New vs. Old Keynesian Stimulus

While fiddling with a recent paper, "The New-Keynesian Liquidity Trap" (blog post), a simple insight dawned on me on the utter and fundamental difference between New-Keynesian and Old-Keynesian models of stimulus.

Old-Keynesian. The "Keynesian cross" is the most basic mechanism. (If you are worried that I'm making this up, see Greg Mankiw's Macroeconomics, p. 308 eighth edition, "Fiscal policy and the multiplier: Government Purchases.")

Consumption follows a "consumption function." If people get more income Y, they consume more C

C = a + m Y.

Output Y is determined by consumption C investment I and government spending G

Y = C+ I + G.

Put the two together and equilibrium output is

Y = a + mY + I + G
Y = (a + I + G)/(1-m).

So, if the marginal propensity to consume m=0.6, then each dollar of government spending G generates not just one dollar of output Y (first equation), but $2.5 dollars of additional output.

This model captures a satisfying story. More government spending, even if on completely useless projects, "puts money in people's pockets." Those people in turn go out and spend, providing more income for others, who go out and spend, and so on. We pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. Saving is the enemy, as it lowers the marginal propensity to consume and reduces this multiplier.

New-Keynesian. The heart of the New-Keynesian model is a completely different view of consumption. In its simplest version

Here consumption C, relative to trend, equals the sum of all future real interest rates i less inflation π i.e. all future real interest rates. The parameter σ measures how resistant people are to consuming less today and more tomorrow when offered a higher interest rate.

(This is just the integrated version of the standard first order condition, in discrete time

People in this model think about the future when deciding how much to consume and allocate consumption today vs. tomorrow looking at the real interest rate. I've simplified a lot, leaving out trends, the level and variation of the "natural rate" and so on.)

In this model too, totally wasted government spending can raise consumption and hence output, but by a radically different mechanism.  Government spending raises inflation π . (How is not important here, that's in the Phillips curve.) Holding nominal interest rates i fixed, either at the zero bound or with Fed cooperation, more inflation π means lower real interest rates. It induces consumers to spend their money today rather than in the future, before that money loses value.

Now, lowering consumption growth is normally a bad thing. But new-Keynesian modelers assume that the economy reverts to trend, so lowering growth rates is good, and raises the level of consumption today with no ill effects tomorrow. (More in a previous post here)

Comparing stories

This new-Keynesian model is an utterly and completely different mechanism and story. The heart of the New-Keynesian model is Milton Friedman's permanent income theory of consumption, against which old-Keynesians fought so long and hard! Actually, it's more radical than Friedman: The marginal propensity to consume is exactly and precisely zero in the new-Keynesian model.  There is no income at all on the right hand side. Why? By holding expected future consumption constant, i.e. by assuming the economy reverts to trend and no more, there is no such thing as a permanent increase in consumption.

The old-Keynesian model is driven completely by an income effect with no substitution effect. Consumers don't think about today vs. the future at all. The new-Keynesian model based on the intertemporal substitution effect with no income effect at all.

Models and stories

Now, why is Grumpy grumpy?

Many Keynesian commentators have been arguing for much more stimulus.  They like to write the nice story, how we put money in people's pockets, and then they go and spend, and that puts more money in other people's pockets, and so on.

But, alas, the old-Keynesian model of that story is wrong. It's just not economics. A 40 year quest for "microfoundations" came up with nothing. How many Nobel prizes have they given for demolishing the old-Keynesian model? At least Friedman, Lucas, Prescott, Kydland, Sargent and Sims. Since about 1980, if you send a paper with this model to any half respectable journal, they will reject it instantly.

But people love the story. Policy makers love the story.  Most of Washington loves the story. Most of Washington policy analysis uses Keynesian models or Keynesian thinking. This is really curious. Our whole policy establishment uses a model that cannot be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Imagine if the climate scientists were telling us to spend a trillion dollars on carbon dioxide mitigation -- but they had not been able to publish any of their models in peer-reviewed journals for 35 years.

What to do? Part of the fashion is to say that all of academic economics is nuts and just abandoned the eternal verities of Keynes 35 years ago, even if nobody ever really did get the foundations right. But they know that such anti-intellectualism is not totally convincing, so it's also fashionable to use new-Keynesian models as holy water. Something like "well, I didn't read all the equations, but Woodford's book sprinkles all the right Lucas-Sargent-Prescott holy water on it and makes this all respectable again." Cognitive dissonance allows one to make these contradictory arguments simultaneously.

Except new-Keynesian economics does no such thing, as I think this example makes clear. If you want to use new-Keynesian models to defend stimulus, do it forthrightly: "The government should spend money, even if on totally wasted projects, because that will cause inflation, inflation will lower real interest rates, lower real interest rates will induce people to consume today rather than tomorrow, we believe tomorrow's consumption will revert to trend anyway, so this step will increase demand. We disclaim any income-based "multiplier," sorry, our new models have no such effect, and we'll stand up in public and tell any politician who uses this argument that it's wrong."

That, at least, would be honest. If not particularly effective!

You may disagree with all of this, but that reinforces another important lesson. In macroeconomics, the step of crafting a story from the equations, figuring out what our little quantitative parables mean for policy, and understanding and explaining the mechanisms, is really hard, even when the equations are very simple. And it's important. Nobody trusts black boxes. The Chicago-Minnesota equilibrium school never really got people to understand what was in the black box and trust the answers. The DSGE new Keynesian black box has some very unexpected stories in it, and is very very far from providing justification for old-Keynesian intuition.

Ferguson on Krugtron

A fun show is breaking out. Niall Ferguson on "Krugtron the invincible."

Paul Krugman, for a while now, has been lambasting those he disagrees with by trumpeting their supposed "predictions" which came out wrong, and using words like "knaves and fools" to describe them -- when he's feeling polite. These claims often are based on a rather superficial, if any, study of what the people involved actually wrote, mirroring the sudden narcolepsy of Times fact-checkers any time Krugman steps in to the room. Niall has lately been a particular target of this calumnious campaign.

Niall's fighting back. "Oh yeah? Let's see how your "predictions" worked out!" Don't mess with a historian. He knows how to check the facts. This is only "part 1!" Ken Rogoff seems to be on a similar tear. (and a new item here.) This will be worth watching.

As regular blog readers know, I don't think science advances by evaluating soothsaying. You make good unconditional predictions with very badly wrong structural models, and very good structural models make bad unconditional predictions.  The talent of predicting and the talent of understanding are largely uncorrelated.  The judgmental forecasts of individuals are poor ways to evaluate any serious economic or scientific theory.  I carefully don't make "predictions" for just that reason. So, I don't regard this cheery deconstruction effort as a useful way to show that Krugman's "model," whatever it is, is wrong. I also can't see that anyone but the devoted choir of lemmings is paying much attention to Krugman's mudslinging any more.  But it is nice that Niall and Ken are taking the effort to ask the great doctor if perhaps he also doesn't need a bit of healing; perhaps they will force Krugman to go back to actually writing about economics. 

Update: Benn Steil Chimes in, this time on the Baltics, Iceland, and the supposed wonders of currency devaluation.

Dupor and Li on the Missing Inflation in the New-Keynesian Stimulus

Bill Dupor and Rong Li have a very nice new paper on fiscal stimulus: "The 2009 Recovery Act and the Expected Inflation Channel of Government Spending" available here.

New-Keynesian models are really utterly different from Old-Keynesian stories. In the old-Keynesian account, more government spending raises income directly (Y=C+I+G); income Y then raises consumption, so you get a second round of income increases.

New-Keynesian models act entirely through the real interest rate.  Higher government spending means more inflation. More inflation reduces real interest rates when the nominal rate is stuck at zero, or when the Fed chooses not to respond with higher nominal rates. A higher real interest rate depresses consumption and output today relative to the future, when they are expected to return to trend. Making the economy deliberately more inefficient also raises inflation, lowers the real rate and stimulates output today. (Bill and Rong's introduction gives a better explanation, recommended.)

