Week's sad news

In the  quest to understand just how much the administrative state is harming economic activity, there are lots of anecdotes but few overall measures. But we have lots of anectdotes. I thought it would be fun to put together a week's worth from my morning-coffee WSJ reading.

Tuesday: The Labor Department issues a new "persuader rule"

Lost Jobs in Recessions

The WSJ has a nice article showing just how hard it has been for many people who lost jobs in the recession to get back to work. Their profile is typical of what I have read and not the typical picture of unemployment: Middle age middle managers. The paper by Steve Davis and Till von Wachter is here. They present the fact largely as a puzzle, which it is:  "losses in the model vary little with aggregate conditions at the time of displacement, unlike the pattern in the data."

As the story makes clear, the problem is really not unemployment. There are lots of jobs available. The jobs just don't pay much, and don't use the specialized skills that the workers have to offer. The problem is wages at the jobs they can get.

This is a very interesting fact, with many less than obvious interpretations. It strikes me as a good teaching moment for economics classes.

The natural interpretation of all correlations is causal: There are  two identical workers in two identical jobs at two identical companies. One worker happened to lose his or her job in a recession, and so faces a harder climb back. We learn about the difference in job markets over time.

Maybe, but the job of being an economist is to recognize lots of other possibilities for a correlation. So the proposed discussion question: what else might this mean? How does taking averages reflect selection rather than cause?

Perhaps not all workers are the same. The conventional view of recessions is that companies fire people from lack of "aggregate demand," or shocks external to the firm.  In good times, companies fire people when those people aren't very good. Then, you would think, being laid off in a recession is better than being laid off in good times. If you're laid off in good times that is a signal you're not a great worker. In a recession, everybody got laid off, so there is not any particular stigma in it.  Well, so much for that story.

A contrary story is that it's easier to get rid of people in a recession. The head of a large business once told me how useful the last recession was, as he could plead financial problems and finally get rid of the army of unionized workers that were playing solitaire all day. Guido Menzio  and Mikhail Golosov have a model that (I think!) formalizes this story. (Menzio was recently in the news, as an idiot fellow passenger thought he was a terrorist because he was doing algebra on a plane, a different sad commentary on contemporary America.)

Perhaps not all businesses are the same. Businesses and occupations that get hit in recessions are different from those that get hit in booms...

Perhaps times are not the same. Recessions are pretty much by definition a time when different sorts of shocks hit the economy. If recession shocks require bigger changes in specialized human capital than normal-times (more idosyncratic shocks), or people to move industries and cities more, then you'll see this pattern.

And so on. Interesting facts, not so obvious interpretations, averages that don't always mean what you think they mean, that's why economics is so fun.

Update:  Steve Davis writes to explain that job losses in recessions are concentrated in specific industries:

You write: "...If recession shocks require bigger changes in specialized human capital than normal-times (more idiosyncratic shocks), or people to move industries and cities more, then you'll see this pattern.” 

Here’s a modified version of this story that has more promise in my view.  First, an under appreciated empirical observation: The cross-industry (cross-firm, cross-establishment) distribution of employment growth rates becomes more negatively skewed in recessionary periods.  Job loss is also concentrated in industries (firms, establishments) that experience relatively large net and gross job destruction rates.  Taken together, these two observations tell us that, in recessions, a larger share of job losers hail from industries (firms, establishments) that get hit by especially large negative shocks (even compared to the average), reducing the value of skills utilized by workers in those industries (firms, establishments).  I conjecture that negative skewness in the cross-occupation distribution of employment growth rates is also counter cyclical, but I don’t recall any direct and convincing evidence on that score. 

Restating, the setting in which job loss occurs worsens for the average job loser in recessions, because (1) overall economic conditions worsen in recessions, AND (2) conditions worsen especially for industries (occupations, etc.) with a disproportionate share of job loss. Many models consider the effects of (1), but there is little work on (2).  Testing hypotheses and building theories related to (2) requires good measures of the individual-specific “setting” in which individual job losses occur.  One of my PhD students, Claudia Macaluso, is making good progress on that front in her dissertation.

