Argentina’s reserves and its debts: Central Bank robbery | The Economist

I received the following email from an Econ teacher who wonders if I had any insight on a question posed by one of his students:

The email reads: “I have alittle query i was hoping you could help clear up for me..a year 13 student has asked a question relating to Argentina’s prime minister, Cristina Fernandezde De Kirchner’s, decision to sell the central bank’s dollar reserves to fund part of the country’s decifit against the advice of the director of the central bank who resigned.”

The student’s question is on the following passage from the Economist article above:

Fernández (Argentina’s president”) justified her raid on the reserves by saying that the Central Bank had more than it needed, because they exceeded the size of the monetary base. Economists disagree about what is an appropriate target for the reserves, but Mr Redrado’s view is that a highly dollarised emerging economy like Argentina’s needs an abundance of Treasury bonds (the form in which most reserves are held) as insurance. Even if Ms Fernández might find support from some economists for her argument, her plan to swap the dollar reserves for a non-transferable government bond would not.

The student’s question is: “I do not know what a monetary base is, nor why Argetina needs treasury bonds.”

This article really caught me off guard at first as well. One thing I love about the Economist newspaper is its use of economic jargon that requires a real understanding of the subject to be able to interpret. The first time I read the article, I will be honest I was completely confused as to what the Argentinean president was up to. But after some reflection and rough sketches of graphs on scrap paper, I think I have “translated” the article’s jargon into plain English.

Below is my reply to the teacher and his student:

Hello,

The president of Argentina wants to sell the country’s US dollar reserves, which are held in the form of US treasury bonds, and then use the US dollars she receives to buy Argentinean government bonds in order to finance her own government’s budget deficit. In essence she wants to swap Argentina’s central bank reserves of US debt (considered a very stable and safe asset due to America’s low inflation rate and relative solvency of the US government) for Argentinean government debt (less stable and safe, especially in the wake of the country’s 2002 default on its debt). Argentina’s central bank would then hold fewer transferable, stable US bonds and more “non-transferable”, Argentinean government bonds. And since the bonds represent Argentina’s government debt, the country as a whole reduces its assets and increases its liabilities.

It is important for a developing country like Argentina to keep large reserves of US dollar-denominated assets (i.e. US treasury bonds) in reserve in order to assure foreign investors that the country would be able to stabilize its currency’s value in the face of a currency crisis such as that which Argentina experienced in 2001-2002. If the value of the peso began to decline on foreign exchange markets (due, for instance, to a decline in international investor confidence in the government’s ability to pay the interest on its foreign debt or inflation fears caused by excessive monetary growth or government spending) then the central bank could use its large dollar reserves to intervene in the forex market and stabilize the value of the peso, reestablishing investor confidence and maintaining the government’s ability to attract foreign creditors in the Argentinean bond market. A collapse of the peso would have ripple effects throughout Argentina, driving up imported products and raw materials and causing spiraling inflation, forcing the government to print more money to finance its budget in the face of falling demand for its debt in domestic and international bond markets.

Argentina must be sure to keep its balance sheet (i.e. its liability to asset ratio) in check. Its assets are US government bonds, its liabilities are the Argentinean bonds it issues to finance its budget deficits. If this ratio become too heavy on the liability side, foreign investors and speculators will lose confidence in the both peso and the Argentinean government’s solvency and dump their holdings of Argentinean currency, assets, and bonds, driving interest rates through the roof and the exchange rate through the floor, grinding the economy to a halt.

The article says,

Argentina’s economy is on course to rebound this year and grow at 3-5%. But the government is spending money so fast that this growth will not finance current spending on its own, says Daniel Marx, a former finance minister. Ordinarily, a government faced with a shortfall would turn to domestic and international bond markets. But this has been difficult since Argentina defaulted in 2002.

The country cannot count on private creditors to make up its budget shortfall, so the president is planning to finance her country’s deficit by buying Argentinean bonds with the country’s own US dollar reserves. Such behavior concerns economists because it could send a message to international investors that the country is on the path towards another unsustainable build-up of debt that could culminate in another default and economic collapse. The article is a word of caution to the president that all leaders should heed: balanced budgets are a good idea, and debt is dangerous!

This article was originally posted on September 19, 2007

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / China – China freezes government-set prices

Here’s a great article for both AP and IB students to pay attention to. The Chinese government is responding to rising prices at home by resorting to some good old fashioned “iron fist” measures, namely price controls on a wide range of products. For the rest of this year, prices on certain goods and services will not be permitted to rise, OR ELSE! (what? we don’t want to know!)

China has begun to enforce a freeze on all government-controlled prices in a sign of the central government’s alarm about rising popular anger over inflation, now at the highest rate in over a decade.The order freezes a vast array of prices still under the control of governments in China, ranging from oil, electricity and water, to the cost of parking and park entrance fees.

I find the following statement interesting:

“Any unauthorised price rises are strictly forbidden…and in principle, there will be no new price-raising measures this year,” the ministries’ announcement said. (italics added)

How strange is it that the government’s announcement pointed out that the freeze on prices is only in principle? Could this be the government’s attempt to placate a public that’s grown angry at their weakening purchasing power? Does this mean that if prices actually do go up, the government can just say, “Hey, at least we tried!” Looks like the old communist mentality has softened a bit in the era of market reforms!

So what’s the source of all these rising prices? Well, food plays a big role, thanks to a couple of factors:

The sharp spike in inflation is largely due to higher food prices, because of a shortage of pigs after a disease killed millions late last year and earlier in 2007, and the rising cost of feed, a global
phenomenon.

The China of today is very different from that of 20 or 30 years ago, when the government played a much larger role in the economy. Unleashing the beast of the free market in the early 80’s may have meant the government would have to loosen its grip in situations such as today’s inflation, and let the free market adjust on its own.

Economists said the price freeze is the kind of administrative measure redolent of China’s former planned economy, but it may be less effective in China today.

“They will not be able to control the price of everything,” said Chen Xingdong, of BNP Parisbas in Beijing.

