liquidity preference – J. W. Mason

Taking Money Seriously

(Text of a talk I delivered at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University on June 17, 2024.)

There is an odd dual quality to the world around us.

Consider a building. It has one, two or many stories; it’s made of wood, brick or steel; heated with oil or gas; with doors, windows and so on. If you could disassemble the building you could make a precise quantitative description of it — so many bricks, so much length of wire and pipe, so many tiles and panes of glass.

A building also has a second set of characteristics, that are not visible to the senses. Every building has an owner, who has more or less exclusive rights to the use of it. It has a price, reflected in some past or prospective sale and recorded on a balance sheet. It generates a stream of money payments. To the owner from tenants to whom the owner delegated som of their rights. From the owner to mortgage lenders and tax authorities, and to the people whose labor keeps them operating — or to the businesses that command that labor. Like the bricks in the building’s walls or the water flowing through its pipes, these can be expressed as numbers. But unlike those physical quantities, all of these can be expressed in the same way, as dollars or other units of currency.

What is the relationship between these two sets of characteristics? Do the prices and payments simply describe the or reflect the physical qualities? Or do they have their own independent existence?

My starting point is that this is a problem — that the answer is not obvious.

The relationship between money-world and the concrete social and material world is long-standing, though not always explicit, question in the history of economic thought. A central strand in that history is the search for an answer that unifies these two worlds into one.

From the beginnings of economics down to today’s textbooks, you can find variations on the argument that money quantities and money payments are just shorthand for the characteristics and use of concrete material objects. They are neutral — mere descriptions, which can’t change the underlying things.

In 1752, we find David Hume writing that “Money is nothing but the representation of labour and commodities… Where coin is in greater plenty; as a greater quantity of it is required to represent the same quantity of goods; it can have no effect, either good or bad.”

And at the turn of the 21st century, we hear the same thing from FOMC member Lawrence Meyer: “Monetary policy cannot influence real variables–such as output and employment.” Money, he says, only affects “inflation in the long run. This immediately makes price stability … the direct, unequivocal, and singular long-term objective of monetary policy.”

We could add endless examples in between.

This view profoundly shapes most of our thinking about the economy.

We’ve all heard that money is neutral — that changes in the supply or availability of money only affect the price level while leaving relative prices and real activity unchanged. We’ve probably encountered the Coase Theorem, which says that the way goods are allocated to meet real human needs should be independent of who holds the associated property rights. We are used to talking about “real” output and “real “ interest rates without worrying too much about what they refer to.

There is, of course, also a long history of arguments on the other side — that money is autonomous, that money and credit are active forces shaping the concrete world of production and exchange, that there is no underlying value to which money-prices refer. But for the most part, these counter-perspectives occupy marginal or subterranean positions in economic theory, though they may have been influential in other domains.

The great exception is, of course, Keynes. Indeed, there is an argument that what was revolutionary about the Keynesian revolution was his break with orthodoxy on precisely this point. In the period leading up to the General Theory, he explained that the difference between the economic orthodoxy and the new theory he was seeking to develop was fundamentally the difference between the dominant vision of the economy in terms of what he called “real exchange,” and an alternative he vision he described as “monetary production.”

The orthodox theory (in our day as well as his) started from an economy in which commodities exchanged for other commodities, and then brought money in at a later stage, if at all, without changing the fundamental material tradeoffs on which exchange was based. His theory, by contrast, would describe an economy in which money is not neutral, and in which the organization of production cannot be understood in nonmonetary terms. Or in his words, it is the theory of “an economy in which money plays a part of its own and affects motives and decisions and is … so that the course of events cannot predicted, either in the long period or in the short, without a knowledge of the behavior of money.”

If you are fortunate enough to have been educated in the Keynesian tradition, then it’s easy enough to reject the idea that money is neutral. But figuring out how money world and concrete social reality do connect — that is not so straightforward.

I’m currently in the final stages of writing a book with Arjun Jayadev, Money and Things, that is about exactly this question — the interface of money world with the social and material world outside of it.

Starting from Keynes monetary-production vision, we explore question of how money matters in four settings.

First, the determination of the interest rate. There is, we argue, a basic incompatibility between a theory of the interest rate as price of saving or of time, and of the monetary interest rate we observe in the real world. And once we take seriously the idea of interest as the price of liquidity, we see why money cannot be neutral — why financial conditions invariably influence the composition as well as the level of expenditure.

Second, price indexes and “real” quantities. The ubiquitous “real” quantities constructed by economists are, we suggest, at best phantom images of monetary quantities. Human productive activity is not in itself describable in terms of aggregate quantities. Obviously particular physical quantities, like the materials in this building, do exist. But there is no way to make a quantitative comparison between these heterogeneous things except on the basis of money prices — prices are not measuring any preexisting value. Prices within an exchange community are objective, from the point of view of those within the community. But there is no logically consistent procedure for comparing “real” output once you leave boundaries of a given exchange community, whether across time or between countries

The third area we look at the interface of money world and social reality is corporate finance and governance. We see the corporation as a central site of tension between the distinct social logics of money and production. Corporations are the central institutions of monetary production, but they are not themselves organized on market principles. In effect, the pursuit of profit pushes wealth owners to accept a temporary suspension of the logic of market – but this can only be carried so far.

The fourth area is debt and capital. These two central aggregates of money-world are generally understood to reflect “real,” nonmonetary facts about the world — a mass of means of production in the case of capital, cumulated spending relative to income in the case of debt. But the actual historical evolution of these aggregates cannot, we show, be understood in this way in either case. The evolution of capital as we observe it, in the form of wealth, is driven by changes in the value of existing claims on production, rather than the accumulation of new capital goods. These valuation changes in turn reflect, first, social factors influencing division of income between workers and owners and, second, financial factors influencing valuations of future income streams. Debt is indeed related to borrowing, in a way that capital is not related to accumulation. But changes in indebtedness over time owe as much to interest, income and price-level changes that affect burden of existing debt stock as they do to new borrowing. And in any case borrowing mainly finances asset ownership, as opposed to the dissaving that the real-excahnge vision imagines it as.

Even with the generous time allotted to me, I can’t discuss all four of those areas. So in this talk I will focus on the interest rate.

Some of what I am going to say here may seem familiar, or obvious.

But I think it’s important to start here because it is so central to debates about money and macroeconomics. Axel Leijonhufvud long ago argued that the theory of the interest rate was at the heart of the confusion in modern macroeconomics. “The inconclusive quarrels … that drag on because the contending parties cannot agree what the issue is, largely stem from this source.” I think this is still largely true.

Orthodoxy thinks of the interest rate as the price of savings, or loanable funds, or alternatively, as the tradeoff between consumption in the future and consumption in the present.

Interest in this sense is a fundamentally non-monetary concept. It is a price of two commodities, based on the same balance of scarcity and human needs that are the basis of other prices. The tradeoff between a shirt today and a shirt next year, expressed in the interest rate, is no different between the tradeoff between a cotton shirt and a linen one, or one with short versus long sleeves. The commodities just happen to be distinguished by time, rather than some other quality.

Monetary loans, in this view, are just like a loan of a tangible object. I have a some sugar, let’s say. My neighbor knocks on the door, and asks to borrow it. If I lend it to them, I give up the use of it today. Tomorrow, the neighbor will return the same amount of sugar to me, plus something extra – perhaps one of the cookies they baked with it. Whatever income you receive from ownership of an asset — whether we call it interest, profit or cookies — is a reward for deferring your use of the concrete services that the asset provides.

This way of thinking about interest is ubiquitous in economics. In the early 19th century Nassau Senior described interest as the reward for abstinence, which gives it a nice air of Protestant morality. In a current textbook, in this case Gregory Mankiw’s, you can find the same idea expressed in more neutral language: “Saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply and demand … of loanable funds — households lend their savings to investors or deposit their savings in a bank that then loans the funds out.”

It’s a little ambiguous exactly how we are supposed to imagine these funds, but clearly they are something that already exists before the bank comes into the picture. Just as with the sugar, if their owner is not currently using them, they can lend them to someone else, and get a reward for doing so.

If you’ve studied macroeconomics at the graduate level, you probably spent much of the semester thinking about variations on this story of tradeoffs between stuff today and stuff in the future, in the form of an Euler equation equating marginal costs and benefits across time. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that mathematically elaborated versions of this story are the contemporary macro curriculum.

Money and finance don’t come into this story. As Mankiw says, investors can borrow from the public directly or indirectly via banks – the economic logic is the same either way.

We might challenge this story from a couple of directions.

One criticism — first made by Piero Sraffa, in a famous debate with Friedrich Hayek about 100 years ago — is that in a non monetary world each commodity will have its own distinct rate of interest. Let’s say a pound of flour trades for 1.1 pounds (or kilograms) of flour a year from now. What will a pound or kilo of sugar today trade for? If, over the intervening year, the price of usage rises relative to the price of flour, then a given quantity of sugar today will trade for a smaller amount of sugar a year from now, than the same quantity of flour will. Unless the relative price of flour and sugar are fixed, their interest rates will be different. Flour today will trade at one rate for flour in the future, sugar at a different rate; the use of a car or a house, a kilowatt of electricity, and so on will each trade with the same thing in the future at their own rates, reflecting actual and expected conditions in the markets for each of these commodities. There’s no way to say that any one of these myriad own-rates is “the” rate of interest.

Careful discussions of the natural rate of interest will acknowledge that it is only defined under the assumption that relative prices never change.

Another problem is that the savings story assumes that the thing to be loaned — whether it is a specific commodity or generic funds — already exists. But in the monetary economy we live in, production is carried out for sale. Things that are not purchased, will not be produced. When you decide not to consume something, you don’t make that thing available for someone else. Rather, you reduce the output of it, and the income of the producers of it, by the same amount as you reduce your own consumption.

Saving, remember, is the difference between income and consumption. For you as an individual, you can take my income as given when deciding how much to consume. So consuming less means saving more. But at the level of the economy as a whole, income is not independent of consumption. A decision to consume less does not raise aggregate saving, it lowers aggregate income. This is the fallacy of consumption emphasized by Keynes: individual decisions about consumption and saving have no effect on aggregate saving.

So the question of how the interest rate is determined, is linked directly to the idea of demand constraints.

Alternatively, rather than criticizing the loanable-funds story, we can start from the other direction, from the monetary world we actually live in. Then we’ll see that credit transactions don’t involve the sort of tradeoff between present and future that orthodoxy focuses on.

Let’s say you are buying a home.

On the day that you settle , you visit the bank to finalize your mortgage. The bank manager puts in two ledger entries: One is a credit to your account, and a liability to the bank, which we call the deposit. The other, equal and offsetting entry is a credit to the bank’s own account, and a liability for you. This is what we call the loan. The first is an IOU from the bank to you, payable at any time. The second is an IOU from you to the bank, with specified payments every month, typically, in the US, for the next 30 years. Like ordinary IOUs, these ledger entries are created simply by recording them — in earlier times it was called “fountain pen” money.

The deposit is then immediately transferred to the seller, in return for the title to the house. For the bank, this simply means changing the name on the deposit — in effect, you communicate to the bank that their debt that was payable to you, is now payable to the seller. On your balance sheet, one asset has been swapped for another — the $250,000 deposit, in this case, for a house worth $250,000. The seller makes the opposite swap, of the title to a house for an equal value IOU from the bank.

As we can see, there is no saving or dissaving here. Everyone has just swapped assets of equal value.

This mortgage is not a loan of preexisting funds or of anything else. No one had to first make a deposit at the bank in order to allow them to make this loan. The deposit — the money — was created in the process of making the loan itself. Banking does not channel saving to borrowing as in the loanable-funds view, but allows a swap of promises.

One thing I always emphasize to my students: You should not talk about putting money in the bank. The bank’s record is the money.

On one level this is common knowledge. I am sure almost everyone in this room could explain how banks create money. But the larger implications are seldom thought through.

What did this transaction consist of? A set of promises. The bank made a promise to the borrowers, and the borrowers made a promise to the bank. And then the bank’s promise was transferred to the sellers, who can transfer it to some third party in turn.

The reason that the bank is needed here is because you cannot directly make a promise to the seller.

You are willing to make a promise of future payments whose present value is worth more than the value the seller puts on their house. Accepting that deal will make both sides better off. But you can’t close that deal, because your promise of payments over the next 30 years is not credible. They don’t know if you are good for it. They don’t have the ability to enforce it. And even they trust you, maybe because you’re related or have some other relationship, other people do not. So the seller can’t turn your promise of payment into an immediate claim on other things they might want.

Orthodox theory starts from assumption that everyone can freely contract over income and commodities at any date in the future. That familiar Euler equation is based on the idea that you can allocate your income from any future period to consumption in the present, or vice versa. That is the framework within which the interest rate looks like a tradeoff between present and future. But you can’t understand interest in a framework that abstracts away from precisely the function that money and credit play in real economies.

The fundamental role of a bank, as Hyman Minsky emphasized, is not intermediation but acceptance. Banks function as third parties who broaden the range of transactions that can take place on the basis of promises. You are willing to commit to a flow of money payments to gain legal rights to the house. But that is not enough to acquire the house. The bank, on the other hand, precisely because its own promises are widely trusted, is in a position to accept a promise from you.

Interest is not paid because consumption today is more desirable than consumption in the future. Interest is paid because credible promises about the future are hard to make.

The cost of the mortgage loan is not that anyone had to postpone their spending. The cost is that the balance sheets of both transactors have become less liquid.

We can think of liquidity in terms of flexibility — an asset or a balance sheet position is liquid insofar as it broadens your range of options. Less liquidity, means fewer options.

For you as a homebuyer, the result of the transaction is that you have committed yourself to a set of fixed money payments over the next 30 years, and acquired the legal rights associated with ownership of a home. These rights are presumably worth more to you than the rental housing you could acquire with a similar flow of money payments. But title to the house cannot easily be turned back into money and thereby to claims on other parts of the social product. Home ownership involves — for better or worse — a long-term commitment to live in a particular place. The tradeoff the homebuyer makes by borrowing is not more consumption today in exchange for less consumption tomorrow. It is a higher level of consumption today and tomorrow, in exchange for reduced flexibility in their budget and where they will live. Both the commitment to make the mortgage payments and the non-fungibility of home ownership leave less leeway to adapt to unexpected future developments.

On the other side, the bank has added a deposit liability, which requires payment at any time, and a mortgage asset which in itself promises payment only on a fixed schedule in the future. This likewise reduces the bank’s freedom of maneuver. They are exposed not only to the risk that the borrower will not make payments, but also to the risk of capital loss if interest rates rise during the period they hold the mortgage, and to the risk that the mortgage will not be saleable in an emergency, or only at an unexpectedly low price. As real world examples like, recently, Silicon Valley Bank show, these latter risks may in practice be much more serious than the default risk. The cost to the bank making the loan is that its balance sheet becomes more fragile.

Or as Keynes put it in a 1937 article, “The interest rate … can be regarded as being determined by the interplay of the terms on which the public desires to become more or less liquid and those on which the banking system is ready to become more or less unliquid.”

Of course in the real world things are more complicated. The bank does not need to wait for the mortgage payments to be made at the scheduled time. It can transfer the mortgage to a third party, trading off some of the income it expected for a more liquid position. The buyer might be some other financial institution looking for a position farther toward the income end of the liquidity-income tradeoff, perhaps with multiple layers of balance sheets in between. Or the buyer might be the professional liquidity-providers at the central bank.

Incidentally, this is an answer to a question that people don’t ask often enough: How is it that the central bank is able to set the interest rate at all? The central bank plays no part in the market for loanable funds. But central banks are very much in the liquidity business.

It is monetary policy, after all, not savings policy.

One thing this points to is that there is no fundamental difference between routine monetary policy and the central bank’s role as a lender of last resort and a regulator. All of these activities are about managing the level of liquidity within the financial system. How easy is it to meet your obligations. Too hard, and the web of obligations breaks. Too easy, and the web of money obligations loses its ability to shape our activity, and no longer serves as an effective coordination device.

As the price of money — the price for flexibility in making payments as opposed to fixed commitments — the interest rate is a central parameter of any monetary economy. The metaphor of “tight” or “loose” conditions for high or low interest rates captures an important truth about the connection between interest and the flexibility or rigidity of the financial system. High interest rates correspond to a situation in which promises of future payment are worth less in terms of command over resources today. When it’s harder to gain control over real resources with promises of future payment, the pattern of today’s payments is more tightly linked to yesterday’s income. Conversely, low interest rates mean that a promise of future payments goes a long way in securing resources today. That means that claims on real resources therefore depend less on incomes in the past, and more on beliefs about the future. And because interest rate changes always come in an environment of preexisting money commitments, interest also acts as a scaling variable, reweighting the claims of creditors against the income of debtors.

In addition to credit transactions, the other setting in which interest appears in the real world is in the price of existing assets.

A promise of money payments in the future becomes an object in its own right, distinct from those payments themselves. I started out by saying that all sorts of tangible objects have a shadowy double in money-world. But a flow of money payments can also acquire a phantom double. A promise of future payment creates a new property right, with its owner and market price.

When we focus on that fact, we see an important role for convention in the determination of interest. To some important extent, bond prices – and therefore interest rates – are what they are, because that is what market participants expect them to be.

A corporate bond promises a set of future payments. It’s easy in a theoretical world of certainty, to talk as if the bond just is those future payments. But it is not.

This is not just because it might default, which is easy to incorporate into the model. It’s not just because any real bond was issued in a certain jurisdiction, and conveys rights and obligations beyond payment of interest — though these other characteristics always exist and can sometimes be important. It’s because the bond can be traded, and has a price which can change independent of the stream of future payments.

If interest rates fall, your bond’s price will rise — and that possibility itself is a factor in the price of the bond.

This helps explain a widely acknowledged anomaly in financial markets. The expectation hypothesis says that the interest rate on a longer bond should be the same as the average of shorter rates over the same period, or at least that they should be related by a stable term premium. This seems like a straightforward arbitrage, but it fails completely, even in its weaker form.

The answer to this puzzle is an important part of Keynes’ argument in The General Theory. Market participants are not just interested in the two payment streams. They are interested in the price of the long bond itself.

Remember, the price of an asset always moves inversely with its yield. When rates on a given type of credit instrument go up, the price of that instrument falls. Now let’s say it’s widely believed that a 10 year bond is unlikely to trade below 2 percent for very long. Then you would be foolish to buy it at a yield much below 2 percent, because you are going to face a capital loss when yields return to their normal level. And if most people believe this, then the yield never will fall below 2 percent, no matter what happens with short rates.

In a real world where the future is uncertain and monetary commitments have their own independent existence, there is an important sense in which interest rates, especially longer ones, are what they are because that’s what people expect them to be.

One important implication of this is that we cannot think of various market interest rates as simply “the” interest rate, plus a risk premium. Different interest rates can move independently for reasons that have nothing to do with credit risk.

On the one hand, we have a body of theory built up on the idea of “the” interest rate as a tradeoff between present and future consumption. On the other, we have actual interest rates, set in the financial system in quite different ways.

People sometimes try to square the circle with the idea of a natural rate. Yes, they say, we know about liquidity and the term premium and the importance of different kinds of financial intermediaries and regulation and so on. But we still want to use the intertemporal model we were taught in graduate school. We reconcile this by treating the model as an analysis of what the interest rate ought to be. Yes, banks set interest rates in all kinds of ways, but there is only one interest rate consistent with stable prices and, more broadly, appropriate use of society’s resources. We call this the natural rate.

This idea was first formulated around the turn of the 20th century by Swedish economist Knut Wicksell. But the most influential modern statement comes from Milton Friedman. He introduces the natural rate of interest, along with its close cousin the natural rate of unemployment, in his 1968 Presidential Address to the American Economics Association, which has been described as the most influential paper in economics since World War II. The natural rates there correspond to the rates that would be “ground out by the Walrasian system of general equilibrium equations, provided there is imbedded in them the actual structural characteristics of the labor and commodity markets, including market imperfections, stochastic variability in demands and supplies, the cost of gathering information … and so on.”

The appeal of the concept is clear: It provides a bridge between the nonmonetary world of intertemporal exchange of economic theory, and the monetary world of credit contracts in which we actually live. In so doing, it turns the intertemporal story from a descriptive one to a prescriptive one — from an account of how interest rates are determined, to a story about how central banks should conduct monetary policy.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell gave a nice example of how central bankers think of the natural rate in a speech a few years ago. He introduces the natural interest rate R* with the statement that “In conventional models of the economy, major economic quantities … fluctuate around values that are considered ‘normal,’ or ‘natural,’ or ‘desired.’” R* reflects “views on the longer-run normal values for … the federal funds rate” which are based on “ fundamental structural features of the economy.”

Notice the confusion here between the terms normal, natural and desired, three words with quite different meanings. R* is apparently supposed to be the long-term average interest rate, and the interest rate that we would see in a world governed only fundamentals and the interest rate that delvers the best policy outcomes.

This conflation is a ubiquitous and essential feature of discussions of natural rate. Like the controlled slipping between the two disks of a clutch in a car, it allows systems moving in quite different ways to be joined up without either side fracturing from the stress. The ambiguity between these distinct meanings is itself normal, natural and desired.

The ECB gives perhaps an even nicer statement: “At its most basic level, the interest rate is the ‘price of time’ — the remuneration for postponing spending into the future.” R* corresponds to this. It is a rate of interest determined by purely non monetary factors, which should be unaffected by developments in the financial system. Unfortunately, the actual interest rate may depart from this. In that case, the natural rate, says the ECB, “while unobservable … provides a useful guidepost for monetary policy.”

I love the idea of an unobservable guidepost. It perfectly distills the contradiction embodied in the idea of R*.

As a description of what the interest rate is, a loanable-funds model is merely wrong. But when it’s turned into a model of the natural rate, it isn’t even wrong. It has no content at all. There is no way to connect any of the terms in the model with any observable fact in the world.

Go back to Friedman’s formulation, and you’ll see the problem: We don’t possess a model that embeds all the “actual structural characteristics” of the economy. For an economy whose structures evolve in historical time, it doesn’t make sense to even imagine such a thing.

In practice, the short-run natural rate is defined as the one that results in inflation being at target — which is to say, whatever interest rate the central bank prefers.

The long-run natural rate is commonly defined as the real interest rate where “all markets are in equilibrium and there is therefore no pressure for any resources to be redistributed or growth rates for any variables to change.” In this hypothetical steady state, the interest rate depends only on the same structural features that are supposed to determine long-term growth — the rate of technical progress, population growth, and households’ willingness to defer consumption.

But there is no way to get from the short run to the long run. The real world is never in a situation where all markets are in equilibrium. Yes, we can sometimes identify long-run trends. But there is no reason to think that the only variables that matter for those trends are the ones we have chosen to focus on in a particular class of models. All those “actual structural characteristics” continue to exist in the long run.

The most we can say is this: As long as there is some reasonably consistent relationship between the policy interest rate set by the central bank and inflation, or whatever its target is, then there will be some level of the policy rate that gets you to the target. But there’s no way to identify that with “the interest rate” of a theoretical model. The current level of aggregate spending in the economy depends on all sorts of contingent, institutional factors, on sentiment, on choices made in the past, on the whole range of government policies. If you ask, what policy interest rate is most likely to move inflation toward 2 percent, all that stuff matters just as much as the supposed fundamentals.

The best you can do is set the policy rate by whatever rule of thumb or process you prefer, and then after the fact say that there must be some model where that would be the optimal choice.

Michael Woodford is the author of Interest and Prices, one of the most influential efforts to incorporate monetary policy into a modern macroeconomic model. He pretty explicitly acknowledges that’s what he was doing — trying to backfill a theory to explain the choices that central banks were already making.

What are the implications of this?

First, with regard to monetary policy, let’s acknowledge that it involves political choices made to achieve a variety of often conflicting social goals. As Ben Braun and others have written about very insightfully.

Second, recognizing that interest is the price of liquidity, set in financial markets, is important for how we think about sovereign debt.

There’s a widespread story about fiscal crises that goes something like this. First, a government’s fiscal balance (surplus or deficit) over time determines its debt-GDP ratio. If a country has a high debt to GDP, that’s the result of overspending relative to tax revenues. Second, the debt ratio determines to market confidence; private investors do not want to buy the debt of a country that has already issued too much. Third, the state of market confidence determines the interest rate the government faces, or whether it can borrow at all. Fourth, there is a clear line where high debt and high interest rates make debt unsustainable; austerity is the unavoidable requirement once that line is passed. And finally, when austerity restores debt sustainability, that will contribute to economic growth.

Alberto Alesina was among the most vigorous promoters of this story, but it’s a very common one.

If you accept the premises, the conclusions follow logically. Even better, they offer the satisfying spectacle of public-sector hubris meeting its nemesis. But when we look at debt as a monetary phenomenon, we see that its dynamics don’t run along such well-oiled tracks.

First of all, as a historical matter, differences in growth, inflation and interest rates are at least as important as the fiscal position in determining the evolution of the debt ratio over time. Where debt is already high, moderately slower growth or higher interest rates can easily raise the debt ratio faster than even very large surpluses can reduce it – as many countries subject to austerity have discovered. Conversely, rapid economic growth and low interest rates can lead to very large reductions in the debt ratio without the government ever running surpluses, as in the US and UK after World War II. More recently, Ireland reduced its debt-GDP ratio by 20 points in just five years in the mid-1990s while continuing to run substantial deficits, thanks to very fast growth of the “Celtic tiger” period.

At the second step, market demand for government debt clearly is not an “objective” assessment of the fiscal position, but reflects broader liquidity conditions and the self-confirming conventional expectations of speculative markets. The claim that interest rates reflect the soundness or otherwise of public budgets runs up against a glaring problem: The financial markets that recoil from a country’s bonds one day were usually buying them eagerly the day before. The same markets that sent interest rates on Spanish, Portuguese and Greek bonds soaring in 2010 were the ones snapping up their public and private debt at rock-bottom rates in the mid-2000s. And they’re the same markets that returned to buying those countries debt at historically low levels today, even as their debt ratios, in many cases, remained very high.

People like Alesina got hopelessly tangled up on this point. They wanted to insist both that post-crisis interest rates reflected an objective assessment of the state of public finances, and that the low rates before the crisis were the result of a speculative bubble. But you can’t have it both ways.

This is not to say that financial markets are never a constraint on government budgets. For most of the world, which doesn’t enjoy the backstop of a Fed or ECB, they very much are. But we should never imagine that financial conditions are an objective reflection of a country’s fiscal position, or of the balance of savings and investment.

The third big takeaway, maybe the biggest one, is that money is never neutral.

If the interest rate is a price, what it is a price of is not “saving” or the willingness to wait. It is not “remuneration for deferring spending,” as the ECB has it. Rather, it is of the capacity to make and accept promises. And where this capacity really matters, is where finance is used not just to rearrange claims on existing assets and resources, but to organize the creation of new ones. The technical advantages of long lived means of production and specialized organizations can only be realized if people are in a position to make long-term commitments. And in a world where production is organized mainly through money payments, that in turn depends on the degree of liquidity.

There are, at any moment, an endless number of ways some part of society’s resources could be reorganized so as to generate greater incomes, and hopefully use values. You could open a restaurant, or build a house, or get a degree, or write a computer program, or put on a play. The physical resources for these activities are not scarce; the present value of the income they can generate exceeds their costs at any reasonable discount rate. What is scarce is trust. You, starting on a project, must exercise a claim on society’s resources now; society must accept your promise of benefits later. The hierarchy of money allows participants in various collective projects to substitute trust in a third party for trust in each other. But trust is still the scarce resource.

Within the economy, some activities are more trust-intensive, or liquidity-constrained, than others.

Liquidity is more of a problem when there is a larger separation between outlays and rewards, and when rewards are more uncertain.

Liquidity is more of the problem when the scale of the outlay required is larger.

Liquidity and trust are more important when decisions are irreversible.

Trust is more important when something new is being done.

Trust is more scarce when we are talking about coordination between people without any prior relationship.

These are the problems that money and credit help solve. Abundant money does not just lead people to pay more for the same goods. It shifts their spending toward things that require bigger upfront payments and longer-term commitments, and that are riskier.

I was listening to an interview with an executive from wind-power company on the Odd Lots podcast the other day. “We like to say that our fuel is free,” he said. “But really, our fuel is the cost of capital.” The interest rate matters more for wind power than for gas or coal, because the costs must be paid almost entirely up front, as opposed to when the power is produced.

When costs and returns are close together, credit is less important.

In settings where ongoing relationships exist, money is less important as a coordinating mechanism. Markets are for arms-length transactions between strangers.

Minsky’s version of the story emphasizes that we have to think about money in terms of two prices, current production and long-lived assets. Long-lived assets must be financed – acquiring one typically requires committing to a series of future payments . So their price is sensitive to the availability of money. An increase in the money supply — contra Hume, contra Meyer — does not raise all prices in unison. It disproportionately raises the price of long-lived assets, encouraging production of them. And it is long-lived assets that are the basis of modern industrial production.

The relative value of capital goods, and the choice between more and less capital-intensive production techniques, depends on the rate of interest. Capital goods – and the corporations and other long-lived entities that make use of them – are by their nature illiquid. The willingness of wealth owners to commit their wealth to these forms depends, therefore, on the availability of liquidity. We cannot analyze conditions of production in non-monetary terms first and then afterward add money and interest to the story. Conditions of production themselves depend fundamentally on the network of money payments and commitments that structure them, and how flexible that network is.

Taking money seriously requires us to reconceptualize the real economy.

The idea of the interest rate as the price of saving assumes, as I mentioned before, that output already exists to be either consumed or saved. Similarly, the idea of interest as an intertemporal price — the price of time, as the ECB has it — implies that future output is already determined, at least probabilistically. We can’t trade off current consumption against future consumption unless future consumption already exists for us to trade.

Wicksell, who did as much as anyone to create the natural-rate framework of today’s central banks, captured this aspect of it perfectly when he compared economic growth to wine barrels aging in the cellar. The wine is already there. The problem is just deciding when to open the barrels — you would like to have some wine now, but you know the wine will get better if you wait.

In policy contexts, this corresponds to the idea of a level of potential output (or full employment) that is given from the supply side. The productive capacity of the economy is already there; the most that money, or demand, can accomplish is managing aggregate spending so that production stays close to that capacity.

This is the perspective from which someone like Lawrence Meyer, or Paul Krugman for that matter, says that monetary policy can only affect prices in the long run. They assume that potential output is already given.

But one of the big lessons we have learned from the past 15 years of macroeconomic instability is that the economy’s productive potential is much more unstable, and much less certain, than economists used to think. We’ve seen that the labor force grows and shrinks in response to labor market conditions. We’ve seen that investment and productivity growth are highly sensitive to demand. If a lack of spending causes output to fall short of potential today, potential will be lower tomorrow. And if the economy runs hot for a while, potential output will rise.

We can see the same thing at the level of individual industries. One of the most striking, and encouraging developments of recent years has been the rapid fall in costs for renewable energy generation. It is clear that this fall in costs is the result, as much as the cause, of the rapid growth in spending on these technologies. And that in turn is largely due to successful policies to direct credit to those areas.

A perspective that sees money as epiphenomenal to the “real economy” of production would have ruled out that possibility.

This sort of learning by doing is ubiquitous in the real world. Economists prefer to assume decreasing returns only because that’s an easy way to get a unique market equilibrium.

This is one area where formal economics and everyday intuition diverge sharply. Ask someone whether they think that buying more or something, or making more of something, will cause the unit price to go up or down. If you reserve a block of hotel rooms, will the rooms be cheaper or more expensive than if you reserve just one? And then think about what this implies about the slope of the supply curve.

There’s a wonderful story by the great German-Mexican writer B. Traven called “Assembly Line.” The story gets its subversive humor from a confrontation between an American businessman, who takes it for granted that costs should decline with output, and a village artisan who insists on actually behaving like the textbook producer in a world of decreasing returns.

In modern economies, if not in the village, the businessman’s intuition is correct. Increasing returns are very much the normal case. This means that multiple equilibria and path dependence are the rule. And — bringing us back to money — that means that what can be produced, and at what cost, is a function of how spending has been directed in the past.

Taking money seriously, as its own autonomous social domain, means recognizing that social and material reality is not like money. We cannot think of it in terms of a set of existing objects to be allocated, between uses or over time. Production is not a quantity of capital and a quantity of labor being combined in a production function. It is organized human activity, coordinated in a variety of ways, aimed at open-ended transformation of the world whose results are not knowable in advance.

On a negative side, this means we should be skeptical about any economic concept described as “natural” or “real”. These are very often an attempt to smuggle in a vision of a non monetary economy fundamentally different from our own, or to disguise a normative claim as a positive one, or both.

For example, we should be cautious about “real” interest rates. This term is ubiquitous, but it implicitly suggests that the underlying transaction is a swap of goods today for goods tomorrow, which just happens to take monetary form. But in fact it’s a swap of IOUs — one set of money payments for another. There’s no reason that the relative price of money versus commodities would come into it.

And in fact, when we look historically, before the era of inflation-targeting central banks there was no particular relationship between inflation and interest rates.

We should also be skeptical of the idea of real GDP, or the price level. That’s another big theme of the book, but it’s beyond the scope of today’s talk.

On the positive side, this perspective is, I think, essential preparation to explore when and in what contexts finance matters for production. Obviously, in reality, most production coordinated in non-market ways, both within firms — which are planned economies internally — and through various forms of economy-wide planning. But there are also cases where the distribution of monetary claims through the financial system is very important. Understanding which specific activities are credit-constrained, and in what circumstances, seems like an important research area to me, especially in the context of climate change.

Let me mention one more direction in which I think this perspective points us.

