(I am now writing a monthly opinion piece for Barron’s. This one was published there in July.)
To listen to economic policy debates today, you would think the U.S. economy has just one problem: inflation. When Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was asked at his last press conference if there was a danger in going too far in the fight against inflation, his answer was unequivocal: “The worst mistake we could make is to fail—it’s not an option. We have to restore price stability…because [it’s] everything, it’s the bedrock of the economy. If you don’t have price stability, the economy’s really not going to work.”
Few would dispute that rising prices are a serious problem. But are they everything?
The exclusive focus on inflation acts like a lens on our view of the economy—sharpening our attention on some parts of the picture, but blurring, distorting, and hiding from view many others.
In the wake of the Great Recession, there was a broadening of macroeconomic debates. Economists and policy makers shifted away from textbook truisms toward a more nuanced and realistic view of the economy. Today, this wide-ranging conversation has given way to panic over rising prices. But the realities that prompted those debates have not gone away.
In the clamor over inflation, we’re losing sight of at least four big macroeconomic questions.
First, does the familiar distinction between supply and demand really make sense at the level of the economy as a whole? In the textbooks, supply means the maximum level of production in the economy, labeled “full employment” or “potential output,” while demand means total spending. The two are supposed to be independent—changes in spending don’t affect how much the economy can produce, and vice versa. This is why we are used to thinking of business cycles and growth as two separate problems.
But in the real world, supply often responds to demand—more spending calls forth more investment and draws people into the labor force. This phenomenon, known by the unlovely name “hysteresis,” was clearly visible in the slowdown of labor force and productivity growth after the Great Recession, and their recovery when demand picked up in the years before the pandemic. The key lesson of this experience—in danger of being forgotten in today’s inflation panic—was that downturns are even more costly than we thought, since they not only imply lost output today but reduced capacity in the future.
Hysteresis is usually discussed at the level of the economy as a whole, but it also exists in individual markets and industries. For example, one reason airfares are high today is that airlines, anticipating a more sustained fall in demand for air travel, offered early retirement to thousands of senior pilots in the early stages of the pandemic. Recruiting and training new pilots is a slow process, one airlines will avoid unless it’s clear that strong demand is here to stay. So while conventional wisdom says that rising prices mean that we have too much spending and have to reduce it, in a world with hysteresis a better solution may be to maintain strong demand, so that supply can rise to meet it. In the textbook, we can restore price stability via lower demand with no long-run costs to growth. But are we sure things work so nicely in the real world?
The second big question is about the labor market. Here the textbook view is that there is a unique level of unemployment that allows wages to grow in line with productivity. When unemployment is lower than this “natural rate,” faster wage growth will be passed on to rising prices, until policy makers take action to force unemployment back up. But in the years before the pandemic, it was becoming clear that this picture is too simplistic. Rising wages don’t have to be passed on to higher prices—they may also come at the expense of profits, or spur faster productivity growth. And not all wages are equally responsive to unemployment. Younger, less-educated, and lower-wage workers are more dependent on tight labor markets to find work and get raises, while the incomes of workers with experience and credentials rise more steadily regardless of macroeconomic conditions. This means that—as Powell has acknowledged—macroeconomic policy has unavoidable distributional consequences.
In his classic essay “Political Aspects of Full Employment,” the great Polish economist Michal Kalecki argued that even if it were economically feasible to eliminate unemployment, this would be unsustainable, since employers’ authority in the workplace depends on “the threat of the sack.” Similar arguments have been made by central bank chiefs such as Alan Greenspan, who suggested that low unemployment was sustainable in the 1990s only because workers had been traumatized by the deep recession of the decade before.
Some would argue that it’s unnecessarily wasteful and cruel to maintain labor discipline and price stability by denying millions of people the chance to do useful work—especially given that, prior to the pandemic, unemployment had fallen well below earlier estimates of the “natural rate” with no sign of accelerating inflation. But if we wish to have a permanent full-employment economy, we need to answer a difficult question: How should we manage distributional conflicts between workers and owners (and among workers), and motivate people to work when they have little to fear from losing their job?
A third set of questions concerns globalization. There are widespread fears that renewed Covid lockdowns in China may limit exports to the U.S. and elsewhere. Seen through the inflation lens, this looks like a source of rising prices and a further argument for monetary tightening. But if we take a step back, we might ask whether it is wise to organize the global economy in such a way that lockdowns in China, a war in Ukraine, or even a factory fire in Japan leave people all over the world unable to meet their basic needs. The deepening of trade and financial links across borders is sometimes presented as a fact of nature. But in reality it reflects policy choices that allowed global production of all kinds of goods—from semiconductors to Christmas decorations and latex gloves—to be concentrated in a handful of locations. In some cases, this concentration is motivated by genuine technical advantages of larger-scale production, in others by the pursuit of low wages. But either way, it reflects a prioritization of cost minimization over flexibility and resiliency. Whatever happens with inflation, this is a trade-off that will have to be revisited in coming years, as climate change makes further disruptions in global supply chains all but inevitable.
Then there is climate change. Here, the inflation lens doesn’t just recolor the picture but practically reverses it. Until recently, the conventional wisdom was that a carbon tax was the key policy tool for addressing climate. An Obama-era economist once quipped that the big question on climate was whether a carbon tax was 80% of the solution, or 100%. A carbon tax would increase the prices of energy, which still mainly comes from fossil fuels, and of travel by private car. As it happens, this is exactly what we have seen: Autos and energy have increased much faster than other prices, to the point that these two categories account for a majority of the excess inflation over the past year. In effect, we’ve seen something like a global carbon tax. But far from welcoming the disproportionate rise in the prices of carbon-intensive goods as a silver lining of inflation, both policy makers and the public see it as an urgent problem to be solved.
To be clear, people are not wrong to be unhappy at the rising cost of cars and energy. In the absence of practical alternatives, these high prices inflict real hardship without necessarily doing much to speed the transition from carbon. One reasonable lesson, then, is that a carbon tax high enough to substantially reduce emissions will be politically intolerable. And indeed, before the pandemic, many economists were already shifting away from a carbon-price-focused approach to climate policy toward an investment-centered approach.
Whether via carbon prices or investment, the only way to reduce carbon emissions is to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Yet an increasing swath of the policy conversation is focused on how to encourage more drilling by oil-and-gas companies, not just today but into the indefinite future. As a response to today’s rising energy prices, this is understandable, given the genuine limitations of renewable energy. But how can measures to boost the supply of fossil fuels be consistent with a longer-term program of decarbonization?
None of these questions have easy answers. But the danger of focusing too single-mindedly on inflation is that we may not even try to answer them.
One way current debates over inflation sometimes get framed is whether it’s driven by supply or demand. Critics of the ARPA and other stimulus measures point to various lines of evidence to suggest that rising prices are coming from the demand side, not the supply side; and of course you can find the opposite arguments among its defenders. This sometimes gets conflated with the question of how persistent inflation is likely to be, with a preference for supply-side explanations putting you on “team transitory.”
In my opinion, the question in this form is not well specified. It makes no sense to ask if price rises are driven by supply or by demand. A mismatch between aggregate demand and aggregate supply is one explanation for inflation. To say “inflation would be lower if aggregate demand were lower” is exactly the same statement as “inflation would be lowerif aggregate supply were higher.” This story is about the difference between the two.
The first step, then, is to think about how we can reframe the question in a meaningful way. The issue of specific indicators is downstream from this, as is the question of how long one might expect higher inflation to last.
Here are some quick thoughts on how we might clarify this debate.
1. Insofar as we are explaining price changes in terms of aggregate demand and aggregate supply (or potential output) this is a story about an imbalance between the two of them. If we are using this framework, any change in inflation is fully explained by supply *and* fully explained by demand. To turn this into an either-or question, we have to pose an explicit counterfactual. For example, we might say that current spending levels would have led to no (or less) rise in inflation if it weren’t for pandemic. Or we might say that the disruptions of the pandemic would have led to no (or less) rise in inflation if it weren’t for the stimulus bills. The problem is, these aren’t alternatives — bothmight very well be true!
2. If the question is specifically whether current aggregate demand in the US would be inflationary even without the pandemic and Ukraine war, it seems to me that the answer is unequivocally No. The fact that real GDP is no higher than trend is, to me, absolutely decisive here. Suppose we thought that two years from now, the economy operating at normal capacity will be capable of producing a certain quantity of cars, houses, tv shows, haircuts, etc. Now suppose two years pass, and we find that people are in fact buying exactly the quantity of cars, houses, tv shows, haircuts, etc. that we had predicted,. If inflation has nonetheless risen, the only possible explanation, within the supply-vs-demand framework, is that the productive capacity of the economy is less than we expected. If buying a certain quantity of stuff is not inflationary in one year, but is inflationary in a later year, then (within this framework) by definition that means that potential output is lower.
Of course it may be true in this scenario that the nominal value of spending will be higher. But this precisely because prices have risen. Suggesting that higher nominal expenditure explains higher inflation is arguing in a circle — it is using the rise in prices to explain that same rise in prices.
To put it another way, aggregate supply or potential output are describing the quantity of stuff we can produce. It makes no sense to say that the potential output of the US economy is $22 trillion dollars. People who look at nominal expenditure in this context are just confused.
(It’s also worth noting that nominal GDP was below pre-pandemic trend until the last quarter of 2021, at which point inflation had been above target and accelerating for a year already. So this story fails on the basis of timing as well as logic.)
So in this specific sense, I think the supply story is simply right, and the demand story is simply wrong. There is no reason to think that the aggregate quantity of goods and services people are trying to purchase today would be beyond normal capacity limits in the absence of the pandemic.
3. Again, though, it all depends on the counterfactual. It does not contradict the preceding point to say that if the ARPA had been smaller, inflation would be lower. Given a fall in the economy’s productive capacity, you are going to see some combination of lower output and income, and higher inflation, with the mix depending on the extent to which demand also falls. Again, demand and supply are two sides of the same story. It’s perfectly consistent to say that in the absence of the pandemic, today’s level of spending would not have caused any rise in inflation, and that if we had allowed spending to fall in line with the fall in potential, the supply disruptions would not have caused any rise in inflation.
This means the question of whether ARPA was too big is not really a question about inflation as such. It is not going to resolved by any data on whether inflation is limited to a few sectors or is broader, or whether inflation peaked at the end of 2021 or at some later date. The answer to this question depends on how we weigh the relative costs of rising prices versus lost income and output. The more socially costly you think inflation is, the more you are going to think that ARPA was too big. The more socially costly you think unemployment and the associated loss of income is, the more you are going to think the ARPA was the right size, or too small. It seems to me that this is what a lot of the debate over “supply” versus “demand” stories of inflation are really about.
4. So far, I’ve been using an aggregate supply and aggregate demand framework, which is how people usually talk about inflation. But as readers of this blog will know, I am generally skeptical that rising prices are best thought of at the aggregate level. If we don’t like the aggregate framework, we might tell micro stories. There are several flavors of these, any or all of which which could be true.
First, there is there’s a story about changes in the composition of demand. It’s easy for a business or industry produce less than it usually does, but hard to produce more — especially in a hurry. So sectors of the economy that face reduced demand are likely to respond with lower output, while sectors that face increased demand are likely to respond in some large part with higher prices, especially if the increase is large and rapid. That means we should expect rapid shifts in demand to be associated with higher inflation, even if the total volume of demand is unchanged.
That’s one micro story. Another is that when certain sectors of the economy face supply constraints, it may be hard to substitute elsewhere. If demand for the sectors facing bottlenecks is very inelastic, and/or they are important inputs for other sectors, then the fall in capacity in those sectors may have a larger effect on prices than a similar across-the-board fall in productive capacity would.
Another, simpler micro story is that there is no useful information in the aggregate price level at all. If prices are rising for particular goods and services, that is best understood in terms of production conditions and demand for those particular things.
What these stories suggest is that the aggregate supply/demand framework is less useful when there are large, rapid shifts in the composition of spending or production. That framework may be reasonable when we are talking about an economy undergoing steady growth and want to know if somewhat faster growth (spurred perhaps by across the board easier credit) would lead to higher inflation. But it’s not very useful when the economy is undergoing major qualitative changes. It’s not even clear how the concept of aggregate supply is defined when we are seeing big shifts in the composition of output.
To be clear, none of these micro stories are necessarily arguments for a “supply side” explanation of inflation. Rather, they are reasons why the supply versus demand framework might not be helpful.
5. Another story about inflation that often gets conflated with aggregate demand but should not be is the extent to which higher wages are driving inflation. In the standard textbook story, the mechanism by which higher demand raises prices is through higher wages. In the textbook story — this is totally mainstream — there are no constraints on the supply side except the supply of labor. The reason higher demand leads to higher inflation is that lower unemployment leads workers to obtain higher wages, which then get passed on to prices. We know this is the theory the Fed is working with. And people like Krugman are saying that there’s no way to have lower inflation without “getting wage growth down considerably.”
But even though these two things are linked in the textbook story, they are logically distinct. When we talk about a demand-side story of inflation, we need to be clear whether and to what extent this is a story about wages specifically. And as Krugman emphasizes in the linked piece, the question of whether reducing inflation will require slower wage growth is logically independent of the question of whether higher wages are what has driven rising inflation so far.
6. So what is actually at stake here? Before we start talking about who is on what team, we should be sure we know what game they are playing, and where the goals are.
It seems to me that, operationally, the big question people are arguing about is: if real activity — and in particular the labor market — remains on its current trend, will inflation eventually come down on its own? Or if not, can interventions in specific sectors reduce it? Or is a significant slowing of activity across the board required? This forward-looking question is what the fighting is really about.
There is some relationship between these questions and the causes of inflation, but they are not the same. For example, it is certainly more plausible that resolving a small number of bottlenecks would bring prices down when the price increases are concentrated in a few sectors. But one might also believe — as I and others have long argued — that we underestimate the flexibility of the supply side of the economy in general. If you believe in hysteresis, then even a general overheating might over time lead to faster growth of potential output, as more people are drawn into the labor force and businesses invest and raise productivity. So unless you start from the premise that potential output is normally fixed, “inflation is widespread, therefore we need less demand” is a non sequitur.
(In this light, it would be worth systematically revisiting the arguments about hysteresis made by Lawrence Summers and others during the 2010s.)
7. The question of whether reducing inflation requires lower demand and weaker labor markets is inextricable from your political program and broader worldview. At this moment, we are on the verge of seeing a major new public investment bill that is being presented as a way of bringing down inflation and creating good jobs. This is a huge vindication for arguments that progressives have been putting forward for years. It would be odd if we now turned around and said, “no no, investing in clean energy won’t help with inflation. And we don’t want more jobs, there’s too much demand in the economy already.” If you think that the clean energy investments in the IRA will in fact bring down prices over time, you need an understanding of inflation that’s consistent with that. And if your view of inflation implies that we would be better off not making those investments at this time, then you need to own that position.
(Some people will say the bill is anti-inflationary because it lowers the deficit. First of all, it seems unlikely that the specific tax increases in the IRA will have much if any dampening effect on demand, while the spending components certainly will boost it. Second, even if you thought the bill as a whole will reduce inflation, you still need to have a view on whether the energy provisions specifically will do so.)
I’m not saying you should just make the economic arguments that support your political program. It’s very important to only say things that are supported by logic and evidence! But presumably, you have the worldview you do because it captures important things you think are true about the world. If your analysis of inflation is not consistent with other things that you strongly believe, that suggests that there might be something wrong with your analysis.
For example, you might believe that potential employment in the US is much higher than conventional estimates of unemployment or the labor force suggest. You could arrive at this belief on the basis of statistical evidence and also from other beliefs that you are strongly committed to — for example, that women and non-white people are just as capable of useful work as white men are. This argument runs directly against claims that the US is currently facing hard supply constraints, so that the only way the growth in wages and prices will moderate is via lower demand. If the conventional unemployment rate vastly understated the number of people available for work in 2015, presumably it still does today. You can’t just ignore those earlier arguments when talking about current inflation.
Similarly, you might believe that business investment and productivity growth depend on demand. Or you might think they depend on decisions made at the firm level — that corporations face a choice between long-term growth and short-term returns to shareholders, which they will make differently in different institutional and legal environments. These long-standing arguments are relevant to the question of whether it’s plausible that corporate profiteering is contributing to current price rises, and whether changes to taxes and regulation could bring down inflation without any need to reduce demand. They are also relevant to the question of whether given sustained strong demand, supply will eventually catch up, via higher investment and faster productivity growth. This Gavin Wright paper argues that scarce labor and rising wages drove the acceleration of productivity growth in the late 1990s. How convincing you find that argument should be relevant to your assessment of inflation today.
Or again, the question of whether conventional monetary policy should be the go-to response to inflation is not (only) a question about inflation. You could have a fully “demand side” account of rising rents — that they are entirely driven by rising incomes, and not by any change in the housing supply — and yet also believe that higher interest rates, by discouraging housing construction, will only make the problem worse.
It’s a big mistake, in my opinion, to debate inflation in isolation, or to think that debates over inflation are going to be resolved with statistical tests. We first need to step back and think carefully about what question we are trying to answer, and about what account of inflation is consistent with our broader intellectual commitments. The reason I disagree with someone like Jason Furman about inflation isn’t because I have a different read on this or that data series. (I like his empirical work!) We see inflation differently because we have different ideas about how the world works.
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 generalis 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.5Dividends 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 Timessniffs, 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.
(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.
Last week, my Roosevelt colleague Mike Konczal said on twitter that he endorsed the Fed’s decision to raise the federal funds rate, and the larger goal of using higher interest rates to weaken demand and slow growth. Mike is a very sharp guy, and I generally agree with him on almost everything. But in this case I disagree.
The disagreement may partly be about the current state of the economy. I personally don’t think the inflation we’re seeing reflects any general “overheating.” I don’t think there’s any meaningful sense in which current employment and wage growth are too fast, and should be slower. But at the end of the day, I don’t think Mike’s and my views are very different on this. The real issue is not the current state of the economy, but how much confidence we have in the Fed to manage it.
So: Should the Fed be raising rates to control inflation? The fact that inflation is currently high is not, in itself, evidence that conventional monetary policy is the right tool for bringing it down. The question we should be asking, in my opinion, is not, “how many basis points should the Fed raise rates this year?” It is, how conventional monetary policy affects inflation at all, at what cost, and whether it is the right tool for the job. And if not, what should we be doing instead?
What Do Rate Hikes Do?
AtPowell’s press conference, Chris Rugaber of the AP asked an excellent question: What is the mechanism by which a higher federal funds rate is supposed to bring down inflation, if not by raising unemployment?9 Powell’s answer was admirably frank: “There is a very, very tight labor market, tight to an unhealthy level. Our tools work as you describe … if you were moving down the number of job openings, you would have less upward pressure on wages, less of a labor shortage.”
Powell is clear about what he is trying to do. If you make it hard for businesses to borrow, some will invest less, leading to less demand for labor, weakening workers’ bargaining power and forcing them to accept lower wages (which presumably get passed on to prices, tho he didn’t spell that step out.) If you endorse today’s rate hikes, and the further tightening it implies, you are endorsing the reasoning behind it: labor markets are too tight, wages are rising too quickly, workers have too many options, and we need to shift bargaining power back toward the bosses.
Rather than asking exactly how fast the Fed should be trying to raise unemployment and slow wage growth, we should be asking whether this is the only way to control inflation; whether it will in fact control inflation; and whether the Fed can even bring about these outcomes in the first place.
Both hiring and pricing decisions are made by private businesses (or, in a small number of cases, in decentralized auction markets.) The Fed can’t tell them what to do. What it can do – what it is doing – is raise the overnight lending rate between banks, and sell off some part of the mortgage-backed securities and long-dated Treasury bonds that it currently holds.
A higher federal funds rate will eventually get passed on to other interest rates, and also (and perhaps more importantly) to credit conditions in general — loan standards and so on. Some parts of the financial system are more responsive to the federal funds rate than others. Some businesses and activities are more dependent on credit than others.
Higher rates and higher lending standards will, eventually, discourage borrowing. More quickly and reliably, they will raise debt service costs for households, businesses and governments, reducing disposable income. This is probably the most direct effect of rate hikes. It still depends on the degree to which market rates are linked to the policy rate set by the Fed, which in practice they may not be. But if we are looking for predictable results of a rate hike, higher debt service costs are one of the best candidates. Monetary tightening may or may not have a big effect on unemployment, inflation or home prices, but it’s certainly going to raise mortgage payments — indeed, the rise in mortgage rates we’ve seen in recent months presumably is to some degree in anticipation of rate hikes.
Higher debt service costs disposable income for households and retained earnings for business, reducing consumption and investment spending respectively. If they rise far enough, they will also lead to an increase in defaults on debt.
(As an aside, it’s worth noting that a significant and rising part of recent inflation is owners’ equivalent rent, which is a BLS estimate of how much homeowners could hypothetically get if they rented out their homes. It is not a price paid by anyone. Meanwhile, mortgage payments, which are the main actual housing cost for homeowners, are not included in the CPI. It’s a bit ironic that in response to a rise in a component of “housing costs” that is not actually a cost to anyone, the Fed is taking steps to raise what actually is the biggest component of housing costs.)
Finally, a rate hike may cause financial assets to fall in value — not slowly, not predictably, but eventually. This is the intended effect of the asset sales.
Asset prices are very far from a simple matter of supply and demand — there’s no reason to think that a small sale of, say 10-year bonds will have any discernible effect on the corresponding yield (unless the Fed announces a target for the yield, in which case the sale itself would be unnecessary.) But again, eventually, sufficient rate hikes and asset sales will presumably lead asset prices to fall. When they do fall, it will probably by a lot at once rather than a little at a time – when assets are held primarily for capital gains, their price can continue rising or fall sharply, but it cannot remain constant. If you own something because you think it will rise in value, then if it stays at the current price, the current price is too high.
Lower asset values in turn will discourage new borrowing (by weakening bank balance sheets, and raising bond yields) and reduce the net worth of households (and also of nonprofits and pension funds and the like), reducing their spending. High stock prices are often a major factor in periods of rising consumption,like the 1990s; a stock market crash could be expected to have the opposite impact.
What can we say about all these channels? First, they will over time lead to less spending in the economy, lower incomes, and less employment. This is how hikes have an effect on inflation, if they do. There is no causal pathway from rate hikes to lower inflation that doesn’t pass through reduced incomes and spending along the way. And whether or not you accept the textbook view that the path from demand to prices runs via unemployment wage growth, it is still the case that reduced output implies less demand for labor, meaning slower growth in employment and wages.
That is the first big point. There is no immaculate disinflation.
Second, rate hikes will have a disproportionate effect on certain parts of the economy. The decline in output, incomes and employment will initially come in the most interest-sensitive parts of the economy — construction especially. Rising rates will reduce wealth and income for indebted households. 10. Over time, this will cause further falls in income and employment in the sectors where these households reduce spending, as well as in whatever categories of spending that are most sensitive to changes in wealth. In some cases, like autos, these may be the same areas where supply constraints have been a problem. But there’s no reason to think this will be the case in general.
It’s important to stress that this is not a new problem. One of the things hindering a rational discussion of inflation policy, it seems to me, is the false dichotomy that either we were facing transitory, pandemic-related inflation, or else the textbook model of monetary policy is correct. But as the BIS’s Claudio Borio and coauthors notein a recent article, even before the pandemic, “measured inflation [was] largely the result of idiosyncratic (relative) price changes… not what the theoretical definition of inflation is intended to capture, i.e. a generalised increase in prices.” The effects of monetary policy, meanwhile, “operate through a remarkably narrow set of prices, concentrated mainly in the more cyclically sensitive service sectors.”
These are broadly similar results to a2019 paper by Stock and Watson, which finds that only a minority of prices show a consistent correlation with measures of cyclical activity.11 It’s true that in recent months, inflation has not been driven by auto prices specifically. But it doesn’t follow that we’re now seeing all prices rising together. In particular, non-housing services (which make up about 30 percent of the CPI basket) are still contributing almost nothing to the excess inflation. Yet, if you believe the BIS results (which seem plausible), it’s these services where the effects of tightening will be felt most.
This shows the contribution to annualized inflation above the 2% target, over rolling three-month periods. My analysis of CPI data.
The third point is that all of this takes time. It is true that some asset prices and market interest rates may move as soon as the Fed funds rate changes — or even in advance of the actual change, as with mortgage rates this year. But the translation from this to real activity is much slower. The Fed’s ownFRB/US model says that the peak effect of a rate change comes about two years later; there are significant effects out to the fourth year. What the Fed is doing now is, in an important sense, setting policy for the year 2024 or 2025. How confident should we be about what demand conditions will look like then? Given how few people predicted current inflation, I would say: not very confident.
This connects to the fourth point, which is that there is no reason to think that the Fed can deliver a smooth, incremental deceleration of demand. (Assuming we agreed that that’s what’s called for.) In part this is because of the lags just mentioned. The effects of tightening are felt years in the future, but the Fed only gets data in real time. The Fed may feel they’ve done enough once they see unemployment start to rise. But by that point, they’ll have baked several more years of rising unemployment into the economy. It’s quite possible that by the time the full effects of the current round of tightening are felt, the US economy will be entering a recession.
This is reinforced when we think about the channels policy actually works through. Empirical studies of investment spending tend to find that it is actually quite insensitive to interest rates. The effect of hikes, when it comes, is likelier to be through Minskyan channels — at some point, rising debt service costs and falling asset values lead to a cascading chain of defaults.
In and Out of the Corridor
A broader reason we should doubt that the Fed can deliver a glide path to slower growth is that the economy is a complex system, with both positive and negative feedbacks; which feedbacks dominate depends on the scale of the disturbance. In practice, small disturbances are often self-correcting; to have any effect, a shock has to be big enough to overcome this homeostasis.
Axel Leijonhufvudlong ago described this as a “corridor of stability”: economic units have buffers in the form of liquid assets and unused borrowing capacity, which allow them to avoid adjusting expenditure in response to small changes in income or costs. This means the Keynesian multiplier is small or zero for small changes in autonomous demand. But once buffers start to get exhausted, responses become much larger, as the income-expenditure positive feedback loop kicks in.
The most obvious sign of this is the saw-tooth pattern in long-run series of employment and output. We don’t see smooth variation in growth rates around a trend. Rather, we see two distinct regimes: extended periods of steady output and employment growth, interrupted by shorter periods of negative growth. Real economies experience well-defined expansions and recessions, not generic “fluctuations”.
This pattern is discussed in a very interesting recent paper by Antonio Fatas,“The Elusive State of Full Employment.” The central observation of the paper is that whether you measure labor market slack by the conventional unemployment rate or in some other way (the detrended prime-age employment-population ratio is his preferred measure), the postwar US does not show any sign of convergence back to a state of full employment. Rather, unemployment falls and employment rises at a more or less constant rate over an expansion, until it abruptly gives way to a recession. There are no extended periods in which (un)employment rates remain stable.
One implication of this is that the economy spends very little time at potential or full employment; indeed, as he says, the historical pattern should raise questions whether a level of full employment is meaningful at all.
the results of this paper also cast doubt on the empirical relevance of the concepts of full employment or the natural rate of unemployment. … If this interpretation is correct, our estimates of the natural rate of unemployment are influenced by the length of expansions. As an example, if the global pandemic had happened in 2017 when unemployment was around 4.5%, it is very likely that we would be thinking of unemployment rates as low as 3.5% as unachievable.
There are many ways of arriving at this same point. For example, he finds that the (un)employment rate at the end of an expansion is strongly predicted by the rate at the beginning, suggesting that what we are seeing is not convergence back to an equilibrium but simply a process of rising employment that continues until something ends it.
Another way of looking at this pattern is that any negative shock large enough to significantly slow growth will send it into reverse — that, in effect, growth has a “stall speed” below which it turns into recession. If this weren’t the case, we would sometimes see plateaus or gentle hills in the employment rate. But all we see are sharp peaks.
In short: Monetary policy is an anti-inflation tool that works, when it does, by lowering employment and wages; by reducing spending in a few interest-sensitive sectors of the economy, which may have little overlap with those where prices are rising; whose main effects take longer to be felt than we can reasonably predict demand conditions; and that is more likely to provoke a sharp downturn than a gradual deceleration.
Is Macroeconomic Policy the Responsibility of the Fed?
One reason I don’t think we should be endorsing this move is that we shouldn’t be endorsing the premise that the US is facing dangerously overheated labor markets. But the bigger reason is that conventional monetary policy is a bad way of managing the economy, and entails a bad way of thinking about the economy. We should not buy into a framework in which problems of rising prices or slow growth or high unemployment get reduced to “what should the federal funds rate do?”
What’s missing here is any policy action by anyone other than the Fed. It’s this narrowing of the discussion I object to, more than the rate increase as such.
Rents are rising rapidly right now — at an annual rate of about 6 percent as measured by the CPI. And there is reason to think that this number understates the increase in market rents and will go up rather than down over the coming year. This is one factor in the acceleration of inflation compared with 2020, when rents in most of the country were flat or falling. (Rents fell almost 10 percent in NYC during 2020, perZillow.) The shift from falling to rising rents is an important fact about the current situation. But rents were also rising well above 2 percent annually prior to the pandemic. The reason that rents (and housing prices generally) rise faster than most other prices generally, is that we don’t build enough housing. We don’t build enough housing for poor people because it’s not profitable to do so; we don’t build enough housing for anyone in major cities because land-use rules prevent it.
Rising rents are not an inflation problem, they are a housing problem. The only way to deal with them is some mix of public money for lower-income housing, land-use reform, and rent regulations to protect tenants in the meantime. Higher interest rates will not help at all — except insofar as, eventually, they make people too poor to afford homes.
Or energy costs. Energy today still mostly means fossil fuels, especially at the margin. Both supply and demand are inelastic, so prices are subject to large swings. It’s a global market, so there’s not much chance of insulating the US even if it is “energy independent” in net terms. The geopolitics of fossil fuels means that production is both vulnerable to interruption from unpredictable political developments, and subject to control by cartels.
The long run solution is, of course, to transition as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels. In the short run, we can’t do much to reduce the cost of gasoline (or home heating oil and so on), but we can shelter people from the impact, by reducing the costs of alternatives, like transit, or simply by sending them checks. (The California state legislature’s plan seems like a good model.) Free bus service will help both with the short-term effect on household budgets and to reduce energy demand in the long run. Raising interest rates won’t help at all — except insofar as, eventually, they make people too poor to buy gas.
These are hard problems. Land use decisions are made across tens of thousands of local governments, and changes are ferociously opposed by politically potent local homeowners (and some progressives). Dependence on oil is deeply baked into our economy. And of course any substantial increase in federal spending must overcome both entrenched opposition and the convoluted, anti-democratic structures of our government, as we have all been learning (again) this past year.
These daunting problems disappear when we fold everything into a price index and hand it over to the Fed to manage. Reducing everything to the core CPI and a policy rule are a way of evading all sorts of difficult political and intellectual challenges. We can also then ignore the question how, exactly, inflation will be brought down without costs to the real economy, and how to decide if these costs are worth it. Over here is inflation; over there are the maestros with their magic anti-inflation device. All they have to do is put the right number into the machine.
It’s an appealing fantasy – it’s easy to see why people are drawn to it. But it is a fantasy.
A modern central bank, sitting at the apex of the financial system, has a great deal of influence over markets for financial assets and credit. This in turn allows it to exert some influence — powerful if often slow and indirect — on production and consumption decisions of businesses and households. Changes in the level and direction of spending will in turn affect the pricing decisions of business. These effects are real. But they are no different than the effects of anything else — public policy or economic developments — that influence spending decisions. And the level of spending is in turn only one factor in the evolution of prices. There is no special link from monetary policy to aggregate demand or inflation. It’s just one factor among others — sometimes important, often not.
Yes, a higher interest rate will, eventually reduce spending, wages and prices. But many other forces are pushing in other directions, and dampening or amplifying the effect of interest rate changes. The idea that there is out there some “r*”, some “neutral rate” that somehow corresponds to the true inter temporal interest rate — that is a fairy tale.
Nor does the Fed have any special responsibility for inflation. Once we recognize monetary policy for what it is — one among many regulatory and tax actions that influence economic rewards and incomes, perhaps influencing behavior — arguments for central bank independence evaporate. (Then again, theydid not make much sense to begin with.) And contrary to widely held belief, the Fed’s governing statutes do not give it legal responsibility for inflation or unemployment.
That last statement might sound strange, given that we are used to talking about the Fed’s dual mandate. But as Lev Menand points out in an important recent intervention, the legal mandate of the Fed has been widely misunderstood. What the Federal Reserve Act charges the Fed with is
maintain[ing the] long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long-run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
There are two things to notice here. First, the bolded phrase: The Fed’s mandate is not to maintain price stability or full employment as such. It is to prevent developments in the financial system that interfere with them. This is not the same thing. And as Menand argues (in the blog post and at more lengthelsewhere), limiting the Fed’s macroeconomic role to this narrower mission was the explicit intent of the lawmakers who wrote the Fed’s governing statutes from the 1930s onward.
Second, price stability, maximum employment and moderate interest rates (an often forgotten part of the Fed’s mandate) are not presented as independent objectives, but as the expected consequences of keeping credit growth on a steady path. As Menand writes:
The Fed’s job, as policymakers then recognized, was not to combat inflation—it was to ensure that banks create enough money and credit to keep the nation’s productive resources fully utilized…
This distinction is important because there are many reasons that, in the short-to-medium term, the economy might not achieve full potential—as manifested by maximum employment, price stability, and moderate long-term interest rates. And often these reasons have nothing to do with monetary expansion, the only variable Congress expected the Fed to control. For example, supply shortages of key goods and services can cause prices to rise for months or even years while producers adapt to satisfy changing market demand. The Fed’s job is not to stop these price rises—even if policymakers might think stopping them is desirable—just as the Fed’s job is not to … lend lots of money to companies so that they can hire more workers. The Fed’s job is to ensure that a lack of money and credit created by the banking system—an inelastic money supply—does not prevent the economy from achieving these goals. That is its sole mandate.
As Menand notes, the idea that the Fed was directly responsible for macroeconomic outcomes was a new development in the 1980s, an aspect of the broader neoliberal turn that had no basis in law. Nor does it have any good basis in economics. If a financial crisis leads to a credit crunch, or credit-fueled speculation develops into an asset bubble, the central bank can and should take steps to stabilize credit growth and asset prices. In doing so, it will contribute to the stability of the real economy. But when inflation or unemployment come from other sources, conventional monetary policy is a clumsy, ineffectual and often destructive way of responding to them.
There’s a reason that the rightward turn in the 1980s saw the elevation of central banks as the sole custodians of macroeconomic stability. The economies we live in are not in fact self-regulating; they are subject to catastrophic breakdowns of various forms, and even when they function well, are in constant friction with their social surroundings. They require active management. But routine management of the economy — even if limited to the adjustment of the demand “thermostat,” in Samuelson’s old metaphor — both undermine the claim that markets are natural, spontaneous and decentralized, and opens the door to a broader politicization of the economy. The independent central bank in effect quarantines the necessary economic management from the infection of democratic politics.
The period between the 1980s and the global financial crisis saw both a dramatic elevation of the central bank’s role in macroeconomic policy, and a systematic forgetting of the wide range of tools central banks used historically. There is a basic conflict between the expansive conception of the central bank’s responsibilities and the narrow definition of what it actually does. The textbooks tell us that monetary policy is the sole, or at least primary, tool for managing output, employment and inflation (and in much of the world, the exchange rate); and that it is limited to setting a single overnight interest rate according to a predetermined rule. These two ideas can coexist comfortably only in periods of tranquility when the central bank doesn’t actually have to do anything.
What has the Fed Delivered in the Past?
Coming back to the present: The reason I think it is wrong to endorse the Fed’s move toward tightening is not that there’s any great social benefit to having an overnight rate on interbank loans of near 0. I don’t especially care whether the federal funds rate is at 0.38 percent or 1.17 percent next September. I don’t think it makes much difference either way. What I care about is endorsing a framework that commits us to managing inflation by forcing down wages, one that closes off discussion of more progressive and humane — and effective! — ways of controlling inflation. Once the discussion of macroeconomic policy is reduced to what path the federal funds rate should follow, our side has already lost, whatever the answer turns out to be.
It is true that there are important differences between the current situation the end of 2015, the last time the Fed started hiking, that make today’s tightening more defensible. Headline unemployment is now at 3.8 percent, compared with 5 percent when the Fed began hiking in 2015. The prime-age employment rate was also about a point lower then than now. But note also that in 2015 the Fedthought the long-run unemployment rate was 4.9 percent. So from their point of view, we were at full employment. (The CBO, which had the long-run rate at 5.3 percent, thought we’d already passed it.) It may be obvious in retrospect (and to some of us in the moment) that in late 2015 there was still plenty of space for continued employment growth. But policymakers did not think so at the time.
More to the point, inflation then was much lower. If inflation control is the Fed’s job, then the case for raising rates is indeed much stronger now than it was in December 2015. And while I am challenging the idea that this should be the Fed’s job, most people believe that it is. I’m not upset or disappointed that Powell is moving to hike rates now, or is justifying it in the way that he is. Anyone who could plausibly be in that position would be doing the same.
So let’s say a turn toward higher rates was less justified in 2015 than it is today. Did it matter? If you look at employment growth over the 2010s, it’s a perfectly straight line — an annual rate of 1.2 percent, month after month after month. If you just looked at the employment numbers, you’d have no idea that the the Fed was tightening over 2016-2018, and then loosening in the second half of 2019. This doesn’t, strictly speaking, prove that the tightening had no effect. But that’s certainly the view favored by Occam’s razor. The Fed, fortunately, did not tighten enough to tip the economy into recession. So it might as well not have tightened at all.
The problem in 2015, or 2013, or 2011, the reason we had such a long and costly jobless recovery, was not that someone at the Fed put the wrong parameter into their model. It was not that the Fed made the wrong choices. It was that the Fed did not have the tools for the job.
Honestly, it’s hard for me to see how anyone who’s been in these debates over the past decade could believe that the Fed has the ability to steer demand in any reliable way. The policy rate was at zero for six full years. The Fed was trying their best! Certainly the Fed’s response to the 2008 crisis was much better than the fiscal authorities’. So for that matter was the ECB’s, once Draghi took over from Trichet. 12 The problem was not that the central bankers weren’t trying. The problem was that having the foot all the way down on the monetary gas pedal turned out not to do much.
As far as I can tell, modern US history offers exactly one unambiguous case of successful inflation control via monetary policy: the Volcker shock. And there, it was part of a comprehensive attack on labor.
It is true that recessions since then have consistently seen a fall in inflation, and have consistently been preceded by monetary tightenings. So you could argue that the Fed has had some inflation-control successes since the 1980s, albeit at the cost of recessions. Let’s be clear about what this entails. To say that the Fed was responsible for the fall in inflation over 2000-2002, is to say that the dot-com boom could have continued indefinitely if the Fed had not raised rates.
Maybe it could have, maybe not. But whether or not you want to credit (or blame) the Fed for some or all of the three pre-pandemic recessions, what is clear is that there are few if any cases of the Fed delivering slower growth and lower inflation without a recession.
According to Alan Blinder, since World War II the Fed has achieved a soft landing in exactly two out of 11 tightening cycles, most recently in 1994. In that case, it’s true, higher rates were not followed by a recession. But nor were they followed by any discernible slowdown in growth. Output and employment grew even faster after the Fed started tightening than before. As for inflation, it did come down about two years later, at the end of 1996 – at exactly the same moment as oil prices peaked. And came back up in 1999, at exactly the moment when oil prices started rising again. Did the Fed do that? It looks to me more like 2015 – a tightening that stopped in time to avoid triggering a recession, and instead had no effect. But even if we accept the 1994 case, that’s one success story in the past 50 years. (Blinder’s other soft landing is 1966.)
I think the heart of my disagreement with progressives who are support tightening is whether it’s reasonable to think the Fed can adjust the “angle of approach” to a higher level of employment. I don’t think history gives us much reason to believe that they can. There are people who think that a recession, or at least a much weaker labor market, is the necessary cost of restoring price stability. That’s not a view I share, obviously, but it is intellectually coherent. The view that the Fed can engineer a gentle cooling that will bring down inflation while employment keeps rising, on the other hand, seems like wishful thinking.
That said, of the two realistic outcomes of tightening – no effect, or else a crisis – I think the first is more likely, unless they move quite a bit faster than they are right now.
So what’s at stake then? If the Fed is doing what anyone in their position would do, and if it’s not likely to have much impact one way or another, why not make some approving noises, bank the respectability points, and move on?
Four Good Reasons to Be Against Rate Hikes (and One that Isn’t)
I think that it’s a mistake to endorse or support monetary tightening. I’ll end this long post by summarizing my reasons. But first, let me stress that a commitment to keeping the federal funds rate at 0 is not one of those reasons. If the Fed were to set the overnight rate at some moderate positive level and then leave it there, I’d have no objection. In the mid-19th century, the Bank of France kept its discount rate at exactly 4 percent for something like 25 years. Admittedly 4 percent sounds a little high for the US today. But a fixed 2 percent for the next 25 years would probably be fine.
There are four reasons I think endorsing the Fed’s decision to hike is a mistake.
First, most obviously, there is the risk of recession. If rates were at 2 percent today, I would not be calling for them to be cut. But raising them is a different story. Last week’s hike is no big deal in itself, but there will be another, and another, and another. I don’t know where the tipping point is, where hikes inflict enough financial distress to tip the economy into recession. But neither does the Fed. The faster they go, the sooner they’ll hit it. And given the long lags in monetary transmission, they probably won’t know until it’s too late. People are talking a lot lately about wage-price spirals, but that is far from the only positive feedback in a capitalist economy. Once a downturn gets started, with widespread business failures, defaults and disappointed investment plans, it’s much harder to reverse it than it would have been to maintain growth.
I think many people see trusting the Fed to deal with inflation as the safe, cautious position. But the fact that a view is widely held doesn’t mean it is reasonable. It seems to me that counting on the Fed to pull off something that they’ve seldom if ever succeeded at before is not safe or cautious at all.13 Those of us who’ve been critical of rate hikes in the past should not be too quick to jump on the bandwagon now. There are plenty of voices calling on the Fed to move faster. It’s important that there also be some saying, slow down.
2. Second, related to this, is a question I think anyone inclined to applaud hikes should be asking themselves: If high inflation means we need slower growth, higher unemployment and lower wages, where does that stop? Inflation may come down on its own over the next year — I still think this is more likely than not. But if it doesn’t come down on its own, the current round of rate hikes certainly isn’t going to do it. Looking again at the Fed’s FRB/US model, we see that a one point increase in the federal funds rate is predicted to reduce inflation by about one-tenth of a point after one year, and about 0.15 points after two years. The OECD’s benchmark macro model make similar predictions: a sustained one-point increase in the interest rate in a given year leads to an 0.1 point fall in inflation the following year, an 0.3 fall in the third year and and an 0.5 point fall in the fourth year.
Depending which index you prefer, inflation is now between 3 and 6 points above target.14 If you think conventional monetary policy is what’s going to fix that, then either you must have have some reason to think its effects are much bigger than the Fed’s own models predict, or you must be imagining much bigger hikes than what we’re currently seeing. If you’re a progressive signing on to today’s hikes, you need to ask yourself if you will be on board with much bigger hikes if inflation stays high. “I hope it doesn’t come to that” is not an answer.
3. Third, embracing rate hikes validates the narrative that inflation is now a matter of generalized overheating, and that the solution has to be some form of across-the-board reduction in spending, income and wages. It reinforces the idea that pandemic-era macro policy has been a story of errors, rather than, on balance, a resounding success.
The orthodox view is that low unemployment, rising wages, and stronger bargaining power for workers are in themselves serious problems that need to be fixed. Look at how the news earlier this week of record-low unemployment claims got covered: It’s a dangerous sign of “wage inflation” that will “raise red flags at the Fed.” Or the constant complaints by employers of “labor shortages” (echoed by Powell last week.) Saying that we want more employment and wage growth, just not right now, feels like trying to split the baby. There is not a path to a higher labor share that won’t upset business owners.
The orthodox view is that a big reason inflation was so intractable in the 1970s was that workers were also getting large raises. From this point of view, if wages are keeping pace with inflation, that makes the problem worse, and implies we need even more tightening. Conversely, if wages are falling behind, that’s good. Alternatively, you might think that the Powell was right before when he said the Phillips curve was flat, and that inflation today has little connection with unemployment and wages. In that case faster wage growth, so that living standards don’t fall, is part of the solution not the problem. Would higher wages right now be good, or bad? This is not a question on which you can be agnostic, or split the difference. I think anyone with broadly pro-worker politics needs to think very carefully before they accept the narrative of a wage-price spiral as the one thing to be avoided at all costs.
Similarly, if rate hikes are justified, then so must be other measures to reduce aggregate spending. The good folks over at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget just put out a piece arguing that student loan forbearance and expanded state Medicare and Medicaid funding ought to be ended, since they are inflationary. And you have to admit there’s some logic to that. If we agree that the economy is suffering from excessive demand, shouldn’t we support fiscal as well as monetary measures to reduce it? A big thing that rate hikes will do is raise interest payments by debtors, including student loan debtors. If that’s something we think ought to happen, we should think so when it’s brought about in other ways too. Conversely, if you don’t want to sign on to the CFRB program, you probably want to keep some distance from Powell.
4. Fourth and finally, reinforcing the idea that inflation control is the job of the Fed undermines the case for measures that actually would help with inflation. Paradoxical as it may sound, one reason it’s a mistake to endorse rate hikes is precisely because rising prices really are a problem. High costs of housing and childcare are a major burden for working families. They’re also a major obstacle to broader social goals (more people living in dense cities; a more equal division of labor within the family). Rate hikes move us away from the solution to these problems, not towards it. Most urgently and obviously, they are entirely unhelpful in the energy transition. Tell me if you think this is sensible: “Oil prices are rising, so we should discourage people from developing alternative energy sources”. But that is how conventional monetary policy works.
The Biden administration has been strikingly consistent in articulating an alternative vision of inflation control – what some people call a progressive supply-side vision. In the State of the Union, for example, we heard:
We have a choice. One way to fight inflation is to drive down wages and make Americans poorer. I think I have a better idea … Make more cars and semiconductors in America. More infrastructure and innovation in America. …
First, cut the cost of prescription drugs. We pay more for the same drug produced by the same company in America than any other country in the world. Just look at insulin. … Insulin costs about $10 a vial to make. … But drug companies charge … up to 30 times that amount. …. Let’s cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month so everyone can afford it.15
Second, cut energy costs for families an average of $500 a year by combating climate change. Let’s provide investment tax credits to weatherize your home and your business to be energy efficient …; double America’s clean energy production in solar, wind and so much more; lower the price of electric vehicles,…
Of course weatherizing homes is not, by itself, going to have a big effect on inflation. But that’s the direction we should be looking in. If we’re serious about managing destructive price increases, we can’t leave the job to the Fed. We need to be looking for a mix of policies that directly limit price increases using administrative tools, that cushion the impact of high prices on family budgets in the short run, and that deal with the supply constraints driving price increases in the long run.
The interest rate hike approach is an obstacle to all this, both practically and ideologically. A big reason I’m disappointed to see progressives accepting the idea that inflation equals rate hikes, is that there has been so much creative thinking about macroeconomic policy in recent years. What’s made this possible is increasing recognition that the neoliberal, central bank-centered model has failed. We have to decide now if we really believed that. Forward or backward? You can’t have it both ways.
(This post originally ran as an opinion piece in Barron’s.)
The U.S. today is experiencing inflation. This is not controversial. But what exactly does it mean?
In the textbook, inflation is a rise in all prices together, caused by an excessive increase in the money supply. But when we measure it, inflation is just a rise in the average price of goods and services. That average might reflect a uniform rise in prices due to excessive money creation. Or, as today, it might instead be the result of big rises in the prices of a few items, for their own reasons.
Over the past year, prices have risen by 7.5%, far above the usual 2% target set by the Federal Reserve. But 70% of that 5.5 points of excess inflation has come from two categories that make up just 15% of the consumption basket: energy (2 points) and new and used cars (1.9 points). Used cars alone make up barely 4% of the consumption basket, but accounted for a third of the excess inflation.
Some commentators have argued that inflation is just a matter of too much money. If that were true, it’s hard to see why so much of it would be flowing to cars. (And before you say cheap financing: Rates on auto loans were lower through most of the 2010s.)
In recent months, vehicle and energy prices have begun to stabilize, while food and housing prices have picked up. These price increases hit family budgets harder. A car purchase can usually be put off, but not rent or groceries. But this is still a story about specific sectors following their own dynamics.
Energy prices are global, and their periodic rise and fall depends mostly on the politics of oil-producing regions (as we are being reminded today). As recently as the summer of 2014, gas prices were higher than they are now, before falling precipitously. No doubt they will fall again, but in the short run there is not much to do about them—though it may be possible to shield people from their impact. In the longer run, decarbonization will leave us less vulnerable to the gyrations of the oil market.
As for vehicles, it’s no mystery why prices soared. Early in the pandemic, automakers expected a long period of depressed demand, and cut back production plans. When the economy bounced back rapidly, automakers found themselves short of key inputs, especially semiconductors. Combine this with a pandemic-induced shift in demand from services to goods, and you have a formula for rapid price increases. The effect was strongest for used cars, whose supply is essentially fixed in the short run.
Housing has made a smaller contribution so far—0.6 of the 5.5 points of excess inflation—but given the way the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures them, housing prices are likely to rise sharply over the coming year. This is a problem. But, it was also a big problem before the pandemic, when rents were rising by nearly 4% annually. Housing affordability is a serious issue in the U.S. But if the question is why inflation is higher today than in 2018 or 2019, housing is not the answer.
Finally, there are food prices, which have contributed about 0.7 points to excess inflation over the past year, and more in recent months. Food prices, like energy prices, are famously volatile; there’s a reason they are both excluded from the Fed’s measure of “core” inflation. They’re also an area where market power may be playing a major role, given the high concentration in food processing. Monopolies may be reluctant to fully exploit their power in normal times; price increases elsewhere in the economy give them a chance to widen their margins.
The great majority of the excess inflation over the past year has come from these four areas. Other sectors—including labor-intensive services where prices have historically risen more quickly—have contributed little or nothing.
The point is not that these price increases don’t matter. Food, housing and energy are necessities of life. People are naturally unhappy when they have to pay more for them. The point is that current price rises are not symptoms of economy-wide overheating.
Some of these prices, like autos, will come back down on their own as supply-chain kinks work themselves out. Others, like housing, will not, and call for a policy response. But that response is not raising interest rates, which would only make the problem worse. The main reason why housing costs are rising is that the U.S. does not build enough of it, especially in the expensive metro areas where employment opportunities are concentrated. Construction is one of the most interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. Rate hikes will cause supply to fall further short of demand.
Some might say that the Fed still controls the overall level of spending in the economy. If people spent less on used cars, wouldn’t they spend more on something else? This ignores the existence of balance sheets. Households hold cash, and finance many purchases—including cars—with debt. Lower used-car prices wouldn’t mean higher prices elsewhere, but higher household savings and less debt.
An inability to build housing where people want to live, dependence on fossil fuels, fragile supply chains and the monopolization of key industries: These are all serious economic problems. But they are not monetary-policy problems. Looking at them through the lens of a textbook story of inflation will not get us any closer to solving them.
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.16
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. 17 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.18
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. 19 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.20 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.
(A week ago, I had an opinion piece in Barron’s, which I am belatedly posting here. I talk a bit more about this topic in the following post.)
In today’s often acrimonious economic debates, one of the few common grounds is reverence for the Fed. Consider Jay Powell: First nominated to the Fed’s board of governors by President Obama, he was elevated to FOMC chair by Trump and renominated by Biden His predecessors Bernanke, Greenspan and Volcker were similarly first appointed by a president from one party, then reappointed by a president from the other. Politics stops at Maiden Lane.
There are disagreements about what the Fed should be doing — tightening policy to rein in inflation, or holding back to allow for a faster recovery. But few doubt that it’s the Fed’s job to make the choice, and that once they do, they can carry it out.
Perhaps, though, we should take a step back and ask if the Fed is really all-powerful. You might like to see inflation come down; I’d like to see stronger labor markets. But can the Fed give either of us what we want?
During the so-called Great Moderation, it was easy to have faith in the Fed. In the US, as in most rich countries, governments had largely turned over the job of macroeconomic management to independent central banks, and were enjoying an era of stable growth with low inflation. Magazine covers could, without irony, feature the Fed chair as “Pope Greenspan and His College of Cardinals,” or (when the waters got choppier) the central figure in the “committee to save the world.”
Respectable opinion of the 1990s and 2000s was captured in a speech by Christina Romer (soon to be Obama’s chief economist), declaring that “the Federal Reserve, is directly responsible for the low inflation and the virtual disappearance of the business cycle in the last 25 years. …The story of stabilization policy of the last quarter century is one of amazing success.”
Romer delivered those words in late 2007. At almost exactly that moment, the US was entering its then-deepest recession since World War II.
The housing bubble and financial crisis raised some doubts about whether that success had been so amazing after all. The subsequent decade of slow growth and high unemployment, in the face of a Fed Funds rate of zero and multiple rounds of QE, should have raised more. Evidently the old medicine was no longer working – or perhaps had never worked as well as we thought.
In truth, there were always reasons for doubt.
One is that, as Milton Friedman famously observed, monetary policy acts with long and variable lags. A common estimate is that the peak impact of monetary policy changes comes 18 to 24 months later, which is cripplingly slow for managing business cycles. Many people – including at the Fed – believe that today’s inflation is the transitory result of the pandemic. When the main effects of today’s tightening are felt two years from now, how confident are we that inflation will still be too high?
More fundamentally, there’s the question of what links monetary policy to inflation in the first place. Prices are, after all, set by private businesses; if they think it makes sense to raise prices, the Fed has no mind-control ray to convince them otherwise.
In the textbook story, changes in the Federal funds rate are passed through to other interest rates. A higher cost of borrowing discourages investment spending, reducing demand, employment and wages, which in turn puts downward pressure on prices. This was always a bit roundabout; today, it’s not clear that critical links in the chain function at all.
Business investment is financed with long-term debt; the average maturity of a corporate bond is about 13 years. But long rates don’t seem particularly responsive to the Federal funds rate. Between Fall 2015 and Spring 2019, for example, the Fed raised its policy rate by 2.5 points. Over this same period, the 10-year Treasury rate was essentially unchanged, and corporate bond yields actually fell. Earlier episodes show a similar non-response of long rates to Fed actions.
Nor is it obvious that business investment is particularly sensitive to interest rates, even long ones. One recent survey of the literature by Fed economists finds that hurdle rates for new investment “exhibit no apparent relation to market interest rates.”
Former Fed chair Ben Bernanke puzzled over “the black box” of monetary policy transmission. If it doesn’t move interest rates on the long-term debt that businesses mostly issue, and if even longer rates have no detectable effect on investment, how exactly is monetary policy affecting demand and inflation? It was a good question, to which no one has offered a very good answer.
To be sure, no one would claim that the Fed is powerless. Raise rates enough, and borrowers unable to roll over their loans will face default; as asset values fall and balance sheets weaken, households will have no choice but to drastically curtail consumption.
But being able to sink a ship is not the same as being able to steer it. The fact that the Fed can, if it tries hard enough, trigger a recession, does not mean that it can maintain steady growth. Perhaps it’s time to admit that there are no central banking “maestros” who know the secret of maintaining full employment and price stability. Balancing these critical social objectives requires a variety of tools, not just a single interest rate. And it is, for better or worse, the responsibility of our elected governments.
(This is the extended abstract for a piece I am writing for “The Great Turnaround,” a collection of essays on the economics of decarbonization from ZOE-Institute for Future-fit Economies and the Heinrich Böll Foundation.)
In the world in which we live, large-scale cooperation is largely organized through payments of money. Orthodox economics conflates these money flows, on the one hand with quantities of real social and physical things, and on the other hand with a quantity of wellbeing or happiness. One way of looking at Keynes’ work is as an attempt to escape this double conflation and see money as something distinct. Eighty years later, it can still be a challenge to imagine our collective productive activity except in terms of the quantities of money that organize it. But this effort of imagination is critical to address the challenges facing us, not least that of climate change.
The economic problems of climate change are often discussed, explicitly or implicitly, in terms of the orthodox real-exchange vision of the economy, in which problems are conceived of in terms of the allocation of scarce means among alternative ends.
In the real-exchange framework, decarbonization is a good which must be traded off against other goods. From this point of view, the central question is what is the appropriate tradeoff between current consumption and decarbonization. The problem is that since climate is an externality, this tradeoff cannot be reached by markets alone; the public sector must set the appropriate price via a carbon tax or equivalent. In general, more rapid decarbonization will be disproportionately more costly than slower decarbonization. A further problem is that since the climate externality is global, higher costs will be borne by the countries that move more aggressively toward decarbonization while others may free-ride.
This perspective does leave space for more direct public action to address climate change. Public investment, however, faces the same tradeoff between decarbonization and current living standards that price-mediated private action does. It is also limited by the state’s fiscal capacity. Governments have a finite capacity to generate money flows through taxation and bond-issuance (or equivalently to mobilize real resources) and use of this capacity for decarbonization will limit public spending in other areas.
The claims in the preceding two paragraphs may sound reasonable at first glance. But from a Keynesian standpoint, none are correct; they range from misleading to flatly false. In the Keynesian vision, the economy is imagined as aa system of monetary production rather than real exchange, with the binding constraints being not scarce resources, but demand and, more broadly, coordination. From this perspective, the problem of climate change looks very different. And these differences are not just about terminology or emphasis, but a fundamentally different view of where the real tradeoffs and obstacles to decarbonization lie.
In this paper, I will sketch out the central elements that distinguish a Keynesian vision of the economics of climate change. For this purpose, the Keynesian monetary-production framework can be seen as involving three fundamental premises.
1. Economic activity is coordination- and demand-constrained, not real resource-constrained.
2. Production is an active, transformative process, not just a combining of existing resources or factors.
3. Money is a distinct object, not just a representative of some material quantity; the interest rate is the price of liquidity, not of saving.
These premises have a number of implications for climate policy.
1. Decarbonization will be experienced as an economic boom. Decarbonization will require major changes in our patterns of production and consumption, which in turn will require substantial changes to our means of production and built environment. In capitalist economies, these changesare brought about by spending money. Renovating buildings, investing in new structures and equipment, building infrastructure, etc. add to demand. The decommissioning of existing means of production does not, however subtract from demand. Similarly, high expected returns in growing sectors can call forth very high investment there; investment can’t fall below zero in declining sectors. So even if aggregate profitability is unchanged, big shift in its distribution across industries will lead to higher investment.
2. There is no international coordination problem — the countries that move fastest on climate will reap direct benefits. While coordination problems are ubiquitous, the real-exchange paradigm creates one where none actually exists. If the benefits of climate change mitigation are global, but it requires a costly diversion of real resources away from other needs, it follows that countries that do not engage in decarbonization can free-ride on the efforts of those that do. The first premise is correct but the second is not. Countries that take an early lead in decarbonization will enjoy both stronger domestic demand and a lead in strategic industries.This is not to suggest that international agreements on climate policy are not desirable; but it is wrong and counterproductive to suggest that the case for decarbonization efforts at a national level is in any way contingent on first reaching such agreements.
3. There is no tradeoff between decarbonization and current living standards. Real economies always operate far from potential. Indeed, it is doubtful whether a level of potential output is even a meaningful concept. Decarbonization is not mainly a matter of diverting productive activity away from other needs, but mobilizing new production, with positive spillovers toward production for other purposes. The workers engaged in, say, expanding renewable energy capacity are not being taken away from equal-value activity in some other sector. They are, in the aggregate, un- or underemployed workers, whose capacities would otherwise be wasted; and the incomes they receive in their new activity will generate more output in demand-constrained consumption goods sectors.
4. Price based measures cannot be the main tools for decarbonization.There is a widely held view that the central tool for addressing climate should be an increase in the relative price of carbon-intensive commodities, through a carbon tax or equivalent. This make sense in a vision of the economy as essentially an allocation problem where existing resources need to be directed to their highest value use. But from a Keynesian perspective there are several reasons to think that prices are a weak tool for decarbonization, and the main policies need to be more direct. First, in a world of increasing returns, there will be multiple equilibria, so we can not think only in terms of adjustment at the margin. In the orthodox framework, increasing the share of, say, a renewable energy source will be associated with a higher marginal cost, requiring a higher tax or subsidy; but in an increasing-returns world, increasing share will be associated with lower marginal costs, so that while even a very large tax may not be enough to support an emerging technology once it is established no tax or subsidy may be needed at all. Second, production as a social process involves enormous coordination challenges, especially when it is a question of large, rapid changes. Third, fundamental uncertainty about the future creates risks which the private sector is often unwilling or unable to bear.
5. Central bank support for decarbonization must take the form active credit policy. As applied to central banks, carbon pricing suggests a policy to treat “green” assets more favorably and other assets less favorably. This is often framed as an extension of normal central bank policies toward financial risk, since the “dirty” asset suppose greater risks to their holders or systematically than the “green” ones. But there is no reason, in general, to think that the economic units that are at greatest risk from climate change are the same as the ones that are contributing to it. A deeper and more specifically Keynesian objection is that credit constraints do not bind uniformly across the economy. The central bank, and financial system in general, do not set a single economy wide “interest rate”, but allocate liquidity to specific borrowers on specific terms. Most investment, conversely, is not especially sensitive to interest rates; for larger firms, credit conditions are not normally a major factor in investment, while for smaller borrowers constraints on the amount borrowed are often more important.Effective use of monetary policy to support decarbonization or other social goals requires first identifying those sites in the economy where credit constraints bind and acting to directly to loosen or tighten them.
6. Sustained low interest rates will ease the climate transition. A central divide between Keynesian and orthodox macroeconomic theory is the view of the interest rate. Mainstream textbooks teach that the interest rate is the price of saving, balancing consumption today against consumption in the future — a tradeoff that would exist even in a nonmonetary economy. Keynes’ great insight was that the interest rate in a monetary economy has nothing to do with saving but is the price of liquidity, and is fundamentally under the control of the central bank. He looked forward to a day when this rate fall to zero, eliminating the income of the “functionless rentier”. As applied to climate policy, this view has several implications. First, market interest rates tell us nothing about any tradeoff between current living standards and action to protect the future climate. Second, there is no reason to think that interest rates must, should or will rise in the future; debt-financed climate investment need not be limited on that basis. Third, while investment in general is not very sensitive to interest rates, an environment of low rates does favor longer-term investment. Fourth, low interest rates are the most reliable way to reduce the debt burdens of the public (and private) sector, which is important to the extent that high debt ratios constrain current spending.
7. There is no link between the climate crisis and financial crisis. It is sometimes suggested that climate change and/or decarbonization could result in a financial crisis comparable to the worldwide financial crisis of 2007-2009. From a Keynesian perspective, this view is mistaken; there is no particular link between the real economic changes associated with climate change and climate policy, on the one hand, and the sudden fall in asset values and cascading defaults of a financial crisis, on the other. While climate change and decarbonization will certainly devalue certain assets — coastal property in low-lying cities; coal producers — they imply large gains for other assets. The history of capitalism offers many examples of rapid shifts in activity geographically or between sectors, with corresponding private gains and losses, without generalized financial crises. The notion that financial crises are in some sense a judgement on “unsound” or “unsustainable” real economic developments is an ideological myth we must reject. This is the converse of the error discussed under point 6 above, that measures to protect against the financial risks from climate change and decarbonization will also advance substantive policy goals.
8. There is no problem of getting private investors to finance decarbonization. Many proposals for climate investment include special measures to encourage participation by private finance; it is sometimes suggested that national governments or publicly-sponsored investment authorities should issue special green bonds or equity-like instruments to help “mobilize private capital” for decarbonization. Such proposals confuse the meaning of “capital” as concrete means of production with “capital” as a quantity of money. Mobilizing the first is a genuine challenge for which private businesses do offer critical resources and expertise not present in the public sector; but mobilizing these means paying for them, not raising money from them. On the financing side, on the other hand, the private sector offers nothing; in rich countries, at least, the public sector already borrows on more favorable terms than any private entity, and has a much greater capacity to bear risk. If public-sector borrowing costs are higher than desired, this can be directly addressed by the central bank; offering new assets for the private sector to hold does nothing to help with any public sector financing problem, especially given that such proposal invariably envision assets with higher yields than existing public debt.
These eight claims mostly argue that what are widely conceived as economic constraints or tradeoffs in climate policy are, from a Keynesian perspective, either not real or not very important. Approaches to the climate crisis that frame the problem as one of reallocating real resources from current consumption to climate needs, or of raising funds from the private sector, both suffer from the same conflation of money flows with real productive activity.
I will conclude by suggesting two other economic challenges for climate change that are in my opinion underemphasized.
First, I suggest that we face a political conflict involving climate and growth, this will come not because decarbonization requires accepting a lower level of growth, but because it will entail faster economic growth than existing institutions can handle. Today’s neoliberal macroeconomic model depends on limiting economic growth as a way of managing distributional conflicts. Rapid growth under decarbonization will be accompanied by disproportionate rise in wages and the power of workers. There are certainly reasons to see this as a desirable outcome, but it will inevitably create sharp conflicts and resistance from wealth owners that has to be planned for and managed. Complaints about current “labor shortages” should be a warning call on this front.
Second, rapid decarbonization will require considerably more centralized coordination than is usual in today’s advanced economies. If there is a fundamental conflict between capitalism and sustainability, I suggest, it is not because the drive for endless accumulation in money terms implies or requires an endless increase in material throughputs. Rather, it is because capitalism treats the collective processes of social production as the private property of individuals. (Even the language of “externalities” implicitly assumes that the normal case is one where production process involves no one but those linked by contractual money payments.) Treatment of our collective activity to transform the world as if it belonged exclusively to whoever holds the relevant property rights, is a fundamental obstacle to redirecting that activity in a rational way. Resistance on these grounds to a coordinated response to the climate crisis will be partly political and ideologically, but also concrete and organizational.
(Lauren Melodia and I had an op-ed in the Nov. 21 Washington Post, challenging the idea that today’s inflation means that the stimulus measures of the past year and half were too large. I’m posting it here as well.)
As we think about rising prices today, it’s important not to lose sight of where we were not so long ago. In the spring of 2020, much of the economy abruptly shut down. Schools and child-care centers closed. Air travel fell below 100,000 people a day, compared with 2.5 million daily passengers in a normal year. No one was staying in hotels or going to the gym. About 1.4 million small businesses shut their doors in the second quarter of the year.
More than 20 million Americans lost their jobs in the early days of the pandemic, and there was a very real possibility that many would face hunger, eviction and poverty. Many economists predicted a deep downturn comparable to the Great Recession that followed the financial crisis of 2007-08, if not the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Even at the start of this year, as Congress was debating the American Rescue Plan, it was far from clear that we were out of danger. In January, there were 10 million fewer jobs than a year earlier. Covid-related deaths were running at 30,000 per week — the highest rate at any point in the pandemic. No one knew how fast vaccines could be rolled out. There was still a real risk that the economy could tip into depression.
Thanks to stimulus measures, including the $2.2 trillion Cares Act, signed by President Donald Trump in March 2020, and the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, signed by President Biden in March 2021, that didn’t happen. People who lost their jobs in restaurants, airports, hotels and elsewhere continued to pay their rent and put food on the table.
For much of 2020 and 2021, all the uncertainty — and the risks associated with vacationing, dining out and so on — meant households held back on spending, and savings piled up. Now, with the economy reopening and the worst of the pandemic (let’s hope) behind us, people are rushing to make use of those savings. Unfortunately, businesses can’t adjust production as fast as people can spend money, resulting in the inflation we’re seeing now: Prices rose 0.9 percent from September to October 2021 and are up 6.2 percent since October 2020.
It would be nice if there were a way to avoid economic catastrophe during the year-plus of pandemic restrictions while also avoiding rising prices today. But in the real world, there probably wasn’t. The pandemic imposed costs on the economy that had to be paid one way or another.
Think of it this way. When a restaurant shuts down for public health reasons, two things happen: Its services are not available for purchase, and the people who work there lose their incomes. If the government does nothing, aggregate demand and supply will remain in rough balance, but the displaced workers will be unable to pay their bills. Alternatively, the government can step in to maintain the incomes of the displaced workers. In this case, the spending that consumers might have done in restaurants will spill over into the rest of the economy — if not right away, then eventually. In a sense, the rising costs we’re seeing today are a result of economic production that didn’t happen last year.
In economics textbooks, the level of demand that brings the economy to full employment will also cause stable inflation — an assumption labeled “the divine coincidence.” But here on Earth, things don’t always work out so neatly. The level of spending required to replace incomes lost in the pandemic, combined with the disruptions to production and trade, meant there was no way to get an adequate recovery without some increase in inflation, especially given the bumps on the road to controlling the coronavirus. As the spread of the delta variant and some Americans’ resistance to getting a vaccine have held back spending on services, demand has spilled over into goods. And as it turns out, our global supply chains are unable to handle a rapid rise in demand for goods — especially because many manufacturers had expected a deep downturn and planned accordingly.
Today’s inflation has surprised many people, including us. We had been more worried about sustained high unemployment. One of us even gave a talk a year ago called “The Coronavirus Recession Is Just Beginning.” We were wrong about that. But then, so was almost everyone. In the summer of 2020, the Congressional Budget Office was predicting that the unemployment rate in late 2021 would be 8 percent; in fact, it has fallen to 4.6 percent. Many private forecasters were similarly gloomy. Under the circumstances, policymakers were absolutely right to prioritize payments to families.
The economist Larry Summers has been making the case since February that the government’s stimulus programs were larger than required and ran the risk of “inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.” Fiscal conservatives are claiming that Summers has been vindicated because inflation is higher than most supporters of the most recent relief package expected. But the economic data doesn’t match the scenario he described.
Summers predicted that the cumulative stimulus impact would be larger than the country’s output gap — the difference between actual and potential gross domestic product. Today, despite the stimulus, both real and nominal GDP remain significantly below the pre-pandemic trend. So unless you think the economy was operating above potential before the pandemic, there’s no reason to think it is above potential now. To the extent that domestic conditions are contributing to inflation, it’s not because spending has surpassed the economy’s capacity but because there has been a rapid shift in demand from services to goods.
In any case, most of the inflation we’re seeing is due not to domestic conditions but to the worldwide spike in food, energy and shipping costs. Perhaps we could have had inflation of 5 percent instead of 6 percent if the stimulus had been smaller. The cost of that trade-off would have been material hardship for millions of families and the risk of tipping the economy into a downturn. And that, fundamentally, is why today’s inflation is not a sign that the stimulus was too large: It has to be weighed against the risks on the other side.
After 2007, the United States experienced many years of high unemployment and depressed growth, thanks in large part to a stimulus that most now agree was too small. Policymakers belatedly learned that lesson, and as a result, the United States is making a rapid recovery from the most severe economic disruption in modern history. Yes, inflation is a real problem that needs to be addressed. In a recent Roosevelt Institute brief, we suggested that rather than raise interest rates, the best way to control inflation is to address supply constraints in the sectors where prices are climbing. But as bad as inflation is, mass unemployment is much worse. Given the alternatives, policymakers made the right choice.
