Category Archives: The dismal science

Bill Mitchell: Demystifying Modern Monetary Theory

Yves here. This is a useful and accessible talk by one of the leading Modern Monetary Theory developers, Bill Mitchell of the University of Newcastle, interviewed here by Marshall Auerback of INET.

This talk is wide-ranging, and starts by pointing out that in key ways, Modern Monetary Theory incorporates basic concepts that have perversely omitted from mainstream macroeconomics, largely for ideological reasons. This conversation does not get much into central bank operations, which is the basis for MMT’s claim that it is a much more accurate representation of how monetary operations work for a fait currency issuer like the US than textbook or popular press accounts that are based on outdated “gold standard” notions.

In typical Australian fashion, Mitchell is blunt, so I suspect readers will find this talk to be more lively and accessible than typical economists’ fare.

Why Getting Rid of Loan Officers Hurt Banks and the Economy

Economists seldom take note of the fact that the degradation of skills at major banks has had serious macroeconomic effects. One example is the abandonment of loan officer training and branch manager autonomy at big banks.

Prominent MMT Advocate Stephanie Kelton to Become Chief Economist for Senate Budget Committee

Congratulations Stephanie! Amazingly, being a heterodox economist, no less a leading advocate of MMT, is not a bar to landing an influential post.

Stephen Roach Takes the Fed to the Woodshed

While the Fed appears to be getting nervous about increasing (and long overdue) criticism for its undue coziness with banks, it has for the most part ignored opponents of its aggressive monetary policies. And for good reason. Most of them have been fixated on the risk of inflation, which is not in the cards as long as labor bargaining power remains weak. There are other, more substantial grounds for taking issue with the central bank’s policies. For instance, gooding asset prices widens income and wealth inequality, which in the long term is a damper on growth. Moreover, one can argue that the sustained super-accommodative policy gave the impression that Something Was Being Done, which took the heat off the Administration to push for more spending. Indeed, the IMF recently found that infrastructure spending pays for itself, with each dollar of spending in an economy with high unemployment generating nearly $3 in GDP growth. And a lot of people are uncomfortable for aesthetic or pragmatic reasons. Aesthetically, a lot of investors, even ones that have done well, are deeply uncomfortable with a central bank meddling so much. And many investors and savers are frustrated by their inability to invest at a positive real yield without being forced to take on a lot of risk.

Stephen Roach, former chief economist of Morgan Stanley and later its chairman for Asia, offers a straightforward, sharply-worded critique: just as in the runup to the crisis of 2007-2008, the Fed’s failure to raise rates is leading to an underpricing of financial market risk, or in layspeak, to the blowing of bubbles. He argues that has to end badly.

Christmas Economics: Challenging Some Common Beliefs

How well does Christmas hew to economists’ conventional wisdom?

Combatting Eurozone Deflation: QE for the People

Yves here. This post describes why having the ECB give money directly to citizens would do a better job of fighting Eurozone deflation than the US version. The author starts from the premise that QE worked in the US, when there is ample reason to believe it worked only for financial institutions and a small portion of the population. Here, the ECB would engage in what amounts to a fiscal operation, which also would have dome more to stimulate the economy than the Fed’s QEs.

Joseph Stiglitz: Economics Must Address Wealth and Income Inequality

Yves here. This interview with Joesph Stiglitz is pretty subversive for a talk with a Serious Economist. Stiglitz doesn’t simply talk about the problem of inequality, but the drivers that most mainstream economists choose to ignore, such as the rise of monopoly/oligopoly power, worker exploitation, and how central banks have allowed banks to engage increasingly in speculative rather than productive lending.

The Superiority of Economists

Yves here. A twofer on entitlement! The first piece early today was on merger and acquisitions professionals and their hangers-on, and now we are on to economists.

Temporary Work is Bad for Your Cognitive Health

Yves here. The findings of this study on the effects of temporary work on individuals’ skills has important ramifications for the US, where short-term contracting is even more common than in Europe. The first is that workers are harmed by this practice, and not just via stress or having uncertain income. But second is that employers over time also suffer by degrading the capabilities of the labor pool.

Why Piketty is a Defender of Neoclassical Economics and an Enemy of Egalitarianism

Yanis Varoufakis, in an interview by Andrew Mazzone, offers a cogent, damning criticism of Thomas Piketty’s theory, such as it is, of inequality.

Masaccio: Piketty Shreds Marginal Productivity as Neoclassical Justification for Supersized Pay

Yves here. One of the main agendas of neoclassical economics is to give Panglossian defenses of the current order a veneer of intellectual legitimacy. If our system is the result of individuals and businesses behaving in logical ways, at least in the minds of economists, surely the outcome is inevitable, and therefore virtuous, or else those operators would do things differently. The Big Lie in all of this is that neoclassical economics takes power completely out of the equation. While it does assume selfishness, in that everyone is out or himself to maximize his utility, it also assumes atomized actors who lack the power to influence markets.

One instructive way to see how these arguments break down is by looking at neoclassical economists justify large disparities in pay. Piketty shows that the idea that people are paid what they are worth, or in neoliberal-speak, according to their marginal productivity, to be a sham

Why is Anyone Surprised that Abenomics Failed?

In case you managed to miss it, there’s been a fair bit of hand-wringing over the fact that Japan has fallen back into a recession despite the supposedly heroic intervention called Abenomics, whose central feature was QE on steroids.

But Japan of all places should know that relying on the wealth effect to spur growth has always bombed in the long term.

Treasury Liquidity Freakout: Searching for a Market-Maker

As someone old enough to have done finance in the ~~Paleolithic~~ pre-personal computer era (yes, I did financial analysis using a calculator and green accountant’s ledger paper as a newbie associate at Goldman), investor expectations that market liquidity should ever and always be there seem bizarre, as well as ahistorical. Yet over the past month or two, there has been an unseemly amount of hand-wringing about liquidity in the bond market, both corporate bonds, and today, in a Financial Times story we’ll use as a point of departure, Treasuries.

These concerns appear to be prompted by worries about what happens if (as in when) bond investors get freaked out by the Fed finally signaling it is really, no really, now serious about tightening and many rush for the exits at once. The taper tantrum of summer 2013 was a not-pretty early warning and the central bank quickly lost nerve. The worry is that there might be other complicating events, like geopolitical concerns, that will impede the Fed’s efforts at soothing rattled nerves, or worse, that the bond market will gap down before the Fed can intercede (as if investors have a right to orderly price moves!).

Let’s provide some context to make sense of these pleas for ever-on liquidity.