I deliberately put it this way as the debate over the liquidity trap has been so fraught. A piece today in CNBC has a Wall Street investor worrying that Yellen is going to finally raise rates in June and the market won't be ready for it.
The smart money thinks the Federal Reserve will finally begin to increase interest rates early this summer. The question is how much market turmoil the move will cause. Janet Yellen's Fed will finally increase the cost of borrowing money in June, according to remarks made by top BlackRock bond investor Rick Rieder and prominent hedge fund managers Jamie Dinan and Kyle Bass at a New York charity event Monday night.
"Bass, head of Hayman Capital Management in Dallas, said the market isn't fully prepared."
"I think when she moves, it's going to cause a problem," Bass said at the Portfolios with Purpose awards night during a panel discussion moderated by CNBC's Scott Wapner.
"Bass said employment rates were strong but predicted a rate hike would slow economic activity if moved more than 100 basis points, or 1 percent. He noted that Hayman had "reduced risk pretty substantially" to U.S. securities in the last couple of months given that expectation."
The smart money thinks the Federal Reserve will finally begin to increase interest rates early this summer. The question is how much market turmoil the move will cause. Janet Yellen's Fed will finally increase the cost of borrowing money in June, according to remarks made by top BlackRock bond investor Rick Rieder and prominent hedge fund managers Jamie Dinan and Kyle Bass at a New York charity event Monday night.
"Bass, head of Hayman Capital Management in Dallas, said the market isn't fully prepared."
"I think when she moves, it's going to cause a problem," Bass said at the Portfolios with Purpose awards night during a panel discussion moderated by CNBC's Scott Wapner.
"Bass said employment rates were strong but predicted a rate hike would slow economic activity if moved more than 100 basis points, or 1 percent. He noted that Hayman had "reduced risk pretty substantially" to U.S. securities in the last couple of months given that expectation."
I think most in the MMT camp are of the mind that changing rates is overrated, unless it is extreme changes like Volkers increase to high teens. Most argue that rates should be permanent near zero but if a positive rate is to be paid a better policy would be to just pick a rate and keep it there forever.
ReplyDeleteKeeping the CB rate constant in no means dictates that private banks will not fluctuate their rates.
Well just going by Mosler-as I've read a lot of him the last few days-he seems to prefer zero but says that changing the rate is an allocation issue-it helps some at the expense of others.
ReplyDeleteLike right now I think Mosler would agree nothing good would come by raising it as it's close to zero now.
Now QE it seems from what I've read the consensus is rather skeptical
ReplyDeleteBy the way Greg, I wanted to ask you: what is your objection to NGDP targets again? I remember part of it-that NGDP is not really any different as GDP is based on inflation?
ReplyDeleteStill wouldn't NGDP be preferable to inflation targeting? NGDP would focus on growth as well as inflation. My point is not that it's the best policy but isn't it preferable to inflation targeting?
My objection to NGDP targets are the same as my objection to Dow level targets would be. Short of buying every stock on the Dow for a specific price and then trading those stocks with themselves every week in order to keep the price where they want it, how exactly would the Fed be able to target the Dow.
ReplyDeleteOne advantage of Dow target is that the number is updated by the millisecond and actually trackable and there is already an existing working futures market. No such thing exists for NGDP.
My opinion on the term NGDP is another issue because "N" is a term that implies a fudge for inflation....... but inflation is also a derived value not really directly measurable or managed. The whole concept of inflation has a monetarist bias currently. I say just drop the whole nominal term and just say GDP.
Again my question was not about the ideal policy but given the choice between NGDP and inflation targeting.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the premise of NGDP is that you can target both inflation and GDP which is superior to focusing on just one or the other.
If you wanted to target the Dow you could just target the index rather than every single stock. In any case, buying every single stock would be doable for the Fed at least as there are only 30 stocks.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the question of the interest rate-here is Mosler. Here he's pretty clear that he thinks the 'natural rate of interest is zero'
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP37-MoslerForstater.pdf
I cant say if targeting NGDP is better than inflation. If the means of targeting NGDP could be elucidated it would be possible to judge. No one has come up with the means. The big problem to me is how often, and how accurate, GDP numbers are reported. I think its a little bit of a copout to just say "well anything would be an improvement over inflation targeting since they cant hit their targets" because we don't even know if there is a way to measure whether they are hitting an NGDP target in a timely enough manner to matter.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say anything about whether or not anyone can hit a target. I'm just saying in principle if I had a choice between targeting inflation or targeting inflation and GDP I might take the latter.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not they can hit the target I'm certainly not here to argue.
Obviously there are problems with Sumner's transmission mechanism that always adds up to nothing but 'expectations'
ReplyDeleteUltimately I guess I simply think that NGDP and inflation aren't that different of targets. They don't have a difference that matters as much as Sumner/Duda etc think it does. They are just changing the "name" of the target and Sumner will then conclude inflation a non thing.
ReplyDeleteThe only truly different target from today is an explicit unemployment target, which can only be solved with a JG policy. Put the offer out there and everyone who doesn't take it is no longer "unemployed", they are simply choosing idleness.
So for you there's a first best policy and that's it. Nothing else helps at all.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to say I'm sure about there being no difference between an inflation target and a inflation and GDP target.
Now if the question is how to hit the target, well that's a reasonable question but that's another discussion.
There is a first best target I think, and a number of policy choices to get there. I think we should target stability in wages to avoid large swings in consumption levels. We are a consumption driven economy and we have to recognize and be comfortable with that fact. Many, like Warstler, have made comments which suggest that they think consumption is bad, which is why they support consumption taxes on the middle class etc. Of course this is a morality play, where consumption is "spending" and the opposite of the virtuous "saving". But most investment happens in areas where entrepreneurs see a high number of consumers.
DeleteNegative income taxes and wage subsidies are wage stability policies that have previously been favored by many on the right (still are in many cases) I just happen to think that the best wage stability policy should be done through a job stability policy.
I don't see much difference between an NGDP target and inflation target other than in what the CB is announcing to be caring about. How they get there is not any different so far as I can tell. I realize many are exploring new tools but I think those tools are dead end............ we will see. Its still "expectations fairies" as far as the eye can see from where I sit.
I think monetary policy has helped as much as it can, interest rates are low and the CB shown they will be buyer of last resort to unload financial companies of worthless assets if need be. Banks balance sheets are repaired and more and more workers have repaired theirs as well. Too many just aren't going to take on more debt unless they get more income, they aren't going to use their current income to take on cheaper debt. Monetary policy is all about getting people "borrowing" again and not having the govt "spending" more.
Yeah my point about first vs. second best policies is that at the end of the day we live in a world of politics. In politics there's rarely room for purists who only accept the first best option.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I would support a JG but assuming that's not going to happen any time soon-if you want it to happen soon elect more Democrats-I would be willing to try other measures that at least I don't see how'd they'd be harmful-as to an NGDP target that doesn't have to come with monetary offset.
I don't agree that we can or should try to do it just with monetary policy like Sumner but I do agree we're not going to get any more fiscal help in the current climate-the only good thing is that austerity has been ramped down since 2013.
I disagree with Sumner a lot but I can admit that he has a point that focusing on an employment target can be a problem-at least if you have too high a target.
Like the view of many conventional economists and market participants right now is that we're at or close to full employment. In this case the inflation target helps as it's beneath target it's easy to show those calling for tighter monetary policy that there is still certainly 'slack' in the economy-otherwise inflation wouldn't be so low.
I think it's probably a mistake to raise rates even now and I don't think Mosler would support that or thinks it' doesn't matter.
He's said repeatedly that the natural rate of interest is zero.
http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP37-MoslerForstater.pdf
Nor is he the only MMTer to believe this. Check out Bill Mitchell who's another leading MMTer.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=4656
Here is Mitchell:
"The media is increasingly reporting that the RBA will hike interest rates by the end of 2009. I consider this to be a nonsensical suggestion given that unemployment and underemployment will still be rising and it is unclear whether employment growth will be anything than near zero at that time. From a theoretical perspective, at the root of all the conjecture, whether the journalists actually realise it or not, is a concept called the “neutral rate of interest”, which is just another neo-liberal smokescreen. That is what this blog is about."
Here is MIke Sanowski
http://monetaryrealism.com/the-natural-rate-of-interest/
My point about purists extends to a lot of people both on the Left and the Right. I mean Ken Duda admits to me that part of Sumner's problem has been making the Perfect-at least in this mind- the enemy of the Good-.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Warstler's proposals are at least interesting-again, I said interesting not that I advocate it 100%. But that's again the problem: he basically says we have to do it all his way or not at all. LIke how Friedman walked away from a negative income tax as liberals didn't agree to end UI and the minimum wage.
Some on the MMT side can sound a little like this to-I mean not willing to compromise. In a way such an attitude makes sense: I mean is you think you're right and the other guys are wrong they should just do what you propose and get nothing that they want.
In a political world this isn't how it works. Obviously the classic example of this attitude I'm criticizing is the Tea Party House.