William Carrington and Bruce Fallick have a review paper on why earnings fall with job displacement.

McArdle Nugget

Megan McArdle has produced a timely nugget of wise prose

I would cross income inequality itself off the list of priorities. Far greater concerns include: absolute suffering among those with low incomes; a socioeconomic structure that seems to be ossifying into a hierarchy of professional classes; and a decline in income mobility, which is to say, in equality of opportunity. It doesn’t really matter whether Bill Gates has some incomprehensible sum of money at his disposal. It does matter a great deal whether there are Americans in desperate want. And of course, it matters whether anyone with the aptitude and motivation can become the next Bill Gates, or only a handful of privileged people who are already well off.

I also submit that the importance of the issue is inversely proportionate to the ease of solution. The government is very good at taxing income of some Americans and writing checks to others. (Whether you think it should do this is, of course, a different question.)

[JC: Actually, I'm not so sure the government is very good at this. Our tax code is a mess. Our income transfers largely go to middle class and well connected businesses. Our system of writing checks includes numerous 100% + marginal tax rates and other disincentives. Despite the one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet, there are still schizophrenics on the streets.]

It is very bad at preparing someone to live a solid and fulfilling life of work and community, which is one reason we mostly leave that job to parents.

Government is also not well suited to creating a lot of satisfying and remunerative jobs. It can contribute to productivity and help companies to flourish, for example through basic research and by maintaining a competent legal and regulatory system. And it can directly create a few jobs providing government services; these have been, for many communities at many times, a stepping stone to the middle class.

... For the most part, the best the government can do is to avoid stepping on the creation of satisfying and remunerative jobs; no nation on earth seems to have figured out how to generate “good jobs” for everyone. 

[JC: I think she means no government on earth.. "nations" have figured it out!]

Regulations and Growth

Bentley Coffey, Patrick McLaughlin, and Pietro Peretto have an interesting new paper on The Cumulative Cost of Regulations. They attack two of the big problems in quantifying the effect of regulations on the economy.

First, measurement. To get past regulatory horror stories,  just how do we measure the problem? They use the Mercatus Center's new RegData database, which is based on textual analysis of the Federal Register.

Second, functional form. How should we relate regulations to output? Here they use a detailed industry growth model. You may object, as to any model, but at least the mechanisms are explicit and you can choose different ones if you want. (I haven't plowed through all the equations, and am interested to hear comments from those of you who have.)

Third, estimation. They use the variation in industry outcomes related to differential regulation of those industries to estimate the  effects of regulation on investment.

The bottom line is pretty startling:

Economic growth in the United States has, on average, been slowed by 0.8 percent per year since 1980 owing to the cumulative effects of regulation:

If regulation had been held constant at levels observed in 1980, the US economy would have been about 25 percent larger than it actually was as of 2012.

This means that in 2012, the economy was $4 trillion smaller than it would have been in the absence of regulatory growth since 1980. This amounts to a loss of approximately $13,000 per capita,...

 A graphical summary:

(It's interesting that the standard errors are so weighted to the up side. I checked with the authors, this is indeed how the distributions of uncertainty work out in their estimation.)

I also found this nice graph from Chad Jones,

Chad's graph differs from mine for a few reasons. First, his index of "social infrastructure" from the world bank is more comprehensive, including Accountability of politicians, Political stability, Government effectiveness, Regulatory quality, Rule of law, Control of corruption. Second, he has total factor productivity on the Y axis. The vertical axis is a log scale, so read carefully. 1.6 (Singapore) is a lot more than 1.0, though they are compressed on the graph.

Bond Swap

The U.S. Treasury debates new-for-old bond swap, reports FT. The Treasury will issue more of the popular 10 year bonds, and then buy them back at some point before they mature.

The idea is to make treasury markets more uniform and liquid. Once bonds get several years old, they tend to sit in proverbial sock drawers, and they're harder to buy and sell (they are "off the run.") To the extent that this illiquidity lowers their value, the Treasury can buy them back cheaper.

