Economic Dreams - Economic Nightmares

Financial "Rock, Paper, Scissors"

Let the rock be gold, the paper be money, and the scissors, a shredder. We have a stage set for "financial rock, paper, scissors". From a historical perspective, we can easily trace the most recent path from gold to paper money (or fiat currency) as it has played out on the world stage—officially beginning in 1971 when President Richard Nixon officially declared the US to be off the gold standard. Numerous books have been written on the matter. Here is a very short history that begins in 1913 titled "Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Losses", by Peter Treadway. Paper covers rock! {Note: Treadway's paper isn't the best short history around, and may replace it with something else, but I do like the title.}

What is just now playing out is the predicted credit bust that predates the shredding of the paper money when market cycles turn ugly. Or maybe it doesn't precede shredding (partial shredding via inflation really), but someone will have to explain to me just how we get out of this mess otherwise. Oh, I almost forgot Mosler's Law: "There is no financial crisis so deep that a sufficiently large increase in public spending cannot deal with it." I'll post more on the "Chartalist fix" soon.

Numerous blogs are now tracking the debt bubble that is still building (and shifting from "private" to "public") in the wake of the credit bubble. Few are offering acceptable resolutions to the debt problem. At least I'm not finding them—or accepting them. Here are a few places that track the problem: Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin, Steve Keen's Oz Debtwatch, Edward Harrison's Credit Writedowns.

Paul Krugman, among other Keynesian economists, advocates higher inflation to create more space for interest rate cuts in times of stress. Of course "higher inflation" for awhile would help the government out from under some of the debt burden too. But at the expense of those on fixed incomes, unless tax policy or other means were used to make "fixed incomes" types whole again.

Many on the "right" seem to want to blast Krugman for advocating that we inflate our way out of the crisis, as if that were (1) true, and (2) the only tool Krugman advocates for. Yet the Feb 12 IMF paper, "Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy" (pdf) Krugman points to in a recent post, talks through various tools to try to find a path forward, including

• Raising the Inflation Target
• Combining Monetary and Regulatory Policy
• Higher Inflation Targeting and Foreign Exchange Intervention
• Providing Liquidity More Broadly
• Creating More Fiscal Space in Good Times
• Designing Better Automatic Fiscal Stabilizers

Neo-chartalists, at least some of them, advocate what I'll call an "modern-day alchemy fix" to the debt problem, remember: "There is no financial crisis so deep that a sufficiently large increase in public spending cannot deal with it."

In any supposed "fix" there will be winners and losers, with the government in the middle of the mess. Scary times ahead! Both the Keynesian and the Chartalist approach suggests inflation. But how much? Scissors cut paper! Out come the shredders, figuratively, to cut up the paper. Inflation to counter deflation? Or runaway inflation? What other ideas are worth looking at? Maybe it is as simple as re-regulation — as if that were simple — but I doubt it.

If the "scissor act" is too flagrant, as it may well be given the size of the debt we are dealing with, we will see a substantial loss of faith in US currency. Such could trigger wide-spread panic and subsequent worldwide Depression. At minimum we would see at least some countries try to mimic the US move, which might set a stage for hyperinflation. What China and the Arab states might do in response is an open question, particularly if we repudiate the debt outright apply Mosler's Law as some Neo-Chartalists advocate.

The point of this little note is to suggest that in the wake of inflationary actions to deal with the debt bubble, we will likely see — already are seeing, e.g."We are All Austrians Now" — calls for a return to what might be called 21^st century gold standard. If that were to become a political necessity, we will have come full circle: Rock crushes scissors!

I hope that we can stay with fiat currency and find means to deal with the mess at hand. But I am outclassed by most of the economists and finance experts I follow. So I watch and read, and occasionally comment. The "mess" is once-again center stage as the PIIGS threaten default. And California and other messes closer to home will prove interesting to watch as this year unfolds. This is a Wicked Problem of global proportions. But that is a story for another day.

US Oligarchs and their Minions

Simon Johnson, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund and co-author of The Baseline Scenario takes American oligarchs to task in The Quiet Coup, Atlantic Monthly, May 2009. Johnson believes, going forward, that we should seek smaller, better-regulated banking/finance houses incapable of doing systemic damage, and overseen by a different set of oligarchs (Wiki link). Maybe? Or maybe we'll find a way to regulate bigger entities effectively? Or maybe we'll just set the stage for the next big mess? Who knows?

In any case we certainly need to find something to hope for. Burning existing oligarchs at the stake is likely out. So maybe just replacing them, rewriting regulatory rules, and starting over is the best we can hope for. Somehow I think that is where Team Obama will ultimately attempt to take us. In any case, read Simon's thought provoking, controversial article. Here is a somewhat-lengthy excerpt:

Becoming a Banana Republic
In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (and only in emerging markets): South Korea (1997), Malaysia (1998), Russia and Argentina (time and again). In each of those cases, global investors, afraid that the country or its financial sector wouldn't be able to pay off mountainous debt, suddenly stopped lending. And in each case, that fear became self-fulfilling, as banks that couldn't roll over their debt did, in fact, become unable to pay. This is precisely what drove Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy on September 15, causing all sources of funding to the U.S. financial sector to dry up overnight. Just as in emerging-market crises, the weakness in the banking system has quickly rippled out into the rest of the economy, causing a severe economic contraction and hardship for millions of people.