So, the key proposition of new-Keynesian multipliers is that they work by increasing expected inflation. Bill and Rong look at that mechanism: did the ARRA stimulus in 2009 increase inflation or expected inflation?  Their answer: No.


This is a quantitative question. How much do the large-multiplier models say the ARRA should have increased inflation? Their answer: 4.6%. Where is it?

We know, of course, that inflation (especially core inflation) basically did nothing during the period of the ARRA, and Bill and Rong have some nice graphs. Defenders might say, aha, but except for the stimulus, we would have had a catastrophic deflation spiral. Critics might reply, that's what George Washington's doctors said while they were bleeding him. As always, teasing out cause and effect is hard.

Bill and Rong have a range of interesting facts that address this question. Here are two that I thought particularly clever. First, they look at the survey of professional forecasters, and examined how the forecasters changed inflation forecasts along with their changes in government spending forecasts, i.e. when they figured out a big stimulus is coming. I plotted the data from Bill and Rong's Table 2

Dupor and Li Table 2

As you can see, in 2008Q4 and 2009Q1, many forecasters updated their views on government spending, a few by a lot.  However, there is next to no correlation between learning of a big stimulus and increases in expected inflation, especially among the forecasters who strongly update their stimulus forecasts.

Bill and Rong's interpretation is that the stimulus failed to increase expected inflation. The main defense I can think of is to say that this evidence tells us about professional forecaster's model, not about true inflation expectations. Professional forecasters are a bunch of old-Keynesians, not properly enlightened new-Keynesians; they don't realize that stimulus works through inflation, they're still thinking about a pre-Friedman consumption function. That's probably true. But if so, it's hard to think that everyone else in the economy does understand the new truth, and changed their inflation forecasts dramatically when they learned of the stimulus.

Another nice piece of evidence: The US had much bigger government spending stimulus than the UK. The behavior of expected inflation revealed in the real vs. nominal treasury spread was almost exactly the same. (Yes, Bill and Rong delve into the TIPS pricing in the crisis.)

Source: Dupor and Li

Finally, a key point missing in most of the stimulus debate. These models predict big multipliers not just at the zero bound, but anytime that interest rates don't respond to inflation. We don't have to just rely on theory, there is some experience. New-Keynesians since at least Clarida Gali and Gertler's famous regressions have said that the Fed was not increasing interest rates fast enough in the 1970s, and the 1930s and interest-rate peg of the late 40s and early 50s are another testing ground. Using standard measures of exogenous spending increases, Bill and Rong find no impact of government spending on inflation in any of these periods.

New Keynesian stimulus analysis has been particularly slippery, on the difference between the models and the words, and on advocating the policy answers without checking or believing the mechanisms. The models are Ricardian: the same stimulus happens whether paid for by taxes or borrowing. The opeds scream that the government must borrow. The models say totally useless spending stimulates. The opeds are full of infrastructure, and roads and bridges. (At least, the "sprawl"  complaint is temporarily quiet.) The models say that spending works by creating inflation, not through a consumption function. Inflation being totally flat, and the counterfactual argument weak, you don't hear much about that in the opeds.  The models say we should be in a huge deflation with strong expected output growth. The facts are protracted stagnation. (More in my last stimulus post.) The models are models, worthy of careful examination and empirical testing. All I ask is that their proponents take them seriously, and not as holy water for a completely different old-Keynesian agenda.

Rogoff on UK Defaults

Ken Rogoff wrote a very interesting FT oped on UK finances (FT original, Rogoff webpage if you can't see FT.)

The issue: Should we worry about huge sovereign debts of advanced countries? Or was the only problem with fiscal stimulus that it was not big enough?


A little history:

Yes, from the 1800s until the first world war, the UK was a global superpower that commanded vast colonial resources and investments. Over long periods, these foreign assets yielded returns well in excess of interest on debt. But comparing government debt ratios back then, when the UK was a massive net creditor, to debt ratios today, when British foreign liabilities exceed foreign assets, is utterly misleading. Moreover, back in the 1820s, the UK was pioneering the industrial revolution; things are not quite the same today. Back then, the UK did not have to worry about pension liabilities or existential threats to the banking system that could require massive injections of cash to fix. ...

During the 1930s, Britain defaulted on debt to the US accumulated during the first world war and its aftermath. ...

It is often stated that after the second world war the UK debt reached almost 250 per cent of gross domestic product and was brought down merely through growth and inflation. This is a myth ...

Then there is the high-inflation era of the 1970s – another de facto default. Last but not least, what about the UK’s serial dependence on International Monetary Fund bailouts from the mid-1950s until the mid-1970s? This is hardly a country with an indestructible credit status. ...

Being a UK bondholder has had its ups and downs.

Looking forward, an important point: a country needs to be substantially below its ultimate borrowing limit, or it loses its ability to fight crises going ahead.

..a euro collapse would have triggered a stampede out once investors realised that the UK banks and trade would be savaged, a flexible currency notwithstanding. In that scenario, UK leaders would have been forced to close massive budget deficits almost overnight. That would have been truly catastrophic austerity. ...

We now know the euro did not collapse. [yet -- JC] With 20-20 hindsight, yes, the UK could have borrowed more. But we do not have hindsight at the moment decisions have to be taken. 

Kan and Carmen Reinhart have been at the receiving end of Paul Krugman's tender commentaries lately, and I'm interested to see Ken taking up the issue. Krugman likes to lambaste people for "predictions" that he imagines they made which didn't come out. On the euro blowing up, Ken seems to be offering a taste of his own medicine, made more bitter by the fact that Krugman actually did say what Ken says he said:

...This was the big call – the one that everyone was focusing on. To state that credit risk was gone by 2010 is ludicrous. None other than The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman prognosticated the euro’s early demise regularly from April 2010 to July 2012. His big call has turned out – so far – to be dead wrong.

I will be curious if we see more of that from Ken. Stay tuned.

The New-Keynesian Liquidity Trap

I just finished a draft of an academic article, "The New-Keynesian Liquidity Trap"  that might be of interest to blog readers, especially those of you who follow the stimulus wars. 

New-Keynesian models produce some stunning predictions of what happens in a "liquidity trap" when interest rates are stuck at zero.  They predict a deep recession. They predict that promises work: "forward guidance," and commitments to keep interest rates low for long periods, with no current action, stimulate the current level of consumption.  Fully-expected future inflation is a good thing. Growth is bad. Deliberate destruction of output, capital, and productivity raise GDP. Throw away the bulldozers, let them use shovels. Or, better, spoons. Hurricanes are good. Government spending, even if financed by current taxation, and even if completely wasted, of the digging ditches and filling them up type, can have huge output multipliers.

Even more puzzling, new-Keynesian models predict that all of this gets worse as prices become more flexible.  Thus, although price stickiness is the central friction keeping the economy from achieving its optimal output, policies that reduce price stickiness would make matters worse.

In short, every law of economics seems to change sign at the zero bound. If gravity itself changed sign and we all started floating away, it would be no less surprising.

And of course, if you read the New York Times, people like me who have any doubts about all this are morons, evil, corrupt, and paid off by some vast right-wing conspiracy to transfer wealth from the poor to the secret conspiracy of hedge fund billionaires.

So I spent some time looking at all this.

It's true, the models do make these predictions. However, there is a crucial step along the way, where they choose one particular equilibrium. There is another equilibirum choice, where all of normal economics works again: no huge recession, no huge deflation, and policies work just as they ought to.

I took a setup from Ivan Werning's really nice 2012 paper: There is a negative "natural rate" from time 0 to time T, and the interest rate is stuck at zero. After that, the natural rate becomes positive again, and everyone expects the actual interest rate to follow. I solved the standard new-Keynesian model in this circumstance -- forward-looking "IS" and Phillips curves.

This is Werning's "standard" equilibrium choice, which shows all the new-Keynesian predictions. The liquidity trap lasts until T=5, shown as the vertical line in the middle of the graph.

The thick red line is inflation. As you see, there is huge deflation during the liquidity trap, though deflation is steadily decreasing.

The dashed blue line is output (deviation from  "potential".) As you see, there is a huge output gap, though strong expected output growth as it comes back to "trend" at the end of the trap. This is why growth is bad -- in these models you always come back to trend, so if you can lower growth, that raises today's level.

The thin red dashed lines marching toward the vertical axis show what happens as you reduce price stickiness. (I only showed inflation, output does the same thing.) As you reduce price stickiness, it all gets worse -- output at any given date falls dramatically. For price stickiness epsilon away from a frictionless market, output falls to zero and inflation to negative infinity.

I verify in the paper that all the claimed policy magic works in this equilibrium.  Even a small amount of "forward guidance" can dramatically raise output, wasted-spending multipliers can be as large as you like, and those policies get more effective as price stickiness gets smaller.

However, for the same interest rate path, there are lots and lots of equilibria.

This graph shows a different equilibrium. I call it the "local-to-frictionless" equilibrium. Again, the thick  red line is inflation. Now, during the liquidity trap, there is steady, mild inflation. The inflation pretty much matches the negative natural rate, so the zero interest rate during the trap (from t=0 to t=T=5) produces a the real interest rate near the natural rate.

As the trap ends, inflation slowly declines and then takes a "glide path" to zero -- i.e. zero deviation from trend, or back to the Fed's long-run target.

In this equilibrium, there is a small increase in potential output, shown in the dashed blue output line. The new-Keynesian Phillips curve says that when inflation today is higher than inflation tomorrow, output is above potential.

As we turn down price stickiness, the thin red lines show that inflation smoothly approaches the totally frictionless case, positive inflation from 0 to T and zero inflation immediately thereafter. I didn't have room to show it, but  output smoothly approaches a flat line as well.

The paper shows that all the magical policies are absent in this equilibrium: The multiplier is always negative, announcements about the far off future do no good, and deliberately making prices sticker doesn't help.

These are not different models. These are not different policies or different expected policies. Interest rates follow exactly the same path in each case, zero from t until T=5, and following the natural rate thereafter. These are different equilibrium choices of the same model. Each choice is completely valid by the rules of new-Keynesian models. I don't here challenge any of the assumptions, any of the model ingredients, any of the rules of the game for computation. Which outcome you choose is completely arbitrary.

The difference between the calamitous equilibrium and the mild local-to-frictionless equilibirum, in this model, is just expectational mulitple equilibria (with an implicit Ricardian regime.) If people expect the inflation glide path, we get the benign equilibrium. If they expect inflation to be zero the minute the trap ends, we get the disaster.

The paper goes on to compute all the magical policies, consider Taylor rules, and every other objection I can think of. So far.

What do I make of all this? Well obviously, maybe one isn't so dumb, evil, or corrupt for having doubts about changing the sign of all economic principles when interest rates hit zero.

Let me just quote from the conclusion

At a minimum, this analysis shows that equilibrium selection, rather than just interest rate policy, is vitally important for understanding these models' predictions for a liquidity trap and the effectiveness of stimulative policies. In usual interpretations of new-Keynesian model results, authors feel that interest rate policy is central, and equilibrium-selection policy by the Fed, or equilibrium-selection criteria, are details relegated to technical footnotes (as in Werning 2012), game-theoretic foundations, or philosophical debates, which can all safely be ignored in applied research. These results deny that interpretation.

....there really are multiple equilibria and choosing one vs. another is simply an arbitrary choice. Since there is an equilibrium with no depression and deflation, and no magical policy predictions, one cannot say that the new-Keynesian model makes a definite prediction of depression and policy impact.

I have not advocated a specific alternative equilibrium selection criterion. Obviously, the local-to-frictionless equilibrium has some points to commend it: It is bounded in both directions, it produces normal policy predictions, it has a smooth limit as price stickiness is reduced, and it does not presume an enormous fiscal support for deflation. But this is not yet economic proof that it is the "right" equilibrium choice.

We might consider which equilibrium choice is more consistent with the data. The US economy 2009-2013 features steady but slow growth, a level of output stuck about 6-7% below the previous trendline and the CBO's assessment of "potential," a stagnant employment-population ratio, and steady positive 2-2.5% inflation.

The local-to-frictionless equilibrium as shown in my second Figure can produce this stagnant outcome, but only if one thinks that current output is about equal to potential, i.e. that the problem is "supply" rather than "demand," and that the CBO and other calculations of "potential" or non-inflationary output and employment are optimistic, as they were in the 1970s, and do not reflect new structural impediments to output.

The standard equilibrium choice as shown in my first Figure cannot produce stagnation. It counterfactually predicts deflation, and it counterfactually predicts strong growth. One would have imagine a steady stream of unexpected negative shocks -- that each year, the expected duration of the negative natural rate increases unexpectedly by one more year -- to rescue the model. But five tails in a row is pretty unlikely.

The problem in generating stagnation is central to the new-Keynesian model. The "IS" curve and the assumption that we return to trend means that we can only have a low level of output and consumption if we expect strong growth. The Phillips curve says that to have a large output gap, we must have inflation today much below expected inflation tomorrow and thus growing inflation (or declining deflation). Thus if we are to return to a low-inflation steady state, we must experience sharp deflation today.  If one wants a model with stagnation resulting from perpetual lack of "demand," this model isn't it. Static old-Keynesian models produce slumps, but dynamic intertemporal new-Keynesian models do not.
....
I close with a few kinds words for the new-Keynesian model. This paper is really an argument to save the core of the new-Keynesian model -- proper, forward-looking intertemporal behavior in its IS and price-setting equations -- rather than to attack it. Inaccurate predictions for data (deflation, depression, strong growth), crazy-sounding policy predictions, a paradoxical limit as price stickiness declines, and explosive off-equilibrium expectations, are not essential results of the model's core ingredients.  A model with the core ingredients can give a very conventional view of the world, if one only picks the local-to-frictionless equilibrium. That model will build neatly on a stochastic growth model, represented here in part by the forward-looking "IS" equation and changes in "potential." Its price stickiness will modify dynamics in small but sensible ways and allow a description of the effects of monetary policy. This was the initial vision for new-Keynesian models, and it remains true.

Really, the fault is not in the core of the new-Keynesian model. The fault is in its application, which failed to take seriously the fundamental problem of nominal indeterminacy.... Interest rate targets, even those that vary with output and inflation, or money supply control with interest-elastic demand, simply do not determine the price level or inflation.  In a model with price stickiness, nominal indeterminacy spills over in to real indeterminacy.

In that context, this paper shows there is an equilibrium choice that leads to sensible results. Alas, those sensible results are non-intoxicating. In that equilibrium, our present (2013) economic troubles cannot be chalked up to one big simple story, a "negative natural rate" (whatever that means) facing a lower bound on short term nominal rates; and our economic troubles cannot be solved by promises, or a sign reversal of all the dismal parts of our dismal science. Technical regress, wasted government spending, and deliberate capital destruction do not work. Growth is good, not bad. That outcome is bad news for those who found magical policies an intoxicating possibility, but good news for a realistic and sober macroeconomics.
    

If all this just whets your appetite, I hope you will read the paper. Similarly, if you're brimming with objections, take a look at my attempts to anticipate most objections -- what about the Taylor rule, etc. -- in the paper.

(This follows an earlier paper in the JPE (online appendix) looking deeply at multiple equilibria in new-Keynesian models. In that paper, I questioned whether ruling out multiple explosive equilibria made sense. In this paper, I accept that part of the rules of the game, and think about the mulitple non-explosive equilibria.)

Job market doldrums

Three recent views on the dismal labor market pose an interesting contrast.

