Over the weekend I watched the new Justin Timberlake movie, In Time. In this edition of Welker’s Wikinomics Podcast I analyze the movie’s basic premise from a macroeconomic viewpoint.

Listen to the podcast, and then answer the discussion questions at the bottom of this post.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does increasing the supply of money cause the demand for goods and services to rise?
2. Why does increasing the supply of money ultimately cause the supply of goods and services to fall?
3. When would an increase in the money supply be most inflationary, when an economy is producing close to its full employment level or when an economy is experiencing a recession? Explain.
4. With the help of a money market diagram and an aggregate demand / aggregate supply diagram, illustrate the effects of Will and Silvia’s re-distribution of time on the Ghetto’s economy.
5. According to Friedman, expansionary monetary policy cannot contribute to a nation’s long-run economic growth. What types of government policies can be implemented to promote economic growth in a nation?

Podcast Credits: 

• Intro song: The Rolling Stones – Time is On My Side
• Ending song: Pink Floyd – Money
• Milton Friedman quotes – Donahue, 1980

Related posts:

1. From the Help Desk: the money multiplier and new money creation
2. “Why can’t the government just print more money?” – NOT such a silly question!
3. Loanable Funds vs. Money Market: what’s the difference?

Once again, my IB Economics students are working on yet another Internal Assessment Commentary, this time on syllabus section 3, Macroeconomics. Since they found my sample Microeconomics commentary so helpful, I thought I’d punch out a quick sample of a macro commentary for them and for anyone else who is working on their IB Economcis Internal Assessment.

The commentary below (not including the selection from the article) is 749 words in length. This does NOT include words in the graphs, so let’s not have that debate in the comment section. The new IB economics internal assessment model (first examinations 2013) will not count words on graphs, so this sample commentary is perfectly suited for the new assessment model. If you’re a 2012 student, you would be wise to count words in graphs as part of your word count.

If you like what you see, or have any quesitons, please leave your comments below the post.

Article highlights:

An Impeccable Disaster – NYTimes.com

Paul Krugman clearly explains the problems faced by two or Europe’s largest economies today:

So why is Spain — along with Italy, which has higher debt but smaller deficits — in so much trouble? The answer is that these countries are facing something very much like a bank run, except that the run is on their governments rather than, or more accurately as well as, their financial institutions.

Here’s how such a run works: Investors, for whatever reason, fear that a country will default on its debt. This makes them unwilling to buy the country’s bonds, or at least not unless offered a very high interest rate. And the fact that the country must roll its debt over at high interest rates worsens its fiscal prospects, making default more likely, so that the crisis of confidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And as it does, it becomes a banking crisis as well, since a country’s banks are normally heavily invested in government debt.

Now, a country with its own currency, like Britain, can short-circuit this process: if necessary, the Bank of England can step in to buy government debt with newly created money. This might lead to inflation (although even that is doubtful when the economy is depressed), but inflation poses a much smaller threat to investors than outright default. Spain and Italy, however, have adopted the euro and no longer have their own currencies. As a result, the threat of a self-fulfilling crisis is very real — and interest rates on Spanish and Italian debt are more than twice the rate on British debt.

Commentary:

The European Central Bank (ECB) is engaging in a new form of monetary policy in which it buys government bonds directly from the Spanish and Italian governments. Essentially, the goal is to bring down the interest rates on Italian and Spanish government bonds, which should reassure private investors that Italy and Spain will be able to pay them back and thus reduce the upward pressure on interest rates in the Eurozone, a situation which threatens to reverse the already sluggish recovery from the recessions of 2008 and 2009.

Monetary policy refers to a central bank’s manipulation of the money supply and interest rates, aimed at either increasing interest rates (contractionary monetary policy) or reducing interest rates (expansionary monetary policy). The ECB is currently buying government bonds from European governments, effectively increasing the supply of money in Europe with the hope that more government and private sector spending will move the Eurozone economy closer to its full employment level of output, at which workers, land and capital resources are fully employed towards the production of goods and services.

If successful, the ECB’s “quantitative easing”, as the new type of monetary policy is known, should bring down interest rates on government bonds and thereby reallocate loanable funds towards Italy and Spain’s public and private sectors.  The increase in supply of loanable funds should bring down the private interest rates available to borrows (businesses and households), making private investment more attractive.

The ECB’s bond purchases make it cheaper for Italy and Spain to borrow, lowering the interest rates on their bonds, restoring confidence among international investors, who may be more willing to save their money in Italy in Spain. The inflow of loanable funds into these economies (seen as an increase in the supply of loanable funds from S1 to S2) should bring down private borrowing costs (the real interest rate), encouraging more firms to invest in capital and more households to finance the consumption of durable goods, increasing aggregate demand and moving the Eurozone economy back towards its full employment level of output, from AD1 to AD2 in the graph on the right.

In certain circumstances, monetary easing like this could be inflationary, but in reality inflation is unlikely to occur given the large output gap in Europe at present (represented above as the distance between Y1 and the dotted line, signifying the full employment level of output). Any increase in aggregate demand will lead to economic growth (an increase in output), but little or no inflation due to the excess capacity of unemployed labor, land and capital resources in the European economy today.

With private sector borrowing costs increasing due to growing uncertainty over their deficits and debts, the Italian and Spanish governments will find expansionary fiscal policies (tax cuts and increased government expenditures) are unrealistic options for achieving the goal of full employment. The ECB, however, as Krugman argues, should continue to play an increasing role in the expansion of credit to cash strapped European governments, with the aim of keeping interest rates low to prevent the crowding-out of private spending that often occurs in the face of large budget deficits. Inflation, always a concern for central bankers, should be a low priority in Europe’s current recessionary environment. Only when consumer and investor confidence is restored, a condition that requires low borrowing costs, will private sector spending resume and the Euro economies can begin creating jobs and increasing their output again.

In the short-term, Italy and Spain should take advantage of the ECB’s bond-buying initiative, and make meaningful, productivity-enhancing investments in infrastructure, education and job training. If their economies are to grow in the future, Eurozone countries must become more competitive with the rapidly expanding economies of Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere in the developing world.