But there's a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better—in a "buck stops somewhere else" sort of way—on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership. And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for "safety and soundness" were fast asleep at the wheel.

But these various policies—lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership—had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial sector's profits—such as Brooksley Born's now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998—were ignored or swept aside.

The financial industry has not always enjoyed such favored treatment. But for the past 25 years or so, finance has boomed, becoming ever more powerful. The boom began with the Reagan years, and it only gained strength with the deregulatory policies of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Several other factors helped fuel the financial industry's ascent. Paul Volcker's monetary policy in the 1980s, and the increased volatility in interest rates that accompanied it, made bond trading much more lucrative. The invention of securitization, interest-rate swaps, and credit-default swaps greatly increased the volume of transactions that bankers could make money on. And an aging and increasingly wealthy population invested more and more money in securities, helped by the invention of the IRA and the 401(k) plan. Together, these developments vastly increased the profit opportunities in financial services.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street ran with these opportunities. From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated gave bankers enormous political weight—a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man). In that period, the banking panic of 1907 could be stopped only by coordination among private-sector bankers: no government entity was able to offer an effective response. But that first age of banking oligarchs came to an end with the passage of significant banking regulation in response to the Great Depression; the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent.

None Dare Call it Fascism: Moyers and Galbraith

Last Friday, Bill Moyers sat down with Jamie Galbraith to talk about The Predator State and our current mess relative to 1929-. Galbraith says that like 1929-,

The situation today is very similar to the moment of panic and collapse that we saw in 1929. And for very similar reasons. An abandonment of the supervisory responsibility that should have been applied to keep the speculation and the fraud and the abuse from getting out of control. So there's going to be a major period of correction. And dad, [John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash 1929 writing] in 1955, talks about how memory fades and how eventually, although so long as people remembered '29 it wouldn't be repeated, eventually it would be forgotten and the underlying speculative impulse would come back.

Galbraith differs from many who blame our current mess on"the deficit", on the US Government living beyond its means:

BILL MOYERS: But even Barack Obama's website calls the deficit America's "Domestic Enemy." Even he's aware of the fact that the deficit's beyond sight.

JAMES GALBRAITH: Well, the deficit isn't beyond sight. The deficits in the Bush administration in relation to the size of the economy were never all that large. They were certainly larger than they were under Clinton, but that was in part necessary because of the changed economic situation, the collapse of the dot-com bubble in 2000.

The United States government's credit is good. The deficit is a financial number that people are going to have to get used to because there is no way in these circumstances of avoiding an increase in the deficit. One of two things can happen. The government can take action and help stabilize the economy in which case we will have more spending but also more employment.

Or the government cannot take action and let the economy collapse in which case we will have much less tax revenue. The deficit is going to be larger either way. There is no way of avoiding that. The only question is do you work to have a good economy or do you accept a terrible economy?

BILL MOYERS: What are the negative effects of a soaring deficit?

JAMES GALBRAITH: Well, the one thing I would have worried about is that we might not find lenders who are willing to provide funds to the U.S. government, that the Chinese or the Japanese might decide that they would rather be in some other currency and that we'd then have trouble with inflation. But that's not going to happen. It's not going to happen because, as it turns out, the major alternative, the euro, simply isn't viable as a reserve asset for the rest of the world. It's the dollar or nothing. So the United States basically can finance itself to the extent necessary to deal with this crisis. And I'm right now quite sanguine about that, quite confident that we won't face a problem.

At the end of the interview, Moyers gets to Galbraith's new book, The Predator State, and how some like Steve Forbes are already beginning to blame the mess on reformers like Galbraith. Here's a snip

BILL MOYERS: [T]here are capitalists like Steve Forbes, … of "Forbes Magazine," who argue that people like you are going to go too far and that it was actually the government's excesses and failures in the '80s and '90s that contributed to what began to happen in 2007 with the meltdown. And that if you have your way, people like you have your way, you will criminalize business. You will raise taxes and dry up the economy. You will take government unchecked into the same kind of catastrophe that unchecked Wall Street has carried us. How do you answer a Steve Forbes?

JAMES GALBRAITH: Well, first of all, I very much agree with him, that it was failures of government that were responsible for this. It was the actual failure, the abandonment, the neglect of the supervisory regulatory responsibility. That's at the root of this.

Just as you cannot prosper without a private economy, you cannot prosper without an effective autonomous government capable of thinking for itself, capable of balancing things out, of standing for other interests, of standing for labor and consumers and for the public interest as a whole. If you don't have that, you're going to get these pyramids, these bubbles, these epidemics of fraud and abuse, and ultimately the collapse of trust and the collapse of the economy itself. That's what's happened in the predator state.