Alan Blinder wrote a provocative WSJ piece on 6/11, Fiscal Fixes for the Jobless Recovery. A week prviously, 6/5, Ed Lazear wrote about The Hidden Jobless Disaster. And John Taylor has a good short blog post Job Growth–Barely Keeping Pace with Population

All three authors emphasize that the unemployment rate is a poor measure of the labor market. Unemployment counts people who don't have a job but are actively looking for one. People who give up and leave the labor force don't count. Employment is a more interesting number, and the employment-population ratio a better summary statistic than the unemployment rate. After all, if unemployment falls because everyone who is looking for a job gives up, I don't think we'd see that as a good sign.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Ed Lazear made this interesting chart. As he explains,

Every time the unemployment rate changes, analysts and reporters try to determine whether unemployment changed because more people were actually working or because people simply dropped out of the labor market entirely... The employment rate—that is, the employment-to-population ratio—eliminates this issue by going straight to the bottom line, measuring the proportion of potential workers who are actually working.

While the unemployment rate has fallen over the past 3½ years, the employment-to-population ratio has stayed almost constant at about 58.5%, well below the prerecession peak. Jobs are always being created and destroyed, and the net number of jobs over the last 3½ years has increased. But so too has the size of the working-age population. Job growth has been just slightly better than what it takes to keep the employed proportion of the working-age population constant. That's why jobs still seem so scarce.

The U.S. is not getting back many of the jobs that were lost during the recession. At the present slow pace of job growth, it will require more than a decade to get back to full employment defined by prerecession standards....

Why have so many workers dropped out of the labor force and stopped actively seeking work? Partly this is due to sluggish economic growth. But research by the University of Chicago's Casey Mulligan has suggested that because government benefits are lost when income rises, some people forgo poor jobs in lieu of government benefits—unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability benefits among the most obvious. The disability rolls have grown by 13% and the number receiving food stamps by 39% since 2009.
....

John Taylor makes the point nicely with another graph, which contrasts the labor force participation rate to the BLS' forecast of what should have happened from demographic effects.

The graph comes from a recent paper Chris Erceg and Andrew Levin.

I part company a bit with Lazear on his conclusions

... the various programs of quantitative easing (and other fiscal and monetary policies) have not been particularly effective at stimulating job growth. Consequently, the Fed may want to reconsider its decision to maintain a loose-money policy until the unemployment rate dips to 6.5%.

If low employment is "structural," resulting from the worker-side disincentives as well as employer-side disincentives -- policy uncertainty, regulatory threats, NLRB, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, EPA, and so on -- then the problem isn't lack of "demand" in the first place. If the problem has nothing to do with the Fed, and if $2 trillion of QE didn't do anything to help it, why does the solution have anything to do with the Fed?

The greater surprise is to hear so much agreement from Alan Blinder:

The Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, with which I am associated, estimates each month what it calls the "jobs gap," defined as the number of jobs needed to return employment to its prerecession levels and also absorb new entrants to the labor force. The project's latest jobs-gap estimate is 9.9 million jobs. At a rate of 194,000 a month, it would take almost eight more years to eliminate that gap.

.... policy makers should be running around like their hair is on fire.

Lazear said "a decade."  More suprising agreement on the impotence of monetary policy:

The Federal Reserve has worked overtime to spur job creation, and there is not much more it can do.

As you might imagine, I'm not such a fan of Blinder's suggested fixes. He starts with traditional simple Keynesian recommendations that  the government should hire people and "spend" more. No need to refight that here. The more interesting recommendations follow as he warms up to his latest clever scheme.

... the basic idea is straightforward: Offer tax breaks to firms that boost their payrolls.

For example, companies might be offered a tax credit equal to 10% of the increase in their wage bills over the previous year. ...

Another sort of business tax cut may hold more political promise....Suppose Congress enacted a partial tax holiday that allowed companies to repatriate profits held abroad at some bargain-basement tax rate like 10%. The catch: The maximum amount each company could bring home at that low tax rate would equal the increase in its wage payments as measured by Social Security records.

For example, if XYZ Corporation paid wages covered by Social Security of $1 billion in 2012 and $1.1 billion in 2013, it would be allowed to repatriate $100 million at the superlow tax rate. The reward for boosting its payroll by $100 million would thus be a $25 million tax saving. That looks like a powerful incentive.

...companies could claim the tax benefit only for individual earnings below the Social Security maximum ($113,700 in 2013). No subsidies for raising executive pay.

I find this most interesting at the level of basic philosophy; how we think about economic policy.

There are huge, longstanding, tax and regulatory disincentives to hiring people. Income tax, payroll taxes, health care and other mandates, and NLRB, OSHA, and so on. There are the high marginal taxes to labor implied by social insurance programs, as Mulligan points out.  If we want to increase the incentive for companies to hire people and people to take the jobs, why add another tax break to an obscenely complex tax code, rather than fix some of the existing disincentives? 

Is this really the right way to run a country? When "policy makers" want more employment, they slap on a complex, tax break on top of a mountain of disncentives. Presumably they then will remove this tax break, and pages 536,721 to 621,843 of the tax code describing it, despite the lobbying by large corporations who have figured out how to exploit it for billions of dollars, once the Brookings Institution decides that there is "enough" employment (!), and "policy-makers" no longer need to encourage it? 

How are the existing hundreds of bits of social engineering in the tax code working out? Do we really need more of this?  Isn't it time to return to a tax code that raises money for the government at minimal distortion?

The contrast between the benevolent "policy-maker" (no dictator ever had such power) and the reality of how the tax code in this country is actually enacted is pretty striking.

I have to say, I'm a bit disappointed in the end by both. They agree that the US economy is about 10 million jobs short. Something big is in the way. Lazear at least mentions some candidates, though many are long-standing. But the stirring conclusion from Lazear is only to continue a loose monetary policy that he says has been ineffective so far, and the conclusion from Blinder is the sort of clever scheme that economists cook up in late-night cocktail parties piling one more quickly-exploitable bit of social engineering on top of a tax code rife with them. Neither recommendation comes close to 10 million jobs, or addressing any sort of clear story why those jobs have vanished.

Local Austerity

The Wall Street Journal had a really heart-warming article, Europe's Recession Sparks Grass-Roots Political Push  about groups taking over local governments in southern Europe, and cleaning out years of mismanagement. An excerpt

At her inauguration Ms. Biurrun [the new mayor of Torroledones, Spain] choked up before a jubilant crowd.

Then she began slashing away. She lowered the mayor's salary by 21%, to €49,500 a year, trimmed council members' salaries and eliminated four paid advisory positions.

She got rid of the police escort and the leased car, and gave the chauffeur a different job. She returned a carpet, emblazoned with the town seal, that had cost nearly €300 a month to clean. She ordered council members to pay for their own meals at work events instead of billing the town.

"I was so indignant seeing what these people had been doing with everyone's money as if it were their own," Ms. Biurrun said.

Those cuts, combined with savings achieved by renegotiating contracts for garbage pickup and other services, helped give a million-euro boost to the city treasury in her first year in office.

Great, no?

But wait, isn't this all "austerity?" Isn't cutting spending  exactly the kind of thing that Keynesian macroeconomists, as well as the reigning IMF-style policy consensus decries, saying we need stimulus now, austerity later?

Keynesian, and especially new-Keynesian economics wants more government spending, even if completely wasted. Those trimmed salaries, fired "advisers," cleaning bills, restaurant spending, overpaid contracts are, in the standard mindset, all crucial for "demand" and goosing GDP.  If stimulus advocates were at all honest, they would be writing blog posts decrying Ms. Birrun and her kind.

Of course they don't. Abstract "spending" sounds good, and touting abstract "topsy-turvy" model predictions sounds fine.  But when it is concrete, it's so patently absurd that you don't hear it.

The Greek city of Thessaloniki cut costs after Yannis Boutaris, a businessman-turned-politician, took office in late 2010 and ended City Hall's relationship with a few selected providers. Competitive bidding has saved the city 80% of its previous spending on accounting, 25% on waste disposal trucks and 20% on printer paper. The savings have allowed Mr. Boutaris to spend more on social services, even while cutting taxes and paying down City Hall's debt to suppliers.

How sad. So much "demand"-destroying "austerity."

(Of course, the main point of the articles is about a political realignment, in which local governments are becoming responsive to local voters, transparent, and efficient, rather than being cronyist machines of national political parties. I can't imagine anyone not feeling warm about that!)

Update: Courtesy Marginal Revolution, I found this nice story about the new Spanish $680 million submarine that will sink if put in water.  MR snarkily asks "did this help Spain or hurt Spain." $680 million of government spending raises Spanish GDP by nearly $1 billion, so this is great, right?

Debt and growth in 10 minutes

This is a short video from last year. I only just found out it exists. It still seems pretty topical, and (for once) condensed because Lars Hansen really forced me to obey the 10 minute time limit!

There is a better link here from the BFI page here that covers the whole event, but I couldn't figure out how to embed those.

Growth in the UK?

I thought European "austerity," meaning mostly large increases in marginal tax rates on anyone daring  to work, save, invest, start a company or hire people, while spending stays north of 50% of GDP, was a pretty bad idea.

So I was glad to read the tiltle, when a friend sent me a link to the Telegraph, announcing Osborne to unleash raft of policies to kick-start growth. Great, I thought, after trying everything else, the British will finally try the one thing that will work.


The byline was only a bit disappointing

The Government is to reveal a series of major new measures to boost national and regional growth ahead of the Budget to show its “pro-business” strategy is working

Pro-business is usually a code word for protection and subsidy. But there are plenty of worse code words.

And then it all falls apart

The measures will include:

• Billions of pounds of central government funding directed at boosting regional growth and a backing for Michael Heseltine’s plans for new local spending powers;

• The planning go-ahead for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station;

• Support for housebuilders and for first-time buyers trying to get mortgages;

• A push on major infrastructure projects, including the Merseyside Gateway and the “super-sewer” in London, and more government guarantees for such projects;

... The Bank of England could also be given a broader mandate to support growth.

...billions of pounds of central government funds should be made directly available to the regions and cities such as Birmingham...

Lord Heseltine’s report made far-reaching recommendations for stimulating economic growth. The Government will unveil plans enabling Local Enterprise Partnerships and businesses to bid regionally for money that is now allocated centrally.

It's not all bad. Allowing a nuclear power plant to operate is nice, and some plans to lower corporate taxes a bit. But the blossoming of free enterprise in the land of Adam Smith, alas, this is not. Keynes still rules.  

Comic of the day

Greg Mankiw posted this lovely "comic of the day." He called it "not completely fair." I'm not sure what he meant.

Perhaps it's in need of a better caption. To be fair to Keynesian economics, perhaps the caption should continue,

"When you're done, another half a box will magically appear on the wall." 

Maybe this is a good time for a cartoon caption contest!

Bloomberg TV on debt and magic

I did a short interview on Bloomberg TV this morning. Nothing new for readers of this blog, but fun anyway. Coffee just starting to kick in at 6:15 AM. As always, walking home I figured out 10 better ways to answer.

Three views of consumption and the slow economy

I'm still digesting New-Keynesian models. As part of that effort, today I offer some thoughts on how economists come to such different views of the current situation and desirable policies. It's a nice story, in the end. Real economists, unlike much of the commentary and blogging world, come to different conclusions by using much the same model, but making different assumptions and simplifications, each of which we can look at and evaluate, and hopefully come to some consensus.

The economy is not doing well. The black line in the graph shows log consumption. (The units are percent increase in consumption since 2002.) After trending up steadily at close to 3% per year through the previous decade, consumption -- along with output and everything else -- took a dive, totaling 10% loss relative to the red trendline. And consumption has been stuck there ever since.

So, the big questions: why, and what might be done about it?

All current macroeconomic theories start with the same basic story: when interest rates are higher, people consume less today, save, and then consume more in the future. Higher real interest rates mean higher consumption growth. In equations,

(c represents log consumption, i is the interest rate, pi is inflation, rho and gamma are parameters. Rho is a "discount rate" capturing how much people prefer the present to the future, and gamma captures how strongly people react to interest rate changes. I simplified, leaving out uncertainty.)

We build on this insight in different ways. 

I. New Keynesians 

Integrating forward, today's consumption reflects all expected future interest rates, and where we think consumption will be in the far-off future

This is the central equation of the new-Keynesian model and world-view. (For example, this is Johannes Wieland's equation 2, see my last post. I have taken out growth or trend, so these represent deviations from a steady growth path.)

The green line in the graph presents the New-Keynesian diagnosis of the current situation. New-Keynesians assume consumption will return to trend, so the last term in the equation is zero. In the graph, they anchor future consumption at the green dot. Then, a too-high interest rate means too-high consumption growth, which drives the level of today's consumption down.  (For example,  Ivan Werning's figure 3, discussed in an earlier post here.)

Why is the interest rate too high? The "zero lower bound" is to blame. The Fed cannot lower nominal interest rates (i) below zero. So if the inflation and discount rate terms (pi and rho) require a strongly negative nominal rate, the real rate will be stuck at a big positive number.

From this one equation and graph, you can make sense of lots and lots of new-Keynesian analysis and policy advice.

The level of today's consumption depends on the whole string of future interest rates, not just today's interest rate. So, if people expect the interest rate in 2014 to be lower, that is every bit as effective in raising today's consumption as would be lowering today's rate. Hence, "open mouth operations," "forward guidance," and "managing expectations."  If the Fed by just talking can persuade people it will hold interest rates low for a longer periods, when they are expecting rates to rise above zero, that expectation will "stimulate" today's consumption. If promises don't help, perhaps announcing a new "rule" which if followed would lead to lower rates for longer will help to change expectations.

In this equation, more inflation lowers the real interest rate too. So, anything that boosts inflation is a good thing. Boosting inflation isn't primarily about a Phillips curve, direct "monetary stimulus," encouraging investment, and so on. It's a way to lower real interest rates inside the integral and shift consumption from the future to the present.

Once again, increasing expected future inflation would be just as effective as increasing current inflation. Hence, calls for the Fed to announce a higher inflation target, or at least announce that it will tolerate more inflation before beginning to raise rates, as it has.

Fiscal stimulus, and many of the other seemingly magical properties of new-Keynesian models (see  last post) follow from the idea that inflation is good. Fiscal stimulus raises inflation. Broken windows, hurricanes, pointless public works projects, temporarily lowering the economy's productive capacity, all raise inflation (how is in other equations of the model), which lowers interest rates.

I'm not sold on this story, as you probably guessed, for a variety of reasons.  

New Keynesian models are a bit fuzzy on just why interest rates have to be so low -- why the "natural rate" is sharply negative and why zero interest rates aren't enough. Many of the formal models assume that consumer's discount rate (rho) has declined sharply, beyond the capacity of the interest rate to follow it. If rho goes to, say -5%, with our 2% inflation, then even a zero nominal interest rate is like a 3% real interest rate. (These are deviations from trend, so one might not need actually negative discount rates to hit the zero bound. But even adding growth, it's hard to avoid the need for a negative natural rate to cause a problem of this size.)

Now, a spontaneous outbreak of thrift, to the point of valuing the future a lot more than the present, seems a bit of a strained diagnosis for the fundamental trouble of the US economy. That a bit more thrift is a great danger to the economy, rather than the long awaited return to normal after decades of debt-financed consumption, seems strained as well.

To be fair, all the papers I've read say clearly that they regard the decline in the discount rate rho as a stand-in for some more complex process involving the financial crisis. For example, a more precise version of my first equation adds a "precautionary saving" term. When people are very uncertain about the future, they save more, just as if they had become much more patient. In equations,

This story seems possible for 2008 and 2009, in the depths of the financial crisis and recession. But I'm less convinced that it describes our current moment. Just look at the graph. Our state is one of steady but sclerotic growth, not one of great consumption volatility.

New-Keynesian introductions have something more complex in mind, involving the "frictions" of the financial crisis, and lots of models in this spirit add explicit financial frictions. That too seems to me a useful line to pursue to understand the onset of the recession and the financial crisis. But that too is really not our question. The  "frictions" of the financial crisis -- capital constraints at banks and financial intermediaries,  or the run in the shadow banking system -- passed quite a while ago, and the models with frictions are by and large not being used to address the current moment. 

The question before us is not really why consumption fell so drastically in 2008 and 2009. The question is, why did consumption get stuck at so low a level starting in 2010? For this question, it's much harder for me to understand what a strongly negative discount rate means.

This question and controversy is much like those surrounding the Great Depression. The controversy there has not been about why the stock market crash and recession happened in the first place. (Though perhaps it should, as we really don't know much about that process.) The controversy is, why did the US get stuck so low for so long? Was it bad monetary policy (Friedman and Schwartz), bad microeconomic policy, war on capital, and high marginal tax rates (Cole, Ohanian, Prescott, etc.), or inadequate fiscal stimulus (Keynesians)? 

Many new-Keynesian models (such as Ivan Werning's) generate the high real interest rate by predicting strong deflation. Yes, if inflation (pi) were negative 10% in (2), then a zero interest rate would be a 10% positive real rate. But our inflation has been positive throughout. Our zero interest rate has meant a negative 1.5% to 2.5% real rate all along. Deflation simply did not happen. Moreover, the other ingredient in new-Keynesian modeling -- the Phillips curve -- says that a big output gap should be accompanied by some action on inflation, not a steady 2%.  The Phillips curve part of the model suggests that "potential" dropped, not that current output is far below that potential.

I graphed the green line to 2010, a good date for supposing the crisis is over and we entered the period of sclerotic growth rather than swift return to trend. We've had some time since 2010. Again, the new-Keynesian model generates a low consumption level by saying that we have too-strong consumption growth. But we don't have strong consumption growth. Equation (2) does not produce a steadily depressed level of consumption, with (if anything) weaker than normal growth. I guess you could argue for a constant sequence of unexpected negative shocks, so that each quarter, people are expecting the big consumption growth which just ends up not happening. But you can see how strained that argument is. It would be much more appealing to refer to a model and analysis that describes slumponomics directly.  (Update: I just found Kathryn Dominguez and Matt Shaprio on a sequence of negative shocks.)

And, you might be exploding a bit at the economic logic of it all. How can it be that all we need to do is to decide how much to consume, and the output just magically appears? Doesn't consumption have to be limited a bit by income?

Well, the new-Keynesian models are coherent on this subject. The simple models have no capital; output is produced by more or less labor each period. The logical structure of the models, is, roughly, that you first decide how much you want to consume, then you'll work hard enough to make the required income. (This isn't a behavioral assumption, it's the equilibrium outcome of sticky prices and monopolistic competition.)

That's why fiscal stimulus works at all. You might think that if you have to pay taxes to the goverment, which buys output to throw it away, you'll have to consume less.  (Again, stimulus in these models is Ricardian so the same whether from taxed or borrowed money, and stimulus does not depend on the government doing anything useful with the output.) But if consumption is determined first by the above equation, then you just work harder to pay taxes and make the stuff the government wants to throw away. That gives us a multiplier of one, not zero, and then inflation kicks in to raise desired consumption and give us a larger multiplier. (Roughly! Again, I'm trying to explain the core simplest idea, not to fairly describe all the complexities of the models.)

The very simple new-Keynesian model also does not have investment or capital stock. Output is produced as you need it. That's why consumption "demand" immediately means changes in output. I've always wondered why buying a car is good (consumption) but buying a forklift is bad (investment) in new-Keynesian models. You just can't ask that question in the very simplified model here -- there is no investment. Now, real quantitative new-Keynesian models do have investment and capital (with adjustment costs and other wedges). But as far as I can tell, the same basic conclusions emerge from models with capital, so the intuition must be as here, in which consumption is everything.

II Permanent income

An alternative view asks, what about the second term on the right hand side of the basic equation (2)?  What if nothing's terribly wrong with the intertemporal allocation of consumption, but the long-run productive capacity of the economy has declined?

There is certainly an abundant litany of such complaints. What if all the over regulation (Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, EPA "crucifixions," etc.), sand in the gears, disincentives of social programs, crony capitalism, policy uncertainty, high and prospectively much higher marginal tax rates, and other litany of complaints, have permanently reduced the productive capacity of the US economy, or, worse, its long run growth rate? Then we are not returning to trend. The trend has shifted down.

If so, the trouble is in the second term on the right hand side of the basic equation (2). And this basic equation has a dramatic and important lesson for us: Long-run ("supply") will depress today's consumption every bit as much as expected future interest rates ("demand") effects do. And improving the long-run "supply" effects can have a direct "stimulative" effect on consumption today.

I italicized, because I think this is an underappreciated consequence of the common world-view of all modern macroeconomics, both new-Keynesian and not, embodied in (2). The old-Keynesian view was,  take care of the short run now, because helping the long run only helps in the long run. You hear this over and over in policy circles. More stimulus now, and then talk about "structural reform" once the economy has recovered. Equation (2) denies that separation:  Improving the long run improves the present. 

I drew the blue line to reflect this view of matters. For an equation, we can turn to our old friend the permanent income model

Here W represents wealth (capital stock), r is the real rate r = i - pi, and y represents the stream of expected future income. This is an extremely oversimplified version of the standard stochastic growth model at the heart of... well, I don't know what to call us anymore. "Neoclassical?" "Anybody left who is a bit suspicous of the new-Keynesian juggernaut?"

The difference is really one of emphasis, not deep economics. (3) also derives from (1), but with a different set of auxiliary assumptions. The real interest rate is constant at r. There is capital W, and investment freely adds or subtracts from capital. Labor's product y is fixed rather than produced.

Again, this model is, like (2), extremely simplified. Yes, interest rates do vary, and it's easy enough to add that to the model.  Similarly, new-Keynesians know there is capital and investment.  We're outlining basic stories today, not constructing completely realistic, but often obscure and complex, models.

In this equation, the level of consumption shifts up and down along with expectations of permanent income. So, if you get news that the productive efficiency of the economy is permanently 10% lower, consumption drops 10%, and then goes on at the previous growth rate. As, by picking 2010 as the decision date, my graph suggests.

Like the new-Keynesians,  I won't be that specific here about just why consumption fell so drastically in the financial crisis.  The permanent income model does suggest that we look for changes in permanent income to explain the fall, rather than (only) a rise in discount rates or real interest rates, i.e. the desired intertemporal allocation of consumption.  From this perspective, consumers realized in fall 2008, that this recession was going to last forever rather than bounce back quickly, and they adjusted consumption downward accordingly. They were right. Just how they knew, when all the Government's forecasters thought we would quickly bounce back, is an interesting question.  Surely, my litany of free-marketer's complaints did not obvioulsy get suddenly worse in October 2008, just coincident with a run in the shadow banking system.  Well, maybe not so surely. Maybe consumers thought, we're in a horrible banking crisis, and our government is likely to prolong this one with ham-handed policies just like they did in the 1930s. But that's pretty speculative. And I do think (just as speculatively) there was a run in the shadow banking system, effective risk aversion spiked, and the financial crisis was more than just a signal of bad policy to come.

But all that is a topic for another day. The question is why consumption (and output) remain so low for so long after the crisis, when whatever outside-the-model chaos is over. The permanent income view suggests the problem is a poor long-term level, poor long-term prospects for the productive capacity of the economy, not too high growth, to an unchanged long-term level.

In this view, the Fed largely wasting its time with all its QEs and promises about future interest rates. The right policy answer is to forget about stimulating and fine tuning. Fix the long-run growth problem and the short run will take care of itself, much faster than you might have thought. This isn't the Fed's job. For Europe, do the "structural reforms" now and you'll start growing now in anticipation of their effect.

Moreover, in the underlying stochastic growth model, a rise in real interest rates is a good thing. Yes, we can get on the new-Keynesian green trajectory. What does that is a rise in the marginal product of capital, which raises interest rates, attracts investment, and leads to greater output. In that model, consumption is (very roughly) anchored at its position today, and increased interest rates raise future consumption, not the other way around. Of course, in the stochastic growth model, the Fed can't raise interest rates all on its own --  a higher marginal product of capital comes from greater efficiency or better technology. Still, it encapsulates the comments you read here and there that maybe the conventional sign is wrong -- maybe higher interest rates are desirable, as a sign of a good thing, not as a cause of a bad thing. There is always supply and demand in economics, and two sides to every question.

Which view is right? To my eyes, consumption seems stuck on a lower trend line, not growing sharply. Real interest rates are already negative -- we do not have deflation -- and I find it hard to believe that the discount rate and marginal product of capital are negative 5% or worse. The very large discount rate shock needed for the new-Keynesian story is pretty nebulous. The shocks to long-run productivity are staring us in the face.

I wish, of course, for more serious structural investigation to separate the two stories. I haven't seen a serious attempt to look at the structure of the US economy and measure a sharp negative "natural rate." (I welcome pointers from commenters.) I would welcome a quantitative assessment of how much the level of GDP is depressed from my litany of free-market complaints. With trillions of dollars of GDP, and potentially trillions of wasted stimulus at stake, you'd think we could do better.  

I want to emphasize, this is not a fight between models. This is the same model, with different emphasis, and different simplifications. There is nothing in the new-Keynesian modeling paradigm that forbids one to ask the question, what if the long-run productivity of the economy has sunk and high real rates are not the problem? The models were developed to talk about other things, to talk about historical "cycles" defined as deviations from "trend." Nothing but old habits prohibits one from asking the opposite questions.

III. Old Keynesians

A traditional view of consumption has been conspicuously absent so far, the textbook old-Keynesian consumption function

Consumption depends on today's income through the "marginal propensity to consume" mpc.

Modern new-Keynesian models are utterly different from this traditional view. Lots of people, especially in policy, commentary, and blogging circles, like to wave their hands over the equations of new Keynesian models and claim they provide formal cover for traditional old-Keynesian intuition, with all the optimization, budget constraints, and market clearing conditions that the old-Keynesian analysis never really got right taken care of. A quick look at our equations and the underlying logic shows that this is absolutely not the case.

Consider how lowering interest rates is supposed to help. In the old Keynesian model, investment I = I(r) responds to lower interest rates, output and income Y = C + I + G, so rising investment raises income, which raises consumption in (4), which raises income some more, and so on. By contrast, the simple new-Keynesian model needs no investment, and interest rates simply rearrange consumption demand over time.

Similarly, consider how raising government spending is supposed to help. In the old Keynesian model,  raising G in Y = C + I + G raises Y, which raises consumption C by (4), which raises Y some more, and so on. In the new-Keynesian model, the big multiplier comes because raising government spending raises inflation, which lowers interest rates, and once again brings consumption forward in time.

Old-Keynesians spent two generations fighting against the intertemporal view of consumption embodied in my first two equations, and now at the heart of the new-Keynesian model, in favor of the last equation. They said consumers were "liquidity constrained," or "rule of thumb," their expectations (if they had any) "adaptive," either too stupid to look forward in time or unable to do so.

I must confess a little sympathy to some of these views. A long long time ago I wrote a paper on "near-rationality" criticizing excessive zeal in the application of equation (1). Really, if the Fed today raises interest rates to 12% (annual rate) for a month, would everybody's consumption fall one percent today, so that it could rise one percentage point over the next month? Or is the relation between consumption and interest rates one of those looser relations that yes, applies roughly, for large sustained changes, and over long time periods, but not necessarily instantly?

In any case, a look at (1) and its application in (2) tells us that Friedman won more than he could possibly have imagined. Intertemporal optimization is now not the heretical pariah suggesting a low marginal propensity to consume and low multiplier, but it is the heart of the model. The Lucas-Sargent-Prescott revolution pervades new-Keynesian models as much as their more classical counterparts. Consumers are forward-looking. Expectations matter. No self-respecting mid 1970s Keynesian would have said that Fed pronouncements about what interest rates were going to be in 2016 -- or how the future unemployment rate would condtion that choice -- would have the slightest effect at all on today's consumption. Consumers are myopic, he would say. Expectations are adaptive.
 
But as a result, the new-Keynesian model really has nothing to do with the old-Keynesian intuition.

IV. Bottom line

Enough history of thought, though. The relevant choice today is between the first two alternatives. Are we in a situation where the long run is just fine, but the zero bound is forcing us to have too high interest rates, so consumption growth is too high and the level is depressed? Or are we in a situation that consumers doubt the long-run productive capacity of the economy, and are consuming little today because they expect to consume little tomorrow and little 10 years from now?

The answer matters: whether the economy can be stimulated merely by more solemn promises from the Fed about future interest rates and inflation, by broken-window interventions that reduce supply today to engender some inflation, or whether the economy must be stimulated today by ignoring short-run stimulus, fixing the long run, and counting on the permanent income model to increase consumption, and the present value model (q theory) to increase investment today.

---------------------------------------

P.S. It's 2013. Why is displaying math in html so hard?! The people who developed the internet are all nerd engineers who took calculus! I'm back to  pasting in png files to show equations. I tried mathjax, but it only seems to work on traditional screens, not in mobile, rss, etc. Suggestions welcome.

P.P.S. Martin Boulanger and Absalon below asked if maybe consumption wasn't growing unsustainably before the crash. Here's a longer view of the first graph, with my 2000-2007 trend line.

Or, even go back to 1945.

A big boom in the 2000's does not stick out from the consumption data. If anything, it was a little weaker than usual.

Also, yes, this is total consumption. Nondurable and services does not look much different. I started to break out the components but the post was getting too long.

More new-Keynesian paradoxes

Last week I saw Johannes Wieland's paper "Are negative supply shocks expansionary at the zero lower bound?"  A side benefit of the job market season is that we see interesting new papers like this one, and it contributed to my project of trying to better understand new-Keynesian models.

Though starting academic papers with blog quotations is usually a bad idea, Johannes starts with a great and very appropriate one,

As some of us keep trying to point out, the United States is in a liquidity trap: [...] This puts us in a world of topsy-turvy, in which many of the usual rules of economics cease to hold. Thrift leads to lower investment; wage cuts reduce employment; even higher productivity can be a bad thing. And the broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy: something that forces firms to replace capital, even if that something seemingly makes them poorer, can stimulate spending and raise employment.” -Paul Krugman

I endorse this quote, because it is an accurate and pithy description of the properties of many careful new-Keynesian analyses in the academic literature.

 Johannes explains

Does destroying productive capacity raise output when the zero lower bound (ZLB) binds? [ZLB: When interest rates are zero, the Fed can't lower them any more in response to shocks -JC] While this question may seem absurd, in fact it is a common prediction of many macroeconomic models: In these models, temporary negative supply shocks raise inflation expectations and lower expected real interest rates at the ZLB, which stimulates consumption and output. While some prominent economists have subscribed to this view and its policy implications (e.g., Eggertsson and Woodford [2003], Eggertsson and Krugman [2011], Eggertsson [2012]), there is wide disagreement over such a radical and unintuitive proposition.

Indeed there is.

These are just the beginning of the strange predictions new-Keynesian models (or modelers) make.

"Fiscal stimulus" is the prediction that even completely wasted government spending is good for the economy. Paul Krugman recommended, with refreshing clarity, that the US government fake an alien invasion so we could spend trillions of dollars building useless defenses. (I'm not exactly sure why he does not call for real defense spending. After all, if building aircraft carriers saved the economy in 1941, and defenses against imaginary aliens would save the economy in 2013, it's not clear why real aircraft carriers have the opposite effect. But I'm still working on the nuances of new-Keynesianism, so I'll let him explain the difference. I'm not a big fan of huge defense spending anyway.)

Furthermore, all the new-Keynesian models are "Ricardian." They predict the same stimulus whether spending is financed by borrowing or by lump-sum taxes  today. Good, we don't need to argue about "Ricardian equivalence," but to believe their predictions for spending borrowed money, you have to believe that taxing you and me a trillion dollars and spending it on a trillion dollars of alien defenses will raise overall output by 2, 3, or 4 (you can get really big multipliers in these models) trillion dollars.

Actually, stimulus financed by temporary payroll taxes can be even better than from borrowing money. These are a negative supply shock, which causes inflation and lowers the real interest rate. Sand in the gears is good. Stimulus financed by temporary consumption taxes is worse, because that encourages saving. Promises of higher future consumption taxes, anathema in the standard view of the world, are good, as they get people to consume today.

Super-weirdly, many new-Keyensian paradox predictions get worse as the central friction, price stickiness, gets better.

Johannes again on the new-Keynesian paradoxes:

First, according to the “Paradox of Thrift,” a rise in the desire to save is self-defeating at the ZLB, because it reduces output so much that aggregate savings fall (Keynes [1936], Krugman [1998], Eggertsson and Woodford [2003], and Christiano [2004]). Second, according to the “Paradox of Flexibility,” output volatility may rise at the ZLB when prices and wages are more flexible (e.g., Werning [2011], Eggertsson and Krugman [2011]).

My empirical results concern primarily the “Paradox of Toil” (Eggertsson [2010]), whereby a temporary increase in desired labor supply at the ZLB reduces the equilibrium employment level in standard models. .... Following this logic, payroll tax cuts are contractionary at the ZLB because they lower expected inflation (Eggertsson [2011]), and allowing collusion among firms is expansionary because it raises expected inflation (Eggertsson [2012]).

A pause in praise of economic models: They tie ideas together. You can't pick and choose. If you like stimulus with borrowed money, but suspect that tax-financed stimulus might not work so well, you can't just waive your hands and refer to new-Keynesian models to defend you. These models predict the two policies have the same effect. If you like your stimulus, but think that maybe hurricanes wiping out a bunch of the capital stock isn't great, sorry, you can't refer to new-Keynesian models to defend you. If you don't buy one of Krugman's assertions, you don't buy any of them. (At a minimum, you have to build a new variant of model -- you can't refer to existing new-Keynesian models to defend you.) To taste fish, you have to swallow the whole whale, hook, line, and sinker.

So, back to Johannes. He notes that the models predict quite different behavior away from the bound than at the bound, so conventional estimates don't really tell us that much about whether these predictions are true. But we have enough experience with economies at the lower bound now, that we can begin to test some of these astonishing predictions.

(Minor suggestion for PhD students. The key requirement for these predictions is that the Fed does not change the nominal interest rate in response to shocks. There have actually been other periods of time when central banks have fixed nominal interest rates, for example between 1945 and 1952 in the US. More generally, the general new-Keynesian view is that interest rates did not respond enough to shocks before 1980. So in fact, versions of the paradoxes should be visible in data away from the zero bound.)

Johannes looks at the earthquake in Japan, and oil price shocks. Surprise, surprise, earthquakes are bad for output. More subtly, the new-Keynesian prediction flows through inflation: "Supply shocks" should raise expected inflation, which lowers real interest rates, and lower real interest rates should raise consumption and output. (As I explained last week, new-Keynesian models anchor expected consumption in the far off future. Then real interest rates determine the growth rate of consumption, and higher growth means a lower level today. In the models consumption=output. See Johannes' equation 2 page 7.) Johannes finds that the supply shocks led to higher expected inflation, and hence a lower real rate. But the lower real rate just didn't have the predicted effect on output. In fact, he finds that oil shocks have worse negative effects on employment at the zero bound than in normal times!

Like all provocative empirical work, I'm sure this one will be picked over. The Booth Macroeconomics workshop did its usual good job of exploring nooks and crannies. But let us also pause in praise of serious empirical work. Rather than blurt "this is ridicuous!" let us go see if indeed earthquakes, hurricanes, labor market restrictions, oligopolization and other normally adverse "supply" shocks actually help the economy. The sun might just come up in the West at the zero bound.

Where to go from here? If I had this great introduction, and results that rather decisively reject a central night-is-day new-Keynesian proposition, clearly linked to all the others, I would obviously have been tempted to write it up as "this model is wrong," and dig deep into which key assumptions of the model drive its basic mistakes. Johannes takes another tack, and adds credit constraints to the model. Whether this is a successful repair or a clever epicycle I will leave for another time -- and frankly I haven't studied it closely enough to opine yet.  How many of the paradoxes it overturns is another good question. It seems to overturn quite a few. But the paradoxes are also the sexy policy implications.  It may save new-Keynesian models from their prediction that hurricanes are good, by destroying the new-Keynesian multiplier.

Christina Romer on Stimulus

(Small update to clarify in response to early comments)
Christiana Romer has an important column in Sunday's New York Times on the stimulus. You will recall that as chair of the Council of Economic advisers, she played a big part in designing the stimulus, and forecasting its effects. She also is one of the preeminent academics who have done empirical work evaluating the effects of stimulus programs. You expect a thoughtful essay.



She explains how cause-and-effect empirical work in economics is hard

To understand what’s wrong with that reasoning, think of someone who’s been in a terrible accident and has massive internal bleeding. After lifesaving surgery, the patient still feels rotten. But we shouldn’t conclude from this lingering pain that the surgery was useless — because without it, the patient would have died.

Without knowing where the economy was headed in the absence of the stimulus, it’s impossible to judge what it contributed just from what happened afterward. That’s why empirical economists rely on other approaches.

This is really good compared to the usual "of course it worked you blockhead" sort of argument from stimulus sympathizers (you know who, and "blockhead" is being polite).

Of course I might have used the image of doctors bleeding the patient, applying poultices or voodoo, and then claiming great power when the patient heals on his own, but the principle is the same.

A growing literature examines the effects of such tax cuts and increases in government spending over history and across countries, and the overwhelming conclusion is that fiscal stimulus raises employment and output in the near term.

Wow, that's strong. .

..states that received more money [for random reasons] fared substantially better. This is the strongest direct evidence that the Recovery Act contributed to employment growth. Based on the estimated size of the effect, the studies suggest that the act created more than three million jobs. 

This does not follow at all. I don't think anyone disagrees with the proposition that if the government takes money from residents of state A and splashes them on state B, the economy of state B improves.  But this totally evades the whole issue: what about state A? This is the entirety of the stimulus debate: The government can transfer resources, but not get resources to fall from the sky. (Whether it taxes or borrows form the residents of state A, it's still transferring resources.) Stimulus is  supposed to raise aggregate demand, not transfer demand from state A to state B.  Yes, if the government builds a military base in the desert, GDP in that desert goes up. From this, stimulus raising the whole country does not follow.

The web version cites the studies. I've read about half of them, and they are careful not to jump to this conclusion. (This is about cross-state studies. There is another industry of time-series studies, trying to see if times when the US overall has stimulated it did any good. That's another issue, which Romer doesn't talk about, so I will also put off for another day.)

She goes on,

In addition to its near-term jobs effects, the Recovery Act may also be having more lasting benefits. It’s too early to measure the value of the roads, bridges...

Fine, but that's not the issue either, and never was. Sure, if there is a positive rate of return investment, make it, and a recession is a good time to do it. But the argument for Keynesian stimulus is that spending money helps the economy at that moment, whether or not it does any long run good. Paul Krugman is admirably honest by  advocating we fake an alien invasion so we can build useless defenses. (I'm not sure why he's not for building useless ships and submarines, but that's for another day.) Whether that works is the issue, not whether the money turned out not to have been totally wasted.

She discusses some faults of the stimulus, finishing with

Finally, there’s little question that policy makers — myself included — should have worked harder to earn the public’s support for the act.

Well, I might say, now is a good time to start. The question for our time is whether stimulus was a great tool rediscovered or a grand failure waiting the ash heap of history. If its central architect, and a noted scholar, has to stoop to such illogical arguments to summarize our experience, I'd say earning support is unlikely.