In the medium-term, the Eurozone countries must demonstrate a commitment to fiscal restraint and more balanced budgets. Eliminating loopholes that allow businesses and wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes, for example, is of utmost importance. Also, increasing the retirement age, downsizing some of the more generous social welfare programs and increasing marginal tax rates on the highest income earners would all send the message to investors that these countries are commited to fiscal discipline. Then, in time, their dependence on ECB lending will decline and private lenders will once again be willing to buy Eurozone government bonds at lower interest rates, allowing for continued growth in the private sector.

Related posts:

1. The almighty bond market: Niall Ferguson’s concerns about the US deficit explained
2. A closer look at the crowding-out effect
3. Economics in plain English: Understanding Argentina’s budget woes

Mr. Welker’s note: The following post was submitted by a former student of mine at Shanghai American School. Marco graduated in 2008, completing the higher level IB Economics program. He now studies Economics and Political Science at McGill University in Canada. The following was written as an assignment for a McGill course, Econ 302: Money, Banking and Government Policy.

When Mr. Welker supervised my Extended Essay in 2008, the US Congress had already started putting pressure on the Chinese to allow their currency to appreciate. The economics of the US trade deficit seemed quite simple: the US bought more Chinese goods than the other way around, resulting in a current account deficit and causing the Yuan to appreciate. In return, the Chinese were in the habit of buying US government bonds, resulting in an American capital account surplus and depreciating the Yuan in relation to the Dollar. In other words, America has a Chinese credit card and the bill is quite large.

For obvious reasons, Congress is not thrilled with the debt. They have long claimed that the Chinese purposefully buy all this debt in order to boost their exports, but that it unfairly drags the US into further debt. The old protectionist tendencies flared and Congress tossed around accusations that Chinese companies maintain sub-American product quality, evidenced by the lead that was found in some toys, among other things. The threat of lead poisoning was a nifty pretense under which more stringent safety regulations could have rid the US market of Chinese goods without explicitly saying that they were doing so. In the end, Congress stuck to labeling China a ‘currency manipulator,’ which Chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke upheld just a few days ago.

The game changer was the financial crisis. It turned out that the US wasn’t just indebted to China but also to themselves. For example, the price of housing in America had divorced itself from reality and people were purchasing houses that they couldn’t afford, on the assumption that they could sell it later at a higher price. When the housing bubble popped, the bookies came to collect the debt and people had a problem.

The US Federal Reserve responded to the crisis by pumping US$800 billion into the American economy. It has followed up by announcing second cash injection of US$600 billion just a few weeks ago. This is part of a policy called Quantitative Easing (QE), in which the central bank maintains a low interest rate and purchases bonds from the government, financial institutions, insurance companies and pension funds with the objective of creating more credit in the economy.

This is where politics and economics really start to interact. Bernanke has showed the Chinese that is not afraid to create more money. That is, he is not afraid to create more US Dollars. China owns a substantial amount of US Dollars. If the value of the US Dollar falls, then the value of Chinese assets fall, since nearly $2 trillion US dollars and dollar denominated assets are held by the Chinese central bank. The Fed’s increase in the money supply could ultimately cause inflation and a depreciation of the dollar, eroding the value of China’s US$ assets. The Chinese will surely not allow Bernanke to simply inflate away the value of Chinese owned American debt.

In response, the Chinese have been slowly moving out of US Dollars, which is smart. Chinese companies and the government (the distinction is blurred) are showing strong demand for raw materials and commodities. China is buying big in copper, buying big in Africa, buying lots of aluminum, tin, zinc, canola and soybeans, as well. According to J.P. Morgan, China’s iron ore imports were 33 percent higher in April than a year earlier. Crude oil imports were up nearly 14 percent, aluminum oxide imports climbed 16 percent and refined copper imports jumped 148 percent.

The future looks very bright for China, indeed. By recycling its US debt into commodity ownership, China is creating a very nice situation for itself. Commodities are goods of real value and only likely rise in value over time, whereas US debt exists on paper and is subject entirely to the value of the US Dollar. Purchasing abroad reduces the current account surplus, stops the yuan from rising and keeps China’s exports competitive. But, most importantly, having large commodity reserves will safeguard its industrial policy in the future, when the West may find itself in a supply crisis. China may have internal discontents, but it is exceptionally well placed in the international economy.

Related posts:

1. China: formerly the world’s factory, now a nation of consumers…
2. Excuse me, China… could you lend us another billion? Understanding the imbalance of trade between China and the United States
3. China makes, the world takes

I received the following email today, which gave me a great excuse to write a blog post about monetary policy! My reply to the teacher is below.

Jason,

I hate to bug you, but I have a question. I am a first year AP Econ teacher and I know something is going to come up right away and I want to explain it in the simplest way. “Why can’t the govt. just print more money?” I know the inflation part of it, but when I am reading to look for quality ways of explaining it, I see plenty of information about it, but I can’t grasp it. Principle 9 in Mankiw text states “Prices rise when the govt. prints too much money.” I feel like a dumb kid and I am supposed to teach this!!!!

If you can help, great, if not, I will figure it out.

Thanks,
Teacher

Dear Teacher,

I love your question! It is definitely one of those issues that gets glossed over in most economics textbooks. Or it is assumed that the money supply diagram makes it obvious why excessive monetary growth leads to inflation. But I agree, this is one of those things that for the first couple of years I taught economics, I probably didn’t really understand all that well either! So let me try to break it down in plain English for you. This will be good for me too, cause I always understand things more clearly myself after writing them (which is why writing a textbook is about the best PD I’ve every undertaken!)

So, here it goes:

Printing money and its effect on inflation is a bit more complicated than it sounds. In fact, it is the US treasury that prints money, but it is the Federal Reserve that determines how much money is actually in circulation in the economy. Money printed by the Treasury is distributed to the twelve Federal Reserve banks around the country. The treasury and the government of which it is a part does not have any say on how much money actually gets injected into the economy, as monetary policy decisions are left up to the Federal Reserve.

Traditionally, the Fed has one tool for injecting new money into the economy, a tool known as “open market operations”. (I say traditionally, because in the last three years the Fed has devised numerous new ways to “inject liquidity” into the economy, which I will not get into now). To increase the nation’s money supply, the Fed buys US government bonds on the open market from commercial banks. Commercial banks invest some of American households’ savings into government bonds just like they invest some of our money into individuals and businesses by making loans and charging interest on those loans. Commercial banks will want to buy government bonds if the interest on them rises and will want to sell those bonds when the interest rate falls.