“By buying cheap issues and funding the buybacks with issuance of rich on-the-run securities, the Treasury could enhance liquidity in these issues, while decreasing its borrowing costs,”

There is a lot of writing about "safe" and "liquid" asset shortages, so issuing more of a few popular issues and leaving less outstanding otherwise is beneficial to markets.

Comment.  I like the idea, but I think the Treasury should go further. Coincidentally, I just happen to have recently written an article called "A new structure for U.S. Federal Debt" that explains it all in detail.

When you think about it, the treasury ends up in a strange place. Why would you constantly issue 10 year debt, and then buy it all back when it's (say) 8 year debt? What is the question that this structure solves? (Other than the desire of dealer banks to double their earnings on buying and selling treasury securities!)  

My proposal is simpler: Issue perpetuities. These securities pay $1 coupon forever. Buy these back, not on a regular schedule, but when (!) the day of surpluses comes that the government wants to pay down the debt. Then there is one issue, with market depth in the trillions, and the whole on the run vs. off the run phenomenon disappears. I hope the Treasury will someday at least try selling some perpetuities.

Art

Sally Fama Cochrane on Painting Allegories of the Body By Milene Fernandez, Epoch Times | May 5, 2016

Sally Fama Cochrane paints at Grand Central Atelier in New York on April 8, 2016. (Benjamin Chasteen/Epoch Times)

NEW YORK—When she paints, Sally Fama Cochrane dives into the chasm between invisible and visible worlds—between the inside and the outside of the body, between numbers and emotions, between cold analysis and comforting storytelling. While some old masters painted allegories of time, wisdom, faith, and themes imbued with Greek mythology or religious morals, Cochrane creates her own allegories inspired by a predominant paradigm of this century—science and medicine....

Painting by Sally Fama Cochrane, “The Organic Body,” oil on panel, 12 by 36 inches, 2015. (Courtesy of Sally Fama Cochrane)

The rest of the story (with pictures and paintings.)  Sally's web page with lots of her art. The exhibition (Grand Central Atelier, Long Island City). Sally and Devin's still life painting workshop.

Ok, this has nothing to do with economics, and it's blatant nepotism from a proud dad. But it's fun, you need something to avoid getting to work on a Monday morning,  and the art is really cool.

Global Imbalances

I gave some comments on “Global Imbalances and Currency Wars at the ZLB,” by Ricardo J. Caballero, Emmanuel Farhi, and Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas at the conference, “International Monetary Stability: Past, Present and Future”, Hoover Institution, May 5 2016. My comments are here, the paper is here 

The paper is a very clever and detailed model of "Global Imbalances," "Safe asset shortages" and the zero bound. A country's inability to "produce safe assets" spills, at the zero bound, across to output fluctuations around the world. I disagree with just about everything, and outline an alternative world view.

A quick overview:

Why are interest rates so low? Pierre-Olivier & Co.: countries can't  “produce safe stores of value”
This is entirely a financial friction. Real investment opportunities are unchanged. Economies can’t “produce” enough pieces of paper. Me: Productivity is low, so marginal product of capital is low.

Why is growth so low? Pierre-Olivier: The Zero Lower Bound is a "tipping point." Above the ZLB, things are fine. Below ZLB, the extra saving from above drives output gaps. It's all gaps, demand. Me: Productivity is low, interest rates are low, so output and output growth are low.

Data: I Don't see a big change in dynamics at and before the ZLB. If anything, things are more stable now that central banks are stuck at zero. Too slow, but stable.  Gaps and unemployment are down. It's not "demand" anymore.

Delong and Logarithms

Brad Delong posted a response to my oped on growth  in the Wall Street Journal. He took issue with my graph, reproduced here,

by making his own graph, here

He characterizes the difference between our graphs with his usual gentlemanly restraint,

"Extraordinarily Unprofessional!!:" "total idiocy" The University of Chicago and the Wall Street Journal Have Very Serious Intellectual Quality Control Problems

and so forth.

If you read Brad, you may wonder what skulduggery I used to make the plot. I will now reveal the dark secret. It's a clever Chicago-school mathematical trick:

Logarithms.

Central Bank Governance and Oversight Reform

The Hoover Institution Press just published "Central Bank Governance and Oversight Reform," the collected volume of papers, comments, and discussion from last May's conference here by the same name. You can get the  book or e-book here at the Hoover press or here at amazon.com. The individual chapter pdfs are available here.  Press release here.

(My modest contributions are in the preface and a discussion of Paul Tucker's Chapter 1. I agree it would be nice to have a more rule-based approach to lender of last resort and bailout functions, but wouldn't lots of equity so you don't have to mop up so often be even better?)

This is part of an emerging series of monetary policy conferences at Hoover. Tomorrow we will have a conference on international monetary policy. Stay tuned...

Growth Interview

I did a short interview with the WSJ's Mary Kissel about my growth oped. If you can't see the embed above, try this direct link or this one. 

WSJ Growth Oped

I did an oped on growth in the Wall Street Journal, titled "Ending America’s Slow-Growth Tailspin." I'll post the full thing here in 30 days.

Blog readers will recognize a distilled version of my longer essay on growth (blog post here, html here,   pdf here), and the graph from Smith v. Jones blog post. I think out loud. The growth essay is much more detailed on diagnosis and especially on policy.

There are three basic ideas (two too many for a good oped).

1) Growth is everything. Increasing growth will do way more for every problem you can name than anything else on the economic agenda. Even if workers in 1910 could have taken all of Rockefeller's wealth, they would have been disastrously poor compared to today.

2) Can policies actually improve growth? The tut-tutters mocked Jeb Bush's 4% aspiration. I outline the "we've run out of ideas" school of thought, most recently in Bob Gordon's thoughtful book; the "everything is right but the zero bound" secular-staglation school, and the view that the growth giant is being held back by a liliputian army of politicized regulators.

As evidence,  I improved on the graph from an earlier post of the World Bank's ease of doing business score vs. GDP per capita,

Equity-financed banking

My dream of equity-financed banking may be coming true under our noses. In "the Uberization of banking" Andy Kessler at the WSJ reports on SoFi, a "fintech" company. The article is mostly about the human-interest story of its co-founder Mike Cagney. But the interspersed economics are interesting.

SoFi started by making student loans to Stanford MBAs, after figuring out that the default rate on such loans is basically zero. It

has since expanded to student loans more generally and added mortgages, personal loans and wealth management. Mr. Cagney says SoFi has done 150,000 loans totaling $10 billion and is currently at a $1 billion monthly loan-origination rate. 

Where does the money come from?

SoFi doesn’t take deposits, so it’s FDIC-free. ... Instead, SoFi raises money for its loans, most recently $1 billion from SoftBank and the hedge fund Third Point, in exchange for about a quarter of the company. SoFi uses this expanded balance sheet to make loans and then securitize many of them to sell them off to investors so it can make more loans

Just to bash the point home, consider what this means:

• A "bank" (in the economic, not legal sense) can finance loans, raising money essentially all from equity and no conventional debt. And it can offer competitive borrowing rates -- the supposedly too-high "cost of equity" is illusory.
   
• There is no necessary link between the business of taking and servicing deposits and that of making loans. Banks need not (try to) "transform" maturity or risk.
   
• To the extent that the bank wants to boost up the risk and return of its equity, it can do so by securitizing loans rather than by borrowing. (Securitized loans are not leverage -- there is no promise of your money back when you want it. Investors bear any losses immediately and without recourse.)
   
• Equity-financed banking can emerge without new regulations, or a big new Policy Initiative.  It's enough to have relief from old regulations ("FDIC-free").
   
• Since it makes no fixed-value promises, this structure is essentially run free and can't cause or contribute to a financial crisis. 

Macro Musing Podcast

I did a podcast with David Beckworth, in his "macro musings" series, on the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level, blogging, and a few other things.



(you should see the link above, if not click here to return to the original).

You can also get the podcast at Sound Cloud, along with all the other ones he has done so far, or on itunes here.  For more information, see David's post on the podcast.

Blinder on Trade

Alan Blinder has an excellent op-ed in the WSJ on trade. It's hard to excerpt as every bit is good.

