offset bad shocks with occasional bursts of devaluation and inflation.

But “wise” is a major caution. When the central bank lowers interest rates, inflates, or devalues, that helps exporters, but hurts importers; it helps government finances, but lowers the real amount the government pays its workers, pensioners, and bond-holders; it helps borrowers but hurts those who lent money to the government, homes and businesses.

Once hurt, they wise up. Anticipating the next devaluation and inflation, workers and pensioners demand indexed wages and pensions. Bond investors demand higher interest rates.

So having your own currency really only works for a government whose finances are in sound shape, and whose public institutions are strong enough to resist the constant clamor for one more inflation. Just this once. Again and again.

Staying in the euro thus represents an important pre-commitment. By forswearing the ability to easily devalue and inflate ex-post, Italy benefits from much better credit and investment ex-ante. It is up to her to use this credit wisely, as Greece so notably did not.

Devaluing and inflating is said to work because prices and wages are “sticky,” and do not quickly adapt to inflation. Thus people are fooled into working harder than they would otherwise, or into accepting wage and price declines they would refuse if they could see them directly. But, if used often, they too will wake up and stickiness vanishes.

Furthermore, devaluation and inflation to exploit such stickiness can address an overall level of wages or prices that is too high, but it cannot address an industry or a region that is too high while another is too low. And variation across industries and regions is larger than variation across countries. If stickiness is the problem, it would be much better to remove all the policies that encourage sticky prices and wages in the first place. For Italy in particular, the arguments for one currency are really arguments for two currencies, one for the North and one for the South.

If that sounds unappealing, perhaps one currency is unappealing too.

Italy will face tight limits on what it can accomplish with wise monetary policy. Let us hope that having its own currency means Italy still somehow remains a member of the European Union, or at least its somewhat free-trade and free-investment area, like Denmark, Norway, or pre-Brexit UK. Let us hope that Italians can still buy and sell goods freely across Europe, they can conduct their business in euro or lira, own bank accounts in both currencies, freely buy and sell securities, work in Europe and hire whom they please.

Do not take all of this for granted. The first thing many governments do, faced with weak currencies and government debt problems, or noticing their monetary stimulus efforts have little effect, is to force their citizens to use that weak currency, to ban foreign bank accounts, to limit citizens' rights to buy and sell euros or to borrow or invest abroad. They limit foreign banks, in order to prop up domestic banks who must hold domestic currency and debt. They limit the interest citizens get at banks, and allocate bank credit.

All this passes under bureaucratic bromides like “capital controls.” Economists call it “financial repression,” which gives a better sense of its effect. This is the kind of monetary policy that, like removing oil from a car, really can slow it down. And it is not clear that Italy even can leave the euro without leaving the EU.

If Italy remains open, as she must to grow, monetary policy will always be constrained by the exchange rate and competition from the euro. Too much loosening will cut the exchange rate too much, and vice versa. Wild exchange rate fluctuations are bad for business and investment all around. Italians will just use euros instead, undermining the value of a domestic currency, leading to capital controls. Even Iceland is now thinking it should peg to the euro. Switzerland and to a lesser extent Denmark are fighting hard to keep their currencies from rising.

So will Italy be better off in the long-run, back with her old sweetheart, the Lira? A well-managed currency within an economy open to trade, capital, and people, can have some benefits. The experience of pre-Brexit UK, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, or Sweden offers small advantages, some challenges, and no particular disasters so far. The experience of pre-euro Italy is less encouraging, that of pre-euro Greece less so, and that of many small countries challenged by debt and growth less so still. Round after round of inflation and devaluation did not produce prosperity, and capital and exchange controls hurt growth substantially.

In the end, no monetary machination can substitute for a dynamic real economy. The Euro, while not perfect, is pretty good, and it offers an important pre-commitment against bad policy. The dangers and temptations of a Lira do not, in my view, compensate for the loss of an occasional afternoon espresso of stimulus.