If the Fed want to increase the money supply to stimulate spending in the economy, it will announce an open market purchase of bonds. When the Fed buys bonds, the demand for bonds increases, raising their prices and lowering their effective interest rate. As the interest on government bonds falls as a result of the Fed’s open market operations, banks find them less desirable to hold onto as investments and therefore sell them to the Fed in exchange for, you guessed it, liquid money, fresh off the printing presses!

Remember, the money printed at the Treasury and held at the Fed was NOT part of the money supply, since it is out of reach of private borrowers. But as soon as the Fed buys bonds with that money, it is deposited into commercial banks’ excess reserves and is therefore now in the commercial banking system and therefore part of the money supply. So, “printing money” does not immediately increase the money supply since newly printed money only ends up in the Fed; only once the Fed has undertaken an expansionary monetary policy (an open market bond purchase) does the newly printed money enter the money supply.

Now, commercial banks have just sold their illiquid assets (government bonds) to the Fed in exchange for liquid money. Picture the money market diagram and you will see the money supply increasing.

So the next question is, why does this lead to inflation?

Banks now hold more excess reserves, most of which are kept on reserve at their regional Federal Reserve bank. Reserves held at the Fed do NOT earn interest for the banks, and therefore actually lose value over time as inflation erodes the purchasing power of these idle reserves. Banks, of course, want to invest these reserves to earn interest beyond the rate of inflation and thereby create earn them revenue. In order to attract new borrowers, commercial banks, whose reserves have increased following the Fed’s bond purchase, must offer borrowers a lower interest rate. The increase in the supply of money leads to a decrease in the “price” of money, i.e. the interest rates banks charge borrowers.

So here we see why an increase in the money supply leads to lower interest rates. With greater excess reserves, banks must lower the rate they charge each other (the federal funds rate) and thus the prime rate they charge their most credit-worthy borrowers and all other interest rates in the economy, in order to attract new borrowers and get their idle reserves out there earning interest for the bank.

Lower interest rates create an incentive for firms to invest in new capital since now more investment projects have an expected rate of return equal to or greater than the new lower interest rate. Additionally, the lower rates on savings discourages savings by households and thereby increases the level of household consumption. Households find it cheaper to borrow money to purchase durable goods like cars and it also becomes cheaper to buy new homes or undertake costly home improvements. So we begin to see investment and consumption rise across the economy as the increase in the money supply reduces borrowing costs and decreases the incentive to save. Aggregate demand has started to rise.

Additionally, the lower rate on US government bonds resulting from the Fed’s open market purchase reduces the incentive for foreign investors to save their money in US bonds and in US banks, which are now offering lower interest rates. Falling foreign demand for the dollar causes it to depreciate. A weaker dollar makes US exports more attractive to foreign consumers, so in addition to increased consumption and investment in the US, net exports begin to rise as well, further increasing aggregate demand.

Increasing the money supply (not so much by printing money rather because of the “easy money” policy of the Fed), leads to increased consumption, investment, and net exports, and therefore aggregate demand in the economy. The rising demand among domestic consumers, foreign consumers, and domestic producers for the nation’s output puts upward pressure on prices as the nation’s producers find it hard to keep up with the rising demand. Once consumers start to see prices rising, inflationary expectations will further increase the incentive to buy more now and save less, leading to even more household consumption. Firms see price rises in the future and increase their investment now to meet the expected rises in demand tomorrow.

It does not take much for inflation to accelerate in such an environment. If the the government and the Fed do not slow down the increase in the money supply (STOP THE PRINTING PRESSES!) then soon enough workers will begin demanding higher wages and resource costs will start to increase in all sectors of the economy, causing the nation’s aggregate supply to decline as firms find it harder to cover their rising costs. Now we have both demand-pull AND cost push inflation! The weaker currency also makes imported raw materials more costly to firms, further adding to the inflationary environment. An inflationary spiral is now underway!

Milton Friedman said that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Controlling the rate of growth in the money supply, say the monetarists, will assure that the fluctuations in the business cycle will be mild and periods of dramatic inflation and deflation can be avoided. Stable money growth should lead to stable economic growth. But as soon as we start running the printing presses inflation will not be far behind. On the flip-side, contractionary monetary policies should in theory lead to the exact opposite of what I describe above and cause a deflation. If a central bank were to tighten the money supply too much, interest rates would rise, investment, consumption and net exports would fall, and falling prices would force firms to lay off workers, leading to high unemployment and an economic contraction.

I’ll leave you with one question to ponder (the answer to which would require a much longer article than this one!). If Friedman was right, and increasing the money supply will always and everywhere lead to inflation, then how is it that the monetary base in the United States increased by 142% between 2008 and 2009, yet inflation declined over the same period and fell to as low as -2% in mid-2009? That’s right, the money supply more than doubled, yet the economy went into deflation. Was Friedman missing something in his calculation that monetary growth always leads to price level increases? In other words, is an open market purchase of bonds by the Fed all that is needed to stimulate demand during a recession? Perhaps Friedman, who died in 2006 right before the US entered the Great Recession, would have to re-consider his famous quote if he could see the effect (or lack of effect) of America’s unprecedented monetary growth over the last three years!

Related posts:

1. From the Help Desk – more on loanable funds and the money market
2. Loanable Funds vs. Money Market: what’s the difference?
3. Will the Fed’s easy money policy fuel global inflation?

In the seemingly endless and currently ongoing debate over the role of the government in the macroeconomy, there are two main camps: Those who think the governments of the developed economies have not done enough to get their economies out of recession, and those who think they have already done too much, and therefore need to start rolling back stimulus and reducing deficits.

At the heart of this debate are the two macroeconomic schools of thought, the  Keynesian demand-side theories and the classical, supply-side theories. Two intellectuals have emerged in the last several years representing the two sides of the macroeconomic debate. On the demand-side, representing the Keynesian school of thought, is 2008 Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman. Representing the classical, supply-side school of thought is Harvard economic historian Niall Ferguson. These two have squared off in many forums over the last three years, Krugman arguing for more and continued fiscal stimulus to prop up and increase demand in the economy, Ferguson arguing for smaller deficits, lower taxes and less government spending to increase private sector confidence and thereby supply in the economy.

