Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Fed’s Dudley Agrees: QE is Not About the Reserves, or “Printing Money”

Or: “Dudley Makes Mock of the Monetarists.”

In my post The Fed is not “Printing Money.” It’s Retiring Bonds and Issuing ReservesI said:

…when the Fed gives the banks reserves and retires bonds, it’s taking on market risk/reward, replacing it with absolutely nonvolatile, risk/reward-free assets (at least in nominal terms). It’s removing leverage and volatility from the banking system.

And:

The banking system doesn’t “take money” out of total reserves, or reduce those reserves, to fund loans.

And now I find this in a speech today at the Japan Society by FRBNY President and CEO William Dudley (HT Matthew Klein). Emphasis mine:

asset purchases work primarily through the asset side of the balance sheet by transferring duration risk from the private sector to the central bank’s balance sheet.  This pushes down risk premia, and prompts private sector investors to move into riskier assets.  As a result, financial market conditions ease, supporting wealth and aggregate demand.  The fact that such purchases increase the amount of reserves in the banking system and the size of the monetary base is a byproduct — not the goal — of these actions.

Or to put it another way: when you increase M in MV = PY, the most likely result — the result you have to assume by default absent some convincing story about real-economy incentives, causes, and effects —  is a purely arithmetic decline in V (cf. Dudley’s “byproduct”), with zero effect on P or Y.

This is doubly true if by M you mean the Monetary Base (as monetarists do, inconsistently but often) — the only measure of money that includes reserve balances. Increasing the quantity of reserve balances (hence the monetary base) does not magically increase either P or Y.

Cross-posted at Asymptosis.

Comments (18) | |

High Marginal Tax Rates are Associated with High GDP Growth

After hinting at it for months, I can finally post the abstract of and a link to

“Top Marginal Taxation and Economic Growth”

by my student Santo Milasi

The paper explores the relationship between statutory top marginal tax rates on personal income and long-run economic growth. While theoretical models of endogenous growth explicitly allow for nonlinear effects of taxation on economic growth, the majority of existing empirical studies assume a linear association. By contrast, this paper investigates both a linear and a non-monotonic relationship between top tax rates and GDP growth. Using a panel of 18 OECD countries over the period 1960-2009, this paper finds support in favor of a quadratic top tax-growth relationship. Results are robust to different model specifications and estimation techniques. The point estimates of the regressions suggest that the marginal effect of higher top tax rates becomes negative above a growth maximizing tax rate on the order of 60 percent. The quadratic relationship found for the whole sample period does not hold over the period 1975-2009. Instead, the link between top tax rates and GDP growth after 1975 is well summarized by a linear and positive top tax-growth relationship. Since top marginal tax rates after 1975 are well below the estimated growth maximizing level, such a result suggest that the top tax-growth relationship after 1975 might be placed on the upward-sloping side of the “growth-hill”. There is an even stronger positive top tax-growth relationship after 1985, when average top tax rates across OECD are lower than 50%.

 

update 2: new new link to a new pdf with less round off error in some calculations

 

 

Personally I think the null that there is any justification for the continued existence of the Republican party has now been rejected at standard confidence levels.  Your milage may vary.

Comments (40) | |

The Fed Is Not Printing Money: Two Updates

I’d like to reply to one confusion and one set of pushbacks on yesterday’s post:

Currency and Reserve Balances

I buried one fact: banks can reduce total Fed reserve balances by withdrawing currency — physical cash — from their Fed reserve accounts. I only gestured toward this in a parenthetical and a link. It’s a trivial point for this discussion, but it raises confusion. This is the other thing (besides bonds) that the Fed issues and retires in return for reserve balances. As with bonds, it’s purely an exchange between banks and the Fed (though it’s driven by customers’ cash needs).

Banks actually have nominal control over this. The Fed has to issue currency to them (retiring reserves in exchange) when they ask for it, and they have to retire currency (issuing reserve balances) when banks send it back.

But this in no way suggests that reserve balances are money. You can withdraw currency (notes) from your bank. Does that mean that your checking account contains currency? That checking deposits are currency? No.

This issue is unimportant here because it’s essentially a mechanical function. As long as it’s working properly — ATMs dispense cash and people can deposit cash — it has no effect on things. (And cash is pretty small magnitude in the total system). Banks keep enough cash on hand to handle their customers’ needs, and the Fed accomodates that. Aside from drug dealers, etc., nobody holds much physical currency.

The only reason cash would be an important consideration would be if the Fed starting paying (significant) negative interest on reserve balances — charging the banks to to hold their reserve deposits. Banks might decide to build secure warehouses and drive cash to and from the Fed, trading it for reserve balances, when they needed to fund loans or when loans got paid off. (It’s kinda tricky to fund a $400,000 mortgage with cash…)

Otherwise it’s a nonissue for this discussion. But I should have made it clear.

Whaddaya Mean by M, Buster?

People really don’t like the idea that the Fed’s not printing “money.” MV=PY adherents especially object.

Let’s look at the standard definitions. None of the monetary aggregate definitions M0 through MZM includes reserve balances. By those definitions, reserves are not money. (Ditto the divisia measures.) So by those definitions, when the Fed issues new reserves, it’s not “printing money.”

