Tag: fed

From Jekyll to Hyde: Exploring the Dual Nature of Finance | The Bankers’ Club w/ Prof. Gerald Epstein – EP226

Post author By Alec Krishna
Post date February 10, 2024
No Comments on From Jekyll to Hyde: Exploring the Dual Nature of Finance | The Bankers’ Club w/ Prof. Gerald Epstein – EP226

Show host Gene Tunny interviews UMass Amherst Professor Gerald Epstein about his new book “Busting the Bankers’ Club”, which is about the powerful influence of banks in politics and regulation. Epstein argues the bankers’ club maintains control through political allies and regulators. The conversation also covers financial deregulation, insufficient Dodd-Frank reforms, Quantitative Easing impacts, and alternatives like public banking and non-profit financial institutions.

Please get in touch with us with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcast and Spotify.

About this episode’s guest Prof. Gerald Epstein

Gerald Epstein received his Ph.D. in economics from Princeton University, is a professor of economics, and is a founding co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He has published widely on various economic policy issues, especially in central banking and international finance. His most recent book, Busting the Bankers’ Club: Finance for the Rest of Us, was forthcoming in January 2024 from the University of California Press.

What’s covered in EP226

Banking industry’s influence in politics and regulation. (0:04)
Financial deregulation and its impact on the economy. (8:58)
Financial system’s impact on democracy and fairness. (13:24)
Financial system issues and regulation. (16:24)
Economic policy after the financial crisis, including impacts of Quantitative Easing. (22:50)
Financial regulation and publicly owned institutions. (28:08)
Public banking, crypto, and risk-taking in finance. (33:30)

Takeaways

Professor Epstein argues in this episode:

The “bankers’ club” of allies including politicians, central banks, and economists helps sustain the power and influence of large banks.
Financial deregulation in the US and weak Dodd Frank reforms failed to address issues like too-big-to-fail banks and accountability.
Quantitative easing policies after the financial crisis disproportionately benefited wealthy asset holders over others.
There is a need for more diverse public and non-profit financial institutions focused on social missions over profits.
Crypto poses risks if it infects the core banking system or continues high-carbon polluting practices.

Links relevant to the conversation

Gerald Epstein’s book Busting the Bankers’ Club: Finance for the Rest of Us

https://www.amazon.com/Busting-Bankers-Club-Finance-Rest/dp/0520385640

Working paper co-authored by Prof. Epstein “Did Quantitative Easing Increase Income Inequality?”

https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/did-quantitative-easing-increase-income-inequality

Transcript: From Jekyll to Hyde: Exploring the Dual Nature of Finance | The Bankers’ Club w/ Prof. Gerald Epstein – EP226

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gerald Epstein 00:04

There’s a phenomenon in the US. The political scientists talk about this called capture that is that the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be regulating the industry, artefact captured by the industry and tend to operate, often in the in the interests of the industry.

Gene Tunny 00:29

01:53

to the programme.

Gerald Epstein 01:54

Thanks so much for having me. Excellent. Gerald,

Gene Tunny 01:57

look, I’m really grateful for you appearing on the show to talk about your new book busting the bankers club finance for the rest of us. To start off with, could you tell us what is the bankers club?

Gerald Epstein 02:12

So the bankers Club is a group of allies, very powerful allies that support the banks and the financial Titans more generally. And the reason that’s important is because the banks in the United States in the book is mostly about the United States, but I think it’s true in many other places. They’re not very popular, people don’t like banks very much as a whole. I have my students look at a bunch of American movies about banks, they say, please find me a movie that has a favourable gives a favourable impression of the banks and, and they really can’t find them. So in the popular culture, you know, banks aren’t very popular, but they’re incredibly powerful. They’re in powerful politically, they’re powerful economically. And this is, despite the fact that we have these prices that the financial institutions seem to create every 10 years or so. And so the question is, how do they remain so powerful? And my answer is that it’s the bankers club is this group of allies that support the banks politically, economically, and helps them sustain their both economic and political power? And so I go into some detail discussion of various components or various groups within the bankers club,

Gene Tunny 03:37

broad and who are they? I mean, are you able to give some examples?

Gerald Epstein 03:42

She, of course, so there’s some usual suspects as you is what anybody would think about. So they’re the banks themselves and by banks, in this context, I mean, the mega banks, like Chase Manhattan Bank and Bank of America and the large banks, then the major hedge funds and private equity firms, and the large asset management firms. So we’re talking about mega finance more generally. So, of course, they’re the head of the club, but they get politicians to help them out, then that’s well known in the US and in other countries, and they get politicians to help them out by giving them campaign contributions by offering them good, lucrative jobs when they get out of the legislature. And in a variety of ways. They find finance friendly politicians, that will help them with legislation and so forth. So that’s kind of well known in many countries. Perhaps less well known is that the our central bank, Federal Reserve Board, is what I call the chairman of the club. The central bank, is historically Since it was founded in 1914, has been a big supporter of the banks. Partly this is for structural reasons that is, they rely on the banks, when they make their monetary policy they operate to the banks that interest rates, they expect the banks to pass these interest rate changes, up or down, depending on whether they’re fighting inflation or trying to get the economy going. So they have a kind of an intimate relationship with the banks. But what it also means, however, is that they tend to see the world through what I call finance coloured glasses. And so they tend to see the world the same way the bankers do. And more than that, they help out the banks in very significant ways. And we can see that most clearly in two areas. One is when they bail out the banks, like we have this great financial crisis of 2007 2008, and the Federal Reserve along with the US Treasury, but in trillions of dollars that keep the big bankers operating. But they also do it with regulation. That is they the Federal Reserve, and I think is true in many other countries, tends to really push for fairly flexible, and even very easy forms of regulation on the banks. And I’m very reluctant to put on very tough regulations on them. So we have politicians, the Federal Reserve, and then we have regulatory agencies, in the United States, we have various regulatory agencies that are in charge of regulating the banks. And there’s a phenomenon in the US, the political scientists talk about this called capture that is that the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be regulating the industry, artefact captured by the industry and tend to operate often in the in the interests of the industry. And once again, this is a process that goes on with financial regulation, the SEC, the OCC and other financial regulators we have, and I’m sure you have some in Australia. And we have the same revolving door processes that we have with the Fed. And then there are a couple of other groups that maybe are less well known. One is lawyers, many lawyers work for, for banks, they, they when they’re working in the regulatory agencies or in Congress, they help fashion regulation and and, and regulate and laws that help the banks. And they actually help write laws that are very bank friendly. And so we have a whole group of lawyers that are that are involved. non financial corporations, you think that one thing that I started during the Great Depression when this books my book starts talking about in talking about the Great Depression, and the New Deal financial regulation put into place by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his administration. At that time, the big companies like us steel and the big industrial companies, they kind of parted way with the banks, the banks had helped crash the economy. And the big industrial companies said, Look, we need a new path. And they supported a lot of the financial regulation, like the Glass Steagall Act that separated for a commercial from industrial banks. But these days, our biggest corporations are very supportive of the banks, they don’t want to regulate finance. And so there many of them are members of the bankers club, too. And finally, I have to admit my own profession, economists, were very many of us are very me, but many are loyal members of the bankers club, become stuck with economic theories that say low regulation is best for society. Markets are efficient. They work better on their own, and this all works in the interests of the banks.

Gene Tunny 08:58

Yeah, yeah. Okay. Look, yeah, I think there’s definitely scope for discussion about the appropriate regulation of banks. That’s right. And we might get into that a little bit later. I’m just thinking about, you know, some of the people involved, I mean, often you hear their accusations levied against people like, was it Robert Rubin. And then Larry Summers, who were the treasury secretaries in the Clinton administration. That’s right. Is there a was there a concern that they were perhaps too close to, to the banks and that yes, yeah. Yeah.

Gerald Epstein 09:35

So Larry Summers, Robert Rubin. Alan Greenspan. They are, you know, golden members of the bankers club, all of them. The major deep financial deregulation that happened in the United States that kind of took apart the New Deal, structure of financial regulation. It happened. First, slowly building up. But then it really happened with the Big Bang. under President Clinton, who was a Democrat with the advice of Robert Rubin, who was chair of Goldman Sachs, and then city city Corp. Alan Greenspan, who was a libertarian, he was a follower of the philosopher Ayn Rand. And he was head of the Federal Reserve. And Larry Summers, who was a was was a very good economist, but somehow found himself kind of, as part of his part of the bankers club. And that was, that’s what really led us down the path to the great financial crisis. And to the problems we’re still having with banking. Yes,

Gene Tunny 10:39

yeah. It’s interesting, this idea the bank is clogged because it reminds me in Australia here, I mean, we’ve had successive treasury secretaries, that’s the head of the cabinet. First and responsible the Treasury is called the treasurer, that we’ve have successive treasury secretaries who have gone on to be the chairman of a bank. And I think for years that was seen as a pretty sort of cushy job. And it was until like, we had David Morgan who became head of Westpac, and then my old boss, Ken Henry ended up head of NAB, but for Ken ended up getting grilled at the Royal Commission into banking, and I don’t think he ever expected that that because we had a whole bunch of bad behaviour. Yeah, the bank’s due to a guest lacks oversight by our Prudential regulator. So absolutely. Same kind of thing. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so I think you’ve, you’ve given us a good description of the bankers club. What’s your case? Can you state your case, please, Professor Epstein, as to why the bankers club should be busted? Well,

Gerald Epstein 11:51

yeah, the title of the book is busting the bankers club finance for the rest of us. And the problem with the system as it is, is that our, our financial system has been has become incredibly bloated. It’s much too much too large. It uses way too many of our financial and human resources, it sucks in some of the best and the brightest of our young people, I can tell you, from my classes here at the University of Massachusetts, when I teach classes, a lot of our best and brightest students want to go into finance and banking. And they want to go in to the mega banks. And you know, the really the really lucrative ones. And there’s a whole literature, which I registered my built on, which is called too much finance. It’s an economics literature, which shows that its financial sectors get too large relative to the size of their economies. And this is a cross national study, that after a while, they’re they’re too big, or they’re structured inappropriately, or they’re doing negative things in the economy. And they actually contribute, after a certain point to lower economic growth, lower national income. And there’s something about having a bloated, an excessively large and complex financial system, which really harms everybody. So that’s, that’s one problem. But we have that’s just one of the problems. Another problem is that it’s bad for democracy that is, you know, Australia’s democracy, the United States is trying to risk to remain a democracy. And the idea is that it’s one person, one vote. But the process I’ve described, where the, these large institutions of powerful institutions are able to, by essentially legislation, regulatory practices that benefit them at the expense of the rest of society. That’s a major problem. But it’s, it’s even worse than that in the United States, because people understand that, that the whole process is unfair. When we had the great financial crisis, the Federal Reserve the Treasury, the government, and this was under both W Bush and Obama bailed out the banks. But they didn’t bail out the people, people lost their homes, people’s jobs were lost. And this made many Americans, understandably, very angry. And I think this turn to this very anti government kind of politics in the United States. That started with the so called Deep party at that time. And it’s now morphed into very, very extreme right wing populism that we had, that has kind of organised around and been organised by Donald Trump. Really stems I think, from this sense that our system is not fair. And so yeah, well understand that it’s not democratic. And I think it’s really poisoning our politics.

Gene Tunny 15:06

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 15:12

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with adept economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world, you can get in touch via our website, www dot adept economics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny 15:41

Now back to the show. Well, I think this idea of this, too much finance literature, I’m gonna have to have a look at it or a closer look, I’ve seen some of it, I think. I mean, obviously, we need banks. Okay. I mean, we’re not necessarily any banks, because banks do play an important role in providing credit and supporting businesses. I mean, you asked most bankers, they will think they’re adding value to society. What are the activities where there’s this so called too much finance? I mean, how, like, what how does that manifest? Yeah,

Gerald Epstein 16:18

excellent question. Well, I start off my book with a chapter called the Jekyll and Hyde finance. It builds on this idea from the Robert Louis Stevenson story, which some some of your listeners might have heard of, this very upstanding doctor, Mr. Dr. Jekyll, who was a pillar of the community and really supported the committee and did all kinds of things with it. But we had another base hidden inside of him, this Mr. Hyde, who was who was a criminal, and murderous, and so forth. And, and these different phases of this one entity would show itself depending on on the conditions. So our financial system is kind of like that, you’re absolutely right. We need a financial system that works for the everybody that works for the economy, we need to be able to finance people’s retirement be able to finance people’s ability to buy homes, we need to finance credit for businesses to invest in new plant and equipment. And the list goes on and on and on. The problem is that our current financial system in the United States, which I call roaring banking, it’s kind of comes from the bill boring banking idea of the 1950s and 60s that was very regulated, and morphed into roaring banking as a result of this deregulation, it led this financial markets and these big financial institutions to engage in more speculation taking on more and more risks, to invest in speculative bets and derivatives and other kinds of speculative activity. Yeah, and it resulted in them taking on much more risk, which allowed them to increase the profits and wages, going to the major investors, and to those at the top, without, at the same time, investing a lot in in new plant and equipment for businesses and so forth. In the United States. Many big corporations do not rely on the banks or even the financial markets for their major investments, they get most of the financing from the major investments from their own retained earnings, their own profits. And so it raises the question, well, what are these these big banks, hedge funds, private equity funds, what are they really doing? And many of them are not really supporting the real needs of the economy. In the United States, we have a lot of smaller banks and community banks. And they’re the ones who are much more likely to give home mortgages to give to lend to small businesses, and so forth. And the problem is, in the United States, we have a particular system, your system is different in Australia, what we have is these very speculative mega banks that are driving out to smaller banks. Part of the reason that happens is that when there’s a financial crisis, our government has a too big to fail policy. That means if you’re a really big bang, chances are you’re gonna get bailed out by the government. Whereas if you’re a mid sized or smaller bank, and you get in trouble, you’re not going to get bailed out or you’re gonna go bankrupt or get merged into another bank. And so depositors and investors don’t feel that safe, putting their money in the smaller banks. They Put them in the big banks as well. So the cost of capital for the smaller and community banks is higher, because of the too big to fail subsidy that the big banks get. So it’s an unfair competition. And it’s not a one of the things that I propose in the book is a set of policies that help make this competition, more level more, more fair, so that we have a whole variety of financial institutions that provide the needed services, as you said, that our economy needs. Okay.

Gene Tunny 20:36

Now, in your book, you talk about issues with mortgage backed securities, I suppose one of the things that people, you know, they were most critical of some of these major investment banks was there, you know, they’d be packaging up, or creating these mortgage backed securities and then selling them around the world. But at the same time, I forget which firm it was, but was one of the banks betting against products that was actually selling or one arm of Goldman Sachs. Yeah, Goldman Sachs was one of them. Yeah. So it’s, it’s,

Gerald Epstein 21:09

you know, it’s not really taking care of your clients. And it’s really betting against your own clients. And that’s kind of one example of a behaviour that this all allowed. Yes. Yeah.

21:23

And another. Another good point I think you make in the book.

Gene Tunny 21:29

And this gets to the fact that you argue that the Federal Reserve is at the head of the bankers club, you talk about the impact on of quantitative easing and the the adverse, or the unfair impacts of that. Could you elaborate on that, please? Professor Epstein.

Gerald Epstein 21:47

Yeah. So when the great financial crisis hit Central, the Federal Reserve and other central banks, were trying to revive the economy, understandably, that’s what they should have been doing. Interest rates were already in almost zero. So they wanted to come up with another tool to put liquidity in the in the economy and reduce the cost of investment, cost of capital and so forth, while helping to sustain the banks that were in trouble. So they engaged in what’s called quantitative easing. They put liquidity in the economy by buying up not just government securities, which is the typical way that they do open market operations. But they bought up asset backed securities, mortgage backed securities, this kind of thing from banks, which ended up increasing the value of these assets, which helped the banks because they had these, these assets on their balance sheets were which were not worth very much. So it helped the banks. But the the idea is that it was there hoping that it would also lower the cost of capital to borrowers and investors, and then to generate more employment, and so forth. So my graduate students, and I looked at whether what the impact was in the United States. So there could have been, there was this asset in value increase, which increases the wealth of asset holders, the banks and others, there was cost of capital mechanism that would have possibly lowered the cost for homeowners and others who were borrowing money. And then there was the impact on the interest rates that the consumers get on their savings in banks and banks. So we had a various impacts going in opposite directions, the asset value increase, we’re going to help the wealthy people because they’re the ones who have all the assets, reducing the cost of capital, would help those homeowners who needed to get their mortgage cost down. And the lowering of interest on savings might have hurt middle class and working class people because they hold their money in savings in the bank. So we have these different possible impacts. So we tried to figure out what the net effect was. And what we found was that in the case of the United States, during this period, the main impact was on increasing the wealth of the wealthy, that the other impacts were relatively modest. So there have been other studies of quantitative easing in other countries during this period, and most of them find something similar that it had a relatively small impact on employment and cost of capital for borrowing and a much bigger impact on the value of assets which helped primarily the wealthy. There’s some counter studies, but most of them go in that direction. Now. It’s not necessarily the case. But we weren’t arguing that the Fed was trying to do that, per se. I I think they would have liked to have seen the economy get going more. But that was the impact of the policy that they pursued.

Gene Tunny 25:05

Yeah, yeah. Okay. Why was Dodd Frank? So there were there were some changes to legislation, post financial crisis. So as a result of the financial crisis, why were they insufficient. So Dodd Frank in particular,

Gerald Epstein 25:22

right, so what what really needed to happen after the financial crisis, in my view, and in the view of other others who were looking for some big changes, first of all, these mega banks, Goldman Sachs, the Bank of America, and so forth, they’ve gotten too big to fail, too big to manage. Oftentimes, the people at the top didn’t really understand what the heck they were doing. The big jail that is, the government didn’t even put any of these people who ended up taking on fraudulent activity, they never made them have any consequences at all. So they were just too big. And so there were proposals during the Dodd Frank process, to shut down these big banks that one was to implement a new Glass Steagall Act, which was kind of a modern version of the separating commercial and investment bank, another was putting an asset cap on these banks to try to get them into a size that couldn’t run the economy that can be managed better, and so forth. That was never put on the table. Another thing that the some of us argued for, were consequences for the bad behaviour of the decision makers or the wrong decision makers. When these Goldman Sachs was selling these securities to their clients and betting against them. And then they they made a lot of bonuses and profits, and then the bank threatened to collapse. They didn’t have to give back their salaries, they didn’t have to give back their bonuses, they were able to take the money and run, there were attempts to put in so called law backs into the Dodd Frank legislation. So that we didn’t have moral hazard that is, so we didn’t have a situation where people didn’t have to pay the consequences of their bad behaviour. That was never really put in as in in a significant way. There were conflicts of interest all over the place, including with credit rating agencies, we had the credit rating agencies that were rating the securities, the asset backed securities and so forth, that were full of really dicey mortgages, they rated them leave parts of them triple A, which is this, which is the same as the US government securities, triple A ratings. And why? Well, because the investment banks demand that they rate them triple A, the veteran banks paid the rating agencies, if they didn’t rate them, triple A, then the investment banks would take their business elsewhere to another rating agency. So there are all these kinds of conflicts of interest. They weren’t really dealt with either the list could go on. We needed more regulation for derivatives, derivatives are relatively unregulated. And again, there wasn’t much done there is Well, the question is why? Why wasn’t there better regulation? And the answer is bankers club. Dodd and Frank were both very weak members of they had very kind of weak backbone for really taking the banks on both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Many of them were were on the take from the banks. Tim Geithner, who was Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, we talked about before Ben Bernanke, head of the Fed, they didn’t really want to shake up the financial system. They just wanted to get it back up and running again. So the bankers club really did a number on Dodd Frank. Now, there were a few things that were done, and they were good, but they weren’t enough.

Gene Tunny 29:08

Yeah, okay. Okay. And did Trump do anything when he was in office?

Gerald Epstein 29:12

Yeah, Trump’s an interesting story. He ran on a platform when he was running against Hillary Clinton, a very populous platform, who said, All the banks are terrible. They really messed everybody up. Probably Clinton makes money from the banks as she terrible. I’m really going to do a number on the banks. But then when he was elected, he immediately put a bunch of Goldman Sachs people in his administration. And he appointed people to try to dismantle the Dodd Frank Act. And among the things that they did was to raise the size that banks could get before they were subjected to special capital requirements or liquidity requirements. The so called mid size banks, were set free to kind of do what they want and The result of that is we had the Silicon Valley Bank that went under, in 2023. Because they were a bank that had been subject to special reg regulation. Under Trump, they were, they were let go and not have had to be subject to this regulation. And they got in trouble. In the end, the government had to bail out the financial markets again. So the question is, you know, what would trump do if he got into power? Again, you know, it’s probably going to be a similar story, where he’s going to rail against the wealthy and the banks and so forth. But chances are, they’ll do more of the same and it will be kind of this the supreme member of the bankers club if he ever gets back into office. Okay. Do

Gene Tunny 30:43

you see a greater role for publicly owned financial institutions?

Gerald Epstein 30:47

I do. And so it’s time I think, to raise the point of about the others theme in my book, I talk a lot about the bankers club. But I also talk a lot about group I call the club of busters. That is, there are many legislators like Elizabeth Warren and others in our in our government, there are activists, there are economists and lawyers and regulators, who really do want to try to do the right thing. They really do want to try to regulate the financial institutions properly, and are pushing for legislation and regulation to do so Gary Gensler, for example, the head of the SEC, really wants to regulate crypto very strictly, as an example, is giving the crypto people a lot of headaches. He’s a member, he’s what I call a club buster. And what we need, I think, not only tighter regulations, and this is what most people argue for, but we need a whole ecology a whole set of public financial institutions. Now by public, I don’t necessarily mean government owned. But what I mean is financial institutions that have a public orientation, that is making the maximum profits is not their only goal. It’s not their goal. They have missions, public mission, social missions. So some of them can be owned by the government. And the United States, we have some community banks, state banks, and so forth. There are many government owned banks around around the world, but they can also be public private partnerships. They can even be privately owned, nonprofit, non nonprofit nonprofits, who have a social mission. We need many more of these financial institutions to provide low cost mortgages, and loans for small businesses, investment in deprived communities that need more investment, help with transition to a greener economy, at the local level, and the regional level. So we need what I call banks without bankers, that is, banks who don’t have typical bankers in them, they have to have skilled people, technically competent people. But for whom maximising profits is not the main goal. And in the United States, we have a very active public banking movement of activists around the country pushing for public banks of various kinds. Their major obstacles, like once again, is the bankers club who was trying to prevent them from from succeeding, but they’re, they’re these bank posted this quote, officers are working very hard.

Gene Tunny 33:29

Gotcha. Okay, I’ll have to look into that public banking movement. That’s interesting. I like your point that, look, it doesn’t necessarily have to be publicly owned, because like where I’m coming from, as in Australia, we’ve had some, we had some really colossal state bank collapses in the late 80s, early 90s, tri continental state bank of Victoria, and Bank of SA South Australia, if I remember correctly, so we’ve got a bit of a, an aversion to publicly owned banks here, because of the risks to the balance sheets. I liked how you describe that. And I think I’ll have to look more into that at public banking movement. It looks interesting. The one concern I would have is, is there a concern? Is there a risk that maybe, maybe they’re too cautious or they’re not innovative enough? Have you thought about that? Right?

Gerald Epstein 34:16

So, you know, there’s, there is an upside and a downside. As a graduate student, I study the cyclical behaviour of publicly oriented banks in different countries relative to the purely private for profit banks. And what we found was that they were much less cyclical that is they went up much less than the upside and went down much less on the downside. So it’s can be a stabilising force in the economy. But I think what you’re going to getting errors don’t we need some you know, real risk takers and people who are really good, willing to go out on the limb with some some crazy but maybe great ideas. Take the risks and we Absolutely do need that in a dynamic economy. The problem is, what we don’t want is the government backstopping that we don’t want the government saying, you when you gain, you lose, we pay. We don’t want a kind of lemon socialism. So, yes, we need a risk takers, and and they have to pay the consequences if it doesn’t work out. Yeah,

Gene Tunny 35:24

yeah. Yeah, that’s a good point. I mean, that was one of the points that came up during the financial crisis that they were privatising the profits, but socialising the losses. So exactly. That’s a that’s a good point. Right. Okay. Well, to finish up, we might, I might ask you about crypto because in your book, you talk about Jekyll and Hyde. You write just as finance, as both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde face crypto has a bit of a Dracula quality as well. Could you tell us more about that, please.

Gerald Epstein 35:56

So if anybody who’s followed crypto or invest in it, they know, they know that there was a big bubble and Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and 2122. But there was the so called crypto winter, and when the crypto values just, you know, collapsed, and then there are all kinds of scandals with sand bank and freeze in jail and several the other main crypto people are in are subject to criminal investigation, or maybe are in jail. So it seemed like around that time, the crypto was dead. But like the vampires you stick across in them, and they somehow, you know, they revive and now crypto I think, has has had a revival. It’s still trying to push ahead. And there are a lot of crypto friendly legislative leaders in the US and in other countries. And so it’s like, yeah, we all thought it was was dead, but it’s risen from the dead. And my view on crypto, is that again, it’s fine. It’s like, it’s fine if people want to mess with it, you know, in line and death, you know, gamble with it, and so forth. But we can’t let it do two things, one, either of two things. One is infect core banking system. Once we have crypto infecting the core banking system, we’re back to where we were in 2007 2008, when these exotic asset backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, and so forth, infected the very core of the banking system. So when they collapse, they threaten to bring down the banking system with it. As long as it’s a marginal thing. Have fun with it, I suppose, as long as people are aware of the the downsides, but there’s another problem. Most crypto is very carbon intensive, the crypto mining, it’s very bad for our environment, we have this, this existential threat of climate change. And the way crypto mining is done in most cases, not all cases now. It’s really adding as much carbon to the atmosphere as a small country like Iceland or some other country. So I think that has to be taxed. And if crypto can still you know, give some thrills to the its investors in a safe way without destroying the environment. Okay, go for it. But let’s not let it ruin the environment. And it let’s not let it infect our our core banking system. Yeah, very good points.

Gene Tunny 38:27

Okay. Professor Epstein, any final points? Before we wrap up? I think this has been a great conversation. And I did enjoy reading your book. And I’m going to recommend it. And I’ll put the link in the show notes. Any final points before we wrap up?

Gerald Epstein 38:42

Yeah, the final point is that was one of the things that’s kind of obvious from our conversation, my book is, is almost entirely about the United States. So whatever, if these processes happen elsewhere, it will happen in a different way. There have been people doing work in similar kinds of work in other countries, we have Nicholas Shaxson, who’s done interesting work in in England, and we have Jim Stamford, who you might know who is then actually work in Australia and Canada. So I don’t claim that this is a universal process. But But I do hope that other people explore some of these ideas in their particular countries in particular environments to see what’s similar and what’s different.

Gene Tunny 39:21

Absolutely. Okay. Professor Gerald Epstein, thanks so much for your time. I really enjoyed the conversation.

Gerald Epstein 39:26

Thank you very much.

Gene Tunny 39:29

Right. Oh, thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating thanks So listening, I hope you can join me again next week

40:16

thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this where to begin your own podcasting journey, head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Tags banks, economics, fed, finance, monetary policy, qe

Podcast episode

Reagan’s Budget Boss David Stockman on Trump’s Economic Policies – EP224

Post author By Alec Krishna
Post date January 28, 2024
No Comments on Reagan’s Budget Boss David Stockman on Trump’s Economic Policies – EP224

Economics Explored host Gene Tunny speaks with David Stockman, who was President Reagan’s first director of the Office of Management and Budget. Stockman discusses his new book, “Trump’s War on Capitalism,” and shares his frank and fearless commentary on the former president’s economic policies. In his foreword to the book, Robert F. Kennedy Jr wrote, “Stockman has become one of the nation’s most steadfast and eloquent crusaders against the corrupt merger of state and corporate power.”

Please get in touch with us with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcast and Spotify.

What’s covered in EP224

Trump and capitalism. (0:04)
Trump’s fiscal and monetary policies. (4:41)
Government spending and lockdowns during the Trump presidency. (10:04)
Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact. (15:06)
COVID-19 response and blame game. (20:05)
US economy under Trump, job growth, and performance. (25:51)
Economic growth and tax cuts during Trump’s administration. (30:10)
Monetary policy and inflation during Trump’s presidency. (36:26)
Corruption in US government and military spending. (41:56)
Alan Greenspan’s legacy and economic challenges. (49:54)

Takeaways

David Stockman argues that while Trump portrayed himself as a capitalist, his fiscal and monetary policies like large tax cuts, increased spending and pressure on the Fed to keep rates low were reckless and a threat to capitalism.
According to Stockman, the data shows the US economy was not in its strongest position ever pre-COVID, as Trump claimed, with key metrics like GDP growth, job growth and investment lower under Trump compared with some previous presidents.
Stockman believes Trump bears responsibility for the unprecedented pandemic spending and deficits, as he could have resisted lockdowns but instead endorsed huge stimulus packages.
Stockman views Trump as the worst president for sound money policy due to his pressure on the Fed to keep rates low.

Links relevant to the conversation

Amazon page for Trump’s War on Capitalism:

https://www.amazon.com/Trumps-War-Capitalism-David-Stockman/dp/1510779329

William Greider’s famous 1981 Atlantic article “The Education of David Stockman”:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/

Transcript: Reagan’s Budget Boss David Stockman on Trump’s Economic Policies – EP224

David Stockman 00:04

He’s campaigned against the Fed, but he wants an easier fed, okay, I want to read the Wall Street doesn’t like totally different I want a Fed that’s proven that pursues sound money policy Trump wants a fed that prints even more money than the flood we already have.

Gene Tunny 00:28

Welcome to the economics explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. My guest this episode is David Stockman, who was President Reagan’s first director of the Office of Management and Budget. Prior to the Reagan administration, he had served as a congressman. And after he left the administration, he had a career in private equity in business. David has a new book out titled Trump’s war on capitalism, and I was delighted to speak with him about it. David is a frank and fearless commentator, and I was never left wondering what he really thought about the former President’s economic policies. Indeed, David has a long history of Frank commentary. He first became famous for some frank remarks he made in 1981, to journalist William Greider about the Reagan administration’s budget strategy is also tangled with Paul Krugman, among other prominent commentators in the US. I really enjoyed this conversation with David and I hope you do too. Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, I think you have to respect his ability to argue his points. And he will demonstrates that ability in this conversation. I get the sense he is incredibly resilient as he’s copped a lot of criticism over the years, he’s had to make a multimillion dollar legal settlement with the SEC. He’s even a defender of criminal charges, they did end up being dropped by the SEC, I should note, all of this is to say that he’s had a very interesting career and life experience. And he’s someone worth hearing from, in my view. Now, David expresses some very thought provoking views in this episode, and I expect you’ll have some thoughts on what he says and you may have some thoughts on some of the things I say. So please get in touch and let me know your own thoughts. My contact details are in the show notes as our links related to the book and about David Righto. We’d better go into the episode. I hope you enjoy my conversation with David Stockman about Trump’s war on capitalism. David Stockman thanks for joining me on the programme.

David Stockman 02:46

Very happy to be with you got a lot to talk about here, I think. Absolutely.

Gene Tunny 02:50

Well, you’ve written a very provocative book a very, very in depth book looking at the policies of the former President Donald Trump and prospects for a new term if the minute is looking very possible that Donald Trump could be in the White House again next year. So your book is called Trump’s war on capitalism. Now, this is, this is interesting because too many of us, Donald Trump is the exemplar of the American capitalist. And yet you argue that he is undertaking a war on capitalism. And even more strongly, well, strongly. You argue that is a clear and present danger to capitalist prosperity. Could you explain David, how do you how can we reconcile these things? I mean, Donald Trump does seem to be the exemplar of a capitalist, but yet he’s a threat to capitalism. How do we reconcile these facts?

David Stockman 03:58

Well, those are great questions. I don’t think really, he’s an exemplar of capitalism. And we can get into that. I think he’s an exemplar of getting lucky when the Fed created so much inflation and asset prices and made debt so cheap that if you were a speculator, in New York City, real estate or elsewhere, you possibly made a lot of book, wealth, but I don’t think it was capitalist genius behind it. That’s the first point. The second point is that his policies were really almost anti capitalist in some common sense notion of conservative economics. To have a healthy capitalist economy. You need three things. One, fiscal rectitude, you can’t be running up the public debt, spending like there’s no tomorrow and having the government grow and mushroom and impinge in every direction on the economy. You can’t have easy money and a central A bank that is flooding the system. With cheap credit and excess liquidity, you can’t have a government that is really anti free market, which is what, you know, trade protectionism is all about. And he’s the biggest protectionist in the White House. You know, since I don’t know Hoover set, and Smoot Hawley in 1931. So all of his policies were really in the wrong direction. Now, I do concede in the book, that the one abiding virtue that Donald Trump has is he’s got all the right enemies, okay. The establishment hates him, The New York Times The Washington Post, CNN, The Washington, what I call you, in a party establishment, the leadership and the long standing careerist of both parties can’t stand him. But basically, it’s because he’s an outsider is because he’s unwilling to conform, and he’s pretty obnoxious, and unpredictable. That’s why they’re against him. The point of the book, though, is none of his power. And his policies were wrong, even if he had the right enemies. And nothing that he did help the economy or addressed, the huge long term problems we have of a runaway public debt of a government is way too big and too costly and too intrusive. And especially at the heart of the matter, a central bank that is out, it’s a rogue Central Bank, it’s out of control. And yet Trump was constantly on their case, demanding even easier money, lower interest rates, even more, you know, of the same that got us into, you know, the huge bubbles and troubles that came from them. So, the point of my book was to say he had a chance he’s got her four year record we can look at it is terrible, it offers nothing in terms of remediation of our great problems and putting us in a different direction for the future. So, you know, don’t waste the opportunity. And you know, that’s about where I come out.

Gene Tunny 07:13

Right. Okay. So you write about what you call the Donald’s reckless fiscal and monetary policy. So we might talk about fiscal first. Now, among other things, you talk about the most grotesque act of fiscal malfeasance in American history. So that was something that Trump was associated with you argue? Are you talking about the the big tax cut the Trump tax cut in 2017? Is that Is that something you see as as reckless,

David Stockman 07:44

and that’s part of it, but I’m looking at the overall picture, and the data, the big top line data on spending and borrowing on the public debt. Now, let’s just take it down to the core metric, which is the public debt. I mean, if you’re running huge deficits and spending, far beyond your willingness or ability to tax, it comes out in the public debt. When Trump became president in round terms, that public debt was about 20 trillion. When he left it was 28. That’s 8 trillion of growth, a trillion of debt, public debt. In four years, you let me ask the question, when did when did we get the first 8 trillion of public debt? And how long did it take us to get there? The answer is in two or three, it took us 216 years 43 presidents to rack up a trillion in debt. He did it in four years. That’s kind of the bottom line. It puts it in perspective, in terms of how big the air was. If we look at other more conventional measures, you get the same picture, the average deficit to GDP and that’s another good ratio, you know, how big is the deficit or surplus relative to the national economy? It will the deficit average two and a half percent of GDP for all the presidents from the early 50s through 2016. The deficit under Trump’s four years average 9% of GDP, almost four times more than it had been the average going back for. If you look at spending, I think that’s important. And again, let’s take the inflation out of the picture and looked at it in inflation adjusted for real terms real spending. Trump average 7% per year during his tenure, for instance, big spending Obama right before him was 2% per year in real terms. Reagan when I was there was 3% per year. In real terms, the average was two and a half. So again, Trump was you know, three times, in some cases four times more In terms of the growth rate of spending then haven’t heard historically. So you know, if when you go through those kinds of measures, and then of course, it all culminated, I just want to put this last point. And in 2020, when he made the huge mistake of shutting down, locking down the economy based on very bad advice from some very bad doctors that worked for the federal government, if he had any principles about, you know, property rights and personal liberty and constitutional due process, he never would have ordered a lockdown to the economy. But in any event, he did that in 2020. And as a result of that, we had just an explosion of spending to bail out the economy that the government had ordered to close. And I’m talking about the 2 trillion worth of stimulus measures that were passed with his urging, you know, with his support in 11 days, I mean, this was an $800 800 page, I mean, Bill that contain 2.2 trillion, where the so called Cares Act, you know, banned unemployment insurance benefits, that checks 200 million households, massive amounts of money to education, health, other institutions. The point is, they passed 2.2 trillion in spending and 11 days, nobody read the 800 pages. And that was just the warm up. He then, you know, insisted on the second stimulus or COVID Relief bill in December that he signed right before he left, that was another 2 trillion. And it paved the way for the last 2 trillion that Biden put on top of it, when he came in, basically to implement an extension of all of the freebies and free stuff and giveaways that Trump had put into place during 2020. Well, the reason I’m dwelling on this is it added up to $6.5 trillion of spending, almost sight unseen in terms of legislative review, and scrutiny, it happened in 12 months, march 2020, to march 2021. And that in itself was equal to 150% of the pre existing budget. In other words, in 12 months, they passed the emergency spending that was 1.5 times bigger than the entire federal budget, defence, Social Security, interest payments, student aid and all the rest of it. This is how far it was out of control. And he was sitting in the Oval Office with a veto pen in his hand, theoretically, but obviously, his stubby little fingers never gotten here, the veto pen, he didn’t veto anywhere in either he waved it on. And so therefore, you have to blame him for the most outrageous edge Regis outbreak of fiscal madness that we’ve ever seen in peacetime or wartime in this country. And when you prove that’s where, you know, that’s where you come out that you know, as his record is undeniable, the facts are all there. Why in the world, the Magga fans and Republicans or the Republican rank and file, want him to have another chance is really beyond me. But I wrote this book test, just in case someone cares about, you know, the reality and about the facts, that if they do put him back in, they’re probably going to put him on the ticket. And if the country puts him back in the Oval Office, there is no, it should be no confusion about what you’re getting, you’re getting a worse, you’re getting a exacerbated case of all the problems that we have already today. Rod,

Gene Tunny 14:05

okay. In terms of that spending, I thought that was interesting. You compare the growth rate of spending under Trump versus other presidents, including Reagan. And I was surprised it was. Yeah, there was that stark difference that’s due to that, that pandemic stimulus is that that, you know, one and a half times the budget that was approved in whatever, 11 days or however many, there was an extraordinary fact you mentioned there. Now, one thing I’d like to ask you about because I’m in Australia, so I’m less familiar with exactly what happened in the States than I am here. I mean, I’ve seen it, you know, I saw all the commentary and but you said that you blame Trump for the lock downs or partly, you blame Trump for the lock downs. i The impression I got was he was king piny against the lock downs. Am I wrong on that? I thought it was done by the states.

David Stockman 15:06

No, but yeah, it’s a great question. But if you go back and look at the calendar, the Tick Tock day by day, week by week, it’s very evident that another reason why Trump is on Fit is that he doesn’t have any principles. He doesn’t have any guiding philosophy, he flies by the seat of his ample britches, and whatever seems to strike is fancy at any moment in time, he goes with me because he’s so damn arrogant, that he doesn’t even begin to understand what he doesn’t know. And basically, when it comes to economics in the world, and governing a $26 trillion economy, he knows very little that maybe he sees basically ignorant. So when when the COVID came along for a few days, he was saying, Well, you know, the flu every year to X number of people, 38,000 50,000 people succumb to the flu one way or another, we’re used to this very, what’s the crisis, six days later, as a result of a lot of pressure that came into the Oval Office led by, you know, his son in law, Jared Kushner, bringing in a couple of scientists who wanted a chance to really exercise some power, I convinced him that it was not only not the flu, but it was something like the Black Plague, and that every all stops had to be pulled out. And that’s on the 16th of March, he gave this speech, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve and turn Dr. Fauci and Dr. Burks and the rest of that crowd of Mal practising doctors loose on the country. And before we know it, the entire economy was on its knees and I got data in the book that lays out how severe this was. Two measures, I think, give you a dramatic a pretty dramatic indication of the hammer that Donald Trump brought down on the US economy and therefore the world economy at the end of the day, on March 16, when he authorised you know, two weeks to flatten the curve and turn the CDC loose on daily economic life. First in the second quarter, when it hit that was ground zero of the lockdown second quarter 2020 GDP in the United States declined at a 34% annualised rate, what does that mean? Well, in the worst recession that we’ve had in the post war period, which is the Great Recession, you know, in 208, the annualised the redonk, fall in GDP was 8% during the worst quarter, okay, the worst quarter was 8%. And in the second quarter of 2020, because of the government ordered lockdown, not some kind of cyclical, you know, tumble of the economy, the government ordered the Trumpler lockdown, GDP declined at a 32% rate just, you know, startling, you know, on precedent. Now, the other measure I use a lot in the book is if you look where it hit the hardest lockdowns, it was obviously in my I call the social interaction venues, restaurants, bars, sports, arenas, gyms, malls and the rest of it. in that arena, that area of the economy in the BLS statistics, Labour department’s statistics is called leisure and hospitality as you know, all those industries are in that grew in April 2020, which is ground zero, the heart of the lockdown hours worked in the leisure and hospitality sectors declined by 56%. Compared to the previous month, half of the employment half of the out and not just headcount answer people but actually hours worked, disappeared. Now how big is a 56% decline in employment in that core sector of the economy? Well, it’s so big that it reduced the actual working level. In other words, the hours work the number of people on the pay pay clock to a level not seen since the spring of 1979. In other words, it rolled back the clock 43 years in terms of the slow and steady and relentless growth that occurred in that sector. Are was wiped out in 30 days and it’s taken years to recover. And we’re still not back to where we were in February 2020. So the lock downs are fading, you know, because as time passes things that seemed pretty bad, right at the moment they were happening suddenly, you know, see maybe not so bad, but the lock downs were dramatic. Yeah, they were, you know, the biggest, you know, Thunderbolts to hit the economy. I think it ever at least in the United States, so, he that was the consequence of Trump. swivelling on a dime from nothing to worry about to the sky is falling. And then And here’s where I really put the pin the tale of the donkey, so to speak. He created this thing called the White House Coronavirus, Task Force. And it met day after day and they had a big press conference. At the end of the day. It was like a reality show from the White House Press Room day after day in which Fauci was up there. Burks was up there, and it Hance Vice President Pence and others. And they just scared the living daylights out of the country, even as all of these orders from the public health departments were being implemented at the urging of the CDC and the White House. So this, this whole lockdown catastrophe, was born, bred and perpetuated from the Oval Office, and I go by the famous aphorism you might not be as an Australian might not be aware of it. But Harry Truman, famous president, you know, at the end of World War after World War Two, and had this had this slogan on his desk that said, the buck stops here. In other words, I am going to take responsibility for what happens? Well, in this case, the buck stops with Trump on the whole disaster of the COVID response to pandemic response to lock downs, the damage that it did to the economy and the costs that were generated in terms of borrowing and deficits and the public debt, you know, all of it, you have to ultimately put on his doorstep. Because if he had stuck to his guns, listen to this, this is unbelievable. If he had stuck to his guns of March 11, when he said, you know, this will be handled in the normal way. We’re used to these, you know, viruses coming along, and we can handle it. If he had stayed with that position. None of this disaster would have happened, right? It wasn’t the virus that caused the economy to plunge into a black hole. It was the lockdowns.

Gene Tunny 23:08

Right, just on the what Trump could have done. I think this is an interesting perspective. And it’s Yeah, I think this is probably this might be the perspective that gets you the most pushback or reaction. I think it’s an interesting proposition. What I’m interested in is whether like, say Trump just said, Okay, we’ll ignore the we think there’s a minor virus. I’m not saying necessarily it is. Let’s say Trump says that. Could he have actually directed the states? Could he have directed? Who was at Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom to open up? Could he have done anything? Did he have the levers to be able to do that? Yes.

David Stockman 23:50

Because they responded, I don’t think they were sitting there in Albany, New York, where Cuomo was where Sacramento and said, hey, you know, this, these reports, we’re getting sound like this is a pretty terrible virus. We’re gonna start systematically closing bars and restaurants and malls. And they were doing that in response to the guidelines, the recommendations, and the pressure from the CDC, which was the federal government, and it was controlled, obviously, by Trump, and the CDC and in turn was responding to the White House Coronavirus Task Force, which was being run by Fauci, which was being run by dance is as delegated by Trump. So it was all coming right out of the oval office there. They wouldn’t. I don’t think and I’ve been in politics since the 1960s in America. So I think maybe my judgement is not totally bad. But I’m absolutely certain that without the imprimatur without the urging without all the hysteria, coming from Fauci in that White House Task Force, these people would have not, they wouldn’t have stuck their neck out and closed down their economy, because every one of them was creating political problems for themselves. It wasn’t you know that this was like some great winning political opportunity. Let’s close down all the gyms and in the state, like they did New Jersey and New York, and let’s shut down the malls and let’s put the restaurants out of business. They’re sitting there saying, Yeah, this would be some real good politics for us and forced that the governors weren’t saying that. They were doing it all ultimately, because they were being pressured. They were being encouraged by the federal government and particularly by the Trump White House.

Gene Tunny 25:51

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 25:57

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with adept economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, www dot adapt economics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny 26:26

Now back to the show. crass now about one of the things that President Trump would claim was that he had the greatest economy ever the economy was in the strongest position ever. And then it was the virus that COVID that came along and, and wrecked everything. But you, you actually question that you don’t think that the US economy was the greatest economy ever pre COVID? What What’s your what is your analysis? Show you there? You haven’t What do you conclude there?

David Stockman 27:00

Yeah, good question. I don’t question it myself. The data proves it. In other words, I just did a lot of research and served up the data that comes out of the statistical mills of the US government. And you can measure it seven different ways. And you get the same answer. But let’s start with real growth. After all, that’s the big, you know, summary metric for economic performance and health. And real growth of the economy was grew at 1.5%. During Trump’s four years, the lowest rate of any presidential term, going back to Harry Truman, again, to 1950, the average over that entire period, no, nine presidents 11 business cycles during that period, recessions and recoveries, we had a couple of wars during that period, we had any number of crises. So in other words, what we’re talking about here is the long term trend performance of the US economy from 1954 to 2016. Right before Trump got in it averaged 3.04% Or double the growth that occurred during the Trump period. So you can on that on that summary, you can’t make that statistic go away. That’s that’s the major the whole ball of wax. And his growth rate was half of the norm. It was a third, basically, of the highest performance with Kennedy Johnson was 5%. It was maybe 40% of what I remember during the Reagan period, when the growth rate was 3.5%. So the idea that he kept Tweety and keeps to this very day complaint, you know, talking about the great Magga economy that he brought the greatest economy ever is totally refuted contradicted by the facts. Now that’s one of them. We can look at job growth. And of course, the answer there is pretty interesting. He’s the only president since Herbert Hoover, in which there was no job growth. You’d never know that from listening to Donald Trump’s boisterous speeches, but the fact is, when he took office in January 2017, there were 145 point 5 million jobs, non farm jobs in the US when he left office in January 2021. There were 142.5 in other words, the job shrunk by 3 million jobs during his term nothing like that ever had before every other president, there’s more jobs than when they start, not because of their virtue. Do necessary or are there policy is because a capitalist economy unless it’s really thwarted, tends to expand and grow and create more jobs. Trump was the exception. Now you can say, Well, again, it was the lock downs, and it was the spring of 1920 20 catastrophe. But even if you take that out of the picture, and you look at Trump and pretend his, his administration handed in February 2020, which is, you know, the month before the COVID, the pandemic hit, he averaged 145,000 new jobs a month, in that period, until the eve of the COVID, or pandemic hit to the economy. Obama had 215,000. So he was a third shorter than Obama. And Obama was considered pretty bad. If you look at overall employment growth, even taking the pandemic period out, the growth rate under Trump was about 1.4%. And it average two and a half percent in the decades and decades before. In finally, I think the, the, you know, the bottom line measure of economic health. And, you know, the this standard of living on Main Street, you know, for the broad middle class is really per capita, GDP, real GDP per capita, if it’s rising, that means the living standards are rising. And if it’s not, you have a problem. But the average again, during the 60 years post war was 2.5%. And during Trump’s period, it was 1%. In other words, the growth rate was, you know, barely two fifths of the normal rate on this basic metric, which is real GDP per capita. So when we can look at other things to the savings rate collapsed during his administration, despite the big tax cut, we haven’t gone into in detail yet. But despite that, investment growth was lower during the Trump period, than in any other administration going back again to 1950. So, you know, when you ask the question, Where’s the proof? Is it in the pudding? The answer is no. There’s there’s no proof whatsoever of his boast. You know, about the greatest economy ever. So what I say in the book, is it wasn’t the greatest economy ever. It was really the greatest con job ever. Right.

Gene Tunny 32:47

Okay. So on the tax cut, you mentioned the tax cut before you mentioned that this didn’t. In your view, it didn’t lead to, you know, a, an economic surge or surge in investment. And can you explain what happened with that tax cut? And where did you where did the money go? You talk about that in the book?

David Stockman 33:10

Sure. Well, if you want to look at the tax cut, you have it was clearly skewed to encouraging reinvestment by business, both corporations and, you know, individual proprietors. That’s why the corporate rate went down from 28 and 21. Why they put in the equivalent 20% deduction for unincorporated businesses. Now in Aw that cost 1.7 trillion over the first 10 years in revenue loss. And that was supposed to then, you know, cause a surge of investment. But if I look at the investment rate, by that I mean, real investment in the business sector, in the five years before the tax cut became effective in 2018. It was actually well higher than the growth rate in the next five years after the tax cut took effect. So if you spend $1.7 trillion that you don’t have, because it was all deficit, finance, they didn’t cut spending to pay for the revenue loss, and you get not no gain at all, but actually a worse trend performance in real terms, inflation adjusted terms, then you have to ask, how could you possibly justify that if you were borrowing money for a huge rate of return? You might argue, well, let’s let’s try that. But if the rate of return is even smaller than what was already built in, it’s dubious now where the money went them because clearly, corporations and individual proprietors paid a lot less in taxes. The answer is into a record surge in stock buybacks, and in corporate m&a deals and in other forms of, you know, leverage recaps and so forth other forms of financial engineering that basically flow money to Wall Street and to the top of the economic ladder, because that’s where all the stock is owned. In other words, 93% of the stock in the United States is probably true in Australia as well, I’m not sure. But 93% is owned by the top 10% of households, and bout 48% is owned by the top 1%. So if you have a huge corporate tax cut 1.7 trillion, that produces no gains in investment and therefore, future growth and job creation, but instead ends up being flushed back into Wall Street, you know, in the form of stock buybacks and other financial engineering, which then flows to the very top of the income scale. You know, you’ve got a double bad, okay, you added to the debt that the whole public is going to be paying service charges interest on forever, and you put the money, you took the money out of the economy and Senate, to the top of to the very wealthy and to the most affluent people next. Oh, sense. Raw.

Gene Tunny 36:27

Okay. I’d like to ask you about a go back to this point you made in the book about the Donald’s reckless fiscal and monetary policies being doubly bad. We’ve talked about the fiscal policies, what were his monetary policy? So monetary policy is handled by the Federal Reserve, isn’t it? What’s what’s, what was Trump’s role there?

David Stockman 36:49

Okay, though, that’s, again, another important topic. As far as I’m concerned, the number one, number two, and number three policy problems in the United States today, and the world is the Fed and the other central banks, they’re out of control, they’re printing presses have been running red hot. For decades and decades, one measure that I think is startling, if you take all the central banks of the world and add their balance sheets together, in 20, in the year 2000, it was 3 trillion. Now, why is it important to take the balance sheets, look, because that’s just a measure of how much money they printed? Okay, you know, when they print money, they buy assets and put it on the balance sheet. That’s a good simple metric to measure how much money they’re printing, it was 3 trillion at the turn of the century is 44 trillion today. All right. So in barely two decades, they have, you know, they’ve just flooded the world financial system, you know, with freshly minted credit, that, you know, ultimately created bubbles and inflation of every time. So the question then is, what about Fed policy? Now, given that backdrop, and my point is yes, in nominally, the Fed is independent, and they make their own decisions. But my quarrel with Trump is twofold. One, he made enormous put enormous public pressure on them, you know, practically week after week, to lower interest rates, and to make money even easier than it already was. So he was making the wrong advice. And secondly, he was doing it at a time in the business cycle, when it was desperately important for monetary policy to be normalised. I never agreed with all the huge money printing that Bernanke undertook in 208209 to 10. But you know, people argued it was an emergency, it was a one time thing, and even Bernanke himself, said in 2011, we’re out of the woods now. And we’re going to normalise the balance sheet, and we’re going to shrink it back to something reasonable, because it was 900 billion when the, you know, great financial crisis started struck the Wall Street meltdown in September 208. And by the peak it was 4.4 trillion. And, you know, everybody agreed that it needed to be normalised and interest rates were being held practically to zero for years and years and years, and I document a lot of this in the book, and that they needed to normalise as well, because when you make money dirt cheap, you’re just inviting speculation on Wall Street and you’re inviting Congress to spend money it doesn’t have because it’s so cheap to borrow down in Washington. So it was time for normalisation the Fed was trying to To do that by slowly raising rates, and by getting out of the Qt business and actually our QE business and actually shrinking its balance sheet they had initiated before Trump got through something called Qt quantitative tightening, and they were slowly trying to shrink the balance sheet back, just like Bernanke had promised they would. And Trump was constantly on their case, not to do either. And as a result of that the Fed just kept interest rates at zero. It kept the balance sheet, massively, bloated, still around $4 trillion. And that paved the way for the huge inflationary mourning after that we had in 2020 2021 and up into the present. So it the timing of the cycles screamed out because we were well into the recovery, the longest recovery in history. It was it screamed out for normalisation get back to something that was sustainable. And Trump was pounding the table, you know, day after day, don’t you dare do it. And even you know, leaking to the press that he was investigating whether he could fire Powell or whether he could, you know, clean house at the Fed and so forth. So therefore, when it comes to something as fundamentally important as sound money, Trump is the worst president and I say this advisedly, that we ever had the very worst, you know, far worse than Jimmy Carter far worse than Lyndon Johnson. Far worse, as far as I’ve studied it, than FDR, he may be even William Jennings Bryan if he had been elected president. So you, that’s another big black mark on the record.

Gene Tunny 41:56

Okay. You don’t blame Richard Nixon for taking us out of Bretton Woods. off the gold standard? Yeah,

David Stockman 42:04

no, I do. Yeah. And I’m I don’t know how I missed that one. But he was he was he was even worse than Richard Nixon and Tim was bad enough. Right.

Gene Tunny 42:14

Okay. Okay. That’s a it’s a Yeah, that’s a lot. I think your discussion of the Fed and fed policies, it’s definitely worth reading. So thanks for that. David. One last thing. In the foreword to the book by you’ve got Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. He says that you’re a crusader against the corrupt merger of state and corporate power in the US. Is that? Is that? Is that how you see yourself? And like, How bad is it in the States? I mean, you’ll see here the talk about the swamp and you hear about the power of lobbyists and all of that, and, and the corruption. I mean, how bad is it, in your view in the US at the moment?

David Stockman 42:59

I think it’s, I think is terrible, because the two worst things we have going are the military industrial complex, this massively bloated defence budget, and the pretentions of Washington that were the hegemony of the world with bases all over, will forever wars all over it interventions everywhere. That is due to the capture of policy by the military industrial complex, that’s corporate power, merging with government power, that’s the first one. The second one is the Fed is a rogue institution that is basically captive of Wall Street. That’s why they keep you know, printing money like they have been doing for decades now. And, you know, that’s exactly what Robert Kennedy is talking about there as well. Total capture of government institutions, in one case, the national security apparatus, in the second case, the basic Central Bank, by private interests, and it leads to some very, very bad outcomes, both domestically and internationally.

Gene Tunny 44:11

Gotcha. These are things that these are things that Trump himself has been campaigning against, hasn’t he or he made he these are things that he uses in his

David Stockman 44:22

arguments. Yes. And no, that is a good point. He’s not campaigning against the Fed. He’s campaigned against the Fed, but he wants an easier fit, okay. I want to send a Wall Street doesn’t like it’s totally different. I want a Fed that’s proven that pursues sound money, but obviously Trump wants a fed that prints even more money than the flood we already have. When it comes to defence is weird. He talks about America First he talks about, you know, NATO should pay its fair share of the tab and all that. But when he got in, he inherited a defence budget of 600 billion which was already way too big bloated, beyond anywhere. Rational need, and he took it up date other than 50 billion. In other words, he never saw a request from the defence department from, from the generals for money that he didn’t like that he wasn’t ready to embrace lock, stock and barrel. Now, why was that? Well, because Trump fancies himself as the greatest negotiator to ever come down the pike. I guess he learned that in the Queen’s as a real estate developer in his early life. And if he hasn’t, you know, an $850 billion defence budget behind him, even if it’s a big waste unnecessary. He thinks he’s accomplished something. But he’s so wrong. Because when you give the defence department and national security apparatus and all those agencies, all that money, they use it to buy political support. That’s right. You know, they use it, basically to perpetuate their missions, their manpower, their budget levels, and so forth. So, you know, Trump isn’t very smart. To tell you the truth, when it comes to how the world works. You know, he may have been a street smart gambler from Queens and got lucky in the real estate business. But he’s never studied. He’s lazy. He’s uninformed. He’s impetuous. He’s fairly dangerous.

Gene Tunny 46:27

Okay. Brought up Wow, man, this is, yeah, it’s been a real. A really great conversation, David, and very, very forthright. And I expect you’ll get a lot of reactions to your book for sure. I suppose one thing I’d like to ask before I leave. So you’re someone that you’ve, you’ve worked, you’ve been in Congress, you’ve been a representative, and you’ve also you’re a director of the Office of Management and Budget, management and budget in the Reagan administration. Correct. What was what was that? Like? I mean, what I mean, that’s, that’s a celebrated administration. I mean, obviously, one of your most distinguished or famous presidents and, you know, lots of really good people in that administration. What was it like on the ground working in it? Well,

David Stockman 47:18

it was a pretty exciting time, at least an effort was made to try to contain the behemoth that it build up on the banks of the Potomac. And it’s interesting to note that when Reagan was sworn in, in January 1981, I became budget director, the first thing we had to do, because we inherited this mess from Jimmy Carter, was to raise the national debt limit above a trillion dollars for the first time, we didn’t have any choice. But where are we today? Go public debt is 34 trillion. And we were struggling with one and we thought, you know, it was a world was going to come to an end. That’s how far things have drifted. Now, of course, the economy is three times bigger, but the public debt is 34 times bigger. So you know, it’s. And then during that period, we had our ups and downs. But at the end of the day, only some minor progress was made in shrinking the size of the federal budget, we cut taxes deeply. We were going to cut spending to match the tax cuts, the spending cuts didn’t happen, because the Republicans really, were not willing to walk the plank in Congress. And because defence spending, got totally out of control and ate up all the savings that we were getting domestically. So essentially, the fiscal calamity that the country is struggling with still today, and the Trump made infinitely worse, originated in the early 1980s, not by purpose, not by intention. But, you know, by the result of the political and policy battles that occurred in the Reagan era, but the one thing that was different is we had Volcker as chairman of the Fed. Volker was the last of the sound money Fed chairman. And he said, You know, I’m not going to finance the federal deficit. You guys want to run up the ready, then you’re going to fund it honestly, in the bond pits, interest rates are going to go up and it’ll be on your watch. And so he did bring inflation to heal, but he was the last of them and in fact, he was so unpopular with the Republican politicians who ran Reagan You know, by the end Reagan wasn’t with it that much of the last two years. They convinced him to not reappoint Volcker and put it Alan Greenspan instead. And, you know, the rest is history. Greenspan was a disaster.

Gene Tunny 49:53

Yes, I mean, he he certainly is his legacy initially After he retired he was seen as the the maestro, but then the financial crisis and there’s been a big reassessment of Greenspan’s legacy since then for sure, absolutely. I might have to cover that on a future show because it’s Yeah, it is a it’s a you know, there’s a lot of history a lot of to go over there. But then Stockman has been terrific. I really enjoyed talking about your new book. I think it’s an important book. It’s, it’s thought provoking. I expect it will be controversial and will should there should be prominent in the the upcoming debate over the rest of this year. So thanks so much for for participating. I’ll put a link in the show notes to your book. Is there anything you’d like to say to wrap up?

David Stockman 50:47

Well, I think we’ve covered a lot of good ground. But I think the answer is, you know, people really need to look beyond the headlines and what the mainstream media is telling you or what the politicians are boasting about, and get a grasp on the facts because we’ve got some pretty difficult economic times to grapple with as we go forward.

Gene Tunny 51:10

So David Stockman thanks so much for your time, really enjoyed it.

David Stockman 51:14

Very good. Thank you.

Gene Tunny 51:18

rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting outlets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

52:05

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Tags budget, covid-19, economics, fed, monetary policy, money, pandemic, usa

Podcast episode

Do central banks stabilize or destabilize economies? w/ Addison Wiggin, NYT-bestselling-author – EP196

Post author By Alec Krishna
Post date July 15, 2023
No Comments on Do central banks stabilize or destabilize economies? w/ Addison Wiggin, NYT-bestselling-author – EP196

The episode delves into the effectiveness of monetary policy by central banks in managing the economy over the business cycle. Do the actions of central banks stabilize or destabilize economies? Show host Gene Tunny chats with Addison Wiggin, a bestselling author, market economist, and host of the Wiggin Sessions podcast, about monetary policy and financial crises. Addison also shares some reflections on the US debt ceiling drama. This is part 2 of the conversation Gene held with Addison in early June 2023, the first part of which was released as EP192 on the US banking crisis.
Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

About this episode’s guest: Addison Wiggin

Three-time New York Times best-selling author, Addison Wiggin, is a 30-year market economist with a passion for the real-world impact of financial markets on our lives. Addison is the author and host of The Wiggin Sessions, a podcast that connects key thinkers and industry experts for a deep dive into history, politics, and economics. Some of his most accomplished works as a writer, publisher, and filmmaker include the New York Times Best Seller The Demise Of The Dollar and the documentary I.O.U.S.A, an exposé on the national debt crisis in America.

What’s covered in EP196

How is it that the US dollar can be the reserve currency of the world? (2:37)
Why not just accept that the business cycle is a thing and not do anything about it? (7:25)
Minsky’s instability thesis. (11:42)
The debt ceiling is just political theater. (16:52)
Central bankers and economists thought we’d solve the problem of business cycle management. (21:29)
How monetary policy was determined during the Gold standard era (25:06)
When the Federal Reserve presided over the contraction of the US money supply as multiple banks failed, the money supply fell 30% from 1930 to 1933. (30:17)
What does all this mean in the current context? (35:54)
Central banks need to choose wisely and they need some methodology to do so. (41:23)

Links relevant to the conversation

Part 1 of Gene’s conversation with Addison:https://economicsexplored.com/2023/06/18/exploring-the-us-banking-crisis-with-addison-wiggin-ep192/
US Federal Reserve on what happened to monetary policy during the Great Depression, “From the fall of 1930 through the winter of 1933, the money supply fell by nearly 30 percent.”:
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-depression
Episode with Stephen Kirchner in April 2022 in which the “lean versus clean” debate was discussed:
https://economicsexplored.com/2022/04/20/nominal-gdp-targeting-w-stephen-kirchner-ep135/
Till Time’s Last Sand: A History of the Bank of England by David Kynaston:
https://www.amazon.com.au/Till-Times-Last-Sand-1694-2013/dp/1408868563

Transcript:
Do central banks stabilize or destabilize economies? w/ Addison Wiggin, NYT-bestselling-author – EP196

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It was then checked over by a human, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to pick out any clangers that otters sometimes miss. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny 00:06

Hello, thanks for tuning in to this show. In this episode, I chat about monetary policy and financial crises with Addison Wiggin, The New York Times bestselling author, market economist and host of the Wiggin Sessions podcast. This is part of the conversation that I had with Addison in early June 2023. I broadcast the bulk of that conversation in an episode on the US banking crisis a few weeks ago. But this bit I’ve held back I held it back to this episode, because I wanted to have more time to reflect and comment on the excellent points that Addison makes in this segment. Please stick around until after my conversation with Addison for some additional thoughts from me on the issues. I should note that this conversation that we have about monetary policy, it was triggered by an observation that I made about recent market movements in the Australian dollar in early June 2023. So my observations about the exchange rate are dated. But the discussion which follows is evergreen. Okay, let’s get into the episode. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Addison Wiggin.

It’s interesting how markets react Yeah, it’s just, we just had this situation where because we had this surprise, monthly inflation number, and then we had the minimum wage decision or the award wage decision yesterday, then the markets go oh that makes it more likely that the central bank here the Reserve Bank will increase the cash rate. And so what we’re seeing now is that the dollar has appreciated against the US. So it was going down, it was going down to below 65 cents US and now it’s back up to around 66. Yeah, it’s funny how…

Addison Wiggin 02:37

And that’s one thing that I wanted to point out, because I think it’s it’s a concept that a lot of people either have trouble with, but in this book, I so I’m going to hold up the book again, because I think it’s worth the read. It’s pretty short. And my son helped me write it for millennials. So it’s like a quick read. But I was trying to wrap my head around, how is it that the dollar can be the reserve currency of the world? Meaning it’s the place where people, other banks and like big corporations hold their asset value? And how can we have that at the same that gives the United States a massive amount of advantage globally, when making trade deals, and whatever selling guns to go shoot Russians or whatever, whatever people want to do, we can do that, at the same time that we have inflation domestically, because there’s a difference between the reserve currency of the world which, you know, the Central Bank of Australia is going to is going to make deals with the Federal Reserve. Like that is an exchange trade thing. Or if I don’t know if Apple wants to open a plant in Brisbane or something like those exchanges happen in US dollars. And a lot of the commodities that Australia exports are priced in dollars, gold, and their earths and copper, like those things, they’re all priced in dollars. So there’s a tremendous advantage for the for the US economy that we have the reserve currency of the world, but at the same time, we have a payment currency, which is the stuff that we buy eggs in or we finance our homes or, or we take out loans to put our kids through school, whatever, that you can have massive inflation in that at the same time that the stability of the reserve currency. You know, you were talking about a penny between, it used to be five now it’s six or six like it’s pretty, pretty stable, globally. It’s a freaking nightmare at home when they can’t figure out how to slow prices down or the bizarre thing that we were just talking about. They want people to they want the unemployment and the jobs number rate to go up, but they actually want that to be the result of slowing the economy.

Gene Tunny 05:00

Well, yeah, I mean, they want a sustainable rate of economic growth and you want to avoid the overheating economy, you want to avoid the, the huge boom and followed by the, the big bust. And that’s a concern. I mean, in Australia what we’ve had because particularly because in a combination of the massively generous pandemic response, I mean, just like nothing that was just ever expected. And I mean, incredibly generous to, particularly to small business people, and also to welfare recipients who had their, if you’re on the Jobseeker you had that doubled, compared with what it was before, for maybe six months to a year. And there’s all this and people were allowed to pull money out of their retirement savings, their superannuation, their compulsory super, so there’s all this extra money. And I mean, the boom we had was just incredible. And unemployment nationally got down to three and a half percent. And I mean, I never thought it would go below four, like we we thought full employment in Australia was around, or the natural, the non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment or natural rate of unemployment, we thought it was around 5%. And then suddenly, it’s got unemployment rates got down to three and a half percent never thought we’d see it. Cutting off immigration was possibly part of that for a time. But the idea is to try and set the interest rate so that the economy doesn’t get on, I mean, you know, this, it doesn’t end up in that boom bust cycle or that or it’s not as amplified as it as it would be, if you…

Addison Wiggin 06:33

Yeah, so that I my issue with that is that they that’s that was the idea of lowering interest rates for as long as they did is that they wanted to mitigate the boom bust cycle. They wanted to use the tools that they had from history to figure out a way to mitigate the booms, but also mitigate the busts, they wanted to like level the whole thing out. And look what happened, we had a pandemic. And then we had, we had to throw a bunch of money at citizens, and then they saved it, the savings rate went higher than the credit rate at one point on each money. And then as soon as the market I mean, as soon as the economy started opening again, it plummeted all the way to the lowest rates, we saw the the fastest rate of disposable income drop, since 1933. It just went whoo bump. Like they did anything but mitigate the business cycle. In, in my view, I mean, I’m just a guy who studies and writes about it and talks about it write books about it, whatever. But in my view, why not just accept that the business cycle is a thing and not do anything about it? Let, let credit go to the market price that is this, it’s designed to go to, don’t have a central bank that is trying to manipulate overnight rates so that their buddies on Wall Street can get, can keep funding their projects and stuff. It messes with the natural cycle of booms and busts. And that’s what I honestly believe would would do away with these kinds of massive inflationary cycles that we go through, or the opposite, which they’re really afraid of, which is a deflationary period where they can’t sell anything, and the economy just falls apart. That’s what happened in the 30s. I’ve been reading a lot recently about what’s going on, what went on in the 30s. And that’s when we got all these regulatory agencies, it’s probably about the time that Australia started enacting its own financial regulatory systems too. They don’t help. And in fact, they’re always late and they’re always wrong. So it’s like, they’re not mitigating the business cycle. And they’re not actually helping anyone be more honest and truthful in the marketplace. It’s it’s politics, and it’s nastiness. And nothing actually, like they’re not achieving anything. And I’m costing, casting a wide net here because I’m talking about regulatory agencies within the financial network, like we’ve got the SEC, we’ve got the FTC, we’ve got the CFTC, there’s a bunch of lawyers out there trying to stop people from doing anything under the guise that they can mitigate the boom and bust cycle, and that’s just the natural order of things. That’s capitalism. Let’s, let’s go. That’s the way I look at it.

Gene Tunny 09:44

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 09:49

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny 10:19

Now back to the show.

Yeah, look, I think there’s, I think some of the fine tuning they’re doing or if that’s the right term, I think there’s there is a concern that some of it may actually be contributing to the instability of the economy. I, I think that’s right. What Bernanke would argue is that if he hadn’t, so if we go back to say, ’08, I mean, he would argue in, you know, Paulson and Tim Geithner, they would argue that if they hadn’t done what they did, or some variation of it, you could have had a rerun of the 1930s. And you could have had unemployment of 20%, or something, or whatever you saw during the Depression. I don’t know to what extent that’d occur, but that’s what their argument would be. Yeah, it’s a it’s it’s something I’ve been thinking about. I mean, I don’t really know the answer myself. I am concerned like you that a lot of the actions that they’ve taken have contributed ultimately contributed to instability rather than making things more stable.

Addison Wiggin 11:26

Yeah, well, let me go back to Hyman Minsky who was writing in the 50s. And he was mostly describing what he read, he lived through the 30s. And then when he was an adult, he was a professor, I think, at MIT. And he was talking about, like, his area of study was the 1930s. And he studied like Schumpeter, and those guys who were writing during that time, Garet Garrett is another one that I’ve been sort of fascinated with. Because as we’re moving through our own like situation, the the stuff that I read, sounds like it was written yesterday, but it was written in like 1932, or whatever. So Minsky’s idea was the longer you have a period of stability, the stability, it, it’s actually called the Minsky Instability Theory, that the longer you have periods of stability, the more mistakes get made, and the inevitability of a crash is going to happen. So artificially creating periods of stability by lowering interest rates, or by keeping them low for longer than the market demands, or by incentivizing the couple of the things that were talking about before 2018, were alternative energy, and areas of the market that had been underserved by the regular stock market, they were passing political motives, or political policies that encouraged, you know, wind and whatever, I wish they had gone into nuclear at that time, but they failed, they missed on that one. But there was a lot of money going into areas of the market that that weren’t rewarded by a return on equity, like money that was put in was not rewarded. And so there was a shit tonne of money going into areas of the market that didn’t deserve it for a long period of time. And so the Minsky instability thesis is that when you do that, for a long period of time, there’s people make mistakes, they don’t, they don’t get punished by the market, that’s a kind of a harsh way to say it. But they don’t, they don’t lose their money, they get rewarded for making bad mistakes that are based on policy. And if that goes on long enough, when you have to clean up the mess after that, which is what Powell has been trying to do, it’s hard to figure out what Powell even thinks, but when you have to clean up the mess, then all of those mistakes that were based on false premises. They come to light in that, like if you’re watching anything of the financial news, currently, that’s each headline is about the mistakes that were made in like 2015 or 2018. Or what the hell happened during the pandemic. Like we’re still cleaning up that mess and we don’t know, a way forward other than this debate of whether the Fed is going to lower either pause or lower rates again, like that’s the only tool they have. They will they have two tools, they have one, they can lower rates and then other central banks around the world will follow. Or they can engage in another round of QE and support specific industries. Like I think we’re gonna see a heavy push either later this year or early next year to support in industries that are trying to develop new technology for cleaner energy, just because there’s so much private equity going into that space right now. That when they start losing money as they have been, there’s going to be a push for government to step in and bail them out.

Gene Tunny 15:24

Right, okay, even though, I mean you, you’ve just you’ve narrowly averted a debt default, haven’t you? And they’re going to have to have some cuts in discretionary spending. So yeah, I guess, yeah, maybe they’ll find some way to do it. But the

Addison Wiggin 15:39

let’s let’s talk about the debt default for just a second. It’s so absurd. Like, I’m like just a citizen of the United States. I grew up here. My dad is mildly conservative. I don’t really give a shit about politics at all, because I mostly think that they’re talking out of one side of their mouths, and then they’re making deals behind doors somewhere else, right. So the idea that we have a debt ceiling came about because Congress used to have to justify all of their spending every year, they had to, once they pass the budget, they had to like stand up and say, We want to spend money on this highway to do this, or this pipeline to do that, or whatever. They had to justify it. But when we went into the very expensive wars that we’ve been involved in World War One, World War Two, Korean War, war on poverty, war on drugs, war in Vietnam, war in Afghanistan, that’s our longest one, like you can’t justify spending that hasn’t happened yet. So they put the debt ceiling in place in 1960. Saying that, well, you can just spend money on whatever you want. But it can’t go above this amount. And 78 times now, I think it’s 79. Now that they’ve just reached a new deal, they’ve had to raise the debt ceiling since 1960. Like, the whole concept of a debt ceiling is just political theatre and it’s not even a useful tool to anyone. It just makes people anxious. I actually started watching the market. I was like, When is this gonna start impacting the market May 18. Nothing in the financial news. Like the banking crisis got wiped off the headlines, which I think is still sustaining right now. We’re gonna see more banks fail. And people other than the NVIDIA boost that we got last week, when AI started grabbing all the tech people’s attention, the markets were just trending slower and slower, lower, like, they were just kind of trending now. And everybody was waiting for Kevin McCarthy and Joe Biden, to come to an agreement. That’s it, it was like really boring. And all they were trying to do is figure out how much they’re going to pay their defence contractors, their buddies who make weapons to send to Ukraine, and that’s literally all they were talking about, one of the things they were talking about is the Republicans wanted work requirements for food stamps. And the Democrats didn’t want that. They just wanted people to get food stamps. And then there was a third one that was a pipeline from West Virginia to Virginia and the Democratic Senator Manchin, Manchin, wanted it to go through and the Democratic senator from Virginia didn’t want it to go through because his constituents, it was going to go through their farms, and they didn’t want it to go through their flocks. The details that they were fighting over were minuscule compared to that $31.4 trillion debt ceiling that they were arguing about. It’s all politics. It’s meaningless, and it’s it’s a charade that comes up and they supposedly put a cap on it for two years, but I’m gonna guess they’re gonna spend more than they agreed to. And we’ll be in this boat again next year or, or in 2025.

Gene Tunny 19:16

Yeah, because you’ve still got the problem of the unsustainability a lot of the the automatic spending really the

Addison Wiggin 19:24

Oh, yeah, that wasn’t even, that was off the table from the beginning. They’re like, Yeah, of course, they Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and all that. We’re gonna pay that and that is adjusted according to the inflation rate, which earlier this year or late in 2022, it was 9% so that the adjustments were already baked in.

Gene Tunny 19:51

So unless they’re gonna do something about that, or you know, the alternative is to actually increase tax revenue, but no one wants to do that. And so if you not gonna do do that, then you do have to tackle those entitlement programmes. And again, you know, Donald Trump says, I’m not going to touch them. And so the other GOP people, they’re probably not going to do it want to do anything about it?

Addison Wiggin 20:12

It’s kind of ridiculous because one of two, or actually, both of two things need to happen. And I’m like, Libertarian, I don’t I I’m not, I don’t even vote. So for me to say this is like, I’m just talking about the economics, not the political side of things, but they need to raise taxes. And they have to cut spending, there’s no way out of this any other way, unless they can get a bunch of dumb ass central banks around the world to keep funding our debt by buying bonds. Like that’s, it’s just like, if, if I tried to teach this to a, you know, a class of like third graders, they would be like, those don’t make sense, like we can’t spend more than you take in and you have to borrow it from people who don’t like you. Pretty obvious that it’s unsustainable. And yet we tell ourselves day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year that we can do this forever.

