I am still not entirely sure whether Noah Smith, a U.S. Economist and prolific blogger, is a converted MMTer or not. But I do know that he is doing a great job in describing the discourse around this newfound holy grail of macroeconomic policymaking. In my attempt to label MMT as “Woke Economics”, I leaned on some of Noah’s earlier pieces on this, and now he is back with his invocation of the new Macro Wars. The stage, according to Noah, is the recent fiscal relief bill in the US, prompting even otherwise pro-stimulus economists to push back. Oliver Blanchard and Lawrence Summers both suggest that $1.9T might be too much of a good thing, while Krugman is sticking to his Keynesian ethos, arguing that Biden’s bill really is ‘disaster relief’, a position that Noah seems to agree with. Replying specifically to Noah’s recent post, he argues that Keynesianism won the theoretical battle a decade ago, leaving only “cranks, charlatans and WSJ Op-ed writers” on the other side. Tyler Cowen chimes in, pointing out that Biden’s post-election fiscal stimulus push has as much to do with populism as it has to do with careful application of Keynesian macroeconomics. As it turns out, this is a position I have a lot of sympathy for.
Read MoreFirst things first, I am GBP-based investor, which means that I need to think about both the value of currency and asset, when I dip my toe into US financial markets. With GBPUSD pushing 1.40 and the US 10y motoring bast 1.5%, I had to do something last week, and that something was to buy some duration in the US. I thought that I’d put that up front, because in what follows, I will sound like a broken record It is now getting feisty in bond-land. The sell-off in US duration got rowdy last week, and is now starting to pull up bond yields in Europe. What’s more, front-end curves are steepening too, which is to say that markets are now trying to bring forward rate hike expectations into market-relevant forecast horizons. As I have explained on these pages since the beginning of the year, investors and strategists are still debating whether this is all part of the plan—reflecting a desired increase in growth and inflation expectations—or whether it constitutes an undue tightening in financial conditions. Market observers remain undecided, partly because policymakers can’t seem to figure out where to draw the line either. Higher bond yields are good, so long as they don’t become a constraint on the recovery via a tightening of financial conditions. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this position, though it also invites the situation we now find ourselves in. Put simply, yields will motor higher until something breaks, or until policymakers call it quits.
Read MoreThe chancellor of the Exchequer had sobering news for the UK public last month when he unveiled that the Treasury is on track to borrow almost 20% of GDP this year to plug the hole in the economy created by the virus, a move that will see the public debt-to-GDP ratio zoom past 100%. In a world governed by the rules of the now-defunct work by Rogoff and Reinhart—famously discredited by a spreadsheet error—these numbers would send chills down the spine of economists and public policymakers, but we’ve moved from on then, significantly. We now understand that the government does not operate under a budget constraint, and that it can, in fact, create as much (sovereign) money it wants to buy as much debt that it wishes to issue—via primary market purchases by the central bank—to finance whatever level of spending and investment—ostensibly to generate jobs for every able man and woman—that it wants. I treated these issues in a long-form essay on fiscal policy, but the elevator pitch is simple enough. Under the auspice of MMT, governments have the ability and duty to create jobs for everyone and to prevent financial and economic distress and harm. It must do so because the economic costs and constraints hitherto associated with such a policy strategy are figments of Neo-Classical economists’ imagination.
Read MoreIt’s been a week on the wild side in markets, though amid all the confusion and commotion the main story is simple. The uplifting vaccine news from Pfizer has invited markets to consider how a world without the virus looks like. Taking the initial reaction at face-value, this is a world basking in the glory of reflation—and accelerating nominal GDP growth—higher long-term interest rates and a sustained rotation from growth to cyclical and value stocks. Let’s start with the obvious point. There is now a chasm between those basing their world view on an effective vaccine, and the end of Covid-19, and those staring down the barrel of a still- uncontrollable spread of the virus, and associated lockdowns to contain it. As far as the economy goes, forecasters now have to pass Fitzgerald’s test for a first-rate intelligence. The near-term outlook for developed economies is not pretty, and as restrictions encroach on December, the Q4 GDP forecasts are sinking without a trace. We’re currently living in a start-stop economy. The question economists have to answer is whether this situation has to be assumed for 2021? It’s certainly possible in Q1 and Q2, but Pfizer’s news has thankfully made such an outcome less likely. The problem is timing and whether we have to be on lockdown-lite through parts of H1, as we wait for the ‘shot’. The best case scenario is that the population at large gets the shot in the first half of the 2021, but that’s a Hail Mary. Take it from me, a professional economist whose day job it is to put numbers on the state of economy over the next six- to-12 months, we don’t know.
Read More