The one exception is the “Monetary Base,” or “base money.” That definition of money includes currency, coins, and reserves. Here’s a handy chart from Wikipedia:

Type of money M0 MB M1 M2 M3 MZM
Notes and coins in circulation (outside Federal Reserve Banks and the vaults of depository institutions) (currency) [8]
Notes and coins in bank vaults (Vault Cash)
Federal Reserve Bank credit (required reserves and excess reserves not physically present in banks)
Traveler’s checks of non-bank issuers
Demand deposits
Other checkable deposits (OCDs), which consist primarily of Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW) accounts at depository institutions and credit union share draft accounts. [9]
Savings deposits
Time deposits less than $100,000 and money-market deposit accounts for individuals
Large time deposits, institutional money market funds, short-term repurchase and other larger liquid assets[10]
All money market funds

So fine: M in the equation of exchange means Base Money. But if you look at the data using that definition, it seems like there’s some serious explainin’ to do. Here’s the velocity of MB:

A 60+% decline since 2008? Hmm…

Cross-posted at Asymptosis.

 

 

Comments (3) | |

Catch of The Day: Tim Duy

Carpe diem, indeed:

Mr Bernanke’s own appointment in 2005 was a case in point. There were several candidates that year. According to people involved, then-President George W. Bush leaned towards Martin Feldstein, a former economic adviser to Ronald Reagan….

But Mr Feldstein was a director of the insurance company AIG, which restated five years of financial results that May after an accounting scandal.

Note—especially all you Hank Greenberg sycophants—that the AUG restatements were from 2005, long before anyone admitted the Emperor of AIGFP had no clothes.

Go read the whole thing, attending especially to:

So, no, Bernanke does not view quantitative easing as acting only through equity price and related wealth effects, and no, Feldstein shouldn’t either. But somehow he does, or wants to trick you into believing that Bernanke’s only objective is boosting equity prices. Either way, I don’t think this is the intellectual approach we should be looking for in a Fed chair.

Talking your own book as if it were your superior rivals. Feldstein and AIG were perfect for each other.

Comments (1) | |

The Fed is not “Printing Money.” It’s Retiring Bonds and Issuing Reserves.

Mark Dow had a great post the other day:

There is zero correlation between the Fed printing and the money supply. Deal with it.

He points out (emphasis mine):

From 1981 to 2006 total credit assets held by US financial institutions grew by $32.3 trillion (744%). How much do you think bank reserves at the Federal Reserve grew by over that same period? They fell by $6.5 billion.

As he says:

if you are an investor, trader or economist, understanding—and I mean really understanding, not just recycling things you overheard on a trading desk or recall from econ 101—the mechanics of monetary policy should be at the top of your checklist. With the US, Japan, the UK and maybe soon Europe all with their pedals to the monetary metal, more hinges on understanding this now than ever before.

Comments (27) | |

Four easy fixes for corporate taxation

Everyone “knows” that the corporate income tax is a mess. Ask any company. They pay too much in corporate income tax, face rates higher than in any other OECD country, and are just following the law when they use tax havens to keep profits eternally deferred from taxation and to perform general sleight-of-hand.

 

Don’t believe a word of it. While some economists believe we shouldn’t tax corporations at all, the corporate income tax (CIT) is a necessary backstop to the personal income tax (PIT). With no CIT or a rate lower than the PIT, individuals have an incentive to incorporate their economic activities so they aren’t taxed on them, or are taxed less. Needless to say, this is something an average wage or salary worker would not have the ability to do. This is another area where we have one tax law for the 1%, and different rules for the rest of us.

Tags: , , Comments (2) | |

How Wall Street Stole Main Street

This graph speaks volumes:

Profits as a Percent of GDP: Financial Corporations vs. Nonfinancial Corporations

We saw a big decline in real businesses’ profit share in the 40s, then a slower semi-steady decline through the 70s, as wages constituted a larger share of GDP. Financial corps doubled, expanding and increasing profits, but they remained small in the big picture.

Then post-80, we saw two big moves: a dive in real business profit share below any historical norm, and the beginning of the long secular rise in financial corp profits share (quadrupling between 1980 and 2010).

How did financial corps achieve this? Simple: they’re licensed to print money, and they devoted that money to paying off the managers of real businesses to hand over those businesses’ profits. The C suite of America’s corporations went from being managers of real businesses creating real value, to being financial prestidigitators. And those individuals were handsomely rewarded for their obeisance to the financial corps.

The people who work for those real companies, of course — the vast pyramid of sub-C-suite toilers who don’t get a share of the kickbacks…haven’t gotten a share of the kickbacks.

Compensation of Employees/GDP

That 4% or 5% of GDP income flow — remember, that’s every year — was transferred from households to financial corporations, courtesy of bought-and-paid-for real-corp CEOs.

Got incentives?

Cross-posted at Asymptosis.

Comments (6) | |

More American Exceptionalism: Drowning the Baby in the Bathwater

The OECD has finally updated their national account data with 2011 info for most countries, so I thought I’d update this post from a couple of years ago.

If you’re thinking that the current (overblown) hoo-ra-ra about U.S. government deficits is a result of too much spending, or that U.S. taxes are insanely high and always going up, you might want to think again (click for larger):

Screen shot 2013-05-03 at 10.25.37 AM

While the U.S. number is up from it low or 24.1% in 2009, it’s still hovering at the bottom of the OECD league table.

Got tipping points?

Cross-posted at Asymptosis.

Comments (3) | |