During our long summer break the two squared off once again in the aftermath of a G20 meeting in which the governments of several major economies from Europe and North America announced plans to begin rolling back the stimulus spending they embarked on throughout 2008 and 2009. The reason for increased “austerity measures” (policies that reduce the budget deficit and slow the growth of national debt), argue global leaders, is to reduce the chances of more countries experiencing debt crises like that experienced in Greece this spring.

International investors realized earlier this year that Greece’s budget deficits were a much larger percentage of its GDP than previously thought, and very quickly decided that Greek government bonds were an unsafe investment. Almost overnight the cost of borrowing in Greece shot up above 20%, bringing investment in the economy to a halt and forcing the government to cut its budget, leading to higher unemployment and reduced social benefits for the people of Greece.  If investors were to look at the growing budget deficits in other developed countries and  then suddenly lose faith in other government’s ability to pay back their debts, then a similar crisis could occur in much larger economies, including the UK, Germany and the United States. Hence these country’s apparent desire to begin reducing deficits and rolling back stimulus spending; measures that may just plunge these economies into an even deeper recession than that which they have experienced over the last two years.

The videos below show the leading intellectuals on both sides of the stimulus/austerity debate presenting their arguments. Below each video are discussion questions to help guide your understanding of their views. Watch the videos and respond to the discussion questions in the comment section below.

Video 1 - Krugman argues for continued stimulus:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Discussion Questions:

1. What are the two “profoundly different views of economics” that are being tested as governments begin rolling back the fiscal stimulus packages of the last two years?
2. What are three characteristics of an economy in a “depression” according to Krugman?
3. What is “budget austerity” and why does Krugman think this should not be the first priority of policymakers in the G20 nations?
4. Why is deflation dangerous according to Krugman?
5. What is the additional annual cost to the US government of borrowing and spending an additional trillion dollars now? What is the potential additional benefit of more stimulus?

Video 2 - Ferguson argues for austerity and “fiscal regime change”:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why might the US have to pass spending cuts and tax increases to maintain its “credibility in international bond markets”?
2. Why would fiscal tightening “choke off the recovery”?
3. How is the financial crisis in Europe a warning to the US?
4. How could the “costs” exceed the “benefits” of deficit financed expansionary fiscal policy.
5. Ferguson proposes a new type of policy that “boosts confidence”. Why will expansionary fiscal and monetary policies fail if private sector confidence remains depressed?

Related posts:

1. Will the stimulus package “crowd-out” private investment and reduce long-run growth potential in America?
2. Obama’s stimulus is “the first real test of Keynesian economic policy”
3. How big is the government spending multiplier in America? Well, it depends on which economist you ask…

As the Singapore economy rebounded spectacularly this week ,the government moved to limit inflationary pressures. This was after year-on-year economic growth reached 13.1% in the first quarter of 2010.  This strong performance was related to the increased demand for electronic components and growth in the pharmaceutical industry.

The Singapore government operates a managed exchange rate regime. The Singapore dollar is pegged to a trade-weighted index of five currencies. The exact make-up of the index is kept secret, but the rate is allowed to fluctuate within a four percent target range. This ambiguity leads to less speculation by currency traders, and what is known as a basket, band and crawl method of currency management. Overtime, this has allowed the government to steadily appreciate the currency as demand for exports surged. Since 1980’s the value of the Singapore dollar versus the US Dollar has appreciated by nearly 80%.

This exchange rate mechanism is also how the government controls the rate of inflation in the small city-state. Because Singapore’s net exports make up over 100% of GDP, a subtle appreciation of the exchange rate leads to less imported inflation and less demand for exports. The effect of a 1.3% appreciation of the currency band this week, is expected to reduce inflationary pressure over the next 12 months.

The approach is something that the Chinese government is maybe looking towards. The Yuan is pegged directly to the US Dollar and has been since mid-2007. China has been able to maintain this peg by selling vast amounts of yuan to purchase US Treasury Bonds, and to thereby create large foreign currency reserves. As widely reported, the Chinese government has been under pressure to appreciate the yuan by anything up to 60% compared to the US dollar. How the government achieves this shift is complicated but may lead to a significant loss of export competitiveness and imported inflation.

However as Wei Gu from Reuters reports,

“This (Singapore) approach is not open to China, whose inflationary pressures are home-grown, and whose exchange rate looks more undervalued. Nevertheless, Beijing can learn from Singapore’s model, which offers a better balance between stability and flexibility”

Of course, there are huge differences between a city-state and the world’s third-largest economy. Singapore, whose foreign trade is three times its GDP, has to allow enough freedom in its exchange rate to achieve domestic price stability. China, where foreign trade accounts for 50 percent of GDP, that incentive is much smaller.

Moreover, China could not adopt Singapore’s approach without a one-time appreciation in its currency. Otherwise it would be hard to create a two-way trade: China currently restricts the yuan’s movement against the dollar to just 0.5 percent every day. Nevertheless, as China considers making its exchange rate more flexible without abandoning stability, the Singaporean model is worth studying.”

Discussion Questions:

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a floating exchange rate?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a fixed exchange rate?
3. What is the common tool used by many governments to control inflation. Why can’t all countries use the Singapore approach?
4. Can a country use both Monetary Policy and a managed exchange rate to control inflation? Do trade-offs exist?
5. Evaluate the effects on the Chinese economy of an appreciation of the yuan.

Related posts:

1. How do changing interest rates affect exchange rates? The example of the RMB
2. Exchange rates, currency manipulations, and the balance of trade
3. Exchange rates and trade: a delicate balancing act, currently out of balance!

Econstories.tv – A new resource for Econ teachers and students, from Russ Roberts and John Papola

The long awaited rap video from George Mason University’s Russ Roberts featuring the theories of John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek has been released at last!

We’ve heard some decent Econ raps before (remember “Demand, Supply” by Rhythm, Rhyme, Results?) But this song covers all bases in the predominant macroeconomic schools of thought. Keynes and Hayek are brought back to life and their theories pitted against one another in an all out liquor fueled debate on the streets of New York City.

