Categories
Podcast episode

A UBI advocate on its benefits and costs – EP137 show notes & transcript

In episode 137 of Economics Explored, Australian Universal Basic Income (UBI) advocate Michael Haines chats with show host Gene Tunny about the benefits and costs of a UBI, with an extensive discussion of how it’s paid for in Michael’s proposal. The conversation considers money creation and so-called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

You can listen to the conversation using the embedded player below or via Google PodcastsApple PodcastsSpotify, and Stitcher, among other podcast apps. A transcript and relevant links are also available below.

About this episode’s guest – Michael Haines

Michael Haines is the CEO of VANZI, the Virtual Australia and New Zealand Initiative. Michael has 40+ years of experience in a wide variety of senior management and consulting roles across a range of industries: government, telecommunications, brewing, construction, consumer goods, car manufacturing and transport and logistics covering a wide range of disciplines. While he has previously sat on the Board of the Australian Logistics Council and remains a member of Austroads Intelligent Transport Industry Reference Group, he was instrumental in establishing VANZI and his entire time is now devoted to the VANZ project.

Links relevant to the conversation

What’s Better: Welfare, A Job Guarantee, Or A Universal Basic Income? | By Michael Andrew Haines. | Apr, 2022

UBI: Universal Basic Income w/ Ben Phillips, ANU – EP126 – Economics Explored

Poverty In Australia 2018

Basic Income Australia (overview of UBI policy Michael is proposing)

Money creation in the modern economy | Bank of England

Transcript of EP137: UBI advocate Michael Haines on its benefits and costs

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.

Gene Tunny  00:01

Coming up on Economics Explored.

Michael Haines  00:04

Whether it’s through accident, the health, being sacked, being divorced and losing the income of your partner. All sorts of reasons why suddenly you lose that income. Well, if you’ve got a UBI coming in, at least you’ve got enough to live on.

Gene Tunny  00:24

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 137, on benefits and costs of a UBI, or universal basic income.

I’m joined this episode by a retired Australian CEO in the manufacturing and logistics sectors, Michael Haines, who has been doing a lot of thinking about the benefits of a UBI and how to cover its costs. This conversation will give you a good idea of what advocates of a UBI see as its major benefits. You’ll also hear a discussion about the relevance of so-called modern monetary theory, MMT to the UBI debate. If you’re a regular listener, you’ll know that I’m highly sceptical about both UBI and MMT. But I did my best to remain openminded in my conversation with Michael.

Please check out the show notes for relevant links, any clarifications and for details of how you can get in touch with any comments or suggestions. I’d love to hear from you. As Michael indicates in the discussion, he’d welcome your thoughts on his ideas and his proposal. So please send them my way. And I’ll pass them on to Michael. Righto. Now for my conversation with Michael Haines on the benefits and costs of a UBI. Thanks to my audio engineer Josh Crotts with his assistance in producing this episode. I hope you’ll enjoy it. Michael Haines, welcome to the programme.

Michael Haines  02:01

Well, thank you, Gene, very much for having me here. I’m really excited to have the opportunity to speak to your audience who is probably more educated in these topics than the people I normally speak with. So I’ll be looking forward to any feedback you receive.

Gene Tunny  02:17

Okay, yeah. So keen to chat with you about universal basic income. I’m interested first in your journey to becoming an advocate for a UBI. Could you take us through that, please, what got you interested in this as an idea, and then we can go into what you see as the merits of it.

Michael Haines  02:39

Have you got time for a life journey, Gene?

Gene Tunny  02:41

Oh, please.

Michael Haines 02:42

Back in the 1980s, I was group general manager of one of the top 200 public companies, and first to actually, as far as I know, get involved in the use of trusts to minimise tax in a public company. And in the course of that, I guess I began to query myself as to the whole issue of why we pay tax and the complexities of our tax system and money system. And so through that, I just took a journey myself to explore tax law and integration with the money system, banking system, and so on, and develop thoughts then around how we might integrate a flat tax system on spending with a flat payment, which is effectively a UBI, which would turn the tax on spending effectively into a progressive tax on income if it was structured correctly. So I have worked my way through that for quite a few years and talked to a few people about it. But it really never gained any traction. I didn’t have the academic background, because I was involved in business, to really progress it, and drifted over the years.

And then I guess more recently, it’s become apparent that across the world, there’s a lot more interest in a UBI. And that spurred me to… I’m now 73. So I’m effectively retired. It spurred me to do something about it. So, a bit over a year ago, I got involved with a group called Basic Income Australia. And through them, I undertook the task to write a policy document, which is about 111 pages long, and I don’t expect anybody to read it. It was really aimed at capturing our understanding of all of the ins and outs of a UBI across the world, pilots that have been undertaken, what they tell us, what the academic community feels about it, pros and cons, and then to, I guess, evolve the ideas that I hope to talk to you today about, which we believe provides a bit of a different wrinkle to how UBI is seen and how it can be implemented with relatively low risk. So that’s my journey.

Gene Tunny  05:17

Right. And can you tell us a bit about Basic Income Australia, please, who’s involved in it?

Michael Haines  05:23

It’s just a small group that was started by a guy called Josh McGee a few years ago. He’s a highly talented mechatronics engineer, and he’s just qualified. And he took an interest in the UBI quite a few years ago, and gathered together a group of miscellaneous miscreants who had a similar interest. And so it’s not a professional group. It really is a cross-section of people who are interested in seeing the basic income become a reality in Australia. So I guess I’ve endeavoured to bring some sort of more rigour into the specifications of what a UBI might entail. And that was through the process of writing that policy document. So I’d very interested in, as I’ve been speaking to you earlier, to get the feedback from your audience, as to what they think about the proposal.

Gene Tunny  06:27

Absolutely, and I’ll put a link to that policy document and some other articles that you’ve prepared, or that you were telling me about, some Medium articles, is that right?

Michael Haines  06:37

I’ve just completed a series, or completed a series of about seven articles that look at the rationale for UBI compared with welfare and the job guarantee, look at how we can implement it without increasing taxes or debt or taking money from other programmes or incurring excessive inflation. So that sounds like magic. But we believe that there is a way to do it. Another article then considers in more detail, how to implement it with low risk. And then three papers looking at the benefits. About 24, we’ve identified for the individuals, about 19 or so I think, or 17 for business and the economy and maybe 19 for government and individuals. So that series, we hope, they’re only about a five-minute read each, should give people a good understanding of what we’re about.

Gene Tunny  07:39

So it’s interesting, you were thinking about this in the 80s. And that it’s recently that you’ve come across this UBI idea, that this is something that is, this idea is taking off worldwide. And I’m trying to remember when I first heard about it. It probably would be in the last maybe 5 to 10 years, it’s associated with the sort of Silicon Valley crowd, isn’t it?

Michael Haines  08:05

[Unclear 00:08:05] and BIEN as well, Basic Income Earth Network, which Guy Standing and others have been involved in. I think the history of it goes back to Thomas Moore, and others. So we’re talking about people throwing these ideas around for a long time. But one of the biggest concerns people seem to have, and rightly so, is the cost because most people say that’s a wonderful idea. And, you know, if I was to say, well, we’re gonna give everybody a super yacht, similarly, that’s a great idea. Yeah, I’m all for getting my own super yacht. But, you know, quite realistically, we can’t pay for it. So that’s one of the major focus points that we’ve looked at, you know, how do we afford it.

Gene Tunny  09:03

Yeah, yeah, we’ll definitely come to that. I just want to start off with… Before we get to that, I’d like to ask you, what do you see as the merits of a universal basic income? And I know that you’ve referred back to, well, prehistory in a way, haven’t you, in thinking about that? So could you take us through what you see as the merits of it, please?

Michael Haines  09:28

If we go back to prehistory, every human born had a basic birthright, which was to live off the land. And the richness of the land would determine basically how well you lived, but that birthright was there regardless. With the advent of property rights and money and a system of paid work, that is no longer available for most people to live off the land. It’s meant that the human species now, at least in the developed world, is absolutely reliant on money. You have to have money if you want to buy a sandwich down the street, a bottle of water. It doesn’t matter what, money is the source, or the access point for the resources that you need to survive.

And so given that, we then have to look at well, while this whole new system has been really advantageous for the great bulk of people, lifting living standards, health and so on, for a section of the population, it has really left them out. About 12 to 14% of the population, in most of the developed world, live in poverty. They’re mostly single women with kids, aged, disabled, they’re unpaid carers, mostly family, and also people who are between jobs, all of whom lack savings and family support. So in Australia, that’s about 3.2 million people and 17% of all children.

So it’s an indictment not of those individuals, but of the system, that they are living in poverty in what is essentially a very wealthy country. So there is no doubt that we have the resources to ensure everybody has enough to survive, food, clothing, housing, and so on. So what is lacking is neither the resources nor the money. We create the money. So what the problem is, is getting the money into the hands of people who need it, and the way that we’ve traditionally done that is through welfare.

But welfare comes with a poverty trap. And that is, it is perfectly rational for a person to look at a benefit and say, I’m gonna take the benefit instead of this shitty low paid job. So it’s nothing to do with moral failings. It’s, you know, you and I, given the choice between the two, we’re gonna say, well I’m gonna take the low pay benefits. So it is then perfectly rational for government to say, well, hang on, we’ve got work out there that needs to be done. We got people who are capable of doing it. So we must keep the benefits really low in order to encourage those people to take the work that’s available. And that works in the main, right? People, if they can get off the welfare benefit and into work, and they can do it, they will.

But there is a whole section of the population who cannot do paid work, which as I said, is the single women who are caring for kids and they’re carers for the aged and so on, so that it’s creating a poverty trap, which we could solve with more welfare, or higher benefits, if we absolutely could guarantee the ability to identify those people who genuinely can’t work at any time, and have a real time system that as soon as people fell into poverty or came out of it, we could always capture them immediately. And some countries do that better than others, but nobody has really solved it, because as we said, across the world right now, we are faced with 10, 11, 12, 14% of the population who are in poverty.

So what we’ve looked at is said, well, a universal basic income in which everybody has, as of right, a payment to ensure they can meet their needs, well then they’ve got that money, there’s no need to apply. There’s no need to justify. And if you suddenly find yourself without an income, so most people are at risk of losing that income overnight, whether it’s through accident, their health, being sacked, being divorced and losing the income of your partner. All sorts of reasons why suddenly you lose that income. Well, if you’ve got a UBI coming in, at least you’ve got enough to live on.

And so yeah, that’s where, I guess what we saw as the rationale for a UBI. But we’ve also identified over 50-odd benefits that once you do have it in place will flow from it. So I don’t know where you’d like to go from here. I can talk through how we might fund it, how we can introduce it, we believe, with low risk, and what some of the benefits are.

Gene Tunny  14:51

I’m keen to stay on the benefits for a while. What do you see as those as those benefits? I mean, you talked about the fact that it is an income redistribution tool.

Michael Haines  15:04

Can I stop you there, Gene? I don’t see it as an income redistribution tool. And this is why it’s necessary to explain how we see funding it. Because we don’t believe it is necessary to take anything away from anybody in order to ensure that everybody has the basics, simply because we do have the resources in Australia, to feed people, to clothe them, and ultimately to house them. What we don’t have is a mechanism to get the money into people’s hands. And so we believe we can do it without redistribution, which is what I’d like to explain.

But if we put that aside for the moment, and again, just look at the benefits, for a very simple one, it would reduce for an individual reliance on debt. So no more payday loans and the stresses that that brings. It provides us with sort of indicated income and basic income insurance, because if you lose your job, at least you’ve got that money coming in to live on. It eliminates, as we said, the welfare poverty trap. It eliminates bureaucracy for people. You no longer have to be worried about, you know, these mutual obligations and ticking boxes and just going through the hoops, for the sake of quotes, proving your entitlement. It eliminates social stigma and intrusion into your life, because you’re just getting it as of right like everybody else is. It underpins lifelong learning. It means that people who might want to take some time off to do a short course will cut back their hours. So I can’t do that. I’m struggling to meet my daily needs. With the UBI coming in, it will assist them in that.

It empowers people also to do the right thing. So we know that people through the threat of poverty are forced to do unsafe, illegal and unethical work. And when now as a society getting to the stage where we’re recognising the need for consent in the bedroom, a UBI empowers people to have that same consent in the workplace to be able to say, no, this is unsafe, this is illegal, this is unethical.

It provides some flexibility too for where you might work and the type of work you do, because it gives you some income to actually move to where the work is. If you are destitute, it’s all very well to say, hey, there’s new work in New South Wales. But how do I get there, and my few goods from where I am to where the work is? But with the money coming in, it provides increases in employment opportunities, because what it means is that as the money gets spent into the economy, it is going to generate more demand, which will generate more need for more labour.

It provides some recognition for in-home care and home maintenance and looking after families and creating the social bonds that people do who are not in quotes paid work. But maintaining those social bonds in the home are critical to a well-functioning society. At the moment, we don’t place any monetary value on that, and a UBI would, by paying a person to do that work. In effect, it provides respite for home carers. So people who are struggling to look after aged and disabled now will have a bit more money coming in to maybe put the person that they’re looking after into care or taking some time themselves. It actually adds to the income also of the aged and disabled.

We see it working such that the UBI would be treated as income under our existing welfare systems. So as the UBI increased, it would naturally reduce benefits, but the benefits would remain intact. And so depending on the level of the UBI, it would supplement the benefits that are netted from the existing system so nobody can be worse off. But most people in that circumstance should be better off.

Another big factor is it ought to reduce the incidence of family violence and also facilitate escape, because a lot of family violence is created from the financial stress that occurs when people are living on the edge. And so by leaving that financial stress, it should reduce the incidence of violence, but for women, and it’s mostly women who are caught in that sort of relationship, they now find that they can’t escape, because where are they going to live? How are they going to survive? They’ve got no income, they’ve got no job, whereas with a UBI, they’ve got that money coming in and can move anonymously and set up a new life. So it helps them. As we said, it is enables escape from poverty. That’s probably number one.

From around the world, we’ve seen studies where ensuring people have enough to live on, it improves their cognitive function and improves behavioural disorders, prevents suicide that is driven by financial stress, helps kids focus on schoolwork and higher education, for the same reasons it improves cognitive function. And evidence from the pilot says that it also improves nutrition, and in fact, reduced alcohol and tobacco use.

Gene Tunny  21:18

Right. Do you know which pilot that was?

Michael Haines  21:20

Yeah, I can give you that detail. I haven’t got it off here. But I can certainly give you that. And it would enhance self-determination, which is especially important for our First Nations people who have for a couple of centuries now been treated as a society of dependent individuals who have to be looked after, and so on. Whereas, if we pay UBI, unconditionally to everybody, well, that includes those of our First Nations people who can then make their own decisions that they are able to thrive instead of just simply survive, especially by pooling their resources, and so on.

So, I mean, these aren’t silver bullets that are going to solve all the problems, but they are additive and cumulative in the way that they can help us address some of these issues. So that’s just the 23-odd benefits for the individuals. There’s a whole lot for, as I said, business and the economy, for government and for the people in general. I don’t know whether you want me to go through all of those how much time we’ve got.

Gene Tunny  22:38

I can put a link in the show notes to that list. I want to ask you about this concept of technological unemployment. Is that one of the motivating factors behind UBI? Have you thought about that? Is that one of the reasons you’d advocate for it?

Michael Haines  22:57

Yes, absolutely. And so one of the things that we’ve looked at is that once we get the UBI to the poverty line, and there’s a whole process to get there, then what we’re suggesting is, in fact, the UBI be set up and managed by a new authority under its own charter, independent of normal government. Funding would not go to the government deficit, because the money would not be going to the government, it’s actually going directly to the people. And so that authority would manage the money. Now I’ve lost track of what the question was you asked me.

Gene Tunny  23:37

I was asking about technological unemployment.

Michael Haines  23:41

So that authority then would have the capacity to say, well, we’ve now got the UBI to the poverty line. If as a result of automation and virtualization, we start to see a drop-off in employment, we can then increase the UBI and allow the market to rebalance dynamically, back to full employment, because everybody has a different propensity to take on paid work, depending on their age, the commitments or the money they might have coming in.

