Paul Davidson on Paul Ryan’s economic knowledge in NY Times in 2009

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Paul wrote:
>   
>   In an op-ed ”Thirty Years Later, a Return to Stagflation” (Op-Ed, Feb. 14), Representative
>   Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, argued that the stimulus plan will bring the
>   combination of high inflation and high unemployment known as stagflation.
>   
>   Here is a copy of my February 22, 2009 published letter to the Editor of the New York
>   Times evaluating Paul Ryan’s economics.
>   

LETTERS; Can We Spend Our Way to Recovery?

February 22, 2009 (NYT)

To the Editor:

Paul D. Ryan repeats the tired idea that when the Federal Reserve prints money for the government to spend on economic recovery, the result will be inflation because ”it is a situation in which too few goods are being chased by too much money.” This is based on a false assumption that the output of the country will not increase when government lets contracts to businesses to produce more goods and services that will improve the productivity and health of our country.

If there is significant unemployment and idle capacity in the private sector (and who can deny that there is?), then this deficit spending will not cause inflation. Rather, the ”printed” money spent on a recovery plan creates profit opportunities that induce private enterprise to hire and produce more goods. Then there will be many more goods available for this money to chase and no inflation need occur.

Paul Davidson
Boynton Beach, Fla., Feb. 14, 2009

The writer is editor of The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics.

ECB Says It May Buy Bonds If Strict Conditionality Ensured

A mixed bag.

It addresses the solvency issue and can bring rates down to whatever the ECB wants them to pay.

But the ‘conditionality’ likely continues the contractionary bias it’s already introduced.

If pressed as implied, this is a prescription for rising unemployment and political turmoil.

The euro zone has massive ‘demand leakages’ into pension funds, corporate reserves, cash in circulation,
the desire of foreign governments to hold euro balances, etc. that are a powerful contractionary bias.

They can only be offset by deficit spending by the domestic private sector, the foreign sector (net exports)
or the euro zone public sector entities.

In my humble opinion
nothing less than full public sector recognition of this ‘accounting identity’
is a necessary prerequisite to a constructive response.

ECB Says It May Buy Bonds If Strict Conditionality Ensured

 
Aug. 9 (Bloomberg) — The European Central Bank said it may intervene in bond markets in tandem with Europe’s bailout funds if troubled nations commit to improving their economies and fiscal positions.

 
“The adherence of governments to their commitments and the fulfilment by the European Financial Stability Facility/European Stability Mechanism of their role are necessary conditions,”

 
the Frankfurt-based ECB said in its monthly bulletin today, echoing President Mario Draghi’s remarks on Aug. 2. The central bank “may undertake outright open market operations of a size adequate to reach its objective.”

 
The ECB is stepping up its crisis response after Spanish and Italian bond yields surged, exacerbating a sovereign debt crisis that has forced five of the 17-euro members into seeking external aid. Draghi last week justified any potential intervention, saying rising borrowing costs in “several countries and financial fragmentation hinders the effective working of monetary policy.”

 
Still, “in order to create the fundamental conditions for such risk premia to disappear, policy makers in the euro area need to push ahead with fiscal consolidation, structural reform and European institution-building with great determination,”

 
the ECB said. “Governments must stand ready to activate the EFSF/ESM in the bond market when exceptional financial market circumstances and risks to financial stability exist — with strict and effective conditionality.”

 

Market Tensions

 

A further worsening of the crisis is likely to hurt economic growth in the euro area, “with the ongoing tensions in financial markets and heightened uncertainty weighing on confidence and sentiment,” the report said.

 
Today’s bulletin also contains the quarterly survey of professional forecasters. Their estimate for 2012 inflation remained unchanged at 2.3 percent. For 2013, they expect annual price gains to average 1.7 percent, down from 1.8 percent previously estimated, and for 2014 they predict 1.9 percent. The longer term inflation forecast remained at 2 percent.

 
On growth, the forecasters predict a 0.3 percent contraction for 2012, down from a 0.2 percent contraction expected last quarter. For 2013, they anticipate growth of 0.6 percent, down from a previous estimate of 1 percent. For 2014, they see the economy expanding 1.4 percent.

ECB notes?

An interesting move by the ECB would be to offer short to medium term notes in the market place.

As discussed over the years, unlike other currencies, the euro has no ‘risk free deposits’ available to anyone other than member banks and foreign governments.

This has probably caused substantial numbers of investors to sell their euro for other currencies rather than hold any of the available euro denominated financial assets.

If so, ECB notes could mark the return of these portfolio to ‘normal’ allocations to euro denominated financial assets, which would offer strong support for the euro vs other currencies.

And with the ECB measuring success by the strength of the euro, this could be an attractive proposition.

It would attract euro deposits from the banking system, which the ECB can easily accommodate by continuing its current policy of liquidity provision for its member banks as needed.

Additionally, and not that it actually matters for inflation, lending, aggregate demand, etc., most monetarists would not include these notes as part of the ‘money supply’ but instead as an anti inflationary ‘sterilization’ measure.

History of MMT and the euro, 1996 Bretton Woods Conference

Found this on the net in the PK archives.
Shows MMT was on it well before this date.
Feel free to distribute

To: PKT Academics
Re: Bretton Woods Conference

Confirmed attendance includes senior staff from Deutchebank,
Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Banker’s Trust, Salomon Bros,
Lehman Bros, Harvard Management, III, Petrus, Paine Webber,
Paribas, and BZW. A keynote speaker will be Professor Charles
Goodhart from the LSE. Bernard Connolly will be the historian.
Speakers for each topic are currently being arranged.

There is currently room for two academic representatives.
Please contact me at mosler@xxxxxxxx if you have interest.

A FRAMEWORK FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

An Invitational Conference

Bretton Woods, New Hampshire

June 12-15, 1996

The purpose of this conference is to bring together a selected
group of portfolio managers, analysts, researchers
traders, and academics who have a common understanding
of monetary operations.

The objective of this conference is to achieve agreement on the use
of a common conceptual framework for undertaking
contemporary macroeconomic analysis.

Portfolio managers in attendance are responsible for well over
$50 billion in assets. The economists and analysts from the
international dealer community represent some of the world?s
largest and most sophisticated fixed income trading and sales
operations.

We believe that this group has the potential to establish an international
standard for the presentation and analysis of economic data.

Several of the fundamentals are Post Keynesian…

Deposit money is endogenous
Central Banks set short term rates exogenously
Deposits exist solely as the result of loans

Extension of these fundamentals includes…


Internal sovereign debt functions as interest
rate support
Taxes create a demand for the goverment’s
currency
Fiat currency is defined exogenously

Conference Moderator……..Warren B. Mosler

Wednesday, June 12, 1996

11:30 AM Welcome and Introduction
12:00 PM Luncheon
12:30 PM History of the Awareness of Monetary Operations
Charles Goodheart

MONETARY OPERATIONS

1:00 PM Review of the Fundamentals of Monetary Operations
1:30 PM Monetary Policy Options


MACROECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS

2:00 PM The function of Government Securities
2:30 PM Currency Definition
3:00 PM Fiscal Policy Options and Implications


EXTERNAL DEBT

3:30 PM Review of Current Conditions
4:00 PM Macro-economic Implications
4:30 PM World Bank, IMF Policy Implications
6:00 PM Hor?s d?ouvres
7:00 PM Dinner

THURSDAY, JUNE 13

ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK

9:00 AM Integrating Foreign Trade, Investment, Fiscal and Monetary
Policy
10:00 AM Full Employment, Zero Inflation Model
11:30 AM Lunch

RAMIFICATIONS OF MONETARY UNION

1:00 PM Current Political Situation
Bernard Connolly
2:00 PM Maastricht Fiscal Criteria Implications
3:00 PM Post 1999 Credit Implications
3:30 PM Functionality of the Euro
4:30 PM Drafting a Consensus
6:00 PM Hor’s d’Ouvres
7:00 PM Dinner

FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1995

Review and Discussion

Warren B. Mosler
Director of Economic Analysis
III Finance

See “Soft Currency Economics:”

ECB’S NOWOTNY SEES ARGUMENTS FOR GIVING ESM A BANKING LICENSE

Yes, I think it’s all still happening as suggested last month after Trichet proposed a plan that included the ECB.

Lots of market vol, doubts, fears, etc. and all for good reason as it could fall apart as easily as it could all succeed. I still lean towards the latter.