I agree with Galbraith on much, including the fact that both private (e.g. so-called "rating agencies") and public regulators (e.g. government agencies, the US Congress, and US Adminsitrations dating back to Ronald Reagan) were asleep at the wheel. I hope Galbraith is right about the US dollar's non-endangered "reserve currency" status for the near term. I also hope he and other reformers are able in the next few years to restructure the world's financial systems to set a stage for thoughtful investment rather than unbridled speculative excess.

Note: My title might better have been written "None Dare Call it Corporatism." Here is a Wikipedia link to Corporatism. See also Wikipedia on The Economics of Fascism.

Just Before the Dawn of a New Era?

I'm not the only "Perma Bear" who is now beginning to hope for another New Deal — by reregulating global finance and banning the wildcat speculation that has been the mainstay of particularly American-led investment banking and finance. No doubt there is still some tough sledding both on Wall Street and Mainstreets around the world. But at least central bankers around the world now know that the old order was indeed as unsustainable as many have been telling them that it was. Here's some of the latest from Doug Noland:

Hoping There's Hope, Doug Noland, Credit Bubble Bulletin, 10/09/2008: This is the first all-encompassing global dislocation of contemporary finance, impacting virtually all economies, markets and asset classes. The media is now all over the "Wall Street" and "banking" crisis. I am of the view, however, that the collapse of the hedge fund industry has moved to the forefront — that it is now at the epicenter of global market upheaval. To watch silver lose more than 20% of its value today in intraday trading; to see the collapse in energy prices; to see the entire commodities complex absolutely routed; to view global currency markets in complete disarray, with double-digit intraday drops in the Brazilian real and Mexican peso; to witness major currencies such as the Australian and Canadian dollars suffer precipitous declines; for benchmark Fannie Mae MBS yields to surge 62 bps in three days; to see Brazilian dollar bond yields jump almost 200 bps in four sessions; for global equities indices to suffer rapid double-digit drops throughout both the developed and "emerging" markets; to witness a 1,000 point intraday swing in the DJIA. All the favorite trades are blowing up, and the leveraged speculating community is in a panic de-leveraging.



There is no doubt that markets are in the midst of an unprecedented liquidation of positions across virtually all asset classes and a vicious unwind of a multitude of investment and trading strategies. The Massive Pool of Global Speculative Finance is being drained. Having watched the ballooning of the hedge fund industry over the past few years in absolute awe, I can say today that an industry collapse would entail the sale (voluntary and forced by the margin clerk) and unwind of literally Trillions of positions. Investors and speculators alike are desperate to flee risk. Having watched the ballooning of the hedge fund industry over the past few years in absolute awe, I can say today that an industry collapse would entail the sale (voluntary and forced by the margin clerk) and unwind of literally Trillions of positions. It has been history's most spectacular speculative Bubble and, especially over the past few years, it became very much global in nature and infiltrated virtually all asset classes. This Bubble is in a full-fledged collapse — entailing unprecedented liquidations — and it's taking global markets down with it. …

Perhaps things will stabilize once the hedge fund liquidations run their course. Treasury (TARP) purchases will commence soon. Fannie and Freddie will be aggressively expanding their market purchases. The Fed is now buying commercial paper, and the Fed and Treasury are working to resolve the dislocation in the "repo" market. Across the globe, governments are in full crisis management mode. There appears universal resolve to bolster financial sectors and stem the collapse. And there were actually some positive indications of stabilization in our Credit system late in the week.



I also hold out Hope that the Trillions of reserves held by global central bankers will provide some buffer to stem financial system collapse. In particular, I am Hoping that China, India, Russia, Brazil and the Middle East have today sufficient reserves to somehow avoid a '90s style financial and economic meltdown. I am Hoping that demand from China, India, Asia and Latin America will help offset inevitable economic downturns in the U.S. and Britain and, hopefully to a lesser extent, Europe. I am hoping that the collapse in energy and commodities prices is more a reflection of acute financial market dislocation rather than a harbinger of synchronized global economic upheaval. I am hoping there is more substance to the dollar’s rally than simply an unwind of bearish dollar bets. And I am hoping that with large capital infusions our deeply impaired banking system will retain the capacity to finance a much less robust but at least functioning U.S. economy. I really Hope everything is not as dire as it appears.

Minsky Wake-up Call

For several years I've been using this blog to bring attention to the work of American economist Hyman Minsky — and watching to see who might be warming up to the work he began and others continue at the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College. In brief, the work is Post Keynesian and tracks money and credit flows with an eye toward instability — stability breeds instability and fragility trumps resilience at times. Bubbles need to be dealt with as they emerge, not by papering over them in the aftermath. Now Financial Times' Martin Wolf, building on a paper from Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff deliveris a wake-up call to American bankers: Pay Attention to Minsky!

I will be watching around the blogosphere to see who else, particularly among American economists seems to be warming up to the real causes of great contractions, and who begins to show signs of learning lessons not-yet-learned. I will update this post and add others as I see evidence of economists waking up. Economists have lead the decent to the edge of the Abyss, and are rightfully blamed for their part in the mess. To Wolf:

Asia's revenge, Martin Wolf, October 8, Financial Times: What confronts the world can be seen as the latest in a succession of financial crises that have struck periodically over the last 30 years. The current financial turmoil in the US and Europe affects economies that account for at least half of world output, making this upheaval more significant than all the others. Yet it is also depressingly similar, both in its origins and its results, to earlier shocks. …

Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University identify the similarities in a paper published earlier this year.* They focus on previous crises in high-income countries. But they also note characteristics that are shared with financial crises that have occurred in emerging economies.

This time, most emerging economies have been running huge current account surpluses. So a "large chunk of money has effectively been recycled to a developing economy that exists within the United States' own borders", they point out. "Over a trillion dollars was channelled into the subprime mortgage market, which is comprised of the poorest and least creditworthy borrowers within the US. The final claimaint is different, but in many ways the mechanism is the same." …

[L]inks between the financial fragility in the US and previous emerging market crises mean that the current banking and economic traumas should not be seen as just the product of risky monetary policy, lax regulation and irresponsible finance, important though these were. They have roots in the way the global economy has worked in the era of financial deregulation. Any country that receives a huge and sustained inflow of foreign lending runs the risk of a subsequent financial crisis, because external and domestic financial fragility will grow. Precisely such a crisis is now happening to the US and a number of other high-income countries including the UK.

These latest crises are also related to those that preceded them – particularly the Asian crisis of 1997-98. …

The big global macroeconomic story of this decade was, then, the offsetting emergence of the US and a number of other high-income countries as spenders and borrowers of last resort. Debt-fuelled US households went on an unparalleled spending binge – by dipping into their housing "piggy banks".

In explaining what had happened, Ben Bernanke, when still a governor of the Federal Reserve rather than chairman, referred to the emergence of a "savings glut". The description was accurate. After the turn of the millennium, one of the striking features became the low level of long-term nominal and real interest rates at a time of rapid global economic growth. Cheap money encouraged an orgy of financial innovation, borrowing and spending.

That was also one of the initial causes of the surge in house prices across a large part of the high-income world, particularly in the US, the UK and Spain. …

The savings glut had another dimension, related to a second financial shock – the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2000. One consequence was the move of the corporate sectors of most high-income countries into financial surplus. In other words, their retained earnings came to exceed their investments. Instead of borrowing from banks and other suppliers of capital, non-financial corporations became providers of finance.

In this world of massive savings surpluses in a range of important countries and weak demand for capital from non-financial corporations, central banks ran easy monetary policies. They did so because they feared the possibility of a shift into deflation. The Fed, in particular, found itself having to offset the contractionary effects of the vast flow of private and, above all, public capital into the US.

A simple way of thinking about what has happened to the global economy in the 2000s is that high-income countries with elastic credit systems and households willing to take on rising debt levels offset the massive surplus savings in the rest of the world. The lax monetary policies facilitated this excess spending, while the housing bubble was the vehicle through which it worked. …

[L]inked dangers between external and internal imbalances, domestic debt accumulations and financial fragility were foretold by a number of analysts. Foremost among them was Wynne Godley of Cambridge university in his prescient work for the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, which has laid particular stress on the work of the late Hyman Minsky.**

So what might – and should – happen now? The big danger, evidently, is of a financial collapse. The principal offset, in the short run, to the inevitable cuts in spending in the private sector of the crisis-afflicted economies will also be vastly bigger fiscal deficits.

Fortunately, the US and the other afflicted high-income countries have one advantage over the emerging economies: they borrow in their own currencies and have creditworthy governments. Unlike emerging economies, they can therefore slash interest rates and increase fiscal deficits.

Yet the huge fiscal boosts and associated government recapitalisation of shattered financial systems are only a temporary solution. There can be no return to business as usual. It is, above all, neither desirable nor sustainable for global macroeconomic balance to be achieved by recycling huge savings surpluses into the excess consumption of the world’s richest consumers. The former point is self-evident, while the latter has been demonstrated by the recent financial collapse.

So among the most important tasks ahead is to create a system of global finance that allows a more balanced world economy, with excess savings being turned into either high-return investment or consumption by the world’s poor, including in capital- exporting countries such as China. A part of the answer will be the development of local-currency finance in emerging economies, which would make it easier for them to run current account deficits than proved to be the case in the past three decades.

It is essential in any case for countries in a position to do so to expand domestic demand vigorously. Only in this way can the recessionary impulse coming from the corrections in the debt-laden countries be offset.

Yet there is a still bigger challenge ahead. The crisis demonstrates that the world has been unable to combine liberalised capital markets with a reasonable degree of financial stability. A particular problem has been the tendency for large net capital flows and associated current account and domestic financial balances to generate huge crises. This is the biggest of them all.

Lessons must be learnt. But those should not just be about the regulation of the financial sector. Nor should they be only about monetary policy. They must be about how liberalised finance can be made to support the global economy rather than destabilise it.

This is no little local difficulty. It raises the deepest questions about the way forward for our integrated world economy. The learning must start now.

*Is the 2007 US subprime financial crisis so different? An international historical comparison. Working paper 13761, www.nber.org

**The US economy: Is there a way out of the woods? November 2008, www.levy.org [concluding hyperlinks empowered by Iverson]

For more from the Levy Economics Institute see, e.g., Macroeconomics Meets Hyman P. Minsky: The Financial Theory of Investment, L. Randall Wray and Éric Tymoigne, September, 2008:

Expanding on an approach developed by financial economist Hyman Minsky, the authors present an alternative to the standard "efficient markets hypothesis—the relevance of which Minsky vehemently denied. Minsky recognized that, in a modern capitalist economy with complex, expensive, and long-lived assets, the method used to finance asset positions is of critical importance, both for theory and for real-world outcomes—one reason his alternate approach has been embraced by Post Keynesian economists and Wall Street practitioners alike.

[Wray and Tymoigne] argue that the current financial crisis, which began with the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market in 2007, provides a compelling reason to show how Minsky’s approach offers us a solid grounding in the workings of financial capitalism. They examine Minsky’s extension to Keynes’s investment theory of the business cycle, which allowed Minsky to analyze the evolution, over time, of the modern capitalist economy toward fragility—what is well known as his financial instability hypothesis. They then update Minsky's approach to finance with a more detailed examination of asset pricing and the evolution of the banking sector, and conclude with a brief review of the insights that such an approach can provide for analysis of the current global financial crisis

Minsky on 'Flawed Capitalism', 'Flawed Economics'

I am a fan of Hyman Minsky's work, but have not read — until now — any of his books. I am currently reading Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. Here is a timely quote, from Chapter 12, "Introduction to Policy", emphasizing our current plight both as to our political economy and misguided economic ideology/methodology. It could have been written yesterday but was first published in 1986:

… We need to embark on a program os serious change even as we need to be aware that a once-and-for-all resolution of the flaws in capitalism cannot be achieved. Even if a program of reform is successful, the success will be transitory. Innovations, particularly in finance, assure that problems of instability will continue to crop up; the result will be equivalent but not identical bouts of instability to those that are so eviedent in history.

Political leaders and the economists who advise them are to blame for promising more than they or the economy can deliver. The established advisers have failed to make the political leadership and the public aware of the limitations that economics processes and the the ability to administer impose on what policy can achieve. … [O]ur economic leadership does not seem to be aware that the normal functioning of our economy leads to financial trauma and crises, inflation, currency depreciations, unemployment, and poverty in the midst of what could be virtually universal affluence—in short, that financially complex capitalism is inherently flawed.

Economic advisors, whether liberal or conservative, believe in the fundamental "soundness" of the economy. Finding fault with one thing or another, they may advocate policies such as changing Federal Reserve operating techniques, tax reforms, national health insurance, and wars on poverty, but all in all they are satisfied with the basic institutions of modern capitalism. According to today's gospel [extant faults] are due to secondary, not to fundamental, characteristics.

[T]he economists of the policy-advising establishment differ about details: some propose to fine-tune the economy by fiscal tinkering, others want to achieve a natural rate of employment through steady monetary growth. Neither, however, sees anything basically wrong with capitalism as such. The credit crunch of 1966, the liquidity squeeze of 1970, the banking crises of 1974-75, the inflationary spiral of 1979-80 and the distress, national and international, of 1981-82 are, in their view, aberrations, due to either "shocks" or "errors." Since nothing is basically wrong, they also hold that incisive corrective measures are not needed.

The truth of the matter is that something is fundamentally wrong with our economy. As we have shown, a capitalist economy is inherently flawed because its investment and financing processes introduce endogenous destabilizing forces. The markets of a capitalist economy are not well suited to accommodate specialized, long-lived, expensive capital assets. In fact, the underlying economic theory of the policy establishment does not allow for capital assets and financial relations such as exist. The activities of Wall Street and the inputs of bankers to production and investment are not integrated into, but are added onto, the basic allocation-oriented theory.

Economic policy discussions in recent years have centered on how much more (or less) on the one—fiscal policy—and how much less (or more) of the other—monetary policy—is necessary for economic stability and growth. If we are to do better in the future, we must launch a serious debate that looks beyond the level and the techniques of fiscal and monetary policy. Such a debate will acknowledge the instability of our economy and inquire whether this inherent instability is amplified or attenuated by our system of institutions and policy interventions. ….

Today's economic crisis is as profound … as that of the 1930s. … There is no consensus as to what we should do. Conservatives call for freeing up the markets even as their corporate clients lobby for legislation [to] institutionalize and legitimize their market power…. [C]orporate America pays lip service to Adam Smith, while striving to sustain and legitimize the very thing that Smith abhorred—state-mandated market power.

Liberals, instead of articulating and incisive critique of our capitalism as such and pioneering innovative experimentation and change, are wedded to the past. They support minimum-wage increases without questioning whether these laws have served any real purpose since the Great Depression, when reflation was the policy objective. Liberals are unwilling to face up to the shortcomings of policies inherited from the past and are, fundamentally, timid about setting forth in new directions.

As a consequence, instead of analysis and ideas, we get slogans: free markets, economic growth, national planning, supply-side, industrial policy—imprecise phrases that face up to neither the what nor the how of policy objectives. The various programs for change are based on misconceptions of both the strengths and the weaknesses of market processes. One of the reasons for the intellectual poverty of policy proposals is that they continue to be based on ideas drawn from neoclassical theory. Although economic theory is relevant to policy (without an understanding of how our economy works we cannot find cures), for an economic theory to be relevant what happens in the world must be a possible even in the theory. On that score alone, standard economic theory is a failure; the instability so evident in our system cannot happen if the core of standard theory is to be believed.

Today's economic policy is a patchwork. Every change designed to correct some shortcoming has side effects that adversely affect some other aspect of economic and social life. Every ad hoc intervention breeds further intervention. If we wish to improve upon what we now have, we must embark upon an age of institutional and structural reforms that will check the tendencies toward instability and inflation. Standard theory, however, offers us no guidance on that score; for the problems are outside the domain of relevance of the theory. A new era of reform cannot be simply a series of piecemeal changes. Rather, a thorough, integrated approach to our economics problems must be developed; policy must range over the entire economic landscape and fit the pieces together in a consistent, workable way: Piecemeal approaches and patchwork changes will only make a bad situation worse.

Poverty in the midst of plenty and joyless affluence are but symptoms of a profound disorder [Tibor Scitovsky, The Joyless Economy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976)]. As we have pointed out, persistent financial and economic instability is normal in our capitalist economy. The commitment to growth through private investment—combined with government transfer payments and exploding defense spending—amplifies financial instability and chronic inflation. Indeed, our problems are in part the result of how we have chosen, inadvertently and in ignorance of the consequences, to run the economy. An alternative policy strategy is needed now. We have to go back to square one — 1933 — and build a structure of policy that is based upon a modem [modern?] understanding of how our type of economy generates financial fragility, unemployment, and inflation. [pp. 319-23]

Note: whereas in Minsky's day inflation tended to be more self-grown, today's inflation tends to wander the globe accompanying unfettered capital mobility. Note further that Minsky was careful to introduce his policy 'remedies' with this caution: "Even as I warn against the handwaving that passes for much policy prescription I must warn the reader that I feel much more comfortable with my diagnosis of what ails our economy and analysis of the causes of our discontents than I do with the remedies I propose."

Willem Buiter: Reigning in ‘Leverage’ to Restrain Asset and Credit Boom-busts

In a very good Financial Times post, Willem Buiter weighs in on "leverage", "asymmetry", and the very important need to create institutional means to disallow financial entities from capitalizing via leverage on the upside of credit booms while running for the protective cover of the government on the often sudden downsides.

Buiter has three recommendations, highlighted below, that ought to be vetted carefully as we work our way from the 'wilds' of our current deregulated escaped-from-regulation system into a relatively tamer future-world of once-again, reasonably 'structured finance'. In short, Butier recommends (shortening his commentary a wee bit): (1) common risk-adjusted Basel II-type capital adequacy requirements and reporting requirements imposed on all large institutions whose leverage exceeds a given value, (2) minimal funding liquidity and market liquidity requirements be imposed on, respectively, the liability side and the asset side of the balance sheets of all large leveraged financial institutions, and (3) all large leveraged institutions deemed too large, too interconnected, or simply too well-connected to fail, be made subject to a Special Resolution Regime along the lines that exists today for deposit-taking institutions through the FDIC. To Butier:

Restraining asset and credit booms, Willem Buiter, ft.com, May 25, 2008: … [There is] a major asymmetry in the macroeconomic policy and financial stability framework. This asymmetry is not that interest rates respond more sharply to asset market price declines than to asset market price increases. Even if there were no 'Greenspan-Bernanke put', such asymmetry should be expected because asset price booms and busts are not symmetric. Asset price busts are sudden and involve sharp, very rapid asset price falls. Even the most extravagant asset price boom tends to be gradual in comparison. So an asymmetric response to an asymmetric phenomenon is justified. This does not mean that there has been no evidence of a 'Greenspan-Bernanke' put, of course. In fact I believe that phenomenon - excess sensitivity of the Federal Funds target rate to sudden declines in asset prices, and especially US stock prices - to be real, unfortunately.

Fundamentally, the key asymmetry is that the authorities are unable or unwilling, whether for good or bad reasons does not matter here, to let large leveraged financial institutions collapse. There is no matching inclination to expropriate or otherwise financially punish or restrain highly profitable financial institutions. This asymmetry has to be corrected. Therefore, any large leveraged financial institution, commercial bank, investment bank, hedge fund, private equity fund, SIV, Conduit or whatever it calls itself, whatever it does and whatever its legal form, will have to be regulated according to the same principles.

Operationally, the asymmetry is that there exists a panoply of liquidity-and credit-enhancing measures that can be activated during an asset market bust and during a credit crunch, to enhance the availability of credit and to lower its cost, but no corresponding liquidity- and credit-restraining instrumentarium during a boom. When financial markets are disorderly, illiquid or have seized up completely, the lender of last resort and market maker of last resort can spring into action. …

Leverage is the key
These asymmetries have to be corrected through regulatory measures, effectively by across-the board credit controls. Every asset and credit boom in history has been characterised by rising leverage. The one we are now suffering the consequences of is no exception. Leverage is a simple concept which may be very difficult to measure, as those struggling to quantify the concept of embedded leverage will know. …

Traditional sources of leverage include borrowing, initial margin (some money up front - used in futures contracts) and no initial margin (no money up front - when exposure is achieved through derivatives).

I propose using simple measures of leverage, say a measure of gross exposure to book equity, as a metric for constraining capital insolvency risk (liabilities exceeding assets) of all large, highly leveraged institutions. Common risk-adjusted Basel II-type capital adequacy requirements and reporting requirements would be imposed on all large institutions whose leverage, according to this simple metric, exceeds a given value. These capital adequacy requirements would be varied by the monetary authority in countercyclical fashion.

To address the second way financial entities can fail, what the CRMB calls liquidity insolvency, meaning they run out of cash and are unable to raise new funds, I propose that minimal funding liquidity and market liquidity requirements be imposed on, respectively, the liability side and the asset side of the balance sheets of all large leveraged financial institutions. These liquidity requirements would also be tightened and loosened by the monetary authority in countercyclical fashion.

Finally, I would propose that all large leveraged institutions that are deemed too large, too interconnected, or simply too well-connected to fail, be made subject to a Special Resolution Regime along the lines that exists today for deposit-taking institutions through the FDIC. … [emphasis mine]

One Approach to Financial Re-Regulation

At Vox, Avinash Persaud serves up a regulatory finance model I think might work:

The inappropriateness of financial regulation, Avinash Persaud, May 1, 2008: … [The] model we have today, I venture [to say] is a highly dangerous model. It is expropriation of gains by bankers and socialization of costs by taxpayers. Paying for a decade of bank bonuses can be very expensive for the taxpayer and the opportunities for moral hazard are enormous. …

The alternative model rests on three pillars. The first recognises that the biggest source of market and systemic failure is the economic cycle and so regulation cannot be blind and deaf to the cycle — it must put it close to the centre. Charles Goodhart and I have proposed contra-cyclical charges — capital charges that rise as the market price of risk falls as measured by financial market prices — and a good starting point for implementation of such charges is the Spanish system of dynamic provisioning (Goodhart and Persaud 2008).

The second pillar focuses regulation on systemically important distinctions, such as maturity mismatches and leverage, and not on out-dated distinctions between banks and non-banks. Institutions without leverage or mismatch should be lightly regulated — if at all — and in particular would not be required to adhere to short term rules such as mark-to-market accounting or market-price risk sensitivity that contribute to market dislocation. Bankers will argue against this, saying that it creates an unlevel playing field, but financial markets are based on diversity, not homogeneity. Incentivising long-term investors to behave long-term will mean that there will be more buyers when banks are forced to sell.

The third pillar is requiring banks to pay an insurance premium to tax payers against the risk that the tax payer will be required to bail them out. If such a market could be created, it would not only incentivise good banking and push the focus of regulation away from process to outcomes, but it would provide an incentive for banks to be less systemic. Today, banks have an incentive to be more systemic as a bail out is then guaranteed. The right response to Citibank's routine failure to anticipate its credit risks is not for it to keep on getting bigger so that it can remain too big to fail, but for it to whither away under rising insurance premiums paid to tax payers. …

James Galbraith on the 'Collapse of Monetarism'

Hyman Minsky, John Kenneth Galbraith and John Maynard Keynes take center stage as James Galbraith throws down the gauntlet to contemporary mainstream economists. Speaking at the 25th Annual Milton Friedman Distinguished Lecture at Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio, Jamie Galbraith asks Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and a host of others to embrace the " intellectual victory of John Maynard Keynes, of John Kenneth Galbraith, of Hyman Minsky." — else to explain "why not". We will search and update on any "why nots" if and when they surface. To Galbraith:

The Collapse of Monetarism and the Irrelevance of the New Monetary Consensus [PDF], by James K. Galbraith, March 31, 2008 : … I come to bury Milton [Friedman], not to praise him. But I would like to do so on the terrain that he favored, where he was strong, and over which he ruled for many decades. This is monetary policy, monetarism, the natural rate of unemployment and the priority of fighting inflation over fighting unemployment. It is here that Friedman had his largest practical impact and also his greatest intellectual success. It was on this battleground that he beat out the entire Keynesian establishment of the 1960s, stuck as they were on a stable Phillips Curve. It was here that he set the stage for the counter-revolution that has dominated academic macroeconomics for a generation, and that – far more important — also dominated and continues to influence the way in which most people think about monetary policy and the fight against inflation.

What was monetarism? Friedman famously defined it as the proposition that "inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon." This meant that money and prices were tied together. But more than that, Friedman believed that money was a policy variable — a quantity that the Central Bank could create or destroy at will. Create too much, there would be inflation. Create too little, and the economy might collapse. There followed from this that the right amount would generate the right result: stable prices at what Friedman came to call the natural rate of unemployment.

The intent and effect of this line of reasoning was to defend a core proposition about capitalism: that free and unfettered markets are intrinsically stable. In Friedman's gospels government is the lone serpent in Eden, while the task of policy is to stay out of the way. Just as this was the vulgar lesson of "Free to Choose" so it turns out it was also the deep lesson of the larger structure of Friedman's thought. Friedman and Schwartz's Monetary History for all its facts and statistics carried a simple message: the market did not fail; the government did.