And so as the UBI is raised, there will be people will say, hmm, I will now live on this money with whatever else I might have. I’m no longer going to worry about looking for work. And so we can tell, as people drop out of the workforce, we will begin to see a lengthening of standard recruitment times. The labour market will be seen to be tightening and the authority says oops, well, we don’t need to go up any higher. We’ve gone as far as we need to go. The market is back at…

So it gives the government through the authority a much more targeted or more precise tool to help manage and balance the labour market than simply the cash rate through the Reserve Bank or fiscal spending, which is a very indirect means for managing it. But because the UBI is income for people, then as their incomes change, they will make real time decisions about whether or not to move in or out of the labour market. So we see it as a very valuable new tool for the government to manage this disruption. Personally, I don’t see there’s any end to work. It’s going to be a never ending requirement for people to be doing different things. But there will certainly be disruption as traditional work is overtaken through automation and virtualization.

Gene Tunny  25:53

Okay, just thought I’d ask you that. Because my impression was that one of the reasons that a lot of the Silicon Valley people have been advocating for a UBI is that they see this new world in which there’s all this automation and AI, and you’ll have lots of people without work. And I mean, I know with automation of the vehicle fleet in the United States, for example, that they’re talking about the next 10 or 20 years, you could have 3 million people driving trucks who are no longer needed.

Michael Haines  26:32

It’s going to come quicker than that, through what I’ve just recently seen, that there’s a new robotics company, which is taking a very different approach to robotics in the workplace. Whereas there’s two types of robots, or three types, there’s the traditional type, which is very structured and has to go through these very specific steps. There’s a new type that has got some spatial awareness and some ability to act autonomously. But nowhere near the general intelligence required to do sophisticated manual handling work and so on and making decisions on the fly. Well, what this company is doing is saying with high-speed internet, now, we can actually globalise the workforce, while the worker is the robot in the local economy, controlled remotely by somebody anywhere else in the world. And that, in my mind is a major shift in how our labour markets… So now again, I’ve lost my train of thought.

Gene Tunny  27:45

We were talking about robots and being controlled by people remotely.

Michael Haines  27:51

It’s just that new way should see the continued globalisation of the workforce, despite the re-localization of the production capacity. So we’re seeing more and more production capacity relocalized. A lot of it is automated, but still a lot would remain with a need to have local people doing many of the jobs. But if a robot can be controlled remotely, then that’s a whole different ballgame again, so yeah.

I think the essence where I differ with maybe the Silicon Valley tech view, which has been promoting quotes a basic income as truly basic, and that what you end up with is, you know, millions and millions of people just eking out a living and a terrible society, structured with a few earning huge money and the rest eking it out. If we take the view that the UBI should be set to balance the labour market, then individuals are making their own choice about whether I go off and do other things, creative things or become more engaged in the community and sport. I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of things that human beings can do other than work once they actually have the freedom of mind to do that. You know, there is the whole issue around work providing meaning, and it does but there are lots of things that people find meaningful which don’t necessarily involve paid work, and a lot of paid work is hardly meaningful. It can be bloody soul-destroying. What it does, it allows each person to make their own choice in a market where the UBI is set to achieve balance.

Gene Tunny  30:05

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

Female speaker  30:10

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  30:40

Now back to the show. So we might go into the particular plan that you have, Michael. I’m keen to sort of explore that. Because as you know, I mean economists are going to be… Well, I think economists are very concerned about the cost of a UBI. They would say that you need to pay for it somehow. There’s no free lunch. So that’s a maximum of economics, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. So would you be able to take us through your concept, please, and explain just how it works? Because I know I’ve got some questions about it. But I want to make sure I understand the logic first, please.

Michael Haines  31:27

Well, you’re absolutely right about no free lunch. I guess the lunch part of it is to do with our actual resources, right, the sandwiches we eat, the houses we make, the engineers we have, and the chefs available to do the work. So that is the constraint. And one of the things that we’ve looked at is to the whole modern monetary theory, and which doesn’t have a good name broadly through the economics profession, and I think, to some extent, rightly so, because unfortunately, the way in which it has been pitched is as effectively an unlimited flow to government to then make decisions about how the money gets spent into the economy. You then have politicians and bureaucrats, you know, with their hands on this, quotes, unlimited spigot of money, and expecting that they are going to make good decisions that support the wellbeing of the whole economy. So we’ve looked at it different.

And so let’s go back to first of all understand how money gets into the economy. And apart from quantitative easing, which in fact, most of the money went into the financial economy, the real economy, but most of the money, as I’m sure your audience knows, gets into the real economy through bank lending. And so as a borrower goes to a bank, the bank creates the money, the borrower says, thanks very much and spends it in the economy, creating new activity that would not have occurred had that borrowing not take place, because the money is effectively new purchasing power, and it redirects our resources. It’s the source of growth in the economy, as businesses borrow and others borrow to spend into the economy.

So if we are creating money for that purpose, then the opportunity is to do the same thing, create money out of thin air, but instead of giving it to borrowers who are obliged to repay it, and so they should, because they’re getting an advantage purchasing power that they haven’t created or added to themselves. So they should work, add value out of that value, earn the money to repay the loan. So that works fine.

But if we’re now going to pay, create money and pay it to every single person to meet their basic needs, then we’re able to look at this and say, well, if there’s an example where suggesting that the amount of money should be $500 per week per person. Now, that comes out, for 20 million adults, about 520 billion bucks a year. Absolutely can’t be sustained.

But if you offset it against the welfare benefit, if you recover a substantial proportion through earned income and allow for the fact that some of the money is going to be recovered again via taxes, as the economy grows through the spending, some is going to go offshore, some into the financial economy. We think there’s about $100 billion net that would get injected into the economy of new money every year.

Now, some of that can be offset simply by reducing bank lending, because bank lending is putting new money into the economy every year. So instead of the new money all going in via bank lending, some of it now would come in through the UBI. And we can manage that as we do now, by managing interest rates. So as interest rates go up, there’ll be less bank lending, but there’ll be more UBI coming in, which should continue to ensure the economy maintains full capacity. But more of the capacity will be going to meet basic needs and less on other spending.

Business will have to adapt to that new pattern of demand. And we are suggesting a way to implement that with low risk by starting small, so just 10 bucks a week to start with, paying everybody, ramping up over five years. So what that does is allows the supply chain time to adapt to the new pattern of demand without causing shortages that drive inflation. And then you’ve got, at the end of the day, more money going in via UBI, and less via bank loans.

If there’s a net addition, we’re still looking to grow the economy 3or 4%, we’re looking for 2 to 3% inflation, and $100 billion in a 2 trillion economy is about 5%. So we see that it ought to be feasible to get to that 500 bucks a week level with the offsets that we’ve designed in. But we don’t know, and nobody knows, and nobody can really model it. But we don’t have to model it or guess, because if we start small and increase slowly, we can actually see what happens. We can see what’s happening in the economy. And if it looks like the negatives are starting to outweigh the positives, then we hold it and address the negatives.

My feeling is that, as we talked about the benefits to the individuals and the many other benefits, we will see a wealth of positives. And that’ll encourage us to actually speed up the rollout rather than cut it back. We don’t have to guess because we can actually see what happens. So that’s how we’re looking to implement it. And I haven’t spoken in detail about the offset and the recovery. But I’ll leave you to ask the questions now.

Gene Tunny  37:53

Yeah. So that recovery, I think one of the things you were talking about is what Ben Phillips was talking about when I spoke with Ben about the claw-back. I mean, what is that recovery as you as you earn money from work? And you know, what happens to the UBI payment? I mean, is there any claw-back of that? Is that what you’re talking about?

Michael Haines  38:17

Yeah. So what we see us that we don’t want to touch welfare as it is, but we treat it as income for welfare. So all of the rules and entitlements and everything stay the same. And the same with our tax system. We don’t want to touch the tax system, because that gets into all sorts of arguments. What we want to do is, under the separate authority, every week, they will be paying out the 500 bucks a week to every person, but they will appoint the tax department as their agent to recover the UBI from people via group tax, the GST system or the annual returns based on a very simple formula, that you will have to pay back 32.26% of your gross income through the tax system, in addition to whatever tax you’re paying, because the tax you’re paying relates to your income. The recovery relates to your UBI. So we’re going to give you the UBI. But the more you earn, the more you will have to pay back, so that by the time you get to $80,600, everybody earning that and more, they’ll be getting their 500 bucks a week in, and every week or so over the paying the 500 bucks back to the authority. That money gets put back in and recirculated in the next cycle.

And you say well, hang on, why pay people 500 bucks just to take it back off them? And the answer is because circumstances change overnight. And by paying people the money, it becomes like basic income insurance. It ensures that if I suddenly lose my job, I get sick, I have to care for a family member, for whatever reason, my income is suddenly lost, a pandemic comes along, there’s floods, fires, storms, whatever throws people into… They get divorced. That money is there coming in.

And now when I’ve lost my income, there’s no more recovery. So I’m getting the full amount, there’s no delay, there’s no need to apply. And then when I find I’m in a position to look again for work, I can do it without having to go and tell anybody. I don’t have to tell anybody what I’m doing to get it or whether I’m retraining myself. I don’t have to tell anybody how much I’m earning or any details at all, other than, of course, the tax department, which I normally have to do. And through that tax department, once I start earning again, the recovery would start to take place. But again, I’m better off because whatever I’m earning, at less the tax, is on top of the net that I get out of the UBI.

So up until $80,600, I am going to be better off by having the UBI. And we think that covers probably 75% of the population, and the other 25% are no worse off, which is why I said earlier, we don’t see this as a redistribution. What we see it is as a way of providing people with the means to express their needs in the market, and for the market to respond to meeting those needs. without taking anything off anybody else. You could say that if interest rates are going up, then people are unable to borrow as much as they might have. But on the other side, the money that’s going into the economy is going in debt-free. And that money will therefore, as it flows through the economy, to profits and investment, it’ll help the economy to grow and stabilise without the need for such high levels of increasing debt. So we see that’s also an advantage for the economy.

Gene Tunny  42:29

Yeah. Okay. So I think that argument would be more persuasive if we did have this high level of technological unemployment, if we had a large amount of unemployed resources. And that argument is going to be more persuasive. I guess the concern that economists would have is that, well, if you’ve got an economy that’s operating near full employment, as you could argue the Australian economy is now, then we don’t really necessarily want to be adding that additional demand to it because it could be inflationary. So concerns about inflation will be one of the major concerns about this proposal.

Michael Haines  43:12

So you’re right. And that’s why we are proposing to start small, because at 10 bucks a week, that is really a big deal for somebody living in poverty. That’s food for a day. So it might not seem much to you, or to most people, but at 10 bucks a week, it’s a start, but it’s not going to destroy the economy. It’s not going to, you know, cause havoc. But in a quarter’s time, we would see that being increased by $25 a week. So people are now getting 35 bucks a week. So it’s a bit more, and we can see what is happening.

Our expectation is that while there are inflationary pressures, they are in specific parts of the economy. And for things like food and clothing, and some of the basics, the opportunity is there for businesses to redirect resources. At the moment, you’ve got cafes and people like that crying out for labour and so on. But if the resources are directed towards meeting more basic needs, because people now have the money to express those needs, we would simply see over time, a shift in the way the economy is structured, which is why we are wanting to do it slowly, so over five years. Otherwise, you put 500 bucks a week into the economy, even with the claw-backs, it would create havoc, as we have seen with the disruptions due to the pandemic and now the war, where you alter the supply chain overnight, literally. It creates bottlenecks that are really hard to manage.

I was once manufacturing manager for Toyota, and also on the board of the Australian Logistics Council and ran a major logistics company in my day. So I really understand how the supply chain works. And you can’t just turn a tap on and say, okay, now people start spending this money, and expect it to just flip overnight, but you can expect it to change over a period of five years. And in that time, we are going to see more and more automation. And the UBI, in fact, could assist in helping firms to automate, because there’ll be a number of factors in play.

You will have people who are getting the UBI, who now say, well, I’m not going to work, I’m happy to live on the UBI. So the labour market might tighten. But you also might have people who are you saying, well, I’ve now got the UBI as a base, I’ll actually take on this extra work, which wasn’t previously worth my while because of the benefits I lost. But now I’ll take it on. And the new automation pressures might come in that interplay. We don’t know whether there’s going to be more people wanting that extra work or less.

But over time, regardless of what people are doing in terms of offering themselves to the labour market, it’s clear that there is going to be more and more automation, and virtualization. So virtualization is a hidden factor in that you don’t realise what you don’t have. And if you look at all of the devices that the smartphone replaced, there’s a huge amount of what used to be physical work and effort in producing all the goods that’s now all done by software on a little phone. And that’s just going to continue now. And so we are going to see this automation play out more and more.

Gene Tunny  47:24

Remember when there used to be Kodak processing centres all over the country, all over the world, and don’t have those anymore. Right. Okay. Now, one of the other things I want to ask you about, Michael, is this… You do recognise rightly that your proposal is leading to an expansion of the money supply. And look, you’re right about bank lending and what it means for the money supply. That’s correct. There’s a Bank of England article about that. And I’ll link to that on money creation.

Michael Haines  48:01

That is the best article. When I said I was back in the 1980s, one of the things that I – realisation I came to was actually how money was created. And talking to economists back in those days, it was absolutely shot, because until that Bank of England paper came out, there was often not the recognition of just how money was created. And so, yes, I really appreciate you making that link. Because it is such a good, clear, concise paper.

Gene Tunny  48:40

Yeah, money creation in the modern economy. I think I mangled it before. I mispronounced it. Yeah, well, I think, yeah, there was this debate in the ‘60s and ‘70s, about monetarism. And there were economists at the time who were pointing out that money was actually endogenous to the economy and that it was associated with the actions of banks and people borrowing money from banks. Who was it? Was it Nicholas Kaldor, who was one of the famous Cambridge economists? He was a student of John Maynard Keynes, whereas I think Friedman made a lot of great contributions, but he was probably off track a bit where he was assuming almost that the money supply was this exogenous variable that could be controlled easily by the central bank. Now central banks, obviously, they can influence it, but it’s not necessarily…

Michael Haines  49:46

It’s not easy to control. And so, one of the things that we would see is that the new authority with the central bank, as the UBI was raised, it’s very important that because that UBI is now signalling new demand, that firms and individuals be able to borrow, to increase capacity to meet that demand. And we don’t want the cost of that borrowing to go up. And so what we would want is for individual banks on a case by case basis, under guidelines, making decisions to say, well, you’re asking for this loan to help increase our capacity to meet the basic needs of our citizens. So you’re going to get this at no extra cost. But if you’re borrowing for other, say, nonessential purposes, then we want that borrowing to be reduced to free up resources to shift across to meeting more basic needs. And so the cost for you to borrow is going to go up. Now, this is a whole different way of thinking about it. It’s applying a premium on top of a set of loans rather than increasing the base, which is what we do with the cash room.

And so let’s take an example of how that could work, say in housing. At the moment, housing prices go up and the bank starts to worry, we’re into an inflationary period, we’ve got to crunch it and increase interest rates. That increases interest rates for everybody, including the poor little guy who’s got his highly productive business, but now it’s pushing him on the margin, when really all we want to do is we want to increase the supply of houses and reduce the price pressures in the housing market. And the way to do that is very simple, to say, well, if you’re going to borrow for an existing home, you’re going to have to pay an extra margin, and that margin won’t go to the bank. It will go to the central bank. It’s there purely to dissuade you from borrowing for an existing home. We’re not going to charge anything extra on the cost to create a new home because that’s what we want. We want new homes built. And so what it does is it depresses the price of existing homes, in favour of new builds.

And so again, this is I guess, outside the whole UBI debate. But again, we would see that treating the money as an essential part of the driver of economic activity, and making specific decisions about what it is that we as a society want. We want, for example, basic needs met. And we want houses built to meet accommodation needs. And so we ought to be able to make those high-level targets and aims, but leave then market to sort out where it’s done and how it’s done and what’s provided based purely on the availability of funds made at specific interest rates under those guidelines.

What I’m talking about here I don’t think is entirely necessary for the UBI to be put in place as a starting small and growing it, because we can do that, whatever happens in the broader economy, because at any point, we can stop increasing. So we might, under normal circumstances, not get to the poverty line, but we’ll get somewhere. If we then begin to think about how else we can manage this broader economy to rebalance the inflow from borrowing and the UBI, then I think we can get to that poverty level with maintaining full employment, maintaining full economic activity without high inflation.

And we’ve got plenty of time to sort of sort through. We are aiming for, we would like to see a government, not in this Parliament, but three or four years’ time at the beginning of the next Parliament, agree to implement it. And that might be 2025. And it wouldn’t be fully implemented until 2030. So in that intervening period to then discuss these other mechanisms to refine them and test them and talk them through. So we don’t want to hold up the UBI until we’ve sorted out all these other problems, because we think that the low-risk way of implementing it should address concerns regardless of what the final decisions are.

Gene Tunny  55:21

Right. Okay. Look, that’s given me a lot to think about, Michael. Yeah. Now did this issue, did this idea of yours of, well, you have to intervene in bank lending, so you’re trying to control the growth of the money supply by… You need to increase the cost of borrowing for… You’re saying that you’ll just have that limited to borrowing for existing property. Now, that’s a lot of the borrowing that does occur. Right. But then you’d say that you would have it that they wouldn’t be able to… I’m just trying to think about how this would work in practice. I mean, are you saying that there’s a particular interest rate you have to lend to people who want to build a new house or buy a new house?

Michael Haines  56:14

So the market, whatever the cash rate is at the moment, there is a market rate for lending. And so the idea is that you don’t interfere with that, that what you do then is simply say, well, we want to discourage certain types of lending and borrowing, because it’s not achieving our overall economic objective. Our overall economic objective is, A, to meet our basic needs. And we want business focused on doing that. So it’s not a socialist method of providing the goods and services. It’s simply targeting the money to drive the market.

And so we’re saying that, yeah, we would need to have banks be given some guidelines. And they only need to be broad guidelines about the types of lending we want to promote and the types of lending we want to discourage. And then seeing what happens in the market, that if interest rates increased by an extra margin, that then goes to the Reserve Bank. If those interest rates start to really negatively impact the economy, just like increasing interest rates do anyway, at some point, you will then say, okay, well, that’s enough, we’re not going to do any more, we’ve achieved as much as we can do, because to go any further now might end up pushing us into recession. And in fact, our feeling is that the Reserve Bank is never going to get it right, we are going to go through these cycles that we already have. They’ll push it too far. It’ll start to go into recession.

But with the UBI, we can make that a very shallow recession, just like we did with JobKeeper. we put the money into the people. It keeps them going and keeps the economy going. So we will still have swings and roundabouts. But they should be less severe than we’ve seen in the past using the UBI as a floor.

Gene Tunny  58:33

Hmm, that’s an interesting concept. I’d like to just look at it a bit more closely and think about how’d it all work. I mean, I think you’ve got the right idea. It started off low, and you’d experiment with it, just to see how it actually works in in practice. I mean, my natural inclination is, against intervening in the banks in that way to say, well, we think you should be doing that lending rather than this other lending, because who’s the… The bank should be making that decision based on what it thinks is sensible? It should be looking at, well, can the person actually afford this loan? Are we going to get our money back? And they should be charging for that based on the cost of their funds, right?

Michael Haines  59:38

So what you say is true, Gene, all of that process should still happen. The difference is that instead of the cost of funds being pushed up from the bottom, across all lending, it would be added to on the top, so the banks will still be making the same margin that they would have, because instead of having to pay a higher cost of funds, their cost of funds won’t have changed, they will be making the same decision to lend to the same people. But the person who is borrowing will now have to factor in that in addition to paying the bank’s interest, I’ve now got to pay this extra margin. And that will dissuade some people from borrowing. If it dissuades some people from borrowing, that means that there is less money that is being created through the banking system going into the economy. Now, that is what we want, because we are at the same time putting money into the economy through the UBI. And there should simply be over time, a shift in productive capacity from spending more on basics and less on whatever else would have been done.

So it is a policy decision of society to say, yes, we want everybody in our society to have their basic needs met, as a priority for any other things that money might be spent on. And the reason is, because we have now created this wonderful system of property rights money and paid work, which is delivering huge value for us. But in its design, at the moment, it is forcing millions of people into poverty. And we don’t want that. So it is a policy decision. Right. And once we make that decision, I believe the economy will chug on even better than it has, because you’ve now got a demand being expressed that was previously latent. And that’s bad for the people who miss out on the goods and services. It’s bad for the businesses who could meet that demand. And ultimately, it’s bad for society.

So yeah, look, we recognise that this is not going to be a simple discussion, but hoping over the next three years to get one of the major parties at least, if not both, to begin to seriously examine it with a view to, as we said, implementing it, not in the upcoming parliament, but the one after, and that taking this slow approach should make people feel comfortable that it is a pretty low-risk strategy for what potentially could be massive, massive benefits.

Gene Tunny  1:02:45

Right. Okay. So I’ve got two more questions, and then we might wrap up, just on the cost of it. And you talk about this authority. And I think you’re suggesting that this could be off budget. Now, have you had any advice on this, or have you talked to any statisticians about this issue? Because it just seems to me that this is effectively government spending, this is a transfer payment, and therefore, under the guidelines from the IMF, on government finance statistics, it should strictly be counted as government spending. So have you thought about that? Do you have any advice on that?

Michael Haines  1:03:35

You’re right, this hasn’t been an issue, up until now. And so there isn’t a neat place to put it. But the way I try to characterise it was to say, look, new money is created under the banking system, under the auspices of the Reserve Bank, and the other banking authorities. And so it’s government regulated, but the money when it’s created, goes to individuals who spend it. And that money, even though it’s created under the auspices of the government, is not treated as government spending, because it isn’t government spending, it’s spending by individuals. And the same thing here that what we’re doing is that we’re reducing the amount of money that is spent by individuals through bank borrowings and increasing the money spent by individuals through direct payments to them of new money. So it’s not transferred, it’s not come out of tax. It’s not come out of anybody. It is just like the bank lending new money, but it’s now going to everybody to meet their basic needs.

And so this does require a different categorization, a different way of thinking. And you’re right, probably as things stand, people will struggle, Gene, with coming to grips with that. But yeah, if we don’t regard bank lending as government spending, why should we regard spending by individuals who are not being directed by the government, it’s not supplying government goods and services, it’s not coming out of the hands of taxpayers, it is new money created by the Reserve Bank, just like it’s new money created by the banks for the borrowers.

Gene Tunny  1:05:26

Okay, I can tell you what the economists will argue. And I mean, I don’t necessarily want to be negative about this, because I’m trying to be open minded. But what they will argue is that how you’re paying for this in part is through an inflation tax. So that’s one way that you would be paying for that, because there’s this, you know, there’s the money creation, and in the long term that will be inflationary. And so there’s a transfer of resources from between households, because with the inflation, that’s going to be reducing the value of money holdings of other households in the economy. That’s why economists I think would argue that there is a redistribution and it’s being paid for by an inflation tax. So I think that’s what they would come back with. They would just argue it is effectively… It’s similar to government, a government transfer payment.

Michael Haines  1:06:39

And you’re right, to the extent that it is inflationary. But as you would know, we’re looking for some amount of inflation, maybe 2 to 3%, in order to maintain a sort of a forward-looking economy. And we’re also looking for, 2 to 3 to 4% growth. And that amount of money has to be to support that inflation target and that growth. New money has to get into the economy. And so at the moment, it’s coming in virtually all through bank lending, through newly created money, driving additional activity. And so what we’re saying is that, yes, there would be a redistribution then, not out of the past earnings or the past wealth. So we’re not taking it away from your earning capacity, or out of the wealth that you have. What we would be doing is shifting the ability of some people to borrow and get new money versus the payment directly to people without borrowing. And so that certainly will result in a shift in economic activity. But it’s a prospective shift. It’s not a past shift or a current shift, because you’re restricting people’s ability to borrow for the future.

And so it is a slightly different view. But even if that view isn’t accepted, then we would be arguing that the amount of inflation is not excessive, if given our $100 billion a year net payment, is the total amount being put into the economy every year, which is about 5% of our GDP. But beyond all of that, we are suggesting that by starting small, we don’t have to theorise, we don’t have to guess, we can actually see what happens. And if through automation and through other adaptive means the supply chain shifts to provide extra basics, we might find that that extra capacity is generated over five years without changing anything, that the economy will continue to grow with people borrowing for new housing and everything happening, and people won’t even notice the shift because the economy is continuing to operate at full capacity.

Gene Tunny  1:09:44

Right. Okay. Well, I think, yeah, it would be an experiment. I mean, I’m not entirely sure what would happen. I mean, I’ve got my suspicions of how it would play out, but I think it’s something that you would want… To get the best evidence, you really need to implement it, right? This is something that would be very difficult to model. And so, yeah, so I think that’s good you want to start out small just on the bank lending. The other point I’d make is that the bank lending, as you know, that it is accompanied by a requirement that it’s paid back by the household. The money supply expands with the bank lending, and then as households pay it back, then that’s pulling it back in.

Michael Haines  1:10:42

It’s the net of advances versus repayments that actually drives the growth. So over time, if you’ve got more new lending than you have repayments, you’ve got a net extra going in. And so we would see that people are still going to borrow for homes. They’re going to borrow for all sorts of reasons, as they do now. And we don’t want to stop anything any more than the banks, the central bank now looks at housing prices and other prices and says, look, things are heating up too much, we’ve got to quiet it down. So the same approach would exist except hopefully a bit more targeted, and with an additional tool, which is the UBI to keep lifting the floor up, so that we don’t send the economy into the dire depths that sometimes occurs when the central banks get it wrong, and they go too far. So we’re not changing that approach. We’re changing the way in which the tweaks are done, to some extent.

Gene Tunny  1:11:53

Okay. Now, finally, yeah, there are actually two things I wanted to sort of ask. One was about poverty. And you were mentioning, several million in poverty. I’m interested in where you get that that impression from. I mean, I know that there are certainly households that are doing it tough. Yeah, I just want to, because I know a lot of people will go, oh, hang on, there are a lot of… The problem with our poverty definition is that is relative and, and we’re often over-counting the number of people who are in poverty. So I’m just interested in that. And second, did you think about whether this sort of thing could be funded with a wealth tax or inheritance tax, or are you just against that sort of thing?

Michael Haines  1:12:37

Well, I’ll answer the last one, at least. Look, if somebody can get it up with a carbon tax, a wealth tax, income tax, GST, that’s great. Our concern is that if we go that route, you are setting up oppositions and arguments and having a fight that really is unnecessary, because if we do it, as we’re suggesting, and starting small, we don’t have to say to anybody, other than possibly some borrowers, that it’s going to impact you negatively at all. There’s going to be a lot of people who it’s going to impact positively. But we’re not going to have any negative impact. So we’re removing that fight. But yeah, I’d be happy if anybody can get up a tax to partly fund it, then that means that there is a less pressure on managing the money supply through bank lending. So yeah, it’s not out of the question, but it’s not vital.

As for the poverty stats, I’ll send you the link. I haven’t got it on the top of my head, but it’s come through I think, might have been Anglicare or Uniting or somewhere who are looking at the stats based on their data, for people who are looking for charity and support. As I’ve said, it’s mostly single women with kids, aged, disabled, they have family who are caring for them without any pay, and people who are literally between jobs, while they have no work, they’ve got no savings, and they’ve got no family support. And when you add up all those people at any…

This is why it’s a system problem and not a moral failing because the people in that group constantly change. The kids grow up. The disabled age. The aged die. The unpaid carers and the jobless find work, but they’re replaced by a new cohort continually. So despite 30 years of continuous growth up until the pandemic, that percentage of population has hardly budged. So all those factors show that it is a system problem. And the UBI tackles that problem at root, by providing the money to allow people to express their needs in the market. So it’s not a socialist ideology driving it. It’s a market ideology, because in order for people to participate in the market, they need money.

Gene Tunny  1:15:36

Yeah. Now, you know, there are certainly people who are falling through the cracks of our existing welfare system. I mean, just look at the growing number of homeless people in Australia. So yeah, certainly people who are–

Michael Haines  1:15:52

I mean, who could live on, what is it, 43 bucks a day?

Gene Tunny  1:15:55

So we’re talking about the JobSeeker payment, are we?

Michael Haines  1:15:58

Yeah. I mean, who can live on that? I mean, it’s just nonsense. But as we said, there is a rationale for it. It’s not because people in government are cruel by nature. It’s evidenced when the JobSeeker supplement was being paid, the employers are saying, hang on, I’ve got young kids and others here, they’re not prepared to work, because they’re getting all this money. And so you drop the money, and now they suddenly are looking for a job. And that’s all rational behaviour. It’s rational behaviour by the people who want to stay on the benefits rather than work. And it’s rational behaviour by the government to say, well, we’ve got to create these at poverty level. But what it does indirectly is push all of these people who can’t do paid work into poverty. And that is an indictment on our current system.

And we can solve it, we’ve got the resources, we’ve got the means of creating the money, we’ve got a means to manage the way in which the money goes into the economy without creating excessive inflation. And we can keep the economy at full capacity, which is in the interest of business, by allowing over time a shift in the pattern of production to meet the new needs that are evidenced by the UBI.

Gene Tunny  1:17:26

Okay, I mean, what I would say in response to that, Michael, is that that is your hope for the policy. I mean, as you’ve mentioned, you’d roll this out, you’d start off small, and then we’d test whether that would be the case or not, because I mean, economists, as I’ve mentioned, they’re going to be concerned that, well, this is inflationary, this is modern monetary theory.

Michael Haines  1:17:53

Not all of it I agree 100% with, Gene. If we can do it slowly, then there should be no reason why. In effect, what we’ve had is lots of pilots around the world where it’s been focused on a particular group of people or a particular region. And it’s been set at a level which from day one, is regarded as adequate for whatever the purposes of the policy are. But people look at it and said, well you put that across the whole of the country and who knows what’s happening.

So by starting small, we are effectively doing a proper pilot at a national level, to see what are the impacts. And at a very low level, there are probably zero negative and plenty of good impacts. And as we increase, we can determine, are the negatives becoming unsustainable here? And if they are, then we better halt it, keep the UBI at the level, whatever we’ve reached, and look at well, can we measure these problems and go forward, or is that it, we’ve gone as high as we can go? So we’re not taking away any welfare. So whatever level we get to is better than it was. We’ve not increased anybody taxes. So again, there’s been no negative as a result of that step. And up until that stage two, we’re not even saying to the banks to change their lending practices. We’re not changing any of the interest rate margins, or adding any extra margin on top, so we’re just paying the benefit and seeing what happens.

Gene Tunny  1:19:41

Michael, any final words before we conclude?

Michael Haines  1:19:45

I think you’ve exhausted me. I’ve been able to give you something of an insight. But there are a series of I think about seven articles that I’ve now written on Medium, and I’ll send you a link to the first article, and each article then links to the next, which hopefully is a bit more coherent than I’ve managed in our discussion, having lost my train of thought a few times, but yeah, the articles ought to spell out what I’ve been trying to explain here. And yes, I really look forward to hearing from your audience, their feedback, and, you know, whatever concerns that they might have. I will certainly be looking to take them on board and see how we might address them. And maybe another day, Gene, in the future we look at those, and come back and have a talk about it.

Gene Tunny  1:20:50

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I know there’s a lot of interest among listeners in this topic. And it was suggested by one of my listeners, and then I had been on and then I’ve had other people get in touch. And I know that there certainly is a lot of interest. So yes, sorry if I’ve exhausted you, but I wanted to chat about it, because it’s an interesting proposal, and it’s innovative. And you have thought about the implications of it. So now, while I might disagree on whether, you know, this would be a good thing to do or not, I understand that you actually have thought about it, and in your judgement, this is the right way to do it. Now, I think that’s good you’ve thought through the implications of it and what you’d have to do to manage it. And that was the discussion we had about bank lending. So look, it’s given me a lot to think about. And if you’re listening in the audience, and you’ve got thoughts on the proposal, then please get in touch and I’ll pass them on to Michael. And Michael, as you suggested we could possibly talk again?

Michael Haines  1:21:57

That would be really appreciated, Gene, after we get the feedback from your listeners, because that will be valuable for me as well, because as I said, I’m now beginning to talk to people in the political parties, and whatever views your listeners express, I’ve gotten to encounter in those broader discussions. As they say, forewarned is forearmed. So I really, really appreciate the opportunity to chat with you, Gene. And thank you.

Gene Tunny  1:22:33

Oh, pleasure. Okay. Michael Haines, thanks so much for your time. Really appreciate it.

Michael Haines  1:22:38

Thank you, Gene. All the best. Bye.

Gene Tunny  1:22:42

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 EP137 guest Michael Haines and to the show’s audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode. 

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 PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

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 PodcastsApple PodcastsSpotify, 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

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.

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. 

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 PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Investing for success w/ Paul Mladjenovic, author of Stock Investing for Dummies

Paul Mladjenovic, CFP is the author or co-author of several dummies guides on investing, including Stock Investing for Dummies and Investing in Gold and Silver for Dummies. Paul shares his views on what makes for successful investing with show host Gene Tunny in episode 133 of Economics Explored. They discuss what types of companies to look for, an often unappreciated benefit of investing in gold and silver, and what Paul thinks about real estate and crypto assets.

You can listen to the conversation using the embedded player below or via Google PodcastsApple PodcastsSpotify, and Stitcher, among other podcast apps.

This episode contains general information only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Please consult a financial planning professional for advice specific to your circumstances.

About this episode’s guest – Paul Mladjenovic

Paul Mladjenovic, CFP, is a certified financial planner practitioner, writer, and speaker. He has helped people with their financial and business concerns since 1981. You can learn more about him at ravingcapitalist.com. He has authored or co-authored several popular Dummies guides on investing and affiliate marketing. You can learn more about Paul and his online courses at https://www.ravingcapitalist.com/

Links relevant to the conversation

Some of Paul’s books mentioned this episode:

Stock Investing For Dummies

Investing in Gold & Silver For Dummies

Transcript of EP133 – Investing for success w/ Paul Mladjenovic

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.

Gene Tunny  00:01

Coming up on Economics Explored.

Paul Mladjenovic  00:04

The bottom line is, Gene, is that healthy quality companies will keep zigzagging upward no matter what you throw at them.

Gene Tunny  00:13

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 133, on investing for success. My guest this episode is the author of several of those yellow dummies guide that you may have seen in bookstores, Paul Mladjenovic. He’s written Stock Investing for Dummies, High Level Investing for Dummies, and Investing in Gold and Silver for Dummies, among other books. Paul Mladjenovic, CFP is a certified financial planner, practitioner, writer and speaker. He has helped people with their financial and business concerns since 1981. You can learn more about him at ravingcapitalist.com.

The usual disclaimer applies to this episode. This is for general information only, and nothing in this episode should be interpreted as financial or investment advice. Please consult a financial planner for advice specific to your circumstances.

Please check out the show notes for links to materials mentioned in this episode and for any clarifications. Also, check out our website, economicsexplored.com. If you sign up as an email subscriber, you can download my e-book, Top 10 Insights from Economics. So please consider getting on the mailing list. If you have any thoughts on what Paul or what I have to say about investing in this episode, then please let me know. You can either record a voice message via SpeakPipe – see the link in the show notes – or you can email me via contact@economicsexplored.com. I’d love to hear from you. Righto, now for my conversation with Paul Mladjenovic on investing for success. Thanks to my audio engineer, Josh Crotts, for his assistance in producing this episode. I hope you enjoy it. Paul Mladjenovic, welcome to the programme.

Paul Mladjenovic  02:20

Thank you kindly. What a pleasure to be on.

Gene Tunny  02:22

Yes. Thanks, Paul. Yes, it’s good to be chatting with you today about investing. You’ve written several books on investing. One of your books I’ve been reading is Stock Investing for Dummies. I’ve been getting a lot out of that. I think it’s a really great book and has a lot of sensible things to say that are consistent with economics. Really, really positive about that book. I’d like to ask, just to start off with, what is your general approach to investing? Does that vary over the lifecycle? Would you be able to take us through that place?

Paul Mladjenovic  03:04

Oh, absolutely. First of all, as you know, probably one of the most important foundations of investing is good economics. You’re on the right topic in many respects. If people make good choices, and with some economic reasoning, they could prosper, among the many choices you can make out there. And it also depends on many other things, such as politics and that kind of economic environment, etc. For me, I prefer looking through things through the prism of value and fundamental analysis.

Like many folks, when the people who make sense about this, whether it’s economics from that gentleman who’s behind you there, Mr. Friedman, or in my case, somebody more in the narrow vertical of stock investing, someone like Benjamin Graham, who was like the father of value investing. And I think it’s an important concept, because many things have to make sense. In economics, once you understand the basics of your own chequebook and household budget, it’s not that far-fetched to understand choosing good companies to invest in, etc.

I’ve been teaching about investing since the 1980s. I find that if you have common sense and have some basic of economics and grasping long-term success in stock investing and other assets as well, it’s not that difficult. You are much more proficient. It’s when you understand that. Common sense and value, it goes a long way in the world of investing.

Gene Tunny  04:34

Okay, so you’re looking for companies that are reliable over the long term. Am I reading that right?

Paul Mladjenovic  04:46

Absolutely. Actually, I’ll give you a few points from my investing class that I love. You’re a very astute man, and the people in many of my classes, many of them are beginners or beginning intermediates, and the first thing I tell them is, select… I say, remember two words, when you’re choosing your investments, whether it’s directly in stocks, or indirectly through ETFs and mutual funds, two words, human need. Think about all the products and services people will keep on buying, no matter how good or bad the economy is. And I think that especially for beginners who are looking for long-term success, human need will really, I think, crystallise it very much for folks moving forward.

For example, some of the greatest companies in the last 20 years that have been chugging along, no matter what, with the crises and market crashes and booms and busts and all the rest, companies that are profitable, involved in things such as food, water, beverage, utilities, etc. This is where you start. You start with human need before you start going into other pursuits, such as growth investing, or speculating, or everything else for that matter. The first thing is get to the right category.

The second thing is, I look for companies that are profitable and have low debt. Those may sound common sense to maybe folks like you and I, but when I’ve seen the kind of selections people have made for their portfolios over the last, I don’t know, ever since I’ve started teaching, my eyes bug out. People go for the flashy stocks, big names, glamour headlines, and that kind of thing. Those stocks may go up or down in a short term. But if they don’t have star power, in terms of their fundamentals, good profitability that they’ve done year in and year out profitable… Very important.

To me, profit isn’t just a cornerstone of a good stock. I can make the argument that it’s the cornerstone of a successful economy. I was born in a communist country. They obliterated the concept of profit, which means you obliterate the incentive to produce. That’s why you invest in companies because these produce goods and services. That’s the hallmark of a successful company, so profitability.

Again, anybody in our audience, you look at your own budget, what do you look at? If your income is greater than your expenses, you’re doing fine, especially whether you’re a billion-dollar company, or you’re a household budget. That’s one aspect of it. The second one is I like companies that have good balance sheet. And again, assets exceeding liabilities, it doesn’t have to be complicated. Many people think when you’re looking at stock investing, you have to have a degree from the Wall Street school of analysis, but no. A lot of them have gone wrong, because they went beyond the scope of good economics and good common sense.

Those are the things I look for, human need, profitability, do they have good balance sheets, in other words, making sure they’re not overloaded with debt, etc. Of course, they have to be in a free market economy, because obviously, the free market is a very important and very powerful part of any successful economy out there. Beyond that, I look at other things as well, does it pay dividends and so forth.

A lot of these things, obviously, I detail that in my book, Stock Investing for Dummies. I try to also crystallise that in my courses online, etc, whenever I’m doing live programmes or recorded, because I think people, I don’t know, to me, the more they understand about good investing and their own situation, the better choices they make, not only for their portfolios, but also when they walk into the voting booth, believe it or not. I feel that’s part of it. People forget that during the Great Depression of the 1930s, people forget that many people unwittingly voted for the Great Depression, because they voted for policies,  because they didn’t understand economics, and those in turn, created just wretched conditions in many respects. But anyway, on to your other points, my friend.

Gene Tunny  09:09

I’m interested in this concept you mentioned, value investing. That’s contrasted with what’s called growth investing, if I remember correctly. This is one of the things you write about in the book. Would you be able to explain what those differences are, please, Paul?

Paul Mladjenovic  09:28

Well, value investing means that you’re not going to be putting your money into a company that’s overvalued right now. And how do we mean about valuation? You see, when people are buying a stock, they’re buying the company, and if they’re buying a stock that’s very overvalued, then you have less chance for it to grow or do well over the long term. You’ve seen that happen very frequently. I look for something like is it a fair valuation, because I can look at a company and see things like its book value, the price-to-earnings ratio. Again, I’m happy to explain all of these to folks that need it. But there are some very key ratios that tell you if you’re paying too much.

How often have people saw a company that was say losing money, but it had a very hot sexy technology, people kept on bidding up the stock, bidding up the stock, and all of a sudden, you’re paying a fortune for a company that’s not making a profit, which means that the moment the economy starts to get a little bit worrisome, unstable, recessionary, these are among the first that that see that stocks fall. If people are paying a fair amount for the company itself…

Here in 2022, it isn’t like the way it was when I first started investing. You had to go to the library and dig through 27-pound books just to find some of the right numbers. But now you’re online and on your smartphone, and you can find out the key numbers and the key metrics very quickly. And so it should be easier than ever before. But I think people get waylaid because they see all the financial commentators and everybody is… There’s that sales pitch from Wall Street, etc. But my thing is, you always go back, the way you look at the ingredients of a good recipe, you look at the ingredients of a good company, and then say to yourself… One of the things I mentioned was the price-earnings ratio. I like to find a price-earnings ratio of under 25, because that’s a fair valuation. But people buy these stocks where… Would you like me to briefly just explain the P/E ratio for the audience?

Gene Tunny  11:36

Yes, please. Yes, I think that would be great, please, Paul. And yeah, what it roughly means.

Paul Mladjenovic  11:44

The price-earnings ratio tries to make a relationship between the stock, what you’re buying, and the essence of the company. The essence of the company is its profit, of course. And what we do is take a look at the price per share and the earnings per share.

Let’s say for example, you have a company that makes a million dollars net profits, and they have a million shares outstanding. Well, that’s a $1-per-share profit. The earnings per share is $1. Okay, so we can understand it. A million shares, a million dollars. It’s $1 earnings per share. Great. But now, let’s say that company’s stock is $10. Alrighty, so basically, you’re paying $10 for the stock, and you’re paying for $1 of earnings. So that’s a 10-to-one ratio. But that’s a P/E ratio of 10. Very fair valuation. Of course, if the stock is $15 or $20, you’re still in the ballpark. I think that’s a good price that you’re paying for it. In that case, if it’s 15, you’re paying $15 per stock, and you’re getting $1 of earnings.

What happens is this. If everyone’s excited about the stock, and they bid that stock all the way up, but the earnings are still down here, then you start getting into dangerous territory where you’re over, that there is an overvaluation, the price is much higher than what the company has in basic intrinsic worth. Back when the Internet stocks crashed, many of those P/E ratios were not 15 or 20 or whatever. They were north of 100. Some of them were over 1000, which means you’re paying an awful lot of money for the company. When it’s a nosebleed territory, then it’s in greater danger of a pullback.

The reason why they bid up the stock is that they’re assuming, oh, that’s a great company, the earnings are going to come in. They’re assuming that they’re buying up the stock, that the earnings are going to eventually rise, but you don’t know that. You’re basically speculating. You’re buying stocks today, hoping that tomorrow or next year, they can have a sensational profit, but that doesn’t always materialise. So at that case, you’re speculating. You’re not investing. Investing means you look at the reality of the moment, what you’re paying for, and the actual key components that a company are in a good price range, a good valuation, and the price is closer to it. Then it’s less risky.

I prefer people starting off with value investing, because it brings out much of the risk to begin with, because if you’re paying a lot of money for a stock, then the risk is, what happens if the earnings don’t materialise? What if they start to have losses? What if the economy slows down, and 100 other variables. Then that stock gets up here. It could easily be in bubble territory, pop and come back down and you’re sitting on a loser. That’s the issue with this. You want to go for valuation early on.

It’s like if you buy a dozen eggs, if they’re on sale for $1.99 for a dozen eggs, it’s a lot cheaper than if you were going to pay 10 or 20 bucks for the same dozen eggs. The eggs don’t change, but the price in the relationship does matter. This is among the things I emphasise, hopefully, throughout the book, and to casual readers everywhere. Hopefully that are not that casual with their money.

Gene Tunny  15:03

Yes, yes. I was just checking the P/E ratio for Tesla at the moment. I’m just looking at this one site. It says it’s 193.24, March 22, 2022. That’s a P/E ratio well in excess of–

Paul Mladjenovic  15:24

Exactly. Now, I have no problem with people investing in that type of stock. But they need to tell themselves that they’re not investing. They’re speculating. Could Tesla stock keep going up? Sure. Could it crash? Yes. And if there’s a slowdown out there, and less people are buying automobiles, and that puts a drag on the entire automotive industry, that’s going to put a drag on Tesla as well. Plus, it doesn’t pay a dividend. It’s not that you’re getting paid to hold the stock. For me, that’s a speculative choice. Nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with people speculating. But they need to know that there’s a very material difference between an investment and a speculation. And they need to know that.

Gene Tunny  16:06

If my portfolio was heavy with stocks like Tesla, I would be a growth investor, rather than a value investor. Is that how I should be–

Paul Mladjenovic  16:21

If they all have that kind of valuation, you’re hoping for growth. But the thing is, in reality, you’re speculating, because you’re expecting a stock with a 200 P/E ratio, that you’re hoping that it goes to 250 or higher, translation meaning that their income is coming in and the stock price is going up. They’re bidding it up, and that way you’re holding it, and your stock went up. But you don’t know that. To me, there’s a greater risk in those kinds of stocks. But the thing is this. Fortunately, it’s not all or nothing. There’s nothing wrong with having a few aggressive speculations in your portfolio, but they better not make the majority of the foundation of your portfolio, otherwise you’ll be at risk, especially since when you juxtapose it today’s macro economic environment, it is riskier out there.

I don’t see anything here that’s going to say that a particular automotive company are going to double the number of their cars they’re going to sell next year, when there’s a lot of debt out there. Interest rates are rising. A lot of people buying automobiles. Some of them, fine, you could buy it all cash, well, good for you, I cheer you on. But the majority of the market out there would tend to be borrowing money. And if interest rates go up, then they may not choose that Tesla. They might choose a competing model for now. I think there’s a lot of fragility in today’s economy, if a lot of these things continue the way they’ve been going. I was expecting inflation and everything else over a year ago, and it’s materialising now. Gene, from what I know about you, you’re a smart guy. You were probably there even before me, and hopefully people have benefited from some of your insights months ago.

Gene Tunny  18:10

Our mutual friend Darren Brady Nelson and I were chatting about this, definitely last year, the potential inflation, just because of, as you would have seen, all of the money growth that we’ve been experiencing associated with quantitative easing, and the housing credit boom that we’ve had in here in Australia, and then in other countries. So yeah, certainly something we’ve been expecting. I’d like to ask all about the P/E ratio again. Clearly, it’s relevant to particular stocks. Are you also looking at it from the whole market point of view? There’s a measure of the P/E ratio for the whole market is in there. Is it the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio?

Paul Mladjenovic  18:58

Exactly. Whenever I see that, what is the cumulative P/E ratio for the S&P 500, for example, which is considered obviously a major yardstick and a major barometer of the general health of the stock market. I haven’t looked at it lately, but I do know that it is elevated. It is higher than it should be the last time I looked. That is also a cautionary tale.

For me, because I like to invest in human needs stocks, they tend to have a lower P/E ratio. And so that’s a measure of safety for me. Not the only one, but certainly one of the primary ones. The other side I like to look at, again, especially when I’m dealing with beginners or beginning intermediates, one of my criteria is also they should be investing in stocks that are paying dividends. We call them stock dividends, but they’re really company dividends, because a dividend that’s being paid out by a company. Obviously, if it’s a successful company, the dividend tends to rise, over an extended period of time, like years and decades. And it’s a sign of health. It’s a clear, tangible measurement of the company’s financial success. If they’re having a dividend that’s rising every year, that’s a good sign. So I like that.

And the other point of it is too is that whenever there’s a market crash or a major market event and stocks go down, you’ll find out that dividend stocks tend to be among those that tend to recover a little bit sooner. For me, if my stock goes up or down 10 or 20%, but my dividends are coming in, quarter in, quarter out, I’m not that worried about it. For many reasons, including in family accounts, we talk about having the cash flow coming in. I have clients and students that I remember from decades ago, that today, they’re getting annual dividend payouts greater than their initial stock investment from decades ago. It’s gotta make you feel good.

If a stock falls, then what happens is that… For example, again, using a simple example, if I have a $20 stock, and it’s paying a $1 dividend, that’s the equivalent yield of 5%. 5% of 20 is $1. All right. So let’s say that today, the market is crashing big time, and my $20 stock went to $10 a share. All right. Obviously, I’m not happy. But the thing is, now that $10 stock, if it’s still paying a $1 dividend – again, I’m looking at the health of the company, it’s making a profit or whatever – if it’s still paying $1 dividend and the stock is $10 now, that tells me that the dividend yield at this moment would be 10%. That is a very attractive yield. So what happens is other investors will go in and bid it back up again. And so it has an easier time recovering.

The bottom line is, Gene, is that healthy, quality companies will keep zigzagging upward, no matter what you throw at them, whereas companies that are not financially stable, don’t have all the numbers, are losing money, they’re going to be zigzagging downward. So, which zigzag you want to be part of? You look at these things, because they’re not mysteries. This is public data.

Gene Tunny  22:18

Yeah, I think it’s great advice. And it’s consistent with what David Bahnsen recently told me when I chatted with him, and he was talking about his views on dividends. He’s very pro dividends. I think it’s also consistent with Warren Buffett, isn’t it? I mean, Warren Buffett looks for those companies that deliver reliable earnings over the long term. And in his day, I’m not sure if it’s still the case now, it was Geico, the Government Employees Insurance Company, and also Coca-Cola, I think. So those are the sort of dependable companies that… Not that I’m making any particular recommendations, but it’s those sort of companies, I’m guessing.

Paul Mladjenovic  23:06

And by the way, the human needed investing, as much as I love it for beginners, etc, in the generic sense, also it tends to be a great approach and strategy during inflationary times. The last year and a half, especially with my end with the Federal Reserve, printing up trillions, look, people forget that inflation is not the price of goods and services going up, it’s the value of money going down. When you over-produce something, and you have more units of it out there, chasing the same basket of goods and services, then don’t be surprised that the prices go up.

Plus, in addition, during the pandemic, and people were worried about their economic situations, etc. , when people are worried, and there’s anxiety, and there’s a declining or low consumer confidence, then people will not invest in their wants. They won’t spend on their wants. They’ll spend on their needs. They may want fancy whatever, trips and vacations and snazzy restaurants and so much more. But if the economy is contracting, and there’s more worry on the radar screen, and people are worried about their companies, their jobs, etc, then they’re going to shrink what they’re spending on that that is want-driven. And they will keep on buying things that are need-driven, so that they’re trying to adjust accordingly to the economic environment.

So all of a sudden, you start to think that those things that we do need, all of a sudden in an inflationary environment, it’s almost like they’ve switched hats to be more growth-oriented. You have found that in the last 3, 6, 9, 12 months, the things we’ve invested in that we needed, all of a sudden, they become spectacularly solid  things to put your money in. Grains, for example. I spoke to some of my students last year. I said, “If you’re investing in money, where it’s tied to things that are rising in price such as human need, and you’re talking about energy, gasoline, you’re talking about groceries, which means food and commodities, those things have performed very well.” So, in many cases, I tell people out there and yeah, yeah, good, you can keep complaining about inflation, but part of your action plan is to be invested in those things that benefit from inflation versus being hammered by inflation.

Gene Tunny  25:34

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

Female speaker  25:39

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  26:08

Now back to the show. Now with an action plan, Paul, I’d like to explore that, what that means for an individual or for a household, because we need to think about how diversified should your portfolio be, and then also how actively or passively you should manage it. Do you have views on those that you could take us through, please?

Paul Mladjenovic  26:35

Yeah. There’s the simple 80/20 rule, if you want. All things being equal, I’d love to see people put 80% of their foundational investment money into human need things, food, water, beverage, utilities. Again, it’s a very simple question. Ask yourself, what will people keep on buying, no matter how good or bad the economy is. If people are unemployed, they’re still going to eat, they’re still going to turn on their lights. And that’s where you should have your money, especially if you’re a beginner, and especially if these are worrisome times.

And I like the dividend portion, because then I know that, in many cases, especially many brokerage accounts, they give you the ability to reinvest the dividends. So even if you don’t need the money, if the stocks are down and contracting, the dividends will buy more of it. Then on the other side of it down the road, when you’re ready to have the money being sent home to you, it’d be good to know that over a period of years, and you started with 50 shares, now you have 75, 100, 150, and now their dividends are higher, plus there’s more shares, which means you’re going to have more money coming in to make yourself more financially secure in your later years.

A lot of stock investing, it doesn’t have to be mysterious or crazy. A lot of people think that to make the real big bucks got to be extra risky and extra speculative and extra growth-oriented. Well, that might be true with a portion of your money, but it shouldn’t be the bulk of your money. Absolutely. So 80% value to human need. And I’m saying this real time too, March 2022. And I think a lot of people’s experience with human need is bearing these points out. There, at least 80%. How’s that?

Gene Tunny  28:24

So yeah, 80% on investments–

Paul Mladjenovic  28:27

Of your investable money should be in human need things.It doesn’t have to be just stocks. There are ETFs. There’s actually excellent dividend ETFs, where they’re tied to human need and pay dividends. Again, I can’t get specific with this audience because I don’t know who I’m talking to. But everybody knows they can go on a search engine and find dividend ETFs. They can find ETFs.

For example, when the economy is doing very well, and everybody is flush with cash and they’re positive, then they might go for, I said wants, and that basically is a reference to consumer discretionary. When you have extra cash, what do you do? Fancier restaurants, vacation, take the missus out for the weekend somewhere, all good stuff. When you’re talking about a contracting or problematic economy and commensurate issues in the stock market, then you think consumer staples, that’s where a lot of those human needs are going to be.

There are ETFs that invest just in consumer staples or utilities. You don’t have to worry about trying to choose one winning stock. Why not a winning ETF or winning mutual funds? There’s a lot of sector mutual funds out there. There are food and beverage mutual funds. There are food and beverage ETFs. And these would make a lot of sense in today’s environment, for 2022 and probably for the remainder of this year, because I don’t see any spectacular rebound coming in the economy. And if they’re going to raise interest rates, because they’re fighting inflation, somebody’s going to win, somebody’s going to lose.

Right now, there’s people out there who have a lot of fixed bond. That bonds market is huge. You can have a spectacular problem with the bond market, because if there’s a lot of fixed debt, and interest rates are rising, what will people do? You want to get rid of your, whatever, 2.5% bond and buy a 5% bond? That’s fine, but then that means a lot of selling. And so in this environment, I tell people, if you are going to be in bonds, make sure they’re high-quality AAA, and that they’re adjustable rates. And that could be another component of your portfolio, if you want something diversified away from the stock market. Those are the kind of choices, AAA, high quality, and adjustable rates involved so that you’re not stuck. You don’t want to be stuck with a fixed interest rate, like say, 30-year bonds, and rates are going to be driven upward. That’s going to be like a hammer to the value of the bonds you’re currently holding. Okay, so adjustable rate, quality, AAA, if you can have that, that’s the kind you should have.

Gene Tunny  31:03

That’s 80%. There’s another 20%, is there?

Paul Mladjenovic  31:09

Yeah, exactly. If you’re ultra worried, and you don’t want growth, then maybe 20% should be an adjustable rate, high-quality bonds.

Gene Tunny  31:16

Oh, gotcha. Right. So that’s a really safe part of it.

Paul Mladjenovic  31:20

That’s a possibility, exactly. If you’re more growth-oriented, then put 20% into growth-oriented stocks or ETFs, again, depending on… See, the interesting thing is that investing and speculating can be something in a generic, but in many cases, it depends on the person involved. If I’m talking to somebody who’s a year or two from retirement, then you’d bet they’d have to be much more so into very secure things, human need, high-quality, adjustable rate bonds, money in the bank, low debt, and a few other features. That would be important. But if you’re talking to a 25-year-old, I’d still say, keep the bulk in your human need, but now you could put your money into growth-oriented things that are out there, some types of commodities, because inflation is pushing some of these things up. If people have seen the price of gasoline and wheat in recent months, then they get a good idea about the kind of things that grow in an inflation-driven environment, as we’re in right now.

Gene Tunny  32:18

Yeah. What are your thoughts on real estate, so both your own home and also investment properties? Do you have any thoughts on that? One of the challenges we’ve got in many advanced economies is just the very high cost of housing at the moment. And I’ve seen some commentators questioning whether buying your own home actually does make sense for a lot of young people. So yeah, I’m interested in your thoughts on that.

Paul Mladjenovic  32:48

First of all, obviously, owning your own home I think is fine. I see no problem with it. Obviously, I don’t argue with real estate folks. I know some people who will rent a cheap apartment, then they have their money and invested it and buy rental real estate. That’s fine. Some of this is a personal proclivity. Me, for example, I love real estate, but I don’t buy fixer uppers or other type of thing. My favourite type of real estate investing is true real estate investment trusts that I can buy with a few mouse clicks through my brokerage account. Those people who want to be beginners in the world of real estate, and you’re nodding your head so I think you generally agree, that I think real estate investment trusts is a great place for the beginners to be.

I like the idea that with a few mouse clicks I can get in, and a few mouse clicks, I can get out. The same rules of real estate apply when you’re talking about real estate investment trusts, REITs. You look at the type of real estate, and you look at the location, very important. For me, I like that there are a couple of hundred different REITs out there, certainly in the American market. I’m sure there’s more. I’m sure there’s some in your neck of the woods, etc. But REITs are a way that I can buy a few shares, whether it’s 5 shares, 50 shares, 100 shares, or more, I can participate in a real estate property, get my dividends, CD appreciation, but somebody else is… You have an executive team that’s managing all the properties and that’s their specialty. I prefer that.

Keep in mind, real estate investing, think about the types of real estate. Right now, in the last couple of years, I’ve told my students that I would avoid things like office building real estate investment trusts, because I think if the economy’s going to shrink, and you got pandemic residual issues, why do you want to be there?  I would be invested in REITs that are in the residential complex. For example, the last few years I’ve avoided like the plague shopping centre REITs, and instead I’ve been looking into REITs that specialise in data storage. They still pay dividends. And you see more movement there. There are REITs that are cell tower REITs. In other words, their property is cell towers. They pay good dividends. And cell towers won’t go out of style anytime soon. And if you have teenagers, you know what I mean.

Gene Tunny  35:23

That’s interesting. I’ll have to have a look at some of those. I wasn’t aware of those. That’s fascinating. Paul, can I ask you about gold and silver? You’ve written on gold and silver in the past.

Paul Mladjenovic  35:36

I’ve written two books on precious metals. And I’ve been very bullish on gold and silver and other metals over the last few years. And I feel that when everything finally shakes out, I see no reason why gold and silver couldn’t be at new market highs in the coming months. I have associates of mine who feel that these things will go to new multiples of where they’re at now. That remains to be seen. But the bottom line is, I do think that gold and silver will be appreciating for a variety of reasons. And I think they’re part of a portfolio that’s really…

Let me tell you, I can give one important reason why everybody in your audience should own at least a little bit of gold and silver. Are you ready? I’m going to give you a reason that you won’t hear very often. And by the way, if your financial advisor talks you out of them, tell them to call me. And this is what I meant. Okay, so anybody within the sound of my voice, remember the following phrase, counterparty risk. Counterparty risk. That’s the number one reason why you should have some. I’m not asking you to head for the hills and live in a cave and have a tonne of either one. No, not really. You should be diversified away from the risks of paper assets.

Me, I love gold. I love stock investing. I love the paper assets, definitely. But I favour gold and silver, the physical, because gold and silver are two assets that  are among the few assets on the landscape of choices, of investment choices that do not have a counterparty risk. You talk to your financial advisors about this, see if they know this point. It’s very important. Years ago, I remember I used to even teach financial advisors, and I think this is an important factor.

What is counterparty risk? See, here’s the thing. If you invest in any type of paper assets, you’re undergoing counterparty risk. For example, if I buy stock, the counterparty risk is the performance of the company. In other words, counterparty risk means that if you invest in an asset, the value of this asset is directly dependent upon the promise or performance of the counterparty. If I buy stock, and that company is doing great, my stock will be fine, I’m sure. At the moment that counterparty fails, falters, goes into debt, goes bankrupt, what’s going to happen to the value of my stock at that point? You follow? There is counterparty risk with stocks.

Bonds, perfect example of counterparty risk. If I invest in a bond, the first risk I think of is that, will the payer of this bond pay back the principal and the interest as stipulated in bond agreements, to me as the bond holder. There’s counterparty risk there. What if that entity defaults? Many times in history, especially during bad economic times, people have defaulted on bonds. And so you have to understand that, but also to currencies.

Right now, inflation means that that money is losing value. And that’s a counterparty risk, because a currency is only as good as the counterparty being the central bank of that country, managing, hopefully, properly, that money supply. And we’re seeing that there’s inflation everywhere, the ruble falling apart in Russia, because of the conflict, runaway inflation in Venezuela, etc. In many cases, the currency of a country is similar to the dynamic of the stock with the company. When the company is doing well, the stock does well. If the country is strong and doing very well, and they’re managing their currency, then that currency will be strong. But once you mismanage that, and the currency goes into hyperinflation…

By the way, you’re talking to a guy who has experiences personally with my family. In 1963, as a four-year-old with my family, we escaped communist Yugoslavia. And by the way, communism is a horrible thing, but that’s a different conversation. But they, in 1993, 1994, tried to help out their own economy with inflating the currency, the dinar, and you had one of history’s greatest hyperinflationary catastrophic incidents occur in Yugoslavia, and it collapsed into nothing basically. No more Yugoslavia as of 1994 . I got married in 1993. So my wife and I were thinking about going to Yugoslavia for our honeymoon, but as the civil war it was going through and collapse, these things ruin a good honeymoon. So we opted for the Caribbean instead. And in retrospect, am I glad I did.

Gene Tunny 40:18

Absolutely.

Paul Mladjenovic 40:19

Currencies have counterparty risk. Virtually every paper asset you can think of has a counterparty risk. Its value is directly tied to the promise or the performance of a counterparty. Gold and silver have their own intrinsic value. Gold and silver have never gone to zero. They had value thousands of years ago, they have value now, and likely, gold and silver will continue to have value far into the future. So precious metals, and I mean, the physical, look into bullion coins and the like. Do your shopping. As you know, I did the book Investing in Gold and Silver for Dummies. It’s a whole book on how to choose and shop for it, etc. But gold and silver, again, are a diversification away from currency mismanagement, away from the risk of paper assets, away from geopolitical and other risks. And I think that that is an important fact. And let’s face it, you hear about the rich over the aeons, the centuries, they always had gold and silver. The people are in the know. They know something, I think that’s something for you, that should be a clue to you to start figuring it out and seeing if a small portion does make sense in your overall picture. And I think given today’s economic realities, a portion of it doesn’t make sense.

Gene Tunny  41:38

What about NFTs and crypto that everyone’s talking about? Have you had any exposure to that or do you have any thoughts on that? There’s a lot of excitement about it.

Paul Mladjenovic  41:52

Let me tell you, a few years ago, I was asked about writing a book on cryptocurrency. And the point is, I think I’m good at what I know, but I know the limits of what I know. And I got them a great author on that book. So my publisher does have one called Cryptocurrency Investing for Dummies, and she does a great job with it.

Again, I feel the same way, having a small portion of it is not a bad idea. But there’s been just a lot of, I don’t know, overwrought speculation about it in recent years. And the thing is this. Part of the success of cryptocurrency, again, was the idea that it’s limited in scope. And, and so obviously, if you don’t over-produce it, and more people are buying it, then of course, you’ve seen how well it’s performed. I mean, it’s been amazingly volatile, crashing here and there. And I think investing small amounts here and there, again, as a small diversification away from everything else, is not a bad idea, but a lot of these people who are going whole hog into it, etc, we have to be careful. You have to remember that the governments of the world look at cryptocurrencies as a competitor, and nothing stops them from waking up one morning, passing a few laws and regulations, and all of a sudden, your cryptocurrency becomes problematic versus being an asset. So again, tread lightly here. Obviously, you may get a cryptocurrency expert on who will have a totally different opinion. And I’m not here to argue with those folks.

Again, I think having some cryptocurrencies is fine. And for me, some of my clients, I say to them, why not get some of the blockchain technology companies, because that way, you’re indirectly working with it. And that worked out to be a pretty good speculation. But again, same feelings as with gold and silver, have some of it, not an overwhelming amount, because you never know, because cryptocurrency… Everything we’re talking about has some kind of risk. With cryptocurrencies, what happens? I mean, it’s extremely dependent on electricity. What happens when there’s a power outage? Can you trade with it then? I doubt it.

The whole point about guys like me, in my industry… I was a certified financial planner for 36 years. I retired it a year ago, but I’m still active with education and teaching about this and I love my topic. I doubt I’ll retire anytime soon. I love what I do too much. However, the world of CFPs and financial advisors, they live and breathe the word diversification. Every asset has some type of risk attached to it, if you have money in the bank, fine, you’re away from financial risk, but now how about inflation risk, purchasing power risk, and a few other ones out there? What if the bank closes its doors because there’s a national crisis with the central bank, etc?

This is why you have a little bit across the board. That diversification just makes you stronger and not dependent on the goodness or wellness or the speculative success of an individual entity or asset class. Again, have some cryptocurrencies, fine. Have a couple of different ones, fine. But don’t have your life savings in it. Don’t put too huge of a percentage of your investable assets in it. Same thing as I would say with many other things that are out there. And of course, everything mitigates things. If you are a real estate expert, then having more of a portion of your assets in real estate is not that big of a deal, because your personal expertise is mitigating the extra exposure, but that’s fine. Knowledge is always the thing you should be accumulating the most, after accumulating your wealth, because the both of those things are tied together.

Gene Tunny  45:40

Yeah. Very good observation there, Paul. A couple more questions on how actively should a person be managing their portfolio. Typically I’ve just sort of said, maybe I made some decisions, like a couple of years ago, I’ll invest in this ETF or I’ll have these investments. And I’ll just commit to putting a certain amount in every month or whatever. And you get that, they call it that dollar cost averaging technique. You’re not worried about what the prices are at any particular time. And then over time, you do better out of that. How do you think about how actively investors should be managing their portfolios? How frequently should they be reviewing their selections? Any thoughts on that?

Paul Mladjenovic  46:36

Again, everyone’s a little bit differently, but if you’re not reviewing monthly or quarterly statements, if you’re not speaking to whoever you trust at least once a year or once every half year, then there’ll be issues, obviously. The more you’re aware about what you have, the better. I mean, I look at decisions every day, for my family. And the interesting thing is, if there’s one thing that people need to understand also, it is that to be successfully monitoring your situation, keep in mind that successful investing isn’t just what you invest in, but how do you go about doing it. If your positions are residing in a brokerage account, then nothing stops you. I highly encourage everybody within the sound of my voice to speak to your customers, to your brokerage firm’s customer service department, ask about things, about tutorials and things like stoploss orders, trailing stops. Sometimes you could do some, again, to a small extent, things such as covered call writing, which gives you income. It’s a hedge on a position as well, in some cases.

For example, trailing stops, I’m a big one on this, if, if you’re nervous about what you’re holding, alrighty, then again, it’s not just what you invest in, it’s how you go about doing it. Then you should consider trailing stops to minimise the downside. Now, what does that mean? Well, well, first of all, the generic about a stoploss order. If I bought a stock at 20, and I’m nervous about it, then I should put a stoploss order in at 18, 10% below, just as a generic point. 10% lower, you give it room to fluctuate. My stock at 20, if I bought it, obviously, there’s no upside limitation. But at 18, I now have downside limitation. In other words you’re adding discipline to your situation. You’re not just blindly watching this stuff. You could put that stoploss order in for the day or make it good until cancelled. It could sit there for three months.

If you’re worried about the coming weeks and months, go through your portfolio. If you need to go with your financial advisor, by all means, and say, I’m nervous about position x over here, what should I do? Well, they should be telling you. First of all, if it’s quality, that should remove some of the anxiety. But if you’re still worried, then either, A, sell it if you need the money, or if you don’t need the money, then put in a stoploss order in it. And then what happens? Let’s say your $20 stock zigzags up to 30. Okay, well, now what? That $18 stoploss, cancel it, like it says, good until cancelled, and replace it with one at 27, as an example. Now, what happens? The stock is at 30, you put a stoploss in at 27. Well, now what? Now if there’s a market crash, stock will go down, will trigger a sell order at 27, and you’re out. And you kept 100% of your original $20 plus a $7 per share profit. You added diligence and safety and discipline to your situation, not because you were expecting it, but because you started worrying etc. Then put those on. What’s the worst that happens? You’re selling and protect your money and keep a portion of your profits. Well then, that’s the very essence of prudent investing. You follow?

So in other words, everybody within the sound on my voice, if you have a brokerage account, go to their site. They’ve got to tutorials and other things. Call them up. Ask them, hey, what can I do if I’m worried about my stock dropping? What can I do? Have that conversation. But I find that a lot of people don’t have those conversation, and then what? Then when there is a market crash, and your positions plummet all the way down to the bottom or whatever, or lose 50%, then you do could’ve, would’ve, should’ve, you have anxiety, and so much more.

Right now, as I’m talking to you, the markets are generally in good shape today. But that could change next week. You could have a 1,000-point drop on a Monday morning, because you have trillions flowing in and out. You’ve got sanctions and unintended consequences. You don’t know when the next crisis is going to blow up, which in turn will blow up point A, point B, point C, and all of a sudden, you wake up one morning and your position or your broker has been hammered to pieces. Again, diversification. Remember that you have many tools and tactics in your pocket with these brokerage firms that you should be fully aware of. When you’re fully aware of these and you start applying some of these things in a very modest way, your confidence grow, your knowledge grows, which means more importantly, your financial security does better.

Gene Tunny  51:18

Yeah. Okay. I might ask one more question before we wrap up, Paul. There was an interesting passage in your book on Stock Investing for Dummies, where you’re asking what school of economic thought does the analyst adhere to? So this is things you should ask about analysts when you’re assessing the value of their contributions, what they’re saying, what their advice is. You make a point that if there was one that adhered to the Keynesian school of economic thought, that’s analyst A, and analyst B adhered to the Austrian School. Guess what? I’d choose analyst B, because those who embrace the Austrian School have a much better grasp of real world economics, which means better stock investment choices. Could you explain what you mean, there, please?

Paul Mladjenovic  52:05

Well, it’s funny, you brought up an interesting point. I mean, I love the Austrian School. And as you know, Darren is a devotee of that. It doesn’t necessarily mean the Austrian School… There’s a couple of other schools that are pretty good. There’s the Chicago school, Milt Friedman, I admire his work. It’s just that there are many financial advisors out there who… Obviously, Maynard Keynes, I don’t think highly of him. I mean, if I had a financial advisor who loved Karl Marx, I would be terrified, because that tells me they know nothing about economics. I’m serious about this. Yeah, I’m very serious about it.

By the way, to me, it’s not that I look for a financial advisor who’s into these particular schools. Question number 17, that helps me hone my selections. I want to make sure that they’ve been around for a few decades, they’ve seen bear markets and bull markets. That’s a much more important criteria for me that they understand these things. But if it ever comes down to the school, I’m going to make sure they understand, because remember, it was the free market schools out there were warning about the Great Depression, they were warning about stock market bubbles, and they were warning about these things. I found out that these disciplines helped me be a better tactician and strategist with the money.

I mean, I remember when I read an article about the stock market bubble in 1999, and that was from the point of view of the economics. That just cemented some of my concerns about the stock market. What did it mean? For those students and clients who were your conservative, retirement-oriented, made sure they were in safer waters. But those people out there who were speculators, like me, for example, I made sure that I was not invested in the internet stocks of 2000, because the first wave, you don’t know which ones are going to survive or not. They were all losing money. So in terms of investment, I stay away from them. However, my speculative side, I was buying long-term put options on these. So when these things collapsed, my speculative put options garnered some very nice gains. And that was my speculating.

Understanding basic economics and following some of these schools of thought would just enhance  your ability,  because obviously, understanding the macro picture makes you a better choice of which micro choices, which stocks and ETFs are going to either survive or thrive in that kind of economic environment, and it actually gives you another leg up. When you understand the big picture, it just makes it better choices in your own portfolio, so you could sleep better at night and serve the family that you love.

Gene Tunny  54:48

Okay, that’s a great point, Paul. I was just thinking about Keynes. Keynes himself was a rather good investor and made a lot of money for King’s College in Cambridge. However, I think there’s some speculation that he may have benefited to an extent from insider knowledge he gained while working for the Treasury.

Paul Mladjenovic  55:13

That’s very possible. And actually, when you think about it in the 1920s, look him up, there was an economist called Irving Fisher. When the stock market was in bubble territory, he was notorious for making the call that he feels that they’ve reached a permanent plateau. And this was whatever, like six or nine months before the crash of 1929, and he had been filing for bankruptcy. So no one should have listened to Irving Fisher, including Irving Fisher.

Gene Tunny  55:42

Exactly. Okay. Paul, any final points before we wrap up? I think this has been great. You’ve given me a lot to think about. And I mean, I think we could chat for hours on this stuff. But I think I’ll have to wrap up now. And yeah, I’d be keen to chat with you again.

Paul Mladjenovic  55:57

I really appreciate it. I mean, obviously, you mentioned Stock Investing for Dummies, I’ve done a lot of books out there. So I certainly invite people to see if those things help them with theirs. And if people want to find me, I’m at ravingcapitalist.com. But the point is this. Knowledge is really so important with all of this, and the idea that you’re a better consumer or a better investor, it also makes you a better voter, too, , and it also makes you much more aware of what policies out there will do harm and which ones will do right, and which investments will go up or down accordingly. It’s all about the knowledge. Ignorance is going to be extremely problematic in the coming months. So I invite them to get as much knowledge as possible, apply it, talk to everybody, you’ll be much better off. If they keep on listening to gentlemen such as Gene Tunny, then I think they’ll be served well, and thank you again and again. God bless your audience, and I wish them all prosperity.

Gene Tunny  56:54

Thank you. Paul, it’s been a pleasure. Really appreciate your time. And yeah, I hope to chat with you again soon. Thanks so much.

Paul Mladjenovic  57:02

Continued success to all of you. Take care, Gene.

Gene Tunny  57:04 Thank you. 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 EP133 guest Paul Mladjenovic and to the show’s audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode. 

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 PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode Uncategorized

US Inflation, Woke Capitalism & China w/ Darren Brady Nelson – EP127

With US inflation at a 40-year high, who wins and who loses? Are greedy corporations to blame as some pundits are suggesting? Episode 127 of Economics Explored features a wide-ranging conversation with Darren Brady Nelson, Chief Economist of LibertyWorks, an Australian libertarian think tank, which also considers so-called Woke Capitalism and what’s going on with China. Here’s a video clip from the episode featuring Darren chatting with show host Gene Tunny about the 40-year high US inflation rate.

In the second part of the show, the Grattan Institute’s Economic Policy Program Director Brendan Coates explains the franking credits controversy, related to some peculiar Australian tax rules, to show host Gene Tunny.   

You can listen to the episode using the podcast player below or on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher, among other podcasting apps.

About this episode’s guests

Darren Brady Nelson is an Austrian School economist and liberty evangelion as well as a C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton style Christian. He is currently the Chief Economist at LibertyWorks of Brisbane Australia and a long-time policy advisor to The Heartland Institute of Chicago USA. He is also a regular commentator in traditional and online Australian and American media. Check out his full profile at Regular guests – Economics Explored.

Brendan Coates is the Economic Policy Program Director at Grattan Institute, where he leads Grattan’s work on tax and transfer system reform, retirement incomes and superannuation, housing, macroeconomics, and migration. He is a former macro-financial economist with the World Bank in Indonesia and consulted to the Bank in Latin America. Prior to that, he worked in the Australian Treasury in areas such as tax-transfer system reform and macro-economic forecasting, with a strong focus on the Chinese economy.

Americans Return to Work as Biden Administration Work Disincentives Expire, but Jobs Remain Over 7 million Below Trend | Latest | America First Policy Institute (article referring to inflation tax of $855/year for an American family associated with a 7% yearly inflation rate)

Summers stumbles – John Quiggin

Woke Capitalism Is a Monopoly Game | Mises Wire

Joe Biden appears to insult Fox News reporter over inflation question

The implications of removing refundable franking credits – Grattan Institute

Here’s another video clip from the episode in which Gene and Darren compare the contributions to economics of Friedman, Keynes, and Mises:

Charts

US CPI inflation rate, through-the-year

US Producer Prices inflation rate, through-the-year

US inflation expectations – University of Michigan estimates

Clarifications

“Average hourly earnings for all employees on US private nonfarm payrolls increased by 5.7% year-on-year in January of 2022” (see United States Average Hourly Earnings YoY – January 2022 Data – 2007-2021 Historical) This compares with inflation running at 7.5% through-the-year. 

Amazon hikes average US starting pay to $18, hires for 125,000 jobs | Reuters

Abbreviations

CPI Consumer Price Index

PPI Producer Price Index

Credits

Thanks to Darren and Brendan for great insights and conversation, and to the show’s audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode. 

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.

Categories
Podcast episode

Transcript of EP125 on price controls w/ Larry Reed, FEE

This post contains a transcript of EP125 on price controls, infrastructure, and other topics with President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education Lawrence W. Reed. Also, note we’ve published a new video clip from the interview, featuring Larry talking about his article Why I wish we could put Chester Arthur and Joe Biden in a room together to talk infrastructure spending.

Transcript of EP125 w/ Larry Reed, FEE

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.

Gene Tunny 00:01

Coming up on Economics Explored.

Larry Reed 00:04

When government comes in and says, “We don’t like prices rising as fast as they are. We’re going to impose controls to prevent that from happening.” First of all, it is treating a symptom of something else. It’s not dealing fundamentally with the issue at hand that produced the rising prices in the first place. It’s a political diversion.

Gene Tunny 00:25

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 125 on price controls, which some commentators are suggesting could be used to reduce inflation. We also explore some other topics, such as whether Jesus was a socialist, why Joe Biden arguably should look back to the 21st president Chester Arthur, and why the separation of bank and state is so important.

My guest this episode is Lawrence W. Reed, President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education, a leading pro-free market educational nonprofit headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Larry has authored nearly 2000 newspaper columns and articles and dozens of articles in magazines and journals in the United States and abroad. His writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, The Epoch Times, and The Washington Examiner among many other places. Larry is frequently interviewed on radio talk shows and TV, including on Fox Business News.

Please check out the show notes for the links to materials mentioned in this episode and for any clarifications. You’ll find the show notes via your podcasting app or at our website, economicsexplored.com. If you sign up as an email subscriber, you’ll be able to download my new eBook, Top 10 Insights from Economics, so please consider getting on the mailing list. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please either record them in a message via SpeakPipe. See the link in the show notes or email them to me via our contact at economicsexplored.com. I’d love to hear from you.

Now, for my conversation with Larry Reed from the Foundation for Economic Education. Thanks to my audio engineer, Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing this episode. I hope you enjoy it.

Lawrence W. Reed, President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education, welcome to the programme.

Larry Reed 02:45

Thank you very much, Gene. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Gene Tunny 02:47

It’s great to have you on, Larry. I have been reading a lot of your writings lately. You’ve started off the year very well and coming on important issues, crazy proposals such as price controls. We might chat about that a bit later. But first, I’d like to ask you about the Foundation for Economic Education. Could you tell us a bit about what its role is and the type of activities it engages in place?

Larry Reed 03:16

Your listeners and viewers can learn a great deal more by visiting its website, which is FEE.org. The foundation was created in 1946 by a great man named Leonard Read. He was no relation to me. He spelled his name R-E-A-D. But after World War Two, he looked around and realised that there was no organisation in the world that was full-time devoting itself to explaining and defending how free enterprise, the profit motive, private property, how that system works. He created the foundation for the purpose of spreading those ideas.

Over the years, our message and our principles have not changed. But the focus of our message and principles has somewhat changed. It’s become a bit more focused on young people, specifically high school and college age. We do that through programmes in-person all over the country, in the US, and abroad, as well as the website videos, on the website courses, you name it. All designed to explain how freedom and free markets work.

Gene Tunny 04:31

You mentioned Leonard Read? Did he write that famous essay, “I, Pencil”?

Larry Reed 04:37

Yes, he did in December of 1958. That has had a remarkable impact on people all over the globe.

Gene Tunny 04:45

Absolutely. I think it shows how complex even products that we think of as simple are and there’s no way any central authority and this is what we discovered with the Eastern European socialist economies with the Soviet Union. You can’t plan this sort of thing. You need to rely on the market mechanism to be able to produce even something that we might think as mundane as a pencil. I’ll put a link in the show notes to that essay because I think it’s brilliant. I think Milton Friedman quotes from it in Free to Choose, if I remember correctly.

Larry Reed 05:23

After someone reads it, they are well-armed to take on a central planner type. Every time I run into somebody that thinks that he knows enough that he can plan an economy of millions of people, I always say, “Wait a minute. You don’t even know how to make a pencil, let alone an entire economy.”

Gene Tunny 05:44

That’s right. You got to think about it. You’ve got to get the timber, you’ve got to cut it, you’ve got to get the graphite, etc., combine them all together. A great essay. Is Hazlitt associated with the foundation? He wrote that book, is it “Economics in One Lesson”? Is that one of the books that you promote?

Larry Reed 06:07

Yes, it is one of the more popular offerings from FEE in the last 70 years. Henry Hazlitt was long associated with FEE. He was one of the charter members of its board of trustees, a good friend of our founder, Leonard Read, and was on the board for decades. I’m happy to say that I knew him personally for the last decade of his life.

Gene Tunny 06:33

That book has had a big impact too. He must have been pleased with how that was received.

Larry Reed 06:40

Yes.

Gene Tunny 06:42

Very good. We might get on to some of the topical issues. The big economic issue at the moment is inflation. We’re seeing accelerating inflation in advanced economies. In a way, this probably should have been expected, given the big expansion in the supply of money that we’ve seen in United States, United Kingdom, Australia, to a lesser extent, but still a substantial increase.

Now, we’re starting to see that in inflation. Some people are saying it’s temporary. There could be some temporary element, there’s a supply-chain disruption. Who knows? My view is that it is something we’ve got to worry about. People are starting to talk about, “What do we do about it?” There’s a monetary policy response. But there are people who are thinking, “Let’s be careful because we don’t want to constrain economic growth and cost jobs. Why don’t we look at price controls?” You’ve written a great article, “Price Controls: Killing the Messenger If You Don’t Like the Message”, could you talk about what you mean by that please?

Larry Reed 07:51

Yes, I’d be happy to. We should think of prices as conveying immense amounts of information. Prices result from the free interplay of supply and demand, which in turn reflect the individual choices, ambitions, opportunities, tastes, and you name it of endless consumers in the marketplace. Prices don’t accidentally arise. The notion that you can fiddle with them by government decree with no consequences is ridiculous. It’s anti-science. It’s anti-economics. Prices are what they are in free markets for good reason because they’re reflecting conditions of supply and demand and people’s preferences and tastes and so forth.

When government comes in and says, “We don’t like prices rising as fast as they are. We’re going to impose controls to prevent that from happening.” First of all, it is treating a symptom of something else, it’s not dealing fundamentally with the issue at hand that produced the rising prices in the first place. It’s a political diversion. It’s politicians, who on the one hand, have got their hand on the printing press cranking out easy money at low interest, easy credit, and pumping up prices. At the other hand, they got a club in their fist and they want to beat people for responding the way you would.

If at any time you massively increase the quantity of something, it will affect the value of every single unit and they’ve been expanding the money supply immensely. If they put on price controls to prevent prices from being at some higher level, all that does by treating a symptom not the cause, is to create economic problems of their own. It creates shortages, for instance, if the market price of something would be $10. But government says, “No, you can’t charge any more than $7.” What happens is at $7, more people want the stuff and fewer suppliers will provide it. That would be the case at $10. You got a double whammy. You got less of the stuff coming on the market and more people wanting it at that artificial price. Bingo! Long lines at stores and shortages. People who propose price controls are ultimately anti-economic science and oblivious to the effects that we have seen historically, literally for centuries with no exception.

Gene Tunny 10:22

One thing about this issue, it seems to be something that the vast majority economists seem to be in agreement on which is good. You quoted in your article, there was an Op-Ed in The Guardian. The title was, “We have a powerful weapon to fight inflation price controls, it’s time we consider it” and Paul Krugman responded, “I am not a free market zealot. But this is truly stupid.” Absolutely. You’ve had experience in the US in living memory of price controls? Was it in the 70s that Nixon’s Whip Inflation Now and then Carter, perhaps with their controls on the price of gasoline that did lead to these big lines at gas stations in the States?

Larry Reed 11:21

The Whip Inflation Now thing actually was Gerald Ford. That was a campaign to get people to wear buttons that said, “whip inflation now” as if that would somehow whip it. Before him, it was Richard Nixon, who actually imposed wage and price controls. First, in the form of a 90-day freeze on virtually all wages and prices and then followed by government directed prices that limited by how much they could rise.

Every economist worth his salt knows that that produced disaster. That was no solution to anything. It gave us long lines at the gas pump and empty shelves in the stores. It was ridiculous. I used to know a man, he’s deceased now, but he was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Paul McCracken, great economist. He cautioned Nixon not to do this. He said it’s never worked in 4000 years, don’t even think of it. Nixon went ahead anyway and shortly thereafter, McCracken resigned.

We’ve had lots of experiences. Lots of countries have had experiences with it. Revolutionary France in the 1790s, the government imposed the so-called Law of the Maximum, which said that government will fix the maximum price of things and the penalty for violating that will be death. They guillotined a lot of people for that and it did not make anybody produce more of anything.

Gene Tunny 12:55

That’s a negative supply shock too, isn’t it? Killing your producers? Terrible. That’s some good stuff there. I take it your view would be that inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Therefore, the key to controlling it is to get your monetary policy, right? This isn’t about monetary policy, but I’m guessing that’s where you’re coming from. There’s a big debate about what that means and role of the Fed, etc. But would that be your view?

Larry Reed 13:33

Inflation, Milton Friedman famously said, “is anywhere and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” I’m sympathetic to that but I also point out that there’s another dimension here. Prices ultimately reflect, to a great extent, what’s going on in people’s minds. There are extraordinary circumstances, but there are occasions when you could have soaring prices without an increase in the money supply. One of the examples I like to point to is the Philippines.

During World War Two, when the Japanese had occupied it, they imposed their currency on the Philippines. General MacArthur was attempting to ultimately take the Philippines and he was jumping from island to island, getting closer and closer. The Japanese weren’t dumping any more of their paper money into the Philippines and yet, prices would leap every time word came that MacArthur was now a few hundred miles closer. That’s because people’s estimate of the value of that money declined because they knew if he gets here and takes the Philippines back, the Japanese currency will be completely worthless. Given that prospect, we’re happy to pay any price to get anything now while it’s worth something. That’s a rare occasion.

We’re not facing that circumstance today. We do have to fall back on the fact that today’s inflation that we’re witnessing is not a Philippine-style rise in prices. It is a monetary phenomenon, reflecting the massive increase in money and credit that our Federal Reserve in the US has manufactured. Many central banks around the Western world have done as well.

Gene Tunny 15:21

That’s a great story about the Philippines. I’ll have to look that up. MacArthur is a great hero to many of us in Australia because there’s a view that he essentially saved Australia. He based himself in Australia after he fled from the Philippines and he had an office a little bit down the road from where I am here in Brisbane in the ANP Building during World War Two. That was one of the locations from which he waged the war in the Pacific. Great story. Very good. That’s a good discussion of price controls, Larry.

I’d also like to ask you; you’ve also written about whether Jesus was a socialist. I’d like to ask you about that. Also, I don’t know if you saw the recent controversy around Dave Ramsey’s comments. Dave Ramsey, the esteemed financial commentator in the US.

Larry Reed 16:21

Yes. Although I may not be aware of recent comments that you’re bringing up.

Gene Tunny 16:26

Essentially, someone asked him a question, “As a Christian, should I feel bad if I raise the rent on my properties to the market rent, and then that means that some of my tenants can’t afford to live in those properties anymore. It causes them financial hardship.” Dave Ramsey’s comments weren’t received by many, particularly on the progressive side of politics because he said, “There’s no problem with doing that because it’s not me that is evicting you. It’s actually the market.” He was appealing to the market. I’d like to ask you about that. If you haven’t seen his comments, and it’s probably worthwhile considering the whole context of them, feel free not to comment on that.

But I would like to ask you about your work on, was Jesus a socialist? Could you take us through what your analysis of that question has revealed, please, Larry?

Larry Reed 17:29

I’d be happy to, Gene. In fact, the best way to begin that is to tell the story from the New Testament that answers your first question. Along the lines of what Dave Ramsey apparently said. Jesus Himself told nearly 40 parables and most of them deal with things like eschatology and salvation and so forth. But at least three of them have very strong economic content.

One of them that’s relevant to what you’ve just raised is the parable of the workers in the vineyard. This is about a man who apparently owns a substantial vineyard and he needs to bring the grapes in, it’s harvest time. Jesus tells a story of how he gets a group of workers together first thing in the morning and he says, “I’ll give you each a denarius for a full day’s work.” They say, “Okay.” They go out and they start picking grapes.

Around noon time, the owner realises, “I’ve got to get even more out there.” He gets another group together, and he says, “Look, I know that the day’s half-gone, but if you’ll go out for the rest of the day and pick grapes, I’ll give you each a denarius.” Finally, at the end of the day, with maybe an hour before a dark and he still has grapes that have to come in, he calls another group of workers and says, “If you’ll take time out, go out for an hour and pick some grapes, I’ll give you a denarius.”

Later, according to the story, the owner gathers all these three groups of workers together to pay them. The first group is very angry, because they’re saying, “We worked a full day and you’re giving us the same as those guys who showed up at the later, even the ones that only worked for an hour.” You would think that if Jesus were a socialist, he would have the vineyard owner saying, “You’re right, this is unfair. I’m sorry about that.” But instead, Jesus has the vineyard owner say to these guys, “It’s my money. You signed the contract. I’m giving you what I promised. Now, take it and get out of here.”

That’s Jesus basically saying, private property, voluntary contract, keeping your word, honest dealings, and I think supply and demand all defend what the vineyard owner is saying. Presumably, he had to pay that last group of workers a hefty premium to get them. They probably worked for somebody else all day and now, they’re being asked to go for yet another hour, he has to pay them a premium to do that to bring the grapes in.

Jesus does not say, “Let’s be compassionate and give this group the same as that group or in proportion to their time.” Instead, he says, “Each man is getting what he was promised when he agreed to by contract.”

I think Dave Ramsey is essentially right. There is no obligation, moral or otherwise, for someone to endure a loss or to get less than he could for property that’s his when market conditions suggests that a higher rent is worth it. It’s the higher rent that will likely bring more housing units into the marketplace, which will solve the problem in the long run anyway.

Gene Tunny 20:47

By inducing more supply, more investment in rental properties. That’s a good point. I’ll put a link to the article on Dave Ramsey. I thought it was a fascinating discussion. Also, I’ll find something to link to that. Was it a parable?

Larry Reed 21:12

The parable of the workers in the vineyard. I discuss that in more detail in my book, “Was Jesus a Socialist?” if anybody cares to look at it from that perspective.

Gene Tunny 21:25

It’s an interesting question. I must say, I’m surprised that it is something that’s up for debate. Is this because a lot of people on the left side of politics have appealed to Christianity as a way to support what policy positions they’re advocating for?

Larry Reed 21:51

I think so. I don’t give the left much credit for their economics, but I do give them credit for their marketing, because they’re always out there saying, “Go with us because our way of thinking will produce more for people. We’re going to take care of people. We’re going to give them stuff. It won’t cost them anything, they won’t have to worry about where it’s coming from.” The rhetoric is always very promising, but the results and the outcomes are pretty dismal and miserable.

A lot of people come to this mistaken conclusion that Jesus may have been a socialist because He talks so much about helping the poor. But I think in capitalist countries, where more wealth is produced, you have more giving and more caring and more philanthropy than you have in socialist countries. In fact, even government-to-government foreign aid is primarily from the predominantly capitalist countries to the predominantly socialist recipients.

If Jesus came back today and spoke to a large audience of people and said, “I was interested in the poor. Tell me what you all did for the poor?” If you raised your hand and said, “I voted for all the politicians who said they’d take care of that.” I don’t think He’d be impressed. I think He would say, “You’ve resorted to theft? I told you not to steal and I told you furthermore that the poor are folks that you, from the generosity of your hearts and your own resources, ought to help. I never told you you could pass it off to politicians. If they solved the problem, it’ll be at 10 times the price.”

Gene Tunny 23:33

Yes, that’s a good point. I’ll have to come back to this in a future episode and looking at what are the best ways to reduce poverty of it if we’ve actually figured that out? Clearly, the welfare state that we’ve got in countries like Australia, the UK, to a lesser extent, the US, you could argue it has relieved some absolute poverty. But at the same time, it does, arguably, traps many people in poverty in a way.

Larry Reed 24:07

To make a long story short, you can’t solve poverty if the pie is shrinking. You have to make a bigger pie and there is no known system in the history of mankind that makes a bigger pie faster than the system of freedom and free markets.

Gene Tunny 24:24

Absolutely. We’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker 24:33

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.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny 25:03

Now, back to the show. The other things I wanted to chat with you about before we wrap up are some recent articles of yours. There was a piece, “Why I Wish We Could Put Chester Arthur and Joe Biden in a Room Together to Talk Infrastructure Spending”. I’d love to hear about that, particularly about Chester Arthur, because he’s one of the lesser-known US presidents.

Larry Reed 25:34

Yes, he is one of the lesser-known ones. He served less than one full term. He took office as vice president, became president when James Garfield was assassinated in the middle of 1881. He served about three and a half years, the rest of Garfield’s term. He’s often written off as sort of—he was tied to the corrupt Tammany Hall machine in New York and so forth. On the good side, historians will remember that he did support civil service reform and made the federal government a little less corrupt. That was a good thing.

But he also understood the Constitution and appreciated it more than Joe Biden does. I wrote that article pointing out what Arthur’s view on infrastructure spending was compared to Joe Biden’s in America. We recently went through a national discussion, a bill passed, supposedly bipartisan. It was a massive, almost $2 trillion in infrastructure spending.

An equivalent bill was called a Rivers and Harbors Act and Arthur vetoed it. In his veto, he raised some great objections, all of which are applied to the bill that Biden recently signed. He said, “This is way too much. There’s no way that a government of our size can know where all this money’s going to go. It looks like a small portion of it is even earmarked for infrastructure. There’s a lot of pork barrel stuff in here. Quit doing this, loading our bills and all this other nonsense.”

That’s what Joe Biden should have said about the recent infrastructure bill. But he was all for it from the start. I think about 10% was aimed at infrastructure, the rest is pork barrel and progressive agenda stuff. I would like to put Joe Biden and Chester Arthur in the same room and say, “Chester, go at it. Tell this guy what infrastructure is and why it’s wasteful to spend so much on.”

Gene Tunny 27:46

At the same time, would you say that there is an issue with infrastructure in the US with the quality of infrastructure? This is something I’ve chatted with Darren Nelson about in a previous episode and Darren’s view was, “We need to get the private sector more involved in public-private partnerships, perhaps.” Do you have any thoughts on that, Larry? What is the quality of infrastructure like? Is there a problem to solve and how would you go about it?

Larry Reed 28:19

With infrastructure, I think there has always been some measure of problem, because government has assumed from the start that this is a legitimate profits of government. Once you do that, you have to at least expect that they’ll keep it up and do it right and keep an eye it to prepare for when it falls apart. But politicians come and go and they’re more interested in the flash in the pan. They show up to cut the ribbon at the start of a bridge that’s being built. But once it’s built, it’s no longer politically sexy to stand around and keep an eye on it in case it collapses because they figure, “If that happens, it’ll be a long after I’m gone. Why should I care?”

You do end up with politicians putting more focus on the construction of the stuff and less on its repair and maintenance. That’s where you can get a bigger bang for your dollars or if you will, by writing contracts with the private sector that require ongoing maintenance and inspection and so forth. I wouldn’t want the government with its own employees and its own infrastructure monopoly becoming a bridge builder. They don’t know about bridges. That’s best done by the private sector. They should be contracting with private sector providers to do it and monitor the contracts. Put all the provisions in those contracts that would require proper maintenance.

Gene Tunny 29:52

That’s a good point. It’s one of those great challenges, how do you get the infrastructure that you need cost-effectively? In Australia, one of the problems we’ve got, there’s a lot of government investment going into infrastructure at the moment that it seems to be at very inflated prices all over the country. There’s a powerful construction union, which is allied with the government in the state that I am, Queensland, which has ended up inflating the cost of any infrastructure project by 30% or 40%. It’s quite extraordinary and taxpayers end up wearing that.

Larry Reed 30:43

I wouldn’t be surprised if you have some of the same kind of history in Australia, as we do in the US. But there’s a lot of history in America of government spending on infrastructure that produced disaster, because it dangled subsidies in front of private contractors, who then went after the subsidies and cared little about how well the infrastructure itself was actually built. The best example is America’s transcontinental railroads.

There were five of them built across the country. Four of them got extensive federal government land grants and subsidies. Not only land grants, but they got subsidies on a per mile basis. Four of them threw down tracks just to get the goodies. And in fact, the two famous ones that met at Promontory Point, Utah, as they were getting closer, they were crossing over to the other companies’ territory and blowing up the tracks because they wanted to get more subsidies by laying more track down. There was only one transcontinental that got no government subsidies. That was James J. Hill’s’ Great Northern. It was not by coincidence the only transcontinental that never went bankrupt because they had to put down tracks when it made economic sense, not because the government was throwing money at them,

Gene Tunny 32:06

Another good example I’ll have to investigate. This is the last question; I’d like to ask about some of your other writings and it looks like you have been prolific or regular traveller. Obviously, COVID cut back on all of our travels, but you’ve written some great pieces. You’ve made observations on what we can learn from other countries around the world and in some places that you generally don’t hear about. One of your articles is, “The World’s Oldest Republic Reveals the Secret to Peace and Prosperity”.

Larry Reed 32:46

Yes.

Gene Tunny 32:48

You’ve also drawn lessons from economic history in Italy. I think it was in Italy, your article, “Why the Separation of Bank and State is Important”. Would you be able to explain what is that secret to peace and prosperity? How that’s revealed by the world’s oldest republic and also the point about the separation of bank and state, please.

Larry Reed 33:13

Both of these articles, you can at FEE.org and you can find them also on where I blog on lawrencewreed.com. With regard to the oldest constitutional republic, we published that last Sunday, it’s about the tiny country of San Marino. It’s the fifth smallest country in the world. It’s entirely enveloped by Italy. It’s in the northeast of the Italian peninsula. Right in its middle is this big rock called Mount Titan.

It’s the oldest Republic in the world, dating back to the early fourth century when that chunk of territory was gifted from its private owner, a woman in Rimini, now part of Italy. She gifted it to a Christian stonemason who had fled there to avoid the persecutions of the Emperor Diocletian. She said, “You can have this property.” He, in effect, declared the first, and now the oldest constitutional republic.

Only twice in its history has it been invaded. In both cases, within a matter of months, the pope ordered the invaders out, lest they be attacked by papal forces. They maintained their independence all these years. They have a GDP per capita that’s a shade below that of the United States. The secret is that they have kept themselves economically free.

Freedom House is non-profit that rates countries as to their degree of economic freedom and they rate San Marino as the 12th freest country in the world. Its capital gains tax is only 5%, which is a third of what ours is in the US. It’s much lower than it is in the European community. A great little success story in that quiet little enclave in the Apennine Mountains.

The other example or article that you’re referring to comes from Genoa, on the other side of northwest Italy. Genoa was, for hundreds of years, an Italian city state, much as Pisa and Venice and Gaeta and some others were. The secret to its success, more than any other single entity, was a private bank that was so private, it was in effect, a country within a country. It was called the Bank of St. George.

When it was chartered in 1407, the separation between the bank and the government of Genoa was as complete as it could get. It basically said, “We’re not paying any attention to you and you don’t have to pay any attention to us but you need us.” Because the bank consistently bailed out the state when it got in trouble. But the bank was very firmly on a gold standard, it had a policy of not issuing any paper for which you did not have gold coin on deposit. It was reliable, it was honest, and for hundreds of years, until Napoleon invaded and shut the bank down, it was a rock of stability and a big reason that Genoa became a maritime trading giant in the Mediterranean.

Gene Tunny 36:37

This wasn’t something positive Napoleon brought then. That’s interesting, I have to read more about it. How does it illustrate that the separation of bank and state is important? How does it illustrate that?

Larry Reed 36:52

The Bank of St. George exerted an anti-inflationary pressure on the government of Genoa. Governments love to inflate, and the moment they get in charge of banking, that’s what they do. They print the stuff and makes it easier for them to pay their bills and to run deficits and so forth. The Bank of St. George did not abide by that. They wouldn’t have recognised any coin or paper from the city of Genoa if it hadn’t been sound. Their example spoke volumes to the people of Genoa and across Europe. Here’s a bank that’s in great shape. It has to bail out the government of the region every now and then because they’re profligate, but the bank is not.

I think the separation of bank and state is an issue I wish we spent a lot more time on these days. We’ve assumed that government should be orchestrating the banking system, but the history of government and banking is not a positive one. They take over banking whenever they can because it’s their avenue to depreciating and debauching currency.

Gene Tunny 38:06

I think it’s a big concern when governments set up these banks or shadow banks to promote particular policy objectives. I remember, back in the late 2000s, there was a lot of talk about an infrastructure bank that was something the Obama administration was looking at but didn’t go through with. There were similar moves here in Australia that didn’t amount to anything because it reminded people of what happened in the 80s with the state banks of South Australia and Victoria, the Tricontinental merchant banking arm and they got heavily involved in speculative property development, if I remember correctly, and ended up going bust and costing taxpayers billions of dollars. People still remember that. There’s a risk if governments get involved in banking and financial shenanigans.

Larry Reed 39:06

Too often anyway, we judge government by the stated intentions rather than by actual outcomes and results. If a government came to me and said, “What do you think about us getting into the banking business?” I would probably say to them, “Aren’t you in the post office business already? Aren’t people complaining about that? Why don’t you get that right before you go into banking?” In US, everybody complains about the post office. What makes you think the same entity can manage a nation’s banking system?

Gene Tunny 39:38

Exactly, very good. Larry, any final words? Anything you think we should be thinking about or looking out for?

Larry Reed 39:48

I would say this thing that people everywhere should be thinking more than they are about the importance of individual liberty. We take it for granted in places where we’ve had a lot of it. But there’s nothing about it that’s either automatic or guaranteed, and it can disappear with bad ideas almost overnight. And yet, life without liberty, in my estimation, is unthinkable. We better think about it. I can’t imagine a life in which you aren’t living yours. You’re not making your choices, somebody else is imposing their choices on you. They’re living their lives through you.

I can’t imagine living in that environment as they, to a great extent, do in places like North Korea or Cuba. Liberty is precious, it’s rare in history. It’s never guaranteed and it deserves the conscious deliberation, and sometimes sacrifice of everyone wants to be a free person.

Gene Tunny 40:50

Absolutely. It just occurred to me, we probably should have touched on the pandemic. Feel free to respond to this if you like. Otherwise, we can wrap up. In Australia, we’ve had quite severe restrictions relating to COVID at times and they’ve raised eyebrows around the world. People have thought, “What’s going on there in Australia?” But what a lot of people in Australia say is that’s necessary for the public good.

You may bang on about civil liberties and I have, at times, think some of these restrictions have been excessive. But you get a lot of pushback and people say, “You think you’ve got the rights to do that but you don’t have the right to spread a deadly virus and spread the disease.” That’s how they push back. I agree, I think we’ve lost the original commitment, a strong love of liberty that we’ve had. I think we’ve lost that. People are terrified of this virus and they push back with that line, “You don’t have the right to spread the virus.” I don’t know how to win those arguments, to be honest.

Larry Reed 42:12

There’s something to be said for this and that is that this circumstance was unprecedented and it’s not over yet. That the jury may not yet be completely in with all irrelevant verdicts. I have a sense though, that the more we learn, the more of this we go through, the more experience we have with it, the more we’re likely to look back and say, “Those lockdowns were counterproductive. The mask mandates went on far longer than they should have, if they ever should have been in existence in the first place.” I think a lot of the tools that government employed will come under more scrutiny and questions.

If you’re a cheerleader for them now, I would say, “Why don’t you hold off because you may be embarrassed in the not-too-distant future?” But what concerns me the most is that all of this totalitarian impulse sets dangerous precedents because people who love power, who want it to be concentrated in government and think that the right people will do the right things, they don’t stop with the power that they get. They usually say, “It’s necessary now, I’ll hold on to it.”

In the long run, if we allow this COVID experience to set the new norm for government intervention, radical intervention in our lives across a broad front, we may look back and say, “We would have been a lot better off if we simply endured COVID.” Because one of the worst things that people can do is to consign their lives to politicians. There are a lot of things they end up regretting whenever they do that.

Gene Tunny 43:51

I think that’s a good point, Larry. We might end there. Thanks so much for your time. I enjoyed that conversation. Some great points and excellent historical examples that I’m going to have to look up and add to my arsenal of historical examples that I can bring up. Very good. Lawrence W. Reed, President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education. Really enjoyed the conversation. Thank you so much.

Larry Reed 44:20

My pleasure. Thank you, Gene.

Gene Tunny 44:22

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 at economicsexplored.com and we’ll aim to address them in a future episode. Thanks for listening. Until next week, goodbye.

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 PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Price controls to fight inflation a bad idea + infrastructure lessons from POTUS 21 – EP125

Price controls are being suggested by some commentators as a way to fight inflation. But price controls would be a really bad idea, as Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed, President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), explains in Economics Explored EP125. Larry also chats with show host Gene Tunny about whether Jesus was a socialist, why banks and the state should be kept separate, and why President Biden would benefit from lessons on infrastructure from the 21st President Chester A. Arthur. You can listen via podcast apps including Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher or via the player below.

Here’s a video clip of Larry discussing the Parable of Vineyard Workers and whether Jesus was a socialist:

About this episode’s guest – Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became President of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. He previously served for 21 years as President of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan (1987-2008). He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.

In May 2019, he retired to the role of President Emeritus at FEE and assumed the titles of Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Global Ambassador for Liberty. 

He holds a B.A. in economics from Grove City College (1975) and an M.A. degree in history from Slippery Rock State University (1978), both in Pennsylvania. He holds two honorary doctorates, one from Central Michigan University (public administration, 1993) and Northwood University (laws, 2008).

Reed has authored nearly 2,000 columns and articles in newspapers, magazines and journals in the United States and abroad. His writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner, Christian Science Monitor, Intellectual Takeout, USA Today, Baltimore Sun, The Epoch Times, Detroit News and Detroit Free Press, among many others. He has authored or coauthored eight books, the most recent being  Was Jesus a Socialist? (a major expansion in 2020 of an earlier essay) and Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character and Conviction.  Additionally, he co-authored and edited five e-Books. See the “Books” section of this web site for more info. He is frequently interviewed on radio talk shows and has appeared as a guest on numerous television programs.

Larry’s article “Price controls: killing the messenger”:

Larry’s article “Why I wish we could put Chester Arthur and Joe Biden in a room together to talk infrastructure spending”:

https://fee.org/articles/why-i-wish-we-could-put-chester-arthur-and-joe-biden-in-a-room-together-to-talk-infrastructure-spending/

Larry’s article “The World’s Oldest Republic Reveals the Secret to Peace and Prosperity”:

https://fee.org/articles/the-world-s-oldest-republic-reveals-the-secret-to-peace-and-prosperity/

Larry’s article “Why the Separation of Bank and State Is so Important”:

https://fee.org/articles/why-the-separation-of-bank-and-state-is-so-important/

Leonard E. Read’s article “I, Pencil”:

https://fee.org/resources/i-pencil/

Article on “Is It Wrong for Christians to Raise Rent on Tenants? Dave Ramsey Sparks Controversy With His Answer”:

The parable of the vineyard workers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zd76rj6/revision/5

Thanks to the show’s audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode. 

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.

Categories
Economic update

Price controls aren’t a solution to inflation

Regular Economics Explored guest Darren Brady Nelson has republished some of his papers strongly criticising price controls, which some commentators are now suggesting as a solution to the accelerating inflation we’re seeing in advanced economies. Great points that Darren makes include the following:

The imposition of price controls to deal with inflation does not stop inflation. Rather it combines with inflation to produce a different and worse set of consequences than would inflation alone…

…Politicians have cited a plethora of reasons for introducing price controls – ie price ‘ceilings’ and ‘floors’. At the end of the day, whether they believe these reasons or not is irrelevant to economic outcomes. The outcomes are always bad. Price ceilings always lead to shortages and price floors always lead to surpluses, which often then lead to further government interventions such as rationing and subsidies as well as more taxation, regulation and money printing. Artificial government laws of price controls cannot overcome natural economic laws of supply and demand.

Check out Darren’s papers via the LinkedIn posts below.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/darren-brady-nelson-702746a3_2016-literature-review-part-1-activity-6890767705268387840-nisu

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/darren-brady-nelson-702746a3_2016-literature-review-part-2-activity-6890768207213330432-HDqa

Regarding inflation, I spoke about the UK’s highest recorded inflation rate in three decades in my latest livestream last Friday:

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 PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

120. Inflation, Covid, China & Crypto

2021 saw accelerating inflation in advanced economies, the pandemic continuing, cracks appearing in the Chinese economic model, and massive price growth in cryptocurrencies and NFTs. In episode 120, Economics Explored host Gene Tunny discusses the big issues of 2021 and looks forward to 2022 with frequent guest Tim Hughes.

The episode also features discussion on the COP26 climate change summit, the idea of “degrowth” advanced by some ecologists and environmentalists, and feedback on EP115 on the Opioid Crisis and the War on Drugs.  

Crazy Crypto charts Gene refers to in the episode

Australia’s largest bitcoin mine hopes to utilise unused renewable energy and lead the world on decarbonisation

Covid: Dutch go into Christmas lockdown over Omicron wave

 WHO forecasts coronavirus pandemic will end in 2022

China struggles to shrug off weak consumer spending and property woes 

China Evergrande reports progress in resuming home deliveries

Life in a ‘degrowth’ economy, and why you might actually enjoy it

EP115 – The Opioid Crisis and the War on Drugs

Thanks to the show’s audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode. 

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.

Categories
Podcast episode

EP119: What Tony Makin taught us about macroeconomics

The late Professor Tony Makin was a leading Australian economist who made major contributions to the economic policy debate in Australia on the balance of payments and the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus, of which Tony was highly sceptical. In Economics Explored EP119, Former Ambassador to the OECD for Australia Dr Alex Robson, now an Associate Partner at EY, reflects on Tony’s contributions to open economy macroeconomics and the policy debate.  

About this episode’s guest – Dr Alex Robson

Dr Alex Robson is Associate Partner at EY. He has previously been Professor of Economics at Griffith University, Australian Ambassador to the OECD, Chief Economist for the Australian Prime Minister, a lecturer at ANU, and Director at Deloitte Access Economics. He is the author of Law and Markets, and has consulted to ASX 200 companies, Australian and NZ Government Departments and the OECD. Alex has a PhD and Masters in Economics from University of California, Irvine, USA.

Celebrating the Life of Anthony John Makin

Gene’s Economics Explored conversation with Tony: A Fiscal Vaccine for COVID-19 with Tony Makin – new podcast episode

Tony’s critique of the 2008-09 Australian Government fiscal stimulus: Did Australia’s Fiscal Stimulus Counter Recession?: Evidence from the National Accounts

Tony’s paper for the Minerals Council of Australia which prompted a critical response from the Australian Treasury: Australia’s Competitiveness: Reversing the Slide

Australian Treasury’s 2014 Response to Professor Tony Makin’s Minerals Council of Australia Monograph – ‘Australia’s Competitiveness: Reversing the Slide’

Tony’s 2016 paper prepared for the Treasury reiterating the arguments he previously made about the ineffectiveness of fiscal stimulus: The Effectiveness of Federal Fiscal Policy: A Review 

Alex’s papers with Tony (NB full articles behind paywalls): Missing money found causing Australia’s inflation, The Welfare Costs of Capital Immobility and Capital Controls 

Gene’s paper with Tony: The MMT Hoax

Thanks to the show’s audio engineer Josh Crotts for his assistance in producing the episode. 

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.

Categories
Economics Explored Live

Aussie reopening, Kiwi inflation, oil and petrol prices, and Bitcoin news – livestream from 22 October 2021

Economics Explored host Gene Tunny’s latest Friday livestream for 22 October 2021 covered:

  • accelerating NZ inflation and the implications for interest rates of accelerating inflation in advanced economies more broadly;
  • the great Australian reopening and booming job vacancies (i.e. as noted by the National Skills Commission “Nationally job advertisements are up by 36.2% (or 60,800 job advertisements) compared to levels observed prior to the pandemic”); and
  • the extraordinary Bitcoin narrative which is being reinforced by the introduction of Bitcoin-exposed Exchange Traded Funds.

You can download Michael Knox’s excellent note on the oil price which was mentioned in the livestream here:

Biden’s oil and gas lease pause

Also, check out this great note (also quoted in the livestream and which was likely written by Pete Wargent) in the BuyersBuyers newsletter from yesterday:

Yields creeping higher

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.