Author: JW Mason

Slides on “Rethinking Supply Constraints”

On December 2-3, 2022, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst (where I did my economics PhD) will be hosting a conference on “Global Inflation Today: What Is To Be Done?”1

I will be speaking on “Rethinking Supply Constraints,” a new project I am working on with Arjun Jayadev. Our argument is that we should think of supply constraints as limits on the speed at which production can be reorganized and labor and other resources can be reallocated via markets, as opposed to limits on the level of production determined by “real” resources. The idea is that this makes better sense of recent macroeconomic developments; fits better with a broader conception of the economy in terms of human productive activity rather than the exchange of pre-existing goods; and points toward more promising responses to the current inflation.

I was hoping to have a draft of the paper done for the conference, but that is not to be. But I do have a set of slides, which give at least a partial sketch of the argument. Feedback is most welcome!

At Barron’s: Rate Hikes Are the Wrong Cure for Rising Housing Costs

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This is my contribution for November 2022.)

How much of our inflation problem is really a housing-cost problem?

During the first half of 2021, vehicle prices accounted for almost the whole rise in inflation. For much of this year, it was mostly energy prices.

But today, the prices of automobiles and other manufactured goods have stabilized, while energy prices are falling. It is rents that are rising rapidly. Over the past three months, housing costs accounted for a full two-thirds of the inflation in excess of the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Since most Americans don’t rent their homes, the main way that rents enter the inflation statistics is through owners’ equivalent rent—the government’s estimate of how much owner-occupied homes would rent for. The big cost that homeowners actually pay is debt service on their mortgage, which the Fed is currently pushing up. There is something perverse about responding to an increase in a hypothetical price of housing by making actual housing more expensive.

Still, the housing cost problem is real. Market rents are up by over 10% in the past year, according to Zillow. While homeownership rates have recovered somewhat, they are still well below where they were in the mid-2000s. And with vacancy rates for both rental and owner-occupied homes at their lowest levels in 40 years, the housing shortage is likely to get worse.

Housing is unlike most other goods in the economy because it is tied to a specific long-lived asset. The supply of haircuts or child care depends on how much of society’s resources we can devote to producing them today. The supply of housing depends on how much of it we built in the past.

This means that conventional monetary policy is ill-suited to tackle rising housing prices. Because the housing stock adjusts slowly, housing costs may rise even when there is substantial slack in the economy. And because production of housing is dependent on credit, that’s where higher interest rates have their biggest effects. Housing starts are already down 20% since the start of this year. This will have only a modest effect on current demand, but a big effect on the supply of housing in future years. Economics 101 should tell you that if efforts to reduce demand are also reducing supply, prices won’t come down much. They might even rise.

What should we be doing instead?

First, we need to address the constraints on new housing construction. In a number of metropolitan areas, home values may be double the cost of construction. When something is worth more than it costs to produce, normally we make more of it. So, if the value of a property comes mostly from the land under it, that’s a sign that construction is falling far short of demand. The problem we need to solve isn’t that people will pay so much to live in New York or Los Angeles or Boston or Boulder, Colo. It’s that it is so difficult to add housing there.

Land-use rules are set by thousands of jurisdictions. Changing them will not happen overnight. But there are steps that can be taken now. For example, the federal government could tie transportation funding to allowing higher-density development near transit.

Second, we need more public investment. Government support—whether through direct ownership or subsidies—is critical for affordable housing, which markets won’t deliver even with relaxed land-use rules. But government’s role needn’t be limited to the low-income segment. The public sector, with its long time horizons, low borrowing costs, and ability to internalize externalities, has major advantages in building and financing middle-class housing as well.

If we look around the world, it isn’t hard to find examples of governments successfully taking a central role in housing development. In Singapore, which is hardly hostile to private business, the majority of new housing is built by the public Housing Development Board. The apartment buildings built by Vienna’s government between the world wars still provide a large share of the city’s housing. Before the privatizations under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, some 30% of English families lived in publicly owned housing.

In the U.S., public housing has fallen out of favor. But governments at all levels continue to support the construction of affordable housing through subsidies and incentives. Some public developers, like the Housing Production Fund of Montgomery County, Md., are finding that with cheap financing and no need to deliver returns to investors, they can compete with private developers for mixed-income housing as well. The important thing is to channel new public money to development, rather than vouchers for tenants. The latter may just bid up the price of existing housing.

Third, we should revisit rent regulation. The argument against rent control is supposed to be that it discourages new construction. But empirical studies have repeatedly failed to find any such effect. This shouldn’t be surprising. The high-rent areas where controls get adopted are precisely those where new housing construction is already tightly constrained. If not much is getting built in any case, rent regulation merely prevents the owners of existing housing from claiming windfall gains from surging demand.

No, rent control won’t boost the supply of housing. But it can limit the rise in prices until new supply comes on-line. And it’s a much bettertargeted response to rising housing costs than the policy-induced recession we are currently headed for.

At Jacobin: Review of Beth Popp Berman’s Thinking Like an Economist

(This review appeared in the Summer 2022 edition of Jacobin.)

After the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, universal health insurance seemed to be on its way. In 1971, the New York Times observed that “Americans from all strata of society … are swinging over to the idea that good health care, like good education, ought to be a fundamental right of citizenship.” That same year, Ted Kennedy introduced a bill providing universal coverage with no payments at the point of service, on the grounds that “health care for all our people must now be recognized as a right.” The bill didn’t pass, but it laid down a marker for future health care reform.

But when Democratic presidents and congresses took up health care in later years they chose a different path. Rather than pitching health care as a right of citizenship, the goal was better-functioning markets for health care as a commodity. From the “consumer choice health plan” proposed by Alain Enthoven in the Carter administration, though the 1993 Clinton plan down to Obama’s ACA, the goal of reform was no longer the universal provision of health care, but addressing certain specific failures in the market for health insurance.

The intellectual roots of this shift are the subject of Beth Popp Berman’s new book Thinking Like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equity in U.S. Public Policy. A distinct style of thinking, she argues, reshaped ideas how about how government should work and what it could achieve. This “economic style” of thinking, originating among Democrats rather than on the Right, “centered efficiency and cost-effectiveness, choice and incentives, and competition and the market mechanism… Its implicit theory of politics imagined that disinterested technocrats could make reasonably neutral, apolitical policy decisions.” Rather than see particular domains of public life, like health care or the environment, as embodying their own distinct goals and logics, they were imagined in terms of an idealized market, where the question was what specific market failure, if any, the government should correct.

The book traces this evolution in various policy domains, focusing on the microeconomic questions of regulation, social provision and market governance rather than the higher-profile debates among macroeconomists. Covering mainly the period of the Kennedy through Reagan administrations, with brief discussions of more recent developments, the book documents how the economic style of reasoning displaced alternative ways of thinking about policy questions. The first generation of environmental regulation, for example, favored high, inflexible standards such as simply forbidding emission of certain substances. Workplace and consumer safety laws similarly favored categorical prohibitions and requirements.

But to regulators trained in economics, this made no sense. To an economist, “the optimal level of air pollution, worker illness, or car accidents might be lower than its current level, but it was probably not zero.” As economist Marc Roberts wrote with frustration of the Clean Water Act, “There is no be no case-by-case balancing of costs and benefits, no attempt at ‘fine-tuning’ the process of resource allocation.’”

The book has aroused hostility from economists, who insist that this is an unfairly one-sided portrayal of their profession. I think Berman has the better of the argument here. As anyone who has taken an economics course in college can confirm, there really is such a thing as “thinking like an economist,” even if not every economist thinks that way. Framing every question as a problem of optimization under constraints is a very particular style of reasoning. And, as Berman observes, the most important site of this thinking is not the work of professional economists with their “frontier research,” but undergraduate classes and in schools of public policy where those in government, non-profits, and the press acquire this perspective.

Berman also is right to link this distinctive economic style of reasoning to a narrowing of American political horizons. At the same time, she is appropriately cautious about attributing too much independent influence to it — ideas matter, she suggests, but as tools of power rather than sources of it.

The problem with the book is not that she is unfair to economists; it’s that she concedes too much ground to them. Thinking Like an Economist is attentive to the shifting backgrounds of leaders and staff in federal agencies — if you’re wondering who was the first economics PhD to head the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, this is the book for you. But this institutional history, while important, sometimes crowds out critical engagement with the ideas being discussed.

Take the term efficiency, which seems to occur on almost every page of the book, starting with the cover. The essence of the economic style, says Berman, is that government should make decisions “to promote efficiency.” But what does that mean?

We know what “efficient” means as applied to, say, a refrigerator. It means comparing a measurable input (electricity, in this case) to a well-defined outcome (a given volume maintained at a given temperature). There is nothing distinct to economics in preferring a more energy-efficient to a less energy-efficient appliance. Unions planning organizing campaigns, socialists running in elections, or public housing administrators all similarly face the problem of getting the most out of their scarce resources.

But what if the question is whether you should have a refrigerator in the first place, or if refrigerators ought to be privately owned? What could “efficient” mean here?

To an economist, the answer is the one that maximizes “utility” or “welfare.” These things, of course, are unobservable. So the measurement of inputs and output that defines efficiency in the every day sense is impossible.

Instead, what we do is start with an abstract model in which all choices involve using or trading property claims, and people know and care about only their own private interests. Then we show that in this model, exchange at market prices will satisfy a particular definition of efficiency — either Pareto, where no one can get a better outcome without someone else getting a worse one, or Kaldor-Hicks, where improvements to one person’s situation at the expense of another’s are allowed as long as the winners could, in principle, make the losers whole. Finally, in a sort of argument by homonym, this specialized and near-tautological meaning of “efficiency” is imported back into real-world settings, where it is used interchangeably with the everyday doing-more-with-less one.

When someone steeped in the economic style of thinking says “efficiency,” they mean something quite different from what normal people would. Rather than a favorable ratio of measurable out- puts to inputs, they mean a desirable outcome in terms of unmeasurable welfare or utility, which is simply assumed to be reached via markets. A great part of the power of economics in policy debates comes through the conflation of these two meanings. A common-sensical wish to get better outcomes with less resources gets turned into a universal rule that economic life should be organized around private property and private exchange.

Berman is well aware of the ambiguities of her key term, and the book contains some good discussions of these different meanings. But that understanding seldom makes it into the primary narrative of the book, where economists are allowed to pose as advocates of an undifferentiated “efficiency,” as opposed to non-economic social and political values. This forces Berman into the position of arguing that making government programs work well is in conflict with making them fair, when in reality an ideological preference for markets is often in conflict with both.

To be sure, there are cases where Berman’s frame works. Health care as a right is fundamentally different from a good that should be delivered efficiently, by whatever meaning. But in other cases, it leads her seriously astray. There are many things to criticize in the United States’ thread- bare welfare state. But is one of them really that it focuses too much on raising recipients’ in- comes, as opposed to relieving their “feelings of anomie and alienation”? Or again, there are many reasons to prefer 1960s and ‘70s style environmental regulation, with simple categorical rules, to the more recent focus on incentives and flexibility. But I am not sure that “the sacredness of Mother Earth” is the most convincing one.

That last phrase is Berman’s, from the introduction. It’s noteworthy that in her long and informative chapter on environmental regulation, we never hear the case for strong, inflexible standards being made in such terms. Rather, the first generation of regulators “built ambitious and relatively rigid rules … because they saw inflexibility as a tool for preventing capture” by industry, and because they believed that “setting high, even seemingly unrealistic standards … could drive rapid improvements” in technology. Meanwhile, their economics-influenced opponents like Charles Schultze (a leading economist in the Johnson and Carter administrations, and a central figure in the book) and Carter EPA appointee Bill Drayton, seem to have been motivated less by measurable policy outcomes than by objections on principle to “command and control” regulation. As one colleague described Drayton’s belief that companies should be allowed to offset emissions at one plant with reductions elsewhere, “What was driving Bill was pure intellectual conviction that this was a truly elegant approach — The Right Approach, with a capital ’T’ and ‘R’.” This does not look like a conflict between the values of equity and efficiency. It looks like a conflict between the goal of making regulation effective on one side, versus a preference for markets as such on the other.

On anti-trust regulation, the subject of another chapter in the book, the efficiency-versus-equity frame also obscures more than it reveals. The fundamental shift here was, as Berman says, away from a concern with size or market share, toward a narrower focus on horizontal agreements between competitors. And it is true that this shift was sometimes justified in terms of the supposed greater efficiency of dominant firms. But we shouldn’t take this justification at face value. As critical anti-trust scholars like Sanjukta Paul have shown, courts were not really interested in evidence for (or against) such efficiency. Rather, the guiding principle was a preference for top-down coordination by owners over other forms of economic coordination. This is why centralized price-setting by Amazon is acceptable, but an effort to bargain jointly with it by publishers was unacceptable; or why manufacturers’ prohibitions on resale of their products were accept- able but the American Medical Association’s limits on advertising by physicians was unacceptable. The issue here is not efficiency versus equity, or even centralized versus decentralized economic decision making. It’s about what kind of authority can be exercised in the economic sphere.

Berman ends the book with the suggestion that rebuilding the public sector calls for rethinking the language in which policies are understood and evaluated. On this, I fully agree. Readers who were politically active in the 2000s may recall the enormous mobilizations against George W. Bush’s proposals for Social Security privatization — and the failure, after those were abandoned, to translate this defensive program into a positive case for expanding social insurance. More recently, we’ve seen heroic labor actions by public teachers across the country. But while these have sometimes succeeded in their immediate goals, they haven’t translated into a broader argument for the value of public services and civil service protections.

As Berman says, it’s not enough to make the case for particular public programs; what we need is better language to make the positive case for the public sector in general.

At Barron’s: Americans Owe Less Than They Used To. Will the Fed Change That?

(I write a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in September.)

Almost everyone, it seems, now agrees that higher interest rates mean economic pain. This pain is usually thought of in terms of lost jobs and shuttered businesses. Those costs are very real. But there’s another cost of rate increases that is less discussed: their effect on balance sheets.

Economists tend to frame the effects of interest rates in terms of incentives for new borrowing. As with (almost) anything else, if loans cost more, people will take less of them. But interest rates don’t matter only for new borrowers, they also affect people who borrowed in the past. As debt rolls over, higher or lower current rates get passed on to the servicing costs of existing debt. The effect of interest rate changes on the burden of existing debt can dwarf their effect on new borrowing—especially when debt is already high.

Let’s step back for a moment from current debates. One of the central macroeconomic stories of recent decades is the rise in household debt. In 1984, it was a bit over 60% of disposable income, a ratio that had hardly changed since 1960. But over the next quarter-century, debt-income ratios would double, reaching 130%. This rise in household debt was the background of the worldwide financial crisis of 2007-2008, and made household debt a live political question for the first time in modern American history.

Household debt peaked in 2008; it has since fallen almost as quickly as it rose. On the eve of the pandemic, the aggregate household debt-income ratio stood at 92%—still high, by historical standards, but far lower than a decade before.

These dramatic swings are often explained in terms of household behavior. For some on the political right, rising debt in the 1984-2008 period was the result of misguided government programs that encouraged excessive borrowing, and perhaps also a symptom of cultural shifts that undermined responsible financial management. On the political left, it was more likely to be seen as the result of financial deregulation that encouraged irresponsible lending, along with income inequality that pushed those lower down the income ladder to spend beyond their means.

Perhaps the one thing these two sides would agree on is that a higher debt burden is the result of more borrowing.

But as economist Arjun Jayadev and I have shown in a series of papers, this isn’t necessarily so. During much of the period of rising debt, households borrowed less on average than during the 1960s and 1970s. Not more. So what changed? In the earlier period, low interest rates and faster nominal income growth meant that a higher level of debt-financed expenditure was consistent with stable debt-income ratios.

The rise in debt ratios between 1984 and 2008, we found, was not mainly a story of people borrowing more. Rather, it was a shift in macroeconomic conditions that meant that the same level of borrowing that had been sustainable in a high-growth, low-interest era was unsustainable in the higher-interest environment that followed the steep rate hikes under Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker. With higher rates, a level of spending on houses, cars, education and other debt-financed assets that would previously have been consistent with a constant debt-income ratio, now led to a rising one.

(Yes, there would later be a big rise in borrowing during the housing boom of the 2000s. But this is not the whole story, or even the biggest part of it.)

Similarly, the fall in debt after 2008 in part reflects sharply reduced borrowing in the wake of the crisis—but only in part. Defaults, which resulted in the writing-off of about 10% of household debt over 2008-2012, also played a role. More important were the low interest rates of these years. Thanks to low rates, the overall debt burden continued to fall even as households began to borrow again.

In effect, low rates mean that the same fraction of income devoted to debt service leads to a larger fall in principal—a dynamic any homeowner can understand.

The figure nearby illustrates the relative contributions of low rates and reduced borrowing to the fall in debt ratios after 2008. The heavy black line is the actual path of the aggregate household debt-income ratio. The red line shows the path it would have followed if households had not reduced their borrowing after 2008, but instead had continued to take on the same amount of new debt (as a share of their income) as they did on average during the previous 25 years of rising debt. The blue line shows what would have happened to the debt ratio if households had borrowed as much as they actually did, but had faced the average effective interest rate of that earlier period.

As you can see, both reduced borrowing and lower rates were necessary for household debt to fall. Hold either one constant at its earlier level, and household debt would today be approaching 150% of disposable income. Note also that households were paying down debt mainly during the crisis itself and its immediate aftermath—that’s where the red and black lines diverge sharply. Since 2014, as household spending has picked up again, it’s only thanks to low rates that debt burdens have continued to fall.

