This site has moved to
The posts below are backup copies from the new site.

August 7, 2012

Latest Posts from Economist's View

Latest Posts from Economist's View

Posted: 08 Jun 2012 12:42 AM PDT
Republicans say there are lessons about economic policy to be learned from Reagan's presidency. It's true, there are, in particular the benefits of "Reagan-style Keynesianism":
Reagan Was a Keynesian, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: There's no question that America's recovery from the financial crisis has been disappointing. ... And Republicans are, of course, trying — with considerable success — to turn this ... to their political advantage.
They love, in particular, to contrast President Obama's record with that of Ronald Reagan, who, by this point in his presidency, was indeed presiding over a strong economic recovery. You might think that the more relevant comparison is with George W. Bush, who, at this stage of his administration, was — unlike Mr. Obama — still presiding over a large loss in private-sector jobs. And, as I'll explain shortly, the economic slump Reagan faced was ... much easier to deal with than our current depression. Still, the Reagan-Obama comparison is revealing... So let's look at that comparison, shall we?
For the truth is that ... Reagan, not Obama, was the big spender. While there was a brief burst of government spending early in the Obama administration — mainly for emergency aid programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps — that burst is long past. Indeed, at this point, government spending is falling ... at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War. ...
In short, if you want to see government responding to economic hard times with the "tax and spend" policies conservatives always denounce, you should look to the Reagan era — not the Obama years.
So does the Reagan-era economic recovery demonstrate the superiority of Keynesian economics? Not exactly. For, as I said, the truth is that the slump of the 1980s — which was more or less deliberately caused by the Federal Reserve, as a way to bring down inflation —... could be and was brought to a rapid end when the Fed decided to relent and cut interest rates... That option isn't available now because rates are already close to zero.
As many economists have pointed out, America is currently suffering from a classic case of debt deflation: all across the economy people are trying to pay down debt by slashing spending, but, in so doing, they are causing a depression that makes their debt problems even worse. This is exactly the situation in which government spending should temporarily rise to offset the slump in private spending and give the private sector time to repair its finances. Yet that's not happening.
The point, then, is that we'd be in much better shape if we were following Reagan-style Keynesianism. Reagan may have preached small government, but in practice he presided over a lot of spending growth — and right now that's exactly what America needs.
Posted: 08 Jun 2012 12:06 AM PDT
Posted: 07 Jun 2012 02:29 PM PDT
David Altig of the Atlanta Fed agrees with his colleagues at Chicago that "the facts just don't support skill gaps as the major source of our current labor market woes." Here's the overly condensed version:
The skills gap: Still trying to separate myth from fact, by David Altig, macroblog: Peter Capelli has looked at the skills gap explanation for labor market weakness and sees more myth than fact... To some extent, the issue is semantic...
In the language of economists, Capelli is defining skill as the possession of generalized human capital, while businesses are defining skill as the possession of firm- or job-specific human capital. In more familiar language, Capelli appears to be focused on innate skill levels and education, while businesses are looking for the types of skills that would be attained through past on-the-job training. In even more colloquial language, Capelli wants businesses to appreciate book-learning, and businesses prefer those who have already survived the school of hard knocks.
We have recently completed our own version of the Manpower survey Capelli references. ... We infer a couple of lessons from all of this information. First, it does appear that there is a long-term skill level problem in the U.S. economy. Adopting Capelli's definition of skill does not mean the existence of skill mismatch is a myth.
But turning to the short run, we've been pretty sympathetic to structural explanations for the slow pace of the recovery. Nonetheless, we have yet to find much evidence that problems with skill-mismatch are more important postrecession than they were prerecession. We'll keep looking, but—as our colleagues at the Chicago Fed conclude in their most recent Chicago Fed Letter—so far the facts just don't support skill gaps as the major source of our current labor market woes.
Posted: 07 Jun 2012 10:18 AM PDT
One more at CBS News:
How many jobs has Apple created in the U.S.?
[This is based upon a post by Joshua Gans at Digitopoly.]
Posted: 07 Jun 2012 09:56 AM PDT
Two posts on Bernanke's testimony, one from me and one from Tim Duy. First, I posted this at CBS (the editors wanted this one to be more news than commentary, so I held back on saying how disappointed I was in the outcome -- but I did try to make it clear anyway, or at least hint in that direction -- Tim has this covered):
Ben Bernanke: No change in policy unless conditions deteriorate further, by Mark Thoma: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said today that the risks to the economy have increased, and the Fed is prepared to take action if conditions deteriorate. But in his testimony before the Congressional Joint Economic Committee there was no indication that the Fed is prepared to alter policy at this point.
Expectations that the Federal Reserve might ease policy were raised this week when three regional bank presidents, John Williams of San Francisco, Dennis Lockhart of Atlanta, and Eric Rosengren of Boston all seemed to indicate a willingness to consider further easing. Remarks by Federal reserve governor Janet Yellen also encouraged speculation that Bernanke might hint at a change in policy at the next monetary policy meeting.
But with Bernanke's testimony, expectations that the Fed will change course soon have been all but eliminated. Instead, the Fed will stay in "wait and see" mode on the belief that its policy stance is already highly accommodative, and further easing is only called for if the economy begins to show signs of weakening further, or turns downward. In particular, the Fed fears deflation above all else, and any sign that inflationary expectations are plunging would likely motivate the Fed to action.
But for now the Fed believes it has done enough despite that fact that a large number of economists outside the Fed are urging immediate action to help the recovery along, and more importantly to ensure against future problems in Europe or a spike in oil prices. There is lag between the time the Fed alters policy and when it affects the economy, and the wait and see approach is risky in that it can cause the Fed to end up behind the curve. Nevertheless, the Fed feels the risks of acting now, in particular the risk of inflation, trumps fears about present and future economic growth.
Chairman Bernanke also discussed fiscal policy in his testimony, and urged lawmakers to put the budget deficit on a long-run sustainable path without "unnecessarily impeding the current economic recovery." He cited the fiscal cliff as an immediate concern, and he is clearly worried about the impact on the economy if there is a large reduction in the federal deficit while the economy is struggling to recover. The Fed chief indicated they would very much appreciate help from lawmakers in the short-run, he mentions infrastructure spending frequently when discussing this topic, as well as in the long-run. Like most mainstream economists, he is calling for more stimulus in the short-run, or at least no reduction in what is already being done, and a plan for a sustainable long-run budget. Whether Congress can deliver or not is an open question, stimulus in the short-run is surely a long shot given the political gridlock that currently exists in Congress, and the long-run brings a high degree of uncertainty as well. But however this turns out, as Bernanke notes it will have consequences for monetary policy and the Fed would feel more confident in its own abilities with more support from Congress.
The main message from Bernanke's testimony is that while the Fed is aware that the risks to the economic outlook have increased, it is not yet convinced that current troubles are anything more than a bump in the road, and worries about the future are not enough to motivate action. That may change if conditions deteriorate, but like the Fed we will just have to "wait and see."
Next, Tim Duy:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did not deliver another Jackson Hole speech in today's testimony to the Senate. Instead, he stuck to his usual style of delivering just the facts, or at least his version of the facts, and letting us pick apart the implications for monetary policy. On on critical issue, the jobs report, he takes both sides of the debate:
This apparent slowing in the labor market may have been exaggerated by issues related to seasonal adjustment and the unusually warm weather this past winter. But it may also be the case that the larger gains seen late last year and early this year were associated with some catch-up in hiring on the part of employers who had pared their workforces aggressively during and just after the recession. If so, the deceleration in employment in recent months may indicate that this catch-up has largely been completed, and, consequently, that more-rapid gains in economic activity will be required to achieve significant further improvement in labor market conditions.
On net, I think Bernanke would like to see more data before he committed to further easing, which would push additional action into later this summer or early fall. The near-term path of fiscal policy is also weighing on his mind:
Another factor likely to weigh on the U.S. recovery is the drag being exerted by fiscal policy. Reflecting ongoing budgetary pressures, real spending by state and local governments has continued to decline. Real federal government spending has also declined, on net, since the third quarter of last year, and the future course of federal fiscal policies remains quite uncertain, as I will discuss shortly
He later covers much of the previous ground on fiscal spending - maintain short-run stimulus while defining a path to longer-term consolidation. Overall, though, the fiscal cliff is also an issue that does not need immediate attention.
As an aside, note that Bernanke's repeated warnings about the fiscal cliff imply something interesting about his views on the limits to monetary policy. Specifically, he does not think the Federal Reserve can offset entirely the negative impact of the cliff. If the Fed could offset the impact, then why worry about it? After all, the fiscal cliff does put the federal budget back on a sustainable path. He should just embrace the cliff and let the Fed compensate with additional easing. That is, of course, unless he thinks the Fed is really at the end of its rope.
The only real hint that easier policy is imminent is his concern about Europe:
Nevertheless, the situation in Europe poses significant risks to the U.S. financial system and economy and must be monitored closely. As always, the Federal Reserve remains prepared to take action as needed to protect the U.S. financial system and economy in the event that financial stresses escalate.
The question is if he sees the risks tilted to the downside, the view of his colleague Vice Chair Janet Yellen. If there is anything that will drive immediate action, it is the European risk. In the absence of that never ending crisis, he would treat the labor report as a wait-and-see issue. But if that situation continues to deteriorate and roil US markets over the next two weeks, additional action seems likely. But of what form? Guidance, twist, or purchases? That still remains an open question.
The most disappointing part of the speech was his thoughts on inflation expectations:
Longer-term inflation expectations have, indeed, been quite well anchored, according to surveys of households and economic forecasters and as derived from financial market information. For example, the five-year-forward measure of inflation compensation derived from yields on nominal and inflation-protected Treasury securities suggests that inflation expectations among investors have changed little, on net, since last fall and are lower than a year ago.
Bernanke doesn't appear to see that the inability to hold market-based inflation expectations at a consistent level as a problem:
What's wrong with this picture? Notice the volatility of expectations after the recession (Ryan Avent has made this point as well). The Fed claims to have some mythical "credibility," but it certainly isn't evident in this graph. If anything, it is clear that the Fed has failed miserably in establishing credible expectations for either 2 percent or stable inflation. Instead, what they have created is very unstable expectations because of start-stop policy. It is almost ludicrous to place so much blame on Congress for the unstable fiscal picture when they themselves are creating an unstable financial and economic environment.
The source of instability is the Fed's insistence on putting a time limit on every policy. When the US economy was operating above the zero bound, the Federal Reserve would never issue a statement to the effect of "We instruct the New York open-market operations desk to target the federal funds rate at 3.75% for a period of six months." Of course, that would be silly. It would create too many discrete points in the policymaking process that are devoid of macroeconomic context. But that is exactly what the Federal Reserve does now - effectively setting policy to have an end date without a clear expectation of why that end date is important.
And it isn't important. It is just arbitrary. The Federal Reserve would have been better off to buy a set quantity of assets every week, adjusting that number as they might the interest rate, until certain macroeconomic objectives are met. This would let the expectations channel shoulder some of the work by laying out a clear path for monetary policy. Moreover, they would probably need to buy fewer assets overall. Instead, now we have policy scheduled to end discretely in the absence of the consideration of the macroeconomic backdrop, thus disrupting the expectations channel because market participants don't know what will trigger continuation of the policy. It simply isn't the way to manage the monetary affairs of the nation.
Bottom Line: Bernanke gives few hints. I think he would let the data play itself out a bit more before changing the current policy path. But the European crisis is throwing that wrench in his plans. And if market turmoil persists, and risks remain tilted to the downside, then more easing is coming.
Ben Bernanke: No change in policy unless conditions deteriorate further

No comments: