macroblog

About


The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, financial issues and Southeast regional trends.

Authors for macroblog are Dave Altig and other Atlanta Fed economists.


May 19, 2011


The long and short (runs) of tax reform

In an earlier part of my career, I spent a fair amount of time thinking about fiscal policy issues. The evolution of my responsibilities eventually moved my attentions in a somewhat different direction, but you never really forget your first research love. With questions of debt, government spending, and taxes at the top of the news, it isn't hard for my old fondness for the topic to reemerge.

So, in that context, I had a somewhat nostalgic response to an item at Angry Bear, written by contributor Dan Crawford. In essence, the Crawford post formally (through statistical analysis) asks the question "How is GDP growth related to marginal tax rates (that is, the tax rate applied to your last dollar of income)?" More specifically, Crawford analyzes how gross domestic product (GDP) growth next year is related to the marginal tax rate faced by the average individual and the marginal tax rate faced by the highest-income taxpayers.

I don't intend to quibble with the specifics of that experiment per se but rather highlight an aspect of taxation and tax reform that I think should not be forgotten. That is, the short run is no place for a decent discussion of tax policy to be hanging out. To say that more formally, the largest effects of tax policy accrue over time, and it is probably not a good idea to be too focused on the immediate—say, next year's—effects of any given policy or change in policy.

The following chart is based on tax reform experiments in a paper I co-authored over a decade ago with Alan Auerbach, Larry Kotlikoff, Kent Smetters, and Jan Walliser. (Note that the chart does not appear in the paper, but I created it using data from the paper—a publicly available version of the paper can be found here.) The chart depicts the cumulative percentage increases in national income that would be realized (in our model) in the years following three different tax reforms.

The three experiments depicted in this chart were as follows:

"[The clean income tax] replaces the progressive taxation of wage income with a single rate that is also applied to capital income. In addition, the clean income tax eliminates the major federal tax-base reductions including the standard deduction, personal and dependent exemptions, itemized deductions, the deductibility of state income taxes at the federal level, and preferential tax treatment of fringe benefits...


"Our flat tax experiment modifies the clean consumption tax by including a standard deduction of $9500. In addition, housing wealth, which equals about half of the capital stock, is entirely exempt from taxation."


Parenthetically, the "clean consumption tax"

"...differs from the clean income tax by including full expensing of investment expenditures. This produces a consumption-tax structure. Formally, we specify the system as a combination of a labor-income tax and a business cash-flow tax."


Finally,

"Our [flat tax with transition relief] experiment adds transition relief to the flat tax by extending pre-reform depreciation rules for capital in place at the time of the tax reform."


Here's what I want to emphasize in all of this. If the change in policy you might be considering involves a reduction in effective marginal tax rates (implemented via a combination of changes in statutory rates and adjustments in deductions and exemptions), the approach taken by Crawford in his Angry Bear piece is probably acceptable. The clean income tax reform is in the spirit of Crawford's calculations, and in our results the long-run impact on output is realized almost immediately. If, however, the tax reform involves changing the tax base in a fundamental way (in both versions of our flat tax experiments the base shifts from income to consumption), then the ultimate effects are felt only gradually. In our flat tax experiments, the longer-run effects on income are in the neighborhood of three times as large as the near-term effects.

All of the experiments described were done under the assumption of revenue neutrality, so questions of the right policy for budget balancing exercises weren't explicitly addressed. (Nor is it the nature of the experiment contemplated in the Angry Bear post.) Nonetheless, they do suggest that deficit reduction exercises that involve changes in tax rates and the tax base will have differential effects over time, and realizing the full benefits of tax reform may require a modicum of patience.

Note: A user-friendly description of the paper that the chart above is based on appeared in an Economic Commentary article published by the Cleveland Fed.

Update: Though the item at Angry Bear was posted by Dan Crawford, Mike Kimel actually wrote it. I apologize for the mistake and draw your attention to Kimel's follow-up post.


Dave Altig By Dave Altig
senior vice president and research director at the Atlanta Fed

May 19, 2011 in Deficits, Fiscal Policy, Taxes | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef01538e959d51970b

Listed below are links to blogs that reference The long and short (runs) of tax reform:

Comments

Dan Crawford posted the analysis. Mike Kimmel wrote it. Just thought I should mention it.

Posted by: kharris | May 20, 2011 at 10:39 AM

So when does your theoretical chart reflect the dramatic plunge that has occurred in real nations with flat taxes (e.g. Iceland)? Must be in year 14, right?

Posted by: Devin | May 20, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Minor correction: Dan posted it, but Mike Kimel actually wrote it.

Posted by: Ken Houghton | May 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Dave,

Hi. Thanks for mentioning the post. I modified it to take into account some of your comments. (New version here: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/05/tax-rates-and-economic-growth-over-ten.html)

Now I use the tax rates in any given year to explain annualized growth rates over the subsequent ten years. Additionally, I've included quadratic forms of both the top and bottom rates, which allows me to compute growth maximizing rates at both ends of the scale.

It turns out that the growth maximizing top marginal rate isn't much changed from the first post (i.e., 67%), but the optimal bottom marginal rate is zero. I think that indicates that using historical US data at least, a flat tax is a bad idea, as the top and bottom marginal rates would be identical if rates were flat.

With respect, given the choice between the outcomes predicted by a simulation, and historical outcomes, I'd go with the historical outcomes.

Best regards.

Posted by: Mike Kimel | May 24, 2011 at 07:23 PM

Dave, I would be interested is learning more as to why this is the case...i.e. why would a change into a flat tax have minimal short-term effects (yet meaningful long-term effects)?

Posted by: Chris | May 26, 2011 at 07:45 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 18, 2011


Can Keynesians be anti-Keynesian?

Follow any policy debate, and you are sure to find a list of economists who support or inspire those on both sides of the issue. In The Economist, we find some of those on the roster for the new Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and why:

"When Republicans proposed slashing billions of dollars from federal spending this year, Democrats circulated predictions by economists that jobs and growth would be hit. John Boehner, the Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, countered with an economic expert of his own: John Taylor of Stanford University. 'Nothing could be more contrary to basic economics, experience and facts,' Mr. Taylor asserted on his blog, which Mr. Boehner cited. By cutting government spending, he said, the Republicans would 'crowd in' private investment and create jobs.

"… if there is one ideology that unites today's Republicans, it is Keynesianism, whose nefarious influence they are determined to stamp out. 'Young Guns,' the book-sized manifesto of Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan, leading Republican House members, devotes several pages to the evils of Keynesian activism and its exponents in the administration."

One of the interesting things about the article is that among the economists cited as being among the critics of "Keynesianism," you find the names John Taylor, Robert Mundell, and Kenneth Rogoff. I find that list interesting because if you follow the links I attached to those names you will find work with models that are decidedly Keynesian in structure. Works by Taylor and Rogoff are, in fact, seminal contributions to the "New Keynesian" paradigm that dominates macroeconomics today.

As far as I know, none of these men have repudiated the basic worldview that motivates the referenced work. In fact, as recently as last year John Taylor approvingly described, as he has many times, a key characteristic of the paradigm for monetary policy that was in place the decades before the financial crisis:

"… the central bank has a strategy, or rule, to adjust the interest rate depending on economic conditions: In general, the interest rate rises by a certain amount when inflation increases above its target and the interest rate falls when by a certain amount when the economy goes into a recession."

I added the emphasis to the last part of that passage as it is a feature of the so-called Taylor rule that is entirely built on the foundation of the New Keynesian model.