Perhaps that’s for the better.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why might the government’s price controls actually make the matter worse for the average Chinese?
2. If the government were to take a “laissez faire” approach to the problems faced by China, how might the free market resolve them on its own? Any ideas?

 Podcast: China's Inflation and Consumer Spending: Download

Economics focus: Much ado about multipliers | The Economist

What is the goal of fiscal stimulus during a recession? Is it simply to increase nation’s total income by a certain amount determined by how much a government increases its own spending by? If this were the case, then an $800 billion stimulus package, like the one begun this year in the US, would lead to a total increase in national income of, well, exactly $800 billion.

While such an outcome is possible, it is not the desired outcome of the Obama administration and the economists who have supported the use of expansionary fiscal policy during economic downturns (i.e. the Keynesian school of economists). Keynesians expect that an initial increase in government spending (or a decrease in taxes) will result in households and firms increasing their own consumption and investment, meaning successive increases in spending. The initial change in spending ultimately gets multiplied through further rounds of spending. The total change in national income resulting from an initial change in government spending or taxes depends on the size of the fiscal multiplier. Now, this is where things get tricky! From the Economist:

The size of the multiplier is bound to vary according to economic conditions. For an economy operating at full capacity, the fiscal multiplier should be zero. Since there are no spare resources, any increase in government demand would just replace spending elsewhere. But in a recession, when workers and factories lie idle, a fiscal boost can increase overall demand. And if the initial stimulus triggers a cascade of expenditure among consumers and businesses, the multiplier can be well above one.

The above scenario, where an economy is operating below full-employment and government spending puts the nation’s idle resources to work, creates new income and further increases private spending, is precisely what the Obama team and its economists hope will happen in the US economy soon. A multiplier of above one means the $800 billion will ultimately increase America’s national income by something greater than $800 billion!

The multiplier is also likely to vary according to the type of fiscal action. Government spending on building a bridge may have a bigger multiplier than a tax cut if consumers save a portion of their tax windfall. A tax cut targeted at poorer people may have a bigger impact on spending than one for the affluent, since poorer folk tend to spend a higher share of their income.

Crucially, the overall size of the fiscal multiplier also depends on how people react to higher government borrowing. If the government’s actions bolster confidence and revive animal spirits, the multiplier could rise as demand goes up and private investment is “crowded in”. But if interest rates climb in response to government borrowing then some private investment that would otherwise have occurred could get “crowded out”. And if consumers expect higher future taxes in order to finance new government borrowing, they could spend less today. All that would reduce the fiscal multiplier, potentially to below zero.

Herein lies the controversy about the effectiveness of deficit-financed fiscal stimulus. Several posts on this blog have focused on the neo-classical, supply-side economists’ fears that expansionary fiscal policy financed by government borrowing will drive up interest rates to private borrowers, thereby “crowding-out” private investment, off-setting any expansion in output achieved through government spending. In the Keynesian model, however, it is precisely because interest rates have bottomed out at the “zero bound” (according to Paul Krugman) that government borrowing and spending will not lead to crowding-out, rather could actually increase investors’ willingness to spend (their “animal spirits”) on new capital, actually “crowding-in” private investment.

Alas, the debate continues. The ironic thing is that even years from now, after all of Obama’s stimulus money has been spent, and the US economy is either fully recovered or it is not, we still won’t know how large the fiscal multiplier was, since tomorrow’s economists will find it nearly impossible to isolate the variable of the $800 billion of government spending and determine just how much of America’s growth in income can be attributed to government spending, and how much resulted from automatic stabilizers built-in to help the economy recover on its own during recessions.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do tax cuts for the rich tend to have a smaller multiplier effect than tax cuts for lower income households?
2. How can government borrowing drive up interest rates, and why is this a concern to policy makers deciding on the size of a fiscal stimulus package?
3. What are the animal spirits the article mentions? Where have you heard this expression before?
4. Do you think borrowing trillions of dollars and spending it to put people back to work and try to dig the US economy out of recession is wise, or should the US government be practicing better fiscal responsibility?

Harvard Economist Niall Ferguson appeared on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria over the weekend. Ferguson has stood out among mainstream economists lately in his opposition to the US fiscal stimulus package, an $880 billion experiment in expansionary Keynesian policy. While economists like Paul Krugman argue that Obama’s plan is not big enough to fill America’s “recessionary gap”, Ferguson warns that the long-run effects of current and future US budget deficits could lead the US towards economic collapse. This blog post will attempt to explain Ferguson’s views in a way that high school economics students can understand.

Government spending in the US is projected to exceed tax revenues by $1.9 trillion this year, and trillions more over the next four years. An excess of spending beyond tax revenue is known as a budget deficit, and must be paid for by government borrowing. Where does the government get the funds to finance its deficits? The bond market. The core of Ferguson’s concerns about the future stability of the United States economy is the situation in the market for US government bonds. According to Ferguson:

One consequence of this crisis has been an enormous explosion in government borrowing, and the US federal deficit… is going to be equivelant to 1.9 trillion dollars this year alone, which is equivelant to nearly 13% of GDP… this is an excessively large deficit, it can’t all be attributed to stimulus, and there’s a problem. The problem is that the bond market… is staring at an incoming tidal wave of new issuance… so the price of 10-year treasuries, the standard benchmark government bond… has taken quite a tumble in the past year, so long-term interest rates, as a result, have gone up by quite a lot. That poses a problem, since part of the project in the mind of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is to keep interest rates down“

There’s a lot of information in Ferguson’s statements above. To better understand him, some graphs could come in handy. Below is a graphical representation of the US bond market, which is where the US government supplies bonds, which are purchased by the public, commercial banks, and foreigners. Keep in mind, the demanders of US bonds are the lenders to the US government, which is the borrower. The price of a bond represents the amount the government receives from its lenders from the issuance of a new bond certificate. The yield on a bond represents the interest the lender receives from the government. The lower the price of a bond, the higher the yield, the more attractive bonds are to investors. Additionally, the lower the price of bonds, the greater the yield, thus the greater the amount of interest the US government must pay to attract new lenders.