Friedman succeeded because his work was complex enough to lend an aspect of scientific achievement to his ideas, and because the ideas played to the preconceptions of a particular circle. As Keynes wrote of Ricardo:"The completeness of [his] victory is something of a curiosity and a mystery. It must have been due to a complex of suitabilities in the doctrine to the environment into which it was projected. That it reached conclusions quite different from what the ordinary uninstructed person would expect, added, I suppose, to its intellectual prestige. That its teaching, translated into practice, was austere and often unpalatable, lent it virtue. That it was adapted to carry a vast and consistent logical superstructure, gave it beauty. That it could explain much social injustice and apparent cruelty as an inevitable incident in the scheme of progress, and the attempt to change such things as likely…to do more harm than good, commended it to authority. That it afforded a measure of justification to the free activities of the individual capitalist, attracted to it the support of the dominant social force behind authority."

Friedman's success was similar to Ricardo's but not in all respects. Yes he also explained away injustice and supported authority. But the logical superstructure was not vast and consistent. Rather Friedman's argument was maddeningly simple, yet slippery. He would appeal to short run for some effects and to the long run for others, shifting between them as it suited him. … His money growth rules promised stable employment without inflation. Their promise was not austere, but happy. Ricardo was Scrooge. Friedman was more like the Pied Piper.

Fed's 'Historic Steps' into Uncharted Waters

Unless I'm mistaken, the Fed just took a first step toward Thomas Palley's suggested solution to our current mess:

Central Bank Offers Loans To Brokers … Historic Steps, Greg IP, WSJ, March 17: … It took a unanimous vote by the Fed's five governors yesterday to invoke a Depression-era clause in the Federal Reserve Act to waive the usual prohibition on Fed loans to nonbanks. A Fed official told reporters today's circumstances couldn't have been envisioned when the Fed was created, and noted newer central banks like Europe's have many of these powers. But these steps also take the central bank into uncharted territory with new and potentially troublesome risks.

Those risks include the possibility that with the credit crunch showing no sign of lifting, the Fed will be called on to lend to other troubled firms and end up a major creditor of Wall Street, even if at present the risk of any substantial loss appears small. Another risk is that while the Fed used a loophole yesterday in the Federal Reserve Act to expand its lending to nonbanks in "unusual and exigent" circumstances, it has in effect expanded the federal safety net with no political debate. However, the Fed sought and received agreement over the $30 billion loan from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who informed President Bush.

Bigger Test

For now, though, the bigger test will be how the markets greet the initiatives today: with relief at the bold steps taken to shore up the financial system, or with alarm at how unstable the financial system had to be to invite such action.

Officials appear to hope the initiatives will restore enough confidence to markets to allow a smaller rather than larger rate cut tomorrow, but they acknowledge it will depend partly on how markets evolve over coming days.

On Wall Street, there is likely to be some relief that the Fed has finally opened the discount window to securities dealers, something they have long clamored for. The Fed has been reluctant because the move was outside its explicit mandate. "This is a five-vodka event," said a senior executive at one big brokerage firm that previously didn't have access to this funding source. "Liquidity is no longer an issue."

Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Timothy Geithner told reporters: "This is designed to help get liquidity to where it can help play an appropriate role in helping address the range of challenges" in the markets, especially in the mortgage-backed securities market.

Mr. Paulson said in a statement, "I appreciate the additional actions taken this evening by the Federal Reserve to enhance the stability, liquidity and orderliness of our markets."

For all their creativity, the Fed moves are also an acknowledgment that its previous steps have failed to stem the collapse in investor confidence, forcing it to abandon many of its original principles, such as not favoring particular firms or market sectors and sticking within its explicit statutory authority.

Last Tuesday, it announced what Wall Street called its most creative initiative yet: It lent up to $200 billion of its much-sought Treasurys to investment banks starting March 27 in return for a like amount of now-shunned mortgage backed securities for up to 28 days. The announcement led to a huge rally in stocks. But within days dealers were telling the Fed it didn't go far enough. They wanted longer term, more immediate funding against a broader range of collateral.

It also came too late to save Bear Stearns. On Thursday evening, Bear Stearns informed the Securities and Exchange Commission and Fed that it had experienced a dramatic loss of cash reserves and now saw no option other than to file for bankruptcy protection Friday morning. Fed officials at that point saw just two options. They could try to wall off the rest of the financial system. If the environment had been less tumultuous they might have chosen that option.

But in the current period they feared that a failure by Bear to make good on billions of dollars of contracts could severely dislocate critical markets, especially garden-variety repo loans -- overnight loans secured by various collateral that are the grease of the credit markets.

Too Interconnected

Officials grimly concluded that while Bear Stearns wasn't too big to fail, it was too interconnected to be allowed to fail in just one day. They spent Thursday night going over Bear's books and huddling with the SEC and Treasury. By Friday morning it had settled on its second option: a 28-day secured loan via J.P. Morgan to give time for a sale or wind up of the firm.…