Gene Tunny 21:24

Okay, I hope you found that informative and enjoyable. I think Addison made some great points about the effectiveness of monetary policy. At times, it may well have contributed to economic instability. Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, central bankers and many economists had thought we’d solved the problem of business cycle management. Inflation targeting policies were seen as contributing to the period known as the Great Moderation with low inflation and less volatile economies. But as we know, now, the victory was short lived. The fundamental problem of business cycle management has not been solved. It’s possible inflation targeting central banks, they didn’t pay enough attention to the financial risks that were building up in economies. They were too willing to cut rates to shore up financial markets with a view to preventing a wider panic which could cause a recession. There was the so called Greenspan put, named after Alan Greenspan, who chaired the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006. It was called the Greenspan put through a comparison to a put option in financial markets. So that’s an option, which allows the owner of stocks to lock in a certain price at which they can sell the stock in the future. There was a view in financial markets that Greenspan would intervene to shore up stock prices so they wouldn’t fall too much. Arguably, this created a moral hazard and encouraged excessive risk-taking in financial markets. So monetary policy could actually have been destabilising. I should note, there is an active debate on the extent to which and whether the central bank should intervene with a view to avoiding the accumulation of financial market risks. So this is the so called Lean versus Clean debate that I discussed with Steven Kirschner in Episode 135 in April 2022. So please check out that episode if you haven’t listened to it yet. I will put a link to it in the show notes. There’s no doubt that the monetary policy actions of Central banks can have significant impacts on economic activity, whether on the whole they are stabilising or destabilising is difficult to assess. In the 60s and 70s, Milton Friedman argued that the best thing for central banks to do would be to adopt a money supply growth rule, so committing to growing the money supply by a certain percent each year. This turned out to be easier said than done and Friedman’s approach known as monetarism was widely seen as a failure. We might come back to monetarism in a future episode for a closer look at how it was implemented and what went wrong. There’s a fascinating story there. The key point is that there’s been a an active debate for decades on the right way to conduct monetary policy and various approaches have been tried. We we’re still grappling for the right approach. The challenge is that central banks need some Northstar for setting monetary policy. So whether it’s inflation targeting or nominal GDP targeting, the latter being something that Stephen Kirchner advocated for in that discussion I had with him last year. It’s no longer as easy as it was during the gold standard, for instance. So if we look back to that period in history. In a 1908 speech to his Manchester constituents, Winston Churchill, who was then the President of the UK Board of Trade, he explained how the gold standard guided the hand of the Bank of England in setting its monetary policy rate, known as the bank rate. If England buys from America or Germany, more than she intends to buy having regard to our own productions, instantly, there is a cause for the shipment of bullion, that is gold, and bullion is shipped to supply the deficiency, then the bank rate is put up in order to prevent the movements of bullions. And the rise of the bank rate immediately corrects and arrests the very trade, which has given rise to this disparity. That quotes from David Kynaston’s excellent history of the Bank of England. Till time’s last sand, if I remember correctly, I’ll put a link to that book in the show notes. So if you want to get a copy of it, you can find it on Amazon. It’s a terrific read, and lots of great history in there. And yes, that quote from Churchill, is in there. So as the quote from Churchill suggests, setting the bank rate, or the federal funds rate in the age of the gold standard, would have been much simpler. Now, that’s not necessarily an endorsement of the gold standard as that system had its problems and economists such as I think it was Eichengreen, Barry Eichengreen have argued that the gold standard ended up contributing to the Great Depression. So there’s a, there’s a big debate around that, that we probably don’t have time to go into now. Going back to the gold standard, isn’t realistic. I’m just making the point here that in history, when there was a gold standard, it was more obvious what should be done with the monetary policy rate, the bank rate in the UK, the federal funds rate in the United States, or the cash rate in Australia. So we’re no longer in that era of the gold standard or even Bretton Woods, the era of fixed exchange rates, which ended in the early 1970s. And because of that, it’s much less obvious what should be done with with these policy interest rates of central banks, so we’re still trying to figure that out. Econometric evidence is only so convincing so any econometric evidence on which monetary policy regime might be more effective than others, which one might have lower inflation and lower economic volatility measured by the volatility of GDP, for example, it’s only going to be so convincing, it’s not going to convince everyone that there’s just so many influences on the economy, that it’s just very difficult to determine whether any particular policy, whether it’s making the impact, the size of the impact, it’s difficult to know what would happen in the absence of a specific monetary policy change. It’s difficult to know what the right counterfactual is so we can’t run controlled experiments in macro economics, there’s no, we can’t treat the economy like a laboratory in which we can test alternative monetary policy so we’re left with questions that are difficult, if not impossible to answer. For instance, what would have happened if the Fed hadn’t intervened so aggressively during the financial crisis or the pandemic? Would we have had repeats of the Great Depression? That was what the policymakers that was what the central bankers were worried about. Look, it’s hard to know there are many factors to consider, for instance, is fiscal policy fiscal policy is is set in a much better way in the post war era than it was during the depression or before that. We have automatic stabilisers in the budget such as progressive taxation and unemployment benefits and they can help prevent economic activity from collapsing and so therefore, there may be less case for an aggressive monetary policy response. So there are other things to consider it’s a very difficult question to answer. Regarding times of economic crisis we could ask, was aggressive monetary policy, so an aggressive monetary policy stimulus was that required, so was it required, or instead, did we simply need a monetary policy that didn’t make things worse. So there is an argument that the Great Depression was caused by bad monetary policy. When the Federal Reserve presided over the contraction of the US money supply as multiple banks failed. The US money supply fell nearly 30%, from 1930 to 1933. So that’s a statistic that you can find on the US Federal Reserve website. I’ll put a link in the show notes. As Ben Bernanke admitted to Milton Friedman in 2002. Regarding the Great Depression, we did it. We’re very sorry. We won’t do it again. That was Bernanke responding to the strong argument that Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz made in their famous monetary history of the United States from the early 60s. It only took the Federal Reserve 40 years to to admit they agreed with Friedman on that. Now, if you do have a, an emergency, a major economic crisis, then look, the arguably there is scope for a monetary policy response, most economists, the large majority of economists would accept that there has to be some sort of central bank policy response, and probably even a stimulus of some kind, although there’d be debates on just how much that should be and how large it should be. One of the problems I think we’ve been we’ve had recently is that the well, the monetary policy response during the COVID period, when combined with the fiscal policy response was just massive, and it’s been massively destabilising. And it contributed to a very strong recovery, I mean, massive, massively. A very strong recovery in excess of anything that we really expected. And that’s contributed to the inflation that we’re experiencing that that we’re seeing in the United States and the UK and Australia. It’s, it’s what’s happening in Ukraine, of course, but it’s also a lot of it to do with just that, you know, the after effects of that massive fiscal and monetary policy response. So unintended consequences of of that, that policy response. So look, I think economists would accept that there is scope for some stimulus, some response in the face of a massive shock, adverse shock like that, but it looks like it was really over done. And then there’s the issue of just what central banks should do. Outside of these major crises just in the sort of normal course of events or the over the course of the business cycle, to what extent they, they should be actively managing interest rates, trying to control the money supply, trying to influence the course of the economy. There’s a big debate over that, this idea of fine tuning. Now, when I was studying in the early 90s, when I was at uni, the leading macroeconomics textbook at the time was, well it was called macro economics. It was by professors at MIT. So very famous professors Rudiger Dornbusch, and Stanley Fischer. I think Stan Fischer went on to be the governor of the Central Bank of Israel, if our if I remember correctly, he was a former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, and he served as the eighth governor of the Bank of Israel, from 2005 to 2013 so very distinguished economist, and what he wrote with Rudiger Dornbusch, in that textbook, they wrote that in discussing the desirability of activist, monetary and fiscal policy, we want to distinguish between policy actions taken in response to major disturbances in the economy. So, I was just talking about that earlier when we think about incidents like COVID or the financial crisis, or the depression. So there, so back to the quote. So in discussing the desirability of activist monitors monetary and fiscal policy, we want to distinguish between policy actions taken in response to major disturbances in the economy. and fine tuning in which policy variables are continually adjusted in response to small disturbances in the economy, we see no case for arguing that monetary and fiscal policy should not be used actively in the face of major disturbances to the economy. Fine tuning presents more complicated issues. The case for fine tuning is a controversial one. I think that’s a good summary of how economists think about monetary and fiscal policy as well, that was written in the early 90s but I think that is still a good summary of, of what the consensus would be. So what, what Dornbusch and Fischer were getting at in terms of the problems with with fine tuning, they’re thinking about the problem there is that you’re not sure whether a particular shock to the economy, is it permanent? Is it transitory? Is this just a normal part of the business cycle, and therefore, you shouldn’t really react to it. There’s also there’s the issue of of lags in policymaking, it can take time to recognise disturbances in the economy, then can take time to implement policy and for that, to have an impact on the the economy. So there are these lags, which complicate macro economic policy. And they mean that the case for having an activist policy, so trying to be clever in how you’re setting interest rates and making these fine adjustments to interest rates. It does make you wonder, just the extent to which we can do that the extent to which our policymakers will get that right, and won’t actually contribute to instability in the economy, which I think is a significant risk. What does all this mean, in the current context? Well, it probably would have meant after we got out of the, the emergency period during COVID, and it was clear that the economy was recovering very strongly. And inflation was a risk, I think, thinking about this, all these points that, that I’ve been discussing here, I think, possibly central bank should have increased interest rates much faster, they should have got them up to perhaps what you might call a neutral rate, or a bit higher than a neutral rate much more quickly than they did. And then leaving them there and not not adjusting them every month or every couple of months, depending on how various economic variables are tracking. I mean, it gets a it gets very difficult to, to do that, and to be sure that you’re making the right judgement. So perhaps that’s one, that could be an interpretation of what central banks could have done if they recognised that this whole approach and fine tuning so to speak, is is not really optimal. I think it’s an open question. I’m not necessarily saying that I’m not saying okay, this would have been the right approach that there isn’t, there isn’t still the potential to fine tune the economy, there may well be, but it’s not clear that some other approach may not be superior. And so therefore, I don’t think you can actually reject the hypothesis or reject the argument that these frequent adjustments of policy interest rates, they could actually contribute to economic instability. We, I think that’s, that’s a question economists should be thinking more about. So there are certainly real examples of where the monetary policy response as part of a fine tuning approach was probably excessive, and it sent the economy into recession. The example I always come back to is the early 1990s recession in Australia, which was arguably deeper than it should have been, much deeper. The unemployment rate went up to around 11% in 1992, our central bank, the Reserve Bank, increased interest rates to around 17 to 18% to slow down the economy so in Australia, we had this colossal boom in the 80s. It was the age of the entrepreneur. And there was a lot of investment particularly in commercial property. And the central bank intervened aggressively, it was also worried about the balance of payments, the it was worried about the current account deficit. And it thought that very tight monetary policy was justified. And at the time, they thought, Oh, well, the economy can handle this, they did their economic modelling the Treasury and the RBA, they were forecasting a soft landing for the economy, it turned out to be the worst downturn since the Great Depression. So when I think of that incident, I’m always reminded of just how difficult it is to fine tune the economy, so to speak, and, and looking back on it that early 90s recession, it happened when I was in high school, and it was something that really made me interested in economics. And it made me actively think about studying economics and, and even eventually becoming an economist. So that was one of the incidents that that stimulated my interest in economics for sure. Okay, so we’re going to start wrapping up this afterword. Central banks, they do need to set policy rates, so they’re at the centre of the monetary system, they can control the amount of liquidity in the overnight money market. So in the cash market, as we call it, in Australia. And that ends up setting the benchmark for interest rates across the economy. So central banks are playing a very important role in our monetary system in our, in our payment system in our financial markets. They need to choose wisely. And they need some methodology to do so. So whether it’s set and forget, some sort of set and forget methodology or some type of rule, whether it’s inflation targeting, nominal GDP targeting, some other method, they need something to help guide their decision making. And we still haven’t figured out what that should be. So for a while, we thought that inflation targeting was the right methodology but that’s imperfect, we’ve learned. Some critics of inflation targeting they argue, it’s given us too much financial instability. Other critics come at it from another direction, they argue central banks, they actually didn’t fully follow the inflation targeting policy, it hasn’t been properly implemented. So they would argue that central banks should have had looser monetary policy during the 2010s so that they could have got the inflation rate up. So it got into the target range. And, and they would argue that what we ended up getting was lower growth, lower employment, higher rates of unemployment than otherwise. So we’ve got criticisms of inflation targeting for a variety of reasons. So it looks like it hasn’t. It hasn’t lived up to the promise it, it’s been imperfect. Okay, in summary, there’s still an active debate over how to conduct monetary policy when it comes to fine tuning the economy. It’s possible that at times central banks have actually contributed to economic instability. We can’t say definitively one way or another, whether their policy actions have been stabilising or destabilising on average. I think that’s fair to say. That’s my interpretation of things. If you’ve got a different view, then please let me know. I would love to hear from you. I think that central banks are trying to do the best they can, I mean arguably, they have helped prevent a rerun of the Great Depression at at certain times, particularly in 2008, you could probably argue that actions by the Federal Reserve, in particular did help prevent a much more severe downturn, although that was a very bad downturn already. But look, outside of those sort of incidents, I guess maybe during COVID, the assistance was was was definitely some assistance was needed but then they overdid it, and now we’re suffering from the high inflation. So look, possibly they do some good in times of crisis, but then, in other times, it’s hard to know they could actually be destabilising. This is one of these issues where it’s difficult to read the evidence. And it’s, it’s unclear, and we’re still trying to figure things out. So that’s not a great answer. But that’s my understanding of what the evidence and the theory tells us at the moment. So yep, if you’ve got a different view, let me know. So any thoughts you have on what Addison or I had to say in this episode, please get in touch. You can email me via contact@economicsexplored.com. Thanks for listening.

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

45:45

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this. To begin your own podcasting journey, head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Tags central banks, debt, economics, fed, monetary policy, money, rba

Podcast episode

Exploring the US Banking Crisis with Addison Wiggin – EP192

Post author By Alec Krishna
Post date June 18, 2023
No Comments on Exploring the US Banking Crisis with Addison Wiggin – EP192

Economics Explored host Gene Tunny interviews Addison Wiggin, a New York Times bestselling author and market economist, about the US banking crisis. Addison shares insights into the origins and impacts of the crisis, and discusses the future of the US economy and financial markets. Listeners can download Addison’s recent report “Anatomy of a Bust: Winners and Losers in the Banking Crisis of 2023” for free via a link in the show notes.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

About Addison Wiggin

Three-time New York Times best-selling author, Addison Wiggin, is a 30-year market economist with a passion for the real-world impact of financial markets on our lives.

Addison is the author and host of The Wiggin Sessions, a podcast that connects key thinkers and industry experts for a deep dive into history, politics, and economics. Some of his most accomplished works as a writer, publisher, and filmmaker include the New York Times Best Seller The Demise Of The Dollar and the documentary I.O.U.S.A, an exposé on the national debt crisis in America.

What’s covered in EP192

Addison’s background and how he came to the conclusion that the US financial system is in danger of collapse. (1:53)
Will the Reserve Bank of Australia increase rates again? (10:46)
The uncertain lender of last resort: The Federal Reserve. (17:11)
The Fed’s job is to make sure fewer people have jobs. (21:52)
Banking crisis and the failure of regulation. (26:21)
FDIC and confidence. (32:00)
Why it’s important to understand how booms and busts even take place. (37:07)
Cryptocurrency as part of the story. (41:47)
What has happened to the dollar since 1913, when the US Federal Reserve was established. (46:41)

Links relevant to the conversation

Special download link to Anatomy of a Bust for Economics Explored listeners:

https://jointhesessions.com/ee/

Presentation by Addison that Gene mentions early in the episode:

Anatomy of A Bust: Banks Go First | Special Presentation by Addison Wiggin

Transcript:
Exploring the US Banking Crisis with Addison Wiggin – EP192

Gene Tunny 00:06

Addison Wiggin 01:53

Yeah, no worries, I’m happy to actually meet you. As I was saying before, I’ve been forwarded some of your material in the past. So I know your name. And I feel like it’s a good opportunity for us to banter a bit about economics.

Gene Tunny 02:07

Absolutely. Thanks, Addison. And I’ve, yeah, I’ve seen the very know your research. And you’ve, you’ve been doing a lot of deep analysis of what’s been happening in banking and what’s been happening in financial markets. And you’re very keen to chat with you about that. In particular, I’ve come across a recent presentation, you’ve given anatomy of a bust, banks go first. And in that presentation, you make the argument that, well, we’re in a panic of the panic of 2023. America’s financial system is in danger of collapse. We’re here to protect ourselves. Would you be able to take us through what leads you to this conclusion? Addison, please. And also, perhaps maybe to begin with, what a bit about your background? How’d you? I mean, you’ve had, as I mentioned, you’ve had deep experience of this, it sounds like you’d be looking at these issues for decades. Can you tell us a bit about your story and how you come to this conclusion, this threat of collapse, please?

Addison Wiggin 03:17

Yeah, absolutely. I’ve been studying booms and busts for a long time. Since the mid 90s. This is literally the only work I’ve done in my adult life. And just to do a shameless plug right at the beginning, I just published a book called The demise of the dollar, which looks at booms and busts as they pertain to fiat currencies in the world. And US dollar is deeply connected to the Aussie dollar. And I addressed some of that, and also, the dollar is a reserve currency of the world. So like even the Aussie banks or New Zealand or Japan or European banks, US and China as well, which is a big part of the story, use the dollar to store their wealth in. So there’s, there’s a symbiotic international connection between my currency and yours. And that’s what that’s what I’ve been interested in for this particular book. But I’ve also been studying booms and busts going all the way back to the famous ones like the tulip bubble and the Mississippi scheme from John La, back in the early 1700s. And then the South Sea bubble which the bankers from from London just ripped off John Maas idea and then they went bust too. So booms and busts are pretty common in the financial cycle of of our lives. And we’re we have just gone through one and that’s what anatomy of a bust. It’s just a special report we put out because it was interesting to have our very own movement boss how Ben right in front of our faces, it starts really in 2018, where a lot of people were using low interest rates that the Fed was fed had kept interest rates low to recover from the 2008 bus for such a long period of time, that there’s like a whole group of traders who grew up in a world where interest rates were at zero or less than that. And so money was free, and they were speculating on all kinds of things. And one of the things they speculated on was cryptocurrencies in 2018. We had this massive bubble in, in cryptocurrencies and a lot of the banks that started failing in March of 2023, which we’re still I maintain, we’re still in that crunch. And I’ll explain why I think we’re still in it, and why we don’t talk about it that much anymore. But a lot of the banks like Silicon Valley Bank grabbed the headlines when they went bust in 48 hours, because they had invested all of the money they were getting from tech entrepreneurs. They had invested it in treasuries, and then the Fed started trying to battle interest rates. And they didn’t account they didn’t either believe the Fed would they didn’t have any risks. There actually was no risk officer on the payroll at Silicon Valley Bank at the time. And they didn’t realise what the impact of an aggressive rate rate hike policy by the Fed was going to be. And that was happening simultaneously with the collapse of X FTX, which was the crypto currency trading firm that a lot of tech startups had their money, had their money. So when they when FTX went bust, they had to pull their money out as fast as they could, or they just lost their money. And in the meantime, the startups were being also financed by Silicon Valley Bank, notably, and they needed their money back to keep their their startups going. So the conflicts of different trends follow the theme of booms and busts that we’ve seen throughout history. So when when it was happening, I was like, Oh, my God, this is our very own like we could write about, it’s actually happening right in front of us. So it’s, that’s what the special report is about is like how that actually happened. And when Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, it collapsed in 48 hours, because all these people wanted to take their money out to cover their own losses in crypto, that was technically what was robbing and they were just yanking their money out. And even though as you know, as credible bankers, we would look at the way that Silicon Valley had put their assets, more than 50% of their assets were in treasuries, which are meant to be, you know, the risk free asset that banks should hold anyway. But they didn’t calculate for the rising interest rates from the Fed to combat inflation. And then when there was a run on the bank, that’s what we call it. It wasn’t I mean, it’s a modern day, extraction of digits really. But when people started taking their money out, Silicon Valley Bank had to sell their treasuries at a loss. And it it happened very quickly. No one thought that with the FDIC, which is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that was set up by the Treasury to like help small banks, stay solvent help, depositors stay solvent, nobody thought that can actually happen anymore. The FDIC was set up in the 30s, to combat some of the forces that were going on in Great Depression. And then the Treasury itself gets together they get all the Wall Street banks together, and they then they construct these bailout plans like what they did for first republic. So those, all of those things happen, and they were grabbing the headlines from March until like the beginning of May. But then our debt, what we call the debt ceiling debate. I prefer to call it the debt default debate over the dancin, and nobody’s really paying attention to the banks anymore, but the underlying issues of the Fed fighting inflation and over capitalization in treasuries. There’s 36 banks in the US that are still under FDIC protection, watch conservatorship, whatever you call it. And then there’s a bunch of other banks that are borderline if what happened in March where people started pulling their money out of banks as a sector in on Wall Street than those banks are going to be in trouble too. There’s a couple others that I’ve been keeping an eye on that that have the word PacWest was one of them. And they’re just banks that are lending to more risky clients. And then depending on the depending on treasuries to rule out there, or to keep their their investments safe. And depending on how long the Fed keeps raising rates, which I think they’re going to raise them again, because inflation is not under control. It’s not only under control here in the US, it’s not under control. In Australia, I think Australia was getting really aggressive recently. Why don’t they? Well,

Gene Tunny 10:46

they increased rates more than people expected. There was a surprise rate hike. And now the the question is whether they will increase again, we’ve got a Reserve Bank meeting next week, there’s it’s a bit unclear, there’s a lot of debate about what the bank will do. Everyone expects that they’re going to have to increase at least one more time by the end of the year, possibly two. It all depends on what’s happening with inflation, we’ve got a monthly indicator that on through the year terms has, has increased or as worsen. But there’s a debate about well, what it’s it’s very noisy month to month. So it’s difficult to read much into that we need to see what happens with a quarterly figure. They’ll be watching services, inflation, so goods inflation has been coming down but services inflation is has been rising. So that’s and now we’ve got a minimum wage hike of six to 8% or something, depending on the actual, whether you’re right on the minimum or if you’re on an award. So yeah, there are, there are concerns about the future of inflation.

Addison Wiggin 11:52

I’d like to ask you a question. I spent some time in Australia. And also we had an office there for a while. So we were trying to manage our own finances there. And it might just be a myopic point of view of my own, because I am an American and the Federal Reserve is what it is. But when the Fed makes moves, often the Ozzie bank or like Japan or EU will follow, like a month later, if to you to think that that’s true. I don’t want to sound like an arrogant American, which I probably am, but But it always feels like the Fed is sort of like the central banks of the world.

Gene Tunny 12:30

Yeah, that’s true. It’s not automatic. It doesn’t always happen. But certainly one of the things that our central bank is conscious of is what’s happening with the exchange rate. And if if we keep our interest rates too low, then that leads to a depreciation of the the Australian dollar. And that’s bad for inflation. So we start importing inflation. So that’s something that they are conscious of. And when the Fed started lifting, was it last March or March?

Addison Wiggin 13:04

A little over a year ago? Yeah. Yeah. And

Gene Tunny 13:07

so the first few rate moves increases by our central bank, we’re pretty much in line with what the Fed was doing. And I mean, my take on an Earth in Michael Knox, who’s a commentator here, and he’s, he’s Morgan’s financial chief economist. I think he’s one of the best market economists in Australia. That was his view on it that, you know, by essentially copying the Fed that they had, the Fed was moving. So our, our guys had to I mean, we read our, our central bank, really, I don’t know if asleep at the wheels the right way to phrase it. But our first rate increase didn’t happen until I think it was May last year. And so it was a couple of months after the Fed, the Bank of England had gone earlier. I think Reserve Bank of New Zealand really got on to it early. But yeah, I think our central bank just wasn’t concerned enough about the risk of inflation. They were too much in that secular stagnation paradigm that they had, prior to the pandemic and those that decade or so they thought, Oh, well, we’re in this world of permanently lower interest rates, and there’s no no concern about inflation. We don’t have to worry about that anymore. For various reasons.

Addison Wiggin 14:23

I mean, that’s literally what thought some of these regional banks, asleep at the wheel was the Fed got really aggressive picket quickly, and even in the books that I’ve been writing? So I have this one, but I’m also looking at another one that’s kind of like the political analysis of how we got to a position where we have 31 trillion in debt, which is just ridiculous, right? Looking at the trajectory of Fed policy from really from 1987 When, when there was a stock market crash and Alan green The internet just become our Fed chair, he dropped rates as a response so that people could get free money in and prop up their balance sheets. That has been the response since 1987. Until now, and no one I like they caught a lot of banks sleeping, when they started raising rates as aggressively as they did, and they were afraid of 1980 81 scenario where inflation would just get out of control. There’s no anchor to the dollar. And everything is based on the dollar index, which is a basket of currencies and including the Aussie dollar that determines what the value is. There is a tone. It’s just astounding to me, actually, with all the history that we have with banking, and even the Federal Reserve since 1913. Like there could be backers who still have jobs. what was gonna happen? Yes. Well,

Gene Tunny 16:04

I mean, it’s an but they play an important role in the economy. But yes, there’s a lot of monetary mischief with a lot of mistakes that a an aid for sure. Absolutely. I like to ask Allison about. You mentioned that this started in? Was it 2018? So you think this started before the pandemic? Is that right? And then the pandemic, all the policies during the pandemic made it worse or contributed to the instability?

Addison Wiggin 16:30

Yeah, well, I would say, though, is that there were separate events, I think that the policies really started in about 2012, when we were seeing QE two, meeting that the Fed was still buying bonds in the market, or in even actually buying up mortgage backed securities in response to what the federal what the, what caused the crash in 2008, which was a global event also, because all the big pension funds and hedge funds, they’re all interconnected globally. So when when we ran into our housing crisis in 2008, it affected everyone. And we saw the ripple effect really quickly. And what the Fed did to head that off, was they dropped the interest rates, we had zero to negative interest rate real interest rates for a number of years between 2012 and 2018. But they were also buying up assets in the market, they were buying bonds in the treasury market to support bonds, because they needed to fund the government. And then they were also buying, they were actually buying assets on Wall Street, which is like, that’s an extreme measure. The bank is not supposed to be buying assets to prop up the market. But anyway, so there was a period of time where we had zero, I mean, money was free. And there was the like, I like to phrase the, the uncertain lender of last resort, that’s what they call the Federal Reserve, you never know what they’re going to do. But in the end, they’ll come in and bail out, you know, they, if they had to, they bail out, gee, JP Morgan, which has literally the fifth largest GDP of any economy of the world, and it’s a private bank. So they would come in and bail them out. That’s just thinking

Gene Tunny 18:25

that on that point about had this, what was it the unexpected lender of last resort?

Addison Wiggin 18:32

Charles Charles, my book I forgot his last name, but he wrote us. Yeah, he wrote an entire book about there needs to be a lender of last resort, but it has to be uncertain. You can’t count on them. You just have to know that they’re there in case the shit hits the fan. And yeah, and that’s what the Fed has been trying to do. But what they’ve been telegraphing what they telegraphed from 2012 until 2018, was we’re gonna keep rates low, and we’re gonna keep buying assets to keep the market propped up. And the beneficiaries of that policy are Wall Street banks, big ones, you know, yeah, Oregon, Citigroup, Bank of America, those companies, those those corporations are beneficiaries of just an extended period of ridiculous monetary policy. And a whole generation of bankers grew up in that in the environment where they believed that the money was just going to be free forever. So when the Fed turn, turned around and started trying to combat inflation, then we started having a serious problem. And the first people that got taken out, were the regional banks who weren’t paying attention to risk policy at all. So that’s why I say it started in in 2018, because there was a big boom in cryptocurrencies stable coins. We’re coming out. Bitcoin had already like fluctuated up to 60,000 and then dropped and like it was already an object of speculation and Aetherium was sort of like its step cousin, you know, it was doing its thing. But there was a lot of money getting pushed into the market because of low interest rates, that tech firms and Wall Street banks the like, and new new banks, like the FTX exchange that that was built, that was only founded in 2017. Like it became one of the largest traders have actual money, dollars to crypto currency in like, under two years, there was a lot of money flowing into the system. And that’s when if you follow Austrian economics, like I do, but a lot of other people do, too. I’m not making any kind of claim to it. But all the mistakes that are made get, they happen in the blue, when there’s money, that’s cheap credit, and people are spending money on things that they don’t understand. That’s exactly what tech entrepreneurs especially were doing, because they were excited about this new money that we could trade. It wasn’t traceable. And then banks grew up around it, that silver gate was one Silicon Valley Bank was another first republic was another pack glass was involved. And so when the tech entrepreneurs started getting nervous about their, their investments, or even their own companies, they wanted to remove the money from banks, and was sort of targeting Silicon Valley Banks specifically because they were getting a lot of deposits. And they didn’t have to loan out money to make money. So they were buying treasuries. And then when the Fed started tackling inflation, which itself, inflation itself was a result of 10 years of, of low interest rates, like we had, of course, we had the pandemic, and then we had the war in Ukraine, which cut off some supply chain, so it created like pain points. But at the same time, there was so much money flowing around in the system, that the natural outcome just in economic terms of that much money flowing into the system is that prices go up. The amount of money chasing goods is more than what the goods have, in what I would call intrinsic value. So it just costs more if you want gas, it cost more if you want eggs, eggs were a big deal. In the US. They were in, in Australia, but they were a big deal for like two years, because they went from like, I don’t know, an average of three bucks for 12 eggs to something like seven bucks. And people were like, What the hell, you know, I need an egg a day. And now it costs Yeah, three times as much. So that’s that’s the way that people feel inflation, but the cause of inflation, inflation is rising prices, but the cause of it is money supply money going in to the system. And they did that in reaction to the 2008 housing crisis, they were pouring money into the system and making it cheap for years to a degree where people just started thinking that was the new norm. But when Powell got in place, and he started raising rates, there was a lot of bankers, especially who were like, Oh, he’s not going to do that. Because this is the new norm. And it wasn’t the new norm, because there’s they still don’t have inflation controlled. So my guess is they’re going to raise another quarter point and they meet again. And then that’s going to ripple out to banks in Australia, in Japan. And mostly, those are the three that I looked at Australia, Japan and EU. Yeah,

Gene Tunny 24:14

it’s quite quite possible. I saw that the US had a good was a good jobs figure was was that what I saw? Yeah. And so that they’re saying the economy is more robust than they expected. And so yeah, they’re doing isn’t it? conundrum a little bit that the feds job is just to make sure that less people have jobs. Yeah, well, that’s the Yeah, that’s the Elizabeth Warren take. And then she was trying to pin it really gets stuck in a jay Powell over that, I think in the in Congress, wasn’t she? Oh, I’m trying to remember. Was it Powell or was it she was given?

Addison Wiggin 24:53

That was a couple of weeks ago, she was giving a speech in front of Congress, but she was taking Jay Powell to test. So he wasn’t actually even talking to him. Right. But that’s just a weird thing that that the feds job has suddenly become too slow the economy down, make sure that more people are unemployed, so that the government can then take care of them. It’s like, it’s, it’s not a free economy, like we like to think that America runs a free economy, we don’t run a free economy at all. And their goal right now is to slow everything down. And then we got the jobs report that you’re talking about. It was, I believe, is yesterday or the day before, it was more robust than what they were expecting. So they’re saying, oh, yeah, the economy is still growing, we gotta raise rates more to slow it down. Like, if we got a jobs report that wasn’t as positive as it was, then the stock market would have actually rallied. But when the draw four came out, down because people were like, Oh, that means they’re gonna raise rates again, we can’t borrow money cheaply again. It’s like, yeah, Pretzel Logic to me. But it’s kind of fun in a way to follow it, because it’s like, it doesn’t really make that much sense.

Gene Tunny 26:19

Yeah, yeah. I better get back on to banking, because I want to ask you about where we’re going there. And this banking crisis. There are a couple of things I just wanted to just quick things a good to get your views on. So you mentioned that this SBB didn’t have a Risk Officer. Is that right? Which I find extraordinary. Is that a failure of regulation? Yeah, I

Addison Wiggin 26:42

only found it in passing. So there were two kind of oversight errors that took place. They didn’t have a Risk Officer evaluating what the impact of rapidly rising interest rates would be on their the holdings that were like the core of the bank. That was one thing. And I think it was just in transition or some of the there wasn’t somebody in that position at the bank for like a year. And that was the year that the Fed started aggressively raising interest rates. And at the same time, no, nobody in the bank thought that the Fed actually pretty much nobody in the economy, though did Wall Street banks didn’t think that they would do it either raise interest rates as aggressively as they did. So even while it was happening, we were like, Oh, they’re going to stop. So there was a lot of speculation of when they were going to pause or when they were going to pivot. I remember back in even before the banking crisis started, the big phrase in the headlines was, when is the Fed going to pivot, meaning they’re going to stop raising and they’re going to turn around and start dropping among regional banks anyway, the first ones to get under stress. They didn’t have people that were taking the Fed seriously at their word, the Fed was saying we’re going to we’re going to fight inflation until it’s done, which is a tough battle. And nobody believed that. So when the cost of treasuries went down, and the interest rates went up, it was harder for a bank, like I just use Silicon Valley Bank, because it was so pronounced. It was harder for them to raise the capital to pay back their depositors when they wanted their money back. And a lot of those depositors had just lost money in the collapse of fts. So it was just sort of an act of boom and bust, you know, a line of love crumbs from what was going on in the crypto market to what happened to the regional banks. And then you saw the entire banking sector get whacked in the market, like, there were other banks that were reasonably sound that were getting taken down because everyone was trying to get out of the banking sector. So when their stocks get are getting punished by institutional investors and by pension funds, then that messes with their balance sheets, as well. And the only reason we haven’t been hearing about it in since I actually tried to pinpoint it was May 18, that the debt ceiling debate sort of took over the headlines. All the issues with the banks still exist. And that was really just a speculation on my part. But if they didn’t, for some stupid reason, come to a political agreement. On the debt ceiling, we would have seen a massive wipe out of bets because Treasuries are supposed to be risk free ish. I mean, they’re about as risk free of an investment you can make other than maybe gold or precious metals, and banks had piled into treasuries for so long because it was cheap. And it was easy and it was risk free. If we had a debt ceiling debate, I mean, that the vault if that debate failed, and we had a default, then treasuries would have been become an object of speculation, like other assets in the market, people would be like, I’m betting they’re going to do this, I’m going to bet that they’re going to do that, and the risk free part of that, where you store your money would have disappeared, that would have been a nightmare for a lot of smaller banks. And then the thing that is kind of a nightmare too, would be that JP Morgan, Citibank, Bank of America, the big Wall Street firms would have just gobbled up all of the, those assets at pennies on the dollar, which is exactly what they did with SBB. And with first republic, they just went in and just took all the assets for like, it was three cents on the dollar.

Gene Tunny 31:04

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 31:10

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny 31:39

Now back to the show. So can I ask Allison, where are we going? Now? I mean, over the next six months or a year or so will we see more banks fail? Will we see a contagion? Or will we see impacts on the broader economy? Where do you think this is all going?

Addison Wiggin 32:00

Well, I’ll answer that in two ways. There is a certain level of confidence in the FDIC to like bank to back individual depositors. So like the fear of bank runs is probably abated a bit. Because the FDIC and Janet Yellen to the Secretary of Treasury, she has been going out saying no, we’re not gonna bail everyone out. But if it gets bad, we’ll bail some people out like she’s being that lender of last resort. So I think that the crisis part has abated. But that hasn’t fixed any of the the challenges that banks are facing right now with rising interest rates, and the battle against inflation in the uncertainty of of how committed the Powell Fed is going to be to that. So it would. So that’s why I say I’m going to answer in two ways. One, I detailed all of this special report that we were talking about anatomy of the anatomy of a bust, this is exactly how it happens. And I actually got that phrase from Garrett Garrett, who was writing about how all the banks failed from 1932. Until about they were still failing into the 50s. So they failed for a long time. But the three banks that failed in march into the early part of May, were larger in capital by percentage than all 25 banks that failed in 1932. So like, that doesn’t happen by mistake. And that also doesn’t happen without repercussions. And I expect that that we’re going to be talking about banking places like three years from now, because it hasn’t worked itself out yet. And they’re still trying to fight inflation. So so I don’t know if we’ll have a panic or a crisis period like we had between the beginning of March and mid May. But I think the tension is still there. And it’s definitely something that we want to pay attention to. Because the banking system is the the bedrock for all of the other stuff that we get, like when we buy and sell stocks, when we get mortgages, when we buy cars, send our kids to school and stuff like that that system needs to be. We need to have confidence in that system. And I don’t think it’s there yet. Brought we get a paper version of the confidence from speeches from Janet Yellen. And we forgot her name already, but that was the woman who runs the FDIC. But it’s just a fact the FDIC has like 300. Now they have $37 billion to support $17 trillion worth of deposits like it’s It’s, it’s absurd. Other than me and I’ve written this to this is it’s a competence game. Like, just like the way people, you know, take advantage of retirees because they gain their competence and competence gain is what it is. It’s a it’s a sham. Yeah. Yeah, right now the government is running a competence, that literally people have confidence that the government will figure this out. And so they’re they’re just biding their time. And what are they going to do next? My, my guess is they’re going to drop interest rates. As soon as there’s like a real crisis, they’ll drop interest rates, and now get another speculative boom going on Wall Street. And usually what happens when, when that happens is that mutates into bubbles in other markets, too, like Australia always benefits from booms in the commodities market. And China always benefits from new tech development and the Europeans benefit from new speculation in travel and tourism. Like it’s it’s almost predictable. What’s going to happen next,

Gene Tunny 36:11

abroad. Okay, so this is your report anatomy of a bar stock and put a link in the show notes to that. Can I add in just trying to think about what the risks are? I mean, you make the case that more banks are probably going to fail. What do you think the chances of something like 2008 happening again, or something worse than that? What would you put the probability of that ad in the next couple of years

Addison Wiggin 36:36

right now, I’d say it’s pretty low. Because one of the things that happens is like human beings that the people who run the government also learn. And they did what they thought they had to do in 2008, I’ve written about this many times, the Paulson, delivered a three page memorandum to Congress and said it at like midnight, and said, You have to bail out these banks, otherwise, the entire global economy is going to fall apart. There’s three pages, and they just followed it. So I think they’ve learned that through monetary policy, and also working in concert with other federal, like the Federal Reserve system of the world, that they can mitigate crises. But that doesn’t mean the problems aren’t still there. So that’s why it’s important to understand how booms and busts even take place, you can’t keep interest rates at zero for 10 years, and then expect that no inflation is going to pop up. But it is ridiculous. But it’s worth understanding the mechanisms behind the banks and whatnot, because that’s the that’s where the money flows, if that’s how the markets work. That’s how, you know, they determine interest rates for all kinds of things, credit cards, and student loans, and banks and cars and all that kind of stuff. The economy functions on credit. And banks are the source of that credit. And they’re all connected to the Federal Reserve System. So it’s worth paying attention to what they say. And I hate that. I don’t like politics. And I don’t like the banking system. But I warn people that they ignore those things at their peril. Because when you need to do something financially in your lives, you’re sort of dependent on decisions made by people who live far away from you, and don’t have your interests in mind.