1. Most job losses are not due to international trade. Every month roughly five million new jobs are created in the U.S. and almost that many are destroyed, leaving a small net increment. International trade accounts for only a minor share of that staggering job churn. ...

2. Trade is more about efficiency—and hence wages—than about the number of jobs. You probably don’t sew your own clothes or grow your own food. Instead, you buy these things from others, using the wages you earn doing something you do better.  ...

3. Bilateral trade imbalances are inevitable and mostly uninteresting. Each month I run a trade deficit with Public Service Electric & Gas. They sell me gas and electricity; I sell them nothing....

4. Running an overall trade deficit does not make us “losers.”...

5. Trade agreements barely affect a nation’s trade balance. ..a nation’s overall trade balance is determined by its domestic decisions, not by trade deals... America’s chronic trade deficits stem from the dollar’s international role and from Americans’ decisions not to save much, not from trade deals. Trade deficits are not a major cause of either job losses or job gains. ...trade makes American workers more productive and, presumably, better paid.

One could say much more. Trade is not a "competition," for example. But,  having done this sort of thing, I'm sure lots of other good bits are on the cutting room floor.

Alan is more sympathetic to government "help" to trade losers, which I agree sounds nice if it were run by the benevolent and omniscient transfer payment planner, but I think works out poorly in practice when we look at the success or failure of actual trade adjustment programs. But that is a small nitpick.

Alan closes by wishing that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump understood these simple facts a bit better. I think his list of politicians needing enlightenment could be a little longer. But he's courageous enough for speaking the kind of heretical truth that will come back to haunt him should he ever want a government job.

Lessons Learned I

I spent last week traveling and giving talks. I always learn a lot from this. One insight I got:  Real interest rates are really important in making sense of fiscal policy and inflation.

Harald Uhlig got me thinking again about fiscal policy and inflation, in his skeptical comments on the fiscal theory discussion, available here. At left, two of his graphs, asking pointedly one of the standard questions about the fiscal theory: Ok, then, what about Japan? (And Europe and the US, too, in similar situations. If you don't see the graphs or equations, come to the original.) This question came up several times and I had the benefit of several creative seminar participants views.

The fiscal theory says
 \[ \frac{B_{t-1}}{P_t} = E_t \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{R_{t,t+j}} s_{t+j} \]
 where \(B\) is nominal debt, \(P\) is the price level, \(R_{t,t+j}\) is the discount rate or real return on government bonds between \( t\) and \(t+j\) and \(s\) are real primary (excluding interest payments) government surpluses. Nominal debt \(B_{t-1}\) is exploding. Surpluses \(s_{t+j}\) are nonexistent -- all our governments are running eternal deficits, and forecasts for long-term fiscal policy are equally dire, with aging populations, slow growth, and exploding social welfare promises. So, asks Harald, where is the huge inflation?

I've sputtered on this one before. Of course the equation holds in any model; it's an identity with \(R\) equal to the real return on government debt; fiscal theory is about the mechanism rather than the equation itself. Sure, markets seem to have faith that rather than a grand global sovereign default via inflation, bondholders seem to have faith that eventually governments will wake up and do the right thing about primary surpluses \(s\). And so forth. But that's not very convincing.

This all leaves out the remaining letter: \(R\). We live in a time of extraordinarily low real interest rates. Lower real rates raise the real value surpluses s. So in the fiscal theory, other things the same, lower real rates are a deflationary force.

Chari and Kehoe on Bailouts

V. V. Chari and Pat Kehoe have a very nice article on bank reform, "A Proposal to Eliminate the Distortions Caused by Bailouts," backed up by a serious academic paper.

Their bottom line proposal is a limit on debt to equity ratios, rising with size. This is, I think, a close cousin to my view that a Pigouvian tax on debt could substitute for much of our regulation.

Banks pose a classic moral hazard problem. In a financial crisis, governments are tempted to bail out bank creditors. Knowing they will do so, bankers take too much risk and people lend to too risky banks. The riskier the bank, the stronger the governments' temptation to bail it out ex-post.

Chari and Pat write with a beautifully disciplined economic perspective: Don't argue about transfers, as rhetorically and politically effective as that might be, but identify the distortion and the resulting inefficiency. Who cares about bailouts? Well, taxpayers obviously. But economists shouldn't worry primarily about this as a transfer. The economic problem is the distortion that higher tax rates impose on the economy. Second, there is a subsidy distortion that bailed out firms and creditors expand at the expense of other, more profitable activities. Third there is a debt and size distortion. Since debt is bailed out but not equity, we get more debt, and the banks who can get bailouts become inefficiently large.

A better living will

"US rejects 'living wills' of 5 banks," from FT. WSJ puts this event in the larger story of Dodd Frank unraveling. Juicy quotes:

WSJ: “living wills,” ... are supposed to show in detail how these banking titans, in the event of failure, could be placed into bankruptcy without wrecking the financial system.

FT:...the shortcomings varied by bank but included flawed computer models; inadequate estimates of liquidity needs; questionable assumptions about the capital required to be wound up; and unacceptable judgments on when to enter banktruptcy.

FT: David Hirschmann of the US Chamber of Commerce, the biggest business lobby, said the living wills process was “broken”. “When you can’t comply no matter how much money you put into legitimately trying to comply, maybe it’s time to ask: did we get the test wrong?” he said.

WSJ: Six years after the law was passed, and eight years since the financial crisis, regulators given broad authority to remake American finance, with thousands of regulatory officials on their payroll, cannot figure out a system to allow financial giants to fail, even in theory. What are we paying these people for?

It seems like a good moment to revisit an idea buried deep in "Toward a run-free financial system."  How could we structure banks to fail transparently?

MetLife

What does "systemically important" mean? How can an institution, per se, be "systemically important?"  The WSJ coverage of Judge Rosemary Collyer’s decision rescinding MetLife’s designation as a "systemically important financial institution:" gives an interesting clue to how our regulators' thinking is evolving on this issue:

The [Financial Stability Oversight] council argued — bromide alert — that “contagion can result when relatively modest direct, individual losses cause financial institutions with widely dispersed exposures to actively manage their balance sheets in a way that destabilizes markets.”

It's not a bromide. It is a revealing capsule of how the FSOC headed by Treasury thinks about this issue.

NBER AP

On Friday I attended the NBER Asset Pricing meeting (program here) in Chicago, organized by Adrien Verdelhan and Debby Lucas. The papers were unusually interesting, even by the high standards of this meeting. Alas the NBER doesn't post slides so I don't have great visuals to show you.

Next Steps for FTPL

Last Friday April 1, Eric Leeper Tom Coleman and I organized a conference at the Becker-Friedman Institute,  "Next Steps for the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level." Follow the link for the whole agenda, slides, and papers.

The theoretical controversies are behind us. But how do we use the fiscal theory, to understand historical episodes, data, policy, and policy regimes? The idea of the conference was to get together and help each other to map out this the agenda. The day started with history, moved on to monetary policy, and then to international issues.

A common theme was various forms of price-related fiscal rules, fiscal analogues to the Taylor rule of monetary policy. In a simple form, suppose primary surpluses rise with the price level, as
\[ b_t = \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \beta^j \left( s_{0,t+j} + s_1 (P_{t+j} - P^\ast) \right) \]
where \(b_t\) is the real value of debt, \(s_{0,t}\) is a sequence of primary surpluses budgeted to pay off that debt, \(P^\ast\) is a price-level target and \(P_t\) is the price level. \(b_t\) can be real or nominal debt \( b_{t}= B_{t-1}/P_t\), but I write it as real debt to emphasize the point: This equation too can determine price levels \(P_t\). If inflation rises, the government raises taxes or cuts spending to soak up extra money. If inflation declines, the government does the opposite, putting extra money and debt in the economy but in a way that does not trigger higher future surpluses, so it does push up prices.

(Note: this post has embedded figures and mathjax equations. If the last paragraph is garbled or you don't see graphs below, go here.)

That idea surfaced in many of the papers.