Read more

Negative rates and inflation

Have negative interest rates boosted inflation? Here is a nice graph (source macro-man blog, HT FT alphaville)

Source: Macro-man blog

Not really. Explanations? Choose the chicken or the egg:

1) But for negative rates, inflation would have been even lower

2) We're living in a Fisher effect world. Lower rates lower inflation. (Which is arguably a good, if unintended, thing)

Read more

Ferguson on Krugtron

A fun show is breaking out. Niall Ferguson on "Krugtron the invincible."

Paul Krugman, for a while now, has been lambasting those he disagrees with by trumpeting their supposed "predictions" which came out wrong, and using words like "knaves and fools" to describe them -- when he's feeling polite. These claims often are based on a rather superficial, if any, study of what the people involved actually wrote, mirroring the sudden narcolepsy of Times fact-checkers any time Krugman steps in to the room. Niall has lately been a particular target of this calumnious campaign.

Niall's fighting back. "Oh yeah? Let's see how your "predictions" worked out!" Don't mess with a historian. He knows how to check the facts. This is only "part 1!" Ken Rogoff seems to be on a similar tear. (and a new item here.) This will be worth watching.

As regular blog readers know, I don't think science advances by evaluating soothsaying. You make good unconditional predictions with very badly wrong structural models, and very good structural models make bad unconditional predictions.  The talent of predicting and the talent of understanding are largely uncorrelated.  The judgmental forecasts of individuals are poor ways to evaluate any serious economic or scientific theory.  I carefully don't make "predictions" for just that reason. So, I don't regard this cheery deconstruction effort as a useful way to show that Krugman's "model," whatever it is, is wrong. I also can't see that anyone but the devoted choir of lemmings is paying much attention to Krugman's mudslinging any more.  But it is nice that Niall and Ken are taking the effort to ask the great doctor if perhaps he also doesn't need a bit of healing; perhaps they will force Krugman to go back to actually writing about economics. 

Update: Benn Steil Chimes in, this time on the Baltics, Iceland, and the supposed wonders of currency devaluation.

Read more

Rogoff on UK Defaults

Ken Rogoff wrote a very interesting FT oped on UK finances (FT original, Rogoff webpage if you can't see FT.)

The issue: Should we worry about huge sovereign debts of advanced countries? Or was the only problem with fiscal stimulus that it was not big enough?


A little history:

Yes, from the 1800s until the first world war, the UK was a global superpower that commanded vast colonial resources and investments. Over long periods, these foreign assets yielded returns well in excess of interest on debt. But comparing government debt ratios back then, when the UK was a massive net creditor, to debt ratios today, when British foreign liabilities exceed foreign assets, is utterly misleading. Moreover, back in the 1820s, the UK was pioneering the industrial revolution; things are not quite the same today. Back then, the UK did not have to worry about pension liabilities or existential threats to the banking system that could require massive injections of cash to fix. ...

During the 1930s, Britain defaulted on debt to the US accumulated during the first world war and its aftermath. ...

It is often stated that after the second world war the UK debt reached almost 250 per cent of gross domestic product and was brought down merely through growth and inflation. This is a myth ...

Then there is the high-inflation era of the 1970s – another de facto default. Last but not least, what about the UK’s serial dependence on International Monetary Fund bailouts from the mid-1950s until the mid-1970s? This is hardly a country with an indestructible credit status. ...

Being a UK bondholder has had its ups and downs.

Looking forward, an important point: a country needs to be substantially below its ultimate borrowing limit, or it loses its ability to fight crises going ahead.

..a euro collapse would have triggered a stampede out once investors realised that the UK banks and trade would be savaged, a flexible currency notwithstanding. In that scenario, UK leaders would have been forced to close massive budget deficits almost overnight. That would have been truly catastrophic austerity. ...

We now know the euro did not collapse. [yet -- JC] With 20-20 hindsight, yes, the UK could have borrowed more. But we do not have hindsight at the moment decisions have to be taken. 

Kan and Carmen Reinhart have been at the receiving end of Paul Krugman's tender commentaries lately, and I'm interested to see Ken taking up the issue. Krugman likes to lambaste people for "predictions" that he imagines they made which didn't come out. On the euro blowing up, Ken seems to be offering a taste of his own medicine, made more bitter by the fact that Krugman actually did say what Ken says he said:

...This was the big call – the one that everyone was focusing on. To state that credit risk was gone by 2010 is ludicrous. None other than The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman prognosticated the euro’s early demise regularly from April 2010 to July 2012. His big call has turned out – so far – to be dead wrong.

I will be curious if we see more of that from Ken. Stay tuned.

Read more

Cyprus and Resolution Authority

Holman Jenkins has a revealing Cyprus update in today's Wall Street Jounal. For those of you who haven't been following the news, Cyprus' banks failed, borrowing huge amounts of money and investing it in Greek debt (yes).  Cyprus was bailed out by the EU after a chaotic week, including an agreement that large depositors would lose some money, called a "bail-in."


Since us economists have been saying that unsecured creditors and uninsured depositors should lose money when banks fail, it was sort of a watershed moment. I expressed some reservations at the political, discretionary, and chaotic nature of the bail-in. It turns out I underestimated that nature.

From Holman:

A few weeks ago, the Central Bank of Cyprus published a curious set of "clarifications for the better understanding of the resolution measures." The principle of a bail-in—that uninsured creditors should suffer losses before taxpayers are on the hook—turns out to contain a few lacunae. "Financial institutions, the government, municipalities, municipal councils and other public entities, insurance companies, charities, schools, and educational institutions" will be excused from contributing to the depositor haircuts, though insurers later were removed from the exempt list.

There will be no haircut on the €9 billion ($11.8 billion) the European Central Bank injected, for political reasons, in 2012 to keep Cyprus's Laiki Bank temporarily afloat—€9 billion that has now somehow become a liability of Bank of Cyprus depositors, whose losses are bigger as a result.
...
We should mention another possible offense, in a sense, against creditor priority in reports that certain connected customers withdrew funds just before the haircuts. A daughter and son-in-law of Cyprus's president seem to make a good case that their transfer of €10.5 million to a London bank was a coincidence, but then they proffered a "voluntary haircut" anyway via a donation to a church fund for the poor. Hmm
...
we have to chuckle when legislators on Capitol Hill talk about ending "too big to fail"—as if there is any chance of stopping politicians from bailing out whatever institutions politicians decide their own interests require bailing out, or any chance of imposing legal order on what are invariably chaotic, highly politicized decisions in the heat of crisis.
...
Cyprus turns out to be a good template after all. Modern financial systems may be incompatible with the rule of law that mankind has labored so mightily to build over the centuries.

This all matters for our financial "reform." Recall, lots of financial institutions were bailed out in 2008-2009, meaning really that their creditors were bailed out. (Normally, when an institution fails, who gets what is determined by bankruptcy law; the creditors become the new owners, the institution is suddenly recapitalized, and either continues or is carved up depending on what makes more sense to the new owners.)

On the theory that "bankruptcy doesn't work for big banks" the Dodd-Frank law posits a "Resolution Authority," composed of Administration officials, that will sit in the place of bankruptcy court and decide who loses money, with pretty much discretion to do what they want. To get paid off, make sure you persuade the "authority" that you losing money would be a "systemic" danger. It might help to have your campaign contributions up to date. I wrote about that danger in a Regulation article here.

The GM bankruptcy here is a small template. As Holman points out,  when politicians and political appointees have great power to decide who gets money and who doesn't, watch out. Oh, no, I forgot; our political appointees are so much more uncorruptible than the Eurocrats that sort of thing can't happen here. (That was a joke)

His last two paragraphs are better than anything I can write. Go read them again. My one disagreement: Modern financial systems are fine. Modern political systems have abandoned rule of law in favor of a monarchic rule by discretion of appointed bureaucrats. That is incompatible with any financial system.

Read more