Gene Tunny 38:45

Yeah, yeah, I just want to try to understand what this all means. So does this mean that, like, we’re in a situation where the Federal Reserve and the government is going to have to continuously? Well, maybe not continuously, but every now and then bail out the banks? And, you know, we’re gonna keep trying keep interest rates low, keep the flow of credit going? And therefore, ultimately, this is inflationary? Are we back in? Because we had a period of very low inflation? Are we going to be in a period of higher inflation for for longer than we expect? Is that one of the arguments was that a conclusion?

Addison Wiggin 39:22

Yeah, my conclusion is that we would, it’s not a conclusion because it’s an ongoing story. But we’re going to be in a period of inflation longer than, you know, the headline news tells us like, you can’t just stop inflation. And once it starts, it’s very hard to stop. And I actually got that quote, I, I interviewed, I did a documentary about 15 years ago, and I interviewed Paul Volcker, who was famously the inflation fighter of the early 1980s. He was the Fed chair at the time. And when he said to me, he said two things that have stuck with me he said a lot of other things and I published all buddy But, but he said a couple other things that are two things that have really stuck with me one he’s like, actually, I’m going to set the stage. So this is after walking past a couple of cartoon pictures of him that he had framed in his office of him like turning off the inflation spigot. And then another one where he was like wielding a sword and a shield, and he was like fighting inflation. So he was kind of like a caricature of that time. And that was the worst inflation that the world had seen in since the late 1800s, since the panic of 1893. And the reason was, we had gotten off the Bretton Woods, dollar peg to gold that there was a lot of reasons why it happened. But when I spoke to him, and this is on camera, and in the interviews that I’ve published, he’s, well, first of all, once inflation gets started, it’s very hard to stop. Because it, it creates, like a psychosis in people where they start thinking, if I don’t spend my money for that refrigerator, in June, by September, it’s going to be 30, Luxmore, or something like that. And they start thinking like they have to spend their money now. And that creates inflation, psychosis of sorts where people are just spending more money more quickly, because they think it’s going to be worth less later. And you’d like if the Feds goal is to slow down the economy, that inflation psychosis works against any Fed policy that they can put together.

Gene Tunny 41:43

Okay, just a couple of things. Because yeah, it’s great conversation quickly. What about crypto? You mentioned crypto as part of the story?

Addison Wiggin 41:51

Well, I have a theory about crypto. And it’s the same thing that it’s the same philosophy I have about the internet itself is that we had in 2001, we had a big boom in Internet stocks, like even Toronto, like right now. But the company that makes insulation for houses was doing fibre optic and they dropped the.com on the end of their name. They weren’t even a tech company. And they they exploded in value. Yeah. What’s the pink insulation that we all use? But I don’t even know why I’m drawing a blank on the net. But it’s because it’s a big installation. The point I’m trying to make is that during the.com, boom, there were just ridiculous investment being made. Yeah, all kinds of things. And then they busted. But we were, in the end, after all, the detritus fell to the floor, and people sort of like woke up from their hangovers. We ended up with internet and things like zoom, like I’m talking to you from Australia. Right now. I’m in Baltimore. And these things are possible because of that massive innovation and the investment that went into that period. Like that it even with a Gora, the company I’ve been working with for a number of years. We exploded when we went online, and we benefited greatly from the innovation of email, or changed our lives. So I have the same sort of perspective on crypto, is that I think it’s speculative. And I think there’s booms and busts and we saw that 2018 was crazy. Yeah. And then we saw another spike in in different like Bitcoin and Aetherium. And some of the stable coins in like 2021. Last year was a nightmare. We called it crypto winter, because the underpinning actually doesn’t part of the story I’m telling to is that two of the stable coins that FTX and Alameda research were investing in the traders that were supposed to be pegged to the US dollar, but the traders on pegged them without telling anyone and that started the FTX. So I think you’re gonna continue to see that kind of speculative nature in crypto. And we’ve got this spectre of central bank digital currencies coming up. We don’t know where that’s gonna go. Suppose there’s going to be a vote in the US in July, on whether the Federal Reserve should adopt one or not. But they keep saying that to that story is going to be ongoing, I think the real benefit of the the innovation and the spikes in the highs and lows and, and, you know, the turbulent market that Kryptos has gone through up to this point will ultimately be beneficial because we’ll we’ll end up with Blockchain as a more efficient way to to conduct transactions in the financial markets. So you can make money you can lose money in crypto. I’m not a crypto evangelist. Like I believe that it’s going to be a substitute to the US dollar or the world banking system. But I do believe it efficiencies that are brought to transactions are going to be beneficial to everyone. And that’s kind of how I look at it even from an investment standpoint, I’m like, oh, bitcoins at 15,000, neither should buy some, and then it’s at 27. And then it’s at nine. And it’s like, no, I’m not getting somebody tried to buy some property from a couple years ago, I think it was in 2021. And but they would only do the exchange and in Bitcoin and I’m like, I don’t know if my property is going to be worth less or more if I take your Bitcoin, but I do know what the value of the property is. Yeah. So I think the speculative nature of it is, it’s too early to, to like I prefer gold and silver to Bitcoin or Aetherium. At the moment, maybe there’s a time when, when it makes sense to like use it as a banking tool, but not right now. too speculative for me, and, but I do think that the benefits of blockchain are going to be like email to us a couple years from now, where everyone’s going to be using Blockchain for efficiency, which I think is great. In the boom, bust cycle, that’s what happens, people invest a lot of money quickly into innovative projects, and a lot of people get burnt, a lot of people get rich. And then what we end up with is the core technology that benefits humanity as a whole. I love technology.

Gene Tunny 46:31

Yeah. One thing I wanted to cover too, is this demise of the dollar you talk about? So is that a this is this is a long run concern of yours about where the US dollars going. And I mean, this is related to the point you’re making about.

Addison Wiggin 46:43

Yeah, the thing is, like, I mean, I could slip through the book is that one great chart that shows what has happened to the dollar, I’m not going to be able to find it and make it make sense to your viewers. But since the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913, the original goal of the central bank was to stabilise the currency, and maintain its purchasing power in the economy, for payment, currency users like me, like it’s supposed to be able to, I’m supposed to be able to figure out what my dollar can buy and for how long. But it’s lost more than 97% of its purchasing power since 1913. And it’s, it’s a steady slope downwards, the more money they pour into the system, the like every dollar that you print becomes worth less than the one that was printed last. And the entire banking system of the world is dependent on the dollar as a reserve currency. And at the same time, we’re losing the value of its purchasing power, every debt, and it’s been going on for more than a century. There, their main task was to preserve the purchasing power of the currency that we use in the payment system in the economy. And they have done anything but that it’s, it could be its historic fiat currencies never worked. It accelerated after 1971, with the Bretton Woods system fell apart, the only thing you can do is understand it and then try to move your money around into assets that accumulate value over time. That’s why I like gold and silver, because yeah, there’s a little bit more speculative, but gold when I was younger, and first trying to understand how these things correlate. Gold was trading at like 253 bucks an ounce in 1999, I think and now it’s trading on average, a little bit above 2000. Over that time, he has to be 500. It’s outpaced the s&p 500, which is a broadest measure of big stocks. It’s just been a better investment over time. And that’s that’s just generally what I think is it’s a reverse correlation to the dollar, which is supposed to be managed by the bankers who keep sort of forgetting about risk and inflation and those kinds of things.

Gene Tunny 49:20

I might have to come back to fiat currencies. Yeah, it’s a big, big topic, but another time, because I’ve really picked your brain and it’s been I don’t mind it. We’re very good. That’s great. And yeah, maybe if you if you wanted to sum up your the broadly, the anatomy of a bust. Would you like to summarise it? Or is there anything else you’d like to say before we wrap up?

Addison Wiggin 49:43

No. I mean, I would just say that it’s it was my attempt when, when I was already following the story of FTX and I knew there would be a knock on effect, and I had starting in about December of 2022. So like six months ago, I was like this story is not going to go away. And there’s going to be a knock on effect in other parts of the market that we’re not aware of right now. And that was in December. And then by March, we started having banks fail, which nobody thought was even possible anymore. With the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC backing out small depositors, like nobody thought we would have bank runs ever again. And and then we had the three largest ones within a six week period. So I had already been kind of following the story, and trying to just try and understand how it would even be possible. So that’s what’s in the report is like, here’s what happened, here’s why it happens. Here’s what you need to pay attention to. And here’s how it fits into the historical perspective of booms and busts, the credit cycle is a real thing, even if the government is trying to mitigate it. It does exist and impacts everyone. Because you need a bank, to save your money to borrow to do things that we want it to, to run your business you need, you need a bank that works with you. And if they’re making dumb choices with the assets that they have, it’s better to know that in advance. So that’s what the report is about. And then there’s a couple of recommendations on investment investments you can make. Once you understand what’s going on. We actually recommend bank.

Gene Tunny 51:31

Yeah, yes, it’s for US banks, a lot of to have a lot of have to have this conversation. I don’t know if you look at Australian banks, if I don’t, I

Addison Wiggin 51:40

haven’t looked at Australian banks, except for in a macro sense, where I’m aware that the Federal Reserve decisions that move rates also has a knock on effect in Australia, New Zealand, China, and Japan and Europe. Those are like the big ones. Russia was at two until they decided to destroy their neighbours. Yeah, the

Gene Tunny 52:09

general view here is that our our banks are in a much better position than

Addison Wiggin 52:14

it could be. I haven’t studied them closely enough to know, I think their requirements are different in Australia than in the US too.

Gene Tunny 52:23

Yeah, there. There are definitely differences. So you might have to I’ll have a close look at that myself. But look at us. And it’s been terrific. Yeah, probably more time than you might have expected, delving into it. Because I think what’s great is you you do deep research, and you make a big calls, I suppose what you make you make you really let us know what you think. And I think it’s great. And yeah, it’s it makes me think about what’s going on so much more. So really appreciate all the work you do. And I’ll put links in the show notes to your work. And, and thanks for making that. That report available for listeners. That’s terrific. Yeah.

Addison Wiggin 53:03

It’s information that I like, I would just caution people that I’m learning about it as fast as I can. But I’m also passionate about it. That’s why I do it. This whole project that I have the Wigan sessions is a passion project. I like talking about this stuff. And then it makes me think just like you’re saying, it makes me think. And I want to give away the report just to spread what I’ve learned, because I think it’s important stuff for, especially if you’re trying to manage your own money, it’s really important for you to understand the bigger trends. And, you know, I have a philosophy degree and I studied literature in school and stuff. So I’m interested in the stories of what’s going on. It’s late sound perverse, but I was actually excited when we started having our own banking crisis. It’s happening right in front of my face. I just have to read the news.

Gene Tunny 53:59

Yeah,

Addison Wiggin 54:01

get the report. It’s it’s interesting. And it’s helpful to like, make sense of what’s happening in the news, too.

Gene Tunny 54:07

Yeah, certainly, I guess it could be exciting, stressful. I remember being in Treasury. And here in Australia during the world of financial crisis. We didn’t have it as bad as it was in the States. But it was still quite, quite stressful at a time when we started seeing the drop in government revenues. And yeah, borrow lots more money. And yeah, well, my

Addison Wiggin 54:28

biggest concern, and I put this in the report to but my biggest concern right now is, we were talking about the savings rate during the pandemic. I think the same thing happened in Australia to the savings high because there was a lot of government stimulus, like direct payments to citizens. So the savings rate and then nobody could go anywhere. So the savings rate went really high. It actually peaked above consumer credit for like a, you know, like, a month, and then as the economy started opening up and people started travelling and Like making decisions I, oh, we’re free, we can go to one, the savings rate plummeted. And then the consumer credit rate for all of the things that I’m only talking about the US, but I’m sure it’s mimicked in other Western economies, the consumer credit rate, skyrocket skyrocketed before the Fed started raising rates. So like, all these people are taking on adjustable rate, credit cards and loans and mortgages and things. And then suddenly, the the debt service that they have to pay on those rates went through the roof, it’s tripled. So you had a plummeting savings rate, and at the same time that you have a service to debt ratio going through the roof. It’s not a good scenario. And we haven’t even really seen that impact on, like earnings in the s&p 500, the big retailers and stuff like that. We haven’t seen what that impact is going to look like yet. So that’s not kind of like, I guess, yeah. So other than the banks themselves, because they do it for there’s two points there that I’m keeping an eye on.

Gene Tunny 56:09

Yeah, fair point. We’ll definitely I’ll keep an eye on it, too. I think they’re really good points. Okay, Addison, we’re gonna thanks so much for your time. I really enjoyed that. That was terrific. Good luck to you, man. Very good. Thanks, Addison rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economics explore.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if you’re podcasting outlets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

57:10

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au.

Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Tags banks, central banks, credit, crypto, fed, inflation, money, qe, usa

Podcast episode

The Greedflation hypothesis – EP186

Post author By Alec Krishna
Post date May 6, 2023
No Comments on The Greedflation hypothesis – EP186

Economics Explored host Gene Tunny talks about the “greedflation” (greed + inflation) hypothesis with his colleague Arturo Espinosa from Adept Economics. They discuss whether greedy corporations might be responsible for high inflation rates in advanced economies such as Australia and the United States. Gene talks about how the excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus during the pandemic has been a major contributor to higher inflation.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

What’s covered in EP186

[00:01:28] Australia’s high inflation rate.
[00:06:57] UK windfall tax on oil and gas companies.
[00:10:27] Greed inflation hypothesis.
[00:13:29] Markups as a contributor to inflation.
[00:16:20] Industry concentration and inflationary pressure.
[00:21:11] Inflation outbreak and COVID stimulus relationship.
[00:25:45] Problems with Covid stimulus.
[00:27:58] Excessive stimulus and inflation.
[00:32:35] Corporate power and antitrust.

Links relevant to the conversation

Greedflation articles:

Blaming inflation on greedy business is a populist cop out

Profits and Inflation in Mining and Non-Mining Sectors | The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work

Underlying Australia’s inflation problem is a historic shift of income from workers to corporate profits

Corporate profits have contributed disproportionately to inflation. How should policymakers respond? | Economic Policy Institute

‘Greedflation’ is the European Central Bank’s latest headache amid fears it’s the key culprit for

price hikes

How Much Have Record Corporate Profits Contributed to Recent Inflation? – Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

Cost-Price Relationships in a Concentrated Economy – Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Inflation is being amplified by firms with market power

Chris Murphy’s economic modeling on stimulus and inflation in Australia:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1759-3441.12382

UK windfall profits tax:

What is the windfall tax on oil and gas companies? – BBC News

Energy Profits Levy Factsheet – 26 May 2022 – GOV.UK

RBA on sources of inflation in Australia:

Box C: Supply and Demand Drivers of Inflation in Australia | Statement on Monetary Policy – February 2023 | RBA

Charts:

Australian bank deposits

Australian money supply (M3)

Transcript:
The Greedflation hypothesis – EP186

Gene Tunny 00:00

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 01:12

I’m very happy to be here.

Gene Tunny 01:14

Excellent. Arturo. So it’s at the end of the week, it’s Friday the 28th of April 2023. Earlier this week, we had the March quarter inflation number for Australia. It came in at 7%. So it was lower than at its peak of 7.8%. The quarter before but it’s still it’s still high. And mean, there’s still concerns about cost of living in Australia for sure. I mean, that’s something we’ve all been noticing as we go to the supermarket and other stores. So for sure inflation is still high. One of the things I think is interesting, and I must admit I’ve come to this issue late. Is this issue or this accusation of greed, deflation? Have you heard about this concept of greed, deflation? Arturo?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 02:05

Well, lately, yes. But when I was student in Peru, I haven’t heard that

Gene Tunny 02:11

nine. I think it’s a it’s a new term that that’s been thrown around. There’s this accusation that a lot of the inflation we’re seeing is due to profiteering it’s due to greedy corporations. So obviously, we do need to be concerned about big business and monopoly power. There’s, that’s a legitimate thing to be concerned about. But there is this question of, to what extent can we explain the inflation that we’ve seen by greedy corporations? So is it greed, flotation. And this has been quite prominent in the media. So there’s a think tank here in Australia, the Australian Institute, and it’s put out a paper in which they’re saying that this is a big part of the inflation problem. So we might talk about that in a moment. And it’s an accusation that’s been thrown around in other countries, too, in the States. And also in Europe, there was an article in Fortune magazine earlier this week. Greed flash deflation is the European Central Bank’s latest headache amid fears it’s the key culprit for price hikes. And I mean, what we see in whether it’s in Europe, or whether it’s in the States, or whether it’s here in Australia or the UK, if you just look at the data, if you look at data on inflation, you look at data on corporate profits and wages, and you look at data on other input costs. It is the case that profits have been have been high and they have grown in this post pandemic period. And this has led some people to argue that, well, they’re just profiteering they’re putting prices up more than can be justified. Now, I think this is a difficult hypothesis to prove it been thinking about it a bit and how you might demonstrate whether it’s the case or not that this is true, or whether you can whether we can rule it out, or or is it something that is it is a legitimate possibility. We do know that certainly profits for oil and gas companies and also coal mining companies here in Australia. They’ve been, they’ve been very high and also profits in other sectors to have been, have been higher. So in banks and, and in other sectors, and that’s what The Australia Institute argues. One of the challenges I see however, is that in economics as in other sciences, you need to be careful to distinguish should join correlation and causation. I think what Institute’s such as research, researchers think tanks, such as The Australia Institute have found I think they’ve found a correlation isn’t causation I think that’s a lot harder to establish and might go into, into why that’s the case. So I want to talk about correlation versus causation, how might you prove whether there’s green inflation is, is a legitimate thing or not? And we’ve also got to think about here, what’s the what’s the scientific way to look at this and to come to a conclusion now, The Australia Institute is a think tank, and it has a particular agenda. It has a progressive or a left wing bias. And so this type of hypothesis of green inflation appeals to it. So we need to keep that in mind. And we should think rigorously about whether it makes sense or not. Okay, so that’s, that’s a bit of an intro to this idea of greed, inflation. Or one of the other things I just wanted to mention in the intro is that there have been calls for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies in, in many countries, and they did impose one in the UK, I don’t know if you saw the news about the that windfall tax that they imposed on oil and gas, know, what will happen are they put on a, an energy profits Levy, because arguably, a lot of the the excess profits that the oil and gas companies were making, that was due to the higher prices associated with the war in Ukraine. And if you think about it, from an economic perspective, they really didn’t need those profits to have been motivated to invest in the first place. So you could argue that they were, they were x supernormal profits. And so therefore, you could make a case for a some sort of excess profits. Levy. And so that’s what they did in the UK, they put on a an energy profits levy a 25% surcharge on extraordinary profits, the oil and gas sector is making and, and that’s we saw a similar thing here in Australia wheeling, Queensland with the higher royalty rates on coal. So they put in a new, a couple of new tiers in their royalty rates. I think they had a 40%. There’s now a 40. What is it a $40 a tonne royalty rate, once the coal price gets above a certain, certain level? And I mean, this, this is something that’s controversial, because then companies say, Well, there’s a sovereign risk that oh, there’s a risk of that, that we didn’t anticipate before. Now, we have to really think about whether we invest in your state or your country. So there’s that that to consider. But that’s just to say that why this is relevant is because if you think that this green inflation is a problem, then you might be more inclined to to advance policy measures like that, like a windfall profits tax or higher, higher company tax or something like that. So I think that’s a that’s one of the issues in the policy debate I thought I’d mentioned. Okay, Arturo, any thoughts on ADD or green inflation? So far,

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 08:26

it seemed that probably these inflation can be caused by these corporate big multinational corporation that wants to maximise the profits. Without taking into account what happening in the White House household level, the pressure of these inflation particularly is on the household Australian households, that they need to pay higher prices in energy, fuel, my grocery staff, so that is, that is painful.

Gene Tunny 09:04

Yeah. How plausible Do you think there’s greed inflation hypothesis is so basically it’s saying that the corporations are taking advantage of this concern over inflation? Or that they see that? Okay, so prices have started to rise and corporations think, okay, let’s just keep increasing prices, because we’re, we’ve got the cover to do. So now. We’re, it’s, we can get away with it, essentially. Now, what’s the problem with that argument? So we’re thinking like economists would say that the problem with that argument is that if one company decides to do that, and they’re doing it illegitimately that their costs of production really haven’t increased. Wouldn’t another company try and undercut them or try to they just, they wouldn’t raise their prices as much and then they could steal some market share from them. Yeah, the third point? Yep. So it requires some time. coordination among the companies, doesn’t it some sort of implicit collusion. And I think this is where some of these models, there are some theoretical models that appears which are trying to lend support to this greed inflation hypothesis. Did I think you found a study, didn’t you, Arturo, that said that this or that? Was that an empirical study you found that said that where there’s market power, it looks like there is some tendency to have

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 10:25

there’s a few of them, the the those paper have found positive correlation between higher concentration higher inflationary pressure,

Gene Tunny 10:36

really? Okay. And do you think they’re good studies, though they published in good journals, do we what do we know?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 10:42

Those are probably most of them are publishing good journals. And also in economy, we know that the mythologies bar are different. And also each metal he has his pros and cons. So we need to, to consider that and analyse in detail what is.

Gene Tunny 11:05

So probably too much for us to do in this episode. But we’ll put links in the show notes. So if you’re in the audience, and you’re interested in having a look at those studies, you can check them out, and I might have a closer look at them after this. I know that there are studies like that, and that would lend support to this greed inflation hypothesis. And so maybe we can’t completely rule it out. There’s a paper by John Quiggin and Flavio ministers, and John and Flavio, their professors at University of Queensland and economics. I know both of them. Well. And John’s actually been on the show before. And they wrote a piece in the conversation. I think they had a working paper to back it up and inflation has been amplified by firms with market power. And so their argument is that where one or more firms is big enough to have market power for any given quantity sold, prices will be higher. Yep, and increasingly higher as demand for the product climbs, okay. This means that after a boost to demand such as the one that followed the COVID stimulus, in the end of the lockdowns, firms with market power amplify the resulting inflationary shock. Okay, so they’ve got a model where they come to a conclusion that having market power means that you’re more likely to be able to take advantage or to put your prices up if there’s this, this demand shock, okay. Possibly. I mean, my feeling is that if there is a level of competition in the market, then that should constrain that. But look, if there is market power, maybe that’s an interesting, interesting hypothesis. And there are studies from the States did you see this isn’t just something in Australia, there are studies from the US as well as a Kansas City Fed study from 2021 There’s a really interesting point they make in this that I think it’s worth thinking about in this whole green inflation conversation. So I think Andrew Glover Jose, I think you know how to pronounce his name. Yeah, cuz Sam was traded veal. Okay, that’s great. And Alice Vaughn and Rebecca they present evidence that markup growth so markups on products sold. So for the to get the profit. So the markup growth was a major contributor to inflation in 2021 markups grew by 3.4% over the year, whereas inflation as measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures was 5.8%. Suggesting markups could account for more than half of 2021 inflation. This is what I think’s fascinating. They note that the timing and cross industry patterns of markups growth of markup growth are more consistent with firms raising prices in anticipation of future cost increases rather than an increase in monopoly power or higher demand. I think that’s a really critical point. So look, it might be the case that if you look at the data, at the moment, that it looks like the businesses are doing incredibly well. So they’ve got high profits. And they’ve they’ve increased their prices, but it could be that they’ve increased their prices in anticipation of future cost increases. Now to some extent, you have seen those future cost increases will in fuel I mean fuel prices were higher for I think they’re starting to come down. But energy prices here in Australia are still going up. Costs of other inputs are increasing labour costs. Labour hasn’t responded as much as some people have been forecasting for years. So wages growth is still It hasn’t really been that spectacular. But look, I mean, there’s something to that that could be the case that what we’re seeing is businesses. It’s not as if they’re being greedy. They’re just concerned about their own costs rising and they’re increasing their profits. Another thing to keep in mind, of course, is that that profits are procyclical. And this inflation has occurred at a time of a booming economy, the economy post COVID boomed. And as we came out of the pandemic, and that’s a time when you’d naturally expect to see higher profits. And we’ve also seen high inflation, unfortunately. So it could be correlation rather than causation. Again, look, lots of there’s a lot going on. There are lots of aspects of the economy. And I think that Kansas City Fed study, and I’ll link to that in the show notes that makes a good point about how you need to consider expectations in assessing what companies are doing. Okay. There was also a study by the Boston Fed that you found wasn’t there. So this is one of the other Federal Reserve Banks. So what was that cost price relationships in a concentrated? Economy? Was this a study you were talking about before?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 16:15

Exactly if the concentration, right,

Gene Tunny 16:19

okay. So the US economy is at least 50% more concentrated today than it was in 2005. So they, their findings suggest the increase in industry concentration over the past few decades, could be amplifying the inflationary pressure from current supply chain disruptions in a tight labour market? Okay, so this was a paper from 2000, until I’ll put a link in the show notes. Right. So that’s, that’s supporting that greed foundation thesis. Look, there’s there’s a whole bunch of you know, there’s studies that support it to an extent and then there’s others that question it, or there’s commentary that questions that. And one of the things you found Arturo, which I think was fascinating was that the so the Reserve Bank of Australia, so as central bank, and here in Australia, it doesn’t really give any credence it doesn’t really think much of this whole green inflation idea, does it or it hasn’t hasn’t raised it or doesn’t talk about it as a possible explanation does

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 17:20

exactly here that RBA pointed out that there’s a place I fuck towards accounting for around half of the increase in inflation over the year to September 2022. But they didn’t mention anything about really corporations.

Gene Tunny 17:35

Right. Okay. So what I’ll do is so I can be to be objective and to be to be fair, on both sides of the argument, I’ll put links to, to, to what the RBA has been saying to both of those fed studies and also to what The Australia Institute has been, has been saying, I mean, they’re been the most vocal about about this. I mean, their analysis to them suggests this is an analysis of national accounts data. Again, it’s it’s an analysis of correlations of data that’s that they seen these things happening at the same time and drawing a conclusion based on that now, can you make the conclusion that this is due to greedy corporations, or corporations being more greedy than normal? Okay, I mean, we live in a capitalist economy. Okay. So businesses are going to maximise profits. There’s no doubt about that. But look, that’s the system we’re in. But is this something that in times of inflation, does it amplify the inflation or lead to, to more inflation than you you’d otherwise expect? I think that’s the hypothesis, The Australia Institute, based on their correlation, all analysis I call it says just looking at correlations, they would argue that it does. So their analysis suggests to them that 69% of excess inflation, so above the, the Reserve Bank’s target of two and a half percent, since the end of 2019, came from higher unit corporate profit margins, while only 18% of the student labour costs. Right. Okay. And they go on in that report to say that, look, it’s not just the profits in the mining sector, because it was just profits in the mining sector. And whereby, okay, the miners are really profitable. And so there’s a lot more profit in the Australian economy that’s on that’s because of all these export earnings. Right? So it’s not as if they’re making all of these profits by exploiting people in the domestic economy. So that’s where that argument of theirs would fall down. But then they do go on to point out it’s not just mining, that where there’s these excess profits in their view, there’s, you know, higher profits in it. in financial services and banking and in other sectors, so, yeah, check that out. And I think they ask a good question. And it’s good that they’ve made this contribution to the debate, because it forces us to think rigorously about what’s been driving inflation and what’s the cause of inflation. And we’ll get on to that again, in a moment. Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 20:34

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice, we can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world, you can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny 21:03

Now back to the show. One of my old Treasury colleagues, John to in the financial review, John has written an opinion piece, which is very good. John’s good writer. Blaming inflation on greedy business is a populist cop out. And I think what John is saying here, I think this is where a lot of the economists in the Reserve Bank or the Treasury, I think they would agree with John, I think I largely agree with John, and I’ll go into into why in a moment. And John’s main message is that it was the spillover of public sector stimulus that lasted for too long, not price gouging by companies that fueled the inflation outbreak. Did you have a look at that? That article by John?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 21:55

Yeah, yes, I rebuilt the conclusion. Yes. He made a good point.

Gene Tunny 22:00

Yeah. And he relied on a study by Chris Murphy, who’s a former Treasury model. I actually work with Chris’s daughter in Treasury, Carol, I believe, if I remember correctly. So Chris, is a well known Australian macro, economist. And he was at KPMG e contact for a while. Now he’s a visiting fellow at ASU. And he’s done something a bit more advanced than what The Australia Institute did. The Australian Institute just looked at the national accounts and inflation data and tried to draw conclusions from that from just basic data analysis. Now, I think the problem in economics is, you can only go so far doing that, if we’re talking about testing hypotheses, what’s the scientific approach to do that, you probably need something a bit more than just the basic data analysis. Now, one of the problems we have in economics, of course, is that you can’t run controlled experiments as you can in the lab. So we’re always trying to come up with clever ways to, to analyse the data, to do econometric modelling of some kind, to work out whether these hypotheses can be maintained, or whether they’re, they’re rejected. That’s what I’d say on that. And what Chris Murphy does is he runs a simulation. He’s got this macro economic model, this econometric model of the Australian economy based on a broad range of macro economic data, and relationships that have some basis in economic theory. And what he does is he simulates the economy, if it was subject to COVID. But there wasn’t all of the arguably excessive monetary and fiscal policy response there was the there was some contraction in GDP. I mean, there’s a quite a substantial contraction in GDP still in that first quarter of COVID. Because people just would have naturally socially distanced anyway, right, even in the absence of policy measures. And we did say that in in some economies, that there was no, there was no way of avoiding the the economic shock from COVID entirely. But if you didn’t have the, all of that stimulus than by his estimates, you would have avoided a lot of the inflation. And I think this is really, really interesting, really interesting modelling. And Chris Murphy has a paper in the economic papers journal, which is a journal that’s actually published by the Queensland branch of the Economic Society was aranea, which I was once the secretary of. No longer though, but you can get that online, I’ll put a link in the show notes, fiscal policy in the COVID, 19. Euro. Really good paper. And what he does in this paper, which I think is excellent, is he just highlights how massively generous the COVID stimulus was, the stimulus during COVID was particularly job keeper, which was just incredibly generous, and he ended up because of the eligibility rules, there are all these people who are they were only employed part time, but they effectively get compensated as if they were full time workers. So there are a lot of people getting access excess money. And there’s an argument that that stopped some of those people from searching for a new job, if they were if they are on job keeper, or if they’ve been supported by job keeper. So, yeah, lots of problems with that, that stimulus and I think we’re, if we had another pandemic, I mean, let’s hope we don’t, I mean, still getting recovering from that last one. I mean, it was just the excessive response was just at it, and just, yeah, incredible. But if we do have it, I think we would have a much better, or a hope, whatever much better economic policy response. But what Chris Murphy found was that the fifth and this is in Australia, the fiscal response to compensate for income losses. In services industries meant that unemployment was around two percentage points lower for three years than otherwise, than it otherwise would have been. And there was over compensation for every $1 of income, the private sector lost under COVID, fiscal policy provided $2 of compensation. And then there was of course, the ultra low interest rates, point 1% cash rate, the hundreds of billions of dollars of monetary stimulus via quantitative easing, all of this additional money in bank accounts, I’ve got some charts that I’ll put in the show notes. So just show how much the Australian money supply is grown. I think since 2020, the amount of money so the stock of money in Australia has increased by nearly a third or around a third or something like that. And think about that. This is part of this whole. And this is something that what I’ve been saying on this show for the last couple of years, I mean, what we’ve got is too, too much money chasing too few goods, if you looked at what happened during the pandemic, and within the fiscal policy and monetary policy, what we saw with the inflation now, no doubt, significant part of it was due to the invasion of Ukraine. But what we end up seeing with inflation is what you would have expected based on the the massive stimulus and particularly the massive monetary growth that we saw. And so therefore, you don’t need this green inflation hypothesis. You can explain a lot of it by the excessive stimulus. And this is what Chris Murphy shows in that paper. Germany thoughts on that, Arturo?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 28:09

Whoa, this point, you the last point that you have mentioned is very clear. It made me think, okay, yes. The these re the cooperation argument is not 100%? Sure, shall we, whether if some academics, or you know, researchers will try to understand the drivers behind inflation. When I mentioned, drivers, of course, we include these government expenditure in increments. And also lit, we can include another factors at fame level, like, for example, to, to use markups in order to maximise profits. So that kind of thing is,

Gene Tunny 29:03

yeah, I think you made a good point before. I mean, we really want to have a look at what’s been happening in specific firms. I think we’ll have to wait for studies that really examined what’s happened at that firm level, maybe using that business longitudinal database data? I don’t know. But yeah, clearly, this is a it’s a big issue. And I think it’s one that we need more evidence to resolve. But I guess what I would say is that we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion. I mean, I’m pretty confident that we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that it’s greed flesh, and that is just because a greedy corporations, I think there’s there’s a lot more. I’m not even sure to what extent that’s a significant factor. In fact, the corporations more greedy than normal. I mean, it’s this idea that it could amplify a shock that is inflationary, possibly, but I’d like to see, yeah, I have to sort of think deeply about what that means. It’ll is and what that mechanism is, I mean, my view is that you don’t need that great inflation hypothesis to explain what’s happened because it’s perfectly understandable if you just think about the the massive, the massive shock that we saw now. So think Chris Murphy, what he found was that if you didn’t have the stimulus, if you just had COVID, then then by the end of 2022, you’d have inflation at around 4.2%. So you would have ended up with some inflation as the economy bounced back after COVID. But what ended up happening, of course, is that inflation went far beyond 4.2%. In Australia, we ended up with 7.8% in Australia. And what Chris Murphy’s modelling shows is that, in his scenario, his his actual forecast scenario, he’s worked out that the excessive macro stimulus drives inflation, three percentage points higher, so three percentage points higher to a peak of 7.2%. Okay, which is in the wall ballpark of where it did get. So in his model, he can you explain it with the stimulus. Now, of course, it’s a macro model and models that we all know the problems of trying to forecast the economy and modelling the, the actual path of the economy with an econometric model with with equations. We’ve got parameters estimated, statistically or using econometric methods there. They have their limitations. But to me what, what Chris Murphy does is, is a better way to think about this sort of try and answer this question than just this basic correlation analysis that’s done, where we go, oh, well, profits are up. inflation’s up. wages aren’t up by much. It looks like it must all be inflation’s. At the same time as we’re having inflation companies are making more money. Therefore, it’s greedy, greedy corporations, I think I don’t really think that’s, that’s the right way to think about it. Having said that, I mean, it’s worth having the conversation and forces us all to think more rigorously about the causes of inflation and what we should do about it. And he thought cetera? No, I think that’s pretty much all I wanted to go over. I’ll put links in the show notes, to all these various papers and reports we talked about. The RBA has put something out on inflation drivers where they look at the different factors and they don’t seem to think much of this whole green inflation, explanation. But look, I think it’s worth covering. I know that, you know, we do have to be mindful of corporate power we have to be mindful of, of monopolies or oligopolies that exploit their market power. There’s no doubt about that. I mean, then that’s why we have things like the a triple C, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or we have the we have the antitrust statutes in the US. And we have whatever the equivalent is in the UK. Did you see in the in the they’re quite muscular in the UK? Did you see the they’re blocking that? Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard? Oh, I haven’t seen that. Oh, yeah. That’s quite interesting, because one of the things I’ve covered on this show is this issue of big tech and to what extent we should be concerned about big tech, so might have to come back to that in a in a future episode. I thought that was a really interesting development, because they’re concerned about Microsoft’s already a behemoth, right. Concerned about Microsoft getting getting even more market power in games. Okay, well, thanks so much for your time and for helping me think about this issue of greed, inflation, it’s helpful to talk about these issues with with colleagues. So I can think about really clarify how I’m thinking about it. Am I on the right track? Am I being biassed? Am I too sceptical of this hypothesis, which might actually have some merit. But yeah, I think my view is that we can probably explain inflation most, if not all of the inflation by the excessive fiscal and monetary stimulus. We don’t need this great inflation hypothesis that said, Look, if they can provide convincing evidence that it is a thing then sure let’s let’s look at it a bit more closely. So think that’s where all I’ll end up. Tomorrow. Thanks so much for your time.

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 34:37

Thank you for having me, as well was my pleasure. Very good.

Gene Tunny 34:43

rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

35:30

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au.

Tags covid-19, fed, greed, greedflation, inflation, monetary policy, money, qe, rba, stimulus

Podcast episode

Why fiat money means higher inflation & why a radical Reserve Bank review is needed w/ Darren Brady Nelson – EP179

Post author By Alec Krishna
Post date March 21, 2023
No Comments on Why fiat money means higher inflation & why a radical Reserve Bank review is needed w/ Darren Brady Nelson – EP179

In his recent Spectator Australia article, Darren Brady Nelson argues for a radical, not a reserved review of Australia’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), which he describes as reckless. In Economics Explored episode 179, Darren provides an Austrian economics perspective on central banks, fiat money, and inflation. Show host Gene Tunny wraps up the episode with a discussion of the historical evidence on different monetary systems and inflation, evidence which confirms economies with fiat money are much more inflation prone. Gene then discusses whether a return to the gold standard would be desirable.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

What’s covered in EP179

Darren’s thoughts on the current review of the Reserve Bank of Australia [1:46]
How the RBA interprets the stability of the currency objective [6:54]
What is the Austrian School? [10:19]
Would the Austrians recommend abolishing the central bank? [21:08]
The Bank of England’s report on modern banking [25:54]
The need for a broader review of the Reserve Bank of Australia [30:35]
Fiat money systems are much more prone to inflation than commodity money systems [34:20]

Links relevant to the conversation

Darren’s bio on the Economics Explored website:

https://economicsexplored.com/regular-guests/

Darren’s opinion piece on the Spectator Australia website:

The RBA (reckless bank of Australia) needs a radical, not reserved, review

Bank of England paper on money creation:

Money creation in the modern economy | Bank of England

Minneapolis Fed paper on fiat money, commodity money, and inflation:

Money, Inflation, and Output Under Fiat and Commodity Standards | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

US Gold Commission Report

Minority report of the Gold Commission, co-authored by Ron Paul:

The Case for Gold: Minority Report of the US Gold Commission 1982

Alan Greenspan’s autobiography discusses his advice to President Reagan regarding gold:

The Age of Turbulence*

Another great book on Greenspan which discusses Friedman’s views too:

The Man who Knew: The LIfe & Times of Alan Greenspan*

*You can help support the show by buying a copy of either book via the links above.