The video was just released this week. It is packed full of theory from the Classical, supply-side school of macroeconomics (represented by Hayek) and the demand-side school (represented, of course, by Keynes). The video includes cameos from Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose role as bartenders filling Keynes glass reflects their role in the real economy at keeping the money supply and government spending at high levels, fueling economic booms and the eventual busts that result.

Stay tuned to this blog for more feedback on the video, including some graphical analysis and discussion questions for Macro teachers to use in class!

Related posts:

1. Keynesian/Classical debate enters the realm of hip hop
2. The battle of ideas: Hayek versus Keynes on Aggregate Supply
3. To continue stimulus or to pursue austerity, that is the question

Fidelity Investments – Inflation: A Threat or Not? by Dirk Hofschire

I was surprised to receive an email from the company that manages my personal investments directing me to an article that I would be able to use in class. But this analysis by a vice president of Fidelity Investments offers and excellent, concise examination of the threat posed by inflation in America today. I will use excerpts from the article and present the ideas in a graphical form to help students better understand the situation faced by the US as it struggles to emerge from its deep recession.

Hofschire sets out to answer four questions about inflation:

1. Is inflation accelerating?
2. Why is higher inflation expected?
3. Why hasn’t inflation occurred yet?
4. When will inflation return?
5. How high will inflation go?

1. Is in flation accellerating:

In short, NO.

In June, the U.S. consumer price index (CPI) declined 1.2% (on a year-over-year basis), representing the biggest fall in prices since 1950.1 Much of the decline is attributable to the steep drop in energy prices over the past year, which may reverse itself in the second half of 2009 if crude-oil prices remain near current levels. However, core CPI—which excludes food and energy—was less than 1.8% in June, demonstrating little inflationary pressure in general

A combination of weak aggregate demand and low resource costs for firms has kept price levels down.  While total spending has falling (leftward shift of AD), firms’ costs of production have fallen (rightward shift of AS). Since total output fell we can see that national income (Y) is less in 2009 than in 2008. Since price level has fallen, we can see deflation.

Diagram 1:

2. Why is higher inflation expected?

With little evidence of economic strength or cost-push inflation today, the concern now is that the monetarist economic view of the world sees inflation clouds on the horizon. The godfather of modern monetarist economic thought, Milton Friedman, once stated, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” What Friedman meant was that money—specifically changes in the supply and use of currency—was the primary driver for changes to price levels in an economy. Friedman informally defined inflation as “too much money chasing too few goods and services.” As a result, an excessive increase in the amount or use of money relative to economic output is the textbook prescription for inflation.

The inflation described above, and feared by Friedman and today’s monetarists is not of the cost-push type, rather the demand-pull variety. As the vast quantities of money injected by the US Fed work their way through the banking system and into the pockets of consumers and the hands of firm managers, eventually demand for America’s goods and services will rise. But in the current recession, the production of those goods and services has stagnated, meaning that once all this money starts getting spent, the competition among buyers for the limited output of producers will drive prices up.

Diagram 2:

3. Why hasn’t inflation occurred yet?

…there remains considerable downward pressure on prices still in place, due to growing slack in the economy (i.e. underutilized resources, such as labor) and continued deleveraging by consumers and financial firms with heavy debt loads. With the unemployment rate at its highest level in 26 years and consumers saving more and spending less, there is little upward pressure on wages or prices for consumer goods.

Yes, the money supply has increased, which according to our answer to number 2 should lead to inflation. But not if the new money isn’t being spent! Banks with money from the Fed are holding onto their excess reserves instead of loaning them out, due to a prevailing lack of confidence in borrowers ability to repay loans during these hard economic times. If all the money the Central Bank is injecting in the economy is sitting idle, and resources such as labor, land and capital are under-employed, then there is little fear of cost-push nor demand-pull inflation.  Diagram 1 illustrates why inflation hasn’t occured yet.

The excess bank reserves thus represent both the potential for future inflation as well as the explanation for why rapid money growth has yet to create current inflation.

In short, money must be spent to drive inflation up. When households prefer savings to consumption and banks prefer liquidity to risk, inflation is only a distant fear.

4. When will inflation return?

Interestingly, the answer to this question can be summed up as: “hopefully sooner rather than later”. Despite popular belief, some inflation is considered a positive sign of economic growth. Just as deflation is the purveyor of doom and gloom (unemployment, uncertainty, low consumer and investor confidence, credit crunch, etc) inflation is a sign of health returning to the economy (improved confidence, rising employment, looser credit markets, expectations of future growth). Central Bankers like Bernanke will surely be showered with praise, while congressman will be quick to give credit to the fiscal stimulus package.

Whether the pick-up in money velocity leads to significantly higher inflation depends on how quickly the Fed pulls the reins back on the extraordinary credit it is currently providing. In theory, the Fed can take actions to reduce the size of its balance sheet and move back to a more appropriate level of money. In practice, due to the unprecedented expansion in the Fed’s balance sheet, this will be a challenge.

Just as it was the Fed”s and government’s job to get the party started through expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, it is equally important for policymakers to calm the party down should the level of inflation begin to rise.

Diagram 3:

5. How high will inflation go?

Given the high level of slack (i.e. underutilized resources) likely to remain in the economy during the next two years, there also could be offsetting deflationary pressures lingering in the system. For example, the unemployment rate is expected to rise above 10% and not peak until sometime in 2010. Industrial capacity utilization rates are at their lowest level on record, which means a lot of unused capacity in the manufacturing sector. This slack must tighten considerably before upward pressure is placed on wages and other prices.

As a result of this downward pressure on wages, which remain the largest expense for corporations, it would appear a 1970s-style, double-digit inflation outburst remains unlikely in the short to medium term. Average weekly earnings for U.S. workers rose more than 7% annually during the period from 1975-1981 in which consumer price inflation averaged more than 9% and peaked at 14% in 1980.5 It is hard to foresee wage gains of that magnitude reinforcing inflation pressures during the next couple of years.

The 1970′s was a period of high inflation in the US, caused primarily by higher costs for firms rather than increasing demand for output. This “cost-push” inflation is unlikely to occur in today’s climate due to the high levels of unemployment and under-employment of labor, land and capital resources. This does not mean inflation won’t happen, just that it’s unlikely to look like the cost-push variety of the 1970′s.

Diagram 4:

Related posts:

1. Unemployment and inflation: understanding the Fed’s balancing act
2. Will the Fed’s easy money policy fuel global inflation?
3. The true causes of and solutions to inflation in China

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:

Related posts:

1. A must read for AP Macro teachers: Paul Krugman explains why deficit spending during a recession does NOT cause crowding-out
2. Sample IB Economics Internal Assessment Commentary – Understanding the ECB’s bond-purchasing program
3. “The Ascent of Money” – Economic historian Niall Ferguson on the Colbert Report

The Fed should focus on deflation | The greater of two evils | The Economist

Deflation: a decrease in the general price level of goods and services of an economy. Sounds great, right? Lower prices mean the purchasing power of our income increases, making the “average” person richer! On the surface, it could be concluded that deflation may actually be a good thing. And in some cases, it is!

If prices of goods are falling because of major technological advances (think of the price of cell phones and laptop computers over the last 20 years) or because of massive improvements in the productivity of labor and capital (think of the price of manufactured consumer goods during the Industrial Revolution), then deflation could be considered a sign of healthy economic growth. Put in terms an IB or AP Economics student should understand, a fall in prices caused by an increase in a nation’s aggregate supply is good, since it is accompanied by greater levels of employment and higher real incomes. But if the fall in prices is caused by a decline in spending in the economy (in other words, by a decrease in aggregate demand), the consequences can be catastrophic.

It just so happens that the United States, Great Britain, and my own home of Switzerland are all faced with demand-deficient deflation at this very moment. I’ll allow the Economist to elaborate:

…With unemployment nearing 9% (in the United States), economic output is further below the economy’s potential than at any time since 1982. This gap is likely to widen. House prices are not part of America’s inflation index but their decline is forcing households to reduce debt , which could subdue economic growth for years. As workers compete for scarce jobs and firms underbid each other for sales, wages and prices will come under pressure.

So far, expectations of inflation remain stable: that sentiment is itself a welcome bulwark against deflation. But pay freezes and wage cuts may soon change people’s minds. In one poll, more than a third of respondents said they or someone in their household had suffered a cut in pay or hours…

Does this matter? If prices are falling because of advancing productivity, as at the end of the 19th century, it is a sign of progress, not economic collapse. Today, though, deflation is more likely to resemble the malign 1930s sort than that earlier benign variety, because demand is weak and households and firms are burdened by debt. In deflation the nominal value of debts remains fixed even as nominal wages, prices and profits fall. Real debt burdens therefore rise, causing borrowers to cut spending to service their debts or to default. That undermines the financial system and deepens the recession.

From 1929 to 1933 prices fell by 27%. This time central banks are on the case. In America, Britain, Japan and Switzerland they have pushed short-term interest rates to, or close to, zero…

…inflation is easier to put right than deflation. A central bank can raise interest rates as high as it wants to suppress inflation, but it cannot cut nominal rates below zero… In the worst case, rising debts and defaults depress growth, poisoning the economy by deepening deflation and pressing real interest rates higher….Given the choice, erring on the side of inflation would be less catastrophic than erring on the side of deflation.

Discussion Questions:

1. Deflation poses several threats to an economy that is otherwise fundamentally healthy, such as the United States’. What are some the threats posed by deflation?
2. The expectation of future deflation can have as equally devastating effect. Why is this?
3. What evidence does the article put forth that an economy experiencing deflation may eventually “self-correct”, meaning return to the full employment level of output in the long-run?
4. Why don’t governments and central banks just sit back and let the economy self-correct? In other words, why are fiscal and monetary policies being used so aggressively by the US, Great Britain and Switzerland during this economic crisis?

Deflation or Inflation:Watch the video below, see if gives you any clues as to the causes and effects of deflation. What do you think John Maynard Keynes would say in response to the deflationary fears expressed in the Economist article?

Related posts:

1. Doom and gloom in the headlines as US economy teters on edge of recession…
2. Does free trade really mean lower prices? A debate between two economists much smarter than me
3. Stagflation – a blast from the past could mean trouble for US economy

On my way to work this morning I listened to the latest episode of WEBZ Chicago Public Radio’s excellent show This American Life. The theme of this week’s radio show was “the New Boss”. America’s new boss, Barack Obama, has embarked on an ambitious experiment aimed at rescuing the American economy from the most severe recession it has seen since the Great Depression. The economic theory behind Obama’s nearly $1 trillion economic stimulus package was developed by a man we have all heard of in our AP and IB Economics classes, but probably know little about in a historical sense.

The clip from This American Life that I have included below presents a fascinating examination of Keynes’ life and times, and puts his theory into perspective in the history of macroeconomics of the last century. We learn that Keynesian theory has not been truly put to the test, and that Obama’s $830 billion stimulus package is the first real test of Keynesianism.

The clip is a bit long, but it is definitely worth listening to if you are a student or teacher of economics. I know that when I come teo Macroeconomics and Fiscal Policy in my course this spring, I will have my kids listen to and discuss the podcast below. If you’re teaching or learning Macro now, feel free to listen and leave comments about your impressions of the story here.

Related posts:

1. Another insightful economic discsussion on the Daily Show: how to make fiscal stimulus work
2. Fiscal Stimulus package passes in Congress – here comes $170 billion, America!
3. Will the stimulus package “crowd-out” private investment and reduce long-run growth potential in America?

Niall Ferguson | January 13th | ColbertNation.com

Harvard Economic historian Niall Ferguson on the Colbert Report explains the concept of “invisible money”. I just bought Ferguson’s new book, The Ascent of Money over the holidays and am looking forward to reading it. In his interview with Colbert, the historian explains that money as we know it is only worth something because we think it is worth something. Colbert can’t seem to believe that there’s no underlying intrinsic value such as a gold standard backing the value of his dollar bill, which has in fact been the case since the early 1970s in America.

Ferguson says that money represents a relationship of trust between a creditor and debtor, which is one reason there seems to be so little money available for spending in the economy today. Macroeconomic uncertainty and low consumer confidence are the main causes of the today’s global recession. In a climate of fear and uncertainty, the trust underpinning our monetary system dries up. Banks are afraid to make loans, consumers are afraid to make big purchases, and firms are afraid to make capital investments. The result? Low aggregate demand, falling income and output and rising unemployment.

Paul Krugman, in his latest book the The Return of Depression Economics argues that the fundamental solution to a financial crisis such as today’s is to drastically increase the money supply. The $350 billion that the Bush administration has pumped into the financial system already seems to have done very little to prime the economic pumps, so to speak. To restore trust, and thus stimulate real spending in the economy once again, creating income, output, and real employment, massive monetary stimulus will be needed. A trillion dollar stimulus package by an Obama administration should not come as a surprise, should it be put to the nation to vote on in the near future.

Our love of money is a little less impassioned than it was a few years ago, according to Ferguson. Not because money no longer serves an essential function in our lives, rather because we have lost much of our faith in our monetary system’s ability to create and maintain stable economic conditions and long-run economic growth. To restore Americans’ faith in the almighty dollar and put the economy back on a track towards stability and growth, a massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is needed. Okay, time to start reading The Ascent of Money and to watch less Comedy Central!

Related posts:

1. The almighty bond market: Niall Ferguson’s concerns about the US deficit explained
2. From the Help Desk: the money multiplier and new money creation
3. “Business Syphillis” – Colbert debates himself on the causes of and the cure for America’s sick economy

In the last three months, the Japanese Yen has appreciated 15% against the US dollar. At the same, the dollar itself has appreciated 25% against the euro.

The appreciation of these two major currencies seems strange in a time when both country’s economies are experiencing major slowdowns. In most cases, currencies appreciate when one of two things happens:

• If foreigners demand more of a country’s exports, demand for its currency drives up its value, causing appreciation.
• If a country’s interest rates rise relative to other country’s, then demand for its currency rises as investors want to buy assets in that country to earn the higher interest rates.

Lately, however, the Yen and the Dollar have seen staggering rises in the absence of rising exports or rising interest rates in Japan or the US. So what IS causing the rapid and drastic appreciation of these two currencies? The Economist newspaper explains:

Many investors have been following a version of the “carry trade”, borrowing money in a low-yielding currency. All they had to do was earn a higher return from assets than the cost of their financing. Since the two big currencies with the lowest yields over the past year have been the dollar and the yen, those were the natural ones to borrow.

When asset prices fall, however, this strategy is disastrous. Investors dash to sell assets and repay their debts. Since those debts were incurred in dollars and yen, that means they have to buy back those two currencies—hence their sharp recent rises.

In the midst of today’s global financial meltdown, it seems that every day, phenomena new to mainstream economic theory are being witnessed. It would seem that from now on, when we learn about the determinants of exchange rates, we may have to take a look at the “carry trade” example.

In this case, it would seem, LOW interest rates combined with falling stock prices can lead to a currency’s appreciation. An investor looking to make a deal would borrow Yen from a Japanese bank charging low interest rates, convert it to, let’s say Brazilian real, to buy stocks in a Brazilian company. As long as the stocks gain value at a rate higher than the interest rate in Japan, the investor is making an easy profit. He can pay back the money he borrowed from Japan at the low interest rate, earn a high return on his investment in Brazil, and pocket the difference.

The problem arises when the value of the assets the investor has bought in Brazil begins to fall. With stock markets plummeting between 20-50% this year in most countries, asset values have fallen through the floor, meaning those investors who borrowed yen to buy foreign assets have rushed to sell the falling assets as quickly as possible to pay back their Japanese lenders before it’s too late. This causes a huge increase in demand for Yen on foreign exchange markets in a very short period, hence the yen’s appreciation.

Recently, the Yen and USD have managed to appreciate for a reason not conventionally understood. The rapid and drastic appreciation of these currencies is further exacerbating the weak aggregate demand in Japan and the US. A strong currency, while good for consumers for whom imports appear cheaper, can have debilitating effect on a country’s export sector. Not surprisingly, both the US Fed and the Japanese central bank have both cut interest rates in the last week in the hope of slowing their currency’s appreciation and protect export demand.

Related posts:

1. “What’s sinking the dollar?” – for IB students
2. What’s got the dollar so weak in the knees?
3. Unforseen consequences of weaker dollar – fewer immigrants!

Wow! What a week for the world economy….stocks down by 4% one day and then up by 4% the next day in response to the uncertainty in the global economy!

In class today we talked about the historical week and how our financial systems & banks are “freezing up”, having difficulty making new loans to households and businesses as the banks are focused on paying off their their own creditors (lenders) who are demanding payment from the banks before they might fail.

And …..along comes the Government to the rescue in our “mixed economy”….lending money to the banks and, in several cases essentially buying the companies! The financial markets (stocks) believe generally that the strong government leadership is needed…not to save the companies…but to save the entire economy from a deep recession! Bad news has a tendency to “freeze up” everyone!

Most economists think the US Government’s Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and Treasury Department have done a pretty good job. 

Here’s a report card for the government out of the Wall Street Journal’s blog:  

      Economists Back Government Moves

As the government’s efforts to save the financial system from impending ruin reached a high-water mark Friday, economists took a step back and offered tentative assessments of the Federal Reserve’s conduct through this year-long crisis.

By and large, they say, the central bank, in conjunction with the Treasury Department, has responded appropriately to an unprecedented stream of crises, and has likely warded off a truly monumental meltdown.

Bernanke

To be sure, it is far from clear that the worst has passed, and much uncertainty surrounds the outlook, particularly given the lack of detail in the government’s sweeping rescue plan. Still, economists say there are plenty of reasons to be hopeful.

“The way the financial markets were heading threatened to create the sort of permanent damage to the financial system we saw in the 1930s,” when the Fed reacted passively to failing banks, said Dana Johnson, chief economist with Comerica.

“To head off the potential damage… it was appropriate to do everything in [the Fed’s] power” to avoid a similar outcome, he said. Johnson views the Fed’s historic initiatives as a “magnificent reaction” to what policy makers have confronted.

Industry group the Business Roundtable said in a statement that Friday’s actions were “appropriate and timely,” and it argued for a “comprehensive” review of the nation’s financial regulatory structure.

Tyler Cowen, an economics professor at George Mason University, said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury’s Henry Paulson “have been making good decisions, relative to a very bad starting place.” Given the nature of the troubles, the two officials started in a “very unfortunate position,” so “it’s very hard to second guess particular decisions,” he said.

One Federal Reserve veteran sees the Fed’s response throughout the crisis as entirely appropriate, but less dramatic than others. Indeed, for CarnegieMellon Tepper School of Business economics professor Marvin Goodfriend, a former Richmond Fed top economist, “the central bank has always had at its disposal two broad policies.”

One is very well known and understood. Monetary policy aims to control inflation and influence growth via the control of short term interest rates, he said. Then there’s the less understood and codified credit policy, which has come into play as the Fed’s extended loans to various parts of the financial system. He reckons officials will need to think about and explain more fully this part of their arsenal, and that illuminating this issue will feature prominently in central banking analysis as the crisis is resolved.

Still, not all are happy with the path charted by the Fed and Treasury. Former St. Louis Fed president and current Cato Institute scholar William Poole said in an interview he believes the Fed did the right thing when it bailed out Bear Stearns last spring and granted an emergency loan to AIG this week, and it was correct in letting investment bank Lehman Brothers go into bankruptcy.

But moves to support the money market funds in a fashion similar to what’s afforded bank deposits, along with mechanisms to gather up and dispose of bad securities — that’s a bad thing, Poole said. He reckons the money market fund support will unnecessarily drive risk-taking in a competitive sector of the market, now that fund managers know their investors will be bailed out in the event of bets gone sour.

But the bigger problem is the plan to buy stricken assets from banks. “The euphoric market reaction to this vague idea doesn’t make that much sense to me,” Poole said. The government will have an extremely difficult time finding appropriate prices for the troubled securities and is likely to be saddled with the absolute dregs of the financial system that will prove very expensive to unload, he said.

“I don’t think it’s possible to do it right,” Poole said, and “when the costs become obvious there will be a whole lot of finger pointing.”

Paulson

Poole also argued it’s entirely possible that the resolution mechanism may not even be needed, and that the recent string of bank failures may well be coming to an end.

Others worried about the risks the Fed’s balance sheet may be facing, although some central bank officials have sought to downplay such fears. They can even point to the $29 billion in securities the Fed acquired as part of the Bear Stearns bailout, which thus far have not lost value.

The American Bankers Association was also negative on the most recent Fed and Treasury actions, saying that they “will undermine the role of banks during this credit crisis and [have] the potential to have an extremely negative impact in the future.”

Still, those views do not appear to hold dominate sway among economists. CarnegieMellon’s Goodfriend said the nation has been “quite fortunate” in having Bernanke at the Fed’s helm, with his academic career so heavily based in understanding the lessons of the Great Depression. “No one could have expected him to do better,” Goodfriend said. –Michael S. Derby

Related posts:

1. European banks struggling – government lubrication needed!
2. The Costs of the Bailout, More Government Debt
3. The Keynesians Strike Back

Federal Reserve sees slow economy, higher prices – Sep. 3, 2008

Weak aggregate demand and rising costs due to still high energy and food prices put the US economy in a tricky situation, one in which the Federal Reserve is forced to make the tough decision between tackling the unemployment problem (jobless rates have risen to 5.7%) or the inflation problem (price levels have also risen 5.7% this year, the highest inflation in 17 years).

The nation struggled with slow economic growth and still-high prices that are weighing on consumers and businesses alike…

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues are all but certain to leave a key interest rate alone at 2% when they meet next on Sept. 16 and probably through the rest of this year.

Given the fragile state of the economy, the Fed isn’t in a hurry to boost rates to fend off creeping inflation. A growing number of analysts believe the economy is likely to hit another dangerous rough patch later this year as consumers and businesses curtail their spending even more.

Heading into the fall, economic activity continued to be slow, the Fed said. Businesses described the climate as “weak” or “soft” or “subdued.”

Consumers, the lifeblood of the economy, showed caution. Shoppers “concentrated on necessary items and retrenchment in discretionary spending,” the Fed observed.

In the short-run, as year 2 IB students know, society faces a trade off between high inflation and high unemployment. Rising prices and rising joblessness are both harmful to the economy, but when energy and food prices drive up the price level, while week investment and consumer spending lead lead to falling overall demand in the economy, the conditions exist where joblessness and prices can rise simultaneously. This is America’s situation at present.

The Fed must chose which problem to address. Ben Bernake, America’s central bank chief, could chose to tackle rising inflation by raising interest rates, which would discourage new investment and reduce demand for resources by firms in the economy. Investment spending by firms and consumption by households would decline, putting downward pressure on prices across the economy.

In the short-run, however, the decline in investment and consumer spending that would result from higher interest rates would exacerbate the already weak level of aggregate demand in the economy, driving unemployment even higher.

By keeping rates low, Bernanke hopes to encourage investment and consumption, which will contribute to overall demand in the economy. By encouraging new spending and investment, however, the threat that inflation will rise even more remains present.

In the trade off between unemployment and inflation, the Republican White House and the Democratic Congress made it clear that unemployment was the most important problem to address when they announced the $160 billion expansionary fiscal stimulus package earlier this year. By keeping rates at a low 2%, America’s central bank is also indicating that increasing employment is of greater importance than lowering the price level.

Discussion questions:

1. Low interest rates are clearly a demand-side policy, since they should lead to higher investement and consumption. But how might lowering interest rates result in positive supply-side effects for the economy?
2. Why do you think increasing employment is of a higher priority to policy-makers than bringing down the inflation rate? Does the fact that it’s an election year matter?
3. “Workers’ wage gains – characterized as ‘modest’ – aren’t raising
   inflation worries. Wary employers have cut jobs every month so far this
   year and aren’t inclined to be overly generous in their compensation to
   workers amid ‘a general pullback in hiring,’ the Fed said. If wages continue to rise even as unemployment rises, is it likely that the US economy will ever “self-correct” from in times of an economic slowdown?
   

Related posts:

1. You can’t always get what you want… the tradeoff between unemployment and inflation
2. Unemployment and inflation: understanding the Fed’s balancing act
3. Facts and the Phillips Curve: new evidence of the short-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation