Small monetary policy question

A small monetary policy question has been bugging me this morning.

The Fed is buying long term bonds and agency debt, with stated desire to drive down long term Treasury and mortgage-backed security rates.

Why does the Fed not simply say "We are going to peg the 10 year Treasury rate at 1.5%. We buy and sell at that price." If the Fed wants the 10 year rate to be, say, 1.5%, then this seems a lot simpler than setting a quantity ($80 billion a month), and then enduring endless arguments with academics like me whether it's having any effect at all, or commissioning complex staff studies to determine whether the impact is 10 or 15 basis points and how long it lasts.

The answers I can come up with are not pretty. Perhaps the Fed understands that any "segmentation" is smaller than it thinks, and doesn't last that long. So, the required bond purchases would rapidly explode in size. If that's the answer, then the Fed isn't doing it so that it can continue to seem powerful when in fact it really is not.

Perhaps it's political. If the Fed can say "we're buying $80 billion a month. This is helping, but we don't know exactly how much," then it avoids responsibility for what the rate actually is. If it says 1.5%, then every car dealer and mortgage broker in the country wants to know, why not 1.4%? This is even more cleverly Macchiavellian. But such deeply political decisions are a long way from the benevolent independent central bank we write about in papers.

Any ideas anyone?  

While we're here, two great quotes from Fed economists (obviously un-named) I've talked to recently.

Me: Aren't you worried about big banks borrowing short and lending long? What happens when, inevitably, interest rates rise?

Economist A: "Don't worry, we'll let them know ahead of time."

This was some time ago. I think last week's announcements that the "stress tests" were (at last) going to include plain - vanilla interest rate risk might count as such warning.

Economist B: "Inflation is just not a concern. The Fed now is balancing growth against financial stability."

A new dual mandate, and a fascinating can of worms. I'd love to see that Phillips curve.

 

Taylor on monetary policy

John Taylor has a lovely little blog post, encapsulating so much in a few sentences. An excerpt with comments (emphasis mine)

...there is a crucial issue which explains much of the enormous difference of opinion between critics and supporters of the Fed’s current policy. Critics such as me and Allan Meltzer ... argue that monetary policy should focus on a clear strategy for the instruments of policy. A goal for inflation or other measures of macro performance is not enough if it is simply part of a whatever-it-takes approach to the instruments. Such an approach results in highly discretionary and unpredictable changes in policy instruments with unintended adverse consequences, as we have been seeing in recent years.

Supporters such as Adam Posen... are just fine with the Fed using, even year after year, a whatever-it-takes approach to the instruments of policy as long as there is an overall goal. With such a goal in mind, so their argument goes, the central bank can and should always intervene in any market, by any amount, over any time frame, with any instrument or program (old or new), and with little concern for unintended consequences in the long run or collateral damage in the short run (say on certain groups of people or markets) as long as it furthers that goal.

Critics are very concerned about those unintended consequences and collateral damage; they are also concerned about an independent government agency wielding such a great deal of power as it carries out a year-after-year whatever-it-takes approach. Supporters are much less concerned.

I have always had this problem with nominal GDP targets, inflation targets, and so forth. Ok, the Fed adopts your target. Now what? If nominal GDP doesn't do what the Fed wants it to do, what should the Fed do about it? Talk more? (Monetary policy is starting to look more and more like foreign policy here).

Taylor points out a deeper danger. The Fed's "mandate," the list of its "goals," keeps expanding. Beyond just inflation and unemployment, now the Fed is in charge of "financial stability," managing "systemic risks," the health of specific markets (mortgages, exports), the health of specific institutions (too big to fail banks), the diagnosis and pricking of bubbles (when not the deliberate stoking of such bubbles), management of the details of every part of financial system (how swaps get traded, for example) and surely coming soon a federal anti-crabgrass mandate.  The list of things the Fed can do in pursuit of these goals is getting bigger and bigger too, while the power of its conventional instruments (setting short rates, quantiative easing) is diminishing.  If the Fed doesn't think banks are lending enough, and to the right people, in pursuit of one of its many goals, what stops them from using their regulatory power to just go tell the banks who they should lend to?

We have told the Fed to attain unattainable goals, and given it great power to do "whatever it takes" in their pursuit.  The Fed seems to go along. It's fun to be given so much power, in the short run at least.  But in a democracy, the price of great independence must be limited power, and the Fed will soon have to choose. Congress already limited some of the Fed's powers after some "whatever it takes" of the financial crisis.

Taylor, of course, would like the Fed limited to the instrument of short-term rates, and to follow the Taylor "rule" for setting them. But the principle is larger than that instance.

Alternative Maximum Tax

This is an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal, original here on April 15 2013

Source: Wall Street Jouirnal

They keep coming back, like the villains of a good zombie movie, chanting "more taxes, more taxes." Long ago, Congress passed the alternative minimum tax, or AMT—a simple flat rate to ensure that in an insanely complex tax code, no one escapes paying something. Now we need an alternative maximum tax as a simple, rough-and-ready way to limit the tax zombies' economic damage. Call it the AMaxT.

With Monday's deadline for filing tax returns looming, let's start a national conversation: How much is the most anyone should have to pay? When do taxes indisputably start to harm the economy and produce less revenue—when government takes 50% of people's income? 60%? 70%?

I like half, but the principle matters more than the number. Once the country settles on a number, each of us gets to add up everything we pay to government at every level: federal income taxes, yes, but also payroll (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) taxes, state, city and county taxes, estate taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes and unemployment insurance for nannies, household workers, or other employees, excise taxes, real-estate transfer taxes, and so on and on, right down to your vehicle stickers and those annoying extra taxes on your airline tickets.

On April 15, once this total hits the alternative maximum tax, you've done your bit and federal income taxes can take no more. You compute federal income taxes as usual, but then you get to reduce the "tax due" that the total is less than the alternative maximum.

What the IMF consideres macro

Via Greg Mankiw's blog, I learned about the IMF conference on "Rethinking Macro Policy." See the announcement and program here. I reproduce the program below.

I find this most striking as a reflection on what the IMF considers "macro." Yes, they have the whole spectrum, indeed, all the way from  Geroge Akerlof and Joe Stiglitz on the far left end of traditional Keynesian economics, to... Olivier Blanchard and David Romer on the pretty-far left end of somewhat new-Keynesian economics?

Debt and growth in 10 minutes

This is a short video from last year. I only just found out it exists. It still seems pretty topical, and (for once) condensed because Lars Hansen really forced me to obey the 10 minute time limit!

There is a better link here from the BFI page here that covers the whole event, but I couldn't figure out how to embed those.

Energy Idiocy

What is it about energy that send all sides of the political spectrum into spasms of babbling idiocy? Here are two items heard on my jog yesterday, courtesy of NPR, one from the right, one from the left, with the NPR interviewers mindlessly accepting idiocy in the middle.

Start with NPR's coverage of Gina McCarthy's Senate confirmation hearings. The issue is the EPAs efforts to close down coal-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions

Interest rate graphs

Where are interest rates going? Here are two fun graphs I made, for a talk I gave Tuesday at Grant's spring conference, on this question. (Full slide deck here or from link on my webpage here)

Here is a graph of the recent history of interest rates. (These are constant maturity Treasury yields from the Fed)  You can see the pattern:

Fun debt graphs

I was having a bit of fun making graphs for a talk. Are we all fine and debt is no longer a problem? I went back for a closer look at the CBO's long term budget outlook and The budget and economic outlook 2013 to 2023. All numbers from these sources.

Growth in the UK?

I thought European "austerity," meaning mostly large increases in marginal tax rates on anyone daring  to work, save, invest, start a company or hire people, while spending stays north of 50% of GDP, was a pretty bad idea.

So I was glad to read the tiltle, when a friend sent me a link to the Telegraph, announcing Osborne to unleash raft of policies to kick-start growth. Great, I thought, after trying everything else, the British will finally try the one thing that will work.

The fair price of catfish in Vietnam

Source: Wikipedia

Another fish story.  In recent news, our Federal Government is now taking on the "fair price" of catfish in Vietnam, and imposing large "anti-dumping" tariffs. Can the price of tea in China be far away?

Lovers of free markets and free trade, this is for you. Fry it with a little hot sauce.

Capital not a lost cause?

Admati and Hellwig (my review here) (and fellow travelers) may be having some effect! From today's WSJ "Heard on the Street":

There is growing talk among regulators, for example, of forcing banks to issue a minimum amount of long-term debt, cap the size of their short-term liabilities or restrict activities that can be conducted within regulated bank subsidiaries.

At the same time, regulators seem to be focusing more on the need to pre-emptively address potential systemic risks.

Any such moves could further constrain banks' ability to juice returns through leverage while also limiting lucrative activities that fall outside a traditional lending function. That could subdue earnings growth already hampered by the superlow interest-rate environment.

The danger isn't lost on banks themselves. A number of banking groups recently joined together in a public attempt to rebut notions of a big-bank borrowing subsidy.”

OK, 3 out of 4 ain't bad. Admati and Hellwig (and I) take a dim view of asset risk regulation and the chance that regulators have any hope of seeing bubbles emerge. But more capital, and more people understanding that leverage and TBTF is a subsidy to banks, so banks are forced to fight about it... that's progress.

GMO Salmon

Source: http://www.aquabounty.com

This weekend's New York Times brought the interesting story of AquaBounty's genetically modified salmon, which are genetically engineered to grow twice as fast as normal Salmon. A few choice bits:

"In 1993, the company approached the Food and Drug Administration about selling a genetically modified salmon that grew faster than normal fish. In 1995, AquaBounty formally applied for approval. Last month, more than 17 years later, the public comment period...was finally supposed to conclude. But the F.D.A. has extended the deadline...

Appropriately, it has been subjected to rigorous reviews... scientists, including the F.D.A.’s experts, have concluded that the fish is just as safe to eat as conventional salmon and that, raised in isolated tanks, it poses little risk to wild populations.

Why the delay?

Taxation of capital and labor

"Redistributing from Capital to Workers: An Impossibility Theorem" is a fine post by Garrett Jones on Econlog, explaining the theorem that the optimal tax on capital is zero. It's the best blog-post length, evenhanded, accessible summary I've seen. It includes all sorts of links where you can see arguments in detail, an unusually scholarly approach for a blog post.

His one-sentence summary

 Under standard, pretty flexible assumptions, it's impossible to tax capitalists, give the money to workers, and raise the total long-run income of workers. Not, hard, not inefficient, not socially wasteful, not immoral: Impossible.

Crunch time

David Greenalw, Jim Hamilton, Peter Hooper and Rick Mishkin have a nice op-ed in the Wall Street Journal summarizing their recent paper, Crunch Time: Fiscal Crises and the Role of Monetary Policy, (The link goes to from Jim's website there is also an executive summary.)

David, Jim, Peter and Rick are after the same question in my last WSJ oped and Blog post: Suppose the Fed wants to raise interest rates with a huge debt outstanding. With, say, $18 trillion outstanding, raising interest rates to 5% means raising the deficit by $900 billion a year. That's real fiscal resources. In a present value sense, monetary tightening costs someone $900 billion a year of taxes.  There is no chance that current tax revenues can go up that much, or current spending can go down that much. So, raising interest rates to 5% with a lot of debt outstanding means we will borrow it, the debt will grow $900 billion a year faster, and the larger taxes /lower spending will come someday in the far off future.

Or maybe not. David,  Jim, Peter and Rick delve in to the "tipping point" I alluded to.

Countries with high debt loads are vulnerable to an adverse feedback loop in which doubts by lenders about fiscal sustainability lead to higher government bond rates, which in turn make debt problems more severe.

Comic of the day

Greg Mankiw posted this lovely "comic of the day." He called it "not completely fair." I'm not sure what he meant.

Perhaps it's in need of a better caption. To be fair to Keynesian economics, perhaps the caption should continue,

"When you're done, another half a box will magically appear on the wall." 

Maybe this is a good time for a cartoon caption contest!

Monetary policy with large debts

This is a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, March 4 2013. They titled it "Treasury needs a better long game," but the most important question is whether the Fed can keep any independence, if 5% interest rates will cause $900 billion interest costs. There is a pdf version of the oped on my webpage. 


Sooner or later, the Federal Reserve will want to raise interest rates. Maybe next year. Maybe when unemployment declines below 6.5%. Maybe when inflation creeps up to 3%. But it will happen.

Can the Fed tighten without shedding much of the record $3 trillion of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities on its balance sheet, and soaking up $2 trillion of excess reserves? Yes. The Fed can easily raise short-term interest rates by changing the rate it pays banks on reserves and the discount rate at which it lends.

But this comforting thought leaves out a vital consideration: Monetary policy depends on fiscal policy in an era of large debts and deficits. Suppose that the Fed raises interest rates to 5% over the next few years. This is a reversion to normal, not a big tightening. Yet with $18 trillion of debt outstanding, the federal government will have to pay $900 billion more in annual interest.

Will Congress and the public really agree to spend $900 billion a year for monetary tightening? Or will Congress simply command the Fed to keep down interest payments, as it did after World War II, reasoning that "Fed independence" isn't worth that huge sum of money?

The banker's new clothes -- review

I wrote a review of Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig's nice new book, "The banker's new clothes" for the March 2 2103 Wall Street Journal.

Bottom line: Banks should issue a lot more equity, a lot less debt, especially short term debt, and a heck of a lot less nonsense.

I admire Anat and Martin. The rest of us read the gobbledygook in the newspapers, chuckle at the faculty lunch -- "Ha ha, xyz is CEO of a huge bank and has never heard of Modigliani-Miller! Ha Ha -- pdq is a senior regulator, and doesn't know the difference between capital and reserves!" -- and then we go about our business. Anat and Martin have admirably taken the bull by the horns. They write opeds, they go to interminable banking policy conferences, they fight it out with bigwig bankers, regulators, and their consultant economists, and endure their scorn. This nice book summarizes their arguments very clearly (without the foaming at the mouth ranting and raving that I would have had a hard time avoiding in their place!)

(Links: This review at the Wall Street Journal (html), in a pdf from my webpage. Admati and Hellwig have a book website with lots of extra material and response to critics.)

Enough preamble. The review: 

Four and a half years ago, the large commercial banks nearly failed, inaugurating our great recession. They were saved by the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Federal Reserve lending and other government support. If you think all that was bad, imagine the ATMs going dark. What has been done to avoid a repetition of these events? Sadly, and despite all the noise you hear about bank regulation, not much.

The central problem, at the core of Anat Admati and Martin Hellwig's "The Bankers' New Clothes," is capital.

Limited clairvoyance

The current approach to financial and banking regulation relies a lot on the idea that our now-wise regulators, armed with new powers and the tens of thousands of pages of Dodd-Frank regulations, really will see trouble around the corner next time and do something about it. If only they had more power back then....And of course even conventional macro policy chat revolves around wise heads of the Fed, IMF, ECB, and so on spotting "global imbalances," pricking "bubbles," "coordinating policies" and otherwise guiding the ships of state.

In this context, a lovely little piece at "The American" AEI's online magazine, caught my eye, Alex Pollock's "The housing Bubble and the Limits of Human Knowledge"

An excerpt:

Consider the lessons of the following 10 quotations:

1. About whether Fannie and Freddie’s debt was backed by the government: “There is no guarantee. There’s no explicit guarantee. There’s no implicit guarantee. There’s no wink-and-nod guarantee. Invest and you’re on your own.” — Barney Frank, senior Democratic congressman, notable Fannie supporter, later chairman of the House Financial Services Committee

It would be difficult to imagine a statement more wrong.

Two cents on the minimum wage

Once upon a time, the minimum wage, like free trade, was a basic test of whether you were awake in the first week of econ 1. We put a horizontal line in a supply and demand graph. Minimum wages increase unemployment of poor people.

It's  back of course. I won't review here the debate over Card and Kruger's provocative results, diff in diff estimators, empirical work without theory (is there really no substitution to capital or high skilled labor? Is the price elasticity really zero?) and so on. This is all low-hanging fruit. (See Greg Mankiw, who asks if $9 why not $20,  David Henderson's nice post with great quotes from Paul Krugman on just how bad minimum wages were before evil Republicans didn't like them, the Becker-Posner Blog, and Ed Glaeser, noting how minimum wages are hidden taxing and spending and better ways to achieve the same goals, and this clever Steve Chapman oped asking, why not fix prices lower instead?.)

Let's presume for the sake of discussion that a rise in the minimum wage would indeed not much change the demand for labor, the costs would just be passed on in the form of somewhat higher prices, with little decline in output -- as usual in non-economics, assume that all elasticities vanish.

It still strikes me, that like much of the current policy discussion, we're asking the wrong question. The question is not "is this great" or "is this terrible" but "does this have anything to do with current problems?"  The fiddling while Rome burns is worse here than the belief in minor economic magic.

Bloomberg TV on debt and magic

I did a short interview on Bloomberg TV this morning. Nothing new for readers of this blog, but fun anyway. Coffee just starting to kick in at 6:15 AM. As always, walking home I figured out 10 better ways to answer.