Transcript: Why fiat money means higher inflation & why a radical Reserve Bank review is needed w/ Darren Brady Nelson – EP179

Gene Tunny 00:06

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning in to the show. This is episode 179. In this episode, I chat with my old friend Darren Brady Nelson about his recent spectator Australia opinion piece on the Reserve Bank of Australia. Darren’s piece is titled The RBA reckless Bank of Australia needs a radical not reserved for review. Although Darren’s article focuses on Australia’s Central Bank, the issue is considered irrelevant to central banks around the world such as the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. Before we get into it, I should note that Darren is coming from a non mainstream school of thought known as Austrian economics. While it’s outside of mainstream economic thinking, I think the Austrian perspective is valuable. Nonetheless, it’s forced me to confront some of the things I take for granted about the modern mixed economy, such as fiat money and the existence of a central bank at all. I’ve had to think more deeply about whether they make sense. Please stick around to the end for some additional thoughts from me. Okay, let’s get into the episode. Darren Brady Nelson, welcome back to the show.

Darren Brady Nelson 01:46

Thank you. Thank you. It’s been a while now actually.

Gene Tunny 01:48

It has Yes, I’ve given you a breakdown. And I’ve tried to get here a broad range of guests on the show. But yes, sir. Good to have you back on the show to chat about some recent work that you’ve done. So work in both public finance or fiscal policy, you could say, and monetary policy. Darren, so we’ve got a monetary policy review in Australia at the moment, and you’ve written a piece on the monetary policy review. And could you just tell us what your thoughts are on that review, please?

Darren Brady Nelson 02:21

Well, look, just to step back slightly from that, you know, I’ve kind of been disappointed over, you know, probably the course of a decade or something like that, that, you know, obviously, it’s good to have a variety of different takes on things like the Reserve Bank are obviously, you know, this review, that’s, you know, nearing the end, I believe the reporting to government next month. But, you know, there’s, there’s this never been, you know, look, I’d love to see kind of more of an Austrian take on things, at least once in a while in the Australian media, or even in Australian think tanks. To tell you the truth, I’d settle for a bit of a Chicago take on things and you just don’t get really neither of those takes for the most part, certainly not in the media. You know, look, I’ve never had a chance to read our friend, Tony, Megan’s take on the Reserve Bank. I know, he wrote an article for spectator, just like the article I’ve just written is meant to be published soon by the spectator, Australia. So I’m not sure his his exact take, and maybe you can tell me if you’ve read his article, I’m not sure, Gene, if you can give a little bit of overview of what how he viewed things, but so I just wanted to kind of bring a little bit of a, you know, an Austrian, take two things, in terms of, you know, linking sort of, you know, the Reserve Bank, the money supply and inflation, in a nutshell. And also, I found that people often didn’t kind of step back. And they, they vaguely mentioned what the Reserve Bank is supposed to do, and kind of leave it at that just kind of go into in to have a very different take than what I wanted to give. So, as not only an economist, but also a former law student, I also wanted to kind of start out and go, Hey, this is, you know, this is what, you know, the legislation says, for instance, about the Reserve Bank, and what they’re doing what they’re supposed to do, and then kind of jump in to, you know, like I said, sort of an Austrian economics take on things and, and also kind of stir the hornet’s nest a little bit, you know, by using a little bit of satire at the beginning and at the end of the article.

Gene Tunny 04:29

Right, okay, so yeah, we might get into a few of those things. So what does the law say? What, what does the what was your analysis of the, of the legal underpinnings or what they’re supposed to do under the is it the Reserve Bank act?

Darren Brady Nelson 04:45

Yeah, I mean, some people really just don’t understand what it is, you know, exactly, you know, sort of made that clear this, this is a central bank, you know, they, they basically have a monopoly control over currency in Australia. And you know, people kind of vaguely maybe understand that, but just to make that kind of really clear, you know, this is what it is. It has some other roles, of course, it has, you know, kind of these other banking, regulatory functions, but they really, you know, those are really to support the main goal, which is, obviously, Reserve Bank’s not unusual, it’s a central bank, very similar to the other central banks around the world, like the Bank of England or the Federal Reserve. But just to remind people, Hey, this is, you know, this is a government entity, it has a monopoly on on money, essentially, but at the same time, it’s required to do, you know, in that context, it’s, it has, you know, some of these broader sort of things, it’s three main things, you know, where it goes under Section 10, A, the stability of the currency, the maintenance of full employment, very, you know, 1940s 50s sort of thing that was thrown in, because the, you know, the Reserve Bank act is from 1959. So, you know, very Keynesian sort of thing there. And the other one kind of, you know, somewhat more vaguely, but, you know, still important, obviously, the economic prosperity and welfare, the people of Australia. Now, you know, look, there’s only so much you can say, in an in an article, even though my article is a bit longer than your average op ed, if you like, but there’s even within that there’s so much you could say, and I couldn’t say, but, you know, obviously like to say the audience, I think they got some issues, because these things conflict, or, you know, you can interpret these things and quite different ways. You know, clearly, I think, you know, I would argue, and I do to some extent, at least I think in my piece is, you know, certainly printing the sort of amounts of money that they have, and not just not just recently, and not just since COVID, but actually over a much longer period of time. is, you know, quick, you know, I would question that that really helps the stability of the currency. You know, that seems to me to be at least something questionable. I think it harms the stability of the currency, but I think it’s at least questionable. It also argued that it actually helps out the other two, I don’t think it may help with statistical, full employment. But does it really help with economically efficient, full employment, much less, you know, actual economic prosperity and welfare? Yeah, sorry. Go ahead.

Gene Tunny 07:19

I was just thinking it was an interesting point you made about stability, the currency. And you don’t think that the growth of the money supply we’ve seen that the RBA has overseen is consistent with stability of the currency, they have essentially redefined stability of the currency, they now we now define stability, the currency is not zero inflation, we define it as a two to 3% inflation on average over the economic cycle. So we’ve accepted a certain, a small well – I won’t make any judgement a lower than average historical average rate of inflation as the target. That’s what they’re going for. And over the last 30 years, they would argue that they’ve achieved that. And it’s much better than the performance in the post war period prior to that. So they would argue that they’ve done a good job at achieving stability of the currency in that regard. But yeah, it just occurred to me that when you said that that’s in the Reserve Bank act, that they’ve redefined what stability actually means, in turn, using that inflation target.

Darren Brady Nelson 08:24

Yeah, look, I mean, it’s fairly easy to pull up what, for instance, CPI looks like, and it’s an, even though CPI is only accounting for, you know, something like 40% of the economy, and we, you know, it’s a big chunk of the economy, but people have this impression that accounts for 100% of the economy or something like that. So even in that context, it’s not a pretty picture, you know, and we’re not talking about just like, oh, for a quarter or two, or for a year or two, we’re talking over, you know, quite long, you know, timeframes, you know, we’re talking from the basically the 1970s, with some flattening out, I would argue, do some pretty good counter reforms, if you like more that counter reforms that, you know, reforms that, you know, would counter some of the bad effects of, of just, you know, kind of having fairly loose monetary policy. And that not equally loose throughout that whole period of time. But, you know, it’s really, really hasn’t had a Volcker, for instance, you know, that I’m aware of, in the same sort of timeframe that, you know, since Volcker appeared on the scene in the late 70s, and has since left it. So putting aside, you know, again, my pieces and obviously, to go, so, do some technical thing to go like, Well, did they meet their own sort of technical requirements, and then just criticise them that way? Because there’s plenty of articles like that. You know, my aim was to point to the broader thing that just looks money like this. And if you look, I mean, CPI doesn’t look good over time. But if you start looking at money supply, whichever one you want to pick, it’s not a pretty picture.

Gene Tunny 10:00

right. Okay, so can I ask what do you mean by an Austrian Economics take?

Darren Brady Nelson 10:05

Yeah, look at that. So for those who don’t know, Austrian Economics is, I mean, I mean, a lot of people even economist for some reason don’t fully are aware that there’s actually different schools of thought, quite a few different schools of thought. And one of them is the Austrian School. It started with Karl Menger, in the sort of mid to late 1800s. He’s also, you know, attributed along with a couple other economists is kind of starting the marginal revolution as well. In the end, they call it Austrian School, basically, because he is actually from Austria. And then some of the other sort of people who followed him like Bomba Virk, Mises, Hayek, etc, they were also literally from the country of Austria. So I guess that stuck, obviously, is the name of the school of thought. I mean, I mean, the very free market, I argue that the there’s certainly the most free market oriented, I’d argue that they’re not the most free market oriented because they have an ideological stance. So you can always say that, you know, certainly, like someone like Mises, certainly, you know, went to great pains to go like, this is what I think the logic and even the data, even though they’re not sort of like the, they’re not, they use data, they’re not they don’t think data, without theory tells you anything, but they would argue that, you know, they take a scientific approach to things like, you know, like other schools of thought would also argue, and, you know, they have very, they, they have the most comprehensive take on understanding money, basically, including, you know, I mentioned Bomba Virg actually Menger even before that, that even from the start Menger Bomba, Varick and Mises were, were and still are kind of, you know, the greatest thinkers on money. Some may argue that you could put Keynes in that category, you know, that was one of his, you know, one of his big sort of focuses prior to him writing the general theory. But, you know, the Austrians certainly have a lot to say, and I think, a lot of credible things to say, with the, you know, you ultimately agree with them or not, you know, I just want to get those kinds of ideas, you know, out there in the Australian public.

Gene Tunny 12:20

Okay, and what are those ideas, Darren, and how are they relevant to the RBI review?

Darren Brady Nelson 12:25

Well, look, I mean, in a nutshell, and, you know, I’ve used this quote, a million times, it seems, you know, using Milton Friedman, who’s not Austrian, but Chicago School, who him and Anna Schwartz, you know, sort of took a an empirical approach if you like, I mean, I don’t think you’re setting out to, if you, like, test the theories of Mises, and people like that as such, but they confirm that, you know, inflation, it’s a monetary phenomenon. And it’s always in, at least in practice, you know, you know, maybe the Chicago school don’t necessarily agree that in theory, things like central banks, are really the root cause of inflation. They certainly agree that in practice, that’s what actually happened in history. So but the Austrians, like I said, they go, they go one step further, they go in great detail, to set out the case of why central banks are at the centre of, of why we have ongoing inflation. And the only way you’ll ever solve the inflation problem is to do something about central banks, and they would argue you have to do something stronger than just holding them within certain bounds. As you know, the Chicago school would argue,

Gene Tunny 13:38

Rod, okay, and I mean, fiat money is relevant to isn’t it? So you’re yes, you’re saying the the issue is that you’ve got a central bank that has the monopoly on fiat money, the monopoly control of the currency, which is fiat money, and they can just print it, they can create it out of thin air. And we saw that during the pandemic in Australia, when they finally the RBA, finally engaged in quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve had done it previously, the Bank of Japan and Bank of England and ECB, but we hadn’t actually gone that we hadn’t taken that step yet. But we did during the pandemic,

Darren Brady Nelson 14:15

well, the Austrians were there to drag, you know, central banks always are involved in a process and printing money out of nothing. Now, quantitative easing, took it to new levels, makes the new mechanisms, new levels, and then obviously, modern monetary theory sort of opens the floodgates to go further than, you know, quantitative easing, but if you like allow within that sort of framework of thinking, and we may get onto this later on, but, you know, the Bank of England produced a couple, you know, excellent papers that an Austrian or a neoclassical or a Keynesian or Chicago can all appreciate. It takes something out of just like, you know, just clearly setting out how does the central bank work, but also You know, just as importantly, how does the banking system more broadly, in cooperation, if you like, with the central banks operate, you know, How is money created? I mean, I think the, the title of the paper is money creation in the modern economy, you know, that sets it out quite nicely, they have a different view of that, the course they don’t think that’s an issue as such, you know, it provided obviously, or you stay within certain bounds and all that type of thing. But it does set out the fact that, you know, money is being created from nothing, which is quite a different system, to what, you know, say, for instance, the gold standard, you know, the classical gold standard with all its whatever foibles it had, because Austrians would argue that there could have been a better gold standard, but fine, there was a gold standard, and even central banks. Were part of that system previously, if you like, and the Bank of England also nicely sets that out that history as well. Yeah. So basically, again, coming back, you know, the Reserve Bank’s not any different from the Bank of England Federal Reserve, largely speaking, I mean, there are differences, you know, obviously, you know, the Federal Reserve, obviously, they’re different sized economies, different sides, sizes of the Australian dollar, the US dollar being traded around the world, obviously, the US dollar is special in the sense that it’s still the reserve currency for the world. So you know, their, their prolific money printing, they can get away with it a lot better than, you know, a smaller economy or economies, it’s not the reserve currency of the world, you can get away with Australia being does punch above its weight, and its currency is traded a lot more than you would expect for a small country. Because of you know, obviously, Australia is a big player in commodities, for instance. And that kind of part of the reason is, Australia, punches above its weight if you like.

Gene Tunny 16:45

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 16:50

Gene Tunny 17:20

Now back to the show. Now I’m just on the what the RBA review is doing it’s it has rather than a narrower terms of reference is looking at the monetary policy framework inflation targeting is looking at the governance the board, whether we have a separate Monetary Policy Committee, I think that’ll end up being one of the recommendations. And the way that John Humphrys described it to me on his Australian taxpayers Alliance live stream, he just said, Well, look, there’s an Overton window of what it’s going to look at, right? I mean, there’s things that are in the Overton Window, there’s things that are outside, and I think you are advocating that they should they should go outside of that window, they should go outside of what’s conventional and actually think about the role of the the RBA as a central bank, is that the type of thing we need? Is that working for us? Or Are there alternative approaches? Is that what you’re you’re arguing? Darren?

Darren Brady Nelson 18:18

Yeah, look, I think I’ve I pull out some recommendations I did. When for Liberty works at the request of Senator Malcolm Roberts, you know, did a submission to his rural banking inquiry, because he wanted to get on the record. And so did I just kind of some of these broader issues of monetary policy and how they do impact the kind of the more narrow review that he was doing at the time. And, yeah, basically suggests, you know, kind of a three pronged approach, you know, sort of, in a shorter term, doing something, you know, a bit broader than what this current review is doing, but nothing, you know, something that might still be within the Overton Window, as you say, and then, you know, what I’m suggesting over the medium term in the longer term are certainly things that, you know, I guess the average policy person, monetary policy person would think, would be outside the Overton Window, like, you know, the Overton window. It’s a good thing to understand in terms of what is, but it can be a very big obstacle to what should be, but because, because I can point to, you know, the reforms, the Hocking Kingdom reforms of the 19, mid 1980s were, you know, not particularly within the Overton Window, national competition policy when it came along in the early 1990s. Not quite in the Overton window. There’s been a lot of good reforms that that are not in the Overton window. Obviously, you know, there’s obviously a politics involved and making sure that even though it’s not quite the Overton window that you know, you don’t scare the horses too much. And people who who’ve been pushing things In the direction of more and more government interference in the economy, including if you like the more draconian stuff, you know, the the over the top lockdowns, the the censorship, all these sorts of things. Putting aside the fact that no a lot of censorship are done by private companies, but they’re done by the best of government, they’re done by the best of government, if you don’t do it, you know, there’ll be trouble for you, private company. So, you know, it’s it’s certainly not, I don’t think, you know, the libertarians have suggested that, so it’s private property, so doesn’t matter. That’s not right. So, you know, people on the left, in a nutshell, don’t care, a rat’s butt about the Overton window for the most part. They keep on plugging away. And they are largely winning. So which is why I wanted to point out some of these reforms, if you like, went more in the direction of the right centre, right, for instance, including, you know, a Labour Government and including, you know, some liberal governments in the past, things can be done. So the Overton window, you got to be aware of it, you got to understand it. And it’s something you need to deal with, but it shouldn’t be something that just stops you from doing

Gene Tunny 21:08

something. Right. And so what would, what would the Austrians recommend abolition of the central bank? I mean, what would happen? What would you recommend?

Darren Brady Nelson 21:18

But look, you know, look, the Austrians there’s quite a variety of views, even within the look, you know, there’s sort of a high IQ, sort of, like competing currency approach, there’s the Roth bar, it’s more, let’s do a new and improved version of the gold standard, if you like, obviously, these things are digitised. No one’s ever suggesting that, you know, that we carry hunks of gold. That’s fine. If you want to carry hunks of gold with you. You know, it’s probably not going to be a huge market for that. That’s going to be but I mean, they recognise that centuries ago anyway. So like, you know, the gold standard, really, there were people running around with bits of gold with them all the time that that was never the case. You know, because the goldsmith’s figured it out before the official gold standard came around today, certificates, it seemed to be a little bit more convenient, you know, which that’s where actually money came from your paper money, I should say, sorry, paper came from from those certificates. So have John freeze. It, he always has a bee in his bonnet about Murray Rothbard. In particular, his argument that he considers, you know, today’s system of fractional reserve banking to be fraud. You know, from a, from a common law perspective, you know, is that Rothbard is arguing literally, in the laws on the books, that it’s actually fraud. He’s saying, under common law, this would be considered fraud. Yeah, okay, maybe, maybe not. But certainly the market would allow a whole lot of fractional reserve banking, I’m sure there won’t be like a one to one alignment all the time, you know, between, you know, reserves and loans and all that sort of stuff, that’s fine. But there wouldn’t be such a huge disconnect that we have, you know, we’re talking 90% and above disconnect between, you know, safe savings and what’s being lent out, getting back to sort of Rothbard is not given sort of credit for being more practical than he was. Yeah, he goes like, here’s the ideal I want. Yeah, you get rid of central banks, and fractional reserve banking. But any little step in that direction, could be pain. How about is a start? What’s just what’s just audit this thing? And, you know, like they talked about in the US sometimes, so let’s just audit the Federal Reserve. Yeah. What are they up to? How do they do things, but the public know, this is what it is, you know, are you happy with this? Is this make sense? You know, yeah. Do you? Are you happy with the consequent the inflationary consequences? Are you happy with the fact that I mean, this thing is very inexorable. You know, like, it causes the booms and busts as well, at least from an Austrian perspective, because inflation and bubbles, it’s the same thing. Inflation doesn’t uniformly happen. It goes, it ends up in asset bubbles, it goes over here, it goes over there. Some people can make a killing out of really not being very good at what they do. They just, they’re just in the right place at the right time. Now, we’re not talking about discouraging proper entrepreneurialism, sometimes, you know, this is kind of like, you know, sort of not very good, sloppy, property oriented sort of entrepreneurialism. And there’s a lot of it, there’s a lot just, it’s a lot of just kind of transfers from, from the poor to the rich. I mean, let’s just get that all out there and report, I’ll be happy with multiple views, you know, red versus blue type of project, Hey, what are the Keynesian think of this, you know, what are the Austrians think of this, whether neoclassical think of this, you know, you know, get it all out there. And, you know, just make it more transparent would be a great start, rather than this kind of, you know, tweaking at the edges. There’s basically a lot of people in political and business power, who, who obviously liked the system as it is,

Gene Tunny 24:55

or they or they don’t want to, I mean, yeah, they haven’t really thought too deeply about Got it? Yeah, they don’t want to rock the boat too much, perhaps. I think we might have to come back to Rothbard views. That sounds interesting. And because it’s probably we probably don’t have enough time to go into it now. That yeah, I think it’d be worth coming back to that. Because yeah, I’m all for a more wider ranging review. I think it’d be fascinating. I think we chatted about this last time we caught up, but we hadn’t seen the terms of reference yet to the review. And I think you’ve predicted that it’d be quite narrow. And it’d be very, you’d get standard sort of mainstream economists on it as we ended up doing, as we ended up doing. I’m not critical of any of them. I think. But yeah, they could have had a broader terms of reference. For sure.

Darren Brady Nelson 25:44

Just one thing to say that the Rothbard you know, some people go look here, you’re kind of in your libertarian utopia, you don’t understand how the system works. He wrote the very best book on how banking works. modern banking, what’s the book called modern banking, is it? No, it’s called the mystery of banking, the mystery of banking. Okay. It’s in great detail exactly how so it’s basically the Bank of England, you know, they they don’t refer to the mystery of banking, they, but they did a very good job of doing something smaller. Got some really good graphics, you know, in the Bank of England report bits, they’re very much aligned. They just have different conclusions. You know, obviously, they don’t come to the same conclusion that Rothbard does.

Gene Tunny 26:26

Right. Yeah. I mean, that’s the article where they describe how the banks essentially, they’re at the vanguard of creating money, or they’re the, the money supply is endogenous to an extent, because the banks are extending credit. And when they’re extending more new loans and paid back then that’s an expansion of the monetary money supply. Now, the central banks involved, the central bank can influence the money supply. But the banks are heavily in the private banks are heavily involved in it. And I think that’s what they’re arguing with they it’s that endogenous view of the money supply. And yeah, I think it is worth reading. What What was the main takeaway for you out of it, Darren, what the Bank of England wrote, I’m just trying to remember what they what was in those articles.

Darren Brady Nelson 27:16

The main takeaway wasn’t like, wow, I’m surprised. This is how they do it. My main takeaway was, Wow, I’m surprised he said it. And I guess another WoW is Wow, thank you. That’s, you know, they explained it really well. It was a really clear, I mean, rock bards. Book mystery. bankings really big, you know. So, you know, it’s, it’s a tome, it’s huge. So, you know, the Bank of England’s report has both an introduction, if you don’t want to redeem read the more detailed report, but even the more detailed report is nowhere near the size of the mystery of banking, but they’re all saying the same thing in terms of like, describing the process, right. You know, you know, what is central banks do what do the commercial banks to? I mean, so basically, the thing, you know, when right away when someone gets gets a loan, that’s money already. So you’ve just increased the money supply right there. Yeah. They don’t need things to happen. It’s right there. They whack it in your bank account. Obviously, people do all sorts of different things with that. Yeah. But yeah, the right there. So there is one thing I must admit, I figured, you know, fractional reserve banking, or those banks creating money, I knew that I was, you know, over time, I was trying to understand that they were actually printing most of the money. It wasn’t the central banks themselves. But when I saw when I saw the Bank of England, I didn’t realise the percentage was quite as big as it is. They said, 97% 97% of all money. Yeah, in the UK. And it wouldn’t be very different from you know, going to any Western country, it’s probably all gonna be the 90s to some extent, was this, you know,

Gene Tunny 28:54

they actually used the term fountain pen money. Yeah. Okay. So I guess I was even surprised at the size. Right. Yeah. Okay. And so you see that as a, as a confession or just acknowledgement of the Bank of England by the Bank of England of, of how the money supply can grow. And in you’re taking from that, that the system that we have naturally leads to expansion of the money supply into inflation. Is that what you’re inferring? From that, Darren?

Darren Brady Nelson 29:27

Yeah, but basically, it’s, it’s that it’s even more than that. It is literally inflation. But, but obviously, there’s certain levels of inflation, the other can be vary quite a bit. I think it incentivizes, you know, high inflation or certainly, it’s certainly incentivize booms and busts. Yeah, I wouldn’t say necessarily there was a confession or anything like that, but they do actually, early on in the report. Take the method that I certainly read in my economic textbooks, you know, that basically banks are just purely these intermediaries who get savings and then lend them out. Obviously take a little bit of a cut. Okay, fine. That’s, that’s, that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that as a business. Yeah. They basically knock that on the head. Yeah. But interestingly enough, they don’t do it in a way that they say this is bad. But for me, I read it and go, you know, because of my kind of Austrian take on things I go, Well, that’s not good. You know, they’re just kind of, they’re just saying, This is what it is basically, it’s not this. They’re not just simply intermediaries. This is what these banks are. And this is how we, as a central bank, interact with those banks. Again, I think any any economist of any school of thought would find it, you know, an informative paper.

Gene Tunny 30:42

Oh, absolutely. I’ve talked about it on the show before I’ll put some links in the show notes. I think it’s good paper. And yeah, I’ll link to your spectator article. Once it’s out. Gee, Darren, there’s so much to talk about. Really appreciate your time, we dealt with some big issues, and we’ve still got more to talk about. Certainly, I want to come back to Rothbard. Yeah, that’s, uh, I’ll have to have a read of his of his book, and mystery of banking. And, yeah, I really appreciate your time. So thanks once more for coming on to the show.

Darren Brady Nelson 31:15

Thank you for having me.

Gene Tunny 31:26

Okay, I hope you found that informative, and enjoyable. I welcome Darren’s call for a broader review of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Given the importance of the Reserve Bank in the economy, we should be thinking about what presuppositions were making about the bank, and we should subject them to critical thought. The current review of the bank appears to take for granted that the reserve bank should continue as an entity and it should retain its extensive powers under the Reserve Bank Act. The review focuses on the appropriateness of the inflation targeting regime and the governance of the bank, but it should be much broader. The reviews Terms of Reference noted explicitly that the review will exclude the RBS payments, financial infrastructure, banking and bank note functions. Arguably, it would have been desirable to review even these functions of the RBA. So I think Darren is on the right track here. Even if I disagree with him over what a broader review would recommend. There are at least two big related questions that a wider review would consider. First, do we need a central bank? That is Do we need a government owned or authorised bank which acts as a bank for other banks and is ultimately responsible for the currency. Secondly, would commodity backed money where money is convertible to gold at a fixed rate? Would that be preferable to fiat money, where money is decreed to be the legal tender of the land by the government and the money supply is the responsibility of the central bank. In a Wi Fi at money presupposes a central bank or an arm of government such as the Treasury which effectively acts as a bank. But a central bank can exist in a commodity money system too, and indeed several such as the Bank of England and US Federal Reserve. They did exist during the years in which the gold standard was in place or some of the years in which the gold standard was in place. A central bank can perform an important role regardless of the monetary standard in place. As the 19th century British polymath Walter Badgett illustrated in Lombard Street, a central bank and perform an important role by acting as a lender of last resort. That is lending to banks when they temporarily get into trouble. And, you know, saving those banks from collapsing and causing lots of hardship. My view is that a central bank is an indispensable part and an unavoidable part of a modern economy. Regarding the second big question, I wouldn’t recommend a return to commodity money by say reintroducing the gold standard. But I will concede that advocates of a gold standard have some good arguments on their side. These arguments are even more appealing in times of high inflation such as the time we’re now living in. Most importantly, in my view, it is clear that fiat money systems are much more prone to inflation, then commodity money systems. A 1998 study by economists at the Minneapolis Fed found that the average inflation rate for the Fed standard observations so this is observations and the data set they’re analysing the average inflation rate for the Fed standard observations is 9.17% per year. The average inflation rate for the commodity standard observations is 1.75%. That’s a big difference. The data set they use contain data on 15 countries including In the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Argentina and Brazil, among others. Every country in the data set had a higher rate of inflation under a feared standard than a commodity standard. What’s going on is that obviously, there are physical constraints on the amount of commodity money available. It’s limited by the rate at which it can be discovered dug up and produced. Under a feared standard, new money is virtually costless to produce. As Darren and I discussed, the central bank and commercial banks are both involved in new money creation. And it’s possible for the money supply to expand faster than the productive capacity of the economy, leading to inflation, there can be too much money chasing too few goods. This is not to say that you can’t have inflation in a commodity money system. For example, there was prolonged inflation in Spain in in the UK in the 16th and 17th centuries, due to new silver mining and Mexico and Peru following European conquest. Still, as the Minneapolis Fed economists point out the average inflation rates over the period in these countries, it was only around one to 1.2% over 100 to 150 years. That’s one to 1.2% per annum. I’ll link to that study in the show notes so you can check it out. To me, it really clearly shows that fiat money systems are much more prone to inflation and you end up with inflation at higher rates than under a commodity money system. While a commodity standard would yield better inflation outcomes and a feared standard, it would be very difficult to return to say the gold standard. US President Reagan appointed a Gold Commission in 1981. To consider whether the US should return to the gold standard. The majority of the commission rejected such a move, and prominent economists such as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, they advised Reagan against the return to gold. GREENSPAN did, however, suggest issuing some US Treasury bonds backed by gold, something which would provide some fiscal disciplined. He did not, however, advocate a full return to the gold standard. GREENSPAN thought that a return to the gold standard would be impractical given the nature of the modern economy with a large role for government and a welfare state. A gold standard requires fiscal discipline for several reasons, which I might have to cover in a bonus episode. One of these reasons is that under a gold standard, a government can’t rely on future inflation to erode the real value of the debt it owes. In his 2007 autobiography, The Age of turbulence, Greenspan wrote the following. I have always harboured a nostalgia for the gold standards inherent price stability, a stable currency was its primary goal. But I’ve long since acquiesced in the fact that the gold standard does not readily accommodate the widely accepted current view of the appropriate functions of government. In particular, the need for government to provide a social safety net. The propensity of Congress to create benefits for constituents without specifying the means by which they are to be funded, has led to deficit spending in every fiscal year since 1970. With the exception of the surpluses of 1998 to 2001, generated by the stock market boom. The shifting of real resources required to perform such functions has imparted a bias toward inflation. In the political arena, the pressure to make low interest rate credit generally available, and to use fiscal measures to boost employment and to avoid the unpleasantness of downward adjustments in nominal wages and prices has become nearly impossible to resist. For the most part, the American people have tolerated the inflation bias as an acceptable cost of the modern welfare state. There is no support for the gold standard today, and I see no likelihood of its return. Austrian economists would say that Greenspan gave into big government into inflation, and there may be some truth in that. But Greenspan’s position is entirely pragmatic. I’ll put some links in the show notes so you can learn more about this fascinating episode of the Gold Commission, and about Friedman’s and Greenspan’s advice to Reagan. I’ll also add a link to the minority report of the Commission which recommended a return to the gold standard. It was co authored by Ron Paul, the noted libertarian politician. I’ll leave it there for now, but I recognise there are several aspects of monetary economics that I need to explore and explain some more. I think the process of money creation and how the central bank can influence the money supply would be good to go over in some depth, as it’s challenging to understand. My conversation with Darren also reminded me that it would be good to look at how we ended up with inflation. targeting in the first place? Why do we think it’s sensible to have a two to 3% inflation target rather than a zero target? I hope you’ll forgive me if I leave these questions to a future episode. Among other topics in coming episodes, I’ll have a closer look at the growing US China tensions and the rise of authoritarianism around the world. geopolitics obviously can have a big impact on economy, so I think it’s important that I cover it on this show. If there are topics you’d like me to cover in future episodes, please let me know. As always, feel free to email me at contact at economics explored.com Thanks for listening. rato thanks for listening to this episode of economics explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact at economicsexplored.com or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

41:26

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this. To begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au.

Tags austrian economics, central banks, fed, fiat money, gold standard, inflation, monetary policy, money, rba

Podcast episode

Normalization of interest rates & monetary policy – EP173

Post author By Alec Krishna
Post date February 4, 2023
No Comments on Normalization of interest rates & monetary policy – EP173

Last year we saw the beginning of the normalization of interest rates and monetary policy, as central banks responded to accelerating inflation. Show host Gene Tunny talks about the current tightening cycle and when it might end with his colleague Arturo Espinoza. Among other things, Gene and Arturo discuss what history tells us about typical interest rates and returns on capital, referencing UK bank rate since 1694, interest rates on UK government consols, and returns on land written about by Jane Austen and Honoré de Balzac. They also consider whether we might see 17-18 percent interest rates again in Australia, rates which were last seen in 1989-90.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

What’s covered in EP173

What’s been happening with interest rates? [3:00]
What is monetary policy normalization? [6:00]
How many more interest rate increases will be needed? [11:11]
Will we have a recession this year? [19:12]
Is there a risk that we could get back to the crazily high interest rates seen in 1989-90 in Australia? [24:00]
What is the equilibrium rate of interest? What is the real interest rate? [26:54]
The main takeaway from this episode: monetary policy is still in a tightening cycle because inflation is too high [38:43]

Links relevant to the conversation

Data released since the episode was recorded

Australian retail trade fell 3.9% in December, suggesting interest rate increases are starting to bite, meaning the RBA faces an even more difficult challenge in deciding how many more interest rate increases to make:

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/retail-and-wholesale-trade/retail-trade-australia/dec-2022

CBC article “U.S. inflation and consumer spending eased in December, new numbers show”:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/us-consumer-spending-holidays-1.6728173

Nine News story “Inflation in Australia rises to higher-than-expected 7.8 per cent”:

https://www.9news.com.au/finance/australia-inflation-consumer-price-index-december-quarter/9ef0ed13-e606-4c9e-b7db-feaccfae39fb

Inflation targets

US: 2%; see https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2022/09/02/inflation-part-3-what-is-the-feds-current-goal-has-the-fed-met-its-inflation-mandate

Australia: 2-3%; see https://www.rba.gov.au/inflation/inflation-target.html

UK: 2%; see https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy

Bank of Finland article on monetary policy normalisation:

https://www.bofbulletin.fi/en/2022/3/what-is-monetary-policy-normalisation/

Chatham Financial article on US tightening cycles:

https://www.chathamfinancial.com/insights/historical-interest-rate-tightening-cycles

Jo Masters, Barrenjoey Chief Economist on how “Everything must go right for Australia to dodge a recession”

https://www.afr.com/markets/debt-markets/australia-will-dodge-close-call-recession-20221216-p5c71b

Chart on historical UK bank rate:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NDH7WjQBY0ZjWDWgY430qZdrrIf017_4/view?usp=share_link

Chart on central bank policy interest rates since 1960:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mrzre-ijAKAvrU0j4YeQt71FkTr-gzob/view?usp=share_link

Chart on inflation in the US, UK and Australia:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11lp880Wwb9bk_GI5wJ0EQ975h-ZkAuDK/view?usp=share_link

Wikipedia article on the Fisher equation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_equation

Wikipedia article on UK consols:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consol_(bond)

Guardian article on “UK bonds that financed first world war to be redeemed 100 years later”:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/31/uk-first-world-war-bonds-redeemed

What Jane Austen can tell us about historical rates of return:

https://janeaustensworld.com/2008/02/10/the-economics-of-pride-and-prejudice-or-why-a-single-man-with-a-fortune-of-4000-per-year-is-a-desirable-husband/

Transcript: Normalization of interest rates & monetary policy – EP173

Gene Tunny 00:00

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. This episode I talk about the normalisation of interest rates and monetary policy with my colleague Arturo Espinoza. Please note, the episode was recorded on the 11th of January 2023. Now, obviously, we weren’t able to cover any new economic data released after that date. So I’ve added some info into the show notes about important developments since then. One of the most important bits of data was the December US inflation rate. It came in at 6.5% yearly down from 7.1% in November. This figure was interpreted by economists as supporting the view that the US Fed will slow the pace of interest rate hikes in 2023. No longer increasing the federal funds rate in increments of half a percentage point or three quarters of a percentage point. Interest rates still need to increase because inflation is still too high and well above the 2% target. On the first of February, the Fed will probably increase its federal funds rate target by a quarter percentage point from the 4.25 to 4.5% range to the 4.5 to 4.75% range. If it doesn’t do this, I’ll release a short bonus episode looking at what’s going on. Economists expect there’ll be at least another interest rate rise in 2023. Beyond the quarter percentage point increase on the first of February, a view supported by the stronger than expected fourth quarter 2022 GDP figure that came out on the 26th of January. Unlike in the states in Australia, our latest inflation figures surprised on the upside coming in at 7.8% over 2022. I must say I was stunned yesterday when I noticed a 560 gram jar of Vegemite now cost $9 at Woolworths. The Reserve Bank of Australia really has no choice but to continue with its interest rate increases until it sees inflation falling or the economy crashing. As I noted my conversation with Arturo so much depends on how rapidly the economy slows down over 2023. Okay, let’s get into the episode. Please stick around to the end because I have additional thoughts after my conversation with Arturo. Okay, this is episode 173 on the normalisation of monetary policy. So, I’m joined by Arturo, my colleague at Adapt Economics. Arturo, good to have you with me today.

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 02:58

Hi Gene, it’s my pleasure to be here.

Gene Tunny 03:01

Excellent. Arturo. So I thought for our first episode of the year, it would be good to talk about interest rates. So one of the big developments last year was the, you know, the increases in the interest rates by central banks, their policy interest rates. So the cash rate here in Australia, the federal funds rate, we had some rather unexpected increases in interest rates, all unexpected by many people in response to the high inflation rates that we’ve been experiencing. And so this did catch quite a few people by surprise, and our RBA governor here in Australia, Philip Lowe, as late as I think November 2021, he was saying that, he thought they’d probably be able to keep their cash rate at 0.1% until 2024. So that was his central case scenario, as he was calling it. But it turns out that inflation was ended up being higher than the Reserve Bank expected. And you know, perhaps they should have seen it coming because you would seen inflation accelerating in 2021 in the US and the UK. And so maybe the central bank should have seen it coming, but they didn’t. And we ended up going from a 0.1% cash rate. And now it’s at 3.1%. And that was over a period of from May 2022 to December 2022. And they had the last cash rate increase. So the same three percentage points over seven months or so. So just an extraordinary rate of increase. And similarly in the US, we had high rate of increase. And what we’re seeing is that interest rates are responding to the high inflation. And one thing I thought it’d be good to talk about is, well, where do we think these interest rates are going? Is there any guidance historically, or is there any guidance from theory regarding what’s a normal level of interest rates? So that’s one question we could ask. And how I came to think about this is that I saw increasingly these references to normalisation, so normalisation of monetary policy, normalisation of interest rates, and, and it got me thinking, Okay, well, what’s normal? So I thought that’d be good to explore. Do you have any thoughts on that, Arturo? Does that sound like a reasonable thing to talk about?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 05:51

Yeah exactly, that is gonna be an interesting topic, to know, what will be the normal interest rate?

Gene Tunny 05:59

Yes, well, this is a bit of a spoiler, but I think the key message will be that there really isn’t any normal interest rate that we can say that the interest rates are adjusting to that’s one of the challenges it’s it just depends on a whole range of factors, variables that we’ll talk about in this conversation. So to begin with a lot I’d read this article I found from the Bank of Finland, this was back in October and I thought this was really quite a neat way of talking about this normalisation. So they talk about the articles called what is monetary policy normalisation. And so they’re written in monetary policy normalisation, key interest rates or policy rates are once again becoming key instruments of monetary policy. At the same time, the central bank is gradually withdrawing from asset purchases and other unconventional measures. Monetary policy normalisation may also involve adjustments to forward guidance, normalisation leads to a tightening of financial conditions, helping the central bank reduce the inflationary pressures in the economy. Okay. So what they’re talking about there is that during the pandemic, when all of those policy interest rates were effectively cut to zero, our cash rate here in Australia got cut to 0.1%. Right, so it’s effectively zero. That’s what economists call the zero lower bound. So there’s nowhere else for the that policy rate to go, then what central banks what the Australian Central Bank did for the first time. So this has been done previously by the US, and the ECB and Bank of Japan, in response to the financial crisis back in the late 2000s. But we hadn’t done this yet. We did the quantitative easing, what they call quantitative easing, which is printing money. well printing money electronically, and then using that to buy bonds or other financial assets to drive down yields to drive down borrowing costs, with the idea of stimulating the economy that way. So that’s unconventional monetary policy. So what the Bank of Finland saying is that part of this normalisation story is yes, increasing that policy rate getting it away from that zero, lower bound, and moving away from the unconventional monetary policy. Yeah, that’s essentially what they’re saying in that passage there. Okay. And then they go on to talk about where are interest rates going to settle in the future. And this is where this is where they’re essentially saying that will no one, no one really knows, it’s very difficult to forecast that. They’re saying that the normalisation of monetary policy does not mean that the central bank is attempting to restore its balance sheet and interest rates to a past levels such as that preceding the 2008 global financial crisis. Okay, so what they’re saying is don’t necessarily look to what interest rates have been in the past, rather than the aim of monetary policy normalisation is that the inflation rate should accord with the price stability objective. In the absence of further economic shocks, interest rates should in the longer term settle at a level where economic resources are in full use and inflation is at its target, ie at the equilibrium real interest rate, also known as the natural rate of interest. However, the level of the equilibrium real interest rate is affected by a number of factors unrelated to monetary policy. Okay, so, gee, there’s a lot going on that passage there that I’ve just read. The way I interpret this is that essentially, we’ve got to get to an interest rate. So what the central bank is trying to do, its increasing interest rates to get inflation under control. And after it gets inflation under control, the interest rate is going to settle at a rate whereby it’s consistent with keeping inflation in the target band. So in Australia, that’s two to 3%. On average, other countries have similar target rates for inflation and that sort of 2%.

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 10:28

Between two and 3%. Yeah,

Gene Tunny 10:31

yeah, yeah. So just, I’ll just put some links in the show notes, clarifying that what they are for all other economies. So we’ll end up with an interest rate where it’s consistent with that. And it’s also consistent with a reasonable level of economic activity. So a stable, well, a sustainable rate of economic growth. And I mean, you could call it full employment, but I’d probably say unemployment at what you’d say is the natural rate of unemployment rather than full employment, which is, I think, a difficult concept to actually to define in practice. So, I mean, what would that be? I mean, it’s hard to know, because it depends on how the economy will first we’ve got to find out how the economy responds to the current interest rate increases, and just how far the central bank has to increase the rates from here. So I think there’s generally agree that well, there’s quite a bit of agreement among commentators among the market economists, that interest rates will have to increase a bit more from where they are now. Because we’ve still got inflation in Australia over 7% Us 7% over 7%, we’ve still got these high rates of inflation or higher rates than we’ve experienced for a long time. We’ve pushed the policy interest rates up to 3.1% in Australia, 4.25 to 4.5%. In the US, I think, is the current target band for the federal funds rate. There seems to be a view that there’s still scope for them to push those up further. So in Australia, we could have another maybe two up to two cash rate increases. That seems to be you know, that’s a possibility depends on what your outlook is for the state of the economy. Some people are thinking that might be too much given that, you know, these interest rate increases are really starting to bite already is having a big impact on house prices. We’re seeing that already. So house prices are really coming off. If I look at the ASX this thing called the ASX 30 Day interbank cash rate futures implied yield curve. So this is based on market pricing for financial market products. So this is this What is it 30 Day interbank cash rate future. So, essentially you can bet on what the cash rate is going to be in the future. And from this, it’s showing that the markets essentially expecting that the cash rate will peak at a bit over 3.8% later this year, and then it starts coming off from a peak around I think that’s October, and then it’s slightly falling. And then by June 2024, it’s down around 3.6%. So the market here in Australia is expecting two to three additional increases in the cash rate it appears of around 25 basis points or a quarter of a percentage point. So the markets expecting two to three more increases. I think other economists would be but there’s debate about just how many and the current state of the economy and how the economy will react to that. That’s one of the great unknowns, how will households react to these higher interest rates. And that’s one of the unknowns too in other countries in the States. It looks like there’s probably there will probably be another, at least one more increase in the federal funds rate in the States. There was a report in the Financial Times yesterday regarding some comments from one of the Federal Reserve officials, Mary Daly think she’s from San Francisco fed and the FT reported that Mary Daly became the latest Federal Reserve official to raise the prospect of the US central bank slowing the pace of its interest rate increases to a quarter point rise next month, even as policymakers backed the benchmark rates surpassing 5% Okay, so if you, I think in the Federal Reserve in their publication when they publish their decisions, they have these charts, which show what the Federal Open Markets Committee members, what they forecasting for future federal funds rate, which is a really interesting way to do it. And it gives you some insight and into how the members are thinking and where federal funds rate could be going. It’s really quite a clever thing to do and possibly something the Australian reserve bank could think about doing. And I don’t know whether this is an issue that they’re considering in their manage their review of the reserve bank that’s going on at the moment, I might have to look into that. But it looks like yep, so. So members are the people who are responsible for monetary policy, and the states are expecting a couple more increases in that federal funds rate. So they expect it’ll end up getting beyond 5%. They’re currently targeting 4.25 to 4.5%. But what this is saying is based on recent data in the States, which suggests that the economy might be losing some of the some steam, its inflation may not be as much of a problem as previously, based on that. They’re saying, well, the Federal Reserve can slow down the rate of interest rate increases. So that’s what’s going on there. Okay, so the general expectation that we’d have is that there will still be a few more interest rate increases this year in the US and the in Australia, maybe two, maybe three? I don’t know, it’s so difficult. Everything depends on how the economy reacts. New data. It’s just very difficult to forecast. But one thing I think we can say is that there will be additional interest rate increases. Do you have any thoughts on that? Arturo?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 17:01

I have a question about, at what point those heights interest rates will cause a slowdown in the economy. What do you think about that? We will face a slowdown or not?

Gene Tunny 17:21

Yeah, yeah, I think that’s starting to occur. All in Australia, I think households are really starting to feel those interest rate increases and, and more households will this year, because we’re seeing mortgages that were taken out. So the home purchases, they borrowed at fixed rates, and that was for a fixed term, a couple of years, or whatever it was. And then after that, these fixed rates reset to another level. And so that’s going to happen increasingly over this year, we’re going to see more people who borrowed at a fixed rate, they will end up facing a higher interest rate. So those rates that they’re paying reset at a higher level based on current rates, and the current variable rate based on that, and they will therefore have, they will have to pay more to service their mortgage. So there are various estimates of what it means it depends on the type of loan you’ve got, it depends on the amount you’ve got outstanding on your home loan, but for many households, the interest rate rises, we’ve seen it could mean an extra thing is $1,000 a month or something that they have to pay in mortgage

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 18:43

and depending on what loan.

Gene Tunny 18:46

Yeah, it depends on a whole range of things. It depends on what was the deal you got originally and how much you borrowed, how much is outstanding still in, in what you owe and the principal that you are? So look, it’s going to depend, but there’s no doubt that it will be a substantial hit to the budgets of many households. And we should start seeing consumption spending slow. But look, I mean, the last year the Australian economy performed, I think extraordinarily well. And unemployment got down to under three and a half percent, which is just incredible. Yeah, but I think definitely will go we shouldn’t see, nothing’s definite in economics in macro economics. Yeah. Things could judge. You just don’t know what’s around the corner sometimes. But look, I mean, my guess would be that we will start to see the economy slow this year. Will we have a recession? Well, I hope not. I think I’ve seen some forecasts from some of the bank economists might have been Jo Masters, or I’ll have to dig it up. But basically, they, they’ll say, oh, look, we think it’s more likely than not we won’t have a recession. But the probability of a recession is, I don’t know is 30% or something or 40%. I don’t know, I have to look that up. But I know that there are some people saying, Look, yes, it is possible that there could be a recession here, and also in the States. In fact, there were some people last year saying, Oh, the US had already had a risk that it was in recession last year, because they were two negative quarters of GDP. But it turns out that that was a bit of a statistical anomaly or just a freak result, and really didn’t signal that an economy then in recession. So yeah, look, it’s possible, we could see some recessions. But I mean, as always, I mean, I think, given the complexity of the economy, and all of the moving parts and all of the shocks that could occur, it’s just so hard to actually forecast that sort of thing. I mean, I remember when I was in Treasury, and right up until 2008, we were saying, and most macro economic forecasters, were saying, Oh, we’re in this new era of the Great Moderation, and we didn’t have to worry about the business cycle anymore. And then, I mean, then we have the financial crisis, and it’s the worst, worst crisis since the Great Depression. So things can change the I’m always reluctant to to provide any, any forecasts. Okay. So yeah, those are my thoughts. I mean, what do you think, Arturo, do you have any thoughts on it?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 21:42

Well, I think that we are under a period of higher certainty than other times after the global financial crisis. Of course, there are a lot of Australians that are suffering with these higher tax rates. Mortgages, as you have mentioned, I think we need to be cautious about this period.

Gene Tunny 22:07

Yeah, exactly. I found that that article by that mentions, recession forecasts by Jo masters, she’s with think it’s a bank or some sort of investment being Baron Joey, is it. So masters thinks Australia will avoid a recession, but it will be a very close call. So this is an article in the financial review January 3, this year, so we’re recording this on the 11th of January, everything must go right for Australia to dodge a recession. Okay. So she’s one of the people who is concerned that because of these higher interest rates, then yeah, it’s going to have a significant impact on consumption, then she’s saying that offsetting that is the fact that we’re getting all of these international students coming back into Australia. So that’s one thing that’s going to add to demand. Okay. I’ll put a link in the show notes to this article by that mentions, Jo masters, predictions. Okay. So that’s, that’s where to from here. Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 23:31

Gene Tunny 24:00

Now back to the show. One thing that is concerned some people is wondering, Well, is there a risk that we could get back to some of the crazily high interest rates that have been seen in past periods? So in Australia, for example, we had interest rates at 17 to 18%. At one time, back in the late 80s, early 90s, we had really high interest rates, but that was also at a point in time. When we had inflation of around 8% We had money supply growth of 20% plus. So we had a big boom in the late 80s. This was the age of the entrepreneurs a lot of lending a lot of property, lots of speculation, and I would say that it’s probably unlikely I can’t see interest rates getting back to anywhere near that sort of crazy heights. Given that the macro economic conditions are different today, there was much more entrenched inflation, people expected high inflation. I think if you look one year ahead, some market economists are expecting inflation of over 4% or something like that. But it’s not as if every year we’re expecting inflation of 8% or something like that. So monetary policy doesn’t have to be as restrictive to get inflation under control to to get all of the money creation, all the credit creation that’s leading to the growth in the money supply, it doesn’t need to be as aggressive to get that under control. So my expectation is that we don’t have to, we wouldn’t see that, again, just because inflation is not at those Well, it’s not entrenched at those rates. So we’ve got high inflation at the moment at 7%. If it turns out that the RBA can’t get inflation down, then they will have to increase, keep increasing the cash rate. But I would expect they wouldn’t have to increase it anywhere near some of those really high interest rates that they have in the past, because it seems like your households are already they’re going to start suffering even with the interest rate increases that we’ve seen. So if they increase the interest rates a bit more, say another half a percent, then the hope is that that will start you know slowing the economy taking the heat out of the economy enough that we can get inflation under control. So yeah, we won’t get back to those, those crazy interest rates that have been seen in the past, just because the nature of the economy is different. We haven’t had sustained inflation over such a long period as we had back then over several years. And then having that inflation, getting expected having these entrenched inflation expectations which the central banks have to then act aggressively against. I’ll put some links to some charts on on inflation and interest rates and what we’ve seen in the past, and just so people can see if you’re in the audience, you’re interested, you can have a look at what what these things have been in the past. They what strikes me is when I look at, well, interest rates, which is what we’re talking about today, you look at interest rates historically, and they’ve been all over the place. This is why when we’re talking about normalisation when we’re talking about normalisation to some, what do they call it some equilibrium rate of interest where we’ve got the economy balanced, we’ve got inflation at Target, we’ve got the economy going along smoothly. We don’t know there’s no one interest rate over history, that’s it’s not going to be the same interest rate, it’s going to depend on the macro economic circumstances at the time. There was an estimate that the Reserve Bank put out of what the equilibrium real interest rate is. And the central estimate they came up with, I think it averaged at 1%. Now, that’s a real interest rate. And then if we think about what would the nominal interest rate be, this is something I may not have defined yet, Arturo. But we’ve got to think about, one of the reasons you end up with a 17% or 18% interest rate is because inflation is expected to be about 8% or something, or whatever it is. So the interest rate at least has to compensate for the inflation that’s expected. And then you’ve got the real component of the interest rate, the so called real interest rate. And the inflation gets added to that to get the nominal interest rate. So when this is one of the tricky things with interest rates, it needs to be appreciated. There’s a there’s a nominal interest rate and all of these, these rates that we’ve been talking about the policy, the cash rate, the RBA cash rate, or the federal funds rate, that’s a nominal interest rate. That’s not the real interest rate that has been paid. Because one thing that inflation does, it erodes the real value of debts. So if you’re only earning, I mean, you’d be earning more than the cash rate, if you’ve invested if you’ve bought a you know, an asset of some kind of financial asset. But let’s just say you, the cash rates 3.1% at the moment, the inflation rate 7.1%. Now, you could argue or looking backwards, this is an ex post view of things. So after the fact, if you’re only earning 3.1% per year on your asset and inflation was 7.1% then you’ve gone backwards 4% hit right. Yeah. Now that’s an ex post calculation another way, well, what ends up happening is that the market is going to adjust these interest rates will adjust to incorporate expectations of future inflation. And so, therefore, the interest rate that you see at a point in time, should equal whatever people demand on the market determined real rate of interest, plus the expected rate of inflation, which I think is that’s the Fisher equation, I think, isn’t it? There’s a relationship between inflation and interest rates. That’s called the Fisher equation after Irving Fisher, that I’ll put it in the show notes. Yes. Okay. So that’s a that’s a bit of technical detail. I’ll put some links on all of that. Yeah. And what I find extraordinary is that just over recorded history, there are all these different types of interest rates that we’ve observed. And I always go back to this great passage from John Maynard Keynes, one of the great economists, obviously. And Keynes, in chapter 15 of the general theory, incentives to liquidity wrote that it might be more accurate, perhaps to say that the rate of interest is a highly conventional rather than a highly psychological phenomenon, for its actual value is largely governed by the prevailing view as to what its value is expected to be. Okay, I think that’s quite clever and observation. And, yeah, what he’s getting out there is that it ends up being conventional, in a way, it depends on what it’s expected to be. And I think that’s quite interesting, because for a long time, well, after the financial crisis, there was this expectation of low interest rates, and that was supported by the central bank’s pumping a lot of money into the economy. But now, I mean, who knows, I mean, the expectation could be of higher interest rates. So we’ll have to wait and see where things settle, and what expectations and being and what people, people think as an acceptable interest rate. Historically, we’ve seen interest rates and the ones I’m quoting, they’re going to be nominal interest rates of around three to 4%. On government bonds. And so this can be considered a risk free rate, this could be considered as similar to the the cash rate, although a bit higher due to the fact that there’s a yield curve that if you borrow for, for a longer period, you generally have to pay a higher interest rate. But if we look at what we see in the data, or what we’ve observed in history, these UK consoles, which are perpetual bonds, whereby the government, the UK government borrowed, say, I don’t know let’s say they borrow 100 pounds, and then you get this console, this note that says, The UK government will pay you three to 4% of that. So three pounds or four pounds every year, in perpetuity, on that, that console of 100 pounds. I don’t know if that was the actual denomination, but this is just to explain it. So these were perpetual bonds that the government never repaid. It just paid an interest rate each year. And historically, that was three to 4%, depending on when they issued the console, and what they thought was necessary to attract the people to buy the console to lend money to the UK Government, it turns out I think was about seven or eight years ago, the UK actually bought back the final consoles that are on issue. So there were these consoles that were that have been on issue for decades or centuries, that were still owned by nothing to various investors in England in the UK that the HM Treasury bought back finally, so I’ll put a link in the show notes there. So if we look at the historical evidence, we see consoles, they were yielding three to 4%. And if we look at the history of what’s called bank rate in the UK, which is the last day, that overnight interest rate, the policy rate, that the Bank of England influences historically, it’s ranged from, if we look at, from when the Bank of England was set up, so in 1694, it was looks like it was 6% or so I’ll put a link in the show notes to the actual data, and then it dropped down to what’s that nearly 3%, around 3%. Then for a long period from 1720 to 1820 it was about it was 5%. And then it fluctuates a bit more, I’ve got a chart that I’ve pulled off macro bond that I think that’s a great chart, I’ll put a link in the show notes. And then in the 19th century, it fluctuates quite a bit. And at times, it gets up to 10%. This must be related to the UK trying to maintain the gold value of sterling. So this is related. I think this is related to the gold standard, and having to maintain that and adjusting bank rate to do that. But I think what’s fascinating about that is for a very long time, so for about 100 years, it had the interest rate it at 5%. And that’s their policy rate. Okay, so we’ve been talking about interest rates, and these are interest rates related to financial securities. And other bit of evidence that is, that is interesting is the evidence, or the data points that you’ll see in novels by Jane Austen or Balzac? So Jane Austen, obviously, right Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, etc. Balzac wrote old man glorioso, his French writer, this is something Thomas Piketty pointed out in his book on capital in the 21st century that if you read these novels, you’ll see that it was generally understood that the rate of return on land was about four to 5%. That’s a rate of return on an investment that’s different from the interest rate. But it gives you an idea of what was people were expecting to earn from investments in assets, and there’s some risk associated with land, or owning anything. So it’s not going to be a risk free interest rate. But I think it gives you gives you some idea of what rates of return were so right rate of return on land, historically, 4 to 5%. And it was taken for granted, that land yields 5% is what picket is writing. So the value is equal to roughly 20 years of annual rent. So I think that’s, that’s a really interesting data point. So what we’re getting is that, but another thing to consider is that that’s probably in a time when, historically there wasn’t a lot of inflation. I mean, there was during war time. But generally, until we had this, we adopted fiat currency in the 20th century, inflation wasn’t usually a problem, although you could have episodes of inflation, if there was a crisis of some kind. But I think you could probably interpret that as those is real rates, real rates of return almost. What we could conclude is that, yeah, I mean, interest rates are normalising historically, we’ve seen a range of interest rates, rates of three to 4%, four, or 5%. For risk free rates. That’s something you might expect, where current interest rates and up, it’s difficult to say it’s going to depend on the state of the economy, or how the economy reacts to those rate rises. I mean, this is something we’ll we’ll keep tracking we’ll keep following this year, and provide some more commentary, some more analysis on the future. Arturo, anything else you think we should cover?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 38:33

I think you have to cover most of the important things. So that was a good conclusion for this episode of the books.

Gene Tunny 38:43

Okay. Very good. Okay. All right. Thanks so much for your time.

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 38:47

Thank you for having me.

Gene Tunny 38:50

Okay, have you found that informative and enjoyable. In my view, the main takeaway is that monetary policy is still in what’s called a tightening cycle. Interest rates will have to increase some more because inflation is still too high. It’s hard to know when the tightening will stop. The US experience suggests tightening cycles last a bit under two years on average, according to an informative note from Chatham financial, which I’ll link to in the show notes. The US Fed started tightening in March last year, and the Reserve Bank of Australia started last May, suggesting we could still have many months to go. Of course, this tightening cycle doesn’t necessarily have to conform to the average. Much depends on how the economy responds. In Australia, we’re hopeful we won’t need many more interest rate increases to sufficiently slow demand and get inflation under control. Even though the cash rate hasn’t been pushed up to a very high level in historical terms, the rate increases that we’ve seen could still be effective because of the heavy load of household debt that people have incurred to buy high priced properties. How much will the economy slow down? Will it just be a slowdown a reduction in the GDP growth rate or a contraction in which GDP falls? And we have negative growth for a couple of quarters at least that is a recession. Recessions in both Australia and the US are definitely possible. Indeed, recessions often occur after central banks tighten monetary policy. The 2009, New York Fed paper noted 11 and 14 monetary tightening cycles since 1955, were followed by increases in unemployment. That is, it’s very difficult for central banks to bring about a so-called soft landing. That was me speaking rather than the Fed. I’d note that some economists are even speculating that because economies will slow down substantially, we’ll start seeing interest rate cuts toward the end of 2023. Honestly, I don’t know whether we’ll have soft landings or recessions, a lot depends on psychology, and just how entrenched expectations of high inflation have become, the more entrenched they are, the more interest rates have to keep on increasing. We need to wait and see just how effective the interest rate increases we’ve seen already have been and will be. Obviously, this is one of the big economic issues of the year. And I’ll continue to keep a close eye on it. And I’ll come back to you in a future episode this year. Thanks for listening. Alright, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you, then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

Male speaker 41:57

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey. Head on over to obsidian-productions.com.

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Economics Explored is available via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Tags central banks, fed, inflation, interest rates, monetary policy, rba, recession

Podcast episode

Stagflation: be alert, not alarmed – EP143 + transcript

Post author By Gene Tunny
Post date June 14, 2022
No Comments on Stagflation: be alert, not alarmed – EP143 + transcript

In early June 2022, the World Bank downgraded its global economic growth forecast and warned of the rising risk of stagflation, the uncommon combination of high inflation and high unemployment, or falling GDP growth. Stagflation is a portmanteau word, combining stagnation with inflation. Economists first noticed stagflation in 1970s USA (see the chart below) and other advanced economies, when it was triggered by the 1973 oil price shock, which pushed up prices and reduced industrial output as input costs soared.

A simultaneous acceleration of inflation and an increasing unemployment rate in the mid-1970s surprised many people at the time, because it was contrary to the Phillips curve trade-off between unemployment and inflation.

In Episode 143 of Economics Explored, show host Gene Tunny and his colleague Arturo Espinoza discuss how the current global situation is similar and dissimilar to the 1970s, including consideration of recent perspectives from the World Bank and BIS. While we also have a commodity price shock, associated partly with the war in Ukraine, it is less in proportionate terms than in the 1970s, and we also have better macroeconomic policy frameworks (i.e. explicit inflation targets) than in the 1970s. So the takeaway of the episode is that, while we should be alert to the possibility of stagflation, at this stage we shouldn’t be alarmed.

You can listen to episode 143 using the embedded player below or via Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher, among other podcast apps. A transcript and relevant links are also available below.

Links relevant to the conversation

Is a US recession imminent? w/ Michael Knox, Chief Economist, Morgans Financial – EP142 – Economics Explored (Previous episode with Michael Knox)

Jobs report May 2022: Payrolls rose 390,000 in May, better than expected as companies keep hiring

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=stagflation&geo=US (Google Trends for stagflation)

The Fed must act now to ward off the threat of stagflation | Financial Times

Are major advanced economies on the verge of a wage-price spiral? (BIS Bulletin 53)

Commodity market disruptions, growth and inflation (BIS Bulletin 54)

Robert Heller’s paper on International Reserves and Global Inflation (from p. 28)

Stagflation Risk Rises Amid Sharp Slowdown in Growth (World Bank report)

Stagflation danger prompts World Bank to cut growth outlook (Washington Post article)

EP59 on the Natural Rate of Unemployment (re. Milton Friedman’s AEA presidential address)

Friedman’s presidential address

Chart of the Week – The real price of crude oil – Callum Thomas

Clarification

Australia’s wage price index increased 2.4% through the year to March 2022 (see Wage Price Index, Australia, March 2022 | Australian Bureau of Statistics)

Transcript of EP143 – Stagflation: be alert, not alarmed

Gene Tunny 00:01

Coming up on Economics Explored. My personal feeling is that; and this is informed by my conversation with Michael Knox last week. I don’t think we’ll end up with stagflation similar to the 70s or rather, I hope not. I don’t see at the moment.

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host, Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist based in Brisbane, Australia, and I’m a former Australian Treasury official. This is episode 143 on Stagflation.

Joining me this episode is my colleague at Adept Economics, Arturo Espinosa. Arturo, good to have you on the show again.

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 00:44

Thank you, Gene. I am glad to be here.

Gene Tunny 00:48

Excellent, yes. It should be a good conversation because we know that this issue of Stagflation is topical with the recent World Bank report that we’ll get into in this episode. But before we do that, I just thought I’d provide an update on last week’s episode.

So, in Episode 142, I spoke with Michael Knox, who is the Chief Economist at Morgan’s, which is a major Australian wealth management and stock broking firm. And Michael and I chatted about the prospects for the US and Australian economies and what’s been happening with monetary policy. And Michael made a bold prediction in that episode, on where the Australian cash rates, so the policy rate that’s controlled by the Reserve Bank of Australia, so that’s the equivalent of the Federal Reserve in the US or the Bank of England. And he forecast that they would lift it by 50 basis points. So, half a percentage point from 0.35%, he forecast that they would increase it to 0.85%. He was the only economist in Australia who was forecasting there, and he explained why he thought that was the case in the episode.

So, if you’re in the audience, you haven’t listened to that episode yet, please, think about having to listen to it because Michael, I think is one of the best economic forecasters out there. He looks at the global economy, he looks at the Australian economy. And it turned out that the Reserve Bank did increase the cash rate by 0.85%. And it surprised all of the other market economists, all the commentators, and now there’s all this talk about what does this mean for the economy?

Will people now have trouble paying their home loans? Will they get into financial trouble? And there’s a huge conversation about that now in Australia; well done to Michael Knox for forecasting that correctly.

And we were also chatting about this idea or this concern that there could be a recession coming up in the US. So, there’s been a lot of commentary about that. It’s associated with all of this commentary, all this discussion at the moment about stagflation, which we’re going to get into. But Michael is very optimistic about the US economy as we talked about, and just after that episode was published, there was some new data that came out from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; at the BLS. And they reported better than expected, employment numbers in the US for May, CNBC reported that the US economy added 390,000 jobs in May, better than expected despite fears of an economic slowdown and with a roaring pace of inflation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, at the same time, the unemployment rate held at 3.6% just above the lowest level since December 1969.

Okay, so that’s an update on last week’s episode. Okay. Any questions or thoughts on that, Arturo?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 04:04

No, let’s start discussing about the topic.

Gene Tunny 04:09

Yep, about stagflation, absolutely. So, I want to devote the bulk of this episode, or the rest of this episode to talking about stagflation. This is something that I asked Michael about last week in our conversation. And I mean, this is something we haven’t; it’s a term that, that I remember, you know, I learned in when I studied Economics, and as you did, we would have learned this term stagflation about what happened in the 1970s. But we haven’t really heard it in the economic commentary for a while. So, there were decades when no one was really talking about it. And then there was this revival of interest in it, I think, from around late last year.

And if you look at the Google Trends Data, and I’ll put this chart on the show notes, so you can see, when interest in the concept of stagflation has picked up again. And that was from around, I think it was around September, 2021. And we’ve had various commentators talking about the risks of stagflation. So, on 25th of May this year, Martin Wolf; so Martin Wolf is one of the leading financial economic commentators in the world. He writes for The Financial Times. He wrote a column; “The Fed must act now to ward off the threat of stagflation.” And we know from the 1970s, the time to throttle an inflationary upsurge is at the beginning. And is there going to be a recession in the US and other leading economies? This question has naturally arisen among participants at this year’s meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos. So, you probably saw, I think that meeting, they had their World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland last week.

Martin Wolf wrote that this is however, the wrong question, at least for the US. The right one is whether we are moving into a new era of higher inflation and wage growth, similar to the stagflation of the 1970s. If so, what might this mean? That was one of the motivations for having this conversation today.

And almost as if I forecast that the World Bank would produce this study on stagflation, they released it overnight, or it came overnight our time. And so, we’ve just been looking at this morning, this new report, from the reserve; sorry, not the Reserve Bank, that’s our bank here in Australia, the World Bank. And the press release; June 7, press release, I’ll put this in the show notes. So, if you listen, and you’re interested, you can find that; stagflation risk rises amid sharp slowdown in growth.

So, you had a look at this earlier, Arturo, didn’t you? What were your main takeaways from this report from the World Bank?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 06:59

Well, I think these are very good reports, where they dedicate special focus on globalist inflation. And there is a section which they talk about similarities to the 1970s. They mentioned that they are three of them. The first is that supply shocks after a prolonged monetary policy accommodation, the existence of weaker growth. Also, there are some significant problems or inabilities in emerging economies. Those three things can be similar from 1970s to the current period.

Gene Tunny 07:51

This is because these supply side shocks really hurt those emerging economies more than the richer economies; is that the idea? Because they generally have lower incomes in those countries. And so, they’re going to be very badly affected by increases in oil prices, increases in food prices, and that can bring not only economic turmoil, but political turmoil as well.

So, what we might do is; we might revisit those, those similarities. Again, in the podcast first, it just occurred to me that we probably should, or I probably should just talk about what Stagflation is, what does it mean? And I couldn’t find any or there’s no strict definition of what it is. It’s a combination of unemployment and inflation or low GDP growth and high inflation. But there’s no agreed definition of it’s stagflation, if unemployment and GDP growth are x and y and inflation is there; there’s no quantitative definition as far as I can tell.

So, stagflation; it’s a pretty horrible word, if you think about it. I mean, it’s one of these, what do you call it? A portmanteau word. So, it’s a word that is a combination of other words, to try and convey a particular meaning, the combination of themselves. So, it’s a combination of stagnation, plus inflation. Glenn Hubbard’s introductory Economics textbook. So, Glenn Hubbard was the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers for President George W. Bush, in the early 2000s. In his textbook, they define it as a combination of inflation and recession, usually resulting from a supply shock. Okay, and like with everything in Economics, we’ve defined a concept by referring to another concept, we have to define a lot of times. So, supply shock. What do we mean by that? We mean, something that increases the cost of inputs; it’s a shock on the supply side of the economy, our ability to produce.

It’s not like a demand shock, where there’s an increase in spending or an increase in the amount of money. It’s a shock to our productive capacity. So, this concept, I think, originally came into Economics, or it became prominent in the 1970s, when there was the huge spike in oil prices in 1973, when OPEC, because of the Arab countries are upset with the West because they were backing the Israelis in the war, I think it was the young people war. That meant that the cost of inputs increased. And when those inputs increase, we use oil, well for petrol and, you know, across the economy. And so, it’s pushing up costs of production and produces; firms will try and pass that on to customers. That can be inflationary. Okay.

And you mentioned supply shocks before, didn’t you? In terms of the similarities with the 70s? So, we’ve had that,

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 11:10

Yeah, we have the impact. However, there is a difference there in the case of the World Bank report, they say that the current shocks or current supply shocks are smaller, compared to those shocks in 1970s.

Gene Tunny 11:33

That’s right. I should have checked the numbers before I came on to record. But if you look at the real oil price back in the 70s, that was in proportionate terms, that was a huge increase, wasn’t it? I mean, it was multiples of the then current price, and it really shocked people. It was a huge shock to face those price rises.

So, I’ll have to dig out what that stat was and put it in the show notes. But that’s what they’re driving out there, aren’t they? They’re saying, well, okay, we’ve seen some big increases in commodities prices, but they’re, they’re smaller still than what we saw in the 1970s. So, they may have a chart and that report that we can refer people to in the show notes. Okay.

So, just on this definition of stagflation again, that was one definition. Now, note, there’s no quantitative; there aren’t any numbers in that definition. Dornbusch and Fisher; so, that was the textbook I use when I studied macro Economics back in the 90s. Rudy Dorn, Bush and Stan Fisher, so very prominent, US macro economists, I think are at MIT. They wrote that stagflation occurs when inflation rises, while output is either falling or at least not rising. And on well, actually, there’s probably no point me giving textbook page references, because this is sort of the 1994 edition. But in that edition, they wrote that during periods of stagflation, such as 1973, 74, 1980, and 1991. There are articles in the newspapers that the laws of Economics are not working as they should, because inflation is high or rising, even though output is falling.

So if we go to the, the data for the US, so I’ll put this chart in the show notes as well. We look at what happened in 1973 – 74. And this was a huge shock, I think at the time. We see that inflation went from a rate of 2 to 3%. And it ended up at a rate of over 10%. I think it looks like nearly 12½ % on this chart, I’ve pulled up. And so, we had those two years; well, after the ‘73 oil shock, so 74, 75 inflation is accelerating. And unemployment is also increasing, and it’s increasing from about 5% to nearly 8 to 9% or so. I’ll put this chart in, and I’ll just check those numbers. And this came as a big shock, because there was this concept of the Phillips Curve wasn’t there? There was this idea that there was this tradeoff between unemployment and an inflation, that if you had high unemployment, then at the same time, you should have low inflation. Or if you had high inflation, you’d have low unemployment. There was this idea that there was this trade off; because empirically, if you looked at the data for the 50s and 60s in the States, or for the UK or other advanced economies, it looked like there was this trade off. It looked like there was a menu from which economic policymakers could choose.

The typical story about the Phillips Curve was that, you could get unemployment down by stimulating your economy, a bit of Keynesian fine tuning, a bit of pump priming. You could reduce unemployment, but if you get unemployment; if you if you do reduce that, that puts more power in the hands of Labor relative to capital, you can tell stories about unions, you can tell stories about people being more aggressive in their wage negotiations, because Labor is scarcer, and that leads to higher inflation.

So, there’s this idea of a tradeoff. And this Phillips Curve was something that was found by Bill Phillips, who was a professor, Bill is from New Zealand originally. And he ended up being a professor at the London School of Economics. Have you heard about that? This is a bit of a tangent, but he built that hydraulic, economic model. Have you ever heard of that, ever heard of LSE?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 16:08

No, I haven’t heard about it.

Gene Tunny 16:11

And he developed this hydraulic, economic model in the 50s and 60s. They built a representation of the economy; they’re essentially modelling the circular flow of income with using water and mechanical parts. And this was a model that London School of Economics; I just remember that because she gave a lecture at the University of Queensland in 2016, Mary Morgan, she’s a professor at LSE, London School of Economics. She wrote a great book on the World in a Model. So, she’s done some great work on the history of economic modelling. Her first job, she said, was looking after that hydraulic computer.

So, Bill Phillips, one of the great economists, he discovered this correlation between all this trade off; the Phillips Curve, the relationship that ended up being influential in economic policy in the 60s until it broke down in the 70s. As we are talking about, he looked at UK wages growth, so wages, inflation and unemployment data. Even though what he did was look at wages data, well, it soon transferred as a concept to a tradeoff between price inflation and unemployment, because well, there is obviously a link between wages and prices, because employers will try and pass on those increases.

Does that all make sense? I was just trying to explain why this idea of this stagflation came as such a shock in the 1970s.

So, what was wrong with that Phillips Curve concept? Why didn’t it work out? Well, it was because of this supply side shock, wasn’t it? This was something that wasn’t really anticipated in that Phillips Curve story. And the other problem was that when you have high inflation, the expectations of people in the economy of workers and businesses, your expectations of inflation increase. You essentially, come to expect inflation and inflation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because every time there’s a wage negotiation, or a contract negotiation, you essentially allow for the future inflation, you expect it. And you have things like cost-of-living adjustments, you essentially build it into contracts and under wage bargaining. So that’s one of the reasons why the traditional Phillips Curve breaks down. And there was a very famous speech by Milton Friedman; the presidential address to the American Economic Association in 1968. And I’ve talked about this in a previous episode – Episode 59, on the Natural Rate of Unemployment. And Friedman argued, well, in the long run, there’s really no Phillips Curve, you might think that there’s some sort of tradeoff in the short run, that you can get unemployment down if you pump-prime; if you stimulate your economy, and you’ll get some inflation as a result of that or you could go the other way and try and contract the economy to reduce inflation.

But in the long run, there is no trade off; there’s no Phillips Curve to speak of this. The economy should gravitate towards a natural rate of unemployment. And inflation can be whatever is consistent with people’s expectations.

There’s a big problem if you don’t get inflation under control, and people come to expect inflation, and then you can just have persistently high inflation, and you can have that with high unemployment as well.

Have you seen those diagrams of the Phillips Curve, with the vertical long run Phillips Curve? And then if you start off at a point on that Phillips Curve, so say you’re at your natural rate of unemployment, and you’ve got high inflation expected, then what can happen is, there some sort of shock that increases unemployment. And so, you start off at that high point with high inflation already. Maybe, it eventually has some sort of; it does contribute to a reduction in inflation somewhat, but you still at that higher level of inflation. And so, you can have higher unemployment or high unemployment and high inflation still.

So, that was probably a bit more technical information than we needed. If you have a look at an intermediate or advanced macroeconomics textbook, they’ll have some diagrams; I have some models that go over, that we probably don’t need to look into that. But the main point is that this Phillips Curve, discovered by Bill Phillips; people thought it was this stable tradeoff between unemployment and inflation, didn’t hold in the long run. And if your economy is subject to the supply side shocks, so increase in the price of oil, for example. And then if people come to expect inflation, then you can get high levels of inflation. And they can be very persistent, and you can have the economy slow down, you’re going to have high unemployment, and inflation can still persist for a long time.

And if you did want to get that inflation down, you really need a change in monetary policy, you need a much more aggressive monetary policy, and you need a credible Central bank that can deliver it. And I think this is what Paul Volcker in the US did in the early 80s. And this is what when they massively tighten monetary policy, high interest rates, crunch the economy, but they did get inflation under control. And I think this is related to this point that the World Bank made. There was a point about better monetary policy frameworks. Is that right?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 22:37

Yes, that’s right. After that economic event occurring 1970s, most of Central banks started to control prices, try to target inflation. Also, they incorporated the old thing related to these rational speculative in order to take into account potentials proven that pulling golden, been analyzed before 1970s since the Phillips Curve wasn’t explained correctly, the prequel evidence, as you mentioned. In the short run, that Phillips Curve is playing well, but in the long run, they didn’t account other factors, and relationships was different. So, I think most of the Central bank started to work better in terms of expectations.

Gene Tunny 23:45

Yeah. And so, this is this point, that Central banks, they need to have a credible monetary policy. And one way of having a credible monetary policy is to have an explicit inflation target that you’re judged on. And that’s why our Reserve Bank of Australia has a 2 to 3% inflation target, and the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve, they’re aiming for, I think it’s 2%. I’ll put that in the show notes. But they sort of; all of these Central banks tend to have inflation targets in 2 to 3%, which is a recognition that you’re going to have some inflation, but what you want to avoid is higher rates of inflation or double-digit inflation, or even worse, that’s what you really want to avoid, because that really causes a lot of misery. People can sort of, live with inflation of 2 to 3%.

So, that was this point about monetary policy; another thing that helps signal a credible monetary policy. So, by credible, we mean that people in the economy, businesses and workers know that if inflation starts to accelerate, the Central bank is going to squash that inflation as soon as it can. And that helps keep inflationary expectations down so people don’t come to expect higher inflation.

Okay, and one other thing that does help with the credibility of a Central bank is having an independent Central bank, who the worst thing you can have is if your Central bank is influenced by politicians; if it’s controlled by politicians, because, say they’re coming up to an election, there might be inflation increasing, but the politicians don’t want the Central bank putting up interest rates just before an election.

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 25:43

That’s right. In the world, we have seen many examples. For example, Peru is a good example of a thing that would the government shouldn’t do. For example, in the middle of 80s, Peruvian government, had a high level of debt. That moment, government Allan Garcia took place, and he didn’t recognize the debth. So, they didn’t want to pay. And also, in the government, they started to print money because the other Central bank, was subordinated to the current government. And that was the world’s respond for [unclear] because Peru initiated a stage of hyperinflation. And also, Peru faced a recession period.

Gene Tunny 26:52

So, hyperinflation; there is a quantitative definition of hyperinflation. It’s when you have inflation running at about 50% a month or something. It’s a very high rate, and you can end up with annual inflation rates of over 1,000% or something, which is just mad. What they had in Germany in the 1920s. But also, we’ve seen it in South American countries in the;

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 27:18

Most South American countries, experience periods of hyperinflation.

Gene Tunny 27:23

So, you are highlighting one of the; when it gets really bad when you don’t have that independence. And because the Central bank is the bank for the government as the government just commits to making all of these payments, and it might not actually have the money, but the Central bank just prints the money. It just pays the bills for the government; the money is just created. So yeah, what they call modern monetary theory nowadays; bad results.

We’ve chatted about the Phillips Curve, why it’s not reliable. I’ll put links to all of these things I’ve mentioned particularly to Milton Friedman’s presidential address, which is just brilliant.

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 28:18

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny 28:47

Now back to the show.

Okay, now, one of the things Central banks are essentially wanting to avoid is this idea of a wage price spiral. So, we’ve talked about inflationary expectations, you want to avoid inflation becoming expected, and then it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, one of the concepts that disgusts is a wage-price spiral.

Okay, so in early May 2022, the Reserve Bank of Australia; this was a report in the Australian Financial Review. The Reserve Bank of Australia has warned of a wage price spiral if unions exploit the low jobless rate to push for higher pay rises to compensate for an inflation rate to peak at a higher than expected 6%.

So, what is a wage-price spiral? The Bank of International Settlements in Basel in Switzerland; it’s defined a wage price spiral in the following way, and this is in a bulletin that they produced, BIS bulletin number 53 on Major Advanced Economies on the verge of a Wage Price Spiral.

A wage price spiral entails feedback in both directions between wages and prices. Inflation then rises persistently on the back of such a spiral. Once the economy enters the spiral, workers bid up nominal wages more than prices, prompting firms to raise prices further, the likelihood of an economy entering the wage price spiral depends in part on macro-economic conditions.

Workers bargaining power is typically greater when Labor demand is strong and Labor supply is tight. Similarly, firms may have more pricing power when aggregate demand is strong. Labor market institutions also influenced the likelihood of a wage price spiral emerging.

Automatic wage indexation and cost of living adjustment. So C-O-L-A or COLA clauses make wage price spirals, more likely.

And this was important in the; well, it became an issue in the Australian election campaign, because the then opposition leader now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese; did you see his comments when he was saying that, if we were in government, we would support workers being getting a wage rise in line with inflation. Inflation was rising at well; inflation was 5.1%. That was the last reported estimate from the Reserve Bank, which was higher than expected. And then, Anthony Albanese came out and said, yes, workers, their wages should increase by at least 5.1% To make up for that. And then, the then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison tried to make a big thing out of that and he said, Anthony Albanese is a loose unit, because this could then lock in inflation permanently.

So, this is his concern about a wage price spiral and the BIS was arguing that, this sort of thing; there’s automatic wage indexation, which is almost what well, it’s essentially what Anthony Albanese, our current prime minister here in Australia was almost hinting at. I think he regretted making that comment, because they really don’t want to do that. And if I think they’ve walked back a bit from that position, I mean, they put a submission to the Fair Work Commission, ultimately, it’s up to the Fair Work Commission to decide the increase in minimum wages in Australia.

There was some criticism of the opposition leader at the time, because it could have; there were commentators who were saying, this is a sort of thing that risks a wage price spiral. And you could take that BIS note as supportive of that position. Ultimately, I don’t think that mattered much in the election campaign. So, who knows? I mean, it could have even increased support for Anthony Albanese. People think, well, that sounds fair enough that we’re compensated for inflation. Most people are wage earners as more wage earners than business owners in the country. So, it could have been a popular thing. The PM at the time was trying to say, well, he’s a loose unit, who knows how much impact it had on the election campaign?

Ultimately, I think the election was decided over concerns about climate change. There was this general perception out there that the government wasn’t doing enough on climate change, rightly or wrongly. And that was the dominant consideration.

Do you remember that whole debate or that whole discussion around the opposition leader’s comments?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 33:43

I remember that. I saw some news about it. I also reviewed some comments from some Australians, And some people or some citizens mentioned that the proposal is not correct for the current situation in the global economy. Because of course, if you want to raise salary, that will be loads, let’s say factor, or determinant to boost inflation pressures in Australia.

I remember that I checked some economic paper; it’s okay to raise the wages, but it could be implemented gradually. Or maybe you can target some sectors in order to improve the salaries but it’s not a good policy response to increase generally, the wages in the whole Australia.

Gene Tunny 35:01

Maybe limited to the lowest paid workers, rather than have at across all of the wage agreements in the economy so that; fair enough. Okay, we might have to come back to this whole issue of how wages are set in a future episode.

So, what did the BIS conclude about whether major economies are on the verge of a wage price spiral? Well, with most economic issues, they weren’t able to reach a firm conclusion. I mean, none of us has a crystal ball. I mean, I’m always very reluctant to give firm or precise forecast, because you just can’t, because there’s so much uncertainty.

So, my reading of what the BIS was saying in that wage price spiral bulletin, is that, well, they’re not really sure. The key things that they noted in their analysis were that while inflation is returned, it’s reached levels not seen in decades, whether inflation enters a persistently higher regime will depend on labor market developments and on whether a wage price spiral emerges. To date, evidence for a broad acceleration in wage growth is mixed. It’s picked up significantly in the US, but it remains moderate in most other advanced economies. So, it’s certainly still moderate in Australia, it is picking up a bit, but it’s not near what arguably, we’d like to have. And this became an issue in the election campaign to you probably remember this. Well, this is why Albanese made those comments to begin with. Because if you looked at wage’s growth, which was, 2.7 or maybe it was a bit lower through the year, compare it with inflation of 5.1%, then you get a real wage decline of 2.6%.

I will put the exact numbers in the show notes. It must have been about 2½%. If we’ve got a 5.1% inflation rate, I think they were saying the real wage decline was 2.6 or 2.7%, that it must have been a 2½% wage price index increase. I’ll put the right data in the show notes.

That became an issue in the recent election campaign.

Here is where the BIS basically admits; we really don’t know:, Extrapolating behavior from low inflation periods is problematic if inflation remains high, households may ask for higher wages to make up for lost purchasing power and firms may raise prices to protect profit margins. And stubbornly high inflation may lead to institutional changes, such as automatic indexation and cost of living adjustment clauses. So, that’s the sort of thing we want to avoid. And that’s why people were worried about what our current Prime Minister was saying, because there was a concern that we could effectively do that sort of thing, if he followed through on what he was saying.

Did you have any thoughts on that wage price spiral article? You had a looked at that today, didn’t you Arturo?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 38:17

Yes. I think, in the report, they also mentioned that some condition must be complied to be under these kinds of wage price spirals. But from my point of view, I think is quite complex to determine if all the countries are going to face that wage price spiral? I think that depends on the particular condition from each country.

Gene Tunny 38:50

Yeah, that’s the problem that the World Bank and the BIS, or the IMF have, because they’re trying to produce forecasts, or do analysis for the whole world or all major economies, whereas there are differences in the institutions within those economies; a very good point.

Okay, so let’s get back to the central question. I mean, all of these things we’ve been talking about, are related to because if we have a wage price spiral, and then we have some shock or the economy goes into a downturn, then we could end up with stagflation. So, it’s all related.

We’ll talk about now, the prospects for stagflation. So, is this something we should be worried about? And it turns out the BIS looked at this last month, so before the World Bank, so this is obviously something that economists in these major institutions are concerned about, and the BIS had to report commodity market disruptions, growth and inflation.

We’ve talked about the broad base supply shock increasing inflation, food and energy prices spilling over to other components of inflation, and possibly; well contributing to a reduction in global economic growth. And we should talk about the World Bank’s forecasts because the World Bank now is forecasting a reduction in global growth, isn’t it? That was one of the major things in that latest report. I’ve got it here.

The bank slashed its annual global growth forecast to 2.9% from January’s 4.1% and said that subdued growth would be likely to persist throughout the decade because of weak investment in most of the world.

And so, the BIS was saying that this is the sort of thing that would happen. It was saying this last month, and I guess, I mean, a lot of other economists have been concerned about that. There’s a recognition that what’s happening with Ukraine, what’s happening with commodity prices, that is going to compromise, global economic growth.

Now, it looks like the BIS; they’re saying similar things to the World Bank and the World Bank, probably. I mean, I’m sure it read what the BIS analysis is pretty much; I think they reach the same conclusions almost. So, let’s go over what the BIS says, and then we’ll compare it with what the World Bank says. So, the BIS has concluded, recent shocks have been smaller than the 1970s oil shocks, but broader based encompassing food and industrial commodities as well as energy. Nonetheless, structural changes, as well as stronger policy frameworks and nominal anchors.

So, by a nominal anchor, they mean, something that’s keeping prices down. They’re talking about inflation targets. So, they make stagflation less likely to return. But this is where they acknowledge that.; we’ve said that, but ultimately, things can happen that derail the economy that can mean our forecast is incorrect. And they know commodity price increases in the wake of the war in Ukraine are likely to weigh on global growth and add to inflation. While lower energy dependence and stronger policy frameworks make a repeat of the 1970s stagflation unlikely, high and volatile commodity prices could still be disruptive. This puts a premium on restoring low inflation quickly before it becomes ingrained in household and corporate decisions.

Absolutely. I think that’s a very good point to make. So, that’s what the BIS said, That’s pretty similar to what the World Bank said, isn’t it?

We might have a look at that now, again. Let me just go back to the media release. They also got a comprehensive report and that chapter, the focus on stagflation, which I’ll link to in the show notes, which is worth reading. I’m just going to consult their media release, which is a really good summary and well written.

Let’s just talk about how the current situation resembles the 70s. And why? What are the reasons why we might think that we could end up with global stagflation?

The current juncture resembles the 1970s in three key aspects: persistence supply, side disturbances, fueling inflation, preceded by a protracted period of highly accommodative monetary policy and major advanced economies, prospects for weakening growth and vulnerabilities in emerging market and developing economies face with respect to the monetary policy tightening that will be needed to rein in inflation.

Let’s have a look at what they’re talking about there. We’ve talked about the persistent supply side disturbances, preceded by a protracted period of highly accommodative monetary policy. By accommodative, we mean, loose, we mean, ultra-low interest rates, we mean lots of money printing, that sort of thing; credit creation, due to the low interest rates. And that’s what we’ve seen in Australia, we’ve seen in the US, we’ve seen it in other advanced economies. So, there’s no doubt about that. And the argument is that buildup of that additional money, that additional liquidity will end up with too much money chasing too few goods, accelerating inflation, right. We’ve talked about that on the show before.

They also talked about vulnerabilities that emerging market and developing economies face with respect to the monetary policy tightening that will be needed to rein in inflation.

So, let’s have a think about what they’re driving out there. I mean, as the western economies increase interest rates, that’s going to mean; this is just one aspect of it. That will attract investment capital, portfolio investment to the US or to other major advanced economies. And if those developing economies don’t put up their interest rates, then that will lead to a depreciation of their exchange rates, which means that the cost of imported goods in those economies will be compromised, or if they’re trying to fix their exchange rates, it puts pressure on their balance of payments. So, it’s a bad situation for those emerging economies.

And also, the thing is, when you have situations like this in the world, when there’s concerns about volatility, there is this flight to safety and money can flow to the advanced economies where there’s a perception, it’s safer, and that could compromise these emerging economies. I wouldn’t be forecasting this yet, but things can happen unexpectedly or rapidly. We know that there can be crises in emerging economies that are difficult to predict, such as the Asian crisis in the late 1990s.

Any thoughts on any of those key aspects, Arturo? About how, how there are similarities with the 70s?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 46:19

No. Your explanation was very clear.

Gene Tunny 46:23

Okay, well, then we should; before we conclude this episode, we should talk about how the ongoing episode also differs from the 1970s. The dollar is strong, a sharp contrast with a severe weakness in the 1970s, the percentage increases in commodity prices are smaller, and the balance sheets of major financial institutions are generally strong.

More importantly, unlike the 1970s, Central banks in advanced economies, and many developing economies, now have clear mandates for price stability. And over the past three decades, they have established a credible track record of achieving their inflation targets.

And they go on to conclude as the World Bank global inflation is expected to moderate next year, but it will likely remain above; I think I’ve missed the words there, it must be above average.

And they talked about; something’s gone wrong with my printout. They do talk about, you know, there is a risk of stagflation. So, stagflation risk rises amid sharp slowdown in growth, okay, so, there’s going to be some moderation in inflation, but it’s likely to still remain high or higher than the normal. And you couple that with the fact that there’s a risk of a slowdown, and they’re talking about a slowdown in global growth. That’s what they’re forecasting, then, yes, certainly, stagflation of some kind is a risk.

My personal feeling is that; and this is informed by my conversation with Michael Knox last week, I don’t think we’ll end up with stagflation similar to the 70s, or rather, I hope not. I don’t see at the moment. I think the US economy based on the indicators I’ve seen in my conversation with Michael, I think, at least for the next year or so, the prospects for the US economy are very good. Likewise, for Australia, I mean, there are always risks. We’ve got some heavily indebted households; we’ve got interest rates increasing. That’s one of the great unknowns at the moment. But if you look at the indicators, such as job vacancies, you look at the fact we’ve got a 3.9% unemployment rate. You look at what’s happening with commodity prices, which were in net terms benefiting from, because we’re a net exporter of energy and minerals to the world. Like, our coal prices have been $400 – $500 US a ton.

Queensland is a huge producer of coal; and that’s benefiting our state and budget. I mean, there’s ultimately; there may have to be a transition out of coal because of concerns over climate change. But at the moment, it’s something that is beneficial to the state economy. So, I think in Australia, I’m not concerned about stagflation at the moment, but as always, I need to say, I don’t have a crystal ball.

Any thoughts, Arturo? I mean, what’s your general feeling on stagflation? Is this just the latest thing that we’re worried about? Perhaps for no really good reason? I mean, it certainly; I haven’t seen this interest in the concept for a long time. And yes, is it something we should be worried about? What do you think?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 49:35

I think the case is; it’s good to have these discussions and it’s good to know that most of the Central banks are considering these potential, let’s say, this potential event. If they are well prepared, they can avoid that kind of situation for some countries. As I mentioned this thing, if a cure isn’t going to be general, so some countries perhaps are going to face stagflation. In some cases, if they don’t manage properly their monetary policy and some fiscal responses.

But of course, there are many risks that are out there, for example, as the World Bank report mentioned, if the supply disruption proceeds or the commodity prices continue to climb, inflation could remain above Central bank’s target. So, I think those are potential risks, the Central bank must consider giving good response.

Gene Tunny 51:00

Yeah, good point.

One other point I wanted to make is; and this is related to the other thing that differs from the 70s, which is, the World Bank set out a few ways that the economy is not the same as the 70s. And, one of the important ones, I think, is they talk about the US dollar, don’t they, the dollar is strong. Now, this is a very technical issue, it’s a hard one to sort of get your head around, because you have to go back to the situation in the 60s and the early 70s, before the era that we’re now in, in advanced economies of floating exchange rates. When we had the Bretton Woods system.

Michael Knox referred to the growth in international reserves, he talked about the growth of foreign currencies, held by Central banks in the early 70s that just massively increased in the early 70s. Because what was happening were because of the issues in the US and higher budget deficits and concerns about inflation, people around the world were trying to get out of US dollars. And because of the Bretton Woods system, they were trading their US dollars for their own currency or other currencies, or for European currencies, because there was the strong; well, in those that post-war recovery in Europe and Europe was becoming more prominent. And so, there was a move out of US dollars and to buy those US dollars, the Central banks essentially printed money, they created new money.

So, these changes in international reserves that Michael was talking about, I think was like 80%, over from the end of 1972, sometime in 1972. It was a huge growth in these international reserves, that led to a big increase in domestic money supplies, and that fueled inflation.

This is a great article by Robert Heller, that was in one of the IMF journals; might have been finance and development. I put a link to it in the show notes before, I’ll put it again, because it’s just well worth reading. But I think for us to do that justice, we will probably have to come back and talk about Bretton Woods and the whole international financial system pre 1970s. And look, that’s going to be a lot of work.

This shows the complexity of the issues that we’re dealing with. In the economy, so many moving parts, it’s all interconnected. And yes, but what we’re trying to do, I think on this show is to simplify it as much as possible. And really make sure we understand those mechanisms because in a lot of economic discussion, there’s just too much that’s assumed in terms of the knowledge of the people reading or listening. There are too many concepts explained by reference to other concepts without explaining those concepts. And I want to try to make sure that we’re as clear as possible.

I think we’re probably in a position to wrap this up. Arturo, any final words? Thoughts?

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 54:18

I think this conversation was pretty clear. And you’re to understand what is going on globally, in terms of inflation, potentially stagflation problems that some country may face. So, I think let’s stay alert. I think that Central banks are going to react properly in order to address that problem.

Gene Tunny 54:56

Okay, so you said, be alert, I like that. As our Former Prime Minister John Howard once said, Be alert, not alarmed. We will be alert to the prospects for global stagflation. But we’re not going to be alarmed at the moment.

You may not have been in Australia when he said that. That was something that people had amusing. There was about a serious issue is talking about international terrorism, which was, of course, a serious issue. And he said, be alert, but not alarmed. And then that sort of prompted all of these sorts of jokes about, what does that exactly mean to be alert, but not alarmed? I mean, how worried should we be?

And there was the old joke in Australia. Be alert, Australia needs Lurtz. I don’t know if you’ve heard that one. So, I think people would probably; as soon as John Howard said, Be alert, not alarmed. People were instantly sort of thinking, this is a bit of a funny thing to say. But maybe because I remembered that all joke about being alert.

Thank you, Aturo, I really enjoyed that conversation. And if you’re in the audience, and you’re listening, and you’d like to know more about these issues, I’ll put links to everything we chatted about in the show notes. I’ll also make any corrections. If I’ve got anything wrong I discover, in terms of numbers. I generally think the concepts and the facts; I think we got that right. But it’s possible some of the numbers I may have misremembered. So, we’ll put clarifications links in the show notes. And thanks again for listening. Arturo, really appreciate your time today. Thanks so much.

Arturo Espinoza Bocangel 56:43

Thank you again. Thank you very much.

Gene Tunny 56:46 Okay, that’s the end of this episode of Economics Explored. I hope you enjoyed it. If so, please tell your family and friends and leave a comment or give us a rating on your podcast app. If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, you can feel free to send them to contact@economicsexplored.com And we’ll aim to address them in a future episode. Thanks for listening. Until next week, goodbye.

Credits

Big thanks to EP143 guest Arturo Espinoza and to the show’s audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode and to Peter Oke for editing the transcript.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored. Economics Explored is available via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Tags australia, economics, fed, inflation, interestrates, monetarypolicy, rba, recession, stagflation, usa, wagepricespiral

Podcast episode

Nominal GDP targeting w/ Stephen Kirchner – EP135

Post author By Gene Tunny
Post date April 20, 2022
No Comments on Nominal GDP targeting w/ Stephen Kirchner – EP135

Market monetarists such as Stephen Kirchner argue nominal GDP targeting would be better than inflation targeting and could help central banks such as the RBA and the US Federal Reserve get back on track. Stephen is Director of the International Economy Program at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

Stephen spoke about nominal GDP targeting with Economics Explored host Gene Tunny in episode 135 of the show, recorded in April 2022. Among other details of nominal GDP targeting, Stephen discussed the potential role of a nominal GDP futures market and for blockchain and Ethereum in such a market and in financial markets more broadly. You can listen to the conversation using the embedded player below or via Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher, among other podcast apps.

About this episode’s guest – Dr Stephen Kirchner

Dr Stephen Kirchner is Director of the International Economy Program at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. He is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute in Canada, where he has contributed to research projects comparing public policies in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Previously, he was an economist with the Australian Financial Markets Association, where he worked on public policy issues relating to the efficient and effective functioning of Australian financial markets and Australia’s position as a regional and international financial centre.

Stephen has been a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, a senior lecturer in economics at the University of Technology Sydney Business School and an economist with Standard & Poor’s Institutional Market Services based in both Sydney and Singapore. He has also worked as an advisor to members of the Australian House of Representatives and Senate.

He has published in leading academic and think-tank journals, including Public Choice, The Australian Economic Review, Australian Journal of Political Science and The Cato Journal.

His op-eds have appeared in publications including The Wall Street Journal, Straits Times, Businessweek, The Australian Financial Review, The Australian, and Sydney Morning Herald.

Stephen holds a BA (Hons) from the Australian National University, where he was awarded the L. F. Crisp Prize for Political Science, a Master of Economics (Hons) from Macquarie University, and a PhD in Economics from the University of New South Wales.

Stephen posts regularly on his substack:

https://stephenkirchner.substack.com/

Links relevant to the conversation

Stephen’s papers on nominal GDP targeting:

Reforming Australian Monetary Policy: How Nominal Income Targeting Can Help Get the Reserve Bank Back on Track

The RBA’s pandemic response and the New Keynesian trap

Transcript of EP135: Nominal GDP targeting w/ Stephen Kirchner

Gene Tunny 00:01

Coming up on Economics Explored.

Stephen Kirchner 00:04

If you want to avoid, you know hitting the zero lower bound or expanding your balance sheet by a significant amount, the way to do that is to respond quickly and aggressively upfront. If you don’t do that, then you fall behind the curve and then monetary policy has to work a lot harder to stabilise the economy.

Gene Tunny 00:23

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of the important economic issues. I’m your host, Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist based in Brisbane, Australia and I’m a former Australian Treasury official. This is Episode 135 on nominal GDP targeting. My guest this episode is Dr. Stephen Kirchner, who is Director of the International Economy Programme at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney in Australia. In this episode, Stephen tells us why nominal GDP targeting would be better than inflation targeting and how central banks such as the Reserve Bank of Australia and the US Federal Reserve can get back on track. Please check out the show notes for relevant links and for details of how you can get in touch with any comments or suggestions. I’d love to hear from you. Righto, now for my conversation with Dr. Steven Kirschner on nominal GDP targeting. Thanks to my audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing this episode. I hope you enjoy it. Dr. Steven Kirchner of the US Studies Centre. Welcome to the programme.

Stephen Kirchner 01:36

Thanks for having me, Gene.

Gene Tunny 01:37

It’s a pleasure, Stephen, keen to chat with you about a paper you wrote last year on Reforming Australian Monetary Policy: How Nominal Income Targeting Can Help Get the Reserve Bank Back on Track. So there’s a lot to talk about here. And I think this is of general interest to people in other countries, as well, other than Australia, because this idea of nominal income targeting, it’s been raised in other countries, I know that you’ve appeared on David Beckworth’s podcast, Macro Musings, and I know that David Beckworth is a proponent of this in the United States. So I’d like to ask about, essentially, what is this nominal income targeting compared with how we normally, or how central banks have been running monetary policy? Would you be able to give us an overview of that, please?

Stephen Kirchner 02:38

Sure. I think nominal income targeting is actually not a huge change from where we are at the moment. So most central banks do what they call inflation targeting. And as part of an inflation targeting regime, they’re typically adjusting their monetary policy instrument, usually an official interest rate in response to deviations in inflation from target. But also responding to deviations in output from its full employment, or potential level. And the reason you have output as part of your reaction function is the output gap is predictive of future inflation outcomes. So if you’re running an inflation targeting regime, you want to respond to both deviations inflation from target, and output from potential.

Well, if you think about those two things, inflation on the one hand, and output on the other, if you put those two things together, then you’ve got nominal income, or nominal GDP. So in some respects, nominal GDP targeting or nominal income targeting is just a really weighting of that standard central bank reaction function. So if you think about a Taylor rule, which is just an empirical description of how the interest rate responds to deviations and inflation from target, and output from potential, all nominal GDP targeting is doing is saying you want to put inflation output together and weight them equally in terms of the interest rate response.

Gene Tunny 04:14

Ah, right. Okay. Yeah, that’s a good way of describing it. Yeah, please go on.

Stephen Kirchner 04:18

Yeah, so in that sense, it’s not a huge leap from where we are at the moment. But what it does mean is that the central bank is a bit more agnostic about its response to inflation, and deviations in output from potential. So it’s saying really we want to stabilise both, and the reason you want to stabilise both is if you’re just focusing on inflation, one of the problems you face is not all of the deviations in inflation from target are reflective of aggregate demand shocks. As we know, especially at the moment inflation can deviate from target due to supply shocks. Supply shocks have the effect of lowering output. And so this creates a dilemma for a central bank in how do you respond to a supply-driven inflation shock, or deviation from target. Because if you respond to the deviation in inflation from target and raise interest rates, then that’s going to compound the reduction in output you’d get from a supply shock.

Gene Tunny 05:28

Right. So one example, I’m just thinking, Stephen, is one example of this, did this occur, arguably a policy mistake? Was it 2008 when the European Central Bank put up its policy rate? Not long before the financial crisis? Because there was a supply shock? Or was there an increase in the price of oil? I’m trying to remember, is that one of the examples I give?

Stephen Kirchner 05:55

Well, I think the canonical example here is what happened in the 1970s, when you had very significant increases in oil prices giving rise to higher rates of inflation. And central banks did respond to those oil price shocks through tighter monetary policy. And so there’s an influential paper by Ben Bernanke, Watson and Gertler in 1997, which showed that the propagation of the oil price shock to the US economy was essentially through the monetary policy reaction. And so it was the central bank that actually put the stag into stagflation.

Another example of this would be if you go to September 2008, the FOMC meeting took place a couple of days after the failure of Lehman Brothers. And this was at a time when inflation expectations were collapsing and nominal GDP expectations were collapsing. At that meeting, the FOMC incredibly left the Fed funds rate unchanged, and cited inflation pressures arising from higher oil prices as the reason for keeping monetary policy steady. So this is a very good example of monetary policy being led astray by inflation outcomes that are being driven by supply shocks rather than aggregate demand shocks.

And so what we want is the central bank to respond to inflation pressures to the extent that they’re reflective of aggregate demand shocks, not aggregate supply shocks. And nominal GDP lets you do that without actually having to take a view on what’s driving inflation. So nominal GDP outcomes will tell you the extent to which your inflation issues are being driven by aggregate demand rather than aggregate supply.

Gene Tunny 07:51

Okay, so yeah, a few things to try and explore here. Stephen, inflation targeting. So it’s typically going for something around well, in Australia, it’s 2 to 3%, we’ve got a target band for inflation. And in the US, is it 2%? Or I remember thinking of Bank of England? But the different countries have just slightly different targets.

And what’s fascinating is that when these things were first formulated, we had much higher inflation. And I think no one ever expected we’d be getting consistently, we’d inflation outcomes consistently lower than those targets. And it makes it difficult to think about what’s the appropriate monetary policy response.

I better make sure I understand your argument about why you think the Reserve Bank needs to get back on track. Are you suggesting that the fact that Australia is similar to some other advanced economies, who’ve had inflation outcomes below the target for a substantial amount of time, that would imply that the Reserve Bank, the central bank had scope to expand to have a more expansionary monetary policy which could have pushed the economy closer to full employment? Is that the argument, broadly?

Stephen Kirchner 09:14

Yeah, that’s certainly true of the sort of pre-pandemic period basically, the period in which the RBA was undershooting from approximately 2014 through to the onset of the pandemic and even into the pandemic. So it’s certainly in the last couple of quarters that inflation has returned to target. I mean, I think the specification of the inflation target inevitably is a little bit arbitrary. What matters most is not the exact target range, but the fact that you hit that target more often than not over time and thereby establish your credibility in relation to that target. So ultimately, what you’re trying to do is condition the expectations of price, and wage setters in the economy should be consistent with that target. And so whether it’s a 2% target or 2 to 3% target, it’s less important than the fact that you have one and that you actually stick to it.

But the case for nominal income targeting is to say if you’re only targeting inflation, and this creates a bit of a presentational problem and a sort of implementation problem, which is that what happens in the context of a supply shock when inflation might be above target? How do you explain to people the fact that you’re not hitting your target, even though there’s probably a very good reason why you’d want to look through that supply shock.

If you’re expressing your monetary policy target in terms of nominal GDP, that task becomes a lot simpler, because yes, you may be above target on inflation, but in the context of a supply shock, output is going to be lower. And so you don’t get the same sort of deviation from target under a nominal GDP targeting regime than you would under an inflation targeting regime. Policymakers are less likely to be led astray, because by focusing on nominal GDP, they don’t have this issue of trying to figure out whether inflation outcomes reflect demand shocks or supply shocks.

Gene Tunny 11:23

Okay, so how would this work in practice? So in nominal terms, so by nominal, you’re talking about, we’re not talking about a real GDP measure where we adjust for inflation, we try and get things in consistent dollars, you’re just talking about the total value of the economy, in GDP in nominal terms, so what it is in current dollars, and say that it’s over $2 trillion in Australia annually. And so would the Reserve Bank have a target? They would have an expectation of what that nominal income for Australia should be in 2022, what it should be in 2023. So it should be 2.3 billion by this date or something? Is that Is that how it’s formulated? A trillion I meant, not billion. Sorry,

Stephen Kirchner 12:16

You can’t express it in level terms. So with a nominal GDP target, you can express it both as a growth rate or an implied path for nominal GDP. But I think it’s important to emphasise that, just as with inflation targeting, you don’t target inflation outcomes, necessarily. What you’re targeting is actually the inflation forecast. So what you’re saying is, in future, you’re going to be realising inflation outcomes consistent with target, or with nominal GDP targeting, it’s exactly the same thing. So you want to specify a target path for the future evolution of novel income or novel output. And you want to adjust your monetary policy instruments to be consistent with that target path.

So if in any given quarter, your level of nominal GDP is a little bit above or a little bit below the target path, that’s not necessarily a problem. Again, what you’re trying to do is conditions people’s expectations in relation to what future nominal income will be. And I think that has very useful properties from the point of view of stabilising the economy, because if you think about things like wage and price contracting in the economy, people borrowing and lending, all those activities are conditional on expectations for future normal income. And so if you can stabilise both expectations for that future nominal income path, and by implication, also nominal GDP outcomes, then I think that’s a recipe for macroeconomic stability, more so than if you’re targeting inflation without regard to whether inflation is being driven by demand or supply shocks.

Gene Tunny 14:13

Right. Okay. Might go back to that Taylor rule. So you mentioned the Taylor rule. And you mentioned you can actually think of nominal GDP targeting in a, you call it a reaction function, so how the central bank reacts to the macroeconomic variables. And you said this gives equal weight to deviations of inflation from the target end of real GDP from the target. What does the Taylor rule typically do? Do ou know, what sort of normal parameters there are in that reaction function and what that means?

Stephen Kirchner 14:53

So the Taylor rule was due to John Taylor, who in the early 1990s sat down and said, well empirically, how do we characterise movements in the Fed funds rate. So he regressed the Fed funds rate on various macroeconomic variables. And the empirical description that he came up with for the Feds reaction function was to say, well, the Fed responds to deviations in inflation from target, and had estimated a weight of about 1.5 on that deviation, and also response to deviations and output from potential. And he estimated a weight of .5 on that.

But to sort of round out that empirical description of the Fed funds rate, you also needed an estimate of what the neutral Fed funds rate would be. So in other words, what happens when inflation is a target and output is a potential? What is the Fed funds rate consistent with that? And so that just ends up being a constant regression.

One of the big issues that sort of comes out of that is that’s obviously a historical estimate. What happens if your equilibrium real interest rate changes over time. So you then have the issue of, if you’re responding based on those historical relationships, but the actual equilibrium interest rate changes, and you may end up with monetary policy being miscalibrated. And I think that arguably happens in the United States, and to a certain extent here in recent years, where I think the equilibrium real rate probably fell considerably. And that meant that monetary policy ended up being tighter than central banks intended.

Gene Tunny 16:53

Okay, we might come back to that, I just want to go back to the Taylor rule that you mentioned 1.5. So that means for every percentage point that inflation would be above the target, so if the target’s 2%, and inflation is 3%, the central bank would put up the policy interest rate, the overnight cash rate or the federal funds rate by 1.5 percentage points. And the idea is there that you’re trying to engineer an increase in the real interest rate. So you want to make sure the interest rate increases more than the inflation component of it. Actually, yeah,

Stephen Kirchner 17:41

Yeah, that’s right. So this thing actually has a name, it’s called the Taylor principle. And the Taylor principle says that you want to move your nominal interest rate by more than one for one with the deviation inflation from target, because if you just do a one for one or a less than one point move, then you’re not going to move the real rate, you’re not going to move it in the desired direction. So it has to be a move that is more than the change in inflation. So that’s why you get a parameter estimate of a little bit more than one.

For some central banks, you get higher responses to inflation. So the BOJ, Bank of Japan, the ECB, depending on what sort of model that you look at, sometimes their reactions will be up around two. But yeah, the basic Taylor principle is that you want a response to inflation that is greater than one. But essentially, nominal GDP targeting says that you want to combine inflation and output in the form of nominal GDP, and you want to respond to that.

Gene Tunny 18:46

So I guess one of the points that you make, and I think it is a good point, that to do this Taylor rule properly, you need estimates of these unobservable variables, such as this equilibrium real interest rate. And as you rightly point out, I mean, this is something that… Interest rates are much lower now than we ever expected. You compare historically, it’s quite extraordinary what we’ve seen since the financial crisis in Australia, and the US and UK, and even before then in Japan, since the ‘90s. Absolutely extraordinary.

So I want to make sure I understand the logic again. You mentioned that this means that monetary policy was not as aggressive or as accommodative, or however you describe it, because the equilibrium real interest rate, whatever that is, whether it’s… Say it was 4% and now it’s much lower than that. How does that logically work, Stephen? Can you take us through that logic? I just want to make sure I understand how it would lead a central bank to go astray.

Stephen Kirchner 20:00

Actually, the problem is a bit broader than that. So there are potentially three unobservable variables it would impact. Taylor rule style reaction function, and potentially monetary policy Australia. So one is the real equilibrium interest rate, as we’ve discussed. It’s not directly observable. And it could be higher or lower than we think. But I would say it’s probably been lower than policymakers have thought. In terms of the output gap, then you have the problem that we don’t directly observe potential output either. And so that could be higher or lower than we think. And so policy can be miscalibrated on that basis.

An alternative way of thinking about the output gap is to think in terms of an unemployment gap. So the deviation in unemployment from its full employment level, and this is of course where we get the NAIRU from. So the idea that there’s an unemployment rate that’s consistent with the stable interest rate. And both the Federal Reserve and the RBA have conceded in recent years that the NAIRU has actually been a lot lower than they realised. So they have downwardly revised their estimates of the NAIRU.

And so for much of the post financial crisis period, I think both the Fed and to a lesser extent, the RBA were conditioning monetary policy on a view that the unemployment rate was pretty close to the NAIRU, when in fact, it was probably sitting quite a bit above the NAIRU. And so what that meant was we had monetary policy that was two tight. They could have actually pushed the unemployment rates lower. And done it in a way that would have meant that inflation was more consistent with target as well.

So you can see that the problem with a sort of Taylor rule type approach is that embedded in the Taylor rule, you’ve got at least two unobserved variables. You’re trying to estimate what those unobservable variables are and condition policy on it. So what nominal income targeting says is well, in fact, you don’t need to take a view on either the equilibrium real rate or the NAIRU or potential output, because nominal GDP in and of itself is a complete description of the stance of monetary policy. And in the long run, nominal GDP is fully determined by the central bank. So the central bank can both influence the long run level of nominal GDP, and the level of nominal GDP tells you whether monetary policy is too easy or too tight at any given time.

You don’t need to do what’s sometimes called navigating by the stars, which is, in macroeconomics, when you write this stuff down in the form of equations, the equilibrium values, the real interest rate, the NAIRU and potential output, those variables denoted with an asterisk or a star. And so we were first and policy that sort of conditions on those variables as navigating the stars. This is what leads monetary policy astray. It’s the problem that nominal GDP targeting seeks to address

Gene Tunny 23:24

Okay, so by NAIRU, N-A-I-R-U, which stands for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, such a horrible expression. We use it all the time. Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 23:45

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost-benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny 24:14

Now back to the show. So how’s this gonna work in practice, Stephen? I’m wondering, and does that mean the main thing the central bank is looking at it in their deliberations, so the board meeting of the Reserve Bank or at the Federal Open Markets Committee, or the Monetary Policy Committee, in the UK, or in the FOMC and in the US, they’re just looking at what the latest data are telling them about GDP, about nominal GDP? They’re trying to forecast that themselves based on a range of indicators, I suppose. Have you thought about how it’s going to work in practice?