Ferguson says that the price of US bonds has “taken a tumble”. The increase of supply has lowered bond prices, increasing their attractiveness to investors who earn higher interest on the now cheaper bonds. Below we can see the impact of an increase in the quantity demanded for government bonds on the market for private investment.

Financial crowding-out can occur as a result of deficit financed government spending as the nation’s financial resources are diverted out of the private sector and into the public sector. Granted, during a recession the demand for loanable funds from firms for private investment may be so low that there is no crowding out, as explained by Paul Krugman here.

But crowding out is not Ferguson’s only concern. The increase in interest rates caused by the US government’s issuance of new bonds could lead to a decrease in private investment in the US economy, inhibiting the nation’s long-run growth potential. But the bigger concern is one of America’s long-run economic stability. If the Obama administration does not put forth a viable plan for balancing its budget very soon, the demand for US government bonds could fall, which would further excacerbate the crowding-out effect, and eliminate the country’s ability to finance its government activities. In other words, such a loss of faith could plunge the United States into bankruptcy.

Fareed Zakaria asks Ferguson:

“Is it fair to say that this bad news, the fact that we can’t sell our debt as cheaply as we thought, overshadows all the good news that seems to be coming?”

Ferguson’s reply:

The green shoots that are out there (referring to the phrase economists and politicians have been using to describe the signs of recovery in the US economy) seem like tiny little weeds in the garden, and what’s coming in terms of the fiscal crisis in the United States is a far bigger and far worse story.

Finally Fareed asks the question everyone wants to know:”What the hell do we do?”

Ferguson:

One thing that can be done very quickly is for the president to give a speech to the American people and to the world explaining how the administration proposes to achieve stabilization of American public finance… the administration doesn’t have that long a honeymoon period, it has very little time in which it can introduce the American public to some harsh realities, particularly about entitlements and how much they are going to cost. If a signal could be sent really soon to the effect that the administration is serious about fiscal stabilization and isn’t planning on borrowing another $10 trillion between now and the end of the decade, then just conceivably markets could be reassured.

Ferguson is saying that only if the Obama administration begins taking serious steps towards balancing the US government’s budget can it hope to stave off an eventual loss of faith among America’s creditors (and thus a fall in demand for US bonds). It will be a while before tax revenues are high enough to finance the US budget. But if the country does not begin working towards such an end immediately, it may find itself unable to raise the funds to pay for such public goods as infrastructure, education, health care, national defense, medical research, as well as the wages of the millions of government employees. In other words, the US government could be bankrupt, and its downfall could mean the end of American economic power.

The power of the bond market should not be underestimated. America’s very future depends on continued faith in its financial stability and fiscal responsibility.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do you think the US government has such a huge budget deficit this year? ($1.9 trillion) Previously, the largest budget deficit on record was only around $400 billion.
2. How does the issuance of new bonds by the US government lead to less money being available to private households and firms?
3. Do you think investors will ever totally lose faith in US government bonds? Why or why not?
4. In what way is the government’s huge budget deficit a “tax on teenagers”? In other words, how will today’s teenagers end up suffering because of the federal budget deficit?

To learn more about the power of the bond market, watch Niall Ferguson’s documentary, The Ascent of Money. The section on the bond market can be viewed here:

Liquidity preference, loanable funds, and Niall Ferguson (wonkish) – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com

Below is the loanable funds market at its current equilibrium, according to Krugman (I is investment demand for funds, S is the supply of loanable funds):

In Krugman’s words:

In effect, we have an incipient excess supply of savings even at a zero interest rate. And that’s our problem.

So what does government borrowing do? It gives some of those excess savings a place to go — and in the process expands overall demand, and hence GDP. It does NOT crowd out private spending, at least not until the excess supply of savings has been sopped up, which is the same thing as saying not until the economy has escaped from the liquidity trap.

In AP Macroeconomics, we teach that deficit-financed government expenditure decreases the supply of loanable funds as savers take their money out of commercial banks and invest in the bond market due to the attractive interest rates on government debt. Less funds available for the private sector drives up interest rates and crowds out private investment.

If the economy is producing close to the full-employment level and interest rates are positive, the decrease in supply of loanable funds can indeed drive up equilibrium interest rates and lead to the “crowding-out” of private investment. Krugman points out in this article that when the economy is at the “zero-bound” (i.e. when nominal interest rates are as low as they can go) and the quantity supplied of savings is still greater than the quantity demanded for investment, the government can effectively borrow from the public, decreasing the supply and correcting the surplus of savings without driving up interest rates in the private market. Put another way, the equilibrium interest rate is below zero, but the “zero-bound” acts as a price floor in the loanable funds market, resulting in a surplus of savings.

Government borrowing crowding out private investment is not something we can worry about during a recession, when low confidence and expectations have driven the supply of savings up and the demand for investment down. Public spending will divert funds from the private sector to the public sector, that’s true. But in today’s case, savings are sitting idle in the private sector, so government borrowing is putting those fund to use when the private sector has failed to do so.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does the supply of loanable funds (S in the graph above) slope upwards? Why does the demand for loanable funds (I in the graph) slope downwards?
2. Deficit financed government spending decreases the supply of loanable funds. Why?
3. Crowding-out is not the only possible down-side of deficit spending by the government. What are some other long-term effects of governments running budget deficits year after year?

I love this discussion between John Stewart and former director of the National Economics Council Lawrence Lindsey. Stewart pitches his own version of a fiscal stimulus package to the economist, and is surprised when Lindsey agrees with the plan.

I find Lindsey’s suggestion that a stimulus package should include subsidized mortgage rates to home owners fascinating. According to Lindsey, a homeowner with a $200,000 mortgage paying 6% interest on his loan would save $4,000 per year on interest payments if the government accommodated a refinanced rate of 4%. Millions of Americans currently struggling to meet all of their monthly debt obligations while continuing to put food on the table and participate in the consumer economy would benefit from such a scheme. In its current form, Obama’s stimulus package with its $150 billion or so in tax cuts will only put approximately $500 per year for two years into taxpayers’ pockets.

As a homeowner paying a 6% mortgage myself, I can personally say I’d prefer $4,000 in savings on my annual interest payments for the next 23 years (the time remaining on my mortgage) than I would $1000 in cash over the next two years. The mortgage relief plan would result in nearly $100,000 less in interest payments, freeing that income up to be spent on goods and services and contributing to real job creation.

And check out last night’s “moment of Zen”. While Obama’s stimulus package is not quite $1 trillion, it is darn close. Senator Mitch McConnell puts the vast size of the spending bill into perspective for us:

BBC NEWS | Business | Sterling rebounds from sharp fall

Americans, are you planning a vacation anytime soon? If so, why not visit LOVELY Great Britain! Why, you ask, would ANYONE want to visit the UK in during this wet, cold season? Well, here’s why I’m buying British this year:

I recently booked a Himalayan ski tour in Indian Kashmir organized by a British company. The price? 1400 GBP, which only three months ago was the equivalent of $2800 US! Today, with the newly weak British Pound, my ski trip to India will only cost me $2100*. In the span of just a few months, the dollar price of this amazing Himalayan ski adventure has fallen by $700! Naturally, Americans like myself now have an incentive to buy British!

What has caused the slide of the Pound in recent months? Here’s the complicated answer:

“The environment of very weak sentiment regarding the domestic economic picture and potential rate cuts alongside equity volatility is keeping sterling very much on the defensive,” said Jeremy Stretch, strategist at Rabobank.

Strategists get paid lots of money to say stuff that 99% of people don’t understand the first time they read it. I get paid very little money to help those people better understand it, specifically, my students. Here’s what Mr. Stretch is trying to say:

A weak economy in Great Britain leads foreign investors to believe that the Bank of England may lower interest rates in the near future. Why would Britain’s central bank lower interest rates? Because lower interest rates create an incentive for consumers and businesses to take out loans from banks and spend money in the economy, which should create new jobs and help prevent a recession in the UK.

If the bank does lower interest rates, this puts “the sterling on the defensive”, in other words, leads to a weakening of the British Pound, as foreign investors looking to put their money where they can earn a decent return on it will be less likely to save in the UK when interest rates fall. “Equity volatility” is a fancy way of saying British stocks have been performing poorly, decreasing their attraction to foreign investors. When saving in British banks becomes less attractive due to expected interest rate cuts, and buying British stocks becomes risky due to their volatility, investors turn to the safest investment in the world, which is… can you guess? United States government bonds!

So how’s this all relate to exchange rates, you ask? Let’s leave this question for readers to answer and discuss in the comments:

Discussion Questions:

1. How does the expected drop in British interest rates affect the demand for British pounds on foreign exchange markets? What does this do to the value of the pound?
2. Why does the stability and safety of US government bonds lead to a strengthening of the dollar in times of global economic slowdowns?
3. How has the recession in the United States further contributed to the weakening of the British pound?

*In fact, I’m too poor to take a ski trip to India this year, I will have to settle for the puny peaks here in the Swiss Alps!

Colbertnation | The Colbert Report Official Site | Comedy Central

Newsweek international edition editor Fareed Zakaria explains in clear terms the root causes of the United State’s economic hardships. Simply put, Americans have lived beyond their means for far too long.

When a household, a firm, or a national government spend more than it earns (in income or tax revenues), it must borrow to do so. The only problem with this type of deficit financed spending is that at some point “the only way people will keep lending you money is that you have to pay higher and higher interest rates…” This, according to Zakaria, is why the US economy has begun to slow down. Higher interest rates make borrowing and spending less and less attractive, while making savings more attractive.

Savings rates have started to rise in America as our debts have come due. Higher savings means less spending, less spending means weak Aggregate Demand, which means slower growth and rising unemployment. There you have it, the root cause of our economic meltdown. Americans have spent beyond their means for far too long; the question is, have we learned our lesson? Will our current hardships teach us to spend more responsibly in the future?

Who’s specifically to blame for the economic situation we find ourselves in leading up to the $700B Federal bailout bill that is just about to be signed into law?

Assuming you have read my previous post (“U.S. Financial Crisis! What Is Really Happening?”) on this topic posted last week on this blog site, a related and logical question might be who is most to blame for the unfortunate economic situation we find ourselves in?

As you can imagine, there is plenty of blame to go around! Republicans are blaming Democrats and Democrats are blaming Republicans. Many are blaming household decision makers, greedy executives, and bank regulators “asleep at the switch”. In short, everyone is blaming everyone except for themselves. I have yet to see one person blame themselves, their agency, or their companies!

I see the answers to the “who is to blame” question as a 6-point answer. Keep in mind that these 6 reasons are strictly my opinions and many would either disagree or add to the list:

1. Imprecise regulatory law allowed the financial institutions to carry too high a ratio of mortgage-backed securities to collateralized debt.
2. Banking regulators (Banking Committee, FED, Regulators, etc.) should have screamed louder earlier! Although there are many documented attempts from specific people that did warn of this problem it was more a whisper than a scream.
3. Private lenders (and their CEOs) got greedy either lowering or violating their own lending standards in hopes of making more interest income by loaning to people who were very risk bets.
4. New law had been passed several years ago, urging that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make more loans to lower income households that carried much more risk.
5. Households borrowed more than they could afford. Citizens that borrowed need to share the blame with lenders, although I place lenders at a higher standard than borrowers.
6. New accounting regulations under Sarbanes Oxley (regulation passed after Enron) are too conservative causing assets like mortgage-related securities to be valued less than their economic value (true worth), which caused the bank debtor run on the bank.

Yes, there is a lot of blame to go around on this one! If there is any good news it is the hope that new regulation and oversight will occur in our “mixed” economy to help prevent this from ever happening again. Of course, there will be many other “next problems” but, hopefully, we will learn from our mistakes!

Discussion questions:

1. Who do you believe is most to blame for the circumstances leading up to this bailout?
2. Have you remained unbiased in learning that this issue is neither solely a Republican nor a Democratic issue?
3. Which presidential candidate gave you the most comfort as to how he explained his views on the bailout?

Update: Once again I have updated this post with a few minor changes. Notably, I have added to graphs illustrating a separate shift in supply and demand for loanable funds. Based on discussions with readers via email, it appears that my previous graph illustrating in one diagram the shifts of both supply and demand was confusing and could be considered double counting the effect of an increase in deficit spending. Thanks again to Professor Chuck Orvis for his valuable input.

*Click on a graph to see the full-sized version

Two markets for money, right? Yes… so do they show the same thing? NO! You must know the distinction between these two markets. First let’s talk about the Money Market diagram.

This market refers to the Money Supply (M1 and M2). The Money Supply curve is vertical because it is determined by the Fed’s (or central bank’s) particular monetary policy. On the X axis is the Quantity of money supplied and demanded, and on the Y axis is the nominal interest rate. A tight monetary policy (selling of bonds by the Fed) will shift Money Supply in, raising the federal funds rate, and subsequently the interest rates commercial banks charge their best customers (prime interest rate). On the other hand, an easy money policy (buying of bonds by the Fed) shifts Sm out, lowering the Federal Funds rate and thus the prime interest rate.

You should also know why a tight money policy is considered contractionary and why an easy money policy is considered expansionary monetary policy. Higher nominal interest rates resulting from tight money policy will discourage investment and consumption, contracting aggregate demand. On the other hand, an easy money policy will encourage more investment and consumption as nominal rates fall, expanding aggregate demand.

Government deficit spending and the money market: Does an increase in government spending without a corresponding increase in taxes affect the money market? You may be inclined to say yes, since the Treasury must issue new bonds to finance deficit spending. After all, when the Fed sells bonds, money is taken out of circulation and held by the Fed, thus it’s no longer part of the money supply.

When the Treasury issues and sells new bonds, however, the money the public uses to buy the bonds is put back into circulation as the government spending is increased. Therefore, any leftward shift of the money supply curve caused by the buying of bonds by the public is offset by the injection of cash in the economy initiated the government’s fiscal stimulus package takes effect (be it a tax rebate or an increase in spending). Therefore, money supply should remain stable when the government deficit spends.

Now to the loanable funds market. Loanable funds represents the money in commercial banks and lending institutions that is available to lend out to firms and households to finance expenditures (investment or consumption). The Y-axis represents the real interest rate; the loanable funds market therefore recognizes the relationships between real returns on savings and real price of borrowing with the public’s willingness to save and borrow.

Since an increase in the real interest rate makes households and firms want to place more money in the bank (and more money in the bank means more money to loan out), there is a direct relationship between real interest rate and Supply of Loanable Funds. On the other hand, since at lower real interest rates households and firms will be less inclined to save and more inclined to borrow and spend, the Demand for loanable funds reflects an inverse relationship. At higher interest rates, households prefer to delay their spending and put their money in savings, since the opportunity cost of spending now rises with the real interest rate.

Government deficit spending and the loanable funds market: We learned above that only the Fed can shift the money supply curve, but what factors can affect the Supply and Demand curves for loanable funds? Here’s a few key points to know about the loanable funds market.

• When the government deficit spends (G>tax revenue), it must borrow from the public by issuing bonds.
• The Treasury issues new bonds, which shifts the supply of bonds out, lowering their prices and raising the interest rates on bonds.
• In response to higher interest rates on bonds, investors will transfer their money out of banks and other lending institutions and into the bond market. Banks will also lend out fewer of their excess reserves, and put some of those reserves into the bond market as well, where it is secure and now earns relatively higher interest.
• As households, firms and banks buy the newly issued Treasury securities (which represents the public’s lending to the government), the supply of private funds available for lending to households and firms shifts in. With fewer funds for private lending banks must raise their interest rates, leading to a movement along the demand curve for loanable funds.
• This causes crowding out of private investment.

Another, simpler way to understand the effect of government deficit spending on real interest rates is to look at it from the demand side.

• Deficit spending by the government requires the government to borrow from the public, increasing the demand for loanable funds. In essence, the government becomes a borrower in the country’s financial sector, demanding new funds for investment, driving up real interest rates.
• Increased demand from the government pushes interest rates up, causing banks to supply a greater quanity of funds for lending. The private, however, now has fewer funds available to borrow as the government soaks up some of the funds that previously would have gone to private borrowers.
• This leads to the crowding out of private investment, in which private borrowers face higher real interest rates due to increased deficit spending by the government.

What could shift the supply of loanable funds to the right? Easy, anything that increases savings by households and firms, known as the determinants of consumption and saving. These include increases in wealth, expectations of future income and price levels, and lower taxes. If savings increases, supply of loanable funds shifts outward, increasing the reserves in banks, lowering real interest rates, encouraging firms to undertake new investments. This is why many economists say that “savings is investment”. What they mean is increased increased savings leads to an increase in the supply of loanable funds, which leads to lower interest rates and increased investment.

On the other hand, an increase in demand for investment funds by firms will shift demand for loanable funds out, driving up real interest rates. The determinants of investment include business taxes, technological change, expectations of future business opportunities, and so on (follow link to our wiki page on Investment).

It is important to be able to distinguish between the money market and the market for loanable funds, as both the AP and IB syllabi xpect students to understand and explain the difference between these concepts.

Last week AP students at Shanghai American School took their final test for the class on the last Macro unit, “International Economics”. The free response question on this test was from Form B of the 2007 exam, which is written for students who take the exam outside of the United States.

Upon grading my students’ tests, I was surprised to see how poorly students did on the FRQ. The most common mistake was confusing the money market with the market for foreign currency. Read below to see the original question, along with my comments on common mistakes and the correct answer.

2007 AP Macroeconomics FRQ #1 (form B)

Assume that Australia and New Zealand are trading partners. Australia’s economy is currently in recession.

(a) Now assume that Australia begins to recover from its recession. Using a correctly labled graph of aggregate demand and aggregate supply for New Zealand, show the impact of Australia’s rising income on each of the following in the short-run.

(i) Aggregate demand in New Zealand. Explain.

(ii) Output in New Zealand

Mr. Welker: Here is where the first common mistake was made. The question asks for an AD/AS showing New Zealand’s economy, NOT Australia’s. As incomes in Australia rise, Aussies will demand more imports from NZ, meaning NZ’s net exports will rise, shifting NZ’s AD curve outward, increasing NZ’s output.

(b) Using a correctly labeled graph of the money market for New Zealand, show the effect of the output change in part (a)(ii) on the following.

(i) Demand for money. Explain

(ii) The nominal interest rate

Mr. Welker: This is the question that almost everyone screwed up on. The most common mistake was confusing NZ’s money market with the foreign exchange market for NZ’s currency. The money market, which the question is asking for, refers to the the money in circulation in New Zealand, the supply of which is determined by NZ’s central bank, the demand for which is determined by the amount of output in NZ and the public’s desire to hold money as an asset. As output increases in NZ due to higher net exports, demand for money will shift out, and if you recall the Y-axis in a money market shows the nominal interest rate, so nominal interest rates will increase as money demand shifts out.

The mistake most people made was misinterpreting the question to be asking about the foreign exchange market for NZ dollars. This market would show the price of NZ dollars in terms of Australian dollars on the Y-axes, the demand for NZ$ by Australians, and the supply of dollars by New Zealanders. This is not what the question is asking for, however, many of you included this diagram, which does not show the nominal interest rate.

(c) Assume that the price level in New Zealand rises. Given your answer to part (b)(ii), explain what will happen to real interest rates.

Mr. Welker: Here’s another question that most people messed up on. The answer is that as nominal interest rates rise while the price level is rising, we don’t know what will happen to real interest rates! Remember, real interest rate = nominal interest rate – inflation rate. Whether real interest rates rise or fall depends on the degree to which nominal interest rates and inflation rise. Therefore, the real interest rate cannot be determined.

(d) Although recovering, Australia remains in recession and its government takes no action. Indicate whether each of the following curves will shift to the left, shift to the right, or remain unchanged in the long run in Australia.

(i) Aggregate supply

(ii) Aggregate demand

Mr. Welker: I was truly shocked to see how many people got this one totally wrong. In fact, I suspect about half of you just guessed on this one, which was a surprise to me because this was something we had emphasized heavily in our class discussions; in fact you had even seen a very similar question in an FRQ a couple of units ago.

The key to knowing what this question is getting at is the phrase “its government takes no action.” This must, therefore, be referring to a “self-correction” scenario, which is based on the neo-classical theory of a vertical long-run aggregate supply curve, made possible by the downward flexibility of wages and prices.

If Australia remains in a recession, high levels of unemployment and low levels of overall spending will put downward pressure on wages and prices. As price levels fall and large number of workers are unemployed, people will begin accepting lower wages, which means input costs for firms will decrease, inducing firms to hire more workers, shifting short-run aggregate supply and output back towards the full-employment level. Since the question makes no mention of any new spending (implied by the “government takes no action” statement, meaning no fiscal or monetary stimulus is employed), there is no impact on aggregate demand.

The question simply says “indicate”, therefore the correct answers are:

(i) Aggregate supply will shift right

(ii) Aggregate demand will remain unchanged

The mistakes made on this FRQ are fairly common and simple mistakes. But this final macro test should serve as a wakeup call to some of you who may have coasted through the last few units. Macroeconomics is the harder of the two AP subjects. Last year’s classes averages .42 points lower on the macro AP exam than the micro, despite having completed Macro more recently.

Over the next 12 days, AP Econ students all over the world need to focus on their review and studies for the AP exams. To help you, I’ve put all of our review materials onto one page here on the blog. Click on the tab at the top of this page that says “Exam Prep”, and there you will find downloadable .pdf study guides for every unit in the course, as well as links to each unit’s wiki over at Welker’s Wikinomics Page. New on the wiki is a “graph bank” containing all of the graphs we’ve learned this year. As part of your exam review, please add titles and descriptions to these graphs by May 8.

Carmen submitted the following through the “Econ Help Desk“

Please help me with a student question. If the FED pursues expansionary monetary policy, lowering the nominal interest rate in hopes of spurring investment and increasing aggregate demand, how does this connect to the loanable funds market? If nominal interest rates are down, won’t real ones go down too, causing people to save less? In this case, where will the supply of loanable funds to meet investment demand come from?

Below is my reply to Carmen:

Good question… here’s my understanding, so take it as you will…

To expand the money supply the Fed will buy bonds on the open market. This increases demand for bonds, raises their prices, lowering the effective interest rate on bonds, making these securities less attractive to investors, who will sell them back to the Fed in exchange for liquid money that is now part of the money supply.

Investors will put some of their new money into banks, where interest rates are now relatively more attractive than the declining rates on government bonds. Some of the new money created by the Fed’s purchase of bonds therefore ends up in the loanable funds market, shifting the supply of loanable funds out, lowering real interest rates, increasing the quantity demanded of funds for investment and consumption, hence the expansionary impact on Aggregate Demand.

If any readers has another take on the transition from expansionary monetary policy to a decline in the real interest rate in the LF market, please leave your ideas in a comment below.

~Jason Welker

More Bold Moves from the Fed: Business Week online ediction

Here we are, the night before our test on Monetary Policy, and good ol’ Mr. Bernanke throws me a perfect blogworthy bit of news!

The Federal Reserve announced a series of steps Mar. 16 to help provide relief to a spreading credit crisis that threatens to plunge the economy into recession: The central bank approved a cut to its lending rate to financial institutions, from 3.5% to 3.25%, and created another lending facility for big investment banks to secure short-term loans.

Global financial markets appeared to react with alarm on Sunday evening. In overseas trading, the euro made new highs vs. the dollar, U.S. Treasury futures fell, and gold futures posted new record highs at $1,009.50 per ounce.

Discussion Questions:

1. Describe briefly what the article means by “a spreading credit-crisis”. How does less lending threaten to “plunge the economy into recession”?
2. Which tool of monetary policy does the term in bold refer to? Why would financial institutions ever need to borrow from the Fed?
3. Why did the euro reach “new highs vs. the dollar” on news of the US lowering interest rates? Why did gold shoot to its highest price in history on the news?

Job losses worst in five years – Mar. 7, 2008

The news late last week out of Washington was not what the White House was hoping for only a couple of weeks after the passing of a fiscal stimulus package meant to achieve exactly the opposite of what has happened. The US Labor Department released its latest numbers on employment on Friday:

There was a net loss of 63,000 jobs, which is the biggest decline since March 2003 and weaker than the revised 22,000 jobs lost in January. Economists had forecast a gain of 25,000 jobs…

“Based on today’s Employment Report, if we are not in a recession, it is a darned good imitation of one,” said Kevin Giddis, managing director of fixed income at Morgan Keegan.

So with a net loss of jobs, it may seem weird to hear that unemployment has actually fallen from 4.9% to 4.8%. How is this possible? In this case lower unemployment may indicate an even worse reality for the American economy:

The unemployment rate fell because of an increase of 450,000 people whom the government no longer counts as being part of the labor force for a variety of factors, such as that they are not currently looking for work. That drop in the size of the labor force allowed for the modest decline in unemployment, even as the household survey showed 255,000 fewer Americans with jobs than in January.

Discouraged workers point to a deep pessimism underlying households and workers in America, indicating that if we’re not already in a recession, it is only a matter of time. With the apparent failure of fiscal policy at achieving any immediate turnaround in consumer confidence, all eye’s are now on the Fed, America’s central bank, to see how Ben Bernanke will respond to the latest round of bad news.

“Even the silver lining of a falling unemployment rate has a little rust,” said Rich Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research. He predicted that the central bank will cut rates by a half percentage point at both its March meeting and again on April 30.

But Yamarone and some other experts questioned whether additional Fed cuts would do much to improve the employment outlook.

“We’re not in a crisis because the cost of borrowing is too high, it’s because people are afraid of lending,” said Dan Alpert, managing director of Westwood Capital, referring to the ongoing credit crunch. “At the end of the day, the Fed cuts don’t really solve the problems. They’ve already cut allot; if jobs continue to decline in face of further interest rate cuts, it’s prima facie evidence cuts aren’t effective.”

But few experts were ready to suggest the Fed would stop cutting rates at this point, given the problems in the economy and financial markets.

“The Fed has to do what it can to provide remedy and not scare the market as well,” said Mike Materasso, a senior portfolio manager at Franklin Templeton.

Central bankers face difficult decisions in times like these. While unemployment and falling growth rates pose significant problems to the American economy, the third macroeconomic evil is certainly in the minds of policymakers when deciding how to deal with the first two: inflation.

In order to lower interest rates, the Fed first has to implement expansionary monetary policy. In other words, the central bank must increase America’s money supply. How does it do this, exactly? Most commonly, the Fed uses open market operations, which is a fancy way of saying the Fed buys and sells government securities (treasury notes, bonds, etc…) on the bond market. When the Fed wishes to lower interest rates, it must inject new money into the economy, which it does by buying government bonds from the holders of those securities; namely, the public.

American banks, households, and firms, as well as foreigners all hold government debt. When the Fed wants to expand the money supply, it simply starts buying these debt securities back from the public. The increase in demand for securities drives up their prices, encouraging holders of the debt to sell their securities to the Fed, for which they receive money in exchange. In effect, the public exchanges illiquid (unspendable) debt certificates for liquid money. Now consumers have more money in their pockets to spend, firms have more to invest, and banks have more to loan out to borrowers who want to spend and invest. How do banks get rid of their new liquidity? Yep, they lower their interest rates.

In a nutshell, that’s how monetary policy works. To combat a recession and rising unemployment, the Fed simply buys bonds on the open market, injecting liquidity into the economy, which should result in more borrowing and more spending, shifting aggregate demand out, leading to growth and rising employment.

But what about that third evil, inflation? Won’t more spending lead to demand pull inflation? Usually this is not a major concern in times of a slowdown, since rising unemployment indicates the economy is producing below its full employment level of output. Expanding aggregate demand should result in increased output and stable prices. Today, however, Americans are facing other inflationary pressures, including a historically weak dollar (meaning imported goods and raw materials are more expensive than ever), and skyrocketing food and energy prices due to rising global demand for such commodities.

This all makes the job of monetary policy exceptionally challenging for Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed. Expand the money supply too much (i.e. lower interest rates too much) and you risk accellerating inflation. Keep rates too high, and we can expect even worse employment and output numbers in the next few months.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Recession prevention – Los Angeles Times

Much of the sub-prime debacle is hard to fathom, though the simplest explanation is probably the most correct: inadequate regulation led to excessively risky loans, which were then packaged attractively and handed on to the major financial institutions.

The policy responses, however, have been simple–right in line with a textbook analysis. Most fascinatingly, some free-market fundamentalists have called for Keynesian economic stimuli and the US government has responded. Moreover, those pursuing monetary policies have admitted that lags and the banks’ timidity in extending loans (which results in excessive excess reserves) may render the recent cut in the Fed Funds Rate ineffective.

A lot of good relevant articles are around, but you may like the following debate. What side would you be on? Continue Reading »

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / China – Pressure builds over renminbi

In IB Economics, we’re currently studying the determinants of exchange rates. One important factor in determining the demand for a particular currency is the interest rates in the country whose currency is in question relative to that of other countries.

