Out of Keynes's shadow
- From: Don Tiberone <s_knight8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:01:34 -0800 (PST)
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13104022
Out of Keynes's shadow
Feb 12th 2009 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print editionToday’s crisis has given new relevance to the ideas of another great
economist of the Depression era
SHORTLY after he was elected president, Barack Obama sounded a
warning: “We are facing an economic crisis of historic proportions…We
now risk falling into a deflationary spiral that could increase our
massive debt even further.” The address evoked not just the horror of
the Depression, but one of the era’s most important thinkers: Irving
Fisher.
Though once America’s most famous economist, Fisher is now almost
forgotten by the public. If he is remembered, it is usually for
perhaps the worst stockmarket call in history. In October 1929 he
declared that stocks had reached a “permanently high plateau”. Today
it is John Maynard Keynes, his British contemporary, who is cited,
debated and followed. Yet Fisher laid the foundation for much of
modern monetary economics; Keynes called Fisher the “great-
grandparent” of his own theories on how monetary forces influenced the
real economy. (They first met in London in 1912 and reportedly got
along well.)
As parallels to the 1930s multiply, Fisher is relevant again. As it
was then, the United States is now awash in debt. No matter that it is
mostly “inside” or “internal” debt—owed by Americans to other
Americans. As the underlying collateral declines in value and incomes
shrink, the real burden of debt rises. Debts go bad, weakening banks,
forcing asset sales and driving prices down further. Fisher showed how
such a spiral could turn mere busts into depressions. In 1933 he
wrote:
Over investment and over speculation are often important; but they
would have far less serious results were they not conducted with
borrowed money. The very effort of individuals to lessen their burden
of debts increases it, because of the mass effect of the stampede to
liquidate…the more debtors pay, the more they owe. The more the
economic boat tips, the more it tends to tip.
Though they seldom invoke Fisher, policymakers in America are applying
his ideas. In academia Ben Bernanke, now the chairman of the Federal
Reserve, sought to formalise Fisher’s debt-deflation theory. His
research has shaped his response to this crisis. He decided to bail
out Bear Stearns in March 2008 partly so that a sudden liquidation of
the investment bank’s positions did not trigger a cycle of falling
asset prices and default. Indeed, some say the Fed has learnt Fisher
too well: from 2001 to 2004, to contain the deflationary shock waves
of the tech-stock collapse, it kept interest rates low and thus helped
to inflate a new bubble, in property.
Were Fisher alive today, “he would tell us we have to avoid deflation,
and to worry about all that inside debt,” says Robert Dimand, an
economist at Brock University in Canada, who has studied Fisher in
depth. “The ideal thing is to avoid these situations. Unfortunately,
we are in one.”
Fisher was born in 1867 and earned his PhD from Yale in 1891. In 1898
he nearly died of tuberculosis, an experience that turned him into a
lifelong crusader for diet, fresh air, Prohibition and public health.
For a while he also promoted eugenics. His causes, both healthy and
repugnant, combined with a lack of humour and high self-regard, did
not make him popular.
In 1894, on a trip to Switzerland, he saw, in water cascading into
mountain pools, a way to “define precisely the relationships among
wealth, capital, interest and income,” Robert Loring Allen, a
biographer of Fisher, wrote. “The flowing water, moving into the pool
at a certain volume per unit of time, was income. The pool, a given
volume of water at a particular moment, became capital.” Over the next
30 years he established many of the central concepts of financial
economics.
In 1911, in “The Purchasing Power of Money”, Fisher formalised the
quantity theory of money, which holds that the supply of money times
its velocity—the rate at which a dollar circulates through the market—
is equal to output multiplied by the price level. Perhaps more
important, he explained how changing velocity and prices could cause
real interest rates to deviate from nominal ones. In this way,
monetary forces could produce booms and busts, although they had no
long-run effect on output. Furthermore, Fisher held that the dollar’s
value should be maintained relative not to gold but to a basket of
commodities, making him the spiritual father of all modern central
banks that target price stability.
During the 1920s Fisher became rich from the invention and sale of a
card-index system. He used the money to buy stocks on margin, and by
1929 was worth $10m. He was also a prominent financial guru. Alas, two
weeks after he saw the “plateau” the stockmarket crashed.
To his cost, Fisher remained optimistic as the Depression wore on. He
lost his fortune and his home and lived out his life on the generosity
of his sister-in-law and Yale. But his work continued. He was
prominent among the 1,028 economists who in vain petitioned Herbert
Hoover to veto the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. And he
developed his debt-deflation theory. In 1933 in Econometrica,
published by the Econometric Society, which he co-founded, he
described debt deflation as a sequence of distress-selling, falling
asset prices, rising real interest rates, more distress-selling,
falling velocity, declining net worth, rising bankruptcies, bank runs,
curtailment of credit, dumping of assets by banks, growing distrust
and hoarding. Chart 1 is his: it shows how deflation increased the
burden of debt.
Fisher was adamant that ending deflation required abandoning the gold
standard, and repeatedly implored Franklin Roosevelt to do so. (Keynes
was of similar mind.) Roosevelt devalued the dollar soon after
becoming president in 1933. The devaluation and a bank holiday marked
the bottom of the Depression, though true recovery was still far off.
But Fisher had at best a slight influence on Roosevelt’s decision. His
reputation had fallen so far that even fellow academics ignored him.
Contemporary critics did poke a hole in his debt-deflation hypothesis:
rising real debt makes debtors worse off but creditors better off, so
the net effect should be nil. Mr Bernanke plugged this in the 1980s.
“Collateral facilitates credit extension,” he said in June 2007, just
before the crisis began in earnest. “However, in the 1930s, declining
output and falling prices (which increased real debt burdens) led to
widespread financial distress among borrowers, lessening their
capacity to pledge collateral…Borrowers’ cash flows and liquidity were
also impaired, which likewise increased the risks to lenders.” Mr
Bernanke and Mark Gertler of New York University dubbed this “the
financial accelerator”.
The downward spiral can start even when inflation remains positive—for
example, when it drops unexpectedly. Consider a borrower who expects
inflation of 2% and takes out a loan with a 5% interest rate. If
instead inflation falls to 1%, the real interest rate rises from 3% to
4%, increasing the burden of repayment.
Asset deflation can do much the same thing. If house prices are
expected to rise by 10% a year, a buyer willingly borrows the whole
purchase price, because his home will soon be worth more than the
loan. A lender is happy to make the loan for the same reason. But if
prices fall by 10% instead, the house will soon be worth less than the
loan. Both homeowner and lender face a greater risk of bankruptcy.
Today, debt in America excluding that of financial institutions and
the federal government is about 190% of GDP, the highest since the
1930s, according to the Bank Credit Analyst, a financial-research
journal (see chart 2). There are important differences between then
and now. Debt was lower at the start of the Depression, at 164% of
GDP. Mortgage debt was modest relative to home values, and prices were
not notably bloated: they fell by 24% between 1929 and 1933, says
Edward Pinto, a consultant, so were roughly flat in real terms. Debt
burdens shot up because of deflation and shrinking output; nominal GDP
fell by 46% between 1929 and 1933.
Debt burdens are high today mostly because so much was borrowed in the
recent past. This began as a logical response to declining real
interest rates, low inflation, rising asset prices and less frequent
recessions, all of which made leverage less dangerous. But rising
leverage eventually bred easy credit and overvalued homes.
Even without recession, falling home prices would have impaired enough
mortgage debt to destabilise the financial system (see chart 3).
Recession makes those dynamics more virulent; deflation could do
similar damage. Broad price indices fell in late 2008. Granted, that
was caused in part by a one-off fall in petrol costs; but America’s
core inflation rate, which excludes food and energy, has fallen from
2.5% in September to 1.8%. Goldman Sachs sees it falling to 0.25% in
the next two years.
That is low enough to mean falling wages for many households and
falling prices for many firms. More widespread and deeper deflation
would mean that property prices would have to fall even further to
restore equilibrium with household incomes, creating another round of
delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures.
What is the solution? Fisher wrote that it was “always economically
possible to stop or prevent such a depression simply by reflating the
price level up to the average level at which outstanding debts were
contracted.” Alas, reflation is not so simple. Although stabilising
nominal home prices would help short-circuit the debt-deflation
dynamics now under way, any effort to maintain them at unrealistically
high levels (where they still are in many cities) is likely to fail.
Higher inflation could help bring down real home prices while allowing
nominal home prices to stabilise, and reduce real debt burdens. But
creating inflation is easier said than done: it requires boosting
aggregate demand enough to consume existing economic slack, through
either monetary or fiscal policy.
Though the Fed does not expect deflation, last month it did say that
“inflation could persist for a time below” optimal levels. It is
mulling a formal inflation target which, by encouraging people to
expect positive inflation, would make deflation less likely. But its
practical tools for preventing deflation are limited. In December its
short-term interest-rate target in effect hit zero. The Taylor rule, a
popular rule of thumb, suggests it should be six percentage points
below. The Fed is now trying to push down long-term interest rates by
buying mortgage-backed and perhaps Treasury securities. With
conventional monetary ammunition spent, fiscal policy has become more
important.
In 2002 Mr Bernanke argued the government could ultimately always
generate inflation by having the Fed finance large increases in
government spending directly, by purchasing Treasury debt. Martin
Barnes of the Bank Credit Analyst thinks this highly unlikely: “You’d
have capital flight out of the dollar. The only way it works is if
every country is doing it, or with capital controls.”
Fisher died in 1947, a year after Keynes, and remains in his shadow.
Mr Dimand notes that Fisher never pulled the many strands of his
thought together into a grand synthesis as Keynes did in “The General
Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”. More important, Keynes’s
advocacy of aggressive fiscal policy overcame the limitations of
Fisher’s purely monetary remedies for the Depression.
Yet Fisher’s insights remain vital. They have filtered, perhaps
unconsciously, into the thinking of today’s policymakers. On February
8th Lawrence Summers, Mr Obama’s principal economic adviser, called
for the rapid passage of a fiscal stimulus “to contain what is a very
damaging and potentially deflationary spiral.” His advice bridges
Fisher and Keynes.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Out of Keynes's shadow
- From: Dan
- Re: Out of Keynes's shadow
- From: Dan
- Re: Out of Keynes's shadow
- Prev by Date: Re: Halt short selling for a while.. Opinions?
- Next by Date: Is This 1930 all over Again?
- Previous by thread: Re: Greenspan Backs Nationalization=PHONY HEADLINE BY SHORT SELLERS
- Next by thread: Re: Out of Keynes's shadow
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
