I am still collecting my thoughts, and catching up with work, after holiday, so a few Random Shots are in order. For general reading inspiration I’d recommend Aeon, Arts and Letters Daily, The Hedgehog Review and The Point. I try to consume as much from all of these as I can, in between the mandatory market/investment-related research.
Read MoreI 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 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 MoreJudging by the latest virus numbers in Europe, and government announcements to contain it, markets may soon have to read up on the math of lockdown economics. Before we get to that, though, investors have been locked in deep thought over the impact of the U.S. presidential elections, which seems to converge on trying to price in the consequences of a Biden victory and a “blue wave”. As I explained last week, investors seem to have concluded that this is good outcome for risk assets, though as I argued at the time, this isn’t entirely clear to me. To illuminate this further, it’s useful to consider how markets perceive a Blue wave in the context of the dollar and the U.S. bond market. As it turns out, the consensus position isn’t entirely clear, which is a hint. If markets can’t figure out how a Democratic sweep will impact the dollar and bonds, it’s difficult to have any view on how it would impact equities. The dollar is particularly interesting. It seems to me that analysts initially pinned recent weakness—effectively since April—on the inherent political risks associated with a Biden presidency, though it has since morphed into a bullish catalyst in the context of the expectation of surge in fiscal stimulus, funded by a benevolent and compliant Fed. Why this latter should necessarily be bearish for the dollar isn’t clear to me, especially not if it led to stronger growth in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. By contrast, the idea, voiced in some corners of the market, that the U.S. is on its way to print away its exorbitant privilege—in effect losing its reserve currency status—seems even more ludicrous to me, even in world where China is now emerging as a potential adversary.
Read More