The recent cut of the federal funds rate in the US of 25 basis points to 4.5% brought the US rates closer to China’s recently increasing interest rate of 3.32%. The upward trend of Chinese rates (up 50 basis points this year) and downward trend of American rates (down 50 basis points this year) should diminish the appeal of dollar denominated financial assets and increase the demand for those in Chinese RMB. In the currency market, we should see weakening demand for dollars and strengthening demand for RMB, as US savings and government securities are relatively less appealing due to the declining returns on those investments. With further increases in Chinese rates expected (due to high inflation), the RMB should be in greater demand, as returns on Chinese investments looks to increase as rates rise. Continue Reading »

Molly Saso, AP Econ teacher at the International School of the Sacred Heart in Tokyo, asked in an email to the AP Econ email list about Free Response Question #2 from the International exam (form B). The question reads:

2. (a) Assume that businesses are granted a tax credit on spending for machinery. Using a correctly labeled graph of the loanable funds market, show the effect of the business sector’s response on the real interest rate.

Here’s Molly’s email:

“The loanable funds market, in spite of its apparent simplicity, continues to throw up some ambiguities–or perhaps it’s just me who is perplexed.

What would be the impact on the market of a tax credit for spending on machinery? (Q2 on Form B, 2007–all the FRQs are already on AP Central.)

While the intent is indeed to increase planned investment, would firms increase or decrease their demand for loanable funds? To the extent that the tax credit means that there is a greater amount of post-tax profits available for investment, then the demand for loanable funds could decrease; but wouldn’t many firms need to supplement their post-tax profits with a greater demand for loanable funds?

Perhaps, if the impact on demand is indeterminate, the shift would be in supply, since firms would have a greater store of “savings” (retained profits). However, since a shift in supply was the answer to the second part of Q2, I somehow doubt that the examininer would be expecting a supply shift in part (a) as well.

The trouble is that the question asked for no explanation–only a graph to “show the effect”. I wonder what kind of shift was expected?

In perplexity,
Molly”

Molly’s question is a good one, and although I hadn’t spent much time reflecting on this question, her email got me thinking more about this interesting and challenging question. Here’s what I came up with and replied to Molly with. I don’t know if it’s correct or not, but I’d be interested to hear what others thought about this question:

Hi Molly,I’m in Shanghai, so my students also took form B (the international questions). I too found this to be a bit confusing. But as I teach my students, “don’t make the questions more complicated than they have to be, look for the most obvious answer.” Unfortunately, this one had no immediately obvious answer, as you explain below. I think what made it difficult was the term “tax credit on spending for machinery”. I don’t know about you, but this specific term never came up in my class!

Here’s how the question begins: “Assume that businesses are granted a tax credit on spending for machinery”. I interpret this tax credit as an amount deducted from federal income tax, calculated as a fixed percentage of expenditures on, in this case, machinery. In other words, the tax credit is not granted unless the firm undertake investments in new machinery. Your suggestion that the tax credit results in a “greater amount of post-tax profits available for investment” may be mistaking the credit indicated with a reduction in corporate profit taxes. I think if this were a corporate profit tax question then perhaps demand for loanable funds would go down since new investment could come from the now higher profit margins firms receive; in fact, the tax credit is not granted until new investment is undertaken by the firms in the first place.

I would explain this to my students by saying that essentially, the expected rate of return on investments goes up (since fewer taxes will be paid once new machinery is bought), shifting the Investment Demand curve out, thus the Demand for loanable funds, increasing the real interest rate.

That said, I cannot be certain that this is what the AP was looking for, so don’t hold me to it! Writing this email allowed me to really clear this one up, though, so thanks for the inquiry!

Jason

Anyone else have a better answer or something to add?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Bloomberg.com: Calendar, Abacus Help Determine Size of Chinese Rate Increases

Here’s an interesting piece about Monetary Policy in China.

“The People’s Bank of China today raised its one-year benchmark lending rate by 0.18 percentage point and its one-year deposit rate by 0.27 percentage point. Why 18 or 27 basis points instead of the increments of 25 used by most other central banks?

The answer has to do with the Chinese calendar and superstition, as well as the ancient Asian counting device, the abacus.”

While “traditional” Chinese culture may seem to disappear with globalization, the superstitions of old are alive and well in the financial community:

“`Rates divisible by nine avoid rounding of interest and allow easier calculation by abacus,” said Wang Qing, chief China economist at Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong.

In addition, the number nine in Chinese shares a pronunciation with the word “longevity” and has long been considered a lucky number. Chinese wedding feasts have nine dishes; Beijing’s Forbidden City has 9,999 rooms.

`The number nine is very important in the Chinese society and business world,’ said Chan Mansing, associate professor at the School of Chinese at the University of Hong Kong. `Nine stands for longevity, abundance and masculinity. It also represents the highest attainable level in all human endeavors in the Book of Change, a Chinese philosophy book that has been read for thousands of years.’ “

Hey, who knew?!

Powered by ScribeFire.

US dollar plummets against euro as ECB rate hike becomes likely — Shanghai Daily | 上海日报 — English Window to China News

“THE US dollar has dropped to a 27-month low against the euro… The United States currency also tumbled to its weakest level against the British pound in 26 years”

What’s happening to the US dollar? The article claims that “interest rate differentials” are causing the weakening of the dollar relative to the Euro and the Pound. How can this be explained? First of all, why is the US Fed predicted to cut rates in the near future?

“The dollar’s losses last week accelerated after a US government report showed that consumer prices excluding energy and food moderated last month. That contrasted with reports from the United Kingdom and New Zealand indicating accelerating price pressure.”

What’s the connection between slowing inflation in the US, accelerating inflation in Europe, falling and rising interest rates, and the exchange rate? At this point in the AP course, you should be able to explain all of these connections.

How can we explain how the following economic trends lead to a weakening of the dollar and a strengthening of European currencies?

“The yield advantage of 10-year Treasury notes over similar-maturity German bunds dropped to 0.47 percentage point last week, the lowest since November 2004. A narrowing yield gap dims the allure of dollar-denominated assets.”

“The economy in the euro zone will grow 2.3 percent this year, beating the 2.2 percent estimate for the US…”

“ECB council member Axel Weber told Handelsblatt newspaper that an ‘extremely positive’ economic outlook meant the bank can’t signal it’s finished raising rates.”

If you can read, understand and explain this article right now, they you probably understand most what what you need to understand from Chapter 38. Let’s hear your comments, folks!

Powered by ScribeFire.