As I suggested, the idea of the interest rate as the price of time, and the larger real-exchange vision of which it is part, treats money flows and aggregates as stand-ins for an underlying nonmonetary real economy. People who take this view tend not be especially concerned with exactly how the monetary values are constructed. Which rate, out of the complex of interest rates, is “the” interest rate? Which f the various possible inflation rates, and over what period, do we subtract to get the “real” interest rate? What payments exactly are included in GDP, and what do we do if that changes, or if it’s different in different countries?

If we think of the monetary values as just proxies for some underlying “real” value, the answers to these questions don’t really matter.

I was reading a paper recently that used the intensity of nighttime illumination across the Earth’s surface as an alternative measure of real output. It’s an interesting exercise. But obviously, if that’s the spirit you are approaching GDP in, you don’t worry about how the value of financial services is calculated, or on what basis we are imputing the services of owner-occupied housing. The number produced by the BEA is just another proxy for the true value of real output, that you can approximate in all kinds of other ways.

On the other hand, if you think that the money values are what is actually real — if you don’t think they are proxies for any underlying material quantity — then you have to be very concerned with the way they are calculated. If the interest rate really does mean the payments on a loan contract, and not some hypothetical exchange rate between the past and the future, then you have to be clear about which loan contract you have in mind.

Along the same lines, most economists treat the object of inquiry as the underlying causal relationships in the economy, those “fundamental structural characteristics” that are supposed to be stable over time. Recall that the natural rate of interest is explicitly defined with respect to a long run equilibrium where all macroeconomic variables are constant, or growing at a constant rate. If that’s how you think of what you are doing, then specific historical developments are interesting at most as case studies, or as motivations for the real work, which consists of timeless formal models.

But if we take money seriously, then we don’t need to postulate this kind of underlying deep structure. If we don’t think of interest in terms of a tradeoff between the present and the future, then we don’t need to think of future income and output as being in any sense already determined. And if money matters for the activity of production, both as financing for investment and as demand, then there is no reason to think the actual evolution of the economy can be understood in terms of a long-run trend determined by fundamentals.

The only sensible object of inquiry in this case is particular events that have happened, or might happen.

Approaching our subject this way means working in terms of the variables we actually observe and measure. If we study GDP, it is GDP as the national accountants actually define it and measure it, not “output” in the abstract. These variables are generally monetary.

It means focusing on explanations for specific historical developments, rather than modeling the behavior of “the economy” in the abstract.

It means elevating descriptive work over the kinds of causal questions that economists usually ask. Which means broadening our empirical toolkit away from econometrics.

These methodological suggestions might seem far removed from alternative accounts of the interest rate. But as Arjun and I have worked on this book, we’ve become convinced that the two are closely related. Taking money seriously, and rejecting conventional ideas of the real economy, have far-reaching implications for how we do economics.

Recognizing that money is its own domain allows us to see productive activity as an open-ended historical process, rather than a static problem of allocation. By focusing on money, we can get a clearer view of the non-monetary world — and, hopefully, be in a better position to change it.

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.¹ 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.² 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. ³ 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.⁴ 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.⁵ 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%.⁶ 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.⁷

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.⁸ 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.

No Maestros: Further Thoughts

One of the things we see in the questions of monetary policy transmission discussed in my Barron’s piece is the real cost of an orthodox economics education. If your vision of the economy is shaped by mainstream theory, it is impossible to think about what central banks actually do.

The models taught in graduate economics classes feature an “interest rate” that is the price of goods today in terms of identical goods in the future. Agents in these models are assumed to be able to freely trade off consumption today against consumption at any point in the future, and to distribute income from any time in the future over their lifetime as they see fit, subject only to the “no Ponzi” condition that over infinite time their spending must equal their income. This is a world, in other words, of infinite liquidity. There are no credit markets as such, only real goods at different dates.⁹

Monetary policy in this framework is then thought of in terms of changing the terms at which goods today trade for goods tomorrow, with the goal of keeping it at some “natural” level. It’s not at all clear how the central bank is supposed to set the terms of all these different transactions, or what frictions cause the time premium to deviate from the natural level, or whether the existence of those frictions might have broader consequences. ¹⁰ But there’s no reason to get distracted by this imaginary world, because it has nothing at all to do with what real central banks do.

In the real world, there are not, in general, markets where goods today trade for identical goods at some future date. But there are credit markets, which is where the price we call “the interest rate” is found. The typical transaction in a credit market is a loan — for example, a mortgage. A mortgage does not involve any trading-off of future against present income. Rather, it is income-positive for both parties in every period.

The borrower is getting a flow of housing services and making a flow of mortgage payments, both of which are the same in every period. Presumably they are getting more/better housing services for their mortgage payment than they would for an equivalent rental payment in every period (otherwise, they wouldn’t be buying the house.) Far from getting present consumption at the expense of future consumption, the borrower probably expects to benefit more from owning the house in the future, when rents will be higher but the mortgage payment is the same.

The bank, meanwhile, is getting more income in every period from the mortgage loan than it is paying to the holder of the newly-created deposit. No one associated with the bank is giving up any present consumption — the loan just involves creating two offsetting entries on the bank’s books. Both parties to the transaction are getting higher income over the whole life of the mortgage.

So no one, in the mortgage transaction, is trading off the present against the future. The transaction will raise the income of both sides in every period. So why not make more mortgages to infinity? Because what both parties are giving up in exchange for the higher income is liquidity. For the homeowner, the mortgage payments yield more housing services than equivalent rent payments, but they are also harder to adjust if circumstances change. Renting gives you less housing for your buck, but it’s easier to move if it turns out you’d rather live somewhere else. For the bank, the mortgage loan (its asset) carries a higher interest rate than the deposit (its liability), but involves the risk that the borrower will not repay, and also the risk that, in a crisis, ownership of the mortgage cannot be turned into immediate cashflows while the deposit is payable on demand.

In short, the fundamental tradeoff in credit markets – what the interest rate is the price of – is not less now versus more later, but income versus liquidity and safety.¹¹

Money and credit are hierarchical. Bank deposits are an asset for us – they are money – but are a liability for banks. They must settle their own transactions with a different asset, which is a liability for the higher level of the system. The Fed sits at the top of this hierarchy. That is what makes its actions effective. It’s not that it can magically change the terms of every transaction that involves things happening at different dates. It’s that, because its liabilities are what banks use to settle their obligations to each other, it can influence how easy or difficult they find it to settle those liabilities and hence, how willing they are to take on the risk of expanding their balance sheets.

So when we think about the transmission of monetary policy, we have to think about two fundamental questions. First, how much do central bank actions change liquidity conditions within the financial system? And second, how much does real activity depends on the terms on which credit is available?

We might gloss this as supply and demand for credit. The mortgage, however, is typical of credit transactions in another way: It involves a change in ownership of an existing asset rather than the current production of goods and services. This is by far the most common case. So some large part of monetary policy transmission is presumably via changes in prices of assets rather than directly via credit-financed current production. ¹² There are only small parts of the economy where production is directly sensitive to credit conditions.

One area where current production does seem to be sensitive to interest rates is housing construction. This is, I suppose, because on the one hand developers are not large corporations that can finance investment spending internally, and on the other hand land and buildings are better collateral than other capital goods. My impression – tho I’m getting well outside my area of expertise here – is that some significant part of construction finance is shorter maturity loans, where rates will be more closely linked to the policy rate. And then of course the sale price of the buildings will be influenced by prevailing interest rates as well. As a first approximation you could argue that this is the channel by which Fed actions influence the real economy. Or as this older but still compelling article puts it, “Housing IS the business cycle.”

Of course there are other possible channels. For instance, it’s sometimes argued that during the middle third of the 20th century, when reserve requirements really bound, changes in the quantity of reserves had a direct quantitative effect on the overall volume of lending, without the interest rate playing a central role one way or the other. I’m not sure how true this is — it’s something I’d like to understand better — but in any case it’s not relevant to monetary policy today. Robert Triffin argued that inventories of raw materials and imported commodities were likely to be financed with short term debt, so higher interest rates would put downward pressure on their prices specifically. This also is probably only of historical interest.

The point is, deciding how much, how quickly and how reliably changes in the central bank’s policy rate will affect real activity (and then, perhaps, inflation) would seem to require a fairly fine-grained institutional knowledge about the financial system and the financing needs of real activity. The models taught in graduate macroeconomics are entirely useless for this purpose. Even for people not immersed in academic macro, the fixation on “the” interest rate as opposed to credit conditions broadly is a real problem.

These are not new debates, of course. I’ve linked before to Juan Acosta’s fascinating article about the 1950s debates between Paul Samuelson and various economists associated with the Fed.¹³ The lines of debate then were a bit different from now, with the academic economists more skeptical of monetary policy’s ability to influence real economic outcomes. What Fed economist Robert Roosa seems to have eventually convinced Samuelson of, is that monetary policy works not so much through the interest rate — which then as now didn’t seem to have big effect on investment decision. It works rather by changing the willingness of banks to lend — what was then known as “the availability doctrine.” This is reflected in later editions of his textbook, which added an explanation of monetary policy in terms of credit rationing.

Even if a lender should make little or no change in the rate of interest that he advertises to his customers, there may probably still be the following important effect of “easy money.” … the lender will now be rationing out credit much more liberally than would be the case if the money market were very tight and interest rates were tending to rise. … Whenever in what follows I speak of a lowering of interest rates, I shall also have in mind the equally important relaxation of the rationing of credit and general increase in the availability of equity and loan capital to business.

The idea that “the interest rate” is a metaphor or synecdoche for a broader easing of credit conditions is important step toward realism. But as so often happens, the nuance has gotten lost and the metaphor gets taken literally.

OECD: Activist Shareholders Are Bad for Investment

The OECD has just released its new Business and Finance Outlook for 2015. A lot of interesting stuff there. We’ll want to take a closer look at the discussion of the problems that low interest rates pose for pension funds and insurance companies — I’ve thought for a while that this is the most convincing form of the “reaching for yield” argument. But what I want to talk about now is the OECD’s apparent endorsement of the “disgorge the cash” thesis.

Chapter 2, “Corporate Investment and the Stagnation Puzzle,” has a very interesting discussion of shareholder activism and its effects on investment. The starting point is the puzzle that while participants in financial markets are willing to accept unprecedentedly low returns, the minimum returns on new investment projects remain high, as evidenced by depressed real investment despite sustained low interest rates. I think this apparent puzzle is, precisely, a rediscovery of Keynes’ liquidity premium. (Perhaps I will return to this in a subsequent post.) There are a number of ways to think about this, but one dimension is the pressure corporate managers face to avoid investment projects unless the returns are rapid, large, and certain.

Stock markets currently reward companies that favour dividends and buybacks and punish those that undertake more investment … which creates higher hurdle rates for investment.

Here in one sentence is the disgorge the cash argument.

Private sector companies in market-based economies allocate capital spending according to shareholder value. Earnings may be retained for capital spending and growth, but only if the return on equity exceeds the cost of equity. If this is not the case then … they will choose to use their operating cash flow in other ways (by issuing dividends, carrying out cash buybacks…) … and in the limit may close plants and shed labor.

The bolded sentence is puzzling. Is it description or prescription? (Or description of a prescription?) The rest of the section makes no sense if you think either that this is how corporate investment decisions are made, or if you think it’s how they should be made. Among other reasons, once we have different, competing discount rates, the “return on equity” no longer has a well-defined value, even in principle. Throughout, there’s a tension between the language of economic theory and the language of concrete phenomena. Fortunately the latter mostly wins out.

The last decade has seen the rising importance of activist investors who gain the support of other investors and proxy advisors to remove management, to gain influential board seats and/or to make sure that company strategy is in the best interest of shareholders… The question arises as to whether the role of such investors is working to cause short-termism strategies [sic] at the expense of long-term investment, by effectively raising the hurdle rate… Activists… favour the short-term gratification of dividends and share buybacks versus longer-term investment. Incumbent managers will certainly prefer giving in to shareholders desire for more ‘yield’ in a low-interest world to taking on the risk of uncertain long-term investment that might cause them to be punished in the share market. …

To test this idea, an index of CAPEX/(CAPEX + Dividends & Buybacks) was created for each company, and the following investment strategy was measured: sell the highest quartile of the index (capital heavy firms) and buy the lowest quartile of the index (Dividend and Buyback heavy firms). … Selling high capital spending companies and buying low CAPEX and high buyback companies would have added 50% to portfolio values in the USA, 47% in Europe, 21% in emerging economies and even 12% in Japan (where activists play little role). On balance there is a clear investor preference against capital spending companies and in favor of short-termism. This adds to the hurdle rate faced by managers in attempting to undertake large capital spending programmes — stock market investors will likely punish them. … it would be fairly logical from a management point of view to return this cash to shareholders rather than undertake uncertain long-term investment projects… The risks instead would be born more by host-country investment in capacity and infrastructure.

This is a useful exercise. The idea is to look at the ratio of investment to shareholder payouts, and ask how the stock price of the high-investment firms performed compared to the high-payout firms, over the six years 2009 through 2014. What they find is that the shares of the high-payout firms performed considerably better. This is important because it undermines the version of the disgorge argument you get from people like Bill Lazonick, in which buybacks deliver a short-term boost the share price that benefits CEOs looking to cash in on their options, but does nothing for longer-term investors. In Lazonick’s version of the story, managers are on one side, shareholders, workers and the rest of society on the other. But if high-payout firms perform better for shareholders over a six-year horizon (which in financial-market terms is almost geologically long term) then we have to slice things differently. On one side are shareholders and CEOs, on the other are us regular people.

The other thing that is notable here is the aggregating of dividends and buybacks in a single “shareholder payout” term. This is what I do, I think it’s unambiguously the right thing to do, but in some quarters for some reason it’s controversial. So I’m always glad to find another authority to say, a buyback is a dividend, a dividend is a buyback, the end.

Another way to see these two points is to think about so-called dividend recapitalizations. These are when a private equity firm, having taken control of a business, has it issue new debt in order to fund a special dividend payment to themselves. (It’s the private equity firm that’s being recapitalized here, not the hapless target firm.) The idea of private equity is that the acquired firm will be resold at a premium because of the productive efficiencies brought about by new management. The more or less acknowledged point of a dividend recap is to allow the private equity partners to get their money back even when they have failed to deliver the improvements, and the firm cannot be sold at a price that would allow them to recoup their investment. Dividend recaps are a small though not trivial part of the flow of payments from productive enterprises to money-owners, in recent years totaling between 5 and 10 percent of total dividends. For present purposes, there are two especially noteworthy things about them. First, they are pure value extraction, but they take the form of a dividend rather than a share repurchase. This suggests that if the SEC were to crack down on buybacks, as people Lazonick suggest, it would be easy for special dividends to take their place. Second, they take place at closely held firms, where the managers have been personally chosen by the new owners. It’s the partners at Cerberus or Apollo who want the dividends, not their hired guns in the CEO suites. It’s an interesting question why the partners want to squeeze these immediate cash payments out of their prey when, you would think, they would just reduce the sale price of the carcass dollar for dollar. But the important point is that here we have a case where there’s no entrenched management, no coordination problems among shareholders — and Lazonick’s “downsize-and-distribute” approach to corporate finance is more pronounced than ever.

Back to the OECD report. The chapter has some useful descriptive material, comparing shareholder payouts in different countries.

[In the United States,] dividends and buybacks are running at a truly remarkable pace, even greater than capital expenditure itself in recent years. There has been plenty of scope to increase capital spending, but instead firms appear to be adjusting to the demands of investors for greater yield (dividends and buybacks). … [In Europe] dividends and buybacks are only half what United States companies pay … While there is no marked tendency for this component to rise in the aggregate in Europe, companies in the United Kingdom and Switzerland … do indeed look very similar to the United States, with very strong growth in buybacks. … [In Japan] dividends and buybacks are minuscule compared with companies in other countries. …

Here, for the US, are shareholder payouts (gray), investment (dark blue), and new borrowing (light blue, with negative values indicating an increase in debt; ignore the dotted “net borrowing” line), all given as a percent of total sales. We are interested in the lower panel.

OECD_fig — from OECD, Business and Finance Outlook 2015

As you can see, investment is quite stable as a fraction of sales. Shareholder payouts, by contrast, dropped sharply over 2007-2009, and have since recovered even more strongly. Since 2009, US corporations have increased their borrowing (“other financing”) by about 4 percent of sales; shareholder payouts have increased by an almost exactly equal amount. This is consistent with my argument that in the shareholder-dominated corporation, real activity is largely buffered from changes in financial conditions. Shifts in the availability of credit simply result in larger or smaller payments to shareholders. The OECD report takes a similar view, that access to credit is not an important factor in variation in corporate investment spending.

The bottom line, though the OECD report doesn’t quite put it this way, is that wealth-owners strongly prefer claims on future income that take money-like forms over claims on future incomes exercised through concrete productive activity. [1] This is, again, simply Keynes’ liquidity premium, which the OECD authors knowing or unknowingly (but without crediting him) summarize well:

It was noted earlier that capital expenditures appear to have a higher hurdle rate than for financial investors. There are two fundamental reasons for this. First, real investors have a longer time frame compared to financial investors who believe (perhaps wrongly at times) that their positions can be quickly unwound.

From a social standpoint, therefore, it matters how much authority is exercised by wealth-owners, who embody the “M” moment of capital, and how much is exercised by the managers or productive capitalists (the OECD’s “real investors”) who embody its “P” moment. [2] Insofar as the former dominate, fixed investment will be discouraged, especially when its returns are further off or less certain.

Second, managers … operate in a very uncertain world and the empirical evidence … suggests that equity investors punish companies that invest too much and reward those that return cash to investors. If managers make an error of judgement they will be punished by activist investors and/or stock market reactions … hence they prefer buybacks.

Finally, it’s interesting what the OECD says about claims that high payouts are simply a way for financial markets to reallocate investment spending in more productive directions.

It is arguable that if managers do not have profitable projects, it makes sense to give the money back to investors so that they can reallocate it to those with better ideas. However, the evidence … suggests that the buyback phenomenon is not associated with rising productivity and better returns on equity.

Of course this isn’t surprising. It’s consistent with the academic literature on shareholder activism, and on the earlier takeover wave, which finds success at increasing payments to shareholders but not at increasing earnings or productive efficiency. For example, this recent study concludes:

We did not see evidence that targets’ financials improved… The targets’ leverage and payout, however, did seem to increase, suggesting that the activists are unlocking value by prompting management to return additional cash to shareholders.

Still, it’s noteworthy to see a bastion of orthodoxy like the OECD flatly stating that shareholder activism is pure extraction and does nothing for productivity.

UPDATE: Here’s James Mackintosh discussing this same material on “The Short View”:

[1] It’s worth mentioning here this interesting recent Australian survey of corporate executives, which found that new investment projects are judged by a minimum expected return or hurdle rate that is quite high — usually in excess of 10 percent — and not unresponsive to changes in interest rates. Even more interesting for our purposes, many firms report that they evaluate projects not based on a rate of return but on a payback period, often as short as three years.

[2] The language of “M and “P” moments is of course taken from Marx’s vision of capital as a process of transformation, from money to commodities to authority over a production process, back to commodities and finally back to money. In Capital Vol. 1 and much of his other writing, Marx speaks of the capitalist as straightforwardly the embodiment of capital, a reasonable simplification given his focus there and the fact that in the 1860s absentee ownership was a rare exception. There is a much more complex discussion of the ways in which the different moments of capital can take the form of distinct and possibly conflicting social actors in Capital Vol. 3, Part 5, especially chapter 27.

Minsky on the Non-Neutrality of Money

I try not to spend too much time criticizing orthodox economics. I think that heterodox people who spend all their energy pointing out the shortcomings and contradictions of the mainstream are, in a sense, making the same mistake as the ones who spend all their energy trying to make their ideas acceptable to the mainstream. We should focus on building up our positive knowledge of social reality, and let the profession fend for itself.

That said, like almost everyone in the world of heterodoxy I do end up writing a lot, and often obstreperously, about what is wrong with the economics profession. To which you can fairly respond: OK, but where is the alternative economics you’re proposing instead?

The honest answer is, it doesn’t exist. There are many heterodox economics, including a large contingent of Post Keynesians, but Post Keynesianism is not a coherent alternative research program. [1] Still, there are lots of promising pieces, which might someday be assembled into a coherent program. One of these is labeled “Minsky”. [2] Unfortunately, while Minsky is certainly known to a broader audience than most economists associated with heterodoxy, it’s mainly only for the financial fragility hypothesis, which I would argue is not central to his contribution.

I recently read a short piece he wrote in 1993, towards the end of his career, that gives an excellent overview of his approach. It’s what I’d recommend — along with the overview of his work by Perry Mehrling that I mentioned in the earlier post, and also the overview by Pollin and Dymski — as a starting point for anyone interested in his work.

* * *

“The Non-Neutrality of Money” covers the whole field of Minsky’s interests and can be read as a kind of summing-up of his mature thought. So it’s interesting that he gave it that title. Admittedly it partly reflects the particular context it was written in, but it also, I think, reflects how critical the neutrality or otherwise of money is in defining alternative visions of what an economy is.

Minsky starts out with a description of what he takes to be the conceptual framework of orthodox economics, represented here by Ben Bernanke’s “Credit in the Macroeconomy“:

The dominant paradigm is an equilibrium construct in which initial endowments of agents, preference systems and production relations, along with maximizing behavior, determine relative prices, outputs and allocation… Money and financial interrelations are not relevant to the determination of these equilibrium values … “real” factors determine “real” variables.

Some people take this construct literally. This leads to Real Business Cycles and claims that monetary policy has never had any effects. Minsky sees no point in even criticizing that approach. The alternative, which he does criticize, is to postulate some additional “frictions” that prevent the long-run equilibrium from being realized, at least right away. Often, as in the Bernanke piece, the frictions take the form of information asymmetries that prevent some mutually beneficial transactions — loans to borrowers without collateral, say — from taking place. But, Minsky says, there is a contradiction here.

On the one hand, perfect foresight is assumed … to demonstrate the existence of equilibrium, and on the other hand, imperfect foresight is assumed … to generate the existence of an underemployment equilibrium and the possibility of policy effectiveness.

Once we have admitted that money and money contracts are necessary to economic activity, and not just an arbitrary numeraire, it no longer makes sense to make simulating a world without money as the goal of policy. If money is useful, isn’t it better to have more of it, and worse to have less, or none? [3] The information-asymmetry version of this problem is actually just the latest iteration of a very old puzzle that goes back to Adam Smith, or even earlier. Smith and the other Classical economists were unanimous that the best monetary system was one that guaranteed a “perfect” circulation, by which they meant, the quantity of money that would circulate if metallic currency were used exclusively. But this posed two obvious questions: First, how could you know how much metallic currency would circulate in that counterfactual world, and exactly which forms of “money” in the real world should you compare to that hypothetical amount? And second, if the ideal monetary system was one in which the quantity of money came closest to what it would be if only metal coins were used, why did people — in the most prosperous countries especially — go to such lengths to develop forms of payment other than metallic coins? Hume, in the 18th century, could still hew to the logic of theory and and conclude that, actually, paper money, bills of exchange, banks that functioned as anything but safety-deposit boxes [4] and all the rest of the modern financial system was a big mistake. For later writers, for obvious reasons, this wasn’t a credible position, and so the problem tended to be evaded rather than addressed head on.

Or to come back to the specific way Minsky presents the problem. Suppose I have some productive project available to me but lack sufficient claim on society’s resources to carry it out. In principle, I could get them by pledging a fraction of the results of my project. But that might not work, perhaps because the results are too far in the future, or too uncertain, or — information asymmetry — I have no way of sharing the knowledge that the project is viable or credibly committing to share its fruits. In that case “welfare” will be lower than it the hypothetical perfect-information alternative, and, given some additional assumptions, we will see something that looks like unemployment. Now, perhaps the monetary authority can in some way arrange for deferred or uncertain claims to be accepted more readily. That may result in resources becoming available for my project, potentially solving the unemployment problem. But, given the assumptions that created the need for policy in the first place, there is no reason to think that the projects funded as a result of this intervention wil be exactly the same as in the perfect-information case. And there is no reason to think there are not lots of other unrealized projects whose non-undertaking happens not to show up as unemployment. [5]

Returning to Minsky: A system of markets

is not the only way that economic interrelations can be modeled. Every capitalist economy can be described in terms of interrelated balance sheets … The entries on balance sheets can be read as payment commitments (liabilities) and expected payment receipts (assets), both denominated in a common unit.

We don’t have to see an endowments of goods, tastes for consumption, and a given technology for converting the endowments to consumption goods as the atomic units of the economy. We can instead start with a set of money flows between units, and the capitalized expectations of future money flows captured on balance sheets. In the former perspective, money payments and commitments are a secondary complication that we may want to introduce for specific problems. In the latter, Minskyan perspective, exchanges of goods are just one of the various forms of money flows between economic units.

Minsky continues:

In this structure, the real and the financial dimensions of the economy are not separated. There is no “real economy” whose behavior can be studied by abstracting from financial considerations. … In this model, money is never neutral.

The point here, again, is that real economies require people to make commitments today on the basis of expectations extending far into an uncertain future. Money and credit are tools to allow these commitments to be made. The more available are money and credit, the further into the future can be deferred the results that will justify today’s activity. If we can define a level of activity that we call full employment or price stability — and I think Keynes was much too sanguine on this point — then a good monetary authority may be able to regulate the flow of money or credit (depending on the policy instrument) to keep actual activity near that level. But there is no connection, logical or practical, between that state of the economy and a hypothetical economy without money or credit at all.

For Minsky, this fundamental point is captured in Keynes’ two-price model. The price level of current output and capital assets are determined by two independent logics and vary independently. This is another way of saying that the classical dichotomy between relative prices and the overall price level, does not apply in a modern economy with a financial system and long-lived capital goods. Changes in the “supply of money,” whatever that means in practice, always affect the prices of assets relative to current output.

The price level of assets is determined by the relative value that units place on income in the future and liquidity now. …

The price level of current output is determined by the labor costs and the markup per unit of output. … The aggregate markup for consumption goods is determined by the ratio of the wage bill in investment goods, the government deficit… , and the international trade balance, to the wage bill in the production of consumption goods. In this construct the competition of interest is between firms for profits.

Here we see Minsky’s Kaleckian side, which doesn’t get talked about much. Minsky was convinced that investment always determined profits, never the other way round. Specifically, he followed Kalecki in treating the accounting identity that “the capitalists get what they spend” as causal. That is, total profits are determined as total investment spending plus consumption by capitalists (plus the government deficit and trade surplus.)

Coming back to the question at hand, the critical point is that liquidity (or “money”) will affect these two prices differently. Think of it this way: If money is scarce, it will be costly to hold a large stock of it. So you will want to avoid committing yourself to fixed money payments in the future, you will prefer assets that can be easily converted into money as needed, and you will place a lower value on money income that is variable or uncertain. For all these reasons, long-lived capital goods will have a lower relative price in a liquidity-scare world than in a liquidity-abundant one. Or as Minsky puts it:

The non-neutrality of money … is due to the difference in the way money enters into the determination of the price level of capital assets and of current output. … the non-neutrality theorem reflects essential aspects of capitalism in that it recognizes that … assets exist and that they not only yield income streams but can also be sold or pledged.

Finally, we get to Minsky’s famous threefold classification of financial positions as hedge, speculative or Ponzi. In context, it’s clear that this was a secondary not a central concern. Minsky was not interested in finance for its own sake, but rather in understanding modern capitalist economies through the lens of finance. And it was certainly not Minsky’s intention for these terms to imply a judgement about more and less responsible financing practices. As he writes, “speculative” financing does not necessarily involve anything we would normally call speculation:

Speculative financing covers all financing that involves refinancing at market terms … Banks are always involved in speculative financing. The floating debt of companies and governments are speculative financing.

As for Ponzi finance, he admits this memorable label was a bad choice:

I would have been better served if I had labeled the situation “the capitalization of interest.” … Note that construction finance is almost always a prearranged Ponzi financing scheme. [6]

For me, the fundamental points here are (1) That our overarching vision of capitalist economies needs to be a system of “units” (including firms, governments, etc.) linked by current money payments and commitments to future money payments, not a set of agents exchanging goods; and (2) that the critical influence of liquidity comes in the terms on which long-lived commitments to particular forms of production trade off against current income.

[1] Marxism does, arguably, offer a coherent alternative — the only one at this point, I think. Anwar Shaikh recently wrote a nice piece, which I can’t locate at the moment, contrasting the Marxist-classical and Post Keynesian strands of heterodoxy.

[2] In fact, as Perry Mehrling demonstrates in The Money Interest and the Public Interest, Minsky represents an older and largely forgotten tradition of American monetary economics, which owes relatively little to Keynes.

[3] Walras, Wicksell and many others dismiss the idea that more money can be beneficial by focusing on its function as a unit of account. You can’t consistently arrive earlier, they point out, by adjusting your watch, even if you might trick yourself the first few times. You can’t get taller by redefining the inch. Etc. But this overlooks the fact that people do actually hold money, and pay real costs to acquire it.

[4] “The dearness of every thing, from plenty of money, is a disadvantage … This has made me entertain a doubt concerning the benefit of banks and paper-credit, which are so generally esteemed advantageous … to endeavour artificially to encrease such a credit, can never be the interest of any trading nation; but must lay them under disadvantages, by encreasing money beyond its natural proportion to labour and commodities… And in this view, it must be allowed, that no bank could be more advantageous, than such a one as locked up all the money it received, and never augmented the circulating coin, as is usual, by returning part of its treasure into commerce.” Political Discourses, 1752.

[5] This leads into Verdoorn’s law and anti-hysteresis, a topic I hope to return to.

[6] Daniel Davies should appreciate this.

What to Read on Liquidity

In comments, someone asks for references behind “the point is liquidity, the point is liquidity, the point is liquidity.” So, here are my recommended readings on liquidity.

Mike Beggs: “Liquidity as a Social Relation.” This is the best single discussion I know of the Keynesian view of liquidity. Beside laying out the fundamental conceptual issues, and sketching the historical development of the concept, this piece also has a good discussion of how the definition of liquidity used in monetary policy has been transformed over the past couple decades. This is the first thing I’d recommend to anyone who wants to understand what exactly those of us in the left-Keynsian tradition mean by “liquidity.”

John Hicks: “Liquidity.” A lucid and intelligent summary of where the discussion of liquidity stood 20 years after Keynes’ death.

Jorg Bibow: “Liquidity preference theory revisited: to ditch or to build on it?” A rigorous analysis of the role of liquidity in the Keynesian theory of interest rates, with particular attention to the dynamics of conventional expectations. If you want to know how Keynes’ ideas about liquidity fit into contemporary debates about monetary policy, Bibow is your man. Also worth reading: “On Keynesian Theories of Liquidity Preference,” and Bibow’s book.

J. M. Keynes: chapters 12, 13, 15, 17 and 23 of the General Theory. Also: “The General Theory of Employment”; “The Ex-Ante Theory of Interest.“ The original source. I think the presentation in the articles is clearer than in the book. Beggs and Hicks and Bibow are even clearer.

Jean Tirole, “Illiquidity and All Its Friends.” Within the mainstream, Tirole has by far the best discussion of liquidity that I’m aware of. I have profoundly mixed feelings about his approach but I’ve certainly learned from him — for example, the distinction between funding liquidity and market liquidity is genuinely useful. If you’re tempted to criticize “mainstream” economics’ treatment of liquidity, you need to seriously engage with Tirole first — he incorporates a surprisingly large part of the Keynesian vision of liquidity into an orthodox framework.

Jim Crotty, “The Centrality of Money, Credit and Intermediation in Marx’s Crisis Theory”. Addresses liquidity in a somewhat different context than most of the above — he asks how the specifically monetary character of capitalist production shapes the dynamics of accumulation as described by Marx and his followers. It’s a bit askew to the other pieces here, but the underlying questions are, I think, the same. And it is one of the most brilliant scholarly essays I have read.

Perry Mehrling, “The Vision of Hyman Minsky.” I think this lays out the logic of Minsky’s work better than anything by Minsky himself. Also see Mehrling’s book, The Money Interest and the Public Interest. Everything we need to know about liquidity is in there, though you may have to read between the lines to find it. His “Inherent Hierarchy of Money” is also useful, making the point that any system of payments is inherently hierarchical, with the same instrument appearing as credit at one level and as money at the level below.

EDIT: Should also include Joan Robinson, “The Rate of Interest,” which has a useful taxonomy distinguishing illiquidity in the strict sense from capital uncertainty, income uncertainty and lender’s risk.

By the way, the phrasing the post starts with is taken from Tree of Smoke, Denis Johnson’s Vietnam war novel. (I know that’s not what you were asking.) It’s the best novel I read this year, I recommend it almost unreservedly. There of course the point is Vietnam.

Liquidity Preference on the F Line

Sitting on the subway today, I was struck by the fact that the three ads immediately opposite me were all for what you might call liquidity services. On the left was an ad for “personal asset loans” from something called Borro: “With this necklace … I funded my first business,” says a satisfied customer. Next to it was an MTA ad trumpeting the fact that you can pay your fare with a credit card. And then one from AptDeco.com, which I guess is a clearinghouse for used furniture sales, with the tagline “NYC is now your furniture store.”

the Borro ad was the next one to the left

This was interesting to me because I’ve just been thinking about the neutrality of money, and what an incoherent and contradictory idea it is.

The orthodox view is that the level of “real” economic activity is determined by “real” factors — endowments, tastes, technology — and people simply hold money balances proportionate to this level of activity. In this view, a change in the money supply can’t make anyone better or worse off, at least in the long run, or change anything about the economy except the price level.

Just looking at these ads shows us why that can’t be true. First of all, the question of what constitutes money. All three of these ads are, in effect, inviting you to use something as money that you couldn’t previously. Without the specialized intermediary services being hawked here, you couldn’t pay the startup costs of a business with a necklace (what’s this thing made of, plutonium?), or pay for a subway ride with a promise to pay later, or pay for much of anything with a used couch. And this new liquidity has real benefits — otherwise, no one would be buying it, and it wouldn’t be worth the cost of producing (or advertising) it. The idea — stated explicitly in the Borro ad — is that the liquidity they provide allows transactions to take place that otherwise wouldn’t. The ability to turn a piece of jewelry or a car into cash allows people to use productive capacities that otherwise would go to waste.

And of course this makes sense. The orthodox view is that money is useful — there must be a reason that we don’t live in a barter world, and more than that, that all this huge industry of liquidity provision exists. But money, for some reason, is not subject to the same kind of smoothly diminishing returns that other useful things are. There is a fixed amount you need, you can’t get by with less, and there’s no benefit at all in having more. The problem is worse than that, since the standard view is that money demand is strictly proportionate to the volume of transactions. But, which transactions? Presumably, the amount of economic activity depends on the availability of money — that’s what it means to say that money is useful. And furthermore, as these ads implicitly make clear, some transactions are more liquidity-intensive than others. No one is offering specialized intermediary services to help you buy a hamburger. So both the level and composition of economic activity must depend on money holdings. But in that case, you can’t say that money holdings depend only on the volume of activity — that would be circular. In a world where money is used at all, it can’t be neutral. An increase in the money supply (or better, in liquidity) may raise prices, but it won’t do so proportionately, since it also enables people to benefit from increasing their money holdings (or: shifting toward more liquid balance sheet positions) and to carry out liquidity-intensive transactions that were formerly unable to.

This is a very old issue in economics. The idea that money should be neutral is as old as the discipline, and so is this line of criticism of it. You can find both already in Hume. In “Of Money,” he lays out the argument that money must be neutral in the long run, since it is just an intrinsically meaningless unit of measure; real wealth depends on real resources, not on the units we count them in. Unlike most later writers, he follows this argument to its logical conclusion, that any resources devoted to liquidity provision are wasted:

This has made me entertain a doubt concerning the benefit of banks and paper-credit, which are so generally esteemed advantageous to every nation. That provisions and labour should become dear by the encrease of trade and money, is, in many respects, an inconvenience; but an inconvenience that is unavoidable, and the effect of that public wealth and prosperity which are the end of all our wishes. … But there appears no reason for encreasing that inconvenience by a counterfeit money, which foreigners will not accept of in any payment, and which any great disorder in the state will reduce to nothing. There are, it is true, many people in every rich state, who having large sums of money, would prefer paper with good security; as being of more easy transport and more safe custody. … And therefore it is better, it may be thought, that a public company should enjoy the benefit of that paper-credit, which always will have place in every opulent kingdom. But to endeavour artificially to encrease such a credit, can never be the interest of any trading nation; but must lay them under disadvantages, by encreasing money beyond its natural proportion to labour and commodities, and thereby heightening their price to the merchant and manufacturer. And in this view, it must be allowed, that no bank could be more advantageous, than such a one as locked up all the money it received, and never augmented the circulating coin, as is usual, by returning part of its treasure into commerce.

You can find similar language in “On the Balance of Trade”:

I scarcely know any method of sinking money below its level [i.e. producing inflation], but those institutions of banks, funds, and paper-credit, which are so much practised in this kingdom. These render paper equivalent to money, circulate it throughout the whole state, make it supply the place of gold and silver, raise proportionably the price of labour and commodities, and by that means either banish a great part of those precious metals, or prevent their farther encrease. What can be more shortsighted than our reasonings on this head? We fancy, because an individual would be much richer, were his stock of money doubled, that the same good effect would follow were the money of every one encreased; not considering, that this would raise as much the price of every commodity, and reduce every man, in time, to the same condition as before. …

It is indeed evident, that money is nothing but the representation of labour and commodities, and serves only as a method of rating or estimating them. Where coin is in greater plenty; as a greater quantity of it is required to represent the same quantity of goods; it can have no effect, either good or bad, taking a nation within itself; any more than it would make an alteration on a merchant’s books, if, instead of the Arabian method of notation, which requires few characters, he should make use of the Roman, which requires a great many.

From this view — which is, again, just taking the neutrality of money to its logical conclusion — services like the ones being advertised on the F train are the exact opposite of what we want. By making more goods usable as money, they are only contributing to inflation. Rather than making it easier for people to use necklaces, furniture, etc. as means of payment, we should rather be discouraging people form using even currency as means of payment, by reducing banks to safe-deposit boxes.

That was where Hume left the matter when he first wrote the essays around 1750. But when he republished “On the Balance of Trade” in 1764, he was no longer so confident. [1] The new edition added a discussion of the development of banking in Scotland with a strikingly different tone:

It must, however, be confessed, that, as all these questions of trade and money are extremely complicated, there are certain lights, in which this subject may be placed, so as to represent the advantages of paper-credit and banks to be superior to their disadvantages. … The encrease of industry and of credit … may be promoted by the right use of paper-money. It is well known of what advantage it is to a merchant to be able to discount his bills upon occasion; and every thing that facilitates this species of traffic is favourable to the general commerce of a state. But private bankers are enabled to give such credit by the credit they receive from the depositing of money in their shops; and the bank of England in the same manner, from the liberty it has to issue its notes in all payments. There was an invention of this kind, which was fallen upon some years ago by the banks of Edinburgh; and which, as it is one of the most ingenious ideas that has been executed in commerce, has also been thought advantageous to Scotland. It is there called a Bank-Credit; and is of this nature. A man goes to the bank and finds surety to the amount, we shall suppose, of a 1000 pounds. This money, or any part of it, he has the liberty of drawing out whenever he pleases, and he pays only the ordinary interest for it, while it is in his hands. … The advantages, resulting from this contrivance, are manifold. As a man may find surety nearly to the amount of his substance, and his bank-credit is equivalent to ready money, a merchant does hereby in a manner coin his houses, his household furniture, the goods in his warehouse, the foreign debts due to him, his ships at sea; and can, upon occasion, employ them in all payments, as if they were the current money of the country.

Hume is describing something like a secured line of credit, not so different from the services being advertised on the F line, which also offer ways to coin your houses and household furniture. The puzzle is why he thinks this is a good thing. The trade credit provided by banks, which is now “favourable to the general commerce of the state,” is precisely what he was trying to prevent when he wrote that the best bank was one that “locked up all the money it received.”Why does he now think that increasing liquidity will stimulate industry, instead of just producing a rise in prices that will “reduce every man, in time, to the same condition as before”?

You can’t really hold it against Hume that he never resolved this contradiction. But what’s striking is how little the debate has advanced in the 250 years since. Indeed, in some ways it’s regressed. Hume at least drew the logical conclusion that in a world of neutral money, liquidity services like the ones advertised on the F train would not exist.

[1] I hadn’t realized this section was a later addition until reading Arie Arnon’s discussion of the essay in Monetary Theory and Policy from Hume and Smith to Wicksell. I hope to be posting more about this superb book in the near future.

Boulding on Interest

Kenneth Boulding, reviewing Maurice Allais’s Économie et intérêt in 1951:

Much work on the theory of interest is hampered at the start by its unquestioned assumption that “the” rate of interest, or even some complex of rates, is a suitable parameter for use in the construction of systems of economic relationships, whether static or dynamic. This is an assumption which is almost universally accepted and yet which seems to me to be very much open to question. My reason for questioning it is that the rate of interest is not an objective magnitude… The rate of interest is not a “price”; its dimensions are those of a rate of growth, not of a ratio of exchange, even though it is sometimes carelessly spoken of as a “price of loanable funds.” What is determined in the market is not strictly the rate of interest but the price of certain “property rights.” These may be securities, either stocks or bonds, or they may be items or collections of physical property. Each of these property rights represents to an individual an expected series of future values, which may be both positive and negative. If this expected series of values can be given some “certainty equivalent” … then the market price of the property determines a rate of interest on the investment. This rate of interest, however, is essentially subjective and depends on the expectations of the individual; the objective phenomenon is the present market price…

It is only the fact that the fulfilment of some expectations seems practically certain that gives us the illusion that there is an objective rate of interest determined in the market. But in strict theory there is no such certainty, even for gilt-edged bonds; and when the uncertainties of life, inflation, and government are taken into consideration, it is evident that this theoretical uncertainty is also a matter of practice. What is more, we cannot assume either that there are any “certain equivalents” of uncertain series for it is the very uncertainty of the future which constitutes its special quality. What this means is that it is quite illegitimate even to begin an interest theory by abstracting from uncertainty or by assuming that this can be taken care of by some “risk premium”; still less is it legitimate to construct a whole theory on these assumptions … without any discussion of the problems which uncertainty creates. What principally governs the desired structure of assets on the part of the individual is the perpetual necessity to hedge — against inflation, against deflation, against the uncertainty in the future of all assets, money included. It is these uncertainties, therefore, which are the principal governors of the demand and supply of all assets without exception, and no theory which abstracts from these uncertainties can claim much significance for economics. Hence, Allais is attempting to do something which simply cannot be done, because it is meaningless to construct a theory of “pure” interest devoid of premiums for risk, liquidity, convenience, amortization, prestige, etc. There is simply no such animal.

In other words: There are contexts when it is reasonable to abstract from uncertainty, and proceed on the basis that people know what will happen in the future, or at least its probability distribution. But interest rates are not such a context, you can’t abstract away from uncertainty there. Because compensation for uncertainty is precisely why interest is paid.

The point that what is set in the market, and what we observe, is never an interest rate as such, but the price of some asset today in terms of money today, is also important.

Boulding continues:

The observed facts are the prices of assets of all kinds. From these prices we may deduce the existence of purely private rates of return. The concept of a historical “yield” also has some validity. But none of these things is a “rate of interest” in the sense of something determined in a market mechanism.

This search for a black cat that isn’t there leads Allais into several extended discussions of almost meaningless and self-constructed questions… Thus he is much worried about the “fact” that a zero rate of interest means an infinite value for land, land representing a perpetual income, which capitalized at a zero rate of interest yields an infinite value… This is a delightful example of the way in which mathematics can lead to an almost total blindness to economic reality. In fact, the income from land is no more perpetual than that from anything else and no more certain. … We might draw a conclusion from this that a really effective zero rate of interest in a world of perfect foresight would lead to an infinite inflation; but, then, perfect foresight would reduce the period of money turnover to zero anyway and would give us an infinite price level willy-nilly! This conclusion is interesting for the light it throws on the complete uselessness of the “perfect foresight” model but for little else. In fact, of course, the element which prevents both prices from rising to infinity and (private) money rates of interest from falling to zero is uncertainty – precisely the factor which Allais has abstracted from. Another of these quite unreal problems which worries him a great deal is why there is always a positive real rate of interest, the answer being of course that there isn’t! …

Allais reflects also another weakness of “pure”interest theory, which is a failure to appreciate the true significance and function of financial institutions and of “interest” as opposed to “profit” – interest in this sense being the rate of growth of value in “securities,” especially bonds, and “profit” being the rate of growth of value of items or combinations of real capital. Even if there were no financial institutions or financial instruments … there would be subjective expected rates of profit and historical yields on past, completed investments. In such a society, however, given the institution of private property, everyone would have to administer his own property. The main purpose of the financial system is to separate “ownership” (i.e., equity) from “control,” or administration, that is, to enable some people to own assets which they do not control, and others to control assets which they do not own. This arrangement is necessitated because there is very little, in the processes by which ownership was historically determined through inheritance and saving, to insure that those who own the resources of society are … capable of administering them. Interest, in the sense of an income received by the owners of securities, is the price which society pays for correcting a defect in the otherwise fruitful institution of private property. It is, of course, desirable that the price should be as small as possible – that is, that there should be as little economic surplus as possible paid to nonadministering owners. It is quite possible, however, that this “service” has a positive supply price in the long run, and thus that, even in the stationary state, interest, as distinct from profit, is necessary to persuade the nonadministering owners to yield up the administration of their capital.

This last point is important, too. Property, we must always remember, is not a relationship between people and things. it is a relationship between people and people. Ownership of an asset means the authority to forbid other people from engaging in a certain set of productive activities. The “product” of the asset is how much other people will pay you not to exercise that right. Historically, of course, the sets of activities associated with a given asset have often been defined in relation to some particular means of production. But this need not be the case. In a sense, the patent or copyright isn’t an extension of the idea of property, but property in its pure form. And even where the rights of an asset owner are defined as those connected with some tangible object, the nature of the connection still has to be specified by convention and law.

According to Wikipedia, Économie et intérêt, published in 1947, introduced a number of major ideas in macroeconomics a decade or more before the American economists they’re usually associated with, including the overlapping generations model and the golden rule for growth. Boulding apparently did not find these contributions worth mentioning. He does, though, have something to say about Allais’s “economic philosophy” which “is a curious combination of Geseel, Henry George and Hayek,” involving “free markets, with plenty of trust- and union-busting, depreciating currency, and 100 per cent reserves in the banking system, plus the appropriation of all scarcity rents and the nationalization of land.” Boulding describes this as “weird enough to hit the jackpot.” It doesn’t seem that weird to me. It sounds like a typical example of a political vision you can trace back to Proudhon and forward through the “Chicago plan” of the 1930s and its contemporary admirers to the various market socialisms and more or less crankish monetary reform plans. (Even Hyman Minsky was drawn to this strain of politics, according to Perry Mehrling’s superb biographical essay.)What all these have in common is that they see the obvious inconsistency between capitalism as we observe it around us and the fairy tales of ideal market exchange, but they don’t reject the ideal. Instead, they propose a program of intrusive regulations to compel people to behave as they are supposed to in an unregulated market. They want to make the fairy tales true by legislation. Allais’ proposal for currency depreciation is not normally part of this package; it’s presumably a response to late-1940s conditions in France. But other than that these market utopias are fairly consistent. In particular, it’s always essential to reestablish the objectivity of money.

Finally, in a review full of good lines, I particularly like this one:

Allais’s work is another demonstration that mathematics and economics, though good complements, are very imperfect substitutes. Mathematics can manipulate parameters once formulated and draw conclusions out which were already implicit in the assumptions. But skills of the mathematician are no substitute for the proper skill of the economist, which is that of selecting the most significant parameters to go into the system.

Liquidity Preference and Solidity Preference in the 19th Century

So I’ve been reading Homer and Sylla’s History of Interest Rates. One of the many fascinating things I’ve learned, is that in the market for federal debt, what we today call an inverted yield curve was at one time the norm.

From the book:

Three small loans floated in 1820–1821, principally to permit the continued redemption of high rate war loans, provide an interesting clue to investor preference… These were:

$4.7 million “5s of 1820,” redeemable in 1832; sold at 100 = 5%.
“6s of 1820,” redeemable at pleasure of United States; sold at 102 = 5.88%.
“5s of 1821,” redeemable in 1835; sold at 1051⁄8 =4.50%, and at 108 = 4.25%.

The yield was highest for the issue with early redemption risk and much lower for those with later redemption risks.

Nineteenth century government bonds were a bit different from modern bonds, in that the principal was repaid at the option of the borrower; repayment is usually not permitted until a certain date. [1] They were also sold with a fixed yield in terms of face value — that’s what the “5” and “6” refer to — but the actual yield depended on the discount or premium they were sold at. The important thing for our purposes is that the further away the earliest possible date of repayment is, the lower the interest rate — the opposite of the modern term premium. That’s what the passage above is saying.

The pattern isn’t limited to the 1820-21 bonds, either; it seems to exist through most of the 19th century, at least for the US. It’s the same with the massive borrowing during the Civil War:

In 1864, although the war was approaching its end, it had only been half financed. The Treasury was able to sell a large volume of bonds, but not at such favorable terms as the market price of its seasoned issues might suggest. Early in the year another $100 million of the 5–20s [bonds with a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum of 20] were sold and then a new longer issue was sold as follows:

1864—$75 million “6s” redeemable in 1881, tax-exempt; sold at 104.45 = 5.60%.

The Treasury soon made an attempt to sell 5s, which met with a lukewarm reception. In order to attract investors to the lower rate the Treasury extended the term to redemption from five to ten years and the maturity from twenty to forty years:

1864—$73 million “5%, 10–40s of 1864,” redeemable 1874, due in 1904, tax-exempt; sold at 100 = 5%.

Isn’t that striking? The Treasury couldn’t get investors to buy its shorter bonds at an acceptable rate, so they had to issue longer bonds instead. You wouldn’t see that story today.

The same pattern continues through the 1870s, with the new loans issue to refinance the Civil War debt. The first issue of bonds, redeemable in five to ten years sold at an interest rate of 5%; the next issue, redeemable in 13-15 years sold at 4.5%; and the last issue, redeemable in 27-29 years, sold at 4%. And it doesn’t seem like this is about expectations of a change in rates, like with a modern inverted yield curve. Investors simply were more worried about being stuck with uninvestable cash than about being stuck with unsaleable securities. This is a case where “solidity preference” dominates liquidity preference.

One possible way of explaining this in terms of Axel Leijonhufvud’s explanation of the yield curve.

The conventional story for why long loans normally have higher interest rates than short ones is that longer loans impose greater risks on lenders. They may not be able to convert the loan to cash if they need to make some payment before it matures, and they may suffer a capital loss if interest rates change during the life of the loan. But this can’t be the whole story, because short loans create the symmetric risk of not knowing what alternative asset will be available when the loan matures. In the one case, the lender risks a capital loss, but in the other case they risk getting a lower income. Why is “capital uncertainty” a greater concern than “income uncertainty”?

The answer, Leijonhufvud suggests, lies in

Keynes’ … “Vision” of a world in which currently active households must, directly or indirectly, hold their net worth in the form of titles to streams that run beyond their consumption horizon. The duration of the relevant consumption plan is limited by the sad fact that “in the Long Run, we are all dead.” But the great bulk of the “Fixed Capital of the modem world” is very long- term in nature and is thus destined to survive the generation which now owns it. This is the basis for the wealth effect of changes in asset values.

The interesting point about this interpretation of the wealth effect is that it also provides a price-theoretical basis for Keynes’ Liquidity Preference theory. … Keynes’ (as well as Hicks’) statement of this hypothesis has been repeatedly criticized for not providing any rationale for the presumption that the system as a whole wants to shed “capital uncertainty” rather than “income uncertainty.” But Keynes’ mortal consumers cannot hold land, buildings, corporate equities, British consols, or other permanent income sources “to maturity.” When the representative, risk-averting transactor is nonetheless induced by the productivity of roundabout processes to invest his savings in such income sources, he must be resigned to suffer capital uncertainty. Forward markets will therefore generally show what Hicks called a “constitutional weakness” on the demand side.

I would prefer not to express this in terms of households’ consumption plans. And I would emphasize that the problem with wealth in the form of long-lived production processes is not just that it produces income far into the future, but that wealth in this form is always in danger of losing its character as money. Once capital is embodied in a particular production process and the organization that carries it out, it tends to evolve into the means of carrying out that organization’s intrinsic purposes, instead of the capital’s own self-expansion. But for this purpose, the difference doesn’t matter; either way, the problem only arises once you have, as Leijonhufvud puts it, “a system ‘tempted’ by the profitability of long processes to carry an asset stock which turns over more slowly than [wealth owners] would otherwise want.”

The temptation of long-lived production processes is inescapable in modern economies, and explains the constant search for liquidity. But in the pre-industrial United States? I don’t think so. Long-lived means of production were much less important, and to the extent they did exist, they weren’t an outlet for money-capital. Capital’s role in production was to finance stocks of raw materials, goods in process and inventories. There was no such thing, I don’t think, as investment by capitalists in long-lived capital goods. And even land — the long-lived asset in most settings — was not really an option, since it was abundant. The early United States is something like Samuelson’s consumption-loan world, where there is no good way to convert command over current goods into future production. [2] So there is excess demand rather than excess supply for long-lasting sources of income.

The switch over to positive term premiums comes early in the 20th century. By the 1920s, short-term loans in the New York market consistently have lower rates than corporate bonds, and 3-month Treasury bills have rates below longer bonds. Of course the organization of financial markets changed quite a lot in this period too, so one wouldn’t want to read too much into this timing. But it is at least consistent with the Leijonhufvud story. Liquidity preference becomes dominant in financial markets only once there has been a decisive shift toward industrial production by long-lived firm using capital-intensive techniques, and once claims on those firms has become a viable outlet for money-capital.

* * *

A few other interesting points about 19th century US interest rates. First, they were remarkably stable, at least before the 1870s. (This fits with the historical material on interest rates that Merijn Knibbe has been presenting in his excellent posts at Real World Economics Review.)

Second, there’s no sign of a Fisher equation. Nominal interest rates do not respond to changes in the price level, at all. Homer and Sylla mention that in earlier editions of the book, which dealt less with the 20th century, the concept of a “real” interest rate was not even mentioned.

As you can see from this graph, none of the major inflations or deflations between 1850 and 1960 had any effect on nominal interest rates. The idea that there is a fundamentals-determined “real” interest rate while the nominal rate adjusts in response to changes in the price level, clearly has no relevance outside the past 50 years. (Whether it describes the experience of the past 50 years either is a question for another time.)

Finally, there is no sign of “crowding out” of private by public borrowing. It is true that the federal government did have to pay somewhat higher rates during the periods of heavy borrowing (and of course also political uncertainty) in the War of 1812 and the Civil War. But rates for other borrowers didn’t budge. And on the other hand, the surpluses that resulted in the redemption of the entire debt in the 1830s didn’t deliver lower rates for other borrowers. Homer and Sylla:

Boston yields were about the same in 1835, when the federal debt was wiped out, as they were in 1830; this reinforces the view that there was little change in going rates of long-term interest during this five- year period of debt redemption.

If government borrowing really raises rates for private borrowers, you ought to see it here, given the absence of a central bank for most of this period and the enormous scale of federal borrowing during the Civil War. But you don’t.

[1] It seems that most, though not all, bonds were repaid at the earliest possible redemption date, so it is reasonably similar to the maturity of a modern bond.

[2] Slaves are the big exception. So the obvious test for the argument I am making here would be to find the modern pattern of term premiums in the South. Unfortunately, Homer and Sylla aren’t any help on this — it seems the only local bond markets in this period were in New England.