(Yes, most household debt is in the form of fixed-rate mortgages. But over time, as families move homes or refinance, the effective interest rate on their debt tends to follow the rate set by the Fed.)

The rebuilding of household finances is an important but seldom-acknowledged benefit of the decade of ultra-low rates after 2007. It’s a big reason why the U.S. economy weathered the pandemic with relatively little damage, and why it’s growing so resiliently today.

And that brings us back to the present. If low rates relieved the burden of debt on American families, will rate hikes put them back on an unsustainable path?

The danger is certainly real. While almost all the discussion of rate hikes focuses on their effects on new borrowing, their effects on the burden of existing debt are arguably more important. The 1980s—often seen as an inflation-control success story—are a cautionary tale in this respect. Even though household borrowing fell in the 1980s, debt burdens still rose. The developing world—where foreign borrowing had soared in response to the oil shock—fared much worse.

Yes, with higher rates people will borrow less. But it’s unlikely they will borrow enough less to offset the increased burden of the debt they already have. The main assets financed by credit—houses, cars, and college degrees—are deeply woven into American life, and can’t be easily foregone. It’s a safe bet that a prolonged period of high rates will result in families carrying more debt, not less.

That said, there are reasons for optimism. Interest rates are still low by historical standards. The improvement in household finances during the post-2008 decade was reinforced by the substantial income-support programs in the relief packages Congress passed in response to the pandemic; this will not be reversed quickly. Continued strong growth in employment means rising household incomes, which, mechanically, pushes down the debt-income ratio.

Student debt cancellation is also well-timed in this respect. Despite the fears of some, debt forgiveness will not boost  current demand—no interest has been paid on this debt since March 2020, so the immediate effect on spending will be minimal. But forgiveness will improve household balance sheets, offsetting some of the effect of interest rate hikes and encouraging spending in the future, when the economy may be struggling with too little demand rather than (arguably) too much.

Reducing the burden of debt is also one of the few silver linings of inflation. It’s often assumed that if people’s incomes are rising at the same pace as the prices of the things they buy, they are no better off. But strictly speaking, this isn’t true—income is used for servicing debt as well as for buying things. Even if real incomes are stagnant or falling, rising nominal incomes reduce the burden of existing debt. This is not an argument that high inflation is a good thing. But even bad things can have benefits as well as costs.

Will we look back on this moment as the beginning of a new era of financial instability, as families, businesses, and governments find themselves unable to keep up with the rising costs of servicing their debt? Or will the Fed be able to declare victory before it has done too much damage? At this point, it’s hard to say.

Either way we should focus less on how monetary policy affects incentives, and more time on how it affects the existing structure of assets and liabilities. The Fed’s ability to steer real variables like GDP and employment in real time has, I think, been greatly exaggerated. Its long-run influence over the financial system is a different story entirely.

Fisher Dynamics Revisited

Back in the 2010s, Arjun Jayadev and I wrote a pair of papers (one, two) on the evolution of debt-income ratios for US households. This post updates a couple key findings from those papers. (The new stuff begins at the table below.)

Rather than econometric exercises, the papers were based on a historical accounting decomposition —  an approach that I think could be used much more widely. We separated changes in the debt-income ratio into six components — the primary deficit (borrowing net of debt service payments); interest payments; real income growth; inflation; and write downs of debt through default — and calculated the contribution of each to the change in debt ratios over various periods. This is something that is sometimes done for sovereign debt but, as far as I know, we were the first to do it for private debt-income ratios.

We referred to the contributions of the non-borrowing components as “Fisher dynamics,” in honor of Irving Fisher’s seminal paper on depressions as “debt deflations.” A key aspect of the debt-deflation story was that when nominal incomes fell, the burden of debt could rise even as debtors sharply reduced new borrowing and devoted a greater share of their income to paying down existing debt. In Fisher’s view, this was one of the central dynamics of the Great Depression. Our argument was that something like a slow-motion version of this took place in the US (and perhaps elsewhere) in recent decades.

The logic here is that the change in debt-income ratios is a function not only of new borrowing but also of the effects of interest, inflation and (real) income growth on the existing debt ratio, as well as of charge offs due to defaults.

Imagine you have a mortgage equal to double your annual income. That ratio can go down if your current spending is less than your income, so that you can devote part of your income to paying off the principal. Or it can go down if your income rises, i.e. by raising the denominator rather than lowering the numerator. It can also go down if you refinance at a lower interest rate; then the same fraction of your income devoted to debt service will pay down the principal faster. Our of course it can go down if some or all of it is written off in bankruptcy.

It is possible to decompose actual historical changes in debt-income ratios for any economic unit or sector into these various factors. The details are in either of the papers linked above. One critical point to note: The contributions of debt and income growth are proportional to the existing debt ratio, so the higher it already is, the more important these factors are relative to the current surplus or deficit.

Breaking out changes in debt ratios into these components was what we did in the two papers. (The second paper also explored alternative decompositions to look at the relationship been debt ratio changes and new demand from the household sector.) The thing we wanted to explain was why some periods saw rising debt-income ratios while others saw stable or falling ones.

While debt–income ratios were roughly stable for the household sector in the 1960s and 1970s, they rose sharply starting in the early 1980s. The rise in household leverage after 1980 is normally explained in terms of higher household borrowing. But increased household borrowing cannot explain the rise in household debt after 1980, as the net flow of funds to households through credit markets was substantially lower in this period than in earlier postwar decades. During the housing boom period of 2000–2007, there was indeed a large increase in household borrowing. But this is not the case for the earlier rise in household leverage in 1983–1990, when the debt– income ratios rose by 20 points despite a sharp fall in new borrowing by households.

As we explained:

For both the 1980s episode of rising leverage and for the post-1980 period as a whole, the entire rise in debt–income ratios is explained by the rise in nominal interest rates relative to nominal income growth. Unlike the debt deflation of the 1930s, this ‘debt disinflation’ has received little attention from economists or in policy discussions.

Over the full 1984–2011 period, the household sector debt–income ratio almost exactly doubled… Over the preceding 20 years, debt–income ratios were essentially constant. Yet households ran cumulative primary deficits equal to just 3 percent of income over 1984–2012 (compared to 20 percent in the preceding period). The entire growth of household debt after 1983 is explained by the combination of higher interest payments, which contributed an additional 3.3 points per year to leverage after 1983 compared with the prior period, and lower inflation, which reduced leverage by 1.3 points per year less.

We concluded:

From a policy standpoint, the most important implication of this analysis is that in an environment where leverage is already high and interest rates significantly exceed growth rates, a sustained reduction in household debt–income ratios probably cannot be brought about solely or mainly via reduced expenditure relative to income. …There is an additional challenge, not discussed in this paper, but central to both Fisher’s original account and more recent discussions of ‘balance sheet recessions’: reduced expenditure by one sector must be balanced by increased expenditure by another, or it will simply result in lower incomes and/or prices, potentially increasing leverage rather than decreasing it. To the extent that households have been able to run primary surpluses since 2008, it has been due mainly to large federal deficits and improvement in US net exports.

We conclude that if reducing private leverage is a policy objective, it will require some combination of higher growth, higher inflation, lower interest rates, and higher rates of debt chargeoffs. In the absence of income growth well above historical averages, lower nominal interest rates and/or higher inflation will be essential. … Deleveraging via low interest rates …  implies a fundamental shift in monetary policy. If interest-rate policy is guided by the desired trajectory of debt ratios, it no longer can be the primary instrument assigned to managing aggregate demand. This probably also implies a broader array of interventions to hold down market rates beyond traditional open market operations, policies sometimes referred to as ‘financial repression.’ Historically, policies of financial repression have been central to almost all episodes where private (or public) leverage was reduced without either high inflation or large-scale repudiation.

These papers only went through 2011. I’ve thought for a while it would be interesting to revisit this analysis for the more recent period of falling household debt ratios. 

With the help of Arjun’s student Advait Moharir, we’ve now brought the same analysis forward to the end of 2019. Stopping there was partly a matter of data availability — the BEA series on interest payments we use is published with a considerable lag. But it’s also a logical period to look at, since it brings us up to the start of the pandemic, which one would want to split off anyway.

The table below is a reworked version of tables in the two papers, updated through 2019. (I’ve also adjusted the periodization slightly.) 

Due to …
Period Annual PP Change in Debt Ratio Primary Deficit Interest Growth Inflation Defaults
1929 – 1931 3.7 -5.5 2.9 2.8 2.9 *
1932 – 1939 -1.2 -1.5 2.4 -1.6 -0.7 *
1940 – 1944 -3.8 -1.6 1.3 -2.5 -1.9 *
1945 – 1963 2.6 2.5 2.6 -1.5 -0.8 *
1964 – 1983 0.0 0.8 5.1 -2.4 -3.5 *
1984 – 1999 1.7 -0.3 7.5 -2.9 -2.1 -0.4
2000 – 2008 4.5 2.4 7.2 -1.7 -2.5 -0.8
2009 – 2013 -5.4 -3.7 5.8 -3.1 -2.3 -2.4
2014 – 2019 -2.0 -1.4 4.6 -3.4 -1.3 -0.6

Again, our central finding in the earlier papers was that if we compare the 1984-2008 period of rising debt ratios to the previous two decades of stable debt ratios, there was no rise in the primary deficit. For 1984-2008 as a whole, annual new borrowing exceeded debt service payments by 0.7 percent of income on average, almost exactly the same as during the 1964-1983 period. (That’s the weighted average of the two sub-periods shown in the table.) Even during the housing boom period, when new borrowing did significantly exceed debt service, this explained barely a third of the difference in annual debt-ratio growth (1.6 out of 4.5 points).

The question now is, what has happened since 2008? What has driven the fall in debt ratios from 130 percent of household income in 2008 to 92 percent on the eve of the pandemic?

In the immediate aftermath of the crisis, sharply reduced borrowing was indeed the main story. Of the 10-point swing in annual debt-ratio growth (from positive 4.5 points per year to negative 5.4), 6 points is accounted for by the fall in net borrowing (plus another 1.5 points from higher defaults). But for the 2014-2019 period, the picture is more mixed. Comparing those six years to the whole 1984-2008 period of rising debt, we have a 4.7 point shift in debt ratio growth, from positive 2.7 to negative 2. Of that, 2.1 points is explained by lower net borrowing, while almost 3 points is explained by lower interest. (The contribution of nominal income growth was similar in the two periods.) So if we ask why household debt ratios continued to fall over the past decade, rather than resuming their rise after the immediate crisis period, sustained low interest rates are at least as important as household spending decisions. 

Another way to see this is in the following graph, which compares three trajectories: The actual one in black, and two counterfactuals in red and blue. The red counterfactual is constructed by combining the average 1984-2008 level of net borrowing as a fraction of income to the actual historical rates of interest, nominal income growth and defaults. The blue counterfactual is similarly constructed by combining the average 1984-2008 effective interest rate with historical levels of net borrowing, nominal income growth and defaults. In other words, the red line shows what would have happened in a world where households had continued to borrow as much after 2008 as in the earlier period, while the blue line shows what would have happened if households had faced the same interest rates after 2008 as before. 

As the figure shows, over the 2008-2019 period as a whole, the influence of the two factors is similar — both lines end up in the same place. But the timing of their impact is different. In the immediate wake of the crisis, the fall in new borrowing was decisive — that’s why the red and black lines diverge so sharply. But in the later part of the decade, as household borrowing moved back toward positive territory and interest rates continued to fall, the more favorable interest environment became more important. That’s why the blue line starts rising after 2012 — if interest rates had been at their earlier level, the borrowing we actually saw in the late 2010s would have implied rising debt ratios. 

As with the similar figures in the papers, this figure was constructed by using the law of motion for debt ratios:

where b is the debt-income ratio, d is the primary deficit, i is the effective interest rate (i.e. total interest payments divided by the stock of debt), g is income growth adjusted for inflation, π is the inflation rate, and sfa is a stock-flow adjustment term, in this case the reduction of debt due to defaults. The exact sources and definitions for the various variables can be found in the papers. (One note: We do not have a direct measurement of the fraction of household debt written off by default for the more recent period, only the fraction of such debt written down by commercial banks. So we assumed that the ratio of commercial bank writeoffs of household debt to total writeoffs was the same for the most recent period as for the period in which we have data for both.)

Starting from the actual debt-ratio in the baseline year (in this case, 2007), each year’s ending debt-income ratio is calculated using the primary deficit (i.e. borrowing net of debt service payments), the share of debt written off in default, nominal income growth and the interest rate. All but one of these variables are the actual historical values; for one, I instead use the average value for 1984-2007. This shows what the path of the debt ratio would have been if that variable had been fixed at its earlier level while the others evolved as they did historically.  In effect, the difference between these counterfactual lines and the historical one shows the contribution of that variable to the difference between the two periods.

Note that the interest rate here is not the current market rate, but the effective or average rate, that is, total interest payments divided by the stock of debt. For US households, this fell from around 6 percent in 2007 to 4.4 percent by 2019 — less than the policy rate did, but still enough to create a very different trajectory, especially given the compounding effect of interest on debt over time. So while expansionary monetary policy is not the whole story of falling debt ratios since 2008, it was an important part of it. As I recently argued in Barrons, the deleveraging of US households is unimportant and under appreciated benefit of the decade of low interest rates after the crisis.

 

At Barron’s: What’s At Stake in the Labor Market?

(I am now writing a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in August.)

The labor market is exceptionally tight, at least by the standards of recent history. That matters for monetary policy, but its importance goes beyond inflation, or even material living standards. We are used to a world where workers compete for jobs. A world where businesses compete for workers would look very different.

Today’s 3.5% unemployment rate is lower than any time between 1970 and 2019. While the prime-age employment-population ratio is still shy of its prepandemic level, other measures imply a labor market even hotter than at the height of the late-90s boom. Both the historically high rate of workers quitting their jobs and the nearly two job openings for each unemployed worker suggest that this could be the best time to be looking for a job in most Americans’ working lives.

How long this will continue depends in large part on the Federal Reserve, where the question often comes down to whether inflation expectations are anchored. If businesses and households come to believe that prices will rise rapidly, the argument goes, they will behave in ways that cause prices to rise, validating those beliefs and making it harder to bring inflation back down.

Curiously, there is little discussion of all the other expectations that can also be anchored in different ways, which suggest a very different set of trade-offs.

Businesses that expect growth to be weak, for example, are unlikely to invest in raising capacity—which makes strong growth much harder to achieve. Workers who feel it’s impossible to find a job may stop looking for one, making expectations of weak employment growth self-confirming. Both these expectational shifts played a role in the “lost decade” after the 2007 crash.

Today’s tight labor markets are reshaping expectations in a different direction, which could lead to lasting changes in employment dynamics. As economist Julia Coronado observes, one lesson businesses seem to have learned is that staffing up may be slower and more difficult than in the past. This in turn makes businesses more hesitant to lay off workers, even when demand slackens.

Fewer layoffs, of course, contribute to tighter labor markets—another example of self-confirming expectations. But those new expectations also mean a different kind of employment relationship. A business that expects labor to be cheap and abundant has little reason to invest in recruiting, retaining and training its employees. Conversely, a business that can’t count on quickly hiring workers with whatever skills are needed has to focus more on developing and holding on to the workers it has. These qualitative changes in the organization of work aren’t captured in the aggregate numbers on employment and wages.

To be clear, there is not a labor shortage in any absolute terms. One thing we have clearly learned over the past year is that total employment isn’t just a matter of how many people are willing to work. Back in spring 2021, some economists argued that generous pandemic unemployment assistance was holding back job growth. When some states ended unemployment assistance early, that offered the perfect controlled test of this theory. It was decisively refuted. As the labor economist Arin Dube has shown, employment growth was no faster in the states that ended pandemic unemployment relief earlier than in those that kept it longer.

What is true, though, is that the kinds of jobs people will take may depend on their other options. For the economy as a whole, today’s high rate of movement between jobs is a clear positive. A big reason people can get raises by changing jobs is, presumably, that their new work is more valuable than what they were doing before. But from the point of view of employers, this is a process with winners and losers. Some businesses will adapt, offering higher wages—as many food service and retail giants are already doing—and nonpecuniary benefits such as predictable schedules and pathways for advancement. Tight labor markets will also favor higher-productivity businesses, which can afford to pay higher wages. Those that are wedded to a model that treats labor as cheap and disposable, on the other hand, may struggle or fail.

It isn’t only employers that need to adjust to tight labor markets, of course. There is little doubt that the upsurge of union organizing we’ve seen in recent years owes a great deal to labor market conditions. When jobs are plentiful, the fear of losing yours is less of a deterrent to standing up to the boss. And people who are reasonably confident of at least getting a paycheck may begin to wonder if that is all their employer owes them.

Historically, periods of rapid union growth have followed sustained growth, not depressions and crises. During the 1972 strike at GM’s Lordstown plant—one of the high points of 1970s labor militancy—one union leader explained why the younger workers were so ready to walk off their jobs:

“None of these guys came over from the old country poor and starving, grateful for any job they could get. None of them have been through a depression …They’re just not going to swallow the same kind of treatment their fathers did. That’s a lot of what the strike was about. They want more than just a job for 30 years.”

Strikes like Lordstown are rooted not just in conditions at the particular workplace, but also in the ways a prolonged high-pressure economy shifts what workers expect from a job. Significantly, the Lordstown strikers’ demands included a say in the design and organization of the plant, as well as better pay and benefits.

Not everyone would welcome a revived U.S. labor movement, of course, or a move toward German-style co-determination. While some people see unions as a pillar of democracy and counterweight to corporations’ political power, others see them as an illegitimate intrusion on the rights of business owners. Either way, whether organized labor can reverse its decline is a question with consequences that go far beyond next month’s inflation numbers. And it depends a great deal on how long today’s tight labor market lasts.

It might seem utopian to imagine a transformation of the workplace when the headlines are dominated by inflation and recession fears. But the real fantasy is to imagine we could reap the benefits of a high-pressure economy—faster productivity growth, a more equal distribution of income, more resources to solve our most pressing problems—without making any changes to how firms and labor markets are organized.

In his most recent press conference, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said, “we all want to get back to the kind of labor market we had before the pandemic.” Do we really all want that, or could we aim higher? But in any case simply turning back the clock isn’t an option. An economy adapted to slow growth and cheap, abundant workers can’t adjust to tight labor markets without changing in profound ways.

Some may welcome an economy where chronically scarce labor means that businesses are under constant pressure to raise productivity and attract and retain employees. Others may hope for a deep recession to reset expectations about the relative scarcity of workers and jobs. One way or the other, those are the stakes.

 

At Barron’s: What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Inflation

(I am now writing a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in July.)

To listen to economic policy debates today, you would think the U.S. economy has just one problem: inflation. When Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was asked at his last press conference if there was a danger in going too far in the fight against inflation, his answer was unequivocal: “The worst mistake we could make is to fail—it’s not an option. We have to restore price stability…because [it’s] everything, it’s the bedrock of the economy. If you don’t have price stability, the economy’s really not going to work.”

Few would dispute that rising prices are a serious problem. But are they everything?

The exclusive focus on inflation acts like a lens on our view of the economy—sharpening our attention on some parts of the picture, but blurring, distorting, and hiding from view many others.

In the wake of the Great Recession, there was a broadening of macroeconomic debates. Economists and policy makers shifted away from textbook truisms toward a more nuanced and realistic view of the economy. Today, this wide-ranging conversation has given way to panic over rising prices. But the realities that prompted those debates have not gone away.

In the clamor over inflation, we’re losing sight of at least four big macroeconomic questions.

First, does the familiar distinction between supply and demand really make sense at the level of the economy as a whole? In the textbooks, supply means the maximum level of production in the economy, labeled “full employment” or “potential output,” while demand means total spending. The two are supposed to be independent—changes in spending don’t affect how much the economy can produce, and vice versa. This is why we are used to thinking of business cycles and growth as two separate problems.

But in the real world, supply often responds to demand—more spending calls forth more investment and draws people into the labor force. This phenomenon, known by the unlovely name “hysteresis,” was clearly visible in the slowdown of labor force and productivity growth after the Great Recession, and their recovery when demand picked up in the years before the pandemic. The key lesson of this experience—in danger of being forgotten in today’s inflation panic—was that downturns are even more costly than we thought, since they not only imply lost output today but reduced capacity in the future.

Hysteresis is usually discussed at the level of the economy as a whole, but it also exists in individual markets and industries. For example, one reason airfares are high today is that airlines, anticipating a more sustained fall in demand for air travel, offered early retirement to thousands of senior pilots in the early stages of the pandemic. Recruiting and training new pilots is a slow process, one airlines will avoid unless it’s clear that strong demand is here to stay. So while conventional wisdom says that rising prices mean that we have too much spending and have to reduce it, in a world with hysteresis a better solution may be to maintain strong demand, so that supply can rise to meet it. In the textbook, we can restore price stability via lower demand with no long-run costs to growth. But are we sure things work so nicely in the real world?

The second big question is about the labor market. Here the textbook view is that there is a unique level of unemployment that allows wages to grow in line with productivity. When unemployment is lower than this “natural rate,” faster wage growth will be passed on to rising prices, until policy makers take action to force unemployment back up. But in the years before the pandemic, it was becoming clear that this picture is too simplistic. Rising wages don’t have to be passed on to higher prices—they may also come at the expense of profits, or spur faster productivity growth. And not all wages are equally responsive to unemployment. Younger, less-educated, and lower-wage workers are more dependent on tight labor markets to find work and get raises, while the incomes of workers with experience and credentials rise more steadily regardless of macroeconomic conditions. This means that—as Powell has acknowledged—macroeconomic policy has unavoidable distributional consequences.

In his classic essay “Political Aspects of Full Employment,” the great Polish economist Michal Kalecki argued that even if it were economically feasible to eliminate unemployment, this would be unsustainable, since employers’ authority in the workplace depends on “the threat of the sack.” Similar arguments have been made by central bank chiefs such as Alan Greenspan, who suggested that low unemployment was sustainable in the 1990s only because workers had been traumatized by the deep recession of the decade before.

Some would argue that it’s unnecessarily wasteful and cruel to maintain labor discipline and price stability by denying millions of people the chance to do useful work—especially given that, prior to the pandemic, unemployment had fallen well below earlier estimates of the “natural rate” with no sign of accelerating inflation. But if we wish to have a permanent full-employment economy, we need to answer a difficult question: How should we manage distributional conflicts between workers and owners (and among workers), and motivate people to work when they have little to fear from losing their job?

A third set of questions concerns globalization. There are widespread fears that renewed Covid lockdowns in China may limit exports to the U.S. and elsewhere. Seen through the inflation lens, this looks like a source of rising prices and a further argument for monetary tightening. But if we take a step back, we might ask whether it is wise to organize the global economy in such a way that lockdowns in China, a war in Ukraine, or even a factory fire in Japan leave people all over the world unable to meet their basic needs. The deepening of trade and financial links across borders is sometimes presented as a fact of nature. But in reality it reflects policy choices that allowed global production of all kinds of goods—from semiconductors to Christmas decorations and latex gloves—to be concentrated in a handful of locations. In some cases, this concentration is motivated by genuine technical advantages of larger-scale production, in others by the pursuit of low wages. But either way, it reflects a prioritization of cost minimization over flexibility and resiliency. Whatever happens with inflation, this is a trade-off that will have to be revisited in coming years, as climate change makes further disruptions in global supply chains all but inevitable.

Then there is climate change. Here, the inflation lens doesn’t just recolor the picture but practically reverses it. Until recently, the conventional wisdom was that a carbon tax was the key policy tool for addressing climate. An Obama-era economist once quipped that the big question on climate was whether a carbon tax was 80% of the solution, or 100%. A carbon tax would increase the prices of energy, which still mainly comes from fossil fuels, and of travel by private car. As it happens, this is exactly what we have seen: Autos and energy have increased much faster than other prices, to the point that these two categories account for a majority of the excess inflation over the past year. In effect, we’ve seen something like a global carbon tax. But far from welcoming the disproportionate rise in the prices of carbon-intensive goods as a silver lining of inflation, both policy makers and the public see it as an urgent problem to be solved.

To be clear, people are not wrong to be unhappy at the rising cost of cars and energy. In the absence of practical alternatives, these high prices inflict real hardship without necessarily doing much to speed the transition from carbon. One reasonable lesson, then, is that a carbon tax high enough to substantially reduce emissions will be politically intolerable. And indeed, before the pandemic, many economists were already shifting away from a carbon-price-focused approach to climate policy toward an investment-centered approach.

Whether via carbon prices or investment, the only way to reduce carbon emissions is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Yet an increasing swath of the policy conversation is focused on how to encourage more drilling by oil-and-gas companies, not just today but into the indefinite future. As a response to today’s rising energy prices, this is understandable, given the genuine limitations of renewable energy. But how can measures to boost the supply of fossil fuels be consistent with a longer-term program of decarbonization?

None of these questions have easy answers. But the danger of focusing too single-mindedly on inflation is that we may not even try to answer them.

Demand, Supply, Both, or Neither?

One way current debates over inflation sometimes get framed is whether it’s driven by supply or demand. Critics of the ARPA and other stimulus measures point to various lines of evidence to suggest that rising prices are coming from the demand side, not the supply side; and of course you can find the opposite arguments among its defenders. This sometimes gets conflated with the question of how persistent inflation is likely to be, with a preference for supply-side explanations putting you on “team transitory.”

In my opinion, the question in this form is not well specified. It makes no sense to ask if price rises are driven by supply or by demand. A mismatch between aggregate demand and aggregate supply is one explanation for inflation. To say “inflation would be lower if aggregate demand were lower” is exactly the same statement as “inflation would be lower  if aggregate supply were higher.” This story is about the difference between the two.

The first step, then, is to think about how we can reframe the question in a meaningful way. The issue of specific indicators is downstream from this, as is the question of how long one might expect higher inflation to last. 

Here are some quick thoughts on how we might clarify this debate. 

1. Insofar as we are explaining price changes in terms of aggregate demand and aggregate supply (or potential output) this is a story about an imbalance between the two of them. If we are using this framework, any change in inflation is fully explained by supply *and* fully explained by demand. To turn this into an either-or question, we have to pose an explicit counterfactual. For example, we might say that current spending levels would have led to no (or less) rise in inflation if it weren’t for pandemic. Or we might say that the disruptions of the pandemic would have led to no (or less) rise in inflation if it weren’t for the stimulus bills. The problem is, these aren’t alternatives — both  might very well be true!

2. If the question is specifically whether current aggregate demand in the US would be inflationary even without the pandemic and Ukraine war, it seems to me that the answer is unequivocally No. The fact that real GDP is no higher than trend is, to me, absolutely decisive here. Suppose we thought that two years from now, the economy operating at normal capacity will be capable of producing a certain quantity of cars, houses, tv shows, haircuts, etc. Now suppose two years pass, and we find that people are in fact buying exactly the quantity of cars, houses, tv shows, haircuts, etc. that we had predicted,. If inflation has nonetheless risen, the only possible explanation, within the supply-vs-demand framework, is that the productive capacity of the economy is less than we expected. If buying a certain quantity of stuff is not inflationary in one year, but is inflationary in a later year, then (within this framework) by definition that means that potential output is lower.

Of course it may be true in this scenario that the nominal value of spending will be higher. But this precisely because prices have risen. Suggesting that higher nominal expenditure explains higher inflation is arguing in a circle — it is using the rise in prices to explain that same rise in prices.

To put it another way, aggregate supply or potential output are describing the quantity of stuff we can produce. It makes no sense to say that the potential output of the US economy is $22 trillion dollars. People who look at nominal expenditure in this context are just confused.

(It’s also worth noting that nominal GDP was below pre-pandemic trend until the last quarter of 2021, at which point inflation had been above target and accelerating for a year already. So this story fails on the basis of timing as well as logic.)

So in this specific sense, I think the supply story is simply right, and the demand story is simply wrong. There is no reason to think that the aggregate quantity of goods and services people are trying to purchase today would be beyond normal capacity limits in the absence of the pandemic.

3. Again, though, it all depends on the counterfactual. It does not contradict the preceding point to say that if the ARPA had been smaller, inflation would be lower. Given a fall in the economy’s productive capacity, you are going to see some combination of lower output and income, and higher inflation, with the mix depending on the extent to which demand also falls. Again, demand and supply are two sides of the same story. It’s perfectly consistent to say that in the absence of the pandemic, today’s level of spending would not have caused any rise in inflation, and that if we had allowed spending to fall in line with the fall in potential, the supply disruptions would not have caused any rise in inflation. 

This means the question of whether ARPA was too big is not really a question about inflation as such. It is not going to resolved by any data on whether inflation is limited to a few sectors or is broader, or whether inflation peaked at the end of 2021 or at some later date. The answer to this question depends on how we weigh the relative costs of rising prices versus lost income and output. The more socially costly you think inflation is, the more you are going to think that ARPA was too big. The more socially costly you think unemployment and the associated loss of income is, the more you are going to think the ARPA was the right size, or too small. It seems to me that this is what a lot of the debate over “supply” versus “demand” stories of inflation are really about.

4. So far, I’ve been using an aggregate supply and aggregate demand framework, which is how people usually talk about inflation. But as readers of this blog will know, I am generally skeptical that rising prices are best thought of at the aggregate level. If we don’t like the aggregate framework, we might tell micro stories. There are several flavors of these, any or all of which which could be true. 

First, there is there’s a story about changes in the composition of demand. It’s easy for a business or industry produce less than it usually does, but hard to produce more — especially in a hurry. So sectors of the economy that face reduced demand are likely to respond with lower output, while sectors that face increased demand are likely to respond in some large part with higher prices, especially if the increase is large and rapid. That means we should expect rapid shifts in demand to be associated with higher inflation, even if the total volume of demand is unchanged. 

That’s one micro story. Another is that when certain sectors of the economy face supply constraints, it may be hard to substitute elsewhere. If demand for the sectors facing bottlenecks is very inelastic, and/or they are important inputs for other sectors, then the fall in capacity in those sectors may have a larger effect on prices than a similar across-the-board fall in productive capacity would.  

Another, simpler micro story is that there is no useful information in the aggregate price level at all. If prices are rising for particular goods and services, that is best understood in terms of production conditions and demand for those particular things.

What these stories suggest is that the aggregate supply/demand framework is less useful when there are large, rapid shifts in the composition of spending or production. That framework may be reasonable when we are talking about an economy undergoing steady growth and want to know if somewhat faster growth (spurred perhaps by across the board easier credit) would lead to higher inflation. But it’s not very useful when the economy is undergoing major qualitative changes. It’s not even clear how the concept of aggregate supply is defined when we are seeing big shifts in the composition of output. 

To be clear, none of these micro stories are necessarily arguments for a “supply side” explanation of inflation. Rather, they are reasons why the supply versus demand framework might not be helpful. 

5. Another story about inflation that often gets conflated with aggregate demand but should not be is the extent to which higher wages are driving inflation. In the standard textbook story, the mechanism by which higher demand raises prices is through higher wages. In the textbook story — this is totally mainstream — there are no constraints on the supply side except the supply of labor. The reason higher demand leads to higher inflation is that lower unemployment leads workers to obtain higher wages, which then get passed on to prices. We know this is the theory the Fed is working with. And people like Krugman are saying that there’s no way to have lower inflation without “getting wage growth down considerably.” 

But even though these two things are linked in the textbook story, they are logically distinct. When we talk about a demand-side story of inflation, we need to be clear whether and to what extent this is a story about wages specifically. And as Krugman emphasizes in the linked piece, the question of whether reducing inflation will require slower wage growth is logically independent of the question of whether higher wages are what has driven rising inflation so far.

6. So what is actually at stake here? Before we start talking about who is on what team, we should be sure we know what game they are playing, and where the goals are.

It seems to me that, operationally, the big question people are arguing about is: if real activity — and in particular the labor market — remains on its current trend, will inflation eventually come down on its own? Or if not, can interventions in specific sectors reduce it? Or is a significant slowing of activity across the board required? This forward-looking question is what the fighting is really about. 

There is some relationship between these questions and the causes of inflation, but they are not the same. For example, it is certainly more plausible that resolving a small number of bottlenecks would bring prices down when the price increases are concentrated in a few sectors. But one might also believe — as I and others have long argued — that we underestimate the flexibility of the supply side of the economy in general. If you believe in hysteresis, then even a general overheating might over time lead to faster growth of potential output, as more people are drawn into the labor force and businesses invest and raise productivity. So unless you start from the premise that potential output is normally fixed, “inflation is widespread, therefore we need less demand” is a non sequitur.

(In this light, it would be worth systematically revisiting the arguments about hysteresis made by Lawrence Summers and others during the 2010s.)

7. The question of whether reducing inflation requires lower demand and weaker labor markets is inextricable from your political program and broader worldview. At this moment, we are on the verge of seeing a major new public investment bill that is being presented as a way of bringing down inflation and creating good jobs. This is a huge vindication for arguments that progressives have been putting forward for years. It would be odd if we now turned around and said, “no no, investing in clean energy won’t help with inflation. And we don’t want more jobs, there’s too much demand in the economy already.” If you think that the clean energy investments in the IRA will in fact bring down prices over time, you need an understanding of inflation that’s consistent with that. And if your view of inflation implies that we would be better off not making those investments at this time, then you need to own that position.

(Some people will say the bill is anti-inflationary because it lowers the deficit. First of all, it seems unlikely that the specific tax increases in the IRA will have much if any dampening effect on demand, while the spending components certainly will boost it. Second, even if you thought the bill as a whole will reduce inflation, you still need to have a view on whether the energy provisions specifically will do so.)

I’m not saying you should just make the economic arguments that support your political program. It’s very important to only say things that are supported by logic and evidence! But presumably, you have the worldview you do because it captures important things you think are true about the world. If your analysis of inflation is not consistent with other things that you strongly believe, that suggests that there might be something wrong with your analysis. 

For example, you might believe that potential employment in the US is much higher than conventional estimates of unemployment or the labor force suggest. You could arrive at this belief on the basis of statistical evidence and also from other beliefs that you are strongly committed to — for example, that women and non-white people are just as capable of useful work as white men are. This argument runs directly against claims that the US is currently facing hard supply constraints, so that the only way the growth in wages and prices will moderate is via lower demand. If the conventional unemployment rate vastly understated the number of people available for work in 2015, presumably it still does today. You can’t just ignore those earlier arguments when talking about current inflation.

Similarly, you might believe that business investment and productivity growth depend on demand. Or you might think they depend on decisions made at the firm level — that corporations face a choice between long-term growth and short-term returns to shareholders, which they will make differently in different institutional and legal environments. These long-standing arguments are relevant to the question of whether it’s plausible that corporate profiteering is contributing to current price rises, and whether changes to taxes and regulation could bring down inflation without any need to reduce demand. They are also relevant to the question of whether given sustained strong demand, supply will eventually catch up, via higher investment and faster productivity growth. This Gavin Wright paper argues that scarce labor and rising wages drove the acceleration of productivity growth in the late 1990s. How convincing you find that argument should be relevant to your assessment of inflation today.

Or again, the question of whether conventional monetary policy should be the go-to response to inflation is not (only) a question about inflation. You could have a fully “demand side” account of rising rents — that they are entirely driven by rising incomes, and not by any change in the housing supply — and yet also believe that higher interest rates, by discouraging housing construction, will only make the problem worse. 

It’s a big mistake, in my opinion, to debate inflation in isolation, or to think that debates over inflation are going to be resolved with statistical tests. We first need to step back and think carefully about what question we are trying to answer, and about what account of inflation is consistent with our broader intellectual commitments. The reason I disagree with someone like Jason Furman about inflation isn’t because I have a different read on this or that data series. (I like his empirical work!) We see inflation differently because we have different ideas about how the world works. 

What Is the Stock Market For?

Elon Musk’s pending purchase of Twitter is an occasion for thinking, again, about what function stock markets perform in modern capitalism.

The original form of wealth in a capitalist society is control over some production process. If you become a wealthy capitalist, what this means at the outset is that you have authority over people engaged in some particular form of productive activity. Let’s say a group of people want to get together to make steel, or write some computer code, or serve a meal, or put on a play: The armed authority of the state says they cannot do it without your ok.

That property rights are fundamentally a legally enforceable veto over the activity of others is one of the first points you get from legal analysis of property. “The essence of private property is always the right to exclude.” What makes capitalist property distinct is that it is a right to exclude people specifically from carrying out some productive activity, and is linked in some way to the concrete means of production employed. 

As a capitalist, you are attached to the production process you have property rights over.2 Now, you may be happy with this situation. You are a human person as well as a holder of property rights, and you may feel various kinds of personal affinity with this particular process. You may have some knowledge, or social ties, or other property claims that make this process a particularly suitable form for your wealth; or you may simply regard this as a more promising source of money income than the alternatives. 

Then again, you may not be happy; you may not want to be attached to this particular process. There are risks associated with both an enterprise as a social organism, and with the kind of activity it is engaged in. (The steel mill may burn down, or be taken over by the workers; steel may be replaced by alternative materials or cheaper imports.) Ensuring that the process remains oriented both to its own particular ends and to producing an income for you requires active engagement on your part; you may be unsuited to carry this out, or just get tired of it. And even if your ownership rights generate a steady flow of income for you, the rights themselves cannot be easily converted into claims on some other part of the social product or process. (You can’t eat steel.) So you may wish to convert your claim on this particular production process into a claim on social production in general.

In the US context, this is especially likely at the point where the owner dies or retires. For Schumpeter, the ultimate ambition of business owners was “the foundation of an industrial dynasty”, “the most glamorous of .. bourgeois aims”. But in the US, at least, the glamor seems to have faded.3 Heirs may not be interested in running the business, or competent to do so. There may be several of them, or none. And a curiously persistent monarchical principle generally precludes looking outside the immediate family for a successor.

At some point, in any case, the holder of ownership rights over an enterprise will no longer be in a position to exercise them. At this point, the business might shut down. Before the modern corporation, this was the normal outcome:  In early-modern England, “The death of the master baker … ordinarily meant the end of the bakery.” This will often still happen in the case of small businesses, where the value of the enterprise is tightly linked to the activity of the owner themself. This is fine when the productive capacity of the economy is widely dispersed in the brains of the individuals carrying out, and in tools that can be owned by them. But once production involves large organizations with an extensive division of labor, and means of production that are too lumpy for personal ownership, some means has to be found for the organization to continue existing when the individual who has held ownership rights over it is no longer willing or able to.

The stock market exists in order to allow ownership rights over particular production process to be converted into rights to the social product in general. 

This is true historically. In the great wave of mergers in the 1890s that established the publicly-owned corporation as the dominant legal form for large industrial enterprises in the US, raising funds for investment was not a factor. As Naomi Lamoreaux notes, in a passage I’ve quoted before, “access to capital is not mentioned”  in contemporary accounts of the merger wave. And in the hearings by the U.S. Industrial Commission on the mergers,  “None of the manufacturers mentioned access to capital markets as a reason for consolidation.” The firms involved in the first mergers were normally ones where the founder had died or retired, leaving it to heirs “who often were interested only in receiving income.” The problem the creation of the publicly-traded corporation was meant to solve was not how to turn widely dispersed claims not he social product in general into claims on means of production to be used in this particular enterprise, but just the opposite: How to turn claims on these particular means of production into claims on the social product in general.

The same goes for today. We already have institutions that allow claims on the social product to be exercised by entrepreneurs on the basis of their plans for generating profits in the future. These include banks and, in favored sectors, venture capitalist funds, but not the stock market. The stock market isn’t there for the enterprise, but those with ownership claims on it.

The purpose of a stock offering is to allow those who already hold claims against the enterprise (early investors, and perhaps also favored employees) to swap them out for general financial wealth. This is why IPO “pops” — immediate price rises from the offering price — are considered a good thing, even though, logically, they mean the company raised less money than it could have. The pop makes the stock more attractive to the investors who will be buying out the insiders’ stakes down the road. The IPO is for the owners, not for the company. Or as Matt Levine puts it, “the price of the IPO is less important than the insiders’ ability to sell stock at good prices in the future.” 

As I’ve argued before, converting the surplus generated within the firm into claims on the social product in general  is fundamental to the capitalist process as production itself. It’s also an integral part of capitalist common sense. As any guide for budding entrepreneurs will remind you, “It’s not enough to build a business worth a fortune. You also need a way to get your money back.” 

Now, in principle this goal could be achieved in other ways. Money itself is a claim on general social product — that is one definition of it. When Antonio’s ships are safely come to road, his venture is concluded and his whole estate is available to meet his obligations. This is sufficient for merchant capital in early-modern Venice – its self-liquidating character means that no additional mechanisms are needed to turn claims on concrete commodities back into money.

Ongoing enterprises cannot be liquidated so easily. And money is liable to delink from productive economy over longer periods – what one wants is something with the safety, liquidity and non-need for management of money, but which maintains a proportionate claim on the overall surplus. Government bonds are an obvious choice here. They offer a claim on productive activity in general, or at least that part of it which is subject to taxation.

This possibility is worth pausing over. Historically, this was one of the most important ways for holders of claims against particular production processes to turn them into claims against society in general. The “rent” in rentier refers originally to the interest on a government bond. Government bonds as alternative to stock ownership also calls attention to the fundamentally political character of this transaction. For the capitalist to be able to give up their direct control over a production process in return for a proportionate share of the overall social product, someone else needs to oversee the collection of the surplus. And that someone needs to be accountable to wealth owners in general. There is an important affinity between finance and the state here.

Alternatively, partnership structures allow for the human owners to turn over while ownership as such remains tied to the particular enterprise. 4 Universal owners are another route. If Morningstar or Blackstone owns all the corporations, it’s redundant for them to do so in the form of stock. They could just own them directly. Many startups today have their liquidity moment not by issuing stock but being bought by a larger competitor. One could imagine a world where a startup that is successful enough is bought up by a universal index-slash-private equity fund, without the intermediate step of issuing stock. 

Another possibility, of course, would be for the founder to give up their ownership rights and the company then just not to have owners. Wikipedia is a thing that exists; Twitter could, in principle, have a similar structure. I admit, I can’t think of many similar examples. When Keynes talked about corporations “socializing themselves”, this didn’t entail a change in legal structure; the shareholders continued to exist, but just were increasingly irrelevant. Plenty of rich people do leave some fraction of their wealth to self-governing charities of one sort or another, but this is their financial wealth, not the businesses themselves. The closest one gets, I suppose, is when someone leaves real estate to a conservation or community land trust.

Back in the real world, these other models of transition out of personal ownership are either nonexistent, or else confined to narrow niches. What we have is the stock market. Fundamentally, this is a way for owners of claims against production processes to pool them — to trade in their full ownership of a particular enterprise for a proportionate share of ownership in a broad group of enterprises. This was more transparent in the trust structures that preceded the development of publicly traded corporations, which were explicitly structured as a trade of direct ownership of a business for a share in a trust that would own all the participating businesses.5 But the logic of the public corporation is the same.

This is why shareholder protections are so critical. They’re often framed as protections for small retail investors. But the real problem they are addressing is mutual trust among owners. The pooling of claims works only if their holders can be reasonably confident that they’ll continue receiving their income even as they surrender control over production.

You’ll have noted that I keep using obtuse terms like “holders of property claims against the corporation” instead of the more straightforward “owners”. This is necessary when we are discussing shareholders. It is not the case, as more familiar language might imply, that shareholders “own” the corporation. One of my favorite discussions of this is an article by David Ciepley, which observes that many of the features of the corporation are impossible to create on the basis of private contracts. Limited liability, for example — there is no private contract a group of property owners can sign among themselves that will eliminate their liability to third parties for misuse of their property.

If we take a step back, it is obvious that the relationship of shareholders to the corporation is something other than ownership. Just think about the familiar phrase, separation of ownership from control — it is an oxymoron. What, after all, is ownership? The old books will tell you that it is a set of control rights — jus utendi, jus disponendi, and so on. Ownership without control is ownership without ownership. 

The vacuity of shareholder “ownership” can be glossed over most of the time, but becomes salient in takeovers and governance questions in general.6   Dividends and other payments can be subdivided arbitrarily, but decisions are discrete and control over them is unitary. Either Elon Musk buys Twitter, or he does not. Yes, there are votes, but someone still sets the terms of the vote, and 51% is as good as 100%.7 This is the contradiction that shareholder protections are meant to paper over. The publicly owned corporation allows business owners to pool their claims on the income of their respective companies. But it is not possible to share control over the businesses themselves. So the board – which actually does controls them — is instructed to act “as if” the shareholders did. 

All of this is visible by contrast in Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, which reverses the usual logic of shareholding. He is trading in a claim on the general social product (or on Tesla, but it has to be cashed in first) into a claim on the specific activity organized via Twitter. He wants Twitter itself, not the stream of income it generates. He wants to turn his share of Twitter’s (so far nonexistent) profits into control over the substantive production process it is engaged in. Twitter for him is a source of use-value, not exchange-value. In this specific transaction, he is acting not as a capitalist but as a feudal lord. (Italics for a reason. One of the many mistakes we can make on these tricky questions is to treat terms like “capitalist” as if they described the essential nature of a person or organization, something that one either is or isn’t. Whereas they are ways of organizing human activity, which one can participate in in one context but not in another.)

The tension between the social production processes over which property claims are exercised, and the specific people who exercise them and the means by which they do so, is easy to lose sight of. It’s natural to abstract from these questions when you’re focused on other questions, like the conflict between capital — whoever exactly that may be — and the human beings who more directly embody labor. In Volume 1 of Capital, the capitalist is simply the personification of capital, and there are good exposition reasons for this.8

It’s in Volume 3 — truly the essential reading on this topic — that Marx directly takes on the conflation of social relations with concrete things. In a blistering passage in chapter 48 he attacks the identification of the real conditions of production with the incomes that are received from them, as if for example land — the natural world — existed only insofar as it is a source of rent for the landlord. This is “the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the conversion of social relations into things, … It is an enchanted, perverted, topsy-turvy world, in which Monsieur le Capital and Madame la Terre do their ghost-walking as social characters and at the same time directly as mere things.” This mystification is alive and well in modern discussions of economics, where ownership of claims against a thing are constantly confused with being the thing. The ubiquitous language of payments to capital (or factor payments) is an obvious example, in which a payoffs to whatever private rights-holder you need permission from to use a machine, are imagined as payments to the machine itself. 

This is not just a matter of verbal ambiguity. It leads to completely wrong conclusions when transactions involving ownership claims on something are confused with transactions involving the use of the thing. For example, you sometimes hear housing activists say that investor purchases will drive up the cost of housing. This sounds reasonable – but only because the word “housing” is being used in two different senses. Ownership of a house, and living in a house, are not competing uses, they exist on entirely separate levels. We may object for various reasons to ownership of homes by large investors rather than owner-occupiers or small landlords (or we may not). But this shift in ownership claims has no effect on the amount of space available for people to live in.

Coming back to the stock market, the confusion comes from mixing up transactions and institutions intended to shift ownership rights over the enterprise with solutions to the financing needs of the enterprise itself. The terms of the twitter deal seem to be: The bankers will get $2 billion per year, half from Musk, half from Twitter. Current Twitter shareholders get a one-time payment of $54 per share, which they may or may not be happy with.9 Twitter as an enterprise — and its employees and users — get nothing from the transaction at all. The company ends up owing $13 billion in additional debt, which finances nothing.

On one level, this is just what the stock market, and finance more generally, do: They change asset and liability positions around, without necessarily implying any changes in the substantive activities that those positions give rights over and which generate the incomes that go with them. As Perry Mehrling likes to point out, the biggest single transaction for most families is the purchase of a home, which doesn’t even show up in the national income and product accounts. But on another level, again, in the specific trade here — away from liquidity and general financial claims toward a more direct relationship with a particular production process — is the opposite of what the stock market usually facilities. Musks’s purchase of Twitter is, precisely, a form of de-financialization.  

On some level I suppose all this is obvious. Everyone understands that this a transaction between various groups of holders of financial claims against Twitter — Musk, the board on behalf of the existing shareholders, the banks— to which Twitter-the-enterprise is not a party at all. But coverage tends to treat this as a problem only insofar as Twitter is special, the “digital town square”. In weighing the deal, the Times sniffs, the board “might as well have been talking about a tool-and-die manufacturer.” Any conflict between relations of production and relations of ownership is, evidently, only a problem when what is being produced are 280-character messages.

At this point, I suppose, I should denounce Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. But honestly, I’m not convinced it will make much difference one way or another. 

For me personally, Twitter has been a good outlet.  It connects me with journalists, political people, potential students, and other folks I want to communicate with more effectively than any other platform. It’s a gratifyingly horizontal — anyone who has something to say is on the same level. I’d be sorry if it no longer existed in its current form. But I’m not sure any of its good qualities come from who exactly exercises a claim on whatever profits it may generate.

Do you think that any of Twitter’s positive qualities emanate from the particular individuals who’ve owned it, or “owned” it? Jack Dorsey seems like kind of a nut; if the platform works, it’s in spite of him, not because of him. The current gaggle of suits on the board don’t see to have much hands-on involvement one way or another. The people who do the actual work of maintaining the platform obviously take their jobs seriously. I have no idea who exactly they are, but I have a lot of respect for them. I expect they’ll continue doing their job, whoever is appropriating the surplus.  

To say that having Elon Musk own a company is a central, transformative fact about it – for good or for ill — is to buy into the narcissistic worldview of the masters of the universe. I would rather not do that. Indeed, the idea that who owns a business and how it operates are inseparable, is more or less exactly the position I’m arguing against in this post.

The question of who owns a company is a distinct question from what it does or how it is run. Not entirely unrelated, to be sure — but to think about how they are connected, we first have to recognize that they are not the same.

At the International Economy: What’s Wrong with Abundant Liquidity?

(I am an occasional contributor to roundtables of economists in the magazine The International Economy. This month’s topic was the possible dangers of “today’s giant swirling ocean of liquidity”.)

Imagine a city that experiences a miraculous improvement in its transit system. Thanks to some mix of new technologies and organizational improvements, the subways and buses are now able to carry far more passengers at lower cost and the same level of service. Would we see that as good news, or as bad? It’s true that Uber drivers and gas station owners would be unhappy as abundant public transportation reduced demand for their services. And retailers and restaurants might face challenges in managing a sudden flood of new customers. But no one, presumably, would think the city should deliberately give up the improvements and return transit service back to its old level. 

The point of this little fable should be obvious: liquidity, like transportations services, is useful. Having more of it is better than having less. 

What liquidity is useful for, fundamentally, is making promises. It functions as a kind of collective trust. The world is full of socially useful projects that can’t be carried out because even a well-grounded expectation of future benefits can’t be turned into a claim on resources today. Liquidity is the fuel for these transactions. In a world of abundant credit and low interest rates, it’s easier for me to turn my future income into ownership of a home, or a business to turn future profits into new plant and equipment, or a government to turn future revenue into improved public services.

Someone with a great business plan but no capital of their own might try to get the labor and inputs they need to bring it about by promising workers and vendors a share in the profits. Unless the business can be launched with just the resources of immediate family and friends, though, it’s not likely to get off the ground this way. The role of the bank is to allow strangers, and not just those who already know and trust each other, to contribute to the plan, by accepting — after appropriate scrutiny — the entrepreneur’s promise, and offering its own generally-negotiable promise to the suppliers of labor and other resources. 

Yes, when you make it easier to make promises, some of them won’t pan out. But we would like people to make more provision for future needs, not less, even if our knowledge of those needs is less than perfect. The most dynamic parts of the economy are the ones where there are the most risky projects, some of which inevitably fail.

Of course asset owners are unhappy about lower yields. But that’s no different from the complaints we always hear from incumbents when production improvements make something cheaper. Asset owners’ complaints are no more reason to deny us the socially useful services of liquidity than those of the proverbial buggy-whip makers were to deny us the services of cars. (Less reason, actually, given the concentration of financial wealth among the wealthiest families and institutions.)

Interest rates today are lower than at almost any time in history. So are the prices of food or clothing. We should see abundant liquidity the same way we see these other forms of abundance  — as the fruit of the technological and institutional that has made us so much materially richer than our ancestors.