From Dave Vealy:

NOWOTNY SAYS ESM GAINING BANKING LICENSE IS ONGOING DISCUSSION
NOWOTNY NOT AWARE OF `SPECIFIC DISCUSSIONS’ WITHIN ECB ON ESM
ECB’S NOWOTNY SEES ARGUMENTS FOR GIVING ESM A BANKING LICENSE

From what I am aware, first time an ECB official raises this issue. A significant positive surprise if this is the case, as it would signficantly increase the ESM’s capacity for intervention.

ECB’S NOWOTNY SEES ARGUMENTS FOR GIVING ESM A BANKING LICENSE
ECB’S NOWOTNY COMMENTS IN INTERVIEW WITH BLOOMBERG
NOWOTNY SAYS EURO-AREA ECONOMIC DIVERGENCES ARE INCREASING
NOWOTNY SAYS INFLATION WILL SLOW, ECB DOESN’T SEE DEFLATION
NOWOTNY URGES AGAINST RUSHING ECB BANK SUPERVISORY ROLE
NOWOTNY: ECB NOT TALKING ABOUT NEGATIVE DEPOSIT RATE FOR NOW
NOWOTNY SAYS ESM GAINING BANKING LICENSE IS ONGOING DISCUSSION
NOWOTNY NOT AWARE OF `SPECIFIC DISCUSSIONS’ WITHIN ECB ON ESM

The certainty of debt and taxes- comments on the Fiscal Cliff

It takes a fiat currency to sustain full employment.

And a fiat currency, like the $US and the euro, includes the certainty of debt and taxes.

Taxation is required to allow the government to spend its otherwise worthless currency.

And ‘debt’- some entity spending more than its income- is required to ‘offset’ an entity’s desire to spend less than its income.

These desires to not spend are known as demand leakages.

That means, at full employment, either a private sector entity or the government will be spending more than its income to offset the demand leakages.

Private sector spending is, operationally, revenue constrained. It is limited by income and credit worthiness.

Public sector spending in a currency it issues is not revenue constrained.

The private sector, the user of the currency, must first obtain funds before it can spend.

The public sector, the issuer of its currency, must, from inception, spend or lend first, before it can ‘collect’ taxes and/or borrow.

The private sector is necessarily pro cyclical. In a down turn, the private sector loses credit worthiness and therefore is limited in its ability to spend more than its income.

That leaves only the public sector to spend more than its income to fill any residual output gap and sustain full employment.

Those claiming ‘the problem is too much debt- private sector and public sector’ are entirely missing the point.

That includes everyone in Congress, President Obama, and Candidate Romney.

Those now pushing for Federal deficit reduction are entirely missing the point.

There is not Federal solvency problem, short term or long term, with any size deficit.

There could be a long term inflation problem.

However, I have seen no credible, professional long term forecasts of substantial inflation. That includes the Fed, the CBO, and the forecasts of the largest financial institutions, as well as the inflation rates implied by the long term inflation indexed US Treasury securities.

Last year the pre debt ceiling war cry from all sides was that immediate deficit reduction was imperative to keep us from becoming the next Greece.

That fell by the wayside after the downgrade, that was supposed to cause interest rates to spike and find the US, Greek like, on its knees before the IMF,
instead cause rates paid by the US Treasury to dramatically fall. The difference is the US govt is the issuer of the $US, while Greece is but a user of the euro.

So seems to me in this economy federal deficit reduction should be off the table, and the burden of proof of a sufficiently high long term inflation risk
be on those who want to put it back on the table. Anything less seems subversive, either by accident or by design.

(feel free to distribute)

This Republican Economy

Not to mention taking $500 billion out of the medicare budget to give to the insurance companies and then declaring victory on healthcare. And the early statement about needing to first fix the financial sector before the real sector can recover.

And, of course, it would be nice if Professor Krugman would reverse his errant and highly counterproductive contention that the federal deficit presents a long term economic or financial problem per se.

This Republican Economy

By Paul Krugman

June 3 (NYT) — What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.

So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.

For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.

How is that possible? Isn’t Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.

Over all, the picture for America in 2012 bears a stunning resemblance to the great mistake of 1937, when F.D.R. prematurely slashed spending, sending the U.S. economy — which had actually been recovering fairly fast until that point — into the second leg of the Great Depression. In F.D.R.’s case, however, this was an unforced error, since he had a solidly Democratic Congress. In President Obama’s case, much though not all of the responsibility for the policy wrong turn lies with a completely obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy.

As an aside, I think it’s worth pointing out that although the economy’s performance has been disappointing, to say the least, none of the disasters Republicans predicted have come to pass. Remember all those assertions that budget deficits would lead to soaring interest rates? Well, U.S. borrowing costs have just hit a record low. And remember those dire warnings about inflation and the “debasement” of the dollar? Well, inflation remains low, and the dollar has been stronger than it was in the Bush years.

Put it this way: Republicans have been warning that we were about to turn into Greece because President Obama was doing too much to boost the economy; Keynesian economists like myself warned that we were, on the contrary, at risk of turning into Japan because he was doing too little. And Japanification it is, except with a level of misery the Japanese never had to endure.

So why don’t voters know any of this?

Part of the answer is that far too much economic reporting is still of the he-said, she-said variety, with dueling quotes from hired guns on either side. But it’s also true that the Obama team has consistently failed to highlight Republican obstruction, perhaps out of a fear of seeming weak. Instead, the president’s advisers keep turning to happy talk, seizing on a few months’ good economic news as proof that their policies are working — and then ending up looking foolish when the numbers turn down again. Remarkably, they’ve made this mistake three times in a row: in 2010, 2011 and now once again.

At this point, however, Mr. Obama and his political team don’t seem to have much choice. They can point with pride to some big economic achievements, above all the successful rescue of the auto industry, which is responsible for a large part of whatever job growth we are managing to get. But they’re not going to be able to sell a narrative of overall economic success. Their best bet, surely, is to do a Harry Truman, to run against the “do-nothing” Republican Congress that has, in reality, blocked proposals — for tax cuts as well as more spending — that would have made 2012 a much better year than it’s turning out to be.

For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans’ claims that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the Republican economic future — and it doesn’t work.

Brazil Cuts Rates to Record Low as Economy Stalls

Another central bank may have it backwards as lower rates turn out to be deflationary and slow things down via interest income channels?

Brazil Cuts Rates to Record Low as Economy Stalls

May 30 (Bloomberg) — Brazil’s central bank cut interest rates on Wednesday for the seventh straight time to a record low 8.50 percent, moving into uncharted territory in a bid to shield a fragile recovery from a gloomy global outlook.

President Dilma Rousseff has made lower interest rates one of the top priorities of her government which is struggling to steer the economy back to the 4 percent-plus growth rates that made Brazil one of the world’s most attractive emerging markets in the last decade.

The central bank’s monetary policy committee, known as Copom, voted unanimously to lower the benchmark Selic rate 50 basis points from 9 percent, in line with market expectations.

“At this moment, Copom believes that the risks to the inflation outlook remain limited,” the bank said in a statement that accompanied the decision. The statement used the exact same language as the previous statement when the bank cut the Selic rate in April.

With Wednesday’s cut, the central bank has now lopped 400 basis points off the Selic rate since August 2011, when it surprised markets by starting an easing cycle despite widespread concerns at the time about surging consumer prices.

Inflation has eased since then with some help from a sluggish global economy, bringing the annual rate to well below the 6.5 percent ceiling of the central bank’s target range.

That has allowed the central bank to test the boundaries on interest rates, ushering in what some economists predict might be a new era of lower borrowing costs for Brazil.

The size of Wednesday’s rate cut marked a slowdown in the pace of easing after two straight reductions of 75 basis points in March and April. The central bank signaled after its April policy meeting that future rate cuts might be more cautious.

The previous low for the Selic was set in 2009, when the central bank in the administration of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva slashed the rate to 8.75 percent to fend off the global financial crisis.

Video from Venice presentation

Venice video link here.

Also, Trichet Friday, the German elections, and G8 reports seem to be setting the tone for the euro zone to do something about the solvency issue. This is very good for equities and the rest of the credit stack.

At the same time it does not seem likely that any growth proposals will include fiscal relaxation, so the euro zone will have to get by the best it can with the deficits it has, which I’d guess should mean flat GDP, +/- 1% or so.

The US should also continue to muddle through with modest top line growth, and inflation low enough and the output gap wide enough to keep this Fed from hiking any time soon.