How, then, to explain the Keynesian predilections of the economists mentioned as presumed carriers of the anti-Keynesian mantle? The source of the confusion, I think, goes back to the historical, but somewhat obsolete, distinction between so-called Keynesianism and monetarism. The latter was, of course, personified in Milton Friedman and his dispute with what was the orthodoxy in the three decades following the Great Depression. Lost in the early-days labeling, however, was the fact that the disputes were more about the empirical details of theory rather than the theory itself.

In particular, Friedman did not deny the effectiveness of policy in principle but rather its wisdom or impact in practice. This sentiment is exactly the one he expressed in his prescient and transformative 1968 presidential address to the American Economics Association:

"In the United States the revival of belief in the potency of monetary policy was strengthened also by the increasing disillusionment with fiscal policy, not so much by its potential to increase aggregate demand as with the practical and political feasibility of so using it."

In a recent essay on Friedman's views about the ineffectiveness of fiscal policy, Tim Congdon notes Friedman's views on the issue:

"Friedman offered two informal theoretical arguments for the virtual irrelevance of fiscal policy, as he saw it. The second was that fiscal policy is much harder to adjust in a sensitive short-term way than monetary policy. But the first was the more telling and deserves detailed discussion.… In Friedman's words, 'I believe it to be true… that the Keynesian view that a government deficit is stimulating is simply wrong.' The explanation was the wider effects of the way the budget deficit is financed. To quote again, 'A deficit is not stimulating because it has to be financed, and the negative effects of financing it counterbalance the positive effects, if there are any, on spending.' "

Though Congdon emphasizes different channels (associated with the mix of monetary and fiscal policy associated with deficit spending), those who follow such things may recognize in Friedman's remarks the notion of Ricardian equivalence:

"This is the idea that increased government borrowing may have no impact on consumer spending because consumers predict tax cuts or higher spending will lead to future tax increases to pay back the debt.

"If this theory is true, it would mean a tax cut financed by higher borrowing would have no impact on increasing aggregate demand because consumers would save the tax cut to pay the future tax increases."

My point is not to dispute or defend the truth of the Ricardian proposition. My point is that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether one believes (or does not believe) that the New Keynesian framework is the right way to view the world. The essential policy implications of the New Keynesian idea (like the old Keynesian idea) is that changes in gross domestic product can be driven by changes in desired spending by households, businesses, foreigners, and the government in sum. You can believe that and still believe in fiscal policy ineffectiveness, as long as you believe that total spending is unaltered by a particular policy intervention.

There are, of course, plenty of arguments against fiscal policy activism that do not require adherence to Ricardian equivalence, in total or in part. The most obvious would be the position that any short-term rush from stimulative policies is more than reversed in the long run by the negative consequences of higher tax rates on productive activity, or the redirection of private investment to lower return public spending. Again, the point is that a self-professed adherent to a Keynesian reality need suffer no doubts about the coherence of his or her intellectual framework if he or she objects to fiscal policies aimed at juicing the economy through greater government spending.

This whole discussion may seem like a bit of inside baseball, and perhaps it is. But the stakes in this debate are high, as clearly illustrated by today's announcement from rating agency Standard & Poor's that it reduced its outlook to negative on the triple-A credit rating of the United States. In my view, productive discussions about the truly pressing issues of our day are unlikely unless we understand where the disagreements lie—and where they do not.

Photo of Dave Altig By Dave Altig
senior vice president and research director at the Atlanta Fed



April 18, 2011 in Deficits, Federal Debt and Deficits, Fiscal Policy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef014e6108ba6f970c

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Can Keynesians be anti-Keynesian?:

Comments

I'm a rank amateur, so please let me know where I go wrong.

Fiscal stimulus is government spending, and government spending comes from either taxes or borrowing (bonds). Since raising taxes is pretty much the worst possible policy in a recession, let's assume the stimulus is entirely borrowed.

Bonds are repaid via future taxes, hence the idea of Ricardian equivalence. However there's always uncertainty in the future. To the extent the public believes the recession is due to a temporary market failure which the stimulus can repair ("nothing to fear but fear itself")... to the extent they believe the stimulus may be offset by future spending cuts... Ricardian equivalence will fail. So 0 < R < 1.

Now let's compare to monetary stimulus. It's also funded by the sale of bonds* but this time the public sells them to the Fed. Except all bonds originate at the Treasury, and additional demand from the Fed must ultimately cause additional supply. This is especially likely since recessions often cause a flight to safety, sending organic bond demand high. And, primary dealers are required to sell.

So the only difference is whether the Treasury sells bonds to the public or to the Fed. The Fed destroys bonds and even refunds the coupons, so R = 0. The cost of the procedure is inflationary pressure. And inflation... also stimulates the economy,** by spurring investors to renew existing contracts and seek higher nominal returns. So Friedman was right, though maybe not as right as he thought or for the reasons he gave.

That's the financing issue. What about Taylor's crowding out? Here I think there are more teeth: http://lumma.org/microwave/#2010.07.18

-Carl

* Unless the Fed has been doing something weird, like you know, buying MBS. Those are money-quantity neutral if the payments are destroyed. So I don't get all the talk about an exit strategy. The Fed can simply hold its MBS to maturity, alternatively destroying or reinvesting the payments as part of its overall operations.

** Provided inflation expectations remain anchored. I think.

Posted by: Carl Lumma | April 18, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Essentially there is no difference between Keynesianism and its opponents like monetarism. They all agree on the basic notion that money is equivalent to cash balances (though how you can define money as something that is not spent and then try to relate it to total income or total expenditure is beyond me).

Keynes argued about the tension between bonds and cash balances. Friedman added stuff like equity and consumer durables and Keynesians like Tobin did not disagree.

Keynes's classic money equation
M = M1 + M2 = L1(Y) + L2(r)
where M2 is the speculative demand for money
simply reduces to monetarism if speculative demand is zero.

Posted by: Philip George | April 19, 2011 at 04:59 AM

Both Carl and Philip make good points. Carl's contribution is noting "uncertainty". Ricardian equivalence doesn't hold for, at least, two reasons: 1) the future is irreducibly uncertain, and 2) most people outside of finance and economics recognize this basic fact and thus heavily weight the present observable economic activity from employment-producing fiscal stimulus and assign very little weight to the distribution of possible future tax rates. Thus they don’t save their current earnings to pay the tax man. If you believe that people use future tax rates in their present consumption calculus, please provide me the probability distribution and parameters that they are using for their calculations.

Technically, Keynes posited that inflation stimulates the economy by increasing people's expectations of the marginal efficiency of capital (i.e., the return on invested capital). When capital is plentiful the marginal efficiency is low and people are not motivated to invest it in new capital projects that employ people and resources. This leads to the similarity with Friedman. People compare the marginal efficiency of capital to the schedule of interest rates when they decide to invest (notice that marginal efficiency of capital is not always equal to the interest rate as Classical, Neo-Classical, Monetarists, Neo-Classical Keynesian Synthesis [in the long run] schools all assume). Thus, when the marginal efficiency of capital (return on invested capital) is greater than the interest rate people invest, when it's not they don't.

So, there are 2 options, in general: raise the marginal efficiency of capital through boosting confidence ("animal spirits") and/or use an “exogenous” force to employ people to build capital (e.g., fiscal stimulus). Keynes also believed that you could lower the interest rate below the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital by increasing the money supply as Friedman would advocate. However, Keynes believed this was inefficient because there is no substitute for money so as people demand more and more in uncertain times as they struggle to build a security blanket made of dollars big enough and they just let them sit in bank accounts, under mattresses, or in Treasuries (Keynes’s used the word “hoard”). This idle money cannot increase employment (Keynes's main goal for moral and economic reasons).

This is exactly what we have seen--corporations haven't really invested and banks haven't lent (due to lack of willingness and now they claim lack of demand) thus it's left to the government to spend and increase employment. One might point to increases in the equity markets as a mechanism for saved money to go towards employment producing investment. But, remember that an overwhelming amount of money that has flowed to asset markets post the crisis was in the secondary markets and not primary issuance (e.g., IPOs). Thus, the money is simply trading hands based on past investments that employed people to build the products or provide the services of the businesses represented by the ownership stakes provided by stocks. Outside of employing people in the financial community, this “spending” doesn’t employ many people. This is why you see a tight labor market for people in finance and a weak market for construction workers.

Posted by: Joshua Packwood | April 19, 2011 at 07:14 PM

Keynesians are anti-keynesian. Monetarists are keynesian. What a confusion!
Have any of you ever tried marxist economic theory for a change?

Posted by: wskarma | April 20, 2011 at 04:56 AM


Thanks, Dave for a thought-provoking and brave post. A few comments. First, neo-Keynesianism dominates the world of applied macroeconomics because it has empirical content. The theory can be tested and implications for policy made based on parameters derived from experience. True tests come when events occur outside the historical norms, such as what has occurred in the past few years, and in general the theory has stood up well.

As a result, this paradigm dominates the applied world, where there are quantitative benchmarks for performance. Unfortunately in other realms the theory does not dominate, and in fact is ridiculed. The first such realm is academia. Here, neoclassical theory has all but squeezed the neo-Keynesian paradigm from the classroom. The grip of the neoclassicals is such that one can barely find a neo-Keynesian article in a major journal. The benchmark in this world now is model elegance. Abstract optimization is prized far over empirical validity. The fact that these models rely on unfounded assumptions such as rational expectations and efficient markets and that recessions are the result of productivity shocks are not subjects for discussion. No $100 bills on the sidewalk, but trillions in losses.

The second realm is policy. If we give conservatives the benefit of the doubt as to their motives (a significant assumption), then what they feel is a strong aversion to government action of nearly any type. This explains the mental gymnastics of the economists you cite whose research has been based on an empirically valid theory, but whose implications run into their ideology. The resulting cognitive dissonance is an embarrassment to them and to the profession. I put it this way: a Keynesian would say that the government should pull the Chilean miners out of the mine, while a conservative would say it's not effective because either it would encourage future miners to be relaxed on the job or because the cost would imply that the private sector would be crowded out and less money would be spent on safety.

One last point: your last line on S&P and the US debt rating. Of course, the problem is serious and needs attention. But please do not encourage these guys by citing them as a source of authority on these matters. Their track record on sovereign debt is abysmal, to say nothing of securitized products. Their incentives are highly questionable and their use by investors as a crutch is a key factor behind the financial collapse we have just gone through. Please devote your efforts to unwinding them and encouraging independent analysis.


Posted by: Rich888 | April 20, 2011 at 09:56 AM

I believe the concept that, with a Federal deficit, one would spend less now because taxes are going to be higher in the future is just not in the American conciousness.

Indeed, I see as the other way around: people pulling income into these low tax years, and then increasing spending now, rather than have the income in what might be higher tax years in the future.

But this is an empirical question. Surely polls have been done: "Are you spending less now, because taxes might be higher in the future?" To which the answer, "What are you talking about?" should be a possible choice.

[this comment occured because of a Krugman link]

Posted by: David Fields | April 20, 2011 at 09:59 AM

David Fields has it correct. The future for 70% of Americans is the bill due at the end of the month, not the marginal efficiency of capital.

Posted by: DR | April 20, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I would think that David Field's comments on testing Ricardian equivalences with the American public might be applied to corporations as well. If corporations were concerned about future taxes, we would see that factored into the tax rate used in DCF analysis for longer-term projects. There would be increased tax-rate assumptions in later years, or at least future tax rates would be factored into the sensitivity analysis.

It would be easy enough to poll corporate finance managers to find out if this was in fact happening, and then try to calculate what impact that had on the acceptance of business projects. My suspicion is that it might have an impact, but at much less than Ricardian equivalence.

John

Posted by: Ragweed | April 21, 2011 at 03:06 PM

"If we give conservatives the benefit of the doubt as to their motives (a significant assumption), then ..."

If you are going to claim to give conservatives the benefit of doubt as to their motives, then you should do so. You do no such thing. It would be as if a conservative said: "If we give liberals the benefit of doubt as to their motives, then we should assume [the same exact things we already assume without giving them the benefit of doubt]." If you are unable to accurately or objectively describe the positions and motives without your own biases, try not to claim that you are in fact doing so.

Posted by: sparky | April 22, 2011 at 07:36 AM

Keynes did not ponder what drove the economies of the world in order to get published or to achieve tenure. He eschewed elaborate mathematical economics, even though his intellect and mathematical skill fully permitted him to engage in such analysis. Rather, he was practical, and looked for an explanation in the Great Depression of why what he observed was as it was. A highly successful investor, he spent the first hour of every day doing the equivalent now of reading the WSJ and the Financial Times. He also had worked for the British treasury. He was directly responsible for financing the First World War for Britain. From these practical, real life experiences, he arrived at economic conclusions that are indeed the paradigm by which most operate today, including Mr. Taylor. So, the Young Guns have cited economists who have stood on the shoulders of Keynes.

Last, we make a grave policy error if we fail to recognize that the steps of governmental intervention taken by Chairman Bernanke, the Congress, and Secretary Paulson, in the early fall of 2008, are the chief reason that we did not see in late 2009 and early 2010 unemployment go to 20%. Forgotten, for example, in the current discussion of cutting government spending, is the effect the stimulus package had on state governments, which would otherwise have severely curtailed expenditure. The federal government used its collective strength to avoid the kind of reamplification of recessionary tendencies that would have been the inevitable result of such state layoffs.

Finally, it does not help to analyze these economic issues in terms of conservative and liberal, or Republican and Democrat. As the collapse of communism demonstrates, rigid adherence to a purely ideological notion of economics is doomed to fail. Rather, the policy issues should be addressed in a practical way, avoiding dogma and with a keen eye to the demonstrable.

Posted by: Michael Egan | May 24, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 11, 2011


The pluses and minuses of reluctant consumers

If you've been keeping up with news from last weekend's convergence of economists at the annual meeting of the Allied Social Science Associations, you will probably have heard of this optimistic-sounding conclusion by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein:

"It is not hard to imagine that a few years from now the current account imbalances of the US and China will be very much smaller than they are today or even totally gone."

An advance copy of the article was provided a few weeks ago at Real Time Economics, and considerable commentary has followed since (here, here, here, and here, for example). Not surprisingly, the progress Professor Feldstein envisions has two components:

"The persistence of large current account imbalances reflects government policies that alter the savings-investment balances in both the United States and China.

"The large current account deficit of the United States reflects the combination of large budget deficits (negative government saving) and very low household saving rates. ...

"In contrast, China's large current account surplus reflects the world’s highest saving rate at some 45 percent of GDP [gross domestic product]."

The source of Feldstein's belief that progress will come?

"Consider first the situation in the United States. Current conditions suggest that national saving as a percentage of GDP will rise as private saving increases and government dissaving declines. Private saving has been on a rising path from less than two percent of disposable income in 2007 to nearly six percent of disposable income in 2010. The forces that caused the rise in the U.S. saving rate since 2007 could cause the saving rate to continue to rise. Those forces include reduced real wealth, increased debt ratios, and a reduced availability of credit. ...

"The reduction of the U.S. current account deficit implies that the current account surplus of the rest of the world must also decrease. While this need not mean a lower current account surplus in China, I believe that the policies that the Chinese have outlined for their new five year plan are likely to have that effect. These include raising the share of household income in GDP, requiring state owned enterprises to increase their dividends, and increasing government spending on consumption services like health care, education and housing."

Some skepticism about the probability of a substantial decline in Chinese saving rates was noted in a recent post at The Curious Capitalist, which focuses on some interesting new research that relates high Chinese saving rates to an increase in income volatility. To the extent that the increased income volatility is inherent in China's ongoing transition to a more market-based economy, substantial changes in consumer behavior might be difficult to engineer. That said, only about half of the increase in Chinese saving rates appears explainable based on natural economic forces, and the Chinese government can certainly reduce national saving of its own accord (via deficit spending). Furthermore, according to Feldstein's calculations, a relatively small decline in the Chinese saving rate could eliminate their side of the current account imbalance.

As to the first part of the equation—an increase in saving by U.S. consumers—Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart offered this yesterday in remarks prepared for the Atlanta Rotary Club:

"Households have been actively deleveraging—that is, working down debt levels and saving more of their income. The savings rate has increased from a little over 1 percent in 2005 to more than 5 percent currently.

"Consumer debt as a percent of disposable income has declined markedly over the past three years after rising steadily since the 1980s. Most nonmortgage consumer debt reduction has been in credit card balances. As consumers have reduced their debt, the share of income used to service financial obligations has fallen sharply to the lowest level in a decade.

"Consumer action to reduce debt is not the whole deleveraging story. In the numbers, the decline in overall household indebtedness has been highly affected by bank write-offs. Also, banks' stricter underwriting requirements for new consumer debt have contributed to runoff.

"I expect the phenomenon of household deleveraging to continue."

Restrained consumer spending was one item on a list of three "headwinds" that President Lockhart believes will serve to restrain growth in 2011 (the other two being policy uncertainties and ongoing credit market repair). Not that this is all bad:

"First, today's headwinds to a significant degree reflect structural adjustments that will, in the longer term, place the U.S. economy on a stronger footing. The preconditions for strong future growth are reduced uncertainty, improved consumer and household finances, and healthy credit markets.

"Second, I believe the headwinds I have emphasized will restrain growth but not stop it. I fully expect growth in gross domestic product, in personal incomes, and in jobs to be better in 2011 than in 2010.

"Finally, I acknowledge the potential that economic performance this year could surprise me on the upside. Businesses, for example, are sitting on lots of cash. Cash accumulation is not something that can continue forever, particularly in the case of public companies. It may not take much weakening of headwinds to unleash some of the economic forces that thus far have been bottled up."

Though faster progress would be welcome—particularly with respect to job creation—the Lockhart and Feldstein commentary makes it clear there is a delicate balance between resolving the short-run pain and setting up the longer-term gain.

Photo of Dave Altig By Dave Altig
Senior vice president and research director at the Atlanta Fed

January 11, 2011 in Deficits, Economic Growth and Development, Trade , Trade Deficit | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef0147e17b473f970b

Listed below are links to blogs that reference The pluses and minuses of reluctant consumers:

Comments

Is there really much evidence of consumers actively deleveraging? So far, the vast majority of deleveraging can be accounted for by defaults and write-downs. Though, I guess walking away from a mortgage could be described as actively deleveraging... ;-)

One other point, can it be determined how much of the fall in the debt service ratio is due to a decrease in interest rates and how much to a fall in debt-to-income levels? I tried looking into this, but it seemed like guess-work.

From 1982 to 2008, debt-to-income levels rose as interest rates generally fell, but not enough to offset the rise in debt levels, so the DSR rose. And this went on way longer than anyone in 1982 would have thought likely.

If we accept a moderately optimistic scenario of continual moderate growth, interest rates will likely begin rising in a year or so. What if we are entering a period of continuing falls in debt-to-income levels, rising rates and falling DSR?

Posted by: Bob_in_MA | January 12, 2011 at 09:32 AM

...Current conditions suggest that national saving as a percentage of GDP will rise as private saving increases and government dissaving declines...

That is an accounting impossibility if the external sector's position doesn't change. Where on earth would private savings come from if not from INCREASING government dissaving?

Posted by: Oliver | January 30, 2011 at 08:11 AM

The deficit is not a recent phenomena , it has just exploded in the past 5 to 7 years. Americans unforunately do not have the capacity to save more. Poor job market means less earnings which in turn means less saving. If people are not earning they eat into their nest eggs to cover expenses. Somehow doubt that this deficit will simply ease away.

Posted by: Michael | February 07, 2011 at 04:58 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

November 04, 2010


Some in Europe lag behind

Since around June, news of European fiscal deficits, financial markets stresses, potential sovereign debt defaults, or even a breakup of the euro zone has faded. The focal points of global economic policy have shifted to the sluggish recovery in developed countries and potential for further unconventional monetary stimulus.

A cursory look at a few key data reflects an improved European economic outlook from this summer. The simple dollar/euro exchange rate (see chart 1) shows that since June 1 the euro has appreciated nearly 15 percent against the dollar. While many different factors affect exchange rates—and increasing expectation of further monetary stimulus in the United States has helped the euro appreciate against the dollar—some of the appreciation seems to reasonably reflect the relative improvement of market sentiment about the fiscal situation in several European countries. Similarly, looking at the major stock indexes (mostly in Western European nations) shows a steady improvement from the lows of this summer, with the Euro Stoxx 50 index rising nearly 11 percent since June 1 (see chart 2). Thus, looking at most aggregate European data paints a picture of relative improvement, though most forecasters expect sluggish growth going forward. It's when one examines individual countries that it becomes clear some are lagging behind.

Chart 1
110410a
(enlarge)


Chart 2
110410b
(enlarge)

While the early stages of the European sovereign debt crisis centered on the fiscal scenario in Greece, market stress eventually spread to all the so-called PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) and even appeared to threaten the wider euro zone. Following an assortment of unprecedented interventions—highlighted by the 750 billion euro (approximately $1.05 trillion) rescue package from the European Union (through the European Financial Stability Facility) and support from the International Monetary Fund—market confidence slowly grew, and since this summer, various measures of financial market functioning have stabilized.

But while the threat of wider European contagion appears contained, fragilities remain. As has been documented in a variety of media reports, the recent improvement masks the individual euro zone peripheral countries' struggles with implementing fiscal consolidation, improving labor competiveness, resolving fragile banking systems, and staving off a crisis of confidence in sovereign debt markets.

Both bond spreads of individual European sovereign debt (over German sovereign debt) and credit default swap spreads show some stabilization for a few of the euro zone countries, but spreads in three countries—Greece, Ireland, and Portugal—are distinctly more elevated than the others (see charts 3 and 4).

Chart 3
110410c
(enlarge)


Chart 4
110410d
(enlarge)

The reasons for rising financing costs in these countries vary. In Ireland, for example, concerns about the Irish banking system (and the resolution of Anglo Irish Bank, in particular) were initially the driving cause. In Portugal, it was doubt over the implementation of necessary economic reforms that drove investor reluctance to provide financing; the recent adoption of austerity measures into the 2011 budget should alleviate some worry. But now much of the market action in both Irish and Portuguese bonds is focused on tough new bailout rules being implemented by the European Union.

On one hand, the renewed financing pressure brought upon these countries is less worrisome because of the backstop of the European Financial Stabilization Facility (EFSF). In fact, Moody's thinks it is unlikely there will be a euro zone default. Should market financing become too expensive for Greece, Ireland, or Portugal, the special purpose vehicle (SPV) imbedded within the EFSF could help by providing financing up to 440 billion euros ($616 billion).

But on the other hand, as part of the wider crisis prevention following the introduction of the EFSF, most European governments are implementing some level of fiscal austerity measures. From a political perspective, the implementation of these austerity measures varies widely, as demonstrated recently by the strikes in France over legislation trying to raise the retirement age. In addition to the uncertainty of implementing fiscal consolidation, there is pressure from the administrators of the EFSF to enforce burden-sharing on private bondholders in the event of any future bailout. This pressure is the primary impetus causing investors to shun the weaker peripheral countries.

One important player in this saga is the European Central Bank, which began buying European bonds for Greece, Ireland, and Portugal (among others) in conjunction with the EFSF announcement. Yet in recent weeks this bond buying has abated, and with money market pressures remaining in Europe, "something clearly has to give way," as Free Exchange wrote recently.

While aggregate market measures (exchange rates, stock indices, etc.) from Europe appear to be improving, a few specific countries face some hard challenges ahead.

By Andrew Flowers, senior economic research analyst in the Atlanta Fed's research department

 

November 4, 2010 in Capital Markets, Deficits, Europe | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef0133f596dc8b970b

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Some in Europe lag behind:

Comments

The problem is, if Portugal or other country Less pay your financial service, the investor loss lot of money, and system will be fast to underground.The unit money(Euro) game over.

Posted by: Adriano Oliveira | November 05, 2010 at 02:54 PM

Moody's thinks it is unlikely there will be a euro-zone default?? Highlighted? In 2007 Moody's rated Japan A2 and subprime pls AAA. Which do you think worked out better?

There may be no better indication that the system is about to implode.

Posted by: Rich888 | November 07, 2010 at 10:32 AM

The problem is there are simply way too many folks in China, Europe, and the UNITED STATES engaged in 'finance.' Having 'solved' the agricultural problem with the green revolution in the 1960s ( mass produced el cheapo fertilizer for all ) all these folks moved off the farm and went to work at the local bank/hedge fund/gambling hall ... and what they have designed is the perfect 'world financial casino' that is destined to blow itself up.

Posted by: European countries debt | November 11, 2010 at 05:31 AM

No two countries are exactly the same so by giving up their monetary policy independence to form the ECB these countries have lost the ability to steer their economies at will, each country has different macroeconomies and trying to solve them all with the same "pill" isn't working for countries which clearly have varying debt-GDP ratios.
There is a saying that a person is only as rich as the people around him or her and that is the case with the European Union where the booming economies have tax payers funding the struggling economies and by allowing the interbank rates to rise, the ECB is showing it's inability to sustain different economies at the same time. Increasing interest rates only end up reducing outputs in low debt-GDP Euro countries and having the opposite effect in high debt-GDP ones, it'll be a case of you win some, you lose some. The onus is left to the stronger economies, France and Germany, to keep supporting the struggling economies till those economies pick up

Posted by: Salewa Olawoye | November 19, 2010 at 09:13 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

December 08, 2009


Another rescue plan comes in below the original price tag

Though the tab to taxpayers could still be substantial when all is said and done, it now appears the taxpayer cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will be substantially lower than was thought not too long ago:

"The Obama administration expects the cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to be $200 billion less than projected, helping to reduce the size of the budget deficit, a Treasury Department official said yesterday.

"The administration forecast in August that the TARP would ultimately cost $341 billion, once banks had repaid the government for capital injections and other investments. Congress authorized $700 billion for the program in October 2008."

There is precedent for such good news. Travel back for a moment to the formation and operation of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), the agency formed to purchase and sell the "toxic assets" of failed financial institutions following the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. As noted in a postmortem by Timothy Curry and Lynn Shibut of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the cost projections for the RTC ballooned in the early days of its operations:

"Reflecting the increased number of failures and costs per failure, the official Treasury and RTC projections of the cost of the RTC resolutions rose from $50 billion in August 1989 to a range of $100 billion to $160 billion at the height of the crisis peak in June 1991..."

In the end, however, the outcome, though higher than the very first projections, came in well below the figures suggested by the worst case scenario:

"As of December 31, 1999, the RTC losses for resolving the 747 failed thrifts taken over between January 1, 1989, and June 30, 1995, amounted to an estimated $82.7 billion, of which the public sector accounted for $75.6 billion, or 91 percent, and the private sector accounted for $7.1 billion, or 9 percent."

While people may debate the approaches taken, it is heartening to see evidence that TARP, like the RTC before it, is ultimately costing considerably less than estimated.

By David Altig, senior vice president and research director of the Atlanta Fed

December 8, 2009 in Deficits, Federal Debt and Deficits, Financial System, Fiscal Policy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef01287632bfd8970c

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Another rescue plan comes in below the original price tag:

Comments

TARP should be judged on the basis of its effects on the financial system, and not its cost. So far looks like its working.

Visit econdashboards.com

Posted by: ZZ | December 08, 2009 at 10:56 PM

Since the expressed purpose was to 'save Main Street' by handing out the future to Wall Street, the plan has decidedly not worked. Main Street has been pulled through the knothole anyway, and paid for the experience.

Posted by: wally | December 09, 2009 at 09:25 AM

Please. Give us a break. What about trillions of dollars in guarantees given to various institutions. How about junk MBS paper bought by the federal reserve and GSE's. Lets not pretend that the cost to tax payer is going to be minimal. This is going to end badly but only for the tax payers. The banks will make out like bandits.

Posted by: sartre | December 10, 2009 at 01:10 AM

Interesting. An interview I read with Kashkarian had him stating that "700 billion" was a number pulled out of thin air. They had no idea how much to ask, so they decided to ask for as large a number as they could get.

I am glad they didn't go over it. However, I am dismayed at the outcomes learned. The government now wants to create more bureaucracy to oversee the financial system. The TARP has created even more concentration-bringing with it anti-competitive oligopolies.

We need to restructure the marketplace, not re or over regulate it.

Posted by: jeff | December 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM

You're omitting the other expenditures by the government to ensure that these loans would be repaid.

At the time TARP was authorized, they didn't envision spending 850 billion dollars to stimulate the economy and 1.8 trillion dollars to inflate asset prices.

The cost is going to be much higher over time because the Federal government will be running trillion dollar deficits for some time.

Posted by: Les | December 14, 2009 at 09:31 AM

You are ignoring a couple of *extremely* important facts:

The banks are "healthier" and able to buy their way out of TARP (perhaps only for awhile - a disgusting TARP II is not beyond belief) because:

1) The Fed (backed by the Treasury) has bought a trillion dollars worth of crappy MBS assets from the banks - at insanely inflated prices given their risks.

The default risks have therefore been transferred to the taxpayers - who will bleed out for years to come in order to transfuse degenerate banks.

Some success.

2) Savers have had the present value of their savings expropriated due to the zero interest rate policies pursued to save our scummy banks.

Again, some success.

Posted by: cas127 | December 15, 2009 at 08:43 AM

The banks also received massive tax breaks in the stimulus which are inflating the value of the shares that were exchanged for cash from the government. There's a good article in todays Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504534.html

Posted by: Les | December 15, 2009 at 09:20 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 26, 2007


Why Central Bankers Worry About Fiscal Policy

Today I again hand the keys to Mike Bryan -- now a fellow adjunct faculty member in the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business -- who provides us with a contemporary example of why it behooves central bankers to speak out when a nation's fiscal situtation gets out of whack:

The reports from Zimbabweover the past year and a half are the stuff that makes for good Money and Banking lectures. It seems that inflation in that country, as officially reported, topped 1,300 percent last year and may now exceed 3,700 percent, with some unofficial reports putting the country’s inflation rate even higher.  Let’s put this inflation in perspective.  If the last reported inflation number can be believed (the country’s Central Statistical Office recently stopped reporting the inflation numbers as it reviews its methodology), prices in Zimbabwe are doubling every month. Inflation of this magnitude renders the government-issued money virtually worthless, wrecking trade and financial institutions in the process.   

While the rate of inflation in the African nation isn’t known for certain, there is little doubt it is extraordinarily high.  Also not in doubt is its cause.  All inflations originate from the same phenomenon—too much money chasing too few goods.  In this case the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is rapidly printing Zimbabwe dollars in order to “pay” for a large fiscal shortfall. 

In a recent IMF paper on the Zimbabwe situation the author argues that the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s (RBZ) inflation problems stem not from the usual monetary or fiscal laxness that has triggered other “hyperinflations,” but rather “quasi-fiscal” losses incurred by the central bank itself.  Still, the report concludes that these losses, which stem from some combination of credit subsidies, realized and unrealized exchange losses, and losses from open market operations, were nevertheless incurred to support government policies, and the failure to address these losses has interfered with the monetary management, independence, and credibility of the RBZ.

The immediate “solution” to the Zimbabwe inflation has been the imposition of price controls, an approach that has been attempted by governments ancient and modern, including our own.  I can think of no better source on this topic than economist Hugh Rockoff of RutgersZimbabwe’s controls are actually retroactive, in the sense that merchants have been asked to reduce prices to earlier levels.  Predictably, the problem seems to have gotten worse—now there are even fewer goods for the Zimbabwe dollar to chase.  When and where will the Zimbabweinflation end?  I certainly don’t know.  But I’ve got a pretty good idea how it will end, by a sharp curtailment of their currency expansion.  And that’s the Money and Banking lesson.  If a central bank wants to end inflation, either they better start producing goods, or stop producing money. 

And that, I would add, will be a hard row to hoe unless the fiscal house is put in order.

July 26, 2007 in Africa, Deficits, Exchange Rates and the Dollar, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Inflation | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00e3981c37c18833

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Why Central Bankers Worry About Fiscal Policy:

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

June 21, 2006


What Is The Right Road To Budget Discipline?

New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (in the words of Brad DeLong) is suggesting a return to something like the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of the 1980s. From the WCAX-TV (Vermont) website:

Senator Judd Gregg is leading a move to force cuts in the spiraling growth of federal benefit programs.By twelve to ten vote yesterday, the Senate Budget committee approved a bill written by Gregg, the committee's chairman. It would force mandatory cuts to the deficit, enforced by across-the-board cuts to programs like Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance if Congress can't meet deficit targets on its own.

The bill also revives the idea of the line-item veto which would allow the president to single out wasteful items contained in bills he signs into law, and it would require Congress to vote on those items again.

Says Brad:

The problem with Judd Gregg's proposal is that Gramm-Rudman didn't work when we tried it in the 1980s. It, I think, made matters worse--members of congress became more eager to vote for budget-busting measures when they could claim that Gramm-Rudman placed a cap on the total deficit, and then the congress was unwilling to apply the cap medicine when the dose turned out to be unexpectedly high, and so the process died.

The Budget Enforcement Act framework seemed to work much better in the 1990s than Gramm-Rudman worked in the 1980s.

To be fair to the proponents of Senator Gregg's proposal (who may not be legion), the new variant of GRH seems to address some of the perceived weaknesses of GRH itself -- specifically the inclusion of a presidential line-item veto and the removal of shelter for entitlement expenditures.  And at least in implicit in the Gregg plan is a pay-as-you go feature that was central to the Budget Enforcement Act (as enacted under G.H.W. Bush and extended during the Clinton administration). 

The editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal are skeptical:

Democrats in Congress unveiled their 2006 campaign agenda last week, laying claim to the mantle of "fiscal responsibility." The GOP's spendthrifts have handed them this political opening, which makes it all the more disappointing that Democrats are falling back on an old confidence trick.

Their ruse goes by the name of "pay-as-you-go" budgeting, which has the political virtue of sounding as if spending won't be able to exceed revenue...

That's because paygo rules apply only to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to those that already exist and grow automatically with user demand. Thus spending for Medicare, growing this year at an astounding 15% annual rate, would continue to run on autopilot. Ditto for Medicaid. So-called "discretionary" programs (education, Defense) that Congress approves each year are also exempt. Democrats somehow forget to disclose that those notorious "earmarks" stuffed into spending bills are also exempt from paygo.

Well, OK, but I'm with Brad, on the paygo issue and his broader support for the mechanisms of the Budget Enforcement Act.  In my opinion, the fundamental problem with the GRH approach to budget arose from its focus on the deficit per se.  To me, fiscal policy boils down to answering a few simple questions.  How much do we want to spend, and what do we want to spend it on?  Having answered that question, it is beyond obvious that revenues have to pay for that spending in the long run.  The only remaining question, then, is how those revenues should be raised (that is, who and what do we want to tax).

I am not presuming to answer these questions.  In particular, I am not suggesting that correct answer is to raise revenues to match projected spending, anymore than I am suggesting the correct answer is to lower projected spending to match revenues.  What I am suggesting is that an institutional process that puts the focus squarely on the trade-off between a dollar spent on one type of government spending versus another, a dollar spent in the public sector versus one spent in the private sector, and one type of taxation versus another, is the right way to go.  The Budget Enforcement Act had the great virtue of requiring explicit decisions about new spending (for the discretionary part of the budget and new entitlement programs) and forcing explicit consideration of the inevitable trade-offs when anyone wanted to deviate from the program.    

I'll close with an appeal to higher authority:

... For about a decade, the rules laid out in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and in the later modifications and extensions of the act helped the Congress establish a better fiscal balance...

Reinstating a structure like the one formerly provided by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 would signal a renewed commitment to fiscal restraint and help restore discipline to the annual budgeting process. Such a step would be even more meaningful if it were coupled with the adoption of provisions for dealing with unanticipated budget outcomes. As you are well aware, budget outcomes have often deviated from projections--in some cases, significantly--and they will continue to do so. Accordingly, well-designed mechanisms that facilitate midcourse corrections would ease the task of bringing the budget back into line when it goes awry. In particular, the Congress might want to require that existing programs be assessed regularly to verify that they continue to meet their stated purposes and cost projections. Measures that automatically take effect when a particular spending program or tax provision exceeds a specified threshold may prove useful as well. The original design of the Budget Enforcement Act could also be enhanced by addressing how the strictures might evolve if and when reasonable fiscal balance came into view.

I do not mean to suggest that the nation's budget problems will be solved simply by adopting a new set of budgeting rules. The fundamental fiscal issue is the need to make difficult choices among budget priorities, and this need is becoming ever more pressing in light of the unprecedented number of individuals approaching retirement age.

Right.

June 21, 2006 in Deficits | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d8349b2cce53ef

Listed below are links to blogs that reference What Is The Right Road To Budget Discipline?:

Comments

I think that your sarcasm is correct, along with the WSJ skepticism. Politicos are like unrestrained kids in candy stores when it comes to spending money. Neither the Dems nor the Reps have had enough discipline to cut unnecessary government programs, or are willing to take the heat to end programs that exist purely for political means. Until there is a political revolution in either party, or outrage enought to start and fund a fiscally conservative party, the budget will continue to grow.

It is so bad, even programs with a sunset provision defy nature, the sun never sets.

Posted by: jeff | June 26, 2006 at 05:26 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 12, 2006


The Deficits Move in Opposite Directions -- For Now

From Bloomberg:

The dollar touched a more than one week high against the euro and strengthened versus the yen after the U.S. trade deficit narrowed more than forecast in February. The trade gap, the amount by which imports exceed exports, fell 4.1 percent $65.7 billion from a record $68.6 billion in January, led by a decline in Chinese imports...

A separate report showed the U.S. budget deficit gap widened last month to $85.5 billion in March, from $71.2 billion in the same month last year.

So, one deficit rises and the other falls?  Maybe not.  Both Brad Setser and The Nattering Naybob point out that China's trade surplus grew in March, on a strong expansion in exports.  And Menzie Chinn notes that the March (and April) surge in oil prices does not bode well for sustaining the February decline in U.S. imports.  The guessing is that when the March trade numbers are revealed, the two deficits may look like twins again.

Note: Calculated Risk has more on the budget deficit.

UPDATE: The Skeptical Speculator also makes reference to the March surplus in China, among many other things.

April 12, 2006 in Data Releases, Deficits, Trade Deficit | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d834b7d17d69e2

Listed below are links to blogs that reference The Deficits Move in Opposite Directions -- For Now:

Comments

over 300,000
-----------------------------

WRAPUP 1-U.S. March retail sales up, jobless claims rise
Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:17 AM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS (Page 1 of 2)
By Glenn Somerville
WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - U.S. retail sales rebounded modestly in March from a February dip while new claims for unemployment benefits, while up, still pointed to a healthy job market, government reports on Thursday showed.

The Commerce Department said overall retail sales rose 0.6 percent last month after a revised 0.8 percent February fall that had been reported as a much steeper 1.4 percent drop.

New-car sales were up 1.6 percent last month, partly recovering from a 2.8 percent drop in February.

Sales excluding new cars and parts rose 0.4 percent in March following a revised 0.3 percent decrease in February that had been reported as a 0.6 percent fall.

The March figures were in line with Wall Street forecasts for an overall 0.5 percent sales rise and for a 0.4 percent gain excluding cars and parts.

Separately, the Labor Department said new claims for unemployment pay rose by an unexpectedly large 12,000 last week to 313,000.

But a broader, four-week moving average that smooths weekly volatility to give a better picture of underlying conditions told a different story, contracting 1,500 last week to 307,500.

Posted by: anon | April 13, 2006 at 12:39 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

March 26, 2006


Odds And Ends

Another quarter begins at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, and I have once again cleverly fallen behind on my reading, giving me the excuse to introduce some of my favorite weblogs to new students, via this review of things I should have talked about last week.

First things first, the week ended with economic news that was mixed, at best. Kash at Angry Bear reads the durable goods reports and concludes (fairly, I think) that business investment spending is still short of spectacular.  On the other hand, at The Nattering Naybob Chronicles, Mr. Naybob is able to look on the bright side: "Both [the durable goods and house sales] reports eased inflation fears and bond yield dropped."

With respect to the real estate news, Calculated Risk, a consistently fine go-to source on the housing market, has the latest on home mortgage applications (down slightly), existing home sales (up, but perhaps not the best indicator),  and new home sales (a better indicator, and coming in "very weak".) CR also has a handy chart, mapping the pattern of home sales in recessions.  At the Big Picture, Barry Ritholtz opines: "The [Real Estate] market has dropped from white hot to red hot to mid-plateau."  Calculated Risk says   "The sky may not be falling, but... housing sales are clearly trending down."  Captain Capitalism, however, is not cheered by that prognosis, and Michael Shedlock pores over the Calculated Risk pictures, to find that his disposition is soured as well.  ElectEcon finds a prediction that things are going to get ugly fast

For those who simply must have more housing indicators to watch, Daniel Gross bears good news, from Standard & Poor's.  For those who just can't get enough detail on economic data period, Mark Thoma has more at Economist's View.

Speaking of data, a nice summary of U.S. wealth as reported in the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds can be found at Angry Bear. (Although I don't necessarily endorse the conclusions, you might also enjoy the pictures provided at Economic Dreams - Economic Nightmares.)

Last week I (sort of) came to the rescue of the Consumer Price Index.  Barry Ritholtz (again) counter punches, with a Wall Street Journal survey of readers indicating the vast majority don't think very highly of the Consumer Price Index, but Russell Roberts effectively (in my view) defends the beleaguered index, at Cafe Hayek.

Also in the inflation vein, Mark Thoma follows up my post on the relationship between the CPI and the PPI with some work of his own -- broadly illustrating the point of the research I was citing.

Mark also relays the crux of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's speech on the yield curve.  Meanwhile, the inverted yield curve watch continues, at The Capital Spectator.

Shifting to the fiscal side of the government house, Kash breaks down the sources of federal spending growth in the United States over the past five years.  The guys at Angry Bear have had several useful, even if a bit partisan, posts on the subject in the recent past -- here, here, here, here, and hereGary Becker and Richard Posner provide some much needed perspective on how to think about the build-up in defense spending. 

In other legislative news, Andrew Chamberlain at Tax Policy Blog indicates that tax reform may not be dead just yet (good), and at Vox Baby, Andrew Samwick reports on the progress of pension reform (decidedly not good).

David Weman at A Few Euros More gives us the heads up on an item (from the Guardian Unlimited (U.K.) blog) bemoaning the rising tide of protectionism (among countries, including the U.S., that really ought to know better).  The Skeptical Speculator concurs that "protectionism looms." Asia Pundit reminds us that, in the United States, the impulse is bipartisan (and Sun Bin channels Stephen Roach's comments on the subject). William Polley deems it "Nothing if not predictable." Mark Thoma provides an extended commentary from the Financial Times on the dangers of "Dobbism" (as in Lou).  Daniel Drezner, however, has better news. Brad DeLong takes notice of a Alan Blinder's sometimes less charitable view of trade and globalization, to which Arnold Kling replies -- here and here.

Steve Antler (of EconoPundit) makes the connection from trade protectionism to immigration reform.   Russell Roberts is even less tolerant of the anti-immigration argument.  So is Arnold Kling (at EconLog).  EurActiv reports on how the EU is attempting to deal with its own immigration questions. The New Economist provides a glimpse of research suggesting that outsourcing explains about 28 percent of the growth in the wage gap between high- and low-skilled labor between 1980 and 1999.

Continuing with the international theme, Brad Setser thinks both sides are at fault in the ongoing tensions over Chinese exchange rate policies.  He also has terrific coverage of Larry Summers' must-read views on the current state of global financial markets and capital flows.  Mark Thoma notes an article on the relationship between exchange rate policies and trade gaps and a summary of research on foreign direct investment. Steve Antler suggests an explanation for "why the dollar still reigns".  Barry Ritholtz is pretty sure the answer is not Dark MatterMenzie Chinn, writing at Econbrowser, is even less convinced.  (He follows up that post with a very nice discussion of "purchasing power parity."  Don't worry if you don't know what that means -- Menzie will fill you in.)

Speaking of China, Daniel Gross carries a story from the New York Times on the development race between China and India, the latter a country that I think gets far less attention than it deserves.  (Lest there is any confusion, I mean positive attention.)  Interestingly, Toni Straka at The Prudent Investor -- who  unfailingly does not ignore India -- reports that India is about to float its currency and remove foreign exchange controls.

About Economics has a macro-relevant post on the, increasingly quaint, problem of the so-called zero nominal interest rate bound.  Digging even further into the history of monetary theory, Jane Galt ruminates on "free money." In the some-think-it-matters-I-don't category, The Capital Spectator comments on the retirement of M3.  So does Tim Iacono. That makes the graphs at Economist's View on M3 velocity -- explained here -- somewhat obsolete, but don't worry -- there is still M1 and M2 to absorb your attention.

UPDATE: Oh yeah -- Tyler Cowen has a new gig at the New York Times.

SPECIAL BRAIN-LOCK UPDATE:  Above I hat-tipped A Fistful of Euro's David Weman for a Guardian article  "bemoaning  the rising tide of protectionism" (my words).  Unfortunately, the Guardian article that does the bemoaning is not the one David cites.  I had in mind an earlier article by James Surowiecki.  David was pointing to another article, by Daniel Davies, arguing that capital controls do not count as protectionism.  Double hat-tip to David for keeping me on the straight and narrow.  (Oh, and by the way -- I'm with Surowiecki.)

March 26, 2006 in Asia, Data Releases, Deficits, Europe, Exchange Rates and the Dollar, Federal Debt and Deficits, Housing, Inflation, Interest Rates, Labor Markets, Saving, Capital, and Investment, Taxes, This, That, and the Other, Trade , Trade Deficit | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d8345aacd269e2

Listed below are links to blogs that reference Odds And Ends :

» Round-up of Recent Economics Blog Postings from EclectEcon
Dave Altig at Macroblog has a very comprehensive round-up of recent blog postings from all over creation, all grouped by various economics topics. It is very thorough and ... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 26, 2006 9:04:00 PM

» Carnival of the Economists from The Big Picture
Over at Macroblog, Dave Altig collects lots of Odds And Ends from the week's economic writings. He's a one man Carnival of the Economists. Looks like it took hours to put together. If you are looking for additional sources of economic writing and discu... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 27, 2006 9:46:30 AM

» What Has Happened to U.S. M3 Growth Rates? from EclectEcon
If you're interested in growth rates of the U.S. money supply (and Fed policy concerning them), you might enjoy [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 28, 2006 1:06:21 PM

Comments

Great site. Great post. But, do you really think India is being underreported? I sure don't. It's hard even finding articles on China these days (such as your post) that don't mention India.

Posted by: China Law Blog | March 26, 2006 at 09:51 PM

CLB -- Fair enough. The indictment should really be aimed squarely at me. (By the way -- I just checked out your site. Very interesting. I'll make it regular reading from now on.)

Posted by: Dave Altig | March 27, 2006 at 07:20 AM

I'll add a few on-line print business columnists for your insatiable readers. O.C.Register's Jon Lansner is always on top of the socal economy, & I think Dallas Morning News' Danielle DiMartino's piece this morning, "Systemic risk is on the bubble", speaks loudly & well of her ability.

Posted by: bailey | March 27, 2006 at 10:40 AM

"David Weiman at A Few Euros More gives us the heads up on an item (from the Guardian Unlimited (U.K.) blog) bemoaning the rising tide of protectionism (among countries, including the U.S., that really ought to know better)."

Actually, no.

Posted by: David Weman | March 27, 2006 at 10:56 AM

David -- Sorry about the typo. All fixed.

Posted by: Dave Altig | March 27, 2006 at 04:16 PM

Sorry, I meant that Daniel Davies doesn't say what you think he says, but rather:

'Basically and historically, "protectionism" (and "mercantilism" and related terms) always used to refer to tariff policy, with respect to goods markets and trade between buyers and sellers. The use of the terms to refer to policies about capital markets and ownership of companies is a new one; I spotted it beginning to arise in the FT and Economist around the beginning of the 1990s and have been writing Mr Angry letters on the subject ever since. Because capital markets "protectionism" is much less bad than the goods market type and might not even be bad at all.'

Posted by: David Weman | March 27, 2006 at 06:16 PM

David -- Oops. Wrong article. Thanks for keeping me honest. I trust the update is better?

Posted by: Dave Altig | March 27, 2006 at 08:50 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

November 09, 2005


The ECB Says Enough With The Deficits

Yesterday's story was about the European finance ministers offering some advice to the European Central Bank.  Today it looks like the ECB has in store some advice of its own -- and is willing to back it up with the power of its portfolio decisions.  From the Financial Times:

The European Central Bank will sharply step up pressure on Italy, Greece and other eurozone fiscal laggards by warning that it will refuse to accept their sovereign debt as collateral if their credit ratings slip.

In an attempt by the ECB to warn European governments about the consequences of overspending, the bank is to state that it will only accept bonds with at least a single A- rating from one or more of the main rating agencies as collateral in its financial market activities, European Union financial policy-makers said. A refusal by the ECB to accept a government's bonds would amount to a humiliating swipe at that government's policies, and make its bonds harder to sell. So far, no eurozone government bond has been excluded, but the ECB's existing list of eligible collateral does not include assets rated below A-.

So far, the ECB has "refused to comment on its plans."

November 9, 2005 in Deficits, Europe | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d83495208a69e2

Listed below are links to blogs that reference The ECB Says Enough With The Deficits:

Comments

"So far, the ECB has "refused to comment on its plans.""

Well Trichet now has:

"Jean-Claude Trichet, ECB president, confirmed a report in Wednesday’s FT that it would only accept bonds with at least a single A- rating in its financial market activities. He described the ECB’s move as a “clarification” of existing policy, which had never been stated explicitly."

Today's FT.

I think this is an incredibly important move. I have put up a post at Afoe where I use the expression 'landmark decision'.

Basically the ECB is saying to the Commission 'put your house in order, or we'll get the markets to do it for you'.

The thing is you shouldn't do things like this unless you mean to back them up (moral hazard).

The question then is whether you think it is 'doable' for Italy to put its house in order whoever is doing the threatening. If, like me, you think there are sound macro reasons why it can't (at least not in the time frame involved), then confrontation is guaranteed.

And of course, any turmoil in the eurobond markets will have impacts across the Atlantic too.

Basically I think this isn't for tomorrow, but it definitely is now coming.

Posted by: Edward Hugh | November 10, 2005 at 06:13 AM

It's me back again. I think over lunch I just twigged why IMHO this is now a done deal. The situation is circular.

Ask the question, why is Japan's credit rating below that of Italy?

Economically the former is still, despite all the problems, a lot stronger than the latter.

The obvious answer is that the ECB has been effectively guaranteeing Italy's credit worthiness. That's why they are at AA-.

Now if the ECB no longer guarantees, really the rating should go down. And so on and so on.

Obviously it is extraordinarily difficult to lose a single A- for sovereign debt, but just give them time, just give them time.

Posted by: Edward Hugh | November 10, 2005 at 10:19 AM

"the ECB has been effectively guaranteeing Italy's credit worthiness"...

well, this is the multi-million euro question. The ECB is explicitly NOT the 'lender of last resort' for the Euro-zone countries. Legally it cannot bail them out in case of a default or threat of defaul, which amounts to the same thing. Yet the markets have discounted that piece of legislation as non-credible. How can a technocratic institution like the ECB not bend to the will of the political masters. If that is indeed the logic of the markets, then ECB's refusal to accept Greek or Italian bonds as collateral may not be credible. Carrying this ad absurdum, even if Italy cannot swap its sovereign bonds for liquidity the markets will not speculate against Italy because they believe ultimately the ECB will step in.

Personally, I have believed that the markets should have punished the SGP-laggards a long time ago and wish that this move by the ECB prompts just that but having been proven wrong before, I am not sure ECB's announcement is sufficient.

Posted by: russki | November 10, 2005 at 07:38 PM

"even if Italy cannot swap its sovereign bonds for liquidity the markets will not speculate against Italy because they believe ultimately the ECB will step in."

I fully accept the force of this point russki. The Italian government may also believe it, which may mean they don't take the warning too seriously either, and carry on regardless. In which case a "push comes to shove" situation may arise (in fact I personally am convinced it will). Since on the view you provide, no-one will have been discounting anything, then in the crunch moment the adjustment can indeed be sudden and dramatic. What's it called, oh yes, a *hard* landing.

Posted by: Edward Hugh | November 11, 2005 at 04:17 AM

i was talking to a representative from the ECB on Friday who said that there has ALWAYS been a provision that only A- bonds will be accepted as collateral. The man somewhat painfully glossed over the recent announcement by saying that the ECB merely 'never made public' this piece of legislation.

Even if this is true, then the question beckons as to why the ECB chose this moment to explicate something that was implicit before.

A separate note - if this has indeed been the case it just goes to underlie my initial point that the markets have a somewhat skewed understanding (if any) of what the ECB can do. Bond traders may be in for a surprise, therefore.

Posted by: russki | November 14, 2005 at 02:28 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


November 2014


Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad