In the past I have argued in the context of developing countries that deficit-financed fiscal stimuli will not work if governments cannot credibly match current tax cuts or public spending increases with commitments to future tax increases or public spending cuts of equal present discounted value. Both the US and the UK may soon face this problem of not emerging, but submerging markets.
Willem Buiter writes the Maverecon blog in the Financial Times's ft.com website, where a version of this posting was published on February 5th 2009
The economic context in the UK and US over the last decade is that current account deficits have reached unsustainable levels. Domestic investment (often unproductive) exceeded domestic saving, resulting in huge capital inflows. Governments forgot about budget discipline and adopted pro-cyclical policies. Feeble financial supervision encouraged credit and asset price bubbles. Corporate governance was increasingly driven by the narrow interests of managers.
Which leads us to the social context. Business ethics and moral standards in commerce and trade have been badly eroded. Corruption, from petty bribery to wholesale enslavement of the regulator or state, became commonplace. Truthfulness and trust are increasingly scarce in politics and business. Concern for one's reputation no longer checks the use of lies as a policy instrument. One effect of this erosion of social capital is that citizens and markets have stopped believing that governments will commit themselves to any course of action that involves present or future pain.
What does this mean for the response to the current crisis? In my view, fiscal measures will not work because there is now insufficient belief, given how big the stimuli are going to have to be to make a difference, that measures to repay the sums borrowed in real terms - so ensuring fiscal sustainability - will ever be taken. The only alternatives to tax or spending pain are that the government will either permanently monetise the increased public debt or that it will default on its debt obligations.
Either of these expectations would negate the stimulus. Permanent monetisation of the vast deficits anticipated in the US and the UK would be highly inflationary. It would raise long-term interest rates and lead to inflation risk premia on public and private debt instruments too. Defaulting on debt would add default risk premia to sovereign interest rates and stifle demand. It would put an end to inward investment and lead to severe currency devaluation. Unlike the US, whose dollar is still a world reserve currency, the UK is particularly exposed in this regard, because no one has any reason other than the government's credibility to hold sterling.
I believe that the risks are too high to gamble with. Instead of fiscal expansion, the US and UK authorities should turn their credibility-limited fire-power onto monetary and structural measures, because neither of these so directly puts credibility on the line. First, they should aggressively support quantitative easing (explicitly increase the money supply) and credit easing (indemnify the Fed and the Bank of England for the credit risk on the private securities they have purchased and will purchase). Secondly, they should recapitalise the banks and provide guarantees and insurance-type arrangements to support new lending and borrowing.
As regards toxic assets, I favour either temporary nationalisation of all banks or the 'good bank' model, in which a new, clean, state-owned bank takes over all new lending, investment, and borrowing, leaving what's left of the private sector to run off its back business as best it can without further taxpayer support.
What signs are there that the risks I have described are present?
Government bond yields don't currently indicate any major aversion to US Treasury debt, though US Treasury CDS rates have recently risen to unprecedented levels.
As the recession deepens and as fiscal measures raise government deficits to 12% or 14% of GDP - figures normally associated with basket cases - I expect that US sovereign bond yields will begin to reflect inflation or default risk premia.
The US is helped by its ability to borrow abroad in its own currency and the closely related status of the dollar as the world's leading reserve currency. But this elastic cannot be stretched indefinitely and I expect that US Federal deficits and the growing exposure of the US sovereign to its financial system and domestic industries will cause the dollar to weaken significantly over the next couple of years or so. The UK is already closer to that position than the US, because of the minor-league reserve currency status of sterling.
When international capital moves freely, fiscal expansion strengthens the currency if the markets believe the expansion will not undermine the long-term sustainability of the government's fiscal-financial-monetary programme - in short, if the expansion is expected to feed into growth of the real economy. On the other hand, if the deficits are monetised, the currency will fall, perhaps immediately.
One final element is important. So far, the US and UK have not experienced a 'sudden stop' - the total cessation of capital inflows to both the private and public sectors that is typical of emerging market crises. There has been a partial stoppage of flows to the banking sector and in turn to the rest of the private sector, but external capital markets still function for the sovereigns and creditworthy borrowers. That should not be taken for granted. A large fiscal stimulus from a government without fiscal credibility could be the trigger for a 'sudden stop.'
So don't do it. Focus on getting credit mechanisms and the financial system going again. Keynesian fiscal policy requires a virtuous policy maker capable of making and sustaining long-term commitments. The Obama administration is new and so far untarnished. That puts it in a better position than the UK government, which has been in office since 1997. But since many of the top names in his economic team are identified with the policies that brought us disaster, even Mr Obama has little credibility capital. Use it to get credit - and public credit - flowing again.


Comments
Isn't thtis yet another version of propping up a system that for all intents and purposes was unsustainable from the start? Alas, another version of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
The fact is that - in a Minsky analysis - all that is left to attract a re-capitalization of Western economies is the commodification of the mounting debt which currently is the only thing that is booming (or ballooning for that matter). More pointedly, the best efforts in response to the financial crisis(and it is in every way, connected with money mis-management), are primarily aimed at resuscitating the financial sector, at the continued disregard for measures that might revive industrial economic development.
Well, it hasn't always been unsustainable, has it? The period from 1945 to 1973 is not _so_ bad an advertisement for a financial system, is it?
What I thought was interesting in this Buiter piece was the recognition of the economic policy implications of the social changes between then and now. I think your "Titanic" mind-set is a bit defeatist -- surely one response to Buiter's analysis is to ask how we could rebuild the sort of social capital that might be the basis for a fix to the economy.
tony
Before looking at any solutions we need to look at the causes of the current problem and the real explanation of the 1930s. I put my case in my book 'It's the economics, stupid' on www.minieconomics.com. The 1st world banking system was a giant Ponzi or pyramid selling scheme that has benefited the 'original' investors, the financial service companies, the construction and auto sectors, the luxury goods and service sectors etc BUT mostly the governments by keeping tax incomes high and retaining the `feel good`factors that kept the governments in power. The whole basis of the scheme relied on asset security and confidence, the asset security in the form of houses and the confidence in transactions, prices and the economies. A giant creation of secondary money that required a geometric expansion of loans that produced the deposits for further loans etc.. The game has stopped and the governments are completely misguided protecting the banking system or the deposits of those that gained from the scheme leaving the poor without jobs and with huge loans. It was also a type of financial slavery getting the people to believe in the improving living standards when they were going further into the mire of debt.
How is it possible to have a banking multiplier more than one when everyone is in the banking system and it is lending more than the real money, cash? The Governments are now converting virtual money into real money when there is no confidence and no velocity of circulation of money, an impossible task. The money has disappeared. The 1st world has spent its children's future and will leave behind anarchy and desperation. The only slight chance now is to stop stealing the money of the third world and help it to expand rapidly.
The increases in public sector deficits of the 1st world will be amazing, even without the reflation packages and exceed 20%, the same as the future unemployment because they cannot mend the distorted economies that were 30 years in growing.
Post new comment