Stephen Kirchner 24:55

I think central banks should basically look at all the information that’s available to them in forming a view. So the question is more in terms of what their target is and how they specify that target. And, importantly, also how they describe their policy actions in relation to that target. And so, the purposes of adopting a nominal GDP target, one way to do that is to specify a target path for the future evolution of nominal GDP. So you can do that out a few years in advance. And you would then explain your changes in your operating instrument in terms of an attempt to hit that target path.

So for Australia, for example, it would be a simple matter of rewriting the agreement with the treasurer, what we call a statement on monetary policy, which basically sets out what the RBA is trying to achieve through its conduct of monetary policy. And you would specify that in terms of a path, the future path for nominal GDP.

One of the things I do in my paper for the Mercatus Centre is to estimate an implicit forward-looking nominal GDP targeting rule for the Reserve Bank. So I basically do for the RBA, what John Taylor did for the fed back in the early 1990s, and say, How would an empirical description is nominal GDP targeting of how the RBA has actually changed the cash rate in the past?

And as it turns out, it’s actually not a bad empirical model of what they’ve been doing historically, because even if you’re thinking of monetary policy material type framework, you know, you’re still trying to stabilise nominal GDP. You’re just putting different weights on those two components of inflation output. But if you think of monetary policy as just responding to the nominal GDP, well, to some extent, the RBA is already doing that. Where I think nominal GDP targeting is helpful is, at the margin, I think it would lead to better monetary policy decisions, for the reasons that we’ve already talked about that. At the margin, they would be focusing more squarely on nominal demand shocks and looking through supply shocks, which I think is where monetary policy has run off track in the past.

Gene Tunny 27:34

Okay, so I want to ask about the RBA. So you want to get the RBA back on track. And one of the areas or one way you think that it’s off track is that over the last decade or so, or maybe over the last five years, or maybe a bit longer than that, it’s paid too much attention. Am I getting this right? You think it’s paid too much attention to financial stability risks, and this is called leaning against the wind? I think it’s denied that it actually does lean against the wind. Is this one of your criticisms of it, Stephen? And if so, what’s wrong with taking financial stability risks into account when setting monetary policy?

Stephen Kirchner 28:15

So there’s a long running debate about the role of financial stability, inflation targeting framework, and to what extent you should take financial stability concerns into account when doing inflation targeting. And one conception of this is to say that if you are doing inflation targeting, and you’re underpinning nominal stability in the economy, that this in itself is conducive to financial stability. And so, you want to prioritise nominal stability and that is the way you get financial stability.

And to the extent that financial instability becomes a problem, then monetary policy can always address that ex post. So the way the debate is sometimes characterised is between leaners and cleaners. So if your reaction to financial instability is ex post, then you’re cleaning up after you get a financial stability problem. If you’re a leaner, then you’re trying to sort of anticipate those financial instability problems. And to that extent, you’re going to potentially sacrifice your inflation target in order to head off some of those concerns.

So central banks will always obviously have to respond to financial instability after the fact to the extent that it creates problems for the macro economy. The real question is, to what extent do you try to do that preemptively. And I would argue that we don’t have enough information about financial stability risks to really do that successfully, preemptively. And traditionally, that was kind of the view that the RBA took. So if you look at the 2010 statement on monetary policy agreed between the treasurer and the RBA governor, that statement was the first to incorporate financial stability as a consideration. So it was the first statement after the financial crisis. And so it’s no surprise that that statement took on financial stability concerns.

And in that 2010 statement, it says very explicitly that, yes, the Reserve Bank should take account of financial stability, but without compromising the price stability objective. So financial stability concerns were made explicitly subordinate to price stability. And so that reflects the view I talked about before where you view nominal stability as being the most conducive way to address financial stability risks. So that would be the way that I would tend to formulate that relationship between price stability and financial stability.

What happened when Philip Lowe became governor in 2016 is there was a change in the wording on the statement on the conduct of monetary policy, which essentially turned that relationship on its head. So that statement explicitly provided for short-term deviations in inflation from target in order to address financial stability risks. So that agreement was essentially saying that there may be times when in the short run, we’re going to allow inflation to deviate from target in order to address financial stability concerns. And those concerns were explicitly nominated as a reason why you might look at the inflation target.

Gene Tunny 31:51

They might accept lower than the target inflation, because they don’t want monetary policy so stimulatory that it means that there’s a big growth in housing credit and house prices. Is one of the criticisms of what the RBA is doing now. I mean, I’m interested in your views on what it’s done during the pandemic, because we’ve had very aggressive monetary policy response. And this has arguably contributed to the boom in housing credit and house prices where we’ve got double digit, we’ve had house prices increase by over 20% In some cities. And I mean, to me, I mean, it looks like monetary policy has been too aggressive during this period. But yeah, I’m interested in your view on that, Stephen. And I mean, how does what they’ve done, how do you assess that given you’re an advocate of this nominal income targeting? How compatible is what they’ve done with that, please?

Stephen Kirchner 32:58

So if you look at the period from 2016, through to the onset of the pandemic, that changed, and the wording of the statement in the conduct of monetary policy ended up then being a very good description of monetary policy under Governor Lowe. So, through that period, the RBA very explicitly traded off concerns around, in particular the household debt-to-income ratio, and said, Well, the reason why we’re letting inflation run below target is we’re worried that if we provide more stimulatory monetary policy settings, then that would trigger more household borrowing, and potentially create risks in in the housing market. And the concern was that by the household sector taking on increased leverage, that this would increase the household sector’s exposure to a shock. So essentially, you’re trying to fight the last war in terms of the 2008 financial crisis. They were trying to mitigate what they saw as the risks that led to that particular event.

Now, one of the criticisms of leaning against the wind, I think, and this is a criticism that’s been made very persuasively, I think, by Lars Svensson, Swedish economist, is to say, well, if you’re conducting monetary policy on the basis of an apprehended financial stability, its annual trading off inflation and output against those risks, then in a sense, what you’re doing is you’re setting yourself up to have a weaker starting point if and when a financial crisis does occur. So the starting point for the economy is actually going to be weaker because you’ve been running monetary policy, it’s been too tight. And so this is a mistake that the Swedish central bank made In the early 2010s, and which led Lars to sort of formally model leaning against the wind and coming up with that characterization.

Peter Tulip who was a former Reserve Bank economists, when he was at the bank. He also did some work, basically applying Svensson’s framework to Australia and showing that in terms of the trade-off between the central bank’s objectives and financial stability risks, the RBA was basically incurring costs anywhere from three to eight times the benefit in terms of mitigating financial stability risks. So the cost in terms of having unemployment, for example, higher than would have been otherwise, you know, more than offset any gain in terms of reducing financial stability risk.

So essentially, I think this is a hierarchy in knowledge problem that the central bank really does not have enough knowledge about the economy to be able to successfully lean against the wind. This explains why the RBA undershot its inflation target for the better part of seven years. And it was an explicit policy choice, you know. This wasn’t an accident.

Going into the pandemic, I would say that the initial monetary policy response was inadequate. And this was essentially a function of the RBA trying to conduct monetary policy within its traditional operating framework. So they were still trying to use the cash rate as their main operating instrument, even though the cash rate was constrained by the zero lower bound on a nominal interest rates.

Gene Tunny 36:43

So we had a cash rate of, was it .25% going into the pandemic?

Stephen Kirchner 36:49

Going into the pandemic, it was point .75.

Gene Tunny 36:52

Oh, right. Yeah, sorry.

Stephen Kirchner 36:54

In March of 2020 they lowered it by 50 basis points in 2 increments of .25. And that took it down to a quarter of a point, which they argued at the time was an effective lower bound inasmuch as the RBA operates a corridor system around that target cash rate. And so the bottom of the corridor would have normally been at zero, if they had maintained that system. Subsequently, of course, the RBA did lower the cash rate below .25. So it turned out that it wasn’t a lower bound after all. It was very much a self-imposed constraint.

But going into the pandemic, they tried to conduct monetary policy very much within that conventional operating framework with the cash rate as the main operating instrument. And I think, because they allowed the level of the cash rate to determine how much stimulus they would provide… And initially, monetary policy was way too tight. So even though they had lowered the cash rate, what we saw between March 2020 and November 2020, when they finally adopted QE, was that the Australian dollar appreciated significantly. So the Australian dollar outperformed all of the other G10 currencies over that period. The appreciation on the trade-weighted index was about 10%.

And so what this is telling you is that in relative terms, we were not doing nearly as much as other central banks. And we were paying a penalty for that on the exchange rate. The other element of this, of course, was the macroeconomic policy mix, so the relative weight on monetary and fiscal policy. So our fiscal policy response was one of the strongest in the world. But our monetary policy response wasn’t.

Gene Tunny 38:52

Initially, yeah, gotcha.

Stephen Kirchner 38:54

At least up until November 2020. And so this is a recipe for the open economy crowding out effects that you discussed with Alex Robson, when you talked about Tony Makin’s work on open economy crowding out. So if you have a fiscal policy response, if you’re overweighting on fiscal policy relative to monetary policy, you’ll pay a penalty for that exchange rate. And that’s exactly what happened. And that was a pretty strong indication that monetary policy of this period was too tight. The RBA could have done more but didn’t because it was trying to conduct policy within its traditional operating framework.

Gene Tunny 39:33

Right, and by more you mean quantitative easing or large scale asset purchases, creating new money, printing money electronically and then using it to buy financial securities bonds, for example?

Stephen Kirchner 39:48

Yeah, so there are two alternative operating frameworks that they could have used. One is negative interest rates and the other is large scale asset purchases or QE. And so by November 2020, the RBA conceded that other central banks had done more to expand their balance sheet. And they needed to do the same. They also lowered the cash rate target from .25 to .1. And they lowered the bottom of the cash rate corridor from one to zero. So effectively, they conceded that they could have done more and needed to do more, and they finally delivered. And at that time, they did adopt a very aggressive asset purchase programme because they were playing catch up to other central banks. And so by the time we’ve got to the end of 2021, in fact, the RBA had expanded its balance sheet as a share of GDP by an amount that was broadly equivalent to what the Fed had done.

So one of the ironies here is that the RBA’s attempt not to expand its balance sheet actually ended up being a balance sheet expansion that was comparable to that of the Fed. And I think this is an important lesson for monetary policy generally, that typically, if central bank is using its policy instruments aggressively, and over a very extended period of time, that’s usually an indication that it didn’t do enough upfront. So in fact, if you want to avoid, you know, hitting the zero lower bound or expanding your balance sheet by a significant amount, the way to do that is to respond quickly and aggressively upfront. If you don’t do that, then you fall behind the curve, and then monetary policy has to work a lot harder to stabilise the economy. And I think that’s what ended up happening in Australia in response to the pandemic.

Gene Tunny 41:42

Right, okay. You’ve written another fascinating paper on this, Stephen. The paper’s titled The Reserve Bank of Australia’s Pandemic Response and the New Keynesian Trap. So this was published in Agenda, which is a journal put out by the Australian National University. And I want to ask you what you mean by New Keynesian trap. But I think I sort of know, I think you’re sort of alluding to the fact that a new Keynesian policy approach would be inflation targeting, but you can correct me on that. But the point you make, and I think this is fascinating, you want to explore this and make sure I understand what you mean here, you write, “A monetarist conception of the monetary transmission mechanism would have encouraged more rapid adoption of alternative operating instruments.” So could you explain what you mean there, please?

Stephen Kirchner 42:33

Yeah, so the New Keynesian trap was exactly what I was describing in terms of the monetary policy response to the pandemic. The New Keynesian framework for monetary policy analysis relies excessively on an official interest rate as not just the central bank’s only operating instrument, but also the only way that you get monetary policy into that model. And the problem with this is that if the central bank thinks of monetary policy implementation and monetary policy transmission exclusively in terms of an official interest rate, then that’s going to be a problem when your official interest rate hits the lower bound, because at that point, your model basically blows up, because if you can’t lower the nominal interest rate, in a situation which is calling for easy monetary policy, then that’s a recipe for macroeconomic instability. And in fact, it becomes a downward spiral because the economy deteriorates and you can’t respond through your conventional monetary policy instrument.

And in the sort of New Keynesian literature on monetary policy, there are all sorts of ways in which they try and sort of solve this problem. So in some of that literature, for example, there’s just an assumption that fiscal policy steps in to bail out the central bank. And to some extent, that’s what we saw with the pandemic response, which was that you might have noticed during the early stages of the pandemic, the Reserve Bank Governor was begging the federal and state governments to do even more with fiscal policy than they were actually doing, even though the fiscal policy response is quite large. And so really what he was saying was, my hands are tied, you need to do more to stabilise the economy.

Now, were the central bank’s hands tied by its operating framework? Well, only in the sense that they perceive that framework to be binding on their decision making. If you go back to November 2019. Governor Lowe gave a speech in which he addressed the issue of negative interest rates and quantitative easing. And he was arguing that it was very unlikely that the central bank would have to go there. And if you read that speech, you can see he’s very reluctant to contemplate using either of those policy instruments. So for me, the New Keynesian trap, it’s a self-imposed constraint on monetary policy. It’s because of the way you’re conceiving both the monetary policy instrument and the monetary policy transmission mechanism, it leads you to pull your punches in an environment where you need to adopt a new operating frame.

And for me, the fact that the RBA walked away from that framework in November of 2020 basically concedes the point, they realised that their traditional operating framework was not adequate in responding to a massive shock when the interest rate was hitting the zero bound, and so they needed to think of monetary policy in an alternative framework. And so this is where an RBA officials started giving speeches about the role of quantitative policy instruments and quantitative transmission mechanisms in the monetary policy implementation. If they had done that back in March of 2020, I think we would have had a more timely, more effective monetary policy response and avoided what I’ve called the New Keynesian trap.

Gene Tunny 46:22

Yeah, yeah. Okay. I mean, I think you’ve been rightly critical of the RBA. If they eventually had to adopt these measures, and arguably, they should have done them earlier. So very good point. I want to make sure I understand why it’s a monetarist conception, why that would have led to more rapid adoption. Is that because a monetarist would have been looking at the monetary aggregates, they would have been thinking about, well, how, how could we make the monetary aggregates grow at the rate that would be optimal? Is that what you’re thinking? And you’re just not thinking in terms of a cash rate? You’re thinking in terms of the money supply?

Stephen Kirchner 47:03

Monetarists have always been very critical of the idea that an official interest rate is both the best characterization of what monetary policy is doing, but also the idea that it’s a complete representation of the role that monetary policy plays in the economy. So it’s true that, you know, in equilibrium, you could say that an official interest rate might be a good representation of the contribution of monetary policy.

The way monetarists tend to think of the long run evolution of the price level is in terms of the long run supply and demand for real money balances. And so they tend to think of the evolution of monetary policy in a quantity framework rather than a price framework, the price being the interest rate. So you can think of monetary policy instruments either working through a price, which is the interest rate, or quantity, which is the supply and demand of real money balances. I think both modes of analysis have their place, and they’ve clearly linked. But the focus on official interest rates, I think has been very misleading, because you know, of itself, the level of the cash rate, tells you very little about the stance of monetary policy.

I think one of the mistakes monetary policymakers have made internationally and in Australia has been to assume that because the nominal cash rate is low, monetary policy must be stimulatory. And one of the points that Milton Friedman made repeatedly was to say, if the nominal interest rate is low, then that’s probably indicative of tight monetary policy because that probably means that inflation is very low as well, if you think of the contribution that inflation makes to the nominal interest rate. So if you’ve got very low nominal interest rates, that’s probably an indication that monetary conditions are too tight, rather than too easy. And I think it’s a mistake that monetary policymakers have repeatedly made.

Milton Friedman warned against it in his 1968 presidential address to the American Economics Association. And throughout his life, he tried to impress upon policymakers the significance of this. But it’s something that’s still eludes policymakers, I think, and you can see it in some of the comments that the RBA and Governor Lowe has made in recent years where they often emphasise the low level of the cash rate as being self-evidently indicative of an easy monetary policy stance when, in fact, if anything, it’s probably an indication that monetary policy is too tight.

By the same token, if you go back to say, the late 1980s, in Australia, when we had double digit inflation rates, well, we had double digit interest rates as well. At that time, very high level of interest rates was in fact indicative of the fact that the RBA had run monetary policy in a way that was way too easy, giving us high inflation.

Gene Tunny 50:34

Yeah. And it was that experience that did prompt the adoption of inflation targeting because we weren’t inflation targeting back then. They had some checklist approach or whatever. This was just after they had the brief experiment with monetarism, and then they had a checklist or something and they didn’t have an explicit inflation target until the early ‘90s. I mean, Stephen, would you agree that arguably, inflation targeting was a good thing to adopt at the time? I mean, did it actually improve? Do we get better monetary policy for a while with inflation targeting? Was it better than what we had before?

Stephen Kirchner 51:09

I think inflation targeting was a very important and helpful innovation. They’ve got central banks focused on nominal stability, which is what you want them to do. And I mean, I’m still a defender of inflation targeting as much as I think you could make the current inflation targeting framework work better. And the way in which you would do that would be to focus on as you’re looking through supply shocks, so in other words, not responding to increases in inflation that are clearly driven by supply side constraints, like some of the inflation pressures that we’re seeing at the moment. Where nominal income targeting is helpful I think is helping you to do that.

So one way of thinking about nominal income targeting is you could think of nominal income as an indicator variable or an inflation variable, which tells you when you need to respond to inflation with monetary policy and when you shouldn’t. So that would be one way in which you could improve an inflation targeting regimen would be to sort of look at both variables and use that to help you sift through what inflation shocks you want to respond to, what inflation shocks you want to look through. I don’t think we have to necessarily give up on inflation targeting but we probably do need to change the way we do it, because I think inflation targeting in recent years has failed on its own terms, because central banks have said, well, we’re targeting inflation, but in fact, they’ve missed the target. So if you’re missing the target, you’re not doing it properly. So clearly, you need to change the way you’re doing it.

Gene Tunny 52:49

So as an implication of what you’ve said, are you implying that there’s a risk of the Reserve Bank could increase the cash rate too much, because it’s reacting to CPI data that partly, the inflation is going to be driven by this supply shock? Is that a concern of yours?

Stephen Kirchner 53:12

Yeah, I mean, we’ve certainly seen that in the past. So we talked before about the Fed, and the ECB in 2008 I think clearly made that error. And I think it’s a risk at the moment. At the moment, we have both supply and demand shocks driving inflation. So there’s been a huge dislocation in the supply side of the global economy due to shifts in demand, so that the speed of the recovery has basically caught the supply side of the world economy short. It’s struggling to keep up. And so there’s a big supply component to existing inflation pressures.

In the United States, I’d say there’s also a demand component inasmuch as one of the things that Mercatus Centre has done has been to develop what they call an NGDP gap, which is basically a measure of the deviation in nominal GDP from long-run expectations. At the moment, we have a positive nominal GDP gap in the United States. And so consistent with the nominal GDP targeting framework, that’s saying that there are excess demand pressures in the US economy. And so you would want monetary policy to respond to that. And so I think this is why the Fed is tightening at the moment. It’s appropriate that they do so because there is excess demand in the US economy, and GDP expectations are a good guide. But at the same time, there’s a very significant supply side component to this. And that is something you probably want to look through.

So one way to think about US monetary policy at the moment is the Feds should be tightening with the views of closing that nominal GDP expectations gap on the Mercatus measure. That would require some tightening of monetary policy but not nearly as aggressive as if you were trying to fully stabilise consumer price inflation.

Gene Tunny 55:13

Right. So nominal GDP in the US by that Mercatus measure, it’s higher than that path that long-run path. Is that right?

Stephen Kirchner 55:25

Yeah, that’s right. So on their measure, the level of nominal GDP is running at about, I think, 3% above the path implied by long-run expectations for nominal income. So from a nominal GDP targeting framework, you would certainly want to respond to that.

Gene Tunny 55:41

Right. Now, this is one thing I’ll want to just make sure I understand. In your paper, you talk about how it’s good to correct for deviations from that target path, that nominal path. Why does a target path in nominal terms? Why is that relevant? I think one of the points you make is that, traditionally, central bankers wouldn’t really worry about the nominal path, or they if you did have low inflation for a period, and that meant that you were below that nominal level, it’s not as if you’re going to ramp up, they wouldn’t have a more stimulatory monetary policy just to try and hit a particular GDP number in nominal terms, say two and a half trillion or something, because well, what does the actual nominal value of it matter? What matters is what’s the real value of it and how many people are employed, that sort of thing? I want to understand that. Are you saying that we should try and get back to some sort of the nominal GDP number that was implied by the path we’re on?

Stephen Kirchner 56:54

Yeah, I would say that nominal GDP stabilisation is still implicit in what the RBA and the Fed do today. So if you’re stabilising inflation around target and output around potential, then that will certainly be conducive to stability in nominal GDP. It’s just that we’re not explicitly framing monetary policy in those terms. So at the moment, we frame it in terms of the cash rate responding to deviations in the inflation target, or deviations in output or the unemployment rate from their assumed equilibrium values. All I’m saying is you want to reframe the way in which you implement monetary policy in terms that are currently implicit, but arguably should be explicit.

So really, I’d say monetary policy is trying to stabilise a path for the future path of nominal GDP. Were just not explicit about it. So it’s really reframing monetary policy in those terms, to bring out those relationships. But I think it does it in a way that’s less conducive to monetary policy running off track, for all the reasons that we’ve talked about, that you’re no longer making guesses about the equilibrium interest rate, the equilibrium unemployment rate, or the equilibrium level of real output. You can abstract from all of those things and just ask the question, How is nominal GDP evolving relative to, A, expectations, or B, in my sort of operating framework, you know, where you want monetary policy to be. So just be explicit about that and nominate a target path.

One of the advantages of doing that is in fact, I think, better financial stability outcomes, reason being if you think about the decisions that lenders and borrowers are taking in credit markets, whether it be in relation to housing or business lending or any other type of credit, the serviceability of those contracts depends entirely on the future flow of nominal income. So putting yourself in the shoes of a holder of a mortgage, for example. The amount I borrow is very much a function of what I think my future nominal income is going to be. And the lender is making the same assessment, right? They’re saying, Does this person have the capacity to service a mortgage? Well, that’s a function of what’s going to happen with their normal income in the future.

So by stabilising both expectations for nominal income and actual outcomes for nominal income, I think that’s conducive to financial stability because then the economy is going to evolve in line with the expectations embedded in those credit contracts. So I think you’re less likely to run into financial stability concerns in that context.

So this is essentially Scott Sumner’s critique of US monetary policy in response to the global financial crisis. So what Scott Sumner argues is that the recession in the United States was made deeper by the fact that nominal GDP and expectations for nominal GDP in the early stages of the crisis were allowed to collapse, and that more than anything affected the ability of people to service their mortgages.

Gene Tunny 1:00:42

That’s an interesting argument. I’ll have to have a look back over his work. I’ve seen it in the past. But have you got time for two more questions or do you have to get going? Because there are a couple –

Stephen Kirchner 1:00:52

Oh no, absolutely. Take all the time in the world.

Gene Tunny 1:00:55

Great. There are a couple other things I want to chat about. On page 27 of your Mercatus Centre paper you write, “There’s a growing empirical literature on the advantages of NGDP targeting relative to inflation targeting and other policy rules. I’m interested what that literature is. What does it comprise of? Is it cross-country regression studies, or how do they determine that, that this actually is superior to what we’re doing at the moment?

Stephen Kirchner 1:01:23

So there’s a long history is who the literature on monetary policy rules. And it really goes back to a Brookings Institution project back in the early 1990s. And it was as part of that project that John Taylor published his Taylor rule estimates. And Warwick McKibbin, the Australian economist, was actually an early contributor to that literature as well. And I mean, one of the things I did, as part of that Brookings Institution project was to just simulate different types of rules. So on one hand, you can estimate empirically what the central bank response to macro variables is . But you can also do simulations, where you say, well, what would happen in a economic model if the central bank responded to nominal GDP or some other specification of the monetary policy reaction function.

And I think it’s fair to say that, in that early literature, both nominal GDP targeting, whether in level or growth rate terms, did not fare well, relative to the sort of more Taylor rule type specification. The problem with that literature was that it wasn’t taking account of the knowledge problems that we talked about earlier, which is the unobservability of some of the key conditioning variables, namely the real equilibrium interest rate, either potential output or an estimate of an error. Once you take account of those knowledge problems, then the Taylor rule literature becomes much less robust. And nominal GDP targeting becomes much more robust. So once you allow for the fact that there’s uncertainty around those assumed equilibrium values, then inflation targeting as it’s currently conducted in a Taylor rule framework looks a lot less attractive. So really, that early literature was conditioning on historical relationships, which, when you’re operating in real time, become much more problematic.

Gene Tunny 1:03:53

Okay. I have to ask you about an NGDP futures market. So this was mentioned in your Mercatus Centre paper. Why would that be useful? And what’s the role of Ethereum, so a cryptocurrency, isn’t it? What’s the role of Ethereum in that?

Stephen Kirchner 1:04:15

So if you’re targeting nominal GDP, then one of the things that would be very helpful in that context would actually be a market-based estimate of where nominal GDP is going. People like myself who call themselves market monetarists, the market part of that expression refers to the fact that we think that markets are in fact the best gauge, financial markets at the best gauge of the stance of monetary policy and also what effect any given policy change is likely to have on the economy.

So if you take that view, then what you want to do is get a market-derived estimate of where nominal GDP is going and then base your monetary policy response on that estimate, because that’s going to be your best guess of where nominal GDP is going. And there are various versions of this. Scott Sumner has a version where the central bank would actually tie its open market operations mechanically to prices in that nominal GDP market. So monetary policy would then basically become market-driven. But you don’t need to go quite that far. I mean, it would be sufficient, I think, just for the central bank to take account of what the nominal GDP market was telling you about the stance of monetary policy.

The beauty of this is that any macroeconomic policy measure that you might implement, the nominal GDP futures market will give you instant and real time information on what the market thought that was going to do to the economy. So for example, if you had a fiscal stimulus package, a nominal GDP futures market would tell you basically on announcement, what it thought the impact of that package would be. And my expectation would be that if we had a nominal GDP futures market and you announced a big fiscal stimulus, we would actually probably see very little movement in the nominal GDP futures market because most of the economy crowding out effects that we discussed before, I suspect that in a small open economy with a floating exchange rate like Australia, fiscal policy actually doesn’t do very much in terms of aggregate demand.

Gene Tunny 1:06:45

Right.

Stephen Kirchner 1:06:46

We see that a little bit already, because although we don’t get sort of very clean or discreet announcements of fiscal policy measures, typically when the budget lands every year, and they announce what the change in the budget balance the share of GDP is going to be, which is your sort of best measure of the impact that fiscal policy is going to have on the economy. The national markets very rarely move in response to that announcement.

So the case for a nominal GDP futures market is you want that market to basically inform monetary policy decision making. And it really goes to the issue of what paradigm do you want for monetary policy? The market monetarist paradigm is essentially to say central bank is a lot smarter than financial markets when it comes to assessing where the economy is going. And we should do away with the fiction that they know more than what’s embodied in financial crises. And so conduct monetary policy on the basis of the best available information, which is what financial markets are telling you about the evolution of the economy,

Gene Tunny 1:08:01

What does this instrument look like? And who sets up the market? Does the central bank set up the market? I mean, people are gambling, or they’re betting on what future nominal GDP is. But how’s the market actually work? Has anyone thought about how it would be designed? Does the central bank have to run out or could it be a privately owned market?

Stephen Kirchner 1:08:26

So this could be a conventional futures markets? So we have at the moment futures contracts available, various financial instruments, so there are futures contracts for 10-year bond yields for the Australian dollar. We effectively have futures contracts on inflation outcomes, which is the difference between the prices on bond yields and index bond yields, so that it’s bond yields adjusted for inflation. So we actually already effectively have a futures market in inflation outcomes. And that’s actually a very important input into monetary policy decision making.

So one of the things that the RBA pays very close attention to is what market prices are saying about the future evolution of inflation? So we already have one half of the equation. What we need is the other half, which is to say, a view on what’s going to happen with real output. But if we combine those two things, and what we’re saying is we want a financial market view on where nominal GDP has gotten. So it’s very straightforward to design a futures market contract that you would list on the Australian Stock Exchange, which would be traded by financial market participants.

And I think another thing that would be useful that comes out of this is it would be a very good hedging instrument. So we think of corporations, their top line revenues are in fact often largely a function of nominal GDP. So one of the things the company will look at when they’re forecasting their revenues is an assumption about what nominal GDP is going to do. So corporates could actually use a nominal GDP futures market as a hedging instrument. And that increases the information content of NGDP futures prices. It becomes highly informative of what decision makers in the economy are expecting in relation to the future evolution of nominal income. That information is very useful for policymaking.

And my argument to the Reserve Bank, when I’ve presented this work to them, is to say, Do you think that would be useful input into monetary policy decision making? And of course, the answer has to be yes. You know, you want more information, not less. And so my argument to them is, well, if that information will be useful, then it’s probably worth incurring some costs in order to get that information. So what I’ve suggested is they need to remove some of the regulatory barriers to the creation of a nominal GDP futures market.

A huge regulatory barrier to any sort of financial innovation in Australia is the fact that the costs of financial system regulation in Australia are paid for by the financial sector. So all of the costs of ASIC and APRA in regulating the Australian financial system is recovered from market participants, economic institutions. But that cost recovery framework has a public interest clause, which basically says you should be able to get relief from cost recovery if there’s a public interest in doing so. And so I like it that the creation of a nominal GDP futures market is a perfect application of the public interest case for relief from cost recovery. So basically, the institutions and the Securities Exchanges that would put together that market should basically get an exemption from regulatory cost recovery. I think that would give a huge boost to making that sort of market commercially viable.

Gene Tunny 1:12:37

It’s a fascinating idea, because occasionally, you do have these new financial instruments. I mean, I know in the US they have a market in… Is there a futures market for house prices based on the Case-Shiller Index?

Stephen Kirchner 1:12:51

Yeah, that’s right. There’s derivatives around house prices in the United States. The NSX tried to get a derivatives market in house prices up and running a few years ago. I would argue that, yes, we should have house price futures as well, for exactly the same reasons. It’s informative for policymakers, t gives them information that they would not otherwise have. It will tell you, for example, when APRA changes its regulation of financial institutions. A house price futures market would tell you straightaway what the implications for that are for house prices. It’d be useful hedging instrument as well. So yeah, ideally, I think we should have both markets.

I think the impediments to those markets, given that they are potentially so useful, are most likely regulatory in nature. And so we need to lower the regulatory barriers to the creation of those markets. And arguably, I think there’s a case for implicit public subsidies for those markets as well, so relief from regulatory cost recovery. I think the RBA could use its balance sheet to become a market maker in those markets. So not with a view to influencing the prices, but just providing, being a liquidity provider, which would lower costs for other people transacting in those markets and would help get them up and running.

Gene Tunny 1:14:25

I was just thinking, I was just trying to think, how would this actually start up? And, I mean, you’d need someone to actually develop the instruments, create the contracts and sell them, so that could be say, an investment bank, for example. It could be a Goldman Sachs or it could be a Morgan Stanley or one of those businesses. It’s a fascinating idea.

Stephen Kirchner 1:14:50

Yeah, I mean, in my Mercatus paper, I make the case that the council of financial regulators should jointly mandate the creation of a nominal GDP futures market. And I mean, when regulators mandate something in financial markets, it usually happens. So it’s not uncommon for the financial regulators to actually come out and say to financial market participants, okay, we’re doing this. If it becomes a regulatory mandate, then the financial market participants will cooperate with that mandate. And you know, I think it would be enthusiastic participants. So I think it’s really incumbent upon the RBA to say this is something that we want and need, would be helpful for policymaking and for hedging, as I’ve described. And so we’re going to sit down with financial market participants and make it happen

Gene Tunny 1:15:46

And just finally, you’ve mentioned that there could be a role for blockchain. So you talk about how US NGDP futures have already been implemented on the Augur blockchain. Did I pronounce that right? And then, Eric Falkenstein has also developed Ethereum-based derivatives contracts. These contracts could provide competitive alternatives to listed securities, okay, on existing exchanges and require little or no public support while still yielding useful information about monetary policy in the economy. So is there anything special about the blockchain in this context?

Stephen Kirchner 1:16:22

Well, the role for blockchain I think is just in terms of lowering the costs of doing it. So as we’ve already discussed, there are significant cost barriers to listing nominal GDP futures on our traditional securities exchange. I’ve argued that we should try and lower some of those costs. But another way of doing this is to implement it in blockchain space. There’s already been some interest in doing this in the US. I think, eventually, almost all financial derivatives will move off exchanges and onto the blockchain at some point, main reason being you can then do instantaneous clearing and settlement. So you no longer have trillions of dollars tied up in collateralizing clearing and settlement of financial derivatives. So if derivatives markets are going to move onto blockchain, then arguably NGDP futures should move on to blockchain as well. But I think there’s more scope for innovation in the blockchain space at the moment, just because it’s a different regulatory environment.

And so I’ve sort of argued for a two-prong approach where on the one hand, you want to go through sort of the conventional channel other listed securities market for NGDP futures. But at the same time, I think there’s scope for entrepreneurs to innovate in the blockchain space and do something similar. And hopefully, what we get out of this is a viable future market, not just in nominal GDP, but [with] other macro variables included. And I think it would not only provide policymakers with useful information, but it would really change the way people think about financial markets and monetary policy, because you can’t beat the sort of real-time financial market verdicts on what policy is doing.

It would eliminate a lot of arguments about the implications of various types of public policy, because let’s say the government is proposing a change in some tax rate, and there’s an argument about what the implications of that tax change is for the economy. Well, a nominal GDP futures market will instantaneously settle that argument, because when the tax change is announced, you can observe what the change in the nominal GDP futures is. And that basically tells you what the economic impact is,

Gene Tunny 1:19:07

Assuming the market expectation is correct.

Stephen Kirchner 1:19:11

It doesn’t have to be correct. It’s probably our best guess.

Gene Tunny 1:19:15

Best guess, gotcha. Yeah. I agree. I was just wanting to –

Stephen Kirchner 1:19:19

Ex post it could be completely wrong. At the time of the announcement, it would be the best guess of everyone who actually has a real-time financial stake in that outcome.

Gene Tunny 1:19:31

Yeah, very good point. Okay, Stephen, this has been terrific. I’ve learned so much and it’s made me think about a lot of a lot of things that hadn’t been thinking about before. I love this idea of futures markets in economic indicators. I think that’s brilliant. So yes, I’ll have to come back and explore that in the future. So Stephen, you’ve got a sub stack, which I’ll put a link to in the show notes. I’ll also put links to your two fascinating papers on monetary policy. Any final words before we wrap up?

Stephen Kirchner 1:20:06

I think this has been a great conversation. I’ve really enjoyed it, Gene.

Gene Tunny 1:20:09

Thank you, Stephen. I’ve really enjoyed it too. I must admit, initially I don’t think I’ve really understood this nominal income targeting idea and its merits and what the problems with inflation targeting were as much as I do now, I think I’ve got a much better understanding. So absolutely, really appreciate that. So, again, thanks so much for coming on to the programme. And yeah, hopefully, I have you on again, sometime in the future. We could chat more about these issues. So thanks so much.

Stephen Kirchner 1:20:46

Thank you, Gene. It’s been a pleasure.

Gene Tunny 1:20:49 Okay, that’s the end of this episode of Economics Explored. I hope you enjoyed it. If so, please tell your family and friends and leave a comment or give us a rating on your podcast app. If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, you can feel free to send them to contact@economicsexplored.com And we’ll aim to address them in a future episode. Thanks for listening. Until next week, goodbye.

Credits

Big thanks to EP135 guest Stephen Kirchner and to the show’s audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode.

Tags blockchain, economics, ethereum, fed, financialcrisis, fiscalpolicy, gdp, inflation, interestrates, monetarypolicy, ngdp, rba, usfederalreserve, zerolowerbound

Podcast episode

EP89 – CPI inflation concerns with Darren Brady Nelson

Post author By Gene Tunny
Post date May 29, 2021
No Comments on EP89 – CPI inflation concerns with Darren Brady Nelson

There are growing concerns over CPI inflation after all the money printing associated with the pandemic response.

https://economics-explained.simplecast.com/episodes/cpi-inflation-concerns-with-darren-brady-nelson

Episode 89 of Economics Explored features a conversation on just how worried we should be about future inflation in this time of MMT and QE between Economics Explored host Gene Tunny and returning guest Darren Brady Nelson, chief economist of the Australian libertarian think tank LibertyWorks and a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute.
Charts of data referred to in this episode:

Charts on CPI, money supply, US 10 year bond yield, and asset prices

This is the classic book by Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz mentioned in this episode:

A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960

Please send through any questions, comments, or suggestions to contact@economicsexplored.com and we will aim to address them in an upcoming episode. Alternatively, please leave a comment on this post.

Tags bitcoin, centralbanks, cpi, fed, gold, inflation, mmt, moneysupply, usa

About this episode’s guest Prof. Gerald Epstein

What’s covered in EP226

Takeaways

Links relevant to the conversation

Transcript: From Jekyll to Hyde: Exploring the Dual Nature of Finance | The Bankers’ Club w/ Prof. Gerald Epstein – EP226

Credits

What’s covered in EP224

Takeaways

Links relevant to the conversation

Transcript: Reagan’s Budget Boss David Stockman on Trump’s Economic Policies – EP224

Credits

About this episode’s guest: Addison Wiggin

What’s covered in EP196

Links relevant to the conversation

Transcript:Do central banks stabilize or destabilize economies? w/ Addison Wiggin, NYT-bestselling-author – EP196

About Addison Wiggin

What’s covered in EP192

Links relevant to the conversation

Transcript:Exploring the US Banking Crisis with Addison Wiggin – EP192

Credits

What’s covered in EP186

Links relevant to the conversation

Transcript:The Greedflation hypothesis – EP186

Credits

What’s covered in EP179

Links relevant to the conversation

Transcript: Why fiat money means higher inflation & why a radical Reserve Bank review is needed w/ Darren Brady Nelson – EP179

Credits

What’s covered in EP173

Links relevant to the conversation

Transcript: Normalization of interest rates & monetary policy – EP173

Credits

Links relevant to the conversation

Clarification

Transcript of EP143 – Stagflation: be alert, not alarmed

Credits

About this episode’s guest – Dr Stephen Kirchner

Links relevant to the conversation

Transcript of EP135: Nominal GDP targeting w/ Stephen Kirchner

Credits

Transcript:
Do central banks stabilize or destabilize economies? w/ Addison Wiggin, NYT-bestselling-author – EP196

Transcript:
Exploring the US Banking Crisis with Addison Wiggin – EP192

Transcript:
The Greedflation hypothesis – EP186