To get ahead of the curve, the Fed should follow the quantity theory of money
I would have thought that it was bleeding obvious that monetary expansion would be followed by price inflation but I accept that they are talking below about the short to medium term whereas the effects of monetary expansion on prices certainly can take some time to emerge
The tide has suddenly turned on the economics consensus among everyone from Keynesian professors to Wall Street commentators. Their expectations for a soft landing have fallen to earth.
The immediate trigger for the shift and the selloff in equity markets was a run of adverse data last week. It began on Wednesday, with higher claims for unemployment insurance, followed on Thursday by weak purchasing-manager indexes for manufacturing and services. Then on Friday came disappointing nonfarm payroll data and a higher than expected unemployment figure.
To explain why the consensus changed so fast, the economic chattering classes and press have latched onto the Sahm rule. That tool, created by economist Claudia Sahm, correlates an increase in unemployment with the onset of recessions. According to Ms. Sahm’s research, if the unemployment rate climbs by half a percentage point or more relative to its low during the previous 12 months, we will be in the early months of a recession.
This index has identified all recessions since 1953, but Ms. Sahm rightly emphasizes that the rule is only an empirical regularity, not a theory. Since January the unemployment rate has risen from 3.7% to 4.3%, fulfilling the Sahm criterion of a 0.5-point rise. The 3.7% low qualified, as it represents a low that has occurred within the past 12 months. This suggests the economy may already be in a recession.
The Federal Reserve was having none of it last week. On Wednesday, the Federal Open Market Committee held the federal-funds rate steady at 5.25% to 5.5%. Chairman Jerome Powell and his colleagues are data dependent. Until the data give them confidence that inflation will stay low, or until their full employment objective is threatened, they won’t cut rates. Since we know that changes in monetary policy act with a long lag in affecting inflation or unemployment, a data-dependent Fed will always be behind the curve.
To get ahead of it, the central bank should be basing its decisions on the quantity theory of money, a model that allows for reliable predictions about the course of the economy and inflation over the coming two years. The only people who successfully predicted inflation almost two years ahead of its peak—both in terms of timing and magnitude—were monetary economists.
For more than a year, monetarists have been warning that the economy would likely enter recession this year. That is because the Fed has over-constricted money growth between 2022 and 2024. The stock of money is now lower than it was in July 2022. Since the Fed was established in 1913, such contractions have only occurred on four occasions: in 1920-22, 1929-33, 1937-38 and 1948-49. The second episode resulted in the Great Depression, and recessions followed the other three.
***********************************************************
Trumpenomics: The implications of a second Trump term
David Pearl
As we know, Trump has a powerful – and seemingly debilitating – psychological effect on the great majority of commentators. Very few seem capable of detached, balanced and nuanced analysis.
Many of my fellow economists, the vast majority of whom are politically to the left of centre, have fallen over themselves to denounce Trump’s economics. In June, sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists, including Joseph Stiglitz, issued an open letter arguing that Joe Biden’s economic agenda (which no doubt will be replicated by Kamala Harris, if elected) was ‘vastly superior’ to Donald Trump’s.
A second Donald Trump presidency, they asserted, risked ‘reigniting’ inflation given his commitment to raise tariffs and cut taxes, conveniently ignoring the alarming surge in inflation on Biden’s watch. Bizarrely, the laureates suggested that Biden has lowered ‘long-run inflationary pressures’ by subsidising wind and solar energy, which as we know is a proven strategy for raising, rather than cutting, power prices.
Australian economists have been no better, predicting variously that Trump will destroy the international trading system, take control of the Federal Reserve and even, according to one, refuse to leave office once his term is up. (The idea of Trump assuming direct responsibility for monetary policy – and therefore interest rates and inflation – is ridiculous. He may be a lot of things, but he is not stupid).
While the outlines of Trump’s likely agenda are well known, his plans for trade and illegal immigration have received almost all the attention.
Economists have seized on his intention to impose an across-the-board 10-per-cent tariff on US imports, and tariffs of up to 60 per cent on goods from China. While this is understandable, they have typically ignored the bigger policy picture.
Trump is a committed tax reformer, and will want to extend his 2017 personal income tax cuts due to expire in 2025 (these narrowed deductions and lowered rates across most brackets, with the top rate set at 37 per cent). He is likely to call for a further reduction in the corporate tax rate.
And if elected, Trump will comprehensively deregulate the US energy sector, including: removing regulatory restrictions on oil production, natural gas, nuclear power and clean coal; scrapping car emission and electric vehicle mandates; and, once again, pulling the US out of the Paris climate change accord.
How should we characterise Trump’s economic philosophy? His critics have usually described it as populist and protectionist. Sympathisers have characterised it as nationalist-conservative, suggesting Trump favours a big and intrusive government, but dedicated to right-wing instead of progressive causes. In truth, none of these labels fits the bill, or at least not entirely.
While I agree that Trump is no classical free trader, his support for lower taxes and energy deregulation is firmly in the Reagan tradition. True, Reagan deregulated the US finance sector, not energy (although, he famously removed the solar panels his Democrat predecessor Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House roof), but there are parallels between these agendas.
In the 1980s, the economic costs of financial regulations (many dating back to the Depression era) became crushing for the US and other Western economies, raising the cost of capital, misallocating resources on a vast scale and limiting growth. Today, it is the extensive network of energy regulations, designed to force cheap and reliable fossil fuels out of the market, which is doing the most economic harm.
The positive supply-side impacts of Trump’s energy deregulation plans, if realised, are likely to dwarf any negative effect of his tariff agenda. (Remember that for large economies like the US, the costs of protection, while not trivial, are far lower than they are for smaller economies like Australia.)
Fiscal policy provides another parallel between Trump and Reagan. Reagan cut taxes but did not touch entitlement programs, securing the support of millions of working class Democrats.
Trump plans to do the same thing. Before we reach for the smelling salts, we should keep in mind that the US’s international creditors, with China at the forefront, have been only too happy – through their continued purchases of US government bonds – to finance its budget deficits.
Should Australians fear or be optimistic about a second Trump presidency? Leaving aside the simplistic view of his haters, it will be a mixed bag.
While Trump is a protectionist, Kamala Harris is as well (judging by the record of the Biden administration). So there will be broad continuity here. And let’s not panic about Trump’s sabre-rattling on China trade, which in my view is more about positioning him for a bilateral deal than anything else, a two-step strategy he followed during his first term. Back then, of course, Trump exempted Australia from higher steel and aluminium tariffs. Given the weakness of its economy, I have no doubt China will be ready to negotiate.
If trade, under either Trump or Harris, presents some risks, the big policy shift will come in the area of energy. Trump’s plans in this area, if realised, will undermine, perhaps fatally, the global – in truth largely Western – emissions reduction crusade. By delegitimising wind-and-solar ideology, it may free Australia to pursue more rational energy and climate change policies.
This all said, it would be foolish to over-analyse what a second Trump presidency might bring. After all, the Covid pandemic, which arguably cost him the 2020 election, came out of the blue. And with the election still months away and recent polls tightening, Trump is no certainty to take office.
It is intellectually lazy, and an insult to the millions of Americans who will vote for him, to dismiss Trump as a fool or would-be dictator. He is neither.
But nor is he a political messiah. He is flesh and blood, a singular politician to be sure, but a politician nevertheless. His plans on tax and energy, if realised, will deliver enormous gains to the US economy and set a positive policy example for Australia.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/08/trumpenomics/
*******************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment