Friday, November 18, 2011

The Fed doesn't create inflation?

http://moslereconomics.com/2011/11/14/it-must-be-impossible-for-the-fed-to-create-inflation/

In conclusion, theory and evidence tell me it’s impossible for the Fed to create inflation, no matter how much it tries. The reason is because all the Fed does is shift dollars from one type of account to another, never changing the net financial assets held by the economy. Changing interest rates only shifts dollars between ’savers’ and ‘borrowers’ and QE only shifts dollars from securities accounts to reserve accounts. And so theory and evidence tells us not to expect much change in the macro economy from these primary Fed tools, making it impossible for the Fed to create inflation.

========== 
My comment:  The Fed is creating inflation, but it is being offset by deflating asset prices.  The author should wait 5 years and still try to make the same argument.

============
Update:  Here is another argument saying the same thing.
From: http://econviz.org/macroeconomic-balance-sheet-visualizer/
  • Quantitative easing simply swaps one type of asset on private sector balance sheets (typically treasuries) for another type (deposits backed by bank reserves, or simply bank reserves if a bank did the selling.)
  • QE effectively changes the duration mix of outstanding government liabilities toward more short term liabilities and less long term ones. As such, it is roughly equivalent to if the treasury had previously chosen to issue relatively more T-Bills (short duration) and less bonds (long duration).
  • No sectors (or entities within sectors) see any change in balance sheet equity as a direct result of QE. Therefore, there is no meaningful increase in the private sector's purchasing power or propensity to spend. At the level of each individual household or firm who might sell to the Fed during QE, decisions regarding investment portfolio composition tend to be made independently from decisions about how much to spend versus hold in an investment portfolio — so a change in the portfolio mix (cash, bonds, stocks, etc) won't cause more spending. Also, treasuries are almost as liquid as "money" and anyone previously holding treasuries could have easily sold them to support any planned spending.
  • The central bank balance sheet expands as it draws in assets from the private sector and creates new liabilities (reserves) to match.
  • Modern Monetary Theorists point out that from a macroeconomic perspective, QE includes a deflationary impulse because is it replaces a higher yielding asset (treasuries) with a lower yielding asset (money), reducing the interest income paid to the private sector by the government! As such it is comparable to the removal of some fiscal stimulus, though the extent to which aggregate demand is impacted in each case could differ depending on targeting (i.e., those earning treasury bond income may have a different propensity to spend from the initial recipients of fiscal stimulus related spending.)
  • Broad money and base money both increase when households do the selling (however, when banks are the ones deciding to sell treasuries, broad money does not increase). QE does not lead to loan-driven inflation now or in the future, as banks never lend out reserves or are reserve constrained, rather loans create deposits (see "Bank Loan" operation).
  • QE is sometimes argued to lead to asset price inflation as the holders of now more numerous low yielding deposits and currency may bid up asset prices (stocks, commodities, real estate, etc) in a search for yield, but whether this leads to inflation in the real economy depends on the extent to which this induces a subsequent and ongoing increase in private sector demand for goods and services. The existence of a transmission mechanism from QE to sustained inflation in goods and services is highly questionable. Any psychology-driven increase in asset price valuation multiples is unlikely to be sustained, since real earnings underlying the assets are unlikely to grow as fast as expected by who assume QE directly stimulates the economy. For example, Japan has engaged in multiple rounds of quantitative easing since the early 2000s with no discernable impacts on the real economy and certainly no growth in inflation (Japan has moved in and out of mild deflation). Japan expert Richard Koo calls QE the "greatest monetary non-event."
  • Ultimately, the private sector controls the size of the broad money supply as a consequence of its borrowing decisions and portfolio adjustment decisions. Some theory and evidence support the idea that the private sector can "undo" the increase in deposits that results from QE! See the post "A Visual Guide to Endogenous Money and the Failure of QE" and its predecessors for a detailed explanation.

Riots during the Great Depression

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Germany joins the PIIGS

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8897775/Asian-powers-spurn-German-debt-on-EMU-chaos.html

The question on everybody's mind in the debt markets is whether it is time to get out Germany. The European Central Bank has a €2 trillion balance sheet and if the eurozone slides into the abyss, Germany is going to be left holding the baby.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Eurogroup chief, fueled the fire by warning that Germany is no longer a sound credit with debt of 82pc of GDP. "I think the level of German debt is worrying. Germany has higher debts than Spain," he said. 

Critics say Germany is falling between two stools. It has backed EMU rescues on a sufficient scale to endanger its own credit-worthiness, without committing the nuclear firepower needed to restore confidence and eliminate default risk in Spain and Italy. It would be hard to devise a more destructive policy.

Nigel unleashed

Doomsday in 2027

Update 6/19/2012: This is model J-4.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

$15 trillion national debt

The total national debt just passed $15 trillion on 11/15/2011.  It first passed $10 trillion on 9/30/2008, only a little more than 3 years ago.

I think a better measure is debt held by the public. It first exceeded $5 trillion on 3/1/2007 and $10 trillion on 8/31/2011.  It will exceed $15 trillion by 9/30/2016.

Actual expenditures 2009-2011

Category-- 2009 2010 2011
Social Sec  660 _696 _720
Medicare  429 _450 _483
Medicaid  251 _273 _275

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12541/2011_Nov_MBR.pdf

Medicaid Projected Expenditures

2012 260
2013 281
2014 340
2015 379
2016 415
2017 446
2018 477
2019 513

A projection for 2020 was not given in this report, but it does state that "Medicaid is expected to grow about 8.3 percent per year on average", pointing to an estimate of 550 billion for 2020.
Source: http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/downloads/MedicaidReport2010.pdf,
pg. 31, Federal expenditures

The report doesn't make any long-term assumptions, so I think it should use the 8.3% growth rate until it reaches 5.0% of GDP and then cap it.

Medicare Projected Expentitures

2012 572
2013 607
2014 643
2015 676
2016 716
2017 760
2018 810
2019 865
2020 932

Source: http://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2011.pdf , pg. 51, Intermediate estimates.

After 2020, the projected expenditures are given as a percent of GDP as follows.  Percents for dates between these would be interpolated.
2020 3.99%
2025 4.59%
2030 5.16%
2035 5.56%
2040 5.77%
2045 5.87%
2050 5.94%

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Social Security Projections

A more sophisticated model that has Social Security broken out should use these numbers for projections:
2012 760
2013 802
2014 849
2015 899
2016 952
2017 1010
2018 1073
2019 1146
2020 1226

From:  http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2011/tr2011.pdf, pg 50, Intermediate Projection.

After 2020, the projected expenditures are given as a percent of GDP as follows.
2020 7.02%
2025 7.66%
2030 8.15%
2035 8.40%
2040 8.43%
2045 8.36%
2050 8.28%

Details


Blogger sucks at doing tables, so here is a screen grab of details from my latest projection.  It should be interesting to see how this changes over time. 

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Latest Projection

This is similar to the last one with some adjustments.  My assumptions:

1.  The breaking point is when net public debt reaches 100% of GDP.
2.  GDP is 24633 in 2021 and increases by 5% annually.
3.  Revenue is 4923 in 2021 and increases by 5% annually.  In other words, revenue remains constant at 20% of GDP.
4. Fed ownership of government bonds is 1569 in 2011 and will grow 5% thereafter. (In other words, I have already priced in future quantitative easing).

5.  Outlays are split into 3 categories: a) Social Spending, which is 2670 in 2021 and will grow 6.6% thereafter; b) Interest, which is 5.3% of the previous years net public debt; 3) other spending, which is 1844 in 2011 and will increase 3% annually.

Under this scenario, the system will remain solvent until 2049.  In that year GDP will be 96565 and net public debt will be 97404 (i.e. $97 trillion).  Revenue is 20% of GDP, social spending is 16.55% of GDP (up from 9.89% in 2011), other spending is only 5.87% of GDP (down from 12.23% of GDP in 2011), interest is 4.98% of GDP (up from 1.76% in 2011), and the deficit is 7.42% of GDP.

The problem here is mostly social spending.  I think only a 6.6% growth rate is optimistic.  It is not possible to increase revenues or reduce other spending enough to compensate for this.

So in conclusion, while this projection seems more optimistic than earlier ones, it still seems like it is inevitable that a crisis will occur.

========
I guess a related question is how can the system possible last that long?  Well, I am assuming 5% GDP growth.  So if the spending were just to freeze at current rates then the problem would quickly cure itself.  The problem is spending is increasing more that 5%/year.  I am also assuming 5% Fed asset (money supply) growth.  This eats up some of the deficit.  I don't think this could increase much more without causing massive inflation.

========
Update 6/19/2012:  This is model J-3.  It seems too optimistic, assuming 5% growth in GDP annually.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

The Trillion Dollar Coin

From: http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2011/07/trillion-dollar-coin.html

"The coin seignorage idea has really caught on – not just in the blogosphere, but in the mainstream media as well. You have Brad DeLong, Matt Yglesias, Tyler Cowen and a lot of others talking up ‘The Coin’. In the mainstream media, the Economist, CNN, The New Republic and many others.

Just so you know what I am talking about, the idea is an end-run around the debt ceiling and it works like this:

The Treasury mints a $1 trillion coin, or whatever amount is desired.
The Treasury deposits the coin into the Treasury’s account at the Fed.
The Treasury buys back bonds
The retirement of bonds is an asset swap, no different from QE2
The increase in reserve balances is not inflationary, as Credit Easing 1.0, QE 1.0, and QE 2.0 already have shown.
These operations by the Treasury create no new net financial assets for the non-government sector
The debt ceiling crisis is averted

Here’s what Ryan Avent of the Economist says about The Coin:

As the date on which Treasury runs flat out of money grows nearer, various harebrained ideas to workaround the statutory limit on borrowing and keep paying the bills have been getting more attention. This one, one of my favourites, seems like it just might work

Those MMTers are not so crazy after all."
===================================

My comments: I want to analyze this.  Instead of minting a coin, how about just issuing a special-purpose $1 trillion bond that pays 0.05% interest.  Then the Fed would create $1 trillion in new electronic FRNs and buy the bond.  Then the treasury would use the money to retire higher-interest bonds that the Fed owns.

Isn't this the same effect?  What is the purpose other than to lower the interest paid.  And since the Fed already returns interest received to the Treasury, this wouldn't have any effect at all.

Whoever is promoting this hasn't thought it through.

Alternatively, the Treasury could just use the cash to finance the deficit.  Printing money out of thin air and just spending it.  Of course this would lead almost directly to hyperinflation.

Interview with Dagong President

Friday, November 11, 2011

Shufflin

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Monetary base exploding in Switzerland

If I am reading this right, the Swiss monetary base was 77 billion CHF at the end of July 2011.  At the end of September, only 2 months later, it was at 253 billion CHF.  The increase in liabilities was mostly in sight deposits, and the increase of assets was mostly in foreign currency investments, probably mostly European government debt, excluding Greece of course.

The primary purpose of this is to weaken the franc to make the Swiss economy more competitive, but it also is a bailout of Europe, which needs all the help it can get.

Interest costs up 17%

"Net Interest: Spending for net interest on the public debt rose by $38 billion, or almost 17 percent, in 2011, primarily because of growth in that debt over the past year."
-- http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2998

This was after a 13% increase in 2010.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

And again

This is like a game to me.  Here is another simulation, starting with OMB budget numbers, and my assumptions.

1.  GDP is 24633 in 2021 and will grow 4% thereafter.
2.  Revenue is 4923 in 2021 and will grow 5% thereafter.
3.  Outlays are 5697 in 2021 and will grow 6% thereafter.
4.  Fed ownership of government bonds is 1569 in 2011 and will grow 5% thereafter.

The crisis point here is in 2038, when GDP is 47983 and net public debt is 48276.

What if GDP grows by 5% and outlays grow by 5% per year after 2021? Then it is sustainable infinitely.

Update 6/19/2012:  This is model J-2.

And yet even another projection

I don't claim to be able to project the future. But there might be a grain of truth here somewhere. So here is my latest.

Assumptions:
1. A crisis point will be reached when debt held by the public, less debt held by the Federal Reserve, ("net public debt") exceeds 100% of GDP.
2. GDP figures are taken from CBO projections through 2021 (when the number is 23830) and then it will grow by 4% thereafter.
3. The debt held by the public will grow at 9%/year, starting at 10127 in 2011.
4. The debt held by the Fed grows at 5%/year, starting at 1569 in 2011.

Using these assumptions, the crisis point will be reached in 2024 when GDP will be 26806, and net public debt is 28089.

Update:  This is model J-1.  Model J is the theory that debt held by the public, less debt held by the Federal Reserve, cannot exceed 100% of GDP.

============
Update (10/28/12): This is flawed, for two reasons.  A 9% growth rate in the debt may be too high, and it is too simplistic just to assume a given growth rate.  This should follow budget projections for at least 10 years.  Second, the 100% number isn't necessarily a threshold, and the number is probably higher, at least 